&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Case Study Analysis for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase
Existing Facilities Rule
Part F - G
May 2002
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-02-002
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
s.'-s/^S^Ti?^ •
"F;r?3 "^ "S^iow
This report presents the results of an evaluation by EPA to
assess the potential benefits of reducing the impacts of
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at cooling water
intake structures (CWIS) at the Brayton Point Station
located on Mount Hope Bay in the Town of Somerset,
Massachusetts across the mouth of the Tauton River from
the city of Fall River. Mount Hope Bay in an upper
embayment of Narragansett Bay. It is an interstate water
comprising waters of both Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. "
With a capacity of 1,611 megawatts, Brayton Point Station
is the largest fossil fuel burning steam-electric generating
facility in New England. The station uses a once-through-
cooling water system and is allowed by its current NPDES permit to withdraw up to 1.452 billion gallons a day ( BCD) of
cooling water from Mount Hope Bay and then discharge the heated water back into the Bay at temperatures up to 22 °F above
ambient water conditions. The current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit expired in June
1998, and EPA Region 1 is currently developing conditions for a new NPDES permit. EPA co-issues this permit with the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. EPA must also coordinate permit issuance closely with Rhode Island
because its waters are also affected by the plant and the permif must ensure that both Massachusetts and Rhode Island water
quality standards are satisfied.
Similarly, both states' Coastal Zone Management Programs must be satisfied, along with the federal Essential Fish Habitat
program and other federal requirements. Other significant environmental issues at Brayton Point Station include development
of plans to attain compliance with the tough, new state air regulations, possible assessment of compliance with Clean Air Act
new source review requirements, on-site coal ash management, and concerns in neighboring Freetown where coal ash from
the plant has been landfilled and allegedly contaminated groundwater.
There has been a significant amount of controversy about the plant because of the documented collapse offish populations in
Mount Hope Bay, an interstate water straddling the Massachusetts/Rhode Island state line, and the debate over the power
plant's role in causing or contributing to the fishery decline. On October 9, 1996, Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RI DEM) issued a report which documented an alarming, sharp decline in abundance of finfish populations in
Mount Hope Bay that appeared to occur about seventeen years ago with no subsequent recovery in evidence. Additional
review of the data has suggested that the fishery decline actually began, albeit at a gentler pace, before the sharp decline
evidenced around 1985. Adverse effects of plant cooling system operations on aquatic organisms can be divided into the
following major categories: a) cooling water intake entrainment offish eggs and larvae and other small organisms into the
plant's cooling system; b) cooling Water intake impingement of larger organisms on the intake screening systems; and c)
discharge-related effects from the impacts of the thermal effluent on the. aquatic community and its habitat. Entrainment and
thermal discharge appear to be especially significant issues for this plant, with impingement appearing to be a relatively less
major problem.
Figure F1 -1 by RIDEM shows annual changes in the aggregate catch per tow for 21 fish species in Mount Hope Bay in
relation to changes in total Brayton Point intake flow for 1977 through 1995 (Gibson, 1996). Analysis of these data indicated
a statistically significant decreasing trend over time in Mount Hope Bay fish abundances (p < 0.01), with the decline
averaging 16 percent per year (Gibson, 1996). Moreover, declines in 4 of the species analyzed by RIDFW (winter flounder
(Pleuronectes americanus), windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus), tautog (Tautoga onitis), and hogchoker (Trinectes
maculatus)) were significantly greater in Mount Hope Bay than in the rest of Narragansett Bay.
Fl-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Figure Fl-1: Time Series of Annual Mean Coolant Flow at Brayton Point Station and Aggregate Fish Abundance (21 species) in Mount
Hope Bay
5 '
4 -
3-
2-
1 '
-1000
1200
-600
400
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
year
Sources: Gibson, 1996; personal communication, Meredith Simas, Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point Station, March 23, 2001.
A more recent analysis by the RIDEM (Gibson, 2001 ) attempted to control for other regional stressors that may be
contributing to winter flounder declines, including overfishing, increased winter water temperatures, and increased predation
on larvae by the shrimp Crangon septemspinosa (Keller and Klein-MacPhee, 2000). The analysis compared the results of
winter flounder trawl surveys near and away from the plant, and confirmed that winter flounder declines near Brayton Point
are not apparent in other parts of Narragansett Bay. Although winter flounder stocks in other parts of the region have
increased, stocks in Mount Hope Bay have not recovered in response to a fishing ban established in 1991, suggesting that
fishing pressure alone did not cause the severe population decline in Mount Hope Bay.
To evaluate the potential benefits of the proposed rule, EPA estimated expected I&E at Brayton Point under current
operations based on an analysis of I&E rates before the accelerated fish population declines that followed the 1984
conversion of unit 4, as discussed in Chapter F3. It should be noted that using the pre- 1984 data still probably produces an
underestimate of I&E levels because some data suggests that the plant contributed to a declining fishery before 1984, though
the decline accelerated precipitously after 1 984. Unfortunately there is no Mount Hope Bay abundance data from before .
Brayton Point Station began operations to provide a true baseline unaffected by the plant. Section Fl-1 of this background
chapter provides a brief description of the facility, Section Fl-2 describes the facility's environmental setting, and Section Fl-
3 presents information on the area's socioeconomic characteristics.
Fl-1 OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY FACILITY
The Brayton Point Station is located on approximately 100 ha (250 acres) of the Brayton Point peninsula in Mount Hope Bay,
at the confluence of the Lee and Taunton rivers (Figure Fl-2). The facility lies within the Town of Somerset, and the city of •
Fall River is located across the Taunton River to the southeast of the facility. The city of Swansea is located across the Lee
River to the north of the facility. The Massachusetts-Rhode Island state line runs diagonally across Mount Hope Bay, which
is an upper embayment of the Narragansett Bay Estuary.
Fl-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Figure Fl-2: Location of Brayton Point Station in Mount Hope Bay
\
N
&arraj$artwtf \ • *»
• 'Ay- Area of ,
Enlargement
>> '•-
Town of
Swansea
i
^N^
v *<
N
X
*-jr 'V—
LuJU-^*.
^ \Cole'^)
& i X VKfrer /'
*^Ki ^H:^
V xu'/:'; ...,
x V 4£~*y' Brayton Point
' Kickamuit -?.i>' Power Plant
%
N. Waluppa i
Pond S
ti
"— f?
Fall River
River
0.9 1.8; Miles
Mt. Hope ' :l
'^V : f
-i* Wahippa
' PonS i
MA
m~*~*mm
Rl
j:/projccts/intakc/aprs_am]$/casi!_plaiits__mod.apr
Fl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
The Brayton Point power plant is in the Northeast P.ower Coordinating Council (NPCC). The plant began commercial service
in 1963 and is operated as a baseload facility. Brayton Point operates eight units: three coal-fired steam-electric generators,
one oil-fired steam-electric generator, and four internal combustion units. In 1998, Brayton Point generated 8.1 million MWh
of electricity. Estimated 1998 revenues for the Brayton Point plant were $552 million, based on the plant's 1998 estimated
electricity sales of 7.7 million MWh and the 1998 company-level electricity revenues of $71.38 per MWh. Brayton Point's
1998 production expenses totaled $211 million, or 2.602 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $341 million.1
Table Fl-1 summarizes the plant characteristics of Brayton Point.
Table Fl-1: Summary of Brayton Point 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 (million)
1619
NPCC
1,611
Coal
320"
8.1
$552
. $211
2.6020
$341
Notes: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council
NPCC = Northeast Power Coordinating Council
Dollars are in $2001.
" 1995 data.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy (2001c, 2001e, 2001f).
In response to the developing controversy, federal and state regulatory agencies and former plant owner NEPCO entered into
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in April, 1997, regarding plant operations. The MO A places annual and seasonal caps
on the level of heat discharged and the amount of cooling water withdrawn from the Bay. In the MOA the Company agreed
to limit its operations to levels below that authorized by the (still) current NPDES permit and the agencies agreed not to push
for an immediate modification of the permit. (NEPCO had threatened to appeal any immediate permit modification anyway.)
The intake volume and thermal discharge caps in the MOA represented a compromise between the levels initially sought by
the regulatory agencies and the levels the company claimed were justified. The MOA also indicated that a number of types of
research should be pursued to help with development of a new NPDES permit. When PG&E bought Brayton Point Station it
assumed responsibility for complying with the MOA (the MOA required that agreement to comply with the MOA be made a
condition of any sale of the plant). Since the. 1997 MOA, the permittee and the regulatory agencies have been engaged in
extensive monitoring, modeling and study to determine the conditions for a new NPDES permit.
On October 2, 2002, PG&E publicly announced a proposed $250,000,000 environmental improvement plan for the facility
including new air pollution controls, ash recycling facilities, and a new cooling water system using mechanical draft wet
cooling tower that PG&E refers to as the Enhanced Multi-Mode System. The Company intends this plan to address
requirements under the new State air quality regulations, a State Administrative Consent Order addressing ash management
practices, and the new NPDES permit. PG&E states that this new system will reduce heat loadings into Mount Hope Bay,
and reduce cooling water withdrawals from Mount Hope Bay, to pre-1984 levels. The year 1984 is significant because it was
the year that Brayton Point was permitted to switch Unit 4 from a previously closed-cycle cooling system to a once-through
cooling system, and some data suggests that the steep decline in fish populations was coincidental with this modification. (As
noted above, there is also data suggesting that the decline had started earlier but accelerated after Unit 4 began once-through
cooling operations.)
1 The generation, revenue, electricity sales, production expense, and operating income numbers in this section are based on FERC
Form 1 data for the eight months during which the plant was operated as a regulated utility plant. EPA adjusted these values to represent
the entire year using a scaling factor of 1.46 (equal to total 1998 generation divided by 8-month generation, or8.12millionMWh/5.56
million MWh; total generation is based on U.S. Department of Energy, 2001b, 2001d).
Fl-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
EPA is working closely with Massachusetts and Rhode Island on the permit, and has also been coordinating with the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The permit will be jointly issued with the state in Massachusetts which does not have NPDES
delegation. EPA is also in close communication with the company regarding the issues and the company has submitted a. -
substantial of information supporting its view of what limits should be in the new permit. EPA has also received significant
communications from interested environmental groups. In addition, there has been congressional interest in both
Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well as statements of concern by the Governor of Rhode Island. Public interest in the
permit development is high. Over the past year serious concerns have been raised by groups including Save the Bay,
Conservation Law Foundation, the Rhode Island Salt Water Anglers, and the New England Fishery Management Council.
Also, the Rhode Island Attorney General has also been actively engaged in tracking the matter and has publicly threatened to
sue the company over damage to Rhode Island's natural resources. Finally, the permit issues have received substantial
attention in local major media outlets, including a recent front page story in the Boston Globe.
Ownership information
Brayton Point began operation as a regulated utility plant and is currently owned by USGen New England Inc., an affiliate of PG&E'
National Energy Group. Brayton Point was purchased by PG&E Generating Co. from the New England Power Company (NEPCO) in
•1998. Brayton Point is currently operated as a merchant generating plant, selling electricity in the deregulated wholesale generation
market (Standard & Poor's, 200 lb).
PG&E Corporation is one of the largest utility holding companies in the United States, with ownership of or control over approximately
18,000 MW of electric generating capacity and electricity sales of over 80 million MWh in 2000. PG&E Corporation had 20,850
employees and sales of over $26 billion in 2000. However, PG&E Corporation suffered substantial financial losses as a result of the
California energy crisis, when its regulated operations subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which serves several million electric
and gas customers in Central and Northern California, was unable to pass rising wholesale power prices on to retail consumers. As a
result, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as a subsidiary only but not as PG&E Corporation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in April 2001 (Hoover's Online, 200In; PG&E, 2001; Standard & Poor's, 200Ib).
Fl-2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Fl-2.1 Mount Hope Bay
Mount Hope Bay is an upper embayment in the northeast portion of the Narragansett Bay Estuary, which was designated as an
"Estuary of National Significance" by the U.S. Congress in 1987 (NBC, 2001) (Figure 2-1). It is about 10 km (6 miles long),
covering 40 km2 (15.6 square miles) (NBC, 2001). The bottom of the bay is predominantly sandy, and depths average
approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) at mean low water. The state line between Massachusetts and Rhode Island runs from southeast
to northwest across the bay, such that the lower portion falls in Rhode Island.
Circulation of water in the bay is dominated by tidal flow, with average tidal amplitude of 1.3 m (4.4 ft) (NBC, 2001). The
Narragansett Bay estuary has free connection with the open sea, and within it, freshwater from land drainage dilutes sea water.
Fl-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
The Narragansett Bay Estuary consists of a variety of habitats. Salt marshes, seagrass beds, oyster beds, cobble bottoms, soft
bottoms, tidal flats, beaches, rocky shores, and the open water are all essential elements of the bay ecosystem (NBEP, 1998).
Of particular importance is eelgrass habitat. Eelgrass is a rooted plant that grows densely in shallow coastal waters, in what'
are called "eelgrass meadows." It provides food, shelter, and spawning habitat for an abundance of marine life, including
economically important finfish and shellfish species such as winter flounder, tautog , bluefish (Pomatomus saltator),
American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), northern quahogs or hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), bay scallops (Argopecten
irradians), soft-shelled clams (Argopecten irradians), American lobster (Homarus americanus), and blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus Rathbun) (NBEP, 1998; DeAlteris et al., 2000).
The fish community of Mount Hope Bay is estuarine with coastal migrant fishes. Vast numbers offish migrate in and out of
Mount Hope Bay in seasonal patterns (NBC, 2001). Approximately 60, species of adult fishes have been identified in the bay.
Truly local species include silverside (Menidia menidia), northern pipefish (Syngnathus fuscus), fourbeard rockling
(Enchelyopus cimbrius), and seaboard goby (Gobiosoma ginsburgi). Local migrants, which move freely within Narragansett
Bay and probably into the adjacent sounds, are winter flounder, windowpahe (Scophthalmus aquosus), tautog, and searobin
(Triglidae). Truly migratory species include Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis),
butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), and bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli). Many of the prominent
Fl-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Narragansett fish species, including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish, tautog, winter flounder, summer flounder/fluke
(Paralichthys dentatus), scup and weakfish, are highly sought after by both commercial and recreational fishermen (NBEP,
1998).
Narragansett Bay is also home to waterfowl and wading birds. Over 350 species of birds have been spotted in the bay's
environs (NBC, 2001). Species such as mergansers (Mergus meraganser), buffleheads (Bucephala albeold), and great blue
herons (Ardea herodias) can be found in the bay during various seasons (NBEP, 1998).
Benthic organisms that inhabit the bay include clams, quahogs, crabs, lobsters, snails, shrimps, and sponges. The dominant
intertidal organisms in the rocky surfaces include the blue mussel, snail, and barnacles. Soft bottom communities are
composed primarily of bivalves, amphipods, and polychaete worms (NBC, 2001).
Endangered species that live or feed in Narragansett Bay include diamond-back terrapin (Malademys terrapin), roseate tern
(Sterna dougallii), and Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) (NBEP, 1998).
Fl-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
a. Habitat alteration
Water pollution, dredging, coastal development, and other environmental stressors have nearly eliminated eelgrass in Mount
Hope Bay (NBEP, 1998). Though upper Narragansett Bay once supported extensive seagrass beds, they are now present only
in the southern half of the bay. The vitality of an estuary's eelgrass beds is widely recognized as an indicator of an estuary's
ecological health (Save the Bay, 2001).
The once abundant fish, shellfish, and birds that depend on eelgrass meadows have declined in number, because of habitat
alteration and other stressors. Bay scallops began to decline in the 1950's and have yet to recover. Similarly, winter flounder,
once one of the bay's most important catches, has declined precipitously over the past decade.
b. Overfishing
Fishery landings and stock sizes of many Narragansett Bay fish and shellfish species have changed dramatically (DeAlteris et
al., 2000). The oyster harvest peaked at 6.8 million kg (15 million Ib) in 1910, and then declined to less than 4,000 kg
(10,000 Ib) from 1955 to 1996. Landings of the northern quahog peaked at 2.3 million kg (5 million Ib) in 1955 and then
declined to less than 0.5 million kg (1 million Ib) in 1998. In contrast, lobster landings have steadily increased from less than
0.05 million kg (0.1 million Ib) in the early 1950's to more than 3.4 million kg (7.5 million Ib) in the early 1990's. Winter
flounder landings steadily increased from less than 0.2 million kg (0.5 million Ib) in the 1940's to over 4 million kg (9 million
Ib) in the early 1980's, but then declined to about 0.5 million kg (1 million Ib) in the late 1990's. Striped bass landings have
fluctuated widely in the last 50 years; the fishery collapsed in the late 1970's, and then increased to almost 0.5 million kg (1
million Ib) in the mid-1990's (DeAlteris et al., 2000).
c. Pollution
Narragansett Bay is one of the most densely populated estuarine systems in the country (Caton, 2001). As a result, the bay
must assimilate high levels of industrially derived toxic pollutants, nutrients, and wastewater runoff from the area's 33
wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF).
In addition, large amounts of heat are discharged into Mount Hope Bay by Brayton Point and into the Taunton River, albeit at
lesser amounts, by facilities such as Taunton Municipal and Montaup Station.
Base.d on 1990 census figures, it is estimated that 0.5 million m3 (125 million gallons) of wastewater are either directly or
indirectly discharged into Narragansett Bay each day (Caton, 2001). The greatest pollution levels can be found at the head of
the bay where the metropolitan areas of Providence, Worcester, and Fall River dispose of their wastewater. Excessive levels
of human waste have a number of effects on aquatic life and the recreational and commercial uses of Narragansett Bay. Of
primary concern are the low levels of dissolved oxygen caused by large nutrient loadings from the WWTFs. Nitrogen
discharged by facilities causes excess plant growth (algal blooms). When the algae die, they are decomposed by bacteria that
consume dissolved oxygen, effectively suffocating fish and other wildlife. Similarly, bacterial nitrification of ammonia
discharged by WWTFs also depletes the bay's waters of dissolved oxygen, making many waters uninhabitable (Caton, 2001).
Human sewage is also responsible for temporary and permanent closures of over 31 percent of Narragansett Bay to shellfish
harvesting (Caton, 2001). Portions of Mount Hope Bay have been permanently closed to shellfish harvesting since the
FI-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
1940's, and other portions are routinely closed after heavy rains cause overflow of sewage waters. Fall River is presently
working on a multi-million dollar combined sewer outflow abatement program, having already made improvements to its
WWTF.
Narragansett Bay also suffers from industrial toxic pollutants (Caton, 2001). Traces of industrial metals (copper, zinc, iron,
mercury) and organic compounds (PCBs, PHCs, pesticides) are found in bay sediments, creating potential health risks ,
primarily through the consumption of contaminated seafood. However, the discharge of these pollutants into the bay has
decreased dramatically because of the pretreatment of industrial wastewater (NBEP, 1998).
d. Climate change
Winter water temperatures in Narragansett Bay have increased markedly over the past 40 years. Likely causes include global
warming (Keller and Klein-MacPhee, 2000) and the discharge of waste heat into the bay by Brayton Point Station. This has
resulted in a loss of the usual winter-spring diatom bloom, with potential impacts on higher trophic levels because of changes
in prey availability (Keller et al., 1999). Warmer water in winter may also increase predation rates by the shrimp Crangon
septemspinosa on larval winter flounder, contributing to recent population declines (Keller and Klein-MacPhee, 2000).
e. Surface water withdrawals by CWIS
Steam electric power generation accounts for the single largest intake of water from the Narragansett Bay watershed,
amounting to over 85 percent of all surface water withdrawals, and 100 percent of all saline water withdrawals (USGS, 1995).
Fl -3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Bristol County has a population of 534,678 (Table Fl-2; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), of which 18,234 live in the Town of
Somerset. The county has four cities (Attleboro, Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton) and 16 towns (BCCVB, 2002).
Table Fl-2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Bristol County, Massachusetts, and the State of
Massachusetts
Population
Land area (square miles)
Persons per square mile
Median household money income (1997 model-based estimate)
Persons below poverty (%, 1 997 model-based estimate)
Housing units .
Home ownership rate
Households '
Persons per household
Households with persons under 1 8 years (%)
High school graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
College graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
Bristol County
534,678
556
961.7
$38,866
11.9%
216,918
61.6%
205,411
2.54
35.6%
213,057
52,143
Massachusetts
6,349,097
7,840
809.8
$43,015
10.7%
2,621,989
61.7%
2,443,580
2.51
32.9%
3,169,566
1,078,999
Rhode Island
1,048,319
1,045
1,003.2
$36,699
11.2%
439,837
60%
408,424
2.47
32.9
474,612
140,160
Data from 2000 except where shown.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
Fl-3.1 Major Industrial Activities
Narragansett Bay hosts a wide range of water-dependent industries, including recreation, shipbuilding, fishing, fish
processing, shipping, and military. Other industries such as electronics, magazines, and auto imports also benefit from
maritime access through Narragansett Bay.
The Town of Somerset is a suburban township with some small-scale resort and second home development. It has 24 km (15 •
miles) of waterfront, which are primarily used for recreation. The closest city, Fall River, has more industrial activities with
chemical operations, electrical and food products along with the garment and textile industries. It also draws tourism with the
largest factory outlet district in New England and a World War II memorial (MDHCD, 2001).
Fl-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Fl-3.2 Commercial Fisheries
Commercial fishing has long been a staple activity in Narragansett Bay. In 1999, the total value of Rhode Island's
commercial landings offish and shellfish was approximately $79 million (RIEDC, 2000), and the total value of
Massachusetts' commercial landings was about $260.5 million (NMFS, 2001a). It is estimated that Narragansett Bay accounts
for 25-75 percent of Rhode Island's shellfish landings, 5 percent of finfish landings, and 10-25 percent of lobster landings
(DeAlteris et al., 2000). The upper bay, near Brayton Point, is a major fishing area for quahogs. Narragansett Bay produces
about 8 million pounds of quahogs annually, with a landed value of $6 million (NBC, 2001).
The Narragansett Bay commercial fishing industry supports a number of other fishing-related industries, including fish
processing and the manufacture of commercial fishing equipment (NBC, 2001).
Fl-3.3 Recreation •
Narragansett Bay's most important economic activities are tourism and recreation. Outdoor recreation, including fishing,
generates an estimated $2 billion in revenues each year (NBEP, 2001). •
a. Recreational fishing
More than 100,000 people fish on Narragansett Bay each year. Over 32,000 recreational boats are registered on the bay, and
many more are trailered from out of state. The bay's recreational fishery is valued at more than $300 million per year (NBEP,
2001).
b. Other water-based recreation
Narragansett Bay supports a great deal of other water-based recreation as well (RIEDC, 1999). Pleasure boating is especially
popular, and many races and regattas are held in the summer season. Rhode Island has over 85 marinas, 28 yacht clubs,
approximately 100 public boat launching sites, and over 50 charter and pleasure boats. There are also over 100 swimming
beaches, and camping, picnicking, surfing, and diving are popular activities.
Fl-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
This chapter presents technical information related to the
Brayton Point facility. Section F2-1 presents an
operational profile of the facility and includes Eriergy
Information Administration (EIA) data on its generating
units. Section F2-2 describes the configuration of the
intake structures and water withdrawals.
F2-1 OPERATIONAL PROFILE
During 1999, the Brayton Point power plant operated eight active units.1 Units 1-3 are coal-fired steam-electric generators;
Unit 4 is an oil-fired steam-electric generator. Units 1-3 use cooling water withdrawn from the Taunton River; unit 4 uses
water withdrawn from the Lee's River. The remaining four units are internal combustion turbines that do-not require cooling
water. All units became operational between August 1963 and December 1974.
Brayton Point's total net generation in 1999 was 8.7 million MWh. Unit 3 accounted for 4.4 million MWh, or 51 percent, of
this total. Unit 1 and Unit 2 accounted for 1.8 million MWh (21 percent) and 1.7 million MWh (20 percent), respectively.
The capacity utilization of Brayton Point's units ranged from 78 percent (Unit 3) to 86 percent (Unit 1). Unit 4 was on
standby in 1999 and had a capacity utilization of only 18 percent.
Table F2-1 presents details for Brayton Point's eight units.
Table F2-1: Brayton Point generator Characteristics (1999)
Generator ID
1
2
3
4
IC1
IC2
IC3
IC4
Total
Capacity
(MW)
241
241
643
476
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8 '
1,611
Prime
Mover*
ST
ST
ST
ST
1C
1C
1C
1C
Energy
Source11
BIT
BIT
BIT
FO6
FO2
FO2
FO2
FO2
In-Service
Date
Aug. 1963
Jul. 1964
Jul. 1969
Dec. 1974
Mar. 1967
Mar. 1967
Mar. 1967
Mar. 1967
Operating
Status
Operating
Operating
Operating
Standby
Cold Standby
Cold Standby
Cold Standby
Cold Standby
Net
Generation
(MWh)
1,812,283
1,746,259
4,400,369
744,188 .
204
176
181
188
8,703,848
Capacity
Utilization0
85.8%
82.7%
78.2%
17.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.8%
0.8%
61.7%
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
2
' 3
4
Not applicable
a Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; 1C = internal combustion.
b Energy source categories: Oil; BIT = bituminous coal FO6 = No. 6 Fuel Oil; FO2 = No. 2 Fuel.
c For this analysis, capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit
ran at &11 capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a and 2001c.
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 units do not include units that are on indefinite shutdown or retired.
F2-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part P Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
F2-2 CWIS CONFIGURATION AND WATER WITHDRAWAL
Brayton Point operates two distinct cooling water systems to serve its four generating units. Cooling Water System #1 (CWS
#1) serves generating units 1-3 while Cooling Water System #2 (CWS #2) provides cooling water for the fourth generating
unit. The operation of these two systems over time is summarized in Table F2-2 and discussed below.
Table F2-2: Brayton Point Timeline of CWIS Operations
Time
Period
1963-
1969
1969-
1973
1974
1975-
1981
1981
1982
1983
CWIS#1
Units 1,2,3 put into operation. All three served by the same intake
structure with the following configuration:
Source water: Taunton River
Six intake bays (2 for each unit)
Conventional once-through system
Trash rack
Conventional traveling screen (rotated every 8 hours)
High pressure spray wash (120 psi) to remove debris and
fish
>• Sluiceway to carry debris and fish to discharge point
beyond the influence of the intake structure
»• Design intake flow: 925 MOD
Seasonal Variation:
May to October of each year fixed screens are placed on the
trash racks to prevent impingement of horseshoe crabs on the
traveling screen. Fixed screens are hauled and washed as
necessary.
Operations unchanged from above.
Operations unchanged from above.
Operations unchanged from above.
Operations unchanged from above.
Operations unchanged from above.
Unit 3 shut down for seven months. (8/83-2/84)
CWIS #2
N/A
N/A
Unit 4 put into operation. Served by one intake
structure with the following configuration:
Source Water: Lee River
One intake bay
Closed-cycle cooling system
Trash racks
Conventional traveling screen
(uncertain about rotation/cleaning
schedule, but unlikely continuous)
Operations unchanged from above.
Unit 4 begins piggyback operation. Water intake
from Lee River ceases. All cooling water taken
from discharges from CWIS #1
Piggyback operation.
Piggyback operation.
F2-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Table F2-2: Brayton -Point Timeline of CWIS Operations 1969-Present (cont.)
Time
Period
1984
1985
1986-
1993
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
CWIS#1
All units operational. No change from configuration above.
Unit 3 shut down for seven months. (8/85-2/86).
Unit 3 shut down for six months (8/86-1/87).
Operates at original configuration.
Operates at original configuration.
Unit 3 shut down for 2 months (2/18/-4/30). pacility notes this is a
"piggyback equivalent."
Operates at original configuration.
:CWIS#2
Unit 4 begins once-through cooling (7/15/84)
with the following configuration:
>• Source water: Lee River '
> One intake bay .
> Trash racks
>• Angled traveling screens. Six •
traveling screens set 25° from
upstream flow.
>• Fish bypass intakes at the apex of
angled screens.
. >• Fish baskets (with water retention)
mounted to screens.
>• Low-pressure spray to remove
impinged fish.
> High-pressure spray to remove debris.
>• Separate fish and debris troughs.
> Screens rotate at various speeds
depending on water differential.
»• Design intake flow: 395 MGD
Fine mesh screens added to traveling screen
structure from 3/85-9/85. All other operations
remain unchanged.
Operates at original once-through configuration.
Piggyback for one month
(2/25/93-3/31/93). •
Piggyback operation for two months
(2/18/94-4/29/94).
Operates at original once-through configuration.. ,
Piggyback operation for two months (2/27-4/30).
MO A II instituted. Traveling screens begin continuous operation on CWIS #1 . Facility-wide intake flow restricted to 925
MOD during the winter season and 1,130 MOD during the summer season. Unit 4 required to operate piggyback at least
eight months of the year.
Traveling screens operate continuously. Piggyback operation for eight" months (2/6-3/3 6,
. 4/17-5/28,10/2/97-5/27/98)
No change from above. Piggyback operation for eight months (10/1/98-
5/30/99).
No change from above. Piggyback operation for eight months (10/9/99-
5/30/00).
No change from above. Piggyback operation for eight months (9/29/00-
5/3/01).
F2-3
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
a. Cooling water system
First placed into service in 1963 with the commencement of operations in generating unit #1, CWS #1 consists of one cooling
water intake structure to the east of the main facility that serves a conventional once-through system. A total of six intake
bays (two for each generating unit) withdraw water from the Taunton River. The intake bay depth is approximately 6.1m
below the mean sea level. Intake openings for bays 1-4 (serving generating units 1 and 2) are approximately 3.7m wide, while
those for bays 5 and 6 are approximately 5.2m wide. Each intake bay shares the same technological configuration.
CWS #1 currently employs trash racks and a continuously-rotating traveling screen across each of its six intake bays. Neither
technology is particularly effective at reducing impingement and/or entrainment losses. Cooling water withdrawn from the
Taunton River first passes through the trash racks into the intake channel. Next are conventional traveling screens equipped
with wire mesh panels with openings of 9.5mm2. The screens continuously move in a vertical direction to remove impinged
organisms and debris. Impinged items are washed off the intake screen with a high-pressure spray (120 psi) within the screen
assembly. All debris is deposited in a sluiceway and carried to a discharge point approximately 300ft to the east of the intake
structure.
CWS #1 modifies its intake operations seasonally to account for changes in available cooling water and migratory patterns of
indigenous organisms. From May to October, fixed screens are placed on the trash racks to prevent impingement of
horseshoe crabs on the traveling screens. Since 1993, Brayton Point has operated under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA
II) that effectively limits the maximum intake of CWS #1 to 925 MOD.
b. Cooling water system #2
CWS #2 began conventional once-through operation in 1984 with an angled screen assembly with fish buckets and a fish
diversion/return system to reduce impingement mortality. No entrainment technology is currently in place.
An 18-month study conducted by the New England Power Company at the Brayton Point Station assessed the efficacy of the
angled screen/fish diversion assembly in reducing impingement losses at CWS #2 (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers,
1987). The study calculated the Diversion Efficiency (DE) of the system (the percentage of organisms that are either
impinged against the screen or diverted into the fish bypass pipe; this does not include entrained organisms) to be 76.3
percent. Excluding bay anchovy from the species increased the DE to 89.7 percent.2 The Total System Efficiency (TSE)
represents the probability that a fish entering the angled screen system will be returned to the source waterbody and survive
for 48 hours. The study calculated the TSE of the system to be 33.1 percent. Excluding bay anchovy from the sample species
increased the TSE to 55.4 percent.3-4
Originally designed as a closed-cycle system and placed into service in 1974 as the source of cooling water for generating
unit #4, CWS#2 currently operates as a conventional once-through system to the north of the main facility. Water is
withdrawn from the Lee River. The entire intake structure is approximately 44m long with an intake opening 34m. Cooling
water enters the intake through eight 3.4m-wide openings that extend from a depth of 5.5m below the mean sea level to 1.2rn
above the mean sea level.
Cooling water withdrawn from the Lee River first passes through trash racks that extend to the bottom of the opening at an •
average approach velocity of 0.5 feet per second (fps). Downstream of the trash racks are six traveling screens angled 25°
from the direction of flow in the intake waterway. The screens are set perpendicular to the screenwell floor and have 9.5mm2
mesh panels. At the apex of the triangle formed by the angled screens are fish bypass inlets leading to two fish return pipes
that carry unimpinged fish back to the Lee River. The screens rotate vertically on a continuous basis; the speed is .determined
by the differential in water height between the upstream and downstream sides of the screen face. Fish impinged against the
traveling screens are captured in fish buckets mounted to each screen assembly. The fish buckets rotate with the screens while
retaining sufficient water for any captured organisms. A low-pressure spray (5-10 psi) removes most aquatic organisms into a
1 Bay anchovy are the dominant fish species, in terms of number, at the Brayton Point facility. Inordinately high impingement rates
for bay anchovy occurred during a six-month test period during which fine mesh screens (1 .Omm2) replaced the 9.5mm2 screens. Current
operations only employ the wide mesh screens.
3 Ibid.
4 EPA does not typically use a 48-hour survival standard when determining the efficacy of an impingement technology. However, for
the purposes of this case study only (Mt. Hope Bay), EPA will use the facility's determination.
F2-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
separate fish trough which then carries them to the fish diversion pipe and back to the Lee River. A high-pressure spray (120
psi) washes remaining debris into a debris trough.
At maximum capacity, Brayton Point CWS #2 can withdraw 395 MGD from the Lee River. Since 1997, the facility has
operated under MOAII, which limits the facility-wide intake flow during the winter months to 925 MGD. In an effort to
reduce the entrainment of winter flounder during the spawning season, CWS #2 does not withdraw water from the Lee River
from October through May. During this time, cooling water is obtained by diverting discharged water from CWS #1 to the
intake canal for CWS #2 ("piggyback operation"). Generating units 1-3 typically discharge less heat as a result of operations,
thereby making this process feasible. From 1984 (introduction of the once-through system for CWS #2) to 1997, piggyback
operation was used intermittently. Table F2-3 summarizes the modes of operation of Unit 4 from 1973 through 2000.
Table F2-3: Modes of Operation of Brayton Unit 4 from 1973 to 1978
Year
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Jan
CC.
cc '
CC
cc
PB
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
PB
PB
PB
Feb
CC
cc
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
PC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
PB
PB
PB
PB
Mar
CC
CC
cc
.cc
PB
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
. OC
OC
OC
.. PB .
PB
OC
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
Apr
CC
CC
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
be
OC
PB
OC
PB
PB
PB
PB
PB
May
CC
CC
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB.
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
PB
PB
PB
PB
Jim
CC
CC
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
Jul
cc
cc
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
Aug
cc
cc
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
oc
OC
OC
oc
Sep
cc
cc
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
PC
OC
OC
oc
OC"
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
Oct
cc
cc
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
oc
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
PB
PB
PB
PB
Nov
CC
CC
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
oc
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
PB-
PB
PB
PB
Dec
CC
CC
cc
cc
PB
PB
PB
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
oc
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
OC
PB
PB
PB
PB
Notes: CC = close-cycle cooling mode; OC
Source: Personal communication, Meredith
= open-cycle mode; PB = piggyback mode.
Simas, Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point Station, March 23,2001.
F2-3 BRAYTON POINT GENERATION
During 1999, the Brayton Point power plant operated eight active units.5 Total net generation in 1999 was 8.7 million MWh.
Unit 3 accounted for 4.4 million MWh, or 51 percent, of this total. Unit 1 and Unit 2 accounted for 1.8 million MWh (21
percent) and 1.7 million MWh (20 percent), respectively. The capacity utilization of Brayton Point's units ranged from 78
percent (Unit 3) to 86 percent (Unit 1). Unit 4 was on standby in 1999 and had a capacity utilization of only 18 percent.
5 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 units do not include units that are on indefinite shutdown or retired.
F2-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part R Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Table F2-4 presents details for Brayton Point's eight units.
Table F2-4: Brayton Point generator Characteristics (1999)
Generator ED
1
2
3
4
ICI
IC2
IC3
IC4
Total
Capacity
(MW)
241
241
643
476
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
1,611
Prime
Mover"
ST
ST
ST
' ST
1C
1C
1C
1C
Energy
Source6
BIT
BIT
BIT
F06
FO2
FO2
FO2
FO2
In-Service
Date
Aug. 1963
Jul. 1964
Jul. 1969
'Dec. 1974
Mar. 1967
Mar. 1967
Mar. 1967
Mar. 1967
Operating
Status
Operating
Operating
Operating
Standby
Cold Standby
Cold Standby
Cold Standby
Cold Standby
Net
Generation
(MWh)
1,812,283
1,746,259
4,400,369
744,188
204
176 •
181
188
8,703,848
Capacity
Utilization"
85.8%
82.7%
78.2%
17.9%
0.8%
0.7%
0.8% •
0.8%
61.7%
roof
Associated
CWIS
1
2
3
4
Not applicable
• • t
^
Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; 1C = internal combustion.
b Energy source categories: Oil; BIT = bituminous coal; FO6 = No. 6 Fuel Oil; FO2 = No. 2 Fuel.
' For this analysis, capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit
ran at full capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Ic; U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, for Net Generation and CWIS ID.
Figure F2-1 below presents Brayton Point's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
Figure F2-1: Brayton Point Net Electricity Generation 1970 - 2000 (in MWh)
I
e>
U
Z
1970
1975
1995
2000
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Ic, 200 Id.
F2-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
/CHAPTER-CONTENTS. LI -L..-
'S'^^
^-:!T ^
EyS^:f:^^
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
potential impingement and entrainment (I&E) of aquatic
organisms in Mount Hope Bay resulting from the CWIS of
Brayton Point. The-focus of EPA's evaluation was the
potential impacts of Brayton Point's current operations on
relatively healthy fish populations. Because fish
populations in Mount Hope Bay are currently depressed
well below historical levels, EPA based its evaluation on
the most comprehensive historical time series of I&E data
for Brayton Point (1974-1983) and adjusted these rates for
the facility's current technologies and operations. It
should be noted, however, that using pre-1984 data still
probably produces an underestimate of I&E levels because
there is data suggesting that the plant contributed to a
declining fishery even before 1984, though the decline accelerated precipitously after 1984. Unfortunately, there is no Mount
Hope Bay abundance data from before Brayton Point Station began operations to provide true baseline population levels
unaffected by the plant. Section E3-1 lists fish species that are impinged and entrained at Brayton Point, and Section F3-2
presents life histories of the most abundant species in the facility's I&E collections. Section F3-3 summarizes the facility's
I&E collection methods, and Section F3-4 presents results of EPA's analysis of annual impingement and entrainment. Section
F3-5 summarizes the results of EPA's analyses. .-
F3-1 SPECIES IMPINGED AND ENTRAINED AT BRAYTON POINT
EPA evaluated species known to be impinged and entrained at Brayton Point based on information provided in facility I&E
monitoring reports (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999; personal communication, Meredith Simas,
Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point Station, January 24, 2002). Approximately 18 different species have been identified
in Brayton Point's I&E collections since monitoring began in 1972. At least 10 (56 percent) of these species have
commercial and/or recreational value. Table F3-1 lists species identified in the facility's I&E collections. EPA evaluated all
the species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point, except a group of unidentified impinged fish species.
F3-1
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table F3-1: Aquatic Species Identified in !<&E Collections by Brayton Point
Common Name
Alewife
American sand lance
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blueback hem'ng
Butterfish
Hogchoker
Rainbow smelt
Scup
Seaboard goby
Silver hake
Striped killifish
Tautog
Thrcespine stickleback
Wcakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
j Scientific Name
\Alosapseudoharengus
\Ammodytes americanus
\Brevoortia tyrannus
\Menidia menidia
\Anchoa mitchilli
\Alosa aestivalis
\Peprilus triacanthus
\ Trinectes maculalus
I Osmerus mordax mordax
\Stenotomus chrysops
| Gobiosoma ginsburgi
\Merluccius bilinearis
\Fundulus majalis
\Tautoga onitis
I Gasterosteus aculeatus aculeatus
i Cynoscion regalis
\Morone americana
\Scophthalmus aquosus
\Pleuronectes americanus
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
v
X
X
X
X
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
J\.
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sources: PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999; Matt Camisa, Fisheries Supervisor, Massachusetts DMF, Personal
Communication, January 31, 2002; personal communication, Meredith Simas, Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point
Station, January 24,2002.
F3-2 LIFE HISTORIES OF MAJOR SPECIES IMPINGED AND ENTRAINED
Alewife (/4/osa pseudoharengus}
Alewife is a member of the herring family, Clupeidae, and ranges along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to North
Carolina (Scott and Grossman, 1998). Alewife tend to be more abundant in the mid-Atlantic and along the northeastern coast.
They are anadromous, migrating inland from coastal waters in the spring to spawn. Adult alewife overwinter along the
northern continental shelf, settling at the bottom in depths of 56 to 110 m (184 ft to 361 ft) (Able and Fahay, 1998). Adults
feed on a wide variety of food items, while juveniles feed mainly on plankton (Waterfield, 1995).
Alewife has been introduced to a number of lakes to provide forage for sportfish (Jude et al., 1987b). Ecologically, alewife is
an important prey item for many fish, and commercial landings of river herring along the Atlantic coast have ranged from a
high of 33,974 metric tons (74.9 million Ib) in 1958 to a low of less than 2,268 metric tons (5 million Ib) in recent years
(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000b).
Spawning is temperature-driven, beginning in the spring as water temperatures reach 13 to 15 °C (55 to 59 °F) and ending
when they exceed 27 "C (80.6 °F) (Able and Fahay, 1998). Spawning takes place in the upper reaches of coastal rivers, in
slow-flowing sections of slightly brackish or freshwater.
Females lay demersal eggs in shallow water less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). They may lay from
60,000 to 300,000 eggs at a time (Kocik, 2000). The demersal eggs are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter. Larvae
hatch at a size of approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in.) total length (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae remain in the
upstream spawning area for some time before drifting downstream to natal estuarine waters. Juveniles exhibit a diurnal
vertical migration in the water column, remaining near the bottom during-the day and rising to the surface at night (Fay et al.,
1983a). In the fall, juveniles move offshore to nursery areas (Able and Fahay, 1998).
F3-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Maturity is reached at an age of 3 to 4 years for males, and 4 to 5 years for females (Able and Fahay, 1998). The average size
at maturity is 265 to 278 mm (10.4 to 10.9 in.) for males and 284 to 308 mm (11.2 to 12.1 in.) for females (Able and Fahay,
1998). Alewife can live up to 8 years, but the average age of the spawning population tends to be 4 to 5 years (Waterfield,
1995; Public Service Electric and Gas Company, 1999c). '
ALEWIFE
(Alosa pseudoharengus)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: River herring, sawbelly, kyak, branch
herring, freshwater herring, bigeye herring, gray herring, .
grayback, white herring.
Similar species: Blueback herring.
Geographic range: Along the western Atlantic coast from
Newfoundland to North Carolina."
Habitat: Wide-ranging, tolerates fresh to saline waters,
travels in schools.
Lifespan: May live up to 8 years.b'c
Fecundity: Females may lay from 60,000 to 300,000 eggs at
a time.d
Food source: Small fish, zooplankton, fish eggs, amphipods, mysids.'
Prey for: Striped bass, weakfish, rainbow trout.
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
*• Found in waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep.d
> Are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter/
Larvae:
*• Approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in.) at hatching/
> Remain in upstream spawning area for some time before drifting
downstream to natal estuarine waters.
Juveniles: .
> Stay on the bottom during the day and rise to the surface at night.g
>• Emigrate to ocean in summer and fall/
Adults: anadromous
> Reach maturity at 3-4 years for males and 4-5 years for females/
»• Average size at maturity is 265-278 mm (10.4-10.9 in.) for males and
284-308 mm (11.2-12.1 in.) for females/
> Overwinter along the northern continental shelf/
a Scott and Grossman, 1998.
b PSEG, 1999c. ,
c Waterfield, 1995. •
Kocik,2000.
0 Wang and Kernehah, 1979.
f Able and Fahay, 1998.
8 Fayetal., 1983a.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia fyrannus)
The Atlantic menhaden, a member of the Clupeidae (herring) family, is a eurohaline species, occupying coastal and estuarine
habitats. It is found along the Atlantic coast of North America, from Maine to northern Florida (Hall, 1995). Adults
congregate in large schools in coastal areas; these schools are especially abundant in and near major estuaries and bays. They
consume plankton, primarily diatoms and dinoflagellates, which they filter from the water through elaborate gill rakers. In
turn, menhaden are consumed by almost all commercially and recreationally important piscivorous fish, as well as by dolphins
and birds (Hall, 1995).
The menhaden fishery, one of the most important and productive fisheries on the Atlantic coast, is a multimillion-dollar
enterprise (Hall, 1995). Menhaden are considered an "industrial fish" and are used to produce products such as paints,
cosmetics, margarine (in Europe and Canada), and feed, as well as bait for other fisheries. Landings in New England declined
to their lowest level of approximately 2.7 metric tons (5,952 Ib) in the 1960s because of overfishing. Since then, landings
have varied, ranging from approximately 240 metric tons (529,100 Ib) in 1989 to 1,069 metric tons (2,356,742 Ib) in 1998
(Personal Communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division,. Silver Spring,
Maryland, March 19, 2001).
F3-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose_ Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I Spawning takes place along the inner continental shelf, in open
marine waters.'1
>• Eggs hatch after approximately 24 hours.
Larvae: pelagic
> Larvae hatch out at sea, and enter estuarine waters 1 to 2 months
later.a
> Remain in estuaries through the summer, emigrating to ocean
waters as juveniles in September or October.d
Adults:
*•• Congregate in large schools in coastal areas.
> Spawn year round.b
1 Hall, 1995.
k Scott and Scott, 1988.
' Dietrich, 1979.
1 Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2001.
F3-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia}
The Atlantic silverside is a member of the silverside family, Atherinidae. Its geographic range extends from coastal waters of
New Brunswick to northern Florida (Fay et al., 1983b), but it is most abundant between Cape Cod and South Carolina (Able
and Fahay, 1998). Atlantic silversides inhabit sandy seashores and the mouths of inlets (Froese and Pauly, 2001). Silversides
are an important species of forage fish, eaten by valuable fishery species such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish
(Pomatomus salatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) (Fay et al., 1983b; McBride,
1995).
Atlantic silversides spawn in the upper intertidal zone during spring and summer. Spawning appears to be stimulated by new
and full moons, in association with spring tides. On average, females produce 4,500 to 5,000 demersal eggs per spawning
season, which may include four to five separate spawning bouts (Fay et al., 1983b). The eggs are 0.9 to 1.2 mm (0.04 to 0.05
in.) in diameter. Larvae range in size from 5.5 to 15.0 mm (0.2 to 0.6 in.) (Fay et al., 1983b). The sex of Atlantic silversides
is determined during the larval stage, at approximately 32 to 46 days after hatching. Water temperatures between 11 and
19,°C (52 and 66 °F) produce significantly more females, whereas temperatures between 17 and 25 °C (63 and 77 °F) produce
significantly more males (Fay et al., 1983b).
Juveniles occur hi estuaries during the summer months, occupying intertidal creeks, marshes, and shore zones of bays and
estuaries. Silversides typically migrate offshore in the winter (McBride, 1995). In studies of seasonal distribution in
Massachusetts, all individuals left inshore waters during winter months (Able and Fahay, 1998).
The diet of juveniles and adults consists of copepods, mysids,.amphipods, cladocerans, fish eggs, squid, worms, molluscs,
.insects, algae, and detritus (Fay et al., 1983b). Atlantic silversides feed in large schools, preferring gravel and sand bars, open
beaches, tidal creeks, river mouths, and marshes (Fay et al., 1983b).
Silversides live for only 1 or 2 years, usually dying after completing their first spawning (Fay et al., 1983b). Adults can reach
sizes of up to 15 cm (5.9 in.) in total length (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
ATLANTIC SILVERSIDE
(Menidia menidia)
Family: Atherinidae (silversides).
Common names: Spearing, Sperling, green smelt, sand smelt,
white bait, capelin, shiner.3
Similar species: Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina).'
Geographic range: New Brunswick to northern Florida."
Habitat: Sandy seashores and the mouths of inlets.b
Lifespan: One or 2 years. Often die after their first spawning.3
Fecundity: Females produce an average of 4,500 to 5,000 eggs
per spawning season.0
Food Source: Zooplankton, fish eggs, squid, worms, molluscs, insects,
algae, and detritus."
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, and Atlantic mackerel."
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
> Found in shallow waters of estuarine intertidal zones."
»• Can be found adhering to submerged vegetation."
Larvae:
*• Range from 5.5 to 15.0 mm (0.2 to 0.6 in.) in size."
»• Sex is determined during the larval stage by the temperature
regime. Colder temperatures tend to produce more females, and
wanner temperatures produce more males."
Adults:
*• Overwinter in offshore marine waters.d
*• Can reach sizes of up to 15 cm (5.9 in.) total length.d
Fayetal., 1983b.
b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
McBride, 1995.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from Government of Canada, 2001.
F3-5
-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Tautog (Tautoga oniti's)
The tautog is a member of the Labridae family, found in coastal areas from New Brunswick south to South Carolina. It is
most abundant from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to the Delaware Estuary (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,
2000e). Tautog are most frequently found close to shore, preferring rocky areas or other discontinuities such as pilings,
jetties, or wrecks and salinities of greater than 25 ppt (Jury et al., 1994). They generally consume mussels, small crustaceans,
and other molluscs (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999).
Tautog have historically supported a primarily recreational fishery. Since 1980, landings have averaged about 3,700 metric
tons (8.1 million Ib), with recreational catches accounting for 90 percent of the total (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, 2000e). The majority of Tautpg are harvested by hook and line from private boats (Auster, 1989); however,
there are also significant charter and party boat fisheries. Although commercial landings accounted for only 8.7 percent of the
total from 1982 to 1991, commercial fishing has been increasing because of higher market prices (Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, 2000h). There is evidence that the fishery is declining, with lower recreational and commercial catch
rates. A survey conducted in Narragansett Bay in 1994 showed the lowest abundance of tautog ever recorded. Tautog are
susceptible to overfishing, particularly because they experience slow growth and reproduction and tend to be easily found
near wrecks and rock piles (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000e).
Tautog migrate inshore in the spring to spawn in inshore waters. Spawning generally occurs between mid-May arid August,
peaks in June (Auster, 1989), and primarily takes place at the mouths of estuaries and along the inner continental shelf. In
Narragansett Bay, tautog are known to return to the same spawning sites in the upper estuary each year. Fecundity increases
with age until approximately age 16, when it begins to decline (Steirnle and Shaheen, 1999). Females between 3 and 20 years
were documented to contain between 5,000 and 673,500 mature eggs. The eggs are buoyant, and hatch out in approximately
2 to 3 days (Auster, 1989).
Larvae hatch out at 2 to 4 mm (0.079 to 0.157 in.) and migrate vertically in the water column, surfacing during the day and
remaining near the bottom at night. Tautog are the most abundant larval species in Narragansett Bay. As they get older, they
become more benthic (Steimle and Shaheen, 1.999). Small juveniles will remain in estuaries year-round, in a home range of
only several hundred meters, becoming torpid over the winter (Jury et al., 1994), while larger ones will join adults in deeper
water. Small juveniles prefer vegetated habitats in depths of less than 1 m (3.3 ft) and are not observed in Narragansett Bay
water deeper than 9 m (30 ft). Older juveniles and adults inhabit reef-like habitats that provide some type of cover (Steimle
and Shaheen, 1999).
Tautog do not tend to migrate far offshore; however, adults move to deeper water in the fall, responding to decreases in
temperature. Although they move to waters as deep as 45 m (148 ft), tautog select areas with rugged topography for cover.
Adults return to coastal waters and estuaries to spawn when waters warm in the spring. Maturity is reached at about 3 to 4
years of age. Age 7 tautogs in Rhode Island had mean lengths of 348 mm (14 in.) for males and 301 mm (12 in.) for females.
Males may live for over 30 years, while females may live to about 25 years of age (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999). '.
F3-6
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
TAUTOG
(Tautoga onitis)
Family: Labridae (wrasses).
Common names: tautog, blackfish, white chin, chub, black
porgy."
Similar species: Gunner (Tavtogolabrus adspersus).
Geographic range: Most abundant from Cape Cod,
Massachusetts to the Delaware Estuary.b
Habitat: Rocky shoals around coastal shores."
Lifespan: Maturity is reached at about 3 to 4 years. •
Maximum age of over 30 years for males, 25 years for
females/"
Fecundity: Mature females may contain between 5,000 and
673,500 mature eggs.d
Food Source: Juveniles feed on amphipods and copepods. Adults feed
mainly on blue mussels, small crustaceans, and other molluscs.11
Prey for: Smooth dogfish, barndoor skate, red hake, sea raven, goosefish,
striped bass, silver hake, bluefish, seabirds."
Life stage information:
Eggs: buoyant
+ Hatch out in 2 to 3 days.3
Larvae: pelagic
> Young larvae migrate vertically in the water column, surfacing during
the day and remaining near the bottom at night?
Juveniles: benthic
*• Small juveniles prefer vegetated areas in depths less than 1 m (3.3 ft).a
> Larger juveniles prefer covered, reef-like habitats."
Adults: .
> Inhabit reef-like habitats that provide some type of cover.0
* Migrate inshore in late spring to spawn at the mouths of estuaries and
along the inner continental shelf.3
° Steimle and Shaheen, 1999.
b Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000e.
"Scotland Scott, 1988.
d Auster, 1989.
Fish graphic from: State of Maine Division of Marine Resources, 2001c.
Window/pane (Scophthalmus aquosus)
Windowpane is a member of the Scophthalmidae family (left-eye flounders) found from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida,
inhabiting estuarine and shallow continental shelf waters less than 56 m (184 ft) deep (Able and Fahay, 1998). They have
been found in areas with muddy or sandy bottoms, water temperatures ranging from 0 to 24°C (0 to 75 °F), and salinities of
5.5 to 36 ppt (Chang et al., 1999).
Spawning occurs over the continental shelf and in estuaries, but not in waters over 20 °C (68 °F) (Kaiser and Neuman, 1995).
The timing of spawning varies with location: in Mid-Atlantic Bight waters, spawning occurs from April through December,
peaking in May and October, while on Georges Bank spawning occurs during summer and peaks in July and August
(Hendrickson, 2000). The estimated average lifetime fecundity of females is 100,000 eggs (New England Power Company
and Marine Research Inc., 1995). Eggs are buoyant and hatch out in 8 days at a water temperature of 11°C (52 °F) (Chang et .
al., 1999). Eggs and larvae are planktonic, but movements are poorly understood.- Between 6.5 and 13.0 mm (0.256 and
0.512 in.), eye migration occurs and the body becomes more laterally compressed (Able and Fahay, 1998). Juveniles appear
to use estuaries as nursing areas, and then move to offshore waters in the fall (Kaiser and Neuman, 1995).
Although windowpane have been found to migrate 130 km (81 miles) in a few months, most researchers agree that
windowpane generally do not migrate long distances (Chang et al., 1999).
Windowpane reach sexual maturity at age 3 or 4 (Hendrickson, 2000). Adults reach a maximum length of approximately 46
cm (18 in.), and may live up to 7 years (Scott and Scott, 1988). '
While windowpane has not been a particularly important commercial fish, it may become more so as stocks of summer
flounder are overfished. Commercial catches began in 1943, and through 1975 windowpane was harvested as part of an
industrial fishery. Landings in southern New England peaked in 1985 at 2,100 metric tons (4.6 million lb), decreased to a low;
of 100 metric tons (0.2 million lb) in 1995, and have remained below 200 metric tons (0.4 million lb) since then. Populations
have also decreased since the 1980's, and overfishing is suspected as a main cause (Hendrickson, 2000).
F3-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
WINDOWPANE
(Scophthalmus aquosus)
Family: Scophthalmidae (left-eye flounder).
Common names: windowpane.
Similar species: turbot (Scophthalmus maximus), brill
(Scophthalmus rhombus).
Geographic range: From the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida."
Habitat: Estuarine and shallow continental shelf waters of depths
less than 56m (184 ft)."
Lifespan: Approximately 7 years.b
Fecundity: Average lifetime fecundity of 100,000 eggs.0
Food Source: Young consume mysids; adults feed on sand shrimp,
small fish (up to 10 cm), crustaceans, molluscs, and seaweed.
Prey for: Spiny dogfish, thorny skate, goosefish, Atlantic cod, black
sea bass, weakfish, and summer flounder.11
Life stage information:
Eggs: buoyant
+ Eggs are buoyant and hatch out in 8 days at a water temperature
Larvae: pelagic
> Eye migration occurs and the body becomes more laterally
compressed.d
Juveniles:
> Use estuaries as nursing areas, returning to offshore waters in the
fall.'
Adults:
*• Reach a maximum length of approximately 46 cm.b
> Seasonally migrate to deeper waters in late autumn to overwinter.15
" Able and Fahay, 1998.
b Scott and Scott, 1988.
New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995.
* Chang etal,, 1999.
Kaiser and Neuman, 1995.
Fish graphic from NEFSC, 2001.
Winter flounder (Pleuronectes atnericanus)
Winter flounder is a benthic flatfish of the family Pleuronectidae (righteye flounders), which is found in estuarine and
continental shelf habitats. Its range extends from the southern edge of the Grand Banks south to Georgia (Buckley, 1989b).
It is a bottom feeder, occupying sandy or muddy habitats and feeding on bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp,
amphipods, crabs, urchins, and snails (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
Both commercial and recreational fisheries for winter flounder are important. U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries are
managed under the New England Fishery Management Council's Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission's Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder (NEFSC, 2000d).
Three groups are recognized for management and assessment purposes: Gulf of Maine, Southern New England-Mid Atlantic,
and Georges Bank. Management currently focuses on reducing fishing levels to reverse declining trends and rebuild stocks.
The Gulf of Maine stock is currently considered overfished (NEFSC, 2000d). Although improvements in stock condition will-
depend on reduced harvest, the long-term potential catch (maximum sustainable yield) has not been determined.
The winter flounder is essentially nonmigratory, but there are seasonal patterns in movements within the estuary. Winter
flounder south of Cape Cod generally move to deeper, cooler water in summer and return to shallower areas in the fall, •
possibly in response to temperature changes (Howe and Coates, 1975; Scott and Scott, 1988).
Spawning occurs between January and May in New England, with peaks in the Massachusetts area in February and March
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Spawning habitat is generally in shallow water over a sandy or muddy bottom (Scott and
Scott, 1988). Adult fish tend to leave the shallow water in autumn to spawn at the head of estuaries in late winter. The
majority of spawning takes place in a salinity range of 31 to 33 ppt and a water temperature range of 0 to 3 °C (32 to 37 °F).
Females will usually produce between 500,000 and 1.5 million eggs annually, which sink to the bottom in clusters. The eggs
are about 0.74 to 0.85 mm (approximately 0.03 in.) in diameter, and hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953).
F3-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Larvae are about 3.0 to 3.5 mm (0.1 in.) total length when they hatch out. They develop and metamorphose over 2 to 3
months, with growth rates controlled by water temperature (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Larval growth appears to be
optimal with a slow increase from spawning temperatures of 2 °C (36 °F) to approximately 10 °C (50 °F; Buckley, 1982).
Larvae depend on light and vision to feed during the day and do not feed at night (Buckley, 1989b). Juveniles tend to remain
in shallow spawning waters, and stay on the ocean bottom (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Fifty percent of females reach maturity at age 2 or 3 in the waters of Georges Bank, while they may not mature until age 5 in
more northern areas such as near Newfoundland. Females are generally 22.5 to 31.5 cm (8 to 12.4 in.) long at maturity
(Howelletal., 1992).
Winter flounder supports important commercial and recreational fisheries in the area, as it is the thickest and meatiest of the
common New England flatfish (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Annual commercial landings in New England declined from
17,083 metric tons (37.7 million Ib) in 1981 to 3,223 metric tons (7.1 million Ib) in 1994. The harvest has increased
somewhat since then, rising to 5,123 metric tons (11.3 million Ib) in 2000 (personal communication, National Marine
Fisheries Society, Fish Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, January 16, 2002.). Winter flounder is
ecologically important as a prey species for larger estuarine and coastal fish such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) (Buckley, 1989b).
WINTER FLOUNDER
(Pleuronectes americanus)
Family: Pleuronectidae (righteye flounders).
Common names: Blackback flounder, lemon sole, black
flounder.3
Similar species: American plaice (Hippoglossoides
platessoides), European plaice (P. platessus).
Geographic range: From the southern edge of the Grand
Banks south to Georgia.b
Habitat: Bottom dweller. Found in coastal marine waters.0
Lifespan: May live up to 15 years.
Fecundity: Females produce berwe'en 500,000 and 1.5 million
eggs annually."
Food source: Bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp, annelid
worms, amphipods, crabs, urchins and snails."
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish.b
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
> Approximately 0.74 to 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter."
> Hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days."
Larvae: semi-pelagic • • . '
*• Approximately 3.0 to 3.5 (0.1 in.) mm total length when they hatch
out."
Juveniles: demersal
> Once winter flounder enter the juvenile stage, they remain benthic,
preferring sandy bottomed substrates.11
Adults:
> Females mature at ages 2 and 3.c
> Migrate seasonally to offshore waters in the summer, and inshore
waters in the winter.15
2 Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953.
b Buckley, 1989b.
Scott and Scott, 1988.
Grimes etal., 1989.
" Howelletal., 1992.
Fish graphic from State of Maine Division of Marine Resources, 200 Id.
F3-3 BRAVTON POINT GENERATING STATION'S !<&E SAMPLING METHODS
Impingement sampling was conducted from 1972 through 1998. Entrainment sampling has been conducted periodically in
the discharge of units 1, 2, and 3 since 1972. The following sections describe these sampling programs.
F3-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
CKaptcp F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
F3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring
Impingement sampling of the revolving screens at units 1,2, and 3 was conducted from 1972 through 1998. Sampling was
conducted year-round, as long as each unit was in-operation (USGen New England, 2001).
The traveling screens for units 1,2, and 3 have 9.5 mm (0.375 in.) mesh (PG&E National Energy Group, 2001). During
impingement sampling, screenwash water was diverted to in-line collection tanks. All fish collected were identified and
counted, although counts were reported separately only for selected species; all other species were reported as a group.
From 1972 to 1996, impingement was monitored three times per week by placing a trap in the sluiceway downstream of the
revolving screens while the wash system was in operation. All of the fish collected in the trap were counted, identified, and
measured. Unit 3 screens, which have the highest impingement rate, were washed three times a day at 8 to 12 hour intervals.
Each of the three weekly collections took place at one of these wash periods. Units 1 and 2 were washed once per day, and
only two weekly collections were done at these units (New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1998).
Since 1997, the revolving screens have run continuously and are monitored daily. To monitor impingement rates, the
collection tank is periodically emptied and left in place for a 4 to 8 hour interval (PG&E Generating and Marine Research
Inc., 1999).
To derive annual estimates, the facility extrapolated counts from a weekly sampling period to derive a weekly total (PG&E
Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999). Weekly totals were then summed to estimate an annual total. It should be noted
that the impingement data set used (1974-1983) likely represents an underestimate because that time period did not include or
record any of the occasional large-scale impingement events for menhaden that have occurred at Brayton Point over the years.
For example, in early 2002 an impingement event occurred in which approximately 25,000 menhaden were impinged from
January 5 through February 3, 2002, and then another approximately 6,400 were impinged from February 11 to February 16,
2002.
F3-3.2 Entrapment Monitoring
Entrapment sampling of selected species was conducted in the discharge stream of units 1, 2, and 3 from June 1972 through
December 1985. Until the middle of 1984, entrainment waspsampled for units 1,2, and 3 only. When unit 4 switched to once-
through cooling in 1984, sampling was also conducted near the unit 4 discharge headwall from February through mid-May,
except when unit 4 was operating in piggyback mode (see Chapter F2; PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999;
USGen New England, 2001; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001). Sampling ceased from 1986 through 1991. In January
1992, entrainment sampling was reinitiated during the larval season (February through mid-May) for winter flounder only, as
part of an examination of the winter flounder stock decline in Mount Hope Bay (USGen New England, 2001). Initially,
winter flounder entrainment was classified only as larvae or eggs, but from 1978 on, four larval stages were classified (PG&E
Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999). Other species were not classified into separate larval stages.
From 1972 to 1979, sampling was conducted monthly from September through February and weekly from March through
August. In 1979, the sampling frequency was increased to every 4 to 5 days from March through August (Marine Research
Inc. and New England Power Company, 1981). After 1992, the sampling schedule was again changed so that sampling was
conducted from February through mid-May every 4 to 5 days.
Sampling techniques have remained generally the same since 1972 (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999).
Collection was completed by streaming 0.333 mm (0.01 in.) or 0.505 mm (0.02 in.) mesh, 60 cm (24 in.) diameter plankton
nets in the discharge streams of the units. Three samples were taken at each sampling event (PG&E National Energy Group,
2001). '
Differences in sampling gear mesh size made it necessary to standardize the entrainment data. Samples from the finer 0.333
mm (0.01 in.) mesh screens were adjusted by the facility to make the data comparable to the 0.505 mm (0.02 in.) mesh
screens, because this size mesh was used in the past to develop baywide winter flounder abundance estimates. An adjustment
factor derived from a mesh comparison study conducted at Brayton Point in 1994 (New England Power Company & Marine
Research Inc., 1995) was used to account for the extrusion of smaller larvae that would have occurred through the larger mesh
net.
To derive annual estimates, the facility standardized larval densities to the number of larvae per 100 m3 (26,000 gallons) of
water within each sampling day (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999). The facility extrapolated these larval
F3-10
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
densities to annual estimates using the reported monthly average circulating water volume. Since 1992,' estimates of larval.
winter flounder entrainment were determined separately for units 1, 2, and 3 combined and for unit 4 alone.
F3-4 ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT
There are a number of deficiencies in Brayton Point's time series of I&E data. First, I&E data collected over the past decade
or so probably underestimate potential I&E of Mount Hope Bay fish species, since the populations of most fish species in the
area are severely depressed (Gibson, 1996). In addition, Brayton Point's entrainment monitoring since 1985 has included
only winter flounder. Therefore, to estimate potential I&E at Brayton Point under current operating conditions for as many
species as possible, EPA used the most comprehensive historical time series of I&E data for Brayton Point (19y4-1983) and .
adjusted these rates for the facility's current operations.
EPA's adjustment of historical I&E rates to reflect current operations considered (1) the effectiveness of the angled screens
on Unit 4, which the facility reports reduce impingement by 55.4%, and (2) the higher, current intake flow resulting from the
conversion of Unit 4 to once through cooling in 1984 (see Chapter F2 for technical details). EPA applied a scaling factor of
1.142 to impingement and entrainment data to account for the higher current intake flow and a scaling factor of 0.931 to
impingement data to account for the angled screen. The flow scaling factor was based on the annualized mean operational
flow (Units 1-3) during 1974-1983 of 720 MOD, and the current annualized mean operational flow (Units 1-4) of 822 MOD.
The value 822 MGD for current annualized mean operational flow includes consideration of the fact that Unit 4 is operated in
piggyback mode during selected months. This flow estimate was derived from records of flow provided by the facility. The
use of the scaling factors increased the 1974-1983 entrainment rates by 14.2% and impingement rates by 6.4%.
EPA evaluated its estimates of annual I&E under current Brayton Point operations using the methods described 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
Fl. Table F3-2 displays EPA's estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) by species. Table F3-3 displays
those numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table F3-4 displays impingement of fishery species as yield lost to fisheries,
and Table F3-5 displays annual impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables F3-6 through F3-9 display the same
information for entrainment at Brayton Point.
F3-5 SUMMARY
Table F3-10 summarizes EPA's estimates of annual I&E impacts of Brayton Point's current operations on Mount Hope Bay
fish species. Results indicate that, on average, current operations may be expected to result in annual impingement of about
45,000 organisms. This represents 69,329 age 1 equivalents, 5,091 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 2,808 pounds of
production foregone each year. Note that impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are higher than raw losses (the
actual number of organisms of all life stages that are 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 sta'rt of year 1 by accounting for mortality during this interval (for details see Chapter A5).
Most impinged species are the forage fish hogchbker, Atlantic silverside, alewife, and bay anchovy, and the fishery species
silver hake and winter flounder. There have also been episodes of high impingement of Atlantic menhaden, reaching several
• hundred thousand losses within a few weeks (Phil Colarusso, EPA Region I, personal communication, February 2002). The
most recent event, in winter 2002, involved the impingement of over 25,000 Atlantic menhaden. Annual entrainment
resulting from current operations is estimated to average over 16.7 billion organisms, representing over 3.8 million age 1
equivalents, 70,410 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 69.5 million pounds of production foregone each year.
