EPA 600/5-74-014
August 1974
                            Socioeconomic  Environmental Studies Series
             ating Water Quality  Benefits
                                      Office of Research and Development
                                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                                      Washington, DC. 20460

-------
             RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research  reports of the  Office  ot  Research   and
Monitoring,   Environmental  Protection Agency,  have
been grouped  into five series.   These  five  bread
categories  were established  to facilitate further
development   and  application   of   environmental
technology.    Elimination   of traditional grouping
was  consciously  planned   to  foster   technology
transfer   and  a  maximum  interface  in  related
fields.   The  five series are:

   1.  Environmental Health Effects Research
   2.  Environmental Protection Technology
   3.  Ecological Research
   U.  Environmental Monitoring
   5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL   STUDIES   series.    This   series
describes research on the  socioeconomic impact of
environmental problems.  This covers recycling and
other  recovery  operations   with   emphasis    on
monetary  incentives.  The non-scientific realms of
legal   systems,  cultural  values,  and  business
systems   are   also  involved.   Because  of  their
interdisciplinary  scope,   system  evaluations and
environmental management reports are  included  in
this series.
                   EPA REVIEW NOTICE

This report  has been revieved by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, and approved for publication.  Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
vievs and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
 For sale by the Superintendent ol Documents, V.S. (Jovernnient 1'rlnting Office, Washington, IJ.C. 20402 - 1'rlce JI..V

-------
                                              EPA-600/5-74-014
                                              August 19jit
   ESTIMATING WATER QUALITY BENEFITS
                      by

               David L. Jordening
           Contract No. 68-01-0744
              Project 21-AQJ-05
           Program Element 1BA030
               Project Officer:

                 Fred H. Abel
           Economic Analysis Branch
       Implementation Research Division
         Environmental Protection Agency
           Washington, B.C.  20**60
                 Prepared for
   OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         WASHINGTON, D C.  20460

-------
                              ABSTRACT
 The objective of this report-is to present a state of the arts  summary
 concerning estimating water quality associated benefits.  This summary
 is viewed as a useful administrative tool to those that have been assigned
 the task of directing current and future research activity.

 Insofar as possible, this summary is presented by specific pollutants
 by beneficial use, devoting special attention to hypothesized and docu-
 mented use-quality  relationships.   A discussion  of the economic quan-
 tification of these relationships is also included.  The beneficial uses
 considered  include recreation,  esthetics, property values and ecology
 with only limited attention devoted to water quality associated health
 and production impacts.  Specific references and methodologies  are
 discussed with the ultimate objective of providing a state of the arts
 assessment by beneficial use.  This assessment was also useful in
 deriving conclusions concerning research priorities and possible
 results of future water quality related research.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 21-AQJ-05,
Contract Number 68-01-0744 by Development Planning and Research
Associates, Inc., Manhattan, Kansas, under the sponsorship of the
Environmental Protection Agency.  Work was  completed as of April,
1974.
                                 ii

-------
                            CONTENTS





                                                               Page




Abstract                                                         ii




List of Exhibits                                                  iv




SECTIONS




    I     Nature and Objectives of the R'eport                      1




    II     Recreational Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement       8




   in     Water Quality and Esthetics                             32




   IV     Water Quality and Property Values                      42





    V     Ecology and Water Quality                              47




   VI     Other Beneficial Uses and General Summary             49




  VII     References                                             56




  VIII     Appendices                                             68
                              111

-------
                        LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit

II-1      Water Characteristics or Constituents Detrimental
          to Water Based Recreational Activity                    10

11^2-      Reported Damages and Established Critical Levels
          by Specific Pollutant                                    13

II-3      Site User's Concern of Possible Detrimental
          Effects of Water Pollution on Boats, Fishing
          Equipment and Fish in Nine Illinois Lakes                18

II-4      Use Avoidance or curtailed Usage  of Recreational
          Waters as  a Result of Increased Pollution                19

II-5      Economic Studies of Recreational Damages and
          Benefits by Specific Pollutant                           21

II-6      Summary of Hypothesized,  Documented and Econ-
          omic Appraisal of Water Quality Associated Recre-
          ational Benefits and Damages by Pollutant                23

III-l      Factors  that Must be Considered in Assessing the
          Esthetic Value of Surface Water Bodies and Other
          Natural Resources                                      34

III-2      Unappealing  Esthetic Qualities Reported by Users
          and Nonusers of Recreational Areas                     37

IV-1      Public Perception of Pollution                           44

V-l       State of the arts of pollution-beneficial use potential
          relationships, over all ranges of water quality            51

V-Z       Selected References Concerned with Economies of
          Water Quality Management Use Avoidance, Per-
          ception or Value of Natural Resources  by Bene-
          ficial Use                                               53

-------
                            SECTION I

           NATURE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT
A.   INTRODUCTION

Recent public concern for environmental quality management and the
accompanying deluge of literature on the subject would seem to indi-
cate that the topics of resource conservation and the optimal utilization
of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources are areas of concern
that have not been explored until very recently.  This, however, is not
the case in that economics has long been concerned with a wide diversity
of topics related  to the maximization of temporal social welfare which
encompasses many specific topics  directly or indirectly related to re-
source allocation, and the optimal  extraction and utilization of both
renewable and nonrenewable resources.  For example,  an article
entitled "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources," authored by Harold
Hotelling was published in 1931 (Hotelling).

It is true, however, that most of the previous endeavors have not been
overly concerned with resource utilization and conservation of resources
as affected by pollution.   The general area of environmental protection
or environmental quality management has inevitably been  overshadowed
by other material welfare topics such as unemployment and the general
oscillations in business activity.  These topics have occupied or enjoyed
a higher social and academic priority than the implications of alternative
waste disposal practices.

In this regard the recent environmental management movement has pro-
vided the impetus for additional work on quality of life considerations
which are intrinsically related to prevailing production techniques and
practices  (including both on-site and off-site waste disposal practices).
This effort has also resulted in the  recognition of the  need to ascertain
optimum surface water qualities which will complement social welfare
maximization objectives  which again encompasses both tangible and  in-
tangible considerations.

These renewed and increased efforts have resulted in a variety of suggested
remedies which range from zero emissions to zero control.  The suggested
remedy is in part determined by whether one is the emitter or the recipient
of pollution and there have been strong arguments for both extremes.

-------
 The deluge and diversity of suggested  remedies has created a dilemma
 for those that have been assigned the responsibility of selecting and im-
 plementing appropriate environmental protection measures.  It is de-
 sirable that the ultimate pollution abatement strategy be selected on the
 basis of the net social benefit derived.  Unfortunately,  due to the fact
 that estimating benefits of water quality enhancement per  se is a  rela-
 tively new area of endeavor with many inherent complexities,  the selection
 of the appropriate strategy at the present time must be made on rather
 preliminary and tenuous information at best.

 A sizable portion of the effort that has been devoted to estimating the
 net benefits of water quality enhancement has been problem,  project
 and crisis oriented in nature. Many studies have been concerned with
 the unique problems associated with small and sometimes isolated
 and atypical geographical areas. This type of approach has lead to the
 development of a variety of methodologies and techniques that have been
 designed to assess the economic impacts of a variety of specific pollu-
 tants and regional water quality  management problems.  While many
 of these studies provide insight into  the benefits of water quality manage-
 ment for a  specific region, it is  nevertheless frequently difficult to
 assimilate the  results into a national net benefit estimation framework.

 The  diversity of methods,  techniques and  results makes it desirable to
 periodically engage in a state of the  arts assessment to insure that the
 overall direction or approach of national policy is consistent with the
 results  of numerous research projects. Such a state of the arts assess-
 ment is further desirable so that specific areas  requiring additional re-
 search  or refinement can be isolated and supportative  research measures
 instituted.

 B.   OBJECTIVES

 The literature  review that has preceded this  report has clearly indicated
 that the general area of greatest need is that of estimating the benefits
 of water quality enhancement. For this reason this report will address
the specific objective of providing a  state of the arts assessment of the
success  of past endeavors  that have been concerned with estimating
the benefits of water quality enhancement and will not address other
facets of water quality management,  e.g.,  cost of pollution abatement.

-------
C.   METHOD OF APPROACH

The value of water is determined by use.  Any value reduction or use
impairment can therefore be associated with the presence of one or
more undesirable water quality constituent or characteristic.  One way
to approach the  state of the arts assessment is therefore to present a
benefit summary by  specific pollutant by beneficial use.  Intuitively the
approach is appealing and straightforward but nevertheless possesses
several limitations.

The first limitation encountered is that of developing a meaningful
beneficial use taxonomy.  A broad classification scheme -- such as the
one used -- is admittedly overlapping and not mutually exclusive.  On
the other hand a highly  refined or  disaggregated  system rapidly becomes
too cumbersome to handle.  The taxonomy selected  incorporates four
broad categories, i.e., esthetics, ecological, production and health.
The complete beneficial use taxonomy to be used to  structure the state
of the arts assessment  is presented below.

       I.   Esthetics
                 Esthetic enjoyment
                 Recreation
                       Contact recreation
                       Non-contact recreation
                 Property values

      II.   Ecological

      III.   Human Health

      IV.   Production
                 Municipal pre-use treatment
                 Domestic uses
                 Agriculture
                 Commercial fishing
                 Power generation
                 Navigation
                 Food  and  kindred products
                 Textile mills
                 Lumber and wood products
                 Paper and allied products
                 Chemical and allied products
                 Petroleum and coal products
                 Rubber and plastics
                 Leathe r
                 Stone, clay and  glass
                 Primary metal

-------
 A brief explanation of the above beneficial use taxonomy is presented
 below.

 Esthetic Benefits - include pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits which
 result from greater esthetic enjoyment of surface water. Representative
 examples would include contact recreation, non-contact  recreation,
 property values and other esthetic benefits.   Many of these non-pecuniary
 benefits are difficult to quantify due to the complications associated with
 converting  non-pecuniary benefits into economic terms.

 A variety of techniques  and  concepts have been developed in an attempt
 to quantify  intangible, non-monetary benefits. These include concepts
 such as option demand and latent demand which are designed to quantify
 various benefits of water quality enhancement.

 Other benefits such as physic benefits would also be included in the above
 category.  Additional methodological refinements are required before all
 esthetic benefits of water quality enhancement are quantified.

 Ecological  benefits of water quality  enhancement include  damage reduc-
 tions to the ecosystem that do not directly or  initially affect recreational
 usage or the above mentioned esthetic benefits.  In some respects this
 category is a residual category which exists primarily due to the fact that
 we can not  accurately assess in monetary terms  the value of each com-
 ponent of the ecosystem to human welfare.

 Human health benefits include all direct and indirect benefits that accrue
 as a result  of environmental quality  enhancement.  This would include
 reduced medical expenses, increased efficiency,  reduced sick days,
 reduced mortality and reduced health risks associated with water borne
 diseases or epidemics.  While these benefits are difficult to quantify,
 there is evidence which  indicates that they do  in fact exist.

 Production  benefits include reduced  damages and increased efficiency
 in all production processes which utilize water.  This includes but is
 not limited  to reduced scaling, reduced corrosion and increased efficiency
 of water as  a productive imput.

A cursory survey of the  above classification scheme quickly  reveals
that there is--at best--a very fine distinction between many of the
major and minor items listed.  For example,  as  defined herein
esthetics includes, one,  esthetic enjoyment not related to recreational
activity, two, recreational usage of surface water bodies  (both con-
tact and  noncontact water based recreation)and, three,  property value
benefits.  However a rather fine and illdefined line exists between

-------
esthetic enjoyment and noncontact recreational activity such as hiking
or sightseeing.

Property value changes due to water quality changes are also related
and intrinsically tied to esthetic appreciation of surface water. This
problem,  however, is not a major obstacle in that the above taxonomy
therefore serves only as  a broad general guide which is useful to ex-
pedite and organize the discussion.

It should also be obvious  from the beginning that there is a great dis-
parity in the degree of detail that can be presented in the state of the
arts assessment by beneficial use.  A great deal has  been written in
reference to water quality enhancement and recreation but very little
has been done to quantify the ecological benefits of water quality en-
hancement.

The major emphasis  of the  report will be confined to  a discussion of
the first major categories or beneficial uses with less effort devoted
to the  remaining areas.  It is also expedient to emphasize that the docu-
mentation will be confined to completed and published studies.  It is
recognized that there are perhaps several ongoing or recently completed
studies that have not been included in the discussion herein.   Only the
passage of time, acceptance and finalization of recently completed and
on-going studies can correct this deficiency.

In some cases it is not possible to consider the affects of individual
pollutants separately.  For example,  the lethal dosage or toxicity level
of various pollutants  on aquatic life is determined by  not only the con-
centration of the toxic substance but also the prevailing water temper-
ature, dissolved oxygen level, season of the year and the  life cycle  of
the affected species.  Another example  is  sediment.  Sediment is nor-
mally viewed as harmful  to aquatic  life, recreational activity, esthetic
appreciation, and  other withdrawal  and  nonwithdrawal uses  of water.
However, sediment reduction and reduced turbidity does not always pro-
duce a benefit.  Reduced  turbidity allows greater sun penetration resulting
in increased algae blooms if sufficient nutrients are present.  Sediment
also absorbs taste and odor producing materials as well as  reducing
water-borne nutrients by entra'pment.   The reduction or elimination of
one pollutant may therefore be accompanied by increased problems
associated with other pollutants.

By considering the specific pollutants individually,  important syngeristic
effects  are overlooked.  At this point in time, however, it is  not desirable
or expedient to become overly concerned with complex synergistic  effects
when there is much to be  learned about  the damaging  influences of specific
pollutants considered individually.  It would also be desirable to distinguish

-------
between natural and man-made pollutants.  In most cases, however,
the state of the arts is such that it is not possible to make the additional
 refinement or distinction.

Even though there are obvious limitations,  much can be gained by pro-
viding a state of the arts assessment of  estimating water quality assoc-
iated benefits by specific pollutant by beneficial use.  The primary ob-
jective is to provide a brief summary of the state of knowledge concerning
the benefits  of water quality enhancement.  This also includes a brief
evaluation of the adequacy of the data and methodologies employed in ac-
quiring the respective benefit estimates. This summary is viewed as
an administrative tool to guide and direct future research activity and
is not intended to be a comprehensive  critique of currently employed
methodology, theory and data.

D.   PROCEDURES EMPLOYED

In view of the breadth of the subject  matter involved, it is instructive
to briefly describe the procedures employed in the literature search
so as to provide the reader with some insight into the thoroughness
of the final product.

The search for empirical benefit estimates  of water quality enhancement
was initiated by consulting a recently compiled bibliography containing
approximately 4,000  entries of current water related publications.  The
complete bibliography will be published by EPA  under separate cover.
This bibliography along with the "Cost Analysis  of Water Pollution Con-
trol,"  (Dr.  Tihansky, EPA) represents  one of the most complete and
up-to-date available.

Attempts were employed to acquire and review all listings relevant to
the area of endeavor.   This procedure further isolated  other  relevant
publications  that were not initially included  in the bibliography.  Other
procedures such as literature searches were also provided by the
National Technical Information Service and  the Smithsonian Science
Information Exchange.  Additional contacts  were made  with qualified
researchers and in this regard the services  of Dr. Tihansky  of EPA,
Economic Analysis Branch,  Implementation Research Division, were
particularly  valuable.  All of the information acquired by these pro-
cedures was critically reviewed by DPRA staff members.  It is believed
that the above efforts have been successful in isolating  most of the rele-
vant publications containing empirical  estimates of water quality assoc-
iated benefits.  In view of the vast amount of literature related to water
quality and water quality management, it is  possible, and indeed quite
likely, that several relevant publications have ben inadvertently overlooked
even though efforts were employed to produce a  comprehensive product.

-------
E.   ORDER OF PRESENTATION

The  state of the arts assessment of water quality associated benefits
is initiated with a discussion of the beneficial use that is believed to
be the singularly most important source of monetary benefits from
water quality enhancement—recreation.  This discussion is followed
by a summary  of other beneficial uses--esthetics,  property values
and ecological.

An attempt has been made to present the results of each section in a
brief and concise manner which will be  useful to administrators in their
attempts to direct further research activity to areas  which currently
need further research or additional refinement.

-------
                             SECTION II

    RECREATIONAL BENEFITS OF WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT


A.   INTRODUCTION

A tremendous quantity of literature has been published on the economics
of water based recreation.   Past and projected demand trends indicate that
water based recreation has been, and will be  in the foreseeable future,
the outlet for increase leisure time activity and personal consumption
expenditures (84, 11,  61,  85).  Increasing demand for this activity
further reiterates the need to quantify the economics of pollution and
recreation.  The possible elimination or reduction of this leisure time
activity must be  explored.

The importance of recreational benefits relative to the total benefits of
water quality enhancement is supported by the results of various studies
that have undertaken the task of quantifying the areal benefits of water
quality enhancement.  Such studies invariably  conclude that recreational
benefits  are the largest single source of direct monetary benefits (85, 64,
10, 79).   This beneficial use has been estimated to comprise as much as
75 percent or more of the total benefits of water quality enhancement
(85, 10).

