United Status      Clfice of       EPA 230-11-85-017
        Environmental Protection   Policy Analysis
        Agency        Washington, DC 20460
        W«t»f
EpA     A Methodological Approach
        to an Economic Analysis of
        the Beneficial Outcomes of
        Water Quality
        Improvements from Sewage
        Treatment Plant  Upgrading
        and Combined Sewer
        Overflow Controls

        Environmental Benefits
        Analysis Series

-------
         A Methodological Approach to
an Economic  Analysis of the Beneficial Outcomes
   of Water  Quality Improvements from Sewage
  Treatment Plant Upgrading and Combined Sewer
               Overflow Controls
                 Prepared for

           Office  of  Policy Analysis
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Washington, D.C.
                      by
               Meta Systems Inc
              10 Bolworthy Street
        Cambridge, Massachusetts  02138

-------
                                   Preface


    This report is submitted by Meta Systems Inc in fulfillment of EPA

contract §68-01-6596 700-E.  This report estimates the benefits and costs of

upgrading two sewage treatment plants and of constructing combined sewer

overflow controls in the Boston Harbor area.


    We are grateful for the review and comments of dark Binkley, Yale

University; A.  My rick Freeman, Bowdoin College; and Leon Abbas, North

Carolina State University.  We wish to give special thanks  to the following

people who provided technical assistance and/or data for the study:


    Peter Harrington—Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
    Engineering;

    Michael Hickey and David Chadwick—Massachusetts Division of Marine
    Fisheries;

    Jean M. Haggerty, Al Ferullo, and Paul DiPetro—Metropolitan District
    Commission;

    F. Williams Sieling, Mark M. Bundy, and Christopher Bonzack—Maryland
    Department of t&tural Resources;

    Dana Wallace—Maine Department of Marine Resources;


While we are indebted to all of the above for their contributions, final
responsibility for the analysis, results and conclusions rests solely with
the authors.
                                     -i-

-------
                              Table of Contents
Section                                                              Page
Number                                                              Number

   1.  Summary and Conclusions

       1.1  Pollution Sources  	     1-3
       1.2  Water Quality	     1-12
       1.3  Benefit Categories and Receptors	     1-15
       1.4  Summary of Study Findings	     1-17
       1.5  Specific Benefit Estimates  	     1-24
            1.5.1  Recreation	     1-24
            1.5.2  Health	     1-26
            1.5.3  Commercial Fisheries	     1-26
            1.5.4  Intrinsic Benefits   	     1-27
            1.5.5  Ecological impacts	     1-27
            1.5.6  Secondary Effects	     1-28
            1.5.7  Charles  River Basin	     1-29
       1.6  Guide to the Report	     1-29

   2.  Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Operations, Options
       and Water Quality Impacts

       2.1  Current STP Performance	     2-3
       2.2  STP Options and Costs	     2-9
       2.3  Areas Impacted  by STP Discharges	     2-11
       References	     2-19

   3.  Combined Sewer Overflow Control in Boston Harbor
       3.1  Scope of the Combined Sewer Overflow Problem	     3-1
       3.2  Neponset River  Estuary 	     3-6
       3.3  Dorchester Bay	     3-10
       3.4  Inner Harbor	     3-13
       3.5  Charles River Basin	     3-15
       3.6  Quincy Storm Sewers 	     3-16
       3.7  Summary of Options	     3-19
       References	     3-23

   4.  Water Quality Impacts

       4.1  Water Quality Impacts of STP Dischargers	     4-1
       4.2  Water Quality impacts of Combined Sewer Overflows  .  .  .     4-4
       4.3  Estimated Water Quality Impacts of the STP and CS
            Treatment Options	     4-6
       References	     4-9

   5.  Approaches to Measuring Benefits from Water Quality Improvement

       5.1  Theoretical Concepts	     5-1
       5.2  Study Methodology	     5-9
       References	     5-11
                                     -ii-

-------
                               Table of CDntents
                                  (continued)
Section                                                                Page
Number                                                                Number
       Recreation Benefits

       6.1  Data Needs and  Data Bases	     6-4
            6.1.1  Swimming Attendance	     6-4
            6.1.2  Recreation Studies   	     6-8
            6.1.3  Water  Quality  Data for log it Model	     6-9
            6.1.4  User (Unit) Day Value	    6-10
            6.1.5  Water  Quality  impact	    6-11
       6.2  Benefits	    6-12
            6.2.1  Swimming—increase in Participation	    6-13
                   6.2.1.1   Regional Participation Model 	    6-14
                   6.2.1.2   Benefit Estimates	    6-17
                   6.2.1.3   Higher Valued Experience 	    6-18
                   6.2.1.4   Limits of Analysis	    6-19
            6.2.2  Travel Cost Model—Conditional Logit Analysis .  .    6-20
                   6.2.2.1   Methodology  	    6-21
                   6.2.2.2   The Conditional Multinomial Log it Model.    6-25
                   6.2.2.3   Model Results  	    6-30
                   6.2.2.4   Benefit Estimates  	    6-32
                   6.2.2.5   Limits of Analysis	    6-36
            6.2.3  Swimming—Beach Closings  	    6-39
                   6.2.3.1   Boston Harbor Beaches	    6-40
                   6.2.3.2   Nantasket Beach  	    6-41
                   6.2.3.3   Benefit Estimates  	    6-44
                   6.2.3.4   Limits of Analysis	    6-44
       6.3  Recreational  Boating	    6-45
            6.3.1  Increased Participation 	    6-46
            6.3.2  Benefits Estimates	    6-48
            6.3.3  Limits of Analysis	    6-48
       6.4  Recreational  Fishing	    6-50
            6.4.1  Components of  Recreational Fishing	    6-51
            6.4.2  Benefits Estimates	    6-53
            6.4.3  Limits of Analysis	    6-55
       6.5  Boston Harbor Islands	    6-55
            6.5.1  Increased Participation 	    6-56
            6.5.2  Limits of Analysis	    6-r '
       6.6  Summary of Recreation Benefits 	    6-57
       References	    6-61
                                    -iii-

-------
                               Table of Contents
                                  (continued)
Section                                                                page
Number                                                                Number

   7.  Health Benefits

       7.1  Swimming-related Health Benefits 	     7-2
            7.1.1  Benefit Measurement  Approach	     7-2
            7.1.2  Benefit Estimates  	     7-6
            7.1.3  Limits of Analysis	     7-6
       7.2  Shellfish Consumption	     7-8
       References	     7-11

   8.  Commercial Fisheries Benefits

       8.1  Lobstering and Finfishing	     8-2
       8.2  Commercial Shellfishing industry 	     8-7
            8.2.1  Pollution Abatement  Impacts	    8-10
            8.2.2  Benefit Assessment Methodology  	    8-14
            8.2.3  Benefit Estimates  	    8-17
            8.2.4  Limits of Analysis	    8-25
       References	    8-27

   9.  Intrinsic Benefits
       9.1  Methodology	     9-3
       9.2  Benefits Estimates 	     9-4
       9.3  Limits of Analysis	     9-5
       References	     9-6

  10.  Ecological Effects

       10.1  CSO and Secondary Treatment Options	    10-1
       10.2  Ocean Outfall Option  	    10-5
             10.2.1  Plankton  	    10-6
             10.2.2  Benthos 	    10-7
             10.2.3  Finfish/Lobsters  	    10-7
             10.2.4  Endangered or  Threatened Species  	    10-10
       References	    10-12

  11.  Secondary Effects
       11.1  Methodology	    11-2
       11.2  Benefit Estimates	    11-4
       11.3  Limits of Analysis	    11-12
       References	    11-13
                                     -iv-

-------
                              Table of Contents
                                  (continued)
Section
Number
  12.  Charles River Basin Benefits
       12.1  The Charles River	     12-1
       12.2  Boating	     12-4
             12.2,1  Methodology  	     12-5
             12.2.2  Benefit  Estimates  	     12-7
             12.2.3  Limits of  Analysis   	     12-8
       12.3  Intrinsic (Non-User) and User Benefits	    12-10
             12.3.1  Benefit  Methodology and Estimates 	    12-11
             12.3.2  Limits of  Analysis	    12-12
       12.4  Summary	    12-13
       References	    12-14

Appendices:
   A.  Correlating STP Performance and Operation
       to Boston Pfcrbor Water Quality

       A.I  Influent, Effluent, and Sludge Characteristics 	     A-2
       A.2. Pollutant Transport from STP Outfalls	     A-4
       References	    A-11

   B.  Recreation Benefit Computations
       B.I  Seasonal Swimming—Increased Participation	     B-l
       B.2  Seasonal Beach Capacity and Current Attendance	     B-3
       B.3  Lower Bound Estimate  for Increased Participation ....     B-5
       B.4  The Conditional Multinomial log it Model, in Brief  . . .     B-7
       B.5  Beach Closings	     B-12
       B.6  User Day Values	     B-13
       B.7  Sources of Recreation Data	     B-17
       References	     B-27

   C.  Swimming Health Benefit  Calculations
       C.I  Number of Cases of  Gastrointestinal Illness	     C-l
       C.2  Reduced Cases of  Gastrointestinal Illness  	     C-2
       C.3  Population at Risk	     C-4
       References	     C-8

   D.  Commercial Fisheries Benefit Computations

       D.I  Demand Function Estimation	     D-l
       D.2  Demand Function Computations	     D-2
       D.3  Supply Cost Data  and  Computations
            and Producer Surplus  Computation Example 	     D-5
       References	    D-20

   E.  Charles River Boating  Benefits	     E-l
                                     -v-

-------
                          List of Tables and Figures
Table
Number
 1-1   Oasts and  Potential Reduction
         in STP Effluent Pollutants for the STP Options	    1-10
 1-2   Incremental  Oasts and  Ibtential Reductions in Pollutant
         Loadings for  the CSO Options	    1-13
 1-3   Estimated Water Quality  Impacts of the STP and CSO
         Treatment  Options	    1-16
 1-4   Pollution  Control Program and Receptors	    1-18
 1-5   Annual Benefits and Costs of Combined Sewer Overflow
         Controls	    1-19
 1-6   Annual Benefits and Costs of Combined Sewer Overflow
         Controls and  Ocean Outfall Control Option	    1-20
 1-7   Annual Benefits and Costs of Combined Sewer Overflow
         Controls and  Secondary Treatment Option	    1-21

 2-1   Comparison of STP Loading for Deer and
         Nut Islands Combined	     2-6
 2-2   Costs of the Two STP Options	    2-12
 2-3   Pollutant  concentrations in Effluent for STP Options  ....    2-13

 3-1   CSO Planning Area Characteristics	     3-7
 3-2   Combined Sewer  Overflow Project Costs:
         Neponset River Estuary 	     3-9
 3-3   Combined Sewer  O/erflow Project Costs:
         Dorchester Bay	    3-12
 3-4   Combined Sewer  O/erflow Project Costs:
         Inner Harbor  Planning Area	    3-14
 3-5   Combined Sewer  O/erflow Project Costs:
         Charles River Basin  	    3-17
 3-6   Potential Storm Sewer and Infiltration/Inflow Project
         Costs for  City of Quincy	    3-20
 3-7   Incremental  Costs and  Potential Reductions in Pollutant
         Loadings for  the CSO Options	    3-22

 4-1   Effluent Concentrations and Dilution Ratios Used in  the
         Water Quality Impact Analysis	     4-5
 4-2   Estimated Water Quality  impacts of the CSO and STP
         Treatment  Options	     4-7
 4-3   Estimates of Pollution Reduction at Receptor Sites in
         Study Area	     4-8
                                     -vi-

-------
                          List of Tables and Figures
                                  (continued)
Table                                                                   Page
Number                                                                 Number

 5-1   A Spectrum of Water Quality Benefits	      5-2
 5-2   Economic Benefit Categories 	      5-4
 5-3   Benefit Categories and Methodologies
         for Boston Harbor Study Area	     5-10

 6-1   Seasonal Swimming Supply  	      6-5
 6-2   Increased Swimming Participation—Regional Participation
         Model	     6-16
 6-3   Annual Benefit of Increased Swimming Participation for all
         Boston Harbor  Beaches 	     6-17
 6-4   Conditional logit Model Estimates	     6-31
 6-5   Per Capita Annual Benefit Estimates from Conditional
         log it Model	     6-34
 6-6   Increased Participation Estimates from Conditional Logit
         Model	     6-35
 6-7   Annual Benefit Estimates from Conditional Logit Model ....     6-37
 6-8   Annual Benefit of Averted Beach Closings at 200 MPN/100 ml.  .     6-42
 6-9   Annual Value of  Averted Beach Closings at 500 MPN/100 ml  .  .     6-43
6-10   Annual Saltwater Boating Benefits 	     6-49
6-11   Annual Recreational Fishing Benefits  	     6-54
6-12   Annual Benefits  for Recreation on Boston Harbor Islands .  .  .     6-58
6-13   Annual Recreation Benefits  	     6-60

 7-1   Annual Reduction in Cases of Gastrointestinal Illnesses .  .  .      7-5
 7-2   Swimming Health  Benefits  	      7-7

 8-1   Characteristics  of Boston Harbor Shellfish Areas	      8-9
 8-2   Estimated Potential Impacts of Pollution Abatement Options
       on Boston Harbor Shellfish Areas	     8-11
 8-3   Estimated Changes in Price of Soft Shelled Clams
       Associated with  Alternative Abatement Options and
       with Assumed Price Elasticities of Demand 	     8-21
 8-4   Estimated Ibtal  Benefits Associated with Alternative
       Abatement Options and with Assumed Price
       Elasticities of  Demand	     8-22

 9-1   Annual Intrinsic Benefits	'.	      9-5

11-1   Multipliers Showing Direct, indirect,  and
         Induced Effects Per $1 Change in Output  	       11-5
11-2   Secondary Effects Estimates	       11-7
11-3   Comparison of Multipliers with and without
         Direct Effects per $1 Change in Output	     11-10

12-1   Annual Recreation Boating Benefits  	     12-8
12-2   Annual Estimated Willingness to Pay
         for Fishable Charles River 	     12-12

                                    -vii-

-------
                          List of I&bles and figures
                                  (continued)
Table
Number
 A-l   MDC Treatment Facilities Current Pollutant Removals
       for Wastewater Effluents	     A-3

 B-l   Current Seasonal Attendance Figures 	     B-4
 B-2   Sites included in the log it Model	     B-ll
 B-3   User Day Values	     B-14

 C-l   Water Quality Ptecal Coliform  levels	     C-3
 C-2   Calculation of Number of Highly Credible Gastrointestinal
         Cases for Ttenean Beach	     C-5

 D-l   Cost Data for a Typical Maine Clam Digging Firm	     D-9
 D-2   Costs for a T/pical Massachusetts  Shellfishing Firm
       Operating in Unrestricted  Areas 	     D-10
 D-3   Per Bushel tonlabor f&rvest Costs
       for Boston Harbor Restricted  Areas 	     D-ll
 D-4   Per Bushel Costs for Rmspecialized Items	     D-12
 D-5   Per Bushel Specialized Costs  for Subordinate Diggers  ....     D-13
 D-6   Per Bushel Specialized Costs  for Master Diggers 	     D-14
 D-7   Changes in Per Bushel Nonlabor Costs for Boston Harbor
       Restricted Areas Due to Pollution  toatement	     D-16
 D-8   Comparison of Nonlabor Costs  and Prices	     D-17
                                    -viii-

-------
                          List of Tables and  Figures
                                  (continued)
Figure                                                                 Page
Number                                                                Number

 1-1   Boston Harbor Study Area	     1-4
 1-2   Schematic of Sources of Pollutant
         Loadings to Boston Harbor 	     1-6
 1-3   Area Served by the MDC Sewerage System	     1-8
 1-4   Location of Combined Sewers Overflow and Storm Sewer
         Outlets within the Study Area	    1-11
 1-5   Current STP Dispersion Patterns and CSO Outlets	    1-14

 2-1   Area Served by the MDC Sewerage System	     2-2
 2-2   Schematic of Sources of Pollutant Loadings
         to Boston Harbor	     2-4
 2-3   Location of Sewage Treatment Plants in Boston Harbor
         Study Area	     2-7
 2-4   Dispersion of Current STP Discharges  	    2-14
 2-5   Dispersion of Proposed Ocean Outfall Discharges	    2-16
 2-6   Dispersion of Proposed Secondary Treatment Discharges  ....    2-18

 3-1   Combined Sewer O/erflow and Storm Sewer Project Planning
         Areas	     3-2
 3-2   Water  Quality Standard Classifications in Boston Harbor  .  .  .     3-4

 4-1   Receptor Areas for the Boston Harbor Study	     4-2

 5-1   The  Demand function and the Consumer Surplus
       Welfare Measure	     5-5

 6-1   Receptor Areas for Boston Harbor Study Area	     6-2
 6-2   Effects and Responses to STP, CSO and Sewer Controls   ....    6-52

 8-1   Commercial Finfishing and Shellfishing Resources in
         Boston Harbor 	     8-8
 8-2   Typical Demand and Supply Curves for the Shellfish
         Industry	    8-15

12-1   Map  of Charles River Basin	    12-2

 A-l   Example of DISPER Output	     A-8

 D-l   Assumed Shape of Supply Curve for Boston Area
       Soft Shelled Clam Market	     D-7
                                     -ix-

-------
                                   Section 1
                            Summary and  Conclusions

    The purpose of this project is to determine the feasibility and
usefulness of an economic analysis of the beneficial outcomes of water
quality improvements that should result from upgrading-sewage treatments
plants (STPs) and from combined sewer overflow (CSO) controls.  This
report uses Boston Harbor, Boston, Massachusetts,  to serve as a case study
which demonstrates the application of a variety of benefit estimation
techniques in order to develop a range of benefit  values associated with  \^~
the uses of the Harbor which would be affected by  the various pollution
control treatment alternatives.  It contains pertinent data and
computations to demonstrate the application of the techniques.  This
report may also serve as an Appendix to the EPA's  Marine CSO Handbook,
which states can use as an example of how to perform benefit analysis.
Where feasible, the study provides dollar estimates of the economic
benefits of the treatment alternatives for the two primary benefit <—~~
categories (recreation and commercial fishing) as  well as for other   ~^
relevant benefits.

    The STP treatment options considered here include upgrading from primary
to secondary treatment and upgrading the existing  primary treatment with an
ocean outfall.  One of the STP options considered  follows from the legal
mandate of the 1972 and 1977 Clean Water Act and Amendments, the Environmental

-------
                                      1-2






Protection Agency (EPA)  standards and procedures for the treatment and




disposal of municipal wastes.  These regulations call for treatment at the




secondary level (which includes more BOD and SS removal in addition to basic




primary treatment) and a cessation of sludge disposal in the ocean.






    The second STP option  is an ocean outfall in conjunction with upgrading




existing primary facilities.  Plans have been made by the Metropitan District



Ctommission (MDC)  to repair and rehabilitate the STPs so that they will




function properly at an  upgraded primary treatment level.  In addition, the




MDC has applied for a variance under section 301 (h) of the Clean Water  Pet




from secondary treatment requirements.  The application is based on an



improved discharge whereby the two existing plants will improve their




operation of primary treatment, and effluent will be discharged at an  ocean




outfall in Massachusetts Bay via a tunnel 12.1 km (7.5 miles) from Boston




Harbor.  Since the initiation of this study, the proposed ocean outfall has




been tentatively denied  by the EPA Administrator (in June, 1983) .






    The selection of these options does not constitute endorsement of  these




proposals over other STP options, nor is this study a part of the formal




301{h) evaluation efforts.  Rather, since the purpose of this study is to



determine the feasibility and usefulness of an economic analysis of the




beneficial outcomes of improved water quality, the two STP options are




analyzed here as representative of the options under cons ieration at  the time




the study was initiated.






    The CSO control options are derived from studies done for the




Massachusetts District Commission as well as studies done for the town of

-------
                                     1-3


Quincy.  They include control of pollution due to combined sewer overflows,

stormwater discharges and dry weather overflows all of which contribute

significantly to the CSO problems in the Boston Harbor area.


    Boston Harbor is surrounded by a major urban center and, despite its

serious water quality problems, provides the setting for many and diverse

water Uses including a fishing and shipping port, recreational boating,

swimming and beach activities, shellfishing, finfishing, and, especially

recognized in recent years, an aesthetic focal point for commercial,

residential and  recreational activities.   Figure 1-1 shows the geographic

features of the  study area.



    Due to the complexity of the situation, the constraints of the data,  and >
                                                                          i
the evolving nature of benefits analysis the results of this study should be I

viewed with caution.  Every effort is made to  assess the reliability of both

the data and methods used.  In the individual  chapters of the report specific

sections on the  limitations of the analysis are provided.


    This chapter provides a brief overview of  the treatment alternatives,

receptors, benefit categories, and benefit methodologies.  A comparison of the

benefits and costs of the alternatives is presented and the results of  the

study summarized.


1.1  PDllution Sources


    Two major sources of pollutant loadings to Boston Harbor are 1)  the Nut

Island and Deer  Island Sewage Treatment  Plants (STPs) , owned and operated by

-------
Charles River .-:/•
                                                                                      Figure 1-1..  Boston  Harbor  Study Area
                         \
                                                                        /*  Presidents Roads'^
    /    «
   /     f

I'f'.nd ,
                                                                                                \
                                                                                     Tlic
                                                              Citlepf It- IX
                                                                      tiCtor?!. |,   ^ -
                                                                            - - -  " Naj\tasket Roads
                                                                                                    HULL
                                               • Wfrmogih ' ^*y>

                                                r»f. •!»•> f}^*J
                                                                                    HINGHAM

-------
                                      1-5


the Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) , and  2) the combined

sewer overflows (CSOs) located along the Harbor shoreline.  The pollutants

which are released  from these sources serve as parameters for describing the

environmental condition of the waters of Boston Harbor.  Figure 1-2 is a

schematic presentation of how the pollutant loadings enter the harbor from

these sources.  The following water quality parameters are considered in this

report:


                      Parameter                  Reason for Consideration

             Coliform (fecal and/or total)        important criteria for
                                                swimming and shellfishing
                                                needs;  indicator of domestic
                                                sewage  pollution

             BOD (Biochemical oxygen demand);     conventional pollutants;
             SS (suspended solids);              standard wastewater
             oil and grease                      characteristics

             Heavy  metals and toxics             potentially dangerous to
             (copper, mercury, nickel, etc.)      aquatic life



Once these pollutants are released into the Harbor,  they mix with ambient

waters,  and can seriously compromise water  quality and,  consequently,

adversely affect the ecological habitat, recreation, aesthetic, and commercial

fishing activities, and personal health.  The  heavy  metals and other toxic

pollutants affect the functioning of Harbor marshlands and influence the

abundance and diversity of shellfish and finfish in  the  waters.  The

mechanisms and effects as related to levels of pollutant control are not

known, however.  Thus, this report presents information  on current loadings of

toxic pollutants from the STPs and qualitatively describes the ecological

habitat and potential effects for these pollutants.

-------
                    Figure 1-2.   Schematic of  Sources  of  Pollutant  Loadings  to Boston Harbor
stormwatersi
domestic,
commerciali S
industrial
waatewaters




combined
sewers

to ^
STPs ""

• 	 (influent)— *-

sewage
treatment
process
J_£C1 	 A- \ ^^


BOSTON
HARBOR
WATERS
V
                                                               disinfection
                                                            (largely of bacteria .
                                                             and other pathogens)

-------
                                      1-7
     Rsrty-three towns and cities in the Boston Metropolitan area belong to the




 Metropolitan Sewage System and send their domestic, commercial and industrial



 wastewater to the two sewage treatment plants for treatment and disposal (see




 Figure 1-3).  At present, both plants are designed to carry out primary




 treatment which is essentially a screening, sedimentation and chlorination




 procedure.  The treated effluent and concentrated, digested sludges are then




 discharged into the ffirbor.  System malfunctions  are common, however,




 resulting from such factors as outfall pipe deterioration, inadequate holding




 capacity and lack of normal required maintenance  due to, among other things,




 difficulties in obtaining funds for repairs and suitable replacements for



malfunctioning components.  As a result,  the two  STPs have not been




 functioning properly in accordance with their designs, leading to raw sewage




bypassess directly into the ffirbor, improperly  timed sludge releases, sewer




 backups from the STPs, and less than design-level treatment performance, all




of which adversely affect water quality.






    The two STP options consist of secondary treatment and upgraded primary




treatment with an ocean outfall.  The secondary treatment option includes more




 BOD and SS removal than the current primary treatment facilities and a




cessation of sludge disposal in the ocean.   The ocean outfall option includes




 repair and rehabilitation of the existing primary treatment facilities and



discharge of the treated effluent into Massachusetts Bay by way of a tunnel




 from Deer Island.  These two options were picked  from the many proposals being




studied at the time of this report as representative of the proposals and not




 as an endorsement of one proposal over another.

-------
                                         1-8
                  Figure  1-3.  Area Served by the MDC Sewerage System
                                          MASSACHUSETTS
    communities  which will
    possibly be  added to
    the system


jt   a portion r : Hingham
    is presently part of
    the system

-------
                                      1-9






    l&ble 1-1 compares the annual costs of the STP options and shows very




approximate percentages for reductions in effluent pollutants, including




BOD5» suspended solids (SS), and metals, over existing concentrations.






    In its effort to develop a comprehensive plan  for CSO control in Boston




Harbor, the MDC has designated four CSO planning areas:  1) Dorchester Bay,




2) Neponset River,  3) Inner Barbor (including Constitution Beach) and




4) Charles River Basin.  The four areas are defined on the basis of existing



water use and coastal use patterns.  The water quality of all four planning




areas is compromised by pollution from combined sewer overflows (CSOs),




stormwater discharges, and dry weather overflows (DWOs).  Storm-related




combined sewer overflows vary in duration and frequency.  DWOs, caused by




sewer blockages and other malfunctions, are continual discharges of sanitary




wastewater and are considered by the MDC to be the single most important




source of pollution in Boston arbor.  They have thus been included in all the




CSO plans even though they are not officially classified as CSOs under federal




regulations.   Combined sewer overflow outlet locations are shown in




Figure 1-4.






       Another source of pollutant loadings to Boston Harbor is the Quincy




storm sewers.   The Quincy storm sewers discharge waters with fecal coliform,




BOD and SS concentrations that are higher than levels expected from storm




water runoff.   Storm water contamination can result from cross-connections




between sanitary and storm drains, due to broken pipes and exfiltration from




sanitary sewers in disrepair, and, possibly, illegal "tie-ins" to the storm




sewer system although the latter has not been documented in Quincy.  These




present problems similar to the DWOs in Boston which have been included in the




CSO plans.  The Quincy storm sewers lie outside the MDC study area of

-------
                                    1-10
             Table 1-1.  Costs and Potential Reductions in STP

                  Effluent Pollutants for the STP Options

                              (Millions 19823)
Wastewater Costs
Treatment 1 Annualized ,| Annual I Total
STP Options 1 Capital Cost- I O&M Cost 1 Annual Cost
Upgraded Pr imary
With Ocean Outfall 74.9 22.0 96.9
Secondary 85.8 45.2 131.0
1 Approximate Percentage
1 Reduction in t,/"
1 Effluent Pollutants -
£/
60 - 80
5/   Based on 8 1/8 percent interest; 20 year period.

b/   Average potential reductions in effluent pollutants (8005, SS and
     metals) over existing concentrations.  Range is a very approximate
     estimate.  For four heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury) the
     reduction would be about  30%.

£/   No effluent will be discharged in Boston Harbor.  There will be
     increases of pollutants in Massachusetts Bay, however. See Section 4
     for details.

 Source:  See Tables 2-2 and 2-3, Section 2.

-------
Figure 1-4
Location of Combined Sewer Overflow
and Storm Sewer Outlets within the
Study Area

-------
                                      1-12






concentrated CSOs.  However,  they have been included as an option for this




benefit-cost study because they have a significant adverse impact on the water




quality of Quincy's town beaches and Wollaston Beach, a large MDC operated beach




attracting many visitors, located in Quincy.






     T&ble 1-2 shows the annual  costs of the CSO options along with the




approximate percentage reduction in pollutant loadings, including fecal coliform,




floatable and suspended solids  and oil and grease.   The top part of the table




presents the four CSO plans as  designated by the MOC.   The bottom part shows the




options used in the benefit-cost analyses in this study (for a detailed




discussion of the CSO options see Section 3) .  The options as defined in the




lower half of the table correspond more appropriately with the benefit estimates




associated with the uses of the Harbor.  For example, all the swimming and




shellfishing uses affected by the GSOs (and therefore the corresponding benefits




estimates)  can be captured by including only the Constitution Beach portion of




the  Ihner Harbor Plan plus the  Darchester Bay, NSponset River, and Quincy Bay




Plans.  The CSO options in the  table reflect incremental increases in annual




costs.






1.2  Water Quality






    Currently, the CSOs and STPs jointly affect some of the same harbor areas



(see Figure 1-5).  However, the CSOs generally affect the areas closest to the




shore including the shoreline swimming beaches and  fishing and boating areas near




the shore.   In comparison, the  STPs have the greatest impact on water surrounding




the STP outfalls and thus mostly influence the central  parts of the harbor,




particularly the Boston Harbor  Islands.  Beaches in  the towns of Quincy,




Weymouth, Hing ham and Hull are  also affected.

-------
                                  1-13
           Table  1-2.   incremental Costs and  Potential Reductions

                 in Pollutant Loadings for the CSO Options

                             (Millions  19829)
I MDC PLANNING AREA DESIGNATION 1
Treatment
Alternative/ 1 Annualized I Annual
Receptor I Capital Cost £/ |O&MCost
Inner Harbor
a) including
Constitution
b) Constitution
only
Dorchester Bay
Neponset River
Charles River Basin
Implementation of
all MDC design-
ated CSO plans

14.63 1.97

0.04 0.01
4.97 0.37
0.61 0.10
8.87 1.56
35.44 4.00
(Percentage
(Reduction in
1 Total (Pollutant
1 Annual Cost I Loadings V

16.61

0.05
5.34
0.71
10.43
33.39



50 - 99
70 - 99
60 - 98
65 - 100
50 - 100
1 STUDY AREA DESIGNATION I
Inner Harbor
Constitution
Beach only
Dorchester Bay/
Neponset River
Quincy Storm
Sewers £/
Pbove three plans
combined
Charles River


0.04 0.01
5.59 0.47
0.27 -.02
5.90 0.46
8.87 1.56


0.05
6.06
0.25
6.36
10.43


50 - 99
60 - 99
60 - 99 I/
50 - 99
65 - 100
3/Based on 8 1/8 percent interest; 20 year period.
—/From Contractor reports.
£/Quincy plan is currently undergoing extensive revision,
I/Assumed to be the same as Dorchester Bay Area.

-------
Charles
                                                         I    • —
                                                         • •/*'Presidents Roads
                                                          •/v&tf  -•
                                                            "'••'••• y-\.«
                                                                    .". Najntasket Roads
                                                                            Figure 1-5.  Current STP Dispersion
                                                                                        Patterns and CSO Outlets
          DORCHESTER
                      •l«ir .
                      ^^
                            QUINCY
                                                                                    HULL
                                                                       HINGHAM
Areas  of heaviest
STP loadings

Areas  of moderate
STP loadings

Areas  of slight
STP loadings

CSO/Storm sewer
outlets

-------
                                     1-15


    The various STP and  CSO treatment options will  reduce pollutant loadings

to the Harbor waters.  The change in ambient water  quality at various

locations throughout the  Harbor will depend on the  change in reduced loadings

but also on the dispersion pattern in the Harbor from the point of discharge

to the receptor areas where recreation, boating and fishing take place.

Several water quality models were used in the various contractor reports

delineating the STP and  CSO options.  We use the results of these models to

predict improvement in water quality related to percent reduction in pollutant

loadings for the different treatment options at each receptor point in the

study area.  (See  Section 4.)  These estimates are  presented in Table 1-3.

The accuracy of the water quality models depends on both the data and

methodologies available.  Complexities due to currents, tides and weather make

the transport and  fate of pollutant discharges difficult to model.  The

results currently  available preclude estimation of  absolute changes in water

quality but the relative percentage changes, as shown in Table 1-3, are

adequate for the benefit estimation procedures used in this study.


1.3    Benefit Categories and Receptors

              t
    The benefit categories for which benefit estimates have been computed in

this study have been determined by those uses of Boston Harbor that are

affected by the pollution sources discussed above (STPs and CSOs).  A term

often used to describe areas or uses which are adversely affected by pollution

sources and which  would benefit from pollution abatement options is

"receptors."  The  receptors or benefit categories in this study include

recreation activities such as swimming, boating and fishing, commercial

finfishing and shellfishing, the ecological habitat of the harbor and

non-users who would be willing to pay, nonetheless, for pollution control

-------
                                     1-16
         Table 1-3.   Estimated Water Quality impacts of the STP and CSO

                               Treatment Options
1 Percent Pollution Reduction by
I Treatment Option
Receptor Area
Constitution Beach
Dorchester Bay
Cuincy Bay
Hingham Bay
Outer Harbor Islands
Brewsters Islands
ten task et Beach
Massachusetts Bay
Charles River
1 Combined
1 Sewer 0/erflow/
1 Storm Sewer
50 to SO
60 to 90
60 to 90
—
—
—
—
—
50 to 80
1 1
1 Deep Ocean
1 Outfall
1
5 to 10
10 to 25
10 to 20
15 to 40
60 to 90
-10 to -15
-5 to -10
-35 to -45
1
1 Secondary
1 Tteatmen t
1
0 to 5
5 to 15
10 to 20
15 to 40
30 to 80
30 to 40
0 to 5
15 to 20
1
Nate:   Positive figures denote improved water quality.   Negative  figures
       denote degradation in water quality.

-------
                                     1-17






 (intrinsic benefits).   Alternative pollution control programs and the




 affected receptors are  shown in Table 1-4.






    The benefits of improved water quality resulting from implementation of




 pollution control  options in Boston Harbor accrue to users and non-users




 alike, and are presented below with a summary discussion of specific benefit




 estimates.  The techniques used in this report to measure benefits to society




 from implementation of pollution control plans are based on the theory of




 welfare economics  and the concept of willingness  to pay.  This economic theory




 is founded on the  principle that the demand" for water quality is the sum  or




 aggregate of how much individuals would be willing to pay to receive




additional increments of improved water quality.  Section 5 discusses the




 theoretical concepts, benefits categories and the various methodologies used




 to estimate benefit values for the different treatment alternatives.






 1.4  Summary of Study Findings






    A summary of annual benefits and costs for the different control scenarios



 is presented in Tables  1-5 through 1-7.   The control scenarios include the




 MDC's recommended  plans for CSO control and also  the benefits of implementing




 CSO controls along with the STP options.  The tables report the dollar




 estimates for the  benefit categories and receptor areas for Boston Harbor.  An




 indication of those benefits which were not monetizable in this economic




 analysis is also included to emphasize the full range of impact of these




pollution sources  and their consequent clean-up,  (he way to consider this




potentially large  non-monetizable portion from the point of view of the




decision maker is  an implicit evaluation of what  they must be worth if it is




decided to implement the controls by considering  the difference between the

-------
                                      1-18
               Table 1-4.  Pollution Control Program and Receptors
 Pollution Control
 Option	
I  Predicted      a/
I  Par cent  Cleanup"
I   Receptor s/Benef i t Categories
STP
    Ocean Outfall
    Secondary
CSO
    Inner Harbor
    (includes Constitution)
    Dorchester Bay and
    Neponset River
    Quincy Storm Sewers
    Charles River
        10 to 30
                              -40 to -10
        5 to 30
                              20 to 70
        70
        80
        80
        70
  Beaches:  Weymouth, Hingham, Hull
  Boating and  fishing
  Siellfishing
  Intrinsic and  Biological

  Beaches:  tentasket,
           Brewsters Islands
  Boating and  Fishing
  Intrinsic and  Biological

  Beaches:  Constitution,
           Dorchester Bay,
           Cuiricy Bay,
           Hingham Bay
  aiellfishing
  Intrinsic and  Ecological

  Recreation:  Cuter Harbor
              Islands
  Boating and  Fishing
  Intrinsic and  Biological
  Beach:   Constitution
  Boating  and Fishing
  Shellfishing
  Intrinsic and  Biological

  Beaches:  Castle Island,
           Pleasure Bay, Carson,
           Malibu, Tfenean
  Boating  and Fishing
  aiellfishing
  Intrinsic and  Ecological

  Beaches:  Wollas to n , QJ i nc y
  Boating  and Fishing
  Siellfishing
  Intrinsic and  Ecological

  Boating
  Intrinsic
   a/ see Tables 4-2 and 4-3.

-------
                                         Table 1-5.  Annual Benefits and Costs of Combined Sewer Overflow Controls
                                                                     (Millions 19829)
                                                                     Benefit Estimates by Category
tellutlon
Control
Option

Recreational Recreational
Swimming!/ Boating Pishing
Health!*/
Oammerclal
She 11-
PlahlngS/
Intrinsic!/
Ecological
ITbtal
1 Annual
ICostsV
TOTAL I
Oomhlncd Sewer Overflows
Conntltutlon
Beach

Dorchester Bay/
Neponset River

Qulncy Bay


Hlngham Bay


Massachusetts Bay/
Nan task et

Entire Harbor
(not including
Charles River)

Charles River

Pour MDC CSO Plans
(Constitution,
Dorchester, Neponset,
Charles River)
Range:
Moderate:

Range:
Moderate:

Range:
Moderate:

Range:
Moderatei

Range:
Moderate:

Range:
Moderate:


Range:
Moderate:
Range:
Moderate:


0.91-1.36 Not available for this
1.14 option since boating
and fishing are only
6.21-9.29 calculated harbor-wide
7.75 for combined STP and
CSO options.
S. 29-7.91
6.60

-0-


-0-


12.OS-18.OS/
15.02


-0- .05-. 96 -0-
.51
7.12-10.65 .05-.96
8.89 .51


.005-. 077
.041

.021-. 117
. 169

.086-1.275
.681

-0-


-0-


.124-1.716
.92


-0-

.027-. 394
.21


O-.OOS
.001

.001-.009
.DOS

0-.004
.002

-0-


-0-


.001-. 018
.010


-0-

.001-. 014
.008


Based on total
recreational
benefits. Not
available for
this option
since boating
and fishing
benefits are
only calculated
harbor-wide
for combined
STP and CSO
options.






3.14-6.28*
4.71
3.14-6.28*
4.71


Cannot be
quantified
but Includes
value of
highly
productive
saltmarshes
In Boston
Harbor.
Inese marshes
In turn
support many
species of
fish and
invertebrates
as well as
animals.
shoreblrds
and
waterfowl.





0.92-1.44
1.18

6.23-9.62
7.92

5.38-9.19
7.28

-0-


-0-


12.18-19.71*
15.95 1


3.19-7.24
5.22
10.34-18.3
14.3


o.o si!/


6.06


0.25-
6.06V







6.16-
2. 17i/i/


10.43

16.54i/



                                                                                                                                                                   VO
   S/ Moderate benefits represent best estimates except for those categories where best estimate is marked by •.  Range Includes high and low
estimate.
   !>/ Swimming benefits based on conditional log It model.  For Qulncy, Hlngham and Nantasket beaches,  benefits  from Increased participation are
added since loglt model did not Include these beaches.  All benefits are derived using user day value  from logit model.
   £/ Includes general recreation benefits at Boston Harbor Islands.
   2/ Health benefits for individual areas based on swimming;  for entire harbor benefits based on shellfish consumption are also included.
   S/ Commercial fishing benefits based on shellfIshlng; estimates for flnflshing and lobstering not available.
   y Intrinsic benefits based on SO percent of all recreational benefits; except for Charles River, which includes willingness to pay for user
and non-user values.
   9/ Annuallzed capital costs (assuming 8 1/8 percent interest, 20-year period) plus annual operation and maintenance costs.
   "/ Excludes cost of Inner Harbor CSO plan except for Constitution Beach portion; total annual cost  of Inner  Harbor CSO plan Is SIS.61  million.
   y Cost estimates for Qulncy storm sewers are still preliminary.  High estimate Is equivalent to costs for CSO control In Dorchester Bay.

-------
                                        Table 1-6.  Annual Benefits and Coats of Combined Sewer Overflow Controls and
                                                       Ocean Outfall  Cbntrol Option  (Millions 198231

                                                                     Benefit Estimates by  Category

Pollution
Control
Option


Recreational
Swimming]/ Boatlnq


Recreational
Fishing Health!!/

Commercial
Shell-
Fishing*/
IIDtal
1 Annual
IdosttV
Intrinsic!/ Ecological TOTAL 1
 (tomb ln<>
-------
                                        Table 1-7.   Annual Benefits and Costa of Combined Sewer Overflow Controls and
                                                    Secondary Treatment Control Option (Millions  19823)
 "Dilution
  Oontrol
  Option
                                                                      Benefit Estimates by Category
                        Recreational
                          Boating
Recreational
 Pishing
Health!/
Commercial
   She 11-
Plahlnge/
Intrinsic!/    Ecological     TOTAL
                                                                                                                       llotal
                                                                                                                       I Annual
                                                                                                                       ICustsV
Oamhlned Sewer O/er flows
and Secondary Treatment
Constitution
Beach
Dorchester Bay/
Noponset River
Qilncy Bay
Hingham Bay
Massachusetts Bay/
Nantasket
Range i
Moderate:
Range:
Moderate:
Range:
Moderate :
Range:
Moderate:
Range:
Moderate:
.98-1.46
1.22
7.41-11.08
9.25
6.24-9.33
7.78
.215-. 322
.269
-0-
Entire Harbor
(not including
Charles River)

Charles River
Four HOC CSO Plans

(Constitution,
torchester, teponset,
Charles River)
Range:     14.22-22.42E/   6.46-14.57* .75-9.49
Moderate:


Range:
Moderate:

Range:

Moderate:
             18.32
                                     -0-
                             10.52
                                                   .05-.96
                                                     .51
                                        5.12
                                                                -0-
                                                                                .007-.096
                                                                                   .051

                                                                                .032-.477
                                                                                   .255

                                                                                .146-2.15
                                                                                   1.15

                                                                                .003-.039
                                                                                   .021

                                                                                   -0-
                   .198-2.81
                      1.51
                                                                                  -0-
                .022-. 124
                   .064
                                                                                              -0-
              10.7-23.2
                  17.0
                             3.14-6.28*
                                 4.71
                                                                                               Potentially
                                                                                               large
                                                                                               beneficial
                                                                                               impact on
                                                                                               shoreline
                                                                                               saltmarshes
                                                                                               supporting
                                                                                               fish and
                                                                                               invertebrates
                                                                                               as well  as
                                                                                               animals,
                                                                                               shoreblrds,
                                                                                               and waterfowl.
                                                                       0.99-1.56
                                                                          1.27

                                                                       7.44-11.56
                                                                          9.51

                                                                       6.39-11.48
                                                                          8.93

                                                                         .22-.36
                                                                            .29

                                                                          -0-
                           32.35-72.61*   137.4-
                              52.53    143.2W
                                                                       3.19-7.24
                                                                          5.22
                                                                                                                                                   10.43
   */ Moderate benefits represent best estimates except for those categories where best estimate Is marked by *.   Range  includes high and low
estimate.
   £/ Swimming benefits based on conditional log It model.  For Quincy town beaches, benefits from Increased participation are added since logit
model did not Include these beaches.  All benefits are derived using  user day values from logit model.
   £/ Includes general recreation .benefits at Boston Harbor Islands.
   i/ Health benefits for individual areas based on swlmmlngi  for entire harbor benefits based on shellfish consumption  are also Included.
   £/ Commercial fishing benefits based on shellfIshing;  estimates  for flnfishlng and  lohsterlng not available.
   I/ Intrinsic benefits based on SO percent of all recreational benefits) except for Charles River, which Includes willingness to pay for user
and non-user values.

   I/ Annualized capital costs  (asiumlng 8 1/8 percent interest, 20-year period) plus  annual operation and maintenance costs.
   ^/ Excludes cost of Inner Harbor CSO plan except for Constitution  Rr.ich portion; total annual cost of Inner Harbor CSO pi in Is $16.61 million.
   I/ Cost estimates for Quincy storm sewrs are still preliminary.  Iliih estimate is  equlvjl»nt to costs for CSO control  in Dorchester D.iy.

-------
                                     1-22


annual benefits as estimated and the predicted annual costs.  Che

result that does stand out is that in addition to either secondary

treatment or an ocean outfall the GSO problem needs to be addressed

if full use restoration and health benefits are to be realized.

Some specific conclusions of this study include:


    o  Monetizable benefits

       -- Swimming benefits and all kinds of recreational benefits
       are the largest source of the monetizable benefits.  In the
       commercial fishing category, we could only estimate
       shellfishing benefits.  Nonetheless the recreational
       categories appear to be especially important for urbanized
       areas such as Boston arbor where local population density
       and demand for nearby recreational opportunities are high.

       — The geographic location of the pollution sources in
       relation to the receptor or benefit categories is an
       important factor in determining the type and level of
       benefits that will be generated by the different treatment
       options.   In the case of Boston Iferbor most of the recreation
       beaches are significantly affected by the CSO discharges and
       only moderately affected by the STPs.  Ch the other hand,
       fishing and boating in Harbor waters are more affected  by  the
       STP discharges.  In the case of fishing and boating, however,
       a further constraint is marinas and facilities—a constraint
       on increased participation in these activities not related to
       pollution control.

       --In our calculations the CSO options can be broken down by
       MDC Planning Area.  lor example, benefits related to the
       Dorchester Bay and Neponset River Plans and the Constitution
       Beach portion of the Inner Harbor Plan are summarized in
       Table 1-5.   Also, Charles River and Quincy Bay can be
       isolated.  This separation of plans is possible because of
       the geography of Boston Harbor and it would not be possible,
       necessarily, for all areas of the country.  However, in our
       case the separation of plans can assist in the determination
       of the most effective way to allocate CSO control funds.

    o  Non-monetizable benefits

       -- Several categories include only a partial estimation of
       benefits.  The commercial fishing category includes
       shellfishing only.  Although up to 2.6 million pounds of
       lobster and 28.4 million pounds of fish are landed annually
       in the port of Boston, benefits related to this activity were
       not calculated because of the difficulty of knowing where  the
       fish were caught and how they might be affected by the
       improved water quality.

-------
                                     1-23
       — Intrinsic benefits include aesthetic benefits and benefits
       such as existence and option value not directly related to
       use of the water resource.  These are best evaluated by
       willingness-to-pay measures.  As can be seen in the case of
       the Diaries River (Table 1-5) , they can be quite
       substantial.  For the other areas in this study
       willingness-to-pay measures were not available, and the
       intrinsic benefit estimates were related to recreational
       activity which might not capture all non-user benefits. .

       — A potentially large category of benefits not captured in
       this economic analysis is ecological benefits--benefits
       related to preservation and restoration of the harbor and bay
       habitats.  The volume of pollutants controlled by the STPs is
       far greater than that controlled by the CSOs (approximately
       30 times greater).  Therefore, from an ecological perspective
       we need to be very concerned about the long term impacts that
       those heavy metals, toxics and other constituents in the STP
       effluents have on the harbor and bay habitats even though
       they are not immediately reflected or easily captured in the
       economic analysis.  The CSOs are also of concern because of
       their proximity to highly productive saltmarshes along the
       shoreline.

       — In this study we have looked at uses of the Harbor waters
       which could be most directly analyzed within our economic
       analysis framework.  This resulted in the exclusion of the
       inner Far bo r CSO Plan except for the Constitution Beach
       area.  The Inner Harbor CSO control plan (reducing odor,
       floatables, and toxic substances)  would include benefit
       categories of commercial use,  aesthetics and ecological, none
       of which were monetizable.   There are relatively few
       recreational uses in this area.  Given the large amount of
       effluent discharged (about 11  billion gallons per year) , the
       control costs are quite high and it would not appear that
       this  CSO plan would be as important as the others in its
       overall impact.

       Costs

       — The  costs for the CSO control options are estimates for
       preferred control alternatives.   However, the costs for the
       Quincy  Storm Sewers may not be comparable to the costs as
       used  in the rest of the report.   The Quincy cost study is
       still in the preliminary stages and not nearly as detailed as
       the other CSO plans.  Thus,  we show in the summary tables an
       upper range estimate equal to  the CSO control costs for
       Dorchester Bay, its neighbor to the north.
    As is clear from the discussion above, the benefit estimate numbers

presented in Tables 1-5 through 1-7 should not be taken as especially

-------
                                     1-24






important or precise in themselves.  They are approximations and represent




means computed from ranges, sometimes wide ranges, that have been developed




for each benefit category; they are the result of, for the most part,




conservative assumptions; and they generally underestimate the benefit values




of the treatment options.  R>r instance, as discussed above, ecological




benefits have not been included as they are considered non-monetizable (see




Section 10).  Recreational boating and fishing benefits  (except for Charles




River) have been computed only for the Harbor as a whole, since data was




unavailable to break the totals down by option.  The totals were included,




however, to give an idea of the possible magnitude of these benefits.   Despite




these shortcomings, it is apparent from the conclusions that have been drawn




that an economic analysis of the beneficial impacts of water quality




improvements is feasible and is a useful tool for providing information to




decision makers to facilitate improved policy decisions, especially where




there is a choice to be made among various alternatives and a limit to the




available funding.






1.5  Specific Benefit Btimates






    Benefits accrue to households who recreate in, on or near the water,  to




consumers of commercial fisheries, to consumers who benefit directly and




indirectly from the increased economic activity in the primary sector, and  to




non-users of Harbor waters, who derive intrinsic benefits.  Each benefit




category, estimation procedure, and benefit estimate are briefly described




below.






1.5.1  Recreation






    Benefits from increased recreational opportunities are the greatest of  all




the monetizable benefit categories.  Benefits accrue to swimmers, boaters,

-------
                                     1-25


anglers and those who recreate near the water.  Two major components of

consumer surplus have been estimated which fully capture benefits from     ^

improved water quality:   (1)  increase in participation,  and (2) increase in

the price participants are willing to pay per visit for  the improved quality

of the recreational experience.  The following is a brief summary of the three

major recreation benefit categories considered in this study.


    Swimming.  A variety of benefit estimation methodologies were employed to

estimate swimming-related  benefits.  These included:  (1)  using recreation

studies to predict and value  increases in participation; (2) applying a travel
                                                                          \
cost, conditional logit  model to estimates gains in consumer surplus due to

increased participation  and increased satisfaction per trip; and

(3) calculating consumer losses stemming from beach closings.  Results from

the travel cost model are  the most accurate of all the methodologies because

of the theoretical and empirical strengths of the logit  model.  Benefits

associated with the CSO  control options are substantial:   $18-19 million

for swimmers throughout  the Harbor area for a full plan  of STP and CSO

controls.  About $15 million  of this is related to GSO controls because of the

proximity of their discharges to the shoreline beaches.   (See Chapter 6.)


    Fishing and Boating.   Fishing and boating benefits have been calculated

only for the entire Harbor  study area because of data limitations.  Benefits

for both these categories are substantial:   $12 to 15 million for both

activities for combined  STP and CSO controls.  (See Chapter 6.)


    Boston Harbor Islands—Ml Recreation activities.  Ohe  Boston Harbor

Islands are a unique recreation resource that will benefit  from improved water

quality resulting from the implementation of the STP treatment alternatives.

-------
                                     1-26






Recreational data was used  to predict increase in participation in all Boston




Harbor Island activities.   Benefits total $1 to 3 million.   (See Chapter 6.)






1.5.2  Health
    Health benefits from water pollution abatement include willingness to




pay to avoid swimming-related illnesses and shellfish consumption-related




illnesses.  Dose-response data were used to evaluate swimming-illness




benefits.  NO such functions exist for consumption of shellfish, and thus




these benefits were developed by assuming that a percentage reduction in




shellfish-borne diseases is directly proportional to percentage reduction




in the concentration of the fecal coliform in the water.  Total health




benefits from CSO and STP controls are about $1.5 million.  They are




lowest at Constitution Beach and highest at the Wollaston/Quincy beaches,




which have the highest swimming attendance and are in close proximity to




the Quincy storm sewers. Shellfish consumption benefits can only be




linked to pollution reduction throughout the entire harbor.  Benefits are




small, from $0.001 million to $0.005 million.  (See Chapter 7.)
1.5.3  Commercial fisheries






    Water pollution abatement in Boston Harbor would probably result in a



recla' sification of shellfish beds from grossly contaminated  (closed beds) to




moderately contaminated (restricted beds), thereby allowing increased




shellfish harvesting with depuration.  Moderate benefits are about $0.06




million for combined STP and CSO controls.  (See Chapter 8.)  These benefits




do not include the sizable commercial catches of finfish and lobster.  Current

-------
                                     1-27





annual value of these catches reaches $18 million.  We were not able to



calculate incremental annual benefits for this portion of commercial fishing



bene f i t s, howeve r.





1.5.4  Intrinsic Benefits





    Water pollution abatement is predicted to have an important effect on



benefits which are  not specifically related to actual water use, such as



option, existence,  and aesthetic values.  Except for the Charles River,
t


because of the lack of appropriate willingness to pay survey data which could



be applied to the different treatment alternatives in the study area,



intrinsic values have been estimated by assuming that non-user benefits are



one-half as great as recreational user benefits.  (See Chapter 9.)  Moderate



estimates for intrinsic benefits total $16-17 million.





1.5.5  Ecological Impacts





    Pollution abatement might positively influence ecological processes in



saltmarsh areas throughout the harbor.  Although attempts have been made  to



estimate the economic value of marshlands by valuing the role of the marsh as



a factor of production, and by estimating the cost of duplicating these



functions, it was not possible to apply these results to the Boston Harbor



study area.   This is because the connection between the levels of pollution



control, the subseq »nt reduction of pollutant loadings to the water column



and the functioning of the marshlands is unknown for the harbor.  Furthermore,



the role of pollutants already in the sediments,  that could be resuspended  '•



into the water as loadings are reduced,  is not well understood at this time.



Therefore, these benefits have been considered non-monetizeable.  (See Chapter



10.)

-------
                                     1-28


    The adverse ecological impacts believed to be caused by current and past

levels of pollutant loadings include:


    — the alteration of benthic populations which may reduce the food
       supply, thereby resulting in a decrease in commercially valuable
       fish variety and numbers;

    — the accumulation of toxics by benthic fauna and then passage up
       the food chain where they pose a health risk to consumers (copper,
       mercury, PCBs, silver found in tissues of lobster and winter
       flounder);

    — bioaccumulation which can affect species reproduction, increase
       potential for disease (fin erosion in winter flounder associated
       with PCB contamination), and impair predator avoidance behavior
       which could result in reduced numbers and variety of fish.


Important commercial species that may be adversely impacted include lobsters,

manhaden, cod, bluefish, striped bass and eels.  Efcological benefits would

accrue to the pollution control measures if the reduction in pollutant

loadings caused reductions in the aforementioned adverse impacts.


    The ecological benefits of the STP options may be larger because the

volume of discharge is about 30 times as great as for the CSOs.  However, the

ocean outfall option will negatively impact some of the areas in

Massachusetts Bay  which include:


    — commercially valuable species such as tautog, cod, pollack,
       haddock, halibut, mackeral; and

    — migratory and endangered species such as whales, sea turtles,
       sturgeon and the leregrine falcon.

1.5.6  Secondary Effects


    Improving water quality will result in secondary effects from increases in

economic activity  generated in an area by direct impacts, such as commercial

fisheries or recreation activities.  A range of input and output multipliers wei|

-------
                                     1-29



applied to each benefit category to compute all secondary economic effects.


Secondary effects cannot be linked to each pollution control option for every


primary benefit category because some of the benefit categories, such as fishing


and boating, could only be developed on a harbor-wide basis.  We have chosen to


refer to these values as effects, rather than benefits, because only under certain


circumstances can secondary effects be considered benefits and the labor market


analysis required for delineation and definition of these circumstances was beyond


the scope of this case study.  For these reasons we have  calculated the different


secondary effects, but have not included the dollar value in the summary of total


pollution control benefits.   (See Chapter 11.)




1.5.7  Charles River Basin




    Benefits to instream, near-stream users and non-users of the Charles River were


calculated by estimating increase in boating participation and by applying results


from a willingness to pay survey.  Boating benefits are small ($0.51 million)


because all river acres in the Charles River Basin currently are used for boating


and because user day values used to value this increase are moderate.  The benefits


of improving water quality along the Charles more accurately are measured by


applying results of a willingness to pay survey, which captures benefits to users


and non-users alike.  Benefits calculated using this methodology are substantial:


$4.7 million.  Despite the large size of these benefits,  they are approximately


half of the estimated $10.43 million annual cost,  of implementing the Charles  River

                                                                 f
Basin CSO plan.  (See Chapter 12.)                                '




1.6  Guide to the Report




    This chapter has summarized the features of the study area, the treatment


alternatives and the benefit categories.  It also has presented a brief


analysis of the treatment options and a brief summary of  study results and

-------
                                     1-30






conclusions.  The specific STP and  (50 treatment options are discussed in




detail in Sections 2 and 3.   Their  effects on Harbor water quality are




included in Section 4.   Section  5 presents a brief introduction to the




theoretical and methodological approaches used to measure benefits from




improving water quality, and discusses the benefit categories applicable to




this case study.  The next six sections describe each benefit category and




include benefit estimation methodology, data bases used in the analysis,




benefit estimates, and  limits to the analyses:  Section 6, Recreation




Benefits; Section 7, Health  Benefits; Section 8, Commercial Fisheries;




Section 9, Intrinsic Benefits; Section 10, Ecological Benefits; and Section




11, Secondary Effects.   Section  12  presents a separate analysis of benefits




from implementing the Charles River Basin CSO Plan.






    Several Appendices  follow the major text.  Appendix A gives a more




detailed view of STP treatment alternatives and their effects on Harbor water




quality.  Appendix B presents detailed calculations for the different




methodologies used to estimate recreation benefits and includes a description




of the major recreation sources  used in this analysis.   Appendix C explains




how health benefits are calculated  and Appendix D presents a step by step




analysis of commercial  fisheries benefits calculations. Appendix E summarizes




calculations of recreation boating  benefits from water quality improvement in




the Charles River Basin.

-------
                                   Section 2

              Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Operations, Options
                           and Water Quality Impacts


    The 43 towns and cities belonging to the Metropolitan Sewage System (see

Figure 2-1)  generated approximately 167,900 million gallons of raw, mixed

domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater in 1980.  Among the

responsibilities of the Metropolitan District  Commission (MDC), a public

service authority for the 43 municipalities, is the collection, treatment and

disposal of these municipal wastes.  To fulfill its responsibility, the MDC

owns and operates two sewage treatment plants  (STP), one at Deer Island and

the other at Nut Island, which handle the wastes from the northern and

southern member municipalities, respectively.   At present, both plants are

designed to carry out primary treatment, which is essentially a screening,

sedimentation, and chlorination procedure. They then discharge both the

treated effluent and concentrated, digested sludges into the outer harbor.


    Under the legal mandate of the 1972 and 1977 Clean Water Act and

Amendments, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established standards

and procedures for the treatment and disposal  of municipal wastes.  The new

regulations call for treatment at the secondary level (in addition to primar-'

treatment) and a cessation of sludge disposal  in the ocean.  Ohe intent of

the regulation is to reduce the degradation of water quality that is caused

by municipal waste loadings.

-------
                                        2-2
    Figure 2-1

Area Served by the
MDC Sewerage System
                                          MASSACHUSETTS
      communities which will
      possibly be added to
      the system


      a portion of Hingham
      is presently part of
      the system
                                                                    

-------
                                      2-3






    Prompted by the aforementioned regulation,  numerous studies have been




undertaken to determine the engineering feasibility of treatment alterna-




tives, how to manage and handle residual sludges, etc.  For the most part,




these studies have limited their analyses to what can be done to satisfy the




new regulatory requirements, either through direct  compliance (secondary




treatment and no sludge discharges to the ocean) or with options available




through waiver opportunities  (upgraded primary  treatment with a deep ocean




outfall, sludge barging).






    Section 3 discusses the technical, environmental, and financial options




for combined sewers in the Boston Metropolitan  area.  STPs are discussed here




separately.  At times it will be necessary to bring combined sewers into the




following discussion since their performance can affect that of the STPs and




vice-versa.






    The intent of this section is to:  (1)  describe current Deer and Nut




Island STP performance and pollutant loadings;  (2)  present the financial and




expected performance characteristics of two proposed STP options; and (3)




discuss the potential water quality impacts of  these proposed STP options.   A




vast amount of information was analyzed for the development of this chapter.




What is presented here is essentially the conclusions of that effort. The




background and formulation of the most important analyses are explained in




Appendix A.I.






2.1  Current STP Performance






    The existing Deer Island and Nut Island STPs are designed to treat




municipal wastewaters at the primary level.  As the flow diagram of Figure 2-2




illustrates, most constituents of the municipalities' wastewaters eventually

-------
                                    Figure 2-2.
                Schematic of Sources of  Pollutant Loadings to Boston Harbor
stormwatersj
domestic,
commercial, &
industrial
wastewaters
                                                                disinfection
                                                             (largely of bacteria
                                                              and other pathogens)




combined
sewers

to ^
STPs "

——{influent) — *-

sewage
treatment
process



BOSTOtt
HARBOR
WATERS
V
                                                                                                              to

-------
                                     2-5


reach the harbor  in one form or another, with the exception of a portion of

the organic constituents which are lost through disinfection in the treatment

process.  Metals  and other non-destructables  remain relatively unchanged

while passing through the treatment system and are, therefore, discharged in

either the sludges or effluent from the STPs.-3r  The STP-source loadings

have been calculated on an annual basis for comparison of their relative

magnitudes;  they are presented in Table 2-1.  Effluent and sludge loading

information was calculated using measurements taken of wastewaters that had

undergone complete treatment, which does not  account for raw (untreated)

wastewater discharges.  Therefore, loadings from STP bypasses of raw

wastewaters were  calculated from influent composition and bypass volume

data.-*/


    Both the treated wastewaters and the solids sludges extracted by STP

treatment are discharged through local outfalls into Presidents and close to

Nantasket Roads from the Deer Island and Nut  Island STPs, respectively.  These

two 'Roads* are the major deep and fast-flowing channels of the Harbor (see

Figure 2-3 for their location).  Whereas much of the harbor is only 10 to 15

feet deep, the depths of President and Nantasket Roads range up to 90 feet.

The STPs discharge to these locations because of their capacity for carrying

and dispersing effluent and sludge loads.  The plants' effluents are

di' -harged continuously whereas sludges ideally are released only on outgoing

tides.  Since the sludges generally contain a high percentage of the original

influent's pollutants, their releases are timed for maximum removal from the
   2/ Some chemical recombination and physical change of the wastewater
constituents can be expected, but essentially, mass is conserved.

   —/ CSO loadings have not been calculated from this same raw wastewater
information because data regarding the frequency, duration, stormwater
dilution, and volumes of overflow events are not available.

-------
                                       2-6
                                   Table 2-1.
                           Comparison of STP loadings
                      for Deer and Nut Islands Combined


BOD5
TSS
Cd
Cr
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Zn

STP
Effluent
(Ibs/yr)
154x10^
124x106
26,000
138,000
325,000
178,000
2,000
241,000
702,000
Exist!
1 STP
1 Sludges
1 (Ibs/yr)
17xl06
4 5x10 6
4,800
72,600
115,700
36,500
700
25,900
. 222,700
nq loadings
1 STP
1 Bypasses
1 (Ibs/yr)
10-15xl06
10-15xl06
1,000
4,700
22,400
6,300
100
22,700
. 29,000

1 Total STP
1 Discharges
1 (Ibs/yr)
181-186xl06
17 9-18 4x10 6
31,800
215,300
463,100
220,800
2,800
289,600
! 953,700
STP
Effluent
from
Ocean
Outfall
(Ibs/yr)
18 Ox 10 6
135xl06
26,000
138,000
325,000
178,000
2,000
241,000
702,000
STP
Effluent
from
Secondary
Treatment
(Ibs/yr)
46xl06
46xl06
23,000
101,000
159,000
141,000
0
172,000
. 419,000
   £/ Conversions of mg/1 data to Ibs/year figures made assuming 500 million
gal/day of effluent discharged from Deer Island and Nut Island combined.   See
Appendix A.I for further explanation of calculations.

Sources:  US EPA  (1978), Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7; US EPA (1983), p.2;
Metcalf & Eddy  (1982), Tables 3-10 and 3-11; ERT (1978), Table 2.2-8;
Damanoski  (1982).

-------
     "I'llt
Charles River or
                                                                  , * Presidents  Roads
                                                                           -    tasket Roads
                                                                                     Ml.no-.
Figure 2-3.  Location of Sewage Treatment
            • Plants in Boston Harbor  Study  Area


        A Sewage Treatment Plants

        X Outfalls
                                                                                            HULL
                                                                                                                             K)

-------
                                      2-8


Harbor.  However, due to outfall pipe deterioration,  inadequate holding

capacity, and system malfunctions, the sludge releases are not always

properly co-ordinated with the tides.  F^droscience's model of sludge

transport from the outfalls predicts that 20 percent of the sludges

discharged on the outgoing tide are carried back into the Harbor on the

return tide.


    The Deer and Nut Island STPs are currently operating below design

criteria.  This has led to:
      a.  the bypassing of raw sewage directly into the
          Harbor;

      b.  the release of sludges on currents other than
          the out-going tide;

      c.  the backing up of sewers from the STP, causing
          the combined sewers  to overflow;  backups can
          occur if some unit of the STP malfunctions,
          halting  incoming flows or if incoming flows
          simply exceed the capacity of the system;

      d.  overall, less than design-optimal treatment
          performance because  of tanks settling, tank
          covers missing, screens in poor condition, pumps
          malfunctioning, and  other operational problems,
          including the problem of saltwater influent  into
          STP due  to malfunctioning tide gates.
    A properly operating and  properly sized sewage treatment system could

alleviate these problems.  Necessary steps to correct the above

deficiencies  include:
          improving the capacity of the combined sewers
          (particularly holding facilities) in order  to
          moderate heavy (storm) flows to the STPs;
          repairing STPs to restore capacity (pumping,
          etc.); expanding STPs to increase capacity  (of
          holding tanks, etc.);

-------
                                     2-9
      b.   that sludges be released only on out-going tides
          (sludge-release timing problems) or that another
          method of sludge disposal be found;

      c.   that either or both of the following actions be
          taken to solve the influent back-up problem:

          o  expand combined sewer facilities to
             accommodate what the STP cannot, and/or
          o  increase STP ability to accept incoming
             flows;

      d.   the repair of units to restore their design
          functions and performance.
    Funds recently have become available for  the repair and

rehabilitation of Nut and Deer Islands'  STPs, which may restore their

original design performance.  Increased operation and maintenance

efforts made by the MDC can result in a change in the Harbor's water

quality prior to implementation of any of the proposed STP options.

Actual loadings to the Harbor might be more consistent with the sum of

the first two columns of Table 2-1 once the STPs are operating well,

whereas now the loads are higher since bypassing occurs.


2.2  STP Options and Costs


    There are many options under consideration for STP modification.

Obey represent different combinations of primary and secondary level

treatment facilities at Deer, Nut and/or Long Islands, witi. either local

or deep ocean outfalls.  Two options have been chosen for the purposes of

this analysis:  (1) upgraded primary treatment with a deep ocean outfall

and (2) secondary treatment with a Presidents Roads (local) outfall.

Because of resource limitations, only two options could be included.

-------
                                     2-10


At the time of this analysis several other options are under discussion —  ,

but all are either primary treatment with a deep ocean outfall or some type

of secondary treatment.   Thus, the options described here are meant to be

representative of the range of options possible under current federal

regulations.


    One of the STP options considered here calls for upgrading the existing

facilities to achieve primary treatment plus  the construction of a deep ocean

outfall diffuser system  to discharge the combined, treated effluents from

Deer and Nut island plants into the waters of Massachusetts Bay, out of the

Inner Harbor estuary, at a depth of 32 M (105 feet) (see Figure 2-3).  The

outfall system would consist of a 10 foot diameter pipeline extending

4.7 miles from Nut Island; 56.6 cubic meters  per second (1.29 billion gallons

per day) capacity effluent pumping station on Deer island; and an outfall

tunnel 7.5 miles long and 19 feet in diameter, terminating at a diffuser

manifold 1.3 miles in length.  The proposed deep ocean outfall would

discharge the treated effluents from the Deer Island and Nut Island

facilities.  At the mouth of the outfall would be a diffuser, which is

designed to rest on the  ocean floor at a depth of approximately 100 feet.


    The other STP option includes expanded primary treatment at the Nut

Island facility with the waste flow sent to Deer Island where all of the

system's wastes would be treated at the secondary level.  The combined local

outfall would be into President's Roads (see  Figure 2-3).
£    see CE Maguire (1983).   Specific options were chosen in consultation
with Region I, Environmental  Protection Agency,  personnel.  At the time of
this analysis these were the  options preferred by the HOC.

-------
                                      2-11

    The capital and operating and maintenance costs for  the  two STP options

are presented in Table 2-2,  and the expected loadings in terms  of pollutant

concentrations are compared  to concentrations in the existing STP effluents

in Table 2-3.  These options and their associated costs  assume  that the

present facilities operated  by the MDC will be modified  according to  the

presently planned "fast-track improvements".   The costs  of these immediate

upgrade improvements will be $10 million at Nut Island and $40  million at

Deer Island (CE Maguire,  1983).

2.3  Areas Impacted by STP Discharges

    Existing water quality in different areas in the Harbor  is  due to current

STP effluent discharges,  bypasses and sludge discharges  as well as the

natural composition of the waters, CSOs, surface runoff, long-term discharges

to the harbor (industrial, residential STPs,  etc.), discharges  from marine

craft, etc.

    In terms of the incremental contributions to pollutant concentrations

made by STPs, some areas  are impacted more than others.   The affected areas

may be grouped as follows (see Figure 2-4):

    o   areas of heaviest loadings;
              between Deer Island and Long Island
              between Long Island and Love11 Island
              Quincy Bay, south of Moon Island
              between Nut and Peddocks Island

    o   areas of moderate loadings:
              east of Lovell Island
              western half of Hingham Bay
              northwest and  northeast of Deer Island STP
              Quincy Bay shoreline

-------
                                   2-12



                 Table 2-2.   Costs  of the  Two  STP Options

                             (Millions 1982$)
Wastewater 1 1
Treatment 1 Capital Cost 1
STP Options 1 (1983$)
Upgraded Primary
With Ocean Outfall 774.8
Secondary 887.4
1
(19 8 23) 2/
728.9
834.8
1
I
Annualized Costs
I Capital^ O&M
74.9 22.0
85.8 45.2
1
Total
96.9
131.0
£/    Expressed in 1982$  (ENR=3825) because benefit estimates are expressed
      in 1982$  (CPI-0=289.4)

£/    Based on 8 1/8 percent interest and 20 year period.

Source:  CE Maguire  (Draft, 1983), Table 2.  These costs are to be
         considered preliminary estimates only.

-------
                                     2-13



                    Table 2-3.   Pollutant Concentrations in
                           Effluent for STP Options
Effluent
BODg
TSS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Pollutants 1
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
mg/1
% removal
1
Existing
STP
107
29
87
55
.017
' 15
.090
16
.212
39
.116
19
.0011
21
.157
72
.458
33
Ocean Outfall
Option
115
28
86
47
.017
15
.090
16
.212
39
.116
19
.0011
21
.157
72
.458
33
Secondary
Option
30
81
30
81
.015
25
.066
38
.104
70
.094
34
.001
28
.112
80
.273
60
Sources:   US EPA (1978), Tables 3.2-6 and 3.2-7;  US EPA  (1983), p.2;
Metcalf & Eddy (1982), Tables 3-10 and 3-11.

Note:  Existing values for the metals are averages of sampling done in years
1975-1977.  Samples taken in 1982 show decreases  in chromium, lead, and zinc
with increases in the other metals (Metcalf & Eddy, 1983).  Whether this
represents a significant decreasing trend can only be ascertained through a
concerted monitoring plan.

-------
diaries River ."A  .
                                                               • /*'Presidents Roads ^
                        v/^jv^r •. • •  .  /v
                        )[ • ,  % .  Doftiitim Ity
_*- ,"*• Najitasket  Roads
         1  'I- AllvMon
                              , ,  •
                           / >  ' _ Tbeopien J «.    A
                                                                                    Figure 2-4.   Dispersion  of Current
                                                                                                 STP Discharges
                                                                                                     Dilution  Ratio
                                                                                                     (Seawater:Effluent)

                                                                                                       «50:1
                                                                                                      ^100:1
                                                                                                       £200:1
                                                                                                       >200 to 1000:1
                                                                                                        Sewage  Treatment
                                                                                                          Plants

                                                                                                        Outfalls
                                                                                    ^   Source:  Metcalf & Eddy (1979),
                                                                                                 Figure 6-16.
                                                   fir /»-7         "\^i
                                                   C^%     'P^
                                                    '•  	M	
      HINGHAM

-------
                                     2-15
    o   areas minimally influenced by STP discharges:
             the Brewsters Islands
             eastern half of Hingham Bay
             Inner harbor
             Dorchester Bay shoreline
             Neponset River


    The highest pollution loads are located along the incoming and outgoing

tidal paths of Presidents and mntasket Roads (the two main current channels

of the harbor, in which Deer Island and Nut Island STPs have their outfalls,

respectively),  current STP discharges have a greater impact on the Outer

Harbor Islands and the eastern part of Quincy Bay than on the other shoreline

at the perimeter of the harbor.

    If a deep ocean outfall option is selected, the harbor will certainly

experience a reduction in pollutant loadings.  The reduction for the harbor

creates a trade-off, however, by introducing wastes to previously unpolluted

areas.  Figure 2-5 identifies three zones of impact for the proposed ocean

outfall option.  In terms of the areas of concern to this benefits study, the

zones which sustain degradation of water quality due to the construction of

the deep ocean outfall are:


    o   Massachusetts Bay (highest level of impact); and

    o   Nantasket Beach and the Brewsters (moderate level of impact).

    The advantage of the proposed deep ocean outfall is the dilution of

effluent that is obtainable in its vicinity as compared to the dilution in

the vicinity of the local outfalls currently in use in the harbor.  The

disadvantage is that total pollutant loadings are not reduced to the extent

they would be under the secondary treatment option, and the proposed location

may not provide for sufficient transport and dispersion of the diluted

wastewater.

-------
                                                               Figure 2-5.   Dispersion of Proposed
                                                                            Ocean Outfall Discharges
        «I»M
        DORCHESTER
Source:     ~:alf & Eddy  (1979),
             re BII-12.
                                                                                                               Dilution Ratios
                                                                                                               (SeawaterrEf fluent;
                                                                                                                   200:1
                                                                                                                   500:1
                                                                                                              Site of Ocean
                                                                                                              Outfall Diffuser
Charles River ,'.(•'

-------
                                      2-17






    The secondary treatment option considered  in  this study will  reduce total




pollutant loadings and change the location of  the current  STP discharges in




Nantasket and Presidents Roads to a single discharge within the harbor in




Presidents Roads.  Figure 2-6 identifies the areas in the  harbor  which will




be affected by this discharge.  The highest level of impact will  be on the




Outer Harbor Islands.






    None of the proposed STP options will eliminate the  pollution of harbor




waters.  The incremental loadings to the harbor waters can be reduced,




thereby improving water quality.  Most pollutants (i.e., metals and solids)




tend to settle out of the water column and into  the sediments.  Therefore,




the pollutant concentrations of Boston Harbor  sediments will probably




continue to rise unless the rate of pollutant  loading can  be supressed by




some sort of biological, chemical, or physical neutralization process within




the sediments.  What happens to pollutants in  sediments  is not known,




however, nor are the effects on aquatic organisms of pollutant build-up in




sediments fully understood.  The present and potential status of  water and




sediment qualities can be quantified but the significance  of such qualities




is not clear.

-------
Charles River of/-'  .
                                                                                       Df Proposed
                                                                                      Treatment Discharges
                              QUINCY
   Source:  Metcalf  &  Eddy  (1979),
           Figures  6-16  and 6-20.
                                                                                                      Dilution Ratio

                                                                                                       (Seawater:Effluent)

                                                                                                         t. 50:1
                                                                                           HULL
                                                                            HINGHAM
                                                                                                        < 200:1
                                                                                                        >200  to  1000:1
                                                                                                   \  Diffusers

-------
                                      2-19
                                   References
Dumanoski, Diane, 1982, Boston Globe, December 19, 20,  and 21,  Boston,  MA.

Environmental Research and Technology, 1978, Draft Report for the
    National Science Foundation, C-PRA77-15337.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., June, 1982, Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
    Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study, for the
    Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, MA.

Metcalf & Eddy Inc., September 13, 1979, Application for Modification of
    Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
    Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, for the Metropolitan District
    Commission, Boston, MA.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., January 1983, Application for Modification of
    Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
    Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, Executive Summary,  for the
    Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, MA.

Maguire, CE, Inc., December 20, 1983, Preliminary Screening Results for
    Boston Harbor DEIS Supplemental, for Environmental Protection Agency*
    Region I, Boston, MA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 30, 1983, Analysis of the Section
    301(h) Secondary Treatment Waiver Application for Boston Metropolitan
    District Commission, Office of Marine Discharge Evaluation, Washington,
    DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, August 1978, Draft Environmental
    Impact Statement on the Upgrading of the Boston Metropolitan Area
    Sewerage System.  Boston, MA.

-------
                                 Section 3
              Combined Sewer Overflow Control in Boston Harbor

    In its effort to develop a comprehensive plan for combined sewer
overflow (CSO) control in Boston Harbor,  the Metropolitan District
Commission (MDC) has designated four CSO planning areas.  The four  areas
are defined on the basis of their existing  water use and coastal  use
patterns.  The designated areas are:  (1)  Dorchester Bay,  (2)  Neponset
River, (3)  Inner Harbor and (4)  Charles River Basin (see Figure 3-1).   In
addition, the City of Quincy has storm sewer outfalls into Quincy Bay
which may impact the study area in a manner similar to the CSOs.  For each
of these five planning areas engineering firms have been hired to study
alternative methods of control.   All information pertaining to specific
areas is drawn from the contractor reports, and these reports are
referenced at the end of this Section.

3.1  Scope of the Combined Sewer Overflow Problem

         The water quality of all four planning areas is compromised by
pollution from combined sewer overflows,  stormwater discharges, and dry
weather overflows (DWO) (see Figure 3-1).  Storm-related combined sewer
overflows vary in duration (depending on the nature of the storm) and occur
from 50 to 100 times a year (depending on the planning area location).  Dry
weather overflows may be caused by sewer blockages, regulator malfunctions
and/or tide gate failures.  DWO's are continual discharges of sanitary

-------
                                           Figure  3-1.   Combined Sewer Overflow
                                                         and Storm Sewer Project
                                                         Planning Areas
                                                          CSO/Storm Sewer outlets
                                                                          lrr.it.,.
Neponset
River CSO
Area
Quincy
Storm
Sewers

-------
                                   3-3






wastewater and are considered by the HOC to be the single most important




source of pollution in Boston Harbor.   Treatment of dry weather overflows




is considered in all the CSO plans.






    Different parts of Boston Harbor have different standards (see Figure




3-2).  Die Dorchester Bay and Neponset River  Estuary areas are both




classified as SB.  An SB classification implies suitability for primary




water contact sports (i.e., swimming)  and shellfishing and means that the




dissolved oxygen in the water must be greater than 6.0 mg/1 and the total




coliform count must have a median level less  than 700 MPN/100 ml.  The




Inner Harbor is classified as SC which makes  it suitable for secondary




recreation and means that dissolved oxygen must be greater than 6.0 mg/1




and the total coliform count must have a median not greater than 1000




MPN/100 ml.  The Charles River is classified  as "C", the fresh water




counterpart of SC, which makes the river suitable for secondary recreation.






    Some areas of Quincy Bay and Hingham Bay, outside the CSO planning




areas but within this studies' boundaries, are classified SA.  An SA




classification is the same as SB for DO but has stricter limits on total




coliform counts (70 MPN/lOOml) for the protection and propagation of




aquatic life and so that shellfish harvesting can take place without




depuration in approved areas (Metcalf & Eddy, 1979).  The plan for the




city of Quincy's storm sewers is discussed separately below (Section 3.6).






      The MDC and its contractors found the following violations of the




standards, of which all of the violations are caused jointly by combined




sewer and dry weather overflows (MDC,  April 1982) and by STP loadings:

-------
                                                         Figure 3-2.  Water Quality Standard Classifications

                                                                      in  Boston Harbor
      "rn««l llvir .



                         *$&
                                                                                            Wtll Mv»i

                                                                                                HULL
                                                                                HINGHAM
                                                                                                                                 u>
                                                                                                                                  I

-------
                                    3-5
              Coliform bacteria standards are intermittently or
              continually violated in all areas.

              Dissolved oxygen standards are frequently violated  in  the
              Charles River Basin planning area and  in  the  Inner  Harbor;
              they are less frequently violated in Dorchester  Bay and  the
              Neponset River Estuary and Constitution Beach.

              Suspended solids possibly limit the most  sensitive
              designated uses of receiving waters; settleable  solids cause
              violations in certain locations, and floating materials, oil
              and grease violate the standards in all areas.   The
              standards for all of these parameters  are non-quantitative.

              Nutrients are creating enriched conditions conducive to
              excessive algal growth in fresh waters in the Neponset River
              Estuary.

              Heavy metals are potentially significant  contaminants  to
              finfish and shellfish in all areas.

              The shellfishing standards for total coliforms are  violated
              in the Neponset River Estuary, in much of Dorchester Bay,
              and in areas north and east of Logan International  Airport.
    In order to deal with these violations,  the MDC concluded  that  its

efforts to upgrade water quality should meet the following objectives

(MDC, April 1982):

   a.    eliminate dry weather overflows;

   b.    reduce the frequency and volume of  untreated  CSO's

   c.    reduce the release of pathogenic organisms and  floating

         materials;

   d.    and reduce the release of settleable organic  solids and other

         oxygen demanding material, nutrients and toxics.

-------
                                    3-6






    Control Plans designed to meet these objectives were developed for




each of the planning areas by the MDC's contractors.   Table  3-1 lists the




costs and water quality characteristics of the planning areas.  The




Recommended Plans, and the types of benefits to the area in  which they




will be implemented, are explained in  more detail in  the remainder of this



Section.






3.2  Neponset River Estuary






    The Neponset River Estuary Planning Area contributes to  pollution in




both the river estuary and Dorchester  Harbor.  The area is approximately




60 percent residential and five percent industrial with remaining acreage




being either open space or commercial/institutional property.  Tenean




Beach, in Dorchester Harbor, and the shellfish beds in the estuary both




experience what the MDC terms "extremely high levels  for both total and




fecal coliforms,  The contractor's survey of the planning area determined




that combined sewer and dry weather overflows accounted for  over 90




percent of the annual total coliforms.  Combined sewer overflow also was a




major contributor to floating and suspended solids.   The contractor's




survey of the in-place sewerage facilities revealed broken or malfunc-




tioning tide gates, malfunctioning regulators, and much solid deposition




in the conduits.  The fact that downstream interceptors had  reduced flow




due to sedimentation also compromised  this planning area's ability to




discharge its waste through normal channels.

-------
           Table 1-1.
CSO Plannlnq  Area Characteristics
Plannlnq
Area
Diner
Harhor£/
Constitution
Only
1
(torches ter
BayS/
1
Kponset
Rived*

Charles
River^
1
Qu IncyS/
1
2/ Based on 8
!>/ Values for
£/ Values for
, 6.0
Castle Is.
Pleasure B.
Carson
Mallbu
Tenean
II 1 1 II
0.61 0.10 0.71 Shellfish!
Neponset SB geoo geom
Estuary mean mean
T.col & 700 6,800 38,000
DO J 6.0
Beaches :
Tenean
III II
8.87 1.S6 10.43 tt> shell- C 300-
fishlng 12.000
or T.col ~ 1000
swimming DO % 6.0
III II
0.25 -0.02 0.27 Shellfish: SA
Quincy Bay 500- 800-
Beaches; T.col £70 16,000 34,000
Wollaston DO J 6.0
Quincy
III 1 1
1/8 percent Interest and a 20 year payback period.
Neponset River are from data gathered In August 1978 (DEQE, 1982).
Dorchester Bay and Inner Harbor are from the CSO Facilities Plans (Camp Dresser
the Charles River are from data gathered by the HOC (Ferullo. 1981).
Quincy are from sampling conducted in June-August 1982.
Su3. Total
Sol Ida Turb. BOD5 Phos. DO
ng/1 NTU mg/1 mg/1 mg/1

0-27 1.0-3.1 0.7-92 0.08- 1.3-
0.86 12.2
1 1 1
3.0-
14.0 0.1 .8-79 0.3-0.6 3.6
1 1 1
45 1.5 3.2 .22 5.2
1 1
0.09- 0.2- 0.4- 0.01- 0.0-
34.0 5.0 9.6 0.61 12.6
1 I

5- 1- 6-
50 5.0 10
1 1 1
t McKee, 1981) O'Brien t O'Gere, 1980).

-------
                                   3-8






    The Recommended  Plan for this area focused initially on dry weather




flow abatement, and  in  this vein the Plan starts with recommendations to




fix or replace faulty tide gates, clean and inspect conduits, and re-open




the blocked regulators  that in their present condition contribute to DWO.




Some new conduit and storm drain construction is recommended, both of




which are intended to reduce CSOs.  The planning area is divided into two



subsections, each of which is slated to receive a storage and chlorination




facility.  Such facilities will store combined sewage until such time that




the downstream treatment system can handle it.






    According to the contractor's report, this Plan will reduce total




coliforms loadings by 96 to 99 percent.  The costs are summarized in Table




3-2.  Such a reduction  will have several benefits, the most calculable




being fewer days during which total coliforms exceed the water quality




standards for swimming  at Tenean Beach.  In 1970, the Massachusetts




Department of public Health issued a report on Dorchester Bay beaches




indicating that the  fecal coliform counts at Tenean Beach were above the




guideline of 200 MPN/100 ml for bathing water in 35 to 54 percent of the




grab samples and total  coliforms exceeded the 1000 MPN/100 ml guideline in




24 to 43 percent of  the samples.  As a result of the findings regarding




these coliform counts and the fact that sewage was clearly being




discharged into Tenean  Beach, the Department of Public Health recommended




in its 1970 report that the beach be closed for 24 hours after a rainfall




of 0.25 inches or more  in a 24 hour period.  The Recommended CSO Plan will




alleviate much of the reported pollution, reduce the need for closing



Tenean Beach and, thus, contribute significant recreational  (especially




swimming) benefits.

-------
                                    3-9
              Table 3-2.  Combined Sewer Overflow Project Costs
                                    (1979$)

                            Neponset River  Estuary
                                               Capital-
    Improvement                                 Costs
I.  Granite Avenue Service Area

   1.   Rockwell St.  Drain                      47,000            120
   2.   Stockton St.  Drain                      48,000            120
   3.   Washington St.  Drain                    66,000            170
   4.   Hilltop St. Drain                       29,000             77
   5.   Ballet St. Drain                        73,000            180
   6.   Adams St. Sewer                         72,000            180
   7.   Granite Ave.  Truck Sewer               696,000          1,740
   8.   Davenport Brook and Granite Ave.         30,000            880
          (Regulator  upgrading)
   9.   Catch Basin Cleaning                                   25,000
  10.   Monitoring Program                       3,000         12,000
  11.   Granite Ave.  Storage Facility        1,341,000          4,100
  12.   Net Cost at Deer Island                                 2,290
II.  Port Norfolk Service Area

   1.   Chickatawbut St.  Pump Station          150,000          4,000
   2.   lawley St. Relief Sewer                207,000            520
   3.   Regulator Rehabilitation                 8,000
   4.   System Inspection and Cleaning           10,000          5,000
   5.   Port Norfolk Storage Facility        1,752,000         15,000
   6.   Net Cost at Deer  Island                                   960
    Total Costs

Total Cost for Granite Avenue
    Service Area                             2,405,000         46,850

Total Cost for Port Norfolk
    Service Area                             2,127,000         25,480

Total Cost for Bitire Plan                   4,532,000         72,330
   a/Based on June 1979 price levels (ENR 2900)  and includes an
allowance for engineering and contingencies.

   k/Based on 1979 price levels.

Source:  Havens and Emerson, 1980.

-------
                                   3-10






    The benefits of reducing these coliform counts  in the Neponset River




Estuary are less clear because the Recommended Plan affects only the mouth of




the river.  Total coliform loadings upstream of the planning areas are




considerable and are unaffected by the Recommended  Plan.  There are 40 acres




of soft shell clam beds in the estuary, most of which are currently classified




as grossly contaminated. At present there is not sufficient evidence to




predict, with certainty, whether or not the Recommended Plan for the Neponset




River Estuary Planning Area will allow those shellfish beds to be opened.






    A final benefit of the Recommended Plan has to  do with the aesthetic




upgrading of the area due to the reduction of odor  and floatable solids.



In addition to quality of life benefits, such an upgrading may also result




in an increase of secondary recreational water use  (such as boating and




the development of boat ramps and yacht clubs) .






3.3  Dorchester Bay






    Dorchester Bay is used mainly for swimming, boating and shellfishing.




Of all the planning areas it has the highest density of beaches.  There




are five beaches in the Bay, seven yacht clubs, and 75 acres of shellfish




 (soft shell clam) beds. Most of the shellfish beds are currently closed




to harvesting and four of the beaches are known to  exceed total coliform




standards after rain storm? in the summer.






    This degradation of Dorchester Bay's water quality is in large part




caused by eleven combined sewer outlets that discharge into waters




adjacent to public beaches.  Unlike the Neponset River Estuary Planning



Area, the Dorchester Bay Planning Area has a wastewater collection system




that is in good condition.  The contractors discovered "no major




structural deficiencies in the regulators, tide gates or sewer manholes.

-------
                                   3-11






Several maintenance-related problems were discovered, generally consisting




of blockages within the sewers and regulators due to excessive sediment




buildup. These maintenance problems and a small number of direct dry weather




connections to overflow conduits that were  also discovered, result in




several dry weather flow dischargers to Dorchester Bay" (camp, Dresser and




McKee, 1981) .






    The Recommended Plan for the Dorchester Bay Planning Area includes a




DWO abatement program and an ongoing program to maintain high operating




efficiency in the tide gates and regulators.  It also calls for a one and




one-half mile consolidation conduit designed to intercept CSOs at the




outlet tide gates and to transport the waste to a storage facility.  A



final part of the plan involves the construction of the two screening and




disinfection facilities to protect the Dorchester Beaches during the




bathing season.  Table 3-3 presents the costs for the Recommended Plan.






    According to the contractor's calculations, DWO abatement in the




Dorchester Bay Planning Area will result in the attainment of the required




water quality standards over the long run.  Short-run storm-induced




episodes of elevated coliform counts can be avoided by the addition of CSO




controls.  For all but the most extended heavy storms, the Recommended




Plan will reduce total coliform loadings by 98 percent.






    In addition  the Recommended Plan will greatly reduce the level of




floatable solids, oil and grease in Dorchester Bay.  Such changes will be




particularly beneficial to a planning area  that is used primarily for




recreation and shellfishing.  Reduced coliforms and a reduction in floatable




solids will have the direct benefit of increasing swimming and improving

-------
                                    3-12



                                 Table 3-3.
                   Combined Sewer Overflow Project  Costs
                                   (19793)

                               Dorchester Bay

1.  Structural                       Capital^              0 &

  South Boston
  -  Consolidation Conduit            9,620,000
  -  Storage/Containment Facility    18,380,000             38,000

  Dorchester
  -  Hoyt St. Regulator Modification     90,000
  -  Commercial Point Screening/
     Disinfection Facility            3,030,000             22,000
  -  Fox Point Screening/
     Disinfection Facility            2,740,000             21,000
  -  Pine Neck Creek/
     Storm Drain Relocation           2,340,000           	

     Subtotal                        36,200,000             81,000
II.  Non-Structural
  Dry weather flow abatement
     program                            100,000
  Post Management Practices              25,000             200,000

     Subtotal                           125,000             200,000
III. additional
  Cleaning of CSO Conduits              300,000
  Dredging                               40,000
  Landfill at CSO Outlet BOS-090         20,000
     Subtotal                           360,000                 -0-

Total                                36,685,000             281,000
   3/Based on June 1979 price levels (ENR 2900) and includes an
allowance for engineering and contigencies.
   b/Based on 1979 price levels.

Source:  Camp, Dresser and McKee,  1981.

-------
                                   3-13






health through decreasing the number of pathogens in the water.




Shellfishing should, over time, increase  as  bed acreage is opened to




harvest.






3.4  Inner Harbor






    The Inner Harbor Planning Area has two distinct uses.  The majority of



the planning area is classified for commercial use while a very small




section,  Constitution Beach, is classified for swimming.  To deal with




these divergent uses Table 3-4 is divided to show the costs of attending




to the Inner Harbor proper and Constitution  Beach separately.  The Inner




Harbor proper is characterized by industrial, transportation, shipping and




energy production uses.  The area to the  north and east of Logan



international Airport has shellfishing and recreational uses similar to




the Dorchester Bay.  There is swimming at Constitution Beach and there are




areas of  restricted shellfish harvesting  around the airport (MDC, 1982).






    According to the contractor for the Inner Harbor Planning Area, over




11 billion gallons of overflow enter the  water every year.  Seventy-five




percent of these discharges are attributable to dry weather overflow and




the rest  can be accounted for by storm-related discharges.  Dry weather




overflows are the main cause of elevated  coliform counts and floatable




solids.






    The contractor's report states that the  water quality standards set




for the inner Harbor (they are less stringent than those set for the more




recreational Dorchester Bay and Neponset  River Estuary Planning Areas) can




be met with the elimination of dry weather overflows (DWO) and the control




of combined sewer overflows (CSO).

-------
                                    3-14
                                 Table 3-4.
                    Combined Sewer Overflow Project Costs

                                   (1979$)

                         Inner Harbor Planning Area
A. Inner Harbor
                                        Capital               O&M
   CSO Consolidated Pipelines            Costs 2/             Costs**/

Boston Waterfront                      $5,858,000              N/A
South Boston                            5,149,000
East Boston-Southern Waterfront         6,221,000
East Boston-Western Waterfront          8,156,000
East Boston-Lexington Square              980,000
Chelsea River Waterfront                4,097,000
Reserved Channel                        2,932,000
   CSO Treatment Facilities

Fort Point Channel                     45,542,000            816,000
Somerville                              3,450,000             71,200
East Boston-Southern Waterfront         6,894,000            131,000
East Boston-Western Waterfront          6,400,000             48,000
East Boston-Lexington Square            3,575,000             31,700
Chelsea-Pearl Street                    3,404,000             66,000
Chelsea Willoughby Street               2,005,000             39,100
Reserved Channel                        2,032,000             50,400
Causeway Street                           243,000
Commercial Street                         243,000
Charles River Estuary                                          5,800

   Management Practices

Tidegate Improvements                     250,000            118,000
Regulator Improvements                    500,000            118,000

                                      107,921,000          1,495,300

B. Constitution Beach                     315,000              8,700
   £/ Based on June 1979 price levels (ENR 2900)  and includes an
allowance for engineering and contingencies.

   b/ Based on 1979 price levels.

Source:  O'Brien and Gere Engineers, 1980.

-------
                                   3-15


    The main benefit of this plan is that  it will clean up the Inner

Harbor by reducing floating solids and thus reduce the consequent

aesthetic problems, since the inner Harbor is not now used for contact

recreation,  and  there are no plans for it  ever to be put to that use.

Constitution Beach currently meets swimmable standards and the

improvements at  that site are to ensure that the standards will be

maintained.   It  is difficult to predict if the improvements in water

quality will result in more shellfish beds being opened for harvest.


3.5  Charles River Basin
    The Charles River Basin includes the Back Bay Fens, the Muddy River,

Alewife Brook and the Charles River itself.  The basin is mixed fresh and

salt water and  is used mainly for non-contact recreation, both on the water

and at the water's edge.  The River is an extremely important and much used

recreational source for local residents. Many sailing clubs maintain

marinas on the  River and every area college and many high schools use the

River for rowing and sculling.  The entire basin exceeds the water quality

standards set for it by the state.  Those standards  (a rating of "C") allow

non-contact recreational use.  The main results of the basin pollution are

extremely high  coliform counts (both total and fecal), odors, floatables,

debris and turbidity.  The primary objectives of the MDC's efforts are to

(Metcalf & Eddy, 1982):
   a.   reduce excessive levels of bacteriological organisms for
        public health reasons and remove floatables and turbidity for
        aesthetic reasons, and

   b.   remove solids and organic matter to prevent build up of
        benthic deposits.

-------
                                    3-16






    In order to meet these objectives,  the contractor designed a plan that




involves the capture, transport and storage of most of  the basin's




combined sewer overflows.  The plan's costs are presented in  Table  3-5.






    The Recommended Plan will reduce coliforms, floatable solids and




suspended solids (and, therefore, turbidity)  in the Charles River Planning




Area.  Secondary recreation (boating but not swimming)  can be expected to




increase because of the decrease in objectionable odors and floating




debris.






3.6  Quincy Storm Sewers






    Another source of pollutant loadings to Boston Harbor is  the Quincy



storm sewers.  The Quincy storm sewers  discharge waters with  fecal




coliform, BOD and TSS concentrations that are higher than levels expected




from storm water runoff (Moore, 1980).   Storm water contamination can




result from cross-connections between sanitary and storm drains.  These




cross-connections can be due to broken pipes, exfiltration  from sanitary




sewers in disrepair and illegal "tie-ins" to the storm  sewer  system,




although the latter has not been documented in Quincy.  The problem in




Quincy is compounded by the fact that North Quincy is relatively flat




 (especially adjacent to the beach areas) and, therefore,  the  drains in the




area have slopes close to, and in some cases, less than the recommended




minimums.  This tends to cause blockages in the sanitary  system and




surcharges and exfiltration of sewage results, especially where pipes are




cracked or have loose joints (Moore, 1977).  A factor which increases the




frequency of surcharging is the excessive infiltration  and  inflow into the

-------
                                    3-17


                                 •able  3-5.

               Combined Sewer Overflow Project Costs (19799)

                            Charles River Basin
                                          Capital             O&M
       Design Package                      Costs 3/         Coats £/

1.   Phase I In-System
     Modification                           510,000             5,000

2.   Consolidation and Rebuilding
     of Boston Gatehouses fl  and 12       6,650,000            87,000

3.   Grit Removal and In-System
     Storage at Beacon Street and
     Charlesgate East with Phase II
     In-System Modification to MDC
     Fens Gatehouse                       4,900,000            72,000

4.   Restoration of the Fens  with
     Phase II In-System Modifications
     in the Muddy River Sub-area          2,000,000            20,000

5.   Connection from Stony Brook
     and Old Stony Brook Conduits
     to the Boston Main Drainage
     Relief Sewer                         1,060,000           187,000

6.   Grit and Sludge Removal  from
     Stony Brook and Old Stony Brook
     Conduits                             4,750,000

7.   Stony Brook Screening Disin-
     fection, and In-System Storage
     Facility near Tremont and Gurney
     Streets                              7,500,000           360,000

8.   Stony Brook In-System Storage
     Facility and Base Brook  Pumping
     Station at Green Street              10,400,000           116,000

9.   Phase II In-Line Storage
     Tannery Brook                        5,900,000            14,000

10.  Surface Storage of Canterbury,
     Bussey and Stony Brooks               1,260,000            50,000

-------
                                    3-18


                           Table 3-5  (continued).


                Combined Sewer Overflow Project Costs  (1979$)

                            Charles River Basin
Capital
Design Package Costs £/
11. St. Mary's Street In-System
Storage 335,000
12. Concord, Rindge and Mass. Aves.
Industrial Sewer Separation 3,600,000
13. St. Mary's, Street Diversion
to Cottage Farm Facility 2,800,000
14. Phase III In-System Modifications 360,000
15. Brighton-Allston Phase II
In-Line Storage 10,850,000
16. Brighton-Allston Phase III
Off- Line Storage 2,500,000
Management Practices and Monitoring
Program 40,000
O&M
Costs b/
2,000

4,000
11,000
88,000
56,000
108,000
•total                                    65,415,000        1,180,000
   £/ Based on June 1979 price levels (ENR 2900)  and includes an allowance
for engineering and contingencies.

   b/ Based on 1979 price levels.

Source:  Metcalf and Eddy, 1982.

-------
                                   3-19






sanitary system.  Quincy is the last (i.e., downstream) city in the South



Metropolitan Sewer District so that excessive flows from as many as 20



cities are channeled through Quincy on their way to the Nut island




Treatment Plant.  It has been estimated that as much as 57% of the flow



reaching Nut island during a rainstorm is due to infiltration/inflow



(Moore, 1981).  Thus, the problem of correcting stormwater contamination



in Quincy involves repair and rehabilitation of both the sanitary and



storm sewer systems.






    Several investigations and improvements have been undertaken in recent



years to locate sources of contamination of storm drains,^ in particular in



order to reduce total and fecal coliform levels at Wollaston Beach to



within acceptable levels, as determined by State standards (Moore, 1980).



In addition, studies of the infiltration/inflow problem are continuing



(Moore, 1981).  It should be noted that other sources of contamination of



the area's beaches include the Nut Island sewage treatment plant



discharges and, in particular, recurring by-passes from both Nut Island



and Moon Island.






    Although estimates of treatment costs for the Quincy storm sewers



comparable to those for the CSO planning areas are not available, recent



studies give an indication of the order of magnitude of the costs involved



(Table 3-6).






3.7  Summary of Options






    The annual cost of implementing all five of the CSO and Storm Sewer



plans is about $30 million (1982$).  The costs of implementing portions of



the plans or only some of the plans will, of course, be less.

-------
                                    3-20


          •Cable 3-6.  Potential Storm Sewer and Infiltration/Inflow

                   Project Costs for City of Quincy  (1981$)
    Recommended Facility                               Costs

    Sewer System Evaluation Survey
    and Rehabilitation of Sewers                       417,000

    Construction of Relief Interceptors
         North Quincy                                  204,000
         West Quincy                                   844,000
         Quincy Point Diversion/
         Relief Interceptor                            132,000
         Town River Bay Interceptor                    703,000

    Rehabilitation of Quincy Point Pump Station         40,000

    Construction of Rirnace Brook
    Emergency Relief Lift Station (MDC)                 180,000

                             •natal Capital Costs     2,520,000

                             Annual O & M Costs        -22,000
Nate:  Many problems remain and the city of Quincy has authorized  a
       new engineering study so that these estimates of costs  are
       preliminary only.  They are taken from Table 8, Moore  (1981),
       and do not include land and easement acquisition costs.   The
       annual operation and maintenance costs are expected  to
       decrease as a result of the infiltration/inflow removal
       program.

-------
                                    3-21






    In order to gain swimming benefits at all beaches  and  shellfishing




benefits at many of the currently closed shellfish beds  in Boston Harbor,




the Constitution part of the Inner Harbor plan,  the entire Neponset  River




Estuary and Dorchester Bay Plans, and the Quincy plan  must be  implemented.




Such a treatment option would cost more than $6.3 million  a year  (in




1982$), and it would affect neither the Charles  River  Basin nor the  Inner




Harbor proper.






    Another option might be to implement only the Dorchester Bay and




Neponset River Estuary plans.  This would cost about $6  million  (in  19829)




annually, but while making swimming safe in Dorchester Bay, it might




compromise the water quality at Constitution Beach and Quincy  Bay beaches




in the long run as the population of these areas increases and wastewater




discharges increase.






    Table 3-7 shows the annual costs of the CSO  and storm  sewer options




along with the approximate percentage reduction  in pollutant loadings,




including fecal coliform, floatable and suspended solids,  and  oil and




grease.  The top part of the table presents the  four CSO plans as




designated by the MDC.  The bottom part shows the options  used in the




benefit-cost analyses in this study.  The options as defined in the  lower




half of the table correspond more appropriately  with the benefit estimates




associated with the uses of the Harbor.  For example,  all  the  swimming and




shellfishing uses affected by the CSOs (and therefore  the  corresponding




benefits estimates) can be captured by including only  the  Constitution




Beach portion of the Inner Harbor Plan plus the  Dorchester Bay, Neponset




River, and Quincy plans.  The numbers in the table reflect incremental




increases in annual costs.

-------
                        3-22
Table 3-7.  Incremental Costs and Potential Reductions
       in Pollutant Loadings for the CSO Options
                   (Millions  1982$)
1
1
Treatment 1
Alternative/ I
Receptor I
Inner Harbor
a) Including
Constitution
b) Constitution
only
Dorchester Bay
Neponset River
Charles River Basin
Implementation of
all MDC design-
ated CSO plans
1
Inner Harbor
Constitution
Beach only
Dorchester Bay/
Neponset River
Quincy Storm
Sewers £/
Above three plans
combined
Charles River
MDC PLANNING AREA DESIGNATION

Annualized I
Capital Cost £/ |
•

14.63

0.04
4.97
0.61
8.87


35.44
STUDY


0.04

5.59

0.27

5.90
8.87

Annual
O&M Cost


1.97

0.01
0.37
0.10
1.56


4.00

1 Total
1 Annual Cost


16.61

0.05
5.34
0.71
10.43


33.39
AREA DESIGNATION


0.01

0.47

-.02

0.46
1.56
•

0.05

6.06

0.25

6.36
10.43
1
1 Percentage
1 Reduction in
1 Pollutant
1 Loadings !>/
•



50 - 99
70 - 99
60 - 98
65 - 100


50 - 100
1


50 - 99

60 - 99

60 - 99 I/

50 - 99
65 - 100

-------
                                    3-23
                                   References
Metropolitan District Commission, April 1982, Combined Sewer Overflow
    Project;  Summary Report on Facilities Planning, Boston, MA.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Bigineering, May 1982,
    Neponset River 1978 Water Quality Data, Publication No.
    12808-39-35-5-82-CR, Boston, MA.

Ferullo, Alfred, Paul DiPietro, and Robert Schaughnessy, June 1981,
    Oiarles River Articifial Destratification Project, Metropolitan
    District Commission, Boston, MA.

Havens & 'Emerson, Inc., September 1980, Combined Sewer Overflow Facilities
    Plan for the Neponset River Estuary, Boston, MA.

Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 1970, Report of the
    Massachusetts Department of Public Health to the Interagency Task
    Force on the Survey of the Dorchester Bay Beaches, Boston, MA.

Moore Associates, Inc., H.W., 1977, Drainage Contamination Study for North
    Quincy, Quincy, Massachusetts, Boston, MA.

Moore Associates, Inc., H.W., 1981, Facility Plan for Water Pollution Control,
    Volume I, Quincy, Massachusetts, Boston, MA.

Moore Associates, Inc., H.W., 1980, Wollaston Beach Exploration/Remedial
    Program Regarding Storm Water Contamination, Boston, MA.

Camp Dresser & McRee, Inc., October 1981, Report on Combined Sewer
    Overflows in the Dorchester Bay Area.

O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc., June 1980, Combined Sewer Overflow Project
    Inner Harbor Area Facilities Plan.

Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc., September 13, 1979, Application for Modification of
    Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
    Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, for the Metropolitan District
    Commission,  Boston, MA.

Metcalf & Eddy,  Inc., May 1982, Final Report to the Metropolitan District
    Commission on Combined Sewer Overflows; Charles River Basin Facilities
    Planning Area, Boston, MA.

-------
                                   Section 4




                             Water  Quality Impacts






    To estimate the change in water quality that  is expected to take place




under the various options for reducing pollutant  loadings  it is necessary to



take into account the change in loadings,  the  dispersion pattern in the




Harbor from the point of discharge  to the  areas where  recreation and fishing




take place (receptor areas), and the current ambient water quality in these




areas.  The reception areas defined for the purposes of this study are shown




in Figure 4-1.   Pollutant loadings  continue under all  treatment options but




at rates less than the current ones.  Thus, percent improvements in water




quality are related to percent reductions  in pollutant loadings under the




various options.  The changes experienced  under any of the options are not




expected to be in the form of new dispersion patterns  but  rather are expected




to be concentration reductions in the water column.  The changes are




incremental ones, evaluated in relation to current loadings and current




ambient quality.






4.1  Water Quality Impacts of STP Dischargers






    To assess the impact of STP discharges in  Boston Harbor it is important




to know how such discharges are dispersed  throughout the Harbor.  Since




discharges to the Harbor are subject to diverse and variable conditions, the




water quality throughout the Harbor is not uniform.  A few models have been



developed to quantitatively explain some of these variations and to correlate

-------
                                      Figure  4-1.   Receptor Areas for the Boston Harbor Study
harles River .TA"
                                                                                        Wtll Klvif
                                                                                            HULL
                                            V
                                            r>
,r">»\* •>/>>-, C
• •• M.ii fir' A'V*
                                                       1. Constitution  Beach
                                                       2. Castle Island
                                                       3. Pleasure  Bay
                                                       4. City Point
                                                       5. L&M Streets Beach
                                                       6. Carson Beach
                                                       7. Malibu Beach
                                                       8. Tenean Beach
                                                       9. Wollaston Beach
                                                      10. Quincy Town Beaches
                                                      11. Weymouth  Bay
                                                      12. Hingham Harbor
                                                      13. Hull Bay
                                                      14. Outer Harbor  Islands
                                                      15. Brewsters Islands
                                                      16. Nantasket Beach
                                                      17. Massachusetts Bay
                                                                                                                             ro
                                                    PfcAiife
                                                    'L   ^)
                                 HINGHAM

-------
                                      4-3


STP discharges with water quality.   The DISPER model/ developed  at Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology, was  designed specifically  to quantify the

dispersion of STP discharges into Boston Harbor.   This model was used  in the

assessment of a deep ocean outfall  in the MDC's application for  a waiver to

secondary treatment (Metcalf and Eddy, 1979).  He use the dilution ratio

results to predict relative changes in water quality but  use ambient water

quality data from other sources.


    The DISPER model (and the associated CAFE  model) relies largely on water

movement (currents)  to describe dispersion.£/  It models  BOD only and

predicts volumetric inflows and outflows from  the Harbor. Whether pollutant

loadings move exactly as does the water is unknown because settlement  and

decomposition in transport, propensities of marine organisms to  assimilate

wastes, etc., are not precisely understood.  Assumptions  regarding settling

rates, decay rates,  biological uptake, and chemical reactions  are employed in
                     r
running DISPER.    This model is useful in comparing relative  dispersion

differences for the different STP options while precise,  absolute values

predicted by DISPER may not be as reliable.  It was with  this  in mind  that

the maps of dilution ratios in Section 2 were  developed based  on the DISPER

model (Figures 2-4,  2-5, and 2-6).


    In order to use the dilution ratios produced  by DISPER to  assess water

quality impacts, current water quality must be known.  The Boston Regional

Office of the Environmental Protection Agency  (Region I)  has recently

undertaken to bring together all water quality sampling data collected in the

Harbor since 1968.  They have stored the data  in  a computer system called the
   */ See Appendix A.2 for a further description of  this model.

-------
                                      4-4






Boston Harbor Data Management System and, in December  1983, could produce




computer-generated maps with statistically-averaged data for various points




throughout the Harbor and adjacent waters.  The information from this system




that we used in the analysis below includes data on fecal coliform, BOD  ,




and total suspended solids averaged over the years 1968  to 1983 at  the




receptor sites of interest to this study.






    To calculate the water quality impacts of reduced  pollutant loadings




under the various STP options, the change in effluent  concentrations were




multiplied by the dilution ratios at the various receptor sites  (Table 4-1).




The reduction was compared to current ambient quality  to calculate  a




percentage change in water quality.  This simplified approach is clearly not




accurate if absolute values for water quality are desired. The nature of




both the current water quality data and the limitations  of the dispersion




model preclude any attempt to predict absolute values.  However, for the




purposes of our analysis percentage changes in water quality with a range  to




indicate the degree of uncertainty is sufficient.






4.2  Water Quality Impacts of Combined Sewer Overflows






    The individual contractor reports on combined sewer  overflows included




modeling for water quality impacts.  In those reports  the impact was




evalvited using both statistical and time-varying models. The statistical




modeling was used to produce a long-term picture of the  quality of  water in




different segments of the harbor.  The time-variable model produced dynamic




changes in water quality over a finite period of time  in order to predict  the




results of discrete storm events.  Total coliform counts were used  in both

-------
                                      4-5
            Table 4-1.  Effluent Concentrations and Dilution Ratios
                   Used in the Water Quality Impact Analysis

                          EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS ^/
Pollutant
1
1
1
Existing Facilities
Deer Nut
Island^ Island
1 Deep Ocean
1 Outfall
1 Option
1 Secondary
1 Treatment
1 Option
Fecal Coliform
(MPN/100 ml)
BOD5 (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
              I
                  1500

                   127.6
                   121
1500

 105
 110
                                       I
1500

 115
  86
1500

  30
  30
   £/ Values as summarized in EPA (1983)  and Metcalf & Eddy (1979).

   £/ Includes sludge discharged into Presidents Roads.


                               DILUTION RATIOS £/
Receptor Area
                                             Outfall Location
                          Presidents Roads
                           (Deer Island)
              Nantasket Roads
               (Nut Island)
                   Ocean Outfall
Constitution Beach
Dorchester Bay
Quincy Bay
Hingham Bay
Outer Harbor Islands
Brewsters Islands
Nantasket Beach
Massachusetts Bay
500
100-200
	
	
50
500
	
1000

—
50-100
100-200
50
500
500
1000

	
	
	
	
200
200
200
£/ From DISPER contour maps.

-------
                                     4-6






the statistical and time-variable models.  Although the models predict actual




total coliform counts for both existing conditions and under the recommended




plan, we state the results  in terms of relative percentage changes both to




indicate the degree of uncertainty and as sufficient for our purposes.






    The studies of the Quincy sewer systems did not model water quality. In




this study we have assumed  the situation to be similar to the Dorchester Bay




area in this regard.






4.3  Estimated Water Quality Impacts of the STP and CSO Treatment Options






    Table 4-2 presents the  results of the water quality impact analyses. The




entries are ranges of predicted percentage change in water quality due to




each treatment option at each receptor site.  Table 4-3 presents best-guess




point estimates for the same options and receptor sites.   (Appendix A gives




details for these calculations.)  These were compiled for use in several of




the benefit estimation approaches.  Again it should be noted that limitations




of both data and methodology preclude estimation  of absolute changes in water




quality.  However, relative percentage changes are adequate for the benefit




estimation procedures to be used in the remaining sections of this report.






    This report investigates pollution due to sewage treatment plant




discharges and combined sewer overflows.  Other point and non-point sources




exist which were not included in the scope of this report.  They include the



large amount of shipping and boating in the ffirbor, run-off from urban areas




not collected by the sewer  system and potential resuspension of pollutants




from sediments in the ffcrbor.   Thus, our estimates of water quality changes




do not reflect complete reduction of pollutant levels because of these other




sources whose impact is, essentially, unknown at  this time.

-------
                                     4-7
        Table 4-2.  Estimated Water  Quality impacts of the CSO and STP
                              Treatment Options
1 Efercent Follution Reduction by
1 Treatment Option
Receptor Area
Constitution Beach
Dorchester Bay
Quincy Bay
Hingham Bay
Outer Harbor Islands
Brews ters Islands
Nantasket Beach
Massachusetts Bay
Charles River
1 Combined 1
1 Sewer Overflow/ 1
Storm Sewer
50 to 80
60 to 90
60 to 90
—
—
—
—
—
50 to 80
1 1
Deep Ocean
Outfall
5 to 10
10 to 25
10 to 20
15 to 40
60 to 90
-10 to -15
-5 to -10
'-35 to -45
—
1 Secondary
1 Treatment
0 to 5
5 to 15
10 to 20
15 to 40
30 to 80
30 to 40
0 to 5
15 to 20
1
Nate:  Positive  figures denote improved water quality.  Negative figures
       denote degradation in water quality.

Source:  See Appendix A for details of the calculations.

-------
                                      4-8
             Table 4-3.   Estimates of  Pollution  Reduction at Receptor

                       Sites in Study Area (Point Estimates)


                           I   Percent Pollution Reduction by Treatment Option
                           I      CSO/Storm   I    Deep Ocean   I   Secondary
                           I       Sewer      I     Outfall     I   Treatment


Constitution                       70               10                5

Dorchester/Neponset Bay
Castle Island
Pleasure Bay
Carson
Malibu
Tenean
Wollaston
Quincy
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
Outer Harbor Islands
Brewsters Island
Nantasket Beach
Massachusetts Bay
Charles River

80
80
80
80
80
80
80
__
—
—
—
—
—
—
70
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
80
-15
-10
-40
__
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
30
30
30
70
40
—
20
__
1
Note: Positive figures denote improved water quality.  Negative figures denote
degradation in water quality.  Based on Table 4-2.

-------
                                      4-9
                                   References
Environmental Protection Agency, June 30, 1983, Analysis of the
    Section 301 (h) Secondary Treatment Waiver Application for Boston
    Metropolitan District Oommission, Office of Marine Discharge Evaluation,
    Washington, DC.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., September 13, 1979, Application for Modification
    of Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
    Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, for the Metropolitan District
    Oommission, Boston, MA.

-------
                                   Section  5
        Approaches to Measuring Benefits from Water Quality Improvement

    Estimates of changes due to changing ambient pollutant levels are the
basis for benefit measurements.   These  changes  include effects on human
health^ human activities, such as recreation, and  the availability of goods
and services.  The economic value individuals place on the reduction of the
adverse effects due to pollutants is  the measure of benefits.  As will be
seen throughout this report, for some effects,  such as ecological changes,
current efforts can only, at best,  delineate the physical changes; for
others, either a partial or full economic evaluation is possible.  This
section describes the economic theory appropriate  to measuring such benefits
and the classification scheme used  in this  study.

5.1  Theoretical Concepts

    The benefits of improved water  quality  resulting from implementation of
pollution control options can be classified in  many ways.  One way is to
divide them into benefits to users  of the water resource and benefits to
non-users, or intrinsic benefits, as  presented  in  Table 5-1.  Potential
benefits from water pollution abatement accrue  from current users or from
intrinsic values.  Current user benefits stem from either indirect use
(near-stream activities that are enhanced by the water body such as
picnicking, jogging, hiking or viewing), direct use of water resources for

-------
                                       Table 5-1.A Spectrum of Water Quality Benefits
Potential
Water
Quality
Benefits
            Current
            User
            Benefits
            Intrinsic
            Benefits
                        Direct
                        Use
                        Indirect
                        Use
                        Potential
                        Use
                        No
                        Use
In Stream
                                  Withdrawal—
Recreational--fishing, swimming, boating, rafting, etc.

Commercial—fishing, navigation


Municipal—drinking water, waste disposal

Agricultural—Irrigation

Industrial/Commercial—cooling, process treatment,
                       waste disposal, steam generation
                                   Near  Stream'
            —— Recreational—hiking, picknicking,  birdwatching, photography, etc.

                Relaxation—viewing
             — Aesthetic—enhancement of adjoining site amenities
                                                                                    en
                                                                                     I
                                                                                    NJ
Option
Existence —
Near-term potential use

Long-term potential use
•Stewardship—maintaining a good environment  for everyone  to enjoy
              (including future family use—bequest)

 Vicarious  consumption—enjoyment  from the  knowledge  that  others
                       are using  the resource.
 Source:   Adapted  from RTI, 1983.

-------
                                      5-3


instrearn purposes (recreational and commercial)/  or withdrawal purposes

(municipal, agricultural, industrial/commercial).  Intrinsic benefits  are

based on non-user valuation of the existence of the resource, and  on the

potential future use of the resource.   Since the distinction between these

types of benefits is not always clear-cut and since many of the analytical

techniques used to measure benefits cover more than one of these types of

uses, we have chosen to reclassify the water uses according to the economic

entity to which the benefits accrue (see Table 5-2).  Here, benefits flow to

households as recreators in, on or near the water and as consumers, who

benefit directly or indirectly (secondary benefits) from the increased

economic activity in the primary sectors, and to producers who use the water

resources.  The benefits that will accrue from pollution abatement in  Boston

Harbor are noted with an asterisk in Table 5-2.


    Most of the methodologies used to  measure the benefits to society  from

environmental improvements are based on the theory of welfare economics and

the concept of willingness to pay (WTP).  This economic theory is  founded on

the principle that the "demand" for water quality is the sum or aggregate of

how much individuals of a society would be willing to pay to receive

additional increments of improved water quality.   The concept of willingness

to pay has been translated into other  alternative theoretical measures of

willingness to pay, including consumer surplus,  compensating variation, and

equivalent variation.  In simple terms, consumer surplus is the difference

between what individuals are willing to pay and what they actually pay for a

good.  Figure 5-1 illustrates this individual demand function which
   2/ The following discussion is based on material discussed and presented
in RTI, 1983.

-------
                                   5-4


                      Table  5-2. Economic Benefit Categories

                             (Alternative  Typology)
I.  Benefits to Households

    A.  Recreation Benefits:
        1.  Swimming*
        2.  Fishing* '
        3.  Boating*
        4.  Aesthetic
        5.  Near-stream recreation*
        6.  Option value*-
        7.  Existence*-

    B.  Consumption Benefits:

        1.  Commercial Fisheries*
        2.  Health
            a.  Swimming*
            b.  Food Consumption*
Direct Use


Indirect Use

Potential or non-use
    C.  Ecological*


II.  Benefits to Producers:

    A.  Commercial Fishing*

    B.  Municipal drinking and wastewater

    C.  Agricultural

    D.  Industrial

    £.  Navigational


III.  Secondary Effects*
   * Benefits from pollution abatement  in Boston Harbor.

-------
                               5-5
                 Figure  5-1.    The Demand Function  and
                  the Consumer Surplus Welfare  Measure.
  Price
($/unit)
                               B
                                                                    Quantity/time
    Source:   RTI,  19E2

-------
                                      5-6






describes, for any commodity X, the maximum amount an individual would be




willing to pay for each quantity of X.^/  The downward slope  of the curve




illustrates that individuals are willing to buy more of commodity  X at lower




prices than at higher prices.  The simple two-dimensional diagram  in Figure




5-1 assumes all other factors that might influence demand—income, the prices




of related goods, etc.—do not change.  At price PQ the individual will




purchase Qg of X and make a total expenditure of PgAQgO.  Because  the



demand curve measures the individual's maximum willingness  to pay  for each




level of consumption, the total willingness to pay for QQ can be derived:




total expenditures plus the triangle PjPQA.  The difference between what




individuals actually pay with a constant price per unit and the amount they




are willing to pay is defined as the consumer surplus.






    As a dollar measure of individual welfare, however, consumer surplus is




not ideal.  The most direct way of understanding its limitations is to




consider the measurements underlying an ordinary Marshallian  demand




function.   An individual's demand function describes the maximum an




individual with a given nominal income would be willing to  pay for each level




of consumption of a particular good.  Specifically, if the  price paid




changes, it will affect not only what the individual can purchase  of this




good, but also the purchases of all other commodities through its  effect on



the remaining disposable incor e.  Thus, movement along a conventional demand




function affects the level of satisfaction an individual will be able to




achieve with a given income.  For example, suppose the price  of hypothetical




good X declines to Pj^  The individual can purchase the same  quantity of X



at its new price as indicated in Figure 5-1 by the area OP,BQ0 and have

-------
                                      5-7


income remaining, as given by ^PgAE,  to purchase more X  or more of other

goods and services.   The movement to a consumption  level  of OQ. describes

the increased selection of X under the new price.  This change leads  to a

higher utility level because more goods and services can  be consumed  with the

same income.  For consumer surplus to provide  an "ideal"  dollar measure of

individual well-being, however,  the appropriate area under an Hicksian

income-compensated demand curve rather than an ordinary Marshallian demand

curve, should be used.  Nevertheless,  ordinary Marshallian demand curves are

much easier to estimate, and Willig (1976)  has shown that they provide a

reasonably close approximation to the "ideal"  measure.


    The four "ideal" Hicksian welfare measures are  summarized below  (Hicks,

1943):
    o   Compensating variation (CV)—the amount of  compensation  that
        must be taken from an individual to leave him/her  at  the same
        level of satisfaction as before the change.

    o   Equivalent variation (EV)—the amount  of compensation that
        must be given to an individual, in the absence of  the change,
        to enable him/her to realize the same  level of satisfaction
        he/she would have with the price change.

    o   Compensating surplus (CS)—the amount  of compensation that
        must be taken from an individual, leaving him/her  just as
        well off as before the change if he/she were constrained to
        buy at the new price, the quantity of  the commodity he/she
        would buy in the absence of compensation.

    o   Equivalent surplus (ES)—the amount of compensation that must
        be given to an individual, in the a sence of the change, to
        make him/her as well off as he/she would be with the  change
        if he/she were constrained to buy at the old price the
        quantity of the commodity he/she would buy  in the  absence of
        compensation.
    If commodity X in Figure 5-1 represents environmental quality, then in

order to measure environmental improvement benefits  it  is necessary to

-------
                                      5-8






measure the marginal benefit curve for environmental quality, estimate the




levels of environmental quality before and after environmental changes, and



then calculate the area under the marginal benefit curve.   This  is difficult




to do because there exists no explicit market for environmental  quality.




Therefore, a variety of alternative techniques to measuring willingness to




pay for improvements in environmental quality have been developed.  These




techniques fit three major categories:  (1)  the specific damages approach;




(2) the implicit market approach; and (3)  the hypothetical contingent




valuation approach.  The specific damages approach involves monetizing a




physical measure of damage per unit receptor per pollutant and combines this




with the amount of receptor population.  This measure is considered a crude,




lower-bound proxy for willingness to pay.  The implicit market approach stems




from the observation that perceptions and values of environmental quality are




reflected in individuals' behavior in markets related to environmental



quality, such as property values or travel costs to recreational sites.  The




contingent valuation approach relies on surveys or bidding experiments which




elicit direct measures which are contingent on the hypothetical  framework




from which individual valuations are obtained.






    The most fundamental approach to benefit valuation is  the implicit market




approach, or supply/demand analysis because it enables the calculation of




consumer and producer surplus at an equilibrium.  The demand for water




resources of a particular quality arises from a desired use activity—uses




for recreational activities, industrial water uses, withdrawals  for supplies,




etc.  Each of these uses requires a certain quality of water and the demand



depends on potential uses at a given geographic location.   To evaluate the

-------
                                      5-9





effects of changes in water quality, demand for a use activity must be



calculated.  It is not always possible, however, to conduct-demand curve



estimation for benefit calculations.  In reality, only a partial form of



demand analysis can be done.  Moreover, the success (or reliability of the



estimate) of the analysis varies by benefit category.





    For an in-depth discussion of these issues and methodologies that are



used to estimate economic benefits from pollution abatement see Freeman, The



Benefits of Environmental Improvement (1979), and Air and Water Pollution



Control;  A Benefit-Post Assessment (1982); Feenberg and Mills, Measuring the



Benefits of Water Pollution Abatement (1980); and Research Triangle



Institute, A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for Estimating Recreation



and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements, (1983).





5.2  Study Methodology





    Our strategy in this study is to employ methods developed by previous



researchers and to compute benefits for each category using a variety of



estimation techniques whenever possible.





    The various categories of effects (or beneficial use classes)  are
                              •*»          *"


summarized in Table 5-3.  The table also indicates the approach which has



been used to estimate the effect/benefit, and an evaluation of the



reliability and availability of the methodology and data.

-------
                                      5-10
                                     Table 5-3

         Benefit Categories and Methodologies for  Boston  Harbor Study Area
                I
                                            I
                                                                 Reliability/
                I                             I  Reliability of I   Availability
Benefit/Effect  I Benefit Estimation Approach I    Methodology  I     of Data
	I	I	I	
Recreation

  Swimming



  Boating

  Fishing
o Travel cost (logit model)      excellent
o Regional participation        good
o Beach closings cost savings   fair
o Regional participation

o Regional participation
fair

fair
excellent
fair to good
fair to good

fair

fair
Health
  Swimming
o Dose-response function
  (incidence of disease)
  Food consumption
                  o Dose-response function
                     (incidence of disease)
excellent
good
                                good
                fair to good
Commercial fisheries
                  o Demand and supply
                    functions
                                good
                poor
 Intrinsic Benefits
                  o Contingent valuation survey
                  o Direct % of recreation        fair
                    benefits                      good
                                                fair
                                                good
Ecological
                  o No approach available to
                    apply a dollar value for
                    benefits
Secondary  Effects
                  o Input-output multipliers
                                fair
                fair

-------
                                      5-11
                                   References

Feenberg, Daniel and Edwin Mills, 1980.  Measuring the Benefits of Water
    Pollution Abatement, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Freeman, A.M.  1979.  The Benefits of Environmental Improvement, Johns
    Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

Freeman, A.M., 1982.  Air and Water Pollution Control;  A Benefit-Cost
    Assessment, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Hicks, John R., 1943.  The Four Consumers' Surplus, Review of Economic
    Studies, 11:31-41.

Research Triangle Institute, 1983.  A Comparison of Alternative Approaches
    for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality
    Improvement, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EPA.

Willig, Robert D., 1976.  Consumer Surplus Without Apology, American Economic
    Review, 66:589-597.

-------
                                  Section 6
                             Recreation Benefits

    The recreation benefits of improving water quality in Boston Harbor are
many.  Boston Harbor is surrounded by a major metropolitan area of 2.8
million people and provides a setting for many diverse water uses including
boating, sailing,  canoeing, fishing, swimming and beach activities.   In
addition, in recent years the harbor has become an aesthetic focal point for
water-enhanced recreation activities such as picnicking, bicycling,  camping,
hiking and sight-seeing.  Figure 6-1 shows the various locations (called
receptor sites) of these water uses.

    Although the CSOs and the STPs affect some of the same harbor areas of
the study, in general the receptor sites are primarily affected by one or the
other source.  The CSOs affect recreation areas closest to the shore and,
thus, have the greatest impact on swimming and shore-related fishing and
boating.  Of all the CSO planning areas, Dorchester Bay is influenced the
most because of the great concentration of CSOs and beaches in the bay.   The
Quincy storm sewers affect water quality at local town beaches and Wollaston
Beach.  The Charles River CSOs have a major impact on boating.  This area is
discussed separately in Section 11 because of differences in data bases and
the nature of the  water resources.

    The areas primarily affected by the STP discharges are the waters and
islands surrounding the STP outfalls.  Beaches in the towns of Quincy,

-------
                                     Figure  6-1.   Receptor Areas for the Boston Harbor Study
   •(•lit I r
inrlcs  River IT"/'
         DORCHESTER
                "iroMtt Mvir .
                       •#fi
 1. Constitution Beach
 2. Castle  Island
 3. Pleasure Bay
 4. City Point
 5. L&M Streets Beach
 6. Carson  Beach
 7. Malibu  Beach
 8. Tenean  Beach
 9. Wollaston Beach
10. Quincy  Town Beaches
11.  Weymouth Bay
12.  Hingham Harbor
13.  Hull Bay
14.  Outer Harbor  Islands
15.  Brewsters  Islands
16.  Nantasket  Beach
17. Massachusetts Bay

                                                                                          HULL
                                                                                 f1
                                                                            HINGHAM

-------
                                     6-3


Weymouth, Hingham and  Hill and the Boston Harbor Islands are the swimming

areas primarily affected by the STPs.



    The Boston ffirbor  Islands—Slate, Bumpkin, Qrape,  (Gorges, Ioveils,

Gallups, Deer, Long, Rainsford, Moon, Thompson, Spectacle, Sheep, Peddocks,

and the Brewsters--are a unique natural resource in a  metropolitan area

possessing only one-half of the recommended minimum acreage of open space per

thousand population,   The Islands offer a wide range of activities such as

boating, swimming, picnicking, fishing, hiking, camping, scuba diving, and

historic sight-seeing.  Many of the islands have limited recreational

facilities which restrict current and potential visits.  Poor water quality,

however, is also a major factor restricting recreational activities.  Effluent

from Deer and Nut Island sewage treatment plants seriously degrades water

quality around the Islands, particularly discouraging  swimming and fishing.

Assuming that the planned recreational facilities were constructed, then

upgrading the plants and/or discharging the effluent into the ocean would lead

to a significant improvement in water quality, which would lead to a

corresponding increase in both frequency of participation and total number of

visitors.-/


    Fishing and boating are also affected by the STPs  since a large percentage

of these activities take place in the outer harbor  study area rather than on

or near the shore. Participation in all boating--sailing, motor boating,

canoeing and windsurfing—and fishing activities in Boston Harbor is expected

to increase with decreases in water pollution Ievelsj2/
    £/ The exception to this assumption is the Brewsters Islands and
Nantasket Beach, which are expected to be negatively influenced by the ocean
outfall option.                                                           ,

    —/ The degradation of water quality in Massachusetts Bay under the ocean
outfall option is expected to primarily affect commercial fishing.

-------
                                     6-4
6.1  Data Needs and  Data Bases





    The data needed  to estimate recreational activity in these various areas



and to relate the uses to changes in water quality come from a variety of



sources.  This section discusses the data bases used to estimate recreation
                       •-


benefits.  It is followed by a discussion of the various methodologies which



have been applied to the Boston Harbor case to arrive at a range of benefit



estimates for each separate benefit category.





6.1.1  Swimming Attendance





    Seven of the beaches managed by the Metropolitan District Commission



(MDC) are affected by CSOs and/or STPs in the study area:  Constitution,



Castle Island, Pleasure Bay  (including City Point), Carson,—' Malibu,



Tfenean, and Wollaston.  tearby cities and towns also have small neighborhood



beaches which are affected by pollution control sources.  The cities of



Quincy, Weymouth, Hingham and Hill recognize ten beaches besides Wollaston



for water quality collection purposes.  In addition, swimming occurs on an



informal basis on many of the eleven Boston Iferbor  Islands.  Rough estimates



put recent seasonal  attendance of all these affected beaches at 4.0 million



people  (see Table 6-1).  Unfortunately, neither the MDC, the towns, nor the



Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management  (DEM) keep attendance



records or make official co-  \ts during the season.   In addition, people swim



at the beaches during warm weather in the spring and fall, even though they



are not officially open.   Information from a 1975 recreation survey (Binkley



and Hanemann) and from the MDC indicate that some of the Boston area beaches
   i  L and M Street Beach, part of Carson Beach,  is managed by the City of

Boston.

-------
                                     6-5
                     T&ble  6-1.  Seasonal Swimming Supply
Current 1
Seasonal Beach 1
Attendance 1
Constitution
325,000
Dorchester/Neponset
590,000
Castle island
15,000
Pleasure Bay
175,000
Carson
100,000
Malibu
150,000
Tfenean
150,000
Wollaston
2,750,000
Quincy
158,900
Weymouth
105,820
Hingham
22,200
Hill
66,000
Nantasket Beach
3,035,000
Seasonal £/
Capacity
582,780
5,044,878
291,390
1,548,155
1,899,774
632,449
673,110
4,595,976
320,568
763,680
355,200
532,800
£/
I Seasonal £/
1 Excess
1 Supply
257,780
4,454,878
276,390
1,373,155
1,799,774
482,449
523,110
1,845,976
161,668
657,860
333,000
466,800
£/
   5/ Based on  40 ft2 per person;  turnover of 3 times per day; 29.6 peak
      user days per season.  Except Wollaston Beach with four times per  day
      turnover  and 39.4 peak user days per season.   (Derived from US Department
      of Interior, 1970.)
   b/ Excess  supply =  (Capacity) minus (Current attendance).
   £/ Not applicable since expect degraded or unchanged water quality.
Source:  See  Appendix B, Table B-l.
Note:  Brewsters Islands are omitted  because most of the recreational activity
is fishing and  boating, and Massachusetts Bay is omitted because the primary
activity is commercial fishing.

-------
                                     6-6






draw people from many parts of the Boston Metropolitan area.  Other beaches




appear to be used almost exclusively by people from a nearby section of the




city,  such as Carson Beach by South Boston residents and Constitution Beach




by East Boston residents.






    Attendance data used for calculating swimming benefits were estimated by




MDC personnel and by recreation and park department officials in Quincy,




Weymouth, Hingham, and  Hull.  We also compared attendance figures reported by




the MDC in the 1975 Binkley and Pfinemann study along with attendance figures




generated from a survey used in their study.  This  range of values can be




found in Table B-l, Appendix B.  Data on beach acreage and/or linear feet of




beach/shoreline was also supplied by the MDC and municipalities and was used




to develop a range of beach capacities for each affected area based on




national recreation standards.  Estimates for beach capacity and beach




attendance-numbers are  presented in Table 6-1.  These attendance and capacity




figures are used in several approaches to calculating swimming-related




benefits in this report.  The accuracy of these methods is linked to the




accuracy of the recreation data.






    Other factors could also act to limit the increased participation



predicted as a result of water quality improvement. They include crowding




and congestion, available parking facilities, presence of jellyfish and,




particularly for Boston Iterbor, cold temperatures of the air and water.




Although these effects  can be significant, the first three factors were not




considered here because of insufficient data.  The  effects of air and water




temperatures were incorporated in a lower bound estimate of increased



participation.

-------
                                     6-7






    As a qualitative assessment, we have  assumed that crowding would not have




as severe an impact on the study area beaches as in other recreation areas




because these beaches are extremely urban and, as one municipal source noted,




visitors are used to constant crowding.






    Parking facilities close to the beaches could limit visits on a  given day




as these beaches are used by people throughout the area,  currently, the MDC



estimates that on a normal sunny day parking is at 80 percent of capacity




although on the hottest days demand for parking greatly exceeds capacity and




substantial traffic congestion occurs. Beachgoer preference is to drive to




the beach rather than use public transportation which is available and




convenient to the cities' beaches.  Thus, alternatives to parking do exist if



the increased participation should exceed the available parking supply.






    With regard to jellyfish, there are practically no data available on this




form of life except for some research done in Chesapeake Bay by the




University of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Laboratory.  Most of the work has




been done in open ocean.  Observations in Boston Harbor indicate the presence




of a substantial jellyfish population. The fish are present throughout the




summer months and, in 1984, have been observed as early as April. The




prevalent theory is that polluted water promotes an algae growth within the




jellyfish food chain and the population increases in accordance with the food




supply.  However, scientists caution that there is no evidence to support




this theory.  Jellyfish are considered to have little food value and




consequently have no predators to act as  a population control mechanism.




Population levels are thought to be decreased by storms, currents and changes




in the salinity of the marine environment.  The introduction of fresh water

-------
                                     6-8


into the harbor through CSO's could result in reduced salinity which in turn

could promote or deter jellyfish population growth.  However, a lack of data

makes the issue speculative.  An agreed to fact is that the presence of

jellyfish in the waters generates an adverse public  reaction and acts as a

deterrent to water contact activity and, possibly, increased visits to the

beaches on days when jellyfish are present. 3/


    In attempting to account for the effects of air  and water temperature on

swimming attendance, for an upper bound estimate the base seasonal attendance

figures are limited to the three summer months.  For a lower bound estimate

the predicted increased attendance is modified according to the distribution

of air temperatures during these summer months. —   On those days with

cooler temperatures not all the predicted increased  participation due to

improved water quality is assumed to take place.  Thus, a factor is applied

reducing the upper bound'estimate in relation to the distribution of air

temperature during the summer months (see Appendix B.3) .


6.1.2  Recreation Studies


    Information on general recreational activities such as percentage of

population participating in swimming and percentage  of unmet demand for

boating and fishing was drawn from a number of existing city, state and

federal reports.  These include, the New tork-New Bigland Recreational Demand

Study  (Abt, 1979), the 1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife
   i/  Information in this section was provided by EPA, Region I, Boston,
MA.

   ^/  Air temperature is assumed to affect beach attendance.   Air and water
temperature are assumed to affect the amount of swimming done by those who go
to the beach  (and are taken into account in estimating swimming health
benefits in Chapter 7) .

-------
                                     6-9


Associated Recreation  (US DOI) , The 1982-1983 itetionwide Recreation Survey

(US DPI), Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area Study (EMMA),  (Metcalf &

Eddy, 1975) ,  Boston ffirbor  Islands Comprehensive Plan  (Metropolitan Planning

Council, 1977),  and the Massachusetts SCORP (Massachusetts DEM, 1976).  Not

all of the information in these studies is specific to Boston Harbor nor does

each study supply exactly what is needed for estimating pollution abatement

benefits,  for example, there is some information about swimming and

beach-related activities, but there is very little information available

describing fishing and boating activities.  In addition, much of the data in

these studies are only estimates, rather than statistically-derived results

from rigorous sampling, which compromises their use in benefit estimation

techniques.   We  have evaluated a number of these recreation studies for their

accuracy, sampling methods and applicabilty to the Boston Ksrbor case study,

and have used only those statistics and numbers which  we believe to be

representative and unbiased.  A brief discussion of each recreational source

can be found  in  Appendix B.7.


6.1.3  Water  Quality Data for log it Model


    Water quality data is needed for the application of the travel cost logit

model (see Section 6.2.2 below).—/  There is information about ambient

water quality concentrations throughout most of the harbor but it is of

limited usefulness due to the shortcomings in sampling procedures (frequency,

consistency,  regularity, comprehensiveness)  and in the comparability of the

measurements  used to describe water quality.  Recently, the MDC has started a

water quality sampling program to better identify ambient concentrations of a

variety of pollutants  such as BOD5, heavy metals, oil  and grease.
   §/ At the time  the logit model analysis was  run the Boston Harbor Data
Management System was not available so that this data had to be collected
independently.

-------
                                     6-10






    Currently,  the only readily available water quality data for the MDC and




town beaches are measures of fecal and total coliform concentrations.




Binkley and Itenemann (1975) collected water quality samples for a number of




water quality parameters to be used in their recreational travel cost model,




but we have chosen not to use any of their data because water quality samples




were only taken once during the summer and thus cannot be considered




statistically representative of water quality for the entire swimming




season.  For this Boston Harbor case study, we collected 1974-1982 fecal and




total coliform  concentrations and information on beach closings/costings,




from the seven  MDC beaches and several town beaches in Quincy, Weymouth,




Hingham and Hill.  In general, the MDC and towns sampled once a week,




resampling when high counts were recorded.  In cases where only total




coliform concentrations were reported, we substituted fecal coliform values




based on a statistically significant regression function relating fecal




coliform concentrations to total coliform concentrations  (see Appendix C) .




This water quality data, together with data from several other towns in the




Boston Metropolitan  area, was used in the travel cost logit model.






6.1.4  User (Unit) Day Values






    The application  of user day values to estimate recreation benefits is  the




most common and widely used of all the estimation techniques because of its




simple methodology and minimal data requirements.  Essentially, a single



dollar value per recreation day  (not per visit) is developed to represent  the




market value of the  recreation services.  Originally, this figure per




recreation day  was based on recreational costs including entrance charges  and




equipment expenditures.  The federal government has adopted a schedule of




values to distinguish between "general" and "specialized" recreation

-------
                                    6-11






activities.^  A single unit value is assigned per recreation day regardless




of whether the user engages in one activity or several.  This value should




reflect the quality of the activity and the degree to which opportunities to




engage in a number of activities are available (Dwyer et al., 1977).  We have




reviewed a number of user day values for their applicability to Boston Harbor




and present the values and their sources in Appendix B, Table B-3.






    There are many shortcomings and problems with using user day values to




estimate recreation benefits.  These limitations are discussed in detail in




Dwyer, et al., 1977.  The most basic problem is that most user day




values--whether based on government or  private schedules--may not be developed




from empirical data on the actual willingness of participants to pay for



recreation.   This lack of theoretical or empirical justification for many user




day values often leads to arbitrary and biased estimates of the value of a




recreation day.






    User day values have been developed both nationally and locally.  Many of




these values tend to be site-specific,  reflecting regional socio-economic




biases and, more often than not, cannot capture the effects of incremental




changes in environmental quality.  In addition, user days cannot capture the




increased value or utility of the individual recreator.  As a result, user




day values may produce biased estimates of consumer surplus from improved




water quality.






6.1.5  Water Quality Impact






    All of the above categories of data are needed to evaluate the  response of




recreators to water quality changes.  The remaining piece of data that is
   -  See Federal Register. Vol.  48, No. 48, March 10,  1983.

-------
                                     6-12


needed is what the estimated percentage change in water quality will be, given

the implementation of a  treatment option.   Section  4 explained how the

percentage reductions in pollution were estimated for  the various receptor

sites.  T&ble 4-2 and 4-3 presented best-guess ranges  and point estimates of

the water quality changes.  We use these numbers in the benefit calculations.


6.2  Benefits


    Reducing pollution in the harbor by upgrading STPs and improving CSOs will

lead to recreation benefits throughout the Boston Harbor area.  Two major

components of consumer surplus should be estimated  in  order to fully represent

all benefits from improved water quality.   These components are:


    o   increase in participation (both frequency and  total numbers)
            resulting from decreased time and travel costs
            resulting from a higher quality recreational experience
            resulting from increase in water areas  available for
            recreation;  and
    o   increase in the  price participants are willing to pay (WTP)
        for the improved quality of the recreational experience.


A third component can be measured by calculating the value of lost participa-

tion due to severe water contamination, such as that resulting from beach

closings.


    We have used a number of techniques to calculate a range of economic

recreation benefits associated with improving water quality in Boston Harbor

by upgrading the sewage  treatment plants and improving the CSOs.  These

include:
                    Measure of
Benefit           Consumer Surplus             Benefit Estimation Approach

Swimming       o  Increase in participation     o  Regional participation
                                               o  Travel cost  (logit model)

               o  Increase in WTP per trip      o  Travel cost  (logit model)

               o  lost participation            o  Beach  closings

-------
                                     6-13
                   Measure of
Benefit           Consumer Surplus             Benefit Estimation Approach

Boating/
Fishing        o  Increase in participation     o  Regional participation

All Recreation
Boston Harbor
Islands        o  Increase in participation     o  Regional participation


    Each of these estimation techniques and benefits categories are discussed

separately, below.  Included in this discussion is a presentation and

analysis of the range of benefit values corresponding  to the pollution

abatement program, limits of the analysis, and pertinent references.  A

detailed description of the benefit computations and the empirical data is

presented in Appendix B.


6.2.1  Swimming—Increase in Participation


    One of the  significant consumer surplus benefits associated with water

pollution abatement in the Boston arbor study area is the increased use of

the beaches by  current users and new use by previous non-participants.  This

is one of the more difficult benefits to measure because of the need for

reliable and accurate calculations of user and non-user response.  For Boston

Harbor, we have assumed that an improvement in water quality--specifically

fecal coliform--is equivalent to an increase in total  supply of the water

resource.  Theoretically  it is therefore possible to  relate this increase in

a water resource to a corresponding increase in participation.  Increased

participation,  measured in total visits, should capture both increase in

frequency of visits by those already participating, as well as increased new

use by previous non-users.  Once this population number is calculated, it is

possible to value this increased participation by applying user-day values.

-------
                                     6-14


    Estimating benefits accruing from increase in participation involves the

following:


    a)  determine which areas are affected by each pollution control
        plan;

    b)  calculate excess seasonal beach supply;

    c)  estimate the range of increase in participation using
        information from regional participation studies;

    d)  relate the  increase in participation to the pollution control
        plan;  then

    e)  value  increased participation by applying a range of user day
        values.


    The first  step  in estimating the benefits from increased participation

involves determining which beaches are affected by the different treatment

options.  These were determined in Section 4 and presented in Table 4-3.  The

next step is to calculate the excess supply of each beach, such that increased

demand will not exceed the existing supply.  This will prevent overstating

swimming benefits.   Excess seasonal supply of these beaches was estimated

using beach attendance data from the MDC and towns, and the capacity of each

beach was calculated using a variety of recreational standards and information

from town governments and the MDC on acreage and linear feet of shoreline.

This data was  summarized in Table 6-1.  Other factors could serve to limit

increased participation, as discussed in Section 6.1.1.  However, these

effects were not considered here because of insufficient data.


6.2.1.1  Regional Participation Model


        The most important step in this methodology involves estimating a

range of increased  participation.  The first approach presented here to

estimating increased participation is based on regional and local

-------
                                    6-15


recreation participation studies.  Results of  these studies suggest that the

number of unmet user days  (often called latent demand) in the Boston SMSA is

4.3 to 5.2 million user days.  IBing this information, we can calculate unmet

demand at the beaches that will be supplied by the different pollution

control options. These calculations are summarized in Appendix B.I.  It is

possible to relate this total increase in beach  participation to the

pollution control plans by assuming that the percentage reduction in

pollution will supply a corresponding percentage of the excess supply in

terms of additional user days.  A number of other assumptions were made in

order to calculate increase in participation:
                                                                      s~

     (a)  water quality is the major constraint affecting unmet
         demand;

     (b)  current facilities are adequate to fulfill the needs of
         additional visitors;

     (c)  time available for recreation is not  a  constraining factor;

     (d)  fecal coliform is the best available  measure of overall
         water quality affecting participation;

     (e)  there is little effect of substitution  of sites on
         participation at individual beaches;  and

     (f)  people use the beaches for swimming purposes.

    These assumptions and calculations produce the upper bound

estimates of increased user days presented in  Table 6-2.  R>r the

lower bound estimates a factor based on the distribu .ion of air

temperatures during the summer months is applied.  It is assumed

that on days when the air temperature is below 79° Farenheit, not

all the predicted increase in beach visits may actually occur even

with the improved water quality because of the relatively lower air

temperature (see Appendix B.3 for details of the calculations) .

-------
                                  6-16
         T&ble 6-2.  increased Swimming Participation—Regional
                         Participation Model §/
Beach
CSO
Ocean
Outfall
Secondary
Treatment
LOWER BOUND ESTIMATES
Constitution
Dorchester
Wollaston
Qu incy
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
TOTAL
76,099
157,884
735,900
42,522
0
0
0
1,012,485
10,871
19,736
91,988
5,315
10,619
2,228
6,623
147,380
5,436
19,736
91,988
5,315
10,619
2,228
6,623
141,945
CSO and
Ocean Outfall
(User Days)
86,970
177,620
827,888
47,837
10,619
2,228
6,623
1,159,785
UPPER BOUND ESTIMATES (User
Constitution
Dorchester
Wollaston
Qu incy
Weymouth
Hi ngham
Hull
TOTAL
113,750
236,000
1,100,000
63,560
0
0
0
1,513,310
16,250
29,500
137,500
7,945
15,873
3,330
9,900
220,298
8,125
29,500
137,500
7,945
15,873
3,330
9,900
212,173
130,000
265,500
1,237,500
71,505
15,873
3,330
9,900
1,733,608
CSO and
Secondary
Treatment

81,535
177,620
827,888
47,837
10,619
2,228
6,623
1,154,400
Days)
121,875
265,500
1,237,500
71,505
15,873
3,330
9,900
1,725,483
i/ See Appendix B for details of  the calculations.

-------
                                     6-17
                                                                      /


    An alternative approach to estimating increase in participation is to use

results from the logit model  (described below in Section  6.2.2) which

predicts increased visits based on a percent reduction of water pollutants to

calculate unmet demand.


    It is important to compare the estimates of increased participation due

to increases in water quality with the availability of excess supply, in

order not to overestimate swimming benefits.  We have assumed in the case of

the torchester/teponset Bay beaches that if increased participation exceeds

capacity at any one beach, then other nearby beaches  will serve as substitute

sites.  This enables us to treat the Dorchester Bay beaches as a unit, rather

than individually,  and simplifies the analysis.


6.2.1.2  Benefit Estimates


     The final step in this methodology is to value the increased

participation by applying a range of appropriate user day values, which

represent a crude proxy for individual consumer surplus.  The results of this

valuation are presented in Table 6-3.


                Table 6-3.   Annual Benefit of Increased Swimming
            Participation for all Boston Harbor Beaches  (1982 $000)

User Day
Value
$1.60
$5.80
$11.06


CSO
1,620.0 a/
7,324.8 b/
16,737.2 £/

Ocean
Outfall
235.8
1,066.3
2,436.5

Secondary
Treatment
227.1
1,026.9
2,346.6

CSO plus
Ocean Outfall
1,855.7
8,390.8
19,173.7
CSO plus
Secondary
Treatment
1,847.0
8,351.7
19,083.8
   §/ Lower bound estimate of increased visits  (from Table 6-2)  multiplied
by user day value  (from Table B-3, Appendix B).

   £/ Average of lower and upper bound estimates of increased visits
multiplied by user day value.

   c/ upper bound estimate of increased visits multiplied by user day value.

-------
                                     6-18






    There is a wide range of estimated benefit values for increased




participation because of the many different user day values.  Benefits are




most substantial for the Dorchester/Nsponset Bay Beaches and for the




Wollaston and Quincy Beaches.  Benefits are more modest for Constitution




Beach.  Benefits are substantial for torchester/Neponset Bay and




Wollaston/Quincy beaches because these areas have poor water quality, a large



predicted percent cleanup, and a great number of visitors.  Thus, cleaning up




these areas will attract a large number of new recreators and significantly




increase the frequency of participation of current users.  Swimming benefits




from an increase in participation are small for the STP affected beaches




because of the fewer number of people who visit these beaches and because the



STP option is expected to abate pollution by only 30 percent.






6.2.1.3  Higher Valued Experience






    Improved water quality may also lead to an increase in the price that




participants are willing to pay for the improved quality of the recreation




experience.  This higher valued experience is often very difficult to




quantify.  Other benefits studies have relied upon surveys of willingness to




pay for various improvements in recreational water quality (See for example,




Ditton and Oaodale, 1972 and Bricson, 1975).  Such surveys are often locally




biased and, thus, cannot be applied to other areas because of sociological,



environmental and economic differences.






    No such studies were found to be applicable to Boston Harbor because of




the previously mentioned biases.  We therefore, were unable to calculate the



portion of consumer surplus attributable to a higher valued experience using



this method.

-------
                                    6-19






6.2.1.4  Limits of  analysis






    An analysis of  increased participation was  limited by both benefit




estimation methodology and by data bases.   latent or unmet demand was




difficult to measure.  Estimates were based on  results from regional and




local recreational  studies, which may be inaccurate for a number of reasons.




(For more details see Appendix B.7.)   The accuracy of our benefit estimates




is greatly influenced by recreation attendance  data and capacity estimates.




Current attendance  figures were based on professional estimates, rather than




actual field data,  and thus must be considered  "best guesses".  In addition,




these estimates of  attendance figures were based on seasonal summer



attendance, from Memorial Day to labor Day, and did not include the number of




people who swim before or after the "summer" season.  Benefits to these




recreators are not  captured and, therefore, total benefits may be




understated. Beach capacity estimates also represent our best professional




judgment.   For example, Wollaston has an estimated capacity of 2.75 million




people, but the MDC has estimated seasonal attendance to be over 3.5




million.  In this case we concluded that the development capacity for




Wollaston represents a lower bound and assumed  a greater turnover rate than




normal and a greater than expected crowding.  Other factors, including




adequate parking facilities, cold water temperatures and the presence of




jellyfish which could limit attendance in a manner similar to beach capacity




were not considered because of the lack of data.






    These benefit estimates are also  limited by the many assumptions which




were made, including assumptions about the appropriateness of fecal coliform




as the best available water quality indicator,  time constraints, and the




effect of water quality improvement on increased participation.  It was

-------
                                     6-20






assumed that many relationships were strictly linear, such as the




relationship between percentage increase in use and the percentage reduction




in water pollution.   Such an assumption seems feasible here, since the




baseline water quality level is so poor; however,  in general, the




relationship between percentage reduction in pollution and percentage




increase in participation is very sensitive to the baseline water quality



level,  for example, a 90 percent reduction of pollution in a water body that




has relatively good  water quality may result in little or no increase in




participation.  We also assumed that user day values were the best available




proxy for consumer surplus.  In reality, user day values cannot capture total




consumer surplus because they cannot measure increased utility of each visit




due to improved water quality.  The higher range of user day values




($5.80-$11.06) is, therefore, more appropriate to use than the lower one




($1.60-35.80) in estimating recreation benefits.  All of these limitations,




shortcomings and the state-of-the-art nature of benefit estimation will be




reflected in the final range of swimming benefits and must be taken into




consideration when interpreting the values.






6.2.2  Travel Cost Model—Conditional Log it Analysis






    An alternative apporach to estimating increased participation is the




logit model which incorporates the probability of visiting a beach as a




function of distance to the sites, socioeconomic factors and water quality




variables.  This approach is a specialization of the so-called travel cost




approach first suggested by Harold tt>telling in 1949, then developed by



Clawson and Knetsch  (1966) , and since applied by many others (se_e Binkley,




1977, for a review of the literature).

-------
                                    6-21






6.2.2.1  Methodology






    This methodology uses observed recreation travel patterns to infer the




recreationists'  response to price changes.   Havel costs play the role of




price in estimating a demand curve for  a specific site.  Other personal




characteristics  of the recreationist, such as income and age, are used in the




same equation to control for tastes and preferences.  Because a demand curve  •



measures the marginal willingness to pay for a good, estimates of recreation




benefits can be  obtained from the area  under a demand curve using travel cost




data and information on socioeconomic characteristics.  In the present case,




we extend this basic methodology to include  water quality characteristics in



the demand function.  Then we can infer the  changes in price which would be




equivalent to a  change in water quality, and from that information can infer




the benefit of the change in water quality.






    The principal theoretical shortcoming of this approach is the use of




travel costs to  simulate prices.  The recreationist may not respond to prices '




(i.e., an entry  fee) in the same way as he/she does to travel costs because




travel may have  a special utility or disutility in itself.  Part of the




disutility of travel might be related to travel time as well as travel




costs.  (See below for a further discussion  of the time issue.)  Another




common difficulty in the application of the  travel cost method is the




allocation of joint costs of travel made to  several recreation sites as part




of a single trip.  Because travel costs are  used as a proxy for prices, to




determine the "price" of an individual  site  it becomes necessary to separate




the cost of travel to one site from that to  other sites.  Consider, for



example, a trip  from Boston to the Grand Canyon, then to Yellowstone National




Park, and then back to Boston.  To infer the recreational value of the Grand

-------
                                    6-22






Canyon from this trip, we would need to know what part of the travel costs




associated with the whole trip to assign to the visit to the Grand Canyon.




The appropriate cost  is probably less than  the total cost, but could well be




more than just the additional cost of including the Grand Canyon in the




trip.  In short, there is no unambigious way to allocate joint costs of




recreation travel. Fortunately, day trips  in an urban setting are not likely



to be conducted as part of a larger recreational outing, so our analysis




probably does not suffer from this limitation.






    It is important to discuss the major ways that our methodology differs




from the classic implementation of the travel cost approach.  First, we




consider a system of competing recreation sites.  That is, demand for




recreation at one site depends on the characteristics of other possible




recreation sites that an individual might choose.  To our knowledge, aside




from the direct antecedents of this work, only three other studies (Cicchetti




et. al, 1976; Hurt and Brewer, 1971; Morey, 1981) have incorporated this




important feature of  the problem.






     Second, we attempt to explicitly account for travel time as well as




travel cost.  It is easy to show that ignoring the cost of time spent in




recreation leads to biased estimates of the value of a recreation site.  This




point is well-recogni :ed in the literature  (see, for example, Wilman, 1980).




The following section on the conditional multinomial logit model acknowledges




the empirical difficulties we had in obtaining usable estimates of the value




of time and discusses this point further.






     Third, we model recreational demand as a discrete choice process.  That




is, over the summer the individual chooses  to go to some sites, perhaps none,




but probably not to all the available sites.  Consequently there are

-------
                                     6-23






typically quite a few observations of zero visits/ and these observations




tell us very little about how he/she trades off water quality with travel




distance.  Therefore, we would like a model of recreation demand which




explicitly accounts for the kind of information contained in this large




number of zero observations.  The multinominal logit model, borrowed from




transportation demand analysis, is one such model.  This model was first




proposed for recreation demand analysis by Binkley and Ifinemann  (1975) and




subsequently has been developed by Hanemann (1978) and by Feenberg and Mills




(1980).  Peterson et. a_l  (1983) applied a version of this model to activity




choice at the Boundary Waters Canoe area.






    •Die first three studies rely on the same basic data.  In 1974, a sample




of 500 households representative of the Boston SMSA were interviewed




concerning their recreation visits to 29 fresh and saltwater beaches in the




Boston area during that summer.  A total of 467 usable questionnaires




resulted from the survey.  Pertinent social and economic data on these




families were collected along with information on recreation habits.  To




compute travel distance and, hence, cost, each of the sample points was




located on a map as were each of the recreation sites.  In the original three




studies, travel distance was computed as the straight line distance between




the two points.  Also, water quality variables used in the demand equations




were derived from one single sample at each beach during July of 1974.




(Binkley and Hanemann, 1975, describe the data more fully.)






    While sharing a common estimation strategy with these other three studies,




the present work employs a somewhat different data base.  Recreation patterns




and socioeconomic data from the Boston survey were used, but improved




information on travel costs and water quality was incorporated.  In an urban

-------
                                     6-24


area, straight line distance  is a particularly poor measure of actual travel

distance.  Fortunately,  in the mid-197O's the Central  Transportation Planning

Staff (CTPS), a regional transportation planning agency for the Boston area,

developed a detailed origin-destination travel distance and time matrix for

the region.  Our sample  points and beaches were located in the CTPS

transportation zones, and the minimum travel distance  and time from each

sample point to each beach was computed.  Consequently, the measure of

distance used in this research reflects much more accurately the actual

distance between each individual and the various beaches.  In addition, the

transportation time information derived from the CTPS  study offered the

possibility of estimating the value of time in travel  for recreation.


    Due to large sampling errors, the 'told" (Binkley and ffinemann, 1975)

measure of water quality—a one time grab sample--might not reflect the true

water quality level. We assembled measures of coliform levels from the

records of the Metropolitan District Commission and the appropriate towns.

These were averaged over the  summer, and we employed the median level of fecal

coliforms as our "new" measure of water quality.  The  agencies responsible for

some of the beaches did  not collect information on  fecal coliforms.  R>r these

cases, a regression equation  was developed relating the old water quality data

to the new estimate of fecal  coliforms.  for the sites where there was no new

information, this equation was used to estimate . .ie new data from the old data

on fecal coliform (OLD):
                    NEW = -53.27 + 13.22 log (OLD)    N = 19
                         (-1.99)    (3.17)           R2 = 0.371

-------
                                    6-25



6.2.2.2  The Conditional Multinomial log it Model



    The multinomial logit model of multiple site demand is ideally suited for


the situation we consider here:  the choice of one or more beaches from a


known universe of possible sites.—^  This section describes the model


informally and explains how we obtain estimates of the benefits of water


quality improvements from the model. Appendix B.4 presents the model and


benefit estimation procedures in more detail.



    We want to model the number of visits an individual will make to one or


more of the beaches as a function of beach characteristics (including water


quality), travel costs/time, and socio-economic characteristics of the


individual.  With such a model, we can alter the level of water quality at


one or more of the sites and simulate how use at all of the sites will


change.  From those simulated changes in  use, we can infer the value of the


change in water quality.



    The conditional logit model is divided into two parts.  The first part


describes the probability that an individual will choose to visit each of the


beaches given that she/he takes a trip to any of the sites.  Equivalently,
          t

this part of the model can be thought of  as predicting thejproportion of all


beach visits which will be made to each of the individual beaches. This


first part of the model is referred to as the Usite_ choice" moov.1 in the


following discussions.



    The model is called a "conditional" logit model because the choice of


sites is conditional on knowing the total number of visits that the


individual takes.  Hence, the second part of the model explains the total
   S/ See Domenich and McFadden (1975)  for an authoritative treatment of
this model.

-------
                                    6-26






number of visits an individual makes to any of the study beaches.   This




second part of the model is referred to as the "visitation" model.






    The overall structure of the model  can be summarized as follows.  The




number of visits by individual i to beach j is njj.  The individual makes a




total of n^ beach  visits during the summer.  The probability of an



individual i going to beach j  (or the proportion of her/his total beach




visits which are made to beach j) is pjj.  Then we model the number of




visits to beach j  by individual i as:







                             nij  •  ni Pij                               (





We estimate n^ in  the visitation model  and p. j in the site choice model




and predict n^. using this equation.






    For the site choice model, the dependent variable is the probability of




visiting a given beach.  While this variable is precisely the probability of




visiting a certain beach, it can also be  considered the proportion  of the




time that an individual will go to a particular beach when she/he goes to the




beach at all.  The probability of visiting a certain beach (given that a trip




is taken) is assumed to be a function of  the desirability of that beach.  We



take desirability  to depend on the characteristics of the beach  (e.g., water




quality), the travel costAime associated with a visit to that beach, and the




socioeconomic characteristics of the invididual who is making the trip.




Through the procedures described in Appendix B, the probability of  visiting a




beach is estimated as a linear function of these variables.  The results for



the site choice model which are presented below can be interpreted  much as




one would interpret an ordinary linear  regression.

-------
                                    6-27



    The dependent variable for the visitation model is the number of visits


an individual made to any of the study area beaches during the summer.  We


assume that the total number of beach visits an individual takes is related


to the socioeconomic characteristic of the individual and the overall


desirability of the sites available to her/him.  While there are many ways


this latter variable might be measured, the details of constructing the


conditional logit model require that it be derived from the site choice model


in a specific way.  This variable, called the "inclusive price", measures the


average desirability of the available sites.  Here, the term desirability has


the same meaning as it did in the description of the site choice model and


includes the level of water quality at each of the beaches.  Through the


inclusive price term in the visitation model, a change in water quality at


one or more beaches will not only affect the split of visits among the


various beaches, but will also affect the total number of beach visits which


will be taken.



    Linking together the site choice model, the visitation model, and


Equation 6.1 permits one to model how changes in water quality at any of the


sites will affect total number of visits to each of the sites.  To simulate


the effect of a change in water quality at one or more of the sites, we use


the visitation model to predict total number of visits after the change in


water quality, the site choice model to predict the fraction of the visits


which will be made to each site, and Equation 6.1 to determine the number of


visits made to each site.



    In general, the benefits associated with a simulated improvement in water


quality come from two sources:  an increase in the total number of visits and


an increase in the value of each of the visits.  Of course, because the
     V.             	

-------
                                    6-28






demand model includes the interaction among beaches, a water quality improve-




ment at one beach might lead to a decrease  in use at some other beach.  All




of these shifts in  usage are included in our benefits calculations.






    Conceptually, we are interested in determining the equivalent variation.




Suppose we improve  water quality at some set of beaches.  The equivalent




variation is the amount of income we would  have to take away from an



individual to make  her/him indifferent between the situation with higher




income/lower water  quality and that with lower income/higher water quality.




The equivalent variation measures this willingness of an individual to pay




for an improvement  in water quality.  This  measure of benefit is a good




approximation to other measures of benefit  (Willig, 1976 and 1978) and also




is of interest in its own right.






    Because income  is not explicitly incorporated in the demand model, the




equivalent variation cannot be estimated directly.  We use a modification of




a procedure developed by Small and Rosen (1982) and adapted to this problem




by Jeenberg and Mills (1980) to determine the equivalent variation associated




with a change in water quality.  The details of the procedure are presented




in Appendix B.4, but the method can be outlined as follows.  Demand is a




function of travel  distance and water quality.  In the estimated demand




model, then, we know how an individual trades off travel distance and water




quality.  We can estimate the value of a simulated improvement in water




quality by asking how much further could the individual travel given the




water quality improvement and be no worse off than she/he was before the



water quality improvement took place.  Benefits are measured in units of




distance.  Therefore, in order to put benefits in dollar units, we need to




know the cost per unit distance.

-------
                                    6-29



    Here we take cost to have two components:  a money cost and  a time cost.

It is important to discuss how time should enter the model.  Because time is

a scarce resource which the recreationist must allocate,  the  amount of time


spent in travel and on the site itself should be included in  the model.

Failure to do so will lead to an underestimate of the value of the site.


Unfortunately, the data available for this study does not permit usable


estimates of the effect of these two time variables.  The survey data on time


spent on the site contained numerous missing observations. Further, it is


not conceptually clear how to measure the amount of time  which would be spent

on sites not visited.  Thought of in another way, we need to  estimate a three

part model--site choice, visitation and time spent on site—and  the data are


not adequate to do so.  Attempts to include travel time along with distance

in the model failed because of the  high collinearity between  the two


variables.



    An alternative procedure was employed to partially account for the value


of time.  Ossario  (1976) suggested  that the value of travel time for


recreation is about one third the wage rate.  Consequently, our  estimates of

welfare change were converted to money values of the basis of $0.12/4nile (the


national average in 1974) plus travel time valued at one-third the


individual's wage rate.



    The wage rate was computed from information on income and the number of


days worked per year.  From the household survey, we know the number of days


taken off per week, the number of holidays per year and the annual amount of
 v
vacation time. By subtracting the  sum of these figures from  365 days, we

know the number of days worked per  year.  Annual income is divided by the

number of working days to determine the average daily wage.  Daily wage is

converted to an hourly wage assuming eight hours per work day.

-------
                                    6-30






6.2.2.3  Model Results






    The recreation demand analysis provides several kinds of results.   First,




we present the estimates of the site choice and visitation models.   These




results are compared with those of Feenberg and Mills  (1980) to show the




effect of our different and, in our view,  better measures of travel  costs and




water quality.  Second, we use the procedures, outlined above and detailed in



Appendix B.4, to simulate the effect of changes in water quality on




recreation patterns and to estimate the recreation benefits of several




specific water quality improvement scenarios for the Boston Harbor study




area.  These results depict total benefit curves for each of the water




quality improvement scenarios.






    Table 6-4 presents the estimates of the model parameters.  The model,




using all 467 cases, predicts the site choice correctly in 15.9 percent of




the cases compared with 34.7 percent for the Feenberg-Mills model.   We




attribute this difference primarily to the fact that Eeenberg and Mills




grouped individuals according to residential (origin) location, which we did




not.  In addition, our specification of the site choice model omits  several




interaction terms (age x distance, income x distance).  We felt that there




was no good a priori rationale for including these interaction terms.   The




dis'ance coefficient for the Feenberg-Mills model is about 0.33 expressed in




one-way miles and evaluated at the mean of the interaction terms. This is




more than three times higher than the value we obtained indicating the




magnitude of the error from using straight line distance to proxy for actual



travel distance in an urban area.






    There are several other interesting differences in the two models which




can be seen in the simulation results.   A 10 percent reduction in coliform

-------
                                     6-31
                 Table 6-4.  conditional log it Model  Estimates
Site Choice:
Distance (miles one way)
Water Temperature (°F)
Fresh water (dummy)
Fecal Col if or m (median)


log likelihood (xlflS)
percent correctly predicted
coefficient
-0.1003
-0.4088
-1.607
-0.01275
At
Convergence
-0.1443
15.9
t
-50.71
-41.17
-27.79
-18.47
At
Zero
-0.1658
3.5
Visitation
Intercept
Inclusive Price
Age (years)
Education (years)
Income ($1974 x 10 3)


coefficient
172.7
5.757
-0.3095
-0.5758
0.2550
R2 = 0.078
f (4,462) = 9.79
t
—
3.26
4.12
1.68
2.31


Nate:  Parameter estimates for the site choice model were obtained using
QUAIL Version 3.5.

Source:  Model developed and run by Clark Binkley, Yale university, School of
Forestry and  Environmental Sciences.

-------
                                    6-32






levels can be accompanied by an increase in two way travel distance of 0.254




miles and leave the individual's utility level unchanged.  In the Feenberg-




Mills model evaluated at the mean value of all the interaction terms/ a 10




percent reduction in all water quality variables  (total bacteria, oil, color)




offsets an 0.5 mile increase in travel distance.  It is curious that we find




a negative value for the fresh water dummy variable, indicating Bostonians



prefer salt water to fresh water beaches, where feenberg and Mills report a




positive value.  In sum, our model, using better travel cost and water




quality data for a larger sample of individuals, seems to be more sensitive




to water quality and less sensitive to distance than is the Feenberg-Mills




model.






6.2.2.4  Benefit Estimates






    The model presented above can be used to obtain estimates of the benefits




of water quality improvement.  Recall that the benefit measure we use is the




equivalent variation measured in units of distance.  These units are




converted to units of dollars at the rate of $0.12/tnile for travel costs plus




an amount which reflects the time cost of travel: travel time valued at




one-third the individual's wage rate.  Travel time was determined from the




CTPS study mentioned above.  The wage rate was computed from information on




income and the number of days wr rked per year as was described above.  These




per mile figures were doubled to reflect the fact that the demand model was




estimated on one-way rather than two-way distance.






    Four sets of simulations were performed.  In each case the fecal coliform



level at a single beach or group of beaches in the Boston Harbor Study area




was decreased in increments of 10 percent up to a 90 percent improvement in




water quality.  These simulations map out the total benefit curve for water

-------
                                    6-33


pollution abatement in the various segments of Boston Harbor.  Sites 7

(Constitution Beach) and 15 (Wollaston Beach) were examined separately

because of their  importance to Boston Harbor-based recreation and because of

their location within the harbor.  Sites 8  -  14,  the beaches in the

torchester/Neponset Bay CSO planning areas, (south from Castle Island to

Tenean Beach), were treated as a group in a third simulation.  Finally,  a

simulation including all of the sites 7-15  was  performed, with 10 percent

less water quality improvement at site 7 than the others.  This simulation

shows the effect  of a full water pollution  abatement program for the Boston

Harbor Study area.'



    The summary results from these simulations are given in Table 6-5.  The

entries in the table are benefits per person  per  year and the corresponding
»	_
change in visits  per person for a given pollution reduction.  Thus, to get a

value per visitor day for the site the per  capita benefit is divided by  the

change in per capita visits.  The value per visitor day for the different  '

sites and pollution reduction levels ranges from  $5.60 to $5.70  (in 1974

dollars) and is within the range of user-day  values found in the literature

(see Table B-3, Appendix B).  Total benefits  rise steadily with increasing

levels of water quality improvement, and the  curve continues to climb even as

high levels of abatement are achieved.   This  results in a marginal benefit

curve which curves upward rather than down wan. as is commonly assumed.  This

unusual result might stem from the fact that  the  demand model was estimated

using data from beaches generally having water quality levels much less  than

the 80 to 90 percent levels imply.



    Table 6-6 summarizes the change in per  capita visits for each of the

control options.   Then, the increases in number of visits are derived by

multiplying change in per capita visits by  the 1980 Census Boston

-------
                                    6-34
             Table 6-5.   Per Capita Ainual Benefit Estimates from

                          Conditional Logit Model S/

                             ($19 7 4/capita/year)

Value per visitor day£/
Equivalent 1982 dollars
% Reduction in Water
Pollution
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
1 7
Constitution
5.62
11.00

.0340
(.006054)
.0687
(.01222)
.1040
(.01851)
.1400
(.02491)
.1766
( .0 314 3)
.2140
(.03807)
.2521
(.04481)
.2908
(.05174)
—
SITES
1 8-14 |
Dorchester
5.62
11.00

.1562
(.02779)
.3240
(.05765)
.5055
(.08995)
.7030
(.1251)
.9192
(.1636)
1.158
(.2060)
1.422
(.2530)
1.718
(.3056)
2.050
(.3646)

15 I
Wollaston
5.69
11.14

.1176
(.02069)
.2469
(.0434)
.3889
(.06837)
.5446
(.09575)
.7155
(.1258)
.9027
(.1587)
1.108
(.1947)
1.332
(.2342)
1.577
(.2773)

7-15 b/
All
5.65
11.06

.2731
( .04835)
.6014
(.1065)
.9539
(.1689)
1.334
(.2361)
1.744
(.3087)
2.189
(.3874)
2.672
(.4729)
3.199
(.5661)
3.774
(.6680)
   */ Change in per capita visits for given change in pollution is in
parentheses.

   £/ Reduction at site 7 is 10 percent less  than reduction at site 8-15  (i.e.,
the first entry is a  10 percent reduction at  8-15 and no reduction at 7) .

   —'  Calculated by dividing $/capita/year by change in per capita visits and
averaged over all percent pollution reduction simulations.

Nate:   for location of  sites see map (Figure  6-1) .

-------
                                     6-35
   Table 6-6.  increased Participation  Estimates from Conditional log it Model
Site
No.
Beach
      Ocean   Secondary
CSO  Outfall  Treatment
                                CSO plus
                   CSO plus      Secondary
                 Ocean Outfall  Treatment
7    Constitution
8-14 Dorchester/
      Neponset
15   Wollaston
7-15 All Sites
7    Constitution
8-14 Dorchester/
      Neponset
15   Wollaston
7-15 All Sites
                 70
                                  Percent Pollution Abatement §/
10         5           80
80
80
70/80
10
10
10
10 90
10 90
5/10 80/90
Increase in Per Capita Visits
              .0448

              .3056
              .2342
              .5661
      .0278     .0278
      .0207     .0207
      .0484     .0484
                    .3646
                    .2773
                    .6680
                                             75

                                             90
                                             90
                                          75/90
                                             .048

                                             .3646
                                             .2773
                                             .6171
                     Lower Bound  Increase in Number of Visits £/
7    Constitution
8-14 Dorchester/
      Neponset
15   Wollaston
7-15 All Sites
             82,821  11,277     5,546
                           95,577
                                88,737
            564,958
            432,962
          1,046,541
     51,393    51,393
     38,267    38,267
     89,477    89,477
                  674,031
                  512,641
                1,234,922
7    Constitution  123,798
8-14 Dorchester/
      Neponset     844,482
15   Wollaston     647,178
7-15 All Sites   1,564,336
                                          674,031
                                          512,641
                                        1,140,824
Upper Bound Increase in Number of Visits 
-------
                                    6-36






SMSA population.   The value of increased visits can be calculated by




multiplying increased visits by the consumer surplus per visit.  These are




presented in Table 6-7.  Nat surprisingly/ these annual benefits are high.




This is the result of both the large number of beach users and the large




estimated percentage reduction in pollution.






6.2.2.5  Limits of Analysis






    The principle  theoretical shortcoming of this conditional logit approach




is the link between objective water quality parameters and the subjective




perception by recreationists of water quality.  Some water quality parameters




(e.g., dissolved oxygen) are not easily perceived by recreationists and/




consequently, an improvement in water quality  (i.e., an increase in DO levels




in the water) may  not be perceived by recreationists, and their behavior




(i.e., frequency of visits to the site) may not change.






    This is not likely to be the case for the beaches in the Boston Harbor




study area.  Dornbusch's study (1975) found that floating debris and oil and




grease were the most frequently perceived water quality indicators applicable




to the logit, travel cost model as applied here.  The presence of high fecal




coliform counts, the water quality parameter used in this study, is highly




correlated to oil  and grease measures (Hanemann, 1978), parameters which are




perceived by recreationists.  Thus, the concern that recreation behavior is




governed by perception and, ideally, the predicted changes in behavior be




linked to water quality parameters that are perceived by recreationists has




been addressed in  this application of the logit model by using fecal




coliform, instead  of dissolved oxygen,  as the water quality variable.

-------
                                     6-37
                   Table 6-7.  Annual Benefit Estimates  from
                     Conditional Logit Model (1982 $000)
Site
No.

7
8-14
15
7-15

7
8-14
15
7-15
Beach

Constitution
Dorchester/
Neponset
Wollaston
All Sites

Constitution
Dorchester/
Neponset
Wollaston
All Sites
CSO

911
6,214
4,823
11,574

1,361
9,289
7,209
17,301

.0
.5
.2
.7

.8
.3
.6
.6
Ocean Secondary CSO plus
Outfall Treatment Ocean Outfall

124
565
426
989

185
845
637
1,479
LOWER
.0
.3
.3
.6
UPPER
.4
.0
.2
.2 1
BOUND
61.0
565.3
426.3
989.6
BOUND
91.2
845.0
637.2
,479.2
ESTIMATES
1.
7,
5,
13,
ESTIMATES
1,
11,
8,
20,

051.
414.
710.
658.

571.
082.
536.
451.

3
3
8
2

2
7
3
9
CSO plus
Secondary
Treatment

976
7,414
5,710
12,617

1,459
11,082
8,536
18,860

.1
.3
.8
.5

.1
.7
.3
.3
Source:  Derived by multiplying $1982 value per visitor day from Table 6-6
         by increase in number of visits.

-------
                                    6-38






    An additional shortcoming of this conditional logit approach is the use




of travel costs to simulate prices.  Travel costs may be difficult to specify




because travel may have  a special utility or disutility in itself/ based on




aesthetics of the travel route and travel time, in addition to travel costs.




Hie improved water quality data/ the incorporation of travel




time, and the estimation of travel distance, and the estimation of consumer




surplus, however, make the logit model  the most empirically and theoretically




sound of all the methodologies used to  estimate swimming benefits from




improving water quality  in Boston terbor.






    Despite these limitations, the benefit estimates resulting from the logit




model are instructive in two ways.  The difference in the estimates of




increase in demand as measured by user  days using the logit technique (Table




6-6) as opposed to the increased participation technique (Table 6-2) depend




on the treatment option  and the beach location.  The logit model predicts



greater participation for the STP options (ocean outfall and secondary




treatment) and less participation under the CSO and CSO and STP combined




options than does the increased participation approach,  for the individual




beaches the logit model  predicts greater participation at Dorchester/Nsponset




and Constitution while less participation at Wollaston.  The predicted




increased days for the logit model are  within the bounds of seasonal capacity




as estimated above (see  Section 6.1.1) .  The o<  
-------
                                    6-39






6.2.3  Swimming--Beach Closings




    An alternative method for calculating swimming benefits from increased




participation because of improved water quality is to determine the value of




lost participation if beaches are closed because of fecal contamination.




Essentially,  this technique estimates the dollar value of the number of daily




beach closings by multiplying the average consumer surplus per daytrip (in



dollars per unit) by the daily attendance at each beach and by the number of




daily beach closings due to water pollution.






    The information needed to calculate these benefits using this technique is




usually more  readily available than detailed information required for  benefit




estimation using the previously described increased participaton technique,




and thus this method has often formed the basis for calculating total  swimming




benefits.  In the case of Boston ffcrbor beaches, different health standards




are applied according to beach ownership.  The MDC does not actually close




beaches when  fecal coliform measures are high enough to represent a health




hazard, but they do post signs that the beaches are unsafe for swimming.




Signs are posted at an MDC beach when fecal coliform counts exceed 500 MPN/100




ml.  A few towns use a standard of 1,000 MPN/100 ml total coliform.  Federal




standards are the most strict, suggesting closure when fecal coliform counts




exceed 200 MPN/100 ml.






    The first step in this technique is to decide which health standard to




apply.  We have chosen tc use the strict federal standard of 200 MPN/100 ml to




establish an  upper bound and the MDC standard of 500 MPN/100 ml as a lower




bound.  We did not choose the 1,000 MPN/100 ml as a lower bound because few of




the affected  town beaches use this level, and there are few times during the

-------
                                    6-40






season when coliform concentrations reach this high a level.  We have also




assumed that there is  limited or no attendance at the beaches during the days




when fecal coliform counts exceed the 200 MPN/100 ml and 500 MPN/100 ml levels.






    The next step is to relate bacteriological contamination with daily




attendance figures so  that we can arrive at a number of lost recreation days.




Unfortunately, as previously described, the only attendance figures available




are seasona1 (Memorial Day to labor Day) data, making it difficult to assess




the exact number of swimmers affected by daily beach closings.  There is also




the added complication that weekend attendance at beaches is usually greater




than weekday attendance and, therefore, weekend  violations of water quality




standards have a greater impact on potential losses than weekday violations.




Data limitations prevented us from considering this effect.  Instead we have




assumed a direct proportional relationship between total seasonal attendance




figures and percentage of times during the season that water quality levels




exceed 200 MPN/100 ml  and 500 MPN/100 ml.  for example, if a beach has water




quality levels which exceed 200 MPN/100 ml during five percent of the season,




then we assume that five percent of total attendance will be affected and will




not go to the beach (see Appendix B.5 for details) .  This assumption probably




understates the case since water quality problems tend to be the worst during




the hottest times of the year, when beach attendance is the highest.






6.2.3.1  Boston Harbor Beaches






    In order to arrive at savings according to the CSO and STP options, it is




necessary to multiply  these base visits by the predicted percent cleanup.




These base-case lost visits and their corresponding averted lost visits due




to pollution control programs are presented at the top of Tables 6-8

-------
                                    6-41






and 6-9.  The final step in this methodology is to value these averted lost




attendance days by applying a range of  user-day dollar values.  These values




represent the savings due to averted beach closings due to pollution



abatement in Boston Harbor and are presented at the bottom of Tables 6-8 and




6-9.






6.2.3.2  Nantasket Beach






    The only other swimming beach in our study area is Nantasket Beach.  It




is expected to be  adversely affected by the  deep ocean outfall option (see



Table 4-3) .  We have used only the beach closing method to estimate the



effects on swimming at Nantasket Beach  because of the limitations of




available data and methodology for measuring effects of increases in




pollutant levels.






        Seasonal population at Nantasket Beach is estimated to be 3,035,000,




based on information from Binkley and ffinemann  (1975) and the MDC.




Currently, Nantasket Beach has water quality levels which exceed 200 MPN/100




ml approximately 2.3 percent of the season.  Water quality is expected to




decrease by 10 percent from current levels if a deep ocean outfall  is




constructed.  It is difficult to predict the relationship between this




percentage decrease in water quality and the corresponding percentage changes




in pollutant concentrations exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml and 500 MPN/100 ml.  We




have chosen to conservatively assume that the water quality level at




Nantasket will exceed 500 MPN/100 ml at least as frequently as it was




exceeded at the 200 MPN/100 ml level, or 2.3 percent of the season.   By




multiplying the seasonal attendance estimates by this percentage, we arrive



at a number of lost visits totalling 69,805.  These lost visits can  be valued




by applying a range of user day values  from  $1.60 to $11.06.  Thus,  we arrive

-------
                                    6-42
                Table 6-8.   Ainu a 1 Benefit of Averted Beach  Closings
                            at 200 MPN/lOOml (1982 $000)


Beach Number of
CSO

Ocean
Outfall
CSO plus CSO plus
Secondary Ocean Secondary
Treatment Outfall Treatment
Averted Lost Visits &/
Lost Visits a/
Constitution
Dorchester
Castle Island
Pleasure Bay
Carson
Malibu
Tenean
Wollaston
Quincy
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
TOTAL
User Day
Value
3 1.60
$ 5.80
$11.06
29,019

1,010
11,779
6,604
14,423
41,519
518,870
13,687
11,966
—
3,505
652,382
20,313

808
9,423
5,283
11,539
33,215
415,096
10,950
-
-
—
506,627
2,902

101
1,178
660
1,442
4,152
51,887
1,369
3,590
-
1,052
68,333
Annual Benefit of




for All
810.6
2,938.4
5,603.3
1,451

101
1,178
660
1,442
4,152
51,887
1,369
3,590
-
1,052
66,882
23,215

909
10,601
5,943
12,981
37,367
466,983
12,319
3,590
-
1,052
574,960
21,764

909
10,601
5,943
12,981
37,367
466,983
12,319
3,590
-
1,052
573,54
Averted Beach Closings £/
Boston Harbor Beaches
109.3
396.3
755.7
107.0
387.9
739.7
(1982 $000)
876.7
3,178.2
6,060.4

860.0
3,117.5
5,994.8

   a/ See Appendix B.5.
   b/ Number of lost visits multiplied by percent pollution abatement (in Table
4-3) .
   £/ Total averted  lost visits multiplied by user day value (in Table B-3,
Appendix B).

-------
                                  6-43
               T&ble 6-9.  Annual Benefit of Averted Beach Closings
                          at 500 MPN/lOOml (1982 $000)

Beach

Constitution
Dorchester
Castle Island
Pleasure Bay
Carson
Malibu
Tenean
Wollaston
Quincy
Weymouth
Hi ngham
Hull
TOTAL
User Day
Value
3 1.60
$ 5.80
$11.06

Number of
Lost Visits a/
11,606

433
5,049
4,714
4,328
24,107
259,435
6,537
-
-
3,505
319,714
CSO


8,124

346
4,039
3,771
3,462
19,286
207,548
5,230
-
-
—
251,806
Ocean Secondary
Outfall Treatment
Averted Lost Visits

1,161 580

43 43
505 505
471 471
433 433
2,411 2,411
25,944 25,944
654 654
-
-
1,052 1,052
32,674 32,093
Annual Benefit of Averted Beach




for All
402.9
1,460.5
2,785.0
CSO plus
Ocean
Outfall
b/

9,285

389
4,544
4,242
3,895
21,697
233,492
5,884
-
-
1,052
284,480
Closings £/
CSO plus
Secondary
Treatment


8,704

389
4,544
4,242
3,895
21,697
233,492
5,844
—
-
1,052
283,899

Boston Harbor Beaches (1982 $000)
52.3 51.3
189.5 186.1
361.4 354.9
455.2
1,650.0
3,146.3
454.2
1,646.6
3,139.9

§/ See Appendix B.5.
b/ Number of lost visits multiplied by percent pollution abatement (in Table 4-3).
£/ Total averted lost visits multiplied by user day value (in Table B-3, Appendix
     B).

-------
                                    6-44






at a range of 3111,688 to $772,043, which represents a conservative estimate




of swimming-related pollution costs at Nantasket Beach attributable to




implementation of the deep ocean outfall option.






6.2.3.3  Benefit Estimates






    It is clear that the greatest benefits will derive from cleaning up the



Dorchester Bay and Wollaston Beaches because  these are the areas with the




greatest and most frequent water quality violations, and they are  the most




popular beaches.   lenean and Wollaston Beaches, especially, have the greatest




number of averted lost visits.  Based on the  strict 200 MPN/100 ml standard,




Wollaston has nearly 520,000 lost visits while Tfenean has over 41,500.






        Benefits to the STP-affected beaches  of Weymouth, Hingham  and Hull




are extremely low for both the upper bound and lower bound case for a number




of reasons.  These include the fairly good quality of shoreline water, the




fact that the STP pollution control programs  are expected to reduce fecal




coliform concentration and, thus, reduce beach closings, by only 30 percent,




and the fact that attendance is low at these  beaches.






6.2.3.4  Limits of Analysis






    These dollar benefits are significantly lower than the values  calculated




fo.. swimming benefits using the increased participation methodology,




previously described.  The reasons for this difference are many and only




serve to emphasize the many limitations and shortcomings of using  this




methodology to estimate recreation benefits.  Normally, beach closings are



calculated by relating the intensity of rain  events to CSO overflow and the




corresponding effect on ambient water quality and beach attendance.  This




methodology was not utilized, however, because of data limitations and

-------
                                    6-45






because a substantial portion of ambient water quality problems in beach




areas in Boston Harbor stems from problems with dry weather overflow (DWO).




The beach closing methodology attempts  to  capture the general seasonal




relationship between CSO/DWO events and beach participation based on seasonal




averages of ambient water quality and estimates of seasonal beach




attendance.  It underestimates total swimming benefits because it cannot



capture the dollar value of increased number of visits due to cleaner and




more attractive beaches, nor can it capture the increase in willingness to




pay for safer and cleaner bathing areas.  In addition, these estimates for




Boston Harbor are based on the assumption  that there is a direct correlation




between percent fecal contamination and percent beach closings.  In reality,



this relationship may not be directly proportional and, in fact, there may




not be a significant relationship between  the two parameters.  We can only




conclude that this methodology seriously underestimates swimming-related




benefits, and that this range of values is a less appropriate measure of




water pollution abatement benefits than values derived from previously




described techniques.






6.3  Recreational Boating






    One of the  significant consumer surplus benefits associated with water




pollution abatement in Boston Harbor is the increased use and utility of




harbor waters by boaters, and the savings  in dollars spent on these




activities.  Uifortunately, unlike the  previously described swimming-related




benefits, there is little available information upon which to base these




benefits,  instead, we make only very general estimates of consumer surplus




using a number  of assumptions about increased participation and the




corresponding value of these increases  and applying aggregated information




from regional and federal recreation studies.

-------
                                    6-46
6.3.1  Increased Participation






    It has been well documented that improved water quality can have an




important effect on  the level of recreational boating (Davidson, Adams and




Seneca, 1966).  Participation in all boating activities in Boston Harbor—



sailing, motor boating, canoeing and windsurfing--is expected to increase




with corresponding decreases in water pollutant levels.  Benefits from this



improvement stem from an increase in frequency  of participation by previous




users, willingness to pay a higher price for the boating experience because




of improved water quality, and new participation by previous non-users. Much




of this increased participation is likely to come from increases in the




aesthetic boating experience due to the decreased offensiveness of presently




polluted areas, especially those areas directly surrounding the sewage




treatment plants and near CSO outfalls.  Improvements to CSOs in Dorchester




Bay and the Deer and Nut Island STPs will most  definitely improve water




quality and, thereby, encourage increased recreational boating in these




areas.  Unfortunately, there are few boating participation studies which link




a change in water quality to a change in boater use of water resources which




are applicable to Boston Harbor and, thus, recreation participation data on




present use, along with data on unmet demand, was used to estimate boating




benefits from improvements in water quality.






    We have used a benefit estimation methodology which is similar to the




increased participation technique described for swimming related benefits.




Using data from a variety of recreational sources we have estimated the



number of user days  per year for two categories of boating—motor boating and




sailing.  Although there are no quantitative measures of predicted percentage




increases in boating that are expected to occur under the various CSO and STP

-------
                                    6-47






options, we can estimate this increased participation by assuming  that




cleaner waters will supply a portion of unmet  (latent) demand.  Two of the




recreational studies have estimated a 45-69 percent unmet demand in the




Boston Metropolitan area for boating.  This translates into a need of 1.8 to




2.8 million days  for motor boating and 0.8 to  1.3 million days for sailing.




We can assume that some of this demand will be met by cleaning up  harbor




waters, although  it is not immediately clear what percentage will  actually be




met.  Because fishing and boating take place throughout the harbor and are




not restricted to certain areas we have calculated these benefits  on a




harbor-wide basis for the two combined options, CSO plus Ocean Outfall and




CSO plus Secondary Treatment.  We have assumed that abating pollution from




CSO and Ocean Outfall controls will lead to a  2 to 10 percent reduction in




unmet demand.   We assumed the CSO plus Secondary Treatment option  would meet




5 to 12 percent of unmet demand.  The lower figures for the deep ocean




outfall option reflect the adverse impact this option is expected  to have on




the area around the Brewsters Islands.








    Although these figures might appear to be overly conservative, we have




chosen them for two reasons.  First, we believe that the latent demand of




45-69 percent reported in the recreational studies is probably an




overestimate (and have chosen to use 50% in ' ur calculations) .  Second, even




though more boaters might increase their use of Boston ffirbor when pollution




is decreased,  there is a limited supply of available marinas, boatyards and




docks.  Thus,  for every ten new boaters who might want to use the  harbor,




only one might actually be able to because of limited facilities.   In other




words, we have assumed that the binding constraint on increases in boating

-------
                                    6-48






participation is not only poor water quality, but the supply of boating




facilities as well.  This has been demonstrated by Davidson et al.  (1966) who




determined that the supply of beatable  water is affected by the depth, width,




access, and quality of a water resource.   In this study the upper bound




benefit estimate is determined by the facility availability constraint.






6.3.2   Benefits Estimates






    Using these assumed recreational figures, it is possible to calculate the




number of increased boating days.  By applying a lower bound user day value




of $18.14 and an upper bound value of $45.19  (see Table B-3, Appendix B) to




the range of increased boating days, we arrive at the estimated value of




benefits for boating activities  (see Table 6-10) .






6.3.3   Limits of  Analysis






    Calculation of boating-related benefits is limited by both methodology




and data base.  Statistics on use and participation were inconsistent among




all sources, requiring us to judge which  statistics were the most appropriate




for a given step in the estimation process.   There was scant information on




latent demand, requiring us to use a possibly overstated estimate from a



Boston-based study.  Benefit estimation was further compromised by  having to




assume what percentage of latent demand was met by cleanin'- up harbor waters,




a prediction based on professional judgment rather than quantitative




information.  All  of these shortcomings are reflected in the final  benefit




values. In addition, this benefit methodology does not capture total consumer



surplus in that only the benefits of water quality improvement to new




participants, and  not increased utility and increased participation of

-------
                                    6-49
               Table 6-10.   Annual Saltwater Boating Benefits
                                  (1982 $)
                                           Motor
                                          Boating     Sailing     Total
                           LATENT DEMAND
   % Of SMSA                                 22          15
   ft of recreators                       607,938     414,504   1,022,442
   User Days per  Participant                 6.7         4.5
   # of User Days                     4,073,185   1,865,268   5,938,453
   Latent Demand  (50%)                 2,036,593     932,634   2,969,226

                           LOWER BOUND ESTIMATES
% latent Demand met by
   CSOs and Ocean Outfall                      222
   CSOs and Secondary Treatment                5           55

Days of Latent Demand met by
   CSOs and Ocean Outfall                 40,732      18,653      59,385
   CSOs and Secondary Treatment          101,830      46,632     148,462

Annual Benefits  (User Day Value = $18.14g/)
   CSOs and Ocean Outfall              3,694,000   1,692,000   5,386,000
   CSOs and Secondary Treatment        4,433,000   2,030,000   6,463,000

                           UPPER BOUND ESTIMATES
% latent Demand met by
   CSOs and Ocean Outfall                     10          10          10
   CSOs and Secondary Treatment               12          12          12

Days of Latent Demand met by
   CSCs and Ocean Outfall                203,659      93,263     296,922
   CSOs and Secondary                    244,391     111,916     356,307

Annual Benefits  (User Day Value = $40.89a/)
   CSOs and Ocean Outfall              8,328,000   3,814,000  12,129,000
   CSOs and Secondary Treatment        9,993,000   4,576,000  14,569,000
  £/See Table B-3,  Appendix B.

-------
                                    6-50


previous users,  is measured.  These benefit values also understate total

boating-related  benefits because other boating activities, such as canoeing

and windsurfing, have not been considered and because reductions in  the

amount of fouling of boats and equipment have not been considered.   Finally,

although boating benefits are substantial when estimated for the entire study

area in the Boston Harbor, data limitations prevented disaggregating these

benefits to the  level of the areas specifically affected by the pollution

abatement options.  Thus, these benefit estimates can only be used to

emphasize the relative  importance of the effect of improved water quality on

recreational boating and to underscore the conclusion that these effects are

both monetizable and significant.


6.4  Recreational Fishing


    The benefits to  recreational fishing of improving water quality  in Boston

Harbor has two components.  First, cleaner water will affect the availability

of fish, both species and numbers.  Second, this change in fish availability

will affect fishing  participation rates.  In addition, there may be  a

"perception" effect  on  fishing activity which is independent of this

availability, implying  a more positive response towards fishing in cleaner

water.—'  The consumer  surplus from improving water quality should,  thus,

be measured by calculating increases in participation stemming from  changes

in fish species  and  numbers and the increased utility or willingness to pay a

higher price to  fish in cleaner water.
  i/ An informal survey by Metcalf and Eddy (1982) reported that, although
in general it did not appear that fishers avoided discharge areas, one bait
shop owner had reported that the Nut Island discharge made the area
unattractive for his clients.   In another, larger, survey conducted by the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (1982), concern was expressed over
the effects of pollution by toxic chemicals and sewage waste (65-60 percent
felt these were serious problems) , loss of fish habitat (57 percent),
adequate stocks of fish to catch (43 percent).

-------
                                    6-51






6.4.1  Components of Recreational Fishing






    Calculating this fishing-related consumer surplus is difficult however,



because it involves assessing the technical effects/impacts of the pollution




control actions, including changes in ecological habitat, as well as




determining the behavioral effect of these actions.  These steps  are




summarized in Figure 6-2.






    A number of studies have attempted  to model and analyze the effects and




responses of fish and anglers to changes in water quality from pollution




control programs.  Bell and Canterbery  (1976) modeled biological  production



functions of important recreational fish and applied them to recreational




fisheries data to arrive at estimates of recreational fishing benefits for




each state in the Uiion.  We have chosen not to apply their results to the




study area because of methodological and data limitations.  One other study




(Russell and vaughan, 1982) developed a model to estimate the probability of




being an angler, the probability of spending time to fish, and the average




length of time for each type of fishing. Their model estimates the effects of




water quality changes on number of fishing sites, types of supportable fish




population, and change in aesthetic experience.  This model can only  be used




for freshwater fishing areas and, thus, cannot be applied to the Boston Harbor




Study area.






     It was not possible to calculate many of the effects and responses listed




in Figure 6-2, which is a prerequisite  to calculating measures of consumer




surplus.  It was particularly difficult to determine how pollution control




plan effluents would precisely affect or change the ecological habitats of




important recreational fish.  The preferred summer recreational fish  in the




harbor is winter flounder  (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) although other

-------
                            6-52
      Figure  6-2.  Effects and Responses  to  STP, CSO and

                        Sewer  Controls
  STP,  CSO
 Storm  Sewer
 Treatments
                              STP Treatment
       Storm Sewer Controls
                              CSO Controls
Technical Effects
of STP, CSO and
Storm Sewer Treatments
                              Changes in Effluents
       Changes in Water Quality
                              Change in Ecological
                                   Habitat
                              Effects on  Economic
                                    Agents
Behavioral Effects
of Water Quality
Standards Action(s)
-c
Behavioral Responses
 of Economic Agents

-------
                                    6-53

desirable species include striped bass  (Morone saxatilis) , bluefish

 (Pomatomus saltatrix), and cod (Gadus morhua).  Winter flounder appears to be

the only species definitely affected by Harbor pollution, preferring the more

organically polluted areas to the cleaner ones.  Despite this attraction to

polluted areas  it was not possible to link  these changes with the specific~

pollution control options.  In general, productivity throughout the Boston

Harbor Study area is expected to increase with corresponding decreases  in

water pollutants, although we were not  able to quantitatively determine the

increase in productivity.  These data limitations required us to apply  a

general participation approach to estimate fishing benefits, similar to the

method previously described under boating benefits.
                                                                        /
    Recreation  studies provided information on percentage participation,

value of user days, and total user days per year for marine fishing. We were

unable to find  direct, reliable figures on  latent demand and, thus, we

assumed a rate  identical to that used for boating.  We applied a user day

value of from $12.90 to $28.46 per user-day derived from a number of studies   '>

presented in Table B-3, Appendix B.  The results are presented in Table 6-11.
                                                                           /
6.4.2  Benefits Estimates

    Fishing benefits can only be estimated  for the entire Boston Harbor Study

area, rather than for each distinct geographical area.  The possibility of

double counting some boaters who primarily fish from their boats exists.

However, no information was available to suggest how prevalent this kind of

behavior might  be.  For this reason, these  benefit figures should be

interpreted with caution.

-------
                                     6-54
               •able 6-11.
Ainual Recreational Fishing Benefits
        (1982 $)
                                                 lower
                                                 Bound
                                    Upper
                                    Bound
latent Demand
    % of SMSA
    # of recreators
    User Days per Participant
    # of User Days
    Latent Demand (50%)

% of latent Demand met by
    CSOs and Ocean Outfall
    CSOs and Secondary Treatment

Days of Latent Demand met  by
    CSOs and Ocean Outfall
    CSOs and Secondary Treatment

User Day Value */
Annual Benefit
    CSOs and Ocean Outfall
    CSOs and Secondary Treatment
                        7
                  193,435
                       12
                 2,321,220
                 1,160,610
                        2
                        5
                   23,212
                   58,030

                   $12.89
                   299,000
                   749,000
       14
  386,810
       12
4,642,440
2,321,220
       10
       12
  232,122
  278,546

   $34.08
7,911,000
9,493,000
   a/ See Table B-3,  Appendix B

-------
                                    6-55






6.4.3  Limits of Analysis






    Estimation of recreational fishing benefits is limited by methodology and




data base in ways similar to those described under boating benefits.  A major




limitation of this analysis is the lack of information linking changes in



water quality to corresponding changes in  both biological habit and fish




population.  This lack of data prevented a precise estimation of the effects



of availability and number of fish species on fishing participation.  Another




problem was that the available recreation  fishing statistics on participation




and unmet demand were often inconsistent,  requiring us to judge which were




the most appropriate for a given step in the estimation process.  Another




limitation of the analysis is that the methodology used here does not capture




all components of consumer surplus.  Benefit values reflect only benefits to




new participants,  and not the value of increased utility or increase in




participation by previous users.  The last limitation of this analysis is the




possibility of some double counting of fishing and boating benefits.  Thus,




these estimates can only be used to emphasize the importance of the effect of




improved water quality on recreational fishing.






6.5  Boston Harbor Islands




    The Boston Harbor Islands are a unique natural resource in a metropolitan




area which possesses only lalf of the recommended minimum acreage of open




space per thousand population.  The Islands are predominantly open, natural




areas which offer a wide range of activities such as swimming, boating,




fishing, hiking, picknicking, camping and  historic sight-seeing.  Most of the




islands have limited recreational facilities, which restrict current and




potential visits. However, effluent from  the two sewage treatment plants

-------
                                    6-56






seriously degrades water quality around the islands, also discouraging




recreation.  Assuming that the planned recreational facilites were




constructed,  then improving water quality around the islands would lead to a




corresponding increase in both frequency of participation and total number of




visitors.  It is possible to roughly estimate this increased participation,




despite scarce recreational data.






6.5.1  Increased participation






        Recreational data from the Boston Harbor Islands Comprehensive Plan,




(Metropolitan Planning Council, 1972) suggests that current attendance at all




the Islands for all  recreational activities is 265,000 per season and that




total capacity, assuming the planned structural improvements and additions




are implemented, is  560,000 per season.  This results in an excess supply of




295,000 visits per season.  Given the unique nature of the Harbor Islands, we




have assumed that some of the latent demand for recreation in the




harbor--especially swimming, boating and fishing--could be met largely by




improving water quality around the Islands.  Implementation of either of the




STP options is expected to improve the water quality around the nearest




Harbor Islands.  However, implementation of the deep ocean outfall option  is




expected to have adverse effects on the Brewsters  Islands, which are the




outermost islands of Boston Harbor.  Thf Brewsters include Great Brewster,




Middle Brewster, Outer Brewster, Calf, Little Calf and Green Islands, Shag




Rocks, and the Graves.  These islands constitute one of the most unique




marine environments on the Massachusetts coast, providing a highly accessible



marine habitat, conservation areas, and excellent  sites for recreational



diving.  Water quality is expected to decrease by  10 to 15 percent in the




area surrounding these islands because they are so close to the ocean outfall

-------
                                    6-57






diffuser.  Consequently, many of the recreational activities such as diving,




swimming, boating and hiking will be affected by this degradation of water




quality.






    To develop benefit estimates for recreational activities at the Harbor




islands we have assumed a percentage increase (decrease) in visits and




applied a range of previously utilized user day values.  The assumptions and




calculations of these benefit values are presented in Table 6-12.






6.5.2  Limits of Analysis






    The previously described methodology is limited by both its data bases




and its assumptions.  There is little available information on latent demand




for the Boston Harbor Islands and, thus, we had to assume an upper and lower




bound participation rate.  Although there are accurate estimates for current




Harbor Island attendance, capacity estimates  should be interpreted and used




with caution.   The derived benefit estimates  probably underestimate




STP-related benefits for the Islands because  the applied methodology cannot,




theoretically, capture either the dollar value of increased utility or the




value of increases in frequency of participation.  These benefit values




should also be viewed as rough estimates because of the possibility of




double-counting from other benefit categories such as boating and fishing for



the entire harbor and because costs of  upgrading recreational facilities,




which are a necesary prerequisite to increased participation, have not been



included.






6.6  Summary of Recreation Benefits






    Reducing water pollution in the Boston  Harbor Study area by implementing




the different pollution control options will  result in many recreation

-------
                                    6-58
     T&ble 6-12.  Annual Benefits for Recreation on Boston ffirbor Islands

                                 (1982 $000)

Oar rent Attendance
Capacity
Excess Supply (latent demand)
% Change in Water Quality
Ocean Outfall Option
Secondary Treatment Option
% of Latent Demand met by
Ocean Outfall Option
Secondary Treatment Option
Outer Harbor
Islands
258,000
546,000
288,000
60 to 90
30 to 80
50 to 90
50 to 75
Brews ters
Islands
7,000
14,000
7,000
-10 to -15
30 to 40
-20 to -30
50 to 75
Change in Visitor Days due to §/
  Ocean Outfall Option
  Secondary Treatment Option

User Day Values &/

Annual Benefit values  (1982 $000)
  Ocean Outfall Option
  Secondary Treatment Option
144,000 to 259,200  -1,400 to -2,100
144,000 to 216,000   3,500 to 5,250

   $5.80 to $11.06  $5.80 to $11.06
     835 to 2,867
     835 to 2,389
-8.1 to -23.2
20.3 to 58.1
   §/ Change in Visitor Days calculated by multiplying latent demand by the
percentage of latent demand met by the different treatment options.

   b/ See Table B-3, Appendix B.