Most entrained organisms are the forage species American sand lance, bay anchovy, and seaboard goby and the fishery
species winter flounder. The estimated average loss of over a half million age 1 equivalent winter flounder each year is
thought to represent most of the local stock of winter flounder according to estimates by the Rhode Island Division of Fish
and Wildlife (Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1, personal communication, March 14, 2002).
The economic value of Brayton Point's I&E losses is discussed in Chapters F4 (benefits transfer) and F5 (habitat-based
replacement cost). The potential benefits of reducing these losses with the proposed rule are discussed in Chapter F6.
F3-11
-------
a
ce.
CD
a
,y
i_
o
JD
|2
U O
« t3
S «>
•o 5
£|
Weakfish j
c "3
yt"v
g 2
H55
'S
H
tj=
00 ^
-M
CO ffi
S^ 4_*
11
u
t
53
.&
I
pa
ij
0
11
53 >
CO
Atlantic
Henhaden
CJ
L.
m
CO
t— "
S
s
0)
S
VO
12
01
ON
CO
1
CO
o
m,
of
§
CM"
S
01
ON
in
oo
rt"
oo
CO
of
0
in
of
§
oo
«f
CO
!n
t- '
o
CO
p;
°X
S
CO
CO
ii
ro
01
CO
g
r-
oo
VO
00
vq.
oo
in
t—
ON
co.
oo
»n
CM
.00
0
1
ON
CM
CM
—
CM
CO
JO
£
O
1
00
o
£_
ON
CO,
S
CM
f-
ON
00
01
OO
ON
of
in
vo
ON
i
CM"
01
vo
••3-
CO
of
ss
01,
co"
r—
in
of
r—
01
vo,
CO
r—
t—
ON
01
00
•q-
0)
ON
CO
00
o
•"J,
1
of
CO
CM
CO
9
00
co"
VO
o
CM
oo
vo
CO
§
0
ON
co"
oo
t—
ON
oo
o
CO
CM
00
ON
CO
"-J.
oo
CO
CO
s
CO
oo
vo
00
vo"
c—
o
vo
CO
of
t-
oo
oo
in"
vo
••3-
vo
01
ON
ON
oo.
o
»n
—
VO
oo
r—
1
CM
C5
vo
VO
CO
00
s
00
•*"
1
1
s
CO,
CM
oo
0
oo
o.
o
oo
ON
1
00
CM
oo
t-
CO
in
0
o
oo
o
ON
CN,
o
CO
oo
ro
i
1
NO
CO
ON
CO
oo
ON
vo
oo
ON
Ol"
EM
CO
o
00
o.
0\
4
oo
co"
vo
vo
0
CO
CO
t—
VO
01
Ol
vo"
s
CO
o
co"
VO
CO*
ON
CM
vo
00
OS,
s
ON
01
of
V
ON
ol
t^
CO
CO
CM
o
vo
00
— <
-
ON
of
VO
vo
CO
co"
ON
VO
Ol"
o
CO
Ol
CO
oo
ON
a\
ON
o
CO
R.
s
ON
vo
CO
oo
o
o
ON
•*
o
r-
00
s
ON
vo"
NO
o
in
co"
s
VO
o
of
oo
ON
in"
c
cd
0)
Ol"
„.
....
oo
a
t-
CO
in
01
o
ON
ON
01
o
CO
vq
vo
vo
oo
VO
o
ON
CO
1
*5
ON
cf
oo
in
r-
o
ON
CO
CO
"^
>n
oo
CO*
00^
co"
oo
of
r-
o\
c^-
oo^
m"
m
CO
Ov
r-"
CO
CO
of
r-
s.
r-T
CO
1
1
s
J.
ON
oo
vo
VO
vo
g
oo
m
in
in
o
vo
in
in
vo
in
CM
r-"
oo
CM
Ol
3
vq.
ON
CO
CO
•*f
vo
CO
co"
0
Q
oo
o"
ON
ON
in
CM
CM
CO
VO
vo"
^-
5
r~
I
o\
oo
o
oo^
•§
vo
<*c
CO
Ol
s
r-"
o
VO
o"
CM
0
oo
ON
ON"
in
a
'
2S3
-------
o
cn
c
t
M
"a
c
1/1
UJ
Q.
UJ
m
i
m
u_
IS
t.
11
owpane
•o
11
& fL,
JS
a
CJ .**1
ti
11
I
11
ii
n
Rainbow
Smelt
® o
u
ll
W
R^JS
•<
Atlantic
Silverside
Atlantic
Menhaden
1
J_
£
in"
CN
^
s
oo
cs"
oo
oo
s
in
m
CO
CN
CS
CS
CO
O,
S
vp^
cn"
Os
cn
in
CS
vo
in^
1
t—
in"
1
OS
OS
o
cs
oo
a
o
cs"
SO
so
cn
i
m
o
rn
Os
00
S
cn
so
00
oo"
cs
8
s
cs"
00
cs"
in
OS
OS
OS
o
Os
O
O
SO
r-
cs
OS
00
m
cs
i
F-
00
oo
in
o
Os
CS
CS
r-
vo
m
cn
Os
oo"
vo
r-
cs
5
CN
in
»n
Os
in"
in
cs
in
cs"
o
o
c^F
SO
cs"
CS
Os
SO
OO
cs
y
5
in
1
SO
cs
so"
Os
a
cn
m"
in
Os
OO
cn
o
00
^"
oo
in
in
oo
00
Os
Os
oC
vo
vo
oo
cn
cn
§
cn
cs"
cs
oo
Os
cn
in
cn
oo
O
^-
cs
m
cs
oo"
00
vo
cn
oo
o
oo"
cn
Os
OO
Os
cn
in
«n
t-
cn
vo
oC
cn
o"
oo
in
i
cs"
OS
OS
SO
oo_
Os
in
oo
I
^
2
m
SO
?
o
Os
5-
m
cn
o
oo
so
so
so
so
OS
oo"
CN
O
in
OS
o
oo
OS
OS
t—
1 —
oo"
cs
cs"
t—
in
5
S
00
5
so
•3-
in
S
t—
s
cn
o
SO
in
so
cs
00
cs
o
Os"
SO
"3-
00
OS
Os
00
00
o
"^
o
so
oo
cn
p
cf
Os
oo
cn"
cs
Os
cn
S
cn
s
m"
Os
r-
vo"
3
§
cn
r— "
cs
00
Os
•3-
SO
CN,
O
OS
SO
00
CN
CO
CN
SO
in
cs
o
CN"
cs
m
CN
in
SO
CN
"*
O
O
cs
CO
cs
m"
o
o
CO
oo
Os
co"
o
cs
CO
OS
cs
CN
o
CN
CO
f-
CN
0
CO
2-
in
in"
oo
t^
oo
OS
oo
CS
o
so"
cn
os"
cn
cs
SO,
CN"
in
in
00
oo"
c
so
cn"
'OS
in
cs
cn
cs
S
cs
o
i
Os
00
s
cn
o
in
SO
CN
S
2-
o
5
1
J
'•?
oo
cn
vo
o
cn
Os
8
VO
in
.00
vo
cs
00
vo
cn"
vo.
so
cs"
cs
so
SO
in"
cs
so
so
00
00
cs
so
cn
in"
in,
in"
in
|
b
'i
cs
cn
r-
o
0
cs"
oo
in
cs
oo
cn
so
o
so
so"
OS
§
Os
in
cn
ob"
r-
cs
Os"
CS
cn
OS
SO
p
cn
in
o
so"
cn
Tfr
SO
OS_
cs
oo
OS
Os,
CS
".
CN
SO
Os
cs"
cs
•n"
in
oo
c-T
oo
in
c^
S
OS_
CS
OS
CS
m
CS
so"
CN
SO
•a-
in,
06"
00
1
S "
(S I"
if
§1
C W
II
*!
-Ml
si
8s
"s1.!
o. 51
§ 4-
^?
:t
•• °.
c
J
tD
X & % u
ll»-l
111*
ra ^a
51
al
~B o
II
"I
CS
*o 'o *n
^^<^.
-------
UJ
£
&
£
•§
ll
O i£
? ^
m >•
4- V\
a o
in -a
%> u
•rr w
"- M
**- 5
o .2
E u
- 5
ll
-o
2i
s
&
2
•S
c
1
c
jis
e
n.
*•*
S
£
£
|
»n
Weakfis
M
2
ra
H
GS
w
>
4^
F
CO
S
c
*
K
n
•S
ticMenha
B
^
f
V
"^
P
S
CO
5
§
•*
•
0
1
ON
s
s
01
vo
vo
c—
s
-
o
*
s
?2
I
a
vo
vo
5
oo
o
in
—
-
3
ON
O
CO
CO
VO
in
vo
T
01
CO
"1
00
—
a
01
oo
CO
ON
t-
s
oo
01
2
o
s
ON
CO
vo
-
oo
01
oo
ON
vo
vo
vo
01
Tl-
VO
oo
f-
co"
—
CO
ON
vo
ON
t—
ON
R
01
f-
01
f-
CO
CO
vo
CO
0
ON
01
ON
01
o
oo
ON
tn
01
01
vo
CO
oo
CO
m
t—
—
01
in
00
ON
CO
oo
oo
01
ON
3.
CO
-
o
vo
ON
01
00
ON
in
CO
oo
vo
ON
2
00
0
0
0
CO
00
ON
•3-
vo
TT
Ol
01
ll
§ »
s-s
2 Ji
•s
o w
aS'^
^feg'
°S «
u °° 2
li!
-------
I
CO
u_
w
s.
Table F3-5: EPA's Estimate of Annual Impingement at Brayton Point Derived from Historical Impingement Rates Adjusted for Current Operations and
Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Winter
Flounder
Window-
•' pane
5-S
^£
Weakfish
Threespine
Stickleback
an
o
1
-1
.&»
55 £
M
a £
w K
Rainbow
Smelt
Hogchoker
i
II
«
>j
£l
* S
Atlantic
Silverside
Atlantic
Menhaden
Alewife
L.
CB
£
•»
VO
vo
t^
o\
Os
5
-
o
•q-
-
oo
r-
CN
(N
•q-
o
M
00
•q-
f^
o\
VO
•*
y\
00
>n
TI-
m
•R
'3-
oo
-
t-
>o
-
m
t^
t-~
-
-
tN
TT
O
IN
0
•q-
V)
&
o\
m
vo
o\
0
0
o
V,
-
fG
Tl-
t—
tN
m
•*
o
o
-
r-
o\
«n
»o
VO
r^
OV
00
OS
f
0
o
0
>n
»n
O
o\
o\
TT
VO
S
°\
rn"
>n
3s
w->
„
-
s
tN
1
r~-
r^-
Ov
CN
9
r-
5
S
oo
ts
O
S
M-
CN
1
O
m
o\
o
o
t~
XI
r^
oo
oo
t-~
o\
S:
m
m
vo
CXI
m
t^i
r*.
CN
CN
\O
ro
O\
^
»n
(N
^H
.-<
(N
O
in
Tf
to
ON
r^
ON
S
i^
tn
oo
t~
en
oo
m
0
\D
cs
in
m
oo
tN
Tf
~
Q.
tN
>n
OS
O
m
o
OO
Os
r^
vo
m
'-
o
tN
0
0
2
-^•
n
CO
•3-
o
s
>n
-
VO
>n
vo
tN
Tj"
M
, ,
-
2
o
TJ-
tN
oo
Os
tN
rr
tN
VO
O
m
•*
O
OO
fn
-
tN
O
-
-
o
Os
tN
fl
OO
OS
S
00
vo
oo
r-
CO
-
oo
o
n
CN
t—
VO
n
S
o
vo
en
-
tN
>n
o
Tt-
in
CO
O
00
oo
oo
t~-
oo
•n
o
vo
0
00
CM
r-
ff
t-~
Tf
oo
0
CN
m
en
tn
VO
tN
0
S
o\
•n
VO
CN
00
oo
in
01
CN"
o
oo
vo_
1
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 1 1:51:19 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: brayton.projected ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/I.annual.prod.forg.brayton.projected.csv
-------
x*1
.S
111
o
fc
•o
I!
iS
I
CO
M-
O
ft)
&
O
I
to
u.
_6)
1
Seaboa
Rainbow
Smelt
ClD
O
K
Bay An
tic
Atlan
Silversi
Atl
Men
1
u>
I ..
1
: — : vo ' £2 '
: °i : "V : 5 :
0 : „- :
^ : : vo ': r_t • m
mm
mmi
<£™r^oo\i — :vo:i
i o I <>„ i . •
'
ivO:oo|a\;
t m t m : t-- •
2 • 0 • g :
! ± i 0 i
; ^^ i •• .
«
-.; oo : In :
t ; n i °. • r
O :
o '
'
: vo : u-i •
• m • o •
vo" ; o :
^ t :
•n : — • 2
i si |i
Jill! i_
2
o.
I
A
.•is:
-------
a
a
c
'5
3
T3
3
55
8
a
G)
O
x-\
V)
e ^
= c
a g
O
^ 0
« '•£
t. p
N <•;
-g S.
i o
n
a
Q.
B
^.
pB
U
PL,
'' jg "
*
Weakfish
o jai
s «
O..C
si
-2?
Sg
3
a
H
a-
CS
K
fe
"
S
u
cs
>
g
rn^
in^
O%
*n
vo'
oo
Os
§
0
o
c~
in
o
30,634,273
o
i>
m
OS
TT
CS
in
§
•q-
o
s
OS
O
r^i
in"
cs
oo
CTs"
in
00
in
vo
m
vo
1^
t-~
n
ocT
t^1
r-J
8
00
o
00
o
oo
Os
VO
o
if>
^
59,283,063
00
TT
f^
vo
vo
•^r
tN
0
in
o
r-^1
in
c-f
vo
in
r--,
in"
~*
t^
vo
•^
t^-
r*-
^
r^
CO
-------
1
111
S
o
1
UJ
§
0
•
Cu
1
fa
i
0
s
«O
m
era
-o
a
VI
o
I
§
1
|-
H-
-o
•3
"C^
1
1
L.
&
.0 £
1 J
.*» ^
*$
£ ft
o UJ
H- *-*
"O W
?i
*o w
O. *>
F
t
J
t.
n>
•5
s
5
"fe
4-
a
£
V)
UJ
S
CJ
3
12
S -a
~ a
jl
•^
.2 *
? S
A
P
*Q. W
•C "3
H w
&c
1
u a>
II
|l
1
5 i
Ij
.
i§ *S
133 8
o 4J
.s 2
** C/3
." S
R •&
~ S
. . .. .'?.
ill
II
ra
#
cs
r>
cs
00
m
cs
o
en
NO
in
o
en
en
oo
cT
en
0
ON
m
en
ON
S.
o
8
o"
cs
0
oo
0
s
m"
n
o
oo
'S
of
vo
vo
oo
oC
en
ON
00
oo"
s
•M-
ON
cs
ON"
ON
en
S"
oo"
oo
vo
t-*
1
ON
ON
r~
—
0
NO
Q
5
1
Ox
CO*
r-
~
cs
vo"
1
0
en
^
oo
in
n
00
en
en
ON
00
ON
oo
oo
o
en
cs"
cs
ON
ON
ON"
ON
O
NO
**l
es"
in^
ON
1
O
ft) 1>
£ |5
II
cs 0.
^ 0
valent.sum
sums.brayl
g, c
» $
I'l
•- w
•o e--
u o
.§,?
If
0 0.
t: o
g "i
TO QJ
A^ xi
ta o
OT Q
5) Jo
. o .S
le collecte
07 MST 2(
Jrayton_Sc
0 — *3
C m 2
s"~ ?
II!
-------
a
o
O M
•4- "O
.« s:
I o
T3 ft)
> 0
t. -C
ft) V)
£> LL
E °
<£ +•
°- M
f ^
•|"5
ft- 8
« T3
ft) ft)
« g
n. £
>.*
H- S
o .2
= 1
£ .SS.
.= O
O
JL. •£:
*~ f3
QJ |-
— 3
3
ft) M
C "^
UJ ft)
+-
_w a
? f
UJ c
ft)
03 §
i .£
a. i-
•§ m
a>
ter Flounc
.S
OJ
i
c
13
^
2
f-
f
CS
'n>
•«
~
1
^
1
1
"5
«
B
B
E
1
CS
'4J
2
Os
cs"
cs
Os
t—
O
o
S
i
S
o
cs"
VO
o
VO
Os
cs
Os"
o
*
.n
s
in"
S
1
S
o
00.
en
o
o
-
~
g
oo
cs
00
?
0
o
o
en
r^
v-t
cs
o
en
•*
oo
o"
"*
o
2
o
oo
o
o
•*"
oo
cS
S
0
0
o
Tl-
en
OS
f-
OS
Os
00
CS
o"
VO
CS
OS
B
o
Os~
O
o
OS
OS
O
O
oo
OS
Os.
OS
oo
00
0
OS
*
oo
oo
ON
oo
2-
cs
VO
00
cs
VO
cs
cs
cs
CS
oo
Os
VO
o
M-
00
cs
VO
VO
vo"
o
1
in
oo
1
00
VO
en
en
en
>n
vo
VO
en
cs.
C
CS
Os_
cs"
.CS
o
00
en"
0
o
o
oo
I
c
is
in
cs
cs.
B
o
00,.
m
"*
g
I
»n
Maximurr
X)
»n
o\
m
m
oo
oo
oo"
oo
CO
I
Q
o
1
»o
vo
cs
vo"
§
vo
S
m
i— t
vo
»n
VO
m
vo
in
of
"is
z
<6 Q
-2 §
.a ff
^•^
Q -d
•• W
Is
•O -O
0>
11
3 O
S $
••- o
CN C
32 CS c/3
l=i
Q> '~~l ™
|*(£ a
o & &;
-------
•0
o
C
.0
I
CJ
4-
c
eg
a
«t-
•o
1
T?
1
C
|
t T3
LU e
•n 8
.y
n e)
± §
S °*
W O
i- tj
jO "O
o
•fe &.
0 Ul
2 «
CQ k.
-*-
1
C
2
"a
ej
E
•ft
UJ
&
o»
CO
3
|2
U
V* O
« -o
S s
*" ta
Window-
pane
CD J-
i «
..r^. ^i
Weakflsh
0) .g
.c •—
H co
g>
|
55 P*
jl-§
§•'
u
1 Jl
tj
&•
«!
«•§
_s ai
Atlantic
ienhaden
«5
c
•<
< "?
S
£
o
OS
00
«n
VI
r—
CN
vo"
V)
o
r—
vo
O
2
n-
OS
in
S
o
vo
oo
00
o
VI
en
en"
o
m
en
S
^
OS
o
t-.
p
o
oo
3
1/1
§
- oo
ON
CO
S
vo
oo
SO.
0
en
CN"
o
CN
00
OS
oo"
°
o
a
CN
VI
O
oo"
t—
OS
vo"
CN
—
OO
vo
en
CN
CN
§
o
Os
i
R
CN
00
00
s-
VO
0
0
o
2
VO
o
vo,
VO
CN"
o
s
vo
od"
v>
o
en
0
CN
en
O^
CN
00
vo
CN
VO
i
0
vo
•sr
CN
O
Of
o
o
VO
oo"
oo
o
i
Os.
CN
en
en
0
Os
r-
o
o
vo
o
00_
en"
VO
en
i
—
Os
•tf
1
g
r—
t~-
Os
S
Os
vb"
Os
VO
vo"
vo
en
00
CN
vo
s
o"
C--
en
o
§
£
Os
OO
CN
o
VI
o
OS
CN
oo
r-
OS
,Os
OS
O
—
f-
o
m
CN"
VI
S
OO
co^
oo
O\
OO
i
CO
o"
vo
CN
CO
CN
06"
co^
o
r-
CN
oo
CN
CN
OO
r-
0
5
o
s
CN"
vo
oo"
in
§
vo
o
CN"
vo
en"
r-
en
en"
oo
o
Os_
en"
o
OS
OS
^
OS
CN
en
en
en,
of
CN
o
4,349,676
0
OS
VO
o
o\
o
o"
o
1
o
Os
r-
CN"
•5)-
en
00
oT
Os
O
in
oo"
c^
—
s
0
in
CO
oo
o
g
Os
CN
oo"
00
VO
— •
en
t-"
CN
0
vo
oo
en"
en
0
en
CN
o
CN
-
o
00
1
cs
en
CN1"
f
CN"
oo
0,
vo"
o
en"
r-
oo"
o
oo
Os
P
V,
Os
VI
in
CN
CN_
en
m
vo
§
C—
CN"
00
m
oo
O
CO
00
CO
m
O
oo
CO
CO
r--
oo
vo
s
oo"
s
— '
en
vo
CN
>n
o
•q-
S
CN
OO
§
Os"
t--
en
*-*
en
vo
vo
o"
en
CN
oo
OS
I
0
s
in
in
m
o
CN
en
o
vo,
en
Os
oo,
Os"
U-l
en
CN
vo
en"
vo
CN
vo
o_
o
in
Os
en
vo
vo
^
en
00
vo
o"
00
en
T:r
oo
CN
VO
o'
oo
CN
OO
t-~
o
VO
2
a
oo
o
'
VO
vo
r-
in,
00
oo
o
oo
o
in
—
oo
••a-
oo"
00
vo
vo"
V)
p.
oo
§
Os
Os"
en
—
o
s
Os
0
O
0
en
CN
o
VI
CN
t—
O
vo
o
o
o
en
en
CN"
oo
CN
I—
O
in
T.
en"
vo
in
0
E
|
ON
vo
00
r-
CN
oo"
CO
CO
CO
4,349,676
.....
oo
CN
s
S3
•is
in
vo
vo
CN"
1
vo
CO
CO
00
ON"
ON
CO
CN
vo
CO*
r-
vo
CN
S
s"
en
CN
CN"
CN
1 '
S.
oo"
CN
CN"
6
S
*
TO '
CO
in"
(N
CO
fN
CO
o
vo
CO
CN
co^
oo
oo
oo
t--
oo
oo
5
VO
en
CN
vo
00
VS
CN
s
OS
2
en"
VO
o
in
5
-C
en
vo
g
CN
vo"
OX
r-
CN"
S
Q
CO
VI
o
00_
Os
CN"
CN
ON
CO
vo"
o
oo
CN
O
CO
ON
vo
CO
CO
vo
CO
ON
CO
C^
*— «
vo
5"
o
VO
00
o
oo
o.
oo
oo
en
00
"
5
s
vT
S
$
thname.
OH
*"!
P
'ta
G
«
'S
2'
o.
o
1"
1
la
sS
"3
I
CN
£ CN
tu r"1
o "^
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
Value of I&E'Losses at the Brayt
Point Station Based on Benefits
Transfer Techniques •
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic losses that are associated with I&E at the
Brayton Point Station using benefits transfer techniques.
Section F4-1 provides an overview of the valuation
approach, Section F4-2 discusses the value of losses to
recreational fisheries, Section F4-3 discusses the value of
commercial fishery losses, Section F4-4 discusses values
of forage losses, Section F4-5 discusses nonuse values,
and Section F4-6 summarizes benefit transfer results.
F4-1 OVERVIEW OF VALUATION
APPROACH
x
I&E at Brayton Point affect recreational and commercial
fisheries as well as forage species that contribute to the
biomassof fishery species. EPA evaluated all these
species groups to capture the total economic impact of
I&E at Brayton Point.
CHAPTEPTCONTENTS ~
^^
-Trrr?:^^
"^
;"i?;^^
y Economic: Value of Average Annual Commercial :Eishery-;
ic^
'-
,
:F4-6 ^; "^$mmr^^fMe^^
~
Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer
methods, applying results from nonmarket valuation
studies. Commercial fishery impacts are based on
commodity prices for the individual species. The
economic value 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 biomass production of forage fish resulting from I&E losses
and the consequential 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.
Many of the I&E-impacted fish species at Brayton Point are harvested both recreationally 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 catch. 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 I&E-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 F4-1.
F4-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies,'Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
Table F4-1: Percentages of Total Impacts in the Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
of Selected Species at Brayton Point Station
Fish Species
Atlantic menhaden
Butterfish
Rainbow Smelt
Silver Hake
Tautog
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Scup'
Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery
0
0
0
0
83
95
20
0
8
45
Percent Impacts to
Commercial Fishery
100
100
100
100
17
5
80
100
92
55
WedFeb 13 13:11:19 MST2002; TableA:Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and
recreational fisheries of selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; Pathname:
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableA.Perc.of
total.impacts.brayton.projected.csv
As discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document, the yield estimates in Chapter F3 represent the total pounds of
foregone yield for both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this
chapter, Table F4-1 partitions total yield 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 offish. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvestable fish of each species.
Table F4-2 shows these conversions for the impingement data presented in Section F3-4 of Chapter F3 and Table F4-3
displays the conversions for entrainment data. Note that the numbers of foregone recreational fish harvested are typically
lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of harvest of most fish is greater than age 1.
Table F4-2: Summary of Brayton Point's Mean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species
Species
Atlantic
menhaden
Butterfish
Rainbow smelt
Silver hake
Tautog
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Impingement
Count (#)
2,076
.,:
176
870
4,900
1,131
503
1,723
1,094
9,048
21,521
Agel
Equivalents
(#)
2,623
278
1,278
5,773
1,230
600
2,297
1,320
13,601
28,999
Total Catch
(#)
851
25
20
848
127
124
79
582
867
3,522
Total Yield
Ob)
308
7
2
2,196
548
419
25
122
1,465
5,091
Commercial
Catch (#)
851
25
20
848
22
6
63
582
798
3,214
Commercial
Yield (lb)
308
7
2
2,196
93 .
21
20
122
1,347
4,116
Recreational
Catch (#)
0
0
0
0
105
118
16
0
69
308
Recreational
Yield (Tib)
I ' °
0
0 •
0
455
398
: 5
0
117
975
F4-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
Table F4-3: Summary of Brayton Point's Mean Annual Entrapment of Fishery Species
Species
Atlantic
menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Scup
Silver hake
Tautog
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Entrainment
Count (#)
625,117,471
3,340,371
2,851,071
43,450
3,953,743,774
66,474,092
55,050
368,327,045
795,883,100
5,815,835,424
Age 1
Equivalents
(#)
10,523
49,506
509
2
30,149
492
0
7,369
507,114
605,664 .
Total Catch
(#)
3,414
766
46
0
3,112
102
0
3,246
32,331
43,016
Total Yield
Ob)
1,236
56
54
1
13,433
343
0
683
54,605
70,410
Commercial
Cateh (#)
3,414
766
25
0
529
5
0
3,246
29,745
37,730
Commercial
Yield Ob)
1,236
56
29
1
2,284
17
0
683
50,237
54,542
Recreational
Catch (#)
0
0 ,
21
0
2,583
97
' 0
0
2,587
5,287
Recreational
Yield Ob)
0
0
24
0
11,149
326
.0
0
4,368
15,868
F4-2 ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL LOSSES TO RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
RESULTING FROM I&E AT BRAYTON POINT STATION
F4-2.1 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay 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." In applying this literature to
value I&E impacts, EPA focused on changes in 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 F4-4 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to Mt, Hope Bay
fisheries in geographic area and relevant species.
Table F4-4: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
, Authors
McConnell and Strand
(1994)
Hicks etal. (1999)
Agnello(1989)
Tudor etal. (2002)'
Study Location and Year
Mid- and south Atlantic coast,
anglers targeting specific
species, 1988
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994
Atlantic coast, 1981 •
Delaware Estuary, 1994-98
i Item Valued
j Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
1 trip, values used are for NYa
| Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
itrip, from historical catch rates at
jail sites, weighted average of MA
jandRI
jMean value per fish caught,
!for the Atlantic coast11
•Willingness to pay for an
1 additional fish caught per trip
I Value Estimate ($2000)
j Small game fish
! Bottom fish
j Flatfish
| Small game fish
•Bottom fish
[Flatfish
\ Weakfish
i Bottom fish (weakfish)
! Small game fish (striped bass)
JFlatfish (flounder)
S9.54
$2.54.
$5.35
$3.61
$2.40
$5.04
• $2.72
$11.50
$18.14
$3.92
" 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. DOI, 1997), the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 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.
b These values were reported as "consumer surplus for an 20 percent increase in catch rate for all fish." The average catch rate was 4.95
fish per trip, therefore a 20 percent increase in catch is equivalent to 1 more fish.
c Tudor et al. (2002) refers to this document; see Chapter B-5.
F4-3
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline IAE Losses
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 and the southernmost being eastern Florida. The New York values are used here, as they are the closest
geographically to Brayton Point Station. In this model they specified four categories offish: small gamefish (e.g., striped
bass), flatfish (e.g., flounder), bottomfish (e.g., weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, perch), and big gamefish (e:g., shark). For
each state and fish category, they estimated per angler values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates.
Hicks etal. (1999) used the same methodology as McConnell and Strand (1994) but estimated values for a day of fishing and
an increase in catch rates for the Atlantic states from Virginia north to Maine. Their estimates were generally lower than
those of McConnell and Strand (1994) and may serve as a lower bound for the values offish.
Agnello (1989) estimated one value for increased weakfish catch rates in all the Atlantic states. This study is useful because it
values weakfish specifically, but the area considered ranges from Florida to Maine. This greater area may differ from Mount
Hope Bay, where weakfish is a relatively important recreational species.
Tudor et al. (2002; See chapter B-5 of this document) applied a random utility model (RUM) to the recreational fishery
impacts associated with I&E in the Delaware transitional estuary. The methods, data, and results of the Tudor et al. (2002;
See chapter B-5 of this document) study are discussed in greater detail in Chapters A-10 and B-5 of this document. The
willingness to pay (WTP) estimates derived by this study were not available at the time that the benefits transfer approach was
applied to this case study, therefore the results developed below do not reflect these estimated values. However, trie Tudor et
al. (2002; See chapter B-5 of this document) values are consistent with- and for bottom fish and small game fish, somewhat
higher than — the other values cited from the literature and used in this benefits transfer analysis. The Tudor et al. values will
be included in subsequent updates of this case study analysis.
F4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from I&E at
Brayton Point Station
EPA estimated the average annual economic value of Brayton Point I&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the I&E
estimates presented in Tables F4-2 and F4-3 and the economic values presented in Table F4-4. Since none of the studies in
Table F4-4 consider fishing in Mount Hope Bay directly, EPA established a lower and upper value for each impacted
recreational species to estimate a unit value for recreational landings. Results are displayed in Tables F4-5 and F4-6, for •
impingement and entrainment, respectively. The estimated total losses to the recreational fisheries range from $1,100 to
SI ,700 for impingement per year, and from $22,600 to $38,800 annually for entrainment.
Table F4-5: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Brayton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Impingement Data in Table F4-2
Species
Tautog
Weakfish
White perch
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# offish)
105
118
16
69
308
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$3.61
$2.40
$2.40
$5.04
High
$9.54
$2.72
$2.54
$5.35
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
$380
$289
$38
$350
$1,056
High
$1,005,
$321
$40
$371
$1,737
Wed Feb 13 13:11:28 MST2002; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: I
Pathname: P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableB.rec.losses.brayton.projected.I.csy
F4-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
Table F4-6: Average Annual Entrapment of Recreational Fishery Species at Brayton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Entrainment Data in Table F4-3
Species
Scup
Tautog
Weakfish
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entrainment
(number of fish)
20
2,583
97
2,586
5,287
Recreational Value/Fish
Xow
$2.40
$3.61
$2.40
S5.04
High
$2.54
$9.54
$2.72
$5.35
Annual Loss in Recreational
Value from Entrainment ($2000)
Low
$49
$9,313
$237
$13,041
$22,641
High
$52
$24,642
$263
$13,838
$38,794
Wed Feb 13 13:11:34 MST 2002; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: E
Pathname: P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/SGodes/tables.output.projected01/TableB.rec.losses.brayton.projected.E.csv
F4-3 ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMERCIAL FISHERY LOSSES
RESULTING FROM IAE AT BRAYTON POINT STATION
F4-3.1 Average Annual !<&E Losses of Commercial Yield at Brayton Point and
Economic Value of Losses
I&E losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables F4-2 (for impingement) and F4-3 (for entrainment) based on
the commercial and recreational splits listed in Table F4-1. EPA estimates of the economic value of these losses are
displayed in Tables F4-7 and F4-8 for impingement and entrainment, respectively. Market values per pound are listed as well
as the total market losses experienced by the commercial fishery. Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward
because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market price. The estimates of market loss to commercial fisheries
are $2,700 for impingement per year, and $69,300 annually for entrainment.
Table F4-7: Average Annual Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Brayton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Impingement Data in Table F4-2
Species
Butterfish
Atlantic menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Silver hake
Tautog
Weakfish'
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch from
Impingement
Ob of fish)
7
308
1
2,196
93
21
20
122
1,347
4,116
Commercial Value
Ob offish)
$0.66
$0.04
$0.19
$0.33
$0.71
$0.75
$1.39
$0.56
$134
Wed Feb 13 13:1 1:29 MST 2002; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant
Pathname: P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableC.comm.los
Annual Loss in
Commercial Value from
Impingement ($2000)
' . _ $5
$14
. $0
$714
$66
$16
$28
$68
$1,803
' $2,713
brayton.projected; type: I
ses.brayton.projected.I.csv
F4-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
Table F4-8: Average "Annual Entrainment of Commercial Fishery Species at Brayton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Entrainment Data in Table F4-3
Species
Atlantic menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Scup
Silver hake
Tautog
Weakfish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch from
Entrainment
(lb of fish)
1,236
56
29
1
2,284
17
683
50,237
54,542
Commercial Value
(Ib of fish)
$0.04
$0.19
$0.81
$0.33
$0.71
$0.75
$0.56
$1.34
Annual Loss in
Commercial Value from
Entrainment
($2000)
$55
$11
$24
$0
$1,614 i
$13 •
$382 ,
$67,222
$69,321
Wed Feb 13 13:11:34 MST 2002; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: E
Pathname: P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableC.comm.losses.brayton.projected.E.csv
'F4-3.2 Economic Surplus Impacts of Commercial Landings Losses
EPA expressed changes to commercial activity thus far as changes from dockside market landings. However, to determine
the total impact on economic surplus from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA determined the losses experienced by
producers 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
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, 1985) 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 gross 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 watermen 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 to 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 (Norton 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.
F4-6
_
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
Applying this method, estimates of the economic loss to commercial fisheries resulting from I&E at Brayton Point Station
ranges from $4,900 to $8,600 per year for impingement and from $ 126,000 to $220,600 per year for entrainment.
F4-4 ECONOMIC VALUE OF FORASE FISH LOSSES
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationally fished. For the purposes in this study, EPA referred to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species and are important components of aquatic
food webs. Table F4-9 summarizes impingement losses of forage species at Brayton Point Station and Table F4-10
summaries entrainment losses. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two alternative
valuation methods.
Table F4-9: Summary of Brayton Point's Mean Annual Impingement of Forage Species
Species
Alewife
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
Striped killifish
Threespine stickleback
Total
Impingement Count (#)
5,998
4,784
3,350
6,984
418
1,697
23,231
Age 1 Equivalents (#)
8,855
9,113
6,090
12,968
572
2,732
40,330
Production Forgone
Ob)
168
2
1
6
4
1
•""isi
Table F4-10: Summary of Brayton Point's Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Species
Species
Alewife
American sand lance
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
Seaboard goby
Threespine stickleback
Total
Entrainment Count (#)
1,076,500
84,520,243
18,759,840
10,214,225,528
106,615,903
462,170,823
16,750
10,887,385,587
Age 1 Equivalents (#)
460
453,236
7,999
1,231,050
34,148
1,513,836
653
3,241,381
Production Foregone
Ob)
584
1,737
8,748
1,501,808
81,576
894
28
1,595,375
Replacement cost of fish
The replacement value offish can be used in several instances. 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 data to allow calculation of 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&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table F4-11 displays the replacement costs of two of the forage fish species known to be impinged or
entrained at Brayton Point. The costs 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. The AFS (1993) estimates these costs at approximately
F4-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
$ 1.13 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.
Table F4-11 also presents the computed values of the annual average forage replacement cost losses. The value of the losses
of forage species using the replacement cost method is $400 per year for impingement and $17,900 per year for entrainment.
Table F4-11: Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species at Brayton Point Station
Species
Alewife
American sand lance
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
Seaboard goby
Striped killifish
Threespine stickleback
Total
Hatchery Costs*
($/lb)
0.34"
0.34b
0.34"
$3.51
0.34"
0.34"
0.34"
$2.58
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses ($2000)
Impingement
$133
$0
$64
$79
$50
$0
$7
$65
$398
Entrainment
$7
$591
$56 ;
$16,004
$131
$i,055
$0
$15 :
$17,860
' Values are from AFS (1993). These values were inflated to 2000$ from 1989$, 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. :
Wed Feb 13 13:11:29 MST 2002; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.brayton.projected.I.csv
Production foregone value of forage fish .
This approach considers the foregone production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from I&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.
Results for impingement of forage species at Brayton Point range from $73 to $204, and results for entrainment range from
§3,400 to $4,700 per year (Table F4-12). The values listed are obtained by converting the forage species into species that
may be commercially or recreationally valued.
Table F4-12: Mean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Selected Fishery Species Resulting
From Entrainment of Forage Species at Brayton Point Station Based on the Entrainment Data in
Table F4-10
Species
Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value from
Entrainment of Forage Species (S2000)
Atlantic menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Scup
Silver hake
Tautog
Weakfish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Low
$1
$19
$3,149
$13
$1
$1
$16
$182
$3,381
High
$1
$33
$4,352
$23 ;
$2
$1 j - •
$27
$307
$4,747 :
Wed Feb 13 13:11:35 MST 2002; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.brayton.projected.E.csv
F4-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
F4-5 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 (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 for further discussion), EPA estimated nonuse values for baseline losses at Brayton to range from $500 to $900
per year for impingement and from $ 11,300 to $ 19,400 per year for entrainment. .
F4-6 SUMMARY OF MEAN ANNUAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF I&E AT BRAYTON POINT
STATION
Table F4-13 summarizes the economic values associated with mean annual I&E at Brayton Point Station. Total impacts range
from $6,500 to $11,600 per year for impingement and from $163,400 to $296,600 per year for entrainment.
Table F4-13: Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual I&E at Brayton Point Station ($2000)
Commercial: Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market)
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Production Foregone
Replacement
Total (Com + Rec + Nonuse + Forage)3
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
$4,934
$8,634
$1,056
$1,737
$528
$869
$73
$204
$398
$6,591
$11,637
Entrainment .
$126,039
$220,568
$22,641
$38,794
$11,320
$19,397
$3,381
$4,747
$17,860
$163,382
$296,620
Total
$130,973
$229,202
$23,697
$40,531
$11,849
$20,266
$3,381
$4,747
$18,257
$169,899
$308,257
" In calculating the total low values, the lower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement)
was used and to calculate the total high values, the higher of the two forage valuation methods was used.
Wed Feb 13 13:11:36 MST 2002; TableE.summary; Plant: brayton.projected; Pathname:
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableE.summary.brayton.projected.csv
F4-9
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
EPA applied the habitat replacement cost (HRC) method,
as described in Chapter Al 1 of Part A of this document, to
value the average annual losses to impingement and
entrainment (I&E) at the Brayton Point Station (Brayton
Point) cooling water intake structure. To summarize, the
HRC method identifies the habitat restoration actions that
are most effective at replacing the species that suffer I&E
losses at a CWIS. Then, the HRC method determines the
amount of each restoration action that is required to offset
fully the I&E losses. Finally, the HRC method estimates
the cost of implementing the restoration actions, and uses
this cost as a proxy for the value of the I&E losses. Thus,
the HRC valuation method is based on the estimated cost
to replace the organisms lost because of I&E, where the
replacement is achieved through improvement or
replacement of the habitat upon which the lost organisms
depend. The HRC method produces an estimated
annualized total value of the I&E losses at Brayton Point
of $28.3 million, which is the cost of replacing the
impinged and entrained organisms through the restoration
of submerged aquatic vegetation (S AV), restoration of
tidal wetlands, and installation offish passageways and
monitoring to quantify the productivity of these habitats
(values to increase species production through
construction of artificial reefs is not included in this
value).
The HRC method is a supply-side approach for valuing
I&E losses in contrastto the more typically used demand-
side valuation approaches (e.g., commercial and
recreational fishing impacts valuations discussed in
Chapter A9 of Part A of this document). An advantage of
the HRC method is that it can address, and value, losses
for all species, including those lacking a recreational or
commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC method explicitly recognizes and captures the
fundamental ecological relationships between those
species with I&E losses at a facility and their surrounding
environment, in contrast to traditional replacement cost
methods such as fish stocking.
CHAPTER CONTENTS
,
-F5-2 Step -2:-Identify-Habitat-Requirements-.--.-
-F-5-3
Identified-Habitat Restoration-Altematives-T^^^
rQNM^
Production for the Prioritized Habitat Restoration
___—-=F5-5S 1—.Estimates -of Increased -Age -1 -Fish -—--——- -
__4-i_i^-:FS^2--Bstimatesof;Increased-Age4-Fish
Restoration ."...:.................... F5-13
lEjstunates'^^^^^^j^sYF^tr^"^.','^-'.-.'.
-^Productionfrom Artifieial-Reef-r -—-•---
^F5-5;4~^EstimatesoHncreased Species-Production -
.. --P-—-: ftgjn iiistal jed^FffifPassageways;ff ^^'^
f^5'S;:^Estimates ^of-Remaining:Lbsses";«^Age ;1-
-i,_,T--___._v--:i4_.ah.identified-HabitatRestpratioh-- - •> - — -
5^6 ^•^^ep^iriealirig.Preferr^lfestoration;»:-;-• -v-~
.i^:-~:4F5^^1-^-v;SuljnKa:gedrAquatic^Vegetotiefi"-4:~~r-:^--" --
^^ -—;-----^--—-'r—Scaling '~.~-^T; '.Vl%V~.*vl l^.-ri;""!. ^C"."nT F5-25
t,;v>?F5-6.2 - '•-•Tidal Wetlands Scaling ^:.-^:^,^.- F5-26
'F5-73;_ ... _
•:->-i -•,.--.'-PF5-7-.K • XJiiit Gosts;of S^VRestoration ^^.-^::
:>- + -.A :-F5i7;2;: :t)nitCostspf Tidal: Wetland {~::: ": '
:• :r^_i; A: F5-7;4- -Costs ofAnadronious Fish Passageway
F5-8;-
F5-9" '^ Cdhclusions ".
EPA used published data wherever possible to apply the HRC method to the I&E losses at Brayton Point. If published data
were lacking, EPA used unpublished data from knowledgeable resource experts. In some cases, EPA used (and documented)
the best professional judgment of these experts to apply reasonable assumptions to their data. In these cases, EPA applied
> = F5-6.4 : : Anadronlous Fish Passage Scaling i ,;.:.. F5-26
"
F5-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
cost-reducing assumptions, but not beyond the range of values that experts were willing to support as reasonable. In other
words, this HRC valuation seeks the cost of what knowledgeable resource experts consider to be the minimum amount of
restoration necessary to offset I&E losses at Brayton Point.
Cost-reducing assumptions are identified throughout this chapter and were incorporated extensively. Most significantly, the
HRC valuation estimates for the I&E losses at Brayton Point implicitly assumes that the scale of restoration determined for
species for which data were available are sufficient to fully offset the losses for species for which no data was identified. To
the degree this assumption is inaccurate, the results incorporate a downward bias.
Sections F5-1 through F5-8 present the information, methods, assumptions, and conclusions that were used to complete the
HRC valuation of the I&E losses at Brayton Point following the eight steps described in Chapter Al 1 of Part A of this
document. Section F5-8 also presents additional detail on the valuation of the I&E losses at Brayton Point, providing separate
annualized valuation estimates for the aquatic organisms lost to impingement and for those lost to entrainment.
F5-1 STEP 1: QUANTIFY !<&E LOSSES
Brayton Point has reported I&E losses of millions of aquatic organisms each year since it began using a once-through CWIS.
EPA evaluated all species known to be impinged and entrained by Brayton Point, including commercial, recreational, and
forage fish species, based on information provided in facility I&E monitoring reports and detailed in Chapter F3.
Of those species, EPA incorporated the 18 that had losses greater than 0.1 percent of the total impingement or total
entrainment losses at the facility (the criterion for inclusion in the Equivalent Adult Model [EAM]) into the HRC analysis.
The average annual age 1 equivalent losses from I&E at Brayton Point for these 18 species from 1974 to 1983, adjusted for
current operations, calculated by the EAM (see Chapter F3 for additional descriptions of source data and calculation of the
age 1 equivalents) are presented in Table F5-1, in order of decreasing mean annual I&E losses (this information is also
presented in Tables F3-3 and F3-7 for impingement and entrainment losses respectively).
Table F5-1: Mean Annual Age 1 Equivalent I&E Losses of Fishes at Brayton Point, '
1974-1983 Adjusted for Current Operations
Species
Seaboard goby
Bay anchovy
Winter flounder
American sand lance
Rainbow smelt
Hogchoker
Tautog
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic menhaden
Alcwife
Windowpane
Silver hake
Threespine stickleback
•White perch
Wcakfish
Striped killifish
Scup
Buttcrfish
Total age 1 eq. losses
Impingement
0
6,090
13,601
0
1,278
12,968
1,230
9,113
2,623
8,855
1,320
5,773
2,732
2,297
600
572
0
278
69,330
Entrainment
1,513,836
1,231,050
507,114
453,236
49,506
34,148
30,149
7,999
10,523
460
7,369
2
653
0
492
0
509
0
3,847,046
Total
1,513,836
1,237,140
520,715
453,236r
50,784 ;
47,116
31,379 i
17,112 ;
13,146 ;
-9,315 :
8,689
5,775
3,385
2,297
1,092 ;
572
509
278 ;
3,916,376 .
F5-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-2 STEP 2: IDENTIFY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Determining the best course of action for restoring habitat to offset losses of species to I&E requires understanding the
specific habitat requirements for each species. Habitat requirements for fish may include physical habitat needs such as
substrate types and geographic locations as well as water quality needs and food sources. Chapter F3, Section F3-2, provides
a detailed summary of the habitat components needed for the critical lifestages of several of the species from among those
with high average annual I&E losses at Brayton Point.
F5-3 STEP 3: IDENTIFY POTENTIAL HABITAT RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES TO
OFFSET I<£E LOSSES
Local experts identified six types of projects that could be used near Brayton Point to restore the same species offish and
aquatic organisms lost to I&E at Brayton Point:
*• restore submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
> restore tidal wetlands
* create artificial reefs
> improve anadromous fish passage
> improve water quality beyond current regulatory requirements
*• reduce fishing pressures beyond current regulatory requirements.
Of the project categories listed above, the restoration of SAV and tidal wetlands, the creation of artificial reefs and the
improvement of anadromous fish passages provides benefits to the aquatic community that can be quantified in this HRC
valuation and are described below.
Restore submerged aquatic vegetation
Submerged aquatic vegetation provides vital habitat for a number of aquatic organisms. Eelgrass is the dominant species of
SAV along the coasts of New England. It is an underwater flowering plant that is found in brackish and near-shore marine
waters (Figure F5-1). Eelgrass can form large meadows or small separate beds that range in size from many acres to just 1 m
across (Save The Bay, 2001). '
SAV restoration involves transplanting eelgrass shoots and/or seeds into areas that can support their growth. Site selection is
based on historical distribution, wave action, light availability, sediment type, and nutrient loading. Improving water quality
and clarity, reducing nutrient levels, and restricting dredging may all be necessary to promote sustainable eelgrass beds.
Protecting existing SAV beds is a priority in many communities (Save The Bay, 2001).
SAV provides several ecological services to the environment. For example, eelgrass has a high rate of leaf growth and
provides support for many aquatic organisms as shelter, spawning, and nursery habitat. SAV is also a food source for
herbivorous organisms. The roots of SAV also provide stability to the bottom sediments, thus decreasing erosion and
resuspension of sediments into the water column (Thayer et al., 1997). Dense SAV provides shelter for small and juvenile
fishes and invertebrates from predators. Small prey can hide deep within the SAV canopy, and some prey species use the
SAV as camouflage (Thayer et al., 1997). Species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point that use SAV beds during early
life stages include Atlantic menhaden, tautog, and rainbow smelt (Laney, 1997).
Restore tidal wetlands
Tidal wetlands (Figure F5-2) are among the most productive ecosystems in the world (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993; Broome
and Craft, 2000). They provide valuable habitat for many species of invertebrates and forage fish that serve as food for other
species in and near the wetland. Tidal wetlands also provide spawning and nursery habitat for many other fish species,
including the Atlantic silverside, striped killifish, and threespine stickleback. Other migratory species that use tidal wetlands
during their lives include the winter flounder and white perch (Dionne et al., 1999). Fish species that have been reported in
restored salt ponds and tidal creeks include Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic silverside, and striped killifish (Roman et al.,
submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology). Restoring tidal flow to areas where such flows have been restricted also reduces the
presence of Phragmites australis, the invasive marsh grass that has choked out native flora and fauna in coastal areas across
the New England seaboard (Fell et al., 2000).
F5-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Figure F5-1: Laboratory culture of eelgrass (Zostera marina)
Wi^i^
i-Sf'/'fifc*'':•-;••!:•'•. ;/••-•".••;
Source: Bosclikcr, 2001.
Figure F5-2: Tidal creek near Little Harbor, Cohasset, Massachusetts
5owrce:MAPC,2001.
Tidal wetlands restoration typically involves returning tidal flow to marshes or ponds that have restricted natural tidewater
flow because of roads, backfilling, dikes, or other barriers. Eliminating these barriers can restore salt marshes (Figure F5-3),
salt ponds, and tidal creeks that provide essential habitat for many species of aquatic organisms. For example, where
undersized culverts restrict tidal flow, installing correctly sized and positioned culverts can restore tidal range and proper
salinity. In other situations, such as where low-lying property adjacent to salt marsh has been developed, restoring foil tidal
flow may not be possible because of flooding concerns (MAPC, 2001). Salt marshes can also be created by inundating areas
in which no marsh habitat previously existed (e.g., tidal wetland creation). However, a study by Dionne et al. (1999) showed
that while both created and restored tidal wetlands provide habitat for a number offish, restored tidal wetlands provide much
Jarger and more productive areas of habitat per unit cost than created tidal wetlands.
F5-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Figure F5-3: Salt marsh near Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
Source: Save The Bay, 2001.
Create artificial reefs
Tautog, which are impinged and entrained at Brayton Point, use rocky or reef-like habitats with interstices that provide refuge
from predators, especially during the night when the fish become torpid. These habitats can be created artificially with
cobbles, concrete, and other suitable materials. .
Improve anadromous fish passageways
Anadromous fish spend most of their lives in brackish or saltwater but migrate into freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Dams on many of .the rivers and streams in this region where anadromous fish historically spawned make these waterways
inaccessible to migrating fish. Anadromous fish impinged and entrained at Brayton Point that would benefit from improved
access to upstream spawning habitat include rainbow smelt, alewife, and white perch. ' ' . -
Improving anadromous fish passage involves many important steps. Dams and barriers connecting estuaries with upstream
spawning habitat can be removed or fitted with fish ladders (Figure ¥5-4). Removing a dam is often preferable because some
species such as rainbow smelt use fish ladders ineffectively. However, dam removal may not be possible in highly developed
areas needing flood control. In addition, restoring stream habitats such as forested riverbank wetlands and improving water
quality may also be necessary to restore upstream spawning habitats for anadromous fish (Save The Bay, 2001).
F5-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Figure F5-4: Example of a fish ladder at a hydroelectric dam
Source: Pollock, 2001.
F5-4 STEP 4: CONSOLIDATE, CATEGORIZE, AND PRIORITIZE IDENTIFIED HABITAT
RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
EPA categorized and prioritized habitat restoration alternatives to identify the type of restoration program that was best suited
for each of the major species that are impinged or entrained as a result of cooling water intakes. This was done in
collaboration with local experts from several federal, state, and local organizations at a meeting on September 10,2001
(Table F5-2), and through follow-up discussions that were held with numerous additional organizations (Table F5-3).
Attendees discussed habitat needs and restoration options for each species with significant I&E losses at the facility. They
then ranked these restoration options for each species by determining what single option would most benefit that species. The
alternatives chosen for each species are shown in Table F5-4.
Table F5-2: Attendees at the Meeting on Habitat Prioritization for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Brayton Point September 10, 2001, in Fall River, Massachusetts
Attendee
Organization
Anthony Chatwin j Conservation Law Foundation
Robert Lawton
Andrea Langhauser
I Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
I Massachusetts Watershed Initiative — Ten Mile and Mount Hope Bay Watersheds
Kathi Rodrigues
Chris Powell
[National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center
I Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Fish and Wildlife Division
Tom Ardito
AndyLipsky
jRhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
I Save the Bay
John Torgan
Phil Colarusso
John Nagle
j Save the Bay
tils" EPA Region!
tu.S. EPA Region I
F5-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-3: Local Agencies and- Organizations Contacted for Information Used in this HRC Analysis
' Organization
Applied Sciences Associates
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council
Connecticut College
Duxbury Conservation Agency
Fall River Conservation Commission •
Jones River Watershed Association
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Law Enforcement — Division of Marine Fisheries
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program: Center for Coastal Resources
Massachusetts.Watershed Initiative
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve
National Estuary Program — Massachusetts Bays program
National Estuary Program — Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center (Gloucester, MA)
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center (Providence, RI)
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service (NC)
Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management •
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Dept. of Planning and Development, Land Acquisition Program
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Division of Fish and Wildlife
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Marine Fisheries Section
Roger Williams University
Rutgers University
Save The Bay (RI)
Somerset Conservation Commission
University of California—Santa Cruz: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of New Hampshire
University of Rhode Island
USEPA —Region i " ''
USEPA Environmental Effects Research Laboratory — Atlantic Ecology Division/ORD
US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
Wetlands Restoration Program, (Mass Exec. Office of Env. Affairs)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution •
F5-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-4: Preferred Restoration Alternatives Identified by Experts
for Species Impinged and Entrained at Brayton Point
Species (age 1 eq. losses per year
adjusted for current operations)
Selected Restoration Alternative
Threespine stickleback (3,385)
Weakfish( 1,092)
jSAV restoration
! SAV restoration
Scup(509)
1SAV restoration
Winter flounder (520,715)
i Tidal wetlands restoration
Atlantic silverside (17,112)
Windowpane" (8,689)
I Tidal wetlands restoration
j Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Striped killifish (572)
I Tidal wetlands restoration
Tautog(31,379)
: Artificial reef creation
Rainbow smelt (50,784)
Alewife (9,315)
: Anadromous fish passage (remove dams)
jAnadromous fish passage
White perch (2,297)
: Anadromous fish passage
Seaboard goby (1,513,836) INo habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
American sand lance (453,236) j
Hogchoker(47,116J ] ''
Silver hake (5,775) i
Bay anchovy (1,237,140)
Atlantic menhaden (13,146)
Butterfish (278)
iNo habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
' Improved water quality later became the chosen restoration alternative for windowpane because they inhabit depths
greater than accessible to tidal wetland restoration. However, no specific water quality projects were identified.
F5-5 STEP 5: QUANTIFY THE EXPECTED INCREASES IN SPECIES PRODUCTION FOR THE
PRIORITIZED HABITAT RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
In Step 5, EPA estimated the expected increases in fish production attributable to implementing the preferred restoration
alternative for each species. These estimates were adjusted to express production as increases in age 1 fish. This simplified
the scaling of the preferred restoration alternatives (see Section F5-6) because the I&E losses were also expressed as age 1
equivalents. .
Unfortunately, available quantitative data is not sufficient to estimate reliably the increase in fish production that is expected
to result from the habitat restoration actions listed in Table F5-4. There is also limited data available on the production of
these species in natural habitats that could be used to estimate production in restored habitats. Therefore, in this analysis EPA
relied on quantitative information on fish species abundance in the habitats to be restored as a proxy for the increase in
production expected through habitat restoration. The relationship between the measured abundance of a species in a given
habitat and the increase in that species'production that would result from restoring additional habitat is complex and unique
for each species. In some cases the use of abundance data may underestimate the true production that would be gained
through habitat restoration, and in other cases it may overestimate the true production. Nevertheless, this assumption was
necessary given the limited amount of quantitative data on fish species habitat production that is currently available.
F5-5.1 Estimates of Increased Age. 1 Fish Production from 5AV Restoration
SAV provides forage and refuge services for many fish species, increases sediment stability, and dampens the energy of
waves and currents affecting nearby shorelines (Fonseca, 1992). SAV restoration is most effective where water quality is
adequate and SAV coverage once existed. Table F5-5 presents the fish species impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that
would benefit most from SAV restoration, along with annual average I&E losses 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations,
arranged by number of fish lost. ;
F5-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-5: Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from SAV
Restoration
Species
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
Scup
Total
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted
for current operations)
3,385
1,092
509
4,986
Percentage of Total I&E
Losses for All Fish Species
0.09%
0,03%
0.01%
0.13%
F5-5.1.1 Species abundance estimates in SAV habitats
No studies were available that provided direct estimates of increased fish production following SAV restoration for the
species impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that would benefit most from SAV restoration. Therefore, EPA used
abundance estimates to estimate increases in production following restoration. Abundance estimates are often the best
available estimates of local habitat productivity, especially for early life stages with limited mobility. The sampling efforts
that provide abundance estimates in SAV habitat and that were selected for this HRC valuation are described below.
Species abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV
Wyda et al. (in press) provide abundance estimates as fish per 100 m2 of SAV for species caught in otter trawls in July and
August 1996 at 24 sites within 13 Buzzards Bay estuaries, near Nantucket, Massachusetts, and at 28 sites within 6
Chesapeake Bay estuaries. These locations were selected based on information that eelgrass was present or had existed at the
location. . .
The sampling at each location consisted of six 2-minute sampling runs using a 4.8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm
mesh cod end liner that was towed at 5-6 km/hour. Late summer sampling was selected because eelgrass abundance is
greatest then, and previous research had shown that late-summer fish assemblages are stable.
Forty-three fish species were caught in Buzzards Bay and 60 in Chesapeake Bay. Abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV
were reported for all fish species, and abundance estimates for specific SAV density categories were reported for species
caught in more than 10 percent of the total number of trawls (15 species). EPA used only these SAV density-based results
from the Buzzards Bay sampling for this HRC valuation because of its proximity to the facility. These SAV density-based
results are presented in Table F5-6 for species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most
from SAV restoration.
Table F5-6: Average Abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV (eelgrass) Habitats for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 nf)'
Common IN a me
Threespine stickleback
Weakfishb
Scup
Low Density SAV Habitats
0.22
no obs.
0.32
High Density SAV Habitats
0.13
no obs.
1.03
0 High density habitats are eelgrass areas with shoot densities > 100 per m2 and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/m2. Low density habitats do
not meet these criteria. .
b Weakfish were not among the species caught in more than 10 percent of the Buzzards Bay trawls.
Source: Wyda et al. (in press).
F5-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part R Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Species abundance in Rhode Island coastal salt pond SAM
Hughes etal. (2000) conducted trawl samples in the SAV habitats of four Rhode Island coastal estuarine salt ponds and in
four Connecticut estuaries during July 1999. As in Wyda et al. (in press), the sampling at each location involved six 2-minute
sampling runs using a 4.8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm mesh cod end liner towed at 5-6 km/hour.
The report does not provide abundance estimates by species. However, a principal investigator provided abundance estimates
expressed as the number offish per 100 m2 of SAV for the locations sampled in Rhode Island (Point Judith Pond, Ninigret
Pond, Green Hill Pond, and Quonochontaug Pond; personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological
Laboratory, 2001). Average abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV were calculated for each species and allocated to the
same SAV habitat categories that were designated in Wyda et al. (in press) using shoot density and wet weight of shoots from
Hughes et al. (2000). The sampling results for species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting
most from SAV restoration are presented in Table F5-7.
Table F5-7: Average Abundance from Rhode Island SAV Sites for Brayton Point Species that Would Benefit
Most from SAV Restoration
Species
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
Soup
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 m2 of SAV habitat)'
Low Density SAV Habitats
no obs.
no obs.
0.17
High Density SAV Habitats
19:67
no obs. ;
0.69
" High density habitats are defined as areas with eelgrass shoot densities > 100 per m2 and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/m2. Low density
habitats do not meet these criteria.
Source: personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001.
Species abundance in Nauset Marsh (Massachusetts) Estuarine complex SAV
Heck et al. (1989) provide capture totals for day and night trawl samples taken between August 1985 and October 1986 in the
Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex in Orleans/Eastham, Massachusetts, including two eelgrass beds: Fort Hill and Nauset
Harbor. As in the other SAV sampling efforts, an otter trawl was used for the sampling, but with slightly larger mesh size
openings in the cod end liner (6.3 mm versus 3.0 mm) than in Hughes et al. (2000) or Wyda et al. (in press).
With the reported information on the average speed, duration, and number of trawls used in each sampling period and an
estimate of the width of the SAV habitat covered by the trawl from one of the study authors (personal communication, M.
Fahay, NOAA, 2001), EPA calculated abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV habitat.
Heck et al. (1989) also report that the dry weight of the SAV shoots is over 180 g/m2 at both the Fort Hill and Nauset Harbor
eelgrass habitat sites. Therefore, these locations would fall into the high SAV habitat category used in Wyda et al, (in press)
and Hughes et al. (2000) because the dry weight exceeds the wet weight criterion of 100 g/m2 used in those studies.
Finally, Heck et al. (1989) provide separate monthly capture results from their trawls. The maximum monthly capture results
for each species was used for the abundance estimates from this sampling. Because these maximum values generally occur in
the late summer months, sampling time is consistent with the results from Wyda et al. (in press) and Hughes et al. (2000).
The abundance values estimated from the sampling of the Fort Hill and Nauset Harbor SAV habitats for species impinged and
entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most from SAV restoration are presented in Table F5-8.
F5-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-8: Average Abundance in Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex SAV for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 m2)°
Species
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
Scup
Fort Hill — High Density SAV
5.92
no obs.
no obs.
Nauset Harbor — High Density SAV
47.08
no obs.
. 0.08
' High density habitats are defined as areas with eelgrass'shoot densities > 100 per m2 and shoot biomass (wet) >'100 g/m2.
Source: Heck etal., 1989.
F5-5.1.2 Adjusting SAV sampling results to estimate annual average increase in production
of age 1 fish
EPA adjusted sampling-based abundance estimates to account for: . •
> sampling efficiency
• >• capture of life stages other than age 1
*• differences in the measured abundances in natural SAV habitat versus expected productivity in restored SAV habitat:
The basis and magnitude of the adjustments are discussed in the following sections.
Adjusting for sampling efficiency
Fish sampling techniques are unlikely to capture or record all of the fish present in a sampled area because some fish avoid
the sampling gear and some are captured but not collected and counted. The sampling efficiency for otter trawls is
approximately 40 percent to 60 percent (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001).
EPA assumed a cost reducing sampling efficiency of 40 percent for this HRC analysis, and multiplied the SAV sampling
abundance estimates by 2.5 (i.e., divided by 40 percent). This assumption increases SAV productivity estimates and lowers
SAV restoration cost estimates.
Adjusting sample abundance estimates to age 1 life stages
All sampled life stages were converted to age 1 equivalents for comparison to I&E losses, which were expressed as age 1
equivalents. The average life stage of the fish caught in Buzzards Bay (Wyda et al., in press) and the Rhode Island coastal
salt pond (Hughes et al., 2000) was juveniles (i.e., life stage younger than age 1) (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001). Since the same sampling technique and gear was used in Heck et al. (1989), EPA
assumed juveniles to be the average life stage captured in this study as well.
The abundance estimates from the studies were multiplied by the survival rates from juveniles to age 1 for each species to
provide an age 1 equivalent abundance. The juvenile to age 1 survival rate adjustment factors, calculated using the results of
the EAM, are presented in Table F5-9.
Table F5-9: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Species Present at Brayton Point — SAV Restoration
Species
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish3
Scup
Oldest Life Stage
before Age 1 in
the EAM
juvenile
juvenile 2
juvenile
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
0.3077
0.3697
0.0671
Life Stage Captured in
SAV Sampling Efforts
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
Estimated Survival
Rate for Juveniles
to Age 1
. 0.3077
0.3697
0.0671
Lifestage information was available for two juvenile stages of weakfish. Juvenile 2 represents the older of these two stages.
F5-11
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I.&E Losses
Adjusting sampled abundance for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
No reviewed studies suggested that restored SAV habitat would produce fish at a level different from undisturbed SAV
habitat. Similarly, while service flows from a restored habitat site generally increase over time to a steady state level, limited
anecdotal evidence suggests some restored SAV habitats may begin recruiting and producing fish very quickly (personal
communication, A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001). As a result of this limited evidence, and as a cost-reducing assumption, EPA
made no adjustment for differences between restored and undisturbed SAV habitats to account for the final levels offish
production or potential lags in realizing these levels following restoration of SAV habitat.
F5-5.1.3 Final estimates of annual average age 1 fish production from SAV restoration
EPA calculated age 1 fish production expected from habitats where SAV is restored by multiplying the abundance estimates
from Wyda et al. (in press), Hughes et al. (2000), and Heck et al. (1989) by the adjustment factors presented in the previous
subsection. These results were then averaged, By species, across sampling locations to calculate the final production value
incorporated in the scaling of the SAV restoration alternative.
Table F5-10 presents the final estimates of the increase in age 1 production for two of the three Brayton Point species that
benefit most from SAV restoration (weakfish were not sampled in any of the studies providing abundance estimates).
Table F5-10: Final Estimates of the Increase in Production of Age 1 Fish fop Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
• Source of Initial
Species ; Species Abundance
• Estimate
Threespine iHeck et al. (1989) —
stickleback ! Fort Hill
IHeck etal. (1989) —
iNauset Harbor
1 Hughes etal. (2000)
i — RI coastal ponds
j(high SAV)
1 Wyda etal. (in
j press) — Buzzards
j Bay (low SAV)
i Wyda etal. (in
Ipress) — Buzzards
iBay (high SAV)
j Species average
Weakfish 1 Unknown
Scup jHeck et al. (1 989) —
jNauset Harbor
[Hughes et al. (2000)
; — RI coastal ponds
j (low SAV)
! Hughes etal. (2000)
1 — RI coastal ponds
i(high SAV)
i Wyda etal. (in
I press) — Buzzards
j Bay (low SAV)
| Wyda etal. (in
S press) — Buzzards
iBay (high SAV)
rSpecies average
Species
Abundance
Estimate per
100 m2 of SAV
5.92
47.08
19.67
0.22
0.13
0.08
0.17
0.69
0.32
1.03'
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
' 2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
0.3077
0.3077
0.3077
0.3077
0.3077
0.0671
0.0671
0.0671
0.0671
0.0671
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
1.0
1.0
1.0
i.o
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Expected Increase in
Production of Age 1
Fish per 100 m2 of
Restored SAV
. 4.55 '<•
36.21
15.13
o.n :
0.10
11.23
0.01
0.03 ;
. .0.12 ;
0.05 '.
0.17 :
0.08
F5-12
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of !<&E Losses
F5-5.2 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from Tidal Wetland .
Restoration
Tidal wetlands provide a diversity of habitats such as open water, subtidal pools, ponds, intertidal waterways, and tidally
flooded meadows of salt tolerant grass species such as Spartina alterniflora and S. patens. These habitats provide forage,
spawning, nursery, and refuge for a large number offish species. Table F5rl 1 identifies the I&E losses for fish species at
Brayton Point that would benefit most from tidal wetland restoration, along with average I&E losses for 1974-1983 adjusted
for current operations, arranged by number of fish lost.
Table F5-11: Fish Species Impinged op Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland
Restoration
Species
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
Total • •
Annual Average I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalents (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
520,715
17,112
572
538,399
Percentage of Total I&E Losses
across all Fish Species
13.30%
0.44%
0.01%
13.75%
Restricted tidal flows increase the dominance ofPhragmites australis by reducing tidal flushing and lowering salinity levels
(Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 2001 a). Phragmites dominance restricts fish access to and movement
through the water, decreasing overall productivity of the habitat. Therefore, for the purpose of this HRC valuation, tidal
wetland restoration focuses on returning natural tidal flows to currently restricted areas. Examples of actions that can restore
tidal flows to currently restricted tidal wetlands include the following: '
*• breaching dikes created to support salt hay farming or to control mosquitos
> installing properly sized culverts in areas currently lacking tidal exchange
*• removing tide gates on existing culverts
*• excavating dredge spoil covering former tidal wetlands.
EPA could not find any studies that quantified increased production following implementation of these types of restoration
actions for tidal wetlands. Therefore, EPA used fish abundance estimates from studies of tidal wetlands to estimate the fish
increase in fish production that can be gained through restoration. The following subsections present the sampling data and
subsequent adjustments made to calculate the expected increased in age 1 production offish species.