Others have succinctly summarized the importance of water based recrea-
tional activity and water quality by stating that the justification of pollution
abatement measures may well hinge on the ability to quantify recreational
benefits  (63).

It is therefore only fitting that a major portion of the state  of the arts
summary be devoted to a discussion of recreational benefits of water
quality enhancement.  Another reason for initiating the report with a
discussion of recreational benefits of water quality enhancement is that
several other very closely related beneficial uses that have received less
emphasis are at least partially covered in the recreation discussion,  i. e. ,
esthetic and ecological benefits.

One difficulty that is immediately encountered that adds  to  the breadth of
the problem is that water based recreational activity includes a diverse
number of activities that require  various water quality standards. Water
based recreation as defined herein includes activities such as swimming,
boating,  hiking,  sport fishing, camping, sightseeing,  and other activities.

                                 8

-------
The  state of the arts assessment of the estimation of recreational benefits
of water quality enhancement is  perhaps best presented in a multipha'se
format.  Considerable insight into the number  of relevant factors that
must be  included is provided by  first presenting a list of hypothesized use-
quality relationships, i.e.,  hypothesized relationships between specific
pollutants and water quality characteristics that can potentially limit  or
deter recreational activity  or the pleasure experienced therefrom.  The
second step is to present documentation of specific damages and estab-
lished critical levels based on either reported  damages or expected
damages as established by  various use-quality relationships derived from
environmental assessments and  laboratory experiments.  The third and
final step is to present and evaluate  economic studies that have attempted
to quantify in economic terms various recreational use-quality relation-
ships.

By approaching  the problem in this manner the reader is provided with:
one,  a listing of potentially damaging pollutants; two,  a listing of
reported damages; and three, a list  of studies that have quantified the
damages or benefits of water quality enhancement in economic terms.
This format also provides considerable insight into those areas that have
been researched and further identifies those use-quality relationships
that  have not been quantified as of this time in  economic terms.

B.   HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS

It is  relatively easy to hypothesize that a particular pollutant is damaging
or that it influences a particular activity with or without providing the
basis for the hypothesized relationships.  Most hypothesized relationships
presented in the literature  do, however, possess at least some theoretical
justification or foundation.   Exhibit II-1, Water Characteristics or Con-
stituents Detrimental to Water Based Recreational Activity, is  presented
with the  expressed purpose of providing insight and documentation into
the number of relevant pollutants that are potentially detrimental to water
based recreation.  All of the articles or references  included in Exhibit II-1
have been reviewed and have been found to include the use-quality relation-
ship as presented.  It should be  emphasized that Exhibit II-1 is not intended
to be a comprehensive summary of all publications that have purported
specific  relationships but should be viewed as only a  representative selec-
tion  of studies that have suggested use-quality  relationships. The inclusion
of additional studies would,  in all likelihood, merely increase the number
of references by specific pollutant.   There is,  of course, the possibility
that  a few more specific pollutants would be added to an already rather
lengthy list.

-------
Exhibit II-1.
Water Characteristics or Constituents Detrimental
  to Water Based Recreational Activity
 Characteristic or Constituent
                                 Reference Number .1
                                                                   */
 Physical:
    Clarity
    Color
    Odor
    Temperature

    Turbidity

    Sediment
    Floating solids
       **/6
    TSS—'
    Foam, slime, and scum
   Algae
   Weeds and plants
    Litter and debris

Microbiological:
   Coliforms  and other organisms
Inorganic:
   Pesticides
   Herbicides
   Ha rdne s s
   PH
   TDS
   Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphates)
   Toxic substances
   Phenols
   Other inorganics
      ***/
                          8, 83, 126, 3, 7, 84,40
                          8, 117, 126, 3, 85, 10,40, 121, 130, 76
                          8, 117, 126, 3, 64,40, 121, 130
                          8, 114, 117, 126, 3, 11, 85, 10, 40,  121,
                          130,76, 78, 120
                          8, 117, 126, 84, 2, 85, 10, 121, 130,
                          76, 78, 120
                          8, 3, 84, 2,40, 76, 78
                          126,40, 121
                          117, 2, 85, 121
                          8, 117, 126, 11,40, 130, 78
                          8, 117, 3,  7, 11,40, 121, 130, 76, 118, 78
                          8, 117, 126, 3, 7, 11, 40, 78
                          8, 117, 126, 3, 7, 84, 11,40
                         8, 19, 42, 52, 46, 5, 117, 126, 3, 84, 85, 10,
                         40, 121, 76, 118, 78, 120
8,117,3,40,121,78
117, 121
3, 85
75,  117, 11, 2, 85, 10, 40, 121, 78, 120
117, 85, 121, 130, 76, 120
8, 117, 3, 11, 2, 85,40, 121, 1, 130,
118, 78, 120
114, 117, 3, 115, 40, 121, 130, 76
40,  121, 1, 76, 118, 120
8, 3, 2, 85,40, 121, 130, 76, 118, 78
                                10

-------
                  Exhibits II- 1.    (continued)
Characteristic or Constituent
        Reference Number
Organic:
   BOD

   DO
   Oil and gasoline
   Organic poisons
   Other organics

Radioactivity

Taste
117, 85, 115, 10, 79,40, 121, 130,
33, 120
75, 117, 11, 2, 85, 64, 10,40, 121, 78, 120
8, 117, 126, 3, 10,40, 121, 1, 78
117, 115, 121
8,3,40

11, 61

117, 121, 130
—'  Reference numbers refer to the numerical listing of references at the end
   of the report.
—  Includes settable solids.
***/
	  Includes heavy metals.
                                 11

-------
 The conclusion that must be reached,  however, at this rather premature
 point is that there are many specific pollutants that have been hypothe-
 sized as potentially detrimental to water based recreational activity.
 Some of these use-quality relationships  would not be sufficiently important
 to result in use avoidance or substantially alter the recreational ex-
 perience of the participant but do possess  the potential for decreasing
 (perhaps only slightly) the quality of the recreational experience.

 C.   REPORTED  DAMAGES

 The second step is to present a listing of documented damages  or im-
 pacts by specific  pollutant.  This information is presented in Exhibit
 II-2. The basis for inclusion in this exhibit is that reference has been
 made to reported damages  or concentrations of specific pollutants at
 which damage may reasonably be expected--based on actual water quality
 analysis or laboratory simulation of environmental conditions.   Again
 the exhibit must not be viewed as a comprehensive listing of all re-
 ported damages or critical levels at which damage may be expected  but
 rather a representative listing.

 One final word of caution is perhaps appropriate at this point.   Some of
 the studies were not intended to  relate damages by specific pollutants
 to beneficial uses as classified herein.  Some extensions were  therefore
 required.  For example, several studies have referenced specific levels
 of nutrients at which algae blooms may be  expected.  In view of the fact
 that other studies have documented that perceptible algae  growths are
 undesirable and are responsible  for nuisance conditions that have the
 potential of deterring  recreational activity or reducing  the pleasure  of
 the recreational experience,  the specified  nutrient levels associated
 with algae blooms have been viewed or interpreted as reported  damages.

 The conclusion that must be reached is analogous  to the results derived
 by reviewing Exhibit II-1.  That  is, there are many pollutants  that can
 and have influenced either expenditures or participation in water based
 recreational activity or can,  in some way, reduce  the satisfaction
 derived from participating in water based recreational  activity.

 Several representative examples and further documentation of established
 damage levels or  damage thresholds referenced in Exhibit II-2  are also
 included as  separate attachments in the Appendix of this report.  It is
 possible that some of the established critical levels or  damage  thresholds
 can be traced back to arbitrary standards established by various agencies.
 In that there is considerable evidence that  some established standards
are not  sensitive or responsive to actual water quality requirements, an
attempt has been made to avoid this type of damage documentation.

                                 12

-------
      Exhibit II-2.  Reported Damages  and Established. Critical Levels
                           by Specific Pollutant
Characteristic
      or
  Constituent
Critical
 Level
Reference
  Number
             Effect
Physical;
 Clarity
  Color
            8,94
            8,94
             Undesirable physical characteristic
             deterring recreational activity
  Odor

  Temperature
85°F
 76
                     Change of
                     3°F        76
                                 76
                                 76
                      1.5°F      76
  Turbidity
  Sediment
  Algae
  Weeds and aquatic
  plants
                                  33,21, 73
                                  99,100
            2, 78, 35
            35,73,94,
            99,2
            8, 11, 80,
            78,99,9
            78,9
Undesirable physiological effect on
swimmers

Undesirable effect on fish and other
aquatic life depending on  species,
life cycle and season of the year
(See Attachment A, Appendix A)

Other undesirable attributes of
temperature  changes on recreational
activity

Reduced fish catches and  undesirable
effects of increased turbidity on
recreational  activity

Increased reservoir deposits,  reduced
fish catches and reduced  recreational
value of streams and reservoirs

Use avoidance, aquatic life effects and
reduction in recreational  value  resulting
in increased  algae growth

Reduced usability of recreational
water bodies  resulting from aquatic
weed and plant pests
                                    13

-------
                          Exhibit II-2 (continued)
Characteristic
      or
  Constituent
 Critical
  Level
Reference
  Number
              Effect
Mic robiologicaj.;
  Coliform & Other
 200 FC/
  100 ml
 46
 Health risks associated with primary
 contact recreation in polluted waters
                                  19,5, 11,118
Inorganic Pollutants
 Pesticides           0.5 ppm
                      (endrine)
 pH
 Alkalinity
 TDS
 5-9

 6-9

 6.7-8.5

 Change of
 0. 1
             16, 11, 33,
             41, 21,73
 76

 76

 76

 76



 107
20mg/l    78
                     20-40
                      mg/1
            78
                     90 mg/1    78
1.5 g/1
 of NaCl
76
 Toxicity of pesticides affecting fish
 and other aquatic life including species
 change (See Attachment B, Appendix A)

 Acceptable range for contact recreation

 Acceptable range for aquatic life

 Acceptable range for aquatic plants

 pH change of 0. 1 of saline water has
 been shown to be fatal to some species
 of fish

 Damages to  recreational resources
 (See Attachment C ,  Appendix A)

 Water with alkalinity of 20 mg/1 is
 low in fish and aquatic plant produc-
 tivity

 Water with alkalinity of 20-40 mg/1 is
 low to medium in fish and aquatic plant
 productivity

Water with total  alkalinity of greater
than 90 mg/1 has been shown to be  high
 in fish and aquatic plant productivity

Concentrations of 50 millimoles (1.5
 g/1 of NaCl) have been shown to ad-
versely affect aquatic plant life
                                    14

-------
                         Exhibit II-2 (continued)
Characteristic
or
Constituent
Inorganic Pollutants
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper

Lead
Sulfate & Sulfide
Chlorophenol
Critical
Level
(continued)
1 mg/1 -
15 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
5 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
1.0 - 25.0
mg/1
.0001
mg/1
Reference
Numbe r
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
61,76, 118,
16
Effect
Inhibits growth of aquatic life
Inhibits growth of aquatic life
Adversely affects plant life
Adversely affects fish life
Adversely affects plant life
Adversely affects animal life
Lethal to some species of fish
Taints fish flesh. (See Attachment D
& E, Appendix A)
Mercury
Other toxic sub-
  stances
Phosphorus
            43
Economic damage due to mercury
scare including sport fishing
            61, 115, 68,  Aquatic plant and animal impacts
            20, 73       associated with toxic substances (See
                        Attachment F,G,H,I and J, Appendix A)
.015 mg/1   118
                    .015 mg/1


                    50 mg/1
            80
            76
Critical level above which algae blooms
may be expected

Nuisance algae conditions may be
expected

Undesirable plant life can generally be
expected to exist in water with greater
than 50 m phosphorus
                                11,2,16,     Reduced recreation value, lethal fish
                                78,94       dosages,  and nuisance condition have
                                            been as-sociated with excessive con-
                                            centration of phosphorus
                                  15

-------
                           Exhibit II-2 (continued)
Characteristic
     or
  Constituent
Critical
  Level
Reference
 Numbe r
             Effect
Inorganic Pollutants (continued)
  Nitrogen            0.3 mg/1
 Nutrients (in
   general)
             118         Algae blooms may be expected

             94           Reduced recreational value of surface
                         water bodies resulting from excessive
                         concentration of nitrogen

             11,80,9,     Reduced recreational value and
             94           usability associated with excessive
                         concentration of nutrients
Organic Pollutants
 DO
 BOD
 Oil
200-400
 ppm
            2, 73, 100,
            94,9
 61
15 lb/acre  16
 /day
 (0. 2 ppm/
 day

50 gal/sq.   76
 mile

5-50 mg/1   76

            61
                                 81,89,21
                                 73
Undesirable effects on fish life and the
general desirability of recreational
water

Odor problems associated with ex-
cessive BOD levels.   (See Attachment
K, Appendix A)

Associated with oxygen deficient water
             Perceptible water discoloration (See
             Attachment L, Appendix A)

             Toxic to some forms of wild life

             Beach closings

             Undesirable  recreational impacts
             associated with oil pollution
                                     16

-------
In addition to the reported damages and critical levels portrayed in the
above exhibit, there is a group of researchers that have been concerned
with quantifying public perception, attitudes and use avoidance associated
with water quality degradation.  While changing public attitudes and the
reluctance to utilize surface water bodies for recreational purposes
may not constitute a physical damage per se,  the results are the same
since reluctance to recreate or the reduced pleasure derived from
recreating in polluted waters may result in decreased usage, reduced
expenditures and a possible reduction in human welfare.

Several studies  have  attempted to quantify use avoidance, public aware-
ness, perception and concern through the use of interview techniques.
The  results of these studies are depicted in Exhibits II-3 and II-4.   Exhibit
II-3  presents a listing of site user's concern of the possible detrimental
effects of water pollution on boats,  fishing equipment and aquatic life.
Exhibit II-4 presents the results of several use avoidance studies.  .The
latter exhibit presents the percentage of those interviewed that reportedly
had or would curtail their  recreational activities as a direct result of
increased pollution.

The  obvious question that now arises is, what has been done to quantify
the above mentioned physical damages in economic terms?

D.   ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RECREATIONAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS

Summarizing the economic studies in a manner similar to that employed
above reduces the rather lengthy presentations to an astonishingly brief
summary.

It appears that the deluge of literature on the  subject has resulted in
very few studies that have attempted to empirically quantify the economics
of waste  disposal alternatives.   Coomber and Biswas have succinctly
summarized their feeling concerning the success of the environmental
movement in the following material.

"In recent years, the conservation movement has received  support for
environmental programs by virtue of its popularity among the public at
large,  and not independently with the media.  The non-profit making,
voluntary and sometimes heroic actions of a few concerned individuals,
with their few perceptible  achievements, have contrasted sharply with
a deluge  of literature issued on the subject.  Rarely has a cause with
such acclaim and documentation achieved so little." (23)
                                 17

-------
   Exhibit II-3.  Site user's concern of possible detrimental effects
           of water pollution on boats, fishing equipment
                   and fish in nine Illinois lakes —
                                                 r
Possible Effect of Water Pollution
Percent of Site Users Reporting
Concern over the Possible Harm-
ful Effects of Pollution on Boats,
Fishing Equipment and Fish
Water stains on boats
Rusts, corrodes,  or rots boats
Dirt or deposits on boats
Wears paint on boats
Stains fishing equipment
Corrodes or rots fishing equipment
Dirt and deposits on fishing equipment
Reduces number of fish
Reduces size of fish
Affects taste of fish
Affects odor of fish
Makes fish undesirable to handle
              81.1
              86.2
              69.5
              75.6
              72.7
             100.0
             100.0
              90.9
              95.9
              97.5
              90.8
              94.9
*Reference  3
                                18

-------
Exhibit n-4. Use avoidance or curtailed usage of recreational waters as a
                       result of increased pollution

                          General Recreation:         Swimming:  Percent Inter-
                          Percent of site users        viewed reporting specific
                          interviewed reporting        pollutants that would deter
                          reduced recreational        swimming in surface
                          usage  of surface waters^.'    water—'
Unclean
Dirty
Odor
Algae
Dead fish
Litter debris
Weeds and plants
Fertilizer
Soap and detergents
Mud, silt or sand
Sharp stones
Glass
Oil, grease and gas
Insecticides
Chemicals
Bacteria
Sewage
Manure or animal waste
Suds and foam


Pollution in general
12.7 40
19.1 40
14.9
5.6 80
12.2
10.7 40
7.7 40
16.3
8.6
14.2
9.9
7.3 70
8. 1
11.4
30. 1
12.8
20.8
16.3 30
20
***/
Po-rr~»nt Interviewed Pepo^ting ^Ts6 Avoidan^0

Swimming Water Skiing Fishing Boating
20 522
  */
  —   Reference 3  (Study of use avoidance or curtailed usage of site users
      in nine Illinois Lakes.)
 ##/
      Reference 29 (Study of specific pollutants potentially detrimental to
      swimming in Wisconsin Lakes.)
***/
      Reference 12.6 (Percent of  respondents indicating they would refrain
      from engaging in various water related activities in San Francisco
      Bay because of pollution.)
                                    19

-------
 Exhibit II-5 presents a list of economic studies containing estimates  of
 recreational damages or benefits by specific pollutant.   The criteria
 for inclusion in the exhibit is restricted to those studies that contain
 estimates of recreational damages or benefits accompanied by the
 methodology employed to derive  these estimates.  It is  recognized that
 there are numerous other estimates of the economic damage of pollution
 or estimates of the benefits of water quality enhancement that frequently
 appear in popular publications.  While there is considerable value in this
 type of estimate, they cannot be  evaluated without the knowledge of the
 methodology employed. For this reason,  this type of estimate has not
 been included herein.
Prior to commenting on the methodologies  utilized and the adequacy of the
data of each  study,  it is perhaps expedient  to summarize the above three
exhibits into one concise summary which is intended to portray those
specific areas that have been the  subject of past studies  and those areas
presently lacking economic quantification.  Exhibit II-6 clearly shows that
even though there are numerous hypothesized damages and reported
damages there are relatively few studies concerned with the economics
of water quality degradation or enhancement.

