&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Case Study Analysis for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase
II Existing Facilities Rule
Part A - B
May 2002
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821 -R-02-002
-------
Case Study Analysis for the Proposed
Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
Engineering and Analysis Division
Washington, DC 20460
February 28,2002
-------
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 Associate 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.
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter Al: Ecological Risk Assessment Framework
Al-1 Problem Formulation
A1-2 Analysis
A1-3 Risk Characterization
Chapter A2: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Fish
A2-1 Introduction
A2-2 Fish Diversity and Abundance
A2-3 Influence of Fish on Aquatic Systems
A2-4 Exterior Fish Anatomy
A2-5 Interior Anatomy
Chapter A3; Aquatic Organisms Other than Fish that are Vulnerable to CWIS
A3-1 Plankton
A3-2 Macroinvertebrates
A3-3 Sea Turtles and Other Vertebrate Species
A3-4 Conclusions
Chapter A4: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS on Birds
A4-1 Direct Effects on Birds
A4-2 Indirect Effects on Fish-Eating Birds
A4-3 Understanding the Effects of Food Reduction on Bird Populations
Chapter A5: Methods Used to Evaluate I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
A6-4 Uncertainty in Stock-Recruitment Models
A6-5 Precautionary Approach
Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival
A7-1 Entrainment Mortality and Entrainment Survival
A7-2 Existing Entrainment Survival Studies
A7-3 Analysis by EPA of 13 Existing Studies
A7-4 Principles to Guide Future Studies of Entrainment Survival
A7-5 Conclusions
. Chapter A8: Characterization of CWIS Impacts by Water Body Type
A8-1 Development of a Database of I&E Rates .
A8-2 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Rivers and Streams
A8-3 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Lakes and Reservoirs
A8-4 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment in the Great Lakes
A8-5 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Estuaries
A8-6 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Oceans
A8-7 Summary and Conclusions
Chapter A9- Economic Benefit Categories and Valuation Methods
A9-1 Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the § 316(b) Rule
A9-2 Benefit Category Taxonomies
A9-3 Direct Use Benefits
A9-4 Indirect Use Benefits
A9-5 Nonuse Benefits
A9-6 Summary of Benefits Categories
A9-7 Causality: Linking the § 316(b) Rule to Beneficial Outcomes
A9-8 Conclusions
Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits with a Random Utility Model (RUM)
A10-1 Site Choice Model
A10-2 Trip Frequency Model
A10-3 Welfare Estimation
A10-4 Data Sources
A10-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
Chapter All: Habitat-Based Replacement Cost Method
A11 -1 Overview of HRC Valuation of I&E Resource Losses
A11-2 Steps in the HRC
TOCii
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
A11-3 Use of the HRC Method for § 316(b) Evaluations
A11-4 Strengths and Weakness of the HRC Method
Chapter A12; Threatened & Endangered Species Analysis Methods
A12-1 Listed Species Background
A12-2 Framework for Identifying Listed Species Potentially at Risk of I&E
A12-3 Identification of Species of Concern at Case Study Sites
A12-4 Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts on T&E Species
A12-5 Methods Available for Estimating the Economic Value Associated with I&E of T&E Species
A12-6 Issues in the Application of the T&E Valuation Approaches
A12-7 Conclusions
Appendix Al
Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Bl-I Overview of Transition Zone Case Study Facilities
Bi-2 Environmental Setting
Bl-3 Water Withdrawals and Uses
Bl-4 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Chapter B2: Technical and Economic Descriptions of In Scope Facilities of the Delaware
Estuary Transition Zone
B2-1 Operational Profile
B2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
Chapter B3; Evaluation of I&E Data
B3-1 Transition Zone Species Vulnerable to I&E
B3-2 Life Histories of Primary Species Impinged and Entrained
B3-3 Salem I&E Monitoring and PSEG's Methods for Calculating Annual I&E
B3-4 Salem's Annual Impingement
B3-5 Salem's Annual Entrainment
B3-6 Extrapolation of Salem's I&E Rates to Other Transition Zone Facilities
B3-7 Salem's Current I&E
B3-8 Cumulative Impacts; Summary of Estimated Total I&E at All Transition Zone CWIS
roc m
-------
§ 316(b) Cose, Studies
Table of Contents
Chapter B4: Economic Value of I&E Losses Based on Benefits Transfer Techniques
B4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach
B4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Recreational Fishery Losses at the Salem Facility
B4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses at the Salem Facility
B4-4 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
B4-5 Nonuse Values
B4-6 Summary of Mean Annual Value of Economic Losses at Salem
B4-7 Total Economic Damages for Generating Facilities Regulated Under Phase 2
B4-8 Total Economic Damages for All Transition Zone CWIS
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
B5-1 Data Summary
B5-2 Site Choice Models
B5-3 Trip Frequency Model
B5-4 Welfare Estimates
B5-5 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis for the Delaware Estuary
B6-1 Summary Figures of Salem's Baseline Losses
B6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
B6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
Chapter B7: Conclusions
Appendix Bl; Survival Factors and Other Parameters Used by PSE6 to Estimate I&E Losses
at Salem
Appendix B2: Delaware Estuary Life History Parameter Values
Part C: The Ohio River Watershed Case Study
Chapter CI: Background
C1 -1 Overview of Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
CI-2 Environmental Setting
C1 -3 Water Withdrawals and Uses
C1 -4 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Chapter C2: Technical & Economic Facility Descriptions
C2-1 Plant Configuration
C2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
roc iv
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
Chapter C3; Evaluation of I<&E bata
C3-1 Ohio River Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E
C3-2 Life Histories of Primary Species Impinged and Entrained
C3-3 Facility Impingement and Entrain me nt Monitoring Methods
C3-4 Annual Impingement at Nine Ohio River Facilities
C3-5 Annual Entrainment at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
C3-6 Methods Used to Extrapolate I&E Rates to Other Ohio River Facilities
C3-7 Annual Impingement at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
C3-8 Annual Entrainment at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
C3-9 Cumulative Impacts: Summary of Total Ohio River I&E
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses from Selected Facilities on the Ohio River
C4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach
C4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Losses to Recreational Fisheries Resulting from I&E at
Nine Facilities on the Ohio River
C4-3 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
C4-4 Nonuse Values
C4-5 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I&E at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
C4-6 Extrapolation of Baseline Losses to Other Facilities on the Ohio River
Chapter C5; RUM Analysis
C5-1 Data Summary
C5-2 Site Choice Models
C5-3 Trip Participation Model
C5-4 Welfare Estimates
C5-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
Chapter C6*. Benefits Analysis for the Ohio River
C6-1 Economic Benefits of Reduced I&E of Fishery Species At Ohio River Facilities
C6-2 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
Chapter C7: Conclusions
Appendix CI: Ohio River Fish Species Life History Parameter Values
Appendix C2*. Species Groups for Ohio River
Appendix C3: Individual Facility Results for Annual Losses and Value of ME at Nine
Facilities on the Ohio River
TOCv
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
Part D: The Tampa Bay Watershed Case Study
Chapter Dl: Background
Dl-1 Overview of Case Study Facilities
Dl-2 Environmental Setting
Dl-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Chapter D2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
D2-1 Operational Profiles
D2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I&E Data
D3-1 Tampa Bay Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E
D3-2 Life Histories of Primary Species Impinged and Entrained
D3-3 Big Bend Impingement and Entrapment Monitoring Methods
D3-4 Annual Impingement at Big Bend
D3-5 Annual Entrainment at Big Bend
D3-6 EPA's Methods for Extrapolating Big Bend's I&E Rates to Other In-Scope Facilities of
Tampa Bay
D3-7 EPA's Estimates of Big Bend's Impingement Extrapolated to Other In-Scope Facilities of
Tampa Bay
D3-8 EPA's Estimates of Big Bend's Entrainment Extrapolated to Other In-Scope Facilities of
Tampa Bay
D3-9 Cumulative Impacts: Summary of Total I&E of Tampa Bay In-Scope Facilities
D3-10 Evaluation of Recent Larval Abundance Records as Indicators of Current Entrainment Losses
at Tampa Bay CWIS
Chapter D4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses from Four Facilities on Tampa Bay
D4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach
D4-2 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses
D4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses Resulting from I&E at Big
Bend
D4-4 Indirect Use; Forage Fish
D4-5 Nonuse Values
D4-6 Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual I&E at Big Bend
D4-7 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Economic Losses from I&E at Tampa Bay Facilities
TOC vi
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies
Table of Contents
Chapter D5; RUM Analysis
D5-1 Data Summary
D5-2 Site Choice Model
D5-3 Trip Participation Model
D5-4 Welfare Estimates
D5-5 Limitations and Uncertainty
Chapter D6: Benefits Analysis for Four Facilities on Tampa Bay
D6-1 Overview of I&E and Associated Economic Losses
D6-2 Economic Benefits of Reduced I&E of Selected Species at Four In-Scope Facilities on
Tampa Bay
D6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
Chapter D7; Conclusions
Appendix Dl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
E1-1 Overview of Case Study Facilities
El-2 Environmental Setting
El-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Chapter E2: Technical Description of Facilities
E2-1 Operational Profile
E2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I4E Data
E3-1 Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Pittsburgh and Contra Costa Power Plants
E3-2 Life Histories of Species Impinged and Entrained at the Pittsburgh and Contra Costa Plants
E3-3 Facility Methods for Estimating I&E
E3-4 Annual Impingement
E3-5 Annual Entrainment
E3-6 Summary: Combined Impacts of Pittsburgh and Contra Costa
Chapter E4: Economic Value of I4E Losses Based on Benefits Transfer Techniques
E4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach
E4-2 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from, I&E at Pittsburgh and
Contra Costa
TOC vii
-------
I 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
E4-3 Nonuse Values
E4-4 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Economic Losses at Pittsburgh and Contra Costa
Chapter E5". Societal Revealed Preference Approach for Valuing Special Status Fish Species
E5-1 Valuing Special Status Species
E5-2 Habitat Restoration Costs
E5-3 Opportunity Costs of Water Use Foregone to Protect Special Status Species Fish
E5-4 Current Abundance and Restoration Targets
E5-5 Total Costs for Special Status Species Fish
E5-6 Conclusions
Chapter E6: Benefits Analysis
E6-1 Summary of Current I&E and Associated Economic Impacts
E6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
E6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
Chapter E7: Conclusions
Appendix El; Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
Appendix E2: Valuing Water Uses Foregone
Appendix E3*. Presentation of Population Estimates
Part F: Brayton Point Station Case Study
Chapter F1: Introduction
Fl-1 Overview of Case Study Facility
Fl-2 Environmental Setting
F1-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Chapter F2; Technical Description of the Brayton Point Station
F2-1 Operational Profile
F2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
F2-3 Brayton Point Generation
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
F3-1 Species Impinged and Entrained at Brayton Point
F3-2 Life Histories of Major Species Impinged and Entrained
F3-3 Brayton Point Generating Station's I&E Sampling Methods
TOC viii
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
F3-4 Annual Impingement and En train men t
F3-5 Summary
Chapter F4: Value of I&E Losses at the Brayton Point Station Based on Benefits Transfer
Techniques
F4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach
F4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Losses to Recreational Fisheries Resulting from I&E at
Brayton Point Station
F4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses Resulting from I&E
at Brayton Point Station
F4-4 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
F4-5 Nonuse Values
F4-6 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I&E at Brayton Point Station
Chapter F5; HRC Valuation of IAE Losses at Brayton Point Station
F5-1 Step 1: Quantify I&E Losses
F5-2 Step 2: Identify Habitat Requirements
F5-3 Step 3: Identify Potential Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset I&E Losses
F5-4 Step 4: Consolidate, Categorize, and Prioritize Identified Habitat Restoration Alternatives
F5-5 Step 5: Quantify the Expected Increases in Species Production for the Prioritized Habitat
Restoration Alternatives
F5-6 Step 6: Scaling Preferred Restoration Alternatives
F5-7 Unit Costs
F5-8 Total Cost Estimation
F5-9 Conclusions
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis for the Brayton Point Station
F6-1 Summary of Current I&E and Associated Economic Impacts
F6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
F6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
Chapter F7t Conclusions
Appendix F1: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I4E
TOCix
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities Case Study
Chapter 61: Background
Gl-1 Overview of Case Study Facilities
Gl-2 Environmental Setting
Gl-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Chapter 62: Technical and Economic Descriptions of the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
G2-1 Operational Profile
G2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I<5£ Data
G3-1 Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
G3-2 Life Histories of Most Abundant Species in Seabrook and Pilgrim I&E Collections
G3-3 Seabrook's Methods for Estimating Impingement and Entrainment
G3-4 Seabrook's Annual Impingement and Entrainment
G3-5 Pilgrim's Methods for Estimating Impingement and Entrainment
G3-6 Pilgrim's Annual Impingement and Entrainment
G3-7 Summary and Comparison of I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim
G3-8 Potential Biases and Uncertainties in I&E Estimates
Chapter 64: Value of ME Losses at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities Based on Benefits
Transfer Techniques
G4-1 Overview of Val uation Approach
G4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Loses to Recreational Fisheries Resulting from I&E at
Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
G4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses Resulting from I&E at
Seabrook and Pilgrim
G4-4 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
G4-5 Nonuse Values
G4-6 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of ME Losses at the Pilgrim Facility
G5-1 Step 1: Quantify I&E Losses
G5-2 Step 2: Identify Habitat Requirements
G5-3 Step 3: Identify Potential Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset I&E Losses
G5-4 Step 4: Consolidate, Categorize, and Prioritize Identified Habitat Restoration Alternatives
G5-5 Step 5: Quantify the Expected Increases in Species Production for the Prioritized Habitat
Restoration Alternatives
G5-6 Step 6: Scaling Preferred Restoration Alternatives
G5-7 Unit Costs
TOCx
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
G5-8 Total Cost Estimation
G5-9 Conclusions
Chapter ©6: Benefits Analysis for the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
G6-1 Overview of I&E and Associated Economic Values
G6-2 Baseline Losses Using HRC Method
G6-3 Anticipated Economic Benefits of Reduced I&E from Various Technologies
G6-4 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
Chapter 67: Conclusions
Appendix G1; Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
Part H: J.R. Whiting Facility Case Study
Chapter HI: Background
H1 -1 Overview of J.R. Whiting Facility
Hl-2 Environmental Setting
Hl-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Chapter H2: Technical and Economic Descriptions of the J.R. Whiting Facility
H2-1 Baseline Operational Characteristics
H2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
Chapter H3: Evaluation of I&E Data
H3-1 Species Vulnerable to I&E
H3-2 Life Histories of Major Species Impinged and Entrained
H3-3 J.R. Whiting's Methods for Estimating I&E
H3-4 J.R. Whiting's Annual I&E Without the Net
H3-5 J.R. Whiting's Annual Impingement With the Ne
H3-6 Summary
Chapter H4: Economic Value of I&E Losses Based on Benefits Transfer Techniques
H4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach
H4-2 Value of Baseline Recreational Fishery Losses at J.R. Whiting Facility
H4-3 Baseline Economic Losses from Commercial Fishing
H4-4 Indirect Use: Forage Fish
H4-5 Nonuse Values
H4-6 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Economic Losses at J.R. Whiting
TOCxi
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Table of Contents
14-3 Value of Baseline Commercial Fishery Losses at the Monroe Facility
14-5 Nonuse Values for Baseline Losses at the Monroe Facility
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses at the Monroe Facility
15-1 Quantify I&E Losses by Species (Step 1)
15-2 Identify Species Habitat Requirements (Step 2), Identify Habitat Restoration Alternatives
(Step 3), and Prioritize Restoration Alternatives
15-3 Quantify the Benefits for the Prioritized Habitat Restoration Alternatives (Step 5)
15-4 Scale the Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset I&E Losses (Step 6)
15-5 Estimate "Unit Costs" for the Habitat Restoration Alternatives (Step 7)
15-6 Develop Total Cost Estimates for I&E Losses
Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis for the Monroe Fadlity(Step 8)
16-1 Overview of I&E and Associated Losses
16-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulations
16-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
Chapter 17: Conclusions
Appendix II: Monroe Life History Parameter Values
Glossary
References
TOC xiii
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Part A; Evaluation Methods
-------
Chapter Al: Risk Assessment Framework
Chapter Al: Ecological Risk
Assessment Framework
Introduction
EPA has defined ecological risk assessment as "a process
that evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects
may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one
or more stressors" (U.S. EPA, 1998b). It is an approach to
impact assessment that involves explicit evaluation of the
data, assumptions, and uncertainties associated with an
impact analysis. Risk assessments range in level of
analysis and data requirements, depending on management
goals, data availability, and stakeholder concerns.
In the context of evaluating the impacts of cooling water
intake structures (CWIS) under § 316(b), the key stressors of interest for an ecological risk assessment are the impingement
and entrainment (I&E) of aquatic organisms. The following sections outline the three phases of ecological risk assessment
(problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization) as they apply to EPA's § 316(b) case studies (see Figure AI-1).
Figure A1 -1; EPA's Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment Applied to § 316(b)
J,,, .....
Chapter Contents
AI -! Problem Formulation A1 -2
Al-2 Analysis .. Af«2
A!-2.1 Characterization of Exposure of Aquatic
Orgaiiisrns to CWIS Al-2
A i -2.2 Character! zauon of Ecological Effects ...At-<>
Al-.* Risk Character! 4iitwn AI -{>
Ecological Risk Assessment
Applied to § 316(b)
Cl
Characterize Risk
Problem Formulation
Source of Stress: CWIS
Discussions between
Permittee and EPA
(Planning)
Analysis
— Characterize exposure
to I&E
— Evaluate impacts on
aquatic organisms
Adapted from U.S. EPA, 1998b.
Al-1
-------
Chapter Al: Risk Assessment Framework
Al-l Problem Formulation
The problem formulation phase of an ecological risk assessment defines the problem to be evaluated and develops a plan for
analyzing available data and characterizing risk (U.S. EPA, 1998b), This involves formulating a conceptual model of the
relationships between stressors and receptors, selecting assessment and measurement endpoints, and developing a plan for the
analysis of exposure and risk. In the context of § 316(b), the primary stressors associated with CWIS are I&E and the
receptors are the aquatic organisms that are exposed to l&E, Figure A1-2 is a conceptual model indicating the primary and
secondary ecological effects that result from the exposure of aquatic organisms to I&E.
An assessment endpoint is any ecological entity of concern to stakeholders (U.S. EPA, 1998b). Ecological entities to be
assessed may include one or more entities across a range of levels of biological organization, including individuals,
subpopulations. populations, species, communities, or ecosystems. Measurement endpoints are the attributes of an assessment
endpoint that are evaluated in a risk assessment. Attributes of concern may include individual survival, population
recruitment, species abundance, species diversity, or ecosystem structure and function. Ideally, assessment endpoints should
include all species directly and indirectly affected by a CWIS. Potentially affected organisms include fish, shellfish,
planktonic organisms, sea turtles, and marine mammals. In most cases, assessment endpoints for the § 316(b) case studies
include only fish and shellfish species because these species are the focus of most facility studies. Measurement endpoints
that should be included in all § 316(b) risk analyses include annual losses of individual organisms, adult equivalent losses,
lost fishery yield, and production foregone, as described in"detail in Chapter A4.
Al-2 Analysis
The analysis phase of an ecological risk assessment focuses on the characterization of (1) exposure to one or more stressors
and (2) the ecological effects that are expected to result from exposure (U.S. EPA, 1998b).
Al-2.1 Characterization of Exposure of Aquatic Organisms to CWIS
Exposure characterization describes the potential or actual co-occurrence of stressors and receptors (U.S. EPA, 1998b). In
the case of CWIS, characterization of exposure involves description of facility characteristics that influence rates of l&E, and
the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the surrounding ecosystem that influence the intensity, time, and
spatial extent of contact of aquatic organisms with a facility's CWIS.
Exposure of aquatic organisms to I&E depends on factors related to the location, design, construction, capacity, and operation
of the facility's CWIS (U.S. EPA, 1976; SAIC, 1994; SAIC, 1995; SAIC, 1996a and b). Table Al-l lists facility
characteristics as well as characteristics of species and the surrounding environment that influence when, how, and why
aquatic organisms may become exposed to and experience adverse effects of CWIS. These characteristics are described in
the following sections based on information provided in EPA's 1976 § 316(b) development document (U.S. EPA, 1976) and
background papers developed for EPA's § 316(b) rulemaking activities by Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC) (SAIC, 1994; SAIC, 1995; SAIC, 1996a and b).
a. Intake location
Two major components of a CWIS's location that influence the relative magnitude of l&E are (1) the type of waterbody from
which a CWIS is withdrawing water, and (2) the placement of the CWIS relative to sensitive biological areas within the
waterbody. Considerations in siting include intake depth and distance from the shoreline in relation to the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of the source waterbody. In general, intakes located in nearshore areas (riparian or littoral
zones) will have greater ecological impacts than intakes located offshore, since nearshore areas are usually more biologically
productive and have higher concentrations of aquatic organisms.
Al-2
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter Al: Risk Assessment Framework
Figure A1-2: Conceptual Model Indicating Some Primary and Secondary Effects of Impingement and Entramment by CWIS
S 316b Ecological Risk Analysis
A Conceptual Model
Soiree of Stress
Cooling Water Intake Structures (CWIS)
Exposure of Receptors
Primary Effects
Increased Mortatity & |
Decreased Viability
Primary Stressors
Impingement & Entrainment
Intln idual l.cui Harm
Papulations
Communities
Ecosysiems
Secondary Effects
Decreased Fishing Yields
Reduced Ecosyttem Productivity
Al-3
-------
Chapter AV. Risk Assessment Framework
Table A1-1: Partial List of CWIS Characteristics and Ecosystem and
Species Characteristics Influencing Exposure to ME
Characteristics
~ Depth of intake
~ Distance from shoreline
~ Proximity of intake withdrawal and discharge
*¦ Proximity to other industrial discharges or water withdrawals
~ Proximity to an area of biological concern
~ Type of intake structure (size, shape, configuration,
orientation)
~ Approach velocity
~ Presence/absence of intake control and fish protection
technologies
a. Intake screen systems
b. Passive intake systems
c. Fish diversion/avoidance systems
~ Water temperature in cooling system
~ Temperature change during entrainment
~ Duration of entrainment
~ Use of intake biocides and ice removal technologies
~ Scheduling of timing, duration, frequency, and quantity of
water withdrawal
» Mortality of aquatic organisrns
» Displacement of aquatic organisms
~ Destruction of habitat (e.g., burial of eggs deposited in stream
beds, increased turbidity of water column)
~ Type of withdrawal - once through vs. recycled (cooling water
volume and volume per unit time)
~ Ratio of cooling water intake flow to source water flow
Ecosystem and Species Characteristics
Ecosystem Characteristics (abiotic environment):
Source waterhody type (marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine)
Water temperatures
Ambient light conditions
Salinity levels
Dissolved oxygen levels
Tides/currents
Direction and rate of ambient flows
pecies Characteristics (physiology, behavior, life history):
Density in zone of influence of CWIS
Spatial and temporal distributions (e.g., daily, seasonal, annual
migrations)
Habitat preferences (e.g., depth, substrate)
Ability to detect and avoid intake currents
Swimming speeds
Body size
Age/developmental stage
Physiological tolerances (e.g., temperature, salinity, dissolved
oxygen)
Feeding habits
Reproductive strategy
Mode of egg and larval dispersal
Generation time
Critical physical and chemical factors related to siting of an intake include the direction and rate of waterbody flow, tidal
influences, currents, salinity, dissolved oxygen levels, thermal stratification, and the presence of pollutants. The withdrawal
of water by an intake can change ambient flows, velocities, and currents within the source waterbody, which may cause
organisms to concentrate in the vicinity of an intake or reduce their ability to escape a current. Effects vary according to the
type of waterbody and species present.
In large rivers, withdrawal of water may have little effect on flows because of the strong, unidirectional nature of ambient
currents. In contrast, lakes and reservoirs have small ambient flows and currents, and therefore a large intake flow can
significantly alter current patterns. Tidal currents in estuaries or tidally influenced sections of rivers can carry small, passive
organisms past intakes multiple times, thereby increasing their probability of entrainment. If intake withdrawal and discharge
are in close proximity, entrained organisms released in the discharge can become re-entrained.
The magnitude of I&E in relation to intake location also depends on biological factors such as species' distributions and the
presence of critical habitats within an intake's zone of influence. Species with planktonic (free-floating) early life stages have
higher rates of entrainment because they are unable to actively avoid being drawn into the intake flow.
b. Intake design
Intake design refers to the design and configuration of various components of the intake structure, including screening
systems (trash racks, pumps, pressure washes); passive intake systems; and fish diversion and avoidance technologies
(U.S. EPA, 1976). After entering the CWIS, water must pass through a screening device before entering the power plant.
The screen is designed, at a minimum, to prevent debris from entering and clogging the condenser tubes. Screen mesh size
and velocity characteristics are two important design features of the screening system that influence the potential for
impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms that are withdrawn from the water body with the cooling water (U.S. EPA,
1976).
Approach velocity has a significant influence on the potential for impingement (Boreman. 1977). Approach velocity is the
velocity of the current in the area approaching the screen and is measured at the screen upstream of the screen face in feet per
second (fps). Approach velocity is directly related to the area of the screen and the size of the intake structure (U.S. EPA,
1976). The biological significance of approach velocity depends on species-specific characteristics such as fish swimming
A1-4
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al: Risk Assessment Framework
ability and endurance. These characteristics are a function of the size of the organism and the temperature and oxygen levels
of water in the area of the intake (U.S. EPA, 1976). The maximum velocity protecting most small fish is 0.5 fps, but lower
velocities will still impinge some fish and entrain eggs and larvae and other small organisms (Boreman, 1977).
Conventional traveling screens have been modified to improve fish survival of screen impingement and spray wash removal
(Taft, 1999). However, a review by SAIC of steam electric utilities indicated that alternative screen technologies are usually
not much more effective at reducing impingement than the conventional vertical traveling screens used by most steam electric
facilities (SAIC, 1994). An exception may be traveling screens modified with fish collection systems (e.g., Ristroph screens).
Studies of improved fish collection baskets at the Salem Generating Station showed increased survival of impinged ftsh
(Ronafalvy et al., 2000).
Passive intake systems (physical exclusion devices) screen out debris and aquatic organisms with minimal mechanical activity
and low withdrawal velocities (Taft, 1999). The most effective passive intake systems are wedge-wire screens and radial
wells (SAIC, 1994). A new technology, the filter fabric barrier system (known commercially as the Gunderboom) consists of
polyester fiber strands pressed into a water-permeable fabric mat, has shown promise in reducing entrainment of
ichthyoplankton (free-floating fish eggs and larvae) at the Lovett Generating Station on the Hudson River (Taft, 1999).
Fish diversion/avoidance systems (behavioral barriers) take advantage of natural behavioral characteristics of fish to guide
them away from an intake structure or into a bypass system (SAIC, 1994; Taft, 1999). The most effective of these
technologies are velocity caps, which divert fish away from intakes, and underwater strobe lights, which repel some species
(Taft, 1999). Velocity caps are used mostly at offshore facilities and have proven effective in reducing impingement
(e.g., California's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, SONGS).
Another important design consideration is the orientation of the intake in relation to the source waterbody (U.S. EPA, 1976).
Conventional intake designs include shoreline, offshore, and approach channel intakes. In addition, intake operation can be
modified to reduce the quantity of source water withdrawn or the timing, duration, and frequency of water withdrawal. This is
an important way to reduce entrainment. For example, larval entrainment at the San Onofre facility was reduced by 50% by
rescheduling the timing of high volume water withdrawals (SAIC, 1996a).
c. Intake capacity
Intake capacity is a measure of the volume of water withdrawn per unit time. Intake capacity can be expressed as millions of
gallons per day (MGD), or as cubic feet per second (cfs). Capacity can be measured for the facility as a whole, for all of the
intakes used by a single unit, or for the intake structure alone. In defining an intake's capacity it is important to distinguish
between the design intake flow (the maximum possible) and the actual operational intake flow.
The quantity of cooling water needed and the type of cooling system are the most important factors determining the quantity
of intake flow (U.S. EPA, 1976). Once-through cooling systems withdraw water from a natural waterbody, circulate the water
through condensers, and then discharge it back to the source waterbody. Closed-cycle cooling systems withdraw water from a
natural waterbody, circulate the water through the condensers, and then send it to a cooling tower or cooling pond before
recirculating it back through the condensers. Because cooling water is recirculated, closed-cycle systems reduce intake water
flow substantially. It is generally assumed that this will result in a comparable reduction in I&E (Goodyear, 1977b). Systems
with helper towers reduce water usage much less. Plants with helper towers can operate in once-through or closed-cycle
modes.
Circulating water intakes are used by once-through cooling systems to continuously withdraw water from the cooling water
source. The typical circulating water intake is designed to use 1.06-3.53 cfs (500-1500 gallons per minute, gpm) per
megawatt (MW) of electricity generated (U.S. EPA, 1976). Closed cycle systems use makeup water intakes to provide water
lost by evaporation, blowdown, and drifl. Although makeup quantities are only a fraction of the intake flows of once-through
systems, quantities of water withdrawn can still be significant, especially by large facilities (U.S. EPA, 1976),
If the quantity of water withdrawn is large relative to the flow of the source waterbody, a larger number of organisms is more
likely to be affected by a facility's CWIS. Thus, the proportion of the source water flow supplied to a CWIS is often used to
derive a conservative estimate of the potential for adverse impact (e.g., Goodyear, 1977b). For example, withdrawal of 5% of
the source water flow may be expected to result in a loss of 5% of planktonic organisms based on the assumption that
organisms are uniformly distributed in the vicinity of an intake. Although the assumption of uniform distribution may not
always be met, when data on actual distributions are unavailable, simple mathematical models based on this assumption
provide a conservative and easily applied method for predicting potential losses (Goodyear, 1977b),
A1-5
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A; Evaluation Methods
Chapter A\. Risk Assessment Framework
A 1-2,2 Characterization of Ecological Effects
The characterization of ecological effects involves
describing the effects resulting from the stressor(s) of
interest, linking effects to assessment endpoints, and
measuring endpoints to evaluate how effects change as a
function of changes in stressor levels (U.S. EPA, 1998b).
For EPA's § 316(b) case studies, measures of ecological
effects included measures of both primary and secondary
effects (Figure Al-3). Losses of impinged and entrained
organisms are measures of primary effects and are the most
direct measure of the effects of CWIS on aquatic organisms.
It is necessary to fully evaluate primary effects in order to
evaluate the consequences of these losses for fishery yields,
ecosystem production, or other measures of indirect or
secondary effects. The measurement endpoints evaluated for
the § 316(b) case studies are discussed in detail in Chapter
A4.
Figure AI-3: Stressor-Effects Pathway
Htiffttetfmii
sis ft
fttjtrtvrf
ftirtnwal fn
I r,»»;i» Frack
Rettintto ****'«:
Al-3 Risk Charasterization
The final step of an ecological risk assessment is the
characterization of risk (U.S. EPA, 1998b). Risk refers to
the likelihood of an undesirable ecological effect resulting
from the stressor of concern. Because of the intrinsic
variability and inevitable uncertainty associated with the
evaluation of ecological phenomena, ecological impacts
cannot be determined exactly, and thus only the probability
(or risk) of an effect can be assessed (Hilbom, 1987;
Burgman et al, 1993),
«tf«m in NtMefn
ShiBuert. iujami
Ik-Mi
\HHianiL-a1
Jweruai fco»irj*»
Risk can be defined qualitatively or quantitatively,
depending on factors such as the goals of a risk manager and
data availability (U.S. EPA, 1998b), Qualitative assessments usually involve best professional judgment. Quantitative
assessments involve calculation of the change in risk (Ginzburg et al., 1982; Ak?akaya and Ginzburg, 1991). The ecological
risk assessments for EPA's § 316(b) case studies used available facility data to quantitatively evaluate impingement and
entrainment risks to aquatic organisms.
A1-6
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter Al: Risk Assessment Framework
Figure Al-4: Examples of Species Directly Affected by CWIS
kem [)*
Non Fish
Vertebrates
i tI crrnphi. f mttes, Slider*)
\lewtc
I -mwrhead
Ui;in?i< Menhaden
(•szziini Shad
I \&\
of Forage Fish
Pink Shrimp3
CWIS Primary
Effects
Species Directly
Impinged and/or
Entrained by
CWIS*
I pi vertebrate
Animals
l&b of Specie?
of Commercial,
Recreational,
& Subsistence
Importance
American Shad
l«ue C rat
Brook Trout
Moifimals
weakfish
Kssaws?*!
Atlantic Croaker-
\Vkh* Winged Seatw*
Al-7
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Port A. Evaluation Methods Chapter A2t Everything to Know About Fish
Chapter A2- Everything You Ever
Wanted to Know about Fish
A 2 -1 Introduction
Fish are the most numerous and diverse of all vertebrate
groups. They go back more than 400 million years and
make up over half of all vertebrate species. About 24,600
species in 482 families live in the world today. Experts
think that thousands more species are yet to be found.
Fifty-eight percent of the world's fish species live-in the
sea and 41 percent live in freshwater. This number is
striking, since the volume of freshwater is only I/7,500th
that of the oceans. One percent, just over 200 species,
move between freshwater and the sea. Most of these 200
species are anudromum, i.e., they reproduce in freshwater
but mature at sea. A few species are cntudmmnits,
spawning in the sea but maturing in freshwater.
More than three quarters of marine species live on or
along the shallow continental shelves. The deep waters
beyond, which comprise most of the oceans, have only
about 2,900 fish species.
This chapter provides general information on the
distribution, anatomy, physiology, and ecology of fish
based on information in Wetzel (1983), Nelson (1994),
Ross (1995), Moyle and Cech (1996), and Helfman et al.
(1997).
A2-2 Fish Diversity and
Abundance
AZ-2.1 Biological Diversity
The behavior, physiology, and morphology of fish are very diverse. Fish eat all conceivable plant or animal food items.
Some species form large schools; others have territorial or solitary lifestyles. Fish migrate over short or long distances
iooking for food or areas to mate. Extreme examples are some species of Pacific salmon, which swim more than 1,880 miles
(3,000 km) up the Yukon River to reproduce; or the giant blue tuna, which swims throughout the world's oceans seeking
food. Some species can also walk on land or glide in the air.
Most fish are cold-blooded, but some are partially warm-blooded. Most species use gills to get oxygen, but some supplement
gill breathing by gulping air, A few will drown if they cannot breathe air. Some fish make venom, electricity, sound, or light.
Most fish release sperm and eggs into the water or the bottom with little parental care; others build nests, are live bearers, or
mouth brooders. Most fish have fixed sexual patterns, i.e., they are either male or female for their entire lives. A surprising
number switch sex at some point in their lives. The majority of species reproduce many times over a lifetime; some die after
the first mating.
A2-1
Chapter Contents
i
A2-1
Introduction
.... A2-1
A2-2
Fish Diversity and Abundance
.... A2-1
A2-2.1 Biological Diversity
.... A2-1
A2-2.2 Distribution and Zoogeography ....
A2-2
A2-2.3 Habitat Diversity
A2-3
A2-3
Influence of Fish on Aquatic Systems
.... A2-3
A2-3.! Responses by Different Aquatic
Receptors to Fish
.... A2-4
A2-3.2 Ecosystems are Complex — Fish
Prcdation and Trophic Cascades
.... A2-5
A2-3.3 Effects of Fish on the Cycling aad
Transport
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AZ: Everything to Know About Fish
Fish live from one year to over a century. Adult fish range from a 0.4 inch (10 mm) marine goby to the giant 39.4 ft (12 m)
whale shark. Fish shapes range from snake-like to ball-like, saucer-like, or torpedo-like, with many forms in-between. Some
species are sleek and graceful; others are ungainly or grotesque. Fins may be missing or are changed for use as sexual organs,
suction cups, pincers, ciaspers, lures, or to serve other functions. Fish can be highly-colored to drab grey. Finally,
approximately 50 species lack eyes.
<42-2.2 Distribution and Zoogeography
Fish live in all possible aquatic habitats on the planet. Most are found in "normal'" habitats, such as lakes, rivers, tidal rivers,
estuaries, and oceans. Within those habitats, fish are found at elevations of up to 17,000 ft (5,200 m) in Tibet, and depths of
over 3,300 ft (1,000 m) in Lake Baikal and 23,000 ft (7,000 m) below the ocean surface. Fish live in water ranging from
essentially pure freshwater with salt levels close to that of distilled water, to hyper-saline lakes with salt levels over three
times that found in the sea. Their habitats extend from caves or springs to the entire ocean, from hot soda lakes in Africa with
water temperatures up to 44 "0(111 °F) to deep-sea hydrothermal vents in the eastern Pacific, and the Antarctic ocean where
water temperatures drop to -2 °C (28 °F).
a. Freshwater
Freshwaters support most of the world's fish species, when one considers the volume of available water. This disparity arises
from greater productivity, and isolation.
~ Freshwaters are quite shallow on average. Sunlight, which stimulates photosynthesis and increases algal growth, can
reach a relatively large part of their volume. In contrast, the oceans have a mean depth of 12,100 ft (3,700 m).
Much of the water column is too deep and dark for photosynthesis and stays unproductive. The shallower
continental margins, which support most marine species, are an exception.
~ Freshwater habitats easily break up into isolated water bodies, creating many distinct "islands" of water over the
terrestrial landscape. This isolation promotes the formation of new species over time. Droughts, volcanos,
earthquakes, landslides, glaciation, and river course adjustments break up habitats. In contrast, marine habitats are
unbroken over great distances and volumes. They are less likely to form barriers, except on a trans-oceanic scale.
In North America, from the Arctic to the Mexican Plateau, freshwaters belong to a zoogeographic region called the Searctk .
This area has approximately 950 known fish species, classified into 14 families. The most species-rich families are the
Cyprinids (minnows and related species), Catostomids (suckers and related species), Iclaiurids (catfish and related species),
Percids (darters and related species), and Centrarchids (sunfish and related species).
The Nearctic region in North America is divided into two subregions, each with many "provinces":
~ The Arctic-Atlantic subregion includes the Mississippi-Missouri drainage basins, the Great Lakes-Saint Lawrence
drainage basin, the rivers that drain the Atlantic seaboard, the Hudson Bay drainage basin, the rivers that drain into
the Arctic Ocean, and the Rio Grande drainage basin.
~ The Pacific subregion contains the Pacific drainages from the Yukon river to Mexico, and the interior drainages west
of the Rocky Mountains.
b. Oceans
The distribution of marine fish in the world's oceans suggests four major marine regions, two of which are associated with
North America:
~ The Western Atlantic Region includes the temperate shores of the Atlantic seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, the
tropicaI shores of the Caribbean Sea, and the tropical and temperate shores of the Atlantic ocean along South
America. Most of the 1,200 fish species in this region live in the West Indian coral reefs.
»¦ The Eastern Pacific Region is split from the rest of the Pacific Ocean by the expanse of water between the continent
and the Pacific islands, The fish diversity is less than that of the Western Atlantic, mainly because this region has
fewer coral reefs. Several species in the Eastern Pacific Region are closely related to species in the Western Atlantic
A2-2
-------
Chapter AZt Everything to Know About Fish
Region, since these two regions were once connected until the Isthmus of Panama formed a barrier around 3 million
years ago. _
Most fish species live in coral reefs. Spccinrton drops in temperate or polar regions, even though the number of individual
fish within a species may be quite high. Many species also have relatively small ranges, resulting in a high degree of
nudum ism (i.e., confinement to relatively small geographic areas). Global distribution of marine fish is hampered by physical
barriers (e.g., land and mid-ocean barriers). Distribution of freshwater fish is limited by land and salt water barriers.
A2-2.3 Habitat Diversity
Different variables determine where fish can live and reproduce. These variables include dissolved oxygen levels, water
temperature, turbidity, salinity, currents, subsrrars type, competition, and predation. Lake-dwelling species may prefer deep,
cold, nutrient-poor lakes versus shallow, warmer, nutrient-rich lakes. Species within lakes may seek out open water areas, the
shallow or deep brnrhic zerne, or in-shore areas. A similar pattern exists in streams and rivers: some fish prefer swifter
waters, whereas others seek pools or quiet backwaters. Regional species assemblages differ between the cooler, swifter, and
clear headwaters and warmer, slower, more turbid low-land stretches.
Habitat use changes seasonally or throughout
the life of a fish: a species may have eggs and
larvae that are rxitt^U .juveniles that seek
inshore nursery habitat, and adults that live in
deep, cool, open water. Some fish are flexible
enough to thrive in different habitats: trout,
sunfish, minnows, or smallmouth bass are
equally successful in lakes and streams, as
long as conditions are acceptable. Others,
such as sculpins, are more selective, and only
tolerate a relatively narrow range of
conditions.
A2-3 Influence of Fish on
Aquatic Systems
Fish are an intrinsic part of aquatic food webs
due to their numbers and functional diversity,
and their effects as competitors, predators, and
prey. Studies show that fish have direct
effects on the structure and function of aquatic
ecosystems: their presence causes changes in
habitat use, prey population structure,
population dynamics, and nutrient flows.
Large shifts can occur when fish are removed
or eliminated.
A fish's lifecycle starts as a fertilized egg.
The egg hatches in days, weeks, or even
months, based on the species and on water
temperature. Larvae are called sac fry for the
first several days or weeks of their life until
they consume all their yolk. In their first year,
they are called yearlings or age 0+ fish. The
term juvenile is more generic and refers to
sexually immature fish. The age of first
reproduction is species-specific: small,
A2-3
Figure <42-1: Simplified Food Web Associated with the Bay
Anchovy
Blue Crab
ItvsM
I fcris
Orgaaic Detrilas aid neetLite
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
shorter-lived species such as minnows mature in one or two years. Larger or ianger-iived species such as sharks, sturgeons,
or tarpon can take ten or more years to reproduce.
Each fish plays a role in aquatic food webs based on its size, feeding habits, or habitat needs. The term refers to
species wanted by recreational fishers; these fish have high value in a benefits analysis because they are highly valued by
mankind. The term, even though not based on biology, normally refers to fish that are predators near or at the top of aquatic
food chains. Examples of game fish include pike, largemouth bass, salmon, bluefish, snook, or tarpon.
The term "forugc fish'" or "prey fish" is vague because all fish in their younger life stages are eaten by bigger fish and other
organisms. Forage fish often refers mainly to smaller species that feed on plant material or small animals (zooplankton, fish
eggs or stufrv, small crustaceans, etc.) and are themselves eaten, even as adults. Examples of forage fish include anchovies,
rainbow smelt, bluegill sun fish, and numerous minnow species. Their value to humankind in a benefits analysis is less than
that of game fish, but their biological value to the ecosystem is even more important, because without them, there wouldn't be
any game fish.
Many predators eat fish. Invertebrate predators include diving beetles, dragonfly larvae, jellyfish, sea anemones, squids, cone
shells, crabs, and others. Amphibian predators include bullfrogs and other large frog species. Reptilian predators include
water snakes, aquatic lizards, turtles, and crocodiles or alligators. Bird predators include albatrosses, auks, cormorants,
eagles, egrets, gannets, goldeneye ducks, herons, kingfishers, loons, mergansers, murres, ospreys, pelicans, petrels, penguins,
seagulls, skimmers, spoonbills, storks, terns, and many others. Finally, mammal predators include dolphins, seals, sea lions,
bears, otters, mink, and raccoons, among others.
This great predatory pressure affects fish distribution. Wading birds, for instance, feed in shallows along weedy edges or
quiet backwaters. Small fish measuring less than 1.6 inches (<4cm) are safe there, because they can hide among stems,
leaves, rocks, debris, or other structures. In contrast, larger prey fish avoid shallows and seek deeper water out of the reach of
wading birds. The deeper water is a relatively safe alternative, because the piscivorous fish that live there are usually gape
limned (i.e., limited by the size of prey fish they can swallow because their mouths can open only so wide).
<42-3.1 Responses by Different Aquatic Receptors to Fish
•J* Aquatic plants
Grazing by fish (and other organisms) affects plants, by altering plant biomass and productivity, changing the species
composition of the vegetation, and causing plants to invest energy in growth instead of reproduction to replace parts lost to
grazing. Less than 25 percent of fish species in temperate streams are true herbivores, compared with 25 percent to 100
percent in tropical streams. In temperate seas, only 5 to 15 percent of species are herbivores, compared with 30 percent to
50 percent in coral reefs.
*1' Zooplankton
Fish predation in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs can affect zooplankton by forcing changes in their daily vertical migrations.
During the day, zooplankters hide at depth, on the bottom, or in dense vegetation, to avoid being eaten by fish. The
zooplankters rise to the surface at night to feed. These migration patterns become less pronounced when the number of
planktivorous fish drops.
''' Bemhie invertebrates
lieittsuv invertebrates live on or in the substrate. The population dynamics and behaviors of the benthos can change in
response to fish predators. Studies have shown that these changes are subtler than for the more exposed zooplankton.
Aggressive benthic feeders, such as bluegill sunfish in lakes or creek chubs in streams, can depress local populations of
benthic invertebrates. More often, the presence of benthic feeders causes behavioral changes in prey to reduce predation. For
example:
, ~ insect larvae move from the surface of rocks to less desirable (but more protective) spots underneath the same rocks;
~ crayfish — a favorite bass prey — move less and hide over bottom types that match their colors and make them less
visible when bass are present;
-------
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
~ the amount of benthic imvrtthrate drift drops when fish predators are present.
<42-3.2 Ecosystems are Complex — Fish Predation and Trophic Cascades
The effects described above show that predators and prey are linked. The next sections show that fish do not live in a
biological vacuum, but interact at different levels with other organisms.
a. Trophic cascades and their effects on biological responses
~ A trophic cascadi' is a kind of "ripple effect" that occurs when the numbers of organisms at different levels within a
food web change as a result of the addition or deletion of predators or prey. For example, fewer zooplanktivores are
consumed when top predators are removed, and therefore the number of zooplanktivores rises. In turn, the increased
numbers of zooplanktivores deplete populations of zooplankton, reducing predation on phytoplankton and increasing
algal blooms. The opposite response can occur if top predators are added (for example, by stocking) or
zooplanktivores are removed {for example, by commercial fishing, disease, or I&E).
Such responses have been seen in freshwater systems, as shown by the following experiments:
~ A lake contained the trophic cascade of redear sunfish — snails — epiphytes (i.e., algae that grow on submerged
plants) - submerged plants. When the sunfish were removed from test plots in the lake, the snail population grew and
ate more epiphytes. The absence of epiphytes afforded more light for the plants, which grew better than in areas of
the lake where sunfish were present,
~ A similar situation occurred in rivers. This trophic cascade included piscivorous fish (large roach and steel head
trout) - predators of benthic invertebrates (damselfly nymphs and fish fry) — herbivorous benthos (midges) —
filamentous algae. The number of nymphs and fish fry increased when roaches and steel head trout were removed
from test plots. The predation rate on midges went up and reduced their population levels. The resulting growth of
the filamentous algae was better than that seen in areas where the roaches and trout remained.
b. Trophic Cascades and their effects on physical parameters
Big changes in physical variables can result from the presence or absence of fish predators. Lakes or reservoirs with hard
waters and high pH levels can have "whiting events" in the summer. Lake Michigan is such a lake. These events occur when
photosynthesis by phytoplankton is very high in the warm surface layers. This activity removes dissolved C02, raises the pH
of the water even further and causes calcium carbonate (CaCO-.) to precipitate (the solubility of CaCO, goes down as pH goes
up) and turns water into a milky, white color. Whiting affects zooplankton feeding, decreases primary productivity, and
causes nutrients to sink to the bottom.
In the 1970s, salmonids were stocked in Lake Michigan. By 1983, these fish ale so many zooplanktivorous alewives that
predation pressures on zooplankton fell. The lower pressure increased the number of phytoplank ton-eating cladocerans and
led to more grazing on the phytoplankton. As a result, photosynthetic activity dropped, the rise in pH during the summer was
lower than normal, little or no CaCO, precipitated out of solution, and no whiting event took place in 1983.
The absence of zooplankton-eating fish can affect temperature regimes in small lakes (<20 km2). Compared to similar lakes
with piscivorous fish, such lakes have many zooplankton. which keep the phytoplankton in check. The clarity of the water
column increases, light goes deeper, and water temperatures are higher at greater depth. Trophic cascades have been used to
control eutrophication in lakes because they can generate strong biological and physical responses. Piscivorous fish are
stocked to lower the number of zooplanktivores, enhancing the populations of herbaceous zooplankters who control the algal
blooms.
A2-3.3 Effects of Fish on the Cycling and Transport of Nutrients
Fish can affect nutrient cycling. Phosphorus (P) is generally the limiting nutrient for plants in lakes and reservoirs. Fish
excrete P as soluble reactive phosphorus (SRP) through their gills or feces. SRP is easily taken up by algae. Studies- show
that fish excretion is an important source of SRP to lakes and reservoirs and may have direct impacts on primary productivity
in those systems.
A2-5
-------
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
Fish are found in different trophic levels and feeding groups. They are highly mobile organisms that move nutrients among
compartments. In lakes, bottom feeders such as suckers, carp, or catfish stir up sediments while looking for food. Nutrients
are resuspended in the water and support algal growth. Some fish species that live in lakes make daily vertical migrations;
they transport N and P from the deeper, colder layers to the surface, and release these nutrients through excretion and
defecation in areas where most algal growth occurs.
Fish are also major nutrient reservoirs. In certain lakes, up to 90 percent of the P is tied up in bluegill sunfish. This value
shows the importance of fish to primary productivity, at least in nutrient-deficient waters: nutrients in fish are released to the
water by the gills or feces, or during fish decomposition after death. Studies in a clear, deep lake showed that P released by
roaches represented around 30 percent of the P budget of the epilimnion during summer stratification. Fish removal
experiments in lakes can also lead to drops in N and P in the water, presumably because the fish increase nutrient levels. Fish
biomass loss from emigration, fishing, or other ways (including I&E) can affect nutrient balances, hence primary productivity.
Fish tie different ecosystems together, particularly species that spend part of their lives in freshwater and part at sea. Such
fish move large amounts of nutrients when they migrate between habitats. Prolific species, such as menhaden or herring, are
prey for larger piscivorous fish in coastal areas and are major sources of nutrients. The gulf menhaden , an abundant species
in Gulf estuaries, is a case in point. The fish spawn off-shore in late winter. Their larvae enter estuaries to feed. Juveniles
grow by a factor of 80 over a nine-month period; they return to the Gulf in late fall to mature. Each year, an estimated 5 to
10 percent of the primary productivity in the salt marshes and estuaries is exported into the Gulf in the form of menhaden. Up
to 50 percent of the total N and P lost annually from these habitats does so in the form of migrating menhaden. The loss in
one habitat is a gain for another, because menhaden are a major source of prey. The carbon in these fish represents 25 to
50 percent of off-shore production in the Gulf. Other fish species with similar lifecycles all along our coastal habitats help
move energy, nutrients, and carbon across aquatic ecosystems.
In conclusion, the links and feedback loops in aquatic food webs make it difficult to predict what effects could result from the
loss of fish from such systems. The examples above remind us that every action leads to a reaction, some of which are
unpredictable but can have large effects. Thus, losses of impinged and entrained organisms from the local population can
have cascading effects throughout the food web.
AZ-4 Exterior Fish Anatomy
Most people can recognize a fish. Its external
shape, the structure and position of its mouth, the
location of fins, or the presence of spines are a few
of the characteristics that vary among species. The
long evolutionary history of fish has led to many
changes that help fish use all aquatic environment
habitats. Some basic patterns are present in the
exterior anatomy of most fish species. These are
discussed below.
The external shape of a fish reflects its lifestyle and
habitat use. For example, the lifestyles of tuna and
flounders have changed the "typical" fish body
shape. Tuna migrate and hunt throughout the
world's oceans. They have streamlined bodies with
strong muscles and a specially-shaped tail to swim
fast and catch prey. The largest members of this
group, such as the bluefin tuna, are even partially
warm-blooded to raise their endurance and speed.
Flounders, on the other hand, are flat and move less:
they spend much time on the ocean floor buried in
the sand. They catch molluscs, worms, or fish that
swim by.
^ Figure A2-2: Exterior Fish Anatomy
VPMVRSI ff« . *
Pectoral Fin
Anal fin
Abdominal
Caudal peduncle region Pelvic fin
A2-6
-------
Chapter AZ: Everything to Know About Fish
Figure A2-2 details a fish's exterior anatomy and the rest of Section A2-t describes the major elements of exterior fish
anatomy. Green underlined words refer back to the corresponding figure. The section focuses on those elements that may be
important to impingement or entrainment. A basic knowledge of scales, for example, may help in understanding survival in
fish that have lost their scales from I&E.
A2-4.1 Fish Shapes
The "typical" fish is long and cigar-like. Six general body shapes have developed around this basic design depending on the
species1 lifestyle and habitat preferences:
+ Rover-predators are streamlined, with well-spaced fins along the body to provide stability and maneuverability.
These fish are always mobile looking for prey. Examples include bluefin tuna and pelade sharks.
~ Lie-in-wait predators have long bodies, flattened heads, and large mouths. Their dtmatfins and maUkl* are
located far back on the body and their citudnijin is large. The size and place of most of their fins provide quick,
forward thrust needed to catch prey. Their colors and secretive behavior make them blend into their surroundings.
These fish lie in ambush and capture prey by quick-burst swimming. A typical example of a lie-in-wait predator is
the pike.
* Surface-oriented fish are smaller, with an upward-pointing mouth, a flattened head, large eyes, and a dorsal fin
located toward the tail. Their shape lets them capture small prey living below the water surface. Examples of
surface-oriented fish include mosquito fish and brook silversides.
~ Bottom-dwelling fish generally have a small or nonexistent air ft.g. swim/ hiaMer. They spend much time
foraging or resting on the bottom. Examples are rays and skates, which are flattened dorso-ventrally; and flounders,
which lie on their sides.
~ Deep-bodied fish are usually flattened sideways, with a body depth measuring at least one-third of their length.
Their dorsal and anal fins are long and the pn-toral jlm are placed high on the body, directly above the nelvh- fins.
Deep-bodied fish tend to have a promtsihle mouth, large eyes, and a short snout. Many have spines that increase
their ability to escape predators, but at the expense of speed. Sunfish are examples of deep-bodied fish.
~ Eel-like fish have long bodies, blunt or wedge-shaped heads, and tapered or rounded tails. Their pelvic fins are
small or missing. Such fish are well adapted to entering small crevices and holes in reefs or rock formations.
Examples include the American eel and the murray eel.
A2-4.2 Skin and Scales
Skin covers the entire body of a fish. It protects against micro-organisms and helps regulate water and salt balances. It also
has the pigment cells that give fish their colors. The outer skin layer is the epidermis: it is thin and lacks blood vessels but is
replaced as it wears off. The dermh is the inner, thicker layer, from which the scales grow. Much mucus is released by
mucus glands in the dermis. Mucus covers the fish with a protective layer; it cleans body surfaces, prevents the entry of
pathogens, helps regulate salt balances, and reduces friction.
Most fish are covered with scales. Some fish are scaleless, others are partially covered. Differences may be big even in
closely-related species; the leather carp is scale-less, the mirror carp is partly covered with scales, and the common carp is
fully covered with scales. Scale-less species generally have a tough, leathery skin to compensate.
Scales are thin, calcified plates that grow out of the dermis and protect the skin. They usually overlap like roof shingles and
are known as imhrieate settles. Another type of scale, »»«««< scutes, fit closely together like a mosaic but do not overlap;
adjacent scales may touch, or they may be separated by a small space. The scale structure also varies by fish group: sharks,
skates, and rays are covered with pfm-tmi st'ale* (or de-mat denticles), which give these fish the rough feel of sandpaper.
Higher, bony fish, such as sunfish or minnows, are covered by smoother icntfid seal-. Scale and mucus loss make fish more
vulnerable to infections.
A2-7
-------
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
Scales are colorless; color comes from cells called ctirmnafopkori'* found in the dermis. Some of these cells contain
pigments that produce the bright colors seen in fish. Others create various color hues (such as the typical "metallic"
coloration in some fish species) by scattering or reflecting light.
Mechanical injuries from impingement and entrainment can abrade the epidermis, dermis and scales, removing them. This
causes increased susceptibility to infection and osmotic stress. Freshwater fish will suffer from excessive water uptake, while
saltwater fish will lose water (Rottmann et al,, 1992). Abrasion can also cause a reduction in the lethal shear threshold of a
fish, creating a greater susceptibility to injury or mortality from the shear forces created by spatial differences in the velocity
of moving water ([22024]).
<42-4.3 Fins
Swimming is a challenge because water is not a solid material, but flows upon impact. Deep-bodied fish tend to fall over on
their side, because the water provides no support. The body of a fish also shifts sideways as it swims. Fish have developed
several strategies, including fins, to lend stability and maneuverability for swimming more efficiently through the water.
Fins are bony or vamiafjuitms ran projecting from the fish's body, and which are connected by a thin membrane. Some of
those rays are articulated and are called soft mys. Others are stiff and are known as spines. Many fish incorporate soft rays
and spines in their fins to provide flexibility and protection. Some species also have poison glands attached to the base of
hollow spines to protect against predators.
Fins have many roles: they are used to swim and maneuver but also serve as rudders, balancers, defensive weapons, feelers,
sexual structures, sucking disks, and prey or mate attractors. They have many shapes, colors, and lengths, and are found in
different locations on the body. Fins come in two varieties: paired tim and vertical (or median) fins,
a. Paired fins
Paired fins include the pertoralfins and pefr-iv fim. which are ventral fim found at the bottom of the body (compared to
dorsal fins, found on top of the body). Pectoral and pelvic fins resemble the four limbs of the higher vertebrates: the pectoral
fins are the forelimbs and are attached to the shoulders; the pelvic fins represent the hind limbs. Neither fin type plays a
major role in locomotion; they prevent the body from pitching and rolling and to help to brake forward motion.
Pectoral fim
Pectoral fins are located behind the gill openings. They provide maneuverability, but also balance the body at low swimming
speeds. Pectorals can have different shapes and functions: flying fish have large pectoral fins to help them soar in the air;
mudskippers have modified pectoral fins for crawling on land; and sea robins use the three front rays of their pectoral fins as
feelers.
~J* Pelvic fins
Pelvic fins are located on the underside of the body but vary in their placement: they may be found in front of the pectorals
(e.g., in cods, pollock, or winter flounder), below the pectorals (e.g., in largemouth bass, Atlantic croakers, or darter goby), or
in the middle of the body (e.g., in salmon, American shad, herring, or striped mullet). The pelvic fin is used to stop, hover,
maneuver, and balance. Pelvic fins can become specialized. Some species have fused pelvic fins, which form a suction disk
for clinging to rocks and coral. In male sharks, the pelvic fins form claspers, which serve as sperm cell conduits.
Either one of these fin types may be absent in fish. Eels lack pelvic fins but have fused dorsal, caudal, and anal fins (see
discussion below). Lampreys lack pectoral fins. Generally, however, pelvic fins are much more likely than pectoral fms to be
absent.
b. Vertical fins
Vertical fins are found along the centerline of the body, at the top, bottom, and back of a fish. OwMf fe. anal finv. and
cufiiiai fin* are vertical fins found on most fish. Their roles include locomotion, protection, and balance.
Dorsal fins
Dorsal fins are found on top of the body and consist of one or two (and rarely three) separate fms. They help prevent the fish
from turning over in the water. Many species incorporate stiff spines in their dorsals to protect against predators. The dorsal
fin may be followed by the adipose fin, a fleshy outgrowth with no rays, typically found in salmonids and catfish. Mackerel-
.42-8
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
like fish have small, detached fin lets consisting of a single ray behind their dorsal (and anal) fins. Other species have highly
modified dorsal fins: remoras have a sucker disk used for attaching to sharks, sea turtles, and other large marine animals.
Angler fish have a modified dorsal fin ray that bears a fleshy, moving lure used for attracting prey.
•I* Anal fin
The anal fin is found on the belly of the fish behind the vent, or anus. It is usually a single fin (rarely two) used in balance.
Many species include stiff, sharp spines to protect against predators, The anal fin is absent in rays and skates, which move
about and feed close to the bottom. (Contrary to rays and skates, which have a depressed body shape, flatfish actually lie on
their sides and have normal anal fins.) Anal fins also serve other purposes; in male mosquitofish, the anterior rays of the anal
fin have joined into a single structure used to transfer sperm to the female.
•1* Caudal flu
The caudal fin is at the back of the fish and serves mainly to aid in locomotion. Swimming behavior shapes the caudal fin.
Some rover-predators, such as tuna and marlin, have a stiff, quartermoon-shaped forked tail attached to a narrow caudal
peduncle. The deeper the fork, the more active the fish. Deep-bodied fish and most surface- and bottom-oriented fish have
rounded, square, or only slightly-forked tails. A few fish, such as sea horses, lack a caudal fin.
A2-4.4 Mouth and Dentition
The shape, size, and position of the mouth and teeth reflect the fish's habitat and diet. The mouths of bottom-feeding fish,
such as carps, suckers, or catfish, generally point downward, in extreme cases, the mouth is tucked underneath the fish, as in
rays, skates, and sturgeons. The mouth of surface-oriented fish, such as killifish. mosquitofish, and Atlantic silversides, points
upwards. Most fish, however, have a terminal mouth. Mouths can become highly specialized, with shapes ranging from
long, tube-like, probing structures to large, parrot-like beaks.
Fish do not chew their food; their teeth grab and hold prey until it can be crushed, torn apart, or positioned to be swallowed.
Predators, such as sharks, barracudas, and piranhas, have rows of highly-developed teeth. Most species have teeth that look
alike and are packed along the inner rim of the lower and upper jaw. Teeth typically point inward to prevent prey from
fleeing after capture. Some predators, including pikes and pickerels, also have teeth on their tongues, gill arches, throats, and
the roofs of their mouths. Fish that strain the water for plankton or eat plants have few well-developed teeth. Species that
crush coral or clams have fused teeth in the form of a cutting edge, crushing plates, or broad, blunt teeth arranged like
cobblestones. These species include parrot fish or skates and rays. The number of teeth in fish varies greatly and ranges from
0 to more than 10,000.
A2-5 Interior Anatomy
Section A2-5 discusses various components of the interior anatomy of a fish. Terms in this section that are green and
underlined are glossary terms that also refer to Figure A2-3 which diagrams many of the internal organs of the striped bass.
The internal anatomy of fish varies less than their external anatomy. All vertebrates share many structures, such as a central
nervous system or an internal skeleton. Other structures are unique to fish (e.g., air »r swim bladders (Figure A2-3) for
buoyancy control and internal gills for gas exchange and salt regulation). This section outlines basic features of the internal
anatomy of fish. Rather than in-depth review, this section provides a basic understanding of the structure and function of the
major organ systems in fish.
This knowledge is important because the systems discussed here may play a role during impingement or entrainment. For
example, (1) impinged fish may suffocate if they cannot pass water over their gills due to high water pressures;
(2) anadromous fish adjusting to different salt levels in the water during migrations may be more vulnerable than resident
species to the stresses of impingement; and (3) the air or swim bladder of larval fish may be damaged when they undergo
rapid pressure changes within the cooling system.
A2-9
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter AZ: Everything to Know About Fish
Figure A2-3; Interior Fish Anatomy
\
Source; EPA, based on a drawing hy Jack J. Kurt? National Geographic Society. 1969
1. Olfactory System
1 .a Nasal Capsule
1 ,b Olfactory Nerve
2. Nervous System
2.a Brain
2.b Spinal Column
2.c Lateral Line
3. Skeletal System
3.a Cranium/Skull
3.b Vertebra/Backbone
3.c Neural Spines
3.d I" Dorsal Fin Spines &
Pterygiophore
3,e 2nd Dorsal Fin Spines &
Pterygiophore
3,f Anal Fin Spines and Support
4. Muscle Segment (myomere)
5. Digestive System
5.a Mouth
5,b Tongue
5.c Esophagus
S.d Liver
S.e Gall Bladder
5.f Stomach
5.g Pyloric Caeca
5.h Intestines
S.i Anus
6. Respiratory System
6,a Buccal Cavity
6.b Gill Rakers
6.c Gill Arches
6.d Branchial Cavity
7, Circulatory / Cardiovascular
System
7 .a Ventral Aorta
7.b Heart
7.c Spleen
8, Air Bladder
9. Reproductive System
9.a Ovary
10. Excretory System
10.a Kidney
lO.b Bladder
lO.c Urinary Duct/Urogenital
Opening
A2-5.1 Skeletal System
The interna] skeleton holds together and protects the soft, internal organs, helps maintain the proper body shape, and serves as
an attachment or leverage point for striated (i.e., skeletal)
a. Types of skeletons
Fish belong to three broad groups, based on skeletal differences:
A2-10
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Port A; Evaluation Methods Chapter A2 Everything to Know About Fish
*~* Agnatham
Aftnathans, the jawiess fish, are the most primitive of all fish. Most species became extinct 350 million years ago, except for
the eel-like hagfish and lampreys. Ilagfish live in the ocean and scavenge dead fish or other vertebrates. Lampreys live both
in marine and freshwater environments; some species parasitize other fish. Agnathans lack jaws; they also lack a true
vertebral column, ribs, scales, paired appendages, and other skeletal features typically found in more modem fish. Instead of
true hollow vmrtw (Figure A2-3), hagfish and lampreys have a flexible noim hord, a long, cartilaginous rod that acts like a
primitive backbone,
Choitdrichthycs
Vtumdrichihyes, the cenitaginms fish, include sharks, rays, skates, and the less familiar but striking Chimaeras. These fish
do not have true bone; instead, their skeletons are made of cartilage combining hardness and elasticity. Unlike bone, cartilage
usually does not mineralize (there are exceptions), but instead consists of a flexible matrix made of fibers meshed in a protein-
like material. Typical Chondrichthyes are also distinct from bony fish for other reasons, including: (1) lack of a air/swim
bladder; (2) presence of a solid braincase instead of one with many pieces of bone; (3) individual external gill openings
instead of a single combined opening; (4) primitive fin structure; and (5) tooth-like scales.
~J* Ostekhthym
OsMchthycs, the bony fish, include all other living fish species. The Osteichthyes have a bony skeleton; notable exceptions
include primitive bony fish, such as sturgeons or paddlefish, which have only partly ossifi/'d skeletons. Bony fish have gills in
a common chamber covered by a movable bony mtm itiiiin (see Figure A2-2), and fins supported by bony rays radiating from
the fin base. They usually have a gas bladder to provide buoyancy. The wie»sts are the most successful bony fish; most
aquarium, commercial, and recreational species belong to this group. Teleosts comprise more than 30,000 species and
subspecies.
b. Major components
The major components of the internal skeleton in modern fish include the following:
~ The backbone replaces the notochord of the jawiess fish and consists of interlocking hoilow vertebrae that run from
the back of the sksjii (Figure A2-3) to the tail. The winM <¦'££$ (Figure A2-3), which starts in the brain and runs
through the backbone, is also protected by it. The number of vertebrae range from 16 to more than 400, depending
on the fish species. Each vertebra has an upward-projecting spine called the tji'sirtii spii>e (Figure A2-3). The
vertebrae found behind the abdominal cavity may also have one or more downward-pointing spines (the haemal
spines).
» The skull is a complex structure in the head region. Its major part is the r rjatii-.m (Figure A2-3), or braincase, which
protects the brain and several sense organs. The skull is also an attachment point for the lower jaw, the backbone,
and the shoulder and pelvic girdle*. In sharks and related fish, the skull does not have sutures. The skull of bony
fish consists of many fused bones.
~ The ribs or spines (Figure A2-3) are loosely attached to the vertebrae and surround the fish's abdominal cavity.
They are small projections in cartilaginous fish, but are fairly well-developed in bony fish. Unlike in terrestrial
vertebrates, fish ribs play no part in breathing. They instead transmit muscle contractions during swimming and
frame the body. Fish also lack a breastbone to create a rigid rib cage.
~ The Jin jptnrs (Figure A2-3) are spine-like bones not directly connected to the rest of the skeleton. They anchor
both dorsal and ventral fins into the muscles through connecting structure called pierXS-i''PPJLrl'•> that reach toward or
may intertwine with both the neural and haemal spines of the vertebrae.
<42-5.2 Muscle System
Muscles comprise one-third to one-half of the mass of an average fish. The activity of the nervous system has little
consequence except through its action on muscles, which are used both to swim and to aid digestion, nutrition, secretion, and
circulation. Muscles exert their force by contracting. If a muscle is attached to different places on the skeleton, the
contraction creates a pull, resulting in movement. Two major types of vertebrate muscle tissue exist:
A2-II
-------
Chapter A2- Everything to Know About Fish
~ Smooth muscle, the simpler of the two, is under involuntary control. It is found in the lining of the digestive tract,
where it provides the slow contractions needed to advance food. It is also found in the ducts of glands connected to
the gut and the bladder, as well as in blood vessels, genital organs, and other locations (the heart consists of highly
modified smooth muscle). Although it plays a major role in the well-being of fish, smooth muscle is not involved in
swimming.
*• Striated muscle (Figure A2-3), forming the "flesh" of the fish, is under rapid, voluntary control. These muscles are
large, well-formed structures; their main role is in swimming. Striated muscles are also used to move eyes, jaws,
fins, and gill covers.
The biggest muscle mass in fish is the axial musculature, which runs from head to tail on both sides of the body. It is
arranged in repeating, W-shaped, overlapping segments called myomeres. A tough membrane connects each myomere to its
neighbor. An additional membrane, called the hon-tmml septum, divides the myomeres into a dorsal and ventral half.
The fish creates a wave along its flanks by contracting opposite muscle segment* (Figure A2-3). The wave gains speed as it
travels backwards and causes the tail to thrust against the resistance of the water, thereby moving the fish forward. There is
little specialization in the axial musculature. One exception are the muscles used for moving the pectoral and pelvic fins.
Each fin has two opposing muscles: one extends the fin, the other depresses it.
A2-5.3 Major Sense Organs
The sense organs in fish have many uses, including orienting the animals and detecting electrical, mechanical, chemical,
thermal, and electromagnetic signals from their surroundings. The nervous system is split into two main parts: the c entra!
nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS). The CNS includes the brain and spinal cord. The PNS
consists of paired nerves that run outward from the CNS and connect to other areas in the body. One function of the nervous
system is to tie reeeptor cells, such as the eyes or lateral line, to effector cells, such as the skeletal muscles. Receptor cells
detect outside signals; effector cells create a response. Another part, the viscera! nerrous system, serves the gut, circulatory
system, glands, and other internal organs.
This section discusses the structure and function of the organs tied to olfaction, taste, equilibrium/hearing, vision, and the
lateral line.
a. Olfaction
Many fish have a keen sense of smell. Certain shark species can detect the odor of blood over great distances in the ocean.
The alfaetmy epithelium is found at the bottom of specialized holes called nasal pits located in the snout. Unlike the noses
of terrestrial vertebrates, the pits do not open into the burnt f earitr (Figure A2-3). Each olfactory celt connects to the
olfactory bulh of the brain via nerves. The olfactory cells project rod-like extensions into the nasal pit. These extensions
detect the odor molecules. Little is known about the exact processes that generate the sense of smell in fish.
b. Taste
The taste cells are grouped in clusters called taste buds. Each cluster has 30 to 40 taste cells connected to nerve fibers. Taste
buds are usually found in small depressions. Each sensory cell has a hair-like projection, which may extend to the surface of
the epithelium via the taste pore and detect taste. Fish can detect sourness, saltiness, bitterness, and/or sweetness.
All fish do not experience taste in the same way. Most have taste buds in their mouth and pharynx, and can therefore taste to
one degree or another. Some, like the bullhead catfish, also have tastebuds over their entire body surface. Others, such as
sturgeons and carp, have taste buds on oral feelers to facilitate finding food in mud or murky waters. Still others have taste
buds covering their heads.
c. Equilibrium and hearing
Fish do not have the features of hearing found in terrestrial vertebrates (i.e., ear lobes, ear canals, ear drums, ear ossicles).
The basic ear structure in fish and all higher vertebrates is the mncv eat, a paired sensory organ found in the skull. This
structure originally evolved as an organ of equilibrium and is still used as such by all terrestrial and aquatic vertebrates. The
ability to hear evolved later.
A2-12
-------
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
The inner ear in fish consists of sacs and canals thai form a closed system containing a liquid called an endoiymph. Some of
the internal surfaces of the sacs and canals are lined by a tissue called the utecniu. The sensory cells that make up the macula
resemble the neuromasts found in the lateral line system discussed below. These cells connect to auditory nerves in the brain.
Calcium carbonate crystals are deposited on top of the macula and combine to form ear stones called omiiths. Depending on
the tilt of the head, the acceleration, or the rate of turning, the otoliths contact the sensory cells in different ways, causing
specific patterns of nerve firings. The CNS interprets these signals and provides data to the fish on its orientation and
movement through space.
The inner ear also captures sound waves. Sound waves carry farther in water than in air and are therefore a source of
information to fish. Whereas cartilaginous fish (e.g., sharks, ray, skates) respond only to very low vibrations, most bony fish
hear a range of sounds. Fish do not have external hearing structures; sound is believed to pass through the skull into the inner
ear. The vibrations cause the otoliths to shake, generating the effect of hearing.
Sound must generate head vibrations for fish to hear. Some fish have "hearing aids" to better capture sounds. These aids rely
on the gas in air/swim bladders to amplify the vibrations of sound in water. The swim bladder in herrings has an extension
that reaches forward and carries vibrations directly to the inner ear. Catfish and carp use a different method: bony processes
of the anterior vertebrae form a chain called the H eherian ossicle*, which connect the swim bladder to the head region.
These modifications show the importance of sound to fish.
d. Vision
The basic anatomy of fish eyes resembles that of other vertebrates. The cornea is the outermost layer, through which light
enters the eyeball. The cornea is followed by a tens, which serves to bend and focus the light rays on the retina in the back of
the eye. Muscles attached to the lens allow fish to focus on nearby or far away objects. < h-uhir fluid fills the interior of the
eye and the space between the cornea and lens. Fish have evolved a tapetum to let the eye catch more light. This is a highly
reflective tissue that mirrors the light back onto the eye. Unlike terrestrial vertebrates, fish lack a pupil to control the intensity
of the incoming light.
The retina in fish is composed of reds and cones, which are light-gathering cells containing visual pigments. Rods have more
pigments than cones and are more sensitive to dim light. Cones work only at higher light levels and are usually missing in fish
that live in low-light habitats, such as the deep sea. Different pigments have distinct molecular structures and are sensitive to
specific wavelengths. When light hits visual pigments, a chemical reaction is started that results in nerve impulses. These are
carried by the optic nerve to the brain for processing.
Fish have adapted to deal with the unique optics of water and the different light conditions that exist in aquatic environments.
~J* Refraction
Refraction refers to the bending of light as it passes from one medium to another, sueh as from air to water or from water to
tissue. The cornea and ocular fluids of fish do not refract light. Fish lenses are good at bending light, and make images free
of aberrations or distortions by changing the refractive properties of the tissues within the lens. Light passing through the lens
follows curved paths to form sharp images on the retina.
This arrangement is a problem when fish need to focus on nearby or far away objects. Mammals focus by changing the
curvature of the lens. Fish cannot do that. Most fish move the lens toward or away from the retina along the optical axis. As
a general rule, freshwater species accommodate less than do marine species; useful vision is more limited in the more turbid
waters of lakes and rivers, compared to ocean water.
*~* I.it; hi absorption
Water's light absorption properties change with depth. Longer wavelengths (reds and greens) are quickly removed at the
surface; only shorter wavelengths (blues) go farther down. Deep water fish have visual pigments sensitive to blue light. A
change in spectral quality with depth affects fish that move between the seas and inland waters. Adult salmon in the ocean,
for example, have rod pigments that best absorb in blue end of the spectrum. As the fish migrate into shallower freshwater,
their pigments are gradually replaced by new ones that are more sensitive to the redder end of the spectrum.
.42-13
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A. Evaluation Methods
* Color vision
Fish can see colors if they live in relatively shallow or clear water,
brilliant colors.
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
Consequently, numerous tropical fish species display
e. Lateral line
Most fish have a a{mereg^litif"(¥ipxre A2-3) running along their flanks from head to tail. The lateral line provides spatial and
temporal information. It is so sensitive that blinded fish can locate fish or other nearby objects. A fish can also feel the
motion of its own body relative to the surrounding water; as it approaches an object, the pressure waves around the fish's
body are slightly distorted. The lateral line detects these changes and enables the fish to swerve. Low frequency sound waves
generate pressure waves in the water column, which are also detected by the lateral line.
The lateral line can be single, double, or forked, consisting of thousands of tiny sensory organs that lie on the skin surface
within small pits. These sensory organs connect to the brain. At the bottom of each pit is a neurmtmst, a small structure that
detects vibrations and water movement around the fish. The neuromast consists of sensory hairs enclosed in a gel-filled
capsule that protrudes into the water. The neuromasts send out electrical impulses to the brain. The enclosed sensory hairs
bend when a pressure wave distorts the gelatinous caps. This movement either increases or decreases the frequency of nerve
impulses depending on the bending. It is this change in frequency which is sensed by the fish.
A2-5.4 Circulatory System
The circulatory system transports and distributes various substances including oxygen, nutrients, salts, hormones, or vitamins
to cells throughout the body; and removes waste products such as carbon dioxide, nitrogenous wastes, excess salt, or
metabolic water. The circulatory system also maintains proper physiological conditions within the body, fights diseases, heals
wounds, and serves as an accessory to the nervous system through the endocrine (i.e., hormone) system.
The major parts of the circulatory system are the blood and the circulatory vessels.
o. Blood
Blood fills the circulatory system vessels. Blood's liquid "matrix," called Nooa plasma, contains several cell types:
~ Red hiooil cells are packed with hemoglobin, which contains iron atoms to carry oxygen to the cells and carbon
dioxide away from the cells.
~ White Mood ceils fight infections and other diseases.
~ Thrombocytes help the blood to clot.
The life span of blood cells ranges from hours to months, depending on cell type. The body must therefore make new cells to
replace old ones. Blood-forming tissue in fish is found in one or more of the: spleen (Figure A2-2), kideeys (Figure A2-3),
gonads (sex organs), ilyer (Figure A2-3), and heart (Figure A2-3 and Figure A2-4). Bone marrow does not form blood cells
in fish.
b. Circulatory vessels
The circulatory system includes the heart, arteries and veins, capillaries, and the fympftadrs.
The heart of a typical fish, a modified tube with four sequential chambers, is found close to the gills. Oxygen-poor blood
enters the sinus ventmn, and is pumped through the aerium and iwtvielv into the huihus (Figure A2-3) or etmus arteriosus.
From there, it is pumped out of the heart, into the ventral aam. The ventricle does most of the pumping. One-way valves
prevent blood from flowing backward. The ventral aorta runs toward the gills and branches into parallel aortic arches; that
run through each gill. After the blood is re-oxygenated, the blood vessels rejoin into one large dorsal aorta, which carries the
blood to the organs.
A2-J4
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
^ Figure A2-4: Sill and Heart Anatomy
m
T«Pharyno«al
T#*h
A-A^oh
V«irttr*l Aort»
Bulbu* >
Arteriosus
jH«art in blue}
Arteries carry higher-pressure, oxygen-rich blood. When they reach their target organs, the arteries split into smaller branches
called wtvrioics. These enter the organ and continue to divide until they become so narrow that red blood cells can pass
through them only single-file. At this point, the blood vessels are called cupiihiries. The microscopic capillaries are the most
important part of the circulatory system. Whereas blood is simply carried through the arteries and veins, blood in the
capillaries releases oxygen and nourishment to the cells and picks up carbon dioxide and other wastes. The capillaries rejoin
and form larger venules. The venules merge into veins, which carry the oxygen-poor blood out of the organs and back to the
heart. The venous system is at a lower pressure than the arterial system because pressure is lost as blood passes through the
capillaries.
Bony fish also have a lymphatic system, a network of vessels running parallel to the venous system, returning excess fluids
from the tissues to the heart. The lymphatics are not connected to the arterial blood supply, but instead arise from their own
dead-end capillaries within the tissues. The excess fluid is captured as lymph and returned to the venous system.
A2-5.5 Respiratory System
Fish are aerahk, i.e., they must breathe oxygen. Most fish obtain their oxygen from the water. Extracting oxygen from water
is difficult because (1) water is a thousand times denser and 50 times more viscous (at 68 'F [20 °C]) than air; (2) when
saturated, water contains only 3 percent of the oxygen found in an equal volume of air; and (3) oxygen solubility in water
decreases with increasing temperature. Fish expend much energy moving water over their gills; they have evolved efficient
gills to maximize oxygen uptake while minimizing the cost of breathing.
a. Basic gill anatomy
Gills are similar among groups of fish. The paired gills are internal and located in the phun-ngeul rt^ion, specifically the
branchial cavity. They are supported by flexible rods called tf »7/ The number of gill bars ranges from four to six. On
the side facing the pharynx, the gill bars carry stiff strainers called gift (Figure A2-3 and Figure A2-4), Though not
used in breathing, some species use gill rakers to strain out food particles. A typical gill bar has two large giiijlhtrtHttn
(Figure A2-3 and Figure A2-4), which point outward (i.e., away from the pharynx and into the branchial cavity). Each gill
filament supports many gifi lamethn-, where the gases are exchanged.
,42-15
-------
Chapter A2: Everything to Know About Fish
An average of 20 lamellae are found on each ram of gill filament. Lamellae are covered by tissue one cell layer thick to
optimize gas exchange. Those of adjacent gill filaments usually touch or mesh together, which favors contact between the
gills and water. The gill surface area varies by a factor of 10 (on a per weight basis) and depends on the animal's activity.
Active swimmers like white shark or tuna have larger gill surface areas than do sedentary fish like sunfish or carp. A fish
such as a 44-pound sea bass has a respiratory surface of about 60 ft2.
b. Gas exchange
When the fish opens its mouth to breathe, the branchial cavity is closed by a stiff operculum (in bony fish) or a series of flap-
like 0i septa (in cartilaginous fish) to prevent oxygen-depleted water from re-entering the branchial cavity. The operculum
and septa also help keep a negative pressure in the buccal cavity when the mouth opens, forcing water to rush in. As the fish
closes its mouth, the buccal cavity becomes smaller and water is forced backward over the gills.
Breathing water has drawbacks, partly due to its low oxygen content. Gills increase oxygen uptake using a cmtntcrvurrmt
exchange mechanism. The gill lamellae face the incoming water, which always moves from the buccal cavity to the branchial
cavity. Blood flows through the lamellae in the opposite direction. When blood first enters the lamellae, it encounters water
low in oxygen (the "upstream" gill lamellae have already removed some oxygen). The blood entering the lamellae contains
even less oxygen. This difference lets the small amount of oxygen still present in the water move into the blood. The oxygen
content of blood flowing into the incoming water goes up, but so does that of the ever "fresher" water. A nonstop oxygen
flow in favor of the blood all along the lamellae results. Oxygen keeps moving into the bloodstream until the blood leaves the
lamella. Through this process, fish remove up to 80 percent of the oxygen from the water. Carbon dioxide moves in the
opposite direction based on the same principle.
c. Other gill functions
The central role of gills is to take up oxygen and release carbon dioxide. Gills also have other functions due to their large
surface area and close contact with water,
*** Osmoregulation
Gills, together with kidneys, are used in osmoregulation: the
control of salt and water balances. The internal fluids of
freshwater fish are "saltier" than the surrounding water. When
blood moves through the gills, salt diffuses from the blood into
the water, whereas water tends to move into the body. The
kidneys release the extra water as dilute urine to keep a proper
internal water balance. Freshwater fish also drink little or no
water. Any salt loss is made up by chloride cell* located in gill
filaments and lamellae. These cells move salts from the water
into the blood to make up for the loss. Mucus covers the gills,
which protects them from injuries but helps in osmoregulation.
This situation reverses in marine bony fish: their internal fluids
are less "salty" than their surroundings: water in the blood
moves out of the body, but salts move in. These fish drink
freely to make up for water loss. Drinking sea water brings
salts into the body; these salts are excreted by both the gill
chloride cells and the kidneys.
Cartilaginous fish (and some primitive bony fish) also live in salt water but maintain their water balance differently. These
fish keep high levels of urea in their blood, which causes their internal fluids to be saltier than seawater. Some water enters
the gills, and the kidneys produce moderate amounts of urine. These fish need little or no additional water and drink
infrequently.
*'* Heat exchange
Most fish are cold-blooded: their body temperature equals that of the water. Internal heat created by muscle activity is lost to
the environment when the fish's blood passes through the gills to extract oxygen-from water. Pelagic fish, such as certain tuna
and sharks, are exceptions. These fish have countercurrent heat exchangers in their muscles to keep much of the heat inside
A2-16
¦I* Osmoregulation is a vital physiological need for
fish and other aquatic organisms. This is
particularly true for anadromous fish, which move
from the ocean into freshwater habitats to spawn,
and whose offspring migrate back into the ocean to
mature. These species undergo profound
physiological changes over relatively short periods
of time to adapt to and survive in drastically
different osmotic environments. Some species may
be less able to survive physical shock or extreme
stress during this transitional period, and could
therefore be more susceptible to mortality from
impingement.
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AZ\ Everything to Know About Fish
and prevent it from being lost through the gills. Their body temperatures can be up to 20-25 "F (-6.7 to -3.9*C) higher than
that of the surrounding water,
* Excretion
Freshwater and marine bony fish release their nitrogenous wastes through their gills, Blood moves the waste, in the form of
urea, to the gills. There, urea changes into toxic ammonia, which quickly diffuses into the water. Cartilaginous fish
{i.e., Chondrichthyes) keep high levels of urea in their blood and lose very little of it through their gills to help in
osmoregulation.
*!• Predation
Gills have evolved to catch prey in plankton feeders, which swim with their mouths open. These fish have numerous, Fine,
and long gill rakers that strain plankton. Examples include the paddlefish (Polyodon spaihula), the gizzard shad, and the
Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus).
A2-5.6 Air/Swim Bladder
Buoyancy is the tendency of an object to float or rise in water, and depends on the object's density versus that of water. An
aquatic organism with a density like water is weightless, neither rising or sinking. Less effort is needed to keep it from
sinking or to move about. Most fish regulate their density to reach neutral buoyancy.
a. Strategies to increase buoyancy
Fat is less dense than water. One way to reduce body density, and increase buoyancy, is to increase body fat. About one-third
of a fish's body weight needs to be fat to make the fish weightless in seawater. Several shark species increase buoyancy in this
manner: they have huge livers full of squalen?, a fatty substance that provides buoyancy, being much less dense than
seawater. Buoyancy is also attained by storing gases within the body. Many bony fish have an air/swim bladder for this
purpose.
The amount of body volume that must be in the form of gas to achieve "weightlessness" depends on the saltiness of the water.
Freshwater contains less salt than seawater; it is therefore less dense and provides less buoyancy. Swim bladders in
freshwater fish range from 7 to 11 percent of body volume, while those of marine fish range from 4 to 6 percent of body
volume.
b. Structure and function
Fish would be neutrally buoyant at only one depth, if air/swim bladders had a fixed amount of gas. Water pressure increases
as water depth increases. When a fish swims to a lower depth, the increased pressure compresses the gas in the swim bladder,
lowering its volume and increasing the density of the fish. The fish must swim more actively to compensate for this to prevent
its denser body from sinking further. Water pressure decreases expanding the volume of gas in the swim bladder, when a fish
swims toward the surface. Without the ability to change the amount of air in the swim bladder, a fish becomes less dense and
rises to the surface like a cork.
The volume of gas in an air/swim bladder, and hence its pressure, needs adjusting as a fish changes depths. Most fish have an
air/swim bladder that is isolated from the outside of the body and air pressure within the bladder varies when gas moves from
the bladder to nearby blood vessels and back again. In some species, such as carp, a pneumatic dm-! joins the air/swim
bladder with the <'sopb.Wl*- This connection acts as a " valve" to release extra gas as the fish swims toward the surface, or to
take up gas by gulping air at the surface before swimming toward the bottom.
It is simple to remove gas from an expanding air/swim bladder: the pressure forces the gas into the surrounding blood
capillaries, which carry it away. Filling up a bladder is more difficult because it is done against the high pressures already in
the bladder.
In most bony fish (i.e., Osteichthyes), gas enter the air/swim bladder through the red hedy. The name comes from a structure
known as the >-cw minthit,- (the "marvelous net"), a dense bundle of capillaries arranged side by side in countercurrent
fashion. Blood leaving the area carries gases at the same pressure found in the air/swim bladder. The gas pressure of blood
coming into the area is much lower, similar to that in the surrounding water. Gases move from the outgoing blood to the
incoming blood, not unlike the gas exchange process in the gills. The red body boosts the process by releasing compounds
A2-17
-------
Chapter A 2: Everything to Know About Fish
that raise the incoming blood's oxygen level. When the gas pressure in the red body exceeds that within the swim bladder,
gas moves into the latter. Gas uptake and release is not immediate; swim bladders can burst when fish caught at great depth
come to the surface too fast.
c. Effect of entrainment on the swim bladder
Changes in pressure can have a dramatic and often lethal effect on fish with swim bladders. Cooling water systems contain
both positive and negative pressure differentials. A large positive pressure change will cause the swim bladder to implode.
The effects of negative pressure changes appear to be more damaging. Negative pressure changes can cause the swim bladder
to explode if the pressure across the membrane cannot be equalized fast enough. Pressure effects may be the leading cause of
mortality in larvae of bluegill, carp, and gizzard shad. Gas disease may also result from a negative pressure change. Gas
becomes more soluble in a negative pressure system, and following the release of pressure, hemorrhaging of blood vessel
walls may occur around the eyes, gills, fins, and kidneys.
A2-5.7 Digestive System
The digestive system processes ingested food to meet the energy needs of fish.
The digestive system of fish has four major functions:
~ Transportation: Swallowed food moves through the various gut sections for handling. Solid wastes must be
removed at the end.
~ Physical treatment: Food must be reduced in size by muscular action before it can broken down by digestive
chemicals. Fluids are added to tum the food into a soft, pasty pulp.
*¦ Chemical treatment: Food is turned into simpler compounds in the "digestive" phase.
~ Absorption: The products of digestion are absorbed through the intestinal wall and either distributed as fuel or
stored for later use.
The digestive system starts at the mouth (Figure A2-3), which captures prey. Food is passed through the buccal cavity into
the muscular pharynx, where it is swallowed into the tube-like esophagi's (Figure A2-3). The esophagus uses smooth muscle
to transport food to the stmnttch (Figure A2-3) (note that some fish such as chimaera. lungfish, and certain teleosts do not
have a stomach; the esophagus connects directly to the (Figure A2-3)). In many fish, a muscular sphincter exists
where the esophagus meets the stomach. The stomach, when present, can be either a "U"- or "V"-shaped tube or a straight,
cigar-shaped organ. Its internal wall is deeply folded and rich with mucus-secreting glands. Other glands release digestive
acids, and enzymes such as pepsin and lipases, to break down protein and fats. At the end of the stomach, many bony fish
have extensions called mioric can-u (Figure A2-3), which may help digest and absorb food.
The pancreas is a major source of digestive enzymes, that form an "intestinal juice" to break down fats, proteins, and
carbohydrates into simpler molecules. The intestine has glands which produce more digestive enzymes, or mucus to lubricate
food passage. Intestinal contractions move the food along. The inner lining of the intestine is deeply folded to increase the
surface area for absorption. All Chondrichthyes and some primitive bony fish have an intestinal spiral valve, which looks like
an auger enclosed in a tube. This valve increases the surface area of the gut because the food must twist through the intestine
instead of moving straight through. The length of the intestine in bony fish varies: herbivores have long, coiled intestines, but
carnivores have short, straight intestines. After digestion is complete, the wastes pass through the rectum and are excreted via
the uniis (Figure A2-3).
The jiwr (Figure A2-3) is not directly tied to digestion but is associated with it. This organ produces bile and bile salts,
which help pancreatic enzymes split and absorb fats. Bile collects in the gqfl Madder (Figure A2-3) before it enters the
intestine. The liver is a major storage organ. Blood leaving the intestines passes through the liver; fats, amino acids (building
blocks for protein), and carbohydrates (simple sugars) are removed and stored there. The simple sugars are stored as
glycane.it and released to the blood when a burst of energy is needed.
A2-I8
-------
Chapter A3: Aquatic Organisms
Chapter A3: Aquatic Organisms
Other than Fish that are Vulnerable
to CWIS
Introduction
Chapter A2 focused specifically on Fish species. Fish are
of particular concern in the context of
§ 316(b) because of their importance in aquatic food webs
and their commercial and recreational value. However,
numerous others kinds of aquatic organisms are vulnerable
to cooling water intake structures (CWISs), including
diverse planktonic organisms, macroinvertebrates such as
crabs and shrimp, and aquatic vertebrates such as sea
turtles. These other organisms are discussed briefly in this
chapter based on information compiled for EPA's § 316(b)
rulemaking activities (SAIC, 1995).
A3-I Plankton
Plankton includes microscopic organisms, plant or animal, that are suspended in the water column and are neutrally buoyant.
Because of their physical characteristics, most planktonic organisms are incapable of sustained mobility against the flow of
water. Consequently, plankton drift passively in prevailing currents and have limited ability to avoid CWIS.
A3-1.1 Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton are free-floating plants, usually microscopic algae, which are primary producers in many aquatic environments.
Primary productivity can be reduced by passage of phytoplankton through CWIS, especially during summer. In warm
climates, a greater portion of the year may be affected. Some plants in lower latitudes may decrease primary productivity to
some extent throughout the year.
Losses of phytoplankton rarely occur beyond the immediate vicinity of the CWIS. Possible exceptions include areas where
mixing within non-entrained water is limited or slow, such as in enclosed bays or waters where substantial portions of water
are withdrawn for cooling. In these cases, the effects of entrainment on algal primary productivity and biomass may persist
and be apparent beyond the vicinity of CWIS,
A3-1.2 Zooplankton
Zooplankton are free-floating planktonic animals. Most zooplankton species have relatively short population regeneration
times (from days to weeks), and therefore zooplankton populations are able to recover from entrainment losses relatively
rapidly.
f — sszs*
Chapter Contents
A3-I Plankton A3-1
A3-1.1 Phytoplankton A3-I
A3-1.2 Zooplankton A3-1
A3-1,3 Ichthyopknkton A 3-2
A3-2 Macroirvcrtebraies ...v. A3-2
A3-3 Sea Turtles und Other Vertebrate Species A3-3
A3-4 : Conclusions .. A3-4
•¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦I
A3-]
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter *3: Aquatic Organisms
Source: USGS, 2001 a
A3 -1.3 Ichthyoplankton
Ichthyoplankton includes egg and larval stages offish species. When egg and larval stages are pelagic, vulnerability to
entrainment is relatively high. In contrast, eggs that are demersal and attach to plants or sediments are rarely entrained.
A3-2 Macroinvertebrates
Macroinvertebrates are invertebrate organisms that are large enough to be seen with the naked eye. Macroin vertebrates
include many familiar crustaceans, such as lobsters, crayfish, crabs, shrimp, and prawns. Such organisms live in sediments,
the surface of sediments, hard surfaces (e.g., rock pilings), or the water column itself. It is not uncommon for
macroinvertebrate species to use different habitats at different parts of their life cycle. Macroinvertebrates such as shrimps are
quite mobile and capable of moving throughout the water column in large schools, increasing their susceptibility to I&E. On
the other hand, crabs and lobsters live on the bottom and typically do not swim in the water column. However, early life
stages of these species are frequently planktonic.
Comparatively few studies have been devoted to CWIS effects on macroinvertebrates. Available information suggests that
macroinvertebrates with hard exoskeletons (e.g., blue crab) have relatively high survival rates following impingement.
However, molting individuals are often found dead in impingement samples. Sessile adults of species such as clams and
oysters are not typically entrained. However, because such species are often broadcast spawners with planktonic egg and
larval stages, population abundance can be reduced by CWIS, In addition, because many macroinvertebrates serve as
important prey items for many freshwater and marine fishes, declines as a result of CWIS can adversely affect aquatic food
webs.
Source: NOAA, 2002b.
A3-2
-------
Chapter A3: Aquatic Organisms
Source: NOAA, 2002c.
A3-3 sea Turtles and Other Vertebrate Species
CWIS effects on vertebrates in aquatic environments are of greatest concern for sea turtles, including several species that are
currently state- or federally-listed as threatened or endangered. Sea turtles, seals, and other aquatic vertebrates can die if they
are drawn into intakes or are impinged on intake screens.
Source: NMFS, 200 le
A3-3
-------
Chapter A3: Aquatic Organisms
A3-4 Conclusions
Although most I&E studies focus on fish species, it is important to bear in mind that many other kinds of aquatic organisms
are vulnerable to I&E, either during early development or throughout their life cycle, depending on factors such as size,
swimming ability, reproductive strategy, and other life history characteristics.
It is also important to note that in addition to direct harm from I&E, most aquatic organisms are also susceptible to indirect
impacts as a result of the impingement or entrainment of prey items. Unfortunately, few studies consider how CW1S impacts
may disrupt aquatic food webs (however, see Summers, 1989),
in addition, although indirect effects on fish species whose prey are impinged or entrained are generally acknowledged, there
has been little consideration of indirect effects of CWIS on non-fish species. In an effort to address this knowledge gap,
Chapter A4 discusses CWIS effects on bird species.
.43-4
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4 Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS
Chapter A4: Direct and Indirect
Effects of CWIS on Birds
A4-1 Direct Effects on Birds
Although most direct effects of cooling water intake
structures (CWIS) are on fish and shellfish, there are
occasional cases of direct harm to birds. For example, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Green Bay, Wisconsin
has recorded direct mortality of nestling double-crested
cormorants (Phaiacrocorax auritus) at the Point Beach
Nuclear Power Plant (Memorandum from Environmental
Contaminants Specialist to Special Agent Roy Owens,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Green Bay Field Office,
February 4,1993), During one incident in September and October of 1990, 74 cormorants were impinged at the facility.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, this number represents 3.2 percent of the total potential productivity of the
species. It was concluded that the geographic extent of the impact was much larger than a single colony in Wisconsin because
the losses were nestlings that otherwise would have entered the free-flying population. Another incident of avian
impingement occurred at the Seabrook Station in 1.999. Between February 20 and March 16, twenty-nine white-winged
scoters were impinged at the facility's cooling water intake structures. The intake structures are located at a depth of
approximately 40 feet below the surface, and mussels often attach to the structures. It is believed that after diving down to
feed on the mussels on the intake structures, the scoters were drawn into the cooling system (North Atlantic Energy Service
Corporation, 1999),
A4-2 Indirect Effects on Fish-Eating Birds
Although direct mortality of birds can occur, most effects are indirect as a result of losses of fish and shellfish that provide
food for birds. For some fish-eating birds, such as cormorants, kingfishers, grebes, ospreys, and terns, fish are a necessary
component of the diet. For others, such as gulls, fish are a regular but less essential dietary component. More than 50 bird
species out of the 600 in North America fall into the former category, and 20 fail into the latter (Tables A4-1 and A4-2). The
birds listed in Tables A4-1 and A4-2 usually obtain their fish prey from freshwater ecosystems such as lakes, ponds, marshes,
or rivers (e.g., ospreys and kingfishers), or from estuarine or coastal marine environments (e.g., loons and cormorants). Many
species such as grebes and auks spend part of the year (typically the breeding season) in freshwater environments, but winter
on the coast. These birds while in their summer or winter ranges may occupy areas that could be affected by existing or future
CWIS. Some birds (e.g., shearwaters) depend on fish prey from offshore marine areas. Since these prey are unlikely to be
affected by CWIS located inland or on the coast, these birds are not considered in this chapter. Also, most birds are relatively
flexible and opportunistic in their choice of prey, and some birds may consume fish, but only rarely; these birds (e.g., red-
winged blackbirds) are not included in the tables.
In addition to birds that depend largely on fish for their diet, many species consume aquatic invertebrate prey, such as
crustaceans, annelids, mollusks. etc. Bird species that are at least partially dependent on aquatic invertebrates from freshwater
wetlands or coastal marine and estuarine habitats for at least part of their annual cycles are shown in Table A4-3. These
species may be vulnerable to the secondary effects of CWIS since the planktonic life stages of their prey may be impacted and
the local adult communities eventually affected. However, they are probably less vulnerable than the piscivorous birds listed
in Tables A4-1 and A4-2 since, unlike fish, it is less likely that most adult invertebrates, which are typically bottom-dwelling,
will be directly affected by intake structures.
A4-1
Chapter Contents
A4-1 Direct Effects on Birds
A4-1
A4-2 Indirect Effects on Fish-Eating Birds
. A4-I
A4-.i Understanding the Effects of Food Reduction on
Hird Populations
. A4-h
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A; Evaluation Methods Chapter M: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS
; White winged scoters (Melanitta fusca) are one of the 15 species of sea ducks found in North America. They spend most of the year in
; costal marine waters and migrate inland to nest and raise their young as do most sea ducks. White wings nest on freshwater lakes in the 1
j boreal forests of interior Alaska and western Canada and winter in large bays and estuaries along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, j
Source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1999
; Photo source: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 1999
i The double-crested cormorant is a bird of salt, brackish and fresh waters. It breeds mainly along the coasts, but also around inland lakes. ;
¦ As soon as they return from their wintering grounds on the U.S. east coast south to the Gulf of Mexico, they appear throughout the St.
| Lawrence system. They are particularly fond of islands for nesting. The nest is made of a mass of branches which they build in a tree, on
i a ledge or on a clifftop.
! Cormorants are 61-92 cm (2 to 3 ft) long, with thick, generally dark plumage and green eyes. The feet are webbed, and the bill is long
: with the upper mandible terminally hooked. Expert swimmers, cormorants pursue fish underwater. The young are bom blind, and the ;
; parents feed the nestlings with half-digested food which is dropped into the nests. Later, the young birds poke their heads into the gullet
i of the adults to feed. Cormorants are long-lived; a banded one was observed after 18 years.
Average clutch size is three or four eggs. After being incubated by both parents for 24 to 29 days, the chicks hatch unprotected by any j
down. They grow rapidly and fledge when the are five to six weeks old. Cormorants are diving bird and feed mainly on fish caught '
close to the bottom. The double crested's diet consists of fish such as Capelin, American Sand Lance, gunnels, Atlantic Herring and
sculpins, as well as crustaceans, molluscs and marine worms. ;
Source: Environment Canada, 2001
Photo source* Environment Canada, 2001
While at their breeding, migration, or wintering sites, the birds listed could be close to one or more existing or planned CWIS,
and could be affected by the operation of these facilities. CWIS have the potential to adversely affect these bird populations
indirectly by reducing their available food supply (eggs, larvae, juveniles and/or adult fish and invertebrates) through
impingement and entrainment (I&E).
Generally, the larger the bird, the larger its prey. Ospreys or bald eagles may take fish that weigh a few pounds. However,
many North American fish- and invertebrate-eating birds typically exploit smaller prey species or the younger age groups of
larger fish. For example, common terns breeding in Massachusetts feed their young the age groups of species such as
sandeels or silversides that are typically less than 6 inches long (Galbraith et al., 1999). CWIS could potentially reduce the
availability of the birds* fish or invertebrate prey either directly, by reducing the densities of the larval and older organisms
that the birds exploit (through I&E), or indirectly, by reducing the numbers of eggs or larvae to the extent that the density of
the older age groups that larger birds rely on is reduced locally. Also, fewer larger fish or adult invertebrates (i.e., the
breeding stock) could affect the availability of small prey in the next generation. These cause-effect interactions are displayed
in Figure A4-1.
A4-2
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4; direct and Indirect Effects of CWTS
Table A4-
1: North American Birds that Eat Fish as a Major Dietary Component
Major Dietary Component
Species
Distribution"
Red-throated loon
; summer: lakes in arctic Canada and Alaska;
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts south to California and Georgia
Pacific loon
summer: lakes in arctic Canada and Alaska;
winter: Pacific coast south to California
Arctic loon
: summer: lakes in Alaska;
: winter: Pacific coast south to California
Common loon
: summer: lakes in Canada and northern U.S.;
: winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts south to Texas and California
Homed grebe
• summer: freshwater wetlands in Canada and north-western U.S.;
:winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts south to Texas and California
Pied-billed grebe
Resident in freshwater wetlands throughout U.S.
Red-necked grebe
I summer: freshwater wetlands in Canada and northern Great Lakes;
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts south to California and Georgia
Clark's grebe
• summer: freshwater wetlands in western U.S.;
: winter: Pacific coast
Western grebe
summer: freshwater wetlands in Canada and western U.S.,
; winter: Pacific coast
American white pelican
;summer: lakes in Canada and western U.S.;
; winter: California and Gulf of Mexico coasts
Brown pelican
resident: Pacific and Atlantic coasts from Washington and New York south to California and Gulf of
'Mexico
Anhinga
president: Atlantic coastal wetlands from South Carolina south to southern Texas
Neotropic cormorant
resident: coastal wetlands in Texas
Great cormorant
: summer: maritime east Canada;
; winter: Atlantic coast south to South Carolina
Double-crested cormorant
;summer: lakes in Great Lakes, west U.S. and north-east U.S.;
; winter: entire Pacific and Atlantic coasts
Brandt's cormorant
; resident: Pacific coast from Canada to California
Pelagic cormorant
• summer: Alaskan coast;
; winter: Pacific coast from southern Alaska to California
Least bittern
: summer: freshwater wetlands from east coast of U.S. to midwest states;
. winter: Gulf coast and south Florida
American bittern
; summer: freshwater wetlands throughout Canada and U.S.;
i winter: wetlands on both coasts south to California and Texas
Green heron
"summer: freshwater wetlands from Atlantic coast to midwest states and Oregon and Washington;
winter: California, gulf of Mexico and Florida coastal wetlands
Tricolored heron
resident: Atlantic coastal wetlands from New York south to Florida and Gulf of Mexico
Little blue heron
; summer: freshwater wetlands in Gulf of Mexico States;
: resident: coasts of Gulf Coast and Florida north to New York
Reddish egret
resident: coastal wetlands in Florida and Gulf Coast
Snowy egret
; summer: freshwater wetlands in western States;
I winter: California coast
: resident: coastal wetlands from Massachusetts south to Gulf Coast States
Great egret
: summer: freshwater wetlands in Mississippi Valley States;
: resident: Atlantic coastal States from Mid-Atlantic south to Gulf of Mexico;
; winter: California coast
Great blue heron
:summer: freshwater wetlands in northern U.S. States and Canada;
: winter and resident: wetlands in inland southern states and both coasts of Canada and U.S. south to
: California and Gulf of Mexico
Wood stork
resident: coastal wetlands in Florida and Gulf of Mexico
A4-3
-------
Chapter A4: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS
Table A4-1:
North American Birds that Eat Fish as c Major Dietary Component (eont.)
Major Dietary Component
Species ,
Distribution*
Roseate spoonbill
: summer and resident: coastal wetlands in Florida and Gulf of Mexico
Common merganser
summer: lakes in Canada and north-west U.S.;
iwinter: lakes and rivers in interior and coastal U.S. south to California and North Carolina
Red-breasted merganser
i summer: lakes in Canada;
; winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts from Canada south to California and Gulf of Mexico
Hooded merganser
: summer: lakes and rivers in Canada and Great Lakes States;
: winter: Pacific coast from Canada south to California and from New York south to Gulf of Mexico.
Also winters in interior states of south-east U.S.
Osprey
•summer: inland and coastal wetlands from Canada south to Great Lakes, Pacific Northwest, and
: Florida and Gulf of Mexico;
.resident: Florida and Gulf Coast states
Bald eagle
: summer: lakes and rivers in Canada, Great Lakes, north-eastern U.S., Pacific Northwest, and some
: western states;
: winter: Midwestern and western states and both coasts south to Mexican border
Sandwich tern
Atlantic coastal areas from Mid-Atlantic states south to Gulf of Mexico
Elegant tern
summer: Southern California coast
Royal tern
: Summer and resident Atlantic coasts from Mid-Atlantic states south to Gulf of Mexico;
' winter: southern California coast
Caspian tern
i summer: Canadian wetlands, Great Lakes, and some western states;
; winter: Florida and Gulf of Mexico coasts, southern California coast
Roseate tem
: summer: coasts of Newfoundland south to New York
Forstert tern
, summer: inland wetlands in central Canada and western States of U.S. Also summers on coastal
; marshes in Gulf of Mexico;
; winter; southern California and south Atlantic coasts south to Florida and Gulf of Mexico
Common tem
; summer: inland lakes of Canada and northern U.S. states and coastal Atlantic from Newfoundland
south to North Carolina
Arctic tern
: summer; tundra in Arctic Canada and arctic coasts south to Newfoundland and Maine
Least tern
; summer: Atlantic and California coastal dunes south to Florida and Gulf of Mexico. Also rivers in
j Mississippi Valley
Black skimmer
summer: inland and coastal wetlands in southern California;
; resident and winter: Atlantic coast from New York south to Florida and Gulf of Mexico
Common murre
: winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts south to New York and California
Razorbill
; winter: Atlantic coast south to Mid-Atlantic states
Black guillemot
; resident: Atlantic coast from arctic south to New England
Pigeon guillemot
: resident: Pacific coast from Arctic south to California
Mprbled murrelet
[resident and winter: Pacific coast south to California
Rhinoceros aukiet
[resident and winter Pacific coast south to California
Atlantic puffin
[resident and winter: Atlantic coasts from Newfoundland south to New England
Horned puffin
[resident and winter: Pacific coasts fro Alaska south to Washington
Tufted puffin
[resident and winter: Pacific coasts from Alaska south to California
Belted kingfisher
[summer: lakes and rivers throughout Canada;
[resident and winter : lakes and rivers throughout U.S.
Note: Excluded are species that are rare or have highly restricted distributions, that feed mainly offshore, or that eat fish only very rarely.
* These distributions are approximate, For more detailed representations see, for example, Kaufman, 1996.
Source: Kaufman, 1996,
A4-4
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AA Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS
Table AA'2- North American Birds that eat Fish as a Frequent Dietary Component
Frequent Dietary Component
Species
Clapper rail
Distribution*
resident: Atlantic coastal marshes fro New England south. Also San Francisco Bay
King rail
summer: inland marshes from Atlantic coast to midwest;
resident and winter: Coastal marshes from Mid-Atlantic States south to Florida and Gulf of Mexico
Whooping crane
winter: Texas coast
Heerman's gull
all year: Oregon and California coasts
Laughing gull
resident: Atlantic coasts from New England south to Gulf of Mexico
Franklin's gull
summer: prairie wetlands in central Canada and northern U.S.
Bonaparte's gull
summer: forested wetlands across Canada;
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts from Canada south to California and Gulf of Mexico
Ring-billed gull
summer: lakes in central Canada, Great Lakes and Maritime Provinces;
winter Atlantic coast from New England south to Mexico, Pacific coast from Canada south to Baja, and interior
southern states of U.S.
Mew gull
summer: freshwater wetlands in western Canada;
winter: Pacific coast from Canada south to California
California gull
summer: lakes in central Canada and western U.S.;
winter: Pacific coast from Washington south to California
Herring gull
summer: inland and coastal lakes across Canada;
winter: Pacific and Atlantic coasts from Canada south to Mexican border
Glaucous gull
summer: arctic;
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts south to Mid-Atlantic States and California
Iceland gull
summer: arctic;
winter Atlantic coast from Canada south to New York
Thayer^ gull
summer: arctic;
winter: Pacific coast from Alaska south to California
Western gull
resident: Pacific coast from Canada south to Baja
Glaucous-winged gull
resident: Pacific coast of Canada;
winter: Pacific coast of U.S.
Great black-backed gull
resident and summer: Maritime provinces south to Mid-Atlantic States
Black tem
summer prairie and forested wetlands across Canada and in Midwestern arid western states of U.S.
Ancient murrelet
summer: Alaska
winter: Pacific coast from Alaska south to California
American dipper
resident: rivers throughout western States of U.S.
A4-5
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Table A4-3: North American Birds that Eat Mainly Aquatic Invertebrates
Species
Eared grebe
Distribution*
Species
Distribution*
summer: freshwater wetlands in western Canada
and U.S.;
winter: Pacific coast from Vancouver south to
southern California
Piping plover
summer: coast, lake and river beaches in
northern Midwest and New England;
winter: Atlantic coastal beaches from New
England south to Mexico
Black-crowned
night-heron
summer: inland and coastal wetlands in southern
Canada and across whole of U.S.;
winter and resident: coast of Florida and Gulf of
Mexico
American
oystercatcher
resident: Atlantic coastal beaches from New
England south to Texas
Yellow-
crowned night-
heron
resident and summer visitor to interior and coastal
wetlands in south-eastern States of U.S.
Black oystercatcher
resident; Pacific coastal beaches from
Canada south to California
White ibis
resident: south east Atlantic coast from South
Carolina to Texas
Black-necked stilt
summer: alkaline marshes in western States;
winter: California, Florida and Gulf of
Mexico coasts
Glossy ibis
resident and winter: coastal marshes on Atlantic
coast from New England south to Texas
Greater yellowlegs
summer: northern Canada;
winter: Atlantic coast from New York south
to Mexico
White-faced
ibis
summer: lakes in some western States of U.S.;
winter: Gulf of Mexico and coastal and interior
California
lesser yellowlegs
summer: northern Canada;
winter: Atlantic coast from New York south
to Mexico
Roseate
spoonbill
resident: Florida and Gulf Coast coastal wetlands
Willet
summer: wetlands in some western States
and saltmarshes on Atlantic coast from New
England south to Mexico;
winter: Atlantic coast from New England
south to Mexico and California coast
Greater scaup
winter: throughout Atlantic and Pacific coasts of
U.S.
Spotted sandpiper
summer: inland wetlands throughout Canada
and mid and northern U.S. States
winter Florida and Gulf of Mexico coasts
Lesser scaup
summer: prairie wetlands in western states;
winter: wetlands in southern states and Pacific and
Atlantic coasts from Canada south to Mexico
-ong-billed curlew
winter: Texas and California coasts
Common eider
winter: New England coast
Marbled godwit
summer: wetlands in northern prairies
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts from
Delaware to Texas and California
King eider
winter: New England coast
¦tuddy tumstone
winter: Atlantic coast south of New England
Harlequin duck
summer: rivers in western Canada and Pacific
Northwest
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts as far south as
California and New England
Surfbird
winter: Pacific coast from Canada to
California
Oldsquaw
summer: arctic
winter: Pacific and Atlantic coasts south to
California and Texas
led knot
winter: Florida coast
Black scoter
winter: Pacific and Atlantic coasts south to
California and Texas
Sander! ing
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts from New
York south to Texas and Vancouver to Baja
Surf scoter
summer: northern Canada;
winter: Pacific and Atlantic coasts south to
California and Texas
Western sandpiper
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts from New
York south to Texas and Vancouver to Baja
White-winged
scoter
summer: northern Canada;
winter: Pacific and Atlantic coasts south to
California and Texas
Least sandpiper
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts from New
York south to Texas and Vancouver to Baja
Common
goldeneye
winter: freshwater and coastal wetlands throughout
U.S.
hirple sandpiper
winter: Atlantic coast from Canada south to
Mid-Atlantic States
.44-6
-------
Chapter *4: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS
Table A4-3: North American Birds that Eat Mainly Aquatic Invertebrates (cont.)
Species
Distribution*
Species
Distribution*
Barrow's
goldeneye
summer: rivers in northern Rocky Mountain States;
winter: Rocky Mountain States
Rock sandpiper
winter: Pacific coast from Canada south to
California
Bufflehead
summer: Canadian wetlands;
winter: freshwater and coastal wetlands throughout
U.S.
Dunlin
winter: Atlantic coast from New York to
Texas and San Francisco Bay
Limpktn
resident: Florida wetlands Dowitcticr species
winter: Atlantic and Pacific coasts from
Northern U.S. south to Baja and Mexico
Black-bellied
plover
winter: Pacific and Atlantic coasts south to Mexico
Snowy plover
summer: alkali lakes in western U.S.;
resident: coastal wetlands in California and Gulf
Coast
Wilson's plover
resident: Atlantic coast wetlands from New York
south to Gulf Coast
summer: arctic;
Winter Pacific and Atlantic coast wetlands from
Canada south to California and Mexico
" These distributions are approximate. For more detailed representations see, for example. Kaufman. 1996,
Figure A4-1: Potential CWIS Effects on
Fisfa-Eating Birds and Their Prey
Potential CWIS
effects on fish
and birds
Local reductions 1
in numbers of |
smaller fish s
Local reductions |
in numbers of |
larger fish 1
*
Reduced prey |
for smaller fish- |
eating birds |
Reduced prey 1
for larger fish- 1
eating birds I
1
Effects on smaller J
fish-eating birds: |
* survival i
* reproduction |
Effects on larger I
fish-eating birds: 1
• survival |
• reproduction 1
A4-7
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case. Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWI5
A4-3 Understanding the Effects of Food Reduction on Bird Populations
Many scientific studies have confirmed the link between the abundance of available food and the viability of bird populations.
EPA reviewed recent papers published in the peer-reviewed literature that describe effects of food shortages on fish-eating
birds. One of the goals of these studies was to identify linkages between food shortages and adverse impacts on birds,
irrespective of the underlying cause of the shortage1. While EPA's review of these studies did not reveal any documented
linkages between l&E and effects on bird populations, the principle remains the same: independent of the stressor, a reduction
in the food supply can adversely affect bird populations.- Table A4-4 summarizes a sample of the reviewed studies, and
Boxes A4-I and A4-2 describe the findings of two studies in greater detail. Several broad conclusions can be drawn from this
body of literature:
~ Chicks of fish-eating birds can starve and quickly die (in a few days) if food is scarce or unavailable during a short
window of natal development.
~ The amount of food that is available before and during the birds' breeding seasons can affect courtship and initiation
of breeding, number of eggs laid, chick survival, frequency of renesting, and other important reproductive factors.
~ Insufficient amounts of food may force parents to forage farther and wider, resulting in fewer and smaller feeds per
chick per day. This may increase the risk of starvation.
~ Food shortages can result in increased food theft, as chicks and adults steal food from each other.
~ Food shortages during the breeding season usually affect chicks and fledglings before the adults.
~ Inadequate nutrition during development can have significant physiological consequences (e.g., calcium deficiencies
and poor skeletal development).
~ Super-abundant food can lead to increased breeding success.
1 Causes of food shortages included spawning failure in fish, shifting weather patterns, effects of pollutants, and other factors.
A4-S
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWI5
Table A4-4: Examples of Studies Showing Relationships between Quantity and Quality of Fish Prey and
Survival, Behavior, and Reproductive Success of Fish-Eating Birds
Country
USA
Waterbody
Laboratory
Target Species
Belted kingfisher
Study Description
Effect of food supply on
reproduction
Summary
Extra food resulted in earlier
nesting, heavier chicks, and
greater frequency of second
clutches
Reference
Kelly and Van Home,
199?
USA
Reservoir
Double-crested
cormorant
Identification of factors
associated with densities
of cormorants
Fish availability correlated
with cormorant density
Simmonds ct al,, 1997
Spain
Ebro Delta
Audouin's gull
Availability of trawler
discards and
kleptoparasitism
Reduced discards led to
increased rates of
kleptoparasitism
Oro, 1996
The
Netherlands
Inland
waters
Black tern
Impacts of acidification
on fish stocks and chick
growth and survival
Reduced fish stocks led to
calcium deficiencies and
increased mortality
Beintema, 1997
Northern
Ireland
Lough
Neagh
Great cormorant
Identification of factors
associated with densities
of cormorants
Fish availability correlated
with cormorant density
Warke et al., 1994
France
Rhone
Delta
Little egret
Food abundance and
reproductive success
Increased food led to
increased reproductive
success and fledgling
survival
Hafneretal., 1993
Norway/Russia
Barents Sea
Kittiwakes, murTes,
puffins
Fish availability and
reproduction of birds
Reductions in fish stocks
impaired breeding success
Barrett and Krasnov,
1996
USA
Pacific
Ocean
Kittiwakes, gulls, and
puffins
Diets and breeding
success
Diet switching led to
reduced breeding success
Baird, 1990
Germany
North Sea
Common tem
Food supply and
kleptoparasitism
Reduced food supply caused
increased kleptoparasitism
Ludwigs, 1998
Germany
North Sea
Common tern
Food supply and chick
survival
Reduced food caused
increased chick mortality
Becker et al., 1997
South Africa
Indian
Ocean
African penguin,
Cape gannet. Cape
cormorant, swift tern
Prey availability and
breeding success
Reductions in anchovy
stocks resulted in reduced
breeding success
Crawford and Dyer, 1995
UK
Atlantic
Ocean
Arctic tem
Fish abundance and
breeding success
Reduced fish stocks lowered
egg volume, clutch size, and
breeding success
Suddaby and Ratcliffe,
1997
A4-9
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Part A; Evaluation Methods
Chapter A4: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS
Box A4-1: Fish Availability Affects Breeding Success in Arctic Terns.
The arctic tem is a small, circumpolar, fish-eating bird that typically obtains its prey in the inshore marine environment. Unlike the
closely related common tem, arctic tems do not generally breed or feed in freshwaters.
, In the United Kingdom, the Shetland Islands are one of the strongholds of the species. Large breeding colonies of thousands of
pairs of birds can be found there. Such large breeding colonies require an abundant and predictable food supply. In the Shetlands
the most important food species is the sandeel, which occurs in vast shoals in the inshore waters. Before the 1980"s, sandeels were
: largely ignored by the UK fishing industry. However, beginning in the late 1970's, they became an increasingly sought after catch
as their value as fodder for farm animals was recognized. This led to a huge sandeel fishing industry that, since it was largely
unregulated, resulted in the 1980s in massive depletion of the fish stocks. This study by Monaghan et al. (1989) investigated the
effects of this stock depletion on the breeding biology of arctic tems in the Shetlands (where the sandeels were overfished) and at
Coquet Island in England (where food supplies were not reduced).
Of the interesting differences found in the breeding biology of the terns from the two colonies, many could be ascribed to the
reduction in prey availability at the Shetland colony. The Shetland birds delivered smaller sandeels to their nests than did the
Coquet birds, indicating that the fishing industry had removed the larger (and more nutrient- and energy-rich) fish. Also, because of
this, the chicks in the Shetland colony grew at a slower rate than the Coquet chicks and the majority of the chicks in the colony died
a few days after hatching. The Coquet chicks had more rapid growth rates and far better survival.
The adult birds were also affected by the reduced sandeel stocks. During the breeding season, the adults in the Shetland colony lost
weight and became lighter than the adults at Coquet, suggesting a food shortage effect.
This study clearly demonstrates the importance of having an adequate and predictable fish food supply for arctic tems during the
breeding season and on their ability to raise chicks.
Box A4-2: Oceanic Currents, Human Fisheries, Anchovy Abundance, and the Abundance of Peruvian and Chilean Seabird Populations.
Several fish-eating seabirds breed in extremely large colonies on islands off the coasts of Peru and Chile. The breeding pqpulations j
of these cormorants and boobies probably number several million in a typical year. These huge populations are made possible by an ;
extremely rich supply of anchovies, which, in turn, depend on upwe fling associated with the Humboldt current bringing nutrient-rich j
: cold water to the surface close to the nesting islands (Harrison, 1983). In typical years, these birds can easily raise their young by i
i exploiting the rich fish prey base.
However, every 10 or so years an El Nino event forces the upwelling south and deprives the seabirds of their anchovy prey. In these :
years, the birds may have reduced reproductive success or may fail to breed at all. Further, the birds may desert their normal ranges
and spread north and south along the Pacific coast into areas where they are not normally seen (Murphy, 1952).
In the last few decades a new factor has complicated this pattern. The human anchovy fishery has now reduced the numbers offish
to the extent that even in good years the numbers of breeding birds and their success may be reduced.
The sensitivity of these seabirds to temporal and spatial disturbances in the dependability of their food supply highlights the critical
i relationship between the availability of fish prey and their population status.
This information shows that the responses of fish-eating birds to food shortages can range from behavioral changes
(e.g., greater foraging efforts or increased food theft) to more dramatic responses (e.g., clutch abandonment, chick mortality,
failure to attempt to breed). It is not likely that l&E by CWIS has resulted in such large-scale die-offs and reproductive
failures. Such obvious responses would have been observed and reported, CWIS l&E effects are, therefore, likely to be more
subtle. However, even these types of responses could have longer-term population impacts.
The studies reported in Table A4-1 show that chicks in particular are prone to rapid starvation and increased mortality during
early development. During that period, sufficient amounts of high quality food (i.e., nutritionally and energetically rich) must
be available to ensure successful fledging. The potential effects of l&E could be magnified if the depletion of a localized
high quality fish resource forces parents to switch to a lower quality food or to forage further afield, resulting in a decrease in
the rate of food delivery to the chicks and an increased starvation risk. Alternatively, l&E effects on local food supplies could
affect bird populations when they are under stress from some other factor (e.g., severe weather or contaminants). Thus, the
potential effects of l&E on bird populations, though perhaps subtle, cannot be discounted.
A4-10
-------
i 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case. Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A4: Direct and Indirect Effects of CWIS
Even when enough food is available to allow a "normal" reproductive event, any additional food can increase the survival rate
of nestlings and increase overall breeding success (Hafher et al.. 1993; Suddaby and Rateliffe, 1997). This at least partly
rebuts the commonly used argument that surplus fish production has no ecological value and can therefore be removed
without affecting the local ecosystem. It also suggests that even though the I&E of large numbers of fish might not actually
adversely affect birds, the removal of that extra food resource could just as easily prevent them from realizing their full
reproductive potential.
Even if a bird species can switch to another food source, significant effects are still possible if the replacement food has lower
caloric or nutritional quality (Beintema, 1997). Recently hatched chicks can be particularly vulnerable to changes in food
availability, starving and dying in a short time. Such risks may be of particular concern if the CWIS removes large numbers
of fish or other aquatic prey in bird foraging areas during the breeding season.
In conclusion, this review of the ornithological literature underscores the link between adequate food supplies and survival
and reproductive success in fish-eating birds: In particular, the low degree of behavioral flexibility combined with severe
food shortages can result in reduced survival or increased reproductive failure. As the data shown in Table A4-3 suggest,
localized food shortages caused by I&E are likely to affect bird populations differently depending on their dietary
requirements. Species that can readily switch to an alternative prey may be less vulnerable, and those others that are entirely
dependent on fish stocks may be more vulnerable. This leads to two conclusions; 1) any impacts associated with the removal
of prey fish by I&E are likely to be species-specific, and 2) birds entirely dependent on fish (e.g., ospreys or loons) have a
greater risk of being adversely affected compared to species with more flexible dietary requirements.
A4-11
-------
Chapter 45: ME Methods
A5: Methods Used
Evaluate I&E
This chapter describes the methods EPA used to evaluate
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at the case study
facilities, including methods used to forecast the
consequences of I&E losses of early life stages for the
adult population, fishery harvests, and population biomass
production. Section A5-1 outlines the overall approach,
Section A5-2 describes the source data, Section A5-3
presents details-of the biological models used, and Section
A5-4 discusses uncertainties in the analyses. Chapters A9
(benefits transfer), A10 (Random Utility Model), and A11
(Habitat-based Replacement Cost) discuss how these loss
estimates are valued for the case study benefits analyses.
A5-1 Overview of Procedure for
Evaluating I&E
The same general procedure for evaluating I&E records
was followed for each facility, but with appropriate facility-specific considerations pertaining to data availability and
identification of predominant species composition. The basic approach estimated losses to fishery resources resulting from
species-specific and life-stage-specific I&E. Losses were expressed as (I) foregone age I equivalents, (2) foregone fishery
yields, and (3) foregone biomass production using common fishery modeling techniques (Ricker, 1975; Hilborn and Walters,
1992; Quinn and Deri so. 1999). These foregone resources were modeled using facility-specific I&E rates combined with
relevant species life history characteristics such as growth rates, natural mortality rates, and fishing mortality rates.
A5-Z Source Data
A5-2.1 Facility L&E Monitoring
The inputs for EPA's analyses included the empirical I&E counts reported by each facility. The general approach to I&E
monitoring was similar at most case study Facilities. Impingement monitoring involved sampling impingement screens or
catchment areas, counting the impinged fish, and extrapolating the count to an annual basis. Entrainment monitoring typically
involved 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 used life stage-specific annual losses for assessment of entrainment losses and assumed that all fish killed by
impingement were age 1 at the time of death. Although these general sampling procedures were followed by most facilities,
specific methods of collecting and reporting I&E data, and the complexity and time span of analysis, differed substantially
among case study facilities. To the extent possible, EPA considered and evaluated facility-specific monitoring and reporting
procedures, as described in EPA's individual case study reports.
A5-2.2 Species Evaluated
EPA conducted detailed species-specific loss analyses for species that were most predominant in facility collections or had
special significance (e.g., threatened or endangered status). I&E was analyzed in terms of losses to the commercial or
recreational fishery (for those species that are fished), or as loss of the forage prey base (for those species that are not fished).
A small fraction of species that were identified in I&E records were not evaluated on a species-specific basis by EPA because
of a lack of life history information. These species were treated as an aggregate, and their I&E rates were expressed as a
fraction of the total I&E.
A5-1
Chapter
to
,,,, , ,
Chapter Contents
A5-I Overview of Procedure for Evaluating l&E ........ A5-1
A5-2 Source Data A5-1
A5-2.1 Facility I&E Monitoring AS-1
. A5-2.2 Species Evaluated A5-I
A5-2.3 Life History Data .. A5-2
A5-3 Biological Models Used to Evaluate I&E A5-3
A5-3.I Modeling Agc-1 Equivalents A5-3
A5-3 2 Modeling Foregone Fishery Yield ....... A5-4
A5-3J Modeling Foregone Prodjiatioft A5-6
A5-3.4 Evaluation of Forage Species! xisscs .. .. A5-7
A5-4 Uncertainty'..,, A5-9
A5-4J Structural Uncertainty ... A3-9
A5-4.2 Parameter Uncertainty AS-10
A5-4.3 I Jncenaimies Related to Engineering ...A5-11
-------
Chapter A5: IAE Methods
A5-2.3 Life History Data
The life history data used in EPA's case studies usually included species-specific 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, with the exception of mortality rates which are typically constant for fish older than a given catchability
threshold.
EPA obtained life history data from facility reports, the fisheries literature, and publicly available fisheries databases (e.g.,
FishBase). To the extent feasible, EPA used species-specific and region-specific life history data most relevant to local
populations near the case study facility. Detailed citations are provided in life history tables accompanying each case study
report.
A static set of life history parameters was used for all data analyses. No stochastic or dynamic effects such as compensatory
mortality or growth, or random environmental variation were used.
In 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 C.P. Goodyear (1978) and
below in Equation (1):
S^Vfa
¦
(Equation I)
where:
ii ii
go
the probability of survival from egg to the expected age of spawning females
the expected lifetime total egg production
Published fishing mortality rates (F) were assumed to reflect combined mortality due to both commercial aid recreational
fishing. Basic fishery science relationships (Ricker. 1975) among mortality and survival rates were assumed, such as:
Z = M + F
(Equation 2)
where:
Z =
M =
F =
the total instantaneous mortality rate
natural (nonfishing) instantaneous mortality rate
fishing instantaneous mortality rate
and
S = e < l'
(Equation 3)
where:
S =
the survival rate as a fraction
A5-2
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5: ME Methods
A5-3 Biological Models Used to Evaluate IAE
The methods used to express I&E losses in units suitable for economic valuation are outlined in Figure A5-1 and described in
detail below.
A5-3.1 Modeling Age-1 Equivalents
The Equivalent Adult Model (EAM) is a method for expressing l&E losses as an equivalent number of individuals at some
other life stage, referred to as the age of equivalency (Horst 1975a; C.P, Goodyear, 1978; Dixon, 1999). The age of
equivalency can be any life stage of interest. The method provides a convenient means of converting losses of fish eggs and
larvae into units of individual fish and provides a standard metric for comparing losses among species, years, and facilities.
For the § 316(b) case studies, EPA expressed I&E losses as an equivalent number of age-1 individuals. This is the number of
impinged and entrained individuals that would otherwise have survived to be age 1 plus the number of impinged individuals
(which are assumed to be impinged at age 1).
The EAM calculation requires life-stage-specific entrainment counts and life-stage-specific mortality rates from the life stage
of entrainment to the life stage of equivalence. The cumulative survival rate from age at entrainment until age 1 is the product
of all stage-specific survival rates to age 1. The calculation is;
Sjj = cumulative survival from stage j until age 1
Sj = survival fraction from stage j to stage J + 1
S*j = 2,Sj£"lo#<1+Sj) = adjusted Sj
Jma ~ 'he stage immediately prior to age 1
Equation 4 defines Su, which is the expected cumulative survival rate (as a fraction) from the stage at which entrainment
occurs,/, through age 1. The components of Equation 4 represent survival rates during the different iife stages between life
stage j, when a fish is entrained, and age 1. Survival through the stage at which entrainment occurs,/, is treated as a special
case because the amount of lime spent in that stage before entrainment is unknown and therefore the known stage specific
survival rate, S„ does not apply because Sj describes the survival rate through the entire length of time that a fish is in stage j.
Therefore, to find the expected survival rate from the day that a fish wag 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 stage j, considering the fact that the individual fish were entrained at various specific ages within stage j,
Age-1 equivalents are then calculated as:
J max
(Equation 4)
where:
lit ^ j L Sf
J. t LJ,lt ty.l
(Equation 5)
where;
the number of age-1 equivalents killed during life stage j in year k
the number of individuals killed during life stage j in year k
the cumulative survival rate for individuals passing from life stage j to age 1 (equation 4)
A 5-3
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A 5: I&E Methods
The total number of age-1 equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k is then given by:
(Equation 6)
where:
A£lk = the total number of age-1 equivalents derived from losses at all stages in year k
These calculations were used to derive the total age-! equivalents for each species and year of sampling at each case study
facility.
A5-3.2 Modeling Foregone Fishery Yield
Foregone fishery yield is a measure of the amount of fish or shellfish (in pounds) that is not harvested because the fish are lost
to l&E. EPA estimated foregone yield using the Thompson and Bell model (Ricker. 1975). The model provides a simple
method for evaluating a cohort of fish that enters a fishery in terms of their fate as harvested or not-harvested individuals. The
method 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 key parameters of the Thompson and Bell model are natural mortality rate (M), fishing mortality rate (F), and weight at
age (in pounds) of harvested fish. 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 of fish is then the
sum of all age-specific expected yields, thus:
= foregone yield (pounds) due to l&E losses in year k
LJk « losses of individual fish of stage j in the year k
SJtl . cumulative survival fraction from stage j 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
Figure A5-1 outlines the modeling of foregone fishery yield. 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. 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 A9 describes the methods used to derive dollar values for foregone commercial and recreational yields for the case
study benefits analyses.
L)tS"W'(-F-/Z-}
(Equation 7)
where:
AS-4
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5: I&E Methods
Figure A5-1; Senerai Approach Used ta Evaluate I4E Lasses as Foregone Fishery Vieid
Evaluation of Forage Species
That Contribute to Production
V. of Fishery Species
Evaluation of
Fishery Species
Sum Across
Life Stages
Sum Across
Life Stages
Report as
Common
Loss Metric
Report as
Common
Loss Metric
Not
Not Harvest®
Valued < <
Harvested
Species?
Yes
Sum
Commercial
Fraction /
Recreational
V Fraction
Total Foregone
Fishery Yield
Number of Fish Killed
(multiple life stages)
Determine Foregone
Recreational Harvest
as Number of
individual Fish
Estimate Age 1
Equivalency
(multiple life stages)
Determine Foregone
Commercial Harvest
as Pounds
Estimate Primary
Foregone Fishery
Yield
Year Class Aggregate
Age 1 Equivalents
Year Class Aggregate
Foregone Production
Estimate Foregone
Production
(multiple life stages)
Use Methods Described
in Chapter A9 to Estimate
Secondary and Tertiary
Foregone Fishery Yield
Monetize Monetize
A5~5
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case. Studies, Port A; Evaluation Methods
Chapter A 5:IAE Methods
<45-3.3 Modeling Foregone Production
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. The foregone production of
forage species (those species not harvested for recreational or commercial Fisheries) is used to estimate the subsequent
reduction in harvested species yield that results from a decrease in the food supply (details provided in Section A5-3.4).1 This
indirect effect on harvested species yield can then be added to estimates of foregone yield that result from direct I&E losses of
harvested species to provide an estimate of total foregone yield (Figure A5-1).
Production foregone is calculated by simultaneously considering the age-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 for a specified age or size class, i, is calculated as:
„ G,-W,-
-------
Chapter A5: IdE Methods
'max
PT= 1 Pj
y-'min
(Equation 10)
where:
Pt =
t —
* mm
the total production foregone for fish lost at all stages j
youngest age group considered
A5-3.4 Evaluation of Forage Species Losses
Foregone production of forage species due to l&E losses may be considered a reduction in the aquatic food supply, and
therefore a cause of reduced production of other species, including harvested species, at higher trophic levels. I&E losses of
forage species 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 accounts for these consequences of I&E losses by considering losses of
both existing biomass and 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).
EPA evaluated I&E losses of forage species (i.e., species that are not targets of recreational or commercial fisheries) using
two general approaches. The first approach expressed losses as numbers of age 1 equivalents. These losses were valued
based on hatchery replacement costs as described in Chapter A9. The second approach, referred to in this document as the
"ecological approach," was developed by EPA to provide a way to value lost forage in terms of the reductions in losses of
harvested species that result from loss of their prey base. In this case, the economic value of lost forage species is derived
from the value of foregone production of harvested species as described in Chapter A9.
The ecological approach uses two distinct estimates of trophic transfer efficiency within two kinds of food web pathways to
relate foregone forage production to foregone fishery yield. The two estimates, termed secondary and tertiary foregone yield,
reflect (1) that portion of total forage production that has high trophic transfer efficiency because it is directly consumed by
harvested species (secondary foregone yield), and (2) the remaining portion that has a low trophic transfer efficiency because
it is not consumed directly by harvested species but instead reaches harvest species indirectly after passage through other parts
of the food web (tertiary foregone yield). This is illustrated in Figure A5-2.
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 predator species through a factor related to trophic transfer
efficiency. Thus, in general,
11
""O
(Equation 11)
where;
pr =
the biomass production of a predator species (in pounds)
k
the trophic transfer efficiency (a scalar with magnitude typically about 0.10)
Pf =
the 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 § 316b case studies, commercially or recreationally valuable fish were considered
predators.
A5-7
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A5; I4E Methods
Figure A5-2- Tro&hie Transfer Model for Valuation of Foregone Sissiass Production (FP) of forage Species by
Estimating Consequential Reductions in Commercial and Recreational Harvest
Alternative
trophic
pathways
Low
efficiency
pathway
High efficiency
pathway
= 0.09
k, =0.09
20% of FP
80% of FP
Intermediate
trophic levels
Forage species
1&.E losses
Foregone
production (FP)
FP of harvested
species
Foregone
commercial
and recreational
harvest
k3 - 0.009
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. Therefore, for the purposes of the benefits
case studies, EPA assumed a general value of k = 0.09 for a direct prey-to-predator transfer, and assumed that 20 percent of
forage production would be consumed directly by commercially or recreationally important predators. EPA also assumed that
the remaining 80 percent of forage production would be consumed indirectly by commercially or recreationally important
predators {via other intermediate predators), and that k for these trophic routes would be scaled by an additional factor of 0.1.
Thus:
ASS
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A5: IAE Methods
Pv> = 0.2 kvPf
(Equation 12)
and
^ = 0.8 kJP/
(Equation 13)
where:
P, = aggregate of foregone production of all forage species lost to l&E
Pty = secondary production of commercially or recreational ly important predator species
Pip = tertiary production of commercially or recreationaily important predator species
kt = trophic transfer efficiency constant with value 0,09
k} = trophic transfer efficiency constant with value 0.009 = kxk2
Foregone commercial and recreational fish production estimated by these two models is referred to here as secondary
production and tertiary production, respectively, .The associated foregone yield is referred to as secondary foregone yield and
tertiary foregone yield. The net effect of this dual pathway model for trophic transfer is an assumed trophic transfer efficiency
of 0.025, which is the weighted net transfer efficiency (0.2k, + 0.8A-X).
The modeling methods used for the § 316(b) case studies, modeling assumptions, and results are presented in each case study
report in a manner intended to provide the reader with a clear and complete understanding of how and why particular
procedures were selected and executed. However, despite following sound scientific practice throughout, it is impossible to
avoid numerous sources of uncertainty that may cause the reported results to be imprecise or to carry potential statistical bias.
Uncertainty of this nature is not unique to EPA's studies of l&E effects (Finkel, 1990).
The case study analyses attempt to model a process that is enormously complex. The analyses are an interdisciplinary process
that span several major fields of study, including aquatic and marine ecology, fishery science, estuarine hydrodynamics,
economics, and engineering, each of which acknowledges its own complex suite of interacting factors. A formal
quantification of variability and uncertainty (which could be accomplished by analytic means or by Monte Carlo methods)
would require information about the variance associated with each part of this large set of factors, but much of that
information is lacking. Nonetheless, because EPA took care to use the best biological models and data available for its l&E
evaluations and economic analyses, EPA believes that the case study results provide a reliable, scientifically sound basis for
estimating of the potential benefits of the proposed § 316(b) regulations. EPA notes that the models used are based on
standard fisheries methods.
The following discussion outlines the major uncertainties in the case study analyses. 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 and all of the specific numeric values of model parameters. The following discussion considers these
two types of uncertainty in relation to the models used by EPA to evaluate l&E.
<45-4.1 Structural Uncertainty
The models used by EPA to assess the economic consequences of l&E simplify a very complex process. The degree of
simplification is substantial but necessary because of the limited availability of empirical data. Table A5-1 provides examples
of some potentially important considerations that are not captured by the models used in the case studies. EPA believes that
these structural uncertainties will generally lead to inaccuracies, rather than imprecision, in the final results.
A5-4 Uncertainty
AS-9
-------
Chapter A 5: I&E Methods
Table A5-1: Factors Affecting Model Uncertainty in EPA's Assessment of I&E Consequences
Type
General Treatment in Model
Specific Treatment in Model
Generally simple
structure
Species lost to I&E treated
independently
; Ftsh species grouped into two categories: harvested (commercial, recreational, or
; both) or not harvested (forage)
Biological
submodels
No dynamic elements
;Life history parameters were static (i.e., growth and survival did not vary through
: time in response to long term trends in community); growth and survival rates in
;the subpopulation of fish that did not suffer I&E mortality did not change in
; response to possible compensatory effects
Economic
submodels
No dynamic elements
. 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)
Fish stock relevance
¦ Fishable stock associated with I&E losses assumed to be within the state where
; facility is located
Angler experience
: l&E losses at a facility assumed to be relevant to angler experience (or
; perception) relevant to Random Utility Model (RUM) models of sport fishery
: economics.
A5-4.2 Parameter Uncertainty
The models used by EPA to evaluate I&E require knowledge of growth rates and mortality rates that are species-specific and
often age-specific as well. Uncertainty about the values of these parameters arises for two general reasons. The first source
of uncertainty is imperfect precision and accuracy of the original estimate because of unavoidable sampling and measurement
errors. The second major source of uncertainty is the applicability of previous parameter estimates to the current situation.
Although EPA used published parameter estimates that were judged to be most pertinent to the regions considered in the case
studies, it is unlikely that growth and survival rates in case study areas would be exactly that same as survival rates developed
in a different setting. The applicability of published parameter estimates may also vary through time because of changes in
the local ecosystem as a whole, or because of climatological changes and other stochastic factors. All of these types of
temporal changes could be manifest as significant temporary effects, or as persistent long-term trends.
Table A5-2 presents some examples of parameter uncertainty. In all these cases, increasing uncertainty about specific
parameters implies increasing uncertainty about the reported 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.
A5-J0
-------
Chapter A5: I4E Methods
Table A5-2; Parameters Included in EPA's ISE Assessment Model that Are Subject to Uncertainty
Type Factors
Monitoring, loss "Sampling regimes
rate estimates j
Examples of Uncertainties in Model
Sampling regimes subject to numerous plant-specific difficulties; no established
guidelines or performance standards for how to design and conduct sampling regimes
; Extrapolation assumptions
Extrapolation to annual I&E rates requires numerous assumptions required by
monitoring designers and analysts regarding diumal/seasonal/annual cycles in fish
jresence and vulnerability and various technical factors (e.g., net collection
efficiency; hydrological factors affecting I&E rates)
: Species selection
Facilities responding to variable sets of regulatory demands; criteria for selection of
species to evaluate not well-defined; flexible interpretation; variations in data
availability in resulting time series
I Sensitivity of fish to I&E
Through-plant mortality assumed to be 100 percent; some back-calculations required
n cases where facilities had reported only I&E rates that assumed <100 percent
mortality
Biological/life jNatural mortality rates
Used stage-specific natural mortality rates (M) for >10 stages per species
history - „
' : Growth rates
Simple exponential growth rates or simple size-at-age parameters used
; Geographic considerations
Migration patterns; I&E occurring during spawning runs or larval out-migration?
vocation of harvestable adults; intermingling with other stocks
¦ Forage valuation
Harvested species assumed to be food limited; trophic transfer efficiency to harvested
species estimated based on general models
Stock ; Fishery yield
characteristics j
Jsed one species-specific value for fishing mortality rate (F) among all ages for any
jarvested species; used few age-specific constants for fraction vulnerable to fishery
j Harvest behavior
so assumed dynamics among harvesters to alter fishing rates or preferences in
response to changes in stock size; recreational access assumed constant (no changes
n angler preferences or effort)
¦ Stock interactions
&E losses assumed to be part of reported fishery yield rates on a statewide basis; no
consideration of possible substock harvest rates or interactions
; Compensatory growth
tone
i Compensatory mortality
tone
Ecological system ; Fish community
^ong-term trends in fish community composition or abundance not considered
general food webs assumed to be static); used simple three-compartment predation
model and constant values for trophic transfer efficiency (specific trophic interactions
not considered)
; Spawning dynamics
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to choice of spawning areas and
iming of migrations that could affect vulnerability to I&E (e.g., presence of larvae in
vicinity of CW1S)
; Hydrology
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to flow regimes and tidal cycles
hat could affect vulnerability to I&E (e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of CW1S)
; Meteorology
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to vulnerability to I&E (e.g.,
iicsence of larvae in vicinity of CWIS)
A5-4.3 Uncertainties Related to Engineering
EPA's evaluation of I&E consequences was also affected by uncertainty about the engineering and operating characteristics of
the case 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.
A5-11
-------
Chapter A6: Fish Population Modeling
Chapter AS- Fish Population
Modeling and the § 316(b)
Benefits Case Studies
Predicting the long-term consequences of impingement
and entrapment (I&E) for the populations of affected fish
species requires some form of population modeling.
However, because of the many uncertainties associated
with population modeling, the use of fish population
models to assess CWIS impacts remains a topic of ongoing
debate. While this debate has many interesting dimensions,
this chapter focuses only on fish population modeling as it
relates to the benefits case studies. Section A6-1
introduces the general reader to concepts of population
regulation that are relevant to population modeling and
summarizes key features of fish stock-recruitment models,
a class of models advocated by some industry groups for §
316(b) impact assessments. Section A6-2 discusses the use
of stock-recruitment models in fisheries management, and Section A6-3 discusses how such models have been applied to
evaluate potential CWIS impacts on fish populations. Section A6-4 discusses some of the uncertainties associated with stock-
recruitment models that may limit their utility in a regulatory context. Finally, Section A6-5 discusses EPA's decision to
adopt a "precautionary approach" in evaluating the biological impacts of cooling water intake structures (CWISs).
A6-1 Background
Chapter Contents
A6-!
Background
.,. A6-I
Afr-l.l Population Regulation
Af> 1
A6-I.2 Fish Stock-Recruitment Models
A6-2
A6-2
Use nf Stock-Recruitment Models in Fisheries
Management
A6-3
Use of Stock-Recruitment Models to Evaluate
CWIS Impact!!
... A 6-4
A6-4
Uncertainty in Stock-Recruitment Models
... A6-5
A6-5
Precautionary Approach
... A6-6
A6-1.1 Population Regulation
The growth of biological populations is limited by natural regulatory factors such as environmental variation, random changes
in rates of survival or reproduction, predator-prey relationships, disease, and competitive interactions with other individuals
(Begon and Mortimer, 1986). Factors that result in population changes that are unrelated to population size are known as
density independent factors. Examples include climatic variables such as temperature, floods, droughts, etc. Factors that can
influence populations in relation to the size of the population, such as competition, predation or disease, are referred to as
density dependent factors. The population size to which a population will tend to return in response to density dependent
regulation is known as the equilibrium population.
The concept of density dependence is fundamental to the study of biological populations and to the application of population
modeling in fisheries management. Compensation refers to the theoretical ability of a population to offset (compensate for)
increased mortality (Goodyear, 1980; Rose et al„ 2001). According to the theory of compensation, populations will grow
when population density is low and will decline when density is high because competition and other density dependent
processes will increase or decline in relation to population size. In this way, populations size remains relatively stable.
Inverse density dependence, or depensation, can occur when demographic rates (e.g., birth rates, survival rates) decrease at
low densities (Liermann and Hilborn, 2001), Depensation can occur because of a failure to find mates when a population
contains few individuals, or when fish harvest rates, impingement and entrainment, or other sources of mortality remain
constant even though the population is depressed. Depensation tends to destabilize populations.
A6-J
-------
Chapter Af,'. Fish Population Modeling
While considered likely to operate in most biological populations, compensation and other density dependent processes are
difficult to observe and measure. When modeling population dynamics, this makes it difficult to identify underlying
mechanisms of density dependent response and to estimate the magnitude and direction of population changes,
A6-! .2 Fish Stock-Recruitment Models
Fish stock-recruitment models are based on the assumption that some form of density dependent compensation will help
maintain a stable population size despite losses of adults due to fishing (Getz and Haight, 1989; Ricker, 1975; Rothschild,
1986; Hilbom and Walters, 1992; Quinn and Deriso, 1999). Different functional forms of the stock-recruitment relationship
represent different hypotheses about the response of recruitment to changes in the density of the spawning stock. There are
three basic hypothetical stock-recruitment relationships, a density independent relationship, the Beverton-Holt curve, and the
Ricker curve, as described below.
Density Independent Model. In the absence of any density dependent effect, it is assumed that there is a strictly linear
relationship between stock and recruitment (Figure A6-1).
Figure A6-1: A Density Independent Relationship between
Spawning Stock and Recruitment
Stock
This density independent relationship between stock and recruitment changes if recruitment is influenced by the number of
spawners (i.e., if recruitment is density dependent). There are two general types of density dependent compensation modeled
by stock-recruitment curves, the Beverton-Holt and the Ricker models.
Beverton-Holt Model The Beverton-Holt model (Getz and Haight, 1989) depicts density dependent recruitment of a
resource limited population in which resources are not shared equally. It is considered most appropriate for modeling
populations characterized by within cohort cannibalism or resource competition (Wootton, 1990; Hilbom and Walters, 1992).
According to the Beverton-Holt formulation, a population consists of "winners" or "losers" — each individual receives some
of the available resources, or not. This means that as resources such as spawning sites become fully utilized, further increases
in population size will not result in additional recruits, and when spawner abundance is reduced, there is reduced recruitment.
This is expressed in the Beverton-Holt formulation as;
R = 1 / (3 + a/P
where:
R = recruits
P = parent stock
C£ and 0 = fitted parameters
The parameters a and P are fit to field data and define the shape of the stock-recruitment curve. The slope 0. is considered an
indication of the population's maximum reproductive rate and P represents compensatory mortality as a function of stock
size. According to the Beverton-Holt model, recruitment increases in relation to stock size up to an asymptote, or maximum,
at high stock abundance (Figure A6-2).
A 6-2
-------
5 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cast, Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter 46: Fish Population Modeling
Figure A6-2: The Beverton-Holt Stock-Recruitment
Relationship
Stock
Richer Model. In contrast to the Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment model, the Ricker model (Ricker, 1975) predicts declining
recruitment at high stock levels according to the equation:
R= aP1*
where, as for the Beverton-Holt model:
R = recruits
P = parent stock
a and P = fitted parameters
According to the Ricker model, the exponential term (-PP) gives the density dependent effect of parent stock on recruitment
and a is the slope of the curve when P is small (Figure A6-3).
Figure A6-3: The Ricker Stock-Recniitment Relationship
Stock
The assumption of the Ricker model is that resources are divided equally among individuals in a population. As a
consequence, as density increases all members of the population receive an increasingly smaller amount of available food or
other resource. The result is that at very high densities, very few individuals will survive to reproduce. Therefore, according
to the Ricker equation, recruitment is controlled by aP when parent stock is small, and R increases with P in a density-
independent fashion. However, when parent stock is large, R is controlled more by the density dependent term -PP, and the
number of recruits declines as stock increases. The Ricker relationship is expected when there is cannibalism of the young by
adults or resource competition between parents and progeny, resulting in poor survival of young at high stock sizes (Wootton,
1990; Hilbom and Walters, 1992).
A6-3
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A6: Fish Population Modeling
A6-2 Use of Stock-Recruitment Models in Fisheries Management
Stock-recruitment models and their underlying assumptions about compensation are applied in fisheries management to
estimate how much fishing mortality can be sustained on a long term basis by a commercially harvested fish population
{Rothschild, 1986; Hilbom and Walters, 1992; Quinn and Deriso, 1999). This involves estimating the population's potential
surplus production and compensatory reserve, as discussed below.
Surplus Production. Surplus production refers to the number of recruits produced above that needed for replacement at a
given stock level and is considered the production available for harvesting (Getz and Haight, 1989; Ricker, 1975; Gulland,
1974), Surplus production is estimated by fitting stock-recruitment curves to empirical fisheries data. The 45 degree line
from the origin of the stock-recruitment curve depicts exact replenishment of the population, and the area of the curve above
the replacement line is the production that is available to the fishery (see Figure A6-4). The steeper the initial slope (a) of the
stock-recruitment curve, the greater the expected compensatory response of the population to density changes and the larger
the harvestable portion of the stock. In Figure A6-4, Population A has the strongest compensatory response. As the slope
decreases, the compensatory response is less, as in Population B. As the curve approximates a straight line, the density
dependent response is considered to be very weak, resulting in what is known as undercompensation, as seen in Population C.
Figure A6-4: Hypothetical Stock-Recruitment Curves
Compensatory Reserve. The slope of the spawner-recruit curve near the origin, where compensation effects are small,
indicates the population's maximum reproductive rate. This gives an indication of the compensatory reserve, or the capacity
of the population to offset any form of increased mortality (Myers et al., 1999; Rose et al., 2001). This is expressed as:
f (S) = the relationship between survival and spawner abundance
A difficulty in estimating compensatory reserve is that there are rarely data on abundance at very low population sizes (i.e.,
near the origin of the spawner-recruit curve) (Myers et al., 1999; Rose et al., 2001). As a result, one of the major
uncertainties in fisheries management is the actual magnitude of compensatory reserve in any given population.
A6-3 Use of Stock-Recruitment Models to Evaluate CWIS Impacts
To evaluate CWIS impacts on fish populations, stock-recruitment models have been modified to consider entrainment
mortality of young instead of harvesting of adults (Goodyear, 1977a; McFadden and Lawler, 1977; Christensen et al, 1977;
Fletcher and Deriso, 1988; Lawler, 1988; Savidge et al., 1988). Most of these models are based on the Ricker formulation
and assume that the survival or reproduction of remaining individuals will increase in response to CWIS losses. It is thought
R = aS f (S)
where;
R = recruits
a = the slope at the origin
S = spawners
A6-4
-------
Chapter <*6: Fish Population Modeling
that this will enable the population to offset or compensate for CWIS-related mortality (Jude et al., 1987a; R.G. Otto &
Associates and Science Applications International Corporation, 1987; Saila et al,, 1987; Systec Engineering, Inc., 1987).
In a recent paper prepared for the Utility Water Act Group for the § 316(b) rulemaking, Myers (2001) noted that the life stage
at which power plant mortality occurs in relation to the timing of any compensatory response will strongly determine the
degree of impact. If compensation operates in a population and power plant mortality occurs before compensation, the impact
on equilibrium spawner biomass and fishery yield may be small. However, if power plant mortality occurs after
compensation on juveniles, there can be a more rapid decrease in equilibrium spawner biomass with plant mortality.
While such models can make general predictions, in practice they are limited in their ability to estimate the actual degree to
which potential compensatory processes may enable any particular population to offset intake-related losses, as discussed in
the following section.
A6-4 Uncertainty in stock - Recruitment Models
A recent extensive review of available spawner-recruit data for commercially harvested marine fish stocks indicated that the
recruitment of many exploited species shows a compensatory response to spawning stock (Myers et al., 1995; Myers and
Barrowman. 1996; Myers et al., 1999). Data also indicate that compensation in Fish species usually occurs during early life
stages, although the exact timing varies by species and type of waterbody (Myers and Cadigan, 1993).
Although many fish species appear to show the potential for a compensatory response to changes in population size, in other
cases a statistically significant density dependent relationship cannot be detected because of significant variability in the
available population data (Shepherd and Gushing, 1990; Fogarty et al., 1991). For example, although there is a reasonably
good fit of the Beverton-Holt and Ricker curves to data for coho salmon (Figure A6-5a), population data for anchoveta show
considerable variation about the hypothetical stock-recruitment curves (Figure A6-5b).
Figure A6-5: The Ricker Curve (solid line) and Beverton-
Holt Curve (dotted line) Fitted to Data for (a) Coho
Salmon and (b) Anchoveta
••
m W
Spawning Stock
Source: Modified from plots by Kimmerer, 1999, of data
compiled by Myers et al., 1995.
,46-5
-------
5 316(b) Existing Futilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Ab: Fish Population Modeling
Two major sources of recruitment variability in fish populations can cause any compensatory relationship between spawning
stock and recruitment to vary unpredictably in ways that are difficult to observe and measure. These are variation in the
physical environment due to fluctuations in climate and other natural conditions (Gushing, 1982; Fogarty et aL, 1991) and
interactions with other species (Boreman, 2000).
Competition and predation can interact in complex ways with other sources of mortality to alter stock-recruitment
relationships. For example, a mode! of trophic dynamics among fish populations in the Patuxent River that are subject to
harvesting as well as CWIS impacts predicted a significant reduction (over 25%) in striped bass, bluefish, and weakfish
production as a result of power plant losses of preferred prey species such as bay anchovy and sil versides (Summers, 1989).
Thus, CWIS losses can contribute to reduced overall ecosystem productivity, irrespective of any potential compensation in
populations directly affected by CWIS mortality (Boreman, 2000).
Most existing CWIS stock-recruitment models do not consider:
~ Losses of more than one species,
~ - Losses from multiple CWIS,
~ Other human-related sources of mortality (in addition to fishing and CWIS),
~ Interactions among species, and
~ Interactions among density-dependent and density-independent processes.
In practice the use of stock-recruitmerit curves to set fishing levels, or to determine how much I&E a population can
withstand, is complicated by the many physical and biological factors that can cause the stock-recruitment relationship and
potential compensatory reserve to vary overtime (Christensen and Goodyear, 1988; Gushing, 1982; Fogarty et al., 1991;
Boreman, 2000). It is now acknowledged that fish recruitment is a multidimensional process, and separating the variance in
recruitment into its component causes remains a fundamental problem in fisheries science, stock management, and impact
assessment (Hilborn and Walters, 1992; Quinn and Deriso, 1999).
Because the relationship between spawners and recruits may itself vary, applying fixed rules for achieving constant fisheries
yields or taking of young by cooling water intakes can have very different effects, depending on whether population size is
high or low (Clark, 1990; Myers et al., 1996),
Even if compensation operates, if and how quickly a population can recover from anthropogenic sources of mortality depends
on the population's growth rate at low densities (Liermann and Hilbom, 1997; Myers et al., 1999; Liermann and Hilbom,
2001). As the degree of compensation or age at recruitment declines, there can be a dramatic reduction in the level of fishing
or other anthropogenic mortality that a population can sustain (Mace, 1994). When a population at low abundance continues
to be reduced by a fixed amount, the population may gradually lose resilience and may suddenly collapse in the face of
disturbances that previously could have been assimilated (Goodyear, 1977a; Hailing, 1996). If exploitation levels or other
stressors remain high during the decline, recovery may be protracted, if it occurs at all (Fogarty et al., 1992). In the case of
the winter flounder in Mt. Hope Bay, Massachusetts, substantial population decline has been associated with both overfishing
and mortality associated with the operation of the Brayton Point facility (Gibson, 1996). Even though fishing restrictions
have been imposed, the population has failed to recover in the face of ongoing power plant mortality.
A6-5 Precautionary Approach
Some industry representatives have argued that the environmental impacts of CWIS are adverse only if population-level
impacts are demonstrated. These groups argue that compensatory processes help maintain stable fish stocks despite CWIS
losses in most, if not all, affected populations. However, EPA is concerned that even in fish populations where compensatory
processes are thought to operate, it has proven extremely difficult to estimate the magnitude of compensation and the form of
compensatory response (Rose et al., 2001). This is a particular concern for commercially exploited marine species. A recent
report by the National Marine Fisheries Service concludes that nearly a third of the 283 fish stocks under U.S. jurisdiction are
currently below their maximum sustainable yield (NMFS, 1999b). For another third, the maximum sustainable yield remains
uncertain. EPA notes that many of these stocks are also subject to impingement and entrainment losses.
Given that many fish stocks are at risk, EPA has adopted a "precautionary approach" in evaluating CWIS impacts because of
the many uncertainties associated with modeling compensation and stock-recruitment relationships. As practiced by many
natural resource agencies, the precautionary approach aims to prevent irreversible damage to the environment by
implementing strict conservation measures even in the absence of unambiguous scientific evidence that environmental
degradation is being caused by human stressors (NMFS, 1999b).
A6-6
-------
Chapter A6: Fish Population Modeling
In this regard, many agencies now recognize that if protective measures are not initiated until effects at higher levels of
biological organization are apparent, natural resources that are ecologically important or highly valued by society may not be
adequately protected. In the context of the § 316(b) rulemaking, EPA notes that most CWIS cause substantial losses of
aquatic organisms, and EPA believes that it is not appropriate to assume that these impacts are unimportant unless population-
level consequences can be demonstrated. EPA notes that in other cases where a stressor directly affects individuals but
population or higher-level effects are unclear though potentially important, individual-level endpoints often take precedence
when evaluating environmental impacts (Strange et al., 2002). Indeed, in many Clean Water Act (CWA) programs EPA has
found that effects on individuals can be important predictors of potential effects on populations or communities that can't be
measured directly.
An example of this is provided by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Under
section 301(b)(1)(c) of the CWA, effluent limits must be placed in NPDES permits as necessary to meet water quality
standards. To implement this requirement, EPA and most states rely on toxicity tests that determine the effects of discharges
on individual organisms (U.S. EPA, 1991). By evaluating the effects of pollutants on growth, reproduction, and mortality of
individuals, EPA uses individual impacts as surrogates and precursors of population and ecosystem impacts.
For the § 316(b) benefits case studies, EPA has chosen to evaluate multiple endpoints, including the impingement and
entrainment of individuals, the most direct measures of CWIS impact. In addition, to evaluate the potential population-level
consequences of these losses for economically valued endpoints, EPA has implemented several density independent models to
conservatively estimate potential consequences for fishery harvests and ecosystem production, as described in detail in
Chapter A5. These density independent models do not assume any compensatory response to CWIS losses. While
relationships between CWIS losses, fish stocks, and fishery yields are unlikely to be strictly linear, as these models assume,
EPA believes that the many uncertainties associated with modeling stock-recruitment relationships and potential
compensation justify this approach, in keeping with a precautionary approach to environmental decision-making.
A 6-7
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival
Chapter A7 '•
Entrainment Survival
Introduction
This chapter addresses the issue of survival rates of
aquatic organisms entrained by cooling water intake
structures. Assessment of ecological and economic
consequences of entrainment is based on estimates of the
number of fish and shellfish killed as a result of
entrainment. Entrainment monitoring programs attempt to
quantify the total number of organisms entrained. If 100
percent of entrained organisms are killed by the process,
then the consequences of entrainment derive solely from
the total number of organisms entrained. However, if
some of the organisms survive the process, then the
resulting consequences may be less severe.
Information regarding the magnitude of entrainment
survival is extremely limited. To calculate benefits
associated with entrainment reduction, EPA used the
conservative assumption of 100 percent mortality. This
same 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. This chapter
provides a brief review of the current knowledge regarding
entrainment survival, and describes the protocols EPA believes are necessary to conduct a sound entrainment survival study
for use in a cost-benefit analysis of entrainment reduction technologies.
A7-1 Entrainment Mortality and Entrainment Survival
A7-1.1 Entrainment Mortality of Organisms
The most commonly entrained life stages of organisms include eggs, larvae, and juveniles. Adults are seldomly entrained.
Eggs and larvae are the most common victims of entrainment because of their small size and their limited swimming ability.
Eggs are extremely delicate and therefore are typically produced in high numbers to ensure that a proportion will survive to
become reproducing adults. The generally high vulnerability of eggs in the natural environment ensures high mortality rates
as a result of entrainment. Larvae are also typically delicate and susceptible to the physical stress of entrainment because,
with the possible exception of vision and feeding apparatus, most of their major organ systems are poorly developed. Their
skeletons, musculature, and integument (skin and scales) are soft and provide limited mechanical and thermal protection to
vital organs. For these reasons, entrained larvae are believed to experience high mortality rates as a result of entrainment.
The presumption on the part of biologists that entrainment and passage through a cooling water intake structure would kill
most if not all organisms indicates that any assertions that survival rates are appreciably greater than zero should be viewed
with skepticism, and evidence in favor of that assertion must be quite strong to be convincing. Based on the "precautionary
principle" in resource conservation, EPA believes that accounting for entrainment survival of entrained fish is unwarranted
unless there is a strong foundation of supporting evidence that is clearly relevant to the particular features and ecological
situation of the regulated facilities under consideration.
1 r
Chapter Contents
A7-1
Entrainment Mortality and Entrainment Survival.
. A7-1
A7-L1
Entrainment Mortality of Organisms ..
. A7-1
A7-1.2
Understanding Entrainment Survival ..
. A7-2
A7-2
Existing Entrainment Survival Studies
A7-2
A7-3
Analysis by EPA of 13 Existing Studies
A7-4
A7-4
Principles to Guide Future Studies of Entrainment
Survival
A7-12
A7-4.1
Protocol for Entrainment Survival
Study
A7-12;
A7-4.2
Statistical Considerations: Direct
Estimates of Entrainment Survival
Rates
A7-13
A7-4..1
Applicability of Entrainment Survival
Studies to Other Facilities
A7-13
A7-4.4
Statistical Considerations: Development
of Predictive Models of Entrainment
Survival Rate
A7-J4
A7-5;
¦ Conclusions
A7-I4
A 7-1
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrapment Survival
A7-1.2 Understanding Entrainment Survival
Entrainment survivability is species and life stage specific. Survivability is also be affected by the stress on an organism
associated with the passage through the cooling water intake structure. Entrainment mortality is generally the result of
exposure of the organisms to three types of stress (thermal, mechanical, and chemical) while passing through the cooling
water intake structure. These stressors can interact with each other and are jointly affected by the operating characteristics of
the power facility. These three stressors can also affect different species and life stages of entrained organisms differently.
Since the extent and effect of these stressors can vary at each facility, the results of a study at one facility cannot be assumed
to apply to another facility. Also, the results of a study at a facility can only be applied to time periods when the entrained
organisms experience the same level of stresses and are not indicative of all times at a facility when stress levels may be
different.
Thermal stress
Dose-response models that relate thermal exposure to mortality rate are critical in understanding the extent of the effect of
thermal stress on aquatic organisms. The magnitude of thermal stress resulting from passage through the facility depends on
several facility-specific parameters such as maximum temperature, intake temperature, discharge temperature, duration of
exposure to elevated temperatures through the facility and before mixing with ambient temperature water, the maximum
tolerable temperature of the species, and delta T (At, i.e., the difference between ambient water temperature and maximum
water temperature within the cooling system). The effect of the values of each of these parameters varies among the species
and life stages of entrained organisms. Larger organisms are typically more tolerant than smaller organisms.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) sorted larval entrainment survival data by discharge temperature and
determined 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,
Mechanical stress
Entrained organisms are also exposed to significant mechanical stress, which can also lead to high 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.
Chemical stress
Chemical biocides are routinely used within cooling water intake structures to remove biofouling organisms. These biocides
often contain chlorine, which can negatively affect any potential entrainment survival of entrained species. The timing of any
bioeide application should be scheduled during times oflow egg and larval abundance. The concentration and duration of
biocide use need to be fully documented to gain a better understanding of the effect on entrainment survival,
A7-2 Existing Entrainment Survival Studies
Facility studies have tried to estimate entrainment survival (see Table A7-1). These studies varied in study designs and
analytical methods. Important aspects of the study designs that differed between studies included sampling gear (e.g., types of
nets or other collection devices), sampling locations relative to intake and outflow, sampling frequency, species collected, and
observations of latent mortality. Table A7-1 provides a list of entrainment studies reviewed in this chapter by EPA.
A recent report prepared for EPRI (EA Engineering Science & Technology, 2000) summarized the results of 36 entrainment
studies prepared for individual power facilities, including the 13 studies listed in Table A7-1. The report concluded that in
most cases the assumption of zero entrainment survival is overly conservative. Although these studies indicate that
entrainment survival may occur for certain species under certain conditions, the studies were conducted with a variety of
sampling and measurement protocols. The fact that existing studies have been conducted using various methods highlights
the fact that facilities have some unique features that affect monitoring procedures; it also 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 results presented in the report have limited utility. A more useful analysis would
include consideration of aggregated variance components, which could be used to determine confidence intervals around the
mean values that the report determined for individual species. Although a description of confidence intervals is always
desirable, determining valid confidence intervals in the context of an analysis can be difficult (or impossible) unless the
A 7-2
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case. Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter AT: Entnainment Survival
statistics available from each individual study are complete and sufficiently comparable. In EPRI's report, it seems likely that
differences among the basic studies with respect to measurement protocols were too large, or descriptions of variance
components were too few, to permit a more rigorous statistical summary.
Table A7-1: Entrapment Survival Studies Reviewed by EPA
Facility
Waterbody ! Slate |
f i c j. . Survivability
Species Studied _ . , .. '
Calculations
Citation
Braidwood
Nuclear
Kankakee i : June-July
River i : 1988
Lepomis . ... ,
r . . , initial
cyprintds
EA Science and Technology,
1990
Brayton Point
; : April - August
: 1997
Mt Hope Bay : MA : _ ,
; February -
' July 1998
winter flounder,
mntf' n , : initial and
windowpane flounder,; q6hourlatent
bay anchovy,
American sand lance
Lawler Matusky & Skclly
Engineers, 1999
PSI Cayuga
Generating Plant
Wabash River ; IN :
catastomids percids .... ,
. initial and
cyprinids ; 48 hour latent
percichthyias
Ecological Analysts Inc., 1980a
Indian Point
Generating Station
Hudson River NY . Marci?"
: August 1979
Atlantic tomcod
striped bass l . . . , ,
,r , initial and
white perch hour latent
herrings
bay anchovy
Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981b
Indian Point
Generating Station
Hudson River i NY • Apl?yg(July
striped bass initial and
bay anchovy 96 hour latent
Ecological Analysts Inc., 1982
Indian Point
Generating Station
Hudson River : NY r 'Junc
1985
bay anchovy
initial
EA Science and Technology,
1986
Indian Point
Generating Station
Hudson River NY ;
1755
striped bass
white perch
bay anchovy
initial and
24 hour latent
EA Engineering Science and
Technology, 1989
Indian River
Power Plant
, a- o i July 1975-
Indian River '
c ^ UE December
Estuary , ^
bay anchovy
initial and
96 hour latent
Ecological Analysts Inc., 1978a
Oyster Creek
Nuclear
Generating Station
Bamegat Bay ¦ NJ Februaiy-
3 J : August 1985
bay anchovy
winter flounder
initial and
96hour latent
EA Engineering Science and
Technology, 1986
Port Jefferson
Long Island : K,,r : April
Sound : ; 1978
winter flounder,
American sand lance,
fourbeard rockling,
American eel,
sculpin
initial and
96 hour latent
Ecological Analysts Inc., 1978b
PG&E Potrero
San Francisco ; _ , January
Bay . C i 1979
Pacific herring
initial and
96 hour latent
Ecological Analysts Inc., 1980b
Quad Cities
Nuclear Station
Mississippi .. June
River ; : 1978
freshwater drum
non-carp eyprinids
initial and
24 hour latent
Hazleton Environmental Science
Co., 1978
Quad Cities
Nuclear Station
Mississippi .. April - June
River 1984
freshwater drum
carp
buffalo
initial and
24 hour latent
LawSer Matusky & Skclly
Engineers, 1985
A7-3
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case, Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7'- Entrainment Survival
Other specific aspects of the EPRI report that limit its utility include the following (which are primarily features of the source
studies rather than the review itself):
~ the limited geographic areas in the studies
*¦ the small sample sizes in the studies
~ the limited species in the studies
~ the variation in sampling procedures
~ the absence of information on chemical stresses
*¦ the absence of information on mechanical stress
~ the limited data on latent physiological effects on species
~ effects from entrainment on growth rates
~ increased vulnerability to natural mortality, maturation, and fertility/fecundity.
For these reasons, EPA concludes that the sampling and data in the studies reviewed in the EPRI report are far too limited to
justify their use as a screening tool at the national level.
A7-3 Analysis-By EPA of 13 Existing Studies
EPA reviewed the following 13 studies to determine if they were conducted in a manner to give an adequate representation of
the current probability of entrainment survival at the facility.
Braidwood Nuclear Station
Larval samples for an entrainment survival study were taken from the intake and discharge of the facility in 1988. Although
sampling at the discharge determined that the peak densities of larvae and eggs occurred during May, the samples for the
entrainment sampling study were taken in June and July, which may have resulted in samples that included fewer and larger
entrained organisms. A no. 0 mesh plankton net with a 1.0 m opening was used to collect samples. Samples were taken in
areas where the velocities were approximately 0.5 ft/sec. After the sample was taken, the net was placed in a 5 gallon bucket
containing water (no water chemistry or temperature data given), untied, and rinsed into the bucket. The larvae samples were
sorted within 20 minutes of collection into three classes: live, dead-transparent, and dead-opaque. The dead-opaque larvae
were omitted from the calculations of survival proportions as it was suggested that these opaque larvae probably died before
collection. It was also assumed that the dead-transparent larvae died during passage through the system. After sorting based
on mortality, the larvae were identified by species and separated into life stages. Survival proportions were determined by
dividing the number of live larvae by the number oflive plus dead-transparent larvae.
The intake survival study samples were collected from the holding pond, into which river water was pumped, during the day
of June 1(10 two minute replicates) and during the night of June 7 (2 two minute replicates) and July 5 (12 two minute
replicates). There were no data given to determine that conditions were similar on the three sampling dates. The three intake
survival sampling dates yielded a total of 191 individuals. Of these, the primary species sampled were cypnnidae (77
percent) and Lepomis sp. (6.8 percent). Of the larvae sampled on the three dates, 128 individuals were classified as dead-
opaque and omitted from any calculations of survival proportions, 20 were dead-transparent, and 43 were live. Samples sizes
were so small that all data of all species from the three sampling dates were combined to conclude that 68 percent of the
larvae survived passage from the river screen house to the holding pond. EPA recalculated this intake survival, including the
dead-opaque larvae, to determine that in fact only 23 percent survived. It is misleading to assume that these individuals died
prior to pumping into the holding pond. To account for those larvae that may be dead in a sample from natural conditions,
EPA suggests a similarly sized sample be collected away from the intake and before the river water is pumped into the
holding pond as part of the same sampling event to account for any natural and sampling equipment related mortality.
The discharge samples were taken downstream of the outfall in the discharge canal during the day on the June 1(11 two
minute replicates), June 7(13 two minute replicates), and June 21 (14 two minute replicates). Water chemistry and facility
temperature information were not given to determine if conditions were similar on the three sampling dates. These three
discharge sampling dates yielded a total of 103 individuals. Again, since the number of larvae sampled was low, all data from
all three sampling dates were combined. Of the larvae sampled on the three dates, 22 individuals were classified as dead-
opaque and omitted from any calculations of survival proportions, 20 were dead-transparent, and 61 were live. The study
concluded that overall survival rate at the discharge was 75 percent. EPA included the dead-opaque larvae and concludes that
the actual overall discharge survival should be recorded in this study as 59 percent. Rather than collecting intake and
discharge samples simultaneously, EPA would prefer that the discharge samples be taken after a sufficient lag time from the
intake samples to simulate passage through the facility. It is also important to take discharge samples as close to the outfall as
A7-4
-------
Chapter A7. Entrainment Survival
possible, rather than downstream, to ensure that the larvae sampled were in fact those that passed through the facility. If
sampling mortality due to collection cannot be reduced, then EPA suggests that the percent survival of all individuals sampled
from the discharge without correcting for sampling equipment related mortality be used to ensure a fair, accurate, and
conservative estimate of entrainment survival.
EPA disagrees with EPRI's determination that this facility experiences 100 percent survival forLepomis sp. larvae based on
the 1988 study. EPRI's calculation used the study's survival proportions, which had already corrected for dead-opaque larvae
that were assumed to have died prior to passage through the facility, and further corrected for dead larvae by dividing the
discharge survival by the intake survival, assuming incorrectly that the intake survival was a control. EPRI calculated the
initial discharge survival for Lepomis sp. larvae as 80 percent (60 live larvae of 75 live and dead-transparent larvae with four
dead-opaque larvae omitted). EPRI then divided this initial survival rate by the intake survival rate for Lepomis sp, larvae
calculated as 78 percent {seven live larvae out of nine live and dead-transparent larvae) to correct for natural and sampling
equipment related mortality to yield an initial entrainment survival of greater than 100 percent (0.80/0.78). Since the dead-
opaque larvae were already omitted from the calculation and the initial survival study was not a true control, this overstates
entrainment survival of Lepomis sp. larvae. While EPA concludes that the entrainment survival of Lepomis sp. larvae is not
100 percent, EPA notes that the limited samples collected give an indication that there may be some initial larval survival.
Further entrainment survival studies would be needed at this facility using EPA's suggestions above before assuming anything
more than 0 percent entrainment survival. Additional studies should also be conducted to determine latent mortality of larvae
and egg viability after entrainment.
Brayton Point
Samples were collected in 1977 weekly from April 30 to August 27 and in 1998 weekly from February 26 to July 29.
Samples were not collected during times of biocide use. The numbers of samples taken per week varied. The time of day the
samples were collected also varied, with samples collected primarily during the day before March 18, 1988 and primarily
during the night after that date. A total of 889 samples in 1997 and 1,424 in 1998 were collected at the intake from mid-depth
directly in front of the Unit 3 intake screens. A total of 1,803 samples in 1997 and 2,713 in 1998 were collected at the
discharge approximately 2 to 4 ft below the surface from either the middle of the discharge canal for Units 1, 2, and 3 or from
the Unit 4 discharge pipe. Samples were collected in larval tables by pumping water into the table for approximately 15
minutes. After each sampling period, samples were transferred into 19 L buckets, covered, and transported to the laboratory
for sorting. A time of 30 minutes per sample was targeted, but it is unclear how often this target time was met. Dead larvae
were counted, identified, and preserved. Live or stunned larvae were transferred to holding cups with plastic spoons, turkey
basters, or other unspecified devices, with a maximum of 20 larvae per cup. The holding cups were placed in the racks in the
aquariums through which ambient temperature water flowed. Live larvae were held for 96 hours to determine latent survival.
This study calculated entrainment survival assuming stunned organisms did not survive entrainment due to the increased risk
of predation.
In the 1997 samples, 239 individuals were collected at the intake and 18,998 individuals were collected at the discharge. Bay
anchovy was the predominant species, accounting for 71 percent of the total collected. Discharge water temperatures were
highly variably and ranged from 13.5 to 35 *C. In the 1998 samples, 2,017 individuals were collected at the intake and 8,576
individuals were collected at the discharge. American sand lance was the predominant species, accounting for 38 percent of
the total collected. Discharge temperatures were also highly variable and ranged from 10.5 to 45 "C. The differences in
numbers and species collected at the intake and discharge raise concerns regarding the comparability of the survival estimates
at the two sampling locations.
Because of low sample sizes, all data from all sampling conditions from 1997 and 1998 were combined. For American sand
lance, total survival at the intake was 0.13 percent and total survival at the discharge was 0.41 percent; for tautog, intake
survival was 4.2 percent and discharge survival was 4.4 percent. Since intake survival for these species was lower than
discharge survival, it is impossible to distinguish between mortality due to collection and handling, and mortality due to the
effects of entrainment. If entrainment survival were calculated as discharge survival divided by intake survival, the result
would be an erroneous 100 percent entrainment survival. Survival was negligible for bay anchovy both at the intake (0
percent) and at the discharge (0.04 percent). For windowpane flounder, intake survival was 65 percent and discharge survival
was 44 percent which results in an overall entrainment survival of 68 percent. For winter flounder, intake survival was 90
percent and discharge survival was 32 percent, which results in an overall entrainment survival of 36 percent. Survival was
also analyzed with regard to discharge temperatures. In general, entrainment survival decreased markedly at discharge
temperatures above 20 *C. The results of this study seem to indicate that this facility has a negative effect on survival of
entrained organisms. The extent of the effect is unclear because of inadequacies and inconsistencies in the sample protocols.
EPA recommends that future studies at this site should pair intake and discharge sample locations, times, and sizes to
A7-S
-------
Chapter A7: Errtrommenf Survival
accurately represent the organisms that are entrained in the units of this facility. Also, EPA recommends that only samples
collected under similar conditions be combined for statistical purposes.
Cayuga Generating Plant
Larvae samples were taken from the intake and discharge of the cooling system to determine entrainment survival at the
facility in May and June of 1979. Samples were also taken from a cooling tower located on the discharge canal. Both initial
and 48 hour latent survival were determined. Transit time through the cooling system was given as 2,180 seconds (36.34
minutes) and the AT during the sampling events ranged from 8.4 to 11.8 °C, with discharge temperatures ranging from 29.4 to
33.3 °C. Chlonnation occurs daily at this facility, but treatments ceased at least 2 hours before the start of each sampling
event. Between 0 and 6 sample pairs were collected at night from May 17 to 31 and June 8 to 22. The highest average
densities of organisms sampled were from June 8 to 10. It is unclear why sampling was discontinued June 1 to 7 when
densities of organisms may have also been high. Samples were taken simultaneously at the intake and discharge sites rather
than stratified to give a lag time to simulate passage through the facility. Samples were collected by pumping water through
the pump/larval table collection system for 15 minute intervals, after which the tables were drained and rinsed with ambient or
discharge temperature river water, as appropriate, to collect the samples into a transportation container for sorting. The
collected larvae were immediately classified as live, stunned, or dead. The dead larvae were preserved for subsequent
identification. The live and stunned larvae were sorted by life stage and transferred to 1 L jars containing filtered river water,
with a maximum of five individuals per jar. Filtered river water may not accurately simulate the actual conditions under
which organisms are exposed after discharge from the facility. The jars were aerated and maintained in an ambient
temperature bath for 48 hours after collection. Initial survival at the intake and discharge station was calculated as the
proportion of the larvae alive to all larvae collected. Standard error of the survival proportion was calculated, as well as
Fisher's exact test for independence to determined if the discharge survival was significantly lower than the intake survival.
The 80 intake survival samples yielded a total of 1,614 individuals in three life stages of 11 families (1,010 yolk sac larvae
(YSL), 597 post yolk sac larvae (PYSL), and seven juveniles). Because sample sizes were so low for each sampling event,
data were combined across samples to give a total estimate of intake survival by species irrespective of the facility conditions
under which the samples were taken. Because of insufficient data, survival estimates were determined for only four taxa,
catostomidae (621 YSL and 363 PYSL), cyprinidae (278 YSL and 188 PYSL), percidae (94 YSL and 14 PYSL), and
percichthyidae (25 PYSL). The intake samples showed high mortality resulting from either natural conditions or rough
handling during sampling. For example, in one sample, 33 larvae (41.25 percent) were classified as dead or stunned out of a
total of 80 catostomidae larvae collected. These high mortality rates at the intake need to be reduced to the maximum extent
possible. When divided into the mortality rates at the discharge site, high sampling mortality can mask any additional
mortality due to passage through the facility.
The 80 discharge survival samples yielded a total of 942 individuals in three life stages of 11 families (463 YSL, 478 PYSL
and 2 juveniles). Again, due to insufficient data, survival estimates were determined for only four taxa, catostomidae (306
YSL and 343 PYSL), cyprinidae (95 YSL and 97 PYSL), percidae (53 YSL and 13 PYSL) and percichthyidae (17 PYSL).
Densities were sometimes much higher in the intake samples than in the discharge samples for the top three families, ranging
from 1.7 to 16.4 times higher in the intake samples. This difference in organism densities can cause problems when
comparing mortality rates at the two locations. Using Fisher's Exact Test, all but the percidae PYSL showed an initial and 48
hour latent discharge survival significantly lower than the initial and 48 hour latent intake survival. However, when divided
by the intake survival to calculate the survival estimate, this difference is reduced and falsely high survivability estimates
without standard errors are reported in EPRI's study.
Entrainment survivability was also analyzed with regard to discharge temperature. Lower entrainment survival occurred at
temperatures above 30 "C. The lowest percentage surviving discharge temperatures greater than 34 °C were observed for the
cyprinidae YSL, with an average of only 4.8 percent ± 4.7 percent surviving in the discharge samples. The facility's report
calculates a 17.1 percent - 16.7 percent entrainment survivability for cyprinidae YSL at temperatures greater than 34 *C by
dividing the discharge proportion by the proportion surviving the intake under all conditions of 28.0 percent ± 2.7 percent
(0.048/0.280). The amount of time the discharge temperatures exceed 30 C was not provided even though this appears to
have a profound effect on survivability. Given that samples were taken at different times with different sampling sizes, it is
unclear whether the use of the data in this manner results in an accurate depiction of the actual entrainment survivability.
A 7-6
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A'- Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrapment Survival
Indian Point Generating Station
EPA reviewed entrainment survival studies conducted at this facility in 1979, 1980, 1985, and 1988.
Atlantic tomcod larvae samples were collected in late winter, March 12 -22, 1979, using pump/larval table collection
systems. Sampling was scheduled to coincide with the time period of greatest abundance of tomcod larvae. Samples were
collected at night eight times over a 2 week period. One unit was not operational during three nights of sampling, March 20-
22. Intake and discharge samples were collected simultaneously rather than with a lag period to simulate passage through the
facility. Samples were delivered to the larval table by two pumps for 15 minutes per sample. The pumps were then turned off
and the larval tables were drained and then rinsed with ambient water to concentrate the organisms into the collection box.
After collection, the larvae were sorted as live, stunned, or dead based on the extent of activity observed. Live and stunned
larvae were transferred with a pipette into 1 L jars containing filtered ambient river water with a maximum of five individuals
per jar. The jars were aerated and maintained in an ambient temperature bath for 96 hours. Discharge temperatures during
the study period ranged from 12.0 to 21.9 °C. These latent mortality experimental conditions may not accurately simulate the
actual conditions under which the organisms were exposed to subsequent to entrainment. Initial survival ranged from a low of
7 percent with discharge temperatures greater than 20 *C to high of 40 percent with discharge temperatures less than 16 "C.
After taking into account latent survivability, the overall entrainment survival estimates ranged from a low of 11 percent with
discharge temperatures above 20 °C and a high of 64 percent with discharge temperatures below 16 "C.
Striped bass, white perch, herring, and anchovy samples were collected from April 30 through August 14, 1979, using a rear-
draw plankton sampling flume at the intake and a pumpless plankton sampling flume at the discharge. These methods relied
on head-induced flow (created by the pressure difference due to the difference in water levels of the river and discharge canal)
instead of pumps to collect organisms in an attempt to reduce mortality from collection and handling. The floating sampling
gear was also advantageous to sample from the submerged discharge ports at this facility. Only one unit operated
continuously throughout the study period. This may result in discharge temperatures which were not representative of the
elevated temperatures which could be expected when the facility operates at full capacity. Intake and discharge samples were
collected simultaneously. Samples were collected for 15 minutes each for two consecutive nights each week for a total of 32
sampling events. After the 15 minute period, flow through the flume was stopped and ambient water flushed the organisms
into collection boxes. After collection, larvae were sorted as live, stunned, or dead based on the extent of activity observed
and eggs were sorted as live or dead based on coloration. Live and stunned larvae were transferred with a pipette into 1 L jars
containing filtered ambient river water with a maximum of five per jar. The jars were aerated and maintained in an ambient
temperature bath for 96 hours. These experimental conditions may not adequately simulate the actual conditions under which
the organisms were exposed after entrainment. Eggs were transferred to cups with fine mesh screened bottoms to allow for
ambient water flow. Because of insufficient sample size, all data for striped bass eggs were combined so that 124 eggs were
collected at the intake and 55 eggs were collected at the discharge. The 96 hour latent intake survival of striped bass eggs was
44 percent and the discharge survival was 33 percent through a range of discharge temperatures of 24 - 28 '€. The average
entrainment survival estimate for striped bass eggs, calculated as discharge survival divided by intake survival, was 74 percent
(0.33/0.44). 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. Initial discharge survival for all taxa ranged from a low of 3 percent for anchovy
PYSL to a high of 75 percent for striped bass YSL at discharge temperatures ranging from 30.0 to 32.9 °C.
In 1980, additional samples were collected four consecutive nights per week from April 30 through July 10 for a total of 44
sampling events. The sampling gear is this study was modified to reduce the disproportionate stress from the different
collection techniques used at the intake and discharge sampling sites. A total of 272 striped bass eggs were collected from the
intake and 147 eggs were collected from the discharge over a range of discharge temperatures from 23 to 31 °C during the
collection. The 96 hour latent intake survival was 82 percent while the discharge survival was 47 percent, resulting in an
entrainment survival for striped bass eggs of 56 percent (0.47/0.82). Entrainment survival estimates ranged from a low of 5
percent survival for bay anchovy PYSL at discharge temperatures above 33 "C to a high of 97 percent survival for white
perch PYSL at discharge temperatures below 29 *C.
In 1985, samples were collected with a barrel sampler daily from May 12 through June 29. Throughout the study a small
sample set was collected; only 115 larvae and juveniles were collected from the intake and 342 from the discharge.
Insufficient numbers were collected at both the intake and discharge for all taxa collected except bay anchovy PYSL, which
comprised 83 percent of the total number sampled. For bay anchovy PYSL, 106 were collected at the intake and 274 were
collected at the discharge. The survival at the intake was determined to be 23 percent while the survival at the discharge was
determined to be 6 percent, resulting in an entrainment survival estimate of 24 percent (0.06/0.23). There was insignificant
survival for both the intake and discharge samples to calculate latent survivability.
A 7-7
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrapment Survival
In 1988, the entrainment survival study was repeated to determine the effect of the installation of dual speed circulating water
pumps in Unit 2 in 1984 and variable speed pumps in 1985. Previously calculated entrainment survivability rates
demonstrated the effect of entrainment when the older single speed pumps were in use. Samples were collected for 15 minute
intervals on 13 days from June 8 through June 30 during afternoon and evening hours using rear-draw sampling flumes.
Intake samples were collected from in front of the intake structure and discharge samples were collected downstream from the
point where the discharge flow from Units 2 and 3 join. For all samples combined, a total of 1,132 individuals were collected
at the intake and 11,201 were collected at the discharge. The reason for the great disparity between intake and discharge
organism densities was unclear. Bay anchovy (67 percent), striped bass (26 percent), and white perch (3 percent) were
collected in the greatest proportions. At the intake, initial and 24 hour latent survival varied widely with many laxa having 0
percent survival for both. Bay anchovy PYSL was collected in the greatest numbers, 441, and had 8 percent initial survival
and 0 percent 24 hour latent survival. Striped bass PYSL, 273 collected, had an initial survival of 90 percent and a 24 hour
latent survival of 56 percent. At the discharge, initial and 24 hour latent survival also varied widely, with many taxa having 0
percent survival for both. Bay anchovy PYSL, 6,969 collected, had an initial survival of 2 percent and a 24 hour latent
survival of 0 percent. Striped bass PYSL, 2,398 collected, had 68 percent initial survival and 44 percent 24 hour latent
survival. The total entrainment survival for bay anchovy PYSL was 0 percent and for striped bass PYSL was 76 percent for
initial survival and 79 percent for 24 hour latent survival (calculated as discharge survival divided by intake survival).
While these studies were the most comprehensive of all studies reviewed by EPA, ihey still contain several inadequacies that
would need to be addressed before giving a full and accurate depiction of the actual entrainment survival of fish and shellfish
at this facility. Further studies would be needed to address the problems of low sample sizes, disparate densities at sampling
points, and high intake mortality.
Indian River Power Plant
Samples were taken once or twice monthly and mostly at night from July 21, 1975, to December 13, 1976, using a 0.5 m
diameter plankton sled fitted with 505 |im net. The average discharge temperature ranged from a low of 7.7 *C in January
1976 to a high of 38.7 "C in August 1975, with an average At that ranged from a low of 5.2 °C in July 1975 to high of 9.0 "C
in November 1975. The samples were taken for approximately 5 minutes each until an appropriate number of individuals of
each selected species were collected. After collection, the cod end of the net was submerged in approximately 10 L of water
of unspecified type and temperature. Samples were poured into enamel pans and individuals of selected species were then
removed from the pans with plastic spoons, meat basters, or eyedroppers and placed into holding containers with 10-25
individuals per container. During this process, individuals were assessed as either live or dead; however, for highly abundant
species, the number of live versus dead was taken from a random sample of the total sample. To determine latent
survivability, larger organisms were held in plastic Dandux boxes in tanks through which intake water flowed. Discharge
water for the discharge samples flowed through those holding tanks for the first 4 to 6 hours, after which ambient water was
introduced to the tanks. Smaller organisms were held in 250 mL plastic cups which floated in styrofoam frames within
Dandux boxes in the holding tanks. Latent survivability was observed for 96 hours during which time the organisms were fed.
Both absolute and percent survival data were presented for the seven specieS of fish and shellfish.
The 25 intake samples were taken from the foot bridge over the intake canal. This study used the same assumption that intake
mortality was natural or caused by handling during collection. High approach velocity may also account for high mortality in
the intake samples. The 21 discharge samples were taken from the discharge canal under a roadway bridge. It is unclear why
discharge samples were not collected each time intake samples were collected. Appendix B, which contained the entrainment
study data, was not made available to EPA. Therefore, the survivability calculations could not be verified. As in other
studies, very low intake survivability masked any additional mortality due to entrainment. For example, bay anchovy
experienced an average of only 21 percent intake survivability, which, when combined with low sample sizes, made it
extremely difficult to determine the extent of any additional mortality due to the effects of entrainment. When samples where
sorted based on discharge temperatures, all species presented experience reduced survivability at average discharge
temperatures above 20 "C. Four species experienced 0 percent survival above 35 °C. The facility's study attempted to
determine the relationship between the times of high facility discharge temperatures with times of greatest species abundance
to gain a better insight to the facility induced mortality rates. The extent to which this affects the overall survivability for
species throughout the year remains unclear. This information would have been helpful to determine the percentage of time
most organisms will experience zero survival at this facility. It is also unclear if the discharge temperatures remain
comparable at this time (over 25 years later). Dye studies have also been 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 either natural causes or from sampling from the intake is not
known, and thus some intake mortality may be due to the organism's previous passage through the facility, which may further
mask entrainment mortality.
A 7-8
-------
Chapter A7: Entroinment Survival
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station
An entrainmcnt survival study was performed at this facility from February through August 1985. Entrainment survival was
estimated for bay anchovy eggs and larvae and winter flounder larvae. Intake samples were collected at the intake and
discharge samples were collected approximately 2 minutes later to simulate the passage of the same portion of water through
the facility. Samples were collected for approximately 10 minutes each with a barrel sampler which consists of two nested
cylindrical tanks. The inner cylinder has 331 mm mesh screened panels that collect organisms as water is drawn into the inner
cylinder and out through the screens and outer cylinder. This design intended to reduce sampling mortality through abrasion
from the sampling gear and by minimizing the velocity of the water sampled to 1 cm/sec. Samples were held in flow-through
water systems with either ambient or discharge temperature water as appropriate. Organisms were sorted as either live,
stunned, or dead. Live and stunned organisms were transferred to flow-through or solid holding containers in water baths to
determine 96 hour latent survivability. Larvae were fed throughout the observation period. Eggs were classified as live when
clear or transparent in color, and dead if cloudy, opaque, or showed no development during observation. Data were grouped
by 3 day long sampling events. It was unclear if conditions remained similar throughout the 3 days of each sampling event.
Water quality data such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and pll were recorded throughout the 96 hour observation
period. Chlorine concentrations were measured during sample collection to determine any mortality due to biocide use, but
chlorine was not detected. The raw data were not provided in any appendix to this study, so the calculation of survival
estimates could not be verified,
A total of 20,227 bay anchovy eggs were collected from the intake and 26,243 were collected from the discharge from 13
sampling events. During sampling, the discharge temperature ranged from 25.9 to 38.1 °C and the AT ranged from -0.2 to
12.1 'C. It was unclear whether the facility was operating during sampling event 17 when the At was -0.2 °C (intake
temperature of26,l °C minus discharge temperature of 25.9 °C). Initial survival, calculated as discharge survival divided by
intake survival, ranged from 21 to 83 percent. The 96 hour latent survival, calculated as discharge survival divided by intake
survival, ranged from 0 to 100 percent. The total survival for bay anchovy eggs, calculated as initial survival multiplied by
latent survival, ranged from a low of 0 percent at discharge temperatures above 38 °C to a high of 93 percent at a discharge
temperature of 26.2 *C. Overall, the average survival was below 50 percent at discharge temperatures above 32 °C,
A total of 3,396 bay anchovy larvae were collected from the intake and 3,474 were collected from the discharge from 10
sampling events. During sampling, the discharge temperature ranged from 25.9 to 39.3 °C and the AT ranged from -0.2 to
11.7 *C. Initial survival, calculated as discharge survival divided by intake survival, ranged from 0 percent at temperatures
above 35 °C to 99 percent at a discharge temperature of 26.2 °C. Initial survival was generally below 50 percent when
discharge temperatures were above 30 °C. The 96 hour latent survival could not be calculated due to near zero survival of
organisms from both the intake and discharge samples.
A total of 3,935 winter flounder larvae were collected from the intake and 2,999 were collected from the discharge from five
sampling events. During sampling, the discharge temperature ranged from 13.5 to 20.3 "C and the AT ranged from 3.5 to
11.1 "C. Initial survival, calculated as discharge survival divided by intake survival, ranged from a low of 36 percent with a
discharge temperature of 20.3 *C to a high of 96 percent with a discharge temperature of 14.8 *C. The 96 hour latent
survival, calculated as discharge survival divided by intake survival, ranged from a low of 10 percent with a discharge
temperature of 20.3 *C to a high of 97 percent with a discharge temperature of 14.8 'C.
This facility, like all others, would need to conduct additional studies to sample more species, with larger sample sizes, and
with less intake mortality in order to calculate a fair and accurate estimate of entrainment survival. It would also be helpful to
determine the percentage of time the discharge temperatures are high enough to cause low entrainment survival.
Port Jefferson Genera ting Station
Samples taken for an entrainment survival study were taken for four nights in April 1978. Sampling was scheduled to
coincide with no biocide use at the facility. It was unclear whether these sampling dates corresponded with times of high egg
and larvae abundance. Discharge temperatures ranged from 10 to 18 'C, with a AT that ranged from 2 to 11 'C. It was
unclear whether these low discharge temperatures are typical of the facility's year round operation. Samples were analyzed
for both initial and 96 hour latent survival. The intake samples were collected at 2 m below mean low water mark in front of
the trash racks of the intake. The discharge samples were collected at 1 m below mean low water mark in the common seal
well structure for Units 3 and 4 of the facility. Intake and discharge samples were taken simultaneously rather than with a lag
time to simulate the passage of water through the facility. Samples were collected from the intake and discharge by pumping
water with a Marlow pump into a larval table for 15 minutes after which the pump was turned off and the table drained. The
time for the table to drain was approximately 30 minutes. The study did not mention if water was used to help flush the
A7-9
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrapment Survival
organisms into the transportation container; however, the study does indicate that the organisms were exposed to elevated
temperatures in the table and transportation container during the time the table drained. The transportation container was
taken to the laboratory where the organisms were sorted in an ambient temperature flow-through bath. Larvae and juveniles
were sorted as either live, stunned, or dead. Dead larvae and juveniles were preserved for later identification. Live and
stunned larvae and juveniles were transferred with a pipette to 0.9 L glass jars with a maximum of 5 individuals per jar. The
jars were aerated and maintained in an ambient water bath. Throughout the 96 hour observation period for latent
survivability, the organisms were not fed. The eggs were classified through observation only with the category live assigned
when eggs were clear or transparent and dead assigned when eggs were cloudy and opaque. No further study on the actual
viability of the live eggs was performed. Initial survival was calculated by dividing the number of live and stunned by the
total number collected. Latent survival was calculated by dividing the number of organisms alive by the number of organisms
initially classified as live or stunned. The statistical significance of the survivability at the intake and discharge was
calculated in the facility's study. This study, like others, used the assumption that the probability of mortality from
entrainment and sampling are independent stresses that do not interact, and the intake survival was used as the estimate of
surviving sampling.
In the 47 intake samples, 31 winter flounder PYSL, 215 sand lance PYSL, 19 seulpin PYSL, 84 American eel juveniles, and
193 fourbeard rockling eggs were collected. Since sampling sizes were extremely low on each sampling date, all data taken at
different times and under different temperature regimes were compiled to estimate survivability. Using EPRI's equation,
initial intake survival was calculated as 42 percent for winter flounder PYSL (3 live, 10 stunned, 18 dead), 41 percent for
sand lance PYSL (27 live, 61 stunned, 127 dead), 84 percent for seulpin PYSL (14 live, 2 stunned, 3 dead), 83 percent for
American eel juveniles (64 live, 5 stunned, 14 dead), and 81 percent for fourbeard rockling eggs (157 live, 36 dead). In the
47 discharge samples, 23 winter flounder PYSL, 166 sand lance PYSL, 17 seulpin PYSL, 71 American eel juveniles, and 102
fourbeard rockling eggs were collected. Again, all samples taken at different times and under different conditions were
combined to estimate survivability. Initial discharge survival was calculated as 43 percent for winter flounder PYSL (0 live,
10 stunned, 13 dead), 13 percent for sand lance PYSL (3 live, 19 stunned, 144 dead), 88 percent for seulpin PYSL (8 live, 7
stunned, 2 dead), 94 percent for American eel juveniles (67 live, 4 dead), and 93 percent for fourbeard rockling eggs (95 live,
7 dead). In each case, the sampling sizes were very low and unequal in the intake and discharge samples. Also in many
cases, the discharge survival proportions were higher than the intake survival proportions. Because of the nature of the
equation for entrainment survivability, this results in an erroneous reporting of 100 percent initial entrainment survival for
winter flounder PYSL, seulpin PYSL, American eel juveniles, and fourbeard rockling eggs. Only sand lance PYSL had lower
discharge survival than intake survival, which resulted in a calculated entrainment survival of 32 percent. Also, this study
assumed that stunned larvae would survive entrainment. More likely, these stunned larvae would be more susceptible to
predation after entrainment and should not be included in the proportion surviving entrainment.
Extended intake survival calculated for winter flounder PYSL was 77 percent (10 live, 3 dead), 11 percent for sand lance
PYSL (10 live, 78 dead), 44 percent for seulpin PYSL (7 live, 9 dead), 98 percent for American eel juveniles (63 live, 1
dead), and 14 percent for fourbeard rockling eggs (22 live, 135 dead). Extended discharge survival was calculated as 50
percent for winter flounder (5 live, 5 dead), 9 percent for sand lance PYSL (2 live, 20 dead), 33 percent for seulpin PYSL (5
live, 10 dead), 96 percent for American eel juveniles (64 live, 3 dead), and 22 percent for fourbeard rockling eggs (21 live, 74
dead). This results in a calculated entrainment survival of 65 percent for winter flounder PYSL, 80 percent for sand lance
PYSL, 76 percent for seulpin PYSL, 97 percent for American eel juveniles, and 100 percent for fourbeard rockling eggs.
Again, since sample sizes were unequal in the intake and discharge samples, it is difficult to give a fair and accurate depiction
of actual latent mortality from collection and holding stress.
To claim anything more than 0 percent entrainment survival, more studies would be needed at this facility to sample greater
numbers of more species with less intake mortality. EPA recommends that samples be taken at times of high larvae
abundance and only those samples collected at similar temperatures be combined when calculating survival.
Potrero Power Plant
Survival estimates were determined only for Pacific herring larvae. Sampling for this study was conducted daily for 11 days
in January 1979 to assess both initial and latent 96 hour survivability. Sampling was scheduled to avoid periods of biocide
use at the facility. It was unclear whether the month of January was the time of highest egg and larvae abundance at this
location. Fish larval samples were collected by pumping water with two pumps into a larval table for 15 minutes. Filtered
water at ambient temperature was withdrawn from the intake area and flowed through the larval table to aid in the
concentration of organisms in the collection box. After 15 minutes, the pumps were turned off and the tables were drained;
however, filtered ambient temperature water continued to flow into the collection boxes. The collection boxes were then
emptied into screen topped containers for transportation to the laboratory for immediate sorting. Dead larvae where
A7-/0
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Part <*: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrainment Survival
preserved for later identification. The live larvae where transferred using a pipette into 1 L jars with a maximum density of
five larvae per jar. These jars where held for observation in ambient temperature water baths and aerated. The organisms
were not fed during the 96 hour latent survival study.
Intake samples were taken directly in front of the intake skimmer wall at mid-depth. Discharge samples were taken at the
point where the discharge enters San Francisco Bay at mid-depth. Twenty-five intake and discharge samples were analyzed
for survival; however, information was not provided regarding the timing of these samples, or whether they were taken
simultaneously or after a lag period to simulate passage through the facility. The range of discharge temperatures during
sampling was 18.0-19.5 "C. In the 25 intake samples, 119 Pacific herring larvae were classified as initially alive and 427
were initially dead, resulting in an intake survival of 22 percent. In the 25 discharge samples, 115 Pacific herring larvae were
classified as initially alive and 601 were initially dead, which resulted in a discharge survivability of 16 percent. According to
EPRI's equation, entrainment survivability would be 75 percent. The 96 hour latent survivability for Pacific herring was 52
percent at the intake (62 survived out of 119 observed) and 49 percent at the discharge (56 survived out of 115 observed).
According to EPRI's equation, this would result in an entrainment survivability for Pacific herring of 93 percent with
discharge temperatures between 18.0 and 19.5 *C. Since samples were taken during January when discharge temperatures
were low, higher mortality rates may be observed during other times of the year. Also, since samples were taken at times
when biocides where not in use, high mortality rates may be observed when biocides are in use. Further studies would be
needed at this location to give a fair and accurate estimate of survival for all species entrained.
Quad Cities Nuclear Station
Entrainment survival studies were performed at this facility in 1978 and 1984. This facility operates as a completely or
partially close-cycle cooling system, so its entrainment survival may be very different from other facilities that have once-
through cooling systems.
In 1978, samples were taken in the afternoon, evening, or nighttime hours of June 19-26, 1978, when the facility was
operating in a complete open cycle mode with a generating output ranging between 41 and 99 percent power. Discharge
temperatures during sampling ranged from 28.0 to 39.0 "C with AT that ranged from 5.5 to 14.8 °C. Samples were not taken
during times of biocide use. Intake samples were collected at mid-depth from the intake forebay. Discharge samples were
taken near the surface from the discharge canal common to all units. It was unclear whether surface sampling was sufficient
to capture organisms that may be distributed in other parts of the water column. Samples were collected from a boat for at
least 60 seconds with a 0.75 m conical plankton net with no. 0 mesh and an attached unscreened 5 L bucket. After collection,
samples were transferred to the laboratory for sorting. Discharge samples were held at discharge temperatures for 8,5 minutes
to simulate passage through the discharge canal and then cooled to ambient temperature plus 3.5 "C before sorting. Samples
were classified within 20 minutes of collection in a sorting tray with a pipette as live, dead-translucent, and dead-opaque.
This study also used the assumption that dead-opaque larvae were dead due to natural conditions prior to collection, whereas
the dead-translucent larvae died from collection or from effects due to entrainment. In addition, this facility used the
assumption that intake samples were a control to determine the rate of mortality from collection and handling and discharge
samples indicated mortality from natural mortality, sampling mortality and entrainment mortality.
Survival estimates were determined for freshwater drum and non-carp cyprinidae. Survivability was calculated*with and
without the inclusion of dead-opaque larvae. EPA believes that the dead-opaque larvae should be included in the calculation
because the control will correct for any mortality due to natural causes and no additional correction should be made to the
data. The facility's study concluded that the lowest entrainment survival, 3 percent for all species sampled, occurred when the
facility was operating near full capacity (96-99 percent) and discharge temperatures exceeded 37,9 "C. Entrainment survival
was calculated for each life stage separately for each sampling date in order to reduce variability in survival associated with
different operating levels of the facility and different life stages of each species. For freshwater drum, entrainment survival
ranged from a low of 0 percent for juveniles at temperatures ranging from 38.0 to 39.0 "C with the facility operating at 96-99
percent to a high of 71 percent for juveniles at temperatures ranging from 32.5 to 33.0 "C with the facility operating at 74-78
percent. When discharge survival was greater than intake survival, the study indicated that entrainment survival could not be
calculated, rather than assume 100 percent entrainment survival as other facilities have incorrectly done in their studies. For
non-carp cyprinidae, entrainment survival ranged from a low of 4 percent for larvae at temperatures ranging from 38.0 to 39,0
°C with the facility operating at 96-99 percent, to a high of 75 percent for juveniles at temperatures ranging from 30,5 to 31.2
*C with the facility operating at 59-68 percent. Variability in entrainment survival under different conditions could also result
from the low sample sizes.
In 1984, another entrainment survival study was conducted with the intention of estimating survival for all dominant taxa
entrained, including walleye and sauger, which were not represented in significant numbers in the samples in the 1978 study.
A7-11
-------
i 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrapment Survival
However, insufficient numbers were collected to calculate entrainment survival for these species in this study as well.
Sampling was conducted weekly from April 25 through June 27. Sampling was not conducted in July when discharge
temperatures exceeded 37 percent and survivability was reported to be 0-3 percent in the 1978 study. The facility was
operating at 40.2-50.7 percent capacity during the time of the study. The discharge temperature ranged from 12 to 37 *C and
the AT ranged from 9.5 to 14.5 "C, On May 9 both units were offline and the AT was 1 C. EPA believes that the May 9
data were not representative of normal operating conditions so this data should not be included in the survival estimates,
intake samples were collected from a depth of 1.5 m at the intake forebay and discharge samples were collected from the
surface in the discharge canal. The sampling method was identical to the 1978 study. Again, biocides were not used during
the study period. Half of each sample was analyzed in the laboratory in an apparent effort to reduce mortality due to
collection and handling. Dead and opaque organisms were omitted from the analysis since it was assumed that these died
prior to collection. EPA believes this is an erroneous assumption and that the control should correct for any which may have
died prior to collection. Organisms were also sorted by life stage as yolk sac larvae, post yolk sac larvae, or juveniles. No
statistical analysis was performed because of low sample sizes.
In the intake samples, 481 freshwater drum, 133 carp, and 33 buffalo were collected. In the discharge samples, 64 freshwater
drum, 103 carp, and 44 buffalo were collected. In the facilities study, of a total of 3,967 organisms collected in both the
intake and discharge, 2,979 opaque individuals were omitted from analysis (75 percent). When so few organisms are
collected, the arbitrary elimination of 75 percent seems excessive given that the data are also corrected for natural mortality
by dividing the discharge survival by the intake survival. The percentages of dead and opaque individuals ranged from 0 to
99 percent of the total in each sample. It is interesting to note that 0 percent were found to be dead and opaque in the
discharge sample from May 9 when both units were offline and the AT was 1 *C. The specific numbers of dead opaque
larvae from each sample were not available to calculate the actual entrainment survival in this study. EPA assumes that if
opaque individuals were included the entrainment survival proportions would be significantly lower than those reported in the
facility's study and in EPRI's report. The raw data were not provided in this report to recalculate entrainment survival
including dead and opaque larvae.
A7-4 Principles to Guide Future Studies of Entrainment Survival
EPA maintains that demonstrations of entrainment survival for selected species under a limited range of experimental
conditions are not a sufficient basis for assuming that entrainment survival should be routinely included in biological impact
assessments. However, EPA recognizes that accurate quantification of biological impacts should include entrainment survival
in cases where entrainment survival rates have been estimated by valid means, and that the conditions associated with those
rate estimates are broad enough to reflect the scope of operating conditions at the regulated facilities (e.g., all ambient
operating temperatures at which the facility operates, all ages at which an organism is entrained). At a minimum, future
studies intended to quantify entrainment survival should address the considerations described below. These considerations
are intended to indicate the kinds of factors that collectively lead to results that (a) encompass a realistic range of operating
conditions and (b) allow for a thorough understanding of the statistical features (e.g., bias and precision) of entrainment
survival rate estimates.
A7-4.1 Protocol for Entrainment Survival Study
To determine entrainment survival rate, a statistically and scientifically rigorous study of site-specific entrainment survival is
needed. Such a study would use the best sampling practices (gear selection, sampling location and frequency to capture diel
and seasonal patterns), maintain careful records, provide description and quality control of sample processing, and use the
appropriate statistical analytical procedures.
Sampling should be carefully planned to minimize any potential bias. Samples should not be combined if they were collected
under different environmental factors. Control samples that 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. When control survival is less than discharge survival, no
attempts should be made to calculate entrainment survival which would give an erroneous survival result of greater than 100
percent.
Organisms should be counted and sorted by both species, life stage, and size. Initial mortality and extended or latent (96
hour) mortality should both be reported to ensure the best overall survival estimate. Studies need to be conducted throughout
the year to determine if the entrainment survival is dependent on life stage and size of each species entrained. Entrainment
A 7-12
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies. Part A". Evaluation Methods
Chapter A7: Entrapment Survival
studies also need to be conducted for 24 hour intervals to determine the time of day entrainment survival will most likely
occur, Entrainment survival should be calculated separately for each life stage of each species.
The physical and operating conditions of the facility need to be recorded to determine their associated impact on the three
fundamental stressors that affect entrainment survival. The percentage of the maximum load at which the facility is operating
needs to be recorded at the time of sampling to give an indication of the extent to which organisms are exposed to stress. To
assess the effect on entrainment survival by thermal stressors, the study needs to determine the temperature regime of the
facility. Specifically, the study needs to record the temperature at intake and at the discharge point for each component of the
facilities system: temperature changes within the system, including the inflow temperature, maximum temperature, delta-T,
and rate of temperature change, and the temperature of the water in 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. To
determine the effect of mechanical stressors on entrainment survival, the study needs to indicate the impacts caused by 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 units, parallel or in
sequence, which may expose organisms to entrainment in multiple structures. To properly account for chemical stressors, the
timing, frequency, methods, concentrations, and duration of biocide use (e.g., chlorine) for the control of biofouling need to
be determined. The water chemistry conditions also need to be recorded, including 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. These operating conditions can have different effects on different species. It is
important to fully understand the species-specific effects of the three fundamental stressors. In particular, different fishes
have different critical thermal maxima. The maximum temperature to which an organism may be exposed to while passing
through the facility may cause mortality in one species yet be sublethal in another species. When possible, the organisms
sampled should be categorized by their cause of death, mechanical, thermal, or chemical. This will give a better assessment
of the susceptibility of each entrained species and life stages to the effects of which of the three fundamental stressors. In the
future this information will be helpful in the design of cooling water intake structures to reduce entrainment mortality.
EPA recommends that entrainment survival studies be conducted under worst case scenarios, such as times of near full
capacity utilization when egg and larvae abundances are high and biocides are in use.
A7-4.2 Statistical Considerations: Direct Estimates of Entrainment Survival Rates
When reporting estimates of entrainment survival rates, a study should address the following statistical considerations.
Reliable studies should provide a complete description of sampling protocols as they affect:
* Range of inference (i.e., how are the results of the study relevant to future applications?).
~ Identification of independent experimental units,
~ Ability to provide quantitative measures of precision (e.g., prediction error and/or confidence intervals).
A7-4.3 Applicability of Entrainment Survival Studies to Other Facilities
To apply the results of an entrainment survival study to other facilities, it is necessary to determine to what degree the
physical attributes of facilities are similar. Specifically, do the facilities have similar numbers of cooling water flow routes,
are the lengths of flow routes similar in terms of time and linear distance, are the mechanical features the same in terms of
abrasive surfaces, pressure changes and turbulence, and are the same number and types of pumps used? Similarities or
differences in these physical aspects can profoundly affect the applicability of the study between facilities.
The operating characteristics of a facility can also affect the applicability of entrainment studies to other time periods at the
same facility and to other facilities. To determine applicability, it is necessary to know if there is similarity and constancy of
the flow rates, transit times, thermal regimes, and biocide regimes.
The ecological characteristics of the environment around the facility should also be considered when determining the degree
to which a study of entrainment survival is applicable to other facilities. Specifically, its is important to determine the
similarities or differences in the ambient water temperature, dissolved oxygen level, and the species and life stage present.
A7-13
-------
Chapter A7: Entroinmeivt Survival
/A7-4.4 Statistical Considerations: Development of Predictive Models of Entrapment
Survival Rate
With sufficient entrainment survival data from well designed studies, a model of entrainment survival could be developed that
would allow for improved evaluation of survival rates and would aid in the design of the best cooling water intake structures
to minimize entrainment mortality.
Model performance objectives should be defined before developing any studies using standardized survival models. The
following are examples of statistical considerations that a study should address when reporting models that describe functional
relationships between facility operating conditions (e.g., thermal regimes) and entrainment survival rate. Reliable studies
describe the model and the basis of modeling procedure with respect to these questions:
~ How much precision is required?
~ What is the scope of the intended application of the model?
~ Which species, life stages, and size ranges are addressed by the model?
~ What is the range of physical considerations (e.g., ambient water temperature, temperature, AT, maximum
temperature, duration of temperature) that are addressed by the model?
~ What is the model structure?
* What are the relationships among the submodels (thermal stress, mechanical stress, and chemical stress) of the
general model; e.g., are different sources of mortality assumed to act independently, or not?
~ What are adequate or levels of precision for estimates of individual model parameters?
A7-5 Conclusions
Although EPA agrees with the conclusion of the EPRI report that an assumption of zero entrainment survival rate for all
facilities may be unwarranted for certain species and certain conditions, EPA believes the available data are insufficient to
provide the basis for generalizations about entrainment survival rates. EPA concludes that it remains to be determined
whether nonzero survival rates are common for cooling water intake structures in general. Furthermore, EPA does not believe
that the magnitude of a positive entrainment survival rate at other facilities or under different conditions at the same facility
can be predicted with reliability on the basis of existing studies.
After reviewing the EPRI report and other sources, it is clear that the number of relevant variables that collectively determine
any entrainment survival rate is so large that the studies conducted to date should be viewed as a provocative set of anecdotes
that demonstrate the need for further study, but do not provide a sufficient basis for making predictions. Until such time that
the understanding of the general phenomenon is broadened to encompass more of the differences among facilities, including
all physical and biological conditions, EPA believes that the precautionary principle with respect to regulation should be
maintained; that is, in the absence of sound empirical data quantifying survival, the standard method of impact assessment
should not include consideration of nonzero entrainment survival rates. In addition to providing a precautionary stance for
conservation of biological resources, assuming a zero entrainment survival rate also implies that the quantification of resource
impacts at different facilities should be done in a consistent manner and therefore facilitate between facility, waterbody
specific, and regional comparisons.
A 7-J 4
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AS: Characterization of CWI5 Impacts
Chapter A8: Characterization of
CWIS Impacts by Water Body Type
The environmental impacts of cooling water intake
structures (CWISs) are closely tied to the biological
productivity of the water body from which cooling water is
withdrawn. This chapter discusses CWIS impacts and
potential benefits of § 316(b) regulation for specific water
body types based on data compiled by EPA from existing
studies. The data presented are numbers of organisms that
are directly impinged or entrained. While EPA recognizes
that impingement and entrainment losses may result in
indirect effects on populations and other higher levels of
biological organization, this chapter focuses on
impingement and entrainment because these are the direct
biological impacts that result from the withdrawal of
cooling water by CWIS. Water body types discussed in
this chapter include rivers and streams, lakes and
reservoirs (excluding the Great Lakes), the Great Lakes,
oceans, and estuaries. Habitats of particular biological
sensitivity are highlighted within each type.
CHAPTER CONTENTS
A8-1 Development of a Database of l&E Rales A8-1
A8-I.1 Data Compilation A8-1
A8-1,2 Data Uncertainties and Potential Biases .. AS-2
A8-2 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in
Rivers and Streams A8-2
A8-3 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in
Lakes and Reservoirs — A8-4
A8-4 C'WiS Impingement and Entrainment in the ;
Great Lakes A8-6
A8-5 CWIS impingement and Entrainment Impacts
in Estuaries ; • ¦ • •..-ASki,
A8-6 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in
Oceans >. AX-9
AR-7 Summary and Conclusions A8-11
A8-1 Development of a Database of I&E Rates
A8-1.1 Data Compilation
To estimate the relative mapitude of impingement and entrainment (I&E) for different species and water body types, EPA
compiled l&E data from 107 documents representing a variety of sources, including previous §316(b) studies, critical reviews
of §316(b) studies, biomonttonng and aquatic ecology studies, technology implementation studies, and data compilations. In
total, data were compiled for 98 steam electric facilities (36 river facilities, 9 lake/reservoir facilities, 19 facilities on the Great
Lakes, 22 estuarine facilities, and 12 ocean facilities). Design intake flows at these facilities ranged from a low of 19.7 to a
high of 3,315.6 MGD.
EPA notes that most of these studies were completed by the facilities in the mid-1970s using methods that are now outmoded.
A number of the methods used probably resulted in an underestimate of losses. For example, many studies did not adjust l&E
sampling data for factors such as collection efficiency. Because of such methodological weaknesses, EPA believes that
studies such as those discussed here should only be used to gauge the relative magnitude of impingement and entrainment
losses. Any further analysis of the data should be accompanied by a detailed evaluation of study methods and supplemented
with additional data as needed.
For the present objective of understanding the potential magnitude of I&E, EPA aggregated the data in the studies that were
available to EPA in a series of steps to derive average annual impingement and entrainment rates, on a per facility basis, for
different species and water body types. First, the data for each species were summed across all units of a facility and averaged
across years (e.g., 1972 to 1976). Losses were then averaged by species for all facilities in the database on a given water
body type to derive species-specific and water body-specific mean annual I&E rates. Finally, mean annual I&E rates were
ranked, and rates for the top 15 species were used for subsequent data presentation.
AS-1
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A8: Characterization of CWIS Impacts
A8-1.2 Data Uncertainties and Potential Biases
A number of data uncertainties and potential biases are associated with the l&E data that EPA evaluated. As with any
ecological data, natural environmental variability makes it difficult to detect ecological impacts and identify cause-effect
relationships even in cases where study methods are as accurate and reliable as possible. For example, I&E rates for any
given population will vary with changes in environmental conditions that influence annual variation in recruitment. As a
result, it can be difficult to determine the relative role of I&E mortality in population fluctuations.
In addition to the influence of natural variability, data uncertainties result from measurement errors, some of which are
unavoidable. In addition to the inefficiency of sampling gear, much of the data presented here does not account for variations
in collection and analytical methods or changes in the number of units in operation or technologies in use.
Potential biases in the data were also difficult to control. For example, many studies presented data for only a subset of
"representative" species, which may lead to an underestimation of total I&E. On the other hand, the entrainment estimates
obtained from EPA's database do not take into account the high natural mortality of egg and larval stages and therefore are
likely to be biased upwards. However, this bias was unavoidable because most of the source documents from which the
database was derived did not estimate losses of early life stages as an equivalent number of adults, or provide information for
making such calculations.1 In the absence of information for adjusting egg losses on this basis, EPA chose to include eggs
and larvae in the entrainment estimates to avoid underestimating age 0 losses.
With these caveats in mind, the following sections present the results of EPA's data compilation. The data are grouped by
water body type and are presented in summary tables that indicate the range of losses for the 15 species with the highest I&E
rates based on the limited subset of data available to EPA. I&E losses are expressed as mean annual numbers on a per facility
basis. Because the data do not represent a random sample of I&E losses, it was not appropriate to summarize the data
statistically. It is also important to stress that because the data are not a statistical sample, the data presented here may not
reflect the true magnitude of losses. Thus, the data should be viewed only as general indicators of the potential range of I&E.
A8-2 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Rivers and Streams
Freshwater rivers and streams are free-flowing bodies of water that do no receive significant inflows of water from oceans or
bays (Ilynes, 1970; Allan, 1995). Current is typically highest in the center of a river and rapidly drops toward the edges and
at depth because of increased friction with river banks and the bottom. Close to and at the bottom, the current can become
minimal. The range of flow conditions in undammed rivers helps explain why fish with very different habitat requirements can
co-exist within the same stretch of surface water (Matthews, 1998).
In general, the shoreline areas along river banks support a high diversity of aquatic life.
These are areas where light penetrates to the bottom and supports the growth of rooted
vegetation. Suspended solids tend to settle along shorelines where the eurrent slows,
creating shallow, weedy areas that attract aquatic life. Riparian vegetation, if present,
also provides cover and shade. Such areas represent important feeding, resting,
spawning, and nursery habitats for many aquatic species. In temperate regions, the
number of impingeable and entrainable organisms in the littoral zone of rivers increases
during the spring and early summer when most riverine fish species reproduce. This
concentration of aquatic organisms along river shorelines in turn attracts wading birds
and other kinds of wildlife.
The data compiled by EPA indicate that fish species such as common carp (Cvprinus
carpio), yellow perch (Perca jlavescens), white bass (Morone chrysops), freshwater
drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), and alewife
(.Alosa pseudoharengus) are the main fishes harmed by CWIS located in rivers Table A8-
1 shows, in order of the greatest to least impact, the annual entrainment of eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish in rivers. Table A8-
2 shows, in order of greatest to least impact, the annual impingement in rivers for all age classes combined {mostly juveniles
1 For species for which sufficient life history information is available, the Equivalent Adult Model (F.AM) can be used to predict the
number of individuals that would have survived to adulthood each year if entrainment at egg or larval stages had not occurred (Horst,
1975b; Goodyear, C.P., 1978), The resulting estimate is known as the number of "equivalent adults."
AS-2
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8: Characterization of CWIS Impacts
and young adults). These species occur in nearshore areas and/or have pelagic early life stages, traits that greatly increase
their susceptibility to I&E.
Table A8-1: Annual Entrapment of Eggs, Larvae and Juvenile Fish in Rivers
Common Name
Scientific Name
;
Facilities .
Mean Annual Entrapment
per Facility (fish/year)
Range
common carp
; Cyprinus carpio
7
20,500,000
859,000 - 79,400,000
yellow perch
i Perca Jlavescens
4 ;
13,100,000
i 434,000 - 50.400,000
white bass
; Morone chrysops
4
12,800,000
i 69,400 - 49,600,000
freshwater drum
Aplodinotus grunniens
5 ;
12,800,000
38,200 - 40,500,000
gizzard shad
; Dorosoma cepedianum
4 ;
7,680,000
45,800 - 24,700,000
shiner
; Notropis spp.
4 ;
3,540,000
191,000- 13,000,000
channel catfish
: Ictalurus punctatus
: 5 !
3,110,000
! 19,100- 14,900,000
blunmose minnow
. Pimephales no tut us
: 1 ;
2,050,000
—
black bass
\ Mierapterus spp.
i . l i
1,900,000
i _
rainbow smelt
; Osmerus mordax
, l
1,330,000
...
minnow
\ Pimephales spp.
: 1 !
1,040,000
—
sunfisb
: Lepomis spp.
5 !
976,000
4,230 - 4,660,000
emerald shiner
i Notropis alherinoides
: 3
722,000
166,000-1,480,000
white sucker
\ Catostomus commersoni
: 5
704,000
20,700 - 2,860,000
mimic shiner
; Notropis volucellus
: 2 ?
406,000
i 30,100-781,000
Sources: Hicks, 1977; Cole, 1978; Geo-Marine Inc., 1978; Goodyear, C.D., 1978; Potter, 1978; Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company,
1979; Potter etal., 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, i 979d; Cherry and Currie, 1998; Lewis and Seegert, 1998.
Table A8-2: Annual Impingement in the Rivers for AIS Age Classes
Common Name
Scientific Name
Number of
Facilities
: Mean Annual Impingement per :
Facility (fish/year)
Range
threadfin shad
; Dorosoma petenense
: 3
1,030,000
199 - 3,050,000
gizzard shad
. Dorosoma cepedianum
25
248.000
3,080 - 1,480,000
shiner
; Notropis spp.
4
121,000
28 - 486,000
ale wife
; Alosa pseudoharengus
; 13
73,200
199-237,000
white perch
\ Morone americana
3
66,400
27,100- 112,000
yellow perch
; Perca Jlavescens
18
40,600 i
13 -374,000
spottail shiner
l Notropis hudsontus
10
; 28,500
10- 117,000
freshwater drum
: Aplodinotus grunniens
24
19,900
8- 176,000
rainbow smelt
\ Osmerus mordax
! 11
19,700
7-119,000
skipjack herring
I Alosa chrysachons
: 7
' 17,900
52 - 89,000
white bass
¦ Morone chrysops
19
11,500
21 - 188,000
trout perch
I Percopsis omiscomaycus
: 13
\ 9,100 •
38-49,800
emerald shiner
'¦ Notropis alherinoides
i 17
7,600
109-36,100
blue catfish
; Ictalurus furcatus
2
5,370 '
42-10,700
channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
: 23
! 3,130
3 - 25,600
Sources: Benda and Houtcooper, 1977; Freeman and Sharma. 1977; Hicks, 1977; Sharma and Freeman, 1977; Stupka and Sharma, 1977;
Energy Impacts Associates Inc., 1978b; Geo-Manne Inc., 1978; Goodyear, CD., 1978; Potter, 1978; Cincinnati Gas & Electric
Company, 1979; Potter et a!., 1979a, 1979b, 1979c, 1979d; Van Winkle etal., 1980; EA Science and Technology, 1987; Cherry and
Cumc, 1998; Lohner, 1998; Michaud. 1998.
A8-3
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8: Characterization of CWI5 Impacts
<48-3 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Lakes and Reservoirs
Lakes are inland bodies of open water located in natural depressions (Goldman and Home, 1983). Lakes are fed by rivers,
streams, springs, and/or local precipitation. The residence time of water in lakes can be weeks, months, or even years,
depending on the size and volume of the lake. Water currents in lakes are small or negligible compared to rivers, and are
most noticeable near lake inlets and outlets.
Larger lakes are divided into three general zones - the littoral zone (shoreline areas where light penetrates to the bottom), the
limnetic zone (the surface layer where most photosynthesis takes place), and the profundal zone (relatively deeper and colder
offshore area) (Goldman and Home, 1983). Each zone differs in its biological productivity and species diversity and hence
in the potential magnitude of l&E. The importance of these zones in relation to potential l&E impacts of CWIS are discussed
below.
The highly productive littoral zone extends farther and deeper in clear lakes than in turbid lakes. In small, shallow lakes, the
littoralzone can be quite extensive and even include the entire water body. As along river banks, this zone supports high
primary productivity and biological diversity. It is used by a host of fish species, benthic invertebrates, and zooplankton for
feeding, resting, and reproduction, and as nursery habitat. Many fish species adapted to living in the colder profundal zone
also move to shallower in-shore areas to spawn, e.g., lake trout (Salmo namycush) and various deep water sculpin species
(Coitus spp.).
Many fish species spend most of their early development
in and around the littoral zone of lakes. These shallow
waters warm up rapidly in spring and summer, offer a
variety of different habitats (submerged plants, boulders,
logs, etc.) in which to hide or feed, and stay well-
oxygenated throughout the year. Typically, the littoral
zone is a major contributor to the total primary
productivity of lakes (Goldman and Home, 1983).
The limnetic zone is the surface layer of a lake. The vast
majority of light that enters the water column is absorbed
in this layer. In contrast to the high biological activity
observed in the nearshore littoral zone, the offshore
limnetic zone supports fewer species of fish and
invertebrates. However, during certain times of year,
some fish and invertebrate species that spend the daylight
hours hiding on the bottom rise to the surface of the
limnetic zone at night to feed and reproduce. Adult fish may migrate through the limnetic zone during seasonal spawning
migrations. The juvenile stages of numerous aquatic insects — such as caddisflies, stoneflies, mayflies, dragonflies, and
damsel flies — develop in sediments at the bottom of lakes but move through the limnetic zone to reach the surface and fly
away. This activity attracts foraging fish.
The profundal zone is the deeper, colder area of a lake. Rooted plants are absent because insufficient light penetrates at these
depths. For the same reason, primary productivity by phytoplankton is minimal. A well-oxygenated profundal zone can
support a variety of benthic invertebrates or cold-water fish, e.g., brown trout (Salmo trutta), lake trout, ciscoes (Coregonus
spp.). With few exceptions (such as ciscos), these species seek out shallower areas to spawn, either in littoral areas or in
adjacent rivers and streams, where they may become susceptible to l&E at CWIS,
Most of the larger rivers in the United States have one or more dams that create artificial lakes or reservoirs. Reservoirs have
some characteristics that mimic those of natural lakes, but large reservoirs differ from most lakes in that they obtain most of
their water from a large river instead of from groundwater recharge or from smaller creeks and streams.
The fish species composition in reservoirs may or may not reflect the native assemblages found in the pre-dammed river.
Dams create two significant changes to the local aquatic ecosystem that can alter the original species composition;
(1) blockages that prevent anadromous species from migrating upstream, and (2) altered hydrologic regimes that can eliminate
species that cannot readily adapt to the resulting changes in flow and habitat.
A 8-4
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter MB: Characterization af CWIS Impacts
Reservoirs typically support littoral zones, limnetic zones, and profundal zones, and the same concepts outlined above for
lakes apply to these bodies of water. For example, compared to the profundal zone, the littoral zone along the edges of
reservoirs supports greater biological diversity and provides prime habitat for spawning, feeding, resting, and protection for
numerous fish and zooplankton species. However, there are also several differences. Reservoirs often lack extensive shallow
areas along their edges because their banks have been engineered or raised to contain extra water and prevent flooding. In
mountainous areas, the banks of reservoirs may be quite steep and drop off precipitously with little or no littoral zone. As
with lakes and rivers, however, CWIS located in shallower water have a higher probability of entraining or impinging
organisms.
Results of EPA's data compilation indicate that fish species most commonly affected by CWIS located on lakes and
reservoirs are the same as the riverine species that are most susceptible, including alewife, drum (Aphndinotus spp.), and
gizzard shad [Dorsoma cepedianum) (Tables A8-3 and A8-4).
Table A8-3: (Annual Entruinment of Eggs, Larvae and Juvenile Fish in Reservoirs and Lakes
{excluding the &reat lakes)
Common Name
Scientific Name
: Number of Facilities j Mean Animal Entrainment per Facility (fish/year)
drum
Aplondinotus spp.
; i ! 15,600,000
sunfish
Lepomis spp.
t 10,600,000
gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
1 j 9,550,000
crappie
Pomoxis spp.
I 8,500,000
alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
! 1,730,000
Sources; Michaud, 1998; Spicer et al., 1998.
Table A8-4: Annual Impingement in Reservoirs and Lakes (excluding the Sreat Lakes)
for Alt Age Classes Combined
Common Name
Scientific Name
\ Number of :
Facilities :
Mean Annual Impingement
per Facility (fish/year)
Range
thrradfin shad
i Dorosoma petenense
4
678,000 i
203,000- 1,370,000
alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
4
201,TOO ;
33,100-514,000
skipjack herring
\ Alosa ckrysochons
¦ i 1
115,TOO :
—
bluegill
\ Lepomis macrochirus
: 6 i
48,600 ;
468 - 277,000
gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
: 5
41,100 :
829 - 80,700
warmouth sunfish
; Lepomis gulosus
4
39,400 i
31 - 157,000
yellow perch
; Perca jlavescens
2 :
38,900 ;
502- 114,000
freshwater drum
j Aplodinotus grunniens
: 4
37,500 :
8- 150,000
silver chub
i Hybopsis storeriana
i I
18,200
—
black bullhead
: Ictalurus meias
i 3
10,300 1
171 -30,300
trout perch
'¦ Percopsis omiscomaycus
! ' 2
8,750 |
691 - 16,800
northern pike
Esox lucius
: 2
7,180 j
154-14,200
blue catfish
' Ictalurus furcatus
: 1
3,350 1
—
paddlefish
\ Polyodon spathula
: 2
3,160 i
1,940-4,380
inland (tidewater)
silverside
; Menidia beryllina
• 1 i
3,100 =
—
Sources: Tennessee Division of Forestry, Fisheries, and Wildlife Development, 1976; Benda and Houtcooper, 1977; Freeman and
Sharma, 1977; Sharma and Freeman, 1977; Tennessee Valley Authority, 1977; Michaud, 1998; Spicer et al., 1998.
A 8-5
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AS Characterization of CWIS Impacts
A8-4 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in the Great Lakes
The Great Lakes were carved out by glaciers during the last ice age {Bailey and Smith, 1981), They contain nearly 20% of
the earth's fresh water, or about 23,000 km' (5,500 cu. mi.) of water, covering a total area of 244,000 km2 (94,000 sq. mi,).
There are five Great Lakes: Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario. Although part of a
single system, each lake has distinct characteristics. Lake Superior is the largest by volume, with a retention time of
191 years, followed by Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario.
Water temperatures in the Great Lakes strongly influence the
physiological processes of aquatic organisms, affecting growth,
reproduction, survival, and species temporal and spatial
distribution. During the spring, many fisfi species inhabit shallow,
warmer waters where temperatures are closer to their thermal
optimum. As water temperatures increase, these species migrate
to deeper water. For species that are near the northern limit of
their range, the availability of shallow, sheltered habitats that
warm early in the spring is probably essential for survival {Lane et
al., 1996a), For other species, using warmer littoral areas
increases the growing season and may significantly increase
production.
Some 80% of Great Lakes fishes use the littoral /one for at least
part of the year (Lane et al., 1996a). Of 139 Great Lakes fish
species reviewed by Lane et al. (1996b), all but the deepwater ciscoes and deepwater seulpin (Myxacephalus thompsoni) use
waters less than 10 m deep as nursery habitat.
A large number of thermal-electric plants located on the Great Lakes draw their cooling water from the littoral zone, resulting
in high I&E of several fish species of commercial, recreational, and ecological importance, including alewife, gizzard shad,
yellow perch, rainbow smelt, and lake trout (Tables A8-5 to A8-8).
- - 1!
Table A8-5: Annual Entrapment of Eggs, Larvae and Juvenile Fish in the Sreat Lakes
Common Name
Scientific Name
Alosa pseudoharengus
Number of
Facilities
5
Mean Annual Entrainment perj „
Facility (fish/year) ge
alewife
526,000,000 ' 3,930,000- 1.360,000.000
rainbow smelt
Osmerus mordax
5
90,500,000 424,000 - 438,000,000
lake trout
Salmo namaycush
1
116,000
Sources: Texas Instruments Inc. and Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, 1978; Michaud, 1998.
j Table A8-6: Annual Entrainment of Larval Fish in
1 the 6reat Lakes by Lake
| Lake
Number of
Facilities
Total Annual Entrainment
(fish/year)
| Erie
16
255,348,164 .
(Michigan
25
196,307,405
1 Ontario
11
176,285,758
| Huron
6
81,462,440
1 Superior
14
4,256.707
\Source: Kelso and Milbum, 1979.
A8-6
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A8: Characterization of CW1S Impacts
Table A8-7: Annual Impingement
in the Great Lakes for All Age Classes Combined
Common Name
Scientific Name
Number of
Facilities
| Mean Annual Impingement per j
Facility (fish/year)
Range
alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
15
1,470,000
355 - 5,740,000
gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
6
i 185,000
25 - 946,000
rainbow smelt
Osmerus mardax
15
118,000
78 - 549,000
threespine stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
3
60,600 ;
23,200 - 86,200
yellow perch
Perca flavescens
9
29,900 •;
58-127,000
spottail shiner
Notropis hudsonius
8
22,100 :
5 - 62,000
freshwater drum
Aplodinotus grumiens
4
18,700
2 - 74,800
emerald shiner
Notropis atherinoides
4
: 7,250
3 - 28,600
trout perch
Percopsis omiscomaycus
5
5,630
30 - 23,900
bloater
Coregonus hoyi
2
4,980
3,620 - 6,340
white bass
Morone chrysops
1
4,820
-
slimy sculpin
Cottus cognatus
4
3,330
795 - 5,800
goldfish
Carassius auratus
3
2,620
4 - 7,690
mottled sculpin
Coitus bairdi
3
1,970
625 - 3,450
common carp
Cyprinus carpio
4
1,110
16-4,180
pumpkinseed
Lepomis gibbosus
4
1,060
14-3,920
Sources: Benda and Houtcooper, 1977; Sharma and Freeman, 1977; Texas Instruments Inc. and Lawler, Matusky, and
Skelly Engineers, 1978; Thurber and Jude, 1985; Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers, 1993; Michaud, 1998.
Table A8-B: Annual Impingement of Fish
in the Great Lakes
Lake
Number of
Facilities
: Total Annua] Impingement
(fish/year)
Erie
16
22.961,915
Michigan
25
15,377,339
Ontario
11
14,483,271
Huron
; 6
7,096,053
Superior
14
243,683
Source: Kelso and Milbum,
1979.
The I&E estimates of Keiso and Milbum (1979) presented in Tables A8-6 and A8-8 were derived using methods that differed
in a number of ways from EPA's estimation methods, and therefore the data are not strictly comparable. First, the Kelso and
Milbuni (1979) data represent total annual losses per lake, whereas EPA's estimates are on a per facility basis. In addition,
the estimates of Kelso and Milbum (1979) are based on extrapolation of losses to facilities for which data were unavailable
using regression equations relating losses to plant size.
Despite the differences in estimation methods, when converted to an annual average per facility, the impingement estimates of
Kelso and Milbum (1979) are within the range of EPA's estimates. For example, Kelso and Milbum's (1979) estimated
average annual impingement of 675,980 fish per facility is comparable to EPA's high estimate of 1,470,000 foralewife.
On the other hand, EPA's entrainment estimates include eggs and larvae and are therefore substantially larger than those of
Kelso and Milbum (1979), which are based on converting eggs and larvae to an equivalent number of fish. Because of the
high natural mortality of fish eggs and larvae, entrainment losses expressed as the number that would have survived to become
fish are much smaller than the original number of eggs and larvae entrained (Horst, 1975b; Goodyear, C.P., 1978).
Nonetheless, when viewed together, the two types of estimates give an indication of the possible upper and lower bounds of
annual entrainment per facility (e.g., an annual average of 8,018,657 fish based on Kelso and Milbum's data compared to
EPA's highest estimate of 526,000,000 organisms based on the average for alewife).
A8-7
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A- Evaluation Methods Chapter A8. Characterization of CWIS Impacts
<48-5 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Estuaries
Estuaries are semi-enclosed bodies of water that have a an unimpaired natural connection with the open ocean and within
which sea water is diluted with fresh water derived from land (Day et al„ 1989). The dynamic interactions among freshwater
and marine environments in estuaries result in a rich array of habitats used by both terrestrial and aquatic species. Because of
the high biological productivity and sensitivity of estuaries, adverse environmental impacts are more likely to occur at CWIS
located in estuaries than in other water body types.
Numerous commercially, recreationally, and ecologically important species of fish and shellfish spend part or all of their life
cycle within estuaries. Marine species that spawn offshore take advantage of prevailing inshore currents to transport their
eggs, larvae, or juveniles into estuaries where they hatch or mature. Inshore areas along the edges of estuaries support high
rates of primary productivity and are used by numerous aquatic species for feeding and as nursery habitats. This high level of
biological activity makes these shallow littoral zone habitats highly susceptible to I&E impacts from CWIS.
Estuarine species that show the highest rates of i&E in the studies reviewed by EPA include bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli),
tautog (Tauloga oriitis), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), gulf menhaden (Brevoortia patronus), winter flounder
(Pleuronectes americanus), and weakfish (Cynoscion regalis) (Tables A8-9 and A8-10).
During spring, summer and fall, various life stages of these and other estuarine fishes show considerable migratory activity.
Adults move in from the ocean to spawn in the marine, brackish, or freshwater portions of estuaries or tributary rivers; the
eggs and larvae can be planktonic and move about with prevailing currents or by using selective tidal transport; juveniles
actively move upstream or downstream in search of optimal nursery habitat; and young adult anadromous fish move out of
freshwater areas and into the ocean to reach sexual maturity. Because of the many complex movements of estuarine-
dependent species, a CWIS located in an estuary can harm both resident and migratory species as well as related freshwater,
estuarine, and marine food webs.
Table A8-9; Annual Entrainment of Eggs, Larvae, and Juvenile Fish in Estuaries
Common Name
Scientific Name
Number of
Facilities
'• Mean Annual Entrainment ;
per Facility (fish/year)
Range
bay anchovy
; Anchoa mitchilli
2
i 18,300,000,000 ;
12,300,000.000 - 24,400,000,000
tautog
; Tauloga onilis
1
6,100,000,000
...
Atlantic menhaden
\ Brevoortia tyrannus
2
3,160,000,000
50,400,000 - 6,260,000,000
winter flounder
; Pleuronectes americanus
1
952,000,000
...
weakfish
Cynoscion regalis
2
339,000,000
99,100,000-579,000,000
hogchoker
Trinectes maculatus
1
241,000,000
—
Atlantic croaker
; Micropogonias undulatus
1
: 48,500,000 :
striped bass
: Morone saxatiiis
4
i 19,200,000
111,000 - 74,800,000
white perch
: Morone americana
4
16,600,000
87,700 - 65,700,000
spot
; Leiostomus xanthurus
1
: 11,400,000 ¦
...
biueback herring
! Alosa aestivalis
1
10,200,000 i
...
alewife
; Alosa pseudoharengus
1
2,580,000
—
Atlantic tomcod
i Microgadus tomcod
3
! 2,380,000 ;
2,070 - 7,030,000
American shad
i Alosa sapidissima
1
; 1,810,000 1
...
Sources: U.S. EPA, 1982a; Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers,
1993: DeHart, 1994; PSEG, I999f.
A8-8
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Part A; Evaluation Methods Chapter MB: Characterization of CWIS Impacts
Table A8-10: Annual Impingement in Estuaries for All Age Classes Combined
Common Name
Scientific Name
Number of ; Mean Annual Impingement
Facilities per Facility (fish/year)
Range
gulf menhaden
Brevuorlia patrohus :
2 \
76,000,000
j 2,990,000-149,000,000
smooth flounder
Liopsetta pumami
I i
3.320,000
; -
thrcespine stickleback
Gasterosteus aculeatus
4
866,000
i 123 -3,460,000
Atlantic menhaden
Brevoortia tvrarmus
12
628,000
! 114-4,610,000
rainbow smelt
Osmerus mordax
4
510,000
i 737 - 2,000,000
bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
9
450,000
1 1,700-2,750,000
weakfish
Cynoscion regalis '•
4
320,000
! 357- 1,210,000.
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
8
311,000
: 13 - 1,500,000
spot
Leiostomus xanihurus
io :
270,000
i 176 - 647,000
blueback herring
Alosa aestivalis
7
205,000
; 1,170 - 962,000
white perch
Morone americana
14
200,000
287-1,380,000
thrcadfin shad
Darosoma petenense ¦
1
185,000
: —
lake trout
Salmo namaycush
1
162,000
! —
gizzard shad
Darosoma cepedianum
6
125,000
1 2,058 -715,000
silvery minnow
Hybognathus nuchalis
1
73,400
Sources: Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., 1975; Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers, 1975, 1976; Stupka and Shantia,
1977; Lawieret al., 1980; Texas Instruments Inc., 1980; Van Winkle et al., 1980; Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and
New York Power Authority, 1983; Normandeau Associates Inc., 1984; EA Science and Technology, 1987; Lawler Matusky & Skelly
Engineers, 1991; Richkus and McLean, 1998; PSEG, I999f; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2000.
<48-6 CWIS Impingement and Entrainment Impacts in Oceans
Oceans are marine open coastal waters with salinity greater than or equal to 30 parts per thousand (Ross, 1995). CWIS in
oceans are usually located over the continental shelf, a shallow shelf that slopes gently out from the coastline an average of 74
km (46 miles) to where the sea floor reaches a maximum depth of 200 m (660 ft) (Ross, 1995). The deep ocean extends
beyond this region. The area over the continental shelf is known as the Neritic Province and the area over the deep ocean is
the Oceanic Province (Meadows and Campbell, 1978).
Vertically, the upper, sunlit epipelagic zone over the continental shelf averages about
100 m in depth (Meadows and Campbell, 1978). This zone has pronounced light and
temperature gradients that vary seasonally and influence the temporal and spatial
distribution of marine organisms.
In oceans, the littoral zone encompasses the photic zone of the area over the
continental shelf. As in other water body types, the littoral zone is where most marine
organisms concentrate. The littoral zone of oceans is of particular concern in the
context of § 316(b) because this biologically productive zone is also where most
coastal utilities withdraw cooling water.
The morphology of the continental shelf along the U.S. coastline is quite varied
(NRC, 1993). Along the Pacific coast of the United States the continental shelf is
relatively narrow, ranging from 5 to 20 km (3 to 12 miles), and is cut by several steep-
sided submarine canyons. As a result, the littoral zone along this coast tends to be
narrow, shallow, and steep. In contrast, along most of the Atlantic coast of the United
States, there is a wide, thick, and wedge-shaped shelf that extends as much as 250 km
(155 miles) from shore, with the greatest widths generally opposite large rivers.
Along the Gulf coast, the shelf ranges from 20 to 50 km (12 to 31 mile%).
AS-9
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AS; Characterization of CWI5 Impacts
The potential for I&E at ocean facilities can be quite high if CWIS are located in the productive areas over the continental
shelf where many species reproduce, or in nearshore areas that provide nursery habitat. In addition, the early life stages of
many species are planktonic, and tides and currents can carry these organisms over large areas. The abundance of plankton in
temperate regions is seasonal, with greater numbers in spring and summer and fewer numbers in winter.
An additional concern for ocean CWIS is the presence of marine mammals and reptiles, including threatened and endangered
species of sea turtles. These species are known to enter submerged offshore CWIS and can drown once inside the intake
tunnel.
In addition to many of the species discussed in the section on estuaries, other fish species found in near coastal waters that are
of commercial, recreational, or ecological importance, and are particularly vulnerable to I&E, include silver perch (Bairdiella
chrysura), cunner (Taulogolabrus adspersus), several anchovy species, scaled sardine (Harengula jaguana), and queenfish
(Seriphus poltius) (Tables A8-11 and A8-12).
Table A8-11: Annua! Entrapment of Eggs, Larvae, and Juvenile. Fish in Oceans
Common Name
Scientific Nairn:
Number of
Facilities
Mean Annual Entrainment
per Facility (fish/year)
Range
bay anchovy
Anchoa mitchilli
2
44,300,000,000
9,230,000,000 - 79,300,000,000
silver perch
Bairdiella chrysura :
2
26,400,000,000
8,630,000 - 52,800,000,000
striped anchovy
Anchoa hepsetus ;
1
6,650,000,000
_
cunner
Taulogolabrus adspersus
2
1,620,000,000
33,900,000 - 3,200,000,000
scaled sardine
Harengula jaguana :
1
1,210,000,000
—
tautog
Tautoga onitis '
2
911,000,000
300,000 - 1,820,000,000
clown goby
Microgobius gulosus °
1
803,000,000
—
code goby
Gobiosoma robustum '
1
680,000,000
—
sheepshead
Archosargus probcuocephalus \
1
602,000.000
_
kingfish
Menticirrhus spp. 1
1
542,000,000
—
pigfish
Orthopristis chrysoptera
2
459,000,000
755,000-918,000,000
sand sea trout
Cynoscion arenarius
1
325,000,000
_
northern kingfish
Menticirrhus saxatilis
1
322,000,000
__
Atlantic mackerel
Scomber scombrus
1
312,000,000
_
Atlantic bumper
Chloroscombrus chrysurus
1
298,000,000
—
Sources: Conservation Consultants Inc., 1977; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980a; Florida Power Corporation, 1985;
Normandeau Associates Inc., 1994b; Jacobsen et al., 1998; Northeast Utilities Environmental Laboratory, 1999,
A8-10
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A&: Characterization af ONIS Impacts
Table A8-12: Annual
Impingement in Oceans for All Age Classes Combined
Common Name
Scientific Name
: Number of ;
: Facilities ;
Mean Annual Impingement i
per Facility (fish/year)
Range
queenfish
i Seriphus polilm
1 2 |
201,000 I
19,800-382,000
polka-dot batfish
; Ogcocephalus radiatus
; 1 1
74,500
—
bay anchovy
¦ Anchoa mitchilli
' 2 :
49,500 '
11,000-87,900
northern anchovy
Engraulis mordax
: 2 :
36,900 •
26,600 - 47,200
deepbody anchovy
; Anchoa compressa
2 i
35,300 i
34,200 - 36,400
spot
\ Leiostomus xanthurus
: 1 ;
28,100 ;
—
American sand lance
; Ammodytes americanus
: 2
20,700 ;
886 - 40,600
silver perch
" Bairdiella chrvsura
; 2
20,500
12,000 - 29,000
California grunion
; Curanx hippos
1 l ;
18,300
...
topsmelt
; Atherinops affims
i 2 :
18,200 ;
4,320 - 32,300
alewife
: Alosa pseudoharengus
2
16,900 :
1,520 - 32,200
pinfish
\ Lagodon rhomboides
1 1 s
15,200 ;
—
slough anchovy
' Anchoa delicatissima
; 3 ;
10,900 i
2,220 - 27,000
walleye surfperch
[ Hyperprosopon argenteum 1 :
10,200
—
Atlantic menhaden
; Brevoortia tyrannus
3 ;
7,500
861 - 20,400
Sources: Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Stupka and Sharma, 1977; Tetra Tech Inc., 1978; Stone and Webster
Engineering Corporation, 1980a; Florida Power Corporation, 1985; Southern California Edison Company, 1987; SAIC, 1993;
EA Engineering, Science and Technology, 1997: Jacobsen et al, 1998.
A8-7 Summary and Conclusions
The data evaluated by EPA indicate that fish species with free-floating, early life stages are those most susceptible to CWIS
impacts. Such planktonic organisms lack the swimming ability to avoid being drawn into intake flows. Species that spawn in
nearshore areas, have planktonic eggs and larvae, and are small as adults experience even greater impacts because both new
recruits and the spawning adults are affected (e.g., bay anchovy in estuaries and oceans).
EPA's data review also indicates that fish species in estuaries and oceans experience the highest rates of I&E, These species
tend to have planktonic eggs and larvae, and tidal currents carry planktonic organisms past intakes multiple times, increasing
the probability of I&E. In addition, fish spawning and nursery areas are located throughout estuaries and near coastal waters,
making it difficult to avoid locating intakes in areas where fish are present.
A8-11
-------
Chapter A9- Benefit Categories and Methods
Chapter A9- Economic Benefit
Categories and Valuation Methods
Introduction
Valuing the changes in environmental quality that arise
from the § 3 J 6(b) regulations for existing facilities is a
principal desired outcome for the Agency's policy
assessment framework. Changes in Cooling Water Intake
Structure (CWIS) design or operations reduce
impingement and entrainment (I&E) rates. These changes
in I&E can potentially yield significant ecosystem
improvements in terms of the number of fish and other
aquatic organisms that avoid premature mortality. This in
turn 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,
human populations is expected to increase as a consequence
ecosystem functioning.
Chapter Contents
A9-1
Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the
§ 316(b) Rule
.. A9-1
A9-2
Benefit Category Taxonomies
A9-3
Direct Use Benefits
A9-4
Indirect U»e Benefits
.. M-9
A9-5
Monuse Benefits
. ,vMn
A9-6
Summary of Benefits Categories
. A
-------
Chapter A9~ Benefit Categories and Methods
habitat-based restoration costing (HRC) as an innovative alternative to using replacement costs as a proxy for beneficial
values (see Chapter All).
In addition to the methodological complexities of estimating benefits, many of the factors that contribute to generating
benefits are highly site-specific. For example, the extent of recreational or commercial fishing benefits will depend on
baseline levels of I&E for a facility, which fish species are present, how the I&E impacts for those species are reduced by
regulatory options (relative to baseline), and the size, preferences, and socio-economic characteristics of human populations
in proximity to the affected aquatic systems (i.e., those individuals likely to have a demand for an improved fishery in the
affected waters). Thus, the benefits assessment is based on a series of facility- and site-specific case studies that are intended
to provide representative and plausible estimates of the benefits of the rulemaking.
A9-2 Benefit Category Taxonomies
The term "economic benefits" here refers to the dollar value associated with all the expected positive impacts of the § 316(b)
regulation being proposed for existing facilities. Conceptually, the monetary value of benefits is the sum of the predicted
changes in "consumer and producer surplus." These surplus measures are standard and widely accepted terms of applied
welfare economics, and reflect the degree of well-being derived by economic agents (e.g., people or firms) given different
levels of goods and services, including those associated with environmental quality.1
The economic benefits of activities that improve environmental conditions can be categorized in many different ways. The
various terms and categories offered by different authors can lead to some confusion with semantics. However, the most
critical issue is to try not to omit any relevant benefit, and at the same time avoid potential double counting of benefits.
One common classification for benefits of environmental programs is to divide them into three main categories of
(!) economic welfare (e.g., changes in the well-being of humans who derive use value from market or nonmarket goods and
services such as fisheries); (2) human health (e.g., the value of reducing the risk of premature fatality due to changing
exposure to environmental exposure); and (3) nonuse values (e.g., stewardship values for the desire to preserve T&E species).
For the § 316(b) regulation, however, this classification does not convey all the intricacies of how the rule might generate
benefits. Further, human health benefits are not anticipated. Therefore, another categorization may be more informative.
Figure A9-1 outlines the most prominent categories of benefit
values for the § 316(b) rule. The four quadrants are divided by
two principles: (1) whether the benefit can be tracked in a
market (i.e., market goods and services) and (2) how the
benefit of a nonmarket good is received by human beneficiaries
(either from direct use of the resource, from indirect use, or
from nonuse).
Market benefits for § 316(b) are best typified by commercial
fisheries, where a change in fishery conditions will manifest
itself in the price, quantity, and/or quality of fish harvests. The
fishery changes thus result in changes in the marketplace, and'
can be evaluated based on market exchanges.
Direct use benefits also include the value of improved
environmental goods and services used and valued by people
(whether or not these services or goods are traded in markets).
A typical nonmarket direct use would be recreational angling,
in which participants enjoy a welfare gain when the fishery
improvement results in a more enjoyable angling experience
(e.g., higher catch rates).
Figure A9-1: Benefits Categories for § 316(b)
/V
1 Market
§
3
1
6
-------
Chapter A9: Benefit Categories and Methods
Indirect use benefits refer to changes that contribute, through an indirect pathway, to an increase in welfare for users (or
nonusers) of the resource. Ail 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.
Nonuse benefits — also known as passive use values — reflect the values individuals assign to improved ecological
conditions apart from any current, anticipated, or optional use by them. The most commonly cited motives for nonuse values
include bequest and existence values. Bequest values reflect the willingness to pay to ensure that applicable environment-
related goods and services are available to future generations at a given level of quality and quantity. It reflects concerns over
intergenerational equity with respect to leaving a given level of environmental quality as an endowment for those who follow
after us in time. Existence value (sometimes referred to as stewardship value) reflects the willingness to pay that humans
place on preserving or enhancing ecosystem integrity or a given aspect of environmental quality. This motive applies not only
to protecting endangered and threatened species (i.e., avoiding an irreversible impact), but also applies (though perhaps at
lesser values) for impacts that potentially are reversible or that affect relatively abundant species and/or habitats.2
As noted above, the key to any benefits taxonomy is to try to clearly capture all the types of beneficial outcomes that are
expected to arise from a policy action, while at the same time avoiding any possible double counting. Hence, it makes little
difference where some of the specific types of benefits are categorized within Figure A9-1. An additional complication with
using any single taxonomy for benefits categories is that 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,
habitat restoration may enhance populations of recreational, commercial, and forage species alike. Hence if habitat
restoration costs are used as a proxy for the value of reduced I&E impacts, the benefits estimates derived embody values for a
mix of direct and indirect uses, including both market and nonmarket goods and services. Accordingly, care is used in the
case studies to preclude double counting when monetized benefits estimates are compiled, since in some instances monetary
estimates from one approach may overlap with values captured by another methodology. All monetized values included in all
categories if not given in year 2000 dollars are inflated to
year 2000 dollars using an index from Friedman (2002).
A9- 3 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 populations 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
Allocating Fish to Commercial and Recreational Harvests
Many of the l&E-impacted fish species at CW1S sites are harvested
both recreationally and commercially. To avoid double-counting
the economic impacts of l&E of these species, we determine the
proportion of total species landings attributable to recreational and
commercial fishing, and apply this proportion to the number of
impacted fishery catch. For example, if 30 percent of the landed
numbers of one species are harvested commercially at a site, then
30 percent of the estimated catch of l&E-impacted fish are
assigned to the increase in commercial landings. The remaining 70
percent of the estimated total landed number of l&E-spared adult
equivalents are assigned to the recreational landings.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides both
commercial and recreational fishery landings data by state. To
determine what proportion of total landings per state occur in the
commercial or recreational fishery, we sum the landings data for
the commercial and recreational fishery together, and then divide
by each category to get the corresponding percentage. This is done
on a case study by case srudy basis.
1 Some economists consider option values to be a part of nonuse 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 we place option value in the
nonuse category in Figure A9-1.
A9-3
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9; Benefit Categories and Methods
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.'
Evidence that these use benefits are highly valued by society 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 (US DOl, 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 percent 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 (e.g., Walsh et al., 1990),
review 20 years of research and derive ail average value of over $30 per day for warm water angling, and higher values for
cold water and salt water angling) — then the national level of consumer surplus enjoyed because of 1996 levels of
recreational angling would be approximately $ 12.6 billion per year (and probably is appreciably higher).
Clearly, these data indicate that the Fishery resource is very important. These baseline values do not give us a sense of how
benefits change with improvements in environmental quality, such as due to reduced l&E and increased fish stocks.
However, even a change of 1.0 percent would translate into potential benefits of approximately SI 00 million per year or
more, based on the limited metrics noted above that relates only to recreational angling consumer surplus.
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. This entails a series of steps that are detailed below. The first
step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of l&E-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of
commercial species as sold dockside by commercial harvesters) in each case study. 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 is described below.
To estimate the impact that § 316(b) regulations may have on commercial landings, the biological assessment described in
Chapter A5 provided estimates of the change in commercial catch of adult equivalent fish in a given CWIS-impacted
waterbody, Yields to the commercial fishery were derived by estimating the number of fish (and species-associated pounds)
of commercial species reaching harvest age, and then increasing landings in accordance with species- and location-specific
fishery mortality rates (i.e., the percent of the given stock that fishery experts believe is harvested). For species that are
harvested by both recreational and commercial anglers, the historical allocation of landings was used to split the yield into
each sector. The change in catch was used to infer a like-sized change in landings, on a species- and site-specific basis.
This approach embodies an assumption that there is a linear relationship between changes in the fishery stock and changes in
landings, with the slope based on fishery (harvest) mortality rates. The actual stock-to-harvest relationship may be not be
linear for some species and/or locations (i.e., it is uncertain whether harvest is an increasing, decreasing, or constant function
of stock size). However, the linear approach is likely to provide a reasonable approximation for the marginal changes in the
fisheries that are being evaluated in this analysis. In addition, it is likely that the fisheries-related approach develops
underestimates of the changes in stocks attributable to I&E. This is because I&E monitoring often depicts impacts to already
depleted fisheries, and fishery mortality rates used to assign a small portion of the stock to landings (yields) also reflect
conditions of fisheries that often are in decline. Therefore, the linear estimates are based on projections of changes in stocks
that are probably underestimated. Since stock change estimates are probably understated, the linear extrapolations are likely
to provide results that are comparable to a declining stock-to-harvest function.
The next step is the assign a market value to the estimated change in commercial landings. In the case studies, presented in
Parts B through I of this document, all market values were obtained for each state from the National Marine and Fisheries
Service (NMFS), based on data located at the NMFS website (www.st.nmfs.gov). NMFS obtained market values for each
state from a census of the volume and value of finfish and shellfish landed and sold at the dock. Principal landing statistics
that are collected consist of the pounds and dockside (ex-vessel) dollar value of landings identified by species, year, month,
3 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
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).
A9-4
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9: Benefit Categories and Methods
state, county, port, water and fishing gear. Most states get their landings data from seafood dealers who submit monthly
reports of the weight and value of landings by vessel (NMFS, 2001a), A ten year average (1990-1999) of the market values
were used to even out inter-annual fluctuations, and where a facility's surrounding watershed boundaries were included in
multiple slates, an average of the states' market values were used, All values are stated in year 2000 dollars.
The final set of steps entails converting the dockside market value of changes in commercial landings into the measures of
economic surplus that constitute social benefits. These surplus measures include producer surplus to the watermen who
harvest the fish, as well as the rents and consumer surplus that accrue to buyers and sellers in the sequence of market
transactions that apply in the commercial fishery context. To do this with primary analysis would be an extremely complex
process for each fish market, However, several primary research efforts exist that can be used in a benefits transfer that
enables EPA to estimate the total economic surplus (social benefits) that arise from changes in commercial landings.
An important portion of commercial fishing benefits is the producer surplus generated by the estimated marginal increase in
landings, but typically the data required to compute the producer surplus are unavailable. 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). The economic literature (Huppert, 1990; Rettig and McCarl, 1985) suggests that producer surplus
values for commercial fishing ranges from 50 to 90 percent of the market value. That is, the wholesale landings values are a
close proxy for producer surplus because the commercial fishing sector has very high fixed costs relative to its variable costs.
Therefore, the marginal benefit from an increase in commercial landings can be estimated to be approximately 50 to 90
percent of the anticipated change in commercial fishing revenues. In assessments of Great Lakes fisheries, an estimate of
approximately 40% has been derived as the relationship between gross revenues and the surplus of commercial fishermen
(Cleland and Bishop, 1984; Bishop, personal communication, 2002; and Holt and Bishop, 2002).4
The 90 percent estimate of producer surplus relative to gross landings revenue implies a situation in which supply is relatively
inelastic and demand is relatively unaffected by changes in supply. This may be suitable in the short run for many fisheries
(and perhaps long term for some fisheries) in which watermen experience an increase in landings while; (1) there is no change
in harvesting behavior or effort (e.g., due to high fixed costs relative to marginal costs), and (2) there is no appreciable change
in price (e.g., where changes local landings have no appreciable impact on broader market prices).5 For
the purposes of this study, however, EPA believes producer surplus estimates in the range of 40% to 70% of landings values
(rather than up to 90%) probably are a more suitable reflection of longer-term market conditions.
Producer surplus is one portion of the total economic surplus impacted by increased commercial stocks — the total benefits
are comprised of the economic surplus to producers, wholesalers, processors, retailers, and consumers (Norton etal., 1983;
Holt and Bishop, 2002). Primary empirical research deriving "multi-market" welfare measures for commercial fisheries have
estimated that surplus accruing to commercial anglers amount to 22.2% of the total surplus accruing to watermen, retailers
and consumers combined in the striped bass markets in New York and Baltimore (Norton et al„ 1983); and 22.3% in the
Great Lakes (Bishop, personal communication, 2002, and Holt and Bishop, 2002), This relationship is applied in the case
studies to estimate total surplus from the projected changes in commercial landings. Figure A9-2 displays the composition of
the total economic surplus.
4 Cleland and Bishop indicate nearly 30% (1981 fishery), but a more recent empirical investigation by Bishop (personal
communication, January 2002, pertaining to a confidential litigation support report developed by Bishop in 2000) provides updated fishery
estimates that indicate producer surplus was approximately 42% of the 1999 dockside landings value for the relevant fisheries).
5 Alternative assumptions and scenarios are plausible, but the net impact on total eeonomic surplus would probably not be
appreciable (for example, if market prices decreased with increased catch, then commercial fishermen may enjoy less producer surplus, but
this would be offset — at least in part — by gains in consumer surplus).
A9-S
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Figure A9-2: Components of Total Surplus
Chapter A9- Benefit Categories and Methods
Economic surplus to wholesalers, |
retailers, and consumers
' 78%
Producer
surplus
22%
Total economic surplus of
increased commercial landings
The methods described above are summarized in Table A9-1, in an example on how EPA estimated the baseline economic
impact from l&E losses of striped bass at Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) in New Jersey. First, per pound
dockside values were obtained for striped bass in Delaware and New Jersey, and then a weighted average of the two values
was obtained, weighted by the total Iandinp in each state. Then this per pound value is multiplied by the annual I&E rates to
obtain an annual market value of the losses from I&E. Then, 40 percent to 70 percent of the market value is estimated as the
producer surplus. Finally, the total economic social benefit from the striped bass commercial fishery is obtained by dividing
the producer surplus by 22 percent.
Table A9-1: Annual X&E Commercial Fishing Impacts on Striped Bess at Salem
(baseline)
Step I. Derive per pound market value of landed shad
a. Deriye DE S/lb ;
Catch DE (lb) (total 1990-1999)
i 3,762,358
Value DE
; $3,474,742
DE S/Ib
$0.92
b. Derive NJ $/lb
Catch NJ (lb) (total 1990-1999)
i 10,437,399
Value NJ
i $6,396,137
NJ S/lb
; $0.61
c. Derive weighted DE/NJ average S/lb j
% catch DE
i 36.5%
% catch NJ
= 63.5%
Weighted average (per lb)
: $0.73
Step 2. Determine market value of I&E landings impacts
a. Baseline I&E impact of commercial landings (lbs)
i 612,715
b. Market value of I&E impact (weighted ave $ * l&E lbs)
$444,973
Step 3, Develop surplus estimates
a. Producers surplus low (mkt value * 0.4)
j $177,989
b. Producers surplus high (mkt value * 0.7)
$311,481
c. Total social benefit - low (prod surplus /0.22)
$809,041
d. Total social benefit - high (prod surplus /0.22)
$1,415,823
A9-6
-------
Chapter A9: Benefit Categories and Methods
Recreational users. 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, there is an extensive literature on valuing recreational fishing
trips and valuing increased catch rates on fishing trips. Participants in recreational activities other than fishing may also
benefit from a reduction in l&E. For example, bird watchers may find more abundance and diversity of piscivorus species if
the fishery populations are enhanced. Likewise, boaters may receive added recreational value to the degree that enjoyment of
their surroundings is an important part of their recreational pleasure or that fishing is a secondary reason for boating.
Primary studies of sites throughout the United Slates have shown that anglers value their fishing trips and that catch rates are
one of the most important attributes contributing the quality of their trips. Higher catch rates may translate into two
components of recreational angling benefits; (1) an increase in the value of existing recreational fishing trips, and (2) an
increase in recreational angling participation. The most promising and practical approaches for quantifying and monetizing
these two benefits components are random utility modeling or RUM (as a primary research method) and benefits transfer (as a
secondary method applied when data and other constraints limit the feasibility of doing site-specific primary research). The
RUM approach has been applied in the watershed-level case studies, and is described in greater detail in Chapter A10.
For each case study (including the watershed-level sites for which a RUM approach was also deployed), a benefits transfer
approach was used as a basis for estimating recreational benefits. There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay
values for increases in recreational catch rates. These increases in value are benefits to the anglers and reflect their "consumer
surplus" which in some instances are reported on the basis of value per additional fish caught.6 For each case study, monetary
values for increased angler consumer surplus were drawn from those credible research efforts that estimated consumer surplus
for locations closest in geographic area and relevant species to the l&E-impacted sites. To estimate a unit value for
recreational landings, lower and upper values were established for the recreational species, based on values revealed in the
suitable literature. Table A9-2 shows some of the studies that were used in the case study analyses, the case studies and
aquatic species these studies were applied to, the range of dollar values used, and the economic method(s) used in the study
(e.g., contingent valuation, travel cost, or random utility modeling).7
The incremental increase in recreational landings is estimated based on the biological modeling of how reduced I&E will
change the catch of adult equivalent fish (as described in Chapter A5). Willingness-to-pay estimates for increases in catch are
then applied to these changes in catch to obtain monetary estimates of total recreational value of fish lost through I&E.
In some cases it may be reasonable to assume that increases in fish abundance (attributable to reducing I&E) will lead to an
increase in recreational fishing participation. The expected value of an increase in participation is directly related to the
amount of degradation occurring at baseline. For example, the greatest changes are likely to occur in a location that has
experienced such a severe impact to the fishery that the site is no longer an attractive location for recreational activity.
Estimates of potential recreational activity post-regulation can be made based on similar sites with healthy fishery
populations, on conservative estimates of the potential increase in participation (e.g., a 5 percent increase), or on recreational
planning standards (densities or level of use per acre or stream mile). A participation model (as in a RUM application)
provides a more robust alternative to predict changes in the net addition to user levels from the improvement at an impacted
site. The economic benefit of the increase in angling days then can be estimated using values derived from the RUM analysis
itself (as is done in the case studies presented in Parts B, C, and D of this document), or by drawing from the economic
literature for a similar type of fishery and angling experience. Where primary research is not feasible, estimates of potential
recreational activity post-regulation can sometimes be made based on similar sites with healthy fishery populations, on
conservative estimates of the potential increase in participation, or on recreational planning standards (densities or level of use
per acre or stream mile).8
' In some studies, estimated consumer surplus is based on other metrics, such as dollar per user day. However, such measures can be
translated into consumer surplus values per fish caught if sufficient catch data are available.
7 Note that the recreational angling valuation studies used in this benefits analysis for § 316(b) differ from the studies recently applied
by EPA in several other water quality regulations. For example, the meta! products and machinery effluent guidelines rulemaking was
evaluated using eight studies that were used to infer a percent change in recreational consumer surplus (relative to baseline levels) for a
change in water quality and/or fish toxicity levels. For § 316(b), however, the benefits analysis is driven by estimated changes in fish
abundance rather than a change in chemical concentrations. Accordingly, different literature is used in the benefits transfer.
* EPA has not yet attempted to factor in increased participation as part of its benefits transfer analysis of recreational
fishing benefits, but such impacts are embedded in the RUM applications provided in this document.
A9-7
-------
Chapter A9: Belief it Categories and Methods
Table A9-2: Economic Literature Applied in Cose Studies for Recreation Angling Valuation,
Study
Some Case Studies
Applied to:
Some Species Applied to:
Range of Values
Used per Fish
($2000)
Low High
Study Type
Agnello, 1989
Delaware, Brayton
Weakfish
.72
$2.72
Travel cost method:
multi-site; regional /
hedonic
Boyle etal., 1998
Ohio
Bass (largemouth, white, red, rock, anallmouth, ;
spotted, yellow), rainbow trout
.58
13.95
Contingent valuation:
dichotomous choice
Chartsonneau and
Hay, 1978
Ohio
Catfish (channel, blue, flathcac, white), crappie ;
(black, white), perch (white, yellow), sauger,
walleye, bluegill, pumpkinseed. green sunfish,
longear sunfish, redear sunfish, warmouth, grass
pickerel, northern pike, muskellunge, paddlefish
.00
$7.92
Travel cost method:
single site; Contingent
valuation: open ended
Hicks et a!., 1999
Delaware, Pilgrim,
Seabrook, Biayton
American shad, Atlantic cod, Atlantic croaker, j
Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, cunner,
pollock, red hake, searobin, spot, striped bass,
summer flounder, tautog, weakfish, white perch,
winter flounder
.01
$5.29
Simple travel cost
method and contingent
valuation
Huppert. 1989
California
Striped bass ;
.11
S14.14
Travel cost and
contingent valuation
Loomis, 1988
Ohio
Coho salmon :
2.39
SI2.39
Travel cost; multi-site
McConnell and
Strand, 1994
Jclawaic, Pilgrim,
Seabrook, Brayton,
Ohio
American shad, Atlantic cod, Atlantic croaker,
Atlantic mackerel, black sea bass, bluefish, cunner,
pollock, red hake, searobin, spot, striped bass,
summer flounder, tautog, white perch, winter
flounder
.62
$8.59
Contingent valuation
and Random Utility
Modeling
Milliman etal.,
1992
Ohio
Perch (white, yellow), bluegill, pumpkinseed, green
sunfish, longear sunfish, redear sunfish, warmouth
.31
$0.31
Contingent valuation:
dichotomous choice
Norton et al.,
1983
Delaware, Ohio
Striped bass j
1.08
$15.55
Travel cost method:
multi-site; regional t
hedonic
Samples and
Bishop, 1985
Ohio
Coho salmon \
6.01
$16.01
Travel cost method:
multi-site; regional /
hedonic
Sorgetal., 1985
Ohio
Catfish (channel, blue, flathead, white), crappie
(black, white), walleye, sauger, grass pickerel,
northern pike, muskellunge, paddlefish
.02
$5.02
Travel cost method:
multi-site; regional /
hedonic; Contingent
valuation: iterative
bidding
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 impacted fisheries, the value of an
improvement can sometimes be inferred from settlements in legal cases (e.g., compensation agreements between impacted
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 may underestimate the value of a
subsistence-fishery meal to the extent that the store-bought foods may be less preferred by some individuals (for reasons of
cultural background or simply as a matter of taste) than consuming a fresh-caught fish. Subsistence fishery benefits are not
included in the case studies to date, due to a lack of data available within the time constraints of the general analysis.
However, impacts on subsistence anglers may constitute an important environmental justice consideration.
A9-8
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9" Benefit Categories and Methods
A9-4 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 existing facility standards for CWIS. For
example, the rule's positive impacts on local fisheries may generate an improvement in the population levels and/or diversity
of fish-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 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 increment in recreational and commercial fishery benefits would be an indirect consequence of the proposed
rule's initial impacts on lower trophic levels of the aquatic food web.
For the case studies, two general approaches were used to estimate the indirect value of forage fish. The first approach used
two distinct estimates of trophic transfer efficiency to relate foregone forage production to foregone fisheries yield that would
result from two kinds of food web pathways. The two estimates, referred to as secondary and tertiary forgone yield in this
document, reflect (a) that portion of total forage production that has a high trophic transfer efficiency because it is directly
consumed by harvested species and (b) the remaining portion of total forage production that has a low trophic transfer
efficiency because it is not consumed directly by harvested species, but instead reaches harvested species indirectly after
passage through other parts of the food web. The dollar value of foregone commercial and recreational production was
estimated using the same monetary values as for the direct use benefits estimates.'' The indirectly consumed production
enhancement from forage species that is not embodied in the landed recreational and commercial fish was examined in a
similar manner, but values were adjusted downwards to reflect a much lower trophic efficiency transfer rate. This approach is
described in greater detail in Chapter A5. A serious limitation with this approach is that l&E data collected for CWISs often
overlook impacts on forage species (focusing instead on recreational and commercial species). Therefore, the results
developed using this approach generally reflect considerable underestimates of forage species values, because forage species
impacts data generally are lacking in CWIS biological assessments.
The second approach considers the costs associated with direct replacement of individual fish with hatchery-reared
individuals. Replacement costs typically can be used as a lower bound estimate of value because costs generally are a lower-
bound proxy for values, and because in this application the approach does not consider how reduction in forage stocks may
affect other species.10 Estimates of replacement costs used in the case studies are based on the cost to produce the site-
specific set of relevant forage species of North American fish for stocking, as presented by the American Fisheries Society
(AFS. 1993). These costs reflect the expense of rearing a fish in a hatchery to the size of release, but do not include other
costs associated with the transport or release of the fish to I&E-impacted waters. The AFS (1993) estimates these costs at
approximately $1.13 per mile, but does not indicate how many fish (or how many pounds of fish) are transported for this
price. Lacking relevant data, EPA does not include the transportation costs in this valuation approach. For this reason,
coupled with the fact that forage species I&E impacts tend to be under-reported or omitted in CWIS field data, the
replacement cost approach is likely to produce an under-estimate of the value of the forage species. In addition, it is not
known at this time if there is increased mortality of stocked fish, or whether some I&E impacted species can be successfully
raised in hatcheries, or if there are long term problems due to decreasing genetic variety by using hatchery-reared fish. Each
of these factors would compound the degree to which hatchery costs might underestimate values.
9 Note that while this approach is based on the value contributed by forage fish to landings of commercial and recreational species,
the estimates pertain to the forpge species that are impacted by I&E and are shown as an indirect use benefit (in other words, these benefit
estimates are separate from and are not included in the direct use benefit estimates described above for commercial and recreational
fisheries).
10 Using replacement costs as a proxy for the value of the forage fish impacts might also overstate benefits if society's
willingness to pay is less than the cost of replacement. However, there is no empirical evidence that supports this possibility,
and limited evidence using the Habitat Restoration Costing (HRC) approach (Chapter AI1) suggests that WTP exceeds such
costs.
A9-9
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9- Benefit Categories and Methods
A9-5 Nonuse Benefits
Nonuse (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 (stewardship) and bequest (intergenerational equity)
motives. Passive 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 T&E species.
Passive use values can only be estimated in primary research through the use of stated preference techniques such as the
contingent valuation method (CVM) surveys and related stated preference techniques (e.g., conjoint analysis using surveys).
In the case of the § 316(b) proposed existing facilities rule, no primary research was feasible within the budgeting, scheduling,
and the other constraints faced by the Agency. Accordingly, estimates were developed by EPA based on benefits transfer,
with appropriate care and caveats clearly recognized.
One long-standing benefits transfer approach for estimating nonuse values is to apply a ratio between certain use-related
benefits estimates and the passive use values anticipated for the same site and resource change. Freeman (1977) applied a
rule of thumb in which he inferred that national-level passive use benefits of water quality improvements were 50 percent of
the estimated recreational fishing benefits. This was based on his review of the literature in those instances where nonuse and
use values had been estimated for the same resource and policy change. Fisher and Raucher (1984) undertook a more
in-depth and expansive review of the literature (included those studies reviewed by Freeman) and found a comparable
relationship between recreational angling benefits and nonuse values. They concluded that since nonuse values were likely to
be positive, applying the 50 percent "rule of thumb" was preferred over omitting nonuse values from a benefits analysis
entirely.
The 50 percent rule has since been applied frequently in EPA water quality benefits analyses (e.g., effluent guidelines RIAs
for the benefits analysis of rulemakings for the pulp and paper sectors and metal products and machinery, and the RIA for the
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance). At times the rule has been applied to all recreational benefits (not just angling),11 and
there are studies in the literature that imply nonuse values may not only be half of recreational fishing benefits, but might be
as large as or greater than recreational values (e.g., Sutherland and Wash, 1985; Sanders et al, 1990). Thus, using the 50%
rule might very well lead to an understatement of nonuse values.
The overall reliability and credibility of applying the 50 percent rule approach is, as for any benefits transfer approach,
dependent on the credibility of the underlying study and the comparability in resources and changes in conditions between the
research survey and the § 316(b) rule's impacts at selected sites. The credibility of the nonuse value estimate also is
contingent on the reliability of the recreational angling estimates to which the 50 percent rule is applied.
Using the 50 percent rule poses several concerns and includes several limitations. On the one hand, there is long-standing
precedence in using this easy to apply rule of thumb and, as noted in earlier literature reviews, using this approach is probably
better than omitting nonuse values entirely. Still, EPA recognizes that legitimate concerns arise because of (1) the dated
nature of the literature reviews upon which the approach is founded (several more recent studies are now available and need
to be reviewed and incorporated in how the body of literature is interpreted); (2) the key differences in the studies underlying
the initial reviews (as noted in Fisher and Raucher, 1984, the studies vary considerably in what they are attempting to
measure, even though they consistently derive ratios in their value estimates approximating 50 percent); and (3) the problems
inherent in how the results of individual studies (or the collective body of research) should be applied in order to be as
consistent as possible with the underlying literature (for example, applying the study by Mitchell and Carson, 1986, implies
that the 50 percent rule may reflect the nonuse component of the total value held by users, but would overlook the nonuse
values held by the large number of individuals or households that are NOT users of the impacted water resources - resulting
in a significant omission from the total nonuse value estimates).
Therefore, despite the lonptanding and widespread application of the 50 percent rule, EPA intends to revisit the body of
research on this topic and re-evaluate how to apply benefits transfer in developing estimates of nonuse value benefits in the
future. In the interim, the Agency will continue to apply the 50 percent rule for this proposed rule, acknowledging the
limitations of the approach.
!1 E.g., the EEBA for the Metal Produce and Machinery rulemaking, Chapter 15.
A9-I0
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A9: Benefit Categories and Methods
A second potential approach to deriving estimates for § 316(b) passive use values is to use benefits transfer to apply an annual
willingness-to-pay estimate per nonuser household {e.g., Mitchell and Carson, 1986; Carson and Mitchell, 1993) to all the
households with passive use motives for the impacted waterbody.12 The challenges in this approach include defining the
appropriate "market" for the impacted site (e.g., what are the boundaries for defining how many households apply), as well as
matching the primary research scenario (e.g., "boatable to fishabie") to the predicted improvements at the § 316(b)-impacted
site.
As a third potential approach, for some specific impacted fish species, nonuse (or total) valuation may be deduced using
restoration-based costs as a proxy for the value of the change in stocks. For example, for T&E species, the costs of
restoration programs and various resource use restrictions indicate the revealed preference value of preserving the species.
Where a measure of the approximate cost per preserved or restored individual fish can be deduced, and the number of
individuals spared via BTA can be estimated, this is a viable approach. This approach is examined in the § 316(b) ease study
of the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary (Part E of this document). Improvements have been made to fish habitats by
increasing stream flows, installing screening devices and fish passages, removing dams, and controlling temperatures. These
changes in operations and technologies all entail significant costs, which society has shown to be willing to pay for the
protection and restoration of healthy fish populations, particularly the T&E species of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers. These investments provide a means to evaluate the loss imposed on society when a portion of these same fisheries are
adversely impacted by I&E. Because the species involved in this restoration costing approach have no use value (due to their
status as threatened or endangered), the approach yields an estimate of nonuse values.
A9-6 Summary of Benefits Categories
Table A9-3 displays the types of benefits categories expected to be affected by the § 316(b) rule. 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 A9-3, "direct use" benefits include both "marketed" and "nonmarketed" goods, whereas
"nonuse" and "indirect use" benefits include only "nonmarketed" goods.
12 Note that Mitchell and Carson estimate "total value," including use and nonuse components. However, one can interpret the total
value estimates for nonusers as their nonuse value (i.e., there is no difference between their total and nonuse value). One could also apply
the Mitchell and Carson total use values to resource users to obtain both use and nonuse values (combined) for those households.
A9-II
-------
S 316(b) Existing facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9- Benefit Categories and Methods
Table A9-3: Summary of Benefit Categories, Data Needs, Potential Data Sources, and Approaches.
Benefits Category
Basic Data Needs Potential Data Sources/Approaches
Direct Use, Marketed Goods
Increased commercial
landings
* Estimated change in landings of specific species :~ Based on facility specific l&E data and
~ Estimated change in total economic impact ecological modeling
; ~ Based on available literature
Direct Use, Moitmarket Goods
Improved value of a
recreational fishing
experience
~ Estimated number of affected anglers j ~ Site-specific studies, national or statewide
~ Value of an improvement in catch rate ; surveys
: ~ Based on available literature
Increase in recreational
fishing participation
~ Estimated number of affected anglers or • ~ Use of RUM analysis, where feasible
estimate of potential anglers •
~ Value of an angling day |
Increase in value of near-
water recreational experience
~ Estimated number of affected near-water > Use of RUM analysis, where feasible
reereationists !
~ Value of a near-water recreation experience ;
Increase in near-water
recreational participation
~ Estimated number of affected near-water : ~ Use of RUM analysis, where feasible
reereationists ;
~ Value of a near-water recreation experience ;
Nonuse and Indirect Use, Nonmarketed
Increase in indirect values
» Estimated I&E impacts on forage species (as
data permit)
Based on facility specific l&E data (to depee
available) and ecological modeling
Site-specific studies, national or statewide
surveys
Application of hatchery replacement costs or
biomass converted to recreational or
commercial species
Increase in nonuse use values
~ Primary research using stated preference
approach (not feasible within EPA constraints)
~ Applicable studies upon which to conduct
benefits transfer
Site-specific studies or national slated
preference surveys
Benefits transfer (e.g., application of 50
percent rule of thumb)
Restoration-based costs as proxy for valuation
of common and/or endangered species
A9-7 Causality: Unking the S 316(b) Rule 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 A9-3, 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.
A9-12
-------
5 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A9' Benefit Categories and Methods
Figure A9-3: Causal Linkages in the Benefits Analysis
Causa!
Benefits Analyses
| 1. EPA Publication of Rule
| 2.Implementation through
! NPDES Permit Process
j 3. Changes in Cooling Water Intake
1 Practices and/or Technologies
I (implementation of BTA)
5. Change in Aquatic Ecosystem
(e.g.* increased fish abundance and
diversity)
!«¦
4, Reductions in Impingement
and Entmnmeitt
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)
< Determine BT A Options
and Environmental Impact
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A; Evaluation Methods Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits with a RUM
Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits
with a Random Utility Model (RUM)
Introduction
This chapter describes the random utility model (RUM)
and trip frequency model for recreational fishing used in
the case study analyses of recreational fishing benefits
from the proposed §316b rule. The model's main
assumption is that anglers will get greater satisfaction, and
thus greater economic value, from sites where the catch
rate is higher, all else being equal. This benefit may occur
in two ways: first, an angler may get greater enjoyment
from a given fishing trip when catch rates are higher, and
thus get a greater value per trip; second, anglers may take
more fishing trips when catch rates are higher, resulting in greater overall value for fishing in the region.
EPA relied on two primary data sources in the case study analyses:
~ the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Marine Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey (MRFSS) combined
with the Add-On MRFSS Economic Survey (AMES) (NMFS, 1994 and 1997); and
~ the National Demand Survey for Water-Based Recreation (NDS), conducted by U.S. EPA and the National Forest
Service (U.S. EPA, 1994a).
The Delaware Estuary and Tampa Bay case studies rely on the 1994 and 1997 MRFSS data, respectively. The Ohio River
case study uses the NDS data. The two datasets provide information on where anglers fish, what fish they catch, and their
personal characteristics. When anglers choose among fishing sites they reveal information about their preferences. The case
studies use information on recreational anglers' behavior to infer anglers' economic value for the quality of fishing in the case
study areas.
EPA used a random utility model to investigate the impact of site characteristics on angler's site choice for single-day trips.
Key determinants of site choice include site-specific travel cost, fishing quality of the site, and additional site attributes such
as presence of boat ramps and aesthetic quality of the site. EPA used two measures of fishing quality in the case studies. The
First measure, the 5-year historic catch rates per hour of fishing, is used in the Delaware Estuary and Tampa Bay case studies.
The second measure, fish stock density, is used in the Ohio River case study.
The random utility models generate welfare measures resulting from changes in catch rates on a per trip basis. To capture the
effect of changes in catch rates on the number of fishing trips taken per recreational season, EPA combined a RUM model and
a trip participation model. The trip participation model estimates the number of trips that an angler will take annually. The
combined model is used to estimate the economic value of changes in catch rates or in fish abundance of important fish
species in the case study areas.
A10-1 Site Choice Model
The site choice model estimates how anglers value access to specific sites, and estimate per trip economic values for changes
in catch rates or fish abundance for different species. The study uses a RUM for its site choice model. The RUM assumes
that the cost of travel to a recreational site may be used as a proxy for the "price" of visiting that site. The RUM is therefore a
form of travel cost model, using travel costs to estimate economic values for unpriced recreational activities.
Chapter Contents
A10-1
Site Choice Model
... A10-I
At 0-2
Trip Frequency Model
... A10-4
A10-3
Welfare Estimation
... A10-6
A10-4
Data Sources
... A10-8
A10-4,1 Marine Recreational Fisheries
Statistic* Surrey (MRFSS)
A10-9
A10-4.2 NDS for Water-based Recreation .
.. AI0-I0
A J 0-5
:Limitations.awl Uncertainties
,. AlOrlO
A10-1
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A- Evaluation Methods
Chapter A10; Estimating Benefits with a RUM
The RUM assumes that anglers maximize their utility by choosing the fishing site, mode of fishing (i.e., from shore, private or
rental boat, and charter boat), and species that give the greatest level of satisfaction, compared with all other available
substitutes. Angler k chooses site j if the utility from that site is greater than utility from all other substitute sites:
uf(k) > uh{k) for h * j and h = 1 ,...J Eq. A10-1
where:
Uj(k) = utility of visiting site j for angler k,
uh (k) = utility of visiting a substitute site h for angler k. and
J - the total number of feasible sites in the angler's choice set.
The RUM travel cost model includes the effects of substitute sites on site values. For any particular site, assuming that it is
not totally unique in nature, the availability of substitutes makes the value for that one site lower than it would be without
available substitutes.
An angler choosing to fish on a particular day chooses a site based on site attributes. The angler weighs the attributes for
various "choice set" sites against the travel costs to each site. These travel costs include both the cost of operating a vehicle
and the opportunity costs of time spent traveling. The angler then weighs the value given to the site's attributes against the
cost of getting to the site when making a site selection.
The RUM therefore assumes that the probability of selecting a particular site is a function of the site attributes, including
catch rates, and travel costs to the site:
Prob (stej) = /(catch rates, other site attributes, travel cost) Eq. A10-2
The RUM assumes that there is a non-random component (vj) and a random component (ep to each angler's utility. The
random component is not observable by the researcher (Maddala, 1983; and McFadden, 1981), The model therefore assumes
that the utility function has a fixed component and a random component, so that:
Uj(k) = Vj(k) + €j Eq. A10-3
where:
u, (k) = utility of visiting site j for angler k;
Vj (k) = the observable component of utility; and
€j = the random, or unobservable component.
The conditional logit model, most often used to estimate the RUM, is based on the assumption that the random error terms ejt
have independently and identically distributed extreme value distributions, and are additive with the observable part of utility
(McFadden, 1981; Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1985).
The logit model therefore becomes:
exp [>',(£)]
Prob{siteu) = — —i~—— for h * j and h = Eq. A10-4
* IAexp[vA(fc)]
where:
Prob(sitekj) = the probability that angler k will select site f,
exp[v/k)] the anglers utility from visiting site j;
Z,, exp [vh(k)] = the sum of angler's utility at each site for all sites (for h* j) in the opportunity set for a given
region.
The conditional logit model imposes the assumption that adding or deleting a site does not affect the probability ratio for
choosing any two sites. This so-called independence of irrelevant alternatives (LI A) property follows from the assumption that
A10-2
-------
5 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A; Evaluation Methods Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits with a RUM
Ihe error terms are independent (Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1985). Sites sharing characteristics not included in the model (e.g.,
salt water vs freshwater sites) will have correlated error terms, thus violating the IIA property. In these cases a nested logit
model, which groups sites with similar characteristics, is more appropriate.
The nested logit model assumes that anglers first choose the group and then a site within that group. Recreational fishing
models generally assume that anglers first choose a mode and species, and then a site. The case study datasets, however, do
not clearly distinguish similarities between sites in terms of species and/or fishing mode. Anglers fish various mode/species
combinations at the same sites. The nested model therefore does not appear to be appropriate in this case, and the study used
a single conditional logit model for site choice estimation.
In the conditional logit model estimated here, the measurable component of utility is estimated as:
v,(*-) = P + P2 ttj(k) + pj X(k) + ZsyEq. A10-5
where:
Vj(k) = the utility realized from a conventional budget constrained utility maximization model conditional on choice
j by angler k;
tCj(k) = the travel cost to site j for angler k
ttj(k) = the travel time to site j for angler k;
Xj(k) = a vector of site characteristics for site alternative j as perceived by angler k. These characteristics may
include various site amenities (e.g., presence of boat ramps) and aesthetic quality of the site;
q)S( k) = the fishing quality of site j for species s, measured in terms of catch rate or fish abundance; and
P and y = the marginal utilities for each variable.
The probability of choosing site j is therefore modeled as:
£„exp[P,«„(*) <- P2rt„(t) + PA(t) ~ '
for h *j and h = 1,...J. where J is the total number of feasible sites in the angler's choice set.
The study assumes that anglers in the estimated model consider site quality based on the catch rate for their targeted species
and additional site attributes, such as presence of boat ramps. Theoretically, an angler may catch any of the available species
at a given site (Morey, 1999). If, however, an angler truly has a species preference, then including the catch variable for all
species available at the site would inappropriately attribute utility to the angier for species not pursued (Haab et al., 2000;
Hicks, et al., 1999; McConnell and Strand, 1994). To avoid this problem, EPA multiplied a dummy variable for each species
targeted by the catch rate, so that each angler's observation in the data set includes only the targeted species' catch rate. All
other catch rates are set to zero. The NDS data do not provide sufficient information to estimate species specific catch rates at
all sites in angler's choice set. Thus, for the Ohio case study, EPA specified quality of fishing sites in terms of fish abundance
reflecting all species commonly caught at the site (see Chapter C5 for detail).
A10 3
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A". Evaluation Methods Chapter *10* Estimating Benefits with a RUM
A10-2 Trip Frequency Model
The trip frequency model estimates changes in days fished, when site or individual characteristics change. The model
assumes that the number of days fished in a year is a function of the travel costs, site characteristics, and characteristics of the
individual anglers:
T = f(p,X,Z) Eq. A 10-7
where:
T = the number of days fished in a year,
p = a vector of travel costs,
x = a vector of site characteristics, and
z = a vector of angler characteristics.
To connect this model to the RUM, the trip frequently model is often specified as:
T = f(I(p,x),Z) Eq. A10-8
where:
I = the inclusive value for each angler, calculated from the RUM.
p = a vector of travel costs,
x = a vector of site characteristics, and
z = a vector of angler characteristics.
The inclusive value can be interpreted as a measure of the expected utility of a set of choice alternatives (Ben-Akiva and
Lerman, 1985). The participation model uses the inclusive value from the conditional logit model as a measure of the
expected utility of the sites available to anglers in the study region. This is measured by:
h = loB EJ exP(Fy (9JS)) Eq. A10-9
where:
Ik = the inclusive value for fishing sites in the study area for angler k;
expCV^qp) = angler's utility from visiting site j; and
qjs = catch rate for species s at site j.
This study therefore estimates the trip frequency model by first estimating the site choice model (RUM), then using the model
results to estimate the inclusive value lk for each angler. Finally, the study estimates the participation model using the
inclusive value and other variables to explain trip frequency. The number of days fished becomes a function of the value per
trip, indicated by the inclusive value and individual angler characteristics. This model assumes that changes in site quality
and travel costs do not directly influence the number of trips, but that changes in site quality will change trip values, thereby
indirectly affecting the number of trips.
The study uses a Poisson regression model to estimate trip frequency. This model is one of those most commonly used for
count data: discrete data where the dependent variable is a count or frequency. The Poisson regression model explicitly
recognizes the non-negative integer character of the dependent variable. (Winkelmann. 2000).
The Poisson regression mode! assumes the Poisson distribution:
exp(-A.)A/^
f(yk) = , far y - 0, 1, 2,
Eq. A10-10
A10-4
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case. Studies. Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A10. Estimating Benefits with a RUM
where:
yk = the actual number of trips taken by an individual angler in the sample;
X = both the mean and variance of the distribution (this parameter must be positive); and
k = 1,2,...K, the number of individuals in the sample.
If the expected value of the demand for trips in a given time period is E(Y), and;
E(Y) = f(I,z,P) Eq. A10-11
where:
I = the inclusive value,
z = a vector of angler characteristics, and
P = the vector of estimated coefficients,
then the Poisson probability distribution of demand for trips is:
Prob (Yk = k) = , y = 0, 1, 2,... Eq. A1Q-12
where:
Yk
the estimated number of trips taken by an individual in the sample;
yk
the actual number of trips taken by an individual in the sample;
k -
1, 2....K the number of individuals in the sample; and
P) =
the expected number of trips for an individual in the sample, where I, z, j3 are variables affecting the
demand for recreational trips (i.e., inclusive value and socioeconomic characteristics, and P is the
vector of estimated coefficients.
Generally, X is specified as a log-linear function of the explanatory variables x,, so that:
InA.^ = px4 Eq. A10-13
or:
kk = exp(pJC4) Eq. A10-14
This function ensures that Ak will be positive. The parameters of the Poisson regression are estimated by maximum
likelihood.
This model's primary limitation is the requirement that the mean equals the variance. The variance often exceeds the mean,
resulting in overdispersion. Overdispersion may be viewed as a form of heteroskedasticity (Winkelmann, 2000). If
overdispersion exists but the model is otherwise correctly specified, the Poisson estimator will still be consistent. The
standard errors will be biased downwards, however, leading to inflated t-statistics. When this occurs, researchers often use
the negative binomial which allows for the variance to be greater than the mean. The negative binomial distribution is derived
as a compound Poisson distribution, where the Poisson distribution is the limiting form of the negative binomial distribution.
The Poisson model may be modified to derive the negative binomial model by respecifying A, so that:
lnXk= + e Kq A10-15
where exp(e) has a gamma distribution with mean 1 and variance a (Greene 1995), yielding the conditional probability
distribution:1
' The study chose this particular parameterization because it is used by the LIMDEP™ software package.
A J 0-5
-------
Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits with a RUM
exp(-A,,) exp(e) A'l*
Prob[Y = yje] = ———-— Eq. A [0-16
* yk\
where:
Proh[ Y=yt] = the probability that the estimated number of trips equals the actual number of trips, if e has a gamma
distribution with mean 1 and variance a;
yk = 0,1,2... number of trips taken by individual k in the sample;
k = 1,2,..., A" number of individuals in the sample; and
Ak = expected number of trips for an individual in the sample.
Integrating out € from equation 2-16 gives the unconditional distribution for yk, which is used in model's optimization:
r(0 + yk)
Prob (Y = yt) = Eq. A10-17
r(B) vi "t (i -«/'
where:
/Vo6[Y=yJ = the probability that the estimated number of trips equals the actual number of trips;
yk 0,1,2... number of trips taken by individual k in the sample;
r<.) = gamma function;2
0 = 1/
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits with a RUM
TEV= A'kJx WTP Eq, A10-20
where:
TEV = the total economic value for a specified period of time, such as a season or year;
N = the number of participants;
X = the number of trips per participant; and
WTP = the value per angler per trip, measured by the amount of money that the angler would be willing to pay for a
fishing trip,3
The study first estimates the value per trip using the RUM, and then estimates the number of trips per angler using the trip ¦
frequency model. The results of these models must be combined to measure the total economic value for a given change.
The value of an improvement in site quality, in this case the catch rate or fish abundance, can be measured by the
compensating variation (CV) that equates the expected value of realized utility under the baseline and post-compliance
conditions. If the catch rate increases from q° to q', then the CV will be measured by:
Vjipf qj\ y-CV) + e.j = Vjipj, q°, y) + e; Eq. A10-21
where:
Pj =
the
1j' =
the
1j° =
the
y =
the
To calculate CV, the angler's utility (Vj (k)) must be estimated as a function of price, quality, and income. Income cannot be
estimated in the logit model because it does not change across alternatives. Price (travel cost), however, enter the indirect
utility function V(j), so that the model can assume the estimated coefficient on travel cost to be the negative of the coefficient
on income (Bockstael et al., 1991).
The RUM predicts only the probability of choosing a specific site. The measure of CV must therefore account for the
researcher's uncertainty in predicting site choice. Measuring CV in terms of expected value yields:
E[v(p, q\y-CV) ] - £[», q\y)] A10-22
where:
v(p, q, y )= expected maximum utility of being able to choose among J sites on a given fishing trip;,
p = the Fishing price, or travel cost;
q1 = sites* quality, measured by catch rate, under the post policy conditions;
q° = sites' quality, measured by catch rate, under the baseline conditions; and
y = the angler's income.
If the marginal utility of income is constant, CV for the logit model is (Bockstael et al., 1991; Parsons et al., 1999):
CVk = (-1/p,) [[ln£exp[v V>] - InV exp[v (<7°)]]
Eq. A10-23
rr« _ roi
(-1/p,) [J1 -I0]
3 The estimated model and resulting welfare estimates rely on the assumptions that the number of participants is fixed in the short run, and
that the value per trip is independent of the number of trips.
AlQ-7
-------
Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits with a RUM
where;
CVk= the compensating variation for individual k at site j on a giveii day;
j = represents a set of alternative sites in the study region;
(J, - the marginal utility of income, measured by the coefficient on travel cost;
1° = the baseline inclusive value; and
I1 = the post-policy inclusive value.
This result gives the expected compensating variation for a choice occasion. To obtain the value per season, EPA multiplied
the result by the number of trips estimated with the participation model. The two models are linked through the inclusive
value, which weights the indirect utilities associated with different sites and their prices and qualities by the probabilities of
choosing each site (Bockstael et al. 1991).
Parsons et al. (1999) compare several models that link site choice and trip frequency models, and find that they produce
similar welfare estimates. Two methods for estimating seasonal welfare estimates are relevant to the models estimated in this
case study. The first, proposed by Bockstael et al. (1987), calculates the per trip welfare measure from the RUM, using the
measure of CV presented above (Eq. A10-24). The authors then use the trip frequency model to predict the change in the
number of trips taken under the proposed policy change. Finally, they calculate a seasonal welfare measure in one of two
ways:
Whw =CV X Pred(T°) Eq. A10-24
W,
high
CV x Pred{Tl)
Eq. A10-25
or
W = CV x
[Pred(T°) + Prcd(T1)]
Eq. A10-26
where:
W,
w
high
CV
Pred(T°)
Pred(T')
low bound estimate of the seasonal welfare gain;
upper bound estimate of the seasonal welfare gain;
the compensating variation for an individual on a given day;
the predicted numbers of trips before the policy change., and
the predicted numbers of trips after the policy change.
The second method, based on Hausman et al. (1995), calculates seasonal welfare based on the trip frequency model.'
EPA used the first method to estimate lower and upper bound values for the seasonal welfare gain per individual. The
Agency extrapolated the estimates of seasonal value per individual to the regional level based on estimates of the total
participation level in the region. Procedures for estimating total regional participation are case study specific and discussed in
the relevant chapters.
A10-4 Data Sources
The data used for the three case studies of recreational benefits are from the NMFS MRFSS in the Southeastern and
Northeastern regions in the U.S. and the EPA's NDS database. The following sections provide a general description of each
data source, sampling methods, and key variables. More detailed information on the sub-sample used in each case study can
be found in the relevant case study sections.
AI0S
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Pert A: Evaluation Methods Chapter AiQ: Estimating Benefits with a RUM
A 10-4.1 Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MftfSS)
MRFSS is a long-term monitoring program that provides estimates of effort, participation, and fin fish catch by recreational
anglers. The MRFSS survey consists of two independent, but complementary, surveys: a random digit-dial telephone survey
of households and an intercept survey of anglers at fishing access sites. Sampling is stratified by state, fishing mode (shore,
private/rental boat, party/charter boat), and wave, and allocated according to fishing pressure. Fishing sites are randomly
selected from an updated list of access sites.
The intercept survey distinguishes between the modes of fishing (i.e., shore, private/rental boat, party/charter boat), and is
designed to elicit information about fishing trips just completed by anglers. The basic intercept survey collects information
about anglers' home zip code, the length of their fishing trip, the species they were targeting on that trip, and the number of
times anglers have been fishing in the past two and twelve months. Trained interviewers record the species and number of
fish caught that are available for inspection and weigh and measure the fish. Anglers report the number and species of each
fish they caught on the trip that are not available for inspection (e.g., fish that were released alive or used for bait). The
intercept survey provides the species composition used to estimate the historic catch rates at the case study sites for the
individual species.
The random telephone survey is used to estimate the number of recreational fishing trips during a two-month basis (as
opposed to annual participation) for coastal households. Households with individuals who have fished within two months of
the phone call are asked about the mode of fishing, the gear used, and the type of water body where the trip took place for
every trip taken within that period. NMFS estimates total catch and participation by state using the MRFSS telephone and
intercept surveys, combined with Census and historical data (NMFS, 1999a). The effort estimates (i.e., number of trips) are
used in the economic valuation work to expand mean trip-level recreational fishing values to aggregate, population values for
recreational fishing. More details about the intercept and the random phone surveys can be found in the MRFSS Procedures
Manual (NMFS, 1999a),
NMFS supplemented the routine MRFSS with socio-economic data from anglers in Southeastern and Northeastern regions.
The economic survey was designed as an add-on to the MRFSS to take advantage of sampling, survey design, and quality
control procedures already in place. Economic questions were added to the intercept survey and a follow-up survey
conducted over the telephone was designed to elicit additional socio-economic information from anglers who completed the
add-on economic intercept survey. The AMES was implemented from Maine to Virginia in 1994 and from North Carolina to
Louisiana in 1997.
The economic field intercept survey of anglers solicited data about trip duration, travel costs, distance traveled, and on-site
expenditures associated with the intercepted trip. The survey was conducted by a private survey firm and administered to all
marine recreational anglers aged 16 and older intercepted in the field. Data were collected according to the field sampling
procedures specified in the MRFSS Procedures Manual. The economic questionnaire was administered either at the
completion of the routine MRFSS questions (before inspection of fish) or after all available fish were identified and biological
measurements had been obtained. As in the MRFSS, all survey participants, with the exception of beach-bank shore anglers,
must have completed their fishing for the day.
Anglers were screened for willingness to participate in the telephone follow-up survey at the time of field intercept. Only
those anglers agreeing to the add-on economics field survey or a telephone follow-up survey were interviewed. The telephone
follow-up survey solicited additional data and information about anglers' recreational fishing avidity, attitudes, and
experience.
A total of 14,868 follow-up surveys were attempted in the Northeast Region in 1994, of which 8,226 (55 percent) were
completed. Refusals, wrong numbers, and households that could not be reached in four calls accounted for the 45 percent
non-response rate. The 1994 questionnaire targeted two distinct groups of anglers: (1) anglers who targeted — not merely
caught — bluefish, striped bass, black sea bass, summer flounder, Atlantic cod, tautog, scup or weakfish, and (2) anglers that
targeted other species and happened to catch any of these eight species. These species were chosen because they were either
under management in 1994 or were expected to come under management in the near future. Approximately 10,000 AMES
telephone interviews were completed in the Southeast Region in 1997. The interview consisted of anglers intercepted from
March 1997 through December 1997 and who agreed to be interviewed. More extensive details regarding the final results of
the telephone follow-up survey are provided in Hicks et al. (1999).
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A10: Estimating Benefits with a RUM
The Agency used data from the 1994 and 1997 AMES to model recreational fishing behavior in the Delaware Estuary and
Tampa Bay case studies, respectively,
.410-4.2 N55 for Water-Based Recreation
The Ohio River study used data from the 1994 NDS for Water-Based Recreation (U.S. EPA, 1994a). The NDS survey
collected data on demographic characteristics and water-based recreation behavior using a nationwide stratified random
sample of 13,059 individuals aged 16 and over. Respondents reported on water-based recreation trips taken within the past 12
months, including the primary purpose of their trips (e.g., fishing, boating, swimming, and viewing), total number of trips, trip
length, distance to the recreation site(s ), and number of participants. Where fishing was the primary purpose of a trip,
respondents were also asked to state the number of fish caught and the type of fish targeted (i.e., warm water, coldwater, or
anadromous). For the Ohio River case study analysis, EPA used observations for fishing participants who took single-day
trips within the study area zone. Part C, Chapter C5 of the Case Studies Document provides descriptive statistics for the Ohio
sample.
A10-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
The RUM analyses rely on the unweighted MRFSS data, not correcting for stratification. The MRFSS data is prone to
avidity bias where the probability of being interviewed increases with the number of fishing trips (Haab et al., 2000). EPA
did not correct for avidity bias, which may result in overestimation of the predicted number of trips per season. This bias is
unlikely to have a significant effect on benefit estimates, because the predicted number of trips was used only for estimating
changes in fishing participation due to improved fishing opportunities. The estimated change in the number of trips was very
small (see Chapters B5, C5, and D5 of the Watershed Case Studies report for detail). The baseline level of participation used
in the analysis was taken from NMFS. This estimate was corrected for avidity bias by NMFS.
The NDS survey results can suffer from the same bias as other studies of this type—recall bias, non-response bias, and bias
due to sampling effects:
~ Recall bias can occur when respondents are asked the number of days in which they recreate over the previous
season, such as in the NDS survey. Some researchers believe that recall bias tends to lead to an overstatement of the
number of recreation days, particularly for more avid participants. Avid participants tend to overstate the number of
recreation days, since they count days in a "typical" week and then multiply them by the number of weeks in the
recreation season. They often neglect to consider days missed due to bad weather, illness, travel, or when fulfilling
"atypical" obligations. Some studies also found that the more salient the activity, the more "optimistic" the
respondent tends to be in estimating number of recreation days. Individuals also have a tendency to overstate the
number of days they participate in activities that they enjoy and value. Taken together, these sources of recall bias
may result in an overstatement of the actual number of recreation days.
~ Non-response bias. A problem with sampling bias may arise when extrapolating sample means to population means.
This could happen, for example, when avid recreation participants are more likely to respond to a survey than those
who are not interested in the forms of recreation, are unable to participate, assume that the survey is not meant for
them, or consider the survey not worth their time,
~ Sampling effects. Recreational demand studies frequently face two types of observations that do not fit general
recreation patterns; non-participants and avid participants. Non-participants are those individuals who would not
participate in the recreation activity under any conditions. Assuming that an individual is a non-participant in a
particular activity if he or she did not participate in that activity at any site tends to understate benefits, since some
individuals may not have participated during the sampling period simply by chance, or because price/quality
conditions were unfavorable during the sampling period. Avid participants can also be problematic because they
claim to participate in an activity an inordinate number of times. This reported level of activity is sometimes correct,
but often overstated, perhaps due to recall bias. These observations tend to be overly influential in the model and
may lead to overestimation of the total number of trips.
A10-I0
-------
Chapter All: HRC Method
Chapter All: Habitat-Based
Replacement Cost Method
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the habitat-based
replacement cost (HRC) method for valuing losses of
aquatic resources that result from l&E of organisms by a
CWIS. The HRC method can be used to value a broad
range of ecological and human service losses associated
with l&E of aquatic species at facilities regulated under
Section 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Clean Water Act) [33 U.S.C. § 1251 etseq.}. It can be
used as an alternative to conventional valuation
approaches that are based on recreational and commercial
fishing impacts. In addition, HRC can supplement
conventional valuation results by providing a full valuation
of species with l&E losses that are not fished (e.g., forage
species).
Al 1-1 Overview of HRC Valuation
of IAE Resource Losses
All-1.1 The Need for an Alternative
to Conventional IAE Valuation
Techniques
Conventional techniques to value the benefits of
technologies that reduce l&E losses at § 316(b) facilities
can omit important ecological and public services. For
example, valuations based on expected recreational and
commercial fishing impacts rely on indirectly derived nonmarket value estimates (e.g., consumer surplus per angling outing as
estimated by travel cost models) and direct market values, respectively. In both instances, all benefits are based solely on
direct use values of the impacted fish, and the physical impacts are characterized by the adult life stage of the species targeted
by the recreational and commercial anglers. However, many l&E losses at many § 316(b) facilities are eggs and larvae,
which are vital to a well-functioning ecological system but have no obvious direct use values in and of themselves. These
facilities may have relatively small numbers of species and individuals that are targeted by anglers, so commercial and
recreational losses may constitute only a small subset of the species lost to l&E. Even when losses of early life stages are
included by conversion to adult equivalents, the ecological services and associated public values provided by early life stages
that don't make it to adulthood in the environment are omitted.
Another conventional valuation technique bases the value of l&E impacts on the costs of restoring aquatic organisms using
hatchery and stocking programs. However, the cost of restoring fish through stocking does not address several ecological
services, and addresses others inefficiently. Moreover, biologists question whether stocked fish are equivalent to wild
species, and have expressed concerned about ecological problems that have resulted from existing stocking programs (Meffe,
1992; White et al., 1997). Shortcomings associated with the use of hatchery and stocking costs to estimate the value of l&E
losses include the following:
~ Reliable stocking costs are available only for the few species targeted by existing hatcheries, and these tend to be the
same species addressed by recreational and commercial fishing valuations.
~ The reported costs often do not include transportation costs (see Chapter A9).
Atl-1
r'
——
¦¦¦¦ *
Chapter Contents
Al 1-1
Overview of HRC Valuation of l&E Resource
Losses
Al 1-1
Al 1-1.1 The Need for an Alternative to
Conventional l&E Valuation
Techniques
Al 1-1
A11 -1.2 HRC Coverage of a Broader Range of
Services and Values
At 1-2
Al 1-1.3 How the HRC Method Works......
.AU-3
All-2
Steps in the HRC
. All-4
All-2.1 Quantify l&E Losses by Species......
.All-4
Al I -2.2 Identify Habitat Requirements
of l&E Species
Al 1-5
A11 -2.3 Identify Potentially Beneficial Habitat
Restoration Alternatives
Al 1-5
Al 1-2.4 Consolidate, Categorize, and Prioritize
Identified Habitat Restoration
Alternatives,
Al 1-5
All -2.5 Quantify the Expected Increases in
Speeies Production for the Prioritized
Habitat Restoration Alternatives
. Al 1-6
Al 1-2,6 Scale the Habitat Restoration
Alternatives to Offset l&E Losses ....
. Al 1-6
Al 1-2.? Develop Unit Cost Estimates ........
All-?
A i 1 -2.8 Develop Total Value Estimates
for l&E Losses
Al 1-7
AU-3
Use or the HRC Method fori) 316(b)
Evaluations .........,....
Al l-X
AIM
Strengths and Weakness of the HRC Method ...
Al 1-8
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies. Port A: Evaluation Methods Chapter All: HRC Method
~ The costs associated with hatchery and stocking programs do not include the value of many ecological services
affected by I&E losses, because hatchery fish are released at different life stages, in different numbers, and in
different places than they would be produced in the natural environment.
~ Hatcheries usually produce naive fish, which do not taction as well as wild fish in the environment,
~ Hatchery fish lack genetic diversity and disease resistance compared to fish produced in the natural environment.
~ Hatchery and stocking programs must continue as long as l&E losses occur, whereas natural habitat produces fish
indefinitely once properly restored and protected.
~ At a number of locations where fish stocking programs are in place, significant questions remain about whether the
programs actually supplement the native fish populations, and if they do, the extent to which this occurs
~ Hatchery fish can introduce diseased organisms and parasites to native populations.
A 11-1.2 HRC Coverage of a Broader Range of Services and Values
The HRC method can be used in benefit-cost analyses to value a broad range of ecological and human services associated
with l&E losses that are either undervalued or ignored by conventional valuation approaches. Economists and policy makers
widely acknowledge that the public values environmental benefits well beyond beneficial impacts on direct uses (Boyd et al.,
2001; Fischman, 2001; Fisher and Raucher, 1984; Heal et al.. 2001; Herman et al., 2001; Ruhl and Gregg, 2001; Salzman et
al, 2001; Wainger et al, 2001). While much of the professional literature, especially empirical investigations, focuses on
recreational and other direct use values, most Americans value water resource protection and enhancement, including
reduction of L&E losses, for reasons that go well beyond their desire for recreational anglers to enjoy a larger consumer
surplus (or commercial anglers to enjoy greater producer surplus). Furthermore, many studies have documented public values
(including passive values) from ecological services provided by a variety of natural resources sustaining (potential)
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 & endangered species (Hagen et al., 1992; Loomis and
Ekstrand, 1997; Whitehead and Blomquist, 1991); 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). In fact, a recent
study (Costanza et al., 1997) estimated that Worldwide ecosystem services have a value of $16-54 trillion, a range that
exceeded the Global Product of $ 18 trillion.
For direct use benefits such as recreational angling, the predicted change in the stock of a recreational fishery affects
recreational participation levels and the value of an angling day (see also Chapter A3). However, l&E losses affect the
aquatic ecosystem and public use and enjoyment in many ways not addressed by typical recreational valuation methods,
creating a gap between known disruption of ecological services and what economists usually translate into monetary values or
anthropocentric motives. Examples of ecological and public services (Peterson and Lubchenco, 1997; Postel and Carpenter,
1997; Holmlund and Hammer, 1999; Strange et al., 1999) disrupted by l&E, but not addressed by conventional valuation
methods, 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 (e.g., Summers, 1989);
~ disruption of age class structures of species;
~ disruption of natural succession processes;
*¦ disruption of public uses other than fishing, such as diving, boating, and birding; and
~ disruption of public satisfaction with a healthy ecosystem.
The HRC method differs fundamentally from the commercial and recreational impact valuation method because the latter
accounts for only those species and life stages that can be valued directly, such as those species targeted by recreational or
commercial anglers. In contrast, the HRC method defines the value of all I&E losses in terms of the expenditures that would
be required to replace all organisms lost to l&E at a CWIS through enhanced natural production in the environment. In short,
the HRC method values lost resources by the costs of the programs required to naturally replace those same resources. The
Al 1-2
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter All: HftC Method
replaced organisms would then be available not only for commercial and recreational human use but also as prey for a wide
range of aquatic and terrestrial organisms, as well as the full range of complex ecological functions provided by those
organisms. As a result, the HRC method, by focusing on replacement of natural habitats, values fish and other organisms that
are truly equivalent to those lost by allowing species to reproduce in their natural habitats using their native strategies. In
addition, the HRC results are based on the natural replacement of all relevant species, life stages, behaviors, and ecological
interactions, for as long as the habitats remain viable, and so the resulting valuations of I&E losses effectively incorporate the
complete range of ecological and human services, even when those services are difficult to measure or poorly understood.
All-1,3 How the HRC Method Works
The HRC method values natural resource losses based on the costs of ecological habitat-based restoration activities, as
opposed to approaches not based on habitat such as fish stocking, that are scaled to increase natural production as an offset to
the I&E losses. Thus, HRC uses resource replacement costs as a proxy for the value of resources lost to I&E. Where
restoration costs are very high, or where public values might be much lower than costs, economic studies can be conducted to
determine the value of habitat replacements'. Few comparisons of restoration costs and restoration value have been made.
However, the Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting,
2000) estimated both the cost and the value of habitat (and other) restorations. Public values were determined using stated
preference surveys and conjoint analyses (Breffle and Rowe, 2002). Restoration costs (to offset PCB-caused injuries to the
environment) totaled $111-268 million, whereas willingness-to-pay for elimination of the same PCB injuries was $254-610
million. Thus, restoration costs were considerably less than public values.
In addition to addressing a wider range of I&E losses in terms of life stages and species, the HRC method also provides
regulators with information needed to evaluate proposals from the regulated party to voluntarily provide relief for expected
future I&E losses associated with various permitted technologies. This information consists of a prioritized set of restoration
alternatives for each species affected by I&E, estimates of the potential benefits of implementing those alternatives, and
estimates of the effective unit costs for those alternatives. Figure AU-1 presents the steps required to implement an HRC
valuation of I&E losses (see Parts H and I of the Case Study Document for examples of a streamlined HRC valuation).
The HRC method is a new approach for valuing losses of aquatic organisms from a CWIS, and is consistent with and related
to lost resource valuation techniques such as habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) that federal courts have recognized as
appropriate for use in valuing lost resources (for examples, see U.S. District Court, 1997, and U.S. District Court, 1999).
Further, the principle of offsetting resource and ecosystem losses through restoration actions is incorporated in other
components of the Clean Water Act, such as those addressing the losses of wetland areas (i.e., Section 404). The following
subsections discuss the steps for conducting an HRC valuation of l&E losses.
1 Although controversial, the contingent valuation method and other related techniques, such as conjoint analyses, include ecological
services and passive values and have been upheld in federal court [State of Ohio v. U.S. Department of the Interior (U.S. Circuit Court,
1989)] and supported by a NOAA panel co-chaired by 2 Nobel Laureate economists (Arrow et al„ 1993).
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A Evaluation Methods Chapter All: HRC Method
Figure A11-1: Steps for conducting an HRC valuation of I&E losses.
Step 8: Develop total cost estimates
for I&E losses
Step 7: Estimate "unit costs" for the
habitat restoration alternatives
Step 4; Consolidate, categorize, and prioritize
identified habitat restoration alternatives
Step 1; Quantify l&E losses by species
Step 2: Identify habitat requirements
of I&E species
Step 3: Identify potential habitat restoration
actions that could benefit I&E species
Step 6: Scale the habitat restoration
alternatives to offset l&E losses
Step 5: Quantify the expected increases in
species production for the prioritized habitat
restoration alternatives
All-2 Steps in the HRC
All-2.1 Quantify ME Losses by Species
The first step in an HRC valuation quantifies the I&E losses from a § 316(b) facility by species. This defines a CWIS's
absolute and relative impacts on various species, including temporal variations when multiple years of data are available. The
quantified l&E losses by species define the gains of aquatic organisms that restoration actions should achieve. However,
EPA's analyses are generally based on data provided by the facility and therefore do not include losses of species not targeted
by monitoring programs. In these cases, estimates of potential benefits of regulation will be underestimates. The HRC
method partially alleviates this problem because restoring habitats for monitored species is likely to benefit other species lost
but not monitored.
Because measured I&E losses often include multiple life stages (e.g., eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults) of any given species,
total losses for each species are generally expressed as equivalent losses in a single, common life stage (see Chapter A5).
This conversion is accomplished through the use of survival and production rates between life stages (younger life stages are
always more abundant than older life stages because of mortality rates). A common life stage is generally chosen to facilitate
the scaling of the restoration alternatives. For instance, early life stages are highly relevant for determining how much
spawning habitat is required in cases where the productivity of spawning habitats is estimated. Adjusting the raw l&E loss
data to a common life stage does not bias HRC results because many eggs are equivalent to fewer adults on both the l&E loss
and the restoration gain side of the HRC equation. In other words, losing an adult to I&E is equivalent to losing many eggs
because the adult represents survival through many life stages, and restoring an adult is equivalent to restoring many eggs for
the same reason. Therefore, the life stage selected for reporting the losses should be chosen to be highly relevant to the life
stages affected by (and measurable in) restoration activities. Typically, early life stages such as eggs, larvae, or juveniles are
chosen because they tend to be less mobile than adults, and abundance will be better related habitat productivity estimates for
replaced habitats.
A1I-4
-------
Chapter All: HRC Method
All-2.2 Identify Habitat Requirements of I&E Species
The second HRC step identifies the habitat requirements of the aquatic organisms lost to I&E. A species' habitat
requirements are usually identified through literature searches and discussions with local resource managers, biologists,
conservationists, and restoration experts with specific knowledge of the species.2 HRC valuation uses local species
characteristics and local habitat requirements and opportunities because of variation of local habitat conditions and
constraints.
Because many aquatic organisms experience I&E in their earlier life stages (e.g., eggs, larvae, and juveniles), this step
emphasizes habitat requirements for these stages, including spawning habitats. This emphasis is important because reducing
constraints on adequate spawning is critical to increasing species production, is practical to achieve, and addresses directly the
life stages most at risk from impingement and enfrainment.
Habitat requirements for a species are typically described in very general terms (e.g., near-shore areas, wetlands, open water
areas), but additional characteristics required or preferred by the species (e.g., specific ranges of water depth and temperature,
substrate composition) further define the required habitats and improve the match between the habitat requirement and a
restoration alternative. For example, a number of species benefit from a general wetland restoration program, but very
different species and populations would benefit from a program of prairie pothole restoration compared to the restoration of
cattail marshes hydraulically connected to the Great Lakes.
A 11-2.3 Identify Potentially Beneficial Habitat Restoration Alternatives
The third step in an HRC valuation identifies actual habitat restoration alternatives that potentially increase the local
production of the I&E species. As with identifying habitat requirements, thorough literature searches and discussions with
local resource managers will provide optimal information. Special attention should be paid to any remedial action plans for
local water bodies or local species management plans that present a series of projects or actions needed to address both
specific and general constraints on the populations of aquatic organisms experiencing l&E losses.
Fully addressing I&E costs requires that this step not limit consideration to restoration actions already completed or already
planned. Information about projects planned or under way is valuable, but more comprehensive information about what
restoration activities improve the production of the affected species sufficient to fully offset I&E losses is essential to
understand the full cost to society of I&E losses to the environment and the public. In other words, costs should be
constrained only by biological understanding and engineering capability rather than existing funding and administrative
opportunities.
The difference between what is being done or planned and what could be done may in some cases be small; in other cases it
may be quite significant. For example, there may be little administrative opportunity for local wetland restoration in a
location zoned for urbanized development. However, if available information and expert opinion suggest that increasing
wetland acreage would be highly effective for increasing local production for a subset of affected species, a wetland
restoration program should not be eliminated from consideration even if it could not be implemented locally.
All-2.4 Consolidate, Categorize, and Prioritize Identified Habitat Restoration
Alternatives
The fourth step in an HRC valuation consolidates and categorizes the identified restoration alternatives and provides a
prioritized list of alternatives for each species, including designation of a preferred restoration alternative for the species.
This step addresses both overlapping restoration alternatives and alternatives that vary widely in specificity. Consolidation
and categorization eliminates redundancy in the proposals while producing a clearly defined set of restoration alternatives
without prescribing specific actions to be taken.
2 Very little may be known about life stage characteristics and needs of some species, and information about taxonomically related
species or functionally related life stages may be used. Where relevant information is extremely limited, best professional judgment must be
applied, including the possibility of omitting the species from the analysis due to lack of information (and further underestimating
benefits).
A11-5
-------
Chapter All: HRC Method
For example, "restore cattail marshes that are hydraulicaliy connected to Lake Erie" could emerge as a restoration alternative
from this process, and "restore thelQ-aere tract of former wetlands adjacent to marina X" would not be considered because of
its specificity. At the other extreme, overly simplified proposals such as "improve water quality" are too general to determine
restoration actions with definable costs.
The second part of this step, prioritizing the restoration alternatives, requires identifying a preferred alternative for each I&E
species. This identification and prioritization of a preferred alternative is critical for developing a clear restoration program
with a hierarchy of actions required to address the losses for a species. Otherwise, because a species may realize varying
degrees of increased production from a number of restoration alternatives, an unmanageably large number of combinations of
restoration alternatives with varying scales of implementation could be developed.
Prioritizing the categorized restoration alternatives benefits from close coordination with local resource managers. One
effective strategy for completing this task convenes relevant resource managers and stakeholders for an open review and
discussion of the categorized restoration alternatives with a goal of consensus on the preferred restoration alternative for each
species with I&E losses.
All-2.5 Quantify the Expected Increases in Species Production for the Prioritized
Habitat Restoration Alternatives
Quantifying the benefits of the preferred restoration alternatives to I&E species, the fifth HRC step, is critical for scaling the
amount of restoration needed to offset calculated I&E losses. Rigorous, peer-reviewed studies that quantify production
increases of I&E species which result from particular restoration activities are the best sources of data. These studies measure
pre- and post-restoration production in the habitat. Identifying suitable control habitats to substitute for the pre-restoration
state is reasonable but less preferred than using pre- and post-measurement from the same site.
Estimates of the potential increases in species production following habitat restoration are more typically based on sampling
data from studies that measure the population density of species in various habitats. This estimates increases in species
production per unit of restored habitat by assuming that restoration provides similar habitat with similar productivity to that
sampled. Estimates of the increased species production following restoration activities should account for lower initial (and
perhaps permanent) productivity in restored versus pristine or unimpaired habitats. Estimates of increases in species
production should include adjustments for factors that distinguish measured habitats from sites which could be restored (for a
discussion of some of the factors that can affect productivity estimates in restored habitats, see Strange et al., 2002). Again,
local resource managers are essential to making realistic adjustments. In practice, these adjustments are usually integrated as
a percentage of estimated baseline benefits in the HRC equation.
Neither restoration productivity data nor habitat density data are available for some I&E species. For these species, estimates
of the increase in species production can come from models of habitat-species relationships such as Habitat Suitability Indices
(HSI), data or studies on other habitats or other species with similar functional characteristics, or the best professional
judgment of local resource managers.
All-2.6 Scale the Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset ME Losses
The sixth step scales the selected habitat restoration actions so that the magnitude of their expected increases in species
production offsets I&E losses. This step combines the estimated increases in species production associated with the
restoration actions (step 5) with the quantified I&E losses (step 1). In the simplest case, one fish species experiences I&E
losses in one life stage and wide agreement exists on how implementing the preferred restoration alternative would increase
the production of the species for the affected life stage. Dividing the l&E loss by the expected increase in species production
associated with a unit area of restoration determines the number of units (and thus the scale) of restoration required (this
assumes the l&E losses and the expected increases in species production are expressed in the same time units, e.g., annual
average). For example, if a facility's CWIS impinges and entrains 1 million year-one gizzard shad per year and local wetland
restorations produce 500 year-one gizzard shad per acre per year (and wetland restorations are recognized as the most
effective and cost-effective restoration alternative for gizzard shad), then offsetting these l&E losses requires successful,
sustained restoration of 2,000 acres of wetlands.
The typical case involves multiple species with I&E losses across several life stages, variation between species in the
expected increases in species production per unit of restoration area, and multiple restoration alternatives to benefit all
affected species. In these cases, dividing I&E losses for each species by its expected increases in species production per unit
AH-6
-------
Chapter All: HRC Method
of restoration area still results in the required scale of restoration for each species. However, where a single restoration
activity is the primary means to benefit multiple species, enough habitat must be restored to produce all of the species' losses,
This means that the species with the lowest per unit production benefit value determines the amount of that restoration
required. For example, if 1 million year-one gizzard shad and 1 million year-one emerald shiners are lost to I&E every year,
if wetland restoration is the most effective and cost-effective restoration alternative for both species, and if local wetland
restorations have been documented to produce 500 gizzard shad per acre per year but only 100 emerald shiners per acre per
year, then offsetting the I&E losses of both species requires 10,000 acres (not 2,000 acres) of successful, sustained wetland
restoration.
Whether multiple restoration activities will benefit species with disparate habitat needs or whether restoration requirements
vary widely among species benefitting from the same restoration activity, production of one species will not offset losses of
another species because each species provides unique ecological services through its interactions with other species and has
an associated public existence value as a unique species. Therefore, all l&E losses are treated as significant in the HRC
method. However, particular species may benefit from activities other than the preferred alternative where multiple
restoration activities must address all species, reducing the amount of the preferred alternative required for the particular
species. Further, great uncertainty about the amount of a restoration alternative required for many species will require the use
of a median, 90th percentile, or other reasonable upper bound likely to offset the I&E losses for most of the species. Here, the
risk of underestimating total I&E costs by inadequately restoring some species must be compared to the risk of artificially
inflating I&E costs because of uncertainty alone. Using the highest restoration cost to ensure that all species* I&E losses are
offset may not be justified, particularly if very few of the species drive the cost orders of magnitude higher. For example,
wetland restoration may be the only alternative with cost estimation data and species density data at a site, but the productivity
estimates for many species are highly variable and based on limited data or extrapolations.
Both I&E losses and the expected increase in species production associated with a unit area of restoration are expressed as
average annual losses for a species at a specific life stage. However, the expected annual average increase in production from
a restoration action may be obscured by variability in the flow of benefits, especially in the early years when changes to
existing habitats and ecosystem responses are expected to occur. Therefore, a benefits path must describe when and to what
extent expected benefits will accrue, and an annual discount rate must be applied (as in the HEA applications described in
Peacock, 1999). Benefits of restoration can be expressed in perpetuity, as an annual value, or for a discrete time period.3
All-2.7 Develop Unit Cost Estimates
In the seventh step, an HRC valuation monetizes the unit costs (e.g., costs per acre) for restoration alternatives. Unit cost
estimates include all expenses associated with the design, implementation, administration, maintenance, and monitoring of
each restoration alternative. These costs include agency oversight costs and all required materials and labor purchased on the
open market.
Similar completed projects provide an excellent source of cost information since they reflect real-world experiences. An
alternative source of information is the cost estimates from proposed projects not yet implemented or partially completed
projects. In either case, factors that can affect per unit restoration costs, such as fixed costs (e.g., administration, permitting)
or donated services and materials, should be accounted for by carefully examining the available cost information. The cost
analysis of each restoration alternative should also include the costs for an effective program to monitor the increases in
species production. Monitoring costs for a restoration alternative should be listed separately, should include all relevant
species, and should be of a sufficient length and duration to show the effectiveness of the chosen alternative in different years
that capture natural variability. Where costs are not developed on a per unit restored basis, total costs can be divided by the
scale of the project to develop the required unit costs. Finally, unit costs are converted to their present value equivalents to
simplify addressing costs that may be incurred over a number of years.
411-2.8 Develop Total Value Estimates for ME Losses
After the required scale for restoration and the associated unit costs have been determined, the eighth step estimates the total
value of all I&E losses. Multiplying the maximum required scale of implementation to offset I&E losses for a species by the
unit cost for the restoration alternative produces the costs of a single restoration alternative. The total cost of offsetting the
3 However, accurate and complete measurement of annual variation of l&E losses is often unavailable, limiting the utility of
annualizing HRC.
AH-7
-------
Chapter All: HRC Method
I&E losses is then equal to the sum of the costs of each restoration alternative implemented, following their prioritization for
each species.
The total estimated cost of replacing all of the organisms lost is a discrete, present value representing the current cost for
providing a stream of increased production benefits for the affected species in perpetuity. In other words, the HRC valuation
estimate reflects the cost now for increasing the production of I&E species at an average annual level that would offset the
losses in the current year and all future years, all else being equal.
All-3 Use of the HRC Method for § 316(b) Evaluations
EPA Region 1 is currently applying the HRC method at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Generating Station in Plymouth,
Massachusetts, and the Brayton Point Station in Somerset, Massachusetts. In addition, EPA applied a streamlined HRC
valuation for the benefits case studies of the J.R. Whiting facility on Lake Erie and the Monroe facility on the River Raisin, a
tributary to Lake Erie, to test the applicability of the method under time and budget constraints often faced by NPDES permit
writers (see Parts H and I of this document).
A11 -4 Strengths and Weakness of the HRC Method
The primary strength of the HRC method is the explicit recognition that l&E losses have impacts on the aquatic ecosystem
and the public's use and enjoyment of that ecosystem beyond that estimated by reduced commercial and recreational catches.
The HRC method provides a supplemental or alternative option for determining the value of I&E losses of all species,
including forage species overlooked by conventional methods, so that the public (i.e., those directly and indirectly affected by
I&E) and the regulators who represent them can have greater confidence in the true range of values associated with I&E
losses. The need for detailed restoration alternatives for the HRC method provides permitting agencies with a way to scale
the mitigation level to offset residual l&E losses associated with a permitted technology. Finally, the HRC method has a
strong intuitive appeal as a valuation tool because it uses the costs associated with enhancing natural habitats so that they will
produce the equivalent number and type of resources necessary to offset the I&E losses produced by the CWIS.
Public confidence in HRC valuations will be determined by the quality of input data for identifying preferred restoration
alternatives, estimating increased production following restorations, estimating complete unit costs for restorations, and
monitoring the relative success of restoration efforts. In this sense the HRC method does not have a methodological
weakness. However, failure to identify all species lost to I&E, lack of information about life histories and habitat needs for
some species lost, and abundance data poorly linked to restored habitat productivity are likely to continue to force cosl-saving
assumptions that undervalue the total benefits of minimizing I&E.
EPA's studies are limited by the quality and extent of the I&E data collected by the facility. This weakness can be addressed
in future analyses by using appropriate guidelines for monitoring I&E, and by planning a more active program of defining
expected production increases for species following implementation of different restoration activities. In practice,
implementing appropriate monitoring programs for both the harm done by a CWIS and the benefits gained from restoration
projects will produce a more comprehensive database. This comprehensive database will then facilitate scaling restoration
projects to replace I&E losses. By ensuring that the costs associated with such monitoring programs are incorporated in the
unit costs used to value I&E losses, the HRC method will help develop the information needed to address this limitation.
-------
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
Chapter A12: Threatened A
Endangered Species Analysis Methods
Chapter Contents
AS2-
A12-2
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 entrainment
(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 §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.
A12-1 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 are
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. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1996a). At the 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.
A! 2-3
AS2-4
A! 2-5
A12-6
A12-7
Listed Species Background A12-1
A12-1.1 Listed Species Definitions A12-2
A12-1.2 Main Factors in Listing of Aquatic
Species A12-2
Framework for Identifying Listed Species
Potentially at Risk of I&E A12-3
A12-2.1 Step 1: Compile a Comprehensive Tabic
of Potentially-Affected Listed Species ..A12-5
A 12-2.2 Step 2: Determine the Geographic
Distribution of Listed Species......... AI2-S
A12-2.3 Step 3: Compare Habitat Preferences of
Listed Species to the CWIS A12-6
A12-2.4 Step 4. Use Life History Characteristics
to Refine Estimate of I&E Potential or
Monitor for Actual I&E of the Listed
Species A12-7
Identification of Species of Concern at Case
Study Sites A12-8
AI2-3.1 The Delaware Estuary Transition
Zone A12-8
Benefit Categories Applicable for Impacts on
T&E Species A12-11
Methods Available for Estimating the Economic
Value Associated with i&EofT&E Species ,... A12-I2
A12-5.1 Estimating I&E Impacts on T&E
Species A12-12
AI2-5.2 Economic Valuating Methods AJ2-I3
Issues m the Application of the T&E Valuation
Approaches AI2-I8
A12-6.1 issues in Estimating Environmental
Impacts from t&E on Special Status
Fish AI2-1K
Conclusions A!2-20
1 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.
A12-1
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
A12-1.1 Listed Species Definitions
a. Threatened and endangered and 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. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1996a).
A species is considered to be endangered or threatened if one or more of the following listing criteria apply (U.S. FWS,
1996):
~ . 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" to 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.
A12-1.2 Main Factors "m 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.
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):
A12-2
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A; Evaluation Methods
~ 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 §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.
A12-2 Framework for Identifying Listed Species Potentially at Risk of IAE
Evaluating benefits to listed species from the proposed §316(b) regulation requires data on the number of listed organisms
impinged and entrained and an estimate of how much the impingement and entrainment 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, and
~ 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 E 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 l&E,
The framework involves four main steps (see Figure A12-1).
~ Step 1 identifies all state- or federally-listed species for the states that border the CWIS source water body.
~ 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 l&E based on the life history characteristics of the listed species.
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.
A12-3
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Cose Studies, Part Ai Evaluation Methods
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
Figure AlZ-1: Flowchart for Identifying TAE Aquatic Species with a Reasonable Potential for I&E by CWISs
•Select one or more CWIS of concern
¦Determine the location of the CWFS
STEP 1
identify alt listed aquatic species in all states bordering the
source water body of the CWlS(s) of concern
Decision 1:
Are listed aquatic species
present in the states bordering
the CWIS's water body?
No concern
STEP 2
Determine the water bodies in which any life stages of the
listed aquatic species identified in Step 1 are present
Decision Z
Are listed aquatic species
present in the CWIS's water
bodies?
No concern
STEP 3
Use data on habitat preferences to determine the likelihood for listed
aquatic species identified in Step 2 to overlap with the CW1
Decision 3
Is there a 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
Low level of concern
event?
YES/MAYBE
Develop a final table of listed aquatic species identified in Step 4
requiring the assessment
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.
A12-4
-------
Chapter A1Z: Species Analysis Methods
<412-2.1 Step 1: Compile a Comprehensive Table of Potentially-Affected Listed
Species
The first step in determining the potential for l&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); reptiles (such as turtles, alligators, or
water snakes); and mammals (such as seals or sea lions). The U.S. FWS maintains a web site
ivti-.iitiv 'eiu^jT.inmi) 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, however, 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 A1 provides a recent
compilation of aquatic T&E species by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Information on Natural Heritage Programs in the
U.S. can be obtained from The Natural Heritage Network at ii;ir>;' w w .hemiige.tnc.org. 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 water body 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
water body 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, Indiana, 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 water body 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 or U.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.
<412-2,2 Step 2: Determine the Geographic Distribution of Listed Species
In the second step, the analyst determines if the listed species identified in Step 1 are present in the same water body 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 water body of interest; it is removed if it does not (see also Figure A12-1).
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, 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,
J As discussed earlier, both T&E species and species of special concern should be included.
A12-5
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A1Z: Species Analysis Methods
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
river miles), 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 an 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.
A12-2.3 Step 3; Compare Habitat Preferences of Listed Species to the CWIS
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 (I) where the CWIS is
found within the water body (e.g., inshore versus off-shore; 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 water body 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
swifl-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 water body.
b. Other habitat information
Detailed information on the habitat requirements of the target species is also needed. This information should focus on all 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
A12-6
-------
Chapter *12: Species Analysis Methods
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.
A12-2.4 Step 4: Use Life History Characteristics to Refine Estimate of I&E
Potential or Monitor for Actual I&E of the Listed Species
From this point on, the assessment can go in two different directions (see Figure A12-1): (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 t
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 which 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.
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:
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.
A12-7
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
~ the host fish is known to science,
~ the host fish is present in the stretch of river containing the CWIS, and
~ 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.
A12-3 Identification of Species of Concern at Case Study Sites
The following sections illustrate the use of this procedure for identifying vulnerable special status species. The example is for
fish species of the Delaware Estuary, the site of one of EPA's benefits case studies (see Part B of this document),
A12-3.1 The Delaware Estuary Transition Zone
a. Step 1: Identify all state- or federally-listed species for the states that border the
water body on which the CWIS is located.
Table A12-1 summarizes information compiled by EPA for fish species in the Delaware Estuary'.
Table A12-1: Fish Species Listed as Threatened. Endangered, or of Special Concern
(Federal plus PA, NJ, DE. and NY)
| Federally-
Listed
j Species
State-Listed Species
Common Name (Latin Name)
Pennsylvania ; New Jersey ; Delaware ; New York
i I ; T I O'
E
T ! O" | E ; T i 0>: E 1 T ;OM I 1 T \ Of
Burbot (Lota lota) ! :
x : : :
Chub. Gravel (Erimystax x-punctata)
X
\ \ \ l ; ¦ : X i
Chub, Silver (Macrhybopsis storeiana)
i ; i
; i ; ; ; • ; x = =
Chub, Streamline (Erymystax dissimilis)
j :
: i ; = ; i ? ; X
Chubsucker, Lake (Erimyzon sucetta)
! ; :
I : : : : : ; ; : x ;
Darter, Bluebreast (Etheostoma Camurum)
} • :
i ; :
X i ; i : : ¦ : X i i
Darter, Channel (Percina copelandi)
| ; i
X i : ; ; ¦ ; ; = ;
Darter, Eastern Sand (Ammocryptapcllucida)
i : :
X i x = '
Darter, Gilt (Percina evides)
X ; : ; ! j i : ; X j 1
Darter, Longhead (Percina macrocephala)
X
: : . : : i X :
Darter, Spotted (Etheostoma maculatum)
i : :
X
; : = ! : : ! X j
Darter, Swamp (Etheostoma fusiforme)
' i
; i i ! ! ; : i X i
Darter, Tippecanoe (Etheostoma tippecanoe)
X
Lamprey, Mountain Brook (Ichtkyomyzon
greeleyi)
! : !
l ; ;
X : : ; x
Lamprey, Northern Brook (Ichtkyomyzon
fossor)
i ; ;
X
Lamprey, Ohio (Ichthyomyzon bdellium)
X i i i i i : : ; i i
Madtom, Mountain (Noturus eleutherus)
i ; :
X : ; i : : i • i 1 ;
Madtom, Northern (notutm stigmotus)
: : ;
X ! i i i ! • : j j ;
Mooneye (Hiodon tergisus)
; : : : ¦ ; : x ;
Redhorse, Black (Moxostoma duquesnei)
; : 1 1 : ; ! : : X
A12S
-------
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
Tobte A12-1: Fish Species Listed as Threatened, Endangered, or of Special Concern
(Federal plus PA, NJ. DE, and NY) (cont.)
State-Listed Species
Common Name {Latin Name)
Seulpin, Deepwater (Myoxocephalus
ihompsom)
Federally- ;
Listed
Species ! Pennsylvania ! New Jersey : Delaware i New York
T O* E T O"
E ; T ' O" ; E ; T ; O"; E ; T ; O"
I ; ; 'XI i
Seulpin, Spoonhead (Coitus ricei)
¦ X
Shiner, Ironcolor (Notropis ehalybaeus)
Shiner, Pugnose (Notropis anogenus)
: X •
Shiner, Redfin (Lvthrurus umbrattiis) \
Sturgeon, Atlantic (Acipenser oxyrhynchus)
Sturgeon, Lake (Acipenser fuhescens) \
X
X :
• x
X
Sturgeon, Shortnose (Acipenser brevirostrum) j X
Sucker, Longnose (Catostomus catostomus) '
: X '
: X :
: X
Sunfish. Banded (Enneaeanthus obesus)
Sunfish. Longear (lepomis megalotis)
\ X ;
: X ;
Sunfish, Mud (Acantharchm pamotis)
Whitefish, Round (Prosopium cylindmceum)
total! i
0 0 8 ; 10 j 0
001;0;0:8;11
* 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. Fish and Wildlife Service (2000).
b. Step 2: Determine if a species listed in Step 1 is present in the area of the CWIS
After identifying species of concern in the source water body, 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 A12-2 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).
Table A12-2: Distribution of Listed Species Identified in Step 1
Species Name
Current Distribution
Found in Delaware
River Basin?
Burbot
; PA: Lake Erie and headwaters of Allegheny River
NO
Chub, gravel
; NY: medium and large-sized streams in the Allegheny basin
; PA: Allegheny River and French Creek
NY; NO
PA NO
Chub, silver
; NY: Lake Erie
NO
Chub, Streamline
. NY: Allegheny River drainage
NO
C'hubsuckcr, Lake
; NY: the Lake Erie drainage basin and embaymcnts along the southern shore of Lake
; Ontario
NO
Darter, bluebreast
: NY: upper reaches of the Allegheny River drainage basin
; PA: upper Allegheny River and two of its tributaries, namely Little Brokenstraw
i Creek and French Creek
NY: NO
PA NO
Darter, channel
; PA: Lake Erie and large tributaries, and the upper part of the Allegheny River
NO
Darter, eastern sand
; 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: NO
PA: NO
A12-9
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter Al2- Species Analysts Methods
Table A12-21. Distribution of Listed Species Identified in Step 1 (cont.)
Species Name
Current Distribution
Found in Delaware
River Basin?
Darter, gilt
; NY: found only in the Allegheny River
: PA; Upper Allegheny River
NY: NO
PA; NO
Darter, longhead
NY' Allegheny River and a few of its large tributaries; French Creek
" PA: Scattered sites in the Allegheny River and French Creek headwaters
i NY; NO
PA: NO
Darter, spotted
: NY: French Creek
: PA: upper Allegheny River and French Creek
NY: NO
PA, NO
Darter, swamp
: NY; eastern two-thirds of Long Island
NY: NO
Darter, tippecanoe
; PA: upper Allegheny River and French Creek
PA: NO
Lamprey, mountain brook
; NY: French Creek and Allegheny River tributaries
: PA: moderate to large streams of the upper Allegheny River system
NY: NO
PA; NO
Lamprey, northern brook
1 PA: Conneaut Creek in Crawford County in north west PA
NO
Lamprey, Ohio
; PA: moderate to large streams of the upper Allegheny River system
NO
Madtom, mountain
i PA: French Creek in Mercer and Erie Counties in north west PA
: NO
Madtom, northern
1 PA:French Creek
: no
Mooneye
; NY: Lake Champlain, Black Lake, Oswegatchie River, Lake Erie, Saint Lawrence
i River, and the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek
NO
Redhoree, black
; NY: Lake Ontario (likely extirpated) and Lake Eric drainage basins, and the
j Allegheny River
NO
Sculpin, deepwater
; NY; Lakes Erie and Ontario
NO
Sculpin, spoonhead
; NY; historically found in Lakes Erie and Ontario but believed to be extirpated
i NO
Shiner, ironcolor
i NY: Basher Kill and Haekensaek River
NO
Shiner, pugnose
: NY; Sodus Bay and Saint Lawrence River
; no
Shiner, redfin
; NY: drainages of Lakes Erie and Ontario in western NY
| NO
Sturgeon, Atlantic
i PA: Delaware Estuary
YES
Sturgeon, Lake
: NY: Saint Lawrence River, Niagara River, Oswegatchie River, Orasse River, Lakes
; Ontario & Erie, Lake Champlain, Cayuga Lake, Seneca & Cayuga canals
: PA; Lake Erie
NY: NO
PA: NO
Sturgeon, shortnose
; DE; Tidal Delaware River
INJ: Tidal Delaware River
i NY: Lower portion of the Hudson River
I PA; Tidal Delaware River
; DE, NJ, PA: YES
| NY: NO
Sucker, longnose
; PA: Youghiogheny River headwater streams in south west PA
1 NO
Sunfish, landed
; NY: Passaic River drainage and in eastern Long Island in the Peeonic River
; drainage
NO
Sunfish, longear
: NY; Tonawanda Creek
NO
Sunfish, mud
i NY; Haekensaek River
NO
Whitefish, round
; NY: scattered lakes throughout the state
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: Use information on habitat preferences and intake location to better define the
degree of overlap between listed species and the CWIS
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
A12-3.
A12-10
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
Table A1Z-3; Habitat Preferences ortd Life Histories of Listed Species Identified in Step 2
Species
Name
Current Habitat
Distribution j Preferences
Potential or
overlap w!
CWIS?
Lire History
Potential j St"*?
tor I&E? I Sr,TS
: to I&E?
sturgeon,
a tl tin tic
Delaware ; estuarine and
estuary : riverine bottom
: habitats of large
; river systems
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 ; larvae and
! juveniles
sturgeon,
shortnose
tidal Delaware ; estuaririe and
River (mostly : riverine bottom
in the upper ; habitats of large
and I river systems
transitional
estuary)
YES
adults stay in nearshore marine habitats
but move in 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
YES | larvae and
i juveniles
d, Step 4; Use of monitoring or life history characteristics to refine estimate of I&E
In some cases l&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 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 CWIS. In the case
of shortnose sturgeon, 1980 monitoring results indicate that the species is not vulnerable to transition zone CWIS. 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 many miles upstream of transition
zone CWIS, 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 CWIS and indicates the need for I&E
monitoring to confirm the degree of harm.
A12-4 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
benefits of reducing l&E of the species. The benefits case study presented in Part E 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
A12-11
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A12; Species Analysis Methods
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 user value may actually dominate the total economic value of enhancing a T&E fish
population for species like salmon. For example, Olseti et al. (1991) found that users contribute 65 percent to the
total regional WTP value ($171 million in 1989$) for doubling the Columbia River salmon and steelhead runs.
Nonusers with zero probability of participation in the sport fishery contribute 25 percent. Nonusers 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 values, and existence
and option 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
and Blomquist (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 A9, motives often associated with non-use values held for
T&E species include bequest (i.e., inter-generational 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 et al., 1993).
A12-5 Methods Available for Estimating the Economic Value Associated
with ME of T&E Species
Estimating the value of increased protection of T&E species from reducing I&E impacts requires the following steps:
~ Estimating l&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.)
A12-5.1 Estimating I&E Impacts on T&E Species
Several cases of I&E of federally-protected species by CW1S are documented, including the delta smelt in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin River delta, sea turtles in the Delaware Estuary and elsewhere (NMFS, 200le), and shortnose sturgeon eggs and
larvae in the Hudson River (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 2000). Mortality rates vary by
species and life stage: it is estimated to range from two to seven percent for impinged sea turtles (NMFS, 2001 e), 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
A12-12
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
development of a Habitat Conservation Plan as part of an incidental take permit application (Southern Energy Delta LLC,
2000).
A12-5.2 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 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 preferences 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 preferences method
As described in Chapter A9, the only available way to directly estimate non-use values for special status species is through
applying slated 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 verily 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 et al., 1996).
Regardless of the debates over whether or not stated preference methods such as the CVM can generate reliable estimates of
non-use values, EPA cannot apply this approach to the 316(b) rulemaking because the time and cost associated with
conducting the necessary primary research is well beyond the budget and schedule available to the Agency. Such research
also requires that the survey questionnaire and sampling design be reviewed and approved by OMB to comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act. The cost, time requirements, and administrative burdens associated with implementing a valuation
survey in accordance with Paperwork Reduction Act create significant additional barriers to the potential for EPA
implementing such relevant and useful research,
b. Benefits transfer approach
Using a benefit transfer approach may be a viable option in some cases. By definition, benefits 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 met a 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
Desvouges(1992),
The analyst first identifies T&E species affected by I&E and the type of environmental change resulting from reducing l&E
impacts on T&E species, and then selects from a pool of available studies 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 and die whooping crane. These species may also be at risk because they rely to some degree on aquatic
A12-13
-------
Chapter *12; Species Analysis Methods
organisms as a food source. Table A12-4 lists the 13 relevant CV studies that EPA identified and provides corresponding
WTP estimates and selected study characteristics.
The identified valuation studies vary in terms of the species valued and the specific environmental change valued. Twelve of
these studies represent a total of 15 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.
The value of preserving or improving populations of T&E species reported in T&E valuation studies has a wide range. Mean
household WTP estimates of obscure aquatic species range from $7.20 for the striped shiner (Boyle & Bishop, 1987) to
$10.03 for the squawfish (Cummings et al., 1994).
WTP values are low compared with estimates of other prominent fish species, which range from the relatively low estimate of
$8.69 (Stevens et al., 1991), to $33.24 (Stevens et al,, 1991); both values are mean non-user WTP for Atlantic salmon. WTP
estimates for the two fish-eating species, the whooping crane and the bald eagle, both of which have high non-use values (i.e.,
existence value), range from $18.35 to $303,44 (Looniis and White, 1996). 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's WTP for protecting T&E species or increasing their population is developed the next step is the estimation
of 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.
A12-14
-------
I
X I
Kj j
I
O, I
Table A12-4: WTP ($2000) for Improving T4E Species Populations
Species
Type
Reference
Publication
Date
Survey
Date
Species
Environ-
mental
Change
Size of
Change
Annual
Mean
WTP
(S2000)
CVM
method
Survey
Region
Sample
Size
Response
Rate
Payment
Vehicle
Aquatic
Boyle &
Bishop
1987
1984
Striped
shiner
Avoid loss
100%
$7.20
DC
Wl
households
365
73%
Foundation
Carson
ct a!.
1994
1994
Kelp Bass
White
Croaker
Bald Eagle
Speed
recovery
from 50 to
5 years
$75.36"
DC
CA
households
2810
73%
One-time
tax
Cummings
et al.
1994
1994
Squawfish
Avoid loss
100%
SI 0.03
OE
NM
921
42%
Increase j
state taxes !
DufTield &
Patterson
1992
1992
Arctic
grayling
Improve 1
of 3 rivers
$20.69'
PC
US visitors
157
27%
Trust fund *
Cutthroat
Trout
$15.52*
PC
US visitors
170
77%
Trust fund '
Kotchen &
Reiling
1999
1997
Shortnose
Sturgeon
Recovery
to self-
sustaining
population
$28.57*
DC
Maine
residents
(random)
635
63%
One-time
tax
Loomis &
Larson
1994
1991
Gray
Whale
Gain
50%
$20.44
OE
CA
households
890
54%
Protection
ftind
Gain
100%
$22.92
OE
CA
households
890
54%
Protection
fund
Gain
50%
$31.58
OE
CA visitors
1003
72%
Protection
fund
-------
|
i
0\
Species
Type
Aquatic
(eont.)
Reference
Pnblkation
Dale
1994
Table
Survey
Date
1991
A12-4: WT
Species
Gray Whale
P ($2000) for
Environ-
mental Change
Gain
Improving "
Size of
Change
100%
"AE Spech
Annual
Mean
WTP
($2000)
is Population
CVM
Method
is (cent )
Survey
Region
Sample
Size
Response
Rate
Payment
Vehicle
Protection |
fund 1
Loomis &
Larson
(cont.)
S37.55
OE
CA visitors
1003
72%
Olsen ct al.
Stevens et al.
1991
1991
1989
1989
Pacific
Salmon and
Steelhead
Atlantic
salmon
Gain (existence
value)
100%
$37.29
OE
Pac. NW
household
695
72%
Electric bill:
Gain (user
value)
Avoid loss
100%
100%
$105,35
OE
Pae. NW
anglers
482
72%
Electric bill |
$8,69®'
DC
MA
households
169
30%
Trust fund |
Atlantic
salmon
Avoid loss
100%
S9.651*
OE
MA
households
169
30%
Trust fund ,
Stevens et al.
1994
1993
Atlantic
salmon
Gain
50%
$23.15b
DCOE
College
students
76
93%
Contri-
bution
Atlantic
salmon
Gain
90%
$33.24"
DCOE
College
students
76
93%
Contri-
bution
Walsh et al.
1985
1985
26 species in
CO
Avoid loss
-100%
$69.12
OE
CO
households
198
99%
Taxes '
Whitehead
1991,1992
1991
Sea turtle
Avoid loss
100%
$15.48*
DC
NC
households
207
35%
Preservation:
fond
-------
Table A12-4: WTP ($2000) for Improving T<§E Species Populations (cant.)
Species
Type
Fish-eating
Birds
Reference
Publication
Date
Survey
Date
Species
Environ-
mental
Change
Size of
Change
Annual
Mean
WTP
(SZ000)
CVM
Method
Survey
Region
Sample
Size
Response
Rate
Payment
Vehicle
Bowker &
Stoll
1988
1983
Whooping
crane
Avoid loss
100%
$37,91
DC
TX and US
visitors
316
36%
Foundation
Whooping
crane
Avoid loss
100%
S59.49
DC
TX and US
visitors
254
67%
Foundation
Doyle &
Bishop
1987
1984
Bald eagle
Avoid loss
100%
$18,35
DC
Wt
households
365
73%
Foundation
Carson et
al.
1994
1994
Bald eagle
Kelp bass
White
Croaker
Speed
recovery
from 50 to 5
years
S75.36"
DC
CA
households
2810
73%
One-time tax
Stevens et
al.
1991
1989
Bald eagle
Avoid loss
100%
S39.25
DCOE
NE
households
339
37%
Trust fund
Bald eagle
Avoid loss
100%
$27.65
DCOE
NE
households
339
37%
Trust fund
Swanson
1993
1991
Bald eagle
Increase in
populations
300%
$303.44"
DC
WA visitors
747
57%
Membership
fund
Bald eagle
Increase in
populations
300%
$212.55'
OE
WA visitors
747
57%
Membership
fund
" Value is a lump sum.
b Annual payment in 5-year program.
Sources: Table adapted from Loomis & White, 1996; CPI: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes, 2001.
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case. Studies, Part A: E vol notion Methods
Chapter A12 Species Analysis Methods
c. Revealed preference — Cost of T<&E species restoration
For the case study analyses, EPA pursued an innovative alternative to infer societal WTP to preserve T&E species. This
alternative approach relies on actual sums of money dedicated to restoring special status species as an indication of societal
revealed preference to preserve and protect these species. Program costs devoted to habitat restoration in aquatic ecosystems
with a comprehensive program to restore special status species fish populations can be used as an indicator of societal WTP
for restoring those species. Restoration programs and/or use restrictions designed to help reduce losses of T&E species (or in
other ways help to restore and preserve the species) indicate a societal revealed preference to incur costs in order to achieve
this goal.
Each individual of a T&E species is important; the restoration costs can therefore be divided by the number of individuals the
program is intended to protect or add to the baseline (depleted) population. This action yields a revealed preference value per
individual fish. The analyst can then apply these values to the numbers of T&E individuals adversely impacted by I&E. The
extent to which this method is a true indicator of societal WTP for species restoration depends on the extent to which the
allocation of resources through the political process reflects the true needs for habitat restoration and the extent to which the
political process allows for public input. To the extent that the program costs reflect true needs and allows for public input,
this method may thus reflect non-use (and any applicable use) values for special status species. Costs incurred to protect
and/or restore aquatic special status species reflect a revealed preference by society; the value of the effort is deemed to
exceed the costs incurred.
A12-6 Issues in the Application of the TAE Valuation Approaches
Several technical and conceptual issues are associated with valuing I&E impacts on T&E species:
»• issues associated with estimating I&E contribution to the cumulative impact from several stressors, and
* issues associated with implementing an economic valuation approach.
A12-6.1 Issues in Estimating Environmental Impacts from ME on 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 commercially harvested species;
~ the number of individuals may be so low that they rarely/never show up in monitoring programs for other species;
~ there is often 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 assessed 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 that approximates a stratified random sampling
scheme;
~ species are uniformly distributed through the water column;
V.
~ volume filtered by trawls can be accurately estimated; and
~ volumes of water can be estimated for each embayment in the habitat range for the species.
A12-18
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A: Evaluation Methods
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
a. Issues in using a benefits transfer approach
The following issues may arise in developing a benefit transfer approach:
*¦ Some studies estimated WTP for multiple species. In this review ofT&E species studies, values established by Carson
et al, (1994), Olsen et al. (1991) and Walsh et al. (1985) value groups ofT&E species and therefore transferring values
from this studies may not be feasible unless the group of species affected by I&E is the same as the group of species
valued in the original studies,.
* The type of environmental change valued in the study may not provide a good match to the changes resulting from
reducing l&E impacts. As noted above, 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
~ increases in species population
The environmental change resulting from reduced l&E effects on T&E species may not match the scenarios
considered in the original studies.
*• 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 percent
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, etc.). Swanson estimated a 300 percent increase in bald
eagle populations and Boyle and Bishop estimated WTP to avoid the possibility of bald eagle extinction in Wisconsin
(cited in Loom is and White, 1996). Although avoiding extinction may be considered a 100 percent improvement, this
environmental change is not comparable with the 300 percent 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 industrial 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 l&E (either federal-or state-listed) are obscure and WTP for their preservation has not been
estimated.
b. Cost of restoration approach
The issues associated with using habitat restoration costing as an indication of societal revealed preference to preserve T&E
species are illustrated in the San Francisco Bay case study (Pari E of this document), in which EPA applied this innovative
approach. These issues are also discussed in Chapter A11 in Part A of this document, which details the habitat-based
restoration cost (HRCj method, applied in the case studies of Brayton Point (Part F), Pilgrim (Part G), J.R. Whiting(Part H),
and Monroe (Part I). Issues in the restoration costing approach can generally be divided into three groups:
~ "Restoration" programs need not be relied upon exclusively to infer societal revealed WTP to preserve special status
species. In many instances, other programs or restrictions are used in lieu of (or in conjunction with) restoration
programs, and the costs associated with the non-restoration components also reveal a WTP. For example, efforts to
preserve fish species in the San Francisco Estuary area also include water use restrictions that reduce the amount of
fresh water diverted from the upstream portion of the Sacramento River to highly valued water uses in the central and
southern parts of California. The foregone use values of these waters in agricultural and municipal applications are an
important component of the cost society bears to protect and preserve special status species, such as the delta smelt.
*¦ Costs directed at a special species must be isolated from program elements intended to address other species or
problems. For example, in a multifaceted restoration or use restriction program, the percentage of costs used mainly to
target restoration of special status species fish as opposed to other ecosystem benefits needs to be estimated.
A12-19
-------
Chapter A12: Species Analysis Methods
~ Estimates must be developed of the change in fish numbers associated with the program. A habitat restoration
program may set population targets for restoration of special status fish species, but might not target a specific
population size. Often targets are set to abundance levels that existed before a significant decline in populations. If
the program has set a population target fpr restoration of the fish species involved, then the number of fish needed to
reach the restoration target can be divided into the relevant portion of program costs to calculate a dollar per fish
indicator of the value society places on restoring special status species fish. This per fish value can be used to assess
damages for fish species that are not valued commercially or recreationally.
A12-7 Conclusions
T&E species may be adversely impacted by I&E. To the extent that the proposed rule reduces these adverse impacts, there
may be appreciable benefits of reducing stresses on these species of special concern.
Estimating the benefits of reducing the adverse impacts of l&E on special status species often requires a focus on non-use
benefits. Use-related benefits for these species may not be relevant (e.g., for fish not targeted by recreational or commercial
anglers) or may be misconstrued as minimal based on recent data (e.g., because the reduced numbers of these species have led
to long-standing fishing restrictions or such reduced catches that recent period use data are not informative).
Estimating non-use values for T&E species (or other species) is difficult for many reasons. WTP estimates can be derived
only from stated preference methods; this line of primary research is not feasible for the Agency to pursue given the cost,
time, and administrative requirements of a survey effort. Use of the benefits transfer approach is limited to only those species
for which economic valuation studies exist. In some cases, existing restoration programs may serve as a basis for inferring
benefits from reducing stresses on special status species if such a program exists. EPA pursued an approach for its case study
analysis of T&E species that relies largely on restoration programs to infer revealed preferences by society to incur costs to
preserve special status species (see Part E for a detailed example).
A12-20
-------
Appendix A1
Appendix A1
This appendix contains information compiled by The Nature Conservancy on threatened, endangered, and special status
species in 30 states (NatureServe, 2002). States included are AZ, CA, NM, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, MI, IN, KY, VA, NC,
AR, LA, MS, AL, FL, WV, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, NH, IA, OK, IL, and PA. Table AI-1 lists the status of species and their
location by hydrologic unit code (HUC). Table AI-2 provides definitions of abbreviations used for global status listings in,
Table Al-1. Table A1-3 provides definitions of the abbreviations used for federal status.
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
I Informal Ta*on
Scientific Name
Common Name
| Global
Status
| Federal
1 Status
; huc
Code
AFCAA01010
IFreshwater Fishes
•Acipenser Brevirostrum
'Shortnose Sturgeon
IG3
ILE
01080205
AFCAA01040
freshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Oxyrinchus
: Atlantic Sturgeon
IG3
;(LT,C)
101080205
AFCAA01040
IFreshwater Fishes
1 Acipenser Oxyrinchus
^Atlantic Sturgeon
IG3
;(LT,C)
01100003
AFCAA01040
iFreshwater Fishes
IAcipenser Oxyrinchus
lAtiantic Sturgeon
|G3
|(LT,C)
01100004
AFC AAO1040
.-Freshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Oxyrinchus
1 Atlantic Sturgeon
;g3
|(LT,C)
01100005
AFCAA01010
iFreshwater Fishes
-.Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
IG3
ILE
01100007
AFCAA01010
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
IG3
ILE
02040105
AFCAA01G1G
IFreshwater Fishes
\Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
|G3
|LE
02040201
AFCQC02680
IFreshwater Fishes
IElheostoma Seliare
^Maryland Darter
IGH
ILE
02050306
AFCAA01010
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
|G3
ILE
02050306
AFCAA01040
IFreshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Oxyrinchus
¦Atlantic Sturgeon
;G3
|(LT,C)
02050306
AFCAA01010
IFreshwater Fishes
1 Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
IG3
ILE
02060001
AFCAA01040
IFreshwater Fishes
IAcipenser Oxyrinchus
[Atlantic Sturgeon
|G3
|(LT,C)
02060001
AFCAA01010
IFreshwater Fishes
-Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
IG3
|LE
^02060002
AFCQC02680
IFreshwater Fishes
lEtheostoma Seliare
[Maryland Darter
|GH
;LE
02060003
AFCQC04240
IFreshwater Fishes
IPercina Rex
IRoanoke Logperch
IG1G2
|LE
103010101
AFCQC04240
iFreshwater Fishes
IPercina Rex
IRoanoke Logperch
IGSG2
ILE
103010103
AFCAA010I0
IFreshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
:G3
fLE
103010107
AFCQC04240
IFreshwater Fishes
IPercina Rex
IRoanoke Logperch
IC.1G2
ILE
03010201
AFCAA01010
IFreshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
IG3
ILE
103010203
AFCQC04240
IFreshwater Fishes
IPercina Rex
IRoanoke Logperch
IG1G2
|LE
103010204
AFCAA0I010
IFreshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
|G3
ILE
03010205
AFCAA01010
IFreshwater Fishes
I Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
IG3
|LE
103020105
AFCAA0I010
IFreshwater Fishes
•Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
5G3
ILE
03020204
AFCAAOIOIO
IFreshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
IG3
ILE
03030001
AFCJB28660
IFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Mekistocholas
ICape Fear Shiner
|G1
ILE
103030002
AFCJB28660
iFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Mekistocholas
ICape Fear Shiner
;G1
ILE
03030003
AFCJB28660
IFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Mekistocholas
ICape Fear Shiner
|G1
|LE
03030004
AFCPB090I0
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Microphis Bruchyurus
lOpossum Pipefish
;G4G5
l(PS:C)
03030005
AFCAAOIOIO
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
|G3
ILE
03030005
AFCAAOIOIO
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
|G3
|LE
,03040201
AFCND02020
IFreshwater Fishes
Menidia Extensa
IWaccamaw Silverside
|G1
:LT
103040206
AFCPB090I0
: Freshwater Fishes
IMicrophis Bruchyurus
lOpossum Pipefish
IG4G5
|(PS:C)
103080103
AFCAAOIOIO
Freshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
*33
;le
103080103
AFCAA01042
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Oxyrinchus Oxyrinchus ^Atlantic Sturgeon
IG3T3
IC
103080103
AFCPB09010
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Microphis Bruchyurus
lOpossum Pipefish
G4G5
|(PS:C)
103080201
App A-1
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix At
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologt'c Uret Code (HUQ for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy0 (cont.)
ABI Identifier
: Informal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
I Global
Status
| Federal
1 Statu
1 HUG
1 Code
AFCNG01020
IMarine Fishes
IRivulus Marmoratus
Mangrove Rivulus
IG3
i(PS:C)
103080202
AFCAAO 1042
I Freshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Oxyrinchus Oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon
G3T3
IC
103080202
AFCPB09010
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Microphis Brachyurus
Opossum Pipefish
IG4G5
!(PS:C)
03080203
AFCNGO1020
IMarine Fishes
•Rivulm Marmoratus
.Mangrove Rivulus
:G3
l(PS:C)
103080203
AFCPB09010
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Microphis Brachyurus
Opossum Pipefish
IG4G5
l(PS:C)
103090202
AFCNGO 1020
iMarine Fishes
[Rivulus Marmoratus
Mangrove Rivulus
IG3
rPS:C)
103090202
AFCND02030
[Marine Fishes
¦Menidia Conchorum
Key Silvetside
IG3Q
:'C
103090203
AFCNGO! 020
IMarine Fishes
¦Rivulus Marmoratus
Mangrove Rivulus
|G3
(PS:C)
:03090203
AFCNGO 1020
IMarine Fishes
[Rivulus Marmoratus
Mangrove Rivulus
|G3
l(PS:C)
103090204
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
'¦Acipenser Qxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
LT
103100101
AFCPB09010
IFreshwater Fishes
IMicrophis Brachyurus
lOpossum Pipefish
IG4G5
l(PS:C)
103 S 00206
AFCAA0104I
IFreshwater Fishes
1 Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
:Gulf Sturgeon
G3T2
LT
103100207
AFCAA0104!
IFreshwater Fishes
Acipenser Qxyrinchus Desotoi
iGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
;LT
103110101
AFCAA01041
IFreshwater Fishes
I Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
Gulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
|LT
[03110205
AFCAA01041
IFreshