Monetary Values of Fish Contents

MONETARY VALUES OF FISH CONTENTS

Introduction ...... V

I. Values of fish ...... 1

Species Page Species Page Rainbow trout ...... 1 Walleye ...... 7 Brook trout ...... 1 Sauger 8 Brown trout ...... 2 Northern pike ...... 8 Lock leven 2 Yellow perch ...... 8 Steelhead 2 Pike perch ...... 8 Grayling ...... 2 Chain pickerel ...... 8 Coho or Silver salmon 2 Carp ...... 9 Chum salmon ...... 2 Carpsucker 9 Largemouth bass ...... 3 Suckers ...... 9 Smallmouth bass ...... 3 White sucker ...... 9 Spotted bass ...... 4 Hog sucker ...... 9 Rock bass ...... 4 Spotted sucker ...... 9 Striped bass Redhorse 9 (Rock fish) ...... 4 Drum ...... 9 White bass ...... 5 Shad ...... 10 Yellow bass ...... 5 Mooneye 10 Sunfish ...... 5 Gar ...... 10 Bluegill 5 Dogfish ...... 10 Warmouth 5 Smallmouth buffalo 10 Green sunfish ...... 5 Bigmouth buffalo 10 Longear sunfish ...... 5 Black buffalo ...... 10 Redear sunfish ...... 5 Paddlefish ...... 10 White crappie ...... 6 Eel ...... 11 Black crappie ...... 6 Sturgeon ...... 11 Channel catfish ...... 6 Rock sturgeon ...... 11 Blue catfish ...... 6 Lake sturgeon ...... 11 Flathead catfish ...... 6 Bait minnows ...... 11 Black bullhead ...... 7 Shiners ...... 11 Yellow bullhead ...... 7 Chub minnows ...... 11 Brown bullhead ...... Crayfish ...... 11 Muskellunge ...... 7

II. Legal Action Taken .... 12

III. Value of Sport Fishing by States 14

III IV. States and Canadian Provinces ... 14

State Page State Page Alabama ...... 16 New York ...... 63 Alaska ...... 16 North Carolina ...... 64 Arizona ...... 17 North Dakota ...... 65 Arkansas ...... 17 Ohio ...... 65 California ...... 17 Oklahoma ...... 67 Colorado ...... 20 Oregon ...... 68 Connecticut ...... 21 *Pennsylvania ...... 68 Delaware ...... 23 Rhode Island ...... 75 Florida ...... 23 South Carolina ...... 75 Georgia ...... 24 South Dakota ...... 77 Hawaii ...... 25 *Tennessee ...... 77 Idaho ...... 25 Texas ...... 90 *Illinois ...... 25 Utah ...... 90 Indiana ...... 39 Vermont ...... 92 Iowa ...... 39 Virginia ...... 92 Kansas ...... 40 Washington ...... 94 Kentucky ...... 40 West Virginia ...... 95 Louisiana ...... 40 Wisconsin ...... 98 Maine ...... 42 Wyoming ...... 101 Maryland ...... 42 Massachusetts ...... 42 Canadian Provinces *Michigan ...... 42 Minnesota ...... 51 Alberta ...... 102 Mississippi ...... 51 British Columbia ...... 102 Missouri ...... 52 Manitoba ...... 105 Montana ...... 56 New Brunswick ...... 105 Nebraska ...... 56 Newfoundland ...... 106 Nevada ...... 57 Nova Scotia ...... 106 New Hampshire ... 57 Ontario ...... 107 New Jersey ...... 58 Quebec ...... 107 New Mexico ...... 62 Saskatchewan ...... 108

* States that included a form for collecting information from a fish kill.

IV INTRODUCTION

The problem of placing monetary values on fishes is a complex and difficult task, with which wildlife agencies, both Federal and State, are faced. This is particularly true of pollution-caused fish kills that are difficult, but essential, to evaluate in terms of money.

Rather than suggesting definite guidelines, this study is intended to serve as an aid toward the determination of monetary values of fishes by providing standards of comparison. It will be noted that monetary values placed on fishes and the success in recovering losses vary con- siderably from state to state. Such compensation will seldom be uniform, but since the recovery of monetary values of fishes lost to pollution is relatively new, it is hoped that this summary can provide both information and encouragement and promote interest and ideas toward further studies of this nature.

It is unfortunate that every species of fish does not have a monetary value placed on it. Fishes are present in our streams, rivers, and lakes for a specific purpose and all aspects of aquatic life are inter-dependent to some extent. When a fish population is decimated by natural causes, it may be to the ultimate advantage of the ecological structure; however, when the optimum balance of the aquatic community is severely upset by the removal of fishes and/or their supporting organisms, it can have far-reaching ill effects on a body of water.

The following questionnaire was used in gathering information. This form was sent to all states and nine Canadian provinces.

QUESTIONS

1. Have you ever taken legal action concerning a fish kill? Yes No Even if the above answer is No, we are also interested in knowing if a settlement out of court was made. 2. Were damages collected? Yes No 3. If yes, what type: Lawsuit Administrative Action Other

V 4. Please list each case individually answering the following questions. Case A (a) Case in subject: vs (b) Date: (c) Total damages asked• $ (d) Total damages received: $ (e) Total number of fish killed: (f) Total weight of fish killed: (g) Individual species Amount received for cost per pound killed and number each species or fish $

$ TOTAL $

5. What value would you place on fishing in your State? $ For example: Tennessee, in 1962 conducted a state-wide hunting and fishing survey and found that 362,000 fishermen caught 49,000,000 fish and spent $30,000,000. This represents the homes in Tennessee that have telephones, which comprise seventy percent (70%) of the households. States that have enclosed a form for collecting fish kill data and information:

STATES PAGE Illinois ...... 29 Michigan ...... 44 Pennsylvania ...... 69 Tennessee ...... 86

Many persons are to be acknowledged for their assistance in the preparation of this publication. Special thanks go to S. Leary Jones, Director of the Tennessee Stream Pollution Control Division, at whose suggestion this project was undertaken. Also to be thanked for their support and advice are Dr. Glenn Gentry and Hudson Nichols of the Tennessee Game and Fish Commission, and C. E. Ruhr now with the Bureau of Sport Fish and Wildlife. This investigation would not have been possible without the fine cooperation of the individual State and Provincial agencies who provided so much helpful information, and the individuals responsible have our gratitude. Special thanks also go to Miss Anna Whitefield for her patience and diligence in the preparation of the manuscript and to Paul Sutton for his review and suggestions. John M. Stubbs Nashville, Tennessee March 1966

VI RAINBOW TROUT States with Values Page California ...... 17 Colorado ...... 20 Connecticut ...... 21 Illinois ...... 25 Nevada ...... 57 *New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Tennessee ...... 77 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00* Lowest cost per fish ...... 01 Average cost per fish ...... 1.18 Average cost per pound ...... 1.27 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 3 inches ...... $ .15 per fish 4 inches to 6 inches ...... 25 per fish 7 inches to 9 inches ...... 47 per fish 10 inches to 12 inches ...... 95 per fish 13 inches to 15 inches ...... 1.95 per fish 16 inches to 18 inches ...... 3.75 per fish 18 inches and over ...... 1.75 per pound Fingerling trout varied from $0.01 per fish to $0.17 per fish. The $10.00 is not figured in the averages on any of the fish. * Under state law New York is permitted to impose a penalty of $10.00 for each fish killed. BROOK TROUT States with Values Page California ...... 17 Colorado ...... 20 Connecticut ...... 21 Illinois ...... 25 *New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Rhode Island ...... 75 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish $10.00 Lowest cost per fish .01 Average cost per fish 1.23 Average cost per pound ...... 1.39 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 3 inches $ .15 per fish 4 inches to 6 inches .25 per fish 7 inches to 9 inches .47 per fish 10 inches to 12 inches .95 per fish 13 inches to 15 inches 1.95 per fish 16 inches to 18 inches 3.75 per fish 18 inches and over ...... 1.75 per pound Fingerling trout varied from $0.01 per fish to $0.30 per fish.

1 BROWN TROUT States with Values Page California ...... 17 Connecticut ...... 21 Illinois ...... 25 New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... $ .01 Average cost per fish ...... $ 1.33 Average cost per pound ...... $ 1.40 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 3 inches ...... $ .15 per fish 4 inches to 6 inches ...... 25 per fish 7 inches to 9 inches ...... 47 per fish 10 inches to 12 inches ...... 95 per fish 13 inches to 15 inches ...... 1.95 per fish 16 inches to 18 inches ...... 3.75 per fish 18 inches and over ...... 1.75 per pound Fingerling trout varied from $0.01 per fish to $0.17 per fish.

LOCH LEVEN, STEELHEAD AND GRAYLING States with Values Page New York ...... 63 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... $ 3.00 Average cost per fish ...... $ 6.50

COHO SALMON OR SILVER SALMON States with Values Page California ...... 17 New York ...... 63 Washington ...... 94 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 11 Average cost per fish ...... 75 Fingerlings ...... $ .11 per fish Yearlings ...... 1.40 per fish

CHUM SALMON States with Values Page New York ...... 63 Washington ...... 94 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... Average cost per fish ...... 2.25 Fingerling and yearling trout gave a low of $0.003 per fish.

2 LARGEMOUTH BASS

States with Values Page Florida ...... 23 Illinois ...... 25 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Tennessee ...... 77 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 16 Average cost per fish ...... 1.68 Average cost per pound ...... 2.00 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 2 inches ...... $ .28 per fish 2 inches to 4 inches ...... 33 per fish 4 inches to 6 inches ...... 53 per fish 6 inches to 8 inches ...... 1.00 per fish 8 inches to 10 inches ...... 1.21 per fish 10 inches to 12 inches ...... 2.48 per fish 12 inches to 14 inches ...... 3.16 per fish 14 inches and over ...... 4.75 per fish

SMALLMOUTH BASS

States with Values Page Illinois ...... 25 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Tennessee ...... 77 Virginia ...... 92 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 10 Average cost per fish ...... 1.60 Average cost per pound ...... 5.62 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 2 inches ...... $1.53 per fish 2 inches to 4 inches ...... 1.45 per fish 4 inches to 6 inches ...... 1.52 per fish 6 inches to 8 inches ...... 1.77 per fish 8 inches to 10 inches ...... 1.84 per fish 10 inches to 12 inches ...... 2.64 per fish 12 inches to 14 inches ...... 3.04 per fish 14 inches and over ...... 3.35 per fish Young-of-the-year smallmouth averaged $0.36 per fish.

3 SPOTTED BASS States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 16 Average cost per fish ...... 1.65 Average cost per pound None Given Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 2 inches $1.14 per fish 2 inches to 4 inches 1.16 per fish 4 inches to 6 inches 1.27 per fish 6 inches to 8 inches 1.56 per fish 8 inches to 10 inches 1.66 per fish 10 inches to 12 inches 2.24 per fish 12 inches to 14 inches 2.39 per fish 14 inches and over ...... 2.75 per fish

ROCK BASS States with Values Page Illinois ...... 25 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Tennessee ...... 77 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 20 Average cost per fish ...... 64 Average cost per pound ...... 2.63 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 5 inches ...... $ .74 per fish 5 inches to 7 inches ...... 79 per fish 8 inches and over ...... 99 per fish

STRIPED BASS (Rock Fish)

States with Values Page California ...... 17 New York ...... 63 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 6.65

4 WHITE BASS States with Values Page Illinois 25 Indiana ...... 39 New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ... 68 West Virginia ... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 24 Average cost per fish ...... 64 Average cost per pound ...... 40 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 5 inches ...... $ .65 per fish 5 inches to 8 inches ...... 76 per fish 8 inches and over ...... 1.03 per fish

YELLOW BASS States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 24 Average cost per fish ...... 41 Average cost per pound ...... None Given Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 5 inches ...... $ .24 per fish 6 inches to 7 inches ...... 27 per fish 8 inches and over ...... 73 per fish

SUNFISH (Bluegill, Warmouth, Green sunfish, Longear, Redear sunfish and others) States with Values Page Florida ...... 23 Illinois ...... 25 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Tennessee ...... 77 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 20 Average cost per fish ...... 54 Average cost per pound ...... 60 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 3 inches ...... $ .54 per fish 3 inches to 4 inches ...... 59 per fish 4 inches to 6 inches ...... 61 per fish 6 inches to 8 inches ...... 65 per fish 8 inches and over ...... 81 nor fish

5 CRAPPIE (White and Black) States with Values Page Illinois ...... 25 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 20 Average cost per fish ...... 71 Average cost per pound ...... 35 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 5 inches ...... $ .95 per fish 5 inches to 8 inches ...... 1.15 per fish 8 inches and over ...... 1.55 per fish

CATFISH (Channel, Flathead and Blue) States with Values Page Florida ...... 23 Illinois 25 Indiana ...... 39 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Tennessee ...... 77 Utah ...... 90 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 07 Average cost per fish .50 Average cost per pound ...... 53 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 3 inches $ .51 per fish 3 inches to 6 inches .44 per fish 6 inches to 9 inches .59 per fish 9 inches to 12 inches .66 per fish 12 inches to 16 inches .84 per fish

6 BULLHEADS (Black, Brown and Yellow) States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 07 Average cost per fish ...... 66 Average cost per pound ...... 25 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 6 inches ...... $ .77 per fish 6 inches to 12 inches ...... 90 per fish 12 inches and over ...... 1.48 per fish

MUSKELLUNGE States with Values Page New York ...... 63 *Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $25.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 10.00 Average cost per fish ...... 15.00 Average cost per pound ...... None Given * Ohio has a special price list for Muskellunge.

WALLEYE States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 50 Average cost per fish ...... 1.45 Average cost per pound ...... Not Given Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 6 inches ...... $1.30 per fish 6 inches to 10 inches ...... 1.56 per fish 10 inches to 15 inches ...... 1.63 per fish 15 inches and over ...... 1.80 per fish

7 SAUGER States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 1.39 Average cost per fish ...... 1.70 Average cost per pound ...... None Given

NORTHERN PIKE States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 1.39 Average cost per fish ...... 1.70 Average cost per pound ...... None Given

YELLOW PERCH or PIKE PERCH States with Values Page New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 20 Average cost per fish ...... 84 Average cost per pound ...... None Given Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 1 inch to 5 inches ...... $1.10 per fish 5 inches to 7 inches ...... 1.20 per fish 7 inches and over ...... 1.37 per fish

CHAIN PICKEREL States with Values Page New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Wisconsin ...... 99 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 1.00 Average cost per fish ...... 1.50 Average cost per pound ...... None Given Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 6 inches to 10 inches ...... $ 1.50 per fish 10 inches and over ...... 1.75 per fish

8 CARP and CARPSUCKER States with Values Page Illnois ...... 25 Indiana ...... 39 New York ...... 63 West Virginia ...... 95 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 03 Average cost per fish ...... 22 Average cost per pound ...... 12 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 0 to 1 pound $ .14 per fish 1 pound to 5 pounds ...... 23 per fish 5 pounds to 10 pounds ...... 32 per fish 10 pounds and over ...... 05 per pound

SUCKER and REDHORSE (White, Hog, Spotted and others) States with Values Page Illinois ...... 25 Indiana ...... 39 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 Tennessee ...... 77 West Virginia ...... 95 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 03 Average cost per fish ...... 17 Average cost per pound ...... 08 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 0 to 1 pound $ .07 per fish 1 pound to 5 pounds ...... 21 per fish 5 pounds to 10 pounds .28 per fish 10 pounds and over ...... 08 per pound

DRUM States with Values Page Illinois ...... 25 New York ...... 63 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 05 Average cost per fish ...... 17 Average cost per pound ...... None Given Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 0 to 1 pound $ .15 per fish 1 pound to 2 pounds ...... 20 per fish 2 pounds to 5 pounds ...... 28 per fish 5 pounds and over ...... 17 per pound

9 SHAD States with Values Page New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 95 West Virginia ...... 95 Only three costs were given, $10.00 per fish was the highest and $ .80 per 100 fish and $20.40 per 1000 fish were the other figures.

MOONEYE States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Only two values were given, New York at $10.00 per fish and Illinois at $0.03 per pound.

GAR and DOGFISH These fish were listed but no charges or values were given.

BUFFALO (Bigmouth, Smallmouth and Black) States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Ohio ...... 65 Highest cost per fish ...... $10.00 Lowest cost per fish ...... 05 Average cost per fish ...... 37 Average cost per pound ...... 10 Average cost per fish with a size distribution given: 0 to 1 pound $ .05 per fish 1 pound to 5 pounds ...... 30 per fish 5 pounds to 10 pounds ...... 75 per fish 10 pounds and over ...... 10 per pound

PADDLEFISH States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Only two values were given, New York at $10.00 per fish and Illinois at $0.11 per pound.

10 EEL

States with Values Page Illinois 25 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Only three figures were given: $ .18 per pound 0 to 18 inches $ .25 per fish 18 inches and over ...... 40 per fish

STURGEON (Rock and Lake)

States with Values Page Illinois 25 New York ...... 63 Wisconsin ...... 99 Only three figures were given, $10.00 per fish or $0.21 per pound.

BAIT MINNOWS, SHINERS and CHUB MINNOWS

States with Values Page Florida ...... 23 Illinois 25 Ohio ...... 65 Pennsylvania ...... 68 West Virginia ...... 95 Per pound prices range from $0.50 per pound to $5.00 per pound. Per fish ...... $0 .02 - $0.03 Per 100 0.50 - 1.20 Per 1000 6.00

CRAYFISH

States with Values Page Ohio ...... 65 $1.00 per dozen

11 TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

ADMINISTRATIVE WERE DAMAGES COLLECTED LAWSUIT ACTION OTHER YES NO Alabama . — 1/ — — _ — Alaska ...... — — — — — Arizona ...... — — — — — Arkansas ...... — — _ _ _ California ...... X 2/ X — X — Colorado ...... X — — X — Connecticut ...... — X — X — Delaware ...... — — — — — Florida ...... X — — X — Georgia ...... — — — — — Hawaii ...... — — — — — Idaho ...... — — — — — Illinois ...... — X — X — Indiana ...... — X — X — Iowa ...... — — — — — Kansas ...... — — — — — Kentucky ...... — — — — — Louisiana — — — X Maine ...... — — — — — Maryland ...... — — — — — Massachusetts — — — — — Michigan ...... X X — X — Minnesota ...... — X — X — Mississippi ...... X — — X — Missouri ...... X X — — X Montana ...... — — — — — Nebraska ...... — — — — — Nevada ...... — — Correction X — New Hampshire X — — X — New Jersey ...... X X — X — New Mexico ...... — — — — — 12

TYPES OF LEGAL ACTION

ADMINISTRATIVE WERE DAMAGES COLLECTED LAWSUIT ACTION OTHER YES NO New York . X X — X — North Carolina — — — — — North Dakota ...... — — — — — Ohio — X X — Oklahoma ...... — X — X Oregon ...... — — — — — Pennsylvania ...... — — Voluntary X — Contribution Rhode Island ...... — — Volunteer X — Payment South Carolina — — — — — South Dakota ...... — — — — — Tennessee ...... X X X X — Texas ...... — — — — — Utah ...... — X — X — Vermont ...... — X — — X Virginia ...... X — — X — Washington ...... — X — X — West Virginia ...... — X X — Wisconsin ...... X — X — Wyoming ...... X X — X — CANADIAN PROVINCES Alberta British Columbia — Manitoba New Brunswick . . . — Newfoundland Nova Scotia ...... X — — X Ontario ...... — — — Quebec ...... — — — Saskatchewan 1/ No information was given on the questionnaire. 2/ Information was received from the questionnaire. 13 VALUES PLACED BY STATES AND CANADIAN PROVINCES ON SPORT FISHING

STATES VALUE HOW DERIVED DATE Alabama None Given Alaska None Given Arizona $30,500,000 Study 1960 Arkansas $77,000,000 Survey 1960 California None diven Colorado $60,000,000 Unknown 1962 Connecticut $10,450,000 (Inland Fishery Only) 1962 Delaware None Given Florida None Given Georgia $50,000,000 Unknown 1962 Hawaii None Given Idaho None Given Illinois $92,250,000 Survey 1960 Indiana $59,000,000 Unknown 1962 Iowa None Given Kansas None Given Kentucky $33,000,000 Unknown 1962 Louisiana None Given Maine None Given Maryland $5,000,000 Unknown 1962 Massachusetts $40,000,000 Unknown 1962 Michigan None Given Minnesota None Given Mississippi $40,000,000 Unknown 1962 Missouri $46,272,000 Crosley Survey 1962 Montana $37,000,000 Economic Survey 1960 Nebraska None Given Nevada $6,100,000 Unknown 1962 New Hampshire None Given New Jersey None Given New Mexico None Given New York $186,000,000 Crosley Survey 1955

14 VALUES PLACED BY STATES AND CANADIAN PROVINCES ON SPORT FISHING

STATES VALUE HOW DERIVED DATE North Carolina None Given North Dakota None Given Ohio $85,000,000 National Hunting and Fishing Survey 1960 Oklahoma $50,000,000 Unknown 1962 Oregon $16,815,000 Survey 1962 Pennsylvania $57,000,000 National Hunting and Fishing Survey 1960 Rhode Island None Given South Carolina $10,000,000 License Sales and Estimates 1962 South Dakota None Given Tennessee $30,000,000 Survey 1962 Texas $285,000,000 United States Bureau of Census Survey 1960 Utah $20,724,913 Economic Value Study 1955 Vermont None Given Virginia None Given Washington $693,000,000 Extensive Study 1955 West Virginia $26,800,000 National Hunting and Fishing Survey 1960 Wisconsin None Given Wyoming $40,500,000 Statistical Laboratory Estimates 1961 CANADIAN PROVINCES Alberta $15,000,000 Unknown 1962 British Columbia $30,000,000 Unknown 1962 Manitoba $14,000,000 Expenditures of Residents and Non-residents 1962 New Brunswick None Given Newfoundland None Given Nova Scotia None Given Ontario None Given Ottawa None Given Quebec None Given Saskatchewan None Given

15 ALABAMA "Neither the Water Improvement Commission nor any other state agency of Alabama has, to our knowledge, taken legal action for damages resulting from the loss of fish attributed to pollution. Since 1950, representatives of the Water Improvement Commission or the State Department of Conservation have investigated some 41 fish kills occurring within the state. Eleven of these fish kills were considered to be of major severity, while the remaining 30 were classified as of minor consequence. Seven of the major fish kills and 16 of those considered to be of major importance were attributed to industrial waste. Three major kills were traced to the application of agricultural pesticides, and the cause of one major fish kill was undetermined. Sewage pollution was considered to have resulted in one minor fish kill, and in one instance the inadvertent loss of road construction materials caused a loss of fish of minor severity. Twelve fish kills also classified as minor were attributed to either natural or unknown causes. While persuasive action was taken by the Commission in all cases where loss of fish could be assigned to industrial or sewage pollution, in only one case did the Commission find it necessary to issue a cease and desist order. "There is no Alabama statute that, to our knowledge, permits the Commission or any other agency of the state to bring legal action to obtain monetary damages for the loss of fish through the discharge of pollutional materials."

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: February 26, 1963 From: I. B. Byrd, Chief Biologist Fisheries Section State of Alabama Department of Conservation Montgomery 4, Alabama Reply: March 20, 1963 From: Arthur N. Beck, Technical Secretary Water Improvement Commission State of Alabama Rooms 324-326, State Office Building Montgomery 4, Alabama

ALASKA "The State of Alaska has not had court cases or out-of-court damages resulting from fish kills to the present time, although provisions for this are incorporated in the Fish and Game Code."