E.   EVALUATION

Exhibits  II-5 and II-6 include a total of eight studies that have in some
way attempted to quantify in economic terms  the recreational benefits
or damages of water quality degradation or enhancement.  There is,
however,  a great disparity in the  methods adopted and the adequacy
of the resulting  estimates.  Before  one can ascertain the appropriate
direction of future research,  the adequacy  of the data and methodology
incorporated in  existing studies should be discussed.  For this reason
a very brief  evaluation of the above  eight studies is presented below.
This evaluation  is not intended to  be an indepth study or  complete review
of all theoretical and methodological considerations but is instead con-
cerned with briefly reiterating what has been measured and how it has
been quantified.

A variety of  techniques have been proposed to measure or evaluate
environmental intangibles in monetary terms.  These include,  but are
not limited to, the following techniques and methods:
                                20

-------
     Exhibit II-5.  Economic Studies of Recreational Damages
                 and Benefits by Specific Pollutant
Characteristic or Constituent
                                                                   */
Reference Number —
BOD
DO
Algae
Beach Improvement
Sedimentation
Temperature
Toxic Substances
General Quality Indices
pH (acid mine drainage)
 10,79
 115, 64
 99
 99
 35
 99
 115
 85
 59
(kraft mill effluents only)
*/

85.   Nemerow, Nelson L.  and Hisashi Sumitomo, Benefits of Water
      Quality Enhancement  (Onondago Lake),  Water Pollution Control
      Research Series, 16110 DAJ 12/70.

115.   Stoevener,  Herbert H. , etal. ,  Multi-Disciplinary Study of Watej:
      Quality Relationships: A Case  Study of Yaquina Bay, Oregon,
      Oregon State University, Special Report 348,  Feb. ,  1972.

64..   Kneese,  Allen V. and Stephen C. Smith, "The Social Value of Water
      Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in Water
      Quality:  The Delaware Estuary," by Davidson,  Paul, F.  Gerard
      Adams and Joseph Seneca,  from Water Research, Resources for
      the Future,  Inc. , 1965.

10.   Bramer, H. C. ,  The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
      Abatement Program in the  Ohio River Valley, Ph.D. Dissertation,
      University of Pittsburg,  I960.

79.   Matson,  Jack V. , "Cost  of Industrial and Municipal  Water Pollution
      Abatement in the Maumee River Basin," MS Thesis, University of
      Toledo, January 1968.

35.   Dow Chemical Co. , Midland, Michigan,  "An Economic Analysis of
      Erosion and Sediment Control Methods for Watersheds Undergoing
      Urbanization (C-1677), Final Report Feb.  15, 1971  -Feb.  14, 1972.
                                21

-------
Exhibit II-3 (continued) footnote s
99.   Reiling, S. D., et al. , "Economic Benefits from an Improvement in
      Water Quality," Office of Research and Monitoring,  U.S. EPA,
      EPA-R5-73-008, January,  1973.

59.   Kinney,  Edward C. ,  "Extent of Acid Mine Pollution in the United
      States Affecting Fish and Wildlife," U. S. Department of the
      Interior,  Fish and  Wildlife  Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
      Wildlife,  Circular  191, 1964.
                              22

-------
Exhibit H-6.  Summary of Hypothesized, Documented and Economic
    Appraisal of Water Quality Associated Recreational Benefits
                     and Damages by Pollutant
Hypothesized
Relationships
Physical;
Clarity
Color
Odor
Temperature
Turbidity
Sediment
Floating solids
TSS
Foam, slime and scum
Algae
Weeds and plants
Litter and debris
Microbiological;
Coliform and other organisms
Inorganic:
Pesticides
Herbicides
Hardness
PH
TDS
Nutrients
Toxic substances


Other inorganics
Organic:
BOD
DO
Oil and gasoline
Other organics

X-'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X

X
X
X
X
Documented
Damages

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X

X
X
X
X
Economic
Analysis
Reference No.




99

35



99








59


1 1 5 (kraf t
mill efflu-
ent only)


10.79
115, 64


Radioactivity                         X               X

Taste                                X               X

General Water Quality Indices
 Pollution Index	X	X	85	
*/ Recreational use-quality relationships (hypothesized and documented) pre-
   viously discussed and presented in Exhibits II-l and II-2 are denoted by X's,
                                23

-------
                      Willingness to Pay
                           Hotelling-Trice-Wood Method
                           Claws on's Method
                           Consumers' Surplus
                           Non-discriminating Monopolist
                      Expenditures Method
                      Cost Method
                      Gross National Product
                      Value Added

While the above list is not exhaustive,  it does include most of the methods
currently employed.   The problem that is encountered is that some studies
(some  successfully and others unsuccessfully) incorporate several of
the above techniques  in various segments of the analysis and consequently
a classification of studies by methodology employed is again difficult.

It is also obvious that as  of this time there is  not complete unanimity
concerning the technique  that should be employed in quantifying water
quality associated benefits.  Should the Clawon method which utilizes
site-user data be utilized to construct  the recreationalist's demand func-
tion or are other methods which utilize nonuser data preferred?  The
results are not analogous (101).   Is the relevant portion under the demand
curve the maximum revenue of the non-discriminating monopolist or is
the consumer's surplus to be  included?  These are a few of the  methodolog-
ical controversies that are still being debated at this time.

This lack of agreement is partially explained by the fact that some
authors are concerned with quantifying the value of recreation in very
small and perhaps isolated regional'economy while others are concerned
with the  impacts of larger and more diverse geographical areas.  The
major  reason for the source of controversy,  however, stems from the
fact that quantification of the benefits  of water quality enhancement
involves assigning values to or measuring intangible,  incommensurate
factors.   This requires the development of appropriate techniques
designed to circumvent the problem which inevitably leads to further
discussions of the relative merits of alternative techniques.

It is also expedient to mention at  this point that few have undertaken
the task  of systematically estimating national  recreational benefits
of water quality enhancement.  Factors such as  the  substitution
phenomenon (areal substitution within water based recreation and
substitution within other  nonwater based recreational activities)
maybe expected to intensify the methodological controversey.
                                Z4

-------
Without further elaboration, we shall briefly comment on the adequacy
of the above mentioned studies  which is followed by a concise summary
statement concerning the current state of the arts of estimating recrea-
tional benefits of water quality  enhancement.

Onondaga Lake  (85)

The Onondaga Lake study entitled "Benefits of  Water Quality Enhance-
ment"  resulted in an estimate of the benefits of improved water quality
in Onondaga Lake at  4.4 million dollars, most of which consist of recrea-
tional benefits (3. 7 million dollars).  The recreational benefits included
those derived from increased fishing and general recreational activity.

The technique employed is  essentially a  comparative demand analysis,
i.e. ,  estimating direct expenditures at the existing water quality and
at a higher water quality with the difference being entitled net annual
measurable social benefits for  Onondaga Lake  at improved water quality.
This is a rather unfortunate use of terminology in that the term net
benefits  is normally  net of  the cost of pollution abatement which is not
reflected in the "net  benefit" number derived.

The specific procedures employed,  i.e., decaying demand functions
associated with greater distance and per capita unit demand adds a
distinct Clawson flavor to the study.

While the above study is one of the few that undertakes the unprecedented
task of empirically estimating a wide variety of benefits of water quality
enhancement,  there are several features that limit its usefulness.  First,
the study quantifies only the direct expenditure incurred in the pursuit of
recreational activity. Second round influences are not included.  Secondly,
the procedures utilized to estimate  the recreational demand at the present
water quality and at improved water quality are not sufficiently specified.
Other authors have explored and utilized more  sophisticated and highly
specified recreational participation models which we believe are preferred
on the  basis that a more detailed explanation of the recreationalists be-
havior results.  An additional criticism, in no  way unique to this study,
is that only direct monetary benefits are considered.  The authors do
not explore the possibility of estimating  option demand, latent demand,
time spent in travel,  time spent recreating, or secondary effects of in-
creased  expenditures.  The simplistic demand  functions developed
possess  value but can not and were  not represented as anything more
than a.  partial  quantification of direct monetary benefits of water quality
enhancement.   It is believed that these features are serious enough to
prevent the results to be construed  as being accurate measures  of the
net social benefits of water quality enhancement.

                               25

-------
 Yaguina Bay (115)

 The Yaquina Bay study, (115) provides an example of attempts to
 develop a more adequate methodological base to estimate the benefits
 of alternative waste disposal practices.   The methodology developed
 incorporates the input from several disciplines to explain the  biological
 and economic effects of pollution.   This is accomplished by constructing
 a biological production function responsive to increased pollution which
 also influences angling success and therefore angling behavior.

 The use of input-output procedures also provides an  excellent way of
 quantifying the interindustry relations and impacts of recreational ex-
 penditures on the local community.  The  portion of the report con-
 cerning the interpretation of the economic alternatives associated with
 waste disposal is unique and far superior to  any other study reviewed
 in that it clearly and adequately discusses various economic alternatives.
 In summary, the biological aspects of pollution, recreational  demand
 specification and estimation with and without pollution, explanation of
 the area economic  structure  and the economic interpretation of the
 results are clearly preferred to most existing studies concerned with
 the recreational impacts of waste disposal.

 Due to the fact that the geographical area studied possess a highly
 specialized recreational resource and only the monetary effects of
 kraftmill effluent on sport fishing were explored; there is only limited
 appliability to other geographical areas.

 Delaware Estuary (64)

 The Delaware Estuary study  -- perhaps the  most comprehensively
 studied basin in the U.S.  -- provides a third source of benefit estimates.
 This particular area  is one of the most heavily populated and polluted
 areas of the country.  As a result,  the basin has been the source of
 a great deal of water quality management research.

 The Delaware Estuary study provides a good illustration of how cost-
 sensitivity analysis can be applied to  alternative goals and further pro-
vides a rigorous mathematical representation of waste  assimilative and
transport capacity  of the estuary.  The various  objective functions con-
sider the source and impact of a large number of pollutants.  The con-
cern here,  however,  is confined to  the contributions  of the study to
estimating  recreation benefits.
                               26

-------
In this regard the Delaware estuary study considers the influence of
dissolved oxygen levels  on recreational activity.  The major contribu-
tions  lie in the highly specified recreation participation model indicating
a large latent recreational demand.  Beyond this, however, its con-
tributions concerning estimating recreational benefits are quite limited.
The benefit values derived are based on ascribed values (from $1 to $5)
for an additional recreational day's activity resulting from water quality
enhancement.

It therefore appears that its  contribution to  empirical recreational
benefit estimation are rather limited with the exception of the recrea-
tion participation model and the latent demand concept.

Ohio and Maumee Basins (10,  79)

Studies by Bramer and Matson provide another source of empirical
estimates of recreational benefits.  Both of these studies are concerned
with the benefits associated with primary and secondary waste water
treatment and associated BOD reduction.  The technique utilized to
estimate the  benefits of  water quality enhancement is the total ex-
penditure method.  Bramer's assumptions concerning recreational
benefits of water quality enhancement are not highly refined.  The in-
auguration of secondary treatment is assumed to increase recreational
expenditure by 50 percent.  The basis of this assumption is not well
specified and may be questioned.   While the study was a pioneering effort
it is  in need  of additional refinement.

The study by Matson incorporates  similar assumptions and methods
as employed  by Bramer and therefore makes no additional contribution
to benefit estimation but does provide an estimate of recreation benefits
for another geographical area.

Other Studies

The effects of sediment  on recreation have been estimated in "An
Economic Analysis of Erosion and Sediment Control Methods for Water-
sheds  Undergoing Urbanization, " by the Dow Chemical Company.
Recreational benefits are estimated by projecting the number of recrea-
tionalists and estimating the present value of benefits per ton of sediment
removed.  While the major portion of the paper  is concerned with
engineering aspects  of sediment control, it is one of the only estimates
of benefits of sediment removal and therefore has considerable value.
Various features of  the study could be (with  slight modification) applied
to other hydrologic regions.

                               27

-------
A  publication sponsored by the Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, entitled "Economic Benefits from an
Improvement in Water Quality," provides empirical .estimates of the bene-
fits of algae removal, temperature reduction and beach improvement.  The
estimates of recreational expenditures with and without water quality im-
provement provides an opportunity to estimate the benefits of water quality
enhancement using the consumer surplus method.  Both primary and
secondary effects of increased recreational expenditures  are provided for
the case study area -- Klamath Lake, Oregon.  In general, the methodology
and data appears to be much more comprehensive and well specified than
most of the  previously discussed studies. Even the  latter study is con-
cerned primarily with estimating the demand shifts resulting from water
quality enhancement but does not consider complex substitution and many
other factors  which may be expected to change as water quality in this lake
and other surface water bodies improves.

The last benefit estimate is that provided by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life.  This estimate is derived by inventorying the extent  of acid mine
damage and assigning utilization and daily expenditure data to obtain esti-
mates of national recreational benefits to be realized from the restoration
of acid mine waters.
F.   SUMMARY

The evaluation of the feasibility of environmental policies and controls
will, in all likelihood, be couched in traditional benefit cost framework.
Since the implementing agency is a federal agency and the costs of con-
trol are at the present time formulated in terms of national costs  in the
form of various national water bills, it is desirable that the benefits of
water quality enhancement be formulated in a similar manner to achieve
the required comparability of benefits and costs.  It is therefore expedient
to briefly evaluate the existing work  on estimating water quality benefits
in terms of  their contributions to deriving national benefit estimates.
This type of summary or evaluation is somewhat unfortunate in that all
of the above economic studies have (with the exception of reference 59)
addressed the question of regional benefits of water quality enhancement.
Notwithstanding, the urgency of acquiring national benefit estimates re-
quires that such a summary be undertaken so as to focus more sharply
on areas requiring additional research.
                               28

-------
As has been previously stated,  many (indeed most) studies concerning
water based recreation are concerned with water availability or water
quantity as  opposed to water quality.  A sizable portion of the remaining
studies is concerned with evaluating water quality standards that have
been adopted by various state, local or federal agencies. Even within
this group of studies,  there is considerable controversy. While many
researchers conclude  that there is little relationship between established
standards and the occurrence of actual damages, there are  also those
who prefer  restrictive standards based on potential risks as opposed to
actual damages.  In the area of establishing national standards, there
is even more controversy  due to the geographic variation in the effects of
various pollutants due to differential effects of various hydrologic and
climatic conditions.  While it is not the purpose herein to engage in a
long discussion of the  merits  of existing or established standards,  the
controversy encountered is indicative of the entire area of water quality
mana ge me nt.

Considerable attention has also been devoted to various methodological
aspects of estimating water quality associated benefits and damages
(114,  117, 86,  72,  51, 124, 85).  The results are inconclusive.  There
is little agreement on the appropriate methodology to be employed  in
estimating water quality associated benefits, e.g. , is the consumer
surplus or the  nondiscriminating method more appropriate.  There does,
however, appear to be some evidence that the consumer surplus method
is gaining in popularity as a method to be  used in assessing regional
benefits of water quality enhancement (99, 115).  Few have  attempted,
however, to expound on the applicable methodology for estimating
national recreational benefits of water quality enhancement.  While
little has been  done in this area, it is safe to say that techniques and
methods applicable for regional studies are not equally apropos to  the
estimation of national water quality benefits without at least  some alter-
ations.  The sum of the  regional impacts  is not necessarily  the desired
national estimate.

What then do the  above cited economic studies contribute to the  esti-
mation of national water quality associated recreational benefits?  Our
opinion is that  while the above studies have made many contributions to
estimating the  regional recreational benefits, they can not be used per se
in the quest for national water quality associated benefits.   The essential
building blocks or foundations have perhaps been established.
                                 29

-------
The first reason is that all of the studies are incomplete,  i.e. , some
essential considerations have been deleted from all of them.  Their in-
tent,  in some cases, was to concentrate on only one facet of recreational
benefits,  e. g. ,  sport fishing or some other beneficial use.  Secondly,
even those studies that attempted to estimate all benefits failed to include
various factors. Recreational benefits  of water quality enhancement
encompasses much more than merely a subset of the monetary measur-
able benefits of water quality enhancement. Consideration should be
given to option demand, latent demand,  psychic income, second round
effects and substitution effects.  It is well  recognized that the quantifi-
cation of these factors is currently impossible, however,  recognition
of some of these factors is  essential.

