*
w '•
} ,4,v.i,4i,;i.'.
._; « cs • •*
'Hf >? 0 • OC
w £? X} ' *"
S £ 9 • -
Is! i
0 • — —""(• «•—
l; 1 5"i|
1 ; u f-i^1
*^ ' j_ •
4" 1 ' ' i '
5! "g ;-
IN^0J«
*™ i ^j »•*• • ^"^ - **
a ). •£ u i • <*>
t. ': I" «> I ; l~-
•g ; » ( ;
UJ ' i :
Table C3-10: Annual
Species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
sk ':
N ';
r '
i 'I '••
' — 4S4',86r
: 0
gj
tn' ;
\ \
iN ;
r~* '
ill
[ol : O
F ;
F
O '; O
(.. 4— •
'o • o
'.0 '• O
ro ; o
Gizzard shad " ;
Golden redhorse J
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
1
tS
i
s
•v>
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
SS,
;
1
o
o.
o
g
s
o
I 1,445,200 :
o
o
o
o
Longear siinfish
o
o
o
x>
3O
O
o
o
o
996'iOH
Minnow spp.
o
-.
OX
-------
: *"~*
: **~
" O
i S
' j?
i o
: ""1=
i|
; M
!. E
: "0
! 6»
: o
1 e
\ -i—
M
1 ill
[ o
r o
i gj
i x«
i J
i a
! ,2
jo
! Ov
; *•
. 0
! 8
it
' .10
; jj"
-'
> ***"*
I e
o
c.
• H™
: O
• i.
; &
i Jl
Entrdiftrnen
; *o
i .3
.' 1C
! c:
: •«£
i O
: *"»
1 1
1 ' j^j
'• *
i a
P-
i
Tanners
Creek
S=
I Philip Spoi
I
£
'§
A
i
**!•
a
~
(U
Jjjj
5'
H
1
^
^
o
i
u
«
ts
1
u
«l
.i !
1
0
a
tN
,
0
O
o
o
o
o
o
Paddlefish
o
o
0
o
o
c
o
o
o
!N
d.
ex
1
a.
o
in
\c>
0
o&
o
•«•
o
^f
fT
o
o
*
tN
O
0
o
| 48,364.734
River carpsucker
o
I
o
o
o
Os
f-
**3*
S
t~?
o
o"
oo
ON"
o
o
1
ca
!/}
o
O
O
O
O
0
"^t"
m
o
o
O
O
Silver chub
o
in
O
o
1
0
o
o
GO
•flf
O
_«
O
rn
j>l
O
O
o*
g
W^
'O
o
Skipjack herring
S
r*;
•*r"
m
t
oj
1
o
*o
n
00
v-s
^C
O
0 j
in
0
;
r
t"*^
i '
\ :..
.>
|
1 '
Of -
i t
o j
S ! .
tC!
ct, i
*Jl
1
|
1
o i
£ i -
J
I <^*S
- t
^j
's-*'
g*
*(U
i *g
-8
iU
i
•o
*€
8
HI
s
.,
I
P
€
Ov
1
1
«*
^
^^
E
1
. t.
-£•
O
b
ja
ili
+-•
1
LU
-*~»
S
c
^C
6
^
1
: • 1 ^
K \ f»*i
i ^yj -} >•
K j5
S" J
, . i
S j*i
i 2 °
- 1
e
Philip Spor
0
• r
tt
fi.i
*g j o
* i
s
^
i °
I
1
fe !
& >
'• ' I ! °
1
^, s
1 w i
1
u io
f 1
B. j
t -
^ i
*t3 | O
o
j .
"B
Q ° "
J* ^* O
£
.
S
1
8
: «
if
i OO
«r
^"'X
o
2
o
o
o
Otf
o
o
o
o
»T
oo
O!
-a
3"
T
S
C3
O
O*
—•
O
cs.
a,
u
E
c^
(y^
CM
O
O
"O
2
0
o
......
. J^
5
*—
0
o
d,
s-
i
s
sn
»n
trt
.;,.r
j^.
w
o»
oo
.of
40,400,OOC
ON
^
S
o
c^
o
c^
o
r^
•*>
oc
i"
•^
rtT
\o
o
o
QQ
o
O
O
•*
— •
1
S
0
s
I
White bass
o
CO
^
GO
•?
O
1,637,500
"*"*'
o
o
s
^
O
O
o
o
o
Qs
'
Yellow perch
|
j
\
| •
t
1
i
-,
i
' 1
E
: 3>
j ffi
0
: -S
M*
E
1
. . 1
- 1
s
0 &
i*Z
£ "^
S o.
0 = Sampled, but ;
lite Dec 25 19:20:
-------
ai
S
I ^ ;
9
6
Cj
I
I
55
M
U
$
t
*1
o
^
H-
O
; Numbers
a
1
l>
i
o
i
Ov
o
1
UJ
<
»^
v-4
Q
.5*
|2
&£ f
"E ft:
0 U*
« !
C §5 .
O S
2 J
6 -0
°«
"§•»
1-3
g^;
reshwater
Drum
u*
Emerald
Shiner
il*
' 1 e-
: I a
; O
;
'• s-g
jss
:Sc3
Brown
Bullhead
Bluntnose
Minnow
:=
M
Cf
a
»
:«f
•*5
£?
:J
o o o
• 1
O ' 0 : O
. ; »o
O f 0 ; ^r
. ,
CS I'o i 3
^ OO '
•"•R
0 i eo : S
lS.|->"
p.,.,,,.,..,...,
• o^
O 0 ; 0
, wn
W.C. Beckjord 16,405
Cardinal 1,549
Clifty Creek 1,478
fi
rr
o
o
o
o
°
r—
VO
rn
cs
oo
0
tr
o
3,197,065
o
o
£
1
C5
OS
*O
CO
oo
OS
•^
li^
cSi g
— : ! ^
ffi. i S
£ i S
el .enl.esv
bles/ohiosum.a
S
Er
o.summa
JS
cience/scode/
ItoO.
E/Ohio/Ohio_S
•§3
§£
Pi
0 0-
"85
0 = Sampled, but none collect
Tue Dec 25 19:18:43 MST 20
t
j
1
f
t?
;O
,§
s
• g.
jil!
"1
||
i§
ku
'&$
[M
1
H
j !O
IP
IS
'sirrmenf
[Hi
1*5
i «
!:i*>
i
i
^-f
£3 rtl !
3^* ^*
'I"T!
ft-' 5
It
x: i
in » :
•s a=
1 J
1 *
•. . .i
Smallnioti'
Bass
«! S"1
u
1
en
IRiwr
Csrpsucher
li
Paddle-
flsh =
1 3=
' o *
' f! O.
! £ &
« -5
? a><=
i Is
i_) CO
r
bi |f
i lr
o J o
• o'
|[o
i i>v
o : o
! of
O ;
Sh
-i
rn : r*^
oo : c-t
O : 0
1°
"1
0 ! O
;
|jo
;o|e
: j
i C5 i O
I >
; W.C. Beckjord !"
' Cardinal t
o
D
OO
•sr
s>
•»"
S
c>
ro
o
o
ty
0
o
o
o
o
o
Clifty Creek "
SO"
3S
O
>«•
,'"• r
O
i£>
O
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
; Kammer ;
os ;
>o • o
: r1-
*rj' i so
X3 ^
oi ;
0 \ »
i"*
o | o
111
r-Z : *^
* > W"i
§1°
• o
; 00
53. i
ojo
o ' o
o||
oo •
gi-
; > '•--- • ,,,.4,..,.
' Kyger Creek
; Miami Fort . •
•*-
o
oo
CO
o
S
§
g
o
"o
o
o
o
r-
VI
of
o
Philip Sporn
o
o
o
o
o
o
g
__
1
o
r~
o
K
st
o
>£>
1
! - Tanners Creek
W)
3
•sr
so
of
1
oo
<*>
p
G5
O
C5
O
O
o
o
oo
&r
a
1
~
s
t
§
s"
~i
«Q
oc
so
- i
o
os'
p
i;
o
C4
" i
^o i
0 |
!
t*^
"'.i
»:
1
1,
.csv
O
!
c/
e/
O
"
gfc
8§
O l="
n~1 »*-<
S o
15
!i
SI
5 oj"
jy *A
t«
c w
!^0
I! S
o H
-------
S 316(b) Case Sfucfes, Part # The Ohio ftivcr
Chapter CS: Evaluation of !<$£ bate
Table £3-12; Annual Entrapment of 9 Ohm River Facilities Expressed as Yield Lost to
Fisheries (in pounds).
Facility
W.C. Beckjord
Cardinal
Clifty Creek
Kammer
Kyger Creek
Miami Port
Philip Sporn
Tanners Creek
W.H. Sammis
Mean value
Black Crappie
136
13
12
0
511
0
9
6
35
80
Channel Catfish
1
12
4
13
75
0
3
2,049
43
' 244 :
0 = Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 19:18:51 MST 2001
P:/rNTAKE/Ohio/Ohto_Seicnce/scode/ohio.suromaty,tables/ohiosum.yie!d.eni,csv
Table £3-12: Annual Entmmment at 9 Ohio Riv«r Facilities Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
(cent.).
Facility
W.C. Beckjord
Cardinal
Ciifty Creek .
Kamrner
Kygcr Creek
• --<— *..*... »'..>..,,
Miami Fort
Philip Sporn .
Tanners Creek
W.H. Sammis
Mean value
0 « Sampled, but
Tue Dec 25 19:18
Longest
Sunflsh
0
0
0
0
177
0
65
2
0
27
tone collected or
51 MST 200! Py
Paddleflsti
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
429
0 '
48
rounded to 0,
INTAKE/Ohio;
'Sauger
0
. 0
185
0
0
4,209
0
. 158
0
506
Ohio_Science/sc
Snwlhnouth Bass
6,245
0
478
0
313
2,167
.63
0
114
1,042
ode/ohio.summary.table
Sunfish spp.
0
0
179
0
. 0
18
0
0
30
25
«/ohiosum,yiele
Walleye
0
•1,145
82
676
22,133
0
2,956
0
442
3,048
.ent.csv
White Bass
544
0
442
31
43
782
0
0
26
208
0-33
-------
Ul
g
I
o
I
§
^
£.
«o
«
tn
o\
^
f S
tU '
t
ff)
•r*
Q
«*
1
ff .
11-
S
Golden
Redhorsc
0
I*1
S J'o
S5*
u
Is
J 2 5?
gQ
u.
2 u;
b .S ' o
fi«:
P-
1^1
a°-
"*• J5 .
S Vi
si *
SI 1
*J
cl
M°
ea 3
ca
• a >"
g Si
|j;0
- S
CO '
1 0
a • *•'
5
ill
55;-
i.
^'
S • *£
«* o
£ ;f
; U
I*'
0
o
o
«">
r«l
5
oo
TT
O
CO
^o
R
V",
v~»
<*•)
0
o
\ts
OS
0
OQ
5
Cardinal
o
0
f-
ts
3
I—
VI
[~-
(V»
8
r^r
M
o
VO
l<
OO
c\
o
R*
0
•-
3
o
oo
m
cr^
wn
\o
oo
>o
00
t^
o
OS
n
r^
o
r*~
m
0
•M-
>n
^
U
n"
o
0
S
i
fO
>o
o
CJ
t~
oC
0
9
Cv
g
^
.B-
'£
c-
o
o
r*>
t—
in
o^
m
o\
«
f)
o
v>
o
o\
o^
>o
•a-
?
oo
o
o
o
5
V3
Tanners Creek
o
o
00
S
•n
o
•n
o^
00
o
•«*•
r4_
r-^
en
r^
m
•sr
P
i
M
C5
ts
O
r^
rn
t--*
S
i
O ;
"™" i
1
j
CO *
\O !-
«*> ;
s!
-!
!,
so ;
»n
"li
in !
1
•* '
XT i
r- t
'«!
si s
— ! H
i O
; 139,826
s/ohiosum.pl
f s>
t ' S
03! 2
2j &
.-ft "
• §
! g
1 •• d
•R;. s
i "B
i ; %
I "8
o •;. §
°i! '5
-i 3
i p
i ,e
"! s|
t *O *v*
; 4> w
.... , i p.
*cf u, c£
»; S^
oo; "g 5
!frS
1 s H
i 8i
| sy *£
) §S
;: f §
Mean value
0 = Sampled, b
TueDec25 19
•S c s'
2 Is1
i
i
1
! '
n
• *
! i:'
\\
n
;!
II
i iii
|I
F 'CL
;!§'
ill
.{|£
i i c
• o
;1
il
> VE
!l8
!>
' «*
! «
1 !W
ne
F i X"
' iii
n<5
' :4-
' !u,
;1&
«s2
t[U.
i 'O
;i
;. !O>
ii*
1 -c
i .«J
ill
! it)
ji_
; '^
; ••<
i '•
S3 <>i
£«
Smallraouth
Bass
"o K1
•2.T
S t
2*
«« s
13
s5
«s
so
It?
^
si
O
42 .
w O*
£ &
cw
i
S *S
1"
^
o •»
B D.
£ &
S
'
il
II
&•§
^ u
>J 5,
.§'
=3
S
o
CO
*rj
o
o
C?
o
o
on
•«;*•
^h
o
ro
tf
o
l>
fo
\q
GO
oo
*T)
O
O^
v>
o
L
t~
m
O
v."-."
E^~.
a
OS
o
O
o
o
o
o
o
0
Cardinal
o
r~
r
ci
r*T
o
.0
o
C5
O
o
o
o
£!>
Kammer
f»
r~>
o
r
r--
c^
o
o
so
oo
p*"-
m
<&
^
O
M3
sq,
o
v~»
o
0
o
%£>
r—
t/>
n
o
O(
•*
0
•v
ly*j
O
§
oo
r-
o
oo
OS
•«•
o
0
e<;
«n
*t
o
o
t;
O
&T.
il
»n
M
tA
O"
O
^3
M
r<
o
1
1
C-J
OC-
f^
o
o
cf
o
o
o
to
o
S
o
o
1
•/^
fT
*n
TT
*O
r-T
O
O
P— i
4
oo'
o
fO
«>
>n
m
Tanners Creek
r«-
€N
r^-
rs
OS
«
oo
r<^
•^
r~
<*>
9
*sj-
C>)
S
en
fn
^*-
O
O
o
o
o
o
CO
T<
£
M
in
o
rf!
5*
S i
cr f !
' t
•
•9^
tf
tt
oo
»n
so
f*>
M
«>
^
«>
°O
m
«
ve
-
S
o^
£;
r*^
r»*
s
ro
OO
oo
• i
a>
S3
5
2
1
.2
._
o
"S
"8
g
1
I
O ^~*'
t- C!
15
1°
il
.y *&
» |>,
S3
io
01
c/5 "
" 2
o H
-------
§ 3t6(b) Cast Studies, Part C: The. Ohio fctver
Chapter C3: Evaluation of ME £>ate
Table C3-14t Ohio River CWIS, Operational Fi
316fb) Phase II Rule. Facility Names
lows, CWIS Locations, and Status In Relation to the Proposed §
in Bold ore the 9 Ohio fti«sr* Facilities with fcS£ Data.
Facility Name
Richard H. Gorsuch
Cane Run
DuPont
Mill Creek
R. Gallagher
"Rohm and Haas Co. Louisville Plant
Bayer Corp
Kamrner
Mitchell
Ormet Aluminum Mill Products Corporation
PPG Ind. Inc. C/a P.P.O. Industries Inc.
R.E. Burger
A.0. Brawn
Countryrnark Cooperative Inc.
General Electric Company
Joppa Steam
Shawnee
East Bend
Miami Port
Tanners Creek
W.H. Zimmer
Walter CBeckjord
CliftyCrei'k
Ghent
North American Stainless - Ghent
Trimble County
H.L. Spurlock
J.M. Sttiart
Killen Station
New Boston Coke - American Buckeye Division
G.F, Weaton Power Station Zinc Corporation of America
Beaver Valley Nuclear
Bruce Mansfield
W.H. Samvnis '
Coieman
Elmer Smith
F.B. Culiey
Rockport
Warric'k
Cardinal - Units 1 and 2 Only
Weirton Steel Corporation
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. - Yorkviile Plant
Gen. J.M. Gavin
Operational
Flow (MOD)
244,8
358.4 .
NR
210.3
NR
41,1
3.7
NR
NR
4.8
124.0
' 225,0
5.6
-0,6
9,5
568.2
1,210.0
1.3
207.0
1,092,0
4I.Q
592.0
NR
63.9.
1.0
9.3
3.5
773.3
7,6
8.6
68.0
86.8 .
NR
NR
248,0
235,9
358,1
1.15.2
, 475.0
NR
170.6
3,6
32.8
Pool
Belleville Pool
Cannelton Pool
Cannehon Pool
Cannelton Pool
Cannelton Pool
Cannelton Pool
Hannibal Pool
Hannibal Pool
Hannibal Pool
Hannibal Poo)
Hannibal Poo)
Hannibal Pool
John T, Myers Pool
John T. Myers Pool
John T. Myers Pool
Lock and Dam 53 Pool
.Lock and Dam 53 Pool
.Markland Pool
Msrkland Pool
Markland Pool
Markland Pool
Markland Pool
McAlpine Pool
Me Alpine Pool
McAlpine Pool
McAlpine Pool
Meldahl Poo!
Meldahl Pool
Mcidahl Pool
Mcidahl Pool
Montgomery Pool
Ne%v Cumberland Pool
New Cumberland Pool
New Cumberland Pool
Newburgh Pool
Newburgh Pool
Newburgh Pool
Newburgh Pool
Newburgh Pool
Pike Island Pool
Pike.Jsland Pool
Pike Island Pool
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Length of Pool"
162-20?
607-721
607-721
607-721
607-721
607-721
84.2-527
84.2-12?
84.2-127
84.2-127
84.2-127
84.2-127
776-846
776-846
776-846
939-962
939-962
436-531.5 .
436-531.5
436-531.5
436-531 .5
436-531.5
53L5-607
531.5-607
531.5-60?
531.5-607
345-436
345-436
345-436 .
' 345-436
13-32
32-54.4
32-54.4
' 32-54.4
721-776
721-776
721-776
721-776
721-776
.54.4-84.2
54:4-84.2
54.4-84.2
239-282
In-Scope
yos
yes
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes ,
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
. yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
C3-JJ
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C; The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table C3-14: Ohio River CWIS, Operational Flows, CWIS Locations, and Status in Relation to the Proposed
Rule. Facility Names in Bold are the 9 Qhi£ Riyer Facilities with IAE bata (cent,).
Facility Name
Kygcr Creek
Mountaineer
Philip Sporn
Plcasnnts
Willow Island
Operational
Flow (MGJB)
1.139.0
NR
870.6 |
NR
NR
Pool
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Robert C, Byrd Pool
Willow Island Pool
Willow Island Pool
Length of Pool*
239-282
239-282
239-282
127-131
127-131
In-Scope
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
* Pool length is from EA Engineering Science and Technology, 2001; OS Army Corps Engineers Pittsburgh District, 2001; and US Army
Corps Engineers Huntington District, 2001. '
NR =• Not reported (may be considered CBI by facility). | • •
Table C3-15: Outline of IAE Extrapolations for Ohio River* CWIS,
Ohio Facilities With I&E Data
Facilities Extrapolated To
Clifty Creek
! Ghent, North American ptainless, Trimble, Cane Run, Dti Pont, Mill Creek, Gallagher,
[Rohm & Haas, Coleman, Elmer Smith, Culley, Rockport, Warwick, AB Brown, County
[Mark, General Electric, Joppa Steam, Shawnee
Kyger Creek. Philip Sponi I Richard H. Gorsuch, Mountaineer, Gen JM Gavin
Miami Fort. Tanners Creek, W.C. Beekjord 'Spurlock, Stuart, Killenj Nevv Boston Coke, Zimroer, East Bend
W.H. Sammis
Kammcr
Cardinal
;GF Wheaton, Beaver, Bruce Mansfield
JWillow Is., Bayer, Mitchell, Ormet, PPG, RE Burger, Pleasants
rWeirton, Wheeling-Pittsburg
C3-36
-------
S 3l6(b) (Safe Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter £3: Evaluation of l&£ 5ata
Table C3-16: Definition. of fooi 6rwp$ Used by EPA in its. ME Analyses, Facility Mames in Bold
ore the 9 Ohto River Facilities with ME Data.
Pool Group ; Facilities Included in Pool Gronp
Hannibal Pool ; Rammer
•Bayer Corp
; Mitchell
•Onntt Aluminum Mill Products Corporation '
;PPG Ind. Inc. c/o P.P.G. Industries Inc.
•R.E, Burger
jPleasants
: Willow Island
Markland Pool jMianti Fort
•Tanwers Creek
'Walter C Beckjord
iEastBend
jW.H, Zimmer
|H.L. Spurloek
JJ.M. Stuart.
• :Killefi Station
'New Boston Coke - American Buckeye Division
McAlpinePool -CHfty Creek
I Ghent
; North American Stainless — - Ghent
; Trimble County
•Cane Run
; E. I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. Inc.
[Mill Creek
:R. Gallagher
. ;Ro)ijii and Haas Co. Louisville Plant
•A.B. Brown
:Countrymark Cooperative Inc.
i General Electric Company
; joppa Steam
;Shawnec
;Co!eman
iElmer Smith
|F.B. Culley
iRockport
;Warrick
New Cumberland Pool ; W.H. Sammis
: Bruce Mansfield
; Beaver Valley Nuclear
?O.F. Weaton Power Station Zinc Corporation of America
Pike Island Pool [Cardinal - Units J and 2 Only
; Weirton Steel Corporation
: Wheeiing-Ptttsburgh Steel Corp. — YorkviJie Plant
Robert C. Byrd Pool | Gen. J.M. Gavin
;Kyger Creek
iipiiilip Spom
• Mountaineer
jRichard H. Gorsuch
In-Seope of IPhase II?
, .., ..F* . . , , . .,
no
no
no
no
yes .
yes
yfis . . . ....;,--
yes
.-.-. yes ._.-,.. : .
yes
no
ves :
no
yes
no
no
ves . .
yes . ;
no
no
, y«
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
-,. vss ,
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
y^ . .
no
yes
no '
no
. - >'es: . , , , (
yes :
.. .:. ., . .yes . 'i
no
yes , ..
C3-37
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of IAE Data
C3-7 ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT AT NINE OHIO RIVER CASE STUDY FACILITIES
The results of EPA's analysis of impingement at the nine Ohio River case study facilities indicates that the primary species
impinged are gizzard shad, freshwater drum, skipjack herring, and emerald shiner {Table C3-6). Age 1 equivalent losses of
these species per year average 370, 592 for gizzard shad, 27,512 for freshwater drum, 21,350 for skipjack herring, and
13,496 for emerald shiner (Table C3-7), Note that because none of these species are fishery species in the case study area,
yield estimates undcrrepresent impingement (Table C3-8). [
i
C3-8 ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT AT NINE OHIO RIVER CASE STUDY FACILITIES
i
i
The primary species entrained at the nine Ohio River case study facilities are bluntnose minnow, river carpsucker, emerald
shiner and common carp (Table C3-10). Age 1 equivalent losses of these species per year average 721,908 for bluntnose
minnow, 432,719 for river carpsuckcr, 200,935 for emerald shiner, and 103,924 for common carp (Table C3-11). As with
impinged species, none of these are fishery species and therefore lit is important to note that yield estimates underrepresent
cntrainment (Table C3-12). ;
i
C3-9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: SUMMARY OF TOTAL OHIO RIVER I«&E
Cumulative impacts arc summarized in Tables C3-29 through C3i-32 based on the sum of the mean for each pool,
f
C3-9.1 !<&E at All In Scope and Out of Scfpe Ohio Rtver CWIS
EPA's estimate of the cumulative impingement impact of all in scope and out of scope Ohio River facilities is summarized in
Table C3-29. Results indicate that about 11.6 million age 1 equivalent fish are impinged per year at the facilities,
representing 15,500 pounds of lost fishery yield or over 1.1 million pounds of production foregone. The estimated cumulative
cntrainment impact of in scope and out of scope facilities is summarized in Table C3-30. About 24.5 million age 1 equivalent
fish are entrained each year, representing 40,000 pounds of lost fishery yield or over 10 million pounds of production
foregone. ! .
C3-3S
-------
§ 316(b) Case, Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter* C3: Evaluation of T&£ Data
Table C3-J7: DWs Estimates of Amml Impingement at A!l In Scops and Out of Scope Ohio River
• CWIS, by Species and Poo!, Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents.
Species
Bigmoutih buffalo
Black bullhead
Black erappie
BluegtU
Blnntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Common carp
Darter spp.
Emerald shiner
Freshwater dtutn
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Logperch
Longear sunflsh
Minnow spp.
Muskellunge
Paddlefisb
Perch spp.
Raiisbow smelt
River carpsucker
Sauger
Skipjack herring
Smatlmouth bass
Striped bass
Sucker spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye •
•White bass
Yellow perch
Total :
Hannibal
Poo!
0
0
786
639
190
158
' 2,028
183
0
5,145
543
23,131
473
43
406
0
0
0
0
0
0
146
0
212
0
103
0
0
392
60
34,637
MsrMand
Pool
760 .
85
1,351
2,713
0
181
2,362
516
0
9,478
83,134
432,906
.1,840
66
273
8
• 0
?,S58
146
0
6,583
12.431
60,626
24
0
0
0
0
10,282
0
633,324
MeAlpIne
Pool
7,104
0
9,513
47,677
,125
675
8.758
1,590
. . 0
14.429
408,423
8,615,185
1,201
775
0
0
0
2,617
0
19
0
34,145
483,977
1,973
683
11,803
4,296
557
74,319 •
127
9,819,970
Newintrgh
Pool
0
0
4,745
2,410
1,704,
928
17,387
13,026
0
62,957
33
501,397
500
452
0
0
30
0
0
o
o . •
64
2,450
1,226-
0
822
3,093
97
9,406
1,794
624,522
Pike Island
Pool
0
0
! 9,623
'4,796
2,860
363
16,599
2,014
314
42,516
939
181,286 .
654
0
0
0
118
0
0
0
0
229
105
635
0
• 278
3,234
36
1,398
488 .
278,482
Robert C.
ByrdPooi
20
0
4,3.61
2,979
386
119
9,159
135
0
13,232
•29,751
141,157
193
156
770
0
0
0
0
0
431
3,010
165
99
0
159-
0 '
6
743
223
2Q7,25_2
Total
7,884
85
40,379
61,214
5,265
2,425
56,293
1 7,464 •
314
147,757
612,822
9,895,062
4,861
1,493
!,448
8
148
10,175
J46
19
7,015
50,026
547,322
4,169
683
13,164
.10,623
696
96,539
2,691
11,598,188
Note: In some cases, impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents may be larger than raw loss estimates. This can
occur because the ages of the impinged fish are assumed So be distributed across the intarval between the start of year 1 and
the start of year 2, and then normalized back to the start'of year 1 by accounting for mortality during this interval (see
Chapter A2 of Part A for details). . ."
0 * Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0. •
Tue Dec 25 20:03:17 MST 200!
P;/INTAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Scienc&%ode/ohio,extrapolation/all.ohio.faciHties.extrapolation/siimmary,tables/agg,age,l,equ!v,I.
CSV . . .
C3-39
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table C3-18: EPA's Estimates of Annual Impingement at All In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River
CWIS, by Species and Pool, Expressed oi Yield Lost of Fisheries (in pounds).
Species
Black crappie
Blucgill
Channel catfish
Longcar sunfish
Minnow spp.
Muskellungc
Paddlefish
Sauger
Smallmouth bass
Slrfpcd bass
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Total
Hannibal
Pool
7
0
63
0
0
0
0
8
9
0
0
0
30
116
Markland
Pool
11
1
74
0
0
0
,1,565
652
1
0
0
0
783
3,087
Me Alpine
Pool
79 ;
9
274'
0 ;
0 i
0
, 542 '
1,792
81 :
948 7
2 .
*""-""£!
5,665
9,486
Newburgh
Pool
39
0
543
0
0
0
0
3
50
0
' t
17
717
!,372
Pike Island
Poo!
163
|
I
519
0
0
2
.0
12
26
,,0
I
6
106
836
Robert C.
Byrd Pool
36
I
286
0
0
0
0
158
4
0
0
1
57
543
Total
335
12
1.759.
. j "
o ' ;
2
2,106
2,62's
i?6
948 . ' , ',
4
122
7,356 ;
15,439
0 ~ Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0, I
Tuc Dec 2$ 20:03:32 MST 2001 :
P^'^^TAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Sciencc/scode/ohio.cxtrapo!ation/all.ohip.faoililies,extrapolation/sumnlary.tables/agg.yield.]bsJ.csv
C3-4Q
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CA: Evaluation of IAS Date
T«bte C3-19: EPA's Estimates of Annual Impingement at All In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River
CWZS. by Species and Pool, expressed as Preduetioft Foregone {in pounds).
Species
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
BiuegtH
Blutitnose intnnow
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Common carp
Darter spp.
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
GiKsard shad
Golden redhqrse
Logpcrch
Longear sunfish •
Muskcliunge
Paddlefish
Per«h spp.
River carpsucker
Saugcr
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Striped bass
Sticker spp.
Stmfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch.
Total
Hannibal
Pool
0
0
27
8
0
7
106
• 52
0
28
52
1,976
25
0
1 .
0
0
0
0
52
0
15
0
9
0
0
37
0
2,393
Marldand
Pool
225
2
46
32
0
8
. 123
145
0
51
7,906
78,73(5
99
0
0
0
19,202
1
555
4,430
10,859
2
0
0
0
0
962
0
123,385
McAIpfne
Pool
2,101
0
' 324
568
0
28
457
448
0
78
47,401
735,940
65
4
. 0
0
6,649
0
0
12,167
86,688
141
192
995
7
200
6,955 -
0
901,408
Newhurgh
Pool
0
0
1.62
29
2
38
907
3,668
0
342
3
42,831
27,
"?
0
17
0
0
0
23
439
88
0
69
5
35
880
4
49,572
Pike Island
Pool
0 .
0
669
5?
4
15
865
567
2
231
89
15,486
35
0
0
68
0
0
0
82
19
45
0
23
5
13
•131
1
18,408
Robert C.
Byrd Pool
' 6
0
149
35
!
5
478
38
0
72
2,829
12,058
10
1
j
0
0
0
36 '
1,073
30
7
0
13
0
2 ..
69
1
1 6,914
Total
2,332
2
1,377
729
7
100
2,935
4,917
2
803
58,283
887,028
261
7
2
85
25,85.1
i
591
17,826
98,034
298
192
1,110
18
250
9,035
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River 1 Chapter C3: Evaluation of IAE Data
f
__,„_
Table C3-20t EPA's Estimates of Annual Impingement at AH In Scope Ohio River CWIS, by Species
and Pool, Expressed as Numbers' of Age 1 Equivalents.
Species
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappic
Bluegtll
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Common carp
Darter spp.
Hmcrald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden rcdhorse
Logpereh
Longcar sunfish
Minnow spp.
Muskcllungc
Paddlefish
Percid spp.
Rainbow smelt
River carpsuckcr
Sauger
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Striped bass
Sucker spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass •
Yellow perch
Total
Hannibal
Pool
0
0
674
548
163
136
1,739
157
0
4,412
466
19,835
405
37
348
0
0
0
0
0
0
125
0
182
0
88
0
0
336
51
29,701
Markland
Pool
749
84
1,332
2,674
0
179
2,328
509
0
9,341
81,939
426,682
1,813
65
269
8
0
7,449
143
0
6,489
12,252
59,754
23
0
0
0
0
10,134
0
624,219
McAIpine
Pool ;
6,988 [
o !
9,358 !
46,900 ;
123 ,
664 !
8,615 1
1,564 |
•" '--••• — f
14,194 ,,
490,297 1
8,474,732
1,182 1
762 [
0 i
o ' !
0 i
2,574 |.
,,° i.
19 !
, L
o ;
33,589 [
476,087 f
i,941 i
672 !
ji,6ii I
4,226 ;
548 '
73,107 t
125 i.
9,659,87$
Vewburgh Pike bland
Pool Pool
0 0
0 '0
4,503
2,287
1,617 .
881
16,500
12,361
0
59,745
31
475,816
475
429
0
. 0
29
0
0
0
0
60
2,325
1,164
0
780
2,936
92
8,926
i,702
592,659
16,063
3,926
2,341
297
53,587
1,649
257,
34,803
768
1,48,398
536
0
0
0
96
0
0
0
0
188
86
520
0
227
2,647
29
1,144
400
** 227,962
Robert C,
Byrd Pool
20
0
4,326
2,955
383
118
9,085
134
0
13,125"
'20,510'
140,014
191
155
763
0
6
0
. 0
6"
428
2,986
164
99
0
157
o'
6
736
221
205,574
Total
7,757 , .
84"" ' ' '
36,255 ;
59,289
4,627
2,274
51,855
16,373
257
135, §20
603,011
9,685,477
4,
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table C3-21: EPA's Estimates of'Annual Impingement of All In Scope Ohio River CWIS, by Species
and Pool, Expressed as yield Lost of Fisheries (in pounds).
Specks
Black etappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Muskellunge
Paddlefish
Saugcr
Sroaihnoath bass
Striped bass
Sunfisb spp.
Walleye
White bass
Total
Hiirmibai
Pool
6
0
54
0
0
•j
1
0
0
0
26
100
Mar Wand
Pool
. 11
1
73
0
, 1,542
643
i
0
0
0.
772
3,042
Me Alpine
Pool
78
9
269
0
533
1,763
79
932
2
96
3,571
9,331
Newburgh
Pool
. 37
0
516
0
0
3
48
0
1
16
680
1,302
Pike Island
Pool
133
1
425
2
0
10
21
0
V
£
87
684
Robert C.
Byrd Pool
36
1
284
0
0
!57
4
0
0
1
56
538
Total
301
11
1,620
2
2,075
2,582
160
932
4
119
7,192 .
14,998
0 = Sampled, bu.t none collected or rounded to 0,
Tue Dec 25 20:10:52 MST 2001
P:/lNTAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Science/scodc/ohio.extrapoJation/in.scopelacilittes.benefite/summary.tables/agg.yicU,lbs.l.csv
C3-43
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3; Evaluation of WE Data
Table C3-2E: EPA's Estimates of Annual Impingement at All In Scope Ohio River CWIS, by Species
and Pool, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds).
Species
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black erappic
Blucgill
Bluntnosc minnow
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Common carp
Darter spp.
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Logperch
Longcar sunfish.
Muskellunge
Paddlefish
Perch spp.
River carpsucker
Sauger
Skipjack herring
Smallmoutli bass
Striped bass
Sucker spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
Total
Hannibal
Pool
0
0
23
7
0
6
91
44
0
24
44
1,694
22
0
1
0
0
0
0
45
0
13
0
7
0
0
31
0
2,052
Markiaiui
Pool
222
2
45
32
0
7
121
143
0
51
7,793
77,604
97
0
0
0
18,926
1
547
4,366
10,703
2
0
0 .
0
0
948
0
121,611
"••» -• I-
McAlpine
Pool i
2,067 i
-"I f
"•'""-"" r
319 ;
558 [
0 !
27 :
449 t
440
0 ;
77 ;
.46,628 •
723,942 i
64 ;
4 ,
0 '
0
6,541
0 I
0 ;
i i,%9 ;
85,274 |
139 •
189 ;
979' ;
7 i
197 f
6,842 i
~"TT
886,713!
Newburgh
Pool
0
0
154
27
. 2
36
860
3,480
0
325
3
40,646
26
2
0
17
0
0
0
, 21
416
83
0
66
S
33
835
4
47,042
Pike Island
Poo!
0
0
• 548
47
3
12
708
464
\
189
73
12,677
29
0
0
56
0
0
0
67
15
37
0
19
4
11
107
1
JS.,069
Robert C.
ByrdPool
6
'0
148
35
1
5
474
38
0
71
2,806
13,960
10
i
I
0
0
0
36
1, 064
29
. 7
0
13
0
2
69
I
! 6,777
Total
2,294
2
1,236
70^ "' ; ' ' ' '""
6 • ' ; •
94 '
tf¥. ' '. '..
4,610
. i
73*':. ' " ":" : -
57,347
868,524
'Si
.. .^- •
72 '
25,466"
5 S31
17,532
96,438
280
189
1,085.
17
2,43
8,833
6"" "• '
1,089,264
0 - Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0. j .
Tuc Dec 25 20:11 -.09 MST 2001 f
P:/INTAK£/Ohio/Ohio Scicnce/scode/ohto.exirapolaaon/in.scope^fccilities.benefits/summary.tables/agg.pfJbs.l,
,csv
C3-44
-------
§ 316(b) Case' Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E tlata
Table C3-23; EPA's Estimates of Annual Efntrainment at Ail In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River
CWIS, by Species and Pool, Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents.
Species'
Black erappie
Blucgill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Common carp
Darter spp.
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad -
Golden redhorse
Herring spp,
Logperch
Longearsunfish
Minnow spp.
Muskellunge
Paddlcfish
Perch spp.
Rainbow smelt
River carpsucker
Ssugcr
Skipjack herring
Small mouth bass
Sucker spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
Total
Hannibal
Pool ..
0
0
6.359,492
0
81!
46,978
0
0
0
0
0
1,677
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. o
0
5,240
0
7.659
811
59,209
6J481.878
Marlvliind
Pool
13,288
0
0
0
50,854
72,150
0
779,756
6,646
104,264
0
0
14,880
7,082
145,489
0
2,409
16,758
0
666,034
64,508
1,787
159,662
0.
1 15.941
0
20,239
0
2,241,748
McAlpine
Pool
6,013
2,316
28,613
47,251
585
23,625
0
687,821
75,726
5,762
0
A
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,380
13,463
47,609.
3,783,944
2,010,330
1,902
23,625
0
6,772,966
Newburgh
Pool
4,949
0
68,986
403
1,611
32,429
0 .
150,726
0
1,202
0
0
20,807
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,280
3,214
95,992
. 2,949
403
26,030
412,980
Pike Island
Pool
1,892
0
1,342,297
0
462
5,193
17,755
40,263
20
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
282
0
3,348
0
•7,972
0
36,675
1,456,160
Robert C,
Byrd Pool
40,359
0
1,373,845
204
1,595
502,391
0
303,510
14,892
1,098
1,196
0
1,007
428,911
0
0
0
0
0
3,905,457
0
1,357
5,922
313,450
0
91,954
363
86,494
7,074,007
Total
66,50!
2,316
9,173,233
47,858
55,918
682,766
17,755
1,962,076
97,285
112,326
1,196
1,677
36,695
435,993
145,489
0
2,409
16,758
0
4,571,492
78,889
16,889
216,473
4,109,197
2,222,263
1 12,436
45,442
208,407
24,439,740
0 = Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tuc Dee 25 20:03:09 MST 2001
P:/INTAKJE/Ohio/OhiomScience/seocie/ohio.exrap»lato
C3-4S
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Data
— — = — ' u "-1 41- '-* L ' ' ' i '
Table C3-24: EPA's (
CWIS, by
Species
Black crappic
Channel catfish
Logpcreh
Longcar sunfish
Paddlefisb
Saugcr
Smallmouth bass
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Total
Estimates o
Species am
Hannibal
Pool
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,345
62
1,432
: Annual En
1 Pool, Expr
Markland
Pool
110
1,589
0
3
499
3,385
6,520
42
0
1,542
13,689
Irainment of Ali In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River
essed as yield Lost of Fisheries (in pounds).
McAlpinc |
Pool 1
50 i
18 i
,. °. ,,,[
0 ;
o s
755 ;
1,944 ;
730 ;
334 i
1,800 j
5,632 . i
Ncwburgh
Pool
41
50
0
0
0
•o
134 ,
35
518
31
809
Pike Island
Pool
16
14
0
0
0
0
,- 0 ...
0
1,399
0
1,430
Robert C.
ByrcJ Pool
335
50
0
156
0
0
a—
0
16,141
28
i 6,951
Total
551
1,747
0
15£.
499
4,140
8,840
807
19,737
3,40
39,942
0 = Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0. " ,
Tue Dec 25 20:03:24 MST 2001 !
P:lNTAK&'Ohio/Ohio_Scicnce/scodc/ohio,cxtrapolatio!i/all.ohio.faeilitics,extrapolation/sumraary,tablcs/agg.yiBld,lbs.E.csv
C3-46
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table C3~25: &A's Estimates of. Annual Entrtsmment at Afi In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River*
CWIS, by Species and Pool, Expressed as Production foregone (Sn pounds).
Species
Black crappie
Bluegtl!
Blurunosc minnow
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish .
Common carp
Darter spp.
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum .
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Herring spp.
Logpereh
Longear sutifish
Minnow spp.
Muskellunge
Paddle fish
Perch spp.
River carpsuckcr
Sauger
Skipjack herring
Srnalltnouth bass
Sucker spp.
Suniish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Ydiow perch
Total
Hannibal
Pool
0
0
281,290
0
268
63,16?
0
0
0
0
0 '
337
0 •
0
0
. 0-
: 0
0
0
0
0
0
4,440
0
103
1,245
7,268
358,117
Marhland
(_JP*«r
11,647
0
0
0
6,783
.97,251
0
110,333
8,095
375,471
0
0
131
65
5,437
0
10,396
1,371
564,321
140,845
22,391
463 .
0
113
0
31,056
0
1.386,167
McAlplne
Pool
2,646
120
852
8,105
193
33,757
0 •
21,425
15,286
9,467
. 0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
31,934
37,817
7,365
3,206,077
22,152
25
15,610
0 '
3,412,831
Newburgh
Pool
4,338
0
3,05!
84
, 531
43,604
0
22,152
0
6,103
0
0
1,702
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
507
2,724
508
8,715
618
3,195
97,831
Pike Island
Pool
1,659
0
59,372
0 .
152
6,983
1,453
5,91?
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•0
0
0
7,542
0
2,837
0
23,561
0
4,502
Robert C.
Byr
-------
fi 316(b) Case. Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I4E Data
t
Table C3-26: EPA's Estimates of Annual .Entrainmertt -e
While bass
Yellow perch
Total
Hannibal
Pool
0
0
5,453,285
0
696
40,284
0
0
0
0
0
1,438
0
j°\
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,494
0
6,568
696
50,772
Marldand
Pool
13,096
0
0
0
50,122
71,113
0
768,545
6,551
102,765
0
A
14,666
6,980
143,397
2,374
16,517
656,459
63,581
1,761
157,367
0
1 14,274
0
19,948
0
5,558,231 i 2,209,518
' " ! .
McAlpine
Pool ' i
5,915 i
2,279 i
28,146 1
46,480 i
575 1
23,240 ;.
0 i
676,608 I
. 74,492
5,668 1
0 i
0 i
0 \.
o !
o ;
0 i
" o"T
o !
14,146 i
13,243 ;
46,832 ,
3,722,255
1,977,555
1,871 \
23,240 |
o I
Newburgh
Pool
4,697
0
65,466
382
1,529
30,774
0
143,036
0
1,141
0
0
19,745
0
0
0
0
o-
0
0
3,112
3,050
91,094
2,798
382
24,702
6,6*62,547 ; 391,910
Pike Island
Pool
1,549
0
1,098,788
0
378
4,251
14.534
32,959
17
0
0
. P
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
231
0
2,741
0
6,525
""o
30,021
1,191,995
Robert C.
Byrd Pool
40,032
0
1,362,719
203
1,582
498,323
0
301,052.
14,771 .
1,089
1,186
0
999
425,438
0
0
0
3,873,831
0
1,346
5,874
310,912
0
91,210
360
85,794
7,016,722
Total
65,289 ;
2,279
8,008,405
47,066 ;
54,883
667,985
14,534
1,922,200
95,831
1 10,663
1,186
1,438,
35,411
432,418
143,397
2,374
16,517
4,530,289
77,727
16,581
2 13 j 86 . ' ; .
4,043,451
2,182,923
108,973
. 44,627
191,288
23,030,922
0 ^-Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0. t
Tuc Dee 25 20:1 0:27 MST 2001 ' :
P;/lNTAKE'Ohia'Ohioi.Science/scode/ohio.exlTapolation/in,scopc.|facJJities.bencfits/summary,tables/agg.age.l,eqiiiv,E.csv
C3-4S
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port O The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I<&E Data
Table C3-27: EPA's Estimates of Annual Errtrainment at All In Scope Ohio River CWIS, by Species
and Pool, Expressed as Yield Lost of Fisheries {in pounds).
Species
Black erappie
Channel catfish
Longear sunfish
Paddlefish
Sauger
Smalltnouth bass
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Total
Hannibal
Pool
0
22
0
.0
0
.0
0
1,153
53
l',228
Mitrklitnd
fool
!09
1,566
1}
491
3,336
6,426
42
0
1,520
13,493
McAlplne
I'ool
49
18
0
. 0
742
1,912 '
718
328
1,771
5,540
Newburgli
Pool
.3.9 .
48
• 0
0
0
127
33
49!
29
767
Pike bland
Pool
13
12 ' ,
0
0
0
•0
0
1,145
' ' 0
1,170
Robert C.
Byrd Pool
332
49
155
0
0
240
0
16,011
27
16,814
Total
541
1,715
157
491
4,079
8,706
793
19,129
3,400
; 39,012
0 = Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dee 25 20:10:44 MST 200!
lation/in.scope.facilities.ben
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C:.Thc Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of ISE Dato
Table C3-28: EPA's EJ
(
Species
Black crappic
Blucgill
Bluntnosc minnow
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Common carp
Darter spp.
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden rcdhorse
Herring spp.
Logpcrch
Longear sunfish
Minnow spp.
Puddlcfish
Perch spp.
River carpsueker
Saugcr
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Sucker spp.
Simflsh spp.
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
•timatcs of
jnd Pool, E>
Hannibal
Pool
0
0
241,207
0
229
54,166
0
0
0
0
0
289
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,807
0
88
1,068
6,232
Total ; 307,086
Annual Entr
[pressed as
Markland
Pool
11,479
0
• o
0
6,685
95,853
0
108,747
7,979
370,072
0
0
ISO
64
5,359
10,246
1,351
556,207
138,820
22,069
456
0
1.11
0
30,609
0
1,366,238
"• >' ' f
ainment at
Production
McAIpine i
Pool '
2,602 i
118 !
• 839 i
7,973 T.
190 [
33,207 ;
0
21,076 I
15,037 !
9,313 j
0 '
0 i
o ;
••••• r
0 ;
0 ,
. 0 i
0
0 !
31,413 |
37,200 1
7,245 ;
3,153,808'
21,790 ;
25 :
15,355 ,
'•""••o !"
All In Scop
Foregone (ii
Newburgh
Pool
4,117
0
2,896
79 '
504
41,379
0
21,021
0
5,791
0 •
0
1,615
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
481
2,585
482
8,270
587
3,032
3,357,19? ! 92,840
e Ohio Rive
i pounds).
Pike Island
Pool .
1,358
0
48,601
0
125
5.716
1,189
4,844
25
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,173
0
2,322
0
19,287
0
3,685
93,324
f CWIS, b>
Robert C.
Byrd Pool
35,089
0
60,275
42
522
670,049
0
44,245
21,684
5,527
2,114
0
82
2,250
0
0.
0
3,282,236
0
36,041
909
263,430
0
237,964
553
10,531
4,673,543
Species
Total
54,646; ', ,'
118 , .
ssl.ii 8 ;
8,095
8,255
900,369
1,189,
199,933
44,724
390,703
2,1 H,
289
1,827
2,314 ;
5,359,
10,246
1,351
3,838,443
170,233
101 ,483
9,091 ,
3,425,953
22,383
2<35,63'4
48,172 • ,
23,480 ' ;. .
9,890,223
0 ~ Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0. [
Tue Dec 25 20:11:02 MST 2001
P:/INTAKE'Ohio/Ohio_Seicnce/scodc/ohio.cxtrapolation/in,scope.|&cilities,benefits/suniTOary.tablcs/agg.pf.lbs,
E.csv
C3-50
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of t&E Data
Table C3-29: Summary, by Pool, of Cumulative Impingement Impacts of A)l In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio
River CWIS,
Pools
Hannibal Pool
Mark) and Pool
McAlpine Pool
Newburgh Pool
Pike Island Pool
Robert C, Byrd Pool
Total
• # of Age 1 Equivalents
34,637
633,324
9,819,970
624,522
278,482
207.252
11,598,188
Lbs of Fishery Yield
H6
3,087
9,486
1,372
836
543
15,439
Lbs of Production Foregone
2,393
123,385 '
901,408 :
49,572 . . •
18,408
16,914
1,112,080
Thu Dec 27 09:47:12 MST 2001 ,
P:/lNTAKE/Oh!0/Ohio_Scicnce/scode/oh!o.cxtrapolat!otv'all.ohio,faci|il;ie$,extrapolation/s'umn-!ary .tables/paol.roilup.ALL.irnp.csy
Table C3-30: Summary, by Pool, of Cumulative Entroinment Impacts of AH .In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio
River CWIS. /
Pools
Hannibal Pool
Markland Pool
McAJpine Pool
Newburgh i'ool
Pike Island Pool
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Total
# of Age 1 Equivalents
'6.48J..S78
2,241,748
6,772,966
412,980
1,45*6, fe'b
7,074,007
Lb$ of Fishery Yield
3,432
13,689
5,632
• 809
1,430
16,951
24,439,740 ; 39,942
Lbs of Production Foregone
358,117
1,386,167
3,412,831
97*,83i
1 14,006
4,711,698
10,080,651
Tbu Dec 27 09:47: 14 MST 200 1
Pr/lOTAKB/Ghio/OhiQjSdenceyseode/ohio.extrapolatioi^
Table C3-31: Summary, by Pool,'of Cumulative Impingement Impacts of AH In Scope Ohio River CWIS.
Pools
Hannibal Pool
Markland Pool
McAlpihe Pool
Newburgh Pool
Pike Island Pool
Robert C, Byrd Pool
Total
# of Age 1 Eqnivsjlents
29,701
624,219
9,659,875
592,659
227,962
205,574
11,339,991
Lbs of Fishery Yield
100
3,042
9,331
1,302
684
• . 538
14,998
Lbs of Production -Foregone
2,052
121,611
886,713
47,042
15,069
16,777
1,089,264
Tue Dec 25 20:14:28 MST 2001
P:/lNTAKE/OMo/Qhio_Science/sc0de/0hio.cxtrapalatian^
Table C3-32; Summary, by Poo!, of CumulativeJ£ntrojnm«rjt tappets of All In Scope Ohio
Pools
Hannibal Pool
Markland Pool
McAlpine Pool
Newburgh Pool
Pike Island Pool
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Total
# of Age 1 Equivjilents
5,558,231
2,209,518
6,662,547
391,910
1,191,995
7,016,722
23,030,922
Lbs of Fishery Yield
, 1,228
13,493
5,540
767
1,170
16,814
39,012
Lbs of Production Foregone
307,086
1,366,238 .'
3,357,192
92,840
93,324
. , 4,673,543
9,890,223
Tuc Dec 25 20:14:30 MST 2001 '
P;/lNTAKE/Ohio/Oliio_Scien
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I
-------
§ 3l6(b) Cose Studies, Part C The Ohio Wver
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline l&E Losses
acil
,iver
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation using
benefits transfer techniques of the economic Josses that are
associated I&E at Ohio River facilities. First, summed
results for the nine case.study facilities with I&E data are
presented. Then, the extrapolation of these results to other
Ohio River CWIS is discussed. Section C4-1 provides an
overview of the valuation approach, Section G4-2
discusses losses to recreational fisheries, Section C4-3
discusses the value of forage losses, Section C4-4
discusses nonuse values. Section C4-5 summarizes the
economic valuation of losses at the nine case study
facilities, and Section C4-6 discusses .the extrapolation of
these values to other Ohio River CWIS.
C4-1 OVERVIEW OF VALUATION
APPROACH
I&E at Ohio River CWIS affect recreational fisheries as
well as forage species that contribute to the biotnass of
fishery species. There are no commercial fisheries located
in the study area.
CHAPTER CONTENTS
C4-1
C4-2
C4-3
Overview of Valuation Approach ...............
Economic Value of Average Annual Losses to
Recreational Fisheries Resulting from I&E at Nine
Facilities on the Ohio Rjver ---- r ..... ,.„..:>. . .
C4-2. 1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses
"^ from the Consumer Surplus Literature , , .
C4-2,2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery*
*• / Losses Resulting from I&E at $|ne Ohio
River Case*StudyFacB1ties v , ,\ , , « ----
" Economic- Value of Fbmgc'Fhh Losses ---- ..?.,.
C4.-3J' ^Replacement Cost efFish ;-; . , U<-» ,-.-, .
04-3~2 -' Production Foregone ValueW,^
C4-I j
!
C4-2 I
-
C4-2'
,. " ;
., -
C4»3 ,
. C4'-4f
. C4-4 "
. 04-5
. C4-6',
atWm Ohio River Case£tudy Faeil
;V^!uc of I&B
EPA evaluated both fishery and forage species losses to capture the total economic value ofl&E losses at Ohio River CWIS.
Recreational fishery impacts were based on benefits transfer methods, applying results from nomnarket valuation studies. The
economic value of forage species losses was estimated by two methods, (1) the replacement cost of stocking hatchery fish to
replace fish impinged and entrained, or (2) the foregone production of commercial and recreational species that use the forage
species as a prey base. All of these methods are explained in further detail in Chapters A5 and A9 of this document.
As discussed in Chapters AS of Part A, the yield estimates presented in Chapter C3 are expressed as total pounds. Because
the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers offish rather than pounds, foregone recreational yield was
therefore converted to numbers offish. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvestable fish of each species.
Note that the, numbers of foregone recreational fish harvested are typically lower than the numbers of age I equivalent losses,
since the age of harvest of most fish is greater than age 1. . .
C4-1
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline M~ Losses
C4-2 ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL LOSSES TO RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
RESULTING FROM I&E AT NINE FACILITIES ON THE OHIO RIVER
C4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature :
There is a large literature that provides wiilingness-to-pay (WTP) values for increases in recreational catch rates. These
increases in value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as "consumer surplus" per additional fish
caught. [
i
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table C4-1 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Ohio River
fishery in geographic area and relevant species. :
Table C4-1: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates for Species in the Ohio River
Authors : Study Location and Year j Itejm Valued
Milliman et al. (1992) ; Green Bay, 1986
Samples and Bishop ; Lake Michigan, 1 978
(1985) :
Boyle ct al. ( 1 998) ! United States, 1 996
j Recreation anS commercial not
1 benefits from proposed perch
; rehabilitation programs
1 Catch rate improvement of i
j percent |
JWTP (increased costs) to get
• someone to stbp bass or trout
i fishing !
.*, ,„„.„,(,,, .,.,.,,, ,,,,,, r,»^t, ,*.,*tt»,i<,,. *»,«*,«<*.,,««
i Value Estimate ($2000)
I Yellow perch
jLake Michigan trout/salmon
1 Other bass .Si.
• Rainbow trout S3
$0.31
S16.01
58 - $3.95
.25-53.71
Cahrbancau and Hay • Mississippi Flyway (Central
(1978) IU.S.), 1978
I WTP (increased costs) to get
^someone to stop doing his/her
t favorite and sfccond-favorite
•hunting or fishing activities
I Catfish $2.64
j Pumpkinseed, Sunfish, Perch, Crappie,
JBluegill, Paddlefish,
[ Moskellunge, Panfish $1.00
! Walleye $7.92
Sorgcl al. (1985) .Central Idaho, 1982 '
; Doubling the catch rate per trip
1 Catfish, Crappie, Walleye
I Northern Pike, Grass pickerel,
;Sauger, Paddlefish, Muskellungc,
JWarnwaterfish £5.02
Norton etal. (1983) i Mid-Atlantic coast, 1979-1980 ; Catch rate indrease of 1 striped
i bass per trip
I Striped bass
Si 1.08-$15.55
Norton et al. (1983) estimated the value of the striped bass fishery for the mid-Atlantic coast, including Delaware and New
Jersey. The value of the recreational fishery was estimated using a;travel cost method (TCM) and data from the 1979 NMFS
survey. The value of the commercial fishery was calculated by valuing the catch using catch data and prices from 1980.
Sorg et al. (1985) developed estimates of the willingness to pay fora fishing trip under ihe existing conditions among licensed
Idaho steelhead anglers, using data gathered in 1982. Mean willingness to pay was estimated using data from an iterative
bidding contingent valuation (CV) survey, resulting in a value of $31.45, and from a TCM, where the results range from •
$19.89 to S27.87. In addition, the CVM portion of the study developed mean estimates of the marginal willingness to pay for
a doubling in the number offish caught per trip, with a value of $9.91, and for a 50 percent increase in the size of the fish
caught over current conditions, with a value of $7.69 (all values in $1982)..
Cahrbancau and Hay (1978) estimated the value of panfish, catfish; and walleye by sampling a large group of sportsmen to
see what increased costs would force a respondent to stop his/her favorite and second-favorite hunting and fishing activities.
Boyle et al. (1998) used the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation to estimate the
value of bass and rainbow trout across the country. Respondents were asked a contingent valuation question that determined
the regional values of these two species. i
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
Samples and Bishop.{1985) estimated the impact of increased success rates at various sites in Lake Michigan and the annual
value of the alternative fishing sites. After modeling the demand for each of the 11 study sites and estimating the annual value
for each site they developed a model to explain the variation in the annual site values that accounted for site and quality
characteristics. The results of this model were used to develop an estimate that the value of-an additional fish landed
(associated with a 1 percent improvement in the success rate) would have an average value across the sites of $6.75 ($1978),
Milliman et al. (1992) estimated the value of yellow perch in Green Bay by calculating the net benefits derived from
implementing various perch rehabilitation programs.
Since none of the studies consider the Ohio River directly, EPA used these estimates to create a range of possible consumer
surplus values for the increases in recreational landings expected to result by reducing l&E at Ohio River facilities.
To estimate a unit value for recreational landings, EPA established a lower and upper value for the recreational species, based
on values reported in studies in Table C4-1, Because the studies in Table C4-1 are geographically specific, EPA created a
'lower and upper value, • .
C4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from l&E at Nine
Ohio River Case Study Facilities • • .
Recreational losses are displayed in Tables C4-2 and C4-3 for I&E, respectively. Total losses to the recreational fisheries
from I&E at the nine Ohio River case study facilities are estimated to range from $ 12,500 to $27,300 per year for
impingement, and from SI 11,200 to $212,500 per year for entraintnem. Results for individual facilities are presented in
AppendixCS.
Table C4-2: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species -at Nine Ohio River Case Study
facilities and Associated Economic Values
Species
Black crappic
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Longear sunfish
Paddlefish
Saugcr
Smallmouth bass
Striped bass
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# of fish)
452
47
1,805
9
54
429
- 165
• ' 21
37
21
2,791
Total ; 5,832
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
•$1.00
$0.31
$2.64
$0,31
Si.OO
$5.02
& $ tfo
JMOiS
$21.08
$0,31
. $5.02
$1.58
High
S5.02
$1.00
$5,02
SI.OO
$5,02
$7.§2
$3.95
SI 5.55
ii.oo
' $7,92
$3.95
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
S452 •
" " S15
$4,764
•" $3'
$54
$2,154
$261
S231
. S12
$105
$4,4)0
$12,461
High
' $2,271
$47
! $9,060
' $9
$269
$3,398
$651
$325
$37
$16*6
• $11,026
' $27,259
Wed Dec 26 ! 0:37:52 MST 2001 P;/lNTAKE/Oliio/Ohio_Scietice/scode/ohio.summary,tabks/obiosum.tableB.imp.csv
C4-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline I4E Losses
Table C4-3s Average Annual Entrainment of Recreational Fishery Speems at Nine Ohio Rfv«r Case Study
Facflities ' fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would still
be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but are
important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough use data to value losses to the-recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter F7; Conclusions
The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of !&E fosses at Big Bend (as calculated using benefits transfer (Chapter
D4) indicate that economic losses range from $59,600 to $65,900 per year for Impingement and from $7:0 million to $7.3
million per year for entralnment (all in $2000). Economic losses associated with I&E at all in scope facilities in Tampa Bay
(Big Bend, PL Bartow, FJ Gannon, and Hookers Point) range from $146,800 to $162,200 for impingement and from $17.2
million to $ 18.1 million per year for enlrainment,
EPA also developed a random utility model (RUM) to estimate recreational losses associated with I&E in the Tampa Bay
ease study area, .As shown in Chapter D5, the average annual recreation-related losses for three species at the in scope
facilities amount to approximately $2.4 million per year (impingement and entrapment impacts combined). Results for the
RUM analysis (Chapter D5) were merged with the benefits transfer-based estimates (Chapter D4) to create an estimate of
recreational losses from I&E (as shown in Chapter D6). Losses incorporating RUM results for all in scope facilities range
from $0,79 million to $0.80 million per year for impingement and from $19.6 million to $20.95 million per year for
entrainment (all in $2000).
EPA also estimated the economic benefit of a range ofl&E reductions for the four in scope facilities (Chapter D6). The
resulting estimates of the economic value of an 80% reduction in I&E range from $0.63 million to $0-64 million per year for
impingement reductions, and from $15.7 million to $ 16.4 million per year for entrainment reductions (al! in S2000).
For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of
reducing I&E at Tampa Bay facilities, EPA assumed that the effects ofl&E on fish populations are constant over time
(I.6., that fish kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations). EPA also did not analyze
whether the number offish affected by l&E .would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality or
other improvements in environmental conditions.
07-1
-------
-------
S 316{b) Case Studies, Part 5: Tampa Bay
Appendix 01: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
,* JJifan- J& & || $1 HF^fe
to
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age 1 equivalents, fishery
yields, and production foregone from l&E data for the Tampa Bay facilities. Life history data were compiled from a variety
of sources, with a focus on obtaining data on local stocks whenever possible. Fishing mortality rates used to calculate yield
are target fishing mortality rates, when established. When target rates were unavailable, F0, or actual fishing mortality was
used. - .
Table 51-1: Bay Anchovy Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg*
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Juvenile 3
Juvenile 4
Age 1+
Age 2-r
AgeS-r-
Natwral Mortality
(per stage)
1.94"
0.4"
0.0822"
0.086 !b
0.129"
0.994"
I.62b
1.62*
1.62"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage}* •
0
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight"
(Ib)
0.0000000579
0,0000377
0.000497
0.00128
0.0026
0.00457
0.00731
0.0090) '
0.0109
" Leak and Houde, 1987. .
b Based on. Delaware Estuary bay anchovy from PSEG (1999e).
' Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
'' Weight calculated from length for Delaware Estuary bay anchovy from PSEG (I999c) using the formula
(2.624*10'5) "Length {mm}"M= Weight (g) from Carlander (J969).
App. £>/-/
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Appendix bl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate lAE
Table bl-2: Black Drum Species
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvae
Postlarvac
Juvenile
Age If
Agc2~
AgeS"-
Agc4-r
Age5>r
Age 6*
Age 7-r
Age 8-
Age 9+
Age I0~
Age 1 1*
Age I2-«-
Age 13-*
Age Hi-
Age 15+
Age Ifrf
Age 17+
Age 18*
Age 19+
Age 20 -
AgC2i'-r """" "
Age 22f
Age 23-
Agc 24-
Agc 25-
Age 26*
Age 27-*-
Age 28-'
Age 30*
AgcSl-r
Age 32*
Age 33-
Age 34f
Age 35-
Age 36-
Age 37-
Age 38*
Age 39*
Age 40-*
Natural Mortality
(per stase)"
2.27
3.06
3.06
1.15
0.0977
6.0977
0.0977
0.0977
6.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
6.0977
0,0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
6.6*977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0,0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.6977
0.0977
0.0977
• 0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0,0977
0.0977
6.0977
0.0977
0,0977
Fishing Mortality ;
0 t i
0 . :
0 i i
6/15 : I
Parameters
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fisherv^'
0
0
0
6.5 .
i
o.is ! . I . i
0,15 . ;
0.15 ' >
6.15 ' [
0.15 ; ;
0.15 ;
ML., I. 1
0.15 ; ;
0.15 i1 [
6/15 „ •
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
6/15 i ' i- 1
o.is ;
6/15 \ I
i
i
'"• o.Ts""T 1 i
6/15 ' '•
0.15. . 4. J
6/15 f 1
6/15 i i
0.15 ;
i
i
i
6/15 ! ,: 1
0.15 f ;
t
6/15 , ; 1
o.is i ;
o.i5 '• ;
o.is ; '•
0.15 : ;
i
i
i
i
0.15. : ': .1
6.15 i i 1
6/15 f ;
6/i5 : •:
6,15 : :
0.15 ; ;
0/15 i •
i
i
i
i
i
O.is ; : l
0.15 ! i
6/15 1 !
