EPA/625/R-08/001F
April 2010
A Framework Incorporating Community
Preferences in Use Attainment and
Related Water Quality Decision-Making
National Center for Environmental Assessment
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through its Office of Research and
Development funded and managed the research described here under contract no.
GS-10F-0283K. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has
been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial
products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Preferred citation:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). (2010) A Framework Incorporating Community Preferences in
Use Attainment and Related Water Quality Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National
Center for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/625/R-08/001F.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
LIST 01 ABBREVIATIONS xii
PREFACE xiv
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xvii
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. THE PURPO SE AND ROLE OF THIS REPORT 1-1
1.2. REFERENCES 1-13
2. UNDERSTANDING THE GROUND RULES: AN INTRODUCTION TO
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES,
AM) AM'IDEGRADATION REVIEWS 2-1
2.1. CLEAN WATER ACT GOALS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 2-1
2.1.1. What are Water Quality Standards? 2-2
2.1.2. Designated Uses 2-2
2.1.3. Water Quality Criteria 2-3
2.1.4. Antidegradation Policy 2-5
2.1.5. General Provisions 2-5
2.1.6. Review and Revision 2-5
2.2. CONDUCT OF USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES AND
AM IDlXiRADA I ION REVIEWS 2-6
2.2.1. Economics in Use Attainability Analysis 2-7
2.2.2. Economics in Anti degradation Reviews 2-8
2.2.3. Evaluating Substantial Impacts or Costs Sufficient to Interfere
with Development 2-8
2.2.3.1. Measures for Private-Sector Entities 2-9
2.2.3.2. Measures for Public-Sector Entities 2-9
2.2.4. Determining if Impacts are Widespread 2-10
2.2.5. Differences in Application for Anti degradation Reviews 2-11
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.
Page
2.3. OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON ECONOMIC ANALYSES AND USE
ATTAINMENT DECISIONS 2-12
2.4. EXAMPLES OF EXISTING USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES AND
ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEWS USING ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS 2-15
2.5. LESSON 2-19
2.6. REFERENCES 2-19
3. UNDERSTANDING THE CHOICES: RELATING WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DECISIONS TO CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEMS,
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS 3-1
3.1. IDENTIFYING IMPAIRMENTS AND THEIR CAUSES 3-2
3.1.1. Impairments 3-4
3.1.1.1. Types of Impairments 3-4
3.1.1.2. Indicators of Impairments 3-5
3.1.1.3. Stressors that Lead to Impairments 3-6
3.1.2. Understanding Stressor Identification 3-7
3.1.2.1. Analyzing the Evidence 3-7
3.1.2.2. Characterizing Causes 3-8
3.1.3. Understanding Ecological Risks 3-8
3.1.3.1. Defining Assessment Endpoints for Aquatic Ecosystems 3-8
3.1.3.2. Understanding Key Concepts in ERA Conceptual Model
Development 3-9
3.1.3.3. Characterizing Risks to Aquatic Ecosystems 3-10
3.2. UNDERSTANDING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND DESIGNATED
USES 3-11
3.2.1. Aquatic Ecosystem Services 3-12
3.2.2. Relating Aquatic Ecosystem Services to Designated Uses 3-28
3.3. ASSESSMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC ENDPOINTS AFFECTED BY
USE ATTAINMENT DECISIONS 3-31
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.
Page
3.4. MAPPING THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROBLEM:
DEVELOPING CONCEPTUAL MODELS 3-34
3.4.1. General Framework for the Expanded Conceptual Model s 3-34
3.4.2. Stages for Developing Expanded Conceptual Diagrams 3-36
3.4.3. Case Study Examples of the Expanded Conceptual Models 3-39
3.4.3.1. Case Study 1: Acid Mine Drainage 3-41
3.4.3.2. Case Study 2: Hypothetical Combined Sewer Overflow 3-48
3.4.3.3. Case Study 3: Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an
Intermittent Stream 3-54
3.4.3.4. Case Study 4: Anti degradation Review of Proposed
Retail Development Complex 3-60
3.4.3.5. Case Study 5: Management of an Effluent-Dominated
Stream 3-63
3.5. REFERENCES 3-67
4. UNDERSTANDING THE TOOLS: A SUMMARY OF METHODS FOR
CHARACTERIZING THE GAINS AND LOSSES 4-1
4.1. APPLYING SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS TO THE DECISION-
MAKING PROCESS I OR WQS 4-2
4.1.1. Sociocultural Methods 4-4
4.1.1.1. Deliberative Sociocultural Methods 4-4
4.1.1.2. Analytic Sociocultural Methods 4-7
4.1.1.3. Integrated Analytic-Deliberative Sociocultural Methods 4-7
4.1.2. Economic Methods for Assessing Preferences and Socioeconomic
Impacts 4-8
4.1.2.1. Preference Elicitation (Stated Preference) Methods 4-13
4.1.2.2. Preference Revelation (Revealed Preference) Methods 4-14
4.1.2.3. Other Economic Assessment Methods 4-14
4.2. DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES FOR SOCIOCULTURAL AND
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS 4-16
4.2.1. Primary Data Collection 4-16
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.
Page
4.2.1.1. Individual Interviews 4-16
4.2.1.2. Surveys 4-17
4.2.1.3. Group Deliberations 4-18
4.2.1.4. Observation 4-18
4.2.2. Secondary Data Collection 4-18
4.3. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS 4-19
4.4. MENTAL MODEL APPROACHES 4-24
4.5. PUBLIC MEETINGS 4-26
4.6. DELPHI METHOD 4-27
4.7. Ml I.TIATTRIBLTi: TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS (MATA) 4-28
4.8. MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING (MCDM) 4-30
4.9. FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS 4-32
4.10. ADVISORY COMMITTEES 4-34
4.11. VALUE JURIES 4-35
4.12. OPINION AND ATTITUDINAL SURVEYS 4-36
4.13. REFERENDA 4-38
4.14. AFFECTIVE IMAGES 4-40
4.15. NARRATIVE 4-41
4.16. DAMAGE SCHEDULES 4-43
4.17. CONTINGENT VALUATION (CV) 4-44
4.18. CONJOINT ANALYSIS 4-46
4.19. HEDONIC PROPERTY VALUE 4-48
4.20. RECREATION DEMAND 4-50
4.21. AVERTING BEHAVIOR 4-52
4.22. MARKET MODELS 4-54
4.23. REPLACEMENT/RESTORATION COST 4-55
4.24. BENEFIT TRANSFER 4-56
4.25. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS 4-58
4.26. REFERENCES 4-60
5. WORKING THE PROCESS: BUILDING AN APPROACH FOR
COMMUNITIES TO UNDERSTAND THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS, COSTS,
AND BENEFITS OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 5-1
5.1. FRAMING THE WQS DECISION THROUGH COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT 5-3
5.1.1. Identifying Key Stakeholders and Engaging the Community 5-4
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS cont.
Page
5.1.1.1. The AMD Case Study Example 5-4
5.1.1.2. The CSO Case Study Example 5-5
5.1.2. Identifying and Defining the Most Relevant Management Options 5-6
5.1.2.1. The AMD Case Study Example 5-6
5.1.2.2. The CSO Case Study Example 5-7
5.1.3. Developing and Refining Conceptual Models of Management
Options 5-8
5.1.3.1. The AMD Case Study Example 5-9
5.1.3.2. The CSO Case Study Example 5-16
5.2. COMPARING OPTIONS THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OF
COMMUNITY PREFERENCES AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 5-20
5.2.1. The AMD Case Study Example 5-21
5.2.2. The CSO Case Study Example 5-23
5.3. SELECTING THE MANAGEMENT OPTION 5-26
5.4. CONCLUSIONS 5-26
5.5. REFERENCES 5-27
APPENDIX A: MEASURES USED IN FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS A-l
APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES OF EXISTING USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSES AND ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW ANALYSES
USING ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS B-l
APPENDIX C: U.S. EPA/NCEA WORKSHOP—AGENDA AND PARTICIPANTS C-l
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Title Page
2-1 Examples of States' Designated Uses 2-4
2-2 Use Attainability Analysis Examples 2-16
2-3 Antidegradation Examples 2-17
3-1 Examples of Stressors and Sources that Can Cause Impairments 3-6
3-2 Aquatic Ecosystem Services: Classification and Description of Services
Supported by Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems 3-15
3-3 Aquatic Ecosystem Services 3-29
4-1 Summary of Sociocultural Methods: Key Characteristics 4-5
4-2 Summary and Comparison of Economic Assessment Methods: Key
Characteristics 4-12
4-3 Summary and Comparison of Social Science Methods: Main Data Collection
Techniques Used 4-20
4-4 Summary and Comparison of Social Science Methods: Cost/Complexity 4-22
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Title Page
ES-1 Framework for Incorporating Community Input and Preferences and
Evaluating Ecological and Socioeconomic Gains and Losses in WQS Decisions xix
ES-2 Effects of Management Options on Aquatic Ecosystem Services and Human
Weil-Being xxiii
1-1 Key CI ean Water Act El ements 1-4
1-2 Use Attainability Analysis Using Socioeconomic Factor 1-5
1-3 Use Attainability Analysis Using Human-Caused Condition Factor 1-7
1 -4 Antidegradation Review for High-Quality Waters 1-8
1-5 Watershed Planning Activities 1-9
1-6 Framework for Incorporating Community Input and Preferences and Evaluating
Ecological and Socioeconomic Gains and Losses in WQS Decisions 1-11
2-1 States and Watersheds Containing UAAs or Anti degradation Reviews that
Incorporate Economic Arguments 2-18
3-1 Relationship of Stressor Identification and Ecological Risk Assessment to the
Other Components of Use-Attainment Decisions 3-3
3-2 Services Derived from Aquatic Ecosystems 3-13
3-3 Effects of Sources/Stressors on Aquatic Ecosystem Services, Use Attainment
and Provision of Other Goods and Services 3-35
3-4 Effects of Management Options on Aquatic Ecosystem Services and Human
Weil-Being 3-37
3-5 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: Current
Conditions 3-45
3-6 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: Option 1:
Create Limestone Channel 3-46
3-7 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: Option 2:
Create Wetland Area 3-47
3-8 Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System: Current Conditions 3-51
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES cont.
No. Title Page
3-9 Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System: Option 1: Eliminate
95% of CSOs and Implement Other System Improvements 3-52
3-10 Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System: Option 2: Eliminate
75% of CSOs and Apply Limited Use Designation 3-53
3-11 Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream: Current Conditions 3-56
3-12 Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream: Option 1: Limiting
Livestock Impact with Fence and Stone Crossing 3-57
3-13 Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream: Option 2: Limiting
Livestock Impact with Fence and Bridge 3-58
3-14 Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream: Option 3: Limiting
Livestock and Crop Impact with Fence and Riparian Restoration 3-59
3-15 Antidegradation Review of Proposed Retail Development Complex Conditions
Without Retail Development 3-61
3-16 Anti degradation Review of Proposed Retail Development Complex Effects of
Retail Development 3-62
3-17 Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream: Current Conditions 3-64
3-18 Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream: Option 1: Increased Treatment
of Effluent 3-65
3-19 Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream: Option 2: Elimination of
Sources of Discharge 3-66
4-1 Incorporating Social Science Methods into WQS Decision-Making 4-3
4-2 Interrelationships Between Market, Environmental, and Household Systems and
Their Contributions to Human Welfare 4-10
5-1 Three Phases of the Decision Process Framework 5-2
5-2 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: Current
Conditions (Version 1) 5-10
5-3 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: Current
Conditions (Version 2) 5-11
x
-------
LIST OF FIGURES cont.
No. Title Page
5-4 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River Option 1:
Create Limestone Channel (Version 1) 5-12
5-5 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River Option 1:
Create Limestone Channel (Version 2) 5-13
5-6 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River Option 2:
Create Wetland Area (Version 1) 5-14
5-7 Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River Option 2:
Create Wetland Area (Version 2) 5-15
5-8 Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System: Current Conditions 5-17
5-9 Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System Option 1: Eliminate
95% of CSOs and Implement Other System Improvements 5-18
5-10 Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System Option 2: Eliminate
75% of CSOs and Apply Limited Use Designation 5-19
XI
-------
AI
AR
AWQC
BCA
BOD
BUVD
CCMP
CSO
CV
CWA
DELEP
DEP
DEQ
DO
ERA
EVRI
FERC
FIA
GEAEs
GIS
HQW
NRC
NYDEC
OWRB
POTW
ppm
SAR
SPDES
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Adaptive Implementation
Antidegradation reviews
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Benefit-cost analysis
Biochemical oxygen demand
Beneficial Use Values Database
National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
Combined sewer overflow
Contingent valuation
Clean Water Act
Delaware Estuary Program
Department of Environmental Protection
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
Dissolved oxygen
Ecological risk assessment
Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory
Federal Energy Regulation Commission
Financial impact analysis
Generic ecological assessment endpoints
Geographic information systems
High quality water
National Research Council
New York Department of Environmental Control
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
Publicly-owned treatment works
Parts per million
Santa Ana River
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Xll
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS cont.
TDS
Total dissolved solids
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
UAA
Use attainability analysis
WERF
Water Environment Research Foundation
WQS
Water quality standards
WTP
Willingness to pay
WWTP
Waste water treatment plant
Xlll
-------
PREFACE
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and tribes to adopt water
quality standards; this includes setting designated uses or goals for their water bodies. In certain
cases, use attainment decisions, such as whether or not to change the use of a water body, can be
complex because they can lead to gains and losses among health, ecological, institutional, and
economic considerations. Estimating the gains from use attainment is not required by the CWA
or Water Quality Standards regulation, but evaluating community preferences for water quality
against the costs may aid in conducting a balanced analysis. The National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) and RTI International1 have prepared this report to help
water quality officials and the public understand how the assessment of ecological benefits could
help support their decisions.
To guarantee a useful product, 20 experts were invited to a workshop held on November
14-15, 2006, in Cincinnati, OH. The objectives of the two-day workshop were to (1) critically
examine and develop recommendations for revising an earlier draft of this report (Chapters 1
through 4), (2) employ hypothetical case studies of use attainment problems to evaluate a draft
decision process and (3) hold discussions with practitioners and stakeholders to develop
recommendations for incorporating community preferences into water quality management
decisions. The report has been revised based on the comments from the workshop and it now
includes the final chapter developed from the recommendations of the workshop participants. It
will be useful for water quality officials, watershed managers, and members of stakeholder
groups who are interested in weighing the ecological effects in use attainment decisions.
1 RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
xiv
-------
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS
AUTHORS
National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. EPA. Cincinnati. OH
Matthew T. Heberling
Randall J.F. Bruins
RTI International. Research Triangle Park. NC
George Van Houtven
Steve Beaulieu
William Cooter
David Driscoll
Katherine Heller
Wanda Throneburg
Kimberly Matthews
Laurel Clayton
Decision Research. Eugene. OR
Robin Gregory
CONTRIBUTORS
Office of Water. U.S. EPA. Washington. DC
Ghulam Ali
Tim Connor
George Denning
Tom Gardner
Jim Keating
Mark Morris
INTERNAL REVIEWERS
Office of Water. U.S. EPA. Washington. DC
Joel Corona
National Center for Environmental Assessment. U.S. EPA. Washington. DC
Britta Bierwagen
John Furlow
Thomas Johnson
Office of Policy. Economics, and Innovation. U.S. EPA. Washington. DC
Charles Griffiths
Stephen Newbold
xv
-------
AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS cont.
EXTERNAL REVIEWERS
Peter L. deFur, Ph.D.
Environmental Stewardship Concepts
Richmond, VA 23238
Clifford S. Russell, Ph.D.
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, ME 04535
Noah M. Sachs, Esq.
University of Richmond School of Law
Richmond, VA 23173
xvi
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.l. INTRODUCTION
This report will assist states and authorized tribes—and the associated communities—to
understand how the assessment of ecological benefits can help to support their water quality
decisions while complying with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The report is
intended to assist water quality officials, watershed managers, members of stakeholder groups,
and other interested individuals in fully evaluating ecological and socioeconomic objectives and
the gains and losses that often are involved. Under the CWA, states and tribes adopt water
quality standards (WQS). This includes setting designated uses or goals for their water bodies.
When natural, man-made, or socioeconomic factors preclude the attainment of a designated use,
the CWA recognizes that states and tribes must do an evaluation before changes to a designated
use can be made.2 In certain cases, depending on the factor, the evaluation focuses on the costs
and impacts (i.e., losses) of achieving the designated use. However, decisions related to changing
or attaining designated uses sometimes involve both gains and losses (or benefits and costs)
among health, ecological, institutional, and socioeconomic considerations. Evaluating the gains
from continuing to attain the current designated use (rather than degrading water quality) may
aid in developing a balanced analysis. An important step in achieving this report's goal is
integrating the assessment of ecological quality with the assessment of economic considerations
so that the benefits and costs can be understood, communicated, and evaluated in the standard-
setting process. Therefore, this approach requires evaluating community preferences and
Chapter 1 outlines specific situations where this may occur.
The report incorporates methods from ecological risk assessment, stressor identification,
economics, and social science to explain how to incorporate this information into water quality
attainment decisions. Specific objectives (by chapter) are as follows:
• provide an introduction to the CWA and WQS regulation and analyses related to setting
or changing designated uses (Chapter 2)
• create a basis for understanding the relationship between use-attainment decisions and the
effects on ecosystems, ecosystem services, and ecological benefits (Chapter 3)
2 In some cases, these evaluations could establish that a higher use is attainable.
xvii
-------
• serve as a reference for methods that elicit or infer preferences for benefits and costs
related to attaining uses (Chapter 4), and
• present a process for incorporating new approaches in water quality decisions
(Chapter 5).
Chapter 1 also introduces the general decision framework for addressing WQS and use-
attainment issues (Figure ES-1). It describes a series of steps for framing the decision problem
and then comparing the advantages and disadvantages of different management options. It also
identifies the points in the process where input from the community and the assessment of
community preferences can be used to strengthen the decision process. Chapter 1 also describes
how Figure ES-1 is used as an organizing framework for this report, and it discusses how each
chapter relates to the diagram.
ES.2. UNDERSTANDING THE GROUND RULES: AN INTRODUCTION TO WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS, USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES, AND
ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEWS
Chapter 2 explains how the water quality goals and ecological integrity for a water body,
termed its designated uses, are established as part of a WQS program. It discusses the
circumstances under which designated uses or water quality goals can be changed, with a focus
on the important role of socioeconomic analyses in making better decisions.
The purpose of the WQS program is to protect public health and welfare by supporting
the objectives of the CWA, which articulates two overarching goals:
• restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's
waters.
• achieve a "fishable/swimmable" level of water quality: one that provides for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water, wherever attainable.
To comply with the provisions of the CWA, states and authorized tribes must establish
WQS for all water bodies. These standards consist of designated uses, water quality criteria to
protect those uses, and an antidegradation policy to maintain high quality waters. General
xviii
-------
DECISION STEPS INVOLVING
SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS
(Chapter 4)
1 Revise Management Options
Revise Conceptual Models
Elicit Community Input
Conduct Monitoring
Elicit Community Input
Assess Community Preferences
Set Goals & WQS
(Chapters 1 and 2)
Determine WQS Compliance
(Chapter 2)
Select Preferred Management
Option
Develop Initial Management
Options
Evaluate Gains and Losses
Between Options
Identify Stakeholders and
Engage Community
Assess Social and Economic
Impacts of Options
Identify and Assess Impairments,
Stressors & Sources
(Chapter 3)
Develop Conceptual Models
for Options
(Chapter 3)
Assess Ecological Risks and
Impacts of Options
(Chapter 3)
Evaluate Factors Affecting Use
Attainment or
Antidegradation Conditions
(Chapter 2)
FIGURE ES-1
Framework for Incorporating Community Input and Preferences and Evaluating Ecological and
Socioeconomic Gains and Losses in WQS Decisions
(chapter listed provides details of decision step)
xix
-------
provisions, such as variances that temporarily relax a designated use to work toward attainment,
may also be included, subject to EPA review and approval.
States and tribes must conduct use attainability analyses (UAAs) to justify specific
designated use modifications for water bodies. A UAA is a structured scientific assessment of
the factors affecting the attainment of a use. These factors can include a range of naturally
occurring, human-caused, physical conditions, or economic and social impacts. The majority of
UAAs rely on noneconomic arguments, but economics may play a determining role in some
cases. An economic UAA must demonstrate that the controls required to attain the use would
result in "substantial and widespread economic and social impact."
In contrast to UAAs, antidegradation reviews tend to place more emphasis on economic
considerations. Anti degradation reviews examine whether water quality in "high-quality" waters
may be lowered if it is necessary to permit "important economic and social development" as long
as existing3 and "fishable/swimmable" uses are not impaired.
To provide states and tribes with guidance on using economic analysis in UAAs and
anti degradation reviews, EPA compiled the Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality
Standards: Workbook (U.S. EPA, 1995). To understand the current practices based on the
Interim Economic Guidance, a literature search was conducted, which identified 13 UAAs and
four anti degradation reviews that incorporate economic arguments. One conclusion from the
available case studies is that, to the extent that an economic analysis is done, most attention is
given to costs data of attaining designated uses or of maintaining high water quality. Very little
attention is given to the economic benefits that would be obtained from use attainment or of
maintaining high water quality. Therefore, the analyses, while useful for regulatory
determinations, may not fully inform affected communities about the benefits and effects of
these decisions on their well-being. For example, in the UAA case, a community may ask, what
are the benefits of attaining a designated use that is not currently being attained? Or, in the
anti degradation review case, the relevant question might be, if we allow the degradation being
considered, what are the damages produced? The answers to these questions may lead to a
community's reconsideration of whether a use change (and hence, the quality of their water) is
needed.
3The WQS regulation defines existing uses as those uses "actually attained in the water body on or after November
28, 1975, whether or not they are actually included in the water quality standards" (40 CFR 131.3 (e)).
xx
-------
ES.3. UNDERSTANDING THE CHOICES: RELATING WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DECISIONS TO CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEMS, ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES, AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS
Although existing WQS guidance for evaluating socioeconomic impacts in UAAs and
antidegradation reviews focuses on financial and regional economic impacts, many states, tribes,
and communities could take a broader approach in analyzing the effects of selecting different
water quality management options. Chapter 3 provides decision-makers with a framework for
understanding how these different options can affect ecosystems and human well-being. This
framework adapts and extends concepts from ecological risk assessment to show how aquatic
ecosystems are linked to and support humans through the provision of "ecosystem services." It
also describes how these services are related to designated uses. The framework is further
described through a series of "expanded conceptual models," which are applied and illustrated in
five case studies, focusing on different water quality management decisions.
Figure ES-1 also conveys the relationship of stressor identification and ecological risk
assessment to the other components of use-attainment decisions. When designated uses are not
attained because WQS are not being met, the water body is said to be impaired. Stressor
identification can identify the causes of impairment, allowing management alternatives to be
developed (U.S. EPA, 2000). So together, ecological risk assessment, stressor identification, and
economic analysis can provide a means to better characterize ecosystem services and compare
the management alternatives of use-attainment decisions.
The concept of ecosystem services is fundamental for evaluating how humans are
supported by ecological systems and how their well-being is affected by changes in these
systems. This report adopts the following definition (U.S. EPA, 2006):
Ecosystem services are outputs of ecological functions or processes that directly
or indirectly contribute to social welfare or have the potential to do so in the
future. Some may be bought and sold, but most are not marketed.
The definition above highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between
ecosystem services and designated uses. In essence, these terms represent two distinct but related
ways of characterizing how the quality or conditions of water resources support human well-
being. When water quality management decisions result in changes to designated uses, they are
xxi
-------
also likely to affect the types and levels of ecosystem services that the water resource provides.
However, changes in ecosystem services may occur even if use attainment does not change.
Conceptual models expressed as flow diagrams are particularly useful tools for
representing relationships within and between ecological and human systems. For example, these
diagrams play an integral role in ecological risk assessment by illustrating relationships between
sources of stressors (e.g., abandoned mines producing acid mine drainage), ecological entities,
and their responses to the stressors. Chapter 3 presents conceptual models to evaluate the broader
societal implications and the gains and losses associated with setting or modifying WQS.
Figure ES-2 shows that land uses or human activities and other sources are capable of
introducing stressors to aquatic ecosystems. These stressors disrupt the normal functioning of the
ecosystem, which can cause reductions in water quality and can impair the ecosystem's ability to
provide key services. However, these same sources and land uses are also capable of providing
other important goods and services to humans. For example, agricultural land uses may degrade
water quality in local streams while at the same time providing valued food crops for consumers.
Figure ES-2 also illustrates how management options considered in a standard-setting
process, such as restoring a riparian area, will typically alter the effects of land uses their ability
to support or sustain human well-being. Because humans may experience both gains and losses
as a result of these options (shown by purple lines), the figure also demonstrates the gains and
losses inherent with these types of decisions. By controlling stressors to the aquatic ecosystem
(represented by the blue lines), a management option should improve certain ecosystem services,
resulting in gains to individuals who value these services. At the same time, however, the costs
of controlling stressors impose losses on certain individuals.
It also shows how the attainment of designated uses fits into the conceptual model
framework. Use attainment is ultimately determined by comparing observed water quality (or
related conditions) in the aquatic ecosystem with the relevant water quality criteria.
Chapter 3 describes specific steps for developing these expanded conceptual models.
Using the framework outlined in Figure ES-2, the chapter illustrates the development of
expanded conceptual models through five hypothetical "case studies," which address the
following types of WQS scenarios:
XXll
-------
c
Management
Option
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Uses/
Sources
Other
Services/
Goods
Legend
—~ Ecosystem impact flow
Determination of
designated use
Ecosystem service
attainment
support flow
—~ Flow alteration
w Human welfare effect
flow
—~ Cost flow
Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished
(increased) flows relative to current conditions.
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Human
Welfare
Gains/
Losses
DESIGNATED
ATTAINMENT
Water
Quality
Criteria
FIGURE ES-2
Effects of Management Options on Aquatic Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being
xxm
-------
• Case Study 1 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing acid mine drainage (AMD)
impacts on a tributary stream and a river.
• Case Study 2 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) and stormwater impacts on a river system.
• Case Study 3 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing agricultural impacts on an
intermittent stream.
• Case Study 4 presents a hypothetical antidegradation review of a proposed retail
development complex.
• Case Study 5 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing discharges to an effluent-
dominated stream.
ES.4. UNDERSTANDING THE TOOLS: A SUMMARY OF METHODS FOR
CHARACTERIZING THE GAINS AND LOSSES
Chapter 4 describes and compares various methods—broadly defined as "social science
methods"—that can be used to inform the decision-making process for WQS. A common goal of
these methods is to help decision-makers understand the perceptions, attitudes, objectives, and
preferences of relevant stakeholders in an affected community and to apply this information to
improve policy decisions (e.g., those affecting water quality). The purpose of Chapter 4 is to
provide an overview of these methods and a basic understanding of their relative advantages and
disadvantages. Rather than providing detailed instructions on how to apply each method, the
chapter is intended to help the reader gauge which methods might be applicable to his or her
situation on a case-by-case basis.
The overall goal of the proposed decision-making process described previously in Figure
ES-1 is to select the management option that meets the highest attainable use of a particular
water body or segment and best addresses the needs and priorities of the affected community.
Throughout this process, social science methods can be used to address three supporting
objectives:
1. involve the community in framing the key elements of the WQS decision,
2. assess community preferences for different management options to meet the highest
attainable use and
3. assess the expected social and economic impacts of the different options.
xxiv
-------
Chapter 4 discusses the types of social science methods that are best suited to addressing each of
these objectives. It divides these assessment methods into two main categories: sociocultural and
economic methods.
Sociocultural methods provide a number of alternative perspectives and approaches for
eliciting, evaluating, and applying community preferences and stakeholder input in the decision-
making process. These methods can be broadly categorized as either deliberative or analytic
methods (and in some cases both). In deliberative methods, groups of stakeholders are convened
to discuss and collectively assess possible decisions (e.g., those related to water quality). In
addition to providing structured approaches for eliciting community input on technical matters,
deliberative methods can be used to elicit and assess community preferences for management
options. They also offer the advantage of encouraging active community involvement throughout
the decision-making process. In analytic methods, data on community preferences are analyzed
by decision-makers without necessarily engaging in dialogue with stakeholders. These methods
have the advantage of providing decision-makers with a rigorous and structured set of responses
on which they can base their selection of the final WQS management option. Some researchers
have advocated decision-making processes that incorporate both deliberative and analytic
components into socioeconomic assessments. Chapter 4 identifies and describes 13 specific
sociocultural methods and distinguishes them according to whether they are primarily analytic or
deliberative methods (or both).
In contrast to sociocultural methods, economic assessment methods share a common
conceptual framework, which guides how preferences are interpreted, quantified (typically in
monetary terms), and used to compare and evaluate options (e.g., through benefit-cost or cost-
effectiveness comparisons). Chapter 4 identifies and describes nine commonly used economic
assessment methods.
Economic analyses of environmental regulations and related policies are geared toward
understanding how society's resources, including its natural resources like water, are used or
exchanged as a result of policy actions and how human well-being may be affected. Two
commonly used criteria in economic analyses for determining whether society is better off as a
result of a policy are efficiency and equity. The main questions underlying the efficiency criterion
are whether and to what extent the gains to society (benefits) exceed the losses to society (costs)
from a given policy. This criterion is the basis for benefit-cost analysis, which is a widely used
xxv
-------
economic analysis method that involves identifying, quantifying, and valuing the positive and
negative impacts on society's well-being that result from policy changes. The main questions
underlying the equity criterion have to do with how the gains and losses are distributed across
society. In contrast to the efficiency criterion, there is no generally agreed upon measure or
assessment method for gauging equity. Nevertheless, the process of developing and conducting
benefit-cost analysis often requires the separate estimation of different types and sources of
benefits and costs, which, in turn, can also be useful for informing equity concerns.
One of the main challenges in applying benefit-cost analysis to evaluate environmental
policies related to meeting WQS is that it requires methods for expressing human welfare
changes in monetary terms. In certain instances, such as adding new pollution control that
reduces profit and gets passed on to consumers as price increases, this process is relatively
straightforward because the changes are experienced by humans as monetary gains or losses.
In other instances, welfare changes are not directly associated with monetary gains or
losses, for example, benefits from improved recreational opportunities at a water body. In these
cases, economists and other practitioners of benefit-cost analysis generally regard "willingness to
pay" (WTP) as the conceptually correct measure for valuing changes in individuals' welfare.4
For example, if changes in water quality improve fishing conditions at a lake, the benefit to
anglers can be expressed as the maximum amount they would have been willing to pay for the
change.
All the methods discussed in Chapter 4 require data collection regarding the affected
community. These methods are broadly categorized as either primary or secondary data
collection. Primary data collection entails gathering original data directly from community
members or stakeholders. Among the more commonly used methods are individual interviews,
surveys, group deliberations, and observation. Secondary data collection relies on existing
sources of data, many of which can be used to support and conduct socioeconomic assessments.
For example, data collected by the Bureau of Census, including information on population,
housing, and economic characteristics, can be useful for identifying and characterizing the
potentially affected community.
4 Willingness to accept (WTA) is the minimum amount an individual is willing to accept to forego the change. Both
WTA and WTP are correct measures for valuing changes. However, to simplify, we only use WTP in this report.
Freeman (1993) provides information on the differences between WTA and WTP and how to choose the appropriate
measure.
xxvi
-------
Chapter 4 compares 22 different social science methods according to the data collection
technique most commonly used for the method. Using a 5-point scale from very low to very
high, each method is also rated by cost/complexity which refers to the costliness and/or
complexity of method, in terms of time, data, and specialized technical skills required to
implement the method.
ES.5. WORKING Till PROCESS: BUILDING AN APPROACH FOR COMMUNITIES
TO UNDERSTAND THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS, COSTS, AND BENEFITS OF
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
The purpose of Chapter 5 is to provide a more detailed description of how the proposed
decision process outlined in Figure ES-1 can be implemented in practice. The chapter is
organized according to three main phases of the process: (1) framing the WQS decision, (2)
comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the different management options, and (3)
making the decision (selecting the option). In each case, it describes the main components of the
decision process and the techniques that can be used to address each component. It also uses two
of the hypothetical case studies described in Chapter 3—the CSO example and the AMD
example—to illustrate specifically how the methods and tools described in the previous chapters
can be applied to inform and strengthen each stage of the decision-making process.
Framing the WQS decision involves identifying the key water quality impairments, along
with the related sources and stressors, and determining the set of feasible options available for
addressing the impairment. It also means recognizing and engaging community residents in
initial discussions of how they are likely to be affected by both the impaired water and the
options available for addressing the impairment. Chapter 5 describes how group deliberative
methods can be used in several ways to involve the community in framing the decisions,
including (1) identifying community priorities, concerns, and constraints; (2) revising and
defining the most practical set of management options and (3) revising and finalizing conceptual
models that illustrate the key linkages between environmental conditions and human welfare and
the gains and losses involved in the decision-making process. In particular, it describes how
deliberative processes could be used to develop conceptual models incrementally and how
simplified versions of the models might be used to communicate the decision problem to
community residents.
xxvii
-------
Assessing community preferences entails gathering information to determine how
different segments of the affected population regard and value different features of the WQS
management options. With this information and with an understanding of the expected
ecological impacts of different options (e.g., through ecological risk assessment), it is then
possible to estimate the social and economic impacts of the different options. Regardless of how
they are organized, the purpose of all these activities—ecological risk assessment, preference
assessment, and the assessment of economic and social impacts—is to acquire and organize
information that can be used to better evaluate the gains and losses between the options. Chapter
5 describes how social science methods can be used to evaluate gains and losses by collecting
both qualitative and quantitative information on preferences and impacts. It also explains how
these and other methods can be applied to analyze the equity implications of different
management options.
The final step, as defined in Figure ES-1, is for the decision-makers to select the
management option that best addresses the need to protect human health and the environment,
the communities' needs, and compliance with the CWA and WQS regulation to attain the
designated uses. Chapter 5 emphasizes that the purpose of this report is not to suggest the criteria
that should be used in making any particular decision, rather to propose methods that could help
decision-makers better frame and evaluate the options. None of the individual methods described
in the report can determine unequivocally which management option is best suited to address a
particular WQS issue. However, they should enable communities and water quality managers to
better understand the ecological and socioeconomic gains and losses involved, and therefore,
promote better environmental and economic decisions.
ES.6. REFERENCES
Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurements of Environmental and Resource Values. Resources
for the Future, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-95/002.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/econworkbook/.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. EPA/822/B
00/025. Accessed March 4, 2004, at http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.pdf.
xxviii
-------
U.S. EPA. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/240/R-06/001.
XXIX
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. HI! PURPOSE AND ROLE OF THIS REPORT
The goal of this report is to help states and authorized tribes—and the associated
communities—to understand how the assessment of ecological benefits could inform decisions
about their water bodies while complying with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Although estimating the gains from these decisions is not required by the CWA and related
regulations, understanding community preferences for water quality may aid in conducting a
balanced analysis. The report is intended to assist water quality officials, watershed managers,
members of stakeholder groups, and other interested individuals in fully evaluating the
ecological and socioeconomic gains and losses that often are involved in these decisions. It also
provides a framework and suggestions for eliciting input from stakeholders, assessing the
preferences of the affected community, and incorporating these insights into the decision-making
process.
The CWA includes two main approaches to improving water quality: effluent guidelines
and water quality standards (WQS). This report focuses on WQS. Whereas effluent guidelines
focus on specific industries and, depending on the available technology, set pollution limits to
protect the receiving waters, Section 303(c) of the CWA requires states and tribes to adopt
designated uses or goals for their water bodies. Designated uses, which are one component of the
WQS program, are designed to protect the natural integrity of the nation's waters and the uses of
these waters by people and aquatic organisms. The CWA also recognizes that, in some cases,
states or tribes must evaluate changes to a designated use, for example, because naturally
occurring, man-made, or socioeconomic factors inhibit its attainment.1 Decisions related to
changing or attaining designated uses sometimes require consideration and balancing of various
health, ecological, institutional (e.g., organizational goals), and socioeconomic factors (herein
called gains and losses or benefits and costs). States and tribes are provided limited latitude in
adopting or revising designated uses and must balance these gains and losses carefully. For
example, a significant reduction in the discharge of pollutants to a stream might restore a blue
ribbon trout fishery and make the stream safe for full-contact recreation such as swimming, but it
also may require a substantial increase in treatment costs. On the other hand, a modest reduction
1 In some cases, these evaluations could establish that a higher use is attainable.
1-1
-------
with a modest increase in treatment costs may allow the stream to support trout year round yet
make the water only safe enough for incidental contact recreation such as fishing and boating.
To change designated uses, states and tribes are first required to conduct use
attainability analyses (UAAs) or variance analyses. The purpose of these scientific assessments
is to determine which designated uses are feasible and appropriate for a water body. A variance
analysis, similar to a UAA, is for a temporary relaxation of the WQS. In other cases, states and
tribes may consider permitting a reduction of water quality in high-quality waters if the reduced
quality will not affect existing2 or designated uses. Under these conditions, the CWA requires
formal antidegradation reviews (ARs) to demonstrate that the reduction is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social development in the area. Thus, the ultimate
determination of water quality goals for a stream, lake, or estuary may require the evaluation of
both ecological and socioeconomic objectives. Therefore, in the UAA case, a community may
ask, what are the benefits of attaining a use that is not currently being attained? Or, in the AR
case, the relevant question might be, if we allow the degradation being considered, what are the
damages produced? The answers to these questions may lead to a community's reconsideration
of whether a use change (and, in turn, the quality of their water) is needed.
Figures 1-1 through 1-5 outline some of the specific situations this report is intended to
address.3 They include, most importantly, decisions related to UAAs and ARs, but they also
extend more broadly to watershed planning decisions. More specifically, the four situations are
1. Deciding whether to change a use in a UAA where there are substantial and widespread
economic impacts from retaining existing use,
2. Deciding whether a source of impairment is better left in place because of the
environmental damages that might be caused from corrective measures,
3. Deciding whether the damages from allowing the reduction in water quality that is
necessary to accommodate important economic and social development (Tier 2:
Antidegradation) are acceptable to the community, and
4. Deciding whether a potential watershed planning activity should be pursued.
2 The WQS regulation defines existing uses as those uses "actually attained in the water body on or after November
28, 1975, whether or not they are actually included in the water quality standards" (40 CFR 131.3 (e)).
3 The CWA elements and the WQS regulation process are not as distinct as the figures suggest. This simplification,
however, is needed to clarify the purpose of the report.
1-2
-------
The report describes an approach for integrating assessments of ecological quality with
assessments of socioeconomic considerations, so that the relevant benefits and costs can be
understood, communicated, and weighed in the standard-setting process. As shown in these
figures, in many situations this approach requires evaluating community preferences.
Figure 1-1 depicts the key CWA elements. If a state/tribe determines that a water body is
not meeting its WQS, it can place the water body on its listing of impaired waters—the 303(d)
list—and develop management strategies and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs).4 This
strategy assumes that the use is attainable. However, if the state believes that attaining the use is
not feasible, one alternative is changing the use, contingent on a UAA assessing the physical,
chemical, biological, or socioeconomic factors (40 CFR 131.10 (g)). Decision-makers and
analysts would have to evaluate conditions in the affected water body, define an initial set of
options for addressing the WQS, and evaluate the options following existing guidance for UAAs.
Figure 1-2 illustrates how the socioeconomic factor is used in a UAA and how public
preferences can enter the decision-making process. The socioeconomic factor specifically
addresses whether the adverse economic and social impacts of actions necessary to eliminate an
impairment at a particular site would be both substantial and widespread. With this factor,
attainability is usually determined using financial impact and economic impact analyses;
community preferences for water quality are not likely to play a role in examining this factor.
However, following the determination of substantial and widespread, community preferences for
water quality might be important if the UAA suggests that a designated use should be
downgraded, as indicated by the box with the broken outline in Figure 1-2. The community may
want to keep the long-term water quality goal even if doing so would have a substantial and
widespread economic impact.
Current guidance allows, but does not require, the consideration of benefits in deciding
whether to actually remove the designated use (U.S. EPA, 1995). For example, the community
could decide to subsidize the pollution control costs. If the current use is removed, then a new
4 U.S. EPA defines a TMDL as the "calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive
and still meet WQS, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources."
1-3
-------
—~
No
- Yes
303(d) List
Implement Strategies —
Conduct
Monitoring
Meeting
WQS?
Set Goals and
WQS
WQS-water quality standards
TMDL-total maximum daily load
Develop Management
Strategies
and TMDLs
FIGURE 1-1
Key Clean Water Act Elements*
*CWA elements based on slides from: "Watersheds 101: CWA Tools for Watershed Protection. A Training
Workshop." Additional information accessed at www.epa.gov/watertrain.
1-4
-------
—~
Evaluate public
preferences
Other (e.g..
No
Yes
303(d) List
Implement Strategies
Conduct
Monitoring
Meeting
WQS?
Set Goals and
WQS
No:
Use is
attainable*
Yes:
Consider range
of alternatives
WQS-water quality standards
UAA-use attainability analysis
TMDL-total maximum daily load
Substantial &
widespread
impact?
[Socioeconomic
factor UAA]
Develop Management
Strategies
and TMDLs
Retain use
Remove use
Sub-categorize
use
Other (e.g.,
variance,
seasonal limit)
* A UAA could establish that a higher use is attainable
FIGURE 1-2
Use Attainability Analysis Using Socioeconomic Factor
1-5
-------
use may need to be determined. Community preferences for water quality improvements and the
costs of achieving those improvements could play a role in identifying the appropriate new use.5
Figure 1-3 illustrates how the human-caused condition factor is used in a UAA and how
public preferences can enter the decision-making process in this situation. A UAA may
determine that human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the
designated use and that these impairments cannot be remedied or that corrective measures would
cause more environmental damage than leaving the source of impairment in place.6 For example,
in certain circumstances, removing contaminated sediments associated with historical pollution
inputs would result in greater downstream environmental damage than leaving the sediments in
place.
In these situations, evaluating community preferences may have an appropriate role for
weighing the damages vs. the improvement, particularly if the environmental damage to be
caused by correcting the human-caused condition differs in kind from the environmental
improvement that would result. For example, community preferences may help to weigh the
creation of an upland disposal site vs. the alleviation of instream contamination.
Figure 1-4 illustrates the situation where a state is meeting its WQS, but an
antidegradation policy is required. The antidegradation policy is a set of procedures for
evaluating regulated activities that may affect water quality. It is a three-tier program that sets the
minimum level of protection (Tier 1) and protects "high-quality" waters (Tier 2) and outstanding
national resource waters (Tier 3).7 Figure 1-4 specifically illustrates a Tier 2 decision node that
could benefit from community input. Tier 2 water quality levels that exceed "fishable/
swimmable" must be protected unless the reduction is deemed necessary to accommodate
important economic and social development in the area of the water body (as long as WQS are
still met). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance suggests that the same
analytic tools for the socioeconomic factor UAA be used for AR (U.S. EPA, 1995). Therefore, as
5 In this report, obtaining community or public preferences refers to something more than the mere solicitation of
public comments. Although public comments can provide important information in the process, here we are
discussing the use of preference elicitation or preference revelation methods (see Chapter 4 for more information).
6 Related to this factor is EPA Region IX's guidance for effluent-dominated waters (U.S. EPA, 1992) describing the
"net environmental benefit use attainability analysis." As stated in a Colorado Water Quality Control Division
Discussion Paper (2003: p. vi), " [b]ecause a net environmental benefit approach inherently involves trade-offs and
value judgments, the appropriate roles for both the states and the EPA in making these judgments need to be
defined." This report suggests that public preferences should play a role in the value judgment as well.
7 Chapter 2 provides more details on the Antidegradation Policy.
1-6
-------
r —~
Public weighs
damages vs.
improvements
Evaluate public
preferences
No
- Yes
303(d) List
Implement Strategies
Conduct
Monitoring
Meeting
WQS?
Set Goals and
WQS
No:
Use is attainable*
Yes:
Consider range of
alternatives
WQS-water quality standards
UAA-use attainability analysis
TMDL-total maximum daily load
Develop Management
Strategies
and TMDLs
Would environmental
damage outweigh
improvement?
[Human-caused
condition factor
UAA]
Retain use Remove use Sub-categorize Other (e.g.,
use variance,
seasonal limit)
* A UAA could establish that a higher use is attainable
FIGURE 1-3
Use Attainability Analysis Using Human-Caused Condition Factor
1-7
-------
—~
Other (e.g.,
variance,
seasonal limit)
Retain use
Sub-categorize
use
Remove use
Evaluate public
preferences
Do not lower
water quality
(In spite of Tier 2,
community prefers not
to develop)
Lower water
quality
No
Yes
303(d) List
Implement Strategies
Conduct
Monitoring
Meeting
WQS?
Set Goals and
WQS
Yes:
Can reduce
water quality
No:
Cannot reduce
water quality
Important economic and
social development?
[Tier 2: Antidegradation]
WQS-water quality standards
UAA-use attainability analysis
TMDI^total maximum daily load
Develop Management
Strategies
and TMDLs
FIGURE 1-4
Antidegradation Review for High-Quality Waters
(exceeds fishable/swimmable goal)
1-8
-------
with the socioeconomic factor (Figure 1-2), the fact that a lowering of water quality is allowable
does not necessarily mean that the community would prefer it.
Figure 1-5 addresses water shed-wide planning activities that may identify water quality
improvement strategies, which include regulatory (e.g., TMDL), nonregulatory (e.g., Section 319
nonpoint source grants), and other, non-CWA mechanisms or authorities. Through these
activities, community development or other land management decisions may influence WQS
attainment. In this broader context, community preferences play a critical or even determining
role. For example, a community group may want to justify spending money to improve
downstream water quality or coastal recreational activities.
—~
Evaluate public
preferences
Other (e.g.,
variance,
seasonal limit)
Retain use
Sub-categorize
Remove use
No
- Yes
303(d) List
Implement Strategies
Conduct
Monitoring
Meeting
WQS?
Watershed-scale
Planning
Set Goals and
WQS
Develop Management
Strategies
and TMDLs
use
WQS-water quality standards
TMDL-total maximum daily load
FIGURE 1-5
Watershed Planning Activities
1-9
-------
As shown in these five figures, community preferences can contribute to WQS decisions
in a number of ways. The main objective of this report is to propose a general decision
framework and a corresponding set of methods for incorporating community input and
preferences into decisions affecting the quality of local rivers and streams. Although the
framework and methods are potentially applicable to a wide range of WQS decisions (e.g.,
prioritizing restoration activities, establishing variances, conducting watershed planning), the
report focuses mainly on UAA and AR decisions. It uses and references methods from ecological
risk assessment, causal analysis, economics, and other social sciences to explain how this
information can be used in these types of water quality management decisions. More broadly,
this document serves as
• an introduction to the CWA, WQS, UAAs, and ARs (Chapter 2);
• a basis for understanding the relationship between use-attainment decisions and the
effects on ecosystems, ecosystem services, and ecological benefits (Chapter 3);
• a reference for methods that ascertain preferences related to attaining uses (Chapter 4);
and
• a guide for incorporating new approaches in water quality decisions (Chapter 5).
This report should not be misconstrued as a new regulation or setting aside current
regulatory requirements. It works within the boundaries set by the CWA and does not supersede
any existing regulations or guidance.
Figure 1-6 depicts the general decision framework that this report proposes for addressing
WQS and use-attainment issues. It also serves as an organizing structure for the report. The first
few elements of the framework—from setting water quality goals and standards to developing
initial management options—have already been touched on in this chapter. The next chapter
(Chapter 2) expands on these topics by specifying the ground rules for WQS decisions. It defines
the goals of the CWA, describes how WQS are used in implementing the CWA, and explains
how WQS are established and occasionally modified through UAAs and ARs. It discusses the
main factors that are evaluated in UAAs to determine whether use attainment is feasible. It
specifically examines the "widespread economic and social impact" factor and describes the
alternative economic methods that are or could be used in UAAs and ARs. It also presents
examples of actual UAAs and ARs that have included economic analyses.