Still another factor limiting the usefulness of the above studies is that
almost all of the above studies are problem, project and crisis oriented
in nature and as such apply to the specific problems of specialized  geo-
graphical areas, i.e. , the problems associated with Yaquina Bay
Klamath  Lake are not typical of the nation as  a whole.  The generalization
of the results may therefore be questionable.   One study looks at sport
fishing and another the benefits of algae removal.  The benefits to the
sport fishing industry in the  Northwest may have little correspondence
with the sport fishing industry  of the Southeast.  To further reiterate the
point, the studies tend to be  noncomparable and unique for several  reasons,
Some consider  primary benefits only while others include secondary bene-
fits.  Others  include only very crude  and arbitrary benefit estimates while
others include highly specified recreational participation models. Others
look at only specific pollutants  while some discuss the effects of  pollution
in general or utilize various  pollution indices.

The studies as  such are not amenable to aggregation but much can be
gained by incorporating various features of each study into further
research endeavors which are explicitly designed to estimate national
recreational benefits of water quality enhancement.  Regional studies
have merit in themselves and efforts should be focused on extending
the analysis on a national basis.
                               30

-------
 G.  RECOMMENDATIONS


Many of the limitations encountered seem to stem from the fact that as
of the present time the research conducted has been rather piecemeal,
problem,  project and crisis oriented in nature.  While much has been
gained in  the way of quantifying recreational participation and the effects
of water quality enhancement for  specific uses and areas,  much could be
gained by restructuring the emphasis to include the development of national
estimates of the benefits  of water quality  enhancement.  The scope of
the national recreation benefit study must be expanded to consider in
greater detail the complex behavioral and economic  impacts associated
with estimating demand shifts associated with multibasin water quality
enhancement.  The scope can not be couched in the traditional and
simplistic demand shifts  associated with water quality enhancement in
a specific reservoir exogenous  of other surface water bodies.  Such a
study must consider all water based recreational activities, second round
effects and other concepts such as latent demand,  option demand, esthetic
satisfaction of the recreationalist and the substitution phenomenon.  The
study must also recognize from the inception that  the objective is to de-
rive national estimates of recreational benefits of pollution abatement
and must  therefore select representative areas for which the results can
be generalized to acquire the desired national totals.
                                  31

-------
                           SECTION III

                WATER QUALITY AND ESTHETICS
A.  INTRODUCTION

The results  of the preceding section -- the inability or as some would say,
the unwillingness of the economist to quantify recreational benefits or the
damages  of water quality degradation in monetary terms -- provides con-
siderable insight into the results that can be expected in this section.  This
anticipated result stems from the fact that esthetics, like recreation, in-
volves many intangible nonmonetary considerations that do not as such
enter the market mechanism.

The beneficial use discussed herein --  esthetics enjoyment --  has been
included as a subcategory or subset of the first major beneficial use.  This
section could be included in the  recreation section previously discussed
in that the beneficial use distinction is admittedly rather germane.  In fact
it is quite difficult at times to differentiate recreational benefits from
esthetic benefits.  For example, it is esthetically pleasing to fishermen
and nonfishermen alike to view a cool,  clear surface water body with a
thriving trout population. Even the  knowledge -- without intended use --
that such a stream exists provides the source of esthetic satisfaction.

Some may be inclined to differentiate on the basis of activity, i.e. ,  acti-
vities which directly involve the use of  surface water for recreation
(swimming,  boating, etc.) as opposed to activities such as sight-seeing
where surface water may be only a secondary consideration.  This
criteria is not appreciably superior  in that it is equally difficult to dif-
ferentiate on this basis,  i.e. , the fisherman may derive  greater satis-
faction from the scenic or esthetic qualities of the area than from fishing.

There are,  however, several studies that do not conveniently fall into
the recreation category and are  therefore classified  as studies  concerned
with the general esthetic benefits of  pollution abatement.

Attempts  have been made to keep the format of this  section similar to
that utilized  in the recreation section.   There will,  however, be  devi-
ations necessitated because of varying methodologies employed and
differences in the state of knowledge.
                                32

-------
 B.  HYPOTHESIZED CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING ESTHETIC
     SATISFACTION

 The list of specific pollutants or water quality constituents potentially
 detrimental to esthetic satisfaction could conceivably include every known
 pollutant.   The inclusion of the option demand concept virtually guarantees
 a  lengthy list of specific pollutants that are potentially detrimental to
 esthetic satisfaction or appreciation.

 One problem  that is immediately encountered is that few authors have
 attempted to  compile a complete list of pollutants capable of impacting
 esthetic appreciation.  This is to be expected considering the  evasive
 nature of esthetic satisfaction and the complexities encountered in their
 quantification.  Since,  however,  esthetic appreciation and recreation are
 so closely aligned,  the list of pollutants may include all of the  hypothe-
 sized  pollutants effecting water based recreation presented earlier.
 All of the pollutants included in the earlier exhibit affect aquatic life,
 wild life support potential  or human usability or surface water bodies and
 therefore esthetic appreciation.

 In addition to these factors, there are other considerations that influence
 the esthetic satisfaction derived from surface water bodies and natural
 resources in  general.  Many of these considerations include unique physical
 attributes  associated with  surface water bodies or the surrounding environs.
 Some  of these factors are  not directly related to water pollution but instead
 relate to other factors such as accessibility, historical value,  urbanization,
 remoteness or other "indirect" consideration.  These factors are, never-
 theless, important considerations that must be  appraised in ascertaining the
 value  of natural resources which in turn may be affected by increased water
 quality degradation.  These hypothesized characteristics and constituents
 are presented in Exhibit III-l. The documentation has been deleted from
 this exhibit in that they come  from one of three other sources (i.e. ,
 reference  71, 31, 2).

It  is recognized that Exhibit ni-1 presents a slight deviation from the
procedure established in Exhibit II-1 in that the latter exhibit includes
many considerations other  than strictly water quality factors.

The second step in the state of the arts assessment of recreation benefits
and damages was to present a listing or summary of  reported or docu-
mented damages. A comparable procedure was undertaken for esthetic
benefits and damages of water quality enhancement or water quality de-
gradation.
                                  33

-------
Exhibit III-l. Factors that Must be Considered in Assessing the
             Esthetic Value of Surface Water Bodies
                 and Other Natural Resources
I.   Physical
         Water Quality Characteristics
              Clarity
              Color
              Odor
              Temperature
              Turbidity
              Sediment
              Floating solids
              TSS
              Foalm slime and scum
              Algae
              Weeds and plants
              Litter and debris

        Other Physical Characteristics
              Drainage area
              Stream order
              Average  gradient
              Total relief
              Average  flood plain width
              Average  valley height/average valley width
              Stream width
              Stream depth
              Stream velocity
              Bed material
              Floatability
             Invertebrates - total no.
             Invertebrates - diversity
                             34

-------
                      Exhibit III-1 (continued)
II.    Land Use Measures
           Other Physical Attributes
                Forest cover
                Slopes
                Land use
                Remoteness
                Artificial controls
                Water supply and sewage plants
                Productive industry
                Extraactive industry
                Valley terrestial habitat
                Hillsides terrestial habitat

III.   Esthetic Impression Measures
           Including Natural and Man-made Considerations
                Visual pattern  quality
                Land husbandry
                Degree of change
                Recovery potential
                Local scene
                View confinement
                Serenity
                Naturalness
                Geological values
                Historical values
                Diversity - flora and fauna
                Artificial controls  (dams, etc.)
                Accessibility
                Vistas
                View confinement
                Utilities
                Urbanization
                                 35

-------
 C.  DOCUMENTED ESTHETIC DAMAGES AND BENEFITS OF WATER
     QUALITY ENHANCEMENT

 In the case of recreational benefits and damages bf water quality enhance-
 ment, it was possible to construct a list of documented damages and spec-
 ific pollutant levels at which damage could  reasonably be expected.  In the
 case of esthetic benefits and damages,  it is exceedingly difficult to attach
 a specific level or concentration at which damage occurs.  For example,
 how many pieces  of litter are required  before esthetic appreciation is
 reduced?  What is the value of game fish relative to  rough fish?  There
 have,  however, been several studies which have utilized interview tech-
 niques to ascertain percentages of participants that object to various
 natural and man-made attributes  of or associated with the esthetic
 appreciation of natural resources.

 Exhibit ni-2 presents a list of unattractive  features and the  percentages
 of participants interviewed that find  specific features objectionable. Several
 of the  studies have been oriented  to recreational usage of water, however,
 many  of the undesirable esthetic attributes  listed may well be displeasing
 to the  nonrecreationalist as well.

 Other  undesirable esthetic considerations that concern recreationalists
 and other users of surface water bodies are listed in the Appendix of this
 report.  These unappealing aspects include  a variety of esthetic con-
 siderations reported by both users and nonusers, only a. few of which
 are directly related to water quality.  These characteristics have been
 assessed to determine public perception,  attitudes and behavior in
 references  126, 7 and 27.

 D.   ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ESTHETIC QUALITIES OF WATER

 The  quantification of esthetic considerations of water quality enhance-
 ment is lagging even the quantification of recreational benefits.  Most of
 the work at this time has been confined merely to ascertaining desirable
 and undesirable environmental impacts and  has not at this time undertaken
 to quantify in monetary terms the esthetic benefits or damages.  Any attempt
 to do so has -- out of desperation -- taken the approach of ascertaining the
magnitude of the benefits needed to equal or exceed the benefits of a specific
 development project  (62).  While such an approach is  understandable in
                                36

-------
  Exhibit HI-2.  Unappealing Esthetic Qualities Reported by Users
                and Nonusers of Recreational Areas

                                              Percent Interviewed Indicating
                                              Unappealing Response to
Esthetic Characteristics	Specific Esthetic Factors —'

Water pollution                                       51
View                                                   8
Water Characteristics  (general)                       10
Recreation opportunities                                5
Climate                                                6
Commercial factors                                     8
Nothing in particular                                  28
Irrelevant responses                                    4

Water characteristics                                 27.5
Natural surroundings                                    8. 1
Facilities and man-made surroundings                 17.7
Opportunities for specific activities                      6.8
Generally attractive or pleasant                         3.2
Nothing                                              62.5

Unclear                                                8. 1
Dirty                                                 14.2
Bottom quality                                          3. 5
Odor                                                   1.7
Temperature                                           1.7
Too small                                              1.2
Too shallow                                             2. 5
Weeds, plants,  algae                                    3.8
Other pollutants                                         2.5
Surroundings                                           1.3
Lack of activities Sc facilities                            3.4
Generally unattractive or unpleasant                     1.3
Othe r                                                   7.2
Nothing	47.7 	
*/
—  The  first  eight characteristics and responses are in reference to the
   effects of water  pollution in San Francisco Bay (126) while the remainder
   of the responses are in reference to user response for nine Illinois lakes.
                                37

-------
 view of the difficulties encountered in assessing intangible benefits, it
 does leave something to be desired when the evaluation technique is
 couched in terms of benefit cost analysis.  Other than the above reference
 (62) which is concerned with the option value of Hells Canyon -- essentially
 a decision making model -- the review of literature has failed to uncover
 a single study that successfully quantifies the esthetic benefits  of water
 quality enhancement by methods other than assigning ascribed values.

 One study, the earlier referenced Dow Chemical Study (35), has
 ascribed various monetary values to reflect esthetic benefits of
 pollution abatement.  For example, a  value of $.25 - .50 per visitor
 per day was used to reflect the monetary value of sediment removal
 in the Potomac River estuary.  Even this rather arbitrary assignment
 of values produces damages of $1.60 - $2.20/ton of sediment per year
 which produced sizable estimates  of the damages  of sediment to esthet-
 ically pleasing natural and man-made  resources.

 This actually leaves us with only two estimates of the esthetic damages
 of water quality degradation, one a residual method or decision making
 model for estimating the esthetic benefits required to equal or exceed
 the alternative development projects proposed for a unique natural  re-
 source (Hells Canyon Project) and the other an ascribed value for the
 damages  of sediment to the esthetic qualities of the Potomac River  and
 surrounding environs.
E.   SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND ESTHETICS

Many have recognized that esthetic benefits of water quality enhancement
may represent one of the larger sources of potential benefits of water
quality enhancement.  The problems associated with the quantification
of these uncommensurate benefits  have proven to be exceedingly complex.
Other than ascribing arbitrary values to  esthetic  benefits or the development
of elaborate decision making models to assist in evaluating development
projects  (references 35 and  62 respectively) the literature search has
failed to uncover a single definative measure of the esthetic benefits  of
water quality management .

Research in this  specific area falls into two broad categories.  One,
studies that have attempted to determine  the desirable or undesirable
aspects or attributes of natural resources including surface water
bodies.  This first group consists of the following studies that have
devoted at least a portion of their emphasis to the above  mentioned
area of endeavor.
                                38

-------
Reference Number                  Title/Author

         8              Bishop, Doyle W. ,  and Robert Aukerman, Water
                        Quality Criteria For Selected Recreational Uses^
                        Research Report No. 33, University of Illinois
                        Water Resources Center, University of Illinois,
                        Sept., 1970.

         83              Munson, K. F. ,  "Opinions of Providers and Users
                        About Site Quality for Water-Oriented Recreation
                        on Eight Small Lakes in Arkansas," Ph.D.
                        Disseration, University of Illinois, Jan.,  1968.

        126              Willeke, G. , "Effects  of Water Pollution in San
                        Francisco Bay," Ph.D.  Dissertation, Stanford,
                        University,  1969.

         3              Aukerman,  R. ,  "Water Quality Criteria for Selected
                        Recreational Uses—Site Comparisons,"  Thesis,
                        University of Illinois,  1971.

         7              Bevins, Malcolm I. , Attitudes on Environmental
                        Quality in Six Vermont Lake shore Communities,
                        Northeast Regional Research Publication,  Vermont
                        Ag. Exp.  Sta. , University of Vermont, Bulletin 67 1
                        June, 1972.

         84              Myles,  George A. ,  "Effect of Quality Factors on
                        Water Based Recreation in Western Nevada," Desert
                        Res.  Inst. ,  No. 3E, Progress Report Series,  Center
                        for Water Resources Res. (Max C. Fleischmann
                        College of Agriculture Report Series B 16), Reno,
                        February  1970.

         28              David, Elizabeth L. , "Public Perceptions  of Water
                        Quality,"  Water Resources Res. ,  June 1971 (3),
                        pp. 453-57.

         29              David, Elizabeth L. ,. Richard S. Howe, and John T.
                        Quigley, "Institutional Design for Water Quality Manage-
                        ment:  A Case Study of the Wisconsin River Basin, "
                        The Univ.  of Wisconsin Water Resources Center,
                        Tech.; Report OWRR C-1228,  1970.
                                 39

-------
The second type of study related to esthetic considerations includes
those recently published works that develop and/or implement inven-
torial procedures and methodologies designed to quantify the unique-
ness of various natural resources. Studies related to or devoting
some discussion to the above area include the following:

Reference Number                    Title/Author

        86              Nighswonger, James J. , "A Methodology for Inventorying
                       and Evaluating the Scenic Quality and Related Recre-
                       ational Value of Kansas Streams," {Includes Four
                       Selected Streams) State of Kansas, Dept. Econ. Devel. ,
                       Outdoor Recreation Planning for Kansas, Report No. 32.

       31              Dearinger, John A. and  George M. Woolwine, "Meas-
                       uring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I,
                      Application of the  Uniqueness Concept," Research Report
                       No. 40, University of Kentucky,  Water Resources Insti-
                      tute, Lexington, 1971.

        2             Arner, D. , et al.  , "An Ecological and Recreational
                      Use Survey of the  Luxapalila River," page 367. Water
                      Resources  Bulletin V. 8,  April 1972,  No. 2,  Permagon
                      Press, Oxford,  England.

       71             Leopold, Luna B.  , "Landscape Esthetics," Natural
                      History,  Oct.  1969.

       32             Dee, Norbert et al. ,  "Environmental Evaluation System
                      for Water Resource Planning," Battelle, Columbus
                      Laboratories, January,  1972.

       57             Kansas Park and Resources Authority,  "An Outdoor
                      Recreation Plan for Central Kansas - Appendix III,"
                      Kansas Planning for Development Report No. 38-IH,
                      November, 1972.

       66             Krumholz,  Louis A., "A Preliminary Ecological Study
                      of Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of
                      Kentucky," Univ.  of Kentucky Water Resources Insti-
                      tute, Research Report No.  43, September  1971.

