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.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page

TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iii 

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... viii 

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS....................................................................................................... xii

PREFACE.................................................................................................................................... xiv 

AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS ..................................................................xv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ xvii 

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1. THE PURPOSE 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, 

AND ANTIDEGRADATION 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 

ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEWS .................................................................... 2-6 

2.2.1. Economics in Use Attainability Analysis ................................................ 2-7 

2.2.2. Economics in Antidegradation 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 Antidegradation Reviews ..................... 2-11 

iii
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 Models................... 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: Antidegradation 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 DECISIONMAKING PROCESS FOR 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. MULTIATTRIBUTE 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-1 

APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES OF EXISTING USE ATTAINABILITY 

ANALYSES AND ANTIDEGRADATION REVIEW ANALYSES 

USING ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS......................................................B-1 

APPENDIX C: U.S. EPA/NCEA WORKSHOP—AGENDA AND PARTICIPANTS .............C-1 

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 

Well-Being..................................................................................................................... xxiii 

1-1 Key Clean Water Act Elements ....................................................................................... 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 Antidegradation 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 

Well-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 Antidegradation 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
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AI Adaptive Implementation 

AR Antidegradation reviews 

AWQC Ambient Water Quality Criteria 

BCA Benefit-cost analysis 

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand 

BUVD Beneficial Use Values Database 

CCMP National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan 

CSO Combined sewer overflow 

CV Contingent valuation 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DELEP Delaware Estuary Program 

DEP Department of Environmental Protection 

DEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

DO Dissolved oxygen 

ERA Ecological risk assessment 

EVRI Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory 

FERC Federal Energy Regulation Commission 

FIA Financial impact analysis 

GEAEs Generic ecological assessment endpoints 

GIS Geographic information systems 

HQW High quality water 

NRC National Research Council 

NYDEC New York Department of Environmental Control 

OWRB Oklahoma Water Resources Board 

POTW Publicly-owned treatment works 

ppm Parts per million 

SAR Santa Ana River 

SPDES State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

xii
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 

xiii
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.1. 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 standardsetting 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 useattainment 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
Set Goals & WQS

(Chapters 1 and 2)

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

(Chapter 2)

Identify and Assess Impairments, 

Stressors & Sources

(Chapter 3)

Develop Initial Management 

Options

Develop Conceptual Models 

for Options

(Chapter 3)

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and 

Impacts of Options

(Chapter 3)

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management 

Option

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment or 

Antidegradation Conditions

(Chapter 2)

DECISION STEPS INVOLVING

SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS

(Chapter 4)

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community

Set Goals & WQS

(Chapters 1 and 2)

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

(Chapter 2)

Identify and Assess Impairments, 

Stressors & Sources

(Chapter 3)

Develop Initial Management 

Options

Develop Conceptual Models 

for Options

(Chapter 3)

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and 

Impacts of Options

(Chapter 3)

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management 

Option

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment or 

Antidegradation Conditions

(Chapter 2)

DECISION STEPS INVOLVING

SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS

(Chapter 4)

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community

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. Antidegradation 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 

antidegradation 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 antidegradation 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 

antidegradation 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. 

 

3

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)). 

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 wellbeing. 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: 

xxii
Stressors

Land

Uses/

Sources

Management

Option

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Human

Welfare

Gains/

Losses

Costs

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

DESIGNATED

USE

ATTAINMENT

Other

Services/

Goods

Water

Quality

Criteria

Legend

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Cost flow

Human welfare effect 

flow

Flow alteration

Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(increased) flows relative to current conditions.

Stressors

Land

Uses/

Sources

Management

Option

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Human

Welfare

Gains/

Losses

Costs

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

DESIGNATED

USE

ATTAINMENT

Other

Services/

Goods

Water

Quality

Criteria

Legend

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Cost flow

Human welfare effect 

flow

Flow alteration

Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(increased) flows relative to current conditions.

Legend

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Cost flow

Human welfare effect 

flow

Flow alteration

Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(increased) flows relative to current conditions.

FIGURE ES-2 

Effects of Management Options on Aquatic Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being 

xxiii
• 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 effluentdominated 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 decisionmaking 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 costeffectiveness 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 THE 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
xxix

U.S. EPA. 2006. Ecological Benefits Assessment Strategic Plan. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA/240/R-06/001. 
[This page intentionally left blank.] 
1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1. THE 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
Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop M

Stra

and TM

anagement 

tegies

DLs

303(d)

FIGURE 1-1 

Key Clean Water Act Elements* 

 List

WQS-water quality standards

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Meeting 

WQS?