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: February 26, 1963 From: Alex H. McRea, Director Sport Fish Division Department of Fish and Game State of Alaska Subport Building Juneau, Alaska

16 ARIZONA No information regarding court cases or monetary values was given.

Fishing Value: $30,500,000 "This figure is based on a study made by the University of Arizona for the year 1960. The normal annual increase in license sales is figured into the figure above so that it is the anticipated figure for 1963 (cost increases between 1960 and 1963 are not taken into account)." Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Building Phoenix, Arizona

ARKANSAS "To my knowledge we have never taken the kind of legal action which you are interested in with a polluting source and collected damages. "Years ago before the advent of the Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission our Game Wardens would fine companies and individuals a nominal amount whenever they had good evidence that a fish kill was caused by these people or companies. Since the advent of the Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission the emphasis has been placed on working with the polluting agencies and devising means to correct the situation rather than punish the offenders."

Fishing Value: The State of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission places a value of $77,000,000 on the fishing in their state. This was derived from a 1960 survey and calculation. Reply: July 18, 1963 From: Andrew H. Hulsey, Chief Fisheries Division State of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Game and Fish Building, State Capitol Grounds Little Rock, Arkansas

CALIFORNIA "As the three cases cited below would indicate, we have attempted civil proceedings only rarely. The vast majority of our pollution actions have been under Section 5650 of the Fish and Game Code which pro- vides for criminal action with a maximum fine of $500.00. "The three civil cases are summarized below: Case A (a) Case in subject: People of California vs. Rasor and Sons Lumber (b) Date: January, 1956 (Date of Loss) (c) Total damages asked: $4,780. (d) Total damages received: $4,000. (e) Total number of fish killed: Unknown (12 salmon recovered) (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown

17 CALIFORNIA "The Rasor and Son case involved the virtual destruction of a very small coastal stream by heavy siltation as a result of improper logging practices in the adjacent watershed. Because of the extent of damage, only 12 salmon were recovered. Our claims for damages were based on the following three factors: (1) Value of the fish killed in the initial event a. Estimated population of 20 female silver salmon with an estimated total potential of 50,000 eggs. b. Estimated population of 24 resident trout with a potential total production of 24,000 eggs. c. Assuming a 10% mortality if these eggs were raised in a hatchery, and applying a known hatchery cost of 1.1 cents/ fingerling produced, we arrived at a value of $733.00 for the initial fish loss. (2) Value of a five-year period of spawning bed loss Observations on similar streams elsewhere in the area led to our estimate that heavy silt deposits would not be flushed out of the stream for at least five years. The value of fish in the initial kill was, therefore, multiplied by five to give a figure of $3,665.00. (3) Cost of stocking program to re-establish populations It was claimed that re-establishment of salmon and trout populations would require a fingerling planting program over a two-mile stretch of the stream in accordance with the following schedule: Silver salmon-2500 fish/mile for three years = 15,000 fish. Trout —2500 fish/mile for four years = 20,000 fish. At 1.1 cents/fish (based on hatchery costs), silver salmon would cost $165.00 and trout would cost $220.00, for a total of $385.00. Total claim therefore was arrived at by adding subtotals (1) through (3) : $ 733.00 3,665.00 385.00

$4,783.00 The Company offered an out of court settlement of $4,000.00 which we accepted. Case B This was a fish loss due to a shutoff of stream flow and pollution was in no way involved. It is summarized below to indicate another method used to place a value on fishlife. (a) Date of fish loss: July 23, 1956. (b) Area of fish loss: Upper Owens River, East Portal of Crowley Lake. (c) Reason for loss: Shutdown of water flow through the tunnel from Grant Lake to the Owens River due to excessive water shortage. (d) Type of fish: Estimated 26,000 trout—various sizes. (e) Responsible Agency: City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power. (f) Disposition of damages: Out of court settlement for $2,455.48.

18 CALIFORNIA (g) Method of determining damages: $0.89 average cost per pound of trout produced in State hatcheries dur- the 1954-55 fiscal year.

Case C (a) Case in subject: People of California vs. Stauffer Chemical Company. (b) Date: May, 1957. (c) Total damages asked: $13,369.38. (d) Total damages received: $13,369.00. (e) Total number of fish killed: 2009 striped bass (minimum count). "The striped bass sport fishery is of major economic and recreational importance to the San Francisco Bay area. It is estimated that striped bass provide two million days of angling recreation to more than 150,000 anglers each year, and that California sportsmen spend $18,000,000 annually on their bass fishing trips. "Based on a total catch of about 1,500,000 fish per year, this would mean that each legal-sized bass was worth about $12 to the fisherman, in terms of the sum he was willing to spend to catch it. "It was decided to take a more conservative approach, however, and base the value on the actual cost of replacing the fish. "To assure a firm legal basis, damages were asked only for the loss of those fish which had actually been tallied by witnesses who could testify in court. Unquestionably this was far short of the actual total kill. No claim was made for sculpins, anchovies, or other nongame fish, nor for loss of invertebrate life." "Action to set adequate waste discharge requirements for the Stauffer plant has been taken by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Pollution Control Board. The Department of Fish and Game has recommended standards which will require the company to neutralize its acid discharge and treat its chemical wastes so that no concentrations deleterious to fishlife will reach the waters of San Francisco Bay. "The department, with the co-operation of the State Department of Public Health, has been conducting bioassays on the Stauffer wastes for several months in order to work out and substantiate its recommendations to the Water Pollution Control Board."

How Value of Fish Was Determined It was found that the closest source at which live striped bass could be obtained commercially would be Coos Bay, Oregon. The Oregon Fish Commission informed the department that live striped bass could be obtained there for 40 cents per pound, f.o.b. Coos Bay. Allowing a very conservative 10 percent mortality for in-transit losses, and estimating the average weight of the fish at six pounds, an estimated 13,260 pounds of fish would have to be purchased, at a cost of $5,304. The Flying Tigers Air Line estimated cost of air transportation from Coos Bay to Oakland Airport at $7,020. Cost of transporting fish to and from the plane would total $867.36. Oxygen for the fish en route would cost an additional $178.02. The grand total, not counting the cost of special aluminum tanks which would have to be constructed to haul the fish in, would amount to $13,369.38."

19 CALIFORNIA Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: March 11, 1963 From: W. T. Shannon, Director Department of Fish and Game The Resources Agency of California 722 Capitol Avenue Sacramento 14, California

Reply: October 27, 1964 From: David C. Joseph, Marine Biologist IV State of California—Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game 722 Capitol Mall Sacramento, California 95814

COLORADO The following information was received from the Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department: Case A (a) Case in subject: Colorado Game and Fish Commission vs. New Jersey Zinc Company, Civil Action No. 1224, Eagle County, Colorado (b) Date: Loss on February 27, 1957—Settlement: April 6, 1960 (c) Total damages asked: $21,808.00 (d) Total damages received: $13,604.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 60,000 (approximately) (f) Total weight of fish killed: 13,604 lbs. (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species $1.00 30,000 Rainbow $13,196.00 1.00 and Brook trout 408.00 adults 30,000 Rainbow trout fingerlings TOTAL $13,604.00

Case B (a) Case in subject: Colorado Games and Fish Commission vs. Orkin Exterminating Company (b) Date: April 25, 1962 (Out of court settlement) (c) Total damages asked: $6,725.00 (d) Total damages received: $2,690.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 6,725 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 1,345 lbs.

COLORADO (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species 6725 Rainbow $2,690.00 $2.00 adults TOTAL $2,690.00

REMARKS "Our success in cases of this type seems to be limited to 'flash disasters' where fish are killed outright and the cause immediately pin-pointed. "Lingering or long term pollution destroying bottom fauna cause more damage but are not spectacular enough for immediate cash settlements."

Fishing Value: $60,000,000 Annually Colorado Game, Fish and Parks Department 6060 North Broadway Denver 16, Colorado

CONNECTICUT The following information was received from the Connecticut State Board of Fisheries and Game: Case A (a) Case in subject: Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game, State Fish Hatchery, Windsor Locks, Connecticut, vs. Roncari Construction Company, Inc. CEMENT SPILL (b) Date: January 7, 1958 (c) Total damages asked: $7,817.76 (d) Total damages received: $7,817.76 (e) Total number of fish killed: 32,900 (0 Total weight of fish killed• (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per killed and number each species thousand fish 5,000 yearling brook trout $1,535.00 $307.00 10,000 yearling brown trout 1,740.00 174.00 16,000 yearling rainbow trout 2,800.00 175.00 1,900 2 year old brown trout 1,168.50 615.00

Additional Fees: Consultants and lab analysis $274.00 Extra department labor 300.26 GRA ND TOTAL $7,817.76

CONNECTICUT Case B Willimantic River (a) Case in subject: Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game vs. Universal Plating, CYANIDE (b) Date: May 25, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $168.74 (d) Total damages received: $168.74 (e) Total number of fish killed: 400 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 160 lbs. (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish 400 brown trout $168.74 $1.05/1b.

TOTAL $168.74 Case C Hockanum River (a) Case in subject: Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game vs. LaPointe Industries CYANIDE (b) Date: July 16, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $28.35 (d) Total damages received: $28.35 (e) Total number of fish killed: 80 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 27 lbs. (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish 80 Brown trout $28.35 $1.05/1b. TOTAL $28.35 Case D Rimmon Brook (a) Case in subject: Connecticut Board of Fisheries and Game vs. Aerial Sprayers, Inc. DDT (b) Date: May 19, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: $32.00 (d) Total damages received: $32.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 100 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 18 lbs. (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish 100 wild brook trout $32.00 $1.80/1b. TOTAL $32.00 Fishing Value: $10,450,000* * Just inland, not salt water. Connecticut State Board of Fisheries and Game State Office Building Hartford 15, Connecticut

22 DELAWARE No information regarding court cases or monetary values was given.

Fishing Value: (None Given) State of Delaware Board of Game and Fish Commissioners Dover, Delaware

FLORIDA "The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has not taken direct court action regarding any pollution kills, however, the Florida State Board of Health has recently filed suit and enjoined Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company after their wastes had killed fish in the Alafia River. "The phosphate company was required to expend some $273,000 to develop and construct treatment facilities for their wastes and volunteered to pay the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission $9,000 to pay part of the cost of restocking the river. The Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission then asked for $30,000 and 880 acres of water owned by the company for public fishing. The company, of course, received much undesirable publicity concerning their pollution. They agreed to pay the cost of restocking the Alafia River and made available immediately the Virginia-Carolina Christina recreational area. They have allowed the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to inventory all unused phosphate pit areas owned by their companies and outline plans for the recreational development of these areas. "By handling these matters in this way, Virginia-Carolina Chemical Company has gained excellent public relations and set an example for other companies instead of being branded a polluter."

COST TO REPLACE ALL FISH KILLED* Species* Cost/lb. % Present Cost per River** Largemouth bass $2.00 10 $17,600.00 Catfish, Panfish 1.00 80 70,400.00 Minnows 0.50 10 4,400.00 Total $92,400.00 * Species include all fish in unpolluted branch of river but grouped into panfish, etc.

COST TO STOCK WITH FINGERLING SIZE FISH Species Size (Inches) #/A COST/FISH' Cost/River J. Dequine S. Fish Culturist Largemouth bass 6-8 100 $0.10 $ 8,800 Leesburg, Florida Bluegill 2 1000 0.10 88,000 (Profit) Catfish 3-4 100 0.10 8,000 Total $104,800** * Cost per pound of fingerlings is $80.00 for 800 fish ** Add 20% for mortality

23 FLORIDA AVERAGE COST TO RESTOCK WITH FINGERLING SIZE FISH Species Size (Inches) #/A Cost/Fish Cost/per River Largemouth bass 4-6 100 $0.50 $ 44,000 Bluegill 3-4 1000 0.25 220,000 Catfish 3-4 100 0.25 22,000 Total $286,000* * Add 20% for mortality

AVERAGE COST TO RESTOCK WITH BREEDER SIZE FISH Species Size (Inches) #/A Cost/Fish Cost/per River" Largemouth bass 7-9 10 $1.00 $ 8,800 Bluegill 4-6 50 0.50 22,000 Catfish 6-8 50 0.50 22,000 Total $52,800* * Add 20% for mortality ** Assumed carrying capacity of 100 pounds of fish per surface acre of river water.

Fishing Value: (None Given) Enclosures: "Phosphate Mining Country, Fish Management Areas" Copies of letters from: Carlton P. Maddox, General Counsel Florida State Board of Health Jacksonville 1, Florida Joseph C. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General State of Florida Tallahassee, Florida Copy of letter and report on: "Alafia River Pollution and Fish Kill 1959 Through 1961" (Polk and Hillsborough Counties Florida) Robert F. Klant, Fishery Biologist South Florida Region

Reply: April 17, 1963 From: A. D. Aldrich, Director State of Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Tallahassee, Florida

GEORGIA "As the questionnaire readily indicates we have not been successful in Georgia with regard to legal action for damages collected from

24 GEORGIA pollution caused fish kills. I hope the situation will be alleviated in tn. not too distant future." Fishing Value: The State of Georgia Game and Fish Commission places a value of $50,000,000 on fishing in their State. Reply: July 3, 1963 From: Howard D. Zeller, Chief Fisheries Division State Game and Fish Commission State of Georgia 401 State Capitol Atlanta 3, Georgia

HAWAII "Please be advised that Hawaii has never prosecuted a pollution- caused fish-kill." Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: March 4, 1963 From: Kenji Ego, Chief Fisheries Branch Division of Fish and Game Department of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawaii 400 S. Beretania Street Honolulu 13, Hawaii

IDAHO No information regarding court cases or monetary values was given. Fishing Value: (None Given) Department of Fish and Game State of Idaho 518 Front Street Boise, Idaho

ILLINOIS "Since we have had numerous cases that were settled out of court, we are listing only three of the most recent settlements. "The abatement of pollution and collection of damages is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Sanitary Water Board. The Department of Conservation is an investigating agency working in cooperation with the Division of Sanitary Engineering." Case A (a) Case in subject: State of Illinois, Department of Conservation vs. Koppers Co., Inc. (b) Date: May 29, 1962 (c) Total damages asked: $5,225.43 (d) Total damages received: $1,200.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 17,930 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown

25 ILLINOIS Case A (Continued) Individual Species Number Value per Fish Total Value Shad 645 $0.66 $ 38.70 Largemouth bass 126 1.15 145.40 Gar 2,349 0.06 140.84 Bluegill 1,460 0.33 481.80 Crappie 1,460 0.75 1,095.00 Bullhead 1,333 0.08 106.64 Sunfish 6,009 0.33 1,982.97 Buffalo 1,630 0.28 456.40 Carp 941 0.28 263.48 Channel catfish 370 0.69 255.30 Drum 274 0.28 76.72 Suckers 148 0.28 41.44 Warmouth 96 0.33 31.68 Minnows 963 0.06 57.78 Flathead 74 0.69 51.06 Eel 52 0.06 3.12 17,930 $5,225.43 Case B (a) Case in subject: State of Illinois, Department of Conservation vs. Mayfair Management Company (b) Date: September 25, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $594.98 (d) Total damages received: $305.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 15,152 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown Individual Species Number Value per Fish Total Value Stoneroller 1,663 $0.05 $ 83.15 Dace 2,032 0.05 101.60 Minnows 8,131 0.03 243.93 Creek Chub 1,663 0.05 83.15 Common Sucker 1,663 0.05 83.15 15,152 $ 594.98 Case C (a) Case in subject: State of Illinois, Department of Conservation vs. Mid-South Chemical Corporation (b) Date: August 1, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: $77,368.87 (d) Total damages received: $7,736.87 (e) Total number of fish killed: 212,232 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown Individual Species Number Value per Fish Total Value Carp 41,699 $0.28 $11,675.72 Bullheads 32,330 0.08 2,586.40 Channel catfish 27,430 0.69 18,926.70 Buffalo 11,237 0.28 14,059.64 Drum 50,213 0.28 3,146.36 Crappie 25,258 0.75 18,943.50 White and yellow bass 12,478 0.33 4,117.74 Bluegill 11,587 0.33 3,912.81 212,232 $77,368.87

26 ILLINOIS "We have had numerous cases of fish kills caused by pollution over the past several years. Some of these have been settled out of court but none have ever been taken to court. The three most recent cases that were settled are listed. "During 1962 there were fourteen fish kills caused by pollution with an estimated 295,111 fish killed valued at $60,590.37."

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Division of Fisheries STANDARD PRICE LIST OF FISH FOR POLLUTION FISH KILLS Based on (1962-1963) Commercial Values

Value Per Species Size Group Fish Game Fish Bass (including largemouth, small- 1 to 6 inches $ 0.40 mouth, and spotted) [average 7 to 10 inches 1.25 prices of 14 dealers] 11 inches plus 2.69 Sunfish (including bluegill, warmouth, rock bass, green sunfish, 1 to 5 inches 0.24 crappie, white and yellow bass) 6 to 7 inches 0.27 [average prices of 15 dealers] 8 inches plus 0.73 Catfish (including channel, blue, 1 to 6 inches 0.23 flathead, all species of bullheads) 7 to 11 inches 0.49 [average prices of 14 dealers] 12 inches plus 0.96 Pike (including walleye, sauger and northern) [average prices of 3 all sizes 1.39 dealers] Trout (all species) [average prices all sizes 1.30 of 3 dealers]

Non-game Fish

Bait minnows all sizes 0.02

Dogfish No Charge

Gar No Charge

Shad No Charge

Commercial Fish Carp (including white carp and 0 to 1 pound (0.5) 0.03 suckers) $0.05 per pound 1 to 5 pounds (3.0) 0.15 5 to 10 pounds (7.5) 0.38 10 pounds plus 5c/lb.

27 ILLINOIS Standard Price List (continued)

Value Per Species Size Group Fish Buffalo (includes all species $0.10 0 to 1 pound (0.5) 0.05 per pound 1 to 5 pounds (3.0) 0.30 5 to 10 pounds (7.5) 0.75 10 pounds plus 10c/lb. Drum $0.09 per pound 0 to 1 pound (0.5) 0.05 1 to 2 pounds (1.5) 0.14 2 to 5 pounds (3.5) 0.31 5 pounds plus 9c/lb. Catfish (including large size flathead and blue) $0.25 per pound 25c/lb. Sturgeon (all species) $0.21 per pound 21c/lb. Paddlefish $0.11 per pound 11c/lb. Eel $0.18 per pound 18c/lb. Mooneye $0.03 per pound 3c/lb.

Sources of prices on file in Division of Fisheries Office at Springfield, Illinois

Fishing Value: "We have an estimated one million fishermen in Illinois. If the value of $95.25 is used per fisherman (based on the 1960 Natural Survey of Fishing and Hunting), the value of fishing in Illinois would be $95,250,000. We have not had a survey of the value of fishing in Illinois."

Reply: March 8, 1963 From: William J. Harth, Superintendent Division of Fisheries State of Illinois Department of Conservation State Office Building 400 South Spring Street Springfield, Illinois

28 WILLIAM S. SMITH WIWAMT.LODGC AssISTAIIT DIRECTOR DmUWM

STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE OFINCIC BUILDING 400 SOUTH SPRING ST. SPRINGFIELD

CHICAGO 0PPICE-150 H. LASALLZ ST.

TO: All Conservation Officers, Fishery and Gams Midlogista

PROM: William T. Lodge, Director DATE: August 6, 1961 SUBJECT: Procedure to be Followed in Pollution Cases

In the past there has been some misunderstanding concerning the duties of Department personnel in pollution cases. Therefore, to clarify those duties and to insure the Department meets its responsibilities in cases involving pollution, the following procedures will be carried out:

1. When a report of pollution is received, an initial inspection is to be made immediately by the county conservation officer to determine whether any damage has occurred to fish or wildlife. 2. If the conservation officer's initial inspection reveals that fish or wildlife are being or have been affected, he will contact the appropriate district fishery or game biologist immediately. If fish or wildlife are not being or have not been affected, the conservation officer will contact the district biologist who will in turn phone the nearest Regional office of the Division of Sanitary Engineering, Illinois Department of Public Health and also notify the Springfield office of the Divisions of Fisheries or Game Management. (Al]. calls from conservation officers to biologists are to be made collect.)

3. Won being notified by a conservation officer of a fish or wildlife kill, which is believed to have been caused by pollution, the biologist will call the nearest Regional office of the Division of Sanitary Engineering, Illinois Department of Public Health.

4. After contacting the sanitary engineer, the biologist will then proceed to the kill area and perform his investigation. The conservation officer is to assist the biologist wherever required. Pollution kills are to be considered top priority and these investigations are not to be delayed. If there are prior commitments On other work, arrangements should be made to see that prior commitments are satisfactorily accomplished.

The following statements are made to point out certain responsibilities and policies regarding pollution cases: 1. The biologists' primary responsibility in a pollution caused fish kill of fish or wildlife is to prepare a monetary estimate of fishes or wildlife destroyed. It is not his responsibility or that of the conservation officer to take water samples.

29 WILLIAM T.- LOMB& WILLIAM C. SMITH GIRD/TOR As.r.v.orr DIRECTOR

STATE OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION STATE OFFICI BUILDING 400 SOUTH SPRING ST. SPRINGFIELD

CHICAGO OF/ICI-100 N. WANK ST.

2. BIOLOGISTS OR CONSERVATION OFFICERS ARE NOT TO INVESTIGATE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS, INDUSTRIAL EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANTS, COAL MINES, CANNERIES, DAIRIES OR OTHER POSSIBLE SOURCES OF POLLUTION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL OR TO TRY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE OPERATION IN QUESTION IS ACTUALLY CAUSING POLLUTION. SUCH INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRE THE ATTENTION OF PERSONNEL TRAINED IN SANITARY. ENGINEERING AND ARE THEREFORE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF Public HEALTH.

3. THE CONSERVATION OFFICER OR BIOLOGIST SHOULD NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS AN ENFORCER OF POLLUTION .LAWS. THE LEGAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT AGENCY IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS THE SANITARY WATER BOARD. ACTIONS OR INJUNCTIONS AGAINST A POLLUTOR SHALL BE TAKEN BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL UPON REQUEST FROM THE SANITARY WATER BOARD.

4. DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL ARE NOT TO MAKE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE COMMENT ABOUT THE RESULTS OF A POLLUTION INVESTIGATION SINCE THE INFORMATION OBTAINED MAY BE USED IN COURT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

30 OUTLINE OF STEPS TO BE FOLLOWED IN ILLINOIS POLLUTION CASES

POLLUTION CASES INVOLVING FISH KILLS 1. The Division of Fisheries in the Department of Conservation and/or the Division of Sanitary Engineering in the Department of Public Health is notified. 2. The Division of Sanitary Engineering notifies their field engineer to make an investigation. The Division of Fisheries notifies local fishery biologist to make investigation. 3. The Sanitary Engineer takes pH, D.O., B.O.D. tests and/or samples for the various chemical pollutants suspected. Samples are sent to the Division of Laboratories at Springfield for analysis. The fishery biologist takes pH, D.O., and counts fish that are killed as to species and size. 4. The sanitary engineer writes a narrative report of observations and results of the tests he has made. This is sent to the Spring- field office with a copy going to the Division of Fisheries. The fishery biologist fills out a pollution report form and estimates the number, kind, and size of fish killed in the area polluted. This report is sent to the Springfield office with a copy to the Division of Sanitary Engineering. 5. The reports are turned over to the attorney in the Division of Sanitary Engineering. The attorney will study the reports and will determine the disposition of the case from the amount of damages done. 6. If the damages warrant further action, the reports are then brought before the Sanitary Water Board. 7. The Sanitary Water Board reviews the report and makes recommendations as to whether the case should be turned over to the Attorney General. 8. If the case is turned over to the Attorney General, he will file suit in court to collect damages and will ask for an immediate injunction to stop the pollution. 9. The party charged with the damages can negotiate with the Attorney General to settle the case out of court. The usual length of time before the case is taken up in court is 3 months or longer.