6/15 [ ;
6/i5 f ;
i
i
i
i
6.15 i i .1
Weight'
(Ib)
0.000000000 199'J
0.00000000835d
0-000000947"
0.00866*
0.337f
1.04r
2.25r
3.98f
6.F
8,82''
ii.7f
14.9r
18,2f
2.1. 5f
24,7r
28f
3'F
34r
36.8f
39.3'
' 4Uf . - ,
44'
46f
47.9f
49.6f
5L2f
52.6'
53.8f
55f
56f
56.9'
57.8f
58.5f
59,2r
59.8r
60,3'
60.8'
. 6l',2r .
6i.*6r
6i.9*
62.2'
62.5'
62.7f . " '
62.9'
Egg to juvenile: Based on Illirjois freshwater drum from Bartcll and Campbell .(2000), Aduit stages from
Lcardesal, (1993). ' ' ! '
* Personal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002 (F0,). •
1 Weight calculated from length using the formula (1,33*10''!)*Length (mm)">'">= Weight (g) from Carlandcr
(1969).
J Length from Sutler ctal. (1986). j
* Length from Able and Fahay (1998). i
1 Length from Murphy and Taylor (1989), '
App. Dl-2
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Appendix Di: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate WE
Table .Dl~3s Blue Crab Species Parameters
Stage Name
Zoca
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+.
Natural Mortality
• (per stage)
13.8'
1 3.8*
!&
i*
i" • .
ib
i"
i"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0
i •
i
i ,
1
1
1
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery1'
0
0
0.5
!
1
I
1
I
Weight8
(lb)
0.000000136"
0.0000059''
0.135'
0.406s '
0,888'
0.95f
1.01*
l.JS"
* Calculated from survival (Rose and Cowan, 1993) using the equation (natural mortality)«-LN (survival) -
(Fishing mortality).
" FWi!t, front Murphy etal. (2000). Fraction vulnerable assumed. .
c Weiaht calculated from length using the formula (2.21 l*IO"4)*LengA (mm)"2i = Weight (g) from Murphy
etal(20QO). ' '
•". Length from Van den Avyie and Fowler (1984). " • . .
5 Length from Delaware Estuary blue crab from PSEG (1999b).
f Length assumed based on PSEG (1999b).
Table D1-4-' Chain Pipefish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2-*-
Age 3+ .
Age 4*
Age 5-*-
NatwralMortality
(per stage)
2.3"
3.31"
0.75C
0.75'
0,75C
0.75C
0.75C
Fjshtog Mortality
• (per stage)"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
t0 Fishery" ' •
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0
Weigh**
)
0.0000000 157f
0.00 168r<
0.00871*
0.0151"
0.0207*
0.0239s
0.0285'
9 Calculated from survival for Atlantic silvcrsidc in Massachusetts (Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1977) using the equation (natural mortality) = -Ltx? (survival) - (fishing mortality).
* Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
*•' Froese and Pauly, 2001. Broad-nosed pipefish.
4 Not.a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
" Weight calculated from length using the formula for Sargassum pipefish (9.407*10'*)*Len£th (mmf**=
Weight (g) from Froese and Pauly (2001). ;
f Length for northern pipefish from Scott and Seott (1988).
s Length assumed based on northern pipefish from Scott and Scott (1988).
Table 51-5: Soby Species Parameter's •
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Natural Mortality
(per stage)"
0.288
4.09
2.3
2.55
Fishing Mortality
(per stag*)"
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
Weight
(lb)
0.000022"
0.00022"
0.000485"
0.00205°
" Based on Narragansett Bay goby from PO&E National Energy Group (2001).
b Assumed based on PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Dl-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part Di' Tampa Bay
Appendix Dl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
Table Dl-6: Sulf Killifish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Agcl +
Age 2+
Agc3+
Agc4*
AgcSf
AgcfiT
Age 7+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
31"
0.7771
0.777C
0.777C -
0.777=
0.777*
0.777"
Q.17T
-™~™ «-> ,.^~»~»«*tm*Hi»HMHMM*<»£
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
0
o :
o 1
o ;
0 :
,.
0,000000864r
o.ooBoisa'
0.0121*
O.fe?*
0,0551*
0.0778*
0.0967*
O.J138
0.158*
Calculated from survival for Atlantic silversidc in Massachusetts (Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1977) using the equation (natural mortality)»-LN (survival} - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
« Calculated from survival (Meredith and Lotrich, 1979) using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN
(survival) - (fishing mortality). ;
4 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
• Weight calculated from length using the formula for striped killifish (2,600* 10'5)*Length (mm)*'w» Weight
(g) from Carlander (1969). | • .
' -Length for striped killifish from Able and Fahay (1998). |
8 Length for striped killifish from Carlander (1969). i
Table Dl-7: Hogehoker Species Parameters
" ' il ' " '
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Agel-t-
Agc2-r
Agc3-^
Age 4^
Age 5+
Age 6-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.24"
6.7311
0.25e
0.25C
0.25C
0.25"'
0.25L
0.25'
Fishing Mortality
(per stage^
, o..,.j
0 ;
0 •:
o :
"" ";pt"r>"
0 :
0 i
"o""r--
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
o'
0
0
b
0
Weighf
___JEL__,
0.00000023?f
0.00 123r
0.00778'f
"" 6.029' 5r
B'-Og?'^
0.19»
0.4248
6.56 1*
Calculated from survival for Narragansett Bay hogchokcrjfNew England Power Company and Marine
Research Inc., 1995) using the equation (natural mortality) =f -LN (survival) - (fishing mortality),
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural monality)-= -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Based on Narragansett Bay hogchoker from New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc.
(1995). ;
* Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula (l.947*r!o^)*Length (mm)"*<- Weight (g) from Froese
and Pauly (2001).
' Length from Able and Fahay (1998). i
* Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Frejese and Pauly (2001).
11 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001). . ! '
App, Dt-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part b: Tampa Bay
Appendix 01: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate J&E
Table pi-8s Leather-jacket Species Parameters
Stage Name •
Egg
Larvae
Age H
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
0,81 7*
•9,52i!
.0.34*
0.34° .'
0.34s
0.34'
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)1*
0 '
0
0
0
0
o •
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight'
_JfeL»__
G,0000GQG2Q9f
0.0209f>
0.1 68r ,
0,46r
0.51 lf
0.565* ;
' Based on Delaware Estuary Atlantic croaker from PSEO( 1999c).
* Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing :
mortality).
* Froese and Pauly, 2001. Unicorn ieatherjaeket
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
* Weight calculated from length using the formula {9.497*10~fl)*Length (nim)5= Weight (g) from Froesc and
Pauly (2001), ...
! Length assumed based on Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2001), • .
e Length from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2001).
Table Dl-9: Menhaden. Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Age 1+
Age2-r
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6-f-
Age7+
Age 8+
Natural Mortality
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
.Appendix 51: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I<£E
Table 51*12; Scaled Sardine Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvae
Posttarvae
Age !•+•
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2:12'
0.56"
6.53C
L0211
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0 .-
0
0
0
Frafction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
Weiglu'
(Ib)
0.0000000903'
0.0000013^'
0.000226".
0.0324!
1 Calculated from survival for scaled sardine in Massachusetts {Srone and Webster Engineering Corporation,
1980a) using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing mortality).
fc Daily mortality: Institute for Marine Research (2002). Duration of stage for scaled sardine in Massachusetts
(Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980a).
c Extrapolated.
" Froejse and Pauly, 2001. .
* Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
f Weight calculated from length using the formula (8.166*]0'<))*Lcngth (mm)3-"? = Weight (g) from Pierce et
al. (20G1). • • -
8 Length from Houdeetal, (1974).
k Length from Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (1980a).
1 Length from Springer and Woodburn (1960) and Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (1980a).
Table Dl-13: Searobin Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg •
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3-f-
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7-r
Age8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.57"
(142C
QA2-
OA2e
0.42C
0.42C
0.42s
0.42C
0.42"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight*
«
0.00000286f
0.0000229'
0.023 1 f
0.0779r
0.1 85f > '
6.36 lr
0.455f
0.507f
0.564f
0.624s ,
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation (natural inortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
6 Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) - -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Northern searobin.
4 Not caught in measurable quantities, thus n.o fishing mortality (Personal communication with Michael .0.
Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23,
2002). .
" \Veightcalcutated from length using the formula for longhom sculpin (1.034*10"s)*Length (rnm)!WO=
Weight (g) from Clayton et ai..(1978).
r. Length assumed based on Froese and Pauly (2001).
8 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
App, Dl-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Appendix bit Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate ME
Table DI-14: Sheepshead Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age Si-
Age 6-*
Agc?+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age I2f
Age 1 Si-
Age I4f
Age IS*
Age I6f
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3a
7.39"
1.9ic
1.981"
I.98"1
1.984
I.98J
1.98"
I.98J
L98d
1,98"
1.98"
1.98"
1.98J
1.98"
1.98-"
l.W
1.98"
1.98"
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)J__
0 :
0 . !
0 1
0
0
0.45 !
H,L,, ,,,„ ^ ,.,,,, .!,,,, ^
0.45 j
0.45 i
0.45 ,
0.45 !
0.45 i
0.45 ;
0^45 !
0.45 j
0.45 [
•0.45
0.45 !
0.45 !
0.45 [
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
• 0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
I
i
1
' 1
|
1
i
1
1
1
Weight*
(il»
0,0000000490"
0.0000241"
0.0016?
0.981'
L22'
1.56'
2.33'
2.43j
2.45*
2.47'
2A9>
2.5V
• 2.53J
2.55',
2.57'
2.591
2,61'
2.62>
2.65*
• Calculated from survival for sheepshcad in Massachusetts :(Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation,
1977) using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing mortality).
* Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
* Nelson, 1998. j
J Froese and Pauly, 2001. Western Atlantic scabream. t
° F01 from personal communication with Michael D, Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23,! 2002.
' Commercial and recreational species. Vulnerable to fishing at 12 inches or age 3 (Murphy et al., 2000).
« Weight calculated from length using the formula (2.247* 10*5)*length (mm)1*7* Weight (g) from Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2002b). i
k Length from Pattillo et al. (1997).
' Length from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2002b).
' Length extrapolated. i
App. Dl-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 5: Tampa Bay
Appendix t>l: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate Il-15; Silver Perch Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg •
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2*
Age 3*
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.75"
5,37"
UP
3.84"
3,84b
3,84*
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)^
0
0
0
0
0.1
O.I
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
0 •
0
0.5
1
Weight" :-
(Ib)
O.OOOOOOQ2725
0.0000077 1 c
0.0445s
0,273'
0.4 15f
0.607s
" Based on Delaware Estuary white porch from PSEG (!999c).
" Proese and Pauly, 2001. ' •
c Annual fishing mortality rate (F) and fraction vulnerable from personal communication with Michael D,
Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida.Marinc Research Institute, January 23,
•2002.
" Weight calculated from length using the formula (2.683*)0'5)*Length (mm)1-9" » Weight (g) from Froese
and Pauly (2001).
5 Length from Able and Fahay( 1998).
r Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(2001). . -. .
* Length from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (200!),
Table bl-16: Spotted Seatrout Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2-t-
Age 3+
Age4-*>
AgeS-f
Age6-t-
Age7*
Age 8+
Natural Mortality
{per stage)
2.3"
1.5"
6.92C
0.436d
0.4361'
0.436d
0.436"
0.436 Length assumed based on Murphy and Taylor (1994).
App. Dl-9
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port D: Tampa Bay
Appendix bl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
Table 51-17: Stone Crab Species Parameters
Stage Name
Zoea 1
Zoca2
Zoca3
Zoca4
ZocaS
Mcgalopa
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Agc3-»-
Age 4+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.97'
i.97j
1.97"
1.97"
1.97"
1.97"
1.97»
0.939*
0.939*
0.939h
0.93911
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"!
o :
o. ;
0 i
0 i
0 t
0 ;
0
0.751 !
'0,751 j
' 0.751 1
0.751 !
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0.5
1 .
1
I
Weight11
)
0,000000 10 1.'
0.000000417"
0.00000109*
0.00000226*
0,00000405'
0.000.00662'
0.00001 82f
1,02'
3.63f
7,12'
ior
' Calculated from survival (Bert ct al., 197$) using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality). I
N Annual fishing mortality rate (F) from Ehrhardt et al, (1990).
' Commercial and recreational species, Fraction vulnerable assumed,
4 Weight calculated from length using the formula (0,003)*Length (mm)""= Weight (g) from Sullivan
(1979). i
' Length from Van den Avyle and Fowler (1984), [
' Length from Lindberg and Marshall (1984). [
Table Dl-18: Tidewater Silver-side: Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvac
Postlarvae
Age 1+
Age 2-*-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
.2.3"
3.06"
3.06'1
2.!'
2.11
Fishing Mortality
(per stagc)^
0 [ •
o !
0 ',
0 1
° i
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
Weight*
(Hi)
0.00000000526'
0.000001 63«
0.00000554"
0.0119f
0.0224'
Calculated from survival (Bert et al., 1978) using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality). i
fc Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality). ' .
* Frocse and Pauly, 2001. |
* Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality,
{ Weight calculated from length using the formula (5,69*10;i>)*Length (mm)362* = Weight (g) from Frocse and
Pauly (2001). I
' Length for Massachusetts tidewater silvcrside from Stone $nd Webster Engineering Corporation (19SOa).
* Length from Hi Idebrand( 1922). ',
*• Length from Garwood( 1968). ;
' Length for Atlantic silversidc from Scott and Scott (1988);
App. DI-IQ
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
If l^>
* I * * * A 1
j»% j<**» » I • *!• * j&ti «f* *%«!•%, <*l*|pk ^"k
QCIIITICS On Trl€
IO
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation using
benefits transfer techniques of the economic losses that are
associated I&E at Ohio River facilities. First, summed
results for the nine case study facilities with !&E data are
presented. Then, the extrapolation of these results to oilier
Ohio River CWIS is discussed. Section C4-1 provides an
overview of (he valuation approach, Section C4-2
discusses losses to recreational fisheries. Section C4-3
discusses the value of forage losses, Section C4-4
discusses notiuse values, Section C4-5 summarizes the
economic valuation of losses at the nine case study
ijicilities, and Section C4-6 discusses the extrapolation of
these values to other Ohio River CWIS.
C4~ 1 OVERVIEW OF VALUATION
APPROACH
I&E at Ohio River CWIS affect recreational fisheries as
well as forage species that contribute to the biomass of
fishery species. There are no commercial fisheries located
in the study area.
CHAPTER' CONTENTS
C4-1
C4-2
•
-------
S 316(b) Case, Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline ttfc Losses
C4-2 ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL tosses TO RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
RESULTING FROM !<&E AT NINE FACILITIES ON THE OHIO RIVER
[
C4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature |
There is a large literature thai provides willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for increases in recreational catch rales. These
increases in value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as "consumer surplus" per additional fish
caught, |
,
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fob at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table C4-1 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Ohio River
fishery in geographic area-and relevant species. '
Table C4-1: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates for Species in the Ohio River
Authors
Millinttnctal. (1992)
Samples and Bishop
(1985)
Boyle etal.( 1998)
Study Location and Year
Green Bay, 1986
Lake Michigan, 1978
United States, 1996
; Itejn Valued
j Recreation anil commercial net
'.benefits from proposed perch
I rehabilitation programs
! Catch rate improvement of 1
; percent
!WTP {increased costs) to. got
I someone to stjap bass or trout
; fishing '
I Value Estimate ($2000)
•Yellow perch
1 Lake Michigan trout/salmon
| Other bass SI. 58
! Rainbow trout $3.25
$0,31
SI 6.01
- S3.95
-S3.71
Cahrbnncau and Flny
(1978)
Sorgetal (1985)
: Mississippi Flyway (Central
U.S.), 1978
• \yr-p (increased costs) to get
i someone to stpp doing his/her
r favorite and second-favorite
• hunting or fishing activities
iPuropkinseed, Sunfish, Perch, Crappic,
JBluegill.PaddJefish,
I Muskeltunge, Panfish $1.00
! Walleye $7.92
; Central Idaho, 1982
; Doubling the .catch rate per trip
i Catfish, Crappie, Walleye
•Northern Pike, Grass pickerel,
iSaugcr, Paddlefish, Muskellunge,
iWarmwaterfish $5,02
Norton ctal.( 1983)
• Mid-Atlantic coast, 1979-1980 i Catch rate increase of! striped
. i bass per trip
i Striped bass
$11.08-SJ5.55
Norton et al. (1983) estimated the value of the striped bass fishery for the mid-Atlantic coast, including Delaware and New
Jersey. The value of the recreational fishery was estimated using a,travel cost method (TCM) and data from the 1979 MMFS
survey. The value of the commercial fishery was calculated by valuing the catch using catch data and prices from 1980,
Sorg et al. (1985) developed estimates of the willingness to pay for a fishing trip under the existing conditions among licensed
Idaho steelhead anglers, using data gathered in 1982. Mean willingness to pay was estimated using data from an iterative
bidding contingent valuation (CV) survey, resulting in a value of S31.45, and from a TCM, where the results range from
$19,89 to $27.87, In addition, the CVM portion of the study developed mean estimates of the marginal willingness to pay for
a doubling in the number of fish caught per trip, with a value of $9.91, and for a 50 percent increase in the size of the fish
caught over current conditions, with a value of S7.69 (all values in $1982),
Cahrbaneau and Hay (1978) estimated the value ofpanfish, catfish; and walleye by sampling a large group of sportsmen to
sec what increased costs would force a respondent to stop his/her favorite and second-favorite hunting and fishing activities.
Boyle el al. (199S) used the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation to estimate the
value of bass and rainbow trout across the country. Respondents were asked a contingent valuation question that determined
the regional values of these two species. i
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
Samples and Bishop (1985) estimated the impact of increased success rates at various sites in Lake Michigan and the annual
value of the alternative fishing sites. After modeling the demand for each of the 11 study sites and estimating the-annual value
for each site they developed a model to explain the variation in the annual site values that accounted for site and quality
characteristics. The results of this model were used, to develop an estimate that the value of an additional fish landed
(associated with a 1 percent improvement in the success rale) would have an average value across the sites of,$6.75 (SI978),
Milliman el al. (1992) estimated the value of yellow perch in Green Bay by calculating the.net benefits derived from
implementing various perch rehabilitation programs.
Since none of the studies consider the Ohio River directly, EPA used these estimates to create a range of possible consumer
surplus values for the increases in recreational landings expected to result by reducing l&E at Ohio River facilities.
To estimate a unit value for recreational landings, EPA established a lower and upper value for the recreational species, based
on values reported in studies in Table C4-1, Because the studies in Table C4-1 are geographically specific, EPA created a
lower and upper value. .
C4-2.2 E-conomic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from 1<&E at Nine
Ohio River Case Study Facilities
Recreational losses are displayed in Tables C4-2 and C4-3 for l&E, respectively. Total losses to the recreational fisheries
from l&E at the nine Ohio River case study facilities are estimated to range from $12,500 to $27,300 per year for
impingement, and from SI 11,200 to $212,500 per year for entrainment. Results for individual facilities are presented in
Appendix C3. ' i
Table C4-2: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Nine Ohio fitver Case Study
Facilities and Associated Economic Values
Species
Black crappie
BhiegiH
Channel catfish
Longear sunfish
Paddlcfish
Sauger
SmalltiKWth bass
Striped bass
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(#offl$10
452
47
1,805 '
9
54
429
!6S
• 21
37
21
2,791
5,832
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
SI. 00
S0.31
$2.64
S0.31
SI. 00
. $5.02
.$1.58
SI 1.08
$0.31
S5.02
S1.5U '
High
$5.02
SI. 00
S5.02
Sl.OO
$5,02
$7.92
S3.95
$15.55
Sl.OO
$7.92
$3,95
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
•
Low
S452
$15
$4,764
' S3
$54
$2,154
$261 '
$231'
$12
S105
54,410
$12,461
High
52,271
S47
$9,060
; $9
'$269
. $3,398
$65 1
$325
S37
; S166
; S 11,026
$27,259
Wed Dec 26 10:37:52 MST 2001 P:/l>n'AKE/Ohio/Ohio_Sciencfi/scoiJe/6hio.summary.tablcs/ohiosuin.tableB.injp.csv
C4-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies. Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4; Value of Baseline t&E tosses
Table C4-3: Average Annual Entrapment of Recreational Fishery Species at Nine Ohio River Case Study
Facilities and Associated, Economic Values
Species
Black erappic
Blucgill
Giannel catfish
Longear sun fish
Paddlcfish
Saugcr
Smallmouth bass
Sun fish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entrainment
(# offish)
1,284
1
2,648
3,938
16
1,638
16,170
3,663
12,666
2,014
I
44,038
Recreational VaJue/Fish
Low
i
si.oo;
$0.31,
$2,64]
S0.31'
si.oo'
$5.02;
$1,58;
so.3i;
$5.02,
S1.S8-
S0.31
High
S5.02
SI.OO
S5.02
$1,00
S5.02
S7.92
$3,95 .
SI.OO
- S7.92
$3:95
SI.OO
Loss In Recreational Value from
Entratetnent
Low
$1,284
$0
$6,991
$1,221
$16
$8,223
$25,548
SI, 135
$63,581
$3,182
SO
$111,182
High
16,447
$1
513,294
53,938..
$78
$12,973
$63,870
S3 ,663
$100,311
57,956
si
$212,532
ohiosums Wed Dec 26 10:37:52 MST 2001 P:/INTAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Science/scode/ohio.summary,tables/ohiosuni,tableB.ent,csv
C4-3 ECONOMIC VALUE OF FORAGE FISH LOSSES
i
i
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationafly fished. For the purposes in this study, EPA refers to all
of these species as forage fish. Forage fish include species that are prey for Other species and are important components of
aquatic food webs. The following sections discuss Ihe economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation
methods.
i
C4-3.1 Replacement Cost of Fish '
The replacement value of fish can be used in several cases. First, ifa fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking of
hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisherjes would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would still
be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but are
important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough use data to value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as a proxy for lost
fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs,
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to l&E has two main components, The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table C4-4 displays replacement costs for Ohio 'River species impinged and entrained based on values in
the American Fisheries Society's Sourcebookfor the Investigation 'and Valuation of Fish Kills (AFS, 1993). Totals for the
nine case study facilities are $394,400 per year for impingement and $437,100 per year for entrainmenl. The costs listed are
average costs to fish hatcheries across North America to produce different species offish for stocking. The second
component of replacement cost is the transportation cost, which includes costs associated with vehicles, personnel, fuel,
water, chemicals, containers, and nets. AFS (1993) estimates these costs at approximately $ 1.13 per mile, but does not
indicate how many fish (or how many pounds offish) are transported for this price. Lacking relevant data, EPA did not
include the transportation costs in this valuation approach, :
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Vdue of Baseline I&E Losses
Table C4-4: Replacement Cost of f or-oge Species Impinged and
Entrained of the Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities"
Species
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Biuntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Common carp
Darter spp.
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gteard shad
Golden redhorse
Herring spp.
Logperch
Minnow spp.
Perch spp.
River earpsucker
Skipjack herring
Sucker spp.
Total
Hatchery
Costs
<$/lb) .
$0,42
.SI, 04
$2.2!
SI. 04
S0.20
. £2,84
$0.91
$0,39
$0.34
$2.12
S0.52
51,05
$2.21
Sf. 05
SO, 19
$0.34
$2.1,2
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses
($2000)*
Impingement
$998
Si
$58
SJ49
S469
. $9
$2,87?
S4.826 .
$364,631
S299
SO
S7
SO,
$Q
. $58
819,633
S380
5394,396
Entrainnu'iil
SO
• so
$83,9%
$1,147
$143,464
$528
S42.834
$981
$15,159
S205
S86
$193
52,427
$97
$33,09!
$813
$112,040
$437,061-
* Values are from APS (1993), These values were inflated to $2000 from S1989, but this
could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
Wed Dec 26 1.0:38:58 MST 2001
C:/tNTAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Seienee/scode/ohio,s'ummary,iaWcfy'ohiosum.tableD,imp,csv
C4-3.2 Production Foregone Value of Forage Fish
This approach considers the foregone production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from l&E of forage
species based on estimates of trophic transfer efficiency, as discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document. The
economic valuation of forage losses is based on the dollar value of the foregone fishery yield resulting from these losses.
Values for the nine case study facilities are from $8,700 to $19,900 per year for impingement (Table C4-5) and from
$313,300 to $685,500 per year for entratnment (Table C4-6).
C4-S
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline I
P:/lNTAKE/Ohio/Obio_Seiencc/scode/ohio.4inunao'-tabies/ohios,-um,£ableD,itnp
Table C4-6: Mean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Selected
Fishery Species Resulting from Entr
-------
S 3l6(b) Cose Studies, Part C- The Ohio River __,„,..,,.,
the economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (intergenerational equity)
motives. Using a "rule of thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 percent of the recreational .use impact (see
Chapter A9 of this document for further discussion), nonuse values of I&E losses at the nine Ohio River case study facilities
are estimated to range from $6,200 to $13,600 per for impingement and from $55,600 to $106,300 per for eutratnment.
C4-5 SUMMARY of MEAN ANNUAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF IAE AT NINE OHIO RIVER
CASE STUDY FACILITIES ' . _ .'
Table C4-7 summarizes the estimated total annual economic value of I&B losses at the nine Ohio River case study facilities
Total impacts range from $27,400 to $435,300 per year for impingement, and from $480,100 to $ 1,004,300. per year from
entrainment,
Table C4-7: Summary of Baseline Mean Annual I&E Value Losses at Nine Selected Facilities on the
Ohio River ($2000)
•"""""^H"'"''™^™™™"^^
Recreational (Direct Use, Nomnarket) .
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarkct)
Production Foregone
Replacement
Nomise (Passive Use, Nonmarkei)
Total (Rec * Forage + Npnuse)*
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
$12,461
$27,259
58,659
St9,S$!
$394,396
$6,230
$13,630
£27,350
$435,285
Etttrtrinment
$111,182
$212,532
$313,310
$685,538
$437,061
$55,591
$106,266
$480,083
$1,004,336
fatal
$123,643'
$239,791
5321,969
$705,429
'$83 1,457
$'61,821
$119,896
•8507,433
$1,439,621
In calculating the total low values, the tower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement)
was used and to calculate the total high values, the higher of two forage valuation methods was used,
Wed Dec 26 10:41:36 MST2001 . ' • . '
P:/INTAKE/O]iio/OhiomScience/seode/ohio.suinmary,tables/ohiosum,tableE.SUMMARY.csv
C4-6 EXTRAPOLATION OF BASELINE Losses TO OTHER FACILITIES ON THE OHIO
RIVER .• . • - •
Table C4-8 summarizes the estimated baseline economic losses calculated for alt m-scope and out-of-scope facilities on the
Ohio River by extrapolating the results from the previous analysis. For the analysis, facilities were grouped according to their
locations in Ohio River navigational pools, as discussed in Chapter C3, Results for the six pools combined for all in scope'
and out of scope Ohio River facilities range from $74,700 to SI ,388,300 per year for Impingement and from' $784,400 to
$2,443,800 per year for entrainment. Table C4-9 displays results for just the in scope facilities. Values for the in scope
facilities are $72,700 to $ 1,358,700 per year for impingement and $768,400 to $2,393,000 per year for entrainmenl.
C4-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
Table C4-8: Values of Mean Annual Baseline I4E Losses at In and Out of Scope Facilities grouped as Pools
on the Ohio River
Pools
Hannibal Pool
Markland Pool
McAlpinc Pool
New Cumberland
Pike Island Poo!
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Total
Impingement Losses (2000$)
; ' Low
$494
; $15,830
S44.243
$5,669
• . $3,676
: S4,75S
$74,670
High
S3,749.
$189,246
$1,057,33,4
$67,48$
$'29,307
$41,188
$1,388,305
Entrainment Losses (2000$)
Low High
$35,020
$287,318
$264,468
53,173
$5,072
S 1 89,373
,$784,424
$98,309
$1,384,754
$448,605
$11,187
528,135
$472,797 .
$2,443,787
cxirapolation-summary. Fri Dec 28 17:52:37 MST 2001 , .
P^INTAKE'Ohio/Olito.Scienca'scode/ohio.extrapalation/all.ohio.fa^^
Table C4-9: Values of Mean Annual Baseline X&E Lossep at In Scope Faalrtres (Srouped as foois on the
Ohio River.
Impingement Losses (2000$)
Pools
Hannibal Pool
Mnrkhiui Poo!
McAlpinc Pool
New Cumberland
Pike Island Pool
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Total
\ Low
$423
: $15,602
543,522
$5,380
53,009
. $4,720
! $72,656
High
$3,215
$186,525
*S i, 040/096
$64,037
- $23,991
840,854
*S 1,358,|719
Low
$30,029
$283,1.87
$260,157
$3,011
S4,iS2
$187,839
$768,376
_____J!M!L_^_™_
$84,300 ; ;
$1,364,845
$441,292
$10,616
$23,031
$468,969
$2,393,052
Entrainment Losses (2000S)
cxtrapolation.suinmary. Sat Dec 29 23:27:17 MST 2001 :
P:/INTAKE/Ohio/OhiO_Scicncc/scode/ohio.extrapolation/in.scopeJacilities.bcnefits/simuTiary4ables/extrapolation.summary..csv
CV-.S*
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case, Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
CHAPTSR CONTENTS
C5-I
CS-2
C5-3
Data Summary ..... ,„.,.,„, ............ .... C5-1
C5-! ! Summary of Anglers' Characteristics .... €5-1
C5-1.2 Recreational Fishing Choice Sets ....... C5*t
C5-I.3 Site Attributes ..... ,„. , ........... C5-5
C5-1 .4 Travel Cost . 7 ..-.,.,. ......... ...... C5-7
Site Choice Models ....... -, ..... . ••> ...... • C5-7
Trip Participation. Model ---- ,' ......... , ..... . C5-9~
Welfare Estimates'", , , .'.. . . ' 7. ----- , ........ /C5-iO
C5-4.1Y Estimating Changes. in the Quality of '"V
- Pishing Sites , .; .tjJW., . . /.'. . , „'„-, . C5-1Q
C5-4.2 Estimating Losses, fronj. I&E ia the „ A
INTRODUCTION
Cooling water intake structures (CWISs) withdrawing
water from the Ohio River impinge and entrain many
species sought by recreational anglers. These species
include catfish, bass, sunfish, walleye, sauger, perch, and
others. Increased fish mortality from l&B in the Ohio
River may therefore affect fishing quality at the Ohio
River fishing sites and, as a result, the welfare of anglers
visiting these sites.
This case study 'uses a random utility model (RUM)
approach to estimate the effects of improved fishing
opportunities due to reduced impingement and
entrainment (I&E) in the Ohio R.iver. The case study
focuses on fishing sites along the following six pools of
the Ohio River: Hannibal, Markland, McAlpine, New
Cumberland, Pike Island, and Robert-C. Byrd. A
120-mile radius buffer zone around these six pools formed
the geographic area of the case study. EPA defined this
area based on. the distances thai local anglers are likely to.
travel to fish the Ohio River for single-day trips. Figure
C5-1 depicts the case study area,
' The case study relies on the 1994 National Demand Study (NDS) for Water-Based Recreation (U.S. EPA, I994a) combined
with biological data describing fishing conditions in the study area. Only the state of Ohio provided adequate biological data.
EPA therefore estimated anglers' behavior with a RUM based on the subset of the NDS sample that includes,Ohio anglers
only, The Agency then used the model to .estimate economic values associated with recreational fishery Josses from I&E in
the Ohio River as applied to all anglers residing in the study area.
Chapter AJO of Part A provides a detailed description of the RUM methodology used in this analysis. The following sections
describe the data set used in the analysis and present analytic results.
C5.-5
C5-4.3 . Estimating Fishery Losses jfr«w I&E ftk •
•"-IiidrndwH-Toplsmthe-OWo River , . . ;. C5-I3 "
s LimitatiMsiBd Uncertainties '*..'.,*,.. ~17%. ,"',', /v G544
CS£,t TCpisidering Oftly Recreational' Value^^'CS-JN!
C5-5.2 " Mo'deling > . , , .^ ...... //<; . :. ...... C5-14
CSt-53 r Data ... r?. . . r^t •"• - .^^- .'>&, . , . CS-14
Potentia! Sources of Survey Bias ',
C5-1
SUMMARY
This section describes the data and supporting analyses required to implement the RUM analysis, the study requires the
following general categories of data and supporting analyses: '
» information OB socioeconomic characteristics of anglers and their preferences (i.e., where they fish and what species
they target);
>• anglers' choice set of recreational sites, including the sites visited by anglers and substitute sites in their choice sets;
*• information on site characteristics that are likely to be important determinants of anglers' behavior; and
*• estimated price of visiting the sites.
These four data categories are described below.
C5-1.1 Summary of Anglers' Characteristics
Information on anglers' preferences and characteristics came from the 1994 National Demand Study (NDS) for Water-Based
Recreation (U.S. EPA, 1994a). The NDS survey collected data on demographic characteristics and water-based recreation
behavior using a nationwide stratified random sample of 13,059 individuals aged 16 and older. EPA used a subset of the
NDS sample that includes only single-day trips to sites located in the state of Ohio to estimate the RUM of recreational
CS-l
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CS: RUM Analysis
fishing behavior. As noted above, the Agency did not-use observations from other states falling within the case study area in
the RUM analysis because only the state of Ohio provided fish abundance data necessary for characterizing fishing sites
located along the Ohio River and the relevant substitute sites. The Ohio sub-sample included 909 observations. Of those,
122 took recreational fishing trips. Excluding respondents with missing data on key variables, such as name of the visited
water body, home town, and respondents who took multiple day trip^ results in 74 usable observations.
When estimating the total welfare changes from I&E effects in the Ohio River on the quality of recreational fishing sites, the
Agency included all anglers from the 120-mile radius taking both single- and multiple-day trips,. Section C5-6 of this report
provides details of this analysis. :
Table CS-I provides descriptive statistics for all anglers residing in fhe case study area who take single day trips. These data
are presented by stale to compare characteristics of Ohio's anglers with anglers residing in other states. Table C5-1 shows
that anglers' preferences vary only slightly across states, likely making the Ohio subsample used in the RUM analysis
representative of all anglers residing in the 120-mile zone. The following paragraphs compare characteristics of Ohio anglers
with characteristics of anglers from other states included in the ease istudy area.
A majority of Ohio anglers taking single-day trips (84 percent) prel^r to visit lakes or reservoirs, The remaining 16 percent
visit streams and rivers. Allocation of fishing trips among water body types is similar in most states included in the study
area. The only two notable differences are: I
> three to eight percent of anglers from Indiana, Kentucky, 4nd Pennsylvania visit marine water bodies in addition to
freshwater bodies . [
»• a majority of anglers in West Virginia (55 percent) prefer to visit streams and rivers.
A majority of Ohio anglers (51 percent) target warmwater species, 46 percent target coldwater species, and the remaining
three percent target anadromous species. Ohio anglers' preferences1 are consistent with angler's preferences from the states of.
Indiana and Kentucky and are somewhat different from anglers' preferences in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. A majority
of anglers from Pennsylvania and West Virginia target coldwater species. However, differences in allocation of target species
between Ohio's anglers and Pennsylvania and West Virginia are unlikely to have a significant effect on welfare estimates for
two reasons:
> a significant portion of Pennsylvania and West Virginia anglers (25 and 27 percent) target warmwater species; and
>• both coldwater (salmon) and warmwater species (e.g., saucer) are affected by l&E in the Ohio River.
Half of the Ohio anglers used either private or rental boats on their fishing trips, compared to between. 20 and 40 percent in
other states, This difference is likely to stem from the size of water bodies included in anglers choice set. Anglers from Ohio
are more likely to visit large water bodies such as Lake Erie or the Ohio River compared to anglers from, for example,
Kentucky or West Virginia who might also fish at smaller water bodies where a boat may not be necessary.
On average, anglers in the case study area travel from 31.36 miles tb 61,11 mile for a single day trip. The Ohio estimate of
34.63 miles represents a low.value. :
C5-2
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Port C; The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Table C5-1: Profile
o
"«
-art
(ft
IN
KY
MD*
NY3'
.OH
PA
VA°
wv
Total
K
40
37
i
0
74
.38
0 .
20
210
Allocution of Trips by
Water Body Type (%
anglers)
Lake
80%
70%
NA
NA.
84% ,
68%
NA
45%
Stream
15% '
27%
0%
NA
16%
24%
NA
55%
Ocean
' 5%
3%
0%
NA
0%
8%
NA
0%
of Single-boy Fishing Trips by State
Type of Water Fished on Last Trip
(% of anglers)
Cold
45%
19%.
NA
; NA
46%
68%
NA
75%
,™™,™,._,^»
Warm
47%
76%
0%
NA
51%
27%
, NA
25%
Salt
" $%
3%
0%
NA
0%
• 5%
NA
0%
Ana-
dromous
3%
.3%
0%
NA
3%
0%
NA
0%
Fished
from Boat
(%
Anglers)
40%
24%
0%
NA
• 47%
32%
NA
20%
Average
Travel
distance
61.11-
47.97
NA
NA
34.63
31.36
NA
36,90
_™,»,,™^*».
•Avg
Visits
7.23
4;?3
NA
NA
6!.91
4,72
•NA
10.20
Average
Number of
Fish Caught
7.13
6.47
NA
NA
4.79
4.94'
.NA
14,25
* NA: no or few sample observations arc available for the buffer zone included in she case study. Note that the Agency included NY,
MD< and VA counties that fall in the case study area in benefit estimation (see Figure C5-1),
Table C5-2 summarizes socioeconomic characteristics of the sample anglers participating in recreational fishing in Ohio and
other states in the case study area, As shown in table C5-2, socioeconomic characteristics of anglers are similar across states
included in the case study area. The average annual income of the respondent anglers was between $49,000 and $50,'000 in
both Ohio and other states.1 Ninety-three percent of the Ohio anglers are white, with an average age of about 40 years. •
Anglers from, other stales are a little bit younger with an average age of about 39? Fewer non white anglers from other states
(about two percent )participate in recreational fishing compared to Ohio (about seven percent). Nine percent of the Ohio
anglers and eight percent of anglers from other states had not received a high school diploma. Only 23 and 29 percent of
anglers from Ohio and other states, respectively, had.graduated from college. More than 60 percent of the anglers in all states
are males. Twenty seven percent of the anglers in Ohio and 22 percent in other states indicated that they had children aged
six and younger, Approximately 54 percent of anglers in Ohio and 50 percent in other states had children aged seven to 16
years. • , .
Table CS-2 .shows that on average anglers spent) 2.6 days fishing during the past year. Anglers made an average of 6.91 trips
to the current site, with an average trip cost of $52.87 (I994S).3 Average travel time to and from the site was less than 30
minutes.
1 Missing income was computed based using a state-specific'regrcssion.
• This analysis does not include anglers under the age of 16, which may result in an overestimation of the recreational angler's
average age, ' :
5 All costs are in 1994S, representing the 1994 survey year. All casts/banciits will be updated tb 2000S later in this analysis {i.e., for
welfare estimation). • • '
C5-3
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
i " ' '
Table C5-2: Data Summary for Anglers, Residing in the Cose Study Area !
1 Number of
Observations
Variable "••••••—••?••
Ohio Other
Sampk- States
Trip Cost 74 i NA
Travel Time '. 74 : NA
Visiis < 74 137
No High : 74 i 137
School
College : 74 I 137
Degree ;
African 74 ; 137
American i
Age 74 i 137
Presence of ' 74 : 137
children aged , |
6 and
younger '
Presence of 74 ; 137
children aged
7 to 1 6 years '. •.
Household ; 74 • 137
Income
Male 74 i 137
Annual trips 74 1 137
Mean Value *
Ohio
Sample
S52.87
0.33
6.91
0.09
0.23
0.07
40.39
0.27
0.54
$49,345.
0.66
12.57
Other
States
NA
NA
6.26
0.08
0.29
0.02
38.88
0.23
0.50
$49,909
0.61
11.88
Std rjev
Ohio
Sample
S72.95
.1.12
10.05
0.29
0.42
0.25
13.35
0,45
0.50
532,352
0.48
22.76
i Other
States
1 NA
1 NA
i 11.79
1 0.27
1 0.15
\
;, 0.15
, 13.63
1 0.42
f
I 0.50
$31,668
; 0.49
23.35
Minimum
Ohio
Sample
S0;29
0
1
0
0
0
17
0
0
$7,500
0
J
Other
States
NA
NA
1
0
0
0
16
0
0
$4,999,
... 0
Maximum
Ohio
Sample
$425.27
8.2
70
I
f
|
77
j
1
SI 50,000
1
I I , . 150
Other
States
NA. ,
NA
100
1
1
1
72
1
1
$150,000
i
230
" For dummy variables, such as "male," that take the value of 0 or 1, the reported value represents a portion of the survey respondents
possessing the relevant characteristic. For.examplc, 65 percent of the surveyed anglers arc males,
NA: Not applicable to anglers from states other than Ohio because EPA; estimated travel cost and travel time variables for the site
choice model,
I
C5-1.2 Recreational Fishing Choice Sets I
Figure C5-1 shows the geographic area included in the analysis. Tb analyze welfare effects from i&E in the Ohio River
throughout the study area, the Agency first modeled recreational anglers' behavior in the state of Ohio. As shown in Figure
C5-1, most of the Ohio state is included in the case study area. This analysis assumes that Ohio anglers can potentially
choose from all water bodies in the state of Ohio. Ohio is a water-rich state, with more than 24,000 miles of named and
designated rivers and streams with 451 miles bordering on the Ohio1 River, 200,000 lake and reservoir acres, and about 230
miles of Lake Erie shoreline (Ohio EPA, 1996). Fish are found throughout Ohio in almost every inland surface water body
and Lake Brie.
I
Each consumer choice set theoretically includes hundreds of subsu'tutable recreation sites in Ohio and in the neighboring
states. To prevent the recreation site analysis from becoming overly complex, the Agency created randomly-chosen reduced
choice sets consisting of 40 recreation sites. EPA then analyzed a sample of recreation sites for each consumer observation.
Each participant choice set, by definition, includes the site actually visited by the respondent. EPA drew additional sites for
each consumer from a geographic area defined by a distance constraint, using 120 miles as the limit for travel distance used hi
(he analysis. EPA used the resulting aggregate choice set of sites to model angler decisions regarding trip allocation across
recreation sites within a 120 mile radius from his home town.
C5-/
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohie River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
EPA identified recreational fishing sites based on Reach File version 1 (hereafter RF1) and information on recreational
fishing areas provided by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (U.S. EPA, i 997; Ohio Department of Natural
Resources; 1996), A recreational fishing site is defined as an RFt reach or a designated fishing area on an RFJ reach. Ohio
has 1144 recreation reaches. These reaches comprise the universal opportunity set. Of these, 580 observations are known
recreational sites (e.g., designated fishing areas or parks); 664 observations are RF1 reaches without a known recreational
site, and eight observations are neither located in RF1 nor identified as known recreation sites but were visited by an N'DS
respondent.
figure CS-1: Ohio River* Pools and Fishing Origins
Location of Fishing Trip Origin
in Relation to Ohio River Pools
/S»P7.
C5-1.3 Site Attributes ....
This analysis assumes that the angler chooses among site alternatives based on several observable attributes. The attributes
included in this analysis include quality of the fishing site, the type and size of the water body, presence of boat launching
facilities, and the site's aesthetic quality. EPA obtained data on site characteristics from three main sources, EPA's RF1; the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR); and the Ohio Water Resource Inventory (OWRJ) database, (U.S. EPA, 1997;
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, i 996; and OH EPA, 1996),
a. Quality of the fishing site
To specify the fishing quality of the case study sites, EPA used information on relative fish abundance expressed in pounds of
fish per 300 meters water body length. Fish abundance is the most important attribute of a fishing site from the anglers'
perspective because fish abundance is closely related to catch rate, the most important characteristic of a fishing site from an
angler's perspective (McConoell and Strand, 1994). Fish abundance is also a policy variable of concern because fish
abundance is directly affected by fish mortality due to I&E. The fish abundance variable in the RUM therefore provides the
means to measure baseline losses-in I&E and changes in anglers' welfare attributed to changes from I&E due to the 316b rule.
In this analysis, EPA used the square-root offish abundance to ensure the decreasing marginal utility offish density.
C5-J
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Data on fish abundance came From the OWRI database (OH EPA, 1996). Ohio EPA has operated a systematic monitoring of
the state's river, stream, and lake resources since 1980 using biological, chemical and physical assessment tools and
indicators. Ohio EPA collected data on various biological measures to support the use of biological indicators in assessing
aquatic life use attainment in surface waters. These measures include fish abundance and condition, species richness and
composition, and trophic composition. Fish abundance can be characterized by two metrics: the number of individuals per
unit distance and fish weight per unit distance (e.g., 300 meters). EPA chose fish weight per unit distance as the most
appropriate measure offish abundance for the Ohio case study because fish weight is a function of both number offish $nd
fish size. Both factors likely influence how anglers value a recreational fishing site {Ohio EPA, 1996; Ohio EPA, j 988).
Ohio EPA assessed 70,60, and 42 percent of large, medium, and small rivers and streams, respectively; 64 percent of lakes
and reservoirs; and all of the Lake Erie shoreline. EPA used the OWRI fish abundance value for a given site where available.
In the absence of observed abundance values, EPA used an Inverse; Distance Weighted (!WD) interpolation technique to
calculate an average fish abundance for a given fishing site. The ID W technique estimates a value for any given location by
assuming that each input value has an influence on that location. This influence diminishes with distance according to a
predetermined power parameter. The Agency first located any available fish abundance values within five kilometers from a
given fishing site and then used the fish abundance values of the nearest four sites as input values for calculating fish
abundance for the site in question. EPA used squared distance values to weight all input values for this calculation.
I '
b. Physical characteristics of the fishing site
Lakes and rivers represent different types of aquatic habitat therefore offer different recreational fishing opportunities to an
angler. Physical dimensions of the water body may be also important to an angler for various reasons. For example, smaller
water bodies are likely to support fewer fish compared to larger water bodies. Use of boats may be also restricted to non-
motorized boats only on small water bodies. ;
I
RF1 provided water body type (i.e., lake, river, or reservoir) and physical dimension (i.e., length, width, and depth). The
dummy variable, RIVER, characterizes water body type. If a river water body, RIVER takes the value of 1; 0 otherwise,
EPA used the logarithm of the reach length LN(REACH SIZE) to define water body size. Water body size data for sites not
located in RF1 came from the ODNR (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1996).
i
c. Boat launching facilities ;
Anglers who own a boat view the presence ofa boat ramp as an important factor that may affect their site choice. -EPA
therefore obtained information on the presence of boat ramps at the study sites from the ODNR, supplemented by the Ohio
Atlas and Gazetteer (DeLorme, 1995). EPA used a dummy variable (Boat_Ramp«l) for whether or not a site has a boat
ramp, !
d. Aesthetic quality of the fishing site
Visual appearance of the site may play an important role in an angler's decision to visit a particular site because the site's
aesthetic quality will likely affect the angler's recreational trip enjoyment. EPA used ambient concentrations of Total
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as a proxy for visual water quality at the, fishing sites.4 Excessive nitrogen loading can stimulate or
enhance the impact of microscopic algal species and lead to algal blooms.
The study also considers effects of the presence of toxic pollutants! on anglers* decisions to visit a particular fishing site. EPA
identified Ohio recreation sites at which estimated concentrations of one or more toxic pollutants exceed ambient water
quality criteria (AWQC) for aquatic life protection. A dummy variable, AWQC_EX, takes the value of 1 if in-stream
concentrations of at least one toxic pollutant exceeds AWQC limits for aquatic life protection, 0 otherwise. This approach
accounts for the fact that adverse effects on aquatic habitat are not ilikely to occur below a certain threshold level.
4 The relevant daia on TKN concentrations come from EPA's water Duality database (STORET).
C5-6
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
C5-1.4 Travel Cost :
EPA used ZipFip software to estimate distances from the household Zip code to each fishing site in the individual opportunity
sets.*6 As noted above, -a fishing site is defined as an RF1 reach or a designated fishing area within a reach. If an RF1 reach
has several designated fishing, areas, EPA assumed that anglers visited the fishing area nearest to their homes. Otherwise,
EPA measured the distance between the household Zip code and the reach midpoint, The program used the closest valid Zip
code to match unknown Zip codes. The average one-way distance to a visited site is 42.99 miles.
EPA estimated trip "price" as the mm of travel costs plus the opportunity cost of time following the procedure described in
Haab et al. (2000),' Based on Parsons and Kealy (1992), this study assumed that time spent "on-site" is constant across sites
and can be ignored in the price calculation. To estimate consumers' travel costs, EPA multiplied round-trip distance by
average motor vehicle cost per mile ($0.29, 1994 dollars).' To estimate the opportunity cost of travel time, EPA first divided
round-trip distance by 40 miles per hour to estimate trip time, and then if the angler was employed, multiplied it by the
household's wage to yield the opportunity cost of time. EPA estimated household wage by dividing household income by
2,080 (i.e., the number of full-time hours potentially worked per year).
The Agency assumed that employed respondents lost income during the trip (LOSEINC=1). Employed respondents are
assigned a time cost in the trip cost variable. Approximately 73 percent of the survey respondents were assumed to lose
income. EPA calculated visit price for employed anglers as: . •
Visit Price = Round Trip Distance x $.29 •*•
Round Trip
40 mph
xWage If LQSEIffC *\
(C5-1)
EPA assumed that respondents who are retired, unemployed, or homemakers do not lose income during the trip
(LOSEINOO). Visit price for retired, unemployed or homemakers was calculated as follows:
Visit Price = Round Trip Distance x $.29 If LOSEINC - 0
(C5-2)
For those respondents who did not lose income during the trip (LOSEINOO), EPA used an additional variable equal to the
amount of time spent on travel, EPA estimated travel time as the round-trip distance divided by 40 mph:
Travel Time = Round Trip Distance/40 If LQSFJNC = 0
0 ffLOSEJNC - I
(C5-3)
The Agency used a log-linear ordinary least square regression model to estimate wage rates for the 20 percent of the survey
respondents who did not report their income.. This regression is described in Chapter B5 of this document. The average
- imputed household income is $42,183 per year and the corresponding hourly wage is $13.94.
C5-2 , S:CTE CHOICE MODELS
EPA used a RUM, described in Chapter A10 of Part. A, to-.estimate anglers' site choices. The model assumes that the
individual angler makes a choice among mutually exclusive site alternatives based on the attributes of those alternatives. EPA
identified anglers' choice sets based on a travel distance constraint (Parsons, J 997). All fishing sites within a 120 mile radius
from the angler's hometown are eligible for inclusion in the angler's choice set. Individual choices may include hundreds of
sites. To prevent the model from becoming -overly complex, EPA estimated the site choice model using the site actually
visited and 39 randomly drawn sites within the choice set area for each Ohio angler.
• The program was created by Daniel Hellerstam and is available through the USDA at
http://uada.niaunlib.corneli,edu/datasets/general/93014.
6 Note that EPA estimated distances to all recreation sites in the consumer's opportunity set. The Agency used a random draw from
the opportunity set for the purpose of estimating the model parameters but estimated the inclusive value using all recreation sites in the
consumer's opportunity set, ,
•7 EPA used the 1994 government rate (S0.29) for travel reimbursement to estimate travel costs per mile traveled. This estimate
includes vehicle operating cost only, . . . , •
,' . • ' C5-7
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
An angler's choice ofsites relies on utility maximization Maddala, J983; McFadden. 1981), An angler will choose sitey if the
utility (ut) from visiting site./ is greater than that from vising other sites (K), such that:
for h = 1, ...\J and h
(CS-4)
Recreational fishing models generally assume that anglers first choose a fishing mode (i.e., boat or shore) and species (e.g.,
warmwatcr and coldwatcr), and then a site. Instead of incorporating the angler's decision regarding the mode of fishing and
target species in the model, the Agency assumed that the mode/species choice is exogenous to the model and the angler
simply chooses the site, EPA used the following general model to Specify the deterministic part of the utility function:1*
v,-/crc,
Ln(RCHSZEp, RIVER,
7}, TKNj, AWQCJXJ
(C5-5)
where:
TT
RAMP,
LntRCHSZE);
RIVER,
SQRT(GWGT,)
SQRT(RWGTj)
A \VQC_EXj
the expected utility for site./ ( j= 1 ,. J.40);
travel cost at site j; :
travel lime for survey respondents who don't receive wages;
presence of a boat ramp at site j;
the logarithm of the reach length; \
a dummy variable that takes the value of I if the water body is a river; 0 otherwise;
square root of relative fish abundance (pounds per 300 meters) at site./ on Lake Erie;
square root of relative fish abundance (pounds per 300 meters) at site/ on river reaches;
ambient concentrations of TKN at site j; and
a dummy variable that takes the value of I if in-stream concentrations of at least one toxic
pollutant exceed its threshold value for aquatic life protection, 0 otherwise.
Table C5-3 gives the parameter estimates for this model.
Table C5-3- Estimated Coefficients for the Conditional Site Choree
Variable
TRAVEL COST
TRAVEL TIME
RAMP
RIVER
LN(RCHSZE)
SQRT (RWGT)
SQRT(CiWGT)
TKN
Estimated Coefficient
-0.0463;
-0.4015!
1.5976
-0.9219'
*• ' t
0.5793!
0.0681 '
0.2649;
-0.1194:
AWQC.EX '•. -0.24311
t-s(;tlistics
-21.530
-3.886
13.138'
-3.953
6.858
2,385
5,150
-1.005
-1.548
Table C5-3 shows that most coefficients have the expected signs and are statistically significant at the 95th percerttile, Travel
cost and travel time have a negative effect on the probability of selecting a site> indicating that anglers prefer to visit sites
closer to their homes (other things being equal). A positive coefficient on the boat ramp indicates that anglers owning a boat
are more likely to choose sites with a boat ramp. A positive coefficient on the reach size variable shows that anglers are more
likely to visit larger water bodies. The river variable coefficient is'negacive, indicating that anglers are likely to prefer the
Great Lakes or inland lakes. The model shows that anglers prefer sites with more fish and cleaner water, all else being equal.
* See Chapter A10 of Part A for details on model specification.
CJ-.V
-------
S 316{b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CS: RUM Analysis
The probability of a site visit increases as relative fish abundance increases because catch rate, the most important -site
characteristic from an angler's perspective, is a function of fish abundance and angler's experience. The greater coefficient
on the Great Lakes fish abundance variable (SQRT(GWOT)) compared to the river fish abundance variable (SQRT(RWGT))
indicates that anglers value Great Lakes fishery more than inland fishery. Poor water quality has a negative impact on an
angler's decision to visit a particular site. Higher ambient concentrations of TKN in surface water have a significant negative
effect on the probability of site selection. This is not surprising, since elevated nutrient concentrations are indicative of
potential euirophication problems, which may lead to a foul smell in surface water and unattractive visual effects. This
variable's insignificant coefficient is likely due to the correlation between the presence of nutrients and that of toxic pollutants
in surface water. The presence of toxic pollutants also has a negative effect on anglers' choices of fishing sites. The
AWQCJEX variable coefficient is significant at the 88th percentile only.'
C5-3 TRIP PARTICIPATION MODEL
EPA also examined effects of changes in fishing circumstances-on an individual's choice concemmg.the number of trips to
take during a recreation season. EPA used the negative binomial form of the Poisson regression model to estimate the number
of Fishing trips per recreational season (Parsons et at., 1999; Feather el at, 1995; Hausman et al., J 995). The participation
model relies on socioeconomic data and estimates of individual utility (the inclusive value) derived from the site choice
model. This section discusses results from the Poisson model of recreational fishing participation, including statistical and
theoretical implications of the model. A detailed discussion of the Poisson model is presented in Chapter A10 of Part A,
The dependent variable, the number of recreational trips within the past 12 months, is an integer value ranging from one to
200. The Agency first tested the Ohio data on the number of fishing trips for overdispersion to determine whether to use the
negative binomial form of the Poisson model. The Poisson model is appropriate if the dispersion parameter is equal to zero:
otherwise the negative binomial is more appropriate (Winkelmann, 2000), The analysis found that the overdispersion
parameter (a) is significantly different from zero and therefore the negative binomial mode! is the most appropriate for this
case study, ,
Independent, variables of importance include age, ethnicity, gender, education, and the number of children in different age
groups in the household. Variable definitions for the trip participation model are: ;
+ IVBASE: an inclusive value estimated using the coefficients obtained from the site choice model;
*• NOUS: equals 1 if the individual did not complete high school. 0 otherwise;
»• COLLEGE: equals 1 if the individual completed college,'0 otherwise;
•> AGE: individual's age in years. If not reported, the individual's age is set to the sample mean;
*• 'MALE: equals 1 if the individual is a male, 0 otherwise;
** MALE_KIDS: equals 1 if the individual is a male and has kids, 0 otherwise;
*• FEMJK1DS: equals 1 if the individual is a female and has kids, 0 otherwise; and '
> a (alpha): overdispersion parameter estimated by the negative binomial model.
Table .CSi-4 presents the results of the trip participation model. All parameter estimates in the participation model .have the
expected signs. Five of the eight parameters (IVBASE, AGE, FEMJK1IDS, COLLEGE, and a) differ significantly from zero
at the 85th to 95th percentile. The remaining three parameters (MALE, MALEJODS, and NOHS) do not 'differ significantly
from zero. The following paragraphs discuss each variable in greater detail.
* Alternative model specifications that included a different variable representing fish population at a given site (e.g., number of fish
per 300 meters or index of well being (1WB) resulted in a negative and significant (at the 95" percentile) effect associated with the
AWQC_EX variable. '
CS-9
-------
5 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Table C5-4: Trip Participation Mode! (Negative Binomial Model)
Variable
IVBASE
NOUS
COLLEGE
AGE
MALE
MALEJCIDS
FEMJUDS
Coefficient
0.148:
0.308:
-0.789
o.2m
0.456
O.H9;
0.726
Overdispcrsion Parameter
a (alpha) ^ j 0.827:
(-statistics
1.708
0.555
-1.468
2.282
0.967
0.243
2.936
5.437
The positive coefficient on the inclusive value index (IVBASE) indicates that the quality of recreational fishing sites has a
positive effect on the number of fishing trips per recreational seas6n. EPA therefore expects improvements in recreational
fishing opportunities, such as an increase in fish abundance and catch rate, to result in an increase in the number of fishing
trips to the affected sites. The magnitude of the estimated coefficient, however, indicates that changes in fishing participation
in response to improvements in recreational fishing quality will be modest,
The model shows that education is likely to influence trip frequency. The NOUS variable coefficient is positive, but not
significant, indicating that people who did not complete high school and those with a high school diploma are equally likely to
participate in recreational fishing. Conversely, the COLLEGE variable coefficient is negative and significant at the 85*
percentile, indicating that respondents who attended college are less likely to participate in fishing than those who have only a
high school education. :
The AGE variable coefficient is positive and significant, indicating that older people are likely to take more fishing trips. A
positive but insignificant coefficient for the MALE variable indicates that males and females are equally likely to participate
in fishing activities. This result is somewhat counterintuitive. An|insignificant sign on this variable is likely to be caused by
two over-influential observations. Two female respondents reported the largest number of trips (100 and 150) in the Ohio
sample. EPA attempted to correct the effect of over-influential observations by setting the maximum number of fishing trips per season to
90 in the fishing participation model. This correction did not affect the significance of the MALE variable.
The presence of children in the household has different effects on [fishing participation for males and females. Females with
children are more likely to participate in fishing activities. This result is not surprising, because mothers are more likely lo
provide transportation for their children and to participate in tbeiractiviiies. Conversely, the presence of children in the
household does not have a significant effect on a male's participation in recreational fishing.
The coefficient on the dispersion parameter alpha (a) is significantly different from zero, indicating the negative binomial
form is the most appropriate for this analysis. |
C5-4 WELFARE ESTIMATES ••
This section presents estimates of welfare losses to recreational anglers from fish mortality due to I&E, and potential welfare
gains from improvements in fishing opportunities due to reduced fish mortality stemming from the §316b rule.
|
C5-4.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
r
The Agency estimated effects of I&E in the Ohio River on the quality of recreational fishing sites under different policy
scenarios in terms of changes in relative fish abundance within eafh of the six pools included in the study. EPA used
estimates of the losses to recreational fisheries based on I&E of the relevant fish species, as described in Chapter C3 of this
document, to estimate changes in total fish biomass in a given pool from reducing I&E, Assuming that fish abundance is
uniform within each pool, changes in relative fish abundance under different policy scenarios can be calculated as follows:
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
A Fish Weight per 3m™ =
Length
* 300 w
(C5-6)
where:
A Fish Weight per 300 m =cstimaied change in relative fish abundance in Ibs per 300 m;
Fishery Losses = estimated losses to recreational fishery Ibs per year;
Pool Length = poo) length in meters; and
300 m = unit distance used in calculating relative fish abundance (meters).
Table C5-5 presents results of this analysis for each of the six pools.
Table C5-S; Estimated Changes m Fishery yield f rtwn Eliminating all !<&E in the Ohio River
Estimated Fishery Loss to t&E (pounds of fish)
Pool
Hannibal
Markland
McAlpine
New
Cumberland
Pike Island
Robert C.
Byrd
Total
Pool Size
(meters)
73,700
164,785
126,554
38,664
50,198
70,685
' NA
Pounds Of Fish Impinged
Phase 2 \ All
100
3,042
9,33 J
1,302
684
538
116
3,087
9,486
1,372
836
543
14,998 ! 15,439
Po«n
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Table C5-6: Per Trip and Seasonal VVfelfare Sain Associated with
Eliminating I&E in the Ohio River
Policy Scenario
Eliminating I&E at All Phase 2 CWIS
Eliminating I&E at All CWIS
Per Trip
Welfare
Gain
(2000$)
SO. 12
Seasonal
Welfare
Gain
(2000$)
$1.2!
S0.12 $1.24
Percentage
Increase in
number of
Trips
0,04% \
0,04% '•!
EPA calculated the total damages to recreational anglers- From I&B, in the Ohio River by combining the estimated seasonal
welfare loss to an angler with the total number of recreational anglers residing in the buffer zone. The Agency based its
estimate of the total number of anglers who can potentially travel to the Ohio River Fishing sites on the total adult population
residing within the 120 mile buffer zone and the percent of adult population participating in recreational fishing as follows:
»• First, EPA estimated the resident population in the 120-mile buffer zone using the U.S. Census Bureau (2000). The
Agency included population block groups in the study area based on whether or not the block group certtroid fell
within the buffer zone. EPA then estimated the number of individuals aged 16 and older in the spatially-selected
block groups to get the total eligible population within th$ buffer zone For a given state.
*• Then, EPA estimated the state-specific percent of the population participating in recreational fishing based on the
NDS data. i
i
•
*• Finally, EPA estimated the total number of anglers residing within the 120-mile buffer zone for each state by
multiplying the relevant resident population by .the state-specific percent of the population engaged in recreational
fishing and then summing over stale specific estimates. '
i . • ,
Table C5-7 presents the results of this calculation. i
As shown in Table C5-7, between 13 and 33 percent of recreational anglers take multiple-day trips.. EPA determined the
single- and multiple-day splits based on the proportion of single-day trips in the NDS sample used for the Ohio River case
study. EPA estimated welfare changes to multiple-day anglers based on the estimated welfare changes to single-day anglers
and a simple linear extrapolation technique. The Agency assumed that per day welfare gain from improved fishing site
quality is independent of trip length. EPA therefore adjusted seasonal welfare change for multiple-day anglers by multiplying
lite seasonal welfare change estimated for single-day anglers by thfe average number of days per multiple-day trip. Table C5-8
provides an average trip length for multiple day trips fay state, '
C5-12
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Table CE
State
IL
IN
KY
MD
NY
OH
PA
VA
WV.
Total
»-7; Recreational Fishing Participation m the Ohio
ftiver* Zflfte'by State and by Duration
Number of Fishing Trips By State and Duration
Total Anglers
1,109
696,421
727,501
17,144
3,967
1,476,133 '
656,757
14,702
328,944
3,922,678
Single Bay
% of Total
74,7%
81,3%
77,8%
86.3%
77,0%
77,3%
73.4%
67,0%
. 79,3%
Multiple Day
% of Tola!