F5-5.2.1 Fish species abundance estimates in tidal wetland habitats
EPA used results from tidal wetland sampling efforts in Rhode Island to calculate the potential increased fish production from
restored tidal wetland habitat. Available sampling results from Connecticut (Warren et al., 2001) and New Hampshire and
Maine coasts (Dionne et al., 1999) were not used. The Connecticut results were omitted because regulatory time constraints
prevented the conversion of capture results into abundance estimates per unit of tidal wetland area. The New Hampshire and
Maine results were omitted because the study locations were too distant from Brayton Point and are located north of the
critical ecological divide of Cape Cod-Massachusetts Bay, which affects species mix and abundance.
Species abundance at Sachuest Point Tidal Wetland, Middletown, Rhode Island
Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology) sampled the fish populations in a 6.3 hectare (ha) tidal wetland at
Sachuest Point in Middletown, Rhode Island. The sampling was conducted during August, September, and October of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using a 1 m2 throw trap in the creeks and pools of each area during low tide after the wetland surface had
drained. Additional sampling was conducted monthly from June through October in 1998 and 1999 using 6 m2 bottomless lift
nets to sample the flooded wetland surface. The report presents the results of this sampling as abundance estimates of each
fish species per square meter (Table F5-12). • '
F5-13
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port R Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-12: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Sachuest for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained, at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
(fish per n?)
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
: i ecnnique
i throw trap
: lift net
I throw trap
i lift net
: throw trap
j lift net
1997
no obs.
no sampling
1.23
no sampling
0.70
no sampling
1998
no obs.
no obs.
0.20
no obs.
0.17
0.01
1999
no obs.
no obs.
0.07
no obs.
0.55 :
0.01
Source: Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology).
Roman et al. also sampled a smaller portion of the wetland where tidal flows had recently been restored. However; EPA did
not use these results because the sampling was most likely conducted before the system reached full productivity.
Galilee Marsh, Narragansett Rhode, Island
Raposa (in press) sampled the fish populations in the Galilee tidal wetland monthly from June through September of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using 1 m2 throw trap in the creeks and pools in the tidal wetland parcels during low tide after the wetland
surface had drained. Raposa presents the sampling results as fish species abundance expressed as number of fish per square
meter. As with the results from Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology), EPA did not use the results from a
recently restored portion of the wetland in this HRC valuation to avoid a downward bias in the species density results (and
resultant higher restoration costs). The results from this sampling effort are presented in Table F5-13 for the species
impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
Table F5-13: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Galilee for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
Sampling
Technique
throw trap
throw trap
throw trap
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
(fish perm2) '
1997
no obs.
4.78
4.35
1998
no obs.
1.73
3.50
1999
no obs.
14.38
12.40 :
Source: Raposa, in press.
Coggeshall Marsh, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
Discussions with Kenny Raposa of the Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) revealed that additional fish
abundance estimates from tidal wetland sampling were available for the Coggeshall Marsh located on Prudence Island in the
NERR. These abundance estimates were based on sampling conducted in July and September 2000. The sampling of the
Coggeshall tidal wetland was conducted using 1 m2 throw traps in the tidal creeks and pools of the wetland during ebb tide
after the wetland surface had drained (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001).
The sampling results from this effort are presented in Table F5-14 for the species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point
and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
F5-14
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E losses
Table F5-14: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Coggeshall for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
i Sampling
! Technique
i throw trap
; throw trap
I throw trap
Fish
Density Estimates in Tidal Wetlands
(fish perm2)
July 2000
0.10
0.17
2.40
September 2000
0.10
0.07
0.53
Winter flounder data from Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey at the Chepiwanoxet and
Wickford sample locations
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey samples 18 locations once a month from June through October using a beach seine
that is approximately 60 m (200 ft) long and 3 m (10 ft) wide/deep. The sampled sites vary from cobble jeef to sandy
substrate. Winter flounder prefer shallow water habitats with sandy substrate, and such substrate conditions can be restored in
large coastal ponds or pools. Therefore, EPA obtained winter flounder abundance estimates from this survey (personal
communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The two sample locations with
the highest average winter flounder abundance estimates for 1990 through 2000 were in coastal ponds with sandy bottoms.
The average abundance estimates from these sites, Chepiwanoxet and Wickford, are presented in Table F5-15 for samples
taken from 1990 through 2000.
Table F5-15: Average Winter Flounder Abundance, 1990-2000, at the Sites with the Highest Results
from the Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey
Species
Winter flounder
Sampling
Technique '
beach seine
Fish Density Estimates in Sandy Nearshore Substrate (fish per hi2)
Chepiwanoxet 1990-2000
0.09
Wickford 1990-2000
0.20
Winter Flounder data from Rhode Island Coastal pond survey at Narrow River, Winnapaug
Pond, and Point Judith Pond
In addition to its juvenile finfish survey, Rhode Island conducts a survey offish in its coastal ponds. The habitat
characteristics in these locations are similar to those that can be restored through tidal wetland restoration. This survey
includes winter flounder.
A Rhode Island coastal pond survey has been conducted since 1998 at the same 16 sites using an approximately 40 m (130 ft).
long seine that is set offshore by boat and then drawn in from shore by hand. For each site, the average of the three highest
winter flounder capture results for 1998-2001, adjusted for the average area covered by each seine set, is presented in Table
F5-16 (personal communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
Table F5-16: Average Winter Flounder Abundance for 1998-2001 at the Sites with the Highest
Results from the Rhode Island Coastal Pond Survey
Species
Winter flounder
Sampling
Technique
beach seine
Average Winter Flounder Density Estimates in
Sandy Nearshore Substrate (fish per m2)
Narrow River
0.32
Winnapaug Pond
0.21
Point Judith Pond
0.21
F5-15
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-5.2.2 Adjusting tidal wetland sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
The sampling abundance results presented in Section F5-5.2.1 were adjusted to account for the following:
> sampling efficiency
*• conversion to the age 1 life stage
differences in production between restored and undisturbed tidal wetlands
* the impact of sampling timing and location.
Sampling efficiency
As previously described, sampling efficiency adjustments are made to account for the fact that sampling techniques do not
capture all fish that are present. Jordan et al. (1997) estimated that 1 m2 throw traps have a sampling efficiency of 63 percent.
Therefore, EPA applied an adjustment factor of 1.6 (i.e., 1.0/0.63) to tidal wetland abundance data that were collected with 1
m2 throw traps.
The sampling efficiencies of bottomless lift nets are provided in Rozas (1992) as 93 percent for striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), 81 percent for gulf killifish (Funduhis grandis), and 58 percent for sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus).
The average of these three sampling efficiencies is 77 percent (adjustment factor of 1.3, or 1.0/0.77) and is assumed to be
applicable to species lost to I&E at Brayton Point.
Lastly, although specific studies of the sample efficiency of a beach seine net were not identified, an estimated range of 50
percent to 75 percent was provided by the staff involved with the Rhode Island coastal pond survey (personal communication,
J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002). Using the lower end of this range as, a cost reducing
assumption, EPA applied a sample efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 (i.e., 1.0/0.5) for the abundance estimates for both the
Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey and the Rhode Island coastal pond survey.
Conversion to age 1 life stage
The sampling techniques described in Section F5-5.2.1 are intended to capture juvenile fish (personal communication,
K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001). That juvenile fish were the dominant age class taken was
confirmed by the researchers involved in these efforts (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research
Reserve, 2001; personal communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001; personal
communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2001). As a result, the sampling results presented in
Section F5-5.2.1 required adjustment to account for expected mortality between the juvenile and age 1 life stages. The
information used to develop these survival rates and the final life stage adjustment factors are presented in Table F5-17.
Table F5-17: Life Stage Adjustment Factors-for Brayton Point Species — Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
Oldest Life Stage before
Age in the
EAM
juvenile
juvenile
larvae
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
0.1697
0.1347
0.2107
Life Stage Captured in
Tidal Wetland
Sampling Efforts
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
Estimated Survival Rate
for Juveniles to Age 1
0.1697
0.1347
0.6054
As noted in Table F5-17, there are no juvenile to age 1 survival rate estimates used in the EAM for striped killifish. However,
survival rate estimates are available for these species from larval stage (the stage just prior to juvenile) to age 1. In these
cases, EPA estimated the juvenile to age 1 survival rate by averaging the survival rate for larvae to age 1 with 1.0 (because
1.0 is necessarily the age 1 to age 1 survival rate). This procedure produces juvenile to age 1 survival rates that are
approximately 0.5, which is near the maximum juvenile to age 1 survival rates used in the EAM for other species. Therefore,
this assumption may lead to an overestimation of the juvenile to age 1 survival rate, and therefore to an overestiiriation of the
age 1 fish produced by SAV restoration (and an underestimation of the amount of restoration required). Nevertheless, EPA
used the adjustment factors shown in Table F5-17 to convert densities of juveniles in SAV habitat to densities of age 1
individuals, as a cost minimizing assumption.
F5-16
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point-
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Adjusting for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
Restoring full tidal flows rapidly eliminates differences in fish populations between unrestricted and restored sites (Roman et
al., submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology), resulting in very similar species composition and density (Dionne et al., 1999;
Fell et al., 2000; Warren et al., 2001). However, a lag can occur following restoration (Raposa, in press). Given uncertainty
over the length of this lag, and the rate at which increased productivity in a restored tidal wetland approaches its long-term
steady state, EPA incorporated an adjustment factor of 1.0 to signify that no quantitative adjustment was made consistent with
its approach of incorporating cost reducing assumptions. .
Adjusting sampled abundance for timing and location of sampling
At high tide, fish in a tidal wetland have access to the full range of habitats, including the flooded vegetation, ponds, and
creeks that discharge into or drain the wetland. -In contrast, at low tide, fish are restricted to tidal pools and creeks.
Therefore, sampling conducted at low tide represents a larger area of tidal wetlands than the sampled area. EPA therefore
divided the abundance estimates based on samples taken at low tide by the inverse of the proportion of subtidal habitat to total
wetland habitat. In contrast, no adjustment was applied to abundance estimates based on samples such as those from lift nets
or seines, taken at high tide or in open water offshore. The site-specific adjustment factors in Table F5-18 were based on
information regarding the proportion of each tidal wetland that is subtidal habitat (personal communication, K. Raposa,
Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001).
Table F5-18: Adjustment Factors for Tidal Wetland Sampling Conducted at Low Tide
Tidal Wetland
Sachuest Marsh
Galilee Marsh
Coggeshall Marsh
Ratio of Open Water (creeks, pools) .
to Total Habitat in the Wetland
0.055
0.084
0.052
Adjustment Factor •-...".
18.2
11.9
19.2
F5-5.2.3 Final estimates of annual average age 1 fish production from tidal
wetland restoration
Table F5-19 presents the final estimates of annual increased production of age 1 fish resulting from tidal wetland restoration
for species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetland restoration.
F5-17
-------
I
5
I
E
CO
tu
•5
L.
fe
•g
f
5
Is
11
° _a
"5 ^
^C r- ,
15
S •"
Ii
§ *"
6) &)
in •§.
o E
w *~*
c "C
1 £
f (A
1
ii.
i
in
u.
_8)
£
u u *a
•i S.PJL
O M *M ^
*E ! J
1 « 11
o < "S
>5 O
| B,-
g>!l£
CO "
«
S S c
a — a> u
|T! (c< B ^
!•§ 3,«
H» ^
B u S! h
— c c S
^™ u S .y
^^* *3 t/5 u
C t— 3 C5
,g g ^^
*«
•a -p
"3 7/5 o*
•^ S ~ "°
r^ (3 e3
•3 15 Q,."
^^ U Q) [^
0 O. 'S
g-co g
w
Sampling Location
and Date*
[Source of Initial
; Species Density
1 Estimate
M
I
CO
o
o
0
CO
tN
OS
—
r-
ON
vo
O
vq
^^
o
o
iNERR — Prudence Isl.
; Coggeshall -July 2000
iRaposa pers
:comm2001
fe
S "§
« ^
^ 55
o
o
o
ts
ON
—
ON
VO
C3
-
vq
»— «
o
C5
JNERR — Prudence Isl.
1 Coggeshall — Sept. 2000
iRaposapers
jcomm2001
o
o
o
o
—
S;
vo
o
q
CN
ON
0
iChepiwanoxet average
1 1990-2000 (seine)
;C Powell pers
|comm2001
r-
o
C5
O
o
—
t^
vo
o
0
tN
O
0
iWickford average 1990-
J2000 (seine)
;C Powell pers ,
icomm2001
^^
o
0 -
— •
S;
VO
o
o
tN
tN
C5
i Narrow River average
11998-2001 (seine)
j J. Temple pers
jcomm2002
£j
o
o
o
—
&
vo
o
q
tN
, — t
tN
O
i Winnapaug Pond average
1 1998-2001 (seine)
iJ. Temple pers
icomm2002
t^
o
o
o
q
—
ON
So
o
q
tN
_*
O
[Point Judith Pond average
[19983001 (seine) . i
|J. Temple pers
icomm2002
o
o
[Species average
o
o
oo
—
t-~
m
0
vq
v-i
m
< -z
g
0
OO
oo
—
^-
n
o
vq
»
••:'.
O
IN
C5
:Sachuest Point — 1 99,8
[Roman etal., i
[submitted 2000 ]
\toRestoration J
\Ecology i
o
o
o
00
oo
—
1—
CO
C5
VO
_^
•- .:
t^
o
o
i Sachuest Point— 1999
[Roman et al.,
[submitted 2000
\toRestoration
'-.Ecology
o
o
o
m
tN
ON
- .
1-
ff)
0
vo
^
(^
0
NERR — Prudence Isl. ,
Coggeshall - July 2000
iRaposapers :[
jcomm2001 j
0
o
N
-
^..
ro
5
o
— •
^
3
NERR— Prudence Isl. :
Coggeshall — Sept. 2000
iRaposapers "*
jcomm2001
ON
c>
o
o
ON
_JJ .,
t-
r*1
C>
• : :
V£>
_J
OO
•w
Galilee Marsh — 1 997 i
11
"!" c*
ii'1 tl
-------
is
•s
55
'a
00
TO
"w
iE
£
**~
~o
E
O
1 _
"B 4-'
TJ E
FO
^
O 4^
+- a
M t.
ft) o
/V 4-
t ^
0 O£
fti "c
t J2
S "S
S! ^
11
10 i
t. -
a. o
iC t-
Et.
4- <
^ 4-
5 !«-
.£ ft)
3 E
0- 6)
UJ CO
*H "U
«> 3
01 0
o a
c •£
.2
t3 E
•i 2
o
•S- E
0. 0
.£ >•
W i
M CQ
S "S
M -g
M c
"« *tt
1 E
ft) 0
timates of th
ies Impinged
UJ g
"O vO
iZ
6\
i
in
il
ID
•2
B n
§
S S —
M » «
" fe S
•O B-H •=
£ !§.! '§
*o 5 15
Qj TH CB J^.
£ •??£
I-M ®
SJ _
S B *J
.5 o c
H « 1 fe
£P w £ S
^C O w U
CO " "^
2 fc
S § e
32 ^ E o
|| 1 |
O *« "O*
!£<
«
. ,*-
M 5 .
^"l
!a S'to
^^
.^
f -S Si
Cu *•* TS u
H|*
1 S
^ -C* t^t
"3 'S e
JJ E
Source of Ink
Species Densi
Esdmate
a*
8
a.
CO
o
o
§
-"
— •
s
o
o_
m
t-;
oo
Os
OS
1
Galilee Marsh -
of w
o S
G« C
C3 _
Pi .S
ID
o S
< ^
vo
o
o
Os
— '
*->
t—
m
o
vq
OO
rn
2
OS
OS
OS
Galilee Marsh -
« g
« _
pi £,
i/i
o
0
f"
Species averaj
s
0
00
00
^*
TT
S
O
vq
o
o
r-
OS
OS
7
Sachuest Point :
<—s
Roman et al.,
submitted 2001
to Restoration
Ecolog)'
_.
"" !C
il
o
o
op
OO
— '
s
VO
0
vq
^
o
OO
Os
OS
Sachuest Point
rt
Roman et al.,
submitted 200I
to Restoration
Ecology
m
o
0
00
06
w
o
vo
o
••'• • — •
vo
In
o
OS
OS
OS
|
Sachuest Point
Roman et al.,
submitted 200'
to Restoration
Ecology
o
0
o
o
~~
i
\D
o
. _ .
"I
0
C3
OO
OS
OS
I
i Sachuest Point
| (lift net)
o
i Roman etal.,
submitted 200
• to Restoration
•.Ecology
p
o
o
p
""•*
o
vo
o
"i
o
o
OS
OS
OS
i
i Sachuest Point
i (lift net)
o
[Roman etal.,
[submitted 200
\\oRestoration
[Ecology
"2
o
IN
OS
•
~~
o
vq
o
vq
o
tN
o
u ^»
§ 3
INERR— Prud
• Coggeshall — '.
iRaposa pers
icomm2001
S
0
m
01
OS
""^
i
0
vq
in
0
o
. o
s °
•flj -l-I
o c
g &
iNERR — Prud
i Coggeshall — !
iRaposa pers
icomm2001
*o *^
w',2
Cu ^"*
il
£
0
o
OS
1—1
'""'
o
vo
o
vq
m
~*
f~
OS
OS
1
i Galilee Marsh-
1 s
& D.
2.8
OO
CS
o
o
Os
' \
"•
s
vq
o
vq
o
>n
rn
OO
OS
OS
T
Galilee Marsh -
p
pi .S
[
i >*.
-------
S
1
I
u.
I
a
to
in
L.
1
JO
t;
"5
•a
T3
I!
•o
| I
1.1
••« -0
g£
1-s
1<2
rt
« 2
n CO
51
"5 *5
o.
H
11)
1
IE
o.
U)
i
in
u.
^6)
J3
3 feS
•o S.H-S.
a> 1-1 IS
s^S
.1 8*5
V)
<
& *-
O B
E 1)
8
o c
§?s
w "S
. 3 r.
(H >«. r
09 w.
/CalcuIated
s Density
erm2 of Tida
tland
cd/
~ °->
t U Si f
o n. to
w
I
sj «
Hi
•S
(U
Ctt
O
•I*
s s
00
I
Ha
•o
c
cd
i
•5
less otherwise
sampling effic
!.§>
n
iJ
o
S
o.
«
O £ >
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-5.3 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from Artificial Reef
Development
Constructing reefs of cobbles or small boulders was the preferred restoration alternative for tautog because, they generally
favor habitats with interstices that provide forage and shelter from predators. Information for tautog on the annual average
I&E losses for the period 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations at Brayton Point is presented in Table F5-20.
Table F5-20: Species with Quantified Age 1 Equivalent I&E Losses at Brayton Point that Would Benefit
Most from Artificial Reef Development
Species
Tautog
Total
Annual Average I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalents (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
31,379
31,379
Percentage of Total I&E Losses
across All Fish Species
0.80%
0.80%
EPA could not find any studies that provided direct estimates of increased tautog production resulting from artificial reef
development. Therefore, EPA used available tautog abundance estimates in reef habitats as a proxy for production. The
following subsections present these abundance estimates along with the adjustments made to convert life stages to age 1
equivalents and to account for habitat and sampling influences on the reported abundance estimates.
F5-5.3.1 Species abundance estimates in artificial reef habitats
Juvenile finfish survey at Patience Island and Spar Island, Rhode Island
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey samples 18 locations once per month from June through October using a 60 m long
beach seine that is approximately 3 m deep/wide. Among the sampled locations are two artificial cobble habitats, Spar Island
and Patience Island, that have the highest average tautog abundance estimates (fish per square meter) of the 18 locations for
the 1990-2000 period (personal communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001).
These average abundance estimates are presented in Table F5-21.
Table F5-21: Tautog Abundance Estimates from the Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey at the Two
Locations with the Highest Average Values for the Period 1990-2000
Species
Tautog
Sampling
Technique
beach seine
Fish Density Estimates in Nearshore Cobble Reef Habitats
(fish perm*)
Patience Island
0.028
Spar Island
0.031
F5-5.3.2 Adjusting artificial reef sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA made sampling efficiency, life stage conversion, and restored versus
undisturbed habitat adjustments to production estimates for artificial reef habitats. These adjustments are discussed below.
Sampling efficiency
EPA incorporated the same sampling efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 for the tautog abundance estimates developed from
the Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey as was used in the sampling efficiency adjustments from this survey for winter
flounder. The 2.0 adjustment factor represents the bottom range (cost reducing assumption) of a seine net's sampling
efficiency (50 percent), based on the judgment of the .current staff of Rhode Island's coastal pond fish survey (personal
communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
F5-21
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part R Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Conversion to the age 1 equivalent life stage
The information used to develop life stage adjustment factors for juvenile tautog to age 1 equivalents is presented in Table
F5-22.
Table F5-22: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Brayton Point Tautog — Artificial Reef
Species
Tautog
Oldest Life Stage before Age 1
in the EAM
juvenile
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
0.0131
Sampled Life
Stage
juvenile
Estimated Survival Rate
for Juveniles to Age 1
0.0131
Adjusting for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
EPA incorporated an adjustment factor of 1.0 because no available information suggested that artificial reefs are used
substantially less than natural reefs by tautog and/or that significant delays in the use of artificial reefs follows their
emplacement. To the extent lower levels of tautog use or delays in such use do occur with artificial reefs, incorporating an
adjustment factor of 1.0 represents a cost-reducing assumption..
F5-5.3.3 Final estimates of increases in age 1 production for artificial reefs
Table F5-23 presents the final estimates of annual increased production of age 1 equivalent tautog, based on the average
across all sampling efforts, that would result from artificial reef emplacement. '.
Table F5-23: Final Estimates of Annual Increased Production of Age 1 Equivalent Tautog per Square Meter of
Artificial Reef Developed
j Source of Initial
Species 1 Species Density
I Estimate
Tautog JRI juvenile finfish
jsurvey, 1990-2000:
j Patience Island
JRI juvenile finfish
jsurvey, 1990-2000:
: Spar Island
i Species average
Species
Abundance
Estimates
(fish/m2 reef)
0.028
0.031
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
2.0
2.0
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
0.0131
0.0131
Restored vs.
Undisturbed
Habitat Adjustment
Factor
1.0
1.0
Expected Age 1
Increased
Production (fish per
m2 artificial reef)
OiOOl
0,001
0.001
F5-5.4 Estimates of Increased Species Production from Installed Fish Passageways
A habitat-based option for increasing the production of anadromous species is to increase their access to suitable spawning
and nursery habitat by installing fish passageways at currently impassible Harriers (e.g., dams). The anadromous species
impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that would benefit most from fish passageways are presented in Table F5-24, along
with information on their annual average I&E losses for the period 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations.
Table F5-24: Anadromous Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from
Fish Passageways
Species
Rainbow smelt
Alewife
White perch
Total
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
50,784
9,315
2,297
62,396
Percentage of Total I&E
Losses across All Fish Species
1.30% , ;
0.24%
0.06% :
1.59%
_
F5-22
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-5.4.1 Abundance estimates for anadromous species
No studies provided direct estimates of increased production of anadromous fish attributable to the installation of a fish
passageway. Thus, EPA based increased production estimates on abundance estimates from anadromous species monitoring
programs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, combined with an estimate of the average increase in suitable spawning habitat
that would be provided upstream of the current impassible obstacles following the installation offish passageways.
Anadromous species abundance in Massachusetts and Rhode Island spawning/nursery habitats
Information on the abundance of anadromous species in spawning/nursery habitat in Massachusetts was available only for a
select number of alewife spawning.runs in the area around the Cape Cod canal, including locations in Massachusetts Bay and
Buzzards Bay (personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Alewife abundance
information was also available for the spawning runs at the Gilbert Stuart and Nonquit locations in Rhode Island. These runs
are almost exclusively alewives, despite being reported as runs of river herring (i.e., blueback herring and alewives; personal
communication, P. Edwards, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The size of these alewife runs
and the associated abundance estimates (number offish per acre) in available spawning/nursery habitat are presented in Table
75-25.
Table F5-25: Average Run Size and Density of Alewives in Spawning Nursery Habitats in Select
Massachusetts Water-bodies
Waterbody
Back River (MA)
(12 year average)
Mattapoisett River1
(12 year average)
Monument River (MA)
(12 year average)
Nonquit system (RI)
(1999-2001 average)
Gilbert Stuart system (RI)
(1999-2001 average)
Average across all sites presented
Average without Mattapoisett River
Average Alewife Run Size
(number of fish)
373,608
66,457
367,521
192,173
311,839
Average Number of Fish per Acre of
Spawning/Nursery Habitat
766
90
811
951
4,586
1,441
1,778
" The Mattapoisett River is currently in recovery and production has been increasing in recent years (personal communication,
K. Reback, Massachuset Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001).
The Mattapoisett system has low spawning habitat utilization by alewives because of continuing recovery of the system
(personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Therefore, the Mattapoisett River
values were omitted. This raised the production estimates for fish passageways and reduced the restoration costs for
implementing sufficient fish passageways.
Average size of spawning/nursery habitat that would be accessed with the installation of
fish passageways
Anadromous fisheries staff in Massachusetts revealed that approximately 5 acres of additional spawning/nursery habitat
would become accessible for each average passageway installed (personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). This estimate reflects the fact that previous projects have already provided access to
most of the available large spawning/nursery habitats. .
F5-23
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HfiC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-5.4.2 Adjusting anadromous run sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA considered a number of adjustment factors. However, information was much
more limited upon which to base these adjustments. Adjustments to convert returning alewives to age 1 equivalents and to
account for sampling efficiency were not incorporated (i.e., assumed to be 1.0) because of a lack of information. In addition,
nothing suggested a basis for adjustments based on differences between existing and new spawning habitat accessed via fish
passageways or a lag in use of spawning habitat once access is provided, so EPA used an adjustment factor of 1.0.,
F5-5.4.3 Final estimates of annual age 1 equivalent increased species production
The density of anadromous species in their spawning/nursery habitat, the average increase in spawning/nursery habitat from
installation offish passageways, and adjustment factors are presented in Table F5-26 in providing final estimates of the
expected increase in production of age 1 equivalent fish for anadromous species that are impinged or entrained at Brayton
Point and that would benefit most from installation of fish passageways. ;
Table F5-26 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish for Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that
Would Benefit Most from Installation of Fish Passageways
Species
Rainbow
smelt
Alewife
1 Species Density M AHHV i New vs. Calculated Annmal
! Source of Initial Estimate in «uniDeroi Additional Life stage Existing Increase in Age 1
| Species Density Spawning/Nursery _BPawning/iNursery Adjustment Habitat Fish per New
! Estimate Habitat HaDitat Acres per INew Factor Adjustment Passageway
i (fish per acre) . rassa8eway Factor Installed'
! Unknown
I Mattapoisett River
•:— (K-RebackMA
;DMF pers. comm,
12001)
jMonument River —
:(K.RebackMA
jDMF pers. comm,
:2001)
'Back River — (K.
iRebackMADMF
ipere. comm, 2001)
iNonquit river
I system —
I (P. Edwards, RI
IDEM, pers comm,
12001)
1 Gilbert Stuart river
'system — (P.
1 Ed wards, RI DEM,
[pers comm, 2001)
90
811
766
951
4,586
5
5
5
5
5
j
1
1
1 .
1
1
|
I
1
1
•'Species average (excluding Mattapoisett River)1'
452
4j054
3,828
\
4,757
22,929
8,892
White
perch
! Unknown
' This value is the product of the values in the five data fields. Species density estimates rounded for presentation.
11 As previously noted, the Mattapoisett results are excluded in calculating the species average for alewife because the low density
estimates are attributable to the system recovering from previous stressors. ,
F5-24
-------
§ 316(b) Case Stydies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
F5-5.5 Estimates of Remaining Losses in Age 1 Fish Production from Species
Without an Identified Habitat Restoration Alternative
Some species lost to I&E at Brayton Point do not benefit directly and/or predictably from SAV restoration, tidal wetland
restoration, artificial reef construction, or improved passageways because the species are pelagic, spawn in deep water, or
spawn in unknown or poorly understood habitats. The species impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that fall into this
category are listed in Table F5-27, along with their annual average I&E losses for 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations.
Table F5-27: Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Lack a Habitat Restoration Alternative
Species
Seaboard goby .
Bay anchovy
American sand lance
Hogchoker
Atlantic menhaden
Windowpane
Silver hake
Butterfish
Total
Average Annual I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalent Organisms (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
1,513,836
1,237,140
453,236
. 47416
13,146
8,689
5,775
278
3,279,216
Percentage of Total I&E Losses
for All Finfish or Shellfish Species
38.65% '
31.59%
11.57%
1.20%
0.34% •
0.22%
0.15%
0.01%
83.73%
Despite the magnitude of I&E losses for these species, it was beyond the scope of this Section 316(b) HRC analysis to
develop quantitative estimates of the increased production of age 1 fish for these species through habitat restoration
alternatives.
F5-6 STEP 6: SCALING PREFERRED RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
The following subsections calculate the required scale of implementation for each of the preferred restoration alternatives for
each species. The quantified I&E losses are divided by the estimates of the increased fish production, giving the total amount
of each restoration needed to offset I&E losses for each species.
F5-6.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Scaling
The information used to scale SAV restoration is presented in Table F5-28.
Table F5-28: Scaling of SAV Restoration Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
Scup
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1983.adjusted
for current
operations)
509
3,385
1,092
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per
100 m2 of Revegetated Substrate
(rounded)
0.08 '
11.23
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
Number of 100 m2 Units of.
Revegetated SAV Required to
Offset Estimated Average Annual
I&E Loss
6,638
301
Unknown
6,638
F5-25
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-6.2 Tidal Wetlands Scaling
The information used to scale tidal wetland restoration is presented in Table F5-29.
Table F5-29: Scaling of Tidal Wetland Restoration for Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
Winter flounder
Atlantic silvcrside
Striped killifish
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted
for current operations)
520,715.
17,112
572
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per m2
of Restored Tidal Wetland
(rounded)
0.05
0.05
0.19
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
Number of m2 Units of Restored
Tidal Wetland Required to Offset
Estimated Average Annual
I&E loss"
10,274,236
343,237
3,031 ;
10,274,236
' A restored wetland area refers to an area in a currently restricted tidal wetland where invasive species (e.g., Phragmites spp.)
have overtaken salt tolerant tidal marsh vegetation (e.g., Spartina spp.) and that is expected to revert to typical tidal marsh1
vegetation once tidal flows are returned. Waterways adjacent to these vegetated areas are also included in calculating the potential
area that could be restored in a tidal wetland.
F5-6.3 Reef Scaling
The information used to scale artificial reef development is presented in Table F5-30. As expected, the very low productivity
estimate for tautog derived in Section F5-5.3 translates to enormous artificial reef construction needs to offset I&E losses
from a single species comprising only 0.8 percent of total I&E losses at Brayton Point. This result may be correct, but further
investigation of potential tautog productivity at reefs is warranted.
Table F5-30: Scaling of Artificial Reef Development for Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
Tautog
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted for
current operations)
31,379
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per m2 of
Artificial Reef (rounded)
0.001
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
Number of m2 Units of Artificial Reef
Surface Habitat Required to Offset:
Estimated Average Annual I&E Loss
40,915,621 [
40,915,621
F5-6.4 Anadromous Fish Passage Scaling
The information used to scale fish passageway installation is presented in Table F5-31.
Table F5-31 Scaling of Anadromous Fish Passageways for Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
Alewife
Rainbow smelt
White perch
Annual Average I&E Loss of
Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted for
current operations)
9,315
50,784
2,297
Best Estimate of Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per Passageway Installed
(rounded)
8,892
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
Number of New Fish Passageways
Required to Offset Estimated
Average Annual I&E Loss
1.05
Unvalued
Unvalued
i.oo ;
F5-26
-------
.§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-7 UNIT COSTS
The seventh step of the HRC valuation is to develop unit cost estimates for the restoration alternatives. Unit costs account for
all the anticipated expenses associated with the actions required to implement and maintain restoration. Unit costs also
include the cost of monitoring to determine if the scale of restoration is sufficient to provide the anticipated increase in the
production of age 1 fish per unit of restored habitat.
The standard HRC costing approach generally develops an estimate of the amount of money that would be required up front
to cover all restoration costs over the relevant timeframe for the project. Hence, HRC accounting procedures generally
consider interest earnings on money not immediately spent, and also factor in anticipated inflation for expenses to be incurred
in the future. EPA used HRC costs as a proxy for "benefits" which are then compared to costs in the cost-benefit analysis
chapter. Therefore, the Agency reinterpreted the standard HRC costing approach to make it consistent with the annualized
costs used in the costing chapter of the EB A. -
For this analysis, EPA annualized the HRC costs by separating the initial program outlays (one time expenditures for land,
technologies, etc.) from the recurring annual expenses (e.g., for monitoring). The initial program outlays were treated as a
capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7 percent interest rate. EPA then estimated the present value (PV),
using a 7 percent interest rate, of the annual expenses for the 10 years of monitoring of increased fish production that are
incorporated in the design of each of the habitat restoration alternatives. This PV was then annualized over a 20 year period,
again using a 7 percent interest rate. This process effectively treats the monitoring'expenses associated with the habitat
restoration alternatives consistently with the annual operating and maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic
impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. The annualized monitoring costs were then added to the annualized cost of the
initial program outlays to calculate a total annualized cost for the habitat restoration alternative.
The following subsections present the cost components for the habitat restoration alternatives in this HRC along with the
estimates of the annualized costs for implementation costs (i.e., one-time outlays), monitoring costs, and implementation and
monitoring costs combined (all costs presented jm year 2000 dollars).
F5-7.1 Unit Costs of SAV Restoration
EPA expressed annualized unit cost estimates for 100 m2 of SAV habitat to provide a direct link to the increased fish
production estimates fpr SAV restoration based on information from a number of completed and ongoing projects. The
following subsections describe the development of the annualized implementation and monitoring costs for SAV restoration. ,
F5-7.1.1 Implementation costs
Save the Bay has a long history of SAV habitat assessment and restoration in Narragansett and Mount Hope Bays. A Save the
Bay SAV restoration project begun in the summer, of 2001 involved transplanting eelgrass to revegetate 16 m2 of habitat at
each of three sites in Narragansett Bay. EPA used cost information from this project to develop unit cost estimates for
implementing SAV restoration per 100 m2 of revegetated habitat.
Save the Bay's cost proposal estimated that $93,128 would be required to collect and transplant eelgrass shoots from donor
SAV beds over 48 m2 of revegetated habitat. These costs include collecting and transplanting the SAV shoots to provide an
initial density of 400 shoots per revegetated square meter of substrate. Averaged over the 48 m2 of habitat being revegetated,
this provides an average unit cost of $1,940 per m2. The unit costs comprise the following categories:
> labor: 70.7 percent (includes salaried staff with benefits, consultants, and accepted rates for volunteers)
> boats: 15.2 percent (expenses for operating the boat for the collecting and transplanting)
*• materials and equipment: 9.6 percent ,
> overhead: 4.6 percent (calculated as a flat percentage of the labor expenses for the salaried staff).
Contingency expenses were set at 10 percent ($194 per m2). The costs of identifying and evaluating the suitability of
potential restoration sites were set at 1 percent ($19 per m2). No costs were added for maintaining the service flows provided
by the project, because SAV restoration requires little direct maintenance.
F5-27
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Costs were also adjusted to account for natural growth and spreading from the original transplant sites to the bare spots
between transplants (Short et al., 1997). For example, Dr. Frederick Short (University of New Hampshire's Jackson
Estuarine Laboratory) planted between 120 and 130 TERFS (Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely with Frame Systems), each 1
m2, in each acre of seabed to be revegetated at a SAV restoration site (personal communication, P. Colarusso, U.S; EPA
Region 1,2002). Assuming complete coverage over time, this results in a ratio of plantings to total coverage of between 1:31
(130 1 m2 TERFS/4,047m2 per acre) and 1:34(120 1 m2 TERFS / 4,047 m2 per acre).
However, the initially bare areas between transplants do not revegetate immediately and the unit costs need to be adjusted
accordingly. Therefore, EPA assumed that the area covered with SAV would double each year. Under this assumption, the
entire restoration area would be completely covered with SAV in the sixth year of the restoration project. Using the habitat
equivalency analysis (HEA) method (Peacock, 1999), the present value of the natural resource service flows from the SAV
over the 6 year revegetation scenario is 90 percent of that provided by a scenario where the entire restoration area is
instantaneously revegetated with transplanted shoots.1 Therefore, EPA applied 90 percent of the 1:34 planting-to-coverage
ratio, or 1:30 as an adjustment factor to Save the Bay's cost estimates to account for the expected spreading from transplanted
sites to bare areas in a SAV restoration area. Table F5-32 presents the components of implementation unit cost for SAV
restoration, incorporating this adjustment ratio in the last step. .
Table F5-32: Implementation Unit Costs for SAV Restoration
Expense Category
Direct restoration
(shoot collection and transplant)
Contingency costs
(10% of direct restoration)
Restoration site assessment (1% of direct
restoration)
Subtotal without allowance for distribution of
transplanted SAV shoots
Discounted planting to coverage ratio for
transplanted SAV
Final implementation unit costs
Annual ized implementation unit costs
Cost per m2 of SAV Restored
$1,940
$194
$19
$2,154
30:1
$71.80
$6.76
Cost per 100 m2 of SAV Restored
$194,000
$19,400
$1,900
$215,400
30:1
$7,180
$676
F5-7.1.2 Monitoring costs
SAV restoration monitoring improves the inputs to the HRC analysis by quantifying the impact of the SAV restoration on fish
production/recruitment in the restoration area, and the-rate of growth and expansion of the restored SAV bed, including
whether areas need to be replanted. The most efficient way to achieve both of these goals would be for divers to evaluate the
number of adult fish in the habitat and the vegetation density, combined with throw trap or drop trap sampling of juvenile fish
using the habitat (Short et al., 1997). Diver-based monitoring minimizes damage to sites, expands the areas that can be
sampled, and increases sampling efficiency compared to trawl-based monitoring (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001).
Save the Bay provided hourly rates for the divers and captain (personal communication, A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001), and
the daily rate for the boat was based on rate information from NOAA's Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole
(personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, 2001).. Because SAV monitoring costs will be significantly affected by the size,
number, and distance between restored SAV habitats, large areas can be covered in a single day only when continuous
habitats are surveyed. Smaller, disconnected habitats will require much more time to cover. Therefore, total monitoring costs
are somewhat unpredictable. Unit costs for monitoring were therefore assumed to be equal to the initial per unit revegetation
costs in terms of the up front funding that would be required to cover the 10 years of monitoring (i.e., $7,180). Under the
typical HRC costing construct this was equivalent to a per unit monitoring expense in the first year of $787. This simplifying
assumption is unbiased (i.e., it is not known or expected to over- or underestimate costs). The summary of the available SAV
monitoring costs and the calculated annualized per unit monitoring cost based on an assumed annual expense of $787 per unit
are presented in Table F5-33. . . ;
1 The HEA method provides a quantitative framework for calculating the present value of resource service flows that are
expected/observed to change over time.
F5-28
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-33: Estimated• Annual Unit Costs for a SAV Restoration Monitoring Program
Annual Expenditures
Expense Category j Quantity
Monitoring crew j 3 (2 divers and boat captain/assistant)
Monitoring boat 1 1
Daily Rate
S268
$150
Total daily rate
Assumed annual cost for SAV monitoring per 100 m2 restored habitat
Annualized monitoring cost per 1 00 m2 restored habitat
Total Cost
$804
$150 '
$954
$787
$557
F5-7.1.3 Total submerged aquatic vegetation restoration costs
Combining the annualized unit costs for implementation and monitoring, the total annualized cost for a 100 m2 unit of SAV
restoration is $ 1,234 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
F5-7.2 Unit Costs of Tidal Wetland Restoration
Many different actions may be needed to restore flows to a wetland site, and project costs can vary widely, depending on the
actions taken and a number of site-specific conditions (e.g., salinity levels at proposed restoration sites). These issues are
addressed in the following subsections, which present the development of the unit costs for tidal wetland restoration.
F5-7.2.1 Implementation costs
Costs for restoration of tidally restricted marshes depend heavily on the type of restriction that is impeding tidal flow into the
wetland and the amount of degradation that has occurred as a result. Possible sources of the restriction in tidal flow include
improperly designed or located roads, railroads, bridges, and dikes, all of which can eliminate tidal flows or restrict tidal '
flows via improperly sized openings. A compilation of tidally restricted salt marsh restoration projects in the Buzzards Bay
watershed (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 200la) describes restrictions and costs to return tidal flows to
over 130 sites. These cost estimates include expenses for project design, permitting, and construction, and are estimated on a
predictive cost equation that was fitted from the actual costs and budgets for a limited number of projects (Buzzards Bay
Project National Estuary Program, 2001). ' .- .
Staff involved in the Buzzards Bay assessment provided the current project database, which includes the following
information (personal communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001):
*• nature of the tidal restriction
*• estimated cost to address the tidal restriction
* size of the affected tidal wetland (in acres)
*• acreage of the Pfo-ag/wYes in the tidally restricted wetland.
Public agencies undertook some of the work in the projects used to develop the cost estimation equation for the tidally
restricted wetlands in the Buzzards Bay watershed. Because the costs from public agencies are generally lower than market
prices (i.e., the price for the same work if completed by private contractors), EPA adjusted the cost estimates upward by a
factor of 2.0, consistent with the adjustment recommended in the report (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program,
2001) and discussions with project staff and others involved with tidal wetlands restoration programs in the area (personal
communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001; personal communication, S. Block, Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs - Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001).
The adjusted total project costs from the Buzzards Bay project database were then divided by the reported acres of
Phragmites in the wetland to calculate the cost per acre for restoring tidally restricted wetlands where Phragmites had
replaced the salt tolerant vegetation characteristic of a healthy tidal wetland (sites with no reported acres of Phragmites were
F5-29
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
eliminated from consideration).2 Table F5-34 summarizes costs based on the cost factor (an input in the cost estimation
equation), type of restriction found at the site, and the number of Phragmites acres at the location. An alternative summary of
these projects is presented in Table F5-35, where the projects are organized by acres of Phragmites at the site, not the current
tidal restriction.
Combined, Tables F5-34 and F5-35 show significant variability in the per acre costs for tidal wetland restoration. Therefore,
EPA incorporated the median cost of $71,000 per acre of tidal wetland restoration into the HRC valuation and calculation of
the unit cost for tidal wetland restoration. Table F5-36 presents the final per acre implementation costs for tidal wetland
restoration and the annualized equivalent implementation cost incorporated in this HRC. These costs include the rnedian per
acre restoration cost of $71,000 and a $750 per acre fee to reflect the assumed purchase price for this type of land based on
the experience of purchases of similar types of land parcels by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's
Land Acquisition Group (personal communication, L. Primiano, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
2001). * . •!
2 The adjustment of reported costs upward by a factor of 2.0 was made solely to reflect expected cost differences between private
contractors and public agencies that might perform the work required to restore fall tidal flows. Additional site specific factors, such as
salinity levels, that may affect project costs by influencing the types of actions taken and/or the time to successful restoration of typical
tiddly influenced wetland vegetation at a project site have not been incorporated in this adjustment process.
F5-30
-------
«
VI
3
"8
C
o
•g
a
LL.
t>
•s
5
u
.
I
.
1
i
!
1
1
;
Jrayfon Point
ilil
• v
iif
an
w
V)
o
c
o
a
s_
o
•ft
u
o:
r
a
a
oo
in
u_
3
£
b 2
a, % .
« SS
5 g
S •<
5 •>
e &
||
•-§
* 8-8
P £p "S
II*
S t §
IM (U
*> 2-
tS •*! TJ
U •§ 1
M 5 S
" B B"
S'
1%
•"•aw
O
a> -Si o>
OD'5 M
S3 |> S
^
« 8. u g
" -a B«:=
« S « w
"3 Sp 8 w
^ 5 4e £
u a. «
fe %
S 53
Z "o
Phragmites
Acres
•4-1 ^
Restriction
Structure Class
; • i i i
QQ : ^. : ^* : ». : »• • c
«• 4 i i 4..
S i : -I :
?i • 2 ; ""• ; " ; ^ :
^ i M • : i •:
-"••"••""• "^ i "":
i : 0 1 :
j •o | — i . | m
to ' • in • »n i
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table F5-35
Phragmites Acres
acres < 1
1 < acres < 5
5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
$1.95 per m2 of restored tidal wetland (4,047 m2 = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the
estimates of increased fish production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis.
F5-7.3 Artificial Reef Unit Costs
The unit cost estimates for developing and monitoring artificial reefs are based the construction and monitoring of six 30 ft x
60 ft reefs made of 5-30 cm diameter stone in Dutch Harbor, Narragansett Bay (personal communication, J. Catena, NOAA
Restoration Center, 2001). While these reefs were constructed for lobsters, surveys of the Dutch Harbor reef have noted
abundant fish use of the structures (personal communication, K. Castro, University of Rhode Island, 2001).
F5-7.3.1 Implementation, costs
The summary cost information for the design and construction of the six reefs in Dutch Harbor, as it was received, is
presented in Table F5-38 (personal communication, J. Catena, NOAA Restoration Center, 2001).
Table F5-38: Summary Cost Information for Six Artificial Reefs in Dutch Harbor, Rhode Island
Project Component
Cost
Project design
Permitting
jnot explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
I not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Interagency coordination
RFP preparation
I not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
jnot explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Contract management
Baseline site evaluation
jnot explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
j$ 12,280
Reef materials (600 yd3 of 2-12 in. stone)
Reef construction
Total
i$ 12,000
I $35,400
i $59,680
EPA converted these costs to cost per square meter of surface habitat. The cumulative surface area of the six reefs, assuming
that the reefs have a sloped surface on both sides, and based on the volume of material used, is approximately 1,024 m2.
Dividing the total project costs by this surface area results in an implementation cost of $58/m2 of artificial reef surface
habitat with an equivalent annualized implementation cost of $5.49/m2.
F5-7.3.2 Monitoring costs
Monitoring costs for the Dutch Harbor reefs were $140,000 over a 5 year period. Assuming this reflects an annual
monitoring cost of $28,000, the equivalent annual monitoring cost is $27/m2 of artificial reef surface habitat with an
equivalent annualized cost of $ 19.36/m2.
F5-7.3.3 Total artificial reef costs
Combinirig the annualized costs for implementation and monitoring of an artificial reef provides a total annualized cost of
$24.85/m2 which EPA used in the Pilgrim HRC valuation.
F5-7.4 Costs of Anadromous Fish Passageway Improvements
EPA developed unit costs for fish passageways from a series of budgets for prospective anadromous fish passageway
installation, combined with information provided by staff involved with anadromous species programs in Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. The implementation, maintenance, and monitoring costs for a fish passageway are presented in the following
subsections. •
F5-33
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-7.4.1 Implementation costs ;
Projected costs for four new Denil type fish passageways on the Blackstone River at locations in Pawtucket and Central Falls,
Rhode Island, provide the base for the implementation cost estimates for anadromous fish passageways (personal
communication, T. Ardito, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The reported lengths of the
passageways in these projects ranged from 32 m to 82 m, with changes in vertical elevation ranging from slightly more than 4
m to approximately 10m. •
The average cost for these projects was $513,750 per project. The average cost per meter of passageway length was $10,300
and per meter of vertical elevation covered was $82,600. These estimates are consistent with the approximate values of
$9,800 per meter of passageway length and $98,000 per vertical meter suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
regional Engineering Field Office (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). While all
parties contacted noted that fish passageway costs are extremely sensitive to local conditions, EPA used the estimate of
$513,750 as the basic implementation unit cost for installing an anadromous fish passage, assuming the characteristics of the
four sites on the Blackstone River are representative of the conditions that would be found at other suitable locations for new
passagesvays.
F5-7.4.2 Maintenance and monitoring costs
Maintenance requirements for the Denil fish passageway are minimal and generally consist of periodic site visits to remove
any obstructions, typically with a rake or pole (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,' 2001).
Denil passageways located in Maine are still functioning after 40 years, so no replacement costs were considered as part of
the maintenance for the structure. Monitoring a fish passageway consists of installing a fish counting monitor and retrieving
its data. '
A new fish passageway would be visited three times a week during periods of migration (personal communication, D. Quinn,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). Each site visit would require 2 hours of cumulative time during 8 weeks of migration.
Volunteer labor costs of $15.39/hr incorporated in Save the Bay's SAV restoration proposal. Therefore, the annual cost for
labor in the first year would be $740. The cost of a fish counter is $5,512, based on the average price of two fish counters
listed by the Smith-Root Company (Smith-Root, 2001).
F5-7.4.3 Total fish passageway unit costs
In developing the unit costs for fish passageways it is first necessary to combine the expected cost of the passageway itself
with the cost of the fish counter as these are both treated as initial one time costs. This combined cost is $519,262 which has
an equivalent annualized cost of $48,914. The equivalent annualized cost for the anticipated $740 in labor expenses for
monitoring is $523. The resulting combined annualized cost for a new Denil fish passageway that is incorporated in this HRC
valuation is $49,438 (rounded to the nearest dollar). '
F5-8 TOTAL COST ESTIMATION
The eighth and final step in the HRC valuation is to estimate the total cost for the preferred restoration alternatives by
multiplying the required scale of implementation for each restoration alternative by the complete annualized unit cost for that
alternative. EPA made a potentially large cost reducing assumption: no additional HRC-derived benefits were counted in the
total benefits figures for species for which habitat productivity data are not available. If this assumption is valid, then the cost
of each valued restoration alternative (except water quality improvement and fishing pressure reduction, which were not
valued) is sufficient to offset the I&E losses of all Brayton Point species that benefit most from that alternative. EPA then
summed the costs of each restoration program to determine the total HRC-based annualized value of all Brayton Point losses
(i.e., multiple restoration programs were required to benefit the diverse species lost at Brayton Point).
The total HRC estimates for Brayton Point are provided in Table F5-39, along with the species requiring the greatest level of
implementation of each restoration alternative to offset I&E losses from among those for which information was identified
that allowed for the development of estimates of increased fish production following implementation of the restoration
alternative. Because of the sensitivity of these results to the inclusion/exclusion of the tautog-artificial reef results, total HRC
estimates are presented for both scenarios.
F5-34
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-39: Total HRC Estimates for Brayton Point I&E Losses
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Restore SAV
Restore tidal
wetland
Create
artificial reefs
Install fish
passageways
Species not
valued
; Species Benefiting from the Restoration
j Alternative
j Species
•Scup
IThreespine stickleback
iWeakfish
1 Winter flounder
! Atlantic silverside
1 Striped killifish
jTautog
JAlewife
i Rainbow smelt
: White perch
; Seaboard goby
1 Bay anchovy
i American sand lance
IHogchoker
•Atlantic menhaden
jWindowpane
! Silver hake
iButterfish
Average Annual
I&E Loss of
Age 1
Equivalents
509
3,385
1,092
520,715
17,112
572
31,379
9,315
50,784
2,297
1,513,836
1,237,140
453,236
47,116
13,146
8,689
5,775
278
Required Units of
Restoration
Implementation'
6,638
301
Unknown
10,274,236
343,247
3,031
40,915,621
1.00
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown for all
; Units of Measure
i for Preferred
i Restoration
1 Alternative
i 100m2 of directly
irevegetated substrate
im2 of restored tidal
I wetland
;m2 of reef surface area
|New fish passageway
i Restoration measures
Ivmknown - survival and
i reproduction may be
1 improved by other
i regional objectives
jsuch as improving
: water quality or
i reducing fishing
jpressure if projects can
ibe identified and are
1 permanent
: improvements.
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
$1,233.50
$1.95
$24.85
$49,438
N/A -.
Total annualized HRC valuation
Total annualized HRC valuation excluding Tautog-artificial reefs
Total
Annualized
Cost
$8,187,978
$20,069,076 ,
$1,016,911,890
------- ----- -.--
$49,438"
N/A
$1,045,218,361
$28,306,491
" Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
b Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units.
To facilitate comparisons with the costs of alternative control technologies that could be considered to reduce I&E losses at
Brayton Point, the combined I&E losses are broken down with separate values developed for the losses to impingement and
entrainment (Tables F5-40 and F5-41 respectively).
A result of interest from Tables F5-40 and F5-41 is that the sum of the valuations of the impingement and entrainment losses
is close to the valuation when the I&E losses were combined ($28.6 million versus $28.3 million - excluding the tautog
artificial reef results in both cases). This consistency is not a given when the HRC process is used to address I&E losses
separately from I&E losses combined because different species may drive the scaling of the restoration alternatives when I&E
losses are treated separately (e.g., see the results for SAV restoration in Tables F5-40 and F5-41, where different species drive
the scaling for the impingement and entrainment losses, respectively).
An alternative presentation of the HRC valuation of the I&E losses at Brayton Point is presented in Figure F5-5. x -
F5-35
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-40: Total HRC Estimates for Impingement Losses at Brayton Point
[ Species Benefitting from the Restoration
_ [ Alternative
Restoration j
Alternative j Species
Restore SAV jThrcespine stickleback
iScup
[Weakfish
Restore tidal 1 Winter flounder
wetland 'Atlantic stlverside
[Striped killifish
Create jTautog
artificial reefs j
Install fish lAIewife
passageways | White perch
: Rainbow smelt
Species not jHogchoker
valued JBay anchovy
1 Silver hake
jAtlantic menhaden
iWindowpane
JButterfish
1 Seaboard goby
j American sand lance
Average Annual
I&E Loss of
Agel
Equivalents
2,732
0
600
13,601
9,113
572
1,230
8,855
2,297
1,278
12,968
6,090
' 5,773
2,623
1,320
278
0
0
Required Units of
Restoration
Implementation3
243
0
Unknown
268,362
182,796
3,031
1,603,818
1.00
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown for all
I Units of Measure
1 for Preferred
i Restoration
; Alternative
1 100m2 of directly
irevegetated substrate
im2 of restored tidal
1 wetland
Im2 of reef surface area
jNew fish passageway
i Restoration measures
I unknown - survival and
j reproduction may be
j improved by other
I regional objectives
jsuch as improving
i water quality or
i reducing fishing
^pressure if projects can
i be identified and are
i permanent
i improvements.
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
$1,233.50
$1.95
$24.85
$49,438
• N/A
Total annualizcd HRC valuation
Total annualized HRC valuation excluding Tautog-artificial reefs
total
Annualized
Cost
$299,741
$524,202
$39,861,098
$49,438"
;N/A
I
[• . -
$40,734,479
$873,381
* Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
* Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units.
F5-36
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-41: Total HRC Estimates for Entrapment Losses at Brayton Point
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Restore SAV
Restore tidal
wetland
Create
artificial reefs
Install fish
passageways
Species not
valued
! Species Benefiting from the Restoration
! Alternative
j Species
jScup
iThreespine stickleback
IWeakfish
1 Winter flounder
i Atlantic silverside
i Striped killifish
iTautog
iAlewife
i Rainbow smelt
: White perch
j Seaboard goby
i Bay anchovy
1 American sand lance
jHogchoker
! Atlantic menhaden
jWindowpane
1 Silver hake
jButterfish
Average Annual
I&E Loss of
Agel
Equivalents
509
653
492
507,144
7,999
0.
30,149
460
49,506
0
1,513,836
1,231,050
453,236
34,148
10,523
7,369
2
0
Required Units of
Restoration
Implementation''
6,638
58 '
Unknown
10,005,874
160,451
, 0
39,311,802
0.00
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown for all
1 Units of Measure
I for Preferred
! Restoration
i Alternative
i 100m2 of directly
irevegetated substrate
!m2 of restored tidal
i wetland
Inr of reef surface area
jNew fish passageway
i Restoration measures
•unknown - survival and
I reproduction may be
i improved by other
i regional objectives
jsuch as improving
| water quality or
I reducing fishing
i pressure if projects can
ibe identified and are
i permanent
: improvements.
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
$1,233.50
$1.95
$24.85
$49,438
N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation •
Total annualized HRC valuation excluding Tautog-artificial reefs
Total
Annualized .
Cost
$8,187,978
$19,544,873
$977,050,767
$0b
' N/A'
$1,004,783,618
$27,732,851
a Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are 'shown in bold.
b Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units.
F5-37
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Figure F5-5: I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-9 CONCLUSIONS
HRC analyses indicate that the cost of replacing organisms lost to I&E at the Brayton Point CWIS through habitat
replacement is at least $28.3 million, in terms of annualized costs, when the tautog-artificial reef losses are excluded (see note
on the tautog habitat productivity uncertainty in Section 75-5.6). This value is significantly greater than the maximum annual
value of $0.3 million for Brayton Point calculated by summing the maximum annual values for the various components from
the commercial and recreational loss method. Recreational and commercial fishing values are lower primarily because they
include only a small subset of species, life stages, and human use services that can be linked to fishing. In contrast, the HRC
valuation is capable of valuing many and, in some cases, all species and life stages, and inherently addresses all of the
ecological and public services derived from organisms included in the analyses, even when the services are difficult to
measure or poorly understood.
Data gaps, time constraints, and budgetary constraints prevented this HRC valuation-from addressing most of the aquatic
organisms lost to I&E at Brayton Point. In particular, annual losses of 3.3 million fish comprising 8 species were not included
in this HRC valuation. In addition, when confronted with data gaps EPA incorporated many cost-reducing assumptions. The
Agency used this approach because the purpose of this analysis is an evaluation of potential economic losses from I&E at the
Brayton Point facility and not to implement the identified restoration alternatives. The Agency incorporated these cost-
reducing assumptions to ensure that benefits of various regulatory options would not be over estimated. Actual
implementation of this HRC analysis in terms of restoring sufficient habitat to offset I&E losses at the Brayton Point CWIS is
probably greater, and possibly much greater, than the current annualized estimate of $28.3 million.
F5-39
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Analysis
the Brayton Point Station
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated current I&E at the Brayton Point Station. The
economic benefits that are reported here are based on the
values presented in Chapters F4 and F5, and EPA's
estimates of current I&E at the facility (discussed in
Chapter F3). Section F6-1 summarizes the estimates of
economic loss developed using the benefits transfer (BT)
approach, presented in Chapter F4, and the habitat
replacement cost (HRC) approach, presented in Chapter
F5. Section F6-2 discusses the benefits of potential impingement and entrainment reductions using both the BT and the HRC
approaches. Section F6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.
F6-1 SUMMARY OF CURRENT I&E AND ASSOCIATED ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The flowchart in Figure F6-1 summarizes how the economic estimates were derived from the I&E estimates presented in
Chapter F3 and summarized in Tables F4-2, F4-3, F4-9 and F4-10. Figures F6-2 and F6-3 indicate the distribution of I&E
losses by species category and associated economic values. These diagrams reflect losses with current technologies. All
dollar values and loss percents reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse and
forage species impacts.
The baseline economic loss due to I&E at Brayton Point Station was calculated in Chapters F4 and F5. In Chapter F4, total
economic loss was estimated using a benefits transfer approach to estimate the commercial, recreational, forage, and nonuse
values offish lost to I&E. This is a demand driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the values that people place on fish. In
Chapter F5, total economic loss was estimated by calculating the cost to increase fish populations using habitat restoration
techniques. This is a supply driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the costs associated with increasing fish populations.
The total annual economic losses associated with each method are summarized in Table F6-1. These values range from
$9,000 to $873,000 for impingement, and from $230,000 to $27.7 million for entrainment. The range of economic loss is
developed by taking the midpoint of the benefits transfer results and the 90th percentile species results from the HRC
approach. .
table F6-1: Total Baseline Economic Loss from I&E (2000$, annually)
Benefits transfer approach
(demand driven approach from Chapter F4ja
Habitat replacement cost approach
(supply driven approach from Chapter F5)b
Range
Impingement
$9,077
$873,400
$9,077 to $873,400
Entrainment
$230,001
$27,732,900
$230,001 to $27,732,900
NA = not yet available.
" Midpoint of Range from Chapter F4.
b Based on cost to restore 90th percentile species impacted. Note that the lower bound estimates from the HRC
approach reflect restoration of only half the impacted fish species (i.e., the 50th percentile). As such, the low end
values for HRC were not considered in establishing the range of losses.
F6-J
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
F6-2 POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS DUE TO REGULATION
Table F6-2 summarizes the total annual benefits from I&E reductions, as well as remaining economic losses, under scenarios
ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent reductions in I&E. Table F6-3 considers the benefits of two options with varying
percent reductions of I&E. Table F6-3 indicates that the benefits of one option are expected to range from $2,000 to
S175,000 for a 20 percent reduction in impingement and from $92,000 to $11.1 million for a 40 percent reduction in
entrainment. The benefits of another option range from $5,000 to $524,000 for a 60 percent reduction in impingement and
from S138,000 to $ 16.6 million for a 60 percent reduction in entrainment.
Table F6-2: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
I&E Reductions at Brayton Point Station ($2000)
Baseline Losses
Benefits of 1 0^4 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
$9,000
$873,000
$1,000
$87,000
$2,000
$175,000
$3,000
$262,000
'$4,000
$349,000
$5,000
$437,000
$5,000
$524,000
$6,000
$611,000
$7,000
$699,000
$8,000
$786,000
Entrainment
$230,000
$27,733,000
$23,000
$2,773,000
$46,000
$5,547,000
$69,000
$8,320,000
$92,000
$11,093,000
$115,000
$13,866,000
$138,000
$16,640,000
$161,000
• $19,413,000
$184,000
$22,186,000
$207,000
$24,960,000
Total I
$239,000 ;
$28,606,000
$24,000 ;
$2,861,000 ;
$48,000
$5,721,000 ;
$72,000 ;
$8,582,000
$96,000 j
$11,443,000 ;
$120,000
$14,303,000
$143,000 j
$17,164,000 '
$167,000
$20,024,000 ;
$191,000
$22,885,000 |
$215,000 ;
$25,746,000
Table F6-3: Summary of Benefits of Potential I&E Reductions at Brayton Point Station ($2000)
20% reduced impingement and 40% reduced
entrainment
50% reduced impingement and 60% reduced
entrainment'
low
high
low
high
Impingement
$2,000
$175,000
$5,000
$524,000
Entrainment
$92,000
$11,093,000
$138,000 .
$16,640,000
Total
$94,000:
$11,268,000
$143,000
$17,164,000
F6-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Figure F6-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual I&E at Brayton Point Station and Associated Economic
Values (based on I&E averaged over the period 1974-83 and adjusted for current operations; all results are
annual ized)°
1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)h
I: 44,800 organisms
E: 16.7 billion organisms . - : .
r~
Production
2. Age 1 equivalents lost (number of fish)c
I: 69,300 fish (40,300 forage. 29,000 commercial and recreational)
E:3.8 million fish (3.2 million forage; 605,70.0.commercial arid recreational)
foregone
Replace-
ment
3. Loss to fishery (recreational and commercial harvest)1
I: 3,500 fish (5.100 Ib) .-•..".- '....-
:.-•£:43.000 fish (70,400,lb) • : \
4. Value of commercial losses
I: 3.200 fish (4.116 Ib)
$6,800 (74.7% of $1 loss)
E: 37.700 fish (54.500 Ib)-
$173.300 (75.4% of $E loss)
5. Value of recreational losses
1: 308 fish (975 Ib)
$1.400 (15.4% of $1 loss)
E:5.300 fish (15.9,00 Ib)'
: $30,700 (13.4% of $E loss)
6. Value of forage losses (valued
using either replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
I: 40,300 fish
$200 (2.2% of $1 loss)
E:3.2 million fish
$10,600 (4i6% of $£ loss)
7. Value of nonuse losses
•I: $700 (7 J% of $1 loss)
E: $15,400 (6.7% of $E loss)
u
8. Habitat replacement costd
I: $873.000 per year
E: $27,733,000 per year
° All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
b From Table F3-10 of Chapter F3.
' From Tables F4-2, F4-3, F4-9, and F4-10 of Chapter F4.
d Excluding estimated HRC costs for artificial reef emplacement, as discussed in Chapter F5.
Note: Species with I&E <1 percent of the total I&E were not valued.
F6-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Figure B6-2: Brayton Point: Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic
Values ;
36.7% Commercial
and Recreational Fish
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested) •
of$I] " '
5.1% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
VALUED as direct loss to
commercial and
recreational fishery
(commercial losses are
4.6%oftotal)b
P0.1%of$l]b
Total: 44,800 fish per year (age 1 equivalents)3
Total impingement value: $9,000b
58.2% Forage Fish"
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
p.2%of$I]b '•'
* Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all ages vulnerable
to the fishery. ;
k Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 7.7 percent of total estimated $1 loss. '
F6-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Figure F6-3: Brayton: Distribution of Entrapment Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic Values
1.1% Commercial and Recreational Fish
VALUED as direct loss to commercial and
recreational fishery (commercial losses
1.0% of total)b
[88.7%of$EJb
84.3% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED
(valued using
replacement cost
method or as
production foregone to
fishery yield)
[4.6% of$E] b
14.6% Commercial and
Recreational Fish
UNVALUED (i.e., unharvested)
[0% ofSEJ b
Total: 16.7 billion fish per year (age 1 equivalents)3
Total entrainment value: $230,000b
° Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all ages
vulnerable to the fishery. .
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 6.7 percent of total estimated $E loss.
F6-5
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
F6-3 SUMMARY OF OMISSIONS, BIASES, AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE BENEFITS
ANALYSIS
Table F6-4 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.
Table F6-4: Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits and HRC Estimates
Issue
impact on Benefits Estimate;
Comments
Used data from 1974-1983 as Understates benefits" JThere is data suggesting a plant-impacted declining fishery before
baseline for calculating I&E ! 1985. Therefore numbers based on 1974-1983 may underestimate the
flgurcs , j mil impact that Brayton I&E would have on a healthy fishery. ^
Long-term fish stock effects not Understates benefits" I EPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
considered i the higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
Effect of interaction with other Understates benefits" ; EPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the
environmental stressors i stock more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In| addition, as
j water quality improves over time due to other watershed activities, the
jnurriber of fish impacted by I&E may increase.
Recreation participation is held Understates benefits' jRecreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in value per
constant" I activity outing; increased levels of participation are omitted.
Boating, bird-watching, and other Understates benefits" j The only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
in-strcam or near-water activities i '; •
are omitted' j r-r
Did not count benefits for Uncertain j As explained above in Section F5-6.3, the available information
artificial reef installation for the - isuggests very high restoration costs to offset I&E losses for just the
tautog jtautog, which makes up only 0.8 percent of the I&E losses at Brayton
i Point. This result may be correct, but further investigation of potential
i tautog productivity at reefs is warranted. Therefore, EPA did not
I include these values in the HRC total benefits estimate.
HRC based on cap'ture data Understates benefits" i High percent of less than age 1 fish observed in capture data, thereby
assumed to represent age 1 fish ileading to potential underestimate of scale of restoration required.
Effect of change in stocks on Uncertain i EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship (e.g., that a
number of landings j 13 percent change in stock would have a 13 percent change in
! landings); this may be low or high, depending on the condition of the
; stocks.
Nonuse benefits ' Uncertain i EPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
jangling benefits. . •
Recreation values'for various Uncertain j Some recreational values used are from various regions beyond the
geographic areas ^ i Brayton Point region. ' ,
" Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
F6-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F7: Conclusions
As discussed in Chapter F3, EPA estimates that the cumulative impingement impact of the Brayton Point Station is 69,300
age 1 equivalents or 5,100 pounds of lost fishery yield per year. The cumulative entrainment impact amounts to 3.8 million
age 1 equivalents or 70,400 pounds of lost fishery yield each year.
The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of I&E losses at Brayton Point (as calculated using benefits transfer, in
Chapter F4) indicate that baseline economic losses range from $6,500 to $11,600 per year for impingement and from
$ 163,400 to $296,600 per year for entrainment (all in $2000).
EPA also developed an HRC analysis to examine the costs of restoring lost impinged and entrained organisms (Chapter F5).
Using the HRC approach, the value of I&E losses at Brayton Point are approximately $873,000 per year for impingement,
and over $27.7 million per year for entrainment (HRC annualized at 7 percent over 20 years, in keeping with estimates for
compliance costs). These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results (from Chapter F4) to develop a
comprehensive estimate of the potential benefits of reducing I&E (summarized in Chapter F6), Benefits were estimated for
different levels of I&E reduction, ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent reductions in I&E. The resulting estimates of the
potential economic benefits of reduced I&E ranged from $5,000 to $524,000 per year for a 60% reduction in impingement
and from $161,000 to $19.4 million per year for a 70% reduction in entrainment (all in $2000).
For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of
reducing I&E at Brayton Point. EPA assumed that the effects of I&E on fish populations are constant over time (i.e., that fish
kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations). EPA also did not analyze whether the number
offish affected by annual I&E would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality, fishing
restrictions to rebuild depleted stocks, or other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA
also assumed that fishing is the only recreational activity affected.
F7-1
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
alues
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 Brayton Point facility. Life history data were primarily obtained from
the Brayton Point Permit Renewal Application reviewed by the Brayton Point Technical Advisory Committee (PG&E
National Energy Group, Appendix F, 1999c). If not available in the Permit Renewal Application, the data were compiled
from a variety of other sources, with a focus on obtaining data on local stocks whenever possible. The fishing mortality rates
recommended for stock rebuilding were used, when available. These rates were obtained from the Northeast Fishery Science
Center (NOAA, 200 Ic).
