821R04017
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
The Regional Benefits Assessment
for the Proposed Section 316(b)
Rule for Phase III Facilities
November 2004
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-04-017
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared by the Office of Water staff. The following contractors provided assistance and support in
performing the underlying analysis supporting the conclusions detailed in this document.
Stratus Consulting Inc.
Abt Associates Inc.
Tetra Tech
Science Applications International Corporation
The Office of Water has reviewed and approved this document for publication. The Office of Science and Technology
directed, managed, and reviewed the work of the contractors in preparing this document. Neither the United States
Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or their employees makes any warranty, expressed or
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of or the results of such use of any
information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this document, or represents that its use by such party would not
infringe on privately owned rights.
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter Al: Methods Used to Evaluate I&E
A1 -1 Obj ectives of EPA' s Evaluation of I&E Data
A1-2 Rationale for EPA's Approach to Evaluating I&E of Harvested Species
A1-3 Source Data
A1 -4 Methods for Evaluating I&E
A1 -5 Extrapolation of I&E Rates
Chapter A2: Uncertainty
A2 -1 Types of Uncertainty
A2-2 Monte Carlo Analysis as a Tool for Quantifying Uncertainty
A2-3 EPA's Uncertainty Analysis of Yield Estimates
A2-4 Conclusions
Chapter A3: Economic Benefit Categories and Valuation
A3-1 Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities
A3-2 Direct Use Benefits
A3-3 Indirect Use Benefits
A3-4 Non-Use Benefits
A3-5 Summary of Benefits Categories
A3-6 Causality: Linking the Proposed Rule for Phase III Facilities to Beneficial Outcomes
A3-7 Conclusions
Chapter A4: Methods for Estimating Commercial Fishing Benefits
A4-1 Overview of the Commercial Fishery Sector
A4-2 The Role of Fishing Regulations and Regulatory Participants
A4-3 Overview of U.S. Commercial Fisheries
A4-4 Prices, Quantities, Gross Revenue, and Economic Surplus
A4-5 Economic Surplus
A4-6 A Context of No Anticipated Change in Price
A4-7 Surplus Estimation Under Scenarios in Which Price May Change
A4-8 Estimating Producer Surplus
A4-9 Estimating Post-Harvest Economic Surplus in Tiered Markets
A4-10 Nonmonetary Benefits of Commercial Fishing
A4-11 Methods Used to Estimate Commercial Fishery Benefits from Reduced I&E
A4-12 Limitations and Uncertainties
Chapter AS: Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology
A5-1 Literature Review Procedure and Organization
A5-2 Description of Studies
A5-3 Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Studies: Regression Model
A5-4 Application of the Meta-Analysis Results to the Analysis of Recreational Benefits of the Proposed
Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities
A5-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
TOCi
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Chapter A6: Qualitative Assessment of Non-Use Benefits
A6-1 Public Policy Significance of Ecological Improvements from the Proposed Regulation for Phase III Facilities
A6-2 Findings from Focus Group Meetings
Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival
A7-1 The Causes of Entrainment Mortality
A7-2 Factors Affecting the Determination of Entrainment Survival
A7-3 Detailed Analysis of Entrainment Survival Studies Reviewed
A7-4 Discussion of Review Criteria
A7-5 Applicability of Entrainment Survival Studies to Other Facilities
A7-6 Conclusions
Chapter AS: Discounting Benefits
A8-1 Timing of Benefits
A8-2 Discounting and Annualization
Chapter A9: Threatened & Endangered Species Analysis Methods
A9-1 Listed Species Background
A9-2 Framework for Identifying Listed Species Potentially at Risk of I&E
A9-3 Identification of Species of Concern at Case Study Sites
A9-4 Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts on T&E Species
A9-5 Methods Available for Estimating the Economic Value Associated with I&E of T&E Species
A9-6 Issues in Estimating and Valuing Environmental Impacts from I&E on T&E Species
Appendix Al: Methods Used to Evaluate I&E
Part B: California
Chapter Bl: Background
Bl-1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter B2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in California
B2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
B2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
B2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield
B2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the California Region Under Three Alternative Options
B2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter B3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
B3-1 Baseline Losses
B3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
Chapter B4: Recreational Use Benefits
B4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
B4-2 RUM Approach
B4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
B4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
TOCii
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Chapter B5: Threatened and Endangered Species Analysis
B5-1 Estimated Reductions in Losses of Special Status Species in the California Region under the Proposed
Section 316(b) Regulation for Phase III Facilities
B5-2 An Exploration of Benefit Transfer to Estimate Non-use Benefits of Reduced Impingement and
Entrainment of Special Status Species in the California Region
Appendix Bl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the California Region
Appendix B2: Reductions in I&E in California Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the Proposed
Section 316(b) Phase III Regulation
Appendix B3: Commercial Fishing Benefits for Five Other Options Evaluated for Phase III Existing
Facilities in the California Region
Appendix B4: Recreational Use Benefits of Other Policy Options
Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter Cl: Background
Cl-1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter C2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the North Atlantic Region
C2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
C2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
C2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
C2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region Under Three Alternative Options
C2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter C3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
C3-1 Baseline Losses
C3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
Chapter C4: Recreational Use Benefits
C4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
C4-2 RUM Approach
C4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
C4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
Appendix Cl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the North Atlantic Region
Appendix C2: Reductions in I&E in the North Atlantic Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for
the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase III Regulation
Appendix C3: Commercial Fishing Benefits for Five Other Options Evaluated for Phase III Existing
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Appendix C4: Recreational Use Benefits of Other Policy Options
Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter Dl: Background
Dl-1 Facility Characteristics
TOCiii
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Chapter D2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Mid-Atlantic Region
D2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
D2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
D2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
D2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Under Three Alternative Options
D2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter D3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
D3-1 Baseline Losses
D3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
Chapter D4: Recreational Use Benefits
D4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
D4-2 RUM Approach
D4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
D4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
Appendix Dl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D2: Reductions in I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region Five Under Other Options Evaluated for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase III Regulation
Appendix D3: Commercial Fishing Benefits for Five Other Options Evaluated for Phase III Existing
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D4: Recreational Use Benefits of Other Policy Options
Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter El: Background
E1 -1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter E2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Gulf of Mexico
E2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
E2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
E2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
E2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region Under Three Alternative Options
E2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter E3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
E3-1 Baseline Losses
E3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
Chapter E4: Recreational Use Benefits
E4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
E4-2 RUM Approach
E4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
E4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
TOC iv
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Appendix £1: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix E2: Reductions in I&E in the Gulf of Mexico Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for
the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase III Regulation
Appendix E3: Commercial Fishing Benefits for Five Other Options Evaluated for Phase III Existing
Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix E4: Recreational Use Benefits of Other Policy Options
Part F: The Great Lakes
Chapter Fl: Background
F1 -1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter F2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Great Lakes Region
F2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
F2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
F2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
F2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Under Three Alternative Options
F2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Chapter F3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
F3-1 Baseline Losses
F3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
Chapter F4: Recreational Use Benefits
F4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
F4-2 RUM Approach
F4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
F4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Great Lakes Region
Appendix F2: Reductions in I&E in the Great Lakes Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase III Regulation
Appendix F3: Commercial Fishing Benefits for Five Other Options Evaluated for Phase III Existing
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Appendix F4: Recreational Use Benefits of Other Policy Options
Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter Gl: Background
G1 -1 Facility Characteristics
Chapter G2: Evaluation of Impingement and Entrainment in the Inland Region
G2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
G2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
G2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
G2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region Under Three Alternative Options
G2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
TOCv
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Table of Contents
Chapter G3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
Chapter G4: Recreational Use Benefits
G4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
G4-2 Summary of Benefit Transfer Results
G4-3 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter G5: Threatened and Endangered Species Analysis
G5-1 Estimated Reductions in Losses of Special Status Species in the Inland Region under the Proposed
Section 316(b) Regulation for Phase III Facilities
G5-2 An Exploration of Benefit Transfer to Estimate Non-use Benefits of Reduced Impingement and
Entrainment Losses of Special Status Species in the Inland Region
Appendix Gl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the Inland Region
Appendix G2: Reductions in I&E in the Inland Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase III Regulation
Appendix G4: Recreational Use Benefits of Other Policy Options
Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI: National Benefits
H1 -1 Calculating National Losses and Benefits
HI-2 Summary of Baseline Losses and Expected Reductions in I&E
H1 -3 Time Profile of Benefits
HI-4 Total Annualized Monetary Value of National Losses and Benefits
Appendix HI: National Benefits for Other Options Evaluated by EPA
References
TOC vi
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
Introduction
Introduction
Contents
EPA is proposing regulations implementing section
1 -1 Summary of the Proposed Rule and Other
Evaluated Options 1-1
1-2 Study Design 1-4
1-2.1 Coastal Regions 1-5
1-2.2 Great Lakes Region 1-5
1-2.3 Inland Region 1-6
1-3 Report Organization 1-6
1-3.1 Part A: Study Methods 1-6
1-3.2 Parts B-G: Regional Reports 1-6
1-3.3 Part H: Total National Benefits 1-6
316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This
regulation is the third in a series of rulemaking
actions under CWA section 316(b), addressing the
environmental impacts of cooling water intake
structures (CWIS). The Proposed Section 316(b)
Rule for Phase III Facilities would establish national
performance requirements for the location, design,
construction, and capacity of CWIS at facilities
subject to this regulation. The proposed national
requirements would establish the best technology
available (BTA) to minimize the adverse
environmental impact (AEI) associated with the use
of these structures. CWIS may cause AEI through several means, including impingement (where fish and other
aquatic life are trapped on equipment at the entrance to CWIS) and entrainment (where aquatic organisms, eggs,
and larvae are taken into the cooling system, passed through the heat exchanger, and then discharged back into the
source water body).
Facilities potentially subject to regulation under Phase III consist of the following types of facilities that employ a
cooling water intake structure and are designed to withdraw two million gallons per day or more from waters of
the United States: (1) existing manufacturing facilities, (2) existing electric power producing facilities with a
design intake flow (DIF) of less than 50 million gallons per day (MOD), and (3) new offshore oil and gas
extraction facilities. These facilities are referred to as "potential Phase III facilities." Phase III would not include
facilities regulated under Phase I (new facilities other than new offshore oil and gas extraction) or Phase II
(existing power producing facilities with a DIF of 50 MGD or greater). More information on the regulated sectors
and facilities can be found in the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities
(U.S. EPA, 2004).
This Regional Benefits Assessment presents the methods used by EPA for the environmental assessment and
benefits analysis of regulatory options. EPA's analysis had four main objectives: (1) to develop a national estimate
of the magnitude of impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially regulated Phase III facilities; (2) to
estimate changes in the I&E losses as a result of projected reductions in I&E under the proposed rule options; and
(3) to estimate the national economic benefits of reduced I&E. The environmental assessment and benefits
analyses presented in this report pertain only to the Manufacturers and Electric Generators segments of the
industries subject to the 316(b) Phase III regulation because EPA was unable to assess benefits for facilities in the
Oil and Gas industry segment due to the lack of data at the time of proposal. Part A of the document provides
details of the methods used. Parts B-G present reports of results for each of six study regions. Finally, Part H
presents national estimates. The following sections provide an overview of the study design and a summary of the
contents of each part of the document.
1-1 Summary of the Proposed Rule and Other Evaluated Options
In today's proposal, EPA is proposing three options for existing facilities based on DIF and source waterbody
type. These options define which facilities are Phase III existing facilities that would be subject to the proposed
national categorical requirements. The three proposed options would regulate:
i-l
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
*• (1) facilities with a total design intake flow of 50 MGD or more and located on any source waterbody
type;
*• (2) facilities with a total design intake flow of 200 MGD or more and located on any source waterbody
type;
*• (3) facilities with a total design intake flow of 100 MGD or more and located on certain waterbody
types (i.e., an ocean, estuary, tidal river/stream or one of the Great Lakes).
The proposed rule would require Phase III existing facilities to meet the same performance standards as those
required in the final Phase II rule, including a 80-95% reduction in impingement mortality and a 60-90%
reduction in entrainment. The proposed rule also provides for the same five compliance alternatives specified in
the final Phase II rule. If a facility is a point source that uses a cooling water intake structure and has, or is
required to have, an NPDES permit, but does not meet the definition of Phase III existing facility under the
corresponding evaluated option (e.g., the intake is below the specified design intake flow/source waterbody
threshold or does not meet the 25% cooling purposes threshold), it would be subject to requirements
implementing section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act set by the permit director on a case-by-case basis, using best
professional judgment (BPJ).
In developing this proposal, EPA evaluated several additional options based on varying flow regimes and
waterbody types. Two of these options (specifically, Options 1 and 6 below) are based on applying the same
performance standards and compliance alternatives as those being proposed (i.e., the final Phase II performance
standards and requirements including the use of case-by-case permit determinations based on BPJ for facilities
below the applicable thresholds) but using different design intake flow (DIP) applicability thresholds. EPA also
considered a number of options (specifically Options 2, 3,4, and 7 below) that would establish different
performance standards for certain groups or subcategories of Phase III existing facilities. Under these options,
EPA would apply the proposed performance standards and compliance alternatives (i.e., the Phase II
requirements) to the higher threshold facilities, apply the less-stringent requirements as specified below to the
middle flow threshold category, and would apply BPJ below the lower threshold.
Each of the options evaluated in developing this proposed rule is described in detail below:
Option 1 ("20 MGD for AH Waterbodies Option"): Facilities with a DIP of 20 MGD or greater would be
subject to the performance standards and compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule. Under this option,
section 316(b) requirements for existing Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 20 MGD would be established
on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 2: Facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards and
compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed above). Facilities located on estuaries, oceans, tidal
rivers or streams, or one of the Great Lakes, and with a DIP between 20 and 50 MGD (20 MGD inclusive) would
be subject to the same performance standards and compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule. Facilities
located on freshwater rivers and lakes with a DIP between 20 and 50 MGD (20 MGD inclusive) would have to
meet the performance standards for impingement mortality only and not for entrainment. Under this option,
section 316(b) requirements for existing Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 20 MGD would be established
on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 3: Facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards and
compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed above). All facilities with a DIP between 20 and 50
MGD (20 MGD inclusive) would have to meet the performance standards for impingement mortality only and not
for entrainment. Under this option, section 316(b) requirements for existing Phase III facilities with a DIP of less
than 20 MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 4: Facilities with a DIF of 50 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards and
compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed above). Facilities located on estuaries, oceans, tidal
rivers or streams, or one of the Great Lakes, and with a DIF between 20 and 50 MGD (20 MGD inclusive) would
1-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
be subject to the same performance standards and compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule. Under this
option, section 316(b) requirements for all existing Phase III facilities on freshwater rivers/streams or
lakes/reservoirs and with a DIP between 20 and 50 MGD (20 MGD inclusive), and all existing Phase III facilities
with a DIP of less than 20 MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 5 (Proposed "50 MGD for All Waterbodies Option"): Facilities with a DIP of 50 MGD or greater
would be subject to the performance standards and compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed
above). Under this option, section 316(b) requirements for existing Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 50
MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 6: Facilities with a DIP of 2 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards and
compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed above). Under this option, section 316(b)
requirements for Phase III facilities with a DIP of less than 2 MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ,
basis.
Option 7: Facilities with a DIF of 50 MGD or greater would be subject to the performance standards and
compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed above). Facilities with a DIF between 30 and 50
MGD (30 MGD inclusive) would have to meet the performance standards for impingement mortality only and not
for entrainment. Under this option, section 316(b) requirements for Phase III facilities with a DIF of less than 30
MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 8 (Proposed "200 MGD for AH Waterbodies" Option): Facilities with a DIF of 200 MGD or greater
would be subject to the performance standards and compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed
above). Under this option, section 316(b) requirements for existing Phase III facilities with a DIF of less than 200
MGD would be established on a case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Option 9 (Proposed "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option): Facilities located on estuaries, oceans,
tidal rivers or streams, or one of the Great Lakes, and with a DIF of 100 MGD or greater would be subject to the
performance standards and compliance alternatives proposed in today's rule (discussed above). Under this
option, section 316(b) requirements for all existing Phase III facilities on freshwater rivers and streams or lakes
and reservoirs, and all existing Phase III facilities with a DIF of less than 100 MGD would be established on a
case-by-case, BPJ, basis.
Table 1-1 summarizes which facilities would be defined as existing Phase III facilities and which performance
standards would apply under each of the options described above.
1-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Introduction
Table 1-1: Performance Standards for the Evaluated Options for Existing Facilities
VJ^UUII
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2MGD
BPJ
BPJ
BPJ
BPJ
20 MGD 30 MGD
50 MGD 100 MGD 200 MGD
I&E
Estuaries, oceans, tidal waters, or
one of the Great Lakes: I&E
All other waterbodies: I only
I only
Estuaries, oceans, tidal waters, or
one of the Great Lakes: I&E
All other waterbodies: BPJ
BPJ
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
I&E
BPJ I only
I&E
BPJ I&E
Estuaries, oceans, tidal waters, or
BPJ one of the Great Lakes: I&E
All other waterbodies: BPJ
Key: BPJ - Best Professional Judgement.
I&E - 80-95% reduction in impingement mortality and a 60-90% reduction in entrainment.
I only - 80-95% reduction in impingement mortality only.
Estuaries - includes tidal rivers and streams.
Source: U.S. EPA Analysis, 2004.
In the remainder of this document, the discussion for existing facilities (i.e., the Manufacturers and Generators
industry segments) focuses on the three proposed options listed above: the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option
(Option 5 - also referred to as the "50 MGD All" option); the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (Option 8 -
also referred to as the "200 MGD All" option); and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option (Option 9 -
also referred to as the "100 MGD CWB" option). In addition to presenting analyses for the three proposed
options in the chapter texts of this document, the appendixes to the relevant chapters also present analyses for the
other evaluated options (Option 1, Option 2, Option 3, Option 4, and Option 6). EPA did not conduct economic
analyses for one of the options defined above (Option 7). More information on the potential costs of Option 7 can
be found in the Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase HI Facilities
(U.S. EPA, 2004).
1-2 Study Design
EPA's analysis of the proposed regulation examined cooling water intake structure impacts and regulatory
benefits at the regional scale, and then combined regional results to develop national estimates. EPA grouped
facilities into regions for its analysis based on (1) the locations of facilities potentially subject to regulation in
Phase III, (2) similarities among the aquatic species affected by these facilities, and (3) characteristics of
commercial and recreational fishing activities in the area. Table 1-2 lists the number of potentially regulated
facilities in each study region, weighted using statistical weights from EPA's survey of the industry. The six
regions and the waterbody types within each region are described below. Maps showing the facilities in each
region are provided in the introductory chapter of each regional report (Parts B-G of this document).
1-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
Table 1-2: Number of Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities by Region
Region # Facilities (weighted)"
Californiab 9
North Atlantic 5
Mid-Atlantic 13
South Atlantic 4
Gulf of Mexico U
Great Lakes 68
Inland 493
National total 603
3 Excludes 80 facilities expected to close before rule goes into effect.
b Includes 1 facility in Hawaii.
1-2.1 Coastal Regions
Coastal regions include estuary/tidal river and ocean facilities in four of the NOAA Fisheries regions. The North
Atlantic region encompasses Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The
Mid-Atlantic region includes New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, the District of Columbia,
Delaware, and Virginia. The Gulf of Mexico region includes Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the
west coast of Florida. Finally, the California region includes all estuary/tidal river and ocean facilities in
California, plus one facility in Hawaii. Although the Hawaii facility was considered in estimating baseline I&E in
the California region, no benefits are anticipated for this facility.
A South Atlantic region was included in the Phase II analysis, but it is not included here because there is only one
sample Phase III facility (equals four sample weighted) in the region, and there are no benefits expected for this
facility. However, baseline I&E at this facility (equals four facilities weighted) was estimated by extrapolation, on
the basis of operational flow, of I&E estimates for the Gulf of Mexico and Mid-Atlantic, and added to the national
total. As for the Phase II analysis, the formula used was:
South Atlantic I&E = [(Gulf + Mid-Atlantic I&E)/(Gulf + Mid-Atlantic intake flow)]* South Atlantic intake flow
1-2.2 Great Lakes Region
The Great Lakes region includes all facilities located on the shoreline of a Great Lake or on a waterway with open
passage to a Great Lake and within 30 miles of a lake in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York. This definition is based on EPA's estimate of the extent of the spawning habitat of
Great Lakes fish species, including spawning habitat in rivers and tributaries of the Great Lakes. The distance
each species may travel upstream to spawn varies depending on both the species and the waterway, and is
influenced by obstacles such as dams. After consultation with local fisheries experts, EPA determined that
inclusion of waters within 30 miles of the Great Lakes is likely to encompass spawning areas of Great Lakes
fishes. EPA used GIS to determine which facilities are on a waterbody that has unobstructed passage to the Great
Lakes and is within 30 miles of a Great Lake. Data from the Lake Huron Project were used for areas encompassed
by that project. For areas not covered by the Lake Huron Project, this was done using the ERF1 streams coverage
(available at http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial7erfl). the national dams coverage (available at
http://data.geocomm.com/catalog/US/group7.html). and a basic U.S. states coverage. No facilities drawing from
other lakes or reservoirs were included among the Great Lake facilities unless the waterbodies were connected to
the Great Lakes.
1-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment Introduction
1-2.3 Inland Region
The Inland region includes all facilities located on freshwater rivers or streams and lakes or reservoirs, in all
states, with the exception of facilities located in the Great Lakes region (defined above in section 1-2.2).
1-3 Report Organization
1-3.1 Part A: Study Methods
1-3.1.1 Evaluation of I&E
Chapter Al of Part A of this Regional Benefits Assessment describes the methods used to evaluate facility I&E
data. Chapter A2 discusses uncertainties in the analysis. To obtain regional I&E estimates, EPA extrapolated loss
rates from model facilities to all Phase III facilities within the same region. These results were then summed to
develop national estimates. It was necessary to use I&E data from Phase II facilities to supplement the limited
data available for Phase III facilities. However, the Phase II data were not included in I&E and benefits estimates
for the Phase III analysis.
1-3.1.2 Economic Benefits
Chapters A3-A6 and A8-A9 of Part A of this document describe the methods that EPA used for its analysis of the
economic benefits of the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. As discussed in Chapter A3, EPA
considered the following benefit categories: recreational fishing benefits, commercial fishing benefits, and
non-use benefits. The analysis of use benefits included benefits from improved commercial fishery yields and
benefits to recreational anglers from improved fishing opportunities. Chapters A4 and A5 provide details on the
methods used for these analyses. Chapter A6 presents qualitative assessment of ecological non-use benefits of the
proposed regulation. Chapter A8 discusses discounting of recreational and commercial benefits. Non-use benefits
included benefits from reduced I&E of forage species, threatened and endangered species, and the non-landed
portion of commercial and recreational species. Non-use methods are described in Chapter A9.
1-3.2 Parts B-G: Regional Reports
Parts B-G of this Regional Benefits Assessment are reports of results for each study region. Chapter 1 of each
report provides background information on the facilities in the region and a map showing facility locations.
Chapter 2 provides I&E estimates. Benefits estimates are presented in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 presents
estimates of commercial fishing benefits, and Chapter 4 presents recreational fishing benefits. In addition, Chapter
B5 presents an analysis of benefits to threatened and endangered species from reducing I&E at California
facilities. An appendix to each regional report indicates the life history data and data sources used for the species
evaluated in the region.
1-3.3 Part H: Total National Benefits
Chapter HI summarizes the results of the six regional analyses and presents the total monetary value of national
baseline losses and policy option benefits for all section 316(b) Phase III manufacturing facilities and generators.
1-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part A: Evaluation Methods
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1
Chapter Al: Methods Used to Evaluate I&E
Introduction
This chapter describes the methods used by EPA to
evaluate facility impingement and entrainment (I&E)
data. Section A1-1 discusses the main objectives of
EPA's I&E evaluation. Section Al-2 describes
EPA's general approach to modeling fishery yield,
the primary focus of its analysis, and the rationale
for this approach. Section A1-3 describes the source
data for EPA's I&E evaluations. Section Al-4
presents details of the biological models used to
evaluate I&E. Finally, section A1-5 discusses
methods used to extrapolate I&E rates from facilities
with I&E data to other facilities in the same region
without data.
Al-1 Objectives of EPA's Evaluation of
I&E Data
Al-l
Al-1
Al-2
Chapter Contents
Al-1 Objectives of EPA's Evaluation of I&E
Data
Al-2 Rationale for EPA's Approach to
Evaluating I&E of Harvested Species ..
A1 -2.1 Scope and Objectives of EPA's
Analysis of Harvested Species .
A1 -2.2 Data Availability and
Uncertainties Al-2
A1 -2.3 Difficulties Distinguishing Causes
of Population Changes A1-3
Al-3 Source Data Al-3
A 1-3.1 Facility I&E Monitoring Data Al-3
A1-3.2 Species Groups Evaluated Al-4
Al-3.3 Species Life History Parameters .. Al-4
Al-4 Methods for Evaluating I&E Al-5
A 1-4.1 Modeling Age-1 Equivalents .... Al-5
A1 -4.2 Modeling Foregone Fishery
Yield Al-6
A 1-4.3 Modeling Production Foregone .. A1-9
A 1-4.4 Evaluation of Forage Species
Losses Al-10
Extrapolation of I&E Rates Al-11
Al-5
EPA's evaluation of I&E data had four main
objectives:
*• to develop a national estimate of the
magnitude of I&E;
>• to standardize I&E rates using common
biological metrics so that rates could be compared across species, years, facilities, and geographical
regions;
* to estimate changes in these metrics as a result of projected reductions in I&E under the proposed section
316(b) rule for Phase HI facilities; and
* to estimate the national economic benefits of reduced I&E.
Three loss metrics were derived from facility I&E monitoring data: (1) foregone age-1 equivalents, (2) foregone
fishery yield, and (3) foregone biomass production. The methods used to calculate these metrics are described in
section Al-4. Age-1 equivalent estimates were used to quantify losses of individuals in terms of a single life
stage. Losses of commercial and recreational species were expressed as foregone fishery yield. Estimates of
production foregone were used to quantify the contribution of forage species to the yield of harvested species.
The following section discusses EPA's rationale for evaluating the I&E of harvested species in terms of foregone
yield.
Al-2 Rationale for EPA's Approach to Evaluating I&E of Harvested Species
Harvested species were the main focus of EPA's analysis, primarily because of the availability of economic
methods for valuing these species (see Chapters A3-A6 and A8-A9 for a discussion of all of the economic
methods used by EPA to estimate benefits of the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities). EPA's
approach to estimating changes in harvest assumed that I&E losses result in a reduction in the number of
Al-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
harvestable adults in years after the time that individual fish are killed by I&E and that future reductions in I&E
will lead to future increases in fish harvest. The approach does not require knowledge of population size or the
total yield of the fishery; it only estimates the incremental yield that is foregone because of the number of deaths
due to I&E.
As discussed in detail in section Al-4.2, EPA's yield analysis employed a specific application of the Thompson
Bell model of fisheries yield (Ricker, 1975) to assess the effects of I&E on net fish harvest. This model is a
relatively simple yield-per-recruit (YPR) model that provides estimates of yield (a.k.a. "harvest" or "landed fish")
that can be expected from a cohort of fish that is recruited to a fishery. The model requires estimates of size-at-
age for particular species and stage-specific schedules of natural mortality (M) and fishing mortality (F). All of
the key parameters used in the yield model (F, M, and size-at-age), were assumed to be constant for a given
species regardless of changes in I&E rates. Because these parameters are held static for any particular fish stock,
YPR is also a constant value. With this set of parameters fixed, the Thompson Bell model holds that an estimate
of recruitment is directly proportional to an estimate of yield.
EPA recognizes that the assumption that the key parameters are static is an important one that is not met in
reality. However, by focusing on a simple interpretation of each individual I&E death in terms of foregone yield,
EPA concentrated on the simplest, most direct assessment of the potential economic value of eliminating that
death. EPA believes that this approach was warranted given the (1) scope and objectives of its analysis of
harvested species, (2) data available, and (3) difficulties in distinguishing the causes of population changes. Each
of these factors is discussed in the following sections.
Al-2.1 Scope and Objectives of EPA's Analysis of Harvested Species
The simplicity of EPA's approach to modeling yield was consistent with the need to examine the dozens of
harvested species that are vulnerable to I&E at the hundreds of facilities throughout the country that are in scope
of the rule and the overall objective of developing regional- and national-scale estimates. This approach is not
necessarily the best alternative for studies of single facilities for which site-specific details on local fish stocks
and waterbody conditions might make possible the use of more complex assessment approaches, including some
form of population model.
Al-2.2 Data Availability and Uncertainties
Although EPA's approach to modeling yield requires estimates of a large number of stage-specific growth and
mortality parameters, the use of more complex fish population models would rely on an even larger set of
parameters and would require numerous additional and stronger assumptions about the nature of stock dynamics
that would be difficult to defend with available data. Additional uncertainties of population dynamics models
include the relationship between stock size and recruitment, and how growth and mortality rates may change as a
function of stock size and other factors. Obtaining this information for even one fish stock is time-consuming and
resource intensive; obtaining this information for the many species subject to I&E nation-wide was not possible
for EPA's national benefits analysis.
It is also important to note that information on stock status is generally only available for harvested species,
which represent a very small fraction of I&E losses. Even for harvested species, stock status is often poorly
known. In fact, only 23% of U.S. managed fish stocks have been fully assessed (U.S. Ocean Commission, 2002).
In addition to a lack of data, there are numerous issues and difficulties with defining the size and spatial extent of
fish stocks. As a result, it is often unclear how I&E losses at particular cooling water intake structures can be
related to specific stocks. For example, a recent study of Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tryannus), one of the
major fish species subject to I&E along the Atlantic Coast of the U.S., indicated that juveniles in Delaware Bay
result from both local and long distance recruitment (Light and Able, 2003). Thus, accounting only for influences
on local recruitment would be insufficient for understanding the relationship between recruitment and menhaden
stock size.
A1-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
Another difficulty is that fisheries managers typically define fish stocks by reference to the geographic scope of
the fishery responsible for landings. However, landings data are reported state by state, which is generally not a
good way to delineate the true spatial extent offish populations.
Al-2.3 Difficulties Distinguishing Causes of Population Changes
Another problem in developing more complex models of harvested species is that it is fundamentally difficult to
demonstrate that any particular kind of stress causes a reduction in fish population size. All fish populations are
under a variety of stresses that are difficult to quantify and that may interact. Fish populations are perpetually in
flux for numerous reasons, so determining a baseline population size, then detecting a trend, and then
determining if a trend is a significant deviation from an existing baseline or is simply an expected fluctuation
around a stable equilibrium is problematic. Fish recruitment is a multidimensional process, and identifying and
distinguishing the causes of variance in fish recruitment remains a fundamental problem in fisheries science,
stock management, and impact assessment (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Quinn and Deriso, 1999; Boreman,
2000). This issue was beyond the scope and objectives of EPA's section 316(b) benefits analysis.
Al-3 Source Data
Al-3.1 Facility I&E Monitoring Data
The inputs for EPA's analyses included facility I&E monitoring data and species life history characteristics from
the scientific literature such as growth rates, natural mortality rates, and fishing mortality rates. The general
approach to I&E monitoring was similar at most facilities, but investigators used a wide variety of methods that
were specific to the individual studies, e.g., location of sampling stations, sampling gear, sampling frequency, and
enumeration techniques.
Impingement monitoring typically involves sampling impingement screens or catchment areas, counting the
impinged fish, and extrapolating the count to an annual basis. Entrainment monitoring typically involves
intercepting a small portion of the intake flow at a selected location in the facility, collecting fish by sieving the
water sample through nets or other collection devices, counting the collected fish, and extrapolating the counts to
an annual basis.
EPA retained all information regarding species, life stage, and loss modality (I or E) just as they were originally
reported by the facilities, with the exception of some species aggregation that is described in section A1-3.2.
Facility studies were excluded from EPA's analysis if the information reported was not suitable for the models
used by EPA, which require annual loss rates expressed on a species- and age-specific basis. Studies were also
excluded if they did not sample all of the facility's intakes, or indicate how to extrapolate from the sampled
intakes to those not sampled. In some cases, entrainment sampling was conducted only during the months that
larvae are present (usually spring and summer), and in such cases EPA assumed that entrainment rates for these
months were indicative of the total annual loss.
In most cases the size or life stage of impinged fish are not reported. However, the EPA modeling procedure
requires the age (or life stage) of the killed fish. Therefore, EPA assumed the age of impinged fish ranged from
the juvenile stage to age 5, and divided the total impingement losses into age groups using proportions
corresponding to the expected life table dictated by species-specific mortality schedules.
EPA adjusted annualized loss rates at some facilities as needed to reflect the history of technological changes at
the facility. The purpose of the adjustments was to interpret loss records in a way that best reflects the current
conditions at each facility. For example, if a facility was known to have installed a protective technology
subsequent to the time that I&E loss rates were recorded, EPA reduced the loss rates in an amount corresponding
to the presumed effectiveness of the protective technology.
Al-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
Loss rates recorded at each facility were expressed as an annual average rate, regardless of the number of years of
sampling data available. The annual total among the facilities evaluated was then the subject of the detailed
modeling procedure described in section A1-4. Once this analysis was completed, estimates of total losses, by
region, were generated using the extrapolation procedures described in section A1-5.
Al-3.2 Species Groups Evaluated
To evaluate I&E, EPA organized species into groups and then conducted detailed analyses of I&E rates for each
species group. Species groups were based on similarities in life history characteristics and groupings used by the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for landings data. An appendix to each regional report in Parts B-G of
this document provides details on the species groups and life history data that were used.
Al-3.3 Species Life History Parameters
The life history parameters used in EPA's analysis of I&E data included species growth rates, the fraction of each
age class vulnerable to harvest, fishing mortality rates, and natural (nonfishing) mortality rates. Each of these
parameters was also stage-specific. For the purpose of this assessment, EPA uses the terms "age" and "stage"
interchangeably. For fish age 1 and older, a stage corresponds directly to the age of the fish. For fish younger
than age one, a stage corresponds to a specific early life developmental stage (e.g., post yolk sac larvae). Early
developmental stages may occur at different ages, and may have different durations for different species.
EPA obtained life history parameters from facility reports, the fisheries literature, local fisheries experts, and
publicly available fisheries databases (e.g., FishBase). To the extent feasible, EPA identified region-specific life
history parameters. All I&E losses within a region were modeled with a single set of parameters. Detailed
citations are provided in the life history appendix accompanying each regional report (Parts B-G of the Regional
Benefits Assessment).
For most species in most regions a reasonable set of life history parameter values was identified. However, in a
few cases where no information on survival rates was available for individual life stages, EPA deduced survival
rates for an equilibrium population based on records of lifetime fecundity using the relationship presented in
Goodyear (1978) and below in Equation (1):
Se, = 2//a (Equation 1)
where:
Se
-------
Section 3 1 6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A 1
(Equation 2)
where:
Z = the total instantaneous mortality rate
M = natural (nonfishing) instantaneous mortality rate
F ~ fishing instantaneous mortality rate
and
S = e('z> (Equations)
where:
S = the survival rate as a fraction
A 1-4 Methods for Evaluating I&E
The methods used to express I&E losses in units suitable for economic valuation are outlined in Figure A 1-1 and
described in detail in the following sections.
Al-4.1 Modeling Age-1 Equivalents
The Equivalent Adult Model (EAM) is a method for expressing I&E losses as an equivalent number of
individuals at some other life stage, referred to as the age of equivalency (Horst, 1975; Goodyear, 1978; Dixon,
1999). The age of equivalency can be any life stage of interest. The method provides a convenient means of
converting losses offish eggs and larvae into units of individual fish and provides a standard metric for
comparing losses among species, years, and regions. For the Regional Benefits Assessment, EPA expressed I&E
losses at all life stages as an equivalent number of age- 1 individuals.
The EAM calculation requires life-stage-specific I&E counts and life-stage-specific mortality rates from the life
stage of I&E to the life stage of equivalence. The cumulative survival rate from age at impingement or
entrainment until age 1 is the product of all stage-specific survival rates to age 1. For impinged fish that are older
than age 1, age-1 equivalents are calculated by modifying the basic calculation to inflate the loss rates in inverse
proportion to survival rates. In the case of entrainment, the basic calculation is:
, Anax (Equation 4)
Sj,i=sj n st
i=j+\
where:
Sj , = cumulative survival from stagey until age 1
Si = survival fraction from stage / to stage / + 1
S*j = 2^-|og(I4* = adjusted S}
Jam = tne stage immediately prior to age 1
Equation 4 defines S}l, which is the expected cumulative survival rate (as a fraction) from the stage at which
entrainment occurs, j, through age 1 . The components of Equation 4 represent survival rates during the different
life stages between life stagey, when a fish is entrained, and age 1. Survival through the stage at which
Al-5
-------
Section 3 1 6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
entrainment occurs, 7, is treated as a special case because the amount of time spent in that stage before
entrainment is unknown and therefore the known stage specific survival rate, Sj} does not apply because S,
describes the survival rate through the entire length of time that a fish is in stagey. Therefore, to find the expected
survival rate from the day that a fish was entrained until the time that it would have passed into the subsequent
stage, an adjustment to S} is required. The adjusted rate S*, describes the effective survival rate for the group of
fish entrained at stagey, considering the fact that the individual fish were entrained at various specific ages within
stage;.
Age-1 equivalents are then calculated as:
AE\jk= Ljk Sjj (Equation 5)
where:
AE\jk = the number of age-1 equivalents killed during life stage; in year k
Ljk = the number of individuals killed during life stage; in year k
Sj, = the cumulative survival rate for individuals passing from life stage; to age 1
The total number of age-1 equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k is then given by:
./max (Equation 6)
I
J = Jmin
AE\k = I AEljik
where:
AE\k = the total number of age-1 equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k
Al-4.2 Modeling Foregone Fishery Yield
Foregone fishery yield is a measure of the amount offish or shellfish (in pounds) that is not harvested because
the fish are lost to I&E. EPA estimated foregone yield using the Thompson-Bell equilibrium yield model (Ricker,
1975). The model provides a simple method for evaluating a cohort offish that enters a fishery in terms of their
fate as harvested or not-harvested individuals. EPA's application of the Thompson-Bell model assumes that I&E
losses result in a reduction in the number of harvestable adults in years after the time that individual fish are
killed by I&E and that future reductions in I&E will lead to future increases in fish harvest.
The Thompson-Bell model is based on the same general principles that are used to estimate the expected yield in
any harvested fish population (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Quinn and Deriso, 1999). The general procedure
involves multiplying age-specific harvest rates by age-specific weights to calculate an age-specific expected yield
(in pounds). The lifetime expected yield for a cohort offish is then the sum of all age-specific expected yields,
thus:
Al-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
where:
Yk = foregone yield (pounds) due to I&E losses in year k
Ljk = losses of individual fish of stagey in the year k
Sja = cumulative survival fraction from stagey to age a
Wa = average weight (pounds) of fish at age a
Fa = instantaneous annual fishing mortality rate for fish of age a
Za = instantaneous annual total mortality rate for fish of age a
The model assumes that:
+ the yield from a cohort offish is proportional to the number recruited;
* annual growth, natural mortality, and fishing mortality rates are known and constant; and
*• natural mortality includes mortality due to I&E.
The assumption that fishing mortality, F, remains constant despite possible reductions in I&E is central to the
modeling approach used to estimate changes in fishery yield. This assumption implies that fishing activity and
fishing regulations will adapt to increases in fish stock in a manner that leads to harvest increases in direct
proportion to the magnitude of increases in harvestable stock.
The assumption that M and F are constant is based on EPA's assumptions that:
* I&E losses are a relatively minor source of mortality in comparison to the total effects of all other
sources of natural mortality (e.g., predation); and
+ the scale of changes in I&E loss rates being considered will not lead to dramatically large increases in the
size of harvestable stocks.
EPA acknowledges that in some cases the importance of I&E as a source of mortality in a fishery might be large
enough that it would be unlikely that natural and fishing mortality would remain constant, but such cases are not
expected to be the norm.
As indicated in Figure A 1-1, EPA partitioned its estimates of total foregone yield for each species into two
classes, foregone recreational yield and foregone commercial yield, based on the relative proportions of
recreational and commercial state-wide aggregate catch rates of that species in that region. Pounds of foregone
yield to the recreational fishery were re-expressed as numbers of individual fish based on the expected weight of
an individual harvestable fish. Chapter A3 describes the methods used to derive dollar values for foregone
commercial and recreational yields for the Regional Benefits Assessment.
Al-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter Al
Figure Al-1: General Approach Used to Evaluate I&E Losses as Foregone Fishery Yield
Evaluation of
Fishery Species
Number of Fish Killed
(multiple life stages)
Estimate Age-1
Equivalency
(multiple life stages)
Report as
Common •
Loss Metric
Sum Across
Life Stages
Year Class Aggregate
Age-1 Equivalents
Not
Harvested
Value
Yes
Estimate Primary
Foregone Fishery
Yield
Commercial
Fraction
Total
Foregone
Yield
Determine Foregone
Commercial Harvest
as Pounds
Evaluation of Forage Species
that Contribute to Production
of Fishery Species
Estimate Foregone
Production
(multiple life stages)
Sum Across
Life Stages
Year Class Aggregate
Foregone Production
Report as
• Common
Loss Metric
Use Methods Described
in Section Al-4.4 to
Estimate Secondary
Foregone Yield
k Recreational
Fraction
Determine Foregone
Recreational Harvest
as Number of
Individual Fish
Monetize
Monetize
Al-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A1
Al-4.3 Modeling Production Foregone
In addition to expressing I&E losses as lost age-1 equivalents (and subsequent lost yield, for harvested species),
I&E losses were also expressed as foregone production. Foregone production is the expected total amount of
future growth (expressed as pounds) of individuals that were impinged or entrained, had they not been impinged
or entrained (Rago, 1984). Production foregone estimates are used in EPA's analysis to calculate the contribution
of forage species lost to I&E to foregone fishery yield, as discussed in section A 1-4.4.
Production foregone is calculated by simultaneously considering the stage-specific growth increments and
survival probabilities of individuals lost to I&E, where production includes the biomass accumulated by
individuals alive at the end of a time interval as well as the biomass of those individuals that died before the end
of the time interval. Thus, the production foregone fora specified stage, /, is calculated as:
_ G-NWi(e(Gi~Zi) -1) (Equation 8)
Pi= ' ' G.-Z,
where:
P, = expected production (pounds) for an individual during stage i
GJ = the instantaneous growth rate for individuals of stage i
ty = the number of individuals of stage /' lost to I&E (expressed as equivalent losses at subsequent
stages)
Ws = average weight (in pounds) for individuals of stage /
Z, = the instantaneous total mortality rate for individuals of stage /
j, the production foregone for all fish lost at stagey, is calculated as:
'max (Equation 9)
p. = Y p..
rj ^ rj>
i=J
where:
- the production foregone for all fish lost at stagey'
= oldest stage considered
PT, the total production foregone for fish lost at all stages/, is calculated as:
2 (Equation 10)
Pj
j~*min
where:
PT = the total production foregone for fish lost at all stages/
1 min= youngest stage considered
Al-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
Al-4.4 Evaluation of Forage Species Losses
I&E losses of forage species (i.e., species that are not targets of recreational or commercial fisheries) have both
immediate and future impacts because not only is existing biomass removed from the ecosystem, but also the
biomass that would have been produced in the future is no longer available as food for predators (Rago, 1984;
Summers, 1989). The Production Foregone Model described in the previous section accounts for these
consequences of I&E losses by considering the biomass that would have been transferred to other trophic levels
but for the removal of organisms by I&E (Rago, 1984; Dixon, 1999). Consideration of the future impacts of
current losses is particularly important for fish, since there can be a substantial time between loss and
replacement, depending on factors such as spawning frequency and growth rates (Rago, 1984).
To evaluate I&E losses of forage species, EPA translated forage species production foregone into foregone yield
of harvested species that are impinged and entrained using a simple trophic transfer model. These estimates of the
foregone yield of impinged and entrained harvested species were distinct from the primary foregone yield of
these species and are termed "secondary yield." This procedure is presented in Equations 11 and 12, and
illustrated schematically in Figure A1-2.
The basic assumption behind EPA's approach to evaluating losses of forage species is that a decrease in the
production of forage species can be related to a decrease in the production of impinged and entrained harvested
(predator) species based on an estimate of trophic transfer efficiency. Thus, in general,
Ph = kPf (Equation 11)
where:
Ph = foregone biomass production of a harvested species h (in pounds)
k = the trophic transfer efficiency
Pf = foregone biomass production of a forage species/(in pounds)
Equation 11 is applicable to trophic transfer on a species-to-species basis where one species is strictly prey and
the other species is strictly a predator. For the section 316(b) Regional Benefits Assessment, commercially or
recreationally valuable fish were considered predators. The aggregate total secondary yield is estimated on a
regional basis under the assumption that the trophic value of total foregone production among forage species is
allocated equally among all harvested species that occur in the I&E losses, thus:
(Equation 12)
where:
ysec = total secondary yield (as a generic predator species)
H = number of harvested species among regional loss estimates
7h = primary estimate of foregone yield for harvested species h
Ph = estimate of foregone production for harvested species h
Al-JO
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1
Figure Al-2: Trophic Transfer Model
Forage species
I&E losses
Foregone
production (FP)
Trophic transfer
pathway
k, = 0.10
FP of harvested
species
Aggregate all
secondary
foregone yield
Foregone
commercial
and recreational
harvest
Monetize
It is difficult to determine, on a community basis, an appropriate value of k that relates aggregate forage
production and aggregate predator production, since the actual trophic pathways are complicated. For the
purposes of the regional case studies, EPA used the value of k = 0.10 based on a review of the available literature
by Pauly and Christensen (1995).
Al-5 Extrapolation of I&E Rates
EPA examined I&E losses and the economic benefits of reducing these losses at the regional scale. The estimated
benefits were then aggregated across all regions to yield a national benefits estimate. These regions and the
waterbody types within each region are described in the Introduction to this Regional Benefits Assessment. Maps
showing the facilities in each region that are in scope of the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities
are provided in the introductory chapter of each regional report (Parts B-G of this document).
To obtain regional I&E estimates, EPA extrapolated losses observed at the facilities evaluated (facilities with
suitable records of I&E rates) to other in-scope facilities within the same region. Extrapolation of I&E rates from
these "model" facilities was necessary because not all in scope facilities within a given region have conducted
I&E studies. Model facilities included both Phase II and Phase III facilities, based on the assumption that I&E
Al-ll
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al
rates at Phase II and Phase III facilities are similar after normalization by intake flow. Phase II facilities were
included to make use of the largest possible data set and to accommodate the lack of Phase III I&E data in some
regions (see Table Al-1).
Table Al-1: Number of Model Facilities, by
Region and Phase of Rulemaking
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
II
18
4
6
4
7
29
Phase
III
0
0
1
0
4
11
I&E data were extrapolated on the basis of operational flow, in millions of gallons per day (MGD), where MGD
is the average operational flow over the period 1996-1998 as reported by facilities in response to EPA's
section 316(b) Detailed Questionnaire and Short Technical Questionnaire. Operational flow at each facility was
rescaled using factors reflecting the relative effectiveness of currently in-place technologies for reducing I&E.
Thus,
F/, = G/(1-T/J (Equation 13)
where:
ffiC = effective relative flow rate for entrainment at facility/
Gy = mean operational flow at facility/(106 gallons/day)
T/e = fractional effectiveness of entrainment-reducing technology at facility/
Ffl-GfO-Tjr,) (Equation 14)
where:
Fjr,- = effective relative flow rate for impingement at facility/
Gf = mean operational flow at facility /(I O6 gallons/day)
T,;,- = fractional effectiveness of impingement-reducing technology at facility/
Next, regional estimates were developed as outlined in equations 15-18. Statistical weighting factors (from
EPA's survey of the industry) were multiplied by flow rates at each facility prior to estimating the total regional
flow rate.
Al-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1
where:
where:
where:
(Equation 15)
/ e All facilities / f e All model facilities
in region r in region r
effective relative flow rate for entrainment at facility/
scaling factor to relate total entrainment losses among model facilities to
regional total entrainment losses
(Equation 16)
/e All facilities / / e All model facilities
in region r in region r
effective relative flow rate for impingement at facility/
scaling factor to relate total impingement losses among model facilities to
regional total impingement losses
(Equation 17)
/ € All model facilities
in region r
Sre = scaling factor to relate total entrainment losses among model facilities to
regional total entrainment losses
Lre = estimated annual total entrainment losses at region r
Lre = estimated annual total entrainment losses at facility/
Lr,j = Sr,i
(Equation 18)
fe All model facilities
in region r
where:
Sri = scaling factor to relate total impingement losses among model facilities to
regional total impingement losses
Lri = estimated annual total impingement losses at region r
Lfj = estimated annual total impingement losses at facility/
Al-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A1
EPA recognizes that there may be substantial among-facility variation in the actual I&E losses per MGD
resulting from a variety of facility-specific features, such as location and type of intake structure, as well as from
ecological features that affect the abundance or species composition of fish in the vicinity of each facility. The
accuracy of EPA's extrapolation procedure relies heavily on the assumption that I&E rates recorded at model
facilities are representative of I&E rates at other facilities in the region. Although this assumption may be
violated in some cases, limiting the extrapolation procedure to particular regions reduces the likelihood that the
model facilities are unrepresentative.
EPA believes that this method of extrapolation makes best use of a limited amount of empirical data, and is the
only currently feasible approach for developing an estimate of national I&E and the benefits of reducing I&E.
While acknowledging that an extrapolation necessarily introduces additional uncertainty into I&E estimates, EPA
has not identified information that suggests that application of the procedure causes a systematic bias in the
regional loss estimates.
The assumption that I&E is proportional to flow is consistent with other predictive I&E studies. For example, a
key assumption of the Spawning and Nursery Area of Consequence (SNAC) model (Polgar et al., 1979) is that
entrainment is proportional to cooling water withdrawal rates. The SNAC model has been used as a screening
tool for assessing potential I&E impacts at Chesapeake Bay plants. As a first approximation, percent entrainment
has been predicted on the basis of the ratio of cooling water flow to source water flow (Goodyear, 1978). A study
of power plants on the Great Lakes (Kelso and Milburn, 1979) demonstrated an increasing relationship (on a
log-log scale) between plant "size" (electric production in MWe) and I&E. There is scatter in these relationships,
not just because there is variation in the cooling water intake for different plants having similar electric
production, but also because of the imprecision (sampling variability) inherent in the usual methods of estimating
I&E. These relationships are nonetheless strong. EPA's 1976 "Development Document for the Best Technology
Available for the Location, Design, Construction and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for
Minimizing Adverse Environmental Impact" concluded that "reduction of cooling water intake volume (capacity)
should, in most cases, reduce the number of organisms that are subject to entrainment in direct proportion to the
fractional flow reduction."
Al-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2
Chapter A2: Uncertainty
Introduction
This chapter discusses sources of uncertainty in
EPA's impingement and entrainment (I&E) analyses,
and presents the preliminary results of an uncertainty
analysis of the yield model used by EPA to estimate
the benefits of reducing I&E of commercial and
recreational fishery species. Section A2-1 discusses
major uncertainties in EPA's I&E assessments,
section A2-2 briefly describes Monte Carlo analysis
as a tool for quantifying uncertainty, section A2-3
provides preliminary results of an uncertainty
analysis by EPA of winter flounder yield estimates,
and section A2-4 discusses results of the uncertainty
analysis.
Chapter Contents
A2-1 Types of Uncertainty A2-1
A2-1.1 Structural Uncertainty A2-1
A2-1.2 Parameter Uncertainty A2-2
A2-1.3 Uncertainties Related to
Engineering A2-4
A2-2 Monte Carlo Analysis as a Tool for
Quantifying Uncertainty A2-4
A2-3 EPA's Uncertainty Analysis of Yield
Estimates A2-4
A2-3.1 Overview of Analysis A2-4
A2-3.2 Preliminary Results A2-5
A2-4 Conclusions A2-6
A2-1 Types of Uncertainty
Despite following sound scientific practice throughout, it was impossible to avoid numerous sources of
uncertainty that may cause EPA's I&E estimates in the regional analysis to be imprecise or to carry potential
statistical bias. Uncertainty of this nature is not unique to EPA's I&E analysis.
Uncertainty may be classified into two general types (Finkel, 1990). One type, referred to as structural
uncertainty, reflects the limits of the conceptual formulation of a model and relationships among model
parameters. The other general.type is parameter uncertainty, which flows from uncertainty about any of the
specific numeric values of model parameters. The following discussion considers these two types of uncertainty
in relation to EPA's I&E analysis.
A2-1.1 Structural Uncertainty
The models used by EPA to evaluate I&E simplify a very complex process. The degree of simplification is
substantial but necessary because of the limited availability of empirical data. Table A2-1 provides examples of
some potentially important considerations that are not captured by the models used. EPA believes that these
structural uncertainties will generally lead to inaccuracies, rather than imprecision, in the final results.
A2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2
Table A2-1: Uncertainties Associated with Model Structure
Type
Generally
simple
structure
Biological
submodels
Economic
submodels
General Treatment
in Model
Species lost to I&E treated
independently
No dynamic elements
No dynamic elements
Fish stock
Angler experience
Specific Treatment in Model
Fish species grouped into two categories: harvested or not harvested
(forage for harvested species).
Life history parameters constant (i.e., growth and survival did not vary
through time); growth and survival rates did not change in response to
possible compensatory effects.
Ratio of direct to indirect benefits was static through time; market
values of harvested species were inelastic (i.e., were fixed and thus not
responsive to market changes that may occur due to increased supply
when yield is higher).
Landings of commercial and recreational fish associated with I&E
losses assumed to be within the State where facility is located.
I&E losses at a facility assumed to be relevant to angler experience (or
perception) and Random Utility Model (RUM) models of sport fishery
economics.
A2-1.2 Parameter Uncertainty
Uncertainty about the numeric values of model parameters arises for two general reasons. The first source of
parameter uncertainty is imperfect precision and accuracy of I&E data reported by facilities and growth and
mortality rates obtained from the scientific literature. This results from unavoidable sampling and measurement
errors. The second major source of parameter uncertainty is the applicability of parameter estimates obtained
from I&E or life history studies conducted at other locations or under different conditions.
Table A2-2 presents some examples of parameter uncertainty. In all of these cases, increasing uncertainty about
specific parameters implies increasing uncertainty about EPA's point estimates of I&E losses. The point
estimates are biased only insofar as the input parameters are biased in aggregate (i.e., inaccuracies in multiple
parameter values that are above the "actual" values but below the "actual" values in other cases may tend to
counteract). In this context, EPA believes that parameter uncertainty will generally lead to imprecision, rather
than inaccuracies, in the final results.
A2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2
Table A2-2: Parameters Included in EPA's I&E Analysis that are Subject to Uncertainty
Type
Factors
Examples of Uncertainties in Model
I&E monitoring
/loss rate
estimates
Biological/life
history
Stock
characteristics
Ecological
system
Sampling regimes
Extrapolation
assumptions
Species selection
Sensitivity offish to
I&E
Natural mortality
rates
Growth rates
Geographic
considerations
Forage valuation
Fishery yield
Harvest behavior
Stock interactions
Compensatory
growth
Compensatory
mortality
Fish community
Spawning dynamics
Hydrology
Meteorology
Sampling regimes subject to numerous plant-specific details; no established
guidelines or performance standards for how to design and conduct sampling
regimes.
Extrapolation of monitoring data to annual I&E rates requires numerous
assumptions regarding diurnal/seasonal/annual cycles in fish presence and
vulnerability and various technical factors (e.g., net collection efficiency;
hydrological factors affecting I&E rates); no established guidelines or
consistency in sampling regimes.
Criteria for selection of species to evaluate not well-defined or uniform
across facilities.
Through-plant entrainment mortality assumed by EPA to be 100%; some
back-calculations required in cases where facilities had reported entrainment
rates that assumed <100% mortality. Impingement survival included if
presented in facility documents.
Natural mortality rates (M) difficult to estimate; model results highly
sensitive to M.
Simple exponential growth rates or simple size-at-age parameters used.
Migration patterns; I&E occurring during spawning runs or larval out-
migration; location of harvestable adults; intermingling with other stocks.
Harvested species assumed to be food limited; trophic transfer efficiency to
harvested species estimated by EPA based on general models; no
consideration of trophic transfer to species not impinged and entrained.
For harvest species, used only one species-specific value for fishing
mortality rate (F) for all stages subject to harvest; used stage-specific
constants for fraction vulnerable to fishery.
No assumed dynamics among harvesters to alter fishing rates or preferences
in response to changes in stock size; recreational access assumed constant
(no changes in angler preferences or effort).
I&E losses assumed to be part of reported fishery yield rates on a statewide
basis; no consideration of possible substock harvest rates or interactions.
None.
None.
Long-term trends in fish community composition or abundance not
considered (general food webs assumed to be static); used constant value for
trophic transfer efficiency; specific trophic interactions not considered.
Trophic transfer to organisms not impinged and entrained is not considered.
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to choice of spawning
areas and timing of migrations that could affect vulnerability to I&E (e.g.,
presence of larvae in vicinity of intake structure).
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to flow regimes and tidal
cycles that could affect vulnerability to I&E (e.g., presence of larvae in
vicinity of CWIS).
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to vulnerability to I&E
(e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of intake structure).
A2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A2
A2-1.3 Uncertainties Related to Engineering
EPA's evaluation of I&E was also affected by uncertainty about the engineering and operating characteristics of
the study facilities. It is unlikely that plant operating characteristics (e.g., seasonal, diurnal, or intermittent
changes in intake water flow rates) were constant throughout any particular year, which therefore introduces the
possibility of bias in the loss rates reported by the facilities. EPA assumed that the facilities' loss estimates were
provided in good faith and did not include any intentional biases, omissions, or other kinds of misrepresentations.
A2-2 Monte Carlo Analysis as a Tool for Quantifying Uncertainty
Stochastic simulation is among a class of statistical procedures commonly known as Monte Carlo modeling
methods. Monte Carlo methods allow investigators to quantify uncertainty in model results based on knowledge
or assumptions about the amount of uncertainty in each of the various input parameters. The Monte Carlo
approach also allows investigators to conduct sensitivity analyses to elucidate the relative contribution of the
uncertainty in each input parameter to overall uncertainty. Monte Carlo methods are particularly useful for
assessing models where analytic (i.e., purely mathematical) methods are cumbersome or otherwise unsuitable. A
thorough introduction to the statistical reasoning that underlies Monte Carlo methods, and their application in
risk assessment frameworks, is provided in an EPA document "Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis"
(U.S. EPA, 1997).
The characteristic feature of Monte Carlo methods is the generation of artificial variance through the use of
pseudorandom numbers. The solution to the model of interest is recalculated many times, each time adding
perturbations to the values of the model parameters. The types of perturbations are selected to reflect the actual
uncertainty in knowledge of those parameters. Recalculations are conducted thousands of times, and the variation
in the resulting solution is assessed and interpreted as an indicator of the aggregate uncertainty in the basic result.
A2-3 EPA's Uncertainty Analysis of Yield Estimates
A2-3.1 Overview of Analysis
As described in detail in Chapter Al of this report, EPA estimated foregone yield using the Thompson-Bell
equilibrium yield model (Ricker, 1975). The Thompson-Bell model is based on the same general principles that
are used to estimate the expected yield in any harvested fish population (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Quinn and
Deriso, 1999). The general procedure involves multiplying age-specific weights by age-specific harvest rates to
calculate an age-specific expected yield (in pounds). The lifetime expected yield for a cohort offish is then the
sum of all age-specific expected yields.
/ 7 \ (Equation 1)
L S]aWa(FjZa}(\ - e-2
where:
Yk = foregone yield (pounds) due to I&E losses in year k
Ljk = losses of individual fish of stagey in the year k
Sja = cumulative survival fraction from stagey to age a
Wa = average weight (pounds) of fish at age a
Fa = instantaneous annual fishing mortality rate for fish of age a
Za = instantaneous annual total mortality rate for fish of age a
A2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A2
Quantifying the variance in yield estimates resulting from uncertainty in the numeric values of L, S, W, F, and Z
assists in the interpretation of results, gives a sense of the precision in yield estimates, provides insight into the
sensitivity of predictions to particular parameter values, and indicates the contribution of particular parameters to
overall uncertainty.
EPA evaluated uncertainty in yield estimates for winter flounder using I&E data for a facility located on a North
Atlantic estuary. The I&E loss records and winter flounder life history parameters that were used are provided in
the Phase II docket as DCN #4-2037.
EPA developed a custom program written in the S language to conduct the Monte Carlo analysis. Wherever
possible, the simulation tool re-used the same code that was used to calculate yield for the original assessment.
Graphical displays were used to confirm the behavior of random number generation and to examine results.
Selection of input distributions for parameters of interest are a key element of any Monte Carlo analysis. In the
winter flounder test case, the input distributions were uniform distributions with a range defined as the initial,
best estimate of the parameter +/- 15%. A uniform distribution was selected because of its simplicity and the 15%
range was selected because this magnitude of variance is considered plausible.
EPA investigated sensitivity of the model to variations in parameters by grouping the parameters into five
classes:
+ natural mortality (M) at all life stages;
* fishing mortality (F) at all life stages;
+ fraction vulnerable to fishing (F) at all life stages (i.e., age of recruitment to the fishery);
* weight at age (W); and
+ the reported I&E loss rates (L).
The analysis consisted of repeating runs (n = 10,000 in each run) of the model wherein each of the groups of
parameters was either held constant at their best estimates or were varied stochastically according to the defined
input distributions. The relative importance of these groups of parameters was assessed by comparing the relative
amount of variation between each set of runs. Model sensitivity to individual parameters has not been examined.
A2-3.2 Preliminary Results
For entrainment losses, the analysis indicated that the yield model is most sensitive to uncertainty in natural
mortality rates, followed by uncertainty in the I&E loss rates themselves (Figure A2-1). Age-specific weights
were the third most important group, followed by fishing mortality and age at recruitment, which were relatively
insignificant sources of uncertainty.
A2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2
Figure A2-1: Results of Preliminary Parameter Sensitivity Analysis of Estimates of Foregone Yield
(pounds) of Winter Flounder due to Entrainment by a Power Plant Located in a North Atlantic Estuary
80000
^ 70000
T3
ffi
c
o
60000
,P 50000
40000
o
o
0
1 §
o
o
o
o
o
o ••
0
Si
a 0
1 0
0
0
o
Data points are plotted at the 5th percentile, 10th percentile, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile, 90th
percentile, and 95th percentile of 10,000 independent estimates of foregone yield within each parameter set. Groups
are distinguished by uppercase letters designating which types of parameters were treated stochastically in the
simulation and lowercase letters for types of parameters fixed at their best estimates. M = natural mortality rates;
F = fishing mortality rates; V = age of recruitment to the fishery; W = weight at age; L = entrainment loss rates.
A2-4 Conclusions
This chapter includes a general discussion of uncertainty and describes a general approach that was tested by
EPA as a way to quantify uncertainty associated with the yield model described in Chapter Al. Preliminary
results of the uncertainty analysis suggest that uncertainty about natural mortality rates is a significant contributor
to aggregate uncertainty in yield estimates. Unfortunately, as noted in a review article by Vetter (1988), "True
rates of natural mortality, and their variability, are poorly known for even the great stocks of commercial fish in
temperate regions that have been subject to continuous exploitation for decades" (Vetter, 1988, p. 39). As a
result, the uncertainty in mortality parameters cannot be overcome. As Vetter (1988) noted, this is a difficulty
shared by all models offish stock dynamics. Nonetheless, through consultation with local fish biologists as well
as the scientific literature, EPA expended considerable effort to identify reasonable mortality rates and other life
history information for use in its yield analyses. These parameter values and data sources are presented in
Appendix 1 of each regional report (Parts B-G of this document).
A2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Chapter A3: Economic Benefit Categories
and Valuation
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
A3-4
Introduction
Changes in cooling water intake structure (CWIS)
design or operations resulting from the proposed
section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities are
expected to reduce impingement and entrainment
(I&E) losses offish, shellfish, and other aquatic
organisms and, as a result, the rulemaking is
expected to increase the numbers of individuals
present, increase local and regional fishery
populations, and ultimately contribute to the
enhanced environmental functioning of affected
waterbodies (rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans)
and associated ecosystems. The economic welfare
of human populations is expected to increase as a
consequence of the improvements in fisheries and
associated aquatic ecosystem functioning.
The aquatic resources affected by cooling water
intake structures provide a wide range of
environmental services. Ecosystem services are the
physical, chemical, and biological functions
performed by natural resources and the human
benefits derived from those functions, including both ecological
al., 1997). Scientific and public interest in protecting ecosystem
these services are vulnerable to a wide range of human activities
with human technologies (Meffe, 1992).
Chapter Contents
A3-5
A3-6
A3-7.
Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the
Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities A3-2
Direct Use Benefits A3-5
Indirect Use Benefits A3-7
Non-Use Benefits A3-7
A3-4.1 Role of Non-Use Benefits in the
Benefits Analysis for the Proposed
Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities A3-8
A3-4.2 Overview of Explored Methods for
Estimating Non-Use Benefits of the
Proposed Rule for Phase III
Facilities A3-10
Summary of Benefit Categories A3-11
Causality: Linking the Proposed Rule for Phase
III Facilities to Beneficial Outcomes .... A3-13
Conclusions A3-14
and human use services (Daily, 1997; Daily et
services is increasing with the recognition that
and are difficult, if not impossible, to replace
In addition to their importance in providing food and other goods of direct use to humans, the organisms lost to
I&E are critical to the continued functioning of the ecosystems of which they are a part. Fish are essential for
energy transfer in aquatic food webs, regulation of food web structure, nutrient cycling, maintenance of sediment
processes, redistribution of bottom substrates, the regulation of carbon fluxes from water to the atmosphere, and
the maintenance of aquatic biodiversity (Peterson and Lubchenco, 1997; Postel and Carpenter, 1997; Holmund
and Hammer, 1999; Wilson and Carpenter, 1999). Examples of the impact of I&E on ecological and public
services include:
» decreased numbers of ecological keystone, rare, or sensitive species;
» decreased numbers of popular species that are not fished, perhaps because the fishery is closed;
decreased numbers of special status (e.g., threatened or endangered) species;
increased numbers of exotic or disruptive species that compete well in the absence of species lost to I&E;
disruption of ecological niches and ecological strategies used by aquatic species;
disruption of organic carbon and nutrient transfer through the food web;
disruption of energy transfer through the food web;
decreased local biodiversity;
disruption of predator-prey relationships;
disruption of age class structures of species;
A3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
» disruption of natural succession processes;
>• disruption of public uses other than fishing, such as diving, boating, and nature viewing; and
>• disruption of public satisfaction with a healthy ecosystem.
Many of these services can only be maintained by the continued presence of all life stages offish and other
aquatic species in their natural habitats.
The traditional approach of EPA and other natural resource agencies to quantifying the environmental benefits of
proposed regulations has focused on active use values, particularly direct use values such as recreational or
commercial fishing. Nonconsumptive uses (such as the importance of fish for aquatic food webs), and passive use
or non-use values (including the value of protecting a resource for its own sake), are seldom considered because
they are difficult to monetize with available economic methods. However, even though economists debate
methods for indirect and non-use valuation, there is general agreement that these values exist and can be
important (Freeman, 2003).
This chapter first identifies the types of economic benefits that are likely to be generated from improved
ecosystem functioning resulting from the proposed rule for Phase III facilities. Then, the basic economic concepts
applicable to the economic benefits, including benefit categories and benefit taxonomies associated with market
and nonmarket goods and services that are likely to flow from reduced I&E, are discussed. Sections in this chapter
refer to the chapters in this report that detail the methods used to estimate the values of reductions in I&E. These
methods are in turn applied in the regional studies described in Parts B through G of this document.
A3-1 Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for
Phase III Facilities
The term "economic benefits" for our purposes refers to the dollar value associated with all the expected positive
impacts of the proposed rule for Phase III facilities. The basic approach for estimating the benefits of a policy
event is to evaluate changes in social welfare realized by consumers and producers. These surplus measures are
standardized and widely accepted concepts within applied welfare economics, and reflect the degree of well-being
derived by economic agents (e.g., people and/or firms) given different levels of goods and services, including
those associated with environmental quality.1 For the case of market goods, analysts typically use money-
denominated measures of consumer and producer surplus, which provide an approximation of exact welfare
effects (Freeman, 2003). For nonmarket goods, such as aquatic habitat, values must be assessed using nonmarket
valuation methods. In such cases, valuation estimates are typically restricted to effects on individual households
(or consumers), and either represent consumer surplus or analogous exact Hicksian welfare measures (e.g.,
compensating surplus). The choice of welfare (i.e., value) measures is often determined by the valuation context.
Estimating economic benefits of reducing I&E at existing CWISs can be challenging. Many steps are needed to
analyze the link between reductions in I&E and improvements in human welfare. The changes produced by the
new regulations on fisheries and other aspects of relevant aquatic ecosystems must be determined, and then linked
in a meaningful way to the associated environmental goods and services that ultimately produce increased
benefits. Key challenges in environmental benefits assessment include uncertainties, data availability, and the fact
that many of the goods and services beneficially affected by CWIS are not traded in the marketplace (i.e.,
monetary values can not be established based on observed market transactions for some of the important
beneficial outcomes). In this case, several types of benefits need to be estimated using nonmarket valuation
1 Technically, consumer surplus reflects the difference between the "value" an individual places on a good or
service (as reflected by the individual's "willingness-to-pay" (WTP) for that unit of the good or service) and the "cost"
incurred by that individual to acquire it (as reflected by the "price" of a commodity or service, if it is provided in the
marketplace). See Chapter A4 for a more detailed discussion of consumer and producer surplus.
A3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
techniques. Where this cannot be done in a reliable manner, the benefits need to be described and considered
qualitatively.
For the proposed rule for Phase III facilities, the benefits are likely to consist of several categories; some are
linked to direct use of market goods and services, and others pertain to nonmarket goods and services. Figure A3-
1 outlines the most prominent categories of benefits expected from the rule. The four quadrants are divided by
two principles:
>• whether the benefit can be tracked in a market (i.e., market goods and services); and
» how the benefit of a nonmarket good is received by human beneficiaries (either from direct use of the
resource, from indirect use, or from non-use).
Figure A3-1: Benefits Categories for the
Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities
Market
§
3
1
6
(b)
Nonmarket
Non-Use
.. . _
Vicarious Consumption
BENEFIT VALUES
Nonmarket
Direct Use
xo*
Nonmarket Food Chain
Suppoi
'"ctivity
n > C —"vjry
1 i \ C*16^/
I %^»c'
o * %; ~e,
3 ». v ^ \
^'3. ^ * f'
r s
-. ^*
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
The best example of market benefits for the proposed rule are commercial fisheries, where a change in fishery
conditions will manifest itself in the price, quantity, and/or quality of fish harvests. These fishery changes result in
changes in the marketplace, and can be evaluated based on market exchanges. A discussion of methods used in
the commercial fishing benefits analysis can be found in Chapter A4 of this document.
Direct use benefits also include the value of improved environmental goods and services used and valued by
people (whether or not these services and goods are traded in markets). A typical nonmarket direct use would be
recreational angling. Recreational fishing studies of sites throughout the United States have shown that anglers
place high value on their fishing trips and that catch rates are one of the most important attributes contributing to
the quality and, as a result, value of their trips. Higher catch rates resulting from reduced I&E offish species
targeted by recreational anglers may translate into two components of recreational angling benefits: (1) an
increase in the value of existing recreational fishing trips resulting in a more enjoyable angling experience, and
(2) an increase in recreational angling participation. A discussion of methodology used in valuation of
recreational fishing benefits can be found in Chapter A5.
A3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
Indirect use benefits refer to changes that contribute indirectly to an increase in welfare for users (or non-users) of
the resource. An example of an indirect benefit would be when the increase in the number of forage fish enables
the population of valued predator species to improve (e.g., when the size and numbers of prized recreational or
commercial fish increase because their food source has been improved). In such a context, reducing I&E of forage
species will indirectly result in welfare gains for recreational or commercial anglers. See Chapter Al for a
discussion on the indirect influence of forage fish on abundance of commercial and recreational species.
Non-use benefits, often referred to as passive use benefits, arise when individuals value improved environmental
quality 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,
altruism, and bequest motives. Existence value is the value that individuals may hold for simply knowing that a
particular good exists regardless of its present or expected use.2 This motive applies not only to protecting
endangered and threatened species (i.e., avoiding an irreversible impact), but also applies (though perhaps the
values held may be different) for impacts that potentially are reversible or that affect relatively abundant species
and/or habitats.3 Bequest value exists when someone gains utility through the knowledge that an amenity will be
available for others (family or future generations) now and in the future (Fisher and Raucher, 1984). Altruistic
values arise from interpersonal concerns (valuing the happiness that others get from enjoying the resource). Non-
use values also may include the concept that some ecological services are valuable apart from any human uses or
motives. Examples of these ecological services may include improved reproductive success for aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife, increased diversity of aquatic and terrestrial species, and improved conditions for recovery of
I&E species.
In older published studies, option value, which may exist regardless of actual future use, has been classified as
either non-use value, use value, or as a third type of value, apart from both the use and non-use components of
total value. Fisher and Raucher (1984) define option price for such an individual as "the sum of the expected
value of consumer surplus from using the resource plus an option value or risk premium that accounts for
uncertainty in demand or in supply." Mitchell and Carson (1989) argue that on theoretical grounds this risk
premium should be small for non-unique resources. It is increasingly recognized, however, that option value
"cannot be a separate component of value" (Freeman, 2003; p. 249). As noted by Freeman (2003; p. 250), option
value is "not mentioned in EPA's most recent set of guidelines for economic assessment." Accordingly, the
following analysis does not assess option value as a distinct component of value.
Although different benefit categories can be developed, it makes little difference where specific types of benefits
are classified as long as the classification system captures all of the types of beneficial outcomes that are expected
to arise from a policy action, while at the same time avoiding any possible double counting. Some valuation
approaches may capture more than one benefit category or reflect multiple types of benefits that exist in more
than one category or quadrant in the diagram. For example, reducing I&E may enhance populations of
recreational, commercial, and forage species alike. Thus, decision-makers need to be careful to account for the
mix of direct and indirect uses included in the benefits estimates, including both market and nonmarket goods and
services as well as non-use values.
2 The term "existence value" is sometimes used interchangeably with or in place of "non-use value." In this case,
where the whole of non-use benefits is represented, existence value has been described as including vicarious
consumption and stewardship values. Vicarious consumption reflects the value individuals may place on the
availability of a good or service for others to consume in the current time period, and stewardship includes inherent
value as well as bequest value. In this case inherent value may be considered the existence value individuals hold for
knowing that a good exists (described above), and bequest value is the value individuals place on preserving or
ensuring the availability of a good or service for family and others in the future.
3 Some economists consider option values to be a part of non-use values because the option value is not derived
from actual current use. Alternatively, some other writers place option value in a use category, because the option
value is associated with preserving opportunity for a future use of the resource. Both interpretations are supportable,
but for this presentation EPA places option value in the non-use category in Figure A3-1.
A3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
A3-2 Direct Use Benefits
Direct use benefits are the simplest to envision. The welfare of commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fishermen is improved when fish stocks increase and their catch rates rise. This increase in stocks may be induced
by reduced I&E of species sought by fishermen, or through reduced I&E of forage and bait fish, which leads to
increases in the number of commercial and recreational species that prey on the forage species. For subsistence
fishermen, the increase in fish stocks may reduce the amount of time spent fishing for their meals or increase the
number of meals they are able to catch. For recreational anglers, more fish and higher catch rates may increase the
enjoyment of a fishing trip and may also increase the number of fishing trips taken. For commercial fishermen,
larger fish stocks may lead to increased revenues through increases in total landings and/or increases in the catch
per unit of effort (i.e., lower costs per fish caught). Increases in catch may also lead to growth in related
commercial enterprises, such as commercial fish cleaning/filleting, commercial fish markets, recreational charter
fishing, and fishing equipment sales.4
Evidence that the use value of fishery resources is considerable can be seen in the market and other observable
data. For example, in 1996, over 35 million recreational anglers spent nearly $38 billion on equipment and fishing
trip related expenditures (U.S. DOI, 1997), and the 1996 GDP from fishing, forestry, and agricultural services
(not including farms) was about $39 billion (BEA, 1998). Americans spent an estimated 626 million days
engaged in recreational fishing in 1996, an increase of 22% over the 1991 levels (U.S. DOI, 1997). If the average
consumer surplus per angling day were only $20 — a conservative figure relative to the values derived by
economic researchers over the years (Walsh et al., 1990)5 — then the national level of consumer surplus based on
these 1996 levels of recreational angling would be approximately $12.6 billion per year (and probably is
appreciably higher).
However, these baseline values do not provide a sense of how benefits change with improvements in
environmental quality, such as due to reduced I&E and increased fish stocks. If the improvement resulted in a
aggregate increase of 1.0% in recreational angling consumer surplus, it would translate into potential recreational
angling benefits of approximately $100 million per year or more, based on the limited metrics in the previous
paragraph.
Methodologies for estimating use values for recreational and commercial species are well developed, and some of
the species affected by I&E losses have been extensively studied. As a result, estimation of associated use values
is often considered to be straightforward. However, the portion of I&E losses consisting offish that are
recreationally and commercially landed represents only a very small fraction of the total age-1 equivalent I&E
losses and, as a result, changes in direct use values resulting from the proposed rule for Phase III facilities provide
an incomplete estimate of the regulation's benefits.
The following bullets discuss techniques of estimating direct use value for I&E losses of harvested fish.
*J» Commercial fisheries
The social benefits derived from increased landings by commercial fishermen can be valued by examining the
markets through which the landed fish are sold. 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
4 Increased revenues are often realized by commercial ventures whose businesses are stimulated by environmental
improvements. These revenue increases do not necessarily reflect gains in national level "economic welfare" and,
therefore, are not usually included in a national benefit-cost analysis. However, these positive economic impacts may
be sizable and of significance to local or regional economies — and also of national importance — in times when the
economy is not operating at full capacity (i.e., when the economic impacts reflect real gains and not transfers of
activity across regions or sectors).
5 Walsh et al. (1990) review 20 years of research and derive an average value of over $30 per day for warm water
angling, and higher values for cold water and saltwater angling.
A3-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
harvesters). The changes in landings are then valued according to market data from relevant fish markets (dollars
per pound) to derive an estimate of the change in gross revenues to commercial fishermen. The final steps entail
converting the I&E-related changes in gross revenues into estimates of social benefits. These social benefits
consist of the sum of the producers' and consumers' surpluses that are derived as the changes in commercial
landings work their way through the multi-market commercial fishery sector. Each step of this analysis is
described in detail in Chapter A4.
»«» Recreational fisheries
The benefits of recreational use cannot be tracked in the market, since much of the recreational activity associated
with fisheries occurs as nonmarket events. However, a variety of nonmarket valuation methods exist for
estimating use value, including both "revealed" and "stated" preference methods (Freeman, 2003). Where
appropriate data are available or may be collected, revealed preference methods may represent a preferred set of
methods for estimating use values. These methods use observed behavior to infer users' value for environmental
goods and services. Examples of revealed preference methods include travel cost, hedonic pricing, and random
utility models. Compared to non-use values, use values are often considered relatively easy to estimate, due to
their relationship to observable behavior, the variety of revealed preference methods available, and public
familiarity with the recreational services provided by surface waterbodies.
To evaluate recreational benefits of the proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities, EPA developed
a benefit transfer approach based on a meta-analysis of recreational fishing valuation studies designed to measure
the various factors that determine willingness-to-pay (WTP) for catching an additional fish per trip. The estimated
meta-model allows calculation of the marginal value per fish for different species based on resource and policy
context characteristics. Benefit transfer is a secondary research method applied when data and other constraints
limit the feasibility of doing site-specific primary research. Although primary research methods are generally
considered to be superior to benefit transfer methods, benefit transfer is often a second-best (or only) alternative
to original studies. Additional details on the benefit transfer method EPA used in the recreational fishing benefits
analysis can be found in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
To validate the meta-analysis results, EPA also used regional random utility models (RUM) of recreational fishing
behavior developed for the Phase II analysis to estimate welfare gain to recreational anglers from improved
recreational opportunities resulting from reduced I&E of fish species. The models' main assumption is that anglers
will get greater satisfaction, and thus greater economic value, from sites where the catch rate is higher due to
reduced I&E, all else being equal. This method has been applied frequently to value recreational fisheries and is
thought to be quite reliable because it is based on people's demand for nonmarket goods and services through
observable behavior. The RUM approach has been applied to the four coastal regions and the Great Lakes region.
Chapter Al 1 of the Phase II Regional Analysis document provides more detailed discussion of the methodology
used in EPA's RUM analysis (see DCN 6-0003).
«t» Avoiding double-counting of direct use benefits
Many of the fish species affected by I&E at CWIS sites are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To
avoid double-counting the economic impacts of I&E of these species, the Agency determined the proportion of
total species landings attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied this proportion to the
number of affected fishery catch.
»*» Subsistence anglers
Subsistence use of fishery resources can be an important issue in areas where socioeconomic conditions (e.g., the
number of low income households) or the mix of ethnic backgrounds make such angling economically or
culturally important to a component of the community. In cases of Native American use of affected fisheries, the
value of an improvement can sometimes be inferred from settlements in legal cases (e.g., compensation
agreements between affected Tribes and various government or other institutions in cases of resource acquisitions
or resource use restrictions). For more general populations, the value of improved subsistence fisheries may be
estimated from the costs saved in acquiring alternative food sources (assuming the meals are replaced rather than
foregone). This method may underestimate the value of a subsistence-fishery meal to the extent that the store-
A3-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
bought foods may be less preferred by some individuals than consuming a fresh-caught fish. Subsistence fishery
benefits are not included in EPA's regional analyses, although impacts on subsistence anglers may constitute an
important environmental justice consideration, leading to an underestimation of the total benefits of the
regulation.
A3-3 Indirect Use Benefits
Indirect use benefits refer to welfare improvements that arise for those individuals whose activities are enhanced
as an indirect consequence of fishery or habitat improvements generated by the proposed rule for Phase III
facilities. For example, the rule's positive impacts on local fisheries may generate an improvement in the
population levels and/or diversity offish-eating bird species. In turn, avid bird watchers might obtain greater
enjoyment from their outings, as they are more likely to see a wider mix or greater numbers of birds. The
increased welfare of the bird watchers is thus a legitimate but indirect consequence of the proposed rule's initial
impact on fish.
Another example of potential indirect benefits concerns forage species. A rule-induced improvement in the
population of a forage fish species may not be of any direct consequence to recreational or commercial anglers.
However, the increased presence of forage fish will have an indirect affect on commercial and recreational fishing
values if it increases food supplies for commercial and recreational predatory species. Thus, direct improvements
in forage species populations can result in a greater number (and/or greater individual size) of those fish that are
targeted by recreational or commercial anglers. In such an instance, the incremental increase in recreational and
commercial fishery benefits would be an indirect consequence of the proposed rule's effect on forage fish
populations.
A3-4 Non-Use Benefits
In contrast to direct use values, non-use values are often considered more difficult to estimate. Stated preference
methods, or benefit transfer based on stated preference studies, are the generally accepted techniques for
estimating these values. Stated preference methods rely on carefully designed surveys, which either (1) ask people
to state their WTP for particular ecological improvements, such as increased protection of aquatic species or
habitats with particular attributes, or (2) ask people to choose between competing hypothetical "packages" of
ecological improvements and household cost. In either case, analysis of survey responses allows estimation of
values.
Non-use values may be more difficult to assess than use values for several reasons. First, non-use values are not
associated with easily observable behavioral trails. Second, non-use values may be held by both users and
non-users of a resource. Because non-users may be less familiar with particular services provided by a resources
their values may be different from the non-use values for users of the same resource. Third, the development of a
defensible stated preference survey that meets the NOAA blue ribbon panel requirements is often a time and
resource intensive process.6 Fourth, even carefully designed surveys may be subject to certain biases associated
with the hypothetical nature of survey responses (Mitchell and Carson, 1989).
EPA routinely estimates changes in use values of the affected resources as part of regulatory development.
However, given EPA's regulatory schedule, developing and implementing stated preference surveys to elicit total
value (i.e., non-use and use) of environmental quality changes resulting from environmental regulations is often
not feasible. An extensive body of environmental economics literature demonstrates the importance of valuing all
6 The NOAA blue ribbon panel provided an extensive set of guidelines for survey construction, administration,
and analysis to ensure that "... CV produces estimates reliable enough to be the starting point of a judicial process of
damage assessment, including passive-use values [i.e. non-use values]" (see FR 58:10 pp.4601-4614, 1993).
A3-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
service losses, rather than just readily measured direct use losses. These studies typically reveal that the public
holds significant value for service flows from natural resources well beyond those associated with direct uses
(Fisher and Raucher, 1984; Brown, 1993; Boyd et al., 2001; Fischman, 2001; Heal et al, 2001; Herman et al.,
2001; Ruhl and Gregg, 2001; Salzman et al., 2001; Wainger et al., 2001). Studies have documented public values
for the non-use services provided by a variety of natural resources potentially affected by environmental impacts,
including fish and wildlife (Stevens et al., 1991; Loomis et al., 2000); wetlands (Woodward and Wui, 2001);
wilderness (Walsh et al., 1984); critical habitat for threatened and endangered species (Whitehead and Blomquist,
1991a; Hagen et al., 1992; Loomis and Ekstrand, 1997); overuse of groundwater (Feinerman and Knapp, 1983);
hurricane impacts on wetlands (Farber, 1987); global climate change on forests (Layton and Brown, 1998);
bacterial impacts on coastal ponds (Kaoru, 1993); oil impacts on surface water (Cohen, 1986); and toxic substance
impacts on wetlands (Hanemann et al., 1991), shoreline quality (Grigalunas et al., 1988), and beaches, shorebirds,
and marine mammals (Rowe et al., 1992). Brown (1993) reports that in many studies, total values exceed direct
use values by greater than a factor of two.
The Agency has begun the preliminary development of a stated preference survey that would measure non-use
benefits from reduced I&E attributable to the section 316(b) regulation. EPA hopes to complete this stated
preference study in time to rely on its findings for the final regulation for Phase III facilities. For the proposed
regulation, no primary research was feasible within the budgeting, scheduling, and other constraints faced by the
Agency. Thus, the Agency explored various alternatives to quantifying and monetizing non-use benefits based on
secondary research. However, given the uncertainties in estimating non-use benefits with secondary estimation
techniques at the national level, the Agency presented only a qualitative assessment of the non-use benefits of the
environmental protections at issue in the benefit-cost analysis for the proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase
III facilities. Various alternatives to quantifying and monetizing non-use benefits based on secondary research
considered by EPA are briefly summarized below.7 Chapter A6 provides a qualitative assessment of non-use
benefits stemming from the proposed regulation. Approaches to valuing I&E impacts on special status species are
examined in Chapter A9.
A3-4.1 Role of Non-Use Benefits in the Benefits Analysts for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase
III Facilities
Accounting for non-use values in the Phase III benefits analysis is especially important because the portion of
I&E losses consisting of organisms that have a direct human use value (i.e., those that contribute to forgone
harvest) represents only a very small percentage of the organisms impinged and entrained by CWIS. Of the
organisms that are anticipated to be protected by the proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities,
approximately 2.4 percent will eventually be harvested by commercial and recreational fishers and therefore can
be valued with direct use valuation techniques. Unharvested fish, which have no direct use value, represent 97.6
percent of the total loss. These unlanded fish include forage fish and the unlanded portion of the stock of
harvested species. Their value to the public has two sources: (1) their indirect use as both food and breeding
population for fish that are harvested; and (2) their non-use value, stemming from a sense of altruism,
stewardship, bequest, or vicarious consumption, as indicated by the willingness of individuals to pay for the
protection or improvement in fish numbers. The indirect use value of forage fish is estimated by translating
foregone production among forage species into foregone production among harvested fish.8 However, this indirect
use value represents only a portion of the total value of unlanded fish. In fact, society may value both landed and
unlanded fish for reasons unrelated to their use value. Such non-use values include the value that people may hold
simply for knowing these fish exist. While non-use values are difficult to quantify, EPA believes it is important to
7 DCN 7-5133 provides details on the benefit transfer approaches considered for estimating non-use benefits of
the proposed regulation.
8 See Chapter Al of this report for detail on this analysis.
A3-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
consider such values, particularly since 97.6 percent of impinged and entrained organisms have no direct use
value.
Table A3-1 provides detailed information on the number and percentage of organisms and age-1 adult equivalent
losses valued by EPA in the commercial and recreational fishing benefits analyses.
Table A3-1 —Number and Percentage of Baseline I&E Losses by Species Category
Age-1 Adult Equivalents (Millions)
I&E of Harvested
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National total"
All Species
1.31
2.34
23.20
12.70
34.40
44.20
120.00
Forage
Species
0.67
1.77
14.80
3.71
32.80
35.60
90.20
Commercial and
Recreational Species
0.64
0.57
8.47
9.01
1.54
8.60
29.60
Harvested
Commercial and
Recreational Species
0.06
0.05
1.46
1.20
0.54
0.51
3.94
Species as
Percentage of
Total I&E
4.54%
2.32%
6.29%
9.43%
1.58%
1.15%
3.29%
* The national total includes four sample-weighted facilities in the South Atlantic region. This region was not part
of the benefits analysis because these facilities withdraw less than 50 MGD and none of the facilities in this
region would be required to install technology to comply with the proposed options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
The organisms that remain unvalued in the analysis provide many important ecological services that do not
translate into direct human use. While some ecological services of aquatic species have been studied, other
ecosystems services, relationships, and interrelationships are unknown or poorly understood. To the extent that
the latter are not captured in the benefits analyses, total benefits are underestimated.
Although individuals do not directly use most of the of the organisms lost at cooling water intake structures,
individuals may nonetheless value these organisms. All individuals, including both commercial and recreational
fishermen as well as those who do not use the resource, may have non-zero non-use values for unlanded and
forage fish. When small per capita non-use values held by a substantial fraction of the population, they may be
very large in the aggregate and may in some cases exceed use values.
For resource non-users, non-use values (if >0) must by definition exceed use values, which are zero if resource
use is zero. Economic literature suggests that the non-use values for users of aquatic resources are significantly
higher than the non-use values for non-users. This may result from additional information about water resources
associated with past or expected future use, which is likely to enhance non-use value (Whitehead and Blomquist,
1991a). Other studies (e.g., Silberman et al., 1992), however, suggest that users may include their personal use
values in non-use values, which could potentially result in double-counting of use values. In its exploratory
analysis of non-use benefits, EPA used values from non-users (who have zero use values) to estimate non-use
values for users and non-users in order to avoid this problem.
A3-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
A3-4.2 Overview of Explored Methods for Estimating Non-Use Benefits of the Proposed Rule for Phase III
Facilities
In addition to the ongoing development of an original stated preference survey (to be completed for the final
regulation), EPA explored two different types of methodological approaches to evaluate the non-use benefits of
eliminating baseline I&E losses at Phase III facilities and reducing I&E through a rule for Phase III facilities: (1) a
benefit transfer method based on the ratio of non-use-to-use WTP values estimated in stated preference valuation
studies; (2) a benefit transfer approach where regression-based meta-analysis of a set of stated preference
valuation studies is used to examine the effect of various study, resource, and demographic characteristics on non-
use WTP values.
EPA notes that results of the analyses discussed below were not used as a part of the national benefits analysis
due to the unavoidable uncertainties in estimating non-use benefits at the national level.
*•• Benefit Transfer: Ratio-Based Non-Use Analysis
EPA examined the relationship between non-use and use values based on 20 original stated preference studies that
estimated both direct use and non-use values for changes in the quality of aquatic resources. EPA derived non-
use-to-use value ratios from each study by examining the estimated components of total value (e.g. recreational
use value, existence value; see section A3-1). The estimated ratios of non-use-to-use value can be used together
with separate estimates of recreational use value to estimate the per-household non-use value of changes in I&E
losses. Applying this non-use value to all the households with non-use motives for the affected waterbody
(including both user and non-user households) would yield an estimate of the total non-use value. EPA notes the
limitation of using the ratio-based approach because the estimation of non-use values is based solely on the linear
relationship between the use and non-use components of total value. In addition to correlation with use values,
non-use values are likely to be affected by other factors not directly related to use value, including the geographic
scope of improvement, resource characteristics, and the baseline conditions.
«•» Benefit Transfer: Regression-Based Meta-Analyses
EPA also explored regression-based meta analysis techniques to estimate the passive, or non-use, benefits of a
proposed rule for Phase III facilities. EPA considered two meta regression models, which are designed to
statistically summarize the relationship between the computed benefit measures and a set of characteristics
compiled from original primary study sources. The Agency considered (1) a regression model to examine the
factors that influence household non-use value (Johnston et al., 2003), and (2) a model to examine the factors that
influence total household WTP (U.S. EPA, 2004). The mathematical estimation of the functional relationships
between non-use/total value and study- and resource-specific characteristics allows the researcher to better
forecast estimates of WTP for the policy-specific scenario and sites versus other types of benefit transfer.
Additional advantages of the regression-based meta-analyses that EPA explored include:
> meta-analysis utilizes varied source studies which provide increased information on the underlying
components of reported benefits measures;
> methodological differences that contribute to differences in estimated benefits across source studies can
be determined and controlled with meta-analysis;
> in developing benefits estimates for the policy site and scenario, the independent variable values used in
the meta function can be adjusted to account for differences between the forecasted application and the
values derived within the original studies; and
> meta regression analysis can provide forecasted values of benefits outside the specific geographical
region, site and policy specific characteristics, and scope constraints of the source study data.9
9 The forecasted values derived from meta regression analysis, like any other forecast, decrease in confidence or
probability of correctness when used further from the range of the source data.
A3-JO
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A3
Much of the primary research into non-use values that is potentially applicable to estimating benefits produced by
the implementation of the proposed rule deals with eliciting an individual's WTP for improvements in site water
quality. EPA used meta-analysis of information from a number of these studies to determine the relationship
between generally reported WTP values for improved water quality and those produced in studies where people
were asked to value improvements in water quality that specifically affect only fish populations. This information
can be used to estimate an individual's non-use WTP for an improvement in water quality that produces an
increase in fish populations, a measure that the Agency believes is closely correlated with a pure WTP for
increases in fish.
The results of both regression-based meta-analyses, presented in DCN 7-5133, can be used to estimate annual
WTP for fish habitat improvement per non-user household (e.g., Mitchell and Carson, 1986; Carson and Mitchell,
1993). Applying this non-use value to all the households with non-use motives for the affected waterbody
(including both user and non-user households) would yield an estimate of the total non-use value.10
A3-5 Summary of Benefit Categories
Table A3-2 displays the types of benefit categories expected to be affected by the proposed section 316(b) rule for
Phase III facilities. The table also reveals the various data needs, data sources, and estimation approaches
associated with each category. Economic benefits can be broadly defined according to direct use and indirect use,
and are further categorized according to whether or not they are traded in the market. As indicated in Table A3-2,
"direct use" and "indirect use" benefits include both "marketed" and "nonmarketed" goods, whereas "non-use"
benefits include only "nonmarketed" goods.
10 EPA notes that this method of estimating non-use values may underestimate non-use values for users of aquatic
resources (Whitehead and Blomquist, 199la). Mitchell and Carson (1981) estimate "total value," including use and
non-use components. However, total value estimates for non-users can be interpreted as their non-use value (i.e., there
is no difference between their total and non-use value). Since non-users of a resource generally have lower non-use
values than users, assuming that all members of the relevant population (users and non-users) have non-use values
equal to the total values of non-users is a conservative assumption.
A3-I1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Table A3-2: Summary of Benefit Categories
Data Needs, Potential Data Sources, Approaches, and Analyses Completed
Potential Data
Sources/ Approaches/ Analyses
Completed
Benefit Category
Basic Data Needs
Direct Use, Marketed Goods
Increased commercial landings
Fishing tournaments with entry fees
and prizes
Estimated change in landings of
specific species
Estimated change in total
economic impact
Estimated change in total economic
impact
>• Based on facility-specific I&E
data and ecological modeling
»• Market-based approach using
data on landings and the value
of landings data from the
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS)
Not estimated. Changes in
tournament participation are
expected to be negligible
Indirect Use, Market Goods
Increase in market values:
»• equipment sales, rental, and repair
>• bait and tackle sales
*• increased consumer market
choices
»• increased choices in restaurant
meals
*• increased property values near
water
»• ecotourism (charter trips, festivals,
other organized activities with
fees such as riverwalks)
Estimated change in landings of
specific species
Relationship between increased
fish/shellfish landings and
secondary markets
Local activities and participation
fees
Estimated numbers of
participating individuals
Not estimated due to data
constraints
Direct Use, Nonmarket Goods
Improved value of a recreational
fishing trip:
> increased catch of
targeted/preferred species
>• increased incidental catch
•• Estimated number of affected
anglers
>• Value of an improvement in
catch rate
Benefit transfer
Regional RUM analysis (to
validate benefit transfer)
Increase in recreational fishing
participation
Estimated number of affected
anglers or estimate of potential
anglers
Value of an angling day
Not estimated. Changes in
recreational participation are
expected to be negligible at the
regional level.
A3-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Indirect Use, Nonmarket Goods
Increase in value of boating, scuba-
diving, and near-water recreational
experience:
•• enjoying observing fish while
boating, scuba-diving, hiking, or
picnicking
> watching aquatic birds fish or
catch aquatic invertebrates
Increase in boating, scuba-diving, and
near-water recreation participation
Estimated number of affected Not estimated due to data
near-water recreationists, divers, constraints
and boaters
Value of boating, scuba-diving,
and near-water recreation
experience
*• Estimated number of affected
boating, scuba-diving, and near-
water recreationists
> Value of a recreation day
Not estimated. Changes in
recreational participation are
expected to be negligible at the
regional level
Non-use, Nonmarket Goods
Increase in non-use values:
>• existence (stewardship),
> altruism (interpersonal concerns),
»• bequest (interpersonal and
intergenerational equity) motives
* appreciation of the importance of
ecological services apart from
human uses or motives (e.g., eco-
services interrelationships,
reproductive success, diversity,
and improved conditions for
recovery).
I&E loss estimates
Primary research using stated
preference approach (not feasible
within EPA constraints)
Applicable studies upon which to
conduct benefit transfer
Site-specific studies or
national stated preference
surveys
Benefit transfer, including
ratio-based and regression-
based meta-analysis of
applicable studies
Benefit transfer of values for
preserving threatened and
endangered species
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A3-6 Causality: Linking the Proposed Rule for Phase III Facilities to Beneficial Outcomes
Understanding the anticipated economic benefits arising from changes in I&E requires understanding a series of
physical and socioeconomic relationships linking the installation of Best Technology Available (BTA) to changes
in human behavior and values. As shown in Figure A3-2, these relationships span a broad spectrum, including
institutional relationships to define BTA (from policy making to field implementation), the technical performance
of BTA, the population dynamics of the aquatic ecosystems affected, and the human responses and values
associated with these changes.
The first two steps in Figure A3-2 reflect the institutional aspects of implementing the proposed rule for Phase III
facilities. In step 3, the anticipated applications of BTA (or a range of BTA options) must be determined for the
regulated entities. This technology forms the basis for estimating the cost of compliance, and provides the basis
for the initial physical impact of the rule (step 4). Hence, the analysis must predict how implementation of BTAs
(as predicted in step 3) translates into changes in I&E at the regulated CWIS (step 4). These changes in I&E then
serve as input for the ecosystem modeling (step 5).
A3-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A3
Figure A3-2: Causal Linkages in the Benefits Analysis
Causal Linkages Benefits Analysis
1. EPA Publication of Rule
2. Implementation through NPDES
Permit Process
z
3. Changes in Cooling Water Intake
Practices and/or Technologies
(implementation ofBTA)
Determine BTA Options
and Environmental Impact
Present Environmental Impact
of the Implemented BTA
4. Reductions in Impingement and
Entrainment
Assessment of Environmental
Impacts of Reduced I&E
5. Change in Aquatic Ecosystem
(e.g., increased fish abundance
and diversity)
Quantification
(e.g., participation modeling)
6. Change in level of Demand for Aquatic
Ecosystem Services (e.g., recreational,
commercial, and other benefits categories)
7. Change in Economic Values
(monetized changes in welfare)
Willingness-to-Pay
Estimation
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
In moving from step 4 to step 5, the selected ecosystem model (or models) are used to assess the change in the
aquatic ecosystem from the pre-regulatory baseline (e.g., losses of aquatic organisms before BTA) to the post-
regulatory conditions (e.g., losses after BTA implementation). The potential output from these steps includes
estimates of reductions in I&E rates, and changes in the abundance and diversity of aquatic organisms of
commercial, recreational, ecological, or cultural value, including T&E species.
In step 6, the analysis involves estimating how the changes in the aquatic ecosystem (estimated in step 5) translate
into changes in the level of demand for goods and services. For example, the analysis needs to establish links
between improved fishery abundance, potential increases in catch rates, and enhanced participation. Then, in step
7, as an example, the value of the increased enjoyment realized by recreational anglers is estimated. These last
two steps are the focal points of the economic benefits portion of the analysis.
A3-7 Conclusions
The general methods described here are applied to the regional studies, which are provided in Parts B through G
of this document. Variations may occur to these general methodologies within distinct regional analyses to better
reflect site-specific circumstances or data availability.
A3-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Chapter A4: Methods for Estimating
Commercial Fishing Benefits
Introduction
Commercial fisheries can be adversely impacted
by impingement and entrainment (I&E) and many
other stressors. Because commercially landed fish
are exchanged in markets with observable prices
and quantities, it may seem as if estimating the
economic value of losses due to I&E (or the
economic value of the benefits of reducing I&E)
would be relatively straightforward. However,
many complicating conceptual and empirical
issues pose significant challenges to estimating the
change in economic surplus from changes in the
number of commercially targeted fish.
This chapter provides an overview of these issues,
and demonstrates how EPA estimated the change
in commercial fisheries-related economic surplus
associated with the section 316(b) regulation. This
chapter includes a review of the concept of
economic surplus, and describes the theory and
empirical evidence on how readily observable
dockside prices and quantities may relate to the
economic welfare measures of producer and
consumer surplus that are suitable for a cost-
benefit assessment. This chapter also provides an
overview of the commercial fishery sector of the
economy, including an assessment of several
relevant fishery stocks, trends and patterns of how
the commercial fishing sector operates, and issues
within commercial fisheries management and how
they affect the analysis of economic welfare
measures.
A4-1 Overview of the Commercial
Fishery Sector
In estimating the effects of increased fish as a
result of reduced quantities of I&E, it is important
to understand who is affected. First and foremost,
there are the commercial watermen, the individuals
engaged in harvesting fish. These watermen
typically haul their catch to established dockside
wholesale markets, where they sell their catch to
Chapter Contents
A4-1 Overview of the Commercial Fishery
Sector
A4-1.1 Commercial Watermen
A4-1.2 Processors, Wholesalers, and
Other Middlemen
A4-1.3 Final Consumers
A4-2 The Role of Fishing Regulations and
Regulatory Participants
A4-3 Overview of U.S. Commercial Fisheries ..
A4-4 Prices, Quantities, Gross Revenue, and
Economic Surplus
A4-4.1 Accuracy of Price and Quantity
Data
A4-4.2 The Impact of Potential Price
Effects
A4-4.3 Key Concepts Applicable to the
Analysis of Revenues and Surplus
A4-4.4 Estimating Changes in Price
(as applicable)
A4-5 Economic Surplus
A4-5.1 Consumer Surplus
A4-5.2 Producer Surplus
A4-6 A Context of No Anticipated Change
in Price
A4-6.1 Producer Surplus as a Percentage
of Gross Revenues: Assuming No
Change in Prices
A4-6.2 Conclusions on Surplus When No
Change in Price is Anticipated .. .
A4-7 Surplus Estimation Under Scenarios in
Which Price May Change
A4-7.1 Neoclassical Economic
Perspective on the Market and
Economic Welfare
A4-7.2 Issues in Estimating Changes in
Welfare
A4-8 Estimating Producer Surplus
A4-9 Estimating Post-Harvest Economic
Surplus in Tiered Markets
A4-10 Nonmonetary Benefits of Commercial
Fishing .'
A4-11 Methods Used to Estimate Commercial
Fishery Benefits from Reduced I&E
A4-12 Limitations and Uncertainties
. A4-1
. A4-2
, A4-2
, A4-2
, A4-2
, A4-4
. A4-6
, A4-6
, A4-7
. A4-8
A4-10
A4-11
A4-11
A4-12
A4-13
A4-13
A4-15
A4-15
A4-15
A4-17
A4-19
A4-24
A4-25
A4-26
A4-27
A4-I
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
processors or wholesalers. Processors package or can the fish so that they can be sold as food products for
people, as pet and animal feed, or as oils and meals for various other uses. Wholesalers often resell fish to
retailers (e.g., grocery stores), restaurants, or final consumers (households).
The market and welfare impacts of a change in commercial fishery harvests can be traced through a series of
economic agents — individuals and businesses — that are linked through a series of "tiered markets." Through
these economic relationships between the various levels of buyers and sellers, the final value of the fish product
(e.g., a family dinner) creates economic signals (e.g., prices) that carry back through the various intermediate
parties to the watermen who actually engage in the harvest. Additionally, beneficial changes in the commercial
fishery may encourage watermen to purchase more fishing gear, fuel, and vessel repairs, which will benefit the
suppliers of these goods and services (although such purchases from input suppliers would not typically be
estimated as part of benefits, because they are transfers).
A4-1.1 Commercial Watermen
Commercial watermen include the individuals supplying the labor and/or capital (e.g., fishing vessels) engaged in
the harvesting of fish. These watermen typically haul their catch to established dockside wholesale markets,
where they sell their catch to processors or wholesalers. The transactions between the watermen and these
intermediate buyers provide observable market quantities and prices of dockside landings, and it is these data that
serve as a starting point for estimating changes in economic surplus.
Commercial fishing is often a demanding and risky occupation. However, commercial anglers often find great
satisfaction in their jobs and lifestyles. Additional detail on the economic and noneconomic aspects of
commercial fishing is provided in several of the sections that follow, including a discussion of the nonmonetary
benefits of commercial fishing (section A4-10).
A4-1.2 Processors, Wholesalers, and Other Middlemen
Dockside transactions typically involve buyers for whom the fish are an input to their production or economic
activity. For example, processors convert raw fish into various types of final or intermediate products, which they
then sell to other entities (e.g., retailers of canned or frozen fish products, or commercial or industrial entities that
rely on fish oil as a production input). Wholesalers may serve as middlemen between the watermen who harvest
the fish and those who will use the fish as production inputs or to retail vendors (e.g., supermarkets). Depending
on the market and the type of fish, there may be numerous economic actors and layers between the commercial
watermen who caught the fish and the final consumer who eats or otherwise uses the fish product.
A4-1.3 Final Consumers
After passing through perhaps several intermediate buyers and sellers, the fish (or fish products) ultimately end
up with a final consumer (typically a household). This final consumption may take the form of a fish dinner
prepared at home or purchased in a restaurant. Final consumption may also be in the form of food products
served to household pets, or as part of a nonfood product that relies on fish parts or oils as an input to production.
A4-2 The Role of Fishing Regulations and Regulatory Participants
Transactions in the fishery sector are often affected by various levels of fishery management regulations.
Nearshore fishing (ocean and estuary fishing less than 3 miles from shore) and Great Lakes fishing are primarily
regulated by State, Interstate, and Tribal entities. The content and relative strength of State laws affecting ocean
fishing vary across states.
A4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
The regulated nature of many fisheries affects the manner in which the impacts and economic benefits of the
section 316(b) regulation should be evaluated. For example, if the impacted fisheries were perfectly competitive
with open access (i.e., no property rights or fishery regulations), then all economic rents, producer surplus, and
economic profits associated with the resource would be driven to zero at the margin. However, where fisheries
are regulated or in other ways depart from the neoclassical assumptions of perfectly competitive markets, there
are rents and economic surplus that will be affected by changes in I&E. These economic considerations are
addressed later in this chapter.
The primary Federal laws affecting commercial fishing in U.S. ocean territory are the Magnuson Fishery
Conservation and Management Act of 1976 and the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) of 1996 (the SFA amended
the 1976 act and renamed it the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act). The purpose of
the 1976 act was to establish a U.S. exclusive economic zone that ranges from 3 to 200 miles offshore, and to
create eight regional fishery councils to manage the living marine resources within each area. These councils
comprised "commercial and recreational fishermen, marine scientists and State and Federal fisheries managers,
who combine their knowledge to prepare Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for stocks of finfish, shellfish and
crustaceans. In developing these FMPs the Councils use the most recent scientific assessments of the ecosystems
involved with special consideration of the requirements of marine mammals, sea turtles and other protected
resources" (NMFS, 2002c). The SFA amended the law to include numerous provisions requiring science,
management, and conservation action by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (NMFS, 2002e).
The eight fisheries management councils created by the 1976 act have regulatory authority within their respective
regions [five of these councils are relevant to the section 316(b) Phase III rulemaking]. They receive technical
and scientific support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Science
Centers. Table A4-1 presents how the regions used for the section 316(b) regulation analysis fit into the fisheries
management council regions and other fishery regions defined by NOAA Fisheries.
A4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-1: Regional Designation of Fisheries
EPA 316(b)
Analysis
Region States
North Atlantic Maine, New Hamp
NOAA Fisheries
Marine
Recreation
Region
shire, North Atlantic
NOAA
Fisheries
Commercial
Region
New England
Fishery
Management
Council (FMC)
New England
Large Regions
Reported in Our
Living Oceans
(NMFS, 1999a)
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Northern
California
Southern
California
Great Lakes
Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Rhode Island
New York, New Jersey,
Delaware, Maryland,
District of Columbia,
Virginia
North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida
(Atlantic Coast)
Florida (Gulf Coast),
Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas
California, north of San
Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara
county border
California, south of San
Luis Obispo/Santa Barbara
county border
Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New
York
Mid-Atlantic Chesapeake Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic South Atlantic South Atlantic
(NC in Mid-
Atlantic)
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
Gulf
Northern Pacific Coast Pacific
California
Southern California
California
na
Great Lakes
Pacific
na
Northeast
Southeast
Southeast
Pacific Coast
Pacific Coast
na
A4-3 Overview of U.S. Commercial Fisheries
In estimating the benefits of reducing I&E losses, it is important to understand how increased fish populations
may affect stocks in different fisheries. Where stocks are thriving, a small increase in the number of individual
fish may not be noticed, but where stocks are already depleted the marginal impact of a small increase may be
much more important.
Many fisheries in the United States tend to be heavily fished. In the mid-1900s, many U.S. fisheries were over-
fished, some to the point of near collapse (NMFS, 1999a, 2001a; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002). The
current situation is somewhat improved due to recent management efforts mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens
Act and others regulations. However, many of the current management practices have not been in place long
enough to have a noticeable impact on fisheries.
Table A4-2 shows the utilization rate of fisheries in the United States by region based on information from the
NMFS report Our Living Oceans (NMFS, 1999a). The regions in Table A4-2 are defined more broadly than
those used in the section 316(b) Phase III regional analysis. The Northeast region comprises both the North and
Mid-Atlantic regions for the 316(b) analysis; the Southeast region in the table includes the South Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico Phase III regions; and the Pacific Coast region includes the Northern and Southern California
regions as well as the states of Oregon and Washington.
A4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-2: Utilization of U.S. Ocean and Nearshore Fisheries by Region in 1999
Our Living Oceans Region'
Alaska
Northeast
Pacific Coast
Southeast
Western Pacific
Total
% of Total Known
# Fisheries
with Known
Status
43
55
55
34
20
207
# Fisheries with
Unknown Status
8
15
11
35
7
76
# Under-
Utilized
10
4
12
2
8
36
17%
# Fully
Utilized
33
15
37
15
9
109
53%
# Over-
Utilized
0
36
6
17
3
62
30%
a The Northeast region includes the North and Mid-Atlantic regions; the Pacific Coast region includes the Northern
and Southern California regions, as well as the states of Oregon and Washington; and the Southeast region includes
the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. The Alaska and Western Pacific regions are not included in the
316(b) Phase III analysis, but are included here for comparison.
Source: NMFS, 1999a.
Based on NOAA Fisheries definitions, a fishery is considered to be producing at a less than optimal level if its
recent average yield (RAY)1 is less than the estimated long-term potential yield (LTPY).2 This can occur as a
result of either under-utilization of the fishery or the collapse of the fish stock. These data indicate that a
majority, 53%, of the ocean and nearshore fisheries with known status, were fully utilized in 1999.
Approximately 30% of these fisheries are identified as over-utilized. For more than a third of all fisheries, the
status is unknown.
Table A4-3 shows the overall production of U.S. fisheries by region, including current potential yield (CPY). In
total, the annual RAY has been over 12 million metric tons, with Alaska and the Western Pacific providing
nearly two-thirds of the catch. Because of under-utilization in some fisheries and over-fishing in others, the total
RAY in the United States is only 60% of the estimated LTPY.
1 RAY is measured as "reported fishery landings averaged for the most recent 3-year period of workable data,
usually 1995-1997" (NMFS, 1999a, p. 4).
2 LTPY is "the maximum long-term average catch that can be achieved from the resource. This term is analogous
to the concept of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) in fisheries science" (NMFS, 1999a, p. 5). LTPY may not be the
yield that maximizes economic rents.
A4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
Table A4-3: Productivity of U.S. Regional Fisheries in 1999 (million metric tons)
Our Living
Oceans
Regions*
Alaska
Northeast
Pacific Coast
Southeast
Western Pacific
Total
Total Current Potential Yield
Tntflllnng- (CPY)
Term Potential
Yield (LTPY)
4.47
1.59
1.04
1.50
3.44
12.04
CPY
3.52
1.35
0.85
1.15
3.44
10.32
%of
LTPY
78.7%
85.2%
81.9%
76.7%
100.1%
85.7%
Total Recent Average Yield
(RAY)
RAY
2.51
0.89
0.62
1.16
2.05
7.22
%of
LTPY
56.1%
55.7%
59.7%
76.8%
59.6%
60.0%
%of
CPY
71.3%
65.4%
72.9%
100.2%
59.6%
70.0%
a The Northeast region includes the North and Mid-Atlantic regions; the Pacific Coast region includes the
Northern and Southern California regions, as well as the states of Oregon and Washington; the Southeast
region includes the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. The Alaska and Western Pacific regions are not
included in the 316(b) Phase III analysis, but are included here for comparison.
Source: NMFS, 1999a.
A4-4 Prices, Quantities, Gross Revenue, and Economic Surplus
Dockside landings and revenues are relatively easy to observe, and readily available from NOAA Fisheries. These
data can be used to develop a rough estimate of the value of increased commercial catch. However, it is not
always easy to interpret these data properly in estimating benefits. First, there are some empirical issues as to
whether the data accurately reflect the full market value of the commercial catch. Second, simply applying an
average price to a change in catch does not account for a potential price response to change in catch. Third, even
if the price effect is accounted for, change in gross revenue is not necessarily the right conceptual or empirical
basis for estimating benefits from reduced I&E. This section addresses these key issues.