1-10
-------
DECISION STEPS INVOLVING
SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS
(Chapter 4)
1 Revise Management Options
Revise Conceptual Models
Elicit Community Input
Conduct Monitoring
Elicit Community Input
Assess Community Preferences
Set Goals & WQS
(Chapters 1 and 2)
Determine WQS Compliance
(Chapter 2)
Select Preferred Management
Option
Develop Initial Management
Options
Evaluate Gains and Losses
Between Options
Identify Stakeholders and
Engage Community
Assess Social and Economic
Impacts of Options
Identify and Assess Impairments,
Stressors & Sources
(Chapter 3)
Develop Conceptual Models
for Options
(Chapter 3)
Assess Ecological Risks and
Impacts of Options
(Chapter 3)
Evaluate Factors Affecting Use
Attainment or
Antidegradation Conditions
(Chapter 2)
FIGURE 1-6
Framework for Incorporating Community Input and Preferences and Evaluating Ecological and
Socioeconomic Gains and Losses in WQS Decisions
(chapter listed provides details of decision step)
1-11
-------
Chapter 3 discusses methods for identifying and characterizing the relevant water quality
problem(s) and the gains and losses associated with alternative management options. It
characterizes impairments and their causes; it summarizes approaches for assessing ecological
risks, including the identification of ecological risk assessment endpoints; and it defines
ecosystem services and how they are affected by setting WQS. It then describes how flow
diagrams can be used as conceptual models for representing the WQS management decisions.
These diagrams depict the linkages between sources, stressors, ecological impacts, ecosystem
services, and human welfare and the ecological and socioeconomic changes associated with
different management options. The development of these conceptual models is illustrated
through a series of hypothetical case studies involving complex management issues such as acid
mine drainage affecting a river and its main tributary, combined sewer overflows, intermittent
streams, commercial development and antidegradation, and effluent-dominated streams.
Chapter 4 presents a variety of social science methods that can be used to support and
strengthen the WQS decision-making process. In particular, they can be used in a variety of ways
to address the steps highlighted on the right hand side of Figure 1-6 (i.e., identify and engage
stakeholders, elicit community input, assess community preferences, and assess socioeconomic
impacts). Chapter 4 divides these methods into two main categories: sociocultural and economic
methods. The main distinguishing feature of economic assessment methods is that they are based
on a common conceptual paradigm for evaluating the human welfare effects and the benefit-cost
trade-offs involved in policy decisions. Sociocultural methods, in contrast, provide a number of
alternative perspectives and approaches for eliciting stakeholder input, assessing community
preferences, and evaluating gains and losses as part of the decision-making process. In essence,
Chapter 4 provides the reader with a toolkit of potentially useful social science methods. It
briefly describes and compares the different techniques, highlighting some of their main
advantages and disadvantages, and it provides references for more in-depth descriptions and
illustrations of the methods.
Finally, Chapter 5 illustrates how the proposed decision framework can be implemented
in practice, with particular emphasis on how social science methods can be applied. It divides the
decision process outlined in Figure 1-6 into three main phases: (1) framing the WQS decision,
(2) comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the different management options and
(3) making the decision (selecting the most preferred option). For each phase, it describes the
1-12
-------
main components of the decision process and the techniques that can be used to address each
component. It also uses two of the UAA case studies described in Chapter 3—one involving acid
mine drainage and the other combined sewer overflows—to illustrate how the methods and tools
described in the previous chapters can be applied to inform and strengthen each stage of the
decision-making process.
1.2. REFERENCES
Colorado Water Quality Control Division. 2003. Discussion Paper: Addressing Water Quality
Standards Issues Regarding Effluent Dependent and Effluent Dominated Waters. Final Draft.
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
U.S. EPA. 1992. Guidance for Modifying Water Quality Standards and Protecting Effluent-
Dependent Ecosystems. Guidance Interim Final. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9. June.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-95/002.
Accessed January 24, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/econ/complete.pdf.
1-13
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
2. UNDERSTANDING Till GROUND RULES: AN INTRODUCTION
TO WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSES, AND ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEWS
This chapter explains how the water quality goals and ecological integrity for a water
body, termed its designated uses, are established as part of a WQS program. It discusses the
circumstances under which designated uses can be changed with a focus on whether these
changes are wanted by communities. Understanding these ground rules—determining what is
allowable—is a prerequisite for the subject to be addressed in the following chapters—
determining whether the changes are worth making (see U.S. EPA [1994] for more detail).
2.1. CLEAN WATER ACT GOALS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
States adopt WQS in accordance with the Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131) to protect public health and welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the purposes of
the CWA. Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA identifies two overarching goals:
• Restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's
waters, and
• Achieve a "fishable/swimmable" level of water quality: one that provides for the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and for recreation in and on the
water, wherever attainable.
The CWA recognizes other objectives when it requires states to consider the use and
value of public water supplies, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, including
navigation, in revising or adopting new WQS (Section 303(c)). Although the CWA does not
present a hierarchy of uses, U.S. EPA's Water Quality Standards Regulation highlights the uses
in the "fishable/swimmable" goal (U.S. EPA, 1994).
The WQS program is a partnership between U.S. EPA and states and authorized tribes to
work toward achieving the goals of the CWA. The states and tribes have primary responsibility
for setting, reviewing, revising, and enforcing WQS. U.S. EPA develops regulations, policies,
and guidance to help states and tribes implement the program and oversees their activities to
2-1
-------
ensure that standards are consistent with the requirements of the CWA and the WQS regulation.
U.S. EPA has authority to review and approve or disapprove state standards and, where
necessary, to promulgate federal WQS.
2.1.1. What are Water Quality Standards?
To comply with the provisions of the CWA, states and authorized tribes must establish
WQS. According to U.S. EPA (1994) and 40 CFR 131, WQS are the foundation of the water
quality-based control program mandated by the CWA. WQS define the goals for a water body by
designating its uses, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to protect
water quality from pollutants. A water quality standard consists of four basic elements:
(1) Designated uses of the water body (e.g., recreation, water supply, aquatic life,
agriculture)
(2) Water quality criteria (numeric pollutant concentrations and narrative requirements) to
protect designated uses
(3) An antidegradation policy to maintain and protect existing uses1 and high-quality waters,
and
(4) General policies addressing implementation issues (e.g., low flows, variances, mixing
zones)
The following sections describe these elements in greater detail.
2.1.2. Designated Uses
States and authorized tribes are required to specify, for each water body, appropriate uses
to be achieved and protected. The appropriate uses are determined by taking into consideration
the use and value of the water body for a variety of purposes: public water supply; protection of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife; and recreational, agricultural, industrial, and navigational purposes.
In designating uses for a water body, states and tribes examine the suitability of a water body for
the uses based on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the water body, its
geographical setting and scenic qualities, and economic considerations. Because each state
considers its own set of water bodies, each state could have a unique set of designated uses (e.g.,
1 The WQS regulation defines existing uses as those uses "actually attained in the water body on or after November
28, 1975, whether or not they are actually included in the water quality standards" (40 CFR 131.3 (e)).
2-2
-------
see Table 2-1). Designated uses must be at a minimum the uses actually attained, termed existing
uses, at any time since November 28, 1975 (U.S. EPA, 1994). Existing uses are different from
designated uses because, whereas a designated use can be removed, existing uses set a historical
baseline that must be maintained. The inclusion of existing uses in WQS helps ensure that a
temporary impairment does not become permanent.
If a state or tribe designates a use that does not include uses of aquatic life and contact
recreation (the fishable/swimmable goal of the CWA), it must conduct a UAA. Such water
bodies must be reexamined every 3 years to determine if new information has become available
that would warrant a revision of the standard. If new information indicates that
"fishable/swimmable" uses can be attained, those uses must be designated. In addition, states and
tribes may remove a designated use that is not an existing use or establish subcategories of a use
if the state can demonstrate through a UAA that attaining the designated use is not feasible. For
example, to meet the deadline of submitting WQS (if states had not adopted WQS for intrastate
waters) to the Administrator prior to 180 days after October 18, 1972, some states designated all
waters as fishable/swimmable because they did not have time to evaluate the attainability before
designating the use. Because no evaluation was done, some designations may not be attainable or
some could actually be upgraded. The WQS regulation (40 CFR 131.10(g)) lists reasons why a
designated use might not be feasible; they include physical, chemical, biological, and
socioeconomic reasons (Section 2.2 describes these six factors in more detail).2
2.1.3. Water Quality Criteria
Under 40 CFR 131.11, states are to adopt numeric (e.g., pH measured from 6.0 to 9.0 to
protect the cold-water fishery use) and/or narrative criteria (e.g., "aquatic life should be as it
naturally occurs") with sufficient coverage and stringency to protect designated uses. States can
choose to
• adopt the criteria that U. S. EPA publishes under 304(a) of the CWA,3
• modify the Section 304(a) criteria to reflect site-specific conditions, or
• develop other criteria based on scientifically defensible methods.
2 These analyses could also establish that a higher use is attainable.
3 Water quality criteria documents can be found at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria.
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1
Examples of States' Designated Uses
OREGON3
OHIOb
Domestic water supply
Industrial water supply
Irrigation
Livestock watering
Fish and aquatic life
Wildlife and hunting
Fishing
Boating
Water contact recreation
Aesthetic quality
Hydropower
Commercial navigation and
transportation
Warm-water habitat
Limited warm-water
habitat
Exceptional warm-water
habitat
Modified warm-water
habitat
Seasonal salmonid habitat
Cold-water habitat
Limited resource waters
Bathing waters
Primary contact recreation0
Secondary contact
recreationd
Public water supply
Agricultural water supply
Industrial water supply
MAINE6
Class AA: Must be of such quality that they are suitable
for the designated uses of drinking water after
disinfection, fishing, agriculture, recreation in and on
the water, navigation and as habitat for fish and other
aquatic life. The habitat must be characterized as free-
flowing and natural.
Class A: Must be of such quality that they are suitable
for the designated uses of drinking water after
disinfection; fishing; agriculture; recreation in and on
the water; industrial process and cooling water supply;
hydroelectric power generation, except as prohibited
under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as habitat
for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat must be
characterized as natural.
Class B: Must be of such quality that they are suitable for
the designated uses of drinking water supply after
treatment; fishing; agriculture; recreation in and on the
water; industrial process and cooling water supply;
hydroelectric power generation, except as prohibited
under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as habitat for
fish and other aquatic life. The habitat must be
characterized as unimpaired.
Class C: Must be of such quality that they are suitable for
the designated uses of drinking water supply after
treatment; fishing; agriculture; recreation in and on the
water; industrial process and cooling water supply;
hydroelectric power generation, except as prohibited
under Title 12, section 403; navigation; and as habitat for
fish and other aquatic life.
aAccessed on March 26, 2007, at www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/uses.htm.
bAccessed on March 26, 2007, at www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/designation_summary.pdf.
°Water depth allows full body immersion (e.g., swimming).
dWater depth precludes full body immersion (e.g., wading).
eAll copyrights and other rights to statutory text are reserved by the State of Maine. The text included in this
publication reflects changes made through the Second Regular Session of the 122nd Legislature, and is current
through December 31, 2006, but is subject to change without notice. It is a version that has not been officially
certified by the Secretary of State. Refer to the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated and supplements for certified
text. Accessed on March 26, 2007, at http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/38/title38sec465.html.
2-4
-------
Criteria are developed to protect human health and aquatic life (both freshwater and
saltwater) and to specify desirable biological characteristics (biocriteria) and nutrient levels
(nutrient criteria). Criteria are science-based; as new information becomes available, criteria are
revised to reflect it.
2.1.4. Antidegradation Policy
Antidegradation policy specifies a three-tier program. Tier 1 protects existing uses and
the water quality conditions needed to protect those uses. Tier 2 maintains and protects "high-
quality" waters—water bodies where water quality exceeds "fishable/swimmable." Tier 3
maintains and protects water quality in outstanding natural resource waters. Under Tier 2, water
quality may be lowered as long as existing and "fishable/swimmable" uses are not impaired;
however, U.S. EPA (1994) states, "This provision is intended to provide relief only in a few
extraordinary circumstances..(p. 4-7). For example, a proposed wastewater treatment plant
discharge is expected to change pH, but because pH should remain in the range of 6.0 to 9.0, the
cold-water fishery use should not be impaired. To justify lowering water quality in Tier 2 cases,
an AR analysis must be performed (Section 2.2 provides more detail on ARs).
2.1.5. General Provisions
States and tribes may adopt policies and provisions regarding WQS implementation. For
example, variances allow states and tribes to temporarily relax a water quality standard to
progress toward attainment. Mixing zone policies allow numeric criteria to be exceeded for small
areas near outfalls if the integrity of the water body as a whole is protected. Finally, a water
quality standard may include procedures for critical low-flow conditions that differ from higher
flows. Such policies are first subject to U.S. EPA review and approval.
2.1.6. Review and Revision
After state or tribal WQS are officially adopted, a governor or designee submits the
standards to the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Administrator for review to determine whether
any analyses performed are adequate. The Agency also evaluates whether the designated uses
and criteria are compatible throughout all water bodies covered and whether downstream water
2-5
-------
quality is protected. The CWA requires states to hold public hearings to review their WQS at
least once every three years and to revise them if appropriate.
States may identify necessary additions or revisions to existing standards based on their
305(b) reports (i.e., biennial reports describing the quality of states' waters including the extent
to which designated uses are supported and the impairments), other water quality monitoring
data, etc. WQS reviews and revisions may include additions to and modifications of uses,
criteria, the antidegradation policy or procedures, or the general policies.
2.2. CONDUCT OF USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES AND ANTIDEGRADATION
REVIEWS
As described above, states or tribes that wish to designate a use for a water body that is
not consistent with CWA Section 101(a)(2) (i.e., "fishable/swimmable"); remove a designated
use for a water body that is specified in Section 101(a)(2); or adopt a subcategory of a use must
conduct a UAA. A UAA is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the
attainment of a use. UAA is best understood as a means of determining which uses are feasible
and appropriate for a water body, rather than as a process for downgrading uses. For example, in
certain cases, initial use designations made by states and tribes were not actually attainable (see
Section 2.1.2). UAA constitutes a process for recognizing and correcting these historical
mistakes. The WQS regulation lists factors states can use to demonstrate that attaining a use is
not feasible (40 CFR 131.10(g)):
(1) naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use;
(2) natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low-flow conditions or water levels prevent the
attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge
of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating state water conservation
requirements to enable uses to be met;
(3) human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and
cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave
in place;
(4) dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of
the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to
operate such modification in a way that would result in the attainment of the use;
2-6
-------
(5) physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as a lack of
proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality,
preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses; or
(6) controls more stringent than minimum technology requirements (as specified in Sections
301(b) and 306 of the CWA4) would result in substantial and widespread economic and
social impact.
As the above list makes clear, economic and social impacts are only one of several
reasons states may cite in a UAA for adopting a lower designated use or subcategorizing a use.
Thus, the majority of UAAs rely on noneconomic arguments, but economics may play a
determining role in some cases. In contrast, economics is more central in ARs. The WQS
regulation (131.12 (a)(2)) provide that water quality in "high-quality" or Tier 2 waters may be
lowered without changing the current uses of the water body if it is necessary to permit
"important economic and social development." In addition to these provisions, the WQS
regulation (131.13) allow states to grant a variance from WQS to specific dischargers, allowing
them to exceed water quality-based permit limits for a certain pollutant for a limited period of
time.
U.S. EPA provides guidance on the need for and conduct of UAAs and other economic
analyses in the Water Quality Standards Handbook (U.S. EPA, 1994) and the Interim Economic
Guidance for Water Quality Standards: Workbook (U.S. EPA, 1995). A short summary of
existing economic guidance in the WQS program follows.
2.2.1. Economics in Use Attainability Analysis
When applying for a change in a designated use or a subcategory of use, or for a
variance, specifically based on economic criteria (i.e., factor six in WQS regulation), the state
must demonstrate that meeting WQS will cause substantial and widespread economic and social
impacts. The Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards: Workbook (hereafter
referred to as Interim Economic Guidance) defines a set of measures to determine whether
impacts are substantial, including separate measures for private-sector and public-sector
pollution sources (U.S. EPA, 1995). U.S. EPA notes that, to justify modifying a use or granting a
variance, the state must demonstrate both substantial impacts on the discharger and widespread
4 Sections 301(b) and 306 do not list any specific requirements.
2-7
-------
impacts on the geographic area. The Interim Economic Guidance defines financial ratios (e.g.,
profitability, liquidity, solvency, and leverage) to determine whether impacts are substantial, and
it identifies a group of socioeconomic indicators (see Section 2.2.4) that should be considered
when assessing whether impacts are widespread. The financial ratios to determine substantial
impacts are further explained in Appendix A.
2.2.2. Economics in Antidegradation Reviews
As with removing a use or granting a waiver, economic impacts are also considered as
part of an AR. Where water quality exceeds "fishable/swimmable," states can allow reduction in
water quality (as long as existing uses are protected) if the reduction is necessary to
accommodate important economic or social development in the area of the water body. U.S.
EPA's Interim Economic Guidance notes that ARs are in a sense the "flip side" of UAAs.
Variances and use downgrades refer to situations where additional treatment to meet standards
may result in substantial and widespread economic impacts, while antidegradation refers to
situations where lowering water quality may result in improved social and economic
development. Although the terminology associated with economic analyses for UAAs and ARs
is different, the Interim Economic Guidance recommends using the same analytical tools for
both.
In conducting an AR, the state must show both that the costs of treatment needed to
maintain water quality would interfere with development and that the development is important
to the region. These requirements are analogous to the UAA requirement that impacts show both
substantial and widespread effects.
2.2.3. Evaluating Substantial Impacts or Costs Sufficient to Interfere with Development
Although U.S. EPA (1995) demonstrates that the same measures can be used for UAAs
and ARs, it defines separate measures for public-sector and private-sector entities. For
simplicity, the rest of this discussion will refer to these measures as demonstrating substantial
impacts; however, the same measures are applicable for ARs as well.
2-8
-------
2.2.3.1. Measures for Private-Sector Entities
Analyzing impacts on private-sector entities relies on the use of financial ratios that
compare the costs of complying with the WQS with baseline company sales, profits, and other
financial variables. U.S. EPA (1995) recommends the following process to assess whether
impacts are substantial, which can be conducted for a single affected facility or a group of
facilities that discharge pollutants to a water body:
(1) Verify project costs and calculate the annual cost of the pollution control project.
(2) Conduct financial impact analysis:
• Primary measure = Profit—How much will profits decline because of the pollution
control expenditure?
• Secondary measures
- Liquidity—How easily can an entity pay its short-term bills?
- Solvency—How easily can an entity pay its fixed and long-term bills?
- Leverage—How much money can the entity borrow?
U.S. EPA advises computing various ratios that measure profit, liquidity, solvency, and
leverage both with and without the control costs. The Interim Economic Guidance states that the
analysis should be conducted at the facility level and that the application should be accompanied
by data to demonstrate it. U.S. EPA also notes that facility-level data may be unavailable or
considered proprietary; in this case, U.S. EPA suggests estimating facility-level data based on
data for the company that owns the facility. Appendix A describes in detail the ratios used for
each measure and the values of each ratio that indicate when an impact is substantial.
2.2.3.2. Measures for Public-Sector Entities
If a facility is owned by a public-sector entity (such as a publicly owned treatment works
[POTW] or public construction project), the indicators of impact are different. In this case, the
process involves several steps:
2-9
-------
(1) Verify project costs and calculate the annual cost of the pollution control project.
(2) Calculate the total annualized pollution control cost per household.
(3) Calculate and evaluate the municipal preliminary screener score, which compares the cost
per household with the municipal median household income.
(4) Apply the secondary test, which characterizes community baseline financial and
socioeconomic well-being based on measures such as debt indicators, unemployment
rate, median household income, and measures of financial management.
(5) Determine where a municipality falls in the "substantial impacts matrix."
Appendix A provides the substantial impacts matrix for a public-sector entity. Overall,
U.S. EPA states that socioeconomic conditions should be weighted more heavily than financial
management indicators.
2.2.4. Determining if Impacts are Widespread
Determining that impacts are substantial is a necessary but not sufficient condition to
remove a use or allow a waiver or to permit a reduction in water quality. The analyst must also
demonstrate that the impacts are widespread. U.S. EPA's Interim Economic Guidance states that
there are no definitive ratio measures to evaluate widespread impacts. Instead, the analyst must
examine relative magnitudes of a variety of socioeconomic indicators.
The first step in examining whether economic impacts are widespread is to define the
affected geographic area. For example, in the case of municipal pollution control projects, the
affected community is most often the immediate municipality. In other circumstances, the
geographic area may include adjacent or downstream communities too.
To evaluate whether costs incurred by a private-sector entity result in widespread
impacts, U.S. EPA suggests that the criterion is whether the economy of the region is able to
absorb reductions in employment and business activity resulting from them, which depends
largely on the baseline strength or weakness of the local economy and on how important the
affected facility is to the local economy. U.S. EPA again advises considering possible economic
impacts on development opportunities if the need to install water pollution controls to comply
with the standards discourages or delays investment.
2-10
-------
To assess whether costs incurred by a public-sector entity result in widespread impacts,
U.S. EPA recommends examining potential changes in such indicators as median household
income, community unemployment, percentage of households below the poverty line, impacts on
property values, and impaired development opportunities. Whether an impact is considered
widespread according to the Interim Economic Guidance depends on its magnitude and on the
current condition of the community.
Decreased employment, decreased personal income, and reductions in local expenditures
by the entity or entities will generate additional indirect and induced effects throughout the rest
of the economy as directly affected businesses and households reduce their spending on locally
produced goods and services. U.S. EPA notes that these impacts can be evaluated using
multipliers (such as the U.S. Department of Commerce's RIMS II Regional Multipliers,
currently based on the 1997 Economic Census) (DoC, 1997). These multipliers capture the
spending linkages between the directly affected entities and the rest of the economy and permit
the analyst to trace the changes in spending throughout the economy (additional information can
be found in Chapter 4, see Section 4.25).
2.2.5. Differences in Application for Antidegradation Reviews
If the quality of water (i.e., water quality criteria) exceeds "fishable/swimmable" (in other
words, it is a "high-quality water"), some reduction of water quality may be permitted if an AR
determines that the lowering is necessary to accommodate important economic or social
development in the area where the waters are located. For the AR, the analyst first assesses
whether the costs of control required to maintain the water quality would interfere with economic
development (usually, a specific proposed project). If so, the next step is to determine whether
the development would be important economically or socially to the area.5 The Interim
Economic Guidance identifies the following steps in an AR:
5 U.S. EPA (1995) states that "the term important is intended to convey a general concept regarding the level of
social and economic development," which is measured by geographical area and changes to socioeconomic
indicators like unemployment, income, and tax revenue, for example.
2-11
-------
(1) Verify project costs and calculate the annual cost of the pollution control project.
(2) Determine if requirements would interfere with development.
(3) Determine if the economic and social development that is at risk would be important.
2.3. OTHER PERSPECTIVES ON ECONOMIC ANALYSES AND USE
ATTAINMENT DECISIONS
As described above, the U.S. EPA Interim Economic Guidance recommendation for
UAAs based on the socioeconomic factor is to use economic impact analysis methods to assess
both substantial and widespread impacts. Nevertheless, there are other perspectives on the
appropriate methods to apply. In particular, the Water Environment Research Foundation
(WERF, 1997), National Research Council (NRC, 2001), and Shabman (2005) are all examples
of documents that use approaches other than economic impact analysis for evaluating the
socioeconomic effects of changing designated uses. However, it is not clear if these other
approaches are consistent with current WQS regulation. In this section, we present these other
perspectives. The purpose is not to advocate for or against these other approaches, but rather to
inform the reader about other viewpoints on applicable research related to economic UAAs.6
Benefit-cost analysis (BCA) is one of the main alternatives to economic impact analysis.
BCA is a widely used economic analysis method for evaluating the overall effect of a policy on
society's well-being; however, it is generally not part of the UAA process. As the name implies,
BCA involves identifying, quantifying, and valuing the positive effects (benefits) and negative
effects (costs) on society's well-being that result from a water quality change and then
comparing these benefits and costs to assess whether the change improves society's well-being
overall. This is different from economic impact analysis, which tends to focus on changes in
financial and fiscal outcomes—profits, revenues, incomes—and employment measures.
Although benefits analysis is described in U.S. EPA Interim Economic Guidance, the process
6 This report, as described in Chapter I, supports and presents the idea that community preferences can play a role in
UAAs and ARs but still remain within the current regulatory framework. By following the recommendations within
the Interim Economic Guidance, we suggest additional analyses to examine whether the community prefers the
outcomes suggested by the Interim Economic Guidance (i.e., if substantial and widespread impacts are found, does
the community still want to downgrade the use and lose the potential ecological benefits?).
2-12
-------
described in the guidance focuses on measuring the costs and economic impacts of meeting
water quality goals.
The WQS regulation (40 CFR 131) allows for the consideration of economic impacts on
regulated entities and the economic health and development of the surrounding communities, in
cases where either the state wishes to remove a use, obtain a pollutant-specific waiver,
subcategorize a use, and require it when the state wishes to allow a reduction of water quality
while still maintaining water quality that is "fishable/swimmable." The language in the
regulation calls for economic impact analysis, including an assessment of impacts on regulated
entities, communities, and economic development. It does not call specifically for a comparison
of benefits and costs (for details, see Bruins and Heberling, 2005). This is consistent with other
regulations under the CWA, which incorporate a criterion of "economic achievability" into
consideration of point-source water pollution controls and best management practices for
nonpoint sources.
WERF's A Comprehensive UAA Technical Reference, which describes socioeconomic
analysis in the context of a UAA (WERF, 1997, Chapter 10), argues that socioeconomic analysis
can be accomplished through either financial impact analysis (FIA, a type of economic impact
analysis) or BCA or both.7 Although the U.S. EPA Interim Economic Guidance guidance clearly
states that "benefit-cost analysis is not required to demonstrate substantial and widespread effects
under the Federal Water Quality Standards regulation" (U.S. EPA, 1995, p. 4-6), WERF suggests
that FIA is not a sufficient approach for a UAA proposal that involves large changes in WQS or
water quality, changes that have widespread impact, changes that affect many people, and
changes that require other financing mechanisms in addition to the investments provided by
regulated dischargers. The WERF document then discusses the use of BCA for socioeconomic
analysis. The document includes a discussion of benefits estimation and a discussion of social
and financial costs of water quality improvements. WERF prefers BCA because it incorporates
consideration of the values of water quality changes (improvements or reductions). WERF then
describes, through the use of interrelated flow diagrams, the process of BCA for UAAs.
The financial analysis described in U.S. EPA's Interim Economic Guidance provides a
detailed assessment of impacts on regulated entities and communities. Although the financial
7 Whereas U.S. EPA distinguishes between UAAs, which are for removing, waiving, or subcategorizing uses, and
ARs, in WERF's terminology there are two types of UAAs: one assessing nonattainment situations and one
assessing antidegradation situations.
2-13
-------
tests suggested are straightforward, WERF believes there are limitations: the data for these tests
may need to be estimated, they do not incorporate likely behavioral responses by either the
regulated entity or others indirectly affected, and their interpretation is somewhat arbitrary.
BCA, as noted by WERF, provides a more complete assessment of the effects of the
change in water quality, including both costs and impacts to the regulated entity and the
surrounding community, and changes in the value of the water body as a resource. It is, however,
a more costly and complex process than economic impact analysis (involving first estimating
changes in water quality, then quantifying the effects of those changes on the ecosystem and the
services provided by the ecosystem, and then estimating the value of those changes). According
to WERF, BCA may be warranted when changes in water quality are expected to be
economically consequential, because of the magnitude of the change or the economic importance
of the water body.
The NRC (2001) argues that a lack of clear guidance on what is an acceptable UAA and
how to conduct economic analysis within the UAA decision leads to few states actually
determining "substantial and widespread economic and social impact" (see Section 2.4).
Therefore, one of NRC's recommendations is for U.S. EPA to provide "broadened
socioeconomic evaluation and decision analysis guidelines for states to use during UAA."
However, the NRC does not go into detail on what constitutes a "broadened socioeconomic
evaluation."
Shabman (2005), providing some details omitted in the NRC (2001) report, describes an
adaptive implementation (AI) process that refines uses and criteria over time. To bring
economics into AI, he describes an analysis called "proximate knee of the cost curve," which
allows the public to discover the gains and losses over time. It sets the starting point for the
analysis at the current conditions and asks the public whether the additional costs of moving
away from the current conditions to some goal are reasonable. The current U.S. EPA approach
sets the WQS as the goal and requires the polluter to prove that costs are unreasonable. Shabman
(2005) assumes that having the current conditions as the starting point reduces the uncertainty
bounds around the benefits and costs of moving away from the current conditions.
2-14
-------
2.4. EXAMPLES OF EXISTING USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES AND
ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEWS USING ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
To provide the reader with a resource for understanding the current practices, this section
of the report identifies and describes several examples of existing UAAs and ARs. The WERF
(1997) and the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO, 2003) both surveyed the 50 states in
order to gain an understanding of the UAA activity level and the number of designated uses that
have been changed. No other sources of information could be found related to current practices.
WERF found that approximately 3200 UAAs were undertaken between 1983 and the end of
1992. The GAO asked states how many designated use changes were adopted between 1997 and
2001. They found that approximately 3900 changes were identified.
In our search of the literature, we identified 13 UAAs and 4 ARs that incorporate
economic arguments. The examples found in the search were initiated between 1983-2003.
Documentation for the examples was obtained from materials that could be downloaded from
state agency Web sites and reports submitted by the states to U.S. EPA Regional program
offices. Tables 2-2 and 2-3 summarize select elements from each example, and Figure 2-1 shows
their locations within states and watersheds (8-digit U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] cataloging
units).
This collection of examples is not meant to be exhaustive, and the methods used in these
cases are not necessarily recommended. The main goal in compiling them is to provide examples
from different parts of the country that used economic analyses of varying sophistication or
different methods in presenting socioeconomic arguments.
It should be noted that the vast majority of UAAs do not involve economic arguments.
For ARs, many states are still defining their methodologies. This means that ARs involving
socioeconomic arguments are not plentiful, and finding examples was difficult. The "record of
decision" process does not usually involve publishing materials in the Federal Register or other
readily available national dockets. Also, states tend to submit materials to their U.S. EPA
Regional offices to initiate a potentially lengthy series of negotiations. In many cases, technical
alternatives to an actual UAA (e.g., site-specific adjustments to criteria for existing uses) are
employed to avoid actual changes in the designated uses. The status of the review process as of
the end of 2003 is noted in Table 2-2, but a large number are best viewed as still in process or
even as draft submissions.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-2
Use Attainability Analysis Examples
Example
ID
State
Name
Reason for Analysis
Type of Economic
Analysis
Status
1
CA
Ballona
Creek
TMDL process
Narrative discussion of
costs and benefits
Under review by U.S. EPA
Region
2
ID
Blackbird
Creek
Impacts from inactive
mine lands and mine
tailings
Narrative discussion of
costs and benefits
Under review by U.S. EPA
Region
3
VA
Blacks Run
Creek
TMDL process
Narrative discussion of
costs and benefits
Unclear
4
MA
Boston
Harbor Area
Combined sewer
overflow (CSO) issues
Narrative discussion of
costs
Approved by U.S. EPA
Region
5
OR
Burnt River
TMDL process
Narrative discussion of
costs
Under review by U.S. EPA
Region
6
NY
Cayadutta
Creek
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
discharge permit issue
Cost data for alternatives
Approved by U.S. EPA
Region
7
DE /
PA/
NJ
Delaware
Estuary
National Estuary
Program
recommendation
Narrative discussion of
benefits
National Estuary Program
recommendation approved
by U.S. EPA Regions
8
ME
Gulf Island
Pond
NPDES discharge permit
issue involving pollution
effects in a reservoir
Cost data for alternatives,
narrative discussion of
benefits
Under review by U.S. EPA
Region
9
CO
Lower
French
Gulch/Blue
River
Acid mine drainage from
abandoned mine lands
Narrative discussion of
costs and benefits, some
valuation
Under review by U.S. EPA
Region
10
NY
Lower
Hudson/East
River
Long Island Sound Study
recommendations
Narrative discussion of
costs and benefits
Analysis shared with U.S.
EPA Region
11
ME
Lower
Salmon
Falls River
NPDES discharge permit
issue
Cost data for alternatives,
quantified assessment of
water quality impacts,
socioeconomic analysis
Under review by U.S. EPA
Region
12
CA
Santa Ana
River
NPDES discharge permit
issues on an effluent-
dominated system
Cost data for alternatives,
quantified assessment of
water quality impacts,
socioeconomic analysis
Approved by U.S. EPA
Region
13
IN
White River
CSO issues
Cost data for alternatives,
quantified assessment of
water quality impacts,
socioeconomic analysis
Approved by U.S. EPA
Region
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-3
Antidegradation Examples
Example
ID
State
Name
Reason for
Analysis
Type of Economic
Analysis
Status
14
ND
Devils Lake
Impacts of
lake/wetland
drainage on water
quality
Cost data for alternatives,
qualitative discussion of
water quality and
ecological impacts
Under review by
U.S. EPA Region
15
WY
Northwest Basins
Coal bed methane
operations general
discharge permits
Cost data for alternatives,
qualitative assessment of
environmental impacts
Approved by
U.S. EPA Region
16
OK
Snake Creek
Concentrated
animal feeding
operations (CAFO)
issues (poultry
wastes)
Narrative discussion of
costs and benefits
Approved by
U.S. EPA Region
17
OH
Sycamore Creek
NPDES discharge
permit issue
Cost data for alternatives,
qualitative comparison of
benefits
Under review by
U.S. EPA Region
2-17
-------
FIGURE 2-1
States and Watersheds Containing UAAs or Antidegradation Reviews that Incorporate Economic
Arguments. Numbers correspond with the "Example ID" column in Tables 2-2, 2-3, and with the
"Example" column in Table B-l.
2-18
-------
Although somewhat limited in number, these examples offer a good illustration of the
types of socioeconomic methods and techniques that states have applied. Appendix B provides
more detailed summaries that include information on the location of the water bodies, the
designated uses and pollution stressors of concern, the primary reasons for undertaking the
studies, the types of analyses considered, and alternatives proposed to address the WQS issues.
The different stakeholders involved are noted along with the year when the UAAs or ARs were
initiated and the current status of the process.
2.5. LESSON
An important lesson that emerges from even a cursory review of the examples listed
above is, to the extent that an economic analysis is conducted, most attention is given to the cost
data of attaining designated uses or of maintaining high water quality. Very little attention is
given to the kinds or amounts of economic benefits that would be obtained in the process.
Therefore, the current approach used in the economic analysis, although useful for regulatory
determinations, may not fully inform affected communities about the effects these decisions will
have on their well-being. No UAA or AR was based on collecting community preferences
suggesting that those UAAs and ARs did not provide the local community all the information it
could have considered. A broader analysis, one that makes the preparation of UAAs and ARs
more informed, may help a community decide that a use change or degradation is not warranted.
On the other hand, it may reveal that a higher use is preferred. The subsequent sections of this
report introduce a set of approaches that can be used to obtain a broader perspective on
ecological and economic changes, including both qualitative and quantitative methods that result
from decisions about WQS.
2.6. REFERENCES
Bruins, R. and M. Heberling. 2005. Ecological and economic analysis for water quality
standards. Chapter 6. In: Economics and Ecological Risk Assessment: Applications to
Watershed Management, R.J.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling, Ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
DoC (U.S. Department of Commerce). 1997. Regional Multipliers: A User Handbook for the
Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), 3rd ed. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Washington, DC. Available at
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/regional/perinc/meth/rims2.pdf.
2-19
-------
GAO (U.S. General Accounting Office). 2003. Water Quality: Improved EPA Guidance and
Support to Help States Develop Water Quality Standards that Better Target Cleanup Efforts.
General Accounting Office, Washington, DC. GAO-03-308.
NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality
Management, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Shabman, L. 2005. Decision-making and uncertainty in ambient water quality management.
Chapter 7. In: Economics and Ecological Risk Assessment: Applications to Watershed
Management, R.J.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling, Ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd ed. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-94/005a. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/wqstandards/handbook.pdf.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-95/002.
Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/econworkbook/.
WERF (Water Environment Research Foundation). 1997. A Comprehensive UAA Technical
Reference. Project 91-NPS-1. Alexandria, VA.
2-20
-------
3. UNDERSTANDING Till CHOICES: RELATING WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DECISIONS TO CHANGES IN ECOSYSTEMS,
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS
Existing WQS guidance for evaluating socioeconomic impacts in UAAs and ARs
includes analyses of financial impacts on affected entities and regional economic impacts on
communities. Nevertheless, states, tribes, and communities could take a broader approach in
analyzing the effects of water quality management options (see Chapter 1). A variety of
socioeconomic analysis methods can be used (see Chapter 4) to provide decision-makers with a
broader understanding of who the relevant stakeholders are and how alternative management
options are likely to affect them. Decision-makers must often weigh gains and losses to different
groups, and these analytical methods provide them with tools for evaluating the relevant
trade-offs.
Chapter 3 provides decision-makers with a general framework for understanding how the
choices affect ecosystems and human well-being. It can be used to organize analyses and to
characterize conditions for a wide variety of water quality management situations and scenarios.
In this chapter, the framework is first described and then illustrated with several hypothetical
case study examples.
This chapter combines concepts from ecological risk assessment (ERA), stressor
identification, and socioeconomic analyses, such as BCA. Section 3.1 defines water body
impairment and describes approaches for identifying impairments and their causes through
stressor identification. ERA and stressor identification are two tools that can contribute to UAA,
and this section summarizes the main components of ERA and explains how stressor
identification can be used to inform ERA in an iterative fashion to compare risks to aquatic
ecosystems associated with various mitigation strategies. Section 3.2 extends this framework to
show how aquatic ecosystems are linked to and support humans through the provision of
"ecosystem services." It defines and categorizes these services and provides examples of how
they can be characterized. It also discusses how ecosystem services are related to designated
uses.
To further illustrate these connections and show how they can be used to inform use-
attainment decisions, Section 3.3 describes relevant socioeconomic endpoints and Section 3.4
develops flow diagrams representing expanded conceptual models. These expanded models
3-1
-------
include the interconnections between sources, stressors, ecosystem components and processes,
and ecological assessment endpoints. They also extend these links to include effects on
ecosystem services and related socioeconomic impacts. In addition, they include linkages to
management alternatives, showing how these alternatives alter stressor impacts, services, human
welfare, and designated use attainment. The models are applied and illustrated through five
hypothetical case studies. The main objective in defining these expanded conceptual models is to
provide decision-makers with an initial framework to consider for identifying and evaluating a
broader range of ecological and socioeconomic endpoints associated with WQS. Most of these
endpoints will not otherwise be captured using existing WQS guidance.
3.1. IDENTIFYING IMPAIRMENTS AND THEIR CAUSES
Understanding impairments and their causes is central to establishing appropriate
designated uses for water bodies through UAAs and ARs. Thus, the purpose of this section is to
• provide the reader with an understanding of impairments in terms of designated uses and
indicators;
• identify the causes of the biological impairment (referred to as stressor identification);
and
• use information gleaned from the stressor identification to improve the conceptual
models that characterize the relationships among source, stressor, and impairment.
Figure 3-1 adapts the decision framework outlined in Figure 1-6 to specifically convey
where in the process stressor identification occurs and how that information is used in improving
the conceptual models that compare alternative approaches to address nonattainment. Whereas
ERA is a forward-looking process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects
(such as disease or injury) may occur as a result of exposure to a stressor—a chemical, physical,
or biological agent—stressor identification is a retrospective process used to identify which of
several possible stressors is most likely causing a water body's observed impairment. Stressor
identification can identify the causes of impairment, supporting both the development of
proposed management alternatives as well as the improvement of ERA conceptual models
3-2
-------
Set Goals & WQS
Conduct Monitoring
Determine WQS Compliance
Develop Initial Management Options
Develop Conceptual Models for Options
Select Preferred Management Option
Evaluate Factors Affecting Use Attainment
or Antidegradation Conditions
Evaluate Gains and Losses Between
Options
Assess Social and Economic Impacts of
Options
Identify and Assess Impairments,
Stressors & Sources
Assess Ecological Risks and
Impacts of Options
FIGURE 3-1
Relationship of Stressor Identification and Ecological Risk Assessment to the Other Components
of Use-Attainment Decisions
3-3
-------
expanded to describe the relationships among sources, stressors, exposures, responses, and
ecosystem services.
Management alternatives can include various voluntary or regulatory actions to reduce
the causes or limit the effects of impairment. As described above, the expanded conceptual
models can then illustrate the anticipated effects of each of the management alternatives on the
ecosystem services. ERA, stressor identification, and socioeconomic analyses then provide the
means to characterize and compare the management alternatives to support use-attainment
decisions (Bruins et al., 2005).
3.1.1. Impairments
Impairment under the CWA may be broadly defined as any detrimental effect on the
integrity of a water body caused by a stressor (or stressors) that prevents attainment of the
designated use. The breadth of this definition underscores the importance of characterizing the
nature of a detected impairment, including its spatial and temporal scale, and identifying all of its
potential causes. Although the focus of this report is not on the detection of impairments, it is
important to understand what kinds of impairments are possible, what indicators are used in
detecting an impairment, and what sorts of stressors may lead to an impairment.
3.1.1.1. Types of Impairments
Because impairments are defined in terms of designated uses, it is useful to think about
impairments in a relative sense; that is, the reduction in the quality/quantity of the designated use
relative to either the initial conditions (before introduction of a stressor) or a reference water
body (i.e., a similar water body where human disturbance is at a minimum). Designated uses
cover a wide variety of categories that reflect the biological, chemical, and physical attributes of
the water body. Therefore, impairments include a broad range of water body characteristics,
including, for example, elevated concentrations of toxics in fish, objectionable odors or low
visibility in the water, decreased depth of navigable waters, or reduced flow in agricultural water
supplies. Note that all of these impairments are directly linked to designated uses (e.g., elevated
fish tissue concentrations of pollutants affect fish consumption), and all are defined in terms of
measurable changes in how the water body is used.
3-4
-------
3.1.1.2. Indicators of Impairments
WQS may use various criteria to indicate impairment. These fall into two major groups:
narrative criteria and numeric criteria. Narrative criteria are qualitative descriptions of the
conditions within a water body that are necessary to support designated uses such as recreation
(e.g., swimming) or aquatic life. Narrative criteria can be in the form of simple statements such
as "free from pollutants that produce objectionable color, odor, or taste" or they may be more
explicit with respect to biological integrity, toxicity, nuisance algal growths, or settleable solids.
Impairment may be determined based on the ability of the water body to support a designated
type of fishery (e.g., a river that does not meet narrative WQS because it fails to support
adequate salmonid spawning). Narrative criteria are an integral component of states' WQS, and
they are used often to establish water body-specific numerical criteria.
Numeric water quality criteria provide quantitative measures of the "health" of the water
body and provide standards that are easily interpretable with respect to impairment. For example,
numeric criteria include the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for the protection of health
and aquatic life, respectively, from exposure to toxic pollutants. Other numeric criteria include
measures of water quality characteristics such as dissolved oxygen (DO) content, pH, and
suspended solids; concentrations of nutrients or chlorophyll a to indicate overenrichment; and
microbial water quality criteria for waterborne bacteria and other pathogens. In addition,
biological numeric criteria have been developed to describe the expected attainable community
attributes and establish values based on measures such as species richness, presence or absence
of indicator taxa, and distribution of classes of organisms. The Index of Biological Integrity (IBI)
is an example of a biological numeric criterion for fish community health that combines several
specific, quantitative measures of biological components (e.g., number of pollution-intolerant
fish species present, percentage of individual fish with deformities) and is used to determine
when a water body is impaired. U.S. EPA's (1994) Water Quality Standards Handbook provides
a thorough discussion of water quality criteria, and descriptions of ongoing research into
developing quantitative water quality criteria are available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards.
3-5
-------
3.1.1.3. Stressors that Lead to Impairments
The broad scope of the narrative and numeric indicators of impairment implies that
aquatic ecosystems are susceptible to a wide variety of stressors. For example, impairment of
fish consumption as a designated use could be determined by an exceedance of the AWQC for
toxic pollutants (i.e., violation of numeric water quality criteria) or through the comparison with
one or more reference sites (i.e., failure to meet narrative biological criteria). This type of
impairment also could be determined by a decrease in the DO concentration in the water body
below target levels. Each of these indicators leads to the same finding that the water body is
impaired; however, each indicator may be related to a different type of stressor and source.
Therefore, a key to understanding impairments and, ultimately, to effective management of
watersheds is to understand the stressors that cause impairments and the likely sources of those
stressors. Specifically, distinguishing between the different stressors and sources that cause
impairments will help identify those that are most amenable to control.
As shown in Table 3-1, stressors related to water body impairment may be organized into
three major categories—physical, chemical, and biological. As discussed in Section 3.1.2,
identifying/characterizing stressors is essential in developing a comprehensive understanding of
the impairment of designated uses.
TABLE 3-1
Examples of Stressors and Sources that Can Cause Impairments
Stressor Category
Stressor Examples
Source Examples
Physical
Change in sediment substrate
DO, temperature
Physical or thermal injury to fish
Flow/gradient changes
Destruction of riparian habitat
Dam construction
Cooling towers
Water withdrawal
Chemical
Pesticides (atrazine)
Metals, pH
Nutrients, ammonia
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAHs), phthalates
Disinfection by-products
Dioxins, mercury
Agricultural applications
Stormwater runoff
Animal feedlot operations
Industrial discharges
Wastewater treatment
Stack emissions
Biological
Predation, competition
Pathogens
Overharvesting
Normative species introduction
Combined sewer operations
Commercial fishing pressure
3-6
-------
3.1.2. Understanding Stressor Identification
In 2000, U.S. EPA published the Stressor Identification Guidance Document (hereafter
Guidance) (U.S. EPA, 2000) to provide assistance to U.S. EPA regions, states, and tribes in their
efforts to protect the biological integrity of the nation's waters. The document recognizes that,
although bioassessments are useful for identifying biological impairments, they do not identify
the causes of impairments. This shortcoming is due in large part to the complexity in linking
biological effects with causes when multiple stressors (e.g., toxics, nutrient loads, habitat
destruction) affect a water body. Thus, the Guidance bridges an important gap between
identifying impairments and characterizing the causes (i.e., stressors) of those impairments (U.S.
EPA, 2000). To provide the reader with a sense of how stressor identification supports the ERA
process discussed in Section 3.1.3, this section presents a brief summary of how evidence is
analyzed and how impairment causes are characterized (Chapters 3 and 4 of the Guidance).
3.1.2.1. Analyzing the Evidence
Once candidate causes of impairment are identified, the next step in the stressor identification
process is to determine whether existing data are sufficient to determine a causal relationship
between stressor and impairment. Data from studies of a particular water body, as well as from
studies on other water bodies or from laboratories (e.g., effluent toxicity tests, biological surveys,
habitat analyses), are all potentially useful, but site and laboratory data do not constitute evidence
of causation. Investigators have to analyze these data to delineate associations between stressors
and responses relevant to the site of interest. Chapter 3 of the Guidance includes detailed
instructions for these analyses, including discussions on the following elements:
• associations between measurements of candidate causes and effects,
• use of effects data from elsewhere,
• measurements associated with causal mechanism, and
• associations of effects with mitigation or manipulation of causes.
This step in stressor identification feeds the development of stressor-response profiles in the
ERA to establish, and possibly quantify, the relationship between stressors and adverse
ecological effects.
3-7
-------
3.1.2.2. Characterizing Causes
After the available evidence has been compiled and analyzed, the next step in the process
is to characterize causes and state the level of confidence in that conclusion. Chapter 4 of the
Guidance presents a systematic method for reaching a conclusion, consisting of two steps:
(1) inferring causation and (2) summarizing probable cause and evaluating confidence. To
characterize causation, U.S. EPA recommends an iterative process. This process begins with
eliminating alternatives based on negative evidence, such as when the effects of concern occur
upstream, as well as downstream, of the discharge of the stressor. The elimination step is
followed by diagnoses that rely on positive evidence, such as the observation in affected
organisms of symptoms known to be characteristic of a particular stressor. The process
culminates in a strength of evidence analysis. Evaluating the strength of evidence involves a
series of considerations, such as plausibility, specificity, analogy, and predictive performance,
among other attributes pertinent to evidential discussions. Assuming that the iterative process
identifies one or more sufficient causes of the impairment, the results of the characterization
must be summarized and described with respect to uncertainties.