POLLUTION CASES WHERE NO FISH KILL IS INVOLVED 1. Sanitary engineer will analyze water to determine extent of aquatic life. Sanitary engineer usually works in cooperation with party suspected of causing the pollution. 2. Formal hearing is held with the Technical office of the Sanitary Water Board. 3. Case is then brought before the Sanitary Water Board. 4. Sanitary Water Board recommends abatement be accomplished by a certain date and progress reports are submitted. 5. If pollution is not abated by the appointed date, the Sanitary Water Board will reconsider the case and may go to Attorney General for immediate action. Penalty of $100 per day can be imposed.

POLLUTION CAUSED FISH KILL INVESTIGATION The Division of Fisheries of the Illinois Department of Conservation is responsible for making an investigation of a major fish kill caused by pollution. Upon receipt of information regarding a pollution fish kill

31 the Division of Sanitary Engineers of the Illinois Department of Public Health is to be notified by the fishery biologist making the investigation. The sanitary engineer will be responsible for making any physical or chemical tests in the polluted area. The fishery biologist's investigation will consist of the following:

1. Determine the extent of the fish kill area. Streams: Establish upstream and downstream limits. Lakes: Total surface area involved. 2. Make detailed counts of fish killed by species and size groups at various stations located within the kill area. 3. Determine the total number and value of fish killed. 4. Water tests such as D.O. and pH may be taken if the fishery biologist feels they are essential for his report but they are not required. 6. Summarize the data collected and file reports to the Divisions of Fisheries and Sanitary Engineering.

The procedures for making the fish kill estimate is as follows: 1. A minimum of three sampling stations should be taken within the area of the fish kill. These stations should be evenly distrib- uted throughout the kill area. 2. Each station should consist of a measured area: Streams: Measure length of section being sampled in feet. Lakes: Measure station as shoreline length, square feet or surface acres. 3. At each station, all of the fish should be separated into size groups by species and counted. The size grouping will be done according to that listed in the standard price list. A sample of the fish will have to be measured and/or weighed. 4. All of the sampling stations are to be averaged as to area. Streams: Length in feet. Lakes: Square feet or acres. 5. A multiplying factor is used to determine the estimated total number of fish killed by determined species size groups. 6. The value per fish (from standard price list) of each species size group is multiplied by the estimated total number to determine the total value. 7. The total value of all species and sizes will give the total estimated damages done to the fish in the area affected by the pollution fish kill.

The procedures for reporting the fish kill damages are as follows: 1. The fishery biologist making the investigation will write a narrative report in factual style of his investigations to include observatons, any tests made, physical damages and total monetary value of damages done to fish life. 2. A map is to be drawn of the polluted area showing the stream or lake with roads, bridges, nearby towns, sampling station locations (numbered as listed in report form), area of fish kill, known source of pollution, and any other pertinent information that might be of value in the pollution case.

32 3. A title page for the report will be made up as follows: Illinois Department of Conservation Division of Fisheries

POLLUTION CAUSED FISH KILL REPORT OF (Name of Water Area) Submitted by: Name of Biologist: Title Date The above are to be placed on title page as follows: Illinois Depart- ment of Conservation, Division of Fisheries—centered at top of page; Pollution Caused Fish Kill Report—centered in the middle of page, Submitted by—placed in lower right hand portion of page. 4. The report of the pollution caused fish kill will be assembled in the following order: a. Title page b. Narrative report c. Report form—page 1 d. Report form—page 2 e. Map of area 5. The report will be submitted to the following: a. District fishery biologist b. Area fishery biologist c. Two to Division of Fisheries (one will be forwarded to Division of Sanitary Engineering)

Procedures For Completion of POLLUTION-CAUSED FISH KILL REPORT County: Record name of county in which major portion of water area is located. Nearest Town: Record nearest major town to water area. Date: Record date of fish kill investigation. Water (Name): Record name of water area. Owner: Record name of owner of water area (for impoundments only). Address: Record address of owner. 1. Reported by: Record name of person that first reported fish kill to personnel of either Department of Conservation or Division of Sani- tary Engineering. Date: Record date fish kill was first reported. 2. Persons contacted: Record names and addresses of persons contacted in regard to fish kill and pollution. 3. Sanitary Engineer notified: Date: Record date engineer was notified. Time: Record time engineer was notified. Name: Record name of sanitary engineer notified. Address: Record address of sanitary engineer notified. 4. Source of pollution: Check appropriate box. 33 A. Agricultural Operations 1. Poisons: Include any of the insecticides or pesticides after delivery to the farm no matter how they got into the stream. 2. Fertilizers: Include commercial fertilizers after delivery to farm. 3. Manure drainage, ensilage liquors, feed lot operations: This category is not restricted to these items but is intended to include all causes brought about by poor "housekeeping." Exclude commercial dairy operations. B. Industrial Operations Consider industrial operations as a cause only if there are separate discharges and pollutant does not go through municipal sewers. 1. Mining: Include minerals and coal but exclude petroleum or gas. 2. Food and kindred products: Include any food or animal feed product in any stage of manufacture. This is meant to include commercial dairies. 3. Paper and allied products: Include paper in any stage of manufacture. 4. Chemicals: Include chemicals of all kinds. This is meant to include commercial fertilizers, except those already delivered to, or in transit to the farm. 5. Petroleum: Include all gas and oil activities except pipeline transportation. 6. Metals: Include any metal or metal product manufacture from blast furnace to finished item. 7. Other: Include any industries not classified above. These would be lumber and wood products, textiles, rubber or leather, etc. Specify. C. Municipal Operations This section is intended to cover those activities that are the responsibility of the municipality in the maintenance of services. 1. Sewage system: Include industrial wastes which pass through the system; also include insecticides for fly control, and the improper disposal of chemicals. 2. Refuse disposal: Include kills caused by poor management of dumps or incinerators. 3. Water system: Include kills caused by poor management, excessive use of chemicals or pesticides. 4. Swimming pool: Include excessive use of chlorine for cleaning operations. D. Transportation Operations: This section covers products in transit by the indicated means regardless of source or destination or ultimate use. It also includes wastes resulting from that means of transportation. "Pipe- line" in this instance refers to those lines for cross-country transportation of liquids or gases. A line break within a plant or between two nearby plants should be considered under industrial operations. E. Other Operations: If the cause is known but cannot be placed in any of the four preceding groups, enter here and specify. F. Uuknown: Use only if cause cannot be determined or reasonably surmised. 34 G. Specific agent or cause, if known: This space is for the name of the pollutant (from the operation checked above) which caused the fish kill. 6. Type of fish killed: Game—percent: Give percent of fish classified as game species for the total area affected. Non-game—percent: Give percent of fish classified as non-game species for total area affected. Both of the above should add to 100 percent. What percent of the above two types are commercial: Give percent of the total dead fish, whether game or non-game, which were of commercially valuable specie. 6. Estimates total number of fish killed: Record total number of fish killed in pollution case—figured from sampling stations. Value: $ Record total value of all fish killed—figures from sampling stations. 7. Severity: Check appropriate box which in your opinion best de- scribes the severity. 8. Extent: Area of fish kill (miles or acres): Record total area of the fish kill in miles for streams and acres for impoundments. 9. Duration of critical effect: Days Hours: Record total number of days or hours that fish kill was in progress. 10. Sampling Station Location: Station number: Record station number—to be located on map. Location: County, township, range, 1/4 section: Record county, township, range and nearest quarter section where sampling station is located. May be obtained from plat book or county highway map. Time: Record time fish were counted and size grouped. Remarks: Record any comments concerning station location or condition. 11. Additional comments: Record any comments pertinent to pollution- fish kill investigation. 12. Date of report: Record date report was completed. Biologist: Record name of biologist(s) doing survey and writing report.

FISH COLLECTION Water (name): Record name of water area. Area of fish kill: Miles or acres: Record area of total fish kill in miles for streams and acres for impoundments. Length in feet: For streams only, record total fish kill area in stream length feet—for purpose of determining multiplying factor. Station Number: Record number of station—should correspond to page 1 of pollution report. If more stations are sampled than there is room for on this report, use an extra page of page 2. Length of station in feet (or area): Record length of station in feet or in area (square feet or acres).

35 Species—Size group: The major species of fish and the size groups that they are to be counted in are recorded on this form. For the additional species of fish not listed, record their names and size groups as necessary from standard price list. Number of fish killed at each station: Record total number of dead fish for each size group and species found within sample station. Average of all stations: In order to compute the total number of fish killed in section of stream or lake, the number of fish by species and size groups should be added and divided by the total number of stations sampled to obtain an average. This average is recorded in this section. Multiplying factor: The multiplying factor is obtained by taking average length (or area) of all stations divided into total length (or area) affected. This factor is then recorded in the column provided for each species of fish being estimated. Estimated total number killed: The total number of fish killed can be determined by multiplying the "multiplying factor" by the average number of fish for all stations. Value per fish: The value for each species and size group should be recorded in this column as previously determined from standard price list. Total value: Record the total value for each species and size group by multiplying the value per fish times the estimated total number killed. Grand total: Numbers Value: Add up the columns and record grand total for numbers of fish killed and for value of fish killed. Biologist: Record name of biologist(s) doing survey and writing report.

ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF FISHERIES REPORT OF POLWTION-CAUSED FISH KILL

County Nearest Town-- Date WATER (name) Owner Address--

1. Reported by Date 8. Persona contacted.

8. Sanitary Engineer notified. Da • Time Name ddress_.__-- 4. Source of pollution: A. AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS B. INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS {1 Poisons (herbicides, pesticides, etc.) Mining Chemicals Fertilizers Food & kindred Petroleum Manure drainage, ensilage liquors, products Metals or feed lot operations 0 Paper & allied products 0 Other (specify)

C. MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS D. TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS Sewage system A Rail Barge or boat Refuge disposal A Truck Pipeline Water system E. OTHER Swimming Pool F. UNKNOWN G. SPBCIFIC AGENT OR CAUSE IF KNOWN 5: Type of Fish Killed: Game. % Non-Game. % Total: 100 What percent of the above two types are commercial: 44 6. Estimated total number of fish killed. Value • $ P. Severity: 0 Total 0 Heavy 0 Moderate 0 Light 8. Extent: Area of fish kill (miles or acres) 9. Donation of critical effect. nays Hours 10. Sampling station locations: Delon rem lamb Gusty Tewasblp Ran. Vs feelm

11. Additional comments.

18. Date of Report Biologist.

37 FISH COLLECTION

WATER (name) Area of Ash kill: Miles or acres Length 'n fee Multiplying factor obtained by taking average length (or area) of all stations divided into total ength (or area) affected.

Eaimatal Number of I* killod at «W. Palen Mona Muhl- Total Value Tao Y Per Vats Station Hp &Itiet s f: et! "at' RA Length of sta. In ft. or lama/ atop Sped. GAME FISH 1-6 in. SASS 7-10 in. 11 in.+ 1-5 in. SUNFISH 6-7 in. 8 in.+ 1-6 in. CATFISH 7-11 in. 12 in.+

NON-GAME FISH MINNOWS _ SHAD

COMMERCIAL FISH 0-1 lbs. 1-5 lbs. CARP 5-10 lbs. 10 lbs.+ - 0-1 lb‘ 1-5 be. BUFFALO 5-10 lbs. 10 lb.+

0-1 lk 1.2 lbs. DRUM 2-5 lbs. 514+

GRAND TOTAL (timnbor) (WIN

88 INDIANA "The following information is provided in reply to your inquiry on fish kills in Indiana. "When a fish kill has been discovered, evidence is gathered on the number and species of fish killed, the number of miles of stream affected, and the source of the pollution. The Division of Fish and Game pre- pares a claim for damages if the situation warrants such action. "The cost of purchase and transportation of replacement fish through commercial sources is calculated. These costs are not made on a fixed standard but are based upon the current commercial prices. "As an example, we offer the following damages asked resulting from a fish kill in 1961: 300 white bass 2 to 5 inches $ 120.00 200 white bass 9 to 12 inches 200.00 2000 white suckers 9 to 12 inches 200.00 2000 carp 12 to 16 inches 600.00 2000 channel catfish 2 to 5 inches 150.00 2000 channel catfish 9 to 12 inches 1,420.00 1000 channel catfish 12 to 16 inches 875.00 "In addition to fish replacement, damages are asked for the loss of the use of the stream allowing for a period of up to two years for the recovery of the fish population and the production of fish foods. Such factors as the size of the stream, normal fisherman-use, and quality of fishing provided is taken into consideration. There can be no fixed rate per mile which would be a representative for each possible polluted stream. In the instance shown above where damages for fish replacement were asked, the amount of $4,500.00 was calculated to be the value of the 717h mile portion of the stream. "The damages are presented to the company which caused the pollution. Suits have been filed in some cases. None have been tried and in every instance the offender has paid the stated amount for replacement of fish. Several pollution cases involving fish kills are currently under negotiation and are still unsettled. "Mr. William Barnes, Assistant Director of the Division of Fish and Game, determined that the value placed upon spending by resident and non-resident fishermen was $59,420,000." Fishing Value: The State of Indiana Department of Conservation, Di- vision of Fish and Game, places a value of $59,000,000 plus on the fishing in their state. Reply: April 1, 1963 From: Woodrow W. Fleming, Director Division of Fish and Game Department of Conservation State of Indiana Indianapolis 9, Indiana

IOWA "At present Iowa has no legal method of collecting monies for the loss of fish caused by pollution aside from Civil Suit. There is no record of such action in our files." Fishing Value: (None Given) Iowa State Conservation Commission Fish and Game Division State of Iowa Des Moines 9, Iowa

89 KANSAS "In Kansas, our State Fish and Game laws permit fines on persons convicted of placing deleterious substances in waters for the purpose of taking, killing or stunning fish. Our laws do not provide for legal action to collect damages for fish destroyed. "Pollution laws are under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Health. This organization has informed me that while our laws are rather specific in providing authority to clean up pollution, there are no provisions authorizing the collection of damages, replacement of fish, etc."

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: Roy E. Schoonover, Chief Fisheries Division Forestry, Fish and Game Commission State of Kansas Pratt, Kansas

KENTUCKY "We have not in the past brought legal action against a polluter to recover damages for a fish kill, but we realize that fines are not enough and intend to go this route in the future."

Fishing Value: The Commonwealth of Kentucky, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, places a value of $33,000,000 on fishing in their state. Reply: February 27, 1963 From: Charles C. Bowers, Assistant Director Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources State Office Building Annex Frankfort, Kentucky

LOUISIANA The following information was received from the Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission: Case A (a) Case in subject: State of Louisiana Fish and Wild Life vs. Calcasicu Paper Co. (b) Date: October, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $25.00 (d) Total damages received: $0 (e) Total number of fish killed: 5,000 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 6,000 lbs. (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish Bass-1,000+ $ Bream-1,800+ $ Catfish-500+ $ Buffalo-1,700+ $ and gaspergou (drum) $ TOTAL $

40 LOUISIANA Case A (continued) Motion to quash charges sustained due to another law that repealed statute under which charges were filed.

Case B (a) Case in subject: State of Louisiana, Stream Control Commission vs. Crown-Zellerbach Paper Mill (b) Date: August 1960 (c) Total damages asked $ (d) Total damages received: $ (e) Total number of fish killed: 100,000+ (f) Total weight of fish killed: 450,000 (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish Bass-10,000+ None $ None Bream-25,000+ None $ None Catfish-20,000 None $ None Buffalo-20,000 None $ None gaspergou-25,000 None $ None Administrative action: Louisiana Stream Control Commission issued order of determination

Case C (a) Case in subject: State of Louisiana, Stream Control Commission vs. Hammond Packing Co. (sweet potato processors) (b) Date: October 1961 (c) Total damages asked $ (d) Tota damages received: $ (e) Total number of fish killed: 5,000+ (f) Total weight of fish killed: 2,500 (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish Bass-250 Catfish-500 Buffalo-1,000 Fresh water Drum-1,500 Shad-3,000+ TOTAL $ Administrative action: Louisiana Stream Control Commission issued order of determination. Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: February 25, 1963 From: Robert A. Lafleur, Chief Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission P. 0. Box 9055, University Station Baton Rouge 3, Louisiana

41 MAINE No information regarding court cases or monetary values was given.

Fishing Value: (None Given) Questions answered by: Lyndon H. Bond, Assistant Chief Fishery Research and Management Division State of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game State House Augusta, Maine

MARYLAND No information regarding court cases was given.

Fishing Value: The State of Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commis- sion places a value of $5,000,000 on fishing in their state. Maryland Game and Inland Fish Commission State Office Building Annapolis, Maryland

MASSACHUSETTS No information regarding court cases was given. Fishing Value: The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game places a value of $40,000,000 on fishing in their state. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game Department of Natural Resources Commonwealth of Massachusetts 73 Tremont Street Boston 8, Massachusetts

MICHIGAN "Our first attempt to collect damages for fish killed in public waters was in 1955 when suit was started against the Union Steel Company, of Albion, Michigan, for destruction estimated roughly at 200,000 fish in the Kalamazoo River due to discharge of waters containing cyanide. No record is presently available as to the method used in arriving at the kill estimate or its value, but the damage claimed by the State was $15,000, and an "in-court" settlement was made in which the company paid $3,000. This was considered significant as it established a precedent which we believe has resulted in greater awareness of responsibility by industries in general and has served as a base for the settlement of several other cases. "Since the 1955 case, we have had twelve instances of more or less important fish kills that involved industrial pollution. None of them have resulted in court action; nine have been settled; one was dropped when the offending company failed and went out of business; and two are still pending. Of course, there have been a number of other fish killings in which no responsibility could be determined or the loss was considered too small to justify consideration. "The following is a summary of the instances mentioned above.

42 MICHIGAN

SUMMARY OF FISH DIVISION RECORDS OF POLLUTION CASES Estimated Value Amount Date Water-Location Responsible Party of Fish Killed Paid 4/ 6/55 Kalamazoo River Union Steel Co. $15,000.00 $3,000.00 Albion 6/ 5/56 Mill Creek Lamereaux Dairy 500.00 250.00 Kent County Comstock Park 10/ 7/57 Chippewa River, Fero Stamping Co. $1,156.00 $ 600.00 Isabella County Detroit 4/22/58 Hayworth Creek, Federal-Mogal-Bower Not 1,200.00 Clinton County Berrings, St. Johns available 10/ 7/59 Marble Lake, Quincy Products Co. 1,001.80 1,001.80 Branch County Quincy 4/24/60 Cass River, Michigan Sugar Co. 1,309.16 654.58 Tuscola County Caro 8/15/60 Mill Creek, Stanley Plating Co. 3,802.40 Not Ct. Clair County Yale concluded 12/ 7/60 Black River, Du Wel Dec Co. 2,545.00 1,500.00 Van Buren County Bangor 2/17/61 Swan Creek, Douglas Mfg. Div. Not 250.00 Branch County Bronson available 6/16/62 Shiawassee River, City of Owosso 7,996.88 Pending Shiawassee County 6/16/62 Bean Creek, Addison Milling Co. 810.28 405.14 Lenawee County Addison 6/28/62 Fish Creek William Williamson 317.50 158.75 Montcalm County Ferris Township 11/25/62 Swan Creek Undetermined 575.68 Pending Branch County

"We have no set pattern for determining the value of fish killed. If they are game or commercial species and can be purchased alive, the replacement value is considered. The same situation obtains in the case of bait fishes. Each instance is considered separately."

Fishing Value : "No survey has been conducted by our Department to determine the value of the Michigan sport fishery. There are so many variable and intangible factors involved that it would be very difficult to come up with any figure that could be defended if analyzed criti- cally."

Reply: March 21, 1963

From: A. B. Cook, Chief Fish Division State of Michigan Department of Conservation Lansing 26, Michigan

43 DEPARTMENT LETTER No. 37 Supplement #1 May 16, 1960 Investigation by Fish and Game Technicians 1. Equipment needed Certain items of supplies and equipment are necessary on every investigation; others may be found necessary on those when extensive water areas are involved, and especially where damage to wildlife occurs. These include: (a) Notebook and prepared forms for recording facts and data. (b) Pencils and pen (water-proof ink preferred) for identifying markings. (c) Pocket thermometer for taking water and air temperature. (d) Tape measure, steel preferred, 50' or 100'. (e) Boots, wading pants or breast waders. (f) Suitable containers for collection and preservation of specimens. (g) Two-quart bottles or sterilized jars for water supplies. (h) Ten-gallon cans or other large containers for collecting specimens that are large or in quantity. (i) Camera and film. (j) Short and long handled hand nets for collecting specimens in water. (k) Seines for collecting fish specimens. (1) Boat and outboard motor. (m) Copy of these instructions.

2. Written Records Bear in mind at all times in an investigation of this type that you may have to testify in court concerning all that you have done and seen. Experience has shown that memory cannot be trusted; therefore, full and complete notes should be written down at the time of occurrence or observation. Written notes will increase the weight of your testimony and avoid personal embarrassment which might result from the lack of them. Lawyers seldom attempt to refute or discredit the entire testimony of an opposing witness. They merely seek to break down a small part of it and then leave the implication in the minds of the jury or court that all that you have said is untrustworthy. Courts are usually lenient in allowing a witness to refer to notes if satisfied the material was written down at the time specified. There- fore, field notes are very important and may immeasurably help you over rough spots with any opposing attorney you may be called upon to face.

3. Time Record events by exact hour and minute. Record time of reports to or from you concerning the case; also time of your movements with regard to arrival and departure at certain places, collection of specimens, samples, etc. If you are called upon to testify in court, it is more im- pressive to say that something occurred at a specific time rather than to be approximate or indefinite.

44 4. Weather and Water Conditions Make note of general weather conditions at time of investigation, including temperature, wind direction, and velocity of wind. Also note weather conditions which prevailed immediately prior to and during the period fish or wildlife were affected. Note water conditions, including water level (high, low, medium), clarity, temperature, depth and width of stream.

5. Locations Record the location of the lake or stream affected by name and county, government township and section number. Note the boundaries of the area affected. Be specific in recording locations with respect to known landmarks such as bridges and identified buildings, measuring short distances and pacing the longer ones. Locations should be noted of the source of pollution if ascertained, and estimated volume; also points of examination, collection of specimens and water samples, etc. Locations where temperatures or samples were taken should be further described by indicating depth of water and position with relation to shore and identified landmarks, or if specimens were taken on land, indicate the distance from the water's edge. If possible, indicate all such locations on a map or sketch of the area with references identifying the locations recorded in the notes.