A4-4.1 Accuracy of Price and Quantity Data
Although the commercial landings data available from NOAA Fisheries are the most comprehensive data
available at the national and regional levels, the data may not fully capture the economic value of the commercial
catch in the United States. As with any large-scale data collection effort, there are potential limitations such as
database overlap and human error. Additional reasons the data may not fully capture the economic value of the
commercial catch are varied and include, but are not limited to, the following:
* Fishermen often receive noncash payments for their catch. Crutchfield et al. (1982) noted that "the full
amount of the payment to fishermen should include the value of boat storage, financing, food, fuel, and
other non-price benefits that are often provided to fishermen by processors. These are clearly part of the
overall 'price,' but are very difficult to measure, since they are not generally applicable to all fishermen
equally and are not observed as part of dockside prices."
> Some fishermen may sell their catch illegally. There are three main reasons why illegal transactions
occur:
To circumvent quantity restrictions (quotas) on landings allowed under fishery management rules.
• To avoid or reduce taxes by having a reported income less than true earnings.
• To reduce profit sharing, boat owners have been know to negotiate a lower price with the buyer and
then recover part of their loss "in secret" so they do not have to share the entire profit with the crew.
A4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
* Some species are recorded inaccurately. Seafood dealers fill out the reports for commercial landings and
may mislabel a species or not specifically identify the species — for example, entering 'rockfish' instead
of "blue rockfish." In this example the landings data for blue rockfish would under-estimate total
landings, while data for "other rockfish" would be over-estimated (David Sutherland, NMFS, Fisheries
Statistics and Economics Division, personal communication, November 4, 2002).
*• Federal law prohibits reporting confidential data that would distinguish individual producers or otherwise
cause a competitive disadvantage. These "confidential landings" are entered as "unclassified" data (e.g.,
"finfishes, unc.") and do not distinguish individual species. Although most summarized landings are not
confidential, species summary data may under-report actual landings if some of those landings were
confidential and therefore not reported by individual species (NMFS, 2002b).
* Landings data are combined from nine databases that overlap spatially and temporally, and although they
are carefully monitored for double-counting, some overlap may go unnoticed (NMFS, 2002b).
A4-4.2 The Impact of Potential Price Effects
A key issue in this analysis is whether the change in fishery conditions associated with regulatory options will be
sufficiently large to generate price changes in the relevant fishery markets:
>• If the estimated changes in commercial landings are sufficiently small in size relative to the applicable
markets that no price change of consequence is anticipated (as appears to be the case in all regions
included in this analysis), then the approach to estimating benefits becomes relatively simple. As will be
developed later in this chapter, this is because the change in revenues becomes straightforward to
estimate (i.e., the estimated change in quantity landed times the original price). Further, with no change
in price, there is a fairly transparent relationship between the change in revenues and the change in
economic surplus measures that are suitable for a benefits assessment (i.e., there is no change in
consumer surplus, and the change in producer surplus may be equivalent to a percentage of or even equal
to the change in revenues).
* If changes in landings are such that a price change is anticipated, then the conceptual and empirical
analysis becomes more complicated. As detailed in greater depth later in this chapter, a price change
makes it more difficult to estimate changes in gross revenues (in fact the change in revenues may be
either positive or negative, depending on the relative elasticity of demand). Further, a change in price is
anticipated to generate changes in both producer and consumer surplus, and there are numerous complex
factors to be considered in assessing these changes in welfare (e.g., some of the gain in consumer surplus
will reflect a transfer away from producer surplus, the overall change in producer surplus may be positive
or negative, and the relationship between these measures of surplus and the estimated market revenues is
much less transparent than in the case where price is reasonably constant).
As discussed later in this chapter, in all regions evaluated, the change in estimated harvest as a result of reduced
I&E is small relative to the applicable market, and EPA therefore has assumed that there would be no significant
change in price. The issues with estimating changes in revenues and surplus are then relatively straightforward. It
may be the case in future rulemakings, however, that price changes will apply in some markets. Therefore, this
chapter provides additional discussion of conceptual and empirical issues that may arise if a price change
scenario is found to be relevant in future analyses.
A4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
A4-4.3 Key Concepts Applicable to the Analysis of Revenues and Surplus
Before progressing into the details of defining and measuring revenues and surplus, or discussing further why
prices may change and how one might estimate the changes, it is important to first establish some basic economic
concepts relative to markets and measures of welfare. Figure A4-1 depicts a simple market for a typical economic
good, with demand (labeled as line D) downward sloping to reflect what economists refer to as decreasing
marginal utility, and supply (line S) upward sloping to reflect increasing marginal costs. There are numerous
reasons why the market for commercial fish often differs in important ways from the typical market depicted in
the figure. Commercial fisheries are considered renewable natural resources whereby supply is limited by
ecological constraints. As a consequence, fisheries markets deviate from the traditional neoclassical view of fully
competitive markets due to the impacts of open access, the socially desirable need to maximize resource rents,
the corresponding need for regulations that limit catch or prevent the entry of fishermen (suppliers), and the
possibility that costs may not increase in the relevant range of changes to fishery conditions. Nonetheless, to help
introduce some core concepts, we begin with the standard neoclassical depiction of a market as shown in the
figure.
Figure A4-1: Market for Typical Economic Good
Price
-S
P.
D = P(Q)
Q.
Quantity
An equilibrium is established where supply and demand intersect, such that Q. reflects the quantity of the good
exchanged and P. reflects the market clearing price (i.e., the price at which the quantity supplied is equal to the
quantity demanded). The gross revenue in this market (the sum total paid by consumers, which is equivalent to
payments received by sellers) is equal to P. multiplied by Q., which in the figure is depicted by the rectangle
made up of areas B plus C.
While the level of total (gross) revenues is of interest, it is not the same as the amount of benefit (economic
welfare) that is generated by this market, which is measured by what is referred to as economic surplus (see
sections A4-5.1 and A4-5.2 for further discussion of concepts related to economic surplus). Economic surplus
consists of the consumer surplus generated (which is depicted by area A) plus the producer surplus generated
(depicted as area B>. Consumer surplus reflects the amount by which willingness-to-pay (WTP) (as reflected by
the demand curve) exceeds the market-clearing price for each quantity exchanged up to Q. (i.e., it reflects the
degree by which consumers obtained the traded commodity at a price below what the good was worth to them).
Likewise, producer surplus reflects the extent to which suppliers realized revenues above and beyond the
marginal cost of producing some of the units (up to Q.). Beyond Q,, there is neither additional consumer nor
A4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
producer surplus to be gained — at the margin, all the surplus has been extracted and there is no additional
surplus to be gained by adding more output to the market.
Now suppose there is a change that increases the amount of a key input to production, such that the more
bountiful input is now available at a lower cost to suppliers than before (e.g., when increasing the amount of
locally harvestable fish makes it easier to catch a given number offish). This could result in an outward shift in
supply (a decrease in the marginal cost of producing any given quantity of the good). This is depicted in
Figure A4-2, where supply shifts from S0 to S,. With the increased supply, a new market clearing price emerges
at P, (which is lower than the original P.), and the quantity exchanged increases from Q, to Q,.
Figure A4-2: Increased Supply in Typical Economic Market
Price
P.
P,
Q. Q,
Quantity
These changes in the quantity exchanged and the market clearing price make it somewhat complex to envision
how (and by what degree) gross revenues and economic surplus measures may change as a consequence of the
shift in supply. Using Figure A4-2 as a guide:
* Under the original supply conditions (S0) consumer surplus had been area A, but it has now increased to
A + B + C + D. Therefore, consumer surplus has increased by an amount depicted by areas B + C + D.
* Producer surplus had been area B + E before the supply shift, but becomes E + F + G after the shift in
supply. Hence, the change in producer surplus is depicted as areas F + G - B.
• Note that area B is subtracted from producer surplus but added to consumer surplus — i.e., it
represents a transfer of surplus from producers to consumers when supply shifts outward and prices
decline.
• Also note that consumer surplus has increased by more than the transfer of area B from producers;
the additional consumer surplus (above and beyond the transfer) is depicted by the amount C + D.
Finally, note that the change in producer surplus might be positive or negative, depending on whether
the addition of F + G outweighs the loss of B (assuming the supply curves are parallel).
* The total change in economic surplus (consumer plus producer surplus) therefore equals C -f- D + F -f- G.
> Revenues had been P. times Q. (areas B + C + E + F + X), but now becomes P, times Q, (areas E + F +
X + G + Y). The change in revenues thus becomes (G + Y) - (B + C).
A4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
Note that the change in revenue can be positive or negative, depending on whether G + Y is greater
than or less than B + C.
• Also note that if one does not know by how much the price will decrease, and relies on the original
price (P.) to estimate the change in revenues, then the change in revenues would be over-estimated as
P. times (Q, - Q.), which is equivalent to the areas G + Y + D + Z.
• If the change in revenues is estimated relying on the original price level (P.) when in fact the new
price becomes P,, then the amount by which the change in revenues will be over-estimated would be
B + C -l- D + Z.
Even though the illustration above relies on a relatively simple depiction of a market that adheres to the basic
economic assumptions and conditions of perfect competition, it reveals how complex the analysis can become if
there is an anticipated change in price when supply is increased. The analysis can become even more complex
when fishery-related deviations from the assumptions of open access perfect competition are considered.
A4-4.4 Estimating Changes in Price (as applicable)
One key observation from the illustration above is the importance of predicting the change in price, because
relying on the baseline price can lead to potential errors. Correct estimation of the change in the price offish as a
result of regulation requires two pieces of information: the expected change in the commercial catch, and the
relationship between demand for fish and the price of fish. Ideally, a demand curve would be estimated for the
market for each fish species in each regional market. The level of effort required to model demand in every
market is not feasible for the 316(b) analysis. However, if reasonable, empirically based assumptions can be
made for the price elasticity of demand for fish in each region, the change in price can be accurately estimated.
The price elasticity of demand for a good measures the percentage change in demand in response to a percentage
change in price. If the price elasticity of demand for fish is assumed to be -2 over the relevant portion of the
demand function, then a 1% increase in price creates a 2% decrease in the quantity demanded. Essentially, this
determines the shape of the demand curve because it indicates how demand responds to a change in price. The
inverse of the price elasticity of demand can be used to estimate the change in price as a result of a change in the
quantity demanded. If the price elasticity of demand is assumed to be -2, the inverse is 1/-2 = -0.5. This would
imply that a 1% increase in demand would correspond to a 0.5% decrease in price.
For example, in Figure A4-2, if Q. is equal to 10,000 pounds offish per year and reductions in I&E are expected
to add 500 pounds offish to the annual catch, Q, will equal 10,500 per year. This is a 5% increase in the quantity
offish supplied to the market. In response to the increase in supply, price will need to decrease from P. to P,. To
clear the market, the quantity demanded would need to increase until Q, is also the quantity offish demanded. If
the price elasticity of demand for fish in this market is known to be approximately -2, then the inverse of the
price elasticity of demand is -0.5 and, as described above, the expected change in price necessary to clear the
market would be 5% x -0.5 = -2.5%. If P. equals $1.00 per pound, then P, will equal $0.975 per pound, and the
change in gross revenues will be (10,500 x $0.975) - (10,000 x $1.00) = $237.50. This represents a 2.375%
increase in gross revenues for commercial fishermen in this market.
A variety of sources in the economics literature provide estimates of the price elasticity of demand for fish. In
this analysis, EPA has assumed that the changes in supply of fish as a result of reduced I&E will not be large
enough to create a significant change in price (see discussion below describing regional results). Therefore,
assumptions about price elasticity are not necessary in this case. In future analyses if there are markets in which
the estimated change in harvest is predicted to be large enough to generate a price change of consequence, EPA
will revisit this issue in light of information available in the literature.
A4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-5 Economic Surplus
Even if the change in gross revenue is measured accurately and potential price effects (if any) are accounted for,
changes in gross revenues are not generally considered to be a true measure of economic benefits. According to
broadly accepted principles of microeconomics, benefits should be expressed in terms of economic surplus to
consumers and producers.
A4-5.1 Consumer Surplus
To understand consumer surplus, consider the following illustration. Suppose a seafood lover goes to a fish
market and pays $P' for a tasty salmon dinner. She pays $P' because that is the current market price. However,
she would have been willing to pay a lot more than $P', if necessary. The maximum she would have paid for the
salmon is $B. The difference between SB and $P' represents an additional benefit to the consumer. When this
benefit is summed across all consumers in the market, it is called consumer surplus.
Figure A4-3 shows one possible representation of a market for fish. The demand curve, D(F), shows the
aggregate demand that would prevail in the market at each price level (P).3'4 The curve Q1 is the quantity of fish
supplied to the market by fishermen. Equilibrium is attained a the point where D(F) equals Q'. Under these
conditions, the price is P1. In this case the total amount paid by consumers for fish is equal to P1 * Q1, which is
equal to the area of the boxes U + V + W in the graph. The extra benefit to consumers, i.e., the consumer surplus,
is equal to the area of the triangle T.5
If the quantity offish available to the market increases from Q1 to Q2, then the price decreases to P2. This changes
the total amount paid by consumers to P2 x Q2, which is equal to the area of the boxes V + W + Y + Z, and
increases the consumer surplus to be equal to the area of the triangle T + U + X.
3 Note that in the graph the quantity supplied, curves Q' and Q2, is assumed to be constant under a given set of
conditions. This assumption allows for a simplified case to be presented in the figure. An assumption of constant
supply is more appropriate for a short-term analysis or for an analysis of a fishery regulated via quotas. Section A4-6
offers a discussion of the case where the supply curve is upward sloping.
4 In this simplified illustration D(F) is really an inverse demand curve since it determines price as a function of
quantity, F. The distinction is not of vital importance here.
5 Note that Figure A4-3 is a highly simplified characterization of benefits derived from a commercial fishery,
where the goal is to maximize producer surplus and consumer surplus. Figure A4-3 is drawn from Bishop and Holt
(2003), who indicate that D(F) represents a general equilibrium demand function, accounting for markets downstream
of harvesters, and that the welfare triangle (area T in Figure A4-3) represents consumer surplus plus post-harvest rents.
Q' is the supply offish under a fixed, optimal quota before the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities
and Q2 is the supply after the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities takes effect. A more complete
interpretation of the graph in the context of renewable resources also reveals that costs for the harvester (e.g., fishing
fleet) are equal to the area W (for a quota equal to Q1) and that area U + V is equal to the rents potentially captured by
the harvester at Q1.
A4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Figure A4-3: Conceptual Model of Benefits from an
Increase in Fish Catch
t
$
pi
P2
P
k
X.
\
u 'V
•**• ^v
V Y j\
1 ^^
1 N.
W Z | XD(F)
1
Q1 Q2 F'
Source: Bishop and Holt (2003).
A4-5.2 Producer Surplus
In the example above, there is also a producer surplus that accrues to the fish seller. When the fish market sold
the salmon to our consumer, it sold it for $P' because that was the market price. However, it is likely that it cost
less than SP1 to supply the salmon. If $C is the cost to supply the fish, then the market earns a profit of SP1 minus
$C per fish. This profit is akin to the economic concept of producer surplus.6
In Figure A4-3, the line C represents a simplified representation of the cost to the producer of supplying a pound
offish.7 When the supply offish is equal to Q1, the producers sell Q1 pounds offish at a price of P1. The
difference between P1 and C is the producer surplus that accrues to producers for each pound offish.8 Total
producer surplus realized by producers is equal to (P1 - C) * Q1. In the example, this producer surplus is equal to
the area of U + V. The area W is the amount that producers pay to their suppliers if the harvest equals Q1. In the
example presented here, W might be the amount that the fish market paid to a fishing boat for the salmon plus the
costs of operating the market.
6 Producer surplus equals economic profit minus the opportunity cost of the owner's resources invested in the
fishery enterprise (see section A4-8 for additional details).
7 In this case average cost is assumed to equal marginal cost at C and the marginal cost is assumed constant. Note
that this is a simplification used here only to assist with the discussion. For example, the section 316(b) rulemaking
might lead to a small decrease in cost per unit offish caught. Also, if marginal cost were assumed to be upward
sloping, the figure would more closely resemble the familiar graph of supply and demand with an upward-sloping
supply curve, as depicted in Figure A4-2.
8 Note that economists usually assume that C includes the opportunity cost of investing and working in
commercial fishing. Thus, producer surplus is profit earned above and beyond normal profit. In a perfectly competitive
market, when economic profit is being earned, it induces more producers to join the market until producer surplus is
zero. However, many commercial fisheries are no longer allowing open access to all fishermen, thus it is realistic to
assume that a level of producer surplus greater than zero is attainable in many U.S. commercial fisheries. In the case of
managed fisheries, (P1 - C) can be referred to as rent.
A4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
When supply increases to Q2, the producers sell Q2 pounds offish at a price of P2. The total cost to produce Q2
increases from W to W + Z. The total producer surplus changes from U + V to V + Y.9
In this simple example, where C is assumed to be constant, the producer surplus earned by suppliers is equal for
all units of F produced. If C increases as F increases, however, some of the producer surplus per unit will be
eaten away by increased costs. In the figure, this would be seen as a decrease in the areas of V and Y and an
increase in the areas of W and Z as a greater share of the revenues from the sale of the catch go to cover costs.
Figure A4-3 is a graphical representation of a single market. In the real world, a fishing boat captain will sell the
boat's catch to a processor, who sells processed fish to fish wholesalers, who in turn sells fish to retailers, who
may sell fish directly to a consumer or to a restaurant, which will sell fish to a consumer. There will be consumer
and producer surplus in each of these markets.10 As a result, it is conceptually inaccurate to estimate the change
in the quantity offish harvested, multiply by the price per pound, and call this change in gross revenue the total
benefits of the regulation.
The sections of this chapter that follow detail methods used in the analysis of commercial fishing benefits
attributable to the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. This involves three basic steps: estimating
the increase in pounds of commercial catch under the rule, estimating the gross value of the increased catch, and
estimating the increase in producer surplus as a proportion of increased gross value. If the rule were expected to
have a greater impact on markets, an additional step would be estimating the increase in consumer surplus across
all affected markets as a proportion of increased gross value. The appropriate methods to use depend on whether
or not a price change is anticipated; hence the methods are presented according to these two possible scenarios.
A4-6 A Context of No Anticipated Change in Price
While some species may experience larger increases in annual harvest and therefore impact price levels, modest
overall changes in landings are not expected to greatly influence markets for the fish. Thus, it seems reasonable
to presume that there will be no appreciable impacts on wholesale or retail fish prices. Under such a scenario of
no price impacts, economic theory indicates that all changes in economic welfare will be confined to changes in
producer surplus (i.e., changes in consumer and related post-harvest surplus will be zero). The benefits estimation
issue then can be confined to examining producer surplus, and the core empirical and conceptual issue becomes
how the change in producer surplus relates to estimates of added gross revenues, when prices remain constant.
A4-6.1 Producer Surplus as a Percentage of Gross Revenues: Assuming No Change in Prices
Given the potential for increases in producer surplus for the harvest sector (including rents to harvesters) under
conditions where fish price does not change, EPA has relied on estimates, derived from the literature, of the
percentage or fraction of gross revenue change that can be used as a proxy for the change in producer surplus.
There are two relevant cases to consider: the case when fisheries are not regulated and the case when they are
regulated with quotas or restrictive permits.
9 Note that the producer surplus may be smaller at quantity Q2 than at Q', depending on whether U is bigger than
Y. The relative sizes of U and Y depend on the slope of D(F). When the D(F) curve is less steep, i.e., when demand is
more price elastic, Y will be larger compared to U. When the D(F) curve is steeper, i.e., when demand is more price
inelastic, Y will be smaller compared to U. Changes in producer surplus may be negative with increased harvest if
demand is sufficiently inelastic.
10 As described in section A4-7 and Bishop and Holt (2003), the total consumer surplus accumulated through
tiered markets can be estimated from a general equilibrium demand function (but not from a more typical single market
partial equilibrium demand curve).
A4-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
a. Unregulated fisheries
In an unregulated fishery, a reduction in I&E will lead to an increase in quantities of fish. This will decrease the
marginal cost of catching more fish, creating the possibility for fishermen to earn economic rents and increasing
producer surplus. According to basic microeconomic principles, in a competitive market these economic rents
will attract additional fishing effort in one of two ways: either existing fishermen will exert greater effort or new
fishermen will enter the market (or both). In either case, fishing effort theoretically will increase until a new
equilibrium is reached where economic rents are equal to zero. In this case, there may be economic benefits to
commercial fishermen in the short term, but in the long run producer surplus will be zero. Thus, in an unregulated
fishery economic theory suggests that the long-run change in producer surplus will be 0% of the change in gross
revenues.
b. Regulated fisheries
The story is different in a fishery that is regulated such that harvests are sustainable and reflect efforts to
maximize resource rents. A reduction in I&E also leads to an increase in the stock offish, which in turn leads to
increases in harvest (assuming harvest limits are raised, if prior harvests were at the limits). In this case, however,
there are lasting benefits to commercial fishermen.
As an example, assume that quotas are the regulatory instrument and that quotas increase (from Q0 to Q,) in
response to reduced I&E, and that the supply curve (as represented by a marginal cost curve) shifts as a result of
increased stock (from S0 to S,). Then, we can relate change in producer surplus to change in gross revenue using
Figure A4-4. Producer surplus, before the increase in stock and change in quota, is equal to area A. Producer
surplus after increase in stock and change in quota is equal to area (A + B + D + E). Change in producer surplus
is therefore equal to area (B + D + E).
Figure A4-4: Surplus in a Regulated Fishery
Price
E
MC.
MC,
Quantity
Three scenarios can be used to show how a change in revenue may over- or under-estimate the change in
producer surplus:
1. If B < F, then the change in revenue over-estimates the change in producer surplus.
2. If B = F, then the change in revenue approximates the change in producer surplus.
3. B > F, then the change in revenue under-estimates the change in producer surplus.
Note that if the first scenario prevails, then some fraction of gross revenue may be more suitable as a reliable
proxy for change in producer surplus when price is assumed constant. If the marginal cost of supplying the extra
fish for Q, is minimal or close to zero, then the second or third scenario prevails, and 100% or more of the change
in revenue may serve as a reliable proxy for change in producer surplus.
A4-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-6.2 Conclusions on Surplus When No Change in Price is Anticipated
Various scenarios may arise when fishery conditions improve such that supply shifts outward, but not enough to
generate any price change of consequence. In such cases, there is no anticipated change in post-harvest surplus to
consumers or other post-harvest entities, because reduction in price is required to generate such surplus
improvements. Hence, the change in economic welfare is limited to changes in producer surplus under these
conditions.
As shown in the previous section, estimates of changes in dockside revenues become, under some scenarios,
equivalent to the change in producer surplus. Hence, the change in gross revenues can be used as a proxy to
estimate of the change in producer surplus for the regional analyses." EPA also recognizes that under some of the
possible scenarios that may arise when there is a quota-governed market, using the full change in revenues (as
estimated through a projected change in landings with no price change) might overstate the change in producer
surplus. However, if dockside prices and/or dockside landings (quantities) are understated — as may often be the
case — then the change in surplus will be understated in most scenarios by the estimated change in gross
revenues.
EPA's analysis of the commercial fishery benefits of the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities
relies on the premise that the change in producer surplus is only a fraction of the projected change in revenues.
EPA has assumed a range of 0% to 40% of the estimated gross revenue changes as a means of estimating the
change in producer surplus. The lower estimate of 0% represents the case of an unregulated fishery, as well as the
lower bound identified in the literature. The range is based on the discussion above and on a review of empirical
literature (restricted to only those studies that compared producer surplus to gross revenue) that is described in
greater detail in section A4-8.12
A4-7 Surplus Estimation Under Scenarios in Which Price May Change
In the preceding section, the discussion was limited to cases in which no notable change in price was anticipated.
These scenarios appear reasonable for very small improvements in fishery conditions, which is relevant for
EPA's 316(b) regional analyses. If the estimated impacts were larger, as may be the case in other analyses, it may
be inappropriate to assume that there will be no price effects in any commercial fishery markets. To ensure a
complete treatment of the relevant economic theory, this section discusses the conceptual and empirical basis to
estimate economic surplus (i.e., benefits) in instances where price changes are more likely to arise.
A4-7.1 Neoclassical Economic Perspective on the Market and Economic Welfare
Figure A4-5 portrays a standard, neoclassical economic depiction of a market, with demand downward sloping
and supply upward sloping to reflect increasing marginal costs. There are several reasons why this neoclassical
depiction may not be directly revealing or applicable to the commercial fisheries market, as discussed later in this
chapter. But for the moment, Figure A4-5 provides a useful starting point for considering how the measures of
economic benefit — the sum of producer and consumer surplus — might change due to a policy that shifts the
supply curve outward from S0 to S,.
'' This would be consistent with EPA's guidelines (U.S. EPA, 2000a). The guidelines describe options for
estimating ecological benefits for fisheries, and note that "if changes in service flows are small, current market prices
can be used as a proxy for expected benefit... a change in the commercial fish catch might be valued using the market
price for the affected species."
12 The 0% to 40% assumption represents a change from the analysis for the proposed rule, which assumed a range
of 40% to 70%.
A4-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Figure A4-5: Neoclassical Model
Price
D
Q,
Quantity
l to
At baseline, producer surplus is depicted by areas U + W, consumer surplus by area T, and gross revenues by
areas U + V + W + X + C. With an outward shift in the supply curve to S,, we observe:
*• Producer surplus becomes W + X + Y, hence the change in producer surplus is (W + X + Y) - (U + W),
which is equal to X + Y - U.
*• Consumer surplus becomes T + U + V + B, hence the change in consumer surplus (which previously had
been area T alone) becomes U + V + B.
*• Total change in surplus (the sum of changes in consumer and producer surplus) is therefore equal
areas X + Y + V + B.
+ Gross revenues become W + X + Y + Z + C, hence the change in revenues becomes (W + X + Y + Z +
C) minus (U + V + W + X + C), which equals (Y + Z) - (U + V).
There are several observations to make based on the above. First, note that the area U is instrumental in the
change of all three measures. Area U is a positive component of the change in consumer (post-harvest) surplus,
but it is subtracted from baseline producer surplus to obtain a measure of the change in that measure of welfare.
Hence, in the neoclassical market model, part of the gain in consumer surplus is, in effect, a transfer from
producer surplus. Area U reflects this conceptual transfer of surplus, and any empirical effort to estimate changes
in surplus needs to ensure that if area U is included in the estimate of post-harvest surplus, the producer surplus
estimate should be made net of area U to ensure no double counting.13
13 Later in this chapter an approach developed by Bishop and Holt (2003) to estimating post-harvest surplus as
depicted by areas U + V + B is described. Also, note that if the fishery in question is being conducted under open
access, this means that rents to the resource are zero or very close it. Suppose furthermore that in this particular case
other rents (e.g., rents to scarce fishing skills and knowledge) are also zero. Now suppose that section 316(b)
regulations are imposed on power plants, causing an increase in the harvest offish. The catch increases, but any effects
in rents to the resource are dissipated by entry. The effect of the regulation is to increase consumer surplus by an
amount comparable to areas U + V + B in Figure A4-5, but there is no offsetting decline in producer surplus because
there was no producer surplus in the first place.
A4-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
Another noteworthy observation from the above neoclassical characterization is that, under some circumstances,
the change in revenues may be zero or even negative (depending on how area Y + Z compares to area U + V).
Likewise the change in producer surplus can be positive or negative (depending on how X + Y compares to area
U); with the transfer of area U from producer to consumer surplus, there are still positive net gains in producer
surplus ifX + Y>U.
A4-7.2 Issues in Estimating Changes in Welfare
The discussion above regarding welfare measures — and how they change with shifts in supply within the
neoclassical framework — is fairly complex, even in its simplest form. To estimate such changes in welfare as
may arise from the section 316(b) regulation, the problem becomes even more complicated. Some of the
empirical and conceptual complications are discussed below.
In an expedited regulatory analysis that must cover a broad range offish species across locations and fishery
markets that span the nation, EPA must rely on readily applicable generalized approaches (rather than more
detailed, market-specific assessments) to estimate changes in welfare. Hence, as noted earlier in this chapter,
EPA must rely on readily estimated changes in gross revenues and from there infer potential changes in post-
harvest (consumer) and producer surplus. Also, there are several issues associated with how to implement an
expedited approach.
First, there is the issue of how to estimate the change in gross revenues. Each change in revenue is the product of
the projected change in fish harvest multiplied by the observed baseline market price. Thus, EPA can readily
obtain an estimate comparable to the area Y + Z + A + Bin Figure A4-5. This is the approach contemplated by
the Agency for this rulemaking to handle the case in which prices change. To more suitably capture the impact of
a price change, in future analyses EPA may attempt to apply an applicable estimate of price elasticity to obtain an
estimate that better reflects the true measure of the change in gross revenues (i.e., areas Y + Z-U-Vin
Figure A4-5).
Second, there is the issue of how to infer changes in post-harvest (consumer) surplus based on changes in
revenues. The approach described by Bishop and Holt (2003), described in greater detail in section A4-9, is
specifically designed to examine this benefits transfer issue. Their empirical research — currently limited to
some regions and fisheries (e.g., the Great Lakes) — suggests that the changes in post-harvest surplus may be
approximated by the estimated change in gross revenues (where the latter is based on holding price constant at
baseline levels). This method may also be revisited by EPA in future analyses.
Third, there are a series of issues associated with how to estimate the change in producer surplus. Estimating the
change in producer surplus under a scenario in which market forces produce a price change is a challenging
exercise for a number of reasons, including:
*• Many commercial fishery markets do not adhere to the usual assumptions of the neoclassical model
because of regulations that establish harvest quotas and/or restrict entry through a permit system. These
regulations typically are instituted to protect stocks that have been or are at risk of being over-fished.
There also may be nonregulatory barriers to entry that affect this market, such as the high fixed costs and
specialized knowledge and skill set required to effectively compete in some fisheries.
* Barriers to entry, regardless of the source, can have a profound impact on the economic welfare analysis.
For example, the neoclassical model of open access would have rents driven to zero, but it is more likely
in regulated markets (or a nonregulated market with economic barriers to entry) that there are positive
A4-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
rents accruing from the fishery resource (not to mention rents that accrue as well to specialized fishing
skills and knowledge).14
*• Empirical evidence regarding the magnitude of producer surplus is limited (especially for inferring a
relationship with gross revenues). These data, presented later in this chapter, suggest producer surplus
may be from 0% to 40% of gross revenues. However, interpreting these data properly is challenging, for
a number of reasons:
• Available empirical data pertain to average producer surplus, and EPA's regulatory analysis must
instead address changes in producer surplus at the margin.
• The portion of producer surplus that is transferred to consumers when there is a price reduction
(represented by area U in Figure A4-5) should not be double-counted if it is captured in the estimate
of post-harvest surplus and also in the estimated change in producer surplus. Since area U is included
in the Bishop-Holt analysis of changes in post-harvest surplus, one needs to ensure that area U is not
included in (e.g., has been netted out of) the applicable estimate of the change in producer surplus.
• The limited empirical data from the literature that estimates producer surplus and gross revenues for
fisheries can be expanded to include studies with data on 'normal profits.' However, these estimates
of normal profits need to be adjusted downward in a logical manner to provide the more suitable
producer surplus estimate. Later in this chapter some empirical evidence is provided to indicate the
potential magnitude of such an adjustment.
These issues are discussed at greater length later in the chapter, but it is important to address them here because
of the manner in which the departure from the neoclassical model affects how to interpret estimates of average
producer surplus relative to changes expected at the margin. For example, marginal costs (MC) for commercial
watermen may be minimal for a small increase in landings arising from a small increase in harvestable fish — for
small increases in numbers offish suitable for harvest in an area, small increases in harvest are likely to be
realized with minimal added operating expense (i.e., MC at or near zero). This might arise where the watermen
fill their quotas more easily, or exert essentially the same level of effort but come back with a few more fish.
Where fishing effort and hence fishing costs would not change much, benefits (producer surplus) would equal the
change in total revenue or be very close to it. For larger changes, marginal and average costs could shift down.
This has implications when interpreting the empirical literature available on producer surplus as a percentage of
gross revenues. The standard neoclassical model always asserts increasing MC in the relevant range, so that
producer surplus approaches zero with additional increments in landings. But for the type of situation that applies
to section 316(b) — i.e., with a small change in the harvestable number offish — and given the nature of the
commercial fishery (e.g., high barriers to entry due to quotas or high fixed costs), the context is likely to reflect a
situation in which costs decrease (e.g., a shift downward in MC, and perhaps MC that are at or near zero). If so,
then the argument that the average estimate for producer surplus overstates the marginal value does not hold (in
fact, the opposite may be true — average surplus could be less than producer surplus at the margin).
14 Given the highly regulated nature of many fisheries today, a wide range of producer effects is conceivable. Even
where revenues decline with a reduction in price, producer surplus could increase despite the loss in revenues. This
could occur if the effect on price is relatively small and the effect on costs and revenues is relatively large. The only
way to know for sure is to examine producer effects in specific cases or do a benefits transfer exercise using experience
in real world fisheries as a guide. Simple approaches (e.g., assuming that there is no consumer surplus because of
offsetting producer effects) are not satisfactory if there are changes in prices.
A4-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-8 Estimating Producer Surplus
An important portion of commercial fishing benefits is the producer surplus generated by the estimated marginal
increase in landings. The level of effort and data required to model supply and demand in every regional fishing
market to compute producer surplus are unavailable to EPA. Various researchers, however, have developed
empirical estimates that can be used to infer producer surplus for watermen based on gross revenues (landings
times wholesale price). EPA reviewed the economic literature on commercial fishing to examine the available
results. This body of research provides two types of data that can be used to estimate producer surplus as a
percentage of gross revenues. These percentages can easily be applied to changes in gross revenues expected
under the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities to estimate changes in producer surplus.
The most common result reported in the literature is normal profit. A large number of studies across a variety of
fisheries estimate the revenues earned and costs borne by commercial fishing operations. These results can be
used to estimate normal profit. As defined here, normal profit is the standard accounting definition of profit, i.e.,
total revenues earned minus the costs of production (e.g., fishing equipment, fuel, boat maintenance, hired labor,
bait). For example, assume a commercial fishing vessel brings in a total catch worth $100,000 in a given year.
Also assume that it incurred variable material costs of $50,000 and hired labor costs of $30,000. The normal
profit received by the owner would then be $20,000 ($100,000 - $50,000 - $30,000 = $20,000).
The more useful concept and result reported in the literature is producer surplus because, as described above,
producer surplus is a more appropriate indicator of social welfare than is profit. Producer surplus equals normal
profit minus the vessel owner's opportunity cost of participating in commercial fishing. In other words, producer
surplus nets out the return to capital that the owner of a commercial fishing operation could expect to earn in
another industry. Thus, producer surplus is the level of profits above and beyond what the owner would earn on
his capital in another industry (or by investing in the stock market), and is less than or equal to normal profits. If
the owner of the commercial fishing vessel in the previous example could expect to make a $1,000 return by
investing his capital in another industry, then the producer surplus for this vessel owner would be $19,000
($100,000 - $50,000 - $30,000 - $1,000 = $19,000).
While producer surplus is a preferable welfare measure, EPA's literature review identified only four studies
reporting results that can be used as direct estimates of producer surplus. Available measures of producer surplus
and normal profits are reported as a percentage of gross revenue in Tables A4-4 and A4-5, respectively. Table
A4-4 reports estimates of the more desirable producer surplus, and Table A4-5 reports the more common
estimates of normal profits. EPA calculated these percentage values from data included in each cited study.15
Looking at the values reported in the studies, it is clear that no single estimate of producer surplus as a percentage
of gross revenue is appropriate for all regions, boat types, and species. For those studies that most closely
approximate producer surplus (Table A4-4), the rough estimates of producer surplus range from 0% to 37%, with
an average of approximately 23%. Therefore, EPA has assumed a range of 0% to 40% in the regional analyses.
Note that the lower estimate of 0% is also consistent for the case of an unregulated fishery.
The estimates of normal profit span a wider range, with results in Table A4-5 ranging from a low of-5% to a
high of 91.2%. One of the key issues for using the data on "normal profit" is whether some adjustment is
reasonable to convert the ratios of normal profit to revenues into suitable estimates of the ratio of producer
surplus to revenues. EPA has found limited empirical information on which to evaluate the potential adjustment
factor. For example, King and Flagg (1984) provide data for California fisheries, itemizing various components
of fixed and variable costs, and also providing annual revenues. Assuming that owners might be able to earn a
7% real rate return on all of their fixed costs that might otherwise be invested productively elsewhere, and netting
these estimated returns from normal profit, the implied ratios of producer surplus to revenues are only between
15 Most of the estimates in Table A4-5 are a variation of the following equation: 1 - (variable cost / gross revenue),
where the variable cost includes the opportunity cost of participating in commercial fishing for the producer surplus
measures.
A4-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
0.4% and 2.6% lower than the ratios of normal profit to revenues, for the seven fishery types evaluated to date by
EPA from the King and Flagg data. EPA also identified another study that contained relevant data (Larkin et al.,
2000), and interpreting the data provided in similar fashion, the change in ratios is only 2.3% (consistent with the
effect seen in King and Flagg). Because EPA identified only limited empirical evidence related to estimating an
adjustment factor, the results in Table A4-5 are presented for comparative purposes only. Analysts for future
rulemakings may wish to consider this issue and explore it further.
A4-20
-------
Table A4-4: Summary of Research on Commercial Fisher Producer Surplus Measures: Producer Surplus
(studies that report profit estimates that include a return to the owner as part of costs)
Author(s)
Geographic Analysis Type Fish Species
Year Area/Fishery Year(s) Boat(s) Sought
Producer
Surplus %
of Gross
Revenue*
Notes on Study
Cleland and
Bishop
Huppert and
Squires
Gilbert
Norton et al.
1984 Michigan's Upper
Great Lakes
1981 Varied
1988 North-East North
Island, New
Zealand
Hauraki Gulf,
New Zealand
Firth of Thames,
New Zealand
1983 U.S. South
Atlantic coast
U.S. New England
coast
1980s Varied
1980s Varied
Most
common:
whitefish,
lake trout,
chubs
1987 U.S. Pacific coast 1984 Trawlers Groundfish
Snapper
Red gurnard
1980s Varied Yellow belly
flounder
1980 Varied Striped bass
1980 Varied Striped bass
Reported data used by EPA to calculate costs (including
return to owner) as % of gross revenue — for 5 large
Native American fishing operations
Reported data used by EPA to calculate costs (including
return to owner) as % of gross revenue — for 11
moderately large Native American fishing operations
Reported data used by EPA to calculate costs (including
return to owner) as % of gross revenue — for 36 small
Native American fishing operations
Reported results used by EPA to estimate:
1 - (profit 4- variable costs)/(total revenue)
Estimates include return to owner as part of costs
Estimated economic surplus at dynamic maximum
economic yield
Estimates include return to owner as part of costs
28%
35%
27%
37%
35%
20%
15%
0% Estimated producer surplus per pound of fish and
revenue per pound offish
11%
a Estimate includes returns to owners as part of costs, and thus excludes them from calculation of profit. This estimate can be considered a close proxy for
producer surplus.
A4-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
Table A4-5: Summary of Research on Commercial Fisher Producer Surplus Measures: Normal Profits
(studies that do not report profit estimates that include a return to the owner as part of costs)
Author(s)
Brown and
Pollakowski
Crutchfield et al.
King and Flagg
Year(s)
Geographic of
Year Area/Fishery Analysis Type Boat(s)
1976 Columbia 1960s Varied
River
1982 Tazimina 1970s Varied
River (Bristol
Bay, Alaska)
1984 California 1982 Trawlers in
coast North CA
Trawlers in
South CA
Trawlers
Seiners
Seiners
Gillnetters
Gillnetters
Small trailers
Large trailers
Crabbers
Albacore
Longliners
Varied: using
hook and line
Varied: using
pots
Varied
Fish Species
Sought
Salmon and
steelhead
Salmon
Groundfish
Groundfish
Shrimp
Tuna
Wetfish
Herring
Other
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Salmon
Varied
Varied
Black cod
Crab-lobster,
north
Normal
Profit as %
of Gross
Revenue"
90%
85% to 90%
67%
89%
4%
45%
22%
-5%
69%
49%
52%
74%
57%
89%
66%
91%
74%
Notes on Study
Citation from other literature of percentage of gross
revenue that goes to total surplus in a salmon fishery
Authors estimate net economic value of a change in
availability of salmon in a fishery with limited access
and excess capacity
Reported data by fish/boat type used by EPA to
calculate
1 - (variable cost / gross revenue)
Costs do not include return to owner
A4-22
-------
Table A4-5: Summary of Research on Commercial Fisher Producer Surplus Measures: Normal Profits
(studies that do not report profit estimates that include a return to the owner as part of costs)
Author(s) Year
Geographic
Area/Fishery
Year(s)
of
Analysis
Type Boat(s)
Fish Species
Sought
Normal
Profit as %
of Gross
Revenue*
Notes on Study
King and Flagg
(cont.)
1984
California
coast
Usher
Talhelm
Larkin et al.
1987 Lake of the
Woods,
Ontario
1988 Great Lakes
2000
U.S. Atlantic
coast
1982 Varied
Rettig and McCarl 1985 U.S. varied Varied
1980-
1982
Sailboats
Jigboats
Diveboats
Varied: using
harpoon
Varied
Varied
1985 Varied
1996 Longline
Crab-lobster,
south
Varied
Varied
Varied
Billfish
Varied
Varied
Varied
Varied,
includes
swordfish,
tuna, sharks,
and other
50%
38%
22%
59%
49%
50%
28%
51%
55%
Authors review several studies and suggest that
'variable costs may be approximately 50% of revenues
for all commercial operators'
Estimates do not include return to owner as part of costs
Reported results used by EPA to estimate:
(net revenue) / (gross revenue)
Estimate does not include return to owner as part of
costs
Reported food fishery stats used by EPA to calculate:
(gross value minus harvest costs) / (total value)
Estimate does not include return to owner as part of
costs
Reported data used by EPA to calculate:
(total net revenue) / (total gross revenue)
Estimate does not include return to owner as part of
costs
' Estimate does not include returns to owners as part of costs, and thus overstates producer surplus by that amount.
A4-23
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-9 Estimating Post-Harvest Economic Surplus in Tiered Markets
Estimating producer surplus provides an estimate of the benefits to commercial fishermen, but significant
benefits can also be expected to accrue to final consumers offish and to commercial consumers (including
processors, wholesalers, retailers, and middlemen) if the projected increase in catch is accompanied by a
reduction in price. These benefits can be expected to flow through the tiered commercial fishery market (as
described in section A4-1 and in Bishop and Holt, 2003).
Bishop and Holt (2003) developed an inverse demand model of six Great Lakes fisheries that they use to estimate
changes in welfare as a result of changes in the level of commercial harvest. This flexible model can be used to
model welfare changes under a variety of conditions in the fishery. It takes as an input the expected change in
harvest and baseline gross revenues, and provides as outputs the expected change in gross revenues and change in
total compensating variation (CV).
CV is the change in income that would be necessary to make consumers' total utility the same as it was before
the reduction in I&E losses resulting from the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. This is
analogous to a measure of willingness to accept compensation in order to forgo the improvement. Conceptually,
CV is a measure of welfare similar to consumer surplus. The key difference is that consumer surplus is calculated
using the familiar demand function (or curve), which defines the quantity demanded as a function of price and
income (in the simple example, Figures A4-1 and A4-2, income is assumed to be constant). CV, on the other
hand, is calculated using a compensated demand function, which defines the quantity demanded as a function of
price and utility. While consumer surplus and CV are generally very similar welfare measures, CV is considered
to be the true measure of benefits (i.e., a more consistent indicator of utility), and consumer surplus is an
approximation. The distinction between the two is a subtle point in welfare economics; the exact details are not
crucial to the analysis.16
The key point to note is that estimates of CV from the Holt-Bishop model capture the benefits to final consumers
and commercial consumers throughout the various markets in which fish are bought and resold for a given level
of harvest. The model output provides a convenient way to estimate the benefits of an increase in harvest as a
percentage of gross revenues, and thus a tractable way to estimate the benefits of increased catch that do not
accrue to the primary producers.17 See Holt and Bishop (2002) for further detail on the model.
Based on comments received on the commercial benefits analysis for the proposed Phase II rule, EPA worked
with Dr. Bishop to assess the suitability of using the results from Holt and Bishop (2002) in a benefits transfer.
EPA determined that the magnitude of the changes in commercial catch modeled in the Holt and Bishop paper is,
in most cases, larger than the magnitude of the expected changes as a result of the Phase II regulations, and thus
the benefits may be quite different. To address this issue, Bishop and Holt (2003) explore the impacts on surplus
measures for more moderate changes in fishery conditions, and Bishop and Holt (2003) reports on the findings of
the re-estimation of their Great Lakes model in terms that related economic surplus to levels of gross revenues.
In their recent work, Bishop and Holt (2003) observe that, as a general rule of thumb, in the fisheries they model
the change in CV as a percentage of the change in gross revenues is more or less linearly related to the change in
catch. In other words, a 10% increase in catch as a result of the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III
facilities would be expected to produce an increase in CV equal to approximately a 10% of the change in gross
revenues. As an example, if the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities increases the catch of a
16 For a more detailed discussion of the difference in consumer surplus and CV, the reader is referred to Varian
(1992, Chapters 7 and 9) or any graduate-level microeconomics text.
17 Bishop and Holt do not estimate changes in producer surplus, and indicate such changes need to be estimated
separately and then combined with post-harvest consumer surplus results.
A4-24
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
species by 10% and the gross value of the additional catch is $100,000, then the increase in CV would be
$10,000.
Since no significant price changes are expected in any of the regions included in EPA's analysis, the effective
change in CV attributable to the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities is expected to be minimal. In
estimating benefits, EPA has assumed the change will be $0.
A4-10 Nonmonetary Benefits of Commercial Fishing
As with many activities, commercial fishing provides benefits that are not measured in the value of the catch.
Fishing is hard work. It involves strenuous outdoor work, long hours, and lengthy trips to sea, often in hazardous
weather conditions. Fishing is also dangerous work. "Fishing has consistently ranked as the most deadly
occupation since 1992," when the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) started publishing fatality rates by occupation
(Drudi, 1998, p. 1). In addition, the BLS Occupational Handbook: Fishers and Fishing Vessel Operators (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2002) predicts that "employment of fishers and fishing vessel operators is expected to
decline through the year 2010. These occupations depend on the natural ability offish stocks to replenish
themselves through growth and reproduction, as well as on governmental regulation of fisheries. Many operations
are currently at or beyond maximum sustainable yield, partially because of habitat destruction, and the number of
workers who can earn an adequate income from fishing is expected to decline."
In spite of this evidence, individuals still express a desire to fish, perhaps even because of the hardships and
challenges of the job. Studies on why fishermen choose to fish have determined that income is, not surprisingly,
the primary reason for participating in commercial fishing. Fishermen fish to support themselves and their
families, and generally earn more in fishing than they would in other occupations. There are other important
factors, though, including the importance of fishing to the way of life in small, coastal towns (not unlike the
importance of farming to many rural towns throughout the United States); the belief that fishing helps the U.S.
economy; and identity, i.e., people opt to work in commercial fishing because it provides enjoyment and because
it is an integral part of how they identify themselves psychologically and socially (Smith, 1981; Townsend, 1985;
Bermanetal., 1997).
Research in the economic literature indicates that some fishermen opt to remain in the fishing industry despite the
ability to make higher incomes in other industries. Some economists have suggested that there exists a worker
satisfaction bonus that can, at least in theory, be measured and should be included in cost-benefit analyses when
making policy decisions (Anderson, 1980). One study identified in a cursory literature review of this topic also
found evidence in the Alaskan fisheries that as many as 29.5% of all vessels across 14 fisheries from 1975 to
1980 earned net incomes that were lower than the income they could receive from selling their fishing permit.
The author concluded that "this pattern of apparent losses seems to confirm much of the casual observation that
is the source of speculation that non-pecuniary returns are a significant factor in commercial fishing. It is thought
that these financial losses are accepted only because they are offset by non-money gains" (Karpoff, 1985).
Because the Alaskan fisheries exist under much different conditions than those in the rest of the United States, it
would be a mistake to assume that nearly 30% of U.S. fishing vessels earn incomes less than the value of their
fishing permits. However, based on the cursory review of the commercial fishing literature, there is evidence that
commercial fishermen gain nonmonetary benefits from their work. Despite the existence of these nonmonetary
benefits in the commercial fishing sector, there is little research that has provided defensible methods for
estimating the additional nonmonetary benefits that may accrue to commercial fishermen as a result of the
proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. Thus, the omission of these nonmonetary benefits is noted
here, but no estimates will be included in the benefits analysis.
A4-25
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4
A4-11 Methods Used to Estimate Commercial Fishery Benefits from Reduced I&E
EPA estimated the commercial benefits expected under the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities in
the following steps. EPA estimated total losses under current I&E conditions in steps 1 through 3. Then, in step
4, EPA applied the estimated percentage reduction in I&E to estimate the benefits expected under each regulatory
option. Each step was performed for each region in the final analysis.
The steps used to estimate regional losses and benefits are as follows:
1. Estimate losses to commercial harvest (in pounds of fish) attributable to I&E under current
conditions. EPA modeled these losses using the methods presented in Chapter Al of Part A of this
document. The basic approach is to apply a linear stock to harvest assumption, such that if 10% of the
current commercially targeted stock were harvested, then 10% of the commercially targeted fish lost to
I&E would also have been harvested absent I&E. The percentage offish harvested is based on data on
historical fishing mortality rates.
2. Estimate lost gross revenue from the reduced commercial catch. The approach EPA used to estimate
the value of the commercial catch lost due to I&E relied on landings and dockside price (S/lb) as reported
by NOAA Fisheries for the period 1991-2001. These data are used to estimate the revenue lost as a result
of reduced commercial harvest under current conditions (i.e., the increase in gross revenue that would be
expected if all I&E impacts were eliminated).
3. Estimate lost economic surplus. The conceptually suitable measure of benefits is the sum of any
changes in producer and consumer surplus. The methods used to estimate the change in surplus depend
on whether the physical impact on the commercial fishery market appears sufficiently small such that it is
reasonable to assume there will be no appreciable price changes in the markets for the impacted fisheries.
For the regions included in EPA's analysis, it is reasonable to assume no change in price will occur,
which implies that the welfare change is limited to changes in producer surplus. This change in producer
surplus is assumed to be equivalent to a portion of the change in gross revenues, as developed under
step 2. EPA estimates that 0% to 40% of the gross revenue losses, estimated in step 2, is representative of
the change in producer surplus. This is based on a review of the empirical literature (restricted to only
those studies that compared producer surplus to gross revenue) and is consistent with recommendations
made in comments on the EPA analysis from Phase II.
EPA believes this is a conservative approach to estimating producer surplus when there is no
anticipated price changes. EPA's Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (U.S. EPA,
2000a; EPA 240-R-00-003) describe options for estimating ecological benefits for fisheries, and
note that "if changes in service flows are small, current market prices can be used as a proxy for
expected benefit... a change in the commercial fish catch might be valued using the market
price for the affected species." This statement indicates that 100% of gross revenue change,
based on current prices, may be a suitable measure of value.
4. Estimate increase in surplus attributable to the rule. Once the commercial surplus losses associated
with I&E under baseline conditions were estimated according to the approaches outlined in steps 2 and 3,
EPA estimated the percentage reduction in I&E at each facility under each regulatory option. This
analysis is conducted for each region. An increase in gross revenue is computed using the method
described in step 2 and the producer surplus is estimated using the fractional approach in step 3.
A4-26
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4
A4-12 Limitations and Uncertainties
Table A4-6 summarizes the caveats, omissions, biases, and uncertainties known to affect the estimates that were
developed for the benefits analysis.
Table A4-6: Caveats, Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Commercial Benefits Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits
Estimate
Comments
Change in commercial Uncertain
landings due to I&E
Estimates of commercial Uncertain
harvest losses due to I&E
under current conditions are
not region/species-specific
Effect of change in stocks on Uncertain
number of landings not
considered
Effect of uncertainty in . Uncertain
estimates of commercial
landings and prices is
unknown
Estimates of producer surplus Uncertain
as a percentage of gross
landings is not region/species-
specific
Projected changes in harvest may be under-estimated
because neither cumulative impacts of I&E over time nor
interactions with other stressors are considered.
EPA estimated the impact of I&E in the case study
analyses based on data provided by the facilities. The
most current data available were used. However, in some
cases these data are 20 years old or older. Thus, they may
not reflect current conditions.
EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship, that a
10% change in stock would have a 10% change in
landings; this may be low or high, depending on the
condition of the stocks. Region-specific fisheries
regulations also will affect the validity of the linear
assumption.
EPA assumes that NMFS landings data are accurate and
complete. In some cases prices and/or quantities may be
reported incorrectly.
EPA estimated that the increase in producer surplus as a
result of the rule will be between 0% and 40% of the
estimated change in gross revenues. The research used to
develop this range is not region-specific; thus the true
value may fall outside this range (higher or lower) for
some regions and species.
A4-27
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Chapter A5: Recreational Fishing Benefits
Methodology
Introduction
EPA used a benefit transfer approach to estimate the
welfare gain to recreational anglers from improved
recreational fishing opportunities due to reductions in
impingement and entrainment (I&E) under the
proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities.
A5-4
A5-5
Benefit transfer involves adapting research
conducted for another purpose to address the policy
questions at hand (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999).
Although primary research methods are generally
considered to be superior to benefit transfer methods,
benefit transfer is often the second (or only)
alternative to original studies due to resource or data
constraints. EPA notes that Smith et al. (2002, p.
134) state that "...nearly all benefit cost analyses rely
on benefit transfers...". For the Phase III analysis,
EPA used a benefit transfer approach to evaluate
recreational fishing benefits of the proposed
regulation for all study regions. To validate the
meta-analysis results, EPA also used regional
random utility models (RUM) of recreational fishing
behavior developed for the Phase II analysis to
estimate welfare gain to recreational anglers from
improved recreational opportunities resulting from
reduced I&E offish species at Phase III facilities.
EPA used the RUM approach to validate results for
the four coastal regions and the Great Lakes region.
Chapter All of the Phase II Regional Analysis
document provides a more detailed discussion of the
methodology used in EPA's RUM analysis (see DCN 6-0003).
Benefit transfer methods fall in three fundamental classes: (1) transfer of an unadjusted fixed value estimate
generated from a single study site, (2) the use of expert judgment to aggregate or otherwise alter benefits to be
transferred from a site or set of sites, and (3) estimation of a value estimator model derived from study site data,
often from multiple sites (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999). Recent studies have shown little support for the
accuracy or validity of the first method, leading to increased attention to, and use of, adjusted values estimated by
one of the remaining two approaches (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999).
Meta-analysis techniques have been increasingly explored by economists as a potential basis of policy analysis
conducted by various government agencies charged with the stewardship of natural resources.1 Although there
are few generally accepted guidelines for meta-analyses applied to environmental policy, EPA believes that this is
Chapter Contents
A5-1 Literature Review Procedure and
Organization A5-2
A5-2 Description of Studies A5-3
A5-3 Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Studies:
Regression Model A5-9
A5-3.1 Meta-Data A5-9
A5-3.2 Model and Results A5-16
A5-3.3 Interpretation of Regression Analysis
Results A5-19
Application of the Meta-Analysis Results
to the Analysis of Recreational Benefits of
the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities A5-23
A5-4.1 Estimating Marginal Value per
Fish • A5-23
A5-4.2 Calculating Recreational
Benefits A5-27
Limitations and Uncertainties A5-27
A5-5.1 Sensitivity Analysis Based on Krinsky
and Robb (1986) Approach ... A5-27
A5-5.2 Variable Assignments for Independent
Regressors A5-29
A5-5.3 Other Limitations and
Uncertainties A5-29
1 Meta-analysis is "the statistical analysis of a large collection of results for individual studies for the purposes of
integrating the findings" (Glass, 1976).
A5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Pan A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
a promising methodology for policy evaluation. This chapter describes how EPA applied method 3, which is
often cited as a more appropriate means of benefit transfer, to estimate the welfare gain associated with improved
recreational catch.
The first step in implementing an "adjusted value" benefit transfer approach is a systematic analysis of the
available economic studies that estimate the welfare gain associated with improved recreational catch. The
Agency identified 48 valuation studies that use stated preference or revealed preference techniques to elicit
benefit values for changes in recreational catch. All of these studies provide estimates of the marginal value to
fishermen of catching an additional fish, or provide sufficient information for EPA to calculate such a value.
These studies vary in several respects, including valuation methodology, survey administration method, species
targeted by anglers, baseline catch rate, location, and economic and demographic characteristics of the sample.
To examine the relative influence of study, economic, and resource characteristics on willingness-to-pay (WTP)
for catching an additional fish, the Agency conducted a regression-based meta-analyses of 391 estimates of WTP
(or marginal value) per fish, provided by the 48 original studies. The estimated econometric model can be used to
calculate per fish values for species that are potentially affected by I&E.
The following discussion summarizes the results of EPA's analysis of recreational fishing studies and outlines the
methodology for applying meta-regression results to the estimation of benefits from reduced I&E attributable to
the section 316(b) regulation.
A5-1 Literature Review Procedure and Organization
EPA performed an in-depth search of the economic literature to identify valuation studies that estimate - or
provide sufficient information to calculate - the value that anglers place on catching an additional fish. EPA used
a variety of sources and search methods to identify relevant studies:
»• review of EPA's research and bibliographies dealing with the recreational benefits of fishing;
> systematic review of recent issues of resource economics journals [e.g., Land Economics, Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Water
Resources Research];
* searches of online reference and abstract databases [e.g., Environmental Valuation Resource Inventory
(EVRI), the Fish and Wildlife Service's Database of Sportfishing Values];
* queries to academic search engines [e.g., EconLit, ISI Web of Science, Index of Digital Dissertations];
*• visits to homepages of authors known to have published valuation studies of recreational fishing;
*• searches of web sites of agricultural and resource economics departments at several colleges and
universities; and
* searches of web sites of organizations and agencies known to publish environmental and resource
economics valuation research [e.g., Resources for the Future (RFF), National Center for Environmental
Economics (NCEE), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Library of Congress'
Congressional Research Service].
From this review, EPA identified approximately 450 journal articles, academic working papers, reports, books,
and dissertations that were potentially relevant for this analysis. Forty-eight of these studies were included in the
data set for the recreational meta-analysis because they met the criteria listed below:
*• Specific amenity valued: Selected studies were limited to those that estimated the marginal value that
recreational anglers place on catching an additional fish (WTP) or provided sufficient information for
EPA to calculate such a value;
» Location: Selected studies were limited to those that surveyed U.S. or Canadian populations; and
> Research methods: Selected studies were limited to those that applied primary research methods
supported by journal literature.
A 5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
The Agency utilized information from each of the studies to compile^ an extensive data set for use in the meta-
analysis. The complete data set is provided in the public record for the proposed rule (see DCN 7-4923 and DCN
7-4924), and includes the following information:
*• full study citation;
> study methodology (e.g., research method, survey administration method, question format);
*• sample characteristics (e.g., sample size, response rate, income, age, gender);
* study location (e.g., waterbody name, waterbody type, geographic location);
> description of fishing quality (e.g., target species, fishing mode, baseline catch rate, post-change catch
rate);
> marginal value per fish, updated to June 2003 dollars; and
» methods for obtaining marginal values per fish (i.e., whether marginal value per fish was directly
available from the study, marginal value calculation method).
A5-2 Description of Studies
As noted above, EPA selected 48 recreational angling valuation studies that allow estimation of the value of
catching an additional fish. These studies were published between 1982 and 2004, and are based on data from
surveys conducted between 1977 and 2001. The studies all apply standard, generally accepted valuation methods,
such as contingent valuation, travel cost models, and random utility models, to assess marginal value per fish.
Studies were excluded if they did not conform to general concepts of economic theory, or if they applied methods
not generally accepted in the economic literature.
All selected studies focus on changes in recreational catch rates in the U.S. or Canada. Beyond this general
similarity, the studies vary in several respects. Differences include the species targeted by anglers, the magnitude
of the change in catch rates, the location of the study, the survey administration method, demographics of the
survey sample, and statistical methods employed. The 48 studies include 24 journal articles, 15 reports, five Ph.D.
dissertations, three academic or staff papers, and one book. Twenty studies share a primary author with at least
one other study. These 20 studies have a combined total of eight individuals as primary authors.
Because multiple estimates of the marginal per-fish value are available from most of the studies, the 48 studies
selected for the meta-analysis provide 390 observations for the final data set. Some of the characteristics that
allow multiple observations to be derived from a single study include variations in the baseline catch rate, the
species being valued, the locations where fish were caught, the fishing method (i.e., boat or. shore), and the
valuation methodology.
Survey response rates from the studies range from 38% to 99%, and study sample sizes range from 72 to 36,802
responses. Two hundred and nine estimates from 21 studies are based on random utility models, 59 estimates
from 11 studies are based on travel cost models, and 122 estimates from 20 studies are based on stated preference
methods.2 EPA calculated the marginal value per fish based on information provided in the study for 92 estimates
from 15 studies, and for the remaining estimates the marginal values were provided by the authors.
Table A5-1 lists key study and resource characteristics and indicates the number of observations derived from
each study.
2 The number of studies employing each valuation methodology does not sum to the total number of studies
because some studies used different valuation methods, from which multiple observations were derived.
A5-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational
Author and Year
Agnello(1989)
Number of
Observations
30
State(s)
FLtoNY
Angling Valuation Studies
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
travel cost
Used in the M eta-Analysis'
Marginal Value per Fishb
bluefish ($0.70 to $9.23)
Alexander (1995)
Berrensetal. (1993)
Besedin et al. (2004)
1
12
Bockstael et al. (1989) 1
Boyle etal. (1998) 4
Breffleetal. (1999)
Cameron and Huppert (1989) 2
Cameron and James (198 7a) 1
Cameron and James (1987b) 1
Carson etal. (1990) 3
Daltonetal. (1998) 2
Gautam and Steinbeck (1998) 3
Hicks etal. (1999) 44
OR
OR
MI
MD
FWS Mountain Trout,
Western Trout,
Northeast Trout, and
Northern Bass Regions
WI
CA
British Columbia,
Canada
British Columbia,
Canada
AK
WY
ME, NH, MA, RI, CT
ME, NH, MA, RI, CT,
NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA
nested RUM
CV (payment card)
non-nested RUM
travel cost
CV (dichotomous choice)
CV (payment card)
CV (dichotomous choice)
CV (dichotomous choice)
CV (payment card, conjoint
analysis) .
CV (dichotomous choice)
travel cost, non-nested RUM
nested RUM
flounder ($3.33 to $28.67)
weakfish ($0.05 to $9.69)
all three species ($1.16 to $15.80)
steelhead trout ($3.59 to $23.17)
Chinook salmon ($3.99)
bass ($13.14 to $17.12)
perch ($1.79 to $2.95)
walleye/pike ($ 10.17 to $21.34)
salmon/trout ($20.56 to $23.36)
general/no target ($1.58 to $3.34)
striped bass ($2.23)
trout ($0.91 to $3.96)
bass ($4.22)
yellow perch ($0.79 to $1.57)
trout/salmon ($20.99 to $42.10)
smallmouth bass ($13.70 to $27.48)
salmon ($5.82 to $16.76)
salmon ($2.51)
salmon ($19.78)
Chinook salmon ($15.80 to $45.92)
fraw/($28.13to$51.41)
striped bass ($4.18 to $7.02)
big game ($5.67 to $8. 19)
bottomfish ($2.02 to $3.25)
small game ($3.01 to $4.64)
A5-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase 111 - Regional ueneius /\ssessuicm, ran n. i
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta-Analysis"
Author and Year
Number of
Observations State(s)
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Marginal Value per Fishb
Hicks (2002)
Huppert(1989)
Hushak et al. (1988)
Johnson et al. (1995)
3
3
3
19
NH to VA
CA
OH
CO
CV (conjoint analysis), non-
nested RUM
CV (payment card), travel cost
travel cost
CV (iterative bidding,
flatfish ($3.84 to $7.13)
summer flounder ($2.59 to $4.65)
Chinook salmon and striped bass ($7.74 to
$58.44)
wa//eye($2.34to$3.13)
trout ($0.54 to $2.94)
Johnson (1989) 5
Johnson and Adams (1989) 1
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc 4
(1987)
Kirkleyetal. (1999) 10
Lee (1996) 5
Loomis (1988) 13
Lupi and Hoehn( 1998) 3
Lupietal. (1997) 10
CO
OR
AK
VA
WA
OR,WA
MI
MI
dichotomous choice)
CV (iterative bidding)
CV (multiple methods)
non-nested RUM
CV (open-ended)
CV (conjoint analysis)
travel cost
nested RUM
nested RUM
brown and rainbow trout ($0.87 to $1.61)
rainbow trout ($2.58)
steelheadtrout($11.15)
halibut ($ 153.91)
Chinook salmon ($327.29)
coho salmon (3 178.65)
dolly varden ($23.25)
bottomfish and croaker ($3.05 to $12.88)
summer flounder ($4.69 to $19.91)
gamefish ($16.40 to $65.59)
no target ($ 1 .93 to $8.20)
trout ($1.13 to $3.83)
steelhead trout ($40.69 to $182.23)
salmon ($13.23 to $114.21)
lake trout ($10. 12 to $13. 90)
bass ($8.54)
McConnell and Strand (1994) 36
FLtoNY
CV (dichotomous choice)
co/zo.sa//non($18.33)
northern pike ($2.34)
rainbow trout ($10.12 to $15.77)
Chinook salmon ($4.04 to $13.25)
lake trout ($6.61)
walleye ($3.66)
big game ($0.65 to $54.56)
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta-Analysis"
Author and Year
Number of
Observations State(s)
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Marginal Value per Fish"
Milliman et al. (1992)
Moreyetal. (1993)
Morey et al. (2002)
Moreyetal. (1991)
Murdock(2001)
Norton etal. (1983)
Olsenetal. (1991)
Pendleton and Mendelsohn
(1998)
Rowe etal. (1985)
Samples and Bishop (1985)
Schuhmann(1996)
Schuhmann(1997)
4
6
3
24
MI
ME
MT
OR
WI
ME to NC
WA,OR
ME, NH, VT, NY
CA, OR, WA
MI
NC
MD.NC
CV (dichotomous choice)
nested RUM
nested RUM
non-nested RUM
nested RUM
travel cost
CV (open-ended)
non-nested RUM
non-nested RUM
travel cost
non-nested RUM
non-nested RUM
small game ($11.59 to $30.91)
flatfish ($0.37 to $10.50)
bottomfish ($0.25 to $4.51)
yellow perch ($0.33)
Atlantic salmon ($386.63 to $612.79)
trout ($11.62 to $198.03)
salmon ($5.66)
ocean perch ($ 13.74)
smelt and grunion ($32.39)
panfish ($9.77)
walleye ($22.63)
smallmouth bass ($19.47)
temperate bass ($4.23)
northern pike ($15.68)
trout ($32.68)
salmon ($51.61)
striped bass ($3.39 to $31.98)
salmon ($21.95 to $37.44)
steelhead trout ($37.00 to $81.29)
rainbow trout ($23.37)
other trout ($4.32 to $26.44)
coastal pelagics ($3.82 to $4.45)
flatfish ($3.31 to $14.33)
rockfish and bottomfish ($2.63 to $6.79)
salmon ($7.21 to $31.24)
smelt and grunion ($0.30 to $7.40)
salmon and trout ($ 19.01)
big game ($33.78 to $133.11) .
bottomfish (% 14.53)
rfn/m ($1.65 to $11.57)
surface fish ($12.67 to $25.96)
billfish ($33.72)
A5-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase 1U - Regional oeneius Assess
. i an /~i. t_,v
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta-Analysis'
Author and Year
Number of
Observations
State(s)
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
Marginal Value per Fishb
Shaferetal. (1993)
U.S. EPA (2004a)
1
31
PA
CA
travel cost
non-nested RUM
U.S. EPA (2004b)
15
NY to VA
nested RUM
U.S. EPA (2004c)
10
FL, NC, SC, GA
non-nested RUM
U.S. EPA (2004d)
13
FL, AL, MS, LA
non-nested RUM
bottomfish ($ 14.51)
drum ($11.55)
surface fish ($12.66)
trout ($1.35)
big game ($2.15 to $6.47)
bottomfish ($1.38 to $2.76)
flatfish ($3.19 to $11.06)
jacks ($29.15)
salmon ($8.46 to $15.56)
sea bass ($0.36 to $0.73)
small game ($2.26 to $3.09)
striped bass ($4.31 to $8.41)
sturgeon ($61.43)
no target/other ($0.46 to $6.68)
big game ($20.97)
bluefish ($6.32 to $6.42)
bottomfish ($4.70 to $4.76)
flatfish ($8.55 to $8.75)
other small game ($4.68 to $6.64)
striped bass ($15.52 to $15.56)
weakfish ($14.31 to $14.99)
no target ($5.70 to $5.83)
big game ($37.89)
bottomfish ($4.91 to $9.39)
flatfish ($27.63 to $31.18)
small game ($10.31 to $13.72)
snapper and grouper ($5.41)
no target ($7.41 to $19.73)
big game ($30.48)
bottomfish ($2.21 to $7.23)
flatfish ($9.41 to $16.62)
seatrout ($10.14 to $13.85)
small game ($12.85 to $15.64)
snapper and grouper ($ 11.27 to $ 11.47)
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-1: Select Characteristics of Recreational Angling Valuation Studies Used in the Meta- Analysis*
Author and Year
Vaughan and Russell (1982)
Whitehead and Haab (1999)
Whitehead and Aiken (2000)
Williams and Bettoli (2003)
Number of
Observations
2
1
6
8
State(s)
USA
NC, SC, GA, FL, AL,
MI, LA
USA
TN
Study Methodology/
Elicitation Format
travel cost
non-nested RUM
CV (dichotomous choice)
CV (dichotomous choice)
Marginal Value per Fishb
no target ($5.35 to $6.36)
trout ($1.1 4)
catfish ($0.78)
small game ($4.32)
bass ($4. 60 to $10.37)
trout ($0.62 to $9.43)
a Where multiple observations are available from a given study, state, study methodology/elicitatibn format, and species may take on different values for
different observations from that study.
b The marginal values per fish presented here represent the highest and lowest values from the study for the specified species or group of species. Italicized
values in this column indicate that EPA calculated the marginal value per fish from information in the study. All values are presented in June 2003$.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
From these 48 studies, the Agency compiled a data set for the meta-analysis of marginal values per fish. The
following section describes the estimation of this model and its application to the proposed section 316(b) rule for
Phase III facilities.
A5-3 Meta-Analysis of Recreational Fishing Studies: Regression Model
EPA estimated a meta-analysis model based on 391 estimates of the value anglers place on catching an additional
fish, derived from 48 original studies. The meta-data, model specification, model results, and interpretation of
those results are discussed in sections A5-3.1 through A5-3.3.
In a frequently cited work, Glass (1976) characterizes meta-analysis as "the statistical analysis of a large
collection of results for individual studies for the purposes of integrating the findings. It provides a rigorous
alternative to the casual, narrative discussion of research studies which is commonly used to make some sense of
the rapidly expanding research literature" [p. 3; cited in Poe et al. (2001), p; 138]. Meta-analysis is being
increasingly explored as a potential means to estimate resource values in cases where original targeted research is
impractical, or as a means to reveal systematic components of WTP (Johnston et al., 2003; Smith and Osbome,
1996; Santos, 1998; Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000a; Poe et al., 2001; Woodward and Wui, 2001; Bateman and
Jones, 2003). While the literature urges caution in the use and interpretation of benefit transfers for direct policy
application (e.g., Desvousges et al., 1998; Poe et al., 2001), such methods are "widely used in the United States
by government agencies to facilitate benefit-cost analysis of public policies and projects affecting natural
resources" (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999). Transfers based on meta-analysis are likewise common in both the
United States and Canada (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999).
Depending on the suitability of available data, meta-analysis can provide a superior alternative to the calculation
and use of a simple arithmetic mean WTP over the available observations, as it allows estimation of the
systematic influence of study methodology, sample characteristics, and natural resource attributes on WTP
(Johnston et al., 2003). The primary advantage of a regression-based (statistical) approach is that it accounts for
differences among study characteristics that may contribute to changes in WTP, to the extent permitted by
available data. An additional advantage is that meta-analysis can reveal systematic factors influencing WTP,
allowing assessments of whether, for example, WTP estimates are (on average) sensitive to the baseline resource
conditions (Smith and Osborne, 1996).
A5-3.1 Meta-Data
Meta-analysis is largely an empirical, data-driven process, but one in which variable and model selection is
guided by theory. Given a reliance on information available from the underlying studies that comprise the meta-
data, meta-analysis models most often represent a middle ground between model specifications that would be
most theoretically appropriate and those specifications that are possible given available data. Smith and Osborne
(1996), Rosenberger and Loomis (2000a), Poe et al. (2001), Bateman and Jones (2003), Dalhuisen et al. (2003),
and others provide insight into the mechanics of specifying and estimating meta-equations in resource economics
applications.
To guide development of variable specifications, EPA relied upon a set of general principles. These principles are
designed to help prevent excessive data manipulations and other factors that may lead to misleading model
results. The general principles include, all else being equal:
+ models should attempt to capture elements of scale of resource changes;
> models should focus on distinguishing marginal values associated with different types of species in
different regions, particularly where relevant to the policy question at hand;
>• in the absence of overriding theoretical considerations, continuous variables are generally preferred to
discrete variables derived from underlying continuous distributions; and
A 5-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
> where possible, exogenous constraints should be avoided in favor of "letting the data speak for
themselves."
Based on these criteria, EPA selected a set of variables believed to have a potential influence on the estimated
WTP per additional fish caught. Variable selection was guided primarily by prior findings in the literature, and
constrained by information available from the original studies that comprise the meta-data. The dependent
variable chosen for the meta-analysis is the natural logarithm of WTP per fish, as reported in each original study
or as calculated by EPA from information provided by the studies. EPA chose to use the natural log of the
dependent variable instead of the linear form, based on (1) data fit, (2) the intuitive nature of results, and (3) the
common use of this functional form in the meta-analysis literature (e.g., Smith and Osbome, 1996; Santos, 1998).
Section A5-3.2 discusses this decision in greater detail. Per fish values were adjusted to June 2003$ based on the
relative change in the consumer price index (CPI) from the study year to June of 2003. The real value per fish
over the sample ranged from 4.8 cents to $612.79, with a mean value of $16.82 and a median value of $5.83.
The independent variables included in the meta-analysis characterize the species being valued, study location,
baseline catch rate, elicitation and survey methods, demographics of survey respondents, and other specifics of
each study. All independent variables are linear. For ease of exposition, these variables are categorized into those
characterizing 1) study methodology, 2) sample characteristics, 3) species targeted, and 4) angling quality.
Variables included in each category are summarized below.
Study methodology variables characterize such features as:
> the valuation method (e.g., stated preference, travel cost, or random utility model);
> the year in which a study was conducted;
» the survey administration method; and
» reported survey response rates.
Sample characteristics variables characterize such features as:
> the average income of respondents;
»• the demographic composition of respondents; and
> the number of fishing trips taken each year by respondents.
Species targeted variables characterize such features as:
»• the species targeted by anglers; and
> the geographic region in which the species was targeted.
Angling quality variables characterize such features as:
» the baseline catch rate; and
> the fishing mode (e.g., shore or boat).
Although the interpretation and calculation of most variables is relatively straightforward, a few variables require
additional explanation. In particular, the calculation of the dependent variable requires more explanation.3 The
majority of studies provide estimates of WTP per fish, but some studies do not provide estimates of marginal
value. In these cases, EPA calculated WTP per fish in one of two ways. The Agency's preferred approach was to
use the regression coefficients from the equation presented in the study to calculate the marginal value per fish.
For example, a simple linear travel cost model might express the number of trips (Trips) taken by a respondent as
a function of travel cost (TC), the catch rate for salmon (CR), and whether or not the respondent owns a boat (fi):
3 All calculations used by EPA to estimate marginal values are documented in DCN 7-4922.
A5-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AS
Trips = a + fiTC + %CR + 5B [A5-1 ]
The marginal value per fish is then calculated as follows:
dCR J3 [A5-2]
In the case of RUM studies, the deterministic part of the utility function (V) is in general expressed as a function
of travel cost (TC), historic catch rates for various fish species (CR), and a vector of other site attributes (X):
V(j) = f(TQ, CRj, „ X) [A5-3]
where:
V (j) = the expected utility of fishing at site j;
TCj = travel cost to site j; and
CR (j,s) = historic catch rate for species s at site j;
Angler willingness-to-pay for catching an additional fish can be calculated as a ratio of the first derivative of the
utility function with respect to the travel cost and catch rate variables. This is interpreted as the change in travel
cost (TCj) that is just sufficient to return a representative angler to a baseline level of utility, subsequent to a one-
fish increase in catch rate that results in an increase in utility above the baseline. Formally, marginal WTP per
fish may be expressed as:
[A5-4]
drc
where the numerator and denominator of A5-4 are directly revealed by statistical model coefficients. Equation
A5-4 expresses the rate at which anglers are willing to exchange a unit increase in catch rates for a unit increase in
the costs of travel.
In cases when EPA was not able to calculate marginal willingness-to-pay per fish from the regression coefficients
due to insufficient information, the Agency used linear extrapolation to approximate marginal values. In most
cases, this involved calculating average WTP per fish for some specified increase in catch rates. For example, if a
study reports that the average respondent is willing to pay ten dollars per trip to catch an additional two fish per
trip, then EPA calculated average marginal WTP per fish to be ten dollars divided by two fish, or five dollars per
fish.
Another set of variables that requires explanation are the variables that characterize the fish species targeted by
anglers. The original studies value a large variety of species. To reduce the number of species variables to a
manageable number, and to reduce the number of times in which a species-specific dummy variable distinguishes
only a single study, EPA assigned each species to an aggregate species group. These assignments were based on
the angling, biological, and regional characteristics of each species. The groups include four saltwater species
groups (big game, small game, flatfish, and other saltwater fish), two anadromous species groups (salmon and
A5-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
steelhead trout), and five freshwater species groups (panfish, bass, walleye/pike, rainbow trout, and other trout).4
The other saltwater group includes bottomfish species, species caught by anglers not targeting any particular
species, and species that did not clearly fit in one of the other groups. The panfish group includes freshwater
species such as yellow perch, catfish, sunfish, and other warmwater species. Some species groups were further
subdivided on the basis of regional differences. Table A5-2 shows the species assigned to each aggregate species
group.
Table A5-2: Aggregate Species Groups
Aggregate Number of
Group Observations Species Included"
Big Game 30 billfish family, dogfish, rays, sharks, skates, sturgeon, swordfish, tarpon
family, tuna, other big game
Small Game 74 barracuda, bluefish, bonito, cobia, dolly varden, dolphinfish, jacks,
mackerel, red drum, seatrout, striped bass, weakfish, other small game
Flatfish 46 halibut, sanddab, summer flounder, winter flounder, other flatfish
Other Saltwater 89 banded drum, black drum, chubbyu, cod family, cow cod, croaker,
grouper, grunion, grunt, high-hat, kingfish, lingcod, other drum, perch,
porgy, rockfish, sablefish, sand drum, sculpin, sea bass, smelt, snapper,
spot, spotted drum, star drum, white sea bass, wreckfish, other bottom
species, other coastal pelagics, "no target" saltwater species
Salmon 44 Atlantic salmon, Chinook salmon, coho salmon, other salmon
Steelhead 14 steelhead trout
Walleye/Pike 12 northern pike, walleye
Bass 14 largemouth bass, smallmouth bass
Panfish 11 catfish, carp, yellow perch, other panfish, "general" and "no target"
freshwater species
Rainbow Trout 4 rainbow trout
Other Trout 56 brown trout, lake trout, other trout
a Some studies evaluated WTP for groups of species that did not fit cleanly into one of the aggregate species groups
established by EPA. In those cases, the groups of species from the study were assigned to the aggregate species
group with which they shared the most species.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
The final set of variables that require additional explanation are the catch rate variables. In general, studies
express catch rates in fish per hour, fish per day, fish per trip, or fish per year. Rather than include four separate
catch rate variables, EPA combined per hour, per day, and per trip catch rates in a normalized variable called
cr_nonyear. This variable expresses catch rates in per day units. Because most of the studies focused on single-
day trips, EPA included per trip catch rates in this variable without normalization.5 Per hour catch rates were
4 The small game group includes some anadromous species such as striped bass that spawn in tidal rivers.
5 Although some studies included both multiple and single day trips the average angling trip length was often not
provided. However, the majority of recreational angling trips are single-day trips. According to the 2001 National
Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. FWS, 2002), the average angling trip length was
A5-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
converted to per day catch rates by multiplying by the number of hours fished per day, as provided in the study.
In cases where the study does not provide information on fishing day length, EPA assumed that the average
fishing day lasts four hours. EPA included per year catch rates in a separate variable, cr_year.
Variables incorporated in the final model are listed and described in Table A5-3.
Table A5-3: Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the Regression Model
Variable*
log_WTP
SP_conjoint
SP_dichot
TCJndividual
TC_zonal
RUM_nest
RUM_nonnest
sp_year
tc_year
RUM _y ear
sp_mail
h igh_resp_rate
inc_thou
1.27 days.
Description
Natural log of the marginal value per fish.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
conjoint analysis stated preference methodology.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
stated preference methodology with a dichotomous
choice elicitation format.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
travel cost model based on trip data for each individual in
the survey, as opposed to aggregated data.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
zonal travel cost model based on data aggregated for all
respondents from each location in the sample.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
nested random utility model.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study used a
non-nested random utility model.
If the study uses a stated preference methodology, this
variable represents the year in which the study was
conducted, converted to an index by subtracting 1,976;
otherwise, this variable is set to zero.
If the study uses a travel cost methodology, this variable
represents the year in which the study was conducted,
converted to an index by subtracting 1 ,976; otherwise,
this variable is set to zero.
If the study uses a RUM methodology, this variable
represents the year in which the study was conducted,
converted to an index by subtracting 1,976; otherwise,
this variable is set to zero.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study was a
stated preference study that was administered by mail.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the sample
response rate was greater than 50%.
Household income of survey respondents in 1 ,000's of
Units
(Range)
Natural log of
dollars
(-3. 0260 to 6.4 180)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Year index
(0 to 25)
Year index
(Oto 18)
Year index
(0 to 25)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
1,000'sof June
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
1.8419
(1.3165)
0.0435
(0.2042)
0.1739
(0.3795)
0.1074
(0.3100)
0.0409
(0.1984)
0.2353
(0.4247)
0.3043
(0.4607)
4.6036
(7.3592)
0.7315
(2.1914)
9.3734
(9.7162)
0.0512
(0.2206)
0.3581
(0.4800)
46.7008
A5-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-3: Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the Regression Model
Variable"
gender
spec_gender
age
spec_age
trips
spec_trips
nonlocal
big_game_natl
big_game_satl
big_game_pac
small _game_atl
small_gamej>ac
flatfish_atl
flatfish_pac
otherjsw
pike_walleye
Description
dollars. If the study does not list income values, incjhou
was imputed from Census data.
The percentage of sample respondents that were male.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study
presented information on the percentage of sample
respondents that were male.
The mean age of sample respondents.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study
provided information on the mean age of sample
respondents.
The mean number of fishing trips taken each year by
sample respondents.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study
provided information on the mean number of fishing trips
taken each year by sample respondents.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that no respondents
in the sample were local residents.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was big game in the North Atlantic or Mid-
Atlantic regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was big game in the South Atlantic or Gulf of
Mexico regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was big game in the California or Pacific
Northwest regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was small game in the North Atlantic, Mid-
Atlantic, South Atlantic, or Gulf of Mexico regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was small game in the California or Pacific
Northwest regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was flatfish in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic,
South Atlantic, or Gulf of Mexico regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was flatfish in the California or Pacific Northwest
regions.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was bottomfish or other saltwater species.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
Units
(Range)
2003$
(2 1.990 to 70.6 10)
Percentage
(0 to 98)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Years
(Oto 51)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Fishing trips
(0 to 56.4)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Biliary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
(10.2017)
34.6427
(43.6581)
0.3887
(0.4881)
16.0232
(21.0539)
0.3683
(0.4830)
13.1562
(16.8113)
0.4450
(0.4976)
0.0051
. (0.0714)
0.0486
(0.2153)
0.0205
(0.1418)
0.0077
(0.0874)
0.1611
(0.3681)
0.0281
(0.1656)
0.0997
(0.3000)
0.0179
(0.1328)
0.2276
(0.4198)
0.0307
A5-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-3: Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the Regression Model
Variable*
bassj\v
trout_rainbow
trout_atlantic
troutjSL
trout jnountain
trout_pacific
trout_other
salmon _atlantic
salmonjGL
salmon _pacific
steelhead
cr_nonyear
cr_year
Description
species was northern pike or walleye.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was largemouth bass or smallmouth bass.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was rainbow trout.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was trout (including rainbow trout) in states on
the eastern side of the U.S.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was trout (including rainbow trout) in the Great
Lakes region.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was trout (including rainbow trout) in the U.S.
FWS Mountain Trout region.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was trout (including rainbow trout) in the U.S.
FWS Western Trout region.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was trout (including rainbow trout) in fee-fishing
establishments across the U.S.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was salmon on the Atlantic coast.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was salmon in the Great Lakes.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was salmon on the Pacific coast.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the target
species was steelhead.
For studies that present catch rate on a per hour, per day,
or per trip basis, this variable represents the baseline
catch rate for the target species, expressed in fish per day
or fish per trip; otherwise this variable is set to zero.
For studies that present catch rate on a per year basis, this
variable represents the baseline catch rate for the target
species, expressed in fish per year; otherwise this variable
is set to zero.
Units
(Range)
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Binary variable
(Oto 1)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Fish per day
(0 to 14.0000)
Fish per year
(0 to 67.3800)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
(0.1727)
0.0358
(0.1860)
0.0102
(0.1008)
0.0332
(0.1795)
0.0179
(0.1328)
0.0742
(0.2624)
0.0153
(0.1231)
0.0026
(0.0506)
0.0051
(0.0714)
0.0230
(0.1502)
0.0844
(0.2783)
0.0358
(0.1860)
1.6088
(1.9948)
1.3707
(8.5833)
A5-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
Table A5-3: Variables and Descriptive Statistics for the Regression Model
Variable"
spec_cr
shore
Description
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that the study
presents information on the baseline catch rate.
Binary (dummy) variable indicating that all respondents
in the sample fished from shore.
Units
(Range)
Binary variable
(Otol)
Binary variable
(0 to 1)
Mean
(Std. Dev.)
0.8440
(0.3633)
0.1458
(0.3633)
a The default variable values are:
•• A zero value for all of the study methodology variables (SP_conjoint, SP_dichot, TCindividual,
TC_zonal, RUM_nested, and RUM_nonnested) indicates that the study used a stated preference
methodology with an open-ended, iterative bidding, or payment card elicitation format.
•• A zero value for sp_mail indicates that if the study was a stated preference study and it was administered
by phone or in person.
» A zero value for nonlocal indicates that the survey included local anglers or a mix of local and nonlocal
anglers.
>• A zero value for all of the species variables indicates that the target species was panfish.
* A zero value for shore indicates that survey respondents fished from boats or from both the shore and from
boats.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-3.2 Model and Results
a. Model
Past meta-analyses have incorporated a range of different statistical methods, with none universally accepted as
superior (e.g., Santos, 1998; Poole and Greenland, 1999; Poe et al., 2001; Bateman and Jones, 2003).
Nonetheless, there is general consensus that certain statistical issues should be addressed during model
development. For example, many researchers agree that models must somehow address potential correlation
among observations provided by like authors or studies and the related potential for heteroskedasticity (Johnston
et al. 2003; Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000b; Bateman and Jones, 2003). This meta-analysis model is estimated
following standard methods illustrated in the most recent literature, recognizing that there are some areas in which
the literature provides mixed guidance (e.g., the use of weighting).
EPA followed recent work by Bateman and Jones (2003) in applying a multilevel model specification to the meta-
data to address potential correlation among observations, gathered from single studies. Multilevel (or hierarchical)
models may be estimated as either random-effects or random-coefficients models, and are described in detail
elsewhere (Goldstein, 1995; Singer, 1998). The fundamental distinction between these models and classical linear
models is the two-part modeling of the equation error to account for hierarchical data. Here, the meta-data are
comprised of multiple observations per valuation survey (i.e., all observations from studies that were based on a
common survey), and there is a corresponding possibility of correlated errors among observations that share a
common survey.6 The common approach to modeling such potential correlation is to divide the residual variance
of estimates into two parts: a random error that is independently and identically distributed (iid) across all
observations, and a random effect that represents systematic variation related to each survey. The model is
estimated as a two-level hierarchy, with level one corresponding to marginal value per fish estimates (individual
observations), and level two corresponding to individual surveys. The random effect may be interpreted as a
deviation from the mean equation intercept associated with individual surveys (Bateman and Jones, 2003). The
model is estimated using a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE), based on the assumption that random effects
6 EPA chose to group observations by valuation survey rather than by study or author because in a number of
cases, studies based on the same survey produce similar results, even if written by different authors.
A5-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
are distributed multivariate normal. Following the arguments of Bateman and Jones (2003), observations are
unweighted. Also following prior work (e.g., Smith and Osborne, 1996; Poe et al., 2001), covariances are
obtained using the Huber-White covariance estimator. As described by Smith and Osborne (1996, p. 293), "this
approach treats each study as the equivalent of a sample cluster with the potential for heteroskedasticity... across
clusters." (Smith and Osborne, 1996).
Random effects models such as the multilevel model applied here are increasingly becoming standard in resource
economics applications, and are estimable using a variety of readily available software packages. For
comparison, models were also estimated using both ordinary least squares (OLS) and weighted least squares
(WLS) with robust variance estimation and multilevel models with standard (non-robust) variance estimation.
None of these models outperformed the illustrated model in terms of overall model significance and fit, or
statistical significance of individual coefficients.
As noted in section A5-3.1, the dependent variable in the regression is the log of WTP per fish, and the
independent variables are all linear, resulting in a semi-log functional form. This functional form has advantages
because of: 1) its fit to the data, 2) the intuitive results provided by the functional form, and 3) the common use of
this functional form in the meta-analysis literature (e.g., Smith and Osborne, 1996; Santos, 1998). While linear
forms are also common in the literature (Rosenberger and Loomis, 2000a,b; Poe et al., 2001; Bateman and Jones,
2003), specifications requiring more intensive data transformations (e.g., Box-Cox, log-log) are less common.
Given questions about a priori restrictions on the functional form, final decisions regarding functional forms were
made based on a combination of general principles and empirical performance. The semi-log model was chosen
over the linear model based on the ability of the semi-log form to capture curvature in the valuation function and
its improved fit to the data. It also allows independent variables to influence WTP (after transformation from its
natural log) in a multiplicative rather than additive manner.
*»* A note on model specification
Following standard econometric practice, the final model is specified based on guidance from theory and prior
literature. For example, Arrow et al. (1993) make a fundamental distinction between discrete choice and
open-ended payment mechanisms (where open-ended include iterative bidding, payment cards, etc.). Hence, this
is the distinction made in the final model (i.e., including the variables SP_conjoint and SP_dichoi). Similarly,
other methodology variables in the model were chosen based on theoretical considerations and prior findings in
the literature (e.g., nested RUM vs. non-nested RUM; mail surveys vs. phone and in-person surveys).
As is common in meta-analysis, some variables were excluded from the model because sufficient data were
incomplete or missing from most studies in the meta-data. For example, a variable characterizing the average
number of years respondents had been fishing was excluded because too few observations were available. Some
other variables were also excluded because of a clear lack of statistical significance in all estimated models. For
example, if there was no overriding theoretical or other rationale for retaining the variable in the model, and the
variable was clearly insignificant, EPA excluded the variable from the model. For example, variables representing
survey size and estimate size were dropped because they added no significant explanatory power to the model.
However, certain variables were retained in the model for theoretical reasons, even if significance levels were
low. Such specification of meta-analysis models using a combination of theoretical guidance and empirical
considerations is standard in modeling efforts.
b. Results
Table A5-4 presents the results of the model.
A5-I7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Variable
Intercept
SP_conjoint
SP_dichot
TCJndividual
TC_zonal
RUM_nest
RUM_nonnest
sp_year
tc_year
RUM_year
sp_mail
high_resp_rate
inc_thou
gender
spec_gender
age
spec_age
trips
spec_trips
nonlocal
big_game_natl
big_game_satl
big__game_pac
small_game_atl
small_game_pac
flatfish_atl
flatfish_pac
other_sw
pike_walleye
bass_fw
trout_rainbow
trout_atlantic
trout_GL
trout_mountain
Table A5-4: Estimated Multilevel
Parameter
Estimate
-2.9751
-0.2755
0.07965
2.2848
3.2700
2.2061
2.7158
0.1474
-0.03301
-0.00844
-0.02076
-0.6542
0.02032
-0.08744
7.4801
-0.06713
3.2152
-0.02307
0.7151
3.5050
1.7843
2.7266
2.7002
1.6177
2.0459
1.6407
2.2373
1.0323
1.3790
1.6356
0.6093
1.1187
1.9356
1.0592
Model Results: Marginal
Value per Fish
Standard Error t Value
1.2243
0.4781
0.3218
0.7083
0.7005
0.8792
0.7916
0.02966
0.02662
0.02790
0.3294
0.3160
0.01052
0.01980
1.7406
0.06412
2.6241
0.01440
0.3307
0.3496
0.5357
0.5952
0.5074
0.7217
0.4551
0.4184
0.5431
0.4540
0.3216
0.4733
0.1123
0.4016
0.3337
0.5220
-2.43
-0.58
0.25
3.23
4.67
2.51
3.43
4.97
-1.24
-0.30
-0.06
-2.07
1.93
-4.42
4.30
-1.05
1.23
-1.60
2.16
10.02
3.33
4.58
5.32
2.24
4.50
3.92
4.12
2.27
4.29
3.46
5.43
2.79
5.80
2.03
Prob > |t|
0.0205
0.5649
0.8047
0.0014
<.0001
0.0126
0.0007
<.0001
0.2159
0.7626
0.9498
0.0393
0.0543
<.0001
<.0001
0.2960
0.2214
0.1102
0.0314
<0001
0.0010
<0001
<.0001
0.0257
<.0001
0.0001
<.0001
0.0237
<.0001
0.0006
<.0001
0.0057
<.0001
0.0433
A5-J8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-4: Estimated Multilevel Model Results: Marginal Value per Fish
Variable
trout_pacific
trout_other
salmon_atlantic
salmon_GL
salmon_pacific
steelhead
cr_nonyear
cr_year
spec_cr
shore
-2 Log Likelihood
Chi-square
Prob > Chi-square
Covariance Factors:
Study Level (oj
Residual (oe)
Parameter
Estimate
0.6630
-0.7536
5.7740
2.2719
2.9182
3.1772
-0.07350
-0.03335
0.4949
-0.2291
Full Model
951.5
12.29
0.0005
0.1618
0.6039
Standard Error
0.5296
0.4723
0.5143
0.3134
0.5441
0.7428
0.07411
0.01095
0.2833
0.1953
Random Effects
1177.8
145.77
0.0001
t Value
1.25
-1.60
11.23
7.25
5.36
4.28
-0.99
-3.05
1.75
-1.17
Prob > |t|
0.2115
0.1116
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
<.0001
0.3221
0.0025
0.0816
0.2416
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-3.3 Interpretation of Regression Analysis Results
The analysis finds both statistically significant and intuitive patterns that influence marginal WTP for catching an
additional fish. In general, the statistical fit of the equation is good; there is a strong systematic element to WTP
variation that allows forecasting of WTP based on species and study characteristics. The model as a whole is
statistically significant at p<0.0005. Of the 44 independent variables in the model (not including the intercept), 32
are statistically significant at the 10% level, and most of those are statistically significant at the 1% level. Signs of
significant parameter estimates generally correspond with intuition, where prior expectations exist. As shown in
Table A5-4, the random effects are statistically significant, indicating that study level heterogeneity has a
statistically significant impact on the model.
a. Source study methodology effects
Eleven variables characterize source study methodology. Many of these variables have coefficients that are
consistent with prior expectations of sign and relative magnitude. Others have results that are less intuitively
clear. For example, interpretation of the parameter estimates of the year variables is not straightforward. Model
results show that the tc_year and RUM_year both have negative but insignificant parameter estimates. These
insignificant parameter estimates may indicate that study year has no significant impact on estimated WTP.
Alternatively, it may result from a lack of variability in the meta-data for certain variables (e.g., tc_year) or from
correlation with other model variables. Of slightly more concern is the parameter estimate for sp_year, which is
positive and significant. This finding is counterintuitive. Since the focus of survey design over time has often
been on the reduction of survey biases that would otherwise result in an overstatement of WTP, WTP per fish
A5-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
might be expected to decrease over time (Arrow et al., 1993). Although the reason for this pattern is unknown,
EPA believes that results for this variable should be interpreted with caution.
Of the revealed preference methodology variables, RUM_nest has the smallest coefficient, followed by
TC_individual, RUM_nonnest, and TC_zonal. Although theory does not provide unambiguous guidance
regarding expected magnitude of these variables, nested RUM models account for substitution effects across
different fish species. Hence, one might expect these models to produce lower WTP values per fish compared to
the non-nested RUM models and travel cost models. Given that random utility models explicitly take into
account the presence of substitute sites, they might also be expected to produce lower WTP estimates for
accessing a given recreational site compared to the travel cost models. However, there is no clear theoretical
reason to expect non-nested RUM models to produce lower WTP per marginal fish compared to individual (non-
RUM) travel cost models.
The stated preference dummy variables (SP_conjoint, SP_dichot, and the default value, SPjother) have much
lower coefficients than the travel cost and random utility model variables. This finding is consistent with past
research by Cameron (1992) and others, who demonstrate that stated preference methods can produce lower
estimates of direct use values for the same quality change than revealed preference methods. However,
interpretation of the methodology variables associated with the stated preference approaches is confounded by the
large positive coefficient on sp_year, which indicates that among more recent studies, revealed preference
methods may produce higher estimates of WTP per additional fish.
Of the remaining two methodology variables, one is significant. Sp_mail was retained in the meta-analysis for
theoretical reasons, despite its lack of statistical significance. The parameter estimate of the binary variable
high_response_rate is negative and significant (p<0.05), a finding consistent with prior expectations.
b. Sample characteristics effects
Eight variables characterize demographic and economic attributes. All associated parameter estimates have
expected signs, and five are statistically significant at p<0.10.
Model results show that respondents with higher incomes (Incjthou) are willing to pay more to catch an
additional fish per trip - an expected result. The negative parameter estimate for the age variable suggests that
older anglers are willing to pay less for catching an additional fish. Insofar as age is correlated with experience,
the negative coefficient on age may capture the effects of increased angler experience. EPA notes that anglers
with more experience are likely to have better success rates, and thus might not be willing to pay as much to catch
additional fish, due to diminishing marginal WTP per fish caught. The parameter estimate on gender is negative
and significant pO.OOOl), indicating that women are willing to pay more to catch an additional fish per trip.
Model results reveal that anglers who take more fishing trips (trips) per year (and who presumably catch more
fish during the fishing season) have lower marginal values per fish than anglers who take fewer trips per year.
This is not surprising, since catching an additional fish during a single trip increases total seasonal catch for avid
anglers by a smaller percentage than for anglers who fish less often. Moreover, those taking a greater number of
trips, and presumably catching more fish, might be expected to have a somewhat diminished WTP for an
additional fish, again based on the concept of diminishing marginal utility.
The parameter estimate for the nonlocal variable is positive and significant (p<0.0001) indicating that anglers
who travel out of state to fish are willing to pay much more to catch additional fish than local residents. However,
this effect should be interpreted in the context of the underlying data. This variable is based on only two
observations and reflects values of anglers who travel long distances (e.g., visit Alaska) to their fishing
destinations.7 Hence, EPA suggests that results for this variable may not be readily generalizable.
7 In alternative model specifications, EPA was not able to find a statistically significant difference between the
variables local (representing survey samples that included only local residents) and local_nonlocal (representing
A5-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
c. Species targeted effects
The model includes 21 binary variables that characterize the target species and region in which the species was
targeted. All but two of these variables have coefficients that are significant at p<0.05. The variables can be
divided into three general groups: marine species, freshwater species, and salmonoids. In general, the sign and
magnitude of the coefficients of most of the variables are consistent with prior expectations regarding both the
relative worth of different species and the relative worth of individual species in different geographic regions.
However, unlike other variables, these expectations are based on existing literature, prior empirical results, and
anecdotal evidence, rather than economic theory.
Of the marine species variables, big_game_satl and big_game_pac have the largest magnitude. Big_game_natl
has a somewhat lower coefficient, which is likely due to a somewhat different species composition in the big
game category in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions. Small_game_atl has a slightly smaller coefficient
than small_game_pac, andflatfish_atl has a lower coefficient than flatfish_pac, but these differences are not
statistically significant. As expected, the other_sw variable, which includes bottomfish, smelt, grunion, and other
miscellaneous saltwater species, has a relatively small coefficient compared to the other marine species.
Results for the freshwater variables also meet prior expectations. Among warmwater species, bass_fw has the
highest coefficient, followed by pike_walleye. The default value for the regression includes species such as
panfish, catfish, and perch. Thus, the value of catching additional panfish or perch is significantly lower than most
of the other species. Regression results indicate that the value of catching additional trout varies significantly
across geographic regions and trout species. The trout regional dummy variables indicate that anglers are willing
to pay more to catch additional trout in the Great Lakes (trout_GL), and are willing to pay less in other regions,
particularly near the Pacific coast (trout_pacific}. It is not possible to tell from the regression results whether
these regional differences in WTP are due to regional differences in the biology of species (size, fighting ability,
taste), or regional differences in angler avidity and economic characteristics. The trout_other variable, which has
a negative coefficient, represents one study that surveyed trout fee-fishing establishments across the U.S. Hence,
this variable is most appropriately characterized as a study-specific dummy variable, and hence should be
interpreted with caution. The trout_rainbow variable (which is additive with the trout regional dummy variables)
has a positive and significant coefficient, indicating that anglers may value rainbow trout more highly than other
species of trout.
The coefficients of the salmon variables and the steelhead variable are fairly large. These findings are consistent
with the popularity of salmonoids as game fish. Salmon_atlantic has a very large coefficient, but this variable is
again based on observations from only one study - hence results for this variable should be interpreted
accordingly.8 SalmonjGL has a lower coefficient than salmon ^pacific, which is consistent with the larger size of
Pacific salmon. Steelhead has a higher coefficient than either salmon_GL or salmon__pacific.
d. Angling characteristics
The angling characteristics variables include two catch rate variables (cr_nonyear and cr_year) and a fishing
mode variable (shore). The negative parameter estimates on both cr_nonyear and cr_year indicate that anglers'
WTP for catching an additional fish per trip decreases as the number offish already caught increases.9 This result
is consistent with both economic theory and prior expectations. The parameter estimate on the shore variable is
negative but insignificant.
survey samples that included a mix of local and nonlocal residents).
8 The study was based on Atlantic salmon fishing in Maine in 1988. Angling for Atlantic salmon is currently
illegal in Maine (MaineToday.com, 2003).
' Although cr_nonyear lacks significance (p<0.32), this variable is consistently negative across a variety of model
specifications.
A5-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
e. Model limitations
Although the meta-analysis results presented in the previous section indicate that the model's statistical fit is quite
good, EPA notes that there are a number of limitations and uncertainties involved in the estimation and results of
the model. These limitations stem largely from the quality and quantity of information available from the original
studies, and from the statistical methods used to estimate the model.
First of all, regardless of the explanatory power of the meta-analysis regression equation, the model is only as
good as the data upon which it is based. EPA believes that WTP per fish estimates from the 24 peer-reviewed
journal articles are based on careful, high quality research. The data set also includes estimates from 24 reports,
dissertations, academic working papers, and books, which are not always subject to the same academic scrutiny
and quality standards. Nonetheless, based on EPA's review of these documents, the Agency believes that all of
the estimates included in the data set are of reasonable academic quality.
Another limitation of the data is that some demographic and other variables are present for only a subset of the
meta-observations. For example, the variables gender, age, and trips have a large number of missing
observations, indicating that the original studies do not always provide detailed demographic data. By including
dummy variables to indicate missing observations (spec_gender, spec_age, and specjtrips), EPA was able to
control for the missing data. This specification presumes that a fixed shift in intercept (i.e., using a dummy
variable) is sufficient to control for systematic differences associated with the lack of data for specific variables -
an unverifiable assumption. Moreover, the significance of these variables would be clearer if more observations
were available.
A third limitation of the data, related to variable specification, is the imperfect match between the aggregate
species variables specified in the model and the species evaluated in each individual study. Although in most
cases the match was good, some studies provided WTP per fish estimates for very broad categories of species,
such as "bottomfish (flounder family, cod family, snapper, grouper, jack, grunt, sea bass, porgy, wreckfish)"
(Schuhmann, 1997). EPA assigned these estimates to the aggregate species group variable that most closely
matched the largest number of species from the list provided in the study, but the Agency acknowledges that this
process introduces uncertainty into the analysis.
Another source of uncertainty related to the species groupings is that creating variables for aggregate species
groups reduces the precision of the resulting benefit estimates. By aggregating species into categories, EPA was
able to improve the fit of the meta-analysis model, but this aggregation also results in a lower of level of detail in
the values that can be predicted. In particular, the panfish category and other saltwater category include relatively
diverse species.
Model results are also subject to choices regarding functional form and statistical approach, although many of the
primary model effects are robust to reasonable changes in functional form and/or statistical methods. The
rationale for the specific functional form and model structure chosen is detailed above in section A5-3.2a. In
general, meta-analysis may provide a superior alternative to the calculation and use of a simple arithmetic mean,
as it allows WTP to be adjusted to account for the characteristics of the transfer site. The model's ability to adjust
WTP appropriately is suggested by the many systematic (statistically significant) patterns revealed by the meta-
analysis regression. Nonetheless, the use and interpretation of meta-analysis models for benefit transfer, and the
use of benefit transfer in general, are subject to the constraints and concerns expressed elsewhere in the literature
(e.g., Desvousges et al., 1998; Poe et al., 2001; Vandenberg et al., 2001).
A5-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
A5-4 Application of the Meta-Analysis Results to the Analysis of Recreational Benefits of
the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities
The results of the meta-analysis in conjunction with information specific to the resource users and populations of
species that will benefit from reduced I&E can be used to estimate the recreational welfare gain associated with
the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. This analysis involves the following steps:
>• estimating the marginal recreational value per fish for each species affected by the 316(b) regulation in
each region;
*• calculating the recreational fishing benefits from eliminating baseline I&E losses, by multiplying the
marginal value per fish by the number of recreational fish species currently lost to I&E that would
otherwise be caught by recreational anglers; and
> calculating the recreational fishing benefits from the proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase III
facilities, by multiplying the marginal value per fish by the number of additional fish that would be
caught by recreational anglers because of reduced I&E losses of recreational fish species.
A5-4.1 Estimating Marginal Value per Fish
EPA used the estimated meta-regression to estimate marginal values per fish for the species affected by I&E at
Phase III facilities. To calculate the marginal value per fish for the affected species, EPA chose input values for
the independent variables based on differences in the affected species characteristics, study regions, and
demographic characteristics of the affected angling populations. The study design variables were selected based
on current economic literature. Tables A5-5 summarizes the input values for each of the variables in the model.
Table A5-5: Independent Variable Assignments for Regression Equation
Variable
Intercept
SP_conjoint
SP_dichot
TC_individual
TC_zonal
RUM_nest
RUM_nonnest
sp_year
tc_year
RUM_year
sp_mail
Coefficient
-2.9751
-0.2755
0.07965
2.2848
3.2700
2.2061
2.7158
0.1474
-0.03301
-0.00844
-0.02076
Assigned Value
•1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
24
0
Explanation
The equation intercept was set to one by default.
Current academic literature suggests that nested
RUM models produce the most accurate valuation
results, so RUM_nest was set to one, and the other
study methodology variables were set to zero.
Because more recent studies are expected to be
more accurate, RUM_year was set equal to 24
(equivalent to 2000 minus 1976).
Since the RUM_nest was the model chosen,
high_resp_rate
inc_thou
-0.6542
0.02032
varies
spjnail was set to zero.
High survey response rates are desirable because
they may provide more accurate estimates, so
high_response_rate was set to one.
Incjhou was set to the median income for each
study region evaluated, based on U.S. Census data.
A5-23
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-5: Independent Variable Assignments for Regression Equation
Variable
gender
spec_gender
age
spec_age
trips
specjrips
nonlocal
big_game_natl
big_game_satl
big_game_pac
small_game_atl
small_game_pac
flatfish_atl
flatfish_pac
other_sw
pike_walleye
bass_fw
trout_rainbow
trout_atlantic
trout_GL
trout_mountain
trout_pacific
trout_other
salmon_atlantic
salmon_GL
salmon_pacific
steelhead
Coefficient
-0.08744
7.4801
-0.06713
3.2152
-0.02307
0.7151
3.5050
1.7843
2.7266
2.7002
1.6177
2.0459
1.6407
2.2373
1.0323
1.3790
1.6356
0.6093
1.1187
1.9356
1.0592
0.6630
-0.7536
5.7740
2.2719
2.9182
3.1772
Assigned Value
89.11
1
43.51
1
varies
1
0
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
varies
Explanation
Age and gender were set to their sample means,
and spec_age and spec_gender were set to one.
The variable trips was assigned region-specific
values based on NMFS (1994, 1997, 2000) and
U.S. FWS survey data (2002), and specjrips was
set to one.
Because the default (zero) value for the nonlocal
dummy variable represents a combination of local
and nonlocal anglers, nonlocal was set to zero.
Species targeted variables were assigned input
values based on characteristics of the species
affected by I&E and the study region. In general,
the match between the affected species and the
variables in the meta-analysis equation was good.
A 5-24
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-5: Independent Variable Assignments for Regression Equation
Variable
Coefficient
Assigned Value Explanation
cr_nonyear
cr_year
spec_cr
shore
-0.07350
-0.03335
0.4949
-0.2291
varies The variable cr_nonyear was assigned species and
region-specific values for the coastal and Great
Lakes regions based on catch rates data provided
Q by NMFS (1994,1997, 2000) and MDNR (2002 ).
For the Inland region, EPA assigned values to the
crjionyear variable based on the average values
for each species from the studies. The variable
1 spec_cr was set to one. Cr_year was set to zero,
since catch per trip and catch per day are more
common measures of angling quality.
varies Shore was assigned values based on NMFS (1994,
1997, 2000) and FWS (2002) survey data
indicating the average percentage of anglers who
fish from shore in each region.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table A5-6 presents region- and species-specific values for the input variables that vary across regions.
A 5-2 5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
Table A5-6: Region- and Species-Specific Variable Assignments for Regression Equation
Variable
incjthou
trips
shore
Species
Small gameb
Flatfish'
Other
saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfishd
Region
North Mid- South Gulf of Great
California Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Mexico Lakes Inland
Species Type
Dummy
Variable"
small '_game_atl,
small_game_pac
flatfish_atl,
flatfish_pac
other_sw
salmonjGL
pike_walleye
bass^fw
54.385 55.000 51.846 40.730 36.641 44.519
3.2 7.2 9.3 7.8 7.3 9.0
24.0 24.0 23.1 30.0 25.0 48.0
Baseline Catch Rate, Expressed in Fish per Day (crjnonyear)
2.1 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.2
1.3 1.0 1.0 1.5
1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
0.2
0.8
0.2
4.7
58.240
13.0
57.0
2.1
0.8
0.2
4.7
a This column indicates which species type dummy variable was set to one to represent each species.
b For small game in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Inland regions,
small_game_atl was set to one. For small game in the California region, small'_game_pac was set to one.
c For flatfish in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and Inland regions,
flatfish_atl was set to one. For flatfish in the California Kgion,flatfish_pac was set to one.
d To indicate that the target species was panfish, all species type dummy variables were set to zero.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
EPA decided not to include the error term when using the regression equation to predict marginal values per fish.
Bockstael and Strand (1987) argue that if the source of econometric error in an equation is primarily due to
omitted variables, the error term should be included, but if the error is primarily due to random preferences, it
should be excluded. Because the error term is positive, the empirical effect of including this term is to increase
the predicted marginal values. Therefore, EPA's approach results in more conservative estimates. The Agency
also notes that when the error term is excluded, the values predicted by the regression equation are more
consistent with those from the underlying studies.
Table A5-7 presents the estimated marginal value per fish for all species that were affected by I&E in each region.
A5-26
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
Table A5-7: Marginal Recreational Value per Fish, by Region and Species'
Species
Small game
Flatfish
Other
California
$12.57
$15.61
$4.52
North
Atlantic
$7.64
$8.06
$4.20
Mid-
Atlantic
$6.87
$6.91
$3.73
South
Atlantic
$5.65
S5.84
$3.09
Gulf of Great
Mexico Lakes
$5.32
$2.88
Inland
$7.38
saltwater
Salmon $11.19
Walleye/pike $4.58 $5.15
Bass $5.90 $6.96
Panfish $1.06 $0.97
a All monetary values are expressed in June 2003$.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-4.2 Calculating Recreational Benefits
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from eliminating current I&E losses and the recreational welfare gain
from the proposed rule by combining estimates of the marginal value per fish with estimates of the baseline level
of I&E and the reduction in recreational fishing losses from I&E attributable to the proposed rule. To calculate
the recreational welfare gain from eliminating current I&E losses, EPA multiplied the marginal value per fish by
the number of fish that are currently lost due to I&E that would otherwise be caught by recreational anglers. To
calculate the recreational welfare gain from the proposed regulation, EPA multiplied the marginal value per fish
by the additional number offish caught by recreational anglers that would have been impinged or entrained in the
absence of the regulation. In these calculations, recreational fish losses are expressed as the number of mature,
catchable adults, not as age-1 equivalents. The results of these calculations are presented in detail in Chapters B4
through G4 of this report.
A5-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
A number of issues are common to all benefit transfers. Benefit transfer involves adapting research conducted for
another purpose to address the policy questions at hand. Because benefits analysis of environmental regulations
rarely affords sufficient time to develop original stated preference surveys that are specific to the policy effects,
benefit transfer is often the only option to inform a policy decision. Specific issues associated with the estimated
regression model and the underlying studies are discussed in section A5-3.3. Additional limitations and
uncertainties associated with implementation of the meta-analysis approach are addressed below.
A5-5.1 Sensitivity Analysis Based on Krinsky and Robb (1986) Approach
The meta-analysis model presented above can be used to predict mean WTP for catching an additional fish.
However, estimates derived from regression models are subject to some degree of error and uncertainty. To better
characterize the uncertainty or error bounds around predicted WTP, EPA adapted the statistical procedure
described by Krinsky and Robb in their 1986 Review of Economics and Statistics paper "Approximating the
Statistical Property of Elasticities." The procedure involves sampling from the variance-covariance matrix and
means of the estimated coefficients, both of which are standard output from the statistical package used to
estimate the meta-model. WTP values are then calculated for each drawing from the variance covariance matrix,
.45-27
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5
and an empirical distribution of WTP values is constructed. By varying the number of drawings, it is possible to
generate an empirical distribution with a desired degree of accuracy (Krinsky and Robb, 1986). The lower or
upper bound of WTP values can then be identified based on the 5th and 95th percentile of WTP values from the
empirical distribution. These bounds may help decision-makers understand the uncertainty associated with the
benefit results.