Table Fl-1: Alewife Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age9+
Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
0.544
5.5
2.57
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
Fishing Mortality4
(per stage)
0
0
.0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
Ob)
0.000022C
0.00022'
0.00478"
' 0.0443"
0.139"
0.264"
0.386"
0.489"
0.568"
0.626"
0.667"
0.696"
a PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-1
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-2: Atlantic Menhaden Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age 24-
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age en-
Age 7+
Age 8+ .
Natural Mortality'
(per stage)
1.2
4.47
6.19
0.54
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Fishing Mortality"
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ib)
0.000022C
0.00022C
0.000684"
0.0251"
0.235"
0.402"
0.586"
0.863'
1.08"
1.27"
1.43"
' PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-3: American Sand Lance Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Natural Mortality8
(per stage)
1.41
2.97
2.9
1.89
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.72
Fishing Mortality11
(per stage)
• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ib)
0.000022' . •;
0.00022'
0.001 19"
0.00384"
0.0073° i
0.0113"
0.0153"
0.0191"
0.0225"
0.0255" . \
0.028"
0.0301"
0.0319"
0.0333"
1 PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
h Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-2
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-4: Atlantic Silverside Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age2+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
1.41
5.81
2.63
3
6.91
Fishing Mortality3
(per stage)
o
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(lb)
0.000022'
6.00022C
0.0049"
0.0205"
0.0349"
" PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-5: Bay Anchovy Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs.
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
1.1
7.19
2.09
2.3
2.3
2.3
Fishing Mortality"
(per stage)
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(lb)
0.000022C
0.00022°
0.00104"
0.0037"
0.00765"
0.0126"
" PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-6: Butterfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
7.56"
0.8C
0.8C
0.8C
Fishing Mortality"
(per stage)
0
0
1.6
1.6
1.6
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0.5
1
1
Weight
(lb)r
0.000000002s
0.000002s
0.0272h
0.0986"
0.944h
' Calculated from survival for Atlantic silverside (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality). _
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c NOAA, 2001b.
d NOAA, 2001b. FO., for Gulf of Maine - Middle Atlantic.
c Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
f Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.0x10-6)*Length(mm)3-26 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
8 Length from Able and Fahay( 1998). ,
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988). Eastern United States.
App.Fl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part R Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-7'. Hogchoker Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
1.04
5.2
2.31
2.56
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
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
Ob)
0.00022'
o.ooi r
0.00207"
0.0113"
0.0313°
0.061"
0.0976"
0.138"
0.178"
• PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a comme'rcial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-8: Rainbow Smelt Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
4.44
3.12
1.39
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fishing Mortality11
(per stage)
0
0
0
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
Ob)
0.00022d
0.0011"
0.00395"
0.0182"
0.046"
0.085"
0.131"
0.18"
0.228"
1 PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
" Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977.
c Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
* Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-9: Scup Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+ .
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+ '
Age 1 1+
Natural Mortality8
(per stage)
1.43
4.55
3.36
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
Fishing Mortality"
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
0
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery8
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(lb)
0.00022'
0.001 lc
0.028" •
0.132'
0.322"
0.572a
0.8453
1.12a
1.37"
1.59a
1.78"
1.94a
2.07"
2.23a
a PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b NOAA, 2001c. F0., for Southern New England - Middle Atlantic.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-10: Seaboard Goby Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Natural Mortality'
(per stage)
0.288
4.09
2.3
2.55
Fishing Mortality8
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
1
Weight
(lb)
0.000022"
0.00022b
0.000485a
0.00205a
" PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-11: Silver Hake Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age4-J-
Age5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Natural Mortality (per
stage)
1.22'
10.5"
0.36C
0.36C
0.36C
0.36C
0.36C
0.36C
0.36C '
0.36°
0.36C
0.36C
0.36C
0.36C
Fishing Mortality15
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0.5
Weight .
Ob)f
0.000000006s
0.00203h
0.164s
0.4788
0.804s ;
1.48"
2.15h ;
3" i
4.06" •
5.35"
6.89" ;
8.72h ,
l6.4h
11.38 :
Sailaetal., 1997. Red hake.
Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
Froese and Pauly, 2001. ;
NOAA, 2001c. F0,, for southern stock.
Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed. !
Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.79x 10-6)*Length(mm)3-'7 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988). ;
Table Fl-12: Striped Killifish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel-t-
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
2.14"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
Fishing Mortality0
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(lb)d
0.0000009°
0.00002C
0.0121f
0.0327f
0.055 lf
0.0778f
0.0967f '
0.113f
b.isfi' .
* Calculated from survival for Atlantic silverside (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the
using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from survival for mummichog (Meredith and Lotrich, 1979) using the using the equation:
(natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.6x10-5)*Length(mm)2-96 = weight(g) (Carlander, 1969).
c Length from Able and Fahay (1998). •
' Length from Carlander (1969).
App. Fl-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-13: Tautog Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+,
Age 22+'
Age 23+
Age 24+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
1.4
5.86
5.02
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
Fishing Mortality11
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15 .
0.15
0.15
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0
o •
0
•0
0
0
0
0
0.5
L
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
O.b)
0.0022"
0.022"
0.0637°
0.217°
0.44a
0.734°
1.08°
1.48"
1.89°
2.32a
2.76a
3.18"
3.6°
4a
4.38°
4.73°
5.07"
5.38°
5.67°
5.94°
6.19a
6.42°
6.63°
6.82°
6.99°
7.15a
10°
"- PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000h. F,^,.,.
c Commercial and recreational species. 'Fraction vulnerable assumed.
d Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-7
-------
r
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-14: Threespine Stickleback Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
0.288
2.12
1.7
1.42
1.42
1.42
Fishing Mortality"
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
Q
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ib)
Q.00022C
0.00 llc
0.00377s
0.00917"
0.0112"
0.0116"
• PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
h Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-15 Weakfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age en-
Age 7+
Age8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
1.04
7.67
2.44
1.48
0.349
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fishing Mortality11
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.5
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ib) !
0.000022=
0.065"
0.13C ;
0.195"
i , -
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Vafues
Table Fl-16: White Perch Species Parameters
• Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age2+' .
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
1.42
4.59
0.693
0.693
0.543
0.543
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
1.46
Fishing Mortality*
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15 , .
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0.
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
j
1
i
Weight
Ob)
0.00022C
0.0011°
0.0516"
:0.156a
0.248"
0.33 1"
0.423"
0.523a •
0.613'
0.658"
0.7948
a PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-17: Window/pane Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae •
Juvenile 1
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
1.41
6.99. •
2.98
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42 .
0.42-
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
Fishing Mortality1*
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
1-6
1.6
, 1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.61
: 1
1
1
1
j
1
1
Weight
Ob)
0.00 lld
0.00165"
0.00223a
0.0325"
0.122"
0.265"
0.433a
0.603°
0.761"
0.899"
1.01"
1.11°
1.19"
' PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b NOAA, 200 Ic. FBIBC, for Southern New England - Middle Atlantic.
c USGen New England, 2001.
d Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-18: Winter Flounder Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 1
Larvae 2
Larvae 3
Larvae 4
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
AgelO+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
0.288
2.05
3.42
3.52
0.177
2.38
1.1
0.924
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Fishing Mortality11
(per stage)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
•0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.01
0.29
0.8
0.92
0.83
0.89
0;89
0.89
0.89
0.89 "
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Weight
Ob)
0.0022d
0.0044 ld
0.01 1"
0.0176d
0.022d
0.033"
0.208'
0.562"
0.997s
1.42a
1.78'
2.07"
2.29"
2.45"
2.57"
2.65"
2.71"
' 2.75"
2'.78"
2.8"
2.82"
2.83"
" PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
11 NOAA,2001c. Fta^c, for Southern New England - Middle Atlantic.
c Colarusso, 2000.
d Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
This report presents the results of an evaluation of two
New England coastal facilities, the Seabrook Nuclear
Power Station in Seabrook, New Hampshire, and the
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth,
Massachusetts. The facilities are located in the same
ecological region, but differ in the locations of their
CWIS: Seabrook's intakes are located over 1 mile
offshore, in relatively deep waters, whereas the Pilgrim
intakes are located nearshore in an artificial embayment
created by the construction of a series of breakwaters.
Section Gl-1 of this background chapter provides brief
descriptions of the facilities, Section Gl-2 describes the
environmental setting, and Section Gl-3 presents
information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the
areas near each facility.
61-1 OVERVIEW OF CASE STUDY FACILITIES
Seabrook facility
The Seabrook facility is a two-unit 1240 MW nuclear power
generating station (Normandeau Associates, 1999) located in
southeastern New Hampshire just over the state line from
Massachusetts and approximately 15 miles south of
Portsmouth, New Harnpshife (Figure Gl-1). Seabrook is
situated 3.2 km (2 mi) inland from the Atlantic coast on 364 .
hectares (889 acres) of land, 202 hectares (500 acres) of which
are wetlands.
Commercial operation of the Seabrook station began in 1990.
•Seabrook had 840 employees in 1999 and generated 8.7 million
MWh of electricity.1 Estimated revenues in 1999 were $932
million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of
8.2 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity
revenues of $113.42 per MWh. Seabrook's 1999 production
expenses totaled almost $182 million, or 2.101 cents per kWh,
for an operating income of $750 million.
Both Seabrook generating units use pressurized-water reactors
and are equipped with a circulating water system for
condensing steam back to feedwater (Normandeau Associates,
1999). The circulating water system uses 5,000 m (17,000 ft)
long pipes to draw ocean water from Ipswich Bay via intakes
2,000, m (7,000 ft) offshore at a depth of 18 m (60 ft). Each
intake is equipped with a 9 m (30 ft) diameter velocity cap to regulate the intake flow. The normal flow at the Seabrook
facility is 811 MOD with a velocity of 0.5 fbs. Once used, water in the cooling system is discharged through diffuser nozzles
back into the Atlantic Ocean 1,700 m (5,500 ft) from the plant (New Hampshire Yankee Electric Company, 1986).
»> Ownership Information
Seabrook is a regulated utility plan operated by North
Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, a subsidiary of
Northeast Utilities (NU). Seabrook is jointly owned
by several utility companies, with NU owning 40
percent, the largest share in the plant (Form EIA-
860A, 2000). Through its subsidiaries, NU provides
electric power to 1.7 million customers throughout
New England. NU is a domestically focused company
that had 9,260 employees in 2000 (Hoover's, 2001g).
NU owns or controls more than 4,500 megawatts of
capacity. During 2000, NU posted revenues of $5.9
billion and sold 75.6 million MWh of electricity (NU,
2001a,b).
Pilgrim began operation as a regulated utility plant.
In July 1999, Entergy Nuclear acquired the plant from
Boston Edison. Entergy Nuclear is a division of
Entergy Corporation. Entergy Corporation is a global!
competitive energy company with 14,100 employees
worldwide and a total generating capacity of more
than 30,000 megawatts. In 2000, Entergy posted
MWh sales of over 103 million and revenues of $10.0
billion (Hoover's, 200 le; Entergy Corporation, 2001).
One MWh equals 1,000 KWh.
Gl-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 61: Background
Pilgrim facility •
The Pilgrim facility is a 670 MW nuclear power plant on the northwest shore of Cape Cod Bay on Plymouth Bay (Entergy
Nuclear General Company, 2000). the facility is-about 61 km (38 mi) southeast of Boston and 71 km (44 mi) east of
Providence, Rhode Island (Figure Gl-1).
Figure Gl-1: Locations of the New England Coastal Case Study Facilities '
25 0 25 50 75 Miles
Commercial operation of the Pilgrim station began in 1972. In 1998, Pilgrim generated 5.7 million MWh of electricity.
Estimated 1998 revenues for the Pilgrim plant were $597 million, based on the plant's 1998 estimated electricity sales of 5.3
million MWh and the 1998 company-level electricity revenues of $112.00 per MWh. Pilgrim's 1998 production expenses
totaled $143 million, or 2.503 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $454 million.2
2 Pilgrim was sold to Entergy Nuclear, a nonutility, in July of 1999. Therefore, the FERC Forrn-1 data presented in this section are
not available for 1999.
Gl-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Pilgrim uses a boiling water reactor to produce steam and a once-through cooling system that draws its water from Plymouth
Bay directly offshore from an embayment created when the facility constructed a series of breakwaters. The cooling system
uses two pipes with an intake capacity of 224 MGD. The intake structure consists of wing walls, a skimmer wall, vertical bar
racks, and vertical traveling screens to remove aquatic organisms-and small debris. The intake approach velocity just before
the screens is 1 fps (ENSR, 2000). .
Table Gl-1 summarizes the plant characteristics of the Seabrook and Pilgrim power plants.
Table 61-1: Summary of Seabrook and Pilgrim Plant Characteristics
Plant EIA Code
NERC Region
Total Capacity (MW)
Primary Fuel
Number of Employees
Net Generation (million MWh)
Estimated Revenues (million dollars)
Total Production Expense (million dollars)
Production Expense (0/kWh)
Estimated Operating Income (million dollars)
Seabrook (1999)
6115
NPCC
1,240
Uranium
840
8.7.
932
182
2.101
750
Pilgrim (1998)
1590
NPCC
670
Uranium
670"
5.7
597
143
2.503
454
Notes: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council
NPCC = Northeast Power Coordinating Council
Dollars are in $2001.
* 1996 data. ' . .
Source: Form EIA-860A (NERC Region, Total Capacity, Primary Fuel); FERC Form-1 (Number of Employees, Total Production
Expense); Form EIA-906 (Net Generation).
&1-2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING •
Gl-2.1 Gulf of Maine, ,
The Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities are both on the Gulf of Maine, an area bounded to the south and east by tall underwater
landforms called "banks" that form a barrier to the North Atlantic. The western and northern boundaries to the Gulf of Maine
are defined by the coastlines of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
The Seabrook facility is located on the Browns River near a salt marsh estuary, about 2 miles inland from the coast. The
estuary is formed by the confluence of several waterways, including the Hampton, Browns, and Blackwater rivers and Mill
Creek. Approximately 10% of the estuary is open water, and the remainder is salt marsh. Hampton Harbor, which is located
at the mouth of the Browns River, is a shallow lagoon, roughly 1.9 km (1.2 mi) wide by 2.4 km (1.5 mi) long, behind the
barrier beaches at Hampton and Seabrook (Normandeau Associates, 1994b).
The western shore of Plymouth Bay near the Pilgrim facility is a mix of sand beaches, bluffs, and boulder outcroppings
(Kelly et al., 1992). The mouth of the Plymouth Bay estuary is approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) northwest of the Pilgrim facility.
G1-2.Z Aquatic Habitat and Biota
The aquatic community near the Seabrook facility is typical of that found in the northeastern United States waters
(Normandeau Associates, 1999). The submerged rock surfaces near Seabrook support rich and diverse communities of
attached algae and animals that are a rich food source for more than 30 fish species that use the area as a nursery as well as
for rearing and forage. Several fish species found in the coastal waters near Seabrook support commercial and recreational
fisheries, such as winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus), yellowtail flounder (Limandaferruginea), Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua), Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Forage fish such as Atlantic
silverside (Meiiidia menidia) are also present in these waters.
Gl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 61: i Background
The part of Cape Cod Bay where the Pilgrim facility is located is a zoogeographic boundary, marking the distributional limits
for many marine organisms (Kelly et al., 1992). Many species typically associated with the seasonally wanner waters south
of Cape Cod, e.g., spotted hake (Urophycis regius), oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau), and rainwater killifish (Lucania parva),
occasionally move north into Cape Cod Bay in mid- to late summer. However, most northern species, e.g., rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), and rock gunnel (Pholis gunnellus), rarely extend into the waters
south of Cape Cod Bay (Able and Fahay, 1998). i
Gl-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
a. Habitat loss and alteration
The areas surrounding the Pilgrim and Seabrook facilities have long been inhabited, and support a wide range of human
activities. As a result, there has been significant habitat alteration and loss because of wetlands draining/filling for'
construction of residential and commercial structures, as well as alterations to subaquatic habitats by fishing and orjshore
residential and industrial'activities (e.g., laying of discharge pipes). One common alteration relates to the restriction of tidal
flows to tidal wetlands through diking or the construction of roadways with improperly sized culverts among other causes. In
these areas, as the tidal flows have been diminished or eliminated, the formerly salt-tolerant vegetation characteristic of a tidal
wetland were colonized by less salt tolerant species, notably Phragmites australis, a tall reed grass that is native to New
England. Phragmites grows in dense monoculture stands that reduce the ability of the habitat to support aquatic and
terrestrial species.
b. Introduction of non-native species
There are concerns over the introduction of non-native species into the coastal habitats of Massachusetts through ship ballast
water (MIT Sea Grant, 2001). One species that recently colonized southern Massachusetts waters is Hemigrapsus \
sanguineus, a crab native to the western North Pacific. R. sanguineus eats a variety of algae and animals, including juvenile
clams, and affects the local ecology by competing for food and habitat space with native crab species, although it may also
serve as a food source for larger animals (MIT Sea Grant, 2001). •
Other invasive species include bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) and saltspray rose (Rosa rugosd) (Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences, 2001).
c. Overfishing
Based on trends in catch and fishing effort, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) believes that the dominant factor
affecting New England's commercial fish stocks is overfishing (NMFS, 1999b). NMFS statistics show that standardized
trawl effort for groundfish in the Gulf of Maine approximately doubled from 1976 to 1988, yet fishermen saw a decline in
landings and catch per unit effort during that period (Townsend and Larsen, 1992). The changes in commercial fish stocks
brought about by overexploitation also have consequences for the noncommercial and recreational fish species.
d. Pollution '
The large population and residential and industrial development near the Pilgrim and Seabrook facilities are a source of
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution, which plays a major role in adversely affecting the quality and productivity of the nearby
waters. When rainwater and snowmelt run over farm fields, city streets, timberland, and lawns, other pollutants such as soil
sediments, fertilizers, sewage, and pesticides are picked up and deposited into surface water. Contaminated rainwater often
runs directly into coastal waters such as salt marshes and estuaries, impairing water quality and reducing the productivity of
coastal habitats. Because estuaries serve as the breeding grounds for fish and other wildlife, commercial fisheries are
ultimately affected by NPS pollution (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1994).
One of the most costly consequences of coastal NPS pollution is the closing of shellfish beds because of excessive fecal
coliform counts. Between 1980 and 1994, shellfish bed closings increased dramatically, many the direct result of NPS
pollution from septic systems and from domestic and farm animals (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, • •
1994). Finally, the increase in nutrients entering shallow coastal ecosystems (NBEP, 1998) associated with NPS are seen as
the most widespread factor altering the structure and function of aquatic systems by causing increased macroalgal biomass
and growth. For example, the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve on Cape Cod has experienced a particular
problem with increases in seaweeds, which have decreased the areas covered by eelgrass habitats. Eelgrass serves as a
primary source of food, shelter, and spawning habitat for an abundance of marine life, including economically important
finfish and shellfish species such as winter flounder, tautog (Tautoga onitis), bluefish (Pomatomus saltator), quahogs or hard
clams (Mercenaries mercenaria), bay scallops (Argopecten irradians), soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria), and blue crab
(Caltinectes sapidus Ralhbun) (NBEP, 1998).
Gl-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 61: Background
&1 -3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
In 2000, Rockingham County, where the Seabrook facility is located, had a population of 277,359, a home ownership rate of
75.6%, and a median household income of $54,161 (Table Gl-2; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). In 2000, Plymouth County,
where the Pilgrim facility is located, had a population of 472,822, a home ownership rate of 75.6%, and a slightly lower
median household income than Rockingham County (Table Gl-2; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
Table Gl-2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Rockingham County, New Hampshire and Plymouth County,
Massachusetts. Data from 2000 Except Where Shown.
Population
Land area (square miles)
Persons per square mile
Median household money income (1997 model-based estimate)
Persons below poverty (%, 1997 model-based estimate)
Housing units .
Home ownership rate
Households
Persons per household
Households with persons under 1 8 years (%)
High school graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
College graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
Rockingham County
277,359
695
399.1
$54,161
5.1%
113,023
75.6%
104,529
2.63
38.1%
137,833
41,547
Plymouth County
472,822
661
715.3
$49,165
8.6%
181,524
75.6%
168,361
2.74
-. 39.1%
232,060
61,614
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
61-3.1 Major Industries
Tourism is a significant economic factor in the region near the Seabrook facility. The population around Seabrook typically
doubles in the summer months (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002). Other economic activities in the area include
plastics, shoe, and furniture manufacturing, and metal fabrication. Most companies are small, with the largest employing
1,000 people- Total industrial employment is about 3,000 (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002).
The town of Plymouth, near the Pilgrim facility, has relatively little industrial activity (State of Massachusetts, 2002); only
approximately 1% of the land in the town is classified as commercial or industrial. Plymouth, however, is a major tourist
destination, with beaches and the nearby attractions of Plymouth Rock and Plymouth Plantation, which mark where the
Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts and portray life in their initial colony.
£1-3.2 Commercial Fisheries .
Commercial fishing in New Hampshire has generated between $10.0 and $14.9 million of revenue per year for the past 10
years (personal communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver
Spring, MD, 2002). Tables Gl-3 and Gl-4 show the pounds harvested in New Hampshire and the revenue generated for
commercial fisheries from 1990 to 2000. Atlantic cod was the most important commercial fish species, constituting 33% of
the catch and 25% of the revenue. American lobster (Homarus americanus) was 14% of the catch by weight, but a greater
portion of the revenue at 40%. Other commercially important species were spiny dogfish shark (Squalus acamhias), pollock
(Pollachius virens), Atlantic herring, bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), white
hake (Urophycis tennis), yellowtail flounder, and shrimp.
Commercial fishing in Massachusetts generated between $206 and $306 million in revenue per year between 1990. and 2000
(personal communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring,
MD, 2002). Tables Gl-5 and Gl-6 show the pounds harvested in Massachusetts and the revenue generated for commercial
fisheries from 1990 to 2000. Sea scallop is the most important commercial species by revenue, constituting 5% of the catch
and 25% of the revenue. American lobster was 6% of the catch and 22% of the revenue. Atlantic herring was 17% of the
catch but only 1% of the revenue. Atlantic cod was 14% of the catch and 11% of the revenue. Other commercially important
species are goosefish (Lophius americanus), bluefin tuna, winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, spiny dogfish shark, skates
(Raj idae), and ocean quahog clam. .
Gl-5
-------
V)
CXI
t
O
OJ
|
1
1
|
IE
ill
]5
i
JJ
1
1
o
S
ON
1
1
ON
I
1
1
1
1
ON
ON
t
CO
oo"
CO
in"
G
1
,0
oi£}-;in
IS!
'la!
a!^.!
• i^ij
!•*;
:cs t
Is"!
:m :
joo^:
.la
: — :
:O :
:vo:
: csi
|SJ
:oo :
:o6"i
|£;
:o\:
Bass, striped-
Biuefish
Bonito, Atlantic
O
cs
in
T.
cs
cs
r~-
o\
oo"
P
oo
CS
00
m
S
§
1
Butterfish
<>i°i-:
* ON :
I
11!
••; ON j
: o •
• OO ;~-
:22:
ten*-
jvo j
jco •
111
o\ : r-. :
Clam, Atlantic surf
Cod, Atlantic
Crab, Atlantic rock
1
in
S
oil
"B
CJ
r*- :cs
CS | ON
S Ivo
S":j§.
ON : oo
o ! in
o:m
co : t^-
r^ico
i •
oo"ioo"
O4 :ON
00:04
: of
: 04
:oo
:oo
: oo^
':"Tf
: oo
:°o.
t r*-
||
: o
:°
: vo
:.o
•i!
.1!
•n^'l
oi
c4*
oo
r-
oo
§
oo
ON
r-
VO
OO
vo
CO
u
1
u
i
oo
oo
en
vo
oo
cT
oo
r--
of
oo
CO
01
^
01
of
CO
cs
g
cs"
cs
of
s
«n
>n
ON
in
vo
vi
o
. .
9
O4
O\
o"
VO
oo
1
o
o
o
o
§
o
VO
in"
CO
cs
o
>n
oo
cs
CN
CO
O4
SiSoll
§11
: ON ; ON
1||||
: -: *
• QQ ; ^^«
oo ; QQ^' ^X
: ON : t--
04 JcT-m"
; co '. co
,:t- :o
!2 : oo,j oi^
^' en": o"
co": r-^: *•
° -°° ': oo
«« .. 00 ;
cs!S|S
-1^r!-
t :
ON • co • ON
§NJm":<'T,
tn": oo : (ri
ON : co^; t^
:-~~ :
coi^ics
"T.I ""-: °X
in : cs :oo
vo,i l-~_: ~
55 " I °" ~ § S" i S~ -
o_
r-^:
vo:
oo":
in :
Si
r-~:
oo :
cs :
ON_:
cs :
i .,.
Cusk
Dory, American joha
s
in
oo
ol
Eel, American f
S
CO
s
in
t-H
I
w
vo
t —
in
vo
ON
CO
01
1
Finfishes unc'bait and a
food"
in
in"
o
ro
CS
vo
g
co"
Finfishes unc for food8
oo
s
!-~
cs
in
o
cs
Finfishes unc spawn"
«n
m
5
1
2
OO
o
04
Flounder, summer
|il
||
^.i§
:vo
010
04 ten,
r-^i oo
q;
Flounder, window-pj
Flounder, winter
CO
in
ON"
»n
oo
in
oo
oo
vo
04
VO
Flounder, witch
|:|
•
in ivo
CO : ON
ON":VO"
cs :vo
»^ : cs
vo": ON"
-r ics
O:ON
in : oo
"i: °-
oo : vo
j
Flounder, yellowtail;
Goose-fish
cs
ON"
CO
O
vo"
CS
CO
s
o"
•3-
vo"
CO
Haddock
VO
oo"
2
oo"
ON:ON:^-:cq:^;J:fO.:ON,;oo:ON;
J : jes.j^im j^jfCJ i^ \
f-^ ', ' oo : in ', ^*> i oo • in "• • ^*~ •
ijr : ; in : C^ i ON i if) • *-^ ' '• f~~ •
• : : i j i1'1:'""; i :
: ! : i • i^'^j. : • '• ;
rol—^igigSi^rcol— ; . ;o!
iffiiltfflill! |§P
: : : :, -[ : o
g £ a. s 2 °. s- a
o-Tr^rs)ONo4intn r-J1
- vo ° fj $ V0_ ^
11 "::
1
f
s.«.|
o^r^iS1
O^JON^:^.
O : :oo
oo : ; in
r-4^: ^" : in^
01 : :— H
vo i i r^~
co : : 04
w :' :
^ : :
Hake, Atlantic red/
Hake, red
Hake, silver
ON
oo : ;
" 1- !
t-i •
pfl"
*° : i
co : .
m-:2
: r
Hake, white
Halibut, Atlantic -
r~-
:, ' ' : : :.
of ! ol I : of :
m:J3i I11"1-
I'*"4 : .-• : -i,
p** : ^^ '• ! y>-^ :
*~" j O • • (rT:
ill! it
: , U „ j ':
Herring, Atlantic
Lobster, American
Lumpfish
Mackerel, Atlantic
Mantis shrimps
F
j r
'1
'.t
,,-,;
I, ., , ,
j, 1 i,!,
I'
f
\
f
i , : '• '
vo
3
-------
E
|
f
T— )
IB
I
i
i
i
|
i
'
[
| -
1
j-
,
;
i
tn
O)
,~
T3
c
rl
eabrook i
(n
! £_
a
a.
;s
^3
, U
•(—
•W
0)
W
,
I
""1
S
O
1
o\
3\
00
1
3\
O\
1-1
ve
ff\
"
1
1-1
1
»
a
1
O
^m
...
c?
Q.
GO
• • • ; • • ; : : , : : : : • ; : : : : : : : : ^^
• imi10! i : : i :":--:':• i°°: i • i :">: i : : i : :" : '• '• '• vi : : ivo
*~i-— ' rJ"' ***'• ?i ' *"V §! ' S ' t~ = £« :°J-"j£i :cN":3§ -f> ' '""J v>^ °2 • "i-oo :n: "i*0 i'o'i1^" :22 ivd'i^ i^ol*0 i01 12 ioo"iSirn : ^i"" ifTit-^;— • '•• : i^ : :a\: : : : j : : j - : _ : : J* : t-
i i^iS-ifSiSi 1 i isiSiSi^iJiRriffii53— ; i°; ;?i ;?; '•'•• '•' \^.\ ^&
; i^iSitNit-r; ; ; ^iS'-^-^-i^ii^i^i'cflS: j-*; :\ ill ioo! ; — i~
...4\...4\...4\r.i..J...J..J...J:...j.»:^..-4"^^
| liHii 1 1 !s|s|i|i§|||||i| B|li||"1Hil/il
...^,...^,...,..,.^ ^ ^....^ T ^ T , •;"'••; -1-.--y----l -1 ,....^....-,....^ y- -,y.-.^ .,....y...y. y ... ^ T Q\
: |^- j^! : : : i :" "i =o\^ ~^'' *cn-S
; : co : \£5 : •—" : QQ : ; t"^ ; " . : , '. \^ ' ^f ' ^ ' ,_ ; | | J£^ j | ^Q J • ^j- • • j^ * ^, ; ; ; . ; ;^ : : C3 ; ^**
o\ : i^ir^ioi^i ioo: : 1 i'*^.!S!**^lvoi '! i5~i :"^.: i^i lo :<^ : : : i^s : i^iP
• • 2 : Zl! : ,.T: ^ : • vo"' • • ' v^ : (~^; S:°°' ' ioo: 1^1 : fri : i vc?: : f : i r*^ : • : ?J : ^,
: i CN ; ^- : '~'~~l 1 ; : 1 : i*"*: : "::-: too:..:^*: -~* • '•.'•. \ .'. \ :'"':: ;C3
• '• >~* ' :::::::: ^: : " : : s i • 4' . L. .^. ^....4.... 4....1...4.—4....4....4.T:!
]|pipi|i|[|]i|]iw
•-y-l^|-™rV]""]""l "•]•••] ""[ '"]' "] ""p;]' •••y---y--;^|--ry--|;--y-7y;--r---y--j;--|---r-;;-|~-y---|:--^
: Igjr^j^iSi :vo^ : i^iGi i^ISi : iO^I :oo:vo^£: :m=O' ': '• '•*%: ^'S
• • ^*-' ~***' ^2 • ^~ '• '• 10 • • • ^J" • *^ • • oC- ^" ' '• • cs • • ^^,* ^* * oo * 5^3 ' ^^ * c^ * * T : vrT: '< '^i ^
i IsJssH-l ! ! 1 i2j£i J3J2i ! i^-i l^i pi ! !"! i i is! i^iS
..... '.... '.... *.... '.... '....J-... '.... ..... J... . ".,..4..,.^....4....4,...T....^,...4-...^....^....4--..4.---4'""4--"4----4"--4--'-4----4-"-4"---i""4'---
"']'': ; • • : i : : i ; : : 1/1 i i : =00 = i : : : : : : i i : i " : i^3"
1 il!l!ii|Mal iililli " Ilill. i ill l|i W Wiiil iliiili
• iMiS:"":"": i 1 •°C:Tfirni !"!•"! ! l^j-l i"^i :"*:' i : i i i |2- i^jc-
....4/...f...4...4...f...f--4..-f-"4...4.^...^...v..-i....y--.i---;i-.-.v-"y"'-y-"r-^
Jllfllil1i|llir|||ji|ll.]aN.]Hili
; ; ; QQ ; ; ; ; "1" - t 11 ! ' ^J- I 'I ! I '• '. . ' ' 1 '. t ' 1 f I '• I : I1 |. • ET
2; it^i'T.iSiHi i 'it-i iisi^i i2-ir5i i iRiooiggi i j I joi i ivoiSi ! — if
rn": : CN : c!j : *X": ^2 : : i ! r^S'.vo*: : ^ : vo 1 : : t^- : oo : ^ : : : : :•/"»: : : : CN : : ^^ : ^
i i^i— ^| j j j • | ; . i. ; i • .1— *i • • ;°; ; • j ; .; i \ ! j ;"" j. ] |Z
oi .i^i^iooimi i i i -=g;lMi ISlvoM' IS; -la! ! i !,„!«! i LiS! !^!S
CJ: : — :":r1:JC: : : : ^ S t-~ S vo- I -t^: :pi:\o: : :S:>n: :_..:RJ:1/1: :ov:f)
v\ : : »• : r^i " ^N • ^^ • • • ' • ** • o\ • ON • *• • iri • • • ^ • • ^* • «-\ • • • ^r • wi • • ^T • r*- • __r * • i, ; f-^.
si •|«|||api | |. i isi^HlR j. !l| jaii ] rn \.r&\ i-i|
: ; ; • : : • • : • : : : : : : : • ; '. : : : ; * : i : i :"•:';: ': *""*
II il|Si^j|| I I j i^!§is! lii nil is! 1 Ms!§J is! III jsls
c3 • • oo * *~* ' *o"* ^ * * ' * i ^7* ' ^^ ; *~~* i i 06": i ! *o ! i i^ i : : : • ^o : : t : ^o ; • .« : ^*
.CN i ' : ^^ : ^- : :^*": i !: .;"^"I *~V: ; , ~ '• '• i '• ^ : :: : : : : :.:: :^: : :*~
....^., .4....^...^....^... :'.... 4-.--4.---4"--4---;4-"-4-'--4--.-4----4--"
l!'!§ffl|iii i ! 1 ;iii|§i§!S; ! !§| !IM 4 jggjsjsUJ 1^.1 illt
.;...4....4....4....4....4..,:4:...4....4....4.--4"-f"-4"";f-"*"H""f"-r'"f-'-H>'':'-f"H""
M 1 1' 1 M-i i 1 i f M h ! i 1 ! I i T-1 1 •'[' !' I T ! 1 i
i i i i lj=.i i i i i ' i • i i i i i i i •; : r i id; i i i. i i \ i
|i.i M jSi.lj I Mi in 11 |{! i r i MJM MM y-
c: ;C: • :C: ; ico: : ir-:,^61^:: • :: : : :: : : : : : : : _ : -^ :
J 8 : g i ici0f«fKjioi : « ! *g : ^ : &: i *g i = | • S • i"aEc!g)!'€i i 1 i i^ioi^i
J —
f I'll
o 'g o _
1 1 1 d-
^ & "* **3
1 --"I'i
^ T3 *~^ u
1 *§ s "a
S o ° §
•S §H §
2 o « i>
"3 c "ij fc
S cs 3 .B"
o. IJ" 1
i||l
^ w
o5 "C 1- +2
§y— , "0
^3 ®
"s S 1 •§
»5^ O WJ g.n
w S "" .S
*^ M *O
3 ar J
~ S "o .S3
-1 | § 8
s .§ w-^
OT ra o> „
bo w A «
.f'-3| SB.
1 ii i §
13 * - -S S
•2 o. « u .
g E -g E Q
tcj _, o «• **
c 2 °--S 21
C ff >» ro cL
C -S "* m "-
^> ^ K « S
C 3 S 'o s
i|i i--
lll!!
*5 *o ^* *3 ^
s s T: -s s
"C ™ .8 ^ £
§•2 o 'O §
P -. 0) ft
Sl'llw
•3 eo .S S) S
illif
S ^S ^ -S s
P C "^ O
c . o o oT "C
*O -s > -S
-------
r
•g ,
8 '
S <
& •
I
Q. !
li
1!
CM
i
"I
tt)
a
as
g
I
cl
: :ON: :ON: : .:
I 15.: 13.: :£]
« , • CT> > * ^r • • oo •
J : rj^ * ; (LA * : ^^.r
• * '••?>
ISULij
•o~;\oir:;.,
:&<3: : :*
=S!£Tf !gi
: .—. : /-xi : _, ; °9 •
, :oo: :m:
ri^iirrio;
: :<=>:„ :— :
i : o i oo I JO i
: : fs : vo : vo ;
i itViHJJooi
: (N : r«-i
: : vo • '• ' I o :
,::::: :«•>:
,-.: :es: : : :S>;
tj IS i=! ill
: :oo: :o:
:._ : : »n : :\o :
iBi jo! ;§!
: o : :
: -^r: :
:*: :
j....-.|ir :•••;• J---i-"r-( ^..M...^...,^,
: : ; [ : '• oo '•
; ^*.i : v+ ' ' r>n • ^^ '
i in !«i.
Usisigigisi !«
loolo^jooiOXi-iiea: :J
: vo IS : vo "I" S S3 ^' ^- °- "'
: —r :oo:tN ^ S r rr1 c r^ r^
j-lslgUbi^i
-f-t;K-
m
! .IP!
i is!
! • I • !"*[ !-g|
: : :o! |S| igi
;_= =S! i^iol.sa!
:^j :jS| : c-«: c: i
:"P: _e : "**• i w; 5 • •= :" : !
;*5-"S: _-? ic :<,: ti '•& • \
gj igl'i^loi
«= i 2 i i O i g i
. .. „
....i.*..i.±:.-.^^^
'
ilflllsll!
i
-------
£
01
61: B
-------
1 1
H
-. ii
s!
Ij
*
1
s
i
i
.
I
1
«s*
(X
1
a
p
p
j^
§
S
I
f
(J:
6(b) Case Studies, i
<*>
V)
0
a
a
a
*£!
S
.S
M
S1
"U
1
Je
1§
"o
'0
I—
P
1
,5
BB
to
o
3
.0
1
(•*
1*1
§
M
1
c*
Ox
Ov
A
M
OO
o\
f\
...
»
vo
CJ
J
*
s
o
f*l
c
c
i
*•«
c
c
0
ON
C
1
01
CO
gUJilikkL
ot*~*. ° ^ • °° • o : c> :
*": i :u-T't-^r'':t"~i
i ! i i j i i
! { -ON-VO: •_,:
1 1 IS3!l!|!
• r i^i^i 1^1
J..,J....i..J..,..j... .,•••"•••
* : : j : ^- : • o •
* • * risCi^i°°i
• : : *"• : ""> e : ;
....J.'»..J.... J...-4 I....4-...... —
y jflflSpjfU
* * •***': ^-T; : :
....4...,4.-i--l--^--i-4
•;*;;:;
O ; : ; P : O i S • cs :
^? • f^ ; ; ir> ; r*^; fs» ; ^^ i
oo": ^ : : ^: ^: p^"; oC-
^1" I [(NlSi"":^:
....i..,,L.,|,..i...,L..4-..|..
;••:*::
Ii 1
*""* • J •
0
S
m
t
s
.a ^>
a §
M. B
E
« *C
G.E2
§ i^yt
1 : ^" • ^*s:S : oo '• ^° • "' O • • \o ' ^ ' ^H ' ^»': ^.i "^ : r^1 \ ro '• ^ '• r~~> '• ^" : •'•
"* iSj:O ••flr i^f !Ov:St" : ii-^i i :2iMi ' :°^i : i "" 1 '• ii.
j...J^i.:.4;.j.j:4l^i.,.|.:..L;.ji.,.i.:.i... 4...4.j..,L.. j.-.-i 4...,4....|.-i| -..
i^iS: i i iSi : ;£i i ipiSi i«^i i i i i \\
!g:2-i ; ; i^-M fP; ; ;n;^.:osi§:2; i \%\^\^
: «: Cr: : : :o: ' :(N; : :°°:'^':fr): o": ^D : '• :r—i:t~^:r^
j^iof: 1 [ Jo^l : llnl J i^icni i^j i i 1 : '1
.....J.,..^.T^i...^...i.^J^^.,.^-...4-...4----i..,-;----^----?-----;"---i----i ^....^-.,.^..ai
: i o : • '• -r^'- • '• '• : • ro • vo ^ i : i '' '• ' '
•ON:*^': i ; :I(Nl;r^: : : : o • *~ ' * ON • 'SS: I ., ; :„«! i
icslcTi ^ : i cCi t~^"' oo : : '• ^ '• "•s:C^-: ^ : rn,: ^ : ^" ^JSl^^j :
: ^5 T ^^ : ; ; • FpT • *^ • "**" • • ^f - ro • o * ^f* • 2^ • t^* • ** ; *^ : — ^r ; :
iooivcTi ! i ioo"J~^ i : i*"1:^:^: i*-*: i i j | ' j
; : *~* i : : ;-*"* : : -^ i ; j ; ' : i : : : : _[.:., ,..,
i 2; i S i - '• m :- — • ': '• ''• : : : S : S : o : -^ : oo • r*i i ; o : . i
I^I^T: : il/^-^r: > : : - : o\ : «• ^.: -;^- <;Qx>:oo:'-' : : o ; ::
tn ^vo^~^ ^. ^rfiO j I j j !'"NiZ!:J$]:-^;voifn':^-' : :— *: j :
j-^lSii' i 1 j.S| -I j i I l^'i^i.i. l^j ,1 i j i |i
•y--'y-"4"--y---y"*^--y:"y"-?;":^
i||i i i ffiy Hi NipyiigU isi|hi
iSi^li 1 ! I'^i^i \3\ i"";®;^; i§i°°; i ! !:i
4,.,.4....4i...4?...4.:.:4ty.:y;:;4:...j...;J4"--4----4-----!--"-4-----;"--f---v-"-"--t-"1----1";-t
:_,io: : i i"esi :' : : : • :o: i i • '• :- :- '• ' •
:Q:\o: : : | oo : • • • • |g': : :ts: : : : : ; :
• IS • rn • • "'T ;;;;;: vo ; * ' (-0* II** ..^ • VI • t^* • ; ; V} ; *« ; CN| ; vj ; OO ; Vi ; ^^ ; 0\ ; r*^ : :
i o J *~l '• '• '• ' ^"i • c*l • f*^ • • • c^ • Os * " • r*1! * rz! • •* ' ^* ; ; *^ ; - ;
• f^ ;»«; ; ; l " I I1,' '• I ' ^r- * ' * t^- • '• • ; ; i ;
y---^1-"-i----Y-;-^.y-"p--jv--|---y-"|-;--y--=!i-:--y-"y-'-:r-.------ |.--| ,|W |..
•OA'^: ; • ioi • • ^ '• i^irS: ^§^ooi>n ^ • '• • .
ifT-ltC: • 1 • :^-"i : : i ; ™ i fCi^i § ! ^i^-i '• S ;°:FJ: :
ig|!~i i i ir5; i i ; i^ joj2j°°iPJi-!f:.-^ i \°°i : \
i^iiS! i 1 icsi I : I : i"*"^: '•'•]• 1 I \ ' I
^ • 4 ;,...4----4 — T---'-4'^"-4 — 4----4.--i«.^f-.v.B."vl-i-,---'^-- •-•!",• "v-*1 """"!""' "i — y T*T
II y| 1 |a|irHi!i|§ ihin
: vcT : """ : ; '• : oj • i : : r i 1~~l ! ; t : '• '• '• '• 1 •
• 4...4---|«..]-;-4-"]-r-i-----j-"-^i--'j""i"Jcf"'i-t:?t- ••j--"|-:--f--"-i---4"-vff:
iojoxioio; |5ii • • : • ; If^i i^i : 111!!
cs :>n:3:£?:8: '•rri\ • • • i • t°° : ro i""li r~ : iOslSi; i
^*f ' rsT; t~^"^ 00°! oo"i J ?? ::;!;«' ON • r^* • ^^ • ON • • ^vi i ![ i
J : : ^ : [j : [ 4----4 4"---;----^ 5 i^ •• -u.4,:,,;/ • i: ••,::„• :--i-----: -i-{---> :;
: } 11: :• — : : ! : : : : ^. | i __ i ! } ] I'' I
g linl ioiS;5^i^.^ i i ^o^0^ ^=°i i°i{c! !<~i i- i
^^ ; VO ' ' *— ^ • OO • *^| j^J • • ; • O ; ^^ ; ; ^5 ; ^^ ; JN ; Tj^ ; : ••'. 'sf '. i '.
^f" ':&,'' i§i^"-^:^l": • • • • c^f • • ON i :ONifr^! ^ cs '• '• •
M '-~?:- : -i"^-:°o:tN: : i i i : i-r| i^-j i i • :! :
• i : • : -i^0: :,:,:: •: :. : i :, : • i •:[. •
,-..,.-;....,•.... ^....-:....,i.—,;.---y..-i--,-.-:--:-y----;--,;-y';-y •••-;•"•;•••••: yvy^yr;
1 Ii! !|!lls!i! M Igl I i|i jiisl |gU|; 1-
rf ip; iSivoipfi^i i \ \°°\ | i?!i iSj^i iRi""!! \m
, 4"i...4^:..4....^r-.4---4"^"4-4--4-4"4;"Hf:"""r":f"thi"""
\ *4— : O '' 1 l •'• • <^ '.'••'••'"'••• I ; ; i '
f~> ctJ'F3'CJ"CJ'O'U:O:c5''U^O'O^O^U^O^O^O^Cl^Q O : ^ : [fi : M : [^
"~^ I..',;-'-'',, • ,.,, , ,' , , • ' • • ' ' | ,„ ,
0
s
(•
;'"••"•
f
:"o>
: d.
I
:«=
liE
i
,, ; i ;
: ',.: :
„ : ::'" •
;„ ,;,, !
°" ' i
"
1
::"- •
"^ ,!',
, -
•
(
-------
'•
',o
CO
1
§
'
'
i
i
E
Q_
~O
G
_*:
O
!
1
sf
•D
*i
0)
VI
a
u
3)
-Q
*~
2
tf
.2
5
1
-(
c
o
00
s
1
VO
OS
o
V)
Os
TT
Os
O1
1
3>
9\
O
OS
?s
u
os i?: ^ USJJK JsNglss! i isisi
** ivo Os ;oo:vOs:(N^ : t-^: Oj °;.: ^,: . ; ; in ; t-~ ;
^ ''^ ^f O i^io'vo i £2 i^fi ^ i t~- i 2 i^> i °^ ^
: - : : : i — ! os i <± i °° : : icn:cs:
!» o ^S^a1^ :K;Si3;ooi ; i^igi
IM =1 i^iS-iS i-i-iSiSSi i i-i«i
1*° ° i"^IS;i° :CTs:S:^.:°0: :, :oo:vo:
: : rf-i" ioo^rM'i^ ig i ! ivo"ivf!
i = io^vo J2^S^R^S! i i^isi
IS !£;?;;§ i«J5j^i«.| i^iSig;
IS i^i^is iligigili rilili
§ i^ bi^is ^i^i^ii-i i lR.ii.i
cs : °° ': *~^- o '• "** : »n i ON i ?^ : ^i ; : n:oo:o:^: : :oo:°s:
•^- -in • ^ • K? • •— ' : vo : TJ- : o :rC: : : v-> : vo ;
s !s isisfe' fe!g!s!§I i i«l" 1
i !§ - lilRiS iii|!|i|i'l IS 1
' os * ^3 * i ^2 : c^ * S : cs * *^r " • • -S - '
g iR. -n fSj".^- ;S;£;5-;£i 1 IXj-l 1
5 11 • * ;§iqi§ ilisi^i^i i i§i i
^ !§ I ii;il- 1^-iSii.i^.i • i i^= i
m i° - FiS|« i:f!-!jq!!l ;' i^l !
: , : : : : : i~ i i : : 1 :
3 & a i i e: ! h^ -i?J : i ! : ;
X) 5-« . = : |: : S :•§ : 5 : ; •! i : i
g tgj g g g i ! §1 Oi.||^; = : | | -| j j
w c ; M w w • ; t-T: t^ pt| tT; tn": t^T'-'^'- QJ : w : j;> : 5j :
llliillillllllllllllllillllllil
JH S • PH c2 ft« oO PH «*: (i, : fe : IX, fS I pr_, '. f^, : fj_, : T^l : FJ^l : f^l ; *T{ ; ^ :
: :m:o: : : ° :
II
"
!!=
:vo:os:t^;rT.:
: o : ro : >n : o :
: oo : os: in :« :
. ^..--4 — -l.--.-j.... 4
IIP
i^iooit^.1 i«!
IS5FI i
; i ;, ; ; ; ^r ;
: i^ : r^ : S*: : I ^i:
:- : -a: :
i.oiji.o:
I Si S: Si
-
|iooi^i« |§j;
Irlg!^ |?n*>
a. . o :,vo
in '•
vo :
. :vo :
t~~ : .*?'
o 2:
^r Si
•o
t— :
o :
•*.!
(N :
l
o:O,:
S:CN :
SIS!
:O
:O
"
1J i>-: .• ^, ?
: in": : vo •
;vo: ;: tc :
fii t3: &;-
«:xi:-E:
u: O : p :,
i—] | i-J | >~!:,.
:o
oo-o
•si's
*e t w
§j<
c»: .
": C
."SI'S
• 5> • e8
l-Si-S
: eo: o
;SiS
-------
•g
5
Q
&
3
|
ft
i
i
i
i
E
'c
HI
"S
o
•|
!
0.
.a"
1
55
5 316(b) Cose
i
+-'
o
&
V»
TJ
1
TJ
c
0
— 1
j£"
J=
VI
LL
To
L.
i
g
^
^•*
i
3,
u
3
12
•5
1
j,.
eg
£
C
§
s
...
OS
OS
j\
»
5>
7>
en
S
....
•tf
ON
o\
fO
ON
r-
fc
§5
1
o\
CT
i
3.
£
...
S
P
«-T
O
V
§
v
V
s§
o\
«r>
3
i
j i ! j I 1 i i I imi ! \ •
OO:J5:"> 4- <*••{•'•••{-"••!-•'••?'*•• •i"*-^- •;.••••£ — f — 4"...j« -i"!
: : i i i i i i i : ON i i i i
1 1 1 i 1 § 1 5- 1 i n i
ioo: •S'r-i'v3''oo"'"~' '"i- • '°"' •"V""1--
i I i t 1 r.' *• . frj ; ; (vj*: ; NO : V) !
', ' l . ' fo ' Tf : i ' • • ,. , • ,.
M.]-**^— ••[•—• l»— 1— .-J.-4-.— i- 4...J...J.... i-.'J:..^..^:
•':::::; : :- i : 1 i "i
1 1 II Hill
MM i^i^i C J i^| .i°1.^i
....y...y...y...y...y...y....y...J y— Y^'" ']' ~1""1
: : : : l*0!*0!^!^ : I0*1! l^iin:
: : :•— i :°i.: "T.: oo :m : • --oj^igi
; : i co J : o\ i oo i 0*1 ^ i :o\i»~« ION ^T-T1
r i i i i ^r • ^^ t • • • t*^ • • T— ' • =
.•.•4*">4""4.."4"**^"."i'*"^."*^'*"'****^"**^.""^""^'";^""^""
; ; : cv ; : w^ ', — . : Q^ ; '"• * ; ON ; o\ : : ON : ^. ;
* • • «—*'> • E^ • r^i • ^^ ; t~^ ; •""• : m : i NO i 2^ i
: : : : :^.r::f^j"~' :"*3- : too": l?^: :'
...,<.... <....4"....i...4.... 4—. ,-.... i 4'....,L.-J,i...i...i..,J...
: : : : : o : t~- : : : : c~ : ) : i
: : ; : ^NS^Qo^°°^oo '• *Z^" i^Ji^o;
!Si i— I :oo:<:o:rJ'll>r !" ! = |oo Igg 1— !"
: : ; : : -^* : m : ': > •?" • , I ; :
. ..=4..,. •_.... 4....4— -4— •<••••<•— *— i— -•;•— f— f-- •<•—<•"
MM igbiwio 1 Is; lojoi '
i * ; \o i ; QQZ ^ft ^^; ^^ ; i r^i i ^»«; *^o ;
j 1 |""| ivoi~i^i^ i i": i§i^i
: : : : i rf: •*': "" : "^ : :NO": : : i
....].. ..4... .4....,-.. -.4-.. .4.— 4.....S— •"— •i^--i— • 4— "j— ••[•— 4—
1 NJd
; :^J ;cn : j-oo^j w^: o^ :^ :2i°^J 1 ^i rn i
: : : : t »rT:irT:*~' : : : oo : • — • •
.... 4... .].... ^....]...J...J....]....i... ,L.J....^— .|...J...-4.:;
• • * - ^v>'*^f^ '• ' '\°*l :.4. -f
•j I'' i ~r} j -
si|!iisi is
:,; "* : i i . : ,
— .y---j ' "I J-, „, -I
: *^3 ; ; : ;
^^.'fM 'S ' 1QC
' **J* ; r 1/1 1 • •"•
: c*i • : : j
....^.*..^..,.4----%-
i CN i i : :
• : O • : ""* : , i
':*""*: ; ; :
...[i.-.j.,..;.^^'.^..'^
!'';> ' ': ; " : ' " """;
isi^i^i i
^irfiSi^-: i™
If " I : i .'• :
•"fi--'|----r— t 1-;;
: j •* i ; ; ' [
£^ - ^*>- S? * oo i !
•;Si i01; i
. : : : i I
— |-j— ••i-yH- .-i-.-.. — <•-••
: ' oo : '
2-|S-|2|"i i
i | • • • , h
'"nr'rir'y";""'""":""
p-,i joi | i
^-iPiiS'iSi i
....]... J...J...4— i-v
1 §L
,...^.,,^....4 — <••>'• 4.---
1 :. • ' •, i • • • , • 4>
f • ; : . : 0
- '• ' • § • ro' "' W
: : • o; o ! o
i «: :"g:'g i'g
lHUHii II
Si s: gi-di-a ^j-a
Kt;rt;rt;W;rt U;OT
: : : oo ; :
: ; : (N : _ :
: : :cs :^~- •
oo : -- : cs : __r: S!2 : ro
in : ;_i ; oo : ir) ; ^;oo
*^ i l^i^lcsi^
..;.-..j....j...Ji..,i..J
i : : :• ,:4:,,,, •
: : : : j " '
i : ! f° 1 i
• -«•••• •£*•-• -:-••• •j.."":--^.1 i;.:.-.
,?• . : : !i :
.••':• i : ; ;
! 1 ! N!
..-.,. ib-ij,...^....^.,.,5".^-—
'• ,"", j ;' ;' ' ' ; ; , •
i i iS?:** :
i- .i i ; :-i''
S? \z\ is! 1
*-I : : : oo * •
..,..„,<».. j. .. 4.— i*"*f""
: : ; iv^.i
; : ; '. cs ;
,.....j,Br4,.;:.i..LJ.,..4,...4...
'" '': ' : '""iro i i
; i : *vO : :
i i^i!$! :
i , i ioo i 1
•i-;;-:vy^-r-:-r"-r— |"
! | iy^i "j
; : : «; :
• : : o • I
":;t""t" -i'"'i""V"
1 i JcH 1
i 1 ;°^.i i
«' " i : : cs i '•
,. ...1.-^... *....$.;..$. ..:$•-•
. ^ 1 : joo: {
! : : i>- i °o i
; ; : __r : o^ ;
.,,;-,; j ; OO" j '""' I
":-Y--:"MT"ToV"-V"
: : : °\:. ^> :
: : :oo : JT1 :
: ; ; oo * *** '
•I, ; i ^' i i
1 Isliisli
••" 1"' '1""1 to'1"'
i i i !"«!
: i : i £ i
J> i g • i'S i(S : "
bo i obi o i 5Pi c i "c
IS tj I^SJS j-a ;5 i E
•^ •« i -^"i -^! -H^i -^i -ti
! I; 1 i ' '
sUi^isi^.
01 i •'Nol^iNO
i ' , j i •' 'i ;
,: . ?'F* " i
': i F'i i1^
! i t ! i^.
: '• L[ -: : S
: : [ : :
; ' •; "! ; *
.:.j..,..;-y..j .:-...
• i IvU ' jg
; ;.•?> : ; £2
: :rr>: : -
j If! Is,.
..vj... j^.l.i- ...:.....-...
: : ' f : ;
i i«i i§
i ;5o! i^
. : jyv i§
rj _ I.':....!.. ..;-.
i i crj i i ^
>n i i^j jo
i i f^Ti i '"'
• i ![ 1- I"1
:••'•<— -i l'-'4— -{—:-•
i i ! i i
1 Ifei 11
• • i^* • fo
• -jv- :>n
....4....4-j..4.;-..4 -T
i ,,i:J: i i '-:
:. i oo • • r-
rs • • t>. • • -^*
• )-• :
* * rZ ' o •
; •; M; _sp- e
j^ ; w !!vO ; *O l >-•"
CO i CO j.co : co j c/5 i
1 ' '
lib,
, • '-
f '
1
E
f •••
,",' ,. -
I
t
t . -
f „ „
;
;
{, ;•"
I »
'[ ,•
t • •
j. ,,,,,"•>
j1,,,,;
(,
/;
j.
•
i
t-.-
t
Hp
|: -''''
i v,,,
i '
!
|
r-
,
\
jr. ;,!'
] ;;,
5
'
I
i
|
^
'
1
. 5
-------
:8
CQ
i..
[T-*
IS
i$s
s
1.01
:SI
;^
!<£
-------
s i
is
I
i
a
.5
9Sl!*!3!
i^ ^ - »:os:
j^'^Sivd^i -;ro:^o:
;«iK!2iPi^!°i
• • :
s» li
• m • co ; iv
..<.....-... ..;...„•..„.;.,.„.
Clam, arctic
(Stimpson)
:<-•
Ivo
o • _~
•CN
S IS
% '•, e
iis
S
": <"*i
! i IP
i :_ !^-:
: :&^:o:
: : : CM :
: : ^ :&9:
1 i • !«
ISIS! |vx|
-*f-t-:: ::
!
, | a-: g: °i3l<
r o : pr: .£: g : ^ : «
g O CT-lDlO:Ulc3iU
S
$4,
mis
^•J
$5
$12
m
%:-::—«: «ft:
vo: : :»n:
CM j o I —• i 2 •
co : in i : o :
co : co : : CN :
— : Os : rr : os :
.IR!2!^i*:i
• o • e/& ' r*^ • *•"''
. ^—'. vfj ,, •.,_ .
: *N :
s
IS;
.-|..^
: a
: cd
: u
•s
: c: :
• eo •
ii i-liii
iga!4!!ll
: o ^ • 1> • 73:' M
• t4 . i W •' f r1 * W
i ::
-------
•1
n
o
ii1
u
a
CO
>r-t
y>
1
i
.
[
|
i
1
•
I
1
1
'
i
|
|
*g)
s:
leabrook^and
UJ
•i—
1
.if
1
§ 316(b) Case
^
c
o
0
'CM
i
O
o\
VI
VI
n
1
W
I/)
o
3£
E
M
C
J
"E
u
£
3
p
o
*•-
1
u
>
ft)
..
•&
i
y>
3
£
«
i
en
i
-*
o
o
c
(;
O
2
§
O
a
.1-1
1/1
»
«
3-
53
7-
**
1
I
* : • . : : : :,^* : : ^ : ^ : : . : ; : : : „. : :-•• : ' : i : : ^ i
• • ' ^ - o ^ r \o ^ «— i • ^ ! Os : • cs ^ ON ^ ' ' ' CM * m ' ' ' ' ' • vo •
„ 1 is 5 !:§!»;£ !«l«i§ ig-i jSjKi ! jsinlsjs! l|i j,J«i
si is s jgfi^-joi' ^isi-o. i"! ;ii§j i iilSisisH ' ;<§! isilj
i i w M"!69 N^iS ii| i^isi . j ^lui^i |«j i |§i
| ] " T "^""| -| — | — ^ 1^1 |...|....|.......,,........^....,....,....^....^.. .p...;....,.....;....,....
^^ • i1^ it^i^iS :cn:5}iP? '• ^i ic^-""' ir-j :<^i:r2:(S:l — • '04' ' :^:
2 i IS. •'"il""iCTX |-t- ' " " ' ' ^~ • ^ ' • • ^" • • • as •
:m- i°°- :'-.:§:o!- ; i ^.-oC-oC 1^.: iaiSimigr
r is !a!^8 i=isil iSi i^isi I jippjaj iSr!=|S|
1 •• <....<.... ^ ....j.... 4.... 4 ii..«,-- ...J.---^-.— i-- 4-^-"1-;j-.--4----<:-— :-• "4^--- -----•-— -:'-.-. 4""^--"-i----
i L' g ^sk • i«;si§ i-i • ig: i 1- i^isisisr Ist i Is!'
I |§ g » j|[4l l§!|!| !|F Wl P ! • iMii|| IS®!ll|l
•! -! .• ....4.. ..4 — 4 4.,.. 4;... 4 4..,. 4... ...4 — 4..., 4 4 4... .4'... ,4"... .4'... .,:...: 4 -L...^....^...^,..,
: lo •i*'in''^& : Ed : f- : — ' :D;: :^;oo: : :Tf:cxD:r^: : :£t: : : — ' i
: :\o : "^ • ^l So f"!^":0 :^: i1^:^: ; :*^:^":oo:J^: :o\:oo:in:— t:
' '• a\ '. r-C: o i *""•' J 15 * oo : ^- • *o ' • t-- : "^** • -r^1- *o~:o\ • —iT- • S * ^: fy^ • rrj • ^
: :' ^ :: i—:^: i i00:^*^:^-:^: :CN:I~':^^:I'^.:&^
] j . i i?:69 i^j^i^ jHj i^l*9! j j^i^i^i^i.. "1^1 ! isj
: ] i :^,1 !r^;m]0 }e^} |---y— -|--:-: — y — — y — y---y- vy---y- .y...y...y-.y.»y...
•ii 8 ' l|l|il il!|il Hi' fililiss i? ftllS!^! Ilisisilis
i i^ iSitsis locJTfil/l" l^f! W|S!M| i i^;SiJ5iS: ji!-: i^iiffi
-j f- - <....{....< i_. .-..:.-; :-,.. ..-..,. ...:....i..:i........: ^...4....i...,i..J i...i...ic..|— i-.
• ^os : -°^m iooio^:—1 :£• • im:m^ • • i":<=>! i ! ! : ^i
lie' !« isis-^ ^^^ ^^ i"iPi=> i i^i^-i^isi isUUisi
• *^* ' en ' ^ :o:£? icoivoi1^ * n* * • i0®:^;^-;1 • \o^ : ^S : ^- • QQ" • i ifC : ^" : ^" : T~l i
: ; ^5 • ^^ • ^— < * ^a • oo • rn* • t^ • ^* • • E* • r^ • i • £2 • *— T i ^T • €^ • ; 1^ : i i oo :
* • ^^ ' • • &5 • ^^ • S5 • &4 I «5 i ^" ' i ^^ i ^^ ; ; : ^^ i rrt ° «i • • • «^ • • • u^ *
i ' • i ; ; I!.:-': ^^ : . : ; ; * : • ; ^^ ; i ; i i : 1 ^^ i
] ] r "T^ol™ TooT"]^, T^l TH'T'"1] 1".: I T^t^t 1 " to t t toil
is^ i" ig:^.:^; i^-loiS i«i !S|«j i iooisisig: •»; • i-^i
i£ i" igi^i^ igiiniS iSi ifo-^f; i •^';Si?[iJ5-i i^i isisi
:w :w i^'iS'if^' ioT:*'1'!!;1 :^| :*~l!oji : :o) i °^-: ^:^ : i*^-: : : ^i
4 4 ...i...i'...|...i-..:.i^i...H *..J i...i..J....:..j i.:.i...L..i.:.J.....j..j:...i...i...J.!^l...
i : ' : Irsim jstitsi^ \tf: Imi i : : it^i^o: : ^oo: • •- -°^:
i<« in isiofiol iS'iUi-1' l^i ID-; ! i i^iS-ilQ'isi :o}i^i iS'i
i j 1 iMiw iSi^jS ;«; !**[..! • I*9!.69;**! i !-^j i |Si
L i'0 ig;^is ;§i2:iS igi i^| | i ui^igsi i i°i | Ifaj
|S ;K vo ioi^-i0^ iS:1*.: " J'T.: :M.': : i :SiR.:S;.itS: i£i i .:CS-i
* f*^ * r-~T "tf- * ^.r* ^ * *^* ' IS ' ^ * K • oo • '• r** • ' i i *•; vo":
-------
I!
!j
i
f i
*
1
,0,
£5
w
I
£
OX
»•*
M
£
J
s
•J*
<
«c
.s
I1
^
§
—J
"5
'o
Commer
£
^
1
a.
0
v-i
o
o
3
|2
|
g
^*
..
(
|
s
OS
-1
...
oo
3\
0\
3>
ON
o*
V)
ON
&
1
^
0
...
s
c
2
a
...
i
...
3
u
0.
n
»:oo
/> j
"-!
2 ^
w\
— • ^
gis
^T "•'"
[Ci * *O
••• vO
wi^
»..^..,,;.
oo^-o
00 ^ 7
gi«
oj
^»J vo
S|"*
....4.....
Si-*
S|S5
4.t...
s| .
*"*'
CM :
5|.
oof
.«.,,'...e.
t- :
S ^ o
sfis
i»i
••••i
co:
PJ;E?
•
...,4,..=
.Hi.
^ !
cs ' bfl
111
SiS
III
: :OT
: ;
! *
; M ; VO
i^is
1 t
"f""!
: ;
:S|
| 1
..<..•..•(•"••
:os :
i w '<
"T"*1"*"
* • oo
1 =5
..J...J
•i te
: : CM"
..J....J
:°° 1
..O.....J...,.
i 1*^
i *&• \ O
; " ; en"
i iw
Hi
....;.... 4 ....
Us
!m • o_
JCCJF:
|WjCe
...<,„.. .?....
Wt
}sf|S
• . *
Irii
; re ;
. Q,.
:<«; -
si's!!
sj-gil
•o : ed : 5
i-SlS
toe: t :&e| • l^:^; ;&**
::::;: imio' -^
M M M i£igi°ii5
;::::: : f"^: r~^: ^ : ^
• • i t "i ;• '• ^Q i CM i '• ^^
Mill! ltNi«ni ;
: : : ^- 1 • r-- • • -• «• CM I ON
• ! i i5! is;! MS-isM-
; : : : : : : ^ t *^ : '.
;*;:;;; O - OO • ' '•
• ' : : t os 1 ^ • ^-i ^l 5- i CM
• • | * cN ; P*- ; ^ ; P"" ; OO ; Q ; ^— *•
i i i i i i Ni^iw;«
..,.....< — ^....^....^ — ^.,.,^,...^..,.^. — i
: : : : ; M- : : «: T: vo • »o
: : : : :^3*: :cn:oo; «•: °o
:::!:: •gjig^l^
ttlilof'feiiti"
; ; **4* i ; ; J^ ; ; *— Tt CM"" en * "
I !**! i is! i°^i^.i^i^
,.,;...>^.. ,..;.-.. ^- ..-.;.- -. v ....;....-; .;.... ^...-.
: ; ; : i ; i o\ i vo i ;
I I','.'. I I f~* I cM ' OO ' ""*
[ i 1^1 -be: i^t^i^ioN
! 1 1 ! : i i^:^:69:^
.^..•.....•.....•....{••••••••— :••*»:•••••!"—:•• -4
; • ; ; ; ' j -O'Vi^ '•
1 II 1 III
,...;..,..•,..,.:...,.;,,...•.....•.,...:.....;.....; ^...--
III 1 IsL! Iflilsls
; o^1; ; ; ^^>; 3j : ; oCt v^*" **X* ••
; o : : 1 ^2 ; ^^i : 52 : ^ : ^ i 5-
<..{.....;....{....< -; .;,...,;,....: .; .j
IS! : iolol iSio^oo1?
: oC: i = "-i ft i i os": vo i «« i °>
: in : : : £? : ^*-: : CM : — : oo : £?
•°°.; • ;K;S; i^.;^;§;S;
:-^: : :e4:.* r^o:^*1:6^:?^
...^....•.».<....<.....;...,.;..,..;.....:.....:....^
i j i ioi^l !pi|!°|g
• ; : :OsB:*^': : ^ : .*• : v^ : *— ^
I I I i»iSci isi^i§^
1 i I i^i^l IS5j^i«iw
...|...|...|...i.,.i...|...|...i-4...4--.-
I2"i 1 i^:«: ics'i^d'; '• rn
I ^5 ;•;;;; 6^ ; w$ ; ;
,...f,...^ ^ •.....; • .; .• J.-.-4- "•
1 I 1 !• 1 i 1 g! 1 i g
Jilj
g: S! o"l-gl|i-gl>i.SiJi"l!=
<:)S:O;O:O:(X:(X:Ei(£:(£:iS
S" |" 8 13 «- £j
OO • O • 1 ^ 1 "*f •
•» g s «
r~
-^ : ' :o : cs
os • • tn TOO
m ^ °i.
os r— oo
~r . 5 . ON
^g: :*»:•,
O
^o • -^-i ;oo :
:-*: :°°:^.:
: en : : en : *— • :
: en^: ;r- |vo :
r Q i * r*- : os ;
: &e | . | | •
.. ..^^...|...|...|..
: r-T: i ^-; CM i
' en • • ?K ' ^""*
;VD": :^-"=^:
: m : : ess • •
1 1^ ; : "•* ;. ;
!§!; !s!g!