6. External Appearance and Behavior of Fish or Wildlife If alive, describe movements compared with normal habits; if dead, describe external appearance—presence of flies or maggots, any external wounds, evidence of foreign substances on body, in hair, feathers, gills, or mouth, and general physical condition.

7. Determination of Extent of Fish or Wildlife Mortality This is very important. If damage suits are later instituted by the State, the extent of damage is obviously of the highest importance. No court is likely to be greatly impressed by a witness' statement that "thousands" or "millions" of fish or birds have been destroyed. No effort should be spared to obtain a count as accurately as possible, made in an orderly and systematic manner. Since it will seldom be practical in instances of mortality to count all the dead fish or waterfowl, it will be necessary for the investigator to make an estimate based upon counts of small samples. Much will depend upon the judgment and the resourcefulness of the investigator if he is to make an estimate which will be accepted as court evidence. Suggested procedures are couched in general terms for it is realized the exigencies of a specific situation will make some modifications necessary. In the following situations involving plotting of some areas, maps should be used to exhibit the findings and to establish the basis for your estimates.

8. Methods for Determining Extent of Fish and Game Kills a. Easiest of all to estimate is the situation in which practically all the dead fish or birds are moved by water currents, ice, or wind, to some barrier or natural point of concentration. In such instances, complete counts by species and size groups should be made in a number of sections of measured length, the number of sections preferably constituting at least one-tenth of the total area involved; then a total estimate can be made by multiplying the sample count figures by the total number of similar sections in the area. b. Frequently the extent of the kill must be estimated over wide areas of comparatively still waters—bays, backwaters, lakes and sloughs.

45 The investigator should then endeavor by visual appraisal, aided where possible by actual measurements, to divide th,e area into small squares or quadrants of, for example, five or ten feet dimension. From shore to boat, the dead fish or birds in a number of such quadrants should be counted, equaling at least, if possible, one-tenth of the total area involved. Calculation of the total kill would then be possible as described above. c. When kills occur in rivers with appreciable current, the investigator must station himself at some point of vantage from which he can keep a count of dead fish or birds drifting through a given space for a specific length of time. Operating from a bridge, pier, anchored boat or other stationary site, he should try to keep a count of specimens drifting through an area of known width such as between two bridge piers or between two anchored floats placed by the investigator. Apply- ing the same calculation mentioned above, for a timed interval, he can estimate the numbers drifting past a stated point over the entire stream width, and calculate the estimate of total number killed by multiplying the figure obtained for total width of stream for the interval timed by the total time during which the condition lasted. The investigator must exercise judgment in making correction for unequal concentrations of specimens over the width of the stream and for possible variation in rate of flow if this is altered by heavy rainfall or opening or closing of dam floodgates upstream. d. It is not unusual for fish killed by pollution to sink to the bottom rather than to float on the surface. If the water is sufficiently transparent, counts can be made by the method outlined in (b) above. If, as will more often be the case, the kill occurs in turbid waters or waters of considerable depth, counts will be difficult, if not impossible to obtain. In some situations it will be possible to stretch a seine across an area and, with a long pole, boat hook, or other implement, rake the bottom thoroughly over a measured area so that existing currents will carry the dead fish into the net. In other cases, an estimate of some value may be obtained by keeping the area under observation for a period of several days since formation of decomposition gases may cause many of the carcasses to float.

9. Damage to Fish Habitat In many waters which have had a long history of pollution, toxic and polluting substances have accumulated sufficiently to render them unfit for fish even without the influx of additional pollution. Especially when oily or tarry substances have been deposited on the bottom of streams or lakes, the habitat may remain dangerous or uninhabitable for fish long after the entry of the polluting agent has terminated. Where the investigator suspects such damage has occurred, he should mention in his report any observations supporting his suspicion. He may also conduct some simple tests. For example, he may take a sample of the bottom material, place it in a suitable tank or container filled with unpolluted water, add some minnows that have been obtained by seining or purchased from a live bait dealer, and see if they react differently or die sooner than those in another container, identical in every respect except lacking any of the suspected bottom material. If the minnows in the first container die significantly sooner than those in the other, the investigator will have obtained very valuable evidence if all steps have been properly recorded in his notes. He might then enlist the cooperation of the Water Resources Commission staff to obtain a chemical analysis of the harmful bottom material.

10. Collection and Preparation of Evidence Courts and lawyers are particular about the collection and preservation of evidence. Who is concerned, where it goes, and where it is kept

46 are important. Every step must be accounted for. There must be no chance of mistaken identity, possible substitution, etc. The fewer people involved in handling the better. In presence of witnesses, seal specimens individually or seal in boxes or other containers with official metal seals. These seals are in the possession of conservation officers. Record the number of the seal. Every specimen or every container of specimens should be firmly tagged with all information as to location where found, time and date found, collector's name, etc. clearly marked with pencil or waterproof ink. Your own careful handwriting rather than printing is preferable for evidence.

11. Specimens for identification and Pathological Examination Specimens for pathological examination should be as fresh as possible. If unable to immediately get birds and mammals to Lansing or fresh specimens of fish to Ann Arbor, place in cold storage at once. Remember there are legal aspects. The specimens must have their identity kept clear. If you place them in a refrigerator or deep freeze that is accessible to other persons, they must be boxed or otherwise contained and sealed as evidence in the presence of witnesses. It is expected the investigator will be able to identify on the spot any birds, mammals and game fish killed. However, many species of fish, especially minnows and the young of game and other fish, often can only be certainly identified by careful inspection by a professional ichthyologist. On account of this, to strengthen the evidence he has obtained, the investigator should always collect and preserve the representative sample. Even when most of the bodies have been altered by partial decomposition, species determination can be made by a trained taxonomist. If the kill involves only small fish, a two-quart jar may be large enough to accommodate an adequate sample. If large fish are involved, it will be preferable to take a large sample and preserve it in a ten- gallon milk can of the kind commonly in use at the state fish hatcheries. For preservation, a solution of ten parts of water to one part of formalin should be used. If the fish are badly decomposed, the solution should be eight parts of water to one of formalin. A label, written with a soft pencil on good quality bond paper should be placed inside the container. This label should bear the collector's name, the name of the water from which taken, the location by town, range and section; also the point of collection with reference to known landmarks, and the time and date collected. The sample, properly sealed and packed to insure safe transit, should be referred promptly to the Institute for Fisheries Research, University Museums Annex, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

12. Photographic Evidence a. Strive to obtain maximum clarity of detail. Use of a tripod is strongly urged to preclude possibility of camera movement which would destroy sharpness of definition. b. If another department employee is present on the investigation, have him stand in a position which will include him in the photograph. Such a procedure will facilitate legal establishment of the fact that the kill portrayed was in truth the kill under consideration by the court. c. Wherever possible, the camera operator should include in his photograph not only a representative section of floating or drift-lodged fish or game, but also a recognizable landmark, such as a bridge, dam, building, or other unmistakable fixed point. d. Pictures may be taken of fish collected and arranged to establish species and size range of fish killed. Such arrangement of fish should

47 be done personally by photographer and he must be able to testify that the fish be arranged are the fish found naturally on the bank. However, the majority of the photographs should show representative areas of the kill. e. If the investigator has no camera equipment of his own, he may properly enlist the assistance of any press photographers present. In most cases such persons will be happy to cooperate. In the foregoing, little attempt has been made to provide instructions in the technique of photography. It is assumed that any investigator possessing a camera is also familiar with its operation. However, attention is again called to the importance of accounting for every step in the collection and identification of evidence. There must be no chance of mistaken identity or possibility of substitution. Opposing attorneys will object to the admissibility of pictures as evidence unless the witness can identify them and testify the pictures are prints from the negatives exposed at the scene portrayed and that they were not out of his hands or possession at any time. If the photographer is not able to do his own developing and printing, the value of the evidence will be maintained if he is present when the developing and printing is done by another. The finished prints should be marked with the name of the location, time and date taken, and name of photographer. Pictures should also be numbered or otherwise marked to correspond with the written notes which will define the exact location of the portrayed scene and the position of the photographer with relation to known landmarks or other recognizable features. Name and address of the developer and printer, if other than the photographer, and time and place work was done should also be recorded in case the individual is wanted as a supporting witness.

13. Witnesses A complete record of informants and witnesses should be obtained, listing names, addresses, phone numbers, age and occupation, with no- tation as to what they reported, observed, or had done. In addition, if time permits, a short signed statement from witnesses is very desirable.

WRITTEN REPORTS Attached herewith is a Check Sheet form which shall be used by the investigator in compiling the information which he shall present in his written report. The written report should cover in detail the material referred to in this form. Copies of reports should be prepared as follows:

Report by Conservation Officer — four copies 1st copy to Field Administration District Supervisor 2nd copy to Oil Hazard Reduction Office 3rd copy to Regional Chief 4th copy to be retained by officer

Report by Fish or Game Investigator — three copies 1st copy to Oil Hazard Reduction Office 2nd copy to Regional Office 3rd copy to be retained by investigator

The Oil Hazard Reduction Office will be responsible for reporting on the nature and source of pollution and will forward a copy of the report to the Regional Office.

48 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION CHECK SHEET POLLUTION - WILDLIFE INVESTIGATION

Date and time of first knowledge of situation Source of information Name Address Name of water affected County Township Town Range Section Location and limits of affected area

Behavior and external appearance of each species of wildlife observed

Estimated number of each species of dead wildlife observed—(Over) Time of mortality: Start End Damage of habitat

Weather: Preceding mortality During Condition of water: Level Clarity Temperature Source of pollution, if known Nature of pollution Kind of evidence collected Photographs taken by Name and address of witness

Date and time of inspection: Start Ended Date

Investigator

Title

Sample number Collected (Time (Date

Adult or Immat. or TOTALS Large Small GRAND SPECIES Adult Immat. TOTAL Male Female Male Female Large ,Small

Note: List each species counted, entering in the respective column the number of adult and immature birds and mammals of each sex, if evident or determined, or number of fish of large (6" in length and over) and small (less than 6" in length) size. Also list crustaceans, amphibians, and reptiles.

50 MINNESOTA

"As of July 15, 1963, we have only one instance indicated in the questionnaire in which a firm has compensated the state for loss of fish. "We have had several cases in which a state game warden has arrested persons responsible for pollution which caused fish kills and in which the polluter has been fined. The maximum penalty in such cases is $100.00. Very often part or all of the fine has been suspended. In these cases no attempt was made to place a monetary value."

Case A (a) Case in subject: Minnesota Department of Conservation vs. International Refineries, Inc. (b) Date: 1953 (c) Total damages asked: Replacement of 200 trout (d) Total damages received: Replacement of 200 trout (e) Total number of fish killed: 200 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish

TOTAL $

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: July 15, 1963 From: Bernard R. Jones, Supervisor Biological Services Unit Research and Planning Section Division of Game and Fish State of Minnesota Department of Conservation Saint Paul 1, Minnesota

MISSISSIPPI

"Most of the legal action that is taken by the Pollution Control Division is against oil companies, since this industry is the most rapidly expanding one in our state. A listing of individual cases would be voluminous." Case A (a) Case in subject: State of Mississippi vs. Deweese Lumber Company (b) Date: May 20 - 21, 1963 (c) Total damages asked: $1,000.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed - (f) Total weight of fish killed - (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish Total kill in an approximate 15 mile section of the river. In addition to the above fine the company purchased 3,000 fingerling Channel Catfish for stocking the stream.

51 MISSISSIPPI

Case B (a) Case in subject: State of Mississippi vs. Crosby Chemical Co. (b) Date: September 26 -27 -28, 1962 (c) Total damages asked• $ (d) Total damages received• $ (e) Total number of fish killed• (f) Total weight of fish killed • (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish Case delayed pending report by U.S. Public Health Service. Presentation of such is scheduled for October 22, 1963.

REMARKS "The State of Mississippi has not attempted any legal proceedings based on a value per pound of fish killed. This is primarily due to the nature of the Mississippi pollution law. The Mississippi Game and Fish Commission exercises no authority on municipalities and the provision in relation to industrial pollution states that the fine for pollution shall not be less than $50.00 and not more than $3,000.00 It further states that, "Each day upon which a violation of this act occur shall be deemed a separate and additional violation for the purposes of this act." "Several times in the past (prior to 1955) a large industry in Jackson and one in Laurel were charged with massive fish kills and in each case a settlement was made out of court for $1,000.00. "The Pollution Control Division of the Commission deals with quite a number of cases each year against oil exploration and production companies, but most of the cases are settled out of court, the settlement ranging from $50.00 to $500.00 The average yearly collection from pollution fines in this category is $3,000.00. "Many of the major fish kills that occur in Mississippi are caused by low oxygen values, which result from untreated domestic sewage. An example of such a kill occurred on April 21-22-23, 1963 on the Pearl River below Jackson, where approximately a fifty mile section of the stream was involved. Since the Game and Fish Commission has no control over municipalities, no legal action can be taken."

Fishing Value: The State of Mississippi Game and Fish Commission places a value of $40,000,000 on fishing in their state. Replies: August 26 and September 11, 1963 From: Billy J. Grantham, Biologist State of Mississippi Game and Fish Commission 503 North 25th Avenue Hattiesburg, Mississippi

MISSOURI "In recent years there is no record of the assignment of such values in Missouri and to the best of our knowledge there were none in the early history of the Conservation Commission or in the records of the Fish and Game Department, which preceded the Commission. In the

52 MISSOURI history of pollution abatement prior to 1958 when legal or administrative action was taken, the polluter was fined or he agreed to designated abatement practices or both. "In 1958 the Missouri Water Pollution Board was created under the provisions of a new water pollution law. This does not provide for the assessment of such damages. It does provide for punitive action after failure on the part of the polluter to comply with abatement practices ordered by the Board and after a hearing in Circuit Court provided that the Court upholds the order issued by the Board. The new pollution statute covers all water pollution. Prior to this, pollution as it affected public health and wildlife was covered in separate statutes. "We do have several cases on record which we review on the attached forms. These were made under our old water pollution statute, 252.210 RMS Missouri 1949, dealing directly with the effect of pollution on fish and wildlife. This statute which was not invalidated by the new law is given as follows: "Sec. 252.210. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause any deleterious substance to be placed, run or drained into any of the waters of this state in quantities sufficient to injure, stupefy or kill fish which may inhabit the same at or below the point where any substance was thrown, run or drained into such waters; provided that it shall not be a violation of this section for any person engaged in industry, to cause or permit any water subject to his control or used in any branch of such industry to be so discharged under such precautionary measures as have been specifically approved by the Commission. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section shall not be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor." Case A (a) Case in subject: State of Missouri vs. Baroid Sales Division, National Lead Company (b) Date: April 10, 1947

REMARKS "Case regarded siltation of a creek due to a break in a dam of a settling basin some time in January, 1947. For evidence in the case, the Conservation Agent had collected a number of dead green sunfish found along the stream on the day following the break-through. The gills of these fish were almost totally covered with a reddish silt, which undoubtedly greatly interfered with the respiration of the fish. "Previous to the opening of the case, the Prosecuting Attorney con- ferred with some Conservation Commission personnel and with the company attorney. After the jury was sworn in, the company attorney, Richardson, reviewed the case, stating that the company was in full accord with the policies of the Conservation Commission and that the company would pay $250.00 for restocking the area affected and also to pay all court costs of the case. This offer was accepted by the Prosecuting Attorney, but reimbursement was never requested by the Conservation Commission, presumably to avoid precedent since the value was low." Case B (a) Case in subject: Newman, et al vs. City of Eldorado Springs, Missouri (b) Date: September 27, 1954

53 REMARKS "A private citizen, Mr. Newman, brought a damage suit against the City of Eldorado Springs over obnoxious conditions in Clear Creek at his farm which was created by the release of poorly treated sewage of Eldorado Springs into Walnut Creek. From here, the sewage passes into and downstream in Clear Creek. "Mr. Newman was awarded $1,500.00 damages. "Conservation Commission personnel were subpoenaed to testify in oehalf of Mr. Newman in this Circuit Court case." Case C (a) Case in subject: State of Missouri vs. Windsor Coal Company (b) Date: October 19, 1951

REMARKS "Circuit Court found that the company had caused deleterious substances to flow into a tributary of Tebo Creek, Henry County, Missouri, and that the same constituted a nuisance and was detrimental to fish in said streams. The company was ordered to desist from such practices and to take and perform certain (6) acts as precautionary measures to prevent possible pollution of Tebo Creek and its tributaries or any other stream, creek, river or drainway into which water handled or used by the said Windsor Coal Company, a corporation, drain, to wit: 1) Cover with a heavy layer of earth the deposits of coal waste that border along the roadway and creeks leading from State Highway No. 2 and defendant's tipple. That said layer of earth shall be of sufficient thickness and consistency so as to prevent said coal waste from being exposed to the elements, and from being a source of stream pollution. 2) To construct, improve and maintain the dam on old settling basin so as to prevent the escape of coal washer waste, into the tributaries of Tebo Creek, and to maintain adequate settling basins at all times. 3) To cease and desist the emptying or dumping tipple reject or any other coal waste upon the banks of any stream, or upon the surface of the ground, or to any place where the same may be exposed to surface drainage to the extent that it will cause deleterious substances to run into the tributaries of Tebo Creek or any other stream, creek or river, of the State of Missouri, in sufficient quantity to injure, stupefy or kill fish, which may inhabit such waters at or below the point where any such substances are discharged or caused to flow. 4) To establish a method of testing water pumped from working pits or drained from workings and to make tests and determine that the same does not contain elements in sufficient quantities to be fatal to fish before pumping or allowing the same to be emptied into said streams or waterways. 5) To erect and construct dams of sufficient size so as to prevent the escape of water determined to have elements of acidity in sufficient quantity to be fatal to fish from the pit immediately south of the Rock Island Railroad and west of defendant's tipple or cover said reject in said pit with sufficient earth to prevent the same. 6) To repair and strengthen dams on the west of the road running from the defendant's tipple to Highway No. 2. "According to a letter from the local Conservation Agent dated January 16, 1952, the company had spent over $10,000 on the clean-up

54 work in complying with the Conditional Court Order and were continu- ing work at the time. "Although events since that time have indicated that the work was not as well done as it should have been, at least the company did something about correcting the problem. Class D (a) Case in subject: Bartlett vs. Hume Sinclair Coal Company (b) Date: March ,7 1960

REMARKS "Mr. Bartlett, a farmer residing along Walnut Creek near Foster, Missouri, brought suit for damages to condition of the creek due to release of deleterious substance into the creek from a mine of the above company. Conservation Commission personnel testified in Mr. Bartlett's behalf on the condition of the water as noted by numerous tests in the stream. "Mr. Bartlett was awarded $1,600.00 damages by the Circuit Court." Case E (a) Case in subject: State of Missouri vs. Pioneer Coal Company (b) Date: September 2, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: (see "Remarks") (d) Total damages received • (e) Total number of fish killed: 10,000 estimated (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish Carp-40% Minnows-50% Green sunfish-10% TOTAL $

REMARKS "This case was brought by the Conservation Commission against the Pioneer Coal Company operating near Appleton City, Missouri, for release of deleterious substances into Monegaw Creek which resulted in a fish-kill downstream. The case was heard by a Magistrate Judge. An official of the company stated that it pleaded guilty to the act but not the intent. The Company was fined $100.00 and costs. The Judge urged the company to work with the Conservation Commission in the future to prevent pollution problems in nearby streams." Case F (a) Case in subject: State of Missouri vs. Bud Jones Coal Company (b) Date: September 9, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: (see "Remarks") (d) Total damages received - (e) Total number of fish killed: 7,500 estimated (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish Game fish-10% Non-game fish-90% TOTAL $

55 Case F (continued) REMARKS "This case was brought about by the Conservation Commission against Bud Jones Coal Company for release of deleterious materials into the East Fork of Tebo Creek near Windsor, Missouri, which resulted in a fish kill. "The case was heard by a Magistrate Judge. Jones pleaded guilty and was fined $35.00 and costs."

Fishing Value: "The Conservation Commission has not made surveys leading toward a value for fishing in Missouri. By applying the formula used in the Crosley survey, however, we did estimate the value of the fishery to be $46,272,000. This, of course, is the roughest kind of estimate and it was not used extensively by the Department." Reply: March 28, 1963 From: Larry R. Gale, Chief Division of Fish and Game Missouri Conservation Commission Farm Bureau Building Jefferson City, Missouri

Reply: July 31, 1963 From: Herbert J. Fisher, Biologist in Charge of Pollution Investigations Missouri Conservation Commission 903 Elm Street Columbia, Missouri

MONTANA No information regarding court cases was given.

Fishing Value: The State of Montana Fish and Game Department placed a value of $37,000,000 on fishing in their state, according to a 1960 economic survey. This is a total of expenditures by residents and non-resident fishermen. Reply: William Alvord, Chief of Fisheries Management State of Montana State Fish and Game Commission Helena, Montana

NEBRASKA No information regarding court cases or monetary values was given.

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: Glen R. Foster, Chief of Fisheries Game, Forestation and Park Commission State Capitol Building Lincoln 9, Nebraska

56 NEVADA

The following information was received from the State of Nevada Fish and Game Commission: Case A (a) Case in subject: Nevada Fish and Game Department vs. Anaconda Copper Corporation (b) Date: November 21, 1960 (c) Total damages asked: $4,000.00 (d) Total damages received: $4,000.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: No overall estimate made (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species of fish 20,000 rainbow trout $4,000.00 $1.00 TOTAL $

REMARKS

"In pollution cases this department feels that correction of the situation is far more advantageous than merely receiving monetary remuneration for the fish killed, since without correction, the same pollution source is still present and possibilities of similar kills may happen again and again. With this in mind our efforts have been to- wards correction and in most cases, including the one listed, we have accomplished the correction without the necessity of entering into law suits."

Fishing Value: The State of Nevada Fish and Game Commission places a value of $6,100,000 on fishing in their state. Reply: February, 1963 From: Frank W. Groves, Director Fish and Game Commission State of Nevada Box 678 Reno, Nevada

NEW HAMPSHIRE

"We have had one court case involving fish kills. The economic loss was small. The fine was $100, not for killing the fish, but for disposing of waste into a surface water in excess of the maximum quantity or of a different character than that being discharged during the period of one year prior to July 1, 1947 and prior to classification of the stream system, Chief loss was to a few bait dealers whose live traps were in the water involved. We understand Dowell, Inc., the defendant, paid all such dealers. We don't know the amount except that it was small. "Other fish kills have occurred but only chastisement has resulted.

