United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Case Study Analysis for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase
II Existing Facilities Rule

Part H -1

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 H: J, ft. Whiting
        Part H: J.R. Whiting
           Facility Case Study

-------

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.ft, Whiting
                                                                                      Chapter HI: Background
                   Chapter   H1:   Background
This case study presents the results of an analysis
performed by EPA to assess the potential benefits of
reducing the cumulative impacts of I&E at CWIS at the
J.R. Whiting plant, a Great Lakes facility located on Lake
Brie. Section H.l-1 of this background chapter provides a
brief description of the facility, Section HI -2 describes the
environmental setting, and Section HI -3 presents
information on the area's socioeconotnic characteristics.
Hl-l   OVERVIEW OF
FACILITY
                                .  WRITING
                                                     CHAPTER CONTENTS     -   --   r--

                                                     Ht-l   -€)verriewof JJL Whiting, Facility,
                                                     THI-2                          "
                                                             Ml-2,1"
HJO.
HL-3
 The J,R. Whiting power plant is a 346 M W power plant
 located on Lake Erie,  It began commercial service in 1952 and
 currently operates three coal-fired steam-electric units and one
 oil-fired gas turbine. J.R. Whiting had 134 employees in 1999
 and generated 2.1 million MWh of electricity. Estimated
 baseline revenues in 1999 were $141 million, based on the
 plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 2,0 million MWh and
 the 199 company-level electricity revenues of $71.14 per MWh,
 J.R. Whiting's 1999 production expenses totaled $44 million, or
 2.060 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $9? million,

 The facility is located at Luna Pier, Michigan, on the Woodtiek
 Peninsula,  10 miles north of Toledo, Ohio, and 35 miles south of
 Detroit, Michigan (Figure Hl-l).

 Table Hl-l below summarizes the plant characteristics of the J.R. Whiting plant.
                                                          4>  Ownership Information
                                                          J.R. Whiting is a regulated utility plant owned by
                                                          Consumers Energy Co., a subsidiary of CMS Energy
                                                          Corporation. CMS Energy Corporation is an energy
                                                          holding company with over 11,600 employees. The
                                                          firm owns or controls almost 8.1 million megawatts of
                                                          electric generating capability. In 2000, CMS posted
                                                          sales of $9,0 billion and sold 41.0 million MWh of
                                                          electricity (HooverVQniine, 2001c; CMS, 2001).
                      Table Hl-l: Summary of J.ft, Whiting Plant Characteristics

Plant ElA Code • • ,.,„,,.„„„„,.„.,„.„.„ 	
NERC Region
Total Capacity (MW) . . _ 	 ._ 	
Primary Fuel
Number of Employees ' „,..„.„_,.„..,.,., 	
3.R. Whiting
1723
346
	 Coal"""
134
	 ' 	 '"'" 	 2.1
  Estimated Revenues (million dollars)
  Total Production Expense (million dollars)
  Production Expense (jj/kWh)
  Estimated Operating Income (million dollars)

  Notes:   NERC  =   North American Electric Reliability Council
          ECAR  =   East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement
          Dollars are in $2001.                                                        ,   "_,,„. _i-
  Source: Form EIA-860A (NERC Region, Total Capacity, Primary Fuel); FERC Form-1 (Number of Employees, Total Production
  Expense); Form EIA-906(Net Generation). '
                                                                                                       Hl-l

-------
  S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.ft. Whiting
                                                                                             Chapter Hi: Background
                                                     ist to the north, where the Raisin River enters Lake Brie, as
  Consumer Power's J.R Whiting facility has one cooling water intake structure serving one once-through cooling system  The

                                                             * ***"
  extrHn         r    ,                         3CrOSS "1C reCeSSed P°rtion of the shoreline and a dual entry/single
  exit traveling screen. The design intake capacity of the intake is 308 MOD,




  Figure H 1-1 : Locations of the J.R. Whiting and Monroe Facilities Within the Great Lakes Region
                                                                                                            at the
                                                                                10... 5^  0,   A, 10    . 20 Mi
In 1980, a deterrent net was installed to reduce high impingement of giaard shad (Dorasoma cepedianum), emerald shiner


          h*rm°'dS)' SP°Uar (WWW»* "tt&Wlto)' yell°w Perch P™*SI™*»*\ and several ot£r lake*

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J,R, Whiting
Chapter HI: Background
 Figure Hl-2: Estimated Annual Fish Impingement of All Species at Consumers Powers Company's J.R. Whiting Plant, 1978-1991
             1978
                    1979
                          1980
                                  081
                                        1982
                                               J983
 Source: Consumers Power Company, 1984; 19&4,
HI ~2   ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINS

HI-2.1  Lake Erie

Lake Erie has 1,402 fan (871.2 miles) of coastline and a surface area of 25,657 km2 (9,906.2 mi2) (U.S. EPA, 200 la). With
an average depth of only 19 m (62 ft), Lake Erie is by far the' shallowest of the Great Lakes (University of Wisconsin Sea
Grant, 2001), and therefore the most susceptible to storms, wind tides, and seiches (U.S. EPA, 2000).  Its shallowness results
in considerable temperature variations throughout the year. Lake Erie warms quickly in the spring and summer and cools
rapidly in the fall (U,S, EPA, 2000). During particularly long, cold winters a large pan (or sometimes all) of the lake may
freeze over.

Lake Erie has undergone drastic biological changes during the past 20 years (U.S. EPA, 2000). Although the water was once
severely polluted, water clarity has improved dramatically as a result of stricter water pollution controls as well as filtering by
expanding populations of the introduced zebra mussel (U.S. EPA, 2000).

HI-2,2  Aquatic Habitat  and Biota

Lake Erie consists of three relatively distinct aquatic regions: the western, central, and eastern basins (U.S. EPA, 2000). The
central and eastern basins are deep, with depths reaching approximately 29 and 53m (95 and 175 ft) respectively.  They have
low flushing rates and exhibit noticeable thermal stratification. The  western basin, from which J.R, Whiting withdraws its
water, is the shallowest of the three basins. With an average depth of only 7.4 m (24 ft) and a maximum depth of 19 m (82 ft)
(U.S. EPA, 2000), the western basin is so shallow that its entire depth is stirred by wind action. The cycling motion of the
water resuspends bottom sediments in the water column and makes stratification very rare and brief. The shallow depth of the
basin also, results in warmer water and relatively high biological productivity in the area surrounding the J.R. Whiting facility.

Historically, benthic organisms, animals that live on or in association with the bottom of the lake, have been dominant in the
western basin.  These organisms find an abundance of food in the organic load deposited by the Detroit and Maurnee rivers
directly into the basin.  Though it receives a high sediment loading, moat sediment eventually moves to the central and eastern
basins. The west basin's shallow sandbanks also provide ideal spawning habitat for fish from all three basins (U.S. EPA,
2000).  Typical fish found in Lake Erie include bowfin, brown trout, carp, chinook salmon, echo salmon, freshwater drum,
lake herring, lake sturgeon, lake trout, lake whitefish, longnose sucker, rainbow smelt, pumpkinseed, and rock, white, and
smallmouth bass (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant, 2001),
                                                                                                           Hl-3

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter Hi: Background
The Lake Erie shore is composed of silty-clay soils and is predominantly steep with very little beach area (Dodge and
Kavetsky, 1995). Shoreline erosion, caused by the stirring of the lake, results in milky-colored inshore waters.  In contrast,
offshore waters are much more transparent. Wind in the central basin causes strong along-shore currents and undertows that
build peninsulas by pulling sediments from the shores, The peninsulas shelter significant remaining wetlands and create bays
that provide spawning and nursery habitat for several fish species,

On the U.S. side, Lake Erie.once had significant wetlands, including the 4,000 km2 (1544 mi2) Black Swamp at the Maumee  .
River (Dodge and Kavetsky, 1995).  However, the Black Swamp has been reduced to 100 km2 (39 mi2) by agricultural
activities, including conversion. An especially severe problem for Lake Erie's wetland habitats is agricultural nutrients and
sediments, which cause a high level of turbidity. Suspended sediments in the water prevent the establishment of subtnergent
vegetation and adversely affect the aquatic ecosystem.

Compared to the other Great Lakes, Lake Erie has few areas of rocky substrate for fish spawning. Virtually all such habitat is
encrusted with zebra and quagga mussels, except for area's where wate'rfowl or fish predation and ice scour limit mussels to
the sheltered sides of rocks. In addition, the rocky substrates of Lake Erie have also been degraded by algal growth and
sedimentation, further limiting fish spawning habitats. In the Detroit River, contaminated sediments are thought to be
affecting fish eggs. On the Grand River, dams have limited the upstream migration of walleye (Dodge and Kavetsky, 1995).

H1-E.3  Major Environmental Stressors   •

The large human population surrounding Lake Erie has led to a number of major stresses on the aquatic environment (U.S.
EPA', 2000). Nonpoinl source pollution combined with the productive waters of the western basin have at times (particularly
1950-1970) resulted in accelerated eutrophication, large algal blooms, and anoxic waters. Overfishing and the introduction of
non-native species have hurt some fish populations, though control efforts for both overfishing and invasive species have
helped populations to rebound in recent years (U.S. EPA, 2000),

a.  Habitat  alteration                        ••
The western area of Lake Erie once had an extensive coastal marsh and swamp system stretching from the Detroit River to
Maumee Bay, but most marshes were cleared and drained throughout the 1900"s (Dodge and Kavetsky, 1995).  About
5300 ha (13,100 acres) of wetlands remain in Ohio, but Michigan's Lake Erie shoreline wetlands have been reduced to only
100 ha (247 acres). Remaining wetlands have been severely degraded.

The Woodtick Peninsula, where J.R. Whiting is located, serves as a barrier beach protecting the wetlands behind it from wave
erosion (U.S. EPA, 2001a). However, the peninsula itself is now being eroded as the sediment drift that once replenished it
has been diminished by structures built to protect shoreline properties. As the Peninsula erodes, so too do the wetlands.

b.  Introduction  of nonnative species
The introduced zebra mussel became established in large numbers in Lake Erie the late 1980*s and early 1990*s (U.S. EPA,
2000).  As in the other Great Lakes, zebra mussels have altered habitat, the food web dynamic, energy transfer, and how
nutrients are cycled in the lakes. However, filtering by zebra mussels has apparently contributed to a dramatic increase in
Lake Erie's water clarity. A preferred course of action on how to deal with the zebra mussels has not been established by the
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan Committee (U.S. EPA, 2000).

c.  Overfishing
Lake Erie has historically encountered problems of overfishing, particularly in the late i 800s (Egerton, 1985).  In this century,
the exact impact of overfishing has been debated because decreases in stocks may also be attributed to pollution, invasive
species, and habitat degradation (Egerton* 1985). Ultimately, the governments of the Great Lakes states and provinces came
together to form the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in 1955, and since then the Commission has studied the issues and set
commercial and recreational fishing quotas to help maintain important fish species (U.S. EPA, 2000).

d.  Pollution
Discharges to Lake Erie of persistent toxic chemicals were banned  in the 1970s, but effects of these historic discharges
continue to linger (U.S. EPA, 2000). Two sites near the J.R. Whiting facility have been designated as Areas of Concern
(AOC): the Maumee AOC, which resulted from high concentrations of PCBs in the Maumee River drainage area, and the
River Raisin AOC, caused by historical discharges of oils and grease, heavy metals, and PCBs into the River Raisin
(U.S. EPA, 2000).
                                                                                                           Hl-4

-------
S 316{b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                                                                                         Chapter HI: Background
The presence of PCBs lias resulted in fish consumption advisories being issued for Lake Erie, the Ottawa River and the Raisin
River (see Table HI-2). The Ottawa River, in the Maumee drainage area, has the highest fish contaminant concentrations and
the most restrictive fish consumption advisories.  The River Raisin and the Lake Erie FCAs ate milder (MDCH, 2001).
                  Table. Hl-2: State-of Michigan. ;Fish Consumption -Advisories/for-lake.-Erie.,
                               "  :;  Ottawa River-, and.fciveir Raisin, 200J'°      ••.   .   :.''--':
                                                           -'Fish Leupi-flu.)

Lake Erie '
Carp
Catfish
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Freshwater drum
Late trout
Rainbow trout
Smallmouth bass
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
White perch
Yellow Perch
Ottawa River
All species
River Raisin (hefew Monroe C
Carp
Freshwater drum
Smallmouth bass
White bass
: wv :•'.

*
*


A/T




A/B
T/*
A/B
A/T

*
am)
*
A/B

A/*
s-i
' A./H
*/»
A./T
A/M
T/*-

A/T

•

*
AM
- T/<-
*
1842'-

*•

.!:./•
.*./•
A/T
A/<*
A/«
AM
A/T
,:!,/•
T/*

A/T

* -

•
„§,/•
T/-J-
*
22-26

*
•
AM
A/B
J./T
A/*>
A/B
A/B
A/B

•



»

*
A/B
T/»>

26-30

*•

A/B
A/B
A/T
A/*t»
AM
A/B
A/B

•



•

*
A/B
T/->

,30+

•»
•
A/B
A/B
A/T
A/*
A/B

A/B

•



*

*
A/fl


                                                                 T - Limit consumption to I meal (K pound) per week.
                                                                 A = Unlimited consumption
* ~No consumption,
* = Limit consumption to 6 meals ('/4 pound) per year.
B ~ Limit consumption to 1 meal {'/j pound) per month.
' If there is only one symbol it is the advice for the whole population. When two symbols are shown, the first is the advice for the
"general population" and the second is the advice for "children age 15 and under and women who are pregnant, nursing, or expect to bear
children,"
Source: MCDH,2QQL                   .             -
 Hl-3  SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

 The J.R. Whiting plant is located in Monroe County, Michigan, a rural county bordered to the east by Lake Erie and to the
 north and south by more urban counties {Wayne County, Michigan and Lucas County, Ohio). In 2000, Monroe'had'a
 population of 145,945, a high rate of home ownership, and a higher median income than surrounding counties (U.S. Census
 Bureau, 2001). The socioeconomic characteristics of Monroe and neighboring counties are summarized in Table HI-3.
                                                                                                         HI-5

-------
          S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter HI: Background
                          Toble HI-3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Monroe and Neighboring Counties,

Population in 2000
Land area in 2000, km2 (mi2)
Persons per square mile, 2000
Metropolitan Area
Median household money income, 1997 model-based estimate
Persons below poverty, percent, 1997 model-based estimate
Housing units in 2000
Homeownership rate in 2000
Households in 2000
Persons per household in 2000
Households with persons under 18 years in 2000
High school graduates, 25 and older in 1990
College graduates, 25 and older in 1990
Monroe County, MI
145,945
1,427(551)
265
Detroit, Ml
$48,607
7,60%
56,471
81.00%
53,772
.2.69
39.10%
60,968
8,655
Wayne County, MI '
2,061,162
1,590(614)
3,357
Detroit, MI
$35,357
18.00%
826,145
66.60%
768,440
2.64
37.70%
926,603
180,822
Lucas County, OH
455,054
881 (340)
1,338 .
Toledo, OH
$37,064
13.60%
196,259
65.40%
182,847 •
2.44
34.10%
221,052
49,393
          Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
          HI-3,1, Major Industrial Activities

          Monroe County produces agricultural products such as soybeans, grains, corn, sugar beets, potatoes and alfalfa, and industrial
          processes such as auto-parts manufacturing, metal fabrication, cement, packaging and glass production (InfoMI, 2001).  Luna
          Pier, where J.R. Whiting is located, is primarily a resort town with a sandy beach and a half mile crescent shaped pier
          stretching out into Lake Erie (InfoMI, 2001).

          HI-3.2  Commercial Fisheries

          Commercial fishing on Lake Erie has generated between $2 million and $3 million of revenue per year for the last decade
          (USGS, 200 Ic).  A small share of this catch comes from the Michigan waters. Tables HI-4 and HI-5 show the pounds
          harvested and the revenue generated for the Michigan Lake Erie commercial fishery from 1985 to 1999, Despite fish
          consumption advisories, carp is the most important commercial species, comprising 72 percent of the catch and 51 percent of
          revenues over this 15-year period. Channel catfish, quillback, and bigmouth buffalo make up most of the remaining harvest
          and revenue (USGS, 200 Ic).

          HI-3.3  Recreational  Fisheries

          Lake Erie fish species also help support several charter boat companies.  In 1997, Lake Erie charter boats reported 1,727
          excursions with 8,284 anglers (Rakoczy and Wesander-Russell, 1998). Ninety percent of these anglers were local residents.
          About half of the 74,000 fish caught on charter boats that year were walleye and about half were yellow perch (Rakoczy and
          Wesander-Russell, 1998).

          Recreational anglers spent about 175,000 noncharter days fishing the Michigan waters of Lake Erie in 1994 (Rakoc?y and
          Svoboda, 1997).  Their most commonly caught species were yellow perch and walleye (44 percent and 35 percent of the total
          harvest, respectively). White bass, channel catfish, freshwater drum, and white perch made up most of the remaining catch,

          Total recreational hours (including charter) spent fishing Michigan's Lake Erie dropped in the early 1990s (see Table Hl-6),
          but the reasons for this arc unclear.  Some of the reduction in fishing days may be related to declines in species such as yellow
          perch.  However, Thomas and Haas (2000) note that the apparent declines in yellow perch and other species may reflect lower
          catchability resulting from an improved ability to avoid fishing gear because of improved water clarity rather than actual
          population reductions.
-
                                                                                                                  Hl-6

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, P Lynne O. Tudor
                                                                                                                     Hl-7

-------
v)
f
to
t»
          £
S

             •>•>"••••» ..... 4"—
                   - t   t in '   .' tn :   : .

                  Si   \%\   \~l   ii
                    :   | " \   i 73 :   i i
                               —j	4v-4	4.....4	4-


                                :   : f- : S : t- ! t*~ ! '
              4 ..... 4 ..... 4 ..... 4— -4 ..... 4 ...... 4 ..... 4,... .4..,., 4 ..... i ..... 4

                                      •
              :   i   ;   :   :   i   :   :   ; *^* :   :   ; '
   iHil:|s|g[|	|f!j
              roorSil   :   !   I   I   • t-. I i2 I   I S i
              loojoi   •   '   '   '   IP^J^T:   ; ^*2.;
                                               t vo

                                               : "t
              is
              t  fl • *™< • S,^ - VCJ







  t   :   j   *'   i   i   :   [   :  :  : O

^ f *"*^ .'   i ^3T  .*» t   ' oo «   • v% • *S • -^ ' *»•
d* • tn •   : vo ; vn i   J t^- >   i oo • C; r ^ :  '

                           .

                                   *
                                                         «
                                                             g;

                                                                r4 r tN
                                                                •V i M
                                                                fo ; *~*
                                                                «*> | *»
                                                                  t o»
                                                                  oo
                                                        : *"
                                                                ..,.4,...

                                                                O :
                                                                                       g
                                                                        £1
0,42
                                                                                          SO

                                                                                         ,i.
                                                                                          r-
                                                                                          Os
                                                                                                   n
                                                                              Os

                                                                              M

                                                                              <^.

                                                                              CN
                                                                              VO


                                                                              n
                                                                              VO
                                                                                                   n
                                                                                          n
                                                                                          (TM
                                                                                    n
                                                                                    VD
                                                                                       Wt
                                                                                                vo"
                                                                                          S
                                                                                                   n,
4,9
                                                                              s
                                                                                       o


                                                                                       *.
                                                                                       vo"
                                                                     3
                                                                                    g
J3



2


O
                                                                                                xt
                                                                                 §•
                                                                                 o
                                                                                             O1

                                                                                   II
                                                                                                      S
I
op


55

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.ft. Whiting
Chapter HI: Background
 Table Ml -6; Michigan Lake Erie Boat Fishery Angler Effort* :«snrf Primary Species Catch April Through '-'October,
                               -'.'.'.-"    1986 to 199*8     '   '    :' .-- .'  .    -'-'"  . :   ','  '      . -

1986"
1987
1988"
1989
1990
1991"
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Angfejc-BEwrs
2,068,779
2,455,903
4,362,452
3,799,067
2,482,242
805,294
836,216
935,249
1,012,595
na
na
na
na
Nuniber.ofYellow: Perch Harvested :
834,310
619,112
318,786
1,466,442
770,507
378,716
' 255,747
473,580
246,327
343,240
. 635,233
529,435
586,27?
Number $f Walleye Harvested
605,666
902,378
1,996,824
1,092,289
• 780,508
132,322
249,713
270,376
216,040
107,909
•174,607
112,400
1 14,607
" May through October.
* May through September,
na = not available.
Sources: Rakoczy and Svoboda, 1997; Thomas and I;!aas, 2000.
                                                                                                            ffJ-9

-------

-------
S 316{b) Cose Studies, Part H: 3JR. Whiting
                                    Chapter H2: Technical and Economic Descriptions
                      H2:   Technical   and  Economic
                         Descriptions  of   the
                   J.R.                       Facility
H2 -1  BASELINE OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS
The J.R. Whiting power plant operates four units. Three
are coal-fired steam electric units that use cooling water
withdrawn from Lake Erie (Units 1-3) while the fourth
unit (Unit 4) is an oil-fired gas turbine that does not require cooling water. The units began operation between July 1952 and
May 1968.

J.R. Whiting's total net generationln 1999 was 2.1 million MWh. The three steam, turbine units (Units 1-3) had capacity
utilization rates between 71.4 and 77.3 percent. Table H2-1 presents details for J.R. Whiting's four units.
Table .-.H2-.1: • Serwrafor
                                             .the^fc.--Whiting Piatjf (1999); •
Generator-
ID
1
2
3
A
Total
Capacity .

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H2: Tethnical and Economic Descriptions
 Figure H2-1: J.R. Whiting Net Electricity Generation 1970 -2000 (in MWh)
        3.000,000
        2.500.000
        2.000.000
        1.500.000
        1.000.000
         500.000
                1970
                             1975
                                                                                    1995
                                                                                                 2000
  Source: Form EIA-906.
 H2-2  CWIS CONFIGURATION AND WATER WITHDRAWAL

 The J.R. Whiting facility has one cooling water intake structure serving the entire facility. The facility withdraws cooling
 water from North Maumee Bay (located in western Lake Erie) via a recessed shoreline intake at the lake surface,  The intake
 has a fish barrier net located across the recessed portion of the shoreline and a dual entry/single exit traveling screen, as well
 as trash racks located at the entrance to intake structure. In 1996, the facility withdrew an average of 298 MOD at an average
 intake velocity of 1.03 feet per second. The total design intake flow for J.R. Whiting is 308 MOD.
 H2-2

-------
§ 3l6£b)Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                                                                          Chapter H3: Evaluation of 1<&E Data
                                                         H3:  .

                  Evaluation  of  I&E  Data
                                               - CHAPTER CONTENTS
                                                -IB-J-
  Species Vulnerable to l&E.i.,,,,^,. .„».,.,."» —
  Life flistories_of Major- Sgecjesfrnpinfcd and
  Entrained •vJ-T/jTI,.-.»., - r.'.."..". ,>",., .3,.,
                          - tolp^B^-
•JH3-3.I
BPA evaluated impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
from the CWIS of the J.R. Whiting facility using the
assessment methods described in Chapter AS of Part A
of this document. EPA's analysis focused on I&E
rates at J.R. Whiting before and after installation of a
deterrent net in 1980 to reduce impingement. The
facility's I&E monitoring program was designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the net, and therefore
included 2 years of sampling of baseline I&E losses
before installation of the net and several years of
impingement monitoring after (Wapora, 1979,1980;
Consumers Power Company, 1984,1988, 1994). EPA
evaluated these two sampling periods to estimate (1)
I&E rates with no technology in place, and (2) the
reduction in impingement resulting from the deterrent
net, Section H3-1 of this chapter lists fish species that are impinged and entrained at J.R. Whiting, Section H3-2 presents life
histories of the most abundant species in the facility's I&E collections, and Section H3-3 summarizes the facility's I&E
collection methods.  Section H3-4 presents annual I&E losses before installation of the deterrent net to reduce impingement,
Section H3-5 presents impingement losses following net installation, and Section H3-6 summarizes these results.

H3-1  SPECIES VULNERABLE TO  I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R, Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of X&E Data
                        Table H3-1: Species Vulnerable to -1*E by J.R, Whiting (cont.)
Common Name
Perch family
Pumpkinseed
Rainbow smelt
Shiner species
Smallmouth bass
Spottail shiner
Sucker species
Sunfish species
Tadpole madtom
Troutperch
Walleye
Warmouth
White bass
White perch
Yellow perch
: Scientific Name
\Percidae
\Lepomis gibbosus
1 Osmerus mordax mordax
jCyprinidac
\Micropterus dolomieui
\Notropis hudsonius
iCatostomidae
iCentrarchidae
\Noturus gyrinus
\Percopsis omiscomaycus
\Stizosledion vitreum
iLepomis gulosus
\Morone chrysops
IMorone americana
\ Percaflavescens
Recreational
A
\*


X


X


X
X
X
X
X
Commercial






X





X


1 Forage


X
X

- x


X
X





Sources: Wapora, 1979,1980.
H3-2   LIFE HISTORIES OF MAJOR SPECIES IMPINGED AND ENTRAINED

Alcwif e (Alosa 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). Alewives entered the Great Lakes region through the Welland Canal which connects
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and by 1949, they were present in Lake Michigan (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute,
2001). Because alewives are not a freshwater species, they are particularly susceptible to osmotic stress associated with
freshwater. Freshwater fish have larger kidneys which they use to constantly pump water from their bodies.  Since they lack
this physiological adaptation, alewives are more susceptible to environmental disturbances.

In the Great Lakes, alewives spend most of their time in deeper water. During spawning season, they move towards shallower
inshore waters to spawn.  Although alewives generally do not die after spawning, the fluctuating temperatures that the adults
are exposed to when they move to inshore waters often results in mortality due to osmotic stress. In certain years, temperature
changes caused by upwelling may result in a massive die-off of spawning alewives (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
Institute, 2001).

Alewife has been introduced to a number of lakes to provide forage for sport'fish (Jude et al, I987b).  Ecologically, alewife is
an important prey item for many fish.

Spawning is temperature-driven, beginning in the spring as water temperatures reach 13 to 15 *C, and ending when they
exceed 27 *C (Able and Fahay, 1998).  In their native coastal habitats, alewives spawn in the upper reaches of coastal rivers,
in slow-flowing sections of slightly brackish or freshwater. In the Great Lakes, alewives move inshore toward the outlets of
rivers and streams to spawn (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001).

In coastal habitats, 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 O.OS 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, !998).  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 tlie, 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),
H3-2

-------
 § 316{b) Case, Studies, Part H; J.R, Whiting
                                Chapter H3: Evaluation of !<&E Data
 Maturity is reached at 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.) formates and 284 to 308 ram (11.2 to 12.1 in.) for females (Abie 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; PSEG, 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.8 Arrived in the
 Great Lakes via the Welland Canal*

 Habitat: Wide-ranging, tolerates fresh to saline
 waters, travels in schools.

 Lifespan: May live tip to 8 years.e'd

 Fecundity; Females may lay from 60,000 to 300,000
 eggs at a time."
   Scott and Grossman, 1998.
   University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001.
   PSEG, I999c.
 * Waterfield, 1995.
   Kocik.2000,
   Abie and Fahay, 1998,
 «• Fay ct 81., 1983a.
Food source: Small fish, zoopiankton, fish eggs, amphipods,
mysids,*1

Prey for; Striped bass, weakfish, rainbow trout,

Life stage information:

 Eggs; demersal
*•   Found in waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep.*
»   Ar« 6.8 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 estuartae waters.

 Juveniles:
*   Stay on the bottom during the day and rise to the surface at
    night*
*•   Emigrate to ocean in summer and fell/

 Adults: anadromous
*   Reach maturity at 3-4 years for males and 4-5 years for
    females/
*-   Average size at maturity is 265-278 mm (1 0.4-1 0.9 in) for
    males and 284-308 mm (! 1 ,2-12. 1 to) for females/
Gizzard shad (borasoma ceped/anum)

Gizzard shad is a member of the family Clupeidae. Its distribution is widespread throughout Hie eastern United States and
into southern Canada, with occurrences from the St. Lawrence River south to eastern Mexico (Miller, 1960; Scott and
Grossman, 1973). Gizzard shad are found in a range of salinities from freshwater inland rivers to brackish estuaries and
marine waters along the Atlantic Coast of the United States (Miller,  1960; Carlander, 1969).  Gizzard shad often occur in
schools (Miller, 1960).  Young-of-year are considered an important forage fish {Miller, 1960), though their rapid growth rate
limits the duration of their susceptibility to many predators (BodoSa, 1966). In Lake Erie, gizzard shad are most populous in
the shallow .waters of western Lake Erie, around the Bass Islands, and in protected bays and mouths of tributaries (Bodola,


Spawning occurs from late winter or early spring to late summer, depending on temperature.  Spawning has been observed in
early June to July in Lake Erie (Bodola, 1966), and in May elsewhere in Ohio {Miller, 1960), The spawning period generally
lasts 2 weeks {Miller, 1960). Males and females release sperm and eggs while swimming in schools near the surface of the
water.  Eggs sink slowly to the bottom or drift with the current, and adhere to any surface they encounter (Miller, 1960).
Females release an average of 378,990 eggs annually {Bodola, 1966), which average 0.75  rnm (0,03 in.) in diameter (Wallus
etal, 1990).
                                                                                                          H3-3

-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of ME Data
Hatching time can be anywhere from 36 hours to 1 week, depending on water temperature (Bodola, 1966), Young shad may
remain in upstream natal waters if conditions permit (Miller, 1960).  By age 2 all gizzard shad are sexually mature, though
some may mature as early as age 1 (Bodola, 1966). Unlike many other fish, fecundity in gizzard shad declines with age
(Electric Power Research Institute, 1987).

Gizzard shad generally live up to 6 years in Lake Erie, but individuals up to 10 years have been reported in southern locations
(Scott and Grossman., 1973). Mass mortalities have been documented in several locations during winter months, due to
extreme temperature changes (Williamson and Nelson, 1985).
GIZZARD SHAD
(Dorosoma cepedianum)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: Gizzard shad.
Similar species: Threadfin shad."
Geographic range: Eastern North America from the
St. Lawrence River to Mexico.biC
Habitat: Inhabits inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and
reservoirs to brackish estuaries and ocean waters,1*5
Lifcspan: Gizzard shad generally live 5 to 6 years,
but have been reported up to 10 years.b
Fecundity: Maturity is reached by age 2; females .
produce average of 378,990 eggs.b
" Trautman, 1981.
11 Miller, I960.
e Scott and Grossman, 1973.
Fish graphic from Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, 2001.
Food sources: Larvae consume protozoans, zooplankton, and
small crustaceans.0 Adults are mainly herbivorous, feeding on
plants, phyloplankton, and algae. They are one of the few species
able to feed solely on plant material.b
Prey for: Walleye, white bass, largemouth bass, crappie, among
others (immature shad only).b
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
*• During spawning, eggs are released near the surface and sink
to the bottom, adhering to any surface they touch,
Larvae: pelagic
* Larvae serve as forage to many species.
> After hatching, larvae travel in schools for the first few
months.
Adults
* May grow as large as 52.1 cm (20.5 in.)."
»• May be considered a nuisance species because of sporadic
mass winter dte-offs.3

 Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides}

 Emerald shiner is a member of the family Cyprinidae.  It is found in large open lakes and rivers from Canada south throughout
 the Mississippi Valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama (Scott and Grossman, 1-973).  Emerald shiner prefer clear waters in the
 mid to upper sections of the water column, and are most often found in deep, slow moving rivers and in Lake Erie (Trautman,
 1981).  The emerald shiner is one of the most prevalent fishes in Lake Erie (Trautman, 1981). Because of their small size,
 they are an important forage fish for many species.

 Spawning occurs from July to August in Lake Erie (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Females lay anywhere from 870 to 8,700
 eggs (Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970), which hatch within 24 hours (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Young-of-year remain
 in large schools in inshore waters until the fall, when they move into deeper waters to overwinter (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
 Young-of-year average 5.1 to 7.6 cm (2 to 3 in.) in length (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

 Emerald shiner are sexually mature by age 2, though some larger individuals may mature at age I (Campbell and
 MacCrimmon, 1970).  Most do not live beyond 3 years of age (Fuchs,  1967). Adults typically range from 6.4 to 8.4 cm (2.5
 to 3.3 in.) (Trautman, 1981). Populations may fluctuate dramatically from year to year (Trautman, 1981).
 H3-4

-------
 S 316{b) Case Studies, Port H: J.R. Whiting
                               Chapter H3: Evaluation of IAE Data
                EMERALD SHINER
               (Notropis atherinoidcs)
  Family; Cyprinidae (herrings).

  Common names: Emerald shiner.

  Similar species: Silver shiner, rosyface shiner."

  Geographic range: From Canada south throughout
  the Mississippi valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama.1*-11

  Habitat:  Large open lakes and rivers,b

  Litespan: Emerald shiner live to 3 years.M

  Fecundity: Mature by age 2. Females can lay
  anywhere from approximately 870-8,700 eggs.3'
Food source: Mierocrustaceans, midge larvae,, zooplankton,
algae.a

Prey for: Gulls, terns, mergansers, cormorants, smallmouth bass,
yellow perch, and others/

Life stage Information:

 Eggs: demersal
*   Eggs hatch in less than 24 hours.*1

 Larvae: pelagic
»   Individuals from different year classes can have varying body
   "proportions and fin length, as can individuals from different
    localities,"

 Adults;
>   Typically range in size from 6,4 to 8.4 cm {2.5 to 3.3 in.).a
  * Trauttnan, 1981.
   Froese and Pauly, 2000,
   Campbell and MacCrSmmon, 1970.
  " Scotland Grossman, J973.
  Pish graphiccourt^
Carp (Cyprinus carp/0 carpto)

Carp is a member of the family of carps and minnows, Cyprinidae, and is abundant in Lake Erie, Carp were first introduced
from Asia to the United States in the 18?0*s and 1880's, and by the 1890's were abundant in the Mawmee River and in the
west end of Lake Erie (Trautman, 1981).  Carp are most abundant in low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high levels or
organic matter, but tolerate all types of bottom and clear to turbid waters {Trautman, 1981).  Carp overwinter in deeper water
and migrate to shallow water, preferably marshy environments with submerged aquatic vegetation in advance of the spawning
season (McCrimmon, 1968}-. Adults feed on a wide variety of plants and animals, and juveniles feed primarily on plankton.

Carp are often considered a nuisance species because of their habit of uprooting vegetation and increase turbidity when
feeding {McCrimmon, 1968; Scott and Grossman, 1973). Carp are not widely popular fishes for anglers, although carp
fishing may be an important recreational activity in some parts of the United States (Scott and Grossman, 1973). They are
occasionally harvested commercially and sold for food (Scott and Grossman, 1973),

Male carp reach sexual maturity between ages 3 and. 4, and the females reach maturity between ages 4 and 5 (Swee and
McCrimmon, 1966). Spawning can occur at temperatures between 16 and 28 *C (60,8 and 82,4 °F) with optimum activity
between 19 and 23 *C {66,2 and 73,4 "F) (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966). Fecundity in carp can range from 36,000 eggs for a
39,4 cm (15.5 in.) fish to 2,208,000 in a 85.1 cm (33.5 in.) fish (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966) but individuals may spawn
only about 500 eggs at a given time (Dames and Moore,  1977a).  Eggs are demersal and stick to submerged vegetation.

Eggs hatch 3 to 6 days after spawning and larvae tend to  lie in shallow water among vegetation (Swee and McCrimmon,
1966).  The lifespan of a typical carp in North  America is less than 20 years (McCrimmon, 1968). Adult carp can reach 102-
122 em (40-48 in.) long, and weigh 18-27 kg (40-60 Ib) {Trautman, 1981).
                                                                                                         H3-5

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port Hi J.R. Whiting
                                                                                  Chapter H3: Evaluation of IAE Data
                          CARP
                  (Cyprinus carpio carpio)
   Family: Cyprinidae (minnows or carp).

   Common names: Carp.

   Similar species: Goldfish, buffalofishes, carpsuckers."

   Geographic range: Wide-ranging throughout the United
   States.

   Habitat: Low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high
   levels or organic carbon. Tolerates relatively wide range
   of turbidity. Often associated with submerged aquatic
   vegetation.*1

   Lifcspan: Less than 20 years.b

   Fecundity: 36,000 to 2,208,000 eggs per season.*

   • Traulman, 1981.
   11 McCrimmon, 1968.
   c Swee and McCrimmon, 1966.
   * Wang, 1986a.
   Fish graphic from North Dakota Game and Pish Department (1986).
Food source: Omnivorous; diet includes invertebrates,
small molluscs, ostracods, and crustaceans as well as
roots, leaves, and shoots of water plants.1*

Prey for: Juveniles provide limited forage for northern
pike, smaltmouth bass, striped bass, and longnosed gar,
as well as green frogs, bullfrogs, turtles, snakes, mink,b

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
*•    During spawning, eggs are released in shallow,
     vegetated water. Eggs are demersal and stick to
     submerged vegetation.
*•    Eggs hatch in 3-6 days.*

 Larvae:
»•    Larvae are found in shallow, weedy, and muddy
     habitats,11

 Adults:
 *•    May reach lengths of 102-122 cm (40-48 in,).*
 Yellow  perch (Perca flavescens)

 The yellow perch is a member of the Percidae family and is found in fresh waters in the northern and eastern United States
 and across eastern and central Canada.  Yellow perch are also occasionally seen in brackish waters (Scott and Crossman,
 1973). They are typically found in greatest numbers in clear waters with low gradients and abundant vegetation (Trautman,
 1981). Perch feed during the day on immature insects, larger invertebrates, fishes, and fish eggs (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

 Yellow perch are of major commercial and recreational value in Lake Erie, and the Great Lakes are a major source of yellow
 perch to the commercial fishing industry.

 Sexual maturity is reached at age 1 for males and at ages 2 and 3 for females (Saila et al., 1987). Perch spawn in the spring in
 water temperatures ranging from 6.7 to 12.2 *C (44-54 *F) (Scott and Crossman, 1973),  Adults move to shallower water to
 spawn usually near rooted vegetation,  fallen trees, or .brush. Spawning takes place at night or in the early morning.  Females
 lay all their eggs in a single transparent strand that is approximately 3 cm (1.2 in.) wide (Saila et al., 1987) and up to 2,1 m (7
 ft) long (Scott and Grossman, 1973). These egg cases are semi-buoyant and attach to submerged vegetation or occasionally to
 the bottom and may contain 2,000-90,000  eggs (Scott and Crossman, 1973). In western  Lake Erie, fecundities for yellow
 perch were reported to range from 8,618 to 78,741 eggs (Saila et al., 1987),

 Yellow perch larvae hatch within about 8-10 days and are inactive for about 5 days until the yolk is  absorbed (Scott and
 Crossman, 1973). Young perch are initially pelagic and  found in schools, but become demersal after their first summer (Saila
 etal., 1987).

 Adult perch are inactive at night and rest on the bottom (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Females generally grow faster than
 males and reach a greater final length (Scott and Crossman, 1973). In Lake Erie, perch may reach up to approximately 31 cm
 (12 in.) in total length and have been reported to live up to  11 years.
  H3-6

-------
 S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                         Chapter H3: Evaluation of t&E Data
                    YELLOW PERCH
                     (Percajlavescens)
   Family: Pereidae (perches).

   Common names: Yellow perch, perch, American perch,
   lake perch."   .

   Similar species: Dusky darter.b

   Geographic range: Northern and eastern United States,0'

   Habitat: Lakes, ponds, creeks, rivers. Found in clear
   water near vegetation.'*

   Lifespan: Up to 11 years.*

   Fecundity: 2,000-90,000 eggs.'
Food source: Immature insects, larger invertebrates,
fishes, and fish eggs.c

Prey for: Almost all warm to cool water predatory fish
including bass, sunfish, crappies, walleye, sauger,
northernpike, mwskellunge, and other perch, as well as a
number of birds.*

Life stage information:

 Eggs: semi-buoyant
*   Eggs laid in long tubes containing 2,000-90,000
    eggs,"                            '   ..
>   Eggs usually hatch in 8-10 days.0

 Larvae: pelagic
*•   Larvae are 4.1 -5,5 mm (0.16-0.22 in.) upon hatching,15
*   Found in schools with other species/
»   Become demersal during the first summer/

 Adults: demersal
*   Reach 'up to 31  cm (12 in.) in Lake Erie.'
*•   Found in schools near the bottom.
   " Froese and Pauiy, 2001.
   * Trautman, 1981.
   * Scott and Grossman, 1973,
   * Sailaetal,, 1987b.
   Fish graphic courtesy of New YorkSportfishingand Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Channel catfish (Xctaiams punctatus)

Channel catfish is a member of the Ictaluridae (North American freshwater catfish) family.  It is found from Manitoba to
southern Quebec, and as far south as the Gulf of Mexico (Dames and Moore, 1977a). Channel catfish can be found in
freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. They prefer deep water with clean gravel or boulder substrates and low to moderate
currents (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 200 Ib).

Channel catfish reach sexual maturity at ages 5-8, and females will lay 4,000-35,000 eggs dependent on.body weight (Scott
and Grossman, 1998). Spawning begins when temperatures reach  24-29 "C (75-85 *F) in late spring or early summer.
Spawning occurs in natural nests such as undercut banks, rnuskrat  burrows, containers, or submerged logs.  Eggs
approximately 3.5 mm (0.1 in) in diameter are deposited in a large, Hat, gelatinous mass (Wang, 1986a). After spawning, the
male guards the nest and fans it to keep it aerated. Eggs hatch in 7-10 days at 24-26  °C (75-79 *F) and the newly hatched
larvae remain near the nest for several days (Wang, I986a), Young fish prefer to inhabit riffles and turbulent areas. Channel
catfish are very popular with anglers and are relatively prized as a  sport fish (Dames  and Moore, 1977a).
                                                                                                          H3-7

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                        Chapter M3: Evaluation of I4E Data
                   CHANNEL CATFISH
                    (Ictalarus punctatus)
     Family: Ictaluridae (North American freshwater
     catfish).

     Common names: Channel catfish, graceful catfish.3

     Similar species: Blue and white catfishes.1"

     Geographic range: South-central Canada, central
     United States, and northern Mexico.8

     Habitat: Freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. Prefer
     deep water with clean gravel or boulder substrates.'

     Lifcspan: Maximum reported age: 16 years."

     Fecundity-: 4,000 to 35,000 eggs depending on body
     weight."
Food source: Small fish, crustaceans, clams, snails."

Prey for: Chestnut lamprey,"

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
>   3-4 mm in diameter.1*
»   Hatch in 7-10 days,11

 Larvae:
>•   Remain near nest for a few days then disperse to
    shallow water.1*
*•   Approx. 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) upon hatching,*1

 Adults: demersal
'*   Average length: 30-36 cm (12-14 in.).*
.»•   Maximum length: up to 104 cm (41 in.)."
     " Froese and Pauly, 2001.
     k Trautman, 1981.
     e Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001b.
     11 Wang, 1986a.
     * Scott and Grossman, 1998.
     Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishlng and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Freshwater drum {Aplodinotus grunniens)

Freshwater drum is a member of the drum family, Sciaenidae, Possibly exhibiting the greatest latitudinal range of any North
American freshwater species, its distribution ranges from Manitoba, Canada, to Guatemala, and throughout the Mississippi
River drainage basin (Scott and Grossman, 1973). The freshwater drum is found in deeper pools of rivers and in Lake Erie at
depths between 1.5 and 18 m (5 and 60 ft) (Trautman, 1981). Drum is not a favored food item of either humans or other fish
(Edsall, 1967; Trautman, 1981; Bur, 1982).

Based on studies in Lake Erie, the spawning season peaks in July (Daiber, 1953), although spent females have been found as
late as September (Scott and Grossman, 1973).  Females in Lake Erie produce anywhere from 43,000 to 508,000 eggs
(Daiber, 1953).  The eggs are buoyant, floating at the surface of the water (Daiber, 1953; Scott and Grossman, 1973). This
unique quality may be one explanation for the freshwater drum's exceptional distribution (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Yolk-
sac larvae are buoyant as well, floating inverted at the surface of the water with the posterior end of the yolk sac and tail
touching the surface (Swedberg and Walburg, 1970).

Larvae develop rapidly over the course of their first year.  Maturity appears to be reached earlier among freshwater drum
females from the Mississippi River than females from Lake Erie. Daiber (1953)  found Lake Erie females begin maturing at
age 5, and 46% reach maturity by age 6. Lake Erie males begin maturing at age 4, and by age 5,79% had reached maturity.

The maximum age for fish in western Lake Erie is 14 years for females and 8 years for males (Edsall, 1967).  Adults tend to
be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long.
113-8

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J,R. WMting
                               Chapter H3: Evaluation of !<&£ Data
               FRESHWATER DRUM
                (Aplodinotus gruimiens)
     Family: Seiaenidae.

     Common names: freshwater drum, white perch,
     sheepshead,8

     Similar species: white bass, carpsuckers."

     Geographic range: From Manitoba, Canada, to
     Guatemala, They can be found throughout the
     Mississippi River drainage basin.

     Habitat: Bottoms of medium- to large-sized rivers
     and lakes,b

     LifcKpan; The'maximum age for fish in western
     Lake Erie is 14 years for females and 8 years for
     males.5

     Fecundity: Females in Lake Erie produce from
     43,000 to 508,000 eggs,*
Food sources: Juveniles: Cladocerans (plankton), copepods,
dipterans.*1

Adults: Dipterans, cladoeerans,d darters, emerald shiner.5

Prey for: Very few species.

Life stage information:

 Eggs: pelagic
>   The buoyant eggs float at the surface of the water, possibly
    accounting for the species* high distribution,11

 Larvae:
>   Prolarvae float inverted at the surface of the water with the
    posterior end of the yolk sac and their tail touching the
    surface/

 Adults:
*   The species owes its name to the audible "drumming"
    sound that it is often heard emitting during summer
    months."
»   Tend to be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long,"
     "• Trautman, 1981
     b Proese and Pauly, 2001,
     e Edsall, 1967,
     J Bur, 1982.
     * Scott and Grossman, 1973.
      Swedberg and Walburg, 1970.
     Pish graphic courtesy of New York Sportflshing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program. 2001.
White bass  (Morone chrysops)

White bass is a member of the temperate bass family, Moronidae, It ranges from the St. Lawrence River south through the
Mississippi valley to the Gulf of Mexico, though the species is most abundant in the Lake Erie drainage (Van Oosten, 1942).
White bass has both commercial and recreational fishing value.

Spawning take place in May in Lake Erie and may extend into June, depending on temperatures. Spawning bouts can last
from 5 to 10 days (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Adults typically spawn near the surface, and eggs are fertilized as they sink to
the bottom. Fecundity increases directly with size in females; the average female lays approximately 565,000 eggs,- Eggs
hatch within  46 hours at a water temperature of 15,6 °C (60 *F) (Scott and Crossman, 1973),

Larvae grow rapidly, and young white bass reach lengths of 13 to 16 cm (5.1 to 6,3 in.) by the fall (Scott and Crossman,
1973), They feed on microscopic crustaceans, insect larvae, and small fish. As adults, the diet switches to fish.  Yellow perch
are an especially important prey species for white bass (Scott and Crossman, 1973).

Most white bass mature at age 3 (Van Oosten, 1942). Upon reaching sexual maturation, adults tend to fonn unisexual
schools, traveling up to 11.1 km (6.9 mi) a day. Adults occupy the upper portion of the water column, maintaining depths of
6 m or less (Scott and Crossman, 1973). On average, adults are between 25.4 to 35.6 cm (10 to 14 in.) long (Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, 2001b).  White bass rarely live beyond 7 years (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
                                                                                                           H3-9

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port H: J.R. Whiting
                                Chapter H3: Evaluation of l&E Data
                    WHITE BASS
                  (Morone chrysops)
     Family: Moronidae.

     Common names: White bass, silver bass.

     Similar species: White perch, striped bass."

     Geographic range: St. Lawrence River south
     through the Mississippi valley to the Gulf of
     Mexico, highly abundant in the Lake Erie
     drainage.1*

     Habitat: Occurs in lakes, ponds, and rivers.*

     Lifespan: White bass may live up to 7 years.*5

     Fecundity: The average female lays
     approximately 565,000 eggs,b
Food source: Juveniles consume microscopic crustaceans,
insect larvae, and small fish," Adults have been found to
consume yellow perch, bluegill, white crappie,b and carp.M

Prey for: Other white bass."

Life stage Information:

 Eggs; demersal
*•   Eggs are approximately 0.8 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter."

 Larvae: pelagic
*   White bass experience their maximum growth in their first
    year.h

 Adults-.
*•   Travel in schools, traveling up to 11,1  km (6.9. mi) a day."
»•   Most mature at age 3.*
*•   Adults prefer clear waters with firm bottoms.8
      Trautman, 1981.
      Scott and Grossman, 1973.
      Frocsc and Pauly, 2000.
      Cariander, 1997.
     • VanOostcn, 1942.
     Fish graphic courtesy of New Yoifc Sportfisliing and Aquatic Resources EducationalProgmro. 20Q1. ^
 Walleye (Stizostedion  vitreum)

 Walleye is a member of the perch family, Percidae. It is found in freshwater from as far north as the Mackenzie River near
 the Arctic Coast to as far south as Georgia, and is common in the Great Lakes. Walleye are popular sport fish both in the
 summer and winter. They generally feed at night because their eyes are sensitive to bright daylight (Scott and Crossman,
 1998).         '

 Walleye spawn in spring or early summer, although the exact timing depends on latitude and water temperature. Spawning
 has been reported at temperatures of 5.6 to 11.1  *C (42 to 52 °F), in rocky areas in white water or shoals of lakes (Scott and
 Grossman, 1998). They do not fan nests like other similar species, but instead broadcast eggs over open ground, which
 reduces their ability to survive environmental stresses (Cariander, 1997). Females produce between.'48,000 and 614,000 eggs
 in Lake Erie, and the eggs are 1.4 to 2.1 mm (0.06 to 0.08 in.) in diameter (Cariander, 1997). Eggs hatch In 12-18 days (Scott
 and Crossman, 1998). Larvae are approximately 6.0 to 8.6 mm (0.23 to 0.33 in.) at hatching (Carlsnder, 1997).

 Walleye develop more slowly in the northern extent of their range; in Lake Erie they are 8.9 to 20.3 cm (3.5 to 8.0 in.)  by the
 end of the first growing season.  Males generally mature at 2-4 years and females at 3-6 years (Scott and Crossman, 1998),
 and females tend to grow faster than males (Cariander, 1997).  Walleye may reach up to 78.7 cm (31 in.) long in Lake Erie
 (Scott and Crossman, 1998).
 H3-10

-------
 S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                        Chapter H3: Evaluation of I&E Data
                        WALLEYE •
                    (Stizostcdion vitretim)
      Family: Percidae (perch),

      Common names: Blue pike, glass eye, gray pike,
      marble eye, yellow pike-perch.*

      Similar species: Sauger.b

      Geographic range: Canada to southern United States.*

      Habitat: Large, shallow, turbid lakes; large streams or
      rivers.0

      Lifespan: Maximum reported age; 12 years,b

      Fecundity; 48,000 to 614,000 in Lake Erie."
Food source: Insects, yellow perch, freshwater drum,
crayfish, snails, frogs/

Prey for: Sea lamprey, northern pike, muskellunge,
sauger."

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
*• •  1.4 - 2.1 mm (0.06 - 0.08 in.) in diameter."
»   Hatch in 12-18 days/

 Larvae; pelagic
>   Approx. 6.2 - 7.3 mm (0.24 - 0.29 in.) upon
    hatching.*1

 Adults: demersal
*•   Maximum length: up to 78.7 cm (31 in.).c
      4 Froese and Pauly, 2001.
      " Carlander, 1997.
      ' Scott and Grossman, J998.
      Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
 H3-3  J,R.  WHITINGS METHODS FOR ESTIMATING

 Sampling of impingement and entrapment was conducted from 1978 to 1991 at the J.R. Whiting facility. In 1980, a deterrent
 net was installed to reduce high.impingement rates. Sampling methods are described in the following sections.

 H3-3.1   Impingement Monitoring

 The methods used by the J.R. Whiting facility to monitor impingement from April through December 1979 are described in
 Wapora (1980). There were-76 sampling events, with the most frequent sampling in the spring and fall, and comparatively
 less sampling in summer. Impingement monitoring involved backwashing intake traveling screens to remove debris and
impinged organisms, and then collecting organisms for approximately 24 hours. During periods of high impingement rates,  •
 sampling periods were shortened. The collected organisms were then backwashed from me screens into a 9.5 mm (0.375 in.)
mesh basket placed in the backwash trough adjacent to the traveling screen. Impingement sampling duration and intake and
discharge water quality parameters were recorded, The total number of each species offish was determined, and a
representative subset of 25 fish per species were measured and weighed. Any remaining fish beyond the 25 selected for
measurement were counted and weighed as a group.

Because the duration of sampling varied from collection to collection, impingement counts were first normalized to the total
intake volume for the sampling period.  Impingement densities were then scaled to estimate the total number of each species
impinged using daily intake volumes for the monitoring period. The estimated impingement totals reported in Wapora (1980)
were based on the assumption that sampling densities are representative of the overall rate of impingement.

Wapora (1980) does not contain an annual estimate based on the April-December 1979 impingement data. However,
Consumers Power Company (1984) presents impingement estimates for 19 major species for March 1978 to March 1979,
March 1979 to December 1979, February 1980 to December 1980, January 1981 to December 198.1, January 1982 to
December 1982, and January 1983 to December 1983. These annual rates were evaluated by EPA, as described in Sections
H3-4 and H3-5.
                                                                                                      H3-U

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                                                                               Chapter H3: Evaluation of I4E bata
H3-3.2   Entrainment Monitoring

Entrainment monitoring methods for the J.R. Whiting facility are reported in Wapora (1980).  Sampling took place on 25
dates from April through October 1979, with most sampling in June and July. Entrained eggs and larvae were collected from
the discharge canal using a 0.351 mm (0.01 in.) mesh plankton net fitted with a screw-on PVC collection bucket. On each
sampling date, four samples were collected at various times during the day and night. Nets were placed in die canal
perpendicular to the flow for a sampling period of at least 10 minutes,

The flow rate through the sampling net was monitored using a flowrneter centered in the mouth of the net. For each sample,
the total collection time and flow rate were recorded and used to calculate the total volume of water filtered.  Once sample
collection was complete, the resulting collection of organisms was transferred to a 10% formalin solution to which Rose
Bengal stain was added to facilitate sorting of ichthyoplankton.

Each entrainment sample was rinsed with tap water in a 0.125 mm (0.005 in.) sieve, and then washed into an enamel sorting
tray. Eggs and larvae were removed from any debris. Samples containing greater than 100 larvae were subsampled wrth a
plankton splitter, and no sample was split to less than 12.5% of the initial count

All larvae were counted and the species and developmental stages were noted.  In addition, up to 50 larvae of each species
and developmental stage were measured to the nearest 0.1 millimeter. Eggs were counted and up to 50 per sample were
measured to the nearest 0.1 millimeter.

Because the duration of entrainment sampling varied from collection to collection, entrainment counts were first normalized
'to the total volume of water filtered during sampling. Entrainment densities were then scaled to the daily intake volumes for
the monitoring period to estimate the total number of each species entrained. The estimated entrainment totals were based on
the assumption that sampling densities are representative of the overall rate of entrainment.  Since no annual estimate was
given, EPA used entrainmenl losses for October through August as an annual estimate for the calculations described in
 Sections H3-4 and H3-5.

 H3-4  J.R.  WHUTN&'S ANNUAL !<&E WITHOUT THE  NET

 H3-4.1  Annual  Impingement Without the Net

 Annual impingement before installation of the deterrent net to reduce impingement is presented in the following tables. Table
 H3-2 presents the annual number of impinged organisms without me net as estimated by J.R. Whiting, Table H3-3 presents
 these losses expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table H3-4 presents impingement losses of fishery species expressed as lost
 fishery yield, and Table H3-5 presents impingement losses expressed as production foregone. Details of these calculations
 are provided Chapter AS of Part A of this document.
  7/5-72

-------
       *
 .W
 -C
ir
T3
     t
    s
 IU
• -61

Z
    I-;
 I
 1
 JQ

 &
 3
 I

 t

1


  i

 '-X
    Us *

     M
           :SRI'S!R   Is
           i: CO ; •* : oo   ; 3.

         -sSi^;^   |§


           -. * SC? ^ 00 * ^O   * *"*
           s t ^4 ', ^v * ***i   I f***
           w i f*4 t **Jt* ; f*^   I I"™1
             :
                                S: P4 i
                          	    ; n
          O :•«»•: (N ! O   : •*
          »-« : w% i r*i * »-«   'iA
          o : o ; o s o   to
          o : _ :• Q t -H   : O   : ^ :
          >i:O:^iO   >o*   li **•*



          ,..,j	4	4-	-t	*...j.....i	
                          ;*>   ••'}•:
                 i4»'» *+^*>x*+>»**>^t-»*i"».f» 4* »,**.>***»•

          c4;oo:Otoo    : <^    tr^jg
           oo    > C^ i   ;»*
           f\%\\

           .,4'*<"H-"
                          ; t-    : JS :  •
                           IS    if:;!
                       .
             : of: r» :  : m : oo
                                 ISIS
                                  *""
                  «-   ~
              S; .-. : o; : — •
              : oo ; m • oo
             ..<••—•»	-I"	
                           : O   :
' ^*   : ^. • '
I*   !S!:
           O • ""^ ' SO • *™*
           Tf : <^> ! _? : ">
           fo i    ; *-^ :
                               -. : D :
                               S j OH : H
                oo
                I-;

               'I
                                           I
                                        t~ so


                                        "if
                                        *g S
                                        *£? »5
              n
              ^ »5
              s-s
              S 8
              S -g
              es s
                                          2^
                                          s?

Th
                                                                                                                            ! ">

                                                                                                                            IS

-------
 S
 I
to
I
CO
U)
I.

          u
             t
                           : oo ;._,:—•

                       • •<	<	•>	^-
               f^, I OS_ I O, • OS > O) • J~J • «-«

               tm;m:f»;csi;r'i:so
    cNivoioivo'csfioo'loo"
               M ; ON • O •  v

                                                         OS. • OO" ' jf ; oT • OC
                                                                   •1-
  1 i oo ; n • oo ; so
  1 ; r- • OO - f" ' OO
  • ; oq :  . oo : o
                                                         "isiSiSJi
                                                         O ; ™* : it*- ' m-ir i o
                                              » ; SO ; O ; C-4
                                               ; | Q i SO i O i I
                                               • ; 3- : O i -*f • i
                                              

                                              S-i^lni^il
                                              ° i oo * oC; ex? ; *•*
                                                ;   ;   ;   ;' "™*
I"** ; CS ; 1*st" ; O ; i


C^ ; *t\ • Q^ ; »A ; -

*^ j O • OO^ ; C? ; !
                                                          • ~« ' "& ' ~~ '- ''
                                                          U!g!|i|

                                                        bs!&;|!ji|
                                                        f"* ; "** , X-* ' »«S • ^«S
                                                                        sis
                                                                        
                                                             O •
                          oo
                          <>
                        y si)




                        fi-l
                        ^ ^)
                        «2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of I&E Data
H3-4.2  Annual Entrapment Without the Net

Annual entrainment before net installation is presented in the following tables. Table H3-6 presents the annual number of
entrained organisms without the net as estimated by j.R, Whiting, Table H3-7 presents these losses expressed as age 1
equivalents, Table H3-8 presents entrainment losses expressed as lost commercial and recreational fishery yields, and Table
H3-9 presents entrainment losses expressed as production foregone. Details of these calculations are provided in Chapter AS
of Part A of this document                   .