I^ISicnl^4-:'
| ^, |{/j • Q • ,2 :
• !§i jgi«i
" jBlffil
,— i • 3\ * CM * oo ' *"!,•
N:^;.:69;^;^:
v,,:..lS4^Ck
: o j : o\ : r- :
aSig-lSi^ioi"
• T • I M : OT :
i. ...^....j.. ...!.....-.-
: >n i I : :
ifji IgiJi
is: |6j»|
....•...,.•.....:-...-• — <. .
oils! l«oi ;
f> £! :H:vo:
"0.: -:ko:ln.:'^:
.—i ' *~"j : o • ^^ ' ^1,'
!2 ; ^ ; ^& ; o '• s :
sigl |s;|M|
11 11
.;.... ,J. .-- •;. — ;.;...;.-
_». ; en : : : J
S:p!; :§i°^:
p,^; m^J ^|! • O,; rsi-
mlniwl^i-l
Slij !-!«!
-•;!•-, |— 5— •%— ? — <;•
lifi iiii
6*3 ; ^5 ; : ^^ ; ;
. . ...,.;.... ;; — -•- — :- - • • -:-r
: 1 I 1 8-i I
T : : *£i)| o •
o, w:w:w:c«:w:
^j- e*^ os ^
«n O ^ rn r
oo m v,o " &
&e
- -
CM
&e
^ .-- 1
: rr
. en ; vo . .00.
i w : CN i i :
: : ee : : :
: : ; 5 :
i io,! ! I
•.^Q ; ^H i ^f : cM :
• (N * VD1* *""* " 10 *
Maj M
i : vo : : :
1 i^j^-if^i
• : ^ :^^ : ^ :
MaM i
; : ;* '. i
: i vo : : :
; * o ; i '
• i **^| ^* ; ^ ',
i i^i^i^i
•A' ' • :,->'*•• -f •:,' •"•;• • • • y
: : os : i :
; ; Q ; ; ;
'i6^;^;6'!**!
i I*5! 1 !
.i...i-..i,..i...j
• • : ' :
ioo!f.i*i?:l
rwii
V:"""";"""1". — :""1
; :os,| i i
* '^ ' (vT: i— i * *^ i
; : m J*^ ; ^4 i
i jie: : :
!sfflsn
...;.;...;.•.. .^.. ...;....:
: : : : :
: : : o : :
i«n irr : cM^i rf
iSi^lcNiw:
r:.t:."r'"t'^'t"^
: : : :"<*
j..;. . * -wv; •••;• • -:; " * :
'• '• ''• '• a
fe.i : i i "
ii i pi i S
y i 2 ': 3 i *1 i nf
^oiOTiOTiooStw
on
3
* r.
[rs'
i
15
3:^°.:^
:t-:o
(N :o\ : -^
t;,; ,:„:,:
!
-------
'I
J3
J!
^^
+-'
c
o
sii
CJ
1
o\
o\
*H
£
(D
u
in Massachu
VI
P
TJ
J
n Commepcic
fe
u
3
C
5
0)
m
•i
i
v-»
<£
ft)
n
a
\
i
63
c
i
i
O
j
£
«
g
ON
1
O\
*H
1
V)
ON
OS
O\
1
i—l
i
T— i
o
ON
ON
1
0*
CO
CO
5
"c
i
5
S
n
oo"
i $4,934,313 :
CN
OS
ON
in"
CN
vf
CO**
c*
ll
CO -0
in
co"
tn
o
in
CN
m
in
ON
CO
CN
I
in
r--
1
Shark, thresher
in
ON
ON
1
1
. , $229,620
ON
m
CN"
i
m"
CN
o
ro"
CO
CN_
OO
VO
tn"
1
CO
CO
ON"
W
5
ON"
vo
co"
ro
vo
vo"
vo
1
c/)
o
in
o
in
• •••
Sheepshead
1
oo"
ON
in"
i
co"
vo
GO
tN
r-
°°~
1
CN"
o
ro
CO
:«.
R
0
CN~
'$2,955,217
eos'ito'is
Shellfish
in
oC
oo
in
co"
ON
Z
C
5-
1
f
C/3
-
•*
CO
co"
ON
in
£
vq,
oo
CO
vo
j $380,712 I
$576,018
ON
CO
ON
r-
&
tN
£
fee
! $554,218 '
$1,343,639
$1,352,270
1
(/) O
•
«
Silversides
ON
in
r--
ON
CN"
in
oC
CN
CO
i $2,494,605 i
CO
vo"
ON
n-
i $4,386,298 !
$1,422,682
$4,239,421 :
n
co^
co"
g
"w
O:
t— t ;oo
SiS
SiS
o:
°^:
i — :
O ••
co;
o •
ON^:
t-?:
o :
CN :
co": .
in :
ii
|i
feel"
0.1 g
fee;
Ir
^i§
IIs
cr| B
SBii
in": ^-|oo
Si-i
^•-i CN^-OO
$2,389,189-1
$147,724 I
„ $13,042 •
IIP
||l
&£: :
5-i§ifee
'*W"
•|||i|
*^:69 :&e
O^jg^ ; J^
jUjjjii^
• va ; cn ;
ilifii
"ili^lsllS
'rFisf
: : _ : oo :
| CN": ON : ^l^—"
...^. , ,.j-.,,j. ,-.-.-..
feei^iroi
: :•*:
ilill^!
:f^ :&^ :« i
J ioiRi
; ON : in : vo • ^®
i iw:S-
:^!« S"iW
: : ON :
• ^ • i — ^j oC
; i w§;
8= ii ^IfiS
co : (= : c : c : c
iisis
;oig
i60:^
:§!«
: ON : co
• in | oo
• oo":-^
i^iw
;co ;
1 i oo • vo
Is ill
:.&e :
^igifee
i8l»
69 :
-------
s
S
Sis
7,82
288,
ra "3 p „
•S g-g 8
-o
« ~ " .2
111!
1 o g 8
o o .5 .—
73 c -a S
••Sill
•S § "3 g
!&?•§
21 ss 8
§11
— w 3 i 1C
I f 1 2
M.S2 . C
.S 13 o "O
.
E «
3?3?.S O"
1 •§ 11 d
g CO o, u
•g |.|>8-s
i I "§ 1 <»
o
i
?J'
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 61: Background
£1-3.3 Recreational Activities
a. Recreational fishing
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), summer flounder (Paralichthys detatus), Atlantic cod, scup (Stenotomus chrysops), and
bluefish had the greatest number of recreational landings in New England between 1990 and 1998, Information from the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) (NMFS, 200 Ib), a long-term monitoring program that provides
estimates of effort, participation, and finfish catch by recreational fishermen, indicates that 644 marine fishing sites are
located near the three main New England power plants, which are the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities and the Brayton Point
station in Massachusetts, located on Mount Hope Bay, an upper embayment of Narragansett Bay (Figure Gl-2).
EPA used data from both the MRFSS intercept and telephone interviews to evaluate fishing activities in the vicinity of the
Seabrook, Pilgrim, and Brayton Point facilities. MRFSS intercept interviews were conducted at a subset of all NMFS sites.
Approximately 70 percent ofall sites near each plant were included in the survey. A total of 17,397 intercept surveys were
completed at the fishing sites located in the 50-mile radius from the three plants, along with 14,936 telephone surveys.
Table Gl-7 presents the number of NMFS sites within 50 miles of each of the three facilities, MRFSS intercept sites, and the
number of surveys included in this analysis.
Table Gl-7
Intercept .Interview Statistics for Sites within 50 Miles of the
Three Major New England Power Plants
NMF sites
Intercept sites
Number of intercept interviews
Number of telephone interviews
Brayton Point
410
242
19,524
14,282
. Pilgrim
415
293
14,923
11,150
Seabrook
213
140
8,436
6,640
Total"
644
399
28,260
: 21,710
" The total number of sites is less than the sum froni each power plant because some sites are within 50 miles of both the Pilgrim and
Brayton Point plants.
Both the Brayton Point and Pilgrim power plants are near highly populated areas, Boston and Providence. Because the
majority of recreational fishermen (83 percent) take single day trips and prefer to visit fishing sites closer to their hometown,.
both the number of fishing sites and the number of fishing trips to these sites are higher near Brayton Point and Pilgrim
compared to the Seabrook plant. . '
MRFSS data indicate that roughly 30 percent of fishermen near the New England facilities target small game species,
including striped bass, Atlantic mackerel, and blue fish. Roughly 9 percent of recreational fishermen specifically targeted
striped bass and an additional 5 percent specifically targeted either bluefish or Atlantic mackerel. Nearly twice as many
fishermen target small game than the next most popular species group, bottom fish (e.g., Atlantic cod and scup). Nine
percent of recreational fishermen target flounders and other flatfish and three percent target Atlantic cod. Less than 1 percent
specifically targets scup.-
Between 35 and 40 percent of fishermen do not target any species. Over half of "no target" fishermen fish from the shore and
tend to catch "whatever bites." They often catch small game species because a number of these species have aggressive
behavior and are easy to catch from shore. The percentage of fishermen targeting big game species (e.g.,* shark, swordfish,
tarpon) ranges from 10 percent at sites near the Brayton Point plant to less than 5 percent at sites affected by either Seabrook
or Pilgrim.
Gl-19
-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim •
Chapter 61: Background
Figure Gl-2: NMFS Recreational Fishing Sites and Power Plants
NMFS Sites and Power Plants
Case Study Plants NMFS Sites
* Outside 50 Mile Radius
Power Plants A within a 25 Mile Radius
A Within a 50 Mile Radius
Miles
Atlantic
Ocean
Gl-20
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 61: Background
b. Tourism and other recreational activity
The Hampton/Seabrook estuary is the most popular recreational softshell clam harvesting area in New Hampshire (New
Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002). The sandy beaches of the area are a popular tourist destination, and are heavily used.
Because of overuse and human development, the dunes in the Hampton/Seabrook estuary have been drastically reduced, and
restoration of sand and dunegrass has recently begun (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002).
Nqnfishing related boating activity in the area around Seabrook is primarily recreational, and includes sailing, water skiing,
wind surfing, rowing, kayaking, and canoeing. Just over 90% of the boats registered for "fresh and tidal water" were in the
"private/rental" class (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002).
Many historical sites attract tourists to Massachusetts bays from around the world, including the area near the Pilgrim facility.
Plymouth County is one of the leading counties in Massachusetts in terms of tourism revenue.
Gl-21
-------
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 62: Descriptions of Facilities
G2-1 OPERATIONAL PROFILE
a. Seabrook
The Seabrook power plant operates one 1,240 MW
nuclear unit. The unit began operation in July of 1990 and
uses cooling water withdrawn from the Atlantic ocean.
Seabrook's total net generation in 1999 was 8.7 million
MWh; its capacity utilization was 79.9 percent. Table G2-1
presents generator details for the Seabrook power plant.
Table G2-1: Generator Detail of the Seabrook Plant (1999)
Generator
ID
PP01
Total
Capacity
(MW)
1,240
1,240
Prime
Mover"
NP
Energy
Source"
UR
In-Service
Date
Jul. 1990
Operating Status
Operating
1 Net '
Generation
(MWh)
8,681,836
8,681,836
Capacity
Utilization'
- 79.9%
79.9%
ID of
Associated
CWIS
cw
* Prime mover categories: NP = nuclear.
b Energy source categories: UR = uranium.
c Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at full capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, 2001b.
G2-1
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (52: Descriptions of Facilities
Figure G2-1 below presents Seabrook's electricity generation history between 1990 and 2000.
Figure G2-1: Seabrook Net Electricity Generation 1990 - 2000 (in MWh)
g.
c
.0
i
o
O
12,000,000
10,000,000 •-•
8.000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000 •-•
1990
2000
Source. U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Id.
b. Pilgrim
The Pilgrim power plant operates one 670 MW nuclear unit. The unit began operation in December of 1972 and uses cooling
water withdrawn from Cape Cod Bay. Pilgrim's total net generation in 1999 was 4.5 million MWh. Its capacity utilization
was 76.2 percent. The plant was sold to Entergy Nuclear, a nonutility, in July of 1999. Table G2-2 presents generator details
for the Pilgrim power plant. •
Table 62-2: Pilgrim Generator Characteristics (1999)
Generator
ID
1
Total
Capacity
(MW)
670
670
Prime
Mover"
NB
Energy
Source"
UR
In-Service
Date
Dec. 1972
Operating
Status0
SD-Jul. 1999
Net.
Generation
(MWh)
4,473,327
4,473,327
Capacity
Utilization"
76.2%
76.2%
n> of
Associated
CWIS
27
1 Prime mover categories: NB = nuclear.
b Energy source categories: UR = uranium.
c Operating Status: SD = sold to nonutility
11 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. Department of Energy, 2001 a, 2001 b. '.
G2-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 62: Descriptions of Facilities
Figure G2-2 below presents Pilgrim's electricity generation history between 1972 and 2000.
Figure G2-2: Pilgrim Net Electricity Generation 1972 - 2000 (in MWh)
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
I .
•g 3,000,000
2,000,000 •
1,000,000
1972
1977
1982
1987
•1992
1997
Year
Source; U.S. Department of Energy, 2001d.
62-2 CWIS CONFIGURATION AND WATER WITHDRAWAL
a. Seabrook
The Seabrook Power Station has an intake structure that is located 7,000 feet offshore in the Atlantic Ocean. The intake
structure includes a velocity cap and screens. The facility's 1993 NPDES permit limited the approach velocity to 1.0
feet/second. Intake water flows through a 19-foot diameter tunnel to the plant. The design intake capacity is 918'cfs (593
mgd), which is also the approximate daily intake flow.
b. Pilgrim
The Pilgrim Power Station has two shoreline intakes that draw water from Cape Cod Bay. Intake water is obtained from an
embayment, which is separated by two large breakwaters from the open waters of the Bay. The intake structures consist of a
skimmer wall, vertical bar racks, and vertical conventional traveling screens. The average approach velocity is 1 foot per
second. The screens are periodically rotated based on pressure differential as well as continuously at temperatures less than
30 degrees F to prevent freezing. The intake structure has a dual spray wash system with an initial low pressure wash to
remove light fouling and organisms and a high pressure spray to remove debris. The design intake capacity is 693 cfs (448
mgd), which is also the approximate daily intake flow.
G2-3
-------
-------
§ 316{b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of !<&E Data
EPA evaluated I&E impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
from the CWIS of the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities
using the assessment methods outlined in Chapter A2 of
Part A of this document. Section G3-1 of this chapter lists
fish species that are impinged and entrained at Seabrook
and Pilgrim and Section G3-2 presents life histories of the
most abundant species in the facilities' I&E collections.
Section G3-3 outlines Seabrook's I&E collection methods
and Section G3-4 presents results of EPA's analysis of
annual impingement and entrainment at Seabrook. Section
G3-5 outlines Pilgrim's I&E collection methods and
Section G3-6 presents annual impingement and
entrainment results for Pilgrim. Section G3-7 summarizes
and compares I&E results for the two facilities and Section
G3-8 discusses some potential biases and uncertainties in
I&E results.
&3-1 AQUATIC SPECIES VULNERABLE
TO !<&E AT THE SEABROOK AND PILGRIM
FACILITIES
--CHAPTER-CONTENTS-
:"£eabrook^
-s^eth6cJs^^
;4;4--^-"^
S- }-} - ^ £;
r-':r"---:":":-™;r-^onftpTOg;;J^SSSSE_ ~_ — ~G3-14_
" Q3-5.2 Pilgrta-EntrainmentMpfiitormg G3-14 ;
G3-6 Pilgnm's Annual Impmgemerit-EihdEntramment G3-14
G3-7 Summary and Cqmpansonlpf I&Ei at Seabrook
__ .
G3-8 _ Potential Biases-aniiJnceriainties-ih I&B
Estimates
G3-51
EPA evaluated aquatic species impinged and entrained by
the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities, including commercial, recreational, and forage species, based on information provided in
facility I&E monitoring reports. Approximately 84 different species of fish have been identified in I&E collections at
Seabrook since monitoring began in 1990, and at least 58 (69%) of these are valued commercially or recreationally
(Normandeau Associates, 1991, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1995,1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999). At the Pilgrim facility,
approximately 68 species have been identified in I&E collections since 1974, and 26 (38%) of these have commercial or
recreational value (Boston Edison Company, 1991-1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996-1999, Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1977). Table G3-1 lists species identified in Seabrook and Pilgrim I&E collections. Species with impingement
or entrainment losses above one percent of total impingement or entrainment losses respectively were evaluated. Species with
similar life histories were evaluated together.
Table 63-1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
Common Name j Scientific Name
Alewife \Alosapseudoharengus
Alligatorfish \Aspidophoroides monopterygius
American eel \Anguilla rostrata
American lobster '-.Homarus americanus
Americah plaice \Hippoglossoidesplatessoides
American sand lance •Ammodytes americanus
American shad \Alosa sapidissima
Atlantic cod i Gadus morhua
Atlantic herring • Clupea harengus
Atlantic mackerel i Scomber scombrus
Atlantic menhaden \Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic moonfish \Selenesetapinnis
Seabrook
" 7' "" '"
/
V
s
t/
7
s
s
s
s
v'
Pilgrim
S
S
S
S
S
S
7
S
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
G3-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of !<&E Data
Table G3-1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to !<&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities (cent.)
Common Name j Scientific Name
Atlantic seasnail \Liparis attentions
Atlantic silverside -Menidia menidia
Atlantic tomcod \Microgadus tomcod
Atlantic torpedo ! Torpedo nobiliana
Bay anchovy \Anchoamitchilli
Black ruff I Centrohphus niger
Black sea bass I Centropristis striata
Blackspotted stickleback 1 Gasterosteus wheatlandi
Blue mussel \Mytilus edulis
Blucback herring \Alosa aestivalis
Blucfish \Pomatomus saltator
Butterfish \Peprilus triacanthus
Clcamosc skate \Raja eglanteria
Conger eel • \Congeroceanicus
Gunner 1 Tautogolabrus adspersus
Flying gurnard \Dactylopterus volitans
Fourbcard rockling \Enchelyopus cimbrius
Fourspine stickleback \Apeltes quadrants
Fourspot flounder \Paralichthys oblongus
Gooscfish \Lophius americanus
Grubby \MyoxocephaIus aenaeus
Gulf snailfish -Liparis coheni
Haddock \Melanogrammus aeglefinus
Hake species iLotidae
Herring species -Clupeidae
Hogchoicer \ Trinectes maculatus
Killifish species iFundulidae
Lcfteye flounder fBothidae
Little skate \Leucoraja erinacea
Longhom sculpin \Myoxocephalus
i octodecemspinosus
Lumpfish -Cyclopterus lumpus
Moustache sculpin i Triglops murrayi
Mummichog \Fundulus heteroclitus
'•heteroclitus
Northern kingfish . \Menticirrhussaxatilis
Northern pipefish \Syngnathusfuscus
Northern puffer \Sphoeroides maculatus
Northern searobin \Prionotus carolinus
Ocean pout \Zoarces americanus
Orange filcfisli \Aluterus schoepfii
Oyster toadfish \Opsanustau
Pcarlsidc \Maurolicus muelleri
Planchcad filefish \Stephanolepis hispidus
Pollock \Pollachiuspollachius
Radiated shanny I Vivaria subbifurcata
Rainbow smelt • Osmerus mordax mordax
Red hake i Urophycis chuss
Redfish (Red drum) \Sciaenops ocellatus
Righteye flounders iPleuronectidae
Rock gunnel \Pholis gunnellus
Rough scad I Trachurus lathami
Round scad \Decapteruspunctatus
Sand lance species \Ammodyte spp.
Sand tiger ; Carcharias taurus
Seabrook
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
S
' -
X-
X
[x - ; ."
X
>x ;
X
:X
;X
G3-2
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table G3-1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities (cent.)
Common Name ; Scientific Name
Sculpin species -Cotridae
Scup -Stenotomus chrysops
Sea lamprey \Petromyzon marinus
Sea raven \Hemitripterus americanus
Searobin species iTriglidae
Shorthorn sculpin -Myoxocephalus scorpius
Silver hake/ Atlantic whiting \Merlucciusbilinearis
Silver-rag -Ariomma bondi
Skate species . iRajidae
Smallmouth flounder -Etropus microstomus
Smooth dogfish \Mustelus cams
Smooth flounder \Pleuronectesputnami
Snailfish species iCyclopteridae
Spiny dogfish \Squalus acanthias
Spot -Leiostomus xanthurus
Spotted hake \Urophycisregia
Striped anchovy \Anchoa hepsetus
Striped bass \Moronesaxatilis
Striped cusk-eel i Ophidian marginatum
Striped killifish \Fundulus majalis
Striped searobin iPrionotus evolans
Summer flounder \Parahchihysdentatus
Tautog i Tautoga onitis
Threespine stickleback 1 Gasterosteus aculeatus aculeatus
White hake : Urophycis tenuis
White perch \Moroneamericana
Windowpane \Scopkthalmus aquosus
Winter flounder \Pleuronectes americanus
Witch flounder ! Glyptocephalus cynoglossus
Wolf-fish -Anarhichas lupus
Wrymouth \Cryptacanthodesmaculatus
Yellowtail flounder \Limandaferruginea
Seabrook
7
7
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
j
/
/
J.
7
j
/
»^
7
/
/
/
^
V
Pilgrim
/
/
J
/
/
/
v'
/
^
/
7
/
/
/
/
/
s
^
7
/
/
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
x •
X
X
.X
X
X
X
X
Recreational
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
Sources: Saila et al, 1997; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Normandeau Associates 1991,1993-1995, 1996a,
1996b, 1997; Boston Edison Company, 1991 -1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996-1999.
G3-2 LIFE HISTORIES OF MOST ABUNDANT SPECIES IN SEABROOK AND PILGRIM I&E
COLLECTIONS
Atlantic cod (£adus morhud)
Atlantic cod is a member of the Gadidae family, which includes cods and haddocks. The species is found from Greenland
south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Fahay et al., 1999). Atlantic cod is an extremely important commercial and
recreational fish in the United States and Canada. The northern cod stock declined by almost two orders of magnitude
between 1962 and 1992. The collapse of the fishery was due to excessive pressure from fishing (Hutchings, 1996). The 1987
year class was the largest in the period from 1982 to 1998; however, recruitment remains poor and year classes through the
1990s were weak (NOAA, 200 Ic). Currently the United States and Canadian Atlantic cod fisheries are managed through
techniques such as closures, minimum size limits, days-at-sea restrictions, and quotas.
In U.S. waters, cod are evaluated and managed as two stocks, (1) the Gulf of Maine, and (2) Georges Bank and south
(NEFSC, 2000b). Commercial and recreational fishing occurs throughout the year, but most recreational fishing occurs in
late summer in the lower Gulf of Maine.' Both commercial and recreational fishing are managed under the New England
G3-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of XAE Data
Fishery Management Council's Northeast Multispecies Management Plan. The goal of the plan is to reduce fishing mortality
to levels which will allow stocks to rebuild.
Spawning begins in northern areas as early as February and ends in southern areas as late as December (Scott and Scott,
1988). Cod spawn repeatedly for up to 50 days once a year (Kjesbu, 1989). Annual fecundity increases with age and size
(May, 1967), with large females producing between 3 to 9 million eggs (Fahay et al., 1999). Spawning occurs at various
depths, from less than 110m (360 ft) to more than 182 m (597 ft), depending on water temperature (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Eggs are distributed throughout the water column, although their buoyancy tends to concentrate them in a cold intermediate
layer if the water is stratified (Ouellet, 1997). Egg development in cooler waters (0 °C or 32 °F) usually extends for 40 days
(Scolt and Scott, 1988; Ouellet, 1997). .
The pelagic larvae move to the bottom during the day and rise at night (Lough and Potter, 1993; Gotceitas et al., 1997). Age
0 and age 1 cod are both found in nearshore environments, preferably over sandy substrates (Fraser et al., 1996), and young
cod often seek cover in eelgrass (Zostera marina) (Gotceitas et al., 1997). Juveniles 40 mm (0.16 in.) or larger are demersal
by day, but will frequently rise up to 5 m (16 ft) off the bottom at night (Lough and Potter, 1993).
Atlantic cod eat a variety of foods throughout their lifetime (Scott and Scott, 1988). Fry eat copepods, amphipods, larvae, and
small crustaceans; juveniles eat larger crustaceans; and adults over 50 cm (19 in.) eat fish, including smaller cod, as well as
invertebrates. Age 0 cod primarily feed during the day, while age 1 cod generally feed at night (Grant and Brown, 1998).
Adult Atlantic cod live in diverse habitats ranging from inshore waters to the outer continental shelf, and from depths of 457
m (1,500 ft) to surface waters. They generally prefer cooler water temperatures ranging from -0.5 to 10 °C (31 to 50 °F; Scott
• and Scott, 1988). Off the New England coast, Atlantic cod migrate seasonally, moving into coastal waters in the fall and
returning to deeper waters during spring (Fahay et al., 1999). Adults reach sexual maturity at ages 2 to 4 (NOAA, 2001c).
Cod can reach a total length of 200 cm (78 in.), a maximum weight of 96 kg (212 Ib), and a maximum age of 25 (Froese and
Pauly,2001). ;
G3-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I&E Data
ATLANTIC COD
(Gadus morhua)
Family: Gadidae (cods and haddocks).
Common names: Atlantic cod.
Similar'species: Greenland cod (G. ogac), Pacific cod
(G. macrocephalus).
Geographic range: Can be found from Greenland
south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.3
Habitat: Diverse habitats ranging from inshore waters
to the outer continental shelf, and from depths of 457 m
(1,500 ft) to surface waters.b
Lifespan: Maximum reported age is 25 years.0
Fecundity: Large females may produce between 3 to 9
million eggs.0
Food source: Larvae and juveniles consume copepods,
amphipods, larvae, and crustaceans. Adults feed on fish,
including smaller cod, as well as in vertebrates .b Age 0 cod feed
during the day, Age 1 cod feed primarily at night.d
Prey for: Larger cod, squid, pollock, and seals.0
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
*• Distributed throughout the water column.6
Larvae: pelagic
*• Move to the bottom during the day and rise at night/
*• Found in nearshore environments, preferably over sandy
substrates or in eelgrass.glh
Juveniles: demersal
> Larger juveniles are mainly demersal, but will rise up to
5 m (16 ft) Off the bottom at night/
Adults:
*• Adult Atlantic cod in the Gulf of Maine migrate
northward in fall, traveling up to 500 km (310 miles) to
overwinter off of eastern Canada.'
>• , Move into coastal waters in the fall, and return to deeper
waters during spring.3
' Fahayetal., 1999.
b Scott and Scott, 1988.-
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
" Grant and Brown, 1998.
c Ouellet, 1997.
f Lough and Potter, 1993'
s Eraser etal., 1996.
" Gotceitas et al., 1997.
' Campana et al., 1999.
Fish graphic from NOAA,2002e,
Atlantic herring (£lupea harengus)
Atlantic herring is a member of the Clupeidae family, which includes herring, sardines, and shads. It ranges from
southwestern Greenland and Labrador to South Carolina (Scott and Scott, 1988). Herring fisheries developed in the late
1800's, concurrent with the development of canning technology. Herring were also used as bait for the lobster industry,
which developed at about the same time. Annual landings were as high as 68 million kg (150 million Ib) in the late 1800's
(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a). Particularly aggressive foreign fisheries developed in the 1960's on
Georges Bank, with landings peaking at 363 million kg (800 million Ib) in 1968. This overfishing contributed to a crash of
the Atlantic herring population. Current annual harvests are in the range of 36 to 45 million kg (80 to 100 million Ib)
(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a). Primary uses of Atlantic herring are as canned sardines, steaks, and
bait for crab, lobster, and tuna fisheries (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a).
Atlantic herring along the northeastern Atlantic coast were previously managed as two stocks, the Gulf of Maine stock and the
Georges Bank stock. However, herring from the two stocks are now considered together as a single coastal stock complex for
current management purposes (NEFSC, 2000c). The offshore fishery collapsed in 1977, and subsequently the commercial
fishery focused on the near shore waters of the Gulf of Maine. Stock biomass has increased substantially in recent years
because of increased spawning and low fishing mortality. Recreational landings in recent years have been inconsequential.
G3-5
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of IAE Data
Spawning occurs throughout the year, peaking in shallow waters in the spring and deeper waters in the fall (Scott and Scott,'
1988). Spawning in waters of coastal Massachusetts takes place usually in October or November at depths ranging from 4 to
110 m (13 to 360 ft) (Kelly and Moring, 1986). Adults may travel long distances to return to spawning grounds, which
consist of rock, gravel, or sandy substrates (Kelly and Morning, 1986). Fecundity increases with age and size, with females
producing between 23,000 and 261,000 eggs (Messieh, 1976). Atlantic herring eggs are demersal, stick to the bottom in
clumps or layers, and often cover the substrate (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a). Eggs are generally 1.0
to 1.4 mm (0.04 to 0.06 in.) in diameter and hatch after 10 to 30 days, depending on temperature. Larvae are 4 to 10 mm (less
than 0.4 in.) in total length (Able and Fahay, 1998). ;
Larvae disperse to estuaries after hatching, and grow to approximately 30 mm (1.2 in.) long before transforming into juveniles
(Able and Fahay, 1998). Transformation occurs after about 152 days at water temperatures of 7 to 12 °C (44 to 54 °F)
(Doyle, 1977), but can last as long as 240 days for late-spawned (December) herring (Reid et al., 1999). Larvae hatched
earlier in the season tend to grow faster than those hatched later (Jones, 1985). These juveniles, called "brit herring," move in
large inshore schools. Larger juveniles are referred to as "sardines" and are harvested commercially (Jury et al., 1994).
Adults are found in coastal and continental shelf waters at depths of up to 200 m (656 ft) and in water temperatures from 1 to
18 *C (34 to 64 "F; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a; Froese and Pauly, 2001). Feeding migrations may
consist of hundreds of thousands of adults. Schools are composed of individuals of similar size classes, and tend to inhabit
the upper water column. Most Atlantic herring migrate south in the fall from feeding grounds off Maine to southern New
England (Kelly and Moring, 1986). ;
Food sources are primarily small planktonic copepods in the first year, and copepods thereafter. Atlantic herring switch to
filter feeding if the density and size of food are appropriate (Froese and Pauly, 2001). Adult herring will also eat fish eggs,
pteropods (small molluscs), and the larvae of mollusks and fish (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Growth rates of Atlantic herring are highly variable by stock, and herring typically reach maturity between the ages of 3 arid 5
(Scott and Scott, 1988). Environmental factors such as temperature, food availability, and population size generally control
growth. Atlantic herring reach 250 mm (10 in.) by the fourth year and may eventually reach 380 mm (15 in.) and 0.68 kg (1.5
lb) (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a). A Gulf of St. Lawrence study reported Atlantic herring of 12 years
(Scott and Scott, 1988).
G3-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I&E Data
ATLANTIC HERRING
(Clupea harengus)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).3
Common names: sea herring, sardine, herring,b
Similar species: Pacific herring (C. pallasii), alewives
(Alosa pseudoharengus).*
Geographic range: Can be found from southwestern
Greenland and Labrador to South Carolina."
Habitat: Coastal and continental shelf waters at depths
of up to 200m (656 ft)."
Lifespan: Up to 12 years.3
Fecundity: Females produce between 23,000 and
261,000 eggs.c
Food source: Young of year primarily feed on small planktonic
copepods; adults consume larger copepods, fish eggs, pteropods
(small molluscs), and the larvae of mollusks and fish."
Prey for: Almost all pelagic predators as well as many seabirds,
marine mammals, and bottom dwellers (eggs only).3
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
*• Stick to the bottom in clumps or layers, and often cover
the substrate.b
Larvae: pelagic
> Larvae disperse to estuaries after hatching.11
Juveniles: pelagic
* Harvested commercially as "sardines."5
Adults:
*•• Form schools of hundreds of thousands of individuals of
the same size class/
*• Most migrate south in the fall from feeding grounds off
Maine to southern New England/
" Scott and Scott, 1988.
b Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 200la.
c Messieh, 1976.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
c Juryetal., 1994.
f Kelly and Moring, 1986.
Fish graphic from Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2002
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scrombrus)
Atlantic mackerel is a member of the Scombridae family, which includes mackerels, tunas, and bonitos. Atlantic mackerel
range from Labrador to Cape Lookout, North Carolina. The species tends to school in large groups in shelf areas with water
temperatures of 9 to 12 °C (48 to 54 °F; Scott and Scott, 1988). Atlantic mackerel is fished both commercially and for sport. .
Fish caught in the United States and Canada peaked in 1973 at 400 million kg (400,000 metric tons) per year and declined to
a low of 30 million kg (30,000 metric tons) in the late 1970's. Weak year classes occurred from 1975 through 1980 but
stocks are currently very high (NEFSC, 2000a). Stock increases have resulted from low harvest rates combined with
improved recruitment.
Winters are spent in deeper waters, but mackerel return to shore in springtime to spawn. There are two major spawning areas
for Atlantic mackerel: between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Scott and Scott, 1988). In the
Gulf of St Lawrence, Atlantic mackerel spawn from June to mid-August, whereas in the northern regions of the Mid-Atlantic
Bight they spawn from April to June (Ware and Lambert, 1985). In summer and fall, fish from the Mid-Atlantic Bight move
into coastal areas along the Gulf of Maine, while the northern contingent remains in Canadian waters (Ware and Lambert,
1985).
Females are serial spawners, releasing five to seven successive batches of eggs each year (Morse, 1980b). Fecundity values
for females in U.S. waters of the northwestern Atlantic range from approximately 156,000 to 1,640,000 eggs for females
between 310 and 446 mm (12 to 19 in.) fork length (Griswold and Silverman, 1992). Eggs are pelagic and are released near
the surface, where they concentrate in the upper 10 m (33 ft) of water (Scott and Scott, 1988). At hatching, larvae are about 3
mm (0.1 in.) long (Ware and Lambert, 1985). Larvae grow rapidly, reaching an average size of 200 trim (8 in.) by late fall
(Scott and'Scott," 1988). '
G3-7
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I&E Data
Atlantic mackerel feed by both filter feeding and prey selection. Food sources include zooplankton, shrimp, crab larvae,
small squid, fish eggs, and young fish such as capelin and herring. After spawning, adults generally migrate in schools to
offshore feeding areas before returning to their overwintering sites (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Once juveniles join the offshore adults, they remain in schools. Adults are obligate swimmers owing to the absence of a swim
bladder (Scott and Scott, 1988). Atlantic mackerel mature at about 2 years or 26 cm (10 in.) (NMFS, 1999b). They may live
up to 17 years and attain length of up to 50 cm (20 in.) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
ATLANTIC MACKEREL
(Scomber scombrus)
Family: Scombridae (mackerels, tunas, bonitos)."
Common names: Mackerel, tinker (half-grown
mackerel).
Similar species:
Geographic range: Can be found from Labrador,
Canada to Cape Lookout, North Carolina."
Habitat: Open marine waters, mainly within the
continental shelf.b
Lifcspan: Maximum reported age is 17 years.0
Fecundity: Females produce approximately 156,000 to
1,640,000 eggs.a
Food source: Zooplankton, shrimp, crab larvae, small squid, fish
eggs, and young capelin and herring.8 '
Prey for: Porbeagle sharks, dogfish, Atlantic cod, bluefin tuna,
swordfish, porpoises, and harbor seals." ,
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
> Eggs are released near the surface."
Larvae: pelagic \
*• Grow rapidly, reaching an average size of 200 mm (8 in.)
by late fall."
Juveniles: ',
*• Join the offshore adults and remain in schools.6
Adults:
School in large groups in shelf areas.b
Are obligate swimmers owing to the absence of a swim
bladder." '•
* Scott and Scott, 1988.
* Studholmeetal., 1999.
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
Griswold and Silverman, 1992.
Fish.graphic from NOAA, .2001 c.
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
The Atlantic menhaden is a member of the Clupeidae (herring) family, and is a euryhaline species, occupying coastal and
estuarine habitats. It is found along the Atlantic coast of North America, from Maine to northern Florida (Hall, 1995). Adults
congregate in large schools in coastal areas; these schools are especially abundant in and adjacent to major estuaries and bays.
They consume plankton, primarily diatoms and dinoflagellates, which they filter from the water through elaborate !gill rakers.
In turn, menhaden are consumed by almost all piscivorous, recreationally important fish, as well as dolphins and birds (Hall,
1995).
The menhaden fishery is one of the most important and productive fisheries on the Atlantic coast, representing a multimillion-
dollar enterprise worldwide (Hall, 1995). Menhaden are considered an "industrial fish" and are used in products such as
paints, cosmetics, margarine (in Europe and Canada) and feed, as well as bait for other fisheries. The fishery in New England
peaked in the 1950's with 36 million kg (36,000 metric tons) landed. Landings in the 1960's declined to their lowest level of
approximately 2,700 kg (2.7 metric tons) because of overfishing. Since then, landings have varied, ranging from '
approximately 200,000 kg (200 metric tons) in 1989 to 1 million kg (1,000 metric tons) in 1998 (personal communication,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, March 19,2001).
G3-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Atlantic menhaden spawn year round at sea and in larger bays. In waters from'Maine to Massachusetts, spawning takes place
from May to October (Scott and Scott, 1988). The majority of spawning occurs over the inner continental shelf, with lesser
activity in bays and estuaries (Able and Fahay, 1998). .
Females mature between ages 2 and 3, and release buoyant, planktonic eggs during spawning (Hall, 1995).' Atlantic
menhaden annual egg production ranges from approximately 40,000 to 700,000 eggs (Hall, 1995). Eggs are spherical and are
between 1.3 to 1.9 mm (0.05 to 0.07 in.) in diameter (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Larvae hatch after approximately 24 hours and remain in the plankton. Those larvae that hatch at sea enter estuarine waters 1
to 2 months later (Hall, 1995). Water temperatures below 3 °C (37 °F) kill the larvae, and therefore larvae that fail to reach
estuaries before the fall are more likely to die than those arriving in early spring (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae are 30 mm
(0.1 in.) and 70 mg (0.0001 Ib) and juveniles are 38 mm (0.15 in.) and approximately 470 mg (0.001 Ib; Lewis et al., 1972).
The juvenile growth rate is estimated to be 1 mm (0.04 in.) per day (Able and Fahay, 1998).
During the fall and early winter, most menhaden migrate south to the North Carolina capes, where they remain until March
and early April. Few larvae can tolerate waters below 3 °C (37 °F), or waters that rapidly cool to 4.5 °C (40 °F). Adults and
juveniles'can tolerate a wide range of salinities from less than 1% up to 33-37% (Hall, 1995). Menhaden spawn in early
. spring and winter off North Carolina and in spring and late fall in the mid-Atlantic region (Wang and Kernehan, 1979).
However, primary spawning grounds for Atlantic menhaden are offshore near Cape Cod (Jury et al., 1994).
Adult fish are usually 30-35 cm (12-14 in.) long and weigh 0.9 kg (2 Ib). The maximum age of a menhaden is approximately
7 to 8 years (Hall, 1995), although individuals of 8-10 years have been recorded (Scott and Scott, 1988).
ATLANTIC MENHADEN
(Brevoortla tyrannus)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).3
Common names: Menhaden, moss bunker, fatback.b
Similar species: Gulf menhaden (B. patronus), yellowfin
menhaden (B, smithi).
Geographic range: From Maine to northern Florida
along the Atlantic coast.0
Habitat: Open-sea, marine waters. Travels in schools."
Lifespan: Approximately 7 to 8 years.0
Fecundity: Females produce between 40,000 to 700,000
eggs.0 ,
Food source: Phytoplankton, zooplankton, annelid worms,
detritus."
Prey for: Sharks, cod, pollock, hakes, bluefish, tuna,
swordfish, seabirds, whales, porpoises.3
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
> Spawning takes place along the inner continental
shelf, in open marine waters, with less activity in
bay and estuaries.d
> Hatch after approximately 24 hours.0
Larvae: pelagic
*• . Hatch at sea, and enter estuarine waters 1 to 2
months later.0
Remain in estuaries through the summer, •
emigrating to ocean waters as juveniles in
September or October.d
Adults
Congregate in large schools in coastal areas
Spawn year round, primarily May to October from
Main to Massachusetts.3
Scott and Scott, 1988.
Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953.
c Hall, 1995.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from U.S. EPA, 2002a.
G3-9
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Cunner ( Tautogolabrus adspersus) t
Gunner is a member of the Labridae family, which includes the tautog. Cunner is a dominant component of many temperate
marine communities of the western Atlantic Ocean from Newfoundland to Chesapeake Bay (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
It is a territorial and sedentary species that occupies small, localized ranges within 10 km (6.2 miles) of shore. The species
prefers complex habitats with natural or artificial structures such as bedrock outcrops, glacial boulders, pilings, shipwrecks, or
breakwaters, and juveniles inhabit shallow waters (Lawton et al., 2000). Although large numbers of cunner were landed in the
late 1800's and early 1900's, today they have little commercial or recreational value (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
In Cape Cod Bay, cunner spawn close to shore from mid-March until mid-July (Lawton et al., 2000). In more northern areas
the spawning season lasts from May to September. Spawning peaks in waters near Woods Hole, Massachusetts, during the
first three weeks of June (Lawton et al., 2000). Males and females are able to spawn several times in a day, and more than
once throughout the spawning season (Pottle and Green, 1979). Females produce approximately 5,000 to 600,000ieggs
annually (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999). The number of eggs produced is related to fork length and fish weight; maximum egg
production occurs between the ages of 7 and 9 years and is maintained until approximately 16 years of age (Steimle and
Shaheen, 1999).
Cunner eggs are pelagic and range in size from 0.84 to 0.92 mm (0.033 to 0.036 in.) in diameter (Able and Fahay, J998).
Eggs hatch after several days in water temperatures of 12.8 to 18.3 °C (55 to 65 °F), and larvae are 2-3 mm (0.08 to 0.11 in.)
long (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). The larval stage lasts 18-37 days (Lawton et al., 2000).
Cunner growth rates during the first year in waters near Nova Scotia range from 0.30 to 0.35 mm (0.01 in.) per day (Tupper
and Boutilier, 1995). Larvae and juveniles collected in July in the Great Bay-Little Egg Harbor area, off the New Jersey
shore, were 5.2-15.6 mm (0.2 to 0.6 in.) long (Able and Fahay, 1998). Atage 1, cunner are about 4 to 8 cm (1.6 to' 3.1 in.)
long (Serchuk and Cole, 1974).
Adults do not migrate extensively, but they will travel short distances to escape extremes in water temperature (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953). They move to protected areas in the fall and become inactive as water temperatures fall to 7-8 °C (45 to 46
*F). As temperatures decrease further, cunner become dormant (Olla et al., 1975). Some may overwinter in their Summer
habitat, but inshore areas that are susceptible to thermal currents are not suitable for the dormant period (Dew, 1976). When
spring water temperatures reach 5 to 6 °C (41 to 43 °F), cunner move to seasonally transitory habitats such as mussel beds and
seaweed (Olla et al., 1979). Cunner are active during the day and become inactive and seek cover at night (Olla et al., 1975).
Cunner are omnivores that feed on mussels, small lobsters, and sea urchins in addition to plant material (State of Maine
Division of Marine Resources, 2001b).
Dew (1976) found that cunner in the mid-Atlantic Bight mature at about age 1. Cunner sampled in Cape Cod Bay were up to
10 years old (Lawton et al., 2000), whereas data for other areas indicate a maximum age of 6 years (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
G3-JO
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I&E Data
to£0/a6ras adspersus)
Family: Labridae (wrasses).
Common names: Perch, sea perch, blue perch,
bergall, chogset, choggy."
Similar species: Tautog (Tautoga onitis).
Geographic range: Prevalent from Newfoundland to
hesapeake Bay.b
Habitat: Natural or artificial structures within 10 km
of shore.c
Lifespam: May live up to 10 years.0
Fecundity: Females produce approximately 5,000 to
600,000 eggs annually.3
Food source: Mussels, small lobsters, and sea urchins in addition
to plant material.d
Prey for: Other shore fish such as sculpins, seabirds."
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
*• Range in size from 0.84 to 0.92 mm (0.033 to 0.036 in.) in
diameter/
Larvae:
> 0.2-0.3 mm (.008 to 0.012 in.) in length.1"
Juveniles:
> Can be found in high abundance in structurally complex
habitats/
Adults:
*• Inactive as'water temperatures fall, but they will travel
short distances to escape extremes in temperature.1"
*• Become dormant in the winter.8
Auster, 1989.
Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953.
° Lawtonetal., 2000.
d State of Maine Division of Marine Resources, 2001b.
c Scott and Scott, 1988.
f Able and Fahay, 1998.
8 Ollaetal., 1975.
Fish eraohic from NO AA, 2002c.
Winter flounder (.Pleuronectes amer/canus)
Winter flounder is a benthic flatfish of the family Pleuronectidae (righteye flounders), which is found in estuarine and
continental shelf habitats. Its range extends from the southern edge of the Grand Banks south to Georgia (Buckley, 1989b).
It is a bottom feeder, occupying sandy or muddy habitats and feeding on bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp,
amphipods, crabs, urchins, and snails (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
Both commercial and recreational fisheries for winter flounder are important. U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries are
managed under the New England Fishery Management Council's Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission's Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder (NEFSC, 2000d).
Three groups are recognized for management and assessment purposes: Gulf of Maine, Southern New England-Mid Atlantic,
and Georges Bank. Management currently focuses on reducing fishing levels to reverse declining trends and rebuild stocks.
The Gulf of Maine stock is currently considered overfished (NEFSC, 2000d). Although improvements in stock condition will
depend on reduced harvest, the long-term potential catch (maximum sustainable yield) has not been determined.
The winter flounder is a nonmigratory species. Tagging studies indicate that winter flounder north of Cape Cod remain in
local inshore waters, while populations south of Cape Cod may disperse up to 3 miles offshore on a seasonal basis (Buckley,
1989b). Water temperature seems to be the most important determining factor of seasonal distribution. Winter flounder near
Newfoundland may remain in shallow waters during the summer as long as temperatures do not exceed 15 °C (59 °F), while
off of the coast of Rhode Island, winter flounder move to deeper, cooler waters in the summer (Buckley, 1989b).
G3-1I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Spa\vning occurs between January and May in New England, with peaks in the Massachusetts area in February and March
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Spawning habitat is generally in shallow water over a sandy or muddy bottom (Scott and
Scott, 1988). Adult fish tend to leave the shallow water in autumn to spawn at the head of estuaries in late winter. The
majority of spawning takes place in a salinity range of 31 to 33 ppt and a water temperature range of 0 to 3 °C (32 ito 37 °F).
Females will usually produce between 500,000 and 1.5 million eggs annually, which sink to the bottom in clusters. -The eggs
are about 0.74 to 0.85 mm (approximately 0.03 in.) in diameter, and hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953).
Larvae are about 3.0 to 3.5 mm (0.1 in.) total length when they hatch out. They develop and metamorphose over 2 to 3
months, with growth rates controlled by water temperature (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Larval growth appears to be
optimal with a slow increase from spawning temperatures of 2 °C (36 °F) to approximately 10 °C (50 °F; Buckley, 1982).
Larvae depend on light and vision to feed during the day and do not feed at night (Buckley, 1989b). Juveniles tend to remain
in shallow spawning waters, and stay on the ocean bottom (Scott and Scott, 1988). ',
Fifty percent of females reach maturity at age 2 or 3 in the waters of Georges Bank, while they may not mature until age 5 in
more northern areas such as near Newfoundland. Females are generally 22.5 to 31.5 cm (8 to 12.4 in.) long at maturity
(Howelletal., 1992).
Winter flounder supports important commercial and recreational fisheries in the area, as it is the thickest and meatiest of the
common New England flatfish (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Annual commercial landings declined from 17.083 million kg
(17,083 metric tons) in 1981 to 3.223 million kg (3,223 metric tons) in 1994 (personal communication, National Marine
Fisheries Society, Fish Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, January 16, 2002.). Winter flounder is
ecologically important as a prey species for larger estuarine and coastal fish such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) (Buckley, 1989b). ;
G3-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part (5: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I&E Data
WINTER FLOUNDER
(Pleuronectes americanus)
Family: Pleuronectidae (righteye flounders)
Common names: Blackback flounder, lemon.sole, black
flounder."
Similar species: American plaice (Hippoglossoides
platessoides), European plaice (P. platessus).
Geographic range: From the southern edge of the Grand
Banks south to Georgia.1"
Habitat: Bottom dweller. Found in coastal marine
waters .c
Lifespan: May live up to 15 years.
Fecundity: Females produce between 500,000 and 1.5
million eggs annually.3
Food source: Bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp,
amphipods, crabs, urchins and snails."
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish.b
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
>• Approximately 0.74 to 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter."
»• Hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days.3
Larvae: semi-pelagic
> Approximately 3.0 to 3.5 mm (0.1 in.) total length when
they hatch out."
Juveniles: demersal .
*• " Once winter flounder enter the juvenile stage, they
remain benthic, preferring sandy bottomed substrates.d
Adults:
> Females mature at ages 2 and 3 .e
»• . Migrate seasonally to offshore waters in the summer,
and inshore waters in the winter.1"
a Bigelow and SchroeSer, 1953.
Buckley, 1989b.
c Scott and Scott, 1988.
d Grimes et al., 1989.
c Howelletal., 1992.
Fish graphic from State of Maine Department of Marine Resources, 200 Id
G3-3 SEABROOK'S METHODS FOR ESTIMATING IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT
63-3.1 Seabrook Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Seabrook has sampled impinged Organisms since 1990 (Normandeau Associates, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1995,
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999). Impinged fish are collected after being washed from the 9.525 mm mesh traveling screens within
the circulating water pumphouse. Before 1998, screens were washed once per week, or more frequently during storm
conditions, and collected fish were identified to species and counted (Normandeau Associates, 1999). Because of inadequate
removal of small fish from screenwash debris, the facility believes that estimates from 1990 to 1994 are likely to be
underestimated (Normandeau Associates, 1995). Prior to 1998, the number offish impinged in unassessed screenwashes was
estimated based on the volume of debris in the unassessed screenwash and the volume of debris in the assessed screenwash
nearest in time to the collection date. The sum of assessed screenwashes and the calculated value for the unassessed
screenwashes allowed calculation of an annual estimate offish impinged (Normandeau Associates, 1997,1999). In 1998
sampling procedures were adjusted so that traveling screens were washed at least twice each week and fish were counted in
every screenwash. Since 1998, the annual impingement is the sum of the fish impinged from every screenwash (Normandeau
Associates, 1999; R. Sher, Seabrook Station; personal communication, 2001).
93-3.2 Seabrook Entrainment Monitoring
Seabrook has also conducted entrainment sampling since 1990 (Normandeau Associates, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994b, 1995,
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999; Saila et al., 1997). Samples are collected with 0.505 mm mesh nets suspended in double-barrel
G3-13
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter &3: Evaluation of I&E &ata
collection devices. Initially, three replicate samples were taken once during the day on each sampling date, but beginning in
January 1998 the sampling design changed to include 24-hour sampling. Samples are taken four times each month, and in
four diel periods (2400-0600, 0600-1200, 1200-1800, 1800-2400 hours). The weekly number of entrained organisms is
estimated by calculating the arithmetic mean density in a sample for each sampling day and multiplying by the cooling water
volume during the week the sample was taken. These weekly estimates are summed for a monthly estimate, and monthly
estimates are summed to derive an annual estimate (Normandeau Associates, 1997). Slight variations in annual extrapolations
methods can be found in Seabrook facility documents for previous years (Normandeau Associates, 1993, 1994a, 1995).
63-4 SEABROOK'S ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT
EPA evaluated annual impingement and entrainment at Seabrook using the methods described in Chapter A5 of Part A of this
document.1 The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix Gl. Table G3-2
displays facility estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) at the Seabrook facility, by species. Table G3r3
displays those numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table G3-4 displays impingement of fishery species as yield lost to
fisheries, and Table G3-5 displays impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables G3-6 through G3-9 display the
same information for entrainment at Seabrook. I . •
63-5 PILGRIM'S METHODS FOR ESTIMATING IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT
63-5.1 Pilgrim Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Impingement monitoring at Pilgrim has been conducted three times per week since 1974. Traveling screens are washed over
a' 24-hour period, once in the morning, once in the afternoon, and once at night. To estimate annual impingement numbers,
Pilgrim divides the numbers offish impinged during an impingement monitoring period by the numbers of hours of
monitoring, and then the resulting impingement rate per hour is multiplied by 24 hours and by 365 days to obtain an annual
number. After 1990, if all four intake screens were not washed, then the number of fish impinged was increased by a
proportional factor (Boston Edison Company, 1991-1994, 1995a, 19.95b, 1996-1999; Entergy Nuclear General Company,
2000).
i ;
£3-5.2 Pilgrim Entrainment Monitoring
Entrainment sampling at Pilgrim began in 1974 (Boston Edison Company, 1991-1994,1995a, 1995b, 1996-1999; Entergy
Nuclear General Company, 2000). Samples are taken in triplicate at low tide. In most years sampling was twice a month
from October through February and weekly from March through September. However, this regime was modified in 1994.
Sampling from October through February now involves taking single samples on three separate occasions during two alternate
weeks each month. The standard mesh is 0.333 mm, except from late March through late May, when a 0,202 mm mesh is
used. From March through September single samples are taken three times every week. All sampling is done with a 60 cm
diameter plankton net fitted with a digital flow meter. This allows for calculation of arithmetic mean densities of larvae and
eggs entrained. Annual numbers of entrainment were determined using the full load capacity of the plant (Entergy Nuclear
Generating Company, 2001).
93-6 PILGRIM'S ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT
EPA evaluated annual impingement and entrainment at Pilgrim using the methods described in Chapter A5 of Part,A of this
document.1 The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses were the same as those used to evaluate
Seabrook's losses and are presented in Appendix Gl. Table G3-10 displays facility estimates of annual impingement
(numbers of organisms) at the Pilgrim facility, by species. Table G3-11 displays those numbers expressed as age 1
equivalents, Table G3-12 displays impingement of fishery species as yield lost to fisheries, and Table G3-13 displays the
Seabrook annual impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables G3-14 through G3-17 display the same information
for entrainment at Pilgrim. . ,
1 In some cases the facility did not identify impinged or entrained organisms at the species level or life history data were not available
for different species in the same family. In these cases, EPA grouped the losses together under a single species.
G3-14
-------
£.
~
a
.E
>.
T3
F
. *.£
in
Hi
w
a
M
o
1
'm
|
w
4_
O
¥
1
e
o
•fe
52
6)
-O
4-
C
"o
•1
CM
f)
a
h-
1 ff
•81
5 >•*
CO <«
•g «
pa
.a e
1 1
•< H
o •§
« g
•jg o3
Atlantic
Moohflsll
-
II
^S
^ W"
*^ .£
•< S3
I8
American
Sand Lance
e
a oi
•c -2
n
CO
2
ON
OO
ON
§
—
s
ON
Maximum
oo
— .
C-l
5
-.
*
CO
CN
O
CO
3
o
2
m
Q
5
^
NO
NO
m
oC
-
CN!
oo
00
oo
NO
oo
°1
—
5
•q-
r-
•tf
1
*•
g
CO
ON
, O
1
i-
.s
o
w
-§
"c>
. I
jrook.90.98;
utput.90.98.no.
MENT; Plant:seat
/seabrook/tables.o
8-1
ii
1-1 o
i «
^ Si
^E
01 ^
•§§2
S fN| ^
8fe S
li?
•g 111
itil
-------
1
1
J£
I
10
«5
I
10
(O
U]
^
•£
u
£
g
u_
1
>»
.Q
n>
1
w
•>
"9
3
T>
0)
«
£
¥
E
0
e)
U)
+-
a
X-N
*c
e
?
i*-
o
1
£^
£•
^_^
tj
F*
e
*
(V
1
CO
y>
o n
2: w
>=
c
a,
g
5
a
ts
~
-
o
o3
o
0
I
1
o
0
n
m
00
TJ-
•q-
£
o
o
en
O
o
m
o\
O>
O
O
o
o
00
oo
0
01
vo
.m
o
00
t-^
VO
c-f
m
o
(N
m
o
m
•a-
ON
ON
VI
o
NO
o
ON
K
0
m
»n
CO
£
U1
5;.
O
9
cn
o
•^~
V!
ON
ON
0
O
-
o
§
cs
^r
o
VI
r*
cs
t--
i/i
^
o
o\
cs
o
CO
$
ON
0
o
0
wi
m
s
o
m
•*
r--
c—
o
O
n
en
en
01
m
01
o
oo
01
g
1
o
0
o
0
o
o
•n
en
01
-
o
o
'01
o
o
p
c
'c
.'s
*-.
t-
*n
o
3-
cs
s
o.
W-i
ol
01
ON
NO
01_
en"
en
ON
01
—
en
IN
p
p
'R
ed
>n
o
en
01
o
ON
en
—
00
oo
en
ON
r—
a
ro^
in
VO
vo
en
o
CO
r-
8
— ,
o
cs
w-i
vo
>o
cs"
CO
oo
ir^
en"
o
Ov
o\
r-
o
•^j-
o
•s
o
en
NO
o
-
Tj-
m
CS
"«
1
,
' %
o
00
o
ON
: • -g
: p
CO
L ci,
1 .E
s
8
! 7
;: ^
' M
CA
i o
rook.90.98;
utput.90.98.i
: 1 S
c -°
1 °" •§
r" ** O
i" Y* *-"
; ^1
II
; ^ O
' g -g
5 o
e g
cfi 'o
O c/3
- % ^
° 'C
'' > aa
1 'Si?
VB!
. a 01 ^
0 fe S
— ' CO r/N
8^|
Is!
S "^ ^
-S ° w
••#=?
&^g
Rl r- C
OT o 5
II •§ <
o 2 p-
-------
S
S
Ol
S
o
E
O
m
to
a.
J
VJ
-S1
s:
jf
-
.
o
a
ti
c
w
c
CJ
!
«
n
E
1=
M
3
E
.,
M
I
CO
.^
• 45
.&«
"J°
.S
V
1
2
C/3 E
«
a,
.
e
!§•
o
fa
^
•a
a
RI
U
en
•3
e
e
•S
K
^
EC
•s
P4
•4-1
1
.1
1
"§
3
PS
£
«
CO
•S
PS
Pollock
i
—
o
o
—
o
OS
o
o
o
2
.2
o
^
OS
o
OS
OS
CN
CN
O
m
••^
S
o
en
~
£
—
t_rl
s
O\
OS
—
—
O
•
en
o-
vo
O
0
o
•*
.2
VO
o
CN
OS
OS ,
o
—
o
vo
o
o
r~
o
0
in
CN
m
o
oo
o
CN
en
OS
Os
—
o
vo
o
o
o
0
0
1
CN
CN"
In
O
oo
Os
O
O
*
o
~
VO
0
0
OS
vo
CN"
CN
OS
OS
00
oo
OS
o
OS
o
s
JO
3
U3 •
1*
VI
SJ
&
0
• 'fj
"43
en
ta
£
g
CO OO
o* o
O\ ON
P
•S q
O co
el
E «
§ s
is
G w
AM
£ .5
CO j—
^g-g
i) CT? ^" ^ ,
^Sl
1 1<
0 2 Q.
-------
1
s
b
£
S
£:
1
CD
10
5O_
2"
m
^
-b
•O
U
••-
o
fc
V
UJ
u
o
g
'o
u
o.
«)
CO
1
E
JQ
o
U
•g
1?
.5
b
^
M
GJ
f
1
t*—
a
t
CO
t
CO
u>
«i
3
,u
•s
1
f.!
£
?•
VI
B
I
u &
11
Si
•^ n.
a*
e
ra
a.
1
1
£
•g
1
40
g
^
•o
c
:s
QJ
£•*
•5 a
§"3
i "
H§
BJD
"3
H
'•a -S
•|i
-fc s=
00 ^
•a "3
3-^i
^(§
(A
S
W
•a
CJ
*C
CO
*S ^
J-5
*4
£
£
W1
0
(N
S
—
•>T
O
en
0
o
o
"—"
o
£
v\
~
2
>n
in
o
-
m
o\
0
ci
o
o
(N
Ov
O\
CN
O
VO
o
o
«3
•*
0
»o
ON
ON
C3
CN
CO
ON
CO
C^
to"
00
NO
'S-
00
oo
s
CO
"3-
m
5
o
-
o
NO
ON
ON
CO
0
ON
•y
ON
VO,
O
^
s
o
s
ro
O
O
r^
ON
ON
M
-
NO
IO
NO
1=
— •
o
oo
ON
C— _
CO
o
o
o
o
oo
ON
ON
00
CO
01
CS
CO
o,
Tf
NO
VO
—
(N
cs
p
t~-
oo
o
-
o
s
s
CO
o
(N
•*
"0
o
o
0
0
0
o
o
o
F
'c
'•s.
o
o
VO
Tt-
co
ro
00
00
10
-~
CO
ON
VO
CN
—
NO
-
o
Q
00
y
en
t~-
O
o\
CS
oC
m
r-
Q\
tn"
VO
Os
m
V~t^
VO
V)
t^
en
u-i
J—l
*K
f2
i
0
I1' OO
C3'
ON
^
O
S
0,
s
i %
1 cE
1
, CO
! a
6
§
| ON ON
f 0 0
•i $
' 0 &
' £ §
' o> w
; »
-------
I
I
t/>
**—
c
J
••3
tr
LU
,-t
ft)
O)
•t
VI
o
"0
U
VI
VI
S!
Q.
IU
.8
o
• 0)
n.
.0"
.ae"
o
E
-Q
a
e)
*/)
4-
a
+-
6)
£
"5.
„_
§
d
^
CO
ro
t)
.Q
i
t-g
a e
S 1
w
^
o
•o _
« B
n E
11
3 S
O {•/.
fe W
unner
.W
|*
S B
n
li
a a
«
Atlantic
Riverside
K
•" '•!
"tt K
J-g
«i
•3 QJ
l-s
*jj C9
"^ S
li
35 'o>
< a
o
c _
B Q
S W
'•S
:T*';'-*:'^':^J: —
] ] 1 \ '! V""'! "!""
ojo|o;oj:2:o;r3ipioo
• I """ : ^ • oC : cs" i rsf : rr> : -4"
4 4 i 4 4 4 4 j— -
o|o;o:oio;o\:— <;o: —
••"•; 7 •• •; 7 •}_——; •;
«nii2i-=i-:oioioi — ioio
— -j -i 4- i 4 4 ------ 4 \
*:::::::
cs i ^ : «— ' : ^ : »— *:T*":oo!mir~-
csjen;m|^-;^|3|g0:oo:^-
: : : : "O i vo • en • • m
oioioi—jofoioioio
••"!-•• --4 -f 4 4 -[ 4 .}.-....
: : : : : ! ^^ j °° |
j ( : : : "~" : f1\ : ^ • »~<
..j 1 J....J l...j/^j.Zi
i , j 1 • I • . j i \ \
f jds|si|jsM|j|
1—1 : ~ : """' ; "~" : ""* : "^ • "^ • ^ • ^~ •
00 i oo : S ! ^> • »n
^ i en - — 1 • Q^ \ °<
— "i f— -I f-
— :.-.; oo i cs i S
^ • ^ • oo • O : ^
: : : : "~*
•"••-J-— -4 4"---4---
oo : I oo | o ! Q
S* 1 "^ i 5" J ^ i ^
-•"•4-"--4 4 4—
•^j- • *O i ^ : oo : ^
; '. . '. ^*
m '• '• \D : rn i c
cs :-en : in : o : o\
m • i *• i to •
: ; •— ' ; ; CN
......*......*..,.. 4 ^....4 —
oo : : ^ : oo i *""*
••— j—- "i f--»4— ,
l^ • O J I • CS | C<
- j i o !',-«• ! 5!
oo. j o | S j o i °S
......J.....4 4 4 —
2) i o^ : ^^ : ^ : cs
-T- ---"f ^.-...4,..,.
en j 0 i ^£ f • Q\ • O | (N)
o i to i — ! o •'•-.
•••4 4 4 4
,_ : : oo : ro : ro
g^ :. : ro : oo : —
G i i £- ! "- ! --
i E i s i i
: a : 3 : i
c •: S i g ; ;
M i 'c i X : -: M
2 1 ~ i « ; Q •; -g
^ i ^ : ^ • °° • f"1
<«- J3
"BOW
3 S .^
£ -s 'S
fc D..E
.S2 'C «
"O tj H
«* " g
2 ° *o
*a w >~k
S w"*n
E n= o
3 ra •;?
Iff
i !§, "
to. » ^
3 fe ra
!E .s -°
"n .2 o
"O ** O
u 00 —
.£•§1
lf.1
ill
|| 8
•5 t2 1
§00 M
.£ c
ill
•s'i1
l|f
''f i s
isms impinj
the start of
lie effect is i
i S "
o ° *
jj "g o
C i= C
a 1 88
— 0 ™
*- O KJ
(Q CO «
O
^ J -^
U g «
g •£ - 2
J i I
t! (N~ w
t3> Js .S,
* >» "«
I ° 2
« "5 PM
| 1 E
if J
|ll
« >. «
I'st
s S"S
S w «
0 c o
§ 8|
™ _^ tl) j
Il3 i
c .S o. t
c ^ *^
ii|i
12 ra co n
•s s
n oo
II.
S 6
iJ O
gs
•S|
•9 °
iff s
H g
-------
I
'&
•5
1
8*
^
Lo
Table 63-3: Annual Impingement at Seabrook, by Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents (cont.)
i Winter
: Flounder
Window-
pane
ii
Threespine
Stickleback
ex
s
a
55 2
•a
"S »
CO
<»s
o.
a
CO
c
"E, a,
•s a.
u CO
CO
** "3
If
l|
Rainbow
Smelt
Radiated
Shanny
.g
Northern [
Pipefish \
1
5Q
S
-
o
en
O
o
2
o
en
p-
o
CS
O
0
3N
0
>o
o
o
o
§
o
vo
vo
VO
eo"
00
p
o
ON
oc
>n
n
CO
O
Minimum
m I p- ! S
vo : TI- : £j
m : ol r °i.
eo" | -r i 2
.."i A
Sivols
ofi^i?
in • 01 • oo
3 i 38 !§
p- i 01 i p-
eo j — ) vo
....4V....4
s JSJ2
vo i 01 i P-
SH*
rHs
ON | O | o)
\o • p~ '• P~
irj_ • — ^ 1 P-^
vo : in • °l
oo i in : oo
p- : -^ : co
0. 1 ON_ j m_
vb" j -** : 06"
— : m i
-------
1
8
M
LL
£
2
>'~"
in
ft)
VI
a.
X
ill
o
I
a
n
o
o
0
rr
o
o
en
00
CN
O
cS
OS
3
CN
CN
1—4
O
-
en
o
,cn
rr.
o
OS
OS
vo
Os
CN"
o
vo
-
-
-
T-
o
8
a
a
VO
OS
OS
CN
^
-
—
en
o
0
o
OS
CN
OS
IS
OS
OS
VO
oo
-
CN
~^
o
',-
0
o
'
2
o
oo
Os
OS
m
o.
OS
CN
-
CN
o
-
o
'
m
m
i
CN
en
o
o
0
0
0
p
p.
o
Minimum
CN"
o
VO
-
~*.
f^~i
-
"*
^
OS
CN
Os
Os
Maximum
— .
CN
CN
"'
-
-
en
-
*
ON
-
G
00
"5.
Os
CN
vo
CN
en
—
*
-
"*
-
00
m
pn
03
{.90-.98.csv
o
o
2
"o
s
' 1
c
oo
Os
o
ook/tables. output
---1
ence/scode/s
o
CO
'1
(X
ntake/Seabro
s: yield Pathnam
5
00
ON
seabrook.90
"S
_CB
' Ei
M
OT
•?.
one collectec
05MST200
0-Sampled, but r
Fri Feb 08 09:50:
-------
S i
S!
o
s
I
CO
tD
I
4-'
fe
u
"in
10
i
.s
9>
1
u_
o
t;
.3
TO
u
>
a
T3
6)
in
u
i.
CL
UJ
-^
I
<5>
•s
I/I
t>
O
0]
£•
£•
w
••fi
o
u
w,
.£
•§
|
4r
•rt
W
"S
n
Si
CO
S
^e
a
1
c—
»n
TT
O
—
O
TT
0
1
>o
T
2;
=
o
—
o
m
0
i
P
a\
"^
o
o
o
•a-
^_
rs
0\
o\
f~
o\
•q-
o
o
o
—
,_,
g
ITi
cs
VI
t-~
00
0
0
o
o
•^~
rr
\o
vo
s;
o%
s
oo
s
0
oo
o
en
oo
in
cs
>n
ON
ON
r-i
CO
o
•*
0)
o
M
r-
o
vo
»rj
M-
S
o%
^
g
o
»n
0
o
—
o
r—
m
^
&
O\
O
•q-
a\
vo
•n
oo
ON
ON
OO
>n
f>
ON
>n
oo
—
o
-~
oo
s
c-
c
g
s
t^
o
o
o
o
-
o
1
b
'S
§
CN
O
tfl
•*f
CO
—
m
1
9
|
E
"><
CO
2
m
o
r«i
-------
14
"U
1
0
o>
o
U-
c
o
Product!