*

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
WQS-water quality standards

UAA-use attainability analysis

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Substantial & 

widespread 

impact?

[Socioeconomic 

factor UAA]

Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop Management 

Strategies

and TMDLs

303(d) List

Evaluate public

preferences

Retain use Remove use Sub-categorize 

use

Other (e.g., 

variance, 

seasonal limit)

Yes: 

Consider range 

of alternatives

Meeting 

WQS?

No:

Use is 

attainable*

*A UAA could establish that a higher use is attainable

WQS-water quality standards

UAA-use attainability analysis

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Substantial & 

widespread 

impact?

[Socioeconomic 

factor UAA]

Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop Management 

Strategies

and TMDLs

303(d) List

Evaluate public

preferences

Retain use Remove use Sub-categorize 

use

Other (e.g., 

variance, 

seasonal limit)

Yes: 

Consider range 

of alternatives

Meeting 

WQS?

No:

Use is 

attainable*

*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
WQS-water quality standards

UAA-use attainability analysis

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Would environmental 

damage outweigh 

improvement?

[Human-caused 

condition factor 

UAA]

Public weighs 

damages vs. 

improvements

Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop Management 

Strategies

and TMDLs

303(d) List

Evaluate public

preferences

Meeting 

WQS?

No:

Use is attainable*

Yes:

Consider range of 

alternatives

Remove use Other (e.g., 

variance, 

seasonal limit)

Sub-categorize 

use Retain use

*A UAA could establish that a higher use is attainable

WQS-water quality standards

UAA-use attainability analysis

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Would environmental 

damage outweigh 

improvement?

[Human-caused 

condition factor 

UAA]

Public weighs 

damages vs. 

improvements

Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop Management 

Strategies

and TMDLs

303(d) List

Evaluate public

preferences

Meeting 

WQS?

No:

Use is attainable*

Yes:

Consider range of 

alternatives

Remove use Other (e.g., 

variance, 

seasonal limit)

Sub-categorize 

use Retain use

*A UAA could establish that a higher use is attainable

FIGURE 1-3 

Use Attainability Analysis Using Human-Caused Condition Factor 

1-7
WQS-water quality standards

UAA-use attainability analysis

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Important economic and 

social development?

[Tier 2: Antidegradation]

No:

Cannot reduce

water quality

Yes:

Can reduce 

water quality Evaluate public

preferences Do not lower 

water quality

(In spite of Tier 2, 

community prefers not 

to develop) Lower water

quality

Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop Management 

Strategies

and TMDLs

303(d) List

Meeting 

WQS?

Retain use

Other (e.g., 

variance, 

seasonal limit)

Sub-categorize 

use

Remove use

WQS-water quality standards

UAA-use attainability analysis

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Important economic and 

social development?

[Tier 2: Antidegradation]

No:

Cannot reduce

water quality

Yes:

Can reduce 

water quality Evaluate public

preferences Do not lower 

water quality

(In spite of Tier 2, 

community prefers not 

to develop) Lower water

quality

Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop Management 

Strategies

and TMDLs

303(d) List

Meeting 

WQS?

Retain use

Other (e.g., 

variance, 

seasonal limit)

Sub-categorize 

use

Remove use

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 watershed-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. 

Watershed-scale 

Planning

Evaluate public

preferences

WQS-water quality standards

TMDL-total maximum daily load

Set Goals and 

WQS

Conduct 

Monitoring

Yes

No

Implement Strategies

Develop Management 

Strategies

and TMDLs

303(d) List

Meeting 

WQS?