The results of EPA's calculations are shown in Table A5-8. The table presents 95% upper confidence bounds and
5% lower confidence bounds for the marginal value per fish for each species in each region. These bounds can be
used to estimate upper and lower confidence bounds for the welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E losses or
reducing I&E losses under the proposed regulation. Refer to the regional recreational results chapters for detail
on the specific calculations.
Table A5-8:
Species
Small game
Flatfish
Other
saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Small game
Flatfish
Other
saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Confidence Bounds on Marginal Recreational Value per Fish, Based on
Approach*
North Mid- South Gulf of
California Atlantic Atlantic Atlantic Mexico
5% Lower Confidence Boundb
$7.18 $3.53 $3.39 $2.91 $2.79
$8.12 $4.39 $3.84 $3.05
$2.35 $2.31 $2.12 $1.70 $1.57
95% Upper Confidence Bounds'*
$22.21 $16.59 $14.07 $11.08 $10.25
$30.37 $14.76 $12.38 $11.19
$8.82 $7.70 $6.60 $5.63 $5.30
the Krinsky
Great
Lakes
$8.48
$3.13
$4.00
$0.68
$17.31
$7.82
$10.42
$1.94
and Robb
Inland
$3.75
$3.25
$4.28
$0.60
$14.62
$8.29
$11.63
$1.60
a All values are in June 2003$.
b Upper and lower confidence bounds based on results of the Krinsky and Robb (1986) approach.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A5-28
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5
A5-5.2 Variable Assignments for Independent Regressors
The per fish values estimated from the model depend on the values of the input variables in the meta-analysis.
EPA assigned values to the input variables based on established economic theory and characteristics of the
affected species and regions. However, because the input values for some variables are uncertain, the resulting
per fish values and benefits estimates also include some degree of uncertainty.
A5-5.3 Other Limitations and Uncertainties
In addition to the limitations and uncertainties involved with the study data and model estimation, which are
discussed in section A5-3.3e, there are limitations and uncertainties involved with the calculation of per fish
values from the model, and with the use of those values to estimate the welfare gain resulting from the 316(b)
regulation. These issues pertain to the appropriateness of the benefit transfer and the estimation of the level of
current and post-regulatory recreational losses. This section discusses each of these problems in greater detail.
The validity and reliability of benefit transfer — including that based on meta-analysis — depends on a variety of
factors. While benefit transfer can provide valid measures of use benefits, tests of its performance have provided
mixed results (e.g., Desvousges et al., 1998; Vandenberg et al., 2001; Smith et al., 2002). Nonetheless, benefit
transfers are increasingly applied as a core component of benefit cost analyses conducted by EPA and other
government agencies (Bergstrom and De Civita, 1999; Griffiths, undated). Smith et al. (2002, p. 134) state that
"nearly all benefit cost analyses rely on benefit transfers, whether they acknowledge it or not." Given the
increasing (or as Smith et al. (2002) might argue, universal) use of benefit transfers, an increasing focus is on the
empirical properties of applied transfer methods and models.
An important factor in any benefit transfer is the ability of the study site or estimated valuation equation to
approximate the resource and context under which benefit estimates are desired. As is common, the meta-analysis
model presented here provides a close but not perfect match to the context in which values are desired. For
example, although most of the Inland studies take place in the Great Lakes region, the proposed rule affects sites
all across the Inland region. However, EPA believes that regional differences in per fish values for specific Inland
species are relatively small.
The final area of uncertainty related to the use of the regression results to calculate regulatory benefits is
uncertainty in the estimates of I&E. There are a number of reasons why recreational losses due to I&E may be
higher or lower than expected. Projected changes in recreational catch may be underestimated because
cumulative impacts of I&E over time are not considered. In particular, I&E estimates include only individuals
directly lost to I&E, not their progeny. Additionally, the interaction of I&E with other stressors may have either a
positive or negative effect on recreational catch. Finally, in estimating recreational fishery losses, EPA used I&E
data provided by facilities, which in some case are more than 20 years old. While EPA used the most current data
available, they may not reflect current conditions.
A5-29
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A6
Chapter A6: Qualitative Assessment of
Non-Use Benefits
Chapter Contents
A6-1
A6-2
Public Policy Significance of Ecological
Improvements from the Proposed Regulation for
Phase III Facilities A6-2
A6-1.1 Effects on Depleted Fish
Populations A6-2
A6-1.2 Ecosystem Effects A6-2
Findings from Focus Group Meetings .... A6-5
Introduction
Comprehensive, appropriate estimates of total
resource value include both use and non-use values,
such that the resulting total value estimates may be
compared to total social cost. "Non-use values, like
use values, have their basis in the theory of
individual preferences and the measurement of
welfare changes. According to theory, use values
and non-use values are additive" (Freeman, 1993).'
Therefore, use values alone may seriously understate
total social values. Recent economic literature
provides substantial support for the hypothesis that non-use values are greater than zero. Moreover, when small
per capita non-use values are held by a substantial fraction of the population, they can be very large in the
aggregate. As stated by Freeman (1993), "... there is a real possibility that ignoring non-use values could result in
serious misallocation of resources."
Given that aquatic species without any direct uses account for the majority of cooling water intake structure
losses, a comprehensive estimate of the welfare gain from reduced impingement and entrainment (I&E) losses
requires an estimate of non-use benefits.2 Stated preference methods, or benefit transfers based on stated
preference studies, are the generally accepted techniques for estimating non-use values. Stated preference
methods rely on surveys that assess individuals' stated willingness-to-pay (WTP) for specific ecological
improvements, such as increased protection of fishery resources. Benefit transfer involves adapting research
conducted for another purpose in the available literature to address the policy questions in hand (Bergstrom and
De Civita, 1999). Because benefit-cost analysis of environmental regulations rarely affords sufficient time to
develop original stated preference surveys specific to policy effects, benefit transfer is often the only remaining
option for providing information to inform policy decisions.
The Agency has begun the preliminary development of a stated preference survey that would measure non-use
benefits from reduced I&E attributable to the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities. This stated
preference study is expected to be completed for the final regulation for Phase III facilities. Because developing
an original stated preference survey specific to the proposed regulation was not feasible due to the time
constraints, EPA explored several benefit transfer approaches for analyzing national level non-use benefits of the
proposed regulation. EPA, however, did not include the results of these approaches in the benefit analysis
because of limitations and uncertainties associated with estimation of non-use benefits on a national scale. For
further discussion of the benefit transfer methods considered for this analysis, refer to DCN 7-5133.
To assess the public policy significance or importance of the ecological gains from the proposed regulation for
Phase III facilities, EPA collected and developed relevant information to enable the Agency to consider non-use
benefits qualitatively. This assessment is discussed below.
1 According to Freeman (1993), this additive property holds under traditional conditions related to resource levels and
prices for substitute goods in the household production model.
2 For detail on the number and percentage offish directly valued, see Section A3-4.1 of this report.
A6-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A6
A6-1 Public Policy Significance of Ecological Improvements from the Proposed Regulation
for Phase III Facilities
Changes in cooling water intake system (CWIS) design or operations resulting from the section 316(b) regulations
for Phase III facilities are expected to reduce I&E losses offish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms and, as a
result, are expected to increase the numbers of individuals present and benefit local and regional fishery
populations. Depending on the nature of the reduced losses and on the conditions at the site, this may ultimately
contribute to the enhanced environmental functioning of affected waterbodies (rivers, lakes, estuaries, and oceans)
and associated ecosystems. Specific ecological benefits that may occur due to enhanced environmental
functioning of affected waterbodies resulting from the proposed regulation for Phase III facilities are described in
sections A6-1.1 and A6-1.2.
A6-1.1 Effects on Depleted Fish Populations
EPA believes that reducing fish mortality from I&E would contribute to the health and sustainability of the
affected fish populations by lowering the overall level of mortality for these populations. Fish populations suffer
from numerous sources of mortality; some are natural and others are anthropogenic. Natural sources include
weather, predation by other fish, and the availability of food. Human impacts that affect fish populations include
fishing, pollution, habitat changes, and I&E losses at CWIS. Fish populations decline when they are unable to
sufficiently compensate for their overall level of mortality. Lowering the overall mortality level increases the
probability that a population will be able to compensate for mortality at a level sufficient to maintain the
long-term health of the population. In some cases, I&E losses may be a significant source of anthropogenic
mortality to depleted fish stocks. For example, damaged saltwater fish stocks affected by I&E include winter
flounder, red drum, and rockfishes (NMFS, 2003). I&E also affects species native to the Great Lakes such as
lake whitefish and yellow perch whose populations have dramatically declined in recent years (U.S. Department
of the Interior, 2004; Wisconsin DNR, 2003).
The public importance of restoring healthy fisheries is reflected in actions taken by the Federal and State
Agencies to reduce fishing pressure on these fish stocks. Actions taken by the Federal and regional government
agencies include buying fishing licenses and fishing vessels at substantial public expense and imposing
restrictions on commercial and recreational catch. Fishing restrictions impose limitations on those who make a
living from fishing or participate in recreational fishing. These actions reflect the public importance of achieving
recovery of depleted fish stocks. Another example of the public value of fishery resources is a large-scale
ecosystem restoration program that includes the native species recovery in the Great Lakes Basin (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 2004).3
EPA was unable to estimate changes in future fish population resulting from reduced mortality from I&E from the
proposed regulation for Phase III facilities due to unavoidable uncertainty in predicting the trajectory of future
fish populations and significant data gaps. The Agency, however, believes that reducing fish mortality from I&E
along with other measures would contribute to recovery of the damaged fish populations.
A6-1.2 Ecosystem Effects
The aquatic resources affected by cooling water intake structures provide a wide range of services. Ecosystem
services are the physical, chemical, and biological functions performed by natural resources and the human
benefits derived from those functions, including both ecological and human use services (Daily, 1997; Daily et
al., 1997). Scientific and public interest in protecting ecosystem services is increasing with the recognition that
these services are vulnerable to a wide range of human activities and are difficult, if not impossible, to replace
with human technologies (Meffe, 1992).
3 Habitat restoration activities can be targeted to achieve ecological benefits at either the community or individual
species level and are critical for preserving aquatic biodiversity throughout the Great Lakes.
A 6-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase HI - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A6
In addition to their importance in providing food and other goods of direct use to humans, the organisms lost to
I&E may be critical to the continued functioning of the ecosystems of which they are a part. Fish are essential for
energy transfer in aquatic food webs, regulation of food web structure, nutrient cycling, maintenance of sediment
processes, redistribution of bottom substrates, regulation of carbon fluxes from water to the atmosphere, and
maintenance of aquatic biodiversity (Peterson and Lubchenco, 1997; Postel and Carpenter, 1997; Holmlund and
Hammer, 1999; Wilson and Carpenter, 1999). Examples of ecological services that may be disrupted by I&E
include:
decreased numbers of ecological keystone, rare, sensitive, or threatened and endangered species;
decreased numbers of popular commercial and recreational fish species that are not fished, perhaps
because the fishery is closed;
increased numbers of exotic or disruptive species that compete well in the absence of species lost to I&E
(I&E may also help remove some exotic or disruptive organisms);
disruption of ecological niches and ecological strategies used by aquatic species;
disruption of energy transfer through the food web;
decreased local biodiversity;
disruption of predator-prey relationships;
disruption of age class structures of species;
> disruption of natural succession processes.
Many of these services can only be maintained by the continued presence of all life stages offish and other
aquatic species in their natural habitats. Reducing I&E losses could to contribute to restoring (or preserving) the
biological integrity of the ecosystems of substantial national importance.
a. Effects on saltwater ecosystems
In the 1987 amendments to the CWA, Congress established the National Estuary Program because the "Nation's
estuaries are of great importance to fish and wildlife resources and recreation and economic opportunity... [, and
to] maintain the health and ecological integrity of these estuaries is in the national interest" (Water Quality Act of
1987). So far, there are 28 estuaries designated under the National Estuary Program (NEP). In addition, the
largest estuary in the United States, Chesapeake Bay, is protected under its own federally mandated program,
separate but related to NEP. Table A6-1 shows estuaries from which the sample Phase III facilities draw water. Of
the 16 estuaries affected by the sample Phase III facilities, 12 are nationally significant estuaries designated under
NEP or the Chesapeake Bay Program.
A6-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A6
Table A6-1; Estuaries Affected by Phase III Facilities'
Region Affected Estuary Designated under NEP or the
Chesapeake Bay Program*
California San Francisco Bay J
Santa Monica Bay S
Gulf of Mexico Calcasieu Estuary
Galveston Bay S
Matagorda Bay
Mid-Atlantic Barnegat Bay J
Chesapeake Bay «/"
Delaware Estuary /"
Delaware Inland Bays S
Long Island Soundb /
New York/New Jersey Harbor /
North Atlantic Long Island Soundb /
Massachusetts Bays S
New Hampshire Estuaries /
Penobscot Estuary
South Atlantic Savannah River Estuary
a. Based on estuaries included in EPA's National Estuary Program and the Chesapeake Bay Program.
b. Affected by the sample facilities located in the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic regions. EPA notes
that although additional estuaries are likely to be affected by Phase III facilities, specific locations and
thus waterbodies affected by the facilities represented by the sample Phase III facilities are unknown.
Source: U.S. EPA, 2004a.
Substantial federal and state resources have been directed to NEP to enhance conservation of and knowledge
about the estuaries designated under this program. Since 1998, more than $95 million has been devoted to NEP to
benefit the health of the nationally significant estuaries (NEP, 2004; U.S. EPA, 2004c). These expenditures
reflect high public values for restoring (or protecting) the biological integrity of the ecosystems of substantial
national importance.
b. Effects on freshwater ecosystems
Reducing I&E at Phase III facilities may also benefit freshwater ecosystems of national significance, including the
Great Lakes Basin, Mississippi River, and Columbia River. These waterbodies are subject to large-scale
ecosystem restoration efforts that are good indicators of great public importance of restoring the ecological health
of these ecosystems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004; U.S. Department of the Interior, 2004; Northeast
Midwest Institute, 2004; The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, 2004). The ecosystem restoration
efforts focus on many issues, including coastal habitat restoration, protection offish species, conservation of
migratory birds and endangered species. For example, between 1992 and 2001, more than $17 million was
devoted to projects to restore and conserve the Great Lakes ecosystem; $102 million was spent on improving the
Mississippi River ecosystem (U.S. EPA, 2004b, and Brescia, 2002). Reducing I&E of aquatic organisms may
improve the quality of aquatic habitat and contribute to improvement of the biological integrity and health of
these ecosystems.
A6-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A6
Finally, reducing I&E in waterbodies that do not have a national significance may contribute to restoration or
protection of ecosystems of regional or local importance.
A6-2 Findings from Focus Group Meetings
To assist in the development of a stated preference survey, EPA conducted several focus groups meetings. Focus
groups are often described as "informal sessions in which a skilled moderator leads a group of individuals through
a discussion of specific topics to discover their attitudes and opinions" (Desvousges et al., 1984, p. 2-1, cited in
Johnston et al., 1995 p. 56). Focus groups are among the most significant qualitative research tools used in social
sciences (Bateman et al., 2002); observations from focus groups or similar qualitative tools may provide
information allowing one to interpret or validate previously obtained quantitative results (Responsive
Management, 1992).
Based on the focus groups conducted during the preliminary development of a stated preferences survey, the
Agency found that (1) both user and non-users of the affected aquatic resources are likely to hold values for
reducing I&E mortality of the affected fish species; (2) the main motives for reducing I&E mortality are bequest
and existence values; (3) focus group participants agreed that all fish species (including forage fish) play an
important role in the affected ecosystems and thus also have significant values; and (4) saltwater fishery resources
are likely to have higher values compared to freshwater fishery resources. The Focus Group Report (DCN 7-
5180) provides detail on EPA's findings from the focus group meetings.
A6-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Pan A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival
Chapter Contents
A7-1
A7-2
A7-3
A7-4
A7-5
A7-6
The Causes of Entrainment Mortality .. .
A7-1.1 Fragility of Entrained Organisms
A7-1.2 Thermal Stress
A7-1.3 Mechanical Stress
A7-1.4 Chemical Stress
Factors Affecting the Determination of
Entrainment Survival
Detailed Analysis of Entrainment Survival
Studies Reviewed
Discussion of Review Criteria
A7-4.1 Sampling Design and Method .. .
A7-4.2 Operating Conditions During
Sampling
A7-4.3 Survival Estimates
Applicability of Entrainment Survival
Studies to Other Facilities
Conclusions
A7-1
A7-1
A7-2
A7-2
A7-2
A7-2
A7-10
A7-11
A7-11
A7-13
A7-14
A7-16
A7-16
Introduction
To calculate benefits associated with entrainment
reduction, EPA used the assumption that all
organisms passing through a facility's cooling water
system would experience 100% mortality. This
assumption was recommended in EPA's 1977
Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Environmental
Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the
Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500
(U.S. EPA, 1977). This is also the basic assumption
currently used in the permitting programs for section
316(b) in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Louisiana,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Rhode Island
(personal communication, I. Chen, U.S. EPA Region
6, 2002; personal communication, P. Colarusso, U.S.
EPA Region 1, 2002; personal communication, G.
Kimball, 2002; personal communication, M.
McCullough, Ohio EPA, 2002; McLean and Dieter,
2002; personal communication, R. Stuber, U.S. EPA
Region 9, 2002).
EPA obtained 37 entrainment survival studies conducted at 22 individual power producing facilities and
conducted a detailed review. EPA also reviewed a report prepared for the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000) which summarized the results of 36 entrainment
studies, 31 of which were the same studies reviewed by EPA. The intent of EPA's review was to determine the
soundness of the findings behind the entrainment survival studies and to evaluate whether the assumption of
100% entrainment mortality is appropriate for use in the national benefits assessment for the proposed section
316(b) rule for Phase III facilities to compare to the costs of installing the best technology available for
minimizing adverse environmental impact.
A7-1 The Causes of Entrainment Mortality
A7-1.1 Fragility of Entrained Organisms
Cooling water intake structures entrain many species of fish, shellfish, and macroinvertebrates. These species are
most commonly entrained during their early life stages, as eggs, yolk-sac larvae (YSL), post yolk-sac larvae
(PYSL), and juveniles, because of their small size and limited swimming ability. In addition to having limited or
no mobility, these early life stages are very fragile and thus susceptible to injury and mortality from a wide range
of factors (Marcy, 1975). For these reasons, entrained eggs and larvae experience high mortality rates as a result
of entrainment. The three primary factors contributing to the mortality of organisms entrained in cooling water
systems are thermal stress, mechanical stress, and chemical stress (Marcy, 1975). The relative contribution of
each of these factors to the rate of mortality of entrained organisms can vary among facilities, based on the nature
of their design and operations as well as the sensitivity of the species entrained (Marcy, 1975; Beck and the
Committee on Entrainment, 1978; Ulanowicz and Kinsman, 1978). These three primary factors are discussed in
more detail below.
A7-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
A7-1.2 Thermal Stress
Facilities use cooling water as a means of disposing of waste heat from facility operations. Thus, organisms
present in the cooling water are exposed to rapid increases in temperatures above ambient conditions when
passing through the cooling water system. This thermal shock causes mortality or sublethal effects that affect
further growth and development of entrained eggs and larvae (Schubel et al., 1978; Stauffer, 1980). The
magnitude of thermal stress experienced by organisms passing through a facility's cooling system depends on
facility-specific parameters such as intake temperature, maximum temperature, discharge temperature, duration
of exposure to elevated temperatures through the facility and in the mixing zone of the discharge canal, the
critical thermal maxima of the species, and delta T (AT, i.e., the difference between ambient water temperature
and maximum water temperature within the cooling system) (Marcy, 1975; Schubel et al., 1978). The extent of
the effect of thermal stress can also vary among the species and life stages of entrained organisms (Schubel et al.,
1978; Stauffer, 1980).
A7-1.3 Mechanical Stress
Entrained organisms are also exposed to significant mechanical stress during passage through a cooling system,
which also causes mortality. Types of mechanical stress include effects from turbulence, buffeting, velocity
changes, pressure changes, and abrasion from contact with the interior surfaces of the cooling water intake
structure (Marcy, 1973; Marcy et al., 1978). The extent of the effect of mechanical stress depends on the design
of the facility's cooling water intake structure and the capacity utilization of operation. Some studies have
suggested that mechanical stress may be the dominant cause of entrainment mortality at many facilities (Marcy,
1973; Marcy et al., 1978). For this reason, it has been suggested that the only effective method of minimizing
adverse effects to entrained organisms is to reduce the intake of water (Marcy, 1975).
A7-1.4 Chemical Stress
Chemical biocides are occasionally used within cooling water intake structures to remove biofouling organisms.
Chlorine is the active component of the most commonly used biocides (Morgan and Carpenter, 1978; Morgan,
1980). These biocides are used in concentrations sufficient to kill organisms fouling the cooling system
structures, and thus cause mortality to the organisms entrained during biocide application. The extent of the
effect of chemical stress depends on the concentration of biocide and the timing of its application. Eggs may be
less susceptible to biocides than larvae (Lauer et al., 1974; Morgan and Carpenter, 1978). Tolerance to biocides
may also vary according to species. However, most species have been shown to be affected at low concentrations,
< 0.5 ppm, of residual chlorine (Morgan and Carpenter, 1978).
A7-2 Factors Affecting the Determination of Entrainment Survival
There are many challenges that must be overcome in the design of a sampling program intended to accurately
establish the magnitude of entrainment survival (Lauer et al., 1974; Marcy, 1975; Coutant and Bevelhimer,
2001). Samples are almost certain not to be fully representative of the community of organisms experiencing
entrainment. Some species are extremely fragile and disintegrate during collection or when preserved, and are
thus not documented when samples are processed (Boreman and Goodyear, 1981). This is particularly true for
the most fragile life stages, such as eggs and yolk-sac larvae of many species. All sampling devices are selective
for a certain size range of organisms, so a number of sampling methods would have to be employed to accurately
sample the broad size range of organisms subject to entrainment. The relative ability of different organisms to
avoid sampling devices also determines abundance and species composition estimated from samples (Boreman
and Goodyear, 1981). This avoidance ability varies with the size, motility, and condition of the organisms. If
dead or dying organisms tend to settle out, then sampling will be selective for the live, healthy specimens (Marcy,
1975). If, on the other hand, the healthy, more motile specimens are able to avoid sampling gear, the sampling
will tend to be selective for dead or stunned specimens. The patchy distribution of many species (Day et al.,
A7-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
1989; Valiela, 1995) creates difficulties in developing precise estimates of organism densities (Boreman and
Goodyear, 1981). The patchier the distribution, the greater the number of samples required to reduce the
uncertainty associated with the density estimates to an acceptable level.
The factors just discussed affect the ability to accurately establish the type and abundance of organisms present at
the intake and discharge of a cooling water system. A second suite of factors, superimposed on the first, affects
the ability to estimate the percentages of those organisms that are alive and dead at those two locations. The
greatest challenge to be overcome is posed by the fragility of the organisms being studied. The early life stages of
most species are so fragile that they may experience substantial mortality simply due to being sampled, both from
contact with the sampling gear and in being handled for subsequent evaluation. For example, Marcy (1973)
reported on the effects of current velocity on percent mortality of ichthyoplankton taken in plankton nets, and
found sampling mortality of 18% at velocities of 0.3 to 0.6 m/sec. The loss or damage of organisms beyond
identification during plant passage causes overestimations of the true fraction of live organisms in the discharge
samples, because the disintegrated organisms are extruded from the sampling device (Boreman and Goodyear,
1981).
The entrainment survival studies addressed in this review quantified survival by estimating the percentage of
organisms categorized as alive, stunned, or dead present in samples collected at the intake and discharge
locations of a facility. In the studies reviewed, a variety of methods were used to determine the physiological
state of sampled organisms, ranging from placing the sampled organisms in various types of holding containers
for observation to the use of devices specifically designed for assessment of larval survival, such as a larval table.
A variety of criteria was also used in these studies to categorize the physiological status of the organisms, such as
opacity as an indicator of a dead egg, and movement of a larva in response to being touched as an indicator of
being alive or stunned. The lack of standardized procedures applied for assessing physiological condition in all of
the studies reviewed made comparisons of the study findings difficult.
When quantifying entrainment survival, these studies used the estimates of the percentage dead from samples
collected at the intake as controls to correct the samples at the discharge for mortality associated with natural
causes and with sampling and handling stress. The use of intake samples as controls requires the assumption that
sampling- and handling-induced mortality rates be the same at the intake and discharge, which, in turn, requires
that sampling methods and conditions be nearly identical in both locations (Marcy, 1973). This requirement is
difficult to meet at most facilities because of the differences in the physical structures and hydrodynamic
conditions at intakes and discharges (e.g., frequently high velocity, turbulent flow at discharges versus lower
velocity, laminar flows at intakes). In many cases, the location and design of the cooling water intake and
discharge structures may preclude use of the same type of sampling gear in both locations. Another assumption
implicit in this approach is that mortality due to entrainment is entirely independent of mortality due to sampling
and handling and that there is no interaction between these stresses, an assumption that is acknowledged but
never proven in the studies reviewed.
The percent alive in the intake control is frequently well below 100% because these fragile organisms experience
substantial mortality from stresses caused by being collected. An additional factor contributing to the less than
100% alive in intake samples is that some dead organisms may be present in the water column being sampled
because of natural mortality or recirculation of water discharged from the cooling system. In many studies, the
survival in the intake sample is extremely low; for example, the intake survival for bay anchovy was 0% in
studies conducted at Bowline (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1978a), Brayton Point (Lawler, Matusky & Skelly
Engineers, 1999), and Indian Point (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1978c; EA Engineering, Science, and Technology,
1989). The studies reviewed corrected their discharge survival estimates to account for the control sample
mortality by using the percent alive in the intake control samples in the following manner. First, the proportion
initially alive at the intake (P,) and discharge (PD) samples was determined, for each species in most cases, using
the following equation:
A7-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
_ n Number of alive and stunned organisms
PiorPo =
Total number of organisms collected
Using the intake proportion as the control, initial percent entrainment survival (S,) was then calculated using the
following equation:
[Pol
S, = [-J x ,00
When latent mortality was studied, a sample of the alive and stunned organisms from the initial entrainment
survival determination was observed for a given period of time. The latent survival rate calculated is the
proportion of those that remained alive after a given period of time from only those that survived initially and not
the total number sampled. The latent percent survival (SL) was determined using the following equation:
SL = 100 x
# of alive organisms after a given time from discharge samples
# of organisms initially sampled alive or stunned indischarge samples
# of alive organisms after a given time from intake samples
# of organisms initially sampled alive or stunned in intake samples
Entrainment survival was then calculated by adjusting the initial entrainment survival with latent entrainment
survival using the following equation:
Entrainment Survival (%) = Si x SL
A variation of this formula, specifically Abbott's formula, is used for acute toxicity testing in the Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms (U.S.
EPA, 2002; EPA-821-R-02-012) and in testing of pesticides and toxic substances in Product Performance Test
Guidelines OPPTS 810.3500 Premises Treatments (U.S. EPA, 1998; EPA-712-C-98-413), to adjust mortality for
the possibility of natural deaths occurring during a test. This formula is intended to account for acceptable levels
of unavoidable control mortality in the range of 5 to 10% (Newman, 1995). Abbott's formula is as follows:
. . - proportion dead in treatment |
Corrected mortality = 1 - —
* - proportion dead in control J
This method of correcting for control mortality is often used in toxicological experiments in which organisms in
concurrent control and experimental samples experience identical conditions except for the stressor that is the
subject of study, and, as already noted, this method is applied when control mortalities, from stress due to holding
or sampling and from natural causes, are generally low (less than 10%). In entrainment survival studies, sampling
conditions at the intake and discharge are seldom identical. Also, the initial mortalities in the intake samples are
often much higher than 5 or 10% and sometimes higher than the mortality in the discharge samples.
In addition, the assumption that mortality due to entrainment is entirely independent of mortality due to sampling
and handling with no interaction between these stresses is not true. The dead organisms observed in the intake
samples comprise organisms that died before sampling from natural conditions, organisms that died from the
stress of sampling and sorting, and possibly organisms that died from previous passages through the cooling
water system at facilities where water is recirculated. The dead organisms observed in the discharge samples
comprise organisms that died before passage through the facility from natural conditions, organisms that died
from the stresses associated with entrainment as described above, and organisms that died from the stress of
sampling and sorting. The fundamental difference between the extent of the effect of sampling stress in the intake
and the discharge samples is that the discharge samples are exposed to sampling stress after they have been
A 7-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
exposed to entrainment stress. Thus the most vulnerable organisms have already died because of entrainment and
would not be alive at the time of sampling to die from that stress. By correcting discharge samples for sampling
and natural deaths using the intake results, the assumption is made that the mortality in the discharge sample is
the result of the same probability of death due to sampling as in the intake sample and only the additional
mortality is due to the stress of entrainment. When intake survival (Pj) is less than discharge survival (PD), the use
of the equation for entrainment survival (S,) results in a calculation of 100% survival even though the majority of
organisms may be dead in both samples (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000). However, in the
intake sample, much of the mortality may be due to sampling stress, whereas in the discharge sample, much of
the mortality may be due to entrainment stress. Additionally, the initial survival estimates may be overestimations
of survival due to the disintegration of entrained organisms and their subsequent extrusion through the sampling
gear (Boreman and Goodyear, 1981). For all of the reasons described above, the applicability of this equation for
determining entrainment survival by correcting discharge survival with intake survival is questionable. Also, the
statistical attributes of these calculated mortality proportions are often not addressed. The higher and more
variable the intake sample mortality percentages, the greater the degree of uncertainty that would be expected to
be associated with the resultant entrainment survival estimates.
An additional factor that was not accounted for in all the studies reviewed was the fate of organisms discharged
into receiving waters after passage through the cooling system. Latent mortality studies were intended to
document delayed mortality of organisms that were lethally injured or stressed during entrainment but were not
killed immediately. Some studies (e.g., Lauer et al., 1974) also reported that some fish larvae surviving
entrainment behaved normally when maintained in laboratory conditions for extended periods of time, eating and
growing normally. However, larvae that did not experience immediate mortality from lethal stresses were
discharged into receiving waters under conditions substantially altered from the normal environment in which
they were present before entrainment and under conditions very dissimilar to those experienced under laboratory
conditions. Any naturally occurring vertical positioning of the organisms within the water column would be
disrupted (Day et al., 1989), and the turbulence and velocities present in discharge locations would be unlike the
environmental conditions they experienced before entrainment. Under such altered conditions, their normal
ability to feed or escape predation is compromised. In addition, thermal shock can disrupt further development of
eggs and larvae even if they survive entrainment (Schubel et al., 1978). The potential for such phenomena to
occur and the magnitude the effect may have on any possible survival of entrained organisms would be nearly
impossible to confirm or refute through field studies. However, were these phenomena to occur, they would
result in mortalities beyond and in addition to the initial and latent mortalities that were calculated in the studies
reviewed.
The factors discussed above served as the basis for EPA's review of the entrainment survival studies. Table A7-1
presents summary information collected directly from each of the original studies reviewed.
Table A7-1: Summary of Entrainment Survival Study
Facility
Anclote
Bergum
Power
Station
Sampling
Period
September-
November
1985
April-June
1976
Number
of
Samples
and Days
120
samples,
8 days
Unknown
#,
6 days
Species
Fish larvae
Amphipods
Chaetognatha
Crab larvae
Caridean shrimp
Smelt
Perches
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
109
5,185
1,549
3,007
2,728
Unknown
Unknown
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
474
4,662
1,927
6,145
1,766
322
826
Survival
Study
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
Results
Initial Latent
Discharge Discharge
Survival Survival
8-47%
29-58%
28-35%
74-80%
45-66%
10-28%
32-74%
Study
Survival
Estimate
27-62%
49-73%
67-72%
21-100%
64-81%
10-41%
39-82%
A7-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Table A7-1 : Summary of Entrainment Survival Study
Facility
Bowline
Point
Bowline
Point
Bowline
Point
Bowline
Point
Bowline
Point
Braidwood
Nuclear
Brayton
Point
Cayuga
Generating
Plant
Connecticut
Yankee
Connecticut
Yankee
Contra
Costa
Sampling
Period
June- July
1975
May-July
1976
March- July
1977
March-
October
1978
May- June
1979
June-July
1988
April-
August
1997
February-
July 1998
May- June
1979
June- July
1970
June-July
1971 and
1972
April- July
1976
Number
of
Samples
and Days
Unknown
#,
unknown
days
Unknown
#,
10 days
736
samples,
46 days
609
samples,
40 days
435
samples,
19 days
68
samples,
3 days
6,829
samples,
41 days
80
samples,
24 days
102
samples,
7 days
30
samples,
2 days
Unknown
#,
1 days
Species
Striped bass
White perch
Bay anchovy
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Atlantic tomcod
PYSL
Striped bass larvae
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy larvae
Herrings PYSL
Silverside PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
All species combined
Winter flounder
Tautog
Windowpane flounder
Bay anchovy
American sand lance
Suckers
Carps and minnows
Perches
Alewife
Blueback herring
Alewife
Blueback herring
Striped bass
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
141
122
2,134
118
54
148
46
54
228
26
634
37
24
646
190
325
271
77
205
181
63
191
49
34
58
539
1,091
984
466
108
Unknown
273
637
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
111
168
1,317
207
42
1,120
83
17
452
38
1,524
22
56
792
301
763
51
155
191
89
92
103
965
401
58
15,896
2,941
649
192
66
unknown
795
329
Survival
Study
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and 96
hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
Initial
Results
Initial
Discharge
Survival
74%
68%
2%
54%
33%
0%
20%
29%
71-72%
34%
0-2%
23%
16%
52-63%
19%
0-3%
23-63%
35-41%
26-35%
0-4%
30-31%
59%
30-38%
4%
29-30%
0%
0%
75-92%
12-74 %
43-69%
0-8%
0-24%
0-50%
Latent
Discharge
Survival
23%
26%
0%
23%
21%
0%
1%
12%
55-66%
69%
0%
5%
0%
5-46%
0-5%
0%
0%
8-20%
5-8%
0%
0-3%
™
-
93-98%
45-100%
44-61%
Study
Survival
Estimate
70%
100%
22%
26-77%
13-84%
0-80%
54%
41-100%
16-62%
51%
76-100%
52-68%
24-42%
32%
0-58%
100%
90-100%
98-100%
65-67%
0%
100%
87-98%
25-86%
19-59%
0-25%
0-26%
0-95%
A7-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Table A7-1: Summary of Entrainment Survival Study
Facility
Danskammer
Point
Generating
Station
Fort Calhoun
Ginna
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Indian Point
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian Point
Generating
Station
Indian River
Power Plant
Muskingum
River Plant
Sampling
Period
May-
November
1975
October
1973 -June
1977
June and
August
1980
June and
July 1977
May- July
1978
March-
August
1979
April- July
1980
May-June
1985
June
1988
July 1975 -
December
1976
1979
Number
of
Samples
and Days
372
samples,
29 days
Unknown
#,
89 days
255
samples,
20 days
Unknown
#,
7 days
Unknown
#,
22 days
Unknown
#,
40 days
Unknown
#,
44 days
Unknown
#,
49 days
Unknown
#,
13 days
46
samples,
27 days
No
samples
Species
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Ephemeroptera
Hydropsychidae
Chironomidae
Alewife larvae
Rainbow smelt larvae
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Bay anchovy PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Atlantic tomcod
Striped bass
White perch
Herrings
Bay anchovy
Striped bass
Bay anchovy
White perch
Bay anchovy PYSL
Striped bass larvae
Bay anchovy larvae
Bay anchovy
Atlantic croaker
Spot
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
None specified
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
54
36
200
2,221
3,690
2,646
54
31
806
158
1,254
100
447
227
500
1,046
266
127
195
254
457
227
260
113
106
353
633
Unknown
0
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
61
55
326
2,220
4,964
2,925
95
17
518
67
704
65
1,102
392
820
1,104
212
153
147
186
485
248
588
176
274
2,710
7,391
Unknown
0
Survival
Study
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
initial
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and 48
hour
latent
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
None
Results
Initial
Discharge
Survival
39%
38%
20%
18-32%
47-56%
43-66%
0%
0%
45-52%
15-43%
3-4%
10-11%
0-34%
0-37%
0%
0-8%
14-46%
62-77%
24-70%
28%
6%
50-81%
0-4%
0-90%
6%
62-68%
0-2%
Unknown
Intermedi-
ate to high
potential
Latent
Discharge
Survival
3% •
4%
0%
;
-
29-36%
15-30%
0%
0%
0-19%
6-15%
0%
0%
15-75%
4-21%
18%
13%
4%
60-72%
0%
73%
0%
24-44%
0%
Unknown
~
Study
Survival
Estimate
95%
100%
80-87%
92%
92%
84%
0%
85-87%
73-89%
18-36%
40%
0-82%
0-58%
0%
0%
11-64%
59-75%
29-32%
22-31%
3-7%
55-81%
2-4%
50-90%
0-24.3%
60-79%
0-25%
0-100%
0-100%
25-100%
0-100%
0-100%
"*
A7-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7
Table A7-1 : Summary of Entrainment Survival Study
Facility
Northport
Generating
Station
Oyster Creek
Nuclear
Generating
Station
Pittsburg
Power Plant
Port
Jefferson
PG&E
Potrero
Quad Cities
Nuclear
Station
Quad Cities
Nuclear
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Roseton
Generating
Station
Sampling
Period
April and
July 1980
February-
August
1985
April-July
1976
April
1978
January
1979
June
1978
April-June
1984
May-
November
1975
June- July
1976
March
May-July
1977
March
July- July
1978
Number
of
Samples
and Days
162
samples,
20 days
28
samples,
20 days
Unknown
#,
7 days
94
samples,
5 days
25
samples
Unknown
#,
5 days
Unknown
#,
8 days
672
samples,
41 days
Unknown
#,
27 days
Unknown
#,
unknown
days
256
samples,
30 days
Species
American sand lance
Winter flounder
Bay anchovy
Bay anchovy larvae
Winter flounder
larvae
Striped bass
Winter flounder
Sand lance
Fourbeard rockling
American eel
Sculpin
Pacific herring
Freshwater drum
Minnows
Freshwater drum
Carp
Buffalo
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herrings PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herring PYSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herring PYSL
Atlantic tomcod YSL
Striped bass PYSL
White perch PYSL
Herring PYSL
Atlantic tomcod
PYSL
Number
Sampled
at
Intake
29
13
7
3,396
3,935
196
36
249
216
107
22
546
378
278
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
100
77
471
93
401
1,054
427
251
880
1,178
123
395
1,274
83
Number
Sampled
at
Discharge
782
17
11
3,474
2,999
266
26
191
144
96
17
716
916
307
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
172
97
833
80
349
645
765
266
1,344
1,345
211
459
1,089
153
Survival
Study
Initial
and
48 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
and
24 hour
latent
Initial
and 96
hour
latent
Initial
and
96 hour
latent
Initial
and 96
hour
latent
Initial
and 96
hour
latent
Results
Initial
Discharge
Survival
17%
35%
0%
0-71%
32-92%
8-87%
0-23%
12-40%
19-21%
94-96%
88%
16%
0-71%
2-75%
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
62%
29%
26%
14-43%
6-42%
5-29%
3-29%
0-17%
0-5%
16%
27-50%
0-35%
0-10%
33-45%
Latent
Discharge
Survival
2%
17%
0%
0%
6-66%
~
50%
0-10%
71-96%
-
-
6%
1%
0%
0%
18%
27%
0%
40%
18%
10%
0%
36%
Study
Survival
Estimate
2%
10%
0-68%
15-84%
12-94%
65%
25-86%
73-100%
100%
75%
70%
2-62%
7-63%
63%
92-97%
94%
38%
19-58%
11-79%
10-59%
6-58%
0-52%
0-19%
41%
46%
56-96%
0%
. 39%
A7-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Table A7-1: Summary of Entrainment Survival Study Results
Number Number Number
of Sampled Sampled Initial Latent Study
Sampling Samples at at Survival Discharge Discharge Survival
Facility Period and Days Species Intake Discharge Study Survival Survival Estimate
Roseton May-July 1,431 Striped bass PYSL 245 425 Initial 46-61% 48-56% 88%
Generating 1980 samples, White perch PYSL 194 366 and 48 30-59% 27-62% 67%
Station 42 days Herring PYSL 812 1252 hour 7-31% 1-3% 23%
latent
Salem 1977-1982 640 Spot 66 130 Onsite 74.1 - 0-76%
Generating samples, Herrings 8 14 and 7.1 0 2-74%
Station 38 days Atlantic croaker - - simulated - - 0-60%
Striped bass - - studies - - 32-46%
White perch - - - 30-70%
Bay anchovy - - - - 2-3%
Weakfish - - - 14-56%
A7-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
A review of the data in Table A7-1 shows that the majority of the studies were conducted at facilities located in a
limited geographical region of the country: 24 of the studies were conducted in the northeastern region of the
United States. This may explain why these studies provide entrainment survival estimates for relatively few, only
24, species or families offish. The majority of survival estimates in these studies were for striped bass, white
perch, bay anchovy, and herrings. Also, the majority of these studies are over 20 years old, with 25 of the studies
conducted in the 1970s. Thus, the results on species composition and abundance are not necessarily indicative of
current conditions, with improved water quality due to the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Entrainment survival in these studies was also estimated with relatively short sampling periods, with the 15
studies using sampling periods of approximately two months long. Also, the sampling periods did not always
correspond to peak egg and larval abundance in the waterbody. Twelve of these studies determined that sample
sizes of fewer than 100 individuals for a particular species at the discharge station were sufficient to give an
accurate estimation of entrainment survival. These small sample sizes are not be sufficient to provide accurate
estimates of entrainment survival given that these facilities entrain organisms on the order of millions to billions
per year. Also, small sample sizes in conjunction with the high variability of entrainment survival increase the
uncertainty associated with these estimations. The small sample sizes allowed for limited study of latent survival,
and no facility attempted to study latent physiological effects of entrainment on a species, such as the possible
effects on growth rates, maturation, fertility, and vulnerability to natural mortality. The nature of the equation for
entrainment survival results in estimates substantially higher than the proportion of survival in the discharge
samples because of its use of a correction for mortality in the intake samples, which is often quite high. The fact
that the existing studies are characterized by high uncertainty, high variability, and the potential for high bias
(Boreman and Goodyear, 1981) complicates efforts to synthesize the various results in a manner that would
provide useful generalizations of the results or application to other particular facilities. For these reasons, EPA
believes that the reported results do not provide a clear indication as to the extent of entrainment survival
significantly above 0% to be used as a defensible assumption to calculate benefits for this rule.
A7-3 Detailed Analysis of Entrainment Survival Studies Reviewed
The summary tables at the end of this chapter provide detailed summary descriptions of each of the 37 studies
reviewed. EPA reviewed these studies to determine if they were conducted in a manner that provides adequate
representation of the current probability of entrainment survival at the facility. The criteria EPA used to evaluate
the studies focused on three main themes: the sampling effort of the study, the operating conditions of the facility
during the study, and the survival estimates determined as the result of the study. Specifically, EPA asked the
following questions:
Sampling:
When were samples collected?
With what frequency were samples collected?
Were samples collected when organisms were spawning, or at peak abundance?
What time of day were samples collected?
What was the number of replicates per sampling date?
Were the intake and discharge samples collected at the same time so the results can be compared?
How long was each sample collected?
What method was used to collect samples?
At what depth were samples collected?
What was the location of the samples collected at the intake and discharge?
Which water quality parameters were measured?
Were dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC) measured?
What was the velocity at the intake and at the discharge?
A7-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Operating conditions during sampling:
>• How many generating units at the facility were in operation?
*• How many pumps at the facility were in operation?
* What was the intake temperature range, the discharge temperature range, and the AT range to which
organisms were exposed?
* Were biocides in use?
Survival estimation:
*• How many sampling events occurred?
>• What was the total number of samples collected?
* What was the total number of organisms collected?
*• How many organisms are entrained each year at this facility?
* Did the study take into account fragmented organisms?
* Were the number of organisms collected at the intake and at the discharge comparable?
> What were the most abundant species collected?
*• Were stunned larvae included with live larvae in survival estimates?
»• Did the facility omit dead and opaque organisms from the count of dead organisms?
* How was latent survival studied?
>• Were data sampled from all times and operating conditions combined to determine entrainment survival?
> What were the controls for the study?
> What was the range of intake survival determined by the study?
* What was the range of discharge survival determined by the study?
> How was entrainment survival calculated?
> Were confidence intervals or standard errors calculated?
* Were significant differences tested between intake and discharge survival?
* Was entrainment survival calculated for species with low sample sizes, such as fewer than 100
organisms?
* Was egg survival studied?
* Was there any trend evident in larval survival?
* Were the raw data provided to verify results?
* What was the trend of survival with regard to temperature?
»• What was the extent of mechanical mortality?
*• What quality control procedures were used?
* Was the study peer reviewed?
A7-4 Discussion of Review Criteria
In this section, the criteria EPA used to review the entrainment survival studies are discussed in depth to give a
better indication of the soundness of the science behind a facility's estimate of potential survival.
A7-4.1 Sampling Design and Method
These aspects of the sampling effort are relevant to whether the samples collected are representative of all
organisms experiencing entrainment with regard to taxa and size classes, whether the estimates of densities and
numbers are accurate and precise, and whether the survival estimates for the intake and discharge can be validly
compared (Marcy, 1975; Boreman and Goodyear, 1981). Sampling should be carefully planned to minimize any
potential bias (Marcy, 1975; Boreman and Goodyear, 1981). Studies should be conducted throughout the parts of
the year when substantial numbers of organisms are entrained. Any possible survival may vary with factors that
change seasonally, such as organism size and life stage and ambient water temperature. Most studies attempted to
A7-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
collect samples during times of peak abundance, although the sampling frequency may not have been sufficient to
fully capture peak densities. Of those reviewed by EPA, six studies did not correspond with the timing of peak
densities at that location.
Even if a study is limited to the early life stages of particular fish or shellfish, survival differences among sizes
and life stages and seasonal or temperature-related changes in entrainment survival must be quantified. The
timing of the sample collection for an entrainment survival study can influence results in a number of ways, such
that results from studies collected during one period may not be representative of potential effects during other
periods. For instance, samples collected when the intake temperatures are low or late in a spawning season when
larvae are larger can produce estimates of entrainment survival that may be higher than at other times. Thus,
studies need to be conducted throughout the entire spawning season to accurately characterize overall
entrainment mortality if entrainment survival is found to vary with life stage or size of each species entrained. For
the same reason, it may not be appropriate to develop average survival estimates from samples collected under
different environmental conditions (in particular under different temperature regimes) and from only parts of a
spawning period for a particular species. This was done in almost all the studies reviewed by EPA, which causes
their results to be of questionable value. This also makes it difficult for EPA to synthesize the results of these
studies into a meaningful average value of entrainment survival to be used in a national benefits assessment.
Many studies collected samples at night to ensure high numbers of organisms in their samples because larvae rise
to the surface at night to feed and avoid predation (Marcy, 1975; Day et al., 1989). This practice will bias results
because the samples will contain a disproportionate number of live organisms than that which is actually present
in the water column. There is evidence that dead organisms will sink to the bottom of the water column after
entrainment (Marcy, 1975). Twenty-four studies indicated that most sampling took place at night. For many
studies, the depth of sampling is not noted and thus it is unclear whether the samples were collected near the
surface, at mid-depth, or near the bottom of the water column. Any potential for bias due to a higher percentage
of alive organisms present near the surface could not be assessed.
The method of sampling should be selected to cause the least amount of mortality possible and the mesh size
should be fine enough to capture disintegrated or fragmented organisms. Many studies sampled organisms using
sampling instruments with mesh size greater than or equal to 500 ^.m. This may not be fine enough to capture
disintegrated or fragmented organisms in the discharge. Attention should be given to the mesh size of sampling
instruments to be sure that the targeted sample is not extruded through the mesh.
Intake and discharge sampling should be paired to be sure that the same population of organisms is sampled and
subsequently compared. In 12 studies examined, it is unknown if the samples at the intake and discharge were
paired. In some studies, samples were not collected at all locations during all sampling events. In other studies,
twice as many samples were collected at the discharge than at the intake. Also, in many instances, the intake
samples were collected at different generating units of the facility than the discharge samples. Average elapsed
times for sample collection were given, and it is unclear if the same elapsed time was used at both locations to
give an accurate depiction of organismal densities. The time elapsed during sample collection or the volume of
water sampled should be identical in the paired intake and discharge samples to ensure valid comparisons of
samples. It was not indicated in any of the studies reviewed whether the same volume of water was sampled in all
the intake and discharge samples. If intake samples are to be compared to discharge samples, consistent sampling
methods must be used at the two locations so that the samples contain the same density of organisms.
The location of the intake sampling is important because it may contain organisms that already died because of
the changes in velocity near the intake. Two studies reviewed collected intake samples after the water had entered
the cooling system. The location of the discharge sampling is also important. Samples collected from the end of
the discharge canal may not contain organisms that died from passage through the facility because of the
tendency of dead organisms to settle out of the water column in the discharge canal. Samples collected from the
discharge pipe may not contain organisms that died from thermal effects of entrainment because the samples are
collected before the full effects of thermal exposure were experienced. Fourteen studies reviewed collected
A7-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
discharge samples from the discharge pipe. It is also unknown if the samples collected in the discharge canal or
from the receiving water contained organisms in the dilution water that bypassed the cooling water system. Five
studies reviewed collected discharge samples in the receiving water downstream from the discharge canal, which
can result in samples containing organisms that never passed through the cooling water system. The velocity at
the intake and discharge should also be recorded to determine the potential to cause mortality. Fourteen of the
studies noted the velocity at the intake, at the discharge, or both. For the ones that did not give both intake and
discharge velocities, it is unknown whether the velocities at the two sampling sites were comparable, and thus
whether the mortalities due to velocity-related sampling stress were comparable at the two locations.
Water chemistry conditions also need to be recorded to be sure conditions are similar at all sampling locations.
Water quality parameters include measurements of dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity in the through-plant
water, at the discharge point, and in the containers or impoundments in which the entrained organism are kept
when determining latent mortality. Eighteen studies reviewed gave some indication that water quality parameters
were measured. However, it is unclear whether measurements were collected at both the intake and the discharge,
and only one study reviewed indicated that water quality parameters were measured in latent mortality studies
(EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1986).
A7-4.2 Operating Conditions During Sampling
Mortality due to entrainment stress is affected by the operating characteristics of the power facility. The
conditions under which the samples are collected are extremely important and, therefore, the results can be
assumed to represent possible survival only when the facility is operating under those same conditions and at that
time of year, and may not represent any potential for survival at all times. For example, results of studies
conducted when the plant was not generating power (and thus not transferring heat to the cooling water) would
not be applicable to impacts when it was in full operation. The magnitude of mechanical stress is dependent on
the design of the facility's cooling water intake structure. The physical and operating conditions of the facility
must be recorded to determine the effect on entrainment survival. The percentage of the maximum load at which
the facility is operating must be recorded at the time of sampling to indicate the extent to which organisms are
exposed to stress. The number of generating units was highly variable or unknown in many of the studies
reviewed. Only one study indicated that the facility operated at peak load to maximize temperature stress during
the time of sampling. Eight studies indicated that power was generated during only a portion of time in the
sampling period. To fully account for the effects of mechanical stressors on entrainment survival, the study must
reflect the speed and pressure changes within the condenser, the number of pumps in operation, the occurrence of
abrasive surfaces, and the turbulence within the condenser. In addition, it is important to note the number and
arrangement of generating units, parallel or in sequence, which may expose organisms to entrainment in multiple
structures. Survival should be studied under the range of facility conditions that may influence survival, for
example, intake flow or capacity utilization and ambient (intake) water temperature and AT.
The effect of temperature can be species-specific since different fishes have different critical thermal maxima.
The maximum temperature to which organisms may be exposed while passing through the facility may cause
instant death in some species but not others. To assess the effect of thermal stressors on entrainment survival, the
study must determine the temperature regime of the facility. Specifically, the study must record the temperature
at both the intake and the discharge point for each component of the facilities system: temperature changes within
the system, including the inflow temperature; maximum temperature; AT; rate of temperature change; and the
temperature of the water to which the organisms are discharged. It is also important to measure the duration of
time an organism is entrained and thus exposed to the thermal conditions within the condenser and in the mixing
zone of the discharge canal. This information was not provided in the studies reviewed by EPA. Also, in those
studies that attempted to relate survival to temperature stress, too few samples were collected at different
temperature ranges to give an adequate representation of survival in that range. The EPRI report sorted larval
entrainment survival data by discharge temperature and concluded that survivability decreased as the discharge
temperature increased (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000). The lowest probability of larval
survival occurred at temperatures greater than 33 °C. In the studies reviewed by EPA, a noticeable decline in
A7-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
survival estimates occurred at discharge temperatures above 30 °C. The amount of time that a facility discharges
water in different temperature ranges and survival estimates at that temperature range should be weighted when
attempting to determine the survival estimate throughout the year, rather than using an average survival during
the sampling period, which may not adequately reflect operating conditions throughout the year.
To properly account for chemical stressors, the timing, frequency, methods, concentrations, and duration of
biocide use for the control of biofouling must be determined. The extent to which biocides are routinely used is
unknown. The studies reviewed by EPA were all conducted at times when biocides were not in use because the
biocide use would be expected to kill all organisms. Thus, the results of these studies do not account for biocide
impacts and only reflect other times when biocides are not in use at the particular facility. A reduced survival
estimate for the proportion of time when biocides were in use would have to be incorporated into any estimation
of annual mean entrainment mortality value for a facility for that estimate to be valid.
A7-4.3 Survival Estimates
Many of the entrainment survival studies reviewed did not account for the extent to which the fragile life stages
are fragmented and disintegrated by both sampling and entrainment. Only six of the studies acknowledged that
the entrainment survival estimates were indicative only of alive and stunned identifiable organisms out of all
those sampled and enumerated that were at least 50% intact. In such circumstances, an important proportion of
entrained dead (fragmented) organisms is omitted from the calculated estimate of survival. Entrainment survival
studies should not limit their estimates of survival to include only those organisms that are either whole or 50%
whole in the sample. For those studies that did not discuss the issue of fragmented organisms, it is unclear how
the issue was treated. Several studies indicated that the majority of the sample was mangled or unidentifiable.
There is potential for an extremely large number of dead organisms to be excluded from entrainment survival
estimates because they are fragmented to the point of being unidentifiable. Studies should account for this
fragmentation of organisms by measuring unidentifiable biomass in the samples from the intake and discharge
stations. Without taking these organisms into account, entrainment survival estimates will be biased and the
results will be higher than that which actually occurs. There are indications that the number of fragmented
organisms, which are generally not included in survival estimates, may be high which results in an overestimation
of entrainment survival if these fragmented organisms are more prevalent in the discharge. In the proceedings of
a conference held in Providence, RI, on January 6, 1972, entitled Pollution of the Interstate Waters of Mount
Hope Bay and its Tributaries in the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the following regarding
fragmentation was quoted "...in 1970 when we observed many small transparent larval menhaden in the intake.
They were most readily noted by their black eyes. But in the effluent, all we found were eyes. They were torn to
pieces" (U.S. EPA, 1972). Foam observed in the discharge (Thomas, 2002) may indicate that fragmentation is
substantial. The data summary in Jinks et al. (1981) suggests that a substantial number offish larvae may be
fragmented by mechanical forces and become unrecognizable, contributing to a bias in estimates of survival. Ten
of the studies reviewed by EPA reported finding fragmented organisms; others did not quantify evidence of
disintegrated organisms. High rates of physical damage and abundant larval fish fragments were reported by
Stevens and Finlayson (1978) at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plant discharges. Such losses can
contribute to a bias (overestimation) of entrainment survival because the number of dead organisms are not
properly enumerated. In addition, the low numbers of organisms sampled in the studies in relation to the high
annual entrainment numbers give further indication that the sampling effort may not result in an adequate
representation of the organisms entrained and therefore the survival estimates may not be representative of what
occurs.
Including stunned larvae in the initial survival estimates also results in overestimations of survival, since the
majority of these organisms died in the laboratory latent survival studies and even more will die in the natural
conditions of the discharge canal because of predation or disrupted growth and development. Twenty-nine studies
reviewed included stunned larvae in their initial survival estimates, and only a few of these indicated that this
method will overestimate initial survival. The remainder of the studies reviewed did not discuss the treatment of
A7-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
stunned larvae. Many studies reviewed reported only initial acute mortality. Both initial mortality and extended
or latent (96 hour) mortality should be studied and reported.
Dead and opaque organisms that may have died before entrainment should not be excluded from the enumeration
of dead organisms. Several studies reviewed by EPA noted that dead organisms can turn opaque within an hour.
This is the same amount of time that can elapse during sampling collection and sorting. Also, zero dead and
opaque organisms were collected in the samples of one study when the facility was not generating power. Three
studies omitted dead and opaque organisms from the dead classification used to estimate survival. This resulted
in an elimination of up to 99% of the organisms in the samples of one study. Alternatively, one study counted
only those organisms that were opaque as dead.
The study design should support unbiased estimation of survival, taking into account pertinent factors and the
changing relative abundances of species and life stages. Because entrainment mortality changes with ambient and
operating conditions, and because the numbers of various species and life stages entrained also change diurnally
and seasonally, use of an average value for entrainment survival could be misleading. Organisms should be
counted and sorted by species, life stage, and size. Entrainment survival should then be calculated separately for
each life stage of each species. Entrainment survival estimates appears to vary markedly with fish larval size (EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1989); estimates of mortality are often higher for smaller larvae and
lower for larger ones. Thus, survival measured for a heterogeneous mixture of sizes will apply only to that
mixture under the same conditions, and cannot be used to accurately estimate survival for the species over the
course of even part of a season. The approach of modeling survival in relation to size may be more promising
(EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1989). The implication is that accurate assessment of entrainment
survival requires frequent samples throughout a season, to reflect the changing size and species composition of
the ichthyoplankton. In most of the studies all data from all samples collected under varied times and conditions
were combined to give an average entrainment survival. However, bias could be introduced when a
disproportionate number of samples are taken under a specific set of conditions that may not accurately reflect
conditions throughout the year. Only 16 of the 37 studies reviewed estimated entrainment survival by sampling
reported standard deviations or confidence intervals for the survival estimates. The apparent precision of
estimates based on hundreds of organisms, and the estimates themselves, are deceptive. Such estimates are based
on aggregated numbers that vary in size; however, larval fish survival is dependent on size (EA Engineering,
Science, and Technology, 1989).
The volume of water sampled should always be reported with the number of organisms counted in the sampled
volume. This allows estimates of the densities of organisms in the intake and the discharge water. Density
estimates provide an important check on assumptions. When organism densities cannot be measured accurately, a
useful check on disintegration of organisms that are never counted cannot be performed. Another check on loss
of organisms by disintegration is a count of body parts, which was done in only one of the studies reviewed, but
this will not account for organisms rendered unidentifiable or disintegrated. In some studies, the numbers of
organisms in discharge samples were many times greater than the numbers of organisms in intake samples using
the same sampling methods. In other studies, there were many times more organisms collected in the intake
samples than in the discharge samples. Such large differences raise concerns about sampling methods and
possible sources of bias that would need to be investigated.
Control samples taken to test the mortality associated with sampling gear should be taken as far away from the
intake as possible. This will ensure that the rates of mortality determined will be solely from natural causes or
sampling damage and not from potential damage due to increased velocity and turbulence near the intake.
Sampling mortality should be reduced to the maximum extent possible, using modern sampling techniques (EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000). When control survival is less than discharge survival, no attempts
should be made to calculate entrainment survival; this would give an erroneous survival result of greater than
100%. That some studies reported entrainment survival estimates greater than 100% indicates that these studies'
methods of calculating entrainment survival were flawed by methodological biases.
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Calculating survival from the ratio of the fraction alive in discharge samples to the fraction alive in intake
samples requires assumptions not supported by the same studies. These assumptions are that (1) no organisms are
lost to counting by destruction in the cooling water system, in other words, the same density of organisms (dead
or alive) is observed in the discharge as in the intake; and that (2) the sampling method causes the same rate of
mortality in the discharge sample as in the intake sample. The first assumption is without doubt violated for many
species and life stages. The second assumption is also questionable, because any organisms alive in the discharge
have survived entrainment and may be more resistant to sampling-related mortality. Because the loss of
organisms by disintegration is not measured, if a substantial number of organisms are destroyed and thus are not
counted in the discharge, it is more likely that entrainment survival will be overestimated. The second assumption
can be minimized if methods of sampling are used that reduce sampling mortality to a minimum (EA
Engineering, Science, and Technology, 2000); such methods (e.g., rear-draw pumping methods, pumpless flume)
were used in only 5 of the 37 studies reviewed. The formula commonly used (EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, 2000) to estimate entrainment survival, S, = PD/ P,, is appropriate in experimental situations in
which the number of organisms at risk is verified to equal the number counted (alive and dead) at the end of the
study. It can be applied in observational studies when it is known that the number at risk is conserved (i.e., no
organisms are lost in sampling or destroyed so they cannot be counted). The biases that result from loss via
sampling or destruction, and other causes, were illustrated by Boreman and Goodyear (1981). If Abbott's
correction for control mortality is applied, it requires the assumption that sampling mortality rate is the same for
the intake and discharge samples. This source of bias was also considered by Boreman and Goodyear (1981).
Abbott's correction may contribute to overestimation of entrainment survival because it attributes to entrainment
only that mortality in excess of the mortality attributed to sampling. This may overestimate entrainment survival
for two reasons: it is likely that sampling mortality and entrainment mortality are not entirely additive, and, as
noted above, it is quite possible that the sampling mortality rate is less in the discharge sample than in the intake
sample used as the control.
A7-5 Applicability of Entrainment Survival Studies to Other Facilities
Because of many factors, any potential for entrainment survival is most likely facility-specific. Therefore, EPA
does not suggest that entrainment survival estimates be applied to other facilities, as was done in the Muskingum
River Plant study (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1979a). To correctly transfer the results, the physical attributes of
facilities would need to be identical. Specifically, the facilities would need to have similar numbers of cooling
water flow routes; similar lengths of flow routes in terms of time and linear distance; similar mechanical features
in terms of abrasive surfaces, pressure changes, and turbulence; and similar number and types of pumps used. In
addition, there would need to be similarity and constancy of the flow rates, transit times, thermal regimes, and
biocide regimes. The ecological characteristics of the environment around the facility would also need to be
similar in terms of ambient water temperature, dissolved oxygen level, and the species and life stage of organisms
present. Similarities or differences in these aspects may profoundly affect the applicability of the study across
facilities. The studies reviewed by EPA were unsuitable for developing unbiased estimates of entrainment
survival over the pertinent courses of time (diel and seasonal) and the typical environmental and operating
conditions at the facilities conducting the studies, and thus cannot be used to estimate entrainment survival at
section 316(b) facilities nationwide.
A7-6 Conclusions
EPA's review of the 37 entrainment survival studies revealed a number of limitations that challenge their use in
assessing the benefits of the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. The primary issue with regard to
these studies is whether their results can support a defensible estimate of survival substantially different from the
value of 0% survival assumed by EPA in assessing benefits of the rule. Given that live organisms can be found in
the discharge canals of many cooling water intake systems, it may be true that not all organisms are necessarily
killed as they pass through the cooling systems of all facilities under all operating conditions. However, the
A7-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
results of the 37 studies, summarized in Table A7-1, suggest that the proportion alive in the samples is highly
variable and unpredictable among species and among facilities. The studies document that some species (e.g.,
herrings, bay anchovy) are very sensitive to entrainment and experience 0% survival with calculated mortality
rates of 100% at most facilities. Other species (e.g., striped bass) may be more resistant to entrainment effects.
However, even for these apparently hardy species, some studies yielded ranges of entrainment survival estimates
that included zero and latent survival values very close to zero. Multiple studies at the same facility (e.g.,
Bowline Point, Indian Point) yielded survival values for some species (e.g., striped bass) that varied substantially
among years, most likely due to a combination of changes in environmental conditions, changes in plant
operations, and changes in sampling and testing procedures. The studies indicate that any survival is dependent
on temperature, but the effect may vary greatly depending on intake water temperature, plant design, fish species,
and life stages. Few of the studies could conclusively document and quantify the specific stressors causing the
observed mortalities, and no rigorous, validated method or model was put forward that would allow survival rates
to be accurately predicted. Another major constraint on the use of these findings in this rulemaking process is that
they cover very few species, and primarily in a single geographical region of the country, thus providing no basis
for prediction or projection of effects to other species in other parts of the country. These studies as well as other
literature also show that findings from one facility cannot be considered to be valid for another facility, since
many site-specific and facility-specific factors may affect the magnitude of mortality that occurs. The current
state of knowledge would not support predictions of entrainment survival for the range of species, life stages,
regions, and facilities involved in EPA's benefits estimates.
The potential usefulness of the findings of the studies reviewed is further compromised by the numerous factors
that can influence the representativeness, accuracy, and precision of the survival estimates presented, and that are
often not rigorously accounted for in the studies reviewed. These factors are described in section A7-2, and some
of the deficiencies of the studies with regard to these factors are elaborated in section A7-3. The most frequent
and serious deficiencies noted (e.g., high control mortalities, omission of fragmented or unidentifiable organisms,
and uncertainty regarding post-discharge survival) compromise the accuracy and precision of the survival
estimates. In many of the studies reviewed, the precision of the survival estimates was not rigorously assessed,
and thus the uncertainty associated with the estimates is not known. If the factors addressed in this review were
taken into account in an entrainment survival study, EPA believes that the estimates of survival that would result
would not be substantially different from zero.
EPA acknowledges that some of the studies performed at some facilities were designed in a more rigorous
manner than others in order to minimize the influence of factors that could compromise findings (e.g., the use of
a larval table for assessing physiological condition) and included comprehensive sampling in an attempt to
enhance the accuracy and precision of the survival estimates. However, while such studies may have provided
estimates for the facility studied under the environmental and operational conditions that occurred at the time the
study was performed, these studies do not provide a basis for generalizing specific survival rates for all or even
the same species at other facilities or at the same facility in other years. In addition, there exists the possibility of
additional post-discharge (latent) mortality when entrained organisms are returned to the receiving waterbody.
Overall, the unreliability, variability, and unpredictability of entrainment survival estimates evident from EPA's
review of the entrainment survival studies support the use of the assumption of 0% survival in the benefits
assessment because there is no clear indication of any defensible estimate of survival substantially different from
0% to use to calculate benefits for this rule.
A7-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Summary Tables of Entrainment Survival Studies
A7-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Anclote Power Plant Sampling: Dates: Sept. 25 - 29, October 9-11, and November 1-2
Samples collection frequency: a few days per month
. , „. Times of peak abundance: autumn months when densities maybe not the highest
Anclote River, FL Time. most[y at m-gnt; some [ate aftemoon to evening
Number of replicates: varied between 5-25 per month
1985 Study Intake and discharge sampling: paired number, timing unknown
Elapsed collection time: 20 - 30 minutes
.-,_,, w-, •. , , Method: 400 Urn mesh net with 1 m diameter and 5 gallon plastic bucket with 500 Urn mesh side
CC1 Environmental , or r-
panels
Services, 1996 Depth: mid-depth and surface
Intake location: unknown
Discharge location: condenser discharge and point of discharge in canal
Water quality parameters measured: pH, DO, salinity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: operated at peak load to maximize AT, 1 - 2 Units
Number of pumps in operation: varied due to sampling location, 0- 4 pumps
Temperature: Discharge temperature: 28.8 - 38.3 °C
AT average: 5.4 - 7.3 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 8
Total number of samples collected: 120
Total number of organisms collected: 41,196
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. equal
Most abundant species: not classified to species level
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 24 hours
In several replicates, more organisms were counted after 24 hours in jar
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 64% for fish larvae; 73% for Amphipoda
44% for Chaetognatha; 72% for crab larvae
72% for Caridean shrimp
Initial discharge survival range: 8 - 47% for fish larvae; 29 - 58% for Amphipoda
28 - 35% for Chaetognatha; 74 - 80% for crab larvae
45 - 66% for Caridean shrimp
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Mean survival for each replicate was reported as survival estimate per species
Confidence intervals (95%) and standard deviations were calculated
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within hours of collection
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: unknown
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: QA/QC officer oversaw sorting and sample handling
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bergum Power Station Sampling: Dates: April 27 - June 1
Samples collection frequency: approximately once per week
_ Times of peak abundance: coincided with abundance of larvae arid juveniles
Bergumermeer, Time: unknown
Netherlands Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: unclear if paired sampling
1976 Study Elapsed collection time: 3 minutes
Method: conical net with 0.5 mm mesh and 0.5 m diameter
Depth: unknown
Hadderingh, 1978 intake iocation: unknown
Discharge location: in outlet before weir
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 40 cm/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: 10.8-21.6
Discharge temperature: 16.7 - 24.6 °C
AT ranged from 2.4 - 8.0 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 6
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: unknown at intake, 1148 at discharge
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
approximately 10 million organisms entrained per day in May
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: smelt, perches
Stunned larvae: unknown if included in survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in floating buckets in the outlet canal for 24 hours
5 - 50% appeared to be dead in buckets floating in outlet canal
However, latent survival was not explicitly studied
Data: survival by sampling date and then averaged
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 54 - 100% for smelt
81-96% for perches
Initial discharge survival range: 10 - 28% for smelt
32 - 74% for perches
Calculation of Eritrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals and standard deviations were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: no eggs collected
Larval survival: increased in samples later in year, may be due to larger sized
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: not discussed
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: work done for facility, published in Applied Limnology
A7-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: June 3 - July date unknown
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 1 - 4 times per week
6 Times of peak abundance: sampling intended to coincide with peak densities
Time: day or night
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired
1O__ „ , Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
IV /5 Mudy Method: larval collection tables
Depth: unknown
Ecological Analysts Intake location: in front of intake
Inc 1976a Discharge location: from standpipe connected to discharge pipe of Unit 2
"' Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, DO, pH
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 1.5-2 m/sec, discharge 2- 4.6 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: AT range: 0.5 - 12.1 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 37
Total number of samples collected: 400
Total number of organisms collected: 4643
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, more at intake
Higher percentage of larvae were collected at the discharge station in the later weeks of the
collection period. Conversely, a higher percentage of larvae were collected at the intake at the
beginning weeks of the collection period. This discrepancy in larval collection combined with
higher survival rates later in the spawning season accounts for the bias which results in
higher survival rates at the discharge station. The study acknowledges this bias and concludes
that it is responsible for the higher discharge survival estimates
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch and bay anchovy
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion; most died within hours
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 81% for striped bass
56% for white perch
9% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 74% for striped bass
68% for white perch
2% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals (95%) were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: no
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: too few samples collected to establish relationship
Mechanical effects: extent was not discussed
Quality control: color coded labeling, routine checks on sorting accuracy
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: May 18 - July 26
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: approx. 4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: for all species except Atlantic tomcod
Time: at night
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: stated average of 10 per sampling trip
Intake and discharge sampling: sorted simultaneously
1976 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: larval collection table with 4 inch diameter trash pump
. Depth: unknown
Ecological Analysts Intake iocatjon: jn front of Unit 1 trash racks
Inc., 1977 Discharge location: from standpipes of discharge at Units 1 or 2
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH, and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.11 - 3 m/sec, discharge: 3 - 4.6 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: discharge range: 29.0 - 35.9 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 39
Total number of samples collected: 688
Total number of organisms collected: 2795
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: only included in count if >50% was present
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, very different
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, atlantic tomcod, bay anchovy, herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 81 - 90% for striped bass
62% for white perch
54 - 82% for Atlantic tomcod
7 - 53% for bay anchovy
35% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 54% for striped bass
0 - 33% for white perch
29 - 94% for Atlantic tomcod
0 - 10% for bay anchovy
20% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / intake survival
Confidence intervals (95%) were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 12 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: trend of decreasing survival when temperatures > 30 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown extent
Quality control: color coded labels, immediate checks of sorted samples, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: March 7 - July 15
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 5 nights per week
6 Times of peak abundance: covered of peak densities of most targeted species
Time: at night
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied between 2 and 10 per site
Intake and discharge sampling: paired
10770+ , Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
J.y/7 study Method: larval table with pump, 2 pumps at intake; 2 tables at discharge
ambient water injection system added to reduce prolonged temp, exposure
Ecological Analysts Depth: middle to bottom at intake, at standpipes for discharge
I 1078a Intake location: in front of Unit 1 trash rack
inc., iy /oa Discharge location from standpipes of either Unit 1 or 2, depending on operation
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.11- 2 m/sec; discharge 3 - 4.6 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: 2 pumps throttled or 2 pumps full
Temperature: Intake range: 3.7 - 27 °C
AT range: not provided
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 46
Total number of samples collected: 736
Total number of organisms collected: 4071
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: included in count if > 50% of organism was present
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, very different
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovy, herrings and silversides
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 74% for striped bass
69% for white perch
0 - 16% for bay anchovy
54% for herrings
37% for silversides
Initial discharge survival range: 71 - 72% for striped bass
34% for white perch
0 - 2% for bay anchovy
23% for herrings
16% for silversides
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: survival increased with larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: decreased survival > 33 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: color coded labels, checks of sorting efficiency
Peer review: not mentioned, study was .conducted for the facility
A 7-2 3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: March 13 - October 16
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 1 - 5 times per week
Times of peak abundance: majority of samples in June and July
Time: at night
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied between 1 - 10 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling: mostly paired, not all sites sampled all dates
1978 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
^ Method: pump/larval table combination; also floating larval table
Depth: at bottom for intake and unspecified for discharge
Ecological Analysts Intake location: in front of trash racks of Unit 1 or 2
Inc. 1979b Discharge location: at either Unit 1 or 2 in standpipes from discharge pipe
floating larval table used for sampling at point of discharge
Water quality parameters measured: salinity, pH, DO, conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.15 - 0.23 m/s
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: unknown
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 40
Total number of samples collected:609
Total number of organisms collected: unknown
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: striped bass, bay anchovy, white perch and herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in holding jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period.
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 48 - 49% for striped bass
39% for white perch
4% for bay anchovy
19% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 51 - 63% for striped bass
19% for white perch
0% for bay anchovy
23% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard error were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 12 hours of collection
Survival increased with larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no survival for YSL for any species at temps. > 30 °C
no survival for PYSL for any species at temps. > 33 °C
majority of samples collected at temperatures < 30 °C
Mechanical effects: recirculation of water occurs
Quality control: color coded labels, double checks, sorting efficiency checks
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-24
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Bowline Point Sampling: Dates: May 23 - June 27
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 3 - 5 days per week
B Times of peak abundance: timed to coincide with peak densities
Time: 1400 to 2200 hours
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied between 0-9 per sampling date, generally 7
Intake and discharge sampling: mostly paired, initiated simultaneously
1979 Studv Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
^ Method: intake: floating larval table or rear draw sampling flume
discharge: pumpless plankton sampling flume or pumped larval table
Ecological Analysts Depth: intake: mid-depth (4.6 m); discharge: 2 m below surface
Inc 1981a Intake location: in front of trash racks
Discharge location: at standpipe and diffuser
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH, DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 1.5-3.0 m/sec; discharge 3 - 4.6m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied, power generated on only 5 sampling dates
Number of pumps in operation: operated through sampling
Temperature: AT range: not provided
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 19
Total number of samples collected: 435
Total number of organisms collected: 1212
Number of organisms entrained per year: estimated 1.5 million striped bass
2.7 million white perch
Fragmented organisms: included in count if 50%of organism was present
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. equal
Most abundant species: white perch, bay anchovy, striped bass, herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours.
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period.
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control.
Initial intake survival range: 63 - 71% for striped bass; 39 - 63% for white perch
4 - 14% for bay anchovy; 56 - 61% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 35 - 41% for striped bass; 26 - 35% for white perch
0 - 4% for bay anchovy; 30-31% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard errors were presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: determined by translucency and hatching success
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 12 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: little survival at discharge temperatures > 30 °C
Mechanical effects: due to no power generation on the majority of sampling
dates, results give indication of extent of mechanical induced mortality
This study included analysis of diel patterns of ichthyoplankton abundance in comparison to
diel patterns of plant generation. Facility tends to operate at 85 to 95% of capacity in
the mid-afternoon hours which results in higher AT's and discharge temperatures. Facility
tends to operate at minimum level, 20 to 30% capacity, in early morning when larval
abundance is high and entrainment survival samples collected. Sample collection during
the hours when the facility is operating at minimum levels of percent capacity, and at
times with correspondingly lower AT's and discharge temperatures, may add bias to the
results since more organisms will be exposed to lower levels of temperature stress. The
peak abundance for each species is only slightly higher than abundance throughout the
day. Thus, collectively, more organisms may be exposed to higher temperatures and have
higher mortality rates but are not reflected in samples collected at night.
Quality control: color coded labels, check of sorting efficiency, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A 7-25
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Braidwood Nuclear Sampling: Dates: June 1 - July 5
Station Samples collection frequency: 3 samples taken in 35 days
Times of peak abundance: peak densities of eggs and larvae were found in May
Time: varied; day and night at intake, only day at discharge
Kankakee River, IL Number of replicates: varied, 8 - 14 per sampling date
Intake and discharge sampling: more discharge replicates, not always same day
1988 Study Elapsed collection time: 2 minutes
Method: plankton net with 1.0 m opening, net rinsed out in bucket
Depth: unknown
LA Science and Intake location: in holding pond into which river water was pumped
Technology, 1990 Discharge location: downstream of outfall in discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 0.4 - 0.6 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: not given
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 3
Total number of samples collected: 62
Total number of organisms collected: 294
Samples, which were collected after peak densities, contained fewer and larger
organism which may in rum have higher survival rates.
Number of organisms entrained per year: estimate 5.8 - 11.2 million eggs/larvae
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: minnows and sunfish
Stunned larvae: included in survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: were omitted from all calculations of survival
Thus 67% of those dead in the intake samples and 21% of those dead in the
discharge samples were omitted from the survival proportions
Latent survival: not studied
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control.
Initial intake survival range: 60% for minnows (17% including dead-opaque)
78% for sunfish (54% including dead-opaque)
Initial discharge survival range: no minnows collected
80% for sunfish (76% including dead-opaque)
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Survival proportions calculated by dividing number of live larvae by number of
live plus dead-transparent larvae
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: data not given
Larval survival: not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: not studied
Mechanical effects: not studied
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-26
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Brayton Point Sampling: Dates: April 30 - August 27, 1997 and February 26 - July 29, 1998
Samples collection frequency: weekly
,_ „ __ ,_. Times of peak abundance: not discussed specifically
Mount Hope Bay, MA Time; vaned> day or night
Number of replicates: varied between 14 and 77
1997-1998 Study Intake and discharge sampling: not paired, 2 tables located in discharge canal
Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
I awW Motiickv X, Method: pump/larval table combination
i^dwici, ivAdiusKy at Vepih; mid-depth for intake, 2 - 4 m below surface at discharge
Skelly Engineers, 1999 in^ iocation: directly in front of Unit 3 intake screens
Discharge location: middle of discharge canal or from Unit 4 discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: conductance and salinity periodically
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: intake range: 4.5 - 28.0 °C
discharge range: 11 - 45 °C
AT data not provided
Biocide use: samples collected when not in use
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 41
Total number of samples collected: 2692 in 1997; 4137 in 1998
Total number of organisms collected: 2256 in intake; 27,574 in discharge
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 4 - 79X more in discharge
Most abundant species: bay anchovy, American sand lance
Stunned larvae: assumed stunned larvae did not survive due to increased predation risk
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in holding cups in aquarium racks for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged with both sampling years combined
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0% for American sand lance
4% for tautog
0% for bay anchovy
44 - 46% for windowpane flounder
32% for winter flounder
Initial discharge survival range: 0% for American sand lance
4% for tautog
0% for bay anchovy
29 - 30% for windowpane flounder
33 - 38% for winter flounder
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: discharge survival / intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: survival increased with larval length,
decreased markedly within 4 hours of holding in latent studies
Raw data: were provided by species and not by sample to verify results
Temperature effects: survival decrease markedly at temps > 20 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown extent
Quality control: continuous sampling plan which included reanalysis of samples
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
,47-27
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Cayuga Generating Sampling: Dates: May 17-31 and June 8-22
Plant Samples collection frequency: daily
Times of peak abundance: highest average densities sampled were June 8-10
Time: 1900 to 0300 hours
Wabash River, IN Number of replicates: varied between 0 - 6 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling, transit time = 36 nuns
1979 Study Elapsed collection time: IS minutes
Method: pump / larval table collection system
Depth: intake: 2 and 5 m below surface, discharge: 3 - 4 m below surface
Ecological Analysts Intake iocatjon: in front of intake structure
Inc., 1980a Discharge location: where discharge of Units 1 and 2 enter canal
also cooling tower discharge in discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: varied, 2-4
Temperature: intake range: 17.6 - 24.3 °C
discharge range: 29.4 - 33.3 °C
AT ranged from 8.4 - 11.8°C
Biocide use: occurs daily, but ceased at least 2 hours before sampling
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 24
Total number of samples collected: 80
Total number of organisms collected: 2556
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: 13 - 14.6% were damaged
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: suckers, perches, carps, temperate basses
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: 48 hour observation in aerated glass jars of filtered river water
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 86 - 98% for suckers
28 - 92% for carps and minnows
50 - 86% for perches
Initial discharge survival range: 75 - 92% for suckers
12 - 74% for carps and minnows
43 - 69% for perches
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Confidence intervals: were not presented; standard errors were calculated
standard error sometime as high as survival
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: latent effects were not seen until 48 hours after collection
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: lower survival for all species at temperatures above 30 °C
Mechanical effects: survival decreased when number of pumps increased
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks and color coded labels
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-28
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Connecticut Yankee Sampling: Dates: June 30 - July 29
Atomic Power Samples collection frequency: weekly
_ Times of peak abundance: sampling dates were estimated times of peak larvae
Company Time: varied throughout day to avoid biocide application
Number of replicates: sampled in triplicate, data from replicates combined
Connecticut River, CT Intake and discharge sampling: samples taken successively
not all sites sampled on all dates
107ft ^t H Elapsed collection time: 5 minutes
iy study Method: conical nylon plankton net with 1 L plastic bucket attached to cod end
portable water table for maintaining temperature during counting
Marcy, 1971 Depth: median depth at intake; surface, middle and bottom of discharge
because dead fish in canal may sink or float due to immobility or
changes in specific gravity of water, thus giving inconsistent results
Intake location: unknown
Discharge location: outfall weir and 3 location in discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 1 - 2 ft/sec, may approach 8 ft/sec
Operating Conditions Daring Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge temperature: 28.2 - 41 °C
AT ranged from 6 - 12.1 °C
Biocide use: sampling avoided daily application of 13% sodium hydrochlorite
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 7
Total number of samples collected: 102
Total number of organisms collected: 2681
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: majority of dead fish were mangled
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: alewife and blueback herring
Stunned larvae: not discussed
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: not studied
Data: all data for all species combined, survival calculated for each date
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 29 - 100% for all species combined
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 7.5% for all species combined
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: number live per cubic meter in each
discharge sample/ number live per cubic meter in intake for each day
Confidence intervals and standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: July 29
Egg survival: not sampled
Larval survival: no organisms were found alive at end of discharge canal at
temperatures > 30 °C
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: at discharge temp. > 33.5 °C, no living organisms sampled
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: published in notes of Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada
A7-29
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Connecticut Yankee Sampling: Dates: June 2 - 24, 1971 and June 27 - July 13, 1972 (mechanical only)
Atomic Power Samples collection frequency: approximately once per week
p Times of peak abundance: unknown
company Time: afternoons and evenings
Number of replicates: three at each station although at three different depths
Connecticut River, CT data were combined for each station
Intake and discharge sampling: collected successively at the 5 sites
1071 1077 St H Elapsed collection time: 5 minutes
' Method: conical nylon plankton net with 0.39 mm mesh and 1L plastic bucket
Depth: surface, middle, and bottom
Marcy, 1973 Intake location: unknown
Discharge location: below weir and 3 points along discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: 0.3 - 0.6 m/sec, may approach 2.4 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown in 1971, no power generation in 1972
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: 16 - 26 °C (1971); 19.9 - 28 °C (1972)
Discharge temperature: 29 - 35 °C (1971 only)
AT ranged from 9-13 °C (1971 only)
Biocide use: 1972 study, chemical mortality indistinguishable from mechanical
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 2 (1971) and 7 (1972)
Total number of samples collected: 30 (1971) and 246 (1972)
often 2-3 times as many samples collected at discharge
Total number of organisms collected: 1068 (1971) and 10,271 (1972)
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown,
estimated entrainment is 1.7 - 5.8% of nonscreenable fish which pass facility
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 4X more in discharge
lower numbers collected at end of canal may be due to dead fish settling out of water
column
Most abundant species: alewife and blueback herring
Stunned larvae: were included as live unless they had begun to turn opaque
Dead and opaque organisms: only opaque organisms were counted as dead
Latent survival: not studied
Data: replicate data combined; survival calculated per sampling day
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 64 - 100% for all species sampled (1971)
Initial discharge survival range: 0% for all species sampled (1971)
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: number live per cubic meter in each
discharge sample/ number live per cubic meter in intake for each day
Confidence intervals and standard deviations were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none sampled
Larval survival: no survival anywhere in discharge at temperatures > 29 °C
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: organisms exposed to elevated temp, for 50 - 100 min
estimated as causing 20% of mortality
most fish are dead at the end of the 1.14 mile canal
Mechanical effects: 1972 study indicated that 72 - 87% is mechanical mortality
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: published in Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada
A7-30
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Contra Costa Power Sampling: Dates: April 28 - July 10
Samples collection frequency: once per week
Times of peak abundance: unknown
Time: varied, about 25% of all samples collected at night
San Joaquin River, C A Number of replicates: typically 3
Intake and discharge sampling: paired at closest time and temperature
1976 Studv Elapsed collection time: 1 - 2 minutes
Method: 505 micron mech conical nylon plankton net with 0.58 m plastic
collecting tubes on cod end; towed net on boat at 0.6 ft/sec
Stevens and Finlayson, Depth: mid-depth
1978 Intake location: at intake for units 6 and 7
Discharge location: at discharge for units 1-5 and units 6-7
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: 19 - 30 °C
Discharge temperature 19 - 38 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 6
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 966 (1606 at north shore control)
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: enumerated in one replicate tow
higher proportion of unidentifiable fragments in discharge
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: striped bass
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: not studied
Data: was summarized by mean larval length
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
additional control on north shore to determine background mortality
control site at north shore away from intake had lower mortality rates
Initial intake survival range: 33-90% for striped bass
recirculated water may be cause of some intake mortality
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 50% for striped bass
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: paired discharge survival divided by paired
intake survival
Confidence intervals and standard deviations were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: increased survival with greater larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: mortality increased with increase in discharge temperature
higher mortality with discharge temp. > 31 and AT > 7 °C
linear regression showed that half died at temps >33.3 °C
0% survival at temperatures of 38 °C
Mechanical effects: stated not as much of an effects as temperature
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: study conducted by California Fish and Game with funds provided by facility
A7-31
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Danskammer Point Sampling: Dates: May 29 - November 18
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: varied from once every 2 weeks to 4 times per week
Times of peak abundance: increased frequency during spawning
Time: varied, generally overnight
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied, ranged from 1 to 12
Intake and discharge sampling: usually paired
1975 Study Elapsed collection time: unknown
Method: pump/larval table
Depth: mid-depth for intake, unspecified for discharge
Ecological Analysts Intake location: in canal in front of traveling screens
Inc., 1976b Discharge location: outlet of Unit 3 to Hudson River
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Temperature: Intake temperature range: 21 - 26 °C
Discharge temperature range: not provided
AT ranged from 0 - 10°C
Biocide use not used during sampling; noted that chlorination will reduce survival
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 29
Total number of samples collected: 372
Total number of organisms collected: 1655
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake / discharge: up to 2X more in discharge
Most abundant species: herrings, striped bass and white perch
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0 - 50% for striped bass
33 - 100% for white perch
63 - 100% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 39% for striped bass
38 - 80% for white perch
20 - 22% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals and standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: significantly lower survival when AT > 10 °C and discharge
temperature >30 °C
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: samples double checked and data entry monitored
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-32
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Fort Calhoun Nuclear Sampling: Dates: October 1973 - June 1977
Station Samples collection frequency: 5-24 times per year
Times of peak abundance: same frequency all year round
Time: unknown
Missouri River, NE Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if timing was paired
1973-1977 study Elapsed collection time: unknown
Method: plankton net with 571 |im mesh and 0.75 m diameter
Depth: unknown
Carter, ly/o Intake location: in river near intake
Discharge location: near discharge in river immediately downstream of intake
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied, 25-97% of full power or shut down
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge temperature: 27.0 - 36.9 °C during summer samples
AT ranged from 0.6 - 13.5 °C
Biocide use: unspecified number of samples collected during chlorination
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 89 (16 when facility was shut down)
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 24,535 macroinvertebrates
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, varied
Most abundant species: Ephemeroptera, Hydropsychidae, Chironomidae
Stunned larvae: macroinvertebrates studied
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: not studied
Data: was summarized and averaged over entire sampling period
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 12 - 26% for Ephemeroptera
42-51% for Hydropsychidae
35 - 60% for Chironomidae
Initial discharge survival range: 18 - 32% for Ephemeroptera
47 - 56% for Hydropsychidae
43 - 66% for Chironomidae
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Average differential mortality
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were calculated but not presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not collected
Larval survival: macroinvertebrates only were studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: discussed but data not presented
Mechanical effects: studied during 16 dates when facility was shut down
Quality control: unknown
Peer review:.not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-33
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Ginna Generating Sampling: Dates: June 11-24 and August 8-21
Station Samples collection frequency: 5 times per week
Times of peak abundance: to coincide with peak densities of targeted species
Time: late afternoon or early evening
Lake Ontario, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling at both sites
1980 Study Elapsed collection time: IS minutes
Method: Intake: pump to floating rear-draw sampling flume
Discharge: floating rear-draw pumpless plankton sampling flume
Ecological Analysts ^Iso use(j amDjent water injection to reduce exposure to high temps.
Inc., 1981c Depth: unknown
Intake location: at screenhouse intake after flow through 3,100 ft intake tunnel
Discharge location: discharge canal
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 18.5 - 34.4 °C
AT ranged from 8 - IO°C
1 Biocide use: sampled 4 hours after routine injections
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 20
Total number of samples collected: 255
Total number of organisms collected: 664
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: alewife
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars of filtered water for 48 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the sampling month
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 16.3% for alewife eggs
39% for alewife larvae
58-71% for rainbow smelt
Initial discharge survival range: 62.5% for alewife eggs; 16% hatching success
0% for Alewife larvae
0% for rainbow smelt
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/Intake survival
In June, only one larvae was found alive int the discharge samples
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Too few of many species were collected at the two sites (only 1 or 2 per site) to provide any
reliable estimate of entrainment survival
Egg survival: determined by translucency and hatching success
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: none survived at any temperature
Mechanical effects: none survived at any temperature
Quality control: SOPs, color coded labels, sorting efficiency checks
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-34
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: Jun 1 - July 15
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: twice per week
6 Times of peak abundance: expected to coincide with peak densities
Time: 1800 - 0200 hours
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied between 5 - 7 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling:
lQ77<5t , Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
1977 study Method: pump/larval table with ambient water injection to reduce temp, stress
Depth: unknown
Ecological Analysts Intake location: at intake of Units 2 and 3
I c 107R Discharge location: discharge for Unit 3 and discharge common to all Units
"' Water quality parameters measured: DO, pH and conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 2 and 3, outage at Unit 2 from 7/4
Number of pumps in operation:6, at or near full capacity
Temperature: Intake range: 18.8 - 26.4 °C
Discharge range: 22.7 - 34.9 °C
AT during study not provided
Biocide use: unknown
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 7
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 4097
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed specifically, however, there were 115 Morone spp.
organisms which could not be further identified to the species level and there were 55
organisms which were mutilated to the point of being unidentifiable to even the family
level of organization. Entrainment survival may have been even lower if these mutilated
samples were included in the assessment.
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at intake
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovy and herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: in aerated holding container in ambient water bath for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0 - 11% for bay anchovy; 60 - 77% striped bass
66% for white perch; 36% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 3% for bay anchovy; 29 - 45% for striped bass
15% for white perch; 11% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: striped bass YSL and PYSL
white perch PYSL
bay anchovy PYSL
herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no determination that temperature had a significant effect
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: color coded labels and immediate checks of sorted samples
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-35
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: May 1 - July 12
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 2 consecutive days per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Time: 1800-0200 hours
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: approximately 6 per date
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous
1978 Study Elapsed collection time: IS minutes
Method: pump/ larval table with ambient water injection
Depth: 1 - 3 m below surface, approximately mid-depth
Ecological Analysts Intake location: Unit 2 and 3 intake
Inc., 1979c Discharge location: Unit 2 and 3 discharge, discharge point common to all units
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 5-11, near full capacity
Temperature: Intake range: 11.2 - 24.3 °C
Discharge range: 19 - 36 °C
AT ranged from 9 -12 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 22
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 4496
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovy and herrings
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 26 - 48% for striped bass; 15 -48% for white perch
18% for herring; 2% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 34% for striped bass; 0 - 37% for white perch
0 - 8% for herring; 0% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival at discharge: striped bass YSL, PYSL and juveniles
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none were alive in either the intake or discharge samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 24 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: at temps. > 30 °C, no striped bass or white perch survived
also 0% survived when both Unit 2 and 3 were running
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks, color coded labeling, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A 7-36
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: March 12 -22 and April 30 - August 14
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: March: 4 times per week,
* rest was 2 consecutive days per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Hudson River, NY Time: 1700 to 0200
Number of replicates: unknown
1 ivia c* A Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling
lyvt itudy Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: March sampling: two pump/larval table combination
Ecological Analysts April-August sampling: rear-draw plankton sampling flume at intake
Inc 1981 d pumpless plankton sampling flume at discharge
"' Depth: mid-depth for intake, 1 - 5 m below surface for discharge
Intake location: of Units 2 and 3
Discharge location: in discharge canal for Unit 3 and at end of canal
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, pH and DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: one unit not operating March 20 - 26
only one continuously April - August
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 5 and 12
Temperature: Discharge range: 12.0 - 21.9 °C in March; 24 - 32.9 °C
AT data not provided
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 8 in March; 32 in April - August
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 478 in March; 2362 April-August
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: Atlantic tomcod, striped bass, white perch, herring, bay anchovy
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars with filtered water for 96 hours
Data: sorted by discharge temperature in March; combined all April - August
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 43 - 68% for Atlantic tomcod; 39 - 56% for striped bass
13 - 33% for white perch; 23% for herrings
10% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 14 - 46% for Atlantic tomcod; 62 - 77% for striped bass
24 - 70% for white perch; 28% for herrings
6% for bay anchovies
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: For the fish larvae samples, a difference in stress
associated with the different sampling techniques at the intake and discharge was given as
the reason why discharge survival was higher than intake survival for each taxa sampled.
Thus, entrainment survival was not calculated.
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: determined by translucency and hatching success;
33% hatched in discharge samples; 44% in intake samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results.
Temperature effects: no white perch or striped bass survival at temps. > 33 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown extent
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks, color coded labels and SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A 7-37
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: April 30-July 10
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 4 consecutive nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with primary spawning of target species
Time: 1600 - 0200 hours
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: initiated simultaneously
1980 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: intake: rear-draw plankton sampling flume mounted on raft
discharge: pumpless plankton sampling flume mounted on raft
Ecological Analysts Depth: unkr,own
Inc., 1982b Intake location: Unit 3 intake
Discharge location: discharge port number 1
Water quality parameters measured: conductivity, DO, pH
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: intake: 0.3 m/sec; discharge 3 m/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2, Unit 2 offline June 4-11
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 5 and 11
Temperature: intake range: 11.3 - 25.1 °C
discharge range: 23 - 31 °C
AT data not presented
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 44
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 2355
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, bay anchovies
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 95% for striped bass
93% for white perch
32% for bay anchovies
40% recirculation can occur so intake mortality may include organisms which
were dead due to a previous passage through the facility
Initial discharge survival range: 50-81% for striped bass
0-90% for white perch
0-4% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: hatching success: 82% in intake, 47% in discharge
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: little survival at discharge temps > 33 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: sorting efficiency checks, color coded labels and SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-38
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates. May 27 - June 29
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: daily
Times of peak abundance: sampling did not occur during time of peak densities
Time: daytime, switched to nighttime after June 11 due to low sample sizes
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous sampling
1985 Study Elapsed collection time: 13-15 minutes (200 m3)
Method: barrel sampler with 2 coaxial cylinders with 505 |im mesh
one sampler at intake; 2 at discharge
EA Science and Depth: unknown
Technology, 1986 Intake location: in front of Unit 2 intake
Discharge location: in discharge canal downstream from Unit 2 discharge
Water quality parameters measured: salinity, DO, pH and conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: discharge: 2.8 - 10 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake range: 20.3 - 22.9 °C
Discharge range: 26.6 - 30.3 CC
AT range: 4.6 - 8.5 °C
Biocide use: residual chlorine not measured
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 49
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 457
Cited low efficiency of sampling gear as part of reason for low numbers of
organisms sampled
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 3X more at discharge
Most abundant species: bay anchovy
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 48 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 23% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 6% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals (95%) were presented
No calculations of significance due to small sample size
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: unknown, too narrow of temperature range sampled
Mechanical effects: New dual-speed pumps installed in Unit 2 in 1984, study was conducted
to determine whether extent of mechanical mortality differed from previous studies.
Quality control: SOPs, reanalysis of samples, double keypunch of all data
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-39
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian Point Sampling: Dates: June 8 - June 30
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: unclear
Times of peak abundance: sampling not at peak densities for targeted species
Time: afternoon and evening hours
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied, unknown number per day
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous with twice as many at discharge
1988 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: rear-draw sampling flumes, 1 at intake and 2 at discharge
Depth: unknown at intake, surface at bottom at discharge
EA Engineering, Intake iocation: on raft in front of Intake 35
Science, and Discharge location: downstream from flow of Units 2 and 3
Technology, 1989 Water quality parameters measured: salinity, DO, pH
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: discharge 2.2 - 10.0 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake range: 20.3 - 23.8 °C
AT range: not provided
Biocide use: residual chlorine not monitored
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 13
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 12,333
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: 10X more in discharge
Most abundant species: bay anchovy, striped bass, white perch
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 24 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period; discharge survival
estimates include data from direct release studies and combined surface and bottom
samples
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0 - 8% for bay anchovy; 86 - 90% for striped bass
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 2% for bay anchovy; 62 - 68% for striped bass
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: discharge survival / intake survival
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none survived in intake and discharge samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within hours of collection
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: undetermined effect; too narrow range tested
Mechanical effects: study was conducted to determine the effect of the installation of dual
speed circulating water pumps in Unit 2 in 1984 and variable speed pumps in Unit 3 in
1985; mechanical effects were determined to be main cause of mortality when discharge
temperatures are < 32 °C
Quality control: SOPs, sampling stress evaluation, reanalysis of samples, double
keypunch data
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A 7-40
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Indian River Power Sampling: Dates: July 2, 1975 - December 13, 1976
piant Samples collection frequency: once or twice monthly
Times of peak abundance: samples not taken frequently enough to detect
Time: mostly at night
Indian River Estuary Number of replicates: varied
Intake and discharge sampling: not paired
1975-1976 Study discharge samples not always collected
Elapsed collection time: approximately 5 minutes or until sufficient # collected
Method: 0.5 m diameter plankton sled with 505 ^m net
Ecological Analysts rinsec| in 10L of water of unspecified origin
Inc., 1978b Depth: unknown
Intake location: from foot bridge over intake canal
Discharge location: in discharge canal under roadway bridge
Water quality parameters measured: unknown
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake range: -0.2 - 29.2
Discharge range: 5.4-39 °C
AT ranged from 5.2 - 9.0 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 27
Total number of samples collected: 25 intake and 21 discharge
Total number of organisms collected: unknown
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: bay anchovy, Atlantic croaker, spot, weakfish,
Atlantic menhaden and Atlantic silversides
Stunned larvae: not discussed
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: in holding containers in ambient water baths for 96 hours
Data: sorted based on discharge temperature
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control.
Initial intake survival range: not provided
Initial discharge survival range: not provided
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: not all were counted for most abundant
species, a random sample was used instead
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms: unknown
Egg survival: were alive in either the intake or discharge samples.
Larval survival: unclear trend
Raw data: in Appendix B not available to EPA
Temperature effects: all species had lower survival at discharge temps > 20 °C.
only Spot survived above 35 °C though linear regression
Mechanical effects: unknown, however dye studies performed at this facility and recirculation
of discharge water has been shown to occur. The extent to which organisms are entrained
repeatedly and the effect this has on the number of organisms that were shown to have died
through natural causes or from sampling is not known. Thus some intake mortality may be
due to the organism's previous passage through the facility.
Quality control: unknown
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-41
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Muskingurn River Sampling: No on site sampling conducted
Plant
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
No sampling conducted
Muskingum River, OH
Survival Estimation:
Literature Review Analyzed pressure regimes in circulating water system
Measured discharge temperature and AT at the facility
. Determined that pressure regimes were similar to facilities with entrainment survival studies
Ecological Analysts Determined that low survival occurs at AT > 7.8 °C which occurs for a small
Inc., 1979a portion of entrainment season
Reviewed documentation of survival at other steam electric stations
Concluded that potential of survival at this facility was intermediate to high
Peer review: literature review prepared for facility
A7-42
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Northport Generating Sampling: Dates: April 10 - 22 and July 10 - 23
Station Samples collection frequency: 5 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: attempted to coincide with peak abundance
Time: 1700 - 0100 hours
Long Island Sound, NY Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous
1080 St »1 Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
a ay Method: floating rear-draw sampling flume with 505 \im mesh screens
with ambient water injection system
Ecological Analysts Depth: intake: 2-8 m below surface; discharge: 1.5 m
Inc 1981 c Intake location: immediately in front of Unit 2 or 3 trash racks
*' Discharge location: immediately in front of Unit 2 or 3 seal well
Water quality parameters measured: DO, pH, conductivity
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 15.9 - 35 °C, ave 19.9 in April and 33.6 in July
AT ranged from 8.6 - 15.0 °C
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 20
Total number of samples collected: 162
Total number of organisms collected: 884 in April and 76 in July
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: American sand lance, winter flounder, northern pipefish
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated jars of filtered ambient water for 48 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 66% for American sand lance; 85% for winter flounder
28% for bay anchovy
Initial discharge survival range: 17% for American sand lance; 35% for winter flounder
0% for bay anchovy
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: discharge survival / intake survival
Stated that survival estimate based on 4 assumptions: that the survival at the discharge is the
product of the probabilities of surviving entrainment and sampling, that the survival at the
intake is the probability of surviving sampling, that at the discharge there is no interaction
between the two stresses, and each life stage consists of a homogenous population in which
all individuals have the same probability of surviving to the next life stage
Standard errors were presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 6 hours of collection.
American sand lance significantly larger in intake sample
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: not studied
Mechanical effects: not studied
Quality control: SOPs, color coded labels, sorting efficiency checks
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-43
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Oyster Creek Nuclear Sampling: Dates: February - August
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: unknown
Times of peak abundance: smaller samples collected during peak densities
Time: unknown
Barnegat Bay, NJ Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: discharge collected 2 minutes after intake
1985 Study Elapsed collection time: approximately 10 minutes
Method: barrel sampler with 2 nested cylindrical tanks with 331 mm mesh
Depth: unknown
EA Engineering, Intake location: northernmost intake groin west of recirculation tunnel
Science, and Discharge location: easternmost condenser discharge point
Technology, 1986 Water quality parameters measured: DO, salinity and pH in latent studies
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 13.5 - 39.3 °C
AT ranged from -0.2 - 12.1 °C
Biocide use: chlorine concentration was measured, but not detected
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 20
Total number of samples collected: 13 for bay anchovy eggs, 10 for bay anchovy
larvae and 5 for winter flounder
Total number of organisms collected: 60,274
Number of organisms entrained per year: 619 million to 15.4 billion
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no
Most abundant species: bay anchovy and winter flounder
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion; as well as damaged
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars in water baths for 96 hours
Data: grouped by 3 day long sampling events
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 38 - 91% for bay anchovy larvae
77 - 96% for winter flounder larvae
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 71% for bay anchovy larvae
32 - 92% for winter flounder larvae
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: no
Egg survival: based on translucency and hatching success
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no bay anchovy larvae survived at discharge > 35 °C
Mechanical effects: 18.8% of mortality at discharge temperatures 25.9 - 27.0 °C
Quality control: unknown
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-44
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Pittsburg Power Plant Sampling: Dates: April 28 - July 10
Samples collection frequency: once per week
« • R r'A Times of peak abundance: unknown
JMiisun Bay, CA Tjme. varjed> about 25% of a|| samples conected at night
Number of replicates: typically 3
1976 Study Intake and discharge sampling: paired at closest time and temperature
Elapsed collection time: 1 - 2 minutes
31 and AT > 7 °C
linear regression showed that half died at temps >33.3 °C
0% survival at temperatures of 38 °C
Mechanical effects: stated not as much of an effects as temperature;
recirculated water may be cause of some intake mortality
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: study conducted by California Fish and Game with funds provided by facility
A 7-4 5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Port Jefferson Sampling: Dates: April 21 -26
Generating Station Samples collection frequency: 4 times in one week
Times of peak abundance: unclear if sampling coincided with peak densities
Time: 1800 - 0200 hours
Long Island Sound, NY Number of replicates: varied between 7 - 10 per sampling date.
Intake and discharge sampling: simultaneous collection, equal number at sites
1978 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump (2 different types) and larval table
. Depth: intake: 2 m below mean low water mark
Ecological Analysts discharge: 1 m below mean low water mark
Inc., 1978d Intake location: in front of trash racks of intake of Unit 4
Discharge location: in common seal well structure for Units 3 and 4
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: 4
Temperature: Intake range: 7 - 9 °C
Discharge range: 10 - 18 °C
AT ranged from 2 - 11 °C
Biocide use: sampling coincided with time of no biocide use
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 5
Total number of samples collected: 94
Total number of organisms collected: 1104
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: no, quite different
Most abundant species: winter flounder, sand lance, sculpin, American eel,
fourbeard rockling eggs
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars in water bath for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 42 - 60% for winter flounder PYSL;
11 - 67% for sand lance PYSL
33 - 84% sculpin PYSL
25 - 100% American eel juveniles
11 - 26% fourbeard rockling eggs
Initial discharge survival range:0 - 43% for winter flounder PYSL
12 - 40% for sand lance PYSL
88% for sculpin PYSL
94 - 96% for American eel juveniles
19-21% fourbeard rockling eggs
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: winter flounder PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: classified by observation only, based on transparency
Larval survival: no information given on length or other life stages
Raw data: were provided to verify results
Temperature effects: no apparent relationship temperature and survival;
low numbers collected at a narrow range of discharge temperatures
Mechanical effects: assumed cause of all mortality
Quality control: color coded labeling, checks of sorted samples, and SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
AT-46
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
PG&E Potrero Power Sampling: Dates: January
Samples collection frequency: unknown
Times of peak abundance: unclear if sampling corresponded with peak densities
Time: unknown
San Francisco Bay, CA Number of replicates: unknown
Intake and discharge sampling: equal number but timing unknown
1979 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: 2 pumps and larval table with filtered ambient temperature water flow
Depth: mid-depth
Ecological An alysts - ^a^ iocation: directly in front of intake skimmer wall
Inc., 19805 Discharge location: at point where discharge enters San Francisco Bay
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Discharge range: 18 - 19.5 °C
AT range not presented
Biocide use: not used during sampling events
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 11
Total number of samples collected: 25
Total number of organisms collected: 1262
Number of organisms entrained per year: estimated for Units 1-3:3 billion
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. same
Most abundant species: Pacific herring
Stunned larvae: issue of stunned larvae not discussed in study
Dead and opaque organisms: not discussed
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars in water baths for 96 hours
Data: was summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 22% for Pacific herring
Initial discharge survival range: 16% for Pacific herring
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested between the intake and discharge survival
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: no
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: Based on results of this study, an estimate of 75% entrainment survival was
used for all species and life stages entrained at this facility under all conditions
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: discharge temps < 30 °C over 99.5% of time
Mechanical effects: most likely cause of mortality due to low temperatures
Quality control: unknown
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
/17-47
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Quad Cities Nuclear Sampling: Dates: June 19-28
Station Samples collection frequency: varied
Times of peak abundance: unknown
Time: afternoon, evening or nighttime hours
Mississippi River, IL Number of replicates: varied
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired
1978 Study Elapsed collection time: did not exceed 60 seconds
Method: from boat, with 0.75 m conical plankton net with 526 \im mesh and an
unscreened 5 L bucket attached
Hazleton Depth: mid-depth at intake, near surface at discharge
Environmental Science Intake location: intake forebay
Corporation, 1978 Discharge location: in discharge canal common to all units;
held at discharge temp for 8.5 minutes to simulate passage through canal
then cooled to ambient temp, plus 3.5 °C before sorting
Water quality parameters measured: DO
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: exceed 1 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling: completely open cycle mode
Number of units in operation: power output 41 - 99%, Unit 1 offline on June 22
Number of pumps in operation: all 3 regardless of power load
Temperature: Intake range: 21.5 - 26.5 °C
Discharge range: 28.0 - 39.0 °C
AT ranged from 5.5 - 14.8 °C
Biocide use: not used during sampling
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 5
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 2587
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: more at discharge
Most abundant species: freshwater drum and minnows
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: assumed dead from natural mortality prior to collection and
omitted from further analysis; 27% of all sampled
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 24 hours on June 22-23, 26-27
Data: combined by % power of station operation
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 0 - 80% for all species
0 - 100% for freshwater drum
48 - 100% for minnows
Initial discharge survival range: 0 - 84% for all species
0-71% for freshwater drum
2 - 75% for minnows
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/Intake survival
(minus dead and opaque individuals)
When discharge survival was greater than intake survival, the study indicated that entrainment
survival could not be calculated, rather than assume 100% entrainment survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: throughout study
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not presented
Larval survival: decreased with increasing power output and discharge temperature
3% survival for all species when the facility operated near full capacity
(96-99%) and discharge temperatures exceeded 37.9 °C
Raw data: were provided to verify results, however replicate sample data not presented
Temperature effects: lower survival with higher discharge temperatures > 30 °C
Mechanical effects: suggest mechanical effects cause 20 - 25% of mortality
Quality control: not discussed
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-48
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Quad Cities Nuclear Sampling: Dates: April 25 - June 27
Station ^u'^ samP''nS canceled as 100% mortality was suspected
Samples collection frequency: weekly
Times of peak abundance: unknown
Mississippi River, IL Time: unknown
Number of replicates: unknown
1984 Study Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired
Elapsed collection time: unknown
Method: from boat, with 0.75 m conical plankton net with 526 |Jm mesh and an
Lawler, Matusky & unscreened 5 L bucket attached
Skelly Engineers, 1985 Depth: 1.5 m for intake, surface for discharge
Intake location: intake forebay
Discharge location: in discharge canal; held at collection temperature for 8.5
min. then cooled to 3.5 °C above ambient temperature with
an ice bath, in all held for over 20 minutes before sorting
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: samples collected at < 0.8 ft/sec
Operating Conditions During Sampling: operating at 40.2 to 50.7% capacity
Number of units in operation: Unit 1 offline for refueling;
both units offline on May 9
Number of pumps in operation: all 3 on all dates except on May 9
Temperature: Intake range: 11 - 24.4 °C
Discharge range: 12'- 37 °C
AT ranged from 9.5 to 14.5 °C; 1 °C on May 9 when offline
Biocide use: not used during sampling
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 8
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 3967
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: approx. same total
Most abundant species: freshwater drum, carp and buffalo
Stunned larvae: not discussed
Dead and opaque organisms: omitted from analysis; assumed dead before
collection, 2, 979 opaque individuals were collected
(75% of total, 87% of all discharge sample, range: 0 to 99% in samples)
None were found to be dead and opaque in discharge on May 9 when offline and
ATwasl'C.
Latent survival: not discussed
Data: combined by species and sampling date
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: results not presented, only number alive
10-81% were dead and opaque
Initial discharge survival range: results not presented, only number alive
24 - 99% were dead and opaque
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were not tested due to low numbers collected
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: too little information to make any assumption of survival
Raw data: were not provided to verify results; totals collected per species not
presented; actual numbers of dead and opaque not provided
Temperature effects: no sampling in July when discharge temps > 37 °C
Mechanical effects: not discussed
Quality control: 100% reanalysis quality control
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
-47-49
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: May 29'" - November 18*
Station Collection frequency: varied from 4 times per week to once every 2 weeks.
Times of peak abundance: greater frequency of collection
Time: varied but generally occurred between dusk and dawn
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied between 3and 14 for each date
Intake and discharge sampling: paired but timing not standardized
1975 Study Elapsed collection time: not noted
Method: pump/larval table
Depth: mid-depth at both the intake and discharge
Ecological Analysts Intake iocati0n: in front of the trash rack
Inc., 1976c Discharge location: from the seal well before the end of the discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: none mentioned
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: not given
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 2 and 3
Temperature: AT ranged from 3 to 13 °C, intake and discharge T not given
Biocide use: not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 41
Number of samples: 672
Number of organisms collected: 3,667
Number of organisms entrained per year: not discussed
Fragmented organisms collected: not discussed
Equal number collected from intake and discharge: differed by as much as 3.2X
Most abundant species: striped bass, white perch, alewife and blueback herring
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours.
Data: summarized and averaged over the entire sampling period
Controls: survival in intake sample; no other control
Initial intake survival range: 57 to 80% for striped bass
0 to 71% for white perch
58 to 65% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 62% for striped bass
29% for white perch
26% for herrings
Calculation of entrainment survival: Discharge Survival/Intake Survival
.Study noted that survival cannot be calculated with insufficient data or when
intake survival is very low
Confidence intervals/ standard deviations: not presented
Significant differences: tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: striped bass YSL and PYSL
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL and juveniles
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: none alive in either the intake or discharge samples
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection
Size effects: survival by larval length was not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: not provided
Mechanical effects: not provided
Quality control: double check after initial sorting; monitoring of data entry
Peer review: not mentioned; study was conducted for the facility
,47-50
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: June 14th - July 30th
Station Samples collection frequency: 4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with Morone spp. spawning season
Time: 1700 to 0300 EST
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: actual numbers not give, an average of 12 per night stated
Intake and discharge sampling: pairing unknown
1976 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/ larval table combination
Depth: mid-depth for both intake and discharge
Ecological Analysts Intake iocation: 1 m in front of trash rack
Inc., 1978e Discharge location: in seal well near end of discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: no
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 0 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: not given
Temperature: Intake temperature range: 18.7 - 27.5 °C
Discharge temperature ranged 24 - 37 °C
AT ranged from 1- 10°C
Biocide use: not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 27
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 3,491
Number of organisms entrained per year: not given
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal number of organisms collected at intake / discharge: no, up to 5.7X more
Most abundant species: herrings, white perch and striped bass
Stunned larvae: were included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature range: 34 - 30.5 and 30.6 to 37 °C
Controls: Survival in the intake samples; no other control.