253%
18,7%
22.2%
13.7%
23.0%
22.7%
26,6%
33.0%
20.7%
Avg.Trip
Length
(days)
6.74
4.00 I
4,00 i
5,71 i
7.62 !
' 4.37 I
3.88 ;
4.39 \
3.67 =
EPA calculated the economic values'of recreational losses from l&E in the Ohio River by multiplying the estimated seasonal
welfare losses for each type of angler (e.g., single-day and multiple-day) by the number of anglers in each trip category
residing in the 120-mile buffer zone. The estimated recreational losses (2000S) to recreational anglers from I&E in the Ohio
River at all Phase 2 facilities and all facilities in the study area are $8.06 and $8.23 million, respectively. Table C5-8 presents
results of these calculations.
Table C5-8: Welfare Losses Associated with ME
at the Ohio River CWIS
Policy Scenario
Baseline Welfare Losses from all
CWIS in the Ohio River
Baseline Welfare Losses from the
Phase 2 CWIS
Welfare Estimates i
(2000S) i
$8,232,491
S^059j275;
C5-4.3 Estimating Fishery Losses from ME-for Individual Pools in the Ohio River
The Agency also estimated losses to recreational anglers from l&E in each of six pools of the Ohio River; EPA calculated
pool-specific losses by first estimating the percentage of the total recreational losses (pounds offish) from l&E in the Ohio
River attributed to a given pool and then applying the estimated percentage to the estimated welfare loss from I&E in the Ohio
River, Table CS-9 presents calculation results by pool and by the type of environmental effect (i.e., impingement vs.
entrainrnent). Table C5-9 shows that recreational losses from t&E at the Ohio River CWIS vary significantly across six
pools. The estimated I&E losses at the in-scope CWIS range from $0,2 million for the Hannibal pool to $2,6 million for the
Robert C. ESyrd pool. Table C5-9 also shows that total entfainment losses ($5.9 million) are more-than two-and-a-half times
higher than the total impingement losses ($23 million). For some pools (e.g., New-Cumberland and McAlpine), however, the
value of impingement losses exceeds the value of entrainment losses, •
C5-13
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5; RUM Analysis
Table C5-9: Welfare Losses from I&E in. the Ohio River by 'Pool (2000$)
; Losses' from I&E at All Phase 2 In-Scope CWIS Losses from I&E at All C\VIS in the Ohio River i
Pool : ' '
i Impingement
Hannibal 514,884
Markland 5453,995
McAlpine $1,392,371
New ; 5194,262
Cumberland
Pike Island . 5102,115
Robert C i 580,335
Byrd :
Total i 52.237,962
Entrainment
5183,208
52,013,362
$826,650 .
SI 14,489
5174,6)4
52,508,991
55,821,313
I&E i Impingement
5198,091 ; $17,291
$2,467,357
$2,219,021
$308,75!
f
5276,729
$2,589,326
58,059,275
5458,859
$1,410,046
S203,925
$124,269
580,682
Eti(rairinient
$212,837
$2,034,936
S837,!43
S 120,1 84
$212,497
... 52,519,822
$2,295,072 : $5,937,419
I&E
$230,128
$2,493,795
$2,247,189
$324,108 :
$336,767
$2,600,504 i
$8,232,491 J
C5-5 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES ;
C5-5.1 Considering Only Recreational Values
This RUM study understates the total benefits of improvements in fishing site quality because estimates are limited to
recreation benefits. Other forms of benefits, such as habitat values ;for a variety of species such as freshwater drum, minnows,
and American eel
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
C5-5.4'' Potential Sources of Survey Bias ' .
a. Recall bias
Recall bias can occur when respondents are asked, such as in the NDS survey, the number of their recreation days over the
previous season. Avid participants tend to overstate the number of recreation days because ihey count days in a "typical"
week and then multiply them by the number of weeks in the recreation season. For this reason, some researchers believe that
recall bias tends to lead to the number of recreation days being overstated. More avid participants often neglect to consider
days missed due to bad weather, illness, travel, or when fulfilling "atypical" obligations. Some studies also found rhat the
more salient the activity, the more "optimistic" the respondent tends to be in estimating the number of recreation days.
Individuals also have a tendency to overstate the number of days they participate in activities that they enjoy and value.
Taken together, these sources of recall bias may result in an overstatement of the actual number of recreation days.
b. Sampling effects • . . •
Recreational demand studies frequently face observations that do not fit general recreation patterns, such as observations of
avid participants. These participants-can be problematic because they claim to participate in an activity an inordinate number
of times. This reported level of activity is sometimes correct but sometimes overstated, perhaps due to recall bias. These
observations tend to be overly influential even when the reports are correct.
C5-J5
-------
-------
316(b) Cose Studies, Part C\ The Ohio River
Chapter C6: Benefits Analyst's for the Ohio River
l| . jf*/L
hapter Co:
Benefits Analysis for the Ohio River
CHAPTER CONTENTS
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of '
the economic benefits associated with I&E reductions at
Ohio River facilities. The economic benefits that are
reported here are based on the values presented in Chapter
C4, and EPA's estimates of current I&E at in scope
facilities (discussed in Chapter C3). Section C6-I
summarizes the estimates of economic loss developed in
Chapters C4 and CS. Section C6-2 presents the economic ^KSiIlWIfliliiBlliraB
benefits from reduced J&E at facilities that are in scope of
the § 3I6(b) Phase 11 rule, and Section C6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.
•'C6-I
C6.2
E,conora!cBene-fitsxoCReduced l&E <
Species A|0hio RiversF«jilifes
ss. mid sUncejtai aties
' xV *
e'Beneflts AwiS
C6-1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REDUCED i&E OF FISHERY SPECIES AT OHIO. RIVER
FACILITIES . • ' • • •
Table C6-1 shows the losses in recreational landings due to I&E at Ohio River facilities based on the I&E data presented in
Chapter C3. In evaluating this information, it is important to bear in mind that most l&E losses at Ohio River Facilities are
forage species, and therefore fishery yield represents only a portion of total losses.
Table C6-l!
Recreational; Fishery Yield
Species
Black crappie
BJucgili
Channel catfish
Longear sunfish
Paddlcfish
Sauger
Stnallniouth bass
Striped bass
Sunfish spp.,
Walleye
Whitebass
Yellow perch
Total
Ohio River Case Study Facilities (9)
Loss to Recreational
Catch from
Impingement (number
Offish)
452
47
1,805
9
54
429
165
21
3?
21
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
Eiitrainnicnt
(number «f
. fish)
1,284
1
2,648
3,938
' 10
1,638
16,iTO
0
3.663
12,666
2,791 i 2,0)4
' ' o """1 i"v"
5,832 ! 44,038
In Scope Oldo River Facilities (29)
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
Impingement
(number of fish)
615
?23
2,389
J3
131
1,158
287
84
57
55
7,958
0
l"2,870
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
Eiitraiiiment
{number or fish)
1,939
4
5,896
5,062
36
3,865
. 37,577
0
12,777
16,223
5,331
i
All Ohio Kivcr FactUties <48)
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
Impingement
(number of fish)
676
127
2,560
14
1331
i,i*76
304
85
. 62
57
8,137
6
88,713 ; 13,332
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
Entrainnient
(number of fish)
1,967
4
5,990 .
5,1*04
36
3,925
38,135
0
i 1,007
16,564
5,422
i
.90,155
Thu Dec 27 23:29:12 MST 2001 P:/'!NTAK£/Ohio/ObJo_Sctence/scode/ohio.summary.t8btes/ohio.catch.extmp.csv
Table C6-2 presents EPA's estimate of the current annual economic loss to recreation from impingement at Ohio River
facilities and Table C6-3 displays this information for entrainrnent. Results are given for both the benefits transfer analysis
conducted in Chapter C4 and for the RUM analysis in Chapter C5. ;
C6-J
-------
£ :
iisfortheC
£-t
S
§
S
s i
a
t.
1
f
i
t
j
i
s '
2
il ;
O
^
o ;
=4*
.;
J:-
W
1 '
S!
2 I
S i
$?
CM
J
^S
2
s>
*Sl
o:
o
6
a
VJ
'S
a.
r
i
E
c
o
1
w
g
o
n Impingement
s
H™
1
•4—
1
8
J3
Recreal
H-
o
<»
g
s
M
^>
&
t
2
O
*~
iciliCies (48)
b
u
e
^
O
§
i
s
1
!•
«
S
1
&
O
Cf5
n
•**««
s.
•§
f
£
•5"
£
c/i
1
S
O
S
i'
RUM At
o
%
•5
^
u
1
•§•
§
a
•S
Basic Anal;
«O
"i
•<.
1
K
1-
g
u
M
,.,.,
cc
3
.t* >i,
5
5
1
1
•
S
o
U
j
o.
in
3
" ^t
° ?t
s
v>
o
i
I
s
s
• • ' °X
s 3
5" **
»A
.5?
s:
'o
o
UL
J
Ql
O
*8*(
6
•&
vt
"o
t
1
i£
^
o
til
§
o:
O
m Bntrainment
o
.1?
•4"*
a
1
o
-J
§
4-
I
^
a:
4-
o
a
e
S
_w
**5»
&
t
•>o
VJ
M
3
,^
«"
M
K
1
,2
O
1
*"•
I
•B>
S
.§
S
tu
§•
u
CO
e
*•*••>
o\
V)
OJ
€
...
GQ
b
-6
3
ffi
IU
V)
n
U
IM
%>
, >
S
C
£
1
"a
I
^
c
*£
s
S
V
1
"«
«
"S
B
•a
52
O
S
1
'£
a
j
o
^
o
m
oo
o
£
§
in"
2
^-T
s> ^
°\ ^
cc
t/j
|
<
z
0
rs
rs B
IS IN
"^ oo
M
oo
_
^~*
(/!
"S
o
H
[
i
i
t'
t' '
j
[
1
JV)
I
atyiablc^d»io:cn
E
^
id
S
•g
'jo
i
i-f\
y
1
g
S
^
E
fe
fe
R
t— <
g|
ll
H rs
C 'f^.
03 'U
"="0
ii P
z F
; «M
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part d The Ohio River
Chapter C6: Benefits Analysis for the Ohio River
Table C6-4 summarizes the baseline economic losses from I&E at Ohio River in scope facilities and displays the expected
benefits from a range of I&E reductions. The baseline losses (including both the benefits transfer and RUM results) range
from $3.4 million to $4,6 million per year for impingement and from $9,1 million to $9.7 million per year for entrainment.
The benefits of I&E reductions at in scope facilities are $ 1.7 million to $2.3 million per year for a 50% reduction in
impingement and SO.9) million to $0.97 million per year for a 10% reduction in entrainment.
Table C6-4; Summary, of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
Reductions for In Scope Facilities on the Ohio River ($2000)
Baseline losses
Benefits of 1.0% reductions
Benefits of 20% reductions
Benefits of 30% reductions
Benefits of 40% reductions
Benefits of 50% reductions
Benefits of
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C6: Benefits Analysis for the Ohio fiiver
Table C6-5: Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate j^
Comments
Long-term fish stock affects not Understates benefits \ EPA assumed that the effects on stocks arc the same each
considered lycar. and *at the higher fish mortality would not have
; cumulatively greater impact,
Effect of interaction with other Understates benefits I EPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may
environmental stressors [make the stock more vulnerable to other environmental
istfessors. In addition, as water quality improves over time
rdu'c to other watershed activities, the number offish
| impacted by I&E may increase.
Recreation participation is held Understates benefits j Recreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in
constant lvalue per activity outing; increased levels of participation are
•: omitted. RUM analyses do embody participation increases, .
jhthvevcr.
Boating, bird-watching, and Understates benefits iThe only impact to recreation considered is fishing,
other in-strcam or near-water
activities are omitted
Effect of change in stocks on . Uncertain ' 1 EPA assumed a linear stock to horvest relationship, that a 13
number of landings ipercent change in stock would have a 13 percent change in
! landings; this may be low or high, depending on the
[condition of the stocks.
Nonusc benefits Uncertain |E|»A assumed that nonusc benefits are 50 percent of
[ recreational angling benefits.
Use of unit values from outside Uncertain ITJie recreational values used arc not from studies of the Ohio
the Ohio River l^versPecifiwll;L,.,.,,,,. .,,.',.. .~ .., -
Extrapolations to other facilities; Uncertain ;$,{MOD basis for extrapolation over- or understates benefits
= [of other facilities in the watershed.
Water quality changes ; Understates benefits [Water quality has improved in the river since the sampling
; ^year, which suggests that current I&E would be appreciably
• jhlgher than observed in the data collection period,
One yearof data'"" """""]"""" " " uncertain jf'h'e available data is from 1977, which is nearly 25 years ago
i ;sO it is unknown whether the year is representative of current
• U&E
C<5-/
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C7: Conclusions
EPA evaluated the impacts of l&E using facility-generated data at nine CWIS along a 500-mile stretch of the Ohio River,
(spanning from the western portion of Pennsylvania, along the southern border of Ohio, and into eastern Indiana). The results
were then extrapolated to the 20 other facilities along this stretch'of the river that are in scope of the § 3i6(b) Phase II rule (a
total of 29 facilities) as well as an additional 19 facilities that are out of scope. • '
To estimate I&E impacts for the Ohio, EPA evaluated the available I&E biological monitoring data at the nine case study.
facilities (W.C. Beckjord; Cardinal, Clifty Creek, Kamrner, Kyger Creek, Miami Fort, Philip Sporo, Tanners Creek, and WH
Sammis). The i&E results were extrapolated to the remaining in-scope facilities to derive an I&E baseline for all facilities
subject to the proposed rule. Additional extrapolations were made to out-of-scope facilities so that total I&E could be
estimated as well. The extrapolations were made on the basis of relative operating size (operating MGD) and by river pool
(Hannibal; Markland, McAlpine, New Cumberland, Pike Island, and Robert C. Byrd pools).
The results indicate that impingement at all facilities (in scope and out of scope) causes the mortality of approximately 11.6
million age 1 equivalent fish per year, or 15,500 pounds of lost fishery yield annually (Table C3-29), For ehtrainment, the
results indicate that all facilities combined (in-scope and out-of-scope) cause the mortality of approximately 24.5 million age
I equivalent fish per year, representing nearly 40,000 pounds of lost fishery yield annually (Tables C3-30),
For in-scope facilities only, the results indicate that impingement causes the mortality of approximately 11.3 million age 1
equivalent fish per year, or nearly 15,000 pounds of lost fishery yield annually (Table C3-31). EPA estimates that entrainment
at in scope facilities results in, the loss approximately 23 million age 1 equivalent fish per year or 39,000 pounds of lost
fishery yield annually (Table C3-32),
In addition to estimating the physical impact of l&E in terms of numbers offish lost because of the operation of all in-scope
and oui-of-scope CWIS in the Ohio River case study area, EPA also examined the estimated economic value of the I&E
losses. The economic value of these losses is based on benefits transfer based values applied to losses to the.recreational
fishery, nonuse values, and the partial .value of forage species impacts (measured as partial replacement costs or fishery
production, foregone). Chapter C4 provides an indication of the estimated cumulative economic value associated with I&E at
all iri-scope and out-of-scope CWIS in the case study area based on data available for the nine case study facilities and
extrapolated to the other facilities on the basis of flow and river pool. ' '
EPA also developed a random utility model (RUM) to provide primary estimates of the recreational fishery losses associated
with I&E in the Ohio River case study area (Chapter C5). These primary research results supplement the benefits transfer
estimates derived in Chapter C4. As shown in Chapter C5, the RUM estimate of recreation-related fishery losses at in scope
facilities is approximately $8,3 million per year (I&E combined).
In Chapter C6, results for the RUM analysis (Chapter C5) were merged with the benefits transfer-based estimates (Chapter
C4) in a manner that avoids double counting. Results indicate that baseline losses at in scope facilities amount to between
$3.4 million and $4.6 million per year for impingement, Emrainment-relaled baseline losses at in scope facilities amount to
betwetMi $9,1 million and $9.7 million per year,
EPA also estimated the economic benefits of a range of I&E reductions (Chapter C6). The estimates economic benefits of the
proposed rule are $ 1.7 million to $2.3 million per year for a 50% impingement reduction and $7.3 million to $7.8 million per
year fora 10% reduction in entrainment (ali in $2000). ,
The Ohio River case study is intended to reflect the level of l&E, and hence the benefits associated with reducing l&E
impacts, for CWIS along major rivers of the United States. However, there are several factors that suggest that the Ohio
River case study findings may be a worse case scenario in terms of estimating the benefits of the proposed regulation at
facilities along major inland rivers of the United States. These factors include the following:
*• The l&E data developed by the facilities were limited to one year only, and are from 197? (nearly 25 years ago).
The fact that the data are so old, and pertain to a period of time when water quality in the case study area was worse
than it is currently, suggests that the numbers of impinged and entrained fish today (the regulatory baseline) would-be
C7-J
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter* C7; Conclusions
appreciably higher than observed in the data collection period. In addition, the reliance on a monitoring period of
one year or less implies that the naturally high variability in fishery populations is not captured in the analysis, and
the results may reflect a year of above or below average I&E.
>• The Ohio River is impacted by numerous significant anthropogenic stressors in addition to I&E. The river's
hydrology has been modified by a series of 20 dams and pools, and the river also has been impacted by municipal
and industrial wastewater discharges along this heavily populated and industrialized corridor. To the degree to
which these multiple stressors were atypically extensive along the Ohio River (in 1977) relative to those along other
CWIS-impacted rivers in the United States (in 2002), the;case study will yield smaller than typical I&E impact
estimates.
•• The Ohio River is impacted by cumulative effects of l&E over time and across a large number of CWIS. The case
study segment of the river has 29 facilities that are in seo^e for the Phase II rulemaking, plus an additional 19
facilities that are out of scope. Steam electric power generation accounted for 5,873 MOD of water withdrawal from
the river basin, amounting to more than 90 percent of the'total surface water withdrawals according to 1995 data
from USGS.
Because of these circumstances on the Ohio River, the results EPA obtained for this case study probably are not a
representative basis for evaluating I&E and regulatory benefits on .other inland rivers. In fact, the limited and outdated nature
of the l&E data suggests that the results obtained for the case study probably underestimate the current losses attributable to
l&E along the Ohio River, and thus underestimate the benefits of the proposed Phase II rule.
In interpreting the results of this case study analysis, it is important to bear in mind that the valuation of I&E losses is
complicated by the lack of market value for forage species, which comprise a large proportion of total losses at Ohio River
facilities. Forage species have no direct market value, but are nonetheless a critical component of aquatic food webs, EPA
included forage species impacts in its economic benefits calculations, but because techniques for valuing such losses are
limited, the final estimates underestimate the full ecological and economic value of these losses. In addition, the several
limitations in the I&E data available for Ohio River facilities and the many stressors that affect the river suggest that the
results obtained by EPA underestimate the benefits of the rule relative to current Ohio River conditions. Therefore, the results
are also likely to appreciably underestimate the benefits of I&E reductions at other inland river facilities.
C7-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix Cl
Va!
The tables in this appendix summarize the life hisiory parameter values used by EPA to calculate age I equivalents, fishery
yield, and production foregone from l&E data for the Ohio River case study. . ' . '
Table Cl-i: Btgmouth Buffalo Life History Parameters.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Ago 0
Age 1*
Age2-r •
Age 3*
Age 4+
Ago 5+
Age6+
Age 7^
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
. Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Natural Mortality
-------
-------
§ 3l6(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix CZ
iv /*'
g J^%L ^ihM^^ I
s. for
The table in this appendix presents the species groups used by EPA to evaluate I&E of rare species for the'Ohio River case
study. Rare species were grouped together and evaluated as a group based on life history data for a representative, species.
J^ Facilities,
Facility | JSpecies Group
Species Included
W.C. j Black'crappie ; Crappie species; white erappte
-Beckjord ,j channel catfish IcatfishspccFesIflatheadratfish ' " " '
; Freshwater drum [Drum species
iRivercarpsucker 'Quilibaek; sucker spp,
S^, .,..*.,V. ,. >1,r> ,,.,,-,,, ,...,X.v,„-.»».,,!>,, *!>«*!». ,vl,'-,»y^.^<-.,». .,...: ,,m..t».,r»., ...,.., •.,,.,-,,, .,...«,,, ..,-s.»,*>^»--, f, .-, ,..v,„.-,,.,v,.,^,-n,.4^.. »v..-.-*,,,,...»,,,»,-.,,-»,),..'i^.J^,,
jSkipjack herring [Herring species .
Cardinal ; Black crappie : Crappie species; white crappie
! Bluntnosc minnow ; Minnow species
i Brown bullhead j Yellow bullhead
£..„>,*>. .,,,.*,,.,.„,*>, ^. ,, ,v.*.v...v..~. — .„*,.*„,, ,„„,. ........,,„„,a,.,.,„.,.„„.,,„ ......J. ,^r ..,, <-„,,<,
j Channel catfish i Catfish species; white catfish
I Common carp i Goldfish '
;.Darter species 1 Ethecmioma darter; troutperch
iEmerald shiner . ;Common shiner; golden shiner; mimic shiner, sand shiner, shiner species, spotfin shiner
i Golden redhorse iRedhorse species, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse
Ji, .„..,,,, ,» >.,l>..»l,«tf ">*«»^>^ ..--.,. lv. . *•., '^Ml'IVMO. t, fft, ,.!<,>,,«*, .-t,v.*l-.^«.VTJ.^v,,,,,Ji*l.J,!».*.. ,fttf, ,,tl, <*>,'.'.>., »t, 14>, «i,,t»V,-, I, (ll,f hVJ.VV,,*,^.* .-'{'% -,X-^ ,,,lv»^*,i, ,,, ^.u,,,,
i Skipjack herring ; Herring species
I Small mouth bass jiargemouth bass; spotted bass; temperate bass species
- . I Sucker species j Carpiodes sucker; catostotnidae sucker; northern liogsucker, quillbaek; spotted sucker; white sucker
;Sunfjsh species rCentrarchidae sunfish, green sunfish, Lepomissunfish, Microptams sunfish, pumpkinseed, redear
I ; sunfish, rock bass, warmoulh
; Walleye JSauger/walleye
i Yellow perch | Percid species; yellow perch
•Clifty IBigmoutli buffalo iSmallmouth bufFalo . .
creek ; Black crappie ; Crappie species; white crappie
; Biuntnose oitnnow i Minnow species; fathead minnow • . .
I Brown bullhead ; Yellow bullhead . ' ' '.
; Channel catfish | Blue catfish; catfish species; flathead catfish
jCommonearp ;Goldfish •' , . •
i Emerald shiner iBigeye shiner; emerald shiner; golden shiner; mimic shiner; river shiner; rosyface shiner; sand shiner;
• jshiner species; spotfin shiner. . , '
[Gizzard shad JThreadfin shad
iGolden redhorse | Redhorse species, shorthead redliorse, silver redhorse
[Logpetch i Fantail darter; river darter
I Skipjack herring j Herring species
iSmatimouth bass ; Largemouth bass; spotted bass; bass species
| Sucker species ; Carpsucker/buftalo; northern hpgsucker; river carpsucker; quitlack; spotted sucker;' white sucker
Clifty 1 Sunfish species ; Green sunfish; hybrid sunfish; kmgear sunfish; purnpkinseed; tedear sunfish; rock bass; war-mouth
Creek ;waiieye Tsauger/waUeye "" """""" >•-—---•.• • • • -•-•••• .................
App. C2-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies. Part C: The. Ohio River
Appendix C2
Table C2-1: Aggregation of Species af 9 Ohio River Facilities (eont).
Facility Spccicii Group
Species Included
Kammcr Black crappic ; White crappie 1
; Bluntnosc minnow [Minnow species
Brown bullhead I Yellow bullhead
Channel catfish | Catfish species; ilathead catfish; white catfish
I.,, ,,., ,,-,™t. r» j ,.,, -m > j n...»A.,f, s... o.»:..nr.Hf'.v...".*......"..-^"f««""-. \* ,.,,,.,, ,..,„ ..,.,,. ,,,,,..,,, Tf ,,. „,,*,.,, 3^ -r*. ^,M ~.,**i...: » ,„ *, ...I,.**.
Common carp iGoldfish
Emerald shiner J Golden shiner; mimic shiner ; .
; Golden rcdhorse i Redhorse species; silver rcdhorse
Logpcreh i Darter species I
Loiigcar sunfish i Centrarchidae sunfish, green sunfish, Lepomis suniish, Micropierus isunfish, pumpkinsccd, redear
ssunflsh, rock bass, i
Smatlmouth bass i Largemouth bass; spotted bass; temperate bass species
.Sucker species [Northern hogsucker; quillback; sucker species; while sucker
Walleye • • Sauger/waHcye ;
Yellow perch [Pcrcid species j
Kyger Black crappic . ! Crappie species; white crappie |
Creek j . J_ „„.',,. ', , ..•
Bluntnosc minnow ; Minnow species :
Channel catfish !Catfish; catfish lamily; flathead catfish j
Emerald shiner , Golden shiner; mimic shiner I
Golden redhorse '•• Redhorse species; shonhead redhorse; jsilver redhorse
Logperch ; Darter species '
Longcar sunfish [Centrarchidae sunfish; green sunfish; Lypomia species; longear sunfish; Micropterus sunfish;
ipumpkinsced; rock bass; warmouth
• River carpsucker ;Carpiodes sucker; Catostonudae sucker; quiliback; spotted sucker; sucker species; white sucker
Skipjack herring \Alosa herring; Clupeidae herring
Smailmouth bass ; Largcmoutii bass; temperate bass specips
Walleye i Sauger/walleye "
t,l-.::.,:,*,**. • 1...H .. . , , ) i „ ! A ... .... j. .* 4., .,.,.,.,., ^ , ,. , *,,. ..*„,.„. r,v. >n , « ,, ,,,.„,-, : */*,«,,„,* ,>..-. ~**x ,..»..»»,.*.-,»*>' *ly ' i »v it > ,* vv,., ,. ef ,.,,,,,, v ...... K-, ,,-».. v .«»„
; Yellow perch iPercid species
Miami Bigmouth buffalo • Smailmouth buffolo . f
Fo« ...,.....,.......„„ ..,„].,,,.. ,„.„ „ ,..„ ,i _ .„.., , ,.«,um«««.tw.
Black crappie i White crappic |
"it. Mt.li'. ^*».. n.. ^.»... ,«....».,..».<«>..*..,. ..I. i»k.i.y.n>..n »,lrJ tl,,>v^.,,,. !,»>.. 1...i.^.,^-*^,i.^^*....1 «.-*...-."",*!*,« ilH,>»'«M^»..*«s,--T*^,t»».,,! *,*,''.*,»«^,*>r'»>J't<>x
:Channel catfish [Flathead catfish i
Emerald shiner ! Mimic shiner; Notropis species j
Gizzitrd shad i Shad species I
Golden redhorse [ Redhorse; shorthead redhorse
River carpsucker JHighfin carpsucker; quillback; quillback/earpsuekcr; sucker family
Smallmoutlt bass \Microptertis species !
Philip Bigmouth buffalo j Smailmouth buffalo
Sporn |
; Black erappie ; Crappie species; white crappic
Bluntnosc minnow (Minnow species; silvcrjaw minnow
; Brown bullhead [ Yellow bullhead
• Channel catfish -Catfish species; flathead catfish
App. C2-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Appendix C2
Table .
Species Included
Philip iEmerald shiner iQolden shiner; Mimic shiner; Notropis species . . •
Sporn . jQolden redhorse jSHverrcdhorsc
[Longear sunfish !Ccntrarchidae simfish; green sunfish; Lepomis species; iongear sunfish; Microptems sunfish;
I jpumpkinsced: warmouth
lnftH>tt*n**t*tftr.tl*frr . ", .-. A %v, ,.,»<.,.,*„-..**, r^,...,,... ,>,,,,,, *»>.„!..»,,,»,,., „--».,,.,!,,--> v,, m,. .v,^,v,,^^ ,-,0>.H ,.-.,>,<« 1, <*i,v,41 r^*v,*>,,»,,„», ,,,,,,,.,.,,,iv>.«., ^ ,„».,, i, ,
• Skipjack herring ; Herring species
I Smallmouth bass : Largemouth bass; spotted bass; temperate bass species
I Sucker species | Northern hogswcker; quillback
fWaHeye ISauger/walleyc
!Yellow perch . ;Percid spcctis
Tanners -BigmoutlibuSalo fSmaHmouth buffalo
Creek '• '• • -, '
j. ..„„„,.„.„., ,,.,„,*„.„,„„„.,„ , .,.„„.« , „.. ;.„„ ...,.„.,. ,..»,.„.«„.,
i Black crappie ICrappie species; white crappie
| Common carp ; Goldfish - .
I Emerald shiner ! River shiner; rosyface shiner
i Golden redhorse j Redhorse species; ri ver redhorse; shotthcad redhonse
jLongear sunfish } Sun fish iamily; warmouih
[Minnow species jMinnow family
| River carpsucker iQuillback; spotted sucker; sucker iamily; white sucker
i Skipjack herring ; Herring species '•
iSroallmouth.bass jLargemourhbass
W.H; •: Black crappie \ Crappie species; white erappie
Sammts j ;
i Brown bullhead ; Black bullhead; yellow bullhead .
[.Channel catfish ;Bluc catfish; channel catfish
! Common carp 1 Carp/goldfish; carp/minnow species; common carp; goldfish
lEmerald shiner JCommon shiner; golden shiner; mimic shiner, shiner species, spotfin shiner
I Golden rcdhorso ; River redhorse; shorthead redhorse
:Logpereh ; Darter species
jSmatlmoutb bass \Largemouth bass; spotted bass , '
;Sucker species jNorthcrn hogsucker; quillback; sucker species; white sucker ;
iSunflsh species \Cenirarchidae sunfish; green sunOsh; Lepomis sunfish; Iongear sunfish; pumpkinseed; rock bass;
; ; sunfish species; warmouth
^ • ' ....^..^,^>,, .,,..,,,,,,*.,,„.* ,, ,,,.,..,..*,.«,, — » ,„.,.,*,.,...,*,.< ,-sv, •„ ,„.,,.,
; Walleye [Walleye pike
•Yellow perch iPereid species ^
App. C2-3
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Appendix C3
I I . t
• of at on the'
The tables in this appendix present the individual facility results for estimating I&E losses at nine facilities where I&E data
are available for the Ohio River case study. The summed results are presented in Chapter C4.
Table C3-1; Baseline Annual Recreational Entrainment Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Beckjord Facility.*
Species
Black Crappie
Channel Catfish
Snuillmouth Bass
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from jEntrainment
{# of fish)
242
1
10,766
586
i 1,595
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$1,00
S2.64
$1.58
SI. 58
High
$5,02
$5,02
S3.95
S3.95 '
Loss in Recreational Value from
Entraintnent
Low
S242
$2
$17,010
S926
• $18,180
High
$1,214
$4
$42,525
$2,316
846,058
11 See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-2: Baseline Annual Recr«otiortai Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Beekjord Facility."
Species
Black Cntppie
Bhicgill •
Channel Catfish
Sauger
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# offish)
' 3
I
11
39
92
145
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
SI. 00
S0.31
S2.64
$5.02
Si. 58
High
$5-02
$1,00
S5.02
$7.92-
S3.95
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
$3
$0
$28
S195
$145
$371 •
High
S15
SI
' $53
S307
'. $362
S738
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-1
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C. The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-3: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and Values at
Beckjord Facility,
Species '
Common Carp
Freshwater Drum
Minnow Species
Pcrcid Species
River Carpsuckcr
Skipjack Herring
Smallmouth Bass
White Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement Value of
Forage Fish from Impingement
$3,287
$1
$386
$97 ;
$5,903 [
S85 i
SO !
SO
$9,758 ;
Loss in Ecosystem Vaiut
Low
$88,360
SI 95
589,287
from Impingement
High
S220.900
S487
$222,9M
See Qiapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
TcbleC3-4: Selected Forage Species B0selfne| Annual Entrainment Losses and Values
at Beckjor-d Facility,"
Species
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Rcdhorse
Longcar Sunfish
Percid Species
River Carpsuckcr
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
White Bass
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Entrainment
SO
SO
$0 :
S2
S44 '
S176 [
34,965 ;
S50 i
SO
SO
$5 i
SO
$234 !
SO •'
Total i S5.475 :
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Entrainment
Low i High
S8
SI
$36
S20
is
$26
$96
$41
. - . ,
.568 " • '
' s'65"
$8 : :
$65
S251
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
. C3-2
-------
i 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-5; Summary 0f Baseline Annual I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-7: Baseline Annual Recreatfona! Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Cardinal Facility,*1
Species
Black Crappic
Blue-gill
Channel Catfish
Sauger
Smallmouth Bass
Sunfish
Walleye
Loss to Recreational Catch \
from Impingement
(# of fish) 1
237 i
7
511
4 i
37 ;
15 |
2 i
1
Kccrealiomil! Value/Fish
Low
i
Sl.OO
$0,31
$2,64
$5.02
SI. 58
S6.3J
S5.02
White Bass j 94 ', $1.S§
High
$5.02
$1.00
$5.02
$7,92
$3.95
SI. 00
$7.92
S3.95
Total 907 : • :
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
S237
$2
$1,349
SIS
$58
SS
$12 '
S148
81,829
High
SI, 189
$7
$2,566
$28
$145
$15
$19
$371
$4,340
' See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-8: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Lasses and Values
at Cardinal Facility,"
Species
Black Crappic
Bluntnosc Minnow
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Darter Species
Emerald Shiner
Skipjack Herring
Sucker Species
Walleye
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fisli
from Impingement
• $0 • ''-
SI 4,205 :
SO i
S672, ;
$528 '
S781 ,
S24 I
$260 ;
SO ,
$16,469 '
Loss in Ecosystem Value from Impingement
'Low
S3
S52
$24
$79
High
$15
$99
$38
$152
J See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
C3-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-9= Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Ertfr-ainment Losses and Values
at Cardinal Facility,0
Species
Black Ctappie
Bluegill
Blunmose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Darter Species
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Redhorse
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Smaltmouth Bass
Sucker Species
Sunfish
Walleye
White Bass •
Total
. {
Loss in Replacement
V^lufe of Forage FSsH
from Entrainweiit
$0
SO
S30
$28
SO
$261
$9
$824
$15
St 6,223
$59
SO
$9
SO
$22
$0
$0 .
SO
$17,480
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Etttrainrnent
Low
S15
S2
$65
$9
$53
S37
$38
S47
S265
High
S74
S5
S123
'S14 '
S132 : ' '
.
$118
$61 ,
$118
" ' S645
Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-10: Summary of Baseline Annual I&E Value Losses at Cardinal Facility,*
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonusc (Passive Use, Nonmarkct)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total (Rcc * Nonusc + Repl)
Total (Rcc * Eco f Nonusc)
Low
High .
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
•$1,829
$4,340
'S915
$2,170
l$265
:$645
SI 7,480
520,224
§23,991
$3,009
$7,156
Entrainment
52,715
$4,374
$1,358
$2,187
$79
SI 52
SI 6,469
S20,542
$23,031
$4,152
$6,713
Total
S4,S45
$8,715
$2,272
$4,357
$344
$797
$33,949
540,766
$47,021
$7,161
$13,869
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-11: Baseline Annual Recreational Entrainment Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Cliffy Creek Facility."
Species
Black Crappic
Blucgill
Channel Catfish
Sauger
Smallmouth Bass
Sunfish
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Bntrainment
(# offish)
22 •
\
5
67
824
2,892
38
477
4,325
r
Recreational Value/Fish
Low ; High
$1.00'
$0,31
S2.64
S5.02
$1.58
S0.31
$5.02
S5.02
SI. 00
SS.02
S7.92
S3.95
SI. 00
87.92
$1.58 • S3.95
Loss in Recreational Value from
. Eiitrainmeiit
Low
$22
SO
S14
$335
$1,301
S897
$190
$753
S3.513
High
$109
SI
$27
S528
$3,254
S2,892
$300
$J,883
$8,995
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. €3-6
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-12: Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Clffty Creek Facility.*
Species
Black Crappic
Blucgttl
Channel Catfish
Paddlcfish
Sauger
Sinallmouth Bass
Striped Bass
Stmftsh
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
<# orn$h)
34
22
81
5
158
34
21
6
11
1,500
1.873
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$1.00
S0.31
$2.64
$1.00
S5.02
'$1.58
$1 1.08
$0.31
• S5.02
SI. 58
High
$5,02
• $1.00
S5.02
S5.02
$7.92
$3.95
515.55
$1.00
$7,92.
S3.9S
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
S34
S7
$214
S5
$795
S54
$231
S2
$56
$2,370
53,768
High
$173
$22
$407
.$24
• $1,255
$135
: $3.25
$6
, $88
• $5,924
$8,358
"• See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-13: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Erttrainment Losses and Values at
Cliffy Creek Facility,"
Species
Black Crappic
Biuegill
Biuntnose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Sinallmouth Bass
Sucker.Species
Swifish
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Lossjn Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
front Entntinment
$0
$0
$91
SI, 085
. . $0
$918
•54,004
• . $363
S155
SO
S338
SO
$88,175
SO
$0
$0
. 595,1.28
Loss in Ecosystem Value from Entrainment
Low
$63
$21
£565
$80
$1,349
S309
$56,976
$368
$59,732
High l
$316
$68
. 31,075 :
$126
$3,373 '
S997
589,891 •
• , . . $921 ;
$96,767 .
11 See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-7
-------
S 316{b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-14: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and Values
at Clifty Creek Facility."
Species
Bigmouth Buffalo
Black Crappie
Blucgill
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Rcdhorse
Logperch
Paddlcfish
Saugcr
Skipjack Herring
Smallmouth Bass
Striped Bass
Sucker Species
Sunfish
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss* in Replacement
Value of Forage Fjish
from Impingement
S834 i
SO '
. so 1
S15
SO . _!
$62 ;
S84 '
$2,388 ; '
$231,489
S33 |
S3 !
SO t
so ;
SI 2,154 ;
SO
SO
$275
so ;
SO :
SO ]
Loss in Ecosystem Value from Impingement
Low
S213
$24
S937
SI
SI31
$766
SI ,576
$529
S363
$682
$247,337 ; $5,223
High
$1,067 .
S77
51,782
111
S7
S206
$1.916
$2,212
$1,706
$573
$1,705
Si 1,253
* Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Apf>, C3-S
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Pdrt C: the Ohio River
Appendix C3
Tabfe C3-15: Summary of Baseline Annual IAE Value Losses at Cliffy Creek Facility/
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonusc (Passive Use, Newmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total (Rec -i- Nonuse •*• Rep!)
Total (Rcc + Eco -5- Nonuse)
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
$3,768 :
$8,358
SI, 884
$4,179
$5,223
S 11,253
$247,337
$252,988
$259,874
$10,874
$23,790
Efitramment
S3.513
$8,995
$1,756
54,497
$59,732
$96,767
895,128
S! 00,397
$108,621
. $65,002
$110,259
Total
.. .$7,281
$17,353
$3,640
S8,676
$64,955
$108,019
$342,465
$353,386
$368,494
575,876
$134,049
" Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-1&: Baseline Annual Recreational Entramment Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Ksmmer Facility."
Species
Channel Catfish
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entraimioent
<# offish)
15
312
33
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$2,64
$5,02
$1,58
. 361 1 •
High
$5,02
$7.92
$3.95
Lo» in Recreational Value from
Entratnment
Low
$41
SI, 566
• S53 ' '
$1,660
High
! $77
$2,471
$132
52,681.
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-17: Baseline Annual RecreotjoRai Impingement Losses and Value for* Selected Species at
Katnmer Factitty."
Species
Black Crappie .
Blucgill
Channel Catfish
Longcar Sunfish
Sauger
Smalhfiouth Bfiss
White Baas
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# of fish)
6
1
38
1
1
7
16
. 71
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
Si. 00
S0.31
S2.64
S0.3J
S5.02
$1.58
$1.58
S 17.77
High
S3.02
$1.00
$5.02
51.00
$7.92-
S3.95
S3.95
$36.78
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
S6
$0
$101
SO
S7
$12
$26
$152
I High
' $29
$1
$193
•$"l
$11
$30
$64
$328
" Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-9
-------
S 316(b) Case. .Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-18: Selected Forage Species Baseline1 Annual Impingement Losses and Values
at Kammer1 Facility,8
Species
Black Crappic
Bluntnose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Catp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Rcdhorsc
Longear Sunfish
Sauger
Smallmouth Bass
Sucker Species
White Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement • L(
Value of Forage Fish ' —
from Impingement •
so ;
>s$ in Ecosystem Value from Impingement ,
Low
$1
$1 ,
$7 ; •
SO i
, $6
S15 |
$61 •;
$5 ;
$1,271 i
S26 1
so 1
SO ]
SO [
• S3
SI
$5
$5 I
$0 ] S4
$1,393 |
S20
High
' $7
Sll
.
S10
S!
$12
$10
• S52
* See Chapter C4 Tor sources of dollar values, [
Table C3-19: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entr-ainment Losses and Values
at Kammer Facility. a
Loss in Replacement
Species Value of Forage Fish
from Entraiiunettt
Bluntnose Minnow 541,332
Channel Catfish SO !
Common Carp S3.733 ;
Herring S86 ;
Sucker Species $250 !
Walleye SO >
White Bass $0 :
Total = $45,401
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Entraitmifiit
Low High
$148 S282
S 14,926 ' $23,548
$42 SJ04
$15,115 S23.934
• See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App, C3-IO
-------
§ 316{b) Cose Studies, Port O The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-2Qs Summary of Baseline Annual IAE Value Losses at Kammer
""*••• ' '••'•"• "•"""" t
Recreational (Direct Use, Noitmarkct)
Norwsc (Passi\'c Use, Nonmarkef)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarkec),
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total (Reo + Nonuse * Rspl)
Total (Rec + Eco * Nonuse)
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
S152
$328
S76
SJ64
S20
$52
$1,393
$1,621
$1,885
. $248
$544
Eiitrainnieiit
$1,660
$2,681
SS30
$1,340
$15,115
S23.934
$45,401
$47,891
$49,422
$17,605
827,955
Total
1 $1,812
; $3,009
$906
• $1,504
'$15,135
, $23,986
. $46,793
'.849,511
S5!,307
$1*7,853
> 828,499
Sea Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table £3-21; Baseline Annual Recreational Entrapment Losses and Value for Selected Speet'es at
Species
Black Crappie •
Channel Catfish
Longear Surifssh
Smalltnouth Bass
Walieve
White Bass
Total
•
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entramment
(# offish)
909 . '
90
2,851
540
10,218
46
14,654
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$1.00
$2.64 •
• $0.3!
SI. 58 •
$5,02
$1.58
High
$5.02
$5,02
s'i.b'o
$3,95
S7.92
S3.95
Loss in RccreaM0»a) Value from
KtitniiMineHt
Low
$909
$237
$884
$853
$51,296'
$73
: \ $54,251
High
• $4,562 '
i $450
; $2,851
: $2,132
. 580,929
$183
; $91,107
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App.C3-U-
-------
S 316{b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-22: Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Kyger Facility.*
Species
Black Grappic
Blucgill
Channel Catfish
Longcar Sunfish
Sauger
Smallmouth Buss
Walleye
White Bass
Total
: Loss to Recreational Catch
": from Impingement
(# of fish)
: 37
; 253
5
52
.» " !*- III...... ,,,f ,,. »1I4M ,,,.,,., „.„, , ..j|
: 7
i
78
L
Recreational Value/Fish
Lo^
Si, 06
S0.3I
S2.64
$031
SS.02
S1.58
$5.02
$1,5^
437 . ;
__Hjgh
$5.02
SI. 00
S5.02
$1.00
$7.92
S3.95
$7.92
$3.95
Loss tn Recreational Valu.e from '
Impingement "
Low
S37
SI
S668
SI
$262
Sil
$4
S123 .
High
SJ85
S5
SI, 271
S5,
S413
$28
$6
SI, 108 82,220
* Sec Chapter G4 for sources of dollar values
Table C3-23: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and
Values at Kygerj Facility.*
Species
Black Crappic
Bluntnosc Minnow
Channel Catfish
Conunon Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Rcdhorse
Logperch
Longear Sunfish
. River Carpsucker
Skipjack Herring
r
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fi^b
from Impingement
$0
S22.003
SO
8101,794
S 10.33 1 I
S386 ;
S164
S205 1
S21
SO '
525,790 :
, .,.[,,,
S177
Smallmouth Bass : SO [
Walleye ; SO ;
White Bass SO 1
Total • $160,871 :
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Impingement
Low
$173
$3,090
S3.519
57,375
$1,412
S867
$16,436
High
$866
$5,876
•
$11,351
SI 8,438
S2.228
$2,168
S40.927
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App, C3-J2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-24; Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entroinment Losses and Values
at Ky§ef Facility,d
Species
Black Crappie
BIwegill
BJuirtnose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
.Gizzard Shad
Golden Redhorse
l^gperch
LongearSun.fi sb
River Carpsueker
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Smallmouth Bass
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Etitraimumciit
'$0
SO
$7
$6
SO
S22
$385
$588
$20,835
$23 •
•S2
$0
S3
SO
$21
SO
SO
$0
$21,89$
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Entrapment
Low
$23
S3
S103
S58
$14
$84
$01
$75
$423
High
SH8
S9 ;
$196 • •
$188
$23
$211
$97 . '
S188
$1,029
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-25: Summary of Baseline Annual !<&E Value Losses at Kyger Facility,
Commercial Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market)
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket}
Ncmuse (Passive Use, Normrarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket}
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total (Rcc + Nonosc •>• Rcpl)
Total (Rec •*• Eco •*• Nonuse)
Low
High
Low
High
' Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
SO
SO
sf.ios'
$2,220
. $554'
si.no
S423 .
Si, 029
$21,891
$23,553
• $25,221
$2,085
$4.358
Entraintttcnt
SO
SO
$54,251
$91,107
$27,126
$45,554
$16,436
$40,927
$160,871
$242,248
$297,532
$97,81 3
$177,587
Total
$0
$0
' '555,359
$93,32?
" '127,680 '
.$46,663
$16,859
$41,956
$182,763
: $265,801
$322,753
$9'9j98
S181.946
" See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-I3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-26; Baseline Annual Recreational Entrammertt tosses and Value for Selected Species at
Miami Fort Facility,"
Species
Black Crappie
Olucgill
Channel Catfish
Lcpomis Species
Saugcr
Smullmouth Bass
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entrapment
(# of fish)
292
1,514
3,735
843
6,384
• Loss in Recreational Value from
Ecereatfonal Value/Fish \ Eirtrainment
Low
SI. 00'
$6.31 1
32.64;
$0.31,
$5.02;
S1.581
SI. '58'
;
High
S5.02
$1,00
S5.02
St. 00
$7,92
S3.95
S3.95
Low
$90
$7,602
$5,902
SI ,332
$14,926
High
$292
$11,994
$.14,754
$3,330
530,369
* Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-27: Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Spectes at
Miami Fort Facility.0
Species
Black Crappie
Channel Catfish
Paddlcfish
Saugcr
White Bass
Total
; Loss to Recreational Catch
; from Impingement
: (# offish)
3
: 36
:. 8
97
336
: 480
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$1,00
$2.64
$1.00,
S5.02
$1.58!
i
High
$5.02
' $5.02
$5,02
$7.92
$3.95
Loss in Recreational Value front
Impingement
Low
$3
$94
$8
$489
$531
$1,125
High
S14
$J80
$39
S771.
SI, 328
• $2,331
* Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-28: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and Values at
Miami Fort Facility,"
Species
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Lcpomis Species
Minnow Species
River Carpsucker
Sauger
Smallmouth Bass
Wiiite Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from linpingenu'iit
SI 0,851 I
$22,708 '
si33 ;
$9,5so ;
so :
S2.004 :
$420 ',
SO :
$0 ;
$0 ;
545,697 |
Loss in Ecosystem Value from Impingement
Low
$4,322
$99
$89,057
ttiglt
$13,941
. $156
$222,644
S196 | S491
393,674 , I $237,231.
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
AMI. cs-i-t
-------
§ 316{b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio.River
Appendix C3
Table £3-29; Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entrapment Losses and Values
at Miami Fort Facility,*
Species
Black Bullhead
Black Crappie
Bhiegtii
Channel Catfish
Common Car}}
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Rcdhorsc
Logpcrch
Paddlefish
River Carpsueker
Sauger
Skipjack Hairing
White Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Pish
from Entrainment
$i
so
so
so
S52
S46
SS93
S22.679
S45..
SI
SO
S46
SO
52,549
SO
$26,312
Lpss in Ecosystem Value from BiHraiiiineiil
Low
.. $37
$4
- $163
SO
S23
SI18
S345
High
$!85
$13
S3 10 '
!
$1 1
S36
S296 '.
$842
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-30; Summary of Baseline Annual !<&£ Value Losses at Miami Fort Facility,0
Recreational (Direct Use, •Norunarkct)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total (Rec + Nonuse •+ Repl)
Total (Rec * Eeo + Nonuse)
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
$1,125
$2,331
S562
SI, 166
$345
S842
$26,312
528,000
$29,809
. 12,033
54,338
Entrairmu'iit
$14,926
$30,369
$7,463
$15,184
$93,674
$237,231
$45,697 .
$68,085
$91,250
$1 16,063
$282,785
Total
•516,051
, S32,700
$8,025
816,350
; 594,020
•$238,073
. $72,009
; 896,085
$121,059
* II 8,096
8287,123
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-15
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-31: Baseline Annual Recreational Entrainment Losses and Volue for Selected Species at P.
Sport* Facility.*
Species
Black Crappie
Channel Catfish
Longcar Suniish
Smallmouth Bass
Walleye
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entrainment
(# offish)
16
4
1,051
108
1,365
2,544
1 ^ """" \ '
Recreational Value/Fisli
Low ; High
Sl.OO
$2,64
$0,31
SI. 58',
S5.02
i
S5.02
$5.02
Sl.OO
$3.95
$7.92
Loss in Recreational Value from
Entrainment
Low
$16
$9
$326
$171
S6.850
, $7,373
High '
$80
$18
$1,051
$428
SI 0,807
S 12,385
Sec Chapter C4 forsourccs of dollar values.
Table C3-32: Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value fop Selected Species at P,
Sparn Facility."
Species
Black Crappie
Blucgill
Channel Catfish
Longear Sunfish
Sauger
Smallmouth Bass
; Loss to Recreational Catch
' from Impingement
; (# offish)
63
4
282
2
36
4
White bass ; "17
Total
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$1.00;
$0.31:
$2.64
S0.31
S5.02
Si". 58!
. $1.58
409 SI 7.7?
High
$5.02
SI. 00
• $5.02
Sl.OO
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
$63
$1
S745
SI
S7.92 $182
High
S3I7 '"
$4
$1,417
$2
SiV
$3.95 j. $6 'I Sis
$3.95 1*. $27 | $67
"$36.78 f" SI ,025 1 $2,109
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-I6
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-33; Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Implement Losses and
Values at R. Spor-rt Faolify.4
Species
Bigmouth Buffalo
Black Ctappie
Bluegili
Bluntnose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Redhorse
Logperch
Longcar Suniish
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Smallmduth Bass
Sucker
White bass
Tota!
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Impingement
$7
SO
SO
SI
SI!
$0
SI!
S102
S3 14
$3,151 -
$10
$1
SO
so .
S5
SO
Si2
SO
Loss in Ecosystem Value from Impingement
Low
S5
S|
i
S22
S12
S3
$18
$16
83,626 I $76
High
S25
S2
S41
$40
$5
S44
S39
SI 96
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App.C3-l7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-34: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entrainment Losses and Values
at P. Spom Facility,6
Species
Black Crappic
Bluntnosc Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Longcar Sunfish
Skipjack I lerring
Smallmoutli Bass
Sucker
Walleye
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Entrainment
so '
$5,604 !
S30 =
so ;
521,634
S843 ;
S65
S23 1
$0 I
$39 1-
SO
$23,096
SO
S5 1,332
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Entrainmenl
Low
$20
S364
S4.14
$868
536,637
$38,302
High
S102
S691
$1,335
$2,169
$57,801
$62,099
•" See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values,
Table C3-35: Summary of Baseline Annual 3,&& Value tosses at P, Spom Facility,
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total (Rec * Nonuse * Rcpl)
Total ( Rec i- Eeo + Nonuse)
Low
High
•Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
i $!,025
' $2,109
; S512
$1,054
S76
! $196
, S3,626
| S5,163
; S6.789
; Sl,613
! $3,359-
£ittrainment
57,373
$12,385
$3,686
$6,192
$38,302
$62,099
$51,332
$62,391
$69,909
$49,361
_^_J!!MZL^__
Total
S8,397
$14,493
$4,199
' S7,247
$38,378
$62,295
. S54.958 .
$67,554
576,698
$50,974
884,035
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-IS
-------
S 316{b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-36; Baseline Annaal Recreational Entrafnment tosses and Value for Selected Species at
.Tanner Facility/
Species
Black Crappic
Channel Catfish
Longear Sunfish
Paddlcfish
Sauger
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entrainjnent
(# of fish)
11
2,468
36
16
57
2,587
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
SI. 00
S2.64
$0,31
$1.00
$5,02
High
SS.02
$5.02
$1.00
55,02
$7.92
Loss in Recreational Value from
Bntrainmi'Hl
Low
S!l
$6,514
S'll
$16
$286
$6,837
High
• S55
$12,387
$36
:- $78
$45!
$13,006
Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-37; Baseline Annual Recreational' Impingement Losses arid Value for Selected Species at
Tanner Facility,6
Species
Black Grapple
Bluegill
Channel Catfish
Longear Sunfish
Paddiefish
Sauger
Sroallrnouih Bass
Total
Lo$s to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# offish)
10
4
34
1
41
40
2
132
Recreational Value/Fish
. .
Low
SI. 00
$0.31
$2.64
$0,31
. SI .00
$5.02
$1.58
High
$5.02
$1.00,
$5,02
$1.00
$5.02 .
$7.92
S3.95
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
$10
SI
• $90
$0
$41
$20!
$3 •
$347
HSgh
S50
$4
$171
$1
! S207
; S318
S8
' $758
See Chapter C4' for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-19
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, PartC: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-38: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and
Values at Tanner Facility,"
Species
Black Crappic
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Logpcrch
Longcar Sunfish
Minnow Species
Paddlefish
River Carpsucker
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Impingement
$0 F
SO |
S575 ;
SI, 120
$33
$5,126
SJ72
SO ,
537 !
•so ;
$978 :
SO ,
$150
S8.I92 ;
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Impingement
Low
S9
$405
$108
$1
S43
High
$46
$769
S349
$5
$68
$566 ; .$1,237
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App, C3-20
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Table C3-39: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entratnment Losses and Values
at Tanner Facility,"
Species
Bigmouth Buffalo
Black Orappie
Bluogill
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Car;}
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Rcdhorsc
I^ngear Sunfish
Paddlefish
River Carpsucter
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Smallmouth Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Entrapment
SJ56
SO
SO
S?
SO
S45
$58
$447
SI7.236
$6
so •
SO
$4
$0
84,447
SO
$22,406
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Entrmnment
Low
$121
S14
S532
$300
SI
S74
$435
$1,476
High
$606
$44
SI.01I
. $968 , .
S4 :•
SH7
S 1,087
$3,837
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table £3~'4p; Summary of Baselirte Annual I&E Value Losses at Tanner Facility."
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total {Rec -r Nonuse + Kept)
Total (Rcc + Eco -*• Nonuse}
Low
High
Low
High
Low
Hig!)
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
S347
$758
SI74
S379
$1,476
$3,837
$22,406
$22,927
523,544
$1,997
$4,975
Entrainmcnt
$6,837
113,006
$3,419
$6,503
$566
$1,237
58,192
$18,449
$27,702
$10,822
$20,746
; Total
; $7,185
'- SI 3,764
i $3,592
Sfi.882
$2,042
$5,074
830,599
/ $41,376 .
' $51,245
i $12,819
: $25,721
* Sec. Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-2J
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-41: Baseline Annual Recreational Entr-ainmehf Usses and Value for Selected Species at
W.H. Sammis Facility,"
Species
Black Crappic
Channel Catfish
Srrullmouth Bass
Sunlisli Species
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entraimnent
(# of fish)
62
52
197
480
204
28
1,023
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
SI. 00 •
S2.64 ;
SI. 58 ;
$0.3.1 [
S5.02
SI. 58
High
$5,02
$5.02
S3.95
$1.00
$7.92
53.95
Loss in Recreational Value from
Entraiiuncnt
Low
$62
S137
S3li
$149
SI, 024
$45
' ] j j $1,727
High
$313
$260
$778
$480
51,615
Sill
$3,55?
Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-42: Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
W.H. Sammrs
Species
Black Crappie
Blucgill
Channel Catfish
Saugcr
Smallmoutl) Bass
Sunfish Species
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# of fish)
60
4
558 •
1
74
15
7
I
Recreational Value/Fish
Low;
. SLOO
$0,31
S2.64
$5.02,
SI. 58,
$0.31'
S5.02
659 : SI. 58
1,378 i ':
High
55,02
$1.*
$5.02
$7.92
$3.95
SLOO
$7.92
' $3.95
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
$60
si
51,474
$5
$116
$5
$34
$1,041
iijB
High
$300
$4
$2,803
"•" m1
tm '
' s.Js" '
IS
$2,603 .
$6,677
Sec Oiaptcr C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-22
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table €3-43: Selected forage Species Baseline Annual Impmgement Losses and Values of
W.H. Sammfs Facility.0
Species
Black Crappie
Bluntnose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Emerald Shiner
Gizzard Shad
Smailmouth Bass
Sucker Species
Sunfish Species
Walleye
1 White Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Impingement
$0
$761
S32
SO
53,047
$112
SO
S260
$0
so •
$0
S4,212
Loss in Ecosystem Value from Impingement
Low
$1
$22
$53.
S25
S10
$6
$118
High
$6 ''
S42 '
S132 '
$81
S16
S16
$293
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-44: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entrainment tosses and Values at
• ' ' W.H, Sammis Facility.0
Species
Black Crappie
Btuegill
Blimtnose Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Redhorse
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Smailmouth Bass
Sucker Species
Sunfish Species
Walleye
White Bass
Total
Loss. Sw Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Erilrainment
SO
so •
$19
S74
$0
Si ,273
SI
$46,782 •
S47
SO
S2I4
SO
$67
SO
$0
SO
$48,475
Loss in Ecosystem Value fromEntrainmcnt
Low
$41
SS
$179 .
S25
$147
• SIOI
S106
S130
• S734
High
S204 '
S15 ;
$341
S39 •
$366'
$326 ;
SI 68
$326 '
.51,787
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-23
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-45: Summary of Baseline Annual 1&E Value Losses at W,H, Sammts Facility."
Recreational (Direct Use, Nortmarket)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Ecosystem
Replacement
Total (Rec * Nonuse +• Repl)
Total (Rcc - Eco + Nonuse)
Low
High
Low-
High
Low
High
Low-
High
Low
nigh
Impingement
;S2,736
;S6,077
;S 1,368
;S3,039
:
;S734
:$ 1,787
$48,475
$52,580
S57.591
>$4,839
i'J 6,903
Eiilrainment
51,727
$3,557
S864
$1,778
$118
$293
$4,212
86,803
$9,548
S2,708
$5,628
Total
$4,463 ,
S9.634
$2,232 '
$4,817
$852
$2,079
$52,688
$59,383,
S67.139
S7,547
$J 6,531
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-24
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port tx Tampa Bay
-------
-------
§ 316{b) Cose Studies, Part t>: Tampa Bay
Chapter Dl: Background
Tampa Bay is Florida's largest estuary and is at the heart
of a fast-growing region of more that) 2 million people
(TBNEP, 1996a). Tampa Bay was selected fora case
study to represent CW1S impacts and potential benefits for
facilities located on estuaries of the Southeastern Atlantic
and Gulf coasts. Section JDl-l of this background chapter
provides a brief description of the Tampa Bay facilities
considered in this case study, Section D1-2 describes the
environmental sotting and current stressors, and Section
Dl-3 presents information on the area's soeioeconoraic
characteristics.'
Dl -1 OVERVIEW OF CASH STUDY
FACILITIES
CHAPTER CONTENTS
DM __ Overview of Case Study Facilities ._,_...
D 1-2 Hnvitdifineniaf Settings, .„•>'»« »~
- - .BI-2,1 Tariifm Bay_ ,„>»
Dl-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Bioto...
t»» « *v •*» •». * ' *^... * , t j^ r" ^-w-*
DI-3
. y BWJ Maj:
-3 J
" V-Z / ^J1 '
; oi-r
.D]J4
, Dl-4"
, Dl-5
'" J ?pf"*>3 Recreational Fis|i«g*?tT.,.",,
'-__ * *j) 1-3,4* Other Water»BiaKd-Recreation
J
one
Industry surveys conducted by EPA in support of the §3 !6(b) ralemaking identified five steam, electric utility plants, ««•
nonutility plant, and two manufacturing plants located in the five watersheds draining into Tampa Bay. This case study
focuses on the four facilities that are in scope of the Phase I! rule; . !
»• PL Bartow (Florida Power Corporation)
*• Big Bend (Tampa Electric Company) , ;
»• PJ Gannon (Tampa Electric Company)
*• Hooker's Point1 (Tampa Electric Company).
The location of these fecilities is indicated in. Figure Dl-1. .
Many of the aquatic species impacted by these facilities are also impinged and entrained at two facilities north of Tampa Bay,
the Anclote power plant and the Crystal River power plant. .
Big Bend is a 1,988 MW power plant located in Middle
Tampa Bay. The facility began commercial service in. 1969.
Big Bend currently operates four steam-electric coal units, In
addition, it has three oil-fired gas turbines that do not require
cooling water. Jn 1999, Big Bend had 346 employees and
generated 9.1 million MWh of electricity.2 Estimated 1999
revenues for the Big Bend plant were approximately S653
million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of
8,7 million MWh and the J 999 company-level electricity
revenues of $74.99 per MWh.' Big Bend's 1999 production
expenses totaled $250 million, or 2.743 cents per kWh, for an
operating income of $403 million.
+** Rig Hand, PJ Gannon,
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part b: Tampa Bay
Chapter bit Background
Figure Dl-1: Locations of the Tampa Bay Case Study Facilities
Georgia (
. , . . ,T-, Atlantic
\ Ocean
Gulf
of.
Mexico
of
Detail W
Hookers Point
Power Plant
Gannon .
Station
Bartow Plant
Big Bend
Power
Station <
PETERSBURG
GULF
OF *
MEXICO
Anna Maria
Island
420 4 S Kitomclers
420 4 8 Miles
D/-J
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port t>: Tampa Bay
Chapter bi: Background
The FJ Gannon Power Station is a coal-fired facility that, began commercial operation in 1957 and is located in.
Hillsborougb Bay. The facility used to operate six coal-fired units, with a combined capacity of 1,302 MW, and one small
gas turbine. However, TECO recently entered into a settlement of a lawsuit for alleged Clean Air Act violations, brought
against TECO by the U.S. Justice Department on behalf of the EPA. As part of the settlement, TECO will convert FJ Gannon
from a coal burning to a natural gas-fired combined-cycle facility. The repowering is slated to be completed in 2004
(Lazaroff,2000). ' '.
In 1999, FJ Gannon reported having 284 employees and generating 5.0 million MWh of electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues
for the FJ Gannon plant were approximately $356 million, based on' the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 4,7 million
MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $74,99 per MWh, FJ Gannon's 1999 production expenses totaled
$ 1 63 million, or 3,280 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $ 1 93 million. It should be noted thai this information
represents pre-conversion operating'condHions and may no longer be applicable once the conversion to combined-cycle units
is completed.
Hooker's Point is a 233 MW power plant located in Hilisborough Bay. The facility began commercial service in 1948 and
has been operated as a peaking plant for the past 20 years. Hooker's Point has five active, oil-fired generating units. In 1999,
Hooker's Point had 35 employees and generated 0,18 million MWh of electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues for the Hooker's
Point plant were $13,2 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 0,17 million MWh and the 1999
company-level electricity revenues of $74,99 per MWh, Hooker's Paint's 1999 production expenses totaled $13.0 million, or
7.083 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $0.14 million. Hooker's Point is scheduled for closure in 2003,
PL Bartow is a 717 MW power plant located in Old Tampa
Bay, The plant began commercial service in 1958. PL Bartow
operates seven units: two oil-fired steam-electric units, one
natural gas-fired steam-electric .unit, two oil-fired gas turbines,
and two natural gas-fired gas turbines. In 1999, PL Bartow had
71 employees and generated approximately 2,6 million MWh of
electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues for the PL Bartow plant
were approximately S 1 84 million, based on the plant's 1 999
estimated electricity sales of 2.4 million MWh and the 1999
company-level electricity revenues of $76.09 per MWh. PL
Bartow's 1999 production expenses totaled S82 million, or
3.214 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $101 million.