M
"D
W
M
EL
if,
in
8)
8
n.
<0
X
00
o
£
.O
0
6)
10
•s
1
4)
11
hJ CO
>>
s
O
unner
O
iutterfish
Bllleback
Herring
Atlantic
ilverside
«!
Atlantic
Menhader
Atlantic
Mackerel
Atlantic ;
Herring i
la
lerican
d Lance
45 g
(»
(M
1
1
o
CN
-
_^
0
O
o
0
o
o
-
CN
O
o
1
o
CO
2
CN
>o
o
o
0
o
-
-
„.
o
0
5;
o
-
*
^
o
o
o
o
o
o
CN
^.
o
o
SN
ON
o
W-l
-
>/•>
o
o
o
o
o
o
CN
VI
0
o
s
o
en
s
o
o
0
0
-
m
o
o
-
OO
ON
o
ON
"
en
2
0
OQ
en
*
o
— '
-
o
CN
s
o
o
ON
ON
CN
OO
OO
ON
ON
O
NO
-
ON
o
CN
NO
NO
^
NO
ON
ON
O
2
CN
CN
CN
CN
-
-:
o
o
o
VN
ON
|
ON
ON
O
en
>n
5
CN
0
0
-
o
o
51
U-,
in
OO
ON
ON
o
2
2
CN
~
en
-
CN
o
s
en
^
CN
C
O
-
-
-
o
o
o
o
«
o
-
CN
O
o
Minimum
CN
OO
OO
*3*
ON
-
-
en
ON
-
>n
NO
o
Maximum
"
2
o
ON
en
NO
-
NO
o
.CN
CN
^.
Q
"*"
CM
CN
CN
xo
r^-
VO
CO
s
NO
o
CN
CN
in
CN
CN
en
ON
I
s
•g
s
Xi-
Ki
I
^
II
|i
£2
!
O 4J
1S>
|cg
i I
•Si
O J>
O M
•* 2
§ 3
ei o
•$ c
8 od
crt ON
1 i: o
.^ s
s °
a v
o S
c£ S
•a- a 1
Coo
!§!
S fj 8
J5 ON e
_r o w
D.
E •
•5
-------
I
s
f»)
o
e
i
•g
•jj
s
,0
H
iter Floum
....TT,...
S
5
£
o1
3
at vj
•ti W
C
1
S
1
CO
e
IS* *
5 CO
CO
"3
1
U
O
l|
•s
CO
S
.0
•a
S
u
...™...
en
-
O
O
„
o
0
'm
o
VO
en
O\
oo
en
,—i
O
„
O
; _
J •""
i
i
o
1
is
I
{
1°
{
Is
E
!
1*
oo
CN
CN
_4
O
O
o
CN
O
en
en
o\
CN
s\
r--
CN
CN
o
o
0
o
en
o
—
en
f-
o\
o
CS
CN
O
0
o
o
o
CO
CO
1
CS
00
vo
00
ON
§
s
o
CS
o
CS
en
[-•
g
-
1
m
o\
•3"
•n
CS
•n
0
o
_
CO
vo
in
vo
vo
oo
oo
s
vo
in
vo
•;
vo
en
o
o
_
0
CS
en
en
S
If)
vo
i
2
r-
o
o
0
o
t~
CS
VD
-
S
s
s
oo
Os
B
2;
^^
0
o
o
0
*
OO
CS
CO
c
II 'C ~
o P- P-.
...} ..i
-------
imated
E
Seabrook
ix
ii
o
Cunri
a
m
Mussel
B
Atlantic
enhaden
Atlanti
Macker
Atlandc
Herring
ri
L
mer
Plai
'
£
o
§! i§
<=> : o : o
si i°
o : o : o
ilslt
- i ~ i
:^:0
;-:—
o ; o : o
: .
" i =<
:0:0
:0:0
:0:0,
0:0:0
O;O:O
0:0:0,
o : o : o
O:o:O
0, : ^ :
-------
^
1
1
1
"8
'a
S
M
I/I
"ij
8.
10
Ji"
1
a
WJ
t;
,!2
1
t-
1
4-
S
"5
M 1
"5
|
^
t
6)
3
|2
s
'5. c.
1*
,¥?
° g
0
1
a
K
•a
K
o a
si ~
.s s
Radiated
Shanny
u
0
1
«
0
E -
|l
f S.
as P-
Lumpflsh
A
•5
O
•i
1
O
Fourbeard
Rockling
,,
£
eo
o
o
1
0
vo
0
CO
R"
CS
! 4,800,000
o
m
i
o
o
12,400,000
eo
0
o
• '
159.600.00C
S
Os
1
CO
CO
2
eo
o
vo
CN"
0
i 3,100,000
§
§
eo
CO
o
19,200,000
g
CO
o
CN
O
40,400,000
Os
OS
1
—
i
o
0
en
3
g
1
0
1
0
s-
eo
eo
o"
o
rr
vo
Ov
tn
VD
O
co"
eo
en
o
g
CO
co"
eo
en"
en
|
O
oo
o
51,500,000
g
o
CD
CD
CD"
— "
g
g
VI
o
§°
g"
oo
o
o
o
g"
CN
O
g
g
CS
o
o
000'006'9i
CO
eo
o
R
oo
rn"
o
o
g
g"
•
en
0
vo"
oo
en"
Os
00
OS
1
"*"
en
vo
— <
~
o\
cs
cs
1
oo
oo
in
ON
oo
oT
1
CO
o
vo
vo
o
*n
—.
ON
oo
oo
cs"
vo
CO
oo
r-
CN
0
o\
00^
1 '
CO
CO
CO
0
oo"
i
•^
0
o
o
co
co"
o
o
o
CO
eo"
CO
o
2,300,000
o
o
o
g
Os_
1
s
_c
o
0
CO
o"
vo
Os
cs
o
o
o
VI
CO
o"
o
i
1
o
oo"
CS
cs
i 4,800,000
o
o
cs"
o
o
o
o
CN"
_
g.
—
76,900,000
o
o
o
o
CN"
CN
0
o,
vo"
oo
o"
s
OS
o
.« C
OO 06
: °^ O\
0 o
ON ON
•g 3
s &
•s §
8 8
rt ^
s S
• §1
G 13
ii
i"s
a g
: %'$>
0 '1
^ Si
• a?
.g-s
1 -Sog
JS cs £
pled.
ut none collec
)7:56:41 MST
:P:/Intake/Sea
G~~ S
2 3^1
^ Bfc g
4*1?
so
^
en
-------
I
a.
1
T3
•*-'
c
o
i=
u_
Q)
i
T3
a
w
a
'o
n.
U)
o
o
a
CO
o
520,479,242
o
o
o
Tt-
o"
o
o
o
o"
o
o
o
Os
Os
o
o"
•~H
800,030,734
o
o
o
o
>n
Os
4,100,000
o
0
o
r-T
CN
0
Os
OS
O
00
ob"
CN"
CN
o
8
o
o
VO
CN"
CN
1,400,000
o
0
CN
OS
OS
O
62,666,462
o
8
o
o
os"
,CN
6,300,000
o
0
Os
Os
O
O
8
o"
o
0
o"
o
CN
1
8
oo
0
0
Os
O
60,200,044
o
8
o
o
TI-
CS'
o
1"
o
CO
so"
o
0
OS
O
O
O
o
0
o
CN"
t--
o
8
o
o
CN_
Tf
3,300,000
o
o
o
o"
o
»n
o
cT
SO
O\
OS
O
O
O
oo
oC
Os
o
o
CN_
' 4,400,000
o
—
o
Os
Os
O
O
O
CN
06"
m
O
§
rn^
8
Of
OS
o
m
0
oo
Os
OS
— .
§.
SO
SO
SO
CN
6,488,222
co"
cs
-i
c
03
1
o
o
o
o
o"
o
in
o
CN
o
o
o,
Os
in
o
o
c
1
s
o
o
800,030,734
o
o
o
o
o
3
36,800,000
o
o
o
10
•=>
0
o"
c
Maximur
en
CO
t— "
CN
CN
CN
SO
CN
0
00
•tf
fn
rn
m
Q
o
o
o"
o
CN
VD"
OS
CN
58,394,000
o
o
vo"
-
o
o"
I
-------
.2
1
*•*
u
a
"O
§
k
m
8
o
u
o.
U)
CO
2
-Q
1
4-
Entralnmen
_
N
CO
o
ja
i
1
-1
t
1
: Fourbean
i Rockling
Gunner
S
c
PQ
•s
»
..........
0 0)
11
^ •§
s
o "3
11
•*• s
if
0
'e
**
e S
es C
11
CO
e
« S
b 2
>
i
of
o
CO-
CO
«n
00
ON
in
01
o
0
00
CO
oo
oo
of
i
of
So
VO_
t—
CO
1
s
CO
ON
OO
s
ON
OO
vo"
.....
0
CO
o
o
CS
ro*
oo
»o
ON
O
ro"
1
00
CM
vo
i
in
in"
01
01
0
0
CO
o
01
s"
0
o
o
ON
in
in
ON.
ss
5"
§
g
ON
CO
sq
15
!-•§
^ w
S "?
"M w
• > I
II
li
D, §•
8
.e
SN 65
o "33
ON GO
O c3
ll
M O
1 J
u ^
•d a
a-SJ
a. £ s
! 00
•
-------
OJ
a
M-
O
g
I
ro
1
vD
-»-
a
~
O
10
c
'§•
LU
0)
M
a
•p
6)
L
D.
X
LLJ
It
_M
a.
o
o
_Q
S
a
!
i5
"o
3
c
S
i
ro
a
£ 73
c g
^1
«•
s
Windowpa
DJD .
1
e
1
a,
a.
e
3 ' '
u
-.CO
"cJ
a
O
1
' S
B
73
-u .
i
CO
1
1
Radiated
Shanny
Pollock
E-a
if
*
1
oo
f-
1.
CO
o
o
o
o!
oo
VO
o
-
o
o
ON
2
VO
Ol
0
01
ON
—
1C
s-
—
o
01
s
01
ON
O
ON
ON
0
ON
ON
in
oo
in
ON_
O
O
oo
00
VO
O
s
o^
vo
ON
VO
O
01
ON
ON
ON
in
CO
01
01
CO
vo"
o
0
ON
ON
—
in
•t
S
00
CO
o
o
in
o
r-"
01
o
CO
ON
ON
OO
.CO
O
0.
in
*
o
oo
in
12-
m
o
o.
-
o
ON
S
o
o\
°
o
2
—
in
o
of
a
01
ON"
-
O
in
ON
ON
01
ON
O
m"
VD
rr
§
ri
»n
*
s
00
*n
o
-
Tt
m
O^
\o
ON
ON
oo
ON
00
«n
'oo
-
o
oo
so
00
m
0
U-J
»n
v^
in
n
0
ON"
00
of
t—
01
oC
01
s
in"
ON
01
O
oo
ON
vo
o
o
-
r—
01
01
in
o
ON
01
01
Ol
ON
S-
01
vo
CO
0
i
5"
-
cs
oo
§
00
s
o
o
o
o
0
o
o
-
o
nimum
•g
Ol
ON
OO
CO
I
01
in
S
S-
01
ro
00
a"
i
1
ON
Ol
CO
aximum
•g
CO
VO
in
ON
CO
CO
i
m
00
•'
00
TO
-------
1
s
I
.1
I
I
M
cs
E
1
i£
IO
>> >o
i I
"C T3
3 ~5
c en o
Ooo
s •n 3
:-£> ON C
o .«i
0 UH CL,
1
s
-------
UJ
S
§.
f
Q-
1
vS
~o
I
^
c
3
a.
c
>n Foregone
Productk
w
o
•o
CO
ft)
t
8
u
fi]
Cl
o
1
"i
vO
0
rainment
HI
a
c
6\
m
CD
4D
Z *
n
o.!s:S
: ON : f-
: ON : ^f
o : >^: -^
: in i in
cs : ON : ON
: m : — •
i! li
111 is
CO
J\
(N
CN
n
o
oo
CO
S
?T
ro
r-
0
oe
o"
in
°"X
ff
CO
r
1
"S
-S
Pu
I 1
2 oo
|2
eS °^
Ofl o
-^ I
SftJ
to
^a>
§
-------
I
1
I
UJ
a
•i
11
• ;- : vo • r-
:- :°5 i
_! — i O j o • O : o : oo
I o : o • o : o ; o
i: oo : n :
•^i o
•i
m : ts :
"
1
.-
«t
« o
-
fti
S «>
-------
-------
•a
1
-c>:?5:<=:¥'
=!=>
o Sioio
•(Ni'-'iOx
•.: Os : CM : m :
- i ; i ' ' ff^
5 :oo.:cs : oo
:0:vp:rr:oo
•••-) -1 4 J
oo • >-" • ^5 •
I*;0;-;
: vo | r^ :oo : t^
: — = X. • 00 i n : — | 06 :
: :ON.:S
— :m:r^:o:S
|^:o : ;2
;:;i:o:'*:
> X So =:
'&•
"S
: in j"; —; -^-:
:O:Oio-oio;o;o i o i JQ ; o
: — :— *
•OoP
§§•§
U t-M CO
-------
I "->
i •?
i rrj
i 3
-
Q-
~s
a
I-
i=
o
a
u_
JQ
•o
ft)
V)
UJ
ft)
a.
UJ
s
'^f''
= o = "" = J
-
vto : r- ; oo : os
—j—^.-.
o |o\;o\
4 —
:
OS
OS
I
t|
I!
e=^
S "S
o _§
iJ (S
. o
•s f
If:
S "E."
I g'
-------
s
M-
O
§
A
ix
1
I
in
i
s
ta
£
I
1
2
in
a
!
o
14
M
"5
-C
6
w
-D
..^.t..^....H*.--y....^....H 1 -....^....^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^..
. •._ "^ • — to\f r- i vo ivo :r- : o\: :^- :uoioo i voi^- i
: : 2 • *o • vo • r-"| -q-'i TT : vo"| co i "^ j vo"
<:<:<•<;<:•<;
..^...«^.»..n..
-~--"--^oooooooo
f\ . ON . ON i ON :ON:ON:ON:ON:ON;ONTON:ON
OO:OO:OO:OO:ON
ON:ON:ON:ON:ON
s
s
"I
.mussel/raw.
.
t- .5
5 a.
||
*O O P
^ (N .£
|fe8
8S
ke/S
d,
1 1
E:P:/In
PA
-------
UJ
•g
iff
&
CL
X
UJ
CL
10
CL
4
D.
•b
I
O
1
<2
a
|l
s A
^
•a?
e £
«
la
5
! 00 : 0\ : O i — • i t
t:
u
-------
a
S
ai
a
o
.i
!
m
I
<£)
t
_*>
a
•|
iff
6)
i
EX
tu
W*
*u
!
ca
i
(X
g>
t
&
f UUUUUUUUUUUUU^UUU != U ^ U^ U^c
^'^f''^'^f'f''f'f''^'^f'^'f'f'-f'''fT\ ji ri°i0p!°rr
i
« ^LI-LLLLLLUL^J iy'i ^ ^^ ^ i'i i-i ^ t
rrj i ^C * ^C * ^C * ^C * ^C * "^ * ^C * ^C * ^C • ^C • ^C * ^C * ^t • ^C • ^C • ^C * co * "~^ " oo * **^ • t^-' ^^ • ®^ • ^^ - ^^ • ^
^^ i *y • *y * *y* • "T>* • *j? ' *^ • *^ i *^ ' *y ' >y i *^ t *^ i >y : ^-: *-? \ >^r ; LJ : o ; Ji^j; oo ; [^ ; ^~; oo • ; ^-« ; ^-< ; ^-i ; ^-t ; ^ ; ^-i ; ^4 ; /« • H^H ; ; C*^ ; ; C"4 . ; r~~> ; »"-* ; CO * C*4 ' t
S ||^!^iS^|::..:l:l!:i.!^l!!'"!'*i|T'':V0!'"^ j °° i M h J ^ : ^
pS «Oj : : : : ; : ; : ; ; : : j • • \ - • • - f- • • !-;..:•; | ;,
I | j I j I I ! i ! i ! .i 'I I. .! I y i i- i,--[- i • ;; t"
;|lig|||||2!gig|lig|g|^|^ilig||b|!=hbhbk|oioi
So ^
o
-
o _.
•2 S
fsi S
« 55 3 2
3 §••§
; "~* W W
aj g ro
(D ^ T3
i &
GO
•a
C W
-5 ^
p ON
n> r^ 6i
"o 5 'S.
551
ajcOr-
iliiiil
-------
a
a
$
§-
J31
ol
-a
i
.X
ID
u
T3
I
O
s
2
^o
«-H
m
un
o
VI
c
w
s
if
T-t
8
M
V)
ft)
X
n.
V)
CQ
E
_Ctl
cC
•*-
o
_
N!
OS
SO
O
«o
SO
CO
o
OS
o
0
>o
8J
00
-
to
o
CO
CO
01
01
SO
o
o
01
s
N
o
2
oo
01
CO
£
o
0
oo
CO
Os
Os
p-
-~
oo
0)
01
01
CO
01
N
CO
OS
Os
o
p-
oo
o
OS
o
o
OS
Os
OI
OI
Os
OS
O
Os
OO
OS
Os
OS
O
P-
Os
.....
OS
Os
«o
gs
a
o
ON
X)
OO
~
N
"O
Os
O
O
„
Os
I
K
O
P-
oo
0
—
o
00
oo
OS
Os
a
)O
~-
01
R
•;.
o
:s
vo
to
01
o
01
o-
Os
Os
Os
2
OO
_ o < e
ed J2 O
larger than raw losses (
Between the start of year
ee description of S*j in
ainment losses because
sed as age 1 equivalents are
tributed- across the interval
g this interval (for details, s
readily apparent among end
*Jote: Impingement losses
ndividuals are assumed t
>y accounting for mortal!
oss records, but the effec
jS
oi
•S "•
CB OS
& OO
M
•=
•" 3.
O- t=-
t— 4-!
Ff
•i
••&
-a = -g
JJ j> &
111
-------
CO
«)
I
1
a
to
(ft)
E
I
£
i
to
B
u.
n
u
*
.2
w
u
—
i
<
u
u
::::!:::::
,.^«,.. ,4.,...,J.....^,,....>....,;,.
--•--:
i «.<... ..^,.....>"••••>....4--••• <.---..;. .J.....^......;.,.,..*. .;. .;..
ttn^^oir- :oo:c\:c3*'-«ics : co' •
ir^it^'C^-it^-Jr-Jooiooiooiooi
• Ox ; ON j O\ • O\ - O\ • Ox • O\ •O\-ON:
:•<
3S3S
£ 3
a
s
•g
p
_2 o
^d ON
SH °}
1 '^
D 2
•- "53
§?5
s -
S|
•a
iff
-•§ §
«2J
03 *§
• O J-1
ls^
«fe'&
8S|
S M "S
T3 K o -S?
til 2 I
4_j »-• rj (/)
o n. "5 "s
^ S to $
II ™ C t*
<: V o ^
it
s
-------
i
i
a
u ,
3
•4
o ;
c
Q
I;
5
Si
Wi
1
o
1
1
.
1
'
i
1
1
I
j
• '
£
J1
-a
§
|
S
"?
vS
1
a.
8"
T3
3
VI
3
r-l
m
VO
. *
c
o
^^,
V)
1
3
O
0-
O
in
a)
't_
-C
IE
o
+•
.L.
w
J
-O
.6)
>•
M
a
73
ft)
«
M
a.
X
UJ
e
I~ ,
_O)
cC
a
3
CJ
a.
gr
6)
vt
\L
M-
O
+.
C
i
u
.O)
c
'o
"a
c
^
YH
TO
_«j
C
I
U
3
3
_O
U
B
„.
V
B
68
&
•O
C
^
ah
1
...
U3
I/I
W
•O
&
S
CC
C!
1
OJ
a
Ol
T3
a
P-
%
£
1
•E
.a
^f
Pollock
_£
J
a
S
»-
c
c
i \ j ! I I ! 1 • j i " I i., i ! j ].- I j; :
^|2|^j^|g^|?|^^^|^i^fe|^j§!l|R
! i • 1 i I .' ! i \----\- j i i j 1 \ -f " I
...4- .;.„.. 4- .•......;. 4" -.;--;-• '...*-... ^ .-..., •.....^,.^.;. -..---::--.. jj-. ---.<- -----:-l.-..J'----':-"="
i 1 1 i 1 j i 1 i i -: I i i "i '• i j ' i •. h
<:<;-<:<:-<:<-^:^:l^:i9::t7-.t7'-^7-'Tr->7';'7:'7-:t7:l7:>7':^-«:cN:
)S:iZi:^:^:,Z,:?.:i^-«:i^-':i^:, *^-»'^'f-7-'>-7'ii-7'^7'*3r'*7''h7:i7':t7':h7p:l7:vo:;5;*
^:^:^:^;^:Z:!^:^:^:^tA:^-':A:^-':^:^:^:<^»:^H
• • I - i '•- •' •'• '''*,- *~ ' i '. i '• • '
...4. 4". •> * •! •*• * •*" 4- : " • •*" '• " * •;• ^......j™.-^.....-!. ^-...,i-...-.
i : 1 : : i i ' : - '' '• '• ' J : '• ^ ~ *• '• '• •
T- -r- -•••;•• •- y T- -ir -r . j -r
' • '• '• • • • : :* ' : : ~° - \ ' '. : •-. : i i '•
^!•••-
j 1 • • • : : : : : : : '. •'.•:": : • :
<'i<'.iy-hy>h^'>-y'*--y'»-y;'-y:>-y:'^-:'ry:t-y-:>y:'?'tVQl!^^
JZi^iiZi^-r^iiZ.:/!.:^!.:^-.:^!.:!^-.:,^..!^;^;^;^; : — « ;
...'..^. .•..,„.•......;.....,;......;. ,•..*...;. .;. .;..,...;- .;. .;......;....'..;.......> .;......;...
I i M M 1 , ! I 1 LI [. I i t \: 1
*?' '-^ '^. • • rr) * c^
,Z:^:^,:,Zi:,2.:^:(^.:ini vo i r- fool os j o - 1 cs,
osiosicSiosi&iosi. os|os:os;os;osios:os!osjos:os:Os:o_;:c
-
CO
1
o
*
CO
o
w-i
....
OS
S
S
CO
=
-
..:
-
oo
m
o
'
m
2
oo
o
...
2
':'
<^
g.
C
o'
2
oo
oo
0
*
o
vc
^1-
O\
VO
*"""
0\
c
c> '• t~- • ob • vo
c^ : vo ; — ; oo
.-i •;• <•
TT : «A : oo ": °°
cs : °° : m : »n
..-J. 4.:..-4-v
L _ : • "i
co : oo : ^Q : vo
••4-----4---"4- —
n : O : O : o
i : :
; ; " ' ;.
O : ^ : •— • : Os
...-:-.....> — -:•—-•
0 : 0 : f^ [ 0
— 4- — 4- — .*.-••..,
^l-Ki^ls
j • ;
— i-— 4——J-—
'• : I
.....i....i-»"f— •*
oio|o|{S
• — « — -4; — -i--
1 ': ^ !
vo |2 ;8 i°
i t ___|__
! 1 ' i
vo i t^ : oo : c
2 : 2 i 2 : ~
3
CO
S
n
m
CO
cs
5
r-
9
VO
c
1
J
2
ro
S
o
o
0
es
CO
o
0
1
i
':
i
oo
oo
S
5
OS
•o
00
CO
OS
CN
VO
CS
ro
e
aximu
S
2 i ^
....j.....
2|8
-•-•y —
:
S i°
ON • fvj
— 4------
5|5
,...^.
«|s
5|S
.... 4- ---
c^i§
:— f—
sis
-i—
"!i
.........
-is
.....i--
ITS
S i E—
{
^
g
-S
S
en
. "55
S
hS
p_,
1>
J 0
(2 ^
2 ?
+2 J2P
'H 'S.
D 2
£'£>
^3" S
II
"S ®
„ ^
" G.ON
P-i r--
•i"|
CA O
£.§
S 'I
-d o >
a CN .6
|fe|>
8 ^ -S"
§«•§ •
. o vo u
-a c o J2
S *• i— i
-------
.1
I
m
ID
1
6)
E
O
§>
£
"8
i«
i
pa
luebac
Herring
; tea
.
CL
as
o
«•
f
c
s-g
e g
5 n
S ff
lb
.H
II
American
and Lance
fe
-t-f-i
<:?
-------
£
'§,
S
.n
§
II
a.
S.
c
i^s
a
c
o
0)
£
c
o
T3
O
•o *•
is
-O
:C)ifS:(
::Si — i — io: — :oio;cNJo|—|
-------
i
UJ
1
a.
1
o
10
i
a
S
&>
3
.a-
*
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Mackere
Atlantic
Herring
S
American
Plaice
£
m
<:<:-<:os':0s"
^!^!^l?!i?;
: • • oo" • ; ON ; ON j ON ; ON ; ON ; ON
.
en : o
CN : «o
vo_| os
CN : 60
00.
2,;;?
CN • en
oo • oo
OS ; OS
CN : r-
: •<*• : vo
j"-;0.
. QQ . ^^
• vo • vo
C^- : in
' -Z'-Q
'~ i CN
: vo :
: o :
4,751,6
50,322,1
24,767,6
^- 00 VO
en;r^;°°
os ; os : .
: in : r~
I CN" i -a-"
TJ- : in : vo
oo • oo • oo
Os ; os : Os
,2
71,437,855 :
2,667,010,057,
vo : r—
oo.: CN.
f- ; OO
oo • oo
OS ON
Ig
n
os : CN
en : in
t^ :0
os i CN"
en : CN
CN : vo^
oo": en"
vo : vo
in : •—*
2,5
5,7
863'S96'
''
m ; \o
oo : -^j-
— : CN
r— 1 4 CN
"
OS • OS
OS O\
CN"
r- ; -
CS ; c
cs": -
oo ;
00 ;
en : CN
m • vo
CN_: os^
— ': os"
586,639,654
35,506,522
CN ': os
CN : —
Os ; o
CN :
Si
m";<
06 • ON
ON ; ON
ON : OS
o.
en
c^
p
™
I~
00
•n"
en
o
cf
o
o
o^
CN"
CN
o
00
,40
9,4
',22
CN
S"
"1
•*
00
00
n
20,69
OS
in
CN"
S
vo"
,2
,525,
•&.
CN
«n"
S
6,9
S
2-
5
"i
•S 'a jo e*
r-o ° w
E
Q
oo
-------
a.
-o
3
T3
"8
•E
LLJ
U)
m
U]
Winte
lound
to
•-B
-.•3
a
O
^!
u
O
ft
•8
1 a
«t»
« c
- e
3.
S M
« .=
OJ ™
II
: — :oo: •-;•
'
: \o : r^ : *•"'* * T~* '
: >o i vo •
.: t— : Os : f
i in i o\ :
• oo i i— • oo i O i in • t-~ i
: o : I— : — • : o : m : vo :
! r~l ; O : O : O : O : — :
-i oC! — : t-"i >n: vo*: ~:
"ioO;1^:'—';O:co:i
':m:m:(n:*n;oo:'
^i : vo :
.
£ j ; i ] i I | j ; : j g j g ] : : i
:C\:va:oo:oo;voi^l-:O:c?N:fN:
• vo": o": •q-" • •*" i-o": cT i oC I oo • t~^ i •<
0 1 rij J^ j
l< :
-------
1-
0
e
1
1
8
b
e
5
,
ook and Pilgrim
i
O ; O\. ; \O
" ^
_ : |'
v : CN : so : °° •( -
^j^j^i^ia
'j I , "i v| • f; ' : I J- -'''.;' i ' '!'"
f f-
'
| i = ~] ^ 1 cn| -Tj 2 1 -1 2 1 ^i ~ 1
:•- •
^ -
co : j : ^ : oo
;! !Sio!g
i so i ._ i oo
! |i|i i
lijfjn J igi|
.§ I
|I
M 'B
fr§
B 2^
^ B-
cn O
'•: i";
l
'
-1§ 1
_S <_. " ~53
i 5-«.§
III!
5?
-------
a
a
UJ
«3
<£>
L.
0)
g
1
a
yj
s
T3
I
vM
a
y-s
O
C
_o
o-
UJ
O
-o
8
L.
CL
w"
'o
0)
O.
W)
£
L.
51
a
P
fc
'a
c
UJ
~5
c
in
to
15
*"
Winter Flound
IS-
Windowpan
DC
O
J
|
1
n.
&
B
'3.
I
•s
s
O
y
1
»
a
S
•a
6w Smelt
1
P5
e
i
n
1
i
i v£>
2!2;2l2J2i2i2i2:;2;2J2i2i2;2i2;2ici
i 1 i •= i ! ! i 1 1 i i 1 1 ' i. ioo
2 i2i2:2:2;2 ! 2 ;2 i 2 i 2 1 2.i 2 [2. J2;2;2j^i
:., j ..J. ; .L...L-.. A... .i....X,...;.....i:...;.....A....i....;.....s.....
: : : : : : : : : : : : . •: : -• : : ON
: : : : : : : : : : :• : .1 - : - 1 : o
: : : : : : : : : : :- . : : : : : os
<1 < i <;;<;!< i < i <;< i <;< i <;< i ^.;...i....4. -f ^;-...^- ^-...
n i vo i r*~- : oo ; ON i ^5 f ^^ *, o^ ; co i ^l* i n_ ; °°-
1 ' r
', ;
ro • O • ^J-
of I — ^i *fS
HiiiS
ON ; vo '• t~
O : o : 01
vo,, : "n^ : o_
of : vo": of
vo : -^J- : oo
r"T i ON" ': of
? !
— ;•*;•*
m" :
-------
CO
&
,§
vQ
in
•8
Fisher
§
j,
SI
0
'o
*
•D
1
ro
Winter
Flounde
1
I
.
l
J...
It*
£ ^
E S
53
U S
II
M
£ If
§"B
9 .T
• en • en : ....,;.....^......;......;.....^......;.,.,..:....,^. ,;. „>.....;....(^ ...
....^.,.t»^....,".>.... ^-,,.»^-.....;...,.,;,.,...;. .;..... ^ .•,.....; ..;.....^......; *'•>••"
oO;CO;OO;:;:O;^-cSien:'-':—|^-;'cN:in: »n™ • ON
I : ? ': : : : ^ : :
1
ON
—
o
'",* "r:
CN
CN I en : tr>
t~ : O : (N
vq^: (N : o
K :^ |ON
"^ i r^: oo^
^ : en": oC
'•':":',;,:,": I:1
vo '• t^ :
os : vo :
ON : ON i ON
ON '• ON I ON
r^ i t —
O : en
o : r—
in": of
CO
ON !
ON I
§
CO
8
CD
O
s
tn
•JJ
Z>-6
•-T3
&•?>
li
.S w
l>i
"s-g"
if
g §
4* J
g •§
l°i
j fei1
2 Ass
-------
.X
J3
U
6)
^
UJ
U V
II
•a 2
J
30
a B
G
S «
< < < i <:
-
.......:.:
Jv
=>
10
s
•—
vo
oo
00
oo"
s
1"
en
o
s
vo"
(N
tN
S
00
•n
\D
— •
1
||
SP?
*a "c
o So
*e5 t>o
i i
-•I
i"l ••
g~ §
^i
§ON
_ OS
C fi-
*3 3
» O
• ~ "S
S ™
-oo~s
iJ CN S
s 2 •§
S ~ o
. O VO O
— "i § "i
^i''0-^ 1
o "H. "S >
2 | £ J
Z o S E
%
B
-------
1
1
Z
a
I
f
ndowp
CU
I/)
\ <*
ed
(A
•• I
: >/i : Os : o : ^f :
: Os : •—* : oo ; vo :
: vo : m : o : en :
_ ^
r i oo" • vd" 1 of •
- : ,_ : TJ- . >o •
: C? ; ^5 ; ', en ; en
; t-- : m : ; >n : os
j:.M' !
:
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I&E tJata
63-7 SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF I&E AT SEABROOK AND PILGRIM
The data presented in Sections G3-4 and G3-6 indicate that the fish species most often impinged at both Seabrook and Pilgrim
are fishery species. At Seabrook, the most frequently impinged fishery species are winter flounder, red hake and Atlantic
silverside. At Pilgrim, the most abundant fishery species in impingement collections are Atlantic silverside, Atlantic herring,
rainbow smelt, and Atlantic menhaden.
Entrainment rates at both facilities are several orders of magnitude higher than impingement rates. At Seabrook, the fish
species most frequently entrained include the fishery species Atlantic mackerel, winter flounder, and red hake. At Pilgrim, the
fishery species most frequently entrained include Atlantic mackerel and cunner. Entrainment losses of some forage fish are •
also high at both facilities, including fourbeard rockling, lumpfish, and rock gunnel at Seabrook, and American sand lance,
fourbeard rockling, and lumpfish at Pilgrim.
The data presented in Sections G3-4 and G3-6 also indicate that I&E at Seabrook's offshore intake is substantially lower than
T&E at Pilgrim's nearshore intake. EPA compared age 1 equivalent losses for years when both facilities were operating,
including' 1990-1993 and 1995-1998 (Seabrook was shut down during much of 1994 and so this year was not considered in
the comparison). Total losses averaged over these years for the 32 species that are either impinged or entrained at both
facilities indicate that impingement averages 68% less at Seabrook and entrainment averages 58% less.
63-8 POTENTIAL BIASES AND UNCERTAINTIES IN L&E ESTIMATES
Pilgrim and Seabrook used different methods to estimate annual I&E, and therefore the I&E estimates of the two facilities
may not be strictly comparable. In addition, Seabrook was shut down during parts of 1994 and 1997 (Normandeau
'Associates, 1999). Table G3-18 outlines the main factors that should be taken into account in comparing I&E losses at the
two facilities. •
Table 63-18: Differences in Methods Used by Pilgrim and Seabrook to Estimate Annual I&E and Potential
Effects on EPA's Results
Estimation Parameters
Mesh size for entrainment
sampling
Flow used for density
calculations
Entrainment sampling
frequency
Impingement sampling
frequency
Adjustment for day/night
sampling
I Pilgrim
1 0.202 and 0.333 mm
I stage 1 and 2 larvae were
: adjusted for mesh extrusion
I Design flow
; 2-6 times per month
18 hours 3 times per week
i Sampling day and night
; Seabrook
1 0.505 mm
|No adjustment
1 Operational flow
!4 times per month
12 to 3 times per
; week
1 No sampling at night
jand no adjustment
Effect on Comparison of Facility Losses
0
Likely to overestimate the difference between
the two facilities.
U
' U
Likely to underestimate the difference 'between
the two facilities.
U = Uncertain (could underestimate or overestimate the difference between the two facilities)..
0 = No effect.
The effect of various mesh sizes seems to have been adjusted properly at each facility, so differences in mesh sizes appear
unimportant in comparing losses. At Pilgrim, mesh correction values were applied to both eggs and larvae to decrease, the
effect of different mesh sizes (0.202 and 0.333 mm) on I&E estimates. In contrast, Seabrook did not apply mesh correction
values because a comparison of sampling efficiency with 0.505 mm and 0.333 mm mesh sizes in 1998 indicated that such a
correction was unnecessary. Seabrook found that the flow through each mesh size and the total volume sampled for each
mesh size were identical, and there were no significant differences in ichthyoplankton densities based on sampling with the
different mesh sizes (Normandeau Associates, 1999).
Another potentially important difference in methods concerns the flow volume used to calculate entrainment density.
Seabrook used the weekly cooling water volume measured during the week an entrainment sample was taken, whereas Pilgrim
used the full-load flow. Pilgrim used this value even if the station was out of service'and less than full capacity was being
G3-51
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of IAE Data
circulated. Therefore, Pilgrim may have overestimated annual I&E;losses, which would result in an overestimate of any
differences in loss rates between the two facilities.
Time of day of sampling may also affect estimates of losses. At Pilgrim, entrainment sampling was conducted at least once a
month at night, whereas prior to 1998 entrainment sampling at Seabrook took place only during the day. Different sets of
organisms are susceptible to entrainment in the day and the night. Therefore, by sampling only during the day, Seabrook may
have underestimated entrainment, resulting in an underestimate of differences in I&E rates at the two facilities.
Entrainment sampling frequencies differed between Seabrook and Pilgrim, but the effect of sampling frequency on I&E has
never been studied. Therefore, the potential importance of various entrainment sampling frequencies on a comparison of
losses between Seabrook and Pilgrim is unknown.
Methods used to estimate annual impingement numbers also differed between the two facilities. Once or twice a week,
Seabrook collected all fish impinged on the traveling screens and summed the fish impinged in the individual screenwashes to
obtain yearly estimates. In contrast, Pilgrim collected impinged fish over an 8 hour period three times per week and estimated
hourly impingement rates t>y dividing the numbers offish impinged during the monitoring period by the numbers of hours of
monitoring. These rates were then multiplied by 24 hours and 365 days to obtain annual impingement numbers. The effect of
these differences in collection methods is uncertain.
G3-52
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
apter
Value of I&E Losses at the Seabrook
and Pilgrim Facilities Based on
Benefits Transfer Techniques
Rsuli
- - - - -- - -
.
•G4-4: '-J: : ~ Ec'p'nohiic:V;aiue p; Fprage
'
:K8ro^
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic losses associated with I&E at the Seabrook
and Pilgrim facilities using benefits transfer techniques.
Section G4-1 provides an overview of the valuation
approach, Section G4-2 discusses the value of losses-to
recreational fisheries, Section G4-3 discusses the value of
commercial fishery losses, Section G4-4 discusses values
of forage losses, Section G4-5 discusses nonuse values,
• and Section G4-6 summarizes benefits transfer results.
64-1 OVERVIEW OF VALUATION
APPROACH
I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim affect recreational and
commercial fisheries as well as forage species that
contribute to the biomass of fishery species. EPA
evaluated all these species groups to capture the total
economic impact of I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim.
Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer
methods, applying results from nonmarket valuation
studies. Commercial fishery impacts are based on
commodity prices for the individual species. The-economic value 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 biomass
production of forage fish resulting from I&E losses and the consequential 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.
Many of the I&E-impacted fish species at Seabrook and Pilgrim are harvested both recreationally 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 catch. 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 I&E-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 G4-1. '
okiaritf
G4-1
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
Table S4-1: Percentages of Total Impacts in the Recreational and Commercial Fisheries'
of Selected Species at Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
Fish Species
Alewife
American plaice
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Butterfish
Gunner
Little skate
Pollock
Red hake
Scup
Searobin
Striped bass
Tautog
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery
o ;
0
6 '
o :
62 i
o
o !
100 :.
50
7
87 !
0 ;
2 ;
0 !
45
100 !
86
63
89
3
70 ;
Percent Impacts to
Commercial Fishery
100
100 :
94
100
38
100
100
0
50
93
13
100
98
100
.55
0
14
37
11
97'
30
Fri Feb 08 10:11:00 MST 2002 ; TableA:Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and
recreational fisheries of selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/TableA.Perc.of
total.impacts.seabrook.90.98.csv
As discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document, the yield estimates presented in Chapter G3 represent the total pounds
of foregone yield for both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this
chapter, Table G4-1 partitions total yield 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 offish. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvestable fish of each species. •
Tables G4-2 and G4-3 show these conversions for the Seabrook and Pilgrim impingement data presented in Chapter G3, and
Tables G4-4 and G4-5 displays the conversions for entrainment data. Note that the numbers of foregone recreational fish
harvested are typically lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of harvest of most fish is greater than
age 1. '
G4-2
-------
2
0)
IS
V)
CD
-»-
I
ro
UD
_w
Q-
10
r
.!2
"4-
0
1
1
M
"5
3
C
C
C
o
ft)
II)
o
o
L.
_Q
a
M
2: Summary of S
i
3
atiohal Yield
qbs)
1s
S f
b "
•a
"aj
Commercial Yi
qbs)
Commercial Catch
.(#)
Total Yield
qbs)
Total Catch
(#)
i Age 1 Equivalents
i (#)
Impingement
Count (#)
VI
•S
D-
0;0;0;0;M;_;0;0;
O:O: = 53 i °°-
: : \o
m : vo ; o\
CN f es i
O\ : « : \r>
^ : wT : oo
: cs •
-------
ai
S
I
63
I
l!
1
1
I
M
6)
8
o.
u
•s
ii_
o
u
"5
|
J2>
(X
•fe
a
t
ft
S
Recreations
Yield Obs)
creational
:atcli (#)
Commercial Re
Yield Obs) (
Commercial (
Catch (#)
1
1
s
1
1
s
fi
^ i
13
If
c s
|c3
s
*o
: I — : 1 _*. : : it : : : : : .« : ^ O
m-oj* "vi' 'O\- .•^-.^.i—i. •T*"'oo'm' •—•• • \r> ' ^ • ¥2 : *~~ r~-
T(-;in:"— :«:""". 'cst^rt^icN:^:^ 12 • so ^-;-\2:'~':io;'2:rS ^
: : • : i : : ^ : : M : il : : i : i ;
ilgNgLy;lil4|S|g;isiil.yR]A|
! 1 1 i ; i i i ; i i: i ! > 1 i r -
••••••>) -* 4 -t •! + -1 •* -i •» t 4 ( -J -i -1 •* -1 -i
::::::•::::::::-:::::!
0 : : = : : ! i m : i oo : i oo : : ? : ^ : : : = ' Os g;
-:cs: :vo: :j S &. &\&. <% ;! w 35 55 H ^f^ ^ t--
-------
U
es
S
I
_
s:
T3
§
10
(S
^-
I
8
T3
55
M
0)
"o
u
10"
0)
.S2
*fe
4-
• c
e
I
t
LU
"a
^
c
G
ft)
S
«
Ik
o
£
.a
o
0)
«)
"o
£•
a
£
I
.••
i
u
J3
1-5-
=.
B «"
P
•3 ^
«¥
«1 w
1 «
73 /-^
•3 ^
E "«
I--
•3 ^
1|
i«
1
O
2
M
s
0
H
S
«
3
o
H
5+T"
?£'
-4
•»
Entrainment
Count (#)
w
1
n.
en
0
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
1
0
0
§
— H
S
•*
°!
— '
rr
Tf"
O
O
OS
ff
4,767,333
Atlantic herring
0
0
o
o
o
0
„
^
Bluefish
o
o
_
ts
_
ts
ts
vo
w-i
V
V
Butterfish
D i S
s i T.
"• i °
30 : Os
m i ^"
vo : m
t^ : oo
lit
i m
: r-
o ; ts
rr> : ^
ts" I oo
10,007,778
35,403,667
Cod, Atlantic
Gunner
0
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
Little skate
i
Os '• °
oo i
S : O
•
VO 1,0
g: i vo
vo i
^" '. vo
o ; vo
ts :
oo :
^H :
245,390,667
301,556
O : T
Mackerel, Atlanti
Menhaden, Allan
o
o
S
is
s
o
vo
•~*
Os
00
tx
Tt
o
Plaice, American
0
0
o
cs
o
N
t—
o
OS
f
c
1
"
rn
D
CS
o
oo
u-t
£
o
ro
t^
oo
o\
vo
Rainbow smelt
o
o
tr>
VO
z>
vc
t--
o
ts
vo
m
Os
00
ex
V
cS
Red hake
—
oo
o
0
^n
oo
r>
cs
^
Searobin
m
m
—
00
cs
r^
oc
be
C
1
• ~* •. *o
Q : ; oo : ^
«P|2
w : 0 : oS
**O : '^ : (ri.
i
%
g
6
c
06
Os
O
OS
4-!
£•*
q
^u
Q
s.
•o
1
M
"8
.s
^
i
o
i
-------
I
01
I
I
W)
a
M
w
.S!
o
u.
U>
CJ
U-
%
1
"5
c
lu
"o
0
e)
j
SI
E
in
—
Recreation
Yield Obs
Is
!i
,2°
"5 ,-N
§ o
S "o
g ]3
N^
•8
5
1«
2
Sw
_ -o
S t=>
5
Total Catch (#)
Age 1 Equivalents
(#)
Itralnment Count (#) i
w
S
£.
OT
0
0
0
o
0
0
co"
CM
CO
1
SR
: CN
• CN
* oo
: |n
• vo
: t-
;&
: o
• t~
(.....
CO
oo
CO
CN"
P
a
vo"
•o
Atlantic c<
: ON
* oo
o
. 00
• o
in
CO
in
CN
: ON
CO
• o
ON
vo"
VO
CO
O_
"
.O
OY
Tf
CO
ON
CN
OO
m
ON
00
vp_
CN"
00
oo
. vo
o
CN
• o
o
in
co"
ON
oo
VO
1
CN"
c
U
0
0
VO
• CN"
i
: °
: vo
00
:"of
: vo"
. CO
;s
. o"
• CN
O
ON
in
CN"
S
vo"
n
to
c
I
0
0
vo
. CN"
:
: C1
: CN"
vo
: CN
O
: 06"
in
vo"
00
U
ra
*''•
Menhaden
0
o
CN
CN
CO
CN
8"
IB
8
5
P-
CN
CN
OO
0
CO
. CN
:*
s
P
in
r-^
u
&
r^
ON
C^
r-
of
cC
C<1
oC
n
in
in
CN
m"
o,
CO
Red hake
;vo
CO
o
oo
o
o
CO
00
ON
co"
CO
o
o"
°x
Searobin
0
0
CN
ON
CN
ON
in
oo
O
in"
oo
VO
in"
•a
<
Silverside
i" i r i
CN : *~* • o*
55 ! g ! S5.
: : m
•.r !
: t
'• •* ; —
co i 2- ; ON"
i !
: ]
. : 3
i i
: i
CN i P i g
ON ; ^ \ vo"
: !
ojigig
: f
: r
i !
oo i t~S \ o^
: ^ i O
: 1
: J
7,512,870
83,547,445
30,900,375
• •
' * U
: G ? §
§ j !i 1 . s
ON
in"
CO
fn
vo_
Vi
'
VO
5
ON
ON
ON
CO
VO
ON
S"
ON
CN
CN"
ON
in
CN
4,065,618,075 j
*«
1
2
I
•o
I
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
G4-2 ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL LOSSES TO RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
RESULTING FROM IAE AT SEABROOK AND PILGRIM FACILITIES
64-2° 1 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-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." In applying this
literature to value I&E impacts, EPA focused on changes in 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 riot studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table G4-6 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Cape Cod
and Ipswich Bay .fisheries in the vicinity of the Seabrook and Pilgrim stations.
Table 64-6: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
Authors
McConnell and
Strand (1994)
Tudor et al. (2002)c
Hicks etal. (1999)
Study Location and Year
Mid- and south Atlantic coast,
anglers targeting specific
species, 1988
Delaware Estuary, 2001
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994
:. Iteni Valued
i Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
itripforNYb
1 Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
Itrip
! Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
jtrip, from historical catch rates at
jail sites, for NH and MA
! Value Estimate ($2000)"
!NY flatfish $5.35
JNY small game fish $9.54
!NY bottom fish $2.54
jDEweakfish $11.50
iDE striped bass $18.14
JDEbluefish $3.94
IDE Flounder $3.92
INK and MA flatfish $5.29
|NH and MA small game fish $3.69
INK and MA bottom fish $2.43
"The recreational WTP values reported in subsequent tables are incorrectly stated as being slightly less than the values reported
here. This indicates that the recreational losses in those tables are moderately understated.
b 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. DOI, 1997), the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 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.
c See chapter B5 of this document. These values were not applied in the analysis, but remain listed here for comparison.
McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values for the mid- and south Atlantic states using data from the NMFS
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), bottorhfish (e.g.,
weakfish, 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. •
Tudor et al (2002; see chapter B5 of this document) applied a random utility model (RUM) to the recreational fishery
impacts associated with I&E in the Delaware Estuary. The methods, data, and results of the Tudor et al. (2002; see chapter
B5 of this document) study are discussed in greater detail in Chapters A10 and B5 of this document. These values were not
applied in the Seabrook-Pilgrim analysis because the McConnell and Strand (1994) study is more geographically precise, but
they are listed here as a basis for comparison.
Hicks et al. (1999) used the same method as McConnell and Strand (1994) but estimated values for a day of fishing and an
increase in catch rates for the Atlantic states from Virginia north to Maine. Their estimates were generally lower than those of
McConnell and Strand (1994) and may serve as a lower bound for the values offish.
£4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses at Seabrook and Pilgrim
EPA estimated the average annual economic value of Seabrook and Pilgrim I&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the
I&E estimates presented in Tables G4-2 through G4-5 and the economic values presented in Table G4-6. Because none of
the studies in Table G4-6 considered the region around Seabrook and Pilgrim directly, EPA created a lower and upper value
G4-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
for New Hampshire and Massachusetts for each impacted recreational species, and then calculated a weighted average value
based on the proportion of landings from each state. Results are presented in Tables G4-7 through G4-10. The estimated total
losses at Seabrook to the recreational fisheries range from $1,100 to $1,300 for impingement per year (Table G4-7), and from
$75,000 to $87,200 annually for entrainment (Table G4-8). The estimated losses at Pilgrim range from $1,500 to $2,100 for
impingement per year (Table G4-9), and from $287,900 to $408,800 annually for entrainment (Table G4-10).
Table 64-7: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Seabrook and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Blueback herring
Butterfish
Cod Atlantic
Gunner
Mackerel, Atlantic
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Scup
Scarobin
Striped bass
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Impingement
(number offish)
2
<1
1
6
<1
3
12
<1
<1
• <1
1
9
200
236
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$2.28 ;
$3.75
$2.28 ;
$2,28..,.
$3.75 l
$2,28 ;
$3.75 i
$2.28 !
$2.28 !
$3.75 1
$2.28 ;
$4.80 i
$4.80 ;
High
$2.73
$8.56
$2.46
$2.73
$8.56
$2.41
$8.56
$2.73
$2.56
$8.56
$2.48
$5.51
• $5.49
Annual Loss in Recreational
Value from Impingement ($2000)
Low
IJO '
(p i
3>1
$3
$13
$1
$7
$46
$0
$1
$0
$3
$42
$959
$1,083
High
$6
$2
. ' $3
$16
$3
$7
$106
$1
$1 :
$1
$3
$49,
$1,097
$1,295
Note: Numbers of fish are rounded here but not in calculations. '
Fri Fob 08 10:11:06 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: I
Pathname: P^Intake/Seabrook- '
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/TableB.rec.losses.seabrook.90.98.I.csv
Table G4-8: Average Annual Entrainment of Recreational Fishery Species at Seabrook and Associated
Economic Values
Species
Bluefish
Butterfish
Cod Atlantic
Gunner
Mackerel, Atlantic
Rainbow smelt
Scarobin
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Entrainment
(number offish)
<1
<1
24
3,341
128
101
18
1
115
13,731
17,460
Recreational Value/Fish
Low :
$3.75
$3.75 ,
$2.28 1
$2.28 i
$3.75 1
$3.75 !
$2.28 .
$2.28
$4.80 1
$4.80 ;
t
High
$8.56
$8.56
$2.46
$2.73
$8.56
$8.56
$2.56
$2.48
$5.51
$5.49
Annual Loss in Recreational Value
from Entrainment ($2000)
Low ,
$0
$1
$55
$7,618
$481
$379
$42
$3
$550
$65,908
$75,036
High
$1
$1
$59
$9,121
$1,098
$865
$47
$3
$631
$75,382
$87,209
Note: Numbers of fish are rounded here but not in calculations. \
Fri Fcb 08 10:11:15 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: B Pathname:
P^Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.rio.mussel/TableB.rec.losses.seabrook.90.98.E.csv
G4-8
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 64-9: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated
Economic Values
Species
Atlantic cod
Atlantic mackerel
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Butterfish
Gunner
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Scup
Searobin
Striped bass
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Impingement
(number offish)
3
< 1
15
<1
2
7
<1
91
6
6
1
35
3
201
371
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$2.28
$3.75
$2.28
$3.75
$3.75
$2.28
$2.28
$3.75
$2.28
. $2.28 •
$3.75
$2.28
$4.80 '
$4.80
High
$2.46
$8.56
$2.73
$8.56
$8.56
$2.73
$2.41
$8.56 '
. $2.73
$2.56
$8.56
$2.48
$5.51
$5.49
Annual Loss in Recreational
Value from Impingement
($2000)
Low
$7
$1
$33
$1
$8
$17
$0
$340
$14
$13
$4
$80
$15
$966
$1,499
High
$8
$3
$40
,$2
$17 '
$20
$0
$775
$17
$14
$9
' $87
$17
$1,105
$2,115
Note: Numbers of fish are rounded here but not in calculations.
Thu Feb 07 17:19:25 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: I
Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Sciehce/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/rableB.rec.losses.pilgrini.74:99.Lcsv
Table 64-10: Average Annual Entrainment of Recreational Fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated Economic
Values.
Species
Atlantic cod
Atlantic mackerel
Gunner .
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Searobin
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Entrainment
(number of fish) .
22
808
17,999
• 2
17,292
300
153
192
36,870
73,638
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$2.28
$3.75
$2.28
$2.28
$3.75
$2.28
$2.28
$4.80
$4.80
High
$2.46
$8.56
$2.73
$2.41
$8.56 .
$2.56
$2.48
$5.51
$5.49
Annual Loss in Recreational Value
from Entrainment ($2000)
Low
$51
$3,030
$41,037
$5 .
$64,847
$684
$348
$920
$176,978
$287,897
High
$54
$6,916
$49,136
$5
$148,023
$768
$378
$1,056
$202,418
$408,755 •
Note: Numbers offish are rounded here but riot in calculations.
Thu Feb 07 17:19:34 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output74.99.no.mussel/TableB.rec.losses.pilgrim.74.99.E.csv
G4-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part <5: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
64-3 ECONOMIC VALUE OF AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMERCIAL FISHERY LOSSES
RESULTING FROM I&E AT SEABROOK AND PILGRIM
Values for commercial fishing losses are relatively
straightforward because commercially caught fish are a
commodity with a market price (blue mussel are not included in
EPA's valuation of commercial fishery losses as discussed in
the accompanying box). Losses to commercial catch (pounds)
resulting from I&E at Seabrook are presented in Table G4-2
(for impingement) and Table G4-4 (for entrainment).
Commercial losses at Pilgrim are presented in Table G4-3 (for
impingement) and Table G4-5 (for entrainment). The market
value of foregone commercial yield at Seabrook is $978 for
impingement per year (Table G4-11), and $11,542 annually for
entrainment (Table G4-12). The market value of foregone
commercial yield at Pilgrim is $517 Tor impingement per year
(Table G4-13), and $30,787 annually for entrainment (Table
G4-14).
Recorded impingement and entrainment of blue mussel
at Seabrook and Pilgrim ranges from 2.2 trillion in
1974 to 19.1 trillion in 1975. Corresponding yield
ranges from 1.2 to 10.4 billion pounds. Based on a
commercial value in some parts of New England of
1 $0.24 per pound, these losses equate to $2.6 billion
1 annually. However, blue mussel in the area around
i Seabrook and Pilgrim are considered a nuisance
species because they clog intake screens (Entergy
Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) and compete
I with commercially desirable species, such as soft shell
; clam (Mike Hickey, MA Division of Marine Fisheries,
'. personal communication, January 16, 2002). As a
1 result, EPA did not consider blue mussel losses in its
i benefits analysis.
Table 64-11: Average Annual Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Seabrook and Associated
Economic Values
Species
Alewifc
Atlantic herring
Buttcrfish
Cod Atlantic
Little skate
Menhaden, Atlantic
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Silversidc, Atlantic
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch from Impingement
Ob offish) i
3 |
46 '
2 i
36 !
29
5 '.
1,017 j
3 !
238 ;
1
3 [
57 .1
107
1,548 >
Commercial Value
(lb offish)
$0.17
$0.05
$0.47
$0.83
$0.19
$0.04
$0.69
$0.20
$0.22
$0.54
$0.64
$0.57
$1.38
Annual Loss in Commercial Value
from Impingement ($2000)
$1
$2
$1
$30 '
$6
$0
$702
$1
$52
$0
$2
$32
$148 .
$978
Fri Fcb 08 10:11:07 MST 2002 ; TableC: commerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.rio.mussel/TableC.comm.losses.seabrook.90.98.I.csv
G4-1Q
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 64-12: Average Annual Entrapment of Commercial Fishery Species at Seabrook and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Atlantic herring
Butterfish
Cod Atlantic
Gunner
Mackerel, Atlantic
Menhaden, Atlantic
Plaice, American
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch
from Entraiiunent
(lb of fish)
1,927
1
717
108 .
56
o
134
10
24 -
65
3
738
7,381
11,168
Commercial
Value
(lb of fish)
$0.05
$0.47
$0.83
$0.37
$0.28
$0.04
$1.20
$0.69
$0.20
$0.22
$0.64
$0.57
$1.38
Annual Loss in Commercial
Value from Entrainment
($2000)
$96
$1
$595
$40
$16
$0
$160
$7 .
$5
$14
$2
$421
$10,185
$11,542
Fri Feb. 08 10:11:16 MST 2002 ; TableC: commerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: E
Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrirn/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/TableC.cornm.losses.seabrook.90.98.E.csv
Table &4-13- Average Annual Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated Economic
Values
Species
Alewife
Atlantic cod
Bluefish
Butterfish
Herring, Atlantic
Little skate
Menhaden, Atlantic
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Scup
Silverside, Atlantic
Striped bass
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch from Impingement
(lb offish)
22
93
1
18
1,225
16
2,111
47
21
41
12
8
. . . :7
83
20
108
3,827
Commercial Value
(lb of fish)
. $0.17
$0.83
.$0.25
$0.47
$0.05
$0.19
$0.04
$0.69
$0.20
$0.22
$1.05
$0.54
$1.50
$0.64
$0.57
$1.38
Annual Loss in Commercial Value
from Impingement ($2000)
$4
'$77
$0
$8
$61
$3
$84
'$33
$4
• $9
$12
$4
$3
$53
,$12
$149
$517
Thu Feb 07 17:19:25 MST 2002 ; TableC: commerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrirn/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/TableC.comrn.losses.pilgrim.74.99.I.csv
G4-11
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline IAE Losses
Table 64-14: Average Annual Entrapment of Commercial Fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated
Economic Values
Species
Atlantic cod
Atlantic mackerel
Gunner
Herring, Atlantic
Menhaden, Atlantic
Plaice, American
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Silvcrside, Atlantic
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch from
Entrainment
(Ib of fish)
658 ;
350 :
582 ;
2,806 f
2,776 i
25
708 '
4,059
275
2 :
360
\& |.
19,819 !
33,654 ;
Commercial Value
Ob of fish)
$0.83
$0.28
$0.37
$0.05
$0.04
$1.20
$0.69
$0.20
. $0.22
$0.54
$0.64
$0.57
$1.38
Annual Loss in Commercial
Value from Entrainment
($2000)
$546
$98
$216
$140
$111
$30
$489
$812
$61
. $1
$230
$703
$27,350
$30,787
Thu Feb 07 17:19:34 MST 2002; TableC: commerical losses and value for selected species; Plan pilgrim.74.99 ; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrirn/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/TableC.comrn.losses.pilgrim,74.99.E.csv
EPA has expressed changes to commercial activity thus far 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. i
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
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.
i
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, 1985) 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 gross 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 watermen 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 to 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 (Norton 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
G4-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
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.
Applying this method, estimates of the economic loss to commercial fisheries resulting from I&E at-Seabrook range from
$1,800 to $3,100 per year for impingement and from $21,000 to $36,700 per year for entrainment. For I&E at Pilgrim,
estimates range from $900 to $1,600 per year for impingement and from $56,000 to $98,000 per year for entrainment.
£4-4 ECONOMIC VALUE OF FORAGE FISH LOSSES
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationally fished. For the purposes in this study, EPA referred to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species and are important components of aquatic
food webs. Based on the analysis of I&E data presented in Chapter G3, Table G4-15 summarizes impingement losses of
forage species at Seabrook and Table G4-16 summaries entrainment losses. Impingement of forage species at Pilgrim is
summarized in Table G4-17 and entrainment losses are summarized in Table G4-18. The following sections discuss the
economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation methods. ' _
Table 64-15: Summary of Seabrook's Mean Annual Impingement of
Forage Species
Species
American sand lance
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Killifish striped
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Radiated shanny
Rock gunnel
Sculpin spp.
Threespine stickleback
Forage species total
Impingement
Count (#)
. 476
3
1,156
8
391
285
20
710
401
171
3,621
Age 1 Equivalents
(#)
696
4
1,418.
11
428
388
24
864
492
243
4,568
Production
Foregone (Ibs)
4
0
86
0
14
0
0
4
30
0
138
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook-
Pilgrim\Science\scode\seabrook\tables.output.90.98.no.mussel\flowchart.IMP.NEW.xls
G4-13
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (54: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 64-16: Summary of Seabrook's Mean Annual Entrapment of Forage
Species
Species
American sand lance
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Killifish striped
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Radiated shanny
Rock gunnel
Sculpin spp.
Threespine stickleback
Forage species total
Impingement
Count (#)
13,329,111
58,510,333
14,012,778
o
31,862,889
11,111
1,700,222
22,719,111
1,634,444
0
143,779,999
Age 1 Equivalents
(#)
I 397,513
165,150
252,098
0
; 5,014
782
; 144,945
; 3,217,922
29,405
; o
i 4,212,828
Production Foregone
Obs)
14,937
3,931
24,840
0
24,655
30
480
35,278
2,897
0
107,049
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook- ;
Pilgrim\Science\scode\seabrook\tables.output.90.98.no;mussel\flowchart.ENT.NEW.xls
Table 64-17: Summary of Pilgrim's Mean Annual Impingement of Forage
Species
Species
American sand lance
Bay anchovy
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Hogchoker
Killifish striped
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Radiated shanny
Rock gunnel
Sculpin spp.
Threespine stickleback
Total
Impingement
Count (#)
19
11
2
717
2
66
198
87
45
63
11
83
1,304
Age 1 Equivalents
(#)
27
18
2
879
2
90
217
118
54
77
13
118
1,616
Production
Foregone (Ibs)
0
0
0
53
o
1
7
0
0
0
1
0
63
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook-
Pilgrim\Science\scode\pilgrim\tables.output.74.99\flowchart.IMP.NEW.csv
G4-14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline L&E Losses
Table 64-18: Summary Pilgrim's Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Species
Species
American sand lance
Fourbeard rockling
Lumpfish
Radiated shanny
Rock gunnel
Sculpin spp.
Total
Entrainment Count (#)
138,023,372
94,252,169
6,489,657
19,289,027
34,332,210
40,841,427
333,227,862
Age 1 Equivalents (#)
4,116,258
411,189
1,080
1,644,402
4,862,795
734,760
1 1,770,483
Production Foregone Obs)
87,207
1,809
5,205
5,053
37,245
40,814
177,333
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook-
Pilgrim\Science\scode\pilgrim\tables.output.74.99\flowchart.ENT.NEW.csv
64-4.1 Replacement Cost of Fish
The replacement value offish can be used in several instances. 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 data to allow calculation of 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&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Tables G4-19 and G4-20 display the replacement costs of some of the forage fish species known to be
impinged or entrained at Seabrook or Pilgrim. The costs are average costs to fish hatcheries across North America to produce
different species of fish for stocking (AFS, 1993). 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 $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.
Tables G4-19 and G4-20 also presents the computed values of the annual average forage replacement cost losses at the two
facilities. The value of forage losses at Seabrook using the replacement cost method is $20 per year for impingement and
$5,600 per year for entrainment. Forage losses at Pilgrim are valued at $90 per year for impingement and $30,900 per year
for entrainment.
Table 64-19: Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species at the Seabrook Facility.
Species
American sand lance
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Rock gunnel
Sculpin spp.
Total
Hatchery Costs "•"
($/lb)
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses ($2000) '
Impingement
SI
$0
$2
$2
$1
$0
$12
$1
$1
$20
Entrainment
$633
$226
$346
$25
$2
$31
$94
$4,181
$40
$5,580
" Values are from AFS (1993). These costs use the average value for all species listed in AFS (1993) since the species listed
are not included in AFS (1993). '
b These values were inflated to $2000.from $1989, but this could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
ThuJanl711:32:33MST2002;TableD:lossinselectedforagespecies;Plant:seabrook.90.98;type:IPathname:P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.seabrook.90.98.I.csv
G4-15
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 64-20: Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species at the Pilgrim Facility.
Species
American sand lance
Fourbeard reckling
Grubby
Lumpfish
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt ,
Rock gunnel
Sculpin spp.
Total
Hatchery Costs *'b
(S/lb)
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
0.34
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses ($2000)
i Impingement
1 $0
: $o
$1
i $1
i $0
i $85
; $o
; $o
j $88
Entrainraent
$6,557
$563 ;
0
$5
$348
$16,137
$6,319 ;
$1,010 •
$30,939
* Values are from AFS (1993). These costs use the average value for all species listed in AFS (1993) since the species listed
arc not included in AFS (1993).
b These values were inflated to $2000 from $ 1989, but this could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
ThuJanl710;34:23MST2002;TableD:lossinselectedforagespecies;Plant:pilgrim.74.99;type:IPathname:P:/Intake/Seabro6k-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.pilgrim.74.99.I.csv
i
'£4-4.2 Production Foregone Value of Forage Fish
This approach considers the foregone production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from I&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.
Results for entrainment of forage species at Seabrook are presented! in Table G4-21. Results for entrainment of forage species
at Pilgrim are presented in Table G4-22. The values listed are obtained from converting the forage species into species that
may be commercially or recreationally valued. The values range from $65,700 to $141,500 per year for entrainment at
Seabrook. For Pilgrim, the values range from $25,400 to $33,300 per year for entrainment. Impingement values were
negligible and thus are not discussed. !
Note that the results using the production foregone approach indicate higher losses at Seabrook than at Pilgrim, even though
the replacement cost approach yields the opposite finding. This reflects the differences in the approaches, wherein
replacement costs reflect the number offish lost, and the production foregone approach captures how the different mix offish
losses may alter recreational and commercial biomass.' ;
C4-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 64-21: Mean Annual Value o'f Production Foregone of Fishery Species Resulting from Entrainment of
Forage Species at Seabrook.
Species
Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value
from Entrainment of Forage Species ($2000)
Atlantic herring
Bluefish
Butterfish
Cod Atlantic
Gunner
Mackerel Atlantic
Menhaden Atlantic
Plaice American
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Searobin
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Low
$4
$63,013
$58
. • . ' $331
$289
$39
$592
$311
$0
$49
$266
$357
$259
$122
$65,690
High
$7
$137,347
$112
$569
$347
$87
$1,035
$544
$1
$111
$298
$518
$388
$156
$141,520
Fri Feb 08 10:11:16 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.seabrook.90.98.E.csv
Table 64-22: Mean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Fishery Species Resulting from Entrainment of
Forage Species at Pilgrim
Species
Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value from Entrainment
of Forage Species ($2000)
Atlantic cod
Atlantic mackerel
Gunner
Herring Atlantic
Menhaden Atlantic
Plaice American-
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Searobin
Silverside Atlantic
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total
Low
$549
$1,421
$564
$568
$229
$2,287 •
$16,1 '
$80
$15,895
$16
$646
$2
$2,968
$25,387
High
$944
$3,202
$679
$993
$401
$4,003
$281
$181
$17,847
$29
$936
$4
$3,790
$33,288
Thu Feb 07 17:19:35 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.pilgrim.74.99.E.csv
G4-17
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook'and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
64-5 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 (intergenerational equity)
motives. Using a "Yule 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 estimated nonuse values for baseline losses at Seabrook,
to range from S500 to S600 per year for impingement and from $37,500 to $43,600 per year for entrainment. At Pilgrim,
nonuse values for baseline losses range from $700 to $ 1,100 per year for impingement and from $ 143,900 to $204,400 per
year for entrainment. !
i
£4-6 SUMMARY OF MEAN ANNUAL ECONOMIC VALUE OF I&E AT SEABROOK AND
PILGRIM •
Tables G4-23 and G4-24 summarize the economic values associated with mean annual I&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim
facilities. Total impacts at Seabrook range from $3,400 to $5,100 per year for impingement and from $139,100 to $309,100
per year for entrainment. Total impacts at Pilgrim range from $3,200 to $4,900 per year for impingement and from $513,200
to $744,400 per year for entrainment. ;
i
Table 64-23: Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual !<&E at Seabrook Facility ($2000).