3.1.3. Understanding Ecological Risks
There is a substantial body of information available from U.S. EPA and other sources on
ERA. In particular, U.S. EPA's Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998)
provides a widely accepted framework for designing, implementing, and interpreting ERAs; and
Bruins et al. (2005) discuss the application of ERA specifically to watershed management
problems and presents a series of case studies. Consequently, the following discussion on ERA is
intentionally brief and focuses on three elements: (1) defining assessment endpoints for aquatic
ecosystems, (2) understanding key ERA concepts in building the conceptual model and the
influence of stressor identification on that process, and (3) characterizing risks to aquatic
ecosystems.
3.1.3.1. Defining Assessment Endpoints for A quatic Ecosystems
Assessment endpoints are developed to characterize and represent the valued ecological
characteristics identified in the management objectives. The process of defining these endpoints
identifies the characteristics that are both ecologically relevant and susceptible to stressors, and it
3-8
-------
selects specific ecological entities and measurable attributes to embody those valued
characteristics in the analysis. However, selecting assessment endpoints remains a challenging
step. A recent U.S. EPA report (U.S. EPA, 2003) has developed a set of generic ecological
assessment endpoints (GEAEs) that can be used as examples for ERA. In that document, the
process of developing assessment endpoints is described in terms of five basic questions:
(1) What is susceptible to the stressor (stressor characteristics)?
(2) What is present and ecologically relevant (ecosystem/receptor characteristics)?
(3) What is relevant to the management goals (management goals)?
(4) What is of concern to stakeholders (input by interested parties)?
(5) What is supported by policy or precedent (GEAEs and policies/precedents)?
The document also identifies several specific examples of assessment endpoints that are
grouped into four categories according to whether they characterize conditions at the level of
organisms, populations, or ecosystems and communities, or whether they correspond to officially
designated endpoints, such as critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act.
3.1.3.2. Understanding Key Concepts in ERA Conceptual Model Development
The framework for ERA consists of three phases: (1) problem formulation, (2) analysis,
and (3) risk characterization. In the first phase, information is gathered to develop and evaluate
preliminary theories about why ecological effects (or impairments) have occurred, or may occur,
as a result of human actions. The conceptual model that emerges from that process depicts how
the stressor is presumed to interact with the ecosystem. It provides both a written description and
visual representation (diagram) of predicted relationships between ecological entities and the
stressors to which they may be exposed (U.S. EPA, 1998). In developing the conceptual model,
the diagram depicts exposure scenarios in which land-use or human activities are linked to
specific stressors, and it shows the relationship between those stressors and the ecosystem
processes and components that influence receptor responses (and, therefore, relate directly to
impairment). Thus, as information from the stressor identification process is brought into the
ERA, the conceptual models will evolve to reflect new data and analyses of the causes of water
quality impairment. These improvements in the quality of the expanded conceptual models will
reduce the overall uncertainty in the ERA and provide a more rigorous basis for decision-
making.
3-9
-------
One of the most important features of the conceptual model is its representation of a set
of theories that describe predicted relationships among the source, stressor, exposure, and
assessment endpoint response. Although these theories are sometimes referred to as "risk
hypotheses" this term does not refer to a test for causality based on statistical inference. As
discussed later, developing these risk theories is particularly important because they provide the
basis for expanding the conceptual models (Section 3.3). These expanded models depict the
impact of management options (e.g., protecting riparian buffer) on stressors; track these changes
through ecosystem processes/components; and, ultimately, assess changes in both ecosystem
services and regulatory compliance (e.g., attainment of designated uses). Thus, the conceptual
model allows one to fully understand the risk theories that are being evaluated by selecting
management option "A," and it allows one to identify the ecological responses that are expected
under option "A." The risk theories illustrated in the conceptual model provide the framework to
evaluate the functional relationships among management options, stressors, and responses within
the context of decisions involving use attainment and antidegradation.
Any conceptual model that illustrates complex relationships among sources, stressors,
exposure, and responses is, of course, subject to uncertainty. Indeed, conceptual model
development may be one of the most important sources of uncertainty in risk assessment (U.S.
EPA, 1998). Uncertainty arises from many sources, including a lack of knowledge about how the
ecosystem is currently functioning (e.g., is it already in a vulnerable state?); inadequate data on
the effects of a stressor on biological components of the ecosystem; and insufficient information
on the interactions among different types of chemical, biological, and physical stressors. If
important relationships between stressors and other model components are misrepresented (or
missed entirely), the risk characterization may misrepresent actual risks. Because model
simplification and knowledge gaps are the norm in conducting an ERA, it is particularly
important that information developed during the stressor identification be used to reduce the
sources of uncertainty or, at a minimum, to characterize the relative importance of key sources of
uncertainty.
3.1.3.3. Characterizing Risks to A quatic Ecosystems
The scientific components of the WQS used in an ERA primarily include the AWQC.
The AWQC include (1) numeric limits for toxic contaminants and water quality metrics such as
3-10
-------
DO; (2) nutrient criteria, which may establish target concentrations for nitrogen or phosphorous;
and (3) biocriteria, which are numeric target values of multimetric indices such as the IBI and
Invertebrate Community Index (ICI). These indices and their target values are often adjusted to
fit regional conditions. They provide "what should be" benchmarks that represent unimpaired
reference water bodies. Thus, the ecological risk characterization for aquatic systems typically
compares modeled or measured conditions (e.g., pollutant concentrations, abundance and
composition of invertebrate species) to reference benchmarks to determine whether the water
body is in compliance with these standards. Because the numeric WQS tend to be point values
for nationwide or regional use, the uncertainty in these limits is seldom explored; however, the
uncertainty in exposure to pollutants released into aquatic systems is often examined using
probabilistic modeling simulations.
With few exceptions, the practice of ERA tends to rely on consensus reference
benchmarks (i.e., concentration thresholds) rather than on all of the information on the toxicity of
a given pollutant. Thus, the emphasis of the risk characterization is on developing a qualitative
discussion and, in some cases, a quantitative expression of the certainty that the WQS will or will
not be exceeded. Unfortunately, this approach to characterizing risks to aquatic ecosystems
addresses only some of the multiple stressors that affect the structure, function, and general
"health" of the ecosystem. For instance, hydrological modification (e.g., water withdrawal, flow
control), stream channel modification, removal of riparian vegetation, and introduction of
nonnative species are not addressed in characterizing risks as part of the WQS. In addition, the
potential effects associated with exposure to multiple stressors (e.g., increased macrophyte
growth and toxics loadings) and the effects of chemical stressors for which no WQS have been
developed are not considered. Although mechanistic models such as AQUATOX Version 2.0
(U.S. EPA, 2004) significantly expand our ability to evaluate effects from multiple stressors, the
focus of risk characterization to aquatic ecosystems tends to be limited to the probability of
meeting each of the WQS relevant to a particular body of water.
3.2. UNDERSTANDING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND DESIGNATED USES
For decision-makers to understand the broader ramifications of alternative approaches for
attaining WQS, it often is necessary to look beyond the financial and economic impacts and
changes in designated use attainment discussed in Chapter 2 and the ecological endpoints
3-11
-------
discussed above in Section 3.1. It requires a framework that helps decision-makers better
understand how humans interact with and derive services from the affected ecological systems
and how these services are related to WQS management options and designated uses. To
establish this type of framework, the following sections define and describe aquatic ecosystem
services and their relationship to designated uses.
3.2.1. Aquatic Ecosystem Services
The concept of ecosystem services is fundamental for evaluating how humans are
supported by ecological systems and how their well-being is affected by changes in these
systems (see, for example, Daily [1997] or Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [2005]).1 This
report adopts the following definition provided by U.S. EPA (2006):
Ecosystem services are outputs of ecological functions or processes that directly
or indirectly contribute to social welfare or have the potential to do so in the
future. Some may be bought and sold, but most are not marketed.
For the purpose of setting and evaluating WQS, the concept of aquatic ecosystem
services is particularly important. These are the services specifically derived from surface water
resources and their connected ecosystems. They are also the ecosystem services primarily
affected by alternative water quality management options.
Figure 3-2 illustrates the link between aquatic ecosystems and the services derived from
these systems. It describes in simplified terms the primary components and processes of a
functioning aquatic ecosystem.2 They include the physical habitat (e.g., stream bed
characteristics and the flow of water through the system) and the biological components of the
habitat (e.g., fish populations and species diversity), and the chemical, biological, and
hydrological processes that occur within the ecosystem. These components and processes
directly influence and are also influenced by the level of water quality (e.g., DO content and pH
levels) in the system.
1 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment supports decision-making related to the effects of ecosystem change on
humans. It focuses on ecosystem services and human well-being. It also examines local, national, and global options
for conserving these services. Although this U.S. EPA report was not written to correspond with the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, both are fairly consistent in definitions and framework.
2 Although Figure 3-2 represents stream processes, it could depict other aquatic ecosystems.
3-12
-------
Aquatic Ecosystem Services
Recreation
Aesthetic
Cultural
Flood/flow control
Navigation
Energy
Water supply
Existence/nonuse
Harvestable resources
Waste absorption and breakdown
Water filtration and erosion control
Climate regulation
FIGURE 3-2
Services Derived from Aquatic Ecosystems
Aquatic Ecosystem
Physical habitat
o
Biological components of habitat
rfc
Stream processes/chemistry
1 T
Water quality
3-13
-------
Figure 3-2 shows that the interrelated features of an aquatic ecosystem are together
capable of providing a wide range of ecosystem services to humans. These services are in many
cases derived from specific human uses of surface water resources and their associated aquatic
ecosystems. The uses include activities that are primarily commercial, such as commercial
fishing, navigation, energy production, and agriculture (e.g., through crop irrigation). They also
include "nonmarket" activities that are unrelated or only indirectly related to commercial
activities, such as water-based recreation, subsistence fishing, and household water use. Other
services provided by aquatic ecosystems relate to or support a wide variety of human uses. For
example, flood control services protect commercial and residential properties as well as water-
based recreational facilities. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) describes some of
these as supporting services which are used to support or produce other ecosystem services.
Nutrient cycling is another example that supports and affects the condition of other ecosystem
services. Aesthetic services from aquatic ecosystems (e.g., through appreciation of their natural
beauty) enhance recreational, residential, and many other uses of water resources.
Only one of the ecosystem service categories—existence/nonuse—is, by definition,
unrelated to any specific human uses of water resources. The argument for including
existence/nonuse as a distinct category of ecosystem service is that individuals can gain
satisfaction and fulfillment simply from the knowledge that an ecosystem (particularly a well-
functioning and healthy one) exists. These services can arise for several reasons, including
• individuals value the ecosystem intrinsically,
• they value the satisfaction others get from using the resource (altruistic value),3
• they value preserving the resource for future generations (bequest/preservation value),
and/or
• they gain satisfaction from a sense of environmental stewardship.
Table 3-2 provides decision-makers with a richer characterization of the range, type, and
measures of aquatic ecosystem services that may be affected by alternative water quality
management options. It is intended to assist decision-makers in identifying, comparing, and
3 In certain cases, altruism may not be a valid motive for existence value (see McConnell, 1997).
3-14
-------
TABLE 3-2
Aquatic Ecosystem Services: Classification and Description of Services Supported by Healthy Aquatic Ecosystems
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics Related
to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Recreational
Services
Water quality
• Clarity
• Smell
• Taste
• Toxic pollutants
• Visual impairments
• Indicators of
healthy ecosystem
• Visual (e.g., "Secchi") depth
• Reported odors
• Reported unpleasant tastes
• Measurable pollutant
concentrations
• Presence of foam, oil scum, algal
blooms
• pH level, DO content
• No foam, clarity, purity, color,
no odor, no bacteria, not so
much algae
• Odor
• Floating objects, foam, algae,
discoloration, cloudiness, oil
scum, domestic sewage,
weeds, odor, taste
• Would not harm someone who
happened to fall into it for a
short time while boating or
sailing
• Clear Lake, IA (Downing
etal.,2001)
• Connecticut River, New
England (Mullens and
Bristow, 2003)
• Lakes in Canada (Parkes,
1973)
• Water bodies in the U.S.
(Carson and Mitchell,
1993)
Site characteristics
• Recreational
facilities
• Congestion
• Landscape
aesthetics
• Location
• Uniqueness
• Number of boat launches, piers,
beach/shore access points,
lifeguards, hiking paths, camping
sites, picnic facilities, wildlife
viewing blinds, and/or hunting
blinds
• Number of people or boats in view
• Number of visible manmade
structures
• Presence of unique vistas
• Proximity to population centers
• Proximity to comparable sites
• People or boats one expects to
see
• Number of other groups
(canoeing) encountered per
day
• Take guests for ride, picnic,
celebrate events
• Number of people seen at the
hunting site, travel method,
distance of hunting site from
home
• Susquehanna River Basin,
PA, and James River Basin,
VA (Heberling, 2000)
• Three Ontario parks,
Canada (Boxall et al.,
2003)
• Mangrove wetlands of
Yucatan, Mexico
(Kaplowitz, 2000)
• Northwest Saskatchewan,
Canada (Haener et al.,
2001)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Recreational
Services
(continued)
Recreational
fishing
Presence/abundance
of target species
• Catch rate per unit effort
• Size/number/health of adult fish
• Fish population
• Population of salmon in river
• Number and size of fish caught
• Catch rate (actual, potential,
expected)
• John Day River, OR
(Johnson and Adams,
1989)
• Elwha River, WA
(Loomis, 1996)
• Idaho (Donnelly et al.,
1985)
• San Francisco Bay, CA
(Huppert, 1989); Cache la
Poudre River, CO
(Daubert and Young,
1981); Tar-Pamlico River,
NC (Whitehead and
Groothius, 1992)
Healthy aquatic
community
• Age structure of population
• Diversity of species
• Presence of game fish and
rough fish
• Water bodies in the U. S.
(Carson and Mitchell,
1993); Iowa and Illinois
river basins (Lant and
Roberts, 1990)
• Michigan and Kansas
(Cable and Udd, 1990)
• New York State (Connelly
etal., 1992); Great Lakes
waters (Connelly and
Knuth, 1993)
Safety of fish for
human consumption
• Fish consumption advisories
(presence and type)
• Pollutant concentrations in fish
tissue
• Sensory cues (e.g., smell,
observations of dead or dying
fish, bad taste)
• Aware of fish consumption
advisories or health advisories
for sport-fish caught in certain
waters
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Recreational
Services
(continued)
Recreational
fishing
(continued)
Habitat quality
• Flow/hydrology
• Water quantity
• Stream bed quality
• Spawning habitat
• Volume per unit time after rain
events
• Baseline volume of water
• Sediment substrate type and size
• Presence of pools/rooted
vegetation
• Mature vegetation in buffer area
• Development threatens wildlife
• Variety of vegetation,
vegetation shade to keep water
cool for fish and reduce algae
growth, stream corridors
important for animal migration
• Grand River Watershed,
Canada (Brox et al., 1996)
• South Platte River, CO
(Loomis et al., 2000)
Boating
Habitat quality
• Flow/hydrology
• Water quantity
• Volume per unit time after rain
events
• Baseline volume of water
• Development threatens fish,
waterfowl, songbirds, and
other creatures in marshes and
woodlands
• Grand River Watershed,
Canada (Brox et al., 1996)
Swimming
Safety
• Presence/type of water quality
advisories
• Frequency of water quality
advisories
• Frequency of water quality-related
beach closures
• Incidence of skin/eye/ear irritation
• Irritation (skin, eyes, ears)
• Lakes in Canada (Parkes,
1973)
Hiking
Habitat quality
• Health and maturity of riparian
vegetation
• Development threatens fish,
waterfowl, songbirds, and other
creatures in marshes and
woodlands
• Grand River Watershed,
Canada (Brox et al., 1996)
• Variety of vegetation, shelter
and areas for nesting and
roosting, vegetation shade to
keep water cool for fish and
reduce algae growth, stream
corridors important for animal
migration
• South Platte River, CO
(Loomis et al., 2000)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Recreational
Services
(continued)
Wildlife
viewing
Presence/abundance
of target species
• Population of target species, in
particular wild, rare, symbolic,
and charismatic species
• Populations and sightings of
endangered species
• California coast (Loomis
and Larson, 1994)
Habitat quality
• Population and health of riparian
and aquatic vegetation
• Presence/quality/extent of habitat
for species of interest
• Development threatens fish,
waterfowl, songbirds, and
other creatures in marshes and
woodlands
• Variety of vegetation, shelter
and areas for nesting and
roosting, vegetation shade to
keep water cool for fish and
reduce algae growth, stream
corridors important for animal
migration
• Grand River Watershed,
Canada (Brox et al., 1996)
• South Platte River, CO
(Loomis et al., 2000)
Hunting
Presence/abundance
of target species
• Population of target species
• Bag rate per unit effort
• Signs of moose seen daily
• Northwest Saskatchewan,
Canada (Haener et al.,
2001)
Habitat quality
• Presence/quality/extent of habitat
for target species
• Development threatens fish,
waterfowl, songbirds, and
other creatures in marshes and
woodlands
• How long it has been since the
site was harvested
• Shelter and areas for nesting
and roosting, stream corridors
important for animal migration
• Grand River Watershed,
Canada (Brox et al., 1996)
• Northwest Saskatchewan,
Canada (Haener et al.,
2001)
• South Platte River, CO
(Loomis et al., 2000)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Aesthetic
Services
Water quality
• Clarity
• Smell
• Visual impairments
• Visual (e.g., "Secchi") depth
• Reported odors
• Visible foam, oil scum, algal
blooms
• No foam, clarity, purity, color,
no odor, no bacteria, not so
much algae
• Odor
• Floating objects, foam, algae,
discoloration, cloudiness, oil
scum, domestic sewage, weeds,
odor
• Clear Lake, IA (Downing
etal.,2001)
• Connecticut River, New
England (Mullens and
Bristow, 2003)
• Lakes in Canada (Parkes,
1973)
Habitat quality
• Presence/quality/extent of habitat
• Variety of vegetation, shelter
and areas for nesting and
roosting, vegetation shade to
keep water cool for fish and
reduce algae growth, stream
corridors important for animal
migration
• South Platte River, CO
(Loomis et al., 2000)
Site characteristics
• Landscape
aesthetics
• Location
• Uniqueness
• Number of visible manmade
structures
• Presence of unique vistas
• Proximity to population centers
• Proximity to comparable sites
• Appearance
• Beauty (beautiful, pretty,
views), take guests for ride,
picnic, celebrate events
• Percentage difference in rental
value/sale price for: unit facing
water one facing away from
water in the same building,
different types of water bodies
(river vs. canal), proximity to
water body, and proximity to
dock on canal
• Grand River Watershed,
Canada (Brox et al., 1996)
• Mangrove wetlands of
Yucatan, Mexico
(Kaplowitz, 2000)
• Mercy Basin, England
(Wood and Handley,
1999)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Cultural
Services
Presence and
significance of
cultural sites
• Number of cultural sites
• Number of archeological sites
• Number of religious sites
• Protection of historic
shipwrecks from treasure
hunters
• Eastern North Carolina
(Whitehead and Finney,
2003)
Access to cultural
sites
• Absence of barriers to culturally
significant uses of resources
• Absence of barriers to visit or
view sites
• Distance of hunting site from
home, number of people seen
at the hunting site, signs of
moose seen daily, travel
method, how long it has been
since the site was harvested
• Northwest Saskatchewan,
Canada (Haener et al.,
2001)
Flood/Flow
Control
Services
Property protection
• Reduced frequency/extent of flood
damage
• Avoided costs of flood damage
• Flood protection
• Percentage chance of flood
waters entering the first floor
or basement
• Wetlands in New England
(Stevens et al., 1995)
• Roanoke, VA (Shabman
and Stephenson, 1996)
Safety
• Reduced risk of death or injury
due to floodwaters
Navigation
Services
Capacity for
navigation (depends
on depth and flow)
• Maximum volume/weight of
shipped goods per unit time
• Maximum number of persons per
unit time
• Cost of shipping or transportation
• Quantity/volume of goods shipped
• Quantity of trips
• Price of shipped goods
• Producer surplusb
- Returns/profits from
commercial transport
- Returns/profits to uses of
shipped goods
• Consumer surplus0
- Availability of cheaper or
better quality transport
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Energy
Services
Water flow for
hydroelectricity
generation
• Cost of electricity production and
delivery
• kWh of electricity produced and
consumed
• Producer surplusb
- Returns/profits for commercial
energy suppliers
- Returns/profits for commercial
users of electricity
• Consumer surplus0
- Availability of cheaper
electricity and other goods
• Presence (or absence) of a
hydroelectric power station in a
national park
• Riverside wetlands in
"Donau-Auen" national
park, Austria (Kosz, 1996)
Water Supply
Services
Industrial
water supply
• Cooling
water
• Other
industrial
uses
Water flow/quality for
industrial uses
• Costs of water for industrial uses
• Costs of treating water for
industrial uses
• Quantity of water used for
industrial uses
• Producer surplusb
- Returns/profits for industrial
producers
• Consumer surplus0
• Availability of cheaper goods
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Water Supply
Services
(continued)
Agricultural
water supply
• Irrigation
• Other agri-
cultural
uses
Water flow/quality for
agricultural uses
• Costs of water for agricultural uses
• Costs of treating water for
agricultural uses
• Quantity of water used for
agricultural uses
• Producer surplusb
- Returns/profits for agricultural
producers
- Returns/profits for users of
agricultural goods
• Consumer surplus0
• Availability of cheaper
agricultural and other goods
Household
water supply
• Drinking
water
• Other
house-hold
uses
Water supply for
household users
• Costs of water for household uses
• Costs of treating water for
household uses
• Quantity of water used for
household uses
• Producer surplusb
- Returns/profits to commercial
water utilities
• Consumer surplus0
• Availability of cheaper household
water
• Million gallons of water daily
(mgd) extracted, reduction in
the level of water in river
• Rio Mameyes and Rio
Fajardo, Puerto Rico
(Gonzalez-Caban and
Loomis, 1997)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Water Supply
Services
(continued)
Water quality
• Clarity
• Odor
• Taste
• Health/safety
• Cloudiness
• Reported odors
• Reported tastes
• Concentrations of harmful
pollutants
• Presence of drinking water
advisories
• No foam, clarity, purity, color,
no odor, no bacteria, not so
much algae
• Odor
• Discoloration, cloudiness,
odor, irritation (skin, eyes,
ears), taste
• Bad water quality (color and
bad smell)
• Appearance, odor
• Taste, odor, color, skin/eye
irritation
• Clear Lake, IA (Downing
etal.,2001)
• Connecticut River, New
England (Mullens and
Bristow, 2003)
• Lakes in Canada (Parkes,
1973)
• Mexico City, Mexico
(Soto Montes de Oca et
al., 2003)
• Grand River Watershed,
Canada (Brox et al., 1996)
• Orlando, FL (DeLorme et
al., 2003)
Characteristics of
water distribution
• Reliability
• Capacity
• Number of water outages per unit
time
• Number of hours of service per
unit time
• Shortages, low water pressure
• Avoidance of water
restrictions, reliability
improvement in water supply
system
• Quality of city water service
and reliability of water system,
shortages, restrictions on water
use, cost
• Mexico City, Mexico
(Soto Montes de Oca et
al., 2003)
• Seven Texas cities (Griffin
and Mjelde, 2000)
• Boulder, Longmont, and
Aurora, CO (Howe et al.,
1994)
Groundwater
recharge
Water flow
• Base flow
• Groundwater levels
• Improve aquifer recharge rate
and ensure a stable supply of
groundwater
• Cagayan de Oro,
Phillipines (Palanca-Tan
and Bautista, 2003)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Existence/
Nonuse
Services'1
Biodiversity
• Complexity of
community and
redundancy of
species
• Sustainability of
rare, threatened, or
endangered species
• Number of different species
present in ecosystem
• Number/size/health of rare,
threatened, or endangered species
• Probability of long-term survival
of key species
• Preservation of genetic resources
• Containing rare species of
plants that provide ecosystem
stability and genetic diversity
• Populations and sightings of
endangered species
• Population of salmon in river
• Wetlands in New England
(Stevens et al., 1995)
• California coast (Loomis
and Larson, 1994)
• Elwha River, WA
(Loomis, 1996)
Water quality
• Clarity
• Smell
• Toxic pollutants
• Visual impairments
• Indicators of
healthy ecosystem
• Visual (e.g., "Secchi") depth
• Reported odors
• Measurable pollutant
concentrations
• Visible foam, oil scum, algal
blooms
• pH level, DO content
Habitat quality
• Water quantity
• Spawning habitat
• Nutrient
management
• Baseline volume of water
• Presence of pools/rooted
vegetation
• Presence/quality/extent of habitat
for charismatic species
• Mature vegetation in buffer area
• Total nitrogen and phosphorous
concentrations
• Instream flows (presence of
water in rivers and streams as
well as support of wildlife,
vegetation, and habitat)
• Variety of vegetation, shelter
and areas for nesting and
roosting, vegetation shade to
keep water cool for fish and
reduce algae growth, stream
corridors important for animal
migration
• New Mexico (Berrens et
al., 2000)
• South Platte River, CO
(Loomis et al., 2000)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Harvestable
Resources
Commercial
harvesting
• Fishing
• Harvest-
ing of raw
materials
Presence/abundance
of target species
• Capital and operating costs for
fishermen
• Cost of fishing trips
• Wholesale and retail price of fish
• Quantity of fish caught
• Quantity of fish consumed in
wholesale or retail market
• Producer surplusb
- Costs of production (catch rate
per unit effort)
- Returns/profits to commercial
fishers
• Consumer surplus0
- Availability of cheaper
commercial fish
Safety of harvest for
human consumption
• Fish consumption advisories
(presence and type)
• Fish tissue pollutant
concentrations
Presence/abundance of
materials
• Cost of harvest
• Wholesale and retail price of
materials
• Quantity of material harvested
• Quantity of materials consumed in
wholesale or retail market
• Producer surplusb
- Returns/profits to commercial
harvesters of raw materials
- Returns/profits to users of
harvested materials
• Consumer surplus0
- Availability of cheaper material
• Mining development (impact of
resulting pollution would
eliminate potential for
recreational use in waterways)
• South Platte River Basin,
CO (Greenley et al., 1981)
-------
TABLE 3-2 cont.
Service
Category
Service
Subcategory
Characteristics
Related to the Service
Example Measures of
Characteristics
Examples of Language Used to
Describe the Service3
Location and Citation for
Language Used
Harvestable
Resources
(continued)
Subsistence
harvesting
• Fishing
• Hunting
Presence/abundance of
target species
• Population of target species
• Catch rate per unit effort
• Size/health of fish
• Sport fishing as a source of
food (anglers may not consider
themselves to be subsistence
fishing)
• Buffalo, NY (Beehler et
al., 2003)
Safety of harvest for
human consumption
• Fish consumption advisories
(presence and type)
• Fish tissue pollutant concentrations
Waste
Absorption
and
Breakdown
Assimilative capacity
• Avoided alternative waste disposal
costs
• Adequate river flows to dilute
fertilizer and pesticides from
runoff, wastewater discharges,
and pollutants in stormwater,
insures the river is not toxic to
fish and safe for water-based
recreation
• South Platte River, CO
(Loomis et al., 2000)
Water
Filtration and
Erosion
Control
Riparian and wetland
vegetation
• Presence and extent of riparian
buffer
• Presence and extent of wetland
vegetation
Climate
Regulation
Capacity for carbon
storage
• Presence and extent of vegetation
Microhabitat features
• Humidity levels
aSources of these terms include actual questionnaires, survey descriptions, and summaries of focus group discussions.
bMeasure of seller's well-being.
°Measure of buyer's well-being.
dAlthough not shown here, service subcategories for existence/nonuse services could include the existence of all the other service categories. For example,
someone may value cultural services they would never use.
-------
evaluating the relevant gains and losses between affected services.4 The table also presents
terminology that may be more adequate for communicating changes to communities. Table 3-2
highlights how ecosystem services are connected to water quality or water quantity
characteristics. It begins to link changes in ecosystems to measurements in ecosystem services in
order to understand the gains and losses perceived by communities.
The first column of Table 3-2 includes the main categories of aquatic ecosystem services,
which correspond with those shown in Figure 3-2. The second column divides 3 of the 12 main
categories into a total of 12 subcategories. For example, recreational services are divided into six
subcategories of recreational activities—fishing, boating, swimming, hiking, wildlife viewing,
and hunting. The third column identifies key characteristics of the water resource or service
category that affect the level and quality of the services provided. For example, water quality,
habitat quality, health/safety, water flow, and landscape aesthetics are included in multiple
subcategories. Importantly, water quality does not play a significant role in all of the service
categories. Although recreational, aesthetic, and existence/nonuse services are undoubtedly
enhanced by improvements in water quality, others such as energy and navigation services are
more strongly influenced by water flow and other physical characteristics of the water resource.
However, even ecosystem services that are not directly affected by water quality may need to be
considered in evaluating WQS management options. For example, one option for attaining
boatable/fishable water quality conditions on a river segment might be to remove a dam, but this
removal could have a negative impact on energy and flood control services. In this case, the
WQS management decision requires consideration of the gains and losses between different
types of aquatic ecosystem services, some of which involve water quality and others that do not.
The fourth column in Table 3-2 lists examples of measures that correspond to the
characteristics in the previous column. By measuring characteristics of water resources that
relate to specific services, they also can be thought of and used as indicators of the level or
quality of services provided by aquatic ecosystems. The measures listed in this column do not
provide an exhaustive list of the relevant and possible measures for each service. Rather they
provide key examples of measures to serve as a reference and starting points for analysts and
4 As discussed in Chapter 1, the examination of the relevant gains and losses is in addition to the analyses described
in the existing guidance to determine if the communities would prefer the new situation.
3-27
-------
decision-makers. These measures can be adapted or supplemented as necessary to evaluate and
compare changes to specific ecosystem services.
The fifth column presents examples of how aquatic ecosystem services have been
described to (e.g., in surveys) or by the general public. These descriptors are generally less
technical than those listed in the previous column, and they are meant to serve a different
purpose. Whereas the measures listed in column four are intended to provide analysts with tools
for quantifying and evaluating changes in ecosystem services, the descriptors listed in column
five provide terms that may be more appropriate for communicating these changes to the general
public. These terms were drawn from the research literature exploring values, attitudes, and
perceptions regarding water quality and aquatic ecosystem services. Locations and references for
each of the relevant studies are provided in the last column of Table 3-2.
3.2.2. Relating Aquatic Ecosystem Services to Designated Uses
Given the well-defined and critical role of designated use attainment in WQS
decision-making and the potential role of aquatic ecosystem services in evaluating communities'
preferences, it is important to consider how they relate to one another. In essence, they represent
two distinct but related ways of characterizing how well conditions in a water resource support
human well-being. One important difference is that use attainment is a dichotomous indicator of
conditions in the water body (i.e., for each designated use category, either the designated use is
attained or it is not), whereas services are best represented by more continuous measures.
Consequently, when water quality management decisions result in changes to designated uses,
they also are likely to affect the types and levels of ecosystem services that are provided by the
water resource.
However, changes in designated use attainment are not a necessary condition for changes
in aquatic ecosystem services. As Figure 3-2 implies, any alteration to the structure or
functioning of the aquatic ecosystem will have potential implications for the types and levels of
services that are derived from the system. Therefore, decisions about changing designated uses
could effect multiple ecosystem services, but they will not likely be identified by the analyses
described in the existing guidance.
To illustrate the relationship between designated use attainment and aquatic ecosystem
services, Table 3-3 provides a matrix linking the main designated use categories with the main
3-28
-------
TABLE 3-3
Aquatic Ecosystem Services
Aquatic Ecosystem Services
Example of Designated Use Category
Primary
Contact
Recreation
(Safe to
Swim)
Secondary
Contact
Recreation
(Safe to
Fish, Boat)
Ag Water
Supply
(Irrigation
and
Livestock)
Industrial
Water
Supply
Hydro-
power
Generation
Public
Water
Supply
Aesthetics
(Visibility,
Odor)
Fish
Consump-
tion (Safe
to Eat
Fish)
Aquatic
Life (Cold
and Warm
Water)
Shellfish
Harvest-
ing
Waters
Naviga-
tion
Main Category
Subcategory
Recreation
Fishing
Boating
Swimming
Hiking
Wildlife viewing
Hunting
•
•
•
o
o
o
o
o
o
•
•
o
o
o
o
•
Aesthetic
•
o
Cultural
o
o
Flood/Flow
Control
Navigation
•
Energy
•
Water Supply
Industrial
Agricultural
Household
Groundwater
recharge
•
•
•
•—Attainment of this designated use category directly supports/enhances this aquatic ecosystem service,
o—Attainment of this designated use category indirectly or partially supports/enhances this aquatic ecosystem service.
-------
TABLE 3-3 cont.
Aquatic Ecosystem Services
Example of Designated Use Category
Primary
Contact
Recreation
(Safe to
Swim)
Secondary
Contact
Recreation
(Safe to
Fish, Boat)
Ag Water
Supply
(Irrigation
and
Livestock)
Industrial
Water
Supply
Hydro-
power
Generation
Public
Water
Supply
Aesthetics
(Visibility,
Odor)
Fish
Consump-
tion (Safe
to Eat
Fish)
Aquatic
Life (Cold
and Warm
Water)
Shellfish
Harvest-
ing
Waters
Naviga-
tion
Main Category
Subcategory
Existence/
Nonuse
•
•
Harvestable
Resources
Commercial
harvesting
Subsistence
harvesting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Waste
Absorption and
Breakdown
Water Filtration
and Erosion
Control
Climate
Regulation
•—Attainment of this designated use category directly supports/enhances this aquatic ecosystem service,
o—Attainment of this designated use category indirectly or partially supports/enhances this aquatic ecosystem service.
-------
aquatic ecosystem service categories. Although there are several closely corresponding
categories, particularly for aquatic ecosystem services derived from specific uses of water (e.g.,
recreation, navigation, energy, water supply and harvestable resources), the categories do not all
correspond one to one. In the matrix, the dark circles represent categories for which there is a
direct correspondence between designated uses and services. For example, if a water body goes
from nonattainment to attainment of the primary contact recreation use designation, this implies
that the potential swimming services from the water body are directly enhanced.5 The open
circles represent categories for which a less direct correspondence is expected. For example,
attainment of aquatic life and aesthetic standards in a water body will most likely but not
necessarily enhance most recreational services from the water body.6 It is important to note that,
even for matched categories, nonattainment of a designated use does not necessarily mean that
the corresponding services are zero. For example, nonattainment of the fish consumption
designated use does not necessarily imply that the water body fails to provide any fishing
services, but it does imply that those services are restricted. Similarly, attainment of a designated
use category does not necessarily imply that the corresponding services are positive (see
Footnote 5). The links between ecosystem services and designated uses are further described in
the following section through expanded flow diagrams and case study examples of WQS
decisions.
3.3. ASSESSMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC ENDPOINTS AFFECTED BY USE
ATTAINMENT DECISIONS
As discussed in Chapter 2, U.S. EPA's (1995) Interim Economic Guidance provides
decision-makers and analysts with specific recommendations for estimating the financial impacts
on private- and public-sector entities and the economic impacts on the community. Although
these impacts are undoubtedly important endpoints for decision-makers to consider, the overall
socioeconomic impacts associated with setting or modifying WQS are potentially much broader.
5 Services are only "potentially" enhanced in these cases because attainment of a designated use does not necessarily
imply that the use will take place at the water body; rather, it implies that the water body becomes more suitable for
the use. For example, a water body may not be used in practice for swimming (e.g., due to difficulties with access to
the water body) even if its water quality is suitable for swimming.
6 We do not attempt to present all of the ecosystem services protected by the designated uses. For example, attaining
the criteria established for public water supply may, in many but not all instances, enhance aesthetics and
recreational services. The opposite could be true as well. A human activity that prevents the attainment may reduce
more ecosystem services than identified in Table 3-3. These ancillary benefits or costs are important and should be
examined on a case-by-case basis.
3-31
-------
As described above, a more comprehensive view of the relevant impacts and trade-offs can be
achieved by considering how ecosystem services are affected by alternative management
options.
Any changes in human well-being (i.e., "human welfare gains or losses") resulting from
WQS changes should be interpreted as relevant socioeconomic endpoints. Even in situations
where it is not feasible to conduct a detailed, quantitative BCA, important insights can be gained
by identifying and considering the full range of socioeconomic endpoints affected by changes in
ecosystem services.
Changes to aquatic ecosystem services can affect human well-being in a variety of ways.
Some of these effects will have direct monetary or market implications for individuals. For
example, several services provided by water resources, such as commercial fishing, energy
supply, and agricultural water supply, directly support market activities. As a result, changes in
these services can affect both producers and consumers by changing the costs of production,
prices, incomes, and employment related to these activities. These types of services and human
welfare effects are illustrated, for example, in the case studies described in Section 3.4. For
example, in Case Study 3, an intermittent stream ecosystem initially supports livestock and
agricultural production, but with the management options in place, these services are curtailed.
As a result, the farmer loses some of the profit he would have earned by selling his products on
the market. Consumers of his products may be affected negatively. These market-related effects
(referred to in the case study as changes in "market surplus") represent potentially important
socioeconomic endpoints. In other cases, the costs of management options are not borne through
market interactions, but rather through charges for public services (e.g., taxes, fees). In these
cases (e.g., Case Study 1 below), the human welfare effects can be described as reductions in
disposable income, disposable income, or the amount of money available for spending or saving
net income taxes.
Both market surplus and disposable income changes can be addressed at least partially
using methods outlined in the Interim Economic Guidance developed by U.S. EPA (1995).
However, some aquatic ecosystem services have less direct but equally relevant monetary or
market implications. For example, flood control services help prevent financial losses associated
with property damage, and aesthetic services for near-shore residents are reflected in housing
prices and property values. Therefore, changes to these services also can have impacts on prices,
3-32
-------
incomes, and employment (in these cases, mostly related to property markets and ownership).
These socioeconomic endpoints also deserve consideration. In Case Study 4 below, these
endpoints are included when considering the effects of allowing a mall development to occur.
Possible damages to the wetland could result in more flooding and sedimentation downstream,
which could, among other things, result in property value losses for downstream residents.
Other aquatic ecosystem services have little or no connection to markets or incomes;
nevertheless, they still are valued by individuals and contribute to their well-being. Recreational
services are a prime example. If, for instance, services from recreational fishing, boating,
swimming, or other activities are affected by changes in water quality, these changes will not
necessarily affect prices, incomes, or employment in any market. However, the absence of a
direct monetary effect on individuals does not imply that there is no socioeconomic effect. In
these cases, the relevant endpoint is the change in enjoyment individuals derive from their
recreational activities. In all of the case studies, reducing the effects of stressors on aquatic
ecosystems is shown to enhance recreational services and provide more value to recreational
users of the resources.
Several other categories of ecosystem services have similar "nonmarket" characteristics.
For example, in many cases, changes to aesthetic services or changes to services derived from
cultural and subsistence activities will not have observable effects on prices or incomes. Again,
despite the lack of a direct monetary impact, the change in individuals' enjoyment of these
activities represents a potentially important socioeconomic endpoint to be considered.
One category of ecosystem services is unique because it is not derived from any specific
use or market related to the aquatic resource—nonuse/existence services. The effects of these
services on human well-being are less tangible than other services and certainly more difficult to
measure, but they may nonetheless be significant. As discussed in Section 3.2, the argument for
considering these services is that individuals may well value protecting the existence and quality
of natural resources that they never expect to use in any way. The motivations for these values
may be altruistic (protecting the resource for other users and future generations), or they may be
derived from a sense of stewardship or inherent responsibility for protecting the resource. These
values are likely to be particularly strong for aquatic resources that are unique, threatened, or
endangered. Regardless of the motivation for nonuse values, they represent another potentially
important socioeconomic endpoint to consider as part of setting or modifying WQS, and for this
3-33
-------
reason they are included as potential human welfare gains in all five of the case study examples
discussed in the next section.
3.4. MAPPING THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROBLEM:
DEVELOPING CONCEPTUAL MODELS
Conceptual models expressed as flow diagrams are particularly useful tools for
representing relationships within and between ecological and human systems. As discussed in
Sections 3.1 and 3.2 above, these diagrams play an integral role in stressor identification and in
the problem formulation stage of ERA by illustrating relationships between sources, stressors,
ecological entities, and their responses to the stressors. They can be used to illustrate the links
between aquatic ecosystems and the services derived from them. This section presents
conceptual models that expand Figure 3-2 to evaluate the broader societal implications and gains
and losses associated with setting or modifying WQS. Their purpose is to illustrate how to lay
out the problem and identify important trade-offs that need to be quantified or measured. The
evaluation methods will be discussed in Chapter 4.
The section begins by presenting these expanded conceptual models in general terms.
Second, several main steps are described for applying the general framework and developing
conceptual diagrams that depict specific WQS conditions. Third, the diagrams are applied and
illustrated through five case study WQS examples. The expanded models include the
interconnections between sources, stressors, ecosystem components and processes, and
ecological assessment endpoints, and they extend these links to include effects on ecosystem
services and related socioeconomic impacts. In addition, they include linkages to management
alternatives by showing how these alternatives alter inputs, relationships, ecosystem services,
human welfare effects, and designated use attainment.
3.4.1. General Framework for the Expanded Conceptual Models
Figure 3-2, which illustrates the idea that ecosystem services are derived from the
ecosystem components and processes, is the foundation for the expanded conceptual models.
Building directly on Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3 shows that land uses and other sources of stress are
capable of introducing stressors to aquatic ecosystems. These stressors disrupt the normal
functioning of the ecosystem, which can cause reductions in water quality and can impair the
ecosystem's ability to provide key services. However, as shown in Figure 3-3, these same
3-34
-------
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Water
Quality
Criteria,
DESIGNATED
USE
ATTAINMENT
Other
Services/
Goods
Land
Uses I
Sources
Stressors
FIGURE 3-3
Effects of Sources/Stressors on Aquatic Ecosystem Services, Use Attainment and Provision of
Other Goods and Services
3-35
-------
sources and land uses are also capable of providing other important goods and services to
humans. For example, agricultural land uses may degrade water quality in local streams while at
the same time providing valued food crops for consumers.
Figure 3-4 further extends the framework shown in Figure 3-3. It illustrates how
management options considered in a standard-setting process, such as restoring a riparian area or
building a stormwater retention pond, typically will alter the effects of land uses and other
sources of impairment on human well-being. Because humans may experience both gains and
losses as a result of these options, the figure also demonstrates the trade-offs that are inherent in
the standard-setting process (shown by purple lines). By controlling stressors to the aquatic
ecosystem (represented by the blue lines), a management option should improve certain
ecosystem services, resulting in gains to individuals who value these services. At the same time,
however, controlling stressors may impose losses on certain individuals. Some of these losses
will result from the direct costs associated with controls (e.g., capital and operating costs for
effluent treatment systems). Other losses will result from indirect costs, which are the value of
foregone opportunities (i.e., "opportunity" costs). For example, restrictions on agricultural land
uses will generally result in fewer goods being available from agricultural production.
In addition to illustrating the relevance of ecosystem services for evaluating WQS and the
inherent gains and losses involved in the standard-setting process, Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show how
these considerations are related to the attainment of designated uses. Use attainment is ultimately
determined by comparing observed water quality (or related conditions) in the aquatic ecosystem
with the relevant water quality criteria. Without a management option in place (Figure 3-3),
water quality may well be degraded to the point at which specific criteria are not met and the
corresponding designated uses are not attained. Once an option is implemented (Figure 3-4),
water quality may improve to the point where the criteria are met and the designated use is
attained.
3.4.2. Stages for Developing Expanded Conceptual Diagrams
Applying the general framework outlined above to evaluate specific WQS conditions
requires gathering and organizing several types of information, first to characterize baseline
conditions (based on Figure 3-3) and then to characterize the effects of alternative management
3-36
-------
c
Management
Option
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Uses/
Sources
Other
Services/
Goods
Legend
—~ Ecosystem impact flow
Determination of
designated use
Ecosystem service
attainment
support flow
—~ Flow alteration
w Human welfare effect
flow
—~ Cost flow
Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished
(increased) flows relative to current conditions.
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Human
Welfare
Gains/
Losses
DESIGNATED
ATTAINMENT
Water
Quality
Criteria
FIGURE 3-4
Effects of Management Options on Aquatic Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being
3-37
-------
options (based on Figure 3-4). The following steps are recommended for these two development
stages.
To characterize baseline conditions
(1) List the main ecosystem components and functions that are or could be affected.
(2) List and describe the activities (land uses and/or sources) in and around the water body
that affect or could affect water body integrity.
(3) List the main stressors associated with each activity or source.
(4) Identify and show how these stressors are expected or known to enter and impair the
ecosystem components and functions.
(5) List the services and goods that are or could be derived from the affected aquatic
ecosystems as well as from the land uses and sources.
(6) List the designated uses for the affected water body and, in particular, identify the uses
not being attained.
(7)Identify the ecosystem services (and other goods and services) that are or would be
primarily affected by the identified land uses, sources, and stressors.
To characterize the relevant management decision
(1) List the management alternatives that will help attain designated uses.
(2) Determine the types of costs (including opportunity costs) incurred by implementing the
management alternatives.
(3) Identify and show how the management alternatives will affect the sources and/or land
uses and how they will alter the impacts of stressors on the ecosystem.
(4) Identify and show how the management alternatives will strengthen and/or weaken
different ecosystem services (and other goods and service flows).
(5) Identify and show how the management alternatives will positively and/or negatively
affect different aspects of human welfare.
3-38
-------
Note that all of the steps outlined above are applicable for evaluating the results from
both UAAs and ARs (see Chapter 2). With ARs, however, current conditions typically will
involve fewer stressors than under alternative conditions, and the management decision typically
will revolve around whether to allow additional stressors to enter the system. Therefore, the
baseline characterization for ARs must be constructed in anticipation of the stressors (and related
impacts) that would result if specific activities or sources were allowed to occur. For example, if
the AR involves consideration of a mall development (as in Case Study 4 discussed below) that
may increase sediment loads to a water body, baseline conditions will not include the mall as a
source or the increased loads as stressors. Nevertheless, it is useful to represent the absence of
these sources and stressors in the baseline conceptual diagram.
3.4.3. Case Study Examples of the Expanded Conceptual Models
This section presents several specific examples of expanded conceptual models that were
developed based on the general framework and the development steps described above. These
examples, which together comprise five "case studies," address the following hypothetical WQS
scenarios:
• Case Study 1 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing acid mine drainage (AMD)
impacts on a tributary stream and a river.
• Case Study 2 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing combined sewer overflows (CSO)
and stormwater impacts on a river system.
• Case Study 3 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing agricultural impacts on an
intermittent stream.
• Case Study 4 presents a hypothetical AR of a proposed retail development complex.
• Case Study 5 presents a hypothetical UAA addressing discharges to an effluent-
dominated stream.
3-39
-------
The purpose of these examples is to demonstrate how expanded conceptual models can
illustrate key connections within and between aquatic ecosystems and humans and to evaluate
the relevant impacts and gains and losses associated with alternative management options.7
Each WQS case study is introduced below with a written description of the key issues,
conditions, and assumptions. Diagrams representing current conditions and one or more
alternative management scenarios follow. To provide additional context for each case study,
most of the conceptual flow diagrams are also accompanied by spatial diagrams that depict
conditions in the affected water bodies (with and without the management options).
To represent current conditions, each case study includes a conceptual diagram based on
Figure 3-3. These figures typically illustrate a sequence of effects, beginning with how specific
sources (including land uses) contribute different stressors to the aquatic ecosystem. They then
show how these stressors affect different components of one or more aquatic ecosystems and
how these systems support a range of ecosystem services. Within the conceptual framework,
they also depict designated use-attainment status under current conditions.