H3-5  J.R, WHITINGS ANNUAL IMPINGEMENT WITH THE NET

Results of impingement monitoring after installation of the net indicate 92% reduction in impingement averaged over the
years  1981-1991. The tables in this section present annual impingement rates after net installation. Table H3-I0 presents
annual impingement (numbers of organisms) with the net as estimated by J.R, Whiting, Table H3-11 presents these losses
expressed as age 1 equivalents, Tabie H3-12 presents impingement losses with the net expressed as lost commercial and
recreational fishery yields, and Table H3-13 presents losses with the net expressed as production foregone.  Details of these
calculations are provided in Chapter AS of Part A of this document. No entrainment monitoring was conducted after net
installation.

M3-6  SUMMARY

Table H3-I4 summarizes total I&E at J.R, Whiting before net installation in terms of raw losses, age 1 equivalents, fishery
yield, and production foregone. Table H3-15 displays this information for impingement at J.R, Whiting after installation of
the deterrent net, EPA estimates that without the net, baseline impingement damages at J.R. Whiting amount to^
21,493,415 age 1 equivalent fish per year, representing 844,301 pounds of foregone fishery yield each year. With the net, lost
fishery yield is reduced to 62,730 pounds per year. The following chapters discuss the estimated economic value of baseline
I&E damages at J.R. Whiting without the net, the economic benefits of the deterrent net in reducing baseline impingement,
and the potential economic benefits of various §• 316(b) regulatory options.
                                                                                                       H3-15

-------
u.
e
<0
         O
               Oh

                        UJ ^
                        __ o
                        2 E
                          i
                         
-------
•.
    1 1
   Ill
       D.
,T  ,


II
 «> *!3
   S>B

     a


     P
nel

sh
      1 a
    CO 'jz
       la




      I
              l^lil* I00 llll^li^ i

                                                    : «> i
            ...4	4"-—i—.i~{	4—•••*"•—;	4——I	,-j	f	4....-+...;.4	4--":
                                                       : \D : O* ; oo
              i 0 j
                        iZ;rsf:^!A!Zjg:«»;<->$'|S;oi;
                                                   ,»4".»»>S-*>"^"»"4"
              <'<«->"*>*.'****"'<*"'''''-><**»*"*>"-''-«*-<*>**>-"*'''>*<"*><*''''


              ;      !    !   I'M   I
                                                                      O,
                                                                     »—<
                                                                     06



                                                                     1
                                                                          Jg

                                                                          "S
                                                                       5 B.
                                                                        Cw-4
                                                                       r-! 00

                                                                       <» t!
                                                                        «•« s
f  S
•£!

It


i'S'

81
                                                                        Ji
                                                                        *••
                                                                 U ° 8
                                                                 ^ *^ s

                                                                 1^52
                                                                 1^2

                                                              ^ IsS
                                                              ^ ~ ei *~

                                                               fi"i5g
                                                               sa *o *™» w
                                                                 4^ O *&
                                                               o "s*"^4 r^
                                                              z I  SS
                                                               ii * *2E
                                                              < «  5
                                                                        £2
                                                                                                                     I  E;

-------
3.

&

LJJ

3
tl.
O
W>
M

Iffl
       •a
        u
        w
        w
        w

        k

       £
         I
S
 u
g
               •B
              it

                ll
                '* G
Shi
              •a.  .
              BU **«


              u "
              II
              5  K
            J. ng  .

            il

               I
                                                               : <~«l j   •  ro • o • o*
                                                                — '      "•     •

                                            =    =

                      •••• ..... ....,.»,..i.,.,,4 ..... 4 ..... 4 ..... 4 ..... 4 ..... i ..... 4
                                                                       — -.....-! .....
                    £j? ; T** i C5 *   '    *    * O"4 ill* 05 i C^i ; «j ; r^3 ; *
                    S? i CO * iO ; ^ j  •<(* ;  •**••*"••*>*'*>*• 4-<
                       ,.^...»4.....4.,,..^,..,.4.,
he a

t of;
). TTiis is becaus

ized back to the st

applied to all taw
                                                                          '1-2
                                                                          <2J !

                                                                          III
                                                                                        -
                                                                           S 5 §  c
                                                                           a « TT  §
                                                                          3 s. B  >>

                                                                           *-5-S  I
                                                                           2 1 § _S
                                                                           s w §-"S
                                                                           1 — w «
                                                                                 S ** u °
                                                                                 S rg .S 6*

                                                                                 1 i^-i-
                                                                                 8 2 J
                                                                                    •T
                                                                                      S C
                                                                                                      n
                                                                                                      v>

                                                                                                      "5.
                                                                                                   II
                                                                                                       -
                                                                                                  II
                                                                                                   2 1
                                                                                                 (2 "8

                                                                                              Isl
                        i    :   :   !    :    :   ,:   :   :   ';    I  ~ : E \ I 1    ;
                     —• ; O4 ; ff) ;   ' in * VO • t*^ *OO*Ov'O'*-**S*1-S''"SI*'    '*m
                     00 : oo ; oo ,: -^ ,5 oo : oo j OO r oo ; oo ; o> ; o> ;  § f ,S : es i /-> ; *^
                                                                                 || | If §| i1
                                                                                      1 i 7 «-f I

-------




/i?
1
s
1-
«
.JS
i£
£
'•fc
•3
-*rs
"3
>-
8-
•a
«
«
M
:§•
I
.JC"
4^
i
f
• 4«
*er
-SS
fl£

W
§
S
w

«
JC
.52
iE
H»
4»
6)
'S.
H
*t
«vf
*t

X'
a>
J3
0
H




Jf
£*


.
£
a
f
T)



IS



«


1


NO



—



1
i
™



O

o


o

o


o
ON
Os




s



-


tn
NO


O



o


F
I
1

Si



«

1


a

_


 'S3
< !i 3 =5 '
;z o F fu

-------
£
s
               .
             o  o
             ^jl  41
             ><&«
               CQ
                8:
             •E
            u
            o

                                              ! z 1
                    I -Z. \
                                         4 ..... .).....< ..... 4 ..... 4
                                  :    :   ;   :   ;   :

                                l;<.r £?
                                                                                        «2<8
                                                                                          1
                                                                                           «
 .SI
 ^•5.


  33

 if
 oo o
  ab w
  B e

 P

  g>
 **"* "^c;

  II
 S^ ,*£,
 ^w* "^

  if •§
  5^ O
  ^ fn
  8J •>
 PS g
1  **" C
1 tSl *y

 II
                                                                                  •8 £
                                                                                     *_.  ti ) r—.

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of l&E Data
                      Table H3-14; Average Annual Impingement and Entrainment at
                                       Whiting Before Net .Installation'
                                 (sum of annual means of all sgecigs evaluated)

Raw losses {# of organisms)
Age 1 equivalents (# offish)
Fishery yield (Ibs offish)
Production foregone {Ibs offish)
Impingement
12,588,366
21,493,215
. 844,301
404,074
Entrainmcnt
1,182,989,518
'1,83S,?13
70,045
290,215
                                Table H3-15,s. Average Annual'impingement 
-------

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                                                                      Chapter H4: Value of Baseline !<&E Losses
                                                                Value   of
                                                       on   Benefits
                       Transfer  Techniques
                                                ^CHAPTER CONTENTS^S^HISESS
                                                    S^i^^S~Lbsses1BasedflniIJtera^re;H^T£^^::vi.".SvH4-3v
This chapter presents an analysis using benefits
transfer techniques of the economic losses associated
with I&E at the J.R. Whiting facility without the
currently installed impingement deterrent net using
I&E data for 1978 and 1979 only (baseline). Section
H4-1 provides an overview of the valuation approach,
Section H4-2 discusses the value of recreational
fishery losses, Section H4-3 discusses commercial
fishery values, Section H4-4 discusses the value of
forage species losses, Section H4-5 discusses nonuse
values, and Section H4-6 summarizes the benefits
transfer results. Chapter H5 discusses the results of an
alternative valuation approach (the Habitat-based
Replacement Cost methodology) and Chapter H6
discusses potential benefits of reductions in I&E.

H4-1 OVERVIEW OF  VALUATION

APPROACH

Fish losses from I&E at J.R. Whiting affect commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as forage species that contribute to
the biomass of commercial and recreational species.  EPA evaluated all of these species groups to capture the total economic
impact of I&E at J.R. Whiting.

Commercial fishery impacts are based on commodity prices for the individual species.  Recreational fishery impacts are based
on benefits transfer methods, applying the results from nonmarket valuation studies.  The economic impact of forage species  '
losses is determined by estimating the replacement cost of these fish if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish (ignoring
several costs and issues associated  with restocking),  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 prey on the
forage species. All of these methods are explained in further detail in the Chapter A9 in Part A of this document.

Many of the I&E-impacted fish species at J.R. Whiting are harvested both recreationally and commercially. Table H4-1
presents the percentage impacts of the I&E losses occurring to the commercial and recreational fisheries. To avoid
double-counting the economic impacts of I&E occurring to species that are both commercially and recreationally fished but
for which locally and applicable catch data were not available, EPA assumed that 50 percent of the estimated catch of
I&E-impacted fish are assigned to a loss in commercial landings, and the remaining 50 percent of the estimated total number
of losses due to I&E are assigned to the recreational  landings.
                                                                                                 H4-1

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
                  Table H4-1: Percentages of Total X&E Impacts at J.R. Whiting Occurring to
                                      Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Fish Species
Bullhead spp.
Channel catfish
Common carp
Crappic spp.
Gizzard shad
Sucker spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Yellow perch
Percent Impacts to Recreational Fishery
0
50
6
ibb
b
.6
100
100
50
100-
100
Percent Impacts to Commercial Fishery
100
50
100
0
100
100
"6
6
50
0
0
 Wed Jan 09 14:09:50 MST 2002 ; Table A: Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and recreational fisheries of selected
 species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; Pathname: P:/Intake/Qreat_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/TableA.Perc.of -
 total.impacts.jr.whiting.78.79.csv
 As discussed in Chapters AS and A9 of Part A of this document, the yield estimates presented in Chapter H3 are expressed as
 total pounds for both the commercial and recreational catch combined.  For the economic valuation discussed in this chapter,
 total yield was partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery (presented in
 Table H4-1).  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 H4-2 shows these conversions for the impingement data presented in Section H3-4.1 of Chapter H3 and
 Table H4-3 displays these data for the entrainment estimates given in Section H3-4.2. 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 H4-2: Summary of  Mean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at J.R.  Whiting
                                        (without impingement deterrent net)
Species
Bullhead
spp.
Channel '
catfish
Common
carp
Grapple spp.
Freshwater
drum
Gizzard
shad
Sucker spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye .
White bass
White perch
Yellow
perch
Total
Impingement
Count (#)
1,721
2,300
55,321
568
33,776
11,715,924
1,040
1,032
4,084
36,498
0
88,434
1 1,940,698
Agel
Equivalents (#)
2,001
2,965
60,640
687
38,970
20,459,337
1,246
1,720
4,699
48,937
0
104,225
20,725,427
Total Catch
(#)
96
112
4,482
10
2,265
2,608,142
31
10
381
5,872
0
1,953
2,623,353
Total Yield
(Ib)
30
93
29,303
6
2,070
807,576
15
1
825
4,136
0
246
844,300
Commercial
Catch (#)
96
56
4,482
0
2,265
2,608,142
31
0
0
2,936
0
0
2,618,007
Commercial
Yield (Ib)
30
46
29,303
0
2,0%
807,57S
15
0
0
2,068
0
0
	 g|j jot
Recreational
Catch (#)
0
56
0
10
6
b;' 	
0
10
381
2,936
0
1,953
5,346
Recreational
Yield Ob)
0
' 46 " ' J
0
' 6 	
o 	
0
0
•" 1
825
2,068
b
: 246 "
: 3,191
  \\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Great_Lakes\GL_Science\scodes\jr.whiting\tables.output.78.79\fiowchart.Imp.New.xls
 H4-2

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
            Table H4-3: Summary of Mean Annual Entrapment of Fishery Species at J.R. Whiting
                                     (without impingement deterrent net)
Species
Channel catfish
Common carp
Crappie spp
Freshwater
drum
Gizzard shad
Sucker spp
Sunfish spp
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Yellow perch
Total
Entrainment
Count
(#)
28,918
7,372,177
132,964
32,762,696
569,558,422
268,228
1,040,904
0
5,679,922
0
2,788,745
619,632,976
Agel
Equivalents
(#)
143
36,496
5,391
29,768
1,221,061
3,853
350,828
0
28,118
0
12,360
1,688,020
Total Catch
(#)
5
2,697
79
1,731
155,660
95
2,053
' 0
3,374
0
232
165,927
Total Yield
Ob)
4
17,636
45
1,581
48,198
48
127
0
2,377
0
29
70,045
Commercial
Catch (#)
3
2,697
0
1,731
155,660
95
0
0
1,687
0
0
161,873
Commercial
Yield (lb)
2
17,636
0
1,581
48,198
48
0
0
1,188
0
0
. 68,654
Recreational
Catch (#)
3
0
79
0
0
.0
2,053
0
1,687
0
232
4,054
Recreational
Yield Ob)
1
0
23
0
0
0
64
1
594
1
15
699
 \\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Great_Lakes\GL_Science\scodes\jr.whiting\tables.output.78.79\flowchart.ENT.New.xls



 H4-2  VALUE OF BASELINE RECREATIONAL FISHERY LOSSES AT J.R. WHITING

 FACILITY

 H4-2.1   Economic Values for Recreational Losses  Based on 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 a "consumer surplus" per additional fish caught.

 When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
 select values for similar areas and species. Table H4-4 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Great Lakes
 fishery in geographic area and relevant species.

                Table H4-4: Selected Valuation Studies for  Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
Authors
Boyle etal. (1998)
Sorgetal.(1985)
Milliman et al.
(1992)
Charbonneau and
Hay (1978)
Study Location and Year
Nationally state, 1996
Idaho, 1982
Green Bay
National, 1975
Item Valued
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
; Value Estimate ($2000)
i Bass (low/high) $1.58-
iWarmwater fish
[Yellow perch
I Walleye
;Catfish
jPanfish

$5.32
$5.02
$0.31
$7.92
$2.64
$1.00
   a 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.
                                                                                                        H4-3

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
Boyle et al. (1998) used the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation to estimate the
marginal economic value of an additional bass, trout, and walleye per trip.

Sorg et al. (1985) used travel cost and contingent valuation methods to estimated the value of recreational fishing at'51 sites
in Idaho. Several of the species valued in Sorg etal. are also found in the Great Lakes fishery.

Milliman et al. (1992) used a logit model and the responses, creel data, and the responses to a contingent valuation
dichotomous choice survey question the study estimated the value of recreational fishing for Yellow Perch in Green Bay,
Michigan.

Charbonneau and Hay (1978) used travel cost and contingent valuation methods to estimate the consumer surplus for a season
of the respondent's favorite wildlife-related activity. These consumer surplus values were then converted to a one fish
increase per trip.

EPA estimated the economic value of I&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the I&E estimates presented in Tables H4-2
and H4-3 and the economic values in Table H4-4. Since none of the studies discussed in the previous section consider the
Great Lakes fishery directly, EPA used these estimates to create a range of possible consumer surplus values for the
recreational fish landings gained by reducing impingement and entrainment at J.R. Whiting.  To estimate a unit value for
recreational landings, EPA established a lower and upper value for the recreational species, based on values reported in
studies in Table H4-4.

H4-2.2  Baseline Economic  Losses from  Recreational Fishing

EPA applied a 50/50 recreational and commercial split to obtain the losses to the recreational fishery where  a fish is both
commercially or recreationally harvested.  If not commercially harvested, recreational losses were assumed to be 100 percent
of losses due to I&E, and vice versa. Results are displayed in Tables H4-5 and H4-6,  for impingement and entrainment,
respectively. The total losses to the recreational fisheries are estimated to range from  $7,300 to $20,900 for impingement per
year, and from $3,500 to $11,700 annually for entrainment.

          Table  H4-5: Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses at  the J.R. Whiting  Facility and
                                            Associated Economic Values
Species
Channel catfish
Crappie spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye .
White bass
White perch
Yellow perch
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# offish)
56
10
10 •
381
2,936
0
1,953
5,346
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$2.64
• $1.00
$0.31
$5.02
$1.58
$0.31
$0.31

High
$5.02
$5.02
$1.00
$7.92
$5.32
$1.00
$1.00

Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
$147
$10
$3
$1,912
$4,639
$0
$606
$7,316
High
$280
$51
$10
$3,016
$15,619
$0
$1,953
$20,929
       Tues Feb 05 MST 2002 ; Table B: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79; type: I
       Pathname: P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/TableB.rec.losses.jr.whiting.78.79.I.csv
H4-4

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I<&E Losses
          Table H4-6: Baseline Annual 'Recreational Entrapment Losses at the J.R. Whiting Facility and
                                           Associated Economic Values
Species
Channel catfish
Crappie spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entrainment
(# offish)
3
79
2,053
0
1,687
232
4,054
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$2.64
$1.00
$0.31
$5.02
$1.58
$0.31

High
$5.02
$5.02
$1.00
$7.92
$5.32
$1.00

Loss in Recreational Value from
Entrainment
Low
$7
$79
$637
$0
$2,665
$72
$3,460
High
$14
$399
$2,053
$0
$8,975
• $232
$11,672
       Tue Feb 05 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79; type: E
       Pathname:
       P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.ourput.78.79/TableB.rec.losses.jr.whiting.78.79.E.csv
H4-3  BASELINE ECONOMIC Losses FROM COMMERCIAL FISHINS

I&E losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables H4-2 (for impingement) and H4-3 (for ehtrainment) based
on the recreational and commercial splits in Table H4-1. EPA estimates of the economic value of these losses are displayed
in Tables H4-7 and H4-8. Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward because commercially caught fish are
a commodity with a market price. The market value of foregone landings to commercial fisheries is $128,300 for
impingement per year, and $11,600 annually  for entrainment.                                        •

Tables H4-7 and H4-8 express commercial impacts based on dockside market prices only. However, to determine the total
economic  impact from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA also 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.
                                                                                                           H4-5

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losseis
                     Table H4-7: Baseline Mean Annual Commercial Impingement Losses at
                             J.R. Whiting Facility and Associated Economic Values
Species
Bullhead spp.
Channel catfish
Common carp
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Sucker spp.
White bass
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch
from Impingement (Ib offish)
30
46
29,303
2,070
807,576
15
2,068
841,109
Commercial
Value/Fish
S0.33
$0.76
SO. 16
$0.21
$0.15
$0.09
$0.98

Loss in Commercial Value
from Impingement
$10
$35
$4,688
$435
$121,136
$1
$2,027
$128,333
         Tue Feb 05 MST 2002 ; Table C: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; type: I
         Pathname:
         P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/TableC.cornm.losses.jr.whiting.78.79.I.csv
                      Table H4-8: Baseline Mean Annual Commercial Entrapment Losses at
                              J.R. Whiting Facility and Associated  Economic Values
Species
Channel catfish
Common carp
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Sucker spp.
White bass
Total
Tue Feb 09 MST 2002 ; Table C
Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Scier
Loss to Commercial Catch
from Entrainment (Ib offish)
2
17,636
1,581
48,198
48
1,188
68,654
Commercial
Value/Fish
$0.76
$0.16
$0.21
$0.15
$0.09
$0.98

Loss in Commercial Value
from Entrainment
$2
$2,822
$332
$7,230
$4
$1,165
$11,554
commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79; type: E
ce/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/TableC.comm.losses.jr.whiting.78.79.E.csv
Accordingly, EPA estimates that the total baseline economic loss to commercial fisheries ranges from $233,000 to $408,000
for impingement per year, and from $21,000 to $37,000 annually for entrainment at the J.R. Whiting facility (before
installation of the impingement deterrent net).

H4-4  INDIRECT USE:  FORAGE FISH

Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationally fished. For the purposes of this study, EPA refers to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species, and are important components of aquatic
food webs. Table H4-9 summarizes impingement losses of forage species at J.R. Whiting before net installation and Table
H4-10 summarizes entrainment losses. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two  •
alternative valuation methods.
H4-6

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
                     Table H4-9: Summary of Mean Annual Impingement of Forage Fish at
                                J.R. Whiting (without impingement deterrent net)
Species
Alewife
Bluntnose minnow
Emerald shiner
Logperch
Rainbow smelt
Forage species tofal
Impingement Count
(#)
1,681
0
637,230
5,950
2,807.
647,668
Age 1 Equivalents
(#)
1,931
0
754,130
7,951
3,776
767,789
Production Foregone
(Ib)
114
0
9,267
40
27
9,447
                  \\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Great_Lakes\QL_Science\scodes\jr.whiting\tables.output.78.79
                  \flowchart. Imp.New.xls
                     Table H4-10: Summary of Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Fish at
                                J.R. Whiting (without impingement deterrent net)
Species
Alewife
Bluntnose minnow
Emerald shiner
Logperch
Rainbow smelt
Total
Entrainment Count
(#),
0
1,623,716
7,584,514
191,471
155,897
9,555,598
Age 1 Equivalents
•(#>
0
46,669
69,046
7,405
20,575
143,695
Production Foregone
(Ib)
0
199
20,775
' 570
714
22,257
                  \\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Great_Lakes\GL_Science\scodes\jr.whiting\tables.output.78.79
                  \flowchart.ENT.New.xls
Replacement value of fish

The replacement value offish can be used in several cases.  First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking of
hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would still
be incurred and should be accounted for.  Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational 'fishery, but are
important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because .it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough data to value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as a proxy for lost
fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs, and replacement costs
typically omit problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limiting genetic diversity).

The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table H4-11 displays the replacement costs of forage species at J.R. Whiting. The annual costs of
replacing annual forage losses are $ 18,000 for impingement and $2,500 for entrainment.  The per pound costs listed in Table
H4-11 are average costs to fish hatcheries across North America to produce different species offish for stocking (AFS, 1993).
                                                                                                             H4-7

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
                     Table H4-11: Replacement Cost of Forage Losses at J.R. Whiting (2000$)
Species
Alewife
Bluntnosc minnow
Emerald shiner
Logperch
Rainbow smelt
Total
Hatchery Costs"
($/lb)
$0.52
$2.21
$0.91
$1.05
$0.34

Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses
(S2000)
Impingement
$30
$0
$17,862
$107
$25
$18,025
Entrainment
$0
$603
$1,635
$99
$136
$2,474
          ' These values were inflated to 2000$ from 1989$, but this could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
          Source: Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kill, AFS 1993.
          Tue Feb 05 MST 2002 ; Table D: loss in selected forage species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; type: I Pathname:
          P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.jr.whiting.78.79.I.csv


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.

Production foregone value  of forage fish

This approach considers the foregone biomass 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 the loss of
forage.

Summary of  values of  baseline forage  fish losses

Tables H4-12 and H4-13 display the values for baseline losses of forage fish based on the production foregone of fishery
yield for I&E, respectively. Baseline losses range from $200 to $400 for impingement and from $40 to $100 for entrainment.


H4-5  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 H6 for further discussion), nonuse values for baseline losses at J.R. Whiting are estimated to range from $3,700 to
S10,500 for impingement and from $ 1,700 to $5,800 for entrainment.
 H4-8

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                       Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
                                    Table H4-12: Mean Annual Economic Value  of
                                  Production Foregone of Selected Fishery Species
                                  Resulting from Impingement  of Forage Species  at
                                                    J.R. Whiting.
                                         Species
Loss in Production Foregone
    from Impingement

Bullhead spp.
Channel catfish
Common carp
Crappie spp.
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Sucker spp.
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
Total
Low
$7
S27
$9
$9
$4
$12
$0
$21
. $22
$55
$11
$178
High
$12
$50
$16
$43
$7
$21
$1
S69
$35
$147
$34
$435
                                 Tue Feb 05 10:47:18 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected
                                 forage species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; type: I Pathname:
                                 P:Antake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr. whiting/tables.
                                 output.78.79/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.jr.whiting.78.79.I.csv
                                   Table H4-13: Mean Annual Value of Production
                                Foregone of Selected Fishery Species Resulting from
                                  Entrapment of  Forage Species at J.R. Whiting.
                                         Species
                                                            Loss in Production Foregone
                                                                from Entrainment

Channel catfish
Common carp
Crappie spp.
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Sunfish spp.
White bass
Yellow perch
Total
Low
$10
$4
$1
$1
$5
$16
$6
$0
$43
High
$19
$8
$4
$2
. $8
$52
$15 .
$1
$109
                               Tue Feb 05 10:47:24 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage
                               species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; type: E Pathname:
                               P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79
                               /TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.jr.whiting.78.79.E.csv
                                                                                                                   H4-9

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
H4-6  SUMMARY  OF ANNUAL VALUE OF BASELINE ECONOMIC LOSSES  AT

J.R. WHITINS

Table H4-14 summarizes the total economic value of annual baseline I&E at the J.R. Whiting facility. Total impacts range
from $244,000 to $458,000 per year from impingement and from $26,000 to $57,000 per year from entrainment. These
reflect losses before installation of the deterrent net that reduced impingement significantly (see Chapter H6).

           Table H4-14: Summary of Values of Baseline Annual I&E Losses at J.R.  Whiting Facility

Commercial: Total surplus (direct use, market)

Recreational (direct use, nonmarket)

Forage (indirect use, nonmarket)
Production Foregone

Replacement
Nonuse (passive use, nonmarket)

Total (Com + Rec + Forage + Nonuse)3


Low
High
Low
High

Low
High

Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
$233,333
$408,332
$7,316
$20,929

$178
$435
$18,025
$3,658
$10,465
$244,485
$457,750
Entrainment
$21,007
$36,763
$3,460
$11,672

$43
$109
$2,474
$1,730
$5,836
$26,241
$56,745
Total
$254,340
$445,095
$10,777
$32,601

$221
$544
$20,499
$5,388
$16,301
$270,726
$514,496
      * 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 two forage valuation methods was used.
      Tue Fob 05 MST 2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; Pathname:
      P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/TableE.summary.jr.whiting.78.79.csv
 H4-10

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
     Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
                                  Chapter   HS:
    Streamlined   HRC  Valuation  of  I&E
   Losses   at   the  J.R.    Whiting   Facility
This chapter presents the results of EPA's streamlined
habitat-based replacement cost (HRC) valuation of
I&E losses at the-J.R. Whiting facility in Monroe,
Michigan, for the following scenarios:

    *  the cost of offsetting all I&E losses without
       the currently installed impingement deterrent
       net using I&E data for 1978 and 1979 only
       (baseline losses);
    >  the cost of offsetting 95 percent of baseline
       losses, assumed to be equivalent to
       installation of a cooling tower;
    *  the cost of offsetting losses equivalent to
       installation of the net using the difference in
       average annual impingement for 1978-1979
       compared to 1981-1991.
:I(lraffifySji^
        to^^
   anHfy the

^ Estin^te ^



A description of the HRC method and the process for
undertaking a complete HRC valuation of I&E losses is provided in Chapter Al 1 of Part A of this document. To summarize,
a complete HRC valuation of I&E losses reflects the combined costs for implementing habitat restoration actions,
administering the programs, and monitoring the increased production after the restoration actions. In a complete HRC
valuation, these costs are developed by first identifying the preferred habitat restoration alternative for each species with I&E
losses and then scaling the level of habitat restoration until the losses across all the species for that restoration alternative have
been exactly offset by the expected increases in production of each species.  The total value of the I&E losses at the facility is
then calculated as the sum of the costs across the set of preferred habitat restoration alternatives that were identified.

The HRC method is thus 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). An advantage of the HRC method is that
the HRC values address losses for species lacking a recreational or commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC explicitly recognizes and captures the fundamental ecological relationships between species with I&E losses at a facility
and their surrounding environment by determining the value of I&E losses through the cost of the actions required to provide
an offsetting increase in the existing populations of those species in their natural environment.

Streamlining was necessary to meet the schedule of the 316(b) existing sources rule and entailed combining Step 2
(identification of species habitat requirements), Step 3 (identification of habitat time and budget constraints typically faced by
NPDES permit t restoration alternatives), and Step 4 (consolidation and prioritization of habitat restoration alternatives),
restricting the analysis to readily available information, and eliminating site visits, in-depth discussions with local experts, and
development of primary data (see Chapter Al 1 of Part A of this document), which would be required before doing an actual
restoration. Despite these restrictions, the streamlined HRC provided a more comprehensive, ecological-based valuation of
the I&E losses than valuation by traditional commercial and recreational impacts methods. In addition, the streamlined HRC
valued direct, indirect, and passive uses not included in more traditional economic valuation techniques used in Chapter H4
andH6.   .
                                                                                                  H5-1

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
The annualized costs, in 2000 dollars, of restoring sufficient fish production habitat to offset the I&E losses in perpetuity for
each scenario at the J.R. Whiting facility are as follows:

    >   Baseline losses: $0.2 - $3.5 million
    »•   Losses equivalent to those avoided by a cooling tower: $0.2 - $3.3 million
    >   Losses equivalent to those avoided by the barrier net in place at J.R. Whiting: $0.1 - $1.0 million.

The following subsections describe the streamlined HRC valuation applied to the J.R. Whiting facility and the advantages and
disadvantages of streamlining the HRC method.

H5-1   QUANTIFY !<&E LOSSES BY SPECIES (STEP 1)

The streamlined HRC method relies on the same estimates of annual age 1 equivalent species losses that are developed in
Chapter H3 and incorporated in the commercial and recreational fishing impacts valuation presented in Chapters H4
(baseline) and H6 (cooling tower and barrier net). EPA developed these estimates using I&E data reported directly by the
facility (Wapora, 1979,1980; Consumers Power Company, 1984,1988,1992). Total I&E losses at the facility may be
underestimated, particularly if certain species were not targeted by monitoring efforts or if short duration population spikes
occurred outside of monitoring events. The HRC method inherently reduces the former problem by targeting restoration
activities that might benefit species lost but not monitored, but like all other measures of I&E losses, it relies on representative
monitoring.

Various life stages of organisms were lost to I&E at J.R. Whiting. As with other facilities, primarily early stages such as eggs
and larvae are entrained, and primarily juveniles and adults are impinged. However, EPA estimated total losses for each
species by converting all losses to  a common equivalent life stage by applying average mortality rates between life stages for
each species.  These mortality rates were derived from the literature and best professional judgment. Conversion between life
stages did not change the overall scale of required restoration in the streamlined HRC method because many eggs are
equivalent to few adults on both the I&E loss and increased production sides of the HRC equation.  For example, if on
average one adult survives from 10 eggs via a 90 percent cumulative mortality rate and 1 acre of habitat produces 10 eggs,
then restoration of 1 acre is needed to produce either one adult or 10  eggs.

Age 1 equivalent I&E losses of 17 species offish were calculated using the available I&E monitoring data available from the
J.R. Whiting facility from 1978 through 1991. These data are presented in Chapter H3 of this document.  A summary of
average annual age 1 equivalent losses in the different scenarios under consideration is presented in Table H5-1.

Several species impinged or entrained at J.R. Whiting are important to  commercial or recreational fishing, including walleye,
yellow perch, catfish, and crappie. Many others, including alewife, rainbow smelt, bluntnose minnows, emerald shiners, and
herrings,  indirectly affect commerce and recreation because they are  prey for commercially or recreationally important aquatic
and terrestrial wildlife species such as salmon and northern pike, bald eagles, and mink.  Furthermore, all of the species
provide numerous, complex, ecological services as sources of carbon and energy transfer through the food web, as well as
 continuous interactive exploitation of niches available in the Great Lakes ecosystem (a system already under tremendous
Stress from exotic  species introductions, hazardous substance contamination, nonpoint source runoff, heat contamination,
 habitat loss, overfishing, and I&E) from multiple sources.-

 For example, freshwater drum feed on a variety of small fish. When food supplies are short, freshwater drum often out-
 compete other species and thereby may increase mortality rates or decrease growth rates for those species (Edsall, 1967). In
 addition, several species of Centrarchids, including the crappie, are sensitive to the size of their predators' population. When
 predators such as walleye are absent, species such as crappie can overcrowd their habitats and exhaust their own food
 supplies, resulting in stunted growth (Wang, 1986a; Steiner, 2000).  Finally, some species are already subject to wide
 fluctuations in population size from year to year, and may not be able to tolerate  I&E losses, particularly at certain times of
 the year.  For example, the gizzard shad is often subject to high mortality in the winter (Miller, 1960).
 7/5-2

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
         Table H5-1: Average Annual I&E Losses of Age 1 Equivalent Fish at the J.R. Whiting Facility
Species
Gizzard shad
Emerald shiner
Sunfish spp.
Yellow perch
Common carp
White bass
Freshwater drum
Bluntnose minnow
Rainbow smelt
Logperch
Crappie spp.
Sucker spp.
Walleye
Channel catfish
Bullhead spp.
Alewife
White perch'
Total
Baseline Scenario: (1978 and 1979)
Impinged
20,459,337
754,130
1,720
104,225
60,640
48,937
38,970
N/Ab
3,776
7,951
687
1,246
4,699
2,965
2,001
1,931
N/A"
21,493,215
Entrained
1,221,061
69,046
350,828 •
12,360
36,496
28,118
29,768
46,669
20,575
7,405
5,391
3,853
N/A"
143
N/A"
N/Ab
N/Ab .
1,831,713
Total
21,680,398
823,176
352,548
116,585
97,136
77,055
68,738
46,669
24,351
15,356
6,078
5,099
4,699
3,108
2,001
1,931
N/Ab
23,324,928
Reductions in I&E
Cooling Tower
Scenario: 95% of
Baseline Losses
20,596,378
782,017
334,921
1 10,756
92,279
73,202
65,301
44,336
23,133
14,588
5,774
4,844
4,464
2,953
1,901
1,834 •
N/Ab
22,158,681
Barrier Net
Scenario: 1978-1979
vs. 1981-1991'
18,943,039
698,963
238
93,913
57,620
41,213
26,658
N/Ab
3,573
6,766
127
1,193
4,511
1,506
1,909
1,792
N/Ab
19,883,021
    ' Indirect evidence suggests the barrier net only reduces impingement, so only the difference in pre- and post-barrier net
    impingement estimates of age 1 equivalents were estimated.
    b N/A for a species reflects no data reported as opposed to a reported value of 0. N/A for the barrier net always corresponds to
    N/A for baseline impingement.
    0 Impingement losses of white perch prior to the installation of the barrier net were not reported. Quantified impingement losses
    are reported for subsequent years, making white perch a species with recorded quantified I&E impacts at the J.R. Whiting facility.



H5-2  IDENTIFY SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS (STEP 2), IDENTIFY HABITAT

RESTORATION  ALTERNATIVES (STEP 3), AND PRIORITIZE RESTORATION  ALTERNATIVES

(STEP 4)

EPA combined steps 2, 3, and 4 of the HRC method by seeking a single habitat restoration program capable of increasing
production for most of the species with quantified I&E losses at J.R. Whiting. Addressing each of these steps separately for
each of the I&E species would improve the analysis but would require more time than was available for the analysis for the
proposed rule.

J.R. Whiting's CWISs are located in the shallow and enclosed end of Maumee Bay (western Lake Erie) and are'surrounded by
marsh and wetlands, including the Woodtick Peninsula and the lands of the Erie Shooting Club (R. Micka, Lake Erie Clean
Up Committee Inc., personal communication, 2001). Further, species affected by I&E clearly use these habitats, as
demonstrated by their I&E at the facility. In addition, wetland restoration and preservation programs are active in many Great
Lakes states, providing a good source of readily available information on restoration costs. Finally, readily available
information describes fish species use of Great Lakes' coastal wetlands that can be used as a proxy for increased production
benefit estimates.  Therefore, coastal wetland restoration is the preferred restoration alternative for offsetting the I&E losses at
the J.R. Whiting facility in this streamlined HRC valuation.,
                                                                                                        H5-3

-------
S 316(fa) Case Studies, Port H:'J.R. Whiting
             Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
H5-3  QUANTIFY THE BENEFITS  FOR THE PRIORITIZED HABITAT RESTORATION
ALTERNATIVES  (STEP 5)
A literature search revealed a study (Brazner, 1997) that provides fish capture data by species from sampling efforts
conducted at a series of Green Bay (Lake Michigan) coastal wetland and sand beach sites. No other studies provide more
direct measures of increased fish species production following Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration, or fish capture data in
wetlands closer to the J.R. Whiting facility. However, the Brazner study sampled wetlands in the warmer, shallower, more
eutrophic waters of southern Green Bay, which are similar to the waters of western Lake Erie. After examining the data from
the Brazner study and discussing them with the author, EPA dropped less similar sites from northern Green Bay.  For each of
the species lost at J.R. Whiting, a match was found with.a-species,, pr.combination of species, among those captured at the,
southern sites in the Brazner study.  Table H5-2 shows the species caught in the Brazner study that were paired with the
species being lost at the J.R. Whiting facility (this represents only a fraction of the species caught in these southern locations
in the Brazner study).

     Table H5-2: Species with I&E Loss Estimates at J.R.  Whiting and the Corresponding Species Captured
                                        in Green Bd"yrWetland Sampling.^	•
        Species with I&E Loss Estimates at J.R. Whiting
   Corresponding Species Caught in Sampling of Green Bay
             Coastal Wetlands (Brazner, 1997)
     Alewife
                                                    iYes
     Bluntnose minnow
     Bullhead spp.
                                                    I Yes
i Yes (as black, brown, and yellow bullhead)
     Channel catfish
     Common carp
I Yes
iYes
     Crappie spp.
     Emerald shiner
iYes (as black crappie)
IYes
     Freshwater drum
     Gizzard shad
iYes
iYes
     Logperch
     Rainbow smelt
iYes
iYes
     Sucker spp.
     Sunfish spp.
j Yes.(as white sucker)
I Yes (as green sunfish)
     Walleye
     White bass
     White perch
     Yellow perch
iYes
iYes
|Yes
iYes
 Because of the close match between the physical habitats of southern Green Bay and western Lake Erie and the confirmation
 of similar species between the sites, EPA estimated densities for each southern Green Bay species and used them as a proxy
 for direct measurements of potential increased production following wetland restoration.  This approach assumed that
 additional wetland habitat restored near J.R. Whiting would provide similar densities of each species as the wetland habitats
 sampled in Green Bay. Direct measurements of densities of each species before and after actual wetland habitat restorations
 in western lake Erie could test this assumption and improve the reliability of the HRC valuation for J.R. Whiting.

 EPA developed the density estimates for each species for each site using aggregate sampling results provided by the author
 (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001).  Table H5-3 provides a summary of the Green Bay
 capture data (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001) for each species that has quantified I&E
 losses at J.R. Whiting. Data for each of four Green Bay sites are presented, as are the average and maximum of all four sites.
 H5-4

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of !<&E Losses
                                Table H5-3: Sreen Bay Wetland Abundance Data
Species Name for HRC
Analysis
Yellow perch
Gizzard shad
Bluntnose minnow
Alewife
Emerald shiner
White bass
Sucker spp.b
Carp
Green sunfish
Bullhead spp.c
Freshwater drum
White perch
Crappie spp.d
Channel catfish
Logperch
Rainbow smelt
Walleye
Number Captured: Lower Green Bay Wetland Locations"
Long Tail
Point Wetland
3,525
384
285
265
113
52
14
19
3
9
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
Little Tail Point
; .Wetland
942
264
116
142
31
226
10
10
5
4
4
0
2
0
0
1
0
Atkinson
Marsh
333
160
15
92
251
106
1
o
22
0
*j
0
i
3
0
0
0
Sensiba Wildlife
Refuge
1,108
137
259
124
224
9
103
1
2
2
1
7
1
0
1
0
0
Summary Statistics
Average
1,477
236
169
156
155
98
32
8
.8
4
4
2
1
1
0
0
0
Maximum
3,525
384
285
265
251
226
103
19
22
' 9
7
7
2
3
1
1
1
 11  Number captured in samples of 100 meters linear coastal wetland frontage. Reflects age 1 fish (not eggs and larvae).
 b  Sucker spp. values are those reported for white sucker.
 c  Bullhead spp. values are the sum of the black, brown, and yellow bullhead values at each location.
 d  Crappie spp. values are those reported for black crappie.
The raw capture data were converted to density estimates for each species by assuming that each sampling event of 100 m of
linear coastal wetland frontage corresponded to an-average of 100 m of perpendicular width of connected coastal wetlands
(i.e., each sampling event included fish from an assumed 100 m x 100 m area of wetlands). This assumption is based on
discussions with the author about the likely perpendicular width of the sampled wetlands that was being used as habitat by the
sampled species (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, personal communication, 2001). A further adjustment was then made to the raw    '  '
capture data to recognize the fact that shoreline sampling would capture only a portion of the fish actually using the 100 m x
100 m wetland habitat.  After discussions with the author, the capture data were increased by a factor of 100 (1/0.01), based
on the assumption that only 1 percent of the fish present or relying on the wetland habitat were captured in the sampling event.

The resulting per acre average density estimates for each species was used in the HRC equation as the measure of increased
production that would most likely be provided by wetland habitat restoration near J.R. Whiting. The maximum per acre
density estimate for each species was used as an upper bound estimate offish density that would result from wetland
restoration near the J.R. Whiting facility.

Brazner (1997) captured young-of-year (younger than age  1), age I fish, and adult fish (older than age 1) in the Green Bay
wetlands.  In this evaluation, the capture data were treated as if it represented age  1 fish, which eliminated the need to apply
mortality rates to adjust for survival between life stages for each species, as was done for I&E Ipsses.  Since Brazner (1997)
reports a high percentage of young-of-year fish captured at all Green Bay sites, this assumption most likely results in a slight
overestimation of age 1 fish densities, and therefore potentially underestimates the scale of restoration required to offset the
average annual I&E loss for each species (i.e., it underestimates baseline losses from I&E).

H5-4  SCALE THE  HABITAT RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES TO OFFSET !<&E LOSSES
(STEP 6)

EPA calculated the amount of Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration required to offset I&E losses for each species at the
J.R. Whiting facility by dividing the average annual I&E loss for each species in each scenario by its per-acre estimate of
increased production of age 1 equivalents.  The results of this scaling for the baseline scenario are presented in Table H5-4.
                                                                                                            H5-5

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
          Table H5-4: Wetland Restoration Required to Offset I&E Losses at the J.R. Whiting CWIS
                                       (baseline scenarios,  i.e., without net)
Species
Rainbow smelt
Gizzard shad
Logpcrch
Sunfish spp.
Walleye
Freshwater drum
Common carp
Emerald shiner
Crappie spp.
Channel catfish
White bass
Bullhead spp.
Bluntnosc minnow
Sucker spp.
Yellow perch
Alewife
White perch
Average Annual
Age 1 Equivalents
Lost to I&E
24,351
21,680,398
15,356
352,548
4,699
68,738
97,136
823,176
6,078
3,108
77,055
2,001
46,669
5,099
116,585
1,931
N/A
Per-Unit Production Benefit (age 1 fish per
restored coastal wetland acre)
Average Value
10
9,561
10
324
10
162
334
6,263
51
30
3,976
152
6,829
1,295
59,774
6,303
71
Maximum Value
Across Sites
40
15,540
40
890
40
283
769
10,158
81
121
9,146
364
11,534
4,168
142,657
10,725 '
283
Required Acres of Wetland Restoration to
Offset I&E Loss
Based on Average
Production Value
2,407
2,268
1,518
1,089
464
425
291
131
120
102
19
13
7
4
2
0.3
N/A
Based on Maximum
Production Value
602
1,395
379
396
11.6
2'43
126
81
75
26
8
5
4-
1
1
0.2
N/A
Whether using average or maximum production values, over half of the species listed in Table H5-4 would require that
hundreds or thousands of acres of wetland habitat be restored to fully offset the I&E losses caused by the J.R. Whiting CWIS.
If Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration is the best natural restoration alternative for offsetting losses for each of these
species, then approximately 2,400 acres of coastal wetland restoration is required to fully offset all I&E losses under the
baseline scenario using the average adjusted per acre density estimates (because restoring either rainbow smelt or gizzard
shad would require that much wetland restoration, and all other species would be fully restored as well). However, without
further discussions with local experts, and perhaps additional investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration
activities and per-acre production benefits (particularly for the species driving the highest acreage needs), these assumptions
may not be valid.  On the other hand, the benefit of any given restoration program should always  vary among species, and
species with relatively high productivity or low I&E losses cannot drive the HRC results without  sacrificing necessary offsets
for other species with lower productivity or higher I&E losses. As seen in the results in Table H5-4, a large restoration
requirement can reflect either low productivity of the restored habitat for the species (e.g., rainbow smelt) or very large I&E
losses (e.g., gizzard shad).

Table H5-4 also shows that both the scale and distribution of the estimates of required wetland restoration change when
maximum species density estimates are substituted for the averages. EPA used average species density estimates as the
primary source of information because they are more representative of wetland productivity in the Brazner study, and more
accurately reflect the difficulties of achieving full function in restored versus native habitats.'

Since a rigorous investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration alternatives and per-unit production estimates
was not completed under the streamlined approach, using the highest restoration requirement (for rainbow smelt) may not be
justified. Therefore,  the restoration requirements were ordered for all of the species so that percentiles could be calculated.
Using the 100th percentile (rainbow smelt) would offset losses for all of the species, as appropriate under a complete HRC
     1 The maximum species-density-based estimates are included only as a sensitivity analysis and reflect a minimal scale of restoration
that would be required if Lake Erie wetland restorations were much more highly successful then EPA anticipates.  Detailed, repeated
monitoring of I&E species in areas where restoration has occurred will increase the accuracy of future analyses.
H5-6

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
 analysis. However, the 90th and 50th percentiles (corresponding to gizzard shad and emerald shiner, respectively) were used
 to bound the estimate of the required scale of restoration. Using a lower percentile than the 100th recognizes that further
 analyses (or monitoring) might identify restoration programs more efficient and less costly than wetland restoration for
 species with the highest wetland restoration needs, or might produce better and higher wetland restoration productivity
 estimates (lower cost) for those same species.  Nevertheless, using lower percentiles risks underestimating the costs of needed
 restoration because most species benefit from wetland restoration, and wetland restoration could easily prove to be the best
 alternative for those species with the greatest wetland restoration needs. Further, improved analysis and monitoring are as
 likely to lower productivity estimates as they are to raise them. Therefore, percentiles less than the 50th were rejected as
 unreasonable.2

 Table H5-5 presents the 90th and 50th percentile results from the distribution of required Great Lakes coastal wetland
 restoration calculated using the average species density estimates as a proxy for increased species production for each of the
 I&E scenarios under consideration and combined average annual I&E losses of age 1 equivalent fish.  Table H5-5 also
 presents the results using the maximum species density estimates as a sensitivity analysis.


        Table H5-5: Acres of  Coastal Wetland Restoration Required under Different I&E Scenarios with
                              Alternative Increased Production Benefits  Assumptions
I&E Scenario
Baseline
In lieu of cooling tower
In lieu of barrier net
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
(preferred alternative)
90th Percentile Result
2,268
2,154
669
50th Percentile Result
131
125
50
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test)
90th Percentile Result
602
572
167
50th Percentile Result
81
77
12
H5-5  ESTIMATE "UNIT COSTS" FOR THE HABITAT  RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
(STEP 7)

EPA calculated annualized per-acre costs for restoring coastal wetlands in a Great Lakes ecosystem from the information in
the Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP) produced for the Lower Fox River/Green Bay Natural
Resource Damage Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting, 2000), which incorporated a similar
program as a restoration alternative.  The RCDP's per-acre cost included expenses for the restoration implementation
(fieldwork), project administration, maintenance, and monitoring.

The RCDP's wetland restoration program focused on acquiring lands around Green Bay that are currently in agricultural use
and that are located on hydric soils (an indicator of a wetland area). These former wetlands were generally brought into
agricultural production through the draining or tiling of the land. Therefore, most of the expense (63 percent) in the RCDP's
per-acre cost estimates was for land acquisition and restoration actions necessary to re-establish functioning wetlands.
Maintenance costs (9 percent) consisted of expenses for periodic mowing and burning to maintain the dominance of wetland
vegetation. The remaining expenditures (28 percent) covered anticipated administrative expenses for the program. The per-
acre cost estimates for the various components of the wetland restoration program as presented in the Lower Fox River/Green
Bay RCDP are provided in Table H5-6 along with the equivalent annualized per-acre cost that is used to value the required
scale of wetland restoration in this streamlined HRC (the development of this annualized value is discussed in the following
paragraph).
    2 For instance, using the 25th percentile restoration requirement from Table H5-4 (7 acres for bluntnose minnow) would be valid only
if further analysis produced superior (cheaper or more productive) restoration alternatives, or superior wetland productivity estimates that
were higher for most of the species, including rainbow smelt, gizzard shad, sunfish spp., logperch, walleye, freshwater drum, common carp,
emerald shiner, crappie spp., channel catfish, white bass, and bullhead spp. Even the 50th percentile value that we use as a lower bound
estimate assumes that eight of these species could each be produced more effectively with different restoration alternatives, or that wetland
productivity is actually higher for all eight species.
                                                                                                             H5-7

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                      Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
                              Table H5-6: Wetland Restoration Costs (2000 dollars)
         Restoration Program Component
$/Acre
Cost Method
Land acquisition
Land transaction costs
Restoration action
Contingency on restoration action
Project maintenance
Monitoring
Agency (landowner) overhead (project
administration)
Total Cost
Total Annualized Cost
3,000
600
2,600
260
590
340
2,900
10,300
1,540
i Survey of land prices
1 20 percent of land price, reflects agency (U.S. FWS) experience
I Project experience (See Table Source)
1 10 percent of restoration actions, consistent with standard practice
I Project experience (See Table Source)
|5 percent of total of land acquisition, land transaction, restoration
; action, and maintenance
i 38.84 percent of sum of all other cost, reflects agency (U.S. FWS)
1 experience


    Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting, 2000.
In annualizing the RCDP's unit costs for this streamlined HRC, EPA made a distinction between expected initial one-time
program outlays (expenditures for land, transaction costs, restoration actions, contingency, and agency overhead) and
anticipated recurring annual expenses (project maintenance and monitoring). Those costs that were viewed as initial program
outlays were treated as a capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7 percent interest rate providing an annualized
value of $882 from their initial combined value of $9,360.  EPA then estimated the present value (PV), using a 7 percent
interest rate, of the recurring annual expenses for 10 years as this is the length of time incorporated for monitoring in the
complete HRC valuations conducted for the Brayton Point and Pilgrim facility case studies. This PV for the recurring annual
expenses was then annualized over a 20 year period, again using a 7 percent interest rate resulting  in an annualized expense of
S658.  This process effectively treats the monitoring expenses associated with the wetland restoration consistently with the
annual operating and maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. The
annualized recurring expenses were then added to the annualized initial program outlays resulting  in a total annualized cost
for the wetlands restoration alternative of $ 1,540 per acre.

However, these unit costs probably understate the cost of monitoring that would be sufficient to measure per-unit production
benefits in restored wetlands, which could then improve future HRC calculations. In the RCDP's wetland restoration
monitoring program, the emphasis was on evaluating whether the hydrology of the former wetlands and the associated
vegetation were returning over time, activities that could be achieved with relatively minimal effort.  In contrast, a monitoring
program capable of addressing whether anticipated increases in the production of certain species were being achieved in the
restored wetland areas would require a far more significant commitment of time and resources, resulting in commensurately
larger expenditures.

H5-6  bEVELOP TOTAL COST ESTIMATES FOR I&E LOSSES (STEP 8)

EPA estimated the total annualized cost to offset the average annual I&E losses at the J.R. Whiting facility by multiplying the
50th percentile and 90th percentile results of the required acreage of wetland restoration (see Table H5-5) by the annualized
per-acre wetlands restoration costs from the RCDP  (see Table H5-6).  These results are presented  in Table H5-7.

          Table H5-7: Total Annualized Costs for a Wetland Restoration Program to Offset  I&E Losses
                                             (millions of 2000 dollars)
I&E Scenario
Baseline
In lieu of cooling' tower
In lieu of barrier net
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
(preferred results)
90th Percentile Result
$3.5
$3.3
$1.0
50th Percentile Result
$0.2
$0.2
$0.1
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test)
90th Percentile Result j 50th Percentile Result
$0.9 i $0.1
$0.9 : $0.1
$0.3 i $0.0a
     " Exact value of SI 9,103 is converted to $0.0 when rounded for presentation in millions.
H5-S

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
The results of the streamlined HRC provide an annualized present value estimate of roughly $3.5 million for a program of
Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration that would offset the average annual age 1 equivalent losses from the baseline period
in perpetuity using the 90th percentile results and average species density estimates. Using the same 90th percentile selection
rule and the average species density results, the preferred results provide a value for installing a cooling tower that would
eliminate 95 percent of the baseline I&E losses in perpetuity of $3.3 million, while the reduced impingement from the barrier
net is valued at $1.0 million assuming the estimated average annual reduction in lost age 1 equivalents continues in perpetuity.
Incorporating the maximum .observed species density from any of the sampled wetlands in Green Bay reduces the value of the
90th percentile scenario results to roughly one-fourth the average species density results.

Table H5-8 shows the results of the streamlined HRC analysis for impingement losses, entrainment losses, and total I&E
losses separately.

      Table H5-8: Present Value and Annualized Results, for the Monetization of I&E Losses at J.R. Whiting
               Incorporating Average Species-Specific Density Estimates (millions of 2000 dollars)
I&F •   a limited number of species experience I&E losses or the maj ority of I&E losses are realized by a small number of
        species
     >   the regulator is familiar with, or can quickly determine, the preferred restoration alternative for these critical species
     *•   benefits information from evaluations of local habitats is available, and extrapolations do not lead to extreme
        variability
     >•   published sources of information allow estimation of all important aspects of the restoration costs.

If these conditions are absent, a complete HRC analysis will provide a more comprehensive estimate of the losses associated
with I&E than provided by traditional valuations.

In conclusion, the streamlined HRC method provides regulators, industry, and the public with an important method to quickly
estimate the likely value of I&E  losses at 316b-regulated facilities. Further, because regulators and local experts can often
                                                                                                            H5-9

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
quickly assess whether appropriate and necessary information exists for the valuation of I&E resources, streamlining may
offer many opportunities to broaden the evaluation of I&E to include ecological and related public services, even when facing
significant time and budgetary constraints.
H5-10

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                 Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
          Chapter   H6:    Benefits   Analysts
           for  the   J.R.   Whiting  Facility

                          sSSaaitesz
^of0nH^sions^&es|^SuMertain|K^ttS§^f
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation
of the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated I&E at the J.R. Whiting facility. The
economic benefits that are reported here are based on
the values presented in Chapters H4 and H5, and
EPA's estimates of I&E at the facility with and  '
without an impingement deterrent net in place (see
Chapter H3). Section H6-1 summarizes the estimates
of baseline economic loss developed in Chapters H4
and H5. Section H6-2 summarizes the economic
benefits attributable to the impingement deterrent net installed at the J.R. Whiting facility to reduce impingement. Section
H6-3 discusses anticipated reductions in current I&E under the proposed regulation.  Section H6-4 presents the estimated
total economic benefit attributable to the regulation. Section H6-5 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.

H6-1  SUMMARY FIGURES OF BASELINE LOSSES

The flowchart in Figure H6-1 summarizes how the economic estimates for J.R. Whiting were derived from I&E estimates
presented in Chapter H3. Figures H6-2 and H6-3 indicate the distribution of I&E losses by species category and associated
economic values. These diagrams reflect the baseline losses without the net. All dollar values (and loss percents) reflect
midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse, and forage.

H6-2  BASELINE ECONOMIC LOSSES

Baseline economic losses due to I&E at the J.R.  Whiting facility were calculated in Chapters H4 and H5.  In Chapter H4, 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 H5, total economic loss was estimated by calculating the cost to increase fish populations using habitat restoration
techniques (HRC approach). This is a supply-driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the  costs associated with producing fish in
riatural habitats.

The total annual economic losses associated with each method are summarized in Table H6-1. These values range from
$351,000 to $1,210,000 for impingement, and from $41,000 to $1,669,000 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.
                                                                                             H6-1

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                                            Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
 Figure H6-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual !<&E at J.R. Whiting Before Installation of the
 Impingement Deterrent Net and Associated Economic Values  (all results are annualized)°'b
                    1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)
                      I: 12.6 million organisms
                      E: 629.2 million organisms          •-:"
                    2. Age 1 equivalents lost (number of fish)                             .
                      I: 21.5 million (768,000 forage, 20-7 milliorrcommercial and recreational)
                      E: 1.8 million (143,700 forage. 1.7 million commercial and recreational)  '.\
                    3. Loss to recreational and commercial harvest
                      I: 2.62 million fish (844.000 Ib)
                      E: 166,000 fish (70,000 Ib)
         4. Value of commercial losses
           I: 2.6 million fish
              (841,000 Ib)
              $321,000
              (91.4% of $1 losses)
           E: 162,000 fish (69,000 Ib)
              $29.000
              (69.6% of $E losses)
5. Value of recreational losses
  I:  5,300 fish (3,200 Ib)
     $14,000
     (4.0% of$I losses)
  E: 4,100 fish (700 Ib)
     $8,000,
     (18.2% of $E losses)
6. Value of forage losses
(valued using either replacement
cost method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
  I: 767,800 fish
     $9.000. (2.6% of $1 losses)
  E: 143,700 fish    ;
     $1,000 (3.1 % of $E losses)
                                            7. Values of nonuse losses
                                              I: $7.000 (2.0% of $1 losses)
                                            '  E: $4,000 (9.1% of $E losses)
          8. Habitat replacement cost
            I: $1.210,000 per year
            E:$ 1,669.000 per year
 * All dollar values are the midpoint of the range estimates.
 k I&E loss estimates arc from Tables H4-2, H4-3, H4-9, and H4-10 in Chapter H4.
 Note: Species with I&E <1% of the total I&E were not valued.
H6-2

-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
  Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
 Figure H6-2: J.R. Whiting: Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated  Economic
 Values
           3.6% Forage Fish"
           UNDERVALUED
           (valued using
           replacement cost
           method or as
           production  foregone
           to fishery yield)
           [2.6% of$I] "
      84.2% Commercial and
      Recreational Fish3
      UNVALUED
      (i.e., unharvested)
      [0% of$I] b
12.2% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
VALUED as direct loss to
commercial and
recreational fishery
[95.4%of$I]b
                                     Total: 21.5 million fish peryear (age 1 equivalent)
                                                  Total value: $351,100b
 a Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalents, except that impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts to fish 2 or more years
 of age, depending on the age of entry into the fishery.
 b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 2.0% of total estimated $1 loss.
                                                                                                                 H6-3

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
                                                                                 Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
 Figure H6-3: J.R. Whiting:  Distribution of Entrapment Losses by Species  Category and Associated Economic
 Values
                                                                                 7.8% Forage Fish3
                                                                                 UNDERVALUED (valued
                                                                                 using replacement cost
                                                                                 method or as production
                                                                                 foregone to fishery yield)
                                                                                              b.
83.1% Commercial and
Recreational Fish8
UNVALUED
(i.e., unharvested)
fO%of$EJ}'
                                                                                 [3.0% ofSEJ
                                                                                          9% Commercial and
                                                                                          Recreational Fish"
                                                                                          VALUED as direct loss
                                                                                          to fishery        7
                                                                                          [87.9%of$E]b  •
                                     Total: 1.8 million fish per year (age 1 equivalent)3
                                                 Total value: $41,500b
 * Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalents, except that impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts to fish 2 or more years
 of age, depending on the age of entry into the fishery.
 b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 9.1% of total estimated SE loss.
H6-4

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
                     Table H6-1: Total Baseline Economic Loss from !<&E (2000$,  annually)

Benefits transfer approach
(demand driven approach from Chapter H4)a
Habitat replacement cost approach
(supply driven approach from Chapter H5)b
Range
Impingement
$351,000
$1,210,000
$351,000 to $1.2 million
Entrainment
$41,000
$1,669,000
$41, 000 to $1.7 million
          ' Midpoint of Range from Chapter H4.
          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.