Initial intake survival range: 74-100% for striped bass
53-94% for white perch
49-68% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 14 - 80% for striped bass
6 - 56% for white perch
5 - 29% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge Survival/ Intake Survival
Data for many taxa or life stages collected were insufficient for analysis
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: striped bass PYSL
white perch PYSL and juveniles
herring PYSL and juveniles
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: data not presented
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
Size effects: survival by larval length was not studied
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: significant decrease in survival at discharge temp > 30 °C
Mechanical effects: unknown
Quality control: double check after initial sorting; monitoring of data entry
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A 7-51
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: March 3-17 and May 3\" - July 15"1
Station Samples collection frequency: unknown; usually 4 nights per week was stated
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Time: 1700 to 0300 hours EST
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: unknown; an average of 8 to 10 per night was stated
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if samples were collected in pairs
1977 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/larval table combination
ambient water flow in table to reduce thermal exposure during sorting
Ecological Analysts Depth: mid-depth
Inc., 1978f Intake location: in front of trash racks
Discharge location: from seal well 244 m from end of discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: no
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 2 and 4
Temperature: Intake temperature: 0.5 - 5.5 °C (March); 11-27 °C (June/July)
Discharge temperature: 7 - 17 °C (March); 24 - 36 °C (June/July)
AT range: unknown
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: unknown
Total number of samples collected: unknown
Total number of organisms collected: 6,973
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: if >50% present, organism was counted
Equal number collected at intake and discharge: up to 2.3X more in discharge
Most abundant species: atlantic tomcod, herrings, striped bass, white perch
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature range, <29.9, 30.0 - 32.9, >33 °C
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 39% for Atlantic tomcod
0 to 50% for striped bass
0 to 33% for white perch
0 to 59% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 16% for Atlantic tomcod
0 to 83% for striped bass
0 to 50% for white perch
Oto 14% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge Survival / Intake Survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: Atlantic tomcod YSL
striped bass PYSL
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL and juveniles
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
number of some taxa and life stage were too low to estimate survival reliably
Egg survival: data not presented
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3 hours of collection.
increased with larval length
Raw data: were not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: survival decreased at temperatures above 30 °C
very low survival at temperatures > 33 °C (0 to 3%)
Mechanical effects: survival may increase with number of pumps operating
Quality control: color coded labels, immediate checks of sorted sample, SOP's
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-52
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: March 13-23 and June 6 - July 13
Station Samples collection frequency: 3-4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided with spawning of targeted species
Time: 1700 to 0300 EDT
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: 4 to 10 per night
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if paired samples
1978 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/ larval table combination with fine mesh
ambient water flow to table to minimize thermal exposure when sorting
Ecological Analysts Depth: mid.depth
Inc., 1980c Intake location: in front of trash rack
Discharge location: in seal well 244 m from end of discharge pipe
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 2 and 3
Temperature: Intake temperature: 0.2 - 5.5 °C (March), 19.8 - 24.0 °C (June/July)
Discharge temperature: 10 - 19 °C (March), 24 - 37 °C (June/July)
AT range was not given
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 30
Total number of samples collected: 256
Total number of organisms collected: 5,308
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: counted if >50% of organism was present
22% of Atlantic tomcod could not be identified to life stage due to damage
Equal number of organisms collected at intake and discharge: varied
Most abundant species: herrings, white perch, striped bass, Atlantic tomcod
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 96 hours
Data: combined by discharge temperature range <29.9, 30.0 - 32.9, >33 °C
also combined by larval length
Controls: Survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 75-84% for Atlantic tomcod
8- 100% for striped bass
0 - 93% for white perch
0 - 67% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 23-33% for Atlantic tomcod
0 - 50% for striped bass
0 - 100% for white perch
0- 18% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival/ Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented
Significant differences were tested between the intake and discharge survival
Significantly lower survival in discharge: Atlantic tomcod YSL and PYSL
striped bass PYSL
white perch PYSL
herring PYSL
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
samples sizes of some taxa and life stages were too small to analyze survival
Egg survival: data not presented
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3-6 hours of collection
increased with larval length
Raw data: consolidated data by temp, and length was provided; not by sample
Temperature effects: significant decrease in survival at temperatures > 24 °C
very little survival at temperatures > 30 °C
Mechanical effects: lower tomcod survival in discharge w/o thermal effects
Quality control: color coded labels, checks of sorted samples, SOP's
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-53
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Roseton Generating Sampling: Dates: May 26 - July 31
Station Samples collection frequency: usually 4 nights per week
Times of peak abundance: coincided spawning of striped bass and white perch
Time: 1600 to 0200 EDT
Hudson River, NY Number of replicates: varied between 1 and 10 per sampling date
Intake and discharge sampling: unknown if samples were paired
1980 Study Elapsed collection time: 15 minutes
Method: pump/larval table or plankton sampling flume
ambient water injection system to minimize thermal exposure
Ecological Analysts Depth: unknown
Inc., 1983 Intake location: from the No. IB circulating water pump forebay
Discharge location: from discharge seal well or submerged diffuser port
Water quality parameters measured: none
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: varied between 1 and 2
Number of pumps in operation: varied between 3 and 4
Temperature: Intake temperature: 17.0 - 29.0 °C
Discharge temperature: 21.5 - 34.5 °C
AT range not given
Biocide use was not noted
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 42
Total number of samples collected: 1431
Total number of organisms collected: 4,965
Number of organisms entrained per year: not given
Fragmented organisms: counted if >50% of organism was present
7% of all organisms would not be identified to a life stage due to damage
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake/ discharge: more samples at discharge
Most abundant species: herrings, striped bass, white perch
Stunned larvae: were included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: observed in aerated glass jars for 48 hours.
Data: combined by larval length
Controls: survival in the intake samples was considered to be the control
Initial intake survival range: 33 - 100% for striped bass
0 - 75% for white perch
30 - 53% for herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 23 - 100% for striped bass
0 - 88% for white perch
0-31% for herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: were not presented.
Significant differences were tested for latent survival only
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: yes
Egg survival: not studied
Larval survival: decreased markedly within 3-6 hours of collection
survival increased with larval length
survival lowest for YSL and highest for juveniles
survival using flume was very low
Raw data: only consolidated data were presented, not by sample
Temperature effects: data not given
Mechanical effects: number of pumps may not affect survival
Quality control: color coded labels, SOPs
Peer review: not mentioned, study was conducted for the facility
A7-54
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A7
Salem Generating Sampling: Dates. 1977 -1982
Station Samples collection frequency: varied, 1 to 4 times per month
Times of peak abundance: highest frequency in June and July
Time: unknown
Delaware Bay, NJ Number of replicates: varied from 0 to 13 per sampling event
Intake and discharge sampling: usually paired with lag time
1984 Demonstration Elapsed collection time: 10 minutes
q. . Method: larval table(1977- 1980) or low-velocity flume (1981-1982)
' Depth: mid-depth for intake
Intake location: at intake bay 11A or 12B, inboard of traveling screen
PSE&G, 1984 Discharge location: discharge standpipe 12 or 22
Water quality parameters measured: unknown
DOC and POC measured: no
Intake and discharge velocity: unknown
Operating Conditions During Sampling:
Number of units in operation: unknown
Number of pumps in operation: unknown
Temperature: Intake temperature: unknown
Discharge temperature: unknown
AT range: unknown
, Lab simulation studies used to test thermal mortality
Biocide use: three 30 minute periods of chlorination each day
estimated biocide use reduces survival by 6.25%
Survival Estimation:
Number of sampling events: 0 to 12 per year, 38 in all years combined
Total number of samples collected: varied per year, 640 in all years combined
Total number of organisms collected: 5,173 larvae and juvenile fish of 6 taxa
Number of organisms entrained per year: unknown
Fragmented organisms: not discussed
Equal no. of organisms collected at intake/ discharge: unknown
Most abundant species: spot and alewife
Stunned larvae: included in initial survival proportion
Dead and opaque organisms: not mentioned
Latent survival: tests varied with year, 12 to 96 hours in jars or aquaria
Data: combined data from all years, collected under all conditions
Controls: some fish were introduced into the larval table or low velocity flume directly;
unclear if organisms passed through facility
Initial intake survival range: 90.9% for Spot
12.5% for Herrings
Initial discharge survival range: 74.1% for Spot
7.1% for Herrings
Calculation of Entrainment Survival: Discharge survival / Intake survival
Estimated survival rates from onsite and simulation studies and compared
with results in the literature from other waterbodies to select "the most
realistic estimates"
Confidence intervals / standard deviations: not presented
Significant differences: not tested
Survival calculated for species with fewer than 100 organisms collected: unknown
Egg survival: none collected
Larval survival: not separated from juvenile survival
Raw data: was not provided to verify results
Temperature effects: unknown
Mechanical effects: tested gear efficiency and related mortality only
Quality control: not mentioned
Peer review: not mentioned, study conducted for the facility
A 7-55
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AS
Chapter A8: Discounting Benefits
Introduction
Chapter Contents
Discounting refers to the economic conversion of
future benefits and costs to their present values,
A8-1 Timing of Benefits A8-1
A8-2 Discounting and Annualization A8-2
accounting for the fact that individuals tend to value
future outcomes less than comparable near-term
outcomes. Annualization refers to the conversion of
a series of annual costs or benefits of differing amounts to an equivalent annual series of constant costs or
benefits. Discounting and annualization are important because these techniques allow the comparison of benefits
and costs that occur in different time periods.
For the benefits analysis for the proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities, EPA's discounting and
annualization methodology included three steps. First, EPA developed a time profile of benefits to show when
benefits occur. Second, the Agency calculated the total discounted value of the benefits as of the year 2007.
Finally, EPA annualized the benefits of the regulation over a thirty year time span. The following sections
explain these steps in detail.
A8-1 Timing of Benefits
In order to calculate the annualized value of the welfare gain from the proposed section 316(b) regulation for
Phase III facilities, EPA developed a time profile of total benefits from all Phase III facilities that reflects when
benefits from each facility will be realized. EPA first calculated the undiscounted commercial and recreational
welfare gain from the expected annual regional reductions in impingement and entrainment (I&E) under the rule,
based on the assumptions that all facilities in each region have achieved compliance with the rule and that benefits
are realized immediately following compliance. Then, since there are regulatory and biological time lags between
promulgation of the rule and the realization of benefits, EPA created a time profile of benefits that takes into
account the fact that benefits do not begin immediately. Since this time profile requires information about
facility-specific differences in magnitude and timing of benefits, but benefits were estimated only on a regional
basis, EPA approximated benefits from each facility by multiplying total undiscounted regional benefits by the
percentage of total regional flow that is attributable to each facility.
Regulatory-related time lags occur because although the proposed regulation will take effect at the beginning of
2007, facilities will not need to come into compliance with the rule until their current NPDES permits expire.1
EPA used facility-specific permitting information to estimate the lag between promulgation of the rule and the
compliance year for each facility. The terms of each facility's permit differ, but permits for all Phase III facilities
are expected to expire between 2010 and 2014. Thus, EPA estimates that it will take from three to seven years
after promulgation of the rule for Phase III facilities to install BTA to reduce I&E.
The biological time lags that affect the timing of benefits occur because most fish that will be spared from I&E
will be in larval or juvenile stages. Since these fish may require several years to grow and mature before they can
be harvested by commercial and recreational anglers, there will be a lag between installation of BTA and
realization of commercial and recreational angling benefits. For example, a larval fish spared from entrainment
(in effect, at age zero) may be caught by a recreational angler at age three, meaning that a three year time lag
1 The final regulation for Phase III facilities is scheduled to be promulgated in June of 2006. However, to simplify
the discounting and annualization calculations for the benefit cost analysis, EPA assumed that the regulation will take
effect on January 1, 2007.
A8-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8
arises between the installation of BTA and the realization of the estimated recreational benefit. Likewise, if a one
year old fish is spared from impingement and is then harvested by a commercial fisherman at age two, there is a
one year lag~between the installation of BTA and the subsequent commercial fishery benefit. In general, fish that
tend to be harvested at young ages will have relatively short time lags between implementation of BTA and the
subsequent timing of changes in catch. In contrast, long-lived fish that tend to be caught at relatively older ages
will tend to have longer time lags (and, hence, they will have larger impacts from discounting and lower present
values).
In order to model the biological lags between installation of BTA and realization of commercial and recreational
benefits, EPA collected species-specific information on ages of fish at harvest to estimate the average time
required for a fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age. The estimated time lags range from 0.5 years to
six years, depending on the life history of each fish species affected. EPA used this information, along with
information about the estimated age and species composition of I&E losses in each study region, to develop a
benefits recognition schedule for facilities in each region. Following achievement of compliance, benefits from
facilities in most regions are assumed to increase over a seven year period to a long-term, steady state average,
equal to the approximated per-facility benefit value discussed above, according to a numerical profile of < 0.0,
0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0 >. This profile indicates the fraction of the steady state benefit value that is realized in
each of the first seven years following the achievement of compliance at a facility. After seven years, this fraction
remains 1.0 for 23 additional years. After these combined 30 years the facility is assumed to cease compliance,
which is consistent with the time period over which costs are evaluated. In the same way that the benefits profile
builds up over time following compliance, the benefits profile declines at the end of the compliance period.
Specifically, in the seven years following the end of compliance, the fraction of the steady state benefit value
achieved follows the profile of < 1.0, 0.9,0.8, 0.2, 0.1,0.05, 0.0 >. Therefore, the analysis of benefits
encompasses a 37-year period starting with the first year of compliance. There are 35 years when benefits do not
equal zero for a facility; 25 years when benefits are 100%; 10 years when benefits are a percentage of the total.
These profile values are approximations based on a review of the age-specific fishing mortality rates that were
used in the I&E analysis and best professional judgment. Although EPA believes this approach is sufficient for
this analysis, EPA could potentially refine these profile values through the use of a population model and will
consider the feasibility of doing so.
For regions with the relatively high contribution of impingement to total I&E (Inland, Great Lakes, and the
Gulf of Mexico regions), EPA used an adjusted benefits profile of < 0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0 >. This adjusted
profile reflects that impinged fish are usually larger and older than entrained fish and thus benefits will be realized
sooner in these regions.
A8-2 Discounting and Annualization
Using the time profile of benefits discussed above, EPA discounted the total benefits generated in each year of the
analysis to 2007, and then summed them to calculate the total discounted welfare gain from the proposed rule.
EPA then calculated an equivalent constant (annualized) value that could be paid each year for 30 years, such that
the total discounted value of the 30 year stream of constant payments would be equal to the total discounted
welfare gain from the proposed rule. EPA performed these discounting and annualization calculations using two
discount rates: a real rate of 3%, and a real rate of 7%. The 3% rate represents a reasonable estimate of the social
rate of time preference. The 7% rate represents an alternative discount rate, recommended by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), that reflects the estimated opportunity cost of capital.
Table A8-1 presents an illustrative summary of the time profile of undiscounted benefits for one of the
proposed options, for each region and for the entire U.S. The table also presents the total discounted value and
annualized value that are equivalent to this stream of undiscounted benefits.
A8-2
-------
Section 31 6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A8
Table A8-1: Time
I
Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
(thousands; 2003$)ab
:
i
North
Year I California I Atlantic
! !
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
$0
$0
$0
$0
S3
$7
$27
$31
$32
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$31
$27
$7
$3
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5
$10
$42
$50
$72
$78
$79
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$76
$71
$39
$31
$9
$3
$2
Mid- I Gulf of I
Atlantic j Mexico I Great Lakes
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7
$14
$99
$164
$439
$571
$607
$636
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$636
$629
$543
$479
$203
$71
$36
$7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$76
$152
$608
$684
$722 •
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$684
$608
$152
$76
$38
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0C
$11
$26
$106
$160
$291
$371
$391
$406
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$400
$384
$304
$250
$120
$39
$19
$5
Option
i National
Inland i
$0
$0
$0
$7
$33
$96
$231
$275
$329
$349
$354
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$351
$324
$262
$127
$83
$28
$8
$4
$0°
Total
$0
$0
$0
$7
$54
$223
$625
$1,280
$1,826
$2,120
$2,225
$2,272
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,279
$2,232
$2,063
$1,661
$1,006
$460
$166
$61
$14
Evaluated at 0%
Total Present Value0
Annualized Valued
$1,024
$34
$2,430
$81
$19,287
$643
$22,799
$760
$12,306
$410
$10,734
$358
$68,581
$2,286
Evaluated at 3%
Total Present Value0
Annualized Valued
$577
$29
$1,298
$66
$10,239
$522
$12,463
$636
$6,602
$337
$5,998
$306
$37,176
$1,897
Evaluated at 7%
A8-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8
Table A8-1: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)ab
j i North
Year j California j Atlantic
Mid- i Gulf of i i j National
Atlantic i Mexico j Great Lakes I Inland i Total
Total Present Value0 $302 $635 $4,972 $6,280 $3,252 $3,113 $18,556
Annualized Value" $24 $51 $401 $506 $262 $251 $1,495
a The estimate of the total use value of I&E reductions includes recreational and commercial fishing benefits. EPA
estimated non-use benefits only qualitatively.
b Note that all monetary values in this table are expressed in thousands 2003$, since EPA did not adjust the values for
inflation.
c The total present value is equal to the sum of the values of the benefits realized in all years of the analysis, discounted to
2007.
d The annualized value represents the total present value of the benefits of the regulation, distributed over a thirty year
period.
e Positive non-zero value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A8-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Chapter A9: Threatened & Endangered
Species Analysis Methods
Introduction
Threatened and endangered (T&E) and other
special status species can be adversely affected
in several ways by cooling water intake
structures (CWISs). T&E species can suffer
direct harm from impingement and entrainrnent
(I&E), they can suffer indirect impacts if I&E
at CWISs adversely affects another species
upon which the T&E species relies within the
aquatic ecosystem (e.g., as a food source), or
they can suffer impacts if the CWIS disrupts
their critical habitat.1 The loss of individuals
of listed species from CWISs is particularly
important because, by definition, these species
are already rare and at risk of irreversible
decline because of other stressors.
This chapter provides information relevant to
an analysis of listed species in the context of
the section 316(b) regulation; defines species
considered as threatened, endangered, or of
special concern; gives a brief overview of the
potential for I&E-related adverse impacts on
T&E species; and describes methods available
for considering the economic value of such
impacts.
Chapter Contents
A9-1 Listed Species Background A9-1
A9-1.1 Listed Species Definitions A9-2
A9-1.2 Main Factors in Listing of Aquatic
Species A9-2
A9-2 Framework for Identifying Listed Species
Potentially at Risk of I&E A9-3
A9-2.1 Step 1: Compile a Comprehensive Table of
Potentially Affected Listed Species A9-5
A9-2.2 Step 2: Determine if Listed Species Are Present
in the Same Waterbody as the CWIS . .. A9-6
A9-2.3 Step 3: Compare Habitat Preferences of Listed
Species to the CWIS Intake Location .. . A9-7
A9-2.4 Step 4: Use Life History Characteristics or
Monitoring Data to Refine Estimate of
I&E A9-8
A9-3 Identification of Species of Concern at Case Study
Sites A9-9
A9-3.1 The Delaware Estuary Transition Zone . A9-9
A9-4 Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts on T&E
Species A9-14
A9-5 Methods Available for Estimating the Economic Value
Associated with I&E of T&E Species A9-15
A9-5.1 Estimating I&E Impacts on T&E
Species A9-15
A9-5.2 Economic Valuation Methods A9-15
A9-6 Issues in Estimating and Valuing Environmental
Impacts from I&E on T&E Species A9-22
A9-6.1 Issues in Estimating the Size of the Population
of Special Status Fish A9-22
A9-6.2 Issues Associated with Estimating I&E
Contribution to the Cumulative Impact from
All Stressors A9-23
A9-6.3 Issues Associated with Implementing an
Economic Valuation Approach A9-23
A9-1 Listed Species Background
The Federal government and individual States
develop and maintain lists of species that are
considered endangered, threatened, or of
special concern. The federal trustees for
endangered or threatened species are the
Department of the Interior's U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (U.S. FWS) and the
Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Both departments are also referred to
herein as the Services. The U.S. FWS is responsible for terrestrial and freshwater species (including plants) and
migratory birds, whereas the NMFS deals with marine species and anadromous fish (U.S. FWS, 1996a). At the
' To simplify the discussion, in this chapter EPA uses the terms "T&E species" and "special status species"
interchangeably to mean all species that are specifically listed as threatened or endangered, plus any other species that
has been given a special status designation at the state or federal level.
A9-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
state level, the departments, agencies, or commissions with jurisdiction over T&E species include Fish and Game;
Natural Resources; Fish and Wildlife Conservation; Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Game and Parks; Environmental
Conservation; Conservation and Natural Resources; Parks and Wildlife; the States' Natural Heritage Programs,
and several others.
A9-1.1 Listed Species Definitions
a. Threatened and endangered species
A species is listed as "endangered" when it is likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future throughout all
or part of its range if no immediate action is taken to protect it. A species is listed as "threatened" if it is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or most of its range if no action is taken to
protect it. Species are selected for listing based on petitions, surveys by the Services or other agencies, and other
substantiated reports or field studies. The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) outlines detailed procedures used
by the Services to list a species, including listing criteria, public comment periods, hearings, notifications, time
limits for final action, and other related issues (U.S. FWS, 1996a).
A species is considered to be endangered or threatened if one or more of the following listing criteria apply (U.S.
FWS, 1996a):
*• the species' habitat or range is currently undergoing or is jeopardized by destruction, modification, or
curtailment;
* the species is overused for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
*• the species' existence is vulnerable because of predation or disease;
>• current regulatory mechanisms do not provide adequate protection; or
*• the continued existence of a species is affected by other natural or man-made factors.
b. Species of concern
States and the Federal government have also included species of "special concern" on their lists. These species
have been selected because they are (1) rare or endemic, (2) in the process of being listed, (3) considered for
listing in the future, (4) found in isolated and fragmented habitats, or (5) considered a unique or irreplaceable state
resource.
A9-1.2 Main Factors in Listing of Aquatic Species
Numerous physical and biological stressors have resulted in the listing of aquatic species. The major factors
include habitat destruction or modification, displacement of populations by exotic species, dam building and
impoundments, increased siltation and turbidity in the water column, sedimentation, various point and non-point
sources of pollution, poaching, and accidental catching. Some stresses, such as increased contaminant loads or
turbidity, can be alleviated by water quality programs such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) or the current EPA efforts to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). Other factors,
such as dam building or habitat modifications for flood control purposes, are relatively permanent and therefore
more difficult to mitigate. In addition to these major factors, negative effects of CWISs on some listed species
have been documented.
Congress amended the ESA in 1982 and established a legal mechanism authorizing the Services to issue permits
to non-federal entities — including individuals, private businesses, corporations, local governments, State
governments, and tribal governments — who engage in the "incidental take" of Federally-protected wildlife
species (plants are not explicitly covered by this program). Incidental take is defined as take that is "incidental to,
and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity under local, State or Federal law."
Examples of lawful activities that may result in the incidental take of T&E species include developing private or
State-owned land containing habitats used by Federally-protected species, or the withdrawal of cooling water that
may impinge or entrain Federally-protected aquatic species present in surface waters.
A9-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
An integral part of the incidental take permit process is development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). An
HCP provides a counterbalance to an incidental take by proposing measures to minimize or mitigate the impact
and ensuring the long-term commitment of the non-federal entity to species conservation. HCPs often include
conservation measures that benefit not only the target T&E species, but also proposed and candidate species, and
other rare and sensitive species that are present within the plan area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service, 2000). The ESA stipulates the major points that must be addressed in an HCP,
including the following (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, 2000):
*• defining the potential impacts associated with the proposed taking of a Federally-listed species;
» describing the measures that the applicant will take to monitor, minimize, and mitigate these impacts,
including funding sources;2
>• analyzing alternative actions that could be taken by the applicant and reasons why those actions cannot be
adopted; and
* describing additional measures that the Services may require as necessary or appropriate.
HCP permits can be issued by the Services' regional directors if:
» the taking will be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity;
» any impacts will be minimized or fully mitigated;
»• the permittee provides adequate funding to fully implement the permit;
»• the incidental taking will not reduce the chances of survival or recovery of the T&E species; and
*• any other required measures are met.
The Services have published a detailed description of the incidental take permit process and the habitat
conservation planning process (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, 2000). The
Federal incidental take permit program has only limited application within the context of the section 316(b)
regulation because many T&E species (fish in particular) are listed mainly by States, not by the Services, and
hence fall outside of the jurisdiction of this program.
A9-2 Framework for Identifying Listed Species Potentially at Risk of I&E
Evaluating benefits to listed species from the proposed section 316(b) regulation requires data on the number of
listed organisms impinged and entrained and an estimate of how much the I&E of listed species will be reduced as
a result of the regulation. Estimating I&E for candidate and listed species presents significant challenges due to
the following:
> most facilities operating CWISs do not monitor for I&E on a regular basis;
* T&E populations are generally restricted and fragmented so that their I&E may be sporadic and not easy
to detect by conventional monitoring activities;
*• entrained eggs and larvae are often impossible to identify to the species level, making it difficult to know
the true number of losses of a species of concern.
Some facilities have knowledge about the extent of their impact on T&E species. These facilities require
incidental take permits and must develop HCPs (e.g., the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities in California, see
Part B of this document). Where specific knowledge of I&E rates does not exist, risks to T&E species must be
estimated from other information. The remainder of this section discusses EPA's methodology of estimating the
numbers of listed species potentially at risk of I&E. The framework involves four main steps (see Figure A9-1).
2 Mitigation can include preserving critical habitats, restoring degraded former habitat, creating new habitats,
modifying land use practices to protect habitats, and establishing buffer areas around existing habitats.
A9-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
* Step 1 identifies all State- or Federally-listed species for the States that border the CWIS source
waterbody.
»• Step 2 determines if a listed species from Step 1 is present in the vicinity of the CWIS. If a species
distribution overlaps with the CWIS, the analysis proceeds to Step 3.
> Step 3 uses information on habitat preferences and site-specific intake structure characteristics to better
define the degree of vulnerability of the listed species to the CWIS.
»• Step 4, if necessary, further refines the potential for I&E based on the life history characteristics of the
listed species.
The result of this four-step analysis is a table of listed species that are likely to experience I&E by a CWIS of
concern based on their geographic distribution, habitat preferences, and life history characteristics.
A9-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Figure A9-1: Flowchart for Identifying T&E Aquatic Species with a Reasonable
Potential for I&E by CWISs
Select one or more CWIS of concern
Determine the location of the CWIS
STEP1
Identify all listed aquatic species in all states bordering
the source waterbody of the CWIS(s) of concern
Decision 1:
Are listed aquatic species
present in the states bordering
he CWIS's waterbody?
STEP 2
Determine the waterbodies in which any life stages of
the listed aquatic species identified in Step 1 are present
Decision 2:
Are listed aquatic species
present in the CWIS's
waterbodies?
STEP 3
'Use data on habitat preferences to determine the likelihood for listed^
aquatic species identified in Step 2 to overlap with the CWIiv, "*
Decision 3:
Is there reasonable
likelihood of
co-occurrence?
Low level of concern
STEP 4
Use data on life history characteristics to determine the potential for
I&E by the listed aquatic species identified in Step 3
Decision 4:
Is I&E a likely
event?
Low level of concern
Develop a final table of listed aquatic species identified
in Step 4 requiring the assessment
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
A9-2.1 Step 1: Compile a Comprehensive Table of Potentially Affected Listed Species
The first step in determining the potential for I&E by a CWIS is to identify all State and Federally-listed aquatic
species in the area of interest. Aquatic species may include fish; gastropods (such as snails, clams, or mussels);
crustaceans (such as shrimp, crayfish, isopods, or amphipods); amphibians (such as salamanders, toads, or frogs);
A9-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
reptiles (such as turtles, alligators, or water snakes); and mammals (such as seals or sea lions). The U.S. FWS
maintains a web site (U.S. FWS, 2004; available at: http://endangered.fws.gov/index.html) on all Federally-listed
species organized by State or taxonomic group. Because the Federal list represents only a small subset of the
species listed by individual States, the analyst also needs to obtain State lists to develop a comprehensive table of
aquatic species potentially affected by the CWISs of concern.3 Individual State agencies, universities, or local
organizations maintain web sites with data on State-listed species. A preliminary search in support of this chapter
showed that various agencies have responsibilities for maintaining species lists in different States. The
departments, agencies, or commissions with jurisdiction of T&E species include Fish and Game; Natural
Resources; Fish and Wildlife Conservation; Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Game and Parks; Environmental
Conservation; Conservation and Natural Resources; Parks and Wildlife; and several others. The States' Natural
Heritage Programs can also be contacted to request listing information, species-specific data on geographic
distributions, and other valuable data. Appendix Al provides a recent compilation of aquatic T&E species by The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) (see NatureServe, 2002, DCN 4-2261). A thorough search of these and other relevant
sources should be performed to get the data required to identify target species.
If a CWIS of concern is located on a waterbody confined to one state, then only Federally-listed aquatic species
found in that state and the aquatic species listed by the State itself need to be considered in the analysis. An
example would be the Tampa Bay Estuary, which is entirely contained within the state of Florida. The search
should expand if the CWIS is located on a waterbody that covers more than one state, which may be the case for
large lakes, rivers, and estuaries. For example, the watersheds abutting the U.S. side of Lake Erie cover parts of
New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The Delaware River Basin covers parts of Delaware,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. At a minimum, a table of potentially affected T&E species should
include species listed by the State in which the CWIS is located, together with any Federally-listed aquatic species
in all the states covered by the watershed. A more rigorous approach at this initial stage might be to include all
State-listed aquatic species from every state covered by the waterbody of concern, even if the likelihood is small
that a listed species moves beyond the boundaries of the CWIS's state.
The product of this initial step is a table of all the aquatic species listed by the U.S. FWS and the State(s) of
interest. The information should be organized by species category — such as fish, amphibians, aquatic
invertebrates, aquatic reptiles, and/or aquatic mammals. The information should also include:
» the common and scientific name of each listed species;
»• the agency listing the species (State oriJ.S. FWS, or both); and
>• the legal status of the species (threatened, endangered, or of special concern).
The analyst can assume that the CWIS does not have a direct impact on listed species only if no aquatic species
are listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern in the target state(s). The analyst must also determine if
there is an indirect impact through the food chain. If not, then no further analysis is required for that CWIS.
A9-2.2 Step 2: Determine If Listed Species Are Present in the Same Waterbody as the CWIS
In the second step, the analyst determines if the listed species identified in Step 1 are present in the same
waterbody as the CWIS of concern. This step represents a simple pass-fail decision: a species is retained if the
distribution of one or more of its life stages coincides with the waterbody of interest; it is removed if it does not
(see also Figure A9-1).
The analyst can obtain the information required for this step from several sources. Local agencies may have
developed "species accounts" for certain Federally-listed species. Recovery plans may also be available for some
of the Federally-listed species. These and other sources may provide information on species ranges, population
levels, reproductive strategies, developmental characteristics, habitat requirements, reasons for current status,
3 As discussed earlier, both T&E species and species of special concern should be included.
A9-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
and/or management and protection needs. When compiling this information, the analyst should look not only at
the distribution of adults but also of juveniles, particularly if the species is known to migrate between different
locations over its life. This step is particularly important for anadromous fish species, but may also apply to other
species that have seasonal or life cycle-dependent migrations (for example, adult frogs may live on land but
spawn in rivers).
Most listed aquatic species are listed by individual States rather than on a Federal level. Data on the
Federally-listed species are therefore unlikely to suffice for the analysis. States typically post their species list on
the Internet. A few States have also developed short species accounts with information on distribution, life history
characteristics, habitat requirements, and other useful details. Distribution or range data may consist of specific
locations of sightings or catches (for example, particular rivermiles), general distributions within individual
watersheds, or more generic and qualitative descriptions. Some States have also published hardcopy reports with
species-specific information that may not be available on the Internet. Finally, the Natural Heritage Programs in
numerous States have also developed species-specific data (see Appendix Al). All these materials should be
obtained and reviewed during the data gathering process.
Distributional information for some of the T&E species may not be available. The analyst may need to consult
secondary sources, such as species atlases (for example, see fish species distributions in the U.S.; or Smith, 1985,
for fish distributions in New York State), field guides, published papers, or textbooks. Distributional data may be
missing altogether for some of the more obscure species. The lack of such data should not by itself result in the
removal of a T&E species at this point in the selection process. The analyst should instead look at habitat
requirements (Step 3) or life history characteristics (Step 4) before the species is no longer considered of concern
to the CWIS under consideration.
The majority of species will be eliminated at this stage because most of the listed aquatic species, with some
notable exceptions, tend to have rather fragmented and limited distributions due to extensive habitat loss or
narrow habitat requirements. Step 2 produces a table of listed species whose geographic distributions generally
overlap with the location of the CWIS.
A9-2.3 Step 3: Compare Habitat Preferences of Listed Species to the CWIS Intake Location
Step 3 identifies listed species that could be affected by the CWIS of concern through a comparison of their
habitat preferences and the location of the CWIS. The potential for I&E exists, and hence the listed species is
retained, if the habitat preferences of one or more life stages match the location of the CWIS of concern. If the
habitat preferences of no life stages of the listed species match the location of the CWIS, then the species can be
removed from further consideration.
The analyst needs to obtain a general description of the location of the CWIS of concern in terms of (1) where the
CWIS is found within the waterbody (e.g., nearshore versus offshore; deep versus shallow; etc.) and (2) the kinds
of habitats associated with this general location. Such information may be available from site-specific field
observations, permit applications by the facilities, natural resources maps, or other related sources.
a. Location
The presence of a listed species in the waterbody from which a CWIS withdraws water does not necessarily mean
that the species will be impinged or entrained by the intake structure. Two additional variables need to be
considered: the habitat preferences of the listed species and the characteristics of the CWIS (location, design, and
capacity). The following example highlights the relationship between these two variables:
An endangered darter species is present in a river with a CWIS of concern. All life stages of this species are
confined to swift-running, shallow (i.e., less than one foot deep) riffle zones, whereas the CWIS of concern is
located many miles downstream in deep areas of the river that are unsuitable darter habitat. The likelihood of
impact on the darter by the CWIS is minimal even though both are present within the same waterbody.
A9-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
b. Other habitat information
Detailed information on the habitat requirements of the target species is also needed. This information should
focus on any of the life stages, including eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults, because habitat requirements often
vary by life stage. For example, adults of a listed fish species may inhabit deeper waters of large lakes and
produce pelagic eggs, but juveniles may be found only in nearshore nursery areas. It would be insufficient to
consider only the habitat requirements of adults of this species, particularly if a CWIS of concern was located
nearshore.
The U.S. FWS T&E species web page, the web pages of individual States or other organizations, or general
reference materials can provide data on the habitat preferences of the listed species. Such information may be
qualitative, anecdotal, or missing altogether for obscure T&E species. Not all States have developed accounts for
their listed species. T&E species web sites of neighboring States may offer additional information if the target
species has a regional distribution and is listed throughout its range. The information base can also be augmented
by looking at a closely-related species. The substitute species must share the same general habitat preferences as
the target species for the comparison to be valid. The analyst should consult appropriate reference materials to
ensure a proper match.
c. Assess whether the overlap between habitat requirements and CWIS location exists
The information on habitat preferences for the listed species is compared to location-specific data on the CWIS of
concern. The decision step is a simple pass-fail test: a species is retained if the habitat requirements of one or
more of its life stages is likely to coincide with the CWIS of concern; otherwise it is removed. The logic
supporting this decision is that I&E is unlikely if all the habitat requirements of the target T&E species do not
overlap with the habitat in which the CWIS of concern is located.
The exact habitat cutoff point for eliminating a species outright cannot be defined up front; it will depend not only
on the target T&E species but also on site-specific factors tied to the CWIS of concern. Several aquatic habitats,
however, can be dismissed out of hand because they are not suitable to support CWISs. These habitats include
springs, caves, temporary pools, very small ponds and lakes, and shallow headwater streams and creeks. Target
T&E species that spend their entire life cycle in these habitats are unlikely to encounter CWISs and can be
removed from further consideration. Habitats that have enough volume to support CWISs, namely large rivers and
lakes, large estuaries, and inshore marine areas, are likely to require more analysis.
A9-2.4 Step 4: Use Life History Characteristics or Monitoring Data to Refine Estimate of I&E
From this point on, the assessment can go in two different directions (see Figure A9-1): (1) the target species is
added to the final table because the data indicate potential for I&E, or because more data are needed to refine the
assessment; or (2) the species is excluded from the list because there is a low level of concern.
The data may not be as clear-cut for smaller or less mobile species. The overlap between habitat requirements and
the location of a CWIS of concern may not suffice to justify adding a target species to the final table without first
considering life history information. The decision to proceed beyond Step 3 will vary on a case-by-case basis: it
will depend on the target species, access to additional biological information, and the CWIS of concern. The
analyst should focus on finding information that will support the decision to add or eliminate a target species.
Additional data may not exist for some of the more obscure listed species. Given the protected status of T&E
species, however, EPA recommends using a conservative approach to ensure that species are not accidentally
omitted when in fact they should be added to the final table. The species should be retained if doubts persist after
Step 3: it can still be removed during more site-specific assessments.
Listed clams in big Midwestern rivers are an example of species that may require further assessment in Step 4.
Certain clam species would likely pass Step 2 because their distribution overlaps with the locations of CWISs of
concern on major rivers. These clam species may also pass Step 3 if their presence coincided with the general
location of one or more CWIS of concern. Yet, it is unclear if they should be added to the final table: a closer look
at the clams' life history is required to determine the potential for I&E.
A9-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
The risk of I&E of adult clams is low because they are sedentary, benthic filter feeders or are firmly attached to
the substrate. The risk may increase, however, during the reproductive season. During the reproductive season,
males release their sperm into the water column. The sperm are carried downstream by the water current and are
captured by feeding female clams. The sperm fertilize the female's eggs, which develop inside her body until they
hatch. The larvae are released into the water column and must quickly find and attach themselves to a specific fish
host to complete their development.4 Larval clams die if they fail to find a host. After a period of days to weeks,
the larval clams detach themselves from their hosts, drop to the bottom, and bury into the sediment or attach to a
solid substrate where they remain for the rest of their lives. The only reasonable chance for clam I&E occurs when
a fish host with larval life stages attached to it becomes impinged or entrained by a CWIS of concern. Adding a
clam species to the final table would depend on whether or not the following occurs:
> The host fish is known to science.
>• The host fish is present in the stretch of river containing the CWIS.
»• The habitat characteristics of the host fish match the general location of the CWIS of concern. These
decisions can be made only on a case-by-case and species-by-species basis.
The information on life history characteristics for the target T&E species should be carefully reviewed to
determine the potential for I&E. Several variables may raise concerns, including migratory behavior, pelagic eggs
or larvae, foraging activity, and so on. This information is evaluated in comparison to the location of the CWIS of
concern. The decision point in this step is a simple pass-fail test: a species is retained if one or more of its life
history characteristics enhances the potential for contact with the CWIS of concern; it is removed if all of its life
characteristics are unlikely to result in vulnerability to the CWIS of concern.
A9-3 Identification of Species of Concern at Case Study Sites
The following sections illustrate the use of this procedure to identify vulnerable special status species. The
example is for fish species of the Delaware Estuary.
A9-3.1 The Delaware Estuary Transition Zone
a. Step 1: Compile a comprehensive table of potentially affected listed species
Table A9-1 summarizes information compiled by EPA for fish species in the Delaware Estuary.
Table A9-1: Fish Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern
(Federal plus PA, NJ, DE, and NY)
State-Listed Species
Common Name (Latin Name)
Federally-
Listed
Species Pennsylvania New Jersey Delaware New York
E T O" E T Ob E T Ob E T Ob E T Ob
Burbot (Lota lota)
Chub, gravel (Erimystax x-punctata)
Chub, silver (Macrhybopsis storeiana)
Chub, streamline (Erymystax dissimilis)
X
X
X
X
X
4 Larvae of freshwater clams typically require a very specific fish species to complete their development. Scientists
do not always know which fish hosts are required by the T&E river clams.
A9-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-1: Fish Species Listed as Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern
(Federal plus PA, NJ, DE, and NY)
State-Listed Species
Common Name (Latin Name)
Federally-
Listed
Species Pennsylvania New Jersey Delaware New York
E T O" E T Ob E T Ob E T Ob E T Ob
Chubsucker, lake (Erimyzon sucetta)
Darter, bluebreast (Etheostoma Camurum)
Darter, channel (Percina copelandi)
Darter, eastern sand (Ammocrypta
pellucida)
Darter, gilt (Percina evides)
Darter, longhead (Percina macrocephala)
Darter, spotted (Etheostoma maculatum)
Darter, swamp (Etheostoma fusiforme)
Darter, tippecanoe (Etheostoma
tippecanoe)
Lamprey, mountain brook (Ichthyomyzon
greeleyi)
Lamprey, northern brook (Ichthyomyzon
fossor)
Lamprey, Ohio (Ichthyomyzon bdellium)
Madtom, mountain (Noturus eleutherus)
Madtom, northern (Notutus stigmotus)
Mooneye (Hiodon tergisus)
Redhorse, black (Moxostoma duquesnei)
Sculpin, deepwater (Myoxocephalus
thompsoni)
Sculpin, spoonhead (Cottus ricei)
Shiner, ironcolor (Notropis chalybaeus)
Shiner, pugnose (Notropis anogenus)
Shiner, redfln (Lythrurus umbratilis)
Sturgeon, Atlantic (Acipenser
oxyrhynchus)
Sturgeon, lake (Acipenser fulvescens)
Sturgeon, shortnose (Acipenser
brevirostrum)
Sucker, longnose (Catostomus catostomus)
Sunfish, banded (Enneacanthus obesus)
Sunfish, longear (Lepomis megalotis)
Sunfish, mud (Acantharchus pomotis)
Whitefish, round (Prosopium
cylindraceum)
Total
X
1 0 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 10 0
X
100
X
1 0 0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8 11 5
A9-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
a. Other Federally-listed species may include species of special interest or concern, monitored species, candidate
species, etc.
b. Other State-listed species may include rare species, species of special interest, species of concern, candidate
species, etc.
Sources: New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (2002); Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (2002); State of New York, Department of Environmental Conservation (2001); U.S. FWS (1996a).
b. Step 2: Determine if listed species are present in the same waterbody as the CWIS
After identifying species of concern in the source waterbody, the next step is to determine if any of these species
are present in the vicinity of the CWIS. This step involves consulting local biologists as well as literature sources
such as species atlases, field guides, and scientific publications. Table A9-2 summarizes the results of EPA's
analysis of the distribution of species of concern in the Delaware River Basin. Results indicate two there are two
fish species potentially vulnerable to CWIS in the Delaware Estuary transition zone, Atlantic sturgeon and
shortnose sturgeon (highlighted in bold in the table).
A9-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-2: Distribution of Listed Species Identified in Step 1
Species Name
Burbot
Chub, gravel
Chub, silver
Chub, streamline
Chubsucker, lake
Darter, bluebreast
Darter, channel
Darter, eastern sand
Darter, gilt
Darter, longhead
Darter, spotted
Darter, swamp
Darter, tippecanoe
Lamprey, mountain
brook
Lamprey, northern brook
Lamprey, Ohio
Madtom, mountain
Madtom, northern
Mooneye
Redhorse, black
Sculpin, deepwater
Sculpin, spoonhead
Shiner, ironcolor
Shiner, pugnose
Shiner, redfin
Sturgeon, Atlantic
Sturgeon, lake
Found in
Delaware River
Current Distribution Basin?
PA: Lake Erie and headwaters of Allegheny River
NY: medium and large-sized streams in the Allegheny Basin
PA: Allegheny River and French Creek
NY: Lake Erie
NY: Allegheny River drainage
NY: the Lake Erie drainage basin and embayments along the southern
shore of Lake Ontario
NY: upper reaches of the Allegheny River drainage basin
PA: upper Allegheny River and two of its tributaries, namely Little
Brokenstraw Creek and French Creek
PA: Lake Erie and large tributaries, and the upper part of the Allegheny
River
NY: Lake Erie, the Metawee and Poultney Rivers near Lake Champlain,
the Saint Regis and Salmon Rivers near Quebec, and the Grasse River
PA: Lake Erie and Allegheny Basin
NY: found only in the Allegheny River
PA: upper Allegheny River
NY: Allegheny River and a few of its large tributaries; French Creek
PA: scattered sites. in the Allegheny River and French Creek headwaters
NY: French Creek
PA: upper Allegheny River and French Creek
NY: eastern two-thirds of Long Island
PA: upper Allegheny River and French Creek
NY: French Creek and Allegheny River tributaries
PA: moderate to large streams of the upper Allegheny River system
PA: Conneaut Creek in Crawford County in northwest PA
PA: moderate to large streams of the upper Allegheny River system
PA: French Creek in Mercer and Erie Counties in northwest PA
PA: French Creek
NY: Lake Champlain, Black Lake, Oswegatchie River, Lake Erie, Saint
Lawrence River, and the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek
NY: Lake Ontario (likely extirpated) and Lake Erie drainage basins, and
the Allegheny River
NY: Lakes Erie and Ontario
NY: historically found in Lakes Erie and Ontario but believed to be
extirpated
NY: Basher Kill and Hackensack River
NY: Sodus Bay and Saint Lawrence River
NY: drainages of Lakes Erie and Ontario in western NY
PA: Delaware Estuary
NY: Saint Lawrence River, Niagara River, Oswegatchie River, Grasse
River, Lakes Ontario & Erie, Lake Champlain, Cayuga Lake, Seneca &
Cayuga canals
PA: Lake Erie
No
NY: No .
PA: No
No
No
No
NY: No
PA: No
No
NY: No
PA: No
NY: No
PA: No
NY: No
PA: No
NY: No
PA: No
NY: No
PA: No
NY: No
PA: No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
NY: No
PA: No
.49-72
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-2: Distribution of Listed Species Identified in Step 1
Species Name
Current Distribution
Found in
Delaware River
Basin?
Sturgeon, shortnose
DE: Tidal Delaware River
NJ: Tidal Delaware River
NY: lower portion of the Hudson River
PA: Tidal Delaware River
DE, NJ, PA: Yes
NY: No
Sucker, longnose
Sunfish, landed
Sunfish, longear
Sunfish, mud
Whitefish, round
PA: Youghiogheny River headwater streams in southwest PA
NY: Passaic River drainage and in eastern Long Island in the Peconic
River drainage
NY: Tonawanda Creek
NY: Hackensack River
NY: scattered lakes throughout the state
No
No
No
No
No
Sources: New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife (2002); Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (2002); Smith (1985); State of New York, Department of Environmental Conservation (2001).
c. Step 3: Compare habitat preferences of listed species to the CWIS intake location
Step 3 involves determining the habitat preferences and life history requirements of species identified in Step 2. In
Step 2 EPA determined that two fish species of concern are potentially vulnerable to CWIS in the Delaware
Estuary transition zone, Atlantic sturgeon and shortnose sturgeon. The habitat preferences and life histories of
these species are summarized in Table A9-3.
Table A9-3: Habitat Preferences and Life Histories of Listed Species Identified in Step 2
Species
Name
Sturgeon,
Atlantic
Sturgeon,
shortnose
Current
Distribution
Delaware
Estuary
Tidal
Delaware
River (mostly
in the upper
and
transitional
estuary)
Habitat
Preferences
Estuarine and
riverine
bottom
habitats of
large river
systems
Estuarine and
riverine
bottom
habitats of
large river
systems
Potential of
Overlap w/
CWIS? Life History
Yes Adults stay in the ocean but move
into estuaries and large rivers to
spawn in deep water (> 10m deep);
eggs sink and stick to the bottom;
juveniles make seasonal migrations
between shallower areas (summer)
and deeper areas (winter) of their
birth rivers; juveniles move to the
ocean at age 4-5 to mature
Yes Adults stay in nearshore marine
habitats but move to estuaries and
large rivers to spawn; eggs sink and
stick to the bottom; juveniles make
seasonal migrations between
shallower areas (summer) and
deeper areas (winter) of their birth
rivers; juveniles move out to the
ocean at age 4-5 to mature
Potential Life Stages
for Susceptible
I&E? to I&E?
Yes Larvae and
juveniles
Yes Larvae and
juveniles
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
d. Step 4: Use life history characteristics or monitoring data to refine estimate of I&E
In some cases I&E or waterbody monitoring data may be available to estimate CWIS impacts on T&E species.
However, in many cases, it will be necessary to estimate relative risk based on waterbody monitoring of the
A9-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
species distribution relative to CWIS and life history and facility characteristics that influence a species
vulnerability to I&E.
For the Delaware Estuary example discussed here, there are only limited data available for shortnose sturgeon
(Masnik and Wilson, 1980) and Atlantic sturgeon (Shirey et al., 1997) from monitoring in the vicinity of
transition zone CWISs. In the case of shortnose sturgeon, 1980 monitoring results indicate that the species is not
vulnerable to transition zone CWISs. However, because the data are over 20 years old, further information is
needed to confirm that the potential for I&E of shortnose sturgeon remains low. An analysis of life history
information indicates that spawning takes place many miles upstream of transition zone CWISs, and therefore the
risk of entrainment of eggs and larvae is minimal (Masnik and Wilson, 1980). Impingement is also unlikely
because salinity and feeding conditions in the transition zone are unfavorable for impingeable-sized juveniles and
adults (Masnik and Wilson, 1980),
In the case of Atlantic sturgeon, monitoring in the transition zone indicates that young Atlantic sturgeon occur in
the vicinity of the Hope Creek and Salem facilities in the summer months. Data also suggest that Atlantic
sturgeon move back downstream in fall, although use of the lower estuary (Delaware Bay) remains unknown
(Shirey et al., 1997). This information suggests that Atlantic sturgeon are potentially at risk to transition zone
CWISs and indicates the need for I&E monitoring to confirm the degree of harm.
A9-4 Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts on T&E Species
Once a T&E species has been identified as vulnerable to a CWIS, special considerations are necessary to fully
capture the human welfare gain from reducing I&E of the species. The benefits case study presented in Part B of
this document illustrates some of the challenges in assigning economic value to T&E species and presents a
valuation approach that may prove useful in other cases.
Estimating the economic benefits of helping to preserve T&E and other special status species, such as by reducing
I&E impacts, is difficult due to a lack of knowledge of the ecological role of different T&E species and a relative
paucity of economic studies focusing on the benefits of T&E preservation. Most of the wildlife economic
literature focuses on recreational use benefits that may be irrelevant for valuation of T&E species because T&E
species (e.g., the delta smelt in California) are not often targeted by recreational or commercial fishermen. The
numbers of special status species that are recreationally or commercially fished (e.g., shortnose sturgeon in the
Delaware Estuary) have been so depleted that any use estimates associated with angling participation or landings
data for recent years (or decades) would not be indicative of the species' potential value for direct use if and when
the population recovers. Nevertheless, there are some T&E species for which consumptive use-related benefits
could be significant once the numbers of individuals are restored to levels that enable resumption of relevant uses.
Based on their potential uses, T&E species can be divided into three broad categories:
*• T&E species with high potential for consumptive uses. The components of total value of such species are
likely to include consumptive, non-consumptive, and indirect use values, as well as existence and option
values. Pacific salmon, a highly prized game species, is a good example of such species. In addition to
having a high consumptive use value, this species is likely to have a high non-consumptive use value.
People who never go fishing may still watch salmon runs. The use value may actually dominate the total
economic value of enhancing a T&E fish population for species like salmon. For example, Olsen et al.
(1991) found that users contribute 65 percent to the total regional willingness-to-pay (WTP) value ($171
million in 1989$) for doubling the Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs. Non-users with zero
probability of participation in the sport fishery contribute 25 percent. Non-users with some probability of
future participation contribute the remaining ten percent.
>• T&E species that do not have consumptive uses, but are likely to have relatively large non-consumptive
and indirect use values. The total value of such species would include non-consumptive use and indirect
A9-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
values and existence values. Loggerhead sea turtles can represent such species. The non-consumptive use
of loggerhead sea turtles may include photography or observation of nesting or swimming reptiles. For
example, a study by Whitehead (1992) reports that the average subjective probability that North Carolina
residents will visit the North Carolina coast for non-consumptive use recreation is 0.498. Policies that
protect loggerhead sea turtles may therefore enhance individual welfare for a large group of participants
in turtle viewing and photography.
>• T&E species whose total value is a pure non-use value. Some prominent T&E species with minimal or no
use values may have high non-use values. The bald eagle and the gray whale are examples of such
species. Conversely, many T&E species with little or no use value are not well known or of significant
public interest and therefore their non-use values may be difficult to elicit. Most obscure T&E species,
which may have ecological, biological diversity, and other non-use values, are likely to fall into this
category.
Non-use motives are often the principal source of benefits estimates for T&E species because many T&E species
fall into the "obscure species" group. As described in greater detail in Chapter A3, motives often associated with
non-use values held for T&E species include bequest (i.e., intergenerational equity) and existence (i.e.,
preservation and stewardship) values. These non-use values are not necessarily limited to T&E species, but I&E-
related adverse impacts to these unique species would be locally or globally irreversible, leading to extinction
being a relevant concern. Irreversible adverse impacts on unique resources are not a necessary condition for the
presence of significant non-use values, but these attributes (e.g., uniqueness; irreversibility; and regional, national,
or international significance) would generally be expected to generate relatively high non-use values (Carson et
al., 1999; Harpman etal., 1993).
A9-5 Methods Available for Estimating the Economic Value Associated with I&E of T&E
Species
Estimating the value of increased protection of T&E species from reducing I&E impacts requires the following
steps:
*• Estimating I&E impacts on T&E species; and
» Attaching an economic value to changes in T&E status from reducing I&E impacts on species of concern
(e.g., increasing species population, preventing species extinction, etc.).
A9-5.1 Estimating I&E Impacts on T&E Species
Several cases of I&E of Federally-protected species by CWISs are documented, including the delta smelt in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, sea turtles in the Delaware Estuary and elsewhere (NMFS, 200 Ib),
shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae in the Hudson River (New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, 2000), and pallid sturgeon eggs and larvae in the Great Rivers Basin (Dames and Moore, 1977).
Mortality rates vary by species and life stage: it is estimated to range from two to seven percent for impinged sea
turtles (NMFS, 200Ib), but mortality can be expected to be much higher for entrained eggs and larvae of the
shortnose sturgeon and other special status fish species. The estimated yearly take of delta smelt by CWISs in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta led to the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan as part of an
incidental take permit application (Southern Energy Delta LLC, 2000).
A9-5.2 Economic Valuation Methods
Valuing impacts on special status species requires using nonmarket valuation methods to assign likely values to
losses of these individuals. The fact that many of these species typically are not commercially or recreationally
harvested (once they are listed) means no market value can be placed on their consumption. Benefits estimates are
therefore often confined to non-use values for special status species. The total economic value of preserving
A9-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
species with potentially high use values (i.e., T&E salmon runs) should include both use and non-use values.
Economic tools allowing estimates of both use and non-use values (e.g., stated preference methods) may be
suitable for calculating the benefits of preserving T&E species. The relevant methods are briefly summarized
below.
It is necessary to note that the benefits of preserving T&E species estimated to date reflect a human-centered
view; benefit-cost analysis may not be appropriate when T&E species are involved because extinction is
irreversible.
a. Stated preference methods
As described in Chapter A3, the only available way to directly estimate non-use values for special status species is
through applying stated preference methods, such as the contingent valuation method (CVM). This method relies
on statements of intended or hypothetical behavior elicited though surveys to value species. CVM has sometimes
been criticized, especially in applications dating back a decade or more, because the analyst cannot verify whether
the stated values are realistic and absent of various potential biases. CVM and other stated preference techniques
(including conjoint analysis) have evolved and improved in recent years, however, and empirical evidence shows
that the method can yield reliable (and perhaps even conservative) results where stated preference results are
compared to those from revealed preference estimates (e.g., angling participation as observable behavior) (Carson
etal., 1996).
The Agency has begun the preliminary development of a stated preference survey that would measure non-use
benefits from the reductions in I&E attributable to the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities. This stated
preference study will be completed for the final regulation, but for the proposed regulation, no primary research
was feasible within the budgeting, scheduling, and other constraints faced by the Agency.
b. Benefit transfer approach
Using a benefit transfer approach may be a viable option in some cases. By definition, benefit transfer involves
extrapolating the benefits findings estimated from one analytic situation to another situation(s). The initial
analytic situation is defined in terms of an environmental resource (e.g., T&E species), the policy variable(s) (e.g.,
changes in species status or population), and the benefitting populations being investigated. Only in ideal
circumstances do the environmental resource and policy variables of the original study very closely match those
of the analytic situation to which a policy or regulatory analyst may wish to extrapolate study results. Despite
discrepancies, this approach may provide useful insights into benefits to society from reducing stress on T&E
species.
The current approach to benefit transfers most often focuses on the meta-analysis of point estimates of the
Hicksian or Marshalian surplus reported from original studies. If, for example, the number of candidate studies is
small and the variation of characteristics among the studies is substantial, then meta-analysis is not feasible. This
is likely to be the case when T&E species are involved, requiring a more careful consideration of analytic
situations in the original and policy studies. If only one or a few studies are available, an analyst evaluates their
transferability based on technical criteria developed by Desvousges (1992).
The analyst first identifies T&E species affected by I&E and the type of environmental change resulting from
reducing I&E impacts on T&E species, and then from a pool of available studies selects the appropriate WTP
values for protecting those species. EPA illustrated the value to society of protecting T&E species by conducting
a review of the contingent valuation (CV) literature that estimates WTP to protect those species. This review
focused on those studies valuing those aquatic species that may be at risk of I&E by CWISs. EPA also identified
studies that provide WTP estimates for fish-eating species, i.e., the bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and the whooping
crane. These species may also be at risk because they rely to some degree on aquatic organisms as a food source.
EPA used select studies identified in a meta-analysis that Loomis and White (1996) conducted as a literature base.
Loomis and White included all rare or endangered species in their analysis, but EPA limited its own literature
review to those studies that valued threatened or endangered aquatic species, or birds that consume aquatic
species. Table A9-4 lists the 14 relevant CV studies that EPA identified and provides corresponding WTP
A9-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
estimates and selected study characteristics. WTP estimates represent either one-time payments, annual payments,
or an annual payment in a 5-year program. The table indicates which of these payment types each WTP estimate
represents, along with the corresponding value, inflated to 2003$. EPA also converted lump-sum payments and
5-year program annual payments into annualized values in order to aid in the comparison of values from all
studies.5
The identified valuation studies vary in terms of the species valued and the specific environmental change valued.
Thirteen of these studies represent a total of 16 different species. In addition, one study (Walsh et al., 1985)
estimates WTP for a group of 26 species. Most of these studies value prominent species well known by the public,
such as salmon. The studies valued one of the following general types of environmental changes:
> avoidance of species loss/extinction;
»• species recovery/gain;
*• acceleration of the recovery process;
>• improvement of an area of a species' habitat; and
* increases in species population.
In order to compare consistent measures of WTP, EPA chose to use values that represent either annual or
annualized WTP, which represent conservative estimates of consumer surplus. The value of preserving or
improving populations of T&E species reported in T&E valuation studies has a wide range. Mean annual (or
annualized) household WTP estimates of obscure aquatic species range from $7.68 (2003$) for the striped shiner
(Boyle and Bishop, 1987) to $8.50 for the silvery minnow (Berrens et al., 1996). It is not likely that use values
associated with these species are significant.
WTP for prominent fish species range from the relatively low estimate of $2.34 (2003$; Stevens et al., 1991), to
$8.92 (Stevens et al., 1991); both values are mean non-user WTP for Atlantic salmon, and are annualized. Total
user values are much higher for Atlantic salmon, as this species is commonly targeted by recreational anglers.6
WTP estimates for fish-eating species (i.e., whooping crane, bald eagle, and peregrine falcon), which all have
high non-use values (i.e., existence value), range from $4.48 (Carson et al., 1994) to $63.46 (Bowker and Stoll,
1988). It is important to note that the above WTP ranges are derived from studies that used various valuation
scenarios and valued different types of environmental changes, and therefore should be viewed as approximate
values as opposed to finite ranges.
It may be possible to develop individual WTP ranges for a given species or species group based on the estimated
changes in T&E status (e.g., species gain or recovery) from reducing I&E impacts and the applicable WTP values
from existing studies.
Once individual WTP for protecting T&E species or increasing their population is developed, the next step is to
estimate total benefits from reducing I&E of the special status species. The analyst should apply the estimated
WTP value to the relevant population groups to estimate the total value of improving protection of T&E species.
The affected population may include both potential users and non-users, depending on species type. The relevant
population may also include area residents, regional population, or, in exceptional cases (e.g., bald eagle), the
U.S. population. The total value of improved protection of T&E species (e.g., preventing extinction or doubling
the population size) should be then adjusted to reflect the percentage of cumulative environmental stress
attributable to I&E.
5 For each study that presents annual payments in a 5-year program, EPA calculated the present value of those
payments using a 3% discount rate, and annualized present day value over 25 years using the same discount factor.
EPA considered lump-sum payments to represent present value, and thus merely annualized these payments using the
same assumptions.
6 See Chapter A5 of this report for detail on recreational fishing values for Atlantic salmon.
A9-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-4: WTP for Improving T&E Species Populations'
Species
Type
Aquatic
Publi-
cation
Reference Date
Berrens 1996
etal.
Boyle and 1987
Bishop
Carson 1994
et al.
Cummings 1994
etal.
Duffield 1992
and
Patterson
Kotchen 2000
and Reiling
Loomisand 1994
Larson
Survey
Date Species
1995 Silvery
minnow
1984 Striped
shiner
1994 Kelp bass,
white
croaker,
bald eagle,
peregrine
falcon
1994 Squawfish
1992 Arctic
grayling
Cutthroat
trout
1997 Shortnose
sturgeon
1991 Gray
whale
Annual or
Environ- Mean Annualized
mental Size of Value WTP Mean WTP
Change Change Type" (2003$) (2003$)'
Maintain 5 $33.75 $8.50
instream
flow to
protect
species
Avoid loss 100% A $7.68 $7.68
Speed L $80.39 $4.48
recovery
from 50 to
5 years
Avoid loss 100% A $10.70 $10.70
Improve 1 L $22.08 $1.24
of 3 rivers
L $16.55 $0.92
Recovery L $30.48 $1.70
to self-
sustaining
population
Gain 50% A $21.80 $21.80
Gain 100% A $24.45 $24.45
Gain 50% A $33.69 $33.69
CVM Survey
Method Region
DC NM
households
DC WI
households
DC CA
households
OE NM
PC US visitors
PC US visitors
DC Maine
residents
(random)
OE CA
households
OE CA
households
OE CA visitors
Sample
Size
698
365
2810
921
157
170
635
890
890
1003
Response
Rate
45%
73%
73%
42%
27%
77%
63%
54%
54%
72%
Payment
Vehicle
Trust fund
Foundation
One-time tax
Increase
State taxes
Trust fund
Trust fund
One-time tax
Protection
fund
Protection
fund
Protection
fund
A9-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Table A9-4: WTP for Improving T&E
Species
Type
Fish-
eating
birds
Publi-
cation
Reference Date
Loomisand 1994
Larson
(cont.)
Olsen 1991
etal.
Stevens 1991
etal.
1994
Walsh 1985
etal.
Whitehead 1992
Bowker 1988
and Stoll
Boyle and 1987
Bishop
Carson 1994
etal.
Survey
Date Species
1991 Gray
whale
1989 Pacific
salmon
and
steelhead
1989 Atlantic
salmon
Atlantic
salmon
1993 Atlantic
salmon
Atlantic
salmon
1985 26 species
in CO
1991 Sea turtle
1983 Whooping
crane
Whooping
crane
1984 Bald eagle
1994 Bald eagle
Peregrine
Falcon
Kelp bass
White
croaker
Environ-
mental
Change
Gain
Gain
(existence
value)
Gain (user
value)
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Gain
Gain
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Speed
recovery
from 50 to
5 years
Mean
Size of Value WTP
Change Type" (2003$)
100% A $40.06
100% A $39.78
100% A $112.38
100% 5 $9.27
100% 5 $10.29
50% 5 $24.70
90% 5 $35.46
-100% A $73.74
100% L $16.51
100% A $40.45
100% A $63.46
100% A $19.57
L $80.39
Species Populations"
Annual or
Annualized
Mean WTP
(2003$)c
$40.06
$39.78
$112.38
$2.34
$2.59
$6.22
$8.92
$73.74
$0.92
$40.45
$63.46
$19.57
$4.48
CVM
Method
OE
OE
OE
DC
OE
DCOE
DCOE
OE
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
Survey
Region
CA visitors
Pac.NW
household
Pac. NW
anglers
MA
households
MA
households
College
students
College
students
CO
households
NC
households
TX and US
visitors
TX and US
visitors
WI
households
CA
households
Sample
Size
1003
695
482
169
169
76
76
198
207
316
254
365
2810
Response
Rate
72%
72%
72%
30%
30%
93%
93%
99%
35%
36%
67%
73%
73%
Payment
Vehicle
Protection
fund
Electric bill
Electric bill
Trust fund
Trust fund
Contribution
Contribution
Taxes
Preservation
fund
Foundation
Foundation
Foundation
One-time tax
A9-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9
Table A9-4: WTP for Improving T&E
Publi-
Species cation Survey
Type Reference Date Date Species
Stevens 1991 1989 Bald eagle
etal.
Bald eagle
Swanson 1993 1991 Bald eagle
Bald eagle
Environ-
mental
Change
Avoid loss
Avoid loss
Increase in
populations
Increase in
populations
Size of
Change
100%
100%
300%
300%
Value
Type"
A
A
L
L
Mean
WTP
(2003$)
$41.88
$29.50
$323.71
$226.74
Species Populations*
Annual or
Annualized
Mean WTP
(2003$)c
$41.88
$29.50
$18.04
$12.64
CVM
Method
DCOE
DCOE
DC
OE
Survey
Region
NE
households
NE
households
WA
visitors
WA
visitors
Sample
Size
339
339
747
747
Response
Rate
37%
37%
57%
57%
Payment
Vehicle
Trust fund
Trust fund
Membership
fund
Membership
fund
a. Exhibit adapted from Loomis and White (1996) and includes only those studies that valued aquatic species or fish-eating birds.
b. Indicates type/ length of WTP payment reported in study: 5 = annual payment in 5-year program; LS = lump-sum, or one-time; payment, A = annual payment.
c. Lump-sum values are annualized over 25 years using a 3% discount rate; values that are annual payments in 5-year programs were converted into present value before
annualizing over 25 years at a 3% discount rate; annual payments are presented as in the original study, inflated to 2003$ using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Values that already
represent annual values are unadjusted.
Sources: Loomis and White, 1996; CPI: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004.
A9-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
c. Cost of T&E species restoration
EPA explored an approach based on the premise that under specific circumstances it is possible to infer how much
value society places on a program or activity by observing how much society is willing to forego (in out-of-
pocket expenses and opportunity costs) to implement the program. For example, the costs borne by society to
implement programs that preserve and restore special status species can, under select conditions, be interpreted as
a measure of how much society values the outcomes it anticipates receiving. This approach is analogous to the
broadly accepted revealed preference method of inferring values for private goods and services based on observed
individual behavior.
In the case of observed individual behavior, when a person willingly bears a cost (pays a price) to receive a good
or service, then it is deduced that the person's value for that acquired good or service must be at least as great as
the price paid. That is, based on the presumption that individual behavior reflects the economic rationality of
seeking to maximize utility (well-being), the person's observed WTP must exceed the price paid, otherwise they
would not have purchased that unit of the commodity. The approach described in this section uses the same
premise, but applies it to societal choices rather than to a single individual's choices.
A critical issue with the approach is determining when it is likely that a specific public sector activity (or other
form of collective action) does indeed reflect a "societal choice." EPA recognizes clearly that not every policy
enacted by a public sector entity can rightfully be interpreted as an indication of social choice. Hence, the costs
imposed in such instances may not in any way reveal social values. For example, some regulatory actions may
have social costs that outweigh the social benefits, but may be implemented anyway because of legal
requirements or other considerations. In such a case, asserting that the costs imposed reflect a lower bound
estimate of the "value" of the action would not be accurate (the values may be less than the imposed costs).
Alternatively, there are some regulatory programs for which the benefits greatly exceed costs, and in such
instances using costs as a reflection of value would greatly understate social benefits.
There are some public policy actions that can be suitably interpreted as expressions of societal preferences and
values. In these instances, the incurred costs may be viewed as an indication of social values. The criteria to help
identify when such situations arise include whether the actions taken are voluntary, or whether the actions reflect
an open and broadly inclusive policy-making process that enables and encourages active participation by a broad
spectrum of stakeholders. This is especially relevant where (1) plans and actions are developed in an inclusive,
consensus-building manner; (2) implementation steps are pursued in an adaptive management framework that
enables continuous feedback and refinement; or (3) the actions are ultimately supported by some positive
indication of broad community support, such as voter approval of a referendum. In such instances, the policy
choices made are the product of a broad-based, collective decision-making process, and such programs should be
viewed as an expression of societal preferences. When programs or activities stem from such open collective
processes, the actions (and costs incurred) reflect the revealed preference of society.
EPA's method values T&E species in a two step process. First, estimates of costs incurred and anticipated from
voluntary or other suitable collective actions taken to maintain and or increase the populations of T&E species
(e.g., restoration of critical spawning or nursery habitat) are combined with estimates of the value of any foregone
opportunities (i.e., opportunity costs, where direct costs are not involved) from additional actions required to
achieve the T&E population objectives (e.g., maintaining instream flows for a species instead of providing water
for agricultural diversions). This resulting total social cost provides a cumulative estimate of society's valuation
of the preservation and enhancement of the T&E species affected by the actions. Categories of actions that would
be addressed in this step could include private and public expenditures on habitat restoration/population
enhancement programs, funds that have been allocated for such actions through legislative appropriations or
public referenda (even if not yet expended), or resources allocated through a formal project evaluation and
selection process designed to allocate limited resources such as those used by numerous State and Federal
resource management agencies.
Second, the numbers of the T&E organisms that are expected to benefit from the identified actions, as measured
by the increased production or avoided losses of individuals, are estimated to place the valuation estimates in
A9-2I
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
context. If dollar per organism results are required for a valuation analysis, as is the case in this rulemaking, the
estimates from the first step can be divided by the increased production (avoided loss) estimate from the second
step to provide such results.
The economic foundations for using this approach to value T&E species are firmly established through the
widespread recognition and acceptance of revealed preference data as a source of nonmarket information that is
acceptable for the valuation of resources. In EPA's approach, valuation estimates rely on the costs of actions or
the value of foregone opportunities that are voluntarily undertaken or that have been approved through extensive
public input and review (and developed in a consensus-oriented approach). With these sources of data, the method
avoids the well-established problems associated with using "costs" as a measure of "value" — a problem that can
arise when the cost is realized involuntarily (e.g., avoided cost-based measures of value). Specifically, because of
the available evidence of the public's acceptance and willingness to incur the opportunity costs associated with
the actions that are selected for evaluation, the fundamental criteria for defining the value of any resource are
satisfied.
One issue that arises with the use of the method is that it is not clear that the resulting values can be distinctly
categorized as direct use or non-use values because the underlying actions benefitting the T&E species could
reflect an expressed mix of non-use values (e.g., preservation and existence) and discounted future use values
(i.e., the actions are seen as an "investment" that could return the species to levels at which direct use would be
permitted). As result, it is believed that results provide an approximation of the total use value for the T&E
species in question.
A9-6 Issues in Estimating and Valuing Environmental Impacts from I&E on T&E Species
Several technical and conceptual issues are associated with valuing I&E impacts on T&E species:
*• issues associated with estimating the size of the population of special status fish;
» issues associated with estimating I&E contribution to the cumulative impact from all stressors; and
> issues associated with implementing an economic valuation approach.
A9-6.1 Issues in Estimating the Size of the Population of Special Status Fish
Difficulties in estimating the number of individuals or size of the population of special status fish present in a
given location are often very difficult for numerous reasons, including the following:
»• The act of monitoring a T&E species is problematic in and of itself because monitoring generally results
in some harm to the species, so researchers and Federal agencies are reluctant to do it;
> Monitoring programs typically focus only on harvested species;
» The number of individuals may be so low that they rarely or never show up in monitoring programs for
other species; and
>• A lack of complete knowledge of the life cycles of special status fish species contributes to an inability to
accurately estimate population sizes for some species.
Deriving population estimates from existing monitoring programs often means extrapolating sampling catches to
the population as a whole. The variance in estimates is likely to be very high. Several assumptions must be met
when extrapolating sample catches to population estimates:
* Fish are completely recruited and vulnerable to the gear (i.e., are large enough to be retained by the mesh
and do not preferentially occupy habitats not sampled) or selectivity of the gear by size is known.
>• Sampling fixed locations for species approximates random sampling, which approximates a stratified
random sampling scheme.
A9-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
*• Species are uniformly distributed through the water column.
* Volume filtered by trawls can be accurately estimated.
> Volumes of water can be estimated for each embayment in the habitat range for the species.
A9-6.2 Issues Associated with Estimating I&E Contribution to the Cumulative Impact from All Stressors
There are several issues associated with estimating the relative contribution of I&E to the total impact of all
stressors on T&E species:
•• Even if I&E data is available from sample facilities, the size of populations of T&E species is hard to
measure. Thus, it may be difficult to determine how much of an impact I&E has on population levels.
For very rare species, even relatively low levels of I&E may be important.
»• There are often a number of stressors that harm or limit populations of special status fish. Even if
significant numbers offish are lost to I&E, other factors may still have a greater role in determining
populations levels. For example, if lack of spawning areas is limiting population growth of a species,
then reducing I&E of that species may not increase the population.
A9-6.3 Issues Associated with Implementing an Economic Valuation Approach
a. Issues associated with benefit transfer approach
The following issues may arise when using a benefit transfer approach:
•• Some studies estimated WTP for multiple species. Values established by Carson et al. (1994), Olsen et al.
(1991), and Walsh et al. (1985) are for groups of T&E species, and therefore transferring values from
these studies to particular species may not be feasible.
* The type of environmental change valued in the study may not match the environmental changes resulting
from reducing I&E impacts. As noted above, previous T&E valuation studies addressed one of the
following qualitative changes in T&E status:
• avoidance of species loss/extinction,
• species recovery/gain,
• acceleration of the recovery process,
• improvement of an area of a species' habitat, and
• increases in species population.
* The size of the environmental change that the hypothetical scenario defines is also vital for developing
WTP estimates. Several studies describe programs that avoid the loss of a species. This outcome may be
considered a 100% improvement with respect to the alternative, extinction, but the restoration of a species
or the increase in population may be specified at any level (e.g., 50 percent, 300 percent). Swanson
(1993) estimated a 300% increase in bald eagle populations and Boyle and Bishop (1987) estimated WTP
to avoid the possibility of bald eagle extinction in Wisconsin (cited in Loomis and White, 1996).
Although avoiding extinction may be considered a 100% improvement, this environmental change is not
comparable to the 300% increase in existing populations. Preventing regional extinction is quite different
than realizing a nominal increase in species population (in which the alternative is not necessarily species
loss).
*• Although a considerable amount of CV literature has valued T&E species, such research is largely limited
to species with high consumptive use or non-use values. They either have high recreational or commercial
value, or are popularly valued as significant species for various reasons (e.g., national symbol, aesthetics).
Many T&E species that are likely to be affected by I&E (either Federal or State-listed) are obscure, and
WTP for their preservation has not been estimated.
b. Issues associated with cost of restoration approach
The following issues may arise when using a cost of restoration approach:
> "Restoration" programs need not be relied on exclusively to infer societal WTP to preserve special status
species. In many instances, other programs or restrictions are used in lieu of (or in conjunction with)
restoration programs. In these cases, the costs associated with the restoration components also reveal a
WTP.
A9-23
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9
»• Costs directed at a special status species must be isolated from program elements intended to address
other species or problems. In a multifaceted restoration or use restriction program, the percentage of costs
used mainly to target restoration of special status species as opposed to other ecosystem benefits needs to
be estimated.
>• Estimates of the change in species abundance associated with the program must be developed, since the
size of the change in species abundance is necessary to determine societal WTP per individual. Often
targets are set to abundance levels that existed before a significant decline in populations. However, a
habitat restoration program may target restoration of special status species, but might not target a specific
population size.
A9-24
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
Informal
ABI Identifier Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
Global Federal HUC
Status Status Code
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01040 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01040 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01040 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAAO1040 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCQC02680 Freshwater Etheostoma Sellare Maryland Darter
Fishes
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01040 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01040 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
AFCQC02680 Freshwater Etheostoma Sellare Maryland Darter
Fishes
AFCQC04240 Freshwater Percina Rex
Fishes
AFCQC04240 Freshwater Percina Rex
Fishes
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
Roanoke Logperch
Roanoke Logperch
AFCQC04240 Freshwater Percina Rex
Fishes
Roanoke Logperch
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
GH
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
GH
G3
LE
01080205
(LT,C) 01080205
(LT,C) 01100003
(LT,C) 01100004
(LT,C) 01100005
LE
01100007
LE
02040105
LE
02040201
LE
02050306
LE
02050306
(LT,C) 02050306
LE
02060001
(LT,C) 02060001
LE
02060002
LE
02060003
G1G2 LE
03010101
G1G2 LE
03010103
LE
03010107
G1G2 LE
03010201
App. Al-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCAA01010
AFCQC04240
AFCAA01010
AFCAA01010
AFCAA01010
AFCAA01010
AFCJB28660
AFCJB28660
AFCJB28660
AFCPB09010
AFCAA01010
AFCAA01010
AFCND02020
AFCPB09010
AFCAA01010
AFCAA01042
AFCPB09010
AFCNG01020
AFCAA01042
AFCPB09010
AFCNG01020
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Marine
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Marine
Fishes
Scientific Name
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Percina Rex
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Notropis Mekistocholas
Notropis Mekistocholas
Notropis Mekistocholas
Microphis Brachyurus
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Menidia Extensa
Microphis Brachyurus
Acipenser Brevirostrum
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Oxyrinchus
Microphis Brachyurus
Rivulus Marmoratus
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Oxyrinchus
Microphis Brachyurus
Rivulus Marmoratus
Common Name
Shortnose Sturgeon
Roanoke Logperch
Shortnose Sturgeon
Shortnose Sturgeon
Shortnose Sturgeon
Shortnose Sturgeon
Cape Fear Shiner
Cape Fear Shiner
Cape Fear Shiner
Opossum Pipefish
Shortnose Sturgeon
Shortnose Sturgeon
Waccamaw Silverside
Opossum Pipefish
Shortnose Sturgeon
Atlantic Sturgeon
Opossum Pipefish
Mangrove Rivulus
Atlantic Sturgeon
Opossum Pipefish
Mangrove Rivulus
Global
Status
G3
G1G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
Gl
Gl
Gl
G4G5
G3
G3
Gl
G4G5
G3
G3T3
G4G5
G3
G3T3
G4G5
G3
Federal
Status
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
(PS:C)
LE
LE
LT
(PS:C)
LE
C
(PS:C)
(PS:C)
C
(PS:C)
(PS:C)
HUC
Code
03010203
03010204
03010205
03020105
03020204
03030001
03030002
03030003
03030004
03030005
03030005
03040201
03040206
03080103
03080103
03080103
03080201
03080202
03080202
03080203
03080203
App. A1-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
Informal
ABI Identifier Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
Global Federal HUC
Status Status Code
AFCPB09010 Freshwater Microphis Brachyums Opossum Pipefish
Fishes
AFCNG01020 Marine Rivulus Marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus
Fishes
AFCND02030 Marine
Fishes
Menidia Conchorum Key Silverside
AFCNG01020 Marine Rivulus Marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus
Fishes
AFCNG01020 Marine Rivulus Marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus
Fishes
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCPB09010 Freshwater Microphis Brachyums Opossum Pipefish
Fishes
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFCQC02520 Freshwater Etheostoma Okaloosae Okaloosa Darter
Fishes
AFC A AO1041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
AFC A AO 1041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
G4G5 (PS:C) 03090202
G3
G3Q
G3
G3
G3T2
Gl
AFCNB04090 Marine
Fishes
Fundulus Jenkinsi
AFCNB04090 Marine
Fishes
Fundulus Jenkinsi
AFCNB04090 Marine
Fishes
Fundulus Jenkinsi
Saltmarsh Topminnow
Saltmarsh Topminnow
Saltmarsh Topminnow
G2
G2
G2
AFCAA01041 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Gulf Sturgeon
Fishes Desotoi
(PS:C) 03090202
03090203
(PS:C) 03090203
(PS:C) 03090204
G3T2 LT
03100101
G4G5 (PS:C) 03100206
G3T2 LT
G3T2 LT
G3T2 LT
G3T2 LT
G3T2 LT
G3T2 LT
LT
LE
G3T2 LT
G3T2 LT
G3T2 LT
03100207
03110101
03110205
03120003
03130011
03140101
03140102
03140102
03140103
03140104
03140105
03140107
03140305
03140305
App. A1-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCAA02030
AFCQC04360
AFCQC04360
AFC AAO 1041
AFCAA01041
AFCAA01041
AFCAA01041
AFC AAO 1041
AFCNB04090
AFCFA01020
AFCAA01041
AFCQC04360
AFCFA01020
AFC AAO 1041
AFCFA01020
AFCFA01020
AFC AAO 1041
AFCQC04360
AFCQC04360
AFCFA01020
AFCAA01041
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Marine
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Scaphirhynchus Suttkusi
Percina Aurora
Percina Aurora
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Fundulus Jenkinsi
Alosa Alabamae
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Percina Aurora
Alosa Alabamae
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Alosa Alabamae
Alosa Alabamae
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Percina Aurora
Percina Aurora
Alosa Alabamae
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Common Name
Alabama Sturgeon
Pearl Darter
Pearl Darter
Gulf Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Saltmarsh Topminnow
Alabama Shad
Gulf Sturgeon
Pearl Darter
Alabama Shad
Gulf Sturgeon
Alabama Shad
Alabama Shad
Gulf Sturgeon
Pearl Darter
Pearl Darter
Alabama Shad
Gulf Sturgeon
Global
Status
Gl
Gl
Gl
G3T2
G3T2
G3T2
G3T2
G3T2
G2
G3
G3T2
Gl
G3
G3T2
G3
G3
G3T2
Gl
Gl
G3
G3T2
Federal
Status
LE
C
C
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
C
C
LT
C
C
LT
C
C
LT
C
C
C
LT
HUC
Code
03160103
03170001
03170004
03170004
03170006
03170007
03170008
03170009
03170009
03180001
03180002
03180002
03180002
03180003
03180003
03180004
03180004
03180004
03180005
03180005
03180005
App. A]-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB31010
AFCJB31010
AFC JB3 1010
AFC JB3 1010
AFCJB28A90
AFCQC02X30
AFCFA01020
AFCKA02060
AFCJB50010
AFCJB 15080
AFCJB 15080
AFCJB 15080
AFCJB 15080
AFCJB 15080
AFCJB50010
AFCQC02X30
AFCKA02060
AFCJB50010
AFCFA01020
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Phoxinus
Cumberlandensis
Phoxinus
Cumberlandensis
Phoxinus
Cumberlandensis
Phoxinus
Cumberlandensis
Notropis Albizonatus
Etheostoma Percnurum
Alosa Alabamae
Noturus Flavipinnis
Erimystax Cahni
Hybopsis Monacha
Hybopsis Monacha
Hybopsis Monacha
Hybopsis Monacha
Hybopsis Monacha
Erimystax Cahni
Etheostoma Percnurum
Noturus Flavipinnis
Erimystax Cahni
Alosa Alabamae
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Common Name
Blackside Dace
Blackside Dace
Blackside Dace
Blackside Dace
Palezone Shiner
Duskytail Darter
Alabama Shad
Yellowfin Madtom
Slender Chub
Spotfm Chub
Spotfm Chub
Spotfm Chub
Spotfm Chub
Spotfm Chub
Slender Chub
Duskytail Darter
Yellowfin Madtom
Slender Chub
Alabama Shad
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Global
Status
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
Gl
G3
Gl
Gl
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
G3
G1G2
G2
Federal HUC
Status Code
LT 05130101
LT 05130101
LT 05130102
LT 05130103
LE 05130104
LE 05130104
C 05140101
(LT.XN) 06010101
LT 06010101
LT 06010101
LT 06010102
LT 06010105
LT 06010202
LT 06010203
LT 06010205
LE 06010205
(LT,XN) 06010205
LT 06010206
C 06040006
LE 08010100
C 08010100
App. Al-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCAA02010
AFCFA01020
AFCQC02BOO
AFCAA02010
AFCAA02010
AFCAA02010
AFCAA02010
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53030
AFCQC02630
AFCQC02630
AFCAA02010
AFCAA01041
AFCAA02010
AFCAA02010
AFCAA01041
AFCAA01041
AFCAA02010
AFC A AO 1041
AFCHA07011
AFCJB53030
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Alosa Alabamae
Etheostoma Chienense
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Etheostoma Rubrum
Etheostoma Rubrum
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Acipenser Oxyrinchus
Desotoi
Thymallus Arcticus Pop
2
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Common Name
Pallid Sturgeon
Alabama Shad
Relict Darter
Pallid Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Sicklefm Chub
Bayou Darter
Bayou Darter
Pallid Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Arctic Grayling - Upper
Missouri River Fluvial
Sicklefm Chub
Global
Status
G1G2
G3
Gl
G1G2
G1G2
G1G2
G1G2
G1G2
G3
Gl
Gl
G1G2
G3T2
G1G2
G1G2
G3T2
G3T2
G1G2
G3T2
G5T2Q
G3
Federal
Status
LE
C
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
C
LT
LT
LE
LT
LE
LE
LT
LT
LE
LT
C
C
HUC
Code
08010100
08010100
08010201
08020100
08020203
08030100
08030207
08060100
08060100
08060203
08060302
08070100
08070205
08080101
08090100
08090201
08090202
08090203
08090203
10020007
10060005
App. A1-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCHA07011
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB3705B
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53030
AFCJB53020
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53030
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Thymallus Arcticus Pop
2
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Rhinichthys Osculus
Thermalis
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Meelti
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Common Name
Arctic Grayling - Upper
Missouri River Fluvial
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Kendall Warm Springs
Dace
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sicklefin Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sicklefin Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Global
Status
G5T2Q
G2
G2
G2
G5T1
G2
G2
G3
G2
G1G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
Federal
Status
C
C
C
C
LE
C
C
C
C
LE
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
HUC
Code
10070001
10080007
10080010
10090202
10090202
10090207
10100004
10100004
10110101
10110101
10110201
10110202
10110203
10110204
10110205
10110205
10120109
10120110
10120111
10120112
10130102
App. A1-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB53030
AFCAA02010
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53030
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCAA02010
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCAA02010
AFCJB28960
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53030
AFCJB28960
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Notropis Topeka
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Notropis Topeka
Common Name
Sicklefin Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sicklefin Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Pallid Sturgeon
Topeka Shiner
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Pallid Sturgeon
Sicklefin Chub
Topeka Shiner
Global
Status
G3
G1G2
G1G2
G2
G1G2
G3
G1G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G1G2
G2
G2
G1G2
G2
G2
G2
G1G2
G3
G2
Federal
Status
C
LE
LE
C
LE
C
LE
C
C
C
C
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
C
LE
LE
C
LE
HUC
Code
10130102
10130102
10130105
10130202
10140101
10140101
10140103
10140201
10140202
10140203
10140204
10150007
10160004
10160006
10160011
10160011
10170101
10170101
10170101
10170101
10170102
App. A1-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCJB53020
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53030
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53030
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Common Name
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Sturgeon Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sicklefm Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Pallid Sturgeon
Sicklefm Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Global
Status
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G1G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G1G2
G3
G2
G2
G2
G1G2
G3
G1G2
G2
Federal
Status
LE
LE
LE
C
C
LE
C
LE
LE
C
LE
C
LE
C
C
C
LE
LE
C
LE
C
HUC
Code
10170103
10170202
10170203
10180002
10200101
10200202
10200202
10200203
10210006
10210009
10220002
10220003
10230001
10230001
10230001
10230006
10230006
10230006
10230006
10240001
10240001
App. A1-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB53030
AFCJB53020
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53030
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53030
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCJB53030
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Common Name
Sicklefm Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sicklefm Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sicklefm Chub
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Sicklefm Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Global
Status
G3
G2
G1G2
G3
G2
G3
G1G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G2
G2
G2
G2
Federal
Status
C
C
LE
C
C
C
LE
C
C
LE
LE
C
LE
LE
C
LE
C
C
LE
LE
LE
HUC
Code
10240001
10240005
10240005
10240005
10240011
10240011
10240011
10250004
10250016
10250017
10260001
10260008
10260008
10270101
10270102
10270102
10270104
10270104
10270104
10270202
10270205
App. Al-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB28960
AFCJB28960
AFCLA01010
AFCQC02170
AFCQC02170
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCQC02170
AFCQC02170
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28960
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28490
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28490
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28490
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Notropis Topeka
Notropis Topeka
Amblyopsis Rosae
Etheostoma Cragini
Etheostoma Cragini
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Etheostoma Cragini
Etheostoma Cragini
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Topeka .
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Girardi
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Girardi
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Girardi
Common Name
Topeka Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Ozark Cavefish
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas Darter
Topeka Shiner
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Global
Status
G2
G2
G2G3
G3
G3
G3
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G2
G2
G3
G2
G3
G2
G3
G2
G3
G2
Federal
Status
LE
LE
LT
C
C
C
LT
LT
C
C
C
LT
LT
C
LE
C
LT
C
LT
C
LT
HUC
Code
10270206
10290101
11010001
11030004
11030009
11030010
11030010
11030013
11030013
11030014
11030015
11030015
11030016
11030016
11030017
11040006
11040006
11040007
11040007
11040008
11040008
App. Al-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCQC02170
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28960
AFCKA02200
AFCJB28960
AFCKA02200
AFCJB28960
AFCKA02200
AFCKA02200
AFCQC02170
AFCKA02200
AFCLA01010
AFCLA01010
AFCLA01010
AFCQC02170
AFCJB28490
AFCQC04210
AFCQC04210
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Etheostoma Cragini
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Topeka
Noturus Placidus
Notropis Topeka
Noturus Placidus
Notropis Topeka
Noturus Placidus
Noturus Placidus
Etheostoma Cragini
Noturus Placidus
Amblyopsis Rosae
Amblyopsis Rosae
Amblyopsis Rosae
Etheostoma Cragini
Notropis Girardi
Percina Pantherina
Percina Pantherina
Common Name
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas Darter
Topeka Shiner
Neosho Madtom
Topeka Shiner
Neosho Madtom
Topeka Shiner
Neosho Madtom
Neosho Madtom
Arkansas Darter
Neosho Madtom
Ozark Cavefish
Ozark Cavefish
Ozark Cavefish
Arkansas Darter
Arkansas River Shiner
Leopard Darter
Leopard Darter
Global
Status
G3
G2
G2
G3
G3
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G2
G2G3
G2G3
G2G3
G3
G2
Gl
Gl
Federal
Status
C
LT
LT
C
C
LE
LT
LE
LT
LE
LT
LT
C
LT
LT
LT
LT
C
LT
LT
LT
HUC
Code
11060002
11060002
11060003
1 1060003
11060005
11070201
11070201
11070202
11070203
11070203
11070204
11070205
11070207
11070207
11070208
11070209
11110103
11110103
11110202
11140108
11140109
App. Al-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB 16070
AFC JB 16070
AFCJB13110
AFCHA02101
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28891
AFCNC02070
AFCNC02070
AFCNC02070
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28891
AFCNC02070
AFCJB28891
AFCJB28490
AFCNC02070
AFCJB 13080
AFCJB53020
AFCJB53020
AFCJB 13080
AFCJC11010
AFCJB35020
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Hybognathus Amarus
Hybognathus Amarus
Gila Nigrescens
Oncorhynchus Gilae
Gilae
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Simus
Pecosensis
Gambusia Nobilis
Gambusia Nobilis
Gambusia Nobilis
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Simus
Pecosensis
Gambusia Nobilis
Notropis Simus
Pecosensis
Notropis Girardi
Gambusia Nobilis
Gila Cypha
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Gila Cypha
Xyrauchen Texanus
Ptychocheilus Lucius
Common Name
Rio Grande Silvery
Minnow
Rio Grande Silvery
Minnow
Chihuahua Chub
Gila Trout
Arkansas River Shiner
Pecos Bluntnose Shiner
Pecos Gambusia
Pecos Gambusia
Pecos Gambusia
Arkansas River Shiner
Pecos Bluntnose Shiner
Pecos Gambusia
Pecos Bluntnose Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Pecos Gambusia
Humpback Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Sturgeon Chub
Humpback Chub
Razorback Sucker
Colorado Pikeminnow
Global
Status
G1G2
G1G2
Gl
G3T1
G2
G2T2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2T2
G2
G2T2
G2
G2
Gl
G2
G2
Gl
Gl
Gl
Federal
Status
LE
LE
LT
LE
LT
LT
LE
LE
LE
LT
LT
LE
LT
LT
LE
LE
C
C
LE
LE
(LE,XN)
HUC
Code
13020201
13020203
13030202
13030202
13060003
13060003
13060003
13060005
13060007
13060007
13060007
13060008
13060011
13060011
13060011
14040106
14040106
14040107
14070006
14070006
14080101
App. Al-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB13080
AFCJB 13080
AFCJB 13080
AFCJC11010
AFCJB33010
AFCJB13170
AFCJB20040
AFCJB20040
AFCJB20040
AFCJB20040
AFCJB20040
AFCJB 13080
AFCJB13100
AFCJC11010
AFCJB13100
AFCJC11010
AFCJB35020
AFCNB02061
AFCJC11010
AFCJB 13 100
AFCHA02101
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Gila Cypha
Gila Cypha
Gila Cypha
Xyrauchen Texanus
Plagopterus
Argentissimus
Gila Seminuda
Lepidomeda Vittata
Lepidomeda Vittata
Lepidomeda Vittata
Lepidomeda Vittata
Lepidomeda Vittata
Gila Cypha
Gila Elegans
Xyrauchen Texanus
Gila Elegans
Xyrauchen Texanus
Ptychocheilus Lucius
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Xyrauchen Texanus
Gila Elegans
Oncorhynchus Gilae
Gilae
Common Name
Humpback Chub
Humpback Chub
Humpback Chub
Razorback Sucker
Woundfin
Virgin River Chub
Little Colorado
Spinedace
Little Colorado
Spinedace
Little Colorado
Spinedace
Little Colorado
Spinedace
Little Colorado
Spinedace
Humpback Chub
Bonytail
Razorback Sucker
• Bonytail
Razorback Sucker
Colorado Pikeminnow
Desert Pupfish
Razorback Sucker
Bonytail
Gila Trout
Global
Status
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
G1G2
G1G2
G1G2
G1G2
G1G2
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
Gl
GUI
Gl
Gl
G3T1
Federal
Status
LE
LE
LE
LE
(LE.XN)
(PS:LE)
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
(LE,XN)
(LE)
LE
LE
LE
HUC
Code
15010001
15010002
15010003
15010005
15010010
15010010
15020001
15020002
15020005
15020008
15020010
15020016
15030101
15030101
15030104
15030104
15030107
15030203
15030204
15030204
15040001
App.Al-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB37140
AFCJB22010
AFCJB37140
AFCHA02101
AFCJB22010
AFCJB13160
AFCJB37140
AFCHA02101
AFCJC11010
AFCJB22010
AFCNB02061
AFCJB37140
AFC JB 13 160
AFCJC11010
AFCNB02061
AFCJB13160
AFCNB02061
AFCJB22010
AFCJB13160
AFCJB22010
AFCJB37140
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Rhinichthys Cobitis
Meda Fulgida
Rhinichthys Cobitis
Oncorhynchus Gilae
Gilae
Meda Fulgida
Gila Intermedia
Rhinichthys Cobitis
Oncorhynchus Gilae
Gilae
Xyrauchen Texanus
Meda Fulgida
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Rhinichthys Cobitis
Gila Intermedia
Xyrauchen Texanus
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Gila Intermedia
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Meda Fulgida
Gila Intermedia
Meda Fulgida
Rhinichthys Cobitis
Common Name
Loach Minnow
Spikedace
Loach Minnow
Gila Trout
Spikedace
Gila Chub
Loach Minnow
Gila Trout
Razorback Sucker
Spikedace
Desert Pupfish
Loach Minnow
Gila Chub
Razorback Sucker
Desert Pupfish
Gila Chub
Desert Pupfish
Spikedace
Gila Chub
Spikedace
Loach Minnow
Global
Status
G2
G2
G2
G3T1
G2
G2
G2
G3T1
Gl
G2
G1T1
G2
G2
Gl
G1T1
G2
G1T1
G2
G2
G2
G2
Federal
Status
LT
LT
LT
LE
LT
C
LT
LE
LE
LT
(LE)
LT
C
LE
(LE)
C
(LE)
LT
C
LT.
LT
HUC
Code
15040001
15040001
15040002
15040002
15040002
15040004
15040004
15040004
15040004
15040005
15040005
15040005
15040005
15040005
15040006
15040007
15050100
15050100
15050202
15050203
15050203
App. Al-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB13160
AFCNB02061
AFCJB13160
AFC JB 13 160
AFCJB37140
AFCJC11010
AFCJB13160
AFC JB 13 160
AFCNB02061
AFCJB13160
AFCJB22010
AFCJC11010
AFCJB13160
AFCJC11010
AFC JB 13 160
AFCNB02061
AFCJB13160
AFCNB02061
AFCJB13100
AFCNB02062
AFCJB 13090
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Gila Intermedia
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Gila Intermedia
Gila Intermedia
Rhinichthys Cobitis
Xyrauchen Texanus
Gila Intermedia
Gila Intermedia
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Gila Intermedia
Meda Fulgida
Xyrauchen Texanus
Gila Intermedia
Xyrauchen Texanus
Gila Intermedia
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Gila Intermedia
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
Gila Elegans
Cyprinodon Macularius
Eremus
Gila Ditaenia
Common Name
Gila Chub
Desert Pupfish
Gila Chub
Gila Chub
Loach Minnow
Razorback Sucker
Gila Chub
Gila Chub
Desert Pupfish
Gila Chub
Spikedace
Razorback Sucker
Gila Chub
Razorback Sucker
Gila Chub
Desert Pupfish
Gila Chub
Desert Pupfish
Bonytail
Quitobaquito Desert
Pupfish
Sonora Chub
Global
Status
G2
G1T1
G2
G2
G2
Gl
G2
G2
G1T1
G2
G2
Gl
G2
Gl
G2
G1T1
G2
G1T1
Gl
G1T1
G2
Federal
Status
C
(LE)
C
C
LT
LE
C
C
(LE)
C
LT
LE
C
LE
C
(LE)
C
(LE)
LE
(LE)
LT
HUC
Code
15050203
15050301
15050301
15050302
15060101
15060103
15060105
15060106
15060106
15060201
15060202
15060202
15060202
15060203
15060203
15070102
15070102
15070103
15070103
15080102
15080201
App. Al-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB13140
AFCJB13140
AFCJB49080
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Gila Purpurea
Gila Purpurea
Cyprinella Formosa
Common Name
Yaqui Chub
Yaqui Chub
Beautiful Shiner
Global
Status
Gl
Gl
G2
Federal
Status
LE
LE
LT
HUC
Code
15080301
15080302
15080302
(PS) 17010104
(PS) 17010105
(PS) 17010213
(PS) 17010214
17010215
17010216
AFCHA02089 Freshwater Oncorhynchus Clarki Paiute Cutthroat Trout G4T1T2 LT 16060010
Fishes Seleniris
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3 (PS) 17010101
Fishes
AFCAA01051 Freshwater Acipenser White Sturgeon - G4T1Q LE 17010104
Fishes Transmontanus Pop 1 Kootenai River
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3 (PS)
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3 (PS)
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3 (PS)
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater Salvelinus Confluentus Bull Trout G3
Fishes
(PS) 17010301
(PS) 17010303
(PS) 17010304
(PS) 17010304
(PS) 17010304
17010304
(PS) 17010304
(PS) 17010304
(PS) 17010304
App.Al-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCHA05020
AFCAA01050
AFCHA05020
AFC A AO 1050
AFCHA05020
AFCAA01050
AFCHA05020
AFCHA05020
AFCHA05020
AFCHA05020
AFCHA05020
AFCHA05020
AFCHA05020
AFCHA05020
AFCAA01050
AFCHA02050
AFC A AO 1050
AFCHA0209M
AFCHA05020
AFCHA0209M
AFCHA02050
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes'
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Salvelinus Confluentus
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Common Name
Bull Trout
White Sturgeon
Bull Trout
White Sturgeon
Bull Trout
White Sturgeon
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
White Sturgeon
Chinook Salmon or King
Salmon
White Sturgeon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Global
Status
G3
G4
G3
04
G3
G4
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3
G4
G5
G4
G5T2T3Q
G3
G5T2T3Q
G5
Federal
Status
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
LT
(PS)
LT
(PS)
HUC
Code
17010304
17040212
17040217
17050101
17050102
17050103
17050111
17050112
17050113
17050120
17050121
17050122
17050124
17050201
17050201
17060101
17060101
17060101
17060101
17060103
17060103
App. Al-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
Informal
ABI Identifier Taxon
AFCHA02042 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCAA01050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02042 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCAA01050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFC A AO 1050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02042 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Oncorhynchus Nerka
Popl
Salvelinus Confluentus
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Nerka
Popl
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Oncorhynchus Nerka
Popl
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Common Name
Sockeye Salmon - Snake
River
Bull Trout
White Sturgeon
Bull Trout
Sockeye Salmon - Snake
River
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
White Sturgeon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
White Sturgeon
Sockeye Salmon - Snake
River
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Global Federal
Status Status
G5T1Q LE
G3 (PS)
G4 (PS)
G3 (PS)
G5T1Q LE
G5 (PS)
G4 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G3 (PS)
G5T2T3Q 'LT
G3 (PS)
G5 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G3 (PS)
G5 (PS)
G4 (PS)
G5T1Q LE
G3 (PS)
G5 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G3 (PS)
HUC
Code
17060103
17060103
17060103
17060108
17060201
17060201
17060201
17060201
17060201
17060202
17060202
17060202
17060203
17060203
17060203
17060203
17060203
17060204
17060204
17060204
17060205
App. Al-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III -Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCHA02050
AFCHA0209M
AFCHA02050
AFCHA0209M
AFCHA05020
AFCHA02050
AFCHA02042
AFCHA05020
AFCHA0209M
AFCAA01050
AFCHA02050
AFCHA0209M
AFCHA05020
AFCHA0209M
AFCHA05020
AFC AAO 1050
AFCHA02050
AFCHA02042
AFCHA0209M
AFCHA05020
AFCHA02050
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Nerka
Popl
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Acipenser
Transmontanus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Nerka
Popl
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Common Name
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Sockeye Salmon - Snake
River
Bull Trout
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
White Sturgeon
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
White Sturgeon
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Sockeye Salmon - Snake
River
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Global
Status
G5
G5T2T3Q
G5
G5T2T3Q
G3
G5
G5T1Q
G3
G5T2T3Q
G4
G5
G5T2T3Q
G3
G5T2T3Q
G3
G4
G5
G5T1Q
G5T2T3Q
G3
G5
Federal
Status
(PS)
LT
(PS)
LT
(PS)
(PS)
LE
(PS)
LT
(PS)
(PS)
LT
(PS)
LT
(PS)
(PS)
(PS)
LE
LT
(PS)
(PS)
HUC
Code
17060205
17060205
17060206
17060206
17060206
17060207
17060207
17060207
17060207
17060207
17060208
17060208
17060208
17060209
17060209
17060209
17060209
17060209
17060210
17060210
17060210
App. A1-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
Informal
ABI Identifier Taxon
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA0209M Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA05020 Freshwater
Fishes
AFCHA02050 Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 13
Salvelinus Confluentus
Salvelinus Confluentus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha
Common Name
Bull Trout
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Bull Trout
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Bull Trout
Steelhead - Snake River
Basin
Bull Trout
Bull Trout
Chinook Salmon Or
King Salmon
Global Federal
Status Status
G3 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G5 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G5 (PS)
G3 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G3 (PS)
G5 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G3 (PS)
G5 (PS)
G3 (PS)
G5 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G5 (PS)
G3 (PS)
G5T2T3Q LT
G3 (PS)
G3 (PS)
G5 (PS)
HUC
Code
17060301
17060301
17060301
17060302
17060302
17060302
17060303
17060303
17060303
17060304
17060304
17060304
17060305
17060305
17060305
17060306
17060306
17060306
17060307
17060308
17060308
App. Al-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
Informal
Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
Global Federal HUC
Status Status Code
AFCHA0209M Freshwater Oncorhynchus Mykiss Steelhead - Snake River G5T2T3Q LT 17060308
Fishes Pop 13 Basin
AFCJB1303M
Freshwater
Fishes
Gila Bicolor Vaccaceps Cowhead Lake Tui Chub G4T1 PE
17120007
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18010101
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18010102
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE.PDL 18010108
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18010111
AFCJC03010
Freshwater
Fishes
Chasmistes Brevirostris Shortnose Sucker
Gl
LE
18010204
AFC JC12010
Freshwater
Fishes
Deltistes Luxatus
Lost River Sucker
Gl
LE
18010204
AFCJC12010
Freshwater
Fishes
Deltistes Luxatus
Lost River Sucker
Gl
LE
18010206
AFCJC03010
Freshwater
Fishes
Chasmistes Brevirostris Shortnose Sucker
Gl
LE 18010206
AFCJC02140
Freshwater
Fishes
Catostomus Microps Modoc Sucker
Gl
LE
18020002
AFCHA0205B
Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha Pop 7
Chinook Salmon - G5T1Q LE
Sacramento River Winter
Run
18020101
AFCHA0205B Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha Pop 7
Chinook Salmon - G5T1Q LE
Sacramento River Winter
Run
AFCHA0209B Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Whitei
Little Kem Golden Trout G5T2Q LT
18020102
AFCHA0205B
AFCJB34020
AFCJB34020
AFCJB34020
AFCHA0205B
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha Pop 7
Pogonichthys
Macrolepidotus
Pogonichthys
Macrolepidotus
Pogonichthys
Macrolepidotus
Oncorhynchus
Tshawytscha Pop 7
Chinook Salmon -
Sacramento River Winter
Run
Splittail
Splittail
Splittail
Chinook Salmon -
Sacramento River Winter
Run
G5T1Q
G2
G2
G2
G5T1Q
LE
LT
LT
LT
LE
18020103
18020104
18020106
18020109
18020112
18030001
App. A1-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
Informal
Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
Global Federal HUC
Status Status Code
AFCHA0209B
Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Whitei
Little Kern Golden Trout G5T2Q LT
18030006
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
AFCHA0209J
Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 10
AFCHA0209J
Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop JO
AFCHA0209J
Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 10
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
Tidewater Goby
Steelhead - Southern
California
Steelhead - Southern
California
Steelhead - Southern
California
Tidewater Goby
Tidewater Goby
Tidewater Goby
03
LE,PDL 18050005
G3
LE.PDL 18050006
G5T1T2Q LE
18050006
G5T1T2Q LE
18060001
G5T1T2Q LE
18060001
G3
LE,PDL 18060001
G3
LE,PDL 18060001
G3
LE,PDL 18060006
AFCHA0209J
Freshwater
Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss
Pop 10
Steelhead - Southern G5T1T2Q LE 18060006
California
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18060008
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18060009
AFCPA03011
Freshwater
Fishes
Gasterosteus Aculeatus
Williamsoni
Unarmored Threespine G5T1 LE 18060010
Stickleback
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18060011
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18060013
AFCPA03011
Freshwater
Fishes
Gasterosteus Aculeatus
Williamsoni
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Unarmored Threespine G5T1 LE 18060013
Stickleback
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE.PDL 18070101
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18070102
AFCJC02190
Freshwater
Fishes
Catostomus Santaanae Santa Ana Sucker
Gl
LT
18070102
AFCJC02190
Freshwater
Fishes
Catostomus Santaanae Santa Ana Sucker
Gl
LT
18070203
AFCQN04010
Freshwater
Fishes
Eucyclogobius
Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
G3
LE,PDL 18070301
App. A1-23
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCNB02090
AFCJB1303J
AFCHA02089
AFCNB02090
AFCJB1303J
AFCJB1303H
AFCJB1303H
AFCPA03011
AFCNB02060
AFCJC11010
AFCAA02010
AFCAA02010
AFCJB53020
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Cyprinodon Radiosus
Gila Bicolor Snyderi
Oncorhynchus Clarki
Seleniris
Cyprinodon Radiosus
Gila Bicolor Snyderi
Gila Bicolor Mohavensis
Gila Bicolor Mohavensis
Gasterosteus Aculeatus
Williamsoni
Cyprinodon Macularius
Xyrauchen Texanus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Common Name
Owens River Pupfish
Owens Tui Chub
Paiute Cutthroat Trout
Owens River Pupfish
Owens Tui Chub
Mohave Tui Chub
Mohave Tui Chub
Unarmored Threespine
Stickleback
Desert Pupfish
Razorback Sucker
Pallid Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
Sturgeon Chub
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Global
Status
Gl
G4T1
G4T1T2
Gl
G4T1
G4T1
G4T1
G5T1
Gl
Gl
G1G2
G1G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
Federal
Status
LE
LE
LT
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
LE
C
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
HUC
Code
18090102
18090102
18090102
18090103
18090103
18090207
18090208
18100200
18100200
18100200
07110000
10000000
10000000
11040001
11040006
11040008
11050001
11050002
11050003
11060004
11060006
App. A]-24
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for'Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
ABI Identifier
AFCJB28490
AFCKA02200
AFCLA01010
AFCLA01010
AFCLA01010
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCJB28490
AFCKA02200
AFCJB28490
Informal
Taxon
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Freshwater
Fishes
Scientific Name
Notropis Girardi
Noturus Placidus
Amblyopsis Rosae
Amblyopsis Rosae
Amblyopsis Rosae
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Notropis Girardi
Noturus Placidus
Notropis Girardi
Common Name
Arkansas River Shiner
Neosho Madtom
Ozark Cavefish
Ozark Cavefish
Ozark Cavefish
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Arkansas River Shiner
Neosho Madtom
Arkansas River Shiner
Global
Status
G2
G2
G2G3
G2G3
G2G3
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
Federal
Status
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
LT
HUC
Code
11070105
11070206
11070206
11070207
11070209
11090201
11090202
11090203
11090204
11100101
11100102
11100103
11100104
11100201
11100203
11100301
11100302
11100303
11110101
11110103
11110104
App. A1-25
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy
Informal
ABI Identifier Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
Global Federal HUC
Status Status Code
AFCJB28490 Freshwater Notropis Girardi
Fishes
Arkansas River Shiner G2
LT
11130210
AFCJB28490 Freshwater Notropis Girardi
Fishes
Arkansas River Shiner G2
LT
11130304
AFCJB28490 Freshwater Notropis Girardi
Fishes
Arkansas River Shiner G2
LT
11140107
AFCQC04210 Freshwater Percina Pantherina Leopard Darter
Fishes
Gl
LT
11140107
AFCQC04210 Freshwater Percina Pantherina Leopard Darter
Fishes
Gl
LT
11140108
AFCAA01010 Freshwater Acipenser Brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon
Fishes
G3
LE
02040202
AFCAAO1040 Freshwater Acipenser Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
Fishes
G3
(LT,C) 02040201
Source: NatureServe, 2002.
App. Al-26
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-2: Definitions of Abbreviations for Global Status
Abbreviation
Global Status
GX
GH
Gl
G2
G3
G4
G5
G#G#
GU
G?
HYB
Presumed Extinct (species) — Believed to be extinct throughout its range. Not located despite
intensive searches of historical sites and other appropriate habitat, and virtually no likelihood
that it will be rediscovered.
Possibly Extinct (species) — Known from only historical occurrences, but may nevertheless still
be extant; further searching needed.
Critically Imperiled — Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity or because of
some factor(s)making it especially vulnerable to extinction. Typically 5 or fewer occurrences or
very few remaining individuals (<1,000) or acres (<2,000) or linear miles (<10).
Imperiled — Imperiled globally because of rarity or because of some factor(s) making it very
vulnerable to extinction or elimination. Typically 6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining
individuals (1,000 to 3,000) or acres (2,000 to 10,000) or linear miles (10 to 50).
Vulnerable — Vulnerable globally either because very rare and local throughout its range, found
only in a restricted range (even if abundant at some locations), or because of other factors
making it vulnerable to extinction or elimination. Typically 21 to 100 occurrences or between
3,000 and 10,000 individuals.
Apparently Secure — Uncommon but not rare (although it may be rare in parts of its range,
particularly on the periphery), and usually widespread. Apparently not vulnerable in most of its
range, but possibly cause for long-term concern. Typically more than 100 occurrences and more
than 10,000 individuals.
Secure — Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range,
particularly on the periphery). Not vulnerable in most of its range. Typically with considerably
more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 individuals.
Range Rank — A numeric range rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to indicate uncertainty about the
exact status of a taxon. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., GU should be used rather
thanG!G4).
Unrankable — Currently unrankable due to lack of information or due to substantially
conflicting information about status or trends. NOTE: Whenever possible, the most likely rank
is assigned and the question mark qualifier is added (e.g., G2?) to express uncertainty, or a range
rank (e.g., G2G3) is used to delineate the limits (range) of uncertainty.
Unranked — Global rank not yet assessed.
Hybrid — (species elements only) Element not ranked because it represents an interspecific
hybrid and not a species. (Note, however, that hybrid-derived species are ranked as species, not
as hybrids.)
Inexact Numeric Rank — Denotes inexact numeric rank.
Questionable taxonomy that may reduce conservation priority. Distinctiveness of this entity as a
taxon at the current level is questionable; resolution of this uncertainty may result in change
from a species to a subspecies or hybrid, or inclusion of this taxon in another taxon, with the
resulting taxon having a lower-priority (numerically higher) conservation status rank.
Captive or Cultivated Only — Taxon at present is extant only in captivity or cultivation, or as a
reintroduced population not yet established.
Infraspecific Taxon (trinomial) — The status of infraspecific taxa (subspecies or varieties) are
indicated by a "T-rank" following the species' global rank. Rules for assigning T ranks follow
the same principles outlined above. For example, the global rank of a critically imperiled
subspecies of an otherwise widespread and common species would be G5T1. A T subrank
cannot imply the subspecies or variety is more abundant than the species (e.g., a G1T2 subrank
should not occur). A vertebrate animal population (e.g., listed under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act or assigned candidate status) may be tracked as an infraspecific taxon and given a T
rank; in such cases a Q is used after the T rank to denote the taxon's informal taxonomic status.
App. A1-27
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-3: Definitions of Abbreviations for Federal Status Listing
Abbreviation
Federal Status
LE
Listed endangered.
LT
Listed threatened.
PE
Proposed endangered.
PT
Proposed threatened.
Candidate.
PDL
Proposed for delisting.
E(S/A) or T(S/A) Listed endangered or threatened because of similarity of appearance.
XE
Essential experimental population.
XN
Experimental nonessential population.
Combination The taxon has one status currently, but a more recent proposal has been made to change that status
values with no final action yet published. For example, LE-PDL indicates that the species is currently
listed as endangered, but has been proposed for delisting.