To represent the ecological and socioeconomic effects of different management options,
each case study also includes diagrams based on Figure 3-4. First, they show how each
management option affects the stress-related flows from sources to ecosystems, in most cases by
reducing the negative impacts caused by specific stressors. Across the different management
options, differences in the strength of these flows are represented by the format of the arrows,
with dashed lines representing diminished flows relative to current conditions. The bold lines
represent increased flows relative to current conditions. Second, they show the various ways
(both positive and negative) in which the options ultimately affect human well-being. These
gains and losses to humans are shown to result from changes to aquatic ecosystem services, as
well as from the costs associated with implementing management options. They represent, in
most cases, socioeconomic endpoints that are not addressed by the U.S. EPA's Interim Economic
Guidance. The gains and losses in each of the human welfare categories (e.g., recreation values)
are represented by a + or -. For these gains and losses in human welfare to exist, individuals
must be aware or perceive that the changes have occurred. The number of + or - symbols shown
7 Because all of the case studies are based on the general framework presented in Figure 3-3 and 3-4, a reader could
understand the expanded conceptual model approach by examining only one case study. However, each presents
unique aspects that cannot be found in just one case study and Chapter 5 uses Case Study 1 and Case Study 2 to
illustrate the process presented in the report.
3-40
-------
represents an ordinal ranking of the management options regarding their effect on the welfare
category. For example, in Case Study 2 (depicted in Figures 3-8 through 3-10), compared with
current conditions, Option 2 would increase the recreational value derived from the ecosystem.
This increase is indicated by + for recreational value in Figure 3-10; however, Option 1 would
cause an even larger increase in recreational value compared with Option 2. This larger increase
is indicated by ++ in Figure 3-9.8 Third, the diagrams depict the expected designated use-
attainment status when a given management option is in place.9
3.4.3.1. Case Study 1: Acid Mine Drainage (Figures 3-5 through 3-7)
In the early 1900s, parts of Pennsylvania and West Virginia prospered because of the
extraction of coal. Since then, coal mining has declined and adverse environmental impacts have
increased (especially from abandoned mine lands).
A tributary to a popular recreational river is a major source of AMD. The drainage from
the surface mining and tailings has low pH from contact with pyrite (an iron sulfide) and has
elevated levels of metals; AMD can contaminate drinking water sources, eliminate habitat and
aquatic life, and corrode infrastructure like bridges. The tributary has designated uses of aquatic
life, secondary water contact recreation, and agricultural water supply; the river has aquatic life
(warm water), primary contact recreation, and agricultural water supply. These designated uses
are not being met in particular stretches of both the tributary and the river.
The tributary is about 7 miles long and receives AMD from surface runoff linked to
abandoned mine lands and mine tailings (this occurs 3 miles from the headwaters). Two seeps
are visible from the tailings. Aquatic life, like fish and salamanders, are not found in the tributary
after the drainage enters it.
The river, which has many activities affected by the AMD, is considered dead for 8 miles
after the tributary enters it. However, the tributary is not the only cause of degradation in the
river. Several smaller nonpoint sources of AMD also directly discharge into the river along this
8-mile stretch and contribute to poor water quality in this part of the river. Aluminum
8 The number of + or - should not be interpreted or used to compare changes across human welfare categories (for
example, more pluses for recreation values compared with consumption values does not necessarily mean that the
gains through recreation are greater than those through consumption). Also note that two +'s does not necessarily
indicate twice the increase; such quantitative evaluations are generally not possible at this stage.
9 Stating that the diagrams depict the expected designated use-attainment status means that management options
might fail. In Case Study 1, a probability that the option will fail is given in the text. In the other case studies, the
diagrams show the expected results if the management options do not fail.
3-41
-------
concentrations prevent any fish population from existing in this part of the river; however, the
riparian habitat is of good quality and other wildlife is abundant.
A number of activities and land uses occur in the vicinity of the river and tributary. The
river is known for its Whitewater rafting and kayaking. Hiking, mountain biking, and picnicking
are popular around both the river and tributary, especially along a recently completed rail-trail
that follows the river and crosses the tributary. Most recreationists are not from the local area.
The tributary and river are not a source for drinking water, but the tributary (above the AMD)
supports some stock watering. Forests and pastures are the primary land uses in the watershed.
The tributary has 10 houses near it, and 300 houses are within 5 miles of the impaired river.
In addition to considering TMDLs for aluminum, iron, and pH, the state also has
conducted a UAA for the tributary and part of the river. In the UAA, the state estimated the costs
of restoring both the entire segment of the tributary and the affected portion of the river. Based
on an analysis of "substantial and widespread economic and social impact" (Factor 6), they have
determined that they cannot afford to conduct all the restoration. In addition, the state has
determined that the tributary produces more AMD than the combined discharges from the other
nonpoint sources that directly affect the river. The results indicate that the costs of restoring the
tributary would be considerably less than controlling the nonpoint sources along the river.
Based on the UAA, the state has decided to focus on restoring the tributary. Several
methods are available to raise the pH of AMD-contaminated water from the tributary; however,
the two most promising methods available to mitigate the effects of AMD in the above-
mentioned reach are a limestone channel and constructed wetlands.
The first option is to install an open limestone channel and settling pond. A small dam is
created before the seeps enter the channel to trap sediment and other debris. The channel
includes a limestone sand liner and limestone rocks. With a pH of 4.0, the water flows through
the channel to a settling basin. The treatment is expected to last 20 years, and noticeable
differences in the tributary are likely to begin in year 1. However, there is a 10% chance the
system will fail to meet the tributary's water quality goals. This option is expected to cost
$100,000 including excavation costs and land costs. Maintenance costs will be about $2,000 per
year after year 1. After 10 years, new limestone rock may be necessary at additional cost.
The second option is to construct a series of wetlands on a large area of land, just before
the seeps enter the tributary, which could be built to reduce metals and AMD. First, after flowing
3-42
-------
into a settling pond, a smaller wetland reduces flow and causes metals to precipitate out. The
larger wetland further reduces flow velocity and metals; a final settling pond is used for any
remaining precipitation. To adequately increase pH, it will be necessary to augment this system
with additional alkalinity. The chance of complete failure of this type of system is about 30%.
These wetlands are expected to last 20 years, but the noticeable differences in the tributary will
only begin to occur starting in year 3. The cost of the wetlands is expected to be $200,000, which
includes land purchases and maintenance costs of $500 per year after year 1.
Both management options will eventually allow the tributary to support aquatic life, but
few anglers will fish it because of private property restrictions. Restoration of the tributary will
improve the overall aesthetic value of Whitewater rafting and kayaking in the river; an additional
1000 person-days per year of kayaking (e.g., 250 individuals kayaking an additional 4 days) are
expected. Both options will also allow part of the impaired portion of the river to meet its warm-
water aquatic life (e.g., smallmouth bass) criterion; however, the other nonpoint sources of AMD
on the river will still affect the river quality beyond those restored miles. Property values are
expected to increase slightly with either alternative, although there may be an issue related to
wide construction "rights of way" for either the limestone channel or wetlands. There is a small
possibility that new construction of houses and cabins could occur with the restoration.
With the limestone channel, no additional wildlife habitat will be created near the
tributary. However, the limestone channel will provide more buffer capacity for the river than the
wetlands. The river is expected to meet its warm-water aquatic life use for 3 miles after the
tributary enters it if the limestone channel is used and only 2 miles for the series of wetlands.
Given the popularity of fishing in the area, the additional 3 miles that meet warm-water aquatic
life could create approximately 200 person-days of recreational fishing. Fewer person-days of
recreational fishing on the river are expected if wetlands are constructed and only 2 miles are
restored.
In contrast to the limestone channel, the constructed wetlands will create additional
wildlife habitat, which will enhance recreational and other activities near the tributary. In
particular, users of the rail-trail (hikers, bikers, and picnickers) will benefit from the new
ecological resource; as a result, an additional 750 person-days per year of hiking, biking, and
picnicking are expected. In addition, the wetlands are expected to reduce sedimentation in the
tributary and reduce flood potential through surface water storage.
3-43
-------
Stakeholders include recreationists, a watershed group, homeowners, and the state
department of environmental protection (DEP). The watershed group would like to move
forward with its watershed plan that would achieve water quality goals in the entire river, but it
lacks sufficient funds for reaching the water quality goals.
Data Available. The state DEP collects information on certain water bodies that are
impaired and require TMDLs. Researchers at a nearby university are undertaking a number of
studies related to AMD in the area. A local watershed group has developed a watershed plan that
describes issues related to AMD throughout the watershed, not just the tributary and specific
stretch of the river.
Additional Assumptions
• The only two significant sources of stressors on the tributary and the 8-mile portion of the
river are abandoned mines and surface runoff (sedimentation).
• Healthy riparian habitat in the tributary and river helps control surface runoff and prevent
flooding downstream.
• The only significant service provided by the bridge is transportation, and the main cost
associated with corrosion is more frequent maintenance.
• As long as the two management options do not fail, both will allow for all designated
uses on the tributary and river to be met, with the exception of warm-water aquatic life
use in the river, which will still be affected by other sources of AMD.
3-44
-------
I Abandoned Mine
OTa\o<
3 SeeP
Bridge
Rail-trail
Main River
Abandoned
mine
(entering
tributary)
Surface
runoff
Abandoned
mines
(entering
river)
Sources
Low pH
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Sedimentation
Stressors
Physical habitat
Channel alterations
Embeddedness
Pools and riffles
o
Biological
components of
habitat
Macroinvertebrates
Species diversity
Stream processes/
chemistry
• Nutrient cycling
• Mobilization of
metals
• Buffering capacity
Tributary Ecosystem
-K
~Z
Bridge
Physical
Infrastructure
Physical habitat
Channel dimensions
Substrate size/type
Biological
components of habitat
• Fish populations
• Benthic dwellers
H.
Stream processes/
chemistry
• Nutrient cycling
• Turbidity
• Buffering capacity
River Ecosystem
Legend
Ecosystem impact
*flow
Ecosystem and
—* infrastructure service
support flow
~-^Interaction among
""^ecosystem components
-Bullets represent examples ol each type of ecosystem component
Determination of
designated use
attainment
X Not attained
Transportation
Physical
Infrastructure
Services
,'Vater
'A'atar
Ouality
L ! ' i
J frit"! a
AQU/WJC LIFE
:jAa
AGRI
WATE
RECREATION
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
TR BUTARY DES GNATED USES
Recreation
fishing
Rafting,
kayaking, etc
Nearshore
recreation
Aesthetic
scenery
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
FIGURE 3-5
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River:
Current Conditions
3-45
-------
Abandoned Mine
Acid Mine Drainage Seep
Limestone channel
Rail-trail
N/lain River
Limestone channel
Abandoned
mine (entering
tributary)
Surface runoff
Abandoned
mines
(entering river)
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Sedimentation
u
Physical habitat
Channel alterations
Embeddedness
Pools and riffles
31
Biological
components of
habitat
Macroinvertebrates
Species diversity
Stream processes/
chemistry
Nutrient cycling
Mobilization of
metals
Buffering capacity
Tributary Ecosystem
Physical
Infrastructure
fu
Physical habitat
Channel dimensions
Substrate size/type
JL
Biological
components of
habitat
Fish populations
Benthic dwellers
Stream processes/
chemistry
Nutrient cycling
Turbidity
Buffering capacity
River Ecosystem
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
> Cost flow
Human welfare effect
flow
* ecosystem components
—¦ Flow alteration
E Relative increase/
decrease in human
welfare effect
Determination of
-> designated use
attainment
X Attained in parts
¦ Number of */- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
¦ Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
Water
Quality
Criteria
Physical
Infrastructure
Services
Recreational
fishing
Rafting,
kayaking, etc.
Nearshore
recreation
Aesthetic
scenery
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Disposable
Income
Human health
and safety
values
Recreation
values
3
Residential
values
Nonuse values
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
AQUA
(WAR)
l
ilAtA"
LIFE
.TER)
PRIMARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
AQUATIC LIFE
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
TRIBUTARY DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 3-6
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River:
Option 1: Create Limestone Channel
3-46
-------
Settling pond
Settling pond
... . . , ! i ¦.
Acid Mine Drainage Seep
Wet and
Rail-trail
Main River
c
Constructed wetland
Abandoned
mine (entering
tributary)
Surface runoff
Abandoned
mines
(entering river)
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Sedimentation
Physical habitat
Channel alterations
Embeddedness
Pools and riffles
31
Biological
components of
habitat
Macroinvertebrates
Species diversity
IE
Stream processes/
chemistry
Nutrient cycling
Mobilization of
metals
Buffering capacity
Tributary Ecosystem
Physical
Infrastructure
l.r
_-j]
/
Physical habitat
Channel dimensions
Substrate size/type
o
Biological
components of
habitat
• Fish populations
• Benthic dwellers
Stream processes/
chemistry
• Nutrient cycling
• Turbidity
• Buffering capacity
River Ecosystem
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
Human welfare effect
flow
Interaction among
ecosystem components
Legend
—¦ Flow alteration
S Relative increase/
decrease In human
welfare effect
Determination of
-p designated use
attainment
X Attained in parts
regarding their effect on each welfare category
• Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
/ Water ^
Quality
^CriteriaJ
f Water ^
Quality
^CriteriaJ
Physical
Infrastructure
Services
Recreational
fishing
Rafting,
kayaking, etc
Nearshore
recreation
Aesthetic
scenery
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Disposable
Income
Human health
and safety
values
toirT1
Residential
values
Nonuse values
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
AQUA*
(WAI
!U$w5l
iRwWA"
LIFE
,TER)
PRIMARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
TRIBUTARY DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 3-7
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River:
Option 2: Create Wetland Area
3-47
-------
3.4.3.2. Case Study 2: Hypothetical Combined Sewer Overflow (Figures 3-8 through 3-10)
A large river flows through multiple states; an interstate Basin Commission is responsible
for improving the river's water quality. CSO events are a major source of pollution, especially
for the urban areas located near the river (with a population of approximately 2 million people).
The CSOs carry both sewage and stormwater to wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), but,
during wet weather events, can overflow directly into streams and rivers releasing millions of
gallons of raw sewage. Untreated sewage and stormwater pose potential threats to human health
(especially through direct contact). A total of 120 CSOs discharge directly to this stretch of the
river and overflow during approximately half the number of annual rainfall events.
Designated uses for the river are public and industrial water supply after treatment,
primary contact recreation (e.g., full-body contact such as swimming, canoeing, kayaking, jet
skiing, and water skiing), secondary contact recreation (e.g., incidental contact such as fishing),
and aquatic life use. The Basin Commission is considering whether its current standards are
appropriate for the CSO problem. They are considering a UAA related to Factor 6 (see
Section 2.2), widespread social and economic impact, to determine if primary contact recreation
is attainable.
For this particular stretch of the river, the bacteria criterion, which protects the primary
contact recreation use, was exceeded 30% of the time in the previous year. Secondary contact
recreation and public water supply were always supported during this time. Besides CSOs,
however, stormwater discharges, sewer leaks, and urban runoff are also sources of the problem.
Although the river is suitable for primary contact recreation some of the time, it does not meet
the current WQS. In addition, biological monitoring suggests that aquatic life uses are only
partially supported for this stretch (i.e., one biological criterion out of three is not achieved);
however, recent improvements in fish community health can be seen (with more native and
pollution-intolerant species). Sediments and scour are the main stressors on aquatic life.
Recreational surveys were conducted and found that recreational motor boating is the
most popular recreational activity, followed by fishing. Canoeing and kayaking were also
conducted on the river. Swimming was limited to only a few areas, even though there are no
designated beaches on this river.
Two potentially feasible options are being considered to address the nonattainment of
primary contact recreation use: (1) attempt to meet bacteria standards through an extensive set of
3-48
-------
improvements (it is unclear if meeting the standards is feasible because of the influence of
sources other than CSOs) and (2) implement fewer improvements and create a limited use
subcategory of contact recreation during wet weather (other alternatives were considered, but
these two were found to be the most feasible). The costs for both of these options will be passed
on to local residents and businesses through increases in sewer rates.
A combination of expensive methods is necessary to attain the primary contact recreation
use. Increasing sewer capacity and storage, eliminating 95% of the CSO structures, separating
sewer lines, and installing disinfection capabilities in the system will need to take place over a
10-year period. Improvements that are expected include reduction of bacteria and other pollution,
removal of floatables and other debris, improved aesthetics, and control of odors. This is
expected to be extremely costly (some estimate a three-fold increase in sewer rates) because of
construction, materials, and surface disruption (e.g., roads and railroad beds would be torn up).
Disinfection capabilities may require additional evaluation because disinfection may create
disinfection by-products that might create additional health problems or harmful effects to
aquatic life.
The second option, which is less expensive, is to eliminate 75% of the CSO structures
and change the WQS to include a wet weather limited use subcategory for primary contact
recreation. These changes would improve water quality in the river surrounding wet weather
events. They would reduce but not eliminate the number of exceedances of the current bacteria
criterion for primary contact recreation. Therefore, the designated use for primary contact
recreation would be suspended during and immediately following (maximum 4 days) specific
types of severe storm events. Instead, a limited use subcategory of primary contact recreation and
related bacteria criterion would be applied during severe wet weather events. This option is
significantly less costly than the first (it will require roughly a 50% increase in sewer rates) and
will take only 5 years to implement. A notification system would provide information on days
when sewer overflows are expected. Advisories would be issued by e-mail, local radio, a Web
site, and a telephone information line. The notification system would be used to announce when
the designated use for primary contact recreation is suspended because of potential human health
threats from CSOs and other wet weather discharges.
Stakeholders include local communities, recreationists, states, the Basin Commission,
local businesses, economic development groups, and watershed groups. It is unclear how
3-49
-------
stakeholders will perceive the contact recreation alternatives. Some may think that the
Commission should not lower WQS because downgrades will eliminate some of the incentives
to remove CSOs. They also may believe that primary contact recreation is important on the river.
Tourism may be affected because of poor aesthetics during high flows (e.g., the presence of
floatables). However, the cost of the CSO controls required to achieve the water quality goals
might be excessive (and passed on to local homeowners and businesses) compared with the
benefit gained (e.g., even if the bacteria criterion for primary contact recreation were met,
swimming would not be advisable for safety reasons because of high flow). Current businesses
may choose to leave the area, and new businesses may not move into the area if sewer rates
become too high, which would have negative economic effects in the region. Although limiting
recreational use during wet weather may not be acceptable to local communities, recreationists,
and watershed groups, it avoids the large costs.
Data Availability. The Basin Commission for the river focuses on reducing pollution.
They have collected extensive water quality data for the river, and a local university has
collected data on the health of aquatic species community including types of algae. A number of
watershed groups have formed in the area, each of which collects water quality data in their
particular watershed.
Additional Assumptions
• In addition to CSOs, sewer leaks, stormwater discharges, and urban runoff along the
segment of the river being evaluated, upstream sources of pollutants also contribute to
water quality impairments in the segment.
• Option 1 and Option 2 would only reduce discharges from CSOs (not from the other
sources of stressors).
• Option 1 and Option 2 would lead to reductions in episodic loadings of sediments and
scour from CSOs sufficient to meet all three biological criteria for the aquatic life
designated uses.
• The costs of Option 1 and Option 2 ultimately would be borne by local residents and
businesses (e.g., through sewer rate increases), whose incomes, and therefore
consumption levels, would decrease.
• Option 1 and Option 2 would reduce pathogen-related risks in the public water supply.
• Risk of human illness for Option 1 is lower than in Option 2.
3-50
-------
Cities
Storm water, urban runoff,
sewer leaks
Towns
itormwater, urban runoff,
sewer leaks
River
Stormwater
discharges
Upstream
sources
Sources
Episodic fecal
coliform
loading
Episodic
loading of
other
pollutants
(sediments
and scours)
Continuous
pollutant
loading
Stressors
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
^-^.Interaction among
"^"ecosystem components
Legend
Determination of
-»• designated use
attainment
X Not attained
-Bullets represent examples of each type of ecosystem component,
Physical habitat
Vegetative cover/
nesting habitat
Substrate size/type
JL
Biological components
• Water birds
• Drifting invertebrates
• Fish populations
• Pathogens
Riverine processes/
chemistry
BOD regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow/gradient
River Ecosystem
Quality
PFm^RY
COJpv'CT
RECkEaTION
X
AQUAlp LIFE
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLY
Swimming
Kayaking/
canoeing
Recreational
fishing
Motor
boating
Public water
supply
Aesthetic
scenery
Existence
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
INDUSTRIAL
WATER
SUPPPLY
DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 3-8
Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System:
Current Conditions
3-51
-------
Cities
IStormwater, urban runoff^
sewer leaks .
Towns
Storm water, urban runoff,
sewer leaks ,
River
maintenance
(Increase sewer
capacity and storage
Eliminate 95% CSOs
nstall disinfection
capabilities
Disinfection
by-products
Sewer leaks
tpisodiciecai
~j coliform
loading
btorm water
tpisodic
loading of
other
pollutants
(sediments
and scour)
Urban runoff
WWTPs
Continuous
pollutant
loading
Upstream
sources
Legend
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
—~ Cost flow
. Human welfare effect
flow
—¦ Flow alteration
E Relative increase/
decrease in human
welfare effect
Determination of
-~ designated use
attainment
Interaction among
ecosystem components
Physical habitat
Vegetative cover/
nesting habitat
Substrate size/type
E3
Biological components
~ Water birds
» Drifting invertebrates
~ Fish populations
Riverine processes/
chemistry
BOD regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow/gradient
Kayaking/
canoeing
Recreational _
fishing
Motor
boating
Public water .
supply
Aesthetic
scenery
Disposabl
income
SP1
-EH
Human health
¦ and safety
Recreation
values
Residential
values
on I
_l
tial 1
_l
¦ Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished (increased)
flows relative to current conditions.
¦ Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
• Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
River Ecosystem
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Water
Criteria
PRIMARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AQUATIC LIFE
USE
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLY
INDUSTRIAL
WATER
SUPPPLY
FIGURE 3-9
Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System:
Option 1: Eliminate 95% of CSOs and Implement Other System Improvements
3-52
-------
pities
Stormwater, urban runoff
sewer leaks
Towns
Stormwater, urban runoff
sewer leaks
Eliminate 75% CSOs
Construction
and
maintenance
Stormwater
discharges
Upstream
sources
Sources
Episodic fecal
coliform
loading
Episodic
loading of
other
pollutants
(sediments
and scour)
Continuous
pollutant
loading
Legend
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
—~Cost flow
Human welfare effect
flow
—¦ Flow alteration
E Relative increase/
decrease in human
welfare effect
Determination of
-~ designated use
attainment
7 ecosystem components
¦ Number of+/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
¦ Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
Physical habitat
Vegetative cover/
nesting habitat
Substrate size/type
Biological components
• Water birds
> Drifting invertebrates
• Fish populations
» Pathogens
Riverine processes/
chemistry
BOD regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow/gradient
Kayaking/
canoeing
Recreational
fishing
Motor
boating
Public water
supply
Aesthetic
scenery
Disposable
income
Recreation
values
-C3
Human health
and safety
values
Residential
values
Nonuse values
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
River Ecosystem
Existence
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Water
Criteria
NDUSTRIAL
WATER
SUPPLY
AQUATIC LIFE
USE
FIGURE 3-10
Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System:
Option 2: Eliminate 75% of CSOs and Apply Limited Use Designation
3-53
-------
3.4.3.3. Case Study 3: Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream
(Figures 3-11 through 3-14)
An intermittent stream is designated as a secondary-contact recreation water segment and
aquatic life use water body. The segment is privately owned and is used to water livestock during
periods of flow. The landowner has given permission to the public to hunt and trap along the
segment. The primary land uses around the segment are livestock grazing and growing crops.
The livestock have direct access to the stream and therefore modify the habitat by preventing
regrowth of the riparian buffer and destroying the river bed. Direct access to the stream also
leads to direct deposit of animal wastes into the stream. Water quality measurements taken on the
segment suggest these stressors lead to increased temperature, low DO, downcutting of the
channel, and increased sediments. The biological criteria are violated for aquatic life use because
of the stressors and possibly because the criteria are based on perennial streams (not intermittent
streams). Landowners downstream are complaining that the poor condition of the intermittent
stream segment is affecting recreational fishing on their segments. Algae, sediment, and nutrients
are their biggest complaints.
Options to restore this intermittent stream include fencing off livestock access to the
stream and constructing either a stone crossing (Option 1) or culverts and bridges (Option 2) so
the livestock can have access to the fields across the stream. Benefits include improvements to
fish and wildlife habitat as stream side plants are reestablished, as well as fewer animal injuries
and healthier animals for the landowner. The landowner, however, will lose access to some
grazing lands because of fencing off the riparian area around the stream. Another activity and
stressor on this same stream segment is growing crops around the stream. Aquatic life use
standards might not be met by preventing direct access to the stream alone; the agriculture runoff
associated with the cropping activities also may need to be reduced. The crops prevent any type
of riparian buffer to grow, and runoff enters the segment directly. Some of the activities to
prevent livestock access may help, but further restoration of riparian areas may be necessary
(Option 3).
Key Assumptions and Additional Considerations
• Improving the quality of the riparian area for the intermittent stream will reduce the
runoff into the stream and promote greater infiltration during rain events. This will result
3-54
-------
in less "flashy," event-driven streams and regulate downstream flow, perhaps providing
some degree of flood control.
Improving the quality of the riparian area will result in greater channel stability through
healthier vegetative cover along the stream banks. This will result in more diversity in
habitats (e.g., through woody debris) and higher DO as a function of temperature
regulated by overhanging vegetation.
Residential properties are located downstream along the perennial stream, so residents
would benefit from improved aesthetics and flow/erosion control.
The perennial stream is used for various types of recreation and potentially for drinking
water as well.
Hunting and trapping along the intermittent stream would be improved only in Option 3
when livestock are fenced off and the riparian area is fully restored.
3-55
-------
r
i
Grazing land
Crop land
i
I*--"
"0
O
o
3
_ 3
5T
Riparipn area
* * j
to
I
QJ
M '
jfy
/
Intermittent strearrl
* i
r'"**
j
Grazing
Growing
crops
Destruction of
stream bed
Animal waste
deposits in stream
Modification of
riparian zone
Agricultural runoff
into stream
Stressors
Physical habitat
Bank stability
Woody debris
Pools and glides
JL
Biological
components of
habitat
Macroinvertebrates
Emergent
vegetation
IE
Stream processes/
chemistry
Temp regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow / gradient
intermittent Stream
Ecosystem
-N
-y
Legend
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
^¦^Interaction among
ecosystem components
• Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
Determination of
-*¦ designated use
attainment
X Not attained
Physical habitat
• Channel alterations
• Substrate size/type
• Pools and riffles
Biological
components of
habitat
• Fish populations
• Streamside
vegetation
O
Stream processes/
chemistry
• DO regulation
• Nutrient cycling
• Flow / gradient
Perennial Stream
Ecosystem
Quality
-
Livestock
production
Crop
production
Hunting/
trapping
Upland
Ecosystem
Services
Fishing
Other water-
based
recreation
Aesthetic
scenery
Erosion
control
Flood / flow
control
Drinking
water
Existence
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
X
AQUA*: LIFE
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
designated
USES
FIGURE 3-11
Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream:
Current Conditions
3-56
-------
Grazing land
Fence and stone crossing
lntermitte|nt streai
production
Crop
production
Physical habitat
Bank stability
Woody debris
Pools and glides
stone crossing
Market surplus
Hunting/
trapping
Upland Ecosystem
Biological
components of
Fishing
Physical habitat
Emergent
vegetation
Grazing
deposits in stream
Substrate size/type
— i
Stream processes/
chemistry
Temp regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow / gradient
L
Biological
components of
Growing
and safety
Agricultural runoff
Fish populations
vegetation
Ecosystem
Drinking
Stream processes/
chemistry
DO regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow / gradient
Legend
Ecosystem impact
Aquatic Ecosystem
Ecosystem service
support flow
Ecosystem
Quality
designated use
. Interaction among
ecosystem components
(bold) arrows represent diminished (increased)
Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
RECREATION
DESIGNATED
USES
FIGURE 3-12
Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream:
Option 1: Limiting Livestock Impact with Fence and Stone Crossing
3-57
-------
r m
i
i
i
Grazing land j Crop land
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
|—Fence and bridge |
f——
Perennial stream
\
V
1
J&P"Riparipn area ^
1***1 '' ,
Jiflntermitteint strean^*^,_
JW jjto
i*V*
J
production
Crop
production
Physical habitat
Bank stability
Woody debris
Pools and glides
and bridge
i—
Hunting/
trapping
Upland Ecosystem
Biological
components of
Fishing
Physical habitat
Emergent
vegetation
Substrate size/type
Grazing
deposits in stream
—j
Biological
components of
Stream processes/
chemistry
Temp regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow / gradient
L
Growing
and safety
Agricultural runoff
Fish populations
vegetation
Ecosystem
Stream processes/
chemistry
DO regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow / gradient
Drinking
Legend
Ecosystem impact
Ecosystem service
support flow
Aquatic Ecosystem
Ecosystem
> designated use
Quality
. Interaction among
ecosystem components
AQUATIC LIFE
Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished (increased)
Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
CONTACT
RECREATION
DESIGNATED
USES
FIGURE 3-13
Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream:
Option 2: Limiting Livestock Impact with Fence and Bridge
3-58
-------
Grazing land
Crop land
Fence
r*%r/
Livestock fence
C Riparian ^
restoration J
Destruction of
stream bed
Animal waste
deposits in stream
Grazing
Modification of
riparian zone
Agncultural runoff
into stream
I
Land Uses
—J- - I
Physical habitat
• Bank stability
¦ Woody debris
• Pools and glides
3£
Biological
components of
habitat
• Macroinvertebrates
• Emergent
vegetation
Stream processes/
chemistry
• Temp regulation
• Nutrient cycling
• Flow / gradient
Intermittent Stream
Ecosystem
3
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
—~ Cost flow
Human welfare effect
flow
^ Interaction among
ecosystem components
Legend
—¦ Flow alteration
Relative increase/
¦/-f decrease in human
welfare effect
E3
Physical habitat
Channel alterations
Substrate size/type
Pools and riffles
€1
Biological
components of
habitat
• Fish populations
• Streamside
vegetation
*3
Stream processes/
chemistry
• DO regulation
• Nutrient cycling
• Flow / gradient
Perennial Stream
Ecosystem
Construction
and
maintenance
Livestock
production
Crop
production
Hunting/
trapping
Upland Ecosystem
Services
Other water-
based
recreation
Aesthetic
scenery
Erosion
control
Market surplus
rplus
Residential
values
Human health
and safety
values
Determination of
—~ designated use
attainment
¦ Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
• Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
Nonuse values
Drinking
water
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
- ;:istrn::r
Aquatic Ecosystem
Services
V'.'.-iUir
Quality
Criteria
AQUAT C LIFE
Secondary
CONTACT
RECREATION
FIGURE 3-14
Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream:
Option 3: Limiting Livestock and Crop Impact with Fence and Riparian Restoration
3-59
-------
3.4.3.4. Case Study 4: Antidegradation Review of Proposed Retail Development Complex
(Figures 3-15 and 3-16)
A new retail development complex is being located in a small watershed, and an
antidegradation tier 2 review is necessary. For the complex to be located on an upland area of the
property, a road must cross a wetland. For the roadway to be built, 0.5 acre out of 20 wetland
acres must be filled. This wetland, which provides habitat for birds, is connected to a stream
where current water quality is above standards for a cold-water fishery. The AR will determine
whether maintaining water quality will preclude important economic and social development. No
other potential location for the road exists, and the developers believe this is the best location for
the complex. Given the proposed location of the new road, the main stem of the watershed may
be affected by increased sediment load. The construction of the retail complex will initially
increase sedimentation to the wetlands. Along with the installation of stormwater detention
ponds, revegetation of the area will enable sedimentation to decrease and preconstruction
conditions to return. However, the road will lead to a permanent lowering of water quality to the
fishable stream (but still meet the WQS). The complex and road construction are predicted to
lead to new jobs and improved living conditions within the watershed.
Key Assumptions and Additional Considerations
• Under conditions without the retail development, the upland area would primarily
provide open space, which would provide some recreational opportunities and aesthetic
amenities to local residents.
• Even with the construction of stormwater retention ponds, the retail area would be a
long-term source of sediment loads (although less than would occur without the ponds).
• Residential properties are located downstream along the perennial stream, so residents
would benefit from improved aesthetic conditions and flow/erosion control.
3-60
-------
Wetland
Retail
development
Short-term
sediment load
increase
Wetland
fragmentation
Open space
Land Uses
Nonpoint runoff
into wetland
Stressors
Physical habitat
• Vegetative cover/
bird habitat
• Depth of water
Biological
components
• Wildlife & aquatic
diversity/abundance
if
Wetland processes/
chemistry
• Sediment/toxicant
retention
• Nutrient removal
• Storage of surface
water
Marsh Wetland
Ecosystem
Physical habitat
• Channel alterations
• Pools and riffles
• Substrate size/type
n
Biological
components
• Periphyton grazers
• Fish populations
ll
Stream processes/
chemistry
• BOD regulation
• Nutrient cycling
• Flow/gradient
Perennial Stream
Ecosystem
Legend
Ecosystem impact
Determination of
flow
-> designated use
Ecosystem service
attainment
support flow
X Mot attained
^-^Interaction among
^ecosystem components
-Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished (strengthened) Hows.
-Bullets represenl examples of each type of ecosystem component
Water
Quality
Commercial
activity
Open space
services
Upland
Ecosystem
Services
Fishing
Wildlife (bird)
watching
Aesthetic
scenery
Flood/flow
control
Erosion
control
AQUATIC LIFE
DESIGNATED
USES
FIGURE 3-15
Antidegradation Review of Proposed Retail Development Complex Conditions
Without Retail Development
3-61
-------
Sediment
Proposed
Road
Wetland
c
Storm retention ponds
and revegetation
)
Short-term
sediment load
increase
Retail
development
Wetland
fragmentation
Nonpoint runoff
into wetland
Physical habitat
Vegetative cover/
bird habitat
Depth of water
31
Biological components
• Wildlife & aquatic
diversity/abundance
~K
Wetland processes/
chemistry
• Sediment/toxicant
retention
» Nutrient removal
• Storage of surface
water
Marsh Wetland
Ecosystem
0
Physical habitat
Channel alterations
Pools and riffles
Substrate size/type
3E
Biological components
• Periphyton grazers
• Fish populations
3E
Stream processes/
chemistry
BOD regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow/gradient
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
—~ Cost flow
Human welfare effect
flow
Interaction among
"0* ecosystem components
Legend
—* Flow alteration
E Relative increase/
decrease in human
welfare effect
Determination of
—~ designated use
attainment
¦ Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
¦ Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component-
water
Qua lily
Criteria
Perennial Stream
Ecosystem
Commercial
activity
Open space
services
Upland
Ecosystem
Services
Wildlife (bird)
watching
Aesthetic
scenery
Erosion control
Flood/flow
control
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Recreation
values
-15
Residential
values
Human health
and safety
values
-5
~ Nonuse values
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
AQUATIC LIFE
DESIGNATED
USES
FIGURE 3-16
Antidegradation Review of Proposed Retail Development Complex
Effects of Retail Development
3-62
-------
3.4.3.5. Case Study 5: Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream (Figures 3-17
through 3-19)
A state has recently changed its designated uses for intermittent and ephemeral streams to
include aquatic life. Because the state did not originally designate aquatic life uses on
intermittent and ephemeral streams, many industries and wastewater facilities located on these
streams to dispose of their discharges. These intermittent streams are now effluent dominated.
One wastewater treatment plant's discharge has converted an ephemeral stream into one with
perennial flow. It has developed a riparian area that has created new habitat for birds, wildlife,
and amphibians and is a source of groundwater recharge. One rare salamander has been found in
and around this stream. This particular stream is a tributary to a major river and supports the
river's beneficial uses of warm-water aquatic life and primary recreation. The continuous flow of
the effluent-dominated stream has also created a bird-watching area around the stream. With the
new designated uses, these facilities have a limited number of options to deal with the new
classifications. Pollutants that may violate aquatic life standards include metals, disinfection by-
products, pH, temperature, and DO. The facilities could increase treatment to meet the new
standard (Option 1) or they could cease the discharge (and effectively relocate) (Option 2). Each
of these possibilities would lead to different benefits and costs to the facilities and to society.
Key Assumptions and Additional Considerations
• The cost of advanced treatment or relocation of the wastewater treatment plant would
ultimately be borne by local residents (e.g., through taxes), whose incomes, and therefore
consumption levels, would decrease.
• The costs of advanced treatment installation or the closure of industrial dischargers would
result in lost incomes and/or higher prices for market goods. In either case, consumption
levels would decrease.
• Elimination of point sources (Option 2) would reduce water flow and pollutant discharges
to the stream segment; however, these point sources (in particular, the wastewater
treatment plant) would need to relocate to other water bodies, where similar ecosystem
impacts might be experienced (these similar impacts are not included in the conceptual
model).
• Elimination of point sources (Option 2) would return the stream to intermittent flow
conditions, which would provide a different and perhaps more limited set of ecosystem
services.
3-63
-------
Industrial Dischargers
Treatment Plant
Intermittent
stream
Effluent-Dominated
Stream
Riparian
Industrial
dischargers
Wastewater
treatment
plants
Sources
Riparian area
Continuous water
source
Supports
Effluent releases
¦ Metals
¦ Organic carbon
¦ Disinfby-products
¦ Acid/base content
Stressors
Physical habitat
Channel alterations
Pools and riffles
Overhanging
vegetation
H.
Biological
components
Wildlife diversity
Rare species
Mac ro i nv erteb rate
assemblages
O
Stream processes/
chemistry
¦ DOC content
regulation
¦ Nutrient cycling
¦ Temp regulation
Perennial Stream
Ecosystem
Market
production
Market
Services
o
Legend
~ Ecosystem impact flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
Interaction among
ecosystem components
Determination of
designated use
attainment
X Not attained
• Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished
(strengthened) flows.
• Bullets represent examples of each type of
stressor or ecosystem component.
Water
Quality
Criteria
Physical habitat
¦ Channel
dimensions
¦ Riparian width
¦ Substrate size/type
Biological
components
¦ Drifting
invertebrates
¦ Fish populations
Riverine processes/
chemistry
¦ BOD regulation
¦ Nutrient cycling
¦ Flow/gradient
River Ecosystem
Wildlife (bird)
watching
Boating
Fishing
Swimming
Aesthetic
scenery
Groundwater
recharge
Rare species
habitat
Existence
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
[ AQu^^LiFE|
DESIGNATED
USES
FIGURE 3-17
Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream :
Current Conditions
3-64
-------
Industrial Dischargers
Advanced
Treatment of
Discharges
Intermittent
Stream
Treatment Plant
Effluent-Dominated
Stream
ore
Riparian Area
Capital and
operating
Physical habitat
Channel alteratior
Oiposable
Overhanging
vegetation
Wildlife (bird)
watching
Riparian area
Biological
components
Wildlife diversity
Rare species
Surplus
Physical habitat
dischargers
Riparian width
Substrate size/type
Fishing
Supports
assemblages
Swimming
Biological
components
Drifting
plants
Stream processes/
chemistry
Organic carbon
Disinf by-products
regulation
Nutrient cycling
Temp regulation
Fish populations
recharge
Riverine processes/
chemistry
BOD regulation
Nutrient cycling
Flow/gradient
Legend
Ecosystem impact
Aquatic
Ecosystem
River Ecosystem
Ecosystem service
support flow
Relative increase/
welfare
Quality
designated
Interaction among
ecosystem components
AQUATIC LIFE
Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished (increased)
DESIGNATED
USES
Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
FIGURE 3-18
Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream:
Option 1: Increased Treatment of Effluent
3-65
-------
Intermittent
Stream
Relocated to Different
Ecosystem
Elimination
sources
industrial
dischargers
Wastewater
treatment
plants
Sources
Continuous water
source
Supports
Effluent releases
• Metals
• Organic carbon
• Disinf by-products
• Acid/base content
Stressors
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
—~ Cost flow
Human welfare effect
flow
^.Interaction among
^ ecosystem components
Legend
Relocation of
wastewater
treatment
plants
Costs
Physical habitat
• Bank stability
• Woody debris
• Pools and glides
5£
Biological
components of
habitat
• Benthic population
• Emergent
vegetation
it
Stream processes/
chemistry
• Flow/gradient
• Temp regulation
• O2 regulation
Intermittent Stream
Ecosystem
Market
production
Market Services
¦¦Flow alteration
Physical habitat
Channel dimensions
Riparian width
Substrate size/type
Q
liological components
Drifting
invertebrates
Fish populations
JK
Riverine processes/
chemistry
• BOD regulation
• Nutrient cycling
• Flow/gradient
0
Relative increase/
decrease in human
welfare effect
Determination of
~ designated use
attainment
¦ Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
• Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
Wildlife (bird)
watching
Aesthetic
scenery
Groundwater
recharge
Rare species
habitat
lJ
Market
Surplus
3
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
River Ecosystem
Quality
Criteria
AQUATIC LIFE
DESIGNATED
USES
Recreation
values
¦
•/slues
Nonuse
values
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
FIGURE 3-19
Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream:
Option 2: Elimination of Sources of Discharge
3-66
-------
3.5. REFERENCES
Beehler, G.P., B.M. McGuinness and J.E. Vena. 2003. Characterizing Latino anglers'
environmental risk perceptions, sport fish consumption, and advisory awareness. Med.
Anthropol. Q. 17(1):99-116.
Berrens, R.P., A.K. Bohara, C.L. Silva, D. Brookshire andM. McKee. 2000. Contingent values
for New Mexico instream flows: With tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal
reliability. J. Environ. Manage. 58(l):73-90.
Boxall, P., K. Rollins and J. Englin. 2003. Heterogeneous preferences for congestion during a
wilderness experience. Res. Energy Econ. 25:177-195.
Brox, J. A., R.C. Kumar and K.R. Stollery. 1996. Willingness to pay for water quality and
supply enhancements in the Grand River watershed. Can. Water Res. J. 21(3):275-288.
Bruins, R.J.F., M.T. Heberling and T.A. Maddock. 2005. Conceptual approach for integrated
watershed management. Chapter 9. In: Economics and Ecological Risk Assessment:
Applications to Watershed Management, R.J.F. Bruins and M.T. Heberling, Ed. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
Cable, T.T. and E. Udd. 1990. Effective communication of toxic chemical warnings to anglers.
N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 10(4):382-387.
Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay
for boatable, fishable and swimmable quality water. Water Resour. Res. 29(7):2445-2454.
Connelly, N.A. and B.A. Knuth. 1993. Great Lakes Fish Consumption Health Advisories:
Angler Response to Advisories and Evaluation of Communication Techniques. Human
Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. Report for
New York Sea Grant Institute Project No. R/FHD-2-PD. Series No. 93-3.
Connelly, N.A., B.A. Knuth and C.A. Bisogni. 1992. Effects of the Health Advisory and
Advisory Changes on Fishing Habits and Fish Consumption in New York Sport Fisheries.
Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University.
Report for New York Sea Grant Institute Project No. R/FHD-2-PD. Series No. 92-9.
Daily, G.C., Ed. 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Daubert, J.T. and R.A. Young. 1981 . Recreational demands for maintaining instream flows: a
contingent valuation approach. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 63(4):667-676.
DeLorme, D.E., S.C. Hagen and I.J. Stout. 2003. Consumers' perspectives on water issues:
Directions for education campaigns. J. Environ. Edu. 34(2):28-35.
Donnelly, D.M., J.B. Loomis, C.F. Sorg and L.J. Nelson. 1985. Net economic value of
recreational steelhead fishing in Idaho. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Report
Bulletin, RM-9.
3-67
-------
Downing, J.A., J. Kopaska and D. Bonneau. 2001. Clear Lake Diagnostic and Feasibility Study.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Available at http://limnology.eeob.iastate.edu/Studies/
ClearLake/ClearLakeDiagnosticAndFeasibilityStudy.htm.
Gonzalez-Caban, A. and J. Loomis. 1997. Economic benefits of maintaining ecological
integrity of Rio Mameyes, in Puerto Rico. Ecol. Econ. 21(l):63-75.
Greenley, D.A., R.G. Walsh and R.A. Young. 1981. Option value: Empirical evidence from a
case study of recreation and water quality. Q. J. Econ. 96(4):657-672.
Griffin, R.C. and J.W. Mjelde. 2000. Valuing water supply reliability. Am. J. Agri. Econ.
82:414-426.
Haener, M.K., D. Dosman, W.L. Adamowicz and P.C. Boxall. 2001. Can stated preference
methods be used to value attributes of subsistence hunting in aboriginal peoples? A case study in
northern Saskatchewan. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 83(5): 1334-1340.
Heberling, M. 2000. Valuing public goods using the stated choice method. PhD Dissertation,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Howe, C.W., M.G. Smith, L. Bennett et al. 1994. The value of water supply reliability in urban
water systems. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 26(1): 19-30.
Huppert, D.D. 1989. Measuring the value of fish to anglers: Application to central California
anadromous species. Mar. Res. Econ. 6(2):89-107.
Johnson, N.S. and R.M. Adams. 1989. On the marginal value of a fish: Some evidence from the
steelhead fishery. Mar. Res. Econ. 6(l):43-55.
Kaplowitz, M.D. 2000. Identifying ecosystem services using multiple methods: Lessons from
the mangrove wetlands of Yucatan, Mexico. Agri. Human Values. 17(2): 169-179.
Kosz, M. 1996. Valuing riverside wetlands: The case of the "Donau-Auen" national park. Ecol.
Econ. 16(2): 109-127.
Lant, C.L. and R.S. Roberts. 1990. Greenbelts in the cornbelt: Riparian wetlands, intrinsic
values and market failure. Environ. Plan. 22:1375-1388.
Loomis, J.B. 1996. Measuring the economic benefits of removing dams and restoring the Elwha
River: Results of a contingent valuation survey. Water Resour. Res. 32(2):441-447.
Loomis, J.B. and D.M. Larson. 1994. Total economic values of increasing gray whale
populations: Results from a contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Mar. Res.
Econ. 9(3):275-286.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, L. Strange, K. Fausch and A. Covich. 2000 . Measuring the total economic
value of restoration ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: Results from a contingent
valuation survey. Ecol. Econ. 33(1): 103-117.
3-68
-------
McConnell, K. 1997. Does altruism undermine existence value? J. Environ. Econ. Manage.
32:22-37.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework
for Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Mullens, J.B. and R.S. Bristow. 2003. Overcoming the nation's best landscaped sewer:
recreators' perceptions of the Connecticut River. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 39(1):7-15.
Palanca-Tan, R. and G.M. Bautista. 2003. Metering and a Water Permits Scheme for
Groundwater Use in Cagayan de Oro. Economy an Environment Program for Southeast Asia
(EEPSEA) Research Report No. 2003-RR8. International Development Research Centre.
Parkes, J.G.M. 1973. Public Perceptions of Water Quality and Their Effect on Water-Based
Recreation. Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Shabman, L. and K. Stephenson. 1996. Searching for the correct benefit estimate: Empirical
evidence for an alternative perspective. Land Econ. 72(4):433-449.
Soto Montes de Oca, G., I.J. Bateman, R. Tinch and P.G. Moffatt. 2003. Assessing the
Willingness to Pay for Maintained and Improved Water Supplies in Mexico City. CSERGE
Working Paper ECM 03-11, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global
Environment, University of East Anglia.
Stevens, T.H., S. Benin and J.S. Larson. 1995. Public attitudes and economic values for wetland
preservation in New England. Wetlands. 15(3):226-231.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook. 2nd ed. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-94/005a. Accessed 4 March 2004 at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/handbook/.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-95/002.
Accessed 24 January 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/econ/complete.pdf.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Accessed 4 March
2004 at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid= 12460.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Stressor Identification Guidance Document. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
EPA/822/B-00/025. Accessed March 4, 2004, at
http://www.epa.gov/ost/biocriteria/stressors/stressorid.pdf.
3-69
-------
U.S. EPA. 2003. Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints for Ecological Risk Assessment.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
EPA/63 0/P-02/004F. Accessed March 4, 2004, at
http: //cfpub. epa. gov/ncea/cfm/recordi spl ay. cfm? dei d=5 5131.
U.S. EPA. 2004. AQUATOX (Release 2): Modeling Environmental Fate and Ecological
Effects in Aquatic Ecosystems, Vol. 2: Technical Documentation. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/R-04/002.
U.S. EPA. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/240/R-06/001.
Whitehead, J.C. and S. Finney. 2003. Willingness to pay for submerged maritime cultural
resources. J. Cul. Econ. 27:231-240.
Whitehead, J.C. and P. A. Groothius. 1992. Economic benefits of improved water quality: A
case study of North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico River. Rivers. 3(3):170-178.