Table Dl-l summarizes the important economic characteristics of the four Tampa Bay power-plants.
»> Jf'L Burton' Ownership Jn/omatiton
PL Bartow is owned by Florida Power Corporation, a
subsidiary of Progress Energy, which was founded in 2000
when utility holding company Carolina Power & Light
(CP&L) Energy acquired'Florida Power. Progress Energy is
a domestic energy company with 16,000 employees and
sales of S4.1 billion in 2000. The firm owns 21 million MW
of electric generating capacity and sold almost 60 million
MWh of electricity in 2000 (Progress Energy, 200);
Hoover's Online, 2001 j). , ;
DI-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter bi: Background
Table Dl-1: Summary of Big Bend, FJ Sannon, Hooker's Point, and PL Barrow Plant Characteristics, 1999
Plant EIA code i
NERC region ;
Total capacity (MW) '•.
Primary fuel ;
Number of employees :
Net generation (million MWh) :•
Estimated revenues (million) .
Total production expense (million) !
Production expense (ji/kWh) '•
Estimated operating income (million) ;
Big Bend
645
FRCC
1,998
Coal
346
9.1
$653
S250
2,743^
S403
FJ Gannon
646 •
: FRCC
j 1,320
i Coal
' 284
t 5.0
S356
i. S163
3,2802
| S193
Hooker's Point
647
FRCC
233
Oil-H
35
0,2
SJ3 .
S13
7,0830
$0,14
PL Barbm
634
FRGC
717
. Oil-H '
71
2,6
$184
S82
3.214jJ
$10!
Notes: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council ;
FRCC = Florida Reliability Coordinating Council '
Dollars are in S2001. |
Source; U.S, DOE, 2001a {NERC Region, Total Capacity, Primary Fuel); U.S. DOE, 2001 e (Number of Employees, Net Generation,
Total Production Expense). . i .
Dl-2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINS ;
Dl-2.1 Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay is a subtropical estuary that occurs in a transition zone between a temperate climate to the north and a tropical
climate lo the south (Lewis and Estevez, 1988). The bay is Florida's largest estuary, covering 1,035 km2 (400 mi2) at high
tide, with an average width of 15 km (9.3 mi). The bay's waters are well-mixed and unstratified because ofthe large tidal
volume, relatively small freshwater input, and the overall shallowness ofthe estuary, averaging only about 4 m (13.1 ft) in
depth. |
Tampa Bay can be visualized as an upright "Y" divided into four major sections (Figure Dl-1) (Johansson, 1991; TBNEP,
1995;TBNEP, I996a):
*• Ilillsborough Bay forms the head ofthe estuary and represents the right arm ofthe "Y," The City of Tampa borders
it on the north and the west. Hillsborough Bay is about 14.5 km (9 mi) long, has a coastline of 207 km (128.5 mi),
and is the most industrialized, developed, and degraded of the four sections. It represents about 10 percent ofthe
Tampa Bay surface area. The Hooker's Point, Big Bend,'and Gannon facilities are located in Hillsborough Bay.
>• Old Tampa Bay represents the left arm ofthe "Y". It is about 19,3 km (12 mi) long, has a coastline of 339.8 km
(211 mi), and represents 19.5 percent ofthe total surface area of Tampa Bay.
*• Middle Tampa Bay is the central section. It is about 19.3 km (12. mi) long and is bordered along its eastern side by
Saint Petersburg. It represents 30 percent ofthe total surface area of Tampa Bay and lias a coastline of 262.8 km
(163.2 mi). '
»• Lower Tampa Bay is Tampa Bay's southernmost section. Its entrance to the Gulf is approximately 8 km (5 mi)
wide and is lined by several islands, including Anna Maria Island, Passage Key, Egmont Key, and Mullet Key. It is
about 20.9 km (13 mi) long, represents 24 percent ofthe total surface area of Tampa Bay, and has a coastline of
121.6 km (75.5 mi). i
The. four largest tributaries that enter Tampa Bay are the HiHsborough and Alafia rivers, which empty into Hilisborough
Bay, the Little Manatee River, which empties into Middle Tampa Bay, and the Manatee RJver, which empties into Lower
Tampa Bay. The Hillsborough River has the largest flow ofthe bay's four major tributaries. It is heavily channelized and
has been extensively dredged, so it provides little aquatic habitat. The Alafia River is also heavily .impacted. Its drainage
basin includes phosphate mines and fertilizer processing plants, and lower sections ofthe river are characterized by poor
Dl-4
-------
S 3l6(b) Cose Studies, Part 5: Tampa Bay
Chapter Dl: Background
water quality. -By contrast, the Little Manatee River shows little impact of pollution or development. The river's lower
reach is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), a designation that prohibits any.activity that could degrade the
river's surface water quality (Boier et al.» 1991; Clark, 1991; Flannery ct al, 1991).. The Manatee River is broad, shallow,
and relatively tmchanneled. Although little of the natural shoreline remains in the river's lower third, which is flanked by the
cities of Bradenton and Palmetto, the river's middle and upper sections contain large areas of pristine estuarine habitat,
totaling nearly two-thirds of all tidal river wetlands .in Tampa Bay (Edwards, 1991; Estevez et al., 1991).
bl-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota .
Tampa Bay supports over 200 species of rnacroalgae, 250 fish species, and some 1200 macroinvertebrate species (including
scallops, crabs, and shrimps; Beever, 1997). In terms of primary production, the bay is considered a phytoplankton-based
system, although mangroves, sea grasses, and salt marsh vegetation are also important (Lewis and Estevez, ;1988). These
resources provide food for herbivorous secondary producers, including zooplankton and plankton-feeding fishes such as bay
anchovy (Anchoa mitchiUi). In turn, these animals provide food for carnivorous fishes, including midcarnivores., e.g., striped
killiftsh (FunduMae majalis), and spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)> and carnivores, e.g., spotted sea trout (Cyhoscion
nehttloxus), red drum (Sciaenops acellahts), snook (Centropomus undecimalis), and tarpon (Megalops atlanticus).
Carnivorous fishes in turn provide energy for the many top carnivores that consume fish, particularly birds.j A generalized
Tampa Bay food web is shown in Figure D1-2. ' , . .
The major habitat types supporting the Tampa Bay food web include open water habitat, bottom habitat, emergent vegetation
(seagrasses, mangroves, and salt marshes), mudflats, and salt barrens (TBNEP, 1996c). Water column habitats include (1) the
• Lower Bay's high salinity and relatively deep areas,,(2) the more brackish shoreline areas, (3) the low salinity but lidally
.influenced tributaries, and (4) the strictly freshwater tributary portions, Fish species dominate the aquatic life of open water
habitats.
Most of the bottom habitat of Tampa Bay is classified as unconsotidated sediment, or soft bottom (Lewis and Estevez, 1988).
Soft bottom habitats are used by invertebrates such as clams, worms, conches, and sea squirts. Hard bottom habitats include
natural rock outcroppings, bridge and dock pilings, sea walls, oyster reefs, and a number of artificial reefs. Although
relatively rare in Tampa Bay, hard bottom habitats are quite valuable because they create attachment sites for shellfish and
attract fish species prized by anglers, including snook and redfish. They are also provide important shore bird habitat.
The extensive shallow areas that fringe the bay support large sea grass beds, mangrove forests, and salt marshes. -A notable
exception is Hillsborough Bay, where all the sea grass beds and most mangrove stands were lost because of eutrophication,
shoreline development, and filling operations,
Sea grasses play a vital role in the Tampa Bay ecosystem because they:
*• provide nursery habitat and food for juvenile finfish and for shrimp, crabs, and other invertebrates;
•> stabilize shifting sands on the bottom of the bay;
*• clarify the water column by trapping silt and fine paniculate matter; and
+ provide food for the endangered manatee. '
Large mangrove forests line the eastern shores of Lower Tampa Bay and Middle Tampa Bay, and are also common along Old
Tampa Bay. Salt marshes line the bay's tributaries and quiet backwaters. ;
Both mangroves and salt marshes provide habitat for the juveniles of many highly valued fish species, including mullet,
snook, red drum, and tarpon (TBNEP, 1996c). Mangrove-blanketed islands in Tampa Bay support the most diverse colonial
waterbird nesting colonies in North America. These islands host 40,000 pairs of 25 different species of birds annually, from
the familiar white ibis (Eudocinms albus) and great blue heron (Ardea herodias) to the reddish egret (Egrelta rufescens) —
the rarest heron in the nation (TBNEP, 2001). An estimated 7,608 hectares (18,800 acres) of mangrove forests and salt
marshes currently remain throughout Tampa Bay (TBNEP, 1996a), , .
Mud flats are low-lying areas of the bay and its backwaters that are exposed with each receding tide. Mud flats are prime
foraging habitat for resident wading birds and for migratory birds such as avocets, sandpipers, ducks, and gulls. Today, fewer
than 364 hectares (900 acres) of mud flats remain in Tampa Bay, mostly along the southeastern, shore (TBNEP, 1996a).
Dl-5
-------
• *«£ -O
Ci
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port D: Tampa Bay
Chapter 51: Background
Salt barren!) (or salt flats or salinas) are created when low-lying land, typically behind a mangrove stand or tidal marsh on
slightly higher ground, is flooded once or twice a month during-spring tides. After the water recedes or evaporates, the area
develops into a hyper-saline habitat that supports low-growing succulent plants and attracts foraging wading birds.
The tidal influence of the bay reaches from 16.7 to 35,4 km (10.4 to 22 mi) upstream into the major bay tributaries, creating
vital nursery habitat for many Tampa Bay fish species. Extensive sampling of the Little Manatee River's tidal sections
showed heavy use in the lower 16 km (9.9 mi) by early life stages of estuarine fish species; (Peebles et al,, 1991}. Nearly 70
fish species, including Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, snook, red drum, spotted seatrout, spot, and striped mullet, use the
river as nursery habitat. The Manatee River estuary system encompasses the Free-flowing sections of both the Manatee and
Braden rivers! This area also provides critical nursery habitat for juvenile snook, spotted seatrout, striped mullet, red drum, ,
and many other Tampa Bay fish species (Edwards, 1991; Heyl and Zimmerman, 1997),
Dl-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors ' •. .
a. Hobrtat degradation and ioss ' • - ;
Intense development has led to profound land use changes in the Tampa Bay region (TBNEP, 1994). Satellite images show
that by 1989 developed land made up over 40 percent of Tampa Bay watersheds. Half of the original shoreline has been
developed, and nearly half of the bay's marshes and mangrove stands have disappeared over the past 50 years.
The bay itself has been physically modified by shipping channels that were dug to provide ocean vessels access to Tampa
Bay's major ports (TBNEP, 1994), Dredging to keep shipping channels open is an ongoing effort, with about J,million cubic
yards of sediment removed annually at a cost of S10 million. Although most dredging occurs in the deeper parts of the bay,
away from Sensitive habitats, suspended sediments from dredging can be carried to nearby sea grass beds'by prevailing water
currents, decreasing water clarity and ligftt penetration and thereby inhibiting sea grass growth. Disturbed sediment also
contributes to the overall nitrogen bad responsible for algal blooms in the bay. : -
The dredged material itself can have beneficial uses (TBNEP,, 1996a; Fonfereks 1997), For example, beach quality dredge
spoils placed on local beaches slow the erosion of dowadrift beaches, and enhance sea turtle nesting grounds and colonial bird
nesting.habitat. Most dredge spoils from the upper segments of Tampa Bay are deposited on two large spoils islands in
Hilisborough Bay, where they have created bird habitat. • '
Most Tampa Bay tributaries are altered to one degree or another by dams, channelization, flow alterations, or shoreline •
hardening as a result of residential and industrial development. The hardening and straightening of waterways affects
sensitive shallow water and shoreline habitats, prevents settling of sediments, and changes flow regimes, all of which
contribute to species declines (Clark, 1991). The largest dams, located on the Hilisborough and Manatee rivers, divert up to
one third of their annual flow to provide water for human uses,,. Dams blocking the Braden and Manatee rivers have prevented
snook and other fish species from using upstream nursery habitats in these rivers (Estevez and Marshall, 1997; Heyl and
Zimmerman, 1997).
b. Over-fishing '• '
Both commercial and recreational fisheries in Tampa Bay are tightly regulated because of intense fishing pressure. In the past
decade, most commercial fishing practices were banned to give depleted stocks a chance to recover, In 19^3, purse seining
was banned to protect bait fish species (e.g., bay anchovy) and in 1995, gill netting was banned to protect mullet and other
highly valued commercial species. . '
c. Eutropht cation
Eutrophication has been a major factor in the long-term decline of the Tampa Bay ecosystem (TBNEP, 1992a), Excess
nitrogen from partially treated sewage led to severe algal blooms starting in the early 1950*s. These blooms blocked light
reaching sea grass beds, reducing growth and survival. As sea grass beds were lost, aquatic species declined because sea
grasses provide critical nursery and feeding habitat for aquatic life throughout the bay, :
Starting-in the late I970's, improved municipal sewage treatment plants greatly reduced the amount of nitrogen released to the
Bay. The waters cleared up enough by the late 1980's to allow sea grasses to recolonize areas from which they had been
excluded to insufficient water clarity and tight penetration.
DI-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter bl: Background
Currently, most of the nitrogen loading to the bay comes from storrnwater runoff and atmospheric deposition
(TBNEP, 1996b). The distribution of nitrogen input to the bay is quite uneven. Hillsborough Bay receives by far the largest
share, nearly 40 percent of the total annual input. Eutrophicatton is one of the prime reasons that the extensive sea grass beds
that once fringed Hillsborough Bay have disappeared (TBNEP,
d. /Aquatic toxicants and contaminated sediments
Toxics of concern in Tampa Bay include heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc),
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated hydrocarbons (such as polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, and some
pesticides) (Carr el al., 1996; TBNEP, 1996a; Zarbock et a!.,1 1997). Some of these compounds bioaccumulate in food chains
and represent a long-term hazard to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans,
Toxicants enter the bay by several routes, including storm water runoff, atmospheric deposition, arid industrial and municipal
wastewater outfalls. There is a net transport of sea water and associated material along the axis of the main shipping channel
toward the head of the bay (Lewis and Estevez, 1988).
Several surveys and toxicity assessments indicate that high concentrations of contaminated sediments are found around
marinas, harbor facilities, large urban centers, storm water outfalls, and industrial outfalls (Carr et al., 1996; TBNJiP, 1996a;
Zarbock et al., 1997). The upper half of Hillsborough Bay is particularly affected, because of its industrial nature and the
presence of the Port of Tampa. Other areas of concern include parts of the western half of Old Tampa Bay, the Port of Saint
Petersburg, and sections of Boca Ciega Bay and Bayborough Harbor, both of which are located in Lower Tampa Bay
(Pmellas County).
The Slate of Florida routinely issues fish consumption advisories for Tampa Bay to protect pregnant woman and young
children from high levels of methyl mercury in certain fish species, including Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus macutatus),
the Crcvalle jack (Caranx hippos), (he gaffiopsail catfish (Bagrc marinas), the ladyflsh {Slops saurus), and several shark
species (TBNEP, I996a). Women of childbearing age and young children are advised not to consume more than one fish
meal per month. Other adults should consume no more than one fish meal per week.
e. Surface water withdrawals by CWIS
Steam electric power generation accounts for the single largest intake of -water from the Tampa Bay region, amounting to over
95 percent of all surface water withdrawals (USGS, 1995). PL Bartow, Big Bend, FJ Gannon, and Hooker's Point all
withdraw water directly from Tampa Bay. These plants employ once-through systems and do not recirculate their cooling
water. Combined, they accounted for an average intake flow of approximately 3,000 M<3D in i 997. Table D I -2 summarizes
cooling water intake flows of all utility-owned power plants, nonutilities, and manufacturing facilities of Tampa Bay.
DJ-8
-------
£
3^
•t-<
£/
"i
t?
LU
O
ea
a.
—
d)
JC
l^w
,£
105
._s
"u
o
LL.
S
'O
H—
O
VI
raeterisfi<
<3
u>
H
i
2
(2
11
™ a»
J3 w
l-^'
e.'**'
"* J B"
^> :te o
« S:
1 *
»•«
o ***
E "S?
W C
1*3
5 «*
Js.2
If
•^j.
a.
ao
Fi
^1
£*
•4-1
O
c«
ts
1*
O "5 ^
PS?
a s.cj
- . >
«>•
g
Plant Na
s
fgf
< U
1
z
p
CM
*«*
0
*A
0s.
IT
to
ft
, '
8
-
>.
««
?e ^p
g.j
|l
3100206
PL Bartow
3
o>
o
Q-.
O
!•*•>
tr
0
1
-3
"§;
e
o
s
tn
1
-g
pa
§
Ov
O
— .
CNl
*
c
o
|l
)
o
o
o
~-t
^
O
O
1
0%
0
oo
f^i
s
8
i
o-
o
n;J-
«—
*/"
C
O
s
f
g
(f:
•,
2
o
—^
^
O
o
ro
ro
O
in
C.
£
o
C3s
^
**'f*
§
O
1
s
o
CO
r-i
?
c
1
*2
1
C
1
c
o
(T5
J
c
!
r**
3
S
o
c^
fM
5
c:
'S
o
i
1
S
o
Q*
fM
5
£/)
O
o
1
t«
03
r^
O
SO
«0
'O
1
«.
o
*•£>
*^T
O
t/3
O
O
' C
*>»
*•
1
1
•. -_
C!
o
s^
1 1
&
-
V "
14 «;
3100206 ':^
c
P
o
|pinetlasC
j Resource
c Recovery
12
"^
-*s
«!
^
M
«*
nafactut
5
•«
^£>
•Sf
&0
Is
II
ccC
— j
fe'S
^ 1
S
o
Sw
__ £
*
w^
O'
M
C
I|
B o
&
«
-. |
..!
c^i ! '
^
i
• I
\ _
\
' •
B
' 1
S
,,.*..„
Water Jack',
__Purog^__
• b
S'pl
J S
51
' 1
1
o
.u •
1
Si
'; •
1 1
-------
I;
~ i
a
fc
I1
i
!,
.1
tud»es. Port D; Towpa Boy
w> ,
I
-^ :
-O !
w« '•
ro >
^_
|
*"^
ON
o\
§
1
£
o
1
8
S
a
u.
S
X
: CWIS Characteristics of §31
(VI
1
V-H
ft)
3
a
H
CO
g
S
M5
B
o
fcS
1
0
"u
re
^:
c-
e
_o
"1 h* §
-------
S 3l6(b) Case Studies, Part D; Tampa Bay
Chapter Dl: Background
Dl-3 SOCIOKONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Over 2 million people live in the three counties bordering Tampa Bay, The'region's three largest cities are Tampa (291,000
people), Saint Petersburg (241,000 people), and Clearwaier (104,000 people). '.
51-3.1 , Major Industrial Activities
Tampa Bay is home to ihree international harbors (TBNEP, 1996a). Petroleum product shipment is one of Tampa Bay's main
trade activities. On an average day, more than 4 million gallons of petroleum products and many other hazardous materials
pass in and out of Tampa Bay {TBNEP, 2001). Tampa Bay's three major ports are described below,
*• The Port of Tampa is Florida's largest harbor and ranks among the top 10 harbors nationwide in trade activity. Bulk
cargo ships are responsible for the movement of 25 million tons of phosphate and related products in Tampa Bay,
more than any other port in the world. The Port of Tampa is also becoming a premier cruise ship destination.
* Port Manatee is the fifth largest of Florida's 14 deepwater seaports. According lo the Tampa Port Authority, the •
Port of Tampa is responsible for 93,000 jobs and $ 10.6 billion in spending (Port Manatee, 2000; TPA, 2002).
•* The Part of Si, Petersburg specializes in one-day cruises, and is also the" aomeport for cruises to Mexico,
D 1-3.2 'Commercial Fishing
The once-active commercial fishing industry in Tampa Bay has declined dramatically because of over-harvesting and habitat
deterioration (TBNEP, J992b), The commercial fishery for snook has been closed since the 1950's. Commercial landings of
spotted seatroul dropped fourfold from the early !950's to the early 1980's. The red drum harvest decreased by 82 percent
until the fishery was closed in 1987, In 1993, purse seining was banned to protect bait fish species (e.g., bay anchovy) that
are important prey for other fish and birds. A ban on gill netting (the "Florida net ban"), implemented in 1995, seeks to save
declining stocks of mullet, which previously made up about half of all commercial landings of finfish and shellfish in Tampa
Bay, The ban also benefits other highly valued species, such as the spotted seatrout and sheepshead. Commercial landings of
finfish decreased by 47 percent between 1995 and 1996 as a result of the gill net ban (TBNEP, 1996a; Nelson et al., 1997).
Although commercial shrimping is the most important commercial fishery in Florida, a viable commercial shrimp fishery no
longer exisis in Tampa Bay. There remains only minor activity in food and bait shrimping of pink shrimp and other penaeid
species. The blue crab commercial fishery is the fourth largest in Florida, but the harvest of blue crab in Tampa Bay
generates less than 5 percent of Florida's west coast commercial landings (TBNEP, I992b). The harvest of oysters and clams
has been severely restricted or closed altogether because of documented Or presumed, contamination by fecal pathogens that
enter the bay from various point and noopoint sources {TBNEP, 1996a). . . • [ ' -
Dl-3.3 Recreational Fishing
Tampa Bay provides recreational fishing opportunities for many sought-after species, including snook, spotted sea trout,
tarpon, and red drum (TBNEP, 1992b). To characterize recreational fishing in the Tampa Bay area, EPA relied on the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (M.RFSS) (NMFS,' 200la). The MRFSS found that each year anglers fishing
from shore and private or rental boats spend 60.3 and 53.5 days fishing in Tampa Bay and adjacent coastal sites, respectively,
Tampa Bay fishermen lend to travel relatively,short distances, on average 15.1 miles for single-day trips. Fishermen taking
single day trips spend an average of $21,37 per day in pursuit of their target species. ' '
From 1997 to 1999, recreational anglers in Tampa Bay caught an annual average of: • :
»> 72,233 black drum . ',
*• 45,411,292 spotted seatroul :
•> 783,407 sheephead : -• '
Includes travel and boat expenditures for single-day trips and travel, lodging, and boat expenditures for multiple day trips.
Dl-ll
-------
8 316(b) Cose Studies, Port D: Tampa Bay
Chapter Dl: Background
Table Dl-3 shows that anglers spent an estimated 6,4 million days fishing in Tampa Bay and adjacent coastal sites. The
NMFS data indicate that the number of angler days spent in the case study area accounts for 88.004 percent of the total angler
days in western Florida. . ;
Table Dl-3: Results of MRFSS Analysis of Fishing Participation in Tampa Bay and Adjacent Coastal Sites
Fishing Mode
Private or Rental Boat
Shore
Charter Boat
Total
,_JQ!;!2L!!*^ aLZSPJgg J^-ff^8-8'*** ,„
3,285,506
! 2,783,465
: 361,258
j 6,430,229
01-3.4 Other Water-Based Recreation j
a. Recreational viewing !
Six state parks are located within the Tampa Bay region. These parks offer the opportunity to view popular marine species
such as sea turtles, bottlenose dolphins, and the endangered manatee. Sea turtles can occasionally be seen nesting on beaches
and within state parks. Dolphins are plentiful, and more than 500 reside in the bay year-round. They can be viewed from the
shore or from charter boats offering sightseeing tours. 1
Tampa Bay is also home to two national wildlife refuges:
* Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge is composed of 12,343 hectares (30,500 acres) of saltwater bays,
estuaries, and brackish marshes. The variety of habitats found in the refuge support approximately 250 species of
birds, 50 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 25 species of mammals. Endangered and threatened species on the
refuge include manatees, sea turtles, and bald eagles,
> Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge encompasses approximately 142 hectares (350 acres) and was established to
provide nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for brown pelicans and other migratory birds (National Audubon
Society, 2000). ' ' i
Tampa Bay provides bird watchers with numerous species to observe. From year-round residents to species that over-winter
in the region or pass through on their way to points further south, thousands of birds are seen daily in the Tampa Bay area.
Wintering species join the thousands of birds rearing their young in several breeding colonies found on islands in the bay,
where nests are safe from predators and disturbance. Many parks provide prime viewing spots for the avid birder, both on the
mainland and on Tampa Bay islands. Five of Florida's 45 Audubon Society chapters are located in the Tampa Bay area.
Table DM presents information from EPA's 1994 Survey of National Demand for recreational viewing in the Tampa Bay
estuary.1 The table lists all U.S. states from which at least one resident visited Tampa Bay on their last viewing trip during
1993. EPA estimated that about 7.1 million people used the Tampa Bay estuary for recreational viewing in 1993. These
visitors accounted for 18.4 million visits to the area. The survey results show that visitors came from 20 different states.
Ohio and Pennsylvania residents were the most frequent visitors, representing approximately 18.4 percent and 15.7 percent of
all viewers to the bay, respectively. Florida residents accounted for the highest absolute number of visits, 8.1 million,
representing roughly 44 percent of all recreational viewing trips toTampa Bay.
i
b. Swimming and boating
Tampa Bay has some 30 miles of sandy shoreline and seawalls (Tampa Bay Beaches, 2001), which feature some of the nicest
beaches in the Gulf of Mexico. Three Pinellas beaches — Caledesi Island, Fort DeSoto Park, and Sand Key Park — rank
consistently among the top 20 beaches in the nation for cleanliness, parking availability, and color and composition of the surf
and sand (Towery Publishing, 2000). These beaches offer various; water-based recreational activities, including boating,
swimming, snorkeling/scuba diving, parasailing, jet ski rentals, aqua bikes, and paddle boats.
Table Dl-4 presents information from EPA's 1994 NDS Survey of National Demand for Recreational viewing in Tampa Bay.
Dl-12
-------
a
1
13J
£
a
.1
1
-O
o
<8 s .
£X tu
— -S
. i
I s? M
i- 'S *J
15'
*•?
H »]
o»
I
.f
-S *-*S >
<« Jg O
Q
S
0
U
S
Q
f
« S
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D2; Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
of
:
CHAPTER CONTENTS
&, i'*
.-D2-1 "^Operational Praffies ,
:.,... D2-1
...^.302-5
This chapter presents technical information related to the
ease study facilities. Section D2-1 presents detailed
Energy Information Administration' (ElA) data on the
generating units addressed by this case study and within
the scope of the Phase II rulemaking (i.e., in-scope
facilities). Section D2-2 describes the configuration of the
intake structures at the in-scope facilities.
D2-1 OPERATIONAL PROFILES
Baseline operational characteristics
a. Big Bend
During 1999, the Big Bend power plant operated seven units: four coal-fired steam-electric generators (Units 1, ST2-ST4)
that use cooling water withdrawn from Middle Tampa Bay, and three oil-fired gas turbines (Units GT1-GT3) that do not
require cooling water. Three of the steam-electric units began operation between 1970 and' 1976; the fourth steam unit began
operation in 1985.
Big Bend's total net generation in 1999 was 9.1 million MWh. The steam turbine units (Units 1 .ST2-ST4) accounted for 99.2
percent of total net generation. The capacity utilization of Big Bend's steam turbine units ranged from 53,7 percent (Unit
ST3) to 57.3 percent (Unit ST2). '•
Table D2~l presents details for Big Bend's seven units.
Table D2-1: Big Bend Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit ID
1
ST2
ST3
ST4
OTI
GT2
OT3
Total
Capacity
(MW}~
446
•446
446
486
18
79
79
1,998
Prime
Mover*
ST
c~r
b 1.
ST
ST
GT •
GT
GT
Energy
Source*1
BIT
BIT
BIT
BIT
.. FQ2
FO2
FO2
In-service
Baie
Oct. 1970
Apr. 1973
May 1976
Feb. 1985,
Feb. 1969
Nov. 1974
Nov. 1974
•
Operating Status
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating '
Net
Generation
(MWh)
.2,220,110
2,235,357
2,094,605
2,502,326
70,101
9,122,499
Capacity
Utilization'
56,9%
57.3%
53.7%'
, 58.8°>«
4.6%
'
52.!%
It) Of
Associated
CWIS
OTC1
OTC2 •
OTC3
OTC4
Not
Applicable
" Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine% GT = gas turbine.
11 Energy source categories: BIT = Bituminous Coal, FO2 = No. 2 Fuel Oil. ;
f Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at fall capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days). , '
Source:U.S; DOE, 200ib; U.S. DOE, 2001a (Nee Generation and CWS ID); U.S. DOE, 200W (GTNet Generation).
D2-1
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port Dr Tampa Bay
Chapter 02: Technical Description of Case. Study Facilities
Figure D2-1 below presents Big Bend's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
Figure D2-I: Big Bend Net Electricity Generation 1970-2000 (in MWh) :
14,000.000
4,000.000
2,000.000
1970
2000
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Id.
b. F.J. Gannon
During 1999, the F.J, Gannon power plant operated seven active units. Six of these are coal-fired steam-electric units that use
cooling water withdrawn from Hillsborough Bay (Units 1-6). The seventh unit is a small gas turbine (GT1}. The-steam-
electric units began operation between September 1957 and October 1967,
F.J. Gannon's tolal net generation in 1999 was 5.0 million MWh. The capacity utilization of the steam units ranged from 38.4
percent (Unit 6) and 55.8 percent (Unit 5).' Table D2-2 presents details for F.J. Gannon's seven units. It should be noted that
this information represents pre-repowering operating conditions arid may no longer be applicable once the conversion to
combined-cycle units is completed.
Figure D2-2 below presents F.J. Gannon's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000,
' Unit 6 experienced an explosion in April 1999 (Hundley, 1999) and was off-line for approximately two months. Net generation and
capacity utilization for Unit 6 may therefore under-rcprcsent "normal" operating conditions.
D2-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part D: Tampa Boy
Chapter D2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Table 52-2; F.J. Cannon Generator Characteristics'(1999)
Unit 10
1
2
*>
4
5
6
GTI
Total
Capacity
(MW)
125
125
180
188
239
446
. IS
1,320
Prime
Mover8
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
GT
Energy
Source1*
BIT
BIT
BIT
BIT
.BIT
BIT
FO2
In-Service
Bate
Sep. 1957
Nov. 1958
Oct. 1960
Nov. 1963
Nov. J96S
•Oct. 196?
Mar. 1969
Operating Status
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Net
Generation
(MWh)
476,668
434,66?
725,338
655,398
1,170,215
1,500,422
3,736
4,966,444
Capacity
Utilization*
43,5%
39.7%
46,1%
39.9%
55.8%
38.4%
2.4%
43.0%
ID of
Associated
CWIS
OTCI
OTC2
OTC3
OTC4
OTC5
OTC6
Not
Applicable
a Prime mover categories: ST ~ steam turbine; GT = gas turbine. ;
11 Energy source categories: BIT = bituminous eoai; FO2 = No. 2 Fuel Oil.
1 Capacity utilisation was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation, if the unit! ran at Jiill capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days),
Source: U.S. DOE, 2001 b; U.S. DOE, 200 la (Net Generation and CWIS ID); U.S. DOB, 200 Id (GT Net Generation);
Figure D2-2: FJ, Gannon Net Electricity Generation 1970-2000 (in MWh)
r.ooo.ooo
6,000,000
5,000.000
4,000,000
1
a 3,000,000
2.000,000
1.000,000
1970
2000
Somve: U.S. DOE, 200Id.
D2-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part t>: Tampa Bay
Chapter D2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
c. Hookers Point \
During 1999, the Hookers Point power plant operated five units. All units are oil-fired steam-electric units that use cooling
water withdrawn from Hillsborough Bay. The five units began operation between My 1948 and May 1955.
I
Hookers Point's toial net electricity generation in 1999 was 184 thousand MWh. The capacity utilization of Hookers Pointfe
unils is low, between 7.6 percent (Unit 4) to 12.2 percent (Unit 3), fpr a plant total of 9.0 percent.
Table D2-3 presents details for Hookers Point's five units. I
Table D2-3: Hookers Point generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit ID ; CaPaciV
unitl° j (M\V)
1 i 33
2 :- 35
3 35
A 49
5 82
Total 233
Prime
Mover*
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
Energy
Source1'
F06
FO6
FO6
FO6
FO6
In-Servicc
Date
Jul. 1948
Jun. 1950
Aug. 1950
Oct. 1953
May 1955
Operating Status
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Net Generation
(MWh)
22,261
34.747
36,899 . - -
32,520
57,230
183,65?
Capacity
Utilization"
7.7%
11.5%
12.2%
7.6%
8,0%
9,0%
TO of Associated
CWIS
. OTC1-4
OTC1-4
OTC1-4
OTCl-4
OTC5
* Prime mover categories ST » steam turbine. ,'
k Energy source categories: FO6 = No. 6 Fuel Oil.
* Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at Ml capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Sourvc: U.S. DOE. 2001 b; U.S. DOE, 2001 a (Net Generation and CWIS ID).
Figure D2-3 below presents Hookers Point's electricity generation History between 1970 and 2000.
Figure D2-3: Hookers Point Net Electricity Generation 1970-2000 (in MWh)
1,400.000
1,200,000
1,000.000
£ 800,000
a
600.000
400,000
200.000
1970
197S
1995
2000
Source U.S. DOt-,200ld.
D2-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
d. P.L, Bartow • ' ' • -
During 1999, the P.L, Bartow power plant operated seven units. Three are steam electric units, two oil-fired, (Units ST1-ST2)
and one natural gas-fired (Unit ST3). The remaining four are smaller gas turbine units, two oil-fired (PI, P3) and two natural
gas-fired (P2, P4). The steam turbine units began operation between September 1958 and July 1963 ("Units STI-ST3). The
gas turbine units all began operation in May and June of 1972 (P1-P4).
P.L, Barlow's total net generation in 1.999 was 2.6.m!Hkm MWh. The steam-electric units accounted for almost 95 percent of
total net generation. The capacity utilization of these three units was between 47.6 percent (ST2) and 62,5 percent (ST3).
Table D2-4 presents details for P.L. Bartow's seven units.
Table' b'2-4: P4-. Bartow Generator' ehoroctgristics (1999)
Unit ID
ST1
ST2
ST3
PI
P2
P3
P4
Total
Capacity
. (MW)
1-28
128
239
56
56
56
56
717
Prime
Mover*
ST
ST
<2*T
OT
GT-
OT
GT
Energy
Source*
FO6
FO6
NO
FO2
NO
FO2
' MO
Iti-Servlce
Date
Sep. 1958
Aug. 1961
Jut. 1963
May 1972
Jim. 1972
Jfun. 1972
Jun, 1972
Operating Status
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Net
Ceneration
.(MWh) •
582,039
531,551
1,310.304
139,587
. 2,563,481
Capacity
Utilization'
52.1%
47,6%
62.5%
7.1%
40.8%
ID of
Associated
•cwis-
. 1
1
I
Not
applicable
a Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; OT = gas turbine.
* Energy source categories: FO6 « No. 6 Fuel Oil; NO = Natural Gas: FO2 = No. 2 Fuel Oil.
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at fait capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours* 365 days). . •
Source: U.S. DOE, 2001 b; U.S. DOE, 2001 a (Net Generation and CWIS ID); U.S. DOE, 2001d (GT Net Generation);
. Figure D2-4 below presents P.L. Bartow's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
D2-2 CWIS CONFIGURATION AND WATER WITHDRAWAL
This section describes cooling water intake structure technologies at the case study facilities.
a, Hookers Point .
The Hookers Point, facility is located in the Sparkman Channel, upstream of the Tampa Bay, approximately 25 miles from the
mouth of the bay. The facility has two intake structures, each intake supplies a separate once through cooling system. These
intakes are both submerged shoreline intakes. •
According to survey data, the facility withdraws approximately 70 million gallons per day (MOD). An estimated design
intake flow (DIP) was calculated at 123 MGD for this facility.2
Hookers Point al$o employs a passive intake system at its intake structure. •
2 Design intake flows were not requested in the short technical survey. As such, an estimated DIP was calculated for these facilities,
using other information about the facility (actual intake flow and operating days), :
D2-5
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part t>: Tampa Bay
Chapter t>2: Technical Description of Case. Study Facilities
2000
Figure D2-4: P.I,.. Bartow Net Electricity Generation 1970-2000 (in MWh)
4.000.000
3.500,000
3.000.000
2,500.000
2,000.000 ;—
1.500.000 -
1,000.000 -
500.000 •; " —
1970
AouwU.S. DOE, 200Id,
b. P.L. Bartow !
The Bartow facility is located in a northwest branch of Tampa Bay, approximately 15 miles from the mouth of the bay. The
facility has one intake structure located in a manmade canal on the bay which supplies water to a once through cooling
system. The canal is 1180 feet in length and 25ft deep at the intake structure. The facility has a design intake flow of 476
MOD, according to survey data. >
The intake structure is comprised of six subsurface intake bays flush with the shoreline. Each intake bay is similarly designed
and has a design through-screen velocity of 13 ft/sec. Cooling waier first passes through a trash rack, and then a vertical
traveling screen. The screens do have a spray wash system for debris, which empties directly into the bay. Cooling water is
discharged via a separate channel.
c. Big Bend !
Due to the presence of fine mesh traveling screens and a fish conveyance at Big Bend, the benefits analysis is separated into
two distinct scenarios: the first, an analysis with these technologies functioning and the second with them not in use. The
distinctions arc explained below. \
«... '
v Scenario 1
Big Bend Power Station is located along the eastern shore of Tampa Bay, approximately 20 miles from the mouth of the bay.
The facility has two intake structures, each supplying two generating units and their respective cooling systems. Both intakes
arc once through systems and located in an intake canal of over 3000 feet in length. The facility has a design intake flow of
1395 MOD, according to survey data. Originally, the facility was to use a closed cycle recirculating cooling systetn-a spray
channcl-for its cooling needs. However, during its construction in 1975, Tampa Electric concluded that this technology was
not necessary for Big Bend to comply with the recently developed 3)6 requirements and a once through with dilution, system
D2-6
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part t>: Tampa Bay
Chapter 52: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
was constructed instead. (Stone and Webster, 1980a) The dilution pumps have since been taken permanently offline.'(U-S.
EPA,2001c)
Each intake structure is made up of 4 intake bays. Cooling water passes through a double entry/single exit traveling screen
(dual flow with 3/8" mesh sue) with a spray wash for debris. The design through screen velocity is approximately 9.5 ft/sec,
(U.S. EPA, 200lc) although previous documents showed that the design through screen velocities for Units 1-3 were
approximately 1,93 ft/sec. {Stone and Webster, 198Qa). ,
Based on the findings from a monitoring study (Stone and Webster, I980b), a fine mesh traveling screen (with a spray wash)
and a fish conveyance (which empties beyond the influence of the facility) were installed on Intake 2 to. reduce entrainment
mortality. These technologies are operated from March 15 to October 15*, in place of the conventional intake technologies,
which are returned to use in the other months. These screens have been found to be between 86% and 95»/i effective in
reducing entrainment when operating, but have encountered operational difficulties in the past that may inhibit their
effectiveness. However, for this scenario, it was assumed that the technologies are fully operational.
*** , Seen aritr 2 .:'.•' ;
The facility designed and installed a fine mesh traveling screen with a fish conveyance in 1985 when Unit 4 was built. .It was
intended to operate from March 15* to October 15lb» the period of highest potential entrainment for the waterbody. However,
due to operational problems with siltation in the screen weli, there have been periods when the fine rnesh screens were not .
implemented as required. In addition, dredging of the screen well has not been performed, as it may interfere with nearby
manatee populations, For this scenario, it was assumed that the fine mesh screen and fish conveyance are non-functioning,
thereby possibly requiring Big Bend to implement further technologies to reduce impingement and entrainment,
d. F.3". Gannon , '•
Gannon Station is located approximately 25 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay in the northeast section of the bay. The
facility's cooling water system is once through and has one intake structure with six intake bays, one for each generating unit.
The intake is located in a II00 ft intake canal with a skimmer wall for intake bays 1,2, and 3. According to' survey data, the
facility has a design intake flow of 2465 MOD. ' • :
Not all intake bays are similarly designed, Bays 1 and 2 have trash racks and the others do not. Bays 1,2, and 3 use a
vertical traveling screen, whereas bays 4, 5, and 6 each have a double entry/single exit traveling (dual flow) screen. The
design through screen intake velocity varies between bays from 1.02 ft/sec (bay t) to 1.61 ft/sec (bay 6). .
D2-7
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part £}: Tampa Boy
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Although I&E data are available for the Big Bead facility,
l&B data have not been collected at any other Tampa Bay
CWIS. Thus, to estimate the potential cumulative impacts
of all iii-scope facilities of Tampa Bay, EPA extrapolated
Big Bend's l&E rates to other Tampa Bay CWIS, as
described in this chapter. Section D3-1 lists fish aijd
shellfish species that are impinged and entrained at Big
Bend, Section D3-2 summarizes the life histories of the
species most often impinged and entrained, and Section
D3-3 describes the methods used by Big Bend to estimate
l&E. Section D34 presents results of EPA's analysis of
annual impingement at Big Bend, and Section D3-5
presents annual entrainment results. Section D3-6 outlines
the methods used by EPA to extrapolate Big Bend's l&E
rates to other in-scope facilities in Tampa Bay. Section
D3-7 presents impingement extrapolations, Section D3-8
presents entrainment extrapolations, and Section D3-9
summarizes the cumulative l&E impacts of all in-scope
CWIS of Tampa Bay. The methods used by EPA to
analyze I&E data are described in Chapter A5 of Part A of
this document,
D3-1 TAMPA BAY AQUATIC SPECIES
VULNERABLE TO I&E
CHAPTER CONTENTS
D3- !
1)3*2
03-3
• .„
D3-4-
D3-5
D3-6f
'*
D3-7
DJ-8
Tampa Bay Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E._... D3-1
Life Histories of Primary Species Impinged
andEntrained '.,'.,..., 7,...",, D3-3
Big Bend Impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring Methods , , D3-14
Annual Impingement at Big Bend D3-14"
AnnuarEntrainraent at JBig Bend .,: >•>-, D3-15"
xf PA'S Methods"for Extrapolating Blend's I&E -
• Jbtfes to Othcc in-Scoge Facilities of Jampa Bay. ,D3-15*
, EPA> Estimates of Blg'Bend's Impingement , ,^~
Extrapolated toother In-Seopt, Facilities of- ,j.
' JEPA's Estimates, of Big B
to "
...,. ---- ¥i. ,„.,-,..,. v..^ .
tStmulative ImpaetsrSummKy of S"otal l&&,
"
, 03-15
f Byajuaftnurftecent LarvaL _ ^ ^_ f <--
' as Indicators
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of t&E Data
Table D3-1: Major
Common Name
Atlantic blue crab
Atlantic bumper
Atlantic spadcfish
Bay anchovy
Black drum
Blackcheek tonguefish
Chain pipefish
Clown goby
Code goby
Dusky pipefish
Feather blcnny
Florida stone crab •
Gutrkillifish
Gulf menhaden
llogchoker
Inland silverside
Lcatheijaeket
Leopard scarab in
Lined seahorse
Lined sole
Northern kingfish
Pigfish
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Puffer spp.
Rcdfm needlefish
Rough silversidc
Sand seatrout
Sealed sardine •
Shecpshead
Silver perch
Skilletfish
Southern kingfish.
Spotted seatrout
Striped anchovy
Tidewater silvcrsidc
Drum/croaker spp.
Herring spp.
Jaek/nompano spp,
Other invertebrates*
Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Big Bend Facility in Tampa Bay
( Scientific Name '
' Callinectes sapitiiis
\CMoroscombrus chrysurus \
iCItactodiplcrusfaber i
IAnchoa mitchitti
'; Pogonias cromis \
tSympkurus plagiusa
ISyngnathtts touisianac I
[Microgobius gtitosits ;
(Gobiosoma robtistum
\SyngntithttsJloridae
\HypsoblcnniitslienKi ;
\Menippe mercenaria
I Fundulus grandis grandis :
I Brevoortia patronus
\ Trinectes inaculatus \
sMenldia beryllina :
\Oligoptitas saurus \
[Pr'wnotm svttuhts
} Hippocampus erectus. I
\Achirus tineatus :
\Menlicirrhus aaxatilis
lOrthopristis cltrysoptera \
\Lagodonrhomboitlvs
'.Pcnaeus duorartttn duorarum
\Sphovroides spp.
'.Strongylwa notaia notata \
\Membras mariMca '<
! Cynoscion arenarittis '
llfarengulajagitana
\Archosargus probaiocephalus
\Bairdiclla chrysoitra
" Gobiesox strumosus
••Menticirrhus amcricanus '•
: Cynoscion nehitlasus :
IAnchoa licpsetus ;
\Menidiapeninsnlae
'-. Family Sciaenidae
i Family Clupeidae
: Family Carangidae
i
Commercial Recreational
X X
X . X
- '
X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X : X
X
X X
X
X
X
x • x
Forage
.. .,.,„,,.,,,,,,
X
x
' "x '"":
X
X
X
x,.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,: ,x_,.,. ; . .„ i
•'
' "x
:...:.;:,.,.:,:„ : :
x
•• • "^1 .
..* „..; , : j
x - • • •
'•*
;.2* :.::
^ • ' ,
x
x'
' Other invertebrates include other species of shrimp (such as arrow, burrowing, combclaw, glass, grass, longeyc, mantis, mud,
night, sargassum, snapping, and true shrimp), other species of crab (such as commensal, fiddler, hermit, horseshoe, marsh, mud,
mussel, pea, porcelain, spider, and true crab), barnacles, brief squid, jsopods, shellfish, sea squirts, segmented worms.'and tube
worms,
Sources'. Conservation Consultants Inc. 1977; U.S. EPA, ! 981. ;
D3-2
-------
S 316{b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I&E Data
D3-2 LIFE HISTORIES OF PRIMARY species IMPINGED AND ENTRAINED .; .
Bay anchovy {Anchoa mitchiilt} •
Bay anchovy is a member of the anchovy family, Engraulidae, Jt is one of the most common species in the Tampa Bay
estuary (TBNEP, 1992b), as well as one of the roost abundant species in estuaries along the mid-Atlantic region and
throughout the Gulf of Mexico (Wang and Kemehan, 1979). Bay anchovy range from Maine to the coastal Gulf of Mexico,
and young life stages can be found in every estuary in the Middle Atlantic Bight (Able and Fahay, 1998). ;
Bay anchovy are present in a wide range of habitats along the western Atlantic coast, from hypersaline ocean waters to tidal
fresh waters. They are more commonly found in shallow tidal areas and vegetated areas such as e.elgrass beds, feeding on
copepods and other zooplankton (Castro and Cowen, 1991), Eggs and larvae maybe more common in the higher salinity •
regions of the Tampa Bay estuary, where salinity is greater than 18 ppt {TBNEP., I992b).
The spawning period of bay anchovy in Tampa Bay lasts from spring through fall, peaking between April and July (TBNEP,
!992b), A study conducted in Tampa Bay found thai spawning began when water temperatures reached 20 °C (68 *F) and
ended by November (TBNEP, 1992b). Spawning typically occurs in water lessihan 20 in deep (65.6 ft) (Robinetle, 1983),
. and has been correlated with areas of high zooplankton abundance (Able and Fahay, 1998). Icthyoplankton collections
conducted in and around Tampa Bay suggest that bay anchovy spawn within the Tampa Bay estuary (TBNEP, 1992b).
Spawning generally occurs at night, and during peak spawning periods females may spawn nightly. Fecundity estimates for
bay anchovy in mid-Chesapeake Bay were reported at 643 eggs per spawning episode in July 1986 and 731 eggs per .
spawning episode in July 1987 (Zastrow et al, 1991).
The pelagic eggs are 0,8 to 1,3 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter (Able and Fahay, 1998).' Size of the eggs varies with
increased water salinity. Eggs hatch in approximately 24 hours at average summer water temperatures {Monteleone, 1992),
The yolk sac larvae are 1.8 to 2,0 mm (0.07 to 0.08 in.) long, with nonfunctioning eyes and mouth parts (Able and Fahay,
1998). Mortality during these stages is high (Leak and Houde, 1987),
Early juvenile stages of bay anchovy in Tampa Bay are approxiiruttely 15 mm (0.6in.) (TBENP, 1992b). Individuals hatched
early in the season may become sexually mature by their first summer (Robinette, 1983), The average size for adults is
approximately 75 mm (2.95 in.) (Morton, 1989). Bay anchovy live for only 1 or 2 years (Zasirow el al., 1991),
There was an important bait fishery for bay anchovy in Tampa Bay until 1993, when the fishery was closed because of a
declining population. Bay anchovy remains an important component of the food chain for recreational andj commercial fish
(Morton, 1989).
D3-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, PartD: Tampa Bay.
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I&E Data
BAY ANCHOVY
(Anchoa mitchilli)
Family: Engraulidae (anchovies).
Common names: Anchovy.
Similar species: Atlantic silverside.
Geographic range: From Maine, south to the Gulf of
Mexico.*
Habitat: Commonly found in shallow tidal areas with
muddy bottoms and brackish waters; often appears in
higher densities in vegetated areas such as eelgrass beds.*"
Lifcspiin: 1-2 years.'
Fecundity: Fecundity per spawning event is about 700
eggs. During peak spawning periods, females may spawn
nightly *
Food source: Primarily feed on copepods and other
zooplankton, as well as small fishes and gastropods.b
Prey for: Snook, spotted seatrout, white seatrout, gulf
flounder, and lizard fish.*
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
>• Eggs are 0.8-1.3 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter."
Laryae:
* Yolk-sac larvae are 1.8 to 2.0 mm (0,7 to 0.8 in.) on
hatching.8
*• Predation mortality ranges from 18 to 28% per day/
Juveniles':
*• Young-of-y'ear migrate out of estuaries at the end of
summer, and can be found in large numbers on the inner
continental shelf in fall,*
Adults:
*• The average adult is 75 mm (2.95 in.) long.1'
* Able and Fahay, 1998.
b Castro and Cowen, 1991.
' Ziuirow ct al., 1991.
4 Dorseyetal., 1996.
f TBENP. I992b.
' Leak and Houdc, 19S7.
* Vouglitois ct al., 1987.
k Morton, 1989.
Fish graphic from NOAA, 200 la.
Atlantic blue crab (£allinectes sapidus}
Blue crab belongs to the family Portunidae, also known as swimming crabs (Churchill, 1921). The Atlantic blue crab can be .
found in Atlantic coastal waters from Long Island to the Gulf of Mexico (Epifanio, 1995). Blue crabs are most abundant near
bays and river mouths, but are found in brackish or fresh water (Churchill, 1921;Tagatz, 1968). In Tampa Bay, megalopal
stage crabs are usually found at the base of estuaries or in seagrass beds, and as juveniles mature they migrate up the estuary
(TBENP, 1992b). Blue crabs generally are found in shallower water in the summer and deeper water in the winter.
In areas of upper Tampa Bay, blue crab mating occurs from midwinter through spring and in September in low salinity waters
of the upper estuary (TBENP, 1992b). Males can male several limes, but females are believed to mate only once (Tagate,
196S). After mating, females store sperm in seminal receptacles, where sperm can remain viable for up to 1 year. Females
then move into the high salinity waters of Tarnpa Bay or into the G.ulf of Mexico to spawn (TBENP,) 992b). Females that
mate in the fall usually wait until the following spring to spawn, when water temperatures are warmer (Tagaiz, 1968).
Spawning peaks in Tampa Bay occur in March or April with a second smaller peak in September (TBE'NP, I992b), The eggs
are carried externally by the female; during this stage females are referred to as "sponge or berried" (TBENP, 1992b).
Although females mate only once, they may spawn more than once (Tagalz, 1968), The second or third spawning usually
takes place later in the summer after the first spawning, or in the following spring (Tagatz, 1968; PattHlo et al., 1997).
Females usually produce 1 to 2 million eggs per spawning (Tagatz, 1968). Eggs are approximately 0,025 ram (Q.001 in.) in
diameter (Churchill, 1921). •
D3-4
-------
S 316{b) Case. Studies, Port t>: Tampa Boy
Chapter D3: Evaluation of IAE Data
The eggs hatch near high tide and the larvae are carried out to sea by the current (Epifanio, 1995), -This stage of the lifecycle
is called the zoeal stage. The zoea go through seven molts before entering the next stage, the megalops stage, and are carried
back to estuarine waters (Epifanio, 1995), The zoeal stage lasts approximately 35 days, and the megalops stage may vary
from several days to a few weeks (Epifanio, 1995), While in the zoeal stage along the continental shelf, larvae are vulnerable
to predators, starvation, and transport to unsuitable habitats. Larvae are especially vulnerable to predators while molting.
Dispersal of young Atlantic blue crabs is primarily controlled by wind patterns, and they do not necessarily return to their
parent estuaries (Epifanio, 1995), , ' :
The diet of the Atlantic blue crab varies with the crab's habitat, its life cycle stage, and the lime of the yearj and generally
depends on what food sources are available {TBENP, 1992b). North of Tampa Bay, in the Apalachtcbla estuary of Florida,
Laughlin (1982) found the primary food source for adult blue crabs to be bivalves. Smaller juveniles fed oh plant matter,
ostracods (small segmented crustaceans) and detritus, while larger juveniles consumed fishes, gastropods, plants and xanthid
crabs. Large juveniles and adults also fed on fishes, xanthid crabs, and smaller blue crabs (Laughlin, 5982), Atlantic blue
crab is also an important food source to upper level carnivores (e.g., spotted seatroul), and is a key species in the food web as
a scavenger-predator species (TBENP, 1992b). . ,
In Tampa Bay maturity is usually reached at 130-139 mm (5,1-5.5 in.) carapace width for females (TBENP, I992b). Male
crabs reach maturity after 1 year, when they are approximately 89 mm (3.5 in.) carapace width {TBENP, 1992b), The blue
crab has a life span of 3 to 4 years (Tagatz, 1968), Causes of mortality include fungal infection, predation,!CWIS, or
excessively high or low water salinities or temperatures (TBEls'JP, 1992b). Larval mortality is more often the result of water
temperature and salinity extremes, whereas juvenile mortality is usually the result of exceeding the estuarine carrying capacity
(TBENP, 1992b), '
Total annual landings of commercial Atlantic blue crab along the west coast of Florida equaled 2.5 million kg (5.5 million Ib)
in 1991. Commercial landings of Atlantic blue crab from Tampa Bay-contribute approximately 3.6 percent of Florida west
coast landings annually (TBNEP, I992.b). In 1987, the proportion of Gulf of Mexico landings to U.S. national landings
.reached its peak at 38 percent; since 1990, it has declined to less than 30 percent (Pattillo et al., 1997), Landings in the Gulf
of Mexico peaked in 1988 at approximately 35,8 million kg (79 million Ib) and were approximately 28.1 million kg (62
million Ib) in 1996 (NMFS, Fisheries Statistics'and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland, personal communication,
May 2001). . :
D3-5
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter 53: Evaluation of ME Data
ATLANTIC BLUE CRAB
(Callincctes sapidus)
Family: Portunidae (swimming crabs).
Common names: Blue crab.
Similar species: Lesser blue crab (Callinectes simllis).
Lifcspan: Up to 4 years. Maturity is reached at 18
months."
Geographic range: Atlantic coast from Long Island to the
Gulf of Mexico.'
Habitat: Inhabit all areas ofthe Tampa Estuary. In
warmer weather they occupy shallow areas less than 4 m
(13 ft) deep. They burrow into the bottom of deep
channels and remain inactive in winter/
Fecundity: Typically mate once in their lifetime. Mating
occurs in low salinity areas. Females lay two to
three broods of 1 million eggs each.*
' Food source: Atlantic blue crabs are otnoivores, foraging on
: molluscs, myskis, shrimp, small crabs, worms, and plant
: material."
; Prey for: Juveniles are preyed upon by a variety offish (eels,
striped bass, weakfish) and are heavily preyed upon by adult
blue crabs.11 Adults are prey for fish such as spotted seatrout, red
drumi sheepshead, and black drum, as well as raccoons and bird
species,b
Life Stage information:
>, Eggs hatch near high tide."
Larvae:
*• Larvae are carried out to sea by the current, where they
remain for seven molls before returning to estuaries,"
» Larvae are carried back into estuaries during the megalops
stage
Adults*.
>• Males prefer the lower salinity in upper parts ofthe bay,
whereas females prefer the mouth ofthe bay.8
*• Although mating occurs only once, females may spawn two
to three times.8
" Epifanio, 1995.
* TONEP, I992b.
agafs, 1968.
Graphic from U.S. FDA, 2001.
Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus) ;
Spotted .seatrout is a member ofthe drum and croaker family Sciaehidae (Froese and Pauly, 2001). It is commonly found
throughout the Gulf of Mexico and ranges along the Atlantic coast from Cape Cod to Florida. As a top carnivore within its
ecosystem and a popular sport fish, it is both ecologically and economically important in Tampa Bay (Lassuy, 1983).
Spotted seatrout complete their entire life cycle in inshore waters (Lassuy, 1983), and there is little interestuary movement
(Pattillo et al., 1997). Larvae are found in central Tampa Bay, while juveniles and adults are more commonly found in
ncarshore, vegetated seagrass areas (TBENP, 1992b). Juveniles may also be found in marshes and unvegetated backwater
areas (McMichaol and Peters, 1989). Historical seagrass bed loss, particularly in Hillsborough Bay and the upper half of Old
Tampa Bay, partly accounts for seatrout decline in Tampa Bay. This population may not fully recover until seagrass beds
repopulate most of their historical range (TBNEP, I992b).
Spoiled seairout spawn in Tampa Bay from early April through October, with two major seasonal peaks in the spring and
summer. Minor monthly peaks associated with the full moon also occur (McMicbael and Peters, 1989). Based on the
distribution of larvae within the Tampa Bay estuary, McMichael and Peters (1989) determined that spawning occurs in the
middle and lower bay, and possibly in nearshore gulf waters.
Females may lay up to 0.75 million eggs per spawn, or up to 10 million eggs annually (Thomas, 2001). Eggs ofthe 'spotted .
seatrout are approximately 0.9 mm (0.036 in.) in diameter (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, J980a). Hatching
occurs after 40 hours at a water temperature of25 °C (77 *F). Larvae hatch out at approximately 1.3 mm (0.05 in,) standard
D3-6
-------
§ 316(b) Co.se Studies, Part b: Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of ME Data
length and become demersal after 4 to 7 days (Lassuy, 1983); Transformation to the juvenile stage occurs at 10 to-12 ram
(0.39 to 0.47 in.) (Pattillo etal, 1997). '. '• •
Most females reach maturity by 220-240 mm (8.7-9.4 in.), while all males are fully mature by 200 mm (7.9] in.) (Pattillo et al.,
1997). Estimated maximum ages for spotted seatrout are 6 to 8 years for females and 5 to 9 years for males (Pattillo et al.,
1997). ' '; '
The diet of juvenile spotted seatrout in Tampa Bay consists maioly of copepods. Once the fish reach approximately 15-30
mm (0.6-1.2 in.), they also eat fish and shrimp (McMichael and Peters, 1989), As adults, spotted seatrout are top carnivores,
and feed on several fish species in the Tampa Bay estuary, including bay anchovy, silversictes, code goby, clown goby, silver
perch, and mojarras (McMichael and Peters, 1989; TBENP* 1992b). , '
Spotted seatrout are a major component of both commercial and recreational fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1992, 637.8
billion kg (703.1 million tons) of spotted seatrout were landed in the Gulf of Mexico, of which 233.3 billion kg (257.2 million
tons) were caught in Florida waters (Pattillo et al., 1997). Landings in Tampa Bay have decreased from approximately
408,000 kg (900,000 Ib) in the early 1950's to approximately 91,000 kg (200,000 Ib) in the early 1980's, which may be
partially attributable lo the loss of seagrass habitat in the bay (TBENP, 1992b). !
SPOTTED SEATROUT
(Cynoseion nebulosas)
Family: Sciaenidae (drum family).
Common names: Spotted sealrout.
Similar species: Weakfish.
Life-span: Up to 8 years for females and 9 years for
males.*
Geographic range: Atlantic coast from Cape Cod to
Florida."
Habitat: Primarily shallow, vegetated seagrass beds
within estuaries.*
Fecundity: Up to 0.75 million eggs per spawn, or up
to 10 million eggs per Female annually.'1
Pood source: Copepods, shrimp, and fish, including bay anchovy,
silversides, clown goby, silver perch, and mojarras.0* •
r
Prey for: Snook, tarpon, barracuda, Spanish mackerel, king
mackerel, bluefish.* . I
Life stage information:
Eggs: ' . !
*• Eggs are approximately 0.9 mm (0.036 in,) in diameter.8
' Larvae;
*• Larvae are found in the deeper central areas of Tampa Bay.6
Adults:
*• Decline of spotted seatrout can be attributed to the loss of
historical seagrass habitat.c'f ;
" Murphy and Taylor, 1994.
Froesu and Pauly, 2001.
'TBENP, I992b,
d Thomas,2001.
' McMichael and Peters, 1989.
r TBNEP, 1992b.
Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980a,
GranhicJrarnJJ,aEPA,2002b.
D3-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter £>3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum duorarum) ;
Pink shrimp range from the lower portions of Chesapeake Bay to the Florida Keys and along the Gulf of Mexico (Perez
Farfante, 1969). Large populations are found off the southwestern coast of Florida and the southeast portion Of the Gulf of
Campeche. Pink shrimp are found in the highest densities at depths of 11 to 35 m (36 to 115 ft), but are abundant to 65 m
(213 ft). Individuals have been found as deep as 330 m (1,082 ft) (Perez Farfante, .1969).
Pink shrimp was separated into two subspecies by Perez Farfanle (Costello and Allen, 1970). Penaeus duorarum duoarum
inhabits the northwestern Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, whereas Penaeus duorarum notialis is found in the
Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic coast of South America, and the Atlantic coast of Africa.
Adult pink shrimp prefer firm or hard sandy or mixed substrate bottoms (Williams, 1958; Perez Farfante, 1969). Juveniles
and subadults are more commonly found in seagrass substrates (Aujt et al., 1999). Adults can survive in waters ranging from
10 to 35.5 *C (50 to 96 *F) (Paltillo et al., 1997). Adults are primarily nocturnal, while postlarvae, juveniles, and subadults
are active during the day (Perez Farfante, 1969). Pink shrimp are bottom-feeders, ingesting algae, plants, crustaceans, and
fish larvae as well as mud and sand (Perez Farfante, 1969).
Females reach sexual maturity at approximately 69 to 89 mm (2.7 to 3.5 in.) total length, while males appear to be sexually
mature al 65 mm (2.6 in.) total length (Perez Farfante, 1969). Fecundity increases linearly with body weight, and fecundity
for females weighing between 10.1 and 66.8 g (0.4 to 2.4 02.) has been estimated at 44,000 to 534,000 eggs (Martosubroio,
1974), Pink shrimp move out of the estuary into deeper offshore waters to spawn, usually at depths of 3.5 to 50 m (11.5 to
164 ft) (Perez Farfante, 1969). Spawning occurs throughout the year, although there is evidence that spawning is more
intense during the spring and summer months (Cummings, 1961; P&rez Farfante, 1969), Eggs measure approximately 0.23 to
0,33 mm (0.009 to 0.013 in.) in diameter (Costello and Allen, 1970), and are opaque and yellow-brown.
Pink shrimp develop through several larval stages extending for 15 to 25 days in laboratory studies (Perez Farfanle, 1969).
As larvae progress tlirough their various life stages they range in size from nauplii, 0.35 to 0-61 mm (0.013 to 0.024 in.), to
protozoeae, 0.86 to 2.7 mm (0.03 to 0.11 in.), to myses, 2.9 to 4.4 mm (0.11 to 0.17 in.) {CosteUo and Allen, 1970), Lame
are more sensitive to water temperature than adults, growing normally only between 21 and 26 °C (69.8 and 78.8 F) (Pattilio
el al., 1997).
Advanced larval pink shrimp enter estuaries when they are approximately 8 mm (0.31 in.) (Costello and Allen, 1970). They
usually remain for 6-9 months before returning to open water as benthie juveniles, although some individuals may spend little
or no time in an estuary (Costello and Allen, 1966; Beardsley, J 970; Allen et al., 1980). A study conducted in the Everglades
National Park in Florida indicated that juvenile pink shrimp tend to rise into the surface waters during ebb tides to travel out
ofestuarine areas (Beardsley, 1970). Mark-recapture studies indicate that offshore adult populations are connected to specific
nursery estuaries (Costello and Allen. 1966), Pink shrimp production is highly dependent on survival and growth in these
nursery habitats (Sheridan, 1996). The average pink shrimp lives up to 83 weeks, but pink shrimp can potentially live for
over 2 years (TBNEP, 1992b). \
Pink shrimp are one of the most valuable species of commercial shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico (Perez Farfante, 1969;
Deardsley 1970; Sheridan, 1996). Annual landings in the gulf through the 1990Ts averaged about 8,200 metric tons (9,039
tons) (NMFS, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland, personal communication, May 2001).