Commercial: Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market)
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Production Foregone
Replacement
Total (Com •*• Rec + Nonuse + Forage)3
Low
High
Lo\V
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
$1,778
$3,112
$1,083
$1,295
;$542
i$647
1 NA
; NA
! $20
^3,423
$5,074
Entrainment
$20,985
$36,724
$75,036
$87,209
$37,518
$43,605
$65,690
$141,520
$5,580
$139,119
$309,058
Total
$22,763
$39,836
$76,119
$88,504
$38,060
$44,252
$65,690
$141,520
$5,600
$142,542
$314,131
• In calculating the total low values, the lower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement)
was used and to calculate the total high values, the higher of the two forage valuation methods was used.
NA= Not included because values negligible. j
Fri Feb 08 10:11:18 MST2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/TableE.summary.seabrook.90.98.csv
G4-18
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 64-24: Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual !<&E at Pilgrim Facility ($2000).
Commercial: Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market)
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Production Foregone
Replacement
Total (Com + Rec + Nonuse + Forage)3
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
$940 '
$1,646
$1,499
$2,1 15
$749
$1,057
NA
NA
$88
$3,276
$4,905
Entrainment
$55,976 '
$97,958
$287,897
$408,755 '
$143,949
$204,377
$25,387
$33,288
$30,939
$513,209
$744,377
Total
$56,916
$99,603
$289,396
$410,869
$144,698
$205,435
$25,403
$33,314
$31,027
$516,485
$749,283
0 In calculating the total low values, the lower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement)
was used and to calculate the total high values, the higher of the two forage valuation methods was used.
NA= Not included because values negligible.
Thu Feb 07 17:19:36 MST 2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.rnussel/TableE.sumrnary.pilgrim.74.99.csv
G4-19
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Chapter £5: HRC Valuation of I&E
Losses at the Pilgrim Facility
CHAPTER-CONTENTS
Step_4:-Consolidate,, Categorize, andJlrioritize _____ _„
~rdentified1HabitarRes^oration-A1tematives"~rrTrr.-r65^7'
-G5-,
-^Step^:43uantify4he-Expected,Increases.in.Species-
"Pro'duction'forthe'Prioritized'Habitat-Restoration"^
-Alternatives^-.---*-,-<-i-.-
--Produetiqn-from 5 AV~Restoratioa—.-.-.-n-r-
. jGS^SL. Estimates of Increased Age, IjFisH
iciaLReef ,u l"JSZI3ZZ"
~-.v~I-., ,.„ ,G5=514 .^Estimatescltincrfi^ed-SpeciesiC .^^^iTiUiril
I~Gp!5.
EPA applied the habitat replacement cost (HRC) method,
as described in Chapter Al 1 of Part A of this document, to
value the average annual losses to impingement and
entrainment (I&E) at the Pilgrim cooling water intake
structure (CWIS) (Seabrook was not evaluated because of
budget constraints). To summarize, the HRC method
identifies the habitat restoration actions that are most •
effective at replacing the species that suffer I&E losses at a
CWIS. Then, the HRC method determines the amount of
each restoration action that is required to offset fully the
I&E losses. Finally, the,HRC method estimates the cost of
implementing the restoration actions, and uses this cost as
a proxy for the value of the I&E losses. Thus, the HRC
valuation method is based on the estimated cost to replace
the organisms lost because of I&E, where the replacement
is achieved through improvement or replacement of the
habitat upon which the lost organisms depend. The HRC
method produces an estimated annualized total value of
$9.2 million, which is the cost of replacing the impinged
and entrained organisms through the restoration of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), restoration of tidal
wetlands, construction of artificial reefs, and installation of
fish passageways and monitoring to quantify the
productivity of these habitats.
The HRC method is a supply-side approach for valuing
I&E losses in contrast to the more typically used demand-
side valuation approaches (e.g., commercial and
recreational fishing impacts valuations discussed in
Chapter A9 of Part A of this document). An advantage of
the HRC method is that it can address, and value, losses
for all species, including those lacking a recreational or
commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC method explicitly recognizes and captures the
fundamental ecological relationships between those
species with I&E losses at a facility and their surrounding
environment, in contrast to traditional replacement cost
methods such as fish stocking.
EPA used published data wherever possible to apply the
HRC method to the I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility. If published data were lacking, EPA used unpublished data from
knowledgeable resource experts. In some cases, EPA used (arid documented) the best professional judgment of these experts
to apply reasonable assumptions to their data. In these cases, EPA applied cost-reducing assumptions, but not beyond the
range of values that experts were willing to support as reasonable. In other words, this HRC,valuation seeks the cost of what
knowledgeable resource experts consider to be the minimum amount of restoration necessary to offset I&E losses at the
Pilgrim facility. •
^~r~^^!953^
^"~-~~-~-~_&sh: Production fipm.Sp
sSSiiiffi^
pTSr^aamgi^^
'
]r^^
G5-I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Cost-reducing assumptions are identified throughout this chapter and were incorporated extensively. Most significantly, the
HRC valuation estimates for the I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility implicitly assumes that the scale of restoration determined
for species for which data were available are sufficient to fully offset the losses for species for which no data was identified.
To the degree this assumption is inaccurate, the results incorporate a downward bias.
Sections G5-1 through G5-8 present the information, methods, assumptions, and conclusions that were used to complete the
HRC valuation of the I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility following the eight steps described in Chapter Al 1 of Part A of this
document. Section G5-8 also presents additional detail on the valuation of the I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility, providing
separate annualized valuation estimates for the aquatic organisms lost to impingement and for those lost to entrainment.
G5-1 STEP 1: QUANTIFY I&E LOSSES
The Pilgrim facility has reported I&E losses of millions of aquatic organisms each year since it began using a once-through
CWIS. EPA evaluated all species known to be impinged and entrained by the Pilgrim facility, including commercial,
recreational, and forage fish species, based on information provided in facility I&E monitoring reports and detailed in Chapter
G3. : .
i . -1
Of the 63 species offish with reported I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility, EPA incorporated the 34 species that had losses
greater than 0.1 percent of the total impingement or total entrainment losses at the facility (the criterion for inclusion in the
Equivalent Adult Model [EAM]) into the HRC analysis. The average annual age 1 equivalent losses from I&E at Pilgrim for
these 34 species from 1974 to 1999 calculated by the EAM (see Chapter G3 for additional descriptions of source data and
calculation of the age 1 equivalents) are presented in Table G5-1, in order of decreasing mean annual I&E losses (this
information is also presented in Tables G3-6 and G3-10).
In addition, quantitative estimates of blue mussel losses were available for a number of years in Pilgrim's I&E monitoring
reports. The losses for blue mussels were quantified as age 1 equivalents using the same EAM model. The I&E losses for
blue mussels are also presented in Table G5-1. '
Table 65-1: Mean Annual Age 1 Equivalent I&E Losses of Fishes at the Pilgrim Facility, 1974-1999
Species
Flnftsh
Rock gunnel
American sand lance
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Gunner
Sculpin spp.
Fourbcard rockling
Winter flounder
Atlantic herring
Atlantic silvcrsidc
Windowpane
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic mackerel
Alewife
Scarobin
Atlantic cod
Red hake
Lumpfish
Tautog
Grubby
Impingement :
77 i
27
54 :
6,885 !
411
13 ;
2 :
1,144 i
8,836 |
20,842 ';
284 -
6,165
3
4,343 ;
69
301 I
229 I
217
•. i"
201 1
879 ;
Entrainment
4,862,795
4,116,258
1,644,402
1,323,137
993,500
734,760
411,189
209,571
20,243
5,087
17,258
8,105
6,659
0
3,698 .
2,138
1,545
1,080
875
NA
Total
4,862,872
4,116,285
1,644,456
1,330,022
993,911
734,773
411,191
,210,715
29,079
25,929
17,542
14,270
6,662
4,343
3,767
2,439
1,774
1,297
1,076
879
G5-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-1: Mean Annual Age 1 Equivalent !<&E Losses of Fishes at the Pilgrim Facility, 1974-1999
(cont.)
Species
Blueback herring
Pollock
Butterfish
American plaice
Northern pipefish
Threespine stickleback
Scup
Striped killifish
Little skate
White perch
Bay anchovy
Striped bass
Bluefish
Hogchoker
Total age 1 eq. finfish losses
Shellfish
Blue mussel
Total age 1 eq. shellfish losses
Impingement
703
33
399
0
118
118
114
90
78
73
.18
9
2
2
52,739
15
15
Entrainment
NA
492
NA
221
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA .
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
14,363,013
160,000,000,000
160,000,000,000
Total
703
525
399
221
118
118
114
90
78
73
18
9
2
2
14,415,752
160,000,000,000°
160,000,000,000"
" Rounded to nearest billion.
£5-2 STEP 2: IDENTIFY HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Determining the best course of action for restoring habitat to offset losses of species to I&E requires understanding the
specific habitat requirements for each species. Habitat requirements for fish may include physical habitat needs such as
substrate types and geographic locations as well as water quality needs and food sources. Chapter G3, Section G3-2, provides
a detailed summary of the habitat components needed for the critical lifestages of several of the species from among those
with high average annual I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility.
65-3 STEP 3: IDENTIFY POTENTIAL HABITAT RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES TO
OFFSEF !<&E LOSSES.
Local experts identified six types of projects that could be used near the Pilgrim facility to restore the same species offish and
aquatic organisms lost to I&E at the Pilgrim facility:
*• restore submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
+ restore tidal wetlands .
>• create artificial reefs ' •
* improve anadromous fish passage •
*• improve water quality beyond current regulatory requirements
> reduce fishing pressures beyond current regulatory requirements.
Of the project categories listed above, the restoration of SAV and tidal wetlands, the creation of artificial reefs and the
improvement of anadromous fish passages provides benefits to the aquatic community that can be quantified in this HRC
valuation and are described below.
G5-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Scabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Restore submerged aquatic vegetation ;
i
Submerged aquatic vegetation provides vital habitat for a number o£ aquatic organisms. Eelgrass is the dominant species of
SAV along the coasts of New England. It is an underwater flowering plant that is found in brackish and near-shore marine
waters (Figure G5-1). Eelgrass can form large meadows or small separate beds that range in size from many acres to just 1 m
across (Save The Bay, 2001). '
SAV restoration involves transplanting eelgrass shoots and/or seeds into areas that can support their growth. Site selection is
based on historical distribution, wave action, light availability, sediment type, and nutrient loading. Improving water quality
and clarity, reducing nutrient levels, and restricting dredging may all be necessary to promote sustainable eelgrass beds.
Protecting existing SAV beds is a priority in many communities (Save The Bay, 2001).
SAV provides several ecological services to the environment. For example, eelgrass has a high rate of leaf growth and
provides support for many aquatic organisms as shelter, spawning, and nursery habitat. SAV is also a food source for '
herbivorous organisms. The roots of SAV also provide stability to the bottom sediments, thus decreasing erosion and
resuspension of sediments into the water column (Thayer et al, 1997). Dense SAV provides shelter for small and juvenile
fishes and invertebrates from predators. Small prey can hide deep within the SAV canopy, and some prey species ;use the
SAV as camouflage (Thayer et al., 1997). Species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim that use SAV beds during early life
stages include Atlantic menhaden, striped bass, tautog, bluefish, and rainbow smelt (Laney, 1997).
Figure 65-1: Laboratory culture of eelgrass (Zostera marina)
Source: Boschker, 2001.
Restore tidal wetlands '
i
Tidal wetlands (Figure G5-2) are among the most productive ecosystems in the world (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993; Broome
and Craft, 2000). They provide valuable habitat for many species of invertebrates and forage fish that serve as food for other
species in and near the wetland. Tidal wetlands also provide spawning and nursery habitat for many other fish species,
including the Atlantic silverside, striped killifish, threespine stickleback, and mummichog. Other migratory species that use
tidal wetlands during their lives include the winter flounder, striped bass, Atlantic herring, and white perch (Dionne et al.,
1999). Fish species that have been reported in restored salt ponds and tidal creeks include Atlantic menhaden, blueback
herring, Atlantic silverside, striped killifish, and mummichog (Roman et al., submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology).
Restoring tidal flow to areas where such flows have been restricted also reduces the presence of Phragmites australis, the
invasive marsh grass that has choked out native flora and fauna in coastal areas across the New England seaboard (Fell et al.,
2000). I
G5-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&B Losses
Figure &5-Z: Tidal creek near Little Harbor, Cohasset, Massachusetts (Source: MAPC, 2001)
Tidal wetlands restoration typically involves returning tidal flow to marshes or ponds that have restricted natural tidewater
flow because of roads, backfilling, dikes, or other barriers. Eliminating these barriers can restore salt marshes (Figure G5-3),
salt ponds, and tidal creeks that provide essential habitat for many species of aquatic organisms. For example, where
undersized culverts restrict tidal flow, installing correctly sized and positioned culverts can restore tidal range and proper
salinity. In other situations, such as where low-lying property adjacent to salt marsh has been developed, restoring full tidal
flow may not be possible because of flooding concerns (MAPC, 2001). Salt marshes can also be created'by inundating areas
in which no marsh habitat previously existed (e.g., tidal wetland creation). However, a study by Dionne et al. (1999) showed
that while both created and restored tidal wetlands provide habitat for a number of fish, restored tidal wetlands provide much
larger and more productive areas of habitat per unit cost than created tidal wetlands.
Figure (55-3: Salt marsh near Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island (Source'. Save the Bay, 2001)
G5-5
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Create artificial reefs i
Several species offish found near the Pilgrim facility use rocky or reef-like habitats with interstices that provide refuge from
predators. These habitats can be created artificially with cobbles, concrete, and other suitable materials. Species impinged
and entrained at Pilgrim that commonly use reef structures for refuge include tautog, cunner, and blue mussels (Foster et al.,
1994; Castro et al., in press). Both cunner and tautog become torpid at night and require places to hide from their prey.
Improve anadromous fish passageways ,
Anadromous fish spend most of their lives in brackish or saltwater but migrate into freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Dams on many of the rivers and streams in this region where anadromous fish historically spawned make these waterways
inaccessible to migrating fish. Anadromous fish impinged and entrained at Pilgrim that would benefit from improved access
to upstream spawning habitat include rainbow smelt, alewife, and white perch. .
Improving anadromous fish passage involves many important steps. Dams and barriers connecting estuaries with upstream
spawning habitat can be removed or fitted with fish ladders (Figure G5-4). Removing a dam is often preferable because some
species such as rainbow smelt use fish ladders ineffectively. However, dam removal may not be possible in highly developed
areas needing flood control. In addition, restoring stream habitats such as forested riverbank wetlands and improving water
quality may also be necessary to restore upstream spawning habitats for anadromous fish (Save The Bay, 2001).
i
Figure S5-4: Example of a fish ladder at a hydroelectric dam
Source: Pollock, 2001.
G5-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
65-4 STEP 4: CONSOLIDATE, CATEGORIZE, AND PRIORITIZE IDENTIFIED HABITAT
RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
EPA categorized and prioritized habitat restoration alternatives to identify the type of restoration program that was best suited
for each of the major species that are impinged or entrained as a result of cooling water intakes. This was done in
collaboration with local experts from several federal, state, and local organizations at a meeting on September 12, 2001
(Table G5-2), and through follow-up discussions that were held with numerous additional organizations (Table G5-3).
Attendees discussed habitat needs and restoration options for each species with significant I&E losses at the facility. They
then ranked these restoration options for each species by determining what single option would most benefit that species. The
alternatives chosen for each species are shown in Table G5-4.
Table 65-2: Attendees at the Meeting on Habitat Prioritization for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Pilgrim September 12, 2001, in Lakeville, Massachusetts
Attendee
Organization
Bob Green I Massachusetts DEP
Robert Lawton j Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
j.....,...., [[[
George Zoto j Massachusetts Watershed Initiative - South Coastal Watersheds
Kathi Rodrigues I National Marine Fisheries Service - Restoration Center
David Webster I U.S. EPA Region I
....................4[[[
Sharon Zaya ! U.S. EPA Region I
...j........—.........— ........'..
NickProdany JU.S. EPA Region I
John Nagle ! U.S. EPA Region I .
Table 65-3: Local Agencies and Organizations Contacted for Information Used in this HRC Analysis
Organization
Applied Sciences Associates
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council
Connecticut College
Duxbury Conservation Agency
Fall River Conservation Commission , ,
Jones River Watershed Association
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Law Enforcement — Division of Marine Fisheries
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program: Center for Coastal Resources
Massachusetts Watershed Initiative
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve . . . .
National Estuary Program — Massachusetts Bays program
National Estuary Program — Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection • •
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium
NOAA—National Marine Fisheries Service .' . ,
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center (Gloucester, MA)
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (55: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-3: Local Agencies and Organizations Contacted for Information Used in this HRC Analysis
(cont.)
Organization -
Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council ;
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Dept. of Planning and Development, Land Acquisition Program
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Division of Fish and Wildlife
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Marine Fisheries Section
Roger Williams University '•
Rutgers University i
Save The Bay (RI) I
Somerset Conservation Commission ;
University of California — Santa Cruz: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of New Hampshire i
University of Rhode Island
USEPA —Region 1
USEPA Environmental Effects Research Laboratory — Atlantic Ecology Division/ORD
USFishandWiidiifcSei^ce ' _
USGS !
Wetlands Restoration Program, (Mass Exec. Office of Env. Affairs) ,
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Table 65-4: Preferred Restoration Alternatives Identified by Experts for
Species Impinged and Entrained at Pilgrim
Species (age 1 eq. losses per year) j Selected Restoration Alternative
Atlantic cod (2,439)
Pollock"(525)
ISAV restoration
ISAV restoration
iSAV restoration
Northern pipefish (118)
Threespine stickleback (118)
I SAV restoration, tidal wetland restoration
American sand lance (4,116,285)
Winter flounder (210,715)
I Tidal wetlands restoration
I Tidal wetlands restoration
i Tidal wetlands restoration
Atlantic silverside (25,929)
'windowpantf"(T7,542)
[Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
i Tidal wetlands restoration
Grubby (879)
'Snipedkmifish'(90)
Striped bass (9)
I Tidal wetlands restolration
I Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Bluefish (2)
i Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Rock gunnel (4,862,872)
Radiated shanny (1,644,456)
! Artificial reef creation
: Artificial reef creation
•Artificial reef creation, SAV restoration
Gunner (993,911)
Sculpin spp. (734,773)
[Artificial reef creatipn, SAV restoration (improve habitat for prey)
! Artificial reef creation, SAV restoration
TautOg( 1,076)
Rainbow smelt (1,330,022)
! Anadromous fish passage (remove dams)
! Anadromous fish passage
Alewife (4,343)
Blueback herring (703)
White perch (73)
I Anadromous fish passage
I Anadromous fish passage
G5-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-4: Preferred Restoration Alternatives Identified by Experts for
Species Impinged and Entrained at Pilgrim (cont.)
Species (age 1 eq. losses per year)
Blue mussels (160,000,000,000)
Fourbeardrockling (411,191)
Atlantic herring (29,079)
Searobin (3,767)
Red hake (1,774)
Lumpfish (1,297)
American plaice (221)
Scup (1 14)
Little skate (78)
Hogchoker(2)
Atlantic menhaden (14,270)
Atlantic mackerel (6,662)
Butterfish (399)
Bay anchovy (18)
Selected Restoration Alternative
No habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
'
No habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
a Improved water quality later .became the chosen restoration alternative for windowpane because they
inhabit depths greater than accessible to tidal wetland restoration. However, no specific water quality
projects were identified.
G5-5 STEP 5: QUANTIFY THE EXPECTED INCREASES IN. SPECIES PRODUCTION FOR
THE PRIORITIZED HABITAT RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
In Step 5, EPA estimated the expected increases in fish production attributable to implementing the preferred restoration
alternative for each species. These estimates were adjusted to express production as increases in age 1 fish. This simplified
the scaling of the preferred restoration alternatives (see Section G5-6) because the I&E losses were also expressed as age 1
equivalents.
Unfortunately, available quantitative data is not sufficient to estimate reliably the increase in fish production that is expected
to result from the habitat restoration actions listed in Table G5-4. There is also limited data available on the production of
these species in natural habitats that could be used to estimate production in restored habitats. Therefore, in this analysis EPA
relied on quantitative information on fish species abundance in the habitats to be restored as a proxy for the increase in
production expected through habitat restoration. The relationship between the measured abundance of a species in a given
habitat and the increase in that species' production that would result from restoring additional habitat is complex and unique
for each species. In some cases the use of abundance data may underestimate the true production that would be gained
through habitat restoration, and in other cases it may overestimate the true production. Nevertheless, this assumption was '
necessary given the limited amount of quantitative data on fish species habitat production that is currently available.
65-5.1 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from SAV Restoration
SAV provides forage and refuge services for many fish species, increases sediment stability, and dampens the energy of
waves and currents affecting nearby shorelines (Fonseca, 1992). SAV restoration is most effective where water quality is
adequate and SAV coverage once existed. Table G5-5 presents the fish species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that would
benefit most from SAV restoration, along with annual average I&E losses 1974-1999, arranged by number offish lost.
G5-9
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table 65-5: Fish Species'Impinged or Entrained >at Pilgrim that Would
Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species
Atlantic cod
Pollock
Northern pipefish
Threcspine stickleback
Total
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1999)
2,439
525 !
• rig""! :
us ;
3,200 ;
Percentage of Total I&E
. Losses for All Fish Species
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
G5-5.1.1 Species abundance estimates in SAV hpbitats
i-
No studies were available that provided direct estimates of increased fish production following SAV restoration for the
species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that would benefit most from SAV restoration. Therefore, EPA used abundance
estimates to estimate increases in production following restoration. Abundance estimates are often the best available
estimates of local habitat productivity, especially for early life stages with limited mobility. The sampling efforts that provide
abundance estimates in SAV habitat and that were selected for this HRC valuation are described below.
Species abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV
i
Wyda et al. (in press) provide abundance estimates as fish per 100 m2 of SAV for species caught in otter trawls in July and
August 1996 at 24 sites within 13 Buzzards Bay estuaries, near Nantucket, Massachusetts, and at 28 sites within 6
Chesapeake Bay estuaries. These locations were selected based on information that eelgrass was present or had existed at the
location. ' - i
The sampling at each location consisted of six 2-minute sampling runs using a 4.8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm
mesh cod end liner that was towed at 5r6 km/hour. Late summer sampling was selected because eelgrass abundance is
greatest then, and previous research had shown that late-summer fish assemblages are stable.
Forty-three fish species were caught in Buzzards Bay and 60 in Chesapeake Bay. Abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV
were reported for all fish species, and abundance estimates for specific SAV density categories were reported for species
caught in more than 10 percent of the total number of trawls (15 species). EPA used only these SAV density-based results
from the Buzzards Bay sampling for this HRC valuation because of its proximity to the facility. These SAV density-based
results are presented in Table G5-6 for species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most from SAV
restoration.
Table 65-6: Average Abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV (eelgrass) Habitats for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 m1)'
1_UIU1IH)I1 iMUIie
Atlantic cod"
Pollock*
Northern pipefish
Thrcespine stickleback
Low Density SAV Habitats
no obs.
no obs. .-
0.19 |
0.22 i
High Density SAV Habitats
no obs.
no obs.
0.99
0.13
* High density habitats are eelgrass areas with shoot densities > 100 per m2 and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/m2. Low density habitats do
not meet these criteria. i
b Atlantic cod and pollock were not caught in any Buzzards Bay trawls. ,
Source: Wyda et al. (in press). ;
G5-10
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (55: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Species abundance in Rhode Island coastal salt pond SAV
Hughes et al: (2000) conducted trawl samples in the SAV habitats of four Rhode Island coastal estuarine salt ponds and in
four Connecticut estuaries during July 1999. As in Wyda et al. (in press), the sampling at each location involved six 2-minute
sampling runs using a 4.8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm mesh cod end liner towed at 5-6 km/hour.
•The report does not provide abundance estimates by species. However, a principal investigator provided abundance estimates
expressed as the number offish per 100 m2 of SAV for the locations sampled in Rhode Island (Point Judith Pond, Ninigret
Pond, Green Hill Pond, and Quonochontaug Pond; personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological
Laboratory, 2001). Average abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV were calculated for each species and allocated to the
same SAV habitat categories that were designated in Wyda et al. (in press) using shoot density and wet weight of shoots from
Hughes et al. (2000). The sampling results for species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most
from SAV restoration are presented in Table G5-7.
Table 65-7: Average Abundance from Rhode Island SAV Sites fop Pilgrim Species
that Would Benefit Most :from SAV Restoration
Species
Atlantic cod
Pollock
Northern pipefish
Threespine stickleback
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 m2 of SAV habitat)"
Low Density SAV Habitats
no obs.
no obs.
. 0.23
no obs.
High Density SAV Habitats
no obs.
no obs.
3.03
19.67
a High density habitats are defined as areas with eelgrass shoot densities > 100 per m2 and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/m2. Low density
habitats do not meet these criteria.
Source: personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001.
Species abundance in Nauset Marsh (Massachusetts) estuarine complex SAV
Heck et al. (1989) provide capture totals for day and night trawl samples taken between August 1985 and October 1986 in the
Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex in Orleans/Eastham, Massachusetts, including two eelgrass beds: Fort Hill and Nauset
Harbor. As in the other SAV-sampling efforts, an otter trawl was used for the sampling, but with slightly larger mesh size
openings in the cod end liner (6.3 mm versus 3.0 mm) than in Hughes et al. (2000) or Wyda et al. (in press).
With the reported information on the average speed, duration, and number of trawls used in each sampling period and an
estimate of the width of the SAV habitat covered by the trawl from one of the study authors (personal communication, M.
Fahay, NOAA, 2001), EPA calculated abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV habitat.
Heck et al. (1989) also report that the dry weight of the SAV shoots is over 180 g/m2 at both the Fort Hill and Nauset-Harbor
eelgrass habitat sites. Therefore, these locations would fall into the high density SAV habitat category used in Wyda et al. (in
press) and Hughes et al. (2000) because the dry weight exceeds the wet weight criterion of 100 g/m2 used in those studies.
Finally, Heck et al. (1989) provide separate monthly capture results from their trawls. The maximum monthly capture results
for each species was used for the abundance estimates from this sampling. Because these maximum values generally occur in
the late summer months, sampling time is consistent with the results from Wyda et al. (in press) and Hughes et al. (2000).
The species abundance values estimated from the sampling of the Fort Hill and Nauset Harbor SAV habitats are presented in
Table G5-8.
G5-11
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table (55-8: Average Abundance in Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex SAV for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species'Abundance (# fish per 100 m2)"
Species
Atlantic cod
Pollock
Northern pipefish
Thrccspine stickleback
Fort Hill — High Density SAV
no obs. i
no obs. j
0.68 j
5.92 I
Nauset Harbor — High Density SAV
no obs.
no obs.
6.11
47-.08
' High density habitats are defined as areas with eelgrass shoot densities > 100 per m2 and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/m .
Source: Heck et al., 1989. !
G5-5.1.2 Adjusting SAV sampling results to estimate annual average increase in production
of age 1 fish ;
EPA adjusted sampling-based abundance estimates to account for: ;
*• sampling efficiency ;
> capture of life stages other than age 1
*• differences in the measured abundances in natural SAV habitat versus expected productivity in restored SAV habitat.
The basis and magnitude of the adjustments are discussed in the following sections.
Adjusting for sampling efficiency
Fish sampling techniques are unlikely to capture or record all of the! fish present in a sampled area because some fish avoid
the sampling gear and some are captured but not collected and counted. The sampling efficiency for otter trawls is
approximately 40 percent to 60 percent (personal communication, 3> Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001).
EPA assumed a cost reducing sampling efficiency of 40 percent for ibis HRC analysis, and multiplied the SAV sampling
abundance estimates by 2.5 (i.e., 1.0 divided by 40 percent). This assumption increases SAV productivity estimates and
lowers SAV restoration cost estimates. i
Adjusting sample abundance estimates to age 1 life stages
All sampled life stages were converted to age 1 equivalents for comparison to I&E losses, which were expressed as age 1
equivalents. The average life stage of the fish caught in Buzzards Bay (Wyda et al., in press) and the Rhode Island coastal
salt pond (Hughes et al., 2000) was juveniles (i.e., life stage younger than age 1) (personal communication, J, Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001). Since the same sampling technique and gear was used in Heck et al.-(1989), EPA
assumed juveniles to be the average life stage captured in this study as well.
The abundance estimates from the studies were multiplied by the survival rates from juveniles to age 1 for each species to
provide an age 1 equivalent abundance. The juvenile to age 1 survival rate adjustment factors, calculated using the results of
the EAM, are presented in Table G5-9. |
As noted in the table, there are no juvenile to age 1 survival rate estimates used in the EAM for three of the species.
However, survival rate estimates are available for these species from larval stage (the stage just prior to juvenile) to age 1. In
these cases, EPA estimated the juvenile to age 1 survival rate by av0raging the survival rate for larvae to age 1 with 1.0
(because 1.0 is necessarily the age 1 to age 1 survival rate). This procedure produces juvenile to age 1 survival rates that are
approximately 0.5, which is near the maximum juvenile to age 1 survival rates used in the EAM for other species. Therefore,
this assumption may lead to an overestimation of the juvenile to age 1 survival rate, and therefore to an overestimation of the
age 1 fish produced by SAV restoration (and an underestimation of the amount of restoration required). Nevertheless, EPA
used the adjustment factors shown in Table G5-9 to convert densities of juveniles in SAV habitat to densities of age 1
individuals, as a cost minimizing assumption. |
G5-12
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-9: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Species Present at Pilgrim — SAV Restoration
Species
Atlantic cod
Pollock
Northern pipefish
Threespine stickleback
Oldest Life Stage
before Age 1 in the
EAM
larvae
juvenile
larvae
larvae
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
0.0023
0.0019
0.0703
0.0567
Life Stage Captured in
SAV Sampling Efforts
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
Estimated Survival
Rate for Juveniles
to Age 1"
0.5012
0.0019
0.5352
0.5284
" When the EAM included information only for larvae (younger than juvenile) to age 1, the juvenile to age 1 survival rate
was assumed to be the average of larvae to age 1, and age 1 to age 1 (1.0).
Adjusting sampled abundance for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
No reviewed studies suggested that restored SAV habitat would produce fish at a level different from undisturbed SAV
habitat. Similarly,, while service flows from a restored habitat site generally increase over time to a steady state level, limited
anecdotal evidence suggests some restored SAV habitats may begin recruiting and producing fish very quickly (personal
communication, A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001). As a result of this limited evidence, and as a cost-reducing assumption, EPA
made no adjustment for differences between restored and undisturbed SAV habitats to account for the final levels offish
production or potential lags in realizing these levels following restoration of SAV habitat.
£5-5.1.3 Final estimates of annual average age 1 fish production from SAV restoration
EPA calculated age 1 fish production expected from habitats where SAV is restored by multiplying the abundance estimates
from Wyda et al. (in press), Hughes et al. (2000), and Heck et al. (1989) by the adjustment factors presented in the previous
subsection. These results were then averaged, by species, across sampling locations to calculate the final production value
incorporated in the scaling of the SAV restoration alternative.
Table G5-10 presents the final estimates of the increase in age 1 production for two of the four Pilgrim species that benefit
most from SAV restoration (Atlantic cod and pollock were not sampled in any of the studies providing abundance estimates).
G5-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter <55: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-10: Final Estimates of the Increase in Production of Age 1 Fish for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from SAM Restoration
; Source of Initial
Species { Species Abundance
j Estimate
Northern iHeck et al. (1989) —
pipefish | Fort Hill
jHeck etal. (1989) —
[Nauset Harbor
[Hughes etal. (2000) —
|RI coastal ponds (low
JSAV)
[Hughes etal. (2000) —
iRI coastal ponds (high
[SAV)
IWyda et al. (in press)
1 — Buzzards Bay (low
JSAV)
[Wyda et al. (in press)
1 — Buzzards Bay (high
iSAV)
j Species average
Threespine [Heck etal. (1989) —
stickleback ! Fort Hill
[Heck etal. (1989) —
JNauset Harbor
[Hughes etal. (2000) —
iRI coastal ponds (high
JSAV)
IWyda et al. (in press)
: — Buzzards Bay (low
JSAV)
IWyda et al. (in press)
[ — Buzzards Bay (high
JSAV)
1 Species average
Atlantic cod iUnknown
Species
Abundance
Estimate per
100 m2 of
SAV
0.68
6.11
0.23
3.03
0.19
0.99
5.92
47.08
19.67
0.22
0.13
Sampling !
Efficiency 1
Adjustment;
Factor !
i
2.5 ;
2.5 :
2.5 j
2.5 |
1
2.5 ;
i
t
2.5
i
i
2.5 j
i1
2.5 j
2.5 i
t
2.5 [
2.5
t
'—i-
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
0.5352
0.5352
0.5352
0.5352
0.5352
0.5352
0.5284
0.5284
0.5284
0.5284
0.5284
Restored
Habitat Service
Flow
Adjustment
Factor
1.0
1-P
1.0
1-P
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Expected Increase in
Production of Age 1
Fish per 100 m2 of
Restored SAV
0.91 ;
8.17
0.31
4,06
0.25
1.32
2.50
7.82 ;
62.19
25.98
0.29
0.17
19.29
Pollock
: Unknown
65-5.2 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from Tidal Wetland
Restoration :
Tidal wetlands provide a diversity of habitats such as open water, subtidal pools, ponds, intertidal waterways, and tidally
flooded meadows of salt tolerant grass species such as Spartina alterniflora and S. patens. These habitats provide forage,
spawning, nursery, and refuge for a large number offish species. Table G5-11 identifies the I&E losses for fish species at
Pilgrim that would benefit most from tidal wetland restoration, along with average I&E losses for 1974-1999, arranged by
number of fish lost. i
G5-14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (55: HRC Valuation of IdE Losses
Table 65-11: Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would
Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
American sand lance
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Grubby
Striped killifish
Striped bass
Bluefish
Total
Annual Average I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalents (1974-1999)
4,116,285
210,715
25,929
879
90
9
2
4,353,909
Percentage of Total I&E Losses across all
Fish Species
28.55%
1.46%
0.18%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
30.20%
Restricted tidal flows increase the dominance of Phragmites australis by reducing tidal flushing and lowering salinity levels
(Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 2001a). Phragmites dominance restricts fish access to and movement
through the water, decreasing overall productivity of the habitat. Therefore, for the purpose of this HRC valuation, tidal
wetland restoration focuses on returning natural tidal flows to currently restricted areas. Examples of actions that can restore
tidal flows to currently restricted tidal wetlands include the following:
*• breaching dikes created to support salt hay farming or to control mosquitos
> .installing properly sized-culverts in areas currently lacking tidal exchange
*• removing tide gates on existing culverts
*• excavating dredge spoil covering former tidal wetlands.
EPA could not find any studies that quantified increased production following implementation of these types of restoration
actions for tidal wetlands. Therefore, EPA used fish abundance estimates from studies of tidal wetlands to estimate the fish
increase in fish production that can be gained through restoration. The following subsections present the sampling data and
subsequent adjustments made to calculate the expected increased in age 1 production offish species.
65-5.2.1 Fish species abundance estimates in tidal wetland habitats
EPA used results from tidal wetland sampling efforts in Rhode Island to calculate the potential increased fish production from
restored tidal wetland habitat. Available sampling results from Connecticut (Warren et al., 2001) and New Hampshire and
Maine coasts (Dionne et al., 1999) were not used. The Connecticut results were omitted because regulatory time constraints
prevented the conversion of capture results into abundance estimates per unit of tidal wetland area. The New Hampshire and
Maine results were omitted because the study locations were too distant from the Pilgrim facility and are located north of the
critical ecological divide of Cape Cod-Massachusetts Bay, which affects species mix and abundance.
Species abundance at Sachuest Point tidal wetland, Middletown, Rhode Island
Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology) sampled the fish populations in a 6.3 hectare (ha) tidal wetland at
Sachuest Point in Middletown, Rhode Island. The sampling was conducted during August, September, and October of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using aim2 throw trap in the creeks and pools of each area during low tide after the wetland surface had
drained. Additional sampling was conducted monthly from June through October in 1998 "and 1999 using 6 m2 bottomless lift
nets to sample the flooded wetland surface. The report presents the results of this sampling as abundance estimates of each
fish species per square meter (Table G5-12).
Roman et al. also sampled a smaller portion of the wetland where tidal flows had recently been restored. However, EPA did
not use these results because the sampling was most likely conducted before the system reached full productivity.
G5-15
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65- 12s Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Sachuest for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
American sand lance
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Grubby
Striped killifish
Striped bass
Blucfish
: Sampling
i Technique
jthrow trap
i lift net
jthrow trap
iliftnet
i throw trap
Hiftnet
jthrow trap
iliftnet
jthrow trap
iliftnet
jthrow trap
Ilift net
jthrow trap
Iliftnet
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
(fish perm2)
1997
no obs.
no sampling !
no obs. '.
no sampling
1.23 !
no sampling ;
no obs.
no sampling
0.70 '
no sampling j
no obs. i
no sampling '
no obs.
no sampling j
1998
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
0.20
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
0.17
0.01
• no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
1999
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
0.07
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
0.55
0.01
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
Source: Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology).
Galilee Marsh, Narragansett Rhode, Island i
Raposa (in press) sampled the fish populations in the Galilee tidal Wetland monthly from June through September of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using 1 m2 throw trap in the creeks and pools in the tidal wetland parcels during low tide after the wetland
surface had drained. Raposa presents the sampling results as fish species abundance expressed as number offish per square
meter. As with the results from Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology), EPA did not use the results from a
recently restored portion of the wetland in this HRC valuation to avoid a downward bias in the species density results (and
resultant higher restoration costs). The results from this sampling effort are presented in Table G5-13 for the species
impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
Table S5-13:
Impinged
Species
Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Galilee for Fish Species
or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
j Sampling
i Technique
American sand lance jthrow trap
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Grubby
Striped killifish
Striped bass
Bluefish
jthrow trap
jthrow trap
jthrow trap
jthrow trap
jthrow trap
jthrow trap
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
' (fish perm2)
1997 i
no obs. •
t -1
no obs. ;
4.78 !
no obs. ;
4.35 :•
no obs. '
no obs. >
1998
no obs.
no obs.
1.73
no obs.
3.50
no obs.
no obs.
1999
no obs.
no obs.
14.38
no obs.
12.40
no obs.
no obs.
Source: Raposa, in press.
G5-16
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Coggeshall Marsh, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
Discussions with Kenny Raposa of the Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) revealed that additional fish
abundance estimates from tidal wetland sampling were available for the Coggeshall Marsh located on Prudence Island in the
NERR. These abundance estimates were based on sampling conducted in July and September 2000. The sampling of the
Coggeshall tidal wetland was conducted using 1 m2 throw traps in the tidal creeks and pools of the wetland during ebb tide
after the wetland surface had drained (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001).
The sampling results from this effort are presented in Table G5-14 for the species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and
identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
Table 65-14: Abundance Estimates.from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Coggeshall fop Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Fish Density Estimates in Tidal Wetlands
(fish per m2)
American sand lance
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Grubby
Striped killifish
Striped bass
Bluefish
: lecnnujue •
1 throw trap
ithrow trap
i throw trap
ithrow trap
ithrow trap
jthrow trap
ithrow trap
July 2000
no obs.
0.10
0.17
no obs.
2.40
no obs.
no obs.
September 2000
no obs.
0.10
0.07
no obs.
0.53
no obs.
no obs.
Winter flounder data from Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey at the Chepi'wanoxet and
Wickford sample locations
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey samples 18 locations once a month from June through October using a beach seine
that is approximately 60 m (200 ft) long and 3 m (10 ft) wide/deep. The sampled sites vary from cobble reef to sandy
substrate. Winter flounder prefer shallow water habitats with sandy'substrate, and such substrate conditions can be restored in
large coastal ponds or pools. Therefore, EPA obtained whiter flounder abundance estimates from this survey (personal
communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The two sample locations with
the highest average winter flounder abundance estimates for 1990 through 2000 were in coastal ponds with sandy bottoms.
The average abundance estimates from these sites, Chepiwanoxet and Wickford, are presented in Table G5-15 for samples
taken from 1990 through 2000. .
Table 65-15: Average Winter Flounder Abundance, 1990-2000, at the Sites with the
Highest Results from the Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey
Species
Winter flounder
Sampling
Technique
beach seine
Fish Density Estimates in Sandy Nearshore Substrate (fish per m2)
Chepiwanoxet 1990-2000
0.09
Wickford 1990-2000
0.20
Winter flounder data from Rhode Island Coastal Pond Survey at Narrow River, Winnapaug
Pond, and Point Judith Pond
In addition to its juvenile finfish survey, Rhode Island conducts a survey offish in its coastal ponds. The habitat
characteristics in these locations are similar to those that can be restored through tidal wetland restoration. This survey
includes winter flounder.
A Rhode Island coastal pond survey has been conducted since 1998 at the same 16 sites using an approximately 40 m (130 ft)
long seine that is set offshore by boat and then drawn in from shore by hand. For each site, the average of the three highest.
G5-17
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
winter flounder capture results for 1998-2001, adjusted for the average area covered by each seine set, is presented in Table
Q5-16 (personal communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
i
Table 65-16: Average Winter Flounder Abundance for 1998-2001 at the Sites with the Highest
Results from the Rhode Island Coastal Pond Survey
Species
Winter flounder
Sampling
Technique
beach seine
Average Winter Flounder Density Estimates in
Sandy Nearshore Substrate (fish per m2)
Narrow River
0.32
Winnapaug Pond
i 0.21
Point Judith Pond
0.21
65-5.2.2 Adjusting tidal wetland sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish j
The sampling abundance results presented in Section G5-5.2.1 were adjusted to account for the following:
i
* sampling efficiency • ' .
* conversion to the age 1 life stage " • j
*• differences in production between restored and undisturbed tidal wetlands
>• the impact of sampling timing and location. '
Sampling efficiency ;
As previously described, sampling efficiency adjustments are made1 to account for the fact that sampling techniques do not
capture all fish that are present. Jordan et al. (1997) estimated that 1 m2 throw traps have a sampling efficiency of 63 percent.
Therefore, EPA applied an adjustment factor of 1.6 (i.e.,-1.0/0.63) to tidal wetland abundance data that were collected with 1
mj throw traps. '
The sampling efficiencies of bottomless lift nets are provided in Rozas (1992) as 93 percent for striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), 81 percent for gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis), and 58 percent for sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus).
The average of these three sampling efficiencies is 77 percent (adjustment factor of 1.3, or 1.0/0.77) and is assumed to be
applicable to species lost to I&E at Pilgrim. l
I '
Lastly, although specific studies of the sample efficiency of a beach seine net were not identified, an estimated range of 50
percent to 75 percent was provided by the staff involved with the Rhode Island coastal pond survey (personal communication,
J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002). Using the lower end of this range as a cost reducing
assumption, EPA applied a sample efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 (i.e., 1.0/0.5) for the abundance estimates for both the
Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey-and the Rhode Island coastal pond survey.
Conversion to age 1 life stage '
'l
The sampling techniques described in Section G5-5.2.1 are intended to capture juvenile fish (personal communication,
K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001). That juvenile fish were the dominant age class taken was
confirmed by the researchers involved in these efforts (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research
Reserve, 2001; personal communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001; personal
communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2001). As a result, the sampling results presented in
Section G5-5.2.1 required adjustment to account for expected mortality between the juvenile and age 1 life stages. The
information used to develop these survival rates and the final life stage adjustment factors are presented in Table G5-17.
G5-I8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &
Table 55- 17: L
Species
American sand lance
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Grubby
Striped killifish
Striped bass"
Bluefish
Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
ife Stage Adjustment Factors for Pilgrim Species — Tidal Wetland Restoration
Oldest Life Stage before
Age 1 in
the EAM
larvae
juvenile
larvae
larvae
larvae
juvenile
juvenile
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
0.0298
0.2903
0.0044
0.0180.
0.0949
0.5361
0.0103
Life Stage Captured in
Tidal Wetland
Sampling Efforts
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
Estimated Survival Rate
for Juveniles to Age 1
0.5149
0.2903
0.5022
0.5090
0.5474
0.5361
. 0.0103
a Information in the EAM model is available for two juvenile life stages for striped bass. The data for the older juvenile life stage were
used. • • .
Adjusting for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
Restoring full tidal flows rapidly eliminates differences in fish populations between unrestricted and restored sites (Roman et
al., submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology), resulting in very similar species composition and density (Dionne et al., 1999;
Fell et al., 2000; Warren et al., 2001). However, a lag can occur following restoration (Raposa, in press). Given uncertainty
over the length of this lag, and the rate at which increased productivity in a restored tidal wetland approaches its long-term
steady state, EPA incorporated an adjustment factor of 1.0 to signify that no quantitative adjustment was made consistent with
its approach of incorporating cost reducing assumptions.
Adjusting sampled abundance for timing and location of sampling
At high tide, fish in a tidal wetland have access to the full range of habitats, including the flooded vegetation, ponds, and
creeks that discharge into or drain the wetland. In contrast, at low tide, fish are restricted to tidal pools and creeks.
Therefore, sampling conducted at low tide represents a larger area of tidal wetlands than the sampled area. EPA therefore
divided the abundance estimates based on samples taken at low tide by the inverse of the proportion of subtidal habitat to total
wetland habitat. In contrast, no adjustment was applied to abundance estimates based on samples such as those from lift nets
or seines, taken at high tide or in open water offshore. The site-specific adjustment factors in Table G5-18 were based on
information regarding the proportion of each tidal wetland that is subtidal habitat (personal communication, K. Raposa,
Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001).
Table 65-18: Adjustment Factors for Tidal Wetland Sampling Conducted at Low Tide
Tidal Wetland
Sachuest Marsh
Galilee Marsh
Coggeshall Marsh
Ratio of Open Water (creeks, pools)
to Total Habitat in the Wetland
0.055
0.084
0.052 ',
Adjustment Factor
1'8.2
11.9
19.2
(55-5.2.3 Final estimates of annual average age 1 fish production from tidal
wetland restoration
Table G5-19 presents the final estimates of annual increased production of age 1 fish resulting from tidal wetland restoration
for species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefiting most from tidal wetland restoration.
G5-19
-------
m
en
£
V)
ti-
lt.
|
"5
•o
F
0 £
1|
a
t- "0
« g
» ^
II
U) f-
t- c
u g
s.
it
U. w
15
§ <§
•5 g
Qj CO
»•« T3
tl
I;
E si
c °
T3
Si
l|
£ LL)
"o o
1 "°
!t
if
"•P
u]
1
6%
in
u>
&)
_a
o
J-
g"
•g C "Q
S S3 o
^ to ^ ~
|||^
P '| | t.
III!
es « "^
OT
*j
"*•* >
3 S c
•a tj *** y
1
Q.
Ml
.1....
c 8
•s J
5 ^
es
o
o
cs
O\
"-*
i
CS
0
vq
o
0
NERR — Prudence Isl.
Coggeshall - July 2000
jRaposa pers
jcomm2001
I_* *^
.1 1
o
o
0
en
'—'
1
o'
vq
o
o
o
NERR — Prudence Isl.
Coggeshall — Sept. 2001
IRaposapers
jcomm2001
o
o
s
•— i
1
0
0
cs
o
o
Chepiwanoxet average
1990-2000 (seine)
i •• i
|C Powell pers
|comm2001
cs
o
g
^^
i
cs
o
o
cs
o
rs
o'
Wickford average 1990-
2000 (seine)
|C Powell pers
|comm2001
o\
0
o
o_
*~*
cs
0
0
cs
o
Narrow River average
1998-2001 (seine)
•J. Temple pers
';comm2002
cs
o
o
o
1—4
CO
g
o
cs
_
o
a>
Winnapaug Pond averag
1 1998-2001 (seine)
|J. Temple pers
;comm2002
i
f.
i
I
O
I
i.
j
o
O
1
i'
[:„„
f'
!
'•T
[
[•.
1
i
0
i' •
i
i
0
f .
1
i
4_
n
0
vq
g
o
o
< -
INERR — Prudence Isl.
jCoggeshall — Sept.20C
i
iRaposapers
icomni200i ;
s
o
g
cs
cs
o
u-i
o'
vq
,,:
oo
•^
j Galilee Marsh — 1997
II
-------
3
s
lu
p
I ID
IUI
i
s:
1
U)
.£ Q-
8 °
S -o
* N
o .S
c a
M S
j °
T3
| I
M M
£ 'o
'*• D_
UJ ">
"5
c
iZ
i
in
.*!
O
|2
•I "e «
° aj IS
•§ Q,'H .=
(Ell!
"o -2 15
| jjf$
£0°
«
•"•ll
M s i s
.S ^ SB «
"a,1""1 •-*[£
|1'
W
« .3 a,j u
'O ' S W-* ^
Q> *M B CO
O J-« *O
(2
- -u-
o c
M S i.
2 E o
» -a tS
,« S a
Jjjj *H^ JJ£j
*-) •<
MT^S!
fill
i» w is'
"ra
1 ™
"3 'B "3
— 1 ~e "**
"1 II
to. ts .
w co g
W
1
S %,
Sampling LOI
and Dati
.2 •&*
Source of Inil
Species Dens
; Estimate
M
V
1
CD
r
c
c
c
r
r
V
C
^
c*
f
O
a
a
^
i
««=
1
"
c.
0
Cl
C
C
o
tt.
c
J
<
q
5
5
^
5
•)
5
?
^
H
0
l"\
N
}
5
i
: in press
(U
» 'O
jl
H *W
t-
O
C
C
O
r
S
V
c
\£
cx
c*
•^
o
o
a
1
c
»*:
j
I
c
c
c
a
!\
?
5
^
^
-1
5
1
?
3
D
•1
:
S
\
s
5
i
i
i
in press
o\
o
(U
0£
Species avera
Unknown
i^
.g
g
O
en
o •
O ;
OO
00
„
s
to
o
vq
— •
-
o
o
t^-
Ox
Sachuest Point —
o
Roman et al.,
submitted 200
to Restoration
Ecology
_C
"S (S2
'C S
co 2
c
c
a
o
?
T:
i/
c
«
r-
c
a
o
c
c
"c
p
1
(
(
t
C
e
Pt
5
5
D
5
•
^
>
3
?
3
^
\
5
*
3
!
o
submitted 200
to Restoration
Ecology
S
0
oo
CO
s
>o
0
vq
"
s
o
Ox
•
1 ...
'o
a,
1
oo
o
.. o c
_f 0 0
T3 (N 'C
•S -a P
HI
Illl
s
o
0
.
*~H •
„
s
*/S
0
m
— ' . _
o
o
oo .
Ox
ox
i Sachuest Point —
i (lift net)
o
Roman et al.,
submitted 200
to Restoration
Ecology
o
o
-
ft . . ^ .
o
.
^^
'_
•if
0
m
« ;
O
o
Ox .
i Sachuest Point —
i (lift net)
o
Roman et al.,
submitted 200
to Restoration
Ecology
. „,
-
o
tN
Ox
_
1
0
VO
o
cs
o
o ^>
g 5
g "Ij
Raposa pers
:comm2001
0
o
IN
^-<
„ - >
Z :
*O
0
>o
— •
•
m
o
•^o:
S tN
O ^"x.
iNERR — Pruden
iCoggeshall — Se
Raposa pers
cqmm2001
^
"8 (£2
'£" =
^o 12
cs
o
o
^-H
»-<
_
:?_
w-i
0
VO
—
jq
^f
OX •
Galilee Marsh —
gf g
O & •
g. 0.
(S .H
(N
O
O
Ox
»— H
„
s
wS
o
xo
— ' .-
~-
O
m
oo
Ox
•Ox
Galilee Marsh —
11
0. Q.
S.S
-------
§
3
«y
P3
«*-
o
•J
.§
tj
2
in
o
|
I
E
1
E
1
.ae
1
"a
e«
§3 1) ~
•0 S.P -^3
P ^; "O (j
P 1 "~ £f CT
"2 S ° "
1 g,i| ^
g^o
£ o
u
QJ w 3 CS
ll<
K
•M
^n ^
5 g o
« =•"§
s ^>fe<
" <
•*-»
^s-s .
s g S o
|"§ 1 a
C5 IS *"• * fa
<
Reported/Calculated
Species Density
Estimate per m2 of Tidal
Wetland
S
I!
fl
a
CO
it*
1-1
it13
CO ^
J
1
CO
ll.
ON
0
°.
*->
•— •
Jj
s
o
^
oi
§\
T
"§
i
1
o
f§ W
II
'£ =
oo S
^^
^
o
u
1
CQ
"5
cl
I
I
1
'£ S
00 .S
1
1
D
"i
5
60
_C
"E.
£•
.c
£•
GO
B
Is
113 .2
5 S
s §
0 ^
i-> O
g s
3 B"
¥ B.
« 0
o OT
i !
D ^^
W3 O
S c
S ^
-0 8
u o
2 5 •
•o "S
g 8.
ft>* °-
bO
S o
t/i c
« ^
"S £ S
w traps unless otherwise no
late by the sampling efficiei
jf less than 0.005 fish per n
11 1
E &• "2
— 'a 3
g1! -s
Is «
•n '3 g
g 8. |
•— w *
= 1^1
C 4> M r^—
0 •s 'n c
|1||
M||£
fill
o?U |>
a c, '4= o
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
£5-5.3 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from Artificial Reef
Development
Constructing reefs of cobbles or small boulders was the preferred restoration alternative for a number of species impinged or
entrained at Pilgrim. These species generally favor habitats with interstices that provide forage and shelter from predators.
The species that would benefit most from artificial reef development are identified in Table G5-20, along with information on
their annual average I&E losses for the period 1974-1999.
Table 65-20: Species with Quantified Age 1 Equivalent I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table 65-22: Adult Gunner Abundance Estimates in Reef Habitat of the
Inner and Outer Breakwaters at the Pilgrim Facility
Location
Outer breakwater
Inner breakwater
Estimated
Habitat Area
(m2)
1,060
992
Year
1994
1995
Average
1994
1995
Average
Adult Gunner Population
Estimate
Centra]
Estimate
3,628
Upper 95% CI
Estimate
4,265
5,833 j 7,569
4,731 j 5,917
3,780
3,467
3,624
Average across inner and outer breakwaters
5,772
4,127
4,950
Assumed Adult Gunner
Density Estimates
(fish/m2)
Based on Central
Estimate
3.42
5.50
4.46
3.81
3.49
3.65
4.06
Based on Upper
95% CI Estimate
4.02
7.14
5.58
5.82
4.16
4.99
'5.29
S5-5.3.2 Adjusting artificial reef sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA made sampling efficiency, life stage conversion, and restored versus
undisturbed habitat adjustments to production estimates for artificial reef habitats. These adjustments are discussed below.
Sampling efficiency
i
EPA incorporated the same sampling efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 for the tautog abundance estimates developed from
the Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey as was used in the sampling efficiency adjustments from this survey for winter
flounder. The 2.0 adjustment factor represents the bottom range (cost reducing assumption) of a seine net's sampling
efficiency (50 percent), based on the judgment of the current staff of Rhode Island's coastal pond fish survey (personal
communication, J, Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
The sampling efficiency of the baited traps and tagging procedure used in Lawton et al. (2000) was assumed to be 1.0, since
the results of the study already incorporate sampling efficiency for cunner as reported.
Conversion to the age. 1 equivalent life stage :
The information used to develop life stage adjustment factors for juvenile fish to age 1 equivalents is presented'in Table G5-
23 for the species other than cunner impinged or entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most from artificial reef
development (sampled cunner were mostly adults, as described below).
Table 65-23: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Pilgrim Species — Artificial Reef
Species
Rock gunnel
Radiated shanny
Sculpin spp.
Tautog
Oldest Life Stage before Age 1
in the EAM
larvae
larvae
larvae
larvae
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
0.1;416
0.0853
0.0180
0.0001
Sampled Life
Stage
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
juvenile
Estimated Survival Rate
for Juveniles to Age 1
0.5708
0.5426
0.5090
0.5001
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey primarily captures juvenile tautog. However, the size distribution of cunner reported
by Lawton et al. (2000) suggests that primarily adult fish were captured. Some of these cunner were most likely older than
age 1. To convert the raw cunner numbers to age 1 equivalents, EPA used the same factor of 1.39 that was used in the EAM
to convert the raw numbers of cunner impinged to age 1 equivalents.
G5-24
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter &5: HRC Valuation of I<$E Losses
Adjusting for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
EPA incorporated an adjustment factor of 1.0 because no available information suggested that artificial reefs are used
substantially less than natural reefs by the species listed in Table G5-20 and/or that significant delays in the use of artificial
reefs follows their emplacement. To the extent lower levels offish species use or delays in such use do occur with artificial
reefs, incorporating an adjustment factor of 1.0 represents a cost-reducing assumption.
65-5.3.3 Final estimates of increases in age i production for artificial reefs
Table G5-24 presents the final estimates of annual increased production of age 1 fish, based on the average across all
sampling efforts, that would result from artificial reef development for species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim.
Table 65-24: Final Estimates of Annual Increased Production of Age 1 Equivalent Fish per Square
Meter of Artificial Reef Developed for Pilgrim Species
; Source of Initial
Species 1 Species Density
\ Estimate
Species
Abundance
Estimates
(fish/m2 reef)
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored vs.
Undisturbed
Habitat
Adjustment
Factor
Expected Age 1
Increased
Production (fish
per nr artificial
reef)
Rock gunnel j Unknown
Radiated j Unknown
shanny
Gunner
Sculpin spp.
Tautog
JLawtonetal. (2000),
1 Plymouth MA
1 Unknown
IRI juvenile finfish •
jsurvey, 1990-2000:
I Patience Island
i RI juvenile finfish
! survey, 1990-2000:
; Spar Island
I Species average
4.06"
0.028
0.031
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.39
0.5001
0.5001
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.64
0.03
0.03
0.03
a Average of the central population estimates for the inner and outer breakwaters.
65-5.4 Estimates of Increased Species Production from Installed Fish Passageways
A habitat-based option for increasing the production of anadromous species is to increase their access to suitable spawning
and nursery habitat by installing fish passageways at currently impassible barriers (e.g., dams). The anadromous species
impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that would benefit most from fish passageways are presented in Table G5-25, along with
information on their annual average I&E losses for the period 1974-1999.
Table 65-25: Anadromous Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at
Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Fish Passageways
Species
Rainbow smelt
Alewife
Blueback herring
White perch
Total
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents (1974-1999)
1,330,022
4,343
703
73
1,335,141
Percentage of Total I&E
Losses across All Fish Species
9.23%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
9.26%
G5-25
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part fi: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
(55-5.4.1 Abundance estimates for anadromous species
No studies provided direct estimates of increased production of anadromous fish attributable to the installation of a fish
passageway. Thus, EPA based increased production estimates on abundance estimates from anadromous species monitoring
programs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, combined with an estimate of the average increase in suitable spawning habitat
that would be provided upstream of the current impassible obstacles following the.installation offish passageways.
i
Anadromous species abundance in Massachusetts qnd Rhode Island spawning/nursery habitats
Information on the abundance of anadromous species in spawning/nursery habitat in Massachusetts was available only for a
select number of alewife spawning runs in the area around the Cape Cod canal, including locations in Massachusetts Bay and
Buzzards Bay (personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts [Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Alewife abundance
information was also available for the spawning runs at the Gilbert Stuart and Nonquit locations in Rhode Island. These runs
are almost exclusively alewives, despite being reported as runs of river herring (i.e., blueback herring and alewives; personal
communication, P. Edwards, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The size of these alewife runs
and the associated abundance estimates (number offish per acre) unavailable spawning/nursery habitat are presented in Table
G5-26. • i'
I
The Mattapoisett system has low spawning habitat utilization by aleSvives because of continuing recovery of the system
(personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Therefore, the Mattapoisett River
values were omitted. This raised the production estimates for fish passageways and reduced the restoration costs for
implementing sufficient fish passageways. I
Table 65-26: Average Run Size and Density of Alewives in Spawning
Nursery Habitats in Select Massachusetts Waterbodies •
Waterbody
Back River (MA)
(12 year average)
Mattapoisett River1
(12 year average)
Monument River (MA)
(12 year average)
Nonquit system (RI)
(1999-2001 average)
Gilbert Stuart system (RI)
(1999-2001 average)
Average across all sites presented
Average without Mattapoisett River
Average Alewife Run Size
(number offish)
373,608'
66,457 [
367,52 1!
192,173;
i
311,8391
j
t
Average Number of Fish per Acre of
Spawning/Nursery Habitat
766
90
811
951
4,586
1,441
1,778
* The Mattapoisett River is currently in recovery and production has been increasing in recent years (personal communication,
K. Reback, Massachuset Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). '
Average size of spawning/nursery habitat that would be accessed with the installation of
fish passageways . i
Anadromous fisheries staff in Massachusetts revealed that approximately 5 acres of additional spawning/nursery habitat
would become accessible for each average passageway installed (personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). This estimate reflects the fact that previous projects have already provided access to
most of the available large spawning/nursery habitats.
G5-26
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of L&E Losses
&5-5A.2 Adjusting anadromous run sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA considered a number of adjustment factors. However, information was much
more limited upon which to base these adjustments. Adjustments to convert returning alewives to age 1 equivalents and to
account for sampling efficiency were not incorporated (i.e., assumed to be 1.0) because of a lack of information. In addition,
nothing suggested a basis for adjustments based on differences between existing and new spawning habitat accessed via fish
passageways or a lag in use of spawning habitat once access is provided, so EPA used an adjustment factor of 1.0.
&5-5A.3 Final estimates of annual age 1 equivalent increased species production
The density of anadromous species in their spawning/nursery habitat, the average increase in spawning/nursery habitat from
installation of fish passageways, and adjustment factors are presented in Table G5-27.
Table 65-27: Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish for Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would
Benefit Most from Installation of Fish Passageways
Species
i Source of Initial
1 Species Density
j Estimate
Species Density
Estimate in
Spawning/Nursery
Habitat
(fish per acre)
[ Number of Additional
j Spawning/Nursery
j Habitat Acres per New
• Passageway
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
New vs.
existing
Habitat
Adjustment
Factor
Calculated Annual
Increase in Age 1
Fish per New
Passageway
Installed"
Rainbow i Unknown
smelt I
Alewife jMattapoisett River
i— (K. Reback MA
iDMF pers. comm,
J2001)
i Monument River —
i(K. Reback MA
IDMF pers. comm,
J2001)
iBack River — (K.
j Reback M A DMF
; pers. comm, 2001)
iNonquit river ,
i system —
; (P. Edwards, RI
IDEM, pers comm,
12001)
1 Gilbert Stuart river
•system — (P.
1 Edwards, RI DEM,
ipers comm, 2001)
90
811
766
951
4,586
5
5
5
5
1 .
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
452
4,054
3,828
4,757
22,929
i Species average (excluding Mattapoisett River)b
Blueback 'Unknown
herring i
8,892
White
perch
i Unknown
"• This value is the product of the values in the five data fields. Species density estimates rounded for presentation.
b As previously noted, the Mattapoisett results are excluded in calculating the species average for alewife because the low density
estimates are attributable to the system recovering from previous stressors.
G5-27
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
(55-5.5 Estimates of Remaining Losses in Agk 1 Fish Production from Species
Without an Identified Habitat Restoration Alternative
i
. i
Some species lost to I&E at Pilgrim do not benefit directly and/or predictably from SAV restoration, tidal wetland restoration,
artificial reef construction, or improved passageways because the species are pelagic, spawn in deep water, or spawn in
unknown or poorly understood habitats. The species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that fall into this category are listed in
Table Q5-28, along with their annual average I&E losses for 1974^1999.
Table 65-28: Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Lack a Habitat Restoration Alternative
Species
Finfish
Fourbeard rockling
Atlantic herring
Windowpane
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic mackerel
Scarobin
Red hake
Lumpfish
Buttcrfish
American plaice
Scup
Little skate
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
Total
Shellfish
Blue mussels
Average Annual I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalent Organisms (1974-1999)
411,191 ;
29,079 :
17,542 !
14,270
6,662 j
3,767
1,774 j ^
1,297
399 ,
221
114
. 78 • ! ,
18
2
486,414 ;
160,000,000,000' ;
Percentage of Total I&E Losses
for All Finfish or Shellfish Species
2.85%
0.20%
0.12%
0. 10%
0.05%
0.03%
0.01%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% :
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.37%
100%
Rounded to the nearest billion.
Despite the magnitude of I&E losses for these species, it was beyond the scope of this Section 316(b) HRC analysis to
develop quantitative estimates of the increased production of age 1 j fish and shellfish for these species through habitat
restoration alternatives. j
G5-6 STEP 6: SCALINS PREFERRED RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
The following subsections calculate the required scale of implemerjtation for each of the preferred restoration alternatives for
each species. The quantified I&E losses are divided by the estimates of the increased fish production, giving the total amount
of each restoration needed to offset I&E losses for each species.
i .
G5-6.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Scaling
The information used to scale SAV restoration is presented in Table G5-29.
G5-28
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter &5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-29
Species
Northern pipefish
Threespine stickleback
Atlantic cod
Pollock
Scaling of SAV Restoration Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1999)
118
118
2,439
525
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per
100 m2 of Revegetated Substrate
(rounded)
2.50
19.29
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
Number of 100 m2 Units of
Revegetated SAV Required to
Offset Estimated Average Annual
I&E Loss
47
6
Unknown
Unknown
47
(55-6.2 Tidal Wetlands Scaling
The information used to scale tidal wetland restoration is presented in Table G5-30.
Table 65-30: Scaling of Tidal Wetland Restoration for Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Species
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
American sand lance
Grubby
Striped bass
Bluefish
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1999)
210,715
25,929
90
4,116,285
879
9
2
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per m2
of Restored Tidal Wetland
(rounded)
0.09
0.19
0.17
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Number of m2 Units of Restored
Tidal Wetland Required to Offset
Estimated Average Annual
I&E loss"
2,429,812
139,539
527
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
2,429,812
* A restored wetland area refers to an area in a currently restricted tidal wetland where invasive species (e.g., Phragmites spp.)
have overtaken salt tolerant tidal marsh vegetation (e.g., Spartina spp.) and that is expected to revert to typical tidal marsh
vegetation once tidal flows are returned. Waterways adjacent to these vegetated areas are also included in calculating the potential
area that could be restored in a tidal wetland.
65-6.3 Reef Scaling
The information used to scale artificial reef development is presented in Table G5-31.
Toble &5-31 Scaling of Artificial Reef Development for Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Species
Gunner
Tautog
Rock gunnel
Radiated shanny
Sculpin species
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1999)
993,911
1,076
4,862,872
1,644,456
734,773
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per m2 of
'Artificial Reef (rounded)
5.64
0.03
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
Number of m2 Units of Artificial Reef
Surface Habitat Required to Offset
Estimated Average Annual I&E Loss
176,218
36,699
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
176,218
G5-29
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
65-6A Anadromous Fish Passage Scaling i
The information used to scale fish passageway installation is presented in Table G5-32.
Table 65-32: Scaling of Anadromous Fish Passageways for Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Species
Alewife
Rainbow smelt
Blucback herring
White perch
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1999)
4,343
1,320,022
703
73
Best Estimate of Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per Passageway
Installed (rounded)
8,892
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
Number of New Fish Passageways
Required to Offset Estimated
Average Annual I&E Loss
0.49
Unvalued
Unvalued
Unvalued .
0.49
£5-7 UNIT COSTS ;
!
The seventh step of the HRC valuation is to develop unit cost estimates for the restoration alternatives. Unit costs account for
all the anticipated expenses associated with the actions required to implement and maintain restoration. Unit costs also
include the cost of monitoring to determine if the scale of restoration is sufficient to provide the anticipated increase in the
production of age 1 fish per unit of restored habitat. ;
i
The standard HRC costing approach generally develops an estimate of the amount of money that would be required up front
to cover all restoration costs over the relevant timeframe for the project. Hence, HRC accounting procedures generally
consider interest earnings on money not immediately spent, and also factor in anticipated inflation for expenses to be incurred
in the future. EPA used HRC costs as a proxy for "benefits" which are then compared to costs in the cost-benefit analysis
chapter. Therefore, the Agency reinterpreted the standard HRC costing approach to make it consistent with the annualized
costs used in the costing chapter of the EBA. i •
i
For this analysis, EPA annualized the HRC costs by separating the initial program outlays (one time expenditures for land,
technologies, etc.) from the recurring annual expenses (e.g., for mohitoring). The initial program outlays were treated as a
capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7 percent interest rate. EPA then estimated the present value (PV),
using a 7 percent interest rate, of the annual expenses for the 10 years of monitoring of increased fish production that are
incorporated in the design of each of the habitat restoration alternatives. This PV was then annualized over a 20 year period,
again using a 7 percent interest rate. This process effectively treats the monitoring expenses associated with the habitat
restoration alternatives consistently with the annual operating and maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic
impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. 'The annualized monitoring costs were then added to the annualized cost of the
initial program outlays to calculate a total annualized cost for the habitat restoration alternative.