H6-3   ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF INSTALLING A BARRIER NET

In 1980, J.R. Whiting installed a deterrent net to reduce impingement at the facility.  This dramatically reduced the number of
fish impinged (from an average of 21.5 million age 1 equivalents per year to an average of 1.6 million per year). The total
economic loss from impingement with the net installed is just 8 percent of the baseline value, or from $28,000 to $97,000 per
year.

As summarized in Table H6-2, the total economic benefit of the J.R. Whiting net can be calculated by subtracting the total
economic loss from impingement with the net installed from the baseline economic loss from impingement without the net.
Thus, the economic benefits attributable to the net are $323,000 to $1.1 million per year.

The net does not appear to significantly affect entrainment at the site, so there are no entrainment benefits attributable to the
net.
Table H6-2: Economic Benefits

Baseline economic loss
Economic loss with net installed
Total economic benefit of net
of J.R. Whiting Barrier Net
Impingement Reduction (2000$ annually)
$35 1,000 to $1.2 million
$28,000 to $97,000
$323,000 to $1.1 million
H6-4  POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS DUE TO REGULATION

The impingement deterrent net installed at the J.R. Whiting facility meets the requirements set forth in the proposed
regulation for impingement reduction. Therefore, there are no anticipated reductions in impingement attributable to the
regulation at this site.  However, under the proposed regulation, J.R. Whiting would be required to take additional measures to
reduce entrainment. Such measures could include the installation of fine mesh screens or using passive intake of cooling
water. Table H6-3 summarizes the total annual benefits from entrainment reductions, under scenarios ranging from 10
percent to 90 percent reductions in entrainment. Table H6-4 considers the benefits of two options with varying percent
reductions of I&E. Table H6-4 indicates that the benefits are expected to range from $21,000 to $835,000 for a 50 percent
reduction in entrainment.
                                                                                                         H6-5

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
                          Table H6-3:  Summary of Current Economic Losses and
                              Benefits of a Range of Potential Entrapment
                              Reductions at J.R. Whiting 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
Entrainment
$41,000
SI, 670,000
$4,000
$167,000
$8,000
$334,000
$12,000
$501,000
$16,000
$668,000
$21,000
$835,000
$25,000
$1,002,000
$29,000
$1,169,000
$33,000
$1,336,000
$37,000
$1,503,000
                             Table H6-4: Summary of Benefits of Potential
                             Entrainment Reductions at J.R. Whiting Facility
                                               ($2000)

50% entrainment reduction


low
high
Entrainment
$21,000
$835,000
H6-5  SUMMARY OF OMISSIONS, BIASES, AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE BENEFITS
ANALYSIS
Table H6-5 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 for.
H6-6

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis

Table H6-5: Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits and HRC Estimates
Issue
Long-term fish stock effects not
considered
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Recreation participation is held
constant5
Boating, bird-watching, and
other in-stream or near-water
activities are omitted"
HRC monitoring program costs
for wetland restoration not
consistent with evaluating fish
production/abundance
HRC based on capture data
assumed to represent age 1 fish
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Nonuse benefits
Recreation values for various
geographic areas
Impact on 1
Benefits Estimate j Comments
Understates benefits3 jEPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that the higher
1 fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
Understates benefits8 IEPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the stock more
; vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as water quality
I improves overtime due to other watershed activities, the number of fish impacted
iby I&E may increase.
Understates benefits" ! Recreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in value per activity outing;
j increased levels of participation are omitted.
Understates benefits8 jThe only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
Understates benefits3 j A monitoring program to determine wetland production/abundance offish would
jbe more labor intensive than current monitoring program
Understates benefits" jHigh percent of less than age 1 fish observed in capture data, thereby leading to
1 potential underestimate of scale of restoration required.
Uncertain j EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship (e.g., that a 1 3 percent change
1 in stock would have a 13 percent change in landings); this may be low or high,
1 depending on the condition of the stocks.
Uncertain j EPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational angling benefits.
Uncertain j Some recreational values used are from various regions beyond the Great Lakes.
" Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
                                                                                                                      H6-7

-------

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R., Whiting
Chapter H7: Conclusions
                                    Chapter   H7:
                                       Conclusions
EPA examined economic value of impingement and entrainment at J.R. Whiting before net installation (1978-1979) to
estimate the losses at the plant without the deterrent net and potential I&E damages at other Great Lakes facilities that do not
employ impingement or entrainment reduction technologies. Average annual impingement before net installation was about
21.5 million age 1 equivalents and average annual entrainment was about 1.8 million age 1 equivalents (see Table H3-14). As
indicated in Chapter H6, average impingement without the net is valued at between $351,000 and $1.2 million per year, and
average entrainment is valued at between $41,000 and $1.7 million per year (all in $2000).

The results of EPA's evaluation of I&E rates at J.R. Whiting also indicate that a deterrent net can be very effective at
reducing impingement. Facility monitoring data indicate that annual impingement at J.R. Whiting declined an average of
92% over the period 1981-1991 (see impingement data presented in Chapter H3).  EPA estimated that the economic benefits
of reducing impingement with the net can be substantial, ranging from $323,000 to $1.1 million per year (all in $2000).

EPA also estimated the potential economic benefits of additional technologies that might currently be applied to reduce CWIS
impacts at J.R. Whiting (Chapter H6). EPA assumed that no further impingement technology would be required at J.R.
Whiting, since the deterrent net appears to minimize impingement to the extent possible. However, EPA estimated that the
benefits of 60% entrainment reductions (which may result from installation  of fine mesh nets or using passive intake of
cooling water) would range from $25,000 to $1.0 million per year (all in $2000).

The upper ends of the valuation of losses and benefits at J.R. Whiting include results of the HRC method for valuing
impingement and entrainment losses.  HRC-based estimates of the economic value of impingement and entrainment losses at
J.R. Whiting were included with the transfer-based estimates to provide a better estimate of loss values, particularly for forage
species for which valuation techniques are limited The HRC technique is designed to provide a more comprehensive,
ecological-based valuation of impingement and entrainment losses than valuation by traditional commercial and recreational
impacts methods. Losses are valued on the basis of the combined costs for  implementing habitat restoration actions,
administering the programs, and monitoring the increased production after the restoration actions.

For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of
reducing I&E at Great Lakes facilities (Chapter H6). 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 of fish affected by  I&E would increase as populations increase in response to improved water
quality or other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA also assumed that fishing is the
only recreational activity affected and that fishing effort does not increase in response to increases in recreational catch.
                                                                                                       H7-1

-------

-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
Appendix  HI:   Life   History Parameter

         Values  Used  to   Evaluate  !<&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 J.R. Whiting facility.
                         Table Hl-1: Alewife Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs .
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)3
0.554
1.81
1.72
3.11
3.11
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.9
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery1"
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
Weight (Ib)
0.000022C
0.00606"
0.0121"
0.0181"
0.0242"
0.0303"
0.125a
0.254a
0.379"
0.485a
0.565a
0.625'
0.666"
        1 Based on Delaware Estuary alewife from PSEG, 1999c.
        b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
        c Assumed.
        " Assumed based on Delaware Estuary alewife from PSEG, 1999c.
        Wed Jan 09 14:10:50 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
        P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.alewife.csv
                                                                        App. Hl-1

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
                                  Table HI-2: Bluntnose Minnow Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO
Age 1+
Age2-f-
Age3+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
2.06"
2.06"
1°
r
r
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight Ob)15
0.000000985f
0.000375s
0.00208s
0.00585B
0.0121s
0.0143f
             * Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
             mortality).
             b Calculated from estimated survival (Froese and Pauly, 2001) 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: (4.466x10"4)*Length(mm)2'3'1 = weight(g) (Froese and
             Pauly, 2001).
             ' Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
             * Length from Carlander, 1969.
             Wed Jan 09 14:10:57 MST2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
             P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.bluntnose.minnow.csv
                                       Table HI-3: Bullhead Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO
Agel+
Age 2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.61"
1.39"
0.223C
0.223C
0.223C
0.223°
0.223C
0.223C
Fishing Mortality (per
stage)d
. 0
0
0
0.223°
0.223C
0.223°
0.223°
0.223°
0.223°
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)r
0.000000559s
0.000186"
0.00132'
0.0362'
0.079T
0.1371
0.233L
0.402'
0.679"
         " Calculated from assumed.survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
         b Calculated from estimated survival for channel catfish (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural
         mortality) — -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
         c Calculated from survival for brown bullhead (Carlander, 1969) assuming that half of mortality was natural and half
         was fishing, using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN((survival)'/').
         ' Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
         e Calculated based on survival for brown bullhead (Carlander, 1969) assuming that half of mortality was natural and
         half was fishing, using the equation: (fishing mortality) = -LN((survival)'/1).
         ' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (8.80x10-^Lengt^mm)3-06 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
         ' Length from Wang, 1986a.
         k Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
         ' Length from Carlander, 1969.
         Wed Jan 09 14:11:02 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
         P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.ourput.78.79/lifehistory.bullhead.spp.csv
App. Hl-2

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate LStE
                                   Table HI-4:  Channel Catfish Species  Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+ •
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3°
4.61"
1.39"
0.41C
0.41C
0.41C
0.41C
0.41"
0.41C
0.41C
0.41C
0.41C
0.41°
0.41C
0.41C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)
0"
0"
0"
0.41°
0.41C
0.41°
0.41C
0.41°
0.41C
0.41s
0.41C
0.41e
0.41C
0.41°
0.41C
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'1,
' , 1
Weight (lb)f
0.0000004088
0.0000191B
0.00987"
0.0554"
0.189"
0.436"
0.71"
1.22"
1.55"
2.27"
2.66"
3.41"
5.59"
5.81'
5.92"
         "  Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
         b  Calculated based on survival from (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
         (fishing mortality).
         e  Calculated based on survival from (Miller, 1966) assuming that half of mortality was natural and half was fishing,
         using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN((survival)M).
         d  Recreational and commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1. Based on hake (Saila et aL, 1997).
         0  Calculated based on survival from (Miller, 1966) assuming that half of mortality was natural and half was fishing,
         using the equation: (fishing mortality) = -LN((survival)'*).
         f  Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.94xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-13 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
         B  Length from Wang, 1986a.
         h  Length from Carlander, 1969.
         '  Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
         Wed Jan 09 14:11:07 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
         P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.channel.catfish.csv
                                                                                                                  App. Hl-3

-------
 S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
                                     Table Hl-5: Common Carp Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age7+
Age8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Natural Mortality
• (per stage)
2.3a
4.61"
1.39"
0.13C
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
0.13C
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
0.13°
0.13C
0.13°
0.13C
0.13°
0.13C
0.13C
0.13C
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)
0"
Od
0"
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
0.13C
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
0.13°
'0.13C
0.1 3C
0.13C
o.i y
0.13"
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
0.13C
0.1 3C
0.1 3C
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
1
1
Weight (lb)e
0.000000143f
0.0000 118f
0.0225s
0.79s
1.21s
1.81s
5.13s
5.526
5.82"
6.76s
8.17s
8.55"
8.94"
9.76"
. 10.2"
10.6"
11.1"
1 1.5"
12"
12.5"
          1  Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
          b  Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
          mortality).                     .                             •
          c  Froese and Pauly, 2001, assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
          11  Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
          c  Weight calculated from length using the formula: (l.lxlO-5)*Length(mm)3-025 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
          f  Length from Wang, 1986a.
          '  Length from Carlander, 1969.
          N  Length assumed based on  Carlander, 1969.
          Wed Jan 09 14:11:12 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
          P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.common.carp.csv
App. Hl-4

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
                                       Table HI-6: Crappie Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.8=
0.498a
2.93"
0.292b
0.292b
0.292b
0.292"
0.292b
0.292" .
0.292"
0.292b
0.292"
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)c
0
0
0
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
i
1
1
i
1
i
Weight (lb)d
0.0000000179°
0.00000857"
0.012r
0.128f
0.193r
0.427f
0.65 lr
0.888r
0.925f
0.972s
1.08f
1.26r
            " Bartell and Campbell, 2000. Black crappie.
            b Bartell and Campbell, 2000 assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing. Black crappie.
            c Recreational species, vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
            d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.014xlO'5)*Length(mm)3-M6 = weight(g) (Froese and
            Pauly,2001).
            c Length from Wang, 1986a.
            f Length from Carlander, 1977.
            8 Length assumed based on Carlander, 1977.
            Wed Jan 09 14:11:17 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
            P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.crappie.spp.csv.  "
                                  Table HI-7: Emerald Shiner Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2 3a
4.61"
0.776"
0.371"
4.61"
4.6 lc
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight (lb)e
0.000000252f
0.00 16f
0.01358
0.0268
0.04788
0.106s
           ° Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
           b Wapora, 1979.
           c Assumed based on Wapora, 1979.
           d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
           ° Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.114x10-4)*Length(mm)2-922 = weight(g) (Fuchs, 1967).
           r Length assumed based on Trautman, 1981.
           8 Length from Trautman, 1981.
           Wed Jan 09 14:11:22 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
           P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tab]es.output.78.79/lifehistory.emerald.shiner.csv
                                                                                                                App. Hl-5

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
                                  Table  HI-8: Freshwater Drum Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9-^
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.27'
6.13'
1.15b
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
0"
Od
1.15"
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.155°
0.1 55C
0.1 55C
; 0.1 55C
0.1 55C
0.155C
0.1 55C
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (Ib)
0.00000 llc
0.00000295f
0.0166f
0.05s
0.206s
0.438s
0.638s
0.794s
0.956
1.09s
1.26s
1.44s
1.6s
1.78s
2s
             " Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
             b Bartell and Campbell, 2000 assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
             c Froese and Pauly, 2001, assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
             d Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 0.
             c Assumed based on Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
             ' Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
             8 Scott and Grossman, 1973.   ,
             Wed Jan 09 14:11:27 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
             P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.ourput.78.79/lifehistory.freshwater.drum.csv
App. Hl-6

-------
S 316{b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I)c
0.00000000309r
0.000276s
0.00345f
0.0128r
0.0274f
0.0443f
            " Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
            " Calculated from estimated survival based on (Froese and Pauly, 2001) 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: (5.240xlO-7)*Length(mm)3 M1 = weight(g) (Carlander,
            1997). .
            f Length from  Carlander,  1997.
            8 Length assumed based on Carlander, 1997.
            Wed Jan 09 14:11:36 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
            P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/QL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.logperch.csv
                                                                                                                App. Hl-7

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
                                  Table HI-11: Rainbow Smelt Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
3.32'
2.65"
0.72"
0.72b
0.72"
0.72"
0.72"
0.72"
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
Weight (lb)d
0.0000000115"
0.00000233"
0.0195f
0.041s
0.1 77E
0.338f
0.537f
0.597f
             ' Calculated from survival from (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the equation:
             (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
             b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
             e Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
             * Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.23xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-"4 = weight(g) (Froese and
             Pauly, 2001).
             c Length from Able and Fahay, 1998.
             r Length assumed based on Able and Fahay, 1998 and Scott and Scott, 1988.
             « Length from Scott and Scott, 1988.
             Wed Jan 09 14:11:41 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
             P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.rainbow.smelt.csv
                                       Table  Hl-12: Sucker Species  Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 0+
AgeH-
Age2-f-
Age3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.05"
2.56"
2.3"
0.274"
0.274"
0.274"
0.274"
0.274b
0.274"
Fisfiing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0
0.274"
0.274b
0.274"
0.274"
0.274"
0.274"
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight Ob)"
0.00000001 35C
0.00000198°
0.000 145f
0.0447f
0.249f
0.305f
0.609f
0.823f
0.929f
             1 Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
             b Bartell and Campbell, 2000 assuming half of mortality is natural and half is fishing.
             c Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
             * Weight calculated from length based on river carpsucker using the formula: (6.13xlO~6)*Length(rnm)3'0" =
             weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
             c Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
             ' Length from Carlander, 1969.
             Wed Jan 09 14:11:45 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
             P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.sucker.spp.csv
App. Hl-8

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
                                      Table Hl-13: Sunfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.71"
0.687"
0.687°
1.61"
1.61"
1.5",
1.5b
1.5"
1.5"
1.5b
1.5"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5"
1.5"
1.5"
1.5"
1.5"
1.5"
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)e
0.00000000736f
0.000000994f
0.000878s
0.00666s
0.0271s
0.0593g
0.0754s
0.142s
0.18s
0.214s
0.232s
            • Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed from (Carlander, 1977) using the equation: (natural mortality) =
            -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
            b Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed from (Carlander, 1977) using the equation: (natural mortality) =
            -LN((survival)*).
            ° Recreational species; vulnerable to fishing'at age 3.
            d Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed from (Carlander, 1977) using the equation: (fishing mortality) =
            -LN((survival)*).
            c Weight calculated from length based on pumpkinseed using the formula: (6.13xlO"6)*Length(mm)3'262 =
            weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
            f Length for Pumpkinseed from Wang, 1986a.
            8 Length for Pumpkinseed from Carlander, 1977.                                             '.
            Wed Jan 09 14:11:50 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
            P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.sunfish.spp.csv
                                                                                                               App. Hl-9

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
                                      Table HI-14: Walleye Species Parameters
Stage Name
ESBS
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel-f
Age2-f
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.05"
3.55"
1.93"
0.0474"
0.0474b
0.0474b
0.0474"
0.0474"
0.0474"
0.0474"
0.0474"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0
0
0
0.6d
0.6"
0.6"
0.6"
0.6d
0.6"
0.6"
0.6"
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)'
0.00000000506f
0.0000768s
0.03s
0.328s
0.907s
1.77B
2.358
3.37s
3.97s
4.66f
5.58s
              Calculated from survival from (Carlander, 1997) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival)
             -(fishing mortality).
             * Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
             0 Recreational species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
             11 McDermot and Rose, 2000.
             c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.296x1 O^Lengtf^mm)3-23 = weight(g) (Froese and
             Pauly.2001).
             ' Length assumed based on Carlander, 1997.
             8 Length from Carlander, 1997.
             Wed Jan 09 14:11:55 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
             P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.walleye.csv
                                    Table HI-15: White  Bass Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO-t-
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.61"
1.39b
0.42=
0.42C
0.42C
0.42=
0.42=
0.42°
0.42=
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0.
0
0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7.
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (Ib)
0.0000000266f
0.000001 74E
0.174"
0.467h
0.644"
1.02"
1.16"
1.26"
1.66"
1.68'
            1 Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
            b Calculated from survival from (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
            LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
            c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
            11 McDermot and Rose, 2000.
            c Assumed based on fishing mortality.
            ' Weight calculated from assumed length of 1 mm using the formula: (1.206x 10'5)*Length(mm)3-'32 = weight(g)
            (Van Oosten, 1942).
            « Weight calculated from length of 3.8mm (Carlander, 1997) using the formula: (1.206xlQ-5) * Length(mm)3-132
            - weight(g) (Van Oosten, 1942).
            h Carlander, 1997.
            '  Assumed based on Carlander, 1997.
            Wed Jan 09 14:12:00 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
            P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.ourput.78.79/lifehistory.white.bass.csv
App. Hl-10

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
                                   Table HI-16: White Perch "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 en-
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Natural Mortality
(perstage)'
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
0.48
0.838
1
1
1
Weight (lb)
0.000022b
0.00946C
0.0189C
0.0283C
0.0378C
0.0472"
0.0567"
0.103"
0.15"
0.214°
0.265"
0.356°
0.387°
0.516'
0.619"
          ° Based on Delaware Estuary white perch from PSEG, 1999c.
          " Assumed based on PSEG, 1999c.
          Wed Jan 09 14:12:05 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
          P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.white.perch.(
                                  Table HI-17: Yellow Perch Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.75"
3.56"
2.53"
0.361"
0.248"
0.504"
0.504"
0.504"
0.504C
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)d
0
0
0
0
0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1 '
1
Weight Obs)
0.0000022f
0.00000384"
0.0232"
0.0245"
0.0435"
0.0987"
0.132"
0.166"
0.214"
            " Based on Delaware Estuary yellow perch from PSEG, 1999c.
            " Wapora, 1979.
            c Assumed based on Wapora, 1979.
            d McDermot and Rose, 2000.
            c Recreational species; vulnerable to fishing at age 3.
            f Assumed based on Wapora, 1979.
            Wed Jan 09  14:12:10 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
            P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.yellow.perch.csv
                                                                                                            App. HI-11

-------

-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                          onroe
           Facility Case Study

-------

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                      Chapter II: Background
                    Chapter   II:    Background
This case study presents the results of an analysis
performed by EPA to assess the potential benefits of
reducing impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
cooling water intake structures (CWIS) at the Detroit
Edison Monroe Power plant, located at the mouth of
the River Raisin on the western shore of Lake Erie
(Figure 11-1).  Section 11-1 of this background chapter
provides a brief description of the facility, Section II-
2 describes the environmental setting, and Section 11-3
presents information on the area's socioeconomic
characteristics.

II-1   OVERVIEW OF MONROE
FACILITY

,w-jjrI^^^3;l^Jcj^ffiejRw^>8lMflK^S5^3«S5S'w«i'
-Jl:-3JSSSoc^^
The Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant is a four-unit, 3,293 MW fossil fuel, steam electric power plant (Cole, 1978;
Goodyear, 1978; Jude et al., 1983). The facility is located where the River Raisin enters Lake Erie, just north of the J.R.
Whiting facility, evaluated in Part H of this case study document (Figure 11-1). The first unit went online in 1971, and all
four generating units were completed by 1974.  Each unit has four circulating water pumps, each of which is capable of a flow
of 7.3 mVsec (116,000 gpm). Monroe is one of the largest fossil fuel burning power plants in the United States (Detroit
Edison, 2002).                                         '                             .            ,

Monroe operates a once-through cooling system (Goodyear, 1978). The cooling water intake draws a maximum flow of 85
mVsec (3,000 cfs) (Cole, 1978). The 100 m (328 ft) long cooling water intake channel is located about 650 m (2,133 ft)
upstream from the mouth of the River Raisin (Goodyear, 1978). The intake has two screenhouses and 12 circulating water
pumps (Jude et al., 1983). Each pump is equipped with trash racks with vertical bars spaced 7.6 cm (3in.) apart, and a
traveling screen with  1 cm (0.4in.) openings (Goodyear, 1978).  The traveling screens normally rotate once each 8 hours, but
will rotate at a higher speed when debris restricts flow (Jude, et al., 1983).  The cooling water discharge canal, which is 1.8
km (1.1 mi) long and  171m (561  ft) wide, empties into Plum Creek just upstream of its confluence with Lake Erie
approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi) south-southwest of the mouth of the River Raisin (Goodyear, 1978).

Monroe uses  a fish return system to divert fish from the intake channel (Jude et al., 1983; Dodge, 1998), reducing
impingement by an estimated160 percent (Dodge, 1998). Fish and debris are diverted by the traveling screens to a pump, and
transported into a series of pipes that discharge into Lake Erie east of the plant.
The cooling water design flow of the Monroe plant of 1,975
MGD is 4 times greater than the River Raisin's average flow
(Dodge, 1998). During most of the year, the entire flow of the
river is withdrawn, and Lake Erie water is drawn upstream to
the plant to provide the additional water required, reversing the
flow of the river at its mouth (Goodyear, 1978; Cole, 1978).

It began commercial service in 1969 and currently operates four
coal-fired steam-electric units and five oil-fired internal
combustion turbines.  Monroe had 345 employees in 1999 and
generated 18.3 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity.
Estimated baseline revenues in 1999 were $1.4 billion, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 17.2 million
MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $81.59 per MWh. Monroe's 1999 production expenses totaled
$284 million, or 1.553 cents per KWh, for an operating income of $1.1 billion.
         ***   Ownership Information
         Monroe is a regulated utility plant owned by Detroit
         Edison, a subsidiary of DTE Energy Company. DTE
         Energy is an energy holding company with over 9,100
         employees. The firm owns or controls over 11 million
         megawatts of electric generating capability. In 2001,
         DTE Energy posted sales of $7.8 billion. 2000
         electricity sales were 55 million MWh (Hoover's
         Online, 2002; DTE Energy, 2002).
                                                                                                       11-1

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                         Chapter II: Background
 Figure 11-1: Location of Monroe Power Plant on the River Raisin and Lake Erie. J.R. Whiting Power Plant is just south of Monroe

 Power Plant
                                                                                         Facility



                                                                                         Major urban areas
J. R. Whiting      f \

   Plant         Sr*
           f£\J  Bass

        -  "in*  -  Islands
                                                                             Lake


                                                                             Eric
                                                 •I^7;.,::^.^,;^,,,4S^?!^^


                                                 ^^i^^!tHq=«^»*i^^                  I/
                                                 ---^ZjjBrt.                            ::  ,         i^
                                                                                    0,    'P    20 Miles '-

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
Table 11-1 below summarizes the plant characteristics of the Monroe plant.
                     Table 11-1: Summary of Monroe Plant Characteristics (1999)

Plant EIA Code
NERC Region
Total Capacity (MW)
Primary Fuel
Number of Employees
Net Generation (million MWh)
Estimated Revenues (billion)
Total Production Expense (million)
Production Expense (ji/KWh)
Estimated Operating Income (billion)
Monroe
1733
ECAR
3,293
Coal
345
18.3
$1.4
$284
•1.5530
$1.1
                   Notes: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council
                   ECAR = East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement
                   Dollars are in $2001.
                   Source: Form EIA-860A (NERC Region, Total Capacity, Primary Fuel); FERC Form-1
                   (Number of Employees, Net Generation, Total Production Expense).
11-2  ENVIRONMENTAL SETTTN6

The Monroe plant withdraws water from both the River Raisin arid Lake Erie.  The following section focuses on the River
Raisin to avoid repetition of information in Part H, the case study of J.R. Whiting.' Readers seeking more information on
Lake Erie are referred to Chapter HI of Part H of this document.

11-2.1   The River Raisin

The River Raisin drains approximately 2,770 km2 (1,070 mi2) in Michigan and northwestern Ohio (Dodge, 1998; USGS,
2001b). The mainstem of the river is about 240 km (150 mi) long, and the drop in elevation is about 146 m (480 ft) from the
headwaters to the mouth (Dodge, 1998). The average discharge measured at a station approximately 19 km (12 mi) upstream
from the mouth is 21 nrVsec (741 cfs).  The annual flow pattern is representative of a snowmelt-fed river, with high flows in
March and April  and low flows in July through October. It is believed that the river was named "Raisin" by French explorers
who discovered plentiful grapevines growing along its banks.

The River Raisin has been affected by many factors over time (Dodge, 1998).  Agricultural activity has contributed to flow
instability and erosion, which in turn have altered the channel structure. In addition, agricultural land use contributes to
sedimentation problems, altered temperature regimes, and nutrient loading. Point source pollution from industrial and
municipal sources was a problem for many years, but has been dramatically reduced since the 1970's. Despite the potential
for recreational use, public perception of the river as polluted, with'limited access and poor fishery management mean that it
is not heavily used.

The lower portion of the River Raisin was identified by the International Joint Commission as one of Michigan's 14 Areas of
Concern (AOCs) because of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and metal contamination offish and sediments (Dodge, 1998).
The River Raisin AOC is defined as the lower portion of the river from the Winchester Bridge Dam in Monroe, extending 0.8
km (0.5 mi) out into Lake Erie, and 1.6 km (1 mi) north and south along the nearshore zone of the lake (Dodge, 1998;
U.S. EPA, 2001 b).
                                                                                                            11-3

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
11-2.2  Aquatic Habitat  and Biota  '

The lower River Raisin has an average gradient of 0.91 m per km (3.0 ft per mi), and a firm stream bed composed of cobble,
rock, sand and limestone bedrock (Dodge, 1998). Because of the bedrock substrate, much of the river is usually shallow and
wide. Overall, the river has a diversity of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish species. The northern clearwater crayfish
(Orconectes propinquus) is found throughout the river. The lower River Raisin once supported 20 species of mussels, but a
recent survey found only four species.

A survey conducted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in 1985 identified 36 fish species in the lower reach of
the river (Dodge, 1998). Smallmouth bass were abundant, although they are not found in the middle reaches because of the
shallow gradient there. Lake Erie fish are not typically found in the River Raisin, because access is restricted by a series of
dams.

Many of the fish identified in I&E studies at the Monroe Plant (see Table 13-1) are common to the River Raisin (Dodge,
1998). These species include spotfin shiner (Cyprinella spiloptem), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides), common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), northern hog sucker
(Hypentelium nigricans), bullheads (Ameiurus spp.), northern pike (Esox lucius), muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), crappies
(Pomoxis spp.), yellow perch (Percaflavescens), logperch (Percina caprodes), and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum).

Other species, particularly those impinged and entrained most frequently at the plant, are most likely drawn from Lake Erie
(Dodge, 1998). These species include gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), rainbow
smelt (Osmerus mordax), burbot (Lota lota), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), and white bass (Morone chrysops).

Species of special concern identified by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) found in the River Raisin include
the black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei), brindled madtom (Noturus miurus), and pugnose shiner (Notropis anogenus).
Threatened species identified by MNFI are creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta
pellucida), silver shiner (Notropis photogenis), and southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster).

11-2.3  Major  Environmental  Stressors

Human activity in the River Raisin basin  has led to a number of major stresses on the aquatic environment (Dodge, 1998).
Dam construction and habitat alteration have affected habitat quality on the river. Prior to the 1970's, extensive point source
pollution from municipal and industrial sources, particularly paper mills, resulted in PCB and metal contamination of the
sediments and biota in the river. Fish communities have also been affected by stocking of species such as common carp and
rainbow trout, as well as accidental introductions of invasive species.

a.   Habitat  alteration
The River Raisin has experienced extensive modification over time (Dodge, 1998). There are 22 dams on the river mainstem,
38 dams on tributaries, and numerous small dams on smaller streams. The construction of dams has altered the flow regime
Of the river and eliminated much of the highest gradient habitat in the mainstem.  Approximately 94 percent of the River
Raisin basin is devoted to agricultural use. Activities associated with the extensive agricultural development in the basin such
as deforestation, channelization and wetland drainage have reduced the quality and diversity of aquatic habitat. Although
urban land use is minimal (estimates range from 2 to 3  percent), development is increasing and affects the flow regime of the
river.

River Raisin habitat for . • ~: "* ~:•".""" rr: fish (fish that migrate from lakes up rivers, like salmon, walleye, and white bass)
has been eliminated by the combination of the large water withdrawals by the Monroe power plant and the series of dams in
the lower river (Dodge, 1998). While spring spawning runs of walleye and white bass have increased dramatically in other
western Lake Erie tributaries, they are absent in the River Raisin.

b.   Introduction  of nonnative species
The introduced zebra mussel became established in large numbers in Lake Erie and its tributaries in the late 1980's and early
1990's (U.S. EPA, 2000). Zebra mussels have altered  habitat, food web dynamics, energy transfer, and nutrient cycles in the
lakes.  However, filtering by zebra mussels has apparently contributed to a dramatic increase in Lake Erie's water clarity. A
preferred course of action on how to deal with the zebra mussels has not yet been established by the Lake Erie Lakewide
11-4

-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                             Chapter II: Background
Management Plan Committee (U.S. EPA, 2000). Zebra mussels have been found in headwater lakes of the River Raisin
(Dodge, 1998).

Another invasive species of concern in the River Raisin is the rusty crayfish (Oronectes rusticus), an aggressive species that
outcompetes native crayfish and is a predator offish eggs. Although sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is-an invasive
species of concern in Lake Erie, it has not been found in the River Raisin (Dodge, 1998).

c.   Overfishing
Overfishing is not a significant stressor on the River Raisin (Dodge, 1998). While major sport fish like largemouth bass are
present and other species like smallmouth bass, muskellunge, rainbow trout, and walleye are stocked, fishing pressure on the
lower River Raisin is only light to moderate. This may be because river fishing is more difficult than nearby lake fishing,
because there are competing uses, and because of the number of dams along the river, which impede passage of boats.

d.   Pollution
Discharges to Lake Erie and its tributaries of persistent toxic chemicals were banned in the 19/70's, but effects of these
historical discharges continue to linger (U.S. EPA, 2000). Water quality in the River Raisin was historically affected by both
industrial point source pollution and agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Today, sediments, water, and biota are
contaminated with PCBs and metals such as zinc, chromium, and copper (Dodge, 1998; U.S. EPA, 2001b):

The presence of PCBs has resulted in fish consumption advisories being issued for the River Raisin and Lake Erie (see Table
11-2; MDCH, 2001).
      Table 11-2: State of Michigan Fish Consumption Advisories for the River Raisin and Lake Erie,  2001°
                                                              Fish Length (in.)

River Raisin (below Monroe C
Carp
Freshwater drum
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Lake Erie
Carp
• Catfish
Chinook salmon
Coho salmon
Freshwater drum
Lake trout
Rainbow trout
Smallmouth bass
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
White perch
Yellow Perch
6-8
am)
•»
iM

*.J<-

»
•


i,/T




fjm
T/*
.fjm
j./T
8-10

»
jii./m

£J*

•
•


i/T




.:/»
T/+
urn
i./T
10-12

*
,./«

T/*

. • *
•
.-,-./•
A/B
&./T
&./•>
AM


i./B
T/*
ijm
&./T
12-14

*
*„/•

•

* .
•
. !:./•
i/B
jfe/T
A.I*
AM

i/T
i/B
T/*
i/B
,i/T
14-18

*
A/B
T/*
•

•
•
&.M
. m
A/T
j£,/*t*
,: /•
urn
&.rr
,.,/•
T/*

A./Y
18-22

•
,: /•
T/<-
•

•
•
---:/•
/../•
A./T
LI*
#../•
£jm
&r*
«,/•
T/*

£./T
22-26

•
WB
T/*> -


•
•
ii./m
.-/•
i./T
JkJ*
,'./• ,
.?,/•
&/•

•


26-30

•
*,M
T/<-


•
+
^/B
,i./«
A/T
*/*
iM
^M
£,M

•


30+

•
' ,>../»



•
•
&.M
&M
&JW
. *./*
*,/• •

, /•

•


                                                            T = Limit consumption to 1 meal ('/2 pound) per week.
                                                            ,., = Unlimited consumption
 • = No consumption.
•:• = Limit consumption to 6 meals (!/2 pound) per year.
• = Limit consumption to 1  meal (VS pound) per month.
' If there is only one symbol it is the advice for the whole population.  When two symbols are shown, the first is the advice for the
"general population" and the second is the advice for "children age 15 and under and women who are pregnant, nursing or expect to bear
children."
Source: MDCH, 2001.
                                                                                                             77-5

-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
e.  Surface water withdrawals by CWIS
Steam electric power generation accounts for 68 percent of all surface water withdrawals from Lake Erie and its surrounding
watersheds in the United States (USGS,  1995). The watersheds draining into the western Lake Erie hydrologic subregion are
more heavily used by cooling water intake structures, which represent 92 percent of all surface water withdrawals.

11-3   SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

The Monroe plant is located in Monroe County, Michigan, a rural county bordered to the east by Lake Erie and to the north
and south by more urban counties (Wayne County, Michigan, and Lucas County, Ohio). In 2000, Monroe had a population of
145,945, a high rate of home ownership, and a higher median income than surrounding counties (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
The socioeconomic characteristics of Monroe and neighboring counties are summarized in Table 11-3.

                Table-II-3: Socioeconomic  Characteristics of Monroe and Neighboring Counties

Population in 2000
Land area in 2000, km2 (miz)
Persons per square mile, 2000
Metropolitan Area
Median household money income, 1997 model-based estimate
Persons below poverty, percent, 1997 model-based estimate
Housing units in 2000
Homeownership rate in 2000
Households in 2000
Persons per household in 2000
Households with persons under 1 8 years in 2000
High school graduates, 25 and older in 1990
College graduates, 25 and older in 1990
Monroe County, MI
145,945
1,427(551)
265
Detroit, Ml
$48,607
7.60%
56,471
81.00%
53,772
2.69
39.10%
60,968
8,655
Wayne County, MI
2,061,162
1,590(614)
3,357
Detroit, MI
$35,357
18.00%
826,145
66.60%
768,440
• 2.64
37.70%
926,603
180,822
Lucas County, OH
455,054
881 (340)
1,338
Toledo, OH
$37,064
13.60%
196,259
65.40%
182,847
2.44
34.10%
221,052
49,393
 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
 11-3.1   Major Industrial Activities

 Monroe County produces agricultural products such as soybeans, grains, corn, sugar beets, potatoes, and alfalfa, and
 industrial processes such as auto parts manufacturing, metal fabrication, cement, packaging, and glass production (InfoMI,
 2001). The city of Monroe is the county seat and the largest city in the county. Industrial activity in the city is dominated by
 Steel production, paper products, furniture, electrical power and auto parts.

 11-3.2   Commercial Fisheries

 There is no commercial fishing on the River Raisin. In Lake Erie, commercial fishing generated between $2 million and $3
 million of revenue per year over the last decade (USGS, 2001c). A small share of this catch comes from Michigan waters.
 Tables 11-4 and 11-5 show the pounds harvested and the revenue generated for the Michigan Lake Erie commercial fishery
 from 1985 to 1999. Despite fish consumption advisories, carp is the most important commercial species, comprising 72
 percent of the catch and 51  percent of revenues over this 15-year period.  Channel catfish, quillback, and bigmouth buffalo
 make up most of the remaining harvest and revenue (USGS, 200 Ic).
 11-6

-------
•o
 c
 1
1
VJ








o\
ON.
v<
in
ON.
T-l

tt>
tb
a

**j
w
0
&
§,
IE
0
*
£
C'

g>

a
]5
&)
E


•fe
VI
c-
o
a.
v-f
M
a



ON
ON
%
ON
g-
a

vo
Os


OS
***

•ff
I


S




OS
iH

O
OS

OS



00
OS

S
s
ON
I—I
g
ON

$
CJ
O>
O : O : ~ ; : ;
o : in : vo : : —; : »n
N I 0. : in : I ?Q : vo
vo : r- : t- • • ;
oo i os j £2 i i vo : g
°i i *1 : ""^ i ! ^ : "^
Si le^l Igljq


vo | ; ON : j ff) : oo
§!s! §!"*!??!?

; : co • : o ' fr)


: : : : :
cn : _ : o : i os :
•— «» : *n : p*. ; • ; OQ *. ^-«


Q ': ^. : *<"» • • oo : o



Ui^i i i •
i° iS-^°°i~!

: oo : "° : :
i 3 i °-i. ! !

iSi^.1 Is!
! en i ^ i i ^ :

I . "! T
' •— t ' °° ' • a\ ' rt
: ^ ; in" ; j ^T j ^_T
| : m : : :
ilili iliS
• vo • *~i • • en • o
O '• • • : :
§: O ; en : ; ^f :
• -sf • in • • vo • in
oo" : cn . CN i | (-„ ; o
t— : t-~ ON : : <3- : ^"
oo ; • ; ; j
Gizzard shad
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
White perch
White bass
Freshwater drum


ON
01

ON


CN






VO


5



















O

Os,
0
oo
VO

tJ

VO
CN_


VO






















oo
oo
CN
00

cn
1
00


S

^
o"

oo
p-






^


o
m


01
vo
00*


S

in
Os
of



00
oo

S



Goldfish
.«n
CN
in
0
o
CN
vo
X
Jf
en
t-~
00

CN
vo
CN
Os"
CN
en
s
rf
"
m
o
oo"
CN

en,
>n
CN
S
DO
ON

In
co"

i;
i— i

*n
ro^
m
in"
CO
o
vo
in
co"
p
§•
o


o
ON
of
CN
r~
ON
en"
en
vo
vo
r-

en
o.
vo

o
Os.
oo"


t-
06"

^.
o
CN
o"
en

00
vo"




oo
vo
in



00

vo
CN
CN
si
00
Quillback
OS
CN
01
>n"
r-

ON

__
















;*
o"
^
ON
s
Os"



Os"
rj-

CN


Bigmouth buffalo
en
OS
ON
in
CN
o
oo
in
CN
en
L*
in
vo
vo"
00
:
en
°°~
in
***
CN
2l
*-H
ON
rn"
CO
04
Os
ON"
CO
01

so"
'04

O

01
04
CO
co"
co
01

04
OJ^
04
1
CO
vo"
o
o
co"
t —
v>






































o
i
CN
oo"
o
oo
D
S



0\
in
•oo
0\
.cj"
UJ
Ck)
•fe
1
IE
^o
4-
c
J
mmercial
0
o
,f-
Revenue
to
M
15

OS
1
t-
VO
Os
ON
1
1
S
OS
OS
1
o

1

oo
oo
OS
I
vo
oo
OS
OS
z
"5
a.
I
o
in
en
69
g
.00
S"
^
01
i
ro








O
*n
1
Gizzard shad
1
OS
ON
m
en
Os
O
01
ON
oo
m
oo
69
en
CN
01
01
f-
en
69
00

m
i
CO
CO
°°«
CO
CO
Brown bullhead
I
00
CN
ON"
•a-
oo
vo
S"
CN^
ON
oo
o"
OO
01
vo
en"
69
o
oo
Os
oo
1!
S
oo
ON
vo"

oC
S
vo"
S
CO
Channel catfish


CN
00
CN
S


in
69








White perch
00
S
o,
69
en
3
69
VO
of
S
69
69
OS
69
S
oo


0?
3

ON
CN
VO
69
1
69
OS
CM.
69
White bass
oo
69
00
VO
i
69
69
00
en
69
01
01
69
01
vo
rr
69
oo
69





5
OO
69
in
00
69
ON
OO
69
Freshwater drum

01
69
3
69

69











c3
O
en
m
69
en
69
>n
69
VO
in
.8.
VO
01
69









VO
69
69
in
m
69
1

in
S
of
69
VO
cn"
69
OS
S
u
o
cn
69

vo
CN
69
OO
o
en
69
ON
00
vq,
69

CN
69
i
&%

&e
s
69


Goldfish
CO
||

— : vo
CN —i
m ; in
vo :.vo
1- : 01
69 ; 69
01 • VO
Ol ; ^f
vo": of
en ; 01
69 i 69
|||
III
01 i VO
— : m
vo : oo
o'iof
en • "-
69 i&9
|!|
Os f
ON ;
€^ f
§:
: f^.
\o': n
vo"
69
01
en
en
00
69

en
69
00
69
o
VO
VO
69
Ol
OS
01
69
Bigmouth buffalo
ON
vo"
•a-
69
t—
69
Os
01
01
in"
69
r-
m
in"
o
69
00*
69
en
CD.
0
oo"
S
vo
in
ON"
04
&9
00
r-^
fO
eo
»n
CO
I

oC
r-
$114,959
en
69
$340,898
V)
I

















u
01
oo"
a
00
1

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
11-3.3   Recreational Fisheries

Recreational fishing is minimal in the lower portion of the River Raisin, and most fishing is concentrated in the lakes of the
upper basin (Dodge, 1998). A combination of factors such as limited access and a public perception of the river as polluted
contributes to the lack of recreational fishing in the river. The lower River Raisin does have good smallmouth bass habitat
and experiences light to moderate fishing pressure.  Because of logjams and other obstacles, bank and wading fishing tends to
be more popular than boat fishing.

Recreational fishing in Lake Erie is more predominant. Recreational anglers spent about 175,000 noncharter days fishing the
Michigan waters of Lake Erie in 1994 (Rakoczy and Svoboda, 1997).  Their most commonly caught species were yellow
perch and walleye (44 percent and 35 percent of the total harvest, respectively; Table 11-6).  White bass, channel catfish,
freshwater drum, and white perch made up most of the remaining catch. Total recreational hours averaged approximately 2
million between 1986 and 1994 (Table 11-6).

  Table 11-6: Michigan Lake Erie Boat Fishery Angler Effort and Primary Species Catch April  Through October,
                                                 1986 to 1998

1986-
1987
1988"
1989
1990
1991"
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Angler Hours
2,068,779
2,455,903
4,362,452
3,799,067
2,482,242
805,294
836,216
935,249
1,012,595
na
na
na
na
•Number of Yellow Perch Harvested
834,310
619,112
318,786
1,466,442
770,507
378,716
255,747
473,580
246,327
343,240
635,233
529,435
586,277
Number of Walleye Harvested
605,666
902,378
1,996,824
1,092,289
780,508 :
132,322
249,713
270,376
216,040
107,909
174,607
112,400
114,607
 * May through October.
 6 May through September.
 na = not available.
 Sources: Rakoczy and Svoboda, 1997; Thomas and Haas, 2000.
11-3.4  Other Water-Based  Recreation

The River Raisin is used for other recreational activities such as canoeing, power boating, and hunting (Dodge, 1998).
Although passage is complicated by six low-head dams in Monroe, canoeing activity occurs just upstream of Monroe. The
current is gentle for easy nonpower boating, although flow may be too low at some times of the year. The town of Blissfield
sponsors a canoe race each September. Motor boating is concentrated in the lakes of the upper portion of the River Raisin
watershed and at the mouth of the River Raisin.  Many private marinas are located downstream of the last dam on the river,
and boaters access Lake Erie from the river.

Although limited, some hunting occurs along the River Raisin.  The Sharonville State Game Area, located in Jackson and
Washtenaw Counties, is managed for deer, small mammal, and fowl hunting. Waterfowl hunting includes wood duck and
Canada goose. Other game areas managed for similar hunting opportunities are the Onsted State Game Area, the Somerset
State Game Area, and the Lake Hudson State Recreation Area. In Monroe County, The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources manages the Petersburg State Game area for deer and small game hunting.                           '
11-8

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                                     Chapter II: Background
          »**   The Linesville, PA Spillway at Pymatiining State  ||
          Park:— "Where Ducks Walk on Fishes' Backs"

          Carp swarm above and below the spillway.  They compete
          with ducks and Canada geese for slices of bread tossed to
          them by visitors.  The ducks clamor over the seemingly
          endless school of carp to get their share. The ducks actually
          walk on the back of the carp.

          The Spillway is a popular recreational site where visitors
          bring old bread or buy it at a nearby concession stand. Birds
          and fish compete for the bread. The spillway is the outflow
          of a secondary impoundment at the 2500 acre Pymatuning
          reservoir/ sanctuary that serves as fish propagation waters
          for the Linesville Fish Culture Station.
         Source: http://www.sideroads.com/outdoors/spillway.html
         Photos: © Lynne G. Tudor
                                                                                                                     11-9

-------

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                Chapter 12: Technical Description of Monroe
      Chapter  12:  Technical   Description
                                    of   Monroe
                                             ^Sm^i&ttftftixK'^^
This chapter presents technical information related to
the case study facility. Section 12-1 presents detailed
Energy Information Administration (EIA) data on the
generating units addressed by this case study and in
scope of the Phase II rulemaking. Section 12-2
describes the configuration of the facility's intake
structures.


12-1  OPERATIONAL PROFILES

Baseline operational characteristics

The Monroe power plant operates nine units. Four are coal-fired steam electric units (Units 1 -4) that use cooling water
withdrawn from the River Raisin while five units (Units IC1-IC5) are oil-fired internal combustion turbines that do not require
cooling water. The internal combustion turbines began operation in 1969 while the four coal units began operation between
June 197 land May 1974.

Monroe's total net generation in 1999 was 18.3 million MWh. The four steam turbine units (Units 1-4) had capacity
utilization rates between 50.4 and 73.3 percent. Table 12-1 presents details for Monroe's nine units.

                        Table 12-1: generator Detail  of the Monroe Plant (1999)
Generator
ID
1
2
3
4
IC1
IC2
IC3
IC4
IC5
Total
Capacity
(MW)
817
823
823
817
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
3,293
Prime
Mover"
ST
ST
ST
ST
1C
1C
1C
1C
1C

Energy
Source6
BIT
BIT .
BIT
BIT
F02
FO2
FO2
FO2
FO2

Jn-Service
Date
June 1971
March 1973
May 1973
May 1974
Nov. 1969
Dec. 1969
Nov. 1969
Dec. 1969
Nov. 1969

Operating Status
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating
Operating

• -Net
Generation
(MWh)
4,667,517
3,633,349
4,755,872
5,249,776
1,916




18,308,430
Capacity
Utilization0
65.2%
50.4%
66.0%
73.3%
1.6%




63.5%
roof
Associated
CWIS
1
2
3
4
Not
Applicable




 Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; 1C = internal combustion turbine.
b Energy source categories: BIT = bituminous coal; FO2 = No. 2 fuel oil.
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, 2001d.
                                                                                             12-1

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 12: Technical Description of Monroe
Figure 12-1 below presents Monroe's electricity generation history between 1.970 and 2000.


 Figure 12-1: Monroe Net Electricity Generation 1970 -2000 (in MWh)
      25,000,000
              1970
                                                                                 1995
                                                                                              2000
 Source: Form EIA-906.
12-2  CWIS CONFIGURATION  AND WATER  WITHDRAWAL

The Monroe Power Station is located at the mouth of the River Raisin, approximately 2000 ft upstream from the open water
of western Lake Erie. Monroe currently.employs two intake structures that supply cooling water to the facility's once-through
cooling system.  Water from the River Raisin is diverted down a man-made intake canal to the intake structures. The first
intake structure is 330 feet-from the canal opening, while the second structure is 880 feet from the opening.  Both structures
share the same design and technology configuration.

Intake water drawn into one of the two structures passes through trash racks consisting of vertical bars spaced 7.6 cm apart
and under a skimmer wall to one of the eight intake bays.  Each intake bay contains fish collecting pans and guide screens that
divert most impingeable organisms to a fish pump.  Fish pumped out of the intake canal are deposited in a fish return pipe 20
cm in diameter.  The return pipe expands to 66 cm in diameter downstream from the diversion point. Diverted fish are
returned to Lake Erie at the end of a rocky jetty.  Intake water not diverted with pumped fish passes through a vertical
traveling screen to the circulating pumps and through the condenser. Traveling screens are rotated every eight hours, except
during periods of high impingement. Heated water returns to the River Raisin via a discharge canal located to the west of the
main powerhouse.

At maximum capacity, the Monroe Power Plant can withdraw 1,975 MOD through its two cooling water intake structures,
representing 4 times the mean annual flow of the source water, the River Raisin.  Because of the proximity of the intake canal
to Lake Erie (~2000 ft.) and the large volume of water required for cooling operations at the facility, Monroe often draws
water from Lake Erie up the mainstem of the river to the intake canal.  Seasonal variations (spring flood) prevent this from
occurring on a daily basis.
72-2

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                           Chapter 12: Technical Description of Monroe
During the 1970s, Detroit Edison evaluated a fish pump and return system at its Monroe facility for its ability to reduce the
impingement of aquatic organisms.  Data from a 1977 316(b) demonstration study indicate a diversion rate associated with
the fish pumps of 95 percent, meaning 95 percent of the fish passing through the trash racks into the main portion of the intake
structure were successfully diverted through the return system to Lake Erie. The survival rate of diverted fish is unclear.
Given the  nature  of the diversion (mechanical pumps), the distance of the return  pipe (-2000 ft), and the differences between
the original and terminal environments (River Raisin vs. Lake Erie), it is reasonable to assume that some number of diverted
fish do not survive for an extended period of time after the return to Lake Erie. However, there have been no studies of long-
term survival.

No technologies are currently in place to reduce entrainment mortality.
                                                                                                             72-3

-------

-------
 § 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                        Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
                                 Chapter  13:
                  Evaluation  of   X&E   Data
33?3^;

&4^
                         itrjined atMoinriberiv
                         iecies inipin^Sljana'
rMethodXJbr3sidmtii>g.I^-&]]^mic^*:7t
•d3*?^5;-^inpin^ifcniE;W6hitt™gri^;*^5Kr
; B-3i2.vl;: 6n^joroerit^^nitprj^;:;^KJp;;;§
-^hHal;J^in^^tOT^"i^^rnrtffit-::;H-'fS"-f
  ITcKgtv
  -if=yss-
  •iPii:
  :;ti-p;-
  ^{3^1
  ^Wf"
  ;^3fll';
•£j3fel^S
EPA evaluated impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
from the CWIS of the Monroe facility using the
assessment methods described in Chapter A5 of this
document. EPA focused its evaluation on data
collected when the facility was operated as it is
currently configured. Section 13-1 lists fish species
that are impinged and entrained at Monroe, Section 13-
2 presents life histories of the most abundant species
in the facility's I&E collections, and Section 13-3
summarizes the facility's I&E collection methods.
Section 13-4 presents annual I&E data, and Section 13-
5 summarizes the results of EPA's evaluation of
Monroe's I&E data.


13-1 SPECIES IMPINGED AND ENTRAINED AT MONROE

Table 13-1 lists species known to be  impinged and entrained at Monroe, and their classification as recreational, commercial,
or forage species. In general, EPA evaluated only those species with impingement and entrainment numbers greater than 1
percent of the total at the facility.  However, species that were uncommon in I&E collections were still included if they had
commercial or recreational value and there was available site specific life history information.

                           Table 13-1: Species Vulnerable to !<&E by Monroe
Common Name
Alewife
Black bass
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Bowfin
Brown bullhead
Burbot
Carp
Central mudminnow
Channel catfish
Chinook salmon '
Coho salmon
Emerald shiner
Fathead minnow
Flathead catfish
Freshwater drum
i Scientific Name .
iAlosa pseudoharengus
\ Micropterus dolomieui
j Ameiurus melas
\ Pomoxis nigromaculatus
\ Lepomis macrochirus
1 Pimephales notatus
i Amla calva
j Ameiurus nebulosus
\ Lota lota
I Cyprinus carpio carpio
'• Umbra limi
! Ictalurus punctatus
\ Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
] Oncorhynchus kisutch
; Notropis atherinoides
i Pimephales promelas
i Pylodictis olivaris
\ Aplodinotus grunniens
Recreational

X

X
X

X

X


X
' X
X


X

Commercial


X




X
X
X

X
X
X



X
Forage
X




X




X



X
X


                                                                                             13-1

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of IAE Data
                          Table 13-1: Species Vulnerable to I&E by Monroe (cont.)
Common Name
Gizzard shad
Golden rcdhorse
Goldfish
Green sunfish
Homyhcad chub
Largcmouth bass
Logperch
Longnosc gar
Mottled sculpin
Muskellunge
Northern hog sucker
Northern pike
Pumpkinsced
Quillback
Rainbow smelt
Rainbow trout
Rock bass
Silver lamprey
Smallmouth bass
Spotfin shiner
Spottail shiner
Sunfish species
Tadpole madtom
Troutperch
Walleye
White bass
White crappie
White perch
White sucker
Whitefish species
Yellow bullhead
Yellow perch
: Scientific Name
: Dorosoma cepedianum
\ Moxostoma erythrurum
\ Carassius auratus auratus
\Lepomis cyanellus
'.Nocomis biguttatus
| Micropterus salmoides
: Percina caprodes
iLepisosteus osseus
| Coitus bairdii
\Esox masquinongy
j Hypentelium nigricans
' \Esoxluclus
I Lepomis gibbosus
\ Carpiodes cyprinus
\ Osmerus mordax mordax
j Oncorhynchus tnykiss
\Ambloplites rupestris
j Icthyomyzon unicuspis
\ Micropterus dolomieui
j Cyprinella spiloptera
: Notropis hudsonius
: Centrarchidae
1 Noturus gyrinus
1 Percopsis omiscomaycus
: Stizostedion vitreum
I Morone chrysops
: Pomoxis annularis
: Morone americana
': Catostomus commersoni
I Coregoninae
: Ameiurus natalis
1 Perca flavescens
Recreational



X

X



X

• v
X

X
X
X

X


X


X
X
X
X

X

X
Commercial
X

X

X





X


X
X
X









X


X
X
X

Forage

X




X
X
• X








X

X
:X j
	 ,. 	 	 , j - A
	 	 • i
	 * 	 ., ^ 1
.:.. 	 ^ 	 I
	 : 	 ; 1

	 ; 	 : 1
	 1
	 ; 	 	 	 I
	 : 	 , 1
' • 1
'"• ; 	 1
 Sources: (Andrew Nuhfer, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division; personal communication, 2/13/02; Jude et al.,
 1983; Cole, 1978; Goodyear, 1978)
13-2  LIFE HISTORIES OF MAJOR SPECIES IMPINSED  AND  ENTRAINED

Alewif e (Alosa 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). Alewives entered the Great Lakes region through the Welland Canal, which connects
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario; by 1949, they were present in Lake Michigan (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute,
2001). Because alewives are not a freshwater species, they are particularly susceptible to osmotic stress associated with
freshwater. Freshwater fish have larger kidneys, which they use to constantly pump water from their bodies. Since alewives
lack this physiological adaptation, they are more susceptible to environmental disturbances.
13-2

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                      Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
In the Great Lakes, alewives spend most of their time in deeper water. During spawning season, they move to shallower
inshore waters to spawn. Although alewives generally do not die after spawning, the fluctuating temperatures that the adults
are exposed to when they move to inshore waters often results in mortality due to osmotic stress.  In some years, temperature
changes caused by upwelling may result in a massive die-off of spawning alewives (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
Institute, 2001).

Alewife has been introduced to a number of lakes to provide forage for sport fish (Jude et al., 1987b). Ecologically, alewife is
an important prey item for many fish.

Spawning is driven by water temperature, beginning in the spring as water temperatures reach 13 to 15 °C (55.4 to 59.0 °F),
and ending when they exceed 27 °C (80.6  °F) (Able and Fahay, 1998). In their native coastal habitats, alewives spawn in the
upper reaches of coastal rivers, in slow-flowing sections of slightly brackish or freshwater. In the Great Lakes, alewives move
inshore to the outlets of rivers and streams to spawn (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001).

In coastal habitats, females lay demersal eggs in shallow water  less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep (Wang and Kemehan, 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 tune 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).

Maturity is reached at 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; PSEG, 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.3 Arrived in the Great
Lakes via the Welland Canal.b

Habitat: Wide-ranging, tolerates fresh to saline waters,
travels in schools.

Lifespan: Generally 4-5 years but may live up to 8 years.c-(i

Fecundity: Females may lay from 60,000 to 300,000 eggs at
a time."
Food source: Small fish, zooplankton, fish eggs, amphipods, mysids.d

Prey for: Striped bass, weakfish, rainbow trout.

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
*•   Found in waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep.c
>   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.8
*•   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/
  Scott and Grossman, 1998.
 University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001.
  PSEG, 1999c.
  Waterfield, 1995.
  Kocik, 2000.                                         •           '  .
 Able and Fahay, 1998.
  Fayetal., 1983a.
 ish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Prograrr^ 2001:
                                                                                                                13-3

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                            Chapter 13: Evaluation of IAE Data
 Carp (Cyprinus carpio carpio)                                                                     :

 Carp is a member of the family of carps and minnows, Cyprinidae, and is abundant in Lake Erie. Carp were first introduced
 from Asia to the United States in the 1870's and 1880's, and by the 1890's were abundant in the Maumee River and in the
 west end of Lake Erie (Trautman, 1981). Carp are most abundant in low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high levels or
 organic matter, but tolerate all types of bottom and clear to turbid waters (Trautman, 1981).  Carp overwinter in deeper water
 and migrate to shallow water, preferably marshy environments with submerged aquatic vegetation in advance of the spawning
 season (McCrimmon, 1968). Adults feed on a wide variety of plants and animals, and juveniles feed primarily on plankton.

 Carp are often considered a nuisance species because of their habit of uprooting vegetation and increasing turbidity when
 feeding (McCrimmon, 1968; Scott and Grossman, 1973). Carp are not widely popular fishes for anglers, although carp
 fishing may be an important recreational activity in some parts of the United States (Scott and Grossman, 1973).  They are  '
 occasionally harvested commercially and sold for food (Scott and Grossman, 1973).

 Male carp reach sexual maturity between ages 3 and 4, and the females reach maturity between ages 4 and 5 (Swee and
 McCrimmon, 1966). Spawning can occur at water temperatures between 16 and 28 °C (60.8 and 82.4 °F) with optimum
 activity between 19 and 23 °C (66.2 and 73.4 °F) (Swee and McCrimmon,' 1966). Fecundity in carp can range from 36,000
 eggs for a 39.4 cm (15.5 in.) fish to 2,208,000 in a 85.1 cm (33.5 in.) fish (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966), but individuals may
 spawn only about 500 eggs at a given time (Dames and Moore, 1977a). Eggs are demersal and stick to submerged vegetation.