The pink shrimp fishery off Florida is concentrated in the winter and spring months (Perez Farfante, 1969). The Tortugas
Grounds, off the southwestern coast of Florida, produced an average of 4,525 metric tons (4,988 tons) of shrimp tails between
1960 and 1980 (Sheridan, 1996). However, landings in Tortugas declined for unknown reasons in the 1980's, reaching a low
of 2,000 metric tons (2,204 Ions). Catches rebounded to over 4,000 metric tons (4,409 tons) by 1994 (Sheridan, 1996).
Ecologically, pink shrimp is an important food source for important gamefisb, including the spotted seatrout, snook,
mangrove snapper (Littjanus griseus), red grouper (Epinephelus mono), black grouper (Mycteraperca bonaci), and king
mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla). Bottlenose dolphins and many species of wading and diving birds also prey on this
organism (TBNEP, 1992b).
D3-S
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Boy
Chapter 03: Evaluation of !<&E Data
PINK SHRIMP
(Pcnacus duorarum duorarum)
Family: Palaemonidae.
Common 'names: Pink shrimp,
Similar species: Pink shrimp (Ptinaeus duorarum
Lifospam The average pink shrimp lives up to 83
weeks.b
Geographic range: From the lower portions of
Chesapeake Bay to the Florida Keys and along the
Gulf of Mexico,3
Habitat: Prefer firm or hard sandy or mixed substrate
bottoms.3*
Fecundity: Fecundity for females weighing between
10.1 and 66,8 g (0.4 to 2.4 oz.) has been estimated at
44,000 to 534,000 eggs.d . •
Food source: Algae* plants, crustaceans, and fish larvae as well as .
mud'and sand."
i
Prey for: Mangrove snapper, red grouper, black grouper, king
mackerel, bottlenose dolphins, and many species of wading and
diving birds,*1
Life stage information: .
Eggs: \
»•" . Eggs measure approximately 0,23 to 0,33 rani (0.009 to 0.013
in.) in diameter.'
•" Eggs are opaque and yellow-brown."
Larvae:
*• Advanced larval pink shrimp enter estuaries as developmental
nurseries when they are approximately 8 mm l{0.31 in,),"
Adults: '•
*• Pink shrimp are one of the most valuable species of commercial
shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico .*•'•*
Perez Faifante, 1969.
* TBNEP, 1992b.
c Williams, 1958.
Martosubroto, 1974.
" Costello and Allen, 1970,
' Beardsiey, 1970.
Sheridan, 1996.
Graphic from NOAA, 2Q02b.
Silver perch (Bairdlella chrysotira) •
Silver perch is a member of the family Sciaeriidae. It ranges along the Atlantic coast from New York to Flprida, and
throughout the Gulf of Mexico (Froese and Pauly, 2Q01). Of the 13 species of seiaenids in Tampa Bay, silver perch is one of
the roost abundant (TBENP, 1992b). Though silver perch are of little recreational and commercial value, they are an
important component of the food chain as both a bentbic predator and prey species of high abundance.
Silver perch spawn year-round in Tampa Bay and south Florida estuaries, with larval peaks occurring in April and May
(TBENP, I992b). Spawning seems to occur in deeper areas of bays and estuaries, although eggs have been found in offshore
waters, A study of 11 females weighing between 55.3 and 123.8 g (1.95 and 4.37 oz.) found an average fecundity of 90,407
eggs (Pattillo et al., 1997).. • i
Eggs are buoyant and range from 0.59 to 0.82 mm (0.02 to 0.03 in.) in diameter (Pattillo et al.,) 997). Incubation at a water
temperature of 20 °C lasts approximately 40 to 50 hours, while incubation at 27 °C lasts approximately 18'hours (Pattillo el
ah, 1997). Yolk-sac larvae hatch out at 1.5 to 1,9 mm {0.06 to 0.07 in:). The newly-hatched larvae remain; planktonic for
severa) weeks and sink to the bottom after Teaching 8 to 25 mm (0.3 to 1.0 in,). Larvae abundance peaks in April and May,
but secondary peaks also occur in August, September, and January. Small juvenile silver perch less than 31.0 cm (1,2 in.) long
are present during most months in Tampa Bay {TBNEP, 1992b). Silver perch reach the juvenile stage at 10 to 12 mm (0,39
D3-9
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port b- Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of 1AE Data
to 0.47 in.). The growth rate for juveniles during May through November is approximately 15 mm (0.59 in.) per month
(Pattilloetal., 1997).
Juveniles tend to prefer structural habitats such as seagrass beds, ro'c'ks, piers Jetties, and seawalls. They are often
numerically dominant in seagrass beds throughout Tampa Bay (TBlSlEP, I992b). In warmer months, shallow areas are
preferred. During the colder months, large juveniles and adults move to. deeper bay or offshore waters. Adult silver perch are
most often found in shallow coastal areas outside Tampa Bay, where salinities exceed 30 ppt (TBNEP, 1992b).
Sexual maturity is reached within the first year in the southern parts of its range. Maturity occurs at approximately 95 mm
(3.7 in.) for both males and females (Pattillo et al., 1997). Silver pebh may live up to 6 years, and can reach approximately
240 mm (9.4 in.) (Pattilloetal., 1997).
The silver perch is a benthic carnivore. Smaller juveniles (7 to 20 mm, 0.3 to 0.8 in.) feed primarily on crustaceans such as
copepods, mystds, amphipods, gammarids, shrimp, and crab larvae.; Large juveniles and adults feed mainly on mystds, fish,
and shrimp (TBNEP, 1992b). The silver perch is a known prey species for juvenile spotted sealrout in Tampa Bay (TBNEP,
I992b).
.B;
SILVER PERCH
(Bairdiella chrysoura)
Family: Sciaenidae.
Common names: Silver perch, silver croaker.
Similar species: Blue croaker.
Lifcspan: May live up to 6 years.8
Geographic range: Along the Atlantic coast from
New York to Florida, and throughout the Gulf of
Mexico.11
Habitat:- Prefer structural habitats such as seagrass
beds, rocks, piers, jetties, and seawalls.0
Fecundity: A study of 1 1 females weighing between
55.3 and 123.8 g (1 ,95 to 4.37 02.) found an average
fecundity of 90,407 eggs."
Food source: Juveniles feed primarily on crustaceans such as
copepods, mystds, amphipods, gammarids, shrimp, and crab larvae.
Large juveniles and adults feed mainly on my$ids,.fish, and shrimp.*
Prey for: Juvenile spotted sealrout."
t
Life stage information:
. Eggs:
>- Eggs range from 0.59 to 0.82 mm (0.02 to 0.03 in,) in
diameter.3
Larvae:
*• Newly hatched larvae remain planktonic for several weeks and
sink to the bottom after reaching 8 to 25 mm (0.3 to 1 .0 in.). *
L
Juveniles.'
> Smalljuvenile silver perch less than 3.0 cm (1 .2 in.) long are
present during most months in Tampa Bay.0
Adults:
+ Adults are most often found in shallow coastal areas outside
Tampa Bay."
' Pattillo et al.,1997.
* Froese and Pauly, 200 1.
; TBNEP, 1992b.
Graphic from Florida Fishajid_WndlifeCQnscryatigjLC^
D3-10
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part D.: Tompa Bay
Black dr'um (Pogonias cromis)
Chapter D3; Evaluation of We. Data
Black drum is one of the largest members of the family Sdaenidae (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries
Service, 2002). They are found from the Bay of Fundy south to Argentina (Fitehugh el al., 1993), BJack drum is a schooling
species, with a maximum abundance in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Schools estimated at hundreds of tons of black drum
have been observed in this area (Nieland and Wilson, 1993). Adults are found in offshore waters and enter esluarine habitats
only to spawn {Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service, 2002). • .
Female black drum reach maturity at approximately 628 to 699 mm (24.7 to 27.5 in.), corresponding to ages 5-6, and few
individuals reach maturity before age 5 (Murphy and Taylor, 1989; TSfieland and Wilson, 1993). Males mature when slightly
smaller (450 to 499 mm, 17,7 to 19,6 in.) and younger (2 years) than females (Murphy and Taylor, 1989) :
Males and females arc spatially segregated for much of the year, Fitzhugh et al. (1993) observed higher proportions of males
in offshore waters and higher proportions of females in inshore waters between November and May, the period of
reproductive development and spawning, '
Mature adults enter estuaries to spawn (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). Spawning in Tampa Bay takes place primarily in the
lower bay or nearshore waters, during the evening (Peters and McMichael, 1990; Saucier and Baltz, 1993)1 Females spawn
approximately every 3-4 days from November to M.ay {Fitzhugh et al., 1993), and spawning peaks in April or March (Murphy
and Taylor, 1989). Nieland and Wilson (1993) estimated that annual fecundity per female ranged from ISImillion eggs for a
small (5 kg, 11 Ib) age 11 female to 67 million eggs for a large (11,5 kg, 25.4 lb) age 19 female. Overall mean annual
fecundity in 3 years of studies was 38 million ova per female. • • '
Black drum eggs are buoyant and float on the surface (Saucier and Baltz, 1993). Eggs are approximately 0.8 to 1.0 mm (0.3 .
to 0,4 in,) in diameter (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). Eggs hatch after approximately 24 hours if waters are!20 °C (Pattillo-et *
al., 1997), . * ,
Larval development occurs in esluarine environments. Larvae inhabit bottom waters during the day and rise to upper areas of
the water column at night. In Tampa Bay, larvae are most abundant in late March, Larvae in Tampa Bay measure
approximately 1.8 to 73 mm (0.07 to 0.29 in.). Juveniles range from 10 to 210 mm (0.39 to 8,27 in.), Wlien they reach 100
mm (3.94 ;in.), juveniles disperse throughout Tampa Bay (Peters and McMichael, 1990). Adulis can live up to 50 to 60 years
(Murphy and Taylor, 1989). '. ' '.;
The feeding habits of black drum change with maturity (Peters and McMichael, 1990). Larval black drum feed on copepods,
while juveniles focus primarily on rnollusks and arnphipods. Adults mainly consume bivalves and gastropods. Black drum
larger than 30 mm' will also consume fish,
Biack drum are harvested commercially and recreationally in the Gulf of Mexico (Leard el al, 1993). The popularity of the
fishery increased through the late 1970's and 198G*s, most likely because of increased regulation of other Species such as red
drum (Scwenops ocellatus), expanding markets, and changes in preference. Annual landings in the Gulf oFMexico averaged
about 3,000 metric tons (3,306 tons) between 1981 and 1990 (NMFS, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver
Spring, Maryland, personal communication. May 2001). Pressures on the black drum fishery may increase because of further
catch restrictions on other gulf species (Beckman et al,, 1990). However, evidence suggests that the species would not
support intensive fishery because of slow growth associated with its longevity (Murphy and Taylor, 1989).: Landings were
somewhat lower in the 1990's than in the 1980% .averaging about 2,000 metric tons (2,204 tons; NMFS, Fisheries Statistics
and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland, personal communication, May 2001).
D3-11
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port D: Tampa Bay
Chapter t>3: Evaluation of I
-------
.S 316(b) Cose. Studies, Part D= Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I&E Data
week (Lindberg arid Marshall, 1984), Spawning may occur up to six successive times without another mating. The sticky
eggs are attached to the female until larvae are hatched in approximately 9 to 14 days (Ltndberg and Marshall, 1984).
Stone crab larvae are free-swimming and planktonic (Bert et al., 1978), Larvae pass through five zoeal stages, reaching the
First crab stage in approximately 27 to 30 days (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984). Larvae have very low survival rales due
primarily to predation from fish and other zooplankton (Bert et al,, 1978). A water temperature of 30 "C (86 *F) and salinities
of 30 to 35 ppt are optimal for growth and survival. Juveniles molt every 40 days for approximately 320 days until the adult
form is achieved at a carapace width of about 35 mm (1.4 in,). Predators of juvenile stone crabs include the mud crab
(Neopanope taxana), species of grouper, and black seabass (Centroprisiis striata) (Bert et al., 1978).
Adult males and females can grow to a carapace width of 130 and 145 mm (5.1 and 5.7 in.) for females and males,
respectively (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984), and may live up to 8 years or.more (Restrepo, 1989). Predators of aduli stone
crabs include species of octopi, the Florida horse conch (Pleuroploca gigantea), and sea turtles (Bert et al., 1978).
Stone crabs are a highly valuable commercial species. During the 1981-1982 season, annual landings in Florida were at a
high of 1.2 million kg (2,6 million Ib) of claws (Williams and Folder, 1986). Florida landings in 1990 were valued at over
SI 5 million (Restrepo, 1992). The fishery is unique in that the large claws are removed and the crabs are released, meaning
that they do not necessarily die from harvesting (Restrepo, 1992). Males have larger claws and thus ara most likely to be
harvested (Restrepo, 1989). Males are generally 2.25 years old at entry to the fishery. Claw regeneration to the legal size of
70 mm propodus length may take more than a year (Restrepo, 1992). . •
FLORIDA STONE CRAB
(Menippe mercenaria)
Family: Xanthadae,
Common names: Florida stone crab.
Similar species: Gulf stone crab ( Menippe adina).
Lil'cspan: May live up to 8 years or more.3
Geographic raiige: From North Carolina, around the
peninsula of Florida as far west as the Big Bend
region, and as far south as Belize.b
Habitat: Pilings, seagrass beds, and rocky areas.5
Fecundity: Females carry egg masses of up to 500,000
eggs, dependent on body size.u
i Food source: Feed on gastropods, bivalves, and small crustaceans/
Prey for: Juveniles are prey for mud crab, grouper, and black sea
bass. Adults are prey for species of octopi, the Florida horse conch,
and sea turtles/
Life stage information:
Eggs:
*• The sticky eggs are attached to the female until larvae are
hatched in approximately 9 to 14 days.8
Larvae: ;
*• Larvae are free-swimming and planktonic.
» Larvae pass through five zoeal stages reaching the first crab
stage in approximately 27 to 30 days,8 ' '
Adults:
The large claws of adults are harvested-and the adults are
thrown back to regenerate new claws. Claw regeneration to the
legal size of 70 mm propodus length may take more than a
year,'1
• Restrepo, 1989. .
" Nelson, 1992.
c Bert and Stevcly, 1989.
J Beck, 1995a.
Wilber and Hcrrnkind, 1986.
f Bert et al., 1978.
Lindberg and Marshall, 1984. '
Restrepo, 1992.
D3-13
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part.D: Tampc Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part b: Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I&E Data
displays estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) at Big Bend for the years of monitoring (1976-197? and
1979-1980), Table D3-3 displays those numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table D3-4 displays annual impingement of
fishery species expressed as yield lost to fisheries,'and Table D3-5 displays annual impingement expressed as production
foregone. .
The available data indicate that in the late I970*s mean annual impingement at Big Bend amounted to about4l9,286 age I
equivalents, 1.1,113 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 5,858 pounds of production foregone each year. Impingement losses
were dominated by silver perch, pink shrimp, and bay anchovy,
D3-5 ANNUAL ENTRAINMENT AT Bi& BEND
EPA evaluated annual entrainmeat at Big Bend Units 1 -4 using the methods in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document, The
species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix, D1. Table D3-o"displays estimates
of annual entrainment (numbers of organisms) at Big Bend for the years of monitoring (1976-1977 and J979-1980). Table
D3-7 displays those numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table D3-8 displays annual entrainment of fishery species
expressed as yield lost to fisheries, and Table D3-9 displays annual entrainment expressed as production foregone.
Results indicate that in the late 1 §70's, entrainment at Big Bend was substantial, and far exceeded impingement rates. Mean
annual entrainment amounted to over 7.71 billion age 1 equivalents, 22.8 million pounds of lost fishery yield, and nearly 47.9
million pounds of production foregone. The forage species bay anchovy accounted for most entrainment losses. Entrainment
of fishery species was dominated by black dram (99% of the total lost fishery yield).
D3-6 EPA's METHODS FOR EXTRAPOLATING Bis BEND'S I&E RATES TO OTHER IN-
SCOPE .FACILITIES OF TAMPA BAY . , -: :
EPA used the results from its detailed analysis of f&E at Big Bend as a basis for estimating I&E at other tn-scope CWIS of
Tampa Bay (Hooker's Point, PL Bartow, FJ Gannon). Extrapolation was necessary because there are no empirical data
describing actual l&E at these other facilities. Because intake characteristics, the fish community, and hydr.odynamic
conditions associated with the CWIS of Tampa Bay are similar, EPA assumed that i&E at Big Bend is representative of l&E
at other Tampa Bay CWIS and that I&E is strictly proportional to intake flow. EPA extrapolated.I&E separately using each
of the three l&E metrics discussed previously (age 1 equivalents, fishery yield, and production foregone). The results are
presented in Sections D3-7 and D3-8, and cumulative impacts of all Tampa Bay CWIS are summarized in Section D3-9.
Economic valuation of these baseline losses is discussed in Chapter D4 of this report. A RUM analysis of l&E losses is
presented in Chapter D5. Benefits of reducing estimated current l&E at Big Bend and other in-scope facilities are discussed
in Chapter D6-
D3-7 EPA's ESTIMATES OF Bis BEND'S IMPINGEMENT EXTRAPOLATED TO OTHER IN-
SCOPE FACILITIES OF TAMPA BAY . \
EPA's estimates of Big Bend impingement extrapolated to other in-scope facilities of Tampa Bay are presented in Table D3-
10 as age I equivalents, in 'fable D3-11 as foregone fishery yield, and in Table D3-12 as production foregone,
D3-8 EPA's ESTIMATES OF Bw BEND'S ENTRAINMENT EXTRAPOLATED TO OTHER IN-
SCOPE FACILITIES OF TAMPA BAY " :
EPA's estimates of Big Bend entrainment extrapolated to other in-scope facilities of Tampa Bay are presented in Table D3-13
as age 1 equivalents, in Table D3-14 as foregone fishery yield, and in Table D3-15 as production foregonev
D3-9 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS: SUMMARY OF TOTAL I&E OF TAMPA BAY IN-SCOPE
FACILITTES . • ; -
Tables D3-16 and D3-17 summarize the cumulative I&E-impacts of ail Tampa Bay in-scope facilities in terms of numbers of
age 1 equivalents, yield lost to fisheries (in pounds), and production foregone (in pounds). '
D3-15
-------
t&EData
**-
O
1
5
I
*&
1
1
1
35
1
1
id
.
§
ON
*-»
i
O^ *
I
i
•o
2
S
«_
|
E?
4-
O
g
C
I
H
g
^
OJ
S
£
II
° g
c
it
*o 15
(X §
11
07 fe
T3 **
l|
T> g
.5 T
S f
C/J
1
a.
•a "=
||
-Ida Stone
Crab
0
E
Jj=
P
sa o
11
ca D
S>8
a g
« s
73 3
< ca
1
CO ,
5
g;<
i
O r-.
en : oo
Ol : ' U*»
vo •! M j £i • oo"
! : :
t~i i ov ' "i . ; oo
O - ' CV ; U^
— • 0 - <~ • ft
^Ig-ssli
2 :S : 2 |m
oc i 03 oo ! ^
—•>—••—•
|||;|;<
oo" : oo" • oo* •
ov ' ' oc ««r
o> ; o ' ov : vo
^'S'-;S
rn ^ vo o ' Q^
OO ' o : VO ' O>
s'S'iis
— . O : — ' CO*
oo oo i cc : ^i
oo oo ; oo , g
j |i I-
|;|||!Q
oo
c>
c-
oc
r*-
s
1
r>i
Pi
S
oo
~*
O^
O
00
oc
ex
o
r-
oo
j;
S
s
vc
oc
oc
(2
rr
3
C
':§>
c.
o
o
31
'c •*.
*T3 .tS
O 3
.2? 5
If
Su
J"
O S
5* .a
5 u
s|
l!
1 S g-
u ^ *«
§2 S
1 S«g
1 1 ^ <
x£ C? CLi P_
CO
vH
s
a
^
*~<
*.
•T
I
Of
H-
O
S
JD
z
0
tl)
ta
a)
Ou
£
1
CQ
cn
£
•s
c*
xx.
e
c
-
i£
CM
01
rn
oo
£
•^
o
o
%
VO
cs
VO
OG
§
6
1
S
O
=
<2
00
ri
0?
M
^
S
VD
OC
OO
2
9
\D
5
p
VO
O
vo
m
O
s
-.
s
o
t/v
o'
m
Ov
VD
S
IS
s
J
u, s
ca t-
Sb'o 2
tp
<^ S &
o -5 ra
g S -2
fit
§0 . _.
«
f5'|ij
' §" g S &
% *£ & &
s "g S •§
'5 § E «
«? (SI ^ **~ 1>*
§ tS rl & 68 §
--< O <^ S O- *
IS »r^ ^ o ^ *t3
i 1 if I i
£ - & -B c-0.
| || J ||
s a •§ s ^ 'i.
J -S .0.5 3 g1
iiil il
*~* ,,0 Q S ^ 'S
1 1| Si 1 |
III! •«!
g- 5rt ""-^ g S ^S
'"'" O ^™ *^» *"" - *J3
1 | 1 1 | |
g i§ '§ s _i o y>
S. „ 3 c 1? o . J
g Js ~? .s u r §.
o &• ~ S, fe S
•|||f Illi
vo
»"-«
8
-------
01
Q
V?
8 .
JET
•4—
«s
o
_)
IS
>
8
T3
w
a> O
fe 00
9- os
liu V
«> ON
O) "O
a §
v> cr»
'5 *?
ftj x£3
O. fs.
VJ O\
M "of
E §
*t Q_
S °-
.S
S '*""'
c:
"5.
H
"3
«n
£}
0}
XI
ct
1-
•*•»
a
i<*
Jw
S
1
JS
w
P-
1
S5
1
C/3
1
.5
1
U
B
O
"2
g
S
,0
2
u
S
S
lack Drum i
P5
bt
a*
o
o
?^«
<-"*
oo
S
—-
CO
o
so
o
^
o
£
Os
r£
Os
S
vs
S
r-
1
00
i-s»
'*&
IN
R
O
as
r£
2;
ds
»T)
r**
g
i
>
VI
m
*£
fn
(^
r~
&
S
g
\o
t--
OCs
O
f>>
^o
rs
o
~
§
c
[5
o
o
"1
»•—
OO
S
-
OC
oo
"
>»
o
"*
R
?2
1
"g
VM
0
r*~
»n
oo
ot
g
S
V*i
*«-
5
Q
— ,
n.
*™*
•»
i
§
OS
o
sCJ
SO
S
"«S
O
y|
S <-*
' S|
-ll
00 JO
*i s
T!. -^>
3 5 '
•s 5
J'w
*~
ir*
,£P s*
.. «5
§ ^
- 1
JJ O
*zz ^5
4 i
- S S
^* rM ss
Ife 1" '
ls|
TJ § M' J
i"-0" |
i j ^ ^
S "i"S n
Jf ^ ci ff
xAlo:
o
«5
*<•*
1
1^**
.*"
T3
<3
S
1
N
o\
*"^
f
§
o
p.
.£
1
o
u.
•.g
i
au
8
1
SU
V
du
"O
6J
O*
i$
4—
1=
i
"H.
4.
§
^
•«c
tn
TO
£5
.2
a
o
«
w
^>
•*^
o
S3.
«J
'•g
gjj
1
so
s><
S
«
1
S
1
1-
s
1
B,
g
«
U
o
WJ
M
"0
•c
1
»n
(S
w
S
g
1 Black Brtr
K
S
u
a
S*
$3
IL.
__
S
f^
™
s
C3
§
«
0
s
*<£>
O
2
S
i
Os
O
CN
m
^
^
S
.,,, %,
oo
i.
oo
(Nl
^
O
r^
s
oo
£5
«
5
O
S
0)
^
1
sx>
o
ITi
o
-
E
E
25
ao
oo
fN
"'
0>
r>
^_
S
oo
Q
OT
— *
.
^
CS
«
I
' g
o a.
• -S -sf
IS
"£* S
4s 3
P- TJ
eo c
11
0 "-0
a,g>.
i^j «
S S
S3 O*
11
il
~t — ;
1'S
•3 3
££ ^
^ &
1& S
s S
- 8
<§' *2
E 5
c/r s
1!
' *j
r^ G
. O £O
T3 O f
Ji « 5^
= ^ i§
"S f,« «'
•& § 2 s-
J=r ^o *"* c:
ssli
o g. « .s
X | "- S
jj " (-; c;
< «i?-| «
z o s &:
-------
5 f
S;
UJ |;
S i
1
111
f
J" !
!
f
\
\
-•
I
|.
S"
g.
|H t
, 1
o
««
£
^ ^
1
m
S
1 ;•
**•% ;r
f J
***
1
5!
OJ
1
T-4
1
K
Ox
^
"2
u
*
o
"3"
M
"H
o
0
J
s
1
i
I
?
a
I
Estimates of
• •
vO
i
CO
o
2
l
|l
a
• j;
B|
Q>
*
5»*i
1
o
c
0
«d
^"s
10
.H
E
, ..
1 &
C4 4>
g S
jS
*" £
^1
c ^*
B
•j
I *
.£
0
S
Jay Anchovy i
k*4
o -a
S w
«s -a
7: es
e «3
If
< B
i-
1
i ;
S ;g
oC
in
§
^^ -^
= .^
00
OJ
** «••
^
in S
m , -^
— ^ ' in"
SO ! l~
0 : SO
"*! ': ^L
SO , 0|
_
04
"I
1 :2
o*.
o
o
04 J
00 ' S
-• ;
S ,
m . <
2 •'
•
os ' °s
S '«"
ON ; |^
»X "^
5,938,975427 ;
17,209,466,196 \
so 2
S
r*J "*C
9
o
»n
M"*
*A •<
Co . 2:
oo
r$
\o r-* ; ON o
t-v r- ? r** ao
CS O^ ON ON
? i r :
?N : £J f ON » * ON
§: o i o i $ ' o
_ i o ; o ; .2. : o_
ON • ON ; ON J • ON
vi : tn ; v*t ' "- «n
Vi V» • V* i V*
§o ; o ; • o
o • \o , . vo
""• i ~ , ""* i i oo j »rj
oo «n 1 — " i r-i • vo
— • ; r»- ^ vo ; r^ : fg
oo ^ 1 cT • vf ; \d*
Ti ;, -<>r I VO * O : O
TT ; oT • vo* • t^ : ON"
r-l ' 04 i o* i CH
f v» ; ; ^n
cs ' o I o" • <; * cT
ON " O^ J ON I *^ : ON
;jv * O^ * ON : ' ON
0:0jo-, ; 0
O* O ; O i ; O
r^ CN. t 01 I j ; oj^
oc" ' oo" i oo ^ S ' cc
Os Os ' Os • i'-* OS
oo , oo i oo_ ; : oo_
OO : OO i OC f ; OO
^ : ^ : jyT ; <^ ^r
0) : O4 ; - » Os
it : *** • OO [ in ; OO
04_ , Os ! ^ • M. ; "^
ct • os, i °i i o :• ™,
OC so ; 2 • ^ - ™
So • o : i o
; O i C3 '• • O
cT ; oT = CM "' ^ ^ of
so ' so ' so ; 'y • \o
oo • oo } oo : f~ { oo
of " oT i of j ! of
O» : O4 ' CN i ; 04
0 : 0 ; 0 • ; 0
in tn ' in . : in
in ; in ; in ; : >n
in . v-T i in" ; <; ; in
m . ir, I in ; Z ; in^
CO ° oc" ; oc" ; i Oo"
rsl • o) '; 04 • : oi
• g •: s 1 !
§ ; I rl ! j s
O .3 • 03 * *^N : >S
S ; 2 j 2 i S : f2
W
.ti
c
r»
^
.SP
§
0
"^ >
TJ *
g§
$§
s.t
g s
E SS
fr "§
w S
M. EhTTRAINM
pa_Science/sco(
55 g
O [^
S3 ^
& CD
o, rj
O D.
° 1
fe c
(>S *^
'II
"§ 7t.*r;
6 « S
s§i
IE!
-------
g
Ox
St
fc
o\
N.
o\
6)
CO
w
ja
LU
i
•t
o
'
o
«
Je
s
4»
1
J8
O
J
•a
i
s
'w
E!
&
O
2
water Silveri
S
•*•*
1
«
c^
»
0
a.
•S
CO
S
e
1
a
i^
sy
i_
S
So
«t
«
s
so"
o
i
r?
r~
00
Cs
o
oo
29,080,849
S
r»"i
^2?
*
5
£
^"""i.
r*>
^*t
«
s
I
-
SO
Sif
O
1
2"
t-.
00
s
o
»
so
SO
n
S"
"
I
t^"
?
f^
<*•»
o
oe
s*
oo
oa
Mitiiinum .
SO
SO
O,
1
^
l«^
OO
g
5
CO
Tf
oo
o
(N
S
«-
n^
*»
(N
I
(C
^d
j— «
?
•^
o
o
e
1
<£
z
g
so
P
ff
^
^
O
"-<
<
J^,
Tf
*™^.
s
l>-
1
V
Q*
S
so"
o.
«
£2
r~
S
Os
o
oo
30,678,246
0
^
s?
o-
I
i^T
9
g
*^
?
o^
JO
?
2
1
1
*t3
§
JO
•JB
.§
^
..' JS
-"1
'13
e 'g
si
i §
G» (j>-
fe- -S
B §
11
1?
**5 rj
g ^
"T* ^
l ^™
r
B
^
c.
-------
Q :
oa
i
S
1!
1
I
3
&
*^i
It
6,1
O5 OO
O : O
04 ; oj
c; E
3 : 2
c E
s-s
jo n.
.2PS
P4
g
g •»
o u
ft S
g^
o i
o
oo
i
1-1
TJ
C
O
r*v
r-*
t
?2
i»*
i
1
s
6)
S
o
U_
c
0
1
"O
s
a.
8
~Q
t/t
1
a.
X
"S
0)
CO
,*>
CO
•g
^_
is
0
1
1
a
c
o\
'
c.
JS
2
a
-22 ^
« "J!
!t !•»
£ ?*
"O urn*
1=35
11
o 151 -
a. S
WJ &,
8) *§
|> Jj,
{/J j£<
*
aJ* S3
rti (U
j= rf3
t» 1
if
<0
^ |
S JS
CO
**3 .S
'If
£ «t
**' fi>
i s
ji
""•—"h1"
* "5
5 w»
*> .,
T3 g «e
O S1 **1
E w
Ja
gj ^5
II
S Q
&'
35* •&
sa S
1
; >
**** ^
c-T
oo
^ cK
• **C
— z
o
— *
r^. t*~
rs
oo <•->
a-
1 ^
O
T
$" z
oc^
in
<= 5
15^
(^
r—
C^ p**
^Hw t~~
!fi
o <
00 g
9
2 i
~~*
wv oo
oo r^.
cC f^
\O M"
™" oo'
r»J — ••
*& t*** o> o
— * i : O> • "^ • ol
*sj* r ^ : OO ; O, ; OO^
•«» ; : <*M ; fS ; (Nl
f^j ; ;, Qp ; jf-^. J f-w
>O i O^ ; n"^ i f n j ^
O | " f O : J : O
55? : v% : 2 ! £ | p
**^ f '^ '
^^. I (J3 • \f^ » y*^
)>: g ; oe, : O •-<*;.
04 r ! *=T ; n • u-i
e**i .' rn ; f*~i • "**~. \ r*%
t— i , »-< . »— * f ^7^ , f^t
^ ; Jo : •«; ; g^ ; «
• i — • : 1 •-"
(g r g^ j £j i g ! S
^O r fl ; OO ; m ; ^]
s> i e»i i o\ :. 5 ox
llipll
I ! 1 : 1 1 ; S
oo : oo • OCB • • oo
4 ^ 4' '• *•> > • o« » t*** * v^
r^ ; o\ ; t^. ; ao^ ; ^
OH ' (•*•»» ' r^* ' f^ • oo
C4^ * • v> ' r^i ; v^
o '; o ! o '. < I o
OO f CO : OO ; ^ : OO 1
«> i i 9 ! S i S
J^ r : m t cc \ c**i
so i 2 • ^ i 3 S gj
% | ""* | •* ; «» ; "t
: ^ I"-*.*—* .»-«
r- ; co v tn ; : r^
S j <^ j §). j £2 j ^
— •* ', r^i : c^ ^r - 04
g ; 22 ; ^ • M i °
i g ! g ; |
-i li S! !_
5 ! '5 ; 'P. ; : S
*t : -J = S '• O : 0
S j S : S ; S i r-
-------
«
JM
13
'3
cr
UJ
vt
8.
^
*«-
o
1
S
3
z s>
O £4
s.£
•H o
t> 8
^ ^r;1
"CO S
_ u
cn o
5 "-
t i
H) t
|fi
fl
J»f O
"S £
C TO
•< 1
11.
1 E
•£ .
a
'•P
UJ
J*
a,
UJ
6
i '
co
J2
XI
£
V)
3
1
"d Is
« S
W* **
CB
•g
1
vS
jj;
X
nsf c-
H
W3 5/5
a
p
s
d
j£
1
e
S
•a ,g
If
S g
^ W
J w
"S
& *
S o
§ *§
S u
II
M ft
If!
^^ ts
*n
00
cC
Tl'
s
00
od
o.
£l
i2
NC!
o
f»*r
*-'
I
s
g
o"
o
s
CM
"f
fl
SO
CNI
«;
•o
•g
CO:
oo
s.
s
oo
o
o
Cs
i»
OS
^
5
^
Os
cf
w«
S3
Os
^2
•y
o
oC
Os
so
SO
o
1
' Gannon i
E
i>
i?5s
*G
r~
tn
O
c^
»~
o
cis
t—
00
oo
O_
r-*
S
"*O
o
«
rs
w
1
jokers Point j
S
jfj
*»
2*
Os
ro'
1
00
so
r~
o
o
I
l>"
s
w~
R
o
oo
vf
•*
SO
oo
rX
1
C8
a,
!^
r.
f>
O
If?
O
ta-
rn
SO
O
^?
ft'
w
so
9
SO
oo
"si*
p
S3
s
i '
jrt
t-
<.
S1
ca
i
£
{2
fcU
^
<
t™
ts
-^
'o*
>
•1 .
ff r-^f
^3 O
g 5s
3 S3
-^ —
8
._
E
o
4*
4-
0
"D
™
8
Ti
W
M
M >-
^ O
^ CQ
a.
UJ S.
j»
S g
4— ^
W *c>
« o
S U-
«!§L
*" O
S? e
M W
^ ^! 01 xi
S s « &
f*^ £>O "^J* |*^
H" ro M —
fn o-j cy, g
c
^ 'S ».
•a § ^ |
•c c £ g
j a 1 s
* "- V~> jQ t— J
CO t,r,, ,2,,, ^t[
S
t
R
°s.
rf
r>»
1
oo
o
g
oe
S
1
^
2jf
'S,
^3
S
d
f
1
i^;
*o
5>
%>
O
c:
.9
JO
O
p-
»
X,
-1
•§
J '
8
J
u
C/3
• ^
<:
ff
cc
«!
Q.
-'!?
s
W
<
H
^
1
W
'o1
'> -
Is
1
ig
gs
*? c1
^* ' — '
&*
5
o
u.
g
4^
O
"O
O
o"
T5
i
x"
It!
t)
*K
<3
.S»
m
'o
t
e
'S.
w
"5
1
S
o
1
<*-
g
'"p
^
UJ
CM
f-<
- i
2.
j>
£
M
§
O
U.
g •
4*
O
"O
O SK.
&* jg}
1 0
w g"
I*2
uu *fe
*t3 0
3C W
.£? *^
ii-
4^>
Oj-
t 8
g i
8* -
11
W Q
ll
e a
o "5
1 f
**"* X
*fc «
Jl
'**** SE
2 "
UJ
CM
- i
2.
£
"3
g
s
2
1
to
1
o
ver Perch i
35
sx
E
"C
t/5
1
.£
E
a
35
1
«
o-
o
J
S
u
{S
o
3a
a
•a
I
•""**
"§
U
S
g
Q
"&
S.
o
j=
B
I
f
"u
s
oo
3
i
— *
oo
o
s
sS
C5
i
CM
o
Vi
~~
00
-a.
ffl
»3
o
SD
I
-"
O
OO
—
p
0!
^Tl
OS
•*
OS
c
g
ci
U-
o
f>
so
-------
o
5
s
M
M*
o
p
1
1
£1
b
2
O
£
t
|
°1
8
1
V)
1
1
WJ
'••
.
If
1
;
1
j
*3
o*
UJ
«H1
t
e
J.a
Jx»
§ <*
11
" a
a.IZ
w
"O M
u ±|
OS •-
•2* (?
CO
a ^>
fe |
1"
11
tS o
"ri O
§ *"*
g - - .
^ £.
11
**-. t<
O UJ
ft)
+-
a
E-
i
t
m
O
a
t-
&
W3
^
1
c
"i
• Leopard '-
iSearobin;
t5
u
f
'S
3
ol
Ji
0
I
I
1
t
O
JO
2
u
e>
C
o
ff.
-g
1
J.
-|2
«>
_n.
&•
_s
&
U
1
a
I
|.
1
e
1
; .
"*S" • V* *x« f**
g '? « :S
3 g S vi
ve 2 """ i S
§\ '• So S P
«.•-, S:-.
Cl ; S 7 ; —
Sf
^ ' [d
g - 2 —" ' oC
*A O _ I VO
O OO ° C^
f-^ . t** jr i (^
f- *O r-o : S
l^C irC ^*^ ' r>T
sis ^- i 5
2 5 "*• : o"
n ;^l «" . -
y-| i oo
**""* " ^ "~" Ss
fy^ f^r *^ •>
rn : o) oo : J°
r '
t*- * ^ ^ ; oc
^- ; * v% : *•
'A i ^-"
*3
cr
'o
1
C3
rt
ra,
w
c_
1
1
<•
P
1
aj
'o*
•c
lg
Is
!
i
a
S
8.
T3
e
i5
"3
o
Q)
a
UJ
a.
UJ
CO
O
-2
*-,
i *
c
o
X
o
n,
H~
O
'S
£
ft3
Gu
O
t
l-l
1
0
"*"
»."!
«
r ..
U 41
~ "S
1 '2
3
0
Is
(10
13
4j
Q
03
Silver Perch 1
•o
at
1
U3
e
1
eg
£»
"O
i
CO
D.
•c
CO
f
Os
—
vo*
—
VO
~
t-"
P-
fi
;,f»
:vO*
C^
"^"1
,.*>
:
'•_M
9
<™
o
••8
vO
i t"*i
i "" <086,909V 1
t--.
o"
i-a-
a
I
,-q.
'GO*
F J Gannon ;
oo
*siv
S
*"H>
Os
O
00
s
*•
«tf
oo
oo
oo
CO
3
to
00
Hookers Point i
_
S :
C? .
*** :
0\ :
VO* '
O :
•*3-
rC
o
CfS
*A
d
r-I
.— «
| £89'i«8'l |
o
T£
r*J
O
O
Vi .
°i
oo"
"?r
oo
S5
vo
r°^
vo
g
o"
r»i
™J
r*l
r*3
o
-*
c*
CM
m
-,
vo
1
•a
*j
t__i
T3
>
1
S5
(^
pa
1
«
js
Si
*3
'0 .
tS
U(
J
0
S
e
o
!
s
1
s
J9
^>
u
g
S
«'
I-
i
cc
5
CL
1
tu
£2
1
§
O
vU
'o*
r**
T3
C fN
S 0>
5S
H,-"* *~*
trt
iZ
•6
o
~~*
T!
•^
O
~0
u
g ^
utf
IP
QQ H-
« S
4« Hp
o rs
t* '«
.2 a
(U «)
o
00
rQ
*
•
§
S!
*<*»
•"^
S
o
oo
of
s
5-
PL Bartow
o
o
vo"
00
Os
vT
^
»j-i
tri
2
OS
(V*!
o
M-
1
»— «
o
*n
H
W)
K
•ts
I
ca
^>
9"
J
U
"&
n>
'S
^3
1
1
O
C>
J2
O
S3
g
X
1
Q
U
S
«f
H3
«2
"i-
CG
«'
P,
E
[2
(3
^
1
O-
*0
IV,
Q
-------
a>
1
t?
u~
c
o
1
^-.
v> (S
d
1 |
i j2
£1
*B °
"i '•?
§ —
CQ "o
^t
•s §•
•fe ?
«J e
|H
||
"3 4-
-3
ct ft)
"t "ri
c "3
O JX
a> o
ti» ?<
£ ^
o ^
H s
VJ ***
ti) C
M *""•
^rt*
Q,
(JLt
in
T1
TJ S
22
§.§
«l»
fe *
55 P«
oL-o
f s
^*!.
aj
^ £Z
g|
•al*
£ i
a?
I Leopard
| SearoMn
Leather- !
jacket :
L.
2? ,-*^
w
>t j
A &
0 fi,
O»
•S a JS
•s f *
•® S5 u
^ .
*K
It
u
O
01
(X
i
oC
•o
5,843,346 i
o
•*r
m
S
ON"
r-i
O
oo
OS
-ocT
^
ON
o^
5
o
_
2
CO
\s
^
OC
•*
tHJ
C!
*o
p.
p
1
o
s
OJ
W)
SO
<^i
oo
oo*
s
1
^
OS
•
o
Jt-
1
r-
«5
9
o*
o
o"
r^
O
CsJ
•*
SO
Os
T
Is
{2
X
-------
8 316{b) Cose Studies, Part.D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table D3-I6: Summary of Cumulative Impingement Impacts of In-scope Facilities of Tampa Bay
Facility
Dig Bend
FJ Gannon
Hookers Point
PL Bartow
Total
'. #of Age I Equivalents ;
: 419,286 |
400,862 ;
I 26,917 ;
' 185,152 :
r 1,032,217 |
Lb of Fishery YieW
11,113
; 10,625
713
4,907
27,358
Lb of Production Foregone
5,858
5,601'
376
2,587
14,421
%!cxandria'*projcct\INTAKE\Tampa_Bay\Tampa_Scicnce\soode\extrapolation.to,<)ther,facilitics\Chapter.B3\sumnmry.cum
,1.impact.xls
1/29,02
Table D3-17: Summary of Cumulative Entrainment Impacts of In-seope Facilities of Tampa Bay
Facility
Dig Bend
FJ Gannon
I lookers Point
PL Bartow
Total
; # of Age 1 Equivalents
\ 7,715,156,199
; 7,376,133,779
| 495,293,285
3,406,930,691
i 18,993,513,953
Lb of Fishery Vleld
22,788,688'
; 21,787,299
1,462,975
[ 10,063,242
56,102,204
Lb of Production Foregone
47,899,836
45,795,003
3,075,047
21,152,057
117,921,942
.G.tmpact.xls
37285
EPA estimates that total annual impingement in Tampa Bay is about 1,032,217 age I equivalents, 27,358 pounds .of lost
fishery yield, and 14,421 pounds of production foregone. Impingement losses are dominated by species For which viable
fisheries no longer exist, including pink shrimp and bay anchovy,
Entrainment in Tampa Bay is substantially greater than impingement, estimated at 18,9 billion age 1 equivalents, 56.1 million
pounds of lost fishery yield, and 117,9 million pounds of production foregone each year. Bay anchovy and black dram
dominate entrainment collections and may be particularly vulnerable to Tampa Bay CW1S because of their schooling
behavior and the bay's shallow waters.
The economic value of estimated I&E losses in Tampa Bay is discussed in Chapters D4 (benefits transfer) and D5 (RUM
analysis), and the potential benefits of reducing these losses with the proposed rule are discussed in Chapter D6.
D3-10 EVALUATION OF RECENT LARVAL ABUNDANCE RECORDS AS INDICATORS OF
CURRENT ENTRAINMENT LOSSES AT TAMPA BAY CWIS
Entrainment sampling at Big Bend was conducted in 1976-1977 and. 1979-1980, and therefore may not be an accurate
representation of current entrainment rates. EPA has identified no records of impingement or entrainment monitoring that are
more recent. Therefore, to gain some insight about entrainment rates in recent years, EPA analyzed records of larval
abundance in Tampa Bay in 1988-1989 and 1998-2001 (unpublished data provided by Dr. Ernst Peebles, University South
Florida).
An analysis of larval density records to estimate entrainment rests 'on the premise thai entrainment is largely determined by the
ambient density of organisms in the source water body and intake flow. The majority of organisms subject to entrainment,
including fish larvae, are weak swimmers or planktonic. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that the density of organisms
in the intake flow is equal to the ambient density of organisms in the source water body near the intake structure,
Environmental sampling programs that quantify the abundance offish larvae typically use small mesh plankton nets that are
efficient at capturing roughly the same types of organisms that comprise the entrained species group; therefore, sampling
conducted close to CWIS provides a good surrogate for entrainment monitoring conducted within the actual cooling water
stream within a facility.
D3-24
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port 0: Tampa Bay
Chapter b3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Larval abundance in Tampa Bay and its tributaries' from 1988 to 2001 was investigated by Dr, Ernst Peebles {unpublished
data, University South Florida). The majority of the samples were collected in 1988 and 1989, and no sampling was
conducted from 1990 to 1997, Sample stations considered in this case study were located in Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay,
and in the lower reaches of Hillsborough River, Alafia River and Little Manatee River. Sample stations located in the rivers
were <_3.5 km from the mouth of the river. These sample stations were selected because of their relative proximity to Big
Bend and because the fish assemblages found at the stations were expected lo be typical of the fish assemblage likely to be
found at Big Bend (E. Peebles, pers, comm.). Original catch records were expressed in terms of density (fish/m5).
The data recording procedures used in the ambient density monitoring by Peebles differed from the procedures used in Big
Bend entramment monitoring. Therefore, EPA conducted various dala manipulations to enhance the utility of the ambient
density records as indicators of potential entrainment and to facilitate comparisons with the recording methods used in the Big
Bend entratnment studies. The conversion process included the following; :
i
* Records of larval fishes that were distinguished into four distinct larval stages in the Peebles ambient density
study were expressed simply as larvae.
»• The ambient density of juvenile fishes was multiplied by 0.5 to account for the likelihood mat juvenile fishes
have a greater ability to avoid entrainmenl than to avoid capture in towed nets
*• The ambient density of eggs was multiplied by 137 to account for low egg capture efficiency; of the nets. The
scalar value of 137 is the ratio of egg densities in the survey to egg density in Tampa Bay as determined in an
independent study (Peebles el al.. 1996). • • .
>• Adjusted density estimates (organisros/m3) were multiplied by the annual total operational flow rate at Big Bend
(1.489 billion m'/year) to yield a final estimate of annual entrainment. ' '
The result of these procedures was an estimate of annual entrainment rates at Big Bend that may have occurred during ihe late
1980'S.and through the 1990's. The estimates of annual entrainment were expressed as losses of age 1 equivalent fish using
the same model that EPA applied to the actual records of entrainment at Big Bend during 1976 and 1979 (see Chapter A5 of
Part A), The loss metric of age 1 equivalent fish was selected for comparison rather than total losses because it is insensitive
to differences in the distribution of entrained life stages. Original losses include losses at multiple life stages, which
complicates comparisons between years because the age distributions are likely to vary among years. Original losses are
normalized to age 1 equivalent lasses through consideration of stage-specific survival rates, which allows for comparisons
across years with a common basis. - '
For most species, estimates of mean annual entrainment in the late 1970's appear to be roughly equivalent to more recent
entraiument rates (Table D3-18). Differences were less than 26 million age 1 equivalents per year except for bay anchovy.
The bay anchovy data indicate that 6.3 biilioh fewer age 1 equivalent bay anchovy are entrained per year in the recent period.
This may reflect, in part, the decline in bay anchovy since the late 197Q's, which prompted a ban on purse seining for bay
anchovy iti 1993.
Numerous confounding factors may invalidate comparisons of entrainment estimated'.by these two methods. An important
assumption underlying the comparison is that the sampling methods employed for the ambient larval density estimates are
efficient af capturing the same fish species that are vulnerable to entrainment. This assumption cannot be rigorously tested
with the available data, Despite the possible shortcomings of the comparative analysis, the objective of me comparisons is
not a detailed assessment of the estimated differences, but rather a comparison of the general magnitude of entrainment rates
in the two periods. . '
EPA's analysis indicates that the magnitude of entrainment is similar for the two time periods. This'observation suggests that
the density of larval fishes (among the species considered in the case study) hear Big Bend are not radically different than
they were in 1976-1977 and 1979-1980 when actual entrainment sampling was conducted. This observation supports the use
of entrammenl estimates from 1976-1977 and 1979-1980 as a basis for projecting the benefits that may result from future
changes in regulations. To a lesser extent, the concurrence between the two sets of results also supports the use of records
from Big Bend as a basis for extrapolation of entrainment rates to other facilities in Tampa Bay, and the use of larval densities
to estimate potential entrainment at facilities that have not conducted monitoring studies, including new facilities.
D3-25
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 0: Tampa Bay
Chapter 53' Evaluation of I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D:Tampa Bay
Chapter D4: Value of Baseline I4E Losses
- ' 'I
of
on
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic lasses associated with i&E at four facilities
on Tampa. Bay: P.L. Bartow (Florida Power Corporation),
Big Bend (Tampa Electric Company), F.J. Gannon
(Tampa Electric Company), and Hooker's Point (Tampa
Electric Company).
D4-1 OVERVIEW OF VALUATION
APPROACH
l&E at Big Bend affect commercial and recreational
fisheries as well as forage species that contribute to the
biomass of fishery species. EPA evaluated all. of these
species groups to capture the total economic impact of
I&E at Big Bend.
..CHAPTER CONTENTS
D4-J
D4-2
D4-3.
'D4-5-
Ovurvtew of Valuation Approach ..,..., D4
Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses ,,, D4
B4-2.1 Economic Values ibtReereauonal Losses.
-- "Based OQ^LitCrfltore .,-.,.,.?.".,,."",-.,.. P4
;D4-2.2_f "Econqrnic^Valucs^of Recreational Fishery
^ ^. LOSKJSResultingforiri&EatBig.Bend ,..JM-
Eqononiie Value "of Avorage^AnnuaifCommoreiat
Fishery tosses Resulting Mm l&E at Big Behd^^.j
Indired-tfsei'Forage Fish ,.>,.,,,,, v,.,, ?,, .-^.«» D4
=5
SurnraSry of Econopii^aiuartorfWMean' Annual
* ' * '
-Va^e of Baseline Bpnofee
r-- Lasses frwit I&E;
Commercial fishery impacts are based on commodity
prices for the individual species. Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer methods, applying the results
from nonmarket valuation studies (EPA also condxicted a primary analysis of recreational fishery benefits, which is presented
in Chapter D5). The economic impact of forage species losses is determined by estimating the replacement cost of these fish
if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish, and by considering the foregone Momass production of forage fish resulting
from I&E losses and the consequential foregone production of commercial and recreational species that prey on the forage
species. All of these methods are explained in further detail in the Chapter D3 of this document.
Many of the I&E-impacted fish species' at CW1S sites are harvested both reereationally and commercially. To avoid
double-counting the economic impacts of I&E on these species, EPA determined the proportion of total species landings
attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied this proportion to the impacted fishery cat<:h. For example, if
30 percent of the landed numbers of one species are harvested commercially at a site, then 30 percent of the estimated catch
of f&B-impacted fish are assigned to the increase in commercial landings. The remaining 70 percent of the estimated total .
landed number of I&E-impacted adult equivalents are assigned to the recreational landings. ,
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides both recreational and commercial fishery landings data by state. To
determine what proportions of total landings per state occur in the recreational or commercial fishery; EPA summed the
landings data for the recreational and commercial fishery, and then divided by each category to get the corresponding
percentage. The percentages applied in this analysis are presented in Table D4-1. '
As discussed In Chapters AS and A9 of Part A, the yield estimates presented in Chapter D3 are expressed as total pounds for
both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this chapter, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Because the economic
evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers offish rather than pounds, foregone recreational, yield was converted to
numbers of fish. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvesfable fish of each species. Note that the numbers
of foregone recreational fish harvested are typically lower than the numbers of age I equivalent losses, since the age of
harvest of most fish is greater than age 1,
D4-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D:Tampa Bay
Chapter D4: Value of Baseline !<&E Losses
Table t>4-1: Percentages of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries of Selected Specieb at Pig Bend Facility
Fish Species
Black drum
Blue crab
Menhaden spp.
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Shecpshead
Silver perch
Spoiled scatrout
Stone crab.
Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery
55
18
0
97 :
0
84
100
100
18
Percent Impacts to
Commercial Fishery •
45
82
100
3
100
16
0
0
82
Mon Jan 28 09:01:39 MST 2002 ; TablcA:Pcrcentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and recreational
fisheries of selected species; Plant: bigbcnd.unit. 1.4 ; Pathname:
P:/lntakc/Tampa_Bay/Tampa_Science/seodc/tables,output.unit. 1.4/TableA, Perc.of iotaUmpacts.bigbcnd.unit 1.4.csv
D4-2 ECONOMIC VALUE OF RECREATIONAL FISHERY LOSSES
D4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses Based on Literature
Several studies provide willingness-io-pay (WTP) values for increases in recreational catch rates, These increases in value
arc benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as a "consumer surplus" per additional fish caught,
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table D4-2 gives a summary of two studies that are closest to Tampa Bay in
geographic area and relevant species. The results of the RUM analysis (in Chapter D5) are consistent with these values
ranging from S2.80 to S5.46 per added fish caught (see Table D5-12).
Table D4-2: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
Authors
McConncll and
Strand (1994)
Study Location and Year
Mid- and south Atlantic coast,
anglers targeting specific
species, 1988
Item Valued
jCatch rate increase of 1 fish per
•trip"
| Value Estimate ($2000)
• small gamefisb (PL) S8.88
jbottomfish (FL) , S2.30
Milon ct al, (1994) j Florida, anglers targeting
; specific species, 1991
jCatch rate increase of I fish per iking mackerel
[trip and 1 fish every 3rd trip. I
$5.53
* Value was reported as "two month value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip.'* From 1996 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DQI, 199"?), the average saltwater angler takes i .5 trips in a 2 month
period. Therefore, to convert to a "1 fish per trip" value, EPA divided the 2 month value by 1.5 trips and then multiplied it by
2, assuming the value of a fish was linear.
McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values for the mid- and south Atlantic states using data from the National
Marine Fisheries Statistical Survey. They created a random utility model of fishing behavior for nine states, the northernmost
being New York. In this model, they specified four categories offish: small gamefish (e.g., striped bass), flatfish
(e.g., flounder), bottomfish (e.g., wcakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, perch), and big gamefish (e.g., shark).. For each fish
category, they estimated per angler values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates. For this analysis,
EPA used only the values McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated for Florida.
D4-2
-------
S 3i6(b) Cose Studies, Part D:Tampa Bay
'Chapter D4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
Milon et a I (1994) surveyed over 4,000 anglers to ascertain their willingness-to-pay values for increases in king mackerel
cauglit. Specifically, average catch increases from 1 fish every 3rd trip to 1 .fish every trip were evaluated by the authors. The
value listed in Table D4-2 is the averaged WTP value between those two scenarios,1
No known recreational values were located for blue crab, EPA used a value estimate in this analysis obtained by averaging
the combined values of the species offish that had been estimated from MeConnell and Strand (1994) and 'Milon et al.
(1994). . .
D4-2.2
Bend
Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from !<&E at Big
Tables D4*3 and D4-4 present the loss to recreational catch from impingement and entrainmenu respectively, and apply th'e
values listed in Table D4-2 to obtain losses in recreational value from I&E at Big Bend. Total losses to recreational fisheries
are estimated to be $34,100 for impingement per year, and $194,700 annually for entrammeut, -t.
Table D4-3: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Big Bend
and Associated Economic Values
Specks
Black drum
Blue crab
PJnfish
Silver perch
Spotted scatrout
Stone crab
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# of fish)
4
•1,750
2,342
40
2,10$
22
6,263
,
Recreational
Value/Fish
S2.30
$5.59"
$2.30
$2.30
• $8.88
S5.59'
Loss in Recreational Value
from Impingement
$9
$9,782
$5,386
$93
$18,693 ;
S122
$34,085
* Recreational value used is an average .from the range of all other species' values.
Mon Fcb 04 2002; TableB: recreational losses and'vakie for selected species; Plant: bigbend.unit, 1,4 ; type: I
Pathname;
P:/lntake/Tampa_Bay.'Tampa_Science/$code/table$.output.umt. 1.4/TableB.rccJosse$.bigbend.unit. 1,4.Lcsv
Table,D4-4: Average Annual Bntrainment of Recreational Fishery Species at Big Bend and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Black dnim
Shccpshcad
Silver perch
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from EiUrainmciit (#• of fish)
666*973
101
1,102 .
6,794
11,227
686,198
Recreations!
Value/Fish
$2,30
$2.30
$2.30 •
S8.S8"
$5.59"
Loss in Recreational Value from
Entrainnnmt ,
868,878° ;'
$232 ;
82,535
$60,333 :
862,761 :
5194,739
', Black drum losses are capped at $68,878, which is double the value of the mean annual 1981-1986 recreational
landings (a period prior to a sharp decline in landings).
* Recreational value used is an average from the range of all other species' values,
Mon Feb 04 2002 ; TableB; recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: bigbend.unit. 1.4; type: E
.Pathname:
P:/lntake/TampamBay(fTampa_Scienee/seode/tahtes.output.unit. 1.4/Capped.TableB.rec.iosscs.bigbend.unit, 1.4-E.csv
' The I&E data listed in the following sections did not end up including mackerel, so these values were not applied in the analysis,
but remain listed here for valuation comparison purposes. .. ..,.'.
D4-3
-------
S 3l6(b) Cose Studies, Port DsTampa Bay
Chapter D4: Value of Baseline ME Losses
D4-3 ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMERCIAL FISHERY LOSSES
RESULTING FROM I<£E AT Bie BEND
Baseline losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables D4-5 (for impingement) and D4-6 (for entraihment).
Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market
price. The market value of foregone landings to the commercial fisheries is $4,600 for impingement per year, and S260.900
annually for entrainment. •_
Table D4-5: Average Annual Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Big Bend and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Black drum
Blue crab
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Stone crab
Total
Loss to Commercial
Calch fronj Impingement
(Ib of fish)
60
2,734
131 ' '
974-
356
4,255
Commercial
Value/Fish
$0,44
S0.62
S3.18
S2.30
$0.62
Loss In Commercial Value
from Impingement
$26
SI, 695
$418
. 12,240
$221
S4,600
Mon Fcb 04 2002; TablcC: conuncrical losses and value for selected species; Plant: bigbend.unit. 1.4; type; I
Pathname:
P:/Intakc/Tampa_Bay/Tampa_Scicnce/scode/tablcs.output.unit. 1,4/TableC,eomm,Iosses.bigbend.unit. 1,4 JLcsv
Table D4-6: Average Annual Entrainment of Commercial Fishery Species at Big Bend and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Black drum
Menhaden spp.
Pink shrimp
Sheepshcad
Stone crab
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch
from Entrainment:
(Ib offish)
9,918,509
52
4,224
33
182,870
10,105,689
i Commercial Value/Fish
; $0.44
» SO. 17
,; $2.30
t $0.50
; S0.62
...
Loss in Commercial Value
from Eiitrainmeiit
$137,756" •
. $9
$9,715 •
$17
S 113,379
5260,87(5
" Commercial value of black drum entrainment losses are capped at $137,756, which is the value of double the mean
annual 1981 -86 commercial landings (a period prior to a sharp decline in landings).
Mon Feb 04 2002 ; TableC: commerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: bigbend.unit. 1.4; type: E
Pathname: :
P:/Intake/Tampa_Bay/Tampa_Scicnce/scodc/tables.output.unit, 1,4/Capped.TableC.comm.losses.bigbend.unit 1,4.E.csv
Changes to commercial activity thus far have been expressed as changes from dockside market prices. However, to determine
the total economic impact from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA determined the losses experienced by 'producers
(watermen), wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.
The total social benefits (economic surplus) are greater than the increase in dockside landings, because the increased landings
by commercial fishermen contribute to economic surplus in each of a multi-tiered set of markets for commercial fish. The
total economic surplus impact thus is valued by examining the multi-tiered markets through which the landed fish are sold,
according to the methods and data detailed in Chapter A9,
The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of I&E-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of
commercial species as sold dockside by commercial harvesters). The results of this dockside landings value step are described
above. The next steps then entail tracking the anticipated additional economic surplus generated as the landed fish pass from
D4-4
-------
§ *316(b) Case Studies, Part DiTampa Bay
Chapter D4: Value of. Baseline ME Losses
dockside transactions to other wholesalers, retailers and, ultimately, consumers, The resulting total economic surplus
measures include producer surplus to the' watermen who harvest the fish, as well as the rents and consumer surplus that accrue
to buyers and sellers in the sequence of market transactions that apply in the commercial fishery context. •
To estimate producer surplus from the landings values, EPA relied on empirical results from various researchers that can be
used to infer producer surplus for watermen based on gross revenues (landings times wholesale price). The economic
literature (Huppert, 1990: Rettig and McCarl, 19S5) suggests that producer surplus values for commercial fishing ranges from
50 to 90 percent of the market value. In assessments of Great Lakes fisheries, an estimate of approximately 40% has been
derived as the relationship between grass revenues and the surplus of commercial fishermen (Cleland and Bishop, 1984,
Bishop, personal communication, 2002), For the purposes of this study, EPA believes producer surplus to yvatermen is
probably in the range of 40% to 70% of dockside landings values. ;
Producer surplus is one portion of the total economic surplus impacted by increased commercial stocks — the total benefits
are comprised of the economic surplus tti producers, wholesalers, processors, retailers, and consumers. Primary empirical
research deriving "multi-market" welfare measures for commercial fisheries have estimated that surplus accruing to
commercial anglers amount to approximately 22% of the total surplus accruing to watermen, retailers and consumers
combined (Morton et al,, 1983; Holt and Bishop, 2002), Thus, total economic surplus across the relevant commercial fisheries
multi-tiered markets can be estimated as approximately 4.5 times greater than producer surplus alone (given that producer
surplus is roughly 22% of the total surplus generated). This relationship is applied in the case studies to estimate total surplus
from the projected changes in commercial landings.
Accordingly, the total economic loss to the commercial fisheries ranges from!
ahd from $474,300 to $830,100 annually for entrainrnent at Big Bend.
D4-4 INDIRECT USE- FORASE FISH
8,400 to $14,600 for impingement per year,
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or reereattonally fished. For the purposes of this study, EPA refers to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species and are important components of aquatic
food webs. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of forage losses using two alternative valuation methods.
Replacement value of fish
The replacement value offish can be used in- several cases. First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking of
hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would still
be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but are
important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough use data to value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as a proxy for lost
fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs, and replacement costs
typically omit problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limiting genetic diversity).
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&B has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table D4-7 displays the replacement costs and associated baseline value losses of selected species at the
Big Bend Facility. The annual costs of replacing baseline annual forage losses are approximately $100 for impingement and
$6,214,100 for entrainrnent. The per pound costs listed in Table D4-7 are average costs to fish hatcheries across North
America to produce different species of fish for stocking,
D4-5
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port b:Tampa Bay
Chapter 04: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
Table D4-7: Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species for the Big Bend Facility (2000$)
Species
Bay anchovy
Chain pipefish
Gobyspp.
Hogchokcr
Leatherjacket
Scaled sardine
Scarobin
Tidewater silversidc
Total
Hatchery Costs*
(S/lb)
so. u
$0.34"
$0,34"
S0.34b
$0.34"
$0.34"
S0.34b
SO. 11
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses
• ; Impingement
S42
SO
$0
$0
SO
S2
$80
! SO
S123
: Bntrainment
$6,188,121
; S395
: $4,020
; $55
S1.441
: $14,751
r , S5.178
; S174
i 56,214,135
* These values were inflated to 2000S from 1989S, but this could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
k Individual species value is not available and thus an average of all species is used.
Source: Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kill, AFS, 1993.