Retain use

Other (e.g.,

variance,

seasonal limit)

Sub-categorize 

use

Remove use

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
Set Goals & WQS

(Chapters 1 and 2)

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

(Chapter 2)

Identify and Assess Impairments, 

Stressors & Sources

(Chapter 3)

Develop Initial Management 

Options

Develop Conceptual Models 

for Options

(Chapter 3)

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and 

Impacts of Options

(Chapter 3)

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management 

Option

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment or 

Antidegradation Conditions

(Chapter 2)

DECISION STEPS INVOLVING

SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS

(Chapter 4)

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community

Set Goals & WQS

(Chapters 1 and 2)

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

(Chapter 2)

Identify and Assess Impairments, 

Stressors & Sources

(Chapter 3)

Develop Initial Management 

Options

Develop Conceptual Models 

for Options

(Chapter 3)

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and 

Impacts of Options

(Chapter 3)

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management 

Option

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment or 

Antidegradation Conditions

(Chapter 2)

DECISION STEPS INVOLVING

SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS

(Chapter 4)

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community

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
1-13

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 EffluentDependent 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. 
[This page intentionally left blank.] 
2. UNDERSTANDING THE 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 

OREGONa 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 recreationc

Secondary contact 

recreationd

Public water supply 

Agricultural water supply 

Industrial water supply 

MAINEe

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 freeflowing 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. 

a

Accessed on March 26, 2007, at www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/uses.htm. b

Accessed on March 26, 2007, at www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/designation_summary.pdf. c

Water depth allows full body immersion (e.g., swimming). 

d

Water depth precludes full body immersion (e.g., wading). 

e

All 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 “highquality” 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 1, 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 effluentdominated 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
12

15

11

16

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-1. 

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
2-20

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. 
3. UNDERSTANDING THE 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 useattainment 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

Identify and Assess Impairments,

Stressors & Sources

Develop Initial Management Options

Develop Conceptual Models for Options

Assess Ecological Risks and 

Impacts of Options

Assess Social and Economic Impacts of 

Options

Evaluate Gains and Losses Between

Select Preferred Management Option

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use Attainment 

or Antidegradation Conditions

Options

Set Goals & WQS 

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

Identify and Assess Impairments,

Stressors & Sources

Develop Initial Management Options

Develop Conceptual Models for Options

Assess Ecological Risks and 

Impacts of Options

Assess Social and Economic Impacts of 

Options

Evaluate Gains and Losses Between

Select Preferred Management Option

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use Attainment 

or Antidegradation Conditions

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 

Nonnative 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 Aquatic 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 decisionmaking. 

 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 Aquatic 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

Water quality

Physical habitat

Biological components of habitat

Stream processes/chemistry

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

Aquatic Ecosystem

Water quality

Physical habitat

Biological components of habitat

Stream processes/chemistry

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 

 3-13 
 3-14 

 

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 waterbased 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 wellfunctioning 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). 
 3-15 Aquatic Ecosystem Services: Classification and TABLE 3-2 Description of Services Supported by Healthy Aquatic Ecosyste

Service Category Service Subcategory Characteristics Related to the Service Example Measures of Characteristics Examples of Language Used to Describe the Servicea L

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 

• C

et 

• C

EB

• L

1

• W

(C1

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 

• S

PV

• T

C2

• M

Y(K

• N

C2
TABLE 3-2 cont. 

Service 

Category 

Service 

Subcategory 

Characteristics 

Related to the Service

Example Measures of 

Characteristics 

Examples of Language Used to 

Describe the Servicea

L

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) 

••••

J

(

1

E(I

1

S(

P

(1

N

G

Healthy aquatic community 

••

Age structure of population Diversity of species 

•••

Presence of game fish and rough fish 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 

•••

W

(C1

ri

R

M

(C

NewK

Safety of fish for 

human consumption 

•

•

Fish consumption advisories 

(presence and type) 

Pollutant concentrations in fish 

tissue 

 3-16 
 3-17 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Category Service Subcategory ice Characterist Related to the ics Serv Example Measures of Characteristics Examples of Language Used to Describe the Servicea L

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 

••

GCS(L

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 

• G

C

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) • L

1

Hiking Habitat quality • Health and maturity of riparian 

vegetation 

• Development threatens fish, 

waterfowl, songbirds, and other creatures in marshes and woodlands 

• G

C

• 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 

• S

(L
 3-18 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Category Service Subcategory Characteristics o Related to the Service Example Measures of Characteristics Examples of Language Used t Describe the Servicea L

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 

• C

an

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 

••

GCS(L

Hunting Presence/abundance 

of target species 

••

Population of target species Bag rate per unit effort 

• Signs of moose seen daily • N

C2

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 

•••

GCNC2S(L
 3-19 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Category Service Subcategory ics Service Characterist Related to the Example Measures of Characteristics Examples of Language Used to Describe the Servicea L