Wood, R. and J. Handley. 1999. Urban waterfront regeneration in the Mersey Basin, north west
England. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 42(4):565-580.
3-70
-------
4. UNDERSTANDING THE TOOLS: A SUMMARY OF METHODS FOR
CHARACTERIZING THE GAINS AND LOSSES
The purpose of Chapter 4 is to provide the reader with an overview of "social science"
methods and a basic understanding of their relative advantages and disadvantages. The
descriptions are intended to help the reader gauge which methods might be applicable to his or
her situation. Rather than providing detailed instructions on how to apply each method, the
chapter references other sources that provide further detail. In most cases, the assistance of
qualified experts should be sought to select and implement the most appropriate method for
eliciting preferences. The information provided in this chapter, along with the general framework
for evaluating management options and the conceptual models described in Chapter 3, can be
used to inform and improve the decision-making process for WQS. A common goal of these
methods is to help decision-makers better understand the insights, perceptions, attitudes,
objectives, and preferences of relevant stakeholders in the affected community and to apply this
information to improve policy decisions. Using the term affected community implies that
decision-makers should consider those individuals impacted by the use-attainment decision.
However, according to the Interim Economic Guidance, the relevant geographic area must
include the water segment under consideration, but no rules exist for defining the community
(U.S. EPA, 1995). It is up to the applicant and state, but U.S. EPA must review the decision.
This may not capture the relevant community for the process presented in this report.
U.S. EPA (2002) suggests that the community is defined by both the people and the place. The
people might be connected by social interaction or a common activity while the place might be
based on a geographic setting or political boundary.
In the economic literature, determining the "market area" is a similar problem to
determining the relevant community. Freeman (1993) points out that determining the market area
is an important research question, but the significance of the resource can help determine the
geographic area. Loomis and Gonzalez (1996) examine this empirical question and find that not
including nonresident values for reducing wildfires to protect habitat in California and Oregon
will understate the total benefits by 80%. Pate and Loomis (1997) find that the extent of the
market might be based on total cost of the program and who will bear those costs. Understanding
who is in the relevant community is not easy to determine and not likely to have a right answer,
4-1
-------
but it must be considered part of the process to avoid problems created by the use attainment
decision.
This chapter divides the social science methods into two main categories: sociocultural
and economic methods. As discussed in more detail in the chapter, the main distinguishing
feature of economic assessment methods is that they are based on a common conceptual
framework for evaluating the human welfare effects and the benefit-cost trade-offs involved in
policy decisions (i.e., for conducting economic analyses). Sociocultural assessment methods, in
contrast, provide a number of alternative perspectives and approaches for eliciting, evaluating,
and applying community preferences and stakeholder input in the decision-making process.1
Applying these methods to support WQS decisions is consistent with EPA's stated interest in
more fully and effectively using the knowledge base from social and behavioral sciences in
environmental decision-making (NRC, 2005).
To present the social science methods, the chapter begins in Section 4.1 by defining a
general decision-making process for WQS and identifying the stages in the process where these
methods can be applied most effectively. It presents several specific sociocultural and economic
methods and describes some of their distinguishing features. Section 4.2 then identifies and
describes the information and data collection approaches that are used to support the assessment
methods.
Section 4.3 provides more detailed discussion and comparisons of the sociocultural and
economic methods. It describes the types of data collection techniques required for each method.
It also compares and rates each method according to "cost/complexity"—relating to the time,
data, resources, and specialized technical skills required to implement the method. The section
then provides a short (one to two pages) description of each method, including a discussion of
the advantages and disadvantages of the method, the types of outcomes associated with their
application, and a brief example of their use.
4.1. APPLYING SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS TO THE DECISION-MAKING
PROCESS FOR WQS
Figure 4-1 illustrates, in general terms, the decision-making process for setting WQS. It
builds on the process illustrated in Figure 3-1 by specifically highlighting areas where social
1 A key resource for these methods and this chapter was U.S. EPA (2002).
4-2
-------
DECISION STEPS INVOLVING
SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS
^ Revise Management Options i
Revise Conceptual Models
Assess Community Preferences
Determine WQS Compliance
Conduct Monitoring
Elicit Community Input
Elicit Community Input
Set Goals & WQS
Identify and Assess Impairments
Stressors & Sources
Identify Stakeholders and
Engage Community
Select Preferred Management
Option
Develop Initial Management
Options
Evaluate Gains and Losses
Between Options
Assess Ecological Risks and
Impacts of Options
Assess Social and Economic
Impacts of Options
Evaluate Factors Affecting Use
Attainment
or Antidegradation Conditions
Develop Conceptual Models for
Options
FIGURE 4-1
Incorporating Social Science Methods into WQS Decision-Making
4-3
-------
science methods can be used to inform and enhance this process. The overall goal of the
decision-making process is to select the management option that meets the highest attainable use
of the water and best addresses the needs and priorities of the affected community. Throughout
this process, social science methods can be used to address three supporting objectives:
(1) involve the community in framing the key elements of the WQS decision,
(2) assess community preferences for different management options to meet the highest
attainable use, and
(3) assess the expected social and economic impacts of the different options.
Below we discuss the types of social science methods that are best suited to addressing
each of these objectives. This discussion is divided into two sections, the first focusing on
sociocultural methods and the second on economic methods.
4.1.1. Sociocultural Methods
Sociocultural assessment methods include a variety of perspectives and approaches for
engaging the community in the decision-making process, eliciting input from stakeholders, and
assessing and applying community preferences in the decision-making process. Table 4-1 lists
several of these methods and distinguishes them according to whether they are "deliberative,"
"analytical," or combined deliberative-analytical techniques. These distinctions are discussed in
more detail in the following sections. Table 4-1 also lists the section number later in this chapter
where a more detailed description of each method can be found.
4.1.1.1. Deliberative Sociocultural Methods
A number of social science methods can be broadly categorized as "deliberative" or
"participatory" approaches. Deliberative methods involve the consideration of an issue by an
assemblage of stakeholders who ponder, discuss, and collectively assess the issue at hand. They
range from large public hearings to representative advisory committees (other examples and
descriptions of deliberative methods are provided later in this chapter).
When applied to environmental decision-making, these deliberative methods find their
theoretical underpinnings in a wide range of disciplines, including anthropology, conservation
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-1
Summary of Sociocultural Methods: Key Characteristics
Analytic
Deliberative
Section Number With
Detailed Description
Mental Model Approaches
~
4.4
Public Meetings
~
4.5
Delphi Method
~
~
4.6
Multiattribute Trade-Off Analysis
~
~
4.7
Multicriteria Decision-Making
~
~
4.8
Focus Groups Interviews
~
~
4.9
Advisory Committees
~
4.10
Value Juries
~
4.11
Opinion and Attitudinal Surveys
~
4.12
Referenda
~
4.13
Affective Images
~
4.14
Narrative
~
4.15
Damage Schedules
~
4.16
4-5
-------
and ecology, social policy, and sociology. Although the specific theoretical orientations and
assumptions of these and other social sciences vary widely, they are largely unified by a holistic,
systemic approach that encompasses the complex relations between people and their
environments (Moran, 1990). Deliberative social science methods are, as a result, intended for
use with a diversity of stakeholder groups and in relation to a diversity of environmental
questions and issues. Many of these social science methods also are well suited for examining
and addressing environmental equity issues. That is, they can provide useful forums for
exploring, and when possible addressing social inequalities in environmental decision-making
(Lubchenko, 1998).
In the context of WQS, deliberative methods can strengthen the decision process in
several ways, including by helping to define and frame the main elements of the decision. As
shown in Figure 4-1, there are at least three points in the decision process where deliberative
methods can be used to elicit community input and allow community residents to contribute their
unique insights and expertise. First, these deliberative processes can provide policy makers with
an initial sense of the public's concern and engagement in a WQS decision and, in so doing,
suggest generally appropriate governmental responses. Second, after technical experts develop
initial management options, deliberative methods can be used to provide a forum for community
members to describe local resource use patterns and priorities, and then the management options
could be refined for subsequent discussion and assessment.
Third, these methods can be used to develop and finalize conceptual models for the set of
management options under consideration. For example, when holding a public meeting or using
focus groups, the participants could help narrow the list of important services or provide
important local knowledge about the study area. As described in Chapter 3, these models
illustrate the links between affected ecological and human systems and compare, in descriptive
terms, the expected ecological and human welfare effects of the different options.
In addition to providing structured approaches for eliciting community input on technical
matters, deliberative methods also can be used to elicit and assess community preferences. That
is, through organized group discussions such as public meetings or focus groups, they allow
community members to express their preferred options (and the specific features of different
options they prefer) and the strength of these preferences. The insights gained into community
preferences and how they differ across stakeholder groups can help WQS decision-makers
4-6
-------
improve their understanding of the gains and losses and consequences associated with alternative
management approaches.
Finally, deliberative methods offer the advantage of encouraging active community
involvement in the decision-making process. When applied early in the process and used to
address a controversial resource issue, this engagement of stakeholders can be critical for
ensuring that the final decision is acceptable to the affected community.
4.1.1.2. Analytic Sociocultural Methods
Sociocultural methods also can elicit and assess community preferences for
environmental decisions in the absence of direct deliberation and participation in the
decision-making process. In brief, these analytic methods differ from deliberative ones in that
data regarding community preferences are structured and analyzed by decision-makers without
engaging in dialogue with stakeholders about the process followed. Analytic methods often are
typified by a set of standardized and prescriptive methods for reducing data into specific answers
to factual questions. These analytical approaches can be used when the options are particularly
complex or community residents are unable or unwilling to arrive at a workable consensus in
participatory formats. In these situations, certain social science methods can be used to describe
the various scenarios available and provide residents the opportunity to indicate the preferred
scenario. These methods have the advantage of providing decision-makers with a rigorous and
structured set of responses on which they can base their selection of the final WQS management
option. Surveys and referenda are examples of such analytic approaches that do not include
deliberative or participatory approaches.
4.1.1.3. Integrated Analytic-Deliberative Sociocultural Methods
Although deliberative and analytical methods each can contribute independently to a
sound analysis, some researchers have advocated decision-making processes that integrate both
deliberative and analytic components into socioeconomic assessments. This argument, as well as
the distinction between analytic and deliberative methods in general, is detailed in a report issued
by the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) entitled Understanding Risk: Informing
Decisions in a Democratic Society. Table 4-1 introduces several examples of these methods and
lists the section number at the end of this chapter where a more detailed description of each
4-7
-------
method is provided. Focus group interviews or the Delphi method of preference elicitation are
examples of methods that can be used to support participatory, deliberative decision-making as
well as to provide data for use by social scientists to assess community preferences in subsequent
analysis.
Some of these assessment methods can be used or adapted to support economic analyses.
For example, multicriteria decision-making, referenda, and damage schedules can be used to
collect, measure, and compare monetary values for different options; however, these methods do
not necessarily include economic measures, and they are not necessarily or primarily based on
the conceptual framework described in Section 4.2. For these reasons, they are not classified as
economic assessment methods. Similarly, some of the methods classified as economic
assessment methods can be used to gather preference information that is not expressed in
monetary or economic terms. For example, conjoint analysis can be used to evaluate preferences
in several dimensions, not just in terms of monetary trade-offs. These examples illustrate the fact
that the two broad categories of social science methods—economic and sociocultural—are not
necessarily mutually exclusive.
4.1.2. Economic Methods for Assessing Preferences and Socioeconomic Impacts
Economic analyses of environmental regulations and related policies are geared toward
understanding (1) how society's resources, including its natural resources, are used or exchanged
as a result of policy actions and (2) how human welfare (that is, human well-being) is affected by
these uses or exchanges. Addressing the first issue requires, among other things, models of
human behavior. Market modeling, which simulates the behaviors and interactions of producers
and consumers (i.e., supply and demand) under alternative conditions, is one example of the
types of tools economists use for this purpose.
Addressing the second issue related to effects on human welfare requires "normative"
models. These are models that define measures of well-being and establish corresponding criteria
for determining whether society is better off as a result of a policy. Two commonly used criteria
in economic analyses are efficiency and equity.
The main questions underlying the efficiency criterion are whether and to what extent the
gains to society (benefits) exceed the losses to society (costs) from a given policy. The most
efficient policy is defined as the one for which the difference between benefits and costs (net
4-8
-------
benefits) is the greatest. The efficiency criterion is therefore also the basis for BCA (Arrow et al.,
1996; Freeman, 1993; U.S. EPA, 2000). As discussed briefly in Chapter 2 of this report, BCA is
a widely used economic analysis method for assessing the overall impact of a policy on society's
well-being. It involves identifying, quantifying, and valuing the positive and negative impacts on
society's well-being that result from policy changes.
The main questions underlying the equity criterion have to do with how the gains and
losses are distributed across society (U.S. EPA, 2000). In particular, who are the "gainers" and
who are the "losers" as a result of a policy? Analyses of equity impacts are also often focused on
distinct subpopulations, such as disadvantaged or particularly vulnerable individuals. They
examine how these groups of individuals are specifically affected by policies. In contrast to the
efficiency criterion, for which there is a generally accepted core measure of human welfare effect
(net benefits) and a main assessment method (BCA), there is no generally agreed upon measure
of equity or a corresponding assessment method (although U.S. EPA [2000] provides a
framework). Nevertheless, the process of developing and conducting BCA often requires
separate estimation of different types and sources of benefits and costs, which also can be useful
for informing equity concerns.
In practice, most economic assessment methods for evaluating environmental policies
have been designed to support efficiency analyses and BCA. Actions taken to protect
environmental quality (e.g., water quality) typically will involve both benefits and costs. By
enhancing the flows of environmental services, they ultimately will have positive effects on
human welfare (benefits). However, by diverting resources from other valued activities in order
to control pollution, they also will have negative effects on human welfare (costs). In other
words, the impacts of these actions, both the benefits and costs, ultimately will be experienced as
changes in well-being for households/individuals. This idea is represented in simplified terms in
Figure 4-2, which depicts interactions between three "systems:" household, market production,
and environmental systems. Human welfare is shown as emanating from household systems
because this is where individuals primarily reside. However, households also are closely
connected with the other systems. They buy and sell goods, services, and labor through
interactions with market systems. As described in detail in Chapter 3 of this report, they also
receive important services from environmental/ecological systems. Moreover, some of the
services from the environment are experienced indirectly by individuals through their
4-9
-------
Residuals
Environmental
"Services"
Labor Residuals,
\Services /
Markers.
Goods 8N
Services
Environmental
"Services"
Market
Production
Systems
Household
Systems
Environmental
Systems
Human Welfare
FIGURE 4-2
Interrelationships Between Market, Environmental, and Household Systems and Their
Contributions to Human Welfare
4-10
-------
interactions in market systems. For example, aquatic ecosystems support commercial fishing and
aquaculture, which are in turn sources of food and livelihood for individuals. Figure 4-2 also
shows that potentially harmful residuals are released to the environment from both household
and market production activities. To some extent, environmental systems can absorb and break
down these residuals, which, as described in Chapter 3, is one of the important services provided
by these systems. However, when releases of residuals exceed the absorptive capacity of the
environment, they cause impairments in environmental systems and degrade the other services
they provide.
One of the main challenges in applying BCA to evaluate environmental policies related
to meeting WQS, is that it requires methods for expressing human welfare changes in money
terms (see, e.g., Freeman, 1993). In certain instances, this process is relatively straightforward
because the changes are experienced by humans as monetary gains or losses. For example, if
producers are required to install systems that reduce pollutant loads to surface waters, these
additional expenditures are likely to reduce their profits, which economists term their "producer
surplus." The dollar value of these reductions in producer surplus is a measure of costs.
Furthermore, if some of the expenses for installing these systems are passed on to consumers in
the form of price increases, then it also reduces consumer welfare. The dollar value of these
reductions is referred to as a change in "consumer surplus," and is also a measure of costs.
In other instances, welfare changes are not directly associated with monetary gains or
losses. As discussed in Chapter 3, such "non-market" changes might, for example, include the
welfare gains from improved recreational opportunities at a water body. In these cases a
surrogate measure of gains or losses must be used. Economists and other practitioners of BCA
generally accept "willingness to pay" (WTP) as the conceptually correct measure for valuing
changes in individuals' welfare.2 WTP is the maximum amount of money that an individual
would be willing to pay for a specified change (i.e., what someone is willing to give up to
receive something else). As such it is the monetary equivalent of the welfare gain from the
change. For instance, if water quality changes improve fishing conditions at a lake, the anglers
who use the lake experience an increase in well-being. The dollar value of this welfare change—
2 Willingness to accept (WTA) is the minimum amount an individual is willing to accept to forego the change. Both
WTA and WTP are correct measures for valuing changes. However, to simplify, we only use WTP in this report.
Freeman (1993) provides information on the differences between WTA and WTP and how to choose the appropriate
measure.
4-11
-------
the benefit to anglers—can be expressed as the maximum amount they would be willing to pay
for the change if they could only acquire it by paying. Notice that WTP is constrained by the
individual's income.
Economists have developed a wide variety of methods for assessing these different
components of human welfare changes associated with policy changes. Table 4-2 lists several
commonly used economic assessment methods. These methods are geared mainly toward
expressing these changes in a common metric (i.e., dollars) so that the benefit-cost trade-offs
involved in policy making can be compared directly. In many instances, these methods also can
be used or combined to address equity-related issues, by measuring how costs, benefits, and
other economic impacts are distributed across the affected population.
TABLE 4-2
Summary and Comparison of Economic Assessment Methods: Key Characteristics
Preference
Elicitation
Preference
Revelation
Other
Section Number
With Detailed
Description
Contingent Valuation
~
4.17
Conjoint Analysis
~
4.18
Hedonic Property Value
~
4.19
Recreation Demand
~
4.20
Averting Behavior
~
4.21
Market Models
~
4.22
Repl acement/Re storati on
Cost
~
4.23
Benefit Transfer
~
4.24
Economic Impact
Analysis
~
4.25
4-12
-------
Most of the economic methods developed for assessing the benefits (rather than the costs)
of environmental policies are described as nonmarket valuation methods because they measure
values for things that generally are not exchanged in markets. These methods can be classified
broadly as either preference elicitation or preference revelation methods. The discussion below
begins by describing these two general nonmarket valuation approaches and then describes other
related economic assessment methods. Table 4-2 also distinguishes methods according to
whether they are primarily preference elicitation (stated preference) or preference revelation
(revealed preference) methods or whether they cannot be classified in this way ("other"). In
addition, it lists the section number later in this chapter where a more detailed description of each
method can be found.
4.1.2.1. Preference Elicitation (Stated Preference) Methods
These methods predominantly use surveys to elicit preferences from individuals.
Although several different variations of these methods have been developed, most are similar to
or fall broadly within two categories: contingent valuation (CV) and conjoint analysis. Because
markets for changes in environmental quality typically do not exist, values for these changes
cannot be measured directly from market prices and quantities. Stated preference surveys allow
researchers to present respondents with hypothetical choices that are similar to market purchase
decisions. One of the main advantages of these methods is that they give the researcher
substantial flexibility for framing the choice and defining the change to be valued. Based on
individuals' responses to these hypothetical scenarios, it is possible to directly elicit or to infer
their WTP for the defined change. Another important advantage is that these methods are
capable of capturing both use and nonuse values related to the defined changes. As discussed in
Chapter 3, individuals may benefit from ecosystem services in ways that are unrelated to their
use of the ecosystem. Nonuse values for these services are therefore not revealed in their use of
the ecosystem, but they can be expressed in responses to stated preference surveys.
The main drawback of these preference elicitation methods is the difficulty of verifying
whether respondents are providing truthful and accurate preference information. In some cases,
respondents may respond strategically, either overstating or understating their WTP or choices if
they perceive that they can favorably influence the policy outcome by doing so. In other cases,
responses may be biased by the format or context of the questions or by the interviewer's
4-13
-------
technique. The hypothetical nature of the questions may result in responses that are not carefully
thought out by respondents. Many of these limitations can be addressed at least partially through
careful design and thorough pretesting of the stated preference survey instrument.
4.1.2.2. Preference Revelation (Revealed Preference) Methods
These methods use data on human behaviors in actual rather than hypothetical conditions
to infer their values for specific changes. They assume that individuals always act to optimize
their own welfare; therefore, their actions reveal how much they value things they cannot
purchase directly. For example, by paying more for a home that is next to a less polluted water
body, individuals reveal their value for cleaner water. To measure these values, hedonic property
value methods are often used to estimate the specific effect that differences in local water quality
have on housing prices. Another example is where individuals reveal their values for safer
drinking water through purchases of water purifiers or bottled water. Averting behavior methods
examine these types of behaviors to measure these values. In a third example, individuals who
travel longer distances to recreate at sites with cleaner surface water reveal values for clean
water. Recreation demand models examine these types of behaviors.
Although very useful for measuring nonmarket values, revealed preference methods also
have a number of limitations. First, because they require data on actual behaviors, these methods
offer researchers less flexibility than stated preference methods for framing the choice and
defining the change to be valued. Second, because values are implied rather than directly
expressed through these observed behaviors, more complex analytical methods often are required
to measure values from revealed preference data. Third, revealed preference methods cannot be
used to measure nonuse values for environmental resources because by definition these values
are not revealed in individuals' use of the resources.3
4.1.2.3. Other Economic Assessment Methods
Conducting original stated or revealed preference analyses typically requires substantial
time and resources. When it is not feasible to conduct a reliable stated or revealed preference
study due to time and resource constraints or for other reasons, it may be possible to apply results
3 Some of the limitations of stated and revealed preference methods can be addressed by combining the two
methods. See Adamowicz et al. (1994) and Kling (1997).
4-14
-------
from existing studies to the new policy case, a practice called "benefit transfer." The accuracy of
the benefit transfer method for estimating benefits depends on the quality of the original studies
and the comparability of the study context with the policy context of interest. Some differences
between the two contexts can be overcome by systematically adapting or adjusting the
transferred estimates—for example, values may be rescaled to account for price inflation,
differences in income, or differences in the size of the effect being evaluated—but this process
generally introduces additional uncertainty.
Another method that sometimes is used for approximation in benefits assessment is to
estimate avoided replacement/restoration costs. For example, if poor water quality causes
damages to wetlands, then one of the benefits of improving water quality may be the avoided
costs of restoring the affected wetlands. This type of valuation approach is relatively easy to
implement, but it provides, at best, a crude approximation of the value humans attribute to the
affected wetlands because it mixes costs and benefits (see, for example, Bockstael et al. [2000]
or Section 4.23).
One method that potentially can assess both the benefits and costs resulting from
environmental management options is the market models method. A market model simulates
supply and demand conditions for a specific good (or service) and shows how the interaction
between these two forces determines the market price for the good and the quantity of the good
that is bought/sold over a specific time period.4 More importantly, these models also can
estimate how supply and demand conditions change (and prices and quantities adjust) in
response to environmental policies. For instance, if the policy requires producers to make new
expenditures (e.g., on pollution control equipment), market models can be used to assess the
societal costs of the policy. These costs are measured as reductions in producer surplus and
consumer surplus in the affected market(s). If the environmental resources improved by the
policy also directly support market activities—for example, if the affected aquatic resources
support commercial fishing—then market methods also can be used to measure specific benefits
of the policy. These benefits are measured as increases in producer and consumer surplus in the
affected market. By distinguishing between changes in producer and consumer surplus, market
4 Market models also can vary significantly in their scope and complexity. "Partial equilibrium" market models,
which typically include one or perhaps a small number of related markets, commonly are used. In contrast, "general
equilibrium" models represent multiple market interactions within an economy and are, therefore, less appropriate
for estimating the societal costs of policies that target a small sector of the economy.
4-15
-------
methods also can be used to examine the equity-related issues—i.e., how gains and losses are
distributed between consumers and producers.
The market models method is designed to provide conceptually valid measures of human
welfare changes, which are appropriate for use in BCA. In contrast, economic impact analysis
methods are designed to measure policy-related changes in specific economic indicators, such as
changes in expenditures and sales, employment levels, incomes, and tax revenues. Although
these methods are commonly used to evaluate changes in local or regional economic conditions,
they generally do not provide estimates that are directly applicable in BCA. For example,
expenditures on fishing trips and related equipment are often used as an indicator of how much a
water resource contributes to a local economy; however, these measures do not specifically
capture changes in producer or consumer surplus, which are more appropriate measures of
human welfare changes. Nevertheless, economic impact analyses can provide useful insights into
the economic and equity implications of different actions, including how both positive and
negative impacts are expected to be distributed across the affected community.
4.2. DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES FOR SOCIOCULTURAL AND
ECONOMIC ASSESSMENTS
All the social science methods discussed in this chapter require one or more forms of data
collection regarding the affected community. In many cases, they require primary data
collection, which entails gathering original data directly from community members or
stakeholders. In other cases, they require secondary data collection, which relies on existing
sources of data. Several of the most commonly used methods for primary and secondary data
collection are described below.
4.2.1. Primary Data Collection
For the purposes of this discussion, primary data collection techniques are grouped in the
following four categories.
4.2.1.1. Individual Interviews
In individual interviews, answers are elicited from individuals one at a time either in
person or over the phone (see, for example, U.S. EPA [2002]). Individual interviews can vary in
many ways (such as format, question structure, and level of formality) depending on the desired
4-16
-------
results. This technique allows for in-depth analysis of topics of interest, such as a thorough
description of the experiences and emotions tied to the recreational services provided by an
aquatic ecosystem in the community. Speaking directly to individuals also allows for insights not
garnered using other techniques. However, it is important to note that information gathered
through an individual interview can be biased by a respondent's tendency to say what he or she
thinks the interviewer wants to hear or by design flaws that can affect data quality. Adequate
training of interviewers, pretesting of interview scripts, and a representative sample can limit
these problems.
4.2.1.2. Surveys
Surveys are lists of predetermined questions presented to respondents in the form of a
questionnaire. The survey may be physically handed to respondents, mailed, sent electronically,
given in a group, or in some other way delivered to the respondent, the respondent typically
interprets the items on the questionnaire without assistance from the researcher. Surveys can
gather demographic information on the respondent as well as perceptions, opinions, values, and
behaviors related to the ecosystem. This technique allows data to be gathered from a large
number of respondents by a small number of researchers at a relatively low cost per response,
providing more representative data than with other techniques. Surveys allow more complicated
questions to be asked, such as those requiring repetitive questions used in rankings. The absence
of interview bias and the anonymity of the respondent may provide more accurate information as
long as the questionnaire is not flawed. The researcher has no control over how the respondent
interprets the questions. The overall cost of surveys can be high, partially because of the need for
the services of survey methodologists and other professionals adept at survey design and
sampling. The entire process also can be time consuming, and there is always the potential of
low response rates due to problems with the survey instrument design, delivery method, or the
interest level of the population (for more information on surveys, see Dillman [1978]). In
addition, if the views of those who complete the survey are systematically different from those
who do not, response bias could affect the results.
4-17
-------
4.2.1.3. Group Deliberations
Group interviews can be used to elicit community perceptions and to facilitate
deliberations. They vary in the level of information provided to participants, the criteria by which
group members are recruited, depth of the desired response, and the extent to which the group
members interact. Group interviews allow information to be obtained from many people at one
time and also allow individuals to modify their opinions based on feedback from other group
members. This technique generally is not as time consuming as individual interviews. However,
one or a few members of the group may dominate the conversation, not allowing the opinions of
all group members to be expressed equally. Adequate training of group interview moderators can
limit this problem. Consensus may be difficult or impossible to achieve in a group setting,
although consensus is not always the goal.
4.2.1.4. Observation
Observation involves collecting data on the community through observing day-to-day
activities and interactions rather than asking the community members directly, as researchers do
during interviews (see U.S. EPA [2002]). This technique may provide unanticipated insights
about the values and behavior of the community that may be useful in preparing interviews or
surveys. It takes time to fully observe the community, and some behaviors are unobservable.
Researchers may need insider knowledge (such as that elicited during interviews) to understand
the motivations behind some behaviors.
4.2.2. Secondary Data Collection
A wide variety of secondary data sources also can be used to support and conduct
socioeconomic assessments. Many forms of demographic and economic data are readily
available through written and electronic sources, such as information available in town halls and
libraries. Data collected by the Bureau of Census, which includes information on population,
housing, and economic characteristics can be particularly useful for identifying and
characterizing the potentially affected community. Data on property values and characteristics,
recreational activities, and consumer expenditures and prices are available from a number of
sources, and they can also provide useful insights into the behaviors, values, and preferences of
community members. Geographic data, for example, information on buildings, roads, elevation,
4-18
-------
and the location of affected populations in relation to the physical landscape and other
populations, also can be useful for characterizing and better understanding the community. These
data can be represented in maps, which provide visual representations of the layout of the
community, and they can be spatially linked to other data sources (e.g., through geographic
information systems [GIS] techniques) to support more advanced analyses of community
characteristics, behaviors, and preferences. In addition, published research findings regarding the
community (or similar communities) often are available in journals, books, and fact sheets, and
they also can serve as important secondary sources of information (additional information can be
found in U.S. EPA [2002]).
4.3. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS
In Section 4.1, we identified 22 of the more commonly used sociocultural and economic
assessment methods. This section provides additional descriptions and comparisons of these
methods. At the end of this chapter, more detailed one-page descriptions are provided for each of
the 22 methods.
Table 4-3 distinguishes the sociocultural and economic methods according to the types of
data collection techniques that are most integral and most commonly used to apply these
methods. As this table shows, most of the methods (and all of the sociocultural methods) require
primary data collection. Although not specifically shown in the table, all of the methods can use
secondary data productively; however, in most cases these data play a less prominent role than
primary data. For example, demographic and economic data sources are often used as a first step
in developing surveys or in structuring the make-up of an advisory committee.
As shown in Table 4-3, the primary data collection process most commonly employed is
a key variable by which to differentiate the sociocultural methods described here. The mental
model approach is the only sociocultural method described in this report that relies on data
collected through individual in-depth interviews to develop the mental modeling coding scheme.
The majority of the methods—public meetings, Delphi methods, multi attribute trade-off
analysis, multicriteria decision-making, focus groups, advisory committees, and value juries—
employ group discussions and deliberations to collect primary data for analysis. The Delphi
method employs both group deliberations and surveys. The remaining sociocultural methods—
opinion and attitudinal surveys, referenda, affective images, narrative, and damage schedules—
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-3
Summary and Comparison of Social Science Methods: Main Data Collection Techniques Used
Primary Data Collection
Secondary Data Collection
Individual
Interviews
Surveys
Group
Deliberations
Demographic
Data
Economic
Data
Geographic
Data
Published
Research
Siiciiicullural \ssessmeiil MelhuiK
Mental Model Approaches
~
Public Meetings
~
Delphi Method
~
~
Multiattribute Trade-off Analysis
~
Multicriteria Decision-Making
~
Focus Groups Interviews
~
Advisory Committees
~
Value Juries
~
Opinion and Attitudinal Surveys
~
Referenda
~
Affective Images
~
Narrative
~
Damage Schedules
~
l!a
-------
all rely on survey data. Finally, because all the sociocultural methods described in this report rely
on preferences elicited from stakeholders, observations of relevant behaviors on the part of
community residents may provide an important reality check on responses elicited, as well as
suggest areas for further investigation. Prospective users of these methods would do well to
review the section describing these various primary data collection strategies when deciding
which method or methods to employ.
Most of these sociocultural methods provide strategies researchers can use to collect and
reduce attitudinal and behavioral data into a set of discrete analytic units, or codes. These codes,
often bundled under descriptive headings such as "recreational values" or "economic values,"
can create structure and order out of the complex assemblage of concerns and comments
received from community members. To some extent, they allow for interpersonal comparison
and generalization in the same way as economic indicators or other conceptual units operate in
economic models. However, the coding schemes often differ from those used in economic
methods in that many of these methods are by and large data-driven. That is, the collection of
attitudinal and behavioral data precedes the development of the scheme by which the data are
parsed and organized.
All of the economic assessment methods are inherently analytic, and in contrast to many
of the sociocultural methods, they typically use little, if any, deliberative processes. Instead,
many of the economic methods, in particular the preference elicitation techniques such as
contingent valuation and conjoint analysis, require collecting data through surveys or, in certain
circumstances, personal interviews. Also in contrast to the sociocultural methods, most economic
assessment methods require some secondary data collection. For example, the hedonic property
value method requires data on housing prices, housing characteristics, and local conditions, most
of which can be acquired through existing data sources. Another example is the benefit transfer
method, which by definition uses secondary data from existing economic studies.
Table 4-4 rates each of the sociocultural and economics methods according to
cost/complexity which refers to the costliness and/or complexity of the method, in terms of time,
data, and specialized technical skills required to implement it. This dimension is rated on a 5-
point scale ranging from very low to very high. It must be noted that these ratings are subjective
(based on the consensus of the report's authors) and require generalizations. Many of the
methods can vary significantly in cost/complexity, depending on the context in which they are
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-4
Summary and Comparison of Social Science Methods: Cost/Complexity
How Costly/Complex to Implement?
Very Low
E?
o
J
Moderate
High
Very High
Socioculluml Assessmenl \lelhods
Mental Model Approaches
~
Public Meetings
~
Delphi Method
~
Multiattribute Trade-off Analysis
~
Multicriteria Decision-Making
~
Focus Groups Interviews
~
Advisory Committees
~
Value Juries
~
Opinion and Attitudinal Surveys
~
Referenda
~
Affective Images
~
Narrative
~
Damage Schedules
~
Lconomic Assessment \1elhods
Contingent Valuation
~
Conjoint Analysis
~
Hedonic Property Value
~
Recreation Demand
~
Averting Behavior
~a
~b
Market Models
~
Replacement/Restoration Cost
~
Benefit Transfer
~
Economic Impact Analysis
~
a Averting expenditure approach
b Household production approach
4-22
-------
used and the level of resources devoted to applying the method. Nevertheless, these ratings are
included here to provide the reader with a broad understanding of the relative advantages and
disadvantages of the different methods. They are intended to help the reader gauge which
methods might be applicable to his or her situation. More detailed descriptions and comparisons
of the methods are provided below and in the descriptions at the end of this chapter. Additional
references for the sociocultural assessment methods can be found in U.S. EPA (2002) and
additional details on the economic assessment methods can be found in Maler and Vincent
(2005) and Champ et al. (2003).
4-23
-------
4.4. MENTAL MODEL APPROACHES
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Mental model and other cognitive mapping approaches have been used in a
variety of environmental management contexts. In contrast to opinion polls
(Section 4.12), which require that respondents answer fixed questions, the
protocols used in a mental model interview allow participants to express
themselves in their own terms. All participants discuss a common set of issues
but are given substantial flexibility to focus on those issues of greatest
concern. The primary goal is to identify those factors that most influence how
a person thinks about the issues at hand and why different people may agree or
disagree about what matters most or about preferred options.
Advantages
The techniques of mental mapping are flexible and user-friendly, in that the
interviewer follows a script but is allowed to vary from this to the extent that
the participant wants to discuss some items in more detail. Models also can be
revised easily to incorporate new ideas that develop over the course of
discussions and can be adapted to reflect the views of individuals, groups, or
communities at large. Results are transparent and easily lend themselves to
visual communication (through drawings of personal perceptions).
Disadvantages
The flexibility of a mental map can also be a liability, in that the information
obtained from participants can range widely and, thus, provide less help than
expected in terms of the actual decisions facing policy makers. Mental models
involve relatively small numbers of participants to provide a picture of how
people think about a policy option and why: they provide neither a number
(i.e., for valuation purposes) nor a quantitative comparison of alternatives.
Mental models also require that the terms and language used by participants is
carefully defined to ensure that models accurately reflect the views of those
interviewed and misunderstandings do not occur. To our knowledge, the
technique has not yet been used to study community preferences for water
quality.
4-24
-------
4.4. MENTAL MODEL APPROACHES cont.
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Outcomes
The outcome of a mental model process is an improved understanding of the
factors determining people's thinking about the issue. One example is an
expert model, which loosely follows the form of an influence diagram showing
how key management actions are linked to measures of system performance.
The model provides a visual tool for showing which variables are considered
to be relevant and how these variables are connected. The technique is
compatible with either qualitative analyses (e.g., through visual use of arrows
showing pathways that link variables) or quantitative analyses (e.g., where
knowing the value of the variable at the tail would influence estimates of the
variable at the head).
Example
Morgan et al. (2002) used a mental models approach to study public
understanding of global climate change. Interviews revealed confusion about
the meaning of basic terms (e.g., climate change, greenhouse effect) and
misconceptions about the physical mechanisms underlying global climate
change (such as a confusion between ozone depletion and climate change and
a lack of emphasis on carbon dioxide emissions). Respondents' views on the
likely effects of climate change were more accurate. Gregory et al. (2003) used
mental model interviews to develop a formal expert model of the factors
determining the impacts of various transmission rate structures for electricity
and the influence of the regulatory process producing these effects; this work
facilitated the development of proposals that were technically sound and
widely accepted.
References
Gregory, R., B. Fischhoff, S. Thorne and G. Butte. 2003. A multi-channel
stakeholder consultation process for transmission deregulation. Energ. Policy
31:1291-1299.
Morgan, G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom and C. Atman. 2002. Risk
Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY.
4-25
-------
4.5. PUBLIC MEETINGS
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
In this method, a forum of community members meets to discuss issues or
make decisions. The gathering is often highly structured. Attendees are
allotted a specific amount of time to speak and may even prepare their
statements beforehand. Researchers observe meetings to gain insight on the
community. A facilitator runs the meetings while a recorder takes notes.
Advantages
Data are collected from large numbers of people at one time and can be
particularly enlightening in terms of intra- and intersegment perceptions and
concerns. The open-ended format allows people to express an array of views
and sentiments on a specific topic.
Disadvantages
Unequal contribution by individuals may lead to some ideas dominating over
others, resulting in a discussion not reflective of the group's values as a whole.
Mediation of large groups can be difficult. Comments often range outside the
scope and deal with broader issues. Interpreting people's comments may be
problematic.
Outcomes
Conducting public ("town hall") meetings can be used as a communication
tool while also allowing community members to sense that they are part of the
project. Meetings can inform different steps of a project, from conveying
problems that need action to informing the public of decisions that have been
made and gaining feedback. Transcripts of the meeting may be consulted even
if the researcher is not in attendance at the meeting.
Example
McComas (2003) describes the responses of participants in a series of public
meetings in upstate New York who were debating the expansion of an existing
solid waste landfill and remediation of an adjacent waste site. These responses
also are compared with those of nonattendees in terms of comparative changes
in risk perceptions and the credibility ratings of experts.
References
Cole, R.L. and D.A. Caputo. 1984. The public hearing as an effective citizen
participation mechanism: A case study of the general revenue sharing
program. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 78:405-416.
McComas, K. A. 2003. Public meetings and risk amplification: A longitudinal
study. Risk Anal. 23(6): 1257-1270.
4-26
-------
4.6. DELPHI METHOD
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
The Delphi method is a structured, iterative process using questionnaires
(filled out individually by each group member) to elicit consensus on a topic
from a group of knowledgeable experts or community members. Experts or
stakeholders are encouraged to revise their recommendations based on
summary responses from the rest of the group.
Advantages
Different views of the issue are incorporated, progressing toward an agreement
that systematically addresses all opinions. Anonymity can be maintained to
persuade all members of the group to express their opinions, thus eliminating
some of the problems associated with face-to-face group meetings.
Disadvantages
Which experts or stakeholders to include is not always apparent and can vary
depending on how the issue is defined. Consensus is not always possible. This
method can be time consuming depending on the number of iterations. Some
respondents may drop out before all iterations are complete, thus affecting the
validity of the results.
Outcomes
This method produces organized data in the form of questionnaire responses
from multiple respondents. A consensus on the issue is the ultimate goal of the
Delphi method.
Example
A Delphi survey of expert opinion on reservoir fisheries was used to aid in
river basin reservoir management of the water resources claimed by both
Georgia and Alabama.
References
Taylor, J.G. and S.D. Ryder. 2003. Use of the Delphi method in resolving
complex water resources issues. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 39(1): 183-189.
4-27
-------
4.7. MULTIATTRIBUTE TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS (MATA)
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Multiattribute trade-off analysis (MATA) methods facilitate trade-offs across
the different ecological, economic, health and safety, and social objectives
associated with alternative actions. Applications of MATA differ from
multicriteria decision-making (Section 4.8) in terms of the emphasis on values
elicitation through a sequence of steps to help participants understand their
objectives in the context of a management problem and to use this information
in selecting a preferred action. These steps include structuring the problem,
defining key objectives, developing performance measures (attributes) for
these concerns, estimating the anticipated consequences and associated
uncertainty of actions in terms of the objectives, and evaluating alternatives in
terms of their ability to satisfy the expressed objectives.
Advantages
MATA techniques highlight the multiple values held by different stakeholder
groups. They provide decision-makers with information on these varied
perspectives and the likely sources of support for, or opposition to, a policy.
They are transparent, facilitate the involvement of multiple participants
through use of a level playing field, and are well supported by both theory and
practice. In the context of community-based water quality choices, MATA
methods can be used to facilitate structured dialogue and understanding among
participants with diverse backgrounds.
Disadvantages
Use of MATA can force stakeholders to break an issue down into too many
discrete elements and, thus, lose sight of how some elements are interrelated.
Practitioners also need to be aware that the approach carries with it a
specialized vocabulary and that more quantitative applications (i.e., a "full"
MATA, as opposed to a partial MATA), therefore, carry the risk of alienating
participants who are more comfortable with qualitative approaches to
valuation.
Outcomes
Multi attribute methods can be used to provide quantitative measures of the
value placed on an environmental action, or they can be used to help structure
community objectives and management or policy alternatives. The focus is on
developing insights about preferred options, rather than developing a number
(e.g., for use in a benefit-cost analysis); often, this type of "value-focused"
help in framing a choice and ranking options is what decision-makers need to
make more informed decisions about different levels of water quality or other
environmental choices.
4-28
-------
4.7. MULTIATTRIBUTE TRADE-OFF ANALYSIS (MATA) cont.
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Example
Borsuk et al. (2001) used decision analytic methods to model nutrient
management problems in the Neuse River (North Carolina) as part of an effort
to reduce undesirable environmental conditions in the lower river and estuary.
The main focus of the study was to link scientific models, expressed in terms
of biophysical variables such as dissolved oxygen, to the economic, social, and
procedural concerns of stakeholders. Construction of a probabilistic model
relates proposed management actions to stakeholder interests by showing
anticipated changes in the conditional values of endpoints. Gregory and
Keeney (1994) used the value-focusing aspects of multiattribute methods to
provide insight to decision-makers about the environmental, economic, and
social concerns of stakeholders in the context of a proposed mining
development that would alter a relatively pristine forest environment. This
information was then used to help create novel and widely accepted
management alternatives. Keeney et al. (1996) describe the use of the
fundamental values of decision-makers to guide long-term wastewater
planning at Seattle Metro, a major utility district. Multi attribute value
assessment methods were used to elicit the objectives of decision-makers and
provided a basis for quantitative evaluation of alternatives based on identifying
the key trade-offs.
References
Borsuk, M., R. Clemen, L. Maquire and K. Reckhow. 2001. Stakeholder
values and scientific modeling in the Neuse River watershed. Group Decis.
Negot. 10:355-373.
Gregory, R. and R. Keeney. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using
stakeholder values. Manage. Sci. 40:1035-1048.
Keeney, R., T. McDaniels and V. Ridge-Cooney. 1996. Using values in
planning wastewater facilities for metropolitan Seattle. J. Am. Water Resour.
Assoc. 32:293-303.
Ohlson, D., T. Berry, R. Gray, B. Blackwell and B. Hawkes. 2006. Multi-
attribute evaluation of landscape-level fuel management to reduce wildfire
risk. For. Pol. Econ. 8:824-837.
4-29
-------
4.8. MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING (MCDM)
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Multicriteria approaches have been developed to examine the performance of
different alternatives when compared with multiple objectives. The aim is to
incorporate the value judgments of those considered to be legitimate
participants into the assessment of management options; economic objectives
(such as efficiency) or ecological ones (such as sustainability) will be
incorporated only to the extent that they matter to decision-makers in the
specific decision context. The theoretical basis for multicriteria decision-
making (MCDM) approaches is well established and similar to that of other
multiattribute methods (such as multiattribute trade-off analysis, Section 4.7).
Advantages
The main advantage of MCDM (or other multi attribute) approaches, including
well-known methods such as the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), is their
ability to provide direct insight into the selection of preferred environmental
management options in terms of the factors important to decision-makers. The
basic techniques (e.g., use of ratio scales) are quite user-friendly, the general
approach is transparent, and the logic can be clearly shown in either verbal or
mathematical terms.
Disadvantages
The validity of an MCDM is only as good as the selection and definition of
objectives (i.e., to what extent have analysts faithfully captured and described
the concerns of decision-makers?) and the choice of relevant alternatives (e.g.,
involving the use of criteria to screen unrealistic options or those outside the
mandate of the preference elicitation process). MCDM approaches also can be
viewed by community participants as overly quantitative and reductionist.
Outcomes
By combining information on preferences and on probabilities, MCDM
approaches assign a utility function to different outcomes so that decision-
makers should prefer the alternative that shows the highest expected utility.
MCDM approaches have been applied to environmental management contexts
involving the choice among different strategies for dealing with environmental
and economic risks under conditions of substantial uncertainty.
Example
Ananda and Herath (2003) used AHP methods as an aid to stakeholder
involvement in developing forest management policies in Australia that could
address the complexity and uncertainty associated with policy options. The use
of AHP helped incorporate stakeholder preferences by making explicit some
of the primary multidimensional gains and losses decision-makers faced.
4-30
-------
4.8. MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING (MCDM) cont.
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
References
Ananda, J. and G. Herath. 2003. The use of analytic hierarchy process to
incorporate stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest
Policy Econ. 5:13-26.
Saaty, T. 1991. Multicriteria Decision-Making: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process. RWS Publishers, Pittsburgh, PA.
4-31
-------
4.9. FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
In this method, a small group of people (typically 7 to 12) discuss topics
presented by a moderator. Multiple focus groups often are conducted on the
same topic. The meeting structure is highly organized with the purpose of
obtaining detailed information on the topic of interest. Once the topic of the
focus group has been determined, community members are chosen based on
predetermined criteria (such as members of a cultural subgroup or age range).
Focus group questions are typically simple and open-ended; moderators use
the same questions for each set of focus group interviews on the topic. A focus
group moderator asks the questions during the interview and is responsible for
ensuring that the group stays on task.
Advantages
Many aspects are controlled by the researcher, including the topics discussed
and the members of the group. However, flexibility not provided in a
structured questionnaire is present, allowing in-depth discussion of certain
topics. Specifically, interactions and discussions among participants can reveal
important social dynamics, issues, and preferences that might be missed with
individual interviews or surveys.
Disadvantages
A researcher skilled in moderating focus group interviews is needed to monitor
the meetings. Opinions are derived from only a small group of people who
may not represent the opinions of the community. Even if the focus group is
carefully chosen to represent the community, outspoken participants may
dominate the meeting and not allow the views of all participants to be spoken.
Focus group interviews require a large amount of effort and funds for
planning, conducting the meetings, and analyzing the results.
Outcomes
Results from the focus group are used as an approximation of the opinions of
the community. This method can be used to develop survey instruments or
inform planning for other methods. Results of the focus group interviews are
documented in notes and/or audio or videotapes of the meeting, making them
available for future reference. If multiple focus groups are conducted, a report
summarizing and combining the results from all meetings may be useful.
Example
Desvouges and Smith (1988) discuss the use of focus groups as an aid to
communicating risks, including the exploration of risk perceptions and the
design of risk-mitigation policies. They explore the use of focus groups in a
study of the use of risk ladders to elicit the perceived risk from hazardous
waste exposure.
4-32
-------
4.9. FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS cont.
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
References
Desvousges, W. and V.C. Smith. 1988. Focus groups and risk
communication: The "science" of listening to data. Risk Anal. 8:479-484.
Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research.
2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
4-33
-------
4.10. ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Advisory committees consist of a group of people chosen to guide a project on
the behalf of another group, such as the community affected by the project.
Members interact with one another, potentially modifying their own ideas
based on the input from other group members. The composition of an advisory
committee can be iterative, adding people after one or two sessions to fill
identified gaps.