57 NEW HAMPSHIRE We have had no massive kills of any known economic worth attributable to pollution." Case A (a) Case in subject: State of New Hampshire vs. Dowell, Inc., et als (b) Date: April 30, 1948 (c) Total damages asked: None (d) Total damages received: $100 (Fine) and .05/shiner to bait dealers—total unknown (e) Total number of fish killed: ? (f) Total weight of fish killed: ? (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish Smallmouth bass Eels Pickerel Hornpout Chub suckers Common sucker Redfin shiners Rainbow trout Brown trout TOTAL $ Chief economic loss was to bait dealers with fish traps in path of inadvertent slug of acid pollution. Reimbursed for loss. Fishing Value: (None Given) "We are not qualified to assign a dollar value to fishing in New Hampshire." Reply: February 28, 1963 From: Terrence P. Frost, Water Pollution Biologist The State of New Hampshire New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission 61 South Spring Street Concord, New Hampshire

NEW JERSEY The following information was received from the Department of Conservation and Economic Development of the State of New Jersey: Case A (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation (b) Date: July 27, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: Unknown (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each sepcies or fish

TOTAL

58 NEW JERSEY Case B (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. F. H. Levy Company (b) Date: August 28, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: about 100 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 50 suckers 30 catfish 20 sunfish TOTAL Case C (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Union Steel Corp- oration (b) Date: September 18, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: about 50 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 20 sunfish 25 suckers 5 miscellaneous TOTAL Case D (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Mack Trucks, Inc. (b) Date: November 16, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: about 100 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 20 carp 25 suckers 30 sunfish 25 miscellaneous TOTAL Case E (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Van Doren, Inc. (b) Date: March 20, 1962 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: about 100 trout in hatchery (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL

59 NEW JERSEY Case F (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Henry Becker and Sons (b) Date: June 14, 1962 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 300 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 100 suckers 100 catfish 50 sunfish 50 miscellaneous TOTAL $ Case G (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Hess Oil Company (b) Date: January 2, 1963 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 150 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 50 suckers 25 sunfish 10 bass 65 miscellaneous TOTAL $ Case H (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Republic Wire Company (b) Date: January 29, 1963 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: this was a gradual kill (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL $ Case I (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Allegheny Chemical Company (b) Date: January 30, 1963 (c) Total damages asked: $1,000.00 (d) Total damages received: $1,000.00 (second offense) (e) Total number of fish killed: 150 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 50 suckers $ 5 trout $ 75 sunfish $ 20 miscellaneous $ TOTAL $

60 NEW JERSEY case J (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Bethlehem Steel Co. (Pennsylvania) (b) Date: January 10, 1961, December 7, 1961, January 3, 1962, January 20, 1962, February 4, 1962 (5 occasions) (c) Total damages asked: @ $200.00 each (d) Total damages received: $1,000.00 (for polluting Delaware River) (e) Total number of fish killed: Uncertain (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish several thousand suckers hundreds of carp 100 game fish TOTAL $ Case K (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. New Jersey Ice Machine Company (b) Date: February 15, 1963 (c) Total damages asked: $500.00 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 1,000 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 500 suckers 100 trout 200 sunfish 200 miscellaneous TOTAL $ Case L (a) Case in subject: State of New Jersey vs. Titanium Zirconium Company (b) Date: March 14, 1963 (c) Total damages asked: $1,000.00 (d) Total damages received: $1,000.00 (second offense) (e) Total number of fish killed: Unknown (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL $

POLLUTION LAWS Turning deleterious substances into water prohibited; penalty. (As amended April 13, 1950). No person shall allow any dyestuff, coal tar, sawdust, tanbark, lime, refuse from gas houses, oil tanks or vessels, vitroil or any of the compounds thereof, or other deleterious

61 NEW JERSEY or poisonous substance to be turned into or allowed to run into any of the fresh or tidal waters within the jurisdiction of this State in quantities destructive of life or disturbing the habits of the fish or birds inhabiting the same, under a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the first offense, and one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for any subsequent offense. Pollution of waters used by state fish hatchery; penalty. No person shall put or place in any water used by a state fish hatchery any explosive or poisonous substances, or any drug or poison bait, or allow any dyestuff, coal or gas tar, coal oil, sawdust, tanbark, cocculus indicus, otherwise known as fishberries, lime, vitriol or any of the compounds thereof, refuse from gas houses, oil tanks or tanneries, or any deleterious, destructive or poisonous substances of any kind, to be turned into or allowed to run, flow, wash or to be emptied, or find its way into any water used by a state fish hatchery, or erect or maintain any privy, water-closet, pigsty, hogpen, inclosure for poultry, barn or barnyard, in which animals or poultry are kept, or drain from any building or the cellars thereof, where drainage or refuse therefrom will find its way into water used by a state fish hatchery. In case of the pollution of water used by a state fish hatchery, by substance known to be injurious to fish or fish food, it shall not be necessary to prove that the substances have actually caused the death of any particular fish. A person violating this section shall be subject to a penalty of five hundred dollars. Pollution of waters; fine. No person shall place, in the waters mentioned in section 23:9-39 of this title, any explosive or poisonous substances, drug or poison bait for the purpose of catching, taking, killing or injuring the fish, or allow any dyestuff, coal or gas tar, coal oil, sawdust, tanbark, cocculus indicus, otherwise known as fish berries, lime, vitriol, any of the compounds thereof, refuse from gas houses, oil tanks or vessels, or any deleterious, destructive or poisonous substances to be turned into or allowed to run, flow, wash or be emptied into any of said waters, unless it is shown that every practicable means has been used to prevent the pollution of these waters by the escape of deleterious substances. In the case of the pollution of waters by substances known to be injurious to fish, or to fish food, it shall not be necessary to prove that these substances have actually caused the death of a particular fish. A person violating this section shall be subject to a fine of two hundred dollars. Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: March 27, 1964 From: Robert A. Hayford, Chief Dr. Roland Smith, Assistant Chief Bureau of Fisheries Management State of New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development State Fish Hatcheries Hackettstown, New Jersey

NEW MEXICO No information regarding court cases or monetary values was given. Fishing Value: (None Given) New Mexico Department of Game and Fish State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico

62 NEW YORK The following information was received from the Conservation Department, Division of Fish and Game, of the State of New York: Case A (a) Case in subject: State of New York vs. Cohocton Creameries, Inc. (b) Date: June 6, 1950 (c) Total damages asked: $3,000.00 (d) Total damages received: $700.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: Not in question (f) Total weight of fish killed• (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL Case B (a) Case in subject: People of the State of New York vs. Nelson Creamery Corp. (b) Date: Action instituted but not tried. (c) Total damages asked: $1,000.00 and injunction (d) Total damages received: Consent injunction against any discharge to the stream entered on February 6, 1950 (e) Total number of fish killed: Unknown (f) Total weight of fish killed• (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL $

REMARKS "It has not generally been found necessary to collect penalties other than that set by the law for a violation, although the law permits a penality of $10 for each fish killed. Most of the kills are in only small areas and the number of fish affected is not large. If found necessary, it is presumed action to recover for the fish killed could also be initiated, on the basis of penalty assessment provided by law." "Relative to the value placed on fishing in New York State, the figure of $186,000,000 is derived basically from the Crossley Survey of 1955. The figure quoted there is based on the expenditures of fishermen in New York State in 1955 for fishing equipment, trips, licenses and all other. To this a 10 percent increment has been added to reflect the increased in fishing pressure conservatively in the years since that date. I believe this is the best basis we have for an estimation of a value of fishing in the State." Fishing Value: The State of New York Conservation Department, Di- vision of Fish and Game, places a value of $186,000,000 on the fishing in their state. This figure was derived basically from the Crossley Survey of 1955. Reply: February 27, 1963 From: W. Mason Lawrence, Assistant Commissioner State of New York Conservation Department Division of Fish and Game Albany, New York

63 NORTH CAROLINA

"All responsibility for pollution control is vested in the State Stream Sanitation Committee, a unit of the North Carolina Department of Water Resources. The Wildlife Resources Commission is specifically prohibited from enforcing pollution control laws by the enabling Act which states, "Provided, however, that no prosecutions for the pollution of streams may be brought under the authority granted herewith. "The State Stream Sanitation Committee is just now completing over ten years of watershed studies through which all waters of the State have been classified according to their best usage, and a pollution abatement program drafted for each watershed. Each polluter in the classified watersheds operates under a temporary permit which remains in force as long as he makes satisfactory progress upon permanent waste treatment facilities to the limits prescribed by the Committee. As we understand it, barring flagrant violations of the temporary permit, no action is taken against any single polluter until all polluters in the river basin have completed their treatment facilities. I believe the first river basin to be classified in North Carolina is just now approaching the stage of a completed basin-wide pollution abatement program."

Regular Session Chapter 1087, Laws 1963 Senate Bill No. 409 "AN ACT to amend Article 21 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes of North Carolina relating to stream sanitation. The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact: "Section 1. Subsection (a) of G.S. 143-215.3, as the same appears in the 1961 Supplement to the General Statutes, is hereby amended by adding thereto a new subdivision to be designated as subdivision (7) and to read as follows: "(7) To investigate any killing of fish and wildlife which in the opinion of the Committee, is of sufficient magnitude to justify investigation, and known or believed to have resulted from the pollution of waters as defined in this Act and whenever any person, whether or not he shall have been issued a certificate approval, permit or other document of approval authorized by this or any other State law, has negligently, or carelessly, or unlawfully, or willfully and unlawfully, caused pollution of waters as defined in this Article, in such quantity concentration or manner that fish and wildlife are killed as a result thereof, the Commit- tee may recover, in the name of the State, damages from such person. "The measure of damages snail be the amount determined by the Committee and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission or the North Carolina Department of Conservation and Development, which- ever has jurisdiction over the fish and wildlife destroyed, to be the replacement cost thereof plus the cost of all reasonable and necessary investigations made or caused to be made by the State in connection therewith. "Upon receipt of the estimate of damages caused, the Committee shall notify the persons responsible for the destruction of the fish or wildlife in question and may effect such settlement as it deems proper and reasonable and if no settlement is reached within a reasonable time, the Committee shall bring a civil act to recover such damages in the Superior Court in the county in which the discharge took place. Upon such action being brought the Superior Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all issues or questions of law or fact, arising on the pleadings, including issues of liability and the amount of damages.

64 NORTH CAROLINA

"The State of North Carolina shall be deemed the owner of the fish or wildlife killed and all actions for recovery shall be brought by the Committee on behalf of the State as the owner of the fish or wildlife. The fact that the person or persons alleged to be responsible for the pollution which killed the fish or wildlife holds or has held a certificate of approval, permit or other document of approval authorized by this Article or any other law of the State shall not bar any such action. "The proceeds of any recovery had, less the cost of investigations recovered and retained or otherwise disbursed by the Committee to the appropriate investigating agencies, shall be paid to the appropriate State agency to be used to replace, insofar as and as promptly as possible, the fish and wildlife killed, or in cases where replacement is not practicable, the proceeds shall be used in whatever manner the responsible agency deems proper for improving the fish and wildlife habitat in the waters in question. Any such funds received are hereby appropriated for these designated purposes. "Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed in any way to limit or prevent any other action which is now authorized by this Article." Section 2. All laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed. Section 3. This Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its ratification. Ratified, June 21, 1963" Enclosure: NORTH CAROLINA Regular Session Chapter 1087, Laws 1963 Senate Bill No. 409 Fishing Value: (Not Given) Reply: March 6, 1963 From: Frederic F. Fish, Assistant Chief Fish Division State of North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Raleigh, North Carolina

NORTH DAKOTA "I'm sorry that we cannot be of any assistance to you in the com- pilation of data concerning possible basis for monetary values assigned to fish and fishing. We have never had a case of this type in North Dakota and luckily our pollution problems are extremely minor as compared to other parts of the country."

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: April 2, 1963 From: Russell W. Stuart, Commisssioner Dale Henegar, Chief of Fisheries Division North Dakota Game and Fish Department Bismarck, North Dakota

OHIO "We have not used your forms because we do not wish to be responsible for any publicity which might result concerning pollution

65 OHIO claims. In certain instances, the companies were the first to notify us of the fish kills. Such cooperation cannot be lost. "The following instances will provide you with the examples of claims presented and the settlements made, with the value placed on each species of fish.

Case A Species Number Value Total Value Shad ...... 37,676 $ .80 per hundred ...... $ 301.41 Quillback 2,114 .10 per pound ...... 53.80 Sunfish ...... 7,394 .35 per pound ...... 75.35 Bluegill 716 .40 per pound ...... 26.20 Rockbass 130 .50 per pound ...... 6.90 Smallmouth bass 130 1.25 per pound ...... 50.37 Crappie ...... 130 .35 per pound ...... 1.72 Crayfish ...... 2,608 1.00 per dozen ...... 217.00 Minnows ...... 284,328 1.00 per hundred ...... 2,843.20 Minnows, Chub ... 36,726 1.20 per hundred ...... 439.75 Suckers ...... 37,634 .10 per pound ...... 820.25 Carp ...... 37,722 .20 per pound ...... 11,399.88 Catfish, Channel 2,821 .35 per pound ...... 289.24 Bass, White ...... 1,833 .40 per pound ...... 131.12 Bullheads ...... 24,654 .20 per pound ...... 902.25

Claim Presented ...... $17,576.44 Damages Received ...... 10,000.00 Case B

Species Number Value Total Value Smallmouth bass 2,370 $1.25 per pound ...... $2,407.50 Rockbass 374 1.25 per pound 35.00 Crappies ...... 6,736 .33 1/3 per pound ...... 294.67 Bluegills 5,364 .33 1/3 per pound ...... 145.33 Channel catfish . 12,973 .25 per pound 2,432.50 White suckers ...... 64,740 .10 per pound 4,450.88 Hog nose suckers .. 13,347 .10 per pound 625.60 Carp ...... 17,464 .10 per pound 1,200.60 Buffalo ...... 1,372 .10 per pound 77.20 Minnows 1,000,000 6.00 per 1,000 6,000.00

Claim Presented ...... $17,669.28 Damages Received ...... 2,000.00 Case C Species Number Value Total Value Suckers ...... 19,536 $ .10 per pound ...... $1,465.20 Largemouth bass .. 105 175.00 per hundred ...... 183.75 Bullheads ...... 1,240 20.00 per hundred ...... 248.00 Sunfish ...... 4,435 .75 per pound ...... 249.45 Carp ...... 17,340 .10 per pound ...... 1,734.00 Channel catfish ..... 26 .35 per pound ...... 9.10 Smallmouth bass .. . 845 125.00 per hundred ...... 1,056.25 Minnows ...... 13,464 .50 per hundred ...... 67.32

Claim Presented ...... $5,013.07 Damages Received ...... 1,813.87

66 01110 Case D Species Number Value Total Value Bluegills ...... 3,269 $ .40 per pound ...... $ 85.20 Sunfish ...... 1,061 .35 per pound ...... 8.58 Bullheads ...... 435 .30 per pound ...... 6.30 Carp ...... 812 .20 per pound ...... 71.20 Suckers ...... 354 .10 per pound ...... 1.10 Channel catfish ... 1 .35 per pound ...... 12 Minnows ...... 59,870 10.00 per 1,000 ...... 598.70

Claim Presented ...... $771.20 Damages Received ...... 600.00

Case E Species Number Value Total Value Minnows ...... 105,600 $6.00 per 1,000 ...... $633,60

Claim Presented ...... 633.60 Damages Received ...... 633.60

"We have taken legal action to collect damages, but our settlements have been made out of court through administrative action."

Fishing Value: "We have no survey which would provide us with a value of fishing in Ohio; but in using the 1960 National Survey of Fishing and Hunting estimate of $106.26 spent per angler, its value would be approximately $85,000,000." Reply: March 26, 1963 From: Clarence F. Clark, Supervisor Fish Production and Investigations State of Ohio Division of Wildlife Department of Natural Resources 1500 Dublin Road Columbus 12, Ohio

OKLAHOMA

Legal action has been taken concerning pollution-caused fish kills but no damages were collected.

Fishing Value: The State of Oklahoma, Department of Wildlife Con- servation, places value of over $50,000,000 on fishing in their state. Reply: March 11, 1963 From: Roy A. Stafford, Director Director of Wildlife Conservation State of Oklahoma Room 118, State Capitol Oklahoma City 5, Oklahoma

67 OREGON

"There have been no legal cases in Oregon resulting in a monetary settlement in or out of court to mitigate fish killed by pollution. We, of course, are interested in this very pertinent subject and expect to be confronted with specific situations demanding such considerations. "There are no court cases on record where damages have been obtained as the result of game fish being destroyed by pollution. "The annual value of the commercial fishery, based on a recent five-year average of the dollars paid to fishermen for fish landed is approximately $7,622,000. "We have followed the national average in determining the value of sport-caught fish. There is currently a research project designed to provide information relative to the value of anadromous sport fish in Oregon scheduled for completion by July, 1963. "A previous survey conducted by research students of Oregon University in 1952 lists the average expenditures of steelhead and salmon anglers as about $83.00. In the 1962 season there were 202,600 steelhead and salmon tags sold by the Oregon Game Commission."

Fishing Value: The State of Oregon places a value of $7,622,000 on commercial fishing. This is based on a five-year average of the dollars paid to fishermen for fish landed. In addition, a survey conducted by research students of Oregon University revealed that approximately $16,- 815,000 was spent annually on sport fishing.

Reply: March 4, 1963 From: William D. Clothier, Assistant State Fisheries Director State of Oregon Fish Commission of Oregon 307 State Office Building Portland 1, Oregon

Reply: March 14, 1963 From: Fred E. Locke, Chief Lake and Stream Management State of Oregon Oregon State Game Commission 1634 S. W. Alder Street Portland 8, Oregon

PENNSYLVANIA

"I am enclosing the answers to your questionnaire, also a list of fish values used to calculate damage done by pollution and a sample of the procedure used. "It is my understanding that the $45,000 which we collected on the basis of a claim of $58,504.50 was the largest amount ever received as compensation for fish kill. "In several cases we have started legal proceedings but in all of them settlement out of court was made in the form of voluntary contributions."

68 PENNSYLVANIA Case A (a) Case in subject: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Glen Alden Corporation (b) Date: October 9-14, 1962 (c) Total damages asked: $58,504.50 (d) Total damages received: $45,000.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 116,280 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Not determined (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 15,116 1 walleye-- ( 5" I ) 14,053 bass (9"+) TOTAL $

BIELO'S REPORT Total distance of kill-67.5 miles; from mouth of Solomon's Creek to Sunbury (North Bridge)-57.5 miles. One half mile at Sunbury plus ten miles downstream not counted because of possible other polluting influences. Approximately 2.0 miles allowed below mouth of Solomon's Creek to cover partial mixing zone. (Upstream end of island at Avon- dale). Most upstream dead fish found at point 300' above island. Thus total distances used to calculate the kill is 55.0 miles, plus 300', or 290,700'. Total fish counted-2040; total distance counted 5100'. Fish counted per foot-0.4. Total estimated kill-116,280 fish No. Walleyes-265/2040-13% or 15,116.0 No. SMBass-243/2040-12% or 13,954.0 Total all other fish 87,210: Total game fish 29,070.

PRICE CALCULATIONS BASED ON FISH COMMISSION PRICE SHEET Date pertains to right bank of river only. Estimated total kill-119,280 fish Estimated No. Walleyes-13% or 15,116 (over 10") at 1.50 $22,674.00 Estimated No. Smallmouth Bass- 12% or 13,927 (6-10") at 1.00 ...... 13,927.00 Estimated No. Smallmouth Bass- 0.196% or 27 (12-15") at 3.75 ...... 101.25 All other fish or 87,210 at 0.25 ...... 21,802.50 Total Estimated Cost ...... $58,504.75 Total kill distance used in calculations ...... 290,700 ft. Total kill distance counted ...... 5,100 ft. Percent total kill distance counted ...... 1.75% Left bank count substantially less, averaging 100 fish/mile at areas checked. In our sampling the left bank has always shown a very low fish population due to the generally greater pollution load which hugs this shore. 69 PENNSYLVANIA

Case B5 (a) Case in subject: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Bethlehem Steel Co. (b) Date: February 4 - 6 and September 13, 14, 15, 16, 1962 (c) Total damages asked: $1,323.79 and $795.12 resp. (d) Total damages received: $ same as above (e) Total number of fish killed: 76,626 minnows, eels, suckers, catfish and carp in Feb.; 16,000 suckers, shiners, bullheads, fallfish, sunfish, largemouth bass. (g) Individual species* Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL

*Warden Miles Witt's Report This chart shows a listing of fish found on the right bank and represents the damage to that shore throughout the kill area.

Species Size Actual Count Estimated Number Cost Total Suckers 2"-4" 184 5520 .050 $165.60 Suckers 12" up 8 240 .50 120.00 Minnows 3" up 114 3420 .03 102.60 Sunfish-E.G. 3" up 2 60 .03 1.80 Shiners 3" 9 270 .03 8.10 Fallfish 3" 32 960 .03 28.80 349 10,470 $426.90 The above count area was over 179 yd. section, and the kill area was set at 3 miles. Giving a key number of 30 to produce the estimated number killed. Listed next is the estimated damage for the other bank, and the total figure for the damage to the Fish life in this pollution of the Lehigh River. Due to the depth of the water mid stream and the inaccessibility to the same the fish count was restricted to bank counts only. Following is a listing of fish counted on the left bank on a 300 yd. section. This divided into the total length gives a key of 17 as the figure used to multiply the actual count number by and giving the estimated number for this bank over the entire length of the kill area.