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 

•••

CeCEBL1

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 

• S

(L

Site characteristics • Appearance • G

• Landscape • Number of visible manmade C

aesthetics structures • M

• Presence of unique vistas • Beauty (beautiful, pretty, Y

• Location • Proximity to population centers views), take guests for ride, (K

• Uniqueness • Proximity to comparable sites 

•

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 

• M

(W1
 3-20 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Service Characteristics Example Measures of Examples of Language Used to L

Category Subcategory Related to the Service Characteristics Describe the Servicea 

Cultural Services Presence and significance of cultural sites 

• Number of cultural sites • Number of archeological sites • Number of reli

gious sites

• Protection of historic 

shipwrecks from treasure hunters 

• E

(W2

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 

• N

C2

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 

••

W(SRa

Safety • Reduced risk of death or 

due to floodwaters 

injury 

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 b Producer surplus

– Returns/profits from 

commercial transport 

– Returns/profits to uses of 

shipped goods c Consumer surplus

– Availability of cheaper or 

better quality transport 
 3-21 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Category Service Subcategory ics Service Characterist Related to the Example Measures of Characteristics Examples of Language Used to Describe the Servicea L

Energy Water flow for • Cost of electricity production and • Presence (or absence) of a • RServices hydroelectricity generation •

••

delivery kWh of electricity produced and consumed b Producer surplus

– Returns/profits for commercial 

energy suppliers 

– Returns/profits for commercial 

users of electricity c Consumer surplus

– Availability of cheaper 

electricity and other goods 

hydroelectric power station in a national park 

“p

Water Supply Industrial Water flow/quality for • Costs of water for industrial uses 

Services water supply 

• Cooling 

water 

• Other 

industrial uses 

industrial uses •

••••

Costs of treating water for industrial uses Quantity of water used for industrial uses b Producer surplus

– Returns/profits for industrial 

producers c Consumer surplus

Availability of cheaper goods 
 3-22 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Category Examples of Language Used to Describe the Servicea Service Subcategory Characteristics Related to the Service Example Measures of Characteristics L

Water Supply Services (continued) Agricultural water supply 

• Irrigation • Other agricultural 

uses 

Water flow/quality for agricultural uses 

••••

••

Costs of water for agricultural usesCosts of treating water for agricultural uses Quantity of water used for agricultural uses b Producer surplus

– Returns/profits for agricultural 

producers 

– Returns/profits for users of 

agricultural goods c Consumer surplus

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 b Producer surplus

– Returns/profits to commercial 

water utilities c Consumer surplus

Availability of cheaper household water 

• Million gallons of water daily 

(mgd) extracted, reduction in the level of water in river 

• R

F(GL
 3-23 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Category Service Subcategory ics Service ple Measures of Characteristics Characterist Related to the Exam Examples of Language Used to Describe the Servicea L

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 

••••••

CeCEBL1M(SaGCOa

Characteristics of • Shortages, low water pressure • M

water distribution • Avoidance of water (S

• Reliability • Number of water outages per unit restrictions, reliability a

time improvement in water supply • S

• Capacity • Number of 

unit time 

hours of service per 

•

system Quality of city water service and reliability of water system, shortages, restrictions on water use, cost 

•

anBA1

Groundwater recharge 

Water flow •

•

Base flow Groundwater levels 

• Improve aquifer recharge rate 

and ensure a stable supply of groundwater 

• C

Pan
 3-24 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Service Characteristics Example Measures of Examples of Language Used to L

Category Subcategory Related to the Service Characteristics Describe the Servicea 

Existence/ Nonuse Servicesd 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 

•••

W(SCanE(L

Water quality • Clarity • Smell • Toxic pollutants • Visual impairments• Indicators of 

health

y ecos

yste

m

•••••

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 

••

NaS(L
 3-25 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Service Characteristics Example Measures of Examples of Language Used to L

Category Describe the Servicea Subcategory Related to the Service Characteristics 

Harvestable Resources Commercial harvesting 

• Fishing • Harvesting 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 b Producer surplus

– Costs of production (catch rate 

per unit effort) 

– Returns/profits to commercial 

fishers c Consumer surplus

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 b Producer surplus

– Returns/profits to commercial 

harvesters of raw materials 

– Returns/profits to users of 

harvested materials c Consumer surplus

– Availability of cheaper material 

• Mining development (impact of 

resulting pollution would eliminate potential for recreational use in waterways) 

• S

C
 3-26 TABLE 3-2 cont. Service Category Service Subcategory Characteristics Related to the Service Example Measures of Characteristics Examples of Language Used to Describe the Servicea L

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) 

• B

a

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

• S

(L

Water Riparian and wetland • Presence and extent of riparian 

Filtration and vegetation buffer Erosion • Presence and extent of wetland 

Control ve

getation

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. cMeasure of buyer’s well-being. dAlthough not shown here, service subcategories for existence/nonuse services could include the existence of all the other service categ

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 
 3-28 

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 
 3-29 

●—Attainment of this designated use category directly supports/enhances this aquatic ecosystem service.