Advantages
Members of a well-chosen advisory committee can provide perspective on the
community's position on an issue, such as whether the community is likely to
accept or reject a water management decision. Committees that are truly
representative, including members of the sponsoring agencies and scientists as
well as community representatives, can be extremely helpful.
Disadvantages
Scheduling a time that all committee members are available to meet may be
difficult, especially if the committee is made up of community leaders. Staying
on topic and reaching a consensus can be problematic and time consuming. If
the advisory committee does not represent all views or subgroups of the
community, it may be necessary to employ additional methods to determine
these other viewpoints.
Outcomes
Advisory committees may guide the entire project or specific elements of a
project. For example, an advisory committee may help plan a public meeting,
review a draft survey instrument, or recommend a management policy from a
list of alternatives.
Example
Gregory and Wellman (2001) discuss the use of structured facts- and values-
based elicitations from the members of a representative advisory committee
(as well as community participants) as part of their description of a
multiattribute methodology used at the Tillamook Bay national estuary
program site. An evaluation workbook was developed that provided insight to
decision-makers about the management choices favored by participants and
the key gains and losses across objectives that led to these choices.
References
Gregory, R. and K. Wellman. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into
environmental policy choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecol.
Econ. 39:37-52.
MacRae Jr., D. and D. Whittington. 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice
Analysis and Discourse. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
4-34
-------
4.11. VALUE JURIES
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Value juries and so-called "science courts" are a relatively new approach to
evaluating environmental services. Modeled after the widely recognized jury
system, the approach seeks to allow participants the time and information
needed to understand a complex environmental issue and to make informed
judgments about proposed policy or regulatory actions. As in a court of law,
stakeholders are given the opportunity to hear opposing views and often to
question witnesses, either directly or through a representative (i.e., equivalent
to a defense or prosecution lawyer).
Advantages
Value juries follow a familiar and widely respected element of our society; as
a result, they tend to carry substantial legitimacy and support. The approach
works well as a way to develop a more informed citizenry, particularly when
the environmental issue is complex, and it can also facilitate dialogue between
scientists or agency representatives and less technically trained community
members. Output can be tailored to the specific policy needs of decision-
makers, resulting either in rankings of alternative options or detailed
information about the reasons why participants favor or oppose specified
plans.
Disadvantages
The successful conduct of a citizen value jury requires that people are able to
set aside the time (often 2 or 3 days) needed to engage in such deliberations
and that funds are available to bring in the requisite experts. This is sometimes
difficult, particularly since participation usually is voluntary and can be
viewed as a time-consuming nuisance (in contrast to court cases, which are
mandatory and broadly seen as a citizen responsibility). Also, the results of
citizen juries typically take the form of recommendations and have no legal
standing, which can frustrate participants in those cases where politicians or
other decision-makers may override the jury's recommendation.
Outcomes
The usual outcome of a value jury is a decision to proceed or halt a proposed
environmental action. In some cases, value juries also have been used to help
set damage awards, for example, in the case of stakeholders harmed by
pollution.
Example
Brown et al. (1995) set out the conditions and requirements for using value
juries as an aid to making defensible resource management decisions. The
approach has been used to study a variety of environmental problems,
including land management and water conservation options in Colorado.
References
Brown, T., G. Peterson and B. Tonn. 1995. The values jury to aid natural
resource decisions. LandEcon. 71:250-260.
4-35
-------
4.12. OPINION AND ATTITUDINAL SURVEYS
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Opinion surveys can involve either verbal or written questionnaires. They have
been widely used to report how people think about environmental and water
quality risks and have received broad coverage in the popular press. Usually,
opinions are provided about the relative importance of a potential ecological
improvement or damage (e.g., in comparison with other environmental
problems or other health, social, or economic issues) or the influence of
components of environmental concerns rather than as quantitative responses.
One application of attitudinal surveys is to study the perceptions of ecological
risks, in which psychometric techniques make use of specified characteristics
underlying participants' psychological responses to develop a profile of how
participants think about an environmental risk.
Advantages
Opinion surveys can be relatively inexpensive to administer and the results are
user-friendly and easily understood by a wide range of citizens. Opinion
surveys also can be fine-tuned to address the specific policy questions of
concern to decision-makers, and both the level of detail and the number of
participants (which, in turn, has implications for the statistical validity of
results) can be varied.
Disadvantages
Opinion survey results depend greatly on specific and often highly specialized
aspects of how questions are asked in terms of concerns such as wording,
order, and (intentional or unintentional) emotional cues. Results do not reflect
detailed evaluative information and often are limited to a single dimension of a
problem (e.g., costs, risks). Little time is provided for thinking through a more
complex problem and, as a result, responses often are uninformed and colored
by judgmental biases (e.g., anchoring and availability) or cues introduced by
the interviewer or questionnaire. Because the opinions provided usually are
those of an individual, little opportunity is provided for dialogue or discussion
with peers.
Outcomes
Rankings of environmental or economic concerns associated with water
quality, for example, may show how important a proposed action is compared
to other alternatives or focus on the reasons why a proposed environmental
action is supported or opposed. Psychometric techniques probe subjects'
reasons for thinking a potential source of environmental change is either
benign or worrisome and the implications for regulations or other management
options.
4-36
-------
4.12. OPINION AND ATTITUDINAL SURVEYS cont.
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Example
McDaniels et al. (1997) examined lay and expert perceptions of the ecological
risks associated with human activities that could adversely affect water
resources. Psychometric techniques are used to characterize human health
risks in terms of specified characteristics; these underlying factors, including
benefits, knowledge, and controllability, explain a great deal of the variability
in lay judgments about ecological risks and their perceptions of the need for
regulation or specific actions.
References
McDaniels, T., L. Axelrod, N. Cavanagh, P. Slovic and R. Dunlap. 1997.
Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Anal. 17:341-352.
Schuman, H. and S. Presser. 1996. Questions and Answers in Attitude
Surveys. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
4-37
-------
4.13. REFERENDA
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Many different types of referenda or voting procedures have been used to
estimate values for water quality and other environmental services. In a typical
case, the residents of an area are asked to vote for or against a proposed action
that is described in terms of its anticipated benefits, costs, and risks. A vote in
favor of the action means that the person values the initiative, for example, an
improvement in water quality in a local river, at least as highly as the cost he
or she is asked to sacrifice.
Advantages
Referenda are commonly used and are viewed as a familiar approach to
valuation. The problem context can be described in some detail, alternative
policies can be provided (e.g., people can be asked to vote yes or no for one
option or they can be asked to vote for their favorite among many actions), and
it is relatively easy to compare results across different time periods. In contrast
to most survey techniques, referenda often involve large numbers of people,
thus lending themselves easily to statistical analyses and having the potential
to provide a genuinely representative point of view.
Disadvantages
As with other questionnaires, a referendum is subject to biased interpretation
as the result of question order or wording or the presence of accompanying
information (e.g., photos, intentionally leading descriptions). Because of the
large numbers of people involved, referenda can be quite expensive to
undertake. Referenda also can take many forms, from carefully structured
approaches to more casual questions, so it can be difficult to interpret whether
the results of a vote should be considered legitimate.
Outcomes
A common outcome is an understanding of the percentage of people who favor
or are opposed to the described action(s).
Example
McDaniels (1996) used a structured referendum, based on the techniques of
decision analysis, to examine the choice among three options for treating
sewage from the mid-sized coastal city of Victoria, Canada. Based on the
results of small-group discussions, all three options were described in terms of
their anticipated impacts on environmental, health, aesthetic, and economic
objectives. About 34,000 voters participated in the actual referendum, in which
the status quo (no treatment) option was identified as the preferred risk
management scheme.
4-38
-------
4.13. REFERENDA cont.
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
References
Magelby, D. 1984. Direct Legislation. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, MD.
McDaniels, T. 1996. The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences
for environmental policy alternatives. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 15:227-251.
McDaniels, T. and K. Thomas. 1999. Eliciting preferences for land use
alternatives: A structured value referendum with approval voting. J. Policy
Anal. Manage. 18:264-280.
4-39
-------
4.14. AFFECTIVE IMAGES
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
The positive and negative images associated with policy options can be used to
gain insights about why, and to what extent, people value different
environmental and water quality actions. Questionnaires using these images
are particularly helpful when people's perceptions reflect poorly understood
fears, hopes, and worries that may correctly or incorrectly be associated with a
proposed initiative.
Advantages
Images are easy for people to work with and it is not difficult to elicit
responses. The approach is relatively inexpensive to implement and can
readily yield useful information about some of the factors likely to influence
community feelings about a proposed environmental management initiative.
Disadvantages
The ease of responding to affective images can lead to problems because the
gut-level responses may easily be biased or they may refer to a broader set of
issues and concerns than the ones supposedly under consideration. Thus, it
may be difficult to tie the results of an image-based survey to the specific
policy question or initiative under study.
Outcomes
The usual outcome of an image-based survey is a ranking of the various
possible components that might underlie perceptions of the merit of an
initiative. Such rankings, for example, on a 1 to 7 scale from "least" to "most,"
can provide a useful understanding of the affective and cognitive reactions that
underlie responses to a proposed action.
Example
Slovic et al. (1991) used images associated with people's negative perception
of nuclear risks to demonstrate how the siting of a nuclear repository could
lead to negative economic and social impacts. The approach linked perceptions
of risk, stigmatization, and the potential for socially amplified reactions to
images of the site and to how participants' expressed psychological and
attitudinal responses could affect behavioral variables such as employment,
tourism, and retirement decisions.
References
Loewenstein, G., C. Hsee, E. Weber and N. Welch. 2001. Risk as feelings.
Psychol. Bull. 127:267-286.
Slovic, P., M. Layman, N. Kraus, J. Flynn, J. Chalmers and G. Gesell. 1991.
Perceived risk, stigma, and the potential economic impacts of a high-level
nuclear waste repository in Nevada. Risk Anal. 11:683-696.
4-40
-------
4.15. NARRATIVE
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Narrative methods use the familiar act of telling stories as a way to provide a
useful perspective on understanding community preferences for water quality
or other environmental concerns. Often using the first person, narrative
approaches set the decision context by telling about or quoting an individual's
experience, often comparing past to current conditions, and then asking
participants to either report their emotional response (e.g., after reading a
selected passage) or to engage in a valuation exercise.
Advantages
The advantage of a narrative approach is that it is familiar and can help capture
the more affective dimensions of an environmental valuation problem, thus
having the potential to help decision-makers gain a more complete
understanding of the relevant value dimensions. Stories also occupy a central
place in many nonscientific and nonwestern cultures, so narratives can prove
to be particularly effective when community stakeholders include aboriginal
representatives (e.g., Native Americans) or participants from nonwestern
cultures.
Disadvantages
Although there is a strong theoretical basis for including narratives as an
approach to understanding community attitudes, there are few practical rules to
help the analyst in setting up an effective or defensible narrative context. This
is problematic because the down side of narration's ability to tap into emotions
is its ability to bias; thus, different stories generally will lead to different
evaluations, and frequently there is little normative basis for selecting a
preferred narrative context. In addition, making a link between attitudes
expressed using narrative approaches and policy-relevant values can be
difficult.
Outcomes
The result of a narrative judgment can take the form of a ranking or rating
attitudinal expression, which then can be linked to values through a paired
comparison (Section 4.16) or willingness-to-pay or other judgment task. These
attitudes and valuations are based on the context established as part of the
narrative description of the problem and can be designed to emphasize
different aspects of the management context.
4-41
-------
4.15. NARRATIVE cont.
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Example
Satterfield et al. (2000) used narrative techniques to examine participants'
responses to proposed environmental policy changes involving trade-offs
between hydroelectric power production and salmon populations in a river.
Modified narrative story techniques were compared with more utilitarian
descriptions of the problem, such as those that might be used as part of a
contingent valuation context. Narrative techniques were shown to be better
able to help participants consider relevant value information and apply this
knowledge to a complex policy environment; the authors conclude that this is
in part due to the ability of story-based methods to more fully capture the
affective and emotional dimensions of many environmental policy contexts.
References
Satterfield, R., P. Slovic and R. Gregory. 2000. Narrative valuation in a
policy judgment context. Ecol. Econ. 34:315-331.
Shanahan, L., L. Pelstring and K. McComas. 1999. Using narratives to think
about environmental attitude and behavior: An exploratory study. Soc. Natur.
Resour. 12:409-419.
4-42
-------
4.16. DAMAGE SCHEDULES
Type
Sociocultural Assessment Method
Description
Damage schedules use surveys that present respondents with a relatively
simple judgmental mechanism of paired comparisons to provide estimates of
the gains and losses and relative (not necessarily monetary) value of various
nonmarket ecological services and/or natural resource damages. The resulting
rating "schedules" are similar to those used by the courts in personal injury
cases, for example, to establish the relative value of nonpecuniary losses
associated with different injuries.
Advantages
Provides an accessible and easily understood mechanism for estimating the
relative value of nonmarket environmental services or natural resource
damages. The judgmental task of making paired comparisons of value is
relatively easy and the parallel with standard "workmen's compensation" and
other procedures lends legitimacy to the approach. The method does allow
internally consistent judgments from selected participant groups to be linked
to policy responses, incentives, and proposed compensation or mitigation
options.
Disadvantages
The resulting damage schedule is limited to the specific resource losses,
services, and/or policy options included in the analysis. Therefore, the results
may be difficult to generalize to other losses, services, and policy options.
Outcomes
A schedule that provides a scale for the relative value of different resource
losses, services, and policy responses based on structured input from
community members.
Example
Chuenpagdee et al. (2001) used damage schedules to help determine the
relative value of potential environmental and economic losses to important
fisheries habitats in Thailand. Both expert and lay participants were asked to
make paired-comparison judgments that, in turn, helped develop a schedule of
sanctions, restrictions, and damage awards that provided a measure of the
relative importance of different water-based environmental resources and
provided input into feelings about proposed changes in their availability and
quality.
References
Chuenpagdee, R., J. Knetsch and T. Brown. 2001. Environmental damage
schedules: Community judgments of importance and assessments of losses.
LandEcon. 77:1-10.
4-43
-------
4.17. CONTINGENT VALUATION (CV)
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
Contingent valuation (CV) uses survey questions to elicit individuals' values,
in monetary terms, for specified "commodities" (e.g., goods, services, or
changes in conditions) that are typically not available for purchase in existing
markets. To make up for the absence of an existing market, this method
presents respondents with a hypothetical situation in which they have the
opportunity to buy the commodity. CV surveys usually consist of three main
parts:
• a detailed description of the "commodity" and a hypothetical set of
circumstances under which it could be purchased
• questions to elicit the maximum amount individuals would be willing to
pay for the commodity, and
• questions about respondents' characteristics or opinions, which might
influence or be related to their WTP (e.g., income, age, concern about
storm water runoff).
Advantages
The CV method is very flexible and can be adapted to estimate individuals'
values, in monetary terms, for a wide variety of commodities. It is particularly
useful for measuring values for "nonmarket commodities," such as
improvements in environmental conditions, which are typically not available
for individuals to purchase. It is also particularly useful for capturing nonuse
values (i.e., values that are not associated with individuals' use of or
interaction with the commodity). Compared with conjoint analysis (Section
4.18), it is also particularly useful for measuring values for commodities when
one is interested in the value of the commodity as a whole, rather than values
for different subcomponents of the commodity. It is also useful when the
commodity to be valued is relatively unfamiliar to the respondent and,
therefore, requires significant introduction and description.
Disadvantages
The values expressed through CV surveys are difficult to validate because they
are based on hypothetical scenarios. The values may also be influenced by the
way in which the survey is constructed and administered. WTP estimates can
be biased (overstate or understate true WTP) if survey participants act
strategically in their responses or if they inadvertently respond differently,
depending on how the commodity or CV scenario is presented to them. These
potential biases can best be avoided through careful, well-researched design
and extensive pretesting of the survey instrument.
4-44
-------
4.17. CONTINGENT VALUATION (CV) cont.
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Outcomes
CV survey data can be used to estimate how WTP for the defined commodity
varies across the studied population and how it depends on characteristics of
the population. Depending on how the survey is constructed, it also may
provide information on how WTP varies with respect to different levels or
features of the commodity. These values can be used to quantify (in monetary
terms) and directly compare the benefits (and/or costs) of defined changes
resulting from, for example, watershed management policies.
Example
In one of the pioneering applications of the CV method, Smith and
Desvousges (1986) administered a survey to a random sample of adults in
southwestern Pennsylvania and elicited their WTP for three defined changes in
water quality in the Monongahela River: (1) preventing water quality from
falling to below-boatable levels, (2) improving water quality from boatable to
fishable levels, and (3) improving water quality from fishable to swimmable
levels. Their analysis provides average WTP estimates for each type of
change, for both users and nonusers of the water resource.
References
Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with
Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Ltd., Northampton,
MA.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods:
The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington,
DC.
Smith, V.K. and W.H. Desvousges. 1986. Measuring Water Quality Benefits.
Kluwer-Nijhoff, Boston, MA.
4-45
-------
4.18. CONJOINT ANALYSIS
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
Conjoint analysis uses surveys to estimate the relative importance and value
that individuals associate with different attributes of a commodity. For this
method, a commodity is defined strictly in terms of its main components—a
list of attributes. For example, a house would be described strictly according to
its features, such as its age, size, number of rooms, and distance to local
amenities. A conjoint survey presents respondents with commodities that
differ only in the levels of each attribute that are present (e.g., a 15-year-old
house that has six rooms and is 2 miles from a school or a 50-year-old house
that has eight rooms and is 3 miles from a school). It asks respondents to
compare and state their preferences for the described commodities. It then uses
the survey responses to infer preferences and values for the separate attributes
of the commodity. Like contingent valuation (Section 4.17), it can be used to
estimate dollar values for commodities and/or attributes that are typically not
available in existing markets, such as the various environmental changes
resulting from a watershed management policy.
Advantages
The conjoint analysis method is very flexible and can be adapted to estimate
individuals' values for a wide variety of commodities and attributes. It can be
used to estimate the relative importance of and trade-offs individuals are
willing to make among different attributes of a commodity. Consequently, it is
particularly useful for measuring preferences for commodities that have
multiple attributes and for nonmarket commodities. Conjoint surveys usually
present respondents with a series of commodity choices; therefore, they can be
used to collect extensive preference information from each respondent. In
principle, they also can be used to estimate values for commodities or
attributes that include nonuse values.
Disadvantages
The values expressed through conjoint surveys are difficult to validate because
they are based on comparisons of hypothetical commodities. Designing an
appropriate conjoint instrument typically requires specialized technical
expertise and extensive pretesting of the instrument. Because conjoint surveys
ask respondents to compare commodities with multiple dimensions
(attributes), they are less appropriate when the individual attributes being
evaluated are themselves complex and difficult to describe to respondents.
Estimating monetary values based on conjoint survey data also requires
specialized technical expertise.
4-46
-------
4.18. CONJOINT ANALYSIS cont.
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Outcomes
Conjoint data can provide estimates of WTP and individuals' rates of trade-off
for a wide variety of attributes and commodities, and it can be used to estimate
how these values and trade-offs depend on characteristics of the population.
These estimates can be used to quantify and directly compare the benefits
(and/or costs) of multiple changes resulting from, for example, watershed
management policies.
Example
Conjoint methods have been used to estimate values for regional changes in
several dimensions of water quality (Magat et al., 2000; Viscusi et al., 2004).
Using a computer-based instrument, respondents from across the country were
asked to compare communities (the "commodity") that differed with respect to
the following attributes: (1) cost of living, (2) percentage of waters safe for
fishing, (3) percentage of waters safe for swimming, and (4) percentage of
waters that support aquatic life. Analysis of the survey data provided WTP
estimates for percentage changes in each of the water quality attributes.
References
Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with
Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Ltd., Northampton,
MA.
Louviere, J., D. Hensker and J. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods:
Analysis and Application. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Magat, W.A., J. Huber, W.K. Viscusi and J. Bell. 2000. An iterative choice
approach to valuing clean lakes, rivers, and streams. J. Risk Uncertainty.
21(l):7-43.
Viscusi, W.K., J. Huber and J. Bell. 2004. The value of regional water quality
improvements. Discussion Paper No. 477. The Harvard John M. Olin
Discussion Paper Series.
4-47
-------
4.19. HEDONIC PROPERTY VALUE
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
The hedonic property value method uses data on housing prices and attributes
of properties to decompose prices and estimate separate values for each of the
property attributes. These attributes typically include structural characteristics
(e.g., lot size, square footage, number of rooms), but they can also include
various neighborhood and local amenity or environmental characteristics.
Advantages
The hedonic property value method uses data resulting from human behaviors
in existing, well-established markets rather than from hypothetical market
scenarios. It can be used to estimate households' WTP for small changes in a
wide variety of local conditions (including environmental conditions) as long
as these conditions differ to some extent across the properties used in the
analysis, can be measured in quantitative terms, and can be observed or
perceived by home buyers.
Disadvantages
This method requires extensive and rather specialized data, which may not be
available for the area or issue of interest. Moreover, conducting the data
analysis and estimating appropriate monetary values requires specialized
technical expertise. For example, this method provides a set of marginal WTP
coefficients on each explanatory variable (i.e., the marginal WTP for a unit
increase in water quality improvement) which is not trivial to take and
estimate a total WTP for a community contemplating a large change in water
quality. It cannot be used to estimate nonuse values because these values are
not reflected in (i.e., capitalized into) property values.
Outcomes
Hedonic property value analyses can provide estimates of individuals' WTP
for changes in local conditions, including the level of environmental quality
and the provision of local public services, amenities, and disamenities. These
estimates can be used to quantify and directly compare the benefits (and/or
costs) of multiple changes resulting from, for example, watershed management
policies.
Example
The hedonic method has been applied in several studies to estimate values for
changes in local water quality conditions. Using local housing prices and
attribute data for properties near specific water bodies, these studies have
found that prices are positively related to water quality measures, such as the
clarity (visual depth) of the water. The measured effect of water quality on
housing prices provides an estimate of local households' average WTP for
improvements in water quality.
4-48
-------
4.19. HEDONIC PROPERTY VALUE cont.
Type
Economic Assessment Method
References
Boyle, K.J., P.J. Poor and L. Taylor. 1999. Estimating the demand for
protecting freshwater lakes from eutrophication. Am. J. Agri. Econ.
81(November):l 118-1122.
Leggett, C. and N. Bockstael. 2000. Evidence of the effects of water quality
on residential land prices. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 39(2): 121-144.
Palmquist, R.B. 2005. Property value models. In: Handbook of
Environmental Economics, Vol. 2: Valuing Environmental Changes. K. Maler
and J.R. Vincent, Eds. Elsevier, New York, NY. p. 763-820.
4-49
-------
4.20. RECREATION DEMAND
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
Recreation demand methods use data on observed recreation behaviors to
estimate individuals' demand and values for specific recreational resources.
They also are used to estimate how demand and values are affected by the
characteristics of the available resources (including environmental quality) and
of the studied population. In these models, the price of recreation is measured
as the dollar value of time and other spending required to travel to the
resource.
Advantages
Values from recreation demand methods are based on actual human behavior
rather than stated behaviors from a hypothetical context. They are useful for
measuring values for recreational services from natural resources and for
measuring how these values depend on the environmental quality and other
characteristics of the resources.
Disadvantages
This class of methods often requires extensive and rather specialized data.
Data on human behavior and characteristics must usually be collected through
surveys and then matched with other data on the characteristics of the
recreational resources. Moreover, conducting the data analysis and estimating
appropriate monetary values requires specialized technical expertise. Models
that include all of the relevant recreation choices (i.e., whether, where, when,
and how often to recreate) can be particularly complex to estimate. Linking
recreation demand WTPs to water quality levels can also be complex; WTP
estimates must range across the water quality levels and researchers must have
enough data to control for other variables. Recreation demand methods can be
used to estimate only those values associated with recreational activities;
therefore, for example, it cannot be used to estimate nonuse values. Estimated
values often are very sensitive to the modeling assumptions, such as the
assumed dollar cost assigned to travel time.
Outcomes
Recreation demand methods can be used to estimate the value individuals'
receive from having access to specific recreational resources (i.e., recreation
sites). They also can provide estimates of how these values are affected by
changes in the characteristic of the resources (including environmental quality)
and by the characteristics of the individual as well. These estimates can be
used to quantify and directly compare the recreation-related benefits (and/or
losses) of changes to recreational resources resulting from, for example,
watershed management policies.
4-50
-------
4.20. RECREATION DEMAND cont.
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Example
Recreation demand modeling has been applied in several studies to estimate
recreation-based values for changes in water quality conditions. Using a
variety of survey methods to collect data on recreation behaviors and personal
characteristics, and combining with data on water quality conditions at
potential recreation sites, many studies have found an association between
recreation choices and water quality. Based on individuals' observed trade-offs
between time of travel to recreation sites (cost) and experiencing better water
quality (benefits), these studies estimate the value associated with better water
quality. For example, Parsons and Hauber (1998) estimated a recreation site
choice model for freshwater anglers in Maine, and using this model, they
estimated benefits to anglers of cleaning all Maine lakes to meet EPA
standards.
References
Parsons, G.R. and B. Hauber. 1998. Spatial boundaries and choice set
definition in a random utility model of recreation demand. Land Econ.
74(l):32-48.
Phaneuf, D.J. and V.K. Smith. 2005. Recreation demand models. In:
Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 2: Valuing Environmental
Changes. K. Maler and J.R. Vincent, Eds. Elsevier, New York, NY.
p. 671-762.
4-51
-------
4.21. AVERTING BEHAVIOR
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
To protect themselves from environmental risks, individuals often engage in
behaviors to reduce their exposures. Averting behavior methods study these
behaviors to measure individuals' values for reducing these risks. Simpler
versions of these methods measure how much is spent on these behaviors and
how these expenditures vary with respect to external conditions (averting
expenditure methods). In certain cases, observing how much individuals
reduce their averting expenditures in response to an improvement in the
quality of their tap water may not be a good estimate of their WTP to improve
their tap water (e.g., if WTP includes pain and suffering or change in
productivity losses). More complex versions also measure the extent to which
these behaviors reduce individuals' risks (household production methods).
Advantages
Values estimated with these methods are based on actual human behavior
rather than stated behaviors in a hypothetical context. They are particularly
useful for measuring values for reducing potentially harmful environmental
exposures to humans. The simpler averting expenditure methods can be
relatively easy and inexpensive to implement because they mainly require
information on how much individuals spend on these behaviors (e.g., bottled
water purchases) in relation to environmental conditions, whereas the more
complex behavior methods provide more exact measures of WTP because they
include estimates of how these behaviors affect exposures and risk.
Disadvantages
Although relatively inexpensive, the simpler averting expenditure methods do
not provide very accurate estimates of WTP to reduce risks. The more
complex averting behavior methods provide more accurate estimates of WTP;
however, they require more extensive and specialized data and more complex
analysis methods to estimate WTP. Averting behavior methods are useful in
situations where individuals actively engage in the behaviors and it is possible
to measure the dollar cost of these behaviors. Also, if these behaviors produce
other benefits (e.g., bottled water provides better tasting as well as safer
water), then it is much more difficult to use these methods to specifically
isolate values for reducing harmful exposures. Finally, values based on these
methods assume that subjects have a reasonably good understanding of what is
being averted. If risks are not well understood, then averting behaviors may
not give a good indication of value.
4-52
-------
4.21. AVERTING BEHAVIOR cont.
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Outcomes
Averting behavior methods can provide estimates of the value individuals
place on reducing potentially harmful or damaging environmental exposures,
including damages to health or property. They also can provide estimates of
how these values are affected by personal characteristics. These estimates can
be used to quantify and directly compare the benefits (and/or losses) of
changes in environmental exposures resulting from, for example, watershed
management policies.
Example
Averting expenditure methods have been used widely to estimate losses that
could be avoided by preventing drinking water contamination. For example,
Collins and Steinback (1993) surveyed almost 900 households in rural West
Virginia with wells that tested positive for bacteria and other contaminants.
They estimated average costs for filtering/treating or using alternative sources
of water ($42 in 2004 dollars). This value is best interpreted as a lower-bound
estimate of the average household's value for eliminating the observed
contamination. Unfortunately, no applications of the more complex household
production methods are reported in the literature estimating values for reduced
water contamination.
References
Abdalla, C.W., B.R. Roach and D.J. Epp. 1992. Valuing environmental
quality changes using averting expenditures: An application to groundwater
contamination. LandEcon. 68:163-169.
Collins, A.R. and S. Steinbeck. 1993. Rural household response to water
contamination in West Virginia. Water Res. Bull. 29:199-209.
Dickie, M. and S. Gerking. 1991. Valuing reduced morbidity: A household
production approach. South. Econ. J. 57(3):690-702.
4-53
-------
4.22. MARKET MODELS
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
This method measures changes in consumer surplus and producer surplus in
markets affected by specific policies or changes in environmental conditions.
When these policies or changes in environmental conditions directly affect
production costs or the demand for specific market goods/services, then
producers and consumers in the market experience gains or losses. This
method estimates these gains and losses by modeling the market (i.e., price
and quantity) adjustments that occur as a result of such a change.
Advantages
This method uses observed behaviors in actual markets to infer values for
things that are not exchanged in markets (e.g., environmental quality changes).
It is particularly useful when the nonmarket changes to be evaluated are
strongly linked to an existing market, either because they directly affect the
production costs or the demand for the market good or service. The method
can be applied using existing data on prices and quantities in the affected
market. Once the market model is established, measuring consumer and
producer surplus changes is relatively straightforward.
Disadvantages
The method can be used only to estimate gains or losses that are experienced
through the modeled market. Estimating the supply and/or demand
relationships in the market and how they are affected by changes in
environmental conditions can require specialized technical expertise. The
method is considerably more complicated if the market to be modeled is not
competitive or is affected by external price or quantity controls.
Outcomes
The method provides estimates of consumer surplus and/or producer surplus
changes in an affected market. These dollar estimates can be directly
compared or added to other benefits or cost estimates resulting from, for
example, watershed management policies.
Example
Anderson (1989) modeled the market for Virginia hard-shell blue crabs using
available market data for the period 1960 to 1987 and also estimated the effect
of changes in seagrass habitat on supply conditions. Using this model, he
estimated the changes in producer surplus for commercial crabbers and
changes in consumer surplus for consumers of blue crabs that would result
from policies to restore seagrass habitat.
References
Anderson, E. 1989. Economic benefits of habitat restoration: Seagrass and
the Virginia hard-shell blue crab fishery. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 9:140-149.
4-54
-------
4.23. REPLACEMENT/RESTORATION COST
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
This method estimates losses associated with environmental degradation as the
costs of replacing, restoring, and/or repairing damaged ecosystems or physical
property. Correspondingly, it measures gains from environmental
improvements as the replacement/restoration costs that would be avoided.
Advantages
The method requires less data, resources, and specialized expertise than most
other economic valuation methods. The method is most appropriate when there
is a high likelihood that the assumed replacement/restoration activities will
occur as a result of damage. If individuals are willing to incur the expenses to
repair the damages, it implies the value they associate with the damage is
equal to or greater than these expenses (otherwise they would not voluntarily
incur the expense). In other words, it implies that the replacement/restoration
costs are a lower-bound estimate of actual losses.
Disadvantages
The method often requires strong assumptions about the types of changes
humans would make as a result of environmental degradation. In particular, it
assumes that specific restoration/replacement activities would occur in
response to the degradation (e.g., flood-damaged properties would be repaired
or replaced). If it is not actually known whether these activities are likely to
occur, then the method is less appropriate because the costs of the activities
will provide little information about individuals' values or preferences.
Outcomes
The method typically estimates the number of relevant units that are damaged
(e.g., acres of wetland or number of homes) and the average cost of replacing
or restoring the unit based on available market prices. The product of these
two components provides an estimate of total damages.
Example
Ragan et al. (2000) used this method to estimate the benefits of reducing the
salinity in the water supply in the Arkansas Valley of Colorado. The benefits
were measured as the avoided costs to households of repairing and replacing
appliances that are damaged by high salinity levels.
References
Ragan, G.E., R.A. Young and C.J. Makela. 2000. New evidence on the
economic benefits of controlling salinity in domestic water supplies. Water
Resour. Res. 34(4): 1087-1095.
4-55
-------
4.24. BENEFIT TRANSFER
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
This method relies on results from existing economic studies to estimate the
benefits of improving environmental conditions and/or ecosystem services. It
adapts and transfers value estimates from the location or context of the
existing studies and applies these estimates to the policy location or context of
interest.
Advantages
This method generally requires little if any primary data collection; therefore,
it is relatively inexpensive to apply. It does not require the same level of
technical expertise that is typically required for conducting original stated or
revealed preference analyses. It generally is most appropriate for providing
rough or first-cut benefits estimates when time and resources are limited. It
also is most appropriate when value estimates are available in the literature,
are of good quality, and measure values for changes and contexts that are
similar to the policy changes and context of interest.
Disadvantages
Benefit transfers rely entirely on what is available in the existing literature, and
they are directly limited by the quality and accuracy of the existing results.
They also are limited by the amount of relevant data and information reported
in the existing studies. They are less reliable and appropriate when there are
significant differences between the context of the existing studies and the
policy context of interest. Values based on benefit transfer also may be viewed
as less acceptable by community members, if the estimate that is used is
derived from elsewhere and is transferred to their situation.
Outcomes
Most benefit transfers use information from existing studies to estimate an
average "unit value" (e.g., value per fishing day, per acre of wetland, per
health effect avoided). These unit values are then multiplied by corresponding
estimates of the number of units that change as a result of the policy to
estimate the aggregated benefits of the policy.
Example
Morgan and Owens (2001) used results from an earlier study (Bockstael et al.,
1989) to estimate the aggregate benefits of observed improvements in
Chesapeake Bay water quality. Bockstael et al. previously used revealed and
stated preference methods to estimate average WTP per person (beach users,
boaters, and bass fishers) for a 20% improvement in Bay water quality.
Morgan and Owens rescaled these estimates to apply to a 60% improvement
and multiplied them by updated estimates of the number of beach users,
boaters, and bass fishers.
4-56
-------
4.24. BENEFIT TRANSFER cont.
Type
Economic Assessment Method
References
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the
benefits of improvements in water quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Res.
Econ. 6:1-18.
Brander, L., R. Florax and J. Vermaat. 2006. The empirics of wetland
valuation: A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature.
Environ. Resour. Econ. 33(2):223-250.
Morgan, C. and N. Owens. 2001. Benefits of water quality policies: The
Chesapeake Bay. Ecol. Econ. 39(2):271-84.
Rosenberger, R. and J. Loomis. 2003. Benefit transfer. In: A Primer in
Nonmarket Valuation, P. Champ, K. Boyle and T. Brown, Eds. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
4-57
-------
4.25. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type
Economic Assessment Method
Description
This method is designed to measure policy-related changes in specific
economic indicators, such as changes in expenditures and sales, employment
levels, incomes, and tax revenues. It rarely has anything to do with preferences
or welfare as interpreted in economics; rather, this method measures indicators
such as expenditures/sales, profits, and employment in sectors of the economy
that are directly related to the resource. Economic impact models vary in
geographic scope (e.g., local, state, and/or region) and the number of different
economic sectors included; however, they are usually based on assumed
"input-output" (I/O) relationships between the selected sectors. They begin by
measuring direct effects (i.e., changes in the economic indicators for the sector
most directly affected by the program or policy). They then use the assumed
I/O structure to measure indirect effects (i.e., changes in economic indicators
for other sectors, in particular those that buy from or sell to the directly
affected sector). They also measure induced effects (i.e., changes in the
economic indicators that result from changes in income and, thus,
expenditures) by households.
Advantages
The data and analytical requirements for this method are typically low
compared with other methods. The resulting estimates are easy to
communicate and interpret.
Disadvantages
The economic indicators used in this method are often not conceptually valid
measures of preferences or human welfare. For example, expenditures/sales
provide a gross measure of economic activity, which does not account for the
direct or indirect costs associated with the activity. These methods also usually
do not measure how the economic indicators are related to the extent or quality
of the resource. Moreover, the I/O structures used in these models are usually
quite rigid and do not account for changes in market prices or how these price
changes are likely to affect market transactions. For these reasons, economic
impact models are generally not used in BCA.
Outcomes
Aggregate measures of changes in economic activity related to a specific
program or policy, or aggregate measures of economic activity in sectors
directly related to a natural resource.
Example
The Greeley-Polhemus Group (2001) conducted a study for the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources that estimated expenditures on recreational
activities and commercial values of coastal properties for the coastal bays in
Worcester County, MD.
4-58
-------
4.25. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS cont.
Type
Economic Assessment Method
References
The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. 2001. An Assessment of the Economic
Value of the Coastal Bays' Natural Resources to the Economy of Worcester
County, Maryland. Final Report. Prepared for the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.
4-59
-------
4.26. REFERENCES
Abdalla, C.W., B.R. Roach and D.J. Epp. 1992. Valuing environmental quality changes using
averting expenditures: An application to groundwater contamination. Land Econ. 68:163-169.
Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams. 1994. Combining stated and revealed preference
methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 26:271-292.
Ananda, J. and G. Herath. 2003. The use of analytic hierarchy process to incorporate
stakeholder preferences into regional forest planning. Forest Policy Econ. 5:13-26.
Anderson, E. 1989. Economic benefits of habitat restoration: Seagrass and the Virginia hard-
shell blue crab fishery. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 9:140-149.
Arrow, K.J., M.L. Cropper, G.C. Eads et al. 1996. Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental,
Health, and Safety Regulation: A Statement of Principles. American Enterprise Institute Press,
Washington, DC.
Bateman, I. J., R.T. Carson, B. Day et al. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference
Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Ltd., Northampton, MA.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the benefits of
improvements in water quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Res. Econ. 6:1-18.
Bockstael, N., A. Freeman, R. Kopp, P. Portney and V. Smith. 2000. On measuring economic
values for nature. Environ. Sci. Technol. 34(8):1384-1389.
Borsuk, M., R. Clemen, L. Maquire and K. Reckhow. 2001. Stakeholder values and scientific
modeling in the Neuse River watershed. Group Decis. Negot. 10:355-373.
Boyle, K.J., P.J. Poor and L. Taylor. 1999. Estimating the demand for protecting freshwater
lakes from eutrophication. Am. J. Agri. Econ. 81(November): 1118-1122.
Brander, L., R. Florax and J. Vermaat. 2006. The empirics of wetland valuation: A
comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environ. Resour. Econ.
33(2):223-250.
Brown, T., G. Peterson and B. Tonn. 1995. The values jury to aid natural resource decisions.
Land Econ. 71:250-260.
Champ, P., K. Boyle and T. Brown, Ed. 2003. A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
Chuenpagdee, R., J. Knetsch and T. Brown. 2001. Environmental damage schedules:
Community judgments of importance and assessments of losses. Land Econ. 77:1-10.
Cole, R.L. and D.A. Caputo. 1984. The public hearing as an effective citizen participation
mechanism: A case study of the general revenue sharing program. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev.
78:405-416.
4-60
-------
Collins, A.R. and S. Steinbeck. 1993. Rural household response to water contamination in West
Virginia. Water Res. Bull. 29:199-209.
Desvousges, W. and V.C. Smith. 1988. Focus groups and risk communication: The "science" of
listening to data. Risk Anal. 8:479-484.
Dickie, M. and S. Gerking. 1991. Valuing reduced morbidity: A household production
approach. South. Econ. J. 57(3):690-702.
Dillman, D. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys, The Total Design Method. Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY.
Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurements of Environmental and Resource Values. Resources
for the Future, Washington, DC.
The Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. 2001. An Assessment of the Economic Value of the Coastal
Bays' Natural Resources to the Economy of Worcester County, Maryland. Final Report.
Prepared for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Gregory, R. and R. Keeney. 1994. Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values.
Manage. Sci. 40:1035-1048.
Gregory, R. and K. Wellman. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy
choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecol. Econ. 39:37-52.
Gregory, R., B. Fischhoff, S. Thorne and G. Butte. 2003. A multi-channel stakeholder
consultation process for transmission deregulation. Energ. Policy 31:1291-1299.
Keeney, R., T. McDaniels and V. Ridge-Cooney. 1996. Using values in planning wastewater
facilities for metropolitan Seattle. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 32:293-303.
Kling, C.L. 1997. The gains from combining travel cost and contingent valuation data to value
nonmarket goods. Land Econ. 73(3):428-439.
Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, 2nd ed. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Leggett, C. and N. Bockstael. 2000. Evidence of the effects of water quality on residential land
prices. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 39(2): 121-144.
Loewenstein, G., C. Hsee, E. Weber and N. Welch. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull.
127:267-286.
Loomis, J. and A. Gonzalez-Caban. 1996. The importance of the market area determination for
estimating aggregate benefits of public goods: Testing differences in resident and nonresident
willingness to pay. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev. 25:161-170.
4-61
-------
Louviere, J., D. Hensker and J. Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application.
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Lubchenco, J. 1998. Entering the Century of the Environment: A new social contract for
science. Science. 279(5350):491-497.
MacRae Jr., D. and D. Whittington. 1997. Expert Advice for Policy Choice Analysis and
Discourse. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC.
Magat, W.A., J. Huber, W.K. Viscusi and J. Bell. 2000. An iterative choice approach to valuing
clean lakes, rivers, and streams. J. Risk Uncertainty. 21(l):7-43.
Magelby, D. 1984. Direct Legislation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Maler, K. and J. Vincent, Ed. 2005. Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 2: Valuing
Environmental Changes. Elsevier, New York, NY.
McComas, K.A. 2003. Public meetings and risk amplification: A longitudinal study. Risk
Anal. 23(6): 1257-1270.
McDaniels, T. 1996. The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences for environmental
policy alternatives. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 15:227-251.
McDaniels, T. and K. Thomas. 1999. Eliciting preferences for land use alternatives: A
structured value referendum with approval voting. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 18:264-280.
McDaniels, T., L. Axelrod, N. Cavanagh, P. Slovic and R. Dunlap. 1997. Perception of
ecological risk to water environments. Risk Anal. 17:341 352.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Moran, E. 1990. Ecosystem Ecology in Biology and Anthropology: A Critical Assessment in
The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice. University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
Morgan, C. andN. Owens. 2001. Benefits of water quality policies: The Chesapeake Bay. Ecol.
Econ. 39(2):271-284.
Morgan, G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom and C. Atman. 2002. Risk Communication: A Mental
Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a
Democratic Society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC (National Research Council). 2005. Decision Making for the Environment: Social and
Behavioral Science Research Priorities. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
4-62
-------
Ohlson, D., T. Berry, R. Gray, B. Blackwell and B. Hawkes. 2006. Multi-attribute evaluation of
landscape-level fuel management to reduce wildfire risk. For. Pol. Econ. 8:824-837.
Palmquist, R.B. 2005. Property value models. In: Handbook of Environmental Economics,
Vol. 2: Valuing Environmental Changes. K. Maler and J.R. Vincent, Eds. Elsevier, New York,
NY. p. 763-820.
Parsons, G.R. and B. Hauber. 1998. Spatial boundaries and choice set definition in a random
utility model of recreation demand. Land Econ. 74(l):32-48.
Pate, J. and J. Loomis. 1997. The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study
of wetlands and salmon in California. Ecol. Econ. 20:199-207.
Phaneuf, D.J. and V.K. Smith. 2005. Recreation demand models. In: Handbook of
Environmental Economics, Vol. 2: Valuing Environmental Changes. K. Maler and J.R. Vincent,
Eds. Elsevier, New York, NY. p. 671-762.
Ragan, G.E., R.A. Young and C.J. Makela. 2000. New evidence on the economic benefits of
controlling salinity in domestic water supplies. Water Resour. Res. 34(4): 1087-1095.
Rosenberger, R. and J. Loomis. 2003. Benefit transfer. In: A Primer in Nonmarket Valuation,
P. Champ, K. Boyle and T. Brown, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
Saaty, T. 1991. Multicriteria Decision-Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS
Publishers, Pittsburgh, PA.
Satterfield, R., P. Slovic and R. Gregory. 2000. Narrative valuation in a policy judgment
context. Ecol. Econ. 34:315-331.
Schuman, H. and S. Presser. 1996. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shanahan, L., L. Pelstring and K. McComas. 1999. Using narratives to think about
environmental attitude and behavior: An exploratory study. Soc. Natur. Resour. 12:409-419.
Slovic, P., M. Layman, N. Kraus, J. Flynn, J. Chalmers and G. Gesell. 1991. Perceived risk,
stigma, and the potential economic impacts of a high-level nuclear waste repository in Nevada.
Risk Anal. 11:683-696.
Smith, V.K. and W.H. Desvousges. 1986. Measuring Water Quality Benefits. Kluwer-Nijhoff,
Boston, MA.
Taylor, J.G. and S.D. Ryder. 2003. Use of the Delphi method in resolving complex water
resources issues. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 39(1): 183-189.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-95/002.
Accessed January 24, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/econ/complete.pdf.
4-63
-------
U.S. EPA. 2000. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/240/R-00/003.
U.S. EPA. 2002. Community Culture and the Environment: A Guide to Understanding a Sense
of Place. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA/842/B-01/003.
Viscusi, W.K., J. Hube and J. Bell. 2004. The value of regional water quality improvements.
Discussion Paper No. 477. The Harvard John M. Olin Discussion Paper Series.
4-64
-------
5. WORKING HI! PROCESS: BUILDING AN APPROACH FOR COMMUNITIES TO
UNDERSTAND THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS, COSTS, AND BENEFITS OF
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
In this report, we describe a process for WQS that is designed to help decision-makers
understand the full environmental, economic and social implications of alternative water quality
goals. It emphasizes community involvement throughout the decision process and provides a
general framework for evaluating the relevant gains or losses. Each of the previous chapters
played a specific role in describing and developing the decision process. For example, we
connected the process to the analysis of whether attaining the use is "feasible" under 40 CFR
131.10, or whether changing the current use in an AR is necessary for important economic or
social development under 40 CFR 131.12(a)(2). Questions that may trigger the process for a
UAA might be what are the benefits of attaining a use that is not currently being attained? Or, for
an AR, the relevant question might be, if we allow the degradation being considered, what are
the damages (e.g., lost ecological benefits) produced? Because the process required complying
with the current regulatory framework, we introduced the CWA and WQS regulation in order to
provide some context (Chapter 2). To link use-attainment decisions and their effects on
ecosystems, we suggested using expanded conceptual models based on concepts from ecological
risk assessment, stressor identification, and socioeconomic analyses (Chapter 3). Finally, we
described and compared various social science methods that could either provide quantitative or
qualitative information to support the decisions (Chapter 4).
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a concise description of how the proposed
approach can be implemented in practice, using the methods and tools described in the previous
chapters. The decision process is illustrated again in Figure 5-1. This figure outlines the same
steps described in Figure 4-1; however, it emphasizes three main phases: (1) framing the WQS
decision, (2) comparing the advantages and disadvantages of the different management options,
and (3) making the decision (selecting the option).
This chapter is organized according to these three phases. For each phase, it describes the
main components of the process and the techniques that can be used to address each component.
It also uses two of the hypothetical case studies described in Chapter 3—the combined sewer
overflow (CSO) example and the acid mine drainage (AMD) example—to illustrate specifically
5-1
-------
Revise Management Options
Revise Conceptual Models
Determine WQS Compliance
Elicit Community Input
Set Goals & WQS
Conduct Monitoring
Assess Community Preferences
Elicit Community Input
COMPARE
OPTIONS
FRAME THE
WQS
DECISION
MAKE THE
WQS
DECISION
Identify and Assess Impairments
Stressors & Sources
Develop Initial Management
Options
Assess Social and Economic
Impacts of Options
Assess Ecological Risks and
Impacts of Options
Identify Stakeholders and
Engage Community
Select Preferred Management
Option
Evaluate Gains and Losses
Between Options
Develop Conceptual Models for
Options
Evaluate Factors Affecting Use
Attainment
or Antidegradation Conditions
FIGURE 5-1
Three Phases of the Decision Process Framework
5-2
-------
how the methods and tools described in the previous chapters can be applied to inform and
strengthen each stage of the decision-making process.
The proposed decision process described in Figure 5-1 and the example applications
described in this chapter were developed using input from invited participants who attended a
workshop sponsored by U.S. EPA/Office of Research and Development/National Center for
Environmental Assessment on November 14-15, 2006. The objectives of the 2-day workshop
were to (1) critically examine and develop recommendations for revising an earlier draft of this
report (Chapters 1 through 4), (2) employ hypothetical case studies of use-attainment problems
to evaluate a draft decision process and (3) hold discussions with practitioners and stakeholders
to develop recommendations for incorporating community preferences into water quality
management decisions. The workshop brought together 20 experts from various parts of U.S.