-------
                                     6-59






benefits (see Table  6-13) .  A variety of methodologies have been used to




calculate the range  of  these benefits.  These include:  (1) swimming—




increased participation;  (2) swimming—travel cost with conditional logit




model; (3)  swimming—beach closings; (4) boating and fishing—increased




participation; (5) all  recreation activities for Boston Harbor




Islands—increased participation.






    Recreation benefits as calculated by the travel cost method, are greatest




in the category of swimming.  Benefits associated with the CSO options are




substantial while STP-related swimming benefits are minor, because the




majority of swimming in the harbor study area takes place along shorelines,




which are not as  adversely affected by STPs.  Fishing and boating benefits



have been calculated only for the entire harbor and not for each treatment




alternative, because of data limitations.  Benefits for both these categories




are also substantial while the greatest STP-related recreation benefits are




from water quality improvements near the Boston Harbor Islands.

-------
                                 6-60
                Table 6-13.   Ainual Recreation Benefits
                         (Thousands of 19823)




Benefit
A.








SWIMMING
1. Increased participation
a. Recreation studies £
High:
low:
Moderate:
2. Increased Participation
a. Log it model: — '
High:


CSO


/
16,737
1,620
7,325

Ocean
Outfall



2,436
236
1,066

Secondary
Treatment



2,347
227
1,027
CSO plus
Ocean
Outfall



19,174
1,856
8,391
CSO plus
Secondary
Treatment



19,084
1,847
8,352
and Increased Utility of Visit

17,302
low: 11,575














B.



C.
Moderate:
3. Beach Closings
a. Strict £/ 200 MPN
High:
low:
Moderate:
b. Lenient £/ 500 MPN
High:
low:
Moderate:
c. Nantasket Beach £/
High:
low:
Moderate:
14,439

f .c.
5,603
811
2,938
f .c.
2,785
403
1,461

0
0
0

1,479
990
1,235


756
109
396

351
52
189

(772)
(112)
(405)

1,479
990
1,235


740
107
388

355
51
186

0
0
0

20,416
13,658
17,037


6,060
877
3,178

3,146
455
1,650

(772)
(112)
(405)

18,860
12,618
15,739


5,945
860
3,118

3,140
454
1,647

0
0
0
increased Participation
High:
low:
Moderate:
FISHING 2/
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

12,129
5,386
8,758

14,569
6,463
10,516

Increased Participation



D.
High:
low:
Moderate:
BOSTON HARBOR ISLANDS
NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

NA
NA
NA

7,911
299
4,105

9,493
749
5,121

Increased Participation h/



High:
low:
Moderate:
0
0
0
2,844
827
1,835
2,447
855
1,651
2,844
827
1,835
2,447
855
1,651
2/ From Table 6-3.
!•>/ From Table 6-7,  does not include.
     Quincy town beaches.
£/ From Table 6-8.
£/ From Section 6.2.3.2;
   costs not benefits.
±/ From Table 6-10.
£/ From Table 6-11.

-------
                                     6-61
                                  References

Abt Associates, 1979.   New York-New England Recreational Demand Study, Vol. I
    and II, Cambridge,  MA

Bell, P.W. and E.R.  Canterbery  (1975) .  An Assessment of the Economic
    Benefits Which Will Accrue  to Cbmmercial and Recreational Fisheries  from
    Incremental Improvements in the Quality of Coastal Waters, Florida State
    University, Tallahassee, FL.

Ben-Akiva, J., 1973.  The Structure of Passenger Travel Demand.  MIT PhD.
    dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering.

Binkley, Clark S. and W. Michael Hanemann, 1975.  The Recreation Benefits
    of Water Quality improvement.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Washington, DC,  NTIS PB257719.

Binkley, Clark S., 1977.  Estimating Recreation Benefits:  Critical  Review
    and Bibliography.   CPL Exchange Bibliography 1219.

Burt, Oscar R. and David Brewer, 1971.  Estimation of net social benefits
    from outdoor recreation.  Bsonometrica.  pp 613-827 in Abel, Tihansky and
    Walsh, 1976, National Benefits of Water Pollution Control, Draft U.S. EPA
    Office of Research  and Development, Washington, DC.

Cesario, F. J. , 1976.   The Value of Time in Recreation Benefit Studies.  Land
    Economics, 52:   32-41.

Charbonneau, J. and  J.  Hay, 1978.  "Determinants and Economic Values of
    Hunting and Fishing."  Paper presented at the 43rd north flnerican
    Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference.  Phoenix, Arizona.

Cicchetti, C., A. Fisher and V. K. Smith, 1976.  An Econometric Evaluation of
    a Generalized Consumer's Surplus Measure: the Mineral King Controversy.
    Econometrica, 44:   1253-1276.

Clawson, M. and J. H. Knetsch,  1966.  The Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
    Johns Hopkins University Press:  Baltimore.

Davidson, P., G. Adams  and J. Seneca, 1966.  The social value of water
    recreational facilities from an improvement in water quality:  The
    Delaware Estuary, Water Research, Allen Rneese and Stephen C. Smith,
    eds., Baltimore:  Johns Hopkins university Press for Resources for the
    Future, 1966.

Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc., 1976.  National  Benefits
    of Achieving the 1977, 1983 and 1985 Water Quality Goals, U.S. EPA,
    Office of Research  and Development, Washington, DC.

Dornbusch, David M., 1975.  The Impact of Water Quality improvements on
    Residential Property Prices, National Commission on Water Quality,
    Washington, DC.

-------
                                     6-62
                                  References

Ditton, R. and T.  Goodale,  1972.  Marine Recreation Uses of Green Bay;  A
    Study of Hainan Behavior and Attitude Patterns, Technical Report No. 17,
    Sea Grant Program, university of Wisconsin, Madison.

Domenich, T. and Daniel Mcfadden, 1975.  Urban Travel Demand.   North Bslland,
    Amsterdam.

Dwyer, John, John R. Kelly  and Michael D. Bowes, 1977.   Improved Procedures
    for Valuation of the  Contribution of Recreation to National Bconomic
    Development.University of Illinois, Water Resources Center, Urbana, IL.

Bricson, Raymond,  1975.  Valuation of Water Quality in Outdoor  Recreation,
    PhD. Dissertation, Department of Economics, Colorado State  University,
    fort Collins,  00.

Feenberg, Daniel and Edwin  Mills, 1980.  Measuring the Benefits of Water
    Pollution abatement,  academic Press, New »rk, NY.

Federal Register,  Vol. 48,  No. 48, March 10, 1983.

Banemann, W. M. , 1978. A Methodological and Bnpirical Study of the
    Recreation Benefits from Water Quality Improvement.  PhD dissertation,
    Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Heintz, H.T. , A. Hershaft,  and G.C. Horak, 1976.  National  Damage of Air and
    Water Pollution, U.S. Environmental Agency, Office of Research and
    Development, Washington, DC.

Massachusetts Department  of Environmental Management, December, 1976.
    Massachusetts Outdoors; Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
    (SCORP) , Boston, MA.

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 1982.  Massachusetts Marine
    Fisheries Management  Report, Boston, MA.

McFadden, D., 1973.  Conditional Choice Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice
    Behavior in P. Zarembka, ed. Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press,
    New York.

Metcalf and Eddy, 1975.  Eastern Massaschusetts Metropolitan Area Study
    (EMMA) .  Technical Data (volume 13B) , Socio-Economic Impact Analysis,
    Boston, MA.

Metcalf and Efldy, Inc., 1982.   Application for Modification of  Secondary
    Treatment Requirements  for  its Deer  Island and Nut Island Effluent
    Discharges into Marine Waters, for Metropolitan District Commission,
    Boston, MA.

Metropolitan Planning Council,  October 1972.  Boston Harbor Islands
    Comprehensive Plan, for Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources,
    Boston, MA.

-------
                                     6-63
                                 References

Morey, E.R., 1981.   The Demand for Site-Specific Recreational Activities:  A
    Characteristics  Approach.  J. Ehv. Eton,  and Management, 8:345-371.

National Planning Association (NPA), 1975.  Water-Related Recreation Benefits
    Resulting from Public law 92-500.  rational Commission on Water Quality,
    Washington,  DC.

Peterson, G. , D. H.  Anderson and D. W. Lime,  1983.   Multiple-Use Site Demand
    Analysis: An Application to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.  J. liesure
    Res. 14:  27-36.

Russell, C.S., and W.T. Vaughan, 1982.  The national fishing benefits of
    water pollution control, Jburnal of Environmental Bionomics and
    Management,  9:328-353.

Small, K. and H.  Rosen, 1981.  Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice
    Models.   Econometric a 40:  105-130.

U.S. Department  of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,  1982.  1980 Census of
    Population and Reusing, Massachusetts.  Washington,  OC.

U.S. Department  of Interior, March 1970.  Outdoor Recreation Space Standards,
    Washington,  DC.

U.S. Department  of the Interior, 1982.  1980 Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
    Wildlife Associated Recreation, Fish and  Wildlife Service and U.S.
    Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department  of the Ulterior, April 1984.   The 1982-1983 Nationwide
    Recreation Survey, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

Willig, R.,  1976.  Consumer's Surplus without Apology.   AER 66:  589-597.

Willig, R.,  1978.  Incremental Consumer's Surplus and Hedonic Price
    Adjustment.   J.  Hson. Theory 17:227-253.

Wilman, E. ,  1980.  The Value of Time in Recreation  Benefit Studies.  J. Env.
    Ebon, and Management 7:  272-286.

-------
                                   Section 7
                                Health Benefits

    In order to assess the health  benefits of  reducing the level of pollution
in Boston Harbor, it is first necessary to understand the adverse effects
that such a level of pollution might  have on users of Boston Harbor waters.
Until recently, most health effects associated with water have been estimated
for withdrawal uses for drinking water  supplies rather than for instream
uses, such as swimming, or other withdrawal  uses, such as fish consumption.
This focus, in part, has bee'n due  to  what the  public views as the more
serious nature of ingesting sewage contaminated water, but it has also been
affected by the relative ease of determining causal relationships between
water ingestion and illness as opposed  to water contact and illness or the
less direct link of water pollutants  to the  food chain. Attempts to quantify
morbidity values and the corresponding  benefits of decreasing the incidence
of illnesses contracted while swimming  in polluted waters or consumption of
contaminated food have been made difficult by  the lack of data on dose-
response and the corresponding population at risk.

    This section focuses on two types of health benefits:  swimming-related
illness and illness r'  'ated to bacterial contamination of shellfish.  Other
health risks, such as those due to the  accumulation in the food chain of
heavy metals and toxics (e.g., copper,  mercury, PCBs and silver found in the
tissues of lobsters and winter flounder), cannot be estimated because little
is known about how the accumulation takes place, the effects of consumption

-------
                                     7-2






or the dose response.   Consequently, the benefits described in this section




must be viewed as a  partial analysis of the possible health benefits of




improving water quality in the Boston Harbor.






7.1  Swimming-related Health Benefits






    The method used  to  estimate swimming-related health benefits defines the




population at risk and  then applies a dose-response relationship.  A




discussion of the dose-response relationship used in this analysis is




included below because  this approach is a fairly recent development.






7.1.1  Benefit Measurement Approach






    One of the dose-response data problems for water contact and disease is




related to the indicators used to predict and quantify illness in the




population.  The conventional wisdom regarding public  health and water borne




disease assumes that since sewage contains fecal material and fecal material




may contain pathogens,  then the level of fecal material is an adequate




measure of the potential for pathogens in the water.   The parameter most




commonly used as an indicator of the potential for pathogens is the fecal




coliform bacterial count in the water column.  Fecal coliforms are, in fact,




an excellent indicator of the presence of domestic sewage, but they do not




supply the kind of information needed to develop a dose-response relationship




for swimming-related illnesses.






    Recently, it has been established that the presence of another bacterial




indicator, Qiterococci, is a more accurate measure of  water quality than




fecal coliforms (Cabelli et. aj^_, 1980, 1982; Meiscier  e_t  ajk_, 1982).  This is




principally due to the fact that Biterococci better mimic the aquatic




behavior of the viruses responsible for the potentially most serious

-------
                                      7-3






 (infectious hepatitis)  and common (gastroenteritis) water-related enteric




diseases.  In his 1980 and 1982 articles,  Cabelli developed  a dose-response




relationship between Biterococci density and the number  of cases of




gastrointestinal symptoms per 1000 swimmers.






    In order to apply this dose-response data to Boston  Harbor  beaches  it was




necessary to perform some preliminary calculations and transformations  of the



water quality data.  All of the water quality data for Boston area beaches is




recorded in terms of concentrations of fecal and total coliforms, as  required




by local, state and federal health standards, rather  than in concentrations




of Enterococci.  Using Enterococci data gathered from local  Boston beaches we




developed a statistical relationship between the more available indicator,




fecal coliform, and the more accurate indicator,  Enterococci.   (See Appendix



C for more details.)






    Given the correspondence between fecal coliform and  Enterococci and the




dose-response relationship between Enterococci and gastrointestinal symptoms,




it was possible to correlate water quality at affected beaches  with potential




swimming-related illness.  Water quality data from 1974-1982 were collected




and averaged for all Boston area beaches and a percentage range of fecal




coliform concentrations was established.  As described under the swimming/




beach closings section, population at risk was calculated by assuming




proportional relationships between seasonal attendance figures  and percent of




time during the season that water quality levels fell into various ranges.




For example, if fecal coliform standards fell between 30 and 50 MPN/lOOml for




two percent of the entire season at a beach, we assumed  that two percent of




the seasonal swimming population would be affected by this level of fecal

-------
                                      7-4






coliform.  in addition,  we assumed that there were no swimmers among the




visitors on days when fecal coliform counts were above 500 MPN/100 ml since




this is the standard  most of the towns and  municipalities use for closing




beaches or posting them as unsafe for swimming.






    Given these different water quality levels and number of bathers at  risk,




we estimated the number of potential cases  of gastrointestinal illness.



These are presented in Table 7-1.  (See Appendix C for details of the




calculation.)  For a  lower bound estimate of number of cases of illness,




population at risk can be changed to reflect visitors to the beach who




actually go swimming. If not all visitors  to a beach go swimming, then  not




all visitors would be exposed to water pollution.  The lower bound estimates




of numbers of cases of illness reflect an estimate of 49% of all beach




visitors actually go  swimming.   In addition, even with the improved water




quality not all of the predicted increased  visitors may go swimming because




of air and water temperatures.  During the  1982 and 1983 summer season,  for




example, over half of the days had water temperature below 65° F or air




temperature below 75° F.  For such days, some beach visitors may not go




swimming.  To take into account these relatively colder temperatures in  the




Boston Harbor area a  factor based on the distribution of air and water




temperatures is applied to reduce population at risk and, thus, the number of



cases of illness.  (See Appendix C.3 for derivation of population-  \t-risk.)






    The final stage in estimating swimming-related health benefits was to




value these illnesses. Based on information from Cabelli et al. (1980), we




have assumed that each case lasts from one  to two days and requires sick




leave from work but does not require medical treatment.  We have applied a

-------
                                   7-5
    Table 7-1.  ftinual Reduction in Cases of  Gastrointestinal Illnesses
Beach
Constitution
Dorchester Bay
Castle Island
Pleasure Bay
Carson
Malibu
Tenean
Wollaston
Quincy
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
Nantasket
(SO
Option
161-596

21-77
242-896
134-497
198-735
65-239
2419-8961
238-881
0
0
0
0
Total 3478-12882
Ocean
Outfall
Option
21-79

2-7
21-79
12-45
18-68
15-57
293-1085
19-70
45-168
9-35
27-100
(352) -(1302) *
133-491
Secondary
Treatment
Option
11-39

2-7
21-79
12-45
18-68
15-57
293-1085
19-70
45-168
9-35
27-100
0
473-1753
CSO Plus
Ocean
Outfall
Option
248-919

28-103
325-1203
182-675
- 285-1056
175-647
4144-15348
344-1275
45-168
9-35
27-100
(352) -(1302)*
5461-20227
CSO Plus
Secondary
Treatmen t
Option
200-741

28-103
325-1203
182-675
285-1056
175-647
4144-15348
344-1275
45-168
9-35
27-100
0
5765-21351
*  Increased cases of illness



See Appendix C  for details of the calculations.

-------
                                     7-6






full wage rate of $8.10/hour for two days to arrive at an upper bound value of




$129.56 per case and one-half the wage rate of $8.10/hour for one day to arrive




at a lower bound value of $32.40 per case (19823).  These results are presented




in Table 7-2.  Since the cost of illness  is not the same as the willingness to




pay to avoid illness, these lost earnings represent a conservative proxy for




the value of good health.  Other factors might include a value for discomfort




avoided and expenditures on medical care.






7.1.2  Benefit Estimates






    The health benefits that are derived from cleaning up harbor waters are



substantial for some parts of the Boston Harbor Study area and insignificant




for others. The Wollaston and Quincy beaches show the greatest benefit




because of the great number of beach visitors, the poor level of water




quality, and the large percentage of predicted cleanup.  Benefits for the




(institution and Dorchester Bay Beaches  are not as great because, although




water quality  is often poor at the beaches, the water is not consistently




dirty and, therefore, the greater number of cases of swimming-related




gastroenteritis occur only sporadically.  The benefits at Weymouth,  Hingham,




and Hull beaches are low because the water is relatively clean during most of




the season, percent predicted cleanup is only 30 percent, and attendance




figures are low compared to other Boston Harbor beaches.






7.1.3  Limits  of Analysis






    The key difficulties in accurately calculating health benefits are the




water quality  and population-at-risk data limitations, as well as the




problems associated with valuing morbidity.  Although we were able to develop

-------
                                  7-7
                           Table 7-2.  Swimming Health Benefits3./
                                        (1982 $000)

Constitution
Dorchester Bay
Castle Island
Pleasure Bay
Carson
Malibu
Tenean
Wollaston
Cuincy
pmouth
Hinghain
Hull
Nantasket£/
TOTAL
CSO Option
$32.40-$129.56
5.2-77.2
21.3-316.7
0.7-10.0
7.8-116.1
4.3-64.4
6.4-95.2
2.1-31.0
78.4-1161.0
7.7-114.1
0
0
0
0
112.7-1,669.0
Ocean
Outfall
Option
$32.40-$129.56
0.7-10.2
2.3-33.1
0.1-0.9
0.7-10.2
0.4-5.8
0.6-8.8
0.5-7.4
9.5-140.6
0.6-9.1
1.5-21.8
0.3-4.5
0.9-13.0
(11.3)- (168.7)
4.3-63.6
Second a ry
Treatment
Option
CSO Plus
Ocean Outfall
Option
$32.40-$129.56 $3 2. 4 0-$129. 56
0.3-5.1
2.3-33.1
0.1-0.9
0.7-10.2
0.4-5.8
0.6-8.8
0.5-7.4
9.5-140.6
0.6-9.1
1.5-21.8
0.3-4.5
0.9-13.0
0
15.3-227.2
8.0-119.1
32.2-477.3
0.9-13.3
10.5-155.9
5.9-87.5
9.-2-136.8
5.7-83.8
134.3-1988.5
11.2-165.2
1.5-21.8
0.3-4.5
0.9-13.0
(11.3)- (168.7)
176.9-2,620.7
CSO Plus
Secondary
Treatment
Option
$32.40-3129.56
6.5-96.0
32.2-477.3
0.9-13.3
10.5-155.9
5.9-87.5
9.2-136.8
5.7-83.8
134.3-1988.5
11.2-165.2
1.5-21.8
0.3-4.5
0.9-13.0
0
186.8-2,766.3
2/Value per case of  illness times number of cases from Table 7-1.

b_/$32.40 represents one day lost work at one-half wage rate and $129.56 represents
two days lost work at full wage rate.

°/Increased costs rather than savings.

-------
                                      7-8






a good statistical relationship between fecal coliform and Enterococci because




of available Boston data,  in general such relationships are difficult if not




impossible to determine because of variability in water quality conditions,




which affect the survival patterns and relationships between various bacterial




indicators in marine waters.  Benefit estimates are also subject to bias




because of assumptions made about water quality levels and swimming




participation, because attendance figures only measure seasonal, and not




yearly, beach visits because beach attendance may not reflect actual time




spent in the water, and because the costs of illness do not include any




measure of medical treatment.






    In addition, estimating health benefits from swimming may be subject to




double counting since swimmers may perceive most of the health effects




associated with water pollution.  These benefits would thus be captured in




whole or in part by the logit estimation, described in the previous Section




of this report.  More important than these limitations, however, is the fact




that previously unavailable dose-response information can now be used to




predict the number of swimming-related illnesses, provided towns and cities




measure the appropriate indicator of bacterial contamination.






    A note of caution is warranted in using the Cabelli et al. dose response




function.  This study is based on limited testing and the results have not




been duplicated or verified by other studies.






7.2  Siellfish Consumption






    Theoretically, health benefits resulting from improved water quality can




be estimated by relating the reduction in frequency of water-related diseases




to the reduced contamination of shellfish attributed to various levels of



pollution abatement.  Quantifying these benefits is difficult because of the

-------
                                      7-9
                                                                         /

unavailability of a dose-response function for shellfish-borne diseases such

as gastroenteritis, infectious hepatitis, and salmonellosis.   Additional

difficulties are caused by the lack of information on the magnitude of

shellfish contamination and corresponding estimates of the population at

risk.  Benefit estimation is further complicated by the difficulty in valuing

morbidity effects. Despite these methodological shortcomings, it  is important

to attempt to estimate some of the shellfish-related benefits, if  only to

illustrate that such  techniques can be applied, given appropriate  data.


    It is possible to calculate benefits from reduction in incidence of

disease by applying assumed, rather than scientifically-derived, relationships

between water quality levels and incidence of disease.  Assuming that disease

rates are proportional to the level of contamination, it is possible to

calculate a percentage reduction in the number of shellfish-borne  cases of

disease based on a corresponding percentage cleanup.  Almost one-half of the

shellfish acreage in  Boston Harbor is classified as "grossly"  contaminated and

is closed to harvesting because of potential health threats.   It has been

estimated that, despite this closure, hundreds of bushels of contaminated

clams are being illegally harvested ("bootlegged") from these  closed beds, and

sold on the open market.  It is difficult to estimate the number of

contaminated clams that are reaching consumer tables, and even more difficult

to estimate what proportion of these clams can be linked to occurrence of

diseases.  The only available indicator of shellfish-related diseases are the

actual reported outbreaks of gastroenteritis, hepatitis and other  diseases.


    In Boston, there  have been few reported outbreaks of gastroenteritis or

other shellfish-related diseases.  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts recorded

one outbreak of 30 cases of shellfish-related gastroenteritis  in 1980.  This

low disease, rate does not necessarily indicate that there is little risk of

-------
                                     7-10






contracting shellfish-borne diseases or that shellfish contamination,  due to




polluted waters,  does not exist.  Rather,  it suggests that a high proportion




of cases are unreported, especially for the more common gastroenteritis




cases.  One study (Singley, et al., 1975)  suggested that the ratio of  actual




to reported cases of foodborne diseases is 12:1.   If this ratio were applied




to the data from  Boston, then we would expect a minimum of 360 cases per year




of gastroenteritis due to shellfish contamination.  Assuming a similar




scenario as described under swimming effects, these cases could be valued at




a low of $32.40 and  a high of $129.56.  lotential damages would then range




from $11,664 to $46,642.






    It is not possible to relate reduction in water pollution, resulting from



implementation of different pollution control plans, to corresponding




reductions in incidence rate of these diseases and corresponding reductions




in morbidity values  because of the inadequate information relating a specific




case to a specific shellfish area.  It is  important to note, however,  that




provided adequate data, the above technique can be applied, and corresponding




benefits can be valued.

-------
                                      7-11
                                   References
Cabelli, Victor J. ,  e_t a_l.,  1980.   Health Effects Quality Criteria for Marine
  Recreational Waters, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/1-80-031.

Cabelli, V.J., A.P.  Dufour,  L.J. McCabe, and M.A. Levin.  1982.  Swimming
  Associated (Sstroenteritis and Water  Quality.  American Journal of
  Epidemiology, 115:606-616.

Meiscier, John J.  and Victor J. Cabelli, 1982.  Enterococci and Other
  Microbial Indicators in Municipal Wastewater Effluents, Jburnal of the Water
  Pollution Control  Federation, Vol. 54, No. 12.

Singley, J. Edward e_t a_l. , 1975, A Benefit/Cost Evaluation of Drinking Water
  Hygiene Programs,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.

-------
                                   Section 8




                         Commercial Fisheries Benefits






    Commercial fishing within Boston Harbor and the perimeter of




Massachusetts Bay includes shellfishing,  lobstering and finfishing.   It  is




difficult to predict the precise impact of the various pollution  abatement




options because of lack of data on both productivity changes in relation to



pollutant levels and current yields from  the study area,  especially  for




lobstering and finfishing.  Because of differences in the available  data,




this section presents a general view of the potential impacts on  lobsters and



finfish and more detailed calculations for shellfishing.






    As will be seen, the near-term benefits from reducing water pollution are




modest.  The most important factor affecting this lack of improvement is the




problem of sediment contamination, which  is affected by all sources  of




pollution (STPs, CSOs, non-point runoff,  unauthorized site dumping,  illegal •




discharges, and town sewers).  The sediment throughout Boston Harbor is  a




sink for a number of toxic pollutants, particularly for heavy metals such as



mercury, copper, nickel and silver, for PCBs, and for a number  of pesticides,




all of which are potentially detrimental  to fish productivity and consumer




health.  There is scarce information about the precise levels of  these




contaminants in the sediment and even less information about their turnover




and flushing rates.  Added to this dilemma of  ediment contamination is  the




problem of bacterial pollution from illegal dischargers,  non-point sources




and town sewers, all of which are difficult to locate, making it  nearly




impossible to precisely define their corresponding receptors.   For these




reasons, we have had to apply quite restrictive assumptions to  the benefit




calculations.

-------
                                      8-2




 8.1   lobster ing and  Finfishing




 /   Lobstering is  the most valuable fishery conducted within Massachusetts
v/

 state waters.  Tbtal 1981 lobster landings were 9.5 million pounds and,  at  a

                                                   a/
 value of  $2.09 per pound, were worth $19.8 million.    Most of the


 lobstering activity  occurs in Essex and Plymouth counties, along shoreline


 areas.  Prior to 1979,  the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries did not


 keep data in a form  which made it possible to determine amounts which were
                                                  ff

 harvested in any particular area of the Harbor, 'Metcalf & Eddy (1982) have


 estimated that Dorchester Bay is the most productive area of the Harbor,

                                                    b/
 followed  in productivity by Quincy and Hingham Bays.    In 1979, however,


 the  Division expanded the boundaries of the statistical catch area for lobster


 to include the entire Boston Harbor and portions of Massachusetts Bay out to a


 depth of  120 feet.   Within this area, stretching from Lynn to Scituate and  east


 past the  Brewsters Islands, the total 1981 lobster catch was 2.6 million pound


 worth $5.4 million if valued at $2.09 per pound, accounting for about 27


 percent of total Massachusetts lobster supply.




        Finfishing is also a commercial activity in Boston Harbor and the


 immediate Massachusetts Bay area.  Boston is one of 51 commercial fishing


 harbors in Massachusetts, and in 1979 ranked third in Massachusetts in pounds


 of finfish landed.  The approximately 57 gilt net line trawl vessels operating


 in and around the  Harbor fish primarily for winter flounder, cod, and pollock,


 mostly during the  summer months.  There are also 29 draggers registered  in


 Boston of which a  small percentage fish within the Harbor area for menhaden


 and, just outside  Boston Harbor, for winter flounder, yellow tail flounder, and


 cod. In  addition, there are four seine boats which are known to fish the
 \  a/
    — Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries estimates.
    b/
    — Lobster harvest was approximately 140,000 kg (308,000 Ibs.)  in

 Dorchester  Bay  in  1967 and 80,000 kg  (176,000 Ibs.) in Hingham Bay in 1970.

-------
                                        8-3


  waters at the perimeter of Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay for sea

  herring.  The National Marine Fisheries service records finfish landings in  -

  Boston Harbor but, unfortunately, these records do  not include where the fish

  species are caught.  For the year 1981, 28.4 million pounds of fish were

  landed in the port of Boston for a value of $12.4 million  (National Marine

  Fisheries Service, 1983).


      It is expected that reducing pollutant levels from the CSOs and the STPs

 ,will increase the productivity of lobstering and finfishing within the study
 I
 1 areas but it is not possible to say by how much.  On the other hand one

 {treatment alternative, the deep ocean outfall option, will increase pollutant

  levels immediately surrounding the ocean diffuser in Masschusetts Bay.  This

  option is expected to have an adverse impact on lobstering and finfishing

  activities in that area.


      It is difficult to predict the precise impact that effluent from the ocean

  outfall discharge—which includes BOD, suspended solids, heavy metals and

( ^ toxic chemicals—will have on the productivity  of lobstering and finfishing

  because of insufficient dose-response data at sublethal concentrations and
                                                                             s\
  because of deficiencies in current knowledge of variations in ambient

  concentrations of water pollutants, which  vary  according to depth, current

  patterns, temperature conditions, tidal influences  and estuarine influences.

  We must assume that pollution from ocean outfall effluent will have similai.

  environmental effects as those reported for Boston  Harbor, despite their

  biological, chemical and physical differences.   Some information does exist,

  however, which enables us to predict the range  of transport of some of the

  pollutants and the corresponding qualitative predicted impact of discharge on

  benthic fauna and commercial fisheries productivity.

-------
                                     8-4


    Circulation in  Massachusetts Bay (location of the ocean outfall)  is not as

efficient in terms  of dispersion as are other area coastal locations, because

the Bay is partially enclosed.  Circulation is further restricted because of

the depressed topographic features.  The predicted ocean outfall discharge of

494,200 Ibs/day of  BOD and  369,000 Ibs/day of suspended solids (including

associated toxic pollutants such as PCBs, pesticides, and heavy metals) is

expected to have an adverse effect on the biological population within the

immediate discharge area and beyond the zone of initial dilution, although

exact quantification of these effects is currently not possible.  The

discharge from the  ocean diffuser is not expected to violate the

Massachusetts' dissolved oxygen standard at the boundary of initial dilution,

but it could be expected to violate the far-field and steady state benthic

oxygen demand criteria due  to abrupt resuspension.—


    As stated in the waiver denial (US EPA, 1983) the proposed deep ocean

outfall is expected to contribute nutrient stimulation of phytoplankton

resulting in an adverse increase of pollution-tolerant phytoplankton and an

increase in the amount of phytoplankton propagated at the existing
     b/
site.    No measurable effects are expected for zooplankton-populations.

The dilution dynamics  at the proposed discharge site, the differences in the

community structure of some of the populations, and  the numerous near-shore

pollution sources make it difficult to predict precisely the nature of the

impact on biological community dynamics.  In general, the proposed discharge

is predicted to result in moderate, and possibly major, adverse impacts on the

benthos.  Major benthic alterations resulting from a sedimentation rate of 486

<3/m2/yr would be expected to cover an area about 37  times the area of the
   —  For a complete discussion of discharge and projected qualitative
impacts, see US EPA, 1983.

   -'  Based on observed impacts at present discharge areas in Boston Harbor,
and a calculated deposition rate of sewage particles resulting in organic
enrichment.

-------
                                      8-5



zone of initial dilution (2.4  mi )  whereas moderate  impacts resulting from a


sedimentation rate of 92 g/m /yr would extend over an area about  2,500 times


that of the zone of initial dilution (166 mi2)  (US EPA, 1983; Tetra Tech,
                                                                         s
1980) .



    The effects of these benthic changes on commercial fisheries  are not


immediately clear.  In general,  the reduction and changes in benthic fauna are

expected to result in a decrease in available foods  for finfish,  crabs, and,


to a lesser extent, lobsters over a 166 mi  area of  Massachusetts Bay.


Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to quantify the exact magnitude of


these effects on finfish and lobster productivity.



    The part of this study area  which is most likely to be affected by the


proposed ocean outfall, and which also supports lobster populations, is the


area of the Brewsters Islands  on the perimeter of Boston Harbor and

Massachusetts Bay.  It is possible that an area of lobster exclusion may be


formed around the Brewsters based on observed exclusions at the existing Lynn


Wastewater discharge (Tetra Tech,  1982). This exclusion would result,

however, in only a small reduction in total lobster  catch.  This  is because


the amount of lobster caught in  the Brewster Islands area represents only a


fraction of the over 2 million pounds of lobster harvested in the entire area

(which extends from Lynn to Scituate, and includes inner Boston Harbor).

Insufficient data on the number  of pounds of lobster caught in this area


prevents precise quantification  of these effects.



    Estimates of costs to commercial finfishery are  equally difficult to


determine.  As was the case for  lobsters, increased  concentrations of


pollutants are expected to detrimentally affect many of the fish  populations.


Fin erosion, particularly in winter flounder, is one of the few impacts which

-------
                                      8-6






are directly observable.  Fin erosion has been detected  in winter  flounder




taken from inshore Harbor locations, although the exact  cause of fin erosion



is not known.  There is some evidence that fish develop  the disease when




maintained in contact with contaminated sediments.   There is also  additional




evidence that PCBs may be involved in the development of the disease   (US EPA,




1983; Sherwood, 1982).  Based on this information,  it is predicted that




finfish  (particularly the winter flounder, which will be attracted to  the




sediments because of their organic enrichment) will be affected by this




disease.  Given the lack of information on how this disease specifically




alters species productivity and recruitment, however, it is currently  not




possible to quantitatively estimate these effects on the economics of




commercial finfishing in the study area.






    One final concern is the problem of toxic pollutants.  Tbxic pollutants




and pesticides can exert a number of adverse effects on  marine organisms.  The




ocean outfall option is expected to increase the concentrations of a number of




toxic pollutants in the ambient waters and sediments surrounding the ocean




outfall diffuser.  Based on analysis by Tetra Tech (1980) and US EPA  (1983),




it is predicted that copper, mercury, silver, and PCBs may exceed  EPA  water




quality criteria after initial dilution, unless alleviated by a toxic  control




program.  Although an initial dilution of 133:1 will help assure that  metals




concentrations will fall below EPA water quality criteria, the unusually large




predicted volume of particulate matter and its associated toxic substances are




likely to result in high sediment concentrations of particulate-iassociated




toxicants which will adversely affect marine biota (US EPA, 1983). Lobsters



are particularly sensitive to copper concentrations; however, there is




uncertainty about the sublethal, chronic effects of this heavy metal on

-------
                                       8-7
 lobster population dynamics.  Even less is known about synergystic pollutant
                                     a/
 effects on both finfish and lobster.


         Although toxic materials may be bioaccumulating in lobster and finfish

 tissue and adversely affecting the dynamics of these populations, we must
             >

 conclude that because of insufficient biological, chemical and economic data,

 the economic effects on these commercial fisheries must remain unquantified.


 8.2  Commercial Shellfishing Industry


     The shellfishing industry is the sector of commercial fishing to which the

 greatest value could accrue from CSO or STP pollution abatement in Boston

 Harbor.  The soft shelled clam (Mya arenaria) is the most abundant

 commercially valuable shellfish species found in Boston Harbor.  Blue mussels

  (Mytilus edulis) are also found but are not commercially valuable.  The Boston

 Harbor fishery is an important part of the Massachusetts shellfishing

 industry; approximately twelve percent of the 1981 soft shelled clam harvest

 came from the area.  There are fifty-six shellfish areas in Boston Harbor

 defined by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, ranging in size

 from one that is three acres in Weymouth to one of 400 acres in Hingham (see /

 Figure 8-1.).  Total shellfish acreage is about 4,700 acres (see Table 8-1).

,' Almost one-half of this acreage (2,273) is classified as grossly contaminated
I
| and, therefore, closed to harvesting.  Slightly over one-half is classified as

 moderately contaminated and is open to harvesting only by licensed master
    £/ Despite the fact that toxic pollutants are expected to adversely
 affect  the marine biota, bioaccuraulation of these toxic chemicals are not
 expected to exceed the FDA tolerance level for finfish and lobster (US EPA,
 1983).

-------
                                                                Figure 8-1.   Commercial Finfishing and
                                                                             Shellfishing Resources in Boston Harbor
rhnrlc.s River.?/
    Source:   Metcalf & Eddy (1982),
              'gure 2-5.
Will  dlv.l
    HULL
                                                                             HINGHAM
                                                                                                          * I Areas closed to
                                                                                                           I Shellfishing

                                                                                                            Areas restricted to
                                                                                                            Master Diggers

                                                                                                         \| Approximate location
                                                                                                            of commercial
                                                                                                            fisheries
                                                                                                                             00

                                                                                                                             CO

-------
                                   8-9


                                 Table  8-1

            Characteristics of Boston Harbor Shellfish Areas!/
Name of Adjacent 1 1
City or Town or 1 Number of 1
Land Area 1 Shellfish Areas 1
Constitution Beach Area
Winthrop
East Boston
Dorchester Bay Area
South Boston
Dorchester
Quincy
Weyraouth
Hingham
Hull
Boston Harbor Islands:
Slate
Grape
Bumpkin
Georges
Lo veils
Gallups
Deer
Long
Spectacle
• Thompson
Rains ford
Sheep
Peddocks
TOTAL FLAT AREA
Estimated Productive Tidal Ar. a
10
3
7
4
2
2
11
7
3
8
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
56
2,300 acres
Acreage by Classification^/
1
Closed 1 Restricted
470
38
432
425
125
300
581
129
37
172
689



28
106
20
18
106
46
180
37
18
130
2,503
1,150
426
316
110
70
40
30
777
272
464
344
105
30
55
20










2,458

£/ Department of Environmental Quality Engineering estimates.

b/ These acreages represent total flat area as  opposed  to  tidal area.
   Productive acreage may be much smaller.

-------
                                     8-10






diggers and their employees.  None of this area is open to unrestricted




digging.  Special requirements such as the posting of a surety bond are placed




upon those who are issued master digger licenses by  the state.  Shellfish




from moderately contaminated areas must undergo depuration at the Shellfish




Purification Plant in Newburyport, Massachusetts, before being sold. The




Massachusetts shellfish sanitation program classifies shellfish areas by




standards developed by the U.S. Public Health Service and member states of the




Cooperative Program for Certification of Interstate  Shellfish Shippers.  Among




other criteria, areas are classified according to the MPN (mean probability




number) of total coliform bacteria per 100 ml of the overlying waters.  Zero




to seventy MPN is defined as clean, seventy-one to seven hundred MPN is




defined as moderately contaminated (restricted) and  above 700 is defined as




grossly contaminated (closed).  Although bacterial quality of the water is one




criteria, the guidelines contain other requirements  so  that any potential




sources of pollution, direct or indirect, may be sufficient to declare an area




unfit even though bacterial limits were met.






8.2.1  Pollution Abatement  Impacts






    The implementation of CSO controls or STP improvements can be expected to




reduce the fecal and total  coliform counts in the waters overlying the




shellfish areas in Boston Harbor, as discussed in the previous chapters.




Table 8-2 illustrates the changes that might occur  in the classification of




shellfish bed acreage if the CSO and/or STP controls were implemented.  The




anticipated changes would mean reclassification from grossly contaminated




(closed) to moderately contaminated (restricted), thereby allowing harvesting

-------
                                       Table 8-2.  Estimated  Potential  Impacts of Pollution
                                       Abatement Options on Boston Harbor Shellfish  Areas */
Adjacent
Land Area
Winthrop
East Boston
South Boston
Dorchester
Quincy «!/

Weymouth
Hlnghan
Hull
Potential Additional Acres Open to 1
Restricted Harvesting due to Control Option -/ 1
Option 1
CSO 1 STP 1
Const. I Dorch/Nep. I Quincy 1 Ocean Outfall or I
1 1 1 Secondary Trmt. 1
5 ~ — 14
55 — — 161
16
75
80 6
20 1
6
— — — — — — 7
9
Optimum I Increased Yield Due
Annua 1 1
Yield 1
For Each 1 CSO
Area I Const I Dorch./Nep.

-------
                                      8-12






with depuration.  It is not likely that areas now classified  as  restricted




could be opened to unrestricted harvesting, due to such factors  as  sediment




contamination which are unaffected by CSO controls or STP upgrading.






    It should be noted that, while this analysis specifically looks at  two




main factors affecting the Boston Harbor shellfisheries1  soft-shelled clams




(CSOs and STP discharges), other factors will also have an impact  (e.g.,




winter-kills on the clam beds and harbor maintenance through  channel




dredging).  Also, as mentioned above, criteria other than bacterial levels are




used to classify shellfish harvesting areas.






    Based on information from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental




Quality Engineering, about 725 acres could be reclassified if all pollution




abatement options were implemented.  This represents about 30 percent of the




estimated total productive tidal area (as opposed to total flat  area, see




Tables 8-1 and 8-2)  in the harbor and about 60 percent of the closed




productive tidal area.  The reclassification of acreage presented in Table 8-2




must be considered as only a general estimate.  Areas would have to be



surveyed and sampled extensively after implementation of any  of  the options




before any reclassification could take place.






    In order to determine the impact of the pollution abatement  options on the




shellfishing industry, it is necessary to translate the potential additional



acreage open to restricted digging into an increased harvest  which  can  be




valued economically.  To do this, an estimated optimum yield  factor is  used




(see Table 8-2).  The optimum yield is an estimate of the ideal  annual  level




of harvest of a particular area which will maximize both present and future




economic revenues derived from the fishery.  It is based on the  maximum

-------
                                     8-13


sustainable yield (MSY), which is a biologically determined  level  indicating

the annual harvest rate at which the productivity of  the resource  is

maximized.  Any change from this level  of fish catch, more or  less, would

result in a decrease in the equilibrium population of fish.  Optimum yield

differs from HSY in that it also accounts for fishing industry effort  levels

and benefits to society at large (see Pierce and Hughes,  1979).  The optimum

annual yield of a fishery is a function of costs and expected  returns  as well

as the natural rate of growth of the fish population.   It may  be a different

number than the MSY and, theoretically, allows for a profit-maximizing firm to

deplete the resource.  It is not expected that the pollution controls  in

question would lower the growth rate of shellfish in affected  areas, so

current optimum yields have been used here.


    The production and yield of a shellfish resource  is generally  determined

from a population density study of the  area which place clams  into class sizes

seed, juveniles, intermediates and mature in the order  of size groupings.

These results afford information on the generation of yearly stock and of

succeeding crop families.  Data also is produced on the health of  the

shellfish, predation and a general distribution pattern of the shellfish in

the area.  The information on optimum yield in Table  7-2 was provided  by the

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.  Where  no

studies have been made an average figure of 50 bushels  per acre was used.3/
   a/ From Harrington (no date).   Also,  the Maine Department of Marine
Resources rates acreage productivity for less than 25  bu/acres as poor, for
25-50 bu/acre as fair, for 50-75  bu/acre as good and for  greater than 75
bu/acre as excellent  (provided by E. Wong,  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
Region I, Boston, MA).

-------
                                     8-14






    Multiplying the optimum annual yield by the acreage potentially




reclassified due to each abatement option gives the  increased annual yield




that could be realized, as shown in the last four columns of Table 8-2. •'The




economic benefits associated with these increased yields depend upon the




economics of the industry and the supply and demand  for soft shelled clams, as




discussed below.  It should be noted that compared with an estimated current




16,000 bushels annual yield in Boston Harbor, the maximum estimated increase




of 34,000 bushels from all pollution abatement options amounts to twice the




current annual yield.  This potential increase would impact on the depuration




plant, patrol surveillances, and laboratory and water quality monitoring.




These factors could act to limit actual acreages opened to increased




harvesting.






8.2.2  Benefit Assessment Methodology






    Two types of benefits—change in producer surplus and change in consumer




surplus—may be associated with an increased shellfish harvest resulting from




pollution abatement.  Producer surplus is a measure  of the well-being of a




firm and is defined as the excess of revenues over costs.  Figure 8-2




illustrates typical, simplified demand (D) and supply (S.) curves for the




shellfish industry.  In the figure, producer surplus is the area below the




price line  (Pn) and above the supply curve (Sg);  it  is equal to the area



labeled "B" plus the area labeled "F".  Consumer surplus is a measure of the




satisfaction a consumer derives from the purchase of goods and services and is




defined as  the difference between what the individual is willing to pay and




what is actually paid.  In Figure 8-2, consumer surplus is the area above the




price line  (PQ) and below the demand curve (D) (i.e., the area labeled "A").

-------
                                       8-15
                                Figure 8-2.

            Typical  Demand and Supply Curves for the Shellfish  Industry
Market
Price
($/unit)

                                                                          Quantity of
                                                                          Shellfish

-------
                                      8-16






    If the fishery is regulated and managed so that free entry by new firms  is




restricted, then a change in producer surplus may occur.  If the increase  in




harvest is accompanied by either an unchanging price level or by a decrease  in




per unit harvest costs greater than the decrease in price, then increased




profits will accrue to those firms in the restricted fishery throughout the




time frame of the analysis.  If entry is unrestricted,  however, then the




increased profits or rents to existing firms would be dissipated (after




several years duration at best) as new firms are attracted to the industry,




resulting in no long-run producer surplus.






    A change in consumer surplus would depend upon a change in market price.




If the increase in harvest is large relative to the total local market, then




the market price could decrease, resulting in an increase in consumer




surplus.  If the increase in harvest is relatively small, or if the industry




is oligopolistic (i.e., composed of only a few firms so that each can affect




the whole industry) and the firms influence market price, then the price might




not decline and no increase in consumer surplus would accrue.






    Whether changes in either producer or consumer surpluses would result  from




the increased shellfish harvest estimated in the previous subsection for the




pollution abatement options depends upon the shapes of  the demand and supply



curves for the industry.  As mentioned above, in Figure 8-2 for price equals




PO and quantity equals QQ, consumer surplus is defined as the area A and



producer surplus as the sum of the areas B + F.  In the case illustrated,  an




increase in quantity to Q^ along with a downward shift in the supply curve




from Sg to S^, representing a decrease in per unit harvest costs



(resulting from pollution abatement), results in a new lower equilibrium




price, PI.  in this hypothetical example, both consumer and producer

-------
                                     8-17


surpluses are increased and these changes can be valued as economic benefits

associated with the pollution abatement,  as follows:


    Change in consumer surplus (CS)    =    New CS - Old CS
                                      =    (A + B + C + E)-A
                                      »    B + C + E

    Change in producer surplus (PS)    =    New PS - Old PS
                                           (P + G + H)  - (B + F)
                                           G + H - B.

    These supply and demand curves must be estimated empirically  for the

relevant benefits to be determined.   For  example, if the demand curve is very

elastic (i.e., flat) in the region of interest, then we can expect no

significant consumer surplus benefits to  accompany an increase in quantity

produced.   Broadly speaking, demand  is elastic if quantity demanded is highly

responsive to price changes and is inelastic if it is not.  A very elastic

demand curve would be one that is approaching a horizontal line and,

therefore, the change in consumer surplus (B + C + E in the above example)

would be very small.  Or if, for instance, the supply curve for the industry

is not upward sloping in the region  of concern, then no producer  surplus would

be associated wth the production increase.  Benefits estimated for a

particular fishery could include either consumer surplus benefits only or

producer surplus benefits only, or both types together, or no long-term

benefits,  depending upon the shapes  of the empirically estimated  curves and

whether or n"»t the fishery is regulated (i.e., entry restricted).


8.2.3  Benefit Estimates


    Although the theory for estimating commercial fishing benefits is well

developed and straightforward, the application of that theory is  difficult.

There are no readily available studies which define consumer demand or supply

curves for the soft shelled clam industry in Massachusetts or elsewhere.

-------
                                      8-18


landings data  (data on the quantity of shellfish harvested)  are collected  by

the state but are felt to be reasonably accurate only for recent years.

Exvessel price  (price to the digger or firm) data are not available.   The

Boston area, however, is a major market for the industry.  In 1980 consumption

was estimated at approximately 625,000 bushels.£/  Only 20 percent of that

quantity was harvested in Massachusetts, about 125,000 bushels.  About 20  to

25 percent was harvested in Maryland and the remainder in Maine.  Maine and

Maryland collect more extensive price and landings data than does

Massachusetts.


    A study was done in Maryland in the mid-1970s for various fisheries in the

Chesapeake Bay, including the soft shelled clam fishery (Marasco, 1975).   This

study developed the following demand function for the soft shelled clam

fishery, calibrated to late 1960s landings and price data in Maryland:


    log Q = 2.4606 - 2.3588 log (P/CPI) + .6067 log (I/CPI)      R2 =  .91
                   (-9.5022)£/           (.9463)

where,

    Q = landings in 1,000 Ibs.
    P = exvessel price in £/lb.
    I = per capita income
  CPI = consumer price index.

    Price elasticity of demand is defined as the ratio of the relative change

in quantity to  the relative change in price, i.e., (*Q/Q)/(AP/P).  The price

elasticity for clams in t!   above equation is -2.3588.  Price elasticities for

other species included in this study ranged from -.1 to -2.  (See Appendix D.I

for a discussion of other demand curves investigated.)
   S/ Based on Division of Marine Fisheries estimates.
   £/ Significant at the  .01 level.

-------
                                      8-19


    Unfortunately, the above demand function and other demand curves

considered represent the total demand faced by the fishermen for their product

which is shipped to more than one consumer market and not all consumed in

Maryland.  So the estimated price elasticity (-2.3588)  cannot be automatically

applied to develop a demand curve for Massachusetts consumers, even if the

markets were assumed comparable.  The price elasticity for Massachusetts

consumers might be higher than the one in the above equation because many   x

other fish species might be considered close substitutes.   On the other hand,

it has been said that demand for soft shelled clams in Massachusetts in the

summer is unlimited; any that can be dug can be sold because of the high

tourist demand for this well-known local specialty.
                                                                       f


    To account for the lack of data, consumer demand functions have been

estimated for Massachusetts for a particular year (1981)  for a range of price

elasticities, from more elastic (-3) to less elastic (-.5)  than the number in

the above equation.  Given the changes in yield estimated in the previous

subsection for each pollution abatement option and given  an estimated average

price for that year ($31.41/bu^/), new prices were estimated for each

assumed price elasticity.  The demand equation used is of the following form:





        Q82= Ax P82   or,

log Q82 = Log * + cf*x Log Pfl2
   £/ Based on Resources for  Cape  Ann,  1982,  price  for  1980  ($28.00) updated
to 1982 price using soft shelled clams  price  index  from National Marine
Fisheries Service, NOAA, 1983.

-------
                                     8-20
where,

    Q82 = quantity consumed in the Boston market in  1982
    A   = constant
    oc  " assumed price elasticity
    P82 = average 1982 exvessel price for soft shelled clams  in
          Massachusetts.

    Table 8-3 displays the results of these estimates.  The table shows that

as price elasticity increases (from -.5 to -3)  and  the demand curve becomes

flatter, the price changes resulting from the increases in clam harvest due to

the abatement options, decrease.  The price decrease is greatest for the

combined CSO and STP upgrade option with an inelastic demand  curve assumed

(* = -.5).  The price change is least for the CSO options  (taken separately)
                      s,

with an elastic demand curve assumed ( o( = -3) .


    For reasons which are described below, it is likely that  the primary

source of commercial fisheries benefits that would be associated with the

pollution abatement options would result from changes in  consumer surplus

rather than producer surplus.  If no producer surplus changes occur (see

below) , then total commercial fisheries benefits (equal to change in consumer

surplus) would be as shown in Table 8-4, following the same price elasticity

assumptions that were made for Table 8-3.


    Consumer surplus benefits (Table 8-4) are estimated from  the price changes

shown in Table 8-3 and from the changes in yields previously  estimated for

each abatement option (see Table 8-2) .  These changes in  consumer surplus were

calculated from the following equation:


    ACS - AP x Qo + 1/2 (AP x AQ)

where,

   & CS = change in consumer surplus ($)
   A p  = change in price (3)
     QO = initial consumption (bushels)
   &Q  = change in consumption  (bushels) .