       67             Krumholz,  Louis A. and  Stuart E. Neff. "A Prelim-
                      inary Ecological Study of Areas to be Impounded in
                      the Salt River Basin of Kentucky," Univ. of Kentucky,
                      Water Resources Institute, Research Report No. 48,
                      October,  1971.

                              40

-------
Although these studies may not achieve the objective of quantifying
esthetic benefits in economic terms, they do successfully contribute
to the requisite task of providing and implementing methods designed
to ascertain (perhaps only by ranking)  the relative value of natural re-
sources.  The development of uniqueness models is a logical step or
activity that should be further developed  or explored if  the quantification
of ecological benefits of water quality enhancement is to be pursued.
                               41

-------
                        SECTION IV

         WATER QUALITY AND PROPERTY VALUES
A.   INTRODUCTION

Water quality impacts on property values are again closely aligned or
related to esthetic and recreational considerations.  Shoreline property
values surrounding lakes, reservoirs and streams are characteristically
higher than the value of similarly used  nonshoreline property of equal
quality.   This stems from several factors which surely must include
water access and esthetic considerations. The intrinsically pleasing
qualities  of high  quality water enhances the attractiveness and value of
shoreline properties for seasonal or year round dwelling and possible
location sites for various commercial activities.

Increasing effluent loads and the  degradation of surface water bodies
reduces  the esthetic appreciation and the  desirability of shoreline
property  sites.   The reduction in attractiveness is conceivably reflected
in declining property values.  The total dollar value of all shoreline
property  in the U.S.  again makes this beneficial use of substantial im-
portance.  The encouraging  factor that is encountered in estimating
property  value benefits of water quality enhancement is that the market
mechanism provides a possibility of assessing the property value
benefits  of water quality enhancement.  By observing changes in the
sale price of shoreline property,  a model can be formulated which can
include subjective or objective water quality measures  to determine the
effects of water quality changes.  While there are many complicating
factors encountered and considerable simultaneity involved,  the
market mechanism provides a possibility of sorting out various in-
fluences with the aid of econometric techniques.

B.   HYPOTHESIZE WATER QUALITY  RELATIONSHIPS

The number of water quality constituents  or characteristics that potentially
influence  shoreline property values are numerous, varied and perhaps
need not be  expanded beyond those included in Exhibits  II-1 and III-l.  It
can again be argued that all of these pollutants are potentially important
when considering property value impacts  of water quality degradation.
Realistically, however,  the important factors would be those  that are
perceptable to the homeowner or  site user.

                                 42

-------
Exhibit IV-1 presents the results of pollution perception studies which
indicates the meaning of pollution to those interviewed.  While the
results of this study are couched in very vague  general terms,  needing
some refinement, it must be recognized that public perception of pollu-
tion is not in terms of incremental units of BOD or some other pollutant
but rather in the  perceptible influences of pollution such as fish kills,
litter, debris and similar measures.

C.   ECONOMIC  ANALYSIS OF WATER QUALITY CHANGES AND
     PROPERTY VALUES

Several researchers have addressed the question or problem of quantifying
property value impacts  of surface water quality degradation.  These in-
clude several that have  made only passing reference to the problem and
others that have faced the issue directly.  These  studies are listed below.
       Reference                           Title/Author

           85                Nemerow,  Nelson L.  and Hisashi Sumitomo,
                            "Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement, "
                            (Onondago  Lake,) Water Pollution Control
                            Research Series,  16110 DAJ 12/70.

           10                Bramer, H.C. ,  "The Economic Aspects of the
                            Water Pollution Abatement Program in the Ohio
                            River Valley, " Ph.D. Dissertation, University
                            of Pittsburgh, I960.

           81                McClellan, Grant S. ,  Protecting Our Environment,
                            The H. W.  Wilson Company, New York, 1971,
                            Vol.  42,  No. 1.

           27                David, Elizabeth L. ,  "Lakeshore Property Values:
                            A Guide to  Public Investment in Recreation,"
                            Water Resources  Research, August,  1968.

           30                David, Elizabeth L. and  William B. Lord,
                            "Determinants of Property Value on Artificial
                            Lakes," Univ. of Wisconsin, Dept. of Agricultural
                            Economics, Ag.  EC. 54, May 1969.
                               43

-------
                                                            */
                Exhibit IV-1.  Public perception of pollution _'
Water Quality Characteristics
Association of Specific Character-
istics with Pollution by Percent
         Interviewed
Algae
Cans and Glass
Suds  and Foam
Debris
Merky, dark
Weeds
             40
              1
             25
             10
             20
              3
_' Results of pollution perception study in selected Wisconsin study area (29).
                                44

-------
The first two (10 and 81) can be quickly summarized.  Bramer (10)
was concerned with the benefits of pollution abatement in the Ohio
River Valley and included a brief section on property value benefits.
The procedures employed were quite crude and must be further refined.
The approach that was utilized in this study assumes that inauguration
of secondary treatment everywhere would enhance the  value of shore-
line property by 10 percent which was assumed to be one percent of
the total land area in the geographical area under consideration.  This
obviously can be accepted only in the absence of more  sophisticated
methods.

Reference 81 is not  a study of property values per se but instead simply
makes reference to  a documented damage that is interesting and intriguing.
Reference is made  to the effects of increased salinity in Hudspeth County,
Texas which is purported to be the cause of agricultural land values
declining from $1, 000 per acre to $50 per acre.  Such a drastic decline
must be  viewed as an extreme  example and atypical of the  effects of
salinity on agricultural land values.

The latter group (references 85, 27 and 30)  consists of those studies
that have devoted more than just passing reference to the property value
affects of increased water quality degradation.

The procedure utilized in the Onondago Lake study (85) was essentially
a procedure which compared the value of shoreline property for various
reservoirs with different water quality.   The differences in property
values of similarly used property was attributed to water quality  differ-
ences.  The total difference  was prorated over  a five year period to
reflect the annual property value benefits of water quality enhancement.
As  previously encountered, the property value changes were not well
specified.  Many influences -- distance from reservoirs, value of im-
provements,  access, variations in seasonal as  opposed to  year around
dwellings and general land uses -- should be refined or further explored
to increase the acceptability of the resulting estimates.

The other studies   (27 and 30), both by the same author, have utilized
multiple  regression methods to explain variation in property values.  A
water quality variable was included in the model and was found to
explain four percent of the variations in property values in the study
area.  These studies formulate several regression models with several
independent variables to explain variation in property values as influenced
by water quality.  While the  study includes only subjective  measures  of
pollution, the model developed and utilized is preferred to  any of the
above previously mentioned property value studies.


                                 45

-------
D.   SUMMARY OF PROPERTY VALUE BENEFITS AND WATER
     QUALITY ENHANCEMENT

There is reason to be encouraged with the prfcgress that has been
made in assessing property value benefits of water quality enhance-
ment.   This encouragement stems from the  fact that the market
mechanism affords an opportunity to model and estimate the economic
benefits of water quality degradation or water quality enhancement by
econometric analysis of observed property value changes.

The second source of encouragement stems  from the fact that several
researchers have  developed and implemented regional property value
models. While there may be  significant aggregation problems  the
format  for regional property value models is reasonably well established.
In this regard it is also encouraging to note  that a national property value
study has been recently completed for EPA.   This  study is entitled,
lrBenefits of Water Pollution Control on Property Values, " and was
sponsored by the office of Research and Monitoring.
                              46

-------
                            SECTION V

                 ECOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A.   INTRODUCTION

The amount of literature that has been published in reference to ecology
and water quality is voluminous.  This includes discussions on nearly
every conceivable facet of water quality management related to ecology.
This includes esoteric discussions of the impacts of water quality de-
gradation on a large variety of terrestrial  or aquatic life.  Specific
impacts such as  DDT  concentrations in wildlife,  destruction of kelp
growth  or the interruption of the feeding and spawning habits of aquatic
life are representative examples.

Even when couched in terms of damages or potential damages by spec-
ific pollutants, the documentation is virtually endless.  Much of the
work is formulated in a very esoteric manner which has emanated
from numerous controlled environmental simulations or bioassay
procedures conducted by various researchers.

It is beyond the scope  or level of effort of this report to include a com-
prehensive listing of references dealing with ecology and water quality
management.   We will therefore deviate from the previously adopted
format and present only a general discussion of the state of the arts
assessment of estimating ecological benefits of water quality enhance-
ment.

B.   GENERAL SUMMARY
A representative sampling of literature relevant to ecology and water
quality management was reviewed by DPRA staff members.  This in-
cludes numerous previously cited references which are directly or in-
directly concerned with various ecological aspects of water quality
degradation.  The results of this review are presented below in a very
brief,  verbal summary.

A  sizable portion of the literature concerned with ecology and water
quality degradation is focused on presenting the undesirable effects
of specific pollutants on various  species of fish.  This includes  the
undesirable effects of toxic substances, thermo pollution,  sedimentation
and numerous other pollutants on a wide variety of species.  Since the
                                 47

-------
 tolerance level varies by species, life cycle, season of the year, and
 numerous  other water quality conditions, there is an endless number of
 specific effects or combinations of specific pollutants that can be dis-
 cussed. A cursory review of the bibliography reveals  the diversity of
 topics considered.

 The objective of presenting documentation of hypothesized or potential
 ecological damages, by specific pollutant would be unobstructed if time
 permitted.  An excellent example of two very comprehensive studies is
 reference  37 and  38.  These  studies summarize the effect of a  large
 number of pesticides and chemical compounds on a variety of nontarget
 species.  These two sources contain data on the ecological effects of
 hundreds of pesticides  and chemical compounds and hundreds of non-
 target species;

 Not all of the relerences are as comprehensive in their coverage or as
 esoteric in their presentation.  For example, reference 41 contains data
 of fish kills in the U.S.  in 1971.  The number of kills,  source of pollution
 and location is covered  in this EPA publication.

 The rhetorical question that is again encountered is,  "What has been
 done to quantify these ecological damages in economic terms."  While
 only limited time  was available to explore the work that has been done
 concerning the economics of ecological damages or benefits,  the know-
 ledge, experience and results derived  in seeking estimates of other
 intangible or incommensurate benefits  of water  quality management
 are believed to be equally appropriate for the state of the arts summary
 concerning the economic quantification of ecological benefits of water
 quality enhancement.  That is,  while there has been a great deal said
 and done in reference to ecological benefits of water quality enhancement,
 very little  (virtually nothing) has been accomplished in the area of expressing
 these damages in  economic terms.

 While it is understandable that this  specific area has not been compre-
 hensively studied  by the economist, there is a conspicuous absence  of
 even the inclination to undertake such an endeavor.  There is  very little
 evidence that a significant amount of effort has been devoted to initiating
work on quantifying the economic impacts of ecological  changes associated
with environmental degradation. Of all the areas discussed as of this
point, this  specific area is the most neglected.  The general articles
addressing  this problem are  filled with terms such as incommensurate,
immeasurable, inseparable or other equally vague phrases.  As of this
time, these descriptions are most appropriate.
                                 48

-------
                           SECTION VI

       OTHER BENEFICIAL USES AND GENERAL SUMMARY


A.   OTHER BENEFICIAL USES

The beneficial uses that have not as  of this time even entered the dis-
cussion include human health and the entire area of production,  (i.e.,
beneficial use  categories III and IV respectively).  We are not, as of
this time, prepared to submit a complete discussion of these areas
but the exposure has been sufficiently great to extend a few summary
comments.

Health
 There are a great many unknowns encountered when discussing water
 quality associated health impacts.  The widespread utilization of pre-
 use chlorination has eliminated many adverse water quality associated
 health impacts.  Notwithstanding,  there is considerable evidence that
 water quality degradation is responsible for a variety of human health
 disorders and associated effects.

 References 22,  26, 77, and 128 are representative of much of the work
 that has been done in the  area.  Again the work tends to be  highly esoteric
 discussing very specific health impacts associated with specific pollutants.
 The task of estimating the national economic impacts relating to adverse
health effects of water quality degradation has not, as of this  time,  been
undertaken.  This endeavor will again be hampered by problems asso-
 ciated with evaluating intangible,  nonmonetary considerations such as the
 value of pain, suffering or the loss of human life.  When all factors have
 adequately been accounted for, i.e., loss of life,  work days lost, reduced
productivity and other costs  such as  that expended for medication and pro-
fessional health care;  the total benefits and/or damages may  be rather
 substantial.  It is also likely  that the fear of health impacts or the epidemic
 risks associated with  deteriorating water  quality may be sufficiently great
 to justify restrictive water quality standards.   These considerations,
including risk, must be properly accounted for when estimating water
quality associated health impacts.

Production
The other broad area and as of this point untouched, is beneficial use
IV, i.e.,  production.  While no one has estimated national production
                               49

-------
 benefits of water quality enhancement, there are fewer methodological
 problems  encountered in that the procedure will possibly involve esti-
 mating of  additional costs associated with physical damages or the cost
 of damage prevention.

 Very little time was spent searching for publications relevant to the
 production area.  The work that has surfaced which deserves  special
 mention includes  the following articles or publications.

 Researchers concentrating on the production area should devote special
 attention to  reference  82 which is one of the most comprehensive em-
 pirical studies  of the cost of water quality degradation to residential and
 nonresidential water users.  Reference 74 is of interest to these esti-
 mating the industrial costs of thermo pollution. In addition there are
 several other presently unpublished studies by EPA staff members which
 represent  the best current single source of information concerning the
 economics of water quality degradation and domestic water usage and
 commercial fishing. Both of these studies were undertaken and
 completed by Dr. Dennis  Thansky, Office of Research and Monitoring,
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

 The economic quantification or assessment of the production benefits
 of water quality enhancement has not at this time been  completed,  even
 though much of the data is available and the methodological problems
 are  relatively few.

 B.   GENERAL SUMMARY

 The major impetus for this report emanates from the construction
 and  presentation of a benefit matrix (Exhibit A-15) in Phase II Research
 Needs and  Priorities:  Pollution Control Benefits and Costs with Em-
 phasis on Water,  by DPRA.  This benefit matrix is presented below
 as Exhibit  VI-1.

 The documentation of the use-quality relationships presented in this
 matrix  (indicated  by a  ID notation) was somewhat subjective and also
 utilized established  state and/or federal water  quality criteria that
 have been known to be rather insensitive of actual use-quality relation-
 ships.  It was therefore decided that a subsequent literature search
would be advisable to further document specific use-quality relationships
 and to present a brief state of the arts summary.  A brief summary of
 the current state of the arts (with emphasis on  estimating water  quality
associated  benefits)  is  presented below.
                                50

-------
ExhibitVI~ 1 .State-of-the-arls of pollution-beneficial use potential relationships, over  all ranges of water quality
HEALTH
PRODUCTION



Industrial







BOD
COD
pH
Coliform
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Toxic Sub. */
Hardness
TDS
TSS**
Temperature
Oil
Color
Turbidity
Odor
Taste
Radionucles

V
01
S£

a-S .-
6*« S w
34) 3 ^
SI 2 H
OU ID
OU ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
OU ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
OU OU
ID ID
OU ID
ID ID
OD ID
OD ID
ID ID
Floating Solids OU ID
- Includes
**/
— Includes


References:




heavy metals.
sellable solids.



" 0

f « 3>


Q3 «:£
OU ID
OU ID
ID ID
OU ID
OU ID
OU OU
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID OU
ID OU
OU OU
OU OU
OU ID
1U OD




1. "Water Quality Criteria. '
2. Todd, "The
3. "Manual on
4. Zajic, J. I.
5. Lund. H. F

 pollutant has an effect upon usability
=> pollutant has no effect upon usability
= > a pollutant-use relationship has been
(30) (31)
•g.
, •-' 1-
sl 1

3 ^ V

OD OU
OD OU
ID ID
OU ID
OD OU
OU OU
1U ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID 1U
OU OU
1U 1U
ID ID
ID ID
OD OU
OU OU
OU OU
1U 1U

(32)
«"»

«o


(ft a
OD
OD
ID
OD
OU
OU
1U
OD
ID
ID
OU
1U
OD
OU
OU
OU
OU
1U

(33)


" «
.C 4)

0.
ID
ID
ID
OU
OU
OU
1U
ID
ID
ID
1U
ID
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
1U

ESTHETICS


i
W „

5 £


w
ID
ID
OD
ID
1U
ID
OD
OD
OD
ID
OD
ID
ID
ID
ID
OU
ID
ID


Recreation
u
~ X
C ^ w
O u Li
0 « U
i _i n.
C CO
O O IH
Z OB.
ECOLOGICAL



W
V
D
CO


ID ID ID ID
ID ID ID ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U 1U
ID ID ID ID
ID ID ID ID
ID ID 1U ID
OD OU OU ID
1U 1U 1U ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U 1U
ID ID ID ID
ID ID ID 1U
OD ID OU 1U
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID ID 1U


within water quality ranges normally encountered
documented
= > documentation of a pollutant-use relationship (or lack
(or lack of one) seems plausible



of one)


has not been found, but such a






relationship


Water Encyclopedia," 1970.
Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water,", ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 148
, "Water Pollution--Disposal
. , "Industrial
and
Reuse." 1971.