EPA, from state and local organizations, and from RTI International.1 A roster of participants
and the workshop agenda are provided in Appendix C. It is important to emphasize that the
decision process and methods described in this chapter represent the authors' best efforts to
incorporate a wide variety of recommendations and opinions expressed during the workshop;
however, they do not necessarily fully reflect the views of each participant.
5.1. FRAMING Till WQS DECISION THROUGH COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
As illustrated in Figure 5-1, the first phase of the decision process involves framing the
relevant decision. This means identifying the key water quality impairments, along with the
related sources and stressors, and determining the set of feasible options available for addressing
the impairment. It also means recognizing and engaging community residents in initial
discussions of how they are likely to be affected by both the impaired water and the options
available for addressing the impairment. As discussed below, group deliberative methods can be
used in several ways to involve the community in framing the decisions, including (1)
identifying community priorities, concerns, and constraints; (2) revising and defining the most
practical set of management options; and (3) revising and finalizing conceptual models that
illustrate the key linkages between environmental conditions and human welfare and the gains
and losses involved in the decision-making process.
1 RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
5-3
-------
5.1.1. Identifying Key Stakeholders and Engaging the Community
Involving community stakeholders early in the decision-making process using
deliberative approaches can help identify and explain unexpected barriers or benefits to specific
management options. It also can begin the important process of establishing a rapport and
gaining the trust of community residents and stakeholders. This initial stage of community
involvement can be a two-way communication process whereby decision-makers introduce the
WQS problem and decision-making process to the public and residents in turn can provide
information on local conditions, priorities, and perspectives. By selecting a broad base of
community representatives early in the process, decision-makers can make the WQS process
more acceptable to the community as a whole and engage those who may feel less informed
about or less qualified to address the issues at hand. At this stage, rather than recruiting specific
stakeholder input from the community, decision-makers should be providing an organized and
accessible conduit for decision-makers and community members to introduce themselves and
present their perspectives going into the process. The level of public participation is likely to
vary throughout the process; therefore, this initial stage can serve to identify stakeholders who
are particularly invested in the WQS decision and who are most likely to play an active role in
subsequent stages of the process. It also can help identify issues of particular concern to all
community residents.
5.1.1.1. The AMD Case Study Example
In this hypothetical case study example, which is described in detail in Section 3.4.3.1,
drainage from abandoned surface mines has caused serious impairments in 3 miles of a tributary
stream and 8 miles of a river. These impairments have reduced the size and variety of ecological
services available from these water bodies, in particular recreation and aesthetic services for
local residents and for recreational boaters, hikers, and anglers. For reasons described in Chapter
3, the focus of the UAA is on options that control AMD discharges to the tributary.
Even before an initial set of management options has been defined, group deliberative
methods can be used to engage the community and to begin framing the decision in a way that is
understandable and hopefully acceptable to the affected community. In this case, the main
stakeholders are likely to include local landowners, recreationists, watershed protection groups,
local government, and local businesses.
5-4
-------
Because the affected geographic area and the size of the immediately affected population
are relatively small, holding one or two public meetings within the local community may be
adequate as an initial step. These meetings, which by definition are open to the public, can be
used in several ways. First, they can be used to present the findings of environmental and
ecological assessments to the community. The information conveyed in this setting would
include descriptions of the AMD sources, the types of water quality impairments resulting from
these sources, the requirements and goals of the WQS program in relation to these impairments,
and the factors affecting use attainment. Second, the meetings would provide stakeholders with
an opportunity to identify themselves, to state their own objectives and concerns, and to provide
their own perspectives and knowledge regarding the AMD-related impairment. For example, it
might allow local land and business owners to describe their main experiences with AMD-
related impairments and what their expectations are regarding clean up. Third, public meetings
can be used to identify individuals who are willing and best positioned to serve on an advisory
committee. In this case, one or two individuals from each stakeholder group might volunteer or
be selected to serve as representatives on the committee, which would have a more regular and
active role in the next phases of the decision-making process.
5.1.1.2. The CSO Case Study Example
In this hypothetical case study example, which is described in detail in Section 3.4.3.2,
the water quality of a large river is impaired by pollution for CSOs. An interstate Basin
Commission is responsible for improving water quality of this river, which flows through
multiple states and is currently not attaining water quality standards for primary contact
recreation during wet weather. The Basin Commission must determine the best way to address
the nonattainment of the designated use. First, stakeholders and other interested parties should be
identified. Stakeholders include those who use the river for recreation, derive a value from the
existence or aesthetics of the river, and/or would be affected by higher sewer rates. Potential
stakeholders include local communities, recreationalists, states, local businesses, economic
development groups, and watershed groups. Public meetings could be used to inform
stakeholders of the problem, to present potential solutions, to obtain feedback about the options,
and to begin to determine community preferences. The location and announcement of these
meetings should be targeted toward key stakeholder groups, and the meetings should be easy for
5-5
-------
them to attend and offer a variety of methods for providing their input. It is important to
determine if the meeting is successful at getting information from the targeted stakeholders. If
not, other methods should be considered to reach the stakeholders who were not represented.
5.1.2. Identifying and Defining the Most Relevant Management Options
Community residents' knowledge of local conditions and resource uses can be invaluable
in the initial process of refining the prospective management options for application in a specific
setting. Specialized knowledge of local conditions and constraints (both physical and social) may
help decision-makers in an initial assessment of the management options. First, community
residents can identify barriers that preclude the application of certain management options. These
may include local conditions, patterns of resource use, or just strongly held local attitudes.
Second, community residents can identify factors that might facilitate the use of certain
management options with minor adaptations to better fit the local conditions or needs of the
community. Finally, community residents can identify completely new management options.
As with the prior phase in the WQS process, the deliberative methods described in
Chapter 4 are particularly useful for eliciting input from the community regarding the various
management options under consideration. The deliberative process has the added advantage of
providing decision-makers with key insights into underlying values and perspectives that shape
the preferences expressed by community residents, which are discussed further in Section 5.2.
Analytical approaches could play an important role at this phase, for example, if the management
options are particularly complex or community residents are unable or unwilling to arrive at a
workable consensus in participatory formats.
5.1.2.1. The AMD Case Study Example
In this case study, the state has initially determined, based primarily on environmental
and engineering analyses, that two main management options are available for addressing the
AMD-related impairments to the tributary and the river—a limestone channel or a constructed
wetland. Before assessing community preferences for these options, it may be useful to use
group deliberative methods to acquire other types of community input (see Table 4-1). For
example, through their participation in an advisory committee (Section 4.10), individuals with
specialized knowledge of local conditions may be able to suggest adaptations of the limestone
5-6
-------
channel that would make it less of an eyesore to local homeowners. Similarly, they might be able
to identify ways of adjusting the placement of the wetland that would increase its attractiveness
to local recreationists, without decreasing its effectiveness for addressing AMD discharges.
5.1.2.2. The CSO Case Study Example
Based on an assessment of sources, stressors, and impairments and factors affecting use
attainment, and with initial input from the community, the interstate Basin Commission
described in this case study proposed two feasible alternatives to address nonattainment of the
river for primary contact recreational use. Option 1 will attain the primary contact recreational
use eliminating 95% of the CSO structures, in addition to other upgrades with an estimated three-
fold increase in sewer rates. Option 2 will attain a wet weather limited use subcategory for
primary contact recreation by eliminating 75% of the CSO structures; this would require a
50% increase in sewer rates.
At this stage, group deliberative techniques could be used in several ways to elicit input
from the community on the set of feasible management options. For example, public meetings
(Section 4.5) with local communities and watershed groups might lead to suggestions for ways to
reduce stormwater flow, which would decrease the number of CSO events and improve water
quality. Such reductions might be accomplished by residents installing rain gardens and/or
cisterns to capture runoff from their roofs during storm events instead of allowing it to flow into
combined sewers. This option would require widespread implementation to be effective and
would not address runoff from roads and commercial and industrial properties.
Similarly, public meetings involving local businesses and economic groups might lead to
additional options, such as an off-line underground storage facility that could store excess runoff
during storm events and be released for treatment during dry weather. These groups might
believe that this type of option would cause less disruption of service/business and also might
achieve the 75% reduction in CSOs.
To examine the feasibility of the proposed options, the Commission could then form an
advisory committee, based on the groups represented at the public meetings (and any additional
groups that were identified). This committee could, for example, include representatives from the
local communities (residents and businesses), state governments, and water quality scientists.
5-7
-------
5.1.3. Developing and Refining Conceptual Models of Management Options
In this phase of the WQS process, the specialized knowledge offered by community
residents may help decision-makers refine the conceptual models of the various management
options under consideration. These diagrams depict, in qualitative terms, the fundamental
relationships between pollution sources, ecosystem processes, and human welfare, and they
illustrate how the management options alter these relationships (see Section 3.4). Thus, they
frame the main gains and losses involved in selecting between management options. By
including resident knowledge and perspectives on local aquatic resource use and preferences,
community participation in refining these models could, for example, provide unexpected (to the
decision-makers) linkages between ecosystems and ecosystem services.
Decision-makers also might find the perspective of community residents useful in
identifying ways to employ a simplified version of the conceptual models as a decision aid. A
simple conceptual model clearly illustrating the linkages between stressors, aquatic ecosystems,
and ecosystem services and the consequences of the various management options on those
linkages could help community residents conceptualize and compare the available management
options. Decision-makers can elicit comments and questions from community residents serving
as members of advisory committees or boards to develop simple conceptual diagrams for use in
community hearings or in other venues with large numbers of residents and stakeholders. Thus,
these stakeholders can assist in eliciting broader community preferences for the options
available.
For this phase of the process, both deliberative and analytic sociocultural methods can be
used (see Table 4-1). Deliberative methods can elicit specific input from community residents on
the diagrams' utility. Analytic methods can be used to review comments and questions offered
by participating residents to identify potentially problematic components of the diagrams for
revisions or modification.
5.1.3.1. The AMD Case Study Example
In this example, it is assumed that, after input from the community, the two primary
management options are adapted versions of the limestone channel and the constructed wetlands.
These revised options are the ones described in Section 3.4.3.1. One of the benefits of a
deliberative process for revising and refining these options is that it provides members of the
5-8
-------
community (in this case, the advisory committee in particular) with an opportunity to further
familiarize themselves with the sources, stressors, ecological impacts, and use-attainment
conditions on the tributary and the river and with the expected changes that would occur with the
two management options. Using this gained understanding, the advisory committee would then
also be well positioned to participate in developing and revising the conceptual models.
Figures 5-2 through 5-7 illustrate how the conceptual models for this case study can be
constructed in stages, using input from the advisory committee. Building these diagrams
gradually through a participatory process with community representatives offers several
advantages, including the following: (1) it takes advantage of the participants' understanding of
local conditions and (2) it provides models that are easier for the lay public to understand. For
example, Figure 5-2 provides a simple representation of the current conditions at the case study
site. It identifies the main sources of impairment, the stressors, the affected ecosystems, and the
linkages between them. This type of flow diagram, combined with the physical representation of
the site, could be initially developed by water quality experts and presented to the advisory group
as a way of generating discussion, eliciting feedback, and establishing a common understanding
of the main water quality problem to be addressed. The deliberative process could then be used
to revise and expand the model. As shown in Figure 5-3, input from community representatives
could be used to identify and represent the main ecosystem services affected, and water quality
managers could use the diagrams as a way of illustrating to these participants the key designated
use impairments. Diagrams for the management options also could be constructed in a stepwise
fashion, as shown in Figures 5-4 to 5-7. For instance, water quality managers and engineers
participating in the project could use the diagrams to illustrate for other participants how the
limestone channel and the constructed wetland would affect the flow of stressors from the AMD
sources, and they could use the diagrams to describe the expected costs of the options and their
expected implications for designated use attainment on the tributary and river. Then, through
deliberations with the community participants, they could identify and add to the diagrams the
5-9
-------
.Abandoned Mine
Bridges
Physical
Infrastructure
River and Tributary
Ecosystems
Surface
runoff
Low pH
Sedimentation
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Abandoned
mine
(entering
tributary)
Abandoned
mines
(entering
river)
Physical habitat
Stream processes/
chemistry
Biological
components of
habitat
Stressors
Sources
Legend
Ecosystem impact Determination of
flow -> designated use
attainment
-^.Interaction among v
^ecosystem components X Not attainecl
FIGURE 5-2
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River:
Current Conditions (Version 1)
5-10
-------
Main River
Bridge
Transportation
Physical
Infrastructure
Physical
Infrastructure
Services
Recreational
fishing
Physical habitat
Rafting,
kayaking, etc
Abandoned
(entering
tributary)
Nearshore
recreation
Biological
components of
habitat
Low pH
Surface
runoff
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Aesthetic
scenery
Abandoned
Sedimentation
Stream processes/
chemistry
(entering
river)
Flood control
Stressors
Sources
River and Tributary
Ecosystems
Existence
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Quality
Legend
Ecosystem impact
TRIBUTARY DESIGNATED USES
-¥¦ designated
Ecosystem and
infrastructure service
support flow
.Interaction among
'ecosystem components
X Not attained
(WARJ
0"ER)
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 5-3
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River:
Current Conditions (Version 2)
5-11
-------
Abandoned Mine
Acid Mine Drainage Seep
Settling pond
Limestone channel
Bridge
Transportation
Physical
Physical
fishing
Physical habitat
Low pH
Rafting,
kayaking, etc.
mine (entering
tributary)
Biological
components of
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
(entering river)
Stream processes/
chemistry
River and Tributary
Ecosystem
Legend
Quality
Ecosystem impact
Ecosystem service
support flow
-j* Interaction among
ecosystem components
Dashed (bold) arrows repres
Attained in parts
(WARI
kTER)
diminished (increased)
TRIBUTARY DESIGNATED USES
Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on —"J——••
Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component
welfare category
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 5-4
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River
Option 1: Create Limestone Channel (Version 1)
5-12
-------
Abandoned Mine
Acid Mine Drainage Seep
Limestone channel
Rail-trail
v ^ i V
N/lain River
M.nrtennnr.e
Transportation
Physical
Infrastructure
Physical
Infrastructure
Services
Disposable
Income
Recreational
fishing
Physical habitat
Human health
and safety
values
Low pH
Abandoned
mine (entering
tributary)
Rafting,
kayaking, etc
Biological
components of
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Nearshore
recreation
Recreation
values
Surface runoff
Abandoned
mines
(entering river)
Segmentation
Residential
values
Stream processes/
chemistry
Stressors
Flood control
Nonuse values
River and Tributary
Ecosystem
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Legend
•¦Vslei
;
Ci'lienJi
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
^ Human welfare effect
flow
Interaction among
v ecosystem components
—¦ Flow alteration
0 Relative increase/
decrease in human
welfare effect
Determination of
-~ designated use
attainment
X Attained in parts
¦ Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare categoiV
• Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
AQUA
(WAI
lU/\£ L
iRWTWA"
LIFE
.TER) i
PRIMARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
TRIBUTARY DESIGNATED USES
AQUATIC LIFE
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 5-5
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River
Option 1: Create Limestone Channel (Version 2)
5-13
-------
Settling pond
Abandoned Mine
Acid Mine Drainage Seep
Settling pond
Wetland area
Construction
maintenance
Costs
, : :
Physical
Infrastructure
Transportation
Constructed wetland
Physical
Infrastructure
Services
Recreational
fishing
Physical habitat
Low pH
Abandoned
Mine (entering
tributary)
Rafting
Kayaking, etc
Biological
components of
habitat
Near shore
recreation
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Surface runoff
Abandoned
Mines
(entering river)
Aesthetic
Scenery
Sedimentation
Stream processes/
chemistry
Flood control
River and Tributary
Ecosystems
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Legend
.
Ecosystem impact
flow
Flow alteration
Determination of
-~ designated use
attainment
PRIMARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AQUA
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
(WAR
TRIBUTARY DESIGNATED USES
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AGRICULTURAL
WATER SUPPLY
Ecosystem service
support flow
Interaction among
ecosystem components
X Attained in parts
¦ Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
• Bullets represent examples of each type of source,
stressor, or ecosystem component.
AQUATIC LIFE
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 5-6
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River
Option 2: Create Wetland Area (Version 1)
5-14
-------
Bridge
Settling
Acid Mine Drainage Seep
Wetland area
Bridge
Physical
Transportation
Physical
Disposable
Physical habitat
fishing
and safety
Low pH
Rafting.
Kayaking, etc.
Mine (entering
tributary)
Biological
components of
Metals (aluminum
and iron)
Scenery
(entering river)
Stream processes/
chemistry
River and Tributary
Ecosystems
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Legend
Quality
Ecosystem impact
Ecosystem service
support flow
-> designated use
(WARt
kTER)
X Attained in parts
. Interaction among
ecosystem components
TRIBUTARY DESIGNATED USES
Dashed (bold)
represent diminished (increased)
Number of +/- represents the ranking of the options
regarding their effect on each welfare category.
of each type of source,
Bullets represent
stressor, or ecosystem component.
RIVER DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 5-7
Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River
Option 2: Create Wetland Area (Version 2)
5-15
-------
main human welfare gains and losses expected to result from the two options (Figures 5-5
and 5-7).
At this stage, compared with the diagrams reported in Section 3.4 for this case study, the
diagrams in Figures 5-2 through 5-7 include less detail regarding the complex relationships
between sources, stressors, aquatic ecosystems, ecosystem services, and human welfare changes.
Thus, these intermediate-level diagrams may be useful as tools for communicating the water
quality management problem to the broader public in the affected community. Parts of these
diagrams could, for example, be used in public meetings as a way of walking the community
through the issues and trade-offs involved in addressing the AMD sources and as a way of
eliciting further feedback from the public. In contrast, the more detailed and complex diagrams
shown in Figures 3-5 through 3-7 could be developed through further deliberations with the
advisory panel and with other experts, such as ecologists and economists. These detailed
conceptual models are likely to be most useful for the water quality managers as a way of
framing the decision problem.
5.1.3.2. The CSO Case Study Example
In this example, the Basin Commission presented two primary management options
focused on developing a special wet weather use category for primary contact. These options are
described in Section 3.4.3.2. As in the AMD example, one of the benefits of this process for
revising the options is to provide stakeholders an opportunity to understand the sources,
stressors, and ecological impacts of the options. In this case, the process provided the
Commission with an opportunity to learn about localized efforts that could contribute to the
solution and allowed stakeholders to feel ownership in the problem and the solution.
With input from the advisory committee, it is possible for the Basin Commission to
develop conceptual models that incorporate the knowledge and perspectives of the affected
community. Using a similar stepwise procedure as the one described above for the AMD case
study, the advisory committee, including stakeholders and water quality experts, could
participate in the process of developing the conceptual models shown in Figures 5-8 through
5-10. By constructing these models collaboratively, water quality managers and stakeholder
representatives can evaluate all of the proposed options to determine how applying them would
address stressors, the river ecosystem, and eventually the designated uses of the river. The
5-16
-------
itormwater, urban runoff,
sewer leaks
Towns
itormwater, urban runoff,
sewer leaks
River
Sewer leaks
Stormwater
discharges
urban runoff
Upstream
sources
Sources
Episodic fecal
coliform
loading
Episodic
loading of
other
pollutants
(sediments
and scours)
Continuous
pollutant
loading
Stressors
Legend
Determination of
-> designated use
attainment
X Not attained
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
^.Interaction among
"^ecosystem components
-Dashed (boW) arrows represent diminished (strengthened) flows.
-Bullets represent examples of each type of ecosystem component.
Physical habitat
Biological components
Riverine processes/
chemistry
River Ecosystem
;V'iU:r
j.Kiil;
Criteria
X
AQUA^K LIFE
RECkE
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLY
INDUSTRIAL
WATER
SUPPPLY
DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 5-8
Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System:
Current Conditions
5-17
-------
QQS
tormwater, urban runoff
sewer leaks
Towns
tormwater, urban runoff
sewer leaks
Construction
and
maintenance
D (Separate sewer lines )
S—— '
Increase sewer
capacity and storage
Eliminate 95% CSOs
Install disinfection
capabilities
Swimming
Disposab
Income
Kayaking/
canoeing
Disinfection
by-products
Physical habitat
Sewer leaks
Recreational
fishing
Human health
and safety
values
Episodic fecal
coliform
loading
S tormwater
discbarges
Motor
boating
Biological components
Recreation
values
Public water
supply
loading of
'J'.l
Urban runoff
pollutants
(sediments
Residentia
values
and scour)
Riverine processes/
chemistry
Continuous
Tourism
pollutant
Nonuse values
loading
Upstream
River Ecosystem
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
bources
vVaier
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
Human welfare effect
flow
~ Cost flow
Legend
.^Interaction among
"^ecosystem components
Determination of
-> designated use
attainment
X Not attained
-Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished (strengthened) flows.
-Bullets represent examples of each type ol ecosystem component.
PRIMARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
AQUATIC LIFE
USE
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLY
INDUSTRIAL
WATER
SUPPPLY
DESIGNATED USES
FIGURE 5-9
Mitigating CSO and Storm water Impacts on a River System
Option 1: Eliminate 95% of CSOs and Implement Other System Improvements
5-18
-------
tormwater, urban runoff
sewer leaks
Towns
tormwater, urban runoff
sewer leaks
Eliminate 75% CSOs
Sewer leaks
Stormwater
discharges
Urban runoff
Upstream
sources
Episodic fecal
coliform
loading
Episodic
loading of
other
pollutants
(sediments
and scour)
Continuous
pollutant
loading
Stressors
Physical habitat
Biological components
Riverine processes/
chemistry
River Ecosystem
/ Water >
Quality
^Criteria J
Construction
and
maintenance
Kayaking/
canoeing
Recreational
fishing
Motor
boating
Public water
supply
Aesthetic
scenery
Aquatic
Ecosystem
Services
Disposable
Income
Recreation
values
5
-C5D
Human health
and safety
values
Residential
values
5
ilues
Human Welfare
Gains/Losses
Ecosystem impact
flow
Ecosystem service
support flow
Human welfare effect
flow
Legend
^.Interaction among
¦^ecosystem components
Determination of
-> designated use
attainment
X Not attained
-Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished (strengthened) flows
-Bullets represent examples of eacti type of ecosystem component
PRIMARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
DESIGNATED USES - WET WEATHER LIMITED USE*
SECONDARY
CONTACT
RECREATION
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLY
INDUSTRIAL
WATER
SUPPLY
AQUATIC LIFE
USE
DESIGNATED USES - ALL WEATHER
FIGURE 5-10
Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System
Option 2: Eliminate 75% of CSOs and Apply Limited Use Designation
5-19
-------
participation of the advisory panel can help ensure that all ecosystem services and human welfare
effects are accounted for in the framework. Working with water quality experts, they also can
help identify the main stressors and their impacts on the river ecosystem.
The process of assisting with the development of the conceptual models could also help
members of the advisory panel better understand the relevant gains and losses. For example, the
process might help clarify for them what the additional costs of Option 1 would provide to the
community in terms of improved health and recreational services. The resulting intermediate-
level models shown in Figures 5-8 through 5-10 also might serve as a resource for educating the
general public about the WQS issue and the relevant gains and losses.
5.2. COMPARING OPTIONS THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY
PREFERENCES AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
After the decision has been appropriately framed by determining the main management
options and, as appropriate, constructing conceptual diagrams, decision-makers need to evaluate
the advantages and disadvantages of the options. In addition to conducting ecological risk
assessments for the options and evaluating their respective environmental impacts, the decision
process can be enhanced by assessing community preferences. This entails gathering information
from the community to assess how different segments of the affected population regard and
value different features of the options. Chapter 4 of this report discusses several sociocultural
and economic approaches that can be used to elicit or measure preferences. With this
information, it is then also possible to estimate the social and economic impacts of the different
options. For example, estimates of stakeholders' WTP for different improvements in ecological
services can be used to inform a cost-benefit analysis of the options. In other words, the results
of the preference assessment can help decision-makers gauge, for each option under
consideration, how the overall well-being of the community is likely to be affected. In addition,
they can help evaluate how the gains and losses from the different options are distributed across
various segments and stakeholders in the community.
As shown in Figure 5-1, the process relating the assessment of preferences and the
assessment of economic and social impacts can be an iterative one. Assessing preferences for the
options may require some initial understanding of their expected socioeconomic implications.
For instance, estimates of how the costs of the management options will be distributed across the
community may influence individuals' preferences for the different options; therefore,
5-20
-------
preliminary estimates of this distribution may help community members better determine and
express their preferences.
Regardless of how they are organized, the purpose of all these activities—ecological risk
assessment, preference assessment, and the assessment of economic and social impacts—is to
acquire and organize information that can be used to evaluate the trade-offs between the options.
In some cases, this information may be quantitative estimates of risks, preferences, and impacts,
and in other cases, the information may be more qualitative findings regarding the community's
attitudes, preference, and concerns. In all cases, however, they should be designed to help
decision-makers understand and anticipate the implications of alternative management
approaches.
5.2.1. The AMD Case Study Example
In this example, the decision-makers must decide between a limestone channel and a
constructed wetland to address the AMD-related impairments of the tributary. Both options also
would improve conditions on the river. As highlighted in the conceptual diagrams, this decision
requires a careful consideration of whether the additional ecological services provided by the
wetland and its lower annual operating and maintenance costs are sufficient to offset the lower
capital costs of the limestone channel, along with its ability to reduce impairment on a longer (by
1 mile) stretch of the river.
Given the relatively small scale of this WQS issue (compared, for example, with the CSO
case study), a fully quantitative benefit-cost analysis (BCA), particularly one involving extensive
primary data collection, is most likely beyond its scope. Nevertheless, a number of less resource-
intensive possibilities exist for eliciting and assessing community preferences and using this
information to examine the differences between the two management options. In the previous
chapter, Table 4-4 identifies several methods that tend to be "low" or "very low" cost compared
with other methods. Even though these methods generally provide less detailed information
about community preferences, they nonetheless may be informative enough to address the needs
of this case study assessment.
One approach would be to conduct focus groups with the advisory panel and with other
small groups of local residents and stakeholders. In these deliberative group settings, participants
first would be presented with the WQS issue being addressed, the management options under
5-21
-------
consideration, and the expected costs and ecological impacts associated with the alternatives.
Ideally, this presentation would use parts or all of the conceptual model diagrams to help frame
the decision context for the participants. Through a structured group discussion, preferably led
by a trained focus group moderator, the participants then would be asked to discuss their
perspectives on the expected advantages and disadvantages of the options and to indicate the
direction and strength of their preferences for one option over another. Because most of this
input would be qualitative in nature, the focus group setting also could be used to collect
somewhat more quantitative measures of preferences. For example, participants could be asked
to rate different dimensions of the options on a numeric scale in a type of opinion survey. They
could be presented with a list of affected ecological services and asked to rate their perceived
importance of each of these services and the perceived effectiveness of each option in improving
these services.
As illustrated in Section 4.9, an inherent limitation of the focus group approach is that the
preference information is collected from a small subset of the affected population; therefore, it is
difficult to know how well the participants represent the preferences of the broader community.
Nevertheless, by including participants from different segments of the population and from
different stakeholder groups, these deliberative processes should enhance decision-makers'
understanding of where the key concerns lie in the community and which factors are most
important in assessing the gains and losses. For instance, the focus groups discussions may
strongly suggest that improving local water-based recreation services is paramount for most
segments of the community, in which case the comparison of options should focus primarily on
how well the two options enhance these services.
Another approach would be to conduct a simplified economic analysis that approximates
some of the benefits and costs of the two options. Whereas most of the costs of implementing the
options are relatively well defined, the benefits from increased ecological services, in terms of
recreation, residential, health, and nonuse values, are more difficult to quantify. As shown in
Table 4-4, a new stated preference survey or revealed preference analysis (see Section 4.1.2)
would likely be too costly to implement in this case; however, one practical alternative is to use a
benefit transfer approach to approximate benefits. For example, a limited number of existing
published studies have applied stated preference methods to assess the benefits of reducing AMD
damage on streams in West Virginia and Pennsylvania (Collins et al., 2005; Farber and Griner,
5-22
-------
2000). Although these studies address changes on different streams and for other populations,
they may provide estimates of WTP that can be adapted or serve as approximations for the
affected case study population. Similarly, a number of studies have estimated the monetary value
of wetlands' benefits (see, for example, Woodward and Wui [2001], Brouwer et al. [1999] and
Boyer and Polasky [2004]), which may provide useful approximations for the constructed
wetlands option. Ideally, applying these types of benefit transfer approaches would involve
experts in economics and aquatic ecosystems to ensure that the results from existing studies are
properly interpreted and adapted to the case study context.
The effectiveness of this approach for understanding community preferences and
comparing the costs and benefits of the two options depends importantly on how applicable and
adaptable the benefits information is from existing studies. Since benefit transfers mean that
preference information is drawn from different populations and/or water resource impairments,
these differences should be accounted for either quantitatively (e.g., by adjusting the WTP
estimates to better correspond to local conditions) or qualitatively (e.g., by describing the
uncertainties and potential biases associated with transferring estimates). As discussed in Section
4.24, one of the possible limitations of benefit transfer is that community members may be less
likely to accept benefit estimates that are derived from other areas or contexts, in which case it is
especially important to address differences in populations and water resource impairments. It
also may be the case that monetary estimates for certain subcategories of benefits (e.g.,
residential values) are not available in the literature. In these cases, it may be necessary to
combine both quantitative and qualitative assessments of costs and benefits to evaluate the
options (see, for example, Button et al. [1999]).
5.2.2. The CSO Case Study Example
Once the advisory committee has refined the conceptual models, the Basin Commission
is in a position to assess community preferences for the two options. Because this example
involves a large, multistate population with diverse stakeholder groups and interests, a
combination of several methods likely would be used to determine overall community
preference. This process likely will be an iterative one, conducted over a fairly long time frame
to reach a final determination of community preferences.
5-23
-------
If the commission determines that it is interested primarily in a sociocultural assessment
of community preferences, then the public meetings and representative advisory committee that
were used in framing the decision also can serve as the beginning of a sociocultural assessment
process. In addition to gathering qualitative information from the community, these deliberative
methods could be used to plan more extensive data collection and analysis efforts. For example,
the advisory committee could help draft and develop a region-wide survey to elicit community
preferences. As discussed in Chapter 4, a number of preference elicitation survey methods may
be suitable for addressing the needs of the commission. For instance, as shown in Table 4-4,
opinion or referendum surveys offer relatively less costly approaches that could be used to
present the community with the main options under consideration and get structured feedback on
preferences. Depending on the elicitation approach selected, a number of different survey
administration methods are possible, including surveys that are mailed directly to sewer
customers and local businesses, phone surveys, and surveys that are made available on a Web
site. Alternatively, more complex and costly survey instruments that explore individuals'
preferences regarding specific attributes of the options could be developed to support
multiattribute trade-off analyses (see, for example, Gregory and Wellman [2001]) or conjoint
analyses. For example, respondents could be presented with and asked to choose between
management options that are characterized in several dimensions, including the numbers of river
miles improved, the number of high-bacteria days avoided, the types of methods used to inform
the public about high-bacteria conditions, and the annual costs of the options to local households.
Although these multi attribute survey-based methods can provide rich characterizations of
community preferences, as discussed in Sections 4.7 and 4.18, they also are relatively expensive
because they require extensive pretesting and specialized technical expertise for designing and
analyzing the survey.
If the commission is interested in conducting a BCA to evaluate the options, then several
of the methods outlined in Chapter 4 are possible alternatives. The most direct approach would
be to collect WTP information from the community using a stated preference approach, such as a
contingent valuation (CV) survey.2 These types of surveys also require specialized technical
expertise for designing the instrument and analyzing the survey results; however, like opinion or
2 A less direct approach would be to estimate benefits for specific aspects of the options separately. For example,
recreation demand methods could be used to estimate recreation values and hedonic property methods used to
estimate benefits for nearshore residents.
5-24
-------
referendum surveys, they can be administered to households across the river basin using either
phone, mail, Internet, or some combination of modes. A CV survey would, for example, present
respondents with descriptions of one or more of the options under consideration. Ideally, these
descriptions would include easily understandable information about current conditions—sources,
stressors, aquatic ecosystem impacts, and ecosystem service impacts—and then describe how the
option(s) would alter these impacts. In other words, it would convey much of the same
information that is described in Figures 5-8 through 5-10 but not necessarily in the same format.
The main objective of the CV survey would then be to elicit respondents' WTP for the options
under consideration, using an appropriately designed elicitation technique.
The results of a stated preference survey like CV should provide decision-makers with
estimates that can be used to evaluate not only the efficiency but also equity implications of
different management options. For efficiency (benefit-cost) analysis, total benefit estimates for
each option can be calculated by aggregating average (per respondent) WTP for each option
across the population of interest (i.e., the population in the river basin). A stated preference
survey also can inform an equity analysis by providing estimates of how benefits are distributed
across the population. For example, the results may show whether and by how much average
WTP is greater for populations who live closer to the river or who are more active recreational
users of the river.
In addition to BCA, the commission might be interested in conducting an economic
impact analysis (Section 4.25) of the options to estimate how they might affect economic activity
in the region, in terms of industry-level revenues, employment levels, and household incomes.
Although the results of this type of analysis would not directly support a BCA, they may
nonetheless provide information to help policy makers understand the economic consequences of
the options. In particular, they may provide information about the relative magnitudes and
distributions of economic impacts across different sectors of the regional and local economy.
The results of these analyses might be included as information in preference elicitation surveys
of local residents to help respondents understand the expected economic consequences of
different options.
5-25
-------
5.3. SELECTING THE MANAGEMENT OPTION
The final step, as defined in Figure 5-1, is for the decision-makers to select the
management option that best addresses their objectives, the communities' needs, and complies
with the CWA and WQS regulation to attain the water body goal. The methods proposed in this
report are intended to help decision-makers collect and organize information in a way that best
supports these objective and needs. For example, in the AMD case study context, it is likely that
a combination of quantitative measures and qualitative factors relating to water quality
impairments, community preferences, and socioeconomic impacts will need to be considered in
choosing between the constructed wetland and the limestone channel. If these assessments
indicate that, in spite of the ecosystem services provided by the wetlands, the community has a
strong preference for improving recreation services and eliminating as many miles of impairment
along the river as possible, then the decision-makers may decide that the limestone channel is the
best option. In the CSO case study context, it is likely that a more detailed and quantitative
analysis will be feasible, which will allow for a more thorough assessment of the costs and
benefits as well as the equity implications of the two options. For example, the analysis may
indicate that the 95% reduction option (Option 1) will provide the higher level of net benefits
(i.e., benefits minus costs). However, it may also show that the benefits are concentrated within a
small sector of the population (i.e., those living in close proximity to the river) and that the rate
increase required to pay for the option will impose a high burden on the lower-income segments
of the community. Therefore, unless the rate increases can be redistributed, the decision-makers
may decide that the 75% reduction option (Option 2) is the best option.
5.4. CONCLUSIONS
This chapter illustrated how the use of the methods and tools presented in the previous
chapters can be implemented in order to support use-attainment decisions while complying with
the CWA and WQS regulation. We developed a decision process framework to aid the
development of a balanced analysis by revealing how the ecological and socioeconomic trade-
offs can be understood, communicated, and weighed in the standard-setting process. A broader
analysis—one that analyzes the ecological benefits—could provide important decision support.
The Interim Economic Guidance specifically states that the benefit-cost analysis is not
required for determining widespread and substantial impacts (U.S. EPA, 1995). However, it
5-26
-------
explains that certain benefits may accrue to communities from cleaner water. Appendix C in the
Interim Economic Guidance presents the types of benefits that could be relevant to a use-
attainment decision, but it does not explain how to use the benefit estimates. We demonstrate an
approach that could assist in determining which benefits to consider and how to use this
information for evaluating and selecting a management option.
The purpose of this report is not to suggest the criteria that should be used in making any
particular decision, rather it is to propose methods that could help decision-makers better frame
and evaluate the options. None of the individual methods described in the report can determine
unequivocally which management option is best suited to address a particular WQS issue.
However, as we state in the goal of the report, they should enable states and authorized tribes—
and the associated communities—to make informed decisions about their water bodies while
remaining in the current regulatory framework.
Although the focus of this report is on use-attainment decisions, we believe that there are
other opportunities to use this decision process framework. Community preferences could be
important for prioritizing watershed-wide planning activities (e.g., see Figure 1-5). For example,
the approach presented could improve grant proposals for water quality activities or assist in
allocating restoration dollars to different projects in a watershed. Although we do not illustrate
any of these examples in the report, we believe the three main phases of the decision process still
apply. We suggest that water quality officials, watershed managers, members of stakeholder
groups, and other interested individuals consider the importance of ecological benefits to
addressing their objectives and the communities' needs and whether a balanced analysis could
play an important role in supporting their particular watershed management decisions.
5.5. REFERENCES
Boyer, T. and S. Polasky. 2004. Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Review of Non-Market Valuation
Studies. Working Paper, University of Minnesota.
Brouwer, R., I. Langford, I. Bateman and R.K. Turner. 1999. A meta-analysis of wetland
contingent valuation studies. Reg. Environ. Change. 1:47-57.
Button, K., R. Stough, P. Arena, A. Comp and M. Casper. 1999. Dealing with environmental
legacy effects: The economic and social benefits of acid mine drainage remediation. Int. J.
Environ. Poll. 12:459-475.
5-27
-------
Collins, A., R. Rosenberger and J. Fletcher. 2005. The economic value of stream restoration.
Water Resour. Res. 41:W02017. doi:10.1029/2004WR003353.
Farber, S. and B. Griner. 2000. Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint
analysis. Ecol. Econ. 34:63-76.
Gregory, R. and K. Wellman. 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy
choices: A community-based estuary case study. Ecol. Econ. 39:37-52.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-95/002.
Accessed January 24, 2005 at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/econ/complete.pdf.
Woodward, R.T. and Y. Wui. 2001. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis.
Ecol. Econ. 37:257-270.
5-28
-------
APPENDIX A
MEASURES USED IN FINANCIAL IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
The Financial Impact Analysis (FIA) described in U.S. EPA's Interim Economic
Guidance for Water Quality Standards: Workbook {Interim Economic Guidance) uses select
financial measures to determine whether or not the water quality standards may have a
substantial economic impact on a discharger or other entity. U.S. EPA specifies different
measures to identify substantial impacts for public-sector and private-sector entities.
A.l. MEASURES USED TO ASSESS FINANCIAL IMPACTS FOR PRIVATE-
SECTOR ENTITIES
Before discussing the ratios, the components of the ratios must be understood. Table A-l
succinctly lists all financial data needed about the entity to calculate the ratios as well as a
description of each. Data for multiple years should be gathered on each component. If possible,
data should be gathered on the entity level. In cases where this data is not available, a common
way to estimate the entity's share of company data is to use the proportion of sales for which the
entity contributes to overall company sales to determine the proportion of earnings, debt, etc., at
the company level attributable to the entity. Additionally, pollution control costs should be
estimated for the entity.
Profitability is the primary measure the FIA uses to determine the impact that the costs of
attaining the specified pollution control will have on the entity. Liquidity, solvency, and leverage
are secondary measures to determine the financial impact on the entity. The ratios specified in
the Interim Economic Guidance for each of these measures and their components are listed in
Table A-2.
A.l.l. Primary
A.l.1.1. Profitability
Profitability measures the profit (revenue minus costs) of the entity with respect to its
revenue. In other words, it shows the percentage of sales that the entity keeps after paying its
bills. The profit rate should be calculated using earnings before pollution control costs have been
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l
Data Needs to Calculate Ratios
Component
Description
Revenue
Sales
Earnings Before Taxes
Revenue minus all costs except taxes
Cash Flow
Cash entity has available in a given year
Current Assets
Assets that are or could easily be converted into cash, such as
inventories, prepaid expenses, short-term investments, accounts
receivable, marketable securities, and cash
Current (or Short-
Term) Liabilities
Liabilities that must be paid within the year, such as accounts payable,
wages payable, short-term notes payable, accrued expenses, taxes
payable, and current portion of long-term debt
Long-Term Liabilities
Liabilities that must be paid in a year or more, such as bonds,
debentures, and bank debt and other noncurrent liabilities
Total Debt
Current debt for current year plus long-term debt
Interest
Current financing charges (interest expense) due on debt
Owner's Equity
Difference between total assets and total liabilities, including
contributed capital and retained earnings (net stockholder's equity for
publicly held entities)
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2
Ratios Used in the Interim Economic Guidance
Financial
Measure
Main Ratio
Supplemental Ratio
Profitability
Profit Rate = Earnings Before Taxes
(EBT) Revenue
NA
Liquidity
Current Ratio (CR) = Current Assets (CA)
Current Liabilities (CL)
Quick Ratio (Acid Test) =
[CA—Inventories] ^ CL
Solvency
Beaver's Ratio = Cash Flow (CF) Total
Debt (TD)
Times Interest Earned (TIE) =
Earnings before Interest and
Taxes (EBIT) Interest
Leverage
Debt to Equity Ratio (DER) = Long-Term
Liabilities (LTL) ^ Owner's Equity (OE)
NA
NA = Not Applicable
A-3
-------
subtracted and earnings after pollution control costs have been taken into consideration. A
substantial change between these two measures may indicate substantial financial impacts on the
entity (see Table A-3).
TABLE A-3
Rules of Thumb for Interpreting Ratios
Ratio
Interim Economic Guidance Rule of Thumb
Profit Rate
No rule of thumb, compare with other firms in similar lines of business
Current Ratio
Greater than 2—Entity should be able to cover short-term debt
Beaver's Ratio
Greater than 0.20—Entity should be able to pay long-term debt (solvent)
Between 0.15 and 0.20—Uncertain
Less than 0.15—Entity may go bankrupt (insolvent)
Debt to Equity
Ratio
No rule of thumb, compare with other firms in similar lines of business
A.1.2. Secondary
A.l.2.1. Liquidity
The capacity of an entity to turn its assets into cash and then use those assets to retire debt
is known as liquidity. The current ratio, a common measure of liquidity, gauges the ability of the
entity to pay its short-term debt. Care should be taken in interpreting this ratio by analyzing the
components that make up the current assets and current liabilities. For instance, an entity with a
higher proportion of cash to other current assets may have an easier time paying short-term debt
than an entity with a higher proportion of inventories to cash with the same Current Ratio value.
Use of other ratios, such as the Quick Ratio (also called the Acid Test), can be used to
distinguish between the two situations described above. The ambiguity associated with the
Current Ratio makes it important to concurrently use other financial measures.
A-4
-------
A. 1.2.2. Solvency
The ability of an entity to pay its long-term debt and avoid bankruptcy is referred to as
solvency. A solvent entity can pay its long-term debt while an insolvent entity is likely to go
bankrupt. Beaver's Ratio determines the solvency of an entity by calculating the amount of cash
generated by the entity per dollar of debt. The greater the amount of cash produced to the amount
of debt owed by the entity, the more likely the entity will be able to repay that debt and thus, the
more the solvent it is.
Another measure, the Times Interest Earned Ratio, demonstrates the ability of the entity's
earnings to cover the financing costs of its long-term debt. Literally, the ratio determines the
number of times the interest expense could be paid using the entity's current earnings. Unlike the
Beaver's Ratio, the Times Interest Earned Ratio uses only the interest expense and not the entire
amount of the debt.
A. 1.2.3. Leverage
Leverage involves acquiring assets through borrowed funds. This tool can be used to
determine the entity's ability to secure the debt it needs to grow. The Debt to Equity Ratio
measures the entity's balance between the portion of assets that have been funded by debt and
the portion of assets funded by the owners (stockholders, if the entity is publicly owned).
A. 1.3. Interpretation
Each of these ratios needs to be analyzed in context. Multiple years (Interim Economic
Guidance recommends at least three years of data) should be used to calculate an accurate
estimate of the ratios. If the ratio differs significantly between years, further investigation should
be used to determine the reason for the divergence. In many cases, the ratios should be compared
to those of similar entities (ideally other dischargers) or industry averages. A large variation
between the benchmark ratio and the calculated ratio also warrants further investigation. The
Interim Economic Guidance suggests some rules of thumb for interpreting the ratios. These
general rules are listed in Table A-3.
A-5
-------
A.2. MEASURES USED TO ASSESS FINANCIAL IMPACTS FOR PUBLIC-SECTOR
ENTITIES
The Interim Economic Guidance provides primary and secondary measures to assess
whether impacts imposed on public-sector entities are substantial.
A.2.1. Primary
U.S. EPA's primary screening indicator for public-sector impacts is
Average Total Pollution Control Cost per Household
Median Household Income ^ ''
U.S. EPA provides detailed instructions on adjusting dollar values from various years to current
year dollars and provides a set of criteria for determining if the primary screener indicates
substantial impacts.
• If the ratio is less than 1%, impacts are assumed not substantial
• If the ratio is between 1 and 2%, it indicates mid-range impacts
• If the ratio is greater than 2%, there may be substantial impacts.
Unless the primary screener indicates insubstantial impacts,1 the analyst should examine
secondary screening indicators:
Debt Indicators
• bond rating
• overall net debt as a percent of full market value of taxable property
Socioeconomic indicators
• unemployment rate
• median household income
1 Thq Interim Economic Guidance (1995: 2-15) states, "Communities with screening results of less than 1.0 but still
fairly close to 1.0, however, may still want to proceed to the secondary test."
A-6
-------
Financial management indicators
• property tax revenue as a percent of full market value of taxable property
• property tax collection rate.
A secondary screener score is calculated for the community by weighting each indicator
equally and assigning a score of 1 to each indicator of weakness, 2 to each indicator that is mid-
range, and 3 to each indicator that suggests financial strength, then computing an average (see
Chapter 5 of Interim Economic Guidance for calculation of secondary screener). The average
score is then interpreted to determine if the entity is weak, mid-range, or strong. If the average
score is less than 1.5, the secondary screening suggests weakness. If the average score is between
1.5 and 2.5, the secondary screener suggests mid-range conditions. If the average score exceeds
2.5, the secondary screener suggests strength.
The analyst can then use the matrix shown in Table A-4 to combine the results of the
primary and secondary screeners to determine if the project will have substantial impacts.
TABLE A-4
Assessment of Substantial Impacts
Municipal Preliminary Screening Ratio
Secondary Score
Less than 1.0 Percent
Between 1.0 and 2.0
Percent
Greater Than 2.0
Percent
Less than 1.5
Impact is unclear
Substantial impacts
expected
Substantial impacts
expected
Between 1.5 and
2.5
Substantial impacts not
expected
Impact is unclear
Substantial impacts
expected
Greater than 2.5
Substantial impacts not
expected
Substantial impacts not
expected
Impact is unclear
A-7
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF EXISTING USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSES AND
ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW ANALYSES USING ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
A literature search identified 13 use attainability analyses (UAAs) and four
antidegradation review analyses (ARs) that incorporate economic arguments. Documentation for
the examples was obtained from materials that could be downloaded from state agency Web sites
and reports submitted by the states to U.S. EPA Regional program offices (Table B-l lists the
examples).
This collection of examples is not meant to be exhaustive. The main goal was to examine
examples from different parts of the country that embodied economic analyses of varying
sophistication or used different methods in presenting socioeconomic arguments. It should be
noted that the vast majority of UAAs do not involve economic arguments. For ARs, many states
are still defining their methodologies. This means that ARs involving socioeconomic arguments
are not plentiful and assembling documents to develop example analyses was difficult. The
"record of decision" process does not usually involve publishing materials into the Federal
Register or other readily available national dockets. Also, states tend to submit materials to their
U.S. EPA Regional offices to initiate a potentially lengthy series of negotiations. In many cases,
technical alternatives to an actual UAA (e.g., site-specific adjustments to criteria for existing
uses) are employed to avoid actual changes in the designated uses. Many of these examples,
therefore, can be best viewed as ongoing. The status of the review process as of the end of 2003
is noted in the examples, but a large number are best viewed as still in-process or even as draft
submissions.
Nevertheless, these examples offer a good illustration of the types of socioeconomic
methods and techniques states have applied to these UAAs and ARs. The materials are organized
to provide information on the location of the water bodies, the designated uses and pollution
stressors of concern, the types of analyses considered, alternatives proposed to address the water
quality standards issues. The different stakeholders involved are noted along with information on
when the UAAs or ARs were initiated and the current status of the process.