The following subsections present the cost components for the habitat restoration alternatives in this HRC along with the
estimates of the annualized costs for implementation costs (i.e., one-time outlays), monitoring costs, and implementation and
monitoring costs combined (all costs presented in year 2000 dollars).
£5-7.1 Unit Costs of SAV Restoration i
EPA expressed annualized unit cost estimates for 100 m2 of SAV habitat to provide a direct link to the increased fish
production estimates for SAV restoration based on information from a number of completed and ongoing projects. The
following subsections describe the development of the annualized implementation and monitoring costs for SAV restoration.
G5-7.1.1 Implementation costs
i
Save the Bay has a long history of SAV habitat assessment and restoration in Narragansett and Mount Hope Bays. A Save the
Bay SAV restoration project begun in the summer of 2001 involved transplanting eelgrass to revegetate 16m2 of habitat at
G5-30
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
each of three sites in Narragansett Bay. EPA used cost information from this project to develop unit cost estimates for
implementing SAV restoration per 100 m2 of revegetated habitat.
Save the Bay's cost proposal estimated that $93,128 would be required to collect and transplant eelgrass shoots from donor
SAV beds over 48 m2 of revegetated habitat. These costs include collecting and transplanting the SAV shoots to provide an
initial density of 400 shoots per revegetated square meter of substrate. Averaged over the 48 m2 of habitat being revegetated,
this provides an average unit cost of $ 1,940 per m2. The unit costs comprise the following categories:
»• labor: 70.7 percent (includes salaried staff with benefits, consultants, and accepted rates for volunteers)
*• boats: 15.2 percent (expenses for operating the boat for the collecting and transplanting)
>• materials and equipment: 9.6 percent
*• overhead: 4.6 percent (calculated as a flat percentage of the labor expenses for the salaried staff).
Contingency expenses were set at 10 percent ($194 per m2). The costs of identifying and evaluating the suitability of
potential restoration sites were set at 1 percent ($19 per m2). No costs were added for maintaining the service flows provided
by the project, because SAV restoration requires little direct maintenance.
Costs were also adjusted to account for natural growth and spreading from the original transplant sites to the bare spots
between transplants (Short et al., 1997). For example, Dr. Frederick Short (University of New Hampshire's Jackson
Estuarine Laboratory) planted between 120 and 130 TERFS (Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely with Frame Systems), each 1
m2, in each acre of seabed to be revegetated at a SAV restoration site (personal communication, P. Colarusso, U.S. EPA
Region 1, 2002). Assuming complete coverage over time, this results in a ratio of plantings to total coverage of between 1:31
(130 1 m2 TERFS/4,047m2 per acre) and 1:34(120 1 m2 TERFS / 4,047 m2 per acre).
However, the initially bare areas between transplants do not revegetate immediately and the unit costs need to be adjusted
accordingly. Therefore, EPA assumed that the area covered with SAV would double each year. Under this assumption, the
entire restoration area would be completely covered with SAV in the sixth year of the restoration project. Using the habitat
equivalency analysis (HEA) method (Peacock, 1999), the present value of the natural resource service flows.from the SAV
over the 6 year revegetation scenario is 90 percent of that provided by a scenario where the entire restoration area is
instantaneously revegetated with transplanted shoots.1 Therefore, EPA applied 90 percent of the 1:34 planting-to-coverage
ratio, or 1:30 as an adjustment factor to Save the Bay's cost estimates to account for the expected spreading from transplanted
sites to bare areas in a SAV restoration area. Table G5-33 presents the components of implementation unit cost for SAV
restoration, incorporating this adjustment ratio in the last step.
Table 65-33: Implementation Unit Costs for SAV Restoration
Expense Category
Direct restoration
(shoot collection and transplant)
Contingency costs
(10% of direct restoration)
Restoration site assessment ( 1 % of direct
restoration)
Subtotal without allowance for distribution of
transplanted SAV shoots
Discounted planting to coverage ratio for
transplanted SAV
Final implementation unit costs
Annualized implementation unit costs
Cost per m2 of SAV Restored
$1,940
$194
$19
$2,154
30:1
$71.80
$6.76
Cost per 100 m2 of SAV Restored
$194,000
$19,400
$1,900
$215,400
30:1
$7,180
$676
1 The HEA method provides a quantitative framework for calculating the present value of resource service flows that are
expected/observed to change over time. •
G5-31
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
£5-7.1.2 Monitoring costs
i
SAV restoration monitoring improves the inputs to the HRC analysis by quantifying the impact of the SAV restoration on fish
production/recruitment in the restoration area, and the rate of growth and expansion of the restored SAV bed, including
whether areas need to be replanted. The most efficient way to achieve both of these goals would be for divers to evaluate the
number of adult fish in the habitat and the vegetation density, combined with throw trap or drop trap sampling of juvenile fish
using the habitat (Short et al., 1997). Diver-based monitoring minimizes damage to sites, expands the areas that can be
sampled, and increases sampling efficiency compared to trawl-based monitoring (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001). j
Save the Bay provided hourly rates for the divers and captain (personal communication, A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001), and
the daily rate for the boat was base'd on rate information from NOAA's Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole
(personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, 2001). Because SAV monitoring costs will be significantly affected by the size,
number, and distance between restored SAV habitats, large areas can be covered in a single day only when continuous
habitats are surveyed. Smaller, disconnected habitats will require much more time to cover. Therefore, total monitoring costs
are somewhat unpredictable. Unit costs for monitoring were therefore assumed to be equal to the initial per unit revegetation
costs in terms of the up front funding that would be required to cover the 10 years of monitoring (i.e., $7,180). Under the
typical HRC costing construct this was equivalent to a per unit monitoring expense in the first year of $787. This simplifying
assumption is unbiased (i.e., it is not known or expected to over- ortmderestimate costs). The summary of the available SAV
monitoring costs and the calculated annualized per unit monitoring cost based on an assumed annual expense of $787 per unit
are presented in Table G5-34. t . .
Table 65-34: Estimated Annual Unit Costs for [a SAV Restoration Monitoring Program
Annual Expenditures
Expense Category
Monitoring crew
Monitoring boat
Quantity
3 (2 divers and boat captain/assistant)
1
' Daily Rate
: $268
! $150
Total daily rate « '
Assumed annual cost for SAV monitoring per 100 m2 restored habitaf
Annualized monitoring cost per 100 nr restored habitat '
Total Cost
$804
$150
$954
$787
$557
65-7.1.3 Total submerged aquatic vegetation restoration costs
Combining the annualized unit costs for implementation and monitoring, the total annualized cost for a 100 m2 unit of SAV
restoration is $ 1,234 (rounded to the nearest dollar). ;
G5-7.2 Unit Costs of Tidal Wetland Restoration
Many different actions may be needed to restore flows to a wetland isite, and project costs can vary widely, depending on the
actions taken and a number of site-specific conditions (e.g., salinity levels at proposed restoration sites). These issues are
addressed in the following subsections, which present the development of the unit costs for tidal wetland restoration.
65-7.2.1 Implementation costs
Costs for restoration of tidally restricted marshes depend heavily on the type of restriction that is impeding tidal flow into the
wetland and the amount of degradation that has occurred as a result! Possible sources of the restriction in tidal flow include
improperly designed or located roads, railroads, bridges, and dikes, ;all of which can eliminate tidal flows or restrict tidal
flows via improperly sized openings. A compilation of tidally restricted salt marsh restoration projects in the Buzzards Bay
watershed (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 2001) describes restrictions and costs to return tidal flows to
over 130 sites. These cost estimates include expenses for project design, permitting, and construction, and are estimated on a
predictive cost equation that was fitted from the actual costs and budgets for a limited number of projects (Buzzards Bay
Project National Estuary Program, 2001).
G5-32
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Staff involved in the Buzzards Bay assessment provided the current project database, which includes the following
information (personal communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001):
*• nature of the tidal restriction
>• estimated cost to address the tidal restriction
> size of the affected tidal wetland (in acres)
> acreage of the Phragmltes in the tidally restricted wetland.
Public agencies undertook some of the work in the projects used to develop the cost estimation equation for the tidally
restricted wetlands in the Buzzards Bay watershed. Because the costs from public agencies are generally lower than market
prices (i.e., the price for the same work if completed by private contractors), EPA adjusted the cost estimates upward by a
factor of 2.0, consistent with the adjustment recommended in the report (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program,
2001) and discussions with project staff and others involved with tidal wetlands restoration programs in the area (personal
communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001; personal communication, S. Block, Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs - Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001).
The adjusted total project costs from the Buzzards Bay project database were then divided by the reported acres of
Phragmites in the wetland to calculate the cost per acre for restoring tidally restricted wetlands where Phragmites had
replaced the salt tolerant vegetation characteristic of a healthy tidal wetland (sites with no reported acres of Phragmites were
eliminated from consideration).2 Table G5-35 summarizes costs based on the cost factor (an input in the cost estimation
equation), type of restriction found at the site, and the number of Phragmites acres at the location. An alternative summary of
these projects is presented in Table G5-36, where the projects are organized by acres of Phragmites at the site, not the current
tidal restriction.
Combined, Tables G5-35 and G5-36 show significant variability in the per acre costs for tidal wetland restoration. Therefore,
EPA incorporated the median cost of $71,000 per acre of tidal wetland restoration into the HRC valuation and calculation of
the unit cost for tidal wetland restoration. Table G5-37 presents the final per apre implementation costs for tidal wetland
restoration and the annualized equivalent implementation cost incorporated in this HRC. These costs include the median per
acre restoration cost of $71,000 and a $750 per acre fee to reflect the assumed purchase price for this type of land based on
the experience of purchases of similar types of land parcels by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's
Land Acquisition Group (personal communication, L. Primiano, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
2001).
2 The adjustment of reported costs upward by a factor of 2.0 was made solely to reflect expected cost differences between private
contractors and public agencies that might perform the work required to restore full tidal flows. Additional site specific factors, such as
salinity levels, that may affect project costs by influencing the types of actions taken and/or the time to successful restoration of typical
tidally influenced wetland vegetation at a project site have not been incorporated in this adjustment process.
G5-33
-------
1
UJ
i
fO
U]
§
1
1
4-
0
in
CO
i
in
jU
S
•a
£
Maximum Cost pei
Phragmites Acre Reste
Minimum Cost
per Phragmites
Acre Restored
Average Cost per
Phragmites Acre
Restored
Total Private
Cosf
I'll
111
Cumulative
Phragmites
Acreage
across sites
j, a
3 (M
„ ,
1 '
1
1
u
0 f
°£
w
• s
.2 0
^3 o
If
OC
c
oc
V
s"
OS
oo
00
o
$335,357
_
o
OS
in
vo
VO
acres <
in
H
o
I
5|5
co" : cs
s|3
^*- i °s.
m J vo
oo • in
— | oo
1(3
— !~
i o
in : — '
V j V
o : u
« • ea
V : V
— • m
;
S •' S
Si S
i
oo
a
R
o
oo"
CO
6O
i
oo
CO
60
co"
CO
0
0
—
acres <
in
o
•5
|
to
I
r-
to
VO
oT
^
—
r—
vq
—
m
V
C/l
ra
V
in
•D
$10,490,647
oo
in.
in
oo
in"
CO
to
o
t~
to
CO
o
vo
CN
CO
CO
acres <
s
3
f-
s
to
CN
CO,
in*
to
CO
CO
vo
vb"
CN
in
in"
CN
ft
60
O
O
CN
0
CO
CN
m
V
o
CS
V
tt
§
1
CN"
CN
oo
Os
00
Os"
6O
5
OO
oo
oo*
ee
cs
rs
oo
vo
cs
o
V
en
0
V
in
tt
~3
u
OS
CN"
6O
Os
Os,
to
s
»n
81
cs
1
CS
»n
cs
V
CA
V
O
tJ
O
$504,417
$504,417
$504,417
co"
2.
vo"
g
o
o
CN
—
>n
CN
V
V
o
"•3
VO
m
VO
in
vo
in
CN
CO
6O
CN
o
CN
O
—
V
5
CO
in
OS,
co"
Os
CN
to
CO
Os
of
CN
CO
co"
OS
VO
OS
CO
Os"
CN
to
O
o
o
o
—
V
KJ
T3
CO
2
:
in
VO
in"
6O
.,
.
m
VO
S"
to
,,6"3
111
R.
CN
CO
CN
in
en
V
1
[
!•
i cs
: »o
: r-
: vo"
: en
i vT
; ^^
j.
: Co
; vC
:*
I
':
'. t~-
IS
is"
: to
t
5,
OS
: So
: oo"
: 2;
60
0
O
CN
acres <
1
CO
OS
ob"
to
CO
to
VO
p-
in
o*
OS
CN
ob"
o.
°t
S
o
CN
in
CO
acres <
fcn
•c
XI
CN
VO
co"
S3
; $184,048 '; :
S
0
6O
$27,704,691
oo
CN
CN
CO
p~'
CN
CN
•. "-
in
V
01
1
V
U
ob
•c
$800,545 r
$399,746, ;
\ $599,946 :;
- 000'909'9$
in
in
o
CN
111 o
v
«
V
in
s
o
m
S-
o
co"
6O
O
O
vo"
in
to
=,!' !j $889,883 ;
o
s
°
s
CN
CO
O
00
CN
V
?
k
V
0
"
•0
IS
oo
VO
Os
s
6O
CN
00
OO
a
o\
CS
in
cs"
m
eo
o
of
vo
oo
&o
cs
en
o-;
en
oo
cs
in
*
o
in
V
V
in
CN
;
Pn
S
o
in,
in
to
n» 'IIM
O
I
- -
s"
to
§
1
vb"
6O
o
o
~
o
o
CO
-
a
V
o
in
JO
VO
co"
VO
to
VO
CN
oo,
co"
VO
to
VO
CN
co"
VO
to
i
vo"
vo
6O
.
o
o
-
acres <
„.
-
•s
"2
CO
OS
oo"
co"
60
oo"
o
r~
06"
OS
vq,
ob"
6O
o
CN
vq
CO
in
V
1
V
^
•s
1
3
_
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of !<&E Losses
Table 65-36: Average per Acre Cost of Restoring Phragmites in
Buzzards Bay Restricted Tidal Wetlands, by Size Class of Site
Phragmites Acres
acres < 1
1 < acres < 5
5 < acres < 10
10 < acres < 25
25 < acres < 50
50 < acres
Total
Number of
Sites
61
51
5
11
4
1
133
Cumulative
Phragmites
Acreage across
sites
26.91
101.31
36.00
157.46
157.28
113.00
591.96
Average
Acreage
0.44
1.99
7.20
14.31
39.32
113.00
4.45
Total Private Cost
$23,630,245
$30,305,971
$6,875,703
$98,238,451
$8,262,000
$6,163,000
$173,475,370
Average.Cost per Phragmites
Acre Restored (from total
cost and acres)
$878,121
$299,153
$190,992
$623,895
$52,529
. $54,540
$293,053 (median = $71,000)
Table 65-37: Implementation Costs per Acre of
Tidal Wetland Restoration Incorporated in fhe HRC valuation
Implementation Cost Description
Restore tidal flows to restricted areas
Acquire tidal wetlands
Total one time implementation costs
Annualized implementation costs
; .Source of Estimate
I Median of adjusted costs from Buzzards
: Bay project database
i Midpoint of range of paid for tidal
j wetlands by Rhode Island DEM
Cost
$71,000
$750
$71,750
$6,758
£5-7.2.2 Monitoring costs
Neckles and Dionne (1999) present a sampling protocol, developed by a workgroup of experts, for evaluating nekton use in
restored tidal wetlands. The sampling plan calls for different sampling techniques and frequencies to capture fish of various
sizes in both creek and flooded marsh habitats of a tidal wetland. A summary of these recommendations is presented in
Table G5-38.
Table 65-38: Sampling Guidelines for Nekton in Restored Tidal Wetlands
Sampling Location
Creeks
(for small fish)
Creeks
(for larger fish)
Flooded wetland surface
i Sampling Technique
! Throw traps
1 Fyke net
i Fyke net
Sampling Time
midtide
slack tide
entire tide cycle
Sampling Frequency
2 dates in August
2 dates in August (same as for throw trap
work) and 2 dates in spring
1 date in August
Source: Neckles and Dionne, 1999.
The sampling protocol suggests that one technician and two volunteers can provide the necessary labor. The estimated annual
cost in the first year of monitoring is $ 1,600. This cost comprises $490 in labor for the three workers over 5 days (3 in
August and 2 in the spring, with 8-hour days, $15 per hour for volunteers, and $30 per hour for the technician). The $1,100 in
equipment costs includes two fyke nets at $500 each and two throw traps at $50 each (Neckles and Dionne, 1999). The
annualized equivalent of these monitoring costs is $1,146 and is applied as a per-acre cost for monitoring in this HRC
valuation.
G5-35
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port G: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
(55-7.2.3 Total tidal wetland restoration costs I
Combining the annualized per-acre implementation and monitoring posts for tidal wetland restoration results in an annualized
per-acre cost for tidal wetland restoration of $7,904. This is equivalent to an annualized cost for tidal wetland restoration of
$1.95 per m2 of restored tidal wetland (4,047 m2 = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the
estimates of increased fish production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis.
G5-7.3 Artificial Reef Unit Costs j
i
The unit cost estimates for developing and monitoring artificial reefs are based the construction and monitoring of six 30 ft x
60 ft reefs made of 5-30 cm diameter stone in Dutch Harbor, Narragansett Bay (personal communication, J. Catena, NOAA
Restoration Center, 2001). While these reefs were constructed for lobsters, surveys of the Dutch Harbor reef have noted
abundant fish use of the structures (personal communication, K. Castro, University of Rhode Island, 2001).
65-7.3.1 Implementation costs
The summary cost information for the design and construction of the six reefs in Dutch Harbor, as it was received is presented
in Table G5-39 (personal communication, J. Catena, NOAA Restoration Center, 2001).
Table 65-39: Summary Cost Information for Six Artificial Reefs in Dutch Harbor, Rhode Island
Project Component
Cost
Project design
Permitting
Interagency coordination
RFP preparation
Contract management
Baseline site evaluation
Reef materials (600 yd3 of 2-12 in. stone)
Reef construction
Total
j not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
jnot explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
I not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
jnot explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
jnot explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
j$ 12,280
i$35,400'
j $59,680'
EPA converted these costs to cost per square meter of surface habitit. The cumulative surface area of the six reefs, assuming
that the reefs have a sloped surface on both sides, and based on the volume of material used, is approximately 1,024 m2.
Dividing the total project costs by this surface area results in an implementation cost of $58/m2 of artificial reef surface
habitat with an equivalent annualized implementation cost of $5.49/p2.
i
65-7.3.2 Monitoring costs !
Monitoring costs for the Dutch Harbor reefs were $ 140,000 over a 5 year period. Assuming this reflects an annual
monitoring cost of $28,000, the equivalent annual monitoring cost is $27/m2 of artificial reef surface habitat with an
equivalent annualized cost of $19.36/m2. '
65-7.3.3 Total artificial reef costs
Combining the annualized costs for implementation and monitoring; of an artificial reef provides a total annualized cost of
$24.85/m2 which EPA used in the Pilgrim HRC valuation.
£5-7.4 Costs of Anadromous Fish Passageway Improvements
EPA developed unit costs for fish passageways from a series of budjgets for prospective anadromous fish passageway
installation, combined with information provided by staff involved with anadromous species programs in Massachusetts and
G5-36
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Rhode Island. The implementation, maintenance, and monitoring costs for a fish passageway are presented in the following
subsections.
65-7.4.1 Implementation costs
Projected costs for four new Denil type fish passageways on the Blackstone River at locations in Pawtucket and Central Falls,
Rhode Island, provide the base for the implementation cost estimates for anadromous fish passageways (personal
communication, T. Ardito, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The reported lengths of the
passageways in these projects ranged from 32 m to 82 m, with changes in vertical elevation ranging from slightly more than 4
m to approximately 10m.
The average cost for these projects was $513,750 per project. The average cost per meter of passageway length was $10,300
and per meter of vertical elevation covered was $82,600. • These estimates are consistent with the approximate values of
$9,800 per meter of passageway length and $98,000 per vertical meter suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
regional Engineering Field Office (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). While all
parties contacted noted that fish passageway costs are extremely sensitive to local conditions, EPA used the estimate of
$513,750 as the basic implementation unit cost for installing an anadromous fish passage, assuming the characteristics of the
four sites on the Blackstone River are representative of the conditions that would be found at other suitable locations for new
passageways. '
65-7.4.2 Maintenance and monitoring costs
Maintenance requirements for the Denil fish passageway are minimal and generally consist of periodic site visits to remove
any obstructions, typically with a rake or pole (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001).
Denil passageways located in Maine are still functioning after 40 years, so no replacement costs were considered as part of
the maintenance for the structure. Monitoring a fish passageway consists of installing a fish counting monitor and retrieving
its data. . • ' . • •
A new fish passageway would be visited three times a week during periods of migration (personal communication, D. Quinn,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). Each site visit would require 2 hours of cumulative time during 8 weeks of migration.
Volunteer labor costs of $15.39/hr incorporated in Save the Bay's SAV restoration proposal. Therefore, the annual cost for
labor in the first year would be $740. The cost of a fish counter is $5,512, based on the average price of two fish counters
listed by the Smith-Root Company (Smith-Root, 2001).
65-7.4.3 Total fish passageway unit costs
In developing the unit costs for fish passageways it is first necessary to combine the expected cost of the passageway itself
with the cost of the fish counter as these are both treated as initial one time costs. This combined cost is $519,262 which has
an equivalent annualized cost of $48,914. The equivalent annualized cost for the anticipated $740 in labor expenses for
monitoring is $523. The resulting combined annualized cost for a new Denil fish passageway that is incorporated in this HRC
valuation is $49,438 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
65-8 TOTAL COST ESTIMATION
The eighth and final step in the HRC valuation is to estimate the total cost for the preferred restoration alternatives by
multiplying the required scale of implementation for each restoration alternative by the complete annualized unit cost for that
alternative. EPA made a potentially large cost reducing assumption: no additional HRC-derived benefits were counted in the
total benefits figures for species for which habitat productivity data are not available. If this assumption is valid, then the cost
of each valued restoration alternative (except water quality improvement and fishing pressure reduction, which were not
valued) is sufficient to offset the I&E losses of all Pilgrim species that benefit most from that alternative. EPA then summed
the costs of each restoration program to determine the total HRC-based annualized value of all Pilgrim losses (i.e., multiple
restoration programs were required to benefit the diverse species lost at Pilgrim).
The total HRC estimates for the Pilgrim facility are provided in Table G5-40, along with the species requiring the greatest
level of implementation of each restoration alternative to offset I&E losses from among those for which information was
identified that allowed for the development of estimates of increased fish production following implementation of the
restoration alternative.
G5-37
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (55: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-40: Total HRC Estimates for Pilgrim I&E Losses
j Species Benefiting from the Restoration
Preferred 1 Alternative
Restoration j
Alternative ! Species
Restore SAV [Northern pipefish
jThreespine stickleback
[Atlantic cod
j Pollack
Restore tidal [ Winter flounder
wetland JAtlantic silverside
j Striped killifish
[American sand lance
[Grubby
j Striped bass
JBluefish
Create artificial = Gunner
reefs jTautog
[Rock gunnel
[Radiated shanny
[Sculpinspp.
Install fish [Alewife
passageways j Rainbow smelt
jBlueback herring
[White perch
Species not valued [Blue mussel
[Fourbeard rockling
[Atlantic herring
[Windowpane
[Atlantic menhaden
[Atlantic mackerel
[Searobin
[Red hake
[Lumpfish
[Butterfish
[American plaice
IScup
[Little skate
[Bay anchovy
[Hogchoker
Average Annual
I&E Loss of Age
1 Equivalents
118
118
2,439
525,
210,715
25,929
90
4,116,285
879
9
2
993,911 •
1,076
4,862,872
1,644,456
734,773
4,343
1,330,022
703
73
160,000,000,000
411,191
29,079 '
17,542
14,270
6,662
3,767
1,774
1,297
399
. 221
114
78 '
18
2
Required Units
of Restoration
Implementation*
1
47
;e
Unknown
Unknown
2,429,812
13£,539
527
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
176,218
36,699 .
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0.49
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
UnknoWn for all
[
r
1
i
1
i,
[
\-
\
Units of Measure
for Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
100m2 of directly
revegetated substrate
m2 of restored tidal
wetland
m2 of reef surface area
New fish passageway
Restoration measures
unknown — survival
and reproduction may
be improved by other
regional objectives
such as improving
water quality or
reducing fishing
pressure if projects
can be identified and
are permanent
improvements.
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
$1,233.50
$1.95
$24.85
$49,437.64
N/A
Total
Annualized
Cost
$57,975
$4,746,249
$4,379,701
$49,438"
N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation
$9,233,362
' Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold and have been rounded to the nearest unit.
b Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units, and increased production data are lacking for most affected
anadromous species. Therefore, one new passageway was assumed to be warranted.
To facilitate comparisons with the costs of alternative control technologies that could be considered to reduce I&E losses at
the Pilgrim facility, the combined I&E losses are broken down with separate values developed for the losses to impingement
and entrainment (Tables G5-41 and G5-42 respectively).
A result of interest from Tables G5-41 and G5-42 is that the sum of the valuations of the impingement and entrainment losses
is close to the valuation when the I&E losses were combined ($9.6 million versus $9.2 million). This consistency is not a
given when the HRC process is used to address I&E losses separately from I&E losses combined because different species
may drive the scaling of the restoration alternatives when I&E losses are treated separately (e.g., see the results for tidal
wetlands in Tables G5-41 and G5-42, where different species drive
respectively).
the scaling for the impingement and entrainment losses,
An alternative presentation of the HRC valuation of the I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility is presented in Figure G5-5.
G5-38
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (55: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-41: Total HRC Estimates for Impingement Losses at Pilgrim
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Restore SAV
Restore tidal
wetland .
Create artificial
reefs
Install fish
passageways
i Species Benefitting from the Restoration
1 • Alternative
I Species
•Northern pipefish
jThreespine stickleback
! Atlantic cod
! Pollack
•Atlantic silverside
j Winter flounder
1 Striped killifish
! Grubby
1 American sand lance
j-Striped bass
JBluefish
iTautog
I Gunner
i Rock gunnel
: Radiated shanny
ISculpinspp.
iAlewife
i Rainbow smelt
jBlueback herring
; White perch
Species not valued I Blue mussel
•Atlantic herring
: Atlantic menhaden
JButterfish
iWindowpane
1 Red hake •
•Lumpfish
iScup
1 Little skate
jSearobin
! Bay anchovy'
1 Atlantic mackerel
jFourbeard rockling
iHogchoker
i American plaice
Average Annual
Impingement Loss
of Age 1
Equivalents
118
118
301
33
20,842
1,144
90
879
• 27
9
2
201 .
,411
77
54
13
4,343
6,885
703
73
150
8,836
6,165
399
284
229
217
114
78
69
18
3
2
2
0
Required Units of
Restoration
Implementation8
47
6
Unknown
Unknown
112,163
13,000
527
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
6,855
70
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0.49
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown for all
i Units of Measure
I for Preferred
i Restoration
i Alternative
1 100m2 of directly
jrevegetated
! substrate
Im2 of restored tidal
; wetland
im2 of reef surface
•area
; New fish
: passageway
I Restoration
'•measures unknown
j — survival and
j reproduction may
;be improved by
; other regional
1 objectives such as
i improving water
i quality or reducing
i fishing pressure if
t projects can be
! identified and are
I permanent
i improvements.
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
$1,233.50
$1.95
$24.85
$49,437.64
N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation
Total
Annualized
Cost
$57,975
$219,092
$170,333
$49,438"
N/A
•' •
$496,878
' Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
b Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units, and increased production data are lacking for most affected
anadromons species. Therefore, one new passageway was assumed to be warranted.
G5-39
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table S5-42: Total HRC Estimates for! Entrapment Losses at Pilgrim
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Restore SAV
Restore tidal
wetland
Create artificial
reefs
•
Install fish
passageways
Species not valued
: Species Benefiting from the Restoration
i Alternative
:
i
:
\ Species
i
:
[Northern Pipefish
iTheespine stickleback
•Atlantic cod
[Pollack
•Winter flounder
[Atlantic silverside
[Striped killifish
1 Grubby
| Striped bass
JBluefish
'•American sand lance
! Gunner
[Tautog
[Rock gunnel
[Radiated shanny
[Sculpin spp.
[Alewife
1 Rainbow smelt
:BIueback herring
I White perch
: Blue mussel
:Fourbeard rockling
1 Atlantic herring
iWindowpane
i Atlantic menhaden
! Atlantic mackerel
jSearobin
j Red hake
jLumpfish
i American plaice
JButterfish
jScup
{Little skate
iBay anchovy
JHogchoker
Average Annual
Entrainment Loss
of Age 1
Equivalents
0
0
2,138
492
209,571
5,087
0
0
0
0
4,116,258
993,500
875
4,892,795
1,644,402
734,760
0
1,323,137
0
0
159,000,000,000
411,189 '
20,243
17,258
8,105
6,659
3,698
1,545
1,080
221
0
0
0
0
0
Required Units
of Restoration
Implementation"
0
;°
Unknown
Unknown
2,416,621
27,376
-• 0
! 0
! o
! 0
Unknown
176,145
29,843
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
: o
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
.Unknown for all
i
!
i
i
i
I
[
1
j
f
i
i
i
i Units of Measure
1 for Preferred
\ Restoration
; Alternative
i 100m2 of directly
jrevegetated substrate
im2 of restored tidal
j wetland
jm2 of reef surface
• area
iNew fish
[passageway
; Restoration
[measures unknown -
j survival and
[reproduction maybe
[improved by other
[regional objectives
[such as improving
[water quality or
[reducing fishing
[pressure if projects
lean be identified and
[are permanent
[improvements.
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
$1,233.50
$1.95
$24.85
$49,437.64
N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation
Total
Annualized
Cost
Unvalued
.
$4,720,482
$4,377,887
•Unvalued
. N/A
$9,098,369
Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
G5-40
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Figure 65-5: X&E Overview: Pilgrim Habitat-Based Replacement Costs (annualized cost results)
1. Age-1 equivalents losses per year
I: 53.000 fish
E:14 million fish plus 160 billion mussels
2. Tidal wetland restoration costs
I: Atlantic silverside$219k/yr
E: winter flounder $4.7M/yr
I&E: winter flounder $4.7Wyr :
2. Artificial reef costs
I: tautog$l70k/yr .
E: cunner $4.4M/yr
:I&E: cuhner $4.4M/yr
2. SAV costs
I: northern pipefish $58k/yr
E: northern pipefish unvalued
I&E: northern pipefish $58k/yr-
2. Fish passage costs
I: alewife $49k/yr
E:alewife unvalued
I&E: alewife S|49k/yr
2. Species for which HRC values not calculated
I: 14 fish and 1 mussel species unvalued (16,600 lost per year)
E: 14 fish and 1 mussel species unvalued (160 billion lost per year)
' I&E: 14 fish and 1 mussel species unvalued (160 billion lost per year)
3. Total HRC (tidal wetlands + SAV + artificial reefs + fish passage)
I: S0.5M/JT
E:S9.1M/yr
I&E: $9.2M/yr
G5-41
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
65-9 CONCLUSIONS
HRC analyses indicate that the cost of replacing organisms lost to I&E at the Pilgrim CWIS through habitat replacement is at
least $9.2 million in terms of annualized costs. This value is significantly greater than the maximum annual value of $0.7
million for Pilgrim calculated by summing the maximum annual values for the various components from the commercial and
recreational loss method. Recreational and commercial fishing values are lower primarily because they include only a small
subset of species, life stages, and human use services that can be linked to fishing. In contrast, the HRC valuation is capable
of valuing many more and, in some cases, all species and life stages, and inherently addresses all of the ecological and public
services derived from organisms included in the analyses, even when the services are difficult to measure or poorly
understood. ' , '
Data gaps, time constraints, and budgetary constraints prevented this HRC valuation from addressing most of the aquatic
organisms lost to I&E at the Pilgrim facility. In particular, annual losses of 160 billion blue mussels and 490,000 fish
comprising 14 species were not included in this HRC valuation. In addition, when confronted with data gaps .EPA
incorporated many cost-reducing assumptions. The Agency used this approach because the purpose of this analysis is an
evaluation of potential economic losses from I&E at the Pilgrim facility and not to implement the identified restoration
alternatives. The Agency incorporated these cost-reducing assumptions to ensure that benefits of various regulatory options
would not be over estimated. Actual implementation of this HRC analysis in terms of restoring sufficient habitat to offset
I&E losses at the Pilgrim CWIS is probably greater, and possibly much greater, than the current annualized estimate of $9.2
million.
G5-42
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Chapter G6: Benefits Analysis for
the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits associated with reductions in I&E at
the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities, The economic
benefits that are reported here are based on the values
presented in Chapter G4 and EPA's estimates of current
I&E at these facilities (discussed in Chapter G3). Section
G6-1 presents a summary of I&E losses and associated
economic values. Section G6-2 presents economic losses
at Pilgrim expressed in terms of habitat replacement cdsts
(HRC), as discussed in Chapter G5. Section G6-3
discusses potential benefits of reductions in I&E based on
both the benefits transfer approach presented in Chapter G4
and the HRC approach presented in Chapter G5. Section G6-4 discusses the uncertainties in the benefits analysis.
G6 -1 OVERVIEW OF !<&E AND ASSOCIATED ECONOMIC VALUES
The flowchart in Figure G6-1 summarizes how economic values of I&E losses at Seabrook were derived from the I&E
estimates discussed in Chapter G3. Figures G6-2 and G6-3 indicate the distribution of Seabrook's I&E losses by species
category and associated economic values. Figures G6-4 through G6-6 present this information for the Pilgrim facility. These
diagrams reflect baseline losses based on current technology. All dollar values and percentages of losses reflect midpoints of
the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse, and forage values.
G6-1
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &•• Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G6: Benefits Analysis
Figure G6-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual !<&E at the Seabrook Facility and
Associated Economic Values (based on current configuration; all results are annualized)"
1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)h
I: 10.000 organisms ;
E: 831 million organisms •
2. Age 1 equivalents lost (number offish)11
I: 13,100 fish (4,600 forage, 8,500 commercial and recreational)
E:4.5 million fish (4.2 million forage. 299,600 commercial and recreational)
3. Loss to fishery (recreational and commercial harvest)11
1: 1,400 fish (1,800 Ib)
E: 32,700 fish (29,300 Ib) ,
4. Value of Commercial losses
I: 1,200 fish (1,500 Ib)
$2,400 (57.6% of $1 loss)
E: 15,300 fish (11,200 Ib)
$28,900 (12.9% of $E loss)
5. Value of Recreational losses
I: 236 fish (290 Ib)
$1,200 (28.0% of $1 loss)
E: 17,500 fish (18,200 Ib)
$81.200 (36.2% of $E loss)
7. Nonuse Values
I: S600( 14.0% of $1 loss)
E: $40,600 (18,1% of $E loss)
6. Value of Forage losses
' (valued using either replacement
cost method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
I: 4,600 fish
$20 (0.4% of $1 loss)
E: 4.2 million fish
$73,600 (32.8% of $E loss)
* All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
" From Tables G4-2, G4-4, G4-15 and G4-16 of Chapter G4.
Note: Species with I&E <1% of the total I&E were not valued.
G6-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure 66-2: Seabrook: Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category
54.2% Commercial and
Recreational Fisha
UNVALUED1 (ie.,
unharvested)
[0%of$I]
Total: 13,100 fish per year (age 1 equivalents)3
Total impingement value = S4,200b
35.1% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[0,4% ofST/ b
10.7% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
VALUED (as direct loss to
fishery; commercial losses are
9.2%oftotal)
[85.6% of$I] b
a Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreatibnally harvested fish include impacts for
all ages vulnerable to the fishery.
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 14.0% of total estimated $1 loss.
G6-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure 66-3: Seabrook: Distribution of Entrainment Losses by Species Category
0.7% Commercial and
Recreational Fish*
VALUED (as direct loss to
fishery; commercial losses are
0.3% of total)
[49.1%of$E]b
93.4% Forage Fish"
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[32.8% of'SEJb
5.9% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
[0% ofSEJ b
Total: 4.5 million fish per year (age 1 equivalents)
Total entrainment value = $224,100b
* Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for
all ages vulnerable to the fishery. ,
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 18.1% of total estimated $E loss.
G6-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &'. Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure G6-4: Overview and Summary of Average Annual I&E at the Pilgrim Facility and Associated
Economic Values (based on current configuration; all results are annualized)" -
1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)b
I: 37,300 organisms
E: 4.40 billion organisms
r~
2. Age 1 equivalents lost (number of fish)b
I:,52,800fish(l,600forage.51.200conimercialandrecreational). ,
'' JE: 14.4 million fish (11.8 million forage. 2.6 million commercial and recreational)
3. Loss to fishery (recreational and commercial harvest)1"
I: 6,300 fish (4.300 Ib) .
.....Er 12.1,000fish(9.L100 Ib) --,:,• i : ;!;/•. ::
4. Value of Commercial losses
I: 5.900 fish (3,800 Ib)
! $1.300 (31.9% of Si-loss)
E: 47,300 fishX33.700 Ib),
$77,000 (12.2% of $E loss)
S. Habitat replacement cost
I: $840,000 per year
E:$12.3 million per year
5. Value of Recreational losses
1: 371 fish (186 Ib)
$1.800 (44.6% of $1 loss)
E:73l600 fish (45,800 Ib)
$348,600 (55.4%,of$E loss)
7. Nonuse Values • •
I: $900 (22.3% of $1 loss)
E: $174,300 (27.7% of :$E loss).
6. Value of Forage losses
(valued using either replacement
cost method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
I: 1,600 fish ,
'•'-• $90 (1.3% of SI toss) .
E:112triHlionfish " •'-
.-:-• ;$29,300:{4;7% of $E loss)
a All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
b From Tables G4-3, G4-5, G4-17, and G4-18 of Chapter G4.
Note: Species with I&E <1% of the total I&E were not valued.
G6-5
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure G6-5: Pilgrim: Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated
Economic Values
3.1% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED (valued using
replacement cost method or as
production foregone to fishery^
yield)
fl.3%of$IJb
85.1% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
[096 0/577"
11.9% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
VALUED as direct loss to
fishery (commercial losses
are 11.2% of total)
[76.4%of$IJb '
Total: 52,800 fish per year (age 1 equivalents)
Total impingement value: $4,100
" Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for
all ages vulnerable to the fishery. j
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 22.3% of total estimated $1 loss.
G6-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure G6-6: Pilgrim: Distribution of Entrainment Losses by Species Category and Associated
Economic Values
21.4% Commsrcial and
Recreational Fish
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
[0%of$E]b
77.8% Forage Fish1
UNDERVALUED
(valued using
replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery
yield)
{4.7%qf$EJb
0.8% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
VALUED as direct loss to
fishery (commercial
losses are 0.3% of total)
[67.6% of$E] b
Total: 14.4 million fish peryear(age 1 equivalents)
Total entrainment value = $628,800b
" Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts to all
ages vulnerable to the fishery.
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 27.7% of total estimated $E loss.
G6-7
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
66-2 BASELINE LOSSES USING HRC METHOD
Chapter G5 presented baseline economic losses using the HRC approach. Baseline losses for I&E are $0.5 million and $9.1
million per year, respectively, for Pilgrim. These HRC values were Used as an upper bound of I&E losses, while the midpoint
of the benefits transfer values were used as a lower bound. The HRC approach was not applied to I&E for Seabrook.
66-3 ANTICIPATED ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF REDUCED I&E FROM VARIOUS
TECHNOLOGIES
Tables G6-1 and G6-2 show the estimated economic benefits of various I&E reductions at the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities,
respectively. The benefits of reducing I&E at Seabrook are expected to range from $2,000 to $3,000 per year for a 60%
reduction in impingement and from $97,000 to $216,000-per year fo;r a 70% reduction in entrainment. The benefits of
reducing I&E at Pilgrim are expected to range from $2,000 to $298,000 per year for a 60% reduction in impingement and
from $440,000 to over $6.4 million per year for a 70% reduction in entrainment.
Note that the results derived for Pilgrim reflect loss estimates derived from an HRC analysis; similar HRC findings are not .
available for Seabrook. This is a key reason why the Pilgrim losses ;are much higher than the Seabrook estimates, at the upper
end of the range. r
Table 66-1: Summary of
I&E
Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
Reductions at Seabrook Facility ($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
$3,000
$5,000
$0 ;
$1,000
$l,00(j>
$ 1,000
$1,000
$2,000
$1,000
$2,000
CO AHA
3>Z,UUU
$3,000
$2,000
• $3,009
$2,000
$4,000
$2,000
$4,006 .
$3,000
$5,000
Entrainment
$139,000
$309,000
$14,000
$31,000
$28,000
$62,000
.$42,000
$93,000
$56,000
$124,000
$70,000
$155,000
$83,000
$185,000
$97,000
$216,000
$111,000
$247,000
$125,000
$278,000
Total
$142,000
$314,000
$14,000
$31,000
$28,000
$63,000
$43,000
$94,000
$57,000
$126,000
$71,000
$157,000
$85,000
$188,000
$99,000
$220,000
$114,000
$251,000
$128,000
$283,000
G6-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Table 66-2: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
I&E Reductions at Pilgrim Facility ($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 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
$4,000
$497,000
$0
$50,000
$1,000
$99,000
$1,000
$149,000
$2,000
$199,000
$2,000
$248,000
$2,000
$298,000
$3,000
$348,000
$3,000
$397,000
$4,000
$447,000
Entrapment
$629,000
$9,097,000
$63,000
$910,000
$126,000
$1,819,000
$189,000
$2,729,000
$252,000
$3,639,000
$315,000
$4,548,000
$377,000
$5,458,000
$440,000
$6,368,000
$503,000
$7,277,000
$566,000
$8,187,000 -
Total
$633,000
$9,594,000
$63,000
$959,000
$127,000
$1,919,000
$190,000
$2,878,000
$253,000
$3,837,000
$317,000
$4,797,000
$380,000
$5,756,000
$443,000
$6,716,000
$506,000
$7,675,000
$570,000
$8,634,000
G6-4 SUMMARY OF OMISSIONS, BIASES, AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE BENEFITS
ANALYSIS
Table G6-3 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. •
G6-9
-------
§ 316(b) Cose. Studies, Port &: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter G6: Benefits Analysis
Table 66-3- Omissions. Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate;
Comments
Long-term fish stock affects not '
considered
Understates benefits"
JEPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
jthe higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Understates benefits0
i EPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the
I stock more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as
i water cjuality improves over time due to other watershed activities, the
jnumbef offish impacted by I&E may increase.
Recreation participation is held
constant*
Understates benefits"
I Recreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in value per
i activity outing; increased levels of participation are omitted.
Boating, bird-watching, and other
in-strcam or near-water activities
are omitted'
Understates benefits" jThe only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
HRC does not cover losses for all
species
Understates benefits"
I As a result of the HRC method, species with losses that are not
i addressed can only increase the HRC total valuation
Nonusc benefits
Uncertain JEPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
jangling benefits
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Uncertain I EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship, that a 13 percent
I change in stock would have a 13 percent change in landings; this may
jbe low or high, depending on the condition of the stocks.
Recreation values for various
geographic areas
Uncertain JThe recreational values used are from various regions and are not from
jNew England in particular.
* Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered. |
G6-10
-------
S 31£(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 67'. Conclusions
Chapter
Conclusions
As indicated in Chapter G4, average impingement losses at Seabrook are valued at between $3,000 and $5,000 per year, and .
average entrapment losses are valued at between $139,000 and $309,000 per year (all in $2000). Average impinge.ment
losses at Pilgrim are valued at between $3,000 and $5,000 per year, and average entrainment losses are valued at between
$513,000 and $744,000 per year (all in $2000)." These values reflect estimates derived using benefits transfer.
Benefits estimates were based on percentage reductions in estimated current I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim .(Chapter G6).
EPA also developed an HRC analysis to value I&E losses at Pilgrim (Chapter G5). Using the HRC approach, the value of
I&E losses at Pilgrim are approximately $497,000 for impingement, and over $19.1 million per year for entrainment (HRC
annualized at 7 percent over 20 years). These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results (from Chapter
G4) to develop a more comprehensive range of loss estimates for the Pilgrim facility. HRC results were used as an upper
bound, while the midpoints of benefits transfer estimates were used as a lower bound. On this basis, EPA estimates potential
annual benefits of reduced I&E at Pilgrim ranging from $2,000 to $298,000 per year for a 60% reduction in impingement, and
from $440,000 to $6.4 million for a 70% reduction in entrainment. The annual benefits of reduced I&E at Seabrook are
estimated to range from $2,000 to $3,000 for a 60% reduction in impingement and from $97,000 to $216,000 for a 70%
reduction in entrainment.
In interpreting these results, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of EPA's analysis. These
caveats have been detailed in preceding chapters. EPA included forage species impacts in the economic benefits calculations,
but because techniques for valuing such losses are limited, the final estimates may well underestimate the full ecological and
economic value of these losses. Thus, on the whole, EPA believes the estimates developed here underestimate the economic
benefits of reducing I&E at similar facilities.
G7-1
-------
.
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &'• Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Appendix Gl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E
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 Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities. Life history data and fishing mortality
rates were compiled from a variety.of sources, with a focus on obtaining data on local stocks whenever possible.
Table £1-1: Alewife Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Age6-i-
Age7+'
Age 8+
1 Natural Mortality
I (per stage)
1 0.9"
i 5.75" -
i 10.1"
j 0.7"
i 0.7"
! 0.7"
j 0.7"
! 0.7"
1 0.7"
! 0.7"
j 0.7"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
.0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.9
1
1
1
Weiglit
0b)
0.0022'
0.00661°
0.022C
• 0.0303"
0.125"
0.348"
0.443d
0.496"
0.536"
0.598"
0.723d
a Based on alewife in the Delaware Estuary, as provided in PSEG, 1999c.
b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
c Assumed based on size (Able and Fahay, 1998).
" Scott and Scott, 1988.
App. Gl-1
-------
S 316{b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table Gl-2: American Plaice Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3a
9.13b
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2°
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2°
0.2C
0.2C
0.2e
0.2C
0.2C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)1*
0 1
o :.
0 i
0.32 |
0.32 :
0.32 ,
0.32 t
0.32 i
0.32 [
0.32 ;
0.32 ,
0.32 !
0.32 !
0.32 !
0.32 r
0.32 !
0.32 !
0.32 |
0.32 i
0.32
Ol2 ! '
0.32 !
0.32 :
6.32 ;
6.32 [
0.32 !
0.32 i
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery1*
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
• " 'I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(lb)c
0.00000001 llf
0.0000173r
0.00537g
0.0545B
0.121"
0.2 12f
0.322f
0.467r
0.652f
0.822f
1.02f
1.25f
1.51f
1.8lf
2.15f
2.4f
2.67f
2.96f
3.27f
3.6f
3.96f
4.34f
4.74r
5.17f
... . ,5:63,.
5.87f
5.94"
* Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN( survival) - (fishing
mortality). !
NOAA, 1993. !
O'Brien, 2000. Fraction vulnerable assumed based on size. '
Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.970x1 0-7)*Length(mm)3-345 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001). i
Length from Scott and Scott (1988). |
Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988) and Shultz, 2001.
Length from Shultz (200 1 ). 1
App, Gl-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table &1-3- American Sand Lance Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae .
Agel+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
,Age9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.19"
r
1 c
r
r
r
r
ic
ic
ic
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
Ob)'
0.000000000353f
0.000485f
0.00469f
0.03 13r
0.0636f
0.1 06f
0.144g
0.19f
0.23 18
0.246g
0.2i62f
* Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival)"- (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Northern sand lance.
* Not a recreational or commercial species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.2xlO'7)*Length(mm)3-491 = weight(g) (Froese and.Pauly,
2001).
f Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
8 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
Table 61-4: Atlantic Cod Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
4.87"
6.75b
0.4=
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2°
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
Weight
Ob)'
0.0000000974f
0.00000 186r
0.0225s
0.2458
0.628s
.L298
- 2.45E
3.33g
a Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000.
d NOAA,2001c.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (8.85xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-031 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
f Length from Froese and Pauly (2001). .
8 Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
App. Gl-3
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim ! Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-5: Atlantic Herring Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
3.36"
6.53"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2b
0.2"
0.2"
0.2"
0.2b
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)b
0 '..
o !
0.28 !
0.28 i
0.28 ;
0.28 [
0.28 [
0.28 :
0.28 I
, o.28 ;
0.28 ,
o.28 ;
0.28 '
0.28 [
0.28
0.28 '
0.28 I
0.28 [
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
Ob)"
0.0000000 170"
0.000222f
0.0243s
0.1 58h
0.29 lh
0.42"
0.467"
0.535"
0.607"
0.668"
0.734"
0.716"
0.812"
0.907"
0.915'
0.924s
0.932s
0.941'
° Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation: (natural •
mortality) s -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b NOAA, 2001c. ' :
8 Commercial species vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 11
* Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.22xlO^)*Length(mm)3-328 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001). :
c Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
' Length from Reid et al. (1999).
8 Length from Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (200la).
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
1 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
App. GI-4
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 91: Life History Parameter Values
Table &1 -6: Atlantic Mackerel Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
AgelO+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.39a
10.6a
0.52"
0.37"
0.37"
0.37" '
0.37"
0.37"
.0.37"
0.37"
0.37"
0.37"
0.37"
0.37"
0.37"
0.37"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
- 0
0
0
' 0.25
0.25
0.25 .
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(lb)e
0.0000000362f
0.0000008s
0.309"
0.51"
0.639"
0.752*
0.825"
0.918"
1.02"
l.;lh
1.13'
U5h
1.22"
1.22"
1.22"
1.22"
Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation (natural mortality):
-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Overholtz et al., 1991.
c NOAA, 2001 c.
d Recreational and commercial species^ Vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 2.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.039xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-18 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001). Atlantic cod.
f Length assumed based on Atlantic cod (Froese and. Pauly, 2001).
E Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
" Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
! Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
App. Gl-5
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61 -7: Atlantic Menhaden Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age7+
Age8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.08"
8.56"
0.45"
0.45"
0.45b
0.45"
0.45"
0.45"
0.45b
0.45"
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)c j
0 !
0
o j
0.8 [
0.8 \
0.8
0.8 |
• 0.8 :
. 0.8 '•
0.8
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(lb)'
0.0000000602f
0.00000068f
0.545"
0.855"
1.08"
1.31"
1.47"
1.59"
3.36E
5.21"
1 Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation: (natural mortality) =
-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b NOAA, 2001c. ' ;
c Ruppertetal., 1985. i
* Durbin et al., 1983.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.02xlO'6)*Length(mm)3-216 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001). |
r Length from Able and Fahay (1998). >
1 Length assumed based on Durbin et al. (1983) and Scott and Scott (1988).
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988). j
Table 61-8: Atlantic Silverside Species Parameters '
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
6.12b
2.1C
2.1C
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)d
0 | •
0
0.19 ;
0.19
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery0
0
0
0.5
1
Weight
(Ib)f
0.00000002468
0.000108s
0.0101"
0.0186"
• Calculated from survival (Stone & 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).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
1 NOAA, 2001c. Atlantic herring. !
c Commercial species. Vulnerable to fishing mortality at age l[
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.691xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-023 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
* Length from Able and Fahay (1998). :
11 Length from Scott and Scott (1988). !
App. GI-6
-------
S 316(b) Ccise Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table &1-9- Bay Anchovy Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae 1
Post-yolksac larvae 2
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Juvenile 3
Juvenile 4
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)*
1.04
1.57
2.11
4.02
0.0822
0.0861
0.129
0.994
1.62
1.62
1.62
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
Weight
(lb)
0.000022"
0.000551"
0.00108"
0.00161"
0.00214"
0.00267"
0.0032"
0.0037"
0.0038 la
0.00496'
0.00505"
• PSEG, 1999c.
" Assumed based on PSEG, 1999c.
Table 61-10: Blue Mussel Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.61"
0.602C
0.602C
0.0555°
0.0555°
0.0555C
0.0555°
0.0555C
0.0555C
0.0555°
1.2°
1.2°
1.2° .
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)
0"
0"
0.602°
0.602°
0.0555°
0.0555°
0.0555°
0.0555°
0.0555°
0.0555°
0.0555°
1.2°
1.2°
1.2°
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(lb)f
0.00022
0.0022
0.0662
0.0728
0.0794
0.0833
0.0838
0.084
0.0842
0.0843
0.0843
0.0843
0.0843
0.0843
• Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
" Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the equation
(natural mortality)
= -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Calculated from survival (Author Unknown, 2001) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality). Assumed half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
d Shaw etal., 1988.
° Commercial species. Vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
f Newell, 1989.
App. Gl-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-11: Blueback Herring'Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae 1
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
AgelH-
Age2+
Age 3+
Age4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)'
0.558
1.83
1.74
3.13
3.13
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
0 '<
o i
o f
0 1
0 [
o i
0 t
o i
o !
o ;
0 i
o :
o
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o ', •
0
0
o
0
Weight
Ob)
0.000022"
6.66321"
0.0064"
0.00959"
0.0128b
0.016"
0.0905"
0.204"
0.318"
0.414" .
0.488"
0.54"
0.576"
PSEG, 1999c.
Assumed based on PSEG, 1999c.
Table SI-12: Bluefish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
AgeS+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Agell+
Age 12+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
5.27"
5.27"
0.35C
0.35°
' 0.35C
0.35C
0.35C
0.35C
0.35C
0.35=
0.35C
0.35°
0.35C
0.35C
Fishing Mortality
(per stagey
o ! .
.. °..J
0 ]
0.4 [•
0.4 ;
"6.4 i
"6.4 !
0.4 I
";::::°;i:i:::
0.4 !
0.4
0.4 i
6.4 i
'""O.?"'!
6.4 f
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery5
o
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(lb)r
0.00000003868
0.000003335
0.000116s
0.54"
0.785"
1.91h
2.45'
3.061
3.78'
4.58'
5.49'
6.5!
7.64'
8.87'
10.3"
• Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survrval) - (fishing
mortality). |
NOAA, 1993. ;
NOAA, 200 Ic. |
Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.749xlO-5)*Length(mm)2-77 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
Length from Wang and Kernehan (1979). ,
Length from Clayton et al. (1978). \
Length assumed based on Clayton et al. (1978). ;
App. Gl-8
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table Gl -13: Butferf ish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
8.13"
0.4'
0.4C
0.4C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
0
0
0.76
0.76
0.76
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0.5
1
1
Weight
(lb)f
O.OOOOOQ002488
0.00000151s
0.0272" •
0.0986"
0.944"
" Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality). .
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c NOAA, 1993.
"' NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
f Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.6x10-6)*Length(mm)3-26 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
8 Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
Table 61-14: Cunner Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age en-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
3.49"
5.8a .
0.831"
0.831"
0.286"
Oi342"
0.645"
1.26"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
Weight
W
0.00000000877=
0.00000236C
0.003 llff
0.0246f
0.0749f
0.145f
0.229f
0.624s
' Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000. . '
c Commercial and recreational species, of minimal catch (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000).
Fishing mortality and fraction vulnerable assumed.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.0xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-22 = weight(g) (Serchuk and Cole,-
1974).
'Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
f Length from Serchuk and Cole (1974).
8 Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
App. Gl-9
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-15: Fourbeard Rockling Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 44-
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
5.17b
0.49'
0.49C
0.49C
0.49C
0.49C
0.49C
0.49C
0.49C
0.49=
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d ;
o ;
0 i
0
o !
0 i
0 !
0 f
0 i
0 ;
o ;
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ib)'
0.00000000605r
0.000000896f
0.00403f
0.0347f
0.0848f
0.149f
0.24 lf
0.331f
0.482r
0.623f
0.788s
1 Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
e Froese and Pauly, 2001.
4 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (12.74xlO*)*Length(mm)3-106 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
' Length assumed based on Froese and Pauly (2001).
8 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
Table 61-16: Grubby Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age8+
Age9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3'
4.7b
0.46=
0.46C
0.46°
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
0 I
, o ;,
0 i
0 ' •
0
o :
0 '
0
o r
o j.
o ;
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ib)'
0.00000021 lf
0.000359f
0.00404f
0.1 39f
0.332f
0.42f
0.475f
0.541f
0.576f
0.612f
0.637s
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality). ;
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Longhom sculpin. i
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula for longhprn sculpin: (1.034x10's)*Length(mm)3-003 =
weight(g) (Clayton etal., 1978).
r Length assumed based on Clayton etal. (1978). ',
8 Length for longhorn sculpin from Clayton etal. (1978). !
App. GI-10
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &:. Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 91 -17: Hogchocker Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.24"
6.73"
0.25'
0.25C
0.25C .
0.25C
0.25°
0.25C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
toFisheryd
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
Ob)'
0.000000237f
0.00123r
0.00778f
0.0295r
0.0877B
0.19s
0.424"
0.5,61" .
" Calculated from survival (New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.947xlQ-1)*Length(mm)2-6S8 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly,2001).
f Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
8 Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Froese and Pauly (2Q01).
h Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
Table 61-18: Little Skate Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age.7+
Age 8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.94"
0.252b
0.4°
0.4'
0.4C
0.4C
0.4C
0.4C
0.4C
0.4°
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(lb)r
0.000774
0.0138
0.157
0.394
0.75
1.15.
1.51
1.62
1.65
1.72
" Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c NOAA, 1993.
dNOAA,2001c.
0 Commercial species assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
f Weight calculated from length (Scott and Scott, 1988) using the formula: (8.32xlO-6)*Length(mm)2-972 =
weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001). ~" !
App. Gl-Il
-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies, Part 'G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
t
Table 61-19: Lump-fish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age5+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
9.39"
0.19C
0.19C
0.19C
0.1 9C
0.19C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*1
0 1
0 ;
o ;
o 1
0 l
°..j
o ;
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
Ob)'
0.0000004f .
0.000993f
0.0147s
0.0584"
0.149s
0.686*
1.86s
1 Calculated from survival for Atlantic silverside (Stone & 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). |
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. ! '
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.755x10'5)*Length(mm)2'939 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001). '
' Length forrock gunnel from Able and Fahay (1998). !
* Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998). i
Table SI -20: Northern Pipefish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+ .
Age 4+
Age 5+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
3.31b
0.75"
0.75°
0.75C
0.75C
0.75C
Fishing Mortality
. (per stage)11
0 i
o f
o ;
o •
0 i
0
6 i
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
Ob)e
0.0000000 157f
0.00168f
0.0087 18
0-01248
0.0168s
0.0222s
0.0285r
* Calculated from assumed survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using
the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Broad-nosed pipefish.
* Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula for sargassum pipefish: (9.407x10'6)*Length(mm)2it16 = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001). i
' Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
1 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988). ;
App. Gl-12
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-21: Pollock Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Agell+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)'
0.922
4.07
6.93
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)b
0
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
• 0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
Ob)d
0.0000000203°
0.00000 104f
0.00166"
0.657f
1.3f '
1.73f f
3.24f
. 4.93f '
5.7f
6.83f
8.46f
9.93f
12f
14.8f
16.4f
18.1f
19.9f
21.2f
' Sailaetal., 1997.
b NOAA,2001c.
c Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 2.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.894x10-6)*Length(mm)3-048 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
0 Length from Able and Fahay( 1998).
r Length from Saila et al. (1997).
App. Gl-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-22: Radiated Shanny Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeH-
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age7+
Age 8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3°
3.11"
0.44C
0.44C
0.44°
0.44C
0.44C
0.44C
0.44C
0.44C
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)d
0 1
0 J
0
0 '
o ]
o :
o ;
0 !
o .!
0.
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
Ob)<
0.000000009 lf
0.00000948f
0.000622f
0.004 15f
. 0.00846f
0.0151f
0.0194f
0.0244f
0.0303f
0.0336s
' Calculated ftom assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
11 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula for rock gunnel: (4.125xlO'6)*Length(mm)3-018 = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001). '
f Length assumed based on Froese and Pauly (2001). ;
s Length from Froese and Pauly (2001). [
Table SI -23: Rainbow Smelt Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
3.32"
2.66"
6.72"
6.72b
6.72"
0.72b
6.72"
' 0.72"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0 ;
0 i
o i
0 1
0 1
0 ] ....
.....9. i
o i
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
Weight
(lb)d
0.0000000861°
0.00273°
0.0359f
0.1 34f
0.289f
0.585f
0.942f
1.27s
Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality). ;
6 Froese and Pauly, 2001. • !
c Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing niortality.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.903xlO-s)*Length(mm)2-81 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
c Length from Able and Fahay (1998). i
' Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Froese and Pauly (2001). ,
s Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
App. Gl-14
-------
S 3i6(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-24: Red Hake Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 2mm
Larvae 2.5mm
Larvae 3.0mm
Larvae 3.5mm
Larvae 4.0mm
Larvae4.5mm
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)8
1.22
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
3.35
4.83
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
. 0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)b
0
: 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
Ob)d
0.00000000238°
0.0000000535r
0.000000109r
0.000000194f
0.0000003 16f
0.000000482f
0.000000701f
0.00 145r
0.1 24f
0.465s
0.5788
0.7236
0.928s
1.17"
1.45"
1.78"
2.15"
'2.3s
" Saila et al., 1997.
b NOAA,2001c. . .
c Commercial species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula for white hake: (2.692xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-172 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly,2001).
c Length from Able and Fahay( 1998). •
f Length from Saila et al. (1997).
s Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
h Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
Table 61-25: Rock Gunnel Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
2.57"
0.44C
0.44'
0.44'
0.44C
0.44C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(lb)e
0.0000000737f
0.00000948s
0.00382f
.0.0128f
6.0223f
0.037 lf
0.049r
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing '•
mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Radiated shanny.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishery mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.125xlO"*)*Length(mm)3-018 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
f Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
B Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
App. Gl-15.
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-26: Sculpin Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age fin-
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.7"
0.46C
0.46°
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
0.46C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
0 ^
o !
0 '
0 i
o i
o i
°- i
0 ;
0 ;
0 !
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fisher/
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 , ..
0
0
0
0
Weight
(lb)e
0.00000021 lf
0.000359r
0.00404s
0.1 396
0.332s
0.42s
0.475s
0.541s
0.576s
0.612s
0.637s
* Calculated from assumed survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside)
using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Longhom sculpin. j
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula for longhom sculpin: (1.034xlO"5)*Length(mm)3'003 =
weight(g) (Clayton etal., 1978). '-
' Length assumed based on Clayton etal. (1978). :
E Length from Clayton et al. (1978). Longhom sculpin. i
App. Gl-16
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-27: Scup Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
NaturalMortality
(per stage)
2.3=
5.47b
0:29C
0.29=
0.29C
0.29C
• 0.29C
0.29'
0.29°
0.29C
0.29C
0.29C
0.29C
0.29C
0.29C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
0
0
0.14
0.14'
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
db)f
0.000000354s
0.00107s
0.073s
0.244s
0.495" .
0.806"
1.1"
1.46"
1.88"
2.37"
2.94"
3.58"
4.3"
4.83"
4.978
' Calculated from assumed survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside)
using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
f Weight calculated from length using the formula for sheepshead porgy: (1.649xlO^)*Length(mm)2-666 =
weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
8 Length from Clayton etal. (1978).
" Length assumed based on Clayton et al. (1978).
App. Gl-17
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-28: Searobin Species Parameters
Stage Name .
Eggs
Larvae
Age 14-
Age 24-
Age34-
Age4+
Age5+
Age 64-
Age 74-
Age 84-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.57"
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
o I
o :
Q.I
0.1
0.1 ;
0.1 ,
0.1 ,
0.1
0.1 ]
0.1 ;
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ib)f
0.00000286s
0.0000229s
0.023 P
0.185s
0.361s
0.564s
0.758s
0.992s
1.17B .
1.27"
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality)..
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: ([natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Northern searobin. [
* Assumed based on hake (Saila et al., 1997). ;
c Recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula for longhorn sculpin: (1.034x10-5)*Length(mm)3-003 =
weight(g) (Clayton et al., 1978).
* Length assumed based on Froese and Pauly (2001).
h Length from Froese and Pauly (2001). i
App. GI-18
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port G- Seabrook and Pilgpiffi
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61 -29: Striped Bass Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+ .
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)3
1.39
2.22
5.08
2.28
1
1.1
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31 '
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery8
0
0
_0
0
0
0
0.06
0.2
0.63
0.94
1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9.
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
6.9
Weight
Ob)
0.000022°
0.097°
0.194°
0.291°
0.388°
0.48.5"
2.06"
3.31"
4.93"
6.5"
8.58"
12.3"
14.3"
16.1"
is'.s"
19.6"
22.4"
27"
34.6"
41.5"
" PSEG, 1999c.
b NOAA,2001c.
c Length assumed based on PSEG (1999c).
" Length from PSEG (1999c).
Table 61-30: Striped Killifish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
3"
0.777b
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
0.777"
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
(H>)d
0.000000864°
0.0000182°
.0.0121f
0.0327f
0.055 lf
0.0778f
0.0967f
0.113r
0.1 58f
a Calculated from survival for Atlantic silverside (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
"' Calculated from survival for mummichog (Meredith and Lotrich, 1979) using the equation: (natural mortality)
= -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
" Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.6xlO-5)*Length(mm)2-96 = weight(g) (Carlander, 1969).
.° Length from Able and Fahay( 1998).
r Length from Carlander (1969). .
App. Gl-19
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
[
1
Table 61-31: Tautog Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4-1-
Age5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.53"
9.75"
0.06"
0.06"
0.06"
0.06"
0.06b
0.06"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0 ;
o ;
0.29 '
0.29 :
0.29 i
0.29 \
0.29 :
0.29 i
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"1
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ib)<
0.0000000689r
0.000001 85f
0.0104"
0.1 83h
1.4"
3.27"
4.62"
6.3s
• Calculated from survival (New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995.
c Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000e. I ' '
d Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.318xIO-5)*Length(mm)2-'4 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001). j
' Length from Able and Fahay( 1998). '
* Length from Scott and Scott (1988). j
h Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988). j
Table SI -32: Threespine Stickleback Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age4-t-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
3.53"
0.9C
0.9C
0.9C
0.9C
Fishing Mortality '
(per stage)d
'0 •;
0
0 i
0 [
0 !
0 :
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
Ob)e
0.0000000227f
0.00000 127r
0.000064s
0.000244s
0.0004228
0.00203s
* Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using the equation:
(natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality). !
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natpral mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula for sea stickleback: (2.10xlO"6)*Length(mm)3-00 = weighf(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001). |
r Length from Wang (1986a). |
* Length from Scott and Scott (1988). ( .
App. Gl-20
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-33: White Perch Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age lOt-
Natural Mortality .
(per stage)"
2.75
2.1
3.27
0.947
0.759
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0008
0.0266
0.212
6.48
0.838
1
1
1
Weight
Ob)
0.000022"
0.00946"
0.0189"
0.0283"
. 0.0378"
0.0472"
0.0567"
0.1 03°
0.15"
0.214"
0.265"
0.356"
0.387°
0.516"
0.619"
" PSEG, 1999c.
" Assumed based on PSBG, 1999c.
Table SI-34: Window/pane Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.64°
6.47"
0.39C
0.39'
0.39C
0.39'
0.39°
0.39' •
0.39C
0.39C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
0
0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0.02
0.25
0.61
1
1
1
1
1
Weight
(Ib)r
0.0000000818
0.00000847
0.00634
0.0409
0.188
0.384
0.548
0.663
0.808
2.53
* Calculated from survival (New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
" Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
" NOAA,2001c.
" USGen New England, 2001. Winter flounder.
r Weight calculated from length (Clayton et al., 1978) using the formula: (2.10xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-00 =
weight(g) (Clayton et al., 1978).
App. Gl-21
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Seabrookand Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-35: Winter Flounder Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 1
Larvae 2
Larvae 3
Larvae 4
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
5.39"
0.354bb
0.708"
2.83"
0.708"
1.77"
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2C
0.2°
0.2C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
?. i
o !
o !
o ;
0 •
o ;
0.24 i
0.24 !
0.24 ]
0.24 ;
0.24 [
0.24 ]
0.24 |
0.24 i
0.24 ,
0.24
0.24 ^
0.24 !
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
0
0
o
0
0.01
0.29
0.8
0.92
0.83
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Weight
(lb)<
0.00000000726r
0.000000442s
0.00000108s
0.00000933s
0.0000135s
0.000161"
0.012'
0.1821
0.425'
0.738'
1.08'
1.4'
1.69'
1.94'
2.16!
2.33'
2.49'
2.61'
• Calculated from survival (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality). '
" Calculated from survival (Saila et al., 1997) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Colarusso, 2000. i
d NOAA, 200 Ic. !
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.591x10'6)*Length(mm)3-109 = weight(g) (Colarusso,
2000). ;
' Length from Able and Fahay (1998). . |
" Length from Saila et al. (1997). ;
11 Length assumed based on Saila et al. (1997) and Colarusso (2000).
' Length from Colarusso (2000). I
App. Gl-22
------- |