-I, 1966.





Pollution Control Handbook," 1971.
6. "Cleaning our Environment the Chemical
Basis for Action," Am. Chem. Soc . 1969.

-------
 The literature review indicates that virtually every use-quality rela-
 tionship denoted by a ID presented in the initial benefit matrix could
 be further supported by several references.  This could be accomplished
 without utilizing established and arbitrary state or federal water quality
 criteria. It is also quite likely that several of  the use-quality relation-
 ships initially presented as having no effect on  usability, i.e. , denoted
 by the notation OD, could be changed to the former notation indicating
 that the  pollutant has a potential effect  on usability.

 If,  however,  the criteria is to present  a summary of the economic
 studies that have quantified such use-quality relationships,  it is quickly
 discovered  that there are many use-quality relationships that have not
 been explored by the economist.  While the economic relationships have
 not been adequately explored at this time,  there are  many  studies that
 are potentially useful.   Some of the  relevant references for the beneficial
 uses discussed are presented  below in  Exhibit VI-2,  As indicated in
 this exhibit,  there is a  conspicuous absence of  references  concerned with
 the economics of ecological damages of water quality degradation.  Two
 beneficial uses,  i.e. , health and production, were not included in the
 above summary table.   These have been briefly summarized in the text.
 While there is a  great disparity in the value of the above cited references,
 there is  something'to be gained from all.

 The following conclusions are also presented at this  time.

 Recreational  Benefits of Water Quality  Enhancement

 While many methodological questions are,  as of this  time unanswered,
 there are indications that this  single area is where much of the future
 research time and  money should be focused.  This particular water use
 is perhaps the largest single source of  benefits  of water quality enhance-
ment.  Research efforts should be devoted to estimating national recre-
ational benefits of pollution abatement.

Property Value Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement

 The methodology and estimates of  property value benefits should be
 reasonably well in  hand  in the  immediate future  and should  not be the
subject of additional emphasis until some of the  other deficient areas
have been satisfied.
                                52

-------
  Exhibit VI-2. Selected References Concerned with Economies of
       Water Quality Management Use Avoidance,  Perception
          or Value of Natural Resources by Beneficial Use

Beneficial Use/Reference  Specific Use or Topic     Pollutant or Emphasis
Recreation
Esthetics
                85         General Recreation
                115        Sport Fishing
                64         General Recreation
                10         General Recreation
                79         General Recreation
                35         General Recreation
                99         General Recreation

                59         Sport Fishing
                35         General Esthetics
                62         General Esthetics
                8,83,126   Use avoidance, public
                3, 7, 84,    perception and/or
                28, 29      desirable qualities
                86, 31, 2,   Methodology or inven-
                71, 32, 57   torial procedures
                66,67
Property Values
                85,10,81   Methodology and/or
                27, 30      empirical estimate
                           of property value
                           benefits
Pollution Index
Kraft mill effluents
DO
BOD
BOD
Sedimentation
Algae and Beach Improvement
  and temperature
PH
Sedimentation
Resource Development
General undesirable con-
stituents

Ascertaining unique attri-
butes and/or desirable or
undesirable qualities
BOD, perceptible water
quality characteristics  or
subjective measures of
pollution
Ecological
                               53

-------
 Esthetic Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement

 Estimating the esthetic benefits emanating from pollution abatement is
 somewhat  less refined or developed than estimating recreational bene-
 fits.  The  recent emphasis on methodology designed to evaluate the
 uniquenesses of natural resources offers some encouragement but, in
 all likelyhood, progress  in this area will be  only nominal for some time.

 Ecological Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement

 Little has been done in this country to quantify the ecological benefits  of
 water quality enhancement in economic terms.  While this area may be
 the source of sizable benefit estimates,  the lack of background work
 probably prevents immediate returns on time invested.  It is our under-
 standing, however,  that several studies  in other countries have been
 recently completed.

 Researchers estimating the health benefits of water quality enhancement
 will without a doubt also encounter difficult methodological problems.
 While this area may be the source of sizable benefits,  they are viewed
 as small relative to other water uses.

 The entire  area of estimating the  production benefits of water quality
 enhancement will be less  difficult (relative to  the above mentioned
 areas).  The data and methodology is reasonably well in hand to initiate
 such an endeavor.  Notwithstanding,  it will be a time consuming and
 laborious task.

 For the above, as well as other reasons, it is believed that the  following
 list indicates the  relative  priorities that  should be attached to estimating
 the benefits of water quality management.

          1.   Recreation
          2.   Esthetics
          3.   Ecological
          4.   Production
          5.   Health
          6.   Property values

Considerable  insight into the progress and accomplishments of the
economist in estimating the benefits of water quality enhancement is
provided by the following material.


                                  54

-------
       "From the replies of 36 States to a questionnaire seeking
       data on which to base an estimate of the economic and social
       effects of the destruction offish,  water-fowl,  and other wild
       life by pollution,  it is evident that available data permit only
       general conclusions.  Reasonably comprehensive and accurate
       surveys of this group of problems are generally lacking in this
       country.   Such studies are essential before any close evaluation
       of the large economic losses in this field is possible.  An exten-
       sion of such studies as  those made on the upper Mississippi
       River jointly by the State Boards of Health  of Minnesota and
       Wisconsin would be very helpful.  In that study, for example, it
       was reported that the annual loss to commercial fishing and
       clamming is $95, 000; the annual damage to sport fishing and
       attendant industries $35,000; while decreased property value
       in the Twin Cities was estimated at $2,000,000 and damage
       to lands for recreational purposes at $ 1, 500, 000.

       Other states, such as Indiana,  Iowa and Virginia, have made
       efforts to  evaluate similar economic losses which they believe
       would aggregate millions  of dollars annually.  Most of the states
       report acute situations  in restricted localities.

       Without doubt an extended study of the many published  reports
       on the subject and a thorough analysis of records  in possession
       of the State Conservation Departments and Fish and Game Com-
       missions would be revealing.  As  a rule, however, the  relevant
       data are so scattered,  so incomplete,  and,  because of the
       intangible nature  of some of the losses so inconclusive, that
       it is impossible at present to state any figure as representing
       the national economic burden of pollution."   (108)

It is interesting and indeed disappointing to note that the  basic problems
mentioned above, i.e. , quantification of intangible losses and the diffi-
culties associated with estimating national pollution losses are still
the basic problems encountered today.  This takes on even greater
meaning when it is realized that the above excerpt was taken from an
article published in  1935.
                               55

-------
                            SECTION VII

                           REFERENCES

 1.  American Society for Testing and Materials,  Manual on Industrial
           Water and Industrial Waste Water, Second Edition -- 1966
           Printing, With New and Revised Methods, ASTM Special
           Technical Publication No.  148-1.

 2.  Arner, D. ,  et al. ,  "An Ecological and Recreational Use Survey
           of the Luxapalila River," page  367.  Water  Resources Bulletin
           V.  8,  April 1972, No.  2, Permagon Press, Oxford,  England.

 3.  Aukerman, R. ,  "Water Quality Criteria for Selected Recreational
          ' Uses—Site Comparisons,"  Thesis, University of Illinois,
           1971.

 4.  Baker, J. M. ,  "The Effects  of Oils on Plants", Environmental
           Pollution,  (1) 1970.

 5.  Barbaro, R. D., B. J.  Carroll,  L. B. Tebo,  and L. C. Walters,
           "Bacteriological Water Quality of Several Recreational Areas
           in the Ross Barnett Reservoir," Jour. WPCF, July 1969,
           p. 1330.

 6.  Belding, David L. ,  "Toxicity Experiments with Fish in Reference to
           Trade Waste Pollution", Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 57,  1927.

 7.  Bevins,  Malcolm I., Attitudes on Environmental Quality in Six
           Vermont Lakeshore Communities, Northeast Regional
           Research Publication, Vermont Ag Exp. Sta. ,  University
           of Vermont,  Bulletin 671,  June 1972.

 8.  Bishop,  Doyle W. ,  and Robert Aukerman,  Water Quality Criteria
           For Selected Recreational Uses,  Research Report No. 33,
           University of Illinois Water Resources Center, University
           of Illinois, Sept.,  1970.

 9.  Born,  Stephen M.,  et al. , "Inland Lake Demonstration Project,  "
           A Joint Venture of the University of Wisconsin and the
           Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources,  1972.

10.  Bramer, H. C., The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
           Abatement Program in the Ohio River Valley, Ph.D.
           Dissertation,  University of Pittsburg, I960.

                                  56

-------
 11.  Bregman, J. I.  and Sergei Lenormand,  The Pollution Paradox,
          A Spartan Book,  Books, Inc.,  New York and Washington,
          1966.

 12.  Buelow, Ralph W. , and Graham Walton, "Bacteriological Quality
          vs. Residual Chlorine", Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc. ,
          63, 95, 1971.

 13.  Bureau of Water Resources Research, "Critical Review of The
          Oklahoma State Water Resources Quality Criteria," Univ.
          of Oklahoma,  1967.

 14.  Cairns,  John Jr., "Ecological Management Problems Caused by
          Heated Waste Water Discharge into the Aquatic Environment",
          Water Resources Bulletin, Nov.-Dec.  1970,  No.  6.

 15.  Cairns,  John Jr., and Kenneth L. Dickson,  "A Simple  Method for
          the Biological Assessment of the Effects of Waste Discharges
          on Aquatic Bottom-Dwelling  Organisms", Jour. Water Pol-
          lution Control Fed. , Nov.  1968, Vol.  43,  No. 5.

 16.  Ciaccio, Leonard L. ,  Water and Water Pollution Handbook,
          Marcel Dekker,  Inc.,  New York, Vols. I, II,  III, IV,
          1973.

 17.  Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. , Resource Conservation:  Economics and
          Policies, Univ. of California Press,  Berkeley and Los
          Angeles, 1952.

 18.  Clarke,  N. A., G.  Berg,  P. W. Kabler  and S. L.  Chang, "Human
          Enteric Viruses in Water: Source, Survival and Removability,"
          Ed. W. W. Eckenfelder,  Advancement in Water Pollution Res.,
          Proc.  Int.  Conf. , London, Sept.  1962,  Vol. 2, pp.  523-532.

 19.  Claudon,  D. G. , et al. , "Prolonged Salmonella Contamination of a
          Recreational Lake by Runoff  Waters,  " Appl. Microbiology,
          May, 1971,  875-877.  Vol. 21, No. 5.

20.  Cole, Arch E., "Water Pollution Studies in Wisconsin,  Effects of
          Industrial (Pulp and Paper Mill) Wastes on Fish," Water
          Pollution Studies,  Vol.  7, No.  2, March, 1935.

21.  Cole, Lamont C.,  "Thermal Pollution: Man's Impact on the Waters,"
          from Man's Impact on Environment by Detwyler.


                                57

-------
 22.  Committee on Environmental Quality Management of the Sanitary
          Engineering Division, "Engineering Evaluation of Virus
          Hazard in Water", Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
          February, }970.

 23.  Coomber, Nicholas H.  and Asit K. Biswas, Evaluation of Environ-
          mental Intangibles,  Genera Press,  New  York,  1972.

 24.  Copeland, B. J.,  Neal E. Armstrong and Earnest F. Gloyna,
          "Ecological Aspects of Stream Pollution",  Advances in
          Water Quality Improvement,  1968.

 25.  Cowell, E. B. ,  ed.,  The Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on
          Littoral Communities,  Institute of Petroleum,  London, 1971.

 26.  Craun, Gunther F.,  and Leland J. McCabe, "Review of the Causes
          of Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks", Water Technology/Quality,
          Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc. , January,  1973.

 27.  David,  Elizabeth L.,  "Lakeshore Property Values: A Guide to Public
          Investment in Recreation, " Water Resources Res., Aug.  1968.

 28.  David,  Elizabeth,  L. , "Public Perceptions of  Water Quality, "
          Water Resources Res.,  June,  1971 (3), pp. 453-57.

 29.  David,  Elizabeth L. ,  Richard S.  Howe,  and John T.  Quigley,
          "Institutional Design for Water Quality Management:  A
          Case Study of the Wisconsin River  Basin, " The Univ. of
          Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Tech. Report OWRR
          C-1228,  1970.

 30.  David,  Elizabeth L. and William B. Lord,  "Determinants of Property
          Value on Artificial Lakes, " Univ. of Wisconsin, Dept. of
          Agricultural Economics, Ag. EC. 54,  May,  1969.

 31.  Dearinger,  John A. and George M. Woolwine,  "Measuring the
          Intangible Values of  Natural Streams,  Part I, Application
          of the Uniqueness Concept, " Research Report No. 40,
          University of Kentucky,  Water Resources Institute, Lexington,
          1971.

32.  Dee, Norbert,  et al. , "Environmental Evaluation System for Water
          Resource  Planning," Columbus Laboratories, January, 1972.

33.  Detwyler, Thomas R., Man's Impact on  Environment,  University
          of Michigan,  McGraw-Hill Book Co. ,  1 97T7

                                58

-------
34.  Ditton, Robert and Thomas Goodale, "Marine Recreational Uses of
          Green Bay:  A Study of Human Behavior and Attitude Patterns, "
          University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Prog. , Tech. Rept.  17,
          December,  1972.

35.  Dow Chemical Co.,  Midland, Michigan, "An Economic Analysis
          of Erosion and Sediment Control Methods  for Watersheds
          Undergoing Urbanization (C-1677)," Final Report Feb.  15,
          1971,  - Feb. 14,  1972.

36.  Dunn, Dorothy and Thurston E. Larson, "Relationship of Domestic
          Water Use to Assessed Valuation with Selected Demographic
          and Socioeconomic Variables, " Jour.  Am. Water Works
          Assoc.,  55,  pp.  441-450, 1963.

37.  "Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Non-Target Species,"
          Executive Office of the President,  Office of Science and
          Technology,  June, 1971.

38.  Environmental Protection Agency,  "Effects of Chemicals on
          Aquatic Life," Water Quality Criteria Data Book,  Vol. 3,
          May,  1971.

39.  Feasibility of Evaluation of Benefits from Improved Great Lakes
          Water Quality, Water Resources Center,  University of Illinois,
          Special Report #2, (Prepared for the  U.S. Army Corps  of
          Engineers),  May, 1968.

40.  Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality
          Criteria,  National Technical Advisory Committee,  U. S.
          Dept. of  Interior, April 1, 1968.

41.  1971 Fish Kills - Twelfth Annual Report, Office of Air and Water
          Programs, Monitoring and Data Support Division, Data
          Reporting Branch, Wash., D. C.

42.  Foster,  David H.  et al. , "A Critical Examination of Bathing Water
          Quality Standards," Jour.  Water Poll.  Control Fed.,  Vol.  43,
          1971, p.  2229.

43.  Foster, M. , M. Neushul and R. Zingmark,  "The Santa Barbara Oil
          Spill Part 2:  Initial Effects on Intertidal and Kelp Bed Organisms,
          Environ. Pollution (2), 1971.

44.  Frazier,  Frank R. ,  "Why Congress Acted"  Feedstuffs, Oct. 2,
          1972.

                                59

-------
45.  Freyre,  Lauce, "Pollution of the 'El Carpincho' Pond (Pampasic
          Region, Argentina) and its  Effects on Plankton and Fish
          Communities",  Environmental Pollution (4),  1973.

46.  Geldreich, E. E. ,  "Applying Bacteriological Parameters to
          Recreational Water Quality," Jour. Amer. Water Works Assn.,
          62,  113, 1970.

47.  Geldreich, E. E.,  L. C.  Best, B. A. Kenner, and D. J. Van Donsel,
          "The Bacteriological Aspects of Stormwater  Pollution," Jour.
          Water Pollution Control Fed., November,  1968,  Vol.  40,
          No.  11.

48.  Goldsmith, Edward, "The  Cost of Pollution, " The Ecologist,  Vol.  1,
          No.  15, Sept. 1971.

49.  Gorman, Arthur E.,  and Wolman, Abel,  "Water-borne Outbreaks
          in the United States and Canada,  and Their Significance, "
          Jour. Am. Water Works  Assoc., Vol. 31,  No. 2.

50.  Granstrom, M. L. , M. Dutta, J. DeRooy,  "Water Resources and
          the Chemical Industry in  New Jersey, "  New Jersey Water
          Resources Research  Institute,  October,  1969.

51.  Harberger, Arnold C., et  al. , "Three Basic Postulates for Applied
          Welfare Economics; An Interpretive Essay," Economic
          Literature,  Sept.  1971,  Vol. IX, No.  3.

52.  Henderson, J. M. ,  "Enteric Disease Criteria for Recreational
          Waters,"  Jour,  of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc.
          of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

53.  Hepple, Peter,  ed.  , The Joint Problems  of the Oil and Water
          Industries,  The Elsevier Publishing Company,  London,  1967.

54.  Hepple, Peter,  ed.  Water  Pollution by Oil, The Elsevier Publishing
          Co.  Ltd., London, 1971.

55.  Hotelling, Harold, "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources, " The
          Journal of Political Economy, Vol.  39,  University of Chicago
          Press, 1931.