 Eggs hatch 3 to 6 days after spawning and larvae tend to lie in shallow water among vegetation (Swee and McCrimmon,
 1966). The lifespan of a typical carp in North America is less than 20 years (McCrimmon, 1968).  Adult carp can reach 102-
 122 cm (40-48 in.) long, and weigh 18-27 kg (40-60 Ib) (Trautman, 1981).
                            CARP
                    (Cyprinus carpio carpio)
      Family: Cyprinidae (minnows or carp).

      Common names: Carp.

      Similar species: Goldfish, buffalofishes, carpsuckers."

      Geographic range: Wide-ranging throughout the United
      States.

      Habitat: Low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high
      levels or organic carbon.  Tolerates relatively wide range of
      turbidity. Often associated with submerged aquatic
      vegetation."1

      Lifespan: Less than 20 years.b

      Fecundity: 36,000 to 2,208,000 eggs per season.'
   Food source: Omnivorous; diet includes invertebrates, small
   molluscs, ostracods, and crustaceans as well as roots, leaves,
   and shoots of water plants.b                       ;

   Prey for: Juveniles provide limited forage for northern pike,
   smallmouth bass, striped bass, and longnosed gar, as well as
   green frogs, bullfrogs, turtles, snakes, mink.b

   Life stage information:

    Eggs: demersal
   >•   During spawning, eggs are released in shallow,
       vegetated water. Eggs are demersal and stick to
       submerged vegetation.
   *•   Eggs hatch in 3-6 days.c

    Larvae:
   *•   Larvae are found in shallow, weedy, and muddy
       habitats.*1

    Adults:
   *   May reach lengths of 102-122 cm (40-48 in.)."
      • Trautman, 1981.
      h McCrimmon, 1968.
      c Swee and McCrimmon, 1966.
      11 Wang, 1986a.
      Fish graphic from North Dakota Game and Fish Department,
2Q02.
13-4

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                         Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
 Channel  catfish (Icta/arus punctatus}

 Channel catfish is a member of the Ictaluridae (North American freshwater catfish) family.  It is found from Manitoba to
 southern Quebec, and as far south as the Gulf of Mexico (Dames and Moore, 1977a). Channel catfish can be found in
 freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. They prefer deep water with clean gravel or boulder substrates and low to moderate
 currents (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 200 Ib).

 Channel catfish reach sexual maturity at ages 5-8, and females will lay 4,000-35,000 eggs dependent on body weight (Scott
 and Grossman, 1998). Spawning begins when water temperatures reach 24-29 °C (75-85 °F) in late spring or early summer.
 Spawning occurs in natural nests such as undercut banks, muskrat burrows, containers, or submerged logs.  Eggs
 approximately 3.5 mm (0.1 in) in diameter are deposited in a large, flat, gelatinous mass (Wang, 1986a). After spawning, the
 male guards the nest and fans it to keep it aerated. Eggs hatch in 7-10 days at 24-26  °C (75-79 °F), and the newly hatched
 larvae remain near the nest for several days (Wang, 1986a). Young fish prefer to inhabit riffles and turbulent areas. Channel
 catfish are  very popular with anglers and are relatively prized as a sport fish (Dames  and Moore, 1977a).
                     CHANNEL CATFISH
                      (Ictalarus punctatus)
      Family: Ictaluridae (North American freshwater catfish).

      Common names: Channel catfish, graceful catfish."

      Similar species: Blue and white catfishes.b

      Geographic range: South-central Canada, central United
      States, and northern Mexico."

      Habitat: Freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. Prefer deep
      water with clean gravel or boulder substrates.'

      Lifespan: Maximum reported age: 16 years."

      Fecundity:  4,000 to 35,000 eggs depending on body
      weight."
Food source: Small fish, crustaceans, clams, snails."

Prey for: Chestnut lamprey."

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
*•   3-4 mm (0.12-0.16 in.) in diameter."
»•   Hatch in 7-10 days.d

 Larvae:
*•   Remain near nest for a few days then disperse to
    shallow water.d_
*•   Approx. 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) upon hatching.11 '

 Adults: demersal
••   Average length: 30-36 cm (12-14 in.).c
*•   Maximum length: up to 104 cm (41 in.)."
      " Froese and Pauly, 2001.
      b Trautman,  1981.
      c Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 200 Ib.
      " Wang, 1986a.
      c Scott and Grossman, 1998.
      Fish graphic  courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)

Emerald shiner is a member of the family Cyprinidae. It is found in large open lakes and rivers from Canada south throughout
the Mississippi Valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Emerald shiner prefer clear waters in the
mid- to upper sections of the water column, and are most often found in deep, slow moving rivers and in Lake Erie •
(Trautman, 1981). The emerald shiner is  one of the most prevalent fishes in Lake Erie, although populations may fluctuate
dramatically from year to year (Trautman, 1981). Because of its small size, it is an important forage fish for many species.

Spawning occurs from July to August in Lake Erie (Scott and Grossman, 1973).  Females lay anywhere from 870 to 8,700
eggs (Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970), which hatch within 24 hours (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Young-of-year remain
                                                                                                             13-5

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
in large schools in inshore waters until the fall, when-they move into deeper waters to overwinter (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
Young-of-year average 5.1 to 7.6 cm (2 to 3 in.) in length (Scott and Grossman, 1973).

Emerald shiner are sexually mature by age 2, though some larger individuals may mature at age  1 (Campbell and
MacCrimmon, 1970).  Most do not live beyond 3 years (Fuchs, 1967). Adults typically range from 6.4 to 8.4 cm (2.5 to 3.3
in.) (Trautman, 1981).
                  EMERALD SHINER
                  (Notropis atherinoides)
     Family: Cyprinidae (herrings).

     Common names: Emerald shiner.

     Similar species: Silver shiner, rosyface shiner.'

     Geographic range: From Canada south throughout the
     Mississippi valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama.1"

     Habitat: Large open lakes and rivers.b

     Lifespan: Emerald shiner live to 3 years.111

     Fecundity: Mature by age 2.  Females can lay anywhere
     from approximately 870 to 8,700 eggs.3
Food source: Microcrustaceans, midge larvae, zooplankton, algae.

Prey for: Gulls, terns, mergansers, cormorants, smallmouth bass,
yellow perch, and others/1

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
*   Eggs hatch in less than 24 hours.d

 Larvae: pelagic
*•   Individuals from different year classes can have varying body
    proportions and fin length, as can individuals from different
    localities.3

 Adults:
*•   Typically range in size from 6.4 to 8.4 cm (2.5 to 3.3 in.).a ;
      Trautman, 1981.
     * Froese and Pauly, 2000.
     e Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970. .
     * Scott and Grossman, 1973.
     Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program. 2001.
 Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)

 Freshwater drum is a member of the drum family, Sciaenidae. Possibly exhibiting the greatest latitudinal range of any North
 American'freshwater species, its distribution ranges from Manitoba, Canada, to Guatemala, and throughout the Mississippi
 River drainage basin (Scott and Grossman, 1973).  The freshwater drum is found in deep pools of rivers and in Lake Erie at
 depths between 1.5 and 18 m (5 and 60 ft) (Trautman, 1981). Drum is not a favored food item of either humans or other fish;
 however, it supports a minor commercial fishery (Edsall, 1967; Trautman, 1981;Bur, 1982).

 Based on studies in Lake Erie, the spawning season peaks in July (Daiber, 1953), although spent females have been found as
 late as September (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Females in Lake Erie produce anywhere from 43,000 to 508,000 eggs
 (Daiber, 1953).  The eggs are buoyant, floating at the surface of the water (Daiber, 1953; Scott and Grossman, 1973). This
 unique quality may be one explanation for the freshwater drum's exceptional distribution (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Yolk-
 sac larvae are buoyant as well, floating inverted at the surface of the water with the posterior end of the yolk sac and tail
 touching the surface (Swedberg and Walburg, 1970).

 Larvae develop rapidly over their first year. Maturity appears to be reached earlier in freshwater drum females from the
 Mississippi River than in females from Lake Erie.  Daiber (1953) found Lake Erie females begin maturing at age 5, and 46
 percent reach maturity by age 6. Lake Erie males begin maturing at age 4, and by age 5, 79 percent had reached maturity.

 The maximum age for fish in western Lake Erie is 14 years for females and 8 years for males (Edsall, 1967).  Adults tend to
 be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long.
 13-6

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                 Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
                 FRESHWATER DRUM
                  (Aplodinotus grunniens)
     Family: Sciaenidae.

     Common names: freshwater drum, white perch,
     sheepshead."

     Similar species: white bass, carpsuckers."

     Geographic range: From Manitoba, Canada, to
     Guatemala. They can be found throughout the
     Mississippi River drainage basin.

     Habitat: Bottoms of medium to large sized rivers and
     lakes."

     Lifespan: The maximum age for fish in western Lake
     Erie is 14 years for females and 8 years for males.0

     Fecundity: Females in Lake Erie produce from 43,000
     to 508,000 eggs."
Food sources: Juveniles: Cladocerans (plankton), copepods,
dipterans.d Adults: Dipterans, cladocerans,d darters, emerald shiner.0

Prey for: Very few species.

Life stage information:

 Eggs: pelagic
*•.   The buoyant eggs float at the surface of the water, possibly
    accounting for the species' high distribution.0

 Larvae:
*•   Prolarvae .float inverted at the surface of the water with the .
    posterior end of the yolk sac and their tail touching the surface/

 Adults:
*•   The species owes its name to the audible  "drumming" sound that
    it is often heard emitting during summer months.0
>   Tend to be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long.0
     3 Trautman, 1981
     ° Froese and Pauly, 2001.
     0 Edsall, 1967.
     d Bur, 1982.
     0 Scott and Grossman, 1973.
     r Swedberg and Walburg, 1970. .
     Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)

Gizzard shad is a member of the family Clupeidae. Its distribution is widespread throughout the eastern United States and
into southern Canada, with occurrences from the St. Lawrence River south to eastern Mexico (Miller, 1960; Scott and
Grossman,-1973). Gizzard shad are found in a range of salinities from freshwater inland rivers to brackish estuaries and
marine waters along the Atlantic Coast of the United States (Miller,  1960; Carlander, 1969). Gizzard shad often occur in
schools (Miller, 1960). Young-of-year are considered an important forage fish (Miller, 1960), though their rapid growth rate
limits the duration of their susceptibility to many predators (Bodola, 1966).  In Lake Erie, gizzard shad are most populous in
the shallow waters of western Lake Erie, around the Bass Islands, and in protected bays and mouths of tributaries (Bodola,
1966).

Spawning occurs from late winter or early spring to late summer, depending on temperature. Spawning has been observed in.
early June to July in Lake Erie (Bodola, 1966), and in May elsewhere in Ohio waters (Miller, 1960). The spawning period
generally lasts 2 weeks (Miller,  1960). Males and females release sperm and eggs while swimming in schools near the surface
of the water.  Eggs sink slowly to the bottom or drift with the current, and adhere to any surface they encounter (Miller, 1960).
Females have been reported to release an average of 378,990 eggs annually (Bodola, 1966), which average 0.75 mm (0.03
in.) in diameter (Wallus et al., 1990).

Hatching time can be anywhere  from 36 hours to 1  week, depending on water temperature (Bodola, 1966). Young shad may
remain in upstream natal waters if conditions permit (Miller, 1960).  By age 2 all gizzard shad are sexually mature,  though
some may mature as early as age 1 (Bodola, 1966). Unlike many other fish, fecundity in gizzard shad declines with age
(Electric Power Research Institute,  1987).
                                                                                                               75-7

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                   Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
 Gizzard shad generally live up to 6 years in Lake Erie, but individuals up to 10 years have been reported in southern locations
 (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Mass mortalities have been documented in several locations during winter months, due to
 extreme temperature changes (Williamson and Nelson, 1985).
GIZZARD SHAD
(Dorosoma cepedianum)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: Gizzard shad.
Similar species: Threadfin shad."
Geographic range: Eastern North America from the St.
Lawrence River to Mexico.1"
Habitat: Inhabits inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and reservoirs
to brackish estuaries and ocean waters.b-c
Lifespan: Gizzard shad generally live 5 to 6 years, but have
seen reported up to 10 years.b
Fecundity: Maturity is reached by age 2; females produce
average of 378,990 eggs.b
* Trautman, 1981.
b Miller, 1960.
c Scott and Grossman, 1973.
Fish graphic from Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, 2001.
Food sources: Larvae consume protozoans, zooplankton, and sniall
crustaceans.' Adults are mainly herbivorous, feeding on plants,
phytoplankton, and algae. They are one of the few species able to
feed solely on plant material.11
Prey for: Walleye, white bass, largemouth bass, crappie, among
others (immature shad only).b
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
*• During spawning, eggs are released near the surface and sink to
the bottom, adhering to any surface they touch.
Larvae: pelagic
*• Larvae serve as forage to many species.
>• After hatching, larvae travel in schools for the first few months.
Adults:
> May grow as large as 52. 1 cm (20.5 in.)."
*• May be considered by some to be a nuisance species because of
sporadic mass winter die-offs.3

 Lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)

 Lake whitefish are a member of the whitefish family, Salmonidae (Coregoninae subfamily). They are distributed widely in
 fresh water from Alaska, through Canada and south into the Great Lakes and northern New England (Scott and Grossman,
 1998). They are a valuable commercial and recreational fish and are prized for their fine tasting meat as well as their eggs,
 which are prepared and marketed as caviar.  Their liver is also used for pate.

 Lake whitefish spawn in the autumn, usually in November and December, in the Great Lakes (Scott and Grossman, 1998).
 They deposit demersal eggs in shallow water of less than 7.6 m (25 ft) over rocky, hard, or sandy substrate.  Fecundity is
 estimated at 16,100 eggs per pound offish.  The eggs are initially about 2.3  mm (0.09 in.) in diameter, but increase to up to
 3.2 mm (0.13 in.) after 24 hours in the water. Eggs do not hatch right away, but overwinter and hatch in April or May when
 water temperatures rise (approximately 140 days; Froese and Pauly, 2001).  The optimal temperature range for development
 is 0.6^6.1  *C (33-43 °F; Scott and Grossman, 1998).

 Young whitefish develop rapidly, and reach the commercial size of 0.9 kg (2 Ib) at age 3 in Lake Erie (Scott and Grossman,
 1998). They may reach a length of 676 mm (26.6 in.) in Lake Erie. Males generally mature and die earlier than females.
13-8

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
                          Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
                      LAKE WfflTEFISH
                    (Coregonus clupeaformis)
      Family: Salmonidae, subfamily Coregoninae (whitefish).3

      Common names: Whitefish, Great Lakes whitefish,
      humpback whitefish.b

      Geographic range: Alaska and Canada to Great Lakes and
      New England."

      Habitat: Lakes and large rivers.b

      Lifespan: Maximum reported age: 28 years. In Lake Erie,
      live to approximately 16 years."

      Fecundity: 16,100 eggs per pound in Lake Erie."
Food source: Young consume copepods, cladocerans, and
insect larvae. • Adults consume eggs and small fish such as
darter, alewife, minnow, and stickleback.3

Prey for: Lake trout, northern pike, burbot, yellow walleye,
whitefish. Parasitized by sea lamprey."

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
>   2.3-3.2 mm (0.09-0.13 in.) in diameter.3
>•   Hatch in 140 days.b

 Larvae:
>   Approx. 12 mm (0.47 in.) at 1 week."
>   Concentrate in shallow water of about 30 cm (12 in.).c

 Adults: demersal
*•   Maximum length in Lake Erie: up to 67.6 cm (26.6 in.).8
      • Scott and Grossman, 1998.
      b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
      c University of Saskatchewan, 2002.
      Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum)

Walleye is a member of the perch family, Percidae. It is found in freshwater from as far north as the Mackenzie River near
the Arctic Coast to as far south as Georgia, and is common in the Great Lakes. Walleye are popular sport fish both in the
summer and winter.

Walleye spawn in spring or early summer, although the exact timing depends on latitude and water temperature. Spawning
has been reported at water temperatures of 5.6 to 11.1 °C (42 to 52 °F), in rocky areas in white water or shoals of lakes (Scott
and Grossman, 1998). They do not fan nests like other similar species, but instead broadcast eggs over open ground, which
reduces their ability to survive environmental stresses (Carlander, 1997).  Females typically produce between 48,000 and
614,000 eggs in Lake Erie, and the eggs are 1.4 to 2.1 mm (0.06 to 0.08 in.) in diameter (Carlander, 1997). Eggs hatch in 12-
18 days (Scott and Grossman, 1998). Larvae are approximately 6.0 to 8.6 mm (0.23 to 0.33 in.) at hatching (Carlander,
1997).

Walleye develop more slowly in the northern extent of their range; in Lake Erie they typically are  8.9 to 20.3 cm (3.5 to 8.0
in.) by the end of the first growing season.  Males generally mature at 2-4 years and females at 3-6 years (Scott and Grossman,
1998), and females tend to grow faster than males (Carlander, 1997). Walleye may reach up to 78.7 cm (31 in.) long in Lake
Erie (Scott and Grossman, 1998).
                                                                                                                13-9

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data

WALLEYE
(Stizostedion vitreum)
Family: Percidae (perch).
Common names: Blue pike, glass eye, gray pike, marble
eye, yellow pike-perch."
Similar species: Sauger.b
Geographic range: Canada to southern United States.'
Habitat: Large, shallow, turbid lakes; large streams or
rivers.1
Lifcspan: Maximum reported age: 12 years.b
Fecundity: Broadcast spawners; in Lake Erie, 48,000 to
614,000 eggs per spawn.b

Food source: Insects, yellow perch, freshwater drum, :
crayfish, snails, frogs.0
Prey for: Sea lamprey, northern -pike, muskellunge, sauger."
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
> 1 .4-2. 1 mm (0.06-0.08 in.) in diameter.1"
*• Hatch in 12-18 days.'
Larvae: pelagic '
> Approx. 6.2-7.3 mm (0.24-0.29 in.) upon hatching.11
Adults: demersal ' 1
*• Maximum length: up to 78.7 cm (3 1 in.).0
" Froese and Pauly, 2001.
b Cariander, 1997. ;
e Scott and Grossman, 1998.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 200 1 .

White bass (Morone  chrysops)

White bass is a member of the temperate bass family, Moronidae.  It ranges from the St. Lawrence River south through the-
Mississippi valley to the Gulf of Mexico, though the species is most abundant in the Lake Erie drainage (Van Oosten, 1942).
White bass has both commercial and recreational fishing value.

Spawning take place in May in Lake Erie and may extend into June, depending on water temperatures. Spawning bouts can
last from 5 to 10 days (Scott and Grossman, 1973).  Adults typically spawn near the surface, and eggs are fertilized as they
sink to the bottom. Fecundity increases directly with size in females; the average female lays approximately 565,000 eggs.
Eggs hatch within 46 hours at a water temperature of 15.6 °C (60 °F) (Scott and Grossman, 1973).

Larvae grow rapidly, and young white bass reach lengths of 13 to 16 cm (5.1 to 6.3 in.) by the fall (Scott and Grossman,
1973). They feed on microscopic crustaceans, insect.larvae, and small fish. As adults, the diet switches to fish. Yellow perch
are an especially important prey species for white bass (Scott and Grossman, 1973).

Most white bass mature at age 3 (Van Oosten, 1942). Upon reaching sexual maturation, adults tend to form unisexual
schools, traveling up to 11.1 km (6.9 mi) a day. Adults occupy the upper portion of the water column, maintaining depths of
6 m (19.7 ft) or less (Scott and Grossman, 1973). On average, adults are between 25.4 to 35.6 cm (10 to 14 in.) long (Ohio
Department  of Natural Resources, 2001b). White bass rarely live beyond 7 years (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
13-10

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                 Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E bata

                     WHITE BASS
                    (Morone chrysops)
     Family: Moronidae.

     Common names: White bass, silver bass.

     Similar species: White perch, striped bass.3

     Geographic range: St. Lawrence River south through
     the Mississippi valley to the Gulf of Mexico, highly
     abundant in the Lake Erie drainage.b

     Habitat: Occurs in lakes, ponds, and rivers.'

     Lifespan: White bass may live up to 7 years.d

     Fecundity: The average female lays approximately
     565,000 eggs."
Food source: Juveniles consume microscopic crustaceans, insect
larvae, and small fish.b Adults have been found to consume yellow
perch, bluegill, white crappie,b and carp.b-d

Prey for: Other white bass."

Life stage information:

 Eggs: demersal
*   Eggs are approximately 0.8 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter.'

 Larvae: pelagic
>   White bass experience their maximum growth in their first year.b

 Adults:
>   Travel in schools, traveling up to 1L1  km (6.9 mi) a day.b
*•   Most mature at age 3.°
>   Adults prefer clear waters with firm bottoms."
      Trautman, 1981.
     b Scott and Grossman, 1973.
     c Froese and Pauly, 2000.
      Carlander, 1997.
     c VanOosten, 1942.       .                                       •.       .
     Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Yellow  perch (Perca flavescens)

The yellow perch is a member of the Percidae family and is found in fresh waters in the northern and eastern United States
and across eastern and central Canada.  Yellow perch are also occasionally seen in brackish waters (Scott and Grossman,
1973). They are typically found in greatest numbers in clear waters with low gradients and abundant vegetation (Trautman,
1981). The Great Lakes are a major source of yellow perch for the commercial fishing industry. Perch feed during the day on
immature insects, larger invertebrates, fishes, and fish eggs (Scott and Grossman, 1973).

Sexual maturity is reached at age 1 for males and at ages 2 and 3 for females (Saila et al., 1987). Perch spawn in the spring in
water temperatures ranging from 6.7 to  12.2 °C (44 to 54 °F) (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Adults move to shallower water to
spawn, usually near rooted vegetation, fallen trees, or brush.  Spawning takes place at night or in the early morning. Females
lay all their eggs in a single transparent strand that is approximately 3 cm (1.2 in.) wide (Saila et al., 1987) and up to.2.1 m (7
ft) long (Scott and Grossman, 1973). These egg cases are semi-buoyant and attach to submerged vegetation or occasionally to
the bottom and may contain 2,000-90,000 eggs (Scott and Grossman, 1973). In western Lake Erie, fecundities for yellow
perch were reported to range from 8,618 to 78,741 eggs (Saila et al., 1987).

Yellow perch larvae hatch within about 8-10 days and are inactive for about 5 days until the yolk is .absorbed (Scott and
Grossman, 1973). Young perch are initially pelagic and found in schools, but become demersal after their first summer (Saila
etal., 1987).

Adult perch are inactive at night and rest on the bottom (Scott and Grossman, 1973).  Females generally grow faster than
males and reach a greater final length (Scott and Grossman, 1973).  In Lake Erie, perch may reach up to approximately 31 cm
(12 in.) in total length and have been reported to live up to 11 years.
                                                                                                               13-11

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                         Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
                       YELLOW PERCH
                       (Percaflavescens)
      Family: Percidae (perches).

      Common names: Yellow perch, perch, American perch, lake
      perch."

      Similar species: Dusky.darter.b

      Geographic range: Northern and eastern United States.'

      Habitat: Lakes, ponds, creeks, rivers. Found in clear water
      near vegetation."113

      Lifcspan: Up to 11 years.0

      Fecundity: 8,618 to 78,741 eggs.0
Food source: Immature insects, larger invertebrates, fishes,
and fish eggs."

Prey for: Almost all warm to cool water predatory fish,
including bass, sunfish, crappies, walleye, sauger, northern
pike, muskellunge, and other perch, as well as a number of
birds.c                                        ;

Life stage information:

 Eggs: semi-buoyant                            '.
>   Eggs laid in long tubes containing 2,000-90,000 eggs.'
*•   Eggs usually hatch in 8-10 days.0

 Larvae: pelagic                                '•
>   Larvae are 4.1-5.5 mm (0.16-0.22 in.) upon hatching.11
>   Found in schools with other species.0
>•   Become demersal during the first summer.11

 Adults: demersal
»•   Reach up to 31 cm (12 in.) in Lake Erie.0
>•   Found in schools near the bottom.        .      ;
      •  Froese and Pauly, 2001.
      b  Trautman, 1981.
      c  Scott and Grossman, 1973.
      *  Sailaetal., 1987.
      Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
 13-3  METHODS FOR ESTIMATING !<&E AT MONROE

 EPA examined I&E data from a variety of facility and agency monitoring reports.  Impingement data were collected in 1972,
 1973, and 1975 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Goodyear, 1978), in 1982-83 by the University of Michigan Great
 Lakes Research Division (Jude et al., 1983), and in 1985-86 by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Andrew
 Nuhfer, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, personal communication, 2/13/02).  Entrainment data
 were collected in 1973, 1974, and 1975 by the U.S. EPA (Cole, 1978) and in 1982-83 by the University of Michigan Great
 Lakes Research Division (Jude et al., 1983).  For this benefits case study, EPA determined that only the data for the 1980's
 are relevant for an evaluation of the facility as it is currently operated and configured.  The methods used to collect these data
 are summarized below.

 13-3.1   Impingement Monitoring

 University of  Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division, 1982-1983

 Impingement was sampled by scientists from the University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division once per week from
 February 18, 1982, to February 7, 1983 (Jude et al.,  1983). Samples were collected once a week for the 52 week sampling
 period, and one additional sample was collected on February 25, 1982, to sample a large gizzard shad impingement event.
 Sampling lasted for 24 hours and was conducted on Monday to Tuesday, or Tuesday to Wednesday (if Monday was a
 holiday).

 Samples were colle'cted from the two screenhouses via a conveyor belt, which delivered impinged fish from the traveling
 screens to a dump truck. Trucks were checked to ensure that they were not switched during the sampling period. After the 24
 hour sampling period,'either all of the fish were counted or, if the collection was too large to count,  a subsample was
 collected. Subsampling was done by leveling the collected fish in the truck bed, visually dividing the bed into square
13-12

-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
sections, assigning a number to each section, and randomly selecting a subset of sections (usually two). The remaining fish
were spread evenly again, and the length, width, and depth of the pile were measured.  The volume of unsampled fish was
converted to an estimated weight using a conversion factor of 0.758 g/cm3, which was derived from 10 replicates of 20 kg
(44.09 Ib) samples of alewives. This conversion was checked on several dates by comparing the volume of the fish sampled
to the volume of the unsampled fish. When the resulting relationship from the volume comparison was consistently different
from that calculated by the conversion factor because of variations in fish size and percentage of nonfish debris, the volume
comparison was used to determine the percentage offish subsampled. Estimates of the total number offish impinged in a
sampling period were made from subsampled counts by scaling up to the total amount for a sampling period.

During the large gizzard shad impingement event on February 25,1982, the sampling method had to be altered because the
fish were filling up trucks too quickly to be subsampled according to the usual protocol.  A subsample of gizzard shad was
collected from each truck, with an attempt made to collect a representative size distribution. Fish other than gizzard shad that
were seen were also collected. The time to fill each truck and the volume offish in the truck were recorded. A subset of the
trucks was measured and the information applied to other truckloads collected that day.

The University of Michigan calculated average daily impingement rates by dividing the sum of impingement during all
sampling days in the month by the number of sampling days. They then calculated monthly impingement by multiplying the
average daily impingement by the number of days in the month. Annual impingement was the sum of all 12 months.in the
study.                 •  .

Michigan Department of Natural Resources,  1985-1986

Impingement was also sampled by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from May 16,1985, to May 6,
1986.

Samples were collected on 3 days in May and June 1985,5 days per month in July and August 1985, and 4 days per month
from September 1985 through April 1986, so thata total of 49 samples were collected. The day of sampling was randomly
selected from weekdays (Monday through Friday). The duration of sampling was approximately 24 hours, although shorter
periods were sampled when impingement was high and longer periods were sampled when there were few fish.

Samples were collected from the two screenhouses via a conveyor belt, which delivered impinged fish from the traveling
screens to a dump truck. When the number offish collected could be processed in less than 5 hours, the entire sample was
counted. When this was not the case, the collection was subsampled. Subsampling was done by leveling the collected fish in
the truck bed, visually dividing the bed into square sections, assigning a number to each section, and randomly selecting  a
subset of sections (approximately 40 percent). Equal numbers of buckets of debris and fish were collected from each selected
section to draw a subsample. The subsamples and the remaining fish were weighed to determine what percentage of the total
of the subsamples represented. On days when subsamples were taken, they represented an average of 26 percent by weight of
the total collection. Subsamples were extrapolated to the total amount by multiplying by an expansion factor (calculated by
dividing the weight of the total collection by the weight of the subsample).

The Michigan DNR calculated daily impingement values for each species by standardizing the collection rate to a 24 hour
period. Periodic estimates were derived by multiplying the daily estimate by the number of days in a period of time
represented by that sampling event (approximately 7). They then calculated monthly totals by summing the periodic rates for
a given month.  Final annual estimates are representative of both screenhouses combined.

13-3.2   Entrainment Monitoring

University of  Michigan, Great Lakes Research  Division,  1982-1983

Entrainment sampling was also conducted from February 1982 to February 1983 (Jude et al., 1983).  Samples were taken
weekly from March through August; twice a month in January, February, September, and October; and once per month in
November and December.

Lake and river water in the intake canal was often stratified because of temperature differences.  Thus, samples  used to
estimate entrainment were collected in the discharge canal, because the water was well mixed. Larvae were collected using a
0.5 m (1.6  ft), 363 |J.m (0.0014 in) mesh net.  A flowmeter was used  to measure the volume of water per sample, usually
                                                                                                        13-13

-------
 S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
 between 20 and 55 m3 (706 and 1,942 ft3). Four replicate samples were collected in each of four daily periods on each
 sampling date.

 In their calculations, the Michigan DNR first multiplied the mean density in each of the four daily periods by the total weekly
 volume of water that passed through the plant during the corresponding daily period. Then these estimates for each daily time
 period were summed to estimate a weekly total across all time periods.  Annual estimates were calculated by Michigan DNR
 by summing all of the weekly estimates.

 13-4  ANNUAL  IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT                                     :

 EPA evaluated annual I&E at Monroe using the methods presented 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 II.  Table 13-2 displays estimates of annual
 impingement (numbers of organisms) at Monroe for the years of monitoring (1982 and 1985). Table 13-3 presents these .
 numbers expressed as age 1  equivalents, Table 13-4 displays annual impingement of fishery species as pounds of lost fishery
 yield, and Table 13-5 displays annual impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables 13-6 through 13-9 display the
 same information for entrainment at Monroe for 1982.

 The results of EPA's analysis indicate that both impingement and entrainment collections at Monroe are dominated by gizzard
 shad, followed by white bass, yellow perch, and freshwater drum. Impingement rates are about 4.5 times entrainment rates.
 However, more commercial and recreational species are entrained than impinged. About 34.3 million gizzard shad, 0.7
 million white bass, 0.3 million yellow perch, and 0.15 million freshwater drum age  1 equivalents are impinged per year.
 Annual age 1 equivalents entrained average about 8.7 million gizzard shad, 0.8 million white bass, 0.6 million yellow perch,
 and 0.15 million freshwater drum. Impingement and entrainment of all species combined results in over 2 million pounds of
 lo'st fishery yield per year.

 13-5  SUMMARY

 Table 13-10 summarizes EPA's estimates of annual I&E at Monroe. Results indicate that, on average, nearly 21 million
 organisms are impinged at Monroe each year. This represents 35.8 million age 1 equivalents, 1.4 million pounds of lost
 fishery yield, and 0.7 million pounds of production foregone. Over 4.6 billion organisms are entrained per year, representing
 about 11.6 million age 1 equivalents, 0.6 million pounds of lost fishery yield, and 3.5 million pounds of production foregone.
 The economic value of these losses is discussed in Chapter 14, and the potential benefits of reducing these losses with the
 proposed rule are discussed in Chapter 15.
B3-14

-------
&






in
00
o\
^
°
r

vi
CM


C-1
s
o
o


o

o



CO
s
o"
en
ON

OO,
vo"

O




0


o

o



o


o


o




o

o



o

Q
1
G
ii
•a-
S
en

0

01
ol



o
o.
g
o,
cT
en

o
o
o
o"
vo
o
p-


o

en


oo

en
en



01


§
r-"

P!
f _.*



^

O
^

O
in
CN
|
J
1
o
oC

OO


oo



o
cT
2*

1"
o
01




01


2

ON.



OO


O
0
' in"

01
^01,




-r

0
in


r-



Q
on
in
vo^
en
01

o

CS
Ol



1
2"
en
oC
en

00
vo"
in
01
o
t—


o


_"

oo

en
en
en.



01


O
o
V~"

01
en
^



vo

o
*n
t—

o
in
01

_
1
                                                       I
                                                       1
                                                       I
                                                    O U.












4-
C
O
in
00
o\
~

a
CM
00
o\
*~*
|
c
o
a
IT
-e
VI
1
1
^
_Q
£
C

•£'

A)
01
'5.
M
1
c

o
M
6)
4-
|
4-
l/l
LLI
CJ
1
PO
H
2







.
a.
pC
;o
•

M li
"S 4>
^ fiw


s
i!
« H
PS
c
IB a.
Is
ll
i
1 1
45 S
"S -S
o "3
1
ll
5

M
S


O

O
o
o
o"
en
0
o^
f)
*n
o
o
o
\o
CN


o
oo




CM

^
S
oo
i
CN"

2



o
f-
es


01
»— t
o
o
01

00




NO
oo


•-

o

o



01
oo
2
(^

00^
of


01
oo
^~
o
in.
§
r-


O'





o

o

S
VO

o




o


......
ON
cT

0




o


0

o

o



in
oo
ON
oo
o

Ol"
en

1-H
S

£
F"^
S
00
NO
vo"


o
ON
01



vo

en"
.3
"*
1
•*

S



in
2


CM
S
oo

en




5


-a-

o

0



1


o



Ol
oo
^
o
o
o
o"
g


o





0

o

o
o
en
of

o




o



i
cT

o




0


o

o

o

E
'§
"H
i
j^.

00
S"
o
o
o.
<=f
en
O
in.
S
O
CM


O
oo




01

•""
00
oo
01
01^
vo

2



o
r-
Ol


o<
0
o"
01

oo
VO




00


t~-

o
NO

o

E
i
I
oo

m
r-"
^
o

vo
ol
01
in
vo"
01
2*


0




_
01
•n"
§
m
g
01

B



T— <
2i


•—<
1

oo




S


m

9

ON
ON



Q
C/3
(^

OO
S"
'O

CN
?
^f
o
^-
S
^.


00




01

•"•"
oo
01
00
01
«l
00

ON



O
t-


en
o
o"
NO

oo
vo




vo
00


.•"

S

o



~S
                                                                                                                  I

-------
I
Table 13-3: Annual Impingement at Monroe Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents, 1982 and 1985
il
ffi C3
£ m
M
li
i
CO
4-1
CO
••I* >£*
1 §-
3 S1
co
t
i 1
it
•a
|||
1
Channel
Catfish
1
lli
1^
^
&
i
111
vo : o
ON : in
en : oo
vo : vo
en : en
en : o
irT: o'
en : »— •
en •
en.lo
CM ;
vo j
ON | <=
oC-
CM: (~

oo : o
CM |
III
|
oo : o
VO j CM
eoj CM,
ON f "d"
CM ! co

'in'foT
en xi-
in i ON
co" « t->
oo 1 in
en CM
CM* vo"
in • »-•
en i ON
8. |p.
i ^
VO J
-~i
co ;
P : o
RU
S = o
CM":
ON i O
oo :
— ; o
en :
i
CM : in
oo t oo
ON I ON
5
vo
CM
en
en
vo
vo
oo
VO
CM
CM
t—
r—
vo"
OO
°J.
cs
en

2
ox
CM
-
vo"
•n

cl
S
i

CO
o\
p-
oo
1
en
1
i
vo
in
1
CO
3
vo
ON
en
vo
en
s
0
o
o
1

o
£
ON_
o
vo
en
ON"
CM

ON
ON
r~-
CM
vo"
ON

o
o
o
o
o
o
Minimum
ON
0
CO
NO
s
Iff
en
NO
ON
ON"
S

CO
CM
OO
co"
t—
en
oo
i

in
oo"
oo
en
CM"
i
s

s
in.
oo
en
00
CM"
ON
00
en
Maximum
ON
en
i
CM
en
en
oo
00
£
vn
P
oo"
0.
m"


O
en.
en
CM
-0
s
oo"
«N
OO
oo"
cs
CS
§
s
m"
1
s
o
CM
CM
Q
C/3
C—
OO
cs
06"
cs
NO
£2
s"
en
NO
en
in
en
in
CM"
vo
ON
ON"
S
i

oo
CM
f-
en
vo_
oo
VO
CO
u-j,
en"
en
CO
vo
NO
OO"
VO
CM
en
vo"
ON
CM
VO
OO
«-
oo
en
00
r-^.
CM"
ON
00
en
S
£
A). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are
lized back to the start of year 1 by accounting for mortality
applied to all raw loss records, but the effect is not readily
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinge
assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the losses are norma
during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter AS, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is
apparent among entrainment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1 .
0=Sampled, but none collected. •
Fri Feb 15 13:35:00 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: monroe ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/I.equivalent.sums.monroe.csv

in
DO
ON
1
a
l[\J
DO
Ov
f— !


I/)
T3
C
1
C

»
i
1$
U-.
o
4-
^
5
VI
O
"S
vt
1
UJ
Q)
O
t.
E '
O
4-
a
tn

o
o.
vO
6)

.2
It
t+_
o

'5-
1-4
~5
1
<
"

i
co
M
2
a
1-
£ ji



II
*^

-.
a>

1
f
c
3
CO
' §
%
S
tn
S
1
JS
5
O K
g ^
"5 w
Kl
1-


JjJ

fc.
SB
ll
£ Q

S-

vo


o


oo
en


NO


VO
en
ON
in




o



o-


o





o


in
2
CN
OO
CN



ON
NO
0
Vi




en
m

CN



cs
VO



5


NO


VO
oo
•*r"
vt
en.
—

_
oo
r^




t—



CM


o
oo
— "




CM
CN


1
OO
o\



C*1
oo"
^T







0



o



CM


O


CO
R
1 ~

vo


VO

in




o



o


o





o


Minimum i
i



vo
ON
CM"
in



o
CM


TJ-



en
CN


"3-
VO


S


S
00,

NO

CM

VO
o
00
ON




en



in


NO
r-
en"




5


Maximum i
ON
CS



cs
CM




en
VO
cs

en



00



cs


oo


Tfr
T
"3-_
co"
O
O,
1— H

f~
en
cs




ON



oo
en


ON
in
NO
cs"




en


Q
0)
m
vo



ON
en
ON
8




oo
vo
vo

•*



en
CM


OO
00


«


en
vo
ON
O

cs"

cs
^.
!Q




£2



s


C5
en"




3


1


^
8

g
•a
^S



&
o
£'•
3

"o
o
1
O
1

G
O

JO
J
J
S

£

t;
E
J
1
13

'&
'c

..
a>

C3
g
—
a!
c/r
(2
•ss
8 °
M E™"
O C/3
O <^
o *Z
"^ m

(U "^
1*
II 'C
0 fc

-------
3

UJ

•S
M
I




in
oo
o\
V-*
13
C

o
£.
c
O
•£.
s-
4-
c
w
ft)
S1
O-
H
~o
3
C
<
in
i
S
ft)
-Q
|2


If
££
.-§ %
.S «
£ M
Si
£ •"
§1
OT **«
Suckers
*.»
"a!
.1/1
i -,p*
52 S3 wi
111
1 S «
SB .
c g.
2 &
02
"3 n
O
«
SO
•*
r-
§
M
r^
cs
vo
o"

o
o
o
o
o
o
Minimum
§
•*
Os
O
•a-
so
oo
00
<*!
SO
(N
t--
>n
o_
in
oo
S
S
VO
•*"
•*
00
Os
OS
f-
r-
SO
c*-i
Os
so
»n
>n
t—

•*
«n
§
so
(N
•^
ts"
m
>n
-
n
t~
S
00
fl
2;
•3-
t-
oo^
 es
•o1 " o
— — S
t-gs
wfc £
<&££




tsj
00
rf
C
^2
4-
o
to
'c
C31
O
ft)
f=


ft)
'5
t
UJ
"o
4-
o
M
ft)

4-
W
UJ
vii
1
CO
M
£






at
en
2
i/j
1
DJJ
3
•o
-•«
CO
1
N
1
j=
O
1
•5
2

1
2
y
*
e
fl
1
-5
y


«
y

|
pa

6




o
cT
ts
'o"

o
oo
Os
ts"


o
o"
oo


o
§
oo
VI


0
i

g
o
o
so
'*
o
o
g
Ov

o'


ts
oo
Os









o
u
1
c
^o
"S
1


S jo
II
£" 1
il
11
rrl ^
. u
™ J
j2 55
o *-'
H O
n
v£
r* ftj

•n ^




0
I
OJ
00
Ox
v-l
6)"
o
c:
o
"t/r

o
t1"
J!
E"

•
P»
£>
JB
1
,r!
i
i
Eft
V
1
CO


'"S

CO
tn
.es
PQ
,s
^
_B
1


o
o
o
06"
m

o
o
o"
o
o_
oo"



Os
o
o1
so"

o
o
*•
00
0
ro'
o
s
ts^


0
o
o"
o
*"*
o

Os
tN










Q
£
I
o
SM .
1

8 1-
1 1
E S
jl
H" c
|i •
ll
S c
«.§
O 1
f^ "°s
8 3

•a
«
t!
u
2
j
a
4-
,C
f
,fi

a
c
h-
m
M
ft)
JD
(2



il
"**. £
jl
.;£ w
2 S
S>
1
.1
GC "
ws
1
-SO :
:_.,-«
CO
1 1 i
co S
6s
J g.

3 1
™ a.
1|
a50.
-tip


,i

B %
1!

£•
O
2
o
SO
in.
oo
cs"
OS
r~
so"
1
m

c-
Os"
00
§
Os
00
oo
cs
oo"
00
so"
t-

B
—
s
o
t-^
M-
t-
oo
oo
y

1

a
2-
ts
^.
I
R
oo












>
y S
c c
? 8
^ »•
s s
p «
w ^_:
s|
1-1
a §•
"e
a 1
it
s J§

1 1
S E
^ 0
11
ff'-s
co 5
in J^
*n S5
PH Pn

-------
1
W-
O
C
|
£5
f

















6)
«
t;
o.
516(b)CdseJ



























CM
^4
s
CL
3
»
iE
I?


a
-o
t_
ou
£
ft)
0
g
4-
a
tn
s
«•
t/
iE
u-
o
ft>
"5
t.
tS

1
CO
M
ID
£

PM
|
1

i
0}
1*
1
1

e
CJ
JM
1
1
|«
CO
•o
JI

1 Freshwate
: Drum
4
!
Channel
Catfish
&
a
*-
i
CO
a>
>•
§


r-

rr
oo"
g
S

oo
o

£
%
.S
O
s
g
1
p.
jf
i

T-(
o
0-
_c
i

i 1
•s °
<2 s-
s$
c^S"
11
= c
Si
!&
?1
c 2
If
ll
Qj E
pj o?
!"§
11
erf *•*
cs .22
O 0
O CO
IN 1
13
rn g
jS|






I
£
o

•5
O ^
C Q)
i +5
0 3
iS *>
1-1 v>
c .S*
w
g^

Is
_ ft)
i i
< i
u 5
sf
6
i
o
M
_ft)
a
h-









1
1



B
Oil
t
NX

















o «n «
 _r ^
CN m



?
^ -s £
E ^ o
.| fc £• £
C o to O
g1 £- £ e
0 M 0 g
J 1 ^ S
S- g -a 
8 S
1- *&
5 S

O O
§ §
1- &
g g
"CM X
Sis?
s^sr:^
fc 2fe 2
1 gs g

li °|
*r S 2 i
•8 "3 rg 't3
£ CO ^ CO

^^
c «> S K
o jg -S _g.
c^i ea f~> 03
& _J O- fcj
ea i eo ^i
J3 J JS *J
o rt u «
o. S a. g
.3 U .2 O
•1 •§ -1 ^
E PL. S PL.




M)  i

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                          Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Losses
  Chapter  14:   Economic  Value  of   I&E
    Losses   Based   on  Benefits  Transfer
                                   Techniques
                                              CHAPTER

                                                    --ValueroftBaseline'RecreationalrEisheiy.tpsses'-
                                                                                    SESnjSW^

                                                                       _ '^^i^j^^W^^^^
                                                                      "&&^^e^^iijo^y&idfaiz^:!:;;:
                                                                              'Sses'.T-.i'&iV.^;.."" '14-4
                                                            |iasdine;I^sses^^
                                                             ifJMfian^^u^^^eMSffia^eUne^rjaE^s
                                                •' ^ ; - ^aK^oOTcjtg^KSft^Moijr^^agffi
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation
of the economic losses associated with I&E at the
Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant using benefits
transfer techniques. Section 14-1 provides an overview
of the valuation approach, Section 14-2 discusses the
value of recreational fishery losses, Section 14-3 '
discusses commercial fishery values, Section 14-4
discusses the value of forage species losses, Section 14-
5 discusses nonuse values, and Section 14-6
summarizes the benefits transfer results.

14-1   OVERVIEW OF VALUATION

APPROACH

Fish losses from I&E-at Monroe affect recreational and
commercial fisheries as well as forage species that
contribute to the biomass of recreational and
commercial species. EPA evaluated all of these
species groups to capture the total economic impact of
I&E at Monroe.

Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer methods, applying the 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 the Chapter A9 of Part A of this document.

Many of the fish species impacted by I&E at Monroe 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 14-1.

As discussed in Chapters A5 and A9 of Part A of this document, the yield estimates presented in Chapter 13  are expressed as
total pounds for both the commercial and recreational catch  combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this chapter,
total yield was partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery (presented in
Table 14-1). Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers offish rather than pounds, foregone
recreational yield was converted to numbers offish, based on the average weight of harvestable fish of each species. Table
                                                                                              14-1

-------
 S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                          Chapter 14: Baseline !<&E Losses
 14-2 shows these conversions for impingement and Table 14-3 displays these data for entrainment using the data presented in
 Section 13-4 of Chapter 13. 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 14-1: Percentages of Total I&E  Impacts  at Monroe Occurring to Recreational and
                                                Commercial  Fisheries0
Fish Species
Bluegill
Bullhead spp.
Burbot
Carp '
Channel catfish
Crappie
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Muskellunge
Small mouth bass
Smelt
Suckers
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery
100
0
50
0
50
100
0
0 '
100
100
50.
0
100
100
50
50
100
Percent Impacts to
Commercial Fishery
0
100
50
100
50
6
100
100
0
0
50
100
0
0
50
50
0
             * Accurate recreational landings data for Lake Erie have not yet been located, and thus EPA applied a 50/50
             split for species that are both commercially and recreationally harvested.
             Fri Feb 15 13:45:13 MST 2002 ; TableA:Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and
             recreational fisheries of selected species; Plant: monroe ; Pathname:
             P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables,output/TableA.Perc.oftotal.impacts.monroe.csv
                 Table 14-2
Summary of Mean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Monroe
Species
Bluegill
Bullhead spp.
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
Freshwater
drum
Gizzard shad
Muskellunge
Smallmouth
bass
Smelt
Suckers
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
Commercial and
Recreational
Species Total
Impingement
Count (#)
375
866
3,550
666
655
128,424
19,655,012
4
97
4,260
4,139
3,706
16,687
548,775
224,123
20,591,339
Agel
Equivalents (#)
447
1,007
3,891
859
793
148,171
34,323,242
4
141
5,132
4,958
6,177
22,658
662,353
264,144
35,443,976
Total
Catch (#)
1
50
288 •
32
12
8,614
4,375,502
0
10
117
122
36
178
54,381
2,237
4,441,580
Total
Yield Ob)
0
22
1,880
27
7
7,871
1,354,816
0
6
44
62
2
334
50,469
282
1,415,820
Commercial
Catch (#)
0
50
288
16
0
8,614
4,375,502
0
0
58
122
0
0
27,190
0
4,411,841
Commercial
Yield (Ib)
0
22
1,880
13
0
7,871
1,354,816
0
0
22
62
0
0
25,235
0
1,389,920
Recreational
Catch (#)
1
0
0
16
12
0
0
0
10
58
0
36
178
27,190
2,237
29,739
Recreational
Yield (Ib)
	 L.9 	
0
; o
13
.7 •
, 0
0
: o
.: 6
; 22
'0
', 2
] 334
25,235
, 282
25,900
14-2

-------
§.3:6(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Losses
            Table 14-3: Summary of Mean Annual Entrapment Results of Fishery Species at Monroe
Species
Burbot
Carp
Channel
catfish
Crappie
Freshwater
drum
Gizzard shad
Smallmouth
bass
Smelt
Suckers
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Commercial
and
Recreational
Species Total
Entrainment
Count (#)
2,770,000
79,700,000.
4,160,000
580,000
158,000,000
4,080,000,000
. 599,000
11,000,000
- 6,204,000
923,000
2,080,000
156,000,000
190,000
128,000,000
4,630,206,000
Age 1
Equivalents (#)
1,765
394,554
20,594
23,517
143,558
8,747,005
48,283
89,543
89,117
311,090
16,749
772,277
81
567,330
11,225,463
Total Catch
(#)
132
29,161
775
347
8,346
1,115,062
3,399
2,038
.2,198
1,821
132
63,406
50
4,805
1,231,670
Total Yield
Ob)
2.06
190,659
643
195
7,626
345,264
1,972
766
1,108
113
247
58,845
73
605
608,321
Commercial
Catch (#)
66
29,161
387
0
8,346
1,115,062
0
1,019
2,198
0
0
31,703
25
0
1,187,966
Commercial
Yield Ob)
103
190,659
322
0
7,626
345,264
0
383
1,108
0
0
29,423
36
0
574,923
Recreational
Catch (#)
66
0
387"
347
0
" 0
3,399
1,019
0
1,821
. 132
31,703
25
4,805
43,704
Recreational
Yield Ob)
52
0
161
98
0
0
986.
192
0
57
124
14,712
18
303
16,704
14-2   VALUE OF BASELINE RECREATIONAL FISHERY  LOSSES AT THE MONROE FACILITY

14-2.1  Economic Values for Recreational  Losses  Based on 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 a "consumer surplus" per additional fish caught.

When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table 14-4 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Great Lakes
fishery in geographic area and relevant species.

McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values using data from the National Marine Fisheries Statistical Survey.
They created a random utility model of fishing behavior for nine Atlantic states, the northernmost being New York. In this
model they specified four categories of fish: 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 fish category, they estimated per
angler values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates.

Boyle et al. (1998) used the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation to estimate the
marginal economic value of an additional bass, trout, and walleye per trip.                     „

Sorg et al. (1985) used travel cost and contingent valuation methqds to estimated the value of recreational fishing at 51 sites
in Idaho. Several of the species valued in Sorg et al. are also found in the Great Lakes fishery.

Milliman et al. (1992) used a logit model, creel data, and the responses to a contingent valuation dichotomous choice survey
question the study estimated the value of recreational fishing for yellow perch in Green Bay, Michigan.
                                                                                                         14-3

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
                                                                                  Chapter 14: Baseline IAE Losses
                  Table 14-4: Selected Valuation Studies fop Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
         Authors
                   Study Location and Year
Item Valued
                                                                                Value Estimate ($2000)
     McConnell and    I Mid-and south Atlantic coast,..! Catch rate increase of 1 fish per    [Small gamefish             $10.06
     Strand (1994)     ;anglers targeting specific       !tripa                           i                            ,
                     j species, 1988                j                              |                            :
Hicks et al. (1999)  jMid-Atlantic coast, 1994

Boyle etal. (1998)  [National, by state, 1996
                                                I Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip I Small gamefish
                                                I                               IBotfomfish
                                                $2.95
                                                $2.38
                                                I Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip j Bass (low/high)
                                         $1.58-$5.32
                                                $5.02
                                                $0.31
Sorg etal. (1985)   j Idaho, 1982
Milliman et al.     i Green Bay
(1992)           i
Charbonncau and   i National, 1975
Hay (1978)       i
                                                j Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip j Warmwater fish
                                                [Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip [Yellow perch
                                                i Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip [Walleye
                                                j                              [Catfish
                                                I     •                         iPanfish
                                                                                                     $7.92
                                                                                                     $2.64
                                                                                                     $'l.OO
     * 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.                                                                    >


Charbonneau and Hay (1978) used travel cost and contingent valuation methods to estimate the consumer surplus for a season
of the respondent's favorite wildlife-related activity. These consumer surplus values were then converted to a one fish
increase per trip.                                    .

14-2.2   Baseline Losses in  Recreational Yield at Monroe  and Value of  Losses

Since most of these studies discussed in the previous section do not consider the Great Lakes fishery directly, EPA used these
estimates to create a range of possible consumer surplus values for the recreational fish landings gained by reducing
impingement and entrainment at the Monroe facility. To estimate a unit value for recreational landings, EPA established a
lower and upper value for the recreational species, based on values reported in studies in Table 14-4. EPA estimated the
economic value of I&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the I&E estimates presented in Tables 14-2 and 14-3 and the
economic values in Table 14-5.

EPA used the percentages listed in Table 14-1 to obtain losses to recreational fisheries.  Results are displayed in Tables 14-5
and 14-6, for impingement and entrainment, respectively, and are expressed as average annual I&E and corresponding values.
The estimated total loss to recreational fisheries ranges from $44,800 to $149,100 for impingement per year, and from
562,800 to,$209,100 annually for entrainment.
14-4

-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline IAE Losses
        Table 14-5: Baseline Mean Annual Recreational Impingement Losses at the Monroe Facility and
                                        Associated Economic Values
Species
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Smallmouth bass
Smelt
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
Yellow perch
Total
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(number offish)
1
16
12
10
58
36
178
27,190.
2,237
29,739
Recreational Value/Fish
Low
$0.31
$2.64
$1.00
$1.58
$2.95
$0.31
$5.02
$1.58
$0.31

High
$1.00
$5.02
$5.02
$5.32
$10.06
$1.00
$7.92
$5.32
$1.00

• Loss in Recreational Value from
impingement
'. Low
$0
$43
$12
$16
$172
$11
$896
$42,961
$694
$44,804
High
• $1
$81
$59
$53
$588
$36
$1,413
$144,653
$2,237
$149,121
    Fri Feb 15 13:45:23 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: monroe; type: I Pathname:
    P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableB.rec.losses.monroe.I.csv
    Table 14-6: Baseline Mean Annual Recreational Entrainment Losses at the Monroe Facility and Associated
                                             Economic Values                      /     •••••',"'
Species
Burbot
Channel catfish
Crappie
Smallmouth bass
Smelt
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Total
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Entrainment
(number of fish)
66
387
347
3,399
1,019
1,821
132
31,703
25
4,805
43,704
Recreational Value/Fish
($2000)
Low
$2.95
.$2.64
$1.00
$1.58
$2.95
$0.31
$5.02
$1.58
$1.50
$0.31

High
$10.06
$5.02
$5.02
$5.32
$10.06
$1.00
$7.92
$5.32
$2.38
$1.00

Annual Loss in Recreational
Value from Entrainment ($2000)
Low
$194
$1,023
$347
$5,370
$3,006
$564
$662
$50,091 .
$37
$1,490
$62,784
Fri Feb 15 13:45:28 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: monroe ; type
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableB.rec.losses.monroe.E.csv
High
$662
$1,945
$1,740
$18,082
$10,251
$1,821
$1,045
$168,660
$59
$41805 .
$209,070
E Pathname:
14-3  VALUE OF BASELINE COMMERCIAL FISHERY  LOSSES AT THE MONROE FACILITY

14-3.1   Baseline  Losses  in Commercial Yield at Monroe  and Value  of Losses

I&E losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables 14-2 (for impingement) and 14-3 (for entrainment) based on
the commercial and recreational splits listed in Table 14-1. Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward
because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market price.  EPA estimates of the economic value of these losses
are displayed in Tables 14-7 and 14-8. Market values per pound are listed as well as the total market losses experienced by the
commercial fishery.  The estimates of market loss to the commercial fisheries are $229,900 for impingement per year, and
$113,400 annually for entrainment.
                                                                                                      14-5

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Losses
         Table 14-7: Baseline Mean Annual Commercial Impingement Losses at the  Monroe Facility and
                                          Associated Economic Values
Species
Bullhead spp.
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Smelt
Suckers
White bass
Whitefish
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch from
Impingement
Ob of fish)
22
0
1,880
13
7,871
1,354,816
22
62
25,235
0
1,389,920
Commercial Value
(S/lboffish)
$0.33
$0.35
$0.16
$0.76
$0.21
$0.15
$0.35
$0.17
$0.98
$0.82

Annual Loss in
Commercial Value from
Impingement ($2000)
$7
$0
$301 i
S10
$1,653 ;
$203,222
$8 i
$10
$24,730
$0
$229,942
     Fri Fob 15 13:45:23 MST 2002  TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: monroe ; type: I Pathname:
     P:/Intakc/GreaCLakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableC.comm.losses.monroe.I.csv                    ;
         Table 14-8: Baseline Mean Annual Commercial Entrainment Losses at the Monroe Facility and
                                          Associated Economic Values
Species
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Smelt
Suckers
White bass
Whitefish
Total
Loss to Commercial Catch
from Entrainment
Ob of fish)
103
190,659
322
7,626
345,264
383
1,108
29,423
36
574,923
Commercial Value
($/lb offish)-
$0.35
$0.16
$0.76
$0.21
$0.15
$0.35
$0.17
$0.98
$0.82

Annual Loss in Commercial
• Value from Entrainment
($2000)
$36 :
$30,505
$245
$1,601
$51,790 ;
$134
$188
$28,834
$30 ,
$113,363
    Fri Feb 15 13:45:29 MST 2002 ; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: monroe ; type: E Pathname:
    P:/lntake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableC.comm.losses.monroe.E.csv                    :
 Tables 14-7 and 14-8 express commercial impacts based on changes from dockside market landings only. However, to
 determine the total economic impact from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA also 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
 14-6

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                    Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Los
 dockside transactions to other wholesalers, retailers and, ultimately, consumers. The resulting total economic surplus
 measures mclude producer surplus to the watermen who harvest the fish, as well as the rents and consumer surplus that accrue
 to buyers and sellers m.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 anglercamount to approximately 22% of the total surplus accruing to watermen, retailers and consumers
 combined Jforton 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.

 Applying this method, EPA estimates that baseline economic loss to commercial fisheries ranges from $418 000 to $732 000
 per year for impingement, and from $206,000 to $361,000 per year for entrainment at the Monroe facility.  '

 14-4  VALUE OF FORASE FISH LOSSES AT THE MONROE FACILITY

Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationally fished. For the purposes of this study, EPA refers to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species, and are important components of aquatic
,°°    TU If       sunmlarifes impingement losses of forage species at Monroe and Table 14-10 summarizes entrainment
losses. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation methods.

                 Table 14-9: Summary of Mean Annual  Impingement of Forage Fish at Monroe
Species
Alewife
Logperch
Shiner spp
Forage species total
Impingement Count
(#)
125
...i^i.."!i.,.i,,1;. ...-., v - -t". - ••
117,327.
180,252 	
297,704
Age 1 Equivalents (#)
156
156,793^
213,319 •
370,267
Production Foregone
Ob)
2
.,.....„..„.. z?i,;; 	 .,,
2,621
3,405
                 Table 14-10: Summary of Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Fish at Monroe
Species
Alewife
Logperch
Shiner spp.
Forage species total
Entrainment Count
(#)
0
2,983,000
30,420,000
33,403,000
Age 1 Equivalents (#)
Q
,115,373
276,928
392,301
Production Foregone
(lb)
0
8,873
83,324
92,197
                                                                                                        14-7

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                      Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Losses
Replacement cost of fish

The replacement value offish can be used in several instances. First, if a fish kill of a fishing 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 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 14-11 displays the replacement costs of two of the forage fish species known to be impinged or
entrained at Monroe.  The costs are average costs to fish hatcheries (in dollars per pound) 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 $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 does not include the transportation costs in this valuation approach.           ;  .