Mon Feb 04 2002; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: bigtend-uniU ,4 ; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Tampa_Bay/Tampa_Science/scodc/tablcs.output.unit, 1.4/TableD.forage.eco.tcr.repl.bigbend.iinit. 1 AI.csv
Note thai hatchery costs are not available for all l&E impacted forage species at the Big Bend Facility. Therefore, the
replacement costs reflect a partial estimate only. The second component of replacement cost is the transportation cost, which
includes costs associated with vehicles, personnel, fuel, water, chemicals, containers, and nets. The AFS (1993) estimates
these costs at approximately S1.13 per mile, but does not indicate how many fish {or how many pounds of fish) are
transported for this price. Lacking relevant data, EPA does not include the transportation costs in this valuation approach.
Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement casts, and replacement costs typically omit
problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limited genetic diversity),
Production foregone value of forage fish
This approach considers the foregone production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from l&E of forage
species based on estimates of trophic transfer efficiency, as discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document. The
economic valuation of forage losses is based on the dollar value of the foregone fishery yield resulting from these losses.
Although this approach has shown to be an effective valuation approach for the other § 316(b) case studies, EPA concluded
that this approach is not applicable to the Tampa Bay case study. Unfortunately, the species for which l&E data are available
in Tampa Bay are not species that are primary consumers of the forage species impacted, by l&E at Big Bend. Thus, EPA
relied on the replacement cost method alone to value forage species losses in Tampa Bay.
D4-5 NONUSE VALUES
Recreational consumer surplus and commercial impacts are only part of the total losses that the public realizes from I&E
impacts on fisheries. Nonuse or passive use impacts arise when individuals value environmental changes apart from any past,
present, or anticipated future use of the resource in question. Such passive use values have been categorized in several ways
in the economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (inter-generational equity)
motives. Using a "rule of thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50% of the recreational use impact (see
Chapter A9 for further discussion), nonuse values for baseline losses at the Big Bend facility are estimated at $17,000 for
impingement and $97,400 for entrainment.
D4-6 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC VALUATION op MEAN ANNUAL X&€ AT Bi& BEND
Table D4-S summarizes the estimated annual baseline losses from I&E at the Big Bend facility. Total impacts range from
$59,600 to $65,900 per year from impingement and from $6,980,600 to $7,336,300 per year from entrainment.
D4-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part D:Tampa Bay
Chapter D4: Value of Baseline 1&E Losses
Table D4-8; Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual !<$£ at Btg.Bend
Commercial: Total surplus (direct use, market)
Recreational (direct use, nonmarket)
Forage (indirect use, ncmroarket) using the
Replacement Cost Approach
Nonusq (passive use, nonmarker)
Total {Com •*• Rec + Forage •*• Nonuse) '
Low-
High
Low
High
Impingement
. S8.363
$14,636
$34,085
$123
$17,043
859,614
$65,886
Entrainment
S474.320
$830,059
Si 94,739
$6,214,135
$97,370
$6,980,564
87,336,303
Total
.: $482,683
.: 5844,695
$228,824
$6,2! 4,258
$114,412
$7,040,178
$7,402,190
Mon Fob 04 16:20:51 MST 2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant: bigbend.umt.i.4; Pathname:
P:/IiBakc/rampa_Bay/Tampa_5cience/scode/tablcs.output,unit 1,4cappcdVTabIeE.summary.bigbend,unit, i ,4.csv
D4-7 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL VALUE OF BASELINE ECONOMIC LOSSES FROM I«&E AT
TAMPA BAY FACILITIES
Table D4-9 summarizes the estimated annual baseline losses from I&E at the other Tampa Bay facilities, using the Big Bend
data. The results were extrapolated to other facilities based on operation flows (MOD). Total impacts range from $146,800
to $ 162,200 per year from impingement and from $ 17,185,100 to $ 18,060,800 per year from entrainment for the four Tampa
Bay facilities.
Table D4-9; EPA's.Estimates of Average Annual Economic Losses at Irt-Scope CWIS
of Tampa Bay Based on I&E Estimates
Facility
Big Bend
FJ. Gannon
Hookers Point
P.L. Bartov,"
Total
Impingement Losses \
L»W ';
SS9,614.;
S56.994;
S3,827;
S26.325;
$146,760;
High !
$65,88(5 i
562,9.91 1
$4,230 !
$29,095 i
5162,202-;
Eiitriiininent Lasses :
Low . |
$6,980,564 1
$6,673,82l|
S448.134;
$3,082,542 ;
$17,185,062;
High •:
$7,336,303;
57,013,929:
$470,972 1
$3,239,633;
$18,060,837;
Total
Love : i
S7,040,!78|
$6,730,8 15;
8451,961;
• $3,108,867;
$17,331,822;
High
$7,402,190
$7,076,920
$475,202
$3,268,728
S 18,223,039
\\atoxandria\project\CNT AKE\Tampa_BayVTampSL.Science\$code\cxtKipolation.to,other1faciIities\Cliapter.B4\average.annual.econ.losscs,
xls 2/7/200.2 (CAPPED) ' :
D4-7
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: part D, Tampa Boy
Chapter.D5: RUM Analysis
H
INTRODUCTION
This case study uses a random utility model (RUM)
approach to estimate the effects of improved fishing
opportunities due to reduced impingement and enlrainment
(I&E) in the Tampa Bay Region. Cooling Water Intake
Structures (CWISs) withdrawing water from Tampa Bay
impinge and entrain many of the species sought by
recreational anglers. These species include spotted
seatroui, black drum, sheepshead, pinfish, and silver perch.
The study area includes Tampa Bay itself and coastal sites
to the north and south of Tampa Bay. The study includes
sites in five counties:
> Pasco,
»• Pinellas,
> Hillsborough,
*• Manatee, and
» Sarasota,
CHAPTER CONTENTS
DS-j
D5-2
D5-3
'DS-4'
Data Summary .,,.,..,,,..„ ,,,,, D5-1
D5-1.1 Angler Characteristics,.,, " , D5-f
D5-1,2 Choice Sets 135-4"
D5-! .3 Site Attributes ».„.„,,..-.„.„ D5-<5
JD5-W Travel Cost ,...,.. --D5-?
Site Choice Model \...,.., DS-2
Trip Participator Models. ~<, /,, '.•! „,,., h%., DS-lft,
Welfare Estimates ...,- -,,, ,\, - h T; „. D5-11
-D5-4.-I "Estimating Changes in the Quality of- ^
Fishing Sites,m,._..?1...', ,V^_.r»,» ,'DS-ll
"D5-4.2 EstifflfttJitg'B'Siefifefroin Efwniriaftng ~ -
X ' I&E strtbe Tampa Bay JRegionr^,.,".'.. D5-12,
" Ljmi&tfbnsand Cfnceftamty ,. ,*C!.'....»,.,.'. .'OS-IS1
' D5-5.! Site QuaHty -r......'. :/>.-. \i,
''
Multipte-Day Trips t.
J0g?*$
lT-^.S _^C,.
The study's main assumption is that anglers will gel
greater satisfaction, and thus greater economic value, from sites where the catch rate is higher, all else being equal. This
benefit may occur in two ways: first, an angler may get greater enjoyment from a given fishing trip when catch rates are
higher, and thus get a greater value per trip; second, anglers may take more fishing trips when catch rates are higher, resulting
in greater overall value for fishing in the region,
The following sections focus on the data set "used in the analysis and analytic results, Chapter Al 0 of Part A provides a
detailed description of the analysis methodology. ' , ,
D5-1 DATA SUMMARY .
EPA's analysis of improvements in recreational fishing opportunities in the Tampa Bay Region relies on a subset of the 199-7
Marine Recreational Fishery.Stalistics Survey (MRFSS) combined with the 1997 Add-on MRFSS Economic Survey (AMES)
and the follow-up telephone survey for the Southeastern United States (NMFS, 200Ib; QuanTech, 1998), Data collection
occurred in two-month waves, over the course of a year, from March 1997 through February 1998. The model of recreational
fishing behavior relies on the subset that includes only single-day trips to sites located in the study area, excluding
respondents missing data on key variables (e.g., home ZIP code). This truncation resulted in a sample of 1,183 anglers,
fishing from 52 sites in the study area. The NMFS surveys are described in more detail in Chapter AID.
The Agency included both single- and multiple-day trips in estimating the total economic gain from improvements in fishing
site quality from reduced I&E, Details of this analysis are provided in Section D5-3 of this chapter..-
D5-1.1 Angler Characteristics , ;
a. Fishing modes and targeted species
The majority of anglers in the sample (67 percent) fish from a private or rental boat; 29 percent fish from shore; and only four.
percent fish from charter boats. The Agency evaluated five species and species groups in the model:
D5-I
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter 55: RUM Analysis
>• drums (including red and black drum)
>- spotted seatrout,
> gamcfish,
> snapper-grouper, and
*• other.1
Effects of changes in catch rates for particular species in the drurnsi gamefish and snapper-grouper categories can still be
estimated because the catch rates for the combined categories are weighted averages.
Table D5-1 shows species targeted by fishing mode and for all modes, and table D5-2 compares species targeted on the
intercepted trip to species generally targeted. EPA calculated species targeted on the intercepted trip based on anglers'
reported first and second primary targets. If the angler's first target was in the "other" category and the second target was a
species of interest, the observation was included in the observations with the targeted species. Such observations were
excluded from the "other" species category. For the species of interest, 21.5 percent of anglers target gamefish*, 16.2 percent
target spotted scatrout, 16.5 percent target snapper-grouper5, and 12.3 percent target drums.
Table D5-1: Species Group Choice by Mode of Fishing j
- All Modes
Species = !
Frequency \ Percent
No Target 376 31.78%
Other 20 '- 1.69%
Drums ' ' 146 : 12,34%
Spotted 192 ; 16.23%
Scatrout
Gamefish 254 i 21.47%
Snapper- ; 195 ; 16.48%
Grouper '
All Species : 1,183 100.00%
Private/rental boat '. Parry/charter boat
Frequency
203
11
124
171
157
129
795
Percent ;
by Mode
25.5%
1.38%
15.6%
21.5%
19.8%
16.2%
100%
Frequency
12
0
1
0
SI
22
Percent by
Mode
26.1%
0.0%.
2.2%
0.0%
23,9%
47.8%
46 J_ »00%^_
Shore i
Frequency
161
9
21
21
86
44
342
Percent
by Mode
47.1%
2.6%
6.1%
6.1 %
25.2%
12.9%
. . 100%
Table D5-2: Generally Targeted Species vs. Species Targeted on Intercepted Trip
Species
Drums
Spotted Seatrout
Gamcfi&h
Snnnpcr-Groupcr
Generally Target
Number
344
77
197
193
Percent
29.1
6.5 •
16.7
16.3
Targeted on Intercepted Trip
Number
146
192
254 . .
195
Percent \
12.3
16.2
21.5
___ 16,5
' "Olhcr" species may include the following species families or genus: herring, puffer, eel, skate, sardine, sunfish, skate, ray, requiem
shark.
: Gamefish include snook, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, pompano, permit, cobia, Atlantic tarpon, hammerhead shark, mackerels,
and tunas.
' Snapper-grouper include miscellaneous groupers in the epintsphehis and mycteroperca groups, red grouper, gag grouper, other
miscellaneous groupers, snapper, gray snapper, sea bass, jacks, grunt, hogilsh, and shoepshead.
D5-2
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter D5; RUM Analysis
Almost 32 percent of the sample did not target a particular species on the intercepted trip. An additional 2' percent target a
species in the "other" category- Around 40 percent of the "no-target'* anglers do not generally target a species. Of those "no
target" anglers who do generally target a species, 33 percent generally target drums, 25 percent generally target snapper-
grouper, 15.percent generally target gamefish. and seven percent generally target spotted seatrout.
The distribution of target species is not uniform by fishing mode. For example, while 15,6 percent of private/rental boat
anglers target drums, only 6,! -percent of shore anglers, and 2.2 percent of charter boat anglers'target drums. While 21.5
percent of boat anglers target spotted seatrout, only, 6.1% of shore anglers, and no charier boat anglers target spotted seatrout.
The percentages for gamefish do not differ greatly, with '25.2 percent of shore anglers targeting gamefish, and 19.8 percent
and-23.9 percent of boat and charter boat anglers, respectively, targeting gamefish. A large number of charter boat anglers
(47.8 percent) target snapper-grouper, while 16,2 percent of boat anglers and 12.9 percent of shore anglers target fish in this
category. . . • . ! ,
b. Summary of angler characteristics
Almost 62 percent of the anglers in the sample own a boat (729/1183), including 26 percent of anglers intercepted on a
charter trip, 78 percent of anglers intercepted on a boat trip, and 27 percent of anglers intercepted on shore.
Of the 394 boat and charter anglers reporting the distance traveled from shore, 74 percent (291} fished ten 'miles or less from
shore and 26 percent (103) fished more than ten miles from shore. Eighty-two percent of charter anglers who reported
distance from shore fished more than ten miles from shore, and 22 percent of private/rental boat anglers who reported
distance fished more than, ten miles from shore,- Of the 1,182 anglers reporting, 1,166 or 98.7 percent fished with hook and
line, five (,4 percent) fished with cast net, ten (.85 percent) fished with speart and one (.08 percent) fished with a hand line.
-• - . t
Seventy-seven percent of the l,16Ianglers reporting employment status are employed. Of those who are not employed, 64
percent are retired. Approximately 93 percent of those reporting employment status work full-time, seven percent work part-
time, and less than one percent are variably or seasonally employed. Approximately 46 percent receive a salary rather than an
hourly wage. Almost 91 percent of the sample are male, and 94. percent are white. Table D5-3 summarizes angler
characteristics. ' • :
The study compared boat, charter, and shore mode anglers to investigate any important differences among the groups. Table
D5-4 compares demographics by fishing mode. Anglers who prefer different fishing modes do not appear !to differ greatly in
terms of demographies,.
Table D5-3: Angler Characteristics (N=i,183 unless otherwise specified)
Variable
Male
White (N» 1,152)
Employed (N=I,I6I)
Retired
Owns a boat
Age in Years (N=U 57)
Household Income
Mean*
0.90
0.94
0.77-
O.S4
0.62
42,84
$47,521
$ of Years Fishing Experience -: 21 , !9
(M=1J46> J
Std Dey
0,29
0.24
,0.42
0.35
0.49
14.1
$28,420
14.6
Mint
0
0
0
0
0
16"
$7,500
0
Max
1
t
I
1
I
95
$200,000
80
a For dummy variables such as "Owns a Boat" that take the value of 0 or 1, the reported value
represents a portion of the survey respondents possessing the relevant characteristic. For
example, 62 percent of the surveyed! anglers own a boat. ;
D5-3
-------
S 316{b) Watershed Case Studies: Part b, Tampa Bay
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Table D5-4: Comparison of Boat/ Charter, and Shore Mode Anglers
• Mean
Shore income , : $40,212
Boat income 550,229
Charter income : 555,054
Shore age
Boat age
Charter age
Shore years fished
Boat years fished
Charter years fished
43.6
42.4
45.1
19.3
22.0
j20-!.
Standard; Deviation Minimum ; Maximum
523,859 . $7,500
$29,491 $7,500
$31,013 $20,000
15,6 16
13.4 16
14.' I 16 .
15,4 0
$200,000
$200,000
$137,500
93
95
75
70
14.3 0 I 80
J4-0 , m
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Figure D5-1: NMFS Intercept Sites Included in RUM Analysis
Location of the NMFS Sites
in tlie Tampa Bay Area
NMFSCaseSlwtj'Site
Rft'Reach
L_J County .
D5-5
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter D5; RUM Analysis
Table D5-6: Number of Anglers Intercepted at NMFS Sites by County
County
Pasco
Pincllas
Hillsborough
Manatee
Surasota
Total t
Number of Observations
247
462
242
146
86
Percent of Sample
.20.88
; 39.05
,20,46
12.34
7.27
1,183 : \ 100
Number of Intercept Sites ;
5
20
Jl
S
8
_ 52 „_ „_„
D5-1.3 Site Attributes
The model uses catch rates for the species of interest, as well as the presence of boat ramps and marinas to measure site
quality. Catch rate is the most important attribute of a fishing site from the angler's perspective (McConnell and Strand,
1994; Haab et al.. 2000). This attribute is also a policy variable of concern because catch rate is a function offish abundance,
which is affected by fish mortality due to I&E. The catch rate variable in the RUM therefore provides the means to measure
baseline losses in I&E and changes in anglers' welfare attributed to changes from I&E due to the 316b rule.
To specify the fishing quality of the case study sites, EPA calculated historic catch rate based on the NMFS catch rate from
1995 to 1997. The catch rates represent the number offish caught on a fishing trip divided by the number of hours spent
fishing: the number offish caught per hour per angler. The estimated catch rates are averages across all anglers in a given
year over the three-year period. The gamefish and snapper-grouper catch rates are weighted average catch rates for all
species in the group, weighted by the proportion of sample for each species. The no target anglers were assumed to face an
average catch rate calculated as a weighted average of alj speeies, using the percent who generally target each species as the
weights.
EPA estimated the catch rate for each combination of recreational fishing zone in the study area and fish species of interest
using a standard Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation technique. The IDW technique estimates a value for any
given location by assuming that each input value has an influence on that location. This influence diminishes with distance
according to a squared distance value. If available, EPA used observable catch rate values for a given site to estimate average
catch rates for that site. If no observed Catch rales were found, EPA used an inverse distance squared estimation technique to
calculate an average catch rate for a given zone/species combination. The Agency first located any site visits within five
kilometers from a given fishing zone and then used the catch rates of the nearest four sites visited as input 'values for
calculating historic catch rates for the species in question. ;
Some RUM studies have used predicted, rather than actual, catch rates (1 laab et al, 2000; H icks et al.» 1999; McConnell and
Strand, 1994). This practice allows for individual characteristics to affect catch rates; for example, anglers with different .
levels of experience may have different catch rates. Haab et al. (2000) compared historic catch and keep rates to predicted
catch and keep rates and found that historic catch and keep rates were a belter measure of site quality. They also found that
the choice of catch rate had little effect on the travel cost parameters. Hicks et al. (1999) found that using historical catch
rates resulted in more conservative welfare estimates than predicted catch rate models. Consequently, EPA favored this more
conservative approach.
The NMFS surveys collect two catch rate measures: total catch (including fish discarded or used for bait), and fish caught and
kept, which were available for measurement by the interviewer. Some of the NMFS studies use the catch and keep measure
as the relevant catch rale. Although greater error may be associated with measured numbers of fish not kept, the total catch
measure is most appropriate in the Tampa area because a large number of anglers catch and release fish. There are many
reasons for fish releases, including:
»• Enjoyment of the sport rather than fish consumption;
*• Environmental regulations (e.g., bag limits for recreational fish species);
*• Individual concerns about dwindling fish stocks; and
*• Concerns over possible pollutants in fish.caught.
D5-6
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter b5: RUM Analysis
Some fish of particular interest, e.g., tarpon, are never kept. Table D5-7 shows the average catch rates by species. On
average, the "other" specie's category has. the highest catch rate, followed by-spotted seatrout, drums, snapper-grouper, and
gameilsh.
Table b5-7: Average Cdteh ftotc by Species/Species Group
(fish per an§!er per hour)
Species/Species
Group
Drums
Spotted Seatrout
Gamefish
Snapper-Grouper
QtterJ>pecies
Average Catch Rate (fish per angler per hour)
Shore Mode
0.312
0.792
0,281
0.26?
2.635 .
Boat Mode
0.524
1.168
0.351
0.499
2.118
Shore and Boat
Modes
0.446
1.157
0.325
0.4(54
2.051
D5-1.4 . Travel Cost .
EPA estimated trip "price" for each angler as the sum of travel costs plus the opportunity cost of time, following the
procedure described in Haab et at (2000). Based on Parsons and Kealy (1992), this study assumed that time spent "on-sile"
is constant across sites and can be ignored in the price calculation.
i
EPA used ZipFip software to cajcuiate the one-way distance to each site for each angler.'' Several people reported out-of-state
Zip codes, and were deleted from the analysis. Although the analysis could not determine whether the reported Zip codes are
accurate measures of anglers' trip origins, interviewers asked respondents for the Zip code of their winter residence rather
than their permanent residence.5 The analysis therefore assumes that anglers are traveling from the Zip code reported in the
data.6 The average estimated one-way distance to the site visited is 15,1 miles. j
To estimate anglers' travel costs, EPA multiplied round-trip distance by average motor vehicle cost per mile ($0.31, 1997
dollars).7 The model adds the opportunity cost of travel time, measured in terms of wages lost, to the travel cost for those
who would have lost income by taking the fishing trip. For these anglers the dummy variable LOSEINC equals one. Travel
times equal the round-trip distance divided by a travel speed of 40 niph and multiplied by the angler's hourly wage as
calculated below.
The travel cost variable in the model was calculated as follows:
Visit
( '
Price =1 Rot
I Moi
„ j ». • r« • a-11 Round Trip Distance
Round /rip Distance * $.31 + ~ —
40 .mph
Round Trip Distance * $.31
.(Wage) If LOSEINC:- \
If LOSEINC = 0
.Eq. D5-1
4 The program was created by Daniel Hclicrstcin and is available through the USDA at
http://usda.niaunltb.corneU.edu/daiasets/general/93014. :
5 Correspondence with an economist at NMFS (Amy Guatam, NMFS Economist, September 2001).
6 Thirteen observations where estimated travel time did not closely approximate reported travel times were deleted from the analysis,
because of unreliable travel time estimates. • •
"' EPA .used the Federal Travel Regulations mileage reimbursement rate for June 7,1996 - September 8, 1998 (FTR Amendment 48).
This estimate includes vehicle operating costs only.
D5-7
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter 05: RUM Analysis
The analysis assumes that anglers whose incomes are not flexible'(e.g., people on salary), do not consider the dollar cost of
the lime given up to travel to a recreational site. These anglers still have an opportunity cost for their travel time, which could
otherwise be spent doing something else, like fishing. In other words, a shorter distance traveled allows for a longer time
spent fishing. For these anglers, the analysis included an additional round-trip travel time variable calculated as:
Travel Time = | Round Trip Distance/40 If LOSEINC = 0
0 , If LOSEINC = 1
Eq. D5-2
The average one-way estimated travel time to the visited site is 22.7 minutes, while the average reported travel time is 29.7
minutes. This discrepancy is due to the difference between actual and measured travel miles.
The model identified anglers who lost income while traveling by creating the LOSEIMC dummy variable as follows.
Approximately seven percent of respondents who answered (62/909), reported that they lost income during their fishing trip.
The analysis used other information to infer responses in the case of 274 anglers who did not answer this question. Most of
the 274 anglers (267/274) reported being unemployed, while others reported receiving a salary rather than an hourly wage; the
model assumed that these anglers did not lose income by taking the fishing trip. Four respondents (less than one percent)
provided insufficient information to determine employment status. To be conservative, the analysis assumed that these
individuals did not lose income.
The data set lacked 415 values (35 percent of responses) for household income. The analysis imputed incomes for these
anglers by first converting household income categories to dollar amounts using the category midpoints. For income category
">S 175,000," the analysis capped the income variable at$200,000, following Hash et al. (2000),
Next, the analysis used a regression analysis to predict the missing lvalues of income in a data set with observations for all •
variables considered important in determining household income. The analysis regressed the log of household's category
midpoint income on factors hypothesized to influence income. The estimated regression equation used in wage calculation is:
Ln(Income) - 0.14 * male + 0.10 x age ~ 0.0017 x age2 + 0.32 x employed
+ 0.15 '* boatown + 0.81 log (stinc)
C|. D5-3
where:
INCOME
MALE
AGE
EMPLOYED
BOATOWN
STINC
the reported household income;
1 for males and 0 otherwise;
age in years;
1 if the respondent is currently employed and 0 otherwise;
1 if the respondent owns a boat and 0 otherwise; and
the average income of residents in Florida*
The average state income variable has the largest coefficient (0.81) and therefore explains most of the variability in income,
followed by employment, then gender and boat ownership, with age having the smallest influence, The model R2 is .9967.
Based on this model, the predicted average household income for anglers who did not report income is $40,785 per year.
.
EPA estimated household wage by dividing household income by 2,080 (i.e., the number of full time hours potentially
worked). Table D5-S shows summary statistics for reported travel time and expenses for the intercepted trip.
* The average income for Florida is S31,900, based on Ilaab, et. al, 2000.
D5-8
-------
§ 316{b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter1 D5; RUM Analysis
Table D5-8; Summary of Statistics for Travel Cost and Trip Expenses
Household hourly wage
Travel cost
Reported Round trip travel time (hours)
Reported expenses (traveH-othcr)
Rcportedcwnsesta.vcl+othcrHjoai fee)
Minimum
$3.61 '
$1.32
0
$0
SO
Maximum
$96,15"
5173,78
-. 25
S610
tvmmJIisll^L*^
Mean
$22,85
$21.20
.50
S 14.94
S21.37
Standard
Deviation
, $13.66
$16.12
.83
126,19
S66.25
D5-2 SITE CHOICE MODEL
This section presents results of the RUM, estimated using a conditional logic model for site choice. In the conditional logit
model estimated here, the measurable component of utility is estimated as:
Eq. D5-4
where:
' TC/k)
•TTflt)
SQRTQ^k)
RAMP-MARj
P and Y parameters
travel cost to site j for angler k;
travel time to site j for angler k;
square root of the historic catch rate for species $ at silejV
dummy variable set equal to 1 if species s is chosen;
presence of boat ramp or marina at site j; and
marginal utilities for each variable.
The analysis used the square root of the catch rate to allow for decreasing marginal utility of catching fish (McConnell and
Strand 1994). The analysis therefore models the probability of choosing site j as:
(k)]
Eq. DS-5
where h #j and h = /„.„./. ' •
The analysis assumes that each angler in the estimated model considers site quality based on the catch rale for targeted
species, and the presence of boat ramps and marinas at the site. The model multiplies a dummy variable for species targeted
by the catch rate for each species, so that each angler's observation in the data set will include the catch rate for only the
targeted species, with all other catch rates set to zero, "No target" anglers, who may catch a variety of species, were assumed
to face a catch rate that was a weighted average of all five catch rates, weighted by the percent of "no target" anglers who
generally target each species or species group,9 •' ,
Recreational fishing models often use a nested structure, assuming that anglers first choose a mode and species and then a site.
The nested logit model generally avoids the independence of irrelevant alternatives (1IA) problem, in which sites with similar
characteristics that are not included in the model have correlated error terms.19 The nested structure based on mode/species
and then site choice therefore assumes that sites selected for certain modes and/or species have similar characteristics.
* No target anglers actually caught fish in all categories. Most of the fish caught by no target anglers on the intercepted trip were in
the "other" category. Eight percent of .fish caught and kept were a species of interest, and 17 percent offish caught and released were a
species of interest.
!0 The HA property follows from the assumption that the error terms are independent. Sites sharing characteristics not included in the
model (e.g,,, salt water versus freshwater sites) will have correlated error terms, thus violating the 11A property.
D5-9
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Similarities between sites in the Tampa region data set are not clearly distinguished in terras of.mode and species. Several
mode/species combinations are fished at the same sites. Also, the likely differences among all Tampa region sites make the
HA problem likely to be insignificant. The analysis therefore uses a non-nested RUM in which anglers compare sites and
choose the one offering the highest utility level for each trip occasion.
The analysis tested various alternative model specifications, but the model presented here was most successful at explaining
the probability of selecting a site." Models with dummy variable interactions between mode and site and species aod site did
not produce statistically significant interactions. A model with an interaction term between "no-target" anglers and the catch
rate for other species found that this interaction was not significant, implying that the "other" target anglers and "no-target"
anglers do not differ significantly. This conclusion makes sense, based on summary statistics for "no-target" anglers
presented in the data section. ',
The analysis also ran separate models by mode and species. These models included each site/species combination as a
separate choice. Software limitations required the 52 sites to be aggregated into 15 composite sites for these models, yielding
75 separate site/species choices. These models did not explain the variations in data as well as the single model with 52 site
choices,
The best model presented here is a site choice model that includes boat mode anglers for all species. This analysis therefore
models only site choice and assumes that each angler has chosen a mode/species followed by a site based on the catch rate for
that site and species.
Table D5-9 presents model results. All coefficients, except for theiother species catch rale, are significant at the 95*
perccnlilc or better, with expected signs. The results indicate that the average angler who targets a species most highly values
snapper-grouper, followed by gamefish, drums, spotted seatrout, and other species. Travel time {'FT) is more important than
travel cost (TC) in determining whether the average angler would travel farther to a specific site. A site with a boat ramp or
marina is more likely to be selected by an angler Fishing by boat.
Table D5-9: Site Choice Model Results *
Variable
TC
TT
SQRT(Q*«)
SQRT(Q ^,,«lical,«1,)
SQRTCQ^,,,,,)
SQRTtQ^^^,^,,)
SQIVRQ,^)
SQRTCQ^,^,,,)
Coefficient
-O.H6:
-2.070
1.435
0.954
2.274
2,511
2.907
-0.108.
Ramp Mar ; 0.248
T-Statistic
-7.28
-8.95
2.50
2.29 i
2.76
6.0S ;
4.99 ;
-0.14 i
34ifBmiltf
Discrete choice (multinomial logit) model: Maximum Likelihood Estimates
D5-3 TRIP PARTICIPATION MODEL
EPA also examined the effects of changes in fishing circumstances on an individual's choice concerning the number of trips
to take during a recreation season. EPA used the negative binomial form of the Poisson regression model to estimate the
number of fishing trips per recreational season. The participation model relies OH socioeconomic data and estimates of
individual utility (the inclusive value) derived from the site choice model (Parsons et ah, 1999; Feather et al., 1995). This
section discusses results from the negative binomial model of recreational fishing participation, including statistical and
theoretical implications of the model. A detailed discussion of the Poisson model is presented in Chapter AID of Part A.
11 All RUM and Poisson models were estimated with LIMDEP™ software (Greene, 1995).
DS-IO
-------
§ 316{b) Watershed Case Studies; Part 0, Tampa Bay
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
The dependent variable, the number of recreational trips within the past 12 months, is an integer value ranging from 0 to 365.
To avoid overprediction of the number of fishing trips, EPA set the number of trips for anglers reporting over 200 trips per
year to,200 in the model estimation.12
Table D5-10 shows the negative binomial model result's. The variables in the final model are:
IVBASE = the inclusive value for each angler from the RUM;
MALE = 1 If male; ' ;
OWNJBQAT = 1 if person owns a boat and fishes by pvt_rental mode;
DRTARG = I if drums are generally targeted;
GATARG = I if gamefish are generally targeted; and
ALPHA = overdispmion coefficient, •
The analysts used the angler's "generally targeted" species, rather than species targeted on the intercepted day, to interpret the
RDTARG and GATARG variables. See the data section for more detail, . '
All parameters are significant, with expected signs. The results indicate that anglers with higher values per trip, as indicated
by the IVBASE variable, males, boat owners who fish by boat., and those targeting drums and gamefish, will take more fishing
trips per year.
Additional tested variables were not statistically significant. These variables include whether the asgler is employed, retired,
unemployed (including retired people), a homernaker or student, or white; the angler's age; years of fishing experience;
income; and whether the angler generally targets spotted seatrout or generally targets snapper-grouper.
Table b5-iO: Negative Binomial Model Results * •
Variable
Constant
IVBASE
MALE
OwnJJQAT
DRTARO
GATARG
Gvern ]
JMB!ia w _,
Coefficient
3.281
0.049 .
0,217 '
0.255
0.214 '
0356
•aramcter for Negativ<
i-^-^jyiii—-^
T-Statistic
21.29
3.26 - i
1.76 . i
3.20
2.80 ;
3.78
; Binomial Mode)
—JO^7 , .
Negative binomial regression Maximum Likelihood estimates
D5-4 WELFARE ESTIMATES . . : .
This section presents estimates of welfare losses to recreational anglers from fish mortality due to l&E, and potential welfare
gains from improvements in fishing opportunities due to reduced fish mortality stemming from the 316b ruje.
D5-4.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
To estimate changes in the quality of fishing sites under different policy scenarios, EPA relied on the recreational fishery
landings data by state and the estimates of recreational losses from I&B on the relevant species at the Tampa Bay CWISs.
The National Marine Fisheries Service provided the recreational fishery landings data for western Florida for the main species
12 The number of trips was truncated at the 95"' percentile, 200 trips per year according to NMFS recommendations (NMFS, 2001 b).
' ' . D5-U
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
affected by l&E. These species are black drum, spotted seatrout, and sheepshead.D-H EPA estimated the losses to
recreational fisheries using the impacts ofl&E on the relevant fish species and the percentage of total fishery landings
attributed to the recreational fishery, as described in Chapter D3,
The Agency estimated changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites under different policy scenarios in terms of the
percentage change in the historic catch rate. EPA assumed that catch rates will change uniformly across all marine fishing
sites in the Tampa Bay region, because species considered in this analysis inhabit a wide range that extends beyond the region
of interest (Paltillo, et a!., 1997). EPA used the average recreational landings for a 3-year period (1997 through 1999), for
sites within State waters.'5 EPA then divided I&E losses to the recreational fishery by the total recreational landings for the
Tampa Bay area for each species of concern to calculate the percent change in historic catch rate from baseline losses (i.e.,
eliminating I&E completely). Table D5-11 presents results of this analysis.
Table D5-11
Species
Black Drum
Spotted Seatrout
Shccpshead'' laaM
Estimated Changes in Catch Rates from Eliminating all !<&£ of
Black Drum, Spotted Seatrout and Sheepshead
Estimated Fishery I&E
(number offish/year)
Number
ofFish
Impinged
54,4
5,183
„ ., ,.
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part b, Tampa Bay
Chapter b5: RUM Analysis
a. Per trip/per additional fish 'benefits
Table D5-I2 presents the compensating variation per trip (averaged over all anglers in the sample)-associated with reduced
fish mortality from eliminating l&E for each fish species of concern;16 and for a one fish catch rate increase for each species.17
Table D5-12: Per Trip Welfare Sain from Eliminating I&E. of Drums,
Spotted Seatrout and Sheepshead in the Tampa Bay Region (2000$)
Targeted Spesies
Black and Red Drums
Black Drum
Spotted Seatrout
Gamefeh
Snapper-Grouper
Per Trip Welfare Gain
from Elimination of l&E
—. '
$7.04
SI. 76
—
^m^^^^^^^M^^
WTP tor an Additional Fish ;
per Trip i
$3,66
..
$2.80 i
$5.46 • !
^>^.^>£§<1$ - • '
•The results show that anglers targeting black drum have the largest per trip welfare gain ($7.04) from eliminating I&E in the
Tampa region. Anglers targeting spotted Seatrout and sheepshead have smaller per-trip gains ($.176 and $1.74 respectively).
The large gains for black drum are due 10 the large predicted increase in catch rates. In general, based on a one fish per trip
increase in catch rate, gamefish and snapper-grouper are the most highly valued fish in the study area, followed by drums and
spotted seatrout, Haab, et al. (2000) report a range of values for a unit increase in catch per trip, using the.] 997 MRFSS data
for western Florida, The values estimated for the Tampa area are consistent with their estimates! Haab et kl. estimated values
for increasing an angler's catch by one fish per trip. The estimated values for snapper-grouper range from:$3.78 to $5.58; the
authors' values for spotted seatrout range from $0.31 to $ 1,09; and their estimated values for red drum range from S3.68 to
$16.92.""* They do not estimate values for gamefish, but do estimate values for coastal migratory pelagic fish, which range
from $2.92 to $26.30:*'
b. Estimating total participation
EPA calculated total economic values by combining the estimated per trip welfare gain with the total number of trips to sites
in the Tampa Bay region. NMFS provided information on the total number of fishing trips for western Florida. EPA
estimated the number of trips for the case study area by first calculating the percent of total intercept surveys from western
Florida conducted in the Tampa Bay case study area (48.04%). Multiplying the total number of trips in western Florida by
the estimated percent of intercept surveys in the Tampa Bay area yields the number of fishing trips in the study area.
The total number of trips includes both single- and multiple-day trips, with multiple day trips expanded to estimated fishing
days by NMFS.21 The Agency assumed that the welfare gain per day of fishing is independent of the numtjer of days fished
per trip and therefore equivalent for single- and multiple-day trips. Table D5^l 3 presents the estimated nufcber of days fished
by mode for the Tampa Bay Region.
A compensating variation equates the expected value of realized utility under the baseline and post-compliance conditions. For
more detail see Chapter A10 of Part A,
17 The one fish per trip increase was convened to .24 fish per hour, based on an average trip length of 4.1 hours, •
18 Haab et al. (2000) report their dollar estimates .in 1997 dollars. Their estimates have been convened to 20QOS here for purposes of
comparison,
" EPA'S estimate for drams is on the low end of the estimates from Haab et al, (2000). However, Haab et al.'s values are for red
drum, while EPA's estimate is for both black and red drum. Black drum is not as highly valued by anglers as red drum (Pattillo et al,,
_, 3ft Haab ct al.'s (2000) coastal migratory pelagic group includes blueflsh, cobia, dolphin, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, and
little tunny. EPA's gamefish group includes hammerhead shark, snook, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, pompano, cpbia, tuna, and
Atlantic tarpon. . '. ..'•.''
J! Based on email communication with NMFS staff (Alan Lowther, NMFS Statistician, January 2001).
D5-13
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Cose Studies: Part D, Tampa Boy •
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Table D-13: Recreational Fishing Participation by Fishing Mode
Fishing Mode
Private and/or Rental Boats
Shore
Charter Boat
Total Number
orFlshing Days per Year in Tampa
Case Study Area
3,285,506
2,783,465
361,258
Total : M30^2i»™,,_—_
Source: NMFS, 200 Ib.
Per trip welfare gains differ across recreational species, EPA therefore estimated the number of fishing trips associated with
each species of concern. Again, EPA used the MRFSS sample to calculate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken
by anglers targeting each species of concern, and applied these percentages to the total number of trips to estimate species- •
specific participation. Table D5-14 shows the calculation results.22 For all fishing modes, anglers targeting gamefish take the
most trips each year, followed by those targeting snapper-grouper, drums, and spotted seatrout. The number of trips for
anglers targeting black drum was calculated by multiplying total trips for drums by the percent of drum anglers who generally
target black drum. The number of sheepshead trips was calculated in a similar manner, based on snapper-grouper trips.
The estimated number of trips represents the baseline level of participation, Anglers may take more fishing trips when fishing
quality improves, EPA used the estimated trip participation model [to estimate the percentage change in the number of fishing
trips wilh the elimination of l&E, and for a one fish per trip increase in catch rates at each site. For elimination of l&E, the
estimated percentage increases are .93% for anglers who target sheepshead, .94% for anglers who target spotted seatrout, and
3.82% for anglers who target black drum. For a 1 fish increase in catch rates, the estimated percentage increases range from
1.5 percent for anglers who target spotted seatrout, to 2.95 percent for anglers who target gamefish. The increased number of
trips are shown in Table D5-14.
c. Estimating total benefits to Tampa Bay anglers
Table D5-I5 provides welfare estimates for the two policy scenarios; the elimination of l&E in the Tampa region, and a one
fish per trip increase in catch rates. For elimination of I&E, total benefits would be $2,380,303 per year estimated at the
baseline number of trips, and S2,410,28S per year estimated at the predicted increased number of trips. For a one fish
increase, for all fishing modes, total benefits would be $23.1 million per year estimated at the baseline number of trips, and
S23.7 million per year estimated at the predicted increased number of trips.
" The number of trips shown includes trips taken by anglers who did not target on the intercepted trip. The number of trips for "no
target" anglers for each species was calculated based on the total number of no target anglers multiplied by the percent of no target anglers
who generally target each species. , -. •
D5-J4
-------
i
•8
o
*
o*
.£
-C
* —
IJL.
K
M
t)
W
at
to"
£
__«>
>4w.
H.
i
o
jr
i£
1
4-
g
U
w
•flC
$
If*
s
ft)
35
L—
' bft'
j d
i I
J s ,
o i*"* £ S *sS
a* a* ' QniQf
*g ^j - S
J5 «?l S
*c3 fco* *•*"
S -B '
,o •& ;,.,, ......
H gi-
ts i
i
'• fcl)
• JD
: tS
• .52
as ; fe
13 «*! *5* jj?
o wi > sg
L- ffi *
gj AM I Qi Q/ .
tU wi • 5 .
J§ ^J J«-
M •**• * -t±:
W o j S^
"i » j,, • JS
|JSl.
i |; ;
'"•§,:
\
'; £
t t-G*
li It
g g8- S S
wli 1
« "o : «
o ^ j j*J.
^1 • »
j
;
t ftC
; • t|K
«t ; ,*g
C5 c* ; &&« -
y2 e^** t3 »^»
*"* ' S» *«S '
•g a1.: * =
jS *C3 ; -g T"^
PC *jj ; j.^
•SI*: *
g ?;
^ :
i
S
i 3-
(A
S
+
sst **^
C S3 M
1.13
s *•
IIIJIC It <»
**||WflF*>jtx
E
•f
K
Cf *O j^j
1J2
SM
HHMWa
JS
aft
E
4-
J3 O j^
S*"
.1 1 j, IS 1^1
>££
£
V*4
4*
03 ^*-
K O fj^
0 « ^
g «5 *-*
ijjf3CU«
*HV**««
^.
SN
—
8
*n
%C
S
.-
c
12
'
—
5"
ro
j
Cs
oo
w
fn
f"J
r*^
f
fn
^
S
5
G
'
o
m
F»
tC
r-l
5J
S
1
oo
—
*n
—
' !
vrs
TT
sr
, OC
Q\
of
11
P Q
t^
1
so
•v0
»
r-
I Gamefish
, .,
0
-r
f
g
""i.
S
•-
oo
oo
o
fs
. 1
0
I
0
o*
3
S
oo
0*
o
t^-
;•
v.
Cft
oo
£ g
£§-
§fi
t/3 s./
Ij
<"?'
o:
OO;
**•
O
txf
oo
o
a
<^
Oj
!i
oo;
O^
oci
»-«;
^
ii
f"*;
vv
^
xr
so;
s
H
3
1 i
t ]
C/3 *O j
d
g
•g
s
.£
c:
3 percent i
«
>A
1
f
S"'
C
73
O
i/i
•O
£3
O
ex.
I
0
o
•g
c;
o
tS
o
£
a.
'S
u<
8.
*O
8
'o
1
,S
Kf
a"
S
^
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, The Tampa Boy ; Chapter D5:Tampa Bay Recreational Fishing Case Study
Table D5-15: Total Welfare Estimates for I<£E Baseline Losses and 1 fish
Increase in Catch Rates (2000$)
i + 1 Fkh
apcctcj» r
; JLow Value
Drams (Red and Black) ; 34,380,788
Black Drum \
Spotted Seatrout ; $3,146,749
Gamefish ' 58,541,457
Snapper-Grouper ; 87,055,717
Shccpshcad
jflttii-*,UM^«««.«-.«-J.uJsajaizu^
High Value
$4,467,163
—
53,303,998
• §8,793,479
$7,252,1 16
<~
Baseline I&K Losses
Low Value
_
$264,651
$1,976,135
-
—
5139,817
ri|a|?||7f5fj?,.^r^!||^31i
High Value
—
$274,451
$1,994,717
.-
.. •
5141,121
™4Wi?fci
D5-5 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTY
D5-5.1 Site Quality
The Tampa Bay model uses historic catch rates and the presence of boat ramps and marinas as the sole measures of site
quality. Other potential measures of quality arc omitted. These might include the size offish caught or the likelihood of
catching a large fish. Other site quality variables related to aesthetics and amenities of sites might also be important,
However, EPA was unable to obtain adequate data on any of these variables,
D5-5.2 Extrapolating Single-Day Trip Results to Estimate Benefits from Multiple-
Day Trips " .
Use of per day welfare gain estimated for single-day trips to estimate per day welfare gain associated with multiple-day trips
can either understate or overstate benefits to anglers taking multiple-day trips. Inclusion of multi-day trips in the model of
recreational anglers" behavior can be problematic because multi-day trips are frequently multi-activity trips. An individual
might travel a substantial distance, participate in several recreation activities including shopping and sightseeing, all as part of
one trip. Recreational benefits from improved recreational opportunities for the primary activity are overstated if all travel
costs are treated as though they apply to the one recreational activity of interest. EPA therefore limited the recreational
behavior model to single-day trips only and then extrapolated single-day trip results to estimate benefits to anglers taking
multiple-day trips.
D5-5.3 Considering Only Recreational Values
This study understates the total benefits of improvements in fishing site quality because estimates are limited to recreation
benefits. Many other forms of benefits, such as habitat values for. a variety of species (in addition to recreational fish), nonuse
values, etc., are also likely to be important.
D5-5.4 Sources of Survey Bias
a. Recall bias
Recall bias can occur when respondents are asked, such as in the KDS survey, the number of their recreation days over the
previous season. Some researchers believe that recall bias tends to lead to the number of recreation days being overstated,
particularly by more avid participants. Avid participants tend to overstate the number of recreation days because they count
days in a "typical" week and then multiply them by the number of weeks in the recreation season. They often neglect to
consider days missed due to bad weather, illness, travel, or when fulfilling "atypical" obligations. Some studies also found
thai the more salient the activity, the more "optimistic" the respondent tends to be in estimating the number of recreation days.
Individuals may also overstate the number of days they participate in activities that they enjoy and value. Taken together,
these sources of recall bias may result in an overstatement of the actual number of recreation days.
05-16
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, The Tampa Bay Chapter D5:Tampa Bay Recreational Fishing Case Study
b, Sampling effects • • .
Recreational demand studies frequently face observations that do not fit general recreation patterns, such as observations of
avid participants. These participants can be problematic because they claim to participate in an activity an; inordinate number -
of times. This reported level of activity is sometimes correct but often overstated, perhaps .due-to recall bias. Even where the
reports are correct, these observations tend to be overly influential. EPA set the upper limit of the number 'of fishing trips per
year 10200 days to correct for potential bias caused by these observations when estimating trip participation models. Note
that the Agency used the NMFS estimate of the baseline number of trips that was corrected for avidity bias. The estimated
participation model was used for estimating percentage change in total participation in the Tampa Bay area. Therefore,
sampling effects are unlikely to have a significant impact on welfare estimates.
c. Modeling
The model, necessarily assumes that trips are independent choice occasions because it uses data for an individual intercepted
trip for each angler to predict behavior. The model does not account for the fact that choices regarding trips across a season
or year tnigbt be correlated. The Tampa Bay case study does not use mode-specific catch rates in the model. The inclusion of
catch rates by mode and site might capture differences in value by mode,
D5-I7
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part b: Tampa Bay
Chapter b&: Benefits Analysis
for-
on
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits to fisheries that are associated with
reductions in estimated current I&E at four facilities on
Tampa Bay. The economic benefits reported here are
based on the values .presented in Chapter D4, and EPA's
estimates of current I&E (discussed in Chapter D3).
Section D6-1 presents a summary of l&E losses, and
associated monetized losses, for Big Bend, Section D6-2
then describes the economic benefits from the reduced
I&E and Section D6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the
analysis.
CHAPTER CONTENTS
D6-1 Overytewof I&E and Associated EcqnOBiie ~ ' -~
* "V ., ^.Losses .-.,....,.',»...".'..< r...?,..,;./L .JD6-I
06-3
" Sp'eeies at Fosrln-Scojxj Facilities on Tampa Bay , D6-5*
Swamary of OmissionvBiases/'and JJnceaaioties f *' •
D6-1 OVERview OF IAE AND AssocnTB) ECONOMIC VALUES
The flowchart in Figure D6-1 reveals how the valuation of loss is derived, starting with data expressed as numbers of
organisms lost from I&E. Figures D6-2 and D6-3 display the current impingement and entrainment impacts, respectively, on
age 1 equivalents of the various fisheries. These piecharts reflect the baseline losses based on current technology, and all
dollar values and percentages of losses reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse,
and forage. . :
D6-1
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D6: Benefits Analysis
Figure D6-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual I<5£ at Big Bend Facility, Tampa Bay and Associated
Economic Values (based on current configuration; a!l results are annuafeed)8
1. Number of organisms lost {cg(j?J, larvae, juveniles, etc.)
I: 284,000 organisms
E:}.8 billion organisms
2. Age 1 equivalents lost (number (if fish)
I: 420,000 fish (62.100 forage, 357,100 commercial and recreational)
E:7,71 billion fish (7,7 billion forage, 10,5 million commercial anj recreational)
3. Loss to fishery (recreational anrt commercial harvest)
I: 27.000 fish (U, 100 tb)
E: 1,3 million fish (22.8 million Ib)
4. Commercial losses
I: 21.400 fish (4,300 Ib)
SU,500 (3.6% of $1 loss)
E: 640.000 fish < 10.1 million Ib)
$652.200 (8.0% of$E loss)
5. Recreational losses
11; 6,300 fish (3,400 Ib)
S19l,600RUMb
(59.5% of SI loss)
$15,400 BT'
(4.8%of$l loss)- .--,
E: 690,000 fisli (6.2 .million Jb)
S787.400 RUM" '"':
(9.7% of $E toss)
$65,300151'" ' :.
(OJ%0f $E toss) ;;;'
6. Forage losses (valued using
replacement cost method)
It 62.100 fish
$123 (0.04% of Silos,!.)
E;7.7 billion fish
$6,2 million (70,3% of
$lj loss)
7. Nonusc losses
I: $103.500(32.1%ofSIloss)
E: $426.400 (5.2% of $E-loss)..
* All ilollar values are ihc midpoint of the range of estimates.
* Random Utility Model.
' Bencliis transfer,
Nose: Species with l&E <1% of the total I&E were not valued.
D6-2
-------
§ 316{b) Case Studies, Port t>: Tampa Bay
Chapter 56: Benefits Analysis
Figure B6~2: Big Bend; Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic
Values :
6,5% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method)
[0,04% ojI//b
78,7% Coinrnereial and
Recreational Fisha
UNVALUED (ie.,
- unharvested)
6.45% Commercial and
Recreational Fish
VALUED (as direct toss
to commercial and
recreational fishery)
[67.9%ofSl]h
Total; 419,300 fish per year (age 1 equivalents)1*
Total impingement value; $322,100b
" Impacts shown arc to age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreatioually harvested fish include impacts for all ages
vulnerable 10 the fishery.
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 32.1% of total estimated Si loss.
D6-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D6: Benefits Analysis
Figure B6-3: Big Bend: Distribution of Entrapment Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic
Values
0.02% Commercial and Recreational Fish"
VALUED (as direct loss to commercial
and recreational fishery)
flS.5%of$EJ<>
99.86% Forage Fish"
UNDERVALUED
(valued using
rcplaceincnt cost
method)
0.12% Commercial and Recreational Fish"
UNVALUED (i.e.» unharvestcd)
"0% ofSE) "
Total: 7.7 billion fish peryear(age 1 equivalents)
Total entrainnicnt value; $8.1 million
* Impacts, shown art: to age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recrcationally harvested fish include impacts for all ages
vulnerable to ihe fishery.
* Midpoint of estimated range, Nonuse values are 5,2% of total estimated SB loss.
D6-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tompa Bay
Chapter 56: Benefits Analysis
D6-2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REDUCED IAE AT THE FOUR IN-SCOPE FACILITIES ON
TAMPA BAY
Tables D6-1 and D6-2 provide the baseline .monetized recreational loss estimates for impingement and entrainment,
respectively. Both tables indicate results from the basic analysis (benefit transfer) from Chapter D4, and the RUM analysis
from Chapter D5. The two approaches are combined to develop a range of estimates for recreational fishery losses at
baseline.
Table 06-1 •: EPA's Estimate of Current Recreational Economic Losses
•^benefits baseline) from Impingement for Recreational Spectes at
Facilities Located.on Tampa Bay ($2000)
• .Species-
1 - . - ""
Black drum
Blue crab
Pinfish
Stiver perch
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Total"
- .' iMf-Jsieojie IPacUitiei {Big Bend, PJ Gannon,
• Hoofers Point, PL Rartow)
• - Basic Analysis.
$23
$24,081
$13,260
$228
146,020
$301
Rum Analysis*
$0
NA
' . NA
NA
$47 i, 751
NA
$509,621
* The RUM results include increased participation, . .
fo RUM results used (in place of Basic Analysis results) where given,
NA — Not Available.
\\alexandria\prdject\INTAKE\TampamBay\Tampa_Science\scode\extrapolation,to.othcr.
fac,iiilies\red.baseline.rum.Lxls
37285
Table D'6-2: ERA*s. Estimate :of Current Recreational /Economic Losses
(benefits baseline) from Entrainment For Recreational-Species at
"^ Located on Tampa Bay ,($2OOO) _ '
Species
-: Ill-Scope facilities (J81g fenfl, W Gannon,
Hooters Point, PL Bartow)
Black drurp
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Total" ' •
,;B3sic Analysis
$169,56?
$571
$6,242
$148,531
8154,507
S2,0<
tem Analysis*
$274,451.
5141,121
NA
SI, 322,066
NA
»,287
* The RUM results include increased participation,
*" RUM results used (in place of Basic Analysis results) where given.
NA =* Not Available,
\\a!exandria\projeet\rNTAKE\Tampa_Bay\Tarnpa_Science\scode\extrapolation,to.other.
facilities\red.baseline.rum,E,xls
1/29/02
Table D6-3 summarizes the total current losses, plus the potential benefits of a range of I&E. reductions. The benefits of
reducing I&E at Tampa Bay in-scppe facilities are expected to range from S471,000 to $480,000 for a 60% reduction in
impingement and fromSO.7 million to S14.3 million peryearfora 70% reduction in etrtrammenl.
D6-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter 56: Benefits Analysis
b6-3: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a. Itangft of Potential JAE
Jteduetterre at Four In Scope Facilities on Tampa Bay ($2000)
Baseline Losses
Benefits of 10% reductions
Benefits of 20% reductions
Benefits of 30% reductions
Benefits of 40% reductions
Benefits of 50% reductions
Benefits of 60% reductions
Benefits of 70% reductions
Benefits of 80% reductions
Benefits of 90% reductions
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
Impingement
$785,000
$801,000
S79.QOO
580,000
$157,000
$160,000
$236,000
$240,000
$314,000
$320,000
$393,000
$400,000
$471,000
$480,000
8550,000
$561,000
$628,066'
$641,000
$707,000
$721,000
Entniinmeut
$19,615,000
$20,491,000
81,961,000
32,049,000
83,923,000
$4,098,000
$5,884,000
56,147,000
§7,846,000
SB, 196,000
' S9.807.000
$10,245,000
$11,769,000
$12,294,000
$13,730,000
114,343,000
$15,692,000
$16,393,000
SI 7,653,000
$18,442,000
total
$20,400,000
$21,291,000
82,040,000
52,129,000
$4,080,000
54,258,000
$6,120,000
56,387,000
$8,160,000
$8,517,000
510,200,000
$10,646,000
$12,240,000
$12,775,000
514,280,000
$14,904,000
SI 6,320,000
$17,033,000
$18,360,000
$19,162,000
D6-3 SUMMARY OF OMISSIONS, BIASES, AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE BENEFITS
ANALYSIS
Table D6-4 presents an overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were properly
accounted.
D6-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay ' t < ' Chapter D6: Benefits Analysis
Table D6-4; Omissions, Biases, and Unceftatnties m the Bertefftsistimates ' .
: ' issue
Long-term fish stock effects not
considered
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Recreation participation is held
constant*
Boating, bird- watching, and other
in-stream or near-water activities
are omitted*
Effect of change in stocks on
•number of landings
Nonuse-beneftts
Use of unit values from outside
Tampa Bay Estuary
Extrapolation from. Big Bend to
other facilities
Impact on Benefits Estimate; Comments
. '• Understates benefits11 iEPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
jthe higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
Understates benefits'1 {EPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the
• stock more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as
[water quality improves over time due to other watershed activities, the
[number offish impacted by I&E may increase.
Understates benefits" ; Recreational benefits estimated via benefits transfer only reflect
^anticipated increase in value per activity outing; increased levels of
{participation are omitted. RUM analyses do embody participation
: increases, however.
Understates- benefits' iThe only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
i -••'*'•- i •
Uncertain JBPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship, that a 1.3 percent
; change in stock would have a 1 3 percent change ;tn landings; this may
; be Sow or high, depending on the condition of the stocks.
Uncertain j EPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
i angling benefits.
Uncertain iThe recreational and commercial values used are from the state and/or .
-'mid-Atlantic region, but arc not from studies of Tampa Bay
; specifically.
Uncertain \ Unknown whether S/MOD basis for extrapolation over- or understates
s benefits of other facilities in the estuary.
3 Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
D6-7
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: Son Francisco Bay/belta Estuary
an
Ita
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
Chapter El:
Background
CHAPTER CONTENTS
Bl-l
El-2
The San Francisco Bay and the Sacramenlo-San Joaquin
River Delta combine to form the largest estuary along the
U.S. Pacific Coast (Kennish, 2000). The San Francisco
Bay/Delta Estuary supports numerous fish species that
have shown substantial declines in recent years as a result
of human activities, particularly extensive use and
redistribution of freshwater inflow to the delta, A number
of these species are currently threatened with extinction,
including numerous native fishes that are vulnerable to
impingement and entrainment by the cooling water intakes
of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants which are
located in the delta (see Figure El-1). In December 1997,
the operator of these facilities entered into a Section 2081
Management Authorization with the California
Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the California
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to address state-listed species (Jones and Stokes, 1998). A tnultispecies Habitat Conservation
Plan (IICP) is currently being drafted for the NMFS and the USFWS to request an incidental take permit under Section 10 of
the federal ESA (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000);
Overview of Case Study Facilities ..., .„ Ef-l
Environmental Setting ,.„<,.,., ,,,,.,., £1-3
Ef-2.1 The San Francisco Bay/Delta Esttiary..., Jgl-3
El-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota , JBI-4
EJ-23 Major BoyironpwfltafStressors ,..._ El-4
Soeioceonornie Ctaractorisucs.. .„. -v .,,,, t,. JJM~, Ejr^
EI-3J Industrial Activities '//,,-,-..,,' r,*.„,: ,\ El-7
B^is, Commercial Pishing -rf,,-/>.,, .^. *.;.",, ;El-7
Bl-3£f Recreational fishmg, ."> -,"!??•,. ?',',", J51-7
g|»^,4 0fber Water-Bpsed Recreadon j-<,,. ?,-.. fe-7
This case study discusses losses offish species at the
Pittsburg and Contra Costa plants and the potential
economic benefits of reducing losses under 316(b)
regulation. Economic valuation is based on other efforts to
mitigate fish losses related to bay-delta water use.
El-1 OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY
FACILITIES
The Pittsburg Power Plant is on the south shore of Suisun
Bay, just west of the confluence of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers. The Contra Costa plant is on the south shore
of the San Joaquin River about 8 km (5 miles) upstream of
the Pittsburg plant in an industrial area near Antioch, about
96.6 km (60 miles) northeast of San Francisco. Both power
plants generate electricity from steam turbines with boilers
fueled by natural gas.
Pittsburg Power Plant
The Pittsburg plant is a 1,984 MW steam-electric power
plant in the Western Systems Coordinating Council
(WSCC). The plant began commercial service in 1954. It
currently has seven active, natural gas-fired generating
*»* Threatened, Endangered, and Older fish Species
of Concern near the Pittsbitrg and Contra Costa Power
Plant* ,
> Central Valley ESU steclhead, FT
> Central Valley fall/late tall fun ESU Chinook salmon,
FCT
»• Central Valley spring ran ESU chinook salmon, FT, ST
* Delta smeltvFT, ST.'-
»• Green sturgeon, SOC ,
> Longfin smelt, SOC
*• Sacramento River winter run ESU chinook salmon, FE,
SB
* Sacramento splittail, FT
FT * federally listed as threatened.
ST"35 state Iktcd as threatened,
FE = federally lifted as endangered.
SB * state listed as endangered.
FCT = federal candidate listing as threatened
SOC — species of concern.
El-1
-------
§ 3I6(b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
units1: Units 1-6 use a once-through cooling system, and Unit 7 water is cooled through two mechanical-draft cooling towers
and a cooling pond. .
. !
In 1998, Pittsburg had 139 employees and generated almost 5 miliion MWh of electricity (net .of plant use). Estimated 1998
revenues for the Piltsburg plant were approximately $445 million, based on the plant's 1998 electricity sales of 4.5 million
MWh and the 1998 company-teve! electricity revenues of $99.16 per MWh. Pittsburgh 1998 production expensed totaled
over $ J 65 million, or 3.395 cents per kWh, for an operating income of approximately $280 million. •
Contra Costa Power Plant
The Contra Costa power plant is in the WSCC. Contra Costa consists of seven generating units divided into three facilities
(Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). All seven units rely on once-through cooling. Units 1-3 were built in 1951 and Units 4
and 5 were built in 1953, Units 6-7 were added in 1964. Currently, only Units 6 and 7 are regularly producing electricity for
a total of 676 MW. Units 3-3 are on iongrterm standby and Units 4 and 5 are operated as synchronous condensers, providing
power quality support but not power generation. A Unit 8 is currently planned (Steve Gallo, Project Manager, Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants, personal communication, 9/18/00),
Contra Costa had 60 employees in 1998 and generated almost 1,9 million MWh of electricity (net of plant use). Estimated
baseline revenues in.1998 were approximately $173 million, based on the plant's 1998 estimated electricity sales of 1,7
million MWh and the 1998 company-level electricity revenues of $99.16 per MWh. Contra Costa*s 1998 production
expenses totaled almost S61 million, or 3.201 cents per kWh, for an operating income of approximately SI 12 million.
Table El -I • summarizes the plant characteristics of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants.
Table E1-1: Summary of Pittsburg and Contra Costa Plant Characteristics (1998)
Plant EIA code
NERC region
Total capacity (MW)
Primary fuel ,
Number of employees .
Net generation (million MWh)
Estimated revenues (million)
Total production expense (million)
Production expense (0/kWh)
Estimated operating income
Fittsburg
27!
WSCC
1.984
Gas
139
4.9
S445
S165
3.395 .
$280
Contra C»sta
228 !
WSCC
676 ;
Gas
60
1.9 i
$173 :
S61
3.201
SI .12
Notes: NERC ~ North American Electric Reliability Council
WSCC = Western Systems Coordinating Council
Dollars are in $2001.
Source: Form EIA-860B (NERC Region, Total Capacity); FERC Form-i (Primary Fuel, Number of Employees, Total'
Production Expense);. Form EIA-906 (Net Generation),
Pittsburg and Contra Costa both began operation as regulated utility plants. Pacific <3as and Electric Company (PG&E)
owned the two plants until April 1999, when they were sold to Southern Energy, Inc., a competitive energy provider and
subsidiary of Southern Company. In September 2000, Southern Company announced the initial public offering of 66.7
million shares, or 19.7 percent, of common stock in Southern Energy, Inc. In January 2001, Southern Energy, Inc.! changed
its name to Mirant Corporation and became a fiilly independent, publicly traded company after completion of a spin-off from
Southern Company in April 2001 (Mirant Corporation, 200la).
1 For the purposes of this analysis, "active" units include generating units that are operating, on standby, on cold standby, on test, on
maintenance/repairs, or out of service (all year). Active unite do not include units that are on indefinite shutdown or retired.
El-2
-------
S 316{b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El; Background
Mirant Corporation is a global, competitive.energy company with 7,000 employees worldwide. Mirant owns or controls more
than 20,000 MW of electric generating capacity and is developing another 9,000 MW (Mirant Corporation* 200 la). In 2000,
Mirant posted revenues of $13.3 billion and sold 186 million MWh of electricity (Miranl Corporation, 200 Ic).
El-2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
El-2.1 The San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
The San Francisco Bay portion of the Bay-Delta Estuary consists of several distinct hydrographic segments (Kennish, 2000;
Figure El-1). From north to south these include Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait, San Pablo Bay, central San Francisco Bay, and
south San Francisco Bay. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the northeastern-most portion of the estuary. It is a.
network of sloughs, marshes, channels, streams, and embaymenls that includes the northern delta (dominated by waters of the
southward flowing Sacramento River), the southern de.lta (dominated by the waters of the northward-flowing San Joaquin
River), and the eastern delta (dominated by the waters of the Cosureties and Mokelumne rivers).