-------
                                      8-21
             Table 8-3.  Estimated Changes in Price of Soft Shelled
               Clans  Associated with  Alternative Abatement  Options
             and with  Assumed Price  Elasticities of  Demand (19829)
Abatement Option
CSO
Constitution
Dorchester/Neponset
Qu incy
Combined CSO3/
STP: Ocean Outfall
or Secondary Treatment
Combined CSO and STpS/

Price
AP
Price
AP
Price
AP
Price
AP
Price
AP
Price
AP
1 E
1 -.5
31.11
-.30
30.94
-.47
31.18
-.23
30.42
-.99
28.76
-2.65
27.89
1 -3.52
last
1 -1
31.26
-.15
31.17
-.24
31.30
-.11
30.91
-.50
30.05
-1.36
29.60
1 -1'81
i c i t y
1 -2
31.33
-.08
31.29
-.12
31.35
-.06
31.16
-.25
30.72
-.69
30.49
1 -92
( <*)
1 -3
31.36
-.05
31.33
-.08
31.37
-.04
31.24
-.17
30.95
-.46
30.79
1 "62
—' All CSO options are combined in this row.  Price changes are greater for
the combined plans than for the sum of the separate plans, because the demand
equation is not linear.

-------
                                      8-22
                      Table 8-4.  Estimated Total Benefits
                  Associated with Alternative  Abatement Options
              and with Assumed Price Elasticities of Demand (19823)
Abatement Option
CSO
Constitution
Dorchester/Neponset
Quincy
Combined CSO
1 E
1 -.5
5,239
8,674
3,936
20,727
last!
1 -1
2,626
4,353
1,971
10,446
city
1 -2
1,314
2,181
987
5,243
(*)
1 -3
877
1,455
658
3,501
STP: Ocean Outfall
or Secondary Treatment

Combined CSO and STP
 79,847    40,804    20,627    13,812

123,537    63,602    32,273    21,622

-------
                                     8-23






It was assumed that the harvest from Boston Harbor  shellfish areas  is consumed




in the Boston area market.   In addition,  16,000  bushels was used as a




reasonable estimate of the  annual harvest from Boston Harbor restricted areas




before pollution abatement  and, therefore,  as  the initial consumption estimate




(Qo)—' .  For a more detailed discussion of the computation methods  used to



obtain the new prices, price changes and  consumer surplus benefits, see




Appendix D.2.






    As shown in Table 8-4,  the total benefit levels vary in roughly the same




way as the price changes shown in Table 8-3.  This  is because as the price




decreases, the difference between price and willingness to pay  increases, so




that consumer surplus increases, and is shown  by positive numbers in the




table.  The greatest benefits are obtained from  the options with the greatest,



increase in yield and the most inelastic  demand. Total benefits are larger




for the combined options than for the sum of the separate options,  because the




demand equation is not linear.






    It could also be legitimately argued  that  the change in consumer surplus




could be zero.  If all the  pollution abatement options were implemented, then




the increased harvest (34,000 bushels)  would represent about six percent of




the total market (625,000 bushels).   Since it  appears that none of  the firms



included in the Boston area market can  influence price and since only a small




percentage of them would be affected by the pollution abatement, it could be




reasonably agreed that there would not  be a change  in consumer  surplus given




the small percentage increases in harvest just mentioned.  Not  enough is known




about the consumer demand curve, however,  to make a definitive  judgment.
   a/ Division of Marine Fisheries

-------
                                     8-24



    Thus, from the considerations just discussed,  we can conclude that the

range of commercial fisheries benefits resulting from  implementation of the

pollution abatement options in Boston Harbor would be  from zero to the

higheststimates.levels presented in Table 8-4.   The benefits estimates shown

in Table 8-4, column 2 (price elasticity = -1)  represent moderate levels

between the upper and lower bounds just described.


    As indicated above, no definitive estimates concerning producer surplus

changes could be made due to lack of data.  Attempts were made to develop a

supply curve but were unsuccessful; these are described in Appendix D.3 along

with an example showing how to compute change in producer surplus, if such

benefits exist.



    A reasonable argument can be made that the  change  in producer surplus

would be zero for commercial shellfishing in Boston Harbor.  This argument is

that the supply curve is flat in the range of interest.  If there is unlimited

entry of firms into the fishery, then the additional profits or rents which

would accrue to the master diggers currently operating in Boston Harbor

restricted areas would be dissipated over the long run, leaving no long-term

producer surplus benefits.  There do exist institutional constraints on entry

to the fishery; the State of Massachusetts places  some restrictions upon

master diggers allowed to operate in moderately contaminated areas:  they must

have a special license, post a surety bond, utilize specially licensed

employees, meet certain transport requirements, keep certain records' and are

not allowed to concurrently harvest in areas classified as closed.  There are

no absolute restrictions to entry, however; as  long as a firm meets the

requirements, it may participate.^/
   S/ For a discussion of various options for entry or  effort regulation of
New Bigland fisheries, see Smith and Peterson, 1977.

-------
                                     8-25






    In addition to the question of official restrictions on entry  into the




Boston Harbor shellfishing industry there is also evidence, as mentioned in




the Section on Health Benefits, that thousands  of bushels of contaminated




clans are being bootlegged (illegally harvested)  from the shellfish areas that




are classified as closed by the state.3/   This  evidence shows that the




official restrictions on Boston Harbor  shellfishing  are often ignored and that




in practice there are few barriers to entry.  It  is,  therefore, probable that




the change in producer surplus that would result  from the control  options




would only extend over a limited number of years  until new firms attracted by




the increased profits are able to meet  the entry  requirements.  It is




impossible to say how long these impediments would prevent new entries, but




over the long term they may not keep the  additional  profits generated by the




pollution abatement options from being  reduced  to zero.






8.2.4  Limits of Analysis






    The major limitation of this analysis of commercial fisheries  benefits is




the lack of well-developed consumer demand and  supply curves for the soft




shelled clam industry.  This makes application  of the theory for estimating




commercial benefits difficult.  However,  it is  unlikely that a producer




surplus exists and the true demand elasticity probably falls within the




estimated demand elasticity range used  in this  study.  Thus, the analysis was




able to put bounds around the uncertainty.






    Other data deficiencies include no  good historical data for Massachusetts




on harvest of soft shelled clams,  numbers depurated  and price to the digger.




Little information also exists on the Boston consumer  market and its sources




and changes over time.  Furthermore, there is only a  small amount  of data on
      Discussions with Division of  Marine Fisheries staff and others.

-------
                                      8-26






costs of the firms in the industry, particularly those with  special licenses



to operate in restricted areas.  The impacts of pollution abatement and of




theresulting increase in yields on these costs are hard to judge, especially




the changes in numbers of employees and income to the master diggers.  This




lack of data thus prevented a more precise estimation of shellfishing benefits.

-------
                                      8-27
                                   References
Altobello, Marilyn A., David A.  Storey and Jon M.  Conrad, January 1977.
    Hie Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery;  A Descriptive and Econometric Analysis,
    Research Bulletin No. 643,  Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station,
    University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA.

Arnold, David, January 31, 1983.  Clammers Can't Work,  Can't Get Benefits,  The
    Boston Globe, Boston, MA.

Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission,  1978.  An Economic
    Profile of the Cape and Islands Fisheries.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  Division of Marine Fisheries, 1981.  Abstracts
    of Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Law, Boston, MA.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  Division of Marine Fisheries, March 1982.
    Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Management Policy Report, Boston, MA.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  Division of Marine Fisheries, 1982.  Rules and
    Regulations Pertaining to the Issuance and Use of Master and Subordinate
    Digger Permits, Boston, MA.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts,  Division of Marine Fisheries, 1982.  Shellfish
    Areas Approved for Restricted Harvest with Depuration and Corresponding
    Routes to Newburyport Purification Plant, Boston, MA.

Crutchfield, Stephen R., February 1983.  Soft Clam Exvessel Demand Functions
    and Clam Fishery Data, unpublished data. Department of Resource Economics,
    University of Rhode Island,  Kingston, RI.

Dumanoski, Dianne, December 19  to 21, 1982.  Boston's Open Sewer, three part
    series, The Boston Globe, Boston, MA.

Harrington, Peter, (no date).  Shellfish Resource Estimates, unpublished memo,
    Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Boston,  MA.

Marasco, Richard J., May 1975.   An Analysis of Future Demands, Supplies,
    Prices and Needs for Fishery Resources of the Chesapeake Bay, MP 868,
    Agricultural Exper_- ent Station, University of Maryland, College Park,
    Maryland.

Marchesseault, Guy, Joseph Mueller, Lars Vidaeus and W.. Gail Willette, 1981.
    "Bio-Economic Simulation of the Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery:  A
    Preliminary Report", in K.  Brian Haley (ed.), Applied Operations Research
    in Fishing, Plenum Publishing Corp., New York, NY.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., June 1982.  Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
    Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study, for the
    Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, MA.

-------
                                         8-28
J
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 1983.  Fisheries of the U.S,
    Washington, DC.

National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, 1976.  Fishery Statistics of the U.S,
    Washington, DC.

Pierce, David E. and Patricia E. Hughes, January 1979.  Insight into the
    Methodology and Logic Behind National Marine Fisheries Services Fish
    Stock Assessments, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and Coastal
    Zone Management Office, Boston, MA.

Resources for Cape Ann, April 1982.  The Costs of Pollution!  The Shellfish
    Industry and the Effects of Coastal Water Pollution, Massachusetts Audubon
    Society.

Sherwood, M.J. 1982.  Fin Erosion, Liver Condition, and Trace Contaminant
    Exposure in Fishes from Three Coastal Regions.  In:  "Ecological Stress
    and the New York Bight," Science and Management, pp. 359-377.  Estuarine
    Research Federation, Columbia, South Carolina.

Smith, Leah J. and Susan B. Peterson, August 1977.  The New England Fishing
    Industryi  A Basis for Management, Technical Report WHOI-77-51, Woods Hole
    Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1980.  Technical Evaluation of Deer Island and Nut Island
    Treatment Plants Section 301(h) Application for Modification of Secondary
    Treatment Requirements for Discharge into Marine Waters for U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1981.  Technical Evaluation of Lynn Wastewater Treatment
    Plant Section 301(h) Application for Modification of Secondary Treatment
    Requirements for Discharge into Marine Waters, for U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency.

Townsend, Ralph and Hugh Briggs, September 1980.  Some Estimates of Harvesting
    and Processing Costs for Maine's Marine Industries, technical report,
    Department of Economics, University of Maine.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Analysis Division, 1982.  The
    Handbook of Benefit-Cost Assessm*nt for Water Programs, Draft, Washington
    D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine Discharge Evaluation,
    1983.  Analysis of the Section 301(h) Secondary Treatment Waiver
    Application for Boston Metropolitan District Commission, Washington, D.C.

Wang, Der-Hsiung, Joel B. Dirlam and Virgil J. Norton, March 1978.  Demand
    Analysis of Atlantic Groundfish, (preliminary report), Staff Paper No. 7,
    Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

Williams, Doug, (no date).  Data and Procedures Used to Estimate Technical
    Coefficients for the Clam/Worm Sector, unpublished paper, Department of
    Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine.

-------
                                   Section 9

                              Intrinsic Benefits


    Intrinsic benefits are all benefits that  are  associated with  a  resource,

which are not specifically related to current direct use  of that  resource.

Although these non-user benefits are not directly observable,  it  is important

to emphasize that they are as real and economically important  as  the more

easily measured user benefits.


    Briefly, intrinsic benefits can be categorized  as the sum  of  option

(bequest) values, existence value, and aesthetics.-^/  Option value  is

defined as the amount of money,  beyond user values, that  individuals are

willing to pay to insure access to the resource (or a level of environmental

quality) in the future when there is uncertainty  in resource availability

and/or individual use (demand),  regardless of whether the individual is a

current user.  Option benefits reflect the value  of reducing uncertainties

and of avoiding irreversibilities.  When option values reflect

intergenerational concerns they are referred  to as  bequest motives. Bequest

values are defined as the willingness to pay  (HTP)  for the satisfaction

associated with endowing future generations with  the resource. Existence

value is defined as the willingness to pay for the  knowledge that the

resource is available and ecosystems are being protected, independent of any
   §/ For an in depth discussion of intrinsic benefits and  their
estimation, see RTI, 1983; Freeman, 1979;  Fisher  and  Raucher,  1982; Mitchell
and Carson, 1981.

-------
                                      9-2






anticipated use by the individual.  These values are distinct_from aesthetic




benefits and concerns over retaining the option of future use.   Aesthetic




values pertain to enhanced appreciation of water-related (instream vs.  near




stream) experiences.  Given that improved water quality could enhance the




aesthetic values of users as well as non-users of the resource/  there could




be an aesthetic component in both use benefits and intrinsic benefits.






    Definitions of bequest values tend to obscure the distinction between




existence and option values in the literature.  Sometimes bequest values are




placed in a separate category of intrinsic values; sometimes they are treated




as part of existence values and at other times they are considered as option




values.  For example. Freeman  (1979) considers the utility of the expectation




of future use by descendants as a bequest form of vicarious existence



benefits.  Yet, bequest values can be considered for long term potential use




where there may be uncertainties associated with future demand and supply.




Hence, this concept may be treated as part of option value.  Mitchell and




Carson (1981) , for example, separate option value into current and bequest




categories.






    Although the distinction between user and intrinsic benefits is often




unclear, there is substantial agreement that these intrinsic benefits may



account for a large portion of all pollution abatement benefits  (see Fisher




and Raucher, 1982).  Intrinsic benefits are usually derived from lemand




functions.  Data for these functions are most frequently obtained from



surveys, questionnaires, and voting referenda.  Assuming that people are




willing to pay for these values, these techniques are intended to yield



information on the prices that consumers are willing to pay for  cleaner water




even though they do not intend to use the resource directly. This generated

-------
                                      9-3






price information is used to construct demand equations from which the




welfare changes associated with cleaner water can be measured.   Despite  the




criticisms leveled at this contingent valuation approach/  due to several




potential biases, the survey method represents the best available technique




to quantify all these benefits.






    Property value data may also be used to infer estimates of  intrinsic




benefits.  The property value approach is based on the hedonic  valuation




method, which relates the price or value of a property to  a variety of




discrete characteristics.  These characteristics include site and




neighborhood characteristics, socio-economic factors,  and  environmental




quality variables such as degree of water pollution.  A major limitation of




the property value technique is that it neglects the benefits to those who do




not own property near the affected water body.  The approach also records the




response of property owners to an actual change in water quality, a change




which may not necessarily reflect what property owners would be willing  to




pay for potential improvements in water quality, or for improved water




quality at other locations.  As a result, a significant fraction of value, in




the form of consumer surplus, may be omitted when applying this technique.




In addition, the hedonic approach may produce biased benefit estimates




because of the difficulty in disaggregating the benefits between use




(recreation, for example) and nonuse.  There have been several  attempts  to




model this relationship despite the extensive data required for this




technique.  One such effort, described in Feenberg and Hills (1980), uses




property values derived from a study by Harrison and Rubenfeld  (1978).






9.1  Methodology






    Intrinsic benefits are difficult to measure and value.  A number of




studies have attempted to measure intrinsic values using the NTP survey

-------
                                     9-4


approach.  We know of no specific study that can be applied directly to the

entire Boston Harbor or that can be associated with the range of pollution

abatement options which accurately relates either dichotomous or incremental

changes in water quality to corresponding changes in intrinsic values.  The

most recent willingness to pay surveys measure benefits to users and

non-users of rivers (RTI, 1983; Cronin, 1982)  and are inappropriate to apply

to a marine resource such as Boston Jferbor.  The Qcamlich  (1977) study, which

measures willingness to pay for improving water to a swimmable level in the

Charles River/ cannot be applied to Boston Harbor because Gramlich's bids are

averages across both users and nonusers, representing total values, and

because the Charles River is not a marine resource.


    Other researchers have attempted to establish a relationship between

intrinsic values and user values  (see Fisher and Raucher, 1982, for a

critical review).  Results from this approach suggest that intrinsic values

are substantial:  they generally are at least one-half as great as

recreational user benefits.  Because of the lack of appropriate WTP survey

data which can be applied to the different control options in the study area,

estimates of intrinsic benefits were made by assuming that these non-user

benefits are one-half as great as recreational user benefits.


9.2  Benefits Estimates


    Intrinsic benefits for the CSO and STP pollution control options

are accordingly based on one-half the benefit estimates derived from

the recreational benefits estimated in Section 6.$r  These benefit values
   a/ Includes swimming participation (logit model plus Quincy, Weymouth,
Hingham, Hall and fentasket estimates), boating, fishing, and Boston Harbor
Islands recreation.  For swimming the user day value ($11.06) derived in the
logit model is applied to increased user day figures (see text in Section 6
for user day values for other recreational activities).

-------
                                     9-5
                                        /
incorporate both current and future benefits from water quality improvements

and are presented  in Table 9-1.  The range of values represents a very rough
approximation of non-user benefits.

                                  Table 9-1
                          Annual Intrinsic Benefits
                               (Millions 1982$)


Pollution Control
Option
1 CSO I
1 plus I
1 Ocean 1
1 Outfall I
50% of Recreation
Benefits
i
1 High: 21.8
1 Low: 10.1
1 Moderate: 15.9

CSO
plus
Seconda ry
Treatment
23.2
10.7
17.0
9.3  Limits of Analysis

    Non-user benefits are especially difficult to measure and project, and
estimation of these benefits is limited by both methodology and data.
Appropriate willingness to pay surveys and property studies were not
available to estimate benefits from the variety of  pollution control
options.  As a result, these benefits may be biased because they might be
capturing benefits calculated under other categories such as fishing,
swimming, or boating  (i.e., double counting).

-------
                                      9-6
                                   References
Cronin, Francis, 1982.  Valuing Nonmarket Goods Through Contingent Markets,
    Richland, Washington:  Pacific Northwest laboratory, PNL-4255.

Feenberg, Daniel and E.S. Mills, 1980.  Measuring the Benefits of Water
    Pollution Abatement,  teademic Press, New York, NY, 187 pp.

Fisher, Ann and Robert Raucher, 1982, Comparison of Alternative Methods of
    Evaluating the Intrinsic Benefits of Improved Water Quality, presented at
    the American Economics Association proceedings, New York.

Freeman, A. Myrick, 1979.  The Benefits of Environmental Improvement.  Johns
    Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Gramlich, Frederick, 1977.  The Demand for dean Water: The Case of the
    Charles River, National Tax Journal 2:183.

Harrison, David and Daniel Rubenfeld, 1982.  Hedonic Housing Prices and the
    Demand for Clean Air.  Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
    5: 81-102.

Mitchell, Robert and Richard Carson, 1981.  An Experiment in Determining
    Willingness to Pay for National Water Quality Improvements.  U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency.

Research Triangle Institute, 1983.  A Comparison of Alternative Approaches
    for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality
    Improvement, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

-------
                                 Section 10
                              Biological Effects

    Several of the pollution abatement options considered are expected to
have a positive influence on the ecological  processes in the estuarine areas
of Boston Harbor because of significant reductions in pollutant loadings and
corresponding reductions in concentrations of  fecal coliform, suspended
solids, organic toxics, heavy metals, and increases in the level of dissolved
oxygen.  Implementation of the ocean outfall option is also expected, on the
one hand, to beneficially impact the ecological processes in Boston Harbor
while, on the other hand, to detrimentally affect the ecological processes in
Massachusetts Bay because of removal of pollutants from the Harbor to the Bay.

    It is not easy to capture the ecological costs and benefits of these
pollution control options because of the lack  of information linking
pollutant transport and dispersion to specific dose-response relationships,
and the difficulty in expressing these changes and effects in monetary
units.  Therefore, the following discussion  of the ecological effects of the
different treatment options will be presented  qualitatively, as opposed to
the quantitative benefits and costs described  in previous chapters.

10.1    CSO and Secondary Treatment Options

    It is likely that the G50 and STP pollution abatement options will
positively influence the biological ecosystem  within Boston Harbor,

-------
                                     10-2



particularly the highly productive saltmarsh habitats.   Phytoplankton,

benthic organisms and the communities of shellfish,  finfish and  lobster will

be specifically affected.  This positive effect will occur  because  both

treatment options will reduce loadings of BOD, suspended solids  and fecal

coliform to the Harbor area, as well as reducing concentrations  of  heavy

metals (see Table 2-3) and possibly organic toxics such  as  pesticides and

PCBs.a-'   Although none of Massachusetts' major saltmarshes  are located in

Boston Harbor, it does contain a significant amount of marsh acreage.  Quincy

Bay has 209 areas of saltmarsh, Dorchester Bay 363 acres, Hingham Bay 644

acres and there is also Belle Isle Marsh along the inlet in Winthrop.  These

marshlands play an important role in the biological productivity of the

adjacent coastal waters as well as performing other useful  functions.  It  is

well documented (Odum, 1961; Teal, 1962) that these areas are the most

efficient primary producing environments on earth and provide natural

spawning, nursery and feeding habitat for many species of fish and

invertebrates.  The sheltered waters and grasses provide food and cover for

furbearing animals, shorebirds, and waterfowl.  From two-thirds  to  three-

quarters of the commercially or recreationally important finfish, such as

herring, striped bass and flounder, and shellfish spend  part of  their

lifecycle in saltmarshes.


    Marshlands tran form carbon dioxide water into oxygen and food. They  are

highly productive of organic matter; because of the tides,  wastewater
  a/ In general, the STP secondary option will reduce conventional and
non-conventional pollutant loadings to a greater extent than the CSO option,
although the greatest difference in reduction are changes in BOD and
suspended solids.

-------
                                     10-3






products are regularly removed and organic material and nutrients  are  added.




It has been estimated that a saltmarsh produces 10,000 pounds of organic




matter per acre per year (Odum, 1961).   These lands concentrate and  recycle




carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus and are important to the global cycles of




nitrogen and sulfur.  Marsh areas have a very high value as providers  of



tertiary sewage treatment since they remove and recycle inorganic  nutrients.






    Saltmarshes are also important for stabilizing the shoreline.  They




provide a buffer zone which limits coastal erosion by flood, wave, and wind




action.  Marshes act as reservoirs during flooding and absorb sediments and




wave energy during storms which aids in keeping harbors open and in




preserving beaches.






    Attempts have been made to estimate the economic value of saltmarshes by




valuing the productivity of the marsh,  by valuing the role of the  marsh as a




factor of production, and by estimating the cost of duplicating the  functions




of a marsh, such as providing tertiary wastewater treatment.  Annual values




ranging from $100 to $4,000 per acre were developed in one study  (Gosselink,




Odum and Pope, 1973).  These types of values have been criticized  as




representing total value rather than net benefits and much smaller values



(3.25-3.30 per acre) were estimated for marsh areas as factors of  production




(Lynn, Conroy and Prochaska, 1981).  Another study points out the  many




functions of the marsh are not !:• luded when only the productivity of  the




marsh is valued (Westraore, 1977).  In any case, if, for illustration




purposes, such a range of values is applied to the total marsh acreage of




Boston Harbor (1216+ acres), an economic value ranging from $121,600 to




$4,864,000 per year is estimated.

-------
                                      10-4






    Whatever value of marshland is selected, the problem for  this case study




is determining the impact of the pollution abatement option on the marsh.




For the most part, the studies cited above and others are concerned with




development that will destroy the marsh by dredging or filling.  Here, the




concern is with the impact of pollutants (and their abatement)  on the




functioning of the marsh.  It is known that large amounts of  untreated




organic materials greatly stress marshes and reduce dissolved oxygen to




undesirable levels.  However, smaller amounts of these materials may enhance




marsh productivity.  Oilorinated hydrocarbons, and organophosphorous




pesticides have been measured in the Harbor in sufficient concentrations to




have sublethal or lethal effects on adult crustaceans, larval mollusks and




embryonic and larval forms of finfish.  Other effects on saltmarsh flora and




fauna are unknown.






    The proposed pollution abatement options under consideration in this




study will control coliform bacteria, pesticides and some heavy metals in




Harbor marshlands.  The connection between the levels of control and the




effect on the functioning of the marshlands, however, is unknown.  Since we




are unable to measure the extent of the impacts, these marshland benefits




must be considered nonmonetizable.






    The effects on the plankton and benthic communities throughout the rest



of the Harbor generally will be the opposite of those described below for the




ocean outfall option.  Reduction in conventional loadings may increase




species diversity and there will be a shift whereby pollution




sensitive-species will replace many of the pollution-tolerant species now



dominating the Harbor.  These community changes will influence the abundance

-------
                                    10-5


and diversity of species who feed on these organisms in the lower portion of

the food chain, leading to a shift towards pollution-intolerant species.  For

example, yellow tail flounder may replace winter flounder who prefer

organically enriched sites.


    Reductions in metals and possibly organic toxicants will have a  positive

effect on many species in the Harbor, particularly the shellfish and finfish

who tend to bioaccumulate toxic substances such as PCBs and organically

complexed metals such as mercury and lead.—   These effects may include a

reduction in disease (such as finfish erosion), increases in juvenile

survival and increases in productivity  and community stability.


10.2    Ocean Outfall Option


    The ocean outfall plan is expected  to have negative effects on the

biological ecosystem of a portion of Massachusetts Bay.  As discussed in

Section 2 of this report, the pollution abatement plan calls for an  ocean

outfall diffuser system to discharge the combined, treated effluent  from Deer

and Nut Island plants into Massachusetts Bay, 7.5 miles (12.1 km) northeast

of Deer Island.  This discharge area will not provide for sufficient
  a/ It is important to note however,  that although the pollution abatement
options under consideration will eliminate some of the toxic substances and
metals in the Harbor waters, significant concentrations of the- .• pollutants
reside in the harbor sediment and are  constantly being re-suspended.   It is
not known what the flushing rate is for Boston Harbor but the rate is
probably considerably reduced because  of the very shallow depths of all the
harbor waters.  Thus, many of these pollutants will remain in the sediment
and water columns for many years to come and continue to negatively affect
the ecological communities.

-------
                                     10-6






transport and dispersion of the diluted wastewater and particulates because




it is topographically depressed.  This, in turn, will restrict circulation




and dilution and will lead to an accumulation of BOD and suspended solids,




and several toxic pollutants.  In addition,  the proposed discharge of




suspended solids is expected to violate the Commonwealth's dissolved oxygen




standard.








    Discharge from the proposed outfall is expected to negatively affect the




structure and function of many of the components of the marine ecosystem in




this area including phytoplankton, benthic invertebrates, and communities of




lobster, crab and finfish.  It is also possible that several species of




whales, including the endangered Right whale, will be influenced by discharge




of pollutants into Massachusetts Bay.






10.2.1  Plankton






    The proposed ocean discharge of BOD and suspended solids  (which include




toxic pollutants) is predicted to significantly enrich  the waters within the




immediate 2.4 square miles surrounding the diffuser and extend to a much




larger zone of 166 mi  and thus greatly increase the levels of available




nutrients such as nitrogen  (the most limiting nutrient  in marine waters) and




phosphorous.  Increased amounts of these nutrients will consequently




stimulate phytoplankton productivity and lead to  increases  in phytoplankton




biomass, as well as resulting in an adverse shift from pollutant-intolerant




phytoplankton to pollutant-tolerant species.  The composition and




distribution of the zooplankton populations are not expected to be




significantly affected because of the increased limited dilution and because




the zooplankton community is inherently able to quickly recover from

-------
                                     10-7






pollutant stress.  As discussed in the  waiver documents  (Tetra  Tech. 1980;




US EPA, 1983) the most polluted of waters appear  to depress numbers of




zooplankton without measurably altering species composition or  distribution.




The only effects from these increased pollutant loadings would  be a




proportional decrease in actual numbers of individuals of all species.






10.2.2  Benthos






    The benthic community in the proposed ocean outfall  area is currently



dominated by high densities of surface-deposit feeders,  to the  exclusion of




other more pollution-intolerant species.   The structure  and density of this




existing benthic community suggests that the site is already organically




enriched.  The effect of the large amounts of discharge  on the  benthic




community is predicted to be significant.   The additional nutrient levels and




decreasing oxygen levels would exceed the assimilative capacity of the




community and would result in major structural and functional alterations in




the macrobenthos.  These include major  reductions in total density, species




richness, diversity and eveness.  Pollution-sensitive species would be




greatly reduced or eliminated resulting in a shift to highly




pollution-tolerant species.  Major effects are likely to appear in the




immediate 2.4 square mile area surrounding the diffuser, and moderate effects




would extend over a much larger area (166 square  miles)  of Massachusetts Bay.






10.2.3  Finfish/Lobsters






    The proposed ocean outfall option is expected to negatively affect local




populations of finfish and lobster for  a number of reasons.  The anticipated




changes in the benthic community are expected to  have a  negative impact on




the finfish and lobster who feed on these benthic organisms.  The resulting

-------
                                     10-8






alterations in diversity and structure  of the benthos  will  reduce  the amount




of food which is available to the finfish and lobsters (Ennis,  1973) and thus




will reduce finfish and lobster population within the  immediate zone of




intial dilution.  This effect may extend over a much larger area  of




Massachusetts Bay.  Lobsters may be more negatively influenced  than the




finfish by the increased organic loading from the discharger as was observed




near another wastewater discharge north of Boston Harbor  (Tetra Tech, 1981).






    A slight shift in the distribution and abundance of the finfish community




may also occur because of the increased amounts of organic  loading.  The




settling of these effluent solids is predicted to alter the substrate




composition of the site to one preferred by winter flounder. As a result,  it




is expected that the winter flounder will replace other finfish species,




particularly the now-dominant yellow tail flounder.






    The discharge into Massachusetts Bay will also contain  toxic materials




including some heavy metals and PCBs.  These toxic pollutants can  affect




marine organisms in a number of ways.  Acute exposure  can lead  to  death,




while exposure to lower concentrations can induce sublethal effects such as




reduced survival of young, lowered resistance to disease and deleterious




changes in behavior.  These sublethal,  chronic concentrations can, in turn,




reduce species distribution and abundance.






    The toxicity of certain heavy metals is influenced, however, by the




chemical form taken by the metal.  Acute, short-term effects are more likely




to occur when the metals are in ionic form while chronic, long-term effects



are most likely to occur when metals are complexed in  organic form and are

-------
                                    10-9






relatively non-ionic.  It is in this chemical state that the metals will




accumulate within body tissues and can  be transferred to other organisms




through the food chain.






    Bioaccumulation of toxic substances is even more likely to occur with




organic toxicants, such as certain types of pesticides and PCBs,  because




their neutrally charged organic form allow a much easier passage across



cellular membranes.   In addition, many  of these organic compounds are very




resistant to degradation.  As a result, these long-lasting residues will pass




through the food web, ending up in commercially and recreationally important




species of fish, and will be transferred to humans when these fish are




consumed.






    The proposed ocean outfall option will remove about the same percentage




of metals, pesticides, PCBs and other toxic materials as does the existing




STP (see Table 2-3 in Section 2).  This means that metals such as cadmium,




chromium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc will, at most, be reduced by 40




percent from their influent concentrations.  Based on data collected near the




current Deer Island and Nut Island outfalls (US EPA, 1983) annual average




concentrations of three metals, copper  mercury and silver, were found to




exceed EPA water quality criteria.—  It was also found that PCBs were




appearing in the effluent at 19 to 320  times the EPA criterion.  A study of




the toxic chemical concentrations in the tissues of lobster and winter




flounder near  the discharges indicated  that PCBs are bioaccuraulating in the




edible tissues of these species.  It was shown, however, that the other




chemicals sampled—DDT, mercury, silver, cadmium, copper and lead--were not
  a/ (See US EPA, 1983 and 45 Fed. Reg.  79318, November 38, 1980.)

-------
                                    10-10


bioaccumulating in fish and  lobster tissues, although this does not mean that

these organisms are otherwise not being negatively influenced by

concentrations in the water  column.


    Finally, the discharge from the ocean outfall is  expected to contribute

to the problem of fin erosion in demersal fish.   Although the exact cause of

fin erosion is not known,  there is evidence to suggest that fish develop the

disease when they come into  constant contact with contaminated sediments,

particularly those contaminated with PCBs (Sherwood,  1979; OS EPA, 1983).

There is evidence that current HOC discharges into Boston Harbor are

contributing to fin erosion, particularly in winter flounder, and thus it is

likely that the proposed discharge of effluent into Massachusetts will have a

similar negative effect in local fish populations.


10.2.4  Bidangered or Threatened Species


    The ocean outfall option may adversely affect transient threatened or

endangered species which appear in or obtain nutrients from the waters of

Massachusetts Bay.  The affected organisms include several species of whale,

and are listed below:
    Blue Whale                Balaenoptera musculus
    Finback Whale             B. physalus
    Sei Whale                 B. borealis
    linke Whale               B. acutorostrata
    Humpback Whale            Megaptera noveanglias
    Right Whale               Bibalaena glacialis
    Loggerhead Sea Turtle     Caretta caretta
    Leatherback Sea Turtle     Dermochelys coriacea
    Shortness Sturgeon        Acipenser brevirostrum
    American Peregrine Falcon  Palco peregrinus anatum

-------
                                     10-11






    All of these species are migratory,  particularly the whales who travel




from the Gulf of Maine down the coast to Delaware Bay and southward to




Georgia and Florida.  Two endangered species,  the Right and Humpback Whale,




and the threatened Fin Whale are known to feed in summer along the shoreline




areas of Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bay on their migration along the East




coast.  Their food sources include fish, krill or related crustaceans, and




zooplankton, which, as discussed previously, are likely to be negatively




affected by the conventional pollutants or by  toxic pollutants discharged




into Massachusetts Bay.  Although it is impossible to quantify these effects




on these species of whale and on the other species, it is likely that heavy




metals and the organic toxics will have the most deleterious impacts on these




endangered/threatened organisms.

-------
                                     10-12
                                   References
Ennis, G.P., 1973.  Pood, feeding and condition of lobsters, Homarus
    Americanus, throughout the seasonal cycle in Bonavista Bay, Newfoundland,
    Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 30:1905-1909.

Gosselink, J.G., E.P. Odum, R.M. Pope, 1973.  The Value of the Tidal Marsh,
    Center for Wetlands Research, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
    Louisiana.

Lynne, G.O., P. Conroy, F.J. Prochaska, 1981.  Economic Valuation of Marsh
    Areas for Marine Production Processes, Journal of Environmental Economics
    and Management, Vol. 8, No. 2.

Metcalf and Eddy, September 13, 1979.  Application for Modification of
    Secondary Treatment Requirements for Its Deer Island and Nut Island
    Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, for the Metropolitan District
    Commission, Boston, MA.

Odum, E.P., 1961.  Fundamentals of Ecology, W.B. Saunders Co.

Sherwood, M.J., 1979.  The Fish Erosion Syndrome, Coastal Water Research
    Project Annual Report for 1978, W. Bascom (ed.) SCCWRP, El Segundo,
    California.

Teal, J.M., 1962.  Energy Flow in the Saltmarsh Ecosystem of Georgia,
    Ecology 43:614.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 1980.  Technical Evaluation of Deer Island and Nut Island
    Treatment Plants Section 301(h) Application for Modification of Secondary
    Treatment Requirements for Discharge into Marine Waters, Bellevue,
    Washington.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 1981.  Technical Evaluation of Lynn Wastewater Treatment
    Plant Section 301 (h) Application for Modification of Requirements for
    Discharge into Marine Waters, Bellevue, Washington.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983.  Analysis of the Section
    301(h) Secondary Treatment Waiver Application for Boston Metropolitan
    District Commission, Office of Marine Discharge Evaluation,
    Washington, DC.

Welch, E.B., 1980.  Ecological Effects of Wastewater, Cambridge University
    Press, New York, New York.

Westman, Walter E., 1977.  Row Much Are Nature's Services Worth,
    Science 2: 960-964.

-------
                                  Section 11
                               Secondary Effects

    The benefits associated with the previously discussed pollution abatement
options which accrue from increases  in recreational activity/ commercial
fishing and other activities/  are all primary benefits;  that is/  they are
direct impacts of the proposed projects.  Another  type of benefit—secondary
benefits—measures the net increase  in economic activity generated by the
direct impacts and indirectly  attributable to the  treatment  alternatives.
Secondary benefits are added to the  primary benefits of  a pollution abatement
project only if there is widespread  unemployment nationally  or  regionally and
only if it is expected that these unemployed resources would be used in the
economic activity thus generated. Otherwise/  it can be  assumed that any
increased economic activity stimulated by the project would  represent only a
transfer of productive resources from one use to another and would not be a
net benefit.  The rules and procedures governing the inclusion  of secondary
benefits are found in Section  XI 2.11 of Water Resources Council/ "Economic
and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land
Resources Implementation Studies" (1983).

    These Principles and Guidelines  state th  t conceptually  any employment of
otherwise unemployed resources that  results from a project represents a
benefit but that difficulties  in identification and measurement may preclude
any but those labor resources  employed onsite in the construction of the
project be counted.  For this  case study/ the construction options have not
been sufficiently developed to categorize types of labor resources required.
Instead/ some of the other indirect  employment categories are discussed.

-------
                                      11-2






    Since unemployment is often cyclical, secondary benefits  may not  accrue




to the proposed projects over the long-run unless structural  unemployment




(unemployment unaffected by normal cyclical upturns in the economy) is




alleviated. A detailed labor market analysis is required to determine the




types of unemployed resources that exist and whether the mix  of skills




required for the economic activity generated by the pollution abatement




options would use those resources. Even in a less than full-employment




economy, as is currently the case, some resources that would  be employed to




meet the increase in economic activity would be transferred from other




productive uses either within the region or outside the region (e.g.  outside




Massachusetts or New England).  If this were the case, these  effects,




although they might be very important to the region, would not represent net




benefits from a national perspective  (unless structural unemployment  was




affected, as mentioned before). This section, therefore, refers to  the




indirect impacts attributable to the treatment alternatives as secondary




effects and presents a method for their valuation.   Under certain conditions




these effects may be considered benefits but the labor market analysis




required for this determination is beyond the scope of this case study.






11.1  Methodology






    Secondary effects can accrue to a region from increased activity  in any




local industry.  For example, additional wages are spent on food, clothes,




rent, etc. and increased business production requires additional purchases of




materials used in production.  These purchases stimulate increased  economic




activity.  For every additional dollar of direct income or of total output




(sales) from the industry, a certain dollar amount of associated economic




activity is generated; these amounts are known as multipliers for that

-------
                                     11-3



Industry and provide a way to estimate  the  economic value of secondary


effects.  Multipliers for estimating increased economic activity  in an area


usually cover three kinds of effects:   direct, indirect and induced.  Direct


effects are the changes in income to households resulting directly from the


changes in output of the industries of  interest.   Indirect effects are


additional economic activities stimulated by  the direct impacts of the


project, i.e., changes in activity in all industries which supply goods and


services to the primary impact industries.   Induced effects are those that


result when consumers adjust their consumption patterns in response to


changes in income.  All three effects may be  of interest in this  case.



    Two types of multipliers are used to estimate increased economic activity


generated by an industry.  The output multiplier is used to compute the total


value of economic activity generated.   Not  all of this value remains in a


community or region, however (and, as discussed before, much of it may


represent a diversion of resources rather than a net gain).  Some goods and


services purchased by businesses or by  employees are produced  locally and

                                     *
others are produced outside the area.   The  income multiplier measures only


the portion of the economic activity generated which remains in an_area as


income to residents.  For the purpose of measuring secondary benefits from


pollution abatement options, the best measure would be the output multiplier


a? we are interested in national welfare rather than regional  effects.



    To estimate the secondary effects which would accrue to the Boston Harbor


pollution abatement options, multipliers are  used that have been  estimated


from economic input-output analyses. Input-output models represent the


economy of an area and the transactions which occur among industries located


there.  From such a model it is possible to estimate the effects  of a change

-------
                                     11-4


in one industry on all the other industries.   The advantage of input-output

analysis over other methods of estimating multipliers is that it provides

both comprehensive and detailed coverage of the industries of interest.9/

The disadvantage of this and other methods is that only gross changes are

estimated; net effects exclusive of transfers of resources are not measured.


11.2  Benefit Estimates


    The multipliers used to estimate secondary effects should correspond to

the type of data available on the impact of the pollution abatement options.

In this case, it is easier to estimate the impact on the output (sales) of an

of an affected industry  (such as shellfishing or boating)  than to estimate

the impact on direct income (wages).  Thus, the multipliers shown in Table

11-1 estimate the total direct, indirect and induced effects of a one dollar

change in the sales of each impacted industry.^/


    A range of multipliers has been included in Table 11-1.  The multipliers

for the shellfishing and related industries come from three studies, one of

Cape Cod, one of the Southern Mew England Marine Region (SNEMR), including

Rhode Island, Cape Cod and parts of Southeastern Massachusetts and

Connecticut, and one of  the State of Maine (Cape Cod Planning and Economic
   —   Other types of multipliers have been developed.  For example,  E.
Wong  (1969) has estimated a multiplier for shellfish which computes the  value
added by harvesters, wholesalers and retailers both inside and outside the
community.  This kind of multiplier would not capture the indirect or induced
effects of the shellfish industry the way an input-output derived multiplier
would.
   k-/ They could be converted for use with direct income impact data  by
dividing by factors which show the effect on direct income of a one dollar
change in output for each industry.

-------
                                     11-5
                                    Table 11-1
             Multipliers Showing Direct,  Indirect and Induced Effects
                             Per $1 Change in Output
                       Cape Cod Study
SNEMR Study
   Income
                    Income      Output
  Industry	Multipliers  Multipliers  Multipliers  Multipliers  Multipliers
          Wisconsin
           Study
           Output
                                                                     Maine Study
                                                                       Income
Commercial
  Shellfishing      1.1749

Fish Processing

Clam and Worm
  Processing

Shellfish Whole-
  saling            1.0772

Seafood, Whole-
  saling and
  retail

Eating and
  Drinking
  Establishments     .5158

Marinas and
  Boatyards          .6829

Charter Sport-
  fishing            .9038

TouristS/
                                  3.0010
                                  3.6444
                                  2.0179
                                  2.4971
                                  2.8200
1.1441

 .7027
                                                .7781
     .7997
     .7037
     .7982
                               1.54
                                                                          1.65
              2.2705
                                                             2.1741
       Weighted average of impacts of tourist expenditures on all industries.
Sources:  Briggs,  Townsend and Wilson,  1982;  Cape Cod Planning and Economic
Development Commission,  1978; Grigalunas and  Ascari,  1982; Strang, 1971.

-------
                                     11-6


Development Commission, 1978, Grigalunas and Ascari,  1982,  and Briggs et al.,

1982) &


    Both output and income multipliers are available  from the Cape Cod study

while only income multipliers are available from the  SNEMR and Maine

studies.  As can be seen from the table, the Cape Cod output multipliers are

about three times greater than the income multipliers for the same study.

Although it was not possible to calculate output multipliers for  the SNEMR or

Maine studies because of lack of data,  the difference between income and

output multipliers would be less for these studies than for the Cape Cod

study.  The reason for this is that both the State of Maine and the SNEMR

region are larger and more self-sufficient and would  therefore retain more

earnings and import fewer goods and services.


    There were no input-output analyses available for marine activities in

the Boston area.  Since the structure of harvesters,  wholesalers  and

retailers of soft shelled clams in the Boston area is probably similar to

those of Maine, Cape Cod and the SNEMR, the multipliers presented in Table

11-1 can be used to provide a range of secondary effects estimates for the

pollution abatement options as shown in Table 11-2.


    Although, as mentioned earlier, income multipliers measure only income

remaining in an area and, therefore, understate the total national welfare

impacts of the pollution abatement options, they are  included as  part of the

range in Table 11-2 for two reasons.  First, Boston area output multipliers
   £/ Multipliers from two other input-output analyses,  an earlier SNEMR
study and a Rhode Island study, were presented in Grigalunas and Ascari.
Unfortunately, they were of the form that is multiplied by direct income
rather than by sales, and data were not available to convert them to the form
useable here.  In the form that they were available, however, these
multipliers fell between the Cape Cod and SNEMR figures, and so would
probably lie within the range shown in Table 11-1.

-------
                                                   Table 11-2.   Secondary Effects Estimates
                                                              (Thousands S1982)
Btlmated Change In Sales for Bich Multiplier
Industry Pollution Abatement Option (Thousands 19623) Ranqe
(SO .1 STP (3)
Dorchester, I Ocean Outfall
Constitution Nenoniet Oulncv 1 or Secondary
Cbranerclal
Shellflahlng
Harvesting 94.2 149.2 72.1 B8S.6 1.14-3.00
Distribution
and Pro-
cess Inq »/ 74.0 117.2 56.7 695. 8 0.70-3.64
Restaurants i/ 104.3 165.2 79.8 980.3 0.80-2.02
Subtotal 272.5 431.6 208.6 2,561.7
Recreation
Swimming £/ 103.3 704.7 540.1 111.6 0.80-2.27
Othec6/ 201.6




Subtotal!!/ 103.3 704.7 540.1 313.2
TOTAld/ 375.8 1,136.3 855.6 2.874.9
Secondary Effects Range
Pollution Abatement Option
CSO
Neponaet/
Constitution Dorchester
107.4- 282.6 170.1- 447.6
51.8- 269.4 82.0- 426.6
83.4- 210.7 132.2- 333.7
242.6- 762.7 384.3-1207.9
82.6- 234.5 563.8-1.600
for Each
(Thousand-)
1
1
Oulncv 1
82.2-226
39.7-206
63.8-161
353.8-583
432.1-
1,226.0
19823)
STP
Ocean Outfall
or Secoqrlarv
.3 1,009.6-
2.656.8
.4 487.1-
2.532.7
.2 784.2-
1.980.2
.9 2.280.9-
7,169.7
89.2-253.3
161.3-457.6
	 377.0-3642.5 	


82.6-234.5 563.8-1,600
352.2-997.2 948.1-
2,807.9


432.1-
1,226.0
785.9-
1,809.9


250.5-
710.9
2,531.4-
7.880.6
    2/ Sales per bushel  for Distribution and Processing and Restaurants assumed to maintain the same relation to harvest sales per bushel
for Boston Harbor as  for Resources for Cape Ann study.

    !>/ $1 per visitor-day assumed spent on food and beverages.  Visitor days are average of upper and lower bounds for swimming from Table
6-6 and Cor 'other* from Table 6-12.

    £/ Ten percent of boating and fishing benefits (see Section 6) assumed as sales  for marinas and boatyards and for charter sportfIshlng,
respectively.  Based  on  Table 6-10 (boating) and 6-11 (fishing).

    H/ Not including  fishing and boating sales and secondary effects.

-------
                                     11-8


would probably be closer  to Boston area income multipliers for the same

reasons as mentioned above for Maine and the SNEMR.   Second, as discussed

above, even in a less than full-employment economy,  some resources that would

be employed to meet the increases in economic activity generated by the

pollution abatement options would be transferred from other productive uses

and thus would not represent net benefits.  A multiplier which underestimates

secondary effects is therefore appropriate.


    Besides secondary effects generated from increased shellfish harvesting, a

certain level of economic activity may also be stimulated in the distribution

and processing and restaurant sectors for each additional bushel harvested.

To estimate these effects it was assumed that the level of sales generated in

the distribution and processing and restaurant industries as compared to the

harvesting industry would be the same for Boston Harbor as for the Cape Ann

area (see Resources for Cape Ann, 1982) and that this relationship would be

maintained across price changes.—'"-'   Since Boston is a major market area

for shellfish, this is a  conservative assumption.  Secondary effects can

therefore be estimated for these two industries as well as for harvesting.


    Recreation multipliers in Table 11-1 come from the Cape Cbd and SNEMR

studies and, for comparison purposes, from a study done for a county in

Wisconsin which has a significant tourist industry (Strang, 1971).  This study

was included because there is no data available on sales generated by swimmers
   -f Thus, at a price of $31.41 to the digger, for example, each bushel of
clams harvested would generate  $90.86 of sales (total sales divided by number
of bushels harvested).  Of this, $31.41 would be harvesting sales, $24.68
distribution and processing sales, and $34.77 restaurant sales.  These per
bushel sales figures are multiplied by the increased harvest to estimate the
changes in sales shown in Table 11-2.
   b/
   ~* The $31.41 per bushel harvest price and the other per bushel sales
figures given in footnote §./  are prices for 1980 from Resources for Cape
Ann, 1982, updated to 1982 prices using the soft shelled clams price index
from National Marine Fisheries  Service, NOAA, 1982.

-------
                                     11-9






at Bos tor. area beaches, while data  from the study includes tourist receipts




in the input-output analysis.  This study also developed a "tourist




multiplier" which is a weighted average of the impacts of tourist




expenditures on all industries.






    The multipliers for Eating  and  Drinking Establishments,  Marinas and




Boatyards and Charter Sportfishing  from Table 11-1 were used to develop a




range of multiplers to estimate recreation secondary effects for  the Boston




Harbor pollution abatement options, as shown in Table 11-2.   The  same




considerations discussed above  for  the shellfish multipliers, concerning the




inclusion of income multipliers and the assumption of comparability of




multipliers across study areas, hold for the recreation multipliers.






    In order to compute secondary effects for recreation activity associated




with the pollution abatement  options, a judgment was made that  a  maximum of




ten percent of boating sales  could be applied to marinas and boatyards and




that ten percent of fishing sales could be applied to charter fishing.




Boating and fishing sales data come from Tables 6-10 and 6-11.  Since there




were no data on expenditures  by swimmers, it was assumed that one dollar




would be spent for each person-day and that it would most likely  be spent for




food or beverages.  Swimming  visitor day data come from Table 6-6.  Thus, the




Eating and Drinking Establishments multipliers from Table 11-1  were used to




develop a multiplier range in Table 11-2.






    Table 11-3 compares multipliers which measure only indirect and induced




effects with those that also  include direct income effects.  These  data were




only available for the SNEMR  study, not for the Cape Ood study.   It could be

-------
                                     11-10
                                  Table 11-3.


               Comparison of Multipliers With and Without Direct

                        Effects per $1 Change in Output
                     I
                            SNEMR Study Income Multipliers
      Industry
I    Direct,  Indirect
  and Induced  Effects
 Indirect and
Induced Effects
I   Indirect and
(Induced Effects  as
I  a Percentage of
I  of Total  Effects &
Commercial
Shellfishing
Fish Processing

1.1441
.7027

.4754
.5725

42
81
Seafood, Wholesale
and Retail
Eating and Drinking
Establishments
Marinas and
Boatyards
Charter Sport-
fishing
.7781
.7997
.7037
.7982
.6876
.4518
.3847
.4321
88
56
55
54
      (Column 2 divided by column 1)  x 100.
Source:  Grigalunas and Ascari, 1982.

-------
                                     11-11





argued that secondary effects should not  include direct  income effects.  If



this were the case, then the shellfish harvesting  secondary effects estimates



shown in liable 11-2 would be reduced by about  60 percent,  the related shell-



fish industries by approximately 20 percent and the  recreation activities by



around 50 percent.  However, it does not  appear that the direct  income



effects would be double counting either the willingness  to pay for improved



recreation experiences or the changes in  producer  or consumer surplus due to



increased shellfish harvest.





    In evaluating the range of secondary  effects estimated in Table 11-2, and



in addressing the question of whether and how  much of the  secondary effects



should be added to the primary benefits to derive  the total benefits



associated with each pollution abatement  option, the important consideration



is the level and type of unemployed resources  assumed.   If there is



widespread, long-term unemployment, then  the full  amount of the  secondary
                                             r


effects could be counted and the upper bounds  in Table 11-2 used.  If there



is a full employment economy, then secondary benefits would be either zero or



the difference between the value that the resources  currently earn compared



to what they would earn if they were employed  in activities stimulated by the



abatement option, if these values are different.   As mentioned above, the



kind of detailed labor market analysis that would  be required to estimate



this difference is beyond the scope of this study.  If some unemployment



exists as is the present situation and if a labor  market analysis showed that



it was likely to be long-term and composed of  the  skill  levels required by



the economic activity generated, then the lower bounds in  Table  11-2 may be



the best estimates to use and would represent  a moderate benefit level.