Table 14-11 presents the computed values of the annual average forage replacement costs. The value of the losses of forage
species using the replacement cost method is $7,000 per year for impingement and $8,000 per year for entrainment.

              Table  14-11: Replacement Cost  of  Various Forage Fish Species at the Monroe Facility"
Species
Alcwife
Logperch
Shiner spp.
Total
Hatchery Costs
($/lb)
$0.52
$1.05
$0.91

Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses ($2000)
Impingement
$1
$2,104
$5,053
$7,158
Entrainment
$0
$1,548 ;
$6,559 ;
$8,108
        1 Values are from AFS (1993).
        Fri Fob 15 13:45:24 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: monroe ; type: I Pathname:
        P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.monroe.I.csv
 Production  foregone value of forage fish
                                                                                                        •<
 This approach considers the foregone biomass production of commercial and recreational fishery species fish resulting from
 I&E losses 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
 the loss of forage.

 Table 14-12 displays the results of this method of valuing forage species lost from entrainment. Impingement results were
 insignificant (as estimated by this method) and thus are not discussed. The values listed are obtained by converting the forage
 species into species that may be commercially or recreationally valued.  The values of entrainment losses range from
 $822,000 to $ 1.6 million per year.
  14-8

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Losses
            Table 14-12: Mean Annual Economic Value of Production Foregone of Selected Fishery
                      Species Resulting from Entrapment of Forage Species at Monroe
Species
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Smallmouth bass
Smelt
Suckers
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Total
Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value from
Entrapment of Forage Species ($2000)
Low
$148,564
$13
$30
$2
$4
$13
$98
$83
$0
$47
$3
$12
$673,405
$1
$822,275
High
$444,405
$23
$55
$12
$7
$23
$331
$273
$1
$151
$5
$30
$1,133,734
$2 ,
$1,579,051
           Fri Feb 15 13:45:29 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: monroe ; type: E Pathname:
           P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.rnoriroe.E.csv
14-5  NONUSE VALUES FOR BASELINE LOSSES AT THE MONROE FACILITY

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 of Part A of this document for further discussion), EPA estimated nonuse values for baseline losses at Monroe to
range from $22,000 to $75,000 per year for impingement and from $31,000 to $ 105,000 per year for entrainment.

14-6  SUMMARY OF MEAN  ANNUAL  VALUES  OF BASELINE ECONOMIC  LOSSES AT THE
MONROE FACILITY

Table 14-13 summarizes the estimated annual baseline losses from I&E at the Monroe facility. Total impacts range from
$492,400 to $962,500 per year for impingement and from $308,400 to $2,253,400 per year for entrainment.
                                                                                                    14-9

-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline !<&E Losses
           Table 14-13: Summary of Valuation of Baseline Mean Annual  I
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
       Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
                                   Chapter   15:
    Streamlined   HRC   Valuation   of   I<&E
            Losses   at  the   Monroe   Facility
                                                       --Quantify I&E Losses by Species-(Step 1)
                                     " -r.r-15-2.
                                                  15-3
                                                  15-4
                                                  15-5
                                                  15-6
                                                  rs-7
: -Identiiy Species Habitat Requirements (Step 2),-^. _-=r- z-_-
FIdentrfy~HaT>itat RestolSttorTAlternatives (Step 3),
  andTnonttze Restoratioa Alternatives           T5-3
  Quantify the Benefits for the Prioritized Habitat   _  ~~
  Restoration Alternatives (Step 5)   —— -  _—™—15*3
  Scale-the Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset   „ _
  I&E Losses (Step 6) _ __	__	15-5
  Estimate "Unit Costs" "for the Habitat Restoration
  Alternatives (Step 7)                          15-7
  Develop Total Cost Estimates for I&E Losses
  (Step 8)        " "   —         "         I5~-8
  Strengths and Weaknesses of the Streamlined HRC
  Analysis      "       ~            >      -15-9
This chapter presents the results of EPA's streamlined
habitat-based replacement cost (HRC) valuation of
I&E losses at the Monroe facility in Monroe,
Michigan, for a baseline scenario based on I&E data
for the years 1982 and 1985.

A description of the HRC method and the process for
undertaking a complete HRC valuation of I&E losses
is provided in Chapter Al 1 of Part A of this
document.  To summarize, a complete HRC valuation
of I&E losses reflects the combined costs for
implementing habitat restoration actions,
administering the programs, and monitoring the
increased production after the restoration actions. In a
complete HRC valuation, these costs are developed by
first identifying the preferred habitat restoration
alternative for each species with I&E losses and then
scaling the level of habitat restoration until the losses
across all the species for that restoration alternative
have been exactly offset by the expected increases in production of each species: The total value of the I&E losses at the
facility is then calculated as the sum of the costs across the set of preferred habitat restoration alternatives that were identified.

The HRC method is thus a supply-side approach for valuing I&E losses in contrast to the more typically used demand-side
valuation approaches (e.g., commercial arid recreational fishing impacts valuations). An advantage of the HRC method is that
the  HRC values address losses for species lacking a recreational or commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC explicitly recognizes and captures the fundamental ecological relationships between species with I&E losses at a facility
and their surrounding environment by determining the value of I&E losses through the cost of the actions required to provide
an offsetting increase in the existing populations of those species in their natural environment.

Streamlining was necessary to meet the schedule of the 31.6(b) existing sources rule and entailed combining Step 2
(identification of species habitat requirements), Step 3 (identification of habitat restoration alternatives), and Step 4
(consolidation and prioritization of habitat restoration alternatives), restricting the analysis to readily available information,
and eliminating site visits, in-depth discussions with local experts,  and development of primary data (see Chapter Al 1 of Part
A of this document), which  would be required before doing an actual restoration. Despite these restrictions, the streamlined
HRC provided a more comprehensive, ecological-based valuation  of the I&E losses than valuation by traditional commercial
and recreational impacts methods. In addition, the streamlined HRC valued direct,  indirect, and passive uses not included in
more traditional economic valuation techniques used in Chapters 14 and 16.

The calculated range in annualized costs, expressed in 2000 dollars, of restoring sufficient fish production habitat to offset the
I&E losses in perpetuity at the Monroe facility for the baseline scenario is $1.1 - $14.4 million.

The following subsections describe the streamlined HRC valuation applied to the Monroe facility and the advantages and
disadvantages of streamlining the HRC method.
                                                                                                     75-7

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
15-1  QUANTIFY  !<&E LOSSES  BY SPECIES  (STEP 1)

The streamlined HRC method relies on the same estimates of annual age 1 equivalent species losses that are developed in
Chapter 13 from data reported directly by the facility and incorporated in the commercial and recreational fishing impacts
valuation presented in Chapter 14. Total I&E losses at the facility may be underestimated, particularly if certain species were
not targeted by monitoring efforts or if short duration population spikes occurred outside of monitoring events. The HRC
method inherently reduces the former problem by targeting restoration activities that might benefit species lost but not
monitored, but like all other measures of I&E losses, it relies on representative monitoring.

Various life stages of organisms were lost to I&E at the Monroe facility. As with other facilities, primarily early stages such
as eggs and larvae are entrained, and primarily juveniles and adults are impinged. However, EPA estimated total losses for
each species by converting all losses to a common equivalent life stage by applying average mortality rates between life stages
for each species. These mortality rates were derived from the  literature and best professional judgment.  Conversion between
life stages did not change  the overall scale of required restoration in the streamlined HRC method because many eggs are
equivalent to few adults on both the I&E loss and increased production sides of the  HRC equation.  For example, if on
average one adult survives from 10 eggs via a 90% cumulative mortality rate and 1  acre of habitat produces 10 eggs, then
restoration of 1 acre is needed to produce either one adult or 10 eggs.                                     «

Age 1 equivalent I&E losses of 20 species offish were calculated using the available I&E monitoring data available from the
Monroe facility. A summary of average annual age 1 equivalent losses from the available data is presented in Table 15-1.

             Table 15-1: Average Annual I&E Losses of Age  1 Equivalent Fish at the Monroe Facility
species
Gizzard shad ;
White bass
Yellow perch
Shiner spp.
Carp
Sunflsh spp. ;
Freshwater drum
Logpcrch
Smelt
Suckers
Smallmouth bass
Walleye
Crappic spp.
Channel catfish
Burbot
Bullhead spp.
Blucgill
Alewife
Whitcfish
Muskcllunge
Total
Impinged
34,323,242 '
662,353
264,144
213,319
3,891
6,177
148,171
156,793
5,132
4,958
141
22,658 ;
793
859
0
1,007
447
156
0
4
35,814,245
Entrained
8,747,005
772,277
567,330
276,928
394,554
311,090
143,558
115,373
89,543
89,117
48,283
16,749
23,517
20,594
1,765
0
0
0
81
0
11,617,764
Total ',
43,070,247 •
1,434,630
831,474 ;
490,247
398,445
317,267 '
291,729 ;
272,166
94,675 :
94,075 :
48,424 ;
39,407
24,310
21,453 ;
1,765 j
1,007
447 ' |
ise ;.
81
4
47,432,009
75-2

-------
   § 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                 Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
                   h§  * T 7         ^ ^^ ^ ^P0^ tO commercial ™ recreational fishing, including
                    '      '     C7Pie' Many °therS' lnCluding 3lewife' Smelt' and shiners' indirectly affe* Commerce
                       ey are prey for commercially or recreationally important aquatic and terrestrial wildlife soecies such
  sri   as            I'6' ^ 6agleS' 3nd ^ Furtl™> a» of the species'provide numerous, o^^S*
  services as sources of carbon and energy transfer through the food web, as well as continuous interactive exploitation of
  n ches available in the Great Lakes ecosystem (a system already under tremendous stress from exotic species inactions

  n^lt[preru"cesanCe C0ntammatl°n' n°npoint S°urce mnoff> heat Contamination, habitat loss, overfishing, and I&E) from
  For example, freshwater drum feed on a variety of small fish.  When food supplies are short, freshwater drum often out-
  compete other species and thereby may increase mortality rates or decrease growth rates for those species (Edsall  1967)  In
  addition, several species of Centrarchids, including the crappie, are sensitive to the size of their preLors' population  When
  predators such as walleye are absent, species such as crappie can overcrowd their habitats and exhaust their own food
  supplies, resultmg in stunted growth (Wang, 1986a; Steiner, 2000).  Finally, some species are already subject to wide
  fluctuations in population size from year to year, and may not be able to tolerate I&E losses, particularly at certain times of
  the year. For example, the gizzard shad is often subject to high mortality in the winter (Miller, 1960).


  15-2  IDENTIFY SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS (STEP 2), IDENTIFY HABITAT

  RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES (STEP'S), AND PRIORITIZE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
  (STEP 4)


  EPA combined steps 2 3, and 4 of the HRC method by seeking a single habitat restoration program capable of increasing

                       iST" "* 'T; ifled I&E 10SS6S at ^ M°nr0e faCility' AddreSsi C03Stal WedandS WWch C3n bC US6d 3S 3 Pr°xy for increased Production beS
 15-3  QUANTIFY THE BENEFITS FOR THE PRIORITIZED HABITAT  RESTORATION
 ALTERNATIVES (STEP 5)

 A literature search revealed a study (Brazner, 1997) that provides fish capture data by species from sampling efforts
 conducted at a series of Green Bay (Lake Michigan) coastal wetland and sand beach sites. No other studies provide more
 1S,H T1*8 ;   ?"!!!?     ? SPeCieS production following <*"« Lakes Coastal wetland restoration, or fish capture data in
 wetlands closer to the Monroe fac.hty.  However, the Brazner study sampled wetlands in the warmer, shallower, more

 the Z    if,?   7,         u Bay' WhiCh ^ Simllar l° the WaterS °f Westem Lake Erie-  After examining the data from
 the Brazner study and discussing them with the author, EPA dropped less similar sites from northern Green Bay For almost
 all of the species with quantified I&E losses at the Monroe facility, a match was found with a species, or combination of
 species, among those captured at the southern sites in the Brazner study.  Table 15-2 shows the species caught in the Brazner

 s^srrri^^^^^^

 Because of the similarity between the physical habitats of southern Green Bay and western Lake Erie and the confirmed

CtT °H  T    SPedeS ^ ^ 10Cati°nS' EPA eStimated denSitieS f°r each southern Green Bay sPeci<* a"d "«ed them as a
proxy for direct measurements of potential increased production following wetland restoration. This approach assumed that
additional we land habitat restored near the Monroe facility would provide similar densities of each species as the wetland
habitats sampled in Green Bay. Direct measurements of densities of each species before and after actual wetland habitat
restorations in western lake Erie could test this assumption and improve the reliability of the HRC valuation for the Monroe
                                                                                                     15-3

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                    Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
       Table 15-2: Species with I.&E Loss Estimates at the Monroe Facility and the Corresponding Species
                                     Captured in Green Bay Wetland Sampling	   ...
                                                  i  Corresponding Species Caught in Sampling of Green Bay Coastal
                                                  I                   Wetlands (Brazner, 1997)  	
Species with I&E Loss Estimates at
       the Monroe Facility
     Alewife                                       jYe.s			

     Buimeadspp.    	      ! Yes (as sum of black, brown, and yellow bullhead)	

     Burbot                                       jN°	:	;....	f	               j

     '§iIIIII"II"II	1Y-^	:	,--••	:--	vr:-"-"v	V-:-T	             ;  j
     Channel catfish                                !Yes	.-	   	       ;
     /"*«*nrti/» cnn                                   * i es (as DiacK crappie)
     V^ru^jpiu SJJf.               	j	.^	:	:-n—	         :      |
     Freshwater drum                               jYes	
     Gizzard shad                                  jYp_f.	;	,,.,	„..,	,:	j	               ,
     Logperch                                   .....JY^.	,._	,	r	•	?•—•	         .      ,.
     Muskcllunge                                  jYe^	.-               t
     Shiner spp"	   !Yes (as sum of common, emerald, golden, spotfin, and.spottail shiner)
     Smallmouth bass                               ]Yef.	,.	               -
     's'meit	                             j Yes  (as rainbow smelt)
     Suckersspp.
     Sunfish                                       j r.~..''~.frr.r.v..T.......—'	••••••<	              i
     'Walleye'"'"'	   	!Ye.s	_	^	^:7:r..::..r.:.:,......,_...	.•,:-.—';•:	-.p-	  -   ,, •,:;	;  )„,
     'White bass	|Ye.s.	,	,„.	t	.,...	-j	--.       -      j
     Whitefish               "           _           i^o	  	,;	              '
     Yellow perch	iYes		•—	•              ,


 EPA developed the density estimates for each species for each site using aggregate sampling results provided by the author
 (J Brazner U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001).  Table 15-3 provides a summary of the Green Bay
 capture data (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001) for each species that has quantified I&E
 losses at the Monroe facility for which a matching species or groups of species was available. Data for each of four Green
 Bay sites are presented, as are the average and maximum of all four sites.

 The raw capture data were converted to density estimates for each species by assuming that each sampling event of 100 m of
 linear coastal wetland frontage corresponded to an average of 100 m of perpendicular width of connected coastal wetlands
 (i.e. each sampling event included fish from an assumed 100 mx 100m area of wetlands). This assumption is based on
 discussions with the author about the likely perpendicular width of the sampled wetlands that was being used as habitat by the
 sampled species (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, personal communication, 2001).  A further adjustment was then made to the raw
 capture data to recognize the  fact that shoreline sampling would capture only a portion of the fish actually using the 100 m x
  100 m wetland habitat.  After discussions with the author, the capture data were increased by a factor of 100 (1/0.01), based
 on the assumption that only 1% of the fish present or relying on the wetland habitat were captured in the sampling event.

 The resulting per acre average density estimates for each species was used in the HRC equation  as the measure of increased            ;
 production that would most likely be provided by wetland habitat restoration near the. Monroe facility.  The maximum per
 acre density estimate for each species was used as an upper bound estimate of fish density that would result from wetland
 restoration near the Monroe facility.

  Brazner (1997) captured young-of-year  (younger than age  1), age 1 fish,  and adult  fish (older than age  1) in the Green Bay
  wetlands. In this evaluation,  the capture data were treated  as if it represented age 1 fish, which eliminated the  need to apply
  mortality rates to adjust for survival between life stages for each species, as was done for I&E losses. Since Brazner (19 J7)
  reports a high percentage of young-of-year fish captured at all Green Bay sites,  this assumption  most likely results,  in a slight
  overestima'tion of age 1 fish densities, and therefore potentially underestimates the  scale of restoration  required to. offset the            ,
  average annual I&E loss for each species (i.e., it underestimates baseline losses from I&E).
  15-4

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
                                 Table 15-3: Sreen Bay Wetland Abundance Data
Species Name for HRC
Analysis
Yellow perch
Shiner spp.b
Gizzard shad
Alewife
White bass '
Sucker spp.'
Carp
Sunfish d
Bluegill
Freshwater drum
Bullhead spp.°
Crappie spp.f
Channel catfish
Muskellunge
Smallmouth bass
Logperch
Smelt.8
Walleye
Burbot
Whitefish
Number Captured: Lower Green Bay Wetland Locations9
Long Tail
Point Wetland
3,525
1,202
384
265
52
'14
19
O
18
4
9
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
Little Tail Point
Wetland
942
499
264
142
226
10
10
5
3
4 •
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
Atkinson
Marsh
' .333
526
160
92
106
1
3
22
0
7
0
i
3
0
0
0
0
0
Sensiba Wildlife
Refuge
1,108
769
137
124
9
103
1
2
6
1
2
1
, 0
. 0
2
1
0
0
not captured in Green Bay wetlands
not captured in Green Bay wetlands
Summary Statistics
Average
1,477
749
236
156
98
32
8
8
7
4
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
' 0
n/a
h/a
Maximum
3,525
1,202
384
265
226
103
19
22
18
7
9
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
n/a
n/a
 a Number captured in samples of 100 meters linear coastal wetland frontage. Reflects age 1 fish (not eggs and larvae).
 b Shiner spp. values are the sum of the common, emerald, golden, spotfin, and spottail shiner values at each location.
 c Sucker spp. values are those reported for white sucker.
 d Sunfish values are those reported for green sunfish.
 c Bullhead spp. values are the sum of the black, brown, and yellow bullhead values at each location.
 f Crappie spp. values are those reported for black crappie.
' 8 Smelt values are those reported for rainbow smelt.



 15-4 . SCALE THE HABITAT RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES  TO OFFSET I&E LOSSES

 (STEP 6)

 EPA calculated the amount of Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration required to offset I&E losses for each species at the
 Monroe facility by dividing the combined average annual I&E loss for each species in the baseline scenario by its per-acre
 estimate of increased production of age 1 equivalents. The results of this scaling are presented in Table 15-4.

 Whether using average or maximum production values, over half of the species listed in Table 15-4 would require that
 hundreds or thousands of acres of wetland habitat be restored to fully offset the I&E losses caused by the Monroe facility's
 CWIS. If Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration is the best natural restoration alternative for offsetting losses for each of
 these species, then approximately 26,900 acres of coastal wetland restoration is required to fully offset all I&E losses under
 the baseline scenario using the average adjusted per acre density estimates (because restoring logperch would require that
 much wetland restoration, and all other species would be fully restored as well).  However,  without further discussions with
 local experts, and perhaps additional  investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration activities and per-acre
 production benefits (particularly for the species driving the highest acreage needs), these assumptions may not be valid. On
 the other hand, the benefit of any given restoration program should always vary among species,  and species with relatively
 high productivity or low I&E losses cannot drive the HRC results without sacrificing necessary offsets for other species with
 lower productivity or higher I&E losses. As seen in the results in Table 15-4, a large restoration requirement can reflect either
 low productivity of the restored habitat for the species (e.g.,  logperch and smelt) or very large I&E losses (e.g., gizzard shad).
                                                                                                               75-5

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
         Table 15-4: Wetland Restoration Required to Offset Combined I&E Losses at the Monroe CWIS
Species
Logperch
Smelt
Gizzard shad
Walleye
Smallmouth bass
Freshwater drum
Carp
Sunfish
Channel catfish
Crappic spp.
White bass
Suckers spp.
Shiner spp.
Yellow perch
Bullhead spp.
Blucgill
Muskcllunge*
Alewifeb
Burbot
Whitefish
Average Annual
Age 1 Equivalents
Lost to I&E
272,166
94,675
43,070,247
39,407
48,424
291,729
398,445
317,267
21,453
24,310
1,434,630
94,075
490,247
831,474
1,007
447
4
156
1,765
81
Per-Unit Production Benefit (age 1 fish per
restored coastal wetland acre)
Average Value
10
10
9,561
10
20
162
334
324
30
.51
3,976
1,295
30,312
59,774
152
273
20
6,303
Maximum Value
Across Sites
40
40
15,540
40
81
283
769
890
121 •
81
9,146
4,168
48,645
142,657
364
728
81
10,725
Required Acres of Wetland Restoration to
Offset I&E Loss (rounded to nearest acre)
Based on Average
Production Value
26,901
9,358
4,505
3,895
2,393
1,802
1,193
980
707
481
361
73
16
14
7
2
0
0
Based on Maximum
Production Value
6,725
2,339
2,771
974
598
1,030
518
356
177
30p
157
23!
10!
6
3
1
0,
0
n/a
n/a , i
 * The exact requirement for restored wetland acreage for muskellunge is 0.20 acres under the average production value estimate and 0.05
 acres under the maximum production value estimate. Both values are rounded to 0 acres for presentation.                   !
 * The exact requirement for restored wetland acreage for alewife is 0.02 acres under the average production value estimate and 0.01 acres
 under the maximum production value estimate. Both values are rounded to 0 acres for presentation.


Table 15-4 also shows that both the scale and distribution of the estimates of required wetland restoration change when
maximum species density estimates are substituted for the averages. EPA used average species density estimates as; the
primary source of information because they are more representative of wetland productivity in the Brazner study, and more
accurately reflect the difficulties of achieving full function in restored versus native habitats.1

Since a rigorous investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration alternatives and per-unit production estimates
was not completed under the streamlined approach, using the highest restoration requirement (for logperch) may not be
justified. Therefore, the restoration requirements were ordered for all of the species so that percentiles could be calculated.
Using the 100th percentile (logperch) would offset losses for all of the species, as appropriate under a complete HRC
analysis. However, the 90th and 50th percentiles (corresponding to smelt and channel catfish, respectively) were used to
bound the estimate of the required scale of restoration.  Using a lower percentile than the 100th recognizes that further
analyses (or monitoring) might identify restoration programs more efficient and less costly than wetland restoration for
species with the highest wetland restoration needs, or might produce better and higher  wetland restoration productivity
estimates (lower cost) for those same species. Nevertheless, using lower percentiles risks underestimating the costs ;of needed
restoration because most species benefit from wetland restoration, and wetland restoration could easily prove to be the best
alternative for those species with the greatest wetland restoration needs.  Further, improved analysis and monitoring are as
     1 The maximum species-density-based estimates are included only as a sensitivity analysis and reflect a minimal scale of restoration
that would be required if Lake Erie wetland restorations were much more highly successful then EPA anticipates.  Detailed, repeated
monitoring of I&E species in areas where restoration has occurred will increase the accuracy of future analyses.
15-6

-------
 S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                     Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of WE Losses
 likely to lower productivity estimates as they are to raise them.  Therefore, percentiles less than the 50th were rejected as
 unreasonable.2

 Table 15-5 presents the 90th and 50th percentile results from the distribution of required Great Lakes coastal wetland
 restoration calculated using the average species density estimates as a proxy for increased species production for the baseline
 scenario and combined average annual I&E losses of age 1 equivalent fish.  Table 15-5 also presents the results using the
 maximum species density estimates as a sensitivity analysis.

          Table 15-5: Acres of Coastal Wetland Restoration Required under Different !<&E Scenarios with
                               Alternative Increased Production Benefits Assumptions
I&E Scenario
Baseline
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
(preferred alternative)
90th Percentile Result
9,358
50th Percentile Result
707
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test)
90th Percentile Result i 50th Percentile Result
2,771 i 300
 15-5  ESTIMATE "UNIT COSTS" FOR THE HABITAT  RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES
 (STEP 7)

 EPA calculated annualized per-acre costs for restoring coastal wetlands in a Great Lakes ecosystem from the information in
 the Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP) produced for the Lower Fox River/Green Bay Natural
 Resource Damage Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting, 2000), which incorporated a similar
 program of Great Lakes wetland restoration as a restoration alternative. The RCDP's per-acre cost included expenses for the
 restoration implementation (fieldwork), project administration, maintenance, and monitoring.

 The RCDP's wetland restoration program focused on acquiring lands around Green Bay that are currently in agricultural use
 and that are located on hydric soils (an indicator of a wetland area).  These former wetlands were generally brought into
 agricultural production through the draining or tiling of the land.  Therefore, most of the expense (63%) in the RCDP's per-
 acre cost estimates was for land acquisition and restoration actions necessary to re-establish functioning wetlands.
 Maintenance costs (9%) consisted of expenses for periodic mowing and burning to maintain the dominance of wetland
 vegetation.  The remaining expenditures (28%) covered anticipated administrative expenses for the program. The per-acre
 cost estimates for the various components of the wetland restoration program as presented in the Lower Fox River/Green Bay
 RCDP are provided in Table 15-6 along with the equivalent annualized per-acre cost that is used to value the required scale of
 wetland restoration in this streamlined HRC (the development of this annualized value is discussed in the following
 paragraph).

 In annualizing the RCDP's unit costs for this streamlined HRC, EPA made a distinction between expected initial one-time
 program outlays (expenditures for land, transaction costs, restoration actions, contingency, and agency overhead) and
 anticipated recurring annual expenses (project maintenance and monitoring). Those costs that were viewed as initial program
 outlays were treated as a capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7% interest rate providing an annualized value
 of $882 from their initial-combined value of $9,360.  EPA  then estimated the present value (PV), using a 7% interest rate, of
 the recurring annual expenses for 10 years as this is the length of time incorporated for monitoring in the complete HRC
 valuations conducted for the Brayton Point and Pilgrim facility case studies. This PV for the recurring annual.expenses was
 then annualized over a 20 year period, again' using a 7% interest rate resulting in an annualized expense of $658. This process
 effectively treats the monitoring expenses associated with the wetland restoration consistently with the annual operating and
 maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. The annualized recurring
 expenses were then added to the annualized initial program outlays resulting in a total annualized cost for the wetlands
 restoration alternative of $1,540 per acre.
    2 For instance, using the 25th percentile restoration requirement from Table 15-4 (14 acres for yellow perch) would be valid only if
further analysis produced superior (cheaper or more productive) restoration alternatives, or superior wetland productivity estimates that
were higher for most of the species, including logperch, smelt, gizzard shad, walleye, smallmouth bass, freshwater drum, carp, sunfish,
channel catfish, crappie, white bass, suckers, and shiner spp. Even the 50th percentile value that we use as a lower bound estimate'assumes
that eight of these species could each be produced more effectively with different restoration alternatives, or that wetland productivity is
actually higher for all eight species.
                                                                                                              75-7

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses

Table 15-6: Wetland Restoration Costs (2000 dollars)
Restoration Program Component
Land acquisition
Land transaction costs
Restoration action
Contingency on restoration action
Project maintenance
Monitoring
Agency (landowner) overhead (project
administration)
Total Cost
Total Annualized Cost
$/Acre
3,000
600
2,600
260
	 590 	
340
2,900
• Cost Method
! Survey of land prices
120% of land price, reflects agency (U.S. FWS) experience
! Project experience (See Table Source)
: 10% of restoration actions, consistent with standard practice
1 Project experience (See Table Source) •
15% of total of land acquisition, land transaction, restoration action,
land maintenance ;
;38.84% of sum of all other cost, reflects agency (U.S. FWS)
1 experience
10,300 i
1,540 i
    Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting, 2000.
However, these unit costs probably understate the cost of monitoring that would be sufficient to measure per-unit production
benefits in restored wetlands, which could then improve future HRC calculations.  In the RCDP's wetland restoration
monitoring program, the emphasis was on evaluating whether the hydrology of the former wetlands and the associated
vegetation were returning over time, activities that could be achieved with relatively minimal effort. In contrast, a monitoring
program capable of addressing whether anticipated increases in the production of certain species were being achieved in the
restored wetland areas would require a far more significant commitment of time and resources, resulting in commensurately
larger expenditures.

15-6  DEVELOP TOTAL COST ESTIMATES FOR I&E LOSSES (STEP 8)

EPA estimated the total annualized cost to offset the average annual I&E losses at the Monroe facility by multiplying the 50th
percentile and 90th percentile results of the required acreage of wetland restoration (see Table 15-5) by the annualized per-
acre wetlands restoration costs from the RCDP (see Table 15-6).  These results are presented in Table 15-7.        ;

          Table  15-7:  Total Annualized Costs for  a  Wetland Restoration Program to Offset I&E Losses
                                            (millions of 2000 dollars)
I&E Scenario

Baseline
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
. (preferred results)
90th Percentile Result 1 50th Percentile Result
$14.4 1 $1.1
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test) '
90th Percentile Result : 50th Percentile Result
$4.3 i $0.5 ,
 The results of the streamlined HRC provide an annualized present value estimate of roughly $14.4 million for a program of
 Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration that would offset the average annual age 1 equivalent losses from the baseline period
 in perpetuity using the 90th percentile results and average species density estimates. Incorporating the maximum observed
 species density from any of the sampled wetlands in Green Bay reduces the value of the 90th percentile scenario results to
 between one-third and one-fourth the average species density results.

 Table 15-8 shows the results of the streamlined HRC analysis for impingement losses, entrainment losses, and total I&E losses
 separately.
 15-8

-------
 § 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                   Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
     Table 15-8: Annualized Results for the Monetization of IAE Losses at the Monroe Facility Incorporating
                      Average Species-Specific Density Estimates (millions of 2000 dollars)
I&E Scenario ! Component of I&E
• Loss
Baseline j Impingement
jEntrainment
:I&Etotalb
Annualized Value
90th Percentile
$5.5
$13.6
$14.4
50th Percentile
$0.0"
$1.4
$1.1
     " The exact value of $24,141 is rounded to $0.0 when rounded to millions of dollars for presentation.
      The total is not equal to the sum of the results from the I&E components because of different numbers of species in these
     components as well as different rankings of the species based on the extent of required restoration in these components.
15-7  STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE STREAMLINED HRC ANALYSIS

The fundamental appeal of the HRC is its ability to incorporate and value environmental losses that are either undervalued or
ignored by traditional valuation approaches, such as recreational and commercial fishing valuation (see Chapter Al 1 in Part A
of this document for additional discussion). The primary advantage of the streamlined HRC is the limited effort and time
required to provide regulators with an initial assessment of whether a complete HRC is justified. For facilities like Monroe
with relatively large I&E impacts and I&E impacts to many species not targeted by anglers, a complete HRC is likely to be
worthwhile, even given budgetary and time constraints associated with permit re-issuance cycles.  In addition, the streamlined
HRC provides regulators with a framework to evaluate mitigation proposals put forth by industry to address residual I&E
losses associated with the permitted BTA.

The primary weakness of the streamlined HRC is the uncertainty resulting from limited opportunities to access local resource
experts and unpublished primary data in the selection of a preferred restoration alternative, the development of per-unit
production benefits for each species, and the estimation of restoration unit costs.  '

For these reasons, streamlining an HRC may be most appropriate when:

    >•   a limited number of species experience I&E losses or the majority of I&E losses are realized by a small number of
        species
    *•   the regulator is familiar with, or can quickly determine, the preferred restoration alternative for these critical species
    *•   benefits information from evaluations of local habitats is available, and extrapolations do not lead to extreme
        variability
    *•   published sources of information allow estimation of all important aspects of the restoration costs.

If these conditions are absent, a complete HRC analysis will provide a more comprehensive estimate of the losses associated  •
with I&E than provided by traditional valuations.

In conclusion, the streamlined HRC method provides regulators, industry, and the public with an important method to quickly
estimate the likely value of I&E losses at § 316(b)-regulated facilities. Further, because regulators and local experts can often
quickly assess whether appropriate and necessary information exists for the valuation of I&E resources, streamlining may
offer many opportunities to broaden the evaluation of I&E to include ecological and related public services,  even when facing
significant time and budgetary constraints.
                                                                                                            15-9

-------

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                               Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
Chapter
                                                            Analysis   for  the
                                                    Facility
                                                CHAPTER
                                                16-1 -  Overaevv of I&E^nd Associated Losses       „ 16-1
                                                16-2    Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulations .    16-1
                                                16-3    Summary of Omissions, Biases, and
                                                       Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis     .   .    16-5
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation
of the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated current I&E at the Monroe facility. The
economic benefits reported here are based on the
values presented in Chapters 14 and 15, and EPA's
estimates of I&E at the facility (see Chapter 13).
Section 16-1 presents a summary of I&E losses and
associated monetized losses. Section 16-2 presents
estimated economic benefits of reduced I&E, and
Section 16-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.


16-1  OVERVIEW OF I&E AND ASSOCIATED ECONOMIC VALUES

The flowchart in Figure 16-1 summarizes how the economic values of I&E losses at Monroe were derived from the I&E
estimates in Chapter 13. Figures 16-2 and 16-3 indicate the distribution of I&E losses by species category and associated
economic values. 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.

Baseline economic losses due to I&E at Monroe were calculated in Chapters 14 and 15. In Chapter 14, 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 15, total
economic loss was estimated by calculating the cost to increase fish populations using habitat restoration techniques (HRC
approach).  This is a supply-driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the costs associated with producing fish in natural habitats.

The total annual economic losses associated with each method are summarized in Table 16-1. These values range from
$727,000 to $5,529,000 for impingement, and from $1,281,000 to $13,629,000 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.

16-2  POTENTIAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS DUE TO REGULATIONS

Table 16-2 summarizes the total annual benefits from I&E reductions under scenarios ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent
reductions in I&E. Table 16-3 indicates that the benefits are expected to range from $582,000 to $4.4 million for a 80 percent
reduction in impingement and from $640,000 to $6.8 million for a 50 percent reduction in entrainment.
                                                                                                 16-1

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                              Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
   Figure 16-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual I&E and Associated Economic Values for the Monroe
   Facility (all results are annualized)°-b
                         1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)
                           I:  20.9 million organisms
                           E: 4.7 billion organisms
       r
                                                                               Production
                                                                                foregone
2.Age 1 equivalents lost (number of fish)
  I: 35.8 million fish (370.300 forage, 35.4 million commercial and recreational)
  E: 11.6 million fish (392,300 forage, 11.2 million commercial and recreational)
                         3. Loss to fishery (recreational and commercial harvest)
                           I: 4.4 million fish (1.4 million Ib)
                           E: 1.2 million fish (608.300 Ib)
           4. Value of commercial losses
             I: 4.4 million fish (1.4 million Ib)
               $575.000 (79.0% of $1 loss)
             E: 1.2 million fish (574,900 Ib)
               $283.000 (22.1% of$E loss)
                 8. Habitat replacement cost
                    I: $5.529,000 per year
                   -E:$ 13,629,000 per year
                       5. Value of recreational losses
                         I: 29.700 fish (25,900 Ib)
                           $97.000 (13.3% of $1 loss)
                         E: 43,700 fish (16.700 Ib)
                           $136,000 (1.0.6% of $E loss)
                                                7. Value of n on use losses
                                                  1: $49,000 (6.7% of $1 loss)
                                                  E: $68,000 (5.3% of $E loss)
                                                                                                        Replace-
                                                                                                         ment ,
6. Value of forage losses (valued
using either replacement cost'
method eras production foregone
to fishery yield)
  I:  370,300 fish
     $7.000 (1.0% of $1 loss)
  E:392,300 fish
     $794,000 (62.0% of.$E loss)
  * All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
  k I&E loss estimates are from Tables 14-2,14-3,14-9, and 14-10 in Chapter 14.
  Note: Species with I&E < 1% of the total I&E were not valued.
16-2

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                           Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
 Figure 16-2: Monroe: Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic Values
         1.0% Forage Fish1
         UNDERVALUED (valued
        . using replacement cost
         method or as production
         foregone to fishery yield)
         [1.0% of$I] b
      86.6% Commercial
      and Recreational Fish
      UNVALUED
      (i.e., iinharvested)
      [0% of$IJ b
12.4% Commercial and
Recreational Fisha
VALUED as direct loss to
commercial and
recreational fishery
(commercial losses are
123% of total)
[92.3% of$I]
                                  Total: 35.8 million fish per year (age 1 equivalents)3
                                          Total impingement value: $727,500b
' Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all aees
vulnerable to the fishery.                                                                                      B
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 6.7% of total estimated $1 loss.
                                                                                                               16-3

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                           Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
 Figure 16-3: Monroe:  Distribution of Entrainment Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic: Values
      3.4% Forage Fish8
      IM)ERVALUED (valued using
      replacement cost msthod or as
      production foregone to fishery
      yield)
      [62.0%of$E]b
     86.0% Commercial and
     Recreational Fish8
     UNVAUM)
     (i.e., unharvested)
     fO%of$EJb
10.6% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
VALUED as direct loss to'
commercial and
recreational fishery,
(commercial losses are
10.2% oftotal)
[32.7%of$E]b
                                      Total: 11.6 million fish per year (age 1 equivalents)
                                            Total entrainrrent value: S1.3 million
   • 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 5.3% oftotal estimated SE loss.
  16-4

-------
  S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
                                                                                   Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
                      Table 16-1:  Total Baseline Economic Loss from I&E (2000$,  annually)

Benefits transfer approach
(demand driven approach from Chapter 14)"
Habitat replacement cost approach
(supply driven approach from Chapter I5)b
Range
Impingement
$727,000
$5,529,000
$0.7 million to $5.5 million
Entrainment
$1,281,000
$13,629,000
$1.3 million to $13.6
million
           a Midpoint of Range from Chapter 14.
           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.
              fable 16-2: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a
                                  I&E Reductions at Monroe Facility ($2000)
Range of Potential

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
...Wgh
low
high
low
high
low
high
Impingement
$727,000
$5,529,000
$73,000
$553,000
$145,000
$1,106,000
$218,000
$1,659,000
	 $297,606" 	
$2,211,000
$364,000
$2,764,000
$436,000
$3,317,000
$509,000
$3,870,000
$582,000
$4,423,000
$655,000
$4,976,000
Entrainment
$1,281,000
$13,629,000
$128,000
$1,363,000
$256,000
$2,726,000
$384,000
$4,089,000.
"$512,000 	
$5,452,000
$640,000
$6,815,000
$769,000
$8,177,000
$897,666 	
$9,540,000
$1,025,000
$10,903,000
$1,153,000
$12,266,000
Total
$2,008,000
$19,158,000
$201,000
$1,916,000
$402,000
$3,832,000
$602,000
. $5,747,000
	 '$8b3,666 	
$7,663,000
$1,004,000
$9,579,000
$1,205,000
$11,495,000
$"£406,066 	
$13,410,000
$1,607,000
$15,326,000
$1,807,000'
SI 7,242,000
           Table 16-3: Summary of Benefits of Potential TAE Reductions at Monroe Facility ($2000)

80% impingement reductions and
50% entrainment reductions

low
high
Impingement
$582,000
$4,423,000
Entrainment
$640,000
$6,815,000
Total
$1,222,000
$11,238,000
16-3  SUMMARY OF OMISSIONS,  BIASES,  AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE BENEFITS
ANALYSIS

Table 16-4 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.
                                                                                                      16-5

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies,'Part I: Monroe
Chapter 16: Benefits Analyiiis
                    Table 16-4: Omissions, Biases,  and Uncertainties in the Benefits  Estimates
Issue
Long-term fish stock effects not
considered
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Recreation participation is held
constant1
Boating, bird-watching, and other
in-stream or near-water activities
are omitted'
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Nonuse benefits
Use of unit values from outside
the Great Lakes
HRC based on capture data
assumed to represent age 1 fish
HRC monitoring program costs
for wetland restoration not
consistent with evaluating fish
production/abundance
Impact on Benefits Estimate
Understates benefits"
Understates benefits'
Understates benefits3
Understates benefits"
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Understates benefits"
Understates benefits"
i Comments i
•EPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
j the higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
iEPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the
i stock more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as
[water quality improves over time because of other watershed activities,
1 the number of fish impacted by I&E may increase.
I Recreational benefits estimated via benefits transfer reflect orily
(anticipated increase in value per activity outing; increased levels of
i participation are omitted. :
i The only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
iEPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship, that a 13 percent
! change in stock would have a 13 percent change in landings; this may
jbe low or high, depending on the condition of the stocks.
iEPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
i angling benefits. '
[The recreational and commercial values used are not all studies from
I the Great Lakes specifically.
JHigh percent of less than age 1 fish observed in capture data, [thereby
Heading to potential underestimate of scale of restoration required
j A monitoring program to determine wetland production (abundance of
jfish) would be more labor intensive than current monitoring program.
 * Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
16-6

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 17: Conclusions
                    Chapter   17:   Conclusions
As summarized in Chapter 13, EPA estimates that impingement at the Monroe facility is 35.8 million age 1 equivalents or 1.4
million pounds of lost fishery yield per year.  Entrainment impact amounts to 11.6 million age 1 equivalents or 608,300
pounds of lost fishery yield each year.

The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value ,of I&E at Monroe (as calculated using benefits transfer, in Chapter 14)
indicate that baseline economic losses range from $492,400 to $962,500 per year for impingement and from $308,400 to
$2,253,400 per year for entrainment (all in $2000).

EPA also developed an HRC analysis to examine the costs of restoring I&E losses at Monroe. The HRC results for
impingement ($5.5 million) and entrainment ($13.6 million) were used for upper bounds, and the midpoints from the benefits
transfer method were used for lower bounds.  Combining these approaches, the value of I&E losses at Monroe range from
approximately $0.7 million to $5.5 million per year for impingement and from $1.3 million to $13.6 million per year for
entrainment (all in $2000).                            ,

EPA also estimated the economic benefit of the proposed rule for the Monroe facility (Chapter 16). The resulting estimates of
the economic value of benefits for the proposed rule range from $582,000 to $4.4 million per year for 80 percent
impingement reductions, and from $769,000 to $8.2 million per year for 60 percent entrainment reductions (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 the Monroe facility. 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 I&E wo_uld increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality or
other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA also assumed that fishing is the only
recreational activity affected.
                                                                                                    17-1

-------

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
                                                                                  Appendix II
             endix  II:   Monroe   Life   History

                         Parameter  Values
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 Monroe facility.
                                Table II-1: Alewife Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs -
Larvae
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)" .
11.5
5.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
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)
0.000022C
o.oi r
0.016'
0.0505"
0.0764"
0.0941"
0.108"
0.13a
0.149"
        a Spigarelli et al., 1981.
        b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
        c Assumed based on Spigarelli et al. (1981).
                                Table 11-2: Bluegill Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age en-
Age 7+
Age8+
Age9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.73°
0.576°
4.62"
0.39"
0.15T
0.735"
0.735"
0.735"
0.735"
0.735"
0.735"
0.735"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0
0
0
0
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)r
0.0000000 1088
0.00000156s
0.00795*
0.00992h
0.032"
0.0594h
0.1 04"
0.189" :
0.193"
0.209"
0.352"
0.393"
       Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
      b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
      c Calculated from survival (Carlander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
      (fishing mortality).
      ". Carlander, 1977. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
      c Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
      f Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.33x10*)*Length(mm)3-20') = weight(g) (Froese and Paulv 2001)
      E Length from Wang (1986a).
      " Length from Carlander (1977).
                                                                                  App. 11-1

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
                                       Table 11-3: Bullhead Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
AgcH-
Agc2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+ . ,
AgeSH-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.61"
1.39"
0.223C
0.223°
0.223C
0.223C
0.223°
0.223°
' 0.223°
0.223°
0.223°
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight Ob)'
0.000000559f |
0.000 18g
0.00132"
0.0362"
0.0797h :
0.137" ;
0.233" i
0.402"
0.679"
0.753"
0.815"
0.823'
       1 Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).1
       b Calculated from survival for channel catfish (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
       LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
      'c Calculated from survival for brown bullhead (Carlander, 1969) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
       LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).  Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
       * Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.                                                             :
       e Weight calculated from length using the formula for black bullhead: (8.797xlO-6)*Length(mm)3-06 = weight(g) (Froese and
       Pauly,2001).
       ' Length for black bullhead from Wang (1986a).
       * Length assumed based on Wang (1986a) and Carlander (1969).
       h Length for black bullhead from Carlander (1969).    '                                                          !•
       ' Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
                                             Table 11-4: Burbot Parameters  .
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age5+
Age 6+-
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
8.05"
0.462°
0.462°
0.462°
0.462°
0.462° :
0.462°
0.462°
0.462°
0.462°
0.462°
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0.5
j
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)e
0.0000000 120f
0.00000 144f
0.129s
0.513s
0.842s
1.238
1.998 :
2.68s
2.978 '
3.35s
3.57s
4.09s
         Calculated from assumed survival 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).
       * Calculated from survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).  Fishing
       mortality rate assumed based on minimal mortality (Schram et al., 1998).                                           1
       d Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
       c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.084x10-6)*Length(mm)3"08 = weight(g) (Schram et al., 1998).
       r Length from Snyder (1998).                                                                                  '
       1 Length from Scott and Grossman (1998).
 App. 11-2

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                                               Appendix II
                                             Table 11-5: Carp Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae .
AgeO+
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
4.61"
1.39"
0.13C
0.13C
	 ...,.:..,.,.v 	
0.1 3C
0.13C
0.13C
0.13C
0.1 3C
0.13C
0.1 3C
0.13C
0.13°
0.13C
0.13°
0.13C
. 0.13°
0.13C
0.13C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0
0.13
. 0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
*
1
1
1
1
I
Weight (lb)e
0.000000143f
0.0000 118f
0.0225s
0.79s
1.2V
1.81s
5.13s
5.52"
5.82h
6.76s
8.17s
8.55"
8.94"
9.76"
10.2"
10.6"
11. I'-
ll. 5h
12"
12.5"
           " Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
           mortality).
           b Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
           LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
           c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
           d Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
           c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.095x10-5)*Length(mm)3-025 = weight(g) (Froese and
           Pauly, 2001).
           r Length from Wang (1986a).
           8 Length from Carlander( 1969).
           h Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
                                                                                                                App. 11-3

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix XI
                                       Table 11-6: Channel Catfish Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3'
4.61"
1.39"
0.41C
0.41C
0.41C
0.41C
0.4 lc
o.4r
0.41C
0.41C
0.41C
0.41"
0.41°
0.41C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
, 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (Ib)'
0.000000408r !
0.0000191f
0.00987s : .
0.05548 ;
0.1 89"
0.4366 '
0.71s ;
1.22s
1.558 1
2.27s 1
2.66s ;
3.418
5.59s ;
5.81"
5.92s i
      1 Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality):
      * Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -   :
      (fishing mortality).
      ' Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -   ;
      (fishing mortality).  Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
      * Commercial and recreational species.  Fraction vulnerable assumed.                                              ;
      c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.945x10-6)*Length(mm)3-133 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).  >
      r Length from Wang (1986a).
      « Length from Carlander (1969).
      k Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
                                            Table 11-7: Crappie Parameters
	
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age4+
Age5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Agc9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)'
1.8'
0.498"
2.93'
0.292b
0.292b
0.292b
0.292b
0.292b
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
0.292"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
0
0
0
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery5
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight Qb)"
0.0000000 179C
0.00000857"-
0.012f
0.128?
0.1 93r •
0.427f :
0.65 lf r
b.888f
	 , 	 , 	 r. 	 , 	
0.925f
0.972f
1.08f
1.26r ;

,


' 	 ; 	

;






 •  Bartcll and Campbell, 2000. Black crappie.
 *  Bartcll and Campbell, 2000. Black crappie. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.             j
 c  Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
 *  Weight calculated from length using the formula for black crappie: ('l.014xlO-5)*Length(mm)3M = weight(g) (Froese and Paiily, 2001).
 °  Length  for black crappie from Wang (1986a).
 '  Length for black crappie from Carlander (1977).
App. 11-4

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                                             Appendix II

Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age en-
Age 7+
Age8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Table 11 -8
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.2T
6.13s
1.15"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.155"
0.1 55b
0.155"
Freshwater Drum
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0
1.15
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
'arameters
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery'
0
0
0.5
1
1 '
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
Weight (lb)
0.000001 1"
0.00000295s
0.0166"
0.05'
0.206C
0.438"
0.638°
0.794C •
0.95"
1.09°
1.26"
1.44°
1.6=
1.78°
2°
           a Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
           " Froese and Pauly, 2001. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
           c Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
           d Assumed based on Bartell and Campbell (2000).
           c Scott and Grossman, 1973.
                                       Table 11-9: Gizzard Shad Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3°
6.33"
0.511"
1.45C
1.27C
0.966°
0.873°
0.303°
0.303°
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)c
0
0
0
1.45
1.27
0.966
0.873
' 0.303
0.303
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
J
1
1
Weight (lb)
0.0000022°
0.00000663"
0.0107"
0.141"
0.477"
0.64"
0.885"
1.17"
1.54"
           a Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
           mortality).
           " Wapora, 1979.
           c Wapora, 1979. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
           d Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
           c Assumed based on Wapora (1979).
                                                                                                              App. 11-5

-------
 S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix XI
                                           Table 11-10: Logperch Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3"
1.9"
1.9b
O.T
0.7C
O.T
Fishing Mortality
(perstage)d
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight (lb)c
3.09E-09f
0.000276s
0.00345f
0.0128r
0.0274f
0.0443f
            * Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
            mortality).
            b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the ecjiation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
            (fishing mortality).
            c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
            * Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
            e Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.240xlO-7)*Length(mm)6M1 = weight(g) (Carlander,
            1997).
            f Length from Carlander (1997).
            8 Length assumed based on Carlander (1997).
App. 11-6

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                                               Appendix II
                                         Table 11-11: Muskellunge Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Age'l+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.08a
5.49b
5.49b
0.15C
0.15°
0.15C
0.15C
0.1 5C
0.15C
0.15°
0.1 5C
0.1 5C
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
0.075"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
0
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
0.075
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery'
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)r
0.000000205s
0.0133"
0.0451s •
0.365s
1.1*
1.53s
2.72s
6.198
7.028
8.92s
12.3s
13:9S
16.6s
198
24.2s
25.3s
30s
32.4s
34.3s
45.6s
45.8"
47.7s
48.8"
48.9"
49h
49.1"
49.2"
49.3"
49.4h
49.4"
           " Calculated from survival (Carlander, 1997) using the vising the equation: (natural mortality) ='-LN(survival) •
           (fishing mortality).
           b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
           (fishing mortality).
           ° Froese and Pauly, 2001.
           " Froese and Pauly, 2001. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
           0 Recreational species.  Fraction vulnerable assumed based on Pennsylvania (1999).
           r Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.590x 10-6)*Length(mm)3-016 = weight(g) (Froese and
           Pauly, 2001).
           s Length from Carlander (1969).
           h Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
                                                                                                                App. 11-7

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                                             Appendix II
                                      Table II-12: Shiner Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age3-f-
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.y
4.61"
0.776"
0.371b
4.61"
4.61"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery'
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight (lb)d
0.000000252°
0.0016°
0.0135f
0.026r
0.0478f
6.106f


!




              Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
            mortality).
            b (Wapora, 197?). Emerald shiner.
            e Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
            d Weight calculated from length using the formula for emerald shiner: (1.144xlO'4)*Length(mm)2-922 =
            weight(g) (Fuchs, 1967).
            * Length assumed based on (Trautman, 1981).
            ' Length from (Trautman, 1981).
                                      Table 11-13: Smallmouth Bass Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgetH-
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.9a
2.7"
0.446"
0.86C
1.17C
0.755C
1.05C
0.867°
0.867°
0.867C
0.867°
0.867°
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0
0
0
0.23
0.322
0.208
0.288
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
0.238
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1

i
i
i
i
i
Weight (lb)' 1
0.00000033 lf
0.0000198f
0.0169s
0.202s
0.5 188 ;
0.733s
i.o4s ;
1.44s '
	 • 	 - 	 • |
2.24s
2.56"
192"
3.3s







1




f
               Calculated from survival (Carlander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) •
             (fishing mortality).
             b Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
             c Carlander, 1977.
             d Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
             c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.494x10-s)*Lengtfi(mm)2-917 = weight(g) (Froese and
             Pauly,2001).
             ' Length from Wang (1986a).
             * Length from Carlander (1977).
             h Length assumed based on Carlander (1977).
 App. 11-8

-------
§ 316(b) Cose. Studies, Part I: Monroe
                                                                                                             Appendix II
                                           Table 11-14: Smelt Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)"
11.5
5.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)3
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery1"
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)c
0.0000000 115d
0.00000233d
0.0195°
0.041f
0.1 77f
0.338B
0.537s
0.597e
            * Spigarelli et al., 1981.
            " Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
            c Weight calculated from length using the formula for rainbow smelt: (5.23xlO'6)*Length(mm)3-1"1 = weight(g)
            (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
            d Length for rainbow smelt from Able and Fahay (1998).
            ° Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Scott and Scott (1988).
            f Length for rainbow smelt from Scott and Scott (1988).
            8 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
                                          Table 11-15: Sucker Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.05"
2.56"
2.3"
0.274b
0.274"
0,274b
0.274"
0.274"
0.274"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)b
0
0
0
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.274
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)d
0.0000000135°
0.00000198°
0.000145f
0.0447f
0.249f
0.305f
0.609r
0.823f
0.929r
           a Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
           " Bartell and Campbell, 2000. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
           ° Commercial species.  Fraction vulnerable assumed.
           d Weight calculated from length using the formula for river carpsucken (6.130x10'*)*Length(mm)3 °" =
           weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
           ° Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
           r Length from Carlander (1969).
                                                                                                              App. 11-9

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
                                           Table 11-16: Sunfish Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age(H-
AgeH-
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6-H
Age 7+
Age 8+ '
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.71"
0.687"
0.687b
1.61"
1.61'
1.5C
1.5C
1.5C
1.5C
1.5C
1.5C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)e
0.00000000736f : ',
0.000000994f ; ;
6.6b0878« ; • ;
0.00666s ;
0.0271s
6.0593s
0.0754s
0.142s
0.18s ' i
	 	 	 i 1
0.214s ,
0.232s
           1 Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed (Carlander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) =
           -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
           b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the eqiation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
           (fishing mortality).
           c Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed (Carlander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural morOtality)
           = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality). Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
           d Recreational species.  Fraction vulnerable assumed.
           e Weight calculated from length using the formula for pumpkinseed: (3.337xlO"6)*Length(mm)3-262 = weight(g)
           (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
           ' Length for pumpkinseed from Bartell and Campbell (2000).
           * Length for pumpkinseed from Carlander (1977).
                                           Table 11-17: Walleye Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
AgelH-
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age4+
Age 54-
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
1.05a
3.55"
1.93"
0.7C
0.7C
0.7C
0.7C
0.7C
0.7C
0.7C
0.7C
0.7C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
b.i
0.1
0.1
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
Weight Ob)'
0.00000000506f ;
	 	 	 	 |
0.0000768s
0.03s ,
0.328s
0.907s .
1.77s ;
2.35s
3.37s ;
3.97s I
4.66s
5.58f
5.75s
                                                                                                                                  	1	B	,
            • Calculated from survival (Carlander, 1997) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
            (fishing mortality).
            b Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
            c Thomas and Haas, 2000.
            J Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
            c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.297x10-6)*Length(mm)3-23 = weight(g) (Froese and
            Pauly, 2001).
            f Length assumed based on Carlander (1997).
            8 Length from Carlander (1997).
App. 11-10

-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
                                         Table 11-18:  White Bass Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3=
4.61b
1.39b
0.42C
0.42°
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
0.42C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
0
0
0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
Weight Ob)
0.0000000266f
0.00000174f
0.1 748
0.467s
0.644s
1.02s
1.16s
1.26s
1.66s
1.68"
           3  Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
           mortality).
           b  Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
           LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
           c  Froese and Pauly, 2001.
           *  McDermot and Rose, 2000.
           0  Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
           f  Weight calculated from assumed length based on (Carlander, 1997) using the formula: (1.206xlO~5)*
           Length(mm)3-132 = weight(g) (Van Oosten, 1942).
           8  Carlander, 1997.
           h  Assumed based on Carlander (1997).
                                                                                                               App. 11-11

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
                                        Table 11-19: Whitefish Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+ :
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+
Age 16+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.3°
8.2"
0.25C
0:25C
0.25C
0.25C ,
0.25C
0.25C
0.25C
0.25C
0.25C
0.25C
0.25°
0.25"
0.25C
0.25°
0.25C
0.25"
0.25C
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
• 0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
0.997
. 0.997
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery11
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Weight (lb)c
0.000000252r
0.000171s
0.0117s ;
0.705f
1.27f
2.32f ;
2.85f !
3.52f :
4.09f
4.76f
5.7'
5.73"
5.85f
6.1f ;
6.83f ;
7.1 lf
7.29f
7.32"
8.66r
            Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
           mortality).
           b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
           e Schorfhaar and Schneeberger, 1997.
           d Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
           e Weight calculated from length using the formula for lake whitefish: (4.721 xl 0-6)*Length(mm)3-152 = weight(g)
           (Froese andPauly, 2001).
           ' Length from Scott and Grossman (1998).
           « Length from Fish (1932).
           k Length assumed based on Scott and Grossman (1998).
                                        Table 11-20:  Yellow Perch  Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
AgeO+
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.75"
3.56b
2.53"
0.361"
0.248b
0.844"
0.844"
0.844"
0.844"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)0
0
0
0
0
0
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery"
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
Weight (Ib)
0.0000022"
6.00066384"
0.0232" :
6.0245"
0.0435"
0.0987"
0.132"
0.166" ;
0.214"
            ' PSEG, 1999c.
            b Wapora, 1979.
            e Thomas and Haas, 2000.
            d Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
            ' Assumed based on Wapora (1979).
 App. 11-12


-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
                                           Glossary
7Q10: The lowest average seven-consecutive-day low flow with an average recurrence frequency of once in 10 years
determined hydrologically.

Adipose fin: A small, fleshy fin behind the main dorsal fin in bony fish; most common in trout and salmon.

Adverse environmental impact (AEI): Within the context of this case study and the §316(b) regulation, adverse
environmental impacts are said to occur whenever there is entrainment or impingement of aquatic organisms due to the
operation of a specific cooling water intake structure.

Aerobic: Requiring the presence of free oxygen to support life.

Agnatham: Any member of the vertebrate class Agnatha, the jawless fishes.

Air/swim bladder: A large, thin-walled sac in many fish species that may function in several ways, e.g., as a buoyant float, a
sound producer and receptor, and a breathing organ.

Anal fin: The median, unpaired fin on the ventral margin between the anus and the caudal fin in fishes.

Alevin(s): A young fish; especially a newly hatched salmon when still attached to the yolk sac; In North America alevins are
sometimes called 'sac-fry.'

Algal blooms: The exponential growth of algal populations  in response to excessive nutrient input. Algal blooms can
adversely affect water quality. .

Amphipods: A group of mostly small (5 to 20 mm), predominantly marine crustacean species characterized by a laterally-
compressed, many-segmented body; most live on or in bottom substrates.

Anadromous: Pertaining to fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to freshwater streams to spawn, for
example, salmon, steelhead, and shad. Contrast with catadromous.

Anoxic: Absence of oxygen. Usually used in reference to an aquatic habitat.

Anthropogenic: Coming from or associated with human activities.

Anus: The opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal, through which the solid refuse of digestion is excreted to  the
outside.

Aortic arch: One member of a series of paired, curved blood vessels that arise from the ventral aorta, pass through the gills,
and join with the dorsal aorta.