Species Size Actual Count Estimated Number Cost Total Suckers 1"-6" 228 3,876 .030 $116.28 Suckers 12" up 8 136 .50 68.00 Minnows 1"-3" 100 1,700 .03 51.00 Fallfish 1,-3" 56 782 .03 23.46 Fallfish 7" 2 34 .12 4.08 Shiners 1"-3" 118 2,006 .03 60.18 Sunfish B.G. 1"-3" 6 102 .20 20.40 L. M. Bass 4" 2 34 .66 22.44 Brn Bullh'd 3"-6" 2 34 .07 2.38 Carp 4"-6" 2 34 .00 00.00 514 8,738 $368.22 Right Bank Totals ...... 426.90 Grand Total ...... $795.12

70 PENNSYLVANIA Warden Witt's Report (continued) The grand total is the final figure for the damages for fish killed as a result of the herein mentioned pollution. Case C (a) Case in subject: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Pennsyl- vania Electric Company (b) Date: August 6-8, 1962 (c) Total damages asked: $1,140.74 (d) Total damages received: $1,140.74 (e) Total number of fish killed: 3,441 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Not determined

District Fish Warden Richard Owen's Report Tabulation of fish Kill, Baystown Branch, August 6-8, 1962 Actual Count by District Fish Warden Richard Owens Species Size (inches) Number Counted Cost Per Total Cost Black bass 1- 2 58 $ .16 $ 9.28 2- 4 30 .27 8.10 4- 6 59 .66 38.94 6- 8 152 1.00 152.00 8-10 86 1.39 119.54 10-12 22 2.28 47.88 12-14 11 3.16 34.76 Over 14 3 4.75 14.25 Bluegill Sunfish Under- 5 159 .20 31.80 Perch, Crappies 5- 7 137 .40 54.80 Rock Bass Over- 7 60 .74 44.40 Catfish Under- 3 12 .07 .84 3- 6 21 .15 3.15 6- 9 18 .20 3.60 Over- 9 10 .35 3.50 Eels Under-18 22 .25 5.50 18 and up 6 .40 2.40 Suckers 6-12 227 .25 56.70 12 and up 944 .50 472.00 Minnows, Chubs 1- 2 505 20.40 per M 10.30 Suckers less than 6 inches over- 2 900 30.00 per M 27.00 Total Fish 3441 Total Cost $1,140.74

POLLUTION SETTLEMENTS January 1, 1958 - August 31, 1959 County Company or Person Stream Polluted Amt. Paid Date Bedford Interstate Motor Freight Koontze's Run $100 6- 1-59 System Bedford Bedford Springs Hotel Shobers Run $100 6-25-59 Bedford Penelee Power Co. Raystown Branch $1000 8-28-59 Berks Sun Pipe Line Co. Furnace Creek $100 5-26-68 Berks Reading Tube Corp. Schuylkill River $200 10- 1-58

71 PENNSY LVANIA Pollution Settlements (continued) County Company or Person Stream Polluted Amt. Paid Date Berks Hamburg Knitting Mills Kershner Creek $100 8- 8-59 Bucks Greenwood Dairies Mill Creek $200 7- 6-59 Bucks Endura Corporation Licking Creek $800 2- 4-58 Bucks F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co. Pine Run Creek $100 9-17-58 Bucks Pennsylvania Railroad Delaware Canal $250 6- 6-58 Bucks Burner Service, Inc. Queen Anne Creek $100 6-28-58 Butler Buckeye Pipe Line Co. Br. of S. Br. of Slippery Rock Cr. $100 6- 9-59 Centre Warner Lime Stone Co. Buffalo Run 8100 4-30-59 Centre Standard Line & Stone Blue Spring $3200 5-15-59 Chester Forestry Service Corporation Officers Run and E. Br. Octorara Cr. $351.86 5- 8-59 Chester Downingtown Paper Co. Daveys Race $100 6- 1-59 Chester CIBA Products Trib. to French Creek $200 2-13-58 Chester Parkesburg Sewage Treatment Buck Run $100 6-10-59 Works Chester Lukens Steel Co. W. Br. Brandywine $225 6-24-59 Chester Lukens Steel Co. Sucker Run $106 7-15-59 Chester A. Baker's Welding Shop Little Broad Run $100 2-20-59 Chester Phoenix Steel Corp. French Creek $300 3- 4-59 Chester Philadelphia Electric Co. Schuylkill River $600 12-16-58 Clarion Buckeye Pipe Line Co. Toby Creek $100 10-14-58 Clarion Buckeye Pipe Line Co. Beaver Creek 8100 3-25-58 Clearfield Delta Drilling Co. E. Br. Wilson Run $1000 6-16-59 Crawford Talon, Inc. French Creek $5879.75 7- 1-59 Cumberland Virginia Apples Trib. to Yellow Breeches Creek $100 1-21-59 Delaware Aldon Rug Mills, Inc. Chester Creek $100 8-20-59 Erie Welch Grape Juice Co. Sixteen Mile Creek $100 7-20-59 Forest Endeavor Lumber Co. E. Hickory Creek $100 8-17-59 Forest National Transit Co. Salmon Creek 8100 8-17-59 Forest National Transit Co. Dawson Run 8100 4-25-58 Forest National Transit Co. Tionesta Creek $100 9-23-58 Greene National Transit Co. Pa. Fork, Fish Creek $100 6- 4-59 Lehigh Lehigh Structural Steel Co. Lehigh River $100 5- 4-59 Lehigh Breyer Ice Cream Co. Trout Creek $100 4-25-58 Lehigh Allen Products Co. Trib., Jordan Creek $100 4-25-58 Lehigh General Electric Co. Trout Creek 8100 6-24-59 Lehigh New Jersey Cen. R.R. Co. Lehigh River 8100 7- 6-59 Luzerne Foster Wheeler Corp. Watering Run $100 4-10-59 McKean Otto Chemical Co. Wilson Run $500 4-27-59 McKean Northern Pipe Line Co. Marvin Run $100 4-25-58 McKean Northern Pipe Line Co. Buck Run $100 4-25-58 Mercer Northern Pipe Line Co. Neshannock Creek $100 5-13-58 Mercer Northern Pipe Line Co. Neshannock Creek $100 5-13-58 Mercer Buckeye Pipe Line Co. Wolf Creek and Slippery Rock Creek $100 10-23-58 Mercer Donald Unanget Otter Creek $100 1-14-59 Mercer National Transit Co. McConnell's Run $100 6- 8-59 Mercer Northern Pipe Line Co. Slippery Rock Creek $100 5-13-58 Monroe Houdaille Construction Mate- Little Pocono Creek $100 5-26-58 rials, Inc. Montgomery Pennsylvania School of Horti- Trib., Wissahickon Cr. $100 6-11-58 culture for Women Montgomery Kawechi Chemical Co. West Swamp Creek $200 12- 8-58 Montgomery Cairhill Corp. Trib., Wissahickon Cr. $100 8-18-59 Montgomery North Penn Hide Co. Skippack Creek $100 9-17-58 Montgomery Penco Metal Products Schuylkill River $125 2-20-59 Montgomery Sinclair Oil Co. Mill Creek $100 2-20-59 Montgomery Reyburn Mfg. Co. Schuylkill River 8100 4- 1-59 Northampton Blue Ridge R. & G. Club Bertsche Creek 8100 4-17-59 Northampton Mr. Howard Wolf Silver Creek $100 5- 8-59 Northampton Royal-Globe Ins. Gr. Little Martins Creek $750 7-24-59 Philadelphia Standard Products Co. Schuylkill River 8100 7- 6-59 Schuylkill Tide-Water Pipe Co. Torbets Run Creek $100 11-14-58 Schuylkill Pennsylvania Aggregates, Inc. Bear Creek $100 4- 1-59 Schuylkill Mr. Joseph Andershanis Rattlin Run Creek 8100 4-29-59 Somerset Fairroan Drilling Co. Beaverdam Creek $200 6- 1-69 Venango National Transit Co. Oil Creek $100 10-28-58 Warren United Refinery Alleghany River $100 6-12-59 Warren National Transit Co. S.E. Br. of Tionesta Creek 8100 1-10-58 Warren National Transit Co. Caldwell Creek $100 9-15-58 Warren National Transit Co. Cherry Run 8100 6- 6-58 Warren D & Associates,G Inc. Trib., Tionesta Creek $100 6- 6-58 Warren National Transit Co. Trib., Caldwell Creek $100 8-31-59

72 PENNSYLVANIA THE FOLLOWING IS A COMPARISON OF POLLUTION CASES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 1959-1960---1961 Pending, Not Sufficient Total Evidence. Volnntary Monies No Fish Total Contributions Prosecutions Received Killed Cases 1959 (73) $30,937.62 (11) $1,182.50 $32,120.11 50 134 1960 (58) 20,070.12 (20) 3,400.00 23,470.12 23 101 1961 (53) 14,599.11 (24) 5,200.00 19,799.11 32 109 Totals (184) $65,606.84 (55) $9,782.50 $75,389.34 105 344 Two of the cases prosecuted were dismissed by the Courts, which means 95.6% of the cases prosecuted resulted in convictions. In 1959 61% of all cases were settled. In 1960 77% of all cases were settled. In 1961 78% of all cases were settled. with one case in the process of litigation in the Somerset County Court and, of course, the Glen Alden case to be dealt with by the Department of Justice. An average of 72% of all cases have been successfully concluded for the three year period. Prepared by W. W. Britton Pennsylvania Fish Commission 1/3/62

SUBJECT: Example—Determination of Estimated Total Numbers of Fish Killed by Sample County Expansion Length of fish kill zone 5.0 miles; Average width of fish kill zone 5.8 yards; Total area of kill would then equal 51,040 yards.

Average No. Fish Sample Location Length (yds.) Width Area Counted Counted 1. Birds Bridge 100 5 500 Sq. Yds. 200 (Upstream) 2. Mill Road 200 5 1000 Sq. Yds. 430 (Upstream) 3. Tannery Lane 150 6 900 Sq. Yds. 400 ( Downstream) 4. Railroad Bridge 250 6 1500 Sq. Yds. 570 ( Downstream) 5. Ferry Landing 300 7 2100 Sq. Yds. 1200 (Upstream) Totals 1000 5.8 (Ave.) 6000 Sq. Yds. 2800 2800 (No. dead fish counted is to 6000 sq. yds. as X (Total number of dead fish) is to 51,040 sq. yds. (Total area of fish kill zone.) 6000 X = 2800 x 51,040 X = 2800 x 51,040 6000 X = 23,818 fish killed in entire stream area affected by pollutant.

73 PENNSYLVANIA

Once the total number is obtained the number of each species by size can be quickly determined as a percent of the total number of fish killed. The price list will then give the value of each group of fish.

PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION APPROVED PRICE LIST BASED ON AVERAGE COMMERCIAL VALUES 1961 Species Size (inches) Value/Fish Brook, Brown and 1 thru 3 $ .15 Rainbow Trout 4 thru 6 .25 7 thru 9 .47 10 thru 12 .95 13 thru 15 1.95 16 thru 18 3.75 Trout over 18" to be charged at rate of 1.75/1b. Walleyes Under 6 .50 6 to 10 1.30 10 to 15 1.50 15 and up 2.00 Black Bass 1 to 2 .16 2 to 4 .27 4 to 6 .66 6th 8 1.00 8 to 10 1.39 10 to 12 2.28 12 to 14 3.16 Over 14 4.75 Chain Pickerel 6 to 10 1.00 10 and up 1.50 Bluegill Sunfish, Perch Crappies, Rock Bass and White Bass Under 5 .20 5th 7 .40 Over 7 .74 Catfish (All Species) Under 3 .07 3 to 6 .15 6 to 9 .20 Over 9 .35 Eels Under 18 .25 18 and up .40 Suckers 6 to 12 .25 12 and up .50 Suckers elss than 6" to be counted as minnows. No charge for carp or river quillback. Minnows 1 to 2 20.40 per M Over 2 30.00 per M For prices on species not listed such as Northern Pike, Muskellunge or Lake Trout consult the Harrisburg Office. Fishing Value: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, places a value of $57,000,000 on fishing in their state. This valuation is based on figures in a national survey of fishing and hunting, 1960. Reply: February 26, 1963 From: Albert S. Hazzard, Assistant Executive Director Pennsylvania Fish Commission Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

74 RHODE ISLAND "In years past, severe fish kills have occurred, usually in already polluted rivers. Primarily carp and other less valuable species were killed. No attempts were made to collect damages, however, I feel that now public sentiment would demand that action be taken." Case A (a) Case in subject: State of Rhode Island vs. A Dairy Company (b) Date: April 1962 (c) Total damages asked: $75.00 (d) Total damages received: $75.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 300 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 75 pounds (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish Brown trout $75.00 $1.00 per pound TOTAL $ Note: "Small brook was stocked with trout. An employee of a dairy opened the wrong valve, resulting in discharge of concentrated cleaning solution, killing all fish. Dairy company agreed to pay whatever the replacement costs were." Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: February 21, 1963 From: Thomas J. Wright, Chief Division of Fish and Game State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of Agricultural and Conservation Veterans' Memorial Building Providence 3, Rhode Island

SOUTH CAROLINA "Although our records indicate numerous fish-kills in South Carolina in the past several years, we are unable to furnish you with any data which would serve you in establishing monetary values to fish. "It has been our experience in Water Pollution Control Work that information on fish-kills is too late and too little. Our files prove this. Investigation by this agency following a report of a fish-kill in most cases reveals that the water is in near normal condition." Case A Location: Pacolet River (a) Case in subject: Unknown vs (b) Date: June 6, 1960 (c) Total damages asked: $ None (d) Total damages received: $ None (e) Total number of fish killed: "Hundreds" (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish No information TOTAL $ * As usual the alarm of fish-kill reached the Authority offices too late with conflicting and sketchy information. In many cases the suspicion was cast on several possible sources. In each case investigation could not fix the blame with any certainty.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Possible Causes 1. Toxic peach sprays. 2. Creoscle Plant. (dikes holding wastes were washed away by heavy rains) Case B Location: Fair Forest Creek (a) Case in subject: Unknown vs (b) Date: July 8-17, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $ None (d) Total damages received: $ None (e) Total number of fish killed: 1,500 to 2,000 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish Mostly gizzard shad None $ Not known Several game fish 2 snakes TOTAL $ 0.00 Area was investigated too late. Sampling indicated normal condition of water.

Possible Causes 1. Dynamite blast. 2. Textile dye wastes washed out from gully. 3. "Somebody limed the river". 4. Fertilizer wastes.

Case C Location: Coosawhatchie River (a) Case in subject: Unknown vs. (b) Date: June 22-28, 1958 (c) Total damages asked: $ None (d) Total damages received: $ None (e) Total number of fish killed: Unknown (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish Unknown

TOTAL $ 0.00 Investigation could not fix blame.

Case D Catawba River near Fort Mill—June 1955. "Numerous" carp, catfish, all species of game fish such as bass bream, perch were killed. Cause—Low flow from Duke Dam up stream with low D. 0. Normal capacity of river for oxidizing and diluting industrial wastes was reduced. At that time treatment of industrial wastes was still incomplete. Total damages asked—None.

76 SOUTH CAROLINA Case E Black Creek, near Florence. Date: Week end of June 14, 15, 1958 Number of Fish Killed: Unknown Cause: Hot weather, low flow, less surface for reaeration, higher concentration of oxidizable and toxic wastes. D. 0. = 0.0 ppm at time of investigation. Again D. 0. measured 0.0 ppm on June 18, 1958 during 12 minutes of consecutive sampling. Action by Authority—Pursuing better industrial waste treatment. Case F Location: Lynches River, below Lynchburg. Number of Fish Killed: Unknown Investigation revealed discolored water, very deep blue. Possible causes: 1. Dye wastes from textile mill. Two lagoons full of dye wastes are emptied in a period of one week. 2. Wastes from a finishing company (Textile In- dustry). Action by Authority: Further study was recommended. Fishing Value: The State of South Carolina Wildlife Resources De- partment places a value of $10,000,000 on fishing in their state. This is a rough estimate based on license sales and estimates. Reply: February 20, 1963 From: Jefferson C. Fuller, Jr., Chief of Fisheries South Carolina Wildlife Resources Department Columbia, South Carolina Reply: April 1, 1963 From: Samuel E. Trani, Engineer South Carolina State Board of Health Water Pollution Control Authority Columbia, South Carolina

SOUTH DAKOTA No information regarding court cases or monetary values was given. Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: Marvin Boussu, Superintendent of Fisheries South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks State Office Building Pierre, South Dakota

TENNESSEE During the past several years Tennessee has developed a unique water pollution program. We have trained our Law Enforcement Offi- cers on the techniques of investigating fish kills and collecting water samples in such a way that the information obtained could be presented

77 TENNESSEE

in court. To date we have only one case pending before a court of law. Court cases and administrative action taken in the past are summarized below.

Case A (a) Case in subject: Tennessee Game and Fish Commission vs. Chapman Chemical Company (b) Date: October 19, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $1,337.50 (d) Total damages received: None (e) Total number of fish killed: 9,070 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 1,070 lbs. (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 9,070 Rainbow Trout about 15c per fish $1.25 per pound

TOTAL $1,337.50

REMARKS This fish kill was the result of a spraying operation which was carried out on October 19, 1959. A spray crew sprayed a lawn and shrubbery while spraying a house for termites. The chemical seeped through the lawn into a spring and on into the water supply of the Erwin Game and Fish Hatchery. The chemicals used on the lawn were:

DIELBREC 18.10—Dieldrin .76—Patrolem Hydrocarbons 15.40—Hexachloroepoxyoctahydro- Cndo exo—Dimethanonaphthalene

Samples were sent to the laboratory of the Tennessee Health De- partment and were found to be very toxic to fish. Unfortunately, no damages were received in this case because Mr. Chapman died soon after the fish kill occurred. His wife, who then qualified as administratrix of his estate, sold the company to a Mr. Ted H. Lang. Mr. Lang then proceeded to sell his business to three men by the name of Garland, who subsequently incorporated. The final analysis was stated as follows, "There seems to be no doubt but what the present corporation is not liable under this claim by any reason", and all parties disclaimed any liability and indicate no disposition to effect a settlement of any sort.

Case B (a) Case in subject: Tennessee Game and Fish Commission vs. J. B. Thomas, Jr. (b) Date: December 12, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $2,453.75 (d) Total damages received: $2,453.75 (e) Total number of fish killed: 8,771 (f) Total weight of fish killed: 1,963 lbs.

78 TENNESSEE

Case B (continued) (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish 8,771 Rainbow Trout about 28c per fish $1.25 per pound $ $ $ TOTAL $2,454.75

REMARKS On Saturday, December 12, 1959, between the hours of 10:00 A.M. and 11:00 A.M., while feeding fish at the Erwin Hatchery, Mr. Edmund Foster and Mr. B. E. Wilson noticed a Gulf Oil truck at the Charles Banks' Service Station, also a small gasoline water pump in operation. At this time several men were noticed walking toward a stream that runs next to the service station. Messrs. Foster and Wilson, wondering about this action, decided to investigate. They walked to the upper end of the fish raceway and found fish dying and in distress. They also found an oil-like substance on the water and could smell gasoline fumes on the water. They immediately called Mr. Charles Banks and Mr. Buck, the Gulf Oil truck driver. Upon questioning these persons, they found that Mr. Buck had been sent to this service station to pump water from a gasoline storage tank. In doing so, gasoline was pumped onto the asphalt pavement and nearby ground. This area then drains into a ditch, which empties its contents into the fish raceway. Mr. Buck also stated he was satisfied that the gasoline was the killing factor of the fish. After making an inventory of the fish we found a loss of 8,771 trout, all rainbow, which averaged nine (9) inches in length. The weight of the fish was 1,963 pounds, or 4.46 fish to the pound. Personnel of the hatchery and interested people did all that was possible to save the fish. Had this effort not been put forth, the fish kill could have reached 30,000 fish. Approximately fifteen persons were witness to the pumping operation and testified as to the presence of gasoline in the water supply. Eight (8) water samples were collected from the ditch and fish raceway. Along with the above, pictures were also taken at the time of the kill.

Case C (a) Case in subject: Tennessee Game and Fish Commission vs. Victor Chemical Company (b) Date: July 5, 1956 (c) Total damages asked: $615.75 (d) Total damages received: $615.75 (e) Total number of fish killed: 1,515 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish Bluegill-1000 $250.00 $ 25.00 per 100 Largemouth Bass-300 210.00 70.00 per 100 Channel Catfish-215 55.75 .25 per lb. 1/ Transportation 100.00 TOTAL $615.75

79 TENNESSEE Case C (continued) 1/ Also included in the cost was partial transportation cost for three trips (two out of state)

REMARKS On July 5, 1956 heavy rains, hail and gusts of wind up to 61 mph struck Maury County, Tennessee. The heavy rains totaled 2.60 inches in one hour, causing an overflow of a waste pond used by Victor Chemi- cal Company. This water was used for cooling slag, etc. and contained large amounts of P.05. This "phosy" water overflowing into Big Bigby Creek caused the fish kill. Luckily, the pond did not break. Case D (a) Case in subject: Tennessee Game and Fish Commission vs. Victor Chemical Company (b) Date: July 20, 1963 (c) Total damages asked: $6,933.49 (d) Total damages received: $2,500.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: 121/2 miles of stream (f) Total weight of fish killed: 5,000 lbs. estimated (g) (See attached report)

REPORT During the week of July 20, 1963, the levee of a settling pond at Victor Chemical Company near Mount Pleasant, Tennessee, broke. The contents of the settling pond entered Quality Creek and flowed downstream into Sugar Creek, downstream into Big Bigby Creek and downstream into Duck River. A fish kill occurred in each of the streams listed. Two study stations were chosen, one near the community of Rock- dale, above all pollution and containing clear water, upstream from Victor Chemical. This station was used as control station number one. Station number two is located downstream from Victor Chemical, near the Cannon Bridge and in the polluted area. There were 67 widths and 492 depths checked on the creeks ex- tending from the headwaters of Big Bigby Creek to the mouth of Big Bigby Creek. Average depth of Sugar Creek could not be checked because a large quantity of mud from Victor Chemical Company's settling pond had completely covered the creek bottom, and made it impossible to wade. A high content of mud was also found in Big Bigby Creek from the mouth of Sugar Creek to the mouth of Big Bigby Creek, but it was possible, with care taken, to wade this area. After computing many depths and widths it was found that Big Bigby Creek has an average depth of 14.14 inches and an average width of 24 feet 4 inches. The average width and depth of Big Bigby Creek at the control station (near the railroad trestle upstream from the community of Rockdale), was found to be 19 feet 4 inches wide and 15 inches deep. The quantity of fish found within this control area on the August 9, 1963 survey is as follows:

80 TENNESSEE Case D (continued) TABLE I Station 1, Big Bigby Creek, Maury County, August 9, 1963, near railroad crossing upstream from community of Rock- dale. Station was 125 yards long. Lengths* Species Numbers min. - max. Weights'• Smallmouth Bass 5 4.0 - 12.2 1.6 pounds Rock Bass 16 2.3 - 9.0 3.1 Green Sunfish 10 4.3 - 6.7 1.1 Longear Sunfish 5 3.5 - 5.6 0.4 Redhorse 13 6.9 - 13.5 5.2 Hogsuckers 14 3.0 - 15.6 6.0 - TOTALS 63 17.4 Total Number of Minnows Stonerollers 17 Chubs 6 Top Minnows 7 Rainbow Shiners 11 Darters 1 42 * All lengths are in inches and tenths ** All weights are in pounds and tenths TABLE II Percent by Number and Weights from Station 1. Species Number Weight Smallmouth 7.9 9.2 Rock Bass 25.4 17.8 Green Sunfish 15.9 6.3 Longear Sunfish 7.9 2.3 Redhorse 20.6 29.9 Hogsucker 22.2 34.5 99.9 percent 100.0 percent TABLE III Station 2, Big Bigby Creek, Maury County, August 9, 1963. Below Victor Chemical Company. Upstream from Cannon Bridge, station was 600 yards long. Length Species Number min. - max. Weight Green Sunfish 12 3.3 - 5.6 0.90 Longear Sunfish 1 5.3 - 5.3 0.15 - TOTALS 13 1.05 Total Number of Minnows Dace 6 Darter 1 Milky Tail Shiners 1 8 81 TENNESSEE Case D (continued) In section two, Table III, described above there are several small unnamed branches that enter the creek. All minnows (8), were taken at or very near the mouth of these branches. The cover and habitat in the main stream was considered good to excellent, yet no fish were taken from these places. The few fish that were recovered were found in the center of the stream and near the unnamed branches. It is possible that these fish migrated from the branches into the stream. A large amount of silt covered the creek below Victor Chemical. Even in the shoal areas where swift moving water is found, this heavy dark brown sediment was present when agitated. There were at least 121/2 stream miles eradicated of fish life by the pollution within Big Bigby Creek and Sugar Creek. This figure does not include the damage done in Duck River. Within this 121/2 stream miles of water, 5,000 pounds of stream fish would make up the population if the kill had not occurred. The quantity of each species is as follows:

TABLE IV Species Percent Each Species (By Numbers) Average Weight Largemouth Bass 7.5 6 ounces Rock Bass 7.5 8 per pound Channel Catfish 8.0 8 ounces Longear Sunfish 15.0 20 per pound Hogsuckers 10.0 8 ounces Redhorse 40.0 6 ounces Stonerollers 8.0 60 per pound Misc. (Minnows, Shad, etc.) 4.0 10 per pound By using the monetary values of Tennessee fish, the value of the control station is as follows:

TABLE V Total Cost of Species Quantity Average Cost Replacement Smallmouth Bass 1.6 pounds $10.00 per pound $16.00 Rock Bass 3.1 pounds 4.00 per pound 12.40 Green Sunfish 1.1 pounds .50 per pound .55 Longear Sunfish 0.4 pounds .50 per pound .20 Redhorse 13 fish .15 per fish 1.95 Hogsuckers 14 fish .15 per fish 2.10

TOTAL $33.20 The calculations of value for the control area and the pollution area are as follows: CONTROL STATION Length 125 yards Therefore 1 mile = 1,760 yards X mile 125 yards 1 mile = 1,760 yards 1,760 X = 125 X = 0.071 miles (length of control station) 19.333 feet (width) X 1.25 feet (depth) X 375 feet (length) -- 9,062.343 cubic feet

82 TENNESSEE Case D (continued) 1 acre foot = 43,560 cubic feet Therefore 1 acre foot =- 43,560 cubic feet X acre foot 9,062.34 cubic feet X = 0.20804 acre feet (control station), valued at $33.20

POPULATION AREA Length 12% miles Average width 24 feet 4 inches Average depth 14.14 inches 24.33333 feet (width) X 1.17833 feet (depth) X 5,280 (feet per mile) 151,391.887 cubic feet per mile 1 acre foot = 43,560 cubic feet Therefore 1 acre foot =- 43,560 cubic feet X acre feet 151,391.887 cubic feet X = 3,475 acre feet for 1 mile Therefore 3,475 (acre feet for 1 mile) X 12.5 (miles stream) = 43,437.5 acre feet for 12% miles Therefore 0.208 acre feet = $33.20 1.000 acre feet $ X X =- $159.62 cost per acre foot Therefore $159.62 X 43,437.5 (acre feet for 12% miles) = $6,933.49 ( VALUE OF 12% MILES)

TABLE VI—Comparison of pounds of fish per mile from 1952-1963 Station 1—Control Station above Victor Chemical Years Pounds of Fish Per Mile #SMB #Rock Bags Species Collected** 1952 148 —* — — 1954 178 2 24 6 1963 243 5 17 6

TABLE VII—Comparison of pounds of fish per mile from 1952-1963 Station 2—Below Victor Chemical Company Years Pounds of Fish Per Mile #SMB #Rock Bass Species Collected 1952 21 — — 9 1954 160 0 0 17 1963 4 0 0 2 * Unknown ** The figures representing species collected does not include any minnows, bullheads or darters.