Figure El-1: Locations of Facilities within the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
rf^l A ^~* i
Contra Costa
Power Plant
Culifomiar
Area of l">
Detail 1
XI
f%
Facilities
Mtijor urban areas
•"•''Sacramento *
' , /
9 4,5 0
7 3.5 0
9 18 27 Kilometers';
7 14 21 Mfes '',
Freshwater inflow and tidal exchange interact to determine salinity within the estuary (Kennish, 2000). Saltwater from
adjacent coastal waters enters San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate.and freshwater enters the upper estuary from rivers
of the Central Valley. The Sacramento River accounts for 80% of the total discharge from the Central Valley, and the San
Joaquin River contributes 15%. Inputs of freshwater from the delta peak in winter and spring, lowering salinities in the
El-3
-------
§ 3I6(b) Case Studies, Part B: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
northern estuary, and sometimes in the southern estuary as far south as south San Francisco Bay. Reduced freshwater inputs
in summer and fall, result in greater saltwater intrusion from the bay into the delta. Deep channels such as the Carquincz Strait-
are characterized by strong up estuary bottom flows of saltwater.
In addition to the negative effects of reduced freshwater flows as a result of water diversions, the flow patterns created by
water exports transport many larval and juvenile fish away from the delta (Chadwick et al.. 1977). Although the pumping
plant intakes are screened and large numbers of young fish are salvaged at the screens and returned to the estuary near
Antioch, millions of eggs and larvae are entrained annually. Many millions more eggs and larvae are entrained in the siphons
and pumps of local diversions, as well as in the CWIS of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities, adding substantially to total
fish losses (Ecological Analysts Inc., 198la, 1981 c).
El-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Bfofa • .-
The diverse ecological conditions of the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary provide habitat for a wide variety of aquatic '
organisms, including 230 species of birds, 52 species offish, and 45 species of mammals. (Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Herbold
et aL, 1992). About half of the waterfowl and shorebirds that migrate along the Pacific Flyway and two-thirds of the state's
salmon pass through the bay-delta estuary during their migrations. Many of the region's fish species support commercial or
recreational fisheries within' the estuary or nearby coastal waters.
The aquatic community in the vicinity of Pittsburg and Contra Costa is typical of .freshwater to low salinity estuarine habitats
(Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Herbold et aL, 1992). As in the rest of the San Francisco Bay/Delta' Estuary, aquatic life in this
area is influenced by effects of water development on freshwater flows. When freshwater flow is low (<10,000 cfs), the
brackish transition between salt and fresh water lies east of the Pittsburg plant, but when flows are high (>50,000 cfs), the.
transition occurs downstream in the Carquinez Strait or San Pablo Bay (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Mon'thly salinity
averages 0.1 to 5 ppt near the Pittsburg facility, but during drought periods, salinity can be as high as 12.6 ppt. Salinity near
the Contra Costa plant typically varies from 0 to 1.5 ppt, reaching as high as 2.5 ppt;
The wide, shallow channels and brackish conditions of the estuary near the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities support
abundant small invertebrates, such as mysid shrimp (Neornysis mercedis), that provide a rich food source for the more than 50
fish species that use the area as a nursery, rearing and feeding area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b), A number of
anadromous fish migrate through the area to the freshwater reaches of tributary rivers to spawn, including striped bass
(Morone saxatilis), American shad (Alosa sapidissima), and white sturgeon (Acipenser transmonianus), as well as:several
special status species, including green sturgeon (Ac, medirostris), the Sacramento winter-run ESU Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tskawytscha), the Central Valley ESU steelhead (Q. myfdss), the Central Valley spring-run ESU chinook
salmon, and the Central Valley fall/late fall run ESU chinook salmon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b).2 Suisun Bay,
where the Pittsburg plant is located, is considered critical habitat for the endangered Sacramento winter-run ESU chinook
salmon and the threatened delta smelt (Hypomesm transpacijicus). Other special status species in the area include
Sacramento spiittaii {Pogonichlhys macrolepidoius) and kmgfm smelt (Spirinchas thaleichthys).
El-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors1 \
Altered flow regimes and decreased freshwater flows (as a result of water development), accelerating land development,
exposure to pollutants, increased dredging and waterway modification, power plant operations, and competition from
nonnative species have all contributed to marked declines in the native fish species of the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
(Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Herbold et al., 1992).
Urban development
The San Francisco Bay region is the fourth largest urban area, in the United States, Approximately'30% of the land
surrounding the bay and 10% of the land in the three delta counties is urbanized (Kennish, 2000). Because of its wrban nature
and associated nonpoint source runoff, a variety of contaminants, impact the estuary. The estuary receives approximately 8.2
trillion to 65.8 trillion kg (9.0? million to 72,5 million tons) of pollutants annually. These include biological pollutants such
as sewage, inorganic nutrients and metals, organic chemicals such as pesticides and solvents, and suspended solids; Many of
ESU refers to "evolutionary significant unit/
£1-4
-------
S 316{b) Case. Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
the contaminants in the estuary are carcinogenic or otherwise harmful, and there are concerns about the health effects of
regular consumption of contaminated seafood in some areas of the bay.
Water development
Massive water development has created major stresses on the San Francisco Bay/Delta aquatic ecosystem over the past 50
years (Kennish, 2000). Today, the delta is the center of California's extensive water distribution system, providing over half
of the state's supply of freshwater. The export of fresh water from the delta has increased steadily since the 1940s, when the
federal Central Valley Project (CVP) began diverting water into the Contra Costa Canal. Still the largest water development
project in the world, the CVP currently operates 20 dams and reservoirs, eight power plants, and about 500 miles of canals
and aqueducts. In 1951, the federal Delta-Mendota Canal began to export delta water southward to farms in the San Joaquin'
Valley. In 1968, the SWP began exporting delta water into the California Aqueduct. The aqueduct conveys water southward
into the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, The project operates 22 dams and reservoirs and several hundred miles
of canals and aqueducts. There are now more than 100 reservoirs in the Central Valley watershed, over 1,100 miles of Delta
levees, and 2,000 water diversions from the Delta (Kennish, 2000).
Water development has had numerous major impacts on aquatic organisms of the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary,
particularly fish species (Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Herbold et al., 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, .1996b). Fish and
aquatic food sources are entrained through diversion pumps, downstream transport offish larvae and young juveniles to
nursery areas is reduced, and migratory patterns are disrupted by "reverse flows," Reverse flows occur when freshwater
inflow is low and pumping of water for export is high (Kennish, 2000), Under these conditions, the lower San Joaquin River
changes direction and flows upstream,
Upstream diversions reduce freshwater flows through the delta to San Francisco Bay by an average of one-third of the total
annual flow (Kennish, 2000). Historically, delta outflow was reduced by 50-70% in dry years, but recent standards set the
maximum diversion at 35% from February through June and 65% from July through January (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1996b). Delta outflow is the amount of freshwater that flows downstream past Chtpps Island into Suisun Bay. An index of
outflow is calculated from the amount of delta inflow, exports from the delta by the CVP, SWP, and Contra Costa Canal, and
depletions within the delta (CDWR, 1994).
Diversions and altered flow regimes affect salinity and flow patterns, concentrations of pollutants, and the biological
productivity of the estuary (Kennish, 2000). Increased saltwater intrusion into northern reaches of the bay, particularly the
western delta and Suisun Bay, is a now major threat to biological communities and the supply of freshwater for drinking and
irrigation.
Because freshwater input regulates the estuary's salinity gradient, the amount of freshwater flow strongly influences the
abundance and diversity of aquatic organisms (Kennish, 2000). When delta discharge is high and estuarine salinity is
reduced, a stratified water column develops, which isolates phytoplankton in the photic zone where growth is enhanced.
Increased production of phytoplankton in turn promotes production of other components of the estuarine food web. In
contrast, when delta inflow is low, salinity increases and the water column is less stratified, reducing production of
phytoplankton and the pelagic food web.
In addition to reducing the amount of delta outflow, water storage has also altered the timing of flows, which can have an
even greater effect on biological productivity than reduced flow quantity alone (Herbold et al., 1992). Water stored during
winter and spring months for release later in the year when flows are naturally low greatly reduces natural runoff from
Snowmelt in spring. Loss of high flows in spring have a number of negative consequences on estuarine production. Under
natural conditions, high spring flows help flush contaminants out of the estuary, support migration and spawning of
anadromous fish, and determine the location and productivity of the "entrapment zone" (Kennish, 2000). The entrapment
zone (also referred to as the null zone) is where incoming ocean water mixes with freshwater flowing downstream, trapping
nutrients and enhancing the growth of estuarine plants and animals,
In June J994, federal and state agencies signed a Framework Agreement under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to improve
ecological conditions in the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary (CALFED, 2002). The agreement formally establishes
cooperation in three major areas of Bay-Delta management;
*• formulation of water quality standards
*• coordination of SWP and CVP operations with regulatory requirements, and
•• development of long-term solutions to bay-delta environmental problems.
£1-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part & Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
Agreement on water quality standards was formalized in the Bay-Delta Accord of December 1994, The accord established:
> spring export limits expressed as a percentage of delta inflow,
»• regulation; of the estuary's salinity gradient so that a salt concentration of 2 ppt is located where it may be most
beneficial to aquatic life,
* spring flows in the lower San Joaquin River to benefit Chinook salmon, and • :. •
*• intermittent closure of the Delta Cross Channel gates to reduce entraintnent of fish into the delta.
Under the 1994 Bay-Delta Accord and the resulting 1995 State Water Quality Plan, a salinity standard was established based
on relationships between salinity and the abundance and survival of various aquatic species (Kennish, 2000). The standard is
expressed in terras of the so-called "X2," the distance from the Golden Gate to the upstream point where the average daily
salinity is 2 ppt measured 1 m (3.3 ft) from the bottom (CALFED, 2002). The standard restricts the penetration of saltwater
up estuary and the seasonal location of X2 in the delta. The amount of freshwater diverted to the CVP and the SWP is
controlled so that the X2 remains near the Carquinez Strait.
Power p!0nt operations .
It is thought that the salinity standard will influence the seasonal distribution of special status fish species near the Pjttsburg
and Contra Costa power plants, including delta smelt, longfm smelt, chinook salmon, steelhead, and Sacramento splittail
(PG&E, 1998). Analysis by CALFED's Interagency Ecological Program Estuarine Ecology Team predicted the following
relationships among delta outflow, fish species distributions, and power plant operations:
In low outflow years, with a more upstream location of X2:
> Delta smelt may experience increased entratnment,
*• Sacramento sptittail may have a greater proportion of its population shifted upstream near the power plant intakes,
»• Longfm smelt may experience increased entrapment because larvae would not be transported as far downstream .and
the brackish water nursery areas of San Pablo and Suisun bays would shift to the delta, and
* Chinook salmon and steelhead outmigrating smolls may move.less rapidly downstream, increasing their exposure to
power pkmt intakes. .
Normative species
Accidentally introduced species have generally been quite.suceessful in the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary, and dominate
many habitats to the detriment of native species (Kennish* 2000). Most of the common macroinvertebrates in the bay were
introduced, and exotic species constitute more than half of ibe fish .in the delta area. Invertebrates such as the soft-shelled
clam (Mya arenaria) and the Japanese littleneck clam (Tapesjapanica) were introduced early in the 19th century, along with
shipworms (Teredo navalis) and oyster drills (Urosalpinx clncerea). In addition, in recent years the introduced Asian ciam
(Potamocorbula amurensis) has decimated the planklonie food supply of invertebrates and young fish (Kennish, 2000).
El-3 SocioecoNOMic CHARACTERISTICS '
The Pittsburg and Contra Costa power-plants are located in Contra Coste County, In 2000, the population of Contra Costa
County was 948,816 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). It is more densely populated than Solano County, which border's Contra
Costa to the north, but less densely populated than Sacramento County, which lies upstream (Table El -2). Contra Costa has a
lower unemployment rate and higher rate of home ownership than either of its neighboring counties.
El-6
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
Table El-2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Contra Costa and Neighboring Counties
Population in 2000
Land area in 2000, km' (mi2)
Persons per square mile, 2000
Metropolitan Area
Median household money income, J997 model-based estimate
Persons below poverty, percent, 1997 model-based estimate
Housing units in 2000
Homeownership rate in 2000
Households in 2000
Persons per household in 2000
1 louscholds with persons under 1 8 years in 2000
High school graduates, 25 and older in 1 990
College graduates, 25 and older in 1990
Contra Costa County
948,816
720 (278)
1,318
Oakland
S54.275
8,7% .
354,577
69.3%
344,129
3
38,8%
460,645
168,205
SuUmi) County
394,542
829 (320)
476
Valkjo-Fairfield-Napa
$46,1 15
U, ,3%
134,513
65.2%
130,403
3
44.6%
172,654
39,125
Sacramento County
1,223,499
966 (373)
1,267
Sacramento
839,461
17.2% . . , .
474,814
58.2%
453,602
3
37,3%
544,257
151,880
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001,
El-3.1 Industrial Activities
Contra Costa County's work force is growing rapidly, largely because of companies relocating from more expensive locations
in the Bay Area (Contra Costa County, 2002). The primary industries include petroleum refining, telecommunications,
financial and retail services, steel manufacturing, chemicals; electronic equipment, and food processing. Industrial activity is
primarily located along the Suisun and San Pablo bays to the north of the county. Industrial activity of note includes the
largest petroleum refinery in the Bay Area, operated by Chevron Corporation, which operates its own wharf for receiving
crude oil and shipping refined oil.
El-3.2 Commercial Fishing
Commercial landings in the state of California between 1990 and 2000 were between 156 million kg and 319 million kg .(343
million and 703 million pounds) and represented between S'l 10 and SI84 million annually (persona! communication, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, 2002), The San Francisco
Bay/Delta Estuary formerly supported important commercial fisheries in striped bass (Morone saxaiHis), Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus ts/tawytscha), American shad (Aiosa sapidi&ima), and starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), however the
commercial fisheries were all terminated by the 1950's (Kennish, 2000). Today, the estuary supports a major commercial roe
fishery for Pacific herring (Clupea Itarcngus pallasi), and smaller commercial bait fisheries in shiner perch (Cymatogaster '
aggregata), mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), bullhead {fcjalurus sp.), and threacifin shad (Dorosoma petenense).
El-3.3 Recreational Fishing
Expenditures for recreational fishing in California are estimated at over S3 billion annually (Table El -3) (California
Department of Fish and Game, 2002a). This total includes money spent on fishing trips, equipment, fees, and other
expenditures. The striped bass sport fishery is one of the most important on the Pacific Coast (Stevens, 1992), American
shad, chinook salmon, and starry flounder are also valuable | recreational species (Emmett et al., 1991). Pacific herring is
caught by recreational fishermen as bait for other species (Spratt, 1992).
El-3.4 Other Water-Based Recreation
San Francisco is one of the most popular urban tourist destinations in the United States, and tourism in the Bay Area brings in
$3-5 million annually (Kennish, 2000). In addition to fishing, water-based recreation in the San Francisco Bay/Date Estuary '
includes hunting, boating, swimming, birdvvatching, and numerous other recreational activities. Boating is a particularly large
industry in the bay, where there are more than 200 marinas that generate more than $50 million in annual revenue, The bay
£7-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port E; &m Francisco Bay /Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
and delta currently support 290 shoreline parks, 200 duck clubs, 300 marinas, and 500,000 recreational boaters (Kennish,
2000). The delta alone provides over 12 million user-days of recreation each year (Kennish, 2000).
Table El-3; 1996 Annual (California Angler Trip and Equipment Expenditures
Expenditure Item
Trip Expeitdltu
Food, drink and refreshments
Lodging
Public transportation
Private transportation
Boat fuel .
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees
Public land use or access fees
.Private land use or access fees
Boat launching fees .
Boat mooring, storage, maintenance and insurance
Equipment rental
Bait (live, cut, prepsired)
Ice .
Heating and cooking fuel
Fishing Equipment Ex
Rods, reels, poles and rod making components
Lines and leaders
Artificial lures, flies, baits and dressing
Hooks, sinkers, swivels, etc,
Tackle boxes .
Creels, stringers, fish bags, landing nets and gaff hooks
Minnow traps, seines and bait containers
Depth finders, fish finders and other electronic fishing devices
Ice fishing equipment
Other fishing equipment
Auxiliary Purchases/
Camping equipment
Binoculars, field glasses, telescopes, etc, •
Special fishing clotfiing, fop! weather gear, boots, waders, etc.
Special Equipment Purclta
Bass boat
Other motor boat , ••
Canoe or other non-motor boat
Boat motor, boat tnu'ler/hiteh or other boat accessories
Pickup, camper, van, travel or tent trailer, motor home,
House trailer
Cabin
Trail bike, dune buggy, 4x4 vehicle, 4-wheeler, snowmobile
Other special equipment including ice chest
Resident
es~
$341,095,262
$114,297,328
SI 9,928,061
$274,779,949
5104,572,179
$46,295,514
$25,779,489
55,422,403
, $82,662,540
$223,721,709
$28,817,277
' $79,002,176
$25,924,980
$9,114,086
enditures
$218,753,011
545,754,939
566,491,927
330,048,369
$6,585,954
$6,250,785
$3,194,462
$21,987,930
SO
$43,619,641
r Pishing
$61,427,200
$4,337,705
$45,167,662
erf for Fishing
$116,393,467
$15,456,806
SI 0,576,962
$37,126,881
$838,355,866
$0
. SI 11, 170,400
$12,934,383
Nonresident
$16,032,627
$6,269,732
518,467,016
. Si'3,244,966
$2,075,959
511,227,618
$446,044
- $73,144
$11 8,076
5905,019
$1,414,265
§1,879,133
5523,501
$234,482
83,550,708
$875,075
S683.423
$574,512
$215,732
$183,693
SO
S44.350
. SO
$1,991,731
$147,997
SO
$523,7 10
SO
$0
SO
$0
$33,552,316
10
$0
• $225,839
Total
$357;127,890
$120,567,060
$38,395,077
8288,024,914
$106^648, 138
$57,523,133
$26,225,532
$5,495,548
582,780,616 '
$224,626,728
$30,231,542
$80,881,309
$26,448,482
$9,348,567
$222,30377 19
$46,630,0! 4
S67',175,350
$30,622,881
$6,801,686
$6,434,478
$3,194,462
322,032,280
$0
$45,61 1,372
$61,575,197
$4,337,705
$45,691,372
§Ha,393.467
$15,456,806
$1(5,576,962
$37,126,i8i
5871,908,182
SO
,»„,,,,,,,,,..,,,,,. ,v.-sv* .. ..V- .V,^
$111,170,400
$13,160,222
- , ,,,, .H^ll4,,,lr,,
El-8
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
Table El-31 1996 Annual California Angler Trip and Equipment Expenditures (cant.)
Expenditure Item
Other JSxpenclitu
Fishing license fees
Other fees
Owned or leased property
Processing and taxidermy costs
Books and magazines
Dues or contributions to organizations
Other purchases
Resident
res
545,759,247
$4,6.51,899
824,518,910
$2,223,408
$18,182,419
$26,595,059
$6,449,731
STATE TOTALS : $3,205,427,980
Nonresident
$2,333,070
$220,357
$0
$0
$782,758
$11,698
$102,671
$118,931,219
Total
$48,092,316
$4,872,256
$24,5 1.8,9 10
$2,223,408
$18,965,177
826,606,757
$6,552,403
$3,324,359,199
Source; California Department of Fish and Game, 2002a.
El-9
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E2: Technical Description of Facilities
Chapter • E2:
Technical of
CHAPTER CONTENTS
E2-1* Operational Profile ~j.,,^.^. ^ Sy.,,,'.','7, ,JB2
E2-2^ - C3|yiS Configuration''^ Wafer Withdrawal„".„.,, ."1B2-4
This Chapter presents additional information related to the
Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities. Section E2-1
presents detailed EIA data on the generating units
addressed by this case study and within the scope of the
Phase II rulemaking. Section E2-2 describes the
configuration of the intake structure(s) at the facilities.
Section E2-3 presents an evaluation of the specific impacts
of the proposed Phase II rule, i.e., defines the baseline for calculating benefits. Section E2-4 describes other (non 316-B)
impacts associated with the proposed rule. Section E2-5 provides a benefits summary.
E2-1 OPERATIONAL PROFILE
Pittsburg
During 1999, the Pittsburg power plant operated seven active units.' All seven-units employ a steam-electric prime mover
and use cooling water withdrawn from the San Joaquin River. Four of Pittsburg's units were built in 1954 (Generator
IDs 1-4). Each of these units has a generation capacity of 163 MW, Two units of 325 MW each were added between
September I960 and June 1961 (Generator IDs 5-6). Pittsburgh last generator, a 682 MW unit, was installed in December
1972 (Generator ID 7).
Two of Pittsburg's seven units were classified as "operating" in 1999, while four units were on standby and one unit was on
cold standby. Pittsburgh total gross generation in 1999 was approximately 3.8 million MWh. Unit 7 accounted for almost
l.S million MWh, or 48 percent, of this total. The capacity utilization of Pittsburg's units ranged from 5.7 to 14,4 percent for
units 1 to 4,20.0 percent for unit 5, and 28.2 to 30 percent for units 6 and 7?
Table E2-1 presents details for Pittsburgh seven active units.
Table E2-1: Pittsburg Generator Characteristics (1999}
Generator Capacity : Prime
ID (MW) I Mover"
PPO! 1631 ST
PP02 ; 163! ST
PP03 - 163; ST
PPM 163' ST
PPOS 325- ST
PP06 325 : ST
PP07 682i ST
Total 1,984] ___
Energy
Source1*
NG
NG
NO
NG
NG
NG
NG
In-$ervfce;' Operating
Date >, Status
Sep, 1954 ; Standby
Aug. 1954 i Standby
Dec. 1954: Standby
Dec, 1954 : Cold Standby
Sep. 1960 ; Standby
Jun. 1961 'Operating
Dec. I972jj0perating^_l
Gross Generations Capacity '; H) of Associated
_JMWh) i Utilization i -
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part & San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter £2: Technical description of Facilities
Figure E2-1 below presents Pittsburgh electricity generation history between 1970 and 1999.
Figure" £2-1; fitrsbqrg 'Net Electricity generation 1970 - W99 (in MWh}
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
c 6.000,000
(D
o
IB
z
4,000,000
2,000,000
igro
1975
1995
; Form E1A-906, Form E1A-860B.
Contra Costa
During 1999, Contra Costa operated two active steam-electric generating units. Each unit has a generation capacity of
approximately 340 MW, began operation in 1964, and uses cooling, water withdrawn from the San Joaquin River. In addition,
Contra Costa has five retired steam-electric units with a combined capacity of 580 .MW. All five units were retired!in 1994.
Both of Contra Costa's active units were operating in 1999. They accounted fora gross electricity generation of almost 2.5
million MWh. The-capacity utilization of these units in 1999 was 42.1 percent and 40.0 percent, respectively.3 '
On May 29, 2001, the California Energy Commission,approved a proposed capacity addition to the Contra Costa power plant.
The proposed Unit 8 would be a 530 MW natural gas-fired, combined cycle unit located within the existing Conira:Cosia site
complex. According to the project description, Unit 8 would not require the withdrawal of additional water from the San
* For this analysis, capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual gross generation by the potential gross generation
if the unit ran at full capacity all the time (j,e., capacity * 24 Iioure * 365 days).
£2-2'
-------
8 316{b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E2: Technical Description of Facilities
Joaquin River because it would re-use water withdrawn for use in Units 6 and 7. The project proposal also includes
construction of a new 10-eell cooling tower. Since use of the new cooling tower would require approximately 5,000 gallons
per minute (GPM) of makeup water, consumptive use of water at the plant is projected to increase (California Energy
Commission, 2001). The startup date for.Unit 8 was originally scheduled for 2003. However, as of June 1,2001, it was
unclear when construction would begin because of uncertainty about California energy market rules (Mirant Corporation,
2001 a).
Table E2-2 presents details for Contra Costa's two active, five retired, and one proposed units.
Table E2-2: generator Detail of the C0ntra Costa Plant (1999) ,
Generator Capacity
ID (M\V)
1 116
2 116
3 116
4 ! 117
5 • US
CC06 339
CC07 ; 337
Total' 676
Prime
Mover"
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
Energy
Source1'
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
NG
UnitS 530 \ CC ? NG
In-Service
Date
Exist!
Jim. 1951
Aug. 1951
Aug. 1951
Jul. 1953
Oct. 1953
Jan. 1964
Jan. 1964
Propos
n/a
.Grass,
Operating Status Generation
(MWh)
ng Units
Retired -Jun. 1994
Retired - Aug. 1994
Retired - Aug. 1994
Retired -Jul. 1994
Retired -Oct. 1994
Operating
Operating
ed Units
Proposed
^.!^oVW°jfvi
" •.. s' -S%.' ?:' :* '' te"
• 1,250,000
1,180,000
2,430,000
n/a
SSL «•£•
*- ':j-^-t''* ••?'•(, i 4" $$ '~'*^&^*-.. <£•'.*?*,/$
42.1% f 6
40.0% 1 7 -
41,0% i
n/a i
Prime mover categories: ST = Steam turbine; CC - Combined-cycle.
Energy source categories: NG = natural gas.
Totals only include non-retired units.
Source,- Form EIA-860B. Form E1A-767 for CWIS ID. Information for retire'd units from Form EIA-86.0A. Information for proposed
unit from California Energy Commission, 2001.
E2-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E2: Technical Description of Facilities
Figure E2-2 below presents Contra Costa's electricity generation history between 1970 and 1999.
'Figure,£2-2; Contra 'Costa. Net Seetricity -generation' 1970 -1999 (in MWh)
s
to
c
o»
O
•S
9,000,000
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000 -i
4,000,000 •-
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1970
1975
Source- Form E1A-906, Form EIA-860B.
E2-2 CWIS CONFIGURATION AND WATER WITHDRAWAL ,
The Piltsb'urg and Contra Costa facilities withdraw water from estuarine waterbodies. At Pittsburg Landing, the Agency has
estimated that the design intake flow (161 cubic feet per second (cfs)) is approximately 0,70 percent of the tidal excursion
volume in the area. At Contra Costa, the design intake flaw is approximately 0.47 percent of the tidal excursion.
Monitoring studies in 1978 and 1979 demonstrated that several hundred million fish were impinged or entrained each year by
the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981a; I981c). Striped bass accounted for about half
of these losses, and initial efforts to reduce I&B focused on development of the best technology available (BTA) to reduce
losses of striped bass. In recent years, attention has shifted to special status fish species, but BTA for these species is still
under review (Southern Energy California, 2000),
To reduce striped bass losses, a fish p.urnp removal system was installed at Units 1-5 of the Contra Costa facility to remove
fish from the area in front of the screens. The facility determined that the pump was effective in reducing impingement rates
and maintaining high survival of impinged fish tliat were returned to the water body. In addition, intake design criteria were
E2-4
-------
S 316{b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter EH: Technical Description of Facilities
implemented at Contra Costa Units 6 and 7 and at Pittsburg Units 1-7 to minimize impingement, including an intake approach
velocity of 0.8 fps, configuration of the intake structure to inblude lateral fish escape routes, and location of intake screen
parallel to the shoreline,
In 1986, the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards established additional NPDES
permitting requirements for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities to protect striped bass (Permit CAQQQ4880 for the
Pittsburg Power Plant and Permit CA0004863 for the Contra Costa Power Plant). This striped bass BTA program is
discussed in Southern Energy California (2000). Among the operational adjustments still in place is the preferential use of
Pittsburg Unit 7, which is equipped with a closed-cycle system, during spring when young striped bass are present,
Entrapment ofstriped bass varies in direct proportion to the volume of cooling water drawn into the Pittsburg and Contra
Costa intakes (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981a; 1981c). Because closed-cycle cooling requires tar less water, preferential
operation of Pittsburg Unit 7 during the spring striped bass erorainment period (defined as May to mid-July unless modified
by results of field sampling) greatly reduces striped bass losses. '
In addition to preferential operation of Pittsburg Unit 7, PG&E was required to install variable-speed circulating water pump
controls for the once through cooling systems of Pittsburg Units 1-6 and Contra Costa Units 6-7 (Southern Energy California,
2000). Variable speed drives (VSD) are designed to reduce the volume of cooling water provided to a unit during periods
when unit load is low. PG&E was required to install VSDs for the once-through cooling systems of Pittsburg Units 1-6 and
Contra Costa Units 6-7 (Southern Energy California, 2000).' The facilities' current NPDES permits also specify actions to
minimize impingement of striped bass, including the frequency of intake screen rotation and cleaning and debris removal to
maintain an optimal bar-rack velocity (Permit CA0004880 for the Pittsburg Power Plant and Permit CA0004863 for the
Contra Costa Power Plant).
Other structural and operational modifications (discussed in Southern Energy California, 2000) included:
»• Operation'and dispatch of units during spring (May-July) to reduce unit operations, cooling water flows, and the
frequency of discharge temperatures above 86 degrees F.
*• Operation of mechanical crossovers to reduce cooling water volumes at Contra Costa Units 1-3.
•• Installation of a hydrogen cooler at Contra Costa Units 6 and 7.
*• Entrainment monitoring ofstriped bass to determine the optimal lime to implement operational changes to protect
striped bass.
•• Entrainment monitoring to dispatch units based on distribution of larval striped bass and to evaluate the effectiveness
of actions to reduce striped bass losses.
Originally, a performance standard was applied to evaluate the striped bass BTA program. The standard required a 79%
reduction in striped bass losses from the historical baseline (Environmental Science Associates, 1998). However, in 1993,
striped bass monitoring at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities was discontinued to avoid harm to delta smelt following its
federal and state listing as a threatened species. As a result, the requirement for a 79% reduction in losses was removed in
1995, and striped bass loss estimates are now estimated on the basis of conditions in a prior year with similar flow conditions
(NPDES Permit No. CA0004880 for the Pittsburg Power Plant and NPDES Permit No. CA0004863 for the Contra Costa
Power Plant).
Initially, the facilities were required to stock hatchery striped bass to mitigate for unavoidable I&E ofstriped bass
(Environmental Science Associates, 1998). However, because of concern that hatchery-reared striped bass might prey on
endangered juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon, the stocking program was discontinued in 1992. In 1995, the stocking
provision was replaced by an annual mitigation dollar amount to provide funding for aquatic habitat restoration
(Environmental Science Associates, 1998). Under the mitigation agreement, any money owed by the facilities is paid into the •
California Department of Fish and Game Striped Bass Fund under a Memorandum of Understanding
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Bcy/belta Estuary
Chapter E2; Technical Description of Facilities
The ability to reduce striped bass losses varies between years in response to changes In system demand for operation of the
units, availability of alternative sources of generation, and the temporal and spatial distribution of larval striped bass
(Environmental Science Associates, 1998). However, in all years the facilities report a substantial reduction in striped bass,
losses resulting from the use of circulating water pump VSDs and other technologies. Over the period 1995 to 1999, striped
bass losses were reduced by 78% to 94% (Table E2-3).
Table E2-3: Facility Estimates of Annual Reductions in Striped Bass Losses
: Wfth Application .of BTAJot;the--Pittsburg and Contra Costo Power Plants
.Year
1995
19%
1997
1998
1999
. % Reducttto in Pre-BTA Losses*
93.9 . - ' !
82.0 : . •
78.0
91.7
89.0
a Annual pre-BTA tosses were 113,331 based on the average for 1976, 1978, and 1979.
Sources: Best Technology Available Technical Reports for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants for the years ! 995 to 1999
(PG&E, 1995,1997, 1998,1999; Southern Energy California, 2000),
Other special fish protection measures have recently been proposed by Southern Energy, the operator of the Pitlsburg and
Contra Costa facilities. The June 2000 draft HCP for the facilities proposes to reduce current losses of sensitive fish species
by installation of an "aquatic filter barrier." Known commercially as a Gunderbooin "Marine Life Exclusion System," this
technology is a filter curtain comprised of treated polypropylene/polyester fabric that encloses a plant's intake and prevents
the passage of small particles, including fish eggs and larvae, into the intake (http://wxvw.gunderboom.com).
Based on studies at the Lovelt facility in New York, it is expected that this technology will reduce current entrainment losses
at Pittsburg and Contra Costa by at least 80% (Steve Gallo, Southern Energy, personal communication, 9/18/00), Although
this may not have a significant impact on striped bass losses, which have already been reduced considerably as a result of the
striped bass BTA program (Table E2-3), it may have a considerable effect on entrainment of special status species, :\vhich can
be substantial in years of high densities near the facilities.
E2-6.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of IAE Data
E3':
Evaluation of
CHAPTER CONTENTS
E3-1
E3-2
E3-3
Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the
Putsburg Mid Contra Costa Power Plants ,.,, E3-1
Life Histories of Species Impinged and Entrained
at the Ptttsburg and Contra Costa Plants ..,..,,..'. B3-2
Facility Methods-for Estimatingl&£ .. „. .7 E3-IO
E3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring ,,..«._*.,,.. .Wt'-W'
E3-3.2' Botrafnment Monito|te|; !, ,^v ".':..., /E3-10
Annual Impingement ',<...,,,.,.>.,,,.,, JE3-U •
" .-E3-J4
Summary: Combined Impacts ofPhisburg and Contra Costa
EPA evaluated impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
From the CWIS of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities
using the assessment methods described in Chapter A5 of
this document. EPA's analysis focused on impacts to
threatened and endangered (T&E) fish species. The
combination of decreasing freshwater flows and the
entrainment of early life stages in both government water
project intakes and power plant intakes has contributed to
a dramatic decline in the abundance of fishes in the
Bay-Delta estuary and the subsequent listing of several
fish species as threatened or endangered. Section E3-J of
this chapter lists all fish species that are known to be
impinged or entrained at Pittsburg and Contra Costa, ,
Section E3-2 summarizes life histories of species t
evaluated by EPA, and Section E3-3 outlines the facilities' 1
l&E monitoring methods. Section E3-4 presents annual
impingement estimates, Section E3-5 presents annual .entrainment estimates, and Section E3-6 summarizes results for the two
facilities combined.
E3-1 AQUATIC SPECIES VULNERABLE TO !<&E AT THE PmrsBURe AND CONTRA COSTA
POWER PLANTS •
Table E3-1 lists species that, because of their life histories, are vulnerable to l&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities,
as well as their designations as recreational, commercial, or forage species, or their special status classifications. EPA's
analysis focused on losses of striped bass and special status species. However, EPA noted that other species are also
impinged or entrained at Pittsburg and Contra Costa.
E3-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Fart E; San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table E3-1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants
Scientific Name
/i/
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E tiata
Four races of chinook salmon use the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system (Moyle, 1976; Yoshiyama at al., 2000), These
include the fall run, late fall run, winter run, and spring run:chinook salmon. In the Sacramento River, the winter run spawns
from April to July, and the other runs spawn from July to December (Moyle, 1976), Spawning once occurred into the upper
reaches of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, but dams have limited spawning to the lower reaches of these rivers
and their tributaries (Moyle, 1976; Yoshiyama et al., 2000). The Central Valley late fall run was recently evaluated as a part
of .1 proposed listing of the fall run under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although it was decided that the
combined Central Valley fall/lale-fall run currently does not qualify for formal protection, both runs remain under
consideration as candidate species (Yoshiyama et al., 2000), The Sacramento River winter run is listed as endangered under
both the state and federal ESA. The Central Valley spring run is listed as threatened under both statutes.
The four Central Valley runs of chinook salmon are vulnerable to J&E at the Piusburg and Contra Costa power plants. Adults
have been observed near the plants in October, and larvae (alevins) have been collected from inshore, shallow areas of Suisun
Bay in January and February (Wang, 1986a), Parr have been observed throughout the estuary in spring, with peak migration
occurring in May and June (Wang, 1986a). . '
CHINOOK SALMON
(Oncorhynclms tshawytscha)
Family: Salmonidac (salmon and trout).
Common names: Blackmouth, king salmon, quinnat
Mlmon, spring, tycc." '
Similar specie:,: Stcclhcad.
Geographic range: Arctic and Pacific from Point Hope,
Alaska to Ventura River, California.'
Habitat: Oceans, streams and lakes,* Prefers gravel
substrates for spawning.11
Life-span: Can live up to 9 years.'
Fecundity: 2,000 to 14,000 eggs."
Food sources:
* In streams, food is mainly terrestrial insects ant! small crustaceans."
>• in oceans, chinook salmon consume fish, crustaceans, and other
invertebrates."
Prey for:
> Striped bass, American shad, scuipins, Sacramento squawfish, sea gulls,
mergansers, kingfishers.8*
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
» ;Eggs range from 6,0 to 8.5 mm (0,24 to 0,33 'in),1'
* Deposited and buried in gravel, and are bright orange-red in color.*'
Larvae: demersal for 2-3 weeks, then free-swimming.1'
»• Approximately 20 mm (0.79 in) at hatching.
Juveniles;
*• Found in shallow and open waters of the Sacramento - San Joaquin
Estuary.1*
*• Remain m freshwater for 1-2 years,1'
>• Drift feeders."
Adults:
> Return to natal streams from the sea for spawning,3
+ Reach up to 147 cm (58 in).4
Frocse and Pauly, 2001.
Wang, 19S6a.
'ish graphic from NEFSC. 2001.
Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpocif icus)
The delta smelt is a pelagic member of the smelt family (Osmeridae). It is a small, short-lived species that is found only in the
bay-delta estuary, in areas with low salinities (Moyle, 1976; Moyle et al., 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b). It is
the only smelt species endemic to California and the only true native estuarine species found in the delta (Moyle et al., 1992).
The spawning period of delta smelt is relatively long, and adults may spawn from December to May, although most spawning
occurs in February and March (Moyle. 1976), Before spawning in the fall, delta smelt congregate in upper Suisun Bay and
the lower reaches of the delta (Moyle, 1976). Spawning takes place in freshwater along river margins and adjoining dead-end .
sloughs of the western delta. Fecundity is low, ranging from only 1,247 to 2,590 eggs per female (Moyle, 1976). Adults
apparently die shortly after spawning, at the end of their 1-year life span (Moyle et al, 1992).
£3-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Eggs are demersal and adhesive, sticking to aquatic plants and gravel, and are therefore unlikely to be drawn into cooling
water intakes, although the larvae are vulnerable (Bruce Herbold, EPA Region 9, personal communication, September 1,
2000), After hatching, the buoyant larvae are carried downstream to the entrapment zone, the highly productive area's where
freshwater and salt water mix, 'This zone is located in Suisun Bay in years of high freshwater inflow. Juveniles mdve
downstream to Saa Pablo Bay and Carquinez Strait before turning back to Suisun Bay for spawning. :
The delta smell was once one of.lhe most common fish species in the bay-delta estuary, but the species has declined nearly 90
percent over the last 20 years. A number of physical and biological factors have contributed to declines in recent years,
including increased water expoitsl competition and predation from the accidentally introduced inland silverside (Menidta
beryllina), drought conditions in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and changes in food availability (CDWR, 1994; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1996b), Another major factor is the seasonal location of the entrapment zone. The location 6f the
entrapment zone is a function of the timing "and magnitude of delta outflow. There is a significant positive relationship
between delta smelt abundance and the number of days that the entrapment zone is located within. Suisun Bay from February
through June (Moyle et a)., 1992). Habitat and prey availability for delta smelt are greater when the entrapment zone is in this
area because Suisun Bay is broad and shallow, and therefore light penetrates most of its waters, promoting algal growth (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b). Algal growth under these conditions provides an abundant food supply for zooplankton,
which in turn provide food for plankton-eating fish like delta smelt.
Altered flow patterns caused primarily by agricultural water diversions during spawning also appear to contribute tp delta.
smelt population losses by increasing the likelihood of entrainment of spawning adults and newly hatched larvae in diversion
pumps (Moyle el al., 1992). In dry years, delta smelt are concentrated in upstream areas, whereas in wet years overall habitat
conditions are more favorable and delta smelt are more widely distributed. When favorable conditions result in wider
distribution, more delta smelt are affected by water diversion pumps (CDWR, 1994). The California Department of Water
Resources (CDWR) estimated that entrainment losses of delta smell at delta diversions reached 1.2 million in 1992 (CDWR,
1994), • ' •
Losses of delta smelt related to other water uses equal or exceed those at government water project pumps (CDWR, 1994).
For example, because of their schooling behavior and preference for the region around Suisun Bay, delta smelt are'highly
vulnerable to the intakes of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants. Monitoring of this species has not been required of
the power plants, and the only, estimates of l&E are based on incidental collection in striped bass monitoring samples in the
late 1970's (Ecological Analysts, 1981a, 1981c). Nonetheless, the data indicate that in the late 1970*s delta smelt were one of
the most common fish species in the vicinity of the plants and experienced I&E in the millions each year.
Delta smelt is currently listed as a threatened species by both the USFWS and California. Historically, the delta srnelt
occurred from Suisun Bay upstream to the city of Sacramento on the Sacramento River and upstream to Mossdale on the San
Joaquin River (Moyle et al., 1992). The size of the current population is uncertain, but in the early 1990's the population was
estimated to be about 280,000 (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Even at this population size, the delta smelt is
considered highly vulnerable to environmental stressors because of its 1-year life cycle and low fecundity. Low fecundity and
a short life span mean that even as few as 2 successive years of low reproductive success eould decimate the population
(Moyle, 1976). . '. .
£3-4
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E Data
DELTA SMELT
(ffypomcsus transpacijicus)
Family: Osracridae (smelt).
Common names: none,
Similar species: Longfln smelt.
Geographic range: Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta."
Habitat: Deadend sloughs, inshore areas of the delta and
lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.1*
Lifcspaii: Only live for one year."
Fecundity: Fecundity is low, ranging from only 1,247 to
2,590 eggs per female.11 Delta smelt die shortly after
spawning*
Pood sources:
*• Juveniles eat planktonic crustaceans, small insect larvae, and tnysid
shrimp."
Prey for:
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
»• Eggs are adhesive and stick to aquatic plants and gravel.''
»• Approximately i mm {0.04 in) in diameter.1'
Larvae: pelagic
*• Larvae are approximately 5,5 to 6,0 mm (0.22 to 0,24 in) at hatching.'
>• Found near surface of water column.11
Juveniles: pelagic
•• Juveniles are concentrated in the Suisun Bay and the delta and in the
lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.b
Adults;
<• Reach 12 cm (4.7 in).'
• Frocsc and Pauly. 2001.
Wang, 1986a.
' Moylc ct al., 1992.
1 Moyle, 1976.
* Bruce Herbold, EPA Region 9, personal communication, September 1,2000.
Fish graphic from California Department of Fish andGame, 2002c.
Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirosfris}
The green sturgeon is a member of the sturgeon family Acipenseridae (Bmmett et"al., 1991; Southern Energy Delta, LLC,
2000). It is an anadromous species that is closely related to the white sturgeon (A. transmonmnus), though it shows a greater
preference for marine waters, spending little time in freshwater. It is not abundant in any Pacific Coast estuary, and therefore
life history characteristics are poorly known (Emmett et al,, 1991). Along the North America coast it is found from Mexico
north to the Bering Sea (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Although not abundant in the bay-delta, in the Columbia River green sturgeon is caught commercially with the white sturgeon,
but it is considered inferior eating and therefore less valuable (Emmett et al,, 1991). Green sturgeon is also incidentally
captured in the white sturgeon recreational fishery.
Females mature at 15 to 20 years of age (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Spawning occurs in California in Spring and
early summer in deep, fast water in the lower reaches of the Sacramento and Klamath Rivers (Emmett et at, 1991; Southern
Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). The green sturgeon is a broadcast spawner, with fecundity ranging from 60,000 to 140,000 eggs
per female (Emmett et al., 1991). Juveniles are found in freshwater areas of the San Joaquin Delta in summer (Emmeit et al.,
1991). By age 2, juveniles move to the ocean. Adults move back into estuaries in spring and early summer to Feed and
spawn. Adults can reach up to 2.1 m (6.9 ft) in length and live up to 60 years (Einmetl et al,, 1991).
Green sturgeon are found near the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants as adults migrating to freshwater rivers to spawn
in spring and as juveniles moving to the ocean (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Green sturgeon has been identified as a
species of concern in this area (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
£3-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E Data
GREEN STURGEON
(Acipenser mediroxiris)
Food sources:
>• Juveniles consume amphopods and mysid shrimp,*1
Prey for:
Life stage information:
Egg*
+ Ltttie known, difficult to differentiate from white sturgeon.
Family: Acipcnseridao (sturgeon). .
Common names; none,
Similar species: White sturgeon.
Geographic range: North America from the Aleutian
Islands and the Gulf of Alaska to Ensenada, Mexico."
Habitat: Spawn in freshwater rivers, found in estuaries in
spring, and in oceans,1"
Lifcspan: Live op to 60 years,6
Fecundity: Females mature at 15 to 20 years,11 Females
produce 60,000 to 140,000 eggs.e
Larvae: •
*• Little known, difficult to differentiate from white sturgeon,4 '•
Juveniles: \
»• Found in freshwater areas of the San joaquin Delta in summer^
Adults: anadraroous
*• Prefer marine environments," i
Frocse and Pauly, 2001.
Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000.
Emmett etaL, 199).
Wang, 19S6a.
Fish graphic from California Departiwenipf Fish and Game, 2002b.
Longf in smelt {Spirinchus thaleichthys) .
Longfin smelt is a member of the smeltfamily (Osraeridae) (Moyle, 1976). Longfin smelt is a native planktivore with a
reproductive biology that is similar to delta smelt (Moyte, 1976; Wang, 1986a; Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Emmett et al.,
1991). It is an anadromous species that is abundant in many Pacific Coast estuaries from Monterey Bay, California, as far
north as Prince William Sound, Alaska (Emmett et al., 1991), Longfin smelt have been sold seasonally in bay-delta fish
markets (Wang, 19S6a). They also provide food for numerous predatory fishes, birds, and marine mammals (Emmett et al,
1991). ' ; '
Adult longfm smelt are found in conditions ranging from seawater.to freshwater during their upstream spawning-migrations
(Moyle, 1976; Wang, 1986a; Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Emmett et al., 1991). Adults also show vertical migrations within
the water column, concentrating in bottom waters during the day and surface waters at night. Spawning occurs in winter and
spring in rivers (Kennish, 2000).
In California, longfia smell are concentrated around Saa Pablo Bay, but the population also shows distinct seasonal
movements (Moyle, 1976). Early summer is spent in San Francisco and San Pablo bays. In August, longfin smelt move into
Suisun Bay, and in winter they congregate for spawning in tipper Suisun Bay aod the lower delta. In April and May, large
schools of juveniles move back downstream, and concentrate in the Carquinez Strait, San Pablo Bay, and Sati Francisco Bay
throughout spring and summer, . . •
Most longfm smelt reach maturity at age 2 (Moyle, J976; Wang, 1986a; Herbold and.Moyle, 1989; Emmett et at., 1991).
Spawning takes place in freshwater at night from December to June, and is known to occur near both the Pittsburg and Contra
Costa plants {Wang, 1986a). The majority of adults die after spawning, but some females apparently live to spawn'.a second
time (Moyle, 1976). The average female produces 18,000 to 24,000 eggs (Emmett et a!., 1991). Eggs are demersal and
adhesive and are deposited singly over rocks and submerged vegetation. Larvae are pelagic, and are found in surface waters
from the Carquinez Strait to the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. Schools of larvae often also include
E3-6
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port E: San Francisco Boy/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of ME bata
delta smelt (Wang, 1986a), and it can be difficult to distinguish the two species in I&E samples. Juveniles range from 22 to
88 mm (0.9 to 3.5 in) in length, while adults average 100 ram (3.9 in) (Etnmett et al., 1991). In the bay-delta estuary,
abundance is positively correlated with the amount of freshwater inflow from February to September (Herbold and Moyle,
1989). Longfin smelt'has been identified as a species of concern (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
LONGFIN SMELT
(Spirinchus thateichlhys)
Family: Osmeridac (smelt).
Common names: Pacific smelt, Sacramento smelt."
Similar species: Delta smelt.
Geographic range: Northern Pacific from Prince William
Sound, Alaska to Monterey Bay, California.11
Habitat: Close to shore, in bays and estuaries." Prefers
rocky, hard or sandy substrates and aquatic vegetation for
cover.*
I ifcspan: Live up to 3 years."
Fecundity: Females mature at 2 years and usually spawn
only once, producing 18,000 to 24,000 eggs."
Food sources:
> Diaphanosoma, Diaptomus, Epischura, mysid shrimp, and other small
crustaceans.11
Prey for:
•• ! Predatory fish, birds, and marine mammals,1'
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
»• Eggs are approximately 1,2mm (0.04 in).b
>• , Eggs are deposited singly.1*
Larvae: pelagic
* Larvae are 6.9 to 8 mm (0.27 to 0,31 in) at hatching.1"
* Larvae arc found mostly on the surface of the water.b
Juveniles;
> Range from 22 to 28 mm (0.9 to 3.5 in) in length."
• Juveniles arc found in the middle to bottom of the water column.*
Adftlts:
> Adults average 100 mm (3.9 in).'
* Frocse and Pauly, 2001.
* Wang, 1986a.
Enunctt ct al, 1991.
Fish graphic from California Department of Fish and Game, 2002c.
Sacramento splittail {Pogonichthys macrolepidotus)
Sacramento splittail is a member of the minnow family (Cyprinidae) and a freshwater native of California's Central Valley
(Moyle, 1976; Daniels and Moyle,' 1983; Wang, 1986a). Splittail are bottom foragers that can reach up to 40,6 cm (16 in) in
length. Juveniles provide forage for squawflsh and striped bass,
Historically, splittail were abundant in the lakes and rivers of the Central Valley, including upstream reaches of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries. However, dams and diversions have restricted upstream access, and
splittail are now limited in their distribution to freshwater and brackish conditions in the lower reaches of the Sacramento
River, the delta, Suisun Marsh, San Pablo Bay, and Napa Marsh. Over the past 15 years, the species has declined by over 60
percent, primarily as a result of increasing water exports arid the loss of shallow-water habitat (Meng and Moyle, 1995).
Sacramento splittail was listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act by the USFWS effective March 1999.
Splittail spawn in the delta in spring over flooded vegetation in tidal freshwater and oligohaline areas (Wang, 1986a; Kennish,
2000). The spawning season can extend from late January to July, but most spawning occurs from March through May as
water levels and temperatures increase. Females mature at 1-2 years and produce up to 250,000 eggs (Daniels and Moyle,
1983). Eggs are demersal and adhesive and therefore unlikely to be entrained, but larvae and small juveniles are vulnerable.
The delta and Suisun Bay are important nursery areas (Kennish, 2000). Larvae are known to concentrate near the Pitisburg
plant at New York Slough (Wang, 1986a). Juveniles are particularly abundant in Suisun Marsh and the Montezuma Slough
of Suisun Bay (Meng and Moyle, 1995). Most splitlail complete their life cycle in 5 years.
£5-7
_
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta-Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I• Bottom foragers.'* , '
*• Juveniles prey on algae, pclccypods, and amphipods.* ,
Prey for:
>• Juveniles are prey for squawfish and striped bass.*1
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal •
» Eggs are adhesive, and unlikely to be entrained/ :
»• Mature eggs are 13 to 1.6 mm (0.05 to 0.06 in).*
Larvae: planktonic
»• Hatch at less than 6.5 mro (0.26 in).* ;
Juveniles: '
- Found in shallow and open water from the delta to San Pablo Bay."
Adults'.
f
» Spawn in the delta in spring over flooded vegetation in tidal freshwater
and oligohaliflc areas.*'t ;
>• May reach 40.6 cm (16 in) in length.11 ;
" Froese and-Pauly, 2001. •
b Meng and Moyie, 1995.
1 Daniels and Moyle, 1983.
Moyie, 1976.
Wang, 198
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter £3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Juveniles are found in all habitats of the delta, but it is unknown how long the delta is used as a nursery area (Herbold and
Moyle, 1989). Food sources in freshwater and estuarine areas include gammarid amphipods, crustaceans, and small fish
(Moyle, 1976). Juveniles range from 28 mm (1.1 in.) to400 mm (15.7 in.) (EmmetletaL, 1991).
STEELHEAD
(Oncorhynchus mykiss)
Family: Salmonidac (salmon and trout).
Common names:.Coast range trout, hardhead, rainbow
trout, salmon trout."
Similar species: Chinook salmon.
Geographic range: Eastern Pacific from Alaska to Baja
California, Mexico*
Habitat:
Lifcspan: Adults may reach 11 years."
Fecundity: Females produce from 1,500 to 5,000 eggs.11
' Frocsc and Pauly, 2001.
'"Emmettetal., 1991.
Moyle, 1976.
J Herbold and Moyle, 1989.
'ish graphic from Mason. 2002.
Food sources:
»• Gammarid amphipods, crustaceans, small fish.*
Prey for;
Life stage information:
*• Spawned in riverine fresh water.
Larvae: benthic
> Larvae range from 14 to 28 mm (0.55 to 1.1 in).1"
Juveniles:
*• Juveniles range from 28 to 400 mm (1.1 to i 5.7 in).*1
* • Found in all habitats of the delta.11
Adultsi Anadromous
*• Two subspecies or races of stcelhead are defined by the liming of
* spawning (winter run & summer run).11
>- May grow as large as 1 20 cm (47 in)."
Striped bass (_Morone saxatilis)
Striped bass was intentionally introduced to the Sacramento-San Joaquirj River system during the 1870's (Moyle, 1976;
Emmett et al., 1991; Stevens, 1992). Unlike some East Coast populations that make extensive coastal migrations,
Sacramento-San Joaquin River populations appear to spend most of their lives in bays and estuaries. Adults move into bays
(some into the delta) in the fall, overwinter in the bay and delta, and then after spawning in spring, move back to the ocean
(Moyle, 1976).
Commercial fishing for striped bass in the San Francisco Bay system has been prohibited since 1935 because of demands by
sport anglers (Stevens, 1992). The San Francisco striped bass recreational fishery is one of the most important recreational
fisheries On the Pacific Coast. In 1985, il was valued at over $45 million annually (Stevens, 1992). However, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin population has declined since the early 196Q's. Poor recruitment of young striped bass is thought to
be the primary reason for the decline in the adult stock (Stevens, 1992).
Striped bass spawn in schools at night (Stevens, 1992). Spawning occurs in freshwater, beginning in April in California and
peaking in May and early June. Females mature at age 5, producing an average of 250,000 eggs per year; Striped bass can
live up to 20 years, and exceed 22.7 kg (50 Ib) in weight, thus showing high reproductive potential.
Larval striped bass feed on opossum shrimp in the delta and Suisun Bay, reaching about 3.8 cm (1,5 in) in length by late
summer (Stevens, 1992). Large numbers of eggs and larvae are killed by the intakes of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa plants
and government water projects, contributing to poor recruitment (Stevens, 1992; Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). A
number of restoration and management actions are in place to improve recruitment. However, striped bass are voracious
predators on small fish, including several delta T&E species or species of concern such as delta smelt, longfin smelt, and
Sacramento splittail, complicating management efforts. •
E3-9
_
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies. Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of t&E t>ata
STRIPED BASS
(Morone $axatili$)
Family: Moronidae (temperate basses).
Common names: Striper, rockfish, lincsider, and sea
bass."
Simitar species: White perch,
Geographic range: St. Lawrence River in Canada to the
St. Johns River in Florida, and from the Suwamiee River
in western Florida to Lake Pantchattrain, Louisiana.1*
Intentionally introduced to Sacramento-San Joaquin River
system,' '•
Habitat: Sacramento-San Joaquin River populations
spend most of their lives in bays and estuaries.* Juveniles
prefer shallow rooky to sandy areas. Adults in inshore
areas use a variety of substrates, including rock, boulder,
gravel, sand, detritus, grass, moss, and mussel bcds.b
Lifcspan: Adults may reach 30 years,"1
Fecundity: Females mature at age 5 and produce an
average of 250,000 eggs per year."
Food sources:
> Larvae feed primarily on mobile planktomc invertebrates (beetle larvae,
copcpodids Oaphnia spp.).1*
+ Juveniles eat larger aquatic invertebrates and small fishes.15 „
*• Adults are piscivorous. Ciupeid fish ate the dominant prey and adults
prefer soft-rayed fishes,1' ;
Prey for: Any sympatric piscivorous fish.*1
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
*• Eggs and newly hatched larvae require sufficient turbulence to remain
suspended in the water column; otherwise, they can settle to the bottom
and be smothered,' ' - .
Larvae? pelagic
>• Larvae range from 5 to 30 mm {0,2 to 1.2 in).b
Juveniles:
>• Most striped bass enter the juvenile stage at 30 mm (1.2 in) total length/
» Juveniles school in larger groups after 2 years of age,r
Adults: Anadromous
*• Adults move into bays in the fall, overwinter in the bay and delta, and
after spawning in the spring,, return to the ocean.8
> May grow as large as 200 cm (79 in}.* ;
* Frocse and Pauly, 2001.
Hill etal, 1989.
* Moyl'c, 1976.
11 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000d.
Stevens, 1992.
f Bigelovv and Schroeder, 1953,
Fish graphicfrom California; Departniem of Fish and Game, 2002b.
E3-3 FACILITY METHODS FOR ESTIMATING I&E , ;
Results of facility l&E studies are .summarized in Appendix B of the draft Habitat Conservation Plan {Southern Energy Delta,
LLC, 2000) and presented below. Data are for the 1-year monitoring period in 1978-1979 and the average for 1987-1090 (for
impingement) and the average for 1986-19SO (for entrainmenl).
E3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring ;
Impingement sampling was conducted about once a month from March 1978 to April 1979, as well as from August to
February for 1987 to 1990 (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Impingement samples represent the total volume 'of
circulating water during sampling and therefore reflect all fish impinged during the sampling period, Mortality of impinged
organisms was assumed to be 100 percent, .
E3-3.2 Entramment Monitoring :
Entrainmenl sampling was conducted in a relatively small volume of circulating water during one 24-hour sampling period
each week from April 1978 to April 1979, as well as from May to mid-July for 1986 to 1992 (Southern Energy Delta, LLC,
2000). Numbers of entrained individuals collected were converted to a density estimate (.number per mj) and combined with
cooling water flow (m3 during each week) to estimate the total number entrained per year. Mortality of entrained organisms
was assumed to be 100 percent.
E3-10
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E Data
E3-4 ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT
EPA evaluated annual impingement at Pittsburg and Contra Costa using the methods described in Chapter A2 of Part A of
this document. The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix, El,
Table E3-2 displays facility estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) at the Pittsburg facility for striped bass
and special status species. Table E3-3 displays impingement losses of striped bass and special status species expressed as age
1 equivalents, Table E3-4 displays impingement expressed "as lost recreational fishery yield (for striped bass only), and Table
E3-5 displays impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables E3-6 through E3-9 display the same information for the
Contra Costa facility.
Table E3-2: Facility Estimates of Annual Impingement
(numbers of organisrtvs) at the Pittsburg facfli'ty
Monitoring
Period
1978-1979
Avg, 1987-
1990
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
808
106
457
106
808
496
914
Delta Smelt
14,107
283
7,195
283
14,107 .
9,775
14,390
Longfin
Smelt
137,261
12,677 •
74,969
12,677
137,261
88,094
149,938
Sacramento
>_jSpliitail
8,732
212
4,472
212
8,732
6,025
8,944
Steelhead
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Striped Bass
111,299 .
NA
—
—
_
—
— ..
0=Samplcd, but none collected.
MonJan2112:00:43MST2002Raw.Iosses.lMPlNOEMENT;Plant:pittsburg;
PATMNAME:P:/Intakc/Calif5'CaliilScience/scodes/p)ttsburgh/tables.output/raw,losses.imp,pittsburg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table E3-3i Annual Impingement at the Pittsburg Facility
Expressed as Age I Equivalents
Monitoring Period
1978-1979
Avg. 1987-1990
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
873
114
493
114
873
536
987
• Delta Smelt
. , 22,076
I 443
11,259
; 443
; 22,076
: . 15,297
: 22,519_^
Longfin
Smelt
181,597
16,772
99,184
16,772
181,597
116,549
198,369
Sacramento
Splittail
10,329
251
5,290
251
10,329
7,127
10,580
Striped Bass
128,956
NA
_
_ ,
_•
_
._
NA^Not sampled.
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual
number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are assumed to
be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the
losses arc normalized back to the start of year 1 by accounting for mortality during this interval
(for details, see description of S*j in Chapter A2, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of
adjustment is applied to all raw loss records, bwt the effect is not readily apparent among
entrainmcnt losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1.
Mon Jan 21 12:03:45 MST2002; Results; I Plant: pittsburg; Units: equivalent.swns Pathname:
P:/Intake/Calil7Calif_Science/scodcs/pittsburglVtableS,output/I.equivalent.sums.pittsburg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000),
E3-11
-
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E Data
fable. 63-4: Annual Impingement ef Striped Boss at the Piftsburg
Facility Expressed as Yield U>st to the'Recreational .Fishery (in pounds)
I ' StripecfSass
Year
1978-1979
46,991
Men Jan 21 12:03:51 MST 2002; Results; J Plant: pittsborg; Units: yield Pathname:
P:/lntake/Calif/Calif_Science/scodes/pittsburgh/tabies.output/).yield.pittsburg,csv
Table €3-15: Annual Xmpmgemerif at the Pittsburg Facility
. Expressed as ProductionForegone (m pounds)
Monitoring
PiM-iod
1978-1979
Avg. 1987-
1990
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
.
Chinook Salmon
2,735
. 359 .
1,547
359
2.735
1,680'
3,094
Delta Smelt
30
, :
16
. 1
30
2!
31
Longfin Smelt
1,174
108
641
108
1,174
754
1,282
Sacramento SpliltaH
. 1,055
26
540
'26
1,055
728
1,080
Striped Bass
16,674
NA
_
—
—
— -
„
NA=Not sampled.
MonJan2112 03:47MST2002;Rosults;lPlant:piltsburg;Units:annuaI.prod.forgPatlii«me:
P:/Intake/CaliffC»liLScience/scodcs/pittsburgli/tabtes.output/l.annua!.prod,forg.pittsburg.osv
Source: Appendix B ta the draft Habitat Conservation Plan {Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table E3-6; Facility Estimates of Annual Impingement
(numbers of organisms),at the Contra Costa Facility
Monitoring
Period
1978-1979
Avg. 1987-
1990
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
1,083
0
542
0
1,083 -
766
1.083
Delta Smell
. 8,253
942
4,598
942
8,253
' 5,170
9.195
Longfin
Smelt
19,475
336
9,906
336
19,475
13,533
19,811
Sacramento
SpHttail
• 12,455
889 , .
6,672
889
32,455
8,178
13,344
SteeJhead
• 38
b
19 •
0
si
27
38
StripedBass
136,149
NA
—
—
_
—
_
NA=Not sampled, . •
Q»Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 11:20:56 MST 2002 Rawjosses. IMPINGEMENT; Plantrcontracosta;
PATl!NAME:P:/lntake/Calif/CaliLScience,'scodes/contracosta('tables.output/raw.losses.imp.contracosta.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
E3-I2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pert E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table E3-7
Monitoring
Period
1 978-1979
Avg. 1987-1990
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Annual Impingement at the Contra Costa Facility Expressed as
Age. 1 Equivalents ' >
Chinook
Salmon
1,169
0
585
0
1,169
. 827
1,169
Delta Smelt
12,915
1,474
7,195
1,474
12,915
8,090
14,389,
Longfin
Smelt
25,766
445
13,105
445
25,766
17,905
26,210
Sacramento
Splitlail
14,733
1,052
7,892
1,052
14,733
9,674
Striped Bass1
157,749
NA
__
—
—
, ,
15,785 •
NA=Not sampled.
0=Samplcd, but none collected.
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual
number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are assumed to
be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the
losses are normalized back to the start of year I by accounting for niortality during this interval (for
details, sec description of S*j in Chapter A2, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment
is applied to all raw loss records, but the effect is not readily apparent among entrainment losses •
because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age !,
Mon Jan 21 11:24:23 MST 2002; Results; 1 Plant: contraeosta; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
P:/lmakc/Calif?Calif_Science/scodes/contracosta/tables,output/l.equivalent,suros.comracosta,csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table E3-8: Annual Impingement of Striped Bass at the Contro Costa Facility
Expressed as Yield Lost to the Recreational Fishery
(in pounds)
Year
Striped Bass
1978-1979
57,482
Mon Jan 21 11:24:28 MST 2002; Results; 1 Plant: contracosta; Units; yield Pathname:
P:/Intake/Cali6'CaUf_Scicnce/scodes/contracosta/tables.output/l.yield.contracosta.csv
Source;: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table E3-9
Annual Impingement at the Contra Costa Facility Expressed as
Production Foregone (fti pounds)
Monitoring
Period
1978-1979
Avg. 1987-1990
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
3,666
0
1,833
0
3,666
2,592
3,666
Delta Smelt
18
2
10 '
2
18 .