Arteries: Blood vessels that carry blood away from the heart to all parts of the body.                       :

Arterioles: The smallest branches of an artery, which eventually merge with capillaries.

Arthropods: An extremely large group of related terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species; well-known aquatic
representatives, all of them crustaceans, include shrimps, copepods, crabs, mysids, and amphipods.

Atrium: A muscular heart chamber that receives blood from the veins and in turn pumps it into the ventricle.

Axial musculature: The large muscle mass that runs from head to tail on both sides of the  body in fish. It is the power plant
responsible for swimming, and typically represents up to half the mass of a fish.

Bayou: A sluggish marshy inlet or outlet associated with a lake, river, or other surface water body.
                                                                                                     Glossary 1

-------
S316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                           Glossary
Benefits transfer: An approach to valuing an environmental improvement in which the results of existing research on the
benefits of an environmental improvement are applied to estimate the benefits in a different, but similar, situation.

Bcnthic: Adjective that refers to something of or pertaining to benthos.  See also: Benthos.                         .

Bcnthic invertebrates: Those animals without backbones (e.g. insects, crayfish, etc.) that live on or in the sediments of an
aquatic habitat.

Bcnthic zone: The lowermost region of a freshwater or marine profile in which the benthos resides. In bodies of deep water
where little light penetrates to the bottom the zone is referred to as the benthic abyssal region and productivity is relatively
low. In shallower (i.e. coastal) regions where the benthic zone is well lit, the zone is referred to as the benthic littoral region
and it supports some of the world's most productive ecosystems.

Benthos: Plants or animals that live in or on the bottom of an aquatic environment such as an estuary.

Bequest (value): The value that people place on conserving a natural resource for use by future generations.

Best technology available (BTA): The best technology treatment techniques for field application, taking cost into
consideration.

Bile: A bitter, alkaline, yellow or greenish liquid secreted by the liver, that aids in absorption and digestion, especially of fats.

Biocidc: A chemical which can kill or inhibit the growth of living organisms such as bacteria, fungi, molds, and slimes.

Biological oxygen demand (BOD): The amount of dissolved oxygen consumed by microorganisms as they decompose
organic material in polluted water.

Biological surplus: In Fisheries, the annual excess of organisms that can be harvested without reducing future productivity.

Biomass: (1) the amount of living matter in an area, including plants, large animals and insects; (2) plant materials and animal
waste used as fuel.

Blood: The fluid pumped throughout the body by the heart; it consists of plasma in which red blood cells, white blood  cells,
thrombocytes, and other specialized cell types are suspended.

 Blood plasma: The plasma or liquid portion of blood.

 Brackish: Having a salinity between that of fresh and sea water.

 Branchial cavity: The area in the mouth containing the gills in fish.

 Buccal cavity: The inner cavity associated with the mouth.

 Buoyancy: The ability to float or rise in a fluid.

 Buoyant: Having buoyancy; capable of floating.

 Cannibalism: Animals eating other members of their own species.                                             '

 Capillaries: Tiny blood vessels, usually <  1mm long, with a diameter no wider than a single red blood cell; they form dense
 networks that connect arterioles and venules, and are the site for physiological exchange with individual cells.

 Carapace: Shell, as in a turtle shell or crab shell.

 Cartilage: A firm, elastic, flexible type of connective tissue of a translucent whitish or yellowish color.            .

 Cartilaginous: Pertaining to cartilage.
 Glossary 2

-------
 S 316(b) Case. Studies                                                                                       Glossary


 Cartilaginous ray: A supporting rod in fish fins made from cartilage.

 Catadromous: Descriptive offish species which mature in freshwater environments but migrate to the ocean to spawn.

 Caudal fin: The tail of a fish, used mainly to generate forward propulsion.

 Caudal peduncle: A narrow, stalk-like structure connecting the tail to the posterior end of the fish's body.

 Central nervous system (CNS): The part of the nervous system comprising the brain and spinal cord.

 Chloride cell: A specialized cell located in the gills, and used by both salt- and freshwater fish to regulate internal salt
 balances.

 Chondrkhthyes: The class of vertebrates composed of cartilaginous fish species, including sharks, rays, skates and
 chimaeras.

 Chromatophores: A group of specialized pigment cells located in the dermis, partially responsible for coloration in fish.

 Circulatory vessels: A tube of the circulatory system, such as an artery or vein, which contains or conveys blood.

 Closed-cycle (cooling system):  A cooling water system in which heat is transferred by recirculating water contained within
 the system.

 Cohort: A group of individuals  having a statistical factor (as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study.

 Colonial: Term describing the habit by certain bird species to nest in large groups called colonies.

 Combined sewer overflow (CSO): Discharge of a mixture of storm water and domestic waste when the flow capacity of a
 combined sewer system is exceeded during rainstorms.

 Cone: One of two types of light-sensitive cells located in the retina of the eye; sensitive to.color and light intensity.

 Confluence: The area where two or more streams or rivers join together

 Conjoint analysis: A method for using surveys to determine the values that people place on a good by asking them to choose
 between several combinations of environmental quality  and the cost of providing that level of quality.

 Consumer surplus: The extra value that consumer would be willing to pay for a good beyond the good's actual sale price.

 Consumptive use: The loss of water through various processes, including:

 Consumptive use (of water): Refers to water use practices whereby water is not returned to its source due to loss from
 evaporation, evapotranspfration, or incorporation in a manufacturing process.

 Continental shelf: Part of the continental margin, the ocean floor from the coastal shore of continents to the continental
.slope, usually to a depth of about 200 meters. The continental shelf usually has a very slight slope, roughly 0.1 degrees.

 Contingent valuation method (CVM): A stated preference method for using surveys to ask people what they would be
 willing pay for a non-market good (especially an environmental good) contingent on a specific hypothetical scenario and
 description of the good.

 Conns arteriosus: Muscular'heart chamber responsible for passing blood from the ventricle into the ventral aorta, toward  the
 gills.

 Cooling water intake structures (CWISs): The total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to
 withdraw water from waters of the U.S. The cooling water intake structure extends from the point at which water is
 withdrawn from the surface water source to the first intake pump or series of pumps.
                                                                                                       Glossary 3

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
                                                                                                         Glossary
Copcpods: A large group of planktonic or benthic crustacean species; one defining characteristic of this group are the single
or double egg sacs carried posteriorally by the females.

Cornea: The transparent, exterior part of the eye located in front of the pupil.

Counter-current exchange: The transfer of heat or gases between currents of blood passing by one another in capillary beds;
the beds run parallel to each other but in opposite directions.                                                  {

Cranium: The part of the skull that encloses the brain.

Critical habitat: Term used in the Federal Endangered Species Act to denote the whole or any part or parts of an area or
areas of land comprising the habitat of an endangered species, an endangered population or an endangered ecological
community that is essential for the survival of the species, population or ecological community.

DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is a chlorinated pesticide which is banned in the U.S.

Demersal: (1) Dwelling at or near the bottom of a body of water, such as demersal fish. (2) Sinking to or deposited near the
bottom of a body of water, such as demersal  fish eggs.

Demersal egg: A fish or aquatic invertebrate egg that sinks to the bottom.

Dermal denticles: Small, toothlike scales covering the skin of most sharks, skates, and rays, giving their skin the feel of
'sandpaper.                                                                                              :

Dermis: The dense inner layer of skin underneath the epidermis.

Dermo: A disease caused by a single-cell organism (protozoan) that infects oysters, (http://www.bayjournal.com/95-
04/oysterl.htm)             •                      .                                                     ;

Desiccation: The loss of water from pore spaces of sediments through compaction or through evaporation caused by exposure
to air.

Diatoms: Any of the microscopic unicellular or colonial algae constituting the class Bacillarieae. They have a silicified cell
wall, which persists as a silica skeleton after death and forms kieselguhr (loose or porous diatomite). Diatoms occur
abundantly in fresh and salt waters, in soil, and as fossils. They form a large part of plankton.                    ;

Dinoflagellates: Any of numerous, chiefly marine, plankton of the phylum Pyrrophyta (or, in some classification schemes, the
order Dinoflagellata), usually having flagella, one in a groove around the body and the other extending from its center.

 Direct use benefits: The benefits that people derive from the use (or consumption) of a good.                   ;

 Dissolved oxygen (DO): Oxygen gas which is dissolved in the water column and available for breathing by aquatic
 organisms; DO levels vary by temperature, salinity, turbulence, photosynthetic activity and internal oxygen demand.

 Diurnal: Pertaining to fish and other species that are active during the day (opposed to nocturnal).

 Dorsal aorta: A major blood vessel in fish, which carries oxygenated blood from the gills to the rest of the  body.

 Dorsal fin: The fm(s) present on the back of most fish.

 Dorsal musculature: That part of the axial  musculature located above the horizontal septum.                   ;

 Ecological niche: The portion of the environment which a species occupies. A niche is defined in terms of the conditions
 under which an organism can survive, and may be affected by the presence of other competing organisms.        :

 Ecosystem: All the organisms in a particular region and the environment in which they live. The elements of an ecosystem
 interact with each other in some way, and so depend on each other either directly or indirectly.
 Glossary 4

-------
 § 316(b) Cose Studies
                                                                                                           Glossary
 Effector cell: A cell that carries out a response to a nerve impulse.

 Effluent: Wastewater — treated or untreated — that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall. Generally
 refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.

 Endeniisn: Native to a particular area or region.

 Endocrine system: An integrated group  of glands that releases hormones into the blood stream.

 Endolymph: The fluid contained within  the canals and sacs of the inner ear.

 Entrainment: The incorporation offish, eggs, larvae, and other plankton with intake water flow entering and passing through
 a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system.

 Environmental stressor: A physical or chemical disturbance that changes the quality of terrestrial or aquatic habitats

 Epidermis: The outer layer of the skin.

 Epipelagic (zone): The uppermost, normally photic layer of the ocean between the ocean surface and the thermocline, usually
 between depths of 0-200 m; living or feeding on surface waters or at midwater to depths of 200 m.

 Epithelium: Any animal tissue that covers a surface or lines a cavity, and which performs various secretory, transporting, or
 regulatory functions.

 Equilibrium population: Population in a state of balance.

 Esophagus: A muscular tube connecting the mouth to the stomach.

 Estuarine: Living  mainly in the lower part of a river or estuary; coastlines where marine and freshwaters meet and mix;
 waters often brackish (i.e., mixohaline, with salt content 0.5 - 30%).

 Euryhaline: Descriptive term for an organisms that can tolerate wide ranges in salt concentrations.

 Eutrophication: The uncontrolled growth of aquatic plants in response to excessive nutrient inputs to surface waters; the  .•  .
 process of enrichment of water bodies by nutrients.

 Evapotranspiration: The loss of water from the soil both by evaporation and by transpiration from the plants growing in the
 soil.                                                     •              -

 Existence value: The value that people derive from knowledge that a good exists, even if they do not use it and have no plans
 to use it.

 Exotic species: Species that evolve in one region of the world but are intentionally or accidentally introduced in another,
 where they lack natural enemies and can take over local ecosystems.

 Extinction: The death of an entire species.

 Fecundity: Number of eggs an animal produces during each reproductive cycle; the potential reproductive capacity of an
 organism or population.

 Filter feeding: A food gathering strategy which consists of passing water over gill structures to strain out food particles.

Fish consumption  advisories: Limitations imposed by.regulatory agencies on the number offish or shellfish meals that can
be consumed by particular segments of the general population, due to the presence of chemical residues in the target
organisms. •

Fledging: Period in a bird's life from hatching to first flight.
                                                                                                        Glossary 5

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
                                                                                                          glossary
Fledgling: Young bird in the fledging stage.

Food web: All the interactions of predator and prey, included along with the exchange of nutrients into and out of the soil.
These interactions connect the various members of an ecosystem, and describe how energy passes from one organism to
another.

Forage: Prey or food species of an animal.                                                                   |

Fry: Newly hatched young fish.                                                                            [

Gall bladder: A small sac, located in the liver, that stores and concentrates bile.

Gill bar: One of a series of bony or cartilaginous arches on each side of the pharynx that support the gills; also referred to as
"branchial arches."

Gill filament: One of a series of structures that project out of a gill bar and support numerous gill lamellae.

Gill lamellae: Tiny, parallel, thin-walled and leaf-like projections which cover the gill filaments; these are the actual locations
within the gill where gases are exchanged between water and blood.

Gill netting: A passive fish capturing device which uses vertical walls of netting set out in a straight line; capture is based on
the fortuitous encounter of aquatic organisms with the net.                                               .
                                                                                                         i
Gill raker: Stiff projections along the inner margins of the branchial arches; some fish species use these structures to strain
incoming food particles.                                                                                  i

Gill septum: Flap-like gill cover in cartilaginous fish, which prevents oxygen-poor water from being drawn back, into the
branchial cavity during breathing.

Glycogcn: The principal carbohydrate storage material in animals.                                            :
                                                                                                         i
Gonads: Generic name for sex organs (ovaries and testes).

Growth rate: Rate of change over time the body mass or body length of a species.

Habitat-based replacement costs (HRC): Method which determines the cost of offsetting ecological losses by increasing
production of those resources through restoration of natural habitats.

Habitat equivalency analysis (HEA): A service-to service approach for restoration scaling that quantifies changes in the
flow of services from natural resources while accounting for the magnitude, timing, and duration of those service flow
changes over time.             "                                                                           ;

Haemal spines: The ventral spine in the caudal vertebra.

Heart: A hollow, multi-chambered, muscular organ used for pumping blood  throughout the circulatory system.

 Hemoglobin: Iron-rich protein packed in red blood cells;  responsible for carrying oxygen to the tissues and removing carbon
 dioxide.

 Heteroskedasticity: A condition in regression analysis in which the size of the error term is correlated with one or more
 explanatory variables, potentially creating biased regression estimates.

 Horizontal septum: A tough membrane dividing the axial musculature into dorsal and ventral halves.

 Hybridize: To crossbreed between  two different species.                                                    ,

 Hydrodynamics: The study of fluid motion and fluid-boundary interaction.
 Glossary 6

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                            glossary
 Ichthyoplankton: Earliest life stages (chiefly eggs and larvae) of certain fish species which remain suspended in.the water
 column as plankton for up to several weeks.

 Imbricate scale: A type of scale in fish, which overlaps like tiles on a roof.

 Impingement: The entrapment of aquatic organisms on the outer part of an intake structure or against a screening device
 during periods of intake water withdrawal.

 Inelastic: Not elastic; slow to react or respond to changing conditions.

• Inner ear: Equilibrium organ located in the skull.

 Integument: Covering or skin.

 Intertidal: The area along the coastline exposed to the air and submerged by the sea during each tidal cycle.

 Intestine:  The lower part of the alimentary canal, extending from the pyloric caeca to the anus.  "

 Invertebrate: Animals that lack a spinal column or backbone, including mollusks (e.g., clams and oysters), crustaceans (e.g.,
 crabs and shrimp), insects, starfish, jellyfish, sponges, and many types of worms.

 Invertebrate drift: Invertebrates that float with the current.

 Kidneys: In fish, a pair of elongated organs that run along the dorsal part of the abdominal cavity; they form and excrete
 urine, regulate fluid and electrolyte balance, and act as endocrine glands.

 Lacustrine: Related to open freshwater bodies such as lakes, reservoirs, and impounded rivers.

 Lateral line: The line, or system of lines, of sensory organs located along the head and sides by which fish detect water
 current and pressure changes and vibrations.

 Lens: A transparent spherical object in the eye, situated behind the iris, which focuses incoming light on the retina.

 Leptocephali: A colorless, transparent, flattened larva, esp. of certain eels and ocean fishes.

 Leptoid scale: A type of scale found mostly in higher bony fish.

 Limnetic (zone): Surface layer where most photosynthesis takes place.

 Littoral, (zone): Shallow nearshore region defined by the band from 0 depth to the outer edge of rooted plants.

 Liver: A large, reddish-brown, glandular organ with multiple fiinctions, including: bile secretion, fat and carbohydrate
 storage, yolk manufacture, blood detoxification, blood cell production, and other metabolic processes.

 Lymph: A clear, yellowish fluid formed from liquid constituents of blood that have leaked out of capillaries and into the
 surrounding tissues.

 Lymphatics: A network of vessels for returning lymph back to the circulatory system.

 Macula: A sensory tissue found in inner ear sacs and canals.

 Mangrove: One of several different species of semi-aquatic trees growing along marine and estuarine shorelines in tropical
 and subtropical regions of the world; also refers to the habitat created by these trees.

Marine: Refers to the ocean.

Mean: Arithmetic average computed by dividing the sum of a set of terms by the number of terms.
                                                                                                         Glossary 7

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
:<5lossary
Mean annual flow: The average of daily flows over a calendar year.

Median: A value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal number of values or which is the
arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no one middle number.

Median fin: See vertical fin.

Mcsohaline: Water with a salt content ranging between 5 and 18 parts per thousand (ppt).

Metric: A standard of measurement.                                                                        I

Migration: The movement of animals in response to seasonal changes or changes in the food supply.

Mollusks: A large group of invertebrate species; major subgroups in freshwater habitats are represented by gastropods (i.e.,
snails) and bivalves (i.e., clams and mussels).

Monetizatlon: In the context of this rulemaking, the process of placing a monetary value on a physical environmental change.

Monte Carlo: A stochastic modeling technique that involves the random selection of sets of input data for use in repetitive
model runs. Probability distributions are generated as the output of a Monte Carlo simulation.

Mortality rate: Death rate. Includes Natural mortality Rate and Fishing  mortality rate.

Mosaic scale: An arrangement whereby scales do not overlap but instead abut each other like pieces in a mosaic.

Mouth: The opening through which food and water passes into the buccal cavity offish.

MSX: A disease caused by a protozoan that infects oysters.

Mud flats: An intertidal area characterized by soft, muddy substrate; typically found along tidal creeks or in quiet backwaters.

Muscle segment: a.k.a. myomeres; a block of muscles, the contraction of which produces movement in the body.   i

Myomeres: Individual  W-shaped muscle blocks that are a part of the axial  musculature.

Mysids: Small (<3 cm), shrimp-like crustaceans of the order Mysidacea that go by the common name of opossum shrimp;
they are morphologically similar to crayfish but have greatly elongated and modified appendages for use in active swimming.

Nasal pit: One or two small depressions in the head region of fish, which contain the olfactory epithelium.

Navigation pool: A long stretch of river maintained at a minimum depth by a dam, and accessible via one or more gated
locks.                                    '              .   *                                     •      \

Nearctic: Designates a biogeographic subregion which includes the arctic and temperate parts of North America and
Greenland.

Nematodes: Unsegmented round worms, some of which are parasitic.

Neritic Province: Area over the continental shelf.

Neural circuitry: The intricate and interconnected web of nerves that make up the nervous system.

Neural spine: A thin, upward-facing bony outgrowth of the  vertebrae in most fish species.

Neuromast: A group of sensory cells that together make up  the lateral line.

Non-consumptive use (of water): Refers to water use practices whereby water is returned to its source after it has been used.
 Glossary 8

-------
 S 316(b) Cose Studies
                                                                                                            Glossary
 Non-native species: a.k.a. exotic or invasive species; these terms refer species which evolve in one region of the world but
 are intentionally or accidentally introduced in another where they lack natural enemies and can take over local ecosystems.

 Non-response bias: Potential bias in survey results that occurs when people who choose not to respond to a survey would
 have answered in ways that significantly differ from those who did respond.

 Nonuse benefits: The value that people derive from a good that they do not use (types of non-use benefits include bequest
 value, existence value, and option value).

 Notochord: A stiff, rod-like structure that provides the major axial support in the body of adult lower chordates, including
 cyclostomes.,

 Nursery habitat: Any one of a number of aquatic habitats used by the early lifestages of many fish and invertebrate species
 to complete their development or find food and shelter.

 Oceanic Province: A pelagic division of the ocean, located beyond the continental shelf.

 Ocular fluid: The transparent liquid that fills the inside of the eye.

 Olfaction: The sense used to perceive and distinguish odors.

 Olfact6ry bulbs: That part of the brain involved with the sense of smell.

 Olfactory cell: A specialized cell used to detect the presence of odor molecules.

 Olfactory epithelium: The collection of olfactory cells, supporting cells, mucus glands, and nerve endings located inside the
 nasal pit.

 Oligohaline: Water with salinity ranging between 0.5 to 5 parts per thousand (ppt) .

 Omnivorous: Feeding on both animals and plants.

 Open-cycle (cooling system): A cooling water system in which heat is transferred using water (fresh or saline) that is
 withdrawn from a river, stream or other water body (man-made or natural), or a well, that is passed through a steam condenser
 one time, and then returned to the stream or water body some distance from the intake. Typically, such waters are required to
 be cooled in cooling ponds before returning to a stream or other body of water. Also referred to as once-through cooling.

 Operculuim: The bony gill cover of fishes which prevents oxygen-poor water from being drawn back into the branchial cavity
 during breathing.

 Optic nerve: A bundle of sensory tissue that conducts electrical impulses from the retina to the brain.

 Ornithological: Of, or relating to birds.

 Osnioregulation: The process by which organisms maintain a proper internal fluid and salt balance.

 Osmoregulatory adjustment: An change in the internal fluid and salt balance offish in response to fluctuations in external
 salt concentrations.

 Ossified: Hardened like or into bone.

 Osteichthyes: The class of lower vertebrates comprising the bony fishes.

Otolith: A small mass of calcified material deposited on top of the macula within the inner ear.

Ova: Plural of ovum; egg or female gamete.
                                                                                                        Glossary 9

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                          Glossary
                                                                                                          I
Paired fins: Pectoral fins, placed just behind the gills, and the pelvic fins, variable in position and sometimes lacking entirely.

Pancreas: A gland, situated near the stomach, that secretes digestive juices into the intestine through one or more ducts.

Parr: Life stage offish between the fry and smolt stages where ovoid parr markings are well developed along the side of the
fish; a young salmon or trout living and feeding in freshwater, before the migration to a sea.

Pathogen: An organism (usually microbial) capable of inducing disease in humans or wildlife receptors.       '     :

Pectoral fin: Either of a pair of fins usually situated behind the head, one on each side of the fish.

Pelagic: Referring to the open sea at all depths (pelagic animals live in the open sea and are not limited to the ocean bottom).

Pelagic egg: A fish or aquatic invertebrate egg that stays suspended in the water column for part or whole of its development.

Pelvic fin: Either of a pair of fins on the lower surface of the body located behind the pectoral fins.                ;

 Pelvic girdle: A bony or cartilaginous arch supporting the pelvic fins.

 Percentile: A value on a scale of one hundred that indicates the percent of a distribution that is equal to or below it. |

 Peripheral nervous system: The portion of the nervous system lying outside the brain and spinal cord.            '

 Pharyngeal region: The area of the mouth located near the pharynx.                                           '

 Pharynx: The part of the throat into which the gill slits open.

 Photic (zone): Zone where light is sufficient for photosynthesis; in oceanic waters above approximately 200 m in depth.

 Photosynthesis: The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon
 dioxide and water using light as an energy source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a byproduct.  Chlorophyll
 typically acts as the catalyst in this process.                                                                  ;
 Phy toplankton: Small, often single-celled plants that live suspended in bodies of water (e.g., estuaries).

 Piscivorous: Feeding on fish.                                                                              ;

 Placoid scale: Another name for dermal denticle.                                                            :

 Planktivorous:  Feeding on plankton.

 Planktonic: Free-floating. Plankton are tiny free-floating organisms.

  Pneumatic duct: The duct connecting the air bladder to the gut in the adults of certain fish species.

  Polychaetes: Scientific name for marine worms.
  Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): A large group of related chemicals with oil-like properties which were widely used in
  the past in electrical transformers.
  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): A large group of related chemicals characterized by multiple ring structures;
  derived mainly from crude oil or from combustion processes.

  Potamodramous: Fish that migrate from lakes up rivers or streams, like salmon, walleye, and white bass.

  Predator: Organism which hunts and eats Other organisms. This includes both carnivores, which eat animals, and herbivores,
  which eat plants.
   Glossary 10

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies                                                                                        Glossary


 Prey: Organism hunted and eaten by a predator.

 Primary consumer: An organism that feeds mostly on plant material; all herbivores are primary consumers.

 Primary productivity: Transformation of chemical or solar energy to biomass. Most primary production occurs through
 photosynthesis, whereby green plants convert solar energy, carbon dioxide, and water to glucose and eventually to plant
 tissue.

 Producer surplus: The extra value that producers receive for a good beyond the price they would be willing to sell the good
 for.

 Profundal (zone): Deep-water zone in lakes or oceans that is not penetrated by sunlight.

 Propagule: A floating structure used for reproduction in sea grasses and other aquatic plant species; the propagule is
 transported by currents and takes root when reaching a favorable habitat.

 Protrusible mouth: A mouth that projects forward as a tube when opened.

 Purse seine: A large seine, for use generally by two boats, that is drawn around a school offish and then closed at the bottom
 by means of a line passing through rings attached along the lower edge of the net.

 Pyloric caeca: A number of finger-like extensions located at the end of the stomach in bony fish species, which probably help
 in food digestion and absorption.

 Recall bias: Potential bias in a survey results that occurs'when participants provide false information because they cannot (or
 incorrectly) remember their actions in the past.

 Receptor cells: A class of cells of the nervous system that specialize in detecting external stimuli.

 Recruitment: Usually refers to the addition of new individuals to the fished component of stock. It may also refer to new
 additions to sub-components, e.g., 'recruitment to the fishery'refers to fish entering the actual fishery, and this is determined
 by the size and age at which they are first caught.

 Rectum: The comparatively straight, terminal section of the intestine, ending in the anus.

 Red blood cells: One of several types of cells that make up blood; they are packed with hemoglobin and carry oxygen to the
 cells and tissues and carbon dioxide back to the respiratory organs.

 Red body:  The blood-rich organ that secretes gases into  the swim bladder.                     -    .

 Red tide: The explosive growth of toxic unicellular algae which can cause the affected surface waters to turn reddish.

 Replacement cost: The cost of replacing the services provided by an environmental good that has been damaged or
 destroyed.

 Restoration: The return of an ecosystem or habitat to its original  community structure, natural complement of species, and
 natural functions.

 Rete mirabile: A dense bundle of countercurrent capillaries located in the red body; it extracts gases from the incoming blood
 for secretion into the swim bladder.

 Retina: The light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye that receives the image produced by the lens; contains the rods and
 cones.

Revealed preference: Refers to a class of valuation methods that analyze consumer purchases of a good (especially housing)
to determine the values they place on the characteristics of the good.

Riparian: Having to do with the edges of streams or rivers.
                                                                                                       Glossary 11

-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies
Glossary
River debit: The volume of water which flows downstream during a certain period of time.

Riverine: Living in a river; living in flowing water.                                                          ;

Rod: One of two types of light-sensitive cells located in the retina; provides vision in dim light or semidarkness.    '

Rotifer: Any microscopic animal of the phylum (or class) Rotifera, found in fresh and salt waters, having one or more rings
of cilia on the anterior end.

Salinity: A measure of the salt concentration of water. Higher salinity means more dissolved salts.

Salt barrens: A type of habitat created when low lying land along a coastline is flooded by spring tides; the area develops
into a hyper saline habitat that supports salt resistant terrestrial plants after the sea water recedes or evaporates.     |

Salt marsh: A tidally-influenced semi-aquatic habitat which supports salt tolerant plant species.                  i

Secchi disk: A 20 cm-wide black and white round plastic disk which is lowered into the water to measure the transparency of
the water column.                                                                                        ;

Sedge: Any rushlike or grasslike plant of the genus Carex, growing in wet places.

Sedimentation: (1) Strictly, the act or process of depositing sediment from suspension in water. Broadly, all the processes
whereby particles of rock material are accumulated to form sedimentary deposits. Sedimentation, as commonly used, involves
not only aqueous but also glacial, aeolian, and organic agents. (2) (Water Quality) Letting solids settle out of wastewater by
gravity during treatment.                                                                                  :

Sinus vcnosus: The heart region that collects incoming oxygen-poor blood and passes it on to the atrium.

Skull: The bony framework or skeleton of the head, enclosing the brain and supporting the face.                  ;

Smolt: The post-parr form in which the young of sea-going fish (especially trout and salmon) migrate from freshwater to the
sea.                                   '                                                                 :

Spartina: A genus of salt-tolerant grasses found in coastal regions.                                           ;

Spawning / spawn; Release or deposition of spermatozoa or ova, of which some will fertilize or be fertilized to produce
offspring; fish reproduction process characterized by females and males depositing eggs and sperm into the water  ,
simultaneously or in succession so as to fertilize the eggs.                                        '            '

Spcciation: Formation  of new species, through reproductive isolation?

Species diversity: Number, evenness, and composition of species in an ecosystem; the total range,of biological attributes of
all species present in an ecosystem.                                                                        |

Species evenness: The distribution of individual organisms among the species present in a sample or area; evenness is low
when most individuals belong to a few species, as is often the case in disturbed or contaminated environments.  Evenness
increases when the organisms belong to many different species, as is the case in more pristine environments.

Species richness: The number of species present in a sample.

Sphincter: A circular band of voluntary or involuntary muscle that encircles an orifice of the body or one of its hollow
organs.

Spinal cord: The thick bundle of nerve tissue that comes from the brain and extends through the spinal column.

Spine: The spinal or vertebral column; also referred to as the backbone.
Glossary 12

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies                           .                                                             Glossary


 Spiral valve: A structure located in the intestine of all Chondrichthyes and some primitive bony fish species, which controls
 the flow of digested food and enhances the absorption of food molecules.

 Spleen: A highly vascular, glandular, ductless organ that serves as a blood reservoir; it also forms mature lymphocytes and
 removes old red blood cells from the circulatory system.

 Squalene: Oil found in the liver of many shark species, which creates buoyancy.

 Staging area: Places where birds temporarily stay, feed, and rest during their annual migrations.

 Stated preference: Refers to a class of valuation methods that use surveys to elicit the value that people place on non-market
 good.

 Static: Not changing.

 Stochastic: Random.

 Stock: Group of individuals of a species which can be regarded as an entity for management or assessment purposes; a
 separate breeding population of a species; term used to identify a management unit of fishery species.

 Stomach: A sac-like enlargement of the alimentary canal, forming an organ for storing, diluting, and digesting food.

 Stratified random sample: A sample in which the survey population is separated into several groups (or strata) and then
 subjects are randomly selected from each group.

 Striated muscle: The skeletal portion of the muscle tissue; striated muscle forms the bulk of the body's muscle tissue and
 gives the body its general shape.

 Subsistence (fishing or angling): Fishing primarily to supply food (as opposed to fishing for recreation).

 Substrate: "Supporting surface" on which an organism grows. The substrate may simply provide structural support, or may
 provide water and nutrients. A substrate may be inorganic, such as rock or soil, or it may be organic, such as wood.

 Subtidal:  The area of the ocean or estuary starting at the low tide line and extending outwards; the subtidal zone remains
 submerged, even during low tide.

 Suspended solids: Minute particles (e.g., clay flecks or unicellular algae) present in the water column, which are small
 enough to resist rapid settling.

 Swale: A  low place in a tract of land, usually moister and often having ranker vegetation than the adjacent higher land.

 Sympatric: Occurring in the same area; capable of occupying the same geographic ranges without loss of identity by,
 interbreeding

 Tailwateir: The turbulent river water immediately adjacent to or just downstream of a lock and dam (L&D) structure; it'
 includes areas around the lock flushing valves and the dams themselves.

 Tapetum: A highly-reflective membrane located in the back of the retina, which enhances night vision.

 Taste bud: One of numerous small, flask-shaped bodies, chiefly in the epithelium of the tongue, which are responsible for
detecting taste molecules.

Taste pore: The'opening of the taste bud to the outside world.

Taxa: Plural of taxon; a taxon is a group of organisms comprising one of the categories in taxonomnic classification (i.e.,
phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species). The term is used when organisms cannot be identified at the species level.
Such organisms include larval or juvenile lifestages that do not yet have their adult forms; they can be designated with
certainty only at a higher taxonomic level.
                                                                                                       Glossary 13

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
Blossary
Tclcost: A subgroup of the bony fish; includes most species of aquarium, sport, and food fish.

Temperate: Moderate climate with long, warm summers and short, cold winters.

Terminal mouth: A mouth located in the front of a fish (as opposed to a sub-terminal mouth, located underneath the head).
                                                                                                         I
Threatened and endangered (species) (T&E): Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other living organisms recognized as
threatened with extinction by anthropogenic (man-caused) or other natural changes in the environment. Used interchangeably
in this document with "special status species."                                                                '.

Thrombocytes: One of the three principal types of blood cells found in blood plasma; they help initiate the clotting process.

Tidal range: The difference in height between the average low tide and high tide line.                             .

Trophic cascade: An impact that trickles down through the food web with repercussions for the larger ecosystem; top-down
effect of predators on the biomass of organisms at lower trophic levels.                                          !

Trophic level: A feeding level in an ecological community; plant eaters are at a lower trophic level than meat eaters.,:

Trophic transfer efficiency: Proportion of production of prey that is converted to production of consumers at the next
trophic level.

Tropical: Climate characterized by high temperature, humidity and rainfall, found in a belt on both sides of the equator.

Turbidity: Suspended particles in a water sample causing light to scatter or absorb; high turbidity may be harmful to aquatic
life because it can decrease light penetration and inhibits photosynthesis in the water column.

Urea: A toxic compound occurring in urine as a product of protein metabolism.

Variance: The square of the standard deviation. A measure of the dispersion of data or how much values in a sample differ
from the sample average.                                                                                 - ;

Vegetative growth: An asexual reproductive strategy used by sea grasses and other plants; it consists of sending out one or
more shoots that grow into new plants in the immediate vicinity of its "parent."

Vein: One of the system of branching vessels conveying blood from various parts of the body back to the heart.

Ventral aorta: The artery that carries blood from the heart to the aortic arches (Kimmel et al., 1995).

Ventral fin: Either of a pair of fins on the lower surface of the body in fish; variable in position and sometimes lacking
entirely.                                                                                                 i

Ventral musculature: Part of the axial musculature that is located below the horizontal septum.                   |

Ventricle: A muscular heart chamber that receives blood from the atrium and pumps it into the conus arteriosus     i

Venule: A small vein.

 Vertebrae: The bones or segments composing the backbone.

 Vertebrate: Any species having vertebrae; having a backbone or spinal column; examples include fish, amphibians, reptiles,
 birds, and mammals.                                                                                      :

 Vertical fins: Fins situated along the centerline of the body; include dorsal, anal, and caudal fins.

 Visceral nervous system: An additional component of the nervous system that serves the gut, circulatory system, glands, and
 other internal organs,                                                                                     ,
 Glossary 14

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                         Glossary
Visual pigments: Light-sensitive molecules found in rods and cones within the retina.

Water withdrawal: The removal of water from the ground or diversion from a surface water source for use by agriculture,
municipalities, or industries.

Watershed: Drainage area of a stream, river, or lake leading to a single outlet for its runoff; synonymous with catchment.

Weberian ossicles: A chain of bony processes of the anterior vertebrae that connect the swim bladder to the head region in
certain fish species.

Welfare gain: In the context of this rulemaking, the benefit to society from an environmental improvement.

White blood cells: One of the three principal types of blood cells found in blood plasma; they fight bacterial infections and
other diseases.  .                                                               .

Willingness-to-pay: The value that people will pay to obtain a good (usually associated with the results of a stated preference
study).

Zooplankton: A generic term referring to the small life stages (i.e., eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) of many fish and
invertebrate species.                                                                >

(Sources: Cole, 1983; Goldman and Home, 1983; Nicholson, 1994; Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1995;
Madigan et al., 1997; San Diego Natural History Museum, 1998; Shaw, 1998; U.S. EPA, 1998c; Water Quality Association,
1999; Childrens Mercy Hospital, 2000; Washington Tourist.com, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; Lackey, 2001; Madzura,
2001; Mouratov, 2001; University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001; Badman's Tropical Fish, 2002; Chapin, 2002;
Chudler, 2002; Eckhardt, 2002; Ehlinger, 2002; Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 2002; European Environment Agency,
2002; Fish Endocronology Research Group, 2002; Greenhalgh, 2002; King and Mazzotta, 2002; Lexico LLC, 2002; Lycos,
Inc., 2002; Merriam-Webster Online, 2002; Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 2002; NRDC, 2002; UCMP, 2002; U.S.
EPA,2002c)
                                                                                                     Glossary 15

-------

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
                                                  erences
Able, K.W. and M. P. Fahay. 1998. The First Year in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.

AFS (American Fisheries Society). 1993. Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kills. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.                                        .                              •     •    .

Agnello, R. 1989. The Economic Value of Fishing Success: An Application of Socioeconomic Survey Data. Fishery Bulletin.
Vol. 87:1.

Akfakaya,- H.R., and L.R. Ginzburg. 1991. Ecological risk analysis for single and multiple populations. In A. Seitz, and V.
Loeschcke, eds., Species Conservation: A Population-Biological Approach. Birkhaeuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, pp.
73-87.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1999. White-winged Scoters! What are they? Alaska Department of Fish and Game
website. htip://www.state.ak.us/adfg/wndlife/duck/scoier''vvwscoter.htm Accessed 4/1/02.

Allan, J.D.  1995. Stream Ecology, Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman & Hall, New York.

Allen, D.M., J.H. Hudson, and T.J. Costello. 1980. Postlarval shrimp (Penaeus) in the Florida Keys: Species, size, and
seasonal abundance. Bulletin of Marine Science 30(l):21-33.

American Electric  Power Company, Inc. (AEP). 2001. American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP).
http://www.aep.com/about/facts.htm October 25, 2001.

American Electric  Power Service Corporation. 1981. Cardinal Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section
316(b). Ohio Power Company of the American Electric Power System and Buckeye Power, Inc. March 30.

Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent
valuation. Federal Register 58(10):4602-4614.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000a. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Croaker.
http://vvww.asmfc.ora/Programs/Fish%20Mgni/croakerl.html Accessed July 12, 2000.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000b. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Shad and River Herring.
http://ww\v.asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/SHAD6.html. Accessed July 13. 2000.           .    .

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000c. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Spot.
lntp:/,:w\vw.asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/SPOTl.htrnl. Accessed 7/13/00.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000d. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Striped Bass.
http://www.asmfc.org/ProLn-ains/Fish%20Mgnt.'STRB.ASS6.inml. Accessed 7/13/00.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000e. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Tautog.
hup: ,vvvv\v.asmrc.oi-u'l'roL>rams/Fish'Vo20Mgiu.'TAUTOGl.html. Accessed 11/27/00.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000f. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Weakfish.
hiip:.lAvvvw.asmfc.ora-'Prom-ams-'Fish%20.Vlant/WEAKFISHl.html. Accessed 7/13/00.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000g. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Striped Bass.
hup:\\V\\A\.asmrL\orL''Tro^rams'Fish%2DMgnt,'2()00%20FMP"/(i20Reviews/StrBassrMPRev2000 FMP.html. Accessed
7/12/00.
                                                                                                  References 1

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies                                                                                  References


Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000h. Review of the ASMFC Fishery Management Plan for Tautog (Tputoga
onitis). litln:  \vw\v .asmfc.orti ProgramR''Fish%20Mgnt/FMP%2QReviewS''2000%20Tautog%20Reviews.htm. Accessed 1 1/00.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 200 la. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Herring.
Intn: wvt w.asmfc.org 'Programs Tri.sh'Vo20MgnL-AHERRING 1 .html. Accessed 2/12/01 .
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 200 Ib. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden.
blip; vv\\\\.asinrc.org'PrQuraiTis'Fish0,D20MaU'2000%20FMP0-o20Revie\vsi-nenhaden2000 FMP.HTM. Accessed 3/19/01.

Ault, J.S., G.A. Diaz, S.G. Smith, J. Luo, and J.E. Serafy. 1999. An efficient sampling survey design to estimate pink shrimp
population abundance in Biscayne Bay, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:696-712.

Auster, P.J. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(North and Mid-Atlantic) Tautog and Gunner, Biological Report 82.

Author Unknown. 2001. Blue Mussel Morphology and Anatomy, Physiology, Life Cycle and Reproduction. From the home
page for the study of Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) aquaculture industry in Green Bay, Newfoundland.  A compilation ;of
research done by students of Indian River High School, http : ''nvw w. irh; k 1 2 .n F.ca/index .htm. Accessed  06/30/01.    ,

Badman's Tropical Fish. 2002. Glossary of Terms, httpx/badmanstropicalfish.com/alossary.html. Accessed 3/29/02. •

Bailey, R.M. and G.E. Smith. 1981. Origin and geography of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 38:1539-1561.

Baird, P.H. 1990. Influence of abiotic factors and prey distribution on diet and reproductive success of three seabird species
in Alaska. Ornis Scand. 21 :224-235.

Balletto, J.H. and H.W. Brown. 1 980a. Kammer Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92*500 Section 3 1 6(b). Prepared for
the Ohio Power Company of the American Electric Power System by the American Electric Power Service Corporation. May
20.

Balletto, J.H. and H.W. Brown. 1980b. Philip Sporn Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section 316(b).
Prepared for the Appalachian Power Company and Ohio Power Company of the American Electric Power System. March 7.

Balletto, J.H. and S.A. Zabel. 1978a. Clifty Creek Station Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section 316(b). Prepared
for Indiana - Kentucky Electric Corporation. September 26.                                                  ;

Balletto, J.H. and S.A. Zabel. 1978b. Tanners Creek Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section 316(b).
Prepared for Indiana & Michigan Electric Company.

Barnthouse, L.B. 2000. Impacts of power-plant cooling systems on estuarine fish populations: the Hudson River after 25
years. Environmental Science & Policy 3:8341-348.                                                      •  ;

Barrett, R.T. and Y.V. Krasnov. 1996. Recent responses to changes inistocks of prey species by seabirds breeding in the
southern Barents Sea. J. Mar. Sci. 53:7 13-722.

Bartell, S.M. and K.R. Campbell. 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment of the  Effects of the Incremental Increase of Commercial
Navigation Traffic (25, 50, 75, and 100 Percent Increase of 1992 Baseline Traffic) on Fish. ENV Report  16. Prepared for
U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island. July.
hup:  mvu,mvT.us;K'e.arni\.mil nd\v nav studvenv reports, ENVRPTI6.htm. Accessed 2000.                   |

Bason, W.H. 1 97 1 . Ecology and Early Life History of Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware Estuary. Bulletin No.
4. Thesis. Middletown, DE. 122pp.                                                                      '

BCCVB. 2002. Southeastern Massachusetts. Bristol County  Convention &  Visitors Bureau.
hup:  « \v\\ .somliofbosirtn.org "brislnl  home. him. Accessed 1/02.
 References 2

-------
  S316(b) Case Studies	^	References


  BEA. 1998. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Accounts Data: Gross Product by Industry.
  http://www.bea.doc.gov/T3ea/dn2/gnoc.htm


  Beardsley, G.L. Jr. 1970. Distribution of migrating juvenile pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum duorarum Burkenroad, in
  Burronwood Canal, Everglades National Park, Florida. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99(2):401-408.


  Beauchamp, D.A., M.F. Shepard and G.B. Pauley. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
  Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Northwest): Chinook Salmon. FWS/OBS-82/11.6. Prepared for U.S. Fish and
  Wildlife Service. October.


  Beck, M.W. 1995a. Size-specific shelter limitation in stone crabs: a test of the demographic bottleneck hypothesis. Ecology.
  76(3);968-980.


  Beck, S. 1995b. White Perch. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). pp. 235-243.


  Becker, P.H., T. Troschje, A. Behnke, and M. Wagener. 1997. Starvation of common tern Sterna hirundo fledglings during
  heat waves. J. Fur Ornithologie 138:171-182.


 Beckman, D.W., A.L. Stanley, J.H. Render, and C.A. Wilson. 1990. Age and growth of black drum in Louisiana waters of the
  Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119:537-544.


 Beever, J.W. 1997. The regional wildlife habitat plan in the Tampa Bay region: Accomplishments and Assessment.
 p.l 15-128. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October
 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.


 Begon, M., and M. Mortimer. 1986. Population Ecology: A Unified Study of Animals and Plants. Sinauer Associates
 Sunderland, MA. ,


 Beintema, A.J. 1997. European black terns (CMidonias niger) in trouble: Examples of dietary problems. Colon. Waterbirds
 20:558-565.


 Ben-Akiva, Moshe, and Steven R. Lerman. 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Applications to Travel Demand.
 Cambridge,  Massachusetts: the MIT Press.


 Benda, R.S. and W.C. Houtcooper. 1977. Impingement Studies at 16 Electric-Generating Plants in Michigan. In: Ecological
 Analysts Inc. Third National  Workshop on Entrapment and Impingement: Section 316(b) — Research and Compliance L D
 Jensen (eds.). New York, NY. 425 pp.


 Bert, T.M. and J.M. Stevely.  1989. Population characteristics of the stone crab, Menippe mercenaria, in Florida Bay and the
 Florida Keys. Abstract. 'Bull. Mar. Sci. 44(1):515.


 Bert, T.M., R.E. Warner and L.D. Kessler.  1978. The Biology and Florida Fishery of the Stone Crab, Menippe mercenaria
 (Say), With Emphasis on Southwest Florida. Technical Paper No. 9. State University System of Florida Sea College Program
 October. 82 pp.


 Bielsa, L.M., W.H. Murdich,  and R.F. Labisky. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Florida) — Pink Shrimp. FWS/OBS-82/11.17. October.


 Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Bulletin
 Volume 53, 577 pp.


 Bishop, R.C., S.R. Milliman, KJ. Boyle,  and B.L. Johnson. 1990. Benefit-Cost Analysis of Fishery Rehabilitation Projects: A
 Great Lakes Case Study. Ocean & Shoreline Management 13, no. 3&4, 253-274.


Bockstael, N.E., W.M. Hanemann, and C.L. Kling. 1987. Estimating the Value of Water Quality Improvements in a
Recreational Demand Framework, Water  Resources Research 23, No. 5: 951-960.
                                                                                                   References 3

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                  References
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell and I.E. Strand. 1991. In: Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, John B.
Braden and Charles D. Kolstad (eds.). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.                            ;

Bodola, A. 1966. Life history of the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Sueur), in western Lake Erie. Fishery Bulletin
65(2):391-425.                                                                                     i

Boler, R.N., R.C. Malloy, and E.M. Lesnett. 1991. Surface water quality monitoring by the environmental protection
commission of Hillsborough County, pp. 111-135. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2.
February 27-March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 pp.

Bone, Q. and N.B. Marshall. 1995. Biology of Fishes. Blackie Academic & Professional, UK.

Boreman, J. 1977.  Impacts of Power Plant Intake Velocities on Fish. FWS/OBS-76/20.1. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program.

Boreman, J. 1993.  Evaluation of the PSE&G Estimates of Entrainment and Impingement Mortality at the Salem Nuclear
Plant. Prepared for Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. December.           '

Boreman, J. 2000.  Surplus production, compensation, and impact assessments of power plants. Environmental Science &
Po/fcy3:S445-S449.

Boschker, E. 2001. Pictures of Saltmarshes and Seagrass Beds
linn: \v\\u.nioo.kna\v.nl'homenages/boschker.TicturesEB.hcm. Accessed 11/20/01.                           ;

Boston Edison Company. 1991. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Repbrt
Number37, January 1990-December 1990. April 30.

Boston Edison Company. 1992, Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 39, January 1991-December 1991. April 30.

Boston Edison Company. 1993. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 41, January 1992-December 1992. April 30.

Boston Edison Company. 1994. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 43, January 1993-December 1993. April 30.

Boston Edison Company. 1995a. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 45, January 1994-December 1994. April 30.

Boston Edison Company. 1995b. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 46, January 1995-June 1995. October 31.                                                       '

Boston Edison Company. 1996. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station.  Semi-Annual Report
Number 47, January 1995-December 1995; April 30.

Boston Edison Company. 1997a. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 49, January 1996-December 1996. April 30. '                                                   ;

Boston Edison Company. 1997b. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 50, January 1997-June 1997. October 31.
                                                                                                  [
Boston Edison Company. 1998. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station.  Semi-Annual Report
Number 51, January 1997-December 1997. April 30.

Boston Edison Company. 1999. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station.  Semi-Annual Report
Number 53, January 1998-December 1998. April 30.
 References 4

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                      References
 Boyd, J., D. King, and L.A. Wainger. 2001. Compensation for Lost Ecosystem Services: The Need for Benefit-Based
 Transfer Ratios and Restoration Criteria. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):393-412.

 Boydstun, L.B., RJ. Hallock, and T.J. Mills. 1992. Anadromous Fishes: Salmon. Pages 60-65 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees,
 and C.W. Haugen (eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant
 Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California Sea Grant Extension Program, University of California, Davis, CA.

 Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-Cost Analyses: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species.

 Boyle, K.J., B. Roach, and D.G. Waddington. 1998. 1996 Net Economic Values for Bass, Trout and Walleye Fishing, Deer,
 Elk and Moose Hunting, and Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
 Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Prepared by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Report 96-2. August.

 Brazner, J.C. 1997. Regional, Habitat, and Human Development Influences on Coastal Wetland and Beach Fish Assemblages
 in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 23(1):36-51.

 Breffle, W.S., and R.D. Rowe. 2002. Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource  Tradeoffs. Land
 Economics forthcoming, May 2002.

 Broome, S.W. and C.B. Craft. 2000. Tidal salt marsh restoration, creation, and mitigation. Chapter 37 in Reclamation of
 Drastically Disturbed Lands. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI.

 Brown, H. W. and J. H. VanHassel. 1981. Kyger Creek Station Demonstration Document for P.L.92-500 Section 316(b).
 Prepared for the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and American Electric Power Service Corporation. June 24.

 Buckley, J. 1989a. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal  Fishes and Invertebrates
 (North Atlantic). Rainbow Smelt, Biological Report 82(11.106). 11 p.

 Buckley, J. 1989b. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North
 Atlantic). Winter flounder. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.87). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR
 EL-82-4. 12pp.

 Buckley, L.J. 1982. Effects of temperature on growth and biochemical composition of larval winter flounder
 Pseudopleuronectes americanus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:181-186.

 Bur, M.T. 1982. Food of freshwater drum in western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 8(4):672-675.

 Burgman, M.A., S. Person, and H.R. Akcakaya. 1993. Risk Assessment in Conservation Biology. Chapman & Hall, London.

 Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program. 2001a. Atlas of Tidally Restricted Salt Marshes: Buzzards  Bay Watershed,
 Massachusetts. Draft Final. Prepared for Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program, Boston, MA and Massachusetts
 Environmental Trust. January.

 Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program 2001b. "buzzbay2001sma-atlas-public.xls". Summary of the tidally restricted
 wetlands in the Buzzards Bay watershed as of the fall of 2001. Estimates of the acres of phragmites at each location are
 included along with an initial restoration cost estimate and description of the nature of the tidal restriction. Received from Joe
 Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program. 2001.

 CALFED. 2000a. Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan. Response to Comments, Volume II. July.

 CALFED. 2000b. Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan. Volume I - Ecological Attributes of the San Francisco Bay-Delta
 Watershed, hup:.-'called.water.ca'.go.v'/environrne.ntal docs-'iulv2000  eLs.hUnl. July.

 CALFED. 2002. CALFED Bay-Delta Program, http:.,•caHed.ca.gov. Accessed 1/02,

 California Department of Fish and Game 2001a. "grandtabXL.xls": Received from California Department of Fish and Game,
Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch
                                                                                                   References 5

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
                                                                                                     References
                                                                                                      I
California Department of Fish and Game 2001b. "Green Sturgeon.xls": Received from California Department of Fish and
Game, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch.

California Department of Fish and Game 200 Ic. "Steelhead - ALLCOUNT.xls" :Received from California Department of
Fish and Game                                                                                        |

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002a. The economic importance of sport fishing.
him:  \v\\\\ .dtu.ca.gov. fishing'econ.sptfsh.html. Accessed 1/18/02.

California Department of Fish and Game 2002b. Marine Sportfish Identification Pictures.
hunt  \v \vtt .dfc.ca.uov mrd'msfindx 1 .html. Accessed 1/21/02.                                                ;
 California Department of Fish and Game. 2002c. Wildlife Gallery- Anadromus Species Resources.                '
 him: .\vw\\. dclta.dFg.ca.gov 'gallerv/anad.html. Accessed 1/21/02.                                            :

 California Department of Fish and Game. 2002d. Young-of-the-year Striped Bass Abundance Indices             i
 httn: •\\A\\v.delta.dfu.ca.gov''data/mwt99/charts.htrnl. Accessed 1/02.

 California Energy Commission. 2001. Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, Application for Certification (OO-AFC-1). May
 2001.                                                                        '                        i

 Campana, S.E., G.A. Chouinard, J.M. Hanson, and A. Frechet. 1999. Mixing and migration of overwintering Atlantic cod
 (Gadus morhua) stocks near the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
 56:1873-1881.

 Campbell, J.S. and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1970. Biology of the emerald shiner, Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque in Lake
 Simcoe, Canada. Journal of Fish Biology, v. 2, p. 259-273.   .                                              ;

 Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Freshwater Fishes of the United States
 and Canada, Exclusive of the Perciformes. Iowa State University Press, Ames.

 Carlander, K.D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Centrarchid Fishes of the United States
 and Canada, Volume Two, Ames, IA, Iowa State University Press.                                           j

 Carlander, K.D. 1997. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Icthyopercid and Percid Fishes of the
 United States and Canada, Volume Three, Ames, LA, Iowa State University Press.                              I

 Carr, R.S., E.R Long, H.L. Windom, D.C. Chapman, G. Thursby, G.M. Sloane, and D.A. Wolfe. 1996. Sediment quality
 assessment studies ofTampa Bay, Florida. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.  15(7):1218-1231.

 Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for beatable, fishable, and
 swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research 29(7): 2445-2454.

 Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, and R.C. Mitchell. 1999. The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use Value. In Valuing
 Environmental Preferences: Tlieory and Practice of the Contingent  Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing
 Countries. Edited by Ian J. Bateman and Kenneth G. Willis. New York: Oxford University Press.

 Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin, and J.L. Wright. 1996. Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference
 Methodologies: Comparing .the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods. Land Economics. 72(l):80-99.

 Carson, R., W.M. Hanneman, R.J. Knopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, and V.K. Smith. 1994.
 Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight. Prepared by
 Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. for NOAA. La Jolla, CA.

 Castro, L.R. and R.K. Cowen. 1991. Environmental factors affecting the early life history of bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in
• Great South Bay, New York. Marine Ecology Progress Series 76:235-247.
 References 6

-------
 S 316(b) Case. Studies
                                                                                                       References
 Castro, K.M., J.S. Cobb, R.A. Wahle, and J. Catena. In Press. Habitat addition and stock enhancement for American lobsters,
 Homarus americanus. Marine and Freshwater Research.

 Caton, P.A. 2001. Developing an Effluent Trading Program to Address Nutrient Pollution in the Providence and Seekonk
 Rivers, Working Draft (12/6/01). http://envstudies.brown.edu/thesis/20Q2/caton/Trading/.

 CDWR (California Department of Water Resources). 1994. Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on
 Delta Smelt and Sacramento Splittail. Biological Assessment prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological
 Services, Sacramento Field Office by California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid
 Pacific Region, August 1994.

 Chadwick, H.K., D.E. Stevens, and L.W. Miller. 1977. Some factors regulating the striped bass population in the
 Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Pages 18-35 in: W. Van Winkle (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on
 Assessing the Effects of Power Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, May 3-6, 1977.
 Pergamon Press, NY.

 Chang, S., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Windowpane,
 Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137.
 September. 32 pp. http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/publications/.

 Chao, L.M. and J.A. Musick. 1977. Life history, feeding habits, and functional morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the
 York River estuary. Virginia. Fish. Bull. 75(4):657-702.

 Chapin, F.S, III. 2002. Textbook: Principles of Ecosystem Ecology (draft): Glossary.
 http://www.facultv.uaf.edu/fffsc/Ecotext.html. Accessed 4/1/02.              •

 Charbonneau, JJ. and M. Hay. 1978. Determinants and Economic Values of Hunting and Fishing. Nationwide. Published by
 Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.

 Cherry, D.A. and R.J. Currie. 1998. Effects of Impingement/Entrainment at the Kanawha River Plant on the Fish Community
 Structure of the Kanawha River: Reflections on the 20 Year Study. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical
 Workshop. EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV, D. Dixon
 and K. Zammit (eds.).

 Cheung,  T.S. 1969. The environmental and hormonal control of growth and reproduction in the adult female stone crab,
 Menippe rnercenaria (Say). Biological Bulletin 136:327-346.

 Childrens Mercy Hospital. 2000. Strata: What is a stratified random sample and why would I want to use one?
 http://www.ciTih.edu/sta ts/ask/strata.htm Accessed 4/2/02.

 Chittenden, M.E., Jr. 1971. Status of the striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware River. Chesapeake Sci. 12:131-136.

 Christensen, S.W., and C.P. Goodyear. 1988. Testing the validity of stock-recruitment curve fits. American Fisheries Society
 Monograph 4:219-231.

 Christensen, S.W., D.L. DeAngelis, and A.G. Clark. 1977. Development of a stock-progeny model for assessing power plant
 effects on fish populations. In W. Van Winkle, ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects of'Power-Plant
 Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 196-226.

 Chudler,  E.H. 2002. Adventures in Neuroanatomy: Divisions of the Nervous System.
 httn://racul tv.washington.edu/chudler/nsdivide.html Accessed 4/1/02.

 Churchill, E.P. 1921. Life history of the blue crab. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries 36:95-128.

 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company. 1979. 316(b) Demonstration, Walter C. Beckjord and Miami Fort Power Stations.

 Clark, C.W. 1990. Mathematical Bioeconomics. The Optimal Management of Renewable Resources (2nd edition) John
Wiley, New York.
                                                                                                    References 7

-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies
                                                                                                   References
Clark, K.E. 1995. Osprey. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, (eds.) The Delaware
Estuary Program, pp. 395-400.                                                                          !

Clark, P. A. 1991. Management directions and needs for Tampa Bay tidal tributaries, pp.497-510. In: Proceedings, Tampa
Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528
PP-

Clayton, G., C. Cole, S. Murawski, and J. Parrish. 1978. Common Marine Fishes of Coastal Massachusetts. Contribution No.
54 of the Massachusetts Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. 231 pp.

Cleland and Bishop. 1984. An Assessment of the Economic Conditions of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Saint
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Grand" Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and a Cost-Return Analysis of
Treaty Commercial Fishermen - 1981.

CMS Energy Corporation (CMS). 2001. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on March 23, 2001.

Cohen, M.A. 1986. The Costs and Benefits of Oil Spill Prevention and Enforcement. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 13:167-188.

Colarusso, P. 2000. Winter Flounder Life History Information. Draft. From Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1. Brayton Point
TAG Meeting, 11/17/00.

Cole, G.A. 1983. Textbook of Limnology. Third Edition. Waveland Press, Inc. Prospect Heights, Illinois.

Cole, R. 1995. Bluefish. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). The Delaware
Estuary Program, pp. 147-150.

Cole, R.A. 1978. Entrainment at a Once-Through Cooling System on Western Lake Erie, Volume I. EPA-600/3-78-070. July.

Conectiv. 2001. 10-K, filed on March 15, 2001.

Conservation Consultants Inc. 1977. Ecological Studies at Big Bend Steam Electric Station (Tampa Electric Company): An
Analysis and Summary of Studies on the Effects of the Cooling Water System on Aquatic Fauna: A 316 Demonstration
Biological Study. Volume III (Volume 3 of Final Report of Biological  Surveys of the Big Bend Area). August.     '

Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. 1975. Environmental Report to Accompany Application for Facility License
Amendment for Extension of Operation with Once-Through Cooling for Indian Point Unit No. 2.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority. 1983. Hudson River Ecological Study in
the Area of Indian Point: 1982 Annual Report.           •                                                 i

Consumers Power Company. 1984. Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J R Whiting Plant. Prepared for the Michigan
Water Resources Commission. June.