83 TENNESSEE Case D (continued) One way of determining the degree of harm a stream has been injected to is by measuring the standing crop at each station. The standing crop is the total weight of all fish present in pounds per mile. This comparison may or may not show the recovery ability of the stream to produce fish regardless of the species concerned. To show the degree of recovery or harm a stream has been injected to, it is necessary to also compare the number of species taken each year. This is particularly true of the more sensitive species. These two comparisons have been done in Tables VI and VII. In conclusion, it must be assumed that the fish population of Big Rigby Creek has suffered a definite set back. Studies indicate that the samples taken in 1963 were far below its original state. The presence of phosphate-rich wastes that are released into the stream have created a more fertile situation. The water is not clear enough for smallmouth and rock bass to live. The phosphate waste results in an apparently perpetual growth of phytoplankton that colors the water a rich green. Under these conditions it will probably be the non-game algae feeders that thrive, if and when they return. The evidence of their numbers is not present at this time because of the extremely heavy silt present.

POLLUTION CASES LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS MADE FROM 1951 - APRIL 1965 County Company or Person Stream Polluted Amt. Paid Date Fentress Clifford Goad Sawdust into Stream $ 10.00 2-1951 Montgomery James D. Abernathy Pollution of Cumberland River 50.00 6-1951 Montgomery James D. Abernathy Pollution of Cumberland River 50.00 6-1951 White Sparta Planning Mills Calfkiller River 25.00 2-1953 Blount G. E. Carden Sawdust into Stream 25.00 12-1953 Johnson David H. Brettler Allowing Mud to Enter Public Waters 25.00 6-1954 Wayne Jake Nicholson Polluting Public Stream With Refuse from Cheese Factory 25.00 11-1954 Johnson David H. Brettler Allowing Mud to Enter Public Waters 50.00 2-1956 Anderson Charles E. Hackworth Junk into Coal Creek 25.00 4-1955 Anderson James A. Rains Junk into Poplar Creek 25.00 7-1955 Hamilton Robert Russell Permanent 8-1955 Hamilton Robert Russell Injunction 8-1955 Hamilton S. W. Russell Dumping Dirt from Granted 8-1955 Hamilton S. W. Russell Strip Mine into Stopping 8-1955 Hamilton A. W. Russell Stream This 8-1955 Hamilton A. W. Motters Operation 8-1955 Johnson Valley Mining Co. Siltation of Stream 126.00 11-1955 (5 Counts) Anderson Fred Andrew Lyles Dumping Septic Tank into Poplar Creek 25.00 12-1955 Anderson Lounia Smith Dumping Junk into Coal Creek 26.00 2-1956

84 TENNESSEE Pollution Cases (continued) ' Company or Person County Stream Polluted Amt. Paid Date Washington Tennessee Manganese Mine Co. Polluting Stream 50.00 9-1956 Washington U.R.A. Manganese Corporation Polluting Stream 50.00 5-1957 Carter Shelby Boyd Sand Plant Mud to Run into Watauga River 25.00 8-1958 Johnson David H. Brettler Allowing Mud to Enter Public Water 25.00 7-1959 Pickett Cye Worth Allowing Salt Water and Waste Oil from Oil Well to Flow into Caney Creek 50.00 6-1960 Smith Jessie Clyde Alexander Polluting Water in Hickman Creek 25.00 9-1960 Smith Bernie Dowl Haynes Polluting Water in Hickman Creek 25.00 9-1960 Smith Bernie Eugene Herman Polluting Water in Hickman Creek 25.00 9-1960 Washington George H. Phillips Dumping Trash on a River Bank 25.00 2-1961 Hickman Lester Martin Allowing Phosphate Mud to Run into Duck River 25.00 6-1963 Hawkins Brownlow Moffitt, Pollution of Stream 40.50 4-1965 Moffitt Lumber Co.

The following forms are used by our Game and Fish Commission personnel when investigating a fish kill and collecting a water sample. These forms are filled out and sent to the main office, in Nashville.

Fishing Value: $30,000,000 Tennessee, in 1962, conducted a state-wide hunting and fishing survey and found that 362,000 fishermen caught 49,000,000 fish and spent $30,000,000. This represents the homes in Tennessee that have telephones, which comprise seventy percent (70%) of the households. Information Compiled by: John M. Stubbs, Supervisor Pollution Control and Warmwater Streams Tennessee Game and Fish Commission 210 Cordell Hull Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219

FORM #1 (FISH KILL INVESTIGATION FORM)

1. NAME OF STREAM, LAKE, POND, CREEK, OR RIVER

2. COUNTY 3. DATE b. TIME OF INVESTIGATION: A.M. P.M.

5. KINDS OF FISH AND NUMBER: SPECIES NUMBER 222.919.2 NUMBER 1. 8. 2. 9. 3. 10. b. 11. 5. 12. 6. 13. 7. 1B.

TOTAL NUMBER OF FISH

TOTAL POUNDS OF FISH (ESTIMATE). 6. EXTENT OF KILL: STREAM MILES RIVER MILES LAKE ACRES

7. DURATION OF KILL IN DAYS OR HOURS

.8. WHERE DO YOU FEEL THE KILL STARTED AND ENDED? FROM TO

9. CONDITION OF FISH FOUND: (CHECK ONE OR MORE) DEAD FOR SEVERAL DAYS DEAD FOR SHORT PERIOD DYING AND IN DISTRESS OTHER (WRITE IN)

10. LOCATION FISH WERE FOUND: (CHECK ONE OR MORE) DRIFTS ALONG BANK EDDIES AROUND BRIDGE PIERS FLOATING ON SURFACE OTHERS (WRITE IN)

11. DISEASES PRESENT OR ANY OTHER ABNORMALITY OBSERVED. DESCRIPTION:

12. WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF HARM TO FROGS, SNAKES, INSECTS, OR OTHER PLANTS OR ANIMALS/ IF SO, STATE ONES AFFECTED AND TO WHAT EXTENT.

86 FORM #1 (FISH KILL INVESTIGATION FORM - CONTINUED)

13. DESCRIBE A PERMANENT LANDMARK AND DRAW A SMALL MAP OF THE AREA:

14. NAMES OF INVESTIGATING PERSONNEL:

15. REMARKS:

16. PLEASE SEND THIS INFORMATION TO:

JOE F. HOPPER, SENIOR FISHERIES BIOLOGIST TENNESSEE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION ROOM 210, CORDELL-I-LULL BUILDING NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37219

JOHN M. STUBBS, SUPERVISOR POLLUTION CONTROL AND WARMWATER STREAMS ROOM 210, CORDELL HULL BUILDING NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37219

JFH:AW 4/30/65

87 FORM #2 (WATER SAMPLE DATA FORM)

1. NAME OF STREAM, LAKE, POND, CREEK, OR RIVER

2. COUNTY AND NEAREST TOWN

3. DATE 4. TIME OF DAY SAMPLE WAS TAKEN A.M. 5. TEMPERATURE OF WATER 6, PH 7. AIR TEMPERATURE

8. D.O. PPM 9. CO2 PPM

10. FREE ACIDITY: HIGH RANGE LOW RANGE 11. TOTAL ACIDITY

12. ALKALINITY (HIGH RANGE): PHENOLPHTHALEIN METHYL ORANGE

13. ALKALINITY (LOW RANGE): PHENOLPHTHALEIN METHYL ORANGE

14. HARDNESS 15. WATER VISIBILITY . FEET AND INCHES

16. SOURCE OF WATER:

A. DAM B. SPRING C. LAKE

8. OTHER (WRITE IN)

17. COLOR OF WATER:

A. GREEN B. BLUE C. MUDDY D. BLACK

E. BROWN F. OTHER (WRITE IN)

18. DEPTH SAMPLE WAS TAKEN FEET

19. TOTAL DEPTH OF WATER AT SITE OF SAMPLING FEET

20. UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WATER (CHECK ONE OR MORE):

A. OIL SLICK PRESENT B. SCUM ON WATER

C. UNUSUAL AMOUNT OF FLOATING DEBRIS D. UNUSUAL ODOR PRESENT

P. OTHER (WRITE IN WHAT IT IS)

21. WEATHER, 24 HOURS PRECEDING COLLECTION (CHECK ONE OR MORE):

a. Cloudy B. WINDY C. HUMID D. CLEAR E. RAIN F. HOT G. OTHER (WRITE IN)

88 'FORM #2 (WATER SAMPLE DATA FORM) - (CONTINUED)

22. POSSIBLE SOURCE OF POLLUTION (CHECK ONE OR MORE)

A. MINING * B. AGRICULTURAL

C. INDUSTRIAL * D, OXYGEN DEPLETION

E. DOMESTIC F. UNKNOWN

* IF MINING OR INDUSTRY IS CHECKED, GIVE COMPANY NAME AND TYPE OF MINING OR INDUSTRY.

23. LOOK FOR DELIBERATE STREAM POISONING, WRITE IN OBSERVATIONS

24. DRAW A MAP IN DETAIL SHOWING WHERE WATER SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED, WITH PERMANENT LANDMARKS AND RIVER MILE.

25. NAME OF PERSON COLLECTING WATER SAMPLE

26. REMARKS: (TO INCLUDE ALL INFORMATION POSSIBLE ON THE FISH KILL)

PLEASE SEND THIS INFORMATION TO:

JOE F. HOPPER, SENIOR FISHERIES BIOLOGIST TENNESSEE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION ROOM 210, CORDELL HULL BUILDING NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37219

JOHN M. STUBBS, SUPERVISOR POLLUTION CONTROL AND WARMWATER STREAMS TENNESSEE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION ROOM 210, CORDELL HULL BUILDING NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37219 JFH:AW (11/18/65)

89 TEXAS "To our knowledge, no damage suit has ever been filed in the State of Texas to recover the value of fish destroyed by pollution." Fishing Value: $285,000,000 "In the year 1960, the U. S. Bureau of Census conducted a hunting and fishing survey for the State of Texas and it was reported that two and one-tenth million Texas sport fishermen spent a total of $285,- 000,000 during the year 1960 with an average of $130 per fisherman." Reply: W. J. Cutbirth, Jr., Assistant Executive Secretary Game and Fish Commission State of Texas Austin, Texas

UTAH "Our Department has taken action on a number of different occasions when fish kills have occurred. At least four of these have resulted in some type of settlement, out of court, for mitigation of resource losses. The individual cases are listed below, along with the data you have indicated as being desirable on your forms where it was available. Case 1 Three States Natural Gas Company, Salt Lake City, Utah Affected Water: Scofield Reservoir and three of its tributaries, Carbon County, Utah. Source of Pollution: Drilling muds and sealing compounds from well drilling activities. Date of Damage: July to August, 1952. Total Damages Asked: $2,000. Total Damages Received: $2,000. Total Number Fish Killed: Not given in existing report. Total Weight of Fish Killed: Not given in existing report. "In this case (chronic re-occurring pollution) damage was probably assessed largely on the basis of habitat destruction. Our report states that over ten miles of stream bottom was uniformly silted to about one inch in depth. Fish, bottom fauna, and cover were lost. Case 2 Malad River and Bear River Fish Kill, Utah Idaho Sugar Company, Garland, Box Elder County, Utah. Date: November 25, 1953. Affected Water: Malad and Bear Rivers from Garland, Utah to U. S. Fish and Wildlife Bear River Waterfowl Refuge. Source of Pollution: Organic material from sugar beet processing discharged to river at low flow creating a zone lacking dissolved oxygen. Total Damages Asked: Replace 10,000 five-inch channel catfish fingerling at $180 per thousand plus transport charges from Blythe, California. Total Damages Received: As stated above. Total Numbers Fish Killed: Not given in existing report. Total Weight of Fish Killed: Not given in existing report.

90 UTAH

Case 3 Vitro Chemical Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah. Affected Water: Jordan River, Salt Lake County, Utah. Date: November 18, 1955. Source of Pollution: Accidental discharge of waste lagoons containing mill waste from uranium processing. Total Damages Asked: $500, to replace game species only. Total Damages Received: $500. Total Numbers Fish Killed: Not given in existing report. Total Weight of Fish Killed: Not given in existing report. Case 4 Geneva Steel Company, Division of United States Steel Corporation, Orem, Utah. Affected Water: Utah Lake, Utah County, Utah. Source of Pollution: Waste effluent (ammonium hydroxide) from above company. Total Damages Asked: $22,500. Total Damages Received: None. (See below) Total Numbers Fish Killed: Calculated figure 3,000 plus. Total Weight of Fish Killed: Not taken. "The Department agreed to compromise in the case of this kill with the responsible company. Corrective modifications of plant design were effected by the Company to prevent toxic material from gaining access to the waste effluent discharge to Utah Lake. In addition, the company has maintained a continuous chemical monitor for toxic components in their waste effluent and set up a continuous bioassay procedure to test their waste effluent. These modifications have apparently been effective, since no kills have occurred since 1961 on Utah Lake which could be traced to this source. "In calculating monetary estimates of the fishery loss on this kill the number of eggs from females of walleye pike and channel catfish were also included. Both species were in prime spawning condition at the time of kill." Fishing Value: "What Value on Fishing in Utah: The following information is taken from a report published by our Depart- ment in 1959 (Supplement to a Study of the Economic Value of Fishing and Hunting in Utah) based on a study conducted for the year 1955. This report lists the average daily expenditure for fishing (mean with allo- cation) as $14.26 and the total number of days spent fishing as 1,435,360. From these figures the total value of fishing in Utah for 1955 would be $20.724,913. This figure may be upgraded by an increment factor of 0.55 percent per year to give a corrected figure which will a fairly reliable basis for current values." Reply: March 18, 1963 Harold S. Crane, Director From: N. V. Chamberlain, Pollution Biologist State of Utah Department of Fish and Game 1596 West North Temple Salt Lake City 16, Utah

91 VERMONT "We have no established per pound or per fish values. We have had a couple of instances where trout were killed and replaced by fish purchased from a licensed dealer. The ammonia drained from a re- frigeration system of a milk receiving plant was dumped into a stream killing several hundred legal rainbows. They were replaced by the H. P. Hood Company. "A farmer rinsed a potato spraying rig in a stream and killed trout and these were replaced by his insurance company." A. In the first case 1,500 trout were killed. The stream was restocked with 2,000 eight inch rainbow trout. B. In the second case the stream was restocked with 2,000 nine inch brown trout. Both settlements were made at the current rates charged by commercial dealers.

Fishing Value: (None Given) Replies: February 21 and February 25, 1963 From: George W. Davis, Commissioner Fish and Game Department State of Vermont Montpelier, Vermont

VIRGINIA

"Enclosed are copies of a report which gives the amount of money collected from fish kills in the past ten years. We have a separate State Water Control Board which handles all the legal work involved in collecting for fish kills. Our Commission has no legal function. We merely provide the Water Control Board with information and recommendations." Fish Kill Settlements "By letter of November 3, 1960, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries transmitted the following report on settlement of fish kills in Virginia, including number and species of fish used in restocking the State Waters involved and the dates of restocking:

Date Check Date Fish Pollution Source Received Amount Restocked Number & Species Case A Middle Ri. Aug. Co. 6-14-55 $ 111.76 11- 3-58 500 adult sunfish Frank's Mill 1,000 young a year am bass 500 1-yr. am bass 300 2-yr. am bass 200 3-yr. am bass 100 4-yr. am bass

Case B Little Calfpasture, Aug. Co., 11- 2-56 1,000.00 11-17-56 900 3"-5" am bass Lehigh Portland Cement Co. 100 1-yr. am bass Case C Shenandoah River, Clarke and 7-14-60 30,000.00 Nov. 60 485 3-yr. am bass Warren Co., American 300 2-yr. am bass Viscose Corp. 20,500 young of year am bass

92 VIRGINIA

Date Check Date Fish Pollution Source Received Amount Restocked Number & Species Case D Roaring Fork, Dickenson Co., 6- 7-55 200.00 10-14-55 500 rock bass Dowell, Inc. 500 adult sunfish

Case E

Blaekwater River, Franklin 12-21-59 1,170.00 10-19-60 2,000 am bass Thompson Products Co.

Case F Abrams Creek, Frederick Co., 11-11-54 195.60 Nov. 60 500 young of year Winchester (sewage) sm bass 500 adult sunfish

Case G Opequon Creek, Frederick 11-11-54 with Abrams Nov. 60 500 young of year Winchester (sewage) am bass 500 sunfish

Case H James River (Piney) Nelson 10-15-56 5,615.00 Nov. 60 20,000 young of year American Cyanamid Co. am bass Case I Tomahawk Creek, Orange 8-24-54 127.41 10-19-60 125 young of year Bralley Trucking Co. lm bass 335 young of year bluegill

Case J Hawksbill Creek Page Co. 11-11-54 114.78 Nov. 56 3,000 bream Virginia Oak Tannery 3,000 crappie Nov. 60 1,000 young of year am bass 1,000 adult sunfish

Case K Blacks Run, Rockingham 12-10-54 50.00 Nov. 60 600 young of year Central Chemical Corp. am bass

Case L M. F. Holston, Smyth Co. 7- 2-60 1,868.00 Oct. 59 6,000 1-yr. am bass Appalachian Shale Products 200 2-yr. am bass 60 6-yr. am bass 60 6-yr. am bass 500 1"-6" sunfish

Case M N. F. Holston, Wash. Co. 6- 7-54 1,240.00 Not cleared up — not recom- Olin-Mathieson Chem. Corp. mended for restocking

"The Board received the report and directed the Executive Secre- tary to request information from the Commission regarding $14,000 collected from American Cyanamid Company in November 1957 for settlement in the case of a fish kill in the James River as a result of waste discharged by that company in July 1956. "(On December 1, 1960, the Executive Secretary wrote the Com- mission in accordance with the Board's directive and on December 7, 1960, Mr. Robert G. Martin, Chief of the Commission's Fish Division,

93 VIRGINIA suggested addition of the following paragraph to complete the Com- mission's report on restocking: ("The 20,000 young-of-the-year smallmouth bass stocked in the James River in November, 1960, were stocked to satisfy the November, 1957 settlement ($14,000) with the American Cyana- mid Company as well as the November, 1955 settlement. The November, 1957 settlement was inadvertently omitted from our original report.") ) Fishing Value: "We have never tried to put a value on fishing in Vir- ginia. However, we license about 400,000 each year. I am sure the total investment would be substantial." Enclosures: Report from State Water Control Board and "State Water Control Law", Chapter 2, Title 62, Code of Virginia, 1950, Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Purchases and Supply, Richmond, Virginia Reply: June 3, 1963 From: Robert G. Martin, Fish Division Chief Commonwealth of Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries Richmond 13, Virginia

WASHINGTON "There are two agencies of government concerned with the fishery resource in this State. The Department of Game has charge of all game and game sport fishing in the State. The Department of Fisheries has charge and control of all commercial fishing. Salmon have been classified as a food fish and therefore are under the control of the Department of Fisheries, there being no commercial fishing allowed on game fish. "The first case we had concerning the loss of fish was not caused by pollution, but by the drying up of a stream by a dam, operated by the city of Bremerton, in 1958. As your questions concern the valuation of the fish, we thought it might be of interest to you. "The Bremerton case was settled without court action. The De- partment of Fisheries received $2,000.00 from the city's insurance carrier and the Game Department, $1,250.00. "Our original claim was for $10,840.00 for both Departments. "The Department of Fisheries calculated that drying up 114 miles of stream for three days caused the following losses: I. Silver Salmon A. Yearling Silver Salmon-40,000 with a 2% return of 800 fish. $3.00 per return fish to commercial fishermen $2,400.00. B. Escapement to stream for reproduction, value — $6.00 per fish = $2,400.00. C. Replacement of yearlings lost (to maintain cycle) @ 50 fish/lb. cost $1.40/1b. = $1,120.00. This figure was based on the cost of raising the fish in a hatchery. II. Chum Salmon A. 240 fish lost to commercial fishermen at $2.25/fish = $540.00. B. 240 return fish lost as spawners at $4.50/fish = $1,080.00. C. Replacement of fry lost (to maintain cycle) at $3.00/thousand = $900.00.