Values hi The taxon itself is not named in the Federal Register as having federal status; however, it does
parentheses have federal status as a result of its taxonomic relationship to a named entity. For example, if a
species is federally listed with endangered status, then by default, all of its recognized subspecies
also have endangered status. The subspecies in this example would have the value "(LE)" under
U.S. Federal Status. Likewise, if all of a species' infraspecific taxa (worldwide) have the same
federal status, then that status appears in the record for the "full" species as well. In this case, if
the taxon at the species level is not mentioned in the Federal Register, the status appears in
parentheses in that record.
Combination The taxon itself is not named in the Federal Register as having official federal status; however, all
values in of its infraspecific taxa (worldwide) do have official status. The statuses shown in parentheses
parentheses indicate the statuses that apply to infraspecific taxa or populations within this taxon.
(PS) Indicates "partial status" - status in only a portion of the species' range. Typically indicated in a
"full" species record where an infraspecific taxon or population has federal status, but the entire
species does not.
Null value Usually indicates that the taxon does not have any federal status. However, because of potential
lag time between publication in the Federal Register and entry in the NHCD, some taxa may have
a status that does not yet appear.
App.Al-28
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part B: California
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter Bl
Chapter Bl: Background
Bl-l Facility Characteristics Bl-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the California study
region and summarizes their key cooling water and
compliance characteristics. For further discussion of
the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the Economic
Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development Document
for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a,b).
Bl-1 Facility Characteristics
The California Regional Study includes four sample facilities that are potentially subject to the proposed
standards for Phase HI existing facilities. All four facilities are manufacturing facilities. Industry-wide, these
four sample facilities represent eight manufacturing facilities.1 Figure Bl-1 presents a map of these facilities.
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that
did not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to
the Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000).
Bl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter Bl
Figure Bl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the California Regional Study
>
/
IT
t
t
V
^
*
*t
.4
:
Pacific
Ocean
__, ,. '"• 1,
,«•* "
;au
^-
^ -^.
y
r'"1*
V
f
Key
Potential Phase III Existing California Region
Facilities (Count) w/ Counties
3 Sectrlc Generating Facility (O) . NMFS Recreational Site
ttiU Manufacturing Facility (4)
*-
' -.
_
'' '„ '
^ '- - ^'
tf' -"—""__ \-y
•^ ' , ^
f ,— , /
-
'\
1 -) " ' J
*'"* i '""^'' — — .^ 1-
\*"\r^""-.. ;-- /' " ~- -.-.,,..''..
< ' >,
' ~v^
Hawaii
*Jli
O3QQQ
"---',• .
.,''
0 50 100 MilBS
"x^r':.-,/X^_-
"x.
.... ' • .v *^N \ """" — • -^_^._ ":»
' ' X:*""- ~~s~- r
v \ ~~"~"T^-~-_ /'
~ ~. a so 100 Miles
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Bl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter Bl
Table Bl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the California study region and for the three proposed regulatory options considered by EPA
for this proposal (the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability
thresholds would be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's
analyses.2 Therefore, a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Bl-1 shows that eight Phase III existing facilities in the California study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
three proposed options, only one facility would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing
facilities. Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option (which includes all facilities in the California study region), no facilities would be subject to
the national requirements. No facility in the California study region has a recirculating system in the baseline.
Data on design intake flow for the California study facilities have been withheld due to data confidentiality
reasons.
Table Bl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Phase III Existing Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (Sample- Weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in
Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish
H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost at 3%b
Compliance Cost at 7%b
All
Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
8
_
w"
1
3
4
S2.23
S2.24
Proposed Options
50 MGD
All
100 MGD
200 MGD All CWB
1
_ _ .
w"
w* w*
1
$0.85
$0.97
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
a Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
b Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2003$, millions)
Source: U.S. EPA, 2000; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
2 Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase HI
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
BI-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B2
Chapter B2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in California
Background: California Marine Fisheries
California marine fisheries are managed by the
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC),
which governs commercial and recreational
fisheries in Federal waters from 3 to 200 nautical
miles off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and
California (PFMC, 2003a). The National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northwest Fisheries
Science Center provides scientific and technical
support for management, conservation, and fisheries
development for Northern California. The NMFS
Southwest Fisheries Science Center provides
support for Southern California.
Chapter Contents
B2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated . .. B2-2
B2-2 I&E Data Evaluated B2-3
B2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1
Equivalents and Foregone Yield B2-4
B2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the California Region Under Three
Alternative Options B2-6
B2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses .... B2-7
There are 83 species of groundfish included under PFMC's Groundfish Fishery Management Plan, including
nearly 50 species of rockfish (Sebastes spp.) (Table 3 in NMFS, 2002a). The midwater trawl fishery for Pacific
whiting (Merluccius productus) dominates the commercial fishery, accounting for 78% of Pacific Coast landings
(NMFS, 1999a). Important deepwater trawl fisheries also exist for sablefish, Dover sole, and thomyheads. During
the 1990s a major fishery developed for nearshore species, including rockfishes, cabezon, and sheephead (Leet et
al., 2001). Rockfishes are important for both commercial and recreational fisheries (NMFS, 1999a). In 1994, a
limited entry program was implemented for the groundfish fishery because of concerns about overfishing
(NMFS, 1999a). Most major Pacific Coast groundfishes are now fully harvested, and catches have recently been
controlled by quotas and trip limits (PFMC, 2003c).
Pacific Coast pelagic species managed by the PFMC include Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack
mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax),
and California market squid (Loligo opalescens) (NMFS, 2002a). These species typically fluctuate widely in
abundance, and currently most stocks are low relative to historical levels (NMFS, 1999a). Pacific mackerel and
Pacific sardine are not overfished, but the stock size of the other species governed by the Coastal Pelagic FMP is
unknown (Table 3 in NMFS, 2002a). Because of increases in abundance in recent years, Pacific mackerel now
accounts for over half of recent landings of Pacific Coast pelagic species (NMFS, 1999a). At times, Pacific
sardine has been the most abundant fish species in the California current. When the population is large, it is
abundant from the tip of Baja California to southeastern Alaska (PFMC, 2003b).
Five species of anadromous Pacific salmon support coastal and freshwater commercial and recreational fisheries
along the Pacific Coast, including chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), sockeye (O. nerka),
pink (O. gorbuschd), and chum (O. ketd) salmon (NMFS, 1999a). The Sacramento River is a major producer of
chinook salmon in California. Since 1991, NMFS has listed 20 Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs)1 of Pacific
Coast salmon and steelhead trout (O. mykiss) under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (NMFS, 1999b).
1 An Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) is a term introduced by NMFS in 1991 to refer to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) interpretation of "distinct population segment." A stock must satisfy two criteria to be considered an
ESU: (1) "it must be substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units," and (2) "it must
represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the species."
B2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
In NMFS's Northern California region, listed species include steelhead, coho salmon, and chinook salmon of the
central California Coast and steelhead and chinook salmon of California's Central Valley.
Ocean fisheries for chinook and coho salmon are managed by the PFMC under the Pacific Coast Salmon FMP. In
Puget Sound and the Columbia River, chinook and coho fisheries are managed by the States and Tribal fishery
agencies. Declines in chinook and coho salmon along the coast have led to reductions and closures of ocean
fisheries in recent years (NMFS, 1999a).
The Pacific Salmon FMP contains no fishery management objectives for sockeye, chum, even-year pink, and
steelhead stocks because fishery impacts are considered inconsequential (Table 3 in NMFS, 2002a). Pink, chum,
and sockeye salmon are managed jointly by the Pacific Salmon Commission, Washington State, and Tribal
agencies (NMFS, 1999a).
Pacific Coast shellfish resources are important both commercially and recreationally (NMFS, 1999a). Shrimps,
crabs, abalones, and clams command high prices and contribute substantially to the value of Pacific Coast
fisheries, even though landings are small.
B2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table B2-1 provides a list of species/species groups in California that are impinged and entrained at cooling
water intake structures in scope of the proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities. The life history data
used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix Bl.
Table B2-1: Species/Species Groups
Evaluated by EPA that
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial
American shad
Anchovies
Blennies
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
Chinook salmon
Commercial sea basses
Commercial shrimp
Delta smelt
Drums and croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Forage shrimp
Gobies
Herrings
Longfm smelt
Northern anchovy
Other (commercial)
Other (commercial crabs)
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
are Subject
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
to I&E in California
Special Status'
X (FT, ST, FE, SE, FCT)
X(FT,ST)
X (SOC)
B2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
Table B2-1: Species/Species
Species/Species Group
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pacific herring
Recreational sea basses
Rockfishes
Sacramento splittail
Salmon
Sculpins
Silversides
Smelts
Steelhead
Striped bass
Suriperches
a FT = Federally listed as threatened.
ST = State listed as threatened.
FE = Federally listed as endangered.
SE = State listed as endangered.
FCT = Federal candidate for listing as
SOC = Species of concern.
Groups Evaluated by EPA that
Recreational Commercial
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
threatened.
are Subject to I&E in California
Forage Special Status*
X
X
X X (FT)
X
X X(FT)
B2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table B2-2 lists the facility impingement and entrainment (I&E) data evaluated by EPA to estimate I&E losses at
Phase ID facilities in California. None of the Phase III facilities in California have conducted I&E studies, so it
was necessary to estimate I&E rates at these facilities by extrapolation from Phase II facilities. See Chapter Al of
Part A for a discussion of extrapolation methods.
Table B2-2: Phase II Facility I&E Data Evaluated for
California Analysis
Facility Years of Data
Contra Costa 1978-1992
Diablo Canyon Nuclear 1985-1998
El Segundo 1990-2001
Encina 1979
Harbor 1979
Haynes 1979-2001
Humboldt Bay 1980
Hunter's Point 1978
B2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
Table B2-2: Phase II Facility I&E Data Evaluated for
California Analysis
Facility Years of Data
Huntington Beach 1979-2001
Mandalay 2001
Morro Bay 2000
Moss Landing 1979-1999
Ormond Beach 1979-2001
Pittsburg 1978-1992
Potrero 1978-2001
AES Redondo Beach 1979-2001
San Onofre Nuclear 1979-2001
Scattergood 1990-2002
B2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1
Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table B2-3 provides EPA's estimates of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at Phase HI facilities in California. Table B2-4 displays this information for
entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and the yield of
harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species. As discussed in Chapter Al of Part A of the section
316(b) Phase III Regional Benefits Assessment, the conversion of forage to yield contributes only a very small
fraction to total yield.
Table B2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
American shad
Anchovies
Blennies
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
Chinook salmon
Commercial sea bass
Commercial shrimp
Delta smelt
Drums and croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Age-1
Equivalents (#s)
<1
10,700
<1
4
<1
<1
<1
<1
139
5
9
47
425
Total Yield
(Ibs)
<1
17
na
6
2
<1
na
<1
<1
na
<1
22
41
B2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
Table B2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Forage shrimp
Gobies
Herrings
Longfin smelt
Other (commercial)
Other (commercial crabs)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Recreational sea basses
Rockfishes
Sacramento splittail
Salmon
Sculpins
Silversides
Smelts
Steelhead
Striped bass
Surfperches
Trophic transfer3
* Contribution of forage fish to yield
Age-1
Equivalents (#s)
5
164
2,000
58
<1
230
616
<1
5
<1
441
8
<1
730
3,120
313
<1
382
1,650
na
based on trophic transfer (see
Total Yield
(Ibs)
na
na
na
na
<1
<1
na
<1
1
<1
106
na
<1
29
na
8
na
333
107
28
Chapter A 1).
Table B2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
American shad
Anchovies
Blennies
Cabezon
California halibut
Chinook salmon
Commercial shrimp
Delta smelt
Drums and croakers
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
<1
496
21,400
4,950
5,780
<1
17,700
1
885
Total Yield
(Ibs)
<1
<1
na
8,410
21,700
na
<1
na
52
B2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B2
Table B2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in California Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Forage shrimp
Gobies
Herrings
Longfm smelt
Northern anchovy
Other (commercial)
Other (commercial crabs)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Pacific herring
Recreational sea basses
Rockfishes
Sacramento splittail
Sculpins
Silversides
Smelts
Striped bass
Trophic transfer5
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
709
66
79,900
12,500
19,000
<1
7
426
318,000
524,000
58
2,860
559
260,000
<1
16,300
22
11
1,010
na
Total Yield
(Ibs)
327
6
na
na
na
na
<1
84
64
na
12
na
138
62,700
na
647
na
<1
883
91
" Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
B2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the California Region Under Three
Alternative Options
Table B2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD
for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all other
options are presented in Appendix B2.
Table B2-5: Estimated
Option
50 MGD All Option
200 MGD All Option
100 MGD Option
Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-One Equivalents
(#s)
383,000
0
0
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
28,000
0
0
B2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B2
B2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables B2-3 and B2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was partitioned
between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table B2-6 presents the
percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
Table B2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and
Recreational Fisheries as a Result of Impingement and Entrainment at
Phase III Facilities
Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fishery*'b
American shad
Anchovies
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
Commercial sea basses
Commercial shrimp
Drums and croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Northern anchovy
Other (commercial)
Other (commercial crab)
Other (recreational)
Other (commercial and recreational)
Recreational sea basses
Rockfishes
Salmon
Sculpins
Smelts
Striped bass
Surfperches
Trophic transfer0
0.0%
0.0%
45.9%
85.6%
83.7%
0.0%
0.0%
69.1%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
54.0%
100.0%
23.6%
100.0%
85.0%
6.2%
100.0%
93.0%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery"'1'
100.0%
100.0%
54.1%
14.4%
16.3%
100.0%
100.0%
30.9%
100.0%
99.0%.
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
46.0%
0.0%
76.4%
0.0%
15.0%
93.8%
0.0%
7.0%
50.0%
'. Based on landings from 1993 to 2001.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html) and commercial landings
data from NMFS (2003a, http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html).
c Assumed equally likely to be caught by recreational or commercial fishermen. Commercial
value calculated as overall average for region based on data from NMFS (2003a).
52-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B2
See Chapter B3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter B4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for 1) the time to achieve compliance
once the rule goes into effect in 2007, and 2) the time it takes for fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B3
Chapter B3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
Chapter Contents
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the California region.
Section B3-1 details the estimated losses under
current, or baseline, conditions. Section B3-2
presents expected benefits under three alternative
options. Chapter A4 details the methods used in this
analysis. All results are for Northern California and Southern California combined.
B3-1
B3-2
Baseline Losses B3-1
Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative
Options B3-2
B3-1 Baseline Losses
Table B3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the California region. Table B3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $52,400 (undiscounted).
Table B3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due to
Impingement at Facilities in the California Region
Species'
Estimated Commercial Estimated Value of
Pounds of Value per Pound Harvest Lost (2003$)
Harvest Lost (2003$) Undiscounted
Cabezon
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Rockfishes
Sculpins
Smelts
Surfperches
Trophic transfer5
3
22
40
81
4
7
8
14
$3.78
$1.71
$0.39
$0.53
$2.61
$0.27
$1.64
$0.28
$13
$37
$16
$43
$11
$2
$12
$4
* Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
B3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Chapter B3
Table B3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due to
Entrainment at Facilities in the California Region
Species"
Cabezon
California halibut
Drums and croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Other (species are only
commercially fished, not
recreationally)
Other crabs (commercial)
Rockfishes
Sculpins
Trophic transfer11
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest
Lost
4,550
3,140
16
327
6
84
64
47,900
97
45
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2003$)
$3.78
$2.72
$1.03
$1.71
$0.39
$0.05
$1.18
$0.53
$2.61
$0.28
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2003S)
Undiscounted
$17,200
$8,540
$17
$561
$2
$4
$76
$25,600
$253
$13
a Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
B3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates that 0 to 40% of the gross revenue losses represent surplus losses to
producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of
$0. The 40% estimates, as presented in Tables B3-3, B3-4, and B3-5, total approximately $21,000
(undiscounted).
The expected reductions in impingement and entrainment (I&E) attributable to changes at facilities required by
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (50 MGD option) are 39% for impingement and 29% for entrainment,
for the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD option) are 0% for impingement and 0% for
entrainment, and for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option (100 MGD option) are also 0% for
impingement and 0% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are estimated by applying these estimated
reductions to the annual producer surplus loss. As presented in Tables B3-3, B3-4, and B3-5, this results in total
annualized benefits of up to approximately $5,300 for the 50 MGD option, and $0 for both the 200 MGD option
and the 100 MGD option, assuming a 3% discount rate.
B3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B3
Table B3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
50 MGD Option at Facilities in the California Region (2003$)"
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$141
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$56
39%
$0
Entrainment
$52,300
$0
$20,900
29%
$0
Total
$52,400
$0
$21,000
$0
$6,100
$5,300
$4,400
8 Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the
time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year
period. For a more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter
A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
Table B3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
200 MGD Option at Facilities in the California Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$141
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$56
0%
$0
Entrainment
$52,300
$0
$20,900
0%
$0
Total
$52,400
$0
$21,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the
time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year
period. For a more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter
A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
B3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Chapter B3
Table B3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
100 MGD Option at Facilities in the California Region (2003$)'
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost -
Producer surplus lost -
Undiscounted
low
high (gross revenue
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to
Benefits attributable to
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
rule - low
rule - high
$141
$0
*0.4)
$56
0%
$0
$52,300
$0
$20,900
0%
$0
$52,400
$0
$21,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
HI for a timeline of benefits.
B3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B4
Chapter B4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for the
California region. The chapter presents EPA's
estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual
recreational fishery losses from impingement
and entrainment (I&E) at potentially regulated
facilities in the California region and annual
reduction in these losses under the three
proposed regulatory options for Phase III
existing facilities:1
- the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option,
- the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
•• the " 100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare
gain to California anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E
and the expected benefits under the three
proposed options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of
reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a
benefit transfer methodology based on a meta-
analysis of the marginal value of catching
different species offish. This meta-analysis is
discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational
Fishing Benefits Methodology." To validate
these results, this chapter also presents the
results of a random utility model (RUM)
analysis for the California region. A detailed
discussion of the RUM analysis for the
California region can be found in Chapter B4 of
the final Phase II Regional Studies report (U.S.
EPA, 2004).
Chapter Contents
B4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis B4-2
B4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishery
Losses under the Proposed Regulation . B4-2
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses B4-3
B4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MOD for All Waterbodies" Option . .. B4-4
B4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option ... B4-5
B4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the " 100
MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option B4-5
B4-2 RUM Approach B4-5
B4-2.1 RUM Methodology: California Region B4-6
B4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of
Fishing Sites B4-6
B4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from
Reducing I&E B4-6
B4-2.1.3 Estimating Angler Participation ... B4-6
B4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from
Eliminating or Reducing I&E B4-7
B4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses B4-7
B4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option .. . B4-8
B4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option .. B4-10
B4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100
MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option B4-10
B4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM
Results B4-11
B4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty B4-11
B4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-
Analysis B4-11
B4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM
Approach B4-12
EPA considered a wide range of policy options
in developing this regulation. Results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for five
other options evaluated by EPA are presented in Appendix B4.
See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
B4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Chapter B4
B4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used the meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of 'unidentified' species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3 Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the California region.4
B4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses under the Proposed Regulation
Table B4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed options, in the California
region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 18.4 thousand fish per year. In
comparison, the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 5.4 thousand fish per year. The "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" options do not prevent any losses
in the California region. Of all the affected species, rockfish and sculpin have the highest losses in the baseline
and the highest prevented losses under the 50 MOD option.
2 The estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational
fish that would otherwise be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational fish is actually much higher.
3 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are
lost because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. However, since it is
difficult to predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
'unidentified' recreational species. Also included in the 'unidentified' group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
B4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B4
Table B4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities and
Reductions in Recreational Losses under the Proposed Regulatory Options in the California Region
Species'
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
50 MGD All
200 MGD All"
100 MGD CWBb
Striped bass
Total (small game)
California halibut
Flounders
Total (flatfish)
Cabezon
Croakers
Rockfish
Sculpin
Sea bass
Smelts
Surfperch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
140
140
953
1
954
600
105
11,692
4,332
101
1
432
17,264
78
18,436
44
44
277
0
278
175
31
3,404
1,279
29
0
168
5,086
24
5,452
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other
saltwater' group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer.
b No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD. Thus, no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" or "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table B4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the California region. The table presents
baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare gain from
eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the North
Atlantic region are 18.4 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to California anglers from
eliminating these losses is $95.2 thousand (2003$), with lower and upper bounds of $40.5 thousand and $224.4
thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from eliminating these losses is $89.6
thousand and $83.1 thousand, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under
baseline conditions are attributable to losses of species in the 'other saltwater' group, such as rockfish and sculpin.
B4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B4
Table B4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the California Region (2003S)
Annualized Benefits from
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
*-.*« » f
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)c
Total (evaluated at 7%)c
(cnousanas 01
fish)"
140
954
17.3
0.1
18.4
18.4
18.4
Value per Fishb
Low
$6.08
$6.65
$1.92
$2.20
Mean
$12.57
$15.61
$4.52
$5.16
High
$26.06
$36.54
$10.71
$12.17
Eliminating Recreational Fishing
Losses
(thousands)0'*1
Low
$0.9
$6.3
$33.2
$0.2
$40.5
$38.2
$35.4
Mean
$1.8
$14.9
$78.1
$0.4
$95.2
$89.6
$83.1
High
$3.6
$34.9
$185.0
$0.9
$224.4
$211.3
$195.9
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating
recreational losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of
the discounting and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table B4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the California region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 5.4 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $28.0 thousand (2003$), with lower and upper
bounds of $11.9 thousand and $66.1 thousand. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from
this reduction in recreational losses is $24.2 thousand and $20.0 thousand, respectively. The majority of benefits
result from reduced losses of species in the 'other saltwater' group, such as rockfish and sculpin.
B4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B4
Table B4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the California Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)c
Total (evaluated at 7%)c
Annual Reduction in
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(thousands of fish)*
0.0e
0.3
5.1
0.0C
5.4
5.4
5.4
Value per Fishb
Low
$6.08
$6.65
$1.92
$2.20
Mean
$12.57
$15.61
$4.52
$5.16
High
$26.06
$36.54
$10.71
$12.17
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'"
Low
$0.3
$1.8
$9.8
$0.1
$11.9
$10.3
$8.5
Mean
$0.6
$4.3
$23.0
$0.1
$28.0
$24.2
$20.0
High
$1.2
$10.1
$54.5
$0.3
$66.1
$57.0
$47.1
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for AH Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 200 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. Thus, no recreational
benefits are expected under this option in the California region.
B4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Thus, no
recreational benefits are expected under this option in the California region.
B4-2 RUM Approach
To validate the results of the benefit transfer approach, EPA applied the RUM model presented in Chapter F4 of
the Regional Studies for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004) to the
baseline losses and reductions in losses at potentially regulated Phase III existing facilities. This section presents
the results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis for the California region based on the Phase II RUM
approach.
B4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Chapter B4
B4-2.1 RUM Methodology: California Region
EPA's methodology for evaluating the change in welfare resulting from a change in recreational losses from I&E
consists of four basic steps: (1) calculating the change in historical catch rates under a given policy scenario, (2)
estimating the per-trip welfare gain to anglers based on the Phase II RUM model, (3) estimating the number of
fishing trips taken by anglers, and (4) combining fishing participation data with the estimated per-trip welfare gain
to calculate the total annual welfare gain. These steps are briefly described in the following sections. For a more
detailed discussion of the RUM methodology, see Chapters All and F4 of the Regional Studies for the Final
Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004).
B4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
The first step in EPA's analysis was to combine estimates of recreational I&E losses at potentially regulated
facilities with state-level recreational fishery landings data to estimate the percentage change in historical catch
rates under each policy option. Because most species considered in this analysis (e.g., rockfish, sculpin) are
found throughout California waters, EPA divided the state into two subregions (Northern California and Southern
California) and made the assumption that changes in I&E will result in uniform changes in catch rates across all
marine fishing sites in each subregion. Thus, EPA used five-year National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
recreational landings data (1996 through 2000) for state waters to calculate the average statewide landings per
year for all species groups, in Northern and Southern California.5 EPA then divided baseline recreational I&E
losses by total recreational landings for each subregion to calculate the percentage change in historical catch rates
from completely eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E. Similarly, the Agency also estimated the
percentage changes to historic catch rates that would result under each policy option.
B4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from Reducing I&E
EPA's second step was to use the recreational behavior model described in Chapter F4 of the Phase II Regional
Studies document to estimate an angler's per-trip welfare gain from changes in the historical catch rates in the
California region. The Agency estimated welfare gains to recreational anglers under four scenarios: eliminating
baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E at potentially regulated facilities, and reducing recreational fishing
losses from I&E by implementing the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All
Waterbodies" option, or the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. EPA assumed that the welfare gain per
fishing trip is independent of the number of days fished per trip and therefore equivalent for both single- and
multiple-day trips. Thus, a multiple-day trip is valued the same as a single-day trip.6 EPA estimated separate
per-day welfare gains for different categories of anglers, based on their target species and fishing mode.7
B4-2.1.3 Estimating Angler Participation
The third step in EPA's analysis was to estimate baseline and post-regulatory fishing participation, measured by
the total number of fishing trips taken by Northern and Southern California anglers.8 Because the policy options
for Phase III facilities are expected to result in relatively small improvements in fishing quality, EPA assumed that
increases in recreational fishing participation under the policy options will be negligible. Thus, to estimate both
baseline and post-regulatory participation, EPA used the total number of fishing trips taken by Northern and
Southern California anglers in 2002. The total number of trips to the California fishing sites was calculated from
data provided by NMFS. To estimate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken by no-target anglers and
5 State waters include sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers, bay, estuaries, and other areas of salt or brackish
water, plus ocean waters to three nautical miles from shore (NMFS, 2003a).
6 See section B4-4.1 of Chapter B4 of the 316(b) Phase II document for limitations and uncertainties associated
with this assumption.
7 EPA used the per-day values for private/rental boat anglers to estimate welfare gains for charter boat anglers.
8 See Chapter B4 of the section 316(b) Phase II Case Study document for a detailed description of the angler
participation estimates in California.
B4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B4
by anglers targeting each species of concern, EPA used the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
(MRFSS) sample. The Agency then applied those percentages to the total number of fishing trips taken by
California anglers to calculate the number of anglers.
B4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing I&E
The final step in EPA's analysis was to calculate the total benefits of the policy options. To calculate total
benefits for each subcategory of anglers targeting a particular species with a particular fishing mode, EPA
multiplied the per-trip welfare gain for an angler with that particular species/fishing mode combination by the
total number of fishing trips taken by all anglers with that species/fishing mode combination. EPA then summed
benefits for all subcategories of anglers in Northern and Southern California to calculate the total undiscounted
welfare change in the California region. Finally, as discussed in Chapter A8, EPA discounted and annualized the
benefits estimates, using both 3% and 7% discount rates.
B4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table B4-4 presents the baseline level of recreational landings and the estimated change in catch rates that would
result from eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E at potentially regulated facilities in Southern and
Northern California. In Northern California, catch rates for the 'other fish' species group would increase the most
from eliminating I&E (0.69%). In Southern California, the estimated changes in catch rates are very small (less
than 0.13%) for all species groups.
Table B4-4: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially
Regulated Phase III Facilities in the California Region
Northern California
Species
Group
Bottomfish
Flounders
Striped basse
Sea bassf
Other fish
No target
Annual
Recreational
Landings
(thousands of
fish)"
3,248.4
238.4
220.3
n/a
691.4
6,091.5*
Baseline
Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of
fish)"
12.0
0.0C
0.1
n/a
4.7
16.9
Percent
Increase in
Recreational
Catch from
Eliminating
I&E
0.37%
0.00%d
0.06%
n/a
0.69%
0.28%
Southern California
Annual
Recreational
Landings
(thousands of
fish)'
2,089.3
730.8
n/a
3,298.5
1,461.8
11, 598. 18
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of
fish)"
0.2
1.0
n/a
0.1
0.2
1.5
Percent
Increase in
Recreational
Catch from
Eliminating
I&E
0.01%
0.13%
n/a
0.00%d
0.01%
0.01%
a Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1996-2000) for state waters.
b Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species groups in the
same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
d Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
e Striped bass are not commonly caught by recreational anglers in the Southern California region.
r Sea bass are not commonly caught by recreational anglers in the Northern California region.
8 Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table B4-5 presents the per-trip welfare gain for boat and shore anglers targeting different species, the number of
fishing trips taken by anglers targeting those species, and the total annual welfare gain from eliminating baseline
B4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Chapter B4
I&E at potentially regulated facilities, for Northern and Southern California. The table shows that the annual
undiscounted benefits of eliminating baseline losses in Northern California, $33.4 thousand (2003$), are greater
than the annual benefits of eliminating baseline losses in Southern California, $16.6 thousand, primarily because
the per-trip welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E is much larger in Northern California than in Southern
California. The table shows that the largest share of benefits in the California region are attributable to anglers
targeting bottomfish in the northern part of the state. The next largest share of the welfare gain is attributable to
anglers targeting flounders (primarily halibut) in Southern California. The total undiscounted value of eliminating
baseline recreational losses in California is $50.0 thousand, and the annualized value of those losses is $47.1
thousand and $43.7 thousand, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively.
Table B4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the California Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Welfare Gain N
Species Group Boat Anglers Shore Anglers (tl
Flounders
Striped bass
Bottomfish
Other fish
No target
Total, All Specie?
Flounders
Sea bass
Bottomfish
Other fish
No target
Total, All Specie?
Total, California Region (undiscounted)
Total, California Region (evaluated at 3%)
Total, California Region (evaluated at 7%)
Northern California
$o.ooc
$0.01
$0.08
$0.00C
$o.ooc
n/a
Southern California
$0.04
$0.00C
$0.00C
$0.00C
$o.ooc
n/a
$o.ooc
$0.01
$0.02
$0.11
$0.01
n/a
$0.01
$o.ooc
$o.ooc
$o.ooc
$o.ooc
n/a
umber of Annualized Total
ihing Trips Benefits
lousands)' (thousands)11
126.5
259.6
474.3
45.4
652.7
2,071.9
459.4
359.5
310.9
27.8
1,773.2
3,722.9
5,794.9
5,794.9
5,794.9
$0.1
$1.6
$23.7
$3.5
$4.4
$33.4
$15.6
$0.0d
$0.3
$0.0"
$0.6
$16.6
S50.0
$47.1
$43.7
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed because the total includes fishing
trips for the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
d Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table B4-6 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In Northern California, catch rates for the 'other fish' species group
B4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B4
would increase the most under this option, by 0.20%. In Southern California, the estimated changes in catch rates
are very small (less than 0.04%) for all species groups.
Table B4-6: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E under the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" Option in the California Region
Northern California
Species
Group
Bottornfish
Flounders
Striped basse
Sea bassf
Other fish
No target
Annual
Recreational
Landings
(thousands
offish)1
3,248.4
238.4
220.3
n/a
691.4
6,092.5s
Annual
Reduction in
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of
fish)"
3.5
0.0C
0.0C
n/a
1.4
5.0
Percent
Increase in
Recreational
Catch from
Reducing I&E
0.11%
0.00%"
0.02%
n/a
0.20%
0.08%
Southern California
Annual
Recreational
Landings
(thousands of
fish)"
2,089.3
7.3
n/a
3,298.5
1,461.8
ll,598.1g
Annual
Reduction in
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of
fish)"
0.1
0.3
n/a
0.0C
0.1
0.4
Percent
Increase in
Recreational
Catch from
Reducing I&E
0.00%d
0.04%
n/a
0.00%d
0.00%d
0.00%d
' Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1996-2000) for state waters.
b Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
d Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
e Striped bass are not commonly caught by recreational anglers in the Southern California region.
f Sea bass are not commonly caught by recreational anglers in the Northern California region.
8 Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table B4-7 presents the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for Northern and
Southern California, by species and fishing mode. The table shows that the annual undiscounted benefits of this
option are $9.9 thousand (2003$) in Northern California and $4.9 thousand in Southern California. Benefits are
larger in Northern California primarily because the per-trip welfare gain under this option is much larger in
Northern California than in Southern California. The table shows that the largest share of benefits in the
California region are attributable to anglers targeting bottomfish in the northern part of the state. The next largest
share of the welfare gain is attributable to anglers targeting flounders (primarily halibut) in Southern California.
Total undiscounted benefits in California are $14.7 thousand, and the annualized value of those benefits is $12.7
thousand and $10.5 thousand, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively.
B4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Chapter B4
Table B4-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the California
Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Welfare Gain Numl
Species Group Boat Anglers
Flounders
Striped bass
Bottomfish
Other fish
No target
Total, All Specie?
Flounders
Sea bass
Bottomfish
Other fish
No target
Total, All Specie?
Total, California Region (undiscounted)
Total, California Region (evaluated at 3%)
Total, California Region (evaluated at 7%)
Northern
so.ooc
$0.00°
$0.02
$0.00C
$o.ooc
n/a
Southern
$0.01
$0.00°
$o.ooc
$o.ooc
$0.00°
n/a
Shore Anglers (tl
California
$o.ooc
$0.00°
$o.ooc
$0.03
$o.ooc
n/a
California
$o.ooc
$o.ooc
$0.00°
$o.ooc
$0.00°
n/a
ber of Fishing Annualized Total
Trips Benefits
lousands)" (thousands)1*
126.5
259.6
474.3
45.4
652.7
2,071.9
459.4
359.5
310.9
27.8
1,773.2
5,722.9
5,794.9
5,794.9
5,794.9
$0.0d
$0.5
$7.0
$1.0
$1.3
$9.9
$4.5
$0.0d
$0.1
$0.0"
$0.2
S4.9
$14.7
$12.7
$10.5
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed because the total includes fishing
trips for the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
d Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 200 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. Thus, no recreational
benefits are expected under this option in this region.
B4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD, so no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Thus, no
recreational benefits are expected under this option in this region.
B4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B4
B4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
Table B4-8 compares the undiscounted results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis with the results
of the RUM analysis. In general, the RUM-based results fall within the lower end of the range of values
estimated based on the meta-model. Nonetheless, the magnitudes of the two sets of estimates are similar,
corroborating the use of meta-analysis in estimating the value of incremental recreational fishing improvements
from the proposed options for the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III existing facilities.
Table B4-8: Recreational Fishing Benefits in the California Region Calculated from Meta-Analysis Approach
and RUM Approach
Policy Option
Estimated
Reduction in —
Recreational
Fishing Losses
from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing
(thousands, 2003$)
Based on Meta-Analysis
Low Mean High
Benefits
Based on
RUM
Eliminating
baseline
recreational fishing
losses from I&E
18.4
$40.5
$95.2
$224.4
$50.0
50 MGD All
200 MGD All2
100 MGD CWBa
5.4
0.0
0.0
$11.9
$0.0
$0.0
$28.0
$0.0
$0.0
$66.1
$0.0
$0.0
$14.7
$0.0
$0.0
* No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD. Thus, no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" or the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
B4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-Analysis
The results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis results represent EPA's best estimate of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties
inherent in these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use
of the model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e
and section A5-5.3 of the recreational methodology chapter (A5). In addition to these general concerns about the
analysis, there are one or two limitations and uncertainties that are specific to the California region.
The main limitation of applying the meta-analysis to the California region is that California is a large state with
varied recreational fishing resources. The species that are targeted in the northern and southern parts of the state
are somewhat different, and assigning a single value to each species based on an average for California may
introduce some error into the resulting benefit estimates.
B4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Chapter B4
B4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM Approach
The results of the benefit transfer based on the RUM analysis results confirm that EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options are reasonable. However, there are a number of limitations and
uncertainties inherent in these estimates. Some general limitations pertaining to the RUM model are discussed in
Chapter All of the Regional Benefits Assessment for Phase II facilities. Some additional region-specific
limitations are discussed in Chapter B4 of the Phase II document.
Although the estimated total welfare gain to the California recreational anglers based on the regional RUM model
is likely to be accurate, the estimated average per-trip welfare gain presented in Tables B4-5 and B4-7 must be
used and understood in the context of the regional model developed by EPA for the Phase II analysis. The
regional RUM model assumes uniform changes in catch rates at all sites across the region. Given that there are
only eight potentially regulated facilities in the California region, and given that the total intake flow associated
with these facilities is relatively small, catch rate improvements are more likely to occur locally rather than
regionally. These local improvements in catch rates and the associated average per-trip welfare gain are likely to
be greater than those presented in Tables B4-4 through B4-7. However, the number of anglers benefitting from
these improvements would be smaller, so the resulting aggregate benefits are likely to be similar.
B4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Phase III Proposed Rule - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B5
Chapter B5: Threatened and Endangered
Species Analysis
Chapter Contents
B5-1
B5-2
Introduction
This chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual losses of special status species
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the California
region and annual reduction in these losses under the
three proposed regulatory options for Phase III
existing facilities:1'2
•> the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and
•• the " 100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option.
The analysis focuses on four special status species
affected by I&E: delta smelt, longfin smelt,
Sacramento splittail, and chinook salmon. This chapter also presents the benefit transfer approach explored by
EPA to estimate public willingness-to-pay (WTP) for protection of special status fish species from I&E in
California.
Estimated Reductions in Losses of Special
Status Species in the California Region under
the Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation for
Phase III Facilities B5-1
An Exploration of Benefit Transfer to Estimate
Non-use Benefits of Reduced Impingement and
Entrainment of Special Status Species in the
California Region B5-2
B5-1 Estimated Reductions in Losses of Special Status Species in the California Region
under the Proposed Section 316 (b) Regulation for Phase III Facilities
Table B5-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual I&E losses of special status species at
potentially regulated Phase III facilities and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed options
in the California region. The table shows that total baseline losses of special status species are 73 fish per year,
79.5% of which are longfin smelt. In comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of
28 fish per year. The "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
options do not prevent any losses of special status species in the California region because no facilities located in
the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD.
1 See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
2 "Special status species" is a term used to refer to species that have been listed as "threatened and endangered"
(T&E) or that have been given a special status designation at the State or federal level.
B5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Phase III Proposed Rule - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Chapter B5
Table B5-1: I&E Losses of Special Status Species in the California Region
Annual Reductions, in Losses of Special
Baseline Losses of Special Status Species
Status Species
Special Status Fish Species
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
Sacramento splittail
Chinook salmon (all runs)
Total
Age-1
Equivalents
6
58
8
1
73
% of Total I&E Loss of
Special Status Species
8.2%
79.5%
11.0%
1.3%
100.0%
50 MGD All
2
23
3
0
28
200 MGD
All'
0
0
0
0
0
100 MGD
CWB"
0
0
0
0
0
" No facilities located in the California region have design intake flows greater than 100 MGD. Thus, no facilities
would have technology requirements under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" or "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B5-2 An Exploration of Benefit Transfer to Estimate Non-use Benefits of Reduced
Impingement and Entrainment of Special Status Species in the California Region
Case-specific estimates of non-use values for the protection of special status species can only be derived by
primary research using stated preference techniques (e.g., the contingent valuation method). However, the cost,
administrative burden, and time required to develop primary research estimates is beyond the schedule and
resources available to EPA for the section 316(b) rulemaking. As an alternative, EPA explored a benefit transfer
approach that relies on information from existing studies. Boyle and Bergsrrom (1992) define benefit transfer as
"the transfer of existing estimates of nonmarket values to a new study which is different from the study for which
the values were originally estimated."
There are three commonly-used types of benefit transfer studies: point estimate, benefit function, and meta-
analysis techniques (U.S. EPA, 2000). The point estimate approach involves taking the mean value (or range of
values) from the study case and applying it directly to the policy case (U.S. EPA, 2000). This approach may be
used to transfer estimates of values for preserving certain endangered species in one region to another region or to
another species. A conceptually preferred benefit transfer approach is to use the benefit function transfer
approach, which is more refined but also more complex than the point estimate approach. If the study case
provides a WTP function, valuation estimates can be updated by substituting applicable values of key variables,
such as baseline risk and population characteristics (e.g., mean or median income, racial or age distribution) from
the policy case into the benefit function (U.S. EPA, 2000). The meta-analysis technique involves two steps: (1)
regressing WTP values from a large number of studies on variables representing study methodology, population,
and species characteristics, and (2) estimating WTP for the policy case by evaluating the regression equation
using input values that describe the policy case. In many cases, this technique can provide superior results to
either the point estimate or the benefit function transfer techniques. However, because the academic literature
contains few studies valuing endangered aquatic species, EPA did not consider implementing the meta-analysis
technique for the T&E analysis for the 316(b) rule.
Ideally, the point estimate approach would be implemented using transfer studies that value special status species
that are identical to the species affected in the California region. EPA, however, was unable to identify any such
studies. Thus, the Agency selected benefit transfer studies that valued aquatic species that have attributes similar
to those of the affected species. One of the most important attributes to consider is whether the affected species
have any use values. Table B5-2 presents the types of values associated with special status species lost to I&E in
B5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Phase III Proposed Rule - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Chapter B5
the California region. The table shows that the majority I&E losses of special status species (98.7%) are
associated with forage species that do not have direct use values.
Table B5-2: Type of Value Associated with Special Status Species Lost to
I&E in the California Region
Special Status Fish Species Type of Value
Delta smelt Non-use
Longfin smelt Non-use
Sacramento splittail Non-use
Chinook salmon (all runs) Use and non-use
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Only one of the four special status species, chinook salmon, has high direct use values. The remaining three
species — delta smelt, longfin smelt, and Sacramento splittail — have primarily non-use values. There are no
known recreational or consumptive uses for the delta smelt. Longfin smelt is occasionally targeted by anglers,
and it has been sold seasonally at fish markets, but neither use appears to be widespread. Before it was listed as a
threatened species, Sacramento splittail was used as bait by striped bass anglers, but not to a large extent (Federal
Register, 1999). Given that I&E losses of chinook salmon represent only 1.3 percent of total I&E losses of
special status species in California, EPA focused on identifying economic studies valuing preservation of obscure
forage species that could be used in a benefit transfer analysis of the three species with primarily non-use values.
The Agency identified two studies that value special status species with characteristics that closely match
characteristics of the species affected by I&E in California. Boyle and Bishop (1987) found that citizens of
Wisconsin are willing to pay $7.68 (2003$) per household per year to preserve the striped shiner, a small minnow
native to the Milwaukee River that is listed as endangered by the State of Wisconsin (although not federally listed
as a threatened or endangered species).3 A different study by Berrens et al. (1996) found that preservation of the
endangered silvery minnow in New Mexico would be worth an average of $8.50 (2003$) per household per year.4
EPA considered using benefit function transfer in combination with the results of these two studies to estimate
WTP to prevent I&E losses of special status species in the California region. However, neither the Boyle and
Bishop (1987) nor the Berrens et al. (1996) study contained sufficient relevant information to apply this
technique. Boyle and Bishop did not estimate a function that could be transferred to other regions. They obtained
WTP values by asking citizens if they would accept or reject fixed membership fees to join a foundation that
would conduct the necessary activities to preserve the species in question. However, since the study reported
estimated results but not a regression function, it cannot be used to support the benefit function transfer approach.
The Berrens et al. study also does not lend itself to benefit function transfer.
3 The original WTP amount, $4.00 (1984$), was converted to 2003$ using the consumer price index (CPI) (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004).
4 Berrens et al. (1996) estimated that New Mexico residents would be willing to pay $28 (1995$) per household
each year for five years. To make this payment stream comparable with the annual payment estimated by Boyle and
Bishop (1987), EPA converted the five annual payments to an equivalent annual payment over a 25 year time frame.
EPA chose the 25 year period as a reasonable proxy for the longer-term indefinite period implied by the other studies
because typical median-aged household heads probably would not envision paying appreciable taxes or contributions
after 25 or 30 years (i.e., past age 70). After re-annualizing over the longer time frame using a 3% discount rate, and
then converting from 1995$ to 2003$ using the CPI, EPA estimated that New Mexico residents would be willing to
pay $8.50 (2003$) per household per year to preserve the endangered silvery minnow.
B5-3
-------
Section 316(b) Phase III Proposed Rule - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Chapter B5
EPA also considered using a point estimate benefit transfer approach to derive a range of WTP values from these
two studies. By applying a range of per-household WTP values for protecting the striped shiner and silvery
minnow to the 2000 population of California, it would be possible to estimate the social benefits of preventing
extinction of the delta smelt and other federally listed special status fish species in California. However, because
I&E is only one of several factors that affect populations of delta smelt, longfin smelt, Sacramento splittail, and
chinook salmon, the social benefit achieved by preventing I&E losses is lower than the benefit of reducing the
risk of species extinction to zero. One reasonable assumption would be to assume that the fraction of per-
household WTP for species preservation programs that is attributable to preventing I&E losses is directly
proportional to the percent of the current populations of special status species lost to baseline I&E. Since less
than 1% of the estimated current populations of special status species in the California region are lost to I&E each
year, the per-household WTP for I&E reductions would be less than 1% of per-household WTP to prevent
extinction.
EPA notes that although the Agency explored this approach, benefits based on this method were not included in
the Phase III benefits estimates due to data uncertainties and limitations. However, EPA also notes the
encouraging point that the valuation results are highly consistent across the relevant T&E studies available in the
literature. As more studies become available, it may be possible to obtain insights into the effects of different
variables (e.g., population and resource characteristics) and to develop welfare estimates that may be adjusted for
the attributes of the policy or region under consideration. Researchers and policy makers have placed increasing
focus on using meta-analysis and similar empirical approaches to improve the performance of benefit transfer in
policy analysis.
B5-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Appendix Bl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E
in the California Region
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents
and fishery yields from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the California region. Because of
differences in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life
stage sequence was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for
this purpose and are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Anchovies 1,
Anchovies 2).
Table Bl-1: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age8-f
Sources: USFWS,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
3.01
7.40
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.540
1.02
1.50
1.50
1.50
1978; Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
1998; and PSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
App. Bl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-2: Anchovies Life History Parameters 1'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
7.99
2.12
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
* Includes northern anchovy, deepbody anchovy, slough anchovy and other anchovies
species.
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981b; Wang, 1986; PFMC, 1998; Virginia Tech,
Environmental Services, 2000a; and Froese andPauly, 2002.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000151
0.0132
0.0408
0.0529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
not identified to
1998; Tenera
Table Bl-3: Anchovies Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 3 mm
Larvae 4 mm
Larvae 5 mm
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 14 mm
Larvae 15 mm
Larvae 16 mm
Larvae 17 mm
Larvae 18mm
Larvae 1 9 mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 21 mm
Larvae 22 mm
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters 2*
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000151
0.00000173
0.00000334
0.00000572
0.00000901
0.0000134
0.0000189
0.0000258
0.0000342
0.0000442
0.0000559
0.0000696
0.0000853
0.000103
0.000123
0.000146
0.000171
0.000199
0.000230
0.000264
App. Bl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-3: Anchovies Life History Parameters 2"
Stage Name
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 24 mm
Larvae 25 mm
Larvae 26 mm
Larvae 27 mm
Larvae 28 mm
Larvae 29 mm
Larvae 30 mm
Larvae 31 mm
Larvae 32 mm
Larvae 33 mm
Larvae 34 mm
Larvae 35 mm
Larvae 36 mm
Larvae 37 mm
Larvae 38 mm
Larvae 39 mm
Larvae 40 mm
Larvae 41 mm
Larvae 59 mm
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
0.172
1.249
0.208
2.12
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
a Includes northern anchovy.
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc., 1980b, 198 Ib; Wang, 1986;
Services, 2000a; and Froese and Pauly, 2002.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000301
0.000341
0.000385
0.000432
0.000483
0.000538
0.000597
0.000659
0.000726
0.000798
0.000873
0.000954
0.00104
0.00113
0.00122
0.00132
0.00143
0.00154
0.00166
0.00485
0.0132
0.0408
0.0529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
PFMC, 1998; Tenera Environmental
Table Bl-4: Anchovies Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
0.104
0.207
0.104
0.104
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters 3"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000572
0.00000901
0.0000189
0.0000258
App. Bl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-4: Anchovies Life History Parameters 3*
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 14 mm
Larvae 15 mm
Larvae 17 mm
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 2 1 mm
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 26 mm
Larvae 28 mm
Larvae 29 mm
Larvae 30 mm
Larvae 3 1 mm
Larvae 32 mm
Larvae 38 mm
Larvae 57 mm
Larvae 62 mm
Larvae 64 mm
Larvae 65 mm
Larvae 66 mm
Larvae 67 mm
Larvae 70 mm
Larvae 75 mm
Larvae 8 1 mm
Larvae 82 mm
Juvenile
AgeR
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.207
0.207
0.104
0.104
0.207
0.311
0.207
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.622
1.97
0.519
0.207
0.104
0.104
0.104
0.311
0.519
0.622
0.104
0.104
2.12
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•• o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
a Includes northern anchovy.
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc., 1980b, 1981b, 1982a; Wang,
Environmental Services, 2000a; andFroese andPauly, 2002.
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1986; PFMC,
0.0000342
0.0000442
0.0000559
0.0000696
0.0000853
0.000123
0.000171
0.000199
0.000230
0.000301
0.000432
0.000538
0.000597
0.000659
0.000726
0.000798
0.00132
0.00438
0.00561
0.00616
0.00645
0.00675
0.00706
0.00803
0.00984
0.0123
0.0128
0.0132
0.0408
0.0529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
1998; Tenera
App. Bl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-5: Blennies Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.105
3.98
0.916
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000176
0.00000193
0.000501
0.00314
0.00745
0.0101
0.0113
0.0119
0.0122
0.0123
0.0123
0.0124
* Includes bay blenny, combtooth blenny, mussel blenny, orangethroat pikeblenny, rockpool blenny,
tube blenny, and other blennies not identified to species.
Sources: Froese and Binohlan, 2000; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000b; and Froese and
Pauly, 2003. __
Table Bl-6: Cabezon Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Name (M) (F)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.288
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
0.144
Sources: O' Cornell, 1953; Tenera
and personal communication with
0
0
0
0
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Environmental Services, 1988; Cailliet, 2000;
Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000430
0.000605
0.00825
0.169
1.06
3.26
4.72
5.30
6.13
6.78
7.37
8.76
9.23
10.5
12.0
13.7
Leet et al., 2001;
App. Bl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-7: California Halibut Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
0.223
2.86
0.555
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Sources: Kucas andHassler, 1986;
al, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2002;
November 19, 2002).
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cailliet, 2000; Tenera Environmental Services,
and personal communication with Y. DeReynier
Weight
dbs)
0.000000548
0.00000444
0.0170
0.130
0.739
1.94
3.87
6.21
8.89
12.2
15.3
18.9
21.3
23.8
26.6
28.6
30.7
33.0
35.3
37.7
40.2
42.9
45.7
48.5
51.5
54.7
57.9
61.3
64.8
68.4
72.2
76.1
80.1
2000a; Leet et
(NMFS,
App. Bl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-8: California Scorpionfish Life History Parameters*
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.30
1.00
1.00
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
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
0.1.3
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000200
0.00000219
0.000712
0.281
0.445
0.662
0.940
1.42
1.80
2.19
2.58
2.95
3.31
3.65
3.96
4.25
4.51
4.75
4.97
5.17
5.35
5.51
5.65
6.18
a Includes California scorpionfish and spotted scorpionfish.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; Froese andBinohlan, 2000; and Leet et al., 2001.
App. Bl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-9: Chinook Salmon Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
5.04
0.916
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000317
0.000349
0.199
0.397
4.50
12.2
23.8
33.8
Sources: Beauchamp etal, 1983; Allen andHassler, 1986; Wang, 1986; andFroese andPauly,
2001.
Table Bl-10: Commercial Sea Basses/Recreational Sea Basses Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
1.00
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000101
0.0000216
0.000138
0.0313
0.0625
0.125
0.312
0.531
0.813
1.13
1.50
1.88
2.19
2.30
2.41
2.67
2.93
3.19
3.44
3.69
3.94
4.19
App. Bl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-10: Commercial Sea Basses/Recreational Sea Basses Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
4.42
4.66
4.88
5.10
5.31
5.51
5.71
5.90
6.08
6.25
6.42
6.58
6.73
6.88
" Commercial sea bass species includes giant sea bass; recreational sea bass species includes barred
sand bass, paralabrax species, broomtail grouper, kelp bass, spotted bass, and spotted sand bass.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; California Department of Fish and Game, 2002; Froese and Binohlan, 2000;
Leetet al, 2001; and Froese and Pauly, 2002. '^
Table Bl-11: Commercial Shrimp Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.693
3.00
2.16
2.16
2.16
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.14
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000249
0.000000736
0.0000865
0.000452
0.00236
a Includes Alaskan bay shrimp, bay shrimp, black tailed bay shrimp, blackspotted shrimp, Franscican bay
shrimp, ghost shrimp, smooth bay shrimp, spot shrimp, and spotted bay shrimp.
Sources: Bielsa et al, 1983; Siegfried, 1989; Virginia Tech, 1998; Leet et al., 2001; and Tenera
Environmental Services, 2001.
App. Bl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-12: Delta Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Sources: Wang,
and Kimmerer,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.90
4.89
0.916
1.28
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
1986; Buckley, 1989; Moyle et al, 1992;
2002.
0
0
0
0
Froese and Pauly, 2001,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000120
0.0000462
0.00418
2003; and Brown
Table BI-13: Drums/Croakers Life History 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 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.500
4.61
3.38
0.420
0.420
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
0.210
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000722
0.00000464
0.000212
0.120
0.156
0.195
0.239
0.287
0.340
0.398
0.458
0.519
0.584
0.648
0.723
" Includes black croaker, California corbina, queenfish, spotfm croaker, white croaker, white seabass,
yellowfm croaker, and other drums or croakers not identified to species.
Sources: Isaacson, 1964; Tenera Environmental Services, 1988, 2000b, 2001; and Cailliet, 2000.
App. Bl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B:
California
Appendix B 1
Table Bl-14: Dungeness Crab Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Zoea/Larvaea
Megalopae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
0.223
1.20
1.20
0.500
0.500
0.500
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.71
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000153
0.000134
0.590
1.10
1.37
2.48
4.04
4.41
4.79
5.20
5.63
6.08
6.56
* Life stages reported as larvae and zoea were assigned the same life history parameters.
Sources: Carroll, 1982; Wild and Tasto, 1983; Pauley etal, 1989; Virginia Tech, 1998; Tenera
Environmental Services, 2000a; University of Washington, 2000; andLeet etal., 2001.
Table Bl-15: Flounders Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.223
6.28
1.14
0.363
0.649
0.752
0.752
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.24
0.43
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000303
0.00121
0.00882
0.0672
0.226
0.553
1.13
a Includes bigmouth sole, CO turbot, California halibut, curlfm sole, diamond turbot, dover sole,
english sole, fantail sole, hornyhead turbot, longfm sanddab, pacific sanddab, petrale sole, rock sole,
sand sole, slender sole, speckled sanddab, spotted turbot, starry flounder, and other flounders not
identified to species.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; ENSR and Marine Research Inc., 2000; Tenera Environmental Services,
2000a, 2001; Leet et al, 2001; and personal communication with Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November
19, 2002).
App.Bl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B 1
Table Bl-16: Forage Shrimp Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.693
3.00
2.30
2.30
2.30
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000249
0.000000736
0.0000865
0.000131
0.00236
a Includes anemone shrimp, blue mud shrimp, broken back shrimp, brown shrimp, California green
shrimp, dock shrimp, mysids, opossum shrimp, oriental shrimp, pistol shrimp, sidestriped shrimp, skeleton
shrimp, stout bodied shrimp, striped shrimp, tidepool shrimp, twistclaw pistol shrimp, and other shrimp
not identified to species.
Sources: Siegfried, 1989; Virginia Tech, 1998; and Tenera Environmental Services, 2001.
Table Bl-17: Gobies Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0
5.77
0.871
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000115
0.0000190
0.000169
0.00194
0.00414
0.00763
0.0310
0.0810
a Includes arrow goby, bay goby, blackeye goby, blind goby, chameleon goby, cheekspot goby,
longjaw mudsucker shadow goby, yellowfm goby, and other gobies not identified to species.
Sources: Wang, 1986; Froese and Pauly, 2000, 2002; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. BJ-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-18: Herrings Life History Parameters 1"
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs 2.30
Larvae 4.61
Juvenile 0.693
Age 1+ 0.473
Age 2+ 0.474
Age 3+ 0.474
Age 4+ 0.474
Age 5+ 0.474
Age 6+ 0.474
Age 7+ 0.474
Age 8+ 0.474
Age 9+ 0.474
Age 10+ 0.474
Age 11+ 0.474
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Includes middle thread herring, pacific herring, pacific sardine,
other herrings not identified to species.
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981b, 1982a; Lassuy, 1989;
2001; Froese andPauly, 2002; and NMFS, 2003a.
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000180
0.00161
0.0408
0.128
0.167
0.211
0.258
0.288
0.330
0.345
0.353
0.364
0.375
round herring, threadfm shad, and
Tenera Environmental Services,
Table Bl-19: Herrings Life History Parameters 2*
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs 2.30
Larvae 6 mm 0.140
Larvae 7 mm 0.121
Larvae 8 mm 0.107
Larvae 9 mm 0.096
Larvae 10 mm 0.087
Larvae 1 1 mm 0.079
Larvae 12 mm 0.221
Larvae 13 mm 0.221
Larvae 14 mm 0.221
Larvae 15mm 0.221
Larvae 16 mm 0.221
Larvae 17 mm 0.221
Larvae 18 mm 0.221
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000182
0.00000299
0.00000461
0.00000675
0.00000948
0.0000129
0.0000171
0.0000221
0.0000281
0.0000352
0.0000433
0.0000527
0.0000634
App. Bl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-19: Herrings Life History Parameters 2*
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
Stage Name (M) (F) to Fishery
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 22 mm
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 24 mm
Larvae 25 mm
Larvae 26 mm
Larvae 27 mm
Larvae 28 mm
Larvae 29 mm
Larvae 30 mm
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Agell+
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.221
0.693
0.473
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a Includes pacific herring and other herrings not identified to species.
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981b; Wang, 1986; Lassuy, 1989;
Services, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2002; andNMFS, 2003a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tenera
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000755
0.0000891
0.000121
0.000140
0.000161
0.000183
0.000208
0.000235
0.000264
0.000296
0.000330
0.00161
0.0408
0.128
0.167
0.211
0.258
0.288
0.330
0.345
0.353
0.364
0.375
Environmental
App. Bl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-20: Herrings Life History Parameters 3
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs 2.30
Larvae 6 mm 0.107
Larvae 7 mm 0.107
Larvae 8 mm 0.107
Larvae 9 mm 0.107
Larvae 10 mm 0.107
Larvae 11 mm 0.107
Larvae 12 mm 0.107
Larvae 13 mm 0.214
Larvae 15 mm 0.107
Larvae 16 mm 0.107
Larvae 17 mm 0.107
Larvae 18 mm 0.107
Larvae 19mm 0.107
Larvae 20 mm 0.107
Larvae 2 1mm 0.107
Larvae 22 mm 0.107
Larvae 23 mm 0.107
Larvae 24 mm 0.107
Larvae 25 mm 2.36
Larvae 47 mm 0.107
Larvae 48 mm 0.107
Juvenile 0.693
Age 1+ 0.473
Age 2+ 0.474
Age 3+ 0.474
Age 4+ 0.474
Age 5+ 0.474
Age 6+ 0.474
Age 7+ 0.474
Age 8+ 0.474
Age 9+ 0.474
Age 10+ 0.474
Age 11+ 0.474
a Includes pacific herring.
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc.,
Services, 2001; Froese andPauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981b, 1982a; Wang, 1986;
2002; andNMFS, 2003a.
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lassuy, 1989;
*
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000182
0.00000299
0.00000461
0.00000675
0.00000948
0.0000129
0.0000171
0.0000221
0.0000352
0.0000433
0.0000527
0.0000634
0.0000755
0.0000891
0.000104
0.000121
0.000140
0.000161
0.000183
0.00141
0.00151
0.00161
0.0408
0.128
0.167
0.211
0.258
0.288
0.330
0.345
0.353
0.364
0.375
Tenera Environmental
App. Bl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-21: Longfm Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Sources: Wang,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.90
6.38
0.916
0.670
0.670
0.670
1986; Buckley, 1989;
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000186
0.000213
0.00355
0.0157
0.0434
USFWS. 1996b; and Froese and Pauly, 2001.
Table Bl-22: Northern Anchovy Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 5 mm
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Larvae 13 mm
Larvae 14 mm
Larvae 1 5 mm
Larvae 1 6 mm
Larvae 17 mm
Larvae 1 8 mm
Larvae 19mm
Larvae 20 mm
Larvae 2 1 mm
Larvae 22 mm
Larvae 23 mm
Larvae 24 mm
Larvae 25 mm
Larvae 26 mm
Larvae 27 mm
Larvae 28 mm
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
1.71
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
History Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000138
0.00000334
0.00000572
0.00000901
0.0000134
0.0000189
0.0000258
0.0000342
0.0000442
0.0000559
0.0000696
0.0000853
0.000103
0.000123
0.000146
0.000171
0.000199
0.000230
0.000264
0.000301
0.000341
0.000385
0.000432
0.000483
0.000538
App. Bl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B 1
Table Bl-22: Northern Anchovy Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Larvae 29 mm
Larvae 30 mm
Larvae 31 mm
Larvae 32 mm
Larvae 33 mm
Larvae 34 mm
Larvae 35 mm
Larvae 36 mm
Larvae 37 mm
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
0.196
2.12
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc., 1980b; Wang, 1986; Virginia
Services, 2000a; and Froese and Pauly, 2002.
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000597
0.000659
0.000726
0.000798
0.000873
0.000954
0.00104
0.00113
0.00122
0.0132
0.0408
0.0529
0.0609
0.0684
0.0763
0.0789
Tech, 1998; Tenera Environmental
App. Bl-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table
Stage Name
Eggs
Zoea 1
Zoea2
Zoea 3
Zoea 4
Zoea 5
Megalopae
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Bl-23: Other Commercial Crabs Life
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0
1.58
0.948
0.948
0.948
1.26
2.31
2.43
2.43
2.43
1.82
1.82
1.82
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.61
0.61
0.61
History Parameters 1"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000153
0.00000195
0.00000726
0.0000177
0.0000347
0.0000598
0.000134
0.289
0.654
1.26
1.97
2.55
3.00
a Includes Anthony's rock crab, black clawed crab, brown rock crab, common rock crab, cryptic kelp
crab, dwarf crab, elbow crab, graceful kelp crab, hairy crab, hairy rock crab, kelp crab, lined shore
crab, lumpy crab, majid crab, masking crab, mole crab, moss crab, northern kelp crab, porcelain crab,
purple shore crab, red crab, red rock crab, sharp nosed crab, shore crab family, slender crab, southern
kelp crab, spider crab, striped shore crab, thickclaw porcelain crab, yellow crab, yellow shore crab,
and other commercial crabs not identified to species.
Sources: Carroll, 1982; Tenet-a Environmental Services, 2000a; University of Washington, 2000;
and Leet et al, 2001.
App. Bl-18
-------
Section 3 1 6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B : California
Appendix B 1
Table Bl-24: Other Commercial Crabs Life
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Megalopae
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
0
7.99
2.31
2.43
2.43
2.43
1.82
1.82
1.82
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.61
0.61
0.61
History Parameters 2'
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000153
0.0000192
0.000134
0.289
0.654
1.26
1.97
2.55
3.00
a Includes brown rock crab, European green crab, hairy rock crab, hermit crab, lined shore crab, mud
crab, pacific sand crab, pea crab, pebble crab, porcelain crab, red crab, red rock crab, shore crab,
slender crab, slender rock crab, spider crab, stone crab, yellow crab, yellow rock crab, yellow shore
crab, and other commercial crabs not identified to species.
Sources: Carroll, 1982; Tenera Environmental Services, 2000a, 2001; University of Washington,
2000; andLeet et al, 2001.
App. Bl-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-25: Pacific Herring Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 6 mm
Larvae 7 mm
Larvae 8 mm
Larvae 9 mm
Larvae 10 mm
Larvae 1 1 mm
Larvae 12 mm
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
1.44
0.703
0.609
0.537
0.481
0.435
0.397
0.693
0.473
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
0.474
History Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000164
0.00000182
0.00000299
0.00000461
0.00000675
0.00000948
0.0000129
0.0000171
0.00161
0.243
0.351
0.388
0.410
0.434
0.450
0.472
0.485
Sources: Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981b; Lassuy, 1989; Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 1997; Tenera Environmental Services, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2002, 2003; andNMFS,
2003a.
App. Bl-20
-------
Section 31 6(b) Proposed Rule:
Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B 1
Table Bl-26: Rockflsh Life History
Stage Name
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.00
1.00
0.215
0.215
0.261
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
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
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000181
0.00760
0.0444
0.150
0.308
0.458
0.689
0.878
1.05
1.21
1.34
1.46
1.55
1.63
1.70
1.75
'1.80
1.83
1.86
1.88
1.90
1.92
1.93
1.94
1.95
1.95
a Includes aurora rockflsh, black and yellow rockfish, black rockflsh, blue rockflsh, bocaccio, brown
rockfish, calico rockfish, chilipepper, copper rockfish, flag rockfish, gopher rockflsh, grass rockfish,
kelp rockfish, olive rockfish, shortbelly rockfish, treefish, vermilion rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, and
other rockfish not identified to species.
Sources: Russell and Hanson, 1990; Cailliet, 2000; Froese and Binohlan, 2000; Leet et al., 2001;
and Tenera Environmental Services, 2001.
App. Bl-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-27: Sacramento Splittail Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Sources: Daniels
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
11.3
0.916
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000352
0.0000140
0.00103
0.0683
0.252
0.480
0.704
1.05
andMoyle, 1983; CDWR, 1994; and Froese and Pauly, 2001.
Table Bl-28:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
2.30
5.04
0.916
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Sources: Beauchamp et al., 1983; Allen
and California Department of Fish and
Salmon Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) to Fishery
0
0
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
and Hassler, 1986;
Game, 2003.
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Wang, 1986; Froese
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000317
0.000349
0.199
0.397
4.50
12.2
23.8
33.8
and Pauly, 2001;
App. Bl-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix Bl
Table Bl-29: Sculpins Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.50
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000338
0.00000371
0.0120
0.0400
0.104
0.219
* Includes bonehead sculpin, brown Irish lord, buffalo sculpin, coralline sculpin, fluffy sculpin,
manacled sculpin, pacific staghorn sculpin, prickly sculpin, rosy sculpin, roughcheek sculpin,
roughneck sculpin, smoothhead sculpin, snubnose sculpin, spotted scorpionflsh, staghorn sculpin,
tidepool sculpin, woolly sculpin, and other sculpins not identified to species.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; Leet et al, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2002; and personal communication
with Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
Table Bl-30: Silversides Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age7+
Age8+
Age9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.669
7.99
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight (Ibs)
0.00000924
0.0000528
0.000472
0.0207
0.106
0.166
0.246
0.349
0.476
0.632
0.818
1.04
1.30
1.59
a Includes California grunion, jacksmelt, topsmelt, and other silversides not identified to species.
Sources: Wang, 1986; Cailliet, 2000; Leet et al., 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2002; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Bl-23
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
AgeH-
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Table Bl-31:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.90
7.99
0.740
0.740
0.740
0.740
0.740
0.740
Smelts Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.000389
0.00520
0.0364
0.147
0.393
0.738
1.25
a Includes night smelt, popeye smelt, surf smelt, and other smelts not identified to species.
Sources: Dryfoos, 1965; Buckley, 1989; Cailliet, 2000; Leet et al, 2001; andFroese andPauly,
2002.
Table Bl-32: Steelhead Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources:
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Name (M) (F)
2.30
5.04
0.916
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
0.160
Beauchamp et al, 1983;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000317
0.000349
0.199
0.397
4.50
12.2
23.8
33.8
37.9
40.1
41.9
43.0
Wang, 1986; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
App. Bl-24
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 5 to 6 mm
Larvae 7 to 10mm
Larvae 1 1 to 14 mm
Larvae 15 to 18 mm
Larvae 19 mm
Larvae 20 to 24 mm
Larvae 25 to 29 mm
Larvae 30 to 34 mm
Larvae 35 to 39 mm
Larvae 40 to 44 mm
Larvae 45 to 49 mm
Larvae 51 to 75 mm
Larvae 76 to 100 mm
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age8+
Age9+
Table Bl-33: Striped
Bass Life History
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
1.50
1.00
2.01
0.939
0.651
0.0610
0.312
0.286
0.334
0.375
0.441
0.904
0.700
0.350
0.916
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0.320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
Parameters 1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000416
0.0000457
0.0000503
0.0000553
0.0000898
0.000135
0.000207
0.000397
0.000616
0.000977
0.00136
0.00194
0.00421
0.0105
0.0174
0.100
0.500
2.30
4.30
6.00
8.50
11.8
13.8
16.0
Sources: Setzler et al. 1980; Ecological Analysts Inc., 198Ib; PSE&G, 1999; California Department of
Fish and Game, 2000a; Froese and Pauly, 2001; andLeet et al, 2001.
App. Bl-25
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Table Bl-34: Striped Bass Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.50 0 0
7.44 0 0
0.916 0 0
0.320 0 0
0.320 0.18 0.06
0.320 0.18 0.20
0.320 0.18 0.63
0.320 0.18 0.94
0.320 0.18 1.0
0.320 0.18 1.0
0.320 0.18 1.0
0.320 0.18 1.0
2
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000416
0.0000457
0.0174
0.100
0.500
2.30
4.30
6.00
8.50
11.8
13.8
16.0
Sources: Setzler et al, 1980; Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981b; PSE&G, 1999; California
Department of Fish and Game, 2000a; Froese andPauly, 2001; and Leet et al., 2001.
Table Bl-35: Surfperches Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.560
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
0.280
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00443
0.0429
0.125
0.203
0.261
0.300
0.324
3 Includes barred surfperch, black surfperch, calico surfperch, dwarf surfperch, island surfperch, kelp
surfperch, pile surfperch, pink seaperch, rainbow surfperch, rubberlip surfperch, shiner surfperch,
silver surfperch, spotfin surfperch, striped surfperch, walleye surfperch, white seaperch, and other
surfperches not identified to species.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; Froese andBinohlan, 2000; Leet et al, 2001; andFroese andPauly, 2002.
App. Bl-26
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-36: Other Commercial Species Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
3 See Table Bl-40 for a list of species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin etal., 1983; Ruppert etal, 1985;
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC,
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Able and Fahay,
2001b.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
1998; PSE&G,
Table Bl-37: Other Recreational Species Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
History Parameters*
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 See Table Bl-41 for a list of species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 2001b.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
1998; PSE&G,
App. Bl-27
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-38:
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolk-sac larvae
Post yolk-sac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Other Recreational
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
2.85
2.85
1.43
1.43
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
and Commercial
Species Life History
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Parameters'
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0472
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a Includes barracuda, California sheephead, jack mackerel, lingcod, piked dogfish, and spiny dogfish.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
Table Bl-39: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
a See Table Bl-42 for a list of species
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973;
0
0
0
0
0
0
and PSE&G, 1999.
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
Table Bl-40: Other Commercial Species'
Basketweave cusk-eel
California moray
Catalina conger
Leopard shark
Monkeyface eel
Monkeyface prickleback
Moray eel
Pacific hagfish
Pacific hake
Pricklebreast poacher
Ribbon prickleback
Rock prickleback
Spotted cusk-eel
Yellow snake-eel
a Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. Bl-28
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California
Appendix B1
Table Bl-41: Other Recreational Species"
Angel shark
Chub mackerel
Bat ray
Diamond stingray
Big skate
Gray smoothhound
Black skate
Halfmoon
Broadnose sevengill shark Horn shark
Brown smoothhound
Kelp greenling
California butterfly ray Mexican scad
California electric ray
Monterey Spanish mackerel
California ray
Opaleye
Pacific angel shark
Pacific bonito
Pacific bumper
Pacific electric ray
Pacific mackerel
Pacific moonfish
Pacific pompano
Painted greenling
Rock wrasse
' Includes other organisms not identified to species.
Round stingray
Senorita
Sevengill shark
Soupfin shark.
Striped mullet
Swell shark
Thomback ray
Table Bl-42: Other Forage Species'
Barcheek pipefish
Finescale triggerfish
Bay pipefish
Flathead mullet
Bigscale goatfish
Fringehead
Bigscale logperch
Garibaldi
Black bullhead
Giant kelpfish
Blacksmith
Grunt
Blue lanternfish
Gunnels
Broadfin lampfish
Hatchet fish
Bullseye puffer
High cockscomb
California clingfish
Hitch
California flyingfish Island kelpfish
California killifish
Kelp gunnel
California lizardfish Kelp pipefish
California needlefish Kelpfish
California tonguefish Lampfish
Californian needlefish Lanternfish
Catfish family
Longfm lanternfish
Clingfishes
Longspine combfish
Clinids
Medusafish
Codfishes
Mexican lampfish
Combfish
Northern clingfish
Cortez angelfish Northern lampfish
Ocean sunfish
Ocean whitefish
Onespot fringehead
Pacific butterfish
Pacific cornetfish
Pacific cutlassfish
Pacific lamprey
Pacific sand lance
Penpoint gunnel
Pipefishes
Plainfm midshipman
Pygmy poacher
Ratfish
Red brorula
Reef fmspot
Ribbonfish
Rockweed gunnel
Ronquils
Saddleback gunnel
Salema
Sarcastic fringehead
Sea porcupine
Sharksucker
Shovelnose guitarfish
Slimy snailfish
Smalleye squaretail
Snailfishes
Snubnose pipefish
Southern poacher
Southern spearnose poacher
Specklefin midshipman
Spotted kelpfish
Spotted ratfish
Squid
Stickleback
Striped kelpfish
Sunfish family
Thornback
Threespine stickleback
Tubesnout
White catfish
Zebra perch
Sargo
Crevice kelpfish Northern spearnose poacher Scarlet kelpfish
' Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. BI-29
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California . Appendix B2
Appendix B2: Reductions in I&E
in California Under Five Other Options
Evaluated for the Proposed Section 316(b)
Phase III Regulation
Table B2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in California Under Five Other
Options Evaluated for the Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
20 MOD All 771,000 56,300
2 771,000 56,300
3 391,000 28,200
4 771,000 56,300
All Phase III Facilities 771,000 56,300
App. B2-1
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Appendix B3
Appendix B3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
for Five Other Options Evaluated for
Phase III Existing Facilities in the
California Region
Section B3-2 in Chapter B3 displays the results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis for the 50 MOD
option, the 200 MOD option, and the 100 MOD option. To facilitate comparisons among the options, this
appendix displays results for the following additional options: All Potentially Regulated Phase III Existing
Facilities option (All Phase III Facilities); the 20 MOD option (20 MOD All); Option 2; Option 3; and Option 4.
Table B3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
All Phase III Facilities Option at Facilities in the California Region (2003S)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted $141 $52,300 $52,400
Producer surplus lost - low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost - high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $56 $20,900 $21,000
Expected reduction due to rule 78% 59%
Benefits attributable to rule - low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $12,300
3% discount rate $10,100
7% discount rate $8,000
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
App. B3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Appendix B3
Table B3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 20 MGD All Option at Facilities in the California Region (2003$)'
Impingement
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted $141
Producer surplus lost - low $0
Producer surplus lost - high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $56
Expected reduction due to rule 78%
Benefits attributable to rule - low $0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Entrainment
$52,300
$0
$20,900
59%
$0
Total
$52,400
$0
$21,000
$0
$12,300
$10,100
$8,000
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
HI for a timeline of benefits.
Table B3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 2 at
Facilities in the California Region (2003$)'
Impingement
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
$141
$0
$56
78%
$0
Entrainment
$52,300
$0
$20,900
59%
$0
Total
$52,400
$0
$21,000
$0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $12,300
3% discount rate $10,100
7% discount rate $8,000
' Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
HI for a timeline of benefits.
App. B3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Appendix B3
Table B3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 3 at
Facilities in the California Region (2003$)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted $141 $52,300 $52,400
Producer surplus lost - low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost - high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $56 $20,900 $21,000
Expected reduction due to rule 78% 29%
Benefits attributable to rule - low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $6,100
3% discount rate $5,100
7% discount rate $4,000
* Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
Table B3-S: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 4 at
Facilities in the California Region (2003$)'
Impingement
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted $141
Producer surplus lost - low $0
Producer surplus lost - high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $56
Expected reduction due to rule 78%
Benefits attributable to rule - low $0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Entrainment
$52,300
$0
$20,900
59%
$0
Total
$52,400
$0
$21,000
$0
$12,300
$10,100
$8,000
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
HI for a timeline of benefits.
App. B3-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Appendix B4
Appendix B4: Recreational Use Benefits of
Other Policy Options
Appendix Contents
B4-1
Introduction
Chapter B4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the three proposed options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities, for
electric generators and manufacturers in the
California region. This appendix supplements
Chapter B4 by presenting estimates of the
recreational fishing benefits of five other options that
EPA evaluated for the purpose of comparison:
>• Option 3,
*• Option 4,
•• Option 2,
>• Option 1, and
» Option 6.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter B4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
B4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other
Evaluated Options B4-1
B4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishing Losses under the Other
Evaluated Options B4-1
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Other Evaluated Options B4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by
Option B4-4
84-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
B4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses under the Other Evaluated Options
Table B4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the California region under the other evaluated options.
App. B4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region Appendix B4
Table B4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E under the Other Evaluated Options in the California Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)"
Species*
Striped bass
Total (small game)
California halibut
Flounders
Total (flatfish)
Cabezon
Croakers
Rockfish
Sculpin
Sea bass
Smelts
Surfperch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Option 3
59
59
111
\
278
175
31
3,412
1,352
29
1
338
5,338
30
5,705
Option 4
89
89
559
1
559
352
62
6,857
2,575
59
1
338
10,244
49
10,941
Option 2
89
89
559
1
559
352
62
6,857
2,575
59
1
338
10,244
49
10,941
Option 1
89
89
559
1
559
352
62
6,857
2,575
59
1
338
10,244
49
10,941
Option 6
89
89
559
1
559
352
62
6,857
2,575
59
1
338
10,244
49
10,941
a EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other saltwater' group includes bottomfish and
other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer.
b In the California region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under Option 2, Option 1, and Option 6. Thus,
reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
4pp. B4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Appendix B4
B4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
Tables B4-2 and B4-3 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the other evaluated
options in the California region.
In the California region, all potentially regulated facilities that would install new technology under Option 4,
Option 2, Option 1, or Option 6 have design intake flows greater than 20 MOD. Because the requirements under
these four options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and benefits resulting from these four
options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented in Table B4-3 apply to all four options.
Table B4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 3 in the California Region (2003$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)"0
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
risuiug musses
(thousands of fish)
0.1
0.3
5.3
0.0d
5.7
5.7
5.7
Low
$6.08
$6.65
$1.92
$2.20
Mean
$12.57
$15.61
$4.52
$5.16
High
$26.06
$36.54
$10.71
$12.17
Low
$0.4
$1.8
$10.3
$0.1
$12.5
$10.3
$8.1
Mean
$0.7
$4.3
$24.1
$0.2
$29.4
$24.2
$19.0
High
$1.6
$10.2
$57.2
$0.4
$69.3
$57.1
$44.8
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. B4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part B: California Region
Appendix B4
Table B4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 4, Option 2, Option 1, or Option 6, in the California
Region (2003$)*
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)''"
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
(thousands of fish)
0.1
0.6
10.2
0.0
10.9
10.9
10.9
Low
$6.08
$6.65
$1.92
$2.20
Mean
$12.57
$15.61
$4.52
$5.16
High
$26.06
$36.54
$10.71
$12.17
Low
$0.5
$3.7
$19.7
$0.1
$24.1
$19.8
$15.6
Mean
$1.1
$8.7
$46.3
$0.3
$56.5
$46.6
$36.5
High
$2.3
$20.4
$109.8
$0.6
$133.1
$109.8
$86.1
a In the California region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under
Option 2, Option 1, and Option 6. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
B4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table B4-4 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the five other evaluated options. The table shows that
the annual recreational welfare gain under Option 3 is only half as large as the annual recreational welfare gain
under the other evaluated options.
Table B4-4; Annual Recreational Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options in the California Region
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Annual Reduction in Recreational (thousands; 2003$)b
Policy Option*
Option 3
Option 4
Option 2
Option 1
Option 6
* isning Losses irom i&i
(thousands of fish)
K —
5.7
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
Low
$12.5
$24.1
$24.1
$24.1
$24.1
Mean
$29.4
$56.5
$56.5
$56.5
$56.5
High
$69.3
$133.1
$133.1
$133.1
$133.1
a In the California region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under
Option 2, Option 1, and Option 6. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter
B4. EPA did not use the RUM approach from the Phase II analysis to analyze the other evaluated options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. B4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part C: North Atlantic
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C1
Chapter Cl: Background
Cl-l Facility Characteristics Cl-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the North Atlantic
study region and summarizes their key cooling water
and compliance characteristics. For further
discussion of the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development
Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a,b). .
Cl-1 Facility Characteristics
The North Atlantic Regional Study includes four sample facilities that are potentially subject to the proposed
standards for Phase III existing facilities. All four facilities are manufacturing facilities. Industry-wide, these
four sample facilities represent five manufacturing facilities.1 Figure Cl-1 presents a map of these facilities.
' EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that
did not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to
the Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000).
Cl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C 1
Figure Cl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Regional Study
Key
Potential Phase III Existing
Facilities (Count)
Ji
Electric Generating Facility (0)
Manufacturing Facility (4)
NortJi Atlantic NMFS Region
w/ Counties
NMFS Recreational Site
ME
NH
MA
Atlantic
Ocean
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Cl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter Cl
Table Cl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the North Atlantic study region and for the three proposed regulatory options considered by
EPA for this proposal (the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three
applicability thresholds would be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded
from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore, a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Cl-1 shows that five Phase III existing facilities in the North Atlantic study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
three proposed options, five facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing
facilities. Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option only one facility would be subject to
the nation requirements. Three facilities are subject to the national standards under the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option. No facility in the North Atlantic study region has a recirculating system in the baseline.
Data on design intake flow for the North Atlantic study facilities have been withheld due to data confidentiality
reasons.
Table Cl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in BL
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish
H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost at 3%b
Compliance Cost at 7%b
All
Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
5
-
w"
2
2
1
$4.56
$5.05
Proposed Options
50 MGD
All
5
200 MGD 100 MGD
All CWB
1
3
.
w"
2
2
1
$4.56
$5.05
w'
1
$0.51
$0.46
w"
2
1
$1.98
$2.02
a Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
b Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2003$, millions)
Source: U.S. EPA, 2000; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
2 Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase HI
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
CI-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C2
Chapter C2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the North Atlantic Region
Chapter Contents
C2-1
C2-2
C2-3
C2-4
C2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated ... C2-1
I&E Data Evaluated C2-3
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield C2-3
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the North Atlantic Region Under Three
Alternative Options C2-6
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses C2-6
Background: North Atlantic Marine
Fisheries
Commercial and recreational fisheries of the North
Atlantic region are managed by the New England
Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) according
to Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) developed by
NEFMC (NMFS, 2002a). The NMFS Northeast
Fisheries Science Center provides scientific and
technical support for management, conservation, and
fisheries development.
The multispecies groundfish fishery is the most
valuable commercial fishery of the North Atlantic
region, followed by American lobster (Homarus
americanus) (NMFS, 1999a). Important groundfish
species include Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus), yellowtail flounder
(Pleuronectes ferrugineus), windowpane flounder (Scophthalmus aquosus), and winter flounder (Pleuronectes
americanus). Atlantic pelagic fisheries are dominated by Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus), Atlantic herring
(Clupea harengus), bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), and butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus) (NMFS, 1999a).
Important recreational fisheries of the region include Atlantic cod, winter flounder, Atlantic mackerel, striped
bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish, and bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) (NMFS, 1999a).
Offshore fisheries for crustaceans and molluscs, particularly American lobster (Homarus americanus) and sea
scallop (Placopecten magellanicus), are among the most valuable fisheries in the Northeast (NMFS, 1999a).
Surfclams (Spisula solidissima), ocean quahogs (Arctica islandica), squids (Loligo pealeii saidlllex illecebrosus),
northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), and red crab (Chaceon quinquedens) also provide important invertebrate
fisheries.
The Northeast lobster fishery is second in commercial value after the multispecies groundfish fishery. The most
recent comprehensive stock assessment, completed in 1996, indicated that lobster fishing mortality rates for both
inshore and offshore populations greatly exceed the levels needed to provide maximum yields (NMFS, 1999a).
Lobster fishing mortality in the Gulf of Maine was almost double the overfishing level. Inshore from Cape Cod
through Long Island Sound, fishing mortality was three times the overfishing level.
C2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table C2-1 provides a list of species/species groups evaluated by EPA that are subject to impingement and
entrainment (I&E) in the North Atlantic region. Appendix Cl provides the life history parameters that were used
to express these losses as age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield.
C2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Chapter C2
Table C2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the North Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Recreational Commercial Forage
Alewife
X
American plaice
American sand lance
X
American shad
X
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
X
Atlantic silverside
X
Atlantic tomcod
X
Bay anchovy
X
Blueback herring
Bluefish
X
X
Butterfish
X
Commercial crabs
Gunner
X
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Hogchoker
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
X
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
X
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pollock
X
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Rock gunnel
X
Sculpin species
X
Scup
Seaboard goby
X
Searobin
X
Silver hake
X
Skate species
Striped bass
X
C2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the North Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial Forage
Striped killifish X
Tautog X X
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
C2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table C2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates at Phase III facilities in the
North Atlantic Region. Because EPA found no I&E data for Phase III facilities in this region, EPA developed
I&E estimates for these facilities by extrapolation of I&E estimates of Phase II facilities. See Chapter A1 of Part
A for a discussion of extrapolation methods.
Table C2-2: Phase II Facility I&E Data Evaluated
for the North Atlantic Analysis
Facility Years of Data
Brayton Point (MA) 1974-1983
Millstone (CT) 1973-2001
Pilgrim Nuclear (MA) 1990-1998
Seabrook Nuclear (NH) 1990-1998
C2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table C2-3 provides EPA's estimates of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at Phase III facilities located in the North Atlantic region. Table C2-4
displays this information for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of
harvested species and the yield of harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species. As discussed in
Chapter Al of Part A of the section 316(b) Phase III Regional Benefits Assessment, the conversion of forage to
yield contributes only a very small fraction to total yield.
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables C2-3 and C2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table C2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
C2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
Alewife
American plaice
American sand lance
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Butterfish
Crabs (commercial)
Gunner
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Hogchoker
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pollock
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Rock gunnel
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Silver hake
Skates
Striped bass
Striped killifish
487
<1
924
<1
12
115
<1
8
14,100
<1
428
56
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III Facilities
in the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Tautog
Threespine stickleback
Trophic transfer2
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
6
220
na
2
<1
47
542
Total Yield
3
na
8
<1
<1
65
(Ibs)
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter A1).
Table C2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American plaice
American sand lance
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Bluefish
Butterfish
Gunner
Fourbeard rockling
Grubby
Hogchoker
Lumpfish
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pollock
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Rock gunnel
Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
53
161
177,000
426
5,450
927
1,730
928
153,000
<1
5
188,000
55,900
131,000
3,960
8
86
2
801
2
<1
<1
195,000
5,890
848,000
Total Yield (Ibs)
na
28
na
153 .
771
128
201
na
na
<1
<1
1,030
na
na
na
1
na
<1
na
<1
<1
1
na
na
na
C2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the North Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Sculpins
Scup
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Silver hake
Tautog
Threespine stickleback
Trophic transfer2
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
84,800
59
176,000
455
45
4,980
76
na
62
<1
915
283,000
Total Yield (Ibs)
5,220
9
na
17
6
2,780
na
286
13
<1
18
34,200
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
C2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region Under Three
Alternative Options
Table C2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MGD forCertain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all
other options are presented in Appendix C2.
Table C2-5; Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option 930,000 17,900
200 MGD All Option 198,000 3,800
100 MGD 754,000 14,500
C2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables C2-3 and C2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table C2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
C2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
Table C2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to Commercial and
Recreational Fisheries in the North Atlantic Region as a Result of Impingement and
Entrainment at Phase III Facilities
Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fishery"'1"
American plaice
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Bluefish
Butterfish
Commercial crabs
Gunner
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Pollockc
Red hake
Sculpins
Scupc
Searobin
Silver hake
Skate species
Striped bass
Tautog
Trophic transfer*
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder1"
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
22.2%
0.0%
89.1%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
79.0%
50.0%
83.9%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
92.2%
50.0%
14.6%
78.8%
0.0%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery"'11
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
77.8%
100.0%
10.9%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
21.0%
50.0%
16.1%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
7.8%
50.0%
85.4%
21.2%
100.0%
50.0%
* Based on landings from 1993 to 2001.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catcri/snapshot.html) and commercial landings
data from NMFS (2003a,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html).
c Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
d A 50%, 50% split was assumed because landings, which largely occur in the ocean, are not
considered to be an accurate indicator of impact for these species, which are largely caught
near-shore.
C2-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Chapter C2
See Chapter C3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter C4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for 1) the time to achieve compliance
once the rule goes into effect in 2007, and 2) the time it takes for fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
For the North Atlantic region, EPA assumes the average compliance year will be 2010 for all options.
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment: North Atlantic
Chapter C3
Chapter C3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the North Atlantic
region. Section C3-1 details the estimated losses
under current, or baseline, conditions. Section C3-2
presents expected benefits under three alternative
options. Chapter A4 details the methods used in this
analysis.
Chapter Contents
C3-1 Baseline Losses C3-1
C3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative
Options C3-2
C3-1 Baseline Losses
Table C3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the North Atlantic region. Table C3-2 displays this information
for entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $23,000 (undiscounted).
Table C3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Species"
Atlantic cod
Burterfish
Silver hake
Skate species
Trophic transfer*1
Winter flounder
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest
Lost
2
6
6
14
4
33
Commercial
Value per
Pound
(2003$)
$1.03
$0.60
$0.39
$0.16
$1.02
$1.26
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2003$)
Undiscounted
$2
$4
$2
$2
$4
$41
1 Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
C3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment: North Atlantic
Chapter C3
Table C3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Species'
Estimated Commercial Estimated Value of
Pounds of Value per Harvest Lost
Harvest Pound (2003$)
Lost (2003$) Undiscounted
American plaice
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Sculpins
Scup
Silver hake
Tautog
Trophic transferb
Weakfish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
28
77
771
100
201
1,100
5
6
217
143
11
18
17,100
$1.24
$1.03
$0.06
$0.23
$0.06
$0.60
$1.09
$0.39
$1.13
$1.02
$0.92
$1.72
$1.26
$35
$79
$48
$23
$12
$662
$5
$2
$245
$146
$10
$30
$21,600
a Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
C3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates that 0 to 40% of the gross revenue losses represent surplus losses to
producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of
$0. The 40% estimates, as presented in Tables C3-3, C3-4, and C3-5 total approximately $9,200 (undiscounted).
The expected reductions in impingement and entrainment (I&E) attributable to changes at facilities required by
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (50 MGD option) are 39% for impingement and 29% for entrainment,
for the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD option) are 11% for impingement and 8% for
entrainment, and for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option (100 MGD option) are 43% for
impingement and 32% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are estimated by applying these estimated
reductions to the annual producer surplus loss. As presented in Tables C3-3, C3-4, and C3-5, this results in total
annualized benefits of up to approximately $3,000 for the 50 MGD option, $600 for the 200 MGD option, and
$2,400 for the 100 MGD option, assuming a 3% discount rate.
C3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment: North Atlantic Chapter C3
Table C3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the 50 MGD
Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003S)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted $60 $22,900 $23,000
Producer surplus lost - low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost - high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $24 $9,160 $9,200
Expected reduction due to rule 43% 40%
Benefits attributable to rule - low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $3,700
3% discount rate $3,000
7% discount rate $2,300
' Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
Table C3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the 200 MGD
Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted $60 $22,900 $23,000
Producer surplus lost - low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost - high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $24 $9,160 $9,200
Expected reduction due to rule 11% 8%
ro
Benefits attributable to rule - low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $800
3% discount rate $600
7% discount rate $500
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the tune frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
C3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment: North Atlantic Chapter C3
Table C3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
100 MGD Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$60
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$24
43%
$0
Entrainment
$22,900
$0
$9,160
32%
$0
Total
$23,000
$0
$9,200
$0
$3,000
$2,400
$1,900
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
C3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Chapter C4
Chapter C4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for the
North Atlantic region. The chapter presents
EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current)
annual recreational fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the North
Atlantic region and annual reduction in these
losses under the three proposed regulatory
options for Phase III existing facilities:1
- the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option,
- the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
- the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare
gain to North Atlantic anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E
and the expected benefits under the three
proposed options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of
reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a
benefit transfer methodology based on a meta-
analysis of the marginal value of catching
different species offish. This meta-analysis is
discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational
Fishing Benefits Methodology." To validate
these results, this chapter also presents the
results of a random utility model (RUM)
analysis for the North Atlantic region. A
detailed discussion of the RUM analysis for the
North Atlantic region can be found in Chapter
D4 of the final Phase II Regional Studies report
(U.S. EPA, 2004; Hicks et al., 1999).
EPA considered a wide range of policy options
in developing this regulation. Results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for five
other options evaluated by EPA are presented
in Appendix C4.
Chapter Contents
C4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis C4-2
C4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishery
Losses under the Proposed Regulation . C4-2
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses C4-3
C4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MOD for All Waterbodies" Option .. . C4-4
C4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" Option . . . C4-5
C4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the " 100
MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option C4-6
C4-2 RUM Approach C4-7
C4-2.1 RUM Methodology: North Atlantic
Region C4-7
C4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of
Fishing Sites C4-7
C4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from
Reducing I&E C4-8
C4-2.1.3 Estimating Recreational Angler
Participation C4-8
C4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from
Eliminating or Reducing I&E C4-8
C4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses C4-9
C4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option .. C4-10
C4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option . . C4-11
C4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100
MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option C4-13
C4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM
Results C4-14
C4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty C4-15
C4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-
Analysis C4-15
"~ C4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM
Approach C4-15
1 See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
C4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
C4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used the meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number of fish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of 'unidentified' species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3 Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the North Atlantic region.4
C4-1.1 Estimated Changes in Recreational Fishery Losses under the Proposed Regulation
Table C4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed options, in the North Atlantic
region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 33.5 thousand fish per year. In
comparison, the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 13.3 thousand fish per year, the "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 2.8 thousand fish per year, and the "100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 10.8 thousand fish per year. Of all the affected species, sculpin and winter
flounder have the highest losses in the baseline and the highest prevented losses under the proposed options.
2 Note that the estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained
recreational fish that would otherwise be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually
much higher.
3 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are
lost because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. However, since it is
difficult to predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
'unidentified' recreational species. Also included in the 'unidentified' group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
C4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Chapter C4
Table C4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities and
Reductions in Recreational Losses under the Proposed Regulatory Options in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
Baseline Annual (# of fish)
Ke
Species"
Atlantic mackerel
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic cod
Gunner
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
icreationai fisning Losses -
(# of fish)
40
2
42
13,795
13,795
42
4,746
14,099
5
29
640
19,562
149
33,548
50 MGD All
16
1
17
5,485
5,485
17
1,887
5,605
2
12
255
7,777
59
13,338
200 MGD All
3
0
4
1,165
1,165
4
401
1,190
0
3
54
1,651
13
2,832
100 MGD CWB
13
1
13
4,438
4,438
13
1,526
4,534
2
10
206
6,290
48
10,790
" EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other
saltwater' group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table C4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the North Atlantic region. The table
presents baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare
gain from eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the
North Atlantic region are 33.5 thousand fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to North Atlantic
anglers from eliminating these losses is $0.19 million (2003$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.09 million and
$0.43 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these losses is $0.18
million and $0.17 million, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under baseline
conditions are attributable to losses of species in the flatfish group, specifically winter flounder, and species in the
'other saltwater' group, such as sculpin and cunner.
C4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Chapter C4
Table C4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003S)
Annualized Benefits from
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of
Species Group fish)*
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
0.0e
13.8
19.6
0.1
33.5
33.5
33.5
Value per Fishb
Low
$2.82
$3.70
$1.94
$2.66
Mean
$7.64
$8.06
$4.20
$5.80
High
$20.45
$17.61
$9.18
$12.68
Eliminating Recreational
Losses
(thousands)c'd
Low
$0.1
$51.0
$37.9
$0.4
$89.4
$84.2
$78.0
Mean
$0.3
$111.1
$82.2
$0.9
$194.6
S183.2
$169.8
Fishing
High
$0.9
$243.0
$179.7
$1.9
$425.4
S400.6
$371.4
1 Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating
recreational losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of
the discounting and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the North Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 13.3 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.08 million (2003$), with lower and upper
bounds of $0.04 million and $0.17 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from this
reduction in recreational losses is $0.06 million and $0.05 million, respectively. The majority of benefits result
from reduced losses of species in the flatfish group, specifically winter flounder, and species in the 'other
saltwater' group, such as sculpin and cunner.
C4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Chapter C4
Table C4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)"
0.0C
5.5
7.8
0.1
13.3
13.3
13.3
Value per Fish"
Low
$2.82
$3.70
$1.94
$2.66
Mean
$7.64
$8.06
$4.20
$5.80
High
$20.45
$17.61
$9.18
$12.68
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)1'1*
Low
$0.0r
$20.3
$15.1
$0.2
$35.5
$29.0
S22.5
Mean
$0.1
$44.2
$32.7
$0.3
$77.4
$63.2
$48.9
High
$0.3
$96.6
$71.4
$0.8
$169.1
$138.2
$106.9
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the North Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 2.8 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.016 million (2003$), with
lower and upper bounds of $0.008 million and $0.036 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.013 million and $0.010 million, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the flatfish group, specifically winter flounder, and
species in the 'other saltwater' group, such as sculpin and cunner.
C4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Chapter C4
Table C4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)
Annualized Recreational Fishing
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)'
0.0e
1.2
1.7
0.0e
2.8
2.8
2.8
Value per Fishb
Low
$2.82
$3.70
$1.94
$2.66
Mean
$7.64
$8.06
$4.20
$5.80
High
$20.45
$17.61
$9.18
$12.68
t_t
Benefits
(thousands)'-"
Low
$0.0r
$4.3
$3.2
$0.0f
$7.5
$6.0
$4.4
Mean
$0.0f
$9.4
$6.9
$0.1
$16.4
$13.0
$9.6
High
$0.1
$20.5
$15.2
$0.2
$35.9
$28.3
$20.9
* Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-5 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option for the North Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 10.8 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.063 million (2003$), with
lower and upper bounds of $0.029 million and $0.137 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.052 million and $0.040 million, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the flatfish group, specifically winter flounder, and
species in the 'other saltwater' group, such as sculpin and cunner.
C4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
Table C4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option in the North
Atlantic Region (2003$)
Annualized Recreational
Annual Reduction Fishing Benefits
in Recreational Value per Fishb (thousands)''"
Fishing Losses
Species Group (thousands of fish)" Low Mean High Low Mean High
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
0.0e
4.4
6.3
0.0e
10.8
10.8
10.8
$2.82
$3.70
$1.94
$2.66
$7.64
$8.06
$4.20
$5.80
$20.45
$17.61
$9.18
$12.68
$0.0f
$16.4
$12.2
$0.1
$28.7
$23.7
$18.5
$0.1
$35.8
$26.4
$0.3
$62.6
$51.6
$40.3
$0.3
$78.2
$57.8
$0.6
$136.8
$112.8
$88.1
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
f Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-2 RUM Approach
To validate the results of the benefit transfer approach, EPA applied the RUM model presented in Chapter F4 of
the Regional Studies for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004) to the
baseline losses and reductions in losses at potentially regulated Phase III existing facilities. This section presents
the results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis for the North Atlantic region based on the Phase II RUM
approach.
C4-2.1 RUM Methodology: North Atlantic Region
EPA's methodology for evaluating the change in welfare resulting from a change in recreational losses from I&E
consists of four basic steps: (1) calculating the change in historical catch rates under a given policy scenario, (2)
estimating the per-trip welfare gain to anglers based on the Phase II RUM model, (3) estimating the number of
fishing trips taken by anglers, and (4) combining fishing participation data with the estimated per-trip welfare gain
to calculate the total annual welfare gain. These steps are briefly described in the following sections. For a more
detailed discussion of the RUM methodology, see Chapters Al 1 and F4 of Regional Studies for the Final Section
316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004).
C4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
The first step in EPA's analysis was to combine estimates of recreational I&E losses at potentially regulated
facilities with state-level recreational fishery landings data to estimate the percentage change in historical catch
rates under each policy option. Because most species considered in this analysis (e.g., striped bass, bluefish, and
flounder) are found throughout North Atlantic waters (i.e., from Connecticut to Maine), EPA made the
assumption that changes in I&E will result in uniform changes in catch rates across all marine fishing sites in this
C4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
region.5 Thus, EPA used five-year National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recreational landings data (1996
through 2000) for state waters to calculate the average statewide landings per year for all species groups.6 EPA
then divided baseline recreational I&E losses by total recreational landings to calculate the percentage change in
historical catch rates from completely eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E. Similarly, the Agency
also estimated the percentage changes to historic catch rates that would result under each policy option.
C4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from Reducing I&E
EPA's second step was to use the recreational behavior model described in Chapter F4 of the Phase II Regional
Studies document to estimate an angler's per-trip welfare gain from changes in the historical catch rates in the
North Atlantic region. The Agency estimated welfare gains to recreational anglers under four scenarios:
eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E at potentially regulated facilities, and reducing
recreational fishing losses from I&E by implementing the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD
for All Waterbodies" option, or the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. EPA assumed that the welfare
gain per fishing trip is independent of the number of days fished per trip and therefore equivalent for both single-
and multiple-day trips. Thus, a multiple-day trip is valued the same as a single-day trip.7 EPA estimated separate
per-day welfare gains for different categories of anglers, based on their target species and fishing mode.8
C4-2.1.3 Estimating Recreational Angler Participation
The third step in EPA's analysis was to estimate baseline and post-regulatory fishing participation, measured by
the total number of fishing trips taken by North Atlantic anglers.9 Because the policy options for Phase III
facilities are expected to result in relatively small improvements in fishing quality, EPA assumed that increases in
recreational fishing participation under the policy options will be negligible. Thus, to estimate both baseline and
post-regulatory participation, EPA used the total number of fishing trips taken by North Atlantic anglers in 2002.
The total number of trips to the North Atlantic fishing sites was calculated from data provided by NMFS. To
estimate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken by no-target anglers and by anglers targeting each
species of concern, EPA used the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) sample. The Agency
then applied those percentages to the total number of fishing trips taken by North Atlantic anglers to calculate the
number of anglers.
C4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing I&E
The final step in EPA's analysis was to calculate the total annual benefits of the policy options. To calculate total
benefits for each subcategory of anglers targeting a particular species with a particular fishing mode, EPA
multiplied the per-trip welfare gain for an angler with that particular species/fishing mode combination by the
total number of fishing trips taken by all anglers with that species/fishing mode combination. EPA then summed
benefits for all subcategories of anglers to calculate the total welfare change in the North Atlantic region. Finally,
5 Fish lost to I&E are most often very small fish that are too small to catch. Because of the migratory nature of
most affected species, by the time these fish have grown to catchable size, they may have traveled some distance from
the facility where I&E occurs. Without collecting extensive data on migratory patterns of all affected fish, it is not
possible to evaluate whether catch rates will change uniformly or in some other pattern. Thus, EPA assumed that catch
rates will change uniformly across the entire region.
6 State waters include sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers, bays, estuaries, and other areas of salt or brackish
water, plus ocean waters to three nautical miles from shore (NMFS, 2003a).
7 See section C4-5.2 of Chapter C4 of the 316(b) Phase II document for limitations and uncertainties associated
with this assumption.
8 EPA used the per-day values for private/rental boat anglers to estimate welfare gains for charter boat anglers.
9 See Chapter B4 of the section 316(b) Phase II Case Study document for a detailed description of the angler
participation estimates in the North Atlantic.
C4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
as discussed in Chapter A8, EPA discounted and annualized the benefits estimates, using both 3% and 7%
discount rates.
C4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table C4-6 presents the baseline level of recreational landings at potentially regulated facilities and the estimated
change in catch rates that would result from eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E in the North Atlantic
Region. The table shows that I&E has the largest effect on catch rates for flatfish, which would increase by 0.6%
if I&E were eliminated.
Table C4-6: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially
Regulated Phase III Facilities in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Recreational Baseline Annual Recreational Percent Increase in
Landings Fishing Losses Recreational Catch from
Species Group (thousands of fish)' (thousands of fish)b Eliminating I&E
Small game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No target
13,713.2
2,377.7
6,106.1
23,904.6"
0.1
13.8
19.6
33.6
0.00%c
0.58%
0.32%
0.14%
" Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters.
b Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species groups in the
same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
d Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table C4-7 presents the per-trip welfare gain for anglers targeting different species, the number of fishing trips
taken by anglers targeting those species, and the total annual welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E. The
table shows that the total undiscounted value of baseline losses in the North Atlantic region is $0.26 million
(2003$), and the annualized value of those losses is $0.25 million and $0.23 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%,
respectively. The majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bottomfish and
flatfish. The table shows that eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E would result in per-trip
welfare gains of two cents or less per angler.
C4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
Table C4-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Number of Fishing Trips Annualized Total Benefits
Species Group Welfare Gain (thousands)' (thousands)"
Small game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (discounted at 3%)
Total, All Species (discounted at 7%)
$o.ooc
$0.01
$0.02
$0.00C
7,923
7,923
7,923
$0.2
$110.3
$145.7
$4.0
$260.2
$245.1
$227.2
a Since EPA used a nested model to estimate the expected utility, welfare changes were calculated based on the total
number of fishing trips for all species groups.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-8 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the North Atlantic, catch rates for anglers targeting flatfish would
increase the most under this option, by 0.23%.
Table C4-8: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E under the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" Option in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Recreational Annual Reduction in Percent Increase in
Landings Recreational Fishing Losses Recreational Catch from
Species Group (thousands of fish)* (thousands of fish)b Reducing I&E
Small game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No target
13,713.2
2,377.7
6,106.1
23,904.6d
0.1
5.5
7.8
13.3
0.00%c
0.23%
0.13%
0.06%
a Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters.
b Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
0 Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
d Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Chapter C4
Table C4-9 presents the recreational benefits of the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option for the North Atlantic
region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.10 million (2003$), and the
annualized value of those benefits is $0.09 million and $0.07 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively. The
majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bottomfish and flatfish. The table
shows that this option would result in per-trip welfare gains of one cent or less per angler.
Table C4-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the North Atlantic
Region (2003$)
Species Group*
Small game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (discounted at 3%)
Total, All Species (discounted at 7%)
Per-Trip
Welfare Gain
$0.00°
$0.01
$0.01
$o.ooc
Number of Fishing Trips
(thousands)*
7,923
7,923
7,923
Annualized Total Benefits
(thousands)11
$0.1
$43.8
$57.9
$1.6
$103.5
$84.6
$65.4
" Since EPA used a nested model to estimate the expected utility, welfare changes were calculated based on the total
number of fishing trips for all species groups.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-10 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under
the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the North Atlantic region, catch rates for anglers targeting flatfish
would increase the most under this option, by 0.05%.
C4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
Table C4-10: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E under the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" Option in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Recreational Annual Reduction in
Landings Recreational Fishing Losses Percent Increase in Recreational
Species Group (thousands of fish)' (thousands of fish)b Catch from Reducing I&E
Small game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No target
13,713.2
2,377.7
6,106.1
23,904.6
0.0C
1.2
1.7
2.8
0.00%"
0.05
0.03
0.01
a Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters.
b Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
d Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
e Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table C4-11 presents the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the North
Atlantic region. The table shows that the total annual undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.022 million
(2003$), and the annualized value of those benefits is $0.017 million and $0.013 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%,
respectively. The majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bottomfish and
flatfish. The table shows that this option would result in per-rrip welfare gains of less than one cent per angler.
Table C4-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the North
Atlantic Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Number of Fishing Trips Annualized Total Benefits
Species Group* Welfare Gain (thousands)' (thousands)1*
Small game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (discounted at 3%)
Total, All Species (discounted at 7%)
so.ooc
so.ooc
so.ooc
$0.00°
7,923
7,923
7,923
$0.0d
$9.3
$12.3
$0.3
$21.9
$17.2
$12.8
a Since EPA used a nested model to estimate the expected utility, welfare changes were calculated based on the total
number of fishing trips for all species groups.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
d Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
C4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table C4-12 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. In the North Atlantic, catch rates for anglers targeting flatfish would
increase the most under this option, by 0.19%.
Table C4-12: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E under the "100 MGD for AH
Waterbodies" Option in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Recreational Annual Reduction in
Landings Recreational Fishing Losses Percent Increase in Recreational
Species Group (thousands of fish)' (thousands of fish)b Catch from Reducing I&E
Small game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No Target
13,713.2
2,377.7
6,106.1
23904.6 =
0.0C
4.4
6.3
10.8
0.00%d
0.19%
0.10%
0.05%
a Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters.
b Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
d Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
e Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table C4-13 presents the recreational benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option for the North
Atlantic region. The table shows that the total annual undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.084 million
(2003$), and the annualized value of those benefits is $0.069 million and $0.054 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%,
respectively. The majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bottomfish and
flatfish. The table shows that this option would result in per-trip welfare gains of one cent or less per angler.
C4-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
Table C4-13: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the North
Atlantic Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Number of Fishing Trips Annualized Total Benefits
Species Group* Welfare Gain (thousands)' (thousands)1*
Small Game
Flatfish
Bottomfish
No Target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (discounted at 3%)
Total, All Species (discounted at 7%)
$o.ooc
$o.ooc
$0.01
$o.ooc
7,923
7,923
7,923
$0.1
$35.5
$46.8
$1.3
$83.6
$68.9
$53.8
a Since EPA used a nested model to estimate the expected utility, welfare changes were calculated based on the total
number of fishing trips for all species groups.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
Table C4-14 compares the undiscounted results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis with the results
of the RUM analysis. The table shows that for the North Atlantic region, based on the meta-analysis, the
recreational welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E losses is $0.19 million (2003$), based on the meta-
analysis, and $0.26 million, based on the RUM. The benefits estimates based on both the meta-analysis and the
RUM show that benefits are highest under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and lowest under the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In general, the RUM-based results fall within the range of values estimated
based on the meta-model. That the values from the two independent analyses are relatively close corroborates the
use of meta-analysis in estimating the value of incremental recreational fishing improvements resulting from the
section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities.
C4-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Chapter C4
Table C4-14: Recreational Fishing Benefits in the North Atlantic Region Calculated from Meta-Analysis
Approach and RUM Approach
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Policy Option
Eliminating baseline
in Recreational Fishing
Losses irom 1&.L
(thousands of fish)
33.5
Based on Meta-Analysis
Low Mean High
$89.4 $194.6 $425.4
Based on
RUM
$260.3
recreational fishing losses
from I&E
50 MOD All
200 MOD All
100 MGD CWB
13.3
2.8
10.8
$35.5
$7.5
$28.7
$77.4
$16.4
$62.6
$169.1
$35.9
$136.8
$103.5
$21.9
$83.6
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
C4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-Analysis
The results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis results represent EPA's best estimate of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties
inherent in these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use
of the model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e
and section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5.
C4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM Approach
The results of the benefit transfer based on the RUM analysis results serve to confirm that EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options are reasonable. However, there are a number of limitations and
uncertainties inherent in these estimates. Some general limitations pertaining to the RUM model are discussed in
Chapter All of the 316(b) Phase II document. Some additional region-specific limitations are discussed in
Chapter C4 of the 316(b) Phase II document.
Although the estimated total welfare gain to the North Atlantic recreational anglers based on the regional RUM
model is likely to be accurate, the estimated average per-trip welfare gain presented in Tables C4-7, C4-9, C4-11,
and C4-13 must be used and understood in the context of the regional model developed by EPA for the Phase II
analysis and as it was created by Hicks et al., 1999. The regional RUM model assumes uniform changes in catch
rates at all sites across the region. Given that there are only five potentially regulated facilities in the North
Atlantic region and the total intake flow associated with these facilities is relatively small, catch rate
improvements are more likely to occur locally rather than regionally. These local improvements in catch rates
and the associated average per-trip welfare gain are likely to be greater than those presented in the tables in
section C4-2. However, the number of anglers benefitting from these improvements would be smaller, and so the
resulting aggregate benefits are likely to be similar.
C4-15
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Appendix Cl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the
North Atlantic Region
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents
and fishery yields from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the North Atlantic Region. Because of
differences in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life
stage sequence was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for
this purpose and are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Winter flounder
1, Winter flounder 2).
Table Cl-1: Alewife Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.544
5.50
2.57
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000128
0.00000141
0.00478
0.0443
0.139
0.264
0.386
0.489
0.568
0.626
0.667
0.696
200J; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
App. Cl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-2: American Plaice Life
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+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
8.22
0.916
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
History Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977;
O'Brien, 2000; Schultz, 2000; and Froese andPauly, 2001
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Scott and Scott, 1988;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000115
0.0000126
0.000110
0.00903
0.0871
0.190
0.328
0.494
0.711
0.986
1.24
1.53
1.86
2.24
2.68
3.17
3.52
3.91
4.32
4.77
5.24
5.75
6.28
6.86
7.46
8.11
8.44
8.55
NOAA, 1993;
App. Cl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-3: American Sand Lance Life History 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 11+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.41
2.97
2.90
1.89
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.364
0.720
0.720
0.720
0.720
0.720
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000126
0.00000139
0.00119
0.00384
0.00730
0.0113
0.0153
0.0191
0.0225
0.0255
0.0280
0.0301
0.0319
0.0333
2001; and Froese and Pauly, 2003.
Table Cl-4: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
0.496
2.52
7.40
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.540
1.02
1.50
1.50
1.50
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
and Froese and Pauly, 2001.
App. Cl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-5: Atlantic Cod Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Scott and Scott,
2000; Froese andPauly,
4.87 0
5.83 0
0.916 0
0.400 0
0.200 0.29
0.200 0.29
0.200 0.29
0.200 0.29
0.200 0.29
1988; Entergy Nuclear Generation
2001, 2003; andNOAA, 200 Jb.
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Company, 2000;
0.00000567
0.00000624
0.000337
0.0225
0.245
0.628
1.29
2.45
3.33
Mayo and O 'Brien,
App. Cl-4
-------
Section 3 1 6(b) Proposed Rule:
Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North
Atlantic
Appendix C 1
Table Cl-6: Atlantic Herring Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.36
3.26
3.26
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.00000531
0.00126
0.0314
0.173
0.302
0.420
0.463
0.525
0.588
0.642
0.699
0.732
0.766
0.848
0.855
0.862
0.869
0.877
a Includes Atlantic herring, hickory shad, round herring, and other herring not identified to species.
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Able andFahay, 1998; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000;
ASMFC, 2001a; Froese andPauly, 2001; NOAA, 2001b; and Overholtz, 2002a.
App. Cl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-7: Atlantic Mackerel Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
2.39
5.30
5.30
0.520
0.370
0.370
0
0.25
0.25
0
0.50
1.0
0.00000176
0.00000193
0.000833
0.309
0.510
0.639
0.752
0.825
0.918
1.02
1.10
1.13
1.15
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Overholtz et al, 1991; Studholme et al, 1999; Entergy Nuclear
Generation Company, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001, 2003; NOAA, 2001b; and Overholtz, 2002b.
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Stage Name
Table Cl-8: Atlantic Menhaden Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
(M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
1.20
4.47
6.19
0.540
0
0
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
0.450 1.1
0.450 1.1
0.450 1.1
0.450 1.1
0.450 1.1
0.450 1.1
0.450 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; and Froese and Pauly, 2003.
0.00000482
0.00000530
0.000684
0.0251
0.235
0.402
0.586
0.863
1.08
1.27
1.43
App. Cl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C:
North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-9: Atlantic Silverside Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Agel+
Age2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.41
5.81
2.63
3.00
6.91
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.00000520
0.00490
0.0205
0.0349
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
Table Cl-10: Atlantic Tomcod Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources:
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
2.83
2.83
Stewart and Auster, 1987; McLaren et al.
0
0
0
0
0
0
, 1988;
0
0
0
0
0
0
Virginia Tech,
0.00000126
0.0000185
0.0145
0.0804
0.270
0.486
1998;andNMFS,2003a.
Table Cl-11: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters'
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
1.10
7.19
2.09
2.30
2.30
2.30
' Includes bay anchovy, striped anchovy,
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000517
0.000000569
0.00104
0.00370
0.00765
0.0126
and other anchovies not identified to species.
2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
App. Cl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-12: Blueback Herring Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.558
1.83
Post-yolksac larvae 1.74
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age4+
Age5+
Age en-
Age 7+
Age 8+
Sources: PSE&G,
3.13
3.13
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous . Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00321
0.00640
0.00959
0.0128
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
1999; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Table Cl-13:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.35
8.24
5.07
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
0.350
Blueflsh Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0.06
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
Sources: Wang and Kernehan, 1979; and PG&E National Energy
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Group, 2001.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000123
0.0000135
0.194
1.06
2.81
5.21
7.95
10.7
13.4
15.9
18.0
19.9
21.6
22.9
24.1
25.0
25.8
App. Cl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-14: Butterfish Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
6.64
0.916
0.800
0.800
0.800
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.28
0.28
0.28
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Scott
1998; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNOAA, 200 la.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000396
0.000000436
0.000251
0.0272
0.0986
0.944
and Scott, 1988; Able and Fahay,
Table Cl-15: Commercial Crab Life History Parameters"
Stage
Megalops
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.30
1.73
1.10
1.38
1.27
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
a Includes green crab, jonah crab, lady crab, lesser blue crab, narrow mud crab, and
Sources: Hartman, 1993; andPSE&G, 1999.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000291
0.00000293
0.00719
0.113
0.326
spider crab.
Table Cl-16: Cunner Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
3.49
2.90
2.90
0.831
0.831
0.286
0.342
0.645
1.26
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Sources: Serchuk and Cole, 1974; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able
Generation Company, 2000.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
and Fahay, 1998;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000787
0.00000236
0.0000814
0.00311
0.0246
0.0749
0.145
0.229
0.624
and Entergy Nuclear
App. Cl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-17: Fourbeard Rockling Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
4.25
0.916
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
0.490
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000637
0.000000700
0.00187
0.0142
0.0209
0.0402
0.0617
0.0906
0.151
0.188
0.251
0.323
Sources: Deree, 1999; Froese and Pauly, 2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Clayton
2003; andNMFS,
Table Cl-18:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
Grubby Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.00000520
0.0000197
0.00633
0.0115
0.0190
0.0292
0.0424
0.0592
0.0799
0.105
0.135
etal, 1978; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able and Fahay, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2001,
2003a.
App. Cl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-19: Hogchoker Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources:
1.04
5.20
2.31
2.56
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00110
0.00207
0.0113
0.0313
0.0610
0.0976
0.138
0.178
2001; and Froese and Pauly, 2003.
Table Cl-20: Lumpfish Life History
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age4+
Age 5+
2.30
8.48
0.916
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Sources: Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able and Fahay, 1998;
Pauly. 2001; and NMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000317
0.0000169
0.00472
0.0138
0.0573
0.149
0.686
1.86
Froese and
App. Cl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-21: Northern Pipefish Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.40
0.916
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Able and Fahay, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2001;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000773
0.0000122
0.00785
0.0151
0.0180
0.0212
0.0247
0.0285
andNMFS, 2003a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
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+
Sources: Saila et al.,
Table Cl-22:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.922
4.07
6.93
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Pollock Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.20 0.50
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
0.20 1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00000169
0.00166
0.657
1.30
1.73
3.24
4.93
5.70
6.83
8.46
9.93
12.0
14.8
16.4
18.1
19.9
21.2
1997; Able and Fahay, 1998; Froese and Pauly, 2001; andNOAA, 200 Ib.
App. Cl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-23: Radiated Shanny Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.20
0.916
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000430
0.00000473
0.0000559
0.000472
0.00163
0.00374
0.00719
0.00988
0.0132
0.0258
0.0448
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2001; Pepin et al, 2002; and NMFS, 2003a.
Table Cl-24: Rainbow Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
4.44
3.12
1.39
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000990
0.00110
0.00395
0.0182
0.0460
0.0850
0.131
0.180
0.228
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; and Froese and Pauly, 2003.
App. Cl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 2 mm
Larvae 2.5 mm
Larvae 3.0 mm
Larvae 3.5 mm
Larvae 4.0 mm
Larvae 4.5 mm
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Table Cl-25: Red
Hake Life History Parameters'
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.22
0.670
0.670
0.670
0.670
0.670
3.35
4.83
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0:39
0.39
0.39
" Includes red hake, spotted hake, and white hake.
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Saila et al, 1997; Able and Fahay,
andNOAA, 200 Ib.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1998; Froese
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.000000536
0.000000589
0.000000744
0.00000118
0.00000176
0.00000251
0.00345
0.231
0.805
0.991
1.22
1.55
1.93
2.36
2.86
3.42
3.66
and Pauly, 2001;
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Table Cl-26: Rock
Gunnel Life History
Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.30
1.66
0.916
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0.440
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000924
0.0000102
0.000701
0.00382
0.0128
0.0223
0.0371
0.0490
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and NMFS, 2003a.
App. Cl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
,
Table Cl-27: Sculpin Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.79
0.916
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
0.460
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000107
0.0000118
0.000754
0.00404
0.139
0.332
0.420
0.475
0.541
0.576
0.612
0.637
a Includes longhom sculpm, moustache sculpin, shorthorn sculpin, and other sculpin not identified to
species.
Sources: Clayton etal, 1978; Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and personal
communication with Y. DeReynier (NMFS, November 19, 2002).
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Table Cl-28
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.43
4.55
3.36
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
0.383
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
: Scup Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000773
0.00110
0.0280
0.132
0.322
0.572
0.845
1.12
1.37
1.59
1.78
1.94
2.07
2.23
2001; and Froese and Pauly, 2003.
App. Cl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-29: Seaboard Goby Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
4.09
2.30
2.55
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000164
0.0000180
0.000485
0.00205
2001; and Froese andPauly, 2003.
Table Cl-30: Searobin Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.66
0.916
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000132
0.00000145
0.000341
0.0602
0.176
0.267
0.386
0.537
0.721
0.944
1.21
a Includes northern searobin, striped searobin, and other searobin not identified to species.
Sources: Virginia Tech, 1998; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; and Froese andPauly,
2001,2003.
App. Cl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-31: Silver Hake Life History 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 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.43
6.62
4.58
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Source: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
2001.
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000203
0.0000223
0.00516
0.0729
0.242
0.456
0.646
0.788
0.889
0.958
1.00
1.03
1.05
1.06
1.06
Table Cl-32: Skate Species Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.00
2.30
0.916
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Parameters'
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0125
0.0138
0.0593
0.157
0.394
0.750
1.15
1.51
1.62
1.65
1.72
a Includes clearnose skate, little skate and other skates not identified to level.
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; NOAA, 1993, 2001 b; andFroese and Pauly, 2000.
App. CI-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-33: Striped Bass Life History 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 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21 +
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.28
6.28
5.63
1.11
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
Source: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.02
0.06
0.20
0.29
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
2001.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000282
0.0000310
0.0405
0.386
1.37
3.06
5.35
8.07
11.0
14.1
17.1
20.0
22.8
25.3
27.6
29.7
31.6
33.3
34.7
36.0
37.2
38.2
39.0
39.8
40.4
41.0
41.5
App. Cl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C:
North Atlantic
Appendix C 1
Table Cl-34: Striped Killifish Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.00
0.916
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000180
0.0000182
0.000157
0.0121
0.0327
0.0551
0.0778
0.0967
0.113
0.158
a Includes mummichog, striped killifish, and other killifish not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Meredith andLotrich, 1979; Able andFahay, 1998; and NMFS, 2003a.
App. CJ-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-35: Tautog Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Sources:
1.40
5.86
5.02
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
0.175
PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous-
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000123
0.0221
0.0637
0.217
0.440
0.734
1.08
1.48
1.89
2.32
2.76
3.18
3.60
4.00
4.38
4.73
5.07
5.38
5.67
5.94
6.19
6.42
6.63
6.82
6.99
7.15
10.0
2001; andFroese and Pauly, 2003.
App. Cl-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-36: Threespine Stickleback Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
2.12
1.70
1.42
1.42
1.42
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000567
0.00110
0.00377
0.00917
0.0112
0.0116
1 Includes blackspotted stickleback, fourspine stickleback, ninespine stickleback, threespine
stickleback, and other stickleback not identified to species.
Sources: Wang, 1986; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
Table Cl-37: Weakfish Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.498
2.84
3.39
5.47
0.694
0.730
0.657
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
0.511
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0650
0.130
0.195
0.260
0.680
1.12
1.79
2.91
6.21
7.14
9.16
10.8
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
a Includes northern kingcroaker and weakfish.
Sources: PSE&G, 1999; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
App. Cl-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-38: White Perch Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.42 0 0
4.59 0 0
9.06 0 0
0.693 0 0
0.693 0 0
0.543 0.15 1.0
0.543 0.15 1.0
1.46 0.15 1.0
1.46 0.15 1.0
1.46 0.15 1.0
1.46 0.15 1.0
1.46 0.15 1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.00110
0.00302
0.0516
0.156
0.248
0.331
0.423
0.523
0.613
0.658
0.794
Sources: Stanley andDanie, 1983; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
Table Cl-39: Windowpane Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
1.41 0 0
6.99 0 0
2.98 0 0
0.420 0 0
0.420 0 0
0.420 0 0
0.420 0 0
0.420 0 0
0.420 0.10 1.0
0.420 0.10 1.0
0.420 0.10 1.0
0.420 0.10 1.0
0.420 0.10 1.0
a Includes American fourspot flounder, smallmouth flounder, summer flounder, and
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andFroese andPauly, 2003.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00165
0.00223
0.0325
0.122
0.265
0.433
0.603
0.761
0.899
1.01
1.11
1.19
windowpane.
App. Cl-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-40: Winter Flounder Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 1
Larvae 2
Larvae 3
Larvae 4
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
2.05
3.42
3.52
0.177
2.38
1.10
0.924
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0066
0.082
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3 Includes winter flounder, yellowtail founder, and other flounder not identified to
Sources: Able and Fahay, 1998; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
1"
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00441
0.0110
0.0176
0.0221
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.82
2.83
species.
App. Cl-23
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-41: Winter Flounder Life History Parameters 2*
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae 3.0 mm
Larvae 3.5 mm
Larvae 4.0 mm
Larvae 4.5 mm
Larvae 5.0 mm
Larvae 5.5 mm
Larvae 6.0 mm
Larvae 6.5 mm
Larvae 7.0 mm
Larvae 7.5 mm
Larvae 8.0 mm
Larvae 8.5 mm
Larvae 9.0 mm
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Agell+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
2.38
1.10
0.924
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0066
0.082
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
.0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000127
0.00000137
0.00000146
0.00000156
0.00000216
0.00000291
0.00000382
0.00000489
0.00000616
0.00000764
0.00000933
0.0000113
0.0000135
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.82
2.83
a Includes winter flounder, witch founder, and other flounder not identified to species.
Sources: Saila etal, 1997; Able andFahay, 1998; Colarusso, 2000; and PG&E National Energy
Group, 2001.
App. CI-24
-------
Section 3 16(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-42: Winter Flounder Life History
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 11+
Age 12+
Ape 1 3+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
9.17
2.38
1.10
0.924
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Parameters 3*
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0066
0.082
0.20
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
OT?
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00441
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
278
2.80
2.82
2.83
" Includes fourspot flounder, smooth flounder, witch flounder, yellowtail flounder, and other flounder
not identified to species.
Sources: Able and Fahay, 1998; Colarusso, 2000; and PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
App. Cl-25
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-43: Other Commercial Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
(M) _(F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
2.08
0
0
Larvae
5.71
Juvenile
2.85
Agel+
0.450
Age 2+
0.450
0.80
0.50
Age 3+
0.450
0.80
1.0
Age 4+
0.450
0.80
1.0
Age 5+
0.450
0.80
1.0
Age 6+
0.450
0.80
1.0
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a Includes goosefish, redfish, spot, and wolffish.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al., 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
Table Cl-44: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
(M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
2.08
0
0
Larvae
5.71
Juvenile
2.85
Agel+
0.450
Age 2+
0.450
0.80
0.50
Age 3+
0.450
0.80
1.0
Age 4+
0.450
0.80
1.0
Age 5+
0.450
0.80
1.0
Age 6+
0.450
0.80
1.0
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
* Includes Atlantic torpedo, blue runner, cownose ray, dusky smooth hound, flathead mullet, northern
puffer, smooth dogfish, striped cusk-eel, white catfish, and white mullet.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al., 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200 Ib.
App. Cl-26
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix C1
Table Cl-45: Other Recreational and Commercial Species Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.08
5.71
1.43
1.43
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a Includes American eel, black sea bass, conger eel, and piked dogfish.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al., 1985; Able andFahay,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200 Ib.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0472
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
1998; PSE&G,
Table Cl-46: Other
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Forage Species Life
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
History Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000480
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
* See Table Cl-47 for a list of species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G, 1999.
App. Cl-27
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic
Appendix Cl
Table Cl-47: Other Forage Species"
African pompano
Alligatorfish
Atlantic bigeye
Atlantic moonfish
Atlantic seasnail
Banded rudderfish
Bigeye scad
Black ruff
Brown trout
Cornet fish
Crevalle jack
Flying gurnard
Glasseye
Gulfsnailfish
Long finned squid
Lookdown
Mackerel scad
Northern sennet
Northern shortfm squid
Ocean pout
Orange filefish
Oyster toadfish
Pearlside
Planehead filefish
Rough scad
Round scad
Sand tiger
Sea lamprey
Sheepshead minnow
Short bigeye
Silver rag
Spotfm butterflyfish
Striped burrfish
Trumpetfish
Wrymouth
' Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. Cl-28
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Appendix C2
Appendix C2: Reductions in I&E in the
North Atlantic Region Under Five Other
Options Evaluated for the Proposed Section
316(b) Phase III Regulation
Table C2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
North Atlantic Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation
Option
20 MOD All
2
3
4
All Phase III Facilities
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
930,000
930,000
930,000
930,000
930,000
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
17,900
17,900
17,900
17,900
17,900
App. C2-1
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Appendix C3
Appendix C3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
for Five Other Options Evaluated for
Phase III Existing Facilities in the
North Atlantic Region
Section C3-2 in Chapter C3 displays the results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis for the 50 MOD
option, the 200 MOD option, and the 100 MOD option. To facilitate comparisons among the options, this
appendix displays results for the following additional options: All Potentially Regulated Phase III Existing
Facilities option (All Phase III Facilities); the 20 MOD option (20 MOD All); Option 2; Option 3; and Option 4.
Table C3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
AH Phase III Facilities Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost -
Producer surplus lost -
Undiscounted
low
high (gross revenue
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to
Benefits attributable to
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
rule - low
rule - high
$60
$0
*0.4)
$24
43%
$0
$22,900
$0
$9,160
40%
$0
$23,000
$0
$9,200
$0
$3,700
$3,000
$2,300
" Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
App. C3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Appendix C3
Table C3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 20 MGD All Option at Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$60
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$24
43%
$0
Entrainment
$22,900
$0
$9,160
40%
$0
Total
$23,000
$0
$9,200
$0
$3,700
$3,000
$2,300
' Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
Table C3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 2 at
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Impingement
$60
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$24
43%
$0
Entrainment
$22,900
$0
$9,160
40%
$0
Total
$23,000
$0
$9,200
$0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $3,700
3% discount rate $3,000
7% discount rate __ $2,300
* Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
App. C3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Appendix C3
Table C3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 3 at
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Impingement
$60
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$24
43%
$0
Entrainment
$22,900
$0
$9,160
40%
$0
Total
$23,000
$0
$9,200
$0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $3,700
3% discount rate $3,000
7% discount rate $2,300
' Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
Table C3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 4 at
Facilities in the North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Impingement
$60
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$24
43%
$0
Entrainment
$22,900
$0
$9,160
40%
$0
Total
$23,000
$0
$9,200
$0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $3,700
3% discount rate $3,000
7% discount rate $2,300
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
App. C3-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Appendix C4
Appendix C4: Recreational Use Benefits of
Other Policy Options
Appendix Contents
C4-1
Introduction
Chapter C4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the three proposed options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities, for
electric generators and manufacturers in the North
Atlantic region. This appendix supplements Chapter
C4 by presenting estimates of the recreational fishing
benefits of five other options that EPA evaluated for
the purpose of comparison:
»• Option 3,
* Option 4,
•• Option 2,
> Option 1, and
» Option 6.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter C4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
C4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other
Evaluated Options C4-1
C4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishing Losses under the Other
Evaluated Options C4-1
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Other Evaluated Options C4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by
Option C4-3
C4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
C4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses under the Other Evaluated Options
Table C4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the North Atlantic region under the other evaluated options.
App. C4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Appendix C4
Table C4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E under the Other Evaluated Options in the North Atlantic Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(#offish)b
Species'
Atlantic mackerel
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic cod
Gunner
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Option 3
16
1
17
5,485
5,485
17
1,887
5,605
2
12
255
7,777
59
75,33*
Option 4
16
1
17
5,485
5,485
17
1,887
5,605
2
12
255
7,777
59
13,338
Option!
16
1
17
5,485
5,485
17
1,887
5,605
2
12
255
7,777
59
73,33*
Option 1
16
1
17
5,485
5,485
17
1,887
5,605
2
12
255
7,777
59
73,33*
Option 6
16
1
17
5,485
5,485
17
1,887
5,605
2
12
255
7,777
59
73,33*
a EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other saltwater' group includes bottomfish and
other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer.
b In the North Atlantic region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 3 is the same as under Option 4, Option 2, Option 1, and Option
6. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. C4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region
Appendix C4
C4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
Tables C4-2 presents EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the other evaluated options in the
North Atlantic region.
In the North Atlantic region, all potentially regulated facilities that would install new technology under Option 3,
Option 4, Option 2, Option 1, or Option 6 have design intake flows greater than 50 MOD. Because the
requirements under these five options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and benefits
resulting from these five options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented in Table C4-2 apply to
all five options.
Table C4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 3, Option 4, Option 2, Option 1, or'Option 6, in the
North Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'"
Fishing Losses
Species Group (thousands of fish)
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
0.0e
5.5
7.8
0.1
13.3
13.3
13.3
Low
$2.82
$3.70
$1.94
$2.66
Mean
$7.64
$8.06
$4.20
$5.80
High
$20.45
$17.61
$9.18
$12.68
Low
$0.0"
$20.3
$15.1
$0.2
$35.5
$29.0
$22.5
Mean
$0.1
$44.2
$32.7
$0.3
$77.4
$63.2
$48.9
High
$0.3
$96.6
$71.4
$0.8
$169.1
$138.2
$106.9
a In the North Atlantic region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 3 is the same as under
Option 4, Option 2, Option 1, and Option 6. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also
identical.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish or $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
C4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table C4-3 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the five other evaluated options. The table shows that
recreational fishing benefits are identical under all five options.
App. C4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part C: North Atlantic Region Appendix C4
Table C4-3: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options in the North Atlantic Region
,_,..„ . , Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Annual Reductum in Recreat,onal (thousands; 2003$)"
Policy Option1
Option 3
Option 4
Option 2
Option 1
Option 6
riMlllIg J_iU»SC» IIUUl lOifj —
(thousands of fish)
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
Low
$35.5
$35.5
$35.5
$35.5
$35.5
Mean
$77.4
$77.4
$77.4
$77.4
$77.4
High
$169.1
$169.1
$169.1
$169.1
$169.1
a In the North Atlantic region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 3 is the same as under
Option 4, Option 2, Option 1, and Option 6. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also
identical.
b These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter
C4. EPA did not use the RUM approach from the Phase II analysis to analyze the other evaluated options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. C4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Chapter D1
Chapter Dl: Background
Introduction
Chapter Contents
Dl-1 Facility Characteristics Dl-1
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic
study region and summarizes their key cooling
water and compliance characteristics. For further
discussion of the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development
Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a,b).
Dl-1 Facility Characteristics
The Mid-Atlantic Regional Study includes nine sample facilities that are potentially subject to the proposed
standards for Phase III existing facilities. Five of them are manufacturing facilities and four are electric
generators. Industry-wide, these nine sample facilities represent 13 facilities.1 Figure Dl-1 presents a map of
these facilities.
' EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that
did not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to
the Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000).
Dl-l
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter Dl
Figure Dl-1: Potential Existing Phase HI Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Regional Study
NY
MD
J
^ X T C7.es.-l* 5
Key
Potential Phase III Existing
Facilities* (Count)
Mld-Atlandc NMFS Region
w/ Counties
NMFS Recreational Site
^J Bectric Generating Facility (4)
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic
Chapter Dl
Table Dl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic study region and for the three proposed regulatory options considered by
EPA for this proposal (the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three
applicability thresholds would be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded
from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore, a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Dl-1 shows that 13 Phase III existing facilities in the Mid-Atlantic study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
three proposed options, three facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing
facilities. Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option, two facilities would be subject to the national requirements. Two facilities in the Mid-
Atlantic study region have a recirculating system in the baseline.
Table Dl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in
BL
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish
H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost at 3%b
Compliance Cost at 7%b
All
Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
13
2
982
2
1
2
7
$3.51
$3.30
Proposed Options
50 MGD
All
3
200 MGD 100 MGD
All CWB
2
2
- ' _ -
w"
1
1
1
-
$2.56
$2.44
w'
1
-
1
-
$1.96
$1.78
w1
1
-
1
-
$1.96
$1.78
*• Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
b Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2003$, millions)
Source: U.S. EPA, 2000; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
2 Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
Dl-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D2
Chapter D2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter Contents
Background: Mid-Atlantic Marine
Fisheries
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
(MAFMC) manages fisheries in Federal waters off
the Mid-Atlantic coast. States with voting
representation on the MAFMC include New York,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, and North Carolina. North Carolina is
represented on both the MAFMC and the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council.
The MAFMC has fishery management plans in
place for Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus),
squid (Loligo pealeii and Illex illecebrosus),
butterfish (Peprilus triacanthus), Atlantic surf clam
(Spisula solidissimd), ocean quahog (Arctica islandicd), Atlantic bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix), summer
flounder (Paralichthys dentatus), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), black sea bass (Centropristis striata), and
monkfish (Lophius americanus). Mid-Atlantic groundfish fisheries are primarily for summer flounder, scup,
goosefish (Lophius americanus), and black seabass (NMFS, 1999a). Summer flounder is one of the most valuable
groundfish species in the region, and is targeted by both recreational and commercial fishermen (NMFS, 1999a).
D2-1
D2-2
D2-3
D2-4
D2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated ... D2-1
I&E Data Evaluated D2-3
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at
Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic
Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents
and Foregone Yield D2-3
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Mid-Atlantic Region Under Three
Alternative Options D2-6
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses D2-6
D2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table D2-1 provides a list of species/species groups in the Mid-Atlantic region that are subject to impingement
and entrainment (I&E) and the species groups that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of regional I&E.
Table D2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Blue crab
Recreational Commercial
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
D2-J
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D2
Table D2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species/Species Group
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Bluntnose minnow
Butterfish
Carp
Gunner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Grubby
Herring
Hogchoker
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Scup
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Silver hake
Silver perch
Silversides
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Tautog
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D2
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix Dl of this
report.
D2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table D2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the Mid-Atlantic
Region. I&E data were available for one Phase III facility (Bayway); other data evaluated were from Phase II
facilities. See Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of methods used to extrapolate I&E data from these model
facilities to Phase III facilities without I&E data.
Table D2-2: Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Mid- Atlantic Region Analysis
Facility
Bayway Refinery Company (NJ)
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear (MD)
Chalk Point (MD)
Indian Point Nuclear (NY)
Indian River (DE)
Morgantown (MD)
Salem Nuclear (NJ)
Phase
III
II
II
II
II
II
II
Years of Data
1975-1994
1975-1995
1976-1979
1981-1990
1975-1976
1976
1978-1998
D2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table D2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Mid-Atlantic region. Table D2-4 displays this
information for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and
the yield of harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species. As discussed in Chapter Al of Part A of
the section 316(b) Phase III Regional Benefits Assessment, the conversion of forage to yield contributes only a
very small fraction to total yield.
Table D2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase HI
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Blue crab
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
533
1
22,400
2,420,000
29
<1
504,000
<1
187,000
Total Yield
(Ibs)
5
<1
4,620
478,000
na
na
na
<1
1,730
D2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D2
Table D2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Bluntnose minnow
Butterfish
Carp
Gunner
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Grubby
Herring
Hogchoker
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Scup
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Silver hake
Silver perch
Silversides
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Tautog
Threespine stickleback
Trophic transfer2
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Age-1 Equivalents
(*»)
1,810
1
<1
5
<1
1
12
5
15
1
17,600
28
10,200
70,900
463
25,200
7
2
1
286
3
29
1
15
265,000
2,900
4,770
1,830
24
<1
17
na
12,000
338,000
14
1,700
Total Yield
(Ibs)
na
2
na
<1
na
<1
na
na
na
na
na
na
2,020
na
92
4,980
<1
<1
<1
na
<1
4
<1
na
29,700
4,040
na
2,580
<1
<1
na
2,060
9,430
149
<1
183
3 Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter A1).
D2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D2
Table D2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities
in the Mid-Atlantic Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone
Fishery Yield
Species/Species
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic silverside
Bay anchovy
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Freshwater drum
Goby
Grubby
Herring
Hogchoker
Northern pipefish
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Silverside
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Tautog
Trophic transfer3
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
a Contribution of forage
Age-1 Equivalents
Group (#s)
61
187
550,000
<1
85,700
<1
12,500,000
2,930,000
254
<1
1
5
<1
90,600
2
411
189,000
<1
commercial) 278,000
1,380,000
<1
<1
944,000
21,100
<1
<1
na
40,000
328,000
<1
5,770
fish to yield based on trophic transfer
Total Yield
(Ibs)
<1
46
113,000
<1
16,900
na
na
27,100
na
<1
na
na
na
na
na
81
na
<1
54,900
na
<1
na
106,000
29,400
na
<1
688
31,500
145
. <1
622
(see Chapter A 1).
D2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D2
D2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region Under Three
Alternative Options
Table D2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all
other options are presented in Appendix D2.
Table D2-5; Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-One Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#sj (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option 13,400,000 600,000
200 MGD All Option 11,900,000 534,000
100 MGD Option 11,900,000 534,000
D2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables D2-3 and D2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table D2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group.
See Chapter D3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter D4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for 1) the time to achieve compliance
once the rule goes into effect in 2007, and 2) the time it takes for fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
D2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D2
Table D2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Mid-Atlantic Facilities
Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fishery" b
American shad
Black crappie
Blue crab
Freshwater drum
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)0
Rainbow smelt
Spot
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Trophic transfer11
White perch
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
52.4%
100.0%
100.0%
88.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery"'1"
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
47.6%
0.0%
0.0%
12.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
' Based on landings from 1993 to 2001.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html) and commercial landings data
from NMFS (2003a, http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html).
0 Assumed equally likely to be caught by recreational or commercial fishermen. Commercial value
calculated as overall average for region based on data from NMFS (2003a).
d Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
D2-7
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D3
Chapter D3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region.
Section D3-1 details the estimated losses under
current, or baseline, conditions. Section D3-2
presents expected benefits under three alternative
options. Chapter A4 details the methods used in this
analysis.
Chapter Contents
D3-1 Baseline Losses D3-1
D3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative
Options D3-2
D3-1 Baseline Losses
Table D3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region. Table D3-2 displays this information
for entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $125,000 (undiscounted).
Table D3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species*
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Blue crab
Other (species are only
commercially fished, not
recreationally)
Other (species are fished
both recreationally and
commercially)
Spot
Striped bass
Summer flounder
Trophic transfer11
Weakfish
White perch
Winter flounder
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest Lost
1,560
478,000
1,730
2,020
2,490
14,100
184
309
1,030
2,150
51
68
Estimated Value
Commercial of Harvest Lost
Value per Pound (2003$)
(2003$) Undiscounted
$0.33
$0.07
$0.78
$0.54
$0.54
$0.44
$1.73
$1.58
$0.40
$0.67
$0.62
$1.22
$519
$32,300
$1,340
$1,100
$1,350
$6,210
$318
$488
$410
$1,440
$31
$83
" Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
D3-J
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D3
Table D3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Estimated
Pounds of Commercial
Harvest Value per Pound
Species' Lost (2003$)
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic menhaden
Blue crab
Other (species are only
commercially fished, not
recreationally)
Other (species are fished
both recreationally and
commercially)
Spot
Striped bass
Trophic transfer''
Weakfish
White perch
Winter flounder
46
38,100
16,900
27,100
81
27,500
50,400
1,340
344
7,170
49
230
$0.62
$0.33
$0.07
$0.78
$0.54
$0.54
$0.44
$1.73
$0.40
$0.67
$0.62
$1.22
Estimated Value
of Harvest Lost
(2003$)
Undiscounted
$29
$12,700
$1,140
$21,000
$44
$14,900
$22,100
$2,310
$137
$4,820
$30
$281
a Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
D3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates that 0 to 40% of the gross revenue losses represent surplus losses to
producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of
$0. The 40% estimates, as presented in Tables D3-3, D3-4, and D3-5 for the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option (50 MGD option), "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MOD option), and 100 MOD for Certain
Waterbodies" option (100 MGD option), total approximately $50,100 (undiscounted).
The expected reductions in impingement and entrainment (I&E) attributable to changes at facilities required by
the 50 MGD option are 73% for impingement and 55% for entrainment, for the 200 MGD option are 65% for
impingement and 49% for entrainment, and for the 100 MGD option are 65% for impingement and 49% for
entrainment. Total annualized benefits are estimated by applying these estimated reductions to the annual
producer surplus loss. As presented in Tables D3-3, D3-4, and D3-5, this results in total annualized benefits of up
to approximately $24,900 for the 50 MGD option; and $22,000 for the 200 MGD option and the 100 MGD
option, assuming a 3% discount rate.
D3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D3
Table D3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 50 MGD Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
73%
$0
Entrainment
$79,600
$0
$31,800
55%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
$30,600
$24,900
$19,100
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For
a more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
Table D3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 200 MGD Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
65%
$0
Entrainment
$79,600
$0
$31,800
49%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
$27,300
$22,000
$16,700
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For
a more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
D3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D3
Table D3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 100 MGD Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
65%
$0
Entrainment
$79,600
$0
$31,800
49%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
$27,300
$22,000
$16,700
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For
a more detailed discussion of the discounting mediodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
D3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Chapter D4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for the Mid-
Atlantic region. The chapter presents EPA's
estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual
recreational fishery losses from impingement and
entrainment (I&E) at potentially regulated
facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region and annual
reduction in these losses under the three proposed
regulatory options for Phase III existing facilities:1
- the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option,
- the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
- the " 100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare
gain to Mid-Atlantic anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E and
the expected benefits under the three proposed
options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of
reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a
benefit transfer methodology based on a meta-
analysis of the marginal value of catching
different species offish. This meta-analysis is
discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational
Fishing Benefits Methodology." To validate these
results, this chapter also presents the results of a
random utility model (RUM) analysis for the Mid-
Atlantic region. A detailed discussion of the
RUM analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region can be
found in Chapter D4 of the final Phase II Regional
Studies report (U.S. EPA, 2004).
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in
developing this regulation. Results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for five other
options evaluated by EPA are presented in
Appendix D4.
Chapter Contents
D4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis D4-2
D4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishery Losses under the Proposed
Regulation D4-2
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses ... D4-3
D4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MOD for All Waterbodies" Option . D4-4
D4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" Option . D4-5
D4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the " 100
MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option D4-6
D4-2 RUM Approach D4-6
D4-2.1 RUM Methodology: Mid-Atlantic
Region D4-6
D4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of
Fishing Sites D4-7
D4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from
Reducing I&E D4-7
D4-2.1.3 Estimating Angler Participation . D4-7
D4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from
Eliminating or Reducing I&E . .. D4-8
D4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses . .. D4-8
D4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MOD for All Waterbodies" Option . D4-9
D4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" Option D4-10
D4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100
MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option D4-12
D4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on
RUM Results D4-12
D4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty D4-13
D4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-
Analysis D4-13
D4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM
Approach D4-13
See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
D4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D4
D4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used the meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of 'unidentified' species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3 Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Mid-Atlantic region.4
D4-1.1 Estimated Changes in Recreational Fishery Losses under the Proposed Regulation
Table D4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed regulatory options, in the
Mid-Atlantic region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 0.28 million fish per
year. In comparison, the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 0.16 million fish per year, and
the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option both prevent
losses of 0.14 million fish per year. Of all the affected species, spot and Atlantic croaker have the highest losses
in the baseline and the highest prevented losses under the proposed options.
2 Note that the estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained
recreational fish that would otherwise be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually
much higher.
3 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are
lost because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. However, since it is
difficult to predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
'unidentified' recreational species. Also included in the 'unidentified' group are losses of fish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
D4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Table D4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities and
Reductions in Recreational Losses under the Proposed Regulatory Options in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species'
Annual Baseline
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(# of fish)
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
50 MGD All 200 MGD All 100 MGD CWB
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Summer flounder
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic croaker
Spot
White perch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
2,865
5,771
8,637
436
300
736
46,578
170,953
834
218,366
47,332
275,072
1,626
3,390
5,016
317
176
493
25,741
100,073
532
126,347
26,725
158,582
1,448
3,018
4,466
282
157
439
22,916
89,090
474
112,480
23,792
141,178
1,448
3,018
4,466
282
157
439
22,916
89,090
474
112,480
23,792
141,178
" EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other
saltwater' group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table D4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region. The table
presents baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare
gain from eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the
Mid-Atlantic region are 0.28 million fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to Mid-Atlantic anglers
from eliminating these losses is $1.06 million (2003$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.50 million and $2.26
million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these losses is $1.00 million
and $0.93 million, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under baseline
conditions are attributable to losses of species in the 'other saltwater' group, including spot and Atlantic croaker.
D4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Table D4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)
Annualized Benefits from
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
linousanas 01
fish)'
8.6
0.7
218.4
47.3
275.1
275.1
275.1
Value per Fish"
Low
$2.74
$3.28
$1.79
$1.83
Mean
$6.87
$6.91
$3.73
$3.86
High
$16.94
$14.71
$7.83
$8.20
Eliminating Recreational Fishing
Losses
(thousands)'11
Low
$23.6
$2.4
$389.8
$86.4
$502.3
$473.0
$438.5
Mean
$59.3
$5.1
$814.5
$182.7
$1,061.6
$999.7
$926.7
High
$146.3
$10.8
$1,710.0
$388.1
$2,255.3
$2,123.9
$1,968.8
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating
recreational losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of
the discounting and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Mid-Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.16 million fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.61 million (2003$), with lower and upper
bounds of $0.29 million and $1.30 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from this
reduction in recreational losses is $0.50 million and $0.38 million, respectively. The majority of benefits result
from reduced losses of species in the 'other saltwater' group, including spot and Atlantic croaker.
D4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Table D4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)
Species Group
Annual Reduction in
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(thousands of fish)"
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'11
Low Mean High Low Mean High
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
• 5.0
0.5
126.3
26.7
158.6
158.6
158.6
$2.74
$3.28
$1.79
$1.83
$6.87
$6.91
$3.73
$3.86
$16.94
$14.71
$7.83
$8.20
$13.7
$1.6
$225.5
$48.8
$289.7
$235.4
$180.6
$34.5
$3.4
$471.3
$103.2
$612.3
$497.5
$381.6
$85.0
$7.3
$989.4
$219.2
SI, 3 00.8
$1,056.9
$810.8
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Mid-Atlantic region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.14 million
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.55 million (2003$), with
lower and upper bounds of $0.26 million and $1.16 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.44 million and $0.33 million, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the 'other saltwater' group, including spot and
Atlantic croaker.
D4-S
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Table D4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)
Species Group
Annual Reduction in
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(thousands of fish)"
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)''"
Low Mean High Low Mean
High
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
4.5
0.4
112.5
23.8
141.2
141.2
141.2
$2.74
$3.28
$1.79
$1.83
$6.87
$6.91
$3.73
$3.86
$16.94
$14.71
$7.83
$8.20
$12.2
$1.4
$200.8
$43.5
$257.9
$208.0
$157.9
$30.7
$3.0
$419.5
$91.8
$545.1
$439.6
$333.7
$75.7
$6.5
$880.8
$195.1
$1,158.1
$933.9
$709.0
" Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
In the Mid-Atlantic region, all Phase III facilities that would have to install technology under the "200 MGD for
All Waterbodies" option or the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake flows that are
greater than 200 million gallons per day (MGD) and are located on coastal waterbodies or Great Lakes. Because
the requirements under these two options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and welfare
gain resulting from these two options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented for the 200 MGD
option in Table D4-4 also apply to the 100 MGD option. The table shows that this option reduces recreational
losses by 0.14 million fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.55
million (2003$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.26 million and $1.16 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the
mean annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.44 million and $0.33 million,
respectively.
D4-2 RUM Approach
To validate the results of the benefit transfer approach, EPA applied the RUM model presented in Chapter F4 of
the Regional Studies for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004) to the
baseline losses and reductions in losses at potentially regulated Phase III existing facilities. This section presents
the results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis for the Mid-Atlantic region based on the Phase II RUM
approach.
D4-2.1 RUM Methodology: Mid-Atlantic Region
EPA's methodology for evaluating the change in welfare resulting from a change in recreational losses from I&E
consists of four basic steps: (1) calculating the change in historical catch rates under a given policy scenario, (2)
D4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D4
estimating the per-trip welfare gain to anglers based on the Phase II RUM model, (3) estimating the number of
fishing trips taken by anglers, and (4) combining fishing participation data with the estimated per-trip welfare gain
to calculate the total annual welfare gain. These steps are briefly described in the following sections. For a more
detailed discussion of the RUM methodology, see Chapters Al 1 and F4 of the Regional Studies for the Final
Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004).
D4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
The first step in EPA's analysis was to combine estimates of recreational I&E losses at potentially regulated
facilities with state-level recreational fishery landings data to estimate the percentage change in historical catch
rates under each policy option. Because most species considered in this analysis (e.g., weakfish, striped bass,
bottomfish, and flatfish) are found throughout Mid-Atlantic waters (i.e., from Virginia to New York), EPA made
the assumption that changes in I&E will result in uniform changes in catch rates across all marine fishing sites in
this region.5 Thus, EPA used five-year National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recreational landings data
(1996 through 2000) for state waters to calculate the average statewide landings per year for all species groups.6
EPA then divided baseline recreational I&E losses by total recreational landings to calculate the percentage
change in historical catch rates from completely eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E. Similarly, the
Agency also estimated the percentage changes to historic catch rates that would result under each policy option.
D4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from Reducing I&E
EPA's second step was to use the recreational behavior model described in Chapter F4 of the Phase II Regional
Studies document to estimate an angler's per-trip welfare gain from changes in the historical catch rates in the
Mid-Atlantic region. The Agency estimated welfare gains to recreational anglers under four scenarios:
eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E at potentially regulated facilities, and reducing
recreational fishing losses from I&E by implementing the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD
for All Waterbodies" option, or the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. EPA assumed that the welfare
gain per fishing trip is independent of the number of days fished per trip and therefore equivalent for both single-
and multiple-day trips. Thus, a multiple-day trip is valued the same as a single-day trip.7 EPA estimated separate
per-day welfare gains for different categories of anglers, based on their target species and fishing mode.8
D4-2.1.3 Estimating Angler Participation
The third step in EPA's analysis was to estimate baseline and post-regulatory fishing participation, measured by
the total number of fishing trips taken by Mid-Atlantic anglers.9 Because the policy options for Phase III facilities
are expected to result in relatively small improvements in fishing quality, EPA assumed that increases in
recreational fishing participation under the policy options will be negligible. Thus, to estimate both baseline and
post-regulatory participation, EPA used the total number of fishing trips taken by Mid-Atlantic anglers in 2002.
The total number of trips to the Mid-Atlantic fishing sites was calculated from data provided by NMFS. To
5 Fish lost to I&E are most often very small fish that are too small to catch. Because of the migratory nature of
most affected species, by the time these fish have grown to catchable size, they may have traveled some distance from
the facility where I&E occurs. Without collecting extensive data on migratory patterns of all affected fish, it is not
possible to evaluate whether catch rates will change uniformly or in some other pattern. Thus, EPA assumed that catch
rates will change uniformly across the entire region.
6 State waters include sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers, bays, estuaries, and other areas of salt or brackish
water plus ocean waters to three nautical miles from shore (NMFS, 2003a).
7 See section D4-5.1 of Chapter D4 of the 316(b) Phase II document for limitations and uncertainties associated
with this assumption.
8 EPA used the per-day values for private/rental boat anglers to estimate welfare gains for charter boat anglers.
9 See Chapter B4 of the section 316(b) Phase II Case Study document for a detailed description of the angler
participation estimates in the Mid-Atlantic.
D4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D4
estimate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken by no-target anglers and by anglers targeting each
species of concern, EPA used the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) sample. The Agency
then applied those percentages to the total number of fishing trips taken by Mid-Atlantic anglers to calculate the
number of anglers.
D4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing I&E
The final step in EPA's analysis was to calculate the total benefits of the policy options. To calculate total
benefits for each subcategory of anglers targeting a particular species with a particular fishing mode, EPA
multiplied the per-trip welfare gain for an angler with that particular species/fishing mode combination by the
total number of fishing trips taken by all anglers with that species/fishing mode combination. EPA then summed
benefits for all subcategories of anglers to calculate the total welfare change in the Mid-Atlantic region. Finally,
as discussed in Chapter A8, EPA discounted and annualized the benefits estimates, using both 3% and 7%
discount rates.
D4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table D4-6 presents the baseline level of recreational landings at potentially regulated facilities and the estimated
change in catch rates that would result from eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E in the Mid-Atlantic
region. The table shows that I&E has the largest effect on catch rates for bottomfish, which would increase by
0.62% if I&E were eliminated.
Table D4-6: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Eliminating Recreational Fishing Losses from
I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species Group
Striped bass
Flatfish
Bottomfish
Weakfish
Small game
No target
Annual Recreational
Landings
(thousands of fish)"
7,024.8
20,734.4
39,234.6
4,798.2
7,335.0
79,127.0C
Baseline Annual
Recreational Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)b
7.1
13.1
241.8
8.6
4.4
275.1
Percent Increase in Recreational
Catch from Eliminating I&E
0.10%
0.06%
0.62%
0.18%
0.06%
0.35%
' Total recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters.
b Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species groups in the
same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table D4-7 presents the per-trip welfare gain for anglers targeting different species, the number of fishing trips
taken by anglers targeting those species, and the total annual welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E. The
table shows that the total undiscounted value of baseline losses in the Mid-Atlantic region is S0.96 million
(2003$) and the annualized value of those losses is $0.91 million and $0.84 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%,
respectively. The majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bottomfish and
no-target species. The table shows that eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E would result in
per-trip welfare gains of up to 20 cents per angler.
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Table D4-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Welfare Gain
Species Group Boat Anglers
Striped bass
Flatfish
Bottomfish
Weakfish
Small game
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (evaluated at 3%)
Total, All Species (evaluated at 7%)
$0.03
$0.02
$0.20
$0.06
$0.02
$0.11
Shore Anglers
$0.03
$0.02
$0.19
$0.06
$0.02
$0.11
Number of Annualized Total
Fishing Trips Benefits
(thousands)' (thousands)11
2,216
5,055
1,786
597
842
3,324
15,622
15,622
15,622
$70.4
$101.4
$347.5
$34.2
$46.5
$362.1
$962.1
$906.0
$839.9
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D4-8 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the Mid-Atlantic, catch rates for anglers targeting bottomfish
would increase the most under this option, by 0.36%.
Table D4-8: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E under the "50 MGD for AH
Waterbodies" Option in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species
Group
Striped bass
Flatfish
Bottomfish
Weakfish
Small game
No target
Annual Recreational
Landings
(thousands of fish)'
7,024.8
20,734.4
39,234.6
4,798.2
7,335.0
79,127.0°
Annual Reduction in
Recreational Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)"
4.0
7.5
139.6
5.0
2.5
158.6
Percent Increase in Recreational
Catch from Reducing I&E
0.06%
0.04%
0.36%
0.10%
0.03%
0.20%
" Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters.
b Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Table D4-9 presents the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the Mid-Atlantic
region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.55 million (2003$), and the
annualized value of those benefits is $0.45 million and $0.34 million evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively. The
majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bottomfish and 'no-target' species.
The table shows that this option would result in per-trip welfare gains of up to eleven cents per angler.
Table D4-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Mid-Atlantic
Region (2003$)
Species Group
Striped bass
Flatfish
Bottomfish
Weakfish
Small game
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (evaluated at 3%)
Total, All Species (evaluated at 7%)
Per-Trip Welfare Gain
Boat
Anglers
$0.02
$0.01
$0.11
$0.03
$0.01
$0.06
Shore
Anglers
$0.02
$0.01
$0.11
$0.03
$0.01
$0.06
Number of
Fishing Trips
(thousands)"
2,216
5,055
1,786
597
842
3,324
15,622
15,622
15,622
Annualized Total
Benefits
(thousands)11
$39.8
$57.8
$200.7
$19.8
$26.3
$208.8
$553.2
$449.5
$344.8
" The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table D4-10 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E
under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the Mid-Atlantic region, catch rates for anglers targeting
bottomfish would increase the most under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, by 0.32%.
D4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D4
Table D4-10: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E under the "200 MGD for All
VVaterbodies" Option in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Species
Group
Striped bass
Flatfish
Bottomfish
Weakfish
Small game
No target
Annual Recreational
Landings
(thousands of fish)"
7,024.8
20,734.4
39,234.6
4,798.2
7,335.0
79,127.0C
Annual Reduction in
Recreational Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)b
3.6
6.7
124.3
4.5
2.2
141.2
Percent Increase in Recreational
Catch from Reducing I&E
0.05%
0.03%
0.32%
0.09%
0.03%
0.18%
a Annual recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters.
b Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
c Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table D4-11 presents the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the Mid-Atlantic
region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.49 million (2003$), and the
annualized value of those benefits is $0.40 million and $0.30 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively . The
majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bottomfish and 'no-target' species.
The table shows that this option would result in per-trip welfare gains of up to ten cents per angler.
D4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Chapter D4
Table D4-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for AH Waterbodies" Option in the Mid-
Atlantic Region (2003$)
Species Group
Striped bass
Flatfish
Bottomfish
Weakfish
Small game
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (evaluated at 3%)
Total, All Species (evaluated at 7%)
Per-Trip Welfare Gain
Boat
Anglers
$0.02
$0.01
$0.10
$0.03
$0.01
$0.06
j
Shore
Anglers
$0.02
$0.01
$0.10
$0.03
$0.01
$0.05
Number of Annualized Total
Fishing Trips Benefits
(thousands)* (thousands)1*
2,216
5,055
1,786
597
842
3,324
15,622
15,622
15,622
$35.7
$51.2
$178.7
$17.6
$23.3
$'185.4
$491.8
$396.6
$301.1
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
In the Mid-Atlantic region, all Phase III facilities that would have to install technology under the "200 MGD for
All Waterbodies" option or the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake flows that are
greater than 200 million gallons per day (MGD) and are located on coastal waterbodies or Great Lakes. Because
the requirements under these two options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and welfare
gain resulting from these two options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented for the 200 MGD
option in Table D4-11 also apply to the 100 MGD option. The table shows that this option results in an
undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.49 million (2003$). Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean
annualized welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.40 million and $0.30 million, respectively.
D4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
Table D4-12 compares the undiscounted results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis with the results
of the RUM analysis. The table shows that in both models, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option results a
larger welfare gain than the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
option. In general, the RUM-based results are very close to the values estimated based on the meta-model. That
the values from the two independent analyses are relatively similar corroborates the use of meta-analysis in
estimating the value of incremental recreational fishing improvements resulting from the section 316(b) regulation
for Phase III facilities.
D4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Chapter D4
Table D4-12: Recreational Fishing Benefits in the Mid-Atlantic Region Calculated from Meta-Analysis
Approach and RUM Approach
Policy Option
Estimated
Recreational
Fishing Losses from
I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands, 2003$)
Based on Meta-Analysis
Based on
Low Mean High RUM
Eliminating baseline 275.1 $502.3 $1,061.6 $2,255.3 $962.1
recreational fishing losses
from I&E
50 MGD All
200 MGD Alla
100 MGD CWBa
158.6
141.2
141.2
$289.7
$257.9
$257.9
$612.3
$545.1
$545.1
$1,300.8
$1,158.0
$1,158.0
$553.2
$491.8
$491.8
* Because all Phase III facilities that would have to install technology under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option or the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake flows that are greater than 200 million
gallons per day (MGD) and are located on coastal waterbodies or Great Lakes, recreational fishing benefits resulting
from these two options are identical.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
D4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
D4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-Analysis
The results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis results represent EPA's best estimate of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties
inherent in these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use
of the model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e
and section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5.
D4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM Approach
The results of the benefit transfer based on the RUM analysis results serve to confirm that EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options are reasonable. However, there are a number of limitations and
uncertainties inherent in these estimates. Some general limitations pertaining to the RUM model are discussed in
Chapter All of the 316(b) Phase II document. Additional region-specific limitations are discussed in Chapter D4
of the 316(b) Phase II document.
Although the estimated total welfare gain to the Mid-Atlantic recreational anglers based on the regional RUM
model is likely to be accurate, the estimated average per-trip welfare gain presented in Tables D4-7, D4-9 and
D4-11 must be used and understood in the context of the regional model developed by EPA for the Phase II
analysis. The regional RUM model assumes uniform changes in catch rates at all sites across the region. Given
that there are only 14 potentially regulated facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region and the total intake flow associated
with these facilities is relatively small, catch rate improvements are more likely to occur locally rather than
regionally. These local improvements in catch rates and the associated average per-trip welfare gain are likely to
be greater than those presented in the tables in section D4-2. However, the number of anglers benefitting from
these improvements would be smaller, and so the resulting aggregate benefits are likely to be similar.
D4-13
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D1
Appendix Dl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents
and fishery yields from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Mid-Atlantic Region. Because of
differences in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life
stage sequence was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for
this purpose and are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Alewife 1,
Alewife 2).
Table Dl-1: Alewife Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1\+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G, 1999.
0.554
1.81
1.72
3.11
3.11
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50 .
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.9
1
1
1
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0155
0.0303
0.125
0.254
0.379
0.485
0.565
0.625
0.666
App. Dl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-2: Alewife Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.554
3.53
6.21
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1999.
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0303
0.125
0.254
0.379
0.485
0.565
0.625
0.666
Table Dl-3: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
0.496
Post-yolksac larvae 2.52
Juvenile
Agel-t-
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age8+
Sources: USFWS,
7.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.54
1.02
1.5
1.5
1.5
1978: Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
and Froese and Pauly, 2001.
App. Dl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-4: Atlantic Croaker Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.817
3.27
Post-yolksac larvae 4.90
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G,
1.18
2.20
1.09
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
1999.
Parameters 1
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000128
0.0000000441
0.000000246
0.0000120
0.000113
0.220
0.672
1.24
1.88
2.43
3.26
3.26
3.26
Table Dl-5: Atlantic Croaker Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.817
8.10
3.38
1.09
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
1999.
Parameters 2
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000128
0.000000145
0.0000624
0.220
0.672
1.24
1.88
2.43
3.26
3.26
3.26
App. Dl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Table Dl-6: Atlantic Menhaden Life
History Parameters 1
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.08 0
2.85 0
Post-yolksac larvae 2.85 0
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
2.85 0
0.450 0
0.450 0.8
0.450 0.8
0.450 0.8
0.450 0.8
0.450 0.8
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Entergy Nuclear Generation
Company, 2000; ASMFC, 2001b; andFroese andPauly, 2001.
Table Dl-7: Atlantic Menhaden Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.07
5.71
2.85
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Entergy Nuclear Generation
Company, 2000; ASMFC, 2001b; and Froese and Pauly, 2001.
App. Dl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-8: Atlantic Tomcod Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
8.46
8.46
8.46
8.46
2.83
2.83
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
Sources: Stewart andAuster, 1987; McLaren et al., 1988; Virginia Tech, 1998;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000126
0.0000185
0.0145
0.080
0.270
0.486
andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Dl-9: Bay Anchovy Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Juvenile 3
Juvenile 4
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Derickson
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
1.57
1 2.11
2 4.02
0.0822
0.0861
0.129
0.994
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters 1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.0000000929
0.00000461
0.0000495
0.000199
0.000532
0.00114
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
and Price, 1973; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Dl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D1
Table Dl-10: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Derickson
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7,70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
and Price, 1973; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Dl-11: Bay Anchovy Life History Parameters 3
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Derickson
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
1.57
6.12
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.00000235
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
and Price, 1973; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Dl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-12: Blue Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Megalops
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Hartman
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.30
1.73
1.10
1.38
1.27
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0.48
0.48
0.48
0.48
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0.5
1
1
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000291
0.00000293
0.007
0.113
0.326
,1993; and PSE&G, 1999.
Table Dl-13: Blueback Herring Life History Parameters 1
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.558
1.83
Post-yolksac larvae 1 .74
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Sources: PSE&G,
3.13
3.13
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.00836
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
1999; and NMFS, 2003a.
App. Dl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-14: Blueback Herring Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Sources: PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.558
3.18
6.26
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table DM5: Hogchoker Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
5.20
2.31
2.56
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
0.705
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001; Froese and Pauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00110
0.00207
0.0113
0.0313
0.0610
0.0976
0.138
0.178
2003a.
App. Dl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-16: Naked Goby Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
4.09
2.30
2.55
Sources: PG&E National Energy Group,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000370
0.000221
0.000485
0.00205
2007; andFroese and Pauly, 2003.
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Agell+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Table Dl-17:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825
3.30
4.12
1.58
0.99
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Spot Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.247
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Parameters 1
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.30
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000131
0.000000154
0.000000854
0.0000226
0.000220
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
Sources: Schwartz et al, 1979; andPSE&G, 1984, 1999.
App. Dl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D1
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources:
Table Dl-18:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
0.825
7.40
2.57
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Spot Life History Parameters 2
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000131
0.000000504
0.000121
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
Schwartz et al, 1979; and PSE&G, 1984, 1999.
App. DI-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-19: Striped
Bass Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Bason, 1971;
1.39
2.22
5.11
2.28
1.00
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
I
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000224
0.000000243
0.0000119
0.000154
0.0216
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.50
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
19.6
22.4
27.0
34.6
41.5
App.Dl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-20: Striped Bass Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 1 1+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Bason,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.39
7.32
3.29
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Weight
dbs)
0.000000224
0.00000606
0.0109
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.5
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
19.6
22.4
27
34.6
41.5
1 971; and PSE&G, 1999.
App. Dl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-21: Striped
Bass Life History Parameters 3
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Bason, 1971;
1.39
2.22 .
5.11
3.29
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000224
0.000000243
0.0000119
0.248
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.50
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
19.6
22.4
27
34.6
41.5
App. Dl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-22; Summer Flounder Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
4.37
2.38
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000109
0.00000532
0.208
0.919
1.02
2.50
3.56
5.09
5.83
6.64
8.16
9.90
11.9
14.1
16.6
19.4
22.5
Sources: Wang and Kernehan, 1979; Grimes et al., 1989; Bolz et al, 2000; Packer et al., 1999;
NOAA, 200Ib; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; and Froese and Pauly, 2003.
App. Dl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-23: Weakfish Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Agel2+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Thomas, 1971;
1.04
1.34
6.33
2.44
1.48
0.349
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
andPSE&G, 1999.
0
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000787
0.0000000882
0.000000382
0.0000184
0.0502
0.260
0.680
1.12
1.79
2.91
6.21
7.14
9.16
10.8
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
App. Dl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D1
Table Dl-24: Weakfish Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Thomas,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
3.92
0.349
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.10
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000787
0.000000235
0.0251
0.260
0.680
1.12
1.79
2.91
6.21
7.14
9.16
10.8
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
7977; andPSE&G, 1999.
App. Dl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-25: White Perch Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
2.75
2.10
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
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
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 Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00080
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.000000330
0.000000353
0.00000507
0.000317
0.00486
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
Sources: Horseman and Shirey, 1974; andPSE&G, 1999.
App.Dl-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D1
Table Dl-26: White Perch Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources: Horseman
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.75
5.37
1.71
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
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
0.00080
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000330
0.00000271
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
andShirey, 1974; and PSE&G, 1999.
App. DJ-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-27; White Perch Life History Parameters 3
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
2.75
2.10
3.27
1.71
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
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
0.00080
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000330
0.000000353
0.00000507
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
Sources: Horseman and Shirey, 1974; and PSE&G, 1999.
Table Dl-28: Windowpane Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.41
6.99
2.98
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.61
1.0
1.0 .
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00165
0.00223
0.0325
0.122
0.265
0.433
0.603
0.761
0.899
1.02
1.11
1.19
Sources: Hendrickson, 2000; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; USGen New England, 2001; and
Froese and Pauly, 2003.
App. Dl-19
-------
Section 3 1 6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D:
Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-29: Winter Flounder Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
' Age 4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
0.288
4.37
2.38
1.10
0.924
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
0.200
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.01
0.29
0.80
0.92
0.83
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0138
0.0330
0.208
0.562
0.997
1.42
1.78
2.07
2.29
2.45
2.57
2.65
2.71
2.75
2.78
2.80
2.82
2.83
Sources: Able and Fahay, 1998; Colarusso, 2000; Nitschke et al, 2000; and PG&E National Energy
Group, 2001.
App. Dl-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-30: Other Commercial Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age en-
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
" Includes American butterflsh, American eel, brown bullhead, channel catfish, conger eel, gizzard
shad, harvestfish, silver hake, white catfish, and yellow perch.
Sources: Durbin et al, 1983; Able and Fahay, 1998; andPSE&G, 1999.
Table Dl-31: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age4+
Age5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716 /
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a Includes black drum, black sea bass, bluefish, northern puffer, northern searobin, orange filefish,
oyster toadfish, sea lamprey, spotted hake, and spotted seatrout.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al., 1983; Ruppert et al., 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 2001 b.
App. Dl-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix Dl
Table Dl-32: Other Recreational and Commercial Species Life History Parameters*
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
2.08
2.85
2.85
1.43
1.43
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
* Includes species designated as other commercial from Salem.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al., 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985;
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Able and Fahay,
2001b.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.0472
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
1998; PSE&G,
Table
Dl-33: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae 1
Post-yolksac larvae 2
Juvenile 1
Juvenile 2
Juvenile 3
Juvenile 4
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
1.04
1.57
2.11
4.02
0.0822
0.0861
0.129
0.994
1.62
1.62
1.62
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.0000000929
0.00000461
0.0000495
0.000199
0.000532
0.001161
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a Includes species designated as other forage from Salem.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G, 1999.
App. DI-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D1
Table Dl-34: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters 2"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a Includes Atlantic herring, Atlantic needlefish, Atlantic silverside, banded killifish, blackcheek
tonguefish, bluegill, chain pickerel, fourspine stickleback, golden shiner, inland silverside, inshore
lizardfish, lined seahorse, mississippi silvery minnow, mud minnow, mummichog, northern pipefish,
northern stargazer, pumpkinseed, sheepshead minnow, skilletfish, spottail shiner, spotted codling,
striped anchovy, striped blenny, striped killifish, threespine stickleback, and other organisms not
identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
Table Dl-35: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters 3"
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
1.04
1.57
6.10
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.00000662
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a Includes inland silverside, river herring, and silversides not identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; andPSE&G, 1999.
App. Dl-23
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Appendix D2
Appendix D2: Reductions in I&E in the
Mid-Atlantic Region Under Five Other
Options Evaluated for the Proposed Section
316(b) Phase III Regulation
Table D2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
Mid-Atlantic Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation
Option
20 MOD All
2
3
4
All Phase III Facilities
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
13,600,000
13,600,000
13,400,000
13,600,000
13,700,000
Foregone Fishery Yield
dbs)
610,000
610,000
606,000
610,000
615,000
App. D2-1
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Appendix D3
Appendix D3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
for Five Other Options Evaluated for
Phase III Existing Facilities in the
Mid-Atlantic Region
Section D3-2 in Chapter D3 displays the results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis for the 50 MGD
option, the 200 MGD option, and the 100 MGD option. To facilitate comparisons among the options, this
appendix displays results for the following additional options: All Potentially Regulated Phase III Existing
Facilities option (All Phase III Facilities); the 20 MGD option (20 MGD All); Option 2; Option 3; and Option 4.
Table D3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
All Phase III Facilities Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
75%
$0
Entrainment
$79,600
$0
$31,800
56%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
$31,400
$25,500
$19,600
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
HI for a timeline of benefits.
App. D3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Appendix D3
Table D3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 20 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
74%
$0
Entrainment
$79,600
$0
$31,800
55%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
$31,100
$25,300
$19,400
" Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
Table D3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 2 at
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
74%
$0
Entrainrnent
$79,600
$0
$31,800
55%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $31,100
3% discount rate $25,300
7% discount rate $19,400
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
App. D3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Appendix D3
Table D3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 3 at
Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
74%
$0
Entrainment
$79,600
$0
$31,800
55%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted $30,900
3% discount rate $25,100
7% discount rate $19,200
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
Table D3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 4 at Facilities
in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss - gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost - low
Producer surplus lost - high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule - low
Benefits attributable to rule - high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$45,600
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$18,200
74%
$0
Entrainment
$79,600
$0
$31,800
55%
$0
Total
$125,000
$0
$50,100
$0
$31,100
$25,300
$19,400
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
App. D3-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D4
Appendix D4: Recreational Use Benefits of
Other Policy Options
Appendix Contents
D4-1
Introduction
Chapter D4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the three proposed options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities, for
electric generators and manufacturers in the Mid-
Atlantic region. This appendix supplements Chapter
D4 by presenting estimates of the recreational
fishing benefits of five other options that EPA
evaluated for the purpose of comparison:
> Option 3,
> Option 4,
> Option 2,
»• Option 1, and
* Option 6.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter D4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
D4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other
Evaluated Options D4-1
D4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishing Losses under the Other
Evaluated Options D4-1
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Other Evaluated Options D4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by
Option D4-5
D4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
D4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses under the Other Evaluated Options
Table D4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Mid-Atlantic region under the other evaluated options.
App. D4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D4
Table D4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E under the Other Evaluated Options in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(#offish)b
Species"
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Summer flounder
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic croaker
Spot
White perch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Option 3
1,630
3,406
5,036
322
177
499
25,762
100,509
537
126,808
26,783
159,127
Option 4
1,652
3,444
5,096
322
179
501
26,152
101,671
541
128,365
27,152
161,115
Option 2
1,652
3,444
5,096
322
179
501
26,152
101,671
541
128,365
27,152
161,115
Option 1
1,652
3,444
5,096
322
179
501
26,152
101,671
541
128,365
27,152
161,115
Option 6
1,666
3,474
5,140
325
181
506
26,378
102,550
545
129,475
27,387
162,508
a EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other saltwater' group includes bottomfish and
other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer.
b In the Mid-Atlantic region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 1 is the same as under Option 4 and Option 2. Thus, reductions in
recreational losses under these options are also identical.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D4
D4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
Tables D4-2 throuh D4-4 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the other evaluated
options in the Mid-Atlantic region.
In the Mid-Atlantic region, all potentially regulated facilities that would install new technology under Option 4,
Option 2, and Option 1 have design intake flows greater than 20 MOD. Because the requirements under these
four options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and benefits resulting from these four
options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented in Table D4-3 apply to all four options.
Table D4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 3 in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fish'
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)11'0
nailing ijU»»c»
Species Group (thousands of fish)
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
5.
0.
126.
26.
159.
159.
0
5
8
8
1
1
Low
$2.74
$3.28
$1.79
$1.83
Mean
$6
.87
$6.91
$3.
$3,
.73
.86
High
$16.94
$14.71
$7.83
$8.20
159.1
Low
$13.8
$1.6
$226.4
$48.9
$290.7
$236.3
$181.4
Mean
$34.6
$3.5
$473.0
$103.4
$614.4
S499.4
$383.3
High
$85.3
$7.3
$993.0
$219.6
$1,305.3
$1,061.1
$814.4
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region
Appendix D4
Table D4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 4, Option 2, and Option 1, in the Mid-Atlantic Region
(2003$)"
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)''*1
lushing Losses
Species Group (thousands of fish) Low
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
5.1 $2.74
0.5 $3.28
128.4 $1.79
27.2 $1.83
161.1
161.1
161.1
Mean High Low
$6.87 $16.94 $13.9
$6.91 $14.71 $1.6
$3.73 $7.83 $229.1
$3.86 $8.20 $49.6
$294.3
$239.2
$183.6
Mean
$35.0
$3.5
$478.8
$104.8
$622.1
$505.7
$388.1
High
$86.4
$7.4
$1,005.2
$222.6
$1,321.6
$1,074.3
$824.6
a In the Mid-Atlantic region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under
Option 2 and Option 1. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter AS.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table D4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 6 in the Mid-Atlantic Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
5:i
0.5
129.5
27.4
162.5
162.5
162.5
Value per Fish"
Low
$2.74
$3.28
$1.79
$1.83
Mean
$6.87
$6.91
$3.73
$3.86
High
$16.94
$14.71
$7.83
$8.20
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)6'0
Low
$14.1
$1.7
$231.1
$50.0
$296.9
$241.2
$185.0
Mean
$35.3
$3.5
$482.9
$.105.7
$627.4
$509.8
S391.0
High
$87.1
$7.4
$1,013.9
$224.5
$1,333.0
$1,083.0
$830.8
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part D: Mid-Atlantic Region Appendix D4
D4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table D4-5 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the five other evaluated options. The table shows that
annual recreational fishing benefits are very similar under all of the options.
Table D4-5: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options in the Mid-Atlantic Region
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Annual Reduction in Recreational (thousands; 2003$)"
Policy Option"
Option 3
Option 4
Option 2
Option 1
Option 6
r iMiiug trusses iruui lot
(thousands of fish)
159.1
161.1
161.1
161.1
162.5
Low
$290.7
$294.3
$294.3
$294.3
$296.9
Mean
$614.4
$622.1
$622.1
$622.1
$627.4
High
$1,305.3
$1,321.6
$1,321.6
$1,321.6
$1,333.0
a In the Mid-Atlantic region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under
Option 2 and Option 1. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter
D4. EPA did not use the RUM approach from the Phase II analysis to analyze the other evaluated options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. D4-5
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part E: Gulf of Mexico
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E1
Chapter El: Background
El-l Facility Characteristics El-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Gulf of Mexico
study region and summarizes their key cooling water
and compliance characteristics. For further
discussion of the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the
Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development
Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a,b).
El-1 Facility Characteristics
The Gulf of Mexico Regional Study includes four sample facilities that are potentially subject to the proposed
standards for Phase III existing facilities. All four facilities are manufacturing facilities. Industry-wide, these
four sample facilities represent 11 manufacturing facilities.1 Figure El-1 presents a map of these facilities.
1 EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that
did not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to
the Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000).
El-l
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter El
Figure El-l: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Regional Study
a
, •
'
-,'- 1 "
* ! f
f ' i '"-'""'': "'•>
i MS
" * ! v
LA \ ;
' ' ' ..^^J.A
B, . ,.". . • J.'±. '.'L
- -, :••>•'."'"-' ••'.
*,-
Key
Potential Phase III Existing Guifof Mexico NMFS Region
Facilities (Count) w/ Counties
2 Electric Generating Facility (0)
. NMFS Recreational Site
«Jjj Manufacturing Facility (4) (NorecrsaSona sites are monitored
N /
AL
;
>-«•*._ ^x-s :'
V- - '
iFL
GM?/ V
o/ "\
Mexico >k -
(* '<
^ A-*
0 50 100 Miles
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter El
Table El-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Gulf of Mexico study region and for the three proposed regulatory options considered by
EPA for this proposal (the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three
applicability thresholds would be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded
from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore, a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table El-1 shows that 11 Phase III existing facilities in the Gulf of Mexico study region would potentially be
subject to the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the
three proposed options, seven facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing
facilities. Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, two facilities would be subject to the
national requirements. Seven facilities would also be subject to the national requirements under the "100 MGD
for Certain Waterbodies" option. No facility in the Gulf of Mexico study region has a recirculating system in the
baseline. Data on design intake flow for the Gulf of Mexico study facilities have been withheld due to data
confidentiality reasons.
Table £1-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in
Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish
H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
Compliance Cost at 3%b
Compliance Cost at 7%"
All
Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
11
_
w"
7
4
$14.50
$17.01
Proposed Options
50 MGD
AH
7
_
w"
7
-
$9.07
$10.21
200 MGD
All
2
_
w"
2
-
$3.83
$4.38
100 MGD
CWB
7
_
w'
7
-
$9.07
$10.21
" Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
b Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2003$, millions)
Source: U.S. EPA, 2000; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
2 Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase HI
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
El-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E2
Chapter E2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Gulf of Mexico
Chapter Contents
E2-1
E2-2
E2-3
E2-4
E2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated .... E2-1
I&E Data Evaluated E2-2
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at
Phase III Facilities in the Gulf Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield E2-3
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Gulf of Mexico Region Under Three
Alternative Options E2-4
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses E2-5
Background: Gulf of Mexico Marine
Fisheries
Important marine fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico
include both migratory pelagic species and reef
fishes. Coastal pelagic fishes include king mackerel,
Spanish mackerel, cero, dolphinfish, and cobia.
These species range from the northeastern U.S.
through the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea, and
as far south as Brazil (NMFS, 1999a). They are
managed under the Coastal Migratory Pelagic
Resources Fishery Management Plan and regulations
of the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Fishery
Management Councils, which are implemented by
the National Marine Fisheries Service. King and
Spanish mackerel make up nearly 95% of harvested coastal pelagic species, and are managed as two separate
groups, the Gulf group and the Atlantic group (NMFS, 1999a). Most of the commercial catch of Spanish
mackerel is landed in Florida. Up to 40% of the Gulf stock is also recreationally fished. Dolphinfish and cobia
are also important recreational species, but the status of these stocks is uncertain (NMFS, 1999a).
Reef fishes include over 100 species ranging from North Carolina through the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean
Sea that are important for commercial and recreational anglers (NMFS, 1999a). Many reef fisheries are closely
associated with other managed reef animals, including spiny lobster and stone crab. In the Gulf of Mexico, reef
fisheries include snapper and grouper species as well as grunts, amberjacks, and seabasses. Although landings of
individual species aren't large, collectively reef fisheries have significant landings and value (NMFS, 1999a).
However, stock status of many of these species remains unknown. Red snapper, the most important Gulf reef
fish, is considered overutilized, in part because it is caught incidentally by the shrimp fishery (NMFS, 1999a).
E2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table E2-1 provides a list of species/species groups that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of impingement and
entrainment (I&E) in the Gulf region.
Table £2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are
Subject to I&E in the Gulf of Mexico
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial
Atlantic croaker X X
Bay anchovy
Black drum
Blue crab
X X
X
Chain pipefish
Forage
Gobies
X
X
X
E2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E2
Table £2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are
Subject to I&E in the Gulf of Mexico
Species/Species Group
Gulfkillifish
Hogchoker
Leatherjacket
Mackerel
Menhaden
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Scaled sardine
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Tidewater silverside
Recreational
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Commercial
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix El of this
report.
E2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table E2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the region. Because
EPA found no I&E data for Phase III facilities in this region, EPA developed I&E estimates for these facilities by
extrapolation of I&E estimates of Phase II facilities. See Chapter Al of Part A for a discussion of extrapolation
methods.
Table E2-2: Phase II Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Gulf of Mexico Analysis
Facilities Years of Data
Big Bend (FL) 1976-1979
Crystal River (FL) 1984
P H Robinson (TX) 1978
Webster (TX) 1978
E2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III-Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E2
E2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf Region Expressed
as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table E2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Gulf region. Table E2-4 displays this information for
entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and the yield of
harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species. As discussed in Chapter A1 of Part A of the section
316(b) Phase III Regional Benefits Assessment, the conversion of forage to yield contributes only a very small
fraction to total yield.
Table £2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase HI Facilities in
the Gulf Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Atlantic croaker
Bay anchovy
Black drum
Blue crab
Chain pipefish
Gobies
Gulfkillifish
Hogchoker
Leatherjacket
Mackerel
Menhaden
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Scaled sardine
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Tidewater silverside
Trophic transfer8
a Contribution of forage fish to
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
455,000
481,000
3,630
1,400,000
11,500
1,680
5,170
16,400
35,600
2,360
531,000
62,300
37,600
14,200
4,970
2,320,000
22,800
20,900
208
227,000
122
57,600
108,000
175,000
47,500
70,200
26,600
na
yield based on trophic transfer
Total Yield
(Ibs)
93,900
na
16,300
17,300
na
na
na
na
4,460 •
326
105,000
12,300
na
2,800
211
21,800
102,000
na
45
9,380
<1
7
12,100
157,000
34,700
33,400
na
43
(see Chapter A 1).
E2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E2
Table E2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III Facilities in
the Gulf Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Atlantic croaker
Bay anchovy
Black drum
Blue crab
Chain pipefish
Gobies
Hogchoker
Leatherjacket
Menhaden
Other (commercial)
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Scaled sardine
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Tidewater silverside
Trophic transfer3
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
212
1,630,000
265,000
1,290,000
4,500
181,000
3,640
2,130
6,490
4,340
1,170,000
7,870
136,000
869,000
1,830
75,900
46,200
4,400
599,000
11,300
8,500
52,500
166,000
41,600
na
Total Yield
(Ibs)
44
na
1,190,000
15,900
na
na
na
267
1,280
857
na
1,550
5,760
8,170
8,250
na
1,910
15
70
1,270
7,610
38,400
78,800
na
2,100
' Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
E2-4 Reductions in l&E at Phase III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region Under Three
Alternative Options
Table E2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all
other options are presented in Appendix E2.
Table E2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MGD All Option
200 MGD All Option
100 MGD Option
8,380;000
4,580,000
8,380,000
1,250,000
682,000
1,250,000
E2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E2
E2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
The lost yield estimates presented in Tables E2-3 and E2-4 are expressed as total pounds and include losses to
both commercial and recreational catch. To estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table E2-6
presents the percentage impacts assumed for each species/species group. Commercial and recreational fishing
benefits are presented in Chapters E3 and E4.
Table £2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and
Recreational Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species
Impinged and Entrained at Gulf of Mexico Facilities
Species/Species Group
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Mackerel
Menhaden
Other (commercial)
Other (recreational)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Trophic transfer11
Percent Impact to
Recreational Fishery">b
88.2%
93.0%
0.0%
0.0%
73.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
86.0%
100.0%
67.0%
100.0%
23.9%
100.0%
0.0%
10.1%
50.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery"'b
11.8%
7.0%
100.0%
100.0%
26.5%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
14.0%
0.0%
33.0%
0.0%
76.1%
0.0%
100.0%
89.9%
50.0%
a Based on landings from 1993-2001 in Alabama, Florida (west coast), Louisiana, and
Mississippi. Recreational landings data for Texas are not collected by NMFS.
b Calculated using recreational landings data from NMFS (2003b,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html) and commercial
landings data from NMFS (2003a,
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html).
c Calculated using commercial landings data from NMFS (2003a).
d Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
See Chapter E3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter E4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for 1) the time to achieve compliance
once the rule goes into effect in 2007, and 2) the time it takes for fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
E2-5
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E3
Chapter E3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the Gulf of Mexico
region. Section E3-1 details the estimated losses
under current, or baseline, conditions. Section E3-2
presents expected benefits under three alternative
options. Chapter A4 details the methods used in this
analysis.
Chapter Contents
E3-1 Baseline Losses E3-1
E3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative
Options E3-2
£3-1 Baseline Losses
Table E3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region. Table E3-2 displays this information
for entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $357,000 (undiscounted).
Table £3-1: Annualized Commercial
to Impingement at Facilities in
Species"
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Mackerels
Menhaden
Other (species are only
commercially fished, not
recreationally)
Pink shrimp
Sea basses
Spot
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Trophic transfer15
Estimated
Pounds of
Harvest
Lost
11,100
1,150
17,300
4,460
86
105,000
12,300
21,800
6
9,230
34,700
30,000
22
Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
the Gulf of Mexico Region
Commercial Estimated Value
Value per of Harvest Lost
Pound (2003$)
(2003$) Undiscounted
$0.24
$0.68
$0.67
$1.10
$0.47
$0.06
$0.58
$2.42
$0.55
$0.28
$1.50
$0.69
$0.47
$2,670
$788
$11,600
$4,920
$40
$5,810
$7,160
$52,800
$4
$2,590
$52,000
$20,700
$10
a Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter A 1).
E3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Chapter E3
Table £3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due to
Entrainment at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Estimated Commercial Estimated Value of
Pounds of Value per Harvest Lost
Harvest Pound (2003$)
Species'
Black drum
Blue crab
Leatherjacket
Menhaden
Other (species are only
commercially fished, not
recreationally)
Pink shrimp
Sheepshead
Spot
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Trophic transfer11
Lost
84,100
15,900
267
1,280
857
8,170
5
965
38,400
70,900
1,050
(2003$)
$0.68
$0.67
$1.10
$0.06
$0.58
$2.42
$0.33
$0.28
$1.50
$0.69
$0.47
Undiscounted
$57,500
$10,600
$294
$71
$498
$19,800
$2
$270
$57,600
$48,900
$494
a Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $ 1.
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
E3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates that 0 to 40% of the gross revenue losses represent surplus losses to
producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of
SO. The 40% estimates, as presented in Tables E3-3, E3-4, and E3-5, total approximately $143,000
(undiscounted).
The expected reductions in impingement and entrainment (I&E) attributable to changes at facilities required by
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (50 MGD option) are 76% for impingement and 57% for entrainment,
for the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MGD option) are 41% for impingement and 31% for
entrainment, and for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option (100 MGD option) are 76% for
impingement and 57% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are estimated by applying these estimated
reductions to the annual producer surplus loss. As presented in Tables E3-3, E3-4, and E3-5, this results in total
annualized benefits of up to approximately $78,100 for the 50 MGD option, $42,700 for the 200 MGD option,
and $78,100 for the 100 MGD option, assuming a 3% discount rate.
E3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E3
Table E3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
50MGD Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — low
Producer surplus lost — high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule — - low
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$161,000
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$64,500
76%
$0
Entrainment
$196,000
$0
$78,400
57%
$0
Total
$357,000
$0
$143,000
$0
$93,300
$78,100
$62,200
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more detailed
discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline
of benefits.
Table E3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
200 MGD Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)"
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — low
Impingement
$161,000
$0
Entrainment
$196,000
$0
Total
$357,000
$0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule — low
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
$64,500
41%
$0
$78,400
31%
$0
$143,000
$0
$51,000
$42,700
$34,000
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more detailed
discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline
of benefits.
E3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Chapter E3
Table E3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
100 MGD Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)*
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — low
Producer surplus lost — high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule — low
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$161,000
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$64,500
76%
$0
Entrainment
$196,000
$0
$78,400
57%
$0
Total
$357,000
$0
$143,000
$0
$93,300
$78,100
$62,200
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more detailed
discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline
of benefits.
E3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Chapter E4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for the
Gulf of Mexico region. The chapter presents
EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current)
annual recreational fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of
Mexico region and annual reduction in these
losses under the three proposed regulatory
options for Phase III existing facilities:1
- the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option,
- the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
•• the " 100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare
gain to Gulf of Mexico anglers from
eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses
from I&E and the expected benefits under the
three proposed options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of
reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a
benefit transfer methodology based on a meta-
analysis of the marginal value of catching
different species of fish. This meta-analysis is
discussed in detail in Chapter A5,
"Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
To validate these results, this chapter also
presents the results of a random utility model
(RUM) analysis for the Gulf of Mexico region.
A detailed discussion of the RUM analysis for
the Gulf of Mexico region can be found in
Chapter F4 of the final Phase II Regional
Studies report (U.S. EPA, 2004).
EPA considered a wide range of policy options
in developing this regulation. Results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for five
other options evaluated by EPA are presented
in Appendix E4.
Chapter Contents
E4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis E4-2
E4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishery
Losses under the Proposed Regulation . E4-2
E4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses .... E4-3
E4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option ... E4-4
E4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option .. . E4-5
E4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100
MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option E4-6
E4-2 RUM Approach E4-6
E4-2.1 RUM Methodology: Gulf of Mexico
Region E4-7
E4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of
Fishing Sites E4-7
E4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from
Reducing I&E E4-7
E4-2.1.3 Estimating Angler Participation . .. E4-8
E4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from
Eliminating or Reducing I&E E4-8
E4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses E4-8
E4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option .. E4-10
E4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" Option . . E4-12
E4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100
MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option E4-14
E4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on
RUM Results E4-15
E4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty E4-15
E4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty:
Meta-Analysis E4-15
E4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM
Approach E4-15
See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
E4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Chapter E4
E4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used the meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of 'unidentified' species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3 Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Gulf of Mexico
region.4
E4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses under the Proposed Regulation
Table E4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed options, in the Gulf of
Mexico region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 270.6 thousand fish per
year. In comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options
prevent losses of 183.1 thousand fish per year, and the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of
100.0 thousand fish per year. Of .all the affected species, black drum and spotted seatrout have the highest losses
in the baseline and the highest prevented losses under the proposed options.
2 Note that the estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained
recreational fish that would otherwise be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually
much higher.
3 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are
lost because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. However, since it is
difficult to predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
'unidentified' recreational species. Also included in the 'unidentified' group are losses of fish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
E4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table E4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities and
Reductions in Recreational Losses under the Proposed Regulatory Options in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Species"
Baseline Annual
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(# of fish)
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
50 MGD All 200 MGD All 100 MGD CWB
Mackerels
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Total (small game)
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
336
6,869
66,981
74,186
49,288
69,758
32,936
32
24,860
6
179
7,737
3,931
188,728
7,731
270,645
254
5,104
50,133
55,492
37,318
39,796
18,926
24
18,030
3
105
5,720
2,454
122,377
5,205
183,074
139
2,789
27,392
30,320
20,390
21,744
10,341
13
9,851
2
57
3,126
1,341
66,864
2,844
100,028
254
5,104
50,133
55,492
37,318
39,796
18,926
24
18,030
3
105
5,720
2,454
122,377
5,205
183,074
a EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other
saltwater' group includes bottomfish and other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost
indirectly through trophic transfer.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table E4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region. The table
presents baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare
gain from eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the
Gulf of Mexico region are 0.27 million fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to Gulf of Mexico
anglers from eliminating these losses is $0.97 million (2003$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.43 million and
$2.17 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these losses is $0.94
million and $0.90 million, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under baseline
conditions are attributable to losses of spotted seatrout and black drum.
E4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III -Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table E4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003S)
Annualized Benefits from
Baseline Annual Eliminating Recreational Fishing
Recreational Losses
Fishing Losses Value per Fish" (thousands)1'"
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)c
Total (evaluated at 7%)c
(thousands 01
fish)'
74.2
188.7
7.7
270.6
270.6
270.6
Low
$2.30
$1.32
$1.60
Mean
$5.32
$2.88
$3.57
High
$12.20
$6.38
$8.02
Low
$170.6
$249.2
$12.3
$432.2
$419.2
$403.7
Mean
$394.7
$544.0
$27.6
$966.4
$937.3
$902.6
High
$904.8
$1,203.9
$62.0
$2,170.7
$2,105.5
$2,027.5
' Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating
recreational losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of
the discounting and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Gulf of Mexico region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.18 million fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.67 million (2003$), with lower and upper
bounds of $0.30 million and $1.50 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from this
reduction in recreational losses is $0.57 million and $0.48 million, respectively. The majority of benefits result
from reduced losses of spotted seatrout and black drum.
E4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table E4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)c
Total (evaluated at 7%)c
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
55.5
122.4
5.2
183.1
183.1
183.1
Value per Fish"
Low
$2.30
$1.32
$1.60
Mean
$5.32
$2.88
$3.57
High
$12.20
$6.38
$8.02
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)1"
Low
$127.6
$161.6
$8.3
$297.6
$249.0
$198.2
Mean
$295.3
$352.8
$18.6
$666.6
$557.8
$443.9
High
$676.8
$780.6
$41.7
$1,499.2
$1,254.3
$998.4
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated
value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Gulf of Mexico region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.10 million
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.36 million (2003$), with
lower and upper bounds of $0.16 million and $0.82 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.30 million and $0.24 million, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of spotted seatrout and black drum.
E4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table E4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)
Annualized Recreational
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)c
Total (evaluated at 7%)c
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)*
30.3
66.9
2.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
Value per Fishb
Low
$2.30
$1.32
$1.60
Mean
$5.32
$2.88
$3.57
High
$12.20
$6.38
$8.02
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)c'd
Low
$69.7
$88.3
$4.5
$162.6
$136.0
$108.3
Mean
$161.3
$192.7
$10.2
$364.2
$304.7
$242.6
High
$369.8
$426.5
$22.8
$819.1
$685.3
$545.5
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
£4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
All potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region that would have to install new technology under
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake
flows that are greater than 100 MGD and are located on coastal waterbodies or great lakes. Because the
requirements under the 50 MGD option and the 100 MGD option are identical for this class of facilities, the
estimated I&E reductions and recreational fishing benefits from these two options are identical. Thus, the
estimated recreational fishing benefits presented in Table E4-3 also apply to the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.18 million fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.67 million (2003$), with lower and upper
bounds of $0.30 million and $1.50 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from this
reduction in recreational losses is $0.57 million and $0.48 million, respectively. The majority of benefits result
from reduced losses of spotted seatrout and black drum.
E4-2 RUM Approach
To validate the results of the benefit transfer approach, EPA applied the RUM model presented in Chapter F4 of
the Regional Studies for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004) to the
baseline losses and reductions in losses at potentially regulated Phase III existing facilities. This section presents
the results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis for the Gulf of Mexico region based on the Phase II RUM
approach.
E4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Chapter E4
E4-2.1 RUM Methodology: Gulf of Mexico Region
EPA's methodology for evaluating the change in welfare resulting from a change in recreational losses from I&E
consists of four basic steps: (1) calculating the change in historical catch rates under a given policy scenario, (2)
estimating the per-trip welfare gain to anglers based on the Phase II RUM model, (3) estimating the number of
fishing trips taken by anglers, and (4) combining fishing participation data with the estimated per-trip welfare gain
to calculate the total annual welfare gain. These steps are briefly described in the following sections. For a more
detailed discussion of the RUM methodology, see Chapters Al 1 and F4 of the Regional Studies for the Final
Section 316(b) Phase IIExisting Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004).
£4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
The first step in EPA's analysis was to combine estimates of recreational I&E losses at potentially regulated
facilities with state-level recreational fishery landings data to estimate the percentage change in historical catch
rates under each policy option. Because most species considered in this analysis (e.g., black drum, seatrout, sea
bass) are found throughout Gulf of Mexico waters, EPA made the assumption that changes in I&E will result in
uniform changes in catch rates across all marine fishing sites in this region.5 Although no landings data was
available for the state of Texas, EPA assumed that catch rates for Texas anglers are similar to catch rates for other
anglers in the region.6 Thus, EPA used five-year National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recreational landings
data (1997 through 2001) for state waters to calculate the average statewide landings per year for all species
groups for western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.7 EPA then divided baseline recreational I&E
losses for those four states by total recreational landings to calculate the percentage change in historical catch
rates from completely eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E.8 Similarly, the Agency also estimated the
percentage changes to historic catch rates that would result under each policy option.
E4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from Reducing I&E
EPA's second step was to use the recreational behavior model described in Chapter F4 of the Phase II Regional
Studies document to estimate an angler's per-trip welfare gain from changes in the historical catch rates in the
Gulf of Mexico region. The Agency estimated welfare gains to recreational anglers under four scenarios:
eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E at potentially regulated facilities, and reducing
recreational fishing losses from I&E by implementing the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MGD
for All Waterbodies" option, or the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. EPA assumed that the welfare
gain per fishing trip is independent of the number of days fished per trip and therefore equivalent for both single-
5 Fish lost to I&E are most often very small fish that are too small to catch. Because of the migratory nature of
most affected species, by the time these fish have grown to catchable size, they may have traveled some distance from
the facility where I&E occurs. Without collecting extensive data on migratory patterns of all affected fish, it is not
possible to evaluate whether catch rates will change uniformly or in some other pattern. Thus, EPA assumed that catch
rates will change uniformly across the entire region.
6 EPA obtained landings data for Texas from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Marine Sport-Harvest
Monitoring Program, but found that landings data for the shore mode were not available, and data for private/rental and
charter boat modes were very limited (e.g., landings data for the bottomfish group included only three species, whereas
NMFS data for other Gulf states included 20 species in this group) (TPWD, 2003).
7 State waters include sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers, bays, estuaries, and other areas of salt or brackish
water, plus ocean waters to three nautical miles from shore (NMFS, 2003a).
8 Because EPA did not have landings data for Texas, the Agency excluded I&E for Texas from this calculation.
EPA estimated I&E losses for West Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana by applying an adjustment factor of
0.517 to the I&E losses estimated for all five states in the Gulf of Mexico region. This adjustment factor reflects the
fact that Texas facilities account for 48.3% of cooling water intake system (CWIS) flow in the region.
E4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Chapter E4
and multiple-day trips. Thus, a multiple-day trip is valued the same as a single-day trip.9 EPA estimated separate
per-day welfare gains for different categories of anglers, based on their target species and fishing mode.10
E4-2.1.3 Estimating Angler Participation
The third step in EPA's analysis was to estimate baseline and post-regulatory fishing participation, measured by
the total number of fishing trips taken by Gulf of Mexico anglers." Because the policy options for Phase HI
facilities are expected to result in relatively small improvements in fishing quality, EPA assumed that increases in
recreational fishing participation under the policy options will be negligible. Thus, to estimate both baseline and
post-regulatory participation, EPA used the total number of fishing trips taken by Gulf of Mexico anglers in 2002.
The total number of trips to the Gulf of Mexico fishing sites was calculated from data provided by NMFS for
western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, and by U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. DOI, 2002)
for Texas. To estimate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken by no-target anglers and by anglers
targeting each species of concern, EPA used the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS)
sample. The Agency then applied those percentages to the total number of fishing trips taken by Gulf of Mexico
anglers to calculate the number of anglers.
E4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing I&E
The final step in EPA's analysis was to calculate the total benefits of the policy options. To calculate total
benefits for each subcategory of anglers targeting a particular species with a particular fishing mode, EPA
multiplied the per-trip welfare gain for an angler with that particular species/fishing mode combination by the
total number of fishing trips taken by all anglers with that species/fishing mode combination. EPA then summed
benefits for all subcategories of anglers to calculate the total welfare change in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Finally, as discussed in Chapter A8, EPA discounted and annualized the benefits estimates, using both 3% and
7% discount rates.
E4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table E4-5 presents the baseline level of recreational landings at potentially regulated facilities and the estimated
change in catch rates that would result from eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E in the Gulf region.
The table shows that I&E has the largest effect on catch rates for bottomfish, which would increase by 0.29% if
I&E were eliminated.
9 See section F4-5.1 of the 316(b) Phase II document for limitations and uncertainties associated with this
assumption.
10 EPA used the per-day values for private/rental boat anglers to estimate welfare gains for charter boat anglers.
11 See Chapter F4 of the 316(b) Phase II document for a detailed description of the angler participation estimates
in the Gulf of Mexico.
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table £4-5: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Eliminating I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase
III Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region'
Annual Recreational Landings
(thousands of fish)b
Baseline Annual Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)c
Species Group Entire Region" Four States' Entire Region" Four States''f
Percent Increase in
Recreational Catch
from Eliminating I&E
(based on four states)
Bottomfish
Seatrout
Small game
Snapper/Grouper
Flatfish
No target
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
33,608.8
27,823.0
15,004.4
17,132.5
1,077.2
104,065.0"
191.44
69.25
8.43
1.44
0.09
270^65
99.00
35.82
4.36
0.74
0.05
139.97
0.29%
0.13%
0.03%
0.00%g
0.00%8
0.13%
' Because no recreational landings data were available for Texas, EPA calculated the impact of eliminating I&E in the
four other states in the Gulf of Mexico region, and then used the percentage change in recreational catch in those four
states as an estimate of the percentage change in recreational catch across the entire region.
b Total recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters. No landings data
were available for Texas.
c Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species groups in the
same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
d Includes all five states in the Gulf of Mexico region (western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas).
e Includes western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; does not include Texas.
f I&E losses for four states were estimated from I&E losses for the entire Gulf of Mexico region, based on intake
flow. The four states account for 51.7% of intake flow in the region; thus, EPA assumed these states also account for
51.7% of losses.
8 Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
h Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table E4-6 presents the per-trip welfare gain for anglers targeting different species, the number of fishing trips
taken by anglers targeting those species, and the total annual welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E. The
table shows that the total undiscounted value of baseline losses in the Gulf of Mexico region is $0.66 million
(2003$), and the annualized value of those losses is $0.64 million and $0.62 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%,
respectively. The majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for 'no-target'
species and seatrout. The table shows that eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E would result
in per-trip welfare gains of eight cents or less per angler.
E4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Chapter E4
Table E4-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Welfare Gain Number
Species Group Boat Anglers Shore Anglers (th
Bottomfish
Seatrout
Small game
Snapper/Grouper
Flatfish
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (discounted at 3%)
Total, All Species (discounted at 7%)
S0.08
$0.05
$0.01
$0.00C
$0.00°
$0.03
$0.02
$0.06
$0.00°
$0.00°
$0.00C
$0.02
of Fishing Trips Annualized
ive Gulf States Total Benefits
lousands)" (thousands)11
590
3,901
6,816
1,773
228
14,912
28,548
28,548
28,548
$25.0
$197.1
$47.2
$2.6
$0.1
$389.8
$661.8
$642.0
$618.2
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' sp"ecies group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E4-9 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under the
"50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the Gulf of Mexico, catch rates for anglers targeting bottomfish would
increase the most under this option, by 0.2%.
E4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table E4-7: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates under the "50 MGD for AH Waterbodies" Option in
the Gulf of Mexico Region"
Annual Reduction in Recreational
Annual Recreational Landings
(thousands of fish)"
Species Group
Bottomfish
Seatrout
Small game
Snapper/Grouper
Flatfish
No target
Entire Region*1
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Four States'
33,608.8
27,823.0
15,004.4
17,132.5
1,077.2
104,065.0i
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)0
Entire Region"
124.2
51.7
6.2
1.0
0.1
183.1
Four States' f
67.9
28.2
3.4
0.5
0.0g
100.0
Percent Increase in
Recreational Catch
from Reducing I&E
(based on four states)
0.20%
0.10%
0.02%
0.00%h
0.00%h
0.10%
a Because no recreational landings data were available for Texas, EPA calculated the impact of reducing I&E in the
four other states in the Gulf of Mexico region, and then used the percentage change in recreational catch in those four
states as an estimate of the percentage change in recreational catch across the entire region.
b Total recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters. No landings data
were available for Texas.
c Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
d Includes all five states in the Gulf of Mexico region (western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas).
c Includes western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; does not include Texas.
f The annual reduction in recreational losses for four states was estimated from the annual reduction for the entire
region, based on intake flow at in-scope Phase III facilities. Under this option, the four states account for 54.6% of
intake flow at Phase III facilities in the region; thus, EPA assumed these states also account for 54.6% of losses.
8 Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
h Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
1 Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table E4-8 presents the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the Gulf of Mexico
region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.49 million (2003$), and the
annualized value of those benefits is $0.41 million and $0.33 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively. The
majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for 'no-target' species and seatrout. The
table shows that this option would result in per-trip welfare gains of six cents or less per angler.
E4-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Chapter E4
Table E4-8: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Gulf of Mexico
Region (2003$)
Per-Trip Welfare Gain Number
Species Group Boat Anglers Shore Anglers (th
Bottomfish
Seatrout
Small game
Snapper/Grouper
Flatfish
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, AH Species (discounted at 3%)
Total, All Species (discounted at 7%)
$0.06
S0.04
S0.01
$0.00C
$0.00C
$0.02
$0.01
$0.05
$0.00C
$0.00°
$0.00°
$0.02
of Fishing Trips Annualized
ive Gulf States Total Benefits
ousands)" (thousands)1*
590
3,901
6,816
1,773
228
14,912
28,548
28,548
28,548
$17.1
$154.3
$37.4
$2.0
$0.1
$277.2
$488.1
$408.4
$325.1
' The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table E4-9 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under
the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the Gulf of Mexico region, catch rates for anglers targeting
bottomfish would increase the most under this option, by 0.2%.
E4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table E4-9: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E under the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" Option in the Gulf of Mexico Region"
Annual Reduction in Recreational
r GrCGl
Annual Recreational Landings Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)" (thousands of fish)c ,_*"*
Species Group Entire Region*1
Bottomfish
Seatrout
Small game
Snapper/Grouper
Flatfish
No target
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Four States' Entire Region" Four States'-' (based
33,608.8
27,823.0
15,004.4
17,132.5
1,077.2
104,065.0'
67.9
28.2
3.4
0.5
0.0g
100.0
67.9
28.2
3.4
0.5
O.O8
100.0
nt Increase in
ational Catch
(educing I&E
on four states)
0.20%
0.10%
0.02%
0.00%h
0.00%K
0.10%
* Because no recreational landings data were available for Texas, EPA calculated the impact of reducing I&E in the
four other states in the Gulf of Mexico region, and then used the percentage change in recreational catch in those four
states as an estimate of the percentage change in recreational catch across the entire region.
b Total recreational landings are calculated as a five-year average (1997-2001) for state waters. No landings data
were available for Texas.
c Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers. Losses of species that were not identified were distributed to the species
groups in the same proportions found in the MRFSS landings data.
d Includes all five states in the Gulf of Mexico region (western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas).
c Includes western Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana; does not include Texas.
f Since all Phase III facilities with intake flows greater than 200 MGD are located in these four states, the annual
reduction in recreational losses for four states is the same as the reduction for five states.
8 Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
h Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
1 Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: NMFS, 2002e; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table E4-10 presents the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the Gulf of Mexico
region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.36 million (2003$), and the
annualized value of those benefits is $0.30 million and $0.24 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively. The
majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for 'no-target' species and seatrout. The
table shows that this option would result in per-trip welfare gains of six cents or less per angler.
E4-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
Table £4-10: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for AH Waterbodies" Option in the Gulf of
Mexico Region (2003$)
Numl
Per-Trip Welfare Gain xrjD!
G
Species Group Boat Anglers Shore Anglers (thi
Bottomfish
Flatfish
Seatrout
Small game
Snapper/Grouper
No target
Total, All Species (undiscounted)
Total, All Species (discounted at 3%)
Total, All Species (discounted at 7%)
S0.06
$0.04
$0.01
$0.00C
$0.00C
$0.02
$0.01
$0.05
$0.00C
$0.00C
$0.006
$0.02
>er of Fishing
i in the Four Annualized
ulf States Total Benefits
ousands)*'b (thousands)*1
434
168
2,871
5,016
1,305
10,974
21,010
21,010
21,010
$12.6
$0.1
$113.6
$27.5
$1.5
$204.0
$359.2
$300.6
$239.2
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
h Since none of the facilities in TX has a design intake flow greater than 200 MGD, EPA assumed that recreational
anglers of this state will not benefit from the I&E reduction. The total number of fishing trips for the four other Gulf
states is calculated.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
In the Gulf of Mexico region, all Phase III facilities that would have to install new technology under the "50
MGD for All Waterbodies" option and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake flows that
are greater than 100 MGD. Because the requirements under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option are identical for this class of facilities, the estimated I&E reductions
and recreational fishing benefits from these two options are identical. Thus, the estimated recreational fishing
benefits presented in Table E4-8 also apply to "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies".
E4-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Chapter E4
E4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
Table E4-11 compares the undiscounted results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis with the results
of the RUM analysis. The table shows that under both models, the welfare gain under the "50 MOD for All
Waterbodies" option and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option is higher than the welfare gain under the
"200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option. In general, the RUM results fall within the range of values estimated
based on the meta-model. That the values from the two independent analyses are relatively close corroborates the
use of meta-analysis in estimating the value of incremental recreational fishing improvements resulting from the
section 316(b) Phase III proposed regulation.
Table E4-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits in the Gulf of Mexico Region Calculated from Meta-Analysis
Approach and RUM Approach
Policy Option
Estimated Reduction in
Recreational Fishing
Losses from I&E
(thousands of fish)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands, 2003$)
Based on Meta-Analysis
Low
Mean
High
Based on
RUM
Eliminating baseline recreational
fishing losses from I&E
270.6 $432.2 $966.4 $2,170.7
$661.8
50 MOD All
200 MGD All
100 MGD CWB"
183.1
100.0
183.1
$297.6
$162.6
$297.6
$666.6
$364.2
$666.6
$1,499.2
$819.1
$1,499.2
$488.1
$359.2
$488.1
a Because all Phase III facilities that would have to install new technology under the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option have design intake flows that are greater than
100 MGD, recreational fishing benefits resulting from these two options are identical.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
E4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-Analysis
The results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis results represent EPA's best estimate of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties
inherent in these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use
of the model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-3.3e
and section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5.
E4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM Approach
The results of the benefit transfer based on the RUM analysis results serve to confirm that EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options are reasonable. However, there are a number of limitations and
uncertainties inherent in these estimates. Some general limitations pertaining to the RUM model are discussed in
Chapter Al 1 of the 316(b) Phase II document. Some additional region-specific limitations are discussed in
Chapter F4 of the 316(b) Phase II document.
E4-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Chapter E4
Although the estimated total welfare gain to the Gulf of Mexico recreational anglers based on the regional RUM
model is likely to be accurate, the estimated average per-trip welfare gain presented in Tables E4-6, E4-8 and E4-
10 must be used and understood in the context of the regional model developed by EPA for the Phase II analysis.
The regional RUM model assumes uniform changes in catch rates at all sites across the region. Given that there
are only eleven potentially regulated facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region and the total intake flow associated
with these facilities is relatively small, catch rate improvements are more likely to occur locally rather than
regionally. These local improvements in catch rates and the associated average per-trip welfare gain are likely to
be greater than those presented in the tables in section E4-2. However, the number of anglers benefitting from
these improvements would be smaller, and so the resulting aggregate benefits are likely to be similar.
E4-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Gulf of Mexico Region
The tables in this appendix are those life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1 equivalents and
fishery yield from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Gulf of Mexico region. Because of
differences in the number of life stages represented in the loss data, there are cases where more than one life
stage sequence was needed for a given species or species group. Alternative parameter sets were developed for
this purpose and are indicated with a number following the species or species group name (i.e., Anchovies 1,
Anchovies 2).
Table El-1: Atlantic Croaker Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Source: PSE&G,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.817
8.10
3.38
1.09
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.300
1999.
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000128
0.000000145
0.0000624
0.220
0.672
1.24
1.88
2.43
3.26
3.26
3.26
App. El-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Table El-2: Anchovies Parameters 1'
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs 1.94 0 0
Prolarvae 1.57 0 0
Post larvae 6.12 0 0
Juvenile 1.29 0 0
Agel+ 1.62 0 0
Age 2+ ' 1.62 0 0
Age 3+ 1.62 0 0
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.0000000441
0.00000235
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a Includes bay anchovy, striped anchovy, and other anchovies not identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; Leak and Houde, 1987; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table El-3: Anchovies Parameters 2"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs 1.94 0 0
Larvae 7.70 0 0
Juvenile 1 0.0822 0 0
Juvenile 2 0.0861 0 0
Juvenile3 0.129 0 0
Juvenile 4 0.994 0 0
Age 1+ 1.62 0 0
Age 2+ 1.62 0 0
Age 3+ 1.62 0 0
a Includes bay anchovy.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; Leak and Houde, 1987; PSE&G, 1999;
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.0000495
0.000199
0.000532
0.00114
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
andNMFS, 2003a.
App. El-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III -Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Table El-4: Black Drum Life History Parameters 1
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Age 34+
Age 35+
Age 36+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
3.06
3.06
1.15
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.000000926
0.0000176
0.0327
0.671
1.70
3.21
5.15
7.43
9.93
12.6
15.3
18.0
20.7
23.3
25.7
28.1
30.2
32.3
34.1
35.8
37.4
38.8
40.1
41.3
42.4
43.3
44.2
45.0
45.7
46.3
46.8
47.3
47.8
48.2
48.5
48.8
49.1
49.4
49.6
App. El-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Table El-4: Black Drum Life History Parameters 1
Stage Name
Age 37+
Age 38+
Age 39+
Age 40+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
49.8
50.0
50.1
50.3
Sources: Sutler et al, 1986; Scott and Scott, 1988; Murphy and Taylor, 1989; Leard et al, 1993;
Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and personal communication with Michael D.
Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute,
January 23, 2002.
Table El-5: Black Drum Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
6.13
1.15
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.00000453
0.0327
0.671
1.70
3.21
5.15
7.43
9.93
12.6
15.3
18.0
20.7
23.3
25.7
28.1
30.2
32.3
34.1
35.8
37.4
38.8
40.1
41.3
42.4
43.3
44.2
45.0
App. El-4
-------
Section 31 6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E:
Gulf ofMexico
Appendix El
Table El-5: Black Drum Life History Parameters 2
Stage Name
Age 26+
Age 27+ .
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Age 34+
Age 35+
Age 36+
Age 37+
Age 38+
Age 39+
Age 40+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
45.7
46.3
46.8
47.3
47.8
48.2
48.5
48.8
49.1
49.4
49.6
49.8
50.0
50.1
50.3
Sources: Sutler et al., 1986; Scott and Scott, 1988; Murphy and Taylor, 1989; Leard et al, 1993; Able
andFahay, 1998; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001; and personal communication
with Michael D. Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine
Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
Table El-6: Blue Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Zoeae
Megalops
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Hartman,
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
13.8
1.30
1.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
1993; PSE&G,
0
0
0.48
1.0
1.0
1.0
1999; and Murphy et al., 2000.
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000211
0.00000291
0.00000293
0.00719
0.113
0.326
App. El-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-7: Commercial Shrimp Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.22
1.70
1.70
0.140
0.140
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1"
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000253
0.00000274
0.0000268
0.0473
0.0770
a Includes pink shrimp, brown shrimp, white shrimp, and other commercial shrimp not identified to
species.
Sources: Costello and Allen, 1970; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Bielsa et al., 1983;
and TBNEP, 1992.
Table El-8: Commercial Shrimp Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
3.22
3.40
0.140
0.140
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0.14
0.14
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
1.0
1.0
2"
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000253
0.00000274
0.0473
0.0770
a Includes pink shrimp.
Sources: Costello and Allen, 1970; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Bielsa et al.,
1983; and TBNEP, 1992.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Table El-9:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.288
4.09
2.30
2.55
Goby Life History Parameters*
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000200
0.00000219
0.00049
0.00205
a Includes clown goby, code goby, frillfm goby, green goby, naked goby, sharptail goby, skilletfish,
violet goby, and other goby species not identified to species.
Sources: PSE&G, 1999; Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. El-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Table £1-10: Hogchoker Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
2.24 0
6.73 0
0.916 0
0.250 0
0.250 0
0.250 0
0.250 0
0.250 0
0.250 0
Sources: New England Power Company and Marine Research
PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00110
0.00207
0.0113
0.0313
0.0610
0.0976
0.138
0.178
Inc., 1995; Able and Fahay, 1998;
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Table El-11: Jack/Pompano Species Life
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
0.817 0
8.61 0
0.916 0
0.340 0.25
0.340 0.25
0.340 0.25
0.340 0.25
History Parameters*
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000127
0.0222
0.168
0.460
0.511
0.565
a Includes Atlantic bumper, Atlantic moonfish, bluntnose jack, crevalle jack, leatherjacket, lookdown,
and permit
Sources: PSE&G, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2001; Overholtz,
2002b; and Froese and Pauly, 2003.
App. El-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Table El-12:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.00
0.916
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
Killifish Life History Parameters'
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000180
0.0000182
0.000157
0.0121
0.0327
0.0551
0.0778
0.0967
0.113
0.158
a Includes gulf killifish, longnose killifish, bayou killifish, and other killifish species not identified to
species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Meredith andLotrich, 1979;
Able andFahay, 1998; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table El-13: Mackerel Species Life History 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 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.39
10.6
0.916
0.520
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
0.370
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000176
0.00000193
0.0000368
0.309
0.510
0.639
0.752
0.825
0.918
1.02
1.10
1.13
1.15
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
a Includes Spanish mackerel.
Sources: Scott and Scott, 1988; Overholtz et al., 1991; Studholme et al, 1999; Entergy Nuclear
Generation Company, 2000; andFroese andPauly, 2001, 2003.
App. El-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Table El-14: Menhaden Life History Parameters'
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0:000000716
0.00000203
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
3 Includes Alabama shad, Atlantic thread herring, finescale menhaden, gizzard shad, gulf menhaden,
skipjack herring, yellowfm menhaden, and other closely related herrings not identified to species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinetal, 1983; Ruppertetal, 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; Entergy
Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; ASMFC, 2001 b; andFroese and Pauly, 2001.
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Table El-15:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.30
7.39
1.91
0.340
0.340
Pinfish Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.34
0.34
Parameters"
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000107
0.0000238
0.00669
0.0791
0.218
a Includes pinfish, spottail pinfish, and other porgies not identified to species.
Sources: Muncy, 1984; Nelson, 1998; andFroese and Pauly, 2001.
App. El-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-16: Pipefish Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
2.30
0
0
Larvae
2.40
Juvenile
0.916
Agel+
0.750
Age 2+
0.750
Age 3+
0.750
Age 4+
0.750
Age 5+
0.750
0
0
0.000000842
0.0000122
0.00785
0.0195
0.0384
0.0658
0.103
0.151
• Includes chain pipefish, dusky pipefish, gulf pipefish, and other pipefish not identified to species.
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Scott and Scott, 1988; Able and Fahay,
1998; Froese andPaulv. 2001. 2003: andNMFS, 2003a.
Table £1-17: Red Drum Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
3.06
3.06
1.15
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.000000926
0.0000176
0.0327
0.671
1.70
3.21
5.15
7.43
9.93
12.6
15.3
18.0
20.7
23.3
25.7
28.1
30.2
32.3
34.1
35.8
37.4
App. El-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E:
Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E 1
Table El-17: Red Drum Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
Age 28+
Age 29+
Age 30+
Age 31+
Age 32+
Age 33+
Age 34+
Age 35+
Age 36+
Age 37+
Age 38+
Age 39+
Age 40+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
0.0977
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
38.8
40.1
41.3
42.4
43.3
44.2
45.0
45.7
46.3
46.8
47.3
47.8
48.2
48.5
48.8
49.1
49.4
49.6
49.8
50.0
50.1
50.3
Sources: Sutler et al, 1986; Scott and Scott, 1988; Murphy and Taylor, 1989; Leard et al, 1993;
Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and personal communication with Michael D.
Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute,
January 23, 2002.
App. El-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-18: Scaled Sardine Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.12
0.560
6.53
0.916
1.02
a Includes Brazilian sardinella, scaled
species.
Sources: Houde et al, 1974; Stone &
Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000533
0.00000586
0.0000247
0.000483
0.275
sardine, threadfm shad, and other clupeids not identified to
Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Pierce et al., 2001;
2003a.
Table El-19: Sea Bass Species Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
(M) (F)
0.288
6.00
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.190
0.287
0.287
0.287
0.287
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a Includes black sea bass.
Sources: Cailliet, 2000; California Department of Fish and Game, 2000b; Leet et al.,
Froese and Pauly, 2002.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000101
0.00000111
0.000581
0.0313
0.0625
0.125
0.312
0.531
0.813
1.13
1.50
1.88
2.19
2001; and
App. El-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Table El-20: Searobin Life History Parameters'
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
* Includes bighead searobin,
Sources: Saila et al, 1997;
2.30
3.66
0.916
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
leopard
Virginia
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(ibs)
0.00000132
0.00000145
0.000341
0.0602
0.176
0.267
0.386
0.537
0.721
0.944
1.21
searobin, and other searobins not identified to species.
Tech, 1998; and Froese and Pauly, 2001, 2003.
App. El-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Table El-21: Sheepshead Seabream Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
2.30
7.39
1.91
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000591
0.0000241
0.00167
0.981
1.22
1.56
2.33
2.43
2.45
2.47
2.49
2.51
2.53
2.55
2.57
2.59
2.61
2.63
2.65
Sources: Pattillo et al, 1997; Nelson, 1998; Murphy and MacDonald, 2000; Murphy et al, 2000;
Froese and Pauly, 2002; and personal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
App. El-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-22: Silver Perch Life History Parameters 1'
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.75
2.10
3.27
1.71
3.84
3.84
3.84
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000527
0.000000580
0.0000379
0.0445
0.273
4.15
0.607
a Includes banded drum, silver perch, silver seatrout, southern kingfish, and star drum.
Sources: Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2001; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; and personal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
Table El-23: Silver Perch Life History Parameters 2"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.75
5.37
1.71
3.84
3.84
3.84
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.10
0.10
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000527
0.00000771
0.0445
0.273
0.415
0.607
a Includes silver perch, northern kingfish, and southern kingfish.
Sources: Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,
2001; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; and personal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23, 2002.
App. El-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-24: Silverside Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
1.45
1.45
0.916
2.10
2.10
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.000000554
0.00000554
0.0000292
0.0119
0.0224
a Includes California grunion, inland silverside, rough silverside, tidewater silverside, and other
silversides not identified to the species.
Sources: Hildebrand, 1922; Garwood, 1968; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977, 1980;
Scott and Scott, 1988; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. El-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix E1
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Warlen
Table El-25:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825
3.30
4.12
2.57
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Spot Life History Parameters 1
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000131
0.000000154
0.000000854
0.000121
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
etal., 1980; andPSE&G, 1984, 1999.
App.El-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
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 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Sources: Warlen
Table El-26:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.825
7.42
2.57
0.463
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Spot Life History Parameters 2
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
Obs)
0.000000131
0.000000504
0.000121
0.0791
0.299
0.507
0.648
0.732
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
0.779
etal, 1980; andPSE&G, 1984, 1999.
App. El-18
-------
Section 3 16(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Stage Name
Eggs
Prolarvae
Postlarvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Table El-27: Spotted
Seatrout Life History
Parameters 1*
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.30
1.50
6.92
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0
0
0
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.000000926
0.00000568
0.571
0.914
1.55
2.50
3.15
3.54
4.41
4.97
4.99
' Includes sand seatrout, sand weakfish, spotted seatrout, and other drums not identified to species.
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Johnson and Seaman, 1986; Sutler et al.,
1986; and Murphy and Taylor, 1994.