Consumers Power Company. 1988. Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J R Whiting Plant. Prepared for the Michigan
Water Resources Commission.                                                           •              '

Consumers Power Company. 1992. Summary of Deterrent Net Performance at JR Whiting Plant.

Consumers Power Company. 1994. Luddington Pumped Storage Project: 1994 Annual Report of Barrier Net Operation.
December 22.                                                                                        '

Contra Costa County. 2002. About the County,  hitp:-/www.co.conira-costa.ca.us/about.html. Industry and Employment.
Accessed 1/18/02.
                                                                                                    !
Correia, S.J., A.B. Howe, T.P. Currier, and S.X. Cadrin. 1993. Stock Assessment of Winter Flounder in Massachusetts
Waters: An Update. Resource Assessment Project.  August 16.                                              ;
References 8

-------
 §316(b) Case Studies	'	                 .                                            References


 Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon et al. 1997. The Value of the World's Ecosystem
 Services and Natural Capital. Nature 387:253-260.

 Costello, T.J. and D.M. Allen. 1966. Migrations and geographic distribution of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, of the
 Tortugas and Sanibel grounds, Florida. Fishery Bulletin 65(2):449-459.

 Costello, T.J. and D.M. Allen. 1970. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Pink Shrimp. In: Proceedings of the World Scientific
 Conference on the Biology and Culture of Shrimps and Prawns. Volume IV: Species Synopses., Mexico City, June 12-21,
 1967. FAO Fisheries Reports No. 57, Vol 4. pp. 1499-1537.

 Cowan, J.H., Jr. and R.S. Birdsong. 1995. Seasonal occurrence of larval and juvenile fishes hi a Virginia Atlantic coast
 estuary with emphasis on drums (Family Sciaenidae). Estuaries 8(l):48-59.

 Crawford, R.J., and B.M. Dyer. 1995. Responses by four seabird species to a fluctuating availability of Cape Anchovy
 Engraulis capensis off South Africa. Ibis 137:329-339.

 Cummings, W.C. 1961. Maturation and spawning of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Transactions of the
 American Fisheries Society 90:462-468.

 Cummings, R., Ganderton, P. and McGuckin, T., 1994. Substitution effects in CVM values. Am. J. Agric. Economics. 76:
 205-214.

 Gushing, D.H. 1982.  Climate and Fisheries. Academic Press, London.

 Daiber, F.C. 1953. Notes on the spawning population of the freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens Rafmesque) in western
 Lake Erie: American  Midland Naturalist 50(1):159-171.

 Dames & Moore. 1977a. 316(b) Demonstration for the Cayuga and Wabash River Generating Stations. Prepared for Public
 Service Indiana. August 30.

 Dames & Moore. 19_77b. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316(b) Study: First Quarterly Data
 Presentation, April 1, 1977 to June 30,1977.

 Dames & Moore. 1977c. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316(b) Study: Second Quarterly Data
 Presentation, July 7, 1977 to September 28, 1977.

 Dames & Moore. 1978. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316(b) Study: Third and Fourth Quarterly
 Data Presentation, October 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978.

 Daniels, R. A. and P.  B.'Moyle. 1983. Life history of splittail (Cyprinidae: Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the
 Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Fishery Bulletin 81 (3):647-654.

 Davis, G., M.D. Nichols, and T.M. Hannigan. 1999. Management of the California State Water Project. Department of
 Natural Resources. Bulletin 231-98. November.

 Day, J.W., Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

 DDNREC (Delaware  Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2000.  Striped Bass Spawning Stock
 Assessment., Project:  F-47-R-9 Anadromous Species Investigations.

 de Sylva. D.P., F. Kalber, Jr., and C.N. Shuster, Jr.  1962. Fishes and Ecological Conditions in the Shore Zone of the Delaware
Estuary, with Notes on Other Species Collected in Deeper Water. Info. Ser. Publ. No. 5. University of Maryland Mar. Lab.

DeAlteris, J.T., M. Gibson, and L.G. Skrobe, 2000. Fisheries of Rhode Island Narragansett  Bay Summit 2000 White Paper,
Working Draft (4/14/00). http:/Av\vw.nbep.org, summit* pdf/Fisheries.P'DF.

DeHart, R.E. 1994. Brayton Point Station Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Summary, October 20.
                                                                                                   References 9

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
                                                                                                      References
Delaware Estuary Program. 1996. Discover its Secrets — A Management Plan for the Delaware Estuary.          -
                                                                                                      I
Delaware Estuary Program. 2001. Delaware Estuary Indicators. http://www.delep.org/shad.pdF. Accessed ,10/8/01.  ,

Delorme 1993. Maryland/Delaware Atlas & Gazetteer. Freeport, ME. 1993

Delorme 1995. Ohio Atlas & Gazetteer. Freeport, ME.

Delorme 1997. Florida Atlas and Gazetteer, Yarmouth, ME. 1997.

Delorme 1999. New Jersey Atlas & Gazetteer. Yarmouth, ME. 1999.

Desfosse, J., H. Austin, L. Daniel, W. Laney, and H. Speir. 1999. 1999 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for;Atlantic
Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus). http://\vw\\ .asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/croaker98  FMP.HTM.   "   '

Desvouges. 1992. Benefits Transfer: Conceptual Problems in Estimating Water Quality Benefits Using Existing Studies.
Water Resources Research 3:675-683.                                                                    j

Detroit Edison. 2002. Power Plants. http://www.detroitedison.com/coniDanv/powerPlants.html. Accessed 2/5/02.   '

Dew, C.B. 1976. A contribution to the life history of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus, in Fishers Island Sound,
Connecticut. Chesapeake Science 17:101-113.                                                             ;

Dietrich, C.S. 1979, Fecundity of the Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus. Fishery Bulletin 77(l):308-311.

Dionne, M., F.T. Short, and D. M. Burdick. 1999. Fish utilization of restored, created, and reference salt-marsh habitat in the
Gulf of Maine. In: Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD, pp.
384-404.                   .                                                                           ;
                                                                                                      1
Dixon, D.A. 1999. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operations on Aquatic
Communities. Final Report. Report number TR-112013.

Dodge, D. and R. Kavetsky. 1995. Aquatic Habitat and Wetlands of the Great Lakes. SOLEC Working Paper presented at
State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference. August. EPA 905-R-95-014. Chicago, 111.: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, htm:  wv\ vv.enn.gov gnlakes/'solec/94habitat/.                                 '                     ',

Dodge, K.E. 1998. River Raisin Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report
23. Ann Arbor, MI. lUtp:^w\\\v.dnr.state.rni.us;\\'wvv/iiT/ifrlibra/special/reports/sr23/sr23Te_xt.r)df. Accessed 2/5/02.'

Dorsey, S.E., E.D. Houde, and J.C. Gamble.  1996. Cohort abundances and daily variability in mortality of eggs and yolk-sac
larvae of bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, in Chesapeake Bay. U.S. Fish. Bull. 94:257-267.

Doyle, M.J. 1977. A morphological staging system for the larval development of the herring, Clupea harengus. L.J. Journal
of 'the Marine Biological Association of 'the U.K. 57:859-867.       ,                                         ;

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1996. 1996 Delaware River Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Estimates (Tidal
Estuary Portion'). liitp:'-w\vv\ .state.ni.us/'drbc .•\vithdra\vals96.htm.   [                                         [

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1998. Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment: 1996-1997 305(b)
Report.

DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2001. Ecological Significance of Delaware Bay.
hurt:  \vu\\.siate.ni..us drhc shorebirds.ecolog.lum. Accessed 2001.                                           :

DTE Energy Company 2002. DTE Energy Company. Annual Report 2000.
hup:  \v\v\\ .clieenerov.com investors'annualftir2000/resulis.html. March 6, 2002.                               :
References 10

-------
  § 31.6(b) Case. Studies
                                                                                                      References
  Durbin, A.G., E.G. Durbin, TJ. Smayda, and P.O. Verity. 1983. Age, size, growth, and chemical composition of Atlantic .
  menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Fishery Bulletin 81(1):133-141.

  EA Engineering Science and Technology. 1986. Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Oyster Greek Nuclear Generating
  Station 1984-1985. Prepared for GPU Nuclear Corporation. July.

  EA Engineering, Science, and Technology.  1989. Indian Point Generating Station 1988 Entrainment Survival Study. Final.
  Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority. August.

  EA Engineering, Science and Technology. 1997. Encina Power Plant Supplemental 316(b) Assessment Report. Final.
  Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric.

  EA Engineering Science and Technology. 2000. Review of Entrainment Survival Studies: 1970-2000. Prepared for Electric
  Power Research Institute, Inc.

  EA Engineering Science and Technology. 2001. 2000 Ohio River Ecological Research Program. Final Report. Prepared for
  American Electric Power Service Corporation, Cinergy, Indiana Kentucky Electric Corporation, Buckeye Power Inc. October.

  EA Engineering Science and Technology and E. Perry.  2001. Leslie-Matrix Modeling  of Possible 316(b) Effects on Selected
  Ohio River Fishes. Prepared for American Electric Power, American Municipal Power-Ohio, Buckeye Power, Cinergy, First
  Energy, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. January. 26 p.

  EA Science and Technology. 1986. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. 1985 Annual Report.
 Prepared under contract with Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority.

 EA Science and'Technology. 1987. Final Report: Clifty Creek Station Impingement Study and Impact Assessment.

 EA Science and Technology. 1990. Results of Entrainment and Impingement  Studies Conducted at the Braidwood Nuclear
 Station and the Adjacent Kankakee River. Prepared for  Commonwealth Edison Company.

 Eckhardt, G.A. 2002. The Edwards Aquifer Homepage: Glossary of Water Resource Terms.
 http://www.edwardsaquifer.nei/glossarv.html. Accessed 3/29/02.

 Ecological Analysts Inc.  1978a. Impact of the Cooling Water Intake at the Indian River-Power Plant: A 316(b) Evaluation.
 Prepared for Delmarva Power & Light Co. May.

 Ecological Analysts Inc.  1978b. Port Jefferson Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. Prepared for Long Island
 Lighting Company. December.

 Ecological Analysts Inc.  1980a. Entrainment Survival Studies at the Cayuga Generating Plant. Prepared for Public Service of
 Indiana. March.  _

 Ecological Analysts Inc.  1980b. Potrero Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316(b) Demonstration. Prepared for
 Pacific Gas and Electric Company. January.

 Ecological Analysts, Inc. 19,8 la.  Contra Costa Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration Prepared
 forPG&E.

 Ecological Analysts Inc. 1981b. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1979 Annual
 Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York and Power Authority of the State of New York. April.

 Ecological Analysts, Inc.  1981c. Pittsburg Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. Prepared for
 PG&E.

Ecological Analysts Inc. 1982. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1980 Annual
Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York and Power Authority of the State of New York. January.

Edsall, T.A. 1967. Biology of the freshwater drum in western Lake Erie.  Ohio  Journal of Science 67(6):321 -340.
                                                                                                  References 11

-------
S316(b) Cose Studies	-	  References


Edwards, E.A., D.A. Krieger, G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: White Crappie. U.S.
DOI Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.7.                                                         j

Edwards, R.E.  1991. Nursery habitats of important early-juvenile fishes in the Manatee River estuary system of Tampa Bay.
p. 237-252. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1,1991, Tampa, FL.
(S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 p.

Egerton, F.N. 1985. Overfishing or Pollution? Case History of a Controversy on the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission Technical Report No. 41. January.

Ehlinger, T. 2002. General Glossary Homepage. httn://www.uwm.edu/Peonle/eMinger/glossarv.htm. Accessed 3/29/02.

Ehrhardt, N.M., D.J. Die and V.R. Restrepo. 1990. Abundance and impact of fishing on a stone crab (Menippe mercenaria)
population in Everglades National Park, Florida. Bull. Mar. Sci. 46(2):311-323.

Electric Power Research Institute. 1987. Gizzard Shad. In: Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature
Revievts  Volume 2: Compensation in Fish Populations Subject to Catastrophic Impact. Prepared for Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California by University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI. EPRIEA-5200, Project 1633-6. pp.
3-18-3-27.

Emmett, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in
West Coast Estuaries, Volume II: Species Life History Summaries. ELMR (Estuarine Living Marine Resources) Report No.
8. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, MD.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2002. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. hitp://www.eb.com/. Accessed 4/1/02.     ;

Energy Impact Associates Inc. 1978a. Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies at Clifty Creek Station. Final Report.

Energy Impact Associates Inc. 1978b. Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies at Tanners Creek Power Plant: Final Report
(Tanners Creek Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 316(b), Volume II, Appendix B). Prepared for Indiana &
Michigan Electric Company.

 ENSR. 2000. Redacted Version 316 Demonstration Report - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear
 Generation Company.

 Entergy  Corporation. 2001. About Entergy. httn://www.entergv.com/aboui/default.asp October 2, 2001.           '

 Entergy  Nuclear Generation Company. 2000. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual
 Report Number 55, January 1999-December 1999.

 Entergy Nuclear General Company, 2001. Marine ecology studies related to the operation of pilgrim station. Report number
 57. January 2000-December 2000.

 Environment Canada. 2001. Double-crested cormorant. Environment Canada website.
 linn:  \\\w\.ac.ec.gc.ca faune-oiseaux  de mer/'luml/double-crested  connorant.html. Accessed 4/1/02.

 Environmental Science & Engineering Inc. 1991. 1990 Ohio River Ecological Research Program: Executive Summary.
 Prepared for American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Edison Company, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation,
 Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Indiana Kentucky Electric Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority. Octobers

 Environmental Science Associates. 1998. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's
 Application for Authorization to Sell Certain Generating Plants and Related Assets (Application No. 98-01-008 to the State of
 California Public Utilities Commission).

 Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 2000. ArcView GIS 3.2a; Arc View Spatial Analyst 2.0. Redlands, CA.

 Epifanio, C.E. 1995.' Atlantic Blue Crab. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.).
 pp. 43-49.
 References 12

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies                                                                                   References


 Ernst Peebles, St. Petersburg (FL) 2001. "peebles.florida.ELS.xls": ambient density data at Tampa Bay.

 ESSA Technologies (ESSA Technologies Ltd.). 2000. Review of Portions of New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
 System (NJPDES) Renewal Application for the Public Service Electric & Gas' .(PSE&G) Salem Generating Station. Final
 Report. (Attachment A: Permit No. NJ0005622 Discharge to Surface Water, Surface Water Permit Renewal Action).
 Prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

 Estevez, E.D. and MJ. Marshall. 1997. A landscape-level method to assess estuarine impacts of freshwater inflow alterations.
 p. 217-236. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October
 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

 Estevez, E.D., R.E. Edwards, and D:M. Hay ward. 1991. An ecological overview of Tampa Bay's tidal rivers, p. 263-275. In:
 Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1, 1991 (Treat,  S.F. and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 p.

 European Environment Agency. 2002. EUNIS Habitat classification. February.
 littn://mrw.wallonie.be/dgrne/sibvv/EUNIS/home.html. Accessed 3/29/02.

 Fahay, M.P., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus
 morhua, Life history and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-124. Website.
 http://vvww.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/publications/text/nefscseries/current/techmemo/AtlanticCodl24.pdf. Accessed 11/2/01.

 Farber, S. 1987.  The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Protection of Property against Hurricane Wind Damage. Journal of
 Environmental Economics and Management 14:143-151.

 Fay, C.W., RJ. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983a. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
 Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic): Alewife / Blueback Herring, FWS/OBS-82/11.9. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
 Service. October. 25 pp.

 Fay, C.W., RJ. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983b. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
 Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) Atlantic Silverside. FWS/OBS-82/11.1Q.

 Fay, C.W., RJ. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983c. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
 Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic). Striped bass. Report No. FWS/OBS-82/11.8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Div.
 Biol. Serv.

 Feather, Peter M.; Daniel Hellerstein; and Theodore Thomaso. 1995. A Discrete-Count Model of Recreational Demand.
 Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29:214-227.

 Feinerman, E., and K. Knapp. 1-983. Benefits from Groundwater Management: Magnitude, Sensitivity, and Distribution.
 American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(4):703-710.

 Fell, P.E., R.S. Warren, and W.A. Niering. 2000. Restoration of salt and brackish tidelands in southern New England. In:
 Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. M.P. Weinstein and D.A, Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers,
 Boston, MA, pp. 845-858.

 Finkel, A.M. 1.99.0. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future.
 Washington, DC, p. 68

 Fischman, R.L. 2001. The EPA's NEPA Duties and Ecosystem Services. Stanford Environmental Law Journal
 20(2):497-536.

 Fish Endocrinology Research Group. 2002. Endocrine Control of Teleost Osmoregulation.  University of St. Andrews.
 hitn://\\ vvv..st-and.ai-.uk ~seeb Tera/ieleost.him. Accessed 4/1/02.

Fish, M.P. 1932.  Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fishes from Lake Erie, and its tributary waters.
Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 47:293-398.
                                                                                                   References 13

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
                                                                                                     References
Fisher, A. and R. Raucher. 1984. Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: Conceptual and empirical perspectives.
Advances in Applied Micro-Economics 3:37-66.

Fitzhugh, G.R., B.A. Thompson, and T.G. Snider III. 1993. Ovarian development, fecundity, and spawning frequency of
black drum Pogonias cromis in Louisiana. Fishery Bulletin 91(2):244-253.

FL DEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Meeting between EPA, contractors, and Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. December.

Flannery, M.S., H.C. Downing, G.A. McGarry, and M.O. Walters. 1991. Increased nutrient loading and baseflow
supplementation  in the Little Manatee River watershed, p. 369-395. In: Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2.
February 27-March 1,1991 (Treat, S.F. and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 p.

Fletcher, R.I., and R.B. Deriso. 1988. Fishing in  dangerous waters: remarks on a controversial appeal to spawner-recruit
theory for long-term impact assessment. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:232-244.

Florida Fish and  Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2001. Fishing Lines Fish Identification Section.           .  '
Imp;  marinefishi.Ties.oni/rishinglines/fish id2.ndf. Accessed 12/12/01.

Florida Fish and  Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2002a. Marine Fisheries, http://marinefisheries.org/fish/silverpler.ipg.
Accessed 1/02.                                                                                        ;

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2002b.  Status and Trends 2001  Report - Florida's Nearshore and
Inshore Species.  littn;''W\vvv.floridamarine.org/features/vie\v  article.asp?id=4961. Accessed 1/02.               t

Florida Power Corporation. 1985. Crystal River  Units 1,2 and 3§316 Demonstration. Final Report — Appendix.

Fogarty, M.J., A.A Rosenberg, and M.P. Sissenwine. 1992. Fisheries risk assessment: A case study of Georges Bank haddock.
Environmental Science and Technology 26(3):440-447.                                              •      ;
                                              t                                      ,                  ;
Fogarty, M.J., M.P. Sissenwine, and E.B. Cohen. 1991. Recruitment variability and the dynamics of exploited fish.
populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6:241-246.

Fonferek, W.J. 1997. Dredged material management - a federal perspective, p. 95-99. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area
Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program.

Fonseca, M.S. 1992. Restoring seagrass systems in the United States. In: Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment, G.W.
Thayer (ed.). Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD, pp. 79-109.                                 .   .

Foster, K.L., F.W. Steimle, W.C. Muir, R.K. Kropp, and B.E. Conlin. 1994. Mitigation potential  of habitat replacement:  .
Concrete artificial reef in Delaware Bay — Preliminary results. Bulletin of Marine Science 55(2-3):783-795.     i
                                                                                                      i
Fraser, S., V. Gotceitas, and J.A. Brown. 1996. Interactions between age-classes of Atlantic cod and their distribution among
bottom substrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:305-314.                          '

Freeman, R.F. and R.K. Sharma. 1977. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume II: Inland
Waters. Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/ES-56 Volume II. March. 323 pp.

Friedman, S. Morgan 2002. The Inflation Calculator. httn:/.'www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi                 [

Froese, R. and D. Pauly, Eds. 2000. FishBase 2000. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management.  Los
Banos, Laguna,  Philippines.                                                                            ;

Froese, R. and D. Pauly (e'ds.) 2001. FishBase. World Wide  Web electronic publication. hitn:/7wvv\v.fishbase.org. Accessed
 10/01.'                                                                                    '           :
 References 14

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies	                                                     References


 Fuchs, E. H. 1967. Life history of the emerald shiner, Notropis atherinoides, in Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota.
 Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 96:247-256.

 Galbraith, H., I.C.T. Nisbet, J.J. Hatch, and T.H. Kunz. 1999. Age-related changes in efficiency among breeding common
 terns Sterna hirundo: Measurement of energy expenditure using doubly-labeled water. J. Avian Biol. 30:85-96.

 Garwood, G.P. 1968. Notes on the life histories of the silversides, Menidia beryllina (Cope) and Membras martinica
 (Valenciennes) in Mississippi Sound and adjacent water. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish
 Commissioners 21:314-323.

 Geo-Marine Inc. 1978. 316(b) Demonstration for the W. H. Sammis Generating Station. Prepared for Ohio Edison Company.
 September 8.

 Getz, W.M., and R.G. Haight 1989. Population Harvesting. Demographic Models of Fish, Forest, and Animal Resources.
 Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.

 Gibson, M. 1996. Comparisons of Trends in the Finfish Assemblage of Mt. Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay in Relation to
 Operations at the New England Power Brayton Point Station. June 1995. Revised August 1996.

 Gibson, M. 2001. Letter to Phil Colarusso of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-New England re: Winter Flounder
 Regulations in Rhode Island.  October 3, 2001.

 Ginzburg, L.R., L.B. Slobodkin, K. Johnson, and A.G. Bindman. 1982. Quasi-extinction probabilities as a measure of impact
 on population growth. Risk Analysis 2:171-181.

 Goldman, C.R. and A.R. Home. 1983. Limnology. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.

 Goodyear, C.D. 1978. Evaluation of 316(b) Demonstration: Detroit Edison's Monroe Power Plant. Final Report for the Period
 April 1977 through December 1977. Prepared for the Great Lakes Area Office, Office of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
 Wildlife Service. Administrative Report No. 83-3.

 Goodyear, C.P. 1977a. Assessing the impact of power plant mortality on the compensatory reserve offish populations. In W.
 Van Winkle, ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects ofPower-Plant Induced Mortality on Fish
 Populations. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 186-195.

 Goodyear, C.P. 1977b. Mathematical Methods to Evaluate Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms by Power Plants. Report No.
 FWS/OBS-76/20.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National  Power Plant Team, Ann Arbor, MI.

 Goodyear, C.P.  1978. Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach. FWS/OBS - 78/65, U.S.
 Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. July.

 Goodyear, C.P.  1980. Compensation in fish populations. In: C.H. Hocutt and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., eds.' Biological Monitoring of
 Fish. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 253-280.

 Gotceitas, V., S. Fraser, and J.A. Brown. 1997. Use of eelgrass beds (Zostera marina) by juvenile Atlantic  cod {Gadus
 morhua). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1306-1319.

 Gottholm, B.W. and D.D. Turgeon. 1992. Toxic Contaminants in the Gulf of Maine. National Status and Trends Program for
 Marine Environmental Quality, NOAA. 15 p.

 Government of Canada. 2001. The Fisheries Then and Now: Prince Edward Island. Species website.
 liun:-''col led ions.ic.gc.ca/pei fisheries/species.. Accessed 12/12/01.

 Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2002. Fisheries and Aquaculture. Pelagics.
lnin:/vw\^v.gov.nf.cii'fishaa'Species/Pelagics/CompleteL.isi.htm. Accessed 1/11/02.

Government of Nova Scotia. 2000. Nova Scotia Canada. Natural Resources.
http:./www.gQv.ns.ca'natr''iiTiaees.''arrav/osprey.ipg. Accessed  1/30/02.
                                                                                                  References 15

-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies
                                                                                                    References
Grant, S.M. and J.A. Brown. 1998. Diel foraging cycles and interactions among juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus morhutt) at a
ncarshore site in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1307-1316.        •

Great Lakes Commission. 2001 . Great Lakes Information Network, http:/ 'www.greai-lakes.nei. Accessed 2001 .

Great Outdoor Recreation Pages. 1999. Destinations: Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge website.            ;
lilinr wwv\ . gorn.com •corn ''resource/us  nwn'de bomba.htm. Accessed August, 200 1 .

Greene, William H. 1995. Limdep Version 7 User's Manual. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.           \

Greenhalgh, M. 2002. The Wild Trout: Glossary, http:. •wwvv.wild-trout.co.uk 'glossary. htm. Accessed 3/29/02.      ;

Grigalunas, T.A., J.J. Opaluch, D. French, and M. Reed. 1988. Measuring Damages to Marine Natural Resources from
Pollution Incidents under. CERCLA: Applications of an Integrated Ocean Systems/Economic Model. Marine Resources
Economics 5:1-21.

Grimes, B.H., M.T. Huish, J.TEL Kerby, and D. Moran. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental    ;
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid- Atlantic) Summer and Winter Flounder., Biological Report  <
82(11.112). 18 p.

Griswold, C.A. and M.J. Silverman. 1992. Fecundity of the Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the NorthwestAtlantic
in 1987. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 12:35-40.                                             i

Gulland, J.A. 1974. The Management of Marine Fisheries. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.

Haab, Timothy C., John Whitehead, and Ted McConnell 2000. The Economic Value of Marine Recreational Fishing in the
Southeast United States: 1997 Southeast Economic Data Analysis. Final Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. July.                              !

Hafher, H., P.J. Dugan, M. Kersten, O. Pinneau, and J.P. Wallace. 1993. Flock feeding and food intake in little egrets Egretta
garzetta and their effects on food provisioning and reproductive success. Ibis 25-32.

Hagen, D., J. Vincent, and P. Welle. 1992. Benefits of Preserving Old Growth. Forests and the Spotted Owl. Contemporary
Policy Issues 10:13-25.                                                                                  ;

Hales, L.S. and MJ. Van Den Avyle. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (South Atlantic) — Spot. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(1 1.91). U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers TR EL-82-4.

Hall, W.R.' 1 995. Atlantic Menhaden. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). The
Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 219-225.                                                                  \

Hanemann, M., J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice
Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Hansen, D.F. 1951. Biology of the white crappiein Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 25(4):21 1-265.!

Harpman et al., 1993. Nonuse economic Value: Emerging Policy Analysis Tool. Rivers, Volume 4, Number 4, 280-291.

Harrison, P.  1983. Seabirds — An Identification Guide. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Hausman, J.A., G.K. Leonard, and D. McFadden 1995. A Utility-Consistent, Combined Discrete Choice and Count Model:
Assessing Recreational Use Losses Due to Natural Resource Damage. Journal of Public Economics 56: 1-30.      !

Hazleton Environmental Science Corporation.  1978. The Survival of Entrained Icthyoplankton at Quad-Cities Station 1978.
Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois.                .
References 16


-------
 S316(b) Case Studies	References


 Heal, G., G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, J. Salzman, C. Boggs, J. Hellmann, J. Hughes, C. Kremen, and T. Ricketts. 2001.
 Protecting Natural Capital Through Ecosystem Service Districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):333-364.

 Heck, K.L., K.W. Able, M.P. Fahay, and C.T. Roman. 1989. Fishes and decapod crustaceans of Cape Cod eelgrass meadows:
 Species composition, seasonal abundance patterns and comparison with unvegetated substrates. Estuaries l-2(2):59-65.

 Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette, and D.E. Facey. 1997. The diversity of fishes. Blackwell Science. 528 pp.

 Hendrickson, L. 2000. Windowpane Flounder. NOAA. http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsvn/fldrs/window. Accessed 2/1/02.

 Herbold, B., and P.B. Moyle. 1989. The Ecology of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and '
 Wildlife Service, Biological Report No 85(7.22).

 Herbold, B., A. Jassby, and P.B. Moyle. 1992. Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Bay
 Estuary. Technical Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA.

 Herman, J:S., D.C. Culver, and J. Salzman. 2001. Groundwater Ecosystems and the Service of Water. Stanford
 Environmental Law Journal 20(2):479-496.             '         . •

 Heyl, M.G. and J.A. Zimmerman. 1997. Manatee River salinity response to reservoir releases, p. 209-215. In: Proceedings of
 the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.),
 Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

 Hicks, D.B.  1977. Statement of Findings for the Coleman Power Plant, Henderson, Kentucky. October 14. 5 pp.

 Hicks, R., S. Steinback, A. Gautam, and E. Thunberg 1999. Volume II: The Economic Value of New England and
 Mid-Atlantic Sportfishing in 1994. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
 National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-38.

 Hilborn, R. 1987. Living with uncertainty in resource management. North American  Journal of Fisheries Management 7:1-5.

 Hilbom, R. and C.J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman
 and Hall, London and New York.

 Hildebrand,  M.I 974. 1974. Analysis of Vertebrate Structure. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 710 p.

 Hildebrand,  S.F. 1922. Notes on habits and development of eggs and larvae of the silversides Menidia menidia and Menidia
 beryllina. Fishery Bulletin 38:113-120.

 Hildebrand,  S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fisheries 43 (Part l):l-388.

 Hill, J., J.W. Evans, and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements'of
 Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) Striped Bass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol Rep. 82(11.118). U.S.
 Army Corps  of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 35 pp.

 Holling, C.S. 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people. Ecological Applications
 6:733-735.

 Holmlund, C.M., and M. Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics
 29:253-268.

 Holt, M.T. and R.C. Bishop. 2002. A semiflexible normalized quadratic inverse demand system: An application to the price
 formation offish. Empirical Economics. Forthcoming.

Hoover's Online. 200la. Company capsule for American Electric Power Company, Inc.
hitn: Avwu.hoovers.com-'co,-caD5iile'4/0.2 I 63.10084.00.hunl. Accessed 10/25/01.
                                                                                                  References 17

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                     References
Hoover's Online. 200lb. Company capsule for Cinergy Corp. http:'/ww\v.hoovers.com/co/eansule/1/0.2163.42S31.0Q.html.
Accessed 10/25/01.

Hoover's Online. 200 Ic. Company capsule for CMS Energy Corporation.
him: \v\v\\.luwvers.com co cansule/3/0.2163.10263.00.html. Accessed 10/18/01.
Hoover's Online. 200Id. Company capsule for Conectiv. http://\vwv\.hoo\ers.com/co'capsule/9/0.2163.56339.00.html.
Accessed 9/28/01.

Hoover's Online. 2001 .e Company capsule for Entergy Corporation.
him: \vwv\.huovers.com co cansule/4/0.2163.1 Q524.00.html. Accessed 10/2/01.

Hoover's Online. 2001 f. Company capsule for FirstEnergy Corp.
hurt: wwu.hotn ers.com c.o.'cansule/3/0.2163.11113.00.html. Accessed 10/25/01.          •                    ;

Hoover's Online. 2001 g. Company capsule for Northeast Utilities.                                             ,
htm: \s ww.hoovers.com cci'cansule/8/0.2163.11088.QO.html. Accessed 10/2/01.

Hoover's Online. 2001 h. Company capsule for PG&E Corporation.
IUIP: *\v\UioftVL'rs.com/co'capsule/5/0.2163.11145.00.html. Accessed 10/10/01.                               •

Hoover's Online. 2001 i. Company capsule for Progress Energy, Inc.
hup; w\vw .hoovers.convco'eaosulc/6'0.2163.10296.00.html. Accessed 10/16/01.                               !

Hoover's Online. 2001 j. Company capsule for TECO Energy, Inc.                                             ,
him: \vw\\ .hoovers.com co'cansule/9/0.2163.11429.00.html. Accessed 10/16/01.                               |

Hoover's Online. 2002. Company capsule for DTE Energy Company.                   •                      ,
hlln: \\w\v.iuH)xers.com co'cansule 3/0.2163.10453.00.html. Accessed 3/6/02.                                 ;

Horst, T.J. 1975a. The assessment of impact due to entrainment of ichthyoplankton. Fisheries and Energy Production
Symposium.

Horst, T.J. 1975b. The Equivalent Adult Model. A General Model for Fisheries Impact Assessment.
                                                                                                       I
Houde, E.D., W.J. Richards, and V.P. Saksena. 1974. Description of eggs and larvae of scaled sardine, Harengula jaguana.
Fishery Bulletin 72(4):l\06-ll22.                                                                        I

 Howe, A. and P. Coates. 1975. Winter flounder movements, growth, and mortality off Massachusetts. Transactions bfthe
American Fisheries Society 104:13-29.

 Howell, P., A. Howe, M. Gibson, and S. Ayvanzian. 1992. Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder
 (Pleuronectes americanus). Fishery Management Report 21, of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 138 pp.

 Hughes, J.E., L.A. Deegan, J.C. Wyda, and A: Wright. 2000. An Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Fish Community
 Structure Applied to Rhode Island and Connecticut Estuaries. The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods
 Hole,  MA.                                  •                                                          :

 Hundley, Kris. 1999. St. Petersburg Times, Problems have halted plant before. April 9, 1999.

 Hunter Environmental Services Inc.  1989. Ohio River Ecological Research Program Final Report. 1988.

 Huppert, D. 1989. Measuring the Value of Fish to Anglers: Application to Central California Anadromous Species. Marine
 Resource Economics. Vol. 6.                                                                             <

 Huppert, D.D. 1990. Economic Benefits from Commercial Fishing. Draft report to National Marine Fisheries Service.
                                                                                                                  - i	I1 .' 	I	I	i
 References 18

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Hutchings, J.A. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in the density of northern cod and a review of hypotheses for the stock's
collapse. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:943-962.

Hutchings, J.A. and R.A. Myers. 1994. What can be learned from the collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus
morhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:2126-2146.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Water. University of Toronto Press. 555 pp.

Information Please LLC. © 1999. 2001. At: http://infoplease.lycos.com''. Accessed 4/02.

InfoMI. 2001. Monroe County, Michigan. htlp://www.multimag.com/countv/i-ni/monroe/. Accessed 10/11/01.

Institute for Marine Research. 2002. Institute for .Marine Research, Kiel Larvalbase. http://wwvv.larvalbase.org/. Accessed
1/02.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2001.  Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Fishes of Iowa.
http://www,state.ia.us/dnr/organiza/f\vb/fish/iaFish/iaFish.htm. Accessed 11/5/01.

Jackson, H.W. and R.E. Tiller. 1952. Preliminary Observations on Spawning Potential in the Striped Bass, Roccus saxatilis
(Walbaum). Md. Dep. Res. Educ. No. 93. 15 pp.

Jacobson, P.M., E. Lorda, D.J. Danila, J.D. Miller, C.A. Tomichek, and R.A. Sher. 1998. Studies of Cooling Water Intake
Effects at Two Large Coastal Nuclear Power Stations in New England. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section:3l6(b) Technical
Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24,
Berkeley Springs, WV.

Jenkins, D. and L.A. Gelvin-Innvaer. 1995. Colonial  wading birds. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove
and R.M. Nyman, (eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 335-345.

Johansson, J.O.R. 1991. Long-term trends of nitrogen loading, water quality and biological indicators in  Hillsborough Bay,
Florida, p.157-176. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1,1991,
Tampa, FL. (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 p.

Johnson, D.R. and W. Seaman.  1986. Species  Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (South Florida): Spotted Seatrout., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.43). 30 p.
httn://ww\v.nwrc.gov/\vdb/nub/0139.pdf.         .              •

Jones, C. 1985. Within-season differences in growth  of total larval Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus. Fishery Bulletin
83:289-298.                        .                                    -                     .

Jones, P.W., F.D. Martin, and J.D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval,
and juvenile stages. Vol. I. Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Center for Environmental
and Estuarine Studies University of Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington.                                   '

Jones & Stokes Associates Inc. 1998. Environmental Assessment for PG&E's Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan for
Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. Draft. August 10, 1998. (JSA 97-144.) Sacramento, CA.  Prepared for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, California.

Jordan, F., S. Coyne, and J.C. Trexler. 1997. Sampling fishes in vegetated habitats: effects of habitat structure on sampling
characteristics of the l-m2 throw trap. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:1012-1020.

Joseph, E.B. 1972. Status of Sciaenid stocks of the middle Atlantic coast. Chesapeake Sci. 13(2):87-100.

Jude, D.J., P.J. Mansfield, and M. Perrone, Jr. 1983.  Impingement and entrainment offish and effectiveness of the fish return
system at the Monroe Power Plant, western Lake Erie, 1982-1983. University of Michigan, Great Lakes  Research Division,
Special Report 101, Ann Arbor.
                                                                                                    References 19

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Jude, D.J., P.J. Mansfield, P.J. Schneeberger, and J.A. Wojcik. 1987a. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations:
Literature Reviews. Volume 2: Compensation in Fish Populations Subject to Catastrophic Impact. EA-5200, Volume 2,
Research Project 1633-6. Final Report, May 1987. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.               :

Jude, D.J., F.J. Tesar, S.F. Deboe, and TJ. Miller. 1987b. Diet and selection of major prey species by Lake Michigan
salmonines, 1973-1982. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(5):677-691.

Jury, S.H., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and •
Invertebrates in North Atlantic Estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 13. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,
Silver Spring, MD. 221pp.

Kaiser, S.C. and M.J. Neuman. 1995. Flounder. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman
(eds.) The Delaware Estuary Program.

Kaoru, Y. 1993. Differentiating Use and Nonuse Values for Coastal Pond Water Quality Improvements. Environmental and
Resource Economics 3:487-494.

Kaplan, C 2000. Condenser and Cooling Tower Make-Up Flows for a 1000 MW Steam Electric Power Plant. Memo to Tetra
Tech, Inc. June 26,2000.
                                      «*                                                               ;
Kaufinan, K. 1996. Lives of North American Birds. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. '

•Keller, A. A. and G. Klein-MacPhee. 2000. Impact of elevated temperature on the growth, survival, and trophic dynamics of
winter flounder larvae: A mesocosm study. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:2382-2392.
                                                                                                      i
Keller, A.A., C.A. Oviatt, H.A. Walker, and J.D. Hawk. 1999. Predicted impact of elevated temperature on the magnitude of
the winter-spring phytoplankton bloom in temperate coastal waters: a mesocosm study. Limnology and Oceanography
44:344-356.                .

Kelly, K.H. and J.R. Moring. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and
invertebrates (North Atlantic)- Atlantic herring.  U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.38). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
TREL-82-4.22pp.                                                         '                            ;

Kelly, J.F., and B. Van Home. 1997. Effects of food supplementation on the timing of nest initiation in belted kingfishers.
Ecology 78:2504-2511.

Kelly, B., R. Lawton, V. Malkoski, S. Correia, and M. Borgatti. 1992. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station  Marine Environmental
Monitoring Program Report Series No. 6. Final Report on Haul-Seine Survey and Impact Assessment  of Pilgrim Station on
Shore-Zone Fishes, 1981-1991. Prepared by the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement,
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries for Boston Edison Company. December 30. 31 pp.

Kelso, J.R.M.,and G.S. Milburn.  1979. Entrainment and impingement of fish by power plants in the Great Lakes which use
the once-through cooling process. Journal of Great Lakes Research 5; 182-194.
                                                                                                      {
Kennish, M.J. 2000. Chapter 5, Case Study 4: San Francisco Estuary Project. Pages 255-336 in: M.J. Kennish (ed.) Estuary
Restoration and Maintenance: The National Estuary Program. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.

Kimmel, C.B., W. W. Ballard, S. R. Kimmel, B. Ullmann, and T. F. Schilling. 1995. Stages of Embryonic Development of
the Zebrafish. Developmental Dynamics 203:253-310 (1995). Reprinted only by permission of Wiley-Liss, a subsidiary of
John Wiley & Sons. Inc. At: http:vzfin.Qrg/zf info/zfbook/stages-'stages.html.                            ;	[
                                                                                                      I
Kimmerer, W.J. 1999. How density-dependence can be important and still be lost in the noise. Paper presented at Power
Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference, April  12-15, 1999, Renaissance Waverly Hotel, Atlanta, GAr
Conference organizers: Electric Power Research Institute and U.S. Department of Energy.

King, D.M. and Mazzotta, M. 2002. Ecosystem  Valuation. Methods, Section 6: Contingent Valuation Method.
huh' \\u,v\.ehl.iiiTK-es.eciu -tlkiniiwelvcoritingeni  valuation.litrri. Accessed 4/2/02.                              ;
References 20

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                      References
 Kitts, A. and E. Thunberg. 1998. Description and Impacts of Northeast Groundfish Fishery Buyout Programs. Northeast
 Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 98-12. November.

 Kjesbu, O.S. 1989. The spawning activity-of cod, Gadus morhua L. Journal of Fish Biology 34:195-206.

 Kleinholz, C.W. 2000. Species Profile: Bigmouth Buffalo. SRAC Publication No. 723. Southern Regional Aquaculture
 Center. June.

 Kocik, J.. 2000. River Herring. From: Status of Fisheries Resources off Northeastern United States website.
 httn://ww\\'.\vh.whoi.edu/sQs'snsvn/aF'1ierring-' Accessed 3/26/01.

 Kotchen, M. J. and S.D. Reiling 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a
 case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 32:93-107.

 Lackey, R.T. 2001. Fisheries: History, Science, and Management. National Health and Environmental Effects Research
 Laboratory.  November. htip://w\vw.epa.g6v/wed/pageS''stafr/lackev/pubs/historv.htm. Accessed 4/1/02.

 Lane, J.A., C.B. Portt, and C.K. Minns. 1996a. Adult habitat characteristics of Great Lakes Fishes. Canadian Manuscript
 Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2358.

 Lane, J.A., C.B. Portt, and C.K. Minns. 1996b. Nursery habitat characteristics of Great Lakes fishes. Canadian Manuscript
 Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2338.

 Laney, R.W. 1997. The relationship of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) ecological value to species managed by the
 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC): Summary for the ASMFC SAV subcommittee. In: Atlantic Coastal
 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Impacts, State Regulation, and Value to
 Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks, C.E. Stephen and T.E. Bigford (eds.). ASMFC Habitat Management Series #1, Atlantic States
 Marine Fisheries Commission..

 Lassuy, D.R. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements (Gulf of Mexico)- Spotted Seatrout
 USFWS FWS/OBS-82/11.4,

 Laughlin, R.A. 1982.  Feeding habits of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the Apalachicola estuary. Florida. Bull
 Mar. 5c/.'32:807-822.

 Lawler, J.P.  1988. Some considerations in applying stock-recruitment models to multiple-age spawning populations.
 American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:204-218.

 Lawler J.P.,  W.T. Hogarth, B.J. Copeland, M.P. Weinstein, R.G. Hodson, and H.Y. Chen. 1980. Techniques for Assessing
 the Impact of Entrainment and Impingement as Applied to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Pages 3-307 in L.D. Jensen
 (ed.) Paired Position  Papers, Issues Associated with Impact Assessment: Proceedings of the Fifth National Workshop on
 Entrainment and Impingement. Ecological Analysts Inc. and Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975. 1974 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies - Bowline Point and Lovett
 Generating Stations. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers.  1976. 1975 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies — Bowline Point and Lovett
 Generating Stations: Vol. I: Chapters I-IX.  Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.

 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers.  1983. 1979 and 1980 Data Analyses and Application of Empirical Models of Hudson
 River Fish Populations. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. August.

 Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers.  1985. 2.0 Entrainment Survival Studies. In: Quad Cities Aquatic Program 1984 Annual
Report. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison, Chicago, Illinois.

Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers.  1987. Brayton Point Statioft Unit 4 Angled Screen Intake Biological Evaluation
Program: Volume I. October.
                                                                                                   References 21

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1989. Biological Evaluation of Chambers Works Water Intake Located at Atlantic City
Electric Company's Deepwater Generating Station. September.                                              ;

Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1991. 1990 Impingement Studies at the Bowline Point Generating Station. Prepared for
Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.                                                                       ,
                                                                                                     |
                                                                                                     i
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1993. Impingement and Entrainment Study at Zion Nuclear Generating Station July
1991 - July 1993. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company. October.

Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1999. Brayton Point Power Station Entrainment Survival Study, 1997-1998. Draft.
Prepared for US Gen New England, Inc., Brayton Point Station,  Somerset, MA. Pearl River, NY.                ;

Lawton, R., B. Kelly, P. Nitschke, J. Boardman, and V. Malkoski. 2000. Final Report Studies (1990-1997) and Impact
Assessment of Pilgrim Station on Gunner in Western Cape Cod Bay. Massachusetts Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Environmental Law Enforcement. Division of Marine Fisheries.

Layton, D., and G. Brown. "1998. Heterogenous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change. Presented atNOAA
Applications of Stated Preference Methods to Resource Compensation Workshop, Washington, D.C.             ;

Lazaroff, C. 2000. Environment News Service, Florida Utility Agrees to $1  Billion Pollution Control Program. March 1,
2000.
                                                                                                     i
Leak, J.C. and E.D. Houde. 1987. Cohort growth and survival of bay anchovy, Anchoa mitchilli, larvae in Biscayne |Bay,
Florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series 37:109-122.

Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson., D. Horn, and
R. Scheffler. 1993. The black drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A regional management plan. Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Report Number 28, Ocean Springs, MS. May.

Lee, D.S., Gilbert, C.R., Hocutt, C.H., Jenkins, R.E., McAllister, D.E., and J.R. Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American
freshwater fishes. Publication #1980-12 of the North Carolina Biological Survey.                              |

Lewis R. and G. Seegert. 1998. Entrainment and impingement studies at two.powerplants on the Wabash River in Indiana. In:
EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section
316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.                                       !

Lewis, R.M., E.P. Wilkins, and H.R. Gordy. 1972. A description of young Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus', in the
White Oak River estuary, North Carolina.  Fishery Bulletin 70(1):115-118.                                    :

Lewis, R!R., Ill, and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: an estuarine profile. U.S. Fish Wildl.'Serv.
BioLRep. 85(7.18), 132pp.

Lexico LLC. 2002. 'Dictionary.com. hun:"\v\vw.dictionarv.coin  Accessed 4/2/02.                             ;

Liermann, M., and R. Hilborn. 1997. Depensation in fish stocks: A hierarchic Bayesian meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1976-1984.

Liermann, M., and R. Hilbom. 2001. Depensation: evidence, models and implications. Fish and Fisheries 2:33-58.

Lindberg, W.J. and M.J. Marshall. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes
and Invertebrates (South Florida) - Stone Crab. U.S. Fish Widl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/11.21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
TREL-82-4.17pp.

Loesch, J.G. and W.A. Lund, Jr. 1977. A contribution to the life history  of the blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 106:583-589.

Lohner, T. 1998. Fish Entrainment, Impingement, and Long-term Monitoring Studies at Ohio River Power Plants.
Presentation at EPRI Clean Water Act Section  316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.
References 22

-------
 § 316(b) Case. Studies
References
Loomis, J. 1988. The Bioeconomic Effects of Timber Harvesting on Recreational and Commercial Salmon and Steelhead
Fishing: A Case Study of Siuslaw National Forest. Marine Resource Economics. Vol. 5.

Loomis, J., and E. Ekstrand. 1997. Economic Benefits of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using a
Multiple Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22(2):356-366.

Loomis, J. B. and White, D. S. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis.
Ecological Economics 18:197-206.

Loomis, J., P. Kent, E. M. Strange, K. Fausch, and A. Covich. 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring
ecosystem services in an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33:103-117.

Lough, R.G. and D.C. Potter. 1993. Vertical distribution patterns and diel migrations of larval and juvenile haddock
Melanogrammus aeglefmus and Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, on Georges Bank. Fishery Bulletin 91:281-303.

Ludwigs, J.D. 1998. Kleptoparasitism in common terns  Sterna hirundo as an indicator of food shortage. Vogelwelt
119:193-203.

Lycos, Inc. 2002. Infoplease.com. http://infoptease.lvcos.com/. Accessed 4/1/02.

Mace, P.M. 1994. Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries
management strategies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:110-122.

Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.                                                           •   '   -

MADEP. (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Selected Federal and State Grant Funded
Indicative Project Summaries: FFY 1996-2000. January 2000.

Madigan, M.T., J.M. Martinko, and J. Parker. 1997. Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.

Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2001. Southeastern Massachusetts Natural Resource Atlas. March 2001.
http://www.manomet.org/semass/atlas.html. Accessed 11/29/01.

Mansueti, R.J. and E.H. Hollis. 1963. Striped Bass in Maryland Tidewater. University of Maryland Natural Resources
Institute. Educ. Ser. 61. 28 pp.

MAPC. 2001. Atlas of Tidal Restrictions on the South Shore of Massachusetts. Prepared by Metropolitan Area Planning
Council for the Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program, Boston. June 20.

Marcy, B. C., A. D. Beck, and R. E. Ulanowicz. 1978. Effects and Impacts of Physical Stress on  Entrained Organisms. In:
Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment. Academic Press, New York, NY. pp. 136-188.

Marine Research Inc.  and New England Power Company. 1981. New England  Power Company Brayton Point Generating
Station, Mount Hope Bay, Somerset, Massachusetts: Final Environmental Impact Report and Sections 316(a) and 316(b)
Demonstrations with the Proposed Conversion of Generating Unit No. 4 from Closed-Cycle Cooling to Once-Through •
Cooling. June.

Martosubroto, P.  1974. Fecundity of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Bulletin of Marine Science 24(3):606-627.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service. 2002. Black drum.
lntn:^'ww\v.dnr.staie.md.iis/nslieries/education/'blackdruiTi/blackdrum.lnml. Accessed 1/21/02.

Masnik, M. T. and J. H. Wilson. 1980. Assessment of the Impacts of the Salem and Hope Creek Stations on Shortnose      . .
Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur. Prepared by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April.
                                                                                                  References 23

-------
5 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                    References
Mason, D. 2002. Natural Recruitment of Salmonids in the Muskegon River, Michigan. NOAA Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory Salmonid Recruitment in the Muskegon. http://www.glerl.noaa.gbv/res/Task rpts/edvmason0944.html.  ..
Accessed 1/21/02.                                                                                     •

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1994. The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program in
Massachusetts: Coastal Brief Volume No. 12, 1994. http:/-'www.state.ma.us.;c2m/npstoc.htrn. Accessed 11/15/01.   ,
                                                                                                     t
Matthews, W.J. 1998. Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology. Chapman & Hall, New York.

May, A. W. 1967. Fecundity of Atlantic cod. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 24(7): 1531-1551.
                                                                               '                     \
Madzura, T. 2001. Glossary of Water-Related Terms. University of Missouri Outreach and Extension.            :
Imp: outreach.missouri.edu/mo\\'in-'Resources/glossarv/glossarv.htmL Accessed 3/29/02.                        ;

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1995. About Oyster Diseases. Bay Journal Vol. 5, No. 2. April.       :
bun: v\ vvvi.haviournal.com'Q5-04/ovsterl .htm Accessed 4/1/02.     '                                        •

McBride, R.S. 1995. Marine Forage Fish. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.)
The Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 211-217.                                                             ;

McCambridge, J.T. Jr. and R.W. Alden, III. 1984. Growth of juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus Lacepede, in the nursery
region of the James River, Virginia. Estuaries 7(4B):478-486.                                               !

McConnell, K. and I. Strand. 1994. The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing: Volume 2. Cooperative
Agreement #CR-811043-01-0 between the University of Maryland at College Park, the Environmental Protection Agency, (he
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

McCrimmon, H.R. 1968. Carp in Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 165. Ottawa, Ontario. 93 pp.

McDermot, D. and K.A. Rose. 2000. An individual-based model of lake fish communities: Application to piscivore stocking
in Lake Mendota. Ecological Modelling 125:67-102.                                                       •

McEwan, D. 1992. Pages 67-70 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen (eds.), California's Living Marine Resources
and Their Utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California Sea Grant Extension
Program, University of California, Davis, CA.                    ;

McFadden, D. 1981. Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In: C.F. Manski and D.L. McFadden, Eds., Structural
Analysis of Discrete Data. Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.

McFadden, J.T., arid J.P. Lawler, eds. 1977. Supplement 1 to influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other steam electric
generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. Unpublished report
prepared for Consolidated Edison Co. of New York.               j

McMichael, R.H., Jr. and K.M. Peters. 1989. Early life history of spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus (Pisces: Sciaenidae)
in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 98-110.

MDCH. 2001. Michigan 2001 Fish Advisory: Important Facts to Know if You  Eat Michigan Fish. Michigan Department of
Community Health, blip:  vvwvv.mdch.siate.mi.us pha'fish/FishAdvisQrv.pdf. Accessed 12/01.

MDHCD. 2001. Community Profiles. Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development.      :
 hun;. \v vv\v .siiitc.ma.us dhcd- iprofile.'27.3.ndf. Accessed 10/18/01.

Meadows, P.S. and J.I. Campbell. 1978. An Introduction to Marine Science. John Wiley and Sons, New York.     ;

Mcfie, O.K. 1992. Techno-arrogance and halfway technologies: salmon hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North America.
 Conservation Biology 6:350-354.                                                                       ,  '   .    •
 References 24

-------
 § 316(b) Case. Studies                  '                     .                                            References


 Meng, L., and P.B. Moyle. 1995. Status of splittail in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Transactions of the American
 Fisheries Society 124:538-549.

 Mercer, L.P. 1987. Fishery Management Plan for Spot. Fisheries Management Report of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
 Commission, No. 11. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Morehead City.

 Meredith Simas (Brayton Point Station) 2002. "brayton.ENT1973.1985.xls": Entrainment data at Brayton Point from 1973 to
 1985

 Meredith, W.H. and V.A. Lotrich. 1979. Production dynamics of tidal creek population ofFundulus heteroclitus (linnaeus).
 Estuaries and Coastal Marine Science 8:99-118.

 Merriam-Webster Online. 2002. Collegiate Dictionary, http://www.m-vv.com/dictionarv.htrn Accessed 4/1/02.

 Messieh, S.N. 1976. Fecundity studies on Atlantic herring from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Nova Scotia
 Coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105:384-394.

 Michaud D.T. 1998. Wisconsin Electric's Experience with Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. In: EPRI Clean Water
 Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical
 Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.

 Miller, E.E. 1966. Channel Catfish. In: Inland Fisheries Management. California Department of Fish and Game, pp. 440-463.

 Miller,J.P. 1995. American shad. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, (eds.). The
 Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 251-257.

 Miller, R.R. 1960. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fishes. Fishery Bulletin
 60:371-392.                               ;                .

 Miller, R.W. 1995. Striped Bass. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). The
 Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 135-141.

 Milliman, S.R., B.L. Johnson, R.C. Bishop, and K.J. Boyle. 1992. The bioeconomics of resource rehabilitation: A
 commercial-sport analysis for a Great Lakes fishery. Land Economics 68(2): 191 -210.

 Milon, J.W., E. Thunberg, C.M. Adams, and C.T.J. Lin. 1994. Recreational Anglers'  Valuation of Near-Shore Marine
 Fisheries in Florida. Florida Sea Grant College Program. Technical paper-73. January.

 Mirant Corporation. 200 la. Mirant Completes Spin-Off From Southern Company. News Release, April 2; 2001.

 Mirant Corporation 200 Ib. Mirant Corporation. Mirant Unsure of Start Date for Plant Expansion. News Release  June 1
 2001.

 Mirant Corporation. 200 Ic. Southern Energy, Inc. 8-K, filed on January 19, 2001.

 MIT Sea Grant. 2001. "Marine Bio Invaders", http://massbav.mit.edu. Accessed 11/19/2001.

 Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1986. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost Analysis of Water Pollution
 Control. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. September.

 Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

 Monaghan, P., J.D. Uttley, M.D. Burns, C. Thaine, and J. Blackwood. 1989. The relationship between food supply,
reproductive effort and breeding success in arctic terns Sternaparadisaea. J. Anim. Ecol. 58:261-274.

Monteleone, D.M.11992. Seasonality and abundance of ichthyoplankton in Great South Bay, New York. Estuaries
 15(2):230-238.
                                                                                                  References 25

-------
S316(b)Chse Studies
                                                                                                     References
Mood, Alexander M., Franklin A. Graybill, and Duane C. Boes. 1974. Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. McGraw-Hill,
New York.                                                   ;                   .                      ;

Morey, Edward R. 1999. Two RUMS unCLOAKED: Nested Logit Models of Site Choice and Nested Logit Models of
Participation and Site Choice. In: Herriges and Kling, Eds., Valuing Recreation and the Environment. Edward Elgar, pp.
65-120.                                                                                               '

Morse, W.W. 1980a. Maturity, spawning, and fecundity of the Atlantic croaker, Micropogonias undulatus, occurring North
of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. U.S. Fish. Bull. 78(1): 190-195.                                             \

Morse, W.W. 1980b. Spawning and fecundity of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Fishery
Bulletin 78:103-108.

Morton, Timothy. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(Mid-Atlantic): Bay Anchovy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.97). February, 1989.

Mouratov, D, 2001. MarineReference.com: Marine Glossary, http://www.marinereference.com/glossarv/. Accessed 4/1/02.

Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cech. 1996. 1996. Fishes: An introduction to ichthyology, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. 590 pp.

.Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D. E Stevens, and L. W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status of delta smelt in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:67-77.

Muncy, R.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf
of Mexico): Pinfish., FWS/OBS-82/11.26. 30 p. http://www.nwrc.gOv/wdb/pub/0166.pdf.                        ;

Murphy, M.D. and R.G. Taylor. 1989. Reproduction and'growth of black drum, Pogonias cromis, in northeast Florida.
Northeast Gulf Science 10:127-137.

Murphy, M.D. and R.G. Taylor. 1994. Age, growth, and mortality of spotted seatrout in Florida waters. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 123:482-497.

Murphy, M.D., G.A, Nelson, and R.G. Mullen 2000. Florida's Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2000 Status and Trends
Report. 37 p. httn:  fl»ridarnarine._Qxg.

Murphy, R.C. 1952. Oceanic Birds of South America. Am. Mus. Nov., New York.                             :

Myers, R.A. 2001. Compensation in Fish: A Review. Appendix B of Utility Water Act Group comments on the § 3 I6(b) new
sources rule. Unpublished manuscript.

Myers, R.A., and N.J. Barrowman. 1996. Is fish recruitment related to spawner abundance? Fisheries Bulletin 94:707-724.

Myers, R.A., and N.G. Cadigan.  1993. Density-dependent juvenile mortality in marine demersal fish. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:1576-1590.

Myers, R. A., K.G. Bowen, and N.J. Barrowman. 1999. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2404-2419.

Myers, R.A., J. Bridson, and N.J. Barrowman. 1995. Summary of worldwide stock and recruitment data. Canadian Technical
Reports in Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2024:1-327.                                               .

Myers, R.A., N.J. Barrowman, J.A. Hutchings, and A.A. Rosenberg. 1996. Population dynamics of exploited  fish stocks at
low population levels. Science 26:1106-1108.

Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve 2001. "Prudence_Island_data.xls". Estimates of the abundance of species captured
in sampling efforts within the tidal  wetlands of the Coggeshall marsh on Prudence Island in the Narragansett Estuarine
 References 26

-------
§ 316(b) Cose. Studies
References
Research Reserve in July and September 2000. Received from Kenny Raposa of the Narragansett Estuarine Research
Reserve, 2001.

National Audubon Society. 2000. Refuge map. Florida. http://wvvv\-.audubon.org/campaign/refuge/refuges/florida.html.
Accessed 1/02.-

National Geographic Society. 1969. 1969. Wondrous World of Fishes, 2nd edition. Washington, DC.

National Geographic Society. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, National Geographic Society, Washington,
D.C. (1999).

Natural Heritage Network 2001. Natural Heritage Network at http://www.natureserve.org/nhp'/us programs.htm. (3/3/00)

Nature Conservation Council of NSW. 2002. Environmental Glossary: Glossary Item: Critical Habitat.
hitp://w\vvv.nccns\v.ora.au/glossarv/Criticalhabiiat.html. Accessed 3/29/02.

NatureServe. 2002. Natural Heritage Central Databases. .Arlington, VA . U.S.A.

NBC. 2001. Narragansett Bay: An Introduction. Narragansett Bay Commission, http://narrabav.com. Accessed 10/16/01.