94 WASHINGTON "The Game Department calculated that it would cost $1,200.00 to raise steelhead to replace those lost and $1,200.00 to replace sea-run cutthroat lost. The Game Department maintains hatcheries for raising steelhead and the cost estimate was based on hatchery costs at that time. The Department does not raise sea-run cutthroat in hatcheries, and the $1,200.00 was an estimate. "We are presently engaged in a suit against the Heath Plating Company, a corporation that engages in plating metal. "It is the contention of the Department of Fisheries that Heath Plating released various chemical substances into the Green River, and the result was that some 2,000 salmon were killed. Of course, the defendant denies these allegations. This suit has been in the process of litigation for approximately one year. We have no firm estimate as to when it will conclude. "The Department's valuation of this fish kill is based primarily on the value of the returning salmon as spawners. "The Department of Fisheries operates a hatchery on the Green River. From the operation of this hatchery, experience has shown that for each female spawner in the river, approximately 125 salmon would survive to return to the river. Of this 125, one hundred would be har- vested by the commercial and sports fishery. The remaining 25 would reach the river and spawn. Assuming that 2,000 fish were killed, and of those, one-half were females (and one-half of the females killed were chinook (King) salmon, i.e. 500), the potential loss would be approximately 25,000 fish for commercial and sport fishery and 6,000 spawners. "We estimate the loss of potential future runs of silver salmon at 28,500. "We have so far obtained an injunction against the defendant pro- hibiting it from dumping any more substances into the river. "In 1955, an extensive study of the commercial fishing industry was made by the University of Washington. The estimate then was that the total wholesale value was in the neighborhood of $39,800,000. The capitalized value of income from the fishing industry was estimated to be some $693,000,000." Fishing Value: The State of Washington places a value of $693,000,000 on fishing in their state. This figure was derived from an extensive study of the commercial fishing industry made by the University of Washington in 1955. Reply: April 9, 1963 From: John J. O'Connell, Attorney General Mike Johnston, Assistant Attorney General State of Washington Olympia, Washington

WEST VIRGINIA "In February of 1963 a settling basin of the Rochester and Pitts- burg Coal Company gave way and the coal wastes emptied into the Little Kanawha River killing fish for an estimated seven miles and blackening the water to Parkersburg, some seventy miles downstream. It was impossible to determine the extent of the kill. The company was called before the Water Pollution Control Board. At this time they

95 WEST VIRGINIA agreed to bear the cost of restocking the stream with fish, provided that the cost would not be in excess of $2,500. This is our only experience with a monetary transaction in lieu of a fish kill. "We have had an instance whereby a company responsible for a fish kill had to bear the cost, provide labor, etc. to remove the dead fish from the stream. Here again this was more or less a voluntary action."

Case A (a) Case in subject: State of West Virginia vs. Rochester and Pitts. burgh Coal Company (b) Date: February 2, 1962 (c) Total damages asked: — — — (d) Total damages received: $2,500.00 offered (e) Total number of fish killed: Unknown (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per fish "observed" and no. each species 3 musky 26" @ $25.00 $75.00 10 lbs. minnows @ 5.00 50.00 131 carp @ .25 33.00 150 suckers @ .10 15.00 7 bass @ 2.00 14.00 9 channel cat @ .75 7.00 8 crappie @ .40 3.00 12 sunfish @ .33 4.00 5 white perch @ .40 2.00 TOTAL $203.00

Case B (a) Case in subject: State of West Virginia vs. DuPont Company (b) Date: September 13, 1964 (c) Total damages asked: $40,568.60 (d) Total damages received: $40,568.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: Unknown (f) Total weight of fish killed: Not determined (g) Individual species observed and percentage: gizzard shad and minnows 55.8% sunfish 35.8 channel catfish 6.3 suckers 0.4 bass 0.7 carp 0.4 drum 0.2 walleye 0.1 bullheads 0.1 crappie 0.1 flathead catfish 0.1

The factors used in determining the value of the kill were based on a 1961 price list of commercial values for the various species of fish as established by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission. The total weight of the fish killed was not determined and all information was based on size composition rather than weight.

96 WEST VIRGINIA PENNSYLVANIA FISH COMMISSION APPROVED PRICE LIST BASED ON AVERAGE COMMERCIAL VALUES 1961 Species Size (inches) Value/Fish Cost Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout 1 thru 3 .15 4 thru 6 .25 7 thru 9 .47 10 thru 12 .95 13 thru 15 1.95 16 thru 18 3.75 Trout over 18" to be charged at rate of 1.75/1b. Walleyes under 6 .50 6 to 10 400 1.30 size range 12-20" 10 to 15 x1.50 1.50 $600.00 15 and up 2.00 Black Bass 1 to 2 under 6" = 2,370 = .16 2 to 4 $639.90 .27 2,800 4 to 6 over 6" = 430 .66 6 to 8 x1.39 1.00 8 to 10 1.39 $1,237.60 597.70 10 to 12 2.28 12 to 14 3.16 Over 14 4.75 Chain Pickerel 6 to 10 1.00 10 and up 1.50 Bluegill Sunfish, Perch Crappies, Rock Bass and White Bass Under 5 .20 $28,640.00 5 to 7 .40 143,200 Over 7 .74 Channel Catfish (All Species) Under 3 20,160 5,040 .07 20% over 6" 3 to 6 x .15 x .35 .15 size range to 20" 6 to 9 $3,024.00 $1,764.00 .20 $4,788.00 25,200 Over 9 .35 Eels Under 18 .25 18 and up .40 Suckers 1.600 6 to 12 1,000 over 6" = 250.00 .25 12 and up 600 under 6" = 13.00 .50 $263.00 Suckers less than 6" to be counted as minnows. No charge for carp or river quillback.

97 WEST VIRGINIA

Price List (continued)

Species Size (inches) Value/Fish Cost Shad and Minnows 223,000 1 to 2 20.40 per M Over 2 30.00 per M $4,460. For prices on species not listed such as Northern Pike, Muskellunge or Lake Trout consult the Harrisburg Office.

Carp 1,600 — no charge Drum 800 (sucker value) .25 ea. 200.00 Crappie 400 (sunfish value) .40 ea. 160.00 Flathead catfish 400 (catfish value) all large fish to 36" in length (.35 ea.) 140.00 Bullhead catfish 400 (catfish value) 6-9" in size (.20 ea.) 80.00 Total estimated value — $40,568.60 as of 1:00 p.m., Sept. 16, 1964

Fishing Value: The State of West Virginia Department of Natural Re- sources places a value of $26,800,000 on fishing in their state. This was derived from the 1960 "National Survey of Hunting and Fishing" and estimated downward. "We have not conducted a survey on the value of fishing in our state. The amount derived is purely an estimate derived as follows: A report in 1960 by the Fish and Wildlife Service estimated 306,800 anglers in our Ohio River Basin which makes up 85% of our waters. We've estimated another 50,000 anglers in the Potomac Basin. The 1960 "National Survey of Hunting and Fishing" placed a value of $95 each for fresh water fishermen. We revised this estimate downward to $75 for our West Virginia fishing and arrived at a figure of $26,800,000." Reply: March 26, 1963 From: Dave Robinson, Assistant Chief Division of Game and Fish Department of Natural Resources State of West Virginia Charleston, West Virginia Reply: November 24, 1964 From: The Honorable Warden M. Lane, Director West Virginia Department of Natural Resources State Office Building No. 3 Charleston, West Virginia 25305

WISCONSIN "Wisconsin statute 29.65 covers the monetary value of various species of fish. The statute reads as follows:

98 WISCONSIN "Wisconsin statute 29.65 covers the monetary value of various species of fish. The statute reads as follows: "Civil actions for damages caused by law violations. (1) The state conservation commission may bring a civil action in the name of the state for the recovery of damages against any person, persons, firm, or corporation unlawfully killing, wounding, catching, taking, trapping, or having unlawfully in possession any of the following named protected wild animals, birds, or fish, or any part thereof, and the sum assessed for damages for each wild animal, bird, or fish shall be not less than the amount hereinafter stated in this section: (j) Any muskellunge or rock or lake sturgeon ...... $10.00 (k) Any large or small-mouthed black bass ...... 5.00 (1) Any brook, rainbow, brown, steel head, Loch Leven or grayling trout ...... 3.00 (m) Any wall-eyed pike, pike perch, or any other game fish not mentioned in paragraphs (i) to (1) 2.00 "(2) Any damages recovered in such action shall be paid into the state conservation fund and disbursed therefrom by the conservation commission. The costs of such action in case of a judgment in favor of the defendant shall be paid out of the conservation fund. "(3) A civil action brought under this section shall be a bar to a criminal prosecution for the same offense, and vice versa." "We prosecute all pollution cases which come to our attention. Usually this is in the form of a criminal action against the offender. "The following is a list of civil cases in which the State brought suit against an individual or corporation, and the amount of settlement awarded in each case. Aug. 30, 1944 Kraft Cheese Co...... $ 500.00 Sept. 23, 1944 Columbus Foods Corporation ...... 250.00 Oct. 18, 1944 Rockfield Cannery Co...... 2,000.00 Aug. 25, 1945 Laabs Dairy Co...... 250.00 Sept. 11, 1945 Central Wisconsin Creameries ...... 2,500.00 Feb. 24, 1947 Goodman Lumber Co...... 250.44 June 3, 1947 Herbert A. Newman ...... 1,000.00 Feb. 20, 1948 Central Wisconsin Creameries ...... 210.00 Feb. 14, 1949 Alden Cheese Co...... 386.50 Aug. 11, 1949 Chicago, St. Paul, Minn., & Omaha Ry. Co ...... 63.00 Aug. 21, 1950 Hustisford Canning Co...... 75.00 Sept. 7, 1950 Oconomowoc Canning Co...... 800.00 Jan. 29, 1952 Rockfield Canning Co...... 2,500.00 July 7, 1952 Knapp Creamery ...... 57.00 May 1, 1953 Ohio Chemical Co. (Yahara River) ...... 289.00 June 4, 1953 Ohio Chemical Co. (Yahara River) ...... 319.50 Nov. 20, 1953 Moe Light Club (Rock River) ...... 1,350.00 July 31, 1953 Consolidated Badger Co-op (Tiger Creek) 500.00 May 20, 1954 H & I Foods (Rock River) ...... 250.00

99 WISCONSIN March 6, 1957 Denmark Brewery (Alvin Bardin) (900 game 1,833.20 and trash fish killed) (suit started in 1948 Nashoto River) April 2, 1957 John Lavarda, West Bend, (deposit whey — 26.50 no fish kill) Aug. 15, 1957 Continental Condensing Co. (deposit whey— 426.00 no fish kill) Sept. 17, 1957 Continental Can Co. (Narrows Creek) ...... 426.00 Sept. 20, 1958 Continental Condensing Co. (deposit whey) ...... 70.00 Sept. 21, 1958 Continental Condensing Co. (deposit whey) ...... 73.55 Sept. 23, 1958 Continental Condensing Co. (deposit whey) 86.45 Sept. 24, 1958 Continental Condensing Co. (did not comply) 70.00 as ordered on September 20, 1957) Dec. 14, 1957 Oscar Mayer Packing Co. (deposit heated 3,300.00 water into stream—trash fish killed) May 28, 1958 Lakeside Packing Co. (no fish kill) ...... 31.20 Sept. 17, 1958 Tolibia Cheese Co. (no fish kill) ...... 55.00 Dec. 1, 1960 Tolibia Cheese Co. (no fish kill) ...... 33.70 May 11, 1961 Eldon Evaland, Blue Mound (deposit whey in 21.20 trout stream—no fish kill) Sept. 12, 1961 Mid-Way Powder Co. (deposit whey killed 105.25 all fish for 2 miles in Scotch Creek, mostly trash fish) Sept. 12, 1962 Rhyners Cheese Factory (no fish kill) ...... 130.00 Dec. 18, 1962 Winneconne Corp. (no fish kill) ...... 30.00

Below are cases of pollution caused fish kills in 1960, 1961 and 1962 Number Amount Duration of Location Date Cause % Killed Killed/Severity Polluted Pollution Nashota Lake 4-12-62 Agricultural 99% Game 1,500/heavy 1 mile 2 days Delafield Co. Poisoning 1% Trash Moon Lake 3-13-61 Industrial 100% Trash 2,000 27 acres Clayton Co. Waste Scotch Creek 6-11-61 Industrial Unknown Unknown 2 miles Edgar Co. Waste Beaver Dam River 7-29-60 Domestic 3 miles Beaver Dam Co. Sewage Tenny Park Lagoon Agricultural 25% Game 10-18-60 Poisoning 25% Forage Heavy 1 acre 1 day Madison Co. 50% Trash "In most instances where a specific fish kill is not cited, the pollution was of such nature, or of such short duration, that no fish kill resulted. On a few occasions where no fish kill is cited, trash fish only were killed in small numbers." Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: March 21, 1963 From: L. P. Voigt, Conservation Director State of Wisconsin Conservation Department Madison, Wisconsin

100 WYOMING The following information was received from the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission: Case A (a) Case in subject: Wyoming Game and Fish vs. Dale W. Black- man (b) Date: — (c) Total damages asked: — (d) Total damages received: $54.00 (e) Total number of fish killed: — (f) Total weight of fish killed: — (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL Fishing Value: The State of Wyoming placed a value of $40,500,000 on fishing in their state during the year 1961. This was made by the Statistical Laboratory estimates, Uni- versity of Wyoming, November 15, 1962. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Cheyenne, Wyoming

CANADA Alberta British Columbia Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland Nova Scotia Ontario Quebec Saskatchewan

"In recent years we have experienced fish kills resulting from pollution in various parts of the country. Our most serious fish losses have been experienced in New Brunswick where extensive forest areas are sprayed each year in an effort to control an infestation of spruce budworm. "Government departments concerned with the use of pesticides formed an interdepartmental committee a number of years ago. Regular meetings are called by the Chairman of this group for the purpose of discussing forthcoming spray programs, methods of reducing the danger to fish and wildlife, etc. The group has been instrumental in having concentration reduced of the spray used in the New Brunswick pest control program and we are now involved in a large-scale field test of a new, less toxic (to fish) pesticide. "I can assure you the interdepartmental committee's record shows as many set-backs as successes. However, it is our sincere hope that

101 CANADA through cooperation with groups that "must" use pesticides to control various outbreaks, that we will in time reduce the damage to fish and wildlife."

Reply: February 28, 1963 From : B. G. Sivertz, Director Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources Northern Administration Branch Ottawa, Canada

Reply: March 8, 1963 From: A. L. Pritchard, Director Conservation and Development Service Department of Fisheries Ottawa 8, Canada

CANADA ALBERTA "Although water pollution is a widespread problem in the Province few actual kills have taken place, most of which were of the "accidental spill" nature. To date no legal action or out of court settlements have been made. Warnings to guilty parties have sufficed as preventive measures. Continuous though not very extensive monitoring of potential pollution sources has also served as an effective deterrent. "Some 120-140,000 anglers are licensed annually. An average expenditure of $100 per year per angler would place the value of $12 to $14-million dollars. However, much of Alberta's fishing potential has not been realized as many areas are inaccessible except for aircraft. Population density is low in this Province and as it increases the value of the fishery will rise.

Fishing Value: The Province of Alberta places a valuation of approximately $15,000,000 on the fishery in their province. Reply: R. C. Thomas, Fishery Biologist Fish and Wildlife Division Department of Lands and Forests Government of the Province of Alberta Terrace Building Edmonton, Alberta Canada

CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA "I feel that a few comments are appropriate regarding the pollu- tions which have been listed for your information. First, this Branch has never prosecuted in a case where fish kills have been shown. This is because few secondary industries are present in the Province, as yet. Most pollution results from primary industries such as logging and mining and therefore, the pollutants are sawdust and silt. These pollutants do not commonly kill fish outright but may inhibit growth or adversely affect fish habitat. You will note fines are distressingly low

102 CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA and a movement is currently afoot to increase the minimum and maximum penalties imposed in pollution cases. This Branch, with the Depart- ment of Fisheries of Canada, administers the Fisheries Act, 1932.

(Chapter 119. An Act respecting Fisheries. Section 33. Injury To Fishing Grounds and Pollution of Waters. (2) No person shall cause or knowingly permit to pass into, or put into, or put or knowingly permit to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of a like character to the substances named in this section or not, in any water frequented by fish, or that flows into such water, nor on ice over either such waters. (3) No person engaging in logging, lumbering, land clearing or other operations shall put or knowingly permit to be put, any slash, stumps or other debris into any water frequented by fish or that flows into such water, or on the ice over either such water, or at a place from which it is likely to be carried into either such water. 1932, c. 42, s. 33.)

"In Case "A" Big Sheep Creek Mines Limited have been warned by this Branch that their mine effluent settling impoundment was in danger of breakage and no corrective action was taken. When the impoundment did release to a river as predicted the Company was prosecuted. The Magistrate was most distressed that $20 was the maximum fine which could be imposed."

Case A (a) Case in subject: Province of British Columbia vs. Big Sheep Creek Mines, Ltd. (b) Date: August, 1959 (c) Total damages asked: $ Maximum possible (d) Total damages received: $20.00 fine plus $2.00 costs (e) Total number of fish killed: None proven (f) Total weight of fish killed: — (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL

"In Case "B" Canada Packers Limited had been operating a disposal facility for fruit and vegetable wastes very inefficiently and therefore after warnings with no appropriate corrective action taken Court proceedings were commenced. No dead fish could be found below the disposal site to the stream although they were absent due to lack of oxygen. The case was dismissed on a technicality."

103 CANADA BRITISH COLUMBIA Case B (a) Case in subject: Province of British Columbia vs. Canada Pack- ers Ltd. (b) Date: September, 1960 (c) Total damages asked: $ Maximum possible (d) Total damages received: $ Case dismissed (e) Total number of fish killed: None proven (f) Total weight of fish killed: — — — (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish

TOTAL "In 1959 this Branch began to pursue logging operators who were disposing of sawdust and slash in waters and on ice over waters which contained fish." These prosecutions are listed: 1959 Province of B.C. vs. Cassiar Forest Products—Fine $100 plus $3.00 costs. Province of B.C. vs. Merton Lake Lumber Company—Fine $20 plus $2.00 costs. Province of B. C. vs. Riverbank Sawmill—Fine $20 plus $3.00 costs. Province of B.C. vs. Allan Shaw—Fine $20 plus $3.00 costs. Province of B.C. vs. R. Willick—Fine $20 plus $3.00 costs. Province of B.C. vs. Summit Lake Sawmills—Fine $20 plus $3.00 costs. Province of B.C. vs. West Lake Sawmill—Fine $20 plus $2.50 costs. Province of B.C. vs. Hansard Lumber Company—Fine $20 plus $3.50 costs. Province of B.C. vs. Fraser Planer Mill—Fine $20 plus $3.00 costs. Province of B.C. vs. R. Willick (Second offense)—Fine $55. 1960 Province of B.C. vs. U. S. Grizzly Lake Sawmill—Fine $20 plus $11.60 costs. Province of B.C. vs. U. S. Mytting Sawmill Limited—Fine $100 plus $2.50 costs. 1961 Province of B.C. vs. Dunkley Lumber Limited—Fine $100 plus $2.50 costs. Fishing Value: The Province of British Columbia places a valuation of $30,000,000 on fishing in their province. Enclosure: R.S., 1952, Chapter 119, An Act respecting Fisheries. Reply: March 5, 1963 From: J. Hatter, Assistant Director Department of Recreation and Conservation Fish and Game Branch Victoria, British Columbia Canada

104 CANADA PROVINCE OF MANITOBA "The Province of Manitoba is fortunate in that pollution is not a major factor in limiting sticks of fish or fishing opportunities. While river fishing may be impaired below the cities, most angling is conducted on lakes and these have not been impaired. Mining operations in the north have not as yet been seriously detrimental to fishing, and we have a program of monitoring water quality and aquatic organisms to detect possible damage and have a base with which to compare future conditions. "Only one instance of fish kill comes to mind as a result of pollution, and this was a temporary oxygen reduction attributed to the operation of a beet sugar factory. No court cases have ever been held in Manitoba in which damages were sought for fish kill. Therefore, we have no actual "value" on fish. "It has been estimated that the 13,000 non-resident anglers spend about $3 million annually in pursuit of their sport, and 90,000 resident anglers spend about $5 million. These expenditure estimates may be low. About 5,000 part time commercial fishermen take a catch with a marketed value (wholesale, f o.b1 Manitoba) of about $6 million. The sport fish are worth about $1.20 per pound, and commercial fish about 20 cents per pound wholesale, but these estimated values have never had to be tested in court."

Fishing Value: The Province of Manitoba places a value of $14,000,000 being spent annually on fishing in their province. This figure is based on expenditures of resident and non- resident anglers and on market values to commercial fishermen. Reply: March 8, 1963 From: B. Kooyman, Director of Fisheries Fisheries Branch Department of Mines and Natural Resources Winnipeg 1 Province of Manitoba Canada

CANADA NEW BRUNSWICK "The Province of New Brunswick has never taken any action concerning a fish-kill by pollution nor has any settlement been made out of court."

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: February 28, 1964 From: J. E. Henri Legare, Fishery Biologist Department of Lands and Mines Fish and Wildlife Branch Fredericton Province of New Brunswick Canada

105 CANADA NEWFOUNDLAND "Although we are involved in pollution studies, and in pollution control, we have not run into the outright fish-kills such as you are requesting information on. We are unable, therefore, to supply you with specific information of the nature requested in the correspondence under reference." Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: March 6, 1963 From: V. R. Taylor, for Area Director Department of Fisheries Newfoundland Area Office of Area Director St. John's, Newfoundland Canada

CANADA NOVA SCOTIA The following information was received from the Department of Lands and Forests and the Department of Fisheries, Province of Nova Scotia: Case A (a) Case in subject: Her Majesty the Queen vs. Forest Protection Ltd. (b) Date: February 17, 1961 (c) Total damages asked: $5,674.01 (d) Total damages received: $500.00 and costs of $1,260.25 (e) Total number of fish killed: 979,179 (f) Total weight of fish killed: Unknown (g) Individual species Amount received for Cost per pound killed and number each species or fish Atlantic salmon 688,901 Fry & Adv. Fry except 1001 yearlings Speckled trout Adv. fry except 516 #1 fingerlings 290,278 $ TOTAL $120.00 The amount of money paid in this case was a token payment only. Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: July 17, 1963 From: Clarence A. Mason, Director of Wildlife Conservation Department of Lands and Forests Halifax, Nova Scotia Reply: August 22, 1963 From: John A. Dalziel for: Chief, Fish Culture Branch Maritimes Area Department of Fisheries Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada

106 CANADA ONTARIO "In reply to your questionnaires of February 18th and June 26th, 1963, concerning the monetary value placed on fish kills caused by pollution, we regret to advise that no such information is available in Ontario. "Our activity to date in the control of pollution has been chiefly in the fields of prevention, detection and the improvement of effluent disposal methods on a cooperative basis. In a few cases, charges have been laid and convictions registered under federal or provincial statutes. However, penalties have been rather minor in general and none could be classed as "damages collected." "The Ontario Water Resources Commission has been responsible for the control of pollution within the province for the past few years and they advise that only now are they beginning to collect the information you require." Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: August 6, 1963 From: C. H. D. Clarke, Chief Fish and Wildlife Branch Department of Lands and Forests Maple, Ontario Canada

CANADA QUEBEC "I wish to say that there was no insecticides mass spraying in our Province and we had very little water pollution causing the killing of the game fish. There was only one case where some salmon parrs were killed in salmon river. Since these rivers run through all Crown lands we had no claim for damages. "As the mass spraying was only done in forest areas in order to control the bud worm and as the epidemic has been checked, I do not believe we will have further claims." Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: April 18, 1963 From: L. P. Gagnon, Assistant Deputy Minister Ministere de la Chasse et des Pecheries Province de Quebec Canada (Department of Tourism, Fish and Game) Quebec

107 CANADA SASKATCHEWAN "I wish to advise that we have not instituted any court action in connection with pollution fish kills in Saskatchewan. "Whereas we have had some experience with pollution, the party responsible undertook the necessary corrective measures. "In addition, we have been confronted with pollution on an inter- provincial navigable water stream. This has been difficult to deal with due to the inter-provincial nature of the stream and the determination of legal responsibility."

Fishing Value: (None Given) Reply: February 27, 1963 From: G. E. Couldwell, Director of Fisheries Fisheries Branch Department of Natural Resources Province of Saskatchewan Prince Albert, Sasketchewan Canada

108