App. El-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-28: Spotted Seatrout Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
8.42
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
0.272
Parameters 2"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000842
0.000000926
0.571
0.914
1.55
2.50
3.15
3.54
4.41
4.97
4.99
a Includes sand seatrout and spotted seatrout.
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980; Johnson and Seaman, 1986; Sutter et al.,
1986; and Murphy and Taylor, 1994.
Table El-29: Stone Crab Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
StageS
Megalops
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
0.939
0.939
0.939
0.939
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
Obs)
0.000000101
0.000000417
0.00000109
0.00000226
0.00000405
0.00000662
0.0000182
1.02
3.63
. 7.12
10.0
Sources: Bert et al., 1978; Sullivan, 1979; Lindberg and Marshall, 1984; Van den Avyle and Fowler,
1984; and Ehrhardt et al., 1990.
App. El-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix. El
Table El-30: Striped Mullet Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Collins,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
0.916
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
1985; Wang, 1986; PSE&G, 1999; andFroese
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
andPauly, 2003.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000537
0.0000110
0.131
0.187
0.379
0.774
1.58
3.21
6.53
Table £1-31: Other Commercial Species Life
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
History Parameters'
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a Includes Atlantic cutlassfish, black bullhead, cobia, grey snapper, gulf butterfish, ladyfish, largehead
hairtail, mojarra spp, silver jenny, spotfin mojarra, tripletail, and yellow bullhead.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbinetal, 1983; Ruppertetal, 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; PSE&G.
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC, 200Ib.
App. El-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-32: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(M) (F) Fishery
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
a See Table El -34 for a list of species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin et al., 1983; Ruppert et al., 1985;
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; andASMFC,
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Able and Fahay,
2001b.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
1998; PSE&G,
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age2+
Age 3+
Table El-33: Other
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
3 See Table El-35 for a list of species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G, 1999.
App. El-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico
Appendix El
Table El-34: Other Recreational Species*
Atlantic sharpnose shark Bonnethead
Atlantic stingray Channel catfish
Bandtail puffer Dwarf sandperch
Belted sandfish Gafftopsail catfish
Blackear bass Gag grouper
Bluefish Gulftoadfish
Hardhead sea catfish
Least puffer
Pigfish
Rock sea bass
Sand perch
Sea catfish
Smooth butterfly ray
Smooth puffer
Southern flounder
Southern puffer
Tomtate
a Includes other organisms not identified to species.
Table El-35: Other Forage Species'
Atlantic midshipman
Atlantic needlefish
Atlantic spadefish
Atlantic threadfm
Barbfish
Bay whiff
Dwarf seahorse
Fat sleeper
Feather blenny
Florida blenny
Freckled blenny
Fringed filefish
Blackcheek tonguefish Fringed flounder
Blackwing flyingfish Golden shiner
Bluegill Green sunfish
Bridle cardinalfish
Carp
Common halfbeak
Diamond lizardfish
Gulf of Mexico ocellated
flounder
Halfbeak
Harvestfish
Inshore lizardflsh
Jawfish
Lined seahorse
Live sharksucker
Longear sunfish
Mottled jawfish
Needlefish
Orange filefish
Planehead filefish
Polka dot batfish
Redfm needlefish
Roughback batfish
Sailfin molly
Scrawled cowfish
Seahorse
Sheepshead minnow
Snakefish
Southern codling
Southern hake
Southern stargazer
Spotted whiff
Striped blenny
Striped burrfish
Warmouth
Yellowhead jawfish
1 Includes other organisms not identified to species.
App. El-23
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E2
Appendix E2: Reductions in I&E in the
Gulf of Mexico Region Under Five Other
Options Evaluated for the Proposed Section
316(b) Phase III Regulation
Table E2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
Gulf of Mexico Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation
Option
20 MOD All
2
3
4
All Phase III Facilities
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
8,860,000
8,860,000
8,865,000
8,860,000
8,860,000
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
1,320,000
1,320,000
1,270,000
1,320,000
1,320,000
App. E2-1
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E3
Appendix E3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
for Five Other Options Evaluated for
Phase III Existing Facilities in the
Gulf of Mexico Region
Section E3-2 in Chapter E3 displays the results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis for the 50 MOD
option, the 200 MOD option, and the 100 MOD option. To facilitate comparisons among the options, this
appendix displays results for the following additional options: All Potentially Regulated Phase III Existing
Facilities option (All Phase III Facilities); the 20 MOD option (20 MOD All); Option 2; Option 3; and Option 4.
Table E3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
All Phase III Facilities Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)"
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $161,000 $196,000 $357,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $64,500 $78,400 $143,000
Expected reduction due to rule 80% 60%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $98,600
3% discount rate $82,500
7% discount rate $65,700
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for
a timeline of benefits.
App. E3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E3
Table E3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 20 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $161,000 $196,000 $357,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $64,500 $78,400 $143,000
Expected reduction due to rule 80% 60%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $98,600
3% discount rate $82,500
7% discount rate $65,700
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more detailed
discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline
of benefits.
Table E3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 2 at
Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $161,000 $196,000 $357,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $64,500 $78,400 $143,000
Expected reduction due to rule 80% 60%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $98,600
3% discount rate $82,500
7% discount rate $65,700
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more detailed
discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline
of benefits.
App. E3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Appendix E3
Table E3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 3 at
Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $161,000 $196,000 $357,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $64,500 $78,400 $143,000
Expected reduction due to rule 80% 57%
'0
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $96,100
3% discount rate $80,400
7% discount rate $64,000
* Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more detailed
discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline
of benefits.
Table E3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable
Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)'
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — low
Producer surplus lost — high (gross
Undiscounted
Expected reduction due to rule
Benefits attributable to rule — low
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted
3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Impingement
$161,000
$0
revenue * 0.4)
$64,500
80%
$0
Entrainment
$196,000
$0
$78,400
60%
$0
to Option 4 at
Total
$357,000
$0
$143,000
$0
$98,600
$82,500
$65,700
* Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more detailed
discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a timeline
of benefits.
App. E3-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix E4
Appendix E4: Recreational Use Benefits of
Other Policy Options
Appendix Contents
E4-1
E4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other
Evaluated Options E4-1
E4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishing Losses under the Other
Evaluated Options E4-1
E4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Other Evaluated Options E4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by
Option E4-4
Introduction
Chapter E4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the three proposed options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities, for
electric generators and manufacturers in the Gulf of
Mexico region. This appendix supplements Chapter
E4 by presenting estimates of the recreational fishing
benefits of five other options that EPA evaluated for
the purposes of comparison:
» Option 3,
* Option 4,
»• Option 2,
»• Option 1, and
»• Option 6.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter E4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
E4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
£4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses under the Other Evaluated Options
Table E4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Gulf of Mexico region under the other evaluated options.
App. E4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix E4
Table E4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E under the Other Evaluated Options in the Gulf of Mexico Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)"
Species*
Mackerels
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Total (small game)
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Option 3
269
5,376
52,865
58,510
39,425
39,836
18,975
26
18,914
3
106
6,020
2,504
125,809
5,389
189,709
Option 4
269
5,393
52,965
58,626
39,426
42,043
19,995
26
19,049
4
111
6,043
2,592
129,289
5,499
193,414
Option 2
269
5,393
52,965
58,626
39,426
42,043
19,995
26
19,049
4
111
6,043
2,592
129,289
5,499
193,414
Option 1
269
5,393
52,965
58,626
39,426
42,043
19,995
26
19,049
4
111
6,043
2,592
129,289
5,499
193,414
Option 6
269
5,393
52,965
58,626
39,426
42,043
19,995
26
19,049
4
111
6,043
2,592
129,289
5,499
193,414
" EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'other saltwater' group includes bottomfish and
other miscellaneous species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer.
b In the Gulf of Mexico region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 1 is the same as under Option 4, Option 2, and Option 6. Thus,
reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. E4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Appendix E4
£4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
Tables E4-2 and E4-3 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the other evaluated
options in the Gulf of Mexico region.
In the Gulf of Mexico region, all potentially regulated facilities that would install new technology under Option 4,
Option 2, Option 1, or Option 6 have design intake flows greater than 20 MGD. Because the requirements under
these four options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and benefits resulting from these four
options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented in Table E4-3 apply to all four options.
Table E4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 3 in the Gulf of Mexico Region (2003$)
Annualized Recreational
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
58.5
125.8
5.4
189.7
189.7
189.7
Value per Fish1
Low
$2.30
$1.32
$1.60
Mean
$5.32
$2.88
$3.57
High
$12.20
$6.38
$8.02
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)"'0
Low
$134.6
$166.1
$8.6
$309.3
$258.8
$206.0
Mean
$311.3
$362.6
$19.2
$693.2
$580.0
$461.7
High
$713.6
$802.5
$43.2
$1,559.3
$1,304.7
$1,038.5
* Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. E4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region
Appendix E4
Table E4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 4, Option 2, Option 1, or Option 6, in the Gulf of Mexico
Region (2003$)"
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0 d
Species Group
Small game
Other saltwater
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Wishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
58.6
129.3
5.5
193.4
193.4
193.4
Low
$2.30
$1.32
$1.60
Mean
$5.32
$2.88
$3.57
High
$12.20
$6.38
$8.02
Low
$134.8
$170.7
$8.8
$314.4
$263.0
$209.4
Mean
$311.9
$372.7
$19.6
$704.3
$589.3
$469.0
High
$715.0
$824.7
$44.1
$1,583.8
$1,325.2
$1,054.8
" In the Gulf of Mexico region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as
under Option 2, Option 1, and Option 6. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also
identical.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
E4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table E4-4 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the five other evaluated options. The table shows that
the annual recreational fishing benefits of Option 3 are slightly lower than the annual recreational fishing benefits
of the other options.
App. E4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part E: Gulf of Mexico Region Appendix E4
Table E4-4: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options in the Gulf of Mexico Region
,„.-.._ . , Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Annual Reduction in Recreational (thousands; 2003$)"
Policy Option"
Option 3
Option 4
Option 2
Option 1
Option 6
riMUIIg LiUSSCS IIU1I1 lOtlU —
(thousands of fish)
189.7
193.4
193.4
193.4
193.4
Low
$309.3
$314.4
$314.4
$314.4
$314.4
Mean
$693.2
$704.3
$704.3
$704.3
$704.3
High
$1,559.3
$1,583.8
$1,583.8
$1,583.8
$1,583.8
a In the Gulf of Mexico region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as
under Option 2, Option 1, and Option 6. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also
identical.
b These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter
E4. EPA did not use the RUM approach from the Phase II analysis to analyze the other evaluated options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. E4-5
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part F: The Great Lakes
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter Fl
Chapter Fl: Background
Fl-l Facility Characteristics Fl-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Great Lakes study
region and summarizes their key cooling water and
compliance characteristics. For further discussion of
the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the Economic
Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase HI Facilities and the Technical Development Document
for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004e,b).
Fl-1 Facility Characteristics
The Great Lakes Regional Study includes 29 sample facilities that are potentially subject to the proposed
standards for Phase III existing facilities. Twenty three of them are manufacturing facilities and six are electric
generators. Industry-wide, these 29 sample facilities represent 68 facilities.1 Figure Fl-1 presents a map of these
facilities.
' EPA applied sample weights to the survey respondents to account for non-sampled facilities and facilities that
did not respond to the survey. For more information on EPA's 2000 Section 316(b) Industry Survey, please refer to the
Information Collection Request (U.S. EPA, 2000b).
Fl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter Fl
Figure Fl-1: Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Regional Study
MN ;''""
«& -•<:,"
• *•'•','•' ' ?.- " • y' • • s '. • i-.,^wrVr
-- -* -' ^ ^ t . .*< *?*C*i*--'V?
,$,''/ |V >'&'' ..
Key
Potential Phase III Existing Great Lakes Region
Facilities* (Count) ' •«/ Counties
l^| Electric Generating Facility (6) the^u"^ Anal /sis
sJU Harulacturing Facility (23) . MI Coastal Fishing Site
Included in the RUM Analysis
1 Some facility locations randomly adjusted for clarity
«; ,
1 S
' -M ^ T MI •.':/' O'ltlU''J ••«
» • ' •'
\f •
' ^ ^
' ' - !^®|
IL ' ' ^' ' ^^ i
•' ', -
;. *^ NY
£ ;i '^^"
\ '.:••• " , .! J so it: wie
•-' -•"-,.' , ' '
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Fl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter Fl
Table Fl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Great Lakes study region and for the three proposed regulatory options considered by
EPA for this proposal (the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
and the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three
applicability thresholds would be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded
from EPA's analyses.2 Therefore, a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Fl-1 shows that 68 Phase III existing facilities in the Great Lakes study region would potentially be subject
to the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the three
proposed options, 23 facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities.
Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, five facilities would be subject to the national
requirement, and under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option, eight facilities would be subject to the
national requirements. One facility in the Great Lakes study region has a recirculating system in the baseline.
Table Fl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (sample-weighted)
All
Potentially Proposed Options
Regulated 50 MGD 200 MGD 100 MGD
Facilities All All CWB
Total number of facilities (sample-weighted) 68235 8
Number of facilities with recirculating system in baseline 1 - -
Design intake flow (MGD) 2,693 2,294 w2 1,841
Number of facilities by compliance response
FishH&R 85--
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R 832 3
Velocity cap 6
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R 6 - -
Double-entry, single-exit with fine mesh and fish H&R 4 - -
Passive fine mesh screens 29 11 3 3
__JNone _ 7 __4 _- 1
Compliance cost at 3%b $28.62 $10.08 $4.05 $4.47
Compliance costat7%b $30.87 $10.20 $3.68 $4.10
a Data withheld because of confidentiality reasons.
b Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2003$, millions).
Sources: U.S. EPA, 2000b; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
2 Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004e).
Fl-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F2
Chapter F2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Great Lakes Region
Chapter Contents
Background: The Great Lakes Fisheries
Great Lakes fisheries are among the most important
in the world, providing $4 billion in landings and
recreation for some 5 million recreational anglers
(Great Lakes Fishery Commission, 2003).
Historically, the top predators in the Great Lakes
included lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), sturgeon
(Acipenser fulvescens), lake whitefish (Coregonus
clupeaformis), northern pike (Esox lucius), walleye
(Sander vitreus), and muskellunge (Esox
masquinongy). Today, as a result of numerous
stressors such as habitat destruction, damming, and
the introduction of sea lamprey and other exotic
species, dominant species are primarily non-native
salmon sustained by hatcheries. Not all
introductions have been harmful, however. For example, alewife was introduced to provide forage for sport fish
(Jude et al., 1987). Losses of alewife (Alosapseudoharengus), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides), and other
forage species to impingement and entrainment (I&E) at Great Lakes facilities are sometimes substantial.
Impinged and entrained species of commercial and/or recreational importance include yellow perch (Perca
flavescens), white bass (Morone chrysops), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), and walleye.
F2-1
F2-2
F2-3
F2-4
F2-5
I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated .... F2-1
I&E Data Evaluated F2-3
EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Yield F2-3
Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Great Lakes Region Under Three
Alternative Options F2-6
Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses F2-6
F2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated
Table F2-1 provides a list of species/species groups that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of I&E in the Great
Lakes.
Table F2-1: Species/Species Group Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Great Lakes Region
Species/Species Group
Recreational Commercial Forage
Alewife
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
X
X
X
X
X
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
X
X
X
X
X X
F2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F2
Table F2-1: Species/Species Group Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Great Lakes Region
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial Forage
Chinook salmon X
Crappie X
Darter species X
Emerald shiner X
Freshwater drum X
Gizzard shad X
Golden redhorse X
Herring X
Logperch X
Muskellunge X
Other (forage) X
Other (recreational) X
Rainbow smelt X X
Salmon X
Sculpin species X X
Shiner species X
Smallmouth bass X
Smelt X
Spotted sucker X
Sucker species X
Sunfish X
Threespine stickleback
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
X
X
. X
X
X
X
X
X
X
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix Fl of this
report.
F2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F2
F2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table F2-2 lists the facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the region. Data for
both Phase II and Phase III facilities were used as a basis for extrapolation of I&E rates to Phase III facilities
without I&E data. Chapter Al of Part A presents the extrapolation methods.
Table ¥2-2: Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Great Lakes Region
Phase III Facilities Phase Years of Data
Bailly Generating Station^ 11 1975
DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant II 1975-1982_
D.H. Mitchell Station II 1975
Fort Drum HTW Cogenerational Facility III 1993
J.P. Pulliam Power Plant II 1975
J .R. Whiting Power Plant II __ 1978-1991
Monroe Power Plant II
Pleasant Prairie Power Plant III 1980
Port Washington Power Plant II 1975-1980
Silver Bay Power Plant III 1981
U.S. Steel Corporation Gary Works III 1977
F2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table F2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Great Lakes region. Table F2-4 displays this
information for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species
and the yield of harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species. As discussed in Chapter Al of Part
A of the section 316(b) Phase III Regional Benefits Assessment, the conversion of forage to yield contributes
only a very small fraction to total yield.
Table F2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
25,200
20,700
107
46
115
249
300
842
Total Yield
(Ibs)
na
1,640
18
<1
na
21
24
na
F2-3
-------
Section 3I6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F2
Table F2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Age-1 Equivalents Total Yield
Species/Species Group (#s) (Ibs)
Carp
Channel catfish
Chinook salmon
Crappie
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Log perch
2,770
1,920
467
236
658
4,270,000
62,500
23,200,000
7
22,600
na
399
na
40
na
na
15,100
na
na
na
Muskellunge 7 28
Other (forage) 6,440 na
Other (recreational) 1,370 270
Rainbow smelt 79,200 294
Salmon_ 24J_ U>20
Sculpin species 43 2
Shiner species 3,290,000 na
Smallmouth bass 325 13
Smelts 48,400 1,200
Spotted sucker <1 na
Sucker species 551 na
Sunfish 4,730 3
Threespine stickleback 1,450 na
Trophic transfer" na 303,000
Walleye ^L°_ _ 5L8Z°
White bass 246,000 ^5,400
White perch 222,000 na
Whitefish __ 4,890 4,380
Yellow perch 263,000 3,660
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter A1).
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F2
Table F2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
t
Species/Species Group
Alewife
Black bullhead
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
lge-1 Equivalents
(#s)
966
477
37
5,070
454
292,000
28,600
4,740
Total Yield
(Ibs)
na
38
<1
na
na
na
5,930
799
Darter species 8 na
Emerald shiner 69,600 na
Freshwater drum 2
Gizzard shad 1,120,000 na
Herring
Logperch
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
8,200
29,200
159,000
46
na
na
na
9
23,600 88
Salmon 216 911
Sculpin species 2,270 90
Shiner 77,800 na
Smallmouth bass 14,800 600
Smelts 1,360 34
Sucker species 6,380 na
Sunfish 393,000 284
Threespine stickleback 357 na
Trophic transfer3 na 19,900
Walleye 3,150 2,810
Whitebass _ 122,000 37,300
Whitefish 19 17
Yellow perch 187,000 2,600
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter A1).
F2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F2
F2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase HI Facilities in the Great Lakes Region Under Three
Alternative Options
Table F2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all
other options are presented in Appendix F2.
Table F2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MOD All Option 11,600,000 169,000
200 MOD All Option 7,710,000 116,000
100 MOD Option 8,740,000 130,000
F2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
In order to estimate the economic value of these losses, total yield was partitioned between commercial and
recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Table F2-6 presents the percentage impacts for each
species/species group. Commercial and recreational fishing benefits are presented in Chapters F3 and F4.
Table F2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Great Lakes Facilities
Species/Species Group
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Channel catfish
Crappie
Darter species
Freshwater drum
Muskellunge
Other (recreational)
Rainbow smelt
Salmon
Sculpin species
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Sunfish
Trophic transfer1
Walleye
Percent Impact to
Recreational Fishery"'1*
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
85.0%
100.0%
6.2%
100.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Percent Impact to
Commercial Fishery"'6
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
15.0%
0.0%
93.8%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
F2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F2
Table F2-6: Percentage of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries and Commercial Value per Pound for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Great Lakes Facilities
Percent Impact to Percent Impact to
Species/Species Group Recreational Fisherya'h Commercial Fishery''1*
White bass 50.0% JO.0%
Whitefish 50.0% _ 50.0%
Yellow perch 50.0% _ __^^__
a Based on opinion of local experts and comments received at proposal. EPA collected recreational
landings data by species from State fisheries experts. However, this data was limited to a few broad
species groups and was not sufficient to calculate more accurate values.
b Calculated using 1993-2001 commercial landings data from NMFS (2003a,
http://www.st.nrnfs.gov/commercial/landings/annual_landings.htnil).
c Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
See Chapter F3 for results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis and Chapter F4 for recreational fishing
results. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits were discounted to account for 1) the time to achieve compliance
once the rule goes into effect in 2007, and 2) the time it takes for fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
F2-7
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F3
Chapter F3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the commercial
fishing benefits analysis for the Great Lakes region.
Section F3-1 details the estimated losses under
current, or baseline, conditions. Section F3-2
presents the expected benefits under three alternative
options. Chapter A4 details the methods used in this
analysis.
Chapter Contents
F3-1 Baseline Losses F3-1
F3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative
Options F3-2
F3-1 Baseline Losses
Table F3-1 provides EPA's estimate of the value of gross revenues lost in commercial fisheries resulting from the
impingement of aquatic species at facilities in the Great Lakes region. Table F3-2 displays this information for
entrainment. Total annualized revenue losses are approximately $180,000 (undiscounted).
Table F3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Impingement at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Commercial Estimated Value
Species"
Black bullhead
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Channel catfish
Freshwater drum
Rainbow smelt
Smelts
Trophic transfer1"
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Estimated Value per of Harvest Lost
Pounds of Pound (2003$)
Harvest Lost (2003$) Undiscounted
1,640
21
24
199
15,100
147
1,130
152,000
37,700
2,190
1,830
a Species included are only those that have
b Contribution of forage fish to yield based
$0.51
$0.51
$0.51
$0.51
$0.14
$0.62
$0.27
$0.72
$0.87
$0.86
$2.17
$833
$10
$12
$101
$2,180
$91
$309
$109,000
$32,800
$1,880
$3,970
baseline losses greater than $ 1 .
on trophic transfer (see Chapter A 1).
F3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F3
Table F3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Gross Revenues Lost due
to Entrainment at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region
Species"
Black bullhead
Channel catfish
Freshwater drum
Rainbow smelt
Sculpins
Smelts
Trophic transfer1"
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Estimated Commercial Estimated Value
Pounds of Value per of Harvest Lost
Harvest Pound (2003S)
Lost (2003S) Undiscounted
38
2,960
4,990
44
14
32
9,960
18,700
8
1,300
$0.51
$0.51
$0.14
$0.62
$2.61
$0.27
$0.72
$0.87
$0.86
$2.17
$19
$1,510
$723
$27
$35
$9
$7,180
$16,200
$7
$2,820
a Species included are only those that have baseline losses greater than $ 1.
" Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter A1).
F3-2 Expected Benefits Under Three Alternative Options
As described in Chapter A4, EPA estimates that 0 to 40% of the gross revenue losses represent surplus losses to
producers, assuming no change in prices or fishing costs. The 0% estimate, of course, results in loss estimates of
$0. The 40% estimates, as presented in Tables F3-3, F3-4, and F3-5, total approximately $72,000
(undiscounted).
The expected reductions in impingement and entrainment (I&E) attributable to changes at facilities required by
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option (50 MOD option) are 33% for impingement and 43% for entrainment,
for the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option (200 MOD option) are 21% for impingement and 38% for
entrainment, and for the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option (100 MOD option) are 24% for
impingement and 40% for entrainment. Total annualized benefits are estimated by applying these estimated
reductions to the annual producer surplus loss. As presented in Tables F3-3, F3-4, and F3-5, this results in total
annualized benefits of up to approximately $20,500 for the 50 MOD option, $13,900 for the 200 MOD option,
and $15,700 for the 100 MOD option, assuming a 3% discount rate.
F3-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F3
Table F3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 50 MGD Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)"
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $152,000 $28,600 $180,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400 $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 33% 43%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $24,900
3% discount rate $20,500
7% discount rate $ 15,900
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
Table F3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
200 MGD Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)"
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $152,000 $28,600 $180,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400 $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 21% 38%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $17,100
3% discount rate $ 13,900
7% discount rate $ 10,700
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
F3-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F3
Table F3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 100 MGD Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)*
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $152,000 $28,600 $180,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400 $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 24% 40%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $19,200
3% discount rate $ 15,700
7% discount rate $ 12,100
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see
Chapter HI for a timeline of benefits.
F3-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Chapter F4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the
recreational fishing benefits analysis for the
Great Lakes region. The chapter presents
EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current)
annual recreational fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the Great
Lakes region and annual reduction in these
losses under the three proposed regulatory
options for Phase III existing facilities:1
>• the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option,
>• the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
>• the " 100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option.
The chapter then presents the estimated
welfare gain to Great Lakes anglers from
eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses
from I&E and the expected benefits under the
three proposed options.
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of
reducing and eliminating I&E losses using a
benefit transfer methodology based on a meta-
analysis of the marginal value of catching
different species offish. This meta-analysis is
discussed in detail in Chapter A5,
"Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
To validate these results, this chapter also
presents the results of a random utility model
(RUM) analysis for the Great Lakes region. A
detailed discussion of the RUM analysis for the
Great Lakes region can be found in Chapter G4
of the Regional Analysis Document for the
Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing
Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a).2
Chapter Contents
F4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on
Meta-Analysis F4-2
F4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishery Losses Under the Proposed
Regulation F4-2
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
. Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses F4-3
F4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option F4-4
F4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option F4-5
F4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option F4-6
F4-2 RUM Approach F4-7
F4-2.1 RUM Methodology: Great Lakes
Region F4-7
F4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses F4-9
F4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option F4-11
F4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option F4-13
F4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option F4-15
F4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based
on RUM Results F4-16
F4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty F4-17
F4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty:
Meta-Analysis . F4-17
F4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty:
RUM Approach F4-17
1 See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
2 The Phase II Great Lakes RUM model was refined for the Phase III analysis as follows: (1) it estimates separate
values for yellow perch and bass and (2) includes site amenity effects in the site choice model (Besedin et al., 2004).
F4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. Results of the recreational fishing
benefits analysis for five other options evaluated by EPA are presented in Appendix F4.
F4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used the meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.3
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
of 'unidentified' species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well
as species for which no species information was available." Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try
to predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can
be approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Great Lakes
region.3
F4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses Under the Proposed Regulation
Table F4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed options, in the Great Lakes
region. The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 263.5 thousand fish per year. In
comparison, the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 92.2 thousand fish per year, the "200
MGD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 64.2 thousand fish per year, and the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 71.9 thousand fish per year. Of all the affected species, white bass and
yellow perch have the highest losses in the baseline and the highest prevented losses under the proposed options.
3 Note that the estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained
recreational fish that would otherwise be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually
much higher.
4 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are lost
because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. However, since it is
difficult to predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
'unidentified' recreational species. Also included in the 'unidentified' group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
5 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
F4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities and Reductions in Recreational Losses Under the Proposed Regulatory Options in the
Great Lakes Region
Baseline Annual
Recreational Fishing
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
Species3
Salmon
Total (salmon)
Northern pike
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sunfish
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Whitefish
Total (trout)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Losses
(# of fish)
87
87
1
2,761
2,762
735
60,701
61,436
27
16
2,556
1,273
1,370
588
161
4,627
24,855
35,473
1,499
1,499
162,272
263,529
50 MGD AH
33
33
Ob
1,003
1,003
317
22,097
22,414
9
6
1,091
545
484
254
54
2,001
9,266
13,710
495
495
54,523
92,178
a EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used
'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer.
b Denotes a positive value less than 0.5 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this
report.
200 MGD All
25
25
Ob
731
731
273
16,144
16,416
6
4
931
467
342
218
35
1,724
6,950
10,678
319
319
36,051
64,221
in the meta-analysis
100MGDCWB
28
28
Ob
808
809
290
17,840
18,130
7
5
991
496
381
232
40
1,830
7,629
11,611
365
365
40,919
71,861
. The
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table F4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Great Lakes region. The table
presents baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare
gain from eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for
the Great Lakes region are 0.26 million fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to the Great Lakes
anglers from eliminating these losses is $1.11 million (2003S), with lower and upper bounds of $0.55 million and
$2.17 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these losses is $1.08
million and $1.04 million, respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under baseline
conditions are attributable to losses of species in the bass and panfish group, primarily white bass and yellow
perch.
F4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Baseline Annual
Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of
fish)"
0.1
1.5
2.8
61.4
35.5
162.3
263.5
263.5
263.5
Annualized Benefits from
Value per Fishb
Low
$6.53
$1.23
$2.37
$3.00
$0.52
$2.09
Mean
$11.19
$7.99
$4.58
$5.90
$1.06
$4.21
High
$19.39
$9.53
$8.92
$11.66
$2.21
$8.25
Eliminating Recreational
Fishing Losses (thousands)c'd
Low
$0.6
$1.8
$6.5
$184.2
$18.5
$339.2
$550.9
$534.3
$514.5
Mean
$1.0
$12.0
$12.7
$362.7
$37.8
$682.8
$1,108.9
$1,075.6
$1,035.8
High
$1.7
$14.3
$24.6
$716.6
$78.4
$1,339.1
$2,174.7
$2,109.4
$2,031.3
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating
recreational losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of
the discounting and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Great Lakes region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected
under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option,
by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 92.2 thousand fish per year,
resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.39 million (2003$), with lower and upper
bounds of $0.19 million and $0.76 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from this
reduction in recreational losses is $0.32 million and $0.25 million, respectively. The majority of benefits result
from reduced losses of species in the bass and panfish group, primarily white bass and yellow perch.
F4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for AH Waterbodies" Option
in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Annual Reduction i
Recreational Fishin
Losses
Species Group (thousands of fish)
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
0.0C
0.5
1.0
22.4
13.7
54.5
92.2
92.2
92.2
n
l£ Value per Fish"
Low
$6.53
$1.23
$2.37
$3.00
$0.52
$2.09
Mean
$11.19
$7.99
$4.58
$5.90
$1.06
$4.21
High
$19.39
$9.53
$8.92
$11.66
$2.21
$8.25
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)' "
Low
$0.2
$0.6
$2.4
$67.2
$7.1
$114.0
$191.5
$157.3
$122.4
Mean
$0.4
$4.0
$4.6
$132.3
$14.6
$229.4
$385.3
$316.4
$246.2
High
$0.6
$4.7
$8.9
$261.4
$30.3
$449.9
$756.0
$620.8
$483.0
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Great Lakes region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 64.2 thousand
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.27 million (2003$), with
lower and upper bounds of $0.13 million and $0.52 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.22 million and $0.17 million, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the bass and panfish group, primarily white bass and
yellow perch.
F4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
Value per Fish"
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'1*
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
(thousands of
fish)"
0.0e
0.3
0.7
16.4
10.7
36.1
64.2
64.2
64.2
Low
$6.53
$1.23
$2.37
$3.00
$0.52
$2.09
Mean
$11.19
$7.99
$4.58
$5.90
$1.06
$4.21
High
$19.39
$9.53
$8.92
$11.66
$2.21
$8.25
Low
$0.2
$0.4
$1.7
$49.2
$5.6
$75.4
$132.4
$107.6
$82.6
Mean
$0.3
$2.5
$3.3
$96.9
$11.4
$151.7
$266.2
$216.3
$166.0
High
$0.5
$3.0
$6.5
$191.5
$23.6
$297.5
$522.6
$424.7
$325.9
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-5 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option for the Great Lakes region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E
losses expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain
from this option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.072 million
fish per year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.30 million (2003$), with
lower and upper bounds of $0.15 million and $0.59 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized
welfare gain from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.24 million and $0.19 million, respectively. The
majority of benefits result from reduced losses of species in the bass and panfish group, primarily white bass and
yellow perch.
F4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option in the
Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Annual Reduction i
Recreational Fishir
Losses
Species Group (thousands of fish)
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
0.0e
0.4
0.8
18.1
11.6
40.9
71.9
71.9
71.9
in
ig Value per Fishb
ia Low
$6.53
$1.23
$2.37
$3.00
$0.52
$2.09
Mean
$11.19
$7.99
$4.58
$5.90
$1.06
$4.21
High
$19.39
$9.53
$8.92
$11.66
$2.21
$8.25
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0-"
Low
$0.2
$0.4
$1.9
$54.4
$6.0
$85.5
$148.5
$121.1
$93.4
Mean
$0.3
$2.9
$3.7
$107.0
$12.4
$172.2
$298.5
$243.4
$187.7
High
$0.5
$3.5
$7.2
$211.5
$25.7
$337.7
$586.0
$477.9
$368.5
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
0 Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-2 RUM Approach
To validate the results of the benefit transfer approach, EPA applied the approach presented in Chapter G4 of the
Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a) to
the baseline losses and reductions in losses at potentially regulated Phase III existing facilities.6 This section
presents the results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis for the Great Lakes region based on the Phase II
RUM approach.
F4-2.1 RUM Methodology: Great Lakes Region
EPA's methodology for evaluating the change in welfare resulting from a change in recreational losses from I&E
consists of four basic steps: (1) calculating the change in historical catch rates under a given policy scenario, (2)
estimating the per-trip welfare gain to anglers based on the Phase II RUM model, (3) estimating the number of
fishing trips taken by anglers, and (4) combining fishing participation data with the estimated per-trip welfare
6 EPA notes that the Great Lakes RUM model presented in Chapter G4 of the Regional Analysis Document for the
Final Section 3l6(b) Phase 11 Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a) was refined for the1 Phase 111 analysis as
follows: (1) it estimates separate values for yellow perch and bass and (2) includes site amenity effects in the site choice
model (Besedin et al., 2004).
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
gain to calculate the total annual welfare gain. These steps are briefly described in the following sections. For a
more detailed discussion of the RUM methodology, see Chapters Al 1 and G4 of the Regional Analysis
Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
F4-2.1.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
The first step in EPA's analysis was to combine estimates of recreational I&E losses at potentially regulated
facilities with state-level recreational fishery landings data to estimate the percentage change in historical catch
rates under each policy option. EPA obtained recreational landings data from each state in the Great Lakes
region: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Some states
reported both the number of fish harvested and the total number of fish caught, which includes fish caught and
released, but EPA used the total number of fish caught to measure total landings. For states that only reported
fish harvested, EPA adjusted harvest figures upward, using adjustment factors based on the average proportion of
catch to harvest in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the three states that reported both values. The
adjustment factors ranged from 1.09 for walleye to 9.28 for bass. Because most species considered in this
analysis (e.g., perch, white bass) are found throughout Great Lakes waters, EPA made the assumption that
changes in I&E will result in uniform changes in catch rates across all marine fishing sites in this region.7 Thus,
EPA then divided baseline recreational I&E losses by total recreational landings to calculate the percentage
change in historical catch rates from completely eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E. Similarly, the
Agency also estimated the percentage changes to historic catch rates that would result under each policy option.
F4-2.1.2 Estimating Per-Trip Benefits from Reducing I&E
EPA's second step was to use the recreational behavior model described in Chapter F4 of the Regional Analysis
Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a) to estimate an
angler's per-trip welfare gain from changes in the historical catch rates in the Great Lakes region. The Agency
estimated welfare gains to recreational anglers under four scenarios: eliminating baseline recreational fishing
losses from I&E at potentially regulated facilities, and reducing recreational fishing losses from I&E by
implementing the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, or the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. EPA assumed that the welfare gain per fishing trip is independent
of the number of days fished per trip and therefore equivalent for both single- and multiple-day trips. Thus, a
multiple-day trip is valued the same as a single-day trip.8 EPA estimated separate per-day welfare gains for
different categories of anglers, based on their target species and fishing mode.9
7 This assumption may not hold across lakes, as some lakes (e.g., Lakes Michigan and Erie) have more facilities,
and therefore are likely to have greater benefits from reduced I&E. However, data were not sufficient to estimate
welfare changes by lake, so EPA assumed that catch rates will change uniformly across the entire region.
8 See section G4-5.2 of Chapter G4 of the Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 3I6(b) Phase II
Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a) for limitations and uncertainties associated with this assumption.
q EPA used the per-day values for private/rental boat anglers to estimate welfare gains for charter boat anglers.
F4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
F4-2.1.3 Estimating Angler Participation
The third step in EPA's analysis was to estimate baseline and post-regulatory fishing participation, measured by
the total number of fishing trips taken by Great Lakes anglers.10 Because the policy options for Phase III
facilities are expected to result in relatively small improvements in fishing quality, EPA assumed that increases in
recreational fishing participation under the policy options will be negligible. Thus, to estimate both baseline and
post-regulatory participation, EPA used adjusted estimates of the total number of fishing trips taken by anglers
targeting different species, taken from the 2001 Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Related Recreation
(U.S. DOI, 2002).'1
F4-2.1.4 Estimating Total Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing I&E
The final step in EPA's analysis was to calculate the total benefits of the policy options. To calculate total
benefits for each subcategory of anglers targeting a particular species with a particular fishing mode, EPA
multiplied the per-trip welfare gain for an angler with that particular species/fishing mode combination by the
total number of fishing trips taken by all anglers with that species/fishing mode combination. EPA then summed
benefits for all subcategories of anglers to calculate the total welfare change in the Great Lakes region. Finally,
as discussed in Chapter A8, EPA discounted and annualized the benefits estimates, using both 3% and 7%
discount rates.
F4-2.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table F4-6 presents the baseline level of recreational landings at potentially regulated facilities and the estimated
change in catch rates that would result from eliminating recreational fishing losses from I&E in the Great Lakes.
The table shows that I&E has the largest effect on catch rates for bass, which would increase by 2% if I&E were
eliminated.
10 See Chapter G4 of ihe Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities
Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a) for a detailed description of the angler participation estimates in the Great Lakes.
'' Some anglers surveyed by U.S. FWS reported targeting more than one species per day. To avoid double-
counting trips for these anglers, EPA adjusted the total number of trips anglers spent targeting each species downward,
based on the proportion of all trips (including trips spent by anglers targeting multiple species) that were spent targeting
that species.
F4-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
Table F4-6: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Eliminating I&E at Potentially Regulated
Phase III Facilities in the Great Lakes Regiond
Annual Recreational Baseline Annual Recreational Percent Increase in
Landings Fishing Losses Recreational Catch from
Species Group (thousands of fish) (thousands of fish)' Eliminating I&E
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
3,048.4
10,808.3
1,693.9
1,905.2
28,885.8°
61.4
24.9
2.8
0.1
174.4
2.02%
0.23%
0.16%
0.00%b
0.60%
a Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise been
caught by recreational anglers.
b Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
c Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
d In this table, recreational fishing losses include only the fraction of impinged and entrained recreational fish that
would otherwise be caught by anglers.
Sources: MDNR, 2002; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table F4-7 presents the per-trip welfare gain for anglers targeting different species, the number of fishing trips
taken by anglers targeting those species, and the total annual welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E. The
table shows that the total undiscounted value of baseline losses in the Great Lakes region is $ 1.43 million
(2003$), and the annualized value of those losses is $1.39 million and $1.33 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%,
respectively. The majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bass. The table
shows that eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E would result in per-trip welfare gains of less
than thirty cents per angler.
F4-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
Table F4-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase HI
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Species Group
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
Total, all species (undiscounted)
Total, all species (discounted at 3%)
Total, all species (discounted at 7%)
Per-Trip
Welfare Gain
$0.28
$0.04
$0.03
$0.00C
$0.03
Number of Fishing Trips
(thousands)3
3,944
4,095
4,296
8,468
2,336
23,138
23,138
23,138
Annualized Total Benefits
(thousands)11
$1,095.5
$148.3
$118.4
$7.6
$58.1
$1,427.9
$1,385.0
$1,333.7
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-2.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-8 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E under
the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the Great Lakes region, catch rates for anglers targeting bass would
increase the most under this option, by 0.74%.
F4-I1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
Table F4-8: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E Under the "50 MGD for
All Waterbodies" Option in the Great Lakes Region
Annual Reduction in
Annual Recreational Recreational Fishing Percent Increase in
Landings Losses Recreational Catch from
Species Group (thousands of fish) (thousands of fish)3 Reducing I&E
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
3,048.4
10,808.3
1,693.9
1,905.2
28,885.8d
22.4
9.3
1.0
0.0b
59.5
0.74%
0.09%
0.06%
0.00%c
0.20%
3 Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers.
b Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
c Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
d Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: MDNR, 2002; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table F4-9 presents the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the Great Lakes
region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.52 million (2003$), and the
annualized value of those benefits is $0.43 million and $0.33 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively. The
majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bass. The table shows that this
option would result in per-trip welfare gains of ten cents or less per angler.
F4-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
Table F4-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Great
Lakes Region (2003$)
Species Group
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
Total, all species (undiscounted)
Total, all species (discounted at 3%)
Total, all species (discounted at 7%)
Per-Trip
Welfare Gain
$0.10
$0.01
$0.01
$o.ooc
$0.01
Number of Fishing
Trips
(thousands)"
3,944
4,095
4,296
8,468
2,336
23,138
23,138
23,138
Annualized Total Benefits
(thousands)"
$400.6
$55.3
$43.0
$2.9
$19.8
$521.6
$428.3
$333.3
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-2.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-10 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E
under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. In the Great Lakes region, catch rates for anglers with targeting
bass would increase the most under this option, by 0.01%.
F4-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
Table F4-10: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E Under the "200 MGD for
All Waterbodies" Option in the Great Lakes Region
Annual Reduction in
Annual Recreational Recreational Fishing Percent Increase in
Landings Losses Recreational Catch from
Species Group (thousands of fish) (thousands of fish)3 Reducing I&E
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
3,048.4
10,808.3
1,693.9
1,905.2
28,885. 8d
16.4
7.0
0.7
0.0b
40.1
0.01%
0.00%c
0.00%c
0.00%c
0.00%c
a Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers.
b Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
c Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
d Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: MDNR, 2002; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table F4-11 presents the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option for the Great Lakes
region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.38 million (2003$), and the
annualized value of those benefits is $0.31 million and $0.24 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively. The
majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bass. The table shows that this
option would result in per-trip welfare gains of seven cents or less per angler.
Table F4-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Great
Lakes Region (2003$)
Species Group
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
Total, all species (undiscounted)
Total, all species (discounted at 3%)
Total, all species (discounted at 7%)
Per-Trip
Welfare Gain
$0.07
$0.01
$0.01
$0.00C
$0.01
Number of Fishing Trips
(thousands)1
3,944
4,095
4,296
8,468
2,336
23,138
23,138
23,138
Annualized Total Benefits
(thousands)11
$293.5
$41.5
$31.3
$2.2
$13.4
$381.9
$310.4
$238.2
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for (his report.
F4-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
F4-2.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
Table F4-12 presents the estimated change in historical catch rates that would result from reductions in I&E
under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. In the Great Lakes region, catch rates for anglers
targeting bass would increase the most under this option, by 0.01%.
Table F4-12: Estimated Changes in Historical Catch Rates from Reducing I&E Under the "100 MGD for
Certain Waterbodies" Option in the Great Lakes Region
Annual Reduction in
Annual Recreational Recreational Fishing Percent Increase in
Landings Losses Recreational Catch from
Species Group (thousands of fish) (thousands of fish)3 Reducing I&E
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
3,048.4
10,808.3
1,693.9
1,905.2
28,885.8"
18.1
7.6
0.8
0.0b
45.3
0.01%
0.00%c
0.00%c
0.00%c
0.00%b
a Reductions in recreational losses include only the portion of recreational fish that are saved from impingement and
entrainment that are then caught by anglers.
b Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
c Denotes a positive value less than 0.005%.
d Annual recreational landings for the 'no target' group were calculated as a sum of landings for all species groups.
Sources: MDNR, 2002; and U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Table F4-13 presents the recreational benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option for the Great
Lakes region. The table shows that the total undiscounted benefits of this option are $0.42 million (2003$), and
the annualized value of those benefits is $0.34 million and $0.27 million, evaluated at 3% and 7%, respectively.
The majority of benefits in this region are attributable to changes in catch rates for bass. The table shows that
this option would result in per-trip welfare gains of eight cents or less per angler.
F4-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Chapter F4
Table F4-13: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option in the
Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Species Group
Bass
Perch
Walleye/pike
Salmon/trout
No target
Total, all Species (undiscounted)
Total, all species (discounted at 3%)c
Total, all species (discounted at 7%)c
Per-Trip
Welfare Gain
$0.08
$0.01
$0.01
$0.00C
$0.01
Number of Fishing
Trips
(thousands)3
3,944
4,095
4,296
8,468
2,336
23,138
23,138
23,138
Annualized Total Benefits
(thousands)11
$324.1
$45.6
$34.7
$2.4
$15.1
$421.8
$344.0
$265.2
a The number of fishing trips for all species is not equal to the sum of those listed; the total includes fishing trips for
the 'big game' species group.
b Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c Denotes a positive value less than $0.005.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-3 Validation of Benefit Transfer Results Based on RUM Results
Table F4-14 compares the undiscounted results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis with the results
of the RUM analysis. In general, the RUM-based results are fall within the upper range of values estimated
based on the meta-model. However, in absolute terms, the values from the two independent analyses are
relatively close, corroborating the use of meta-analysis in estimating the value of incremental recreational fishing
improvements resulting from the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities. The table shows that under
both models, the welfare gain under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option is higher than the welfare gain
under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the " 100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option.
Table F4-14: Recreational Fishing Benefits in the Great Lakes Region Calculated from Meta-Analysis
Approach and RUM Approach
Policy Option
Eliminating baseline recreational
fishing losses from l&E
50 MGD All
200 MGD All
100MGDCWB
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this
Estimated Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
from I&E
(thousands of fish)
263.5
92.2
64.2
71.9
report.
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
(thousands, 2003$)
Based on Meta-Analysis
Low
$550.9
$191.5
$132.4
$148.5
Mean
$1,108.9
$385.3
$266.2
$298.5
High
$2,174.7
$756.0
$522.6
$586.0
Based on
RUM
$1,428
$522
$382
$422
F4-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Chapter F4
F4-4 Limitations and Uncertainty
F4-4.1 Limitations and Uncertainty: Meta-Analysis
The results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis results represent EPA's best estimate of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties
inherent in these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the
use of the model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in section A5-
3.3e and section A5-5.3 of Chapter A5. In addition to these general concerns about the analysis, there are other
limitations and uncertainties that are specific to the Great Lakes region.
The main limitation of using the meta-analysis to calculate recreational benefits for the Great Lakes region is that
EPA was unable to locate any studies that evaluated WTP for some Great Lakes species such as rainbow smelt
and sculpin. However, the Agency believes that the per-fish values for these species can be approximated by the
per-fish values for panfish.
F4-4.2 Limitations and Uncertainty: RUM Approach
The results of the benefit transfer based on the RUM analysis results serve to confirm that EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options are reasonable. However, there are a number of limitations and
uncertainties inherent in these estimates. Some general limitations pertaining to the RUM model are discussed in
Chapter Al 1 of the Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule
(U.S. EPA, 2004a). Some additional region-specific limitations are discussed in Chapter G4 of the Regional
Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
Although the estimated total welfare gain to the Great Lakes recreational anglers based on the regional RUM
model is likely to be accurate, the estimated average per-trip welfare gain presented in Tables F4-7, F4-9, F4-11,
and F4-13 must be used and understood in the context of the regional model developed by EPA for the Phase II
analysis (or Besedin et al., 2004). The regional RUM model assumes uniform changes in catch rates at all sites
across the region. Given that there are only 80 potentially regulated facilities in the Great Lakes region, which
includes a large amount of aquatic habitat, catch rate improvements are more likely to occur locally rather than
regionally. These local improvements in catch rates and the associated average per-trip welfare gain are likely to
be greater than those presented in the tables in section F4-2. However, the number of anglers benefitting from
these improvements would be smaller, and so the resulting aggregate benefits are likely to be similar.
F4-I7
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Great Lakes Region
The tables in this appendix summarize the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1
equivalents and fishery yield from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Great Lakes region.
Table Fl-1: Alewife Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Sources: Spigarelli et al.,
NMFS, 2003a.
11.5
5.50
6.21
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1981; PG&E National Energy Group,
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001; Froese
0.00000128
0.00000141
0.00478
0.0160
0.0505
0.0764
0.0941
0.108
0.130
0.149
andPauly, 2003; and
App. Fl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Table Fl-2: Bass Species
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.90
2.70
0.446
0.860
1.17
0.755
1.05
0.867
0.867.
0.867
0.867
0.867
(Micropterus sp.)
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.32
0.21
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Life History Parameters'
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000731
0.0000198
0.0169
0.202
0.518
0.733
1.04
1.44
2.24
2.56
2.92
3.30
a Includes largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and other sunfish not identified to species level.
Sources: Scott and Grossman, 1973; Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartelland Campbell, 2000;
Froese and Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-3: Black Bullhead Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Coriander, 1969;
2001; andNMFS, 2 003 a.
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Scoff and Grossman,
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
1973;
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.000186
0.00132
0.0362
0.0797
0.137
0.233
0.402
0.679
0.753
0.815
0.823
Froese and Pauly,
App. Fl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-4: Black Crappie Life History Parameter
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Coriander,
NMFS, 2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
7977; Wang, 1986;
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Bartell and Campbell,
Fraction
Vulnerable
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2000; Froese
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000929
0.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
and Pauly, 2001; and
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Sources: Coriander,
NMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-5:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.73
0.576
4.62
0.390
0.151
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
7977; Wang, 1986;
Bluegill Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Bartell and Campbell,
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2000; Froese
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000130
0.00000156
0.00795
0.00992
0.0320
0.0594
0.104
0.189
0.193
0.209
0.352
0.393
and Pauly, 2001; and
A pp. Fl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-6: Brown Bullhead Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+ .
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Coriander,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
1969; Geo-Marine,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Fraction
Vulnerable
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inc., 1978; Froese andPauly, 2001;
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0000192
0.00246
0.0898
0.172
0.278
0.330
0.570
0.582
andNMFS, 2003 a.
Table Fl-7: Bullhead Species Life History Parameters11
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.000186
0.00132
0.0362
0.0797
0.137
0.233
0.402
0.679
0.753
0.815
0.823
a Includes black bullhead, stonecat, tadpole madtom, yellow bullhead, and other bullheads not
identified to species level.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Scott and Grossman, 1973; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Froese and Panly,
2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
A pp. Fl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources: Schram et
Table Fl-8:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
7.13
0.916
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
0.562
Burbot Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
al., 1998; Scott and Grossman, 1998; Snyder, 1998; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000154
0.00000160
0.0154
0.129
0.513
0.842
1.23
1.99
2.68
2.97
3.35
3.57
4.09
2003a.
App. Fl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-9: Carp Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11 +
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00000673
0.0000118
0.0225
0.790
1.21
1.81
5.13
5.52
5.82
6.76
8.17
8.55
8.94
9.76
10.2
10.6
11.1
11.5
12.0
12.5
a Includes bowfin, carp, goldfish, and other similar carps not identified to species level.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Wang, 1986; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F1
Table Fl-10: Carp/Minnow Life History Parameters"
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.90
2.06
2.06
1.00
1.00
1.00
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.000375
0.00208
0.00585
0.0121
0.0171
a Includes bluntnose minnow, fathead minnow, hornyhead chub, lake chub, longnose dace, and other
similar minnows not identified to species level.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Froese and Pauly, 2001; NMFS, 2003a; and Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, 2003.
Table Fl-11: Crappie Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000929
0.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
a Includes white crappie and other crappies not identified to the species level.
Sources: Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-12: Freshwater Catfish Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11 +
Age 12+
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
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
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000539
0.0000563
0.0204
0.104
0.330
0.728
1.15
1.92
2.41
3.45
4.01
5.06
8.08
8.39
8.53
a Includes channel catfish and flathead catfish.
Sources: Miller, 1966; Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Wang, 1986; Sailaetal., 1997;
Froese and Pauly, 2001; and NMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-13: Freshwater Drum Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11 +
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
6.13
2.30
0.310
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000295
0.0166
0.0500
0.206
0.438
0.638
0.794
0.950
1.09
1.26
1.44
1.60
1.78
• 2.00
Sources: Scott and Grossman, 1973; Virginia Tech, 1998; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and
Pauly, 2001; and NMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-14: Gizzard Shad Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
1.90
6.33
0.511
1.45
1.27
0.966
0.873
0.303
0.303
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.000000487
0.00000663
0.0107
0.141
0.477
0.640
0.885
1.17
1.54
a Includes gizzard shad and other shad not identified to species level.
Sources: Wapora, 1979; Froese and Pauly, 2003; and NMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-15: Logperch Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age2+
Age 3+
Sources: Coriander,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
1.90
1.90
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1997; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000260
0.000512
0.00434
0.0132
0.0251
0.0377
App. FI-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-16: Pike Life History Parameters2
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11 +
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21 +
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
a Includes grass pickerel,
Sources: Coriander, 1969
1.08
5.49
5.49
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0.08
. 0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.075 0.08
0.075 0.08
0.075 0.08
0.075 0.08
0.075 0.08
muskellunge, and northern pike.
; Pennsylvania, 1 999; Froese and Pauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2007; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000189
0.0133
0.0451
0.365
1.10
1.53
2.72
6.19
7.02
8.92
12.3
13.9
16.6
19.0
24.2
25.3
30.0
32.4
34.3
45.6
45.8
47.7
48.8
48.9
49.0
49.1
49.2
49.3
49.4
49.4
2003a.
App. Fl-ll
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F1
Table Fl-17: Rainbow Smelt Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
11.5
5.50
0.916
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000990
0.00110
0.00395
0.0182
0.0460
0.0850
0.131
0.180
0.228
Sources: Spigarelli et al., 1981; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001; Froese and Pauly, 2003; and
NMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-18: Redhorse Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.30
2.99
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000370
0.0267
0.0521
0.180
0.493
0.653
0.916
2.78
3.07
" Includes golden redhorse, shorthead redhorse, and silver redhorse.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001, 2003; andNMFS,
2003a.
App. Fl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-19: Salmonids Life History 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 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
8.20
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) to Fishery
0
0
0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a Includes bloater, brown trout, chinook salmon, coho salmon, lake herring, lake trout,
rainbow trout, round whitefish, and other salmonids not identified to species level.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000240
0.000171
0.0117
0.705
1.27
2.32
2.85
3.52
4.09
4.76
5.70
5.73
5.85
6.10
6.83
7.11
7.29
7.32
8.66
lake whitefish,
Sources: Fish, 1932; Schorfhaar and Schneeberger, 1997; Scott and Grossman, 1998; Froese and
Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F1
Table Fl-20: Shiner Species Life History Parameters3
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
0.777
0.371
4.61
4.61
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.000285
0.00209
0.00387
0.00683
0.0143
" Includes common shiner, emerald shiner, golden shiner, spotfm shiner, spottail shiner and other
shiners not identified to species level.
Sources: Fuchs, 1967; Wapora, 1979; Trautman, 1981; Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-21: Spotted Sucker Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
1.79
2.81
3.00
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to Weight
Fishery (Ibs)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00000115
0.00000198
0.0213
0.0863
0.690
1.24
1.70
1.92
1.99
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; andNMFS,
2003a.
App. Fl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-22: Sucker Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to Weight
(M) (F) Fishery (Ibs)
2.05
2.56
2.30
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.274
0.274
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0000312
0.0000343
0.000239
0.0594
0.310
0.377
0.735
0.981
1.10
a Includes carpsucker buffalo, lake chubsucker, longnose sucker, northern hog sucker, quillback, white
sucker, and other suckers not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Table Fl-23:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.71
0.687
0.687
1.61
1.61
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Sunfish Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Parameters11
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000123
0.000878
0.00666
0.0271
0.0593
0.0754
0.142
0.180
0.214
0.232
" Includes green sunfish, orange-spotted sunfish, pumpkinseed, rock bass, warmouth, and other
sunfish not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986; PSE&G, 1999; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Fl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-24: Walleye Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
1.05
3.55
1.93
0.431
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0
0
0
0
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
Obs)
0.00000619
0.0000768
0.0300
0.328
0.907
1.77
2.35
3.37
3.97
4.66
5.58
5.75
Sources: Coriander, 1997; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Thomas and Haas, 2000; Froese and Pauly,
2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-25: White Bass Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000396
0.00000174
0.174
0.467
0.644
1.02
1.16
1.26
1.66
1.68
Sources: Van Oosten, 1942; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Coriander, 1997; Virginia Tech, 1998;
McDermot and Rose, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
A pp. F1-I6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-26: White Perch Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources:
2.75
5.37
1.71
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
Horseman and Shir ey, 1974; PSE&G,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1999; andNMFS,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003a.
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000330
0.00000271
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
Table Fl-27: Yellow Perch Life History Parameters
Instantaneous Instantaneous
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality
Stage Name (M) (F)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
2.75
3.56
2.53
0.361
0.249
0.844
0.844
0.844
0.844
0
0
0
0
0
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000655
0.000000728
0.0232
0.0245
0.0435
0.0987
0.132
0.166
0.214
Sources: Wapora, 1979; PSE&G, 1999; Thomas and Haas, 2000; andNMFS, 2003a.
A pp. Fl-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III- Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix Fl
Table Fl-28: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters'
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a Includes deepwater sculpin, mottled sculpin, slimy sculpin, and other sculpins not identified to
species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin etal, 1983; Ruppert et al, 1985; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; ASMFC, 200Ib; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Fl-29: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a Includes central mudminnow, chestnut lamprey, johnny darter, lake sturgeon, longnose gar,
ninespine stickleback, pirate perch, sea lamprey, silver lamprey, and other forage fish not identified to
species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G, 1999. '
App. Fl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Appendix F2
Appendix F2: Reductions in I&E in the
Great Lakes Region Under Five Other
Options Evaluated for the Proposed Section
316(b) Phase III Regulation
Table F2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the Great Lakes
Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the Proposed
Section 316(b) Regulation
Option
20 MOD All
2
3
4
All Phase III Facilities
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
13,300,000
13,300,000
13,200,000
13,300,000
14,300,000
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
192,000
192,000
190,000
192,000
206,000
App. F2-1
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Appendix F3
Appendix F3: Commercial Fishing Benefits
for Five Other Options Evaluated for
Phase III Existing Facilities in the
Great Lakes Region
Section F3-2 in Chapter F3 displays the results of the commercial fishing benefits analysis for the 50 MOD
option, the 200 MGD option, and the 100 MOD option. To facilitate comparisons among the options, this
appendix displays results for the following additional options: All Potentially Regulated Phase III Existing
Facilities option (All Phase III Facilities); the 20 MGD option (20 MGD All); Option 2; Option 3; and Option 4.
Table F3-1: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to the
All Phase III Facilities Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)"
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — low
$152,000
$0
$28,600
$0
$180,000
$0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400 $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 41% 48%
'0
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $30,400
3% discount rate $25,000
7% discount rate $ 19,600
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
H1 for a timeline of benefits.
App. F3-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Appendix F3
Table F3-2: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to
the 20 MGD All Option at Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)"
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $152,000 $28,600 $180,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400 $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 38% 46%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $28,300
3% discount rate $23,300
7% discount rate $ 18,100
* Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
H1 for a timeline of benefits.
Table F3-3: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 2 at
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)"
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — low
$152,000
$0
$28,600
$0
$180,000
$0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400_ $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 38% 46%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0__
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $28,300
3% discount rate $23,300
7% discount rate $18,100
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a
more detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter
HI for a timeline of benefits.
App. F3-2
-------
Section 3 1 6(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes Appendix F3
Table F3-4: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 3 at
_ Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)a _
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted $152,000 $28,600 $180,000
Producer surplus lost — low $0 $0 $0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400 $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 38% 43%
Benefits attributable^ rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $28,000
3% discount rate $23,000
7% discount rate $ 1 8,000
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time
frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for
a timeline of benefits.
Table F3-5: Annualized Commercial Fishing Benefits Attributable to Option 4 at
Facilities in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)'
Impingement Entrainment Total
Baseline loss — gross revenue
Undiscounted
Producer surplus lost — low
$152,000
$0
$28,600
$0
$180,000
$0
Producer surplus lost — high (gross revenue * 0.4)
Undiscounted $60,600 $11,400 $72,000
Expected reduction due to rule 38% 46%
Benefits attributable to rule — low $0 $0 $0
Benefits attributable to rule — high
Undiscounted $28,300
3% discount rate $23,300
7% discount rate $ 18,100
a Annualized benefits represent the value of all commercial benefits generated over the time frame
of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a 30 year period. For a more
detailed discussion of the discounting methodology, refer to Chapter A8, and see Chapter HI for a
timeline of benefits.
App. F3-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Appendix F4: Recreational Use Benefits of
Other Policy Options
Appendix Contents
F4-1
Introduction
Chapter F4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the three proposed options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities, for
electric generators and manufacturers in the Great
Lakes region. This appendix supplements Chapter
F4 by presenting estimates of the recreational fishing
benefits of five other options that EPA evaluated for
the purpose of comparison:
>• Option 3,
>• Option 4,
> Option 2,
>• Option 1, and
> Option 6.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter F4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
F4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other
Evaluated Options F4-1
F4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in
Recreational Fishing Losses
Under the Other Evaluated
Options F4-1
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Other Evaluated Options F4-3
Comparison of Recreational Fishing
Benefits by Option F4-5
F4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
F4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses Under the Other Evaluated Options
Table F4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Great Lakes region under the other evaluated options.
App. F4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E Under the Other Evaluated Options in the Great Lakes Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(#offish)b
Species"
Salmon
Total (salmon)
Northern pike
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sunfish
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Whitefish
Total (trout)
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Option 3
35
35
Oc
1,098
1,099
318
24,164
24,482
10
6
1,100
549
538
254
62
2,003
10,006
14,528
571
571
62,276
102,991
Option 4
36
36
Oc
1,119
1,120
335
24,644
24,979
10
7
1,157
577
546
268
62
2,112
10,252
14,991
571
571
62,514
104,211
Option 2
36
36
Oc
1,119
1,120
335
24,644
24,979
10
7
1,157
577
546
268
62
2,112
10,252
14,991
571
571
62,514
104,211
Option 1
36
36
Oc
1,119
1,120
335
24,644
24,979
10
7
1,157
577
546
268
62
2,112
10,252
14,991
571
571
62,514
104,211
Option 6
39
39
Oc
1,196
1,197
351
26,331
26,682
11
7
1,215
606
585
281
67
2,216
10,925
15,913
617
617
67,388
111,836
a EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to one of the species groups used in the meta-analysis. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly
through trophic transfer.
b In the Great Lakes region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under Option 2 and Option 1. Thus, reductions in
recreational losses under these options are also identical.
c Denotes a non-zero value less than 0.5 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report. _____
App. F4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F4
F4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
Tables F4-2, F4-3, and F4-4 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the other
evaluated options in the Great Lakes region.
In the Great Lakes region, all potentially regulated facilities that would install new technology under Option 4,
Option 2, and Option 1 have design intake flows greater than or equal to 20 MGD. Because the requirements
under these three options are identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and benefits resulting from
these three options are also identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented in Table F4-3 apply to all three
options.
Table F4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 3 in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fish'
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)"'0
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.6
1.1
24.5
14.5
62.3
103.0
103.0
103.0
Low
$6.53
$1.23
$2.37
$3.00
$0.52
$2.09
Mean
$11.19
$7.99
$4.58
$5.90
$1.06
$4.21
High
$19.39
$9.53
$8.92
$11.66
$2.21
$8.25
Low
$0.2
$0.7
$2.6
$73.4
$7.6
$130.2
$214.7
$176.6
$137.7
Mean
$0.4
$4.6
$5.0
$144.5
$15.5
$262.1
$432.1
$355.3
$277.0
High
$0.7
$5.4
$9.8
$285.5
$32.1
$513.9
$847.5
$697.0
$543.4
" Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 4, Option 2, and Option 1, in the Great Lakes
Region (2003$)a
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Value per Fishb
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'"
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Fishing Losses
(thousands offish)
0.0e
0.6
1.1
25.0
15.0
62.5
104.2
104.2
104.2
Low
$6.53
$1.23
$2.37
$3.00
$0.52
$2.09
Mean
$11.19
$7.99
$4.58
$5.90
$1.06
$4.21
High
$19.39
$9.53
$8.92
$11.66
$2.21
$8.25
Low
$0.2
$0.7
$2.7
$74.9
$7.8
$130.7
S217.0
SI 78.4
$139.1
Mean
$0.4
$4.6
$5.1
$147.5
$16.0
$263.1
$436.6
$359.1
$280.0
High
$0.7
$5.4
$10.0
$291.3
$33.1
$515.9
$856.5
$704.4
$549.2
a In the Great Lakes region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under
Option 2 and Option 1. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
e Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 6 in the Great Lakes Region (2003$)
Species Group
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
0.0d
0.6
1.2
26.7
15.9
67.4
111.8
111.8
111.8
Value per Fish"
Low
$6.53
$1.23
$2.37
$3.00
$0.52
$2.09
Mean
$11.19
$7.99
$4.58
$5.90
$1.06
$4.21
High
$19.39
$9.53
$8.92
$11.66
$2.21
$8.25
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)"-'
Low
$0.3
$0.8
$2.8
$80.0
$8.3
$140.9
$233.0
$192.0
$150.1
Mean
$0.4'
$4.9
$5.5
$157.5
$16.9
$283.6
$468.9
$386.3
$302.0
High
$0.8
$5.9
$10.7
$311.2
$35.2
$556.1
$919.8
$757.8
$592.3
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d Denotes a non-zero value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
F4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table F4-5 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the five other evaluated options. The table shows that
recreational fishing benefits are very similar under all of the options.
App. F4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part F: Great Lakes
Appendix F4
Table F4-5: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options in the Great Lakes Region
(2003$)
Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Annual Reduction in Recreational (thousands; 2003$)"
Policy Option2
Option 3
Option 4
Option 2
Option 1
Option 6
(thousands of fish)
103.0
104.2
104.2
104.2
111.8
Low
$214.7
$217.0
$217.0
$217.0
$233.0
Mean
$432.1
$436.6
$436.6
$436.6
$468.9
High
$847.5
$856.5
$856.5
$856.5
$919.8
a In the Great Lakes region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under
Option 2 and Option 1. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter
F4. EPA did not use the RUM approach from the Phase II analysis to analyze the other evaluated options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. F4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part G: The Inland Region
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Chapter Gl
Chapter Gl: Background
Gl-l Facility Characteristics Gl-1
Introduction
Chapter Contents
This chapter presents an overview of the potential
Phase III existing facilities in the Inland study region
and summarizes their key cooling water and
compliance characteristics. For further discussion of
the technical and compliance characteristics of potential Phase III existing facilities, refer to the Economic
Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities and the Technical Development Document
for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a,b).
Gl-1 Facility Characteristics
The Inland Regional Study includes 260 sample facilities that are potentially subject to the proposed standards for
Phase III existing facilities. One hundred and sixty facilities are manufacturing facilities and 100 are electric
generators. Industry-wide, these 260 sample facilities represent 493 facilities.1 Figure Gl-1 presents a map of
these facilities.
' EPA applied sa mpl e we i ghts to the sur vey respond ent s t
did not respondto the survjn EPA 's 2000 Sectry Survey, pi
the I nfor irati on Col lee ti on
Gl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland
Chapter Gl
Figure Gl-1 : Potential Existing Phase III Facilities in the Inland Regional Study
:-
\
''*,'"
• i
| fc. . •• ,.
(S, WA .' i
s 1 O '
/ .••-%.,..,*.. • \.
: 4 '" *", »
Q • ^
'/ /, MT j ".NO ; .« , , r ., -V
OR S v _
ID
';•-".. . /
' ^ ' ' ° %
' HV / • ~"~
' o°° 1
CA UT
; o
'.. '•• ! ' 1 °~
'":.. ' \ !
'• " AZ '
•° <
Key
Potential Phase III Existing
Facilities (Count)
0 Electric Generating Facility (100)
• Manufacturing Facility (160)
t 1 ' * -U-i .'
' - , MH , ^ "I
----- — ^ .__^ j o i ^ - ^NH
f • ° ' » •" HY •V"lV°
• so ! *0 ; t i * f
1 0 -" ° wi Ml * ,cy (u
WY r ... : , 100, >. , •
\ !', o "".:: " • * ... • w 0 * • • oi,, 1>"
°o — J'— -; . ^ __f.^!i t ] i° OH °^*fr""l>^&V*
8 i - •:,, \ II i ° * 1 * 0 " J"^^,^
. CO j OD'-'O % ^ IH 0^*''°° J S* 4 VA *^f
i » . o ! M0 (°v 40/>ff 0 ' .°»«"i\,
"••• — ,. _ 0; \p-' o _, • * •."" i
;1-- : * ..-•• -}f- ' «, f/ NC y?
1 ', ° ° OK ' *AR r-~"~*i'r"'\ \ •• *
i ''-v-',.,, oJ *° / ! o '^ «'^
1 00' ."! *^ N. 1 *t" V"*' "/
,- -,„.,. ^, 1 • • ^ ' *
TO • • j . . , '• '
0, '••!?' *"" FL
•« '•*!!• ,^
0 '
« .
/ i i
• o ''•• "^^K1 . 1
0 100 200 Miles
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Gl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland
Chapter Gl
Table Gl-1 summarizes key technical and compliance characteristics for all potentially regulated Phase III
existing facilities in the Inland study region and for the three proposed regulatory options considered by EPA for
this proposal (the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, and the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option). Facilities with a design intake flow below the three applicability
thresholds would be subject to permitting based on best professional judgment and are excluded from EPA's
analyses.2 Therefore, a different number of facilities is affected under each option.
Table Gl-1 shows that 493 Phase III existing facilities in the Inland study region would potentially be subject to
the national requirements. Under the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, the most inclusive of the three
proposed options, 97 facilities would be subject to the national requirements for Phase III existing facilities.
Under the less inclusive "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, 14 facilities would be subject to the national
requirements, and under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option, no facilities would be subject to the
national requirements. One hundred and sixty nine facilities in the Inland study region have a recirculating
system in the baseline.
Table Gl-1: Technical and Compliance Characteristics of Existing Phase III Facilities (Sample-Weighted)
Total Number of Facilities (sample-weighted)
Number of Facilities with Recirculating System in Baseline
Design Intake Flow (MGD)
Number of Facilities by Compliance Response
Fish H&R
New larger intake structure with fine mesh and fish H&R
Velocity cap
Fine mesh traveling screens with fish H&R
Double-entry, single-exit with fine mesh and fish H&R
Passive fine mesh screens
None
Compliance Cost at 3%'
Compliance Cost at 7%"
All
Potentially
Regulated
Facilities
493
169
16,920
56
12
40
25
3
66
292
$40.07
S41.80
Proposed Options
50 MGD
AH
97
5
12,702
23
-
7
11
3
25
27
$19.66
$20.65
200 MGD 100 MGD
All CWB
14
1
8,404
2
-
-
4
2
3
2
$12.30
$13.70
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
$0.00
$0.00
a Annualized pre-tax compliance cost (2003$, millions)
Source: U.S. EPA, 2000; U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
2 Also excluded are facilities that are estimated to be baseline closures. For additional information on EPA's
baseline closure analyses, please refer to the Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III
Facilities (U.S. EPA, 2004a).
Gl-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter G2
Chapter G2: Evaluation of Impingement and
Entrainment in the Inland Region
G2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups
Evaluated
Table G2-1 provides a list of species/species groups
that were evaluated in EPA's analysis of
impingement and enrrainment (I&E) in the Inland
region. There is not a significant level of commercial
fishing in the interior U.S. Therefore, EPA has
assumed that all I&E losses in this region affect
recreational fisheries only.
Chapter Contents
G2-1 I&E Species/Species Groups Evaluated ... G2-1
G2-2 I&E Data Evaluated G2-3
G2-3 EPA' s Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as
Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield ... G2-4
G2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities
in the Inland Region Under Three
Alternative Options G2-7
G2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating
Recreational and Commercial Losses G2-8
Table G2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Inland Region
Species/Species Group
Recreational Commercial Forage
Alewife
American shad
Bay anchovy
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Carp
Channel catfish
Chinook salmon
Crappie
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
X
X
X
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
X
X
Burbot
X
X
X
X
G2-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-1: Species/Species Groups Evaluated by EPA that are Subject to
I&E in the Inland Region
Species/Species Group Recreational Commercial Forage
Gobies
Golden redhorse
Herring
Hogchoker
Logperch
Menhaden species
Muskellunge
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Paddlefish
Pallid sturgeon
Rainbow smelt
Recreational sea bass
River carpsucker
Salmon
Sauger
Sculpin species
Shiner species
Silversides
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Smelt
Spotted sucker
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Sturgeon species
Sucker species
Sunfish
Threespine stickleback
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
G2-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
The life history data used in EPA's analysis and associated data sources are provided in Appendix Gl of this
report.
G2-2 I&E Data Evaluated
Table G2-2 lists Inland facility I&E data evaluated by EPA to estimate current I&E rates for the region. Data for
both Phase II and Phase ID facilities were used as a basis for extrapolation of I&E rates to Phase III facilities
without I&E data. Chapter Al of Part A presents the extrapolation methods.
Table G2-2: Facility I&E Data Evaluated for the Inland Region Analysis
Facility
Albany Generating Station
Barry Steam Plant
Walter C. Beckjord Generating Station
Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station
Cardinal Plant
AES Cayuga
Clifty Creek Station
Comanche
Council Bluffs
Dexter Corp./Nonwoven Div. (CT)
Dickerson Generating Station
Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant (LA)
Eastman Chemical Company Arkansas Eastman Division (AR)
Eckert Station
Elrama Power Plant
Erickson (MI)
Finch, Pruyn, & Company Inc. (NY)
G.G. Allen Steam Station
Gorgas Steam Plant
Hatfield's Ferry Power Station (PA)
H B. Robinson
AES Huntington Beach
James H. Miller Jr. (AL)
Kammer Plant
Kyger Creek Station
Labadie
Meramec
Miami Fort Generating Station
Newton
Oak Creek Energy Systems, Inc.
Phase
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
II
III
III
II
II
III
III
II
II
III
H
in
in
ii
ii
H
ii
ii
ii
ii
Years of Data
1974-1984
1976
1977
1988
1978
1976-1987
1977-1986
1993
1976
1990
1978
1980
1980
1975
1978
1976
1993
1973
1985
1980
1973-1975
1979-2001
1978-1986
1978
1978
1974
1974
1978
1983-1986
1975
G2-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-2: Facility I&E
Facility
Oconee
Pearl Station (IL)
Philip Spom Plant
Cogentrix Roxboro
Seminole (FL)
Sherburne Co. (MM)
Tanners Creek Plant
Wabash River Plant
Wateree Generating Station
W.H. Sammis Generating Station
Winyah Generating Station (SC)
Data Evaluated for the Inland
Region Analysis
Phase Years of Data
II
III
II
II
III
III
II
II
II
II
III
1974-1976
1977
1978
1980
1979
1974-1975
1977
1976
1976
1977
1981
G2-3 EPA's Estimate of Current I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region
Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and Foregone Yield
Table G2-3 provides EPA's estimate of the annual age-1 equivalents and foregone fishery yield resulting from
the impingement of aquatic species at facilities located in the Inland region. Table G2-4 displays this information
for entrainment. Note that in these tables, "total yield" includes direct losses of harvested species and the yield of
harvested species that is lost due to losses of forage species. As discussed in Chapter Al of Part A of the section
316(b) Phase III Regional Benefits Assessment, the conversion of forage to yield contributes only a very small
fraction to total yield.
Table G2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Alewife
American shad
Bay anchovy
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Carp
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
56,500
6,650
2,680
342
1,050
1,870
234,000
268,000
2,880
3,020
782
74
6,580
Total Yield
(Ibs)
na
1,630
na
na
84
316
na
5,180
na
249
62
na
na
G2-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Chapter 02
Table G2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Channel catfish
Chinook salmon
Crappie
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Herrings
Hogchoker
Logperch
Menhaden
Muskellunge
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Other (recreational and commercial)
Paddlefish
Pallid sturgeon
Rainbow smelt
Recreational seabass
River carpsucker
Salmon
Sauger
Sculpin
Shiner species
Silversides
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spotted sucker
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Sturgeon
Sucker species
Sunfish
Threespine stickleback
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
97,700
55
13,700
143
3,210,000
88,000
8,210,000
420
8,880,000
1,950
1,230
66
15
5,610,000
9,470
228
1,330
8
3
58
886
46
12,000
82
130,000
4,610
7,120
16,200
817,000
44
20,100
154
133
2,110
548,000
2,410
Total Yield
(Ibs)
20,200
na
2,300
. na
na
21,200
na
na
na
na
na
13
55
na
1,870
45
7,000
na
<1
14
na
196
3,260
3
na
na
na
655
20,300
na
28,100
na
635
na
395
na
G2-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-3: Estimated Current Annual Impingement at Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species/Species Group
Trophic transfer3
Walleye
White bass
White perch
White fish
Yellow perch
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
na
159
46,300
85,100
302
172,000
Total Yield
(Ibs)
102,000
142
14,200
38
271
2,390
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
Table G2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species Group
Alewife
Black crappie
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullhead species
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
Darter species
Emerald shiner
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Golden redhorse
Herring
Logperch
Muskellunge
Other (forage)
Other (recreational)
Paddlefish
Rainbow smelt
River carpsucker
Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
11
9
1,000
190
6,170,000
5,250
145
31
848,000
36,400
116,000
165,000
319,000
57,700
488,000
1,760
1,450
888,000
30,500
<1
569,000
9
796
2
4,090
Total Yield (Ibs)
na
2
na
4
na
433
12
na
na
7,530
19,500
na
na
13,900
na
na
na
na
na
<1
na
2
4,170
<1
na
G2-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
Table G2-4: Estimated Current Annual Entrainment at Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region Expressed as Age-1 Equivalents and
Foregone Fishery Yield
Species Group
Sauger
Sculpin
Shiner species
Silversides
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Smelt
Sturgeon
Sucker species
Sunfish
Threespine stickleback
Trophic transfer3
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Age-1 Equivalents (#s)
192,000
1,470
447
504
421
175,000
926
2,480
1,800,000
3,690,000
<1
na
71,000
14,900
16,800
<1
9,750
Total Yield (Ibs)
52,100 .
58
na
na
na
7,090
23
11,800
na
2,660
na
75,300
63,300
4,570
na
<1
135
a Contribution of forage fish to yield based on trophic transfer (see Chapter Al).
G2-4 Reductions in I&E at Phase III Facilities in the Inland Region Under Three
Alternative Options
Table G2-5 presents estimated reductions in I&E under the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, the "200
MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Reductions under all
other options are presented in Appendix G2.
Table G2-5: Estimated Reductions in I&E Under Three Alternative Options
Age-1 Equivalents Foregone Fishery Yield
Option (#s) (Ibs)
50 MOD All Option 14,800,000 157,000
200 MOD All Option 9,650,000 107,000
100 MOD Option 0 0
02-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G2
G2-5 Assumptions Used in Calculating Recreational and Commercial Losses
Unlike the other regions, all losses in the Inland region are assumed to be to recreational fisheries. Therefore, it
was not necessary to partition losses between commercial and recreational fisheries.
See Chapter G4 for results of the recreational fishing benefits analysis. As discussed in Chapter A8, benefits
were discounted to account for 1) the time to achieve compliance once the rule goes into effect in 2007, and
2) the time it takes for fish spared from I&E to reach a harvestable age.
G2-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Chapter G3
Chapter G3: Commercial Fishing Valuation
There is not a significant level of commercial fishing in the interior U.S. Therefore, EPA has assumed that all
I&E losses in this region affect recreational fisheries only. As a result, baseline commercial fishing losses and
benefits for the Inland region are assumed to be $0.
G3-1
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Chapter G4
Chapter G4: Recreational Use Benefits
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the recreational
fishing benefits analysis for the Inland region. The
chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e.,
current) annual recreational fishery losses from
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at potentially
regulated facilities in the Inland region and annual
reduction in these losses under the three proposed
regulatory options for Phase III existing facilities:'
> the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
- the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
and
>• the " 100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies"
option.
The chapter then presents the estimated welfare gain
to Inland anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses from I&E and the expected
benefits under the three proposed options.
Chapter Contents
G4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-
Analysis G4-1
G4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishery Losses under the Proposed
Regulation G4-2
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from
Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses G4-3
G4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
Option G4-4
G4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"200 MGD for All Waterbodies"
Option G4-5
G4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
"100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies"
Option G4-6
G4-2 Summary of Benefit Transfer Results . .. G4-6
G4-3 Limitations and Uncertainty G4-7
EPA estimated the recreational benefits of reducing
and eliminating I&E losses using a benefit transfer
methodology based on a meta-analysis of the marginal value of catching different species offish. This meta-
analysis is discussed in detail in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. Results of the recreational fishing
benefits analysis for five other options evaluated by EPA are presented in Appendix G4.
G4-1 Benefit Transfer Approach Based on Meta-Analysis
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from the reduction in annual I&E losses expected under the policy
options, and the welfare gain from eliminating I&E at potentially regulated facilities, using a benefit transfer
approach. As discussed in Chapter A5, the Agency used the meta-analysis regression equation to estimate the
marginal recreational value per additional fish caught by anglers, for different species in different regions. Since
I&E at potentially regulated facilities affects a variety of species, EPA assigned each species with I&E losses to
one of the general species groups used in the meta-analysis. The Agency then calculated the economic value of
reducing or eliminating baseline I&E losses, for each species group, by multiplying the value per fish for that
species group by the number offish in the group that are lost in the baseline or saved under the policy options.2
In general, the fit between the species with I&E losses and the species groups in the meta-analysis was good.
However, EPA's estimates of baseline I&E losses and reductions in I&E under the policy options included losses
1 See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
2 Note that the estimates of I&E presented in this chapter include only the fraction of impinged and entrained
recreational fish that would otherwise be caught by anglers. The total amount of I&E of recreational species is actually
much higher.
G4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Chapter G4
of 'unidentified' species. The 'unidentified' group includes fish lost indirectly through trophic transfer, as well as
species for which no species information was available.3 Rather than using the meta-analysis regression to try to
predict the value per fish for an "unidentified" species, EPA assumed that per-fish values for these species can be
approximated by the weighted average value per fish for all species affected by I&E in the Inland region.4
G4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishery Losses under the Proposed Regulation
Table G4-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual recreational I&E losses at potentially
regulated facilities, and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed options, in the Inland region.
The table shows that total baseline losses to recreational fisheries are 0.51 million fish per year. In comparison,
the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 0.17 million fish per year, and the "200 MOD for
All Waterbodies" option prevents losses of 0.11 million fish per year. No reduction in losses is expected under
the "100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Of all the affected species, bluegill, sunfish, and smelts, along
with unidentified species, have the highest losses in the baseline and the highest prevented losses under the
proposed options.
Table G4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities and
Reductions in Recreational Losses under the Proposed Regulatory Options in the Inland Region
Baseline Annual Recreational
Annual Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
Species'
American shad
Paddlefish"
Striped bass
Sturgeonb
Total (small game)
Salmon
Total (salmon)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
fismng Losses
(# of fish)
393
406
2,519
179
3,497
9
9
2
19,932
20,211
40,145
9,270
10
20,214
29,494
175
481
50,742
1,757
154
50 MGD All
147
135
939
49
1,269
3
3
1
5,454
5,411
10,866
2,562
4
7,015
9,581
65
179
18,906
537
55
200 MGD All
88
88
562
37
776
2
2
0
4,178
4,220
8,399
1,947
2
4,442
6,391
39
107
11,328
376
34
100 MGD CWB"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3 In addition to recreational fish that are lost because they are impinged or entrained, some recreational fish are
lost because the forage fish that they feed on are impinged or entrained, and thus removed from the food chain. These
trophic transfer losses of recreational species are included in EPA's estimates of total I&E losses. However, since it is
difficult to predict which recreational species would be affected by losses of forage fish, these losses are classified as
'unidentified' recreational species. Also included in the 'unidentified' group are losses offish that were reported by
facilities without information about their exact species.
4 EPA used the estimated level of baseline recreational losses for each species group as a weighting factor.
G4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-1: Baseline Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities and
Reductions in Recreational Losses under the Proposed Regulatory Options in the Inland Region
Baseline .
Fi
Species'
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sculpin
Smelts
Sunfish
White perch
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Whitefish
Total (trout)
Freshwater drum0
Unidentified
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Annual Reductions
Annual Recreational
in Recreational Fishing Losses
(# of fish)
ishing Losses
(# of fish) 50MGDA11 200MGDA11 100 MGD CWB"
22,438
33,150
20
464
42,739
49,245
161
20,033
221,558
185
185
36,116
180,016
216,132
511,020
7,721
9,234
7
127
15,922
13,842
60
7,352
74,009
69
69
11,954
59,150
71,104
166,901
4,921
6,972
4
97
9,541
10,373
36
4,457
48,288
41
41
7,856
39,098
46,955
110,851
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a This table includes several species of anadromous fish (such as American shad and striped bass) that are classified
in saltwater species groups, but that are commonly caught in freshwater during part of their life cycle.
b No valuation studies were available for freshwater sturgeon or paddlefish. EPA included these two species in the
'small game' group because the typical size of these species is consistent with (or larger than) the size of other
species in the 'small game' group. Adult lake sturgeon generally weigh 10 to 80 pounds and measure three to five
feet in length, and may grow as large as 300 pounds and seven feet long (NY State Department of Environmental
Conservation, 2003). White sturgeon, which are anadromous, can grow to 400 pounds or 10 feet in length
(Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1999). Paddlefish are also very large, averaging between 3.3 and 4.8 feet in length
(Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
c No valuation studies were available for freshwater drum. Because this species does not correspond well with any
of the species groups, EPA included it in the 'unidentified' group (i.e., valued it using an average weighted value
from all other freshwater species).
d No facilities in the Inland region would be regulated under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option, so no
benefits are expected in this region under this option.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Losses
Table G4-2 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating
baseline recreational fishery losses at potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region. The table presents
baseline annual recreational I&E losses, the estimated value per fish, and the monetized annual welfare gain from
eliminating recreational losses, for each species group. Total baseline recreational fishing losses for the Inland
region are 0.51 million fish per year. The undiscounted annual welfare gain to Inland anglers from eliminating
these losses is $1.12 million (2003$), with lower and upper bounds of $0.59 million and $2.11 million. Evaluated
at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain of eliminating these losses is $1.08 million and $1.04 million,
respectively. The majority of monetized recreational losses from I&E under baseline conditions are attributable to
losses of freshwater drum (categorized in the 'unidentified' group) and other 'unidentified' species.
G4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III
Facilities in the Inland Region (2003$)
Species Group
Baseline Annual
Recreational Fishing
Losses
(thousands of fish)*
Value per Fishb
Annualized Benefits from
Eliminating Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands)'*"
Low
Mean
High
Low
Mean
High
Small game6
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
3.5
0.0f
0.2
40.1
29.5
221.6
216.1
511.0
511.0
511.0
$3.03
$11.47
$0.49
$2.82
$3.66
$0.51
$1.15
$7.38
$24.69
$2.79
$5.15
$6.96
$0.97
$2.16
$17.56
$53.44
$4.51
$9.42
$13.13
$1.85
$4.04
$10.6
$0.1
$0.1
$113.3
$107.9
$113.6
$248.5
$594.0
$576.2
$554.9
$25.8
$0.2
$0.5
$206.6
$205.3
$216.0
$466.3
$1,120.7
$1,087.0
$1,046.8
$61.4
$0.5
$0.8
$378.1
$387.2
$409.6
$872.4
$2,110.1
$2,046.7
$1,970.9
" Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See Section A5-5.1 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying baseline losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized values represent the total welfare gain over the time frame of the analysis from eliminating
recreational losses, discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of
the discounting and annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon
may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are
willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
f Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.3 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table G4-3 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies"
option for the Inland region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses expected under
this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this option, by
species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.17 million fish per year, resulting
in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.36 million (2003$), with lower and upper bounds of
$0.19 million and $0.67 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain from this reduction
in recreational losses is $0.31 million and $0.25 million, respectively. The majority of benefits result from
reduced losses of freshwater drum (categorized in the 'unidentified' group) and other 'unidentified' species.
G4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "SO MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Inland Region
(2003$)
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'"
Species Group
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)"
Value per Fishb
Low Mean High Low Mean High
Small game0
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated
Total (evaluated
at 3%)
at 7%)
1.3
0.0f
0.1
10.9
9.6
74.0
71.1
166.9
166.9
166.9
$3,
$11
.03
.47
$0.49
$2
$3
$0
$1
.82
.66
.51
.15
$7.38
$24
$2
$5
$6
$0
$2
.69
.79
.15
.96
.97
.16
$17.56
$53.44
$4.51
$9.42
$13.13
$1.85
$4.04
$3.8
$0.0g
$0.08
$30.7
$35.0
$38.0
$81.7
$189.3
$161.9
$132.8
$9.4
$0.1
$0.2
$55.9
$66.7
$72.1
$153.4
$357.8
$306.0
$250.9
$22.3
$0.2
$0.3
$102.3
$125.8
$136.8
$287.0
$674.7
$577.1
$473.1
" Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See Section A5-5.1 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon
may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are
willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
f Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
6 Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.4 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
Table G4-4 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational benefits of the "200 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option for the Inland region. The table presents the annual reduction in recreational I&E losses
expected under this option, the estimated value per fish, and annual monetized recreational welfare gain from this
option, by species group. The table shows that this option reduces recreational losses by 0.11 million fish per
year, resulting in an undiscounted welfare gain to recreational anglers of $0.24 million (2003$), with lower and
upper bounds of $0.13 million and $0.46 million. Evaluated at 3% and 7%, the mean annualized welfare gain
from this reduction in recreational losses is $0.21 million and $0.17 million, respectively. The majority of
benefits result from reduced losses of freshwater drum (categorized in the 'unidentified' group) and other
'unidentified' species.
G4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Chapter G4
Table G4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option in the Inland
Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small game6
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)*
0.8
0.0f
0.0f
8.4
6.4
48.3
47.0
110.9
110.9
110.9
Value per Fish"
Low
$3.03
$11.47
$0.49
$2.82
$3.66
$0.51
$1.15
Mean
$7.38
$24.69
$2.79
$5.15
$6.96
$0.97
$2.16
High
$17.56
$53.44
$4.51
$9.42
$13.13
$1.85
$4.04
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)'1"
Low
$2.4
$0.08
$0.0«
$23.7
$23.4
$24.8
$54.0
$128.2
$109.8
$90.2
Mean
$5.7
$0.08
$0.1
$43.2
$44.5
$47.1
$101.3
$242.0
$207.3
$170.3
High
$13.6
$0.1
$0.2
$79.1
$83.9
$89.3
$189.5
$455.7
$390.4
$320.7
' Recreational fishing losses include only the portion of impinged and entrained fish that would have otherwise
been caught by recreational anglers.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See Section A5-5.1 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the annual reduction in recreational losses by the estimated value
per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting and
annualization methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
c The small game species group includes losses of sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to
sturgeon may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers
are willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are
often landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
f Denotes a positive value less than 50 fish.
8 Denotes a positive value less than $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-1.5 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
No facilities in the Inland region are regulated under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. Thus, no
recreational benefits are expected under this option in this region.
G4-2 Summary of Benefit Transfer Results
Table G4-5 presents a summary of the undiscounted results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis.
The table shows that the expected welfare gain to recreational anglers is $0.36 million (2003$) under the "50
MGD for All Waterbodies" option, and $0.24 million under the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option. No
benefits are expected in the Inland region under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option. The welfare
gain from eliminating baseline recreational I&E losses at potentially regulated facilities is $1.12 million.
G4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region Chapter G4
Table G4-5: Recreational Benefits in the Inland Region Calculated front Benefit Transfer Approach
Estimated Reduction in Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Recreational Fishing Losses from (thousands, 2003S)
I&E
Policy Option (thousands of fish) Low Mean . High
Eliminating baseline 511.0 $594.0 $1,120.7 $2,110.1
recreational fishing losses
from I&E
50 MOD All
200 MGD All
100 MGD CWBa
166.9
110.9
0.0
$189.3
$128.2
$0.0
$357.8
$242.0
$0.0
$674.7
$455.7
$0.0
* Because no facilities in the Inland region are regulated under the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option, no
benefits are expected in the Inland region under this option.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-3 Limitations and Uncertainty
The results of the benefit transfer based on the meta-analysis results represent EPA's best estimate of the
recreational benefits of the proposed options. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations and uncertainties
inherent in these estimates. General limitations pertaining to the development of the meta-analysis model, the use
of the model to estimate per-fish values, and the validity of the benefit transfer are discussed in Section A5-3.3e
and Section A5-5.3 of the recreational methodology chapter. In addition to these general concerns about the
analysis, there are several limitations and uncertainties that are specific to the Inland region.
One limitation of applying the meta-analysis to the Inland region is that the Inland region is extremely diverse (by
definition, it includes the entire continental U.S.). The studies on which the meta-analysis is based were
conducted primarily in only a few geographic regions. In particular, most of the studies that evaluated WTP for
walleye, pike, and panfish were conducted in the Great Lakes (in Michigan or Wisconsin). Thus, the average
values per fish predicted by the regression equation may not represent the actual value per fish in all areas of the
U.S.
Another limitation of the analysis is that EPA was unable to locate any studies that evaluated WTP for channel
catfish or for freshwater drum, two species with high I&E losses in the Inland region. However, the Agency
believes that the per-fish values for channel catfish and freshwater drum can be approximated by the per-fish
values for 'panfish' and 'unidentified' species, respectively.
G4-7
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Phase III Proposed Rule - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Chapter G5
Chapter G5: Threatened and Endangered
Species Analysis
Introduction
This chapter presents EPA's estimates of baseline
(i.e., current) annual losses of special status species
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region
and annual reduction in these losses under the three
proposed regulatory options for Phase III existing
facilities:1'2
•• the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" option,
> the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" option, and
•• the " 100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option.
Chapter Contents
G5-1 Estimated Reductions in Losses of Special
Status Species in the Inland Region under the
Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation for Phase
III Facilities G5-1
G5-2 An Exploration of Benefit Transfer to Estimate
Non-use Benefits of Reduced Impingement and
Entrainment Losses of Special Status Species in
the Inland Region G5-2
The analysis focuses on pallid sturgeon only. Pallid sturgeon are found in the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers
and in their larger tributaries. The pallid sturgeon is one of the largest (30-60 inches) fishes found in the
Missouri-Mississippi River drainage, with specimens weighing up to 85 pounds. In 1990, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) added the pallid sturgeon to the federal endangered species list, which is reserved for
species in danger of extinction. Populations of the pallid sturgeon are now so small that this species is rarely seen
or caught by anglers (USFWS, 2004b).
This chapter also presents the benefit transfer approach explored by EPA to estimate public willingness-to-pay
(WTP) for protection of special status fish species from I&E in the Inland region.
G5-1 Estimated Reductions in Losses of Special Status Species in the Inland Region under
the Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation for Phase III Facilities
Table G5-1 presents EPA's estimates of baseline (i.e., current) annual I&E losses of special status species at
potentially regulated Phase III facilities and annual reductions in these losses under each of the proposed options
in the Inland region. The table shows that total baseline losses of special status species are eight sturgeon per
year. The "50 MOD for All Waterbodies" and "200 MOD for All Waterbodies" options prevent losses of three
and two sturgeon per year, respectively. The "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" option does not prevent any
losses of special status species in the Inland region because no facilities that withdraw water from rivers, streams,
lakes, or reservoirs are subject to this option.
1 See the introduction to this report for a description of the three proposed options.
2 "Special status species" is a term used to refer to species that have been listed as "threatened and endangered"
(T&E) or that have been given a special status designation at the State or federal level.
G5-1
-------
Section 316(b) Phase III Proposed Rule - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region Chapter G5
Table G5-1: I&E Losses of Special Status Species in the Inland Region
Total Baseline Losses of Annuai Reductions in Losses of Special Status Species
Special Status Species
Special Status Fish Species (age-1 equivalents) SOMGDAH 200 MGD All 100 MGD CWB"
Pallid sturgeon
Total
8
8
3
3
2
2
. 0
0
a No facilities that withdraw water from rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs are subject to the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G5-2 An Exploration of Benefit Transfer to Estimate Non-use Benefits of Reduced
Impingement and Entrainment Losses of Special Status Species in the Inland Region
Case-specific estimates of non-use values for the protection of special status species can only be derived by
primary research using stated preference techniques (e.g., the contingent valuation method). However, the cost,
administrative burden, and time required to develop primary research estimates is beyond the schedule and
resources available to EPA for the section 316(b) rulemaking. As an alternative, EPA explored a benefit transfer
approach that relies on information from existing studies. Boyle and Bergstrom (1992) define benefit transfer as
"the transfer of existing estimates of nonmarket values to a new study which is different from the study for which
the values were originally estimated."
There are three commonly-used types of benefit transfer studies: point estimate, benefit function, and meta-
analysis techniques (U.S. EPA, 2000). The point estimate approach involves taking the mean value (or range of
values) from the study case and applying it directly to the policy case (U.S. EPA, 2000). This approach may be
used to transfer estimates of values for preserving certain endangered species in one region to another region or to
another species. A conceptually preferred benefit transfer approach is to use the benefit function transfer
approach, which is more refined but also more complex than the point estimate approach. If the study case
provides a WTP function, valuation estimates can be updated by substituting applicable values of key variables,
such as baseline risk and population characteristics (e.g., mean or median income, racial or age distribution) from
the policy case into the benefit function (U.S. EPA, 2000). The meta-analysis technique involves two steps: (1)
regressing WTP values from a large number of studies on variables representing study methodology, population,
and species characteristics, and (2) estimating WTP for the policy case by evaluating the regression equation
using input values that describe the policy case. In many cases, this technique can provide superior results to
either the point estimate or the benefit function transfer techniques. However, because the academic literature
contains few studies valuing endangered aquatic species, EPA did not consider implementing the meta-analysis
technique for the T&E analysis for the 316(b) rule.
Ideally, the point estimate approach would be implemented using transfer studies that value pallid sturgeon. EPA,
however, was unable to identify such studies. Thus, the Agency selected benefit transfer studies that valued
aquatic species that have attributes similar to those of pallid sturgeon. Pallid sturgeon were formerly harvested
commercially, and their large size makes them a desirable trophy sport fish. They are considered fine eating and
have roe that is suitable for caviar. If recovery efforts are successful, the fish may become delisted and available
once again for sportfishing (Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 2004). Therefore, pallid sturgeon have
potentially significant direct use values. Table B5-2 presents types of values associated with pallid sturgeon lost to
I&E in the Inland region.
G5-2
-------
Section 316(b) Phase III Proposed Rule - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region Chapter G5
Table B5-2: Type of Value Associated with Special Status Species Lost to
I&E in the Inland Region
Special Status Fish Species Type of Value
Pallid sturgeon Use and non-use
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
After comparing the biological and use characteristics of pallid sturgeon to species valued in other studies, EPA
identified three potentially useful studies that estimated non-use and use values for different species of sturgeon.
Kotchen and Reiling (2000) found that citizens of Maine are willing to pay $30.48 (2003$) as a one-time tax to
create a self-sustaining population of shortnose sturgeon, which is listed as a federally endangered species
(NOAA Fisheries, 2004).3 EPA's study of the recreational fishing benefits of the section 316(b) Phase II
regulation indicated that California anglers are willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon (U.S. EPA, 2004a).4 A
stated preference study by Stokes (2002) found that lake sturgeon is a popular wildlife viewing species in the state
of Wisconsin and that sturgeon viewers place a substantial value on protection of the lake sturgeon population.
The study indicated that an individual viewer's WTP to maintain the current sturgeon population of the
Winnebago system is equal to $101.44 (2002$). Given that the 2002 sturgeon viewer population was estimated at
3,176 viewers, total WTP to maintain sturgeon viewing opportunities in the Winnebago system was $344,198.
Taken together, the results of these three studies indicate that sturgeon have large recreational use values, and that
non-use values for preservation of sturgeon are also likely to be significant.
EPA considered using the point estimate approach to derive WTP values for the reduction in pallid sturgeon
losses in the Missouri-Mississippi River basin that would be caused by the section 316(b) regulation for Phase III
facilities. Because pallid sturgeon is not currently targeted by sport anglers and is seldom seen, EPA deemed it
inappropriate to use recreational fishing and viewing values to value reductions in I&E losses of pallid sturgeon.
However, by applying the per taxpayer value for restoring shortnose sturgeon from the Kotchen and Reiling
(2000) study to the number of taxpayers in the Mississippi-Missouri River basin, it would be possible to
approximate the non-use value of restoring the pallid sturgeon population in the Missouri-Mississippi River basin.
However, because I&E is only one of several factors that affect populations of pallid sturgeon, the social benefit
achieved by preventing I&E losses is lower than the benefit of reducing the risk of species extinction to zero. One
reasonable assumption would be to assume that the fraction of per taxpayer WTP for species preservation
programs that is attributable to preventing I&E losses is directly proportional to the percent of the current
population of pallid sturgeon that is lost to baseline I&E. There are about 223 to 365 pallid sturgeon remaining in
the Missouri/Yellowstone river and 2,750 to 4,100 pallid sturgeon remaining in the Atchafalaya River (a
distributary of the Mississippi River), so the estimated impact of I&E amounts to less than 0.1% of the estimated
current population of this species in the Mississippi-Missouri River basin (Krentz, 1997; FWS, 2004a). Thus, the
per taxpayer WTP for I&E reductions would be less than 0.1% of per taxpayer WTP to prevent extinction.
EPA notes that although the Agency explored using the point estimate benefit transfer approach to estimate
non-use values of improved protection of pallid sturgeon, benefits based on this method were not included in the
Phase III benefits estimates due to data uncertainties and limitations. However, EPA also notes the encouraging
point that the valuation results are highly consistent across the relevant T&E studies available in the literature. As
more studies become available, it may be possible to obtain insights into the effects of different variables (e.g.,
population and resource characteristics) and to develop welfare estimates that may be adjusted for the attributes of
the policy or region under consideration. Researchers and policy makers have placed increasing focus oh
meta-analysis and similar empirical approaches to improve the performance of benefit transfer in policy analysis.
3 The original WTP amount, $26.63 (1997$), was converted to 2003$ using the consumer price index (CPI) (U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2004).
4 There two sturgeon species in California - white sturgeon and green sturgeon.
G5-3
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Appendix Gl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E in the
Inland Region
The tables in this appendix summarize the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age-1
equivalents and fishery yield from impingement and entrainment (I&E) data for the Inland region.
Table Gl-1: Alewife Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
11.5
5.50
6.21
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sources: Spigarelli et al, 1981; PG&E National Energy Group,
NMFS, 2003a.
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ib)
0.00000128
0.00000141
0.00478
0.0160
0.0505
0.0764
0.0941
0.108
0.130
0.149
2001; Froese andPauly, 2003; and
App. Gl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-2: American Shad Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Yolksac larvae
Post-yolksac larvae
Juvenile
Agel-f
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.496
0.496
2.52
7.40
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.540
1.02
1.50
1.50
1.50
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Able and Fahay,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
1998; PSE&G, 1999;
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.45
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
and Froese and Pauly,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.000000728
0.00000335
0.000746
0.309
1.17
2.32
3.51
4.56
5.47
6.20
6.77
2001.
Table
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Gl-3: Bass Species (Micropterus sp.) Life History Parameters*
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
2.70
0.446
0.860
1.17
0.755
1.05
0.867
0.867
0.867
0.867
0.867
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.32
0.21
0.29
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000731
0.0000198
0.0169
0.202
0.518
0.733
1.04
1.44
2.24
2.56
2.92
3.30
a Includes largemouth bass, red bass, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, and other sunfish not identified to
species.
Sources; Scott and Grossman, 1973; Carlander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000;
Froese and Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003^
App. Gl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-4: Black Bullhead Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile+
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Scott and Grossman, 1973; Geo-Marine,
2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.000186
0.00132
0.0362
0.0797
0.137
0.233
0.402
0.679
0.753
0.815
0.823
Inc., 1978; Froese and Pauly,
Table Gl-5: Black Crappie Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
Parameters
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Sources: Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell,
andNMFS, 2003a.
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000929
0.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001;
App. Gl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-6: Blueback Herring Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
0.558
3.18
6.26
0.300
0.300
0.300
0.900
1.50
1.50
1.50
1.50
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
db)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0160
0.0905
0.204
0.318
0.414
0.488
0.540
0.576
a Includes blueback herring and other herrings not identified to the species.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Able andFahay, 1998; PSE&G, 1999; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and
NMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-7: Bluegill Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.73
0.576
4.62
0.390
0.151
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
0.735
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.74
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000130
0.00000156
0.00795
0.00992
0.0320
0.0594
0.104
0.189
0.193
0.209
0.352
0.393
Sources: Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and
NMFS, 2003a.
APP. Gl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-8: Brown Bullhead Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.446
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
0.223
Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
* Includes brown bullhead, stonecat, yellow bullhead, and other bullheads not
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Froese and Pauly, 2001;
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.0000192
0.00246
0.0898
0.172
0.278
0.330
0.570
0.582
identified to the species.
andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-9: Carp Life History Parameters'
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
0.130
a Includes carp, goldfish, and other minnows
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc.
NMFS, 2003a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
not identified
., 1978; Wang,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to species.
1986; Froese and Pauly,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000673
0.0000118
0.0225
0.790
1.21
1.81
5.13
5.52
5.82
6.76
8.17
8.55
8.94
9.76
10.2 .
10.6
11.1
11.5
12.0
12.5
2007; and
App. Gl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-10: Carp/Minnow Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
2.06
2.06
1.00
1.00
1.00
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.000375
0.00208
0.00585
0.0121
0.0171
a Includes bluntnose minnow, central stoneroller, creek chub, fathead minnow, silver chub, silverjaw
minnow, and other minnows not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Froese and Pauly, 2001; NMFS, 2003a; and Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, 2003.
Table Gl-11: Crappie Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.80
0.498
2.93
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
0.292
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000929
0.00000857
0.0120
0.128
0.193
0.427
0.651
0.888
0.925
0.972
1.08
1.26
a Includes white crappie and other crappies not identified to the species.
Sources: Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; and
NMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-12: Darter Species Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
1.95
1.95
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000619
0.0000497
0.000490
0.00161
0.00321
0.00496
3 Includes fantail darter, river darter, tessallated darter, and other darters not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1997; Froese andPauly, 2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-13: Freshwater Catfish Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
0.410
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
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
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000539
0.0000563
0.0204
0.104
0.330
0.728
1.15
1.92
2.41
3.45
4.01
5.06
8.08
8.39
8.53
' Includes blue catfish, channel catfish, flathead catfish, white catfish, and other catfish not identified
to the species.
Sources: Miller, 1966; Coriander, 1969; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Wang, 1986; Saila et al, 1997;
Froese and Pauly, 2001; and NMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G1
Table Gl-14: Freshwater Drum Life History 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 11+
Age 12+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.27
6.13
2.30
0.310
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
0.155
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000295
0.0166
0.0500
0.206
0.438
0.638
0.794
0.950
1.09
1.26
1.44
1.60
1.78
2.00
a Includes freshwater drum and other drum not identified in species.
Sources: Scott and Grossman, 1973; Virginia Tech, 1998; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and
Pauly, 2001; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-15: Gizzard Shad Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
a Includes gizzard
Sources: Wapora,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
6.33
0.511
1.45
1.27
0.966
0.873
0.303
0.303
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000487
0.00000663
0.0107
0.141
0.477
0.640
0.885
1.17
1.54
shad, threadfm shad, and other shad not identified to species.
1979; Froese and Pauly, 2003; and NMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-16: Killifish Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.00
0.916
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
0.777
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable
to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Includes eastern banded killifish.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Meredith
1979; Able andFahay, 1998; andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000180
0.0000182
0.000157
0.0121
0.0327
0.0551
0.0778
0.0967
0.113
0.158
and Lotrich,
Table Gl-17: Logperch Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age3+
Sources: Coriander,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
1.90
1.90
0.700
0.700
0.700
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
7997; Froese and Pauly, 2001; andNMFS,
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000260
0.000512
0.00434
0.0132
0.0251
0.0377
App. Gl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-18: Paddlefish Life History 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 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Sources: Coriander,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
3.23
3.23
0.570
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
0.285
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
1969; Froese andPauly, 2001; andNMFS,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000434
0.0000816
0.0578
0.453
7.10
16.3
27.4
31.6
37.3
41.6
43.7
49.2
51.9
54.6
60.6
63.5
68.1
72.7
75.5
80.8
82.6
85.4
87.9
96.2
102
App. Gl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-19:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Age 16+
Age 17+
Age 18+
Age 19+
Age 20+
Age 21+
Age 22+
Age 23+
Age 24+
Age 25+
Age 26+
Age 27+
1.08
5.49
5.49
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
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
Pike Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
a Includes grass pickerel, muskellunge, and northern pike.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Pennsylvania, 1999; Froese and Pauly,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2001; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000189
0.0133
0.0451
0.365
1.10
1.53
2.72
6.19
7.02
8.92
12.3
13.9
16.6
19.0
24.2
25.3
30.0
32.4
34.3
45.6
45.8
47.7
48.8
48.9
49.0
49.1
49.2
49.3
49.4
49.4
2003a.
App. Gl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-20: Rainbow Smelt Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Spigarelli
NMFS, 2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
11.5
5.50
0.916
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
0.400
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
et al., 1981; PG&E National Energy Group,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000990
0.00110
0.00395
0.0182
0.0460
0.0850
0.131
0.180
0.228
2001; Froese andPauly, 2003; and
Table Gl-21: Redhorse Species Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
2.30
2.99
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000370
0.0267
0.0521
0.180
0.493
0.653
0.916
2.78
3.07
a Includes golden redhorse, river redhorse, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse, and other redhorses not
identified to species.
Sources: Carlander, 1969; Bartelland Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 200 J, 2003; and NMFS,
2003a.
App. GJ-J3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-22: River Carpsucker Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources: Coriander,
2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.05
2.56
2.30
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1969; Bartelland Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.0000343
0.000239
0.0594
0.310
0.377
0.735
0.981
1.10
2003; andNMFS,
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age en-
Age 7+
Age 8+
Table Gl-23:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.05
3.55
1.62
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
0.230
Sauger Life History
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Parameters'
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
a Includes sauger and walleye.
Sources: Coriander, 1997; Bartelland Campbell, 2000; Froese andPauly, 2001;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000619
0.00000681
0.0341
0.505
1.03
1.53
2.19
2.27
3.82
4.65
4.80
andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-14
-------
Section 3 16(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G:
The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-24: Shiner Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
0.777
0.371
4.61
4.61
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000473
0.000285
0.00209
0.00387
0.00683
0.0143
a Includes bigeye shiner, common shiner, emerald shiner, golden shiner, mimic shiner, river shiner,
rosyface shiner, sand shiner, spotfin shiner, spottail shiner, and other shiners not identified to species.
Sources: Fuchs, 1967; Wapora, 1979; Trautman, 1981; Froese and Pauly, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-25: Skipjack Herring Life History Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Sources: Trautman,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.30
4.25
4.25
0.700
0.700
0.700
1981; Wallusetal,
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1990; Froese and Pauly,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
2001; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000227 .
0.000381
0.0572
0.301
0.833
1.74
2003a.
App. Gl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-26: Spotted Sucker Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources:
2003a.
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.79
2.81
3.00
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
andPauly, 2001,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000198
0.0213
0.0863
0.690
1.24
1.70
1.92
1.99
2003; and NMFS,
Table Gl-27: Striped Bass Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
1.39
7.32
3.29
1.10
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
0.150
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.06
0.20
0.63
0.94
1.0
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000224
0.00000606
0.0109
0.485
2.06
3.31
4.93
6.50
8.58
12.3
14.3
16.1
18.8
. 19.6
22.4
27.0
34.6
41.5
Sources: Bason, 1971; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-28: Sucker (Ictiobus sp.) Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Age 11+
Age 12+
Age 13+
Age 14+
Age 15+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.87
1.73
2.98
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
0.548
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
" Includes bigmouth buffalo and smallmouth buffalo.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Kleinholz,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2000; andNMFS,
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000390
0.00214
0.00851
1.14
1.82
2.63
3.48
4.64
5.04
11.1
12.7
16.8
27.8
28.0
36.1
36.2
36.3
36.5
2003a.
App. GJ-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-29: Sucker Species Life History Parameters"
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs 2.05 0 0
Larvae 2.56 0 0
Juvenile 2.30 0 0
Agel+ 0.274 0 0
Age 2+ 0.274 0 0
Age 3+ 0.274 0 0
Age 4+ 0.274 0 0
Age 5+ 0.274 0 0
Age 6+ 0.274 0 0
a Includes carpsuckers, highfm carpsucker, northern hog sucker, quillback, white
suckers not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1969; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2003
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000312
0.0000343
0.000239
0.0594
0.310
0.377
0.735
0.981
1.10
sucker, and other
; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-30: Sunflsh Life History Parameters'
Instantaneous Instantaneous Fraction
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
Stage Name (M) (F) Fishery
Eggs 1.71 0 0
Larvae 0.687 0 0
Juvenile 0.687 0 0
Age 1+ 1.61 0 0
Age 2+ 1.61 0 0
Age 3-1- 1.50 1.5 0.50
Age 4+ 1.50 1.5 1.0
Age 5+ 1.50 1.5 1.0
Age 6+ 1.50 1.5 1.0
Age 7+ 1.50 1.5 1.0
Age 8+ 1.50 1.5 1.0
" Includes green sunfish, longear sunfish, pumpkinseed, redear sunfish, rock bass,
sunfish not identified to species.
Sources: Coriander, 1977; Wang, 1986; PSE&G, 1999; Froese and Pauly, 2001;
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000115
0.00000123
0.000878
0.00666
0.0271
0.0593
0.0754
0.142
0.180
0.214
0.232
warmouth, and other
andNMFS, 2003a.
App. Gl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix G1
Table Gl-31: Walleye Life History
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.05
3.55
1.93
0.431
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
0.161
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
0.27
Parameters
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.00000619
0.0000768
0.0300
0.328
0.907
1.77
2.35
3.37
3.97
4.66
5.58
5.75
Sources: Carlander, 1997; Bartell and Campbell, 2000; Thomas and Haas, 2000; Froese and Pauly,
2001, 2003; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-32: White Bass Life History Parameters'
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
' Includes white bass
Sources: Van Oosten
McDermot and Rose,
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.90
4.61
1.39
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
0.420
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
and temperate bass not identified to species.
, 1942; Geo-Marine, Inc., 1978; Carlander,
2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; andNMFS,
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1997; Virginia Tech,
2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000396
0.00000174
0.174
0.467
0.644
1.02
1.16
1.26
1.66
1.68
1998;
App. Gl-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-33: White Perch Life History Parameters
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Stage Name (M)
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Age 1+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Age 7+
Age 8+
Age 9+
Age 10+
Sources:
2.75
5.37
1.71
0.693
0.693
0.693
0.689
1.58
1.54
1.48
1.46
1.46
1.46
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) to Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
Horseman andShirey, 1974; PSE&G, 1999; andNMFS,
0
0
0
0
0
0.0008
0.027
0.21
0.48
0.84
1.0
1.0
1.0
2003a.
Weight
(Ib)
0.000000330
0.00000271
0.00259
0.0198
0.0567
0.103
0.150
0.214
0.265
0.356
0.387
0.516
0.619
Table Gl-34: Yellow Perch Life History Parameters
Stage
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Sources:
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
Name (M)
2.75
3.56
2.53
0.361
0.249
0.844
0.844
0.844
0.844
Wapora, 1979; PSE&G, 1999;
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable to
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
Thomas and Haas, 2000;
0
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
andNMFS, 2003a.
Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000655
0.000000728
0.0232
0.0245
0.0435
0.0987
0.132
0.166
0.214
App. Gl-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region
Appendix Gl
Table Gl-35: Other Recreational Species Life History Parameters"
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel+
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
2.08
5.71
2.85
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
0.450
Instantaneous Fraction
Fishing Mortality Vulnerable
(F) Fishery
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0
0
0
0
0.50
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
to Weight
(Ibs)
0.000000716
0.00000204
0.000746
0.0937
0.356
0.679
0.974
1.21
1.38
a Includes banded sculpin, coho salmon, rainbow trout, and trout-perch.
Sources: USFWS, 1978; Durbin etal, 1983; Ruppertetal., 1985; Able and Fahay, 1998; PSE&G,
1999; Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000; ASMFC, 2001 b; andNMFS, 2003a.
Table Gl-36: Other Forage Species Life History Parameters*
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Juvenile
Agel +
Age 2+
Age 3+
Instantaneous
Natural Mortality
(M)
1.04
7.70
1.29
1.62
1.62
1.62
Instantaneous
Fishing Mortality
(F)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction
Vulnerable to
Fishery
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weight
(Ibs)
0.0000000186
0.00000158
0.000481
0.00381
0.00496
0.00505
a Includes American eel, chestnut lamprey, goldeye, longnose gar, madtoms, mooneye, silver lamprey,
and other forage fish not identified to species.
Sources: Derickson and Price, 1973; and PSE&G, 1999.
App. Gl-21
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: The Inland Region Appendix G2
Appendix G2: Reductions in I&E in the
Inland Region Under Five Other Options
Evaluated for the Proposed Section 316(b)
Phase III Regulation
Table G2-1: Estimated Reductions in I&E in the
Inland Region Under Five Other Options Evaluated for the Proposed
Section 316(b) Regulation
Option
20 MOD All
2
3
4
AH Phase III Facilities
Age-1 Equivalents
(#s)
16,900,000
14,800,000
16,600,000
14,800,000
17,600,000
Foregone Fishery Yield
(Ibs)
177,000
157,000
171,000
157,000
183,000
App. G2-1
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Appendix G4
Appendix G4: Recreational Use Benefits of
Other Policy Options
Appendix Contents
G4-1
G4-2
Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other
Evaluated Options G4-1
G4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational
Fishing Losses under the Other
Evaluated Options G4-1
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the
Other Evaluated Options G4-4
Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by
Option G4-7
Introduction
Chapter G4 presents EPA's estimates of the
recreational benefits of the three proposed options
for the section 316(b) rule for Phase III facilities, for
electric generators and manufacturers in the Inland
region. This appendix supplements Chapter G4 by
presenting estimates of the recreational fishing
benefits of five other options that EPA evaluated for
the purposes of comparison:
> Option 3,
» Option 4,
•• Option 2,
»• Option 1, and
*• Option 6.
Recreational fishing benefits presented in this chapter were estimated using the benefit transfer approach
discussed in Chapter G4 and in Chapter A5, "Recreational Fishing Benefits Methodology."
G4-1 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
G4-1.1 Estimated Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses under the Other Evaluated Options
Table G4-1 presents EPA's estimates of the annual reduction in baseline (i.e., current) recreational fishing losses
from impingement and entrainment (I&E) in the Inland region under the other evaluated options.
App. G4-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-1: Reductions
in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E under the Other Evaluated Options in the Inland Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)"
Species"
American shad
Paddlefishc
Striped bass
Sturgeon0
Total (small game)
Salmon
Total (salmon)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (walleye/pike)
Smallmouth bass
Spotted bass
White bass
Total (bass)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sculpin
Smelts
Sunfish
White perch
Yellow perch
Total (panfish)
Whitefish
Total (trout)
Freshwater drumd
Unidentified
Option 3
171
151
1,092
49
1,463
4
4
1
5,526
5,413
10,940
2,610
5
7,945
10,560
76
208
21,990
576
63
8,716
9,447
9
128
18,519
14,230
70
8,506
82,537
80
80
13,281
65,511
Option 4
147
135
939
49
1,269
3
3
1
5,454
5,411
10,866
2,562
4
7,015
9,581
65
179
18,906
537
55
7,721
9,234
7
127
15,922
13,842
60
7,352
74,009
69
69
11,954
59,150
Option 2
147
135
939
49
1,269
3
3
1
5,454
5,411
10,866
2,562
4
7,015
9,581
65
179
18,906
537
55
7,721
9,234
7
127
15,922
13,842
60
7,352
74,009
69
69
11,954
59,150
Option 1
171
154
1,092
53
1,470
4
4
1
5,932
5,850
11,783
2,794
5
8,052
10,850
76
208
21,991
601
63
8,848
10,089
9
138
18,520
15,159
70
8,529
84,300
80
80
13,591
67,146
Option 6
178
160
1,139
55
1,531
4
4
1
6,110
6,019
12,130
2,879
5
8,375
11,258
79
217
22,926
622
66
9,200
10,401
9
142
19,307
15,634
73
8,887
87,562
83
83
14,112
69,702
App. G4-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region Appenoix V
Table G4-1: Reductions in Recreational Fishing Losses from I&E under the Other Evaluated Options in the Inland Region
Annual Reduction in Recreational Losses
(# of fish)"
Species'
Total (unidentified)
Total (all species)
Option 3
78,793
184,376
Option 4
71,104
166,901
Option 2
71,104
166,901
Option 1
80,737
189,223
Option 6
83,815
196,384
a This table includes several species of anadromous fish (such as American shad and striped bass) that are classified in saltwater species groups, but that are
commonly caught in freshwater during part of their life cycle.
b In the Inland region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under Option 2. Thus, reductions in recreational losses
under these options are also identical.
c No valuation studies were available for freshwater sturgeon or paddlefish. EPA included these two species in the 'small game' group because the typical size
of these species is consistent with (or larger than) the size of other species in the 'small game' group. Adult lake sturgeon generally weigh 10 to 80 pounds
and measure three to five feet in length, and may grow as large as 300 pounds and seven feet long (NY State Department of Environmental Conservation,
2003). White sturgeon, which are anadromous, can grow to 400 pounds or 10 feet in length (Monterey Bay Aquarium, 1999). Paddlefish are also very large,
averaging between 3.3 and 4.8 feet in length (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993).
d No valuation studies were available for freshwater drum. Because this species does not correspond well with any of the species groups, EPA included it in
the 'unidentified' group (i.e., valued it using an average weighted value from all other freshwater species).
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Appendix G4
G4-1.2 Recreational Fishing Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options
Tables G4-2 through G4-5 present EPA's estimates of the annualized recreational benefits of the other evaluated
options in the Inland region.
In the Inland region, all potentially regulated facilities that would install new technology under Option 4 and
Option 2 have design intake flows greater than 50 MGD. Because the requirements under these two options are
identical for this class of facilities, the I&E reductions and benefits resulting from these two options are also
identical. Thus, the benefits estimates presented in Table G4-3 apply to both options.
Table G4-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 3 in the Inland Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small gamed
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
1.5
0.0e
0.1
10.9
10.6
82.5
78.8
184.4
184.4
184.4
Value per Fish"
Low
$3.03
$11.47
$0.49
$2.82 .
$3.66
$0.51
$1.15
Mean
$7.38
$24.69
$2.79
$5.15
$6.96
$0.97
$2.16
High
$17.56
$53.44
$4.51
$9.42
$13.13
$1.85
$4.04
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)"0
Low
$4.4
$0.0e
$0.0C
$30.9
$38.6
$42.3
$90.6
S206.9
$176.5
$144.2
Mean
$10.8
$0.1
$0.2
$56.3
$73.5
$80.5
$170.0
$391.4
$333.8
$272.7
High
$25.7
$0.2
$0.4
$103.0
$138.6
$152.6
$318.1
$738.6
$629.9
$514.6
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon
may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are
willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish or $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 4 and Option 2, in the Inland Region (2003$)'
Species Group
Small gamed
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
1.3
0.0e
0.1
10.9
9.6
74.0
71.1
166.9
166.9
166.9
Value per Fish"
Low
$3.03
$11.47
$0.49
$2.82
$3.66
$0.51
$1.15
Mean
$7.38
$24.69
$2.79
$5.15
$6.96
$0.97
$2.16
High
$17.56
$53.44
$4.51
$9.42
$13.13
$1.85
$4.04
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)0'*1
Low
$3.8
$0.0e
$0.0C
$30.7
$35.0
$38.0
$81.7
$189.3
$161.9
$132.8
Mean
$9.4
$0.1
$0.2
$55.9
$66.7
$72.1
$153.4
$357.8
$306.0
$250.9
High
$22.3
$0.2
$0.3
$102.3
S125.8
$136.8
$287.0
$674.7
$577.1
$473.1
' In the Inland region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under Option
2. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
c Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon
may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are
willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish or $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 1 in the Inland Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small gamed
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
1.5
0.0C
0.1
11.8
10.9
84.3
80.7
189.2
189.2
189.2
Value per Fish"
Low
$3.03
$11.47
$0.49
$2.82
$3.66
$0.51
$1.15
Mean
$7.38
$24.69
$2.79
$5.15 .
$6.96
$0.97
$2.16
High
$17.56
$53.44
$4.51
$9.42
$13.13
$1.85
$4.04
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)" c
Low
$4.5
$0.0C
$o.oe
$33.3
$39.7
$43.2
$92.8
S213.5
$182.1
$148.8
Mean.
$10.8
$0.1
$0.2
$60.6
$75.5
$82.2
$174.2
$403.7
$344.3
$281.3
High
$25.8
$0.2
$0.4
$111.0
$142.5
$155.8
$325.9
$761.5
$649.5
$530.6
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon
may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are
willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
e Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish or $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region
Appendix G4
Table G4-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits of Option 6 in the Inland Region (2003$)
Species Group
Small gamed
Salmon
Trout
Walleye/Pike
Bass
Panfish
Unidentified
Total (undiscounted)
Total (evaluated at 3%)
Total (evaluated at 7%)
Annual Reduction
in Recreational
Fishing Losses
(thousands of fish)
1.5
0.0C
0.1
12.1
11.3
87.6
83.8
196.4
196.4
196.4
Value per Fish'
Low
$3.03
$11.47
$0.49
$2.82
$3.66
$0.51
$1.15
Mean
$7.38
$24.69
$2.79
$5.15
$6.96
$0.97
$2.16
High
$17.56
$53.44
$4.51
$9.42
$13.13
$1.85
$4.04
Annualized Recreational
Fishing Benefits
(thousands)1*''
Low
$4.6
$0.0C
$0.0e
$34.2
$41.2
$44.9
$96.4
$221.4
$188.7
$154.0
Mean
$11.3
$0.1
$0.2
$62.4
$78.4
$85.4
$180.8
$418.6
$356.8
$291.2
High
$26.9
$0.2
$0.4
$114.2
$147.8
$161.9
$338.3
$789.7
$673.1
$549.5
a Lower and upper bounds on per-fish values are based on the 5% and 95% confidence bounds predicted by the
Krinsky and Robb approach. See section A5-5.1 of Chapter A5 for more details on this approach.
b Monetized benefits are calculated by multiplying the reduction in losses by the estimated value per fish.
c Annualized benefits represent the value of all recreational benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis,
discounted to 2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period. For a detailed discussion of the discounting
methodology, refer to Chapter A8.
d The small game species group includes sturgeon. However, applying the use value for small game to sturgeon
may understate the value of this species. A marine fishing valuation study indicates that California anglers are
willing to pay $61.43 to catch a sturgeon in saltwater (U.S. EPA, 2004a). However, sturgeon in freshwater are often
landlocked and may not be as large as sturgeon found in saltwater, and therefore not as valuable.
c Denotes a nonzero value less than 50 fish or $50.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
G4-2 Comparison of Recreational Fishing Benefits by Option
Table G4-6 compares the recreational fishing benefits of the five other evaluated options. The table shows that
the annual recreational welfare gain is largest under Option 6 and smallest under Option 4 and Option 2.
App. G4-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part G: Inland Region Appendix G4
Table G4-6: Annual Recreational Benefits of the Other Evaluated Options in the Inland Region
._,..„ . . Undiscounted Recreational Fishing Benefits
Annual Reduction in Recreational (thousands; 2003$)"
Policy Option"
Option 3
Option 4
Option 2
Option 1
Option 6
r isuuig musses ii uui loc
(thousands of fish)
184.4
166.9
166.9
189.2
196.4
Low
$206.9
$189.3
$189.3
$213.5
$221.4
Mean
$391.4
$357.8
$357.8
$403.7
$418.6
High
$738.6
$674.7
$674.7
$761.5
$789.7
" In the Inland region, the set of facilities with technology requirements under Option 4 is the same as under Option
2. Thus, reductions in recreational losses under these options are also identical.
b These benefit estimates were calculated using the meta-analysis approach discussed in Chapter A5 and Chapter
G4. EPA did not use the RUM approach from the Phase II analysis to analyze the other evaluated options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. G4-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment
Part H: National Benefits
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Chapter HI: National Benefits
Introduction
Chapter Contents
Hl-1
Hl-2
Hl-3
Hl-4
Calculating National Losses and Benefits Hl-1
Summary of Baseline Losses and Reductions in
I&E Hl-2
Time Profile of Benefits Hl-5
National Benefits from Eliminating and
Reducing I&E Losses Hl-13
This chapter summarizes the results of the six
regional analyses and presents EPA's estimates of
the national commercial and recreational benefits of
the three co-proposed regulatory options for Phase
III existing facilities:
•> the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option,
•• the "200 MOD for All Waterbodies"
option, and
•• the " 100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option.
EPA considered a wide range of policy options in developing this regulation. Results of the national benefits
analysis for other options evaluated by EPA are presented in Appendix HI.
Greater detail on the methods and data used in the regional analyses is provided in the previous chapters of this
report. See Chapter Al for a discussion of the methods used to estimate impingement and entrainment (I&E), and
Chapters A2 through A9 for a discussion of the methods used to estimate the value of I&E losses and the benefits
of the policy options considered for the proposed rule. The results of the regional analyses are presented in Parts
B through G.
EPA was unable to assess benefits of reducing I&E at new offshore oil and gas facilities due to significant data
gaps at the time of proposal. Therefore, the benefits estimates presented in this section are underestimates
because they do not reflect benefits associated with reducing I&E at new offshore oil and gas facilities.
Hl-1 Calculating National Losses and Benefits
EPA's analysis of national baseline losses and benefits under the policy options includes 603 sample-weighted
facilities, excluding facilities that are expected to close in the baseline. Of these facilities, 599 are located in the
six case study regions, and four are located in the South Atlantic region, which was not included in the regional
studies. The Agency calculated baseline losses by summing losses from all 603 facilities in the six case study
regions and in the South Atlantic region. EPA's estimates of benefits are based on only those facilities that are
estimated to install compliance technologies under each option. This South Atlantic region was not included in
the benefits analysis of the proposed options because the four facilities in the South Atlantic region withdraw less
than 50 MOD and, as a result, are not subject to the proposed policy options.
EPA notes that quantifying and monetizing reductions in I&E due to the policy options considered for the
proposed section 316(b) rule for Phase HI facilities is extremely challenging. As described in Chapters A3 and
A6, EPA has estimated non-use values only qualitatively and, as a result, the estimated total benefits of the
regulatory options reflect use values only. The preceding sections of this report discuss specific limitations and
uncertainties associated with estimating commercial and recreational benefits. National benefit estimates, which
are based on the regional estimates, are subject to the same uncertainties inherent in the valuation approaches used
for assessing the two benefits categories. The combined effect of these uncertainties is of unknown magnitude
and direction (i.e., the estimates may over- or understate the anticipated national level of use benefits); however,
EPA has no data to indicate that the results for any of the benefit categories are atypical or unreasonable.
Hl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits Chapter H1
Hl-2 Summary of Baseline Losses and Expected Reductions in l&E
Based on the results of the regional analyses, EPA calculated total I&E losses under baseline (i.e., pre-Phase HI
regulatory) conditions and the total amount by which losses would be reduced under each of the policy options.
Losses are presented using two measures of I&E:
1. Age-1 equivalent losses (the number of individual fish of different ages impinged and entrained by
facility intakes, expressed as age-1 equivalents); and
2. Foregone fishery yield (pounds of commercial harvest and numbers of recreational fish and shellfish that
are not harvested due to I&E, including indirect losses of harvested species due to losses of forage
species).
Table Hl-1 presents baseline I&E losses using each of these measures. The table shows that total national losses
of age-1 equivalents for all 603 facilities are 120 million fish. Nationwide, EPA estimates that 4 million pounds
of fishery yield is foregone under current rates of I&E. The table shows that about 37% of all age-1 equivalent
losses, or 44.2 million fish, occur in the Inland region. The Gulf of Mexico region has the highest foregone •
fishery yield, with 2 million pounds, followed by the Mid-Atlantic region with 0.9 million pounds. More
detailed discussions of the I&E losses in each region are provided in Parts B through G of this report.
Table Hl-1: Total Annual Baseline I&E Losses for Potential Phase III Existing Facilities by Region
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
:
Age-1 Equivalents 1
(thousands) i
1,310
2,340
23,200
1,520
12,700
34,400
44,200
120,000
Foregone Fishery Yield
(thousands; Ibs)
96
45
920
123
1,990
489
495
4,160
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
EPA also calculated the total national I&E losses prevented by each of the policy options. These prevented losses
are based on the expected reductions in I&E at each facility due to technology required under each option. Table
Hl-2 presents expected percent reductions in I&E, by region and option. The table also presents estimates of
regional and national expected reductions in I&E losses, expressed as age-1 equivalents lost and foregone fishery
yield. The table shows that at the 603 national facilities potentially subject to regulation, the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" option reduces age-1 equivalent losses by 49.5 million fish and prevents 2.2 million pounds of
fishery yield. In comparison, the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option and the "100 MGD for Certain
Waterbodies" option reduce age-1 equivalent losses by 34.0 million fish and 29.8 million fish and prevent 1.4
million pounds and 1.9 million pounds of fishery yield from being lost, respectively.
Table Hl-2 also shows that expected reductions vary across the regions. Under the "50 MGD for All
Waterbodies" and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options, facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region are
Hl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits Chapter H1
expected to make the largest average percentage reductions in impingement (76%) and enrrainment (57%). Under
the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region have the largest average
percentage reductions in I&E with 65% and 49%, respectively. Under the 50 MGD option, 30% of age-1
equivalent losses that are prevented are attributable to the Inland region. Under the 200 MGD and 100 MGD
options, the largest percentage of age-1 equivalent losses that are prevented are attributed to facilities in the Mid-
Atlantic region with 35% and 40%, respectively. Under all three options, the largest prevented losses of fishery
yield are occur in the Gulf of Mexico (56% under the 50 MGD option, 47% under the 200 MGD option, and 65%
under the 100 MGD option). More detailed discussions of regional benefits are provided in Parts B through G of
this report.
Hl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-2; Expected Reduction in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
Region
Number of
Facilities
Installing
Technology
Reduction in
Impingement
Reduction in
Entrainment
Prevented
Age-1
Equivalent
Losses
(thousands)
Prevented
Foregone
Fishery Yield
(thousands; Ibs)
California
North Atlantic
Mid- Atlantic
South Atlantic2
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
1
4
3
0
7
19
69
103
50 MGD
39%
43%
73%
0%
76%
33%
37%
All
29%
40%
55%
0%
57%
43%
27%
383
930
13,400
0
8,380
11,600
14,800
49,493
28
18
600
0
1,250
169
157
2,222
200 MGD All
California11
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
California*1
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic3
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National Total
0
1
2
0
2
5
12
22
0
3
2
0
7
6
0
18
0%
11%
65%
0%
41%
21%
22%
100 MGD Certain
0%
43%
65%
0%
76%
24%
0%
0%
8%
49%
0%
31%
37%
21%
Waterbodies
0%
32%
49%
0%
57%
40%
0%
0
198
11,900
0
4,580
7,710
9,650
34,038
0
754
11,900
0
8,380
8,740
0
29,774
0
4
534
0
682
116
107
1,443
0
15
534
0
1,250
130
0
1,929
a No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these
facilities withdraw less than 50 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to
comply with the proposed options.
b No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the California region. Since these
facilities withdraw less than 100 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology
to comply with the 200 MGD All and 100 MGD CWB options.
0 None of the facilities in the Inland region would be required to install technology to comply with the 100 MGD
CWB option. Thus, no I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region. See
the Introduction of this document for a description of the proposed options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits Chapter HI
Hl-3 Time Profile of Benefits
EPA's estimates of total national baseline losses and total national benefits under each option are based on EPA's
regional estimates of monetized baseline losses and policy option benefits. To recognize the difference in timing
of benefits and costs, EPA developed a time profile of total benefits from all potentially regulated Phase III
facilities that reflects when benefits from compliance-related changes at each facility will be realized. For each
study region, EPA first calculated the undiscounted use benefits (i.e., commercial and recreational fishing
benefits) from the expected annual I&E reductions under the proposed options, based on the assumptions that all
facilities in each region have achieved compliance with the rule and that benefits are realized immediately
following compliance. Then, since there are regulatory and biological time lags between promulgation of the rule
and the realization of benefits, EPA created a time profile of benefits that takes into account the fact that benefits
do not begin immediately. The development of the time profile of benefits is discussed in detail in Chapter A8,
"Discounting Benefits." Table Hl-3 below presents a profile of the benefits of eliminating baseline I&E at all
potentially regulated facilities. Time profiles of benefits for the "50 MOD for All Waterbodies," "200 MGD for
All Waterbodies," and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options are presented in Tables Hl-4, Hl-5, and Hl-
6, respectively.
Hl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-3:
Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of Eliminating
Regulated Phase III Facilities
Baseline I&E at Potentially
(thousands; 2003$)"'b
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
I i
I California i
$0
$12
$23
$93
$105
$110
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$116
$105
$93
$23
$12
$6
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
North I
Atlantic i
$0
$20
$41
$163
$183
$194
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$204
$183
$163
$41
$20
$10
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Mid-
Atlantic
$0
$111
$222
$889
$1,001
$1,056
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,112
$1,001
$889
$222
$111
$56
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Evaluated at 0%
Present value'
Annualized value11
$3,484
$116
$6,112
$204
$33,350
$1,112
South
Atlantic
$0
$8
$16
$65
$73
$77
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$73
$65
$16
$8
$4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of j
Mexico i
$111
$222
$887
$998
$1,054
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$1,109
$998
$887
$222
$111
$55
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Great |
Lakes i
$118
$236
$945
$1,063
$1,122
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,181
$1,063
$945
$236
$118
$59
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
:
Inland 1
$112
$224
$897
$1,009
$1,065
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,121
$1,009
$897
$224
$112
$56
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
National
Total
$341
$833
$3,031
$4,280
$4,602
$4,848
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,924
$4,583
$4,090
$1,892
$644
$322
$76
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
(Le., undiscounted)
$2,435
$81
$33,277
$1,109
$35,429
$1,181
$33,621
$1,121
$147,708
$4,924
Evaluated at 3%
Present value'
Annualized valued
$2,143
$109
$3,761
$192
$20,519
$1,047
$1,498
$76
$21,088
$1,076
$22,452
$1,146
$21,306
$1,087
$92,769
$4,733
Evaluated at 7%
Present value'
Annualized valued
$1,258
$101
$2,207
$178
$12,042
$970
$879
$71
$12,857
$1,036
$13,688
$1,103
$12,990
$1,047
$55,921
$4,506
Hl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-3: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially
Regulated Phase III Facilities
(thousands; 2003$)"'b
North Mid- j South j Gulf of
Atlantic Atlantic j Atlantic j Mexico
Year
California
Great
Lakes
Inland
National
Total
" This table presents the benefits of eliminating baseline I&E at potentially regulated Phase III facilities from 2007 to 2036.
b Because EPA estimated non-use benefits only qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
c Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the corresponding rate.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then
annualized over a thirty year period.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
HI-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-4: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)"
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
North |
California Atlantic 1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3
$7
$27
$31
$32
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$34
$31
$27
$7
$3
$2
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5
$10
$42
$50
$72
$78
$79
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$81
$76
$71
$39
$31
$9
$3
$2
Mid- I South j
Atlantic I Atlantic" 1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$7
$14
$99
$164
$439
$571
$607
$636
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$643
$636
$629
$543
$479
$203
$71
$36
$7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of j
Mexico i
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$76
$152
$608
$684
$722
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$684
$608
$152
$76
$38
$0
$0
Great j
Lakes i
$0
$0
$0
$oe
$11
$26
$106
$160
$291
$371
$391
$406
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$410
$400
$384
$304
$250
$120
$39
$19
$5
j National
Inland i
$0
$0
$0
$7
$33
$96
$231
$275
$329
$349
$354
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$358
$351
$324
$262
$127
$83
$28
$8
$4
$0C
Total
$0
$0
$0
$7
$54
$223
$625
$1,280
$1,826
$2,120
$2,225
$2,272
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,286
$2,279
$2,232
$2,063
$1,661
$1,006
$460
$166
$61
$14
Evaluated at 0% (Le., undiscounted)
Present Value'
Annualized Valued
Present Value0
Annualized Valued
Present Value'
Annualized Valued
$1,024
$34
$577
$29
$302
$24
$2,430
$81
$1,298
$66
$635
$51
$19,287
$643
Evaluated at 3%
$10,239
$522
Evaluated at 7%
$4,973
$401
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,799
$760
$12,463
$636
$6,280
$506
$12,306
$410
$6,602
$337
$3,252
$262
$10,734
$358
$5,998
$306
$3,113
$251
$68,581
$2,286
$37,177
$1,897
$18,556
$1,495
Hl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-4: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)'
Year
California
I North I
I Atlantic I
Mid-
Atlantic
:
I South
I Atlantic"
Gulf of
Mexico
Great
Lakes
I Inland
National
Total
1 Because EPA estimated non-use benefits only qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
b No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these facilities withdraw less
than 50 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with this option.
c Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the corresponding rate.
d Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then
annualized over a thirty year period.
c Denotes a positive value less than $500.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-5: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)'
j
:
North
Year I California" i Atlantic
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$3
$14
$15
$16
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$17
$15
$14
$3
$2
$1
Mid- South
[
Atlantic Atlantic" j
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$43
$100
$372
$501
$537
$565
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$529
$472
$200
$71
$36
$7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of
Mexico
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$42
$83
$332
$374
$394
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$415
$374
$332
$83
$42
$21
$0
$0
Great j
;
Lakes I
$0
$0
$0
$0
$4
$8
$48
$77
$185
$251
$267
$279
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$283
$279
$275
$235
$207
$99
$32
$16
$4
National
Inland
$0
$0
$0
$3
$23
$58
$168
$191
$225
$238
$240
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$242
$239
$219
$184
$74
$51
$17
$4
$2
$0
Total
$0
$0
$0
$3
$27
$108
$343
$702
$1,159
$1,398
$1,474
$1,518
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,530
$1,527
$1,503
$1,422
$1,188
$828
$371
$132
$56
$12
Evaluated at 0% (i.e., undiscounted)
Present Value'
Annualized Valued
Present Valuec
Annualized Valued
Present Value'
Annualized Valued
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$516
$17
$266
$14
$124
$10
$17,171
$572
Evaluated at 3%
$9,047
$462
Evaluated at 7%
$4,349
$350
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12,457
$415
$6,810
$347
$3,431
$277
$8,499
$283
$4,513
$230
$2,192
$177
$7,259
$242
$4,063
$207
$2,113
$170
$45,902
$1,530
$24,698
$1,260
$12,209
$984
Hl-10
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-5: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits of the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)'
Year
:
j California11
| North
i Atlantic
Mid-
Atlantic
:
1 South
1 Atlantic"
Gulf of j
Mexico I
Great
Lakes
j
j Inland
:
j National
1 Total
1 Because EPA estimated non-use benefits only qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
b No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions. Since these
facilities withdraw less than 200 MGD, none of the facilities in these regions would be required to install technology to comply with this
option.
c Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the corresponding rate.
6 Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then
annualized over a thirty year period.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-11
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-6: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)'
:
:
:
:
North
Year I California" j Atlantic
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5
$10
$40
$47
$60
$64
$65
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$66
$61
$56
$25
$19
$6
$2
$1
Mid- South 1
Atlantic Atlantic" 1
$0
$0
$0
$0 •
$0
$0
$43
$100
$372
$501
$537
$565
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$572
$529
$472
$200
$71
$36
$7
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Gulf of !
:
Mexico i
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$76
$152
$608
$684
$722
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
$760
. $760
$760
$684
$608
$152
$76
$38
$0
$0
Great j
National
Lakes i Inland0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$6
$12
$66
$98
$212
$284
$301
$314
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$312
$306
$252
$220
$105
$34
$17
$4
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$0
• $0
$0
$0
$6
$93
$270
$846
$1,316
$1,566
$1,661
$1,703
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,716
$1,710
$1,623
$1,445
$870
$400
$150
$55
$12
Evaluated at 0% (i.e., undiscounted)
Present Value"
Annualized Value'
Present Value"
Annualized Value'
Present Value"
Annualized Value'
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,966
$66
$1,059
$54
$524
$42
$17,171
$572
Evaluated at 3%
$9,047
$462
Evaluated at 7%
$4,349
$350
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$22,799
$760
$12,463
$636
$6,280
$506
$9,533
$318
$5,079
$259
$2,479
$200
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$51,468
$1,716
$27,647
$1,411
$13,632
$1,099
Hl-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits Chapter HI
Table Hl-6: Time Profile of Mean Total Use Benefits for the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)"
Year
California11
North
Atlantic
Mid-
Atlantic
South 1 Gulf of
Atlantic" j Mexico
Great j
Lakes 1 Inland0
National
Total
* Because EPA estimated non-use benefits only qualitatively, the monetary value of benefits includes only use values.
b No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions. Since these
facilities withdraw less than 100 MGD, none of the facilities in these regions would be required to install technology to comply with this
option.
e None of the facilities in the Inland region would be required to install technology to comply with the 100 MGD CWB option. Thus, no
I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region. See the Introduction of this document for a
description of the proposed options.
d Values for a given year in the table are not discounted. Total present values of benefits are discounted with the corresponding rate.
' Annualized benefits represent the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and then
annualized over a thirty year period.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-4 National Benefits from Eliminating and Reducing I&E Losses
EPA used the profiles of benefits, by region, to calculate a total present value of benefits and then to calculate a
constant annual equivalent value (annualized value) of the present value. EPA calculated present value and
annualized value using two discount rate values: a real rate of 3% and a real rate of 7%. EPA estimated mean
values, as well as lower and upper bound values reflecting uncertainty in the recreational benefits estimates.
Tables Hl-7, Hl-8, Hl-9, and Hl-10 present these results, for each region and for the nation as a whole. Because
EPA did not estimate non-use benefits quantitatively, the monetized benefits presented in these tables reflect only
use values.1 As described in Chapter A3, the Agency was not able to monetize benefits for 96.7% of the age-1
equivalent losses of all commercial, recreational, and forage species evaluated for the policy options for the
proposed section 316(b) regulation for Phase III facilities. This means that the estimates of benefits presented in
this section represent the benefits associated with less than 3.3% of the total age-1 equivalents prevented from
being lost to I&E by cooling water intake structures, and should be interpreted with caution.
Table Hl-7 shows that the total annual national value of fishery resources lost to I&E (i.e., benefits of eliminating
baseline I&E losses at Phase III facilities) includes $0.28 million in commercial fishing losses, $4.45 million in
recreational fishing losses, and an unknown amount in foregone non-use benefits (2003$, discounted at 3%). The
total use value of fishery resources lost is $4.73 million per year, with lower and upper bounds of $2.44 million
and $9.45 million, respectively (discounted at 3%). Discounted at 7%, total annual national value of fishery
resources lost to I&E includes $0.27 million in commercial fishing losses, $4.34 million in recreational fishing
losses, and an unknown amount in foregone nonruse benefits. The total use value of fishery resources lost
discounted at 7% is $4.51 million per year, with lower and upper bounds of $2.33 million and $9.00 million,
respectively. Total monetized losses are greatest in the Great Lakes region. More detailed discussions of the
valuation of recreational and commercial fishing losses under the baseline conditions in each region are provided
in Parts B through G of this document.
Tables Hl-8, Hl-9 and Hl-10 present EPA's estimates of the national and regional use benefits of reducing I&E
under each of the policy options (2003$, discounted at 3% and 7%). The national value of these reductions in
I&E losses, evaluated at a 3% discount rate, are as follows:
> the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option results in national use benefits of $1.90 million per
year, with lower and upper bounds of $0.97 million and $3.84 million (see Table Hl-8);
>• the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option results in national use benefits of $ 1.26 million per
year, with lower and upper bounds of $0.65 million and $2.54 million (see Table Hl-9); and
1 Use values include commercial and recreational fishing benefits from reduced I&E. See Chapter A6 of this
report for a detailed description of the ecological benefits from reduced I&E.
Hl-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits Chapter H1
» the " 100 MOD for Certain Waterbodies" option results in national use benefits of $ 1.41 million
per year, with lower and upper bounds of $0.72 million and $2.90 million (see Table Hl-10).
Evaluated at a 7% discount rate, the national use benefits of the proposed are somewhat smaller:
•• the 50 MOD option results in national use benefits of $ 1.50 million per year, with lower and
upper bounds of $0.77 million and $3.02 million (see Table Hl-8);
»• the 200 MOD option results in national use benefits of $0.98 million per year, with lower and
upper bounds of $0.51 million and $1.98 million (see Table Hl-9); and
> the 100 MOD option results in national use benefits of $ 1.10 million per year, with lower and
upper bounds of $0.56 million and $2.26 million (see Table Hl-10).
EPA also considered how benefits might increase if facilities that meet technology requirements in the baseline
optimize their operation and maintenance (O&M) procedures (e.g., by rotating screens more often to reduce
impingement mortality due to the proposed regulation). For this analysis, EPA evaluated facilities that (1) are
expected to install no new technology and (2) are expected to meet impingement standards with a 0.5 fps screen.
If there were a 5% increase in the efficacy of O&M at these facilities, the total annualized national benefits from
the proposed regulation would increase by approximately $19,000 for the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" option,
from $1.897 million to $1.916 million (based on a 3% discount rate). If there were a 15% increase in efficacy, the
estimated annualized benefits would increase by over $58,000, to $1.955 million (based on a 3% discount rate).
Using the 7% discount rate, total annualized national benefits from the proposed regulation would increase by
approximately $18,000 and $55,000, for the 5% and 15% increases in efficacy, respectively. Therefore,
optimization of O&M procedures would result in 1.0% to 3.5% increase in the estimated total use benefits of the
proposed regulation, depending on the assumed increase in efficacy and the discount rate being used.
Optimization of O&M procedures would result in similar increases in the estimated use benefits under "200 MGD
for All Waterbodies" and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options.
The majority of the value of use benefits is attributable to benefits to recreational anglers from improved catch
rates. As shown in Tables Hl-8, Hl-10, and Hl-9, use benefits are largest in the Gulf of Mexico for the "50
MGD for All Waterbodies" and "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" options and the Mid-Atlantic region under
the "200 MGD for All Waterbodies" option, respectively. More detailed discussions of regional benefits under
each option are provided in Parts B through G of this report.
Hl-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, fan H: iNauonai oencius
Table Hl-7: Summary of Use Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
I Annualized Use Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E
I (thousands; 2003$)*
I
Region i
rnmmprrial 1 Recreational Fishing
Fishing i
Low i
Mean i
|
High j
'Total Use Value"
Low i
Mean i
High
Evaluated at a 3 percent discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid- Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandc
National Total
$0 - $20
$0-$9
$0 - $47
$0
$0-$139
$0 - $70
n/a
$0 - $284
$0-$18
$0-$8
$0 - $44
$0
$0-$133
$0 - $67
n/a
$0-$271
$38
$84
$473
$34
$419
$534
$576
$2,159
$35
$78
$438
$32
$404
$515
$555
$2,057
$90
$183
$1,000
$76
$937
$1,076
$1,087
$4,449
Evaluated at a
$83
$170
$927
$71
$903
$1,036
$1,047
$4,236
$211
$401
$2,124
$171
$2,105
$2,109
$2,047
$9,168
7 percent discount rate
$196
$371
$1,969
$158
$2,028
$2,031
$1,971
$8,724
$58
$93
$520
$34
$558
$604
$576
$2,443
$54
$86
$482
$32
$537
$582
$555
$2,328
$109
$192
$1,047
$76
$1,076
$1,146
$1,087
$4,733
$101
$178
$970
$71
$1,036
$1,103
$1,047
$4,506
$231
$409
$2,171
$171
$2,244
$2,179
$2,047
$9,452
$214
$379
$2,012
$158
$2,161
$2,099
$1,971
$8,995
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Region
Table Hl-8: Summary
i Annualized
! Commercial
j Fishing
! Benefits
of Use Benefits of the "50 MGD for AH Waterbodies"
(thousands; 2003$)*
Annualized Recreational Fishing
i •
Low ! Mean j
;
Benefits i
:
:
Option
Total
High i Low
Annualized Use
• •
: :
I Mean i
Benefits11
High
Evaluated at a 3 percent discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
$0-$5
$0-$3
$0 - $25
$0
$0 - $78
$0 - $20
n/a
$0-$132
$10 $24
$29 $63
$235 $497
$0 $0
$249 $558
$157 $316
$162 $306
$843 $1,765
$57
$138
$1,057
$0
$1,254
$621
$577
$3,704
$16
$32
$260
$0
$327
$178
$162
$975
$29
$66
$522
$0
$636
$337
$306
$1,897
$62
$141
$1,082
$0
$1,332
$641
$577
$3,836
Evaluated at a 7 percent discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
$0-$4
$0-$2
$0-$19
$0
$0 - $62
$0-$16
n/a
$0-$104
$9 $20
$22 $49
$181 $382
$0 $0
$198 $444
$122 $246
$133 $251
$665 $1,391
$47
$107
$811
$0
$998
$483
$473
$2,919
$13
$25
$200
$0
$260
$138
$133
$769
$24
$51
$401
$0
$506
$262
$251
$1,495
$51
$109
$830
$0
$1,061
$499
$473
$3,023
Hl-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Table Hl-8: Summary of Use Benefits of the "50 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)'
Region
Annualized j
Commercial i
Fishing j
Benefits i
Annualized
Low
Recreational
i Mean
Fishing
:
1
Benefits
High
Total
Low
Annualized Use Benefits"
|
!
:
Mean
High
3 All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these facilities withdraw less than 50 MGD, none of
the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with this option .
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
HI-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Chapter HI
Table Hl-9: Summary of Use Benefits of the"200 MGD for All Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)*
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits
Annualized
Low
Recreational Fishing Benefits
! :
; Mean j High
|
I Total Annualized Use Benefits"
: !
j Low |
|
Mean j High
Evaluated at a 3 percent discount rate
California0
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic'
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland11
National Total
California0
North Atlantic
Mid- Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
$0
$0-$1
$0 - $22
$0
$0 - $43
$0-$14
n/a
$0 - $79
$0
$0
$0-$17
$0
$0 - $34
$0-$11
n/a
$0 - $62
$0
$6
$208
$0
$136
$108
$110
$567
Evaluated at a
$0
$4
$158
$0
$108
$83
$90
$443
$0
$13
$440
$0
$305
$216
$207
$1,181
7 percent discount rate
$0
$10
$334
$0
$243
$166
$170
$922
$0
$28
$934
$0
$685
$425
$390
$2,463
$0
$21
$709
$0
$545
$326
$321
$1,922
$0
$7
$230
$0
$179
$122
$110
$647
$0
$5
$175
$0
$142
$93
$90
$505
$0
$14
$462
$0
$347
$230
$207
$1,260
$0
$10
$350
$0
$277
$177
$170
$984
$0
$29
$956
$0
$728
$439
$390
$2,542
$0
$21
$726
$0
$579
$337
$321
$1,984
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions. Since these facilities withdraw less than
200 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with this option.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
cnapter ni
Table Hl-10: Summary of Use Benefits of the "100 MGD for Certain Waterbodies" Option
(thousands; 2003$)'
Region
I Annualized
I Commercial
i Fishing
j Benefits ;
|
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits j
!
Low I
| |
Mean 1 High I
Total Annualized Use Benefits"
:
:
Low I
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3 percent discount rate
California0
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd-e
National Total
California0
North Atlantic
Mid- Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland^
National Total
$0
$0-$2
$0 - $22
$0
$0 - $78
$0-$16
n/a
SO-S118
$0
$0-$2
$0-$17
$0
$0 - $62
$0-$12
n/a
$0 - $93
$0
$24
$208
$0
$249
$121
$0
$602
Evaluated at a
$0
$19
$158
$0
$198
$93
$0
$468
$0
$52
$440
$0
$558
$243
$0
$1,292
7 percent discount rate
$0
$40
$334
$0
$444
$188
$0
$1,006
$0
$113
$934
$0
$1,254
$478
$0
$2,779
$0
$88
$709
$0
$998
$368
$0
$2,164
$0
$26
$230
$0
$327
$137
$0
$720
$0
$20
$175
$0
$260
$105
$0
$561
$0
$54
$462
$0
$636
$259
$0
$1,411
$0
$42
$350
$0
$506
$200
$0
$1,099
$0
$115
$956
$0
$1,332
$494
$0
$2,897
$0
$90
$726
$0
$1,061
$381
$0
$2,257
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2007, and
then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95"1 and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the California and South Atlantic regions. Since these facilities withdraw less than
100 MGD, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with this option.
d None of the facilities in the Inland region would be required to install technology to comply with the 100 MGD CWB option. Thus, no I&E reductions are
expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the Inland region. See the Introduction of this document for a description of the proposed options.
c No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-19
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix HI
Appendix HI: National Benefits for Other
Options Evaluated by EPA
Appendix Contents
H1 -1 Summary of Expected Reductions in
I&E Hl-1
H1 -2 Total Annualized Monetary Value of National
Losses and Benefits Hl-3
Introduction
This appendix supplements Chapter HI by
presenting EPA's estimates of the national
commercial and recreational benefits of five other
options that EPA evaluated for the purposes of
comparison:
>• Option 3,
> Option 4,
•• Option 2,
•• Option 1, and
» Option 6.
Greater detail on the methods and data used in the regional analyses is provided in the previous chapters of this
report: see Chapter A1 for a discussion of the methods used to estimate I&E, and Chapters A2 through A9 for
discussion of the methods used to estimate the value of I&E losses and the benefits of the proposed options. The
results of the regional analyses are presented in Parts B through G of this report. Chapter HI presents estimates of
baseline losses and discusses methods used to calculate national benefits under each of the proposed options.
Hl-1 Summary of Expected Reductions in I&E
Table Hl-1 presents the number of facilities with technology requirements under the other evaluated options, by
region, and EPA's estimates of the percentage by which I&E will be reduced under each option. The table also
presents estimates of regional and national prevented fishery losses under each option, expressed as age-1
equivalents and fishery yield.
Table Hl-1: Expected Reductions in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
Region
Number of
Facilities
Installing
Technology
Reduction in
Impingement
Reduction in
Entrainment
Prevented
Age-1
Equivalent
Losses
(thousands)
Prevented
Foregone
Fishery Yield
(thousands; Ibs)
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
4
4
4
0
11
38
130
190
Option 3
78%
43%
74%
0%
80%
38%
43%
29%
40%
55%
0%
57%
43%
27%
391
930
13,400
0
8,650
13,200
16,600
53,171
28
18
606
0
1,270
190
171
2,283
Option 4
App. Hl-1
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix HI
Table Hl-1:
Expected Reductions in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
! j Prevented
Number of Age-1 Prevented
Facilities Equivalent Foregone
Installing Reduction in Reduction in Losses Fishery Yield
Region Technology Impingement Entrainment (thousands) (thousands; Ibs) I
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic2
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
4
4
4
0
11
38
69
130
4
4
4
0
11
38
69
130
4
4
4
0
11
38
134
194
4
4
5
0
11
61
203
288
78%
43%
74%
0%
80%
38%
37%
Option 2
78%
43%
74%
0%
80%
38%
37%
Option 1
78%
43%
74%
0%
80%
38%
43%
Option 6
78%
43%
75%
0%
80%
41%
45%
59%
40%
55%
0%
60%
46%
27%
59%
40%
55%
0%
60%
46%
27%
59%
40%
55%
0%
60%
46%
29%
59%
40%
56%
0%
60%
48%
30%
771
930
13,600
0
8,860
13,300
14,800
52,261
771
930
13,600
0
8,860
13,300
14,800
52,261
771
930
13,600
0
8,860
13,300
16,900
54,361
771
930
13,700
0
8,860
14,300
17,600
56,161
56
18
610
0
1,320
192
157
2,353
56
18
610
0
1,320
192
157
2,353
56
18
610
0
1,320
192
177
2,373
56
18
615
0
1,320
206
183
2,398
App. Hl-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix HI
Table Hl-1: Expected Reductions in I&E for Existing Phase III Facilities by Option
Region
Number of
Facilities
Installing
Technology
Reduction in
Impingement
Reduction in
Entrainment
Prevented
Age-1
Equivalent
Losses
(thousands)
Prevented
Foregone
Fishery Yield
(thousands; Ibs)
a No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these
facilities meet the BTA requirements in the baseline, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install
technology to comply with these options.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
Hl-2 Total Annualized Monetary Value of National Losses and Benefits
Tables Hl-3, Hl-4, Hl-5, Hl-6, and Hl-7 present EPA's estimates of the value of national and regional
reductions in I&E under the other evaluated options analyzed for the proposed rule. The tables show for these
options that benefits to recreational anglers account for the majority of use benefits. National use benefits are
largest in the Gulf of Mexico region under all five options. More detailed discussions of regional benefits under
each option are provided in Sections B through G of this report.
App. Hl-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix HI
Table Hl-2; Summary of Use Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E at Potentially Regulated Phase III Facilities
j Annualized Use Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E
(thousands; 2003$)'
:
i
Region j
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland0
National Total
Commercial i
Fishing i
$0 - $20
$0-$9
$0 - $47
$0
$0-$139
$0 - $70
n/a
$0 - $284
$0-$18
$0-$8
$0 - $44
$0
$0-$133
$0 - $67
n/a
$0-$271
Recreational Fishing
Low !
$38
$84
$473
$34
$419
$534
$576
$2,159
$35
$78
$438
$32
$404
$515
$555
$2,057
Mean i
Evaluated at a
$90
$183
$1,000
$76
$937
$1,076
$1,087
$4,449
Evaluated at a
$83
$170
$927
$71
$903
$1,036
$1,047
$4,236
High
3 percent discount rate
$211
$401
$2,124
$171
$2,105
$2,109
$2,047
$9,168
7 percent discount rate
$196
$371
$1,969
$158
$2,028
$2,031
$1,971
$8,724
Total Use Value"
Low j
$58
$93
$520
$34
$558
$604
$576
$2,443
$54
$86
$482
$32
$537
$582
$555
$2,328
Mean i
$109
$192
$1,047
$76
$1,076
$1,146
$1,087
$4,733
$101
$178
$970
$71
$1,036
$1,103
$1,047
$4,506
High
$231
$409
$2,171
$171
$2,244
$2,179
$2,047
$9,452
$214
$379
$2,012
$158
$2,161
$2,099
$1,971
$8,995
3 All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. Hl-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix H 1
Table Hl-3: Summary of Use Benefits of Option 3
(thousands; 2003$)'
Region
j Annualized
i Commercial
j Fishing
i Benefits
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
Low 1
Mean j High
Total Annualized Use Benefits15
Low 1
i
Mean j
High
Evaluated at a 3 percent discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland*
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
$0 - $5
$0-$3
$0 - $25
$0
$0 - $80
$0 - $23
n/a
$0-$137
$0 - $4
$0-$2
$0-$19
$0
$0 - $64
$0-$18
n/a
$0-$107
$10
$29
$236
$0
$259
$177
$176
$888
Evaluated at a
$8
$22
$181
$0
$206
$138
$144
$700
$24
$63
$499
$0
$580
$355
$334
$1,856
7 percent discount rate
$19
$49
$383
$0
$462
$277
$273
$1,463
$57
$138
$1,061
$0
$1,305
$697
$630
$3,888
$45
$107
$814
$0
$1,038
$543
$515
$3,063
$15
$32
$261
$0
$339
$200
$176
$1,024
$12
$25
$201
$0
$270
$156
$144
$807
$29
$66
$525
$0
$660
$378
$334
$1,993
$23
$51
$403
$0
$526
$295
$273
$1,570
$62
$141
$1,086
$0
$1,385
$720
$630
$4,025
$49
$109
$834
$0
$1,102
$561
$515
$3,170
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these facilities meet the BTA requirements in
the baseline, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with these options.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. Hl-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase HI - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix HI
Table Hl-4: Summary of Use Benefits of Option 4
(thousands; 2003$)'
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
i Annualized
i Commercial
) Fishing
j Benefits
$0-$10
$0-$3
$0 - $25
$0
$0 - $83
$0 - $23
n/a
$0-$144
$0-$8
$0-$2
$0-$19
$0
$0 - $66
$0-$18
n/a
$0-$114
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
l
Low j
Evaluated at a
$20
$29
$239
$0
$263
$178
$162
$892
Evaluated at a
$16
$22
$184
$0
$209
$139
$133
$703
:
Mean j High
3 percent discount rate
$47
$63
$506
$0
$589
$359
$306
$1,870
7 percent discount rate
$37
$49
$388
$0
$469
$280
$251
$1,473
$110
$138
$1,074
$0
$1,325
$704
$577
$3,929
$86
$107
$825
$0
$1,055
$549
$473
$3,095
Total Annualized Use Benefits"
:
:
Low j
$30
$32
$265
$0
$346
$202
$162
$1,036
$24
$25
$203
$0
$275
$157
$133
$816
:
Mean i
$57
$66
$531
$0
$672
$382
$306
$2,014
$44
$51
$408
$0
$535
$298
$251
$1,587
High
$120
$141
$1,100
$0
$1,408
$728
$577
$4,073
$94
$109
$844
$0
$1,120
$567
$473
$3,208
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95* and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
0 No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these facilities meet the BTA requirements in
the baseline, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with these options.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. Hl-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix HI
Table Hl-5: Summary of Use Benefits of Option 2
(thousands; 2003$)'
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic'
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
Annualized 1
Commercial i
Fishing j
j Benefits j
$0-$10
$0-$3
$0 - $25
$0
$0 - $83
$0 - $23
n/a
$0-$144
$0-$8
$0-$2
$0-$19
$0
$0 - $66
$0-$18
n/a
$0-$114
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
:
:
Low |
Evaluated at a
$20
$29
$239
$0
$263
$178
$162
$892
Evaluated at a
$16
$22
$184
$0
$209
$139
$133
$703
:
Mean i High
3 percent discount rate
$47
$63
$506
$0
$589
$359
$306
$1,870
7 percent discount rate
$37
$49
$388
$0
$469
$280
$251
$1,473
$110
$138
$1,074
$0
$1,325
$704
$577
$3,929
$86
$107
$825
$0
$1,055
$549
$473
$3,095
Total Annualized Use Benefits"
I
Low 1
$30
$32
$265
$0
$346
$202
$162
$1,036
$24
$25
$203
$0
$275
$157
$133
$816
Mean
$57
' $66
$531
$0
$672
$382
$306
$2,014
$44
$51
$408
$0
$535
$298
$251
$1,587
High
$120
$141
$1,100
$0
$1,408
$728
$577
$4,073
$94
$109
$844
$0
$1,120
$567
$473
$3,208
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95* and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these facilities meet the BTA requirements in
the baseline, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with these options.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. Hl-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part H: National Benefits
Appendix HI
Table Hl-6: Summary of Use Benefits of Option 1
(thousands; 2003$)'
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inlandd
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic'
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland"
National Total
i Annualized
I Commercial
i Fishing
i Benefits
$0-$10
$0-$3
$0 - $25
$0
$0 - $83
$0 - $23
n/a
$0-$144
$0-$8
$0-$2
$0-$19
$0
$0 - $66
$0-$18
n/a
$0-$114
Annualized Recreational Fishing Benefits
• :
:
Low j
Evaluated at a
$20
$29
$239
$0
$263
$178
$182
$912
Evaluated at a
$16
$22
$184
$0
$209
$139
$149
$719
j
Mean j High
3 percent discount rate
$47
$63
$506
$0
$589
$359
$344
$1,908
7 percent discount rate
$37
$49
$388
$0
$469
$280
$281
$1,504
$110
$138
$1,074
$0
$1,325
$704
$649
$4,001
$86
$107
$825
$0
$1,055
$549
$531
$3,152
Total Annualized Use Benefits13
j
Low i
$30
$32
$265
$0
$346
$202
$182
$1,056
$24
$25
$203
$0
$275
$157
$149
$832
:
|
Mean j
$57
$66
$531
$0
$672
$382
$344
$2,052
$44
$51
$408
$0
$535
$298
$281
$1,617
High
$120
$141
$1,100
$0
$1,408
$728
$649
$4,146
$94
$109
$844
$0
$1,120
$567
$531
$3,266
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5lh percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable Value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these facilities meet the BTA requirements in
the baseline, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with these options.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. Hl-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment, Part M: National tsenems
Table Hl-7: Summary of Use Benefits of Option 6
(thousands; 2003$)'
Region
Annualized
Commercial
Fishing
Benefits
Annualized
Low
Recreational
i Mean
Fishing
j
i
Benefits
High
Total
Low
Annualized Use Benefits1"
i
Mean
High
Evaluated at a 3 percent discount rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic"
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland"
National Total
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic0
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland"
National Total
$0-$10
$0-$3
$0 - $26
$0
$0 - $83
$0 - $25
n/a
$0-$146
$0-$8
$0-$2
$0 - $20
$0
$0 - $66
$0 - $20
n/a
$0-$115
$20
$29
$241
$0
$263
$192
$189
$934
Evaluated at a
$16
$22
$185
$0
$209
$150
$154
$736
$47
$63
$510
$0
$589
$386
$357
$1,952
7 percent discount rate
$37
$49
$391
$0
$469
$302
$291
$1,539
$110
$138
$1,083
$0
$1,325
$758
$673
$4,087
$86
$107
$831
$0
$1,055
$592
$549
$3,220
$30
$32
$267
$0
$346
$217
$189
$1,080
$24
$25
$205
$0
$275
$170
$154
$852
.$57
$66
$535
$0
$672
$411
$357
$2,098
$44
$51
$411
$0
$535
$322
$291
$1,654
$120
$141
$1,109
$0
$1,408
$783
$673
$4,233
$94
$109
$850
$0
$1,120
$612
$549
$3,335
a All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to
2007, and then annualized over a thirty year period.
b The total monetizable value of I&E reductions includes use benefits only. EPA evaluated non-use benefits only qualitatively. A range of recreational fishing
benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique to estimated the 95th and 5th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a range from 0% to 40% of the change in gross revenue, as explained in Chapter A4 of this
report. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, and high), the high end value for commercial fishing benefits is added to the low, mean,
and high values for recreational fishing benefits, respectively.
c No I&E reductions are expected at the potentially regulated facilities in the South Atlantic region. Since these facilities meet the BTA requirements in
the baseline, none of the facilities in this region would be required to install technology to comply with these options.
d No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
App. Hl-9
-------
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
References
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.
Agnello, R. 1989. The economic value of fishing success: An application of socioeconomic survey data. Fishery
Bulletin 87(l):223-232.
Aiken, R.A. 1985. Public Benefits of Environmental Protection in Colorado. Masters thesis, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins.
Alexander, S.J. 1995. Applying Random Utility Modeling to Recreational Fishing in Oregon: Effects of Forest
Management Alternatives on Steelhead Production in the Elk River Watershed. Oregon State University.
Allen, M.A. and T.J. Hassler. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — Chinook Salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological
Report 82(11.49). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/publications/specintro.htm.
Accessed 7/03.
Anderson, G.D. and S.F. Edwards. 1986. Protecting Rhode Island's coastal salt ponds: An economic assessment
of downzoning. Coastal Zone Management Journal 14(!/2):67-91.
Anderson, L.G. 1980. Necessary components of economic surplus in fisheries economics. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:858-870.
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.
ASMFC. 200la. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Herring. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. http://www.asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/AHERRING 1 .html. Accessed 2/12/01.
ASMFC. 200 Ib. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission.
http://www.asmfc.org/Programs/Fish%20Mgnt/20QQ%20FMP%20Reviews/menhaden2000 FMP.HTM.
Accessed 3/19/01.
Azevedo, C., J.A. Herriges, and C.L. Kling. 2001. Valuing Preservation and Improvements of Water Quality in
Clear Lake. Staff Report 01-SR 94. Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Ames.
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.
http://www.mvr.usace.armv.mil/pdw/nav studv/env reports/ENVRPT 16.htm. Accessed 2000.
Bason, W.H. 1971. Ecology and early life history of striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware Estuary.
Ichthyol. Assoc. Bulletin 4:112. Ichthyological Associates, Middletown, DE.
Bateman, I.J. and A.P. Jones. 2003. Contrasting conventional with multi-level modeling approaches to
meta-analysis: Expectation consistency in U.K. woodland recreation values. Land Economics 79(2):235-258.
Ref-I
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Bateman, I.J., R.T. Carson, B. Day, M. Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G. Loomes, S. Mourato, E.
Ozdemiroglu, D.W. Pierce, R. Sugden, and J. Swanson. 2002. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference
Surveys: A Manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA.
BEA. 1998. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Accounts Data: Gross Product by Industry.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn2/gpoc.htm.
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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-82/11.6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Beck, A.D. and the Committee on Entrainment. 1978. Cumulative effects: A field assessment. In Power Plant
Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, J.R. Schubel and B.C. Marcy, Jr. (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp.
189-210.
Bergstrom, J.C. and P. De Civita. 1999. Status of benefits transfer in the United States and Canada: A review.
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 47(l):79-87.
Berman, M., S. Haley, and H. Kim. 1997. Estimating net benefits of reallocation: Discrete choice models of sport
and commercial fishing. Marine Resource Economics 12:307-327.
Berrens, R.P., O. Bergland, and R.M. Adams. 1993. Valuation issues in an urban recreational fishery: Spring
chinook salmon in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Leisure Research Vol 25.
Berrens, R.P., P. Ganderston, and C.L. Silva. 1996. Valuing the protection of minimum instream flows in New
Mexico. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 21(2):294-309.
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, Gainesville. October.
Besedin, E., M. Mazzotta, D. Cacela, and L. Tudor. 2004. Combining Ecological and Economic Analysis: An
Application to Valuation of Power Plant Impacts on Great Lakes Recreational Fishing. Paper Presented at
American Fisheries Society Meeting Symposium: Socio-economics and Extension: Empowering People in
Fisheries Conservation. August 2004 (forthcoming).
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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-82/11.17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.usgs.gov/wdb/pub/0098.pdf.
Bigelow, H.B. and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries
Bulletin, Volume 53. http://www.gma.org/fogm/. Accessed 8/03.
Bishop, R.C. and M.T. Holt. 2003. Estimating Post-Harvest Benefits from Increases in Commercial Fish Catches
with Implications for Remediation of Impingement and Entrainment Losses at Power Plants. Staff Paper No. 458.
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Madison.
Bockstael, N. and I. Strand. 1987. The effect of common sources of regression error on benefit estimates. Land
Economics February: 11-20.
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1989. Measuring the benefits of improvements in water
quality: The Chesapeake Bay. Marine Resource Economics 6:1-18.
Ref-2
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Bolz, G.R., J.P. Monaghan, Jr., K.L. Lang, R.W. Gregory, and J.M. Burnett. 2000. Proceedings of the Summer
Flounder Aging Workshop, 1-2 February 1999. Woods Hole, MA.
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/nefsc/publications/tm/tml56/tml56toc.htm. Accessed 12/02.
Boreman, J. 2000. Surplus production, compensation, and impact assessments of power plants. Environmental
Science & Policy 3:S445-S449.
Boreman, J. and C.P. Goodyear. 1981. Biases in the estimation of entrainment mortality. In Fifth National
Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: Issues Associated with Impact Assessment, L.D. Jensen (ed.).
Ecological Analysts Inc., Sparks, MD, pp. 79-89.
Bowker, J.M. and J.R. Stoll. 1988. Use of dichotomous choice nonmarket methods to value the whooping crane
resource. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(May):372-381.
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.
Boyle, K.J. and J.C. Bergstrom. 1992. Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism, and idealism. Water
Resources Research 28(3):657-664.
Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing wildlife in benefit-cost analyses: A case study involving endangered
species. Water Resources Research 23:943-950.
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. Report 96-2. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. August.
Breffle, W., E.R. Morey, R.D. Rowe, D.M. Waldman, and S.M. Wytinck. 1999. Recreational Fishing Damages
from Fish Consumption Advisories in the Waters of Green Bay. Prepared by Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder,
CO, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department of Interior.
November 1.
Brown, Jr., G.M. and H.O. Pollakowski. 1976. Economic valuation of shoreline. Review of Economics and
Statistics 59:272-278.
Brown, R. and W. Kimmerer. 2002. Delta Smelt and CALFED's Environmental Water Account: A Summary of
the 2002 Delta Smelt Workshop.
http://calwater.ca.gov/Programs/Science/adobe pdf/2002 Delta Smelt Workshop Summarv.pdf. Accessed
10/02.
Brown, T.C. 1993. Measuring Non-Use Value: A Comparison of Recent Contingent Valuation Studies. W-133
Sixth Interim Report. University of Georgia, Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, Athens.
Buckley, J. 1989a. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (North Atlantic). Rainbow Smelt. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.106). U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Cailliet, G.M. 2000. Biological Characteristics of Nearshore Fishes of California. A Review of Existing
Knowledge and Proposed Additional Studies for the Pacific Ocean Interjurisdictional Fisheries Management Plan
Coordination and Development Project. Submitted to Mr. Al Didier. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.
August 31. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/lifehistories/index.html. Accessed 11/02.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2000a. How Old Are the Fish I'm Catching? California Department of
Fish and Game, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/howold.pdf. Accessed 8/03.
Ref-3
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
California Department of Fish and Game. 2000b. Striped Bass Information Page. Age Your Fish.
http://www.delta.dfg.ca.gov/stripedbass/age your fish.asp. Accessed 6/03.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. Marine Sportfish Identification Pictures.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/msfindxl .html. Accessed 1/21/02.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. Summary of 2003 California Ocean Salmon Seasons.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/oceansalmon.html. Accessed 1/03.
Cameron, T.A. 1992. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuation of non-market goods.
Land Economics 68:302-307.
Cameron, T.A. and D.D. Huppert. 1989. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment
card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17:230-246.
Cameron, T.A. and M.D. James. 1987a. Efficient estimation methods for 'closed-ended' contingent valuation
surveys. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69(2):269-276.
Cameron, T.A. and M.D. James. 1987b. Estimating willingness to pay from survey data: An alternative
pre-test-market evaluation procedure. Journal of Marketing Research 24(4):389-395.
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, Volume 3: Life History Data on Ichthyopercid
and Percid Fishes of the United States and Canada. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Carlander, K.D. 1997. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Icthyopercid and Percid
Fishes of the United States and Canada. Volume 3. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Carroll, J.C. 1982. Seasonal abundance, size composition, and growth of rock crab, Cancer antennarius
Stimpson, off central California. Journal of Crustacean Biology 2(4):549-561.
Carson, R., M. Hanemann, and D. Steinberg. 1990. A discrete choice contingent valuation estimate of the values
of Kenai king salmon. Journal of Behavioral Economics Volume 19.
Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable,
fishable, and swimmable quality water. Water 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: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and
Developing Countries, I.J. Bateman and K.G. Willis (eds). Oxford University Press, New York.
Carson, R.T., T. Groves, and M.J. Machina. 2000. Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference
Questions. Draft Paper. University of California, La Jolla.
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.T., W.M. Hanemann, R.J. Kopp, 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.
Volume 2. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by Natural Resources Damage
Assessment Inc., La Jolla, CA.
Ref-4
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Carter, S.R. 1978. Macroinvertebrate Entrainment Study at Fort Calhoun Station. Fourth National Workshop on
Entrainment and Impingement. EA Communications, Melville, NY.
CCI Environmental Services. 1996. Zooplankton Entrainment Survival Study, Anclote Power Plant, Pasco
County, Florida. Prepared for Florida Power Corporation by CCI Environmental Services, Inc., Palmetto, FL.
CDWR. 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.
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. University of Massachusetts,
Amherst.
Cleland, C.C. and R.C. 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.
Clonts, H.A. and J.W. Malone. 1990. Preservation attitudes and consumer surplus in free flowing rivers. In Social
Science and Natural Resource Recreation Management, J. Vining (ed.). Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp.
301-317.
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.
Collins, M.R. 1985. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (South Florida): Striped Mullet. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.34). U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/publications/specindex.htm. Accessed 7/03.
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 Report 57(4):\499-\537.
Coutant, C.A. and M.S. Bevelhimer. 2001. Comments on Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers, LLP. 1999 Draft
Brayton Point Power Plant Entrainment Survival Study 1997-1998. Report for US Gen New England, Inc., Pearl
River, NY. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN. February 12.
Croke, K.., R.G. Fabian, and G. Brenniman. 1986-1987. Estimating the value of improved water quality in an
urban river system. Journal of Environmental Systems 16(1): 13-24.
Cronin, FJ. 1982. Valuing nonmarket goods through contingent markets. PNL-4255. Pacific Northwest
Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Crutchfield, J.A., S. Langdon, O.A. Mathisen, and P.H. Poe. 1982. The Biological, Economic, and Social Values
of a Sockeye Salmon Stream in Bristol Bay, Alaska: A Case Study of Tazimina River. Circular No. 82-2.
Fisheries Research Institute, College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle. October.
Curnmings, R., P. Ganderton, and T. McGuckin. 1994. Substitution effects in CVM values. Am. J. Agric.
Economics 76:205-214.
Ref-5
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Daily, G.C. (ed.). 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H.
Schneider, D. Tilman, and G.M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by
Natural Ecosystems. Ecological Society of America, Washington, DC.
Dalhuisen, J.M., R.J.G.M. Florax, H.L.F. de Groot, and P. Nijkamp. 2003. Price and income elasticities of
residential water demand: A meta analysis. Land Economics 79(2):292-308.
Dalton, R.S., C.T. Bastian, and J.J. Jacobs. 1998. Estimating the economic value of improved trout fishing on
Wyoming streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:786-797.
Dames & Moore. 1977. 316(b) Demonstration for the Cayuga and Wabash River Generating Stations.
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.
Day Jr., J.W., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Hall, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Zooplankton, the drifting consumers. In
Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 311-337.
Deree, H.L. 1999. Age and growth, dietary habits, and parasitism of the fourbeard rockling, Enchelyopus
cimbrius, from the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin 97(l):39-52. http://fishbull.noaa.gov/04dereef.pdf. Accessed
1/03.
Derickson, W.K. and K.S. Price. 1973. The fishes of the shore zone of Rehoboth and Indian River Bays,
Delaware. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 102(3):552-562.
Desvousges, W.H., F.R. Johnson, and H.S. Banzhaf. 1998. Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited
Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method. Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton, MA.
Desvousges, W.H., M.C. Naughton, and G.R. Parsons. 1992. Benefit transfer: Conceptual problems in estimating
water quality benefits using existing studies. Water Resources Research 28(3):675-683.
Desvousges, W.H., V.K. Smith, and M.P. McGivney. 1983. A Comparison of Alternative Approaches for
Estimating Recreation and Related Benefits of Water Quality Improvements. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Economic Analysis Division, Washington, DC.
Desvousges, W.H., V.K. Smith, D.H. Brown, and O.K. Pate. 1984. The Role of Focus Groups in Designing a
contingent Valuation Survey to Measure the Benefits of Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. Research
Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.
De Zoysa, A.D.N. 1995. A Benefit Evaluation of Programs to Enhance Groundwater Quality, Surface Water
Quality and Wetland Habitat in Northwest Ohio. Dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
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. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
CA.
Drudi, D. 1998. Fishing for a living is dangerous work. Compensation and Working Conditions Summer:3-7.
Dryfoos, R.L. 1965. The Life History and Ecology of the Longfin Smelt in Washington. Dissertation, University
of Washington. University Microfilms Inc., Ann Arbor, MI.
Ref-6
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Duffield, J. and D. Patterson. 1992. Field Testing Existence Values: Comparison of Hypothetical and Cash
Transaction Values. Benefits and Costs in Natural Resource Planning, 5th Report. W-133 Western Regional
Research Publication. B. Rettig, Compiler, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Oregon State
University, Corvallis.
Durbin, A.G., E.G. Durbin, T.J. 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 Creek Nuclear
Generating Station 1984-1985. Prepared for GPU Nuclear Corporation by EA Engineering, Science, and
Technology, Hunt Valley, MD. 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 by
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD. August.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 2000. Review of Entrainment Survival Studies: 1970-2000. Prepared
for Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD.
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 by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD.
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 by
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Hunt Valley, MD.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1976a. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Abundance Studies,
Volume I, 1975 Annual Interpretive Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1976b. Danskammer Point Generating Station Impingement and Entrainment Survival
Studies, 1975 Annual Report. Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1976c. Roseton Generating Station Impingement and Entrainment Survival Studies,
1975 Annual Report. Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1977. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment and Impingement Studies, 1976
Annual Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1978a. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1977 Annual
Interpretive Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1978b. 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. 1978c. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies, 1977
Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1978d. Port Jefferson Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. Prepared for Long
Island Lighting Company. December.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1978e. Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1976 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.
Ref-7
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1978f. Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1977 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1979a. An Assessment of the Potential for Ichthyoplankton Entrainment Survival at the
Muskingum River Plant. Prepared for American Electric Power Service Corp.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1979b. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Abundance and Survival Studies,
1978 Annual Report. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1979c. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies, 1978
Annual Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
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. 1980c. Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1978 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 198la. Bowline Point Generating Station Entrainment Abundance and Survival Studies,
1979 Annual Report with Overview of 1975-1979 Studies. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1981 b. Contra Costa Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration.
Prepared for PG&E.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1981c. Entrainment Survival Studies. Prepared for Empire State Electric Energy
Research Corporation.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 198Id. 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. 1982a. Hunters Point Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316(b)
Demonstration. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1982b. 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.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1983. Roseton Generating Station Entrainment Survival Studies, 1980 Annual Report.
Prepared for Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation.
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.
ENSR and Marine Research Inc. 2000. Study of Winter Flounder Transport in Coastal Cape Cod Bay and
Entrainment at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Generation Company.
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company. 2000. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station.
Semi-Annual Report Number 55, January 1999-December 1999.
Ref-8
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
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.
Farber, S. and B. Griner. 2000. Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis. Ecological
Economics 34(l):63-76.
Feather, P.M., D. Hellerstein, and T. Thomaso. 1995. A discrete-count model of recreational demand. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 29:214-227.
Federal Register. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for
Sacramento Splittail. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Final Rule 64(25):5963-5981.
Feinerman, E. and K. Knapp. 1983. Benefits from groundwater management: Magnitude, sensitivity, and
distribution. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(4):703-710.
Finkel, A.M. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. Center for Risk Management, Resources for
the Future, Washington, DC.
Fischman, R.L. 2001. The EPA's NEPA duties and ecosystem services. Stanford Environmental Law Journal
20(2):497-536.
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.
Fisher, A. and R. Raucher. 1984. Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: Conceptual and empirical
perspectives. Advances in Applied Micro-Economics 3:37-66.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2001. Fishing Lines Fish Identification Section.
http://marinefisheries.org/fishinglines/fish id2.pdf. Accessed 12/12/01.
Freeman III, A.M. 1993. Non-use values in natural resource damage assessment. In Valuing Natural Assets, R.J.
Kopp and V. Kerry Smith (eds). Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Freeman III, A.M. 2003. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Froese, R. and C. Binohlan. 2000. Empirical relationships to estimate asymptotic length, length at first maturity
and length at maximum yield per recruit in fishes, with a simple method to evaluate length frequency data.
Fishbase. http://filaman.uni-kiel.de/Download/index.htrn. Accessed 12/17/02.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds). 2000. FishBase 2000. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources
Management, Los Banos, Laguna, Phillippines.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2001. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 10/01.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2002. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 11/02.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (eds.). 2003. FishBase. http://www.fishbase.org. Accessed 1/03.
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.
Ref-9
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
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.
Gautam, A. and S. Steinback. 1998. Valuation of recreational fisheries in the north-east U.S. Striped Bass: a case
study. Chapter 23 in Recreational Fisheries: Social, Economic and Management Aspects, P. Hickley and H.
Tompkins (eds.). Fishing News Books, Oxford.
Geo-Marine, Inc. 1978. 316(b) Demonstration for the W.H. Sammis Generating Station. Prepared for Ohio
Edison Company. Piano, TX. September 8.
Gilbert, D.J. 1988. Use of a simple age-structured bioeconomic model to estimate optimal long-run surpluses.
Marine Resource Economics 5:23-42.
Glass, G.V. 1976. Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher 5(10):3-8.
Goldstein, H. 1995. Multilevel Statistical Models. 2nd ed. Edward Arnold, London, UK.
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. July.
Great Lakes Fishery Commission. 2003. Great Lakes Fishery Commission. Protecting Our Fishery.
http://www.glfc.org/pubs/fact 10.pdf. Accessed 2/03.
Griffiths, C. undated. The Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental Policy Making. Working Paper.
National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
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.H. Kerby, and D. Moran. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) Summer and Winter Flounder. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.112). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Hadderingh, R.H. 1978. Mortality of young fish in the cooling water system of Bergum power station.
Proceedings International Association of Theoretical and Applied Limnology 20:347-352.
Hagen, D., J. Vincent, and P. Welle. 1992. Benefits of preserving old growth forests and the spotted owl.
Contemporary Policy Issues 10:13-25.
Hanemann, M., J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice
contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(4): 1255-1263.
Harpman, D.A., M.P. Welsh, and R.C. Bishop. 1993. Nonuse economic value: Emerging policy analysis tool.
Rivers 4(4):280-291.
Hartman, K.J. 1993. Striped Bass, Bluefish, and Weakfish in the Chesapeake Bay: Energetics, Trophic Linkages,
and Bioenergenics Model Applications. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Hayes, K.M., TJ. Tyrell, and G. Anderson. 1992. Estimating the benefits of water quality improvements in the
upper Narragansett Bay. Marine Resource Economics 7:75-85.
Ref-IO
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Hazleton Environmental Science Corporation. 1978. The Survival of Entrained Icthyoplankton at Quad-Cities
Station 1978. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, IL.
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.
Hendrickson, L. 2000. Windowpane Flounder. NOAA. http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsvn/fldrs/window.
Accessed 2/1/02.
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.
Herriges, J.A. and J.F. Shogren. 1996. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up
questioning. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30( 1): 112-131.
Hicks, R. 2002. Stated Preference Methods for Environmental Management: Recreational Summer Flounder
Angling in the Northeastern United States. Final report prepared for Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division,
Office of Science and Technology, National Marine Fisheries Service. Requisition Request # NFFKS-18. March.
Hicks, R., S. Steinback, A. Gautam, and E. Thunberg. 1999. Volume II: The Economic Value of New England
and Mid-Atlantic Sportfishing in 1994. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-38. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty.
Chapman and Hall, London and New York.
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.
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 27(l):23-48.
Horseman, L.O. and C.A. Shirey. 1974. Age, growth, and distribution of white perch in the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal. In: Anonymous. Ecological Studies in the Vicinity of the Proposed Summit Power Station,
January through December 1973. Vol. I, Part B.
Horst, T.J. 1975. The assessment of impact due to entrainment of ichthyoplankton. In Fisheries and Energy
Production, S.B. Saila (ed.). D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA, pp. 107-118.
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): 1106-1122.
Huang, J-C., T.C. Haab, and J.C. Whitehead. 1997. Willingness to pay for quality improvements: Should revealed
and stated preference data be combined? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 34(3):240-255.
Huppert, D.D. 1989. Measuring the value offish to anglers: Application to Central California anadromous
species. Marine Resource Economics 6(2): 89-107.
Ref-ll
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Huppert, D.D. and D. Squires. 1987. Potential economic benefits and optimum fleet size in the Pacific Coast trawl
fleet. Marine Resource Economics 3(4):297-318.
Hushak, L.J., J.M. Winslow, and N. Dutta. 1988. Economic value of Great Lakes sportfishing: The case of
private-boat fishing in Ohio's Lake Erie. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 117:363-373.
Isaacson, P. A. 1964. Length-weight relationship of the white croaker. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 93:302-303.
Jenkins, R.E. and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
MD.
Jinks, S.M., GJ. Lauer, and M.E. Lofrus. 1981. Advances in techniques for assessment of ichthyoplankton
entrainment survival. In Fifth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement: Issues Associated with
Impact Assessment, L.D. Jensen (ed.). Ecological Analysts Inc., Sparks, MD, pp. 91-110.
Johnson, D.M. 1989. Economic Benefits of Alternative Fishery Management Programs. Colorado State
University, Dissertation.
Johnson, D.M., R.J. Behnke, D.A. Harpman, and R.G. Walsh. 1995. Economic benefits and costs of stocking
catchable rainbow trout: A synthesis of economic analysis in Colorado. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 15(1): 26-32.
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). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/wdb/pub/0139.pdf.
Johnson, N.S. and R.M. Adams. 1989. On the marginal value of a fish: Some evidence from the steelhead fishery.
Marine Resource Economics 6(1): 43-55.
Johnston, R.J., E.Y. Besedin, and R.F. Wardwell. 2003. Modeling relationships between use and nonuse values
for surface water quality: A meta-analysis. Water Resources Research 39(12): 1363-1372.
Johnston, R.J., T.F. Weaver, L.A. Smith, and S.K. Swallow. 1995. Contingent valuation focus groups: Insights
from ethnographic interview techniques. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24(l):56-69.
Jones and Stokes Associates. 1987. Juneau Area Sport Fishing Economic Study. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc.,
Robert D. Niehaus, Inc. Prepared for Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division. Anchorage.
Study Report AK 99518-1599. October.
Jude, D.J., F.J. Tesar, S.F. Deboe,-and T.J. Miller. 1987. Diet and selection of major prey species by Lake
Michigan salmonines, 1973-1982. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(5):677-691.
Kaoru, Y. 1993. Differentiating use and nonuse values for coastal pond water quality improvements.
Environmental and Resource Economics 3:487-494.
Karpoff, J.M. 1985. Non-pecuniary benefits in commercial fishing: Empirical findings from the Alaska salmon
fisheries. Economic Inquiry 23:159-174.
Kelso, J.R.M. and G.S. Milburn. 1979. Entrainment and impingement offish by power plants in the Great Lakes
which use the once-through cooling process. Journal of Great Lakes Research 5:182-194.
King, D.M. and V.G. Flagg. 1984. The Economic Structure of California's Commercial Fisheries 1982. Working
Paper No. P-T-32. California Sea Grant College Program, La Jolla.
Ref-12
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
King, D.M. and M. Mazzotta. 2002. Ecosystem Valuation. Methods, Section 6: Contingent Valuation Method.
http://www.cbi.umces.edu/~dkingweb/contingent valuation.htm. Accessed 4/2/02.
Kirkley, J.E., N.E. Bockstael, K.E. McConnell, and I.E. Strand. 1999. The Economic Value of Saltwater Angling
in Virginia. Virginia Marine Resource Report No. 99-2, VSG-99-02, January.
Kleinholz, C.W. 2000. Species Profile: Bigmouth Buffalo. SRAC Publication No. 723. Southern Regional
Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS. June.
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.
Krentz, S. 1997. 1997 Summary Report of Work Conducted by the Missouri River FWMAO on Missouri and
Yellowstone Rivers - Pallid Sturgeon. Report #MRFAO97-03. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bismarck, NT).
Krinsky, I. and A.L. Robb. 1986. Approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Review of Economics and
Statistics 68(4):715-719.
Kucas, S.T. and T.J. Hassler. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — California Halibut. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mol. Report
82tl 1.44. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Lant, C.L. and R.S. Roberts. 1990. Greenbelts in the cornbelt: Riparian wetlands, intrinsic values, and market
failure. Environment and Planning 22:1375-1388.
Larkin, S.L., C.M. Adams, and D.J. Lee. 2000. Reported trip costs, gross revenues, and net returns for U.S.
Atlantic pelagic longline vessels. Marine Fisheries Review 62(2):49-60.
Lassuy, D.R. 1989. Species Profile: Life History and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes: Pacific
Herring. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.126). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-
4. http://www.nwrc.usgs.gOV/wdb/pub/0151 .pdf. Accessed 7/3/01.
Lauer, G.J., W.T. Waller, D.W. Bath, W. Meeks, D. Heffner, T. Ginn, L. Zubarik, P. Bibko, and P.C. Storm.
1974. Entrainment studies on Hudson River organisms. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Entrainment
and Intake screening. Report. 15. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 37-82.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1985. 2.0 entrainment survival studies. In Quad Cities Aquatic Program
1984 Annual Report. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison, Chicago, IL, by Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers,
Pearl River, NY.
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1999. Brayton Point Power Station Entrainment Survival Study,
1997-1998. Draft. Prepared for USGen New England, Inc., Brayton Point Station, Somerset, MA, by Lawler
Matusky & Skelly Engineers, Pearl River, NY.
Layton, D. and G. Brown. 1998. Heterogenous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change. Presented at
NO A A Applications of Stated Preference Methods to Resource Compensation Workshop, Washington, DC.
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.
Ref-13
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Lee, S.T. 1996. The Economics of Recreational Fishing. Dissertation, University of Washington.
Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, R. Klingbeil, and E.J. Larson (eds). 2001. California's Living Marine Resources: A
Status Report. California Department of Fish and Game. December, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/status/.
Light, P.R. and K.W. Able. 2003. Juvenile Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in Delaware Bay, USA are
the result of local and long-distance recruitment. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 57:1007-1014.
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 and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-82/11.21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
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., 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'.
Loomis, J.B. 1988. The bioeconomic effects of timber harvesting on recreational and commercial salmon and
steelhead fishing: A case study of the Siuslaw National Forest. Marine Resource Economics Volume 5.
Loomis, J.B. 1996. How large is the extent of the market for public goods: Evidence from a nation wide
contingent valuation survey. Applied Economics 28(7):779-782.
Loomis, J.B. and D.M. Larson. 1994. Total economic values of increasing gray whale populations: Results from a
contingent valuation survey of visitors and households. Marine Resource Economics 9:275-286.
Loomis, J.B. and D.S. White. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and
meta-analysis. Ecological Economics 18:197-206.
Lupi, F. and J.P. Hoehn. 1998. A Partial Benefit-Cost Analysis of Sea Lamprey Treatment on the St. Marys River.
Michigan State University.
Lupi, F., J. Hoehn, H. Chen, and T. Tomasi. 1997. The Michigan Recreational Angling Demand Model. Michigan
State University and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Quality.
Lyke, A.J. 1993. Discrete Choice Models to Value Changes in Environmental Quality: A Great Lakes Case Study.
Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Magat, W.A., J. Huber, K.W. Viscusi, and J. Bell. 2000. An iterative choice approach to valuing clean lakes,
rivers, and streams. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 21(1): 7-43.
MaineToday.com. 2003. 2003 Saltwater Fishing Regulations.
http://outdoors.mainetodav.com/fishing/bruce/bassreg.shtml.
Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1971. Survival of young fish in the discharge canal of a nuclear power plant. Journal Fisheries
Research Board of Canada 28:1057-1060.
Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1973. Vulnerability and survival of young Connecticut River fish entrained at a nuclear power
plant. Journal Fisheries Research Board of Canada 30:1195-1203.
Ref-14
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Marcy, B.C., Jr. 1975. Entrainment of organisms at power plants, with emphasis on fishes - an overview. In
Fisheries and Energy Production, S.B. Sailia (ed.). D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, MA, pp. 89-106.
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, pp. 136-188.
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics (Southeast, Northeast, Pacific West). Year?
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/the mrfss.html.
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,
Washington, DC. April.
Matthews, L.G., F.R. Homans, and K.W. Easter. 1999. Reducing Phosphorous Pollution in the Minnesota River:
How Much is it Worth? Staff Paper. Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
Mayo, R. and L. O'Brien. 2000. Atlantic cod. In Status of Fishery Resources off Northeastern United States.
htto://www.wh.whoi.edu/sos/spsvn/pg/cod/. Accessed 1/03.
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 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
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.
McLaren, J.B., T.H. Peck, W.P. Dey, and M. Gardinier. 1988. Biology of Atlantic tomcod in the Hudson River
Estuary. In Science, Law, and Hudson River Power: A Case Study in Environmental Impact Assessment, L. W.
Barnthouse, RJ. Klanda, D.S. Vaughn, and R.L. Kendall (eds.). American Fisheries Society Monograph No. 4.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
McLean, R.I. and J.J. Dieter. 2002. State of Maryland Comments on Proposed Regulations to Establish
Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities; Proposed Rule, Published
Federal Register, April 9, 2002. To Proposed Rule Comment Clerk W-00-32, dated August 5, 2002.
MDNR. 2002. Data from the 2001 Recreational Angler Survey. Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. Received from David Clapp, Charlevoix Great Lakes Research Station,
Charlevoix, MI.
Meffe, G.K. 1992. Techno-arrogance and halfway technologies: Salmon hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North
America. Conservation Biology 6:350-354.
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.
Miller, E.E. 1966. Channel catfish. In Inland Fisheries Management. California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, pp. 440-463.
Miller, R.R. 1960. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fishes.
Fishery Bulletin 60:371-392.
Ref-15
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Milliman, S.R., B.L. Johnson, R.C. Bishop, and KJ. Boyle. 1992. The bioeconomics of resource rehabilitation: A
commercial-sport analysis for a Great Lakes fishery. Land Economics 68(2): 191-210.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1981. An experiment in determining willingness to pay for national water quality
improvements. Preliminary Draft of a Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Resources for the
Future, Inc., Washington, DC.
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.
Mitchell, R.C. and R.T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method.
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. 2004. Animal Field Guide: Pallid Sturgeon.
http://fwp.state.mt.us/fieldguide/detail AFCAA02010.aspx. Accessed October 18, 2004.
Monterey Bay Aquarium. 1999. White Sturgeon.
http://www.mbayaq.org/efc/living species/default.asp?hOri=l&inhab=498.
Morey, E.R., R.D. Rowe, and M. Watson. 1993. A repeated nested-logit model of Atlantic salmon fishing.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics August, pp. 578-592.
Morey, E., W.D. Shaw, and R.D. Rowe. 1991. A discrete-choice model of recreational participation, site choice,
and activity valuation when complete trip data are not available. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 20:181 -201.
Morey, E.R., W.S. Breffle, R.D. Rowe, and D.M. Waldman. 2002. Estimating recreational trout fishing damages
in Montana's Clark Fork River basin: Summary of a natural resource damage assessment. Journal of
Environmental Management 66(2): 159-170.
Morgan, II, R.P. 1980. Biocides and fish behavior. Power Plants: Effects on Fish and Shellfish Behavior, C.H.
Hocutt, J.R. Stauffer, Jr., J.E. Edinger, L.W. Hall, Jr., and R.P. Morgan, II (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp.
75-102.
Morgan, II, R.P. and E.J. Carpenter. 1978. Biocides. Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, J.R.
Schubel and B.C. Marcy, Jr. (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 95-134.
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. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.26. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/wdb/pub/0166.pdf.
Murdock, J. 2001. Valuing Recreational Fishing Opportunities While Catching Unobserved Characteristics. Yale
University.
Murphy, M.D. and T.C. MacDonald. 2000. An Assessment of the Status of Sheepshead in Florida Waters through
1999. Florida Marine Research Institute, St. Petersburg.
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.
Ref-16
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
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. Muller. 2000. Florida's Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2000 Status and
Trends Report, http://floridamarine.org.
NatureServe. 2002. Natural Heritage Central Databases. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
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.
NEP. 2004. National Estuary Program Extramural Funding, FY 1998-FY 2003. National Estuary Program.
Received from Greg Colianni, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division. July 1.
New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. 1995. Brayton Point Station Annual Biological and
Hydrological Report, January-December 1994. August.
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife.
http://www.state.ni.us/dep/fgw/ensphome.htm. Accessed 3/3/99.
Newman, M.C. 1995. Quantitative Methods in Aquatic Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Nitschke, P., R. Brown, and L. Hendrickson. 2000. Winter flounder. In Status of the Fishery Resources off the
Northeastern United States. NOAA, Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
htrp://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsvn/fldrs/winter/. Accessed 1/03.
NMFS. 1999a. Our Living Oceans. Report on the Status of US Living Marine Resources. NMFS-F/SPO-41.
NOAA Technical Memorandum. National Marine Fisheries Service.
NMFS. 1999b. Recovery Planning for West Coast Salmon. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lsalmon/salmesa/pubs/recovsum.pdf. Accessed 1/03.
NMFS. 200 la. Report to Congress: Status of Fisheries of the United States 2001. Prepared by National Marine
Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD. January.
NMFS. 2001b. Sea Turtle Protection and Conservation. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected
Resources, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot res/PR3/Turtles/turtles.hrml.
NMFS. 2002a. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries — 2001. U.S. Department of
Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2002b. Commercial Landings Data Caveats. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/commercial/landings/caveat.html. Accessed 11/4/02.
NMFS. 2002c. Fishery Management Councils. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/councils/. Accessed 12/9/02.
NMFS. 2002d. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), Snapshot Query. National Marine
Fisheries Service, http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html.
NMFS. 2002e. Sustainable Fisheries Act. http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/. Accessed 12/9/02.
Ref-17
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase HI - Regional Benefits Assessment References
NMFS. 2003a. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics website. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st 1 /commercial/. Accessed 8/03.
NMFS. 2003b. Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries - 2002. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NMFS. 2003c. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Intercept Survey. National Marine Fisheries Service.
http://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/the mrfss.html.
NOAA. 1993. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1993. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC 101. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Silver Spring, MD.
NOAA. 200la. Chesapeake Bay Office Species Information. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://noaa.chesaDeakebav.net/Fisheries/species.htm. Accessed 12/01.
NOAA. 200 Ib. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/. Accessed 11/01.
NOAA Fisheries. 2004. Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum).
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot res/species/fish/Shortnose sturgeon.html. Accessed October 14, 2004.
Northeast Midwest Institute. 2004. Large-scale Ecosystem Restoration Initiatives, Protecting and Restoring the
Upper Mississippi River. Available at http://www.nemw.org/uppermiss_restoration.htm. Accessed June 23, 2004.
Norton, V., T. Smith, and I.E. Strand (eds.). 1983. Stripers: The Economic Value of the Atlantic Coast
Commercial and Recreational Striped Bass Fisheries. UM-SG-TS-83-12. Maryland Sea Grant Publication,
College Park.
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. Lake Sturgeon Fact Sheet.
http://www.dec.state.nv.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/lakestur.html.
O'Brien, L. 2000. American Plaice, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsvn/fldrs/plaice/. Accessed 6/30/01.
O'Connell, C. 1953. Life History of the Cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Ayres). State of California
Department of Fish and Game Marine Fisheries Branch Fish Bulletin No. 93.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Life History Notes: Bluntnose Minnow.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/Fishing/aquanotes-fishid/bluntnose.htm. Accessed 1/03.
Olsen, D., J. Richards, and D.R. Scott. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia River
Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2(l):44-56.
Overholtz, W. 2002a. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern
United States. Atlantic Herring, http ://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsvn/pp/herring/. Accessed 1/11/02.
Overholtz, W. 2002b. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern
United States. Atlantic Mackerel, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/sos/spsvn/pp/mackerel/. Accessed 1/03.
Overholtz, W.J., R.S. 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.
Ref-18
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Packer, D.B., S.J. Griesbach, P.L. Berrien, C.A. Zetlin, D.L. Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish
Habitat Source Document: Summer Flounder, Paralichtyus dentatus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics.
NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-151. September, http://www.nefsc.nmfs.gov/nefsc/publications/. .
Pate, J. and J. Loomis. 1997. The effect of distance on willingness-to-pay values: A case study of wetlands and
salmon in California. Ecological Economics 20:199-207.
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 Na.ll.
NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD.
Pauly, D. and V. Christensen. 1995. Primary production required to sustain global fisheries. Nature 374:255-257.
Pauley, G.B., D.A. Armstrong, R. Van Citter, and G.L. Thomas. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and
Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — Dungeness Crab. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.121). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Pendleton, L.H. and R. Mendelsohn. 1998. Estimating the economic impact of climate change on the freshwater
sportfisheries of the Northeast United States. Land Economics 74:483-496.
Pennsylvania. 1999. Rules and Regulations: Title 58-Recreation, Fish and Boat Commission [58 PA. Code CHS.
61 and 65]. http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/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, http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/wrcf/franda.htm. Accessed 3/3/02.
Pepin P., J.F. Dower, J.A. Helbig, and W.C. Leggett. 2002. Estimating the relative roles of dispersion and
predation in generating regional differences in mortality rates of larval radiated shanny (Ulvaria subbifurcata).
Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:105-114.
Peterson, C.H. and J. Lubchenco. 1997. Marine ecosystem services. In Nature's Services, Societal Dependence on
Natural Ecosystems, G.C. Daily (ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 177-194.
PFMC. 1998. Fishery Management Plan: Coastal Pelagic Species. Appendix A: Description of the Coastal
Pelagics Fishery. December. Pacific Fishery Management Council, http://www.pcouncil.org/cps/cpsfmp.html.
Accessed 2/03.
PFMC. 2003a. Background: Coastal Pelagic Species. Pacific Fishery Management Council.
http://www.pcouncil.org/cps/cpsback.htmltffisherv. Accessed 2/03.
PFMC. 2003b. Pacific Fishery Management Council, http://www.pcouncil.org. Accessed 2/03.
PFMC. 2003c. Pacific Fishery Management Council Information Sheet: Groundfish. Pacific Fishery Management
Council, http://www.pcouncil.org/facts/groundfish.pdf. Accessed 2/03.
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. PG&E National Energy
Group, San Francisco, CA. November.
Pierce, D.J., B. Mahmoudi, and R.R. Wilson, Jr. 2001. Age and growth of the scaled Herring, Harengula jaguana,
from Florida waters, as indicated by microstructure of the sagittae. Fish. Bull. 99:202-209.
http://fishbull.noaa.gov/991/18.pdf.Accessed 12/13/01.
Ref-19
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Poe, G.L., K.J. Boyle, and J.C. Bergstrom. 2001. A preliminary rneta analysis of contingent values for ground
water quality revisited. In The Economic Value of Water Quality, J.C. Bergstrom, K.J. Boyle and G.L. Poe (eds.).
Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton, MA.
Polgar, T.T., J.K. Summers, and M.S. Haire. 1979. Evaluation of the Effects of the Morgantown SES Cooling
System on Spawning and Nursery Areas of Representative Important Species. Prepared by Martin Marietta
Environmental Center.
Poole, C. and S. Greenland. 1999. Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. American Journal
of Epidemiology 150(5):469-474.
Postel, S. and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. In Nature's Services, Societal Dependence on
Natural Ecosystems, G.C. Daily (ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 195-214.
PSE&G. 1984. Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus): A Synthesis of Information on Natural History, with Reference to
Occurrence in the Delaware River and Estuary and Involvement with the Salem Generating Station. Appendix
VII. Salem Generating Station 316(b) Demonstration. Public Service Electric & Gas Company, Newark, NY.
PSE&G. 1999. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622. Public Service Electric and Gas
Company Salem Generating Station. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., Newark, NJ.
Quinn II, T.J. and R.B. Deriso. 1999. Quantitative Fish Dynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, and
New York.
Rago, P.J. 1984. Production forgone: An alternative method for assessing the consequences of fish entrainment
and impingement losses at power plants and other water intakes. Ecological Modelling 24:79-111.
Responsive Management. 1992. Responsive Management Report: Focus on Focus Groups. Responsive
Management, Tallahassee, FL.
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, OR.
Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics offish populations. Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Bulletin \9\.
Roberts, L.A. and J.A. Leitch. 1997. Economic Valuation of Some Wetland Outputs of Mud Lake. Agricultural
Economics Report No. 381. Department of Agricultural Economics, North Dakota Agricultural Experiment
Station, North Dakota State University, Fargo.
Rosenberger, R.S. and J.B. Loomis. 2000a. Panel stratification in meta-analysis of economic studies: An
investigation of its effects in the recreation valuation literature. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics
32(3): 459-470.
Rosenberger, R.S. and J.B. Loomis. 2000b. Using meta-analysis for benefit transfer: In-sample convergent
validity tests of an outdoor recreation database. Water Resources Research 36(4): 1097-1107.
Rowe, R.D., W.D. Shaw, and W. Schulze. 1992. Nesrucca oil spill. In Natural Resource Damages, K. Ward and
J. Duffield (eds). Wiley and Sons, New York.
Ref-20
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Rowe, R.D., E.R. Morey, A.D. Ross, and W.D. Shaw. 1985. Valuing Marine Recreational Fishing on the Pacific
Coast. Energy and Resource Consultants Inc. Report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report LJ-85-18C. March.
Rowe, R.D., W.D. Schulze, B. Hurd, and D. Orr. 1985. Economic Assessment of Damage Related to the Eagle
Mine Facility. Energy and Resource Consultants, Inc., Boulder, CO.
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 (Brevoortia tyrannus) fishery and assessing managerial risks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 42:1371-1379.
Russell, B. and C.H. Hanson. 1990. Assessment of Entrainment Impacts to Rockfish at the Diablo Canyon Power
Plant. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company by Tenera Environmental Services, Lafayette, CA. May 2.
Saila, S.B., E. Lorda, J.D. Miller, R.A. Sher, and W.H. Howell. 1997. Equivalent adult estimates for losses offish
eggs, larvae, and juveniles at Seabrook Station with use of fuzzy logic to represent parametric uncertainty. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:811-825.
Salzman, J., B.H. Thompson, Jr., and G.C. Daily. 2001. Protecting ecosystem services: Science, economics, and
law. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):309-332.
Samples, K. and R. Bishop. 1985. Estimating the value of variations in anglers' success rates: An application of
the multiple-site travel cost method. Marine Resource Economics 2(l):55-74.
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.
Santos, J.M.L. 1998. The Economic Valuation of Landscape Change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
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://www.dnr.state.mi.us/www/ifr/ifrlibra/research/reports/2034rr.pdf.
Schram, ST., 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. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/congress/Burbot.pdf.
Schubel, J.R., C.C. Coutant, and P.M.J. Woodhead. 1978. Thermal effects of entrainment. In Power Plant
Entrainment: A Biological Assessment, J.R. Schubel and B.C. Marcy (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 20-
93.
Schuhmann, P.W. 1996. A Welfare Analysis of Commercial Fishery Harvest Restrictions: A Bioeconomic Model
of Red Drum Stock Dynamics and Recreation Demand. Dissertation, North Carolina State University.
Schuhmann, P.W. 1997. Deriving species-specific benefits measures for expected catch improvements in a
random utility framework. Marine Resource Economics 13:1-21.
Schultz, K. 2000. Ken Schultz's Fishing Encyclopedia: Worldwide Angling Guide. IDG Books Worldwide, New
York.
Ref-21
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Schulze, W.D., R.D. Rowe, W.S. Breffle, R.R. Boyce, and G.H. McClelland. 1995. Contingent Valuation of
Natural Resource Damages due to Injuries to the Upper Clark Fork River Basin. State of Montana Natural
Resource Damage Litigation Program. Prepared by RCG/Hagler Bailly, Boulder, CO.
Schwartz, F.J., P. Perschbacher, M. McAdams, L. Davidson, K. Sandoy, C. Simpson, J. Duncan, and D. Mason.
1979. Summary Report for 1973-77, an Ecological Study of Fishes and Invertebrate Macrofauna Utilizing the
Cape Fear River Estuary, Carolina Beach Inlet, and Adjacent Atlantic Ocean. Vol. XIV. Report to Carolina Power
Light Co., Raleigh, NC.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin
184.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin
184. Gait House, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.
Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scott. 1988. Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219.
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.
Shafer, EX., R. Carline, R.W. Guldin, and H.K. Cordell. 1993. Economic amenity values of wildlife: Six case
studies of Pennsylvania. Environmental Management 17(2): 669-682.
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, Dover.
Siegfried, C.A. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) — Crangonid Shrimp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
82(11.125). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Silberman, J., D.A. Gerlowski, and N.A. Williams. 1992. Estimating existence value for users and nonusers of
New Jersey beaches. Land Economics 68(2):225-236.
Singer, J.D. 1998. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth
models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 23(4):323-355.
Smith, C.L. 1981. Satisfaction bonus from salmon fishing: Implications for economic evaluation. Land
Economics 57(2): 181-196.
Smith, C.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. ISBN 0-9615433-0-2. The New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, Albany.
Smith, V.K. and L. Osborne. 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass the scope test? A meta analysis.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31 (3):287-301.
Smith, V.K., G. Van Houtven, and S.K. Pattanayak. 2002. Benefit transfer via preference calibration: "Prudential
algebra" for policy. Land Economics 78(1): 132-152.
Ref-22
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
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. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/congress/Burbot.pdf.
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.
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. EPA-905/3-81-001. ANL/ES-109.
Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory and U.S. EPA. March.
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 Report
FWS/OBS-82/11.7. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
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. httD://www.dec.state.nv.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/endspec/etsclist.html. Accessed 3/3/01.
Stauffer, Jr., J.R. 1980. Influence of temperature on fish behavior. In Power Plants: Effects on Fish and Shellfish
Behavior, C.H. Hocutt, J.R. Stauffer, Jr., J.E. Edinger, L.W. Hall, Jr., R.P. Morgan, II (eds.). Academic Press,
New York, pp. 103-141.
Stevens, D.E. and BJ. Finlayson. 1978. Mortality of Young Striped Bass Entrained at Two Power Plants in
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement. EA
Communications, Melville NY, pp. 57-69.
Stevens, T.H., M.K. Field, T.A. More, and R.J. Glass. 1994. Contingent Valuation of Rare and Endangered
Species: An Assessment. W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Resource Planning.
Stevens, T.H., J. Echeverria, RJ. 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, L.L. and P.J. Auster. 1987. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (North Atlantic) Atlantic Tomcod. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report
82(11.78). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. http://www.nwrc.gov/wdb/pub/1043.pdf. Accessed 6/03.
Stokes, M. 2002. The Economic Value of Viewing Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in Wisconsin. Presented
at the 2004 Joint Meeting of the Wisconsin and Michigan Chapters of the American Fisheries Society. January
20-22, 2004.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1977. Supplemental Assessment in Support of the 316 Demonstration,
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, Boston Edison Company. Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, Boston, MA.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1980. 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Big Bend Station — Unit 4.
Volume I and Volume II, Appendices. Prepared for Tampa Electric Company by Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, Boston, MA. August 1.
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.
Ref-23
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Stumborg, B.E., K.A. Baerenklau, and R.C.. Bishop. 2001. Nonpoint source pollution and present values: A
contingent valuation of Lake Mendota. Review of Agricultural Economics 23(1): 120-132.
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.
Summers, J.K. 1989. Simulating the indirect effects of power plant entrainment losses on an estuarine ecosystem.
Ecological Modelling 49: 31 -47.
Sutherland, RJ. 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 and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 82(11.51). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR LE-82-4.
Swanson, C. 1993. Economics of Non-Game Management: Bald Eagles on the Skagit River Bald Eagle Natural
Area, Washington. Dissertation, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Talhelm, D.R. 1988. Economics of Great Lakes Fisheries: A 1985 Assessment. Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Technical Report No. 54. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI. November.
TBNEP. 1992. Synthesis of Basic Life Histories of Tampa Bay Species. TBNEP Technical Publication #10-92.
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, FL.
Tenera Environmental Services. 1988. Diablo Canyon Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structure 316(b)
Demonstration. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. April 28.
Tenera Environmental Services. 2000a. Diablo Canyon Power Plant 316(b) Demonstration Report and
Appendices. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. March 1.
Tenera Environmental Services. 2000b. Moss Landing Power Plant Modernization Project 316(b) Resource
Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Moss Landing, LLC. April 28.
Tenera Environmental Services. 2001. Morro Bay Power Plant Modernization Project: 316(b) Resource
Assessment. Prepared for Duke Energy Morro Bay, LLC, Oakland, CA. July 10.
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. 2004. Basin Facts. Available at
http://www.umrba.org/basinfacts.htm. Accessed 6/23/04.
Thomas, D.A. 2002. Memo to docket, RE: Observations of foam in discharge canals of 2 power plants. December
30, 2002.
Thomas, D.L. 1971. An Ecological Study of the Delaware River in the Vicinity of Artificial Island. Progress
Report for the Period January-December 1970, Part III: The Early Life History and Ecology of Six Species of
Drum (Sciaenidae) in the Lower Delaware River, a Brackish Tidal Estuary.
Thomas, M.V. and R.C. Haas. 2000. Status of Yellow Perch and Walleye Populations in Michigan Waters of
Lake Erie, 1994-98. Fisheries Research Report 2054. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries
Division, Lansing. August.
Ref-24
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Townsend, R.E. 1985. The right to fish as an external benefit of open access. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 42:2050-2053.
TPWD. 2003. Marine Sport-Harvest Monitoring Program, Annual Effort, Landings, and CPUE Estimates. Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department. Coastal Fisheries Division. Received from Mark Fisher, August 6.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio, with Illustrated Keys. Revised ed. Ohio State University Press,
Columbus.
Ulanowicz, R.E. and B. Kinsman. 1978. Purgatorio-two rather different views of the same event. In Power Plant
Entrapment: A Biological Assessment, J.R. Schubel and B.C. Marcy, Jr. (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp.
245-253.
University of Washington. 2000. Invertebrates in the Plankton: Arthropoda.
http://depts.washington.edu/flil/zoo432/plankton/plarthropoda/plarthropoda.html. Accessed 11/19/2002.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational
Outlook Handbook, 2002-03 Edition, Fishers and Fishing Vessel Operators, http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocosl77.htm.
Accessed 2002.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Consumer Price Index (CPI) data: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division
of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes. CPI-U, Not Seasonally Adjusted, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm.
Accessed 5/04.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2002. 2000 Census, Summary File 3: United States. Prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington, DC.
U.S. DOI. 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. DOI. 2004. Fisheries: Aquatic and Endangered Resources. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science
Center. U.S. Department of the Interior.
http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research risk&title=Species%20at%20RiskO&menu=research.
Accessed 6/23/04.
U.S. DOI and U.S. DOC. 2002. 2001 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, U.S. Census
Bureau. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. October.
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/survevs/survevs.htmltfsurvev reports.
U.S. EPA. 1972. Dr. Clarence Tarzwell. Pollution of the Interstate Waters of Mount Hope Bay and its Tributaries
in the States of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Conference Proceedings, Providence, RI, January 6, 1972.
Volume 2. NTIS No. PB 230 572. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 591-623.
U.S. EPA. 1977. (Draft) Guidance for Evaluating the Adverse Impact of Cooling Water Intake Structures on the
Aquatic Environment: Section 316(b) P.L. 92-500. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis. EPA/630/R-97/001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1998. Product Performance Test Guidelines OPPT 810.3500 Premises Treatments.
EPA-712-C-98-413. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Ref-25
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA 240-R-00-003. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. September.
U.S. EPA. 2000b. Section 316(b) Industry Survey. Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water
Intake Structures and Industry Short Technical Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures, January
2000 (OMB Control Number 2040-0213). Industry Screener Questionnaire: Phase I Cooling Water Intake
Structures, January, 1999 (OMB Control Number 2040-0203).
U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms. Fifth Edition. Section 11, Acute Toxicity Analysis. EPA-821-R-02-012. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 71-108.
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Chapter B4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - Regional Studies, Part B:
California. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004b. Chapter D4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - Regional Studies, Part D:
Mid-Atlantic. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004c. Chapter E4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - Regional Studies, Part E:
South-Atlantic. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004d. Chapter F4: RUM Analysis. Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule - Regional Studies, Part F:
Gulf of Mexico. U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 2004e. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase III Rule. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division. EPA-XXX-X-XX-XX. November X.
U.S. EPA. 2004f. Great Lakes Program Funding, Mining Ideas 2: A Report on 106 Great Lakes Ecological
Protection and Restoration Projects. http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/fund/mining/II/index.html. Accessed 6/23/04.
U.S. EPA. 2004g. National Estuary Program, Which Estuaries are in the NEP?
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/find.htm. Accessed 6/23/04.
U.S. EPA. 2004h. National Estuary Program, Why isn't the Chesapeake Bay in the National Estuary Program?
httD://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/about2.htm#chesapeake. Accessed 8/10/04.
U.S. EPA. 2004L Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division.
EPA-821-R-02-003. February 12.
U.S. EPA. 2004j. Technical Development Document for the Proposed Section 316(b) Phase III Rule. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, EPA-XXX-X-XX-XX. November X.
USFWS. 1978. Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight. An Atlas of Egg, Larval and Juvenile Stages.
FWS/OBS-78/12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
USFWS. 1996a. The Endangered Species Act of 1973. A Summary of the ESA and Implementation Activities.
Updated October 1996. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, http://endangered.fws.gov/esasum.html. Accessed
10/10/00.
USFWS. 1996b. Recovery Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, OR.
Ref-26
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
USFWS. 2004a. The Endangered Species Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
http://endangered.fws.gov/index.html. Accessed 6/04.
USFWS. 2004b. Native Species Restoration. USFWS Fisheries, Great Lakes - Big Rivers.
http://midwest.fws.gov/Fisheries/topic-nativespecies.htm. 6/23/04.
USFWS. 2004c. Upper Mississippi River Nine-Foot Channel Project: Operation and Maintenance Section 7
Consultation: Pallid Sturgeon. http://midwest.fws.gov/endangered/section7/Dallid.pdf. Accessed October 19,
2004.
USFWS. 2004d. Feature Series. The Pallid Sturgeon, a Missouri River 'Dinosaur'.
http://www.r6.fws.gov/feature/sturgeon.html. Accessed October 18, 2004.
USFWS and NMFS. 2000. Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing Handbook. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. httD://endangered.fws.gov/hcp/hcpbook.html.
Accessed 3/6/00.
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.
Usher, A.J. 1987. Ontario Lake of the woods fishery: Economic and social analysis. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 116:352-366.
U.S. Ocean Commission. 2002. Developing a National Ocean Policy: Mid-term Report of the U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy. September. Available at
http://oceancommission.gov/documents/midterm report/midterm report.html.
Valiela, I. 1995. Spatial structure: Patchiness. In Marine Ecological Processes. Springer, New York, pp. 325-353.
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 and Wildlife Service Biological Report
USFWS/OBS-82/11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Vandenberg, T.P., G.L. Poe, and J.R. Powell. 2001. Assessing the accuracy of benefits transfers: Evidence from a
multi-site contingent valuation study of ground water quality. In The Economic Value of Water Quality, J.C.
Bergstrom, K.J. Boyle, and G.L. Poe (eds.). Edward Elgar Publishers, Northampton, MA.
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 27: 307-334.
Varian, H.R. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis. 3rd Edition. W.W. Norton, New York.
Vaughan, W.J. and C.S. Russell. 1982. Valuing a fishing day: An application of a systematic varying parameter
model. Land Economics 58(4):450-463.
Vetter, E.F. 1988. Estimation of natural mortality in fish stocks: A review. Fishery Bulletin 86 (l):25-43.
Virginia Tech. 1998. Marine and Coastal Species Information System. Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange.
http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/macsis/index.htm.
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.
Ref-27
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
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.
Walsh, R., R.D. Bjonback, T.D. Rosenthal, and R. Aiken. 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,
Greenwich, CT.
Walsh, R.G., J.B. Loomis, and R.A. Gillman. 1984. Valuing option, existence, and bequest demands for
wilderness. Land Economics 60(1): 14-29.
Walsh, R.G., D.A. Greenley, R.A. Young, J.R. McKean, and A.A. Prato. 1978. Option Values, Preservation
Values and Recreational Benefits of Improved Water Quality: A Case Study of the South Platte River Basin,
Colorado. EPA 600/5 78 001. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Wang, J.C.S. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to
the Early Life Histories. Prepared by the California Dept. of Water Resources, the California Dept. of Fish and
Game, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the 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. http://elib.cs.berkelev.edu/koDec/tr9/html/home.html. Accessed 11/01.
Wang, J.C.S. and R.J. Kernehan. 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.
Warlen, S.M., A.J. Chester, and M.T. Boyd. 1980. Growth of larval/early juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, in
North Carolina. In Anonymous. Annual report of the Southeast Fish Cent. Beaufort Lab., Beaufort, NC, to U.S.
Dep. Energy, July 1, pp. 456-472.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Washington State Forage Fish. Pacific Herring.
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/fish/forage/herring.htm.
Water Quality Act of 1987. (P.L. 100-4), §317(a)(l)(A) and(B) adding §320 to the CWA, 33, US.C. §1330.
Welle, P.G. 1986. Potential Economic Impacts of Acid Deposition: A Contingent Valuation Study of Minnesota.
Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wey, K.A. 1990. Social Welfare Analysis of Congestion and Water Quality of Great Salt Pond, Block Island,
Rhode Island. Dissertation, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.
Whitehead, J.C. and R. Aiken. 2000. An Analysis of Trends in Net Economic Values for Bass Fishing from the
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. East Carolina University, Department
of Economics, Greenville, NC. April.
Whitehead, J.C. and G.C. Blomquist. 1991a. A link between behavior, information, and existence value. Leisure
Sciences 13:97-109.
Ref-28
-------
Section 316(b) Proposed Rule: Phase III - Regional Benefits Assessment References
Whitehead, J.C. and G.C. Blomquist. 199 Ib. Measuring contingent values for wetlands: Effects of information
about related environmental goods. Water Resources Research 21 (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.
Whitehead, J.C. and P.A. Groothuis. 1992. Economic benefits of improved water quality: A case study of North
Carolina's Tar-Pamlico River. Rivers 3:170-178.
Whitehead, J.C. and T.C. Haab. 1999. Southeast marine recreational fishery statistical survey: Distance and catch
based choice sets. Marine Resource Economics 14(4): 283-298.
Whitehead, J.C., G.C. Blomquist, T.J. Hoban, and W.B. Clifford. 1995. Assessing the validity and reliability of
contingent values: A comparison of on-site users, off-site users, and non-users. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management 29(2):238-251.
Whittington, D., G. Cassidy, D. Amaral, E. McClelland, H. Wang, and C. Poulos. 1994. The Economic Value of
Improving the Environmental Quality of Galveston Bay. GBNEP-38, 6/94. Department of Environmental
Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Wild, P.W. and R.N. Tasto (eds.). 1983. Life History, Environment, and Mariculture Studies of the Dungeness
Crab, Cancer magister, with Emphasis on the Central California Fishery Resource. Fish Bulletin 172. California
Department of Fish and Game.
Williams, J.S. and P.W. Bettoli. 2003. Net Value of Trout Fishing Opportunities in Tennessee Tailwaters.
Fisheries Report 03-21. Final Report Submitted to the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency.
Wilson, M.A. and S.R. Carpenter. 1999. Economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in the United
States: 1971-1997. Ecological Applications 9(3):772-783.
Wisconsin DNR. 2003. Adrift on the sea of life. Wisconsin Natural Resources June: 17-21.
Woodward, R.T. and Y.S. Wui. 2001. The economic value of wetland services: A meta-analysis. Ecological
Economics 37:257-270.
Ref-29
-------
-------
-------
------- |