NBEP. 1998. Working Across the Watershed: 1998 Report. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
litlp:/Avw\v.nben.orii/pubs/pdJ7\vatw98.pdf. Accessed 12/05/01.

NBEP. 2001. About the Bay. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, http://www.nbep.org/bav/index.htinl Accessed 10/16/01.

Neckles, H. and M. Dionne (eds.). 1999. Regional Standards to Identify and Evaluate Tidal Wetland Restoration in the Gulf
of Maine: A GPAC Workshop, June 2-3. Prepared for the Global Programme of Action Coalition for the Gulf of Maine
(GPAC) and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The Wells National Estuaries Research Reserve, Wells, ME.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2000a. Report of the 30th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop
(30th SAW) Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus  summary of assessments. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent.
Ref. Doc. 00-03.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2000b. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States.
Atlantic cod, http:/. www.nefsc.nmls.gov/sos/spsvn/Dg/cod/. Accessed 1/16/02.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2000c. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States.
Atlantic herring. http://ww\\.nersc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsynfyp/herring/ Accessed 1/16/02.

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2000d. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States.
Winter flounder. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. http:/'www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsyn/fldrsfwinter/. Accessed 1/16/02.  •

NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2001.  NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Presents...Fish FAQ.'
lntn://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/faa/fishFaq2a.html. Accessed 1/16/02.

Nelson, D.M. (ed.). 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries. Volume I:
Data Summaries. ELMR Report Number 10. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Rockville, MD.
273pp.

Nelson, G.A. 1998. Abundance, growth, and mortality of young-of-the-year pinfish, Lagodon rhomboides, in three estuaries
along the gulf coast of Florida. Fishery Bulletin 96:315-328.

Nelson, G.A., R.H. McMichael, T.G. MacDonals, and J.R. O'Hop. 1997. Fisheries monitoring and its use in fisheries
resources management, p. 43-56. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area  Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our
Knowledge, October 21 -23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

Nelson, J.S. 1994.1994. Fishes of the world, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons. 600 pp.
                                                                                                   References 27

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Nevada Division of Water Planning. 1997. Water Words Dictionary - A Compilation of Technical Water, Water Quality,
Environmental, and Water-Related Terms. At: httD://www.state.nv.us/cnr/ndwp/'dict-l/waterwds.htm.              ;

New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. 1995. Brayton Point Station Annual Biological and Hydrological
Report, January-December 1994. August.                                                                  •-

New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. 1998. New England Power Company Brayton Point Station 1997
Annual Biological and Hydrological Report. August.                                                         j

New Hampshire Estuaries Project. 2002. Draft Technical Characterization, http://webster.siate.nh.us/nhep/. Accessed 1/02.

New Hampshire Yankee Electric Company. 1986. Seabrook Station: Facility Description. 37 pp.                  1

New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife.
litin: w\v\\ .siate.ni.us den 'fu\v ensnhome.htm. March 3.                                                     '

New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Education Program. 2001. Selected Fishes of New York State.      :
hup; \v\v\\ .dnr.cornfll.edu sarep-Tish/fish.html. Accessed 9/19/01.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2000. Unpublished tables of impingement data for steam
electric stations in New York. Provided to U.S. EPA by Ed Radle, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, January 2000.

Newell, R.I.E. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(North and Mid-Atlantic) Blue Mussel., Biological Report 82(11.102)!.  25 p.                                   ;

Nicholson, W. 1994, Intermediate Microeconomics and its application. Sixth Edition. The Dryden Press. Fort Worth Texas.
                                                                                                       [
Nieland, D.L. and C.A. Wilson. 1993. Reproductive biology and annual variation of reproductive variables of black drum in
the northern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:318-327.

NIH (National Institute of Health). 1999. Research Services Branch. National Institute of Mental Health. Images. '
hun; r.-ih.inro.nili.uov  ii'imaues'Diiitoms.jpg. Accessed 1/30/02.

Niles, L.J. 1995. Bald eagle. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). The Delaware
Estuary Program, pp. 359-366.

NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Fact Sheet for a Draft NJPDES Permit Including
Section 316(a) Variance Determination and Section 316(b) Decision. Permit No. NJ0005622, Salem Generating Station. 83
pp.

NMFS (National Marine Fishery Service). 1994. National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS).
him; \vwxv.si.nmfs.iim si I econ/rec  econ.html

NMFS (National Marine Fishery Service. 1997. National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS).                       >
blip: \v\\\>.st.nml's.ttc>v stI-econ/rec econ.html.                                                            ;
                                                                                                       i
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999a. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics: Data User's Manual. Office of
Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division 1999.
linn* *\\\ \\.st.nmrs.iiov stl 'recreational-research.-procedures.html. July 12.                       *

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999b. Our Living Oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources,
1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-41, 301  pp.                          ;

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 200la. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics website.
linn: w\\u.si.nmlksjo\ si I commercials Accessed 9/01.       '                  '
References 28

-------
 §316(b) Cose Studies	^	References


 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001b. The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey Page of the National
 Marine Fisheries Service Website, http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st 1/recreational/survev/index.html. Accessed 3/01.

 NMFS. (National Marine Fishery-Service). 2001c. National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS).
 httn://www.si.nrnFs.gov/stl/ecori/rec  econ.html.

 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 200 Id. Office of Protected Resources. Shortnose Sturgeon. National Marine
 Fishery Service (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources.
 http://www.nmrs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/fish'fShortnose sturgeon.html

 NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 200 le. Sea Turtle Protection and Conservation. Office of Protected Resources.
 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prol res/PR3/Turtles/turtles.html                                                   '

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993. Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern
 United States for 1993. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC 101. National Marine Fisheries Service. 140 pp.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).2001a. Bay Anchovy. NOAA Coastal Service Center website.
 http://www.csc.noaa.gov/acebasin/specgal/bavanch.htm. Accessed 10/18/01.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2001b. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Species Information
 website. http://noaa.chesapeakebav.net/fisheries/SDecies.htm. Accessed 12/01.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2001c. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern
 United States, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/'. Accessed 11/01.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2002a. Characterization Of The Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto
 (Ace) Basin, South Carolina. Species Gallery, http://www.csc.noaa.gov/acebasin/specgal/fish.htm. Accessed  1/30/02.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2002b. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska
 Regional Office. Pink Shrimp (Pandalus borealis). hup://www.fakr.noaa.gov/trawl/s'hr/shrimps.htm. Accessed 1/17/02.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2002c. NOAA Photo Library.
 http://wvw.photolib.noaa.gov/histqric/nmfs/figbQ346.htm. Accessed 1/11/02.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2002d. NOAA's Biogeography Program. Gulf of Mexico
 Essential Fish Habitat: LA/MS/AL. http://biogeo.nos.noaa.gov/proiects/efh/gom-efh/mmerc.gif. Accessed 1/17/02.

 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2002e. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Research
 Programs. http:.//'stellwagen.nos.noaa.gov/research/programs.html. Accessed 1/11/02.

 Normandeau Associates Inc. 1984. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point: 1983 Annual Report.
 Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and New York Power Authority.

 Normandeau Associates. 1990. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1989. A Characterization of Baseline Conditions in the
 Hampton-Seabrook Area, 1975-1989. A Preoperational Study for Seabrook Station. Prepared for Public Service  Company of
 New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division. September.

 Normandeau Associates. 1991. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1990. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in
 the Hampton-Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for Public Service Company of New
 Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division. November.

Normandeau Associates. 1993. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1992. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in
the Hampton-Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy Service
Corporation. August.

Normandeau Associates. 1994a. Evaluation of Seabrook Station Estuarine Benthos Program. Prepared for North  Atlantic
Energy Service Corporation. October. Bedford, NH.
                                                                                                  References 29

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
                                                                                                    References
Normandeau Associates. 1994b. Seabrook Environmental Studies 1993. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in
the Hampton-Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy Service
Corporation. September.

Normandeau Associates. 1995. Seabrook Station 1994. Environmental Studies in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A   (
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation. October.

Normandeau Associates. 1996a. Seabrook Station 1995. Environmental Studies in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation. August.                                                                            ;

Normandeau Associates. 1996b. Seabrook Station 1996. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation, January.                                   ;

Normandeau Associates. 1997. Seabrook Station 1997. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation, September.                                                                         \

Normandeau Associates. 1999. Seabrook Station 1998. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton - Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation, October.

Normandeau Associates Inc. 2000. Impingement and Entrainment at the Cooling Water Intake Structure of the Delaware City
Refinery, April 1998 - March 2000. Prepared for Motiva Enterprises LLC, Delaware City Refinery, Delaware City, DE.
August.

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation. 1999. Seabrook Station Sea Duck Entrapment Report. March 22, 1999.,

North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 1986. Fishes of North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department,
Bismarck, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.
liltn:  \v\v\\.nmvrc.uxiis.no v resource.•toolsmdfishes-ndfishes.htm (Version 02FEB98).

Northeast Utilities. 2001 a. 2000 Summary Annual Report, filed on April 12,2001.                             ;

Northeast Utilities. 2001b. Form  10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on March 28, 2001.

Northeast Utilities Environmental Laboratory. 1999. Monitoring the Marine Environment of Long Island Sound at Millstone
Nuclear Power Station 1998 Annual Report. 274pp.       .                                                \

Norton, V., T. Smith, and I. Strand (eds.). 1983. Stripers: The Economic Value of the Atlantic Coast Commercial and
Recreational Striped Bass Fisheries. Maryland Sea Grant Publication. UM-SG-TS-83-12.

NRC (National Research Council).  1993. Managing Wastewater in Costal Urban Areas. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.                                                                         •

NRDC. 2002.  Glossary of environmental terms, hup:.' www.nrdc.org/reference/glossarv/b.asp. Natural Resources Defense
Council. Accessed 3/29/02.                                                                            ;

NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation (New South Wales State Government Department of Land and Water
Conservation). 2001. Caring for our Natural Resources. hitn:."ww\v.dl\vc.nsw.go\.au'care'wetUinds/facts/naa/algae/J Accessed
 1/30/02.

O'Brien, L. 2000. American Plaice. NOAA, 5 p. h»p:,/\vw\\.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/SDSvn/fldrs/Dlaice'. Accessed 06/30/01.
                                                                                                     !
Ohio Department  of Natural Resources. 1996. Ohio Public Hunting & Fishing Areas. ODNR, 1996.              :
 References 30

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
References
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2001 a. Division of Wildlife Fish Identification.
http://vvww.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/fishing/fishid/defauh.htm. Accessed 8/28/01.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 200 Ib. Life History Notes, http://www.dnr.state.oh.us;\vildHfe/Vesources/default.htm.
Accessed 03/20/01.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 200 Ic. Ohio River Fishing Regulations and License Reciprocity.
htiD://\v\v\v.dnr.atate.oh.us/vvildlife/Tishing''rishregs>fsh6'.html. Accessed 2001.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 200 Id. Ohio River Offers Excellent Sportfishing Opportunities.
littp://w\vw.dnr.state.oh.us/00fish-pkuohioriver.html. Accessed 10/26/2001.

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 200 le. Recreational Sportfishing Pumps More Than $2 Billion Into Ohio's Economy.
http://\vww.dnr.state.oh.us/00fish-pkt/econo-fi.html. Accessed 2001.                                             ,

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2002. Fishing Prospect Report 2002.
http://ww\v.dnr.state.oh.us,'wildLife/fishing/fishpro/'prosoh.html. Accessed 2002.

Ohio EPA 1988. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II: Users Manual for Biological Field
Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Assessment Section
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment; Columbus, Ohio.

Ohio EPA 1996. Ohio Waste Resource Inventory. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Monitoring and Assessment
Section.

Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) 2000. Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC). Annual Report - 2000, Ohio
Valley Electric Corporation and subsidiary Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation. 2000.

Olla, B.L., A.J. Bejda, and A.D. Martin. 1975. Activity, movements, and feeding behavior of the cunner, Tautogolabrus
adspersus, and comparison of food habits with young tautog, Tautoga onitis, off Long Island, New York. Fishery Bulletin
73(4):895-900.

Olla, B.L., A.J. Bejda, and A.D. Martin. 1979* Seasonal dispersal and habitat selection of cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus,
and young tautog, Tautoga onitis, in Fire Island  Inlet, Long Island, New York. Fishery Bulletin, Vol.77(l):255-261.

Olsen, D.; Richards, J., and Scott, D. R.  1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia River Basin
salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2(l):44-56.

Oro, D. 1996. Interspecific kleptoparasitism in Audouin's  gull Larus audouinii at the Ebro Delta, northeast Spain: A
behavioral response to low food availability. Ibis 138:218-221.

ORSANCO. 1962. Aquatic life resources of the  Ohio River. An inventory and evaluation offish populations, limnological
conditions, commercial fishing, and sports fishing, with historical notes. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.

ORSANCO. 1990. Assessment of nonpoint source pollution of the Ohio River. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission.

ORSANCO. 1998. Biennial assessment of Ohio  river water quality conditions for water years 1996 and  1997. Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission.

ORSANCO. 2001. Ohio River Facts. ORSANCO Web Page. htip:/.-w\vw.orsanco.org/rivinfo/facts.htm. Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission. Accessed 10/22/01.

Ouellet, P. 1997. Characteristics and vertical distribution of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) eggs in the northern Gulf of St.
Lawrence, and the possible effect of cold water temperature on recruitment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 54:211-223.                                       '                                  •
                                                                                                    References 31

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Overholtz, W. 2002. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States.
Atlantic Mackerel. hup:- \v\vw.nersc.nmfs.eov.'sos/spsvn/pp/mackerel/.''Accessed 1/11/02. •

Overholtz, W.J., R.Sf Armstrong, D.G. Mountain, and M. Tercerio. 1991. Factors Influencing Spring Distribution,
Availability, and Recreational Catch of Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the Middle Atlantic and Southern New
England Regions., NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-85.13 pp.

Parsons, G. and A. Hauber 1997. Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreational
Demand. Land Economics 76(1): 86-89.                                              >                  .    ;

Parsons, G. and MJ. Kealy 1992. Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Land Recreation. Land
Economics 68(1): pp 93-106.                                                                             ;

Parsons, G.R. and M.S. Needelman 1992. Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation. Land Economics 68(4):
418-433.                                            .                                             •      !
                                                                                                       i
Parsons, G.R., P.M. Jakus, and T. Tomasi 1999. A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal
Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38:
143-157.

Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1997. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in
Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume II: Species life history summaries. ELMR Report No.l 1. NOAA/NOS Strategic
Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 377 p.

Peacock, B. 1999. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Conceptual Background and Hypothetical Example. National Park Service
Report. April 30.

Peebles, E.B., J.R. Hall, and S.G. Tolley. 1996. Egg production by the bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in relation to adult and
larval prey fields. Marine Ecology Progress Series 131:61 -73.

Peebles, E.B., M.S. Flannery, R.E. Matheson, and J.P. Rast. 1991. Fish nursery utilization of the Little Manatee River estuary:
relationships to physicochemical gradients and the distribution of food resources, p. 341-367. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay
Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 p.

Pennsylvania. 1999. Rules and Regulations: Title 58-Recreation, Fishland Boat Commission [58 PA. Code CHS. 61 and 65]
limn:  v\\v\v.nahullciin.com. secure daia-'vol29'29-28/29 28 rr.pdf). Accessed 11/01.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2002.  Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, litip:  wuvv.dcnr.state.pa.us'wrcP'Franda.him. Accessed 3/3/02.

Perez Farfante, I. 1969. Western Atlantic shrimps of the genus Penaeus. U.S. Fish Wildl Serv.  Fish Bull. 67:461-591.

Peters, K.M. and R.H. McMichael, Jr. 1990 Early life history of the black drum Pogonias cromis (Pisces: Sciaenidae) in
Tampa' Bay, Florida, Northeast Gulf Science ll(l):39-58.           ',

Peterson, C.H., and J. Lubchenco. 1997. Marine ecosystem services. Pages 177-194 in: G.C. Daily, ed., Nature's Services,
Societal Dependence on  Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Pettigrew, L. 1998. New Jersey Wildlife Viewing Guide. Falcon Publishing.
                                                              !                                         '
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1995. Best Technology Available 1995 Technical Report for the Contra Costa
and Pittsburg Power Plants. Submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1997. Best Technology Available 1996 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants. Submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Cenjral
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.                                                             :
 References 32

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1998. Best Technology Available 1997 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants. Submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1999. Best Technology Available 1998 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants. Submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.                                                                              .

PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2001. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000,'filed on April
17,2001.

PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc. 1999. 1998 Annual Report, Brayton Point Station, Somerset, Massachusetts.
September.

PG&E National Energy Group. 2001. Brayton Point Station permit renewal application, NPDES permit no. MA0003654.
316(a) and (b) demonstration. Executive summary and appendices. November.

Phillips, J.M., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P. Moran. 1989. Species Profiles: life histories and environmental requirements
of coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid-Atlantic) — Spot. U.S. Fish Widl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82111.98. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 13 pp.

Pierce, D.J., B. Mahmoudi, and R.R. Wilson, Jr. 2001. Age and growth of the scaled herring, Harengulajaguana, from
Florida waters, as indicated by microstructure of the sagittae. Fish. Bull. 99:202-209. http://fishbiill.noaa.g6v/991/18.pdf.
Accessed 12/13/01.

Pollock, J. 2001. Jeffery Pollock for Congress: Dam Issues. http://vvww.poHock4congress.com/issues/dani.hti-nl. Accessed
11/21/01.

Port Manatee. 2000. Port Manatee. http://www.portmanatee.com. Accessed 1/02.

Postel, S.,  and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. Pages 195-214 in: G.C. Daily, ed., Nature's Services, '
Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Potter, W.A. 1978. Assessment of the Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on the Fish Community of the New River,
Virginia. Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 70 pp.

Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C. J. Cook. 1979a. Cardinal Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment
Studies.

Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C.J. Cook. .1979b. Kammer Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500
Section 316(b)  Volume II: Kammer Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies.

Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C.J. Cook. 1979c. Kyger Creek Station Fish Impingement and Entrainment
Studies.

Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C.J. Cook. 1979d. Philip Sporn Plant Demonstration Document for P.L.
92-500 Section 316(b) Volume II, Appendix B: Philip Sporn Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies.

Pottle, R.A. and J.M. Green.  1979. Field observations on the reproductive behaviour of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus
(Waldbaum), in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:247-256.

PRNewswire - USA. 2001. htip:;.'vv\v\\.ulobalarchiN-e.ft.com,'&lobalarchive/anicles.him.l?icl=OL080700720.1.

Progress Energy. 2001. Form 10-K for the Fiscal  Year Ended December 31,2000, filed on March 29, 2001.

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1989. Assessment of the Impacts of the Salem and Hope Creek
Generating Stations on Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) and Loggerhead (Caretta  caretta) Sea Turtles.
                                                                                                  References 33

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
References
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999a. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix C: Attachments C-l through C-2 March 4.

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999b. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix C: Attachments C-9 through C-14. March 4.

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999c. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix F, Section 316(b) Demonstration (Volume 2).

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999d. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix J: Analysis of Trends for Selected Finfish and
Blue Crab.

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999e. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622.
Public Service Electric and'Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix L: Data Set Descriptions.           i

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999f. Salem NPDES Permit Application, Appendix H.        ',

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 200la. About PSEG Power.
bun; \\-w\v.nseg.com 'companies 'power.'about.html. Accessed 9/28/01.

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 2001b. PSEG Response to ESSA Report on the 1999 Salem Permit
Application.                                                 I

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 2001c. PSEG's Specific Comments on Proposed Terms and Conditions
and Fact Sheet, Part 2. Draft NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, Salem Generating Station.                        ;

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 200Id. Public Service Enterprise Group-Inc. 10-K405 filed on
03/06/2001.

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 2001 e. PSEG. http://www.pseg.com/comDanies/power/overvieW.html.
Accessed 9/28/01.

PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 2001f. Salem Generating Station Historical Annual Water Withdrawal.
Graph and data table. Received via e-mail from J.H. Balletto, Public Service Electric and Gas Company, 12/4/2001.

QuanTech, Survey Research Center 1998. 1997 AMES Telephone Follow-Up Survey Coding Handbook.      •    ;

Quinn, T.J., II. and R.B. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative Fish Dynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

R.G. Otto & Associates and Science Applications International Corporation. 1987. Mechanisms of Compensatory Response
of Fish Populations: Workshop Proceedings. EA-5202, Research Project 1633, Proceedings, June  1987. Electric Power
Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.

Rago, P.J. 1984. Production forgone: An alternative method for assessing the consequences offish entrainment and
impingement losses at power plants and other water intakes. Ecological Modelling Vol. 24. pp. 79-111.

Rakoczy, G.P. and R.F. Svoboda. 1997. Sportfishing Catch and Effort from the Michigan waters of Lakes Michigan,. Huron,
Erie, and Superior, April 1,1994-March 31,1995.                                                         ;

Rakoczy, G.P. and D. Wesander-Russell. 1998. Charter Boat Catch and Effort from the Michigan Waters of the Great Lakes,
1997. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Technical Report No. 98-3.

Raposa, K.B. In press. Early responses of fishes and crustaceans to restoration of a tidally restricted New England salt marsh.
Restoration Ecology,
References 34

-------
 § 316(b) Case Studies
References
Reid, R.N., L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, W.W. Morse, and P.L. Berrien. 1999.   '
Essential fish habitat source document: Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, life history and habitat characteristics., NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-126. September.

Resource Data International (RDI) 2001. Resource Data International (RDI). 2001, NEWGen Database. Plant Data Sheet for
Gannon power plant. November 2001.

Restrepo, V.R. 1989. Growth estimates for male stone crabs along the southwest coast of Florida: A synthesis of available
data and methods. Trans. Am Fish. Soc. 118:20-29.

Restrepo, V.R. 1992. A mortality model for a population in which harvested individuals do not necessarily die: The stone
crab. Fish Bull.. U.S. 90:412-416.

Rettig, R. and B. McCarl. 1985. Potential and Actual Benefits from Commercial Fishing Activities. In: Making Information
More Useful for Salmon and Steelhead Production Decisions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR-8. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon, pp. 199-212.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 200 la. "Mthopebay_RIjuvfinfishsurvey.xls". Annual abundance
estimates for tautog and winter flounder from various sampling sites in and near Mt. Hope Bay for the period 1990-2000 that
were developed from data collected as part of the Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey program. Received from Chris Powell,
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management - Fish and Wildlife Division, 2001.

Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 200 Ib. "RIsaltpond_templesampling.xls". Winter flounder capture
and abundance estimates from sampling conducted from 1994 - 2001 as part of the Rhode Island coastal pond survey
program. Received from Jennifer Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2001.

Richkus, W.A. and R. McLean. 1998. Historical Overview of the Efficacy of Two Decades of Power Plant Fisheries Impact
Assessment Activities in Chesapeake Bay. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K.
Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.

Ricker, W.E. 1,975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics offish populations. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Bulletin 191.

RIEDC. 1999. The Rhode Island Economy. Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation
http://www.riedc.com/pdfpubs/RI%20Economy.PDF. Accessed 1/29/02.

RIEDC. 2000. Rhode Island Annual Economic Trends. Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation
htcp:/.'\vvvw.riedc.com/ndrpubs/Annual%20Trends.PDF. Accessed 1/29/02.

Robinette, H.R. 1983. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates
(Gulf of Mexico): Bay anchovy and striped anchovy. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Div. Biol. Serv., Rep. No.
FWS/OBS-82/11.14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rep. No. TR EL-82-4.

Rogers, B.A., D.T. Westin, and S.B. Saila. 1977. Life Stage Duration Studies on Hudson River Striped Bass , Morone
saxatillis (Walbaum). University of Rhode Island, Applied Mar. Res. Group, NOAA Sea Grant, Mar. Tech.  Rep. 31.111 pp.

Roman, C.T., K.B. Raposa, S.C. Adamowicz, M.-J. James-Pirn, and J.G. Catena. Submitted 2000. Quantifying vegetation
and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England salt marsh. Submitted to Restoration Ecology.

Ronafalvy, J.P., R.R. Cheesman, and W.M. Matejek. 2000. Circulating water traveling screen modifications to improve
impinged fish survival and debris handling at the Salem Generating Station. Environmental Science and Policy Volume 3,
Supplement 1, pages S377-S382.

Rose, K.A. and J.H. Cowan. 1993. Individual-based model of young-of-the-year striped bass population dynamics. I. Model
description .and baseline simulations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:415-438.

Rose, K.A., J.H. Cowan, Jr., K.O. Winemiller, R.A. Myers, and R. Hilbom. 2001. Compensatory  density-dependence in fish
populations: Importance, controversy, understanding, and prognosis. In Press, Fish and Fisheries.
                                                                                                  References 35

-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
                                                                                                     References
Ross, D.A. 1995. 1995. Introduction to Oceanography. Harper Collins College Publishers. 496 pp.

Rothschild, B.J. 1986. Dynamics of Marine Fish Populations. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Rotlmann, R. W., R. Francies-Floyd, and R. Durborow. 1992. The Role of Stress in Fish Disease., SRAC Publication No.
474. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS. February. 3 p.                                     \
hup: nu.iinsc.nurdue.edu aqunnic''publicat'usda rac-efs srac/474Fs.pdfI

Rowe, R.D., W.D. Shaw, and W. Schulze. 1992. Nestucca Oil Spill. In: Natural Resource Damages, edited by K. Ward and J.
Duffield. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Rozas, L.P. 1992. Bottomless lift net for quantitatively sampling nekton on intertidal marshes. Marine Ecology Progress
Scries 89:287-292.                                  .

Ruhl, J.B., and R.J. Gregg. 2001. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetlands
Mitigation Banking. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):365-392.

Ruppert, D., R.L. Reish, R.B. Deriso, and R.J. Carroll. 1985. A stochastic population model for managing the Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoortla tyrannus) fishery and assessing managerial risks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
42:1371-1379.

SAIC
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies
References
San Diego Natural History Museum. 1998. Shark Glossary. http:/Vwww .sdnhm.org/kids/sharks/glossarv.html Accessed 4/1/02.

Sanders, L.D., R.G. Walsh, and J.B. Loomis. 1990. Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total Value of Protecting Rivers.
Water Resources Research 26(7):1345-1357.

Santoro, E.D. 1998. Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report. Delaware Estuary Program.

Saucier, M.H. and D.M. Baltz. 1993. Spawning site selection by spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, and black drum,
Pogonias cromis, in Louisiana. Environmental Biology of Fishes 36:257-272.

Save the Bay. 2001. Eelgrass: A Critical Narragansett Bay Habitat. http://www.savebav.org/bavissues/eelgrass.htrn. Accessed
10/12/01.

Savidge, I.R., J.B. Gladden, K.P. Campbell, and J.S. Ziesenis. 1988. Development and sensitivity of impact assessment   .
equations based on stock-recruitment theory. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:182-190.

Scherer, M.D. 1972. The Biology of the Blueback Herring, Alosa aestivalis (Mitchill) in the Connecticut River above the
Holyoke Dam, Holyoke, Massachusetts. Master's Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Schoelkopf, R. And E. Stetzar. 1995. Marine turtles. Pages 305-309 in: L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, eds. Living Resources of
the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program.

Schorfhaar, R.G. and P.J. Schneeberger. 1997. Commercial and Sport Fisheries for Lake Whitefish in Michigan Waters of
Lake Superior, 1983-96. State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division Research Report Number
2034. June 30. http://\N'\vv\'.dnr.state.mi.us/v.'ww/ifr/'ifrIibra/research/repoits/2034n-.pdf.

Schram, S.T., T.N. Halpern, and T.B. Johnson. 1998. Ecology of Burbot in Western Lake Superior. In: Biology and
Management of Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay (eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Baltimore,
MD, July 27-30. hUp://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/congress/Burbot.pdf.

Schultz, Ken 2001. The Angling Authority; Species Encyclopedia.

Scott, W.B. and EJ. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184.

Scott, W.B. andE.J. Grossman. 1998. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184 ed.
Gait House, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.

Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat.  Sci. 219. 731 pp.

Seagraves, R.J. 1995. Weakfish. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, (eds.). The
Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 293-298.

Serchuk, F. and C. Cole. 1974. Age and growth-of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus (Waldbaum), Pisces (Labridae), in.
the Weweantic River Estuary, Massachusetts. Chesapeake Science 15(4):205-213.

Setzler, E.M., W.R. Boynton, K.V. Wood, H.H. Zion, L. Lubbers, N.K. Mountford, P. Frere, L. Tucker, and J.A. Mihursky.
1980. Synopsis of Biological Data on Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular
433, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
June 1980.

Sharma, R.K. and R.F. Freeman. 1977. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume I: The Great
Lakes. ANL/ES-56 Volume I. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 218 pp.

Shaw. M. 1998. Biology 71.125 Glossary. hitp:.-^w\\'\v.umaiiitoba.ca/facullies/science/biological sciences/labaloss.html
Accessed 4/1/02.
                                                                                                   References 37

-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies                                                                                    References


Shaw, W.N., T.J. Hassler, and D.P. Moran. 1988. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest): California Sea Mussel and Bay Mussel., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(11.84). 16 p.

Shepherd, J.G., and D.H. Gushing. 1990. Regulation in fish populations: myth or mirage. Philosophical Transactions 'of the
Royal Society, London B 330:151-164.

Shepherd, G.R. and C.B. Grimes. 1983. Geographic and historic variations in growth of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis,in the
Middle Atlantic Bight. U.S. Fish. Bull. 81(4):803-813.                                                        '

Shepherd, G.R. and C.B. Grimes. 1984. Reproduction of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in the New York Bight and evidence
for geographically specific life history characteristics. U.S. Fish. Bull. 82(3):501-511.

Sheridan, P. 1996. Forecasting the fishery for pink shrimp, Penaeus duoramm, on the Tortugas grounds, Florida. Fishery
Bulletin 94:743-755.                                                                     •

Shirey, C. A., C. C. Martin, and E. J. Stetzar. 1997. Abundance of sub-adult Atlantic sturgeon and areas of concentration
within the lower Delaware River. Final Report, Grant No. NA66FG0326. Prepared for the Delaware Division of Fish and
Wildlife.                                                                                                :

Short, R., R. Davis, and D. Burdick. 1997. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) habitat restoration in New Bedford Harbor,  ,
Massachusetts. Scope of work in proposal submitted to the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council. Prepared by the
Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire. July 17.

Simmons, R.L., A.VVZale, and D.M. Leslie. 1997. Physical and biological factors affecting seasonal double-crested
cormorant densities at Oklahoma reservoirs. Colonial Waterbirds 20:31-40.

Smith, C.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(ISBN 0-9615433-0-2), 522 pp.

Smith-Root. 2001. Online Store. http:Vwww.smitli-rooi.com/store.'. Accessed 12/01.                              ;

Snyder, D.E.  1998. Burbot — Larval Evidence for More than One North American Species? In: Biology and Management of
Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay (eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Baltimore, MD, July 27-30.
hup:  \v\\\\-lieh.pac.clfo-mpn.gc.ca'congress'Burbot.pdf.             ['                                        i

Sorg, C.F., J.B. Loomis, D.M. Donnelly, G.L. Peterson, and L.J. Nelson. 1985. Net Economic Value of Cold and Warm
Water Fishing in Idaho. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO
Resource Bulletin RM-1 I.November.                                                                      ;

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Marine Resources Research Institute. SEAMAP Target Specps
website, hup: \vater.dnr.siate.sc.us'tnarine/mrri'seamap/species.htm. Accessed 12/12/01.

South Florida Water Management District. 2002. Coastal  Ecosystems. Photos.
hllp:  \\\v\\.yl\vnulum ore \vrp wrp ce 2 \vrp ce info/2  \vrr>  ce phcitos.lnml. Accessed 1/30/02.

Southern California Edison Company. 1987. Report on 1987 Data: Marine Environmental Analysis  and Interpretation: San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 27 pp.

Southern Energy California. 2000. Best Technology Available 1999 Technical Report for the Contra Costa and Pittsburg
Power Plants. Submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board.

Southern Energy Delta, LLC. 2000. Multispecies Habitat  Conservation Plan, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants.
Draft-Revision 5, June 30,2000. Prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA.
References 38

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Spicer'G., T. O'Shea, and G. Pichler. 1998. Entrainment, Impingement and BTA Evaluation for an Intake Located on a
Cooling Water Reservoir in the Southwest. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K.
Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.

Spigarelli, S.A., A.J. Jensen, and M.M. Thommes. 1981. An Assessment of the Impacts of Water Intakes on Alewife,
Rainbow Smelt, and Yellow Perch Populations in Lake Michigan. Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory and U.S. EPA.
ANL/ES-109. EPA-905/3-81-001. March.

Spratt, J.D. 1992. Pacific Herring. Pages 86-89 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen (eds.), California's Living
Marine Resources and their Utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California
Sea Grant Extension Program, University of California, Davis, CA.

Springer, V.G. and K.D. Woodburn. 1960. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tampa Bay area. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap.,
Fla. St. Bd. Conserv., Ser. 1:1-104.

Standard & Poor's. 200la. Public Service Enterprise Group — Stock Report. September 1, 2001.

Standard & Poor's. 2001b. Stock Report for PG&E Corporation. September 29,  2001.

Stanley, J.G. and D.S. Danie. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and
invertebrates (north Atlantic):white perch. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/11.7.
12pp.

State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 2001a. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Clupeidae, Herrings, http://www.state.me.us/dmr/recreational/fishes/shad.htm. Accessed
7/18/01.

State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 2001b. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Labridae, Wrasses, Cunrier. http://vvww.state.me.us/dmr/recreationa1/fishes/cunner.htm.
Accessed 2/6/01.

State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 200 Ic. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Labridae, Wrasses, Tautog. http://www.state.me.us/dmr/recreationai/rishes/tautoii.htm.
Accessed 2/6/01.

State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 200 Id. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Pleuronectidae, righteye flounders.
http://www.state.me.us/dmr/recreational/Fishes/winterflounder.htm. Accessed 2/6/01.

State of Massachusetts. 2002. Plymouth, Plymouth County. httn://www.state.ma.usMhcd/iproFile/23'9.pdf. Accessed 1/9/02.

State of New York, Department'of Environmental Conservation. 2001. State of New York, Department of Environmental
Conservation. List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish & Wildlife Species of New York State.
htrp:,'/www.dec.stale.nv.us'websile/dfwmr/'wildlife/endspec/etsclist.htnil Accessed 3/3/01.

Steimle, F.W. and P.A. Shaheen. 1999. Tautog (Tautoga onitis) life history and habitat requirements. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NE-118. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Steiner, L. 2000. Pennsylvania Fishes. Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Harrisburg, PA.
htip://sites.state.pa.us/PA .Exec/Fish Boat/fishhtms/chapindx.htm Accessed 10/30/2001.

Stevens, D.E. 1992. Striped Bass. Pages 72-75 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen (eds.), California's Living
Marine Resources and their Utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California
Sea Grant Extension Program, University of California, Davis, CA.

Stevens, D.E., L.W. Miller, and B.C. Bolster. 1990. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A Status Review of Delta
Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Candidate Species Status Report
90-2.
                                                                                                   References 39

-------
 S 316(b) Case, Studies
References
 Stevens, T. H.; Field, M. K.; More, T. A., and Glass, R. J. 1994. Contingent valuation of rare and endangered species: An.
 assessment. W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Resource Planning.

 Stevens, T.H., J. Echeverria, R.J. Glass, T. Hager, and T.A. More. 1991. Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife:'What
 Do CVM Estimates Really Show? Land Economics 67:390-400.                                              •

 Stewart, N.H. 1926. Development, growth, and food habits of the white sucker, Catostomus commersoiiii Lesueur. Fishery
 Bulletin 42:147-184.

 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1977. Supplemental Assessment in Support of the 316 Demonstration, Pilgrim
 Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, Boston Edison Company'. Boston, MA.

 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1980a. 316(A) and (B) Demonstration Big Bend Station - Unit 4. Volume I and
 Volume II, Appendices. Prepared for Tampa  Electric Company. August 1.

 Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1980b. Fine Mesh Screen Prototype Study Final Report: Big Bend Power Station
 Unit 4, Tampa Electric Company. Prepared for Tampa Electric Company. November 1980.

 Strange, E. M., K. D. Fausch, and A. P. Covich. 1999. Sustaining ecosystem services in human-dominated watershed:
 biohydrology and ecosystem processes in the South Platte River Basin. Environmental Management 24(l):39-54.

 Strange, E.M., H. Galbraith, S. Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton. 2002. Determining ecological equivalence in
 service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental Management 29(2): 290-300.                  '

 Studholme, A.L., D.B. Packer, P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential fish habitat
 document: Atlantic Mackerel, Scomber scombrus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum
 NMFS-NE-141.
                                                                                                       i

 Stupka, R.C.  and R.K. Sharma.  1977. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume III: Estuaries
 and Coastal Waters. ANL/ES-56 Volume III. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 305 pp.

 Suddaby, D. and N. Ratcliffe. 1997. The effects of fluctuating food availability on breeding arctic terns Sterna par-adisaea.
 The Auk II 4:524-530.

 Sullivan, J.R. 1979. The Stone Crab, Menippe mercenaria, in the Southwest Florida Fishery. Florida Marine Research
 Publications Number 36. Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida.

 Summers, J.K.. 1989.  Simulating the indirect effects of power plant entrainment losses on an estuarine ecosystem. Ecological
 Modelling, 49 (1989). pp. 31-47.       .                                                                  [

 Sutherland, R.J. and R.G. Walsh. 1985. Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality. Land Economics
 61(3)282-291.                                                                                         :

 Sutler, F.C., R.S. Waller and T.D. Mcllwain.  1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal
 fisheries and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)-Black Drum. U.S. Fish Widl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.51), U.S. Army Corps of
 Eng. TR LE-82-4.10 pp.

 Swedberg, D.V. and C.H. Walburg. 1970. Spawning and early life history of the freshwater drum in Lewis and Clark; Lake,
 Missouri River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:560-570  •

 Swee, U.B. and H.R. McCrimmon.  1966. Reproductive biology of the carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Lake St. Lawrence,
 Ontario. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 95(4):372-380.

 Systec Engineering, Inc. 1987. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews. Volume 3: A Critical
 Review of Mathematical Models for Fish Compensation Mechanisms. iEA-5200, Volume 3, Research Project 1633-6. Final
 Report, May 1987. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.                                           ;
References 40

-------
 S 316(b) Case Studies                                      .                                           References


 Taft, E.P. 1999. Fish protection technologies: A status report. Presentation at Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic
 Resources Conference, Atlanta Georgia, April 12-15, 1999.

 Tagatz, M.E. 1968. Biology of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun in the St. John's River, Florida. Fish Bulletin US
 67(1): 17-33.
                      v'
 Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce. 2001. Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce Website.
 http://www.gulfbeaches-tamDabav.com/sports.asp. Accessed 8/01.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). 1992a. Distribution of selected fish species in Tampa Bay. TBNEP
 Technical Publication #05-92.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program), 1992b. Synthesis of basic life histories of Tampa Bay species. TBNEP
 Technical Publication #10-92.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). 1994. Physical impacts to habitats in Tampa Bay. TBNEP Technical
 Publication.#03-93.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). 1995. Benthic infauna of Tampa Bay, summer 1993: A technical data
 report. TBNEP Technical Publication #02-95.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). 1996a. Charting The Course: The Comprehensive Conservation and
 Management Plan for Tampa Bay. 262 pp.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). 1996b. Estimates of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total suspended
 solids to Tampa Bay, Florida. Technical Appendix: 1992-1994 total nitrogen loadings to Tampa Bay, Florida. Final Report.
 TBNEP Technical Publication #19-96.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). 1996c. Setting priorities for Tampa Bay habitat protection and restoration:
 restoring the balance. TBNEP Technical Publication #09-95.

 TBNEP (Tampa Bay National Estuary Program). 2001. Tampa Estuary Program. Charting the Course.
 http://www.tbep.org/portrait/fastfacts.html. Accessed 1/02.            •          •

 TECO (TECO Energy, Inc.). 2002. Tampa Electric Vital Statistics. http://www.tampaelectric.com/TENWVitalStats.html.
 1/22/02.

 Tennessee Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development. 1976. Volume 5: Effects of the Gallatin Steam Plant
 Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Old Hickory Reservoir. Tennessee Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and
 Wildlife Development, Fisheries and Waterfowl Resources Branch, Norris, TN. June 30.

 Tennessee Valley Authority. 1977. 316 (a) and 316(b) Demonstration, Cumberland Steam Plant: Volume 5, Effects of the
 Cumberland Steam Plant Cooling Water Intake on the Fish Populations of Barkley Reservoir.

 Tetra Tech Inc. 1978. Biological Effects of Once-Through Cooling Part I, Volume 2: The Marine Environment. Prepared by
 the Utility Water Act Group. Submitted to U.S. EPA. June.

 Texas Instruments Inc. 1980. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point: 1979 Annual Report. Prepared for
 Consolidated Edison Company on New York, Inc.

 Texas Instruments Inc. and Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers. 1978. Biological Effects of Once-Through Cooling Part I,
 Volume 5: Great Lakes Basin and Connecting Water Bodies. Prepared for the Utility Water Act Group. Submitted to U.S.
 EPA.

Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and J.W. Kenworthy. 1997. Ecological value of seagrasses: A brief summary for the ASMFC
habitat committee's SAV subcommittee. In: Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological
Role, Anthropogenic Impacts,  State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks, CD. Stephen and T.E. Bigford
(eds.). ASMFC Habitat Management Series #1, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, pp. 7-12.
                                                                                                 References 41

-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                     References
Thomas M.V. and R.C. Haas. 2000. Status of Yellow Perch and Walleye Populations in Michigan Waters of Lake Erie,
1994-98. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Fisheries Research Report 2054, August.

Thomas,?. 2001. Thomas Research Group. Species Information.                                              :
http: u\\\v.miTisi.uie\as.eou neonle-staff/thomas/snecies information.htm. Accessed 1/30/02.

Thurber, N.J. and D.J. Jude. 1985. Impingement Losses at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant during 1975-1982 with a
Discussion of Factors Responsible and Possible Impact on Local Populations. Special Report No. 115 of the Great Lakes
Research Division, Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center, University of Michigan.                              |

Tofflemire, T.J., S.O. Quinn, and I.G. Carcich. 1980. Sediment and Water Sampling and Analysis for Toxics: Relative to
PCB in the Hudson River, New York State Department of Environment Conservation Technical Paper No. 64. 23 pp.;

Towery Publishing. 2000. introTampaBay. httn:,-''w\v\v.introtampabav.com/'enterta'mment/bea.html. Accessed 8/00.   ,

Townsend, D.W. and P.F. Larsen (eds.). 1992. The Gulf of Maine: Proceedings of a Seminar Held May 22,1989,
Washington, D.C., NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Regional Synthesis Series Number 1. NOAA, Washington, D.C. 135 p.

TPA (Tampa Port Authority). 2002. News Release. Tampa Port Authority Announces Port of Tampa Reaches its Zenith.
imp:  wwx\ .iamnanon.com ndf.asn-?PAGE  NAME=News+and+Events1. Accessed 1/31/02.

Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio, with Illustrated Keys, Revised ed. Ohio State University Press.          j

Tupper, M. and R.G. Boutilier. 1995. Effects of conspecific density on settlement, growth and post-settlement survival of a
temperate reef fish. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 191:209-222.

Twomey, K.A., K.L. Williamson, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability
curves: White sucker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.64.                                     •
                                                               I
UCMP. 2002. UCMP Glossary. University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology. http://wwvv.ucmp.berkeleY.edu,
Accessed 4/1/02.

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. 2001. Fish of the Great Lakes: Fish Glossary.
 him: -scagram.\\isc.cdu'CreailakesfislVglossarv.hmil. Accessed 3/29/02.                                       ;

 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes 2001. Consumer Price Index (CPI) data: U.S.
 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes. CPI-U, Not Seasonally Adjusted.       :
 bun: \v\v\\.bls.iiov.'cpi home.lnm. Accessed 2001.

 U.S. Census Bureau 2000. ss00002.ufl. ftp://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Summary_File_l Accessed 12/21/01.

 U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. State and County QuickFacts, hitp://quickfects.census.gov.  Last Revised: Friday, 07-Sep-2001
 13:28:41 EOT.                                  '            '  ]                                        ;

 U S. Census Bureau 2002a. "2khxx.zip". Demographic data.
 ftp://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/0_All_State/. Downloaded in  February, 2002.

 U.S. Census Bureau 2002b. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates. State and County Estimates.
 him:  \vv\u.cerKUs.i'Ov hhes wuw/snine.estimateuic.luml. Downloaded February, 2002,

 U.S. Circuit Court. 1989. State of Ohio v. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. District Court, District of Columbia.

 U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001a. Energy Information Administration (El A). Form EIA-767. Steam-Electric
 Plant Operation and Design Report. Accessed for 1999.    .         j                                        ,

 U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001b. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Form EIA-860A (1999).; Annual
 Electric Generator Report - Utility. Accessed for the years 1999 and 2000.
  References 42

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001c. Form EIA-860B. Annual Electric Generator Report - Nonutility.. Accessed
for the year 1999.

U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001d. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Form EIA-906. Power Plant
Report. (Effective January 2001, the Form EIA-906, Power Plant Report, superseded Form EIA-759, Monthly Power Plant
Report, and Form EIA-900, Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Report. Accessed for the years 1970-2000.

U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001e. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC Form No.  1: Annual
Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others. Select data 1995-1999.

U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001f. Form EIA-861. Annual Electric Generator Report - Utilities. Accessed for the
year 1999.

U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2002. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA). Roster
of Nuclear Generating Units Operable as of December 31, 1995.
http://wvvw.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/pub summaries/npg96/apen c'.html. Accessed 4/4/02.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2001. Treasury Bill Rates.
hctp://www.had.gov/offices/r)ih/divisioiis/fnnd/fm/tbill.cfm. Accessed 12/12/01.

U. S. District Court. 1997. United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Melvin A. Fisher, Kane Fisher, Salvors, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, M/V/ Bookmaker, M/V Dauntless, M/V Tropical Magic, Their Engines, Apparel, Tackle, Appurtenances, Stores
and Cargo, in Rem, Defendants; Motivation, Inc, Plaintiff V. Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, Etc.,
Defendant: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Case No. 92-10027-CIV-DAVIS; Case No. 95-10051-CIV-DAVIS.
7/1903.

U.S. District Court. 1999. United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Defendant; Board of
Trustees of the International Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Plaintiff, V. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Defendant: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Case No.
97-2510-CIV-Davis/Brown; 97-10075-CIV-Davis/Brown. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. September 27.

U.S. DOI (Department of Interior). 1997. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1976. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the
Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental
Impact. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Effluent Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Environmental Impact Statement, Tampa Electric Company Big
Bend Unit 4. Technical Reference Document Volume II. Draft., EPA 904/9-81-070b.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982a. Determination Regarding Modification of NPDES Permit No.
MA0003654 for Brayton Point Station, Somerset, MA. 107 pp.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982b. U.S. EPA Reach File Version 1.0 (RF1) for the Conterminous
United States (CONUS). GIS coverage.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control. EPA/505/2-90-001. U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994a. National Demand for Water-Based Recreation Survey.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy Evaluation and Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998 Database
Retrieval.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994b. Survey of National Demand for Water Based Recreation. U.S.
EPA Office of Policy.
                                                                                                 References 43

-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies
References
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. USEPA Reach File Version 1.0 (RF1) for the Conterminous United
States, hup •nsdi.ena.uov nsdi•'nroiects/'rfl meta.html.               >.                                         i

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. 316(b) Industry'Screener Questionnaire: Phase I Cooling Water
Intake Structures, October 1998.                                                                          !

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F.
Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998c. Terms of Environment at http://wwvi. epa.gov/OCEPAterms/. As
of May 13,1998. Accessed 1/02.                                                                          j

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan 2000. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. htip:--\v\v\\.epa.gov-'glnDO.''lakeerie;lamp20QO,'. Acqessed 12/01.                              :

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. littn:/'\v\v\\.epa.iiQv'glnDO/solec/96/coastal.'status of c\fr.html. Accessed 12/01.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. River Raisin Area of Concern.
hup: AV\\ \\.crm.co\vqrtlakes; aoc.'rvraisin.html. Last Revised December 18,2001. Accessed 2/5/02.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 200 Ic. Survey Data from Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II
Cooling Water Intake Structures.                                 i

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Indian River Lagoon. National Estuary Program. Fishes of the
IRL. hilir* w\\u.epa.govo\vo\v oceans'lagoon 1ierring.html. Accessed 1/11/02.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. Drums.
Imp:  wvvs\.CPU.L'ov/owow oceans lagoon/driim.html. Accessed 1/17/02.

U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: Glossary.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. httn:
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
References
University of Saskatchewan. 2002. Lake Whitefish. (Coregonus clupeaformis).  .
htrp://interactive.usask.ca/skinteractive/modules/fisheries/fLsh/types/whitefish.html. Accessed 2/6/02.

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant. 2001. Fish of Lake Erie. http://wvvw.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/LakeErie.htn-il.
Accessed 10/29/01

US Army Corps Engineers. 1997. UMR-IWW System Navigation Study. Waterway Traffic Forecasts for the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. Volume I: Summary Contract No. DACW72-95-D-004. Task Order 0003. Final Report. April 7,
1997. http://wv\'\v.mvr.usace.army.mil/pdw/nav studv/econ reportsAvatfor/finrep.htm#back8

US Army Corps Engineers. 2000. Integrated Decision Document and Environmental Assessment. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Produced for the Oho River Ecosystem Restoration Program. Cincinnati.
October.

US Army Corps Engineers. 200la. Huntington District Navigational Charts.
http://cae.lrh.usace.anTiv.mil/River.Charts/default.htm. Accessed 12/5/01.

US Army Corps Engineers. 2001b. Pittsburgh District Navigational Charts. http:/7wwvv.lrp.usace.armv.mil/navindex.htm.
Accessed 12/5/01.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1997. National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System. Database created by the U.S.
Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness, and Urban/Wildland Interface Research Group. Atlanta, GA.

USGen New England. 2001. Variance Request Application and Partial Demonstration Under the Clean Water Act, Section
316(a) and (b) in Support of Renewal of NPDES Permit No. MA 000 3654 for USGen New England, Inc.'s Brayton Point
Station. May 24.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1995. National Water-Use Data Files. http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/spread95.html. U.S.
Geological Survey. Accessed 2/02:

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Federal Land Features of the United States (polygon). Reston, VA. 2000.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001a. Alaska Science Center - Biological Science Office. Marine Habitat.
http:y/www.absc.usgs.gov/researclT/seabird&foragefish/maruiehabitat/home.html. Accessed 1/30/02.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001b. National Water-Quality Assessment Program — Lake Erie - Lake St. Clair Basin.
Fact Sheet 94-056. USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program.
http:/Avww-oh.er.usgs.gov/nawqa/fs.94056.html. Accessed 2/5/02.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001c. Total Pounds and Dollar Value of Commercial Catch in U.S. Waters of the Great
Lakes by Year, State, Lake, and Species. U.S. Geological Survey.
http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/daia/c6rnniercialfishingreports.htm. Accessed 12/01.

Van den Avyle, M.J. and D.L. Fowler. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (South Atlantic)- blue crab. U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biological Report, USFWS/OBS-82/11,16p.

Van Hassel, J.H., R.J. Reash, and H.W. Brown. 1988. Distribution of Upper and Middle Ohio River fishes, 1973-1985:1.
Associations with water quality and ecological variables. J. Freshw. Ecol. 4(4):441-458.

Van Oosten, J. 1942. The age and growth  of the Lake Erie white bass, Lepibema chrysops (Refinesque): Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science Arts and Letters, v. 27, p. 307-334.

Van Winkle, W., L.W. Barnthouse, B.L. Kirk, and D.S. Vaughan. 1980. Evaluation of Impingement Losses of White Perch at
the Indian Point Nuclear Station and Other Hudson River Power Plants. Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 1480. NUREG/CR-110.0. 133 pp.

Vaughan, D.S, J.W. Smith, and M.H. Prager. 2000. Population Characteristics of Gulf Menhaden, Brevoortia patronus.
NOAA Technical Report NMFS  149. U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle WA. April.
                                                                                                   References 45

-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
References
Versar Inc. 1990. Evaluation of the Section 316 Status of Delaware Facilities with Cooling Water Discharge. Final Report.
Prepared for Delaware Department of Natural Resources. April

Vouglitois, J.J., K.W. Able, RJ. Kurtz, and K.A. Tighe. 1987. Life history and population dynamics of the bay anchovy in
New Jersey. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116 (2):141-153.

Wahl, D.H. and L.A. Neilsen, 1985. Feeding ecology of the Sauger (Stizostedion canadense) in a large river. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 42, p. 120-128.        i

Wainger, L.A., D. King, J. Salzman, and J. Boyd. 2001. Wetland Value Indicators for Scoring Mitigation Trades. Stanford
Environmental Law Journal 20(2):413-478.

Walburg, C.H. 1960, Abundance and life history of the shad, St. Johns River, Florida. U.S. Fish. Bull. 60(177):487-501.
                                                                                                      [
Wallace, D.C. 1971. Age, growth, year class strength, and survival rates of the white perch, Morone americana (Gmelin) in
the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Chesapeake Science. 12(4): 205-218.

Wallus, R., B. L. Yeager, and T. P. Simon. 1990. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River
Drainage, Volume I: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN.

Walsh, R., Bjonback, R.D., Rosenthal, T.D. and Aiken, R., 1985. Public Benefits of Programs to Protect Endangered Wildlife
in Colorado Symposium on Issues and  Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. Thorne Ecological
Institute, Glenwood Springs, CO.                                                                         ;

Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1990. Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on Recreation
Demand. In: Advances in Applied Micro-Economics. V.K. Smith and A.N. Link (eds.). JAI Press.                 ;

Walsh, R.G., J.B. Loomis, and R.A. Gillman. 1984. Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness. Land
Economics 60(l):14-29.

Wang, J.C.S. 1986a. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early
Life Histories. Prepared by the CA Dept. of Water Resources, CA Dept. of Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 9 (FS/B10-4ATR 86-9). Prepared for the Interagency Ecological Study
Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. January. World Wide Web electronic publication.
lilln:  clib.cs.herkele\ .edu-'konec'tr9%ml*'riome.html. Accessed 11/01.

Wang, J.C.S. 1986b. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary arid Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early
Life Histories. Technical Report 9 (FS/B10-4ATR 86-9). Prepared for the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.       .                         ,,                                        ',

Wang, J.C.S. and R.J. Keraehan. 1979. Fishes of the Delaware estuaries: A guide to early life histories. E.A. Communication.
Ecological Analysts, Inc., Towson, MD.                                                                   :

Wapora. 1979. Impingement and Entrainment Assessment Using the Production Foregone Analysis at J.R. Whiting Plant
During 1978. Prepared for Consumers  Power Company. October.

Wapora. 1980. Impingement, Entrainment and Net Deterrent Studies at the J.R. Whiting Plant During 1979. Final. Prepared
for Consumers Power Company. June.  68 pp.                      '

Ware, D.M. and T.C. Lambert. 1985. Early life history of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the southern Gulf of St.
Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:577-592.

Warke, G.M., K.R. Day, J.E. Greer, and R.D. Davidson. 1994. Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) populations and patterns of
abundance at breeding and feeding sites in northern Ireland, with particular reference to Lough Neagh. Hydrobiologia
279:91-100.                                                   ,                                        :

Warren, R.S., P.E. Fell, R. Rozsa, A.H. Brawley, A.C. Orsted, E.T. Olson, V. Swamy, and W.A. Niering. 2001.  Salt marsh
restoration in Connecticut: 20 years of science and management. Submitted to Restoration Ecology.              >
References 46

-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
                                                                                                       References
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. 2001-2002 Fishing Regulations Pamphlet.
httrx/Avww. wa.gov/wdfvv/fish/regs/fishregs.htm. Accessed 1/30/02.

Washington Tourist.com. 2000. Salmon Glossary. http://wv\vv.washingtontourisl.com/salnion/iouniey/glossarv.htiTil. Accessed
3/29/02

Water Quality Association. 1999. Water Quality Glossary, hup:/ vvww.wqa.org/glossary.cfi-n Accessed 3/29/02.

Waterfield, G.B. 1995. River Herrings. In: Living Resources of the Delaware estuary, L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, eds. pp.
191-197.

Weisberg, S.B. and W.H. Burton. 1993. Spring distribution and abundance of ichthyoplankton in the tidal Delaware river.
Fishery Bulletin 91:788-797.

Weisberg, S.B., H.T. Wilson, R. Allen, P. Himchak, and T. Baum. 1996. Temporal trends in abundance offish in the tidal
Delaware river. Estuaries 19:723-729.

Wetzel, R.G.  1983. 1983. Limnology, 2nd ed. CBS College Publishing. 858 pp.

White, M. 1999. National Geographic Guide to Birdwatching Sites. Eastern U.S. National Geographic Society, Washington
D.C.

White, M.L. and M.E. Chittenden, Jr. 1977. Age determination, reproduction, and population dynamics of the Atlantic
croaker, Micropogonias undulatus. U.S. Fishery Bull. 75(1):109-123.

White, R.J., J.R. Karr, and W. Nehlsen. 1997. Hatchery Reform in the Northwest: Issues, Opportunities, and
Recommendations. Report prepared for Oregon Trout, Portland, Oregon.

Whitehead, J.C., and G.C. Blomquist. 1991. Measuring Contingent Values for Wetlands: Effects of Information About
Related Environmental Goods. Water Resources Research 27(10):2523-2531.

Whitehead, J.C., and G.C. Blomquist. 1992. Ex ante willingness to pay with supply and demand uncertainty: implications for
valuing a sea turtle protection programme. Applied Economics, 24: 981-988.

Wilber, D.H. and W.F. Herrnkind. 1986. The fall emigration of stone crabs Menippe mercenaria (Say) from an intertidal
oyster habitat and temperature's effect on locomotory activity./. Exp. Mar. Biol Ecol 102: 209-221.

Williams, A.B. 1958. Substrates as a factor in shrimp distribution. Limnological Oceanography 3:283-290.

Williams, A.B., and D.L. Felder. 1986. Analysis of stone crabs: Menippe mercenaria (Say), restricted, and a previously
unrecognized species described (Decapoda: Xanthidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 99:517-543.

Williamson, K.L. and P.C. Nelson. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models and Instream Flow Suitability Curves: Gizzard
Shad. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(10.112). 33 pp.

Winkelmann,  Rainer 2000. Econometric Analysis of Count Data. New York: Springer.

Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory 2001. "RIcoastalpond.xls". Raw capture data and associated abundance estimates
for species captured in sampling of SAV (sub-aquatic vegetation) in a group of coastal salt ponds in Rhode Island during July
1999. Received from Jeff Hughes, Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001.  "

Woodward, R.T., and Y.S. Wui. 2001. The Economic Value of Wetland Services: A Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics
37:257-270.

Wootton, R.J. 1990. Ecology of Teleost Fishes. Chapman & Hall, London.

Wyda, J.C.; L.A. Deegan, J.E. Hughes, and MJ. Weaver. In press. The response of fishes to submerged aquatic vegetation
complexity in two ecoregions of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: Buzzards Bay and Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries.
                                                                                                   References 47

-------
 S 316(b) Case. Studies
                                                                                                      References
 Yoshiyama, R. M., E. R. Gerstung, F. W. Fisher, and.P. B. Moyle. 1996. Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook
 Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final
 Report to Congress, Volume 3: Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information. Accessed on the internet
 08/29/01. Regents of the University of California, Davis, CA.

 Zarbock, H., J. Schulten, E. Long, and D. MacDonald. 1997. Sediment contamination in Tampa Bay - sources, risks, and
 management, p. 281-293. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our
 Knowledge, October 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.

 Zastrow, C.E., E.D. Houde, and L.G. Morin. 1991. Spawning, fecundity, hatch-date frequency and young-of-year growth of
 bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli, in mid-Chesapeake Bay: Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 73:161 -171.
References 48


-------