○—Attainment of this designated use category indirectly or partially supports/enhances this aquatic ecosystem service.

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 

Hydropower 

Generation 

Public 

Water 

Supply

Aesthetics 

(Visibility, 

Odor) 

Fish 

Consumption (Safe 

to Eat 

Fish) 

A

Lif

an

W

Main Category Subcategory 

Recreation 

 Fishing  Boating  Swimming 

Hiking Wildlife viewing Hunting 

●

●

●

○

○○○○○

● 

Aesthetic ● Cultural ○ Flood/Flow 

Control 

Navigation 

Energy ●Water Supply 

Industrial ●

Agricultural ●

Household ●

Groundwater recharge 
 3-30 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) A

Lif

and 

W

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.

○—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 
Stressors

Land

Uses/

Sources

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

DESIGNATED

USE

ATTAINMENT

Other

Services/

Goods

Water

Quality

Criteria

Stressors

Land

Uses/

Sources

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

DESIGNATED

USE

ATTAINMENT

Other

Services/

Goods

Water

Quality

Criteria

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 
Stressors

Land

Uses/

Sources

Management

Option

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Human

Welfare

Gains/

Losses

Costs

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

DESIGNATED

USE

ATTAINMENT

Other

Services/

Goods

Water

Quality

Criteria

Legend

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Cost flow

Human welfare effect 

flow

Flow alteration

Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(increased) flows relative to current conditions.

Stressors

Land

Uses/

Sources

Management

Option

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Human

Welfare

Gains/

Losses

Costs

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

DESIGNATED

USE

ATTAINMENT

Other

Services/

Goods

Water

Quality

Criteria

Legend

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Cost flow

Human welfare effect 

flow

Flow alteration

Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(increased) flows relative to current conditions.

Legend

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Cost flow

Human welfare effect 

flow

Flow alteration

Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(increased) flows relative to current conditions.

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 effluentdominated 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 useattainment 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 abovementioned 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 warmwater 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 
FIGURE 3-5 

Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: 

 Current Conditions 

 3-45 
FIGURE 3-6 

Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: 

Option 1: Create Limestone Channel 

 3-46 
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 
FIGURE 3-8 

Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System: 

Current Conditions

 3-51 
River

Stormwater, urban runoff, 

sewer leaks

CSO

CSO

CSO

Towns

Cities

CSO

CSO

CSO

CSO

Stormwater, urban runoff, 

sewer leaks

CSO

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 
CSO

Sources

CSOs

Stormwater 

discharges

Upstream 

sources

Sewer leaks

Aquatic 

Ecosystem 

Services

Recreational 

fishing

Motor 

boating

Kayaking/

canoeing

Tourism

Aesthetic 

scenery

Existence

Swimming

Human Welfare 

Gains/Losses

Human health 

and safety 

values

Recreation 

values

Stressors

Episodic fecal 

coliform 

loading

Episodic 

loading of 

other 

pollutants 

(sediments 

and scour)

Continuous 

pollutant 

loading

River Ecosystem

Biological components 

Water birds

Drifting invertebrates

Fish populations

Pathogens

Physical habitat

Vegetative cover/

nesting habitat

Substrate size/type

Riverine processes/ 

chemistry

BOD regulation

Nutrient cycling

Flow/gradient

+

+

Urban runoff

Public water 

supply

Eliminate 75% CSOs

Costs

Construction 

and 

maintenance

Disposable 

income

Residential 

values

Nonuse values

+

+

+

-

WWTPs

DESIGNATED USES – WET WEATHER LIMITED USE*

DESIGNATED USES – ALL WEATHER

AQUATIC LIFE 

USE

PRIMARY 

CONTACT 

RECREATION

INDUSTRIAL 

WATER 

SUPPLY

PUBLIC 

WATER 

SUPPLY

SECONDARY 

CONTACT 

RECREATION

Water 

Quality 

Criteria Legend

Ecosystem impact 

flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

+/

Relative increase/

decrease in human 

welfare effect

-

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

Cost flow

Human welfare effect 

flow Interaction among 

Flow alteration ecosystem components

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.

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 
Intermittent stream

Perennial stream

Riparian area

Grazing land Crop land

FIGURE 3-11 

Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream: 

Current Conditions

 3-56 
Intermittent stream

Perennial stream

Riparian area

Grazing land Crop land

Fence and stone crossing

FIGURE 3-12 

Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream: 

Option 1: Limiting Livestock Impact with Fence and Stone Crossing 

 3-57 
Intermittent stream

Perennial stream

Riparian area

Grazing land Crop land

Fence and bridge

FIGURE 3-13 

Mitigating Agricultural Impacts on an Intermittent Stream: 

Option 2: Limiting Livestock Impact with Fence and Bridge 

 3-58 
Intermittent stream

Perennial stream

Riparian area

Grazing land Crop land

Fence

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 
FIGURE 3-15 

Antidegradation Review of Proposed Retail Development Complex Conditions 

Without Retail Development 

 3-61 
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 byproducts, 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 
Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

Fishing

Rare species

habitat

Wildlife (bird)

watching

Existence

Boating

Aesthetic

scenery

Sources

Industrial

dischargers

Wastewater

treatment

plants

Stressors

Effluent releases

Metals

Organic carbon

Disinf by-products

Acid/base content

Supports

Riparian area

Continuous water

source

Swimming

Groundwater

recharge

Market

Services

Market

production

River Ecosystem

Biological

components

Drifting

invertebrates

Fish populations

Physical habitat

Channel

dimensions

Riparian width

Substrate size/type

Riverine processes/

chemistry

BOD regulation

Nutrient cycling

Flow/gradient

Perennial Stream

Ecosystem

Biological

components

Wildlife diversity

Rare species

Macroinvertebrate

assemblages

Physical habitat

Channel alterations

Pools and riffles

Overhanging

vegetation

Stream processes/

chemistry

DOC content

regulation

Nutrient cycling

Temp regulation

Water

Quality

Criteria

DESIGNATED

USES

AQUATIC LIFE X

Legend

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Interaction among 

ecosystem components X Not attained

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

• Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(strengthened) flows.

• Bullets represent examples of each type of 

stressor or ecosystem component.

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

Aquatic

Ecosystem

Services

Fishing

Rare species

habitat

Wildlife (bird)

watching

Existence

Boating

Aesthetic

scenery

Sources

Industrial

dischargers

Wastewater

treatment

plants

Stressors

Effluent releases

Metals

Organic carbon

Disinf by-products

Acid/base content

Supports

Riparian area

Continuous water

source

Swimming

Groundwater

recharge

Market

Services

Market

production

River Ecosystem

Biological

components

Drifting

invertebrates

Fish populations

Physical habitat

Channel

dimensions

Riparian width

Substrate size/type

Riverine processes/

chemistry

BOD regulation

Nutrient cycling

Flow/gradient

Perennial Stream

Ecosystem

Biological

components

Wildlife diversity

Rare species

Macroinvertebrate

assemblages

Physical habitat

Channel alterations

Pools and riffles

Overhanging

vegetation

Stream processes/

chemistry

DOC content

regulation

Nutrient cycling

Temp regulation

Water

Quality

Criteria

DESIGNATED

USES

AQUATIC LIFE X

Legend

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Interaction among 

ecosystem components X Not attained

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

• Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(strengthened) flows.

• Bullets represent examples of each type of 

stressor or ecosystem component.

Legend

Ecosystem impact flow

Ecosystem service 

support flow

Interaction among 

ecosystem components X Not attained

Determination of 

designated use 

attainment

• Dashed (bold) arrows represent diminished 

(strengthened) flows.

• Bullets represent examples of each type of 

stressor or ecosystem component.

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

▪

FIGURE 3-17 

Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream: 

Current Conditions 

 3-64 
FIGURE 3-18 

Management of an Effluent-Dominated Stream: 

Option 1: Increased Treatment of Effluent 

 3-65 
Intermittent

Stream

Relocated to Different

Ecosystem

Treatment

Plant

Intermittent

Stream

Relocated to Different

Ecosystem

Treatment

Plant

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(l):99-116. 

Berrens, R.P., A.K. Bohara, C.L. Silva, D. Brookshire and M. McKee. 2000. Contingent values 

for New Mexico instream flows: With tests of scope, group-size reminder and temporal 

reliability. J. Environ. Manage. 58(1):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. 

González-Cabán, A. and J. Loomis. 1997. Economic benefits of maintaining ecological 

integrity of Río Mameyes, in Puerto Rico. Ecol. Econ. 21(1):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(1):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 
 3-70 

U.S. EPA. 2003. Generic Ecological Assessment Endpoints for Ecological Risk Assessment. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC. 

EPA/630/P-02/004F. Accessed March 4, 2004, at 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=55131. 

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. 
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 
Set Goals & WQS 

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

Identify and Assess Impairments , 

Stressors & Sources

Develop Initial Management

Options

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and

Impacts of Options

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment 

or Antidegradation Conditions

DECISION STEPS INVOLVING 

SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community 

Options

Develop Conceptual Models for

Option

Set Goals & WQS 

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

Identify and Assess Impairments , 

Stressors & Sources

Develop Initial Management

Options

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and

Impacts of Options

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment 

or Antidegradation Conditions

DECISION STEPS INVOLVING 

SOCIAL SCIENCE METHODS

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community 

Options

Develop Conceptual Models for

Option

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 U 4.4 

Public Meetings U 4.5 

Delphi Method U U 4.6 

Multiattribute Trade-Off Analysis U U 4.7 

Multicriteria Decision-Making U U 4.8 

Focus Groups Interviews U U 4.9 

Advisory Committees U 4.10 

Value Juries U 4.11 

Opinion and Attitudinal Surveys U 4.12 

Referenda U 4.13 

Affective Images U 4.14 

Narrative U 4.15 

Damage Schedules U 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 
Market

Production

Systems

Environmental

Systems

Household

Systems

Environmental

"Services"

Labor

 Services

Market

 Goods &

 Services

Residuals Environmental

"Services"

Residuals

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 U 4.17 

Conjoint Analysis U 4.18 

Hedonic Property Value U 4.19 

Recreation Demand U 4.20 

Averting Behavior U 4.21 

Market Models U 4.22 

Replacement/Restoration 

Cost U 4.23 

Benefit Transfer U 4.24 

Economic Impact 

Analysis U 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, multiattribute 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 

Sociocultural Assessment Methods 

Mental Model Approaches U 

Public Meetings U 

Delphi Method U U 

Multiattribute Trade-off Analysis U 

Multicriteria Decision-Making U 

Focus Groups Interviews U 

Advisory Committees U 

Value Juries U 

Opinion and Attitudinal Surveys U 

Referenda U 

Affective Images U 

Narrative U 

Damage Schedules U 

Economic Assessment Methods 

Contingent Valuation U U 

Conjoint Analysis U 

Hedonic Property Value U U U 

Recreation Demand U U 

Averting Behavior U U U 

Market Models U U 

Replacement/Restoration Cost U 

Benefit Transfer U

Economic Impact Analysis U U 

 4-20 
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 Low Moderate High Very High 

Sociocultural Assessment Methods 

Mental Model Approaches U 

Public Meetings U 

Delphi Method U 

Multiattribute Trade-off Analysis U

Multicriteria Decision-Making U 

Focus Groups Interviews U 

Advisory Committees U 

Value Juries U 

Opinion and Attitudinal Surveys U 

Referenda U 

Affective Images U 

Narrative U 

Damage Schedules U 

Economic Assessment Methods 

Contingent Valuation U 

Conjoint Analysis U

Hedonic Property Value U 

Recreation Demand U

Averting Behavior Ua Ub

Market Models U 

Replacement/Restoration Cost U 

Benefit Transfer U 

Economic Impact Analysis U 

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 Mäler 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 Multiattribute 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. Multiattribute 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. Multiattribute 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 decisionmaking (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 multiattribute) 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 decisionmakers 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 valuesbased 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 decisionmakers, 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. Land Econ. 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. 

Land Econ. 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 

stormwater 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(1):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):1118-1122. 

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. Mäler 

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(1):32-48. 

Phaneuf, D.J. and V.K. Smith. 2005. Recreation demand models. In: 

Handbook of Environmental Economics, Vol. 2: Valuing Environmental 

Changes. K. Mäler 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. Land Econ. 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 hardshell 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(1):7-43. 

Magelby, D. 1984. Direct Legislation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Mäler, 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. and N. 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. Mäler 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(1):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. Mäler 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 
 4-64 

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. 
5. WORKING THE 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 
Set Goals & WQS 

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

Identify and Assess Impairments Stressors & Sources

Develop Initial Management

Develop Conceptual Models for

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and

Impacts of Options

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment 

or Antidegradation Conditions

FRAME THE 

WQS 

DECISION

COMPARE 

OPTIONS

MAKE THE 

WQS 

DECISION

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community 

Options

Options

Option

Set Goals & WQS 

Conduct Monitoring

Determine WQS Compliance

Identify and Assess Impairments Stressors & Sources

Develop Initial Management

Develop Conceptual Models for

Revise Management Options

Elicit Community Input

Revise Conceptual Models

Assess Ecological Risks and

Impacts of Options

Assess Social and Economic

Impacts of Options

Assess Community Preferences

Evaluate Gains and Losses

Between Options

Select Preferred Management

Elicit Community Input

Evaluate Factors Affecting Use 

Attainment 

or Antidegradation Conditions

FRAME THE 

WQS 

DECISION

COMPARE 

OPTIONS

MAKE THE 

WQS 

DECISION

Identify Stakeholders and 

Engage Community 

Options

Options

Option

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 THE 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 AMDrelated 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 threefold 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 
FIGURE 5-2 

Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: 

Current Conditions (Version 1)

 5-10 
FIGURE 5-3 

Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River: 

Current Conditions (Version 2) 

 5-11 
FIGURE 5-4 

Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River 

Option 1: Create Limestone Channel (Version 1) 

 5-12 
FIGURE 5-5 

Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River 

Option 1: Create Limestone Channel (Version 2) 

 5-13 
FIGURE 5-6 

Mitigating Acid Mine Drainage Impacts on a Tributary and River 

Option 2: Create Wetland Area (Version 1)

 5-14 
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 
FIGURE 5-8 

Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System: 

Current Conditions 

 5-17 
FIGURE 5-9 

Mitigating CSO and Stormwater Impacts on a River System 

Option 1: Eliminate 95% of CSOs and Implement Other System Improvements 

 5-18 
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 intermediatelevel 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 resourceintensive 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 multiattribute 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 tradeoffs 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 useattainment 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 
 5-28 

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. 
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.1. MEASURES USED TO ASSESS FINANCIAL IMPACTS FOR PRIVATESECTOR ENTITIES 

Before discussing the ratios, the components of the ratios must be understood. Table A-1 

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.1.1. Primary 

A.1.1.1. 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-1 
TABLE A-1 

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 ShortTerm) 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 
 A-3 

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 
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.1.2.1. 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 (Eq. A-1) 

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

 The 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 
 A-7 

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 midrange, 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 
[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-1 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-1 
TABLE B-1 

UAA and Antidegradation Examples 

Example State Name 

Use Attainability Analyses 

1 CA Ballona Creek 

2 ID Blackbird Creek 

3 VA Blacks Run Creek 

4 MA Boston Harbor Area 

5 OR Burnt River 

6 NY Cayadutta Creek 

7 DE/PA/NJ Delaware Estuary 

8 ME Gulf Island Pond 

9 CO Lower French Gulch/Blue River 

10 NY Lower Hudson/East River 

11 ME Lower Salmon Falls River 

12 CA Santa Ana River 

13 IN White River 

Antidegradation Reviews 

14 ND Devils Lake 

15 WY Northwest Basins 

16 OK Snake Creek 

17 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.1. 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 pollutiontolerant 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-11 
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 subcategorization 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, instream 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 effluentdominated 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 antidegradation 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 RiverUpper 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. Devils Lake, North Dakota: Integrated Planning 

Report and Environmental Impact Statement. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, 

St. Paul, MN. 

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: Antidegradation Review, Analysis and Findings. Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division, Cheyenne, WY. 

U.S. EPA. 1993. EPA Region VIII Guidance: Antidegradation Implementation. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Denver, CO. 

 B-23 
 B-24 

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 Antidegradation 

Review. XCG Consultants, Inc., Cincinnati, OH. 
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.1. 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-1
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

 David Driscoll, 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

David Driscoll, 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 

David Driscoll, 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
C-9

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