56.  Jones,  J.  R.  Erichsen, Fijh and River Pollution,  Dept. of Zoology,
          University College of Wales, Aberystwyth,  London,
          Butterworths, 1964.

                                60

-------
57.  Kansas Park and Resources Authority,  "An Outdoor Recreation Plan
          for Central Kansas - Appendix III," Kansas Planning for
          Development Report No. 38-111, November,  1972.

58.  Katz,  Max,  Richard S.  LeGore, Donald Weitkamp, Joseph M. Cummins,
          David Anderson and Dora R. May, "Effects on Freshwater Fish,"
          Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed. ,  Vol.  44, No. 6,  June,  1972.

59.  Kinney,  Edward C., "Extent of Acid Mine  Pollution in the United
          States  Affecting Fish and Wildlife," U.S. Dept.  of the Interior,
          Fish and Wildlife Service,  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
          life, Circular 191, 1964.

60.  Klein, David H.,  and Edward D. Goldberg, "Mercury in the Marine
          Environment," Environmental Science and Technology,  Vol. 4,
          No. 9, September, 1970.

61.  Klein, L.,  River Pollution, Vol.  2:  Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
          London,  1962,  456 pp.

62.  Kneese,  Allen V. and Blair T. Bower,  Environmental Quality
          Analysis, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore,  1972.

63.  Kneese,  Allen V. and Blair T. Bower,  Managing Water  Quality:
          Economics, Technology, Institutions, Re sources for the
          Future, Inc., John Hopkins Press, Baltimore,  1968.

64.  Kneese,  Allen V. and Stephen C.  Smith, "The Social  Value of Water
          Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in
          Water  Quality:  The Delaware Estuary, " by Davidson,  Paul,
          F.  Gerard Adams  and Joseph Seneca, from Water  Research
          Resources for the  Future, Inc., 1965.

65.  Kontogiannis,  John E. and Craig J.  Barnett, "The Effect of Oil
          Pollution on Survival of the Tidal Pool Copepod, TIGRIOPUS
          CALIFORNICUS, " Environmental  Pollution (4),  1973.

66.  Krumholz,  Louis A. , "A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas
          to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky, "
          Univ.  of Kentucky  Water Resources Institute, Research
          Report No. 43, September,  1971.

67.  Krumholz,  Louis  A.  and Stuart E. Neff, "A Preliminary Ecological
          Study of Areas  to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin  of
          Kentucky," Univ. of Kentucky, Water Resources Institute,
          Research Report No.  48, October, 1971.

                                61

-------
68.  "Lake Erie, Dying But Not Dead, " Environmental Science and
          Technology, Vol.  1, 1967.

69.  Larson, T. E. ,  "Municipal and Home Water Softening," Jour. Am.
          Water Works Assoc.,  June,  1953.

70.  Lee, Roger D. ,  James M.  Symons,  and Gordon G. Robeck, "Water-
          shed Human Use Level and Water Quality," Jour. Am. Water
          Works Assoc., 62, 1970.

71.  Leopold, LunaB., "Landscape Esthetics, " Natural History,
          Oct., 1969.

72.  Lerner, Lionel J.,  "Quantitative Indices of Recreational Values, "
          Water Resources and Economic Development of the West:
          Economics in Outdoor Recreational Policy, Report No.  11,
          Conference Proceedings of the Committee on the Economics
          of Water Resources Development of the Western Agricultural
          Economics Research Council, jointly with the Western Farm
          Economics Association,  pp.  55-80, University of Nevada,
          Reno, 1962.

73.  Limitations on Recreational Use of Water Resources,  Chapter Two,
          ORRR, Report #10.

74.  Lot,  George O. G., and John C. Ward,  "Economics of Thermal
          Pollution Control, " Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed. ,
          December, 1970.

75.  Long, Wesley, H. , "A Sample Design for Investigating the Effects
          of Stream Pollution on Water Based Recreation Expenditures, "
          Water  Resources Bull.,  Vol. 4, N. 3,  pp.  19-26, Sept.  1968.

76.  Lund, Herbert F. , Industrial Pollution Control Handbook,  McGraw-
          Hill Book Company.

77.  Lyon, Walter A. , "Water and Health-Are We Concerned Enough? "
          Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering Division, October,  1970.

78.  Mackenthun, Kenneth M. , and William Marcus Ingram, Biological
          Associated Problems  in Freshwater Environments, Their
          Identification,  Investigation and Control,  U.S. Dept.  of
          Interior,  Fed. Water  Pollution Control Admin.,  1967.
                                62

-------
79.  Matson, Jack V. ,  "Cost of Industrial and Municipal Water Pollution
          Abatement in the Maumee River Basin, " MS Thesis, University
          of Toledo, January 1968.

80.  McCarty,  P. L.,  et al. , "Nutrient-Associated Problems in Water
          Quality and Treatment, " Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc.,
          Vol. 58, 1966.

81.  McClellan, Grant  S. , Protecting Our Environment,  The H. W. Wilson
          Company, New York,  1971, Vol. 42, No.  1.

82.  Metcalf &  Eddy Engineers,  The Economic Value of Water Quality,
          Report to the Office of Saline  Water, U.S. Dept. of Int. ,
          March, 1967.

83.  Munson, K.  F. , "Opinions of Providers and Users about Site
          Quality for Water-Oriented Recreation on Eight Small Lakes
          in Arkansas,"  Ph.D. Dissertation,  University of Illinois,
          Jan. 1968.

84.  Myles, George A.  , "Effect  of Quality Factors on Water Based
          Recreation in Western Nevada, " Desert Research Institute,
          No.  3E,  Progress Report Series,  Center for Water Resources
          Research (Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture Report
          Series  B 16), Reno, February, 1970.

85.  Nemerow, Nelson  L. and Hisashi Sumitomo,  Benefits of Water
          Quality Enhancement,  (Onondago Lake), Water Pollution
          Control Research Series, 16110 DAJ 12/70.

86.  Nighswonger,  James J. , "A Methodology for  Inventorying and
          Evaluating the Scenic Quality  and Related Recreational Value
          of Kansas Streams," (Includes Four Selected Streams),  State
          of Kansas, Dept. Econ. Devel. , Outdoor Recreation Planning
          for Kansas, Report No.  32, March, 1970.

87.  Nordell, Eskel, Water Treatment for Industrial and Other Uses,
          Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1961.

88.  O'Connor, Donald  J. , John P. St. John,  and Dominic M.  DiToro,
          "Water  Quality Analysis of the Delaware River Estuary, "
          Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering Division, December, 1968.

89.  "Oil Pollution of the  Sea," The Ecologist, Vol. 2, No. 3, March,  1972.


                                63

-------
 90.  Olson, H. M., "Benefits and Savings from Softened Water for
           Municipal Supply, " Jour, of the Am.  Water Works Assoc. ,
           April, 1939, Vol. 31, No. 4.

 91.  Olson, Theodore A., Fredrick J. Burgess, Pollution and Marine
           Ecology, Interscience Publishers, 1967.

 92.  Packer, Randall K.  and William A.  Dunson, "Effects of Low Environ-
           mental pH on Blood pH and Sodium Balance of Brook Trout, "
           Jour. Exp.  Zool., 174,  65,  1970.

 93.  Patterson, W. L.  and R.  F. Banker, "Effects of Highly Mineralized
           Water on Household Plumbing and Appliances, " Jour.- Am.
           Water Works Assoc. , Sept.  1968.

 94.  Peterson, James O. , et al. , "Eutrophication Control: Nutrient
           Inactivation by Chemical Precipitation at Horseshoe Lake, Wisconsin,"
           Tech.  Bulletin No. 62, Dept. of Natural Resources,  Madison,  1973.

 95.  Pfischner, F. L. , Jr., "Relation Between Land Use and Chemical
           Characteristics of Lakes in Southwestern Orange County,
           Florida," Geological Survey Research,  1968.

 96.  Presnell,  Maynard W. and John J. Miescier, "Coliforms  and Fecal
           Coliforms in an Oyster-Growing Area, " Jour. Water Pollution
           Control Fed., March, 1971, Vol. 43, No. 3, Part 1.

 97.  Price,  FredC., et al. , Mc-Graw-Hill's  1972 Report on Business  and
           the Environment,  McGraw-Hill Publications Co., New York.

 98.  Randall, Allan D. , "Movement of Bacteria  from a River to a
           Municipal Well—A Case History," Jour.  Am.  Water Works
           Assoc., November,  1970.

 99.  Reiling, S. D. , et al.,  "Economic Benefits from an Improvement in
           Water Quality, " Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S.  EPA,
           EPA-R5-73-008, January,  1973.

100.  Reservoir Release Research Project, SFI Bulletin,  Published by the
           Sport Fishing Institute, "The Quality of Fishing Reflects the
           Quality of Living, " No. 243,  April,  1973.

101.  Romm, Jeff,  "The Value of Reservoir Recreation, " Cornell Univ.
           Water Resources and Marine Sciences Center, New York,
           Technical Report No. 19, A.E. Res. 296,  August, 1969.

                                 64

-------
102.  Schenker, Eric, "Impact of the Port of Green Bay on the Economy
          of the Community, '.' University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Pro-
          gram,  Tech. Report 16, November,  1972.

103.  Seckler,  David W. and L. M.  Hartman,  "The Methodology of
          Economics in Public Outdoor Recreation Research, " (Source
          Unknown).

104.  Smith, J. E.,  '"Torrey Canyon' Pollution and Marine Life",
          Cambridge University Press,  1968.

105.  Smith, L. L. and D. M.  Oseid,  "Effects  of Hydrogen Sulfide on
          Fish Eggs and Fry," Water Research,  Pergamon Press, 1972,
          Vol.  6,  pp.  711-720,  Printed in Great Britain.

106.  Snyder,  George R. and Theodore H. Blahm, "Effects of Increased
          Temperature on Cold-Water Organisms,"  Jour.  Water Pol-
          lution Control Fed. ,  (43), 1971.

107.  Spaulding, Willard M. , Jr.  and Ronald D. Ogden, "Effects of Surface
          Mining on the Fish and Wildlife Resources of the United States, "
          Bureau of Sport  Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. of the
          Interior, Aug. 28, 1968.

108.  Special Advisory Committee on Water  Pollution,  "Report on Water
          Pollution," National  Resources Committee,  Water Resources
          Section, July, 1935.

109.  Sprague,  J.  B., "Measurement of Pollutant Toxicity to Fish," Water
          Research,  Pergamon Press, 1969, Vol. 3.

110.  Sprague,  J.  B., "Measurement of Pollutant Toxicity to Fish-Ill, "
          Water Research, Pergamon Press,  1971,  Vol. 5.

111.  Sprague,  J.  B.  and D.  W. McLeese,  "Different Toxic Mechanisms
          in Kraft Pulp Mill Effluent for Two Aquatic Animals, " Water
          Research,  Pergamon Press, 1968, Vol. 2.

112.  Sprague,  J.  B., and D. W.  McLeese,  "Toxicity  of Kraft  Pulp Mill
          Effluent for Larval and Adult Lobsters, and  Juvenile Salmon,"
          Water Research, Pergamon Press,  1968,  Vol. 2.

1.13.  Stanley,  Maxwell C., "Economics  of Water  Softening, " Jour.  Am.
          Water Works Assoc. , Vol. 28, No. 4.
                              65

-------
 114.  Stevens, Joe B. , "Recreation Benefits from Water Pollution
          Control,"  Water Resources Research 2:-l67-182,  Second
          Quarter,  1966.

 115.  Stoevener, Herbert H. ,  et al., Multi-Disciplinary Study of Water
          Quality Relationships: A  Case Study of Yaquina Bay, Oregon,
          Oregon State University, Special Report 348,  Feb. 1972.

 116.  Stone, Ralph,  William Garber, and Helen Frieland, "Water Quality:
          Cost Benefits of Irreducibles, " Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering
          Division,  June, 1970.

 117.  Storey, E. H. and Ditton,  R. B.,  Water Quality Requirements for
          Recreation, Water Resources Symp.  No. 3, April,  1969,
          Univ. of Texas Press,  Austin, 57,  1970.

 118.  Subcommittee on Environmental Improvement,  Committee on
          Chemistry and Public Affairs, Cleaning Our Environment
          The Chemical Basis for Action,  American Chemical Society,
          Washington, D. C., 1969.

 119.  Tarzwell, Clarence M. , "Thermal Requirements to Protect Aquatic
          Life," Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed., May,  1970, Vol. 42,
          No. 5, Part 1.

 120.  Technical Advisory Committee on Water Resources, Water for
          Illinois, A Plan for Action, 1967.

 121.  Todd, David Keith,  The Water Encyclopedia, Water Information
          Center, Water Research  Building, Manhasset  Isle, Port
          Washington, N.  Y. ,  1970.

 122.  Vickery, Tom Rusk, ed. , Man and His Environment: The Effects
          of Pollution on Man^ Syracuse University Press,  Syracuse,
          New York,  1972.

123.  Water Quality and Recreation in Ohio, Proceedings, Second Annual
          Symposium on Water Resources Research, State of Ohio,
          Water Resources Center, Ohio State Univ., June 15-16, 1966.

124.  Whipple, William Jr.,  Economic Considerations Relative to Water
          Quality, " N. J. Water Resources Research Institute Report,
          Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick,  N. J.
                                66

-------
125.  Whiteley, Virgil and Bill B.  Dendy, "Conceptual Problems in
          Water-Quality Economics, " Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering
          Division, Oct. 1968.

126.  Willeke, G. , "Effects of Water Pollution in San Francisco Bay, "
          Ph.D. Dissertation,  Stanford University, 1969.

127.  Winton, E. F. , R. G. Tardiff,  and L. J. McCabe, "Nitrate in
          Drinking Water, " Jour,  of Am. Water  Works   Assoc. ,
          63, 95, 1971.

128,  Winton, Elliott F. , "Studies  Relating to Water Mineralization and
          Health," Jour. Am. Water  Works Assoc.,  63, 26,  1971.

129.  Wright, James F. , "Water Resources of the  Delaware River
          Estuary," Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc., Vol. 58, No.  7,
          1966.

130.  Zajic,  J. E. ,  Water Pollution Disposa^ and Reuse, Vol.L,
          University of  Western Ontario, London,  Ontario, Canada
          Marcel Dekker, Inc., New  York,  1971.

131.  Zitko,  V.,  "Determination of Residual Fuel Oil Contamination of
          Aquatic Animals, " Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
          and Toxicology, Vol. 5,  No. 6, 1971.

(See Addendum, page 82 for  additional references. )
                                  67

-------
                           SEC TION VII

                           APPENDICES
Two brief appendices have been included in this section.  The first is
concerned with further documentation of recreational and ecological
damages and the second is concerned with undesirable human and
natural environmental qualities.

A.   Appendix A -- Damage Documentation

Appendix A  includes additional documentation of water quality associated
damages and critical damage levels or thresholds.  These are primarily
related to recreational and esthetic water quality consideration but also
includes selected production damages such as reduced commercial fish
catches. These damages are also cross referenced in Exhibit II-2 in the
text and identified separately as attachments.
                               68

-------
ATTACHMENT A-    Reference 76


Lund,  Herbert F. ,  Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
                  Maximum Recommended Temperatures for
          Development of Various Fishes
            Max
          temp, °F
 Spawning and/or egg development
                                         Growth
             48

             55
             68
             75
             80
             84
             90
             93
Lake trout, walleye, northern pike,
 Atlantic salmon
Salmon, trout
Perch, smallniouth bass
Largemouth and other bass
Catfish,  shad
Salmon, trout
                              Pike, perch, smullmouth bass, walleye
                              Largemouth bass, blucgill, crnppie
                              Catfish, gnr, other bass, shad
                                           69

-------
ATTACHMENT B  - Reference 33

Detwyler,  Thomas R. ,  Man's  Impact  on Environment,  University  of Michigan,
                                McGraw-Hill  Book Co. ,  1971
                      Catch of major species and total commercial catch (thousands of pounds) per year in Lake Michigan for various periods.
Period
1898-1909
5910-1919
1920-1929
1930-1934
1935-1939
1940-1944
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
19(1(1
19ol
1962
196.!
1964
1965
1966

Lake
trout
7,225
6.763
7.001
5.342
5.038
6.579
2,675
14
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1

Lake
herring
16,977
8.642
4. 015
4,985
4,621
1.830
6,044
8.000
3,639
233
177
116
41
34
47
49
Native
Suckers
1.810
4.035
2.117
2,258
2.280
2,125
1.901
882
652
767
494
263
299
215
168
402
species
Whitefish
2.715
1.670
2.111
3,730
1,201
1,351
3.756
1,436
105
124
412
278
298
788
995
1.422
Total major species

Chubs
2.061
3,525
2.902
4.387
5.295
1,971
5.435
10.482
9,947
12,695
12,133
11,115
7,460
5,172
7.441
7.228

Yellow
perch
3.866
2.411
1.537
1.199
2,406
2,729
1,446
1.963
3,055
3,285
4.959
4.050
4,872
5.835
1,297
654
New species
Carp*
261
247
679
769
1,605
1.702
1.319
1.170
1,785
1.416
1.842
1.206
1.277
1.320
2.016
2.713
Sme!tb
_
-
-
425
1.462
2.913
765
4.384
6,983
3,267
2,152
1.546
1.203
969
927
1,110
Alewife"
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
568
2.370
3.199
4.742
5.396
11.744
14.007
29.002
Percentage
of total Other
Pounds catch species
34.915
27.293
20.362
23.075
23,908
21.200
23.324
28,334
26.735
24.158
25,370
23,317
20.795
26,080
26,900
42,580
_
-
_
98.0
98.7
97.8
95.6
97.1
97.8
99.4
99.3
99.3
98.9
99.5
99.7
99.8
-. d
_ d
- d
465
312
474
1.066
848
592
153
189
158
226
121
94
97
Total
catch
35 . 149
27.059
20,477
23.540
24.220
21.674
24.407
29.182
27,327
24.311
25.559
23.475
21.021
26.201
26.994
42,677
           " Introduced in the late 1800's.
           '' Introduced into Crystal Luke tributary lu Lake Michigan in 1912.
           " Invaded the upper Great Lakes via the Wclland Canal and was first reported in Lake Michigan in 1949.
           d Data incomplete.