11
20 :
Longlm Smelt
167
'\
85
3
167
116
1.69
Sacramento
SpIiUail
1,504
107
806
. 107
1,504
988
1,612
Striped Bass
20,396
NA
—
_-,.
. .
. —
—
NA=Not sampled.
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 11:24:26 MST 2002; Results; 1 Plant: contraeosta; Units: annuai.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/Intakc/Calif7Calif_Science/s(;odcs/contracosta/tabtes.output/I.annualprod.forg.contracosta.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
E3--13
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6 San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of l&E Data
E3-5 ANNUAL ENTMINMENT :
EPA evaluated annual entrainment at Pittsburg and Contra Coste using the methods described in Chapter A2 of Part A of this
document. The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix El, Table E3-10
displays facility estimates of annual entrainment (numbers of organisms) at the Pittsburg facility for all species collected.
Table E3-11 displays impingement losses of striped bass and special status species expressed as age I equivalents,'
Table E3-12 displays impingement expressed as lost recreational fishery yield (for striped bass only), and Table E3- J 3
displays impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables E3-14 through £3-17 display the same information for tlie
Contra Costa facility, . . >
Table E3-10;'facility Estimates of Annual Entrainment • , i
Monitoring Period
1978-1979
•Avg. 1986-1992
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
23,598
0
11,799
0
23,598
16,686
23,598
Delta Smelt
65,839,484
1,680,18?
33,759,836
1,680,187
65,839,484
45,367,474
67,519,671
Loiigfin
Smelt
190,229
232,641
211,435
190,229
232,641
29,990
422,870
Sacramento
_jpstta«'
155,289
. 336,03?
245,663
155,289
336,037
127,808
491,326
Striped Bass
284,370,000
NA
— ,
_
—
—
__
NA=Not sampled, '
0=Sanipled, but none collected.
Man Jan 21 12:00:44 MST 2002-RawJosses, ENTRAINMENT; PlanKpittsburg;
PATHNAME:P:/lntake/Catif/CaliflScience/scodes/pittsburgh/tabies.0utput/raw,losses.ent.pittsburg,csv
Source: Appendix B in the-draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
. Table E3-JJ: Annual Enfrainrnent at the Pittsburg Facility
•Expressed Qs Age 1 Equivalents
Monitoring
Period
1978-1979
Avg. 1986-1992
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
122
0
61
0
. 122
86
,122 •
Delta Smelt
392,928
10,097 ,
201,512
10,097
392,928
270,702
403,025
Longfin Smelt
257
314
285
257
314
40
571
Sacramento
SjgU«ail__
16
34
25
16
34
13
50
Striped Bass
1,456,810
NA
—
—
—
—
—
NA=Not sampled.
0=Sampied,' but none collected.
. Mon Jan 21 12:03:43 MST 2002; Results; E Plane pittsburg; Units; equivakntsums Pathname:
F>:/fntake/Calil?CaItf_Scienee/scodes/pittsburgh/tabtes,owtpui/E.ecjuivalentsums.piKsburg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table E3-l2s Annual Entrainment of Striped Bass -at the Pittsburg Facility
Year
3978-1979
Striped Bass
530,850
Mon Jan 21 12:03:50 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: pittsburg; Units: yield Pathname;
P:/lntake/CaliJ7CaliC.Science/scodes/pittsburgWtabks.outpui/E,yieId,pittsburg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
B3-14
-------
S 316{b) Cose Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table E3-13: Annual Entrapment at the Ptttsburg Facility Expressed as
Production Foregone (in pounds)
. Monitoring Period
1978-1979
Avg. 1986-1992
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
1,316
0
658
0
1,316
930
1,316
Delta Smelt
5,691
'146
2,918
146
. 5,691
3,920
5,837
Longfln
Smelt
7
9
7
9
j
17
Sacramento
Splittail
29
64
46
29
64
24
93
Striped Bass
.289,634
NA
•_
_
_
NA»Not sampled.
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 12:03:46 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: pittsburg; Units: annuaJ.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/Intake/CaliC'Calif_Scicnee/scodcs/piUsburgh/tables.output/E.ann.ual.prod,forg.pittsburg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table E3-14: Facility Estimates of Annual Entrainfrtent
(numbers of organisms) at the Contra
Monitoring
Period
1978-1979
Avg. 1986-1992
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
10,318
0
5,159
0
10,318
7,296
10,318
Delta Smelt
21,755,741
1,565,933
11,660,837
1,565,933
21,755,741
14,276,350
23321,674
. Loagfln
Smelt
0
71,179
35,590
0
71,179
50,331
71,179
Sacramento
Splittail
189,659
94,905
142,282
94,905
189,659
67,001
284,564
Striped Bass
81,000,000
NA
—
—
__
__
•
NA«"Not sampled.
0=Samplcd, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 11:20:57 MST 2002 Raw.Joss*s. ENTRAPMENT; Ptemxomracosta;
PATHNAME:P:/lntake/Calif/CaliCSciene<^scodes/comra(:osta/!aWes.oiit:put/niw.los5es.eni.contracosui.c8v
Source; Appendix 13 in the draft Habitat Conservation plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000),
Table E3-15: Annual Entrammenf at the Contra Costa Facility Expressed as Age 1
.Equivalents
Monitoring Period
1978-1979
Avg. 1986-1992
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook Salmon
53
0
27
0
53
38
53
_
Delta Smelt
' 125,313
9,411
67,362
9,411
125,313
81,955
134,724
Longfin
Smelt
0
96
48
0
96
68
96
Sacramento
Spiittaii
19
10
14
10
19
7
29
Striped
. Bass
493,756
NA
__
,
— ,
_ . .
NA=Not sampled.
0=Samplcd, but none collected.
MOD Jan 21 11:24:22 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: co'ntraeosta; Units: equivalem.sums Pathname:
P:/Intake/Calif?Calif_Sciencc/scodcs/contracosta/tables.output/E.equivalent.sums.contracosta.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
£3-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Et San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table E3-16t Annual Ervtrainment of Striped Bass at the Contra Costa Facility
Expressed as Yield Lost to the Recreational fishery (in pounds)
; • . Striped Bass
Year
1978-1979
179,921
Mon Jan 21 II ,-24:27 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: contracosta; Units: yield Pathname:
P:/Jntake/C;iliJ7Calit.Seien«/scodcs/coatracosta/tables.output/E.yieJd.comracosta.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
fable E3-17; Annual Entwwnment at the Contra Costa Facility Expressed as
-
Monitoring Period
1P78-S979
Avg. 1986-1992
Mean '
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Chinook
Salmon
575
0
288
, 0
575
407
575
Delta Smelt
1,816
136
976
136
1,816
1,187
1,952
Longfin
Smelt
0
3
1
0
3
2
3
Sacramento
SplitUul
36
18
27
18
36
13
54
Striped Bass
96,797
NA
— .
_
_
—
_
NA-Not sampled.
0=Sampled, but none collected,
Mon Jan 2111:24:2S MST 2002; Results; E Plant: contracosta; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/Intakc/CaliffCalir_Science/scodes/coniracosta/tabte$,outf)«t/E,annual,prod.forg.eontracoste.csv,
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan {Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
E3-6 SUMMARY: COMBINED IMPACTS OF PITTSBUPUS AND CONTRA COSTA
Table E3-18 summarizes EPA's estimates of annual impingement at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities combined, and
Table E3-J9 summarizes annual entraintnent. Based on available data, EPA estimates thai, on average, 247,448 striped bass
and 108,811 individuals of special status species may be impinged at the facilities each year. This represents 286,705 age 1
equivalents of striped bass or 104,473 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 145,004 age 1,equivalents of special status species, or
5,477 pounds of biomass production foregone. The available data also indicate that over 365 million striped bass and over 46
million individuals of special status species are entrained annually at the two facilities, representing 1,950,565 age I
equivalents of striped bass or 710,770 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 269,334 age 1 equivalents of special status species or
4,923 pounds of biornass production foregone. • . ' ' •
Table £3-18: Average Annual Impingement and Entrafranent of Striped
Bass at Pittsburg and Contra tfosto (both facilities combined)
Raw losses (# of organisms) .
Age 1 equivalents {# of fish)
Fishery yield (Ibsof fish)
Production foregone (Ibs of fish)
Impingement
247,448
286,705
104,473
37,070
P:\fNTAKESCaUf\Catif_Scicnce\scodes\Econ T8blesyiowchart.calif.F
P:\lNTAKE\Calif\Calif_Scicncc\scodes\Bcon Tables\flowchart,catif,l
Entraintnent
365,370,000
1,950,565
710,770
386,431
NT.CSV
VlP.csv
E3-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table E3-19: Average Annual Impingement and Entrainment of Special
Status Species at Pittsbura and Contra Costa (sum of annual means of all
species evaluated at the two facilities combined)
Impingement
Entmimm-nt
Raw losses (# of organisms)
Age 1 equivalents (# offish)
Fishery yield (Ibs of fish)
Production foregone (Ibs offish)
108,811
145,004
-----
5,477
46,072,601
269,334
—
4,923
P:\lNTAK.E\CaU(\Calif_Sciencc'lscodcs\EconTablesNflowchart.calif.ENT,cs?
P:\INTAKE\CalifiCalif_Science\scodes\Econ Tables\flowchart.callf,IMP.csv
EPA's analysis of I&E at Pittsburg and Contra Costa was based on historic I&E rates and assumes that these rates would be
observed once populations of special status species recover. However, sampling data from the late 1980's and early 1990's
may underestimate potential I&E losses because populations of many special Status species were depressed during those years
as a result of drought conditions, increasing water exports, and elevated salinities during spawning (ivteng and Moyle, 1995).
Since the previous drought of 1976-1977, the average estuarme inflow diverted by water projects increased from 30 percent
to 50 percent (Moyle et al., 1992). Under the low flow conditions that prevailed during the sampling in the late 1980's and
early 1990's, most fish that were present were concentrated east of the power plants on the Sacramento River, further
reducing their potential abundance in I&E samples (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Thus, I&E rates during these years
most likely underestimate losses that can occur when environmental conditions are favorable.
On the other hand, Contra Costa data may overestimate potential losses because Contra Costa Units 1 -3 are now on long-term
standby status and Units 4 and 5 are operated as synchronous condensers and do not require cooling water from circulating
pumps. Because of this, estimated I&E for Units 6 and 7 only may-provide better estimates of potential losses (Southern
Energy Delta, LCC, 2000). Although annual estimates for Units 6 and 7 alone are not presented in available documents,
Southern Energy Delta, LLC (2000) has estimated that impingement of delta smelt and longfm smelt is reduced by 67 percent
and 44 percent, respectively, with only Units 6 and 7 of the Contra Costa facility operating.
E3-17
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E4: Value of Baseline I&E tosses
Chapter E4: of
I<£E Losses on
Transfer
This chapter presents an analysis using benefits transfer
techniques of the economic losses associated with I&E of
striped bass at.the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities in
the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary, Section E4-1
provides an overview of the valuation approach, Section
E4-2 discusses the value of recreational fishery losses,
Section E4-3 discusses nonuse values, and Section E4-4
summarizes benefits transfer results. Chapter E5 discusses
economic, values associated with losses of special status
species.
E4-1 OVERVIEW OF VALUATION
APPROACH
CHAPTER, CONTENTS „ "
B4-I Ovewiow of Valuation Approach ,,,,,...,, E4-1
_E4-2 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses
Resulting from l&E at Pittsburg and Contra Cojta . E4-1
E4-2.1 Eeonottitc Values from the Consumer ~
Surplus Literature ..,*.. ^sV-'- - -JE4"'
B4-2,2- Economic Values Applied t0,Lossjs tfj
" Striped Bass ResuUufg.fibn^f&E ffiT, 7/"
" Pitisburg antfCwitra CosteC.,,.,.«.,
E4-3 Nonuse Values ,r,.,^:,, >~7-, ,..','.... r.'.,.
B4-4 Sunamary'bf Anailal Value of Baseline EeonoiBfe *'
Losses. 35 Prttsburg and Contra Costa. .,, .^V,,,.,-, E4-3
EPA reviewed I&E data for five fishery species for this valuation analysis (American shad, northern anchovy, Pacific herring,
starry flounder, and striped bass) and determined thai l&E losses and associated dollar values were only significant for striped
bass. In addition, fishing harvest and mortality rates for the other four fishery species are uncertain or unavailable. Therefore,
only recreational fishery losses resulting from I&E of striped bass are considered here. In addition, impingement and
entrainmenl of forage species other than special status species were not included in this assessment, since their losses were
insignificant relative to concerns about special status species in these waters (discussed in Chapter E5). Because only striped
bass was evaluated in the benefits transfer analysis, the results presented here underestimate the value of fishery losses at the
two plants.
Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers of fish rather than pounds, the foregone
recreational yield of striped estimated in Chapter E3 was converted to numbers offish for the benefits transfer analysis, as
indicated in Tables E4-2 and E4-3. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvestabte striped bass. Note that the
numbers of foregone recreational fish harvested are lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of
harvest of most fish is greater than age 1.
E4-2 ECONOMIC VALUE OF RECREATIONAL FISHERY LOSSES RESULTING FROM I&E AT
PmrsBURG AND CONTRA COSTA
E4-2.1 Economic Values from the Consumer Surplus Literature
Striped bass are a valuable recreational fish in both Atlantic and Pacific coastal waters. Table E4-1 shows some studies that
value additional catch of striped bass and other small game fish. Most studies are from the Atlantic coast and are included for
comparison. The study that applies most directly to the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary is that done by Huppert (1989). In
this study, Huppert found that anglers were willing to pay $58,07 each (in 1999 dollars) per year to avoid a 50 percent
reduction in striped bass and Chinook salmon catch rates, and $74.79 each (in 1999 dollars) per year to have a 100 percent
increase in striped bass and chinook salmon catch rates. EPA used Huppert's (1989) estimates of angling trips per year and
current catch rales to estimate anglers' willingness to pay to increase striped bass catch rates by one fish per trip or to avoid a
E4-J
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Pact E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
decrease in catch ra»es by one fish per trip. The other studies summarized in Table E4-1 find similar values for increased
catch rates for striped bass and other small game fish on the Atlantic coast.
Table £4-1: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes
Authors
Huppert(1989)
Norton et al.
(1983)
McConneli and
Strand (1 994)
Hicks et al.
(1999)
Study Location and Y«ar
San Francisco Bay, 1985-1986
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1980
Mid- and south Atlantic coast, ang
targeting specific species, 1988
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994
; Item Valued
I WTP to avoid a 1 fish per trip decrease
Hn catch rate*
• WTP to have a 1 fish per trip increase
j in catch rate*
; Catch rate increase of 1 striped bass per
• trip, for Ne%v England, mid-Atlantic,
Jand Chesapeake
ers jCatch'ratc increase of 1 fish pertrip*1 —
leverage overall east coast states
: Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip,
; from historical catch rates at all sites,
;for all mid- Atlantic coast states
In Catch ftaies '•
\ ' Value Estimate (S2DM)
; Chinook salmon/striped bas's SI4.14
; Chinook salmon/striped bass $9. 1 1
jNew England striped bass $.26.39
1 Mid-Atlantic striped bass $15.55
i Chesapeake striped bass $1 1.08
ISmall game fish S10.40
j Small game fish $3.36
" Average willingness to pay (WTP) per angler per year to avoid a 50 percent redviction in catch (S58.07) or to have a 100 percent-
increase in catch ($74.79) (average of valuations from a travel cost model and a contingent valuation model). The average angler took
6.2 trips per year and caught L36 salmon/striped bass per trip. Therefore, we estimate that an increase of one fish per trip would be
worth $8.87 (i ,36 fish/trip * 6,2 trips/year * 8.43 fish/year; $75/ycar * 8,43 fish/year * S8,87/Ssh}. Avoiding a 50 percent reduction in
catch per trip would be worth $ 13.77 ($58,07/trip * 6.2 trips/year * (1.36 fish/trip x 50%)). '
b Value was reported as "two months value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip." From 19% National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DOt, 1997), the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 trips in a 2 month period.
Therefore, to convert to a "I fish per trip" value we divided the 2 month value by 1.5 trips and than multiplied it by 2, assuming the
value of a fish was linear. ' ;
£4-2,2 Economic Values Applied to Losses of Striped Bass Resulting from IAE at
Pittsburg and Contra Costa ;
EPA used Huppert'i? estimates (1989) to calculate the dollar value of l&E-related losses to recreational landings of striped
bass. Results for Pittsburg are displayed in Table E4-2 and results for Contra Costa are displayed in Table E4-3. The
estimated loss resulting from l&E at Pittsburg ranges from $ 111,500 to S173,000 per year for impingement, and frorn
$1,259,2001$ 1,954.500 per year for entrainment. The estimated loss resulting from l&E at Contra Costa ranges from .
$ 136,400 to $211,600 per year for impingement, and from $426,800 to $662,400 per year for enUrainmenl. .
Table E4-2; Mean Annual Recreational Losses and Associated .Economic Values for
. .'..'• , Striped Bass' at the Pittsburg :F«citity
Soti«e
Impingement
Entrainment
Loss lo
Recreational
Catch
Expressed as
Pounds of Fish
46,911
530,850
• Loss to :
Recreational
Catch
Expressed -.as
Numbers of
'• -Fish
12,236
138,225
Recreational -Value/Fish
Low
• S9.ll
S9.ll
High
$14.14 '
S14.I4
Loss In Recreational Value ,
from Impingement {$2000)
Low
$111,467
SI, 259,229
.jBigh
$173,012
$1,954,500
Mon Jan 14 09:01:41 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: pittstmrg; type: I Pathname:
P;/lntake/CaliPCalit.Scienee/seodes/pittsburgh/tables.outpui/TabteB.rec.losses,pittsburg.l.csv' '
E4-2
-------
5 316(b) Case. Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E4: Value of Baseline I^Intakc/Calif7Caltf_Sciencc/scodes/contracosra/tables.ouiput/TablcB.rec.losses.contracosta.l,csv
E4-3 NONUSE VALUES
Recreational consumer surplus is only part of the total loss that the public realizes From l&E impacts on fisheries, Nonuse, or
passive use, impacts occur when individuals value environmental changes apart from any past, present, or anticipated future
use of the resource in question. Such passive use values have been categorized in several ways in the economic literature,
typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (Intel-generational equity) motives. Using a "rule of
thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 percent of the recreational use impact (see Chapter A9 in Part A of
this document for further discussion), EPA estimates that nonuse values for striped bass losses at Pittsburg range from
$55,700 to $86,500 per year for impingement and from $629,600 to $977,300 per year for entrainment. At Contra Costa,
nonuse values for striped bass losses range from $68,200 to $105,800 per year for impingement and from $213»400 to
S331,200 per year for entrainment.
E4-4 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL VALUE OF BASELINE ECONOMIC LOSSES AT PITTSBURS
AND CONTRA COSTA
Tables E4-4 and E4-5 summarize the estimated annual baseline losses from I&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities,
respectively. Total impacts range from $167,200 to S259.500 per year for. impingement and from $2,056,000 to $3,191,300
per year for entrainment at Pittsb.urg, and from $204,500 to S317,500 per year for impingement and from $640,200 to
$993,700 per year for entrainment at Contra Costa.
Table E4-4: Summary of Baseline Annual I4G Value Losses at Pittsburg Facility ($2000)
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Total (Rcc * Nonuse)
Low
High ;
Low '
High
Low
High
Impingement
$111,467
$173,012
$55,734
$86,506
$167,201
$259,518
Eiitraianient
$1,259,229
SI, 954,500
$629,615 '
$977,250
$1,888,844
82,931,750
Total
$1,370,696
$2,127,512
$685,349
SI, 063,756
$2,056,045
83,191,268
Mon Jan 2111:54:30 MST 2002 ; TablcE.summary; Plant:pittsburg; Pathname;
P:/rntakc'Calif?Calif_Science/scodes/contracosta?tabics.output/TableE.summary.pittsburg.csv
E4-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E4; Value of Baseline I&E Losses
Tabie £4-5; Summar of
Value Losses at Contra Costa Facility' ($2000) j
Recreational (Direct Use,.Nonroarket)
Nonusc (Passive Use, Nonmarkct)
Total (Rcc + Konuse) ' . •
Low
High
.Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
5136,354
S21 1,641
S68.177
$105,821
$204,531
5317,462
Eiitrainnietit
$426,790
5662,438
$213,395
$331,219
8640,185
$993,657
Total
$563,144
$874,079
$281,572
5437,040
$844,716
$1,311, Il9
Won Jan 2111 ;54:30 MST 2002 ; TablcE.suminary; Plantwontracoata; Pathname:
P:/lnmki^CaliPCaMr_Scienee/scodes/eoritraeosta/tablcs.oiitput/Ts»blttE.suraniary>contracosia.esv
E4-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part & San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
Chapter E§;
Preference for
Special Status
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic losses from affected special status fish
species and habitats that arc associated with impingement
and entrainment (I&E) at the Contra Costa and Pittsburg
facilities in the San Francisco Estuary.
E5-1 VALUING SPECIAL STATUS
SPECIES
E5-I
E5-2
E5-3
JES-4
E5-5
E5-6
CONTENTS
- Valuing Special Status Species^. . , . , .......... , ." E5-I
Habttat Restoration Costs ..... ---- ." .......... ." . E5-2
Opportunity Costs of Water UseJosegone to , f ,
Protect Special Status Species Fish ,„.„..».,,..,„ E5-3
Current Abundapce apd Restoration Targets^. . . . , . .JBS-4
Total O&U for Special Status Speeds Fisfr'Tt . "
Conclusions, "
The economic benefits of preservation or restoration of
threatened and endangered (T&E), or other fish species
designated with a special status, are often derived as nonuse values. The standard benefits transfer approach used for other
species often does not apply to special status species because T&B species are protected from recreational or commercial
fishing. Other T&E fish have been so depleted that any recent use estimates from angling participation or landings would not
be indicative of the species' potential value for direct use (e.g., striped bass or several salmon species). So, while
consumptive use benefits for some T&E fish may be estimated when populations recover in the future, for now, use-related
benefits are not readily estimable given available data,
Given the lack of direct use value associated with T&E species, nonuse values are therefore the main source for benefit
estimation for these species. To estimate nonuse values, one approach is generally available — stated preference methods
such as the contingent valuation method (CVM). However, CVM or other primary stated preference approaches are not a
feasible approach for EPA to apply in this rulemaking because the time and cost associated with conducting the necessary
primary research is beyond resources and time schedule available to the Agency.
As a result, EPA is pursuing an approach that uses actual sunis of money which society has dedicated to restoring and
preserving T&E species fish as an indication of society's revealed preference valuation for protecting those species. Money
set aside in programs designed specifically to protect T&E species or values foregone by water users in taking actions to
protect species can be used as an indication of the value that society places on preserving T&E species.
The revealed preference approach to valuing T&E species fish in the bay-delta ecosystem involves several steps. First, the
costs that society had demonstrated that it is willing to pay to restore T&E fish species is calculated. For the bay-delta region,
a federal- and state-level effort known as the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a multiyear program that brings together many
of the efforts to restore the bay-delta ecosystem. One of the first goals under this program is to protect and restore T&E fish
populations. Annual costs to protect T&E fish are estimated from total CALFED costs. In addition, water users are foregoing
approximately 3-4 million acre feet (AF) of water per year for improved fish habitat that would normally go to municipal and
agricultural water users in Central and Southern California. These values are summed to reveal a total willingness to pay,
Second, the number of T&E fish needed to restore populations to predecline levels is calculated. These calculations are based
on historical records of abundance of T&E species in the bay-delta area. Target populations based on predecline levels for
T&E species are compared with estimates of current abundance to determine the number of fish to be restored. Third, by
combining the cost and fish estimates outlined above, a revealed preference dollar per fish value can be calculated. This
dollar per fish value can then be used to value age 1 equivalent losses at baseline for l&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa
facilities.
E5-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
E5-2 HABITAT RESTORATION COSTS :''.•' :
Californians have made significant investments to protect and restore bay-delta native fish populations. Improvements have
been made to fish habitats by increasing stream flows, installing screening devices and fish passages, removing dams,
changing water flows, and controlling temperatures. These changes in operations and technologies all entail significant costs,
which society has shown to be willing to pay.for the protection and restoration of healthy fish populations, particularly the
threatened and endangered species of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. These investments provide a means to evaluate
the loss imposed on society when a portion of these same fisheries are adversely impacted by I&E.
One of the programs through which investments to protect and restore bay-delta fish populations will be made is through the
CALFED program. The CALFED program is designed to guide restoration and management of the bay-delta area over the
next 30 years or more. The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP) is one of the interrelated CALLED plans
designed to restore the ecological health of the bay-delta ecosystem. The ERPP is designed to improve and restore aquatic
and terrestrial habitats and natural processes to support stable, self-sustaining populations of plant and animal species. The
ERPP has six strategic goals, the first of which is to recover at-risk native species in the bay-delta ecosystem and to minimize
the need for ftitwre endangered species listings of native species in the bay-delta ecosystem by reversing downward population
trends of native species .currently not listed. There are nine special status species identified under the ERPP with a goal of
recovering each species. These species are delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento sp.liUail, Sacramento
winter-run chinook, salmon, Central Valley spring-run ehinook salmon, late-fall-run chinook salmon, fall-run chinook salmon,
and Centra! Valley steelhead, ' :
i
CALFED implementation will proceed in stages, starting with over S8 billion invested in Stage 1, which covers the first 7
years of the 30 yeas- or more program (CALFED, 200Qb), Over $ 1.4 billion of this total will be spent on the ERPP and
environmental water quality. A majority of the amount spent on the ERPP in stage 1 benefits special status speciesj especially
fish. However, because of the interrelated nature of the CALFED process, it is impossible to tell exactly what percentage of
funds spent will benefit special status fish species. Table E5-1 shows projected CALFED program costs for Stage I for all
program elements.' . ..•'''
Table ES-1; Estimated Costs for CALFED Program Stage 1 (millions of dollar's) (20GO: dollars)'
Program Element
Ecosystem restoration
Environmental water quality
Environmental water account
Water use efficiency
Water transfers
Watershed management
Drinking water quality .
Levees
Storage
Conveyance
CALFED science program
Total
Program Years " • .
I '
$220
$15
$50
S3!
S3
$40
S41
$33
$50
$29
S25
S537
2
$165
$33
S50
$62
S3
S45
$78
$76
$75
$66
$30
$683
3
$125
$38
$50
S299
S3
S45
$82
$78
$138
SI 50
$45
$1,053
4
$120
$48
S50
$641
$2
$45
SI 10
$82
$208
$198
$50
SI, 554
S
$170
SSO
SO
S641
S2
$45 .
$116
S45
$266,
$220
$50
SI, 605
6
S170
$48
$0
$641
$1 '
,$40
$120
$65
$349
$160
$50
$1,644
"7
$170
S48
$0
$641
$1
$40.
SJ28
$65
S339
$98
SSO
SI, 580
' TotaJ
$1,140
, $280]
• S200.
$2.956
$15 "
$300
$675
$444,
$1,425
S92l:
$300;
$8,656
Based on July 2000 numbers in BIS/E1R, updated according to Terry Mills of CALFED. ' ;
Environmental water quality separated out of ecosvstero restoration cost estimate.
Source: CALFED, 200Qb. ' :
An unofficial estimate of the total cost for habitat restoration needed over the life of the CALFED project is S2.5 billion (D.
Daniel, CH2MWSU, Sacramento office, personal communication, June 2001. Mr. Daniel was involved with design of the
ERPP). If the ratio of the Stage 1 habitat restoration costs to the total restoration costs is assumed to apply for all program
elements, total CALFED program, costs can be estimated. Using this method, total CALFED costs would reach $19 billion
over the 30 year or more life of the program, • • .
E5-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
As the CALFED program progresses, fewer funds will directly benefit special status species fish. At the low end, it is
assumed that over the life of the program 40 percent of the ERPP funds, 40 percent of the money spent on environmental
water quality, and 90 percent of the Environmental Water Account (EWA) benefit special status fish.1 This assumption
results in an estimated expenditure of $ 1.64 billion. At the other end of the spectrum, it is assumed that 80 percent of the
ERPP funds and the environmental water quality element benefit special status species, and that 10 percent of each of the
other CALFED program elements also benefit special status species, except the EWA, where the 90 percent benefit level is
maintained. This high cost assumption results in an estimate of costs to restore special status species fish of $4.43 billion.
In order to check estimates for habitat restoration costs by comparison against another cost estimation method, a most likely
scenario for allocation of total CALFED program costs to special status species fish was developed For that scenario, 60
percent of the ERPP and environmental water quality funds, 90 percent of the EWA funds, and 10 percent of the other
program categories directly benefit special status species fish. This scenario indicates costs totaling $3,81 billion.
The other approach, developed for comparison purposes, is to estimate the habitat restoration costs directly. Three main
categories of costs are considered: 1) cost for fish screens, 2) cost for tidal wetland habitat restoration in the delta, and 3) cost
for riparian habitat restoration in streams feeding the delta. This direct approach is developed below,
Approximately 5,000 cfs of diversions are related to large water projects in the delta — the State Water Project (SWP) and
the Central Valley Project (CVP). At $10,000 per cfs, the cost to screen these diversions would be $50 million. With another
S75 to SSO million to retrofit screens at power plants in the delta, and $100 million to screen, smaller diversions for agriculture
and other uses, the total for fish screens in the delta is approximately $225 million (Michael Thabault, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, personal communication, June 2001).
For tidal wetland restoration in the delta, the cost per acre of restoration is generally expected to range from $10,000 to
SI 00,000, depending on many factors including the density of existing development in the area, comparable real estate costs
in the area, and other factors. CALFED estimates that the goal for restoration of tidal wetland and related habitat is
approximately 110,000 acres (CALFED, 2000a). Using a tidal wetland restoration value of $30,000 per acre (selected from
range of $20,000 to 550,000 suggested by D. Daniel, CH2M Mill, personal communication, June 2001),2 the total cost would
be S3.3 billion. . •
For stream restoration outside of the delta, restoration costs per acre are approximately $4,000 (Dick Daniel, CH2M Hill,
personal communication, June 2001). CALFED estimates that there are approximately 33,200 acres of riparian and riverine
aquatic habitat or stream channel meander habitat to restore (CALFED, 2000a). The total cost for riparian habitat would be
approximately SI32.7 million. Adding the three cost components, the total restoration costs appear to be about $3.6 billion
($296.2 million if annualized over 30 years to match the project life length of the CALFED program, using an interest rate of
7 percent). This direct approach cost estimate is comparable to the revealed preference approach cost estimate derived above
(S3.8 billion).
E5-3 OPPORTUNITY COSTS OF WATER USE FOREGONE TO PROTECT SPECIAL STATUS
SPECIES FISH
Several actions have been taken to increase stream flows for improved fish habitat. The most significant reduction in water
use to meet these increases in stream flows has been experienced by urban and agricultural water users who obtain their
supplies from the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has had to cut back on supply to its CVP customers to comply with the
various water needs and restrictions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act
(CESA), the CVP Improvement Act (CVPIA), and the new bay-delta water quality standards issued in 1995 by the State
Water Resources Control Board. For these purposes, the Bureau has reduced by 40 percent to 60 percent its usual 7 million
AF per year delivered to water users without water rights (Earl Cummings, California Division of Water Resources,-
Environmental Services Office, personal communication, March 2000; Jeff Sandberg, Central Valley Project, personal
: The EWA is set up to provide additional water for protection offish beyond the regulatory actions required for water project
operations. The EWA is a cooperative effort to give water managers the flexibility needed to protect fish as well as maintain water project
operations.
1 The smaller range (S20,000 to 550,000 as compared to $10,000 to $100,000) was vised because most of the land acquisition costs to
dale have been in the low end of the $10,000 to 3100,000 range, and values in the high end of the range are not expected until competition
increases for land more desirable for development.
£5-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
communication, March 2000). Thus, the Bureau has. foregone 3 to. 4 million of acre feet per year for environmental water use
intended for the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. EPA estimated a range of value to California water users from $155 to
$425 per AF (the calculation is explained in Appendix E3, and is a weighted average reflecting agricultural and municipal
uses). Using this estimate, the value to California water users of the water the Bureau has foregone ranges from $465 million
to $1.7 billion annually. ' • ,
E5-4 CURRENT ABUNDANCE AND RESTORATION TARGETS !
To calculate the mimb.er of fish needed to restore T&E species fish, the current abundance of T&E species was estimated and
subtracted' from target abundance for each species, Estimates of current abundance, target abundance, and number of fish
needed to restore T&E fish populations are given in Table £5-2. ' ;
.Table. E5-2; Recovery Goal for Special. Status Species Abundance in. Bay--belter Region >
__,_^ectelJit5te:Fi$h Species
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
Sacramento splittail,
Green sturgeon
Winter-run chinook salmon
Spring-run chinook salmon
Fall-run chinook salmon
Late-fall run chinook salmon
Central Valley steclhcad
Total
Target Abundance*
1,634,065
6,382,913
24,418 .
1,000
35,929
9,248
219,394
19,261
40.000
8>3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port & San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
striped bass population numbers thai were derived from a life table analysts. The resulting population estimate of delta smelt
is the only known attempt to approximate total delta smelt populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Unfortunately,
only 8 years of striped bass populations were presented to the commission. Using the 8 years of available striped bass
populations, EPA extrapolated longfin, delta smelt, and splittail populations through the 1990's and into 2000. This
extrapolation involved:
> averaging (across the 8 years) the percentage of the total striped bass population caught in the trawling runs; and
>• dividing the average percentage of the bass population caught'in the trawling runs by the delta smelt, Sacramento
splittail, and longfin smelt abundance indices,
Population numbers derived for delta smelt, longfin smelt, and Sacramento splittail using this method are shown in Appendix
E3.
CALFED set targets for the restoration of the nine special status fish species included in the ERPP (Table E5-2). In general,
the overall goal for each species target is set to restore fish numbers to equal abundance and dispersion in the delta before the
major decline in these species. For most species, this means restoring numbers to those recorded in the I960's and 1970's,
Because complete data sets were only available for most species back through 1970, restoration targets for salmon species
were set using data from 1970-1974. The median value from this period was used as the restoration target. EPA used
specific restoration targets listed in the ERPP of 40,000 steelhead and 1,000 green sturgeon greater than 1 meter (ra) long.
Data derived from striped bass populations for delta smelt, longfin smeit, and Sacramento splittail were used to determine
restoration targets for those species. The median value from 1970-1972 was used as representative of predecline levels.
Restoration targets were then compared with current fish abundance to calculate the number offish needed to restore special
status species in the bay-delta region. These restoration numbers are also given in Table E5-2, In total, over 7.1 million
special status species fish are needed to meet long-term CALFED restoration goals.
E5-5 TOTAL COSTS FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES FISH
Table E5-3 shows total costs to protect special status species fish. Ranges of annual values for habitat restoration and water
use foregone are summed. The resulting range is $598 million to $2.06 billion. Dividing by the number of special status
species fish required to restore fish populations, the dollar per fish ranges from $84 to S288, with a most likely value of $195.
Table E5-3: Total Annual Costs for Special Status Species Pish
(2000 dollars)
Restoration4
Water Use Foregone"
Total'
S/Fish
Low-
SOS
S465
$598
$83.72
High
' S359
.$1,700
82,059
• $288.28 •
1 Costs in millions, except S/fish.
Damages from !<&E at Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants
Tables E5-4 and E5-5 show the adult equivalents of special status species fish impinged and entrained, respectively, a.l the
Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants. The adult equivalents were calculated in Chapter E3. The number of adult
equivalent special status species fish impinged at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities was 145,003 fish. The value of
impinged fish ranges from $12,139,700 to $41,801,500. The number of adult equivalent special status species fish entrained
at ihe Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities was 269,334 fish. When the range of values developed earlier is applied, the value
of the entrained fish ranges from $22,548,600 to $77,643,600. .:
£5-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
Table £5-4: Impingement Losses at the Pittsburg and'
Contra Costa Facilities (2000 dollars)
Speeies
Chinook salmon
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
Sacramento splittai!
Total special status
* Contra Oosta
585
7,195
13,105
7,892
28,777
Pittsburgh
493
11,259
99,! 84
5,290
1 16,226
Total
3,078
18,454 .
H 2,289
J3,!82
145,003
Low Losses
$90.250
$1,544,969
$9,400,835
$1,103,59?
$12,139,651
MighlLosses.
8310,766
$5,319,919
$32,370,673
$3,800,107
$41,801,465
Table E5-5: -Entrainment tosses, at the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Facilities (2000 dollars)
Species
Chinook salmon
Delta smell
Umgiin smelt
Sacramento splittail
Total special status
Contra Costa
27
67,362
48
14
67,451
Pittsburgh
61
201,512
285
25
201,883
-Total,
'88 ,
268,874
333
39
269,334
•Low Losses • '
$7,367
S22,5 10,131
$27,879
S3 ,265
__g2,548,642__
High Losses
$25,369
$77,510,131
$95,997
$11,243
$77,643,606
E5-6 CONCLUSIONS
The revealed preference approach allows the use of actual sums of money that society has dedicated to restoration and
preservation of T&E species to value those species in situations where applying stated preference valuations methods are not
feasible for EPA's rulemakmg. In this case, resources dedicated lo the CALFED program and foregone water use are taken as
indicative of society's willingness to pay for restoration of T&E fish species in the bay-delta region to predeeline population
levels. The approach indicates that society is willing to pay between $83.72 and S288.28 per fish for restoration of
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E= San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E6: Benefits Analysis
Chapter E6:
CHAPTER-CONTENTS
E6-1 Summary of Current l&E and Associated Economic
Impacts ......,...,.., >.,"_. .*..'. y^.. E6-1
E6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to RcguMkffi .'... M-l
E6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Oncsrtamties , A'_ "*
f, -~ ~ " in the Benefits Analysis : /* 7s..,.-. .-Bi-3
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated I&B at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities,
The economic benefits that are reported here are based on
the values presented in Chapters E4 (benefits transfer) and
E5 (societal revealed preference), and EPA's estimates of
I&E at the facilities based on available data (discussed in
Chapter E3). Section E6-1 summarizes the estimates of
economic loss, Section E6-2 discusses the benefits of
potential impingement and entrainment reductions, and
Section E6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.
E6-1 SUMMARY OF CURRENT I&E AND ASSOCIATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Table E6-1 shows the current economic losses (based on both the benefits transfer approach and the revealed preference
approach), and the flowchart in Figure E6-1 summarizes how the economic estimates were derived from the I&E estimates
discussed in Chapter E3. AH dollar values and loss percents reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of recreational,
nonuse and special status species impacts.
Table E6-1: Summary of Current Economic Losses at the
and Contra Costa Facilities {2000$,annually)*
Total current economic losses: Benefits transfer approach
(striped bass)
Total current economic losses: Revealed preference approach
for species of special concern
Total current economic losses: Combined1*
low
high
low
high
low
high
Pittsburg
impingement
$167,201
$259,518
S9J30.441
533,505,63 1
59,897,642
533,765,! 49
Entrainment
81,888,844
52,931,750
$16,901,645
S58.198.83!
818,790,489
561,130,581
Contra Costa.,
Impingement
S204.53I
$317,462
$2,409,210
$8,295,843
$2,613,741
58,613,296
Emrainment
$640,185
$993,657
$5,646,988
$19,444,774 .
$6,287,183
$20,438,431
1 Losses and benefits reflect the sum of estimates for recreational and non-use values.
h Combined economic losses are equal to the sum of losses calculated under the benefits transfer and revealed preference approaches.
The estimates arc summed because the benefits transfer results reflect striped bass only, whereas the revealed preference results reflect
other (T&E) species. ..
E6-2 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS DUE TO REGULATION
Table E6-2 summarizes the total annual benefits from l&E reductions, as well as remaining economic losses, under scenarios
ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent reductions in I&E. Table E6-3 considers the benefits of two options with varying
percent reductions of I&E. Table E6-3 indicates that the benefits of one option are expected to range from $2.5 million I
i to
S8.5 million for a 20 percent reduction in impingement and from S10.0 million to $32.6 million for a 40 percent reduction in
entrainment. The benefits of another option range from $7.5 million to $25,4 million for a 60 percent reduction in
impingement and from $15.0 million to $48.9 million for a 60 percent reduction in entrainment.
E6-1
-------
S 316{b) Cose StUdMSS, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E6: Benefits Analysis
, Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, ete,)h
1: 356.300 organisms
E; 4} 1 million organisms , r -
2>Age 1 equivalents lost (number of fish)b
J: 431,700 fish (145,000 special status specks, 286,700 iccrcationa!)
E:2.2 million/ibh (269,300 special status species, 1,9 million recreational)
-3. Loss to recreational harvest of striped hassc
I: 27,200 fish (104.500 lb)
-E: 185:100 fish (710.800 lb)
4. Value of striped bass recreational
losses
I: 185,100 (79,000 lb)
$47*1,000
E: 27,200 (11,600 lb)
$3.2 million
Societal
revealed
preference -
5, Value of special status species
losses
I: 269300 fish
$27 m illion
E: 145,000 lish
S50 million
" All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
" From Tables 63-48 ttnd E3-19 of Chapter 63.
' From Tables B4-2 am! E4» 3 of Chapter E4.
Note: Species with I&E
-------
5 316{b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E6: Benefits Analysis
E6-2; Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range
Reductions at Pittsburg and Contra Costa Facilities in San Francisco
of Potential
Estuary ($2000)
Baseline Losses
Benefits of 1 0% reductions
Benefits of 20% reductions
Benefits of 30% reductions
Benefits of 40% reductions
V
Benefits of 50% reductions
Benefits of 60% reductions
Benefits of 70% reductions
Benefits of 80% reductions
Benefits of 90% reductions
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high '
low
high
, low
high
low
high
low
high
Impingement
$12,511,000
S42.378.000
51,251,000
$4,238,000
$2,502,000
$8,476,000
53,753,000.
, $12,714,000
$5,665,000
816,951,000
$6,256,000
$21,189,000
57,507,000
$25,427,000
58,758,000
$29,665,000
SI 0,009,000
$33,903,000
$11,260,000
838,141,000
Entrainniciit
525.078,000
$81,569,000
$2,508,000
$8,157,000
55,016,000
$16,314,000
$7,523,000
524,471,000
510,031,000
$32,628,000
$12,539,000
$40,785,000
$15,047,000
$48,941,000
817,554,000
$57,098,000
$20,062,666
$65,255,000
522,570,000
$73,412,000
"' .:.
Total
$37,589,000
§123,947,000
S3,759,6b6 •
$1 2,395,000
$7,518,000
524,789,000
si 1,277,606
$37,184,000
$15,036,000
$49,579,000
$18,795,000
$61,974,000
522,553,000
$74,368,000
$26,312,000
$86,763,000
$30,67"i,66b
$99,158,000
$33,830,000
$111,553,000
E6-3: Summary of Benefits of Potential I&E Reductions at Pittsburg and Contra Costa
Facilities. In .SanFrancisco Estuary ($20gg)_
Preferred Option
(Option 3)
Waterbody/Capacity-bascd
(Option 1)
tow
high
low
high
Impingement
$2,502.000
$8,476,000
57,507,666
$25,427,000
Entrainrncnt
$10,031,000
$32,628,000
$15,647,666
$48,941,000
Total
$12,533,000
541,104,000
S22,55"4,6b"6
$74,368,000
E6-3 SUMMARY OF OMISSIONS, BIASES. AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE BENEFITS
ANALYSIS
Table E6-4 presents an overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative •
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were properly
accounted.
E6-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter £6: Benefits Analysis
in the
Estimates
Benefits Transfer
Issue
impact on Benefits
Estimate
Comments
Omitted recreational and Understates benefits8 JThis analysis examined only a subset of species in this area because of data
commercial species , [availability (e.g., only striped bass was evaluated for recreational losses, and no
_ ____ _ , tcommerctai or non-T&E forage species were included). ;
Long-term fish stock affects Understates benefits" ;EPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each-year, and"tKat'the"'"
".?.t.f.?.'?,!!^!'^..v,,,,......, :higher fish kills woOid not ha.ve a cuinulatiyely greater impact :
Effect of interaction with other Understates benefits' jEPA does not consider how the yearly reductions in fish may make the stock
environmental stressore ; more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as water quality
- i improves over time due to other watershed activities, the number of fish
. I impacted by I&E may increase . ,
Recreation participation is Understates benefits8 'Recreational benefits for striped bass only reilec't amiei'pated increase in value
. ,e;.,..c?,n!!f,"t, ,..., ?pf activity outing; increased levels of participation arc omitted
Boating, bird-watching, and Understates benefits' if he only impact to recreation consideredTs fishing,! and'only for striped bass
other in-stream or near-water \
activities are omitted . . ? ;
Value-of threatened and Uncertain iEPA assumed values to be comparable to the per fish protection *coi7for7he
5."™^!^!°.?..,..,,. - ,._JCALFEI> and water diversion programs.
Effect of change in slocks on Uncertain fBPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship* for striped bass; e.g., that a
number of landings . j13 percent change- in stock would have a 13 percent change in landings; this may
; > u> ^ ^ _ ^ jbe low or hig^, depending on the condition of the stocks. ;
Nonuse measurement Uncertain ' \ EPA assumed that nonwse benefits are SO percent of recreational angling 'benefits"
_ ; for striped bass only.
__ , ~~-^JiS2J!S™£^^
.Excluded species Understates, benefits [There may be additional species affected by I&E not included in the^na^Ss™™"
,.,„.„„.,. ,...,...,...; ;.. J^,^SL..,,., :. - " -1 - -'
Program goals not met yet Understates benefits | Restoration of special status fish species has not occurred yet and may take much
„....,.. t ^t>^f __ _ _ |more investment to occur, which,would largely increase the per fish value
Other restoration program Understates benefits I There are additional habitat restoration funds from other restoration programs'
fiinds not considered i such as CVPiA which benefit special status fish species and have not been
'• included in the CALFED habitat restoration costs
Exclusion of some species Uncertain I Fish restoration and protection programs benefit more than the special' status" fish
which benefit from T&E • ; listed, and thus the per fish value may be lower than stated here. However, the
programs iper fish values are only applied to I&B impacts to special status species. The net
; impact is uncertain.
l&E data are from time Uncertain JData from late 1970's reflect a time when" numbers o7sp^cial status fish'were
penods that may not represent \ higher than currently found (and may thus overstate current l&E impacts)
current impacts on special • |However, l&E data from the late 198Q Vearly 1990's reflect drought periods
status species ; when special status species numbers were low. On net, impact on loss estimates
: is uncertain. Further, l&E impacts should reflect anticipated higher populations
_,__ Jas they recover over time.
" Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered. " ~~ ~ ~ ~~~
-i '•
E6-4
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/belta Estuary
Chapter E7: Conclusions
• Chapter E7:
The results of EPA's evaluation of l&E of striped bass and special status fish species at the Pitlsburg and Contra Costa
facilities demonstrate the significant economic benefits that can. be achieved iflosses of highly valued species are reduced by
the proposed § 316(b) rule. The benefits were estimated by reference to other programs already in place to protect and
restore the declining striped bass population and threatened tod endangered fish species of the San Francisco Bay/Delta
region.
Based on limited facility data, EPA estimates that the striped bass recreational catch is reduced by about 165,429 fish per year
due to impingement at the two facilities and 185,073 fish per year due to entrainment. As indicated in Chapter E4, estimated
impingement losses of striped bass are valued at between $372,000 and 5577,000 per year, and estimated entrainment losses
are valued at between S2.53 million to $3,93 million per year (all in $2000).
EPA estimates that the total loss of special status fish species at the two facilities is 145,003 age I equivalents per year
resulting from impingement and 269,334 age 1 equivalents per year due to entrainment. Estimated impingement losses of
these species are valued at between $12.14 million and $41.81 million per year, and estimated entrainment losses are valued
at between S22.55 million and $77.64 million per year (all in $2000),
EPA estimates that reducing impingement by 60% will yield annual benefits of $7.5 million to $25.4 million. The benefits of
reducing entrainment by 70% will yield annual benefits of $ 17,6 million to S57.1 million.
In interpreting these results, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of the analysis. These caveats
have been detailed in the preceding chapters. No commercial fisheries losses, or non-T&E forage species losses, are included
in the analysis. Recreational losses are analyzed only for striped bass. There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of
restoration programs in terms of meeting special status fishery outcome targets.
it is important to note that under the Endangered Species Act losses of all life stages of endangered fish are of concern, not
simply losses of adults. However, because methods are unavailable for valuing losses offish eggs and larvae, EPA valued the
losses of threatened and endangered species based on the estimated number of age 1 equivalents that are lost. Because the
number of age 1 equivalents is substantially less than the original number of eggs and larvae lost to impingement and
entrainment, and because the life history data required to calculate age 1 equivalent are uncertain for these rare species, this
method of quantifying I&E losses may result in an underestimate of the true benefits to society of 316(b) regulation. Thus, on
the whole, EPA believes the estimates developed here underestimate the economic benefits of reducing J&E of special status
species.
E7-1
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Et San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Appendix El: Life
Values Used to
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age 1 equivalents, fishery
yields, and production foregone from I&E data for the Pittsburgh and Contra Costa facilities, Life history data were compiled
from a variety ofsources, with a focus on obtaining data on local stocks whenever possible,
Table El-JJ Chinook Salmon Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age4-<-
AgeSf
Age 6+
Age7-^
AgcSf '
Age 9*
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3°
5.96"
0.1 ff
0,16'
0.16'
0,1 6C
0.1 6'
0.16' '
0.1 6"
OAff •
0.16C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
0
0
0'
0
.0
0
0
0
0
0
b •
Fraction Vulnerable
,__-_JiH!*!2!2!«— :
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight. :
(Ibs)
0,0044 1"
0.022"
0.397f
4.5f
(2,2f
23,8r
33,8f
''i?!'
40.1* ,
41,9s
43*
Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) »-LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
k Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
* Threatened and endangered species, thus no fishery,
* Weight assumed based on Beaucharopetal., 1983.
' Weight from Bcauchamp etal., 1983.
4pp.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Table El»2: -Delta Smelt Species Parameters
Stage Name -
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1-r
filatural Mortality
(per stage)
1.15"
5.8s-
1,28"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
Weight
{««)*
0.00000000273f
0,00000 1 2r
0.00418"
* Buckley, 1989a. Rainbow smelt.
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality),
" Froescand Pauly, 2001.
* Threatened and endangered species, thus no fishery,
' Weight calculated from length using the formula for Capeiin: (1.24x3Q-^LengttXmm)3"* = weight(g)
(Froesc and Pauly, 2001). No length-vreigbt relationship for delta smelt was available. Capeiin was used
because it was the only species in the same family for which a relationship was available,
r Length from Wang, 1986a. '
* Length torn Jjtoyle et a!., 1992,
Tabje £1-3: Langfin Smeit -Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1-r
Age 2*
Age 3*
Natural Mortality
J' = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001). No length-weight relationship for longfln smalt was available. Capeiin was used
because it was the only species in the same family for which a relationship was available.
1 Length from Wang, 1986a.
8 Length assumed based on Wang, 1986a and Froese and Pauly, 2001.
11 Length from Froese and Pauly, 2001.
App. El-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Table El-4t Sacramento Splitta!) Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age If
Agc2*
Age3f ,
Age4t-
Ago 5+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1'
9.89"
0.37C
0.37'
0.37'
0.37"
0.37C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Table El-5: Striped Bass Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 5 to 6rtim
Larvae? to !0mrn
Larvae 1 i to J4ram
Larvae 1 5 to 1 8mm
Larvae 1 9mm
Larvae 20 to 24mm
Larvae 25 to 29mm
Larvae 30 to 34mm
Larvae 35 to 39mm
Larvae 40 to 44mm
Larvae 45 to 49mm
Larvae 5 1 to 75mm
Larvae 76 to 100mm
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4-r
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.5"
1"
2.0 1*
0.939"
0.651*
0.06 lh
0.312"
0.286b
0.334"
0.375*
0.44 111
0.904"
0.7*
0,35*
0.32'
0,32°
0.32s
0.321
0.32"
' • 0.32*
0.32C
0,32C
0.32s
Fishing Mortality
(per stagey
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0 .
0
0.
0
0
0
0,18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0,18
0.18
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.2
0,63
0.94
1
1
1
I
Weight
(lbs)d
0.000000837'
0.00000369f
0.0000131s
0.0000402s
0.0000901*
0.0001 36*
0.000208*5
0.000398"
0,0006 18*
0,000979"
0.00136s
0.001 95g '
0.004228
0.0106*
0.0 !' = weight
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/belta Estuary
Appendix E2: Valuing Water Uses Foregone
Appendix E2:
Uses
II is difficult to identify the precise value of the water lost to municipal and agricultural users as a result of programs that
increase freshwater flows to the delta. Water is not an actively traded commodity, such as crop or gasoline, where market"
transactions provide clear market prices. Information is available, however, that can be used to approximate water values.
This section looks at available evidence and makes an estimate of expected water values,
Identifying water value translates into answering the question, "How much would water agencies be willing to pay today to
secure permanent water supplies of delta surface waters?" To answer this question EPA investigated both what water users are
currently paying for delta surface waters delivered by the California State Water Project (SWP) and recent California water
market transactions.
State Water Project
The SWP is the largest state-built, multipurpose water project in the nation. Its main purpose is water supply — to store
surplus water during wet periods and distribute it to areas of need throughout California, Construction began after passage of
a SI.75 billion public bond issue in 1960. The main storage reservoir is Lake Oroville in northern California. Water is
transported through the Feather and Sacramento rivers and a system of canals, pipelines, pumping plants, and power plants for
the use by agricultural and urban users (29 water agencies), It is likely that SWP water deliveries will be lowered to increase
delta flows, in the same manner that CVP diversions already have been reduced.
Table E2-I shows what SWP water customers currently pay for SWP water. Water costs vary widely by geographic region
largely because of differences in conveyance costs. SWP water is least expensive in the San Joaquin and Feather River areas,
between S65 and S69 per acre foot (AF) of entitlement, or between $83 and $88 per AF for water delivered (assuming 78
percent of entitlement is delivered in an average year). The delivered price of SWP water to the coastal areas (e.g., Santa
Barbara) is as great as S986/per AF.1 The average weighted cost of delivered SWP water is S182/AF.
Table E2-1: State Water Project Costs
Service Area
San Joaquin
Feather River
South Bay Area
North Bay Area
Southern California
Coastal Area
Average/Total
Cost of Entitlement
(S/AF)"
S65
$69
SIB
S180
$233
$769
S142
Effective cost for water
delivered
'{S/AFf
$83
' $88
$145
$231
S299
$986
$182
Entitlement
(AF per Year)*
1,178,937
1,421
147,186
37,871
973,254
8,538
2,347,207
% .Entitlement
50.2%
0.1%
6.3%
1.6%
41.5%
0,4%
100.0%
' Information from Davis et al. 1999. Excludes other deliveries.
* Adjusted to reflect actual delivery of entitlement averages of 78 percent (e.g., S65/0.78 » $83).
1 This is only the SWP cost. Many users pay additional costs to transport water from SWP facilities to their location. Santa Barbara
pays the Central Coast Water Authority, for example, to move water to their service area. Additional costs are also associated with treating
water.
App. E2-1
-------
S 3l6(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/delta Estuary
/Appendix E2; Valuing Water Uses Foregone
These costs provide information on the lower bound of water value. The 29 purchasing water agencies value the water by at
least the amount they pay for the water, or else they would dispose or sell their interest in the SWP. The S83/AF cost estimate
provides a firm lower bound of the value of water to its current buyers (users). Most of the water used in the San Joaquin
Area is used for agriculture. Hence, die S83/AP estimate provides a firm lower bound for agricultural water. In other words,
if CALFED offered to buy SWP users' entitlement rights at S83/AF of delivered water (S65/AF of entitlement water), there
wou Id be very few, if any, sellers. Thus, EPA applied a range of from $ 100 to $200 per A F as the value of water to.
agricultural users, given that it costs these users at least $83/AF to obtain. .'.''.'
The SWP water costs also indicate that an offered water price would have to be high for municipal users to surrender their
SWP water entitlements. Ii\lhe central coast counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, the offer would need to exceed
S986/AF, the effective price that this area is currently willing to pay for SWP water. That is, municipal users in some portions
of California are paying nearly $l,000/AF for water from the SWP, The value of water is high in this area becauseiof the
limited and expensive alternative water supply options (e.g., desalination). The acceptance price might be lower for other
municipal agencies that have other, less expensive alternative water supplies. " '~ '•
Water "market transactions ' . •
Another approach that can be used to estimate the value of water is reviewing recent California water transactions. .EPA
identified 20 transactions in California from January 1998 to March.2000 (see Table E2-2). Most of the transactions (14)
involved municipal agencies purchasing water supplies to serve growing populations. The average water price associated
with these municipal transactions ranged from $90. to S412/AF, and averages S267/AF. Every transaction had unique
circumstances and conditions that may affect the transaction price (e.g., reliability of water yield, water quality, duration of
the purchase agreement). The water transactions involving groundwater in West Coast Basin, Central Basin, and the Main
San Gabriel-Basin showed municipal users selling water in the $300 to S320/AF range, ' ' ~
Four transactions involved municipal users purchasing SWP water. These transactions included a one-time payment of
51,000/AF entitlement (1,000 AF per year, indefinitely), plus assumption of SWP expenses. This translates into an average
price of S290/AF on an annual AF basis. • :
From this information, EPA estimated the approximate value of water for municipal agencies to be at least S300/AF. The
SWP deliveries to southern California cost about S299/AF delivered. Given expected future water shortages, EPA surmises
that not many municipal customers (e.g., Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) would sell their interests in
SWP water for $300. Hence, the value is most likely much higher.
Summary
Our review indicates that the lost value to agricultural and municipal users is at least $100 and S300/AF, respectively. These
estimates are probably biased downward, and we therefore show an upper bound value of S200/AF and $ 1,000/AF for
agricultural and municipal users, respectively. •
For the purposes of this project, we need to identify a weighted average value of water lost because of enhancements in water
flows into the delta for environmental purposes. We weighed the value per AF estimates based on the assumption of a
proportional cutback in water supplies between agricultural and municipal users. We used Central Valley Project and SWP
water uses as a basis for our weighting. 'Table E2-3 shows the results and a weighted value of water from SI55/AF to
S425/AF, Applying these values to 3 to 4 million AF per year, the opportunity cost of the water use foregone is in the range
of $465 million to SI .7 billion annually.
App. E2-2
-------
1:
SV
J
£ !
83
Of
U?
I
ement; Sl.OOO/AF +
n Southern CA
B
! .2 - ' CA - O ' O
•' s i £ ! 1 • B
i "» , Jrt : JS in
: a ; : o : i
- P3 : o : -S •
• i E ; i ;
• 8 r : • 8
* gjj L ' Cf)
!«! a; «g
: • >,
; 5*
c =
o B
•!..
iJilliJilliifiiiliJi
v''*- f :" - !
1 g i
; ;;; :
• _S
J I
fiJ
O ; jg
^.^.-rr.^^^..?:^—«H»*,.
:£!
S' «=;' S; ,s ! §;
1 S-iS; §.; g|
(:
it!
o •
. i U [ U i •£ • «3 i -S \ ,jt ': O
- Q !• : -
• y • • •
!1 !l S
;U I i gl. i
: . •§ i w ': £ : 2 i
« • : .:
F&: 1 I fSj • : !
\ a I I i O : «> -t ; : ':
IfUiai^i; i ; ;
• ^ : ^ , y -. S -: &• :.
I > : .H 1 **••. i "^ • 2 i 3 i = i s i g
;!s>ili.§>;l:2; S; o: §^ ^
* i/^ j c^' cj * co * ^^ ' rn • £-2 * PP ^ £"
J 8': 8 i 8 •• 8 i 8 i '
: 5: '. 5: : !%i : H r H ' j— ; H
-'
: OO : O : O :; *?i
O
of
g
CC
s
s
1
I
I
(*~4
o
^
o
a
g
i
a
i w«
B.
O
•J3
2'
•a
o
t
I!
a
4
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Pert E: San Francisco Boy/Delta Estuary
Appendix E2: Valuing Water Uses Foregone
Table E2-3; Summary of Uses and Values for Foregone Production to SWP and CW Water Users
Water User Type
Municipal
Agricultural
Total
SWP and CVP Water
Delivered
," (AF/yr) ; :
2,5(59,328
6,697,256
$.266,584
%»fUse
28%
72%
100%
Estimated Value to Users
• -,(»AF);i -
$300 to SI 000
$i 00 to $200
S155toS425
Source: Davis etai., 1999,
App. E2-4
-------
S 316{b) Case Studies, Part E: Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix E3: Presentation of Population Estimates
Appendix E3 :• Presentation of
Population
The historical (target) and current abundance of the delta smelt, longfin smell and Sacramento splittail species were estimated
in order to calculate the number offish needed to restore the current population to pre-decline levels. This appendix, a
supplement to Chapter E-5, describes the methodology used to estimate historical and current abundance of these T&E
species.
In their 1990 report to the California Fish and Game Commission,. Stevens et al (1990) calculated the delta smelt population
by using the ratio of juvenile delta smelt to young striped bass caught in the fall midwater trawl survey. This ratio was
multiplied by striped bass population numbers that were derived from a life table analysis and the resulting'population
estimate of delta smelt is the only known attempt to approximate total delta smelt populations in the Sacramento-Sa» Joaquin
delta. Unfortunately, only 8 years of striped bass populations were presented to the Commission. Using the 8 years of
available striped bass populations, EPA extrapolated longfm, delta smelt, and splittail populations through the 1990^ and into
2000. This extrapolation involved:
»• averaging (across the 8 years) the percentage of the total striped bass population caught in the trawling runs; and
»• dividing the average percentage of the bass population caught in the trawling runs by the delta smelt, Sacramento
splittail, and longfin smelt abundance indices taken from the Fall midwater trawl survey conducted annually for more
than 30 years.
Tables E3-1 and E3-2 show annual population numbers derived for delta smelt, longfin smell, and Sacramento splittail using
this methodology. Table E3-1 shows population estimates for the baseline 8 years from 1968 to 1985 (nonsequential years
are due to trawling surveys not conducted in that specific year). Table E3-2 presents population estimates for 1990-2000
based on the average population-caught indice of 0.13% (striped bass caught versus population estimate) that was calculated
across the baseline range (1968-1985).
Table E3-1: Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Population Estimates of Striped fiass, '
Sacramento Splittail, Delta and- LonQfin Smdt (1968--1985)
Species
Striped bass"
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
Splittail
1968
1,800,000
302,390
1,433,744
7,820
1970 ' 1971 1 1972
8,100,000; 1 1,900,000 j 12,700,000
1,634,065: 1,630,634 j 2,620,372
6,382,913; 26,006,867 i 1,574,295
24,418 . 22,526 i 26,929
1975 \ 1977 ; 1984 . !„ 1985
i ,600,000 \ 400,000 ! 1 1 ,800.000 1 4,700,000
245,207 5217,894; 326,333 i 293,750
991 ,733 i 95,1*30 jl 3,374,290 ; 5,649,09' I •
1,407 \ 0 ; 28,689 | 40,057
" Note: Population estimates for delta, longfin and splittail in this table are equal to each year's ratio of striped bass
caught vs. population (Stevens ct al., 1990), divided by annual trawling abundance indices.
App. E3-I
-------
§ 316{b) Case Studies, Pact E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix E3: Presentation of Population Estimates
Table. £3-2; Sacramento-San Joaquiri Delta Population Estimates of Striped Bass,
Sacramento Splittuii, Delta and.Longfin Smelt (1990-2000)
Species
Striped
bass"
Delta
smelt
Longfm
smelt
Splitmil
1990 [
1,053,199
290,208
193,738
6,378
1991
752,627
549,322
106,835
l'4,351
_?j>£L_
1,630,426
124,375
60,593
2,392
1993
1,241,356
859,462
636,225
7,973
1994
1,003,768
81,322
434,514
2,392*
1995
385,881
716,750
6,893,233
60,593
1996
312,532
10!, 254
1,106,617
17,540'
' 1997 .
452,852
24.1,574
550,119
797
1998
975,864
334,855
5,305,063
224,034
1999 1 2000
431,325 ? 310,937
688,845 1 602,739
4, 1 79,3 12 [2,74 1,029
31,094 : 6,378
* Note: Population estimates for striped bass, delta, longfin and spIUhiil in this table are equal to the average of 1 968- ! 985 population
estimates developed in Table E3-I for the striped bass caught vs. bass population ratio (0.13%) divided by the annual trawling abundance
indices for the relevant species.
App. E2-2
-------
-------