As suggested in Chapter 2, these 17 examples seem to indicate that typically no or very
little benefits evaluation is conducted for UAAs and ARs. Where some discussion of economic
B-l
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
TABLE B-l
UAA and Antidegradation Examples
State
Name
Use Attainability Analyses
CA
Ballona Creek
ID
Blackbird Creek
VA
Blacks Run Creek
MA
Boston Harbor Area
OR
Burnt River
NY
Cayadutta Creek
DE/PA/NJ
Delaware Estuary
ME
Gulf Island Pond
CO
Lower French Gulch/Blue River
NY
Lower Hudson/East River
ME
Lower Salmon Falls River
CA
Santa Ana River
IN
White River
Anti degradation Reviews
ND
Devils Lake
WY
Northwest Basins
OK
Snake Creek
OH
Sycamore Creek
B-2
-------
impacts or evaluation was included, most were qualitative or, if quantitative, focused on the costs
of the various management options.
B.l. EXAMPLE 1. BALLONA CREEK, CALIFORNIA: USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSIS
Ballona Creek is located in Southern California (in U.S. Geological Survey subbasin
18070104), where it flows as an open channel for 10 miles from Los Angeles through Culver
City before it reaches the Pacific Ocean at Playa del Rey. Except for the estuarine portion of the
creek, it is concrete-lined and extends into a series of storm drains that reach into West
Hollywood and Beverly Hills. The stream has been classified as supporting a Water Contact
Recreation designated use. According to the Los Angeles Basin Water Quality Control Plan,
waters with this type "REC-1" use are suitable for recreational activities involving body contact
with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. Pathogens are among the pollution
issues of concern. A UAA was conducted to determine if the REC-1 designated use assigned to
the stream is appropriate.
The available economic analysis materials involve a narrative discussion only. The
analysis of economic and social impacts of the recommended alternative (which would
de-designate part of the creek for REC-1 use and subdivide the other part as "limited REC-1"),
would aim to preserve the actual current and potential future uses of the creek. The study finds
that it would impose no incremental costs on the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works or any of the affected municipalities when compared with the existing designations. The
study finds that the recommended alternative would not interfere with developing housing in the
area. In the available documentation, no specifics of more detailed economic analyses or the
underlying economic data are presented.
Alternatives considered included establishing a stream-wide Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) for all of Ballona Creek or to change the use for the armored portions of the stream
where the original habitat is significantly altered and restrict the TMDL to the estuarine portion.
The UAA materials were presented to U.S. EPA Region 9 in 2003.
B-3
-------
B.2. EXAMPLE 2. BLACKBIRD CREEK, IDAHO: USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSIS
Blackbird Creek is located in Lemhi County in the Middle Salmon River-Panther Creek
Basin (USGS subbasins 17060203 and 17060203) in east-central Idaho. The stream is about nine
miles long and flows into Panther Creek. Blackbird Creek is contaminated with dissolved heavy
metals and acid mine drainage from the inactive Blackbird mine. Reports from the 1930s
indicate that mine tailings were channeled directly into the creek, and subsequent construction of
settling ponds proved ineffective in preventing contamination of the stream due to frequent
spills. The UAA work is related to concerns over designated uses involving aquatic life support
and secondary contact recreation.
The available economic analysis materials involve a narrative discussion only. The
Blackbird Creek UAA summarizes the analyses done to assess feasibility and plan restoration of
water quality in Blackbird Creek as well as ongoing efforts to address similar mining-related
impacts in the same general area for Big Deer Creek and Panther Creek. The contamination in
these creeks results from mining activity in the area over the period from the late 1890s through
1982. A tributary of Blackbird Creek, Meadow Creek, originates and drains through the inactive
Blackbird Mine. Blackbird Creek has received dissolved heavy metal loadings from acid mine
drainage originating from exposed sulfide-containing ore and waste rock at the mine as well as
historic mine waste disposal directly into the creek. The available UAA documentation describes
the acid water conditions and high copper and cobalt concentrations in the creek. After
undertaking remediation activities, upper Blackbird Creek (above Meadow Creek), Big Deer
Creek, and Panther Creek will sustain salmonid spawning, cold water biota, and secondary
contact recreation uses. Lower Blackbird Creek, which currently has only the most pollution-
tolerant invertebrates and no fish, will only be able to attain secondary contact recreation uses.
Restoration of higher water quality in Lower Blackbird Creek was argued to be
technically infeasible. No method of sufficiently reducing copper and cobalt concentrations to a
level that would support salmonid spawning or aquatic life biota could be found. For this reason,
it was recommended that these designated uses be removed for Blackbird Creek from its
confluence with Meadow Creek to the mouth of the stream. Costs of early restoration activities
were estimated to be $33 million. Water quality benefits were assessed qualitatively and
quantitatively but were not valued. It was estimated that even if the cleanup of the mine was
100% effective that residual fractions of copper and cadmium in area sediments and other
B-4
-------
nonpoint sources would produce metal loadings in excess of state regulations. No analysis of the
economic and social impacts of the restoration was reported because the use was found to be
technically unattainable.
Various alternatives were explored to prevent clean water from contacting mining waste,
collect and treat mine runoff, upgrade the existing treatment plant, and excavate the mine waste
to see if existing designated uses could be met. In the available documentation, no detailed
economic analyses or the underlying economic data are presented. Studies relevant to the UAA
were initiated in 1983. The UAA materials were presented to U.S. EPA Region 10 in 1997.
B.3. EXAMPLE 3. BLACKS RUN, VIRGINIA: (PRELIMINARY) USE
ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
Blacks Run is located in northwest Virginia in the South Fork Shenandoah River Basin
(USGS subbasin 02070005). Blacks Run drains most of the city of Harrisonburg, Virginia, an
urban area of approximately 12,255 acres (19 square miles). Blacks Run flows into Cooks Creek.
Neither of these streams is considered to support its current primary contact recreation,
secondary contact recreation and aquatic life designated uses due to violations in general
(benthic) criteria and fecal coliform bacteria. Pollutants of concern include total phosphorus,
suspended solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia, pathogens, and other possible
unknown pollutants. The sources may include agriculture, municipal wastewater treatment
facilities and commercial land uses.
The available economic analysis materials include a narrative discussion included as part
of a study related to establishing TMDLs. Sediment and phosphorus loading TMDL analyses
have been performed starting in 2002, and the pollution reduction findings from these TMDL
loading analyses are deemed appropriate to a wider range of pollutants (e.g., pathogens) of
concern on Blacks Run. Sections of these studies exploring TMDL implementation consider the
development of a variety of cost-effective best management practices (BMPs) and stress that
Virginia's 1997 Water Quality Monitoring, Information, and Restoration Act calls for, among
other analyses, an assessment of costs and benefits of implementation plans for achieving water
quality. Such state-mandated studies do not automatically constitute a formal UAA, but Virginia
is considering pursuing this option with U.S. EPA Region 3 if the implementation of reasonable
BMPs fails to improve or restore the benthic community and additional controls have the
potential for widespread social and economic impacts.
B-5
-------
B.4. EXAMPLE 4. BOSTON HARBOR AREA, MASSACHUSETTS: USE
ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
The study area includes Upper and Lower inner Boston Harbor and a series of
tidally-influenced estuary and river systems contained in portions of USGS subbasin 01090002.
The tidally influenced system includes Chelsea Creek, Island end, the Little Mystic Channels,
and the tidal portions of the Mystic and the Charles River. These waters are part of the
Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) service area, and this sewerage system has
combined sewer overflows (CSOs). While the MWRA has pursued remediation approaches to
minimize the impacts from wet weather discharges from these emergency outfalls, there have
been concerns over the feasibility of attaining a primary contact designated use under the
Massachusetts WQS Class A for freshwater or Class SA for estuarine and marine waters due
primarily to elevated levels of pathogens during the wet weather CSO releases.
The available economic analysis materials from the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted to U.S. EPA Region 1 in 1997 involve primarily a
narrative discussion based on the argument that improvements in treatment efficiencies beyond
certain levels reach a "knee of the curve" from a technical perspective. Apparently other
information is presented noting that there could be significant increases in utility rates and other
impacts to the local communities that should be viewed as leading to widespread adverse social
and economic impacts.
In 1998, U.S. EPA Region 1 approved changes in the designated use for these waters in
the Boston Harbor area to reflect a secondary contact recreation status, which would be Class B
for freshwater or Class SB for estuarine and marine waters under the Massachusetts WQS. The
Region noted that the Massachusetts DEP easily could have developed a more cogent set of
arguments by assembling cost figures on likely increases in household utility charges to upgrade
the centralized wastewater system to substantially eliminate the wet weather CSO releases. Other
figures easily could be assembled related to the impacts of the capital costs for upgrades of this
magnitude on the tax bases of local government and likely impacts on the bond rating status for
smaller towns such as Chelsea. The Region provided the Massachusetts DEP with examples for
the cities of Chelsea and Boston on how utility upgrades to virtually eliminate the CSO impacts
would be rated for five factors described in U.S. EPA's 1995 Interim Economic Guidance for
Water Quality Standards: Workbook (EPA/823/B-95/002) as indicating widespread adverse
social and economic impacts. The Region approved the changes in the designated uses with the
B-6
-------
understanding that the focus was on impacts from pathogens such as fecal coliform. As part of
the triennial WQS review process, the Region encouraged the Massachusetts DEP to continue to
study how to apply appropriate numeric criteria to waters in the Boston Harbor area. The Region
also stressed that additional justifications would be needed to consider changes related to impacts
from toxic pollutants.
B.5. EXAMPLE 5. BURNT RIVER, OREGON: USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
The Burnt River watershed (USGS subbasin 17050202) covers an area of approximately
1,100 square miles in eastern Oregon. The main tributaries of the Burnt River originate in the
Blue Mountains and join the Burnt River mainstem just upstream of the Unity Reservoir. This
reservoir stores spring runoff and is used to irrigate crops in the surrounding area. There are
concerns involving the present aquatic life designated use involving the temperature criteria for
the mainstem of the Burnt River below the reservoir.
The available economic analysis materials involve a narrative discussion only. These
materials include a short discussion on socioeconomic issues that summarizes rancher concerns
about TMDLs under development to reduce water temperatures in Burnt River. Ranching
interest groups have expressed concern that achieving the reductions in water temperature may
be technically infeasible and that attempting to achieve them may put their livelihoods at risk. No
detailed assessment of these possible economic or social impacts is reported in the available
materials. Alternatives being considered include attempting to meet temperature criteria by
adding trees and other vegetative shading measures or allowing temperature exceedances in
summer. Studies on the Burnt River watershed were initiated in 2000, and UAA-relevant
materials were presented to U.S. EPA Region 10 in 2002.
B.6. EXAMPLE 6. CAYADUTTA CREEK, NEW YORK: USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSIS
Cayadutta Creek is located in central New York and flows into the Mohawk River. The
creek drains an area of 62.7 square miles (within USGS subbasin 02020004) that includes
urbanized areas in the cities of Gloversville and Johnstone. Tanneries in the area had contributed
to increased water temperatures and high concentrations of chromium, ammonia, phosphorus and
turbidity. Monitoring also indicated lower dissolved oxygen concentrations below the discharges
from the tanneries. Because of this, Cayadutta Creek was assigned a Class D designated use by
B-7
-------
the state. New York State uses a class system to designate the quality of the state's waters. Class
D waters are suitable for fishing and support fish survival but not fish propagation. Class C
waters support both fish survival and propagation. A UAA was conducted to determine if it was
possible to reclassify Cayadutta Creek as a Class C water.
Work on the Cayadutta UAA started in 1987 and continued through 1996. Information is
available on cost data for alternative management approaches. The UAA has considered different
ways to attain a more appropriate classification of Cayadutta Creek. During the late 1980s, the
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) on the stream were undergoing a major upgrade to
achieve Class D limits. If the stream was reclassified as a Class C stream, additional further
wastewater treatment investments would be required, and the tanneries themselves would also
incur incremental pretreatment costs prior to discharging their wastewater to the POTW. The
UAA analyzes impacts on the POTW, the tanneries, and the local economy. Costs to upgrade the
POTW to achieve Class D limits are estimated as $35.1 million, plus $2.7 million for a sewer
rehabilitation project; both of those amounts are eligible for federal and state aid, which reduces
the local burden to an estimated 15% of that total. To meet Class C limits, the POTW would
incur an additional $2 million and would pass through incremental annual costs of $206,000 to
the tanneries. The analysis, based on costing estimates from "model" plants, concludes that
additional incremental pretreatment costs at the tanneries will result in the tanneries becoming
unprofitable and will result in potentially substantial and widespread economic impacts.
The UAA used data collected by U.S. EPA to support development of effluent limitations
for the industry; these data are presented as seven model plants. U.S. EPA and the New York
Department of Environmental Control (NYDEC) collected some primary data from the tanneries
to verify that the model plants were adequately representative. They analyzed the costs of
meeting Class C limits (estimated total annualized costs ranging from $59,000 to $1.1 million
per plant, depending on wastewater flows) and concluded based on financial analysis that these
costs would result in the tanneries becoming unprofitable. Based on an analysis of the role of the
tannery industry in the local economy, the UAA concludes (and NYDEC and U.S. EPA
concurred) that achieving Class C limits would result in substantial and widespread economic
and social impacts. U.S. EPA Region 2 approved this UAA in 1996.
B-8
-------
B.7. EXAMPLE 7. DELAWARE ESTUARY IN DELAWARE, PENNSYLVANIA,
AND NEW JERSEY: USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
The Delaware River Basin includes areas of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey,
with the Delaware River system extending upstream into New York. The basin has a drainage
area of over 111,400 square miles. The lower 86 miles of the Delaware River form the Delaware
Estuary. The estuary flows through Camden, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
Wilmington, Delaware. Discharges from many municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities have reduced the dissolved oxygen content of the waters in the estuary. A study was
conducted through the Delaware Estuary Program (part of the National Estuary Program) to
determine what would be necessary to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities to achieve the
designated uses of the estuary.
The available economic analysis materials involve a narrative discussion only. In 1989,
the Delaware River Basin Commission undertook studies relevant to a formal UAA as part of the
process to complete the National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP). In the CCMP, the potential benefits of a sustainable approach that
combines environmental protection with economic development were discussed in detail with
the CCMP also containing a section dealing with Financial Planning for the Delaware Estuary
Program (DELEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The financial plan lists
numerous potential sources of funding for implementation of the plan, including current
programs, donations, user fees, and redirection of penalties collected by U.S. EPA and the states.
There are summaries of quantitative measures of the water quality improvements that have
resulted from wastewater treatment. No discussion of potential impacts or comparison of costs
and benefits was made. Alternatives discussed included upgrading a varying number of
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants to allow attainment of various designated
uses including secondary contact recreation and aquatic life support. Pollution issues of concern
include BOD, nutrients, pathogens, priority pollutants in contaminated sediment, and priority
pollutants in aquatic food chains that have led to states issuing fish consumption advisories for
the protection of public health. Approval of the Delaware Estuary Program CCMP involved both
U.S. EPA Region 2 and Region 3. It is not clear that provisions of the UAA-relevant studies
completed under this National Estuary Program have been formally adopted into the
U.S. EPA-approved WQS of the states of Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.
B-9
-------
B.8. EXAMPLE 8. GULF ISLAND POND, MAINE: USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSIS
Gulf Island Pond is an impoundment on the Androscoggin River in southwestern Maine
(in USGS subbasin 01040001). The reservoir extends from the towns of Lewiston to Turner. A
four-mile segment of Gulf Island Pond upstream of Gulf Island Dam is on the 303(d) list for
Maine as an impaired water due to low DO content and yearly algal blooms. The main
designated use of concern is primary contact recreation. Discharges from three paper mills and
five municipal point discharges upstream of the impoundment contribute to the contamination.
There is excessive sediment oxygen demand, so that water escaping the impoundment is low in
DO, and removal of the dam would increase the DO content of the Androscroggin River.
The available economic analysis materials present cost data on seven different
alternatives to meet WQS. The complete set of alternatives include
(1) no action
(2) status quo cleanup efforts
(3) status quo with nutrient reduction
(4) removing the dam
(5) reducing point sources
(6) status quo with nonpoint source reductions, and
(7) point source reduction with oxygen injection.
Two of the alternatives include a discussion of socioeconomic costs and benefits, and one
alternative provides a discussion of estimates for the costs of implementing the alternative.
Alternative 3, which proposes removal of the dam in Gulf Island Pond, discusses the loss of
power production and recreational opportunities associated with flat-water boating and fishing
and the benefit of flowing water opportunities for boating and fishing that would result from dam
removal. Dam removal also could release highly organic or toxic sediments to the river below.
While the extent of possible damage is unknown, a qualitative evaluation of costs and benefits
made this option unattractive. Alternative 7, operating the existing Gulf Island Pond
Oxygenation Project and adding a second oxygenation facility with ancillary point source
reductions, is listed as the preferred alternative. The economic discussion for the preferred
alternative involves a rough estimation of annual implementation costs. No socioeconomic
benefits are discussed for this preferred alternative. The UAA studies began in 2000, with
subsequent studies submitted to U.S. EPA Region 1 through 2003.
B-10
-------
B.9. EXAMPLE 9. LOWER FRENCH GULCH AND BLUE RIVER, COLORADO:
USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
French Gulch is located in central Colorado and is part of the Blue River Basin (USGS
subbasin 14010002). The stream flows into the Blue River near the town of Breckenridge.
Approximately 80 square miles of French Gulch and portions of Blue River are impacted by acid
mine drainage from the former Wellington-Oro Mine site. Designated use concerns focus on
aquatic life support. Aquatic life has experienced impacts from high concentrations of zinc and
cadmium and destruction of habitat.
The available economic analysis materials involve a narrative discussion only. The UAA
process examined proposals to improve water quality and aquatic habitat in Lower French Gulch
and Blue River to permit establishment of a brown trout fishery. The UAA studies recommend
restoration of water quality and habitat in Blue River but not in all of French Gulch. The expense
and potential economic impacts of restoring French Gulch, together with concerns that it might
permit upstream migration of nonnative fish that could threaten a population of native Colorado
River Cutthroat trout that live in the upper reaches of French Gulch, resulted in a
recommendation that water quality be restored to such ambient quality as can be accomplished
by upgrading the existing Wellington-Oro treatment facility and that no attempt be made to
restore the physical aquatic habitat.
The analysis report estimated costs for upgrading the treatment facility and noted that the
value of the native trout population far exceeds the value of a potential brown trout fishery in the
lower reaches of the Gulch. While not a demonstration of substantial or widespread social or
economic impact, the study does provide a qualitative assessment of costs and benefits of the
potential water quality improvements to support its decision. The primary alternatives discussed
related to the extent to which the aquatic life use should be restored (throughout the entire reach
or in isolated areas to protect native trout populations). The UAA studies began in 2002, with
subsequent studies submitted to U.S. EPA Region 8 through 2003. Final U.S. EPA action on the
UAA recommendations is still under review.
B-ll
-------
B.10. EXAMPLE 10. LOWER HUDSON RIVER, UPPER EAST RIVER, AND LONG
ISLAND SOUND IN NEW YORK: (PRELIMINARY) USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSIS
The study area includes the Lower Hudson River, East River, and portions of Long Island
Sound located in southernmost New York. These waters drain nearly 16,000 square miles
including much of New York City. For many years, these waters were listed as Class D waters.
New York State uses a class system to designate the quality of the state's waters; Class D waters
are suitable for fishing and support fish survival but not fish propagation. Class C waters support
both fish survival and propagation. A UAA was conducted to determine which waters in the area
were able to meet criteria associated with Class C or other "higher" use classifications. The
primary designated uses of concern involve aquatic life support and primary contact recreation.
The major pollutants of interest involved nutrients. The studies summarized in this example were
initiated in 2002 and have been shared with U.S. EPA Region 2. These studies are related to the
Long Island Sound Study involving states in both U.S. EPA Region 2 and Region 1.
The available economic analysis materials involve a narrative discussion only. The
materials are presented as a type of regulatory impact statement and are apparently not intended
to constitute a formal UAA. No specific plan of action is recommended for reclassifying bodies
of water, but the there is a general discussion of the entire regulatory process. The argument is
advanced that reclassification of fresh surface waters in the Lower Hudson River and Upper East
River-Long Island Sound Drainage Basins will provide a current basis for water protection and
will lead to improved water quality in the long run due to increased protection. The costs
associated with reclassification may include increased operation and maintenance costs to meet
WQS. The reclassification proposal affects 546 surface water discharge State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits, each of which must be reviewed to determine
possible cost impacts from reclassification. It was determined that there were no current costs to
SPDES dischargers since the higher use classifications were currently supported by their current
permit effluent limits. Additionally, potential costs to previously unclassified waters were
determined to be negligible. Costs from reclassification (e.g., advertising and holding public
hearings) will likely accrue to the regulating agency. While some discussion of the economic
impacts of reclassification was provided, no costs were quantified in the use attainability studies
associated with this project. No alternatives discussion was provided.
B-12
-------
B.11. EXAMPLE 11. LOWER SALMON FALLS RIVER, MAINE: USE
ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
The Salmon Falls River forms the boundary between Maine and New Hampshire for its
entire length of more than 40 miles (in USGS subbasin 01060003). At its lower end, it becomes a
tidal estuary, and its name changes to the Piscataqua, which forms the state boundary for an
additional 10 miles. Flow for the entire river is regulated at its headwaters at Milton Pond. There
are four dams in the first five river miles. Effluent from the town of Milton discharges to the
river just below Spaulding Pond at about 20 miles above head of tide. Effluents from the towns
of Berwick and Somersworth discharge to the Rollinsford impoundment and the town of
Rollinsford's effluent discharges to the South Berwick impoundment. South Berwick's effluent
discharges just below the South Berwick dam at head of tide, and the town of Dover's effluent
discharges in the estuary about 5 miles below head of tide. In the mid to late 1980's and
throughout the 1990's a dissolved oxygen problem became evident on the lower portion of the
Salmon Falls River, since sampling always indicated some nonattainment of Maine's Class B
dissolved oxygen standards. Dissolved oxygen content is often linked to aquatic life designated
uses. Under the CWA, when two states share the same water body, the most stringent WQS
applied to the water body should prevail. For this reason, it is necessary for the Salmon Falls
River to meet the most stringent applicable water quality criteria. Maine's Class B criteria for
dissolved oxygen is 7 parts per million (ppm) with 75% saturation. Maine's Class C dissolved
oxygen criteria (5 ppm and 60% saturation) is similar to New Hampshire's Class B criteria
(5 ppm).
Materials available describe a set of monitoring and modeling studies combined with cost
data for alternatives. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection conducted a UAA
because water quality modeling suggested that, after considering available options, Maine's
Class B dissolved oxygen goal is unattainable for a 5.5 mile segment of the Salmon Falls River
from Berwick (Route 9 bridge) to South Berwick (head of tide). The UAA included a careful
examination of the costs of all possible alternatives of river cleanup and concluded that a sub-
categorization for that segment was required, due to both physical and economic considerations.
It is argued that both dams and point source inputs significantly influence water quality
degradation on the Salmon Falls River, and it is not believed that there are any cost-effective or
practicable alternatives to meet Class B WQS on the 5.5 mile segment. The UAA summarizes a
separate document (not reviewed) that analyzed the economic impacts of five nontreatment and
B-13
-------
four waste treatment alternatives, ranging in cost from $1.4 million to $18.9 million. Alternatives
considered included upgrading the municipal wastewater treatment facilities, removing dams, in-
stream aeration, and advanced wastewater treatment. The UAA recommends reclassification
from Maine Class B to Class C and implementation of the most cost-effective treatment option,
Level 2 advance treatment, that results in attainment of WQS. Level 2 treatment is estimated to
achieve WQS, and this facility upgrade would cost about $3.8 million. Higher levels of advanced
treatment that were examined are not certain to achieve significant benefits in water quality
(model projections of dissolved oxygen and chlorophyll a) and would double or triple the costs
of Level 2. Implementing Level 2 treatment would increase sewer rates by 1-9% for smaller
plants and 15-20% for larger plants. Sewer rates would remain less than 2% of median household
income and are, thus, deemed affordable. The UAA studies began in 1994, with subsequent
studies submitted to U.S. EPA Region 1 through 1999.
B.12. EXAMPLE 12. SANTA ANA RIVER, CALIFORNIA: USE ATTAINABILITY
ANALYSIS
The Santa Ana River (SAR) is located in Southern California and is an effluent-
dominated stream that begins in the San Bernardino Mountains and flows southward through
urbanized areas. The river discharges into the Pacific Ocean about 50 miles downstream. The
river (in USGS subbasin 1870203) was ephemeral prior to industrialization of the area when
discharges transformed the lower two-thirds of its length into a perennial stream. In recent years,
discharges from municipal water treatment at publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) have
extended hydraulic continuity to the upper reaches of the river. A study was conducted to
determine if the uses associated with the stream were appropriate given the fact that the stream is
used for flood control and cement-lined in some reaches. The main concerns involve the
designated use for aquatic life. Pollutants of concern include toxics such as ammonia, cadmium,
copper, lead, chromium, mercury, silver, chlorine, and nitrite.
The available UAA materials include cost data for changes to the current designated uses
based on studies conducted to address ammonia and heavy metals concerns and to characterize
the SAR for basin-wide management planning. In addition to summarizing assessments of water
chemistry, physical parameters, microbiological and biological assessment, biomonitoring,
habitat assessment and hydrologic characterization, the UAA includes a socioeconomic impact
analysis. The socioeconomic impact analysis examined annual economic costs to ratepayers and
B-14
-------
citizens of the affected communities. The model analyzed first order impacts such as impacts
upon utility rates, employment, earnings, and tax revenues. The UAA analyses, initiated in the
mid-1990s, were implemented so that they would generally follow the updated guidelines on the
determination of widespread and substantial social and economic impacts in the second edition
of U.S. EPA's Water Quality Standards Handbook (EPA/823/B-94/005a). In addition, second
order impacts such as the health impact of unemployment, impacts on housing affordability,
impacts on fixed and low income households and impacts on bond ratings of local governments
also were analyzed. The UAA found that taken together, nitrogen removal, tertiary treatment,
metals and total dissolved solids (TDS) removal requirements would cause widespread and
substantial social and economic impacts. Particularly, the study projected substantial
unemployment as a result of the requirements, which in turn would result in increased morbidity
and mortality and increased crime, divorce, and abuse. The study also projected increased utility
rates, impacts on public debt and impacts on low and fixed income individuals.
The analysis argues that water quality in one portion (Reach 4) of the SAR does not fully
support the potential beneficial aquatic life use due to chlorine, ammonia, and nitrite; present
levels of heavy metals do not appear to impact warm water aquatic life, recreational or
groundwater recharge beneficial uses. Since the POTWs discharging into the SAR do not
significantly contribute to chlorine, nitrate, and ammonia concentrations, advanced treatment at
POTWs would thus not yield significant benefits. The health impacts of unemployment are not
always considered in these types of impact analysis because there are lingering empirical and
statistical issues that have not been resolved. Even without these impacts, however, the UAA
appears to make the case that other impacts are potentially significant and widespread and that
heavy metals loadings are not as serious an issue in fact as the modeling originally suggested.
The alternatives were to remove the flood control protections allowed by the river and establish a
streamwide TMDL to meet current aquatic life uses or to change designated uses to a warm
water fishery designation for parts of the river system. The UAA was submitted to U.S. EPA
Region 9 by 1999, and U.S. EPA has approved the designated use changes.
B.13. EXAMPLE 13. WHITE RIVER, INDIANA, COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW
REVIEW: USE ATTAINABILITY ANALYSIS
The White River is located in south-central Indiana (in USGS subbasin 05120201). It has
a drainage area of approximately 11,350 miles and is part of the Mississippi River system. Fall
B-15
-------
Creek is one of two major tributaries to the White River. This river system is the primary
drinking water source of the City of Indianapolis. The city has approximately 135 combined
sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls. Combined sewer systems can back up during rain events and
flush untreated sewage through emergency outfalls into receiving waters. The city initiated a
study in 2001 to determine ways to reduce the impacts of these events on the waters and to
determine the practicality of a primary contact recreation use in these waters. Pollutants assessed
as part of the special CSO and UAA studies include pathogens, BOD, PCBs (related to fish
consumption advisories), mercury (also related to fish consumption advisories), and metals and
other organic toxics in contaminated sediments.
The White River Final Long Term Control Plan Report provides a financial capability
assessment, a detailed description of the methods and findings of an assessment of the economic
achievability of CSO controls that includes cost data for alternatives. The methods used follow
U.S. EPA's 1997 Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment
and Schedule Development (EPA/832/B-97/004). The analysis examines estimated current and
future wastewater treatment, utility, and CSO elimination costs per household as a share of
median household income for Marion County, Center Township, and Indianapolis, Indiana. The
results indicate that residents of Marion County and Center Township face a potentially high
burden, while Indianapolis residents face at least a medium burden. The analysts then examined
other potential social and economic impacts and found the potential for losses of retail and
manufacturing jobs, reductions in population and housing stock, and possible financial shortfalls
for the city and county.
The study examines the affordability and potential for substantial and widespread social
and economic impacts resulting from implementation of CSO controls. Alternatives were
considered over a range of the percentage of CSOs to be eliminated (0, 85, 92, 96, 98, 99 or
100%) and for special technologies the technologies applied to reduce BOD (e.g., accelerated
septic treatment). Arguing that actual impacts depend on the final CSO control schedule
negotiated between the city, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and U.S.
EPA, the study recommends a 20-year implementation schedule. Data and computations used to
support the finding that the controls may pose a financial burden are discussed in detail.
Description of the analysis of other possible social and economic impacts is more qualitative and
includes a demographic and economic characterization of baseline conditions in the affected
B-16
-------
area, a summary of other financial issues facing the city and county and a discussion of the
potential for reduced economic growth if sewer rates increase to disproportionately high levels
relative to neighboring counties. These CSO and UAA materials were submitted to U.S. EPA
Region 5 during 2001.
B.14. EXAMPLE 14. DEVILS LAKE OUTLET, NORTH DAKOTA:
ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW
Devils Lake is a large natural water body located in east-central North Dakota. This area
is called the Devils Lake Basin. This is an isolated basin that has no natural outlet due to
geomorphological factors going back to the ice ages. If Devils Lake were a small feature, it
would be viewed as a prairie pothole isolated wetland, but Devils Lake and its associated basin
are quite large. The watershed measures 3814 square miles, and the lake surface area is
approximately 214 square miles. The area has received above-average rainfall from 1993
onward, resulting in a 25-foot increase in lake elevation. An AR was conducted to determine if
draining a portion of the lake into the adjacent basin of the Sheyenne River (a tributary of the
Red River in Minnesota) would impact water quality in North Dakota, Minnesota, Canada, or
tribal lands. Devils Lake has a Tier 2 antidegradation status. The major designated uses of
concern are aquatic life and recreation. There are also concerns relevant to other U.S. EPA
programs and other natural resources issues involving wetlands, migratory birds, and endangered
species. Studies relevant to AR have analyzed such pollutants as TDS and sulfates. The AR
process has been an important issue for the local agricultural community and other agricultural
interest groups. There are also interests from Manitoba, Canada, and the Spirit Lake Nation
Indian Tribe.
There are a variety of documents available about this project, including materials that
provide cost data for alternatives. In the analysis performed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, changes in water quality are discussed as one consideration in determining the
amount of water that should be released. The impact of the project on economic and social
development is not analyzed. The only costs or impacts that are discussed in the reviewed
documents are the costs of continued naturally-occurring increases in water levels in Devils
Lake. Alternatives considered were to allow a continuation of the present flooding patterns in the
area or to partially drain the lake, resulting in possible water quality degradation in the Sheyenne
B-17
-------
River. These AR studies were initiated in 2001, with the latest reports submitted to U.S. EPA
Region 8 in 2003.
B.15. EXAMPLE 15. NORTHWEST BASINS, WYOMING: ANTIDEGRADATION
REVIEW
A study was conducted to determine if proposed discharges from the processing of coal
bed methane would impact water quality in surface waters of northeastern Wyoming. The study
area covers over 20,000 square miles along the Powder, Belle Fourche, and Cheyenne River
Basins in northwestern Wyoming (the "Northwest Basins"). The primary contaminant of concern
in this evaluation was barium, which had the potential to impact certain public water supplies. In
addition to the drinking water designated use, the AR also took into account possible impacts for
other uses such as agriculture, aquatic life, wildlife, and recreation. Antidegradation Tier 2 issues
were involved.
The available information included cost data for alternatives and covered three main
areas of socioeconomic analysis: (1) Determination of significance, (2) Economic evaluation,
and (3) Examination of alternatives. Although variations in watersheds may require different
necessary levels of degradation, this review is conducted on an area-wide basis. For the first
evaluation step, it was determined that potential degradation due to barium is significant and
necessitates economic analysis. The economic evaluation must determine that the degradation is
necessary for important economic or social development in the affected area. This report follows
the practice of presuming importance unless the public review reveals contrary information. A
complete economic analysis was submitted by the Petroleum Association of Wyoming and
included estimation of tax revenues from the development of 30,000 coal bed methane wells in
addition to an evaluation of the economic significance of the development in terms of capital
expenditures and job creation. While the degradation proposal reports a summary of potential tax
revenue and capital investment, there is no information on the generation of these numbers. The
AR analysis and findings prepared by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) correctly recognizes the need to demonstrate that degradation is necessary to permit
important economic or social development in the area. The summary report does not provide
information about the local economic impacts but does suggest that proceeds to the state from
these developments would be almost $2.3 billion. They state that "normally," activities that
result in degradation are "presumed important unless information to the contrary is submitted in
B-18
-------
the public review process." This is not "normal" practice for antidegradation in general,
although it may be normal for Wyoming DEQ anti degradation studies.1 The alternatives
discussion was essentially an exercise to determine the barium assimilation capacity of the
region's watersheds. U.S. EPA Region 8 has approved the recommendations of this AR.
B.16. EXAMPLE 16. SNAKE CREEK, OKLAHOMA: ANTIDEGRADATION
REVIEW
Snake Creek is located in central Oklahoma in Mayes County (USGS
subbasin 11070209). It has a drainage area of about 38 square miles and is approximately
15.5 miles long. Snake Creek flows into Spring Creek, which is an Oklahoma High Quality
Water (HQW). A tributary to Snake Creek, Little Spring Creek, is also a HQW. A UAA also was
conducted to determine if Snake Creek could achieve the same water designation as its tributary.
The designated uses of concern involve aquatic life support and a special Oklahoma aquatic life
use. Nutrients are the primary pollutants of concerns. Potential pollutant sources include
agricultural land uses, mainly related to the ground application of poultry litter from animal
feeding operations. This involves a Tier 2.5 (or HQW) AR under the system followed in
Oklahoma's WQS.
The available documentation provides only narrative summaries of the AR and the
companion UAA. To assess potential economic impacts from changing the designation of Snake
Creek to HQW, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) solicited input from all state
environmental agencies. The first response, from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture,
Food, and Forestry, referred to the six poultry operations in the Spring Creek watershed. Poultry
house litter may be a nonpoint source of pollution in the watershed, and the HQW designation
for Snake Creek would prohibit plants from expanding beyond 125,000 birds. However, Snake
Creek was incorrectly identified as Little Spring Creek (which is already HQW) on the OWRB
1982 basin map of the area, so the poultry operations will experience no change in operations or
cost due to the change in designation. An additional response from the Corporation Commission,
Oil and Gas Division, had no opinion on the change. No other impacts were indicated, and the
only benefit cited is the protection of Snake Creek water quality and possible remediation of Fort
1 According to the Region 8 Antidegradation Guidance (U.S. EPA, 1993, p. 20), "the applicant is required to
demonstrate the social and economic importance of the proposed activity." This differs from the applicant
presuming importance. Preliminary determination of importance by the Division will depend on the analysis of the
applicant (U.S. EPA, 1993).
B-19
-------
Gibson Reservoir water quality. This study combines aspects of UAAs with an AR. It includes
an appropriate consideration of potential economic impacts, which indicated no incremental
economic or social impact due to upgrading the designated use of Snake Creek. Since the
impacts would be neither substantial nor widespread, they do not constitute an impediment to
designating the Creek as a Cold Water Aquatic Community. The alternatives considered were
upgrading designated use or leaving as listed currently. Development of the AR and the trial
UAA was initiated in 2001, and the AR materials were submitted to U.S. EPA Region 6 in the
same year. U.S. EPA Region 6 has approved the recommendations of this AR.
B.17. EXAMPLE 17. SYCAMORE CREEK, OHIO, WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT UPGRADE: ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW
Sycamore Creek is located in southern Ohio (USGS subbasin 05090202). The creek is
about 4.5 miles long and has a drainage area of 25 square miles. The Sycamore Creek
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) discharges into Sycamore Creek 0.25 miles upstream of the
creek's confluence with the Little Miami River. A WWTP upgrade was planned to meet existing
and future wastewater treatment needs. As part of an AR for upgrading the WWTP, regional
solutions were evaluated along with the preferred design, nondegradation and minimal
degradation alternatives. The degradation alternatives were evaluated with respect to meeting
Ohio WQS associated with the Little Miami River and its designation as an Exceptional
Warmwater Habitat and State Water Resource. Designated uses of concern include Agriculture,
Aquatic Life Support, Industrial Water Supply, and Primary Contact Recreation. The major
pollutants considered in the AR involved BOD, ammonia, total phosphorus, and total suspended
solids. This involves a Tier 2.5 (for Exceptional Warmwater Habitat Waters) AR under the
system followed in Ohio's WQS.
The available materials summarize economic analysis on the benefits gained and lost as a
result of each of three alternatives. The alternatives considered to meet future needs were to
remove excess flows from the system, construct retention basins, transport treated flow from the
area, or provide a means to split the flow entering the plant during wet weather events. For all
three alternatives, the economic and social benefits are discussed in a general sense. The AR
argues that the increased recreational value of Sycamore Creek, Little Miami River, and/or their
receiving streams (depending on the specific alternative) is the main social and economic benefit.
The review indicates that, out of the three alternatives, the preferred design alternative offers the
B-20
-------
greatest social and economic benefits to the Sycamore Creek watershed and surrounding
communities, but there is no economic or quantitative analysis to support this claim. The
discussion of benefits lost for each of the three alternatives is likewise qualitative and does not
indicate any specific expected losses. Environmental benefits are discussed in technical detail,
but there is no quantitative value assigned to expected changes in pollutant loadings. The studies
to support the AR were initiated in 1993, with the latest materials submitted to U.S. EPA
Region 5 in 2003.
B.18. REFERENCES
Example 1
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan: Santa
Ana River Basin. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region,
Riverside, CA.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2003. Draft Use Attainability Analysis for
Rec-1 Beneficial Uses of Ballona Creek and Water Quality Objective Change. California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, Los Angeles, CA.
Example 2
Mebane, C. 1997. Use Attainability Analysis, Blackbird Creek, Lemhi County, Idaho. Idaho
Division of Water Quality, Idaho Falls Regional Office, Idaho Falls, ID.
Example 3
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2002. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development for Blacks Run and
Cooks Creek: Aquatics Life Use Benthic Impairment. Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA.
Example 4
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 1997. Final Combined Sewer
Overflow Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Executive Office of Environmental
Affairs Report No. 10335, July 31. Boston, MA.
U.S. EPA. 1995. Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards: Workbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-95/002.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Letter and Supporting Technical Attachment from John P. Villar, Regional
Administrator to David B Struhe, Massachusetts Department of Environmental protection dated
February 27, 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Boston, MA.
Example 5
David Duncan and Associates. 2002. Burnt River Water Temperature Study: Steering
Committee Final Report. David Duncan and Associates, Boise, ID.
B-21
-------
Example 6
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1997. Fact Sheet: Reclassification
of Cayadutta Creek. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Water Quality Regulations.
Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards, New York State Codes, Rules,
and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-706. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Example 7
Delaware Estuary Program. 1996. Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan. Delaware
Estuary Program, Philadelphia, PA.
U.S. EPA. 2000. Progress in Water Quality. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC. EPA/832/R-00/008.
Example 8
Mitnik, P. 2003. Androscoggin River Alternative Analysis for TMDL, Draft. Maine
Department of Environmental Protection, Portland, ME.
Example 9
Summit Water Quality Committee. 2003. Use-Attainability Analysis, Lower French Gulch and
Blue River Downstream from French Gulch Near Breckenridge, Summit County, Colorado.
Summit Water Quality Committee, Silverthorne. CO.
Example 10
New York Code of Rules and Regulations. 2000. Regulatory Impact Statement: Hudson River-
Upper East River-Long Island Sound Drainage Basins. New York Code of Rules and
Regulations (6 NCRR Parts 855-859, 861, 864, and 935), Albany, NY.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. Water Quality Regulations.
Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards, New York State Codes, Rules,
and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-706. New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.
Example 11
Mitnik, P. 1999. A Phased TMDL for the Salmon Falls River Watershed Use Attainability
Analysis for the Lower Salmon Falls River. Maine Department of Environmental Protection,
Portland, ME.
Example 12
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, Los
Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, Monterey Park, CA.
B-22
-------
Egan, J.T., G.Y. Michael, M.M. Grimes, T.F. Moore, S.P. Canton and A.P. Rochette. 1992.
Tailoring Requirements to Reality: The Santa Ana River Use Attainability Analysis. Water
Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA. AC92-036-006.
Risk Sciences. 1999. Macroeconomic Analysis in Water Quality Regulation. Risk Sciences,
Brentwood, TN.
U.S. EPA. 1994. Water Quality Standards Handbook: 2nd ed. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA/823/B-94/005a.
Case Study 13: White River, IN, UAA
Example 13
City of Indianapolis. 2001. Combined Sewer Overflow: Long Term Control Plan and Water
Quality Improvement Report. City of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment
and Schedule Development. EPA-832/B-97-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
Example 14
ACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003.
Report and Environmental Impact Statement.
St. Paul, MN.
Devils Lake, North Dakota: Integrated Planning
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District,
North Dakota Department of Health. Undated. State of North Dakota Water Quality Report for
the Devils Lake Outlet Project. North Dakota Department of Health, Bismark, ND.
North Dakota Department of Health. Undated. Statement of Basis: Devils Lake Outlet. North
Dakota Department of Health, Bismark, ND. ND- 0026247.
North Dakota Department of Health. 2003. Antidegradation Review Worksheet. North Dakota
Department of Health, Bismark, ND.
Todhunter, P.E. and B.C. Rundquist. 2003. Flood Damage Assessment and Survey of
Mitigation Efforts at Stump Lake, North Dakota: A Study of a Closed-Basin Lake Flood. Quick
Response Research Report #164. Natural Hazards Center, Boulder, CO.
Example 15
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 2000. Concentrations of Barium in the
Surface Waters in Northeastern Wyoming Related to Discharges of Coal Bed Methane Produced
Water: Antidegradati on Review, Analysis and Findings. Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY.
U.S. EPA. 1993. EPA Region VIII Guidance: Antidegradati on Implementation. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver, CO.
B-23
-------
Example 16
Oklahoma Water Resources Board. Undated. Results of a One-Day Use Attainability Analysis
and Antidegradation Tier Determination Performed on Snake Creek. Oklahoma Water
Resources Board, Water Quality Programs Division, Oklahoma City, OK.
Example 17
XCG Consultants, Inc. 2003. Sycamore Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant Anti degradation
Review. XCG Consultants, Inc., Cincinnati, OH.
B-24
-------
APPENDIX C
U.S. EPA/NCEA WORKSHOP—AGENDA AND PARTICIPANTS
On November 14-15, 2006, U.S. EPA/NCEA sponsored a workshop entitled "Weighing
the Ecological Risks, Benefits, and Costs in Use Attainment Decisions." The focus of the
workshop was an earlier draft of this report (Chapters 1 through 4). The objectives of the 2-day
workshop were to (1) critically examine the draft report, (2) employ three case studies of
use-attainment problems to evaluate a draft implementation process and (3) hold discussions
with practitioners and stakeholders to establish processes and methods for incorporating
community preferences into water quality management decisions. The workshop brought
together 20 experts from various parts of U.S. EPA, from state and local organizations, and from
Research Triangle Institute. The workshop agenda and the roster of participants are included
below.
C.l. WORKSHOP AGENDA
WEIGHING ECOLOGICAL RISKS, COSTS, AND BENEFITS IN
USE-ATTAINMENT DECISIONS
November 14-15, 2006
Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Sponsor: National Center for Environmental Assessment—Cincinnati Office (NCEA-Cin),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
General Sessions in Room 130
Case Study #1—Acid Mine Drainage in Room AG-30
Case Study #2—Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) in Room 138
Case Study #3—Agriculture and Development in Watershed in Room 130
C-l
-------
WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
8:00 Registration
8:30 Welcome and Opening Remarks,
Goals and Objectives of the Workshop
Matt Heberling, EPA/NCEA
Review of Workshop Agenda and Ground Rules
DavidDriscoll, RTI
Introduction of Workshop Participants
Summary Review of the EPA Report
Matt Heberling, EPA/NCEA
9:30 Discussion and Critique of the EPA Report
• Discussion of Chapters 1 and 2
David Pfeiffer, USEPA
o Q&A
• Discussion of Chapter 3
Anne Sergeant, USEPA
o Q&A
• Discussion of Chapter 4
Hale Thurston, USEPA
o Q&A
C-2
-------
10: 30 Break
10:45 General Discussion of the 3 Report Critiques
DavidDriscoll, RTI
11:15 Overview of 3 Case Studies for Working Groups
• Case Study #1—Acid Mine Drainage
Evan Hansen
• Case Study #2—Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Jason Heath
• Case Study #3—Agriculture and Development in Watershed
Adam Schnieders
12:30 Lunch
1:30 Breakout Session 1: Framing the WQS Problem Using the Expanded Conceptual
Model(s)
3:15 Break
3:30 General Session: Review of Breakout Session 1
George Van Houtven, RTI
• Summary of Case Study 1 Framework
o Person selected by break out group
• Summary of Case Study 2 Framework
o Person selected by break out group
C-3
-------
• Summary of Case Study 3 Framework
o Person selected by break out group
4:30 General Discussion of Session 1
George Van Houtven, RTI
5:00 Adjourn
C-4
-------
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
8:30 Welcome and Opening Remarks for Day 2
Summary of Issues from Breakout Session 1
George Van Houtven, RTI
9:00 Breakout Session 2: Applying the Framework and Assessment Tools to Support
WQS Decision-Making
10:45 Break
11:00 General Session: Review and Discussion of Breakout Session 2
• Summary of Case Study 1 Process
o Person selected by break out group
• Summary of Case Study 2 Process
o Person selected by break out group
• Summary of Case Study 3 Process
o Person selected by break out group
12:30 Lunch
1:30 Summary of Issues from Breakout Session 2
DavidDriscoll, RTI
1:45 Discussion of Recommendations and Next Steps
C-5
-------
3:30 Closing Remarks and Workshop Summary
4:00 Adjourn
C-6
-------
C.2. ROSTER OF WORKSHOP ATTENDEES
Robert Broz
University of Missouri, Extension Faculty
Columbia, MO
Randall Bruins
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Timothy Connor
U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Water Quality Standards Program
Washington, DC
David Driscoll
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC
Nancy Ellwood
Millcreek Valley Conservancy District
Hamilton, OH
Jacquelyn Ferguson
U.S. EPA, Region 7, Southwest Missouri Field Office
Springfield, MO
Evan Hansen
Downstream Strategies, LLC
Morgantown, WV
C-7
-------
Jason Heath
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Cincinnati, OH
Matthew Heberling
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Tara A. Maddock
Mill Creek Watershed Council of Communities
Cincinnati, OH
Kimberly Matthews
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC
Matthew Morrison
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
David Pfeifer
U.S. EPA, Region 5
Chicago, IL
Elliot Rosenberg
U.S. EPA, Region 10
Seattle, WA
C-8
-------
Adam Schnieders
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Des Moines, IA
Anne Sergeant
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Research
Washington, DC
Dan Sweeney
U.S. EPA, Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
Hale Thurston
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH
Michael Troyer
U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment
Cincinnati, OH
George Van Houtven
Research Triangle Institute
Research Triangle Park, NC
C-9
------- |