-------
ATTACHMENT B    (continued)
                              Production of lake trout, chubs, and  alewives, and estimated pounds of fish destroyed
                 by spawning run sea lampreys in Lake Michigan in 1935-66.
Year

1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
196(1
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
Lake trout

4,873
4.763
4,988
4.906
5,660
6.266
6,787
6.484
6.860
6.498
5,437
3.974
2,425
1.197
342
54
11
4
b
b
b
0
0
0
b
b
ll
1,
26
b
b
b

Gillnet
(Thousands
5,794
5.674
5.579
5.404
4.025
1.648
1.630
1.755
2.214
2.607
4,221-
4.525
5.087
5.929
7.421
9,291
10,301
11,098
11.151
10,568
10,895
10,913
10,546
9,583
6.392
5,530
5,915
6,346
4,050
3,381
6,857
6.990
Chubs
Trawl
of pounds
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
t ,404
7.129
6.218
4.769
3.410
1.791
583
238

Total
of fish)
5,794
5.674
5.579 ,
5,404 '
4.025
1.648
1,630
1.755
2.214
2.607
4.221
4.525
5.087
5,929
7.421
9.291
10.301
11.098
11.151
10.568
10,895
10.913
10.546
9.583
7.796
12,695
12.133
11,115
7.460
5.172
7.440
7.228
Alewife

-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_.
_
-
_
_
_

220
1,357
1,264
2,370
3 , 199
4.742
5.396
11.744
14,007
29.002
Fish
destroyed
by sea
lamprey*

-
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
-
116
554
919
1,467
5,046
11,744
3,068
8,591
6,762
5,576
5,275
5,622
2,711
2,313
1.782
3.452
2,167
1,999
1,230
877
313
                   * Based upon a proportional expansion of (he abundance index (Table 44.2) to reflect the sea lamprey count in
                  1958 when the maximum number of streams were  blocked with counting barriers (Great  Lakes Fishery Commiv
                 sion, 1958) which was doubled on  the assumption  that one-half of the spawning streams were blocked, and thai
                 each lamprey killed 37 Ib offish to reach maturity (Packer and Lcnnon, 1956).
                   " Less than  500 Ib. Most lake trout caught since  1953 were hatchery-reared fish planted  to measure survival and
                 planting techniques.
                                                       71

-------
ATTACHMENT C - Reference 107
                                                                "Effects of  Surface
Spaulding,  Willard M. ,  Jr. and Ronald D.  Ogden,
Mining on the  Fish and Wildlife Resources of the United States," Bureau
of Sport  Fisheries  and Wildlife,  U.S.  Dept.  of the Interior,  Aug.  28,  1968.
             Estimated annual  fishing and hunting benefits from  reclamation of- surface-mined areas,  by
                                             census regions

  (Values calculated from average present-day fishing and hunting use figures evaluated on basis of the Interim Schedule of Values Issued May 24. 1960, and
            Supplement 1, Evaluation Standards for Primary Outdoor Recreation Benefits, Ad Hoc Water Resources Council, June 4,1964]
         Census region
                                   Present use
                                                     Use with basic reclamation     Use with full development
                             Man-days
                                           Value
Man-days
Value
Man-days
       Toul.
                                                                                            Value
New England 	
Middle Atlantic 	
South Atlantic 	
East North Central 	
East South Central 	
West North Central 	
West South Central 	
Mountain 	
Pacific 	
82, 500
55, 600
180,600
297, 200
327, 200
1,204,500
5, 183, 000
1 10, 800
67, 900
$186,000
157,000
325,000
733,000
425,000
2, 165,000
5, 309, 000
292,000
201,000
302, 500
2,218,600
2, 686, 600
1,842,200
3, 723, 200
5,410,500
22,521,000
959, 800
504,900
$712,000
6, 329, 000
4, 253, 000
4, 097, 000
4,501,000
9,417,000
24, 296, 000
2,731,000
1,503,000
601, 500
9, 882, 600
6, 828, 600
4, 767, 200
7, 069, 200
7, 111,500
27, 157, 000
3, 111,800
1,833,900
51,365,000
23,873,000
9, 932, 000
9, 799, 000
8, 474, 000
12,089,000
30,901,000
7,791,000
4, 572, 000
                              7, 509, 300     9, 793,000   40, 169, 300    57, 839, 000    68, 363, 300   108, 796, 000
                                            72

-------
ATTACHEMENT D - Reference  16


Ciccio, Leonard L. ,  Water and Water Pollution.Handbook, Marcel Dekker,
Inc.,  New  York,  Vols.  I,  II,  III,  IV,  1973.
                        Threshold Concentrations of Various
                        Substances that Taint Fish Flesh"

                        Compound        Concentration, mg/liter

                        p-Quinone               0.5
                        p-Toluidine             20.0
                        Pyridine                5.0
                        Quinoline               0.5-0.1
                        Naphthalene             1.0
                        a-Naphthol              0.5
                        0-Naphthol              1.0
                        o-Naphihylamine          3.0
                        Xylenol                 1.0-5.0
                        Pyrocatecho)             2.5
                        Resorcinol              30.0
                        Pyrogallol              20.0-30.0
                        Phloroglucinol           10.0

                          "From Ref. 68, by courtesy of Academic
                        Verlag, Berlin.
                                           73

-------
ATTACHMENT E  - Reference 61
Klein, L. , River Pollution,  Vol 2:  Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
London,  1962,  456pp.
                      Concentrations of phenols and other organic compounds present
                 in coal carbonization effluents having adverse effects on taste of fish

Compound

Phenol .
Crcsols .
Coke oven wastes .
Phenols in polluted!
river . . ./
I:3:4-xylcnol
l:3:5-xylcnol
l:2:4-xylcnol
Pyrocatechol
Rcsorcinol
p-toluidine
Pyridine
Quinoline
Naphthalene
a-naphthol
|9-naphthol
a-naphthylamine

Fish
tested

trout, carp
trout, carp
freshwater fish
minnows
carp
rudd
rudd
carp
carp
rudd
carp, rudd
carp
rudd
rudd
carp, rudd
rudd

Toxicity to fish
(threshold value)
p.p.m.

9-5
10-15
3-5
0-08
10
18
5
15
35
50
160-200
10
—
2
2
6
Approximate
concentration (thres-
hold value) at ivhick
Jishjlesh is tainted
p.p.m.
25
10
0-02-0-1
0-02-0-15
5
1
1
2-5
30
20
5
0-5-1
1
0-5
1
3
                                       74

-------
ATTACHMENT F - Reference  115


Stoevener, Herbert H. , et al. ,  Multi-DiscipliD.ary Study of Water
Quality Relationships: A Case Study of
Yaquina Bay, Oregon, Oregon
State University, Special Report 348, Feb., 1972.
Percent Survival of Species in Various Concentrations of
KME, and Median Tolerance Limits of KME for Each Species
Species
White
Seaperch
(N - 18)

Striped
Seaperch
(N = 10)
Starry
Flounder
(N » 18)
English
Sole
(N = 20)
Kelp
Greenling
(N » 10)

Time
(hrs)

48
96

48
96
48
96
48
96
48
96

Percent Concentration
of KME
6.0

94
83
4^0
100
100
5.0
100
94
5.0
100
100
8.0
80
80

9.4

100
72
6.0,
90
80
10.0
94
67
10.0
95
35
12.0
90
70

14.0

61
0
.9.0.
90
60
20.0
72
6
20.0
45
0
17.0
80
40

21.0

39
0
13.0
100
0
30.0
30
0
30.0
0
0
24.0
70
0
30.0
32.0

0
0
20.0
20
0
40.0 50.0
0 0
0 0
40.0 50.0
0 0
0 0
35.0
40
0
40.0 50.0
TL
m
(% KME)

17.0
10.6

17.3
9.6
25.0
12.2
18.7
8.5
31.0
15.2

Control

100
100

100
80
94
94
100
100
100
100

    Dungeness
    Crabs      48                       100    100    100      —        88

    (N - 17
     small)    96                       100    100     94      —        82
                                 75

-------
ATTACHMENT G - Reference  61

Klein,  L. , River Pollution, Vol. 2:  Cures and Effects,  Butterworth,
      London,  1962, 456 pp.
                              RIVER POLLUTION

                           to fi^h of some common inorganic gases in aqueous solution

Cos

Hydrogen sulphide (sulphuretted hydrogen)*.
Chlorinef .......
Ozone .......
?hosphinc .......

Formula

H2S
C12
03
PHj
Approximate
toxic concentration
to fish
p.p.m.
0-5-1-0
0-05-0-2
0-1-1-0
about 3-6
                                  76

-------
ATTACHMENT H  -  Reference 61


Klein, L. ,  River Pollution, Vol 2:  Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
       London,  1962, 456  pp.
                            Concentrations of phenols and other organic compounds present
                       in coal carboniEalion effluents having advei-sc effects on taste offish


Compound

Phenol .
Crcsols .
Coke oven wastes -
Phenols in polluted^
river . . ./
I:3:4-xylcnol
l:3:5-xylcnol
l:2:4-xylcnol
Pyrocatechol .
Rcsorcinol
/Moluidinc
1'yridinc
Quinoline
Naphthalene .
«-naphthol
;S-naphthol
a-naphthylaminc

JT.'rA
risn
tested

trout, carp
trout, carp
freshwater fish
minnows

carp
rudd
rudd
carp
carp
rudd
carp, rudd
carp
rudd
rudd
carp, rudd
rudd

Toxicity tojish
(threshold value)
p.p.m.

9-5
10-15
3-5
0-08

10
18
5
15
35
50
160-200
10
—
2
2
6
Approximate
concentration (litres-
hold value) at which
Jishjlesh is tainted
p.p.m.
25
10
0-02-0-1
0-02-0-15

5
1
1
2-5
30
20
5
0-5-1
1
0-5
1
3
                                       77

-------
ATTACHMENT I  - Reference 61
Klein, L., River Pollution,  Vol.  2:  Cures and Effects,  Butterworth,

             London,  1962,  456 pp.



                     Relation between thickness of oil film on water, appearance and
                              amount of oil present"
Approximate thickness
of oil film
(decimals of an inch)
0-0000015
0 '0000030
0-0000060
0-0000120
0-OOOMOO
0-0000800
Appearance of oil on surface
of water
Barely visible
Visible as silvery sheen
First traces of colour
Bright bands of colour
Colours begin to turn dull
Colours much darker
Approximate amount of oil
for film I sq. mile in area
(Imperial gallons)
21
42
83
J67
555
1,110
                                      78

-------
B.   Appendix B -- Undesirable Esthetic Qualities

Appendix B includes a variety of esthetic considerations that have been
shown to be undesirable by recreational and nonrecreational users.
This list contains  many factors that are not directly related to water
quality but have been shown to be  important esthetic considerations in
references
                                79

-------
         SELECTED UNDESIRABLE ESTHETIC QUALITIES
Water clarity in swimming area
Algae, weeds, and plant growth
Litter and trash in water
Cleanliness compared with past years
Quality of lake for recreation
Fishing compared with past years

Odors evident from burning garbage or trash
Odors evident from improper handling of sewage
Community cleanliness: evidence of litter and trash
Evidence of sewage disposal problem
Evidence of trash disposal problem

General community attractiveness
Attractiveness of  homes
Quality of home construction
Maintenance level of homes
Landscaping between homes
Layout of streets  and lots
Si ze  of home lots
Spacing between homes
Size of homes

Traffic and congestion
Deterioration of natural beauty
Crowded conditions for water recreation
Noise from activities of people

Restrictions on use of pesticides
Restrictions on use of detergents
Further muffling  of outboard motors
Limit on total number of seasonal homes
Restricted areas  for trail bikes ,  etc.
Restricted zones  for water skiing
Off limit areas  for automobiles
Restricted-zones  for motor boating
Restricted time periods for water skiing
Restricted time period for motor boating
Restrictions on architectural design

Source number:   7, 27  and 126
                                  80

-------
         SELECTED  UNDESIRABLE ESTHETIC QUALITIES
Too cluttered with buildings
Unesthetic
Skyline destroys view
Not good to look, at
Signs
Cars too close to Bay
Tract houses
Signs

Salt flats
Swamps
Mud flats
Water too shallow
Too cold
Too rough

Not good for water skiing, fishing, swimming, sailing
Beaches inaccessible
Beaches unmanaged
Need more recreation areas

Fog
Smog
Humidity
Dampness
Windy

Port facilities antiquated
Industries dirty looking
Shoreline too  industrialized
Too much Traffic
Freeways near Bay

Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Temperature
Toxic it y
Acidity
Alkalinity

Source number: 7, 27 and 126
                                81

-------
                             ADDENDUM
Several important references have been inadvertently omitted from the
bibliography and the text of the report.  These references are as follows:

Dornbusch,  David M.  & Co. ,  Inc. ,  Benefit of Water Pollution Control
       on Property Values, San Francisco,  California, 1973.

Scaiola,  G. , "Public Intervention Against Pollution: Estimates of the
       Economic Costs and Benefits Related to a Project for Eliminating
       the Principal  Forms of Atmospheric and Water Pollution in Italy, "
       Rapportio di Sintesi, pp.  137-173, June 1971.

Tihansky, Dennis  P. , "Economic Damages from  Residential Use of
       Mineralized Water Supply," Water Resources Research, 10,
       (4) pp.  145-154.

The first of the above references,  i. e. , Dornbusch and Co. , is the only
property value study that includes estimates of national property value
benefits accruing from water  quality enhancement.   This reference 'should
be included in the  bibliography and in Section IV of the report.

The last reference, i.e.,  Tihansky, provides estimates of the economic
damages from  residential  use of mineralized water.  This  important
reference should be included  in Section VI of the  text and the bibliography.

At the present  time DPRA has not had the opportunity to review the
work  by Scaiola.  Various reviewers have, however, studied the article
and recommended that it be included in the bibliography.
                                   82

-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS

INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
                    W
         Estimating Water Quality Benefits
          David L. Jordening, Development Planning and
  Research Associates,  Inc., Manhattan, Kansas
                                                                     21-AQJ-05
                                                                     68-01-0744
  Environmental  Protection Agency report  number,  EPA-600/5-7^-OlU, August
       The objective of this report is to present a state of the arts summary concerning
  estimating water quality associated benefits.  This summary is viewed as a useful
  administrative tool to those that have been assigned the task of directing current
  and future research activity.

       Insofar as possible, this summary is presented by specific pollutants by beneficia
  use, devoting special attention to hypothesized and documented use-quality relationship
  A discussion of the economic quantification of these relationships is also included.
  The beneficial uses considered include recreation, esthetics, property values and
  ecology with only limited attention devoted to water quality associated health and
  production impacts.  Specific references and methodologies are discussed with the
  ultimate objective of providing a state of the arts assessment by beneficial  use.
  This assessment was also useful in deriving conclusions concerning research priorities
  and possible results of future water quality related research.
  *Economic analysis, water quality, cost-benefit analysis, *benefit assessment,
  *literature search
                                                     Send To:


                                                     WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
                                                     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                                                     WASHINGTON. DX. 2O24O
           Dennis P.  Tihansky
U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency

-------
         FD 674
      UNITED STATES
            PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
      Official Business
                                                                                  PO*TME AND FVK* PAID
                                                                             ENVIRONMENTAL PMOTSCTION AOCNCT

                                                                                       EPA-33S
                                                                         SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE
                                                                                       BOOK
                                    If your addreu b incorrect, pkaie change on the above label;
                                    tear off; and return to the above addrcw.
                                    If you do not deiire to continue receiving thfa technkal report
                                    MTkt, CHECK HERE Q ; tear off label, and return it to the
                                    above addreu.


-------