-------
                                     11-12






11.3  Limits of Analysis






    The major problem in carrying out this analysis is  determining whether




the secondary effects that can be estimated should be counted  as benefits and



added to the primary benefits of the pollution abatement options.  The data




are lacking to estimate the degree to which resources required for the




increased economic activity generated by the pollution  abatement options




would be otherwise productively employed in the long run.   Since we are




interested in estimating net benefits, transfers of resources  already




occupied to activity stimulated by the pollution abatement options should not




be counted.  Even given high unemployment as is the case in the current




recession, it is difficult to appropriately handle this problem.






    Another limitation of this analysis of secondary effects is the lack of




an input-output model of marine related activities for  the Boston area.  A




related problem was the lack of data to compute output  multipliers for the




SNEMR.  The availability of these data would have produced a better range of




estimates of secondary effects.

-------
                                     11-13
                                   References
Briggs, Hugh, Ralph Ibwnsend and James Wilson, January 1982.  An
    Input-Output Analysis of Marine Fisheries in Marine Fisheries Review,
    Vol. 44, No. 1.

Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission, 1978.  An Economic
    Profile of the Cape and Islands Fisheries, Barnstable, Massachusetts.

Grigalunas, Thomas A. and Craig A. Ascari, Spring 1982.  Estimation of
    Income and Employment Multipliers for Marine-Related Activity in the
    Southern New England Marine Region, Journal of the Northeastern
    Agricultural Economics Council, Vol. XI, No. 1, pp. 25-34.

Resources for Cape Ann, April 1982.  The Costs of Pollution;  The Shellfish
    Industry and the Effects of Coastal Water Pollution, Massachusetts
    Audubon Society.

Strang, William A., 1971.  Recreation and the Local Economy;  Implications
    for Economic and Resource Planning, Marine Technology Society,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. EPA, 1982.  Benefit-Cost Assessment Handbook for Water Quality Programs,
    Draft, Economic Analysis Division, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Water Resources Council, December 14, 1979.  NED Benefit Evaluation
    Procedure:  Unemployed or Underemployed Labor Resources, Section 713.1201
    of Procedures for Evaluation of National Economic Development Benefits
    and Costs in Water Resources Planning (44 PR 72892).

Wong, Edward P.M., October 1969.  A Multiplier for Computing the Value of
    Shellfish, U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution
    Control Administration, Needham, Massachusetts.

-------
                                  Section 12
                          Charles  River Basin Benefits

    The Charles River Basin has been designated by the MDC as one of the four
CSO planning areas.  The Charles River Basin includes the Back Bay Fens, the
Muddy River, Alewife Brook and the Charles River itself.  The basin is mixed
fresh and salt water and is used primarily for non-contact recreation, both
on the water and at the water's edge.  There is little or no fishing in the
Charles River Basin.  The Charles River is the major water resource in the
Charles River Basin and draws the greatest number of recreators.   For this
reason, as well as data limitations, we have chosen to estimate benefits only
for the Charles River.

12.1  The Charles River

    The Charles River is 80 miles long/ with a watershed of 300 square
miles.  The portion of the Charles that is contained in the Charles River
Basin CSO planning area runs from the Watertown Dam to the Charles River Dam
near the mouth of Boston Harbor (see Figure 12-1).  This section of the River
has an average annual level of 2.38 feet, and contains approximately 675
surface acres of water.  The length of the River within this stretch is 8.6
miles.  The Charles River is an important water-based recreation resource,
especially to the towns through which it flows.  Although there is currently
little swimming in the river (and none predicted with the proposed CSO
plans), the river plays host to a variety of boaters.  Sailing and
motorboating are extremely popular,  especially at the wider portions of the
river, near the Harbor.  There is also a significant number of people who

-------
*'./ OHtLSEA  (f  -x'~»
Figure 12-1.  Map of


     Charles River Basin
                                                       Charles River

                                                       Basin Planning

                                                       Area
                                                                        t-)
                                                                        i
                                                                        1 !

-------
                                    12-3






scuii on che Charles.  Every major college and university in the Boston




area has a boat house along the river;  their crew members practice almost




daily during the spring and fall months.  The river is also an aesthetic




focal point for other recreation-based  activities.  An MDC bikeway




follows the course of the river and doubles as a running path.




Picnickers, sunbathers, and strollers also take advantage of the open




space provided by the river.  Major cultural events such as crew




regattas, formal and informal concerts, and city festivals take place




along the river's edge and attract thousands of residents and




sight-seers.






    The Charles River violates the state  water quality standards.  Those




standards (a rating of "C") allow non-contact recreational use.  The




river is polluted with extremely high levels of coliform counts, odors,




floatables, debris, and turbidity.  The recommended CSO plan (see Section




3.5) includes capturing, transporting,  and storing overflow from the CSOs




and is predicted to result in 50 to 80  percent removal of suspended and




floatable solids, coliforms and BOD_.   water quality will improve




greatly although swimming will still not  be permitted.






    It is difficult to quantify the instream and near-stream user




benefits to be gained from improving the  water quality in the Charles




because of data and methodological limitations.  Unlike swimming




benefits, there are no good travel models or data available to predict




how user participation and utility will increase.  There are also few




intrinsic value studies which are applicable to the Charles River area.




He have chosen two techniques and two studies to evaluate user and

-------
                                     12-4






non-user benefits from abating pollution along the  Charles River.  User




benefits to boaters are estimated using a boating participation model




developed by Davidson  et al.  (1966) while both intrinsic and user




benefits are developed by applying results from a contingent valuation




survey (RTI, 1983).






12.2  Boating






    The effect of water quality on the level of recreational boating has




been studied.  The results of the Davidson et al. study  (1966) show that




the number of participants within a given population as well as the



number of days of boating participation per year show significant




increases with improvement in the quantity and quality of available




waters.  Davidson's approach to estimating boating-related benefits




includes calculating (a)  the change in the probability of boating




participation among the general population as a result of improvement in




water quality and availability and (b) the change in number of days of




participation per year.   The Davidson model attributes most of the




benefits of water quality improvement to new participants.  It does not




capture any benefits accruing to current boaters.   The Davidson model




estimated, in a study of  the Delaware Estuary, that each increase in




recreational boating water of one acre per capita resulted in a 38




percent increase in participa- tion rates (i.e., the probability of an




individual participating  in boating increased by 38 percent).  The




portion of the function describing boating participation, which is




applicable to this study, can be expressed in the following reduced form:

-------
                                    12-5
          BP  =   0.38485(AW)  +  0.03142( * FPS)

where:    BP is  the probability of boating participation
          w is the per capita acreage of  recreational water available
          FP5 is the recreational facility rating.


Hie PPS variable represents an index of the quality of boating facilities.   A

rating of '!' implies "no facilities," while a rating of '5' suggests "very

good facilities. —   Socioeconomic variables were included in the regres-

sion, including  education, income, occupation, age, and race, but were not

well correlated  with boating participation.  Davidson et al. also assumed

that elimination of pollution discharges  into the Delaware Estuary would

produce a minimal one point improvement (from 2.0 to 3.0) in the PPS rating.


12.2.1  Methodology


    It is possible to apply this model to the Charles River.  Estimation of

boating-related  benefits involves the following steps:


    a.  Estimate the increase in recreational boating water and boating
        facilities from improving water quality in the Charles River as a
        result of implementation of the CSO plan;

    b.  Estimate the change in the probability of boating participation in
        the general population as a result of improvement in water quality
        and availability of boating facilities;

    c.  Estimate change in total participation attributable to water quality
        improvements;

    d.  Estimate the value of the additional boating days.


    ttie first step involves estimating the increase in recreation boating

water ( &W) and  facilities (AFPS) as a result of  improving water quality.

Although AW is  the key explanatory variable in the Davidson equation,
   I  Davidson et al. used fishing facilities rather than boating facilities
because the former were not available for their sample area.

-------
                                     12-6
the value of the variable is quite small for the  Charles River.  The Charles

River has only 675 acres of water available for boating of all kinds.

Although the Charles  is polluted, there appear to be few portions of the

river which are unboatable because of pollution.  Therefore, the change in

acreage of recreational water available per capita following water quality

improvements is essentially zero.  Although this  assumption of zero change  in

water acreage might appear to be too conservative, even if we were to assume

that all 675 acres of the river were previously unboatable, a AW of 675

acres would only lead to a very small per capita  acreage increase of from

0.0317 to 0.0318.-^  it is, therefore, apparent that the variable FPS will

have the greatest effect on predicting the change in boating participation.

Davidson e_t^ a_l^ assumed that eliminating pollutant discharges into the

Delaware estuary would produce a minimal one point improvement in the

recreational facilities from a rating of *2m to a rating of '3.'  The same

assumption was used for the Charles River, that &FPS is 1.



    Calculating the total additional boating days requires information on

current boating use of the Charles River.  As described in the swimming sec-

tion, recreation statistics on attendance and days per participant are not

officially recorded by the MDC.  We have, therefore, used a number of sources

to estimate a range of boating participation on the Charles.  Information

from a study by Binkley and Banemann (1975) indicates that 850 visits were

made to two sites along the Charles River during  the summer season, and that

5.6 percent of the visits were boating-related.  Results from the study
   a  Depending on a range of  183,000 - 1,680,800,  boating participants as
described in Appendix E.

-------
                                     12-7






suggest that it is correct to assume that the survey sample was statistically




representative of the entire Boston SMSA.  These 850 survey visits can be




extrapolated ip.to 63,000 family visitor days and approximately 183,000




visitor days (see Appendix E) .  This is probably an understated estimate




because only two sections of the entire length of the Charles River were




sampled.






    An alternative method is to apply the approach used  in the previously-




described swimming section which is based on regional recreation studies.




This method assumes that (1) 40 percent of the population goes boating, (2)  a




user population of 764,000  (see Appendix E for details), and  (3) users go



boating an average of 5.5 days per year.  The resulting  boating days are




1,680,800.  The Binkley-based estimate of 183,000 vistor days is used as a




lower bound, and the recreation study-based estimate of  1,680,800 is used as




an upper bound.   The lower bound estimate appears to be  the more reasonable.






    Additional boating days can be estimated multiplying the previously




derived AW and AFPS value by the estimated number of general population




boaters (see Appendix E for details).  The increase in visitor days ranges




from 5,750 to 52,810.






12.2.2  Benefit Estimates






    Boating benefits from improved water quality resulting from implementa-




tion of CSO plans can be estimated by valuing the increase in visitor days




developed and described above.  The range of user day values that have been

-------
                                     12-8


developed for boating are presented in  Appendix B (Table B-l)^.  By

applying this range of values ($9.27-$18.14)  to the projected  increase in

boating days, we can arrive at an estimate of boating benefits, presented in

'Sable 12-1.


               Table 12-1.  Annual Recreational Boating Benefits

                             I                         I    Total Annual
                 (1982$)     I   Number  of Additional  I  Boating Benefits
              $/Boating Day  I	Boating Days	I  (Thousands  19823)
High 18.14
low 9.27
52,810
5,750
958
53
    Boating-related benefits from improving water quality on  the Charles

River are modest because the estimated increase in number of  boating days  is

small and because boating day values which are applicable to  this  study

represent the lower, rather than upper, end of the range of user-day values.


12.2.3  Limits of Analysis


    Calculation of boating-related benefits is limited by the methodology

employed, the data base, and the numerous assumptions made.  The application

of the Davidson e_t al. boating model may lead to biased benefit estimates.

First, the model only measures benefits which accrue to new participants and

does not capture benefits of increased participation or increase in utility
   */ We have chosen not to use the boating value of $45.19 derived  from the
MPA in conjunction with Charbonneau and Hay because we believe that  it over-
states the particular value of boating on the Charles River.  This is  because
the greater portion of boaters who use the river do so in small-powered  craft
(such as sculling shells, kayaks, small sailboats, canoes, and low horsepower
motor boats), rather than large-powered craft.

-------
                                    12-9






to existing users.  Second, the model may not, for a number of reasons,




be easily applied to an urban area.  The key explanatory variable in the




model is the supply of boatsble water that  is expected to increase




following water quality improvement.  In the case of the Charles River,




the value of this variable is extremely small because virtually all 675




acres of river are currently used for boating.   Even assuming that all




acres were previously unbeatable, the increase of 675 acres would only



lead to an increase of 0.0317 acres per capita and, therefore, would




account for only an 0.012 change in boating participation.  The second




variable in the model—change in recreational facility rating—then



becomes the key explanatory variable of the increase in boating




participation. There are few places along  the urbanized riverfront of




the diaries available for development or expansion of marinas and, thus,




we have assumed that the one point change in facility rating reflects the




improvement in boating facilities.  This assumption, however, is




difficult to verify.






    Other problems with estimating boating  benefits from CSO pollution




control plans along the Charles lie in  the  available recreational data.




There is scant information about days of boating participation along the




Charles and the percentage of the entire population in the Boston



Metropolitr \ area who boat there.  The  use  of user-day values is also




likely to bias the benefits estimates.   The lower range of available user




day boating values  ($9-318/day) was used to calculate benefits because of




the nature of boating  (in non-motorized and small-powered craft) on the




river.

-------
                                     12-10


12.3  Intrinsic (Non-User) and User Benefits


    An alternative method for computing the benefits from CSO pollution control

plans on the Charles River is to apply the results of a contingent valuation

survey, which captures the amount users and non-users are willing to pay  for

improved water quality.  As mentioned previously,  the Charles River is a  major

aesthetic focal point for recreation-based activities.  It is difficult to

estimate the exact number of people who are not direct users of the River but

who, instead, ride, picnic, run, or stroll along the Charles' shores.  It is

safe to assume, however, that there are probably few families or individuals in

the towns through which the river runs who have not enjoyed the river at  least

once.  Calculating benefits which accrue to these  "non-users" is a necessary

part of developing total benefits.^/


    We have chosen the results of a contingent valuation survey described in

detail in RTI  (1983) to capture instream, near-stream and intrinsic benefits

from improving water quality through upgrading CSO's in the Charles River

Basin area.  A study conducted by Gramlich (1974)  to determine the

willingness to pay for improving water quality in  the entire 80 mile length

of the Charles River was not considered applicable here, because the survey

only recorded results for willingness to pay for obtaining a swimmable level

of water quality  (classification "B").  The CSO plans and their costs have

been developed only for improving the river to a level "C," or boatable use.

Also, the results from the Gramlich study cannot be disaggregated by user and

non-user.
   £/ For a discussion of non-user (Intrinsic)  values and  estimation
methodology, see Section 9.

-------
                                     12-11


12.3.1  Benefit Methodology and Estimates


    Estimates of willingness to pay for improving Charles River water quality

can be derived by applying the results of a study conducted by RTI,  along  the

Monongahela River in Western Pennsylvania.  The RTI study used a contingent

valuation approach to measure willingness to pay for improved water  quality.

Results from the RTI study suggest that user and non-user households are

willing to pay $18.68 (1982$) for water to go from boatable to fishable

conditions.£/  In order to calculate total benefits, it is necessary to

multiply this dollar WTP value per household times the regional household

population.


    For the Charles River area, an upper bound was established by including

residents of towns bordering or very close to the Charles River:  Cambridge

(95,000), Somerville (77,000), Watertown (34,000), Newton (83,000),  Brookline

(55,000), Boston (560,0000)  or a total of 905,000.=/  Assuming an average

household size of 2.69,-'  an upper bound household population figure is

calculated to be 336,000.  A lower bound can be developed by assuming that

only one half the populations of these towns benefit from CSC—based  water

quality improvements, or 452,000 people, which translates to a lower bound of

168,000 households.  Multiplying the RTI-derived WTP values of $18.68 by the

range of applicable households results in significant benefits, presented  in

Table 12-2.
   £/ This is based on a direct question framework,  users and  non-users.
See page 4-32, RTI, 1983.

   £/ Based on data from 1980 Census.

-------
                                     12-12
                Table 12-2.   Annual  Estimated Willingness to Pay
                       for  Fishable  Charles  River  (1982$)
High
Low
1
1
Population I
905,000
452,000
Persons
per
Household
2.69
2.69
1 Willingness 1
1 to Pay 1
1 Value 1
18.68
18.68
Annual
Willingness
to Pay Value
6.28 million
3.14 million
12.3.2  Limits of Analysis

    Benefits to instream users, near-stream users and non-users of the
Charles River are substantial.  These results should be interpreted wih cau-
tion, however, for a number of reasons.  The accuracy of benefit values is
constrained by use of off-the-shelf models.  The willingness to pay values
used here are derived from a study area which may be sociologically, econo-
mically and educationally different from the population within the Charles
River Basin planning area.  People in the northeast, for example, recreate
more often than those in the central regions of the east (1979 Survey of
Recreation).  The Charles River population is also more highly educated and
has higher income on average than that in the Monongahela study area.  The
geographical nature of the two areas is also different.  The Monongahela
River, and the region surrounding it, are larger and much more rural than the
Charles River and its study area.  The urban settinq of the Charles, the
relative scarcity of other closeby recreational rivers, and the previously
mentioned socio-economic differences suggest that the Charles River popula-
tion in Cambridge and other towns might be willing to pay a higher price for
river cleanup.  Benefits are also understated because consumer surplus was
estimated only for the Charles River portion of the Charles River Basin CSO
plan; the 'methodology therefore does not capture benefits accruing to recrea-
tionists in the Back Back Fens, the Muddy River or Alewife Brook.  The upper

-------
                                     12-13






bound figure of $6.3 million is probably the more reliable estimate  of  total




benefits.






12.4  Summa ry






    The benefits of improving the water in the Charles River in the  CSO




Charles River Basin Planning Area are many.   Benefits accrue to instream




users (boaters) and near-stream users (picnickers,  strollers,  bikers/ etc.)



alike.  Best annual boating benefit estimates total $958,000 and probably




understate all boating benefits.  Results from a contingent valuation survey




capture both user and non-user benefits by applying willingness to pay  values




derived from a study of the Monongahela River.  The upper value of $6.3




million is probably the more reliable estimate of total benefits from




improving water in the Charles River, although this figure may also  under-




state all benefits.

-------
                                     12-14
                                   References
Binkley, C. and W. Hanemann, 1975.  The Recreation Benefits of Water Quality
    Improvement.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS PB 257719.

Charbonneau, J. and J. Hay, 1978.  Determinants and Economic Values of
    Bunting and Fishing.  Paper presented at the 43rd North American Wildlife
    and Natural Resources Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, Washington, D.C.

Davidson, P., G. Adams, and J. Seneca, 1966.  The Social Value of Water
    Recreational Facilities from an Improvement in Water Quality:  the
    Delaware Estuary.  Water Research, Allen Kneese and Stephen C. Smith,
    eds.  Baltimore:  Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources for the
    Future.

Gramlich, F.W., 1977.  The Demand for Clean Water:  the Case of the Charles
    River.  National Tax Journal 30:183-184.

National Planning Association, 1975.  Water-Related Recreation Benefits
    Resulting from Public Law 92-500, three volumes, Washington, D.C.
    National Committee on Water Quality.

Research Triangle Institute, 1983.  A Comparison of Alternative Approaches
    for Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality
    Improvements, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982.  1980
    Census of Population and Housing, Masachusetts, USGPO, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
    Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982.  1980 National Survey
    of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation. USGPO,
    Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior and Heritage Conservation and Recreation
    Service, 1979.  The Third Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, USGPO,
    Washington, DC.

-------
APPENDICES

-------
                                  Appendix A


                   Gbrrelating STP Performance and Operation
                         to Boston Harbor Water Quality


    One of the tasks en route to a cost-benefit analysis  is  to design and

cost the technical options capable of modifying,  maintaining, or  raising the

quality of the environment in question.   The  complement to this task  is to

collect data on the biological, physical,  and chemical parameters of  the

current environment so that the changes  to the environment made possible by

the different technical options can be quantified.   Neither  of these  tasks

was performed by Meta Systems.  Instead,  technical and environmental data

were collected from existing sources; no  new  information  research (i.e.,

engineering analysis or environmental monitoring) was  undertaken.


    Correlating STP operations and performance with  the water quality of the

harbor is a complicated task.  The problem is not so much that the necessary

data does not exist at all but rather that the available  information may not

be collected in forms or manners suited  to particular  analysis goals.  Water

quality data shortcomings are the result  of less  than  optimal sampling

procedures such as:


    o   infrequent monitoring;
    o   parameter selections not consistent from  one sampling to
        next;
    o   same locations not repeatedly sampled; and
    o   sampling not co-ordinated with seasonal,  weather-related,
        tidal, STP, etc. events.


    In the available reports the performance  information  presented for

STP options differs from that presented  for CSO options.   The

performance of the STPs under the various options is measured in  terms^

of effluent constituent concentrations.   CSO  plans,  on the other  hand,

-------
                                      A-2


estimate the water qualities achievable under various CSO designs as

well as reduced loadings.  In order to establish potential water

qualities achievable under the different STP options it was necessary

to describe the dispersion of STP effluents throughout the harbor.


A.I  Influent, Effluent, and Sludge Characteristics


    Periodically, the MDC takes samples of STP influent and effluent and

conducts tests to determine the composition of raw and treated municipal

wastewaters.   (See Table A-l.)  Using the concentration information from  this

testing, along with values for total flow volume, the pollutant loadings  to

the harbor due to the Deer and Nut Islands' STP options, have been

calculated.  The combined loadings are presented in Section 2, Table 2-1.

The knowledge of influent composition enables calculation of the loadings

from raw sewage discharges due to STP bypasses.


    To calculate annual loadings from influent and effluent concentrations

and flow volume data:
    1)  milligrams per liter was converted to pounds per gallon using
        (8.4 x 10~6)(mg/1) = Ibs/gal

    2)  the combined effluent discharge volume of Deer and Nut Islands
        was assumed equal to 500 million gallons per day (350 and 150
        mgd, respectively)

    3)  concentrations for the individual STPs were weighted by volume
        of flow for a combined average concentration equal to
        (0.3) x (cone, at Nut Island) + (0.7) x (cone, at Deer Island)

    4)  annual loading:   (365 days) x  (500 mgd) x (combined average
        concentration)
    Bypass loadings were calculated from:
     1)   influent  (i.e., raw wastewater) composition; use of this data
         probably  results  in an overstatement of pollutant loadings

-------
                                      A-3
                                  Table A-l.

                  MDC Treatment Facilities Current Pollutant

                       Removals for  Wastewater Effluents
1
1
Pollutant 1
1
BOD5
TSS
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc .
NUT ISLAND
Influent 1 Effluent 1
(mg/1) 1 (mg/1) 1
136.6
178.3
0.0176
0.051
0.618
0.104
0.00199
0.889
0.431 .
97.0
82.0
0.0119
0.041
0.292
0.074
0.00120
0.291
0.376 .
1
Remova 1 1
(Percent)
29.0
54.0
32.4
19.6
52.8
28.8
39.7
67.3
12.8
I DEER ISLAND
1
1 Influent 1 Effluent 1 Removal
1 (mg/1) 1 (mg/1) 1 (Percent)
150.0
155.5
0.021
0.147
0.246
0.157
0.00124
0.115
1 " 1
108.0
70.0
0.019
0.108
0.357
0.131
0.0011
0.131
0.488 .
28.0
55.0
9.5
26.5
-45.1 -/
16.6
11.3
-13.9 a/
37.2
Source:  The BOD5 and TSS values are from Metcalf and Eddy,  June 1982.   The  toxic
metals data are from US EPA (1983)  Table 3.2-6 and are for  the period December  1975
through September 1977.

   —/ The negative value of this removal percentage may be  due to 1)  random  sampling
error or 2) a propensity of the Deer Island's treatment process to concentrate  this
metal in the effluent rather than in the sludge.

-------
                                      A-4
        since bypasses are often associated with storm events,  thereby
        diluting the raw wastewater.

    2)  bypass volume estimates:

          o for Nut Is land: a./
            Recorded untreated discharges to Boston Harbor
                January-August, 1982—2.1 billion gallons over  50 days (0.042
                billion gallons/day);

            Spills of unknown amounts January-August, 1982—4 spills
                 over 8 days estimated at 0.34 billion gallons  (8.0 x  0.042);

            Total for January-August, 1982 = 2.44 billion gallons
                (0.305 billion gallons/month);

            Estimated annual loading = 3.66 billion gallons.


          o for Deer Island:^./

            Recorded untreated discharges to Boston Harbor
                January-October, 1982—2.2 billion gallons
                (0.22 billion gallons/month);

            No spills of unknown amounts;

            Estimated annual loading = 2.64 billion gallons.

          o for Moon Island:^/

            Estimated annual loading = .258 billion gallons.


    Heavy metal loadings to the harbor from STP sludges were available from

the draft report by Environmental Research and Technology (1978).


A.2  Pollutant Transport from STP Outfalls


    To assess the impact of STP discharges in Boston Harbor, it is important

to know how STP discharges are dispersed throughout the Harbor.  Since

discharges to the Harbor are subject to diverse and variable conditions,  the

water quality throughout the harbor is not uniform.  Variations in quality
                                                           t
   —' Calculations based on bypass data from Dumanowski (1982).

   £/ Moore (1980).

-------
                                      A-5


may be attributed to bottom topography,  currents  (directions  and magnitudes)/

wind, and the location and means by which pollutants enter  the  Harbor.  STP

discharge dispersion is not easily correlated with  the water  quality of the

Harbor.  In order to understand the environmental consequences  of  STP

discharges, information is needed about:


    o   transport of STP loadings via water movements (current  speeds,
        volumes of flow, flow patterns,  etc.);

    o   physical and chemical interactions of STP effluent  and  sludge with
        the Harbor's waters (decay rates, settling  rates, chemical reactions
        which might neutralize toxics, chemical recombinations, how
        pollutants get cycled through the aquatic environment,  rates of
        stabilization) .

    o   biological aspects of loadings (tolerance of aquatic  organisms to
        loadings, pollutant uptake by aquatic organisms).


    One form of water quality information available for  Boston  Harbor can be

called "static data," which refers to measurements  of ambient water quality

at a specific time and location.  Water  quality information which  describes

changes in quality over time and the interactions between various  elements of

the harbor (physical, chemical, biological)  contributes  to  a  dynamic

understanding of the Harbor's water quality.  The problems  with the static

data available for Boston Harbor could be alleviated with more  regular,

extensive data collection and water quality measurement  procedures. For

dynamic information, however,  the complexity of the harbor  environment makes

it extremely difficult to understand all interactions and interrelationships

among its elements.


    Static measurements ("grab samples") of pollutant parameters represent

the contemporary environmental status of the harbor but  do  not  clearly

reflect the impacts of STP discharges in particular. Not all of the

pollutant deposits in the Harbor are from the Deer  and Nut  Island's STPs.

-------
                                      A-6



Tests of harbor waters and sediments cannot distinguish  among pollutants


whose source is STP discharges, those deposited prior to STP operations, or


those that were overflowed from a combined sewer.   Not enough data has been


collected to make definitive conclusions regarding discharges and their


ultimate destinations.  Such conclusions require a more  rigorous sampling


endeavor (periodic sampling, extensive coverage of harbor)  and  that water


quality sampling be scheduled in conjunction with sampling  of STP and CSO


effluent to the harbor in order to correlate variations  in  discharges with


variations in measured qualities throughout the Harbor.



    Without historical information to demonstrate dispersion phenomenon of


STP discharges within Boston Harbor, a predictive model  of  dispersion


dynamics is of interest to this case study because it can help  to describe


what the future impacts of a number of STP options might be.  Models of


dispersion dynamics are perhaps the best means of determining what will


happen to the effluent once it is discharged from an STP since  available


empirical information is insufficient for this task.   A  few models have been


developed to quantitatively explain some aspect of the Harbor which, due to


physical or economic constraints, cannot be adequately analyzed with static


measurements.  One model designed specifically to quantify  the  dispersion of


STP discharges into Boston Harbor is the DISPER model, developed at MIT.  It


largely relies on water movement (currents) infc  mation  to  describe


dispersion.  DISPER itself is based on CAFE, another MIT-developed program


which models these water movements.  DISPER has several  positive qualities


which suggest that it be used as a reference.  Most important is that it was


designed specially for Boston Harbor.  Its output also seems to correlate


with the relative pollution concentrations measured throughout  the Harbor.
                                                                       t

However, this may only mean that the developers of the model fit it to the


existing situation, and thus it is descriptive but not necessarily predictive.

-------
                                      A-7






    DISFER's greatest strength lies in its ability to  predict  volumetric




inflows and outflows from the harbor area (across a specified,  but  imaginary,




boundary).  The model's next strongest capacity is its ability to predict




water movement patterns (directions and magnitudes of  flow).   CAFE  is largely




responsible for these phases of the modeling effort.   How STP  effluent




disperses through the harbor is the task addressed by  DISPER.   Whether




pollutant loadings move exactly as does the water is unknown because




settlement and decomposition in transport, propensities of marine organisms




to assimilate wastes, etc.,  are not precisely understood.






    The impact of, for example, the ocean outfall diffuser is  assessed using




a conservative solute and BOD,  a substance which decays at a first  order




rate.  For the conservative  substance, decay and settling rates and




concentrations along the ocean boundary are assumed to be zero.  The source




loading is input continuously and steady-state concentrations  are computed.




No other sources or sinks are modeled.  The results of this modeling effort




included contour lines of constant dilution and concentrations of ultimate




BOD as incremental additions from the treatment option being modeled.






    Model results available  to Meta Systems for review were run by  Metcalf




and Eddy.   (A sample of Metcalf and Eddy's DISPER output is shown in Figure




A-l).  Metcalf and Eddy suggest that their assumptions tend to be




conservative (i.e., decay rate  = zero, settling rate = zero).






    The predicted water quality impacts due to the various STP treatment




options presented in Section 4  of the main report were made through




comparisons of the following types of information,  often in the form of



mappings:

-------
                                A-8
                 Figure A-l.  Example of DISPER Output
                    '>v--    -.:...:
«


5000 0
L_ __. ._..-.
SCALE IN
" .-"./?•'
!-^ y
iv; /
5000 ^ S '
- . -1 ,V. / • •
FEET yS
                  •   CONCENTRATIONS OF ULTIMATE BOD FROM
             TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT EXISTING CONDITIONS
Source:  Metcalf & Eddy  (1982), Figure  3-17.

-------
                                      A-9


    c   effluent pollutant concentrations;

    o   dispersion model output (DISPER); and

    o   water quality at various receptors (beaches,  recreational
        areas, shellfish beds).


    The receptor site, Brewsters Islands, is  provided as an example of  the

way the calculations of percentage pollution  reduction in Tables 4-2 and 4-3

of the main report were done.


    (1) Current Ambient Water  Quality at Brewsters Islands

                Fecal coliform (MPN/100 ml)     10
                BOD5 (mg/1)                      1
                TSS (mg/1)                   10-20

        Source:  Maps from Region I,  EPA, Boston Harbor Data Management
        System, December 1983.

    (2) Existing Concentration of Effluent

                                    Deer Island  Nut  Island
        Fecal coliform                  1500        1500
        BOD5                             127.6     105
        TSS                              121        110

        Source:  See Table 4-1, Section 4 of  main report

    (3) Existing Outfall Dilution Ratio  500        500  (at Brewsters  Island)

        Source:  See Table 4-1, Section 4 of  main report

    (4) Existing STP Incremental Contribution (Deer and Nut combined)
                                               at Brewster Islands
        Fecal coliform        6
        BOD5                   .47
        TSS                    .46

        Source:  Effluent concentrations (2)  divided  by dilution ratios (3)
                 summed for both Deer and Nut Islands.

    (5) Portion of Ambient Water Quality not  Due to Existing STP

        Fecal coliform       4
        BOD5                  .53
        TSS             9.5-19.5

        Source:  Current ambient water quality (1)  minus STP contribution (4).

-------
                                 A-10
(6)  Effluent concentrations
                                Ocean Outfall   Secondary Treatment
    Fecal coliform                   1500                 1500
    BODg                              115                   30
    TSS                               86                   30

    Source:  See Table 4-1, Section 4 of main report.
(7)  Dilution  Ratio at  Brewsters Islands
                                     200                  500

    Source:   See  Table 4-1, Section 4 of main report.   Obtained  from
    DISPER contour maps.

(8)  Incremental Contribution from Treatment Option (at Brewsters Islands)

    Fecal coliform                      7.5                  3
    BODs                                 .57                 .06
    TSS                                  .43                 .06

    Source:   Effluent  concentration (6) divided by dilution ratio  (7) .
(9)  ftnbient Water  Quality with Treatment Option (at Brewsters  Islands)

    Fecal coliform                    11.5                   7
    BODs                                1.11                   .6
    TSS                             10-20                9.6-19.6

    Source:   Portion of ambient quality not due to existing STP  (5) plus
    incremental contribution  (8).

(10)  Percentage Change in Water Quality (+ improvement / - degradation)

    Eecal coliform                     -15                 +30
    BOI^                                -11                 +40
    TSS                                   0             +2 to  +4

    Source:   Current ambient quality (1)  minus ambient quality with
    treatment option (9) divided by (1).

-------
                                     A-ll
                                  References
Dumanowski, Diane, 1982.  The Boston Globe, December 19, 20, and 21,
    Boston, MA.

EcolSciences, March 1979.  Environmental Impact Statement;  MDC Proposed
    Sludge Management Plan, Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, MA, for
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA.

Environmental Research and Technology, 1978.  Draft Report for the National
    Science Foundation. C-PRA77-15337.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., September 13, 1979.  Application for Modification of
    Secondary Treatment Requirements for its Deer Island and Nut Island
    Effluent Discharges into Marine Waters, for Metropolitan District
    Commission, Boston, MA.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., June 1982.  Nut Island Wastewater Treatment Plant
    Facilities Planning Project, Phase I, Site Options Study, for
    Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, MA.

Moore and Associates, inc., H.E., September 1980.  wollaston Beach
    Exploration/Remedial Program Regarding Storm Water Contamination,
    Boston, MA.

-------
                                       Appendix B
                             Recreation Benefit  computations

B.I  Seasonal Swimming—Increased participation

    Increased participation in swimming due to pollution abatement control was
calculated from current swimming participation and estimated unmmet demand.
The example below is for one pollution control option (CSO controls)  for  the
swimming beaches  in  the study area.

               Increase in
             Participation
             from Pollution    =
               Control
Beach
Constitution

Dorchester
Wollaston
Quincy
Weymouth
Hingham
                113,750

                236,000

              1,100,000

                 63,560
                      0

                      0

                      0
(A)
% Pollution
Abatement
(CSO)
70
80
80
80
0
0
0
(B)
Increased
x Demand
(User days)
162,500
295,000
1,375,000
79,450
52,910
11,100
33,000
(A) Source:  Section 4 of main report.
                                               (1)                           (2)
                                                   entire SMS A     x   Unmet  Demand i
                                                                         User Days
(B)
Beach
Constitution
Dorchester
Wollaston
Qu incy
Weymouth
Hi ngham
Hull
Increase Demand
(user days)
146,250-178,750
avg = 162,500
265,500-324,500
avg = 295,000
1,237,500-1,512,
avg = 1,375,000
71,505-87,395
avg - 79,450
47,619-58,201
avg = 52,910
9,990-12,210
avg = 11, 100
29,700-36,300
= Proportion of entire SMS A
swimming usage supplied by beach
.034
.062
500 .291
.017
.011
.002
.007
                avg  =  33,000
                                                                     4,258,801-5,199,090


                                                                     4,258,801-5,199,090


                                                                     4,253,801-5,199,090


                                                                     4,253,801-5,199,090


                                                                     4,253,801-5,199,090


                                                                     4,253,801-5,199,090


                                                                     4,253,801-5,199,090

-------
                                     B-2
 (1)  Calculation of Proportion of Entire SMSA Swimming usage Supplied by Beach

     Constitution Beach is used as an example.  Figures for all other beaches
calculated in identical fashion.

                                   (a)                    (b)
        Proportion of                          m       Total
      SMSA Swimming Use  =        Beach         -      Seasonal SMSA
      Supplied by Beach        Attendance      •      Attendance

Constitution    .034       =      325,000             9,452,892

 (a) Source:  Metropolitan District Commission and municipalities.
 (b) Source:  See 2b below.


 (2)  Unmet Demand in User Days

                            (a)                        (b)
  Unmet user     =      Percent unmet   x    participation in swimming
     days                 demand  for                days per year
                       swimming in SMSA

4,253,801-5,199,090        45-55                     9,454,892

 (a)  Source:  Department of Environmental Management, Massachusetts Outdoors  (SCORPj
     1976 and discussions with cities and towns.


 (b)                         (i)               (ii)                   (iii)
   Swimming    =          population  x          proportion     x  average i day
 Participants               SMSA         participating in swimming    trips

   9,452,892              2,763,357             .32                 10.69

   (i) Source:  1980 Census

 (ii) Source:  Department of Interior, April 1984 (figure is for all U.S.).

 (iii) Source:  Abt Associates, New »rk-New England Study, 1979.

-------
                                     B-3
iB. 2  Seasonal Beach  capacity and Current Attendance

    The calculations above, show estimated increased number of user days due
to pollution control.   It is necessary to compare the predicted increased use
with the overall beach capacity so that the estimates doe not exceed the
known capacity.   The example beach capacity calculation is given for
Constitution Beach.  Table 6-1, Section 6 of the main report, presents the
capacity figures for the beaches in the study area.
   . .  ..

Beach:
seasonal
 beach
capacity

468,864
  (A)
 square
feet of
 beach

264,000
       (B)

 square feet of
beach per person

       50
                                                  (C)
                                                                               (D)
                                                          persons per day x peak days
                                                           turnover rate   per season

                                                                3             29.6
 (A)  Source:   Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, MA.

 (B) , (C)  Source:   Department of Interior, Outdoor Recreation Standards, 1970.

 (D)  Source:   Department of Environmental Management, Massachusetts Outdoors
     (9CORP) ,  1976.

    Capacities for all other beaches were calculated in a similar manner except for
Wollaston Beach.   The different assumptions used for Wollaston Beach were 40 square feet
of beach per person and four persons per day turnover rate.

    The predicted  increased use is added to the current attendance figures before
comparison with seasonal capacity.  Table B-l shows the current seasonal figures for the
study area.

-------
         B-4


            Table B-l.
Current Seasonal  Attendance Figures
Beaches
Constitution
Dorchester Bay
Castle Island
Pleasure Bay
Carson
Malibu
Tenean
Wollaston
Quincy
Weymouth
Hingham
Hull
1 MDC and I HOC and I Binkley/ 1
1 Municipal I Municipal 1 Hanemann I
1 Estimates I Estimates I Estimate- 1
1 1982 1 1974 1 Log it Model 1
150,000 500,000 1,258,571

15,000
175,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
2,000,000 -
3,500,000 750,000 2,325,714
140,194 -
177,600
103,600 -
108,040
17,650 -
26,640
66,000
1
1
1
Range |
150,000 - 1,258,571

15,000
175,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
2,000,000 - 3,500,000
140,194 - 177,600
103,600 - 108,040
17,760 - 26,640
66,000
Best
Guess
325,000

15,000
175,000
100,000
150,000
1*0, OOC
2,750,OOC
158,927
105, 82C
22,20C
66,000

-------
                                     B-5
B .3  lower Bound Estimate  for  increased Participation


    Not all the projected  increased participation might occur because of

relatively cold air  temperatures at the beach, which might discourage

increased beach visits even with improved water quality. The predicted

increase in beach visits is reduced by a factor to take into account air

temperature.  It is  derived as follows in order to obtain a lower bound

estimates of increased participation.


    (a)    Each day of the summer season is categorized  as
             o  poor (air temperature  £ 75° Farenheit)
             o  good (air temperature  >75° and   < 79°)
             o  excellent  (air temperature   ^ 79°)

          Air temperature data is available for sampled days during the
          months of  June, July and August, 1982 and 1983.

          Source:  Approach suggested and data supplied by Dr. Richard
          Burns, Region 1, Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, MA
          Categories based on "Weather conditions that  lure People to the
          Beach" by  P. Rosenson and J. Havens in Maritimes, University of
          Fhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography, August 1977.  Air
          temperature for Boston Harbor area from NOAA,  National Ocean
          Survey data file.

    (b)    The percentage of days in each category is calculated based on a
          total of 85 days sampled during the summers of 1982 and 1983.

    (c)    For each category of day a proportion of the  predicted increased
          participation due to improved water quality is assumed to take
          place. For excellent days all the predicted  increase is
          included.  However, the assumption is made that on good and poor
          days only  two-thirds and one-third (respectively) of the
          predicted  increase is retained because the cooler air
          temperatures would tend to limit the increase predicted from
          improved water quality.

          Source: Based on graph of attendance versus  daytime temperature
          for a fliode island beach in "Weather Conditions that lure People
          to the Beach" by P. Rosenson and J. Havens in Maritimes,
          university of ftiode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography,
          August 1977.

    (d)    Multiplying the proportion of days in each category (b) by the
          proportion of the predicted increased participation (c) gives
          the factor by which the upper bound estimate  is reduced in order
          to obtain  a lower bound estimate which takes  into account air
          temperature.

-------
                                      B-6
          The following table presents these calculations:
 (a)    No. of sampled days
       June, July, August,
       1982 and 1983

 (b)    Proportion of
       days in 1982
       and 1983

 (c)    Proportion of
       projected increase
       in participation not
       limited by air
       temperature
 Poor

 v<75°



36



  .424
  .33
(d)     "Reduction factor" for
       lower bound  :  (b) x  (c)   .140
    Good

> 75° and < 79°



     12



       .141
                                                                      Excellent     Total
       .67
                                                      .094
                                                                    37
                                                                      .435
                                                                     1.00
                                        .435
 85
1.00
                                     .669
Ttie total predicted increased participation is mulitiplied by the  sum of the reduction

factors to obtain the lower bound estimate of increased participation.  For example, the

upper bound predicted increase  in participation for Constitution Beach  is 113,750.

The lower bound estimate is, therefore,  .669 x 113,750 = 76,099.

-------
                                     B-7


B.4  The Conditional Multinomial logit Model, in Brief


    This section describes the conditional multinomial logit model of

multiple site demand.  The model works from the indirect utility function

for an individual.  The utility u^.  individual i receives from visiting

beach j is

    uij      •    f(dij,S.,Ii)                                    (B.I)

where
             =   travel cost (perhaps time and distance) for individual i
                to reach beach j

             =   characteristics of beach j  (perhaps a vector of
                characteristics) .

             =   characteristics of individual i (perhaps a vector of
                characteristics).
    Individual  i will choose beach j  if and only if

    ui;j >  uik   kX j                                             (B.2)


    Suppose we  recognize that the choice process is not perfect, either

because the individual has imperfect information, makes "mistakes" in beach

choice, or  perhaps we do not recognize all the relevant factors in her

utility function.  Then we might model the indirect utility functions as


    uij = vij + ej                                                (B>3)

where e • is an  error term capturing the error in the choice process and

v^j represents  the measurable, nonstochastic part of the indirect utility

function.

-------
                                     B-8
    NDW the probability of individual i choosing beach j is


    Pi:j = prob   JUij>uik)=  prob  ^vi:j  + ej > vik + e

          = prob    vi;j - vik> 6  - ek    k^j                  (B.4)
    McPadden (1973) proved that if 6j and ek are independent with a


Weibull distribution, then


    pij      •   exp(vij)/lexp(vik)                               (B.5)
                          K



    If the nonstochastic part of the utility function, v, is specified to be


linear in parameters then  (B.5) can be estimated using maximum likelihood


methods and hypotheses can be tested in that framework as well.



    Our model predicts the total number of visits by individual i to site j,
                              n^ = n^ Pij                            (B.6)



    where n^ = the total number of visits by individual i.



    In essence (B.6)  factors a joint probability model into a conditional


probability model.  The underlying joint probability model predicts the


probability of making a beach visit (instead of, say, going to a movie) and


the probability of visiting a specific beach.  Ben-Akiva  (1973)  showed the


joint model can be factored with the inclusion of a particular term in the


total visit model.  The so-called "inclusive price" (IP) term reflects the


service characteristics of the set of beaches:


                                                                  (B'7)
    Then the total visit model can be specified as


    ni       -   g(XPi,  Ii).                                       (B.8)

-------
                                     B-9






    Together (B.6) ,  (B.5) and (B.8)  permit one to model how changes in site




characteristics S.. will effect the total quantity of visits and the split




of visits among the various beaches.  Ohat is, we estimate the parameters of




these equations by using the data described above.  To simulate the effect of




a change in the characteristic of one  or more of the sites, use (B.8) to find




the total number of visits, (B.5)  to find the fraction of the visits which



will be made to each site and (B.6)  to determine the number of visits made to




each site.






    The benefits of the simulated change in water quality at  one or more




sites can be estimated using a modification of a procedure developed by Small




and Rosen (1982) and adapted to this problem by Feenberg and  Mills (1980) .




The outline of  this procedure is as  follows,  include the minimum level of




expenditure necessary to achieve a given utility level in v.  Differentiate v




with respect to expenditures to obtain an expression for the  change in




expenditures as a function of a change in site characteristics.  This is a




compensated demand function for the  site characteristic.  Then integrate this




expression over a change in site characteristics to obtain an estimate of the




welfare change  associated with the change in site characteristics.  The




following makes this argument more specific.




    Vi:j = vfdi^Sj^i^i)                                          (B.9)



where E is the  minimum expenditure for individual i to obtain utility level v




given all the other parameters.



Then   _
                                               V
       S.               j     .                  .





where ^i is the marginal utility of  income.




From Roy's identity  X=   ^V  /ni'  T"6"' in expectation,

-------
                                   B-10
              - ZL P,  n.  ±V_     _VV
    We know p^ from (3.5) .   Further, specify  (B.8)  in power function form
so that
Substituting into (B.ll)  gives
f I
>•
                                    1 exp V..     v
                          expvkj  2   expv../^v_          (B>12)
                                           /   ^
    To find the welfare change associated with a change in site
characteristics Sj to Sj where the characteristics might change in
more than one site we integrate this expression between those limits.
That is:
          y*'?1
          V  j   r   **
EV.    =  / _o    /  	~i ds.
  1      J *     i  "^7   D
           «*
              !
    (I exp V  )
 3 L  k           J  S°

       3y
       ^d  "  2

-------
                                 B-ll
                                Table B-2.
                     Sites Included in Logit Model —
Site 1
Number 1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
. 16.
' 17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
1
1
Site Name/ location 1
Kings Beach (Swampscott)
Lynn Beach (Lynn)
Nahant Beach (tenant)
Revere Beach (Revere)
Short Beach (Revere)
Winthrop Beach (Winthrop)
Constitution Beach/Orient Heights (Boston)
Castle Island (Boston)
Pleasure Bay (Boston)
City Point (Boston)
L & M Street Beaches (Boston)
Carson Beach (Boston)
Malibu Beach/Savin Hill (Boston)
Tenean Beach (Boston)
Wollaston Beach (Quincy)
Nantasket Beach (Hull)
Wingaersheek Beach (Gloucester)
Crane's Beach (Ipswich)
Plum island (Nswbury)
Duxbury Beach (Duxbury)
White Horse Beach (Plymouth)
Breakheart Reservation (Saugus)
Sandy Beach/Upper Mystic lake (Winchester)
Houghton's Pond/Blue Hills Reservation (Milton)
Wright's Pond (Medford)
Walden Pond (Concord)
Stearns Pond/Harold Parker State Fares t (Aidover)
Cochituate State Park (Natick)
Hopkinton State Park (Hapkinton)
1
Site
Ownership
MDC
MDC
MOC
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
Boston
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
Gloucester
Private
Private
Private
MDC
MDC
MDC
MDC
DNR
DNR
DNR
DNR
DNR

-*  Based on Data collected by Binkley and Haneraann, 1975.

-------
                                    B-12
B .5  Beach Closings

    Beach closings were calculated using seasonal attendance and water
quality data.   They were calculated for water quality levels greater than
200 and 500 MPN/100 ml fecal coliform and, in certain cases, for 700
MPN/100 ml total coliform.

    Tenean Beach,  at water quality level > 500 MPN/100 ml and for the CSO
control option is  used as an example.  Beach closings for all other
affected beaches were similarly calculated.
            Number of Beach
           Closings  Averted
Beach       (Visitor Days)

Tenean         19,286
        (1)
  timber of Beach
  Closings Under
Present Conditions
  (Visitor Days)

      24,107
                                                                 (2)
% Pollution Abatement
 From Control Options

          80
 (1)  Current Beach Closings

             Number Beach
               Closings
            (Visitor  Days)

               24,107
       (a)
   % of Season
  Water Quality
     >500 MPN

       .1607
       (b)
     Seasonal
    Attendance
     150,000
 (a)  Source:  Meta Systems calculations based on data from Metropolitan
              District Commission and towns of Quincy, Weymouth, Hingham,
              and Hull.

 (b)  Source:  See Table  B-l  (above).

 (2)  Source:  See Table  4-3, Section 4 of the main report.

-------
                                    B-13






B.6  user Day \telues






    Many of the recreation benefit estimation approaches calculate the value




of benefits accruing from changes in the use of a resource by applying a




specific dollar value to an incremental change in quantity of recreation.




These user day values (also called unit day values) have been calculated




using a variety of techniques including cost of travel and survey-derived




estimates of willingness to pay.   Generally an average figure is given which




may not reflect the effects of incremental changes in environmental quality.



They should be applied with care  especially when user day values derived in




one area of the country are applied to a different region.  Table B-3




presents the (wide) range of values to be found in the literature and which




are potentially applicable to this case study.

-------
                                     B-14
                          Table B-3.  user Day values
Source
         User Day Value
             in Study
User Day Value*'
    in 1982 $
                                                      Values Chosen
                                                        for use in
                                                        Boston Harbor Study
General Recreation or Swimming

Heintz e_t a_l.   2.67 (1973$)
DPRA            2.54 (1975 3)
Binkley Log it
  ModelJ/       5.65 (1974 $)
Federal
  Register      1.60 to 4.80 (1982 $)

Boating

Heintz e_t al.   8.96 (1973$)
DPRA            5.17 (1975 3)
Charbonneau
  and HayS/     22.80 (1975 $)
NPA             12.26 (1978 3)

Fishing

Heintz e_t a_l.   8.74 (1973$)
DPRA            5.15 (1975 3)
Charbonneau and Hay
  Trout         21.00 (1975 $)
  Bass          19.00 (1975 3)
  Catfish       15.00 (1975 $)

Russell and Vaughanl/
  Trout         11.10-24.10 (1979 $)
  Bass
  Catfish
Survey of
  Fishing
Federal
  Register
    General
                9.70-21.40 (1979 $)
                7.00-16.00 (1979 $)

                11.00 (1980 $)
            2.30-4.80 (1982 $)
Specialized 11.20-19.00 (1982 $)
                                          5.80
                                          4.56

                                          11.06

                                          1.60 to 4.80
                                          19.46
                                          9.27

                                          40.89
                                          18.14
                                          18.98
                                          9.24

                                          37.66
                                          34.08
                                          26.90
                                      14.76-32.05
                                      12.90-28.46
                                      9.31-21.28

                                      12.89
                                          2.30-4.80
                                          11.20-19.00
                                                       Harbor  (moderate)


                                                       Harbor  (high)

                                                       Harbor  (low)
                                                       Charles River  (low)

                                                       Harbor (high)
                                                       Charles River  (high) ,
                                                       Harbor (low)
                                                       Harbor  (high)
                        Harbor (low)
§/ Updated using Consumer Price Index, U.S. City Average,
     All Urban Consumers, average for 1982 (CPI-U=289.1) .
*>/ As presented in Appendix B.3 and Section 6 of main report.
£/ Assuming a ratio of boating to fishing (bass) of 1:2.
£/ Lower figure assumes fees reflect real resource costs and value of
     travel time is zero (net consumer surplus) .  Higher figure assumes fees
     are pure transfers and value of travel time is average wage  rate  (total
     willingness to pay).

-------
                                    B-15
                          References for Table B-3.

Charbonneau,  J.  and J. Hay, 1978, "Determinants and Economic Values of
                Hjnting and Fishing,11 Paper presented at the 43rd itorth
                American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Phoenix,
                Arizona.

Development Planning and Research Associates, Inc.  (DPRA), 1976, National
                Benefits of Achieving the 1977, 1983 and 1985 Water Quality
                Goals, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
                and Development, Washington, DC.

Federal Register, Volume 48, Number 48,  March 10, 1983, "Economic and
                Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
                Land Resources Implementation Studies", U.S. Water Resources
                Council, Washington, DC.

Heintz, H.T. , A. Hershaft and G.C. Horak, 1976, National Damages of Air and
                Water Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
                Research and Development, Washington, DC.

rational Planning Association (NPA) , 1975, Water-Related Recreation
                Benefits Resulting from Public Law  92-500, National
                Commission on Water Quality, Washington, DC.

Russell, C. S. and W.T. Vaughan, 1982, "The National Fishing Benefits of
                Water Pollution Control," J&urnal of Environmental Economics
                and Management, 9:328-353.

U.S. Department  of the interior, 1982, 1980 Survey  of Fishing, Hunting and
                Wildlife Associated Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Service and
                U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
                Washington, DC.

-------
                                    B-16
B .7  Sources of Recreation Data

    Information pertaining to recreation participation and the corresponding

economic values were drawn from a number of existing reports.  Nat all of the

information is specific to Boston Harbor, nor does each address exactly what

is needed for the case study at hand.   However, it is information that can be

used to define ranges of values for both participation rates in and economic

values derived from the water resources of Boston Harbor.   In order to

ascertain how the figures proposed by each source relates to this case study,

the method of their derivation and the populations from which they were

derived must be examined and compared to the objectives of this study and to

the population using  (or potentially using) Boston arbor's water resources.


1.  Abt Associates, 1979.  New York-New England Recreational Demand Study,
    vol. I and II.  Cambridge, MA.


    The focal point of this study was a survey designed to (1) quantify

current recreational demands in the New %rk-New England region and, then,

 (2) to use that demand to develop a model of supply/demand interactions of

recreational resource availability and needs of forecasting recreational

demands.


    The current demand figures from this study can be applied to the Boston

Harbor case study because the statistical techniques used were thorough

 (including the breakdown of information by useful characteristics) and

because the sample  size was large.  The forecasted recreational data is not

applicable to Boston Harbor.  One of the criticisms of the study is that

demand forecasts are a dependent variable of supply.  To accurately assess

the particular effects of increasing the water quality of Boston Harbor, it

-------
                                    B-17


would be preferable to use Boston Harbor-specific supply information in the

model.  The results forecasted by this study's model are based upon much

larger geographic areas of recreational resources and thus do not directly

help in pin-pointing the benefits accrued (real or potential)  from improved

harbor water quality.


2.  U.S. Department of the Interior, November 1982.  1980 National Survey of
    Fishing, Hinting, and Wildlife associated Recreation, Pish and Wildlife
    Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
    Washington, DC.


    Every five years, since 1955,  the Fish and Wildlife Service (in

cooperation with the Bureau of Census) has conducted a nationwide survey of

U.S. fishing and hunting activities.  For the 1980 survey, questions about

non-consumptive wildlife associated recreation (e.g., bird watching) were

asked for the  first time.  Much of the information is of use to the Boston

Harbor case study, including participation rates, level of participation

intensity, and expenditures per activity. Unfortunately, there are no

willingness to pay or latent demand analyses.


    The survey's strongest recommendation is its large sample size, which

lends confidence to statistical analyses  derived from its data base.  Over

116,000 households were sampled nationwide to determine participation rates

in various wildlife-related activities.   Of particular interest and

application to the Boston Harbor case study are the statistics obtained for

saltwater fishing.   Fishing participants  identified in the screening phase of

the survey were re-interviewed, with attention to more details about:


    o   their intensities of participation Dumber of trips and days per
        year);

    o   location of activity  (fresh or saltwater, in-state or out-of-
        state);

    o   mode of participation  (boat, surf, shore, pier, etc.);

-------
                                    B-18

    o   expenditures for participating  in the activity; and
    o   demographic characteristics of  the participants.

For this second phase of data collection, "sample sizes were designed to
provide statistically reliable results  at the state level for fishing and
hunting and at the Census geographic division level for non-consumptive
activities".£r   In Massachusetts, 700 fishermen and women were
interviewed.  Of those interviewed, 272 participated in saltwater fishing
only (39 percent of Massachusetts anglers) , and 219 engaged in both  fresh and
saltwater fishing (31 percent).

    Since the statistics above are for  Massachusetts overall, it is  necessary
to consider how Boston area anglers differ from the "average" Massachusetts
anglers.  Given fishing as an activity  of participation, participation rate
differences between Massachusetts residents state-wide and Boston SMSA
residents are considered.  The proximity  of saltwater resources to Boston
suggests that the salt and freshwater fishing participation ratio might be
even higher for the Boston area.  Assuming that the greatest use of  Boston
Harbor is made by the local population, this is an important consideration
and it suggests that the survey's results are a lower bound estimate of
saltwater fishing participation.  What  might cause the survey's estimates to
be overstatements for the Boston SMSA are the characteristics of Cape Cod and
the shoreline communities to the north  and south of Boston.  These three
areas are apt to have higher than average fishing participation rates
assuming that individuals who like to engage is this activity are prone to
reside in these areas.  A statistically equivalent sampling of these areas
could skew state-wide participation rates upward.
   i/Page viii of the survey.

-------
                                    B-19


    The survey also presents participation rates by geographic area and place

of residence.   for New England, the saltwater fishing geographic/demographic

distinctions are made for big cities, small cities and rural areas.  Boston,

however, is rather uniquely situated with respect to most other cities of New

Qigland because it is on the Atlantic Coast.  Again, if proximity of the

resource does  have bearing on participation, then the study estimates are

probably underestimates of Boston SMSA  fishing rates.  The days of

participation  figures generated by the  survey are consistent with the same

measure from other studies.  A final recommendation of this survey is that it

was completed  quite recently (1980-1982).


3.  McConnell, K.E., Smith, T.P., and Farrell, J.F., 1981.  Marine
    Sportfishing in Riode Island 1978.  NOAA/Sea Grant, University of Hiode
    Island Technical Report 83, Narragansett, Rhode Island.


    This study is recommended for a number of reasons, including:


    o   The data was collected recently,  from February 1978 to
        January 1979;

    o   The sample size is large, implying statistical confidence
         (5,000 interviews were conducted  at the sites of the fishing
        experiences and 9,000 phone interviews were conducted
        state-wide);

    o   The information collected pertains specifically to saltwater
        fishing;

    o   The geographic proximity of Rhode Island to Boston Harbor
        makes  for similar fishing experiences in terms of the types
        of fish caught and the general  environmental experience
         (weather, topography, vegetation,  seasons); and

    o   The nearness of Rhode Island to the case study area captures
        similar population characteristics such as attitudes,
        lifestyles, economic activities,  etc.


    There are  a few obvious differences between the two study areas.  Che

difference is  that the vast majority of fishing in Rhode Island does not take

place near urbanized areas.  Another is that public transportation is used

-------
                                    B-20






less often in Fhode  Island than in the Boston SMSA, suggesting that travel




mode arguments are not identical for the areas.  Travel time is comparable




however, because of  Fhode Island's small size.  R>r instance, the travel time




from Rhode Island's  population centers in  the northern part of the state




(including Providence, the capitol) to the southern shores (popular fishing




spots) is usually an hour or less by car;  using Boston public transportation



to visit a fishing site in and around the  Harbor requires a comparable amount




of time.






    In addition to participation rate and  intensity information, estimates of




economic expenditures for participation  are also available from this study.




Average expenditures are based on "out-of-pocket" costs per trip which may or




may not include some travel costs (for instance, if gas was bought on the




trip, then it would  partially account for  travel costs) .  An examination of




costs per trip and one-way mileage figures suggests that travel costs are not




extensively covered  by the "out-of-pocket" cost data; even at the




conservative cost  of 3.10 per mile, the  expenditure data barely accounts for




travel costs.






    By using the expenditure information available for the various modes of




fishing  (shore, fixed structure, boat) together with travel cost information




specific to Boston Harbor, a range of plausible current trip expenditures for




fishing in the Harbor can be calculated.  Such a range represents




demonstrated economic worth of the fishing resources but does not indicate




consumer (participant) surplus of fishing  activity.






    The interview questionnaire used for this study did include willingness




to pay questions,  but that data has not  yet been tabulated and analyzed.  In




the absence of willingness-to-pay measures, the demonstrated expenditures

-------
                                    B-21


will be taken as lower bound estimates of the economic value of Boston

Harbor's fishing resources.


4.  Metcalf and Eddy, 1975.  Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area Study
    (EMMA) .   Technical Data  (Molurae 13B) .  Socio-Economic Dnpact  Analysis.


    The area of study for the EMMA series of reports roughly corresponds to the

area of this case study, so the information presented is directly relevant to

the case study  at hand.  The socio-economic impact analysis includes a section

on recreation in the area.  It examines actual and potential recreational

activity there. Actual, or current, activity is defined as demand; potential

activity, or un-oiet demand, is defined as need.  (teed is translated as latent

demand for  application to this case study.)


    Much of the information presented in  EMMA regarding recreational

opportunities is drawn from the Eastern Massachusetts supplement  to the 1972

Massachusetts Outdoor Recreation Plan.  Based on information drawn from the

Outdoor Recreation and Open-Space Inventory and from census data, the

supplement  provides a data baseline on recreational opportunity in the area.

Although the inventory and census were conducted in 1970, the recreational

opportunity and activity calculations are still valid since the current

population  and  recreational resources of  the area are not much changed from

that time,  if recreationa.1 habits are also alike.


    The assessments of demand and latent demand were performed according to

population  density groups within the MAPC area.  The highest density groups

had the lowest  ratios of recreation and open space acreage to population.  It

appears that the analyses for latent demand were performed within each

density group;  that is, if the recreational resources within a density group

area were not sufficient to meet the total potential demand for the

-------
                                    B-22


population within that group, the availability of such resources in other

areas was not considered for satisfaction of those recreation needs.  The

high density areas exhibit latent demand of water-based recreational

activities, even though the majority of municipal recreational sites is

within the very dense and dense categories.  Still, the extremely dense

category has five percent of the recreational areas and 35 percent of the

population within the study area.


    The quality of the available recreational sites was not a factor in

calculating recreational opportunity.


5.  Metropolitan Area Planning Council, October, 1972.  Boston Harbor Islands
    Comprehensive Plan, for Massachusetts Department of tatural Resources.


    This report describes a plan for all phases and aspects of maintaining

and developing the islands of Boston Harbor, which are considered a unique

natural resource of  significance to the New England Region.  The islands are

predominantly open,  natural areas; some have historic sites or limited public

facilities.  The Plan contains descriptions of the islands and the current

and planned activities for them.  Many of the islands do not yet have the

facilities or the water quality necessary for some of the activities;

therefore, activity  days figures most nearly reflect potential use of the

Islands.


    The islands offer a range of activities: swimming, boating, fishing,

hiking, picnicking,  group and primitive camping, play, and historic fort

visitation.  Only the first three activities mentioned are of concern to this

case study because they are most directly affected by water quality.

(However, water quality can affect the experiences of other activities such

as camping and hiking.)  This report is particularly useful because it

-------
                                     B-23


 provides data on the recreational potential (activity days) of the Harbor

 Islands.


     The economic values per day for each Boston Harbor  Island activity day

 were based upon the federal Water Resources Council's "Standards for Planning

 Water and Land Resources"  (July 1970) .  These values are nationwide

estimates.   Because the values in the Harbor Plan are in 1970 dollars it was

necessary to inflate  them to 1980 dollars using  the Consumer Price Index for

urban consumers,   furthermore, the round trip  ferry fee to George's Island of

$3.00 has been added  to the value in order to  account for a portion of the

travel costs incurred in visiting the islands.   The Department of Environ-

mental Management provides a free taxi service to reach other islands from

George's Island.   The travel costs incurred by private boaters to the islands

are probably at least $3.00 considering the costs of gas and/or costs of

upkeep.


6.  Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, September, 1977.  National Urban Recreation
    Study;   Boston/lowel 1/lawrence/Haverhill,  Northeast Regional Office;
    National Park Service and Forest Service.


    This particular study offers qualitative insights into and justifications

for recreational  resource preservation in its  study area.  (Some of the ideas

are presented here.)  A basic premise of the study is that open space which

is close to  home  is desirable.  At present, Boston ha& only 5.4 acres of open

space per thousand population, whereas the recommended minimum by the

National Recreation and Park Association and the Urban Land Institute is 10

acres per thousand population.  Most of Boston's land is already developed.

Once it has  been  developed, it is economically and physically difficult to

reclaim as open space.  Of the open spaces that  do remain,  there is

considerable competition for their use.

-------
                                     B-24


    Cnly about one-sixth of  New England's coastline is accessible to the

general public.  The recreational potential that Boston Harbor offers is

substantial by comparison since approximately 40 percent of the harbor

shoreline remains relatively undeveloped; portions of this undeveloped area

are used for recreational activities.  In addition, the islands are within a

25 mile radius of 2.7 million people.  The 1977 Coastal Zone Management Plan

lists three types of recreational facilities as being in greatest demand for

Boston Harbor.  They are:  (1) large scale beaches and waterfront parks;

(2) smaller scale beaches and parks for local use; (3) walkways.  Certainly/

water quality is critical to swimming activity and can enhance the enjoyment

of parks and walkways.


    Whereas the waterfront was once largely an area of warehousing and

industrial activity, new development and redevelopment styles are leading to

different interactions with  the Harbor, particularly in the downtown areas

along the Inner Harbor.  More people are living, shopping, and staying in

hotels near the water—their relationship to the Harbor is becoming more

intimate so the aesthetic quality and sense of open space it can offer is

becoming more important. Furthermore, as more white-collar businesses move

into the waterfront commercial spaces, perceptions and expectations of the

working environment change  (visits by clientele, visual appearances of

surroundings, etc.).


7.  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, December 1976.
    Massachusetts Outdoors;  Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP)


    The information on recreation participation rates and latent demand in

this report is of interest to the Boston Harbor case study.  However, the

methodology employed to obtain that information has a number of limitations.

The primary problem is the sample size of the data collection effort.

-------
                                     B-25


A telephone survey was conducted of 400 households/persons throughout

Massachusetts and this survey is the data source for all subsequent analyses.

The Boston SMSA is contained within a region extending west to Worcester,

north to the state border/ and south to Bridgewater.  This region is one of

seven equally sampled areas within the state, meaning that the Boston SMSA

recreational demand  is calculated from only 57  (or  fewer) interviews.


    Some of the results of the data analysis are counter-intuitive.  Che such

result suggests that power boating participation rates are more strongly

associated with low  income groups than with higher  income groups, although

power boat operation and maintenance can be quite expensive.  Information

from the "Boston Marinas and Live-Aboards Study" indicates a high proportion

of large boats in the Boston area, thus countering  the explanation that the

power boat population is dominated by small boats with outboard motors (i.e.,

less expensive power boats, affordable to low income groups).


    The results of the SOORP study are more meaningful if they are

interpreted qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.  The shortcomings of

the empirical findings are often mentioned by the authors throughout the

study, suggesting that SCORP results should be  applied with caution.


8.  Department of Interior, April 1984.  The 1982-1983 Nationwide Recreation
    Survey, Itetional Park Service, Washington,  DC.


    The most recent  nationwide survey of recreation activities was designed

for comparability with certain portions of the  national recreation surveys

conducted in 1960 and 1965.  It includes data on participation rates,'

expenditures, reasons for recreating, and reasons for constraints on

-------
                                    B-26






recreating.   At the time of this report only nationwide figures were




available.  Regional  (but not as detailed as the SMSA level) figures are




expected to be published later.

-------
                                     B-27
                                 References
Abt Associates, 1979.   New York-New England Recreational Demand Study,
    Vblumes I and II,  Cambridge, MA.

Ben-Akiva, J. , 1973.   The Structure of Passenger Travel Demand, Ph.D.
    dissertation, Massachusetts  institute of Technology, Department of  Civil
    Engineering, Cambridge, MA.

Binkley, Clark S. and  W.  Michael Hanemann, 1975.  The Recreation Benefits of
    Water Quality improvement, NTIS PB257719, for the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

Department of Interior, March 1970.  Outdoor Recreation Standards, Bureau of
    Outdoor Recreation, Washington, DC.

Department of Interior, September 1977.  National Urban Recreation Study;
    Boston/lowell/lawrence/ffiverhill, Northeast Regional Office, Bureau of
    Outdoor Recreation, National Park Service and Forest Service, Boston, MA.

Department of Interior, November 1982.  1980 National Survey of Fishing,
    Hunting and Wildlife  Association Recreation, Fish and Wildlife Service
    and U.S. Department of Qammerce, Bureau of the Census, Washington,  DC.

Department of Interior, April 1984.  The 1982-1983 Nationwide Recreation
    Survey;  Summary of Selected Findings, National Park Service,
    Washington, DC

Feenberg, Daniel and Edwin Mills, 1980.  Measuring the Benefits of Water
    Pollution flaatement,  Academic Press, New York, NY.

Massachusetts Department  of Environmental Management, December 1976.
    Massachusetts Outdoors;  Statewide Commprehensive Outdoor Recreation
    Plan (SCORP) , Boston, MA.

McConnell, K.E., Smith, T.P.  and Farrell, J.F., 1981.  Marine Sportfishing
    in Fhode Island 1978, NOAA/Sea Grant, university of Fhode island
    Technical Report 83,  Narragansett, RI.

Metcalf and Bidy, 1975.  Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area Study
    (EMMA), Boston, MA.

Metropolitan Area Planning Council, October 1982.  Boston Harbor Islands
    Comprehensive Plan, for Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources,
    Boston, MA.

Small, K and H. Rosen, 1981.  Applied Welfare Economics with Discrete Choice
    Models, Efconometrica  40:  105-130.

-------
                                  Appendix C

                     Swimming Health Benefit Calculations


    Health benefits for recreational swimming are derived using dose-response

functions and beach attendance data.  The distribution  of water quality

levels throughout the swimming season for each  beach  was  used  as  the basis

for estimating the exposure of the swimming population.   The first  section of

this appendix shows how the number of highly  credible gastroenteritis cases

was calculated for each water quality level at  each beach. Tenean  beach, at

water quality level 7 (60 MPN fecal coliforms per 100 ml), is  used  as a

representative example.  The second section of  this appendix shows  the

calculations of reduced number of cases of illnesses  for  each  treatment

option for each beach.
C.I  Number of Cases of Gastrointestinal Illness
     (Itenean Beach,  water quality level  7)
   Number of Cases
  of Highly Credible
   Gastroenteritis
   At Water Quality
       Level 7	

        190

(A) Number of cases
    per 1000

         18.09
           (A)                    (B)
   Number of Cases           Population at
of HC gastroenteritis  x   Risk, up to Water
	per 1000	       Quality Level 7

                                 10,500
             18.09

               (1)
=  0.2 + 12.2 log Ehterococci

=  0.2 + 12.2 x 1.47
                                     0.75
                                                       1000
Source:  Cabelli et. al,  1982.

-------
                                      C-2
                                    (a)
(1)  Log Ehterococoi = 0.825 log Fecal coliform     R  =   0.82

            1.47     = 0.825 x log(60)


 Source:  Meta derived statistical relationship  using  averaged MDC and
          other municipal water quality  data,  1974-1982.


(a)  When total coliform concentrations  were measured  instead of  fecal
     coliform concentrations, total coliform concentrations were  substituted
     using the following relationship:

         log Fecal coliform  =  0.65 log total coliform      R  = 0.89

Source:  Meta derived function, based on averaged MDC  and municipal
              water quality data, 1974-1982.

                                   (1)                     (2)
(B)       Population
          at Risk at                               Percentage of  Season
        Water Quality    =   Seasonal Beach   x      Water Quality
          Level 7              Attendance        	At Level 7	

            10,500        =      150,000                    .07
(1)  Source:  MDC, Towns of Quincy, Weymouth,  Hingham and  Hull.

(2)  The frequency, per season, of thirteen water quality  levels was measured
     for fecal coliform concentrations, MPN per 100 ml (see Table C-l).
C.2  Reduced Cases of Gastrointestinal Illness


     The above calculations are done for each water quality level  to

establish the base case for each beach.  This gives the estimated  number of

cases of illness occurring under current conditions.  Similarly, the

calculations can be carried out assuming a certain percentage of pollution

reduction.  This is done by reducing the average fecal coliform count  for the

water quality level by the percentage pollutant reduction.   For example, in

the base case water quality level 7 has a fecal coliform count of

60 MPN/100 ml.

-------
                      C-3
Table C-l.  Water Quality Fecal Ooliform Levels
Level 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Water
Quality Range
Fecal Col i form
0
1-5
6-10
11-20
21-30
31-50
51-70
71-130
131-170
171-330
331-470
471-730
£ 731
Median
Value Fecal
1 Col i form Used
0
3
8
15
25
40
60
100
150
250
400
600
731
% During Season
1 for Tenean Beach
0
10
13
9
1
12
7
9
7
9
6
9
10

-------
                                     04


Under the CSO control option with 80 percent reduction the same water quality

level 7 would be assigned  a fecal coliform count of  12 MPN/100 ml.  Then,  the

string of calculations  listed in Section C.I above are repeated to estimate

the number of cases of  illness under these new water quality conditions.   The

number of cases for each of the water quality levels are summed to give a

total incidence of illness at that beach.  Levels  for which the fecal

coliform counts exceed  500 MPN/100 ml, however,  are not included because we

assume the beach is closed to swimming at counts above 500 MPN/100 ml. These

calculations are shown  for Tenean Beach in Table C-2.


C.3  Population at Risk


    The studies of swimmers and related health effects divide the population

of visitors to a beach  into swimmers and non-swimmers.  TWO available studies

have this information for  Boston area beaches.  Their results are shown below.


     Study              Total § of Visitors  %  of Swimmers who go swimming

43 Boston area beaches
     (Hanemann, 1978)         2507                  32 %

2 Boston area beaches
(Cabelli e_t a_l., 1980)        4153                  49%

6 Ooastal beaches in  U.S.
(Cabelli e_t a_l., 1980)       16182                  63%


In this study we use  the figure of 4--A for a lower bound estimate of the

population at risk.  In addition, a reduction factor tied to the distribution

of air and water temperature during the summer season is used.  This factor

is calculated by first  categorizing the summer days as follows:

-------
                          Table C-2.   Calculation of Number of Highly Credible Gastroenteritis
                                                  Cases for  Tenean Beach
Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Total
Fecal
Col i form
Count
(average)^/
0
3
8
15
25
40
60
100
150
250
400
600
731
Cases
% of
Season
Hater Quality
at Given Level—
0
10
13
9
1
12
7
9
7
9
6
9
10

Total Cases below
500 MPN/100 ml
With 10%
# of Reduction
Base f.c.
Cases*/ Count2/
0
73
181
163
22
296
192
277
235
332
240
385
441
2837
2011
(a)
0
2.7
7.2
13.5
22.5
36
54
90
135
225
360
540
657.9


* of
Cases*/
0
66
172
157
21
288
187
271
230
326
236
379
434
2767
1954
(b)
Calculations for Each Treatment







Treatment
Option
CSO only

%


Ocean Outfall

Pollution
Reduction
80
10
Number of
With 80%
Reduction
f.c.
Count2'
0
0.6
1.6
3
5
8
12
20
30
50
80
120'
146.2


Option

ft of
Cases—
0
0
41
66
11
167
116
180
159
235
176
288
333
1772
1772
(c)
•
With 90%
Reduction
f.c.
Count5/
0
0.3
0.8
1.5
2.5
4
6
10
15
25
40
60
73.1



ft of
b/
Cases-'
0
0
0
24
6
111
84
137
127
194
148
246
287
1364
(
1364 (
(d)

Reduced Cases Calculation
of Illness
239
57

(a)
(a)
Method
- (c)
- (b)




                              Seconda ry
                                Treatment          10

                              CSO and Ocean
                                Outfall            90
                              CSO and Secondary
                                Treatment          90
 57


647


647
(a)


(a)


(a)
(b)

(d)

(d)
a/From Table C-l.
^/Calculated using Cabelli et a_l.  (1982) equation.

-------
                                     C-6


    o   Poor (air temperature  ^75° Fahrenheit and/or water
              temperature  < 65° Fahrenheit)

    o   good (air temperature  > 75° and < 79° and water temperature £65°)

    o   excellent (air  temperature > 79° and water  temperature £ 65°)


    Then, the distribution of days in each category is estimated from data on

air and surface water temperature for the months of June, July and August for

the years 1982 and 1983.. Ebr  "poor" days it is assumed that only one-third of

the predicted increased population at risk will actually go swimming.  For

"good" days it is assumed that two-thirds of the predicted increase due to

improved water quality  will go swimming but  not all of the predicted increase

because of the relatively lower air and water temperatures.  Ebr "excellent"

days, all of the predicted increased population at  risk is assumed to go

swimming.


    Thus, the lower bound estimate of increased population at risk is 49% of

the predicted increased beach visitors times the reduction factor (.551) for

the air and water temperature constraints.  We used 100% of beach visitors as

an upper bound estimate because the question in the studies is often phrased

"what is your primary beach activity" rather than "did you go swimming".

Thus, visitors may go swimming even for a limited amount of time where their

primary beach activity  was something else.

-------
                                    C-7
    The following table presents the calculations for the lower bound "reduction factor": £/
                                      Poor
                      Good
                Excellent
                                Air ^ 75° and/or   Air > 75° and < 79°   Air £ 79° and
                                Water ^65°        and water ^ 65° 	Water ^65°     Total
(a)  No. of sampled days
    June, July and August,
    1982 and 1983

(b)  Proportion of days in
    1982 and 1983

(c)  Proportion of predicted
    increase in population at
    risk not limited by air
    and water temperatures
55
26
  .647
  .33
.047
.67
.306
 1.00
                            85
               1.00
(d)  "Reduction factor" for
    lower bound estimate:
    (b) x  (c)
  .214
.031
  .306
              .551
           5/ Approach suggested and data supplied by Dr. Richard Burns,  Region 1,
        Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, MA.  categories and proportions used
        in (c) based on "Weather Conditions that Lure People to the Beach" by P.
        Rosenson and J. Ravens in Maritimes,  University of Rhode Island,  Graduate
        School of Oceanography, August 1977, and "Adapted Aquatics" by The American
        National Red Cross,  1977, Washington, DC.  Air and surface water  temperature
        for Boston Harbor Area from NOAA, National Ocean Survey data file.

-------
                                      C-8
                                   References
Cabelli, Victor J. , e_t al^, 1980.   Health Effects Quality Criteria for Marine
Recreational Waters, Environmental Protection  Agency, EPA-600/1-80-031.

Cabelli, V.J., A.P. Dufour, L.J. McCabe,  and M.A. Levin, 1982.  Swimming
Associated Gastroenteritis and Water  Quality.  American Journal of
Epidemiology, 115:606-616.

Hanemann, W.M., 1978.  A Methodological and Empirical Study of the Recreation
Benefits from Water Quality improvement.   PhD dissertation, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA.

-------
                                  Appendix D
                   Commercial Fisheries Benefit Computations

D.I  Demand Function Estimation

    Other than the one in the study done in Maryland to predict future
fisheries' supply,—'  which was discussed in the main body of the report,  no
other soft shelled clam demand functions were found in the literature.  At
present, research is being conducted at the University of Rhode Island
Department of Resource Economics on developing such information about various
fisheries based on National Marine Fisheries Service data.   Dr.  Stephen
Crutchfield ran some regressions using this data to produce a range of soft
shelled clam demand functions for us.-/  One of these will be described
below for illustrative purposes.  Because of the lack of information
available to calibrate these functions properly for Massachusetts, and
because these functions do not represent consumer demand in a particular
market area (as discussed in the main report concerning the Maryland demand
function), it was not possible to use them to compute the impacts of
pollution abatement in Boston Harbor.  However, since this information may be
useful to others, one of these demand functions will be presented here.

    The best six variable logarithmic linear model, as indicated by the
maximum improvement in the R-squared statistic, found using the stepwise
regression technique is as follows:

            P = 1.876 - .076Q + .450W + .117C + .7511 + .087S + .029F
            (R2 = .96)
       Marasco, 1975.
      Crutchfield, 1983.

-------
                                      D-2
    where,
        dependent variable:     P =  exvessel soft shelled clam prices
                                     (Maryland)
        independent variables:  Q =  soft shelled clam landings  (Maine)
                                W =  wholesale prices of  soft  shelled clams
                                     (New York)
                                C =  exvessel prices of quahogs  (Rhode Island)
                                I =  per capita income
                              S,F =  seasonal dummy variables, summer and fall.
    The stepwise regressions were run using monthly data  from  1960  through

1982, where available.  The regressions were set up so that Q  was always

included as an independent variable.  Price data from Maryland and  landings

(harvest) data from Maine had to be used because of insufficient time series

data elsewhere; extensive price and landings data were not available for

Massachusetts nor did the data base used have both price  and landings data

for the same state.  The wholesale price in New York was  included as a demand

shifter since New York is a large market for soft shelled clams.  Quahog

prices were added to represent demand for a competitive product.  Per capita

income is used to reflect derived demand.  Seasonal dummy variables were

included to account for the wide seasonal variations in demand caused by  the

summer tourist season.  This equation produces extremely  high  price and

income elasticities of demand.  For this and the reasons  mentioned  above  and

in the main report, it was not used to compute pollution  abatement  benefits.


D.2  Demand Function Computations


    Computations to determine the constants for the demand functions for

alternative price elasticities were carried out as shown  below.  The

-------
                                      D-3
following demand function was used:



    Q  =  Ax P*

    where, Q  =  consumption (bu.)
           A  =  constant
           P  =  price ($)
           <*  =  price elasticity

and transformed to log form:

    log Q  =  log A + 
-------
                                      D-4
    log  (P -  AP) = 1.4340

    P - i P  =  27.16

    P - 27.16 =  A?

    AP =  28.45 - 27.16  =  1.29.


    Total benefits for each abatement option were calculated as shown below.

The change in consumer surplus is equal to the following:—'


    A CS  =  A P • Q + 1/2 (A P x&Q)
               where, ACS  =  change in consumer surplus (S)
                      A P   =  change in price ($)
                        Q   =  initial consumption (bu.)
                      & Q   =  change in consumption (bu.).


Referring back to Figure 7-2 in the main body of the report, it can be seen

thatAPxQ computes the area B + C and 1/2(A? xAQ) , the area  E,  and that their

sum in the above equation represents ACS equal to area B + C + E.


    As an example, using the I P and AQ associated with the STP option from

the above calculations, and using 16,000 bu. as a reasonable estimate of the

initial consumption from Boston Harbor shellfish areas,  total benefits (equal

to change in consumer surplus) were estimated as follows:



    ACS  =  AP x Q + 1/2(&P x£Q)

          =   (1.29) (16,000) + 1/2[(1.29) (29,603)]

          =   (20,,. 40) + 1/2(38,188)

          =   (20,640) +  (19,094)

          =  $39,734.
   £/ Note that simple geometric calculations are used here rather than
integration under the curve.  Even though the latter method is more accurate and
correctly assumes a non-straight-line demand curve, the former is simpler,  and
given the magnitude of the possible error in the assumptions already made,  will
not adversely affect the outcome.

-------
                                      D-5


D.3  Supply Cost Data and Computations and Producer Surplus Computation Example


    No estimates concerning producer surplus changes due  to pollution

abatement in Boston Harbor could be made due to lack of data.  Attempts were

made to develop a supply curve but were unsuccessful; these will  be described

below.  As mentioned in the main body of the report, it is likely that change

in producer surplus due to pollution abatement would be zero because the

fishery is unregulated and there are no limits to prevent new  firms from

eventually entering and bidding away any short-run excess profits; i.e.,  the

supply curve is probably flat in the area of interest.  Despite an extensive

search, no supply curves for the fishery were found in the literature.  There

is general agreement that is would be very hard to produce such a curve due

to the extreme difficulty of modeling the biological processes affecting

shellfish supply.  Thus, supply for a fishery like the soft shelled clam

industry is usually held to be exogenously determined.^/  This approach was

taken here.


    As discussed in the main report, the Boston area market for clams is

supplied by Maine and Maryland as well as Massachusetts fisheries.

Harvesting cost data is available for Maine (Townsend and Briggs, 1980).

Costs for the typical Massachusetts digger are very similar to those for

Maine.—/  Costs to diggers in restricted areas in Massachusetts,  however,

are higher than to others becau:. • of the special licensing requirements,

depuration costs and additional transportation necessary  to get the clams to
   3/ From discussions with individuals at the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, the Maine Department of Marine Resources,  and  the
Universities of Maine, Maryland and Rhode Island.

   b/ Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife estimates.

-------
                                      D-6


the purification plant.  Prices to Maine diggers are lower than prices to

Massachusetts diggers.—  From this information, it was assumed that the

supply curve for the Boston area soft shelled clam market could be

represented by the curve displayed in Figure D-l.  This is a stepwise supply

curve in which the quantity Q^t and price  P^, represent the quantity

supplied by Maine diggers at their lower cost level.  Similarly, the quantity

from Q^ to Q2 represents the amount supplied by Massachusetts diggers

from unrestricted areas and from Q2 to Q3  that supplied from Boston

Harbor restricted areas at a higher cost.   The dashed line at Q4 and P<

shows the decreased costs and increased quantity to the diggers that operate

in Boston Harbor as a result of pollution  abatement.  Maryland quantities and

costs are not included because the fishery there is highly mechanized and has

a totally different cost structure.


    Initially, it was thought that, given  the available Maine cost data,

costs for Massachusetts firms could be developed for both restricted and

unrestricted areas.  However, with the limits on time and resources and the

lack of data, it was not possible to solve two main problems.  The first was

to account for the fact that the firms that operate in the restricted areas

are composed of a master digger and subordinate diggers unlike typical other

Massachusetts and Maine firms which are single-person operations.

Information was not readily available on wager and numbers of employees.  The

second problem, the really major one, was  to determine what impact pollution

abatement and the potential increased supply available in Boston Harbor would

have on the harvest costs.  Reasonable assumptions could be made concerning

non-labor costs such as assuming decreased per unit transportation costs
   §/ Maine Department of Natural Resources and Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife data.

-------
                                        D-7
                                   Figure D-l.

                       Assumed Shape of Supply Curve for
                      Boston Area Soft Shelled Clam Market.
 Price
(S/bu.)
                                                                        Quantity of
                                                                      Shellfish (bu.)

-------
                                      D-8






since more clams could be hauled per daily trip to  the purification plant.




However, it was very difficult to estimate the  impacts on return to the




master digger or on numbers of subordinates that would be hired.  Therefore,




it was not possible to complete this representation of the supply curve for




the Boston Harbor market so that it could be combined with the previously




estimated demand curves to compute changes in producer surplus.  It was




thought, however, that the preliminary computations that were completed might



be useful to others and should be presented in  an appendix.  The following




tables and discussion show the data used and computations that were made in




order to estimate soft shelled clam harvest costs for both unrestricted areas




in Maine and restricted and unrestricted areas  in Massachusetts.






    Table D-l shows annual 1978 costs for a typical Maine clam digging firm,




a one-person operation, developed by Townsend and Briggs  (1980).  In Table




D-2, these costs are updated to 1980 dollars for Massachusetts diggers who




operate in unrestricted areas.  Updated costs for Maine firms are also shown




at the bottom of this table.






    Tables D-3 through D-6 show the computation of  nonlabor costs for




Massachusetts shellfishing firms operating in Boston  Harbor restricted




areas.  Because it was not possible to develop  costs  for a typical firm




operating in Boston Harbor restricted areas due to  the lack of information




regarding numbers of subordinate diggers employed and their wage rates, i.



was decided that costs should be developed on a per bushel basis.  Table D-3




shows per bushel costs divided into four categories for computation




purposes.  Nonspecialized items are those for restricted firms that




correspond to the items included in the single-person unrestricted firms




shown in Table D-2.  Specialized items are those that are required by either

-------
                                      D-9
      Table D-l.  Cost Data for a lypical Maine Clam Digging Firm,  1978 $
Capital Costs:

Items
Car
(1/2 cost of new car)
Boat
Trailer
Outboard Motor
SUBTOTAL:
Direct Expenses;
Items
Fuel, Car
Fuel, Boat
Auto Maintenance
Boat Maintenance
License
Insurance
Boots & Gloves
Hods
Clam Hoe
SUBTOTAL:
TOTAL:
Owner Operator Income:


1978
Cost
2500

1200
600
1000

1978
Unit Cost
.80/gal
.80/gal





12





Annual
Life Depreciation
4 625

10 120
10 60
4 250
1055
No. of
Units Annual Cost
55.6 44
7.5 6
200
200
10
100
28
2 24
1 	 15
627
1682
2234
Source:  Ibwnsend and Briggs, 1980.






Notes;




Volumes:        210 bushels/year @ $18.65.




Gross Revenue:  $3916.50.




Employment:     one.




Operates:       5 months per year.

-------
        Table D-2.
                                      D-10
Costs for a Typical Massachusetts  Shellfishing  Firm
Operating  in Unrestricted Areas, 1980S
Capital Costs:

Items
Vehicle

1978
Cost
2500

Adjustment
Factor—^
1.31

1980
Cost
3275


Life
4

Annual
Depreciation —
818.75
(1/2 cost of new car;
50% devoted to
Boat
Trailer
Outboard Motor
SUBTOTAL:
Direct Expenses
„
Items
Fuel, Car


Fuel, Boat


Auto Maint.
Boat Maint.
License
Insurance
Boots & Gloves
Hods
Clam Hoe
clamming)
1200
600
1000

•
1978
Price
.80/gal


.80/gal


200
200
-
100
28
12
15

1.31
1.31
1.31


Adjustment
Factor^
1.31


1.31


1.31
1.31
-
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.31

1572
786
1310


1980
Price
1.05


1.05


262
262
30
131
36.68
15.72
19.65

10
10
4



Quantity
55.6
(1,000 mi/yr
@ 18 mi/gal)
7.5
(300 mi/yr
@ 40 mi/gal)
1
1
1
1
1
2
1

157.2
78.6
327.5
1382.05


Total
58.4


7.9


262
262
30
131
36.68
31.44
19.65
SUBTOTAL:
                                                839.07
ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS PLUS DIRECT EXPENSES:                         2221.12

 [Similarly Updated Annual Costs for Maine Firms (1980 $)  = 2203.05]
Source:  Meta Systems estimates based on Townsend and Briggs,  1980 and Williams,
(no date) .

   S/ CPI Boston.

   k/ Assumes straight-line depreciation.

Notes;

210 bushels/yr.; average harvest.

Operates 5 mo./yr.; 100 days/yr.; 5 days/wk.

120 tides per year; 1.75 bu./tide/digger.

-------
                                      D-ll
            liable D-3.   Per  Bushel  Nonlabor  Harvest Costs for Boston
                            Harbor Restricted Areas
	Cost Categories	Cost/Bushel 1980 $

    Nbnspecialized Items                                      5.01

    Specialized Items - Subordinate Diggers                   3.47

    Specialized Items - Master Diggers                        6.18

    Depuration Costs                                          2.00

    TOTAL:                                                   16.66  .


Notes;

Depuration Costs:  $1.00/rack; 2 rack/bu.; $2/bu.

-------
                                     D-12
            Table D-4.  Per Bushel Costs for Nonspecialized Items§/
Capital Costs:
Items
Boat
Trailer
Outboard Motor
TOTAL:
Direct Expenses:
Items
Fuel, Boat
Boat Maint.
Insurance
Boots & Gloves
Hods
Clam Hoe

1978
Cost
1200
600
1000

1978
Price
.80/gal
200
100
28
12
15

Adjustment
Factor^
1.31
1.31
1.31

Adjustment
Factor^
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.31

1980
Cost
1572
786
1310

1980
Price
1.05
262
131
36.68
15.72
19.65


Annual
Life Depreciation2
10
10
4

Quantity
7.5
(300 mi/yr
@ 40 mi/gal)
1
1
1
2
1
157.2
78.6
327.5
563.3
Total
7.9
262
131
36.68
31.44
19.65
TOTAL:
488.67
ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS PLUS DIRECT EXPENSES:                         1051.97




                 = $5.01/bu. @ 210 bu./yr. (from Maine cost data)
1980.
      Based on costs estimated for Maine diggers for 1978,  Townsend  and Briggs,
      CPI Boston.



   £/ Straight-line depreciation assumed.

-------
                                     D-13
       Table D-5.  Per Bushel Specialized Costs for Subordinate Diggers
Capital Costs:
1978
Items Cost
Car (50%) 2500
Direct Expenses:
1978
Items Price
Fuel, Car .80/gal
Auto Ma int. 200
License -
TOTAL:
Adjustment 1980
Factor!/ Cost
1.31 3275
Adjustment 1980
Factor £/ Price
1.31 1.05
1.31 262
30

ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS PLUS DIRECT EXPENSES:
= $1169.15/subordinate
digger x 49 diggers^/ 7 16,
Annual
Life Depreciation
4 818.75
Quantity Total
55.6 58.4
1 262
1 30
350.4
1169.15
500 bu. = $3.47/bu.
   a/ CPI Boston

   !i/ Estimated average annual number of  subordinate diggers = 16,500
bu./yr. total harvest f 210 bu./digger/yr.  °  79 diggers  f  30 master diggers
49 subordinate diggers.  This number may  be an overestimate because
restricted flats may tend to have more clams/acre  and  therefore  the harvest
may be greater per person than indicated  in the Maine  data.  However,
personnel must be used to transport clams to  the purification plant which
would increase the employee/bushel ratio.

-------
                                     D-14
          Table 0-6.  Per Bushel Specialized Costs  for  Master  Diggers
Capital Costs:
Items
Truck
Racks
Surety Bond
SUBTOTAL:
Direct Expenses;
Items
1978
Cost
5500
1978
Price
Fuel, Truck . 80/gal
Truck Maint. 500
License -
SUBTOTAL:
ANNUAL CAPITAL COSTS PLUS
= $3401.51/master digger
Adjustment
Factor
1.31
$10 x
Adjustment
Factor
1980
Cost Life
7205 4
33 = 330 3
500 20
1980
Price Quantity
1.31 1.05 611. 2b/
1.31 " 655 1
100 1
DIRECT EXPENSES:
x 30 master diggers f 16,500 bu. = $6
Annual
Depreciation
1801.25
110
93. 5a/
2004.75
Total
641.76
655
100
1396.76
3401.51
. 18/bu.
   a/ used capital recovery factor = .187 (20 yr.  life,  8%  interest).

   £/ 611.2 = 55.6 (1000 mi/yr @ 18 mi/gal)  + 555.6(10,000  mi/yr  @ 18 mi/gal)

Notes;

Operates 5 mo./yr.; 5 days/week; 100 days/yr.
Approximately 16,500 bu./yr. depurated from Boston Harbor;  30 master diggers
  operate in Boston Harbor; 550 bushels/master digger/yr.;  5.5 bushels/day/
  master digger.

2 racks/bushel; 11 racks/day x 3 days = 33 racks/master  digger.

Approximately 50 mi. from harvest area to depuration plant;
    100 mi./day x 100 days/yr. = 10,000 mi./yr. to depuration plant.

-------
                                     D-15


the master or subordinate digger because  they operate  in  restricted areas.

Depuration costs are the per bushel costs for the clams to be handled by the

purification plant.   The development of nonspecialized costs is shown in

Table D-4.  Specialized costs are computed for  subordinate diggers in Table

D-5 and for master diggers in Table D-6.   These computations assume that the

annual harvest from  Boston Harbor restricted areas  is  16,500 bushels,8/

that there are 30 master diggers3/ operating in the harbor and that each

digger harvests approximately 210 bushels annually.-/


    Changes in per bushel costs due to  pollution abatement are shown in Table

D-7.  It is assumed, for illustration purposes, that the  fishery is

restricted and therefore no additional  firms  (master diggers) can enter.

More subordinate diggers would be hired,  however.   The additional yield from

the restricted areas was a preliminary  figure later changed in the main body

of the report (see Table 7-2) .  To compute total number of diggers, the same

annual harvest rate  was assumed as for  Table D-3.   The main impact of the

pollution abatement  was assumed to be an  increased  annual harvest which would

allow master diggers to transport approximately four times as many bushels

per daily trip to the purification plant  as without abatement.  The

purification plant is currently undergoing expansion which will allow it to

handle larger numbers of shellfish per  day.


    Table D-8 compares available price  data with the nonlabor cost data

computed for Maine and Massachusetts.  Theoretically,  the difference between

the price and the nonlabor cost should  reflect  the  income to the firm owner
   I/ Division of Marine Fisheries estimates.   The  16,500 was  later revised
to 16,000 in the main report.

   £_/ Townsend and Briggs,  1980.

-------
                                     D-16
       Table  D-7.   Changes  in  Per Bushel Nonlabor Costs for Boston Harbor
                  Restricted Areas Due to  Pollution Abatement
                                                 Cost Per  Bushel,  1980 $

Cost Categories	Without Abatement   With  Abatement

Nonspecialized Items                              5.01               5.01
Specialized Items - Subordinate Diggers           3.47               5.03
                  - Master Diggers                6.18               1.69
Depuration Costs                                  2.00               2.00

TOTAIS:                                          16.66              13.73

Change in Per Bushel Cost                        -2.93



Notes;

Annual yield:  16,500 + 49,928 -/ = 66,428 bu./yr.

66,428 bu./yr. f 30 master diggers —/ = 2,214 bu./master digger/yr.;
                                       22.1 bu./day (4 times  as  many as
                                                           before  abatement)

66,428 bu./yr. f 210 bu./digger —'  = 316 diggers

               f 30 master diggers = 286 subordinate diggers


Costs for nonspecialized items - no change.

Specialized costs - subordinate diggers:

    $1169.15/subordinate digger x 286 diggers r 66,428 bu.  =  $5.03/bu.

Specialized costs - master diggers:

    Racks:  2 racks/bu.; 44.2 racks/day x 3 days -  132.6 racks/master digger;

            132.6 racks x $10 = $1326 f 3 yr. life  = $442.

    Cost per master digger = $3733.51 x 30 master diggers  f 66,428 bu.
                                                          = 1.69/bu.
Depuration costs - no change.
   I/ Assuming additional yield of 49,928 bu./yr.,  revised in main report.

   £/ Assuming restricted fishery - no change in number of master diggers.

   £/ Townsend and Briggs, 1980.

-------
                                     D-17
              Tfeble D-8.   Comparison of  Nonlabor Costs and Prices
location and Year Nonlabor Cost/Bu.
Maine, 1978 $
Maine, 1980 $
Massachusetts, 1980 $
Unrestricted Areas
Restricted Areas
Before Abatement
After Abatement
8.0Lb/
10.49
10.57
16.66
13.73
Inflated
Price/Bu.^ Price/Bu.
n.a. 18. 6 5k/
24.43 22.65£/
24.43 28.002/
n.a. 28.0Q5L/
n.a. 28.00^/
   3/ CPI used to inflate 1978 Maine price to 1980 $.
   £/ Townsend and Briggs,  1980.
   £/ Maine Department of Marine Resources, Clam Production and Value,
1887-1982.
   s7Resources for Cape Ann, 1982.
n.a.  = Not applicable.

-------
                                      D-18


and employees.  However, there is not enough cost and price information

available to address this question adequately.


    If the cost computations discussed above formed a reasonable  basis on

which to estimate shifts in the supply curve, then they could be  used to

calculate change in producer surplus due to pollution abatement.   This is

simply not the case because of data inadequacies.  For illustration purposes,

however, we could assume that they are acceptable and that the change in per

bushel cost shown in Table D-7 is a reasonable estimate of per unit supply

cost changes due to pollution abatement.  Change in producer surplus would

then be computed as follows:


    APS    =  Profits^ - ProfitSQ

          =  (PlQi - CiQx) - (P0Q0 - C0Q0)

          •  QI (PI - G!) - Q0 (PO-CO)

where,

    Profitsg  =  initial profits = PoQo -
    Profits!  =  new profits  =>  P^Q^
   APS   = change in producer surplus (3)
    P0   = initial price {$)
    P!   = new price ($)
    QQ   = initial quantity harvested (bu.)
    Q!   = new quantity harvested (bu.)
    C0   = initial cost  ($)
    GI   = new cost ($)


    As an example, if the preliminary change in yield and initial quantity

harvested (later revised) used in Table D-7 and the initial price of

$28.00/bu. (also revised) and cost of $16.66/bu. used in Table D-8 were

assumed and if a price change of -$1.99 was also assumed (this is also a

preliminary estimate that was made using the preliminary change in yield and

one of the initial demand functions considered, later revised in  the main

report), then the change in producer surplus would be computed as follows:

-------
                                      D-19






     APS  =  Profits^ - Profits0




          =  Q! (?! - Cx) - Q0 (P0-C0)



          =  (66,428) (26.01 - 13.73) - (16,500) (25.00 - 16.66)




          =  (66,428)(12.28) - (16,500)(11.34)




          =  815,736 - 187,110




          =  $628,626.








It should be emphasized that this number is only hypothetical.  As discussed




earlier, it was thought best to omit computation of producer surplus changes




in the main report because of lack of information to specify supply curve




shifts and because of the likelihood that these changes would be zero due to




the lack of regulation of the fishery.

-------
                                      D-20
                                   References
Crutchfield, Stephen R., February 1983.  "Soft Clam Exvessel Demand Functions
    and Clam Fishery Data," unpublished data, Department of Resource
    Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.

Marasco, Richard J., May 1975.  An Analysis of Future Demands, Supplies,
    Prices and Needs for Fishery Resources of the Chesapeake Bay, MP 868,
    Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Maryland, College Park,
    Maryland.

Resources for Cape Ann, April 1982.  The Costs of Pollution;  The Shellfish
    Industry and the Effects of Coastal Water Pollution, Massachusetts
    Audubon Society.

Townsend, Ralph and Hugh Briggs, September 1980.  Some Estimates of
    Harvesting and Processing Costs for Maine's Marine Industries, technical
    report, Department of Economics, University of Maine.

Williams, Doug,  (no date).  "Data and Procedures Used to Estimate Technical
    Coefficients for the Clam/Worm Sector," unpublished paper, Department of
    Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maine.

-------
                                   Appendix E
                         Charles River Boating Benefits
Additional Boating Days per Year on the Charles River

                      (1)             (2)
                                  Current
    Boating Days  =  ABP     x   Boating Days
52,810
5,750
= 0.03142
= 0.03142
1,680,800 High
183,000 low
                              (a)                (b)
 (1)       BP      =  0.38485  (A«)  +   0.03142  ( AFPS)

      0.03142     =  (0.3845)  (0)   +  0.03142  (1)

    Source:  Davidson P.,  G.  Adams  and  J. Seneca, 1966.  The Social \felue of
       Water Recreational  Facilities from an Improvement in Water Quality:
       the Delaware Estuary.  Water Research,  Allen Rieese and Stephen C.
       Smith, eds.  Baltimore:   Johns Hopkins University Press for Resources
       for the future.
 (a)   AW  =  acreage of recreational water available per capita.

          =  0, because currently all 675 acres of the Charles River in the
             Basin planning area are boatable.

 (b)   &FPS  =  change in recreational facility rating.

            =  1 (assumed).


 (2) current Boating Days

                         (a)                     (b)             (c)
      Boating  =  Portion of Population   x   No. days   x   Boating
       Days       Boating on Charles         per Boater     Population

 High  =  1,680,800  =  .40               5.5          764,000

 (a) ,  (b)  Source:  Recreation studies  (see Appendix B).

-------
                                     E-2
(c) Boating population equals population of towns  bordering  or
    very near to the Charles River in the planning area.

                Cambridge    95,000
                Watertown    34,000
                Newton       83,000
                Brookline    55,000
                3/4 Boston  420,000
                Somerville   77,000
                Tfotal       764,000

    Source:  1980 D.S. Census.
                       (i)                   (ii)
Low  a  Boating  =  Family visitor     x     Family
         Days          days per              number
                        season          '  •
Low  =    183,000  =  68,000         x      2.69

(i)  Source:      Calculations based on information in  Binkley and  Hanemann,
                1975, The Recreation Benefits of Water  Quality  Improvement,
                prepared for Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
                5.6 percent of all reported 850 visits  for  the  summer  season
                were boating-related activities.  Sample was statistically
                representative of 0.07 percent of the SMSA  population.

                Therefore 850 = 1,214,286 family visits, of which 5.6  percent,
                or 68,000 are family visitor days.

(ii)  Source:     1980 U.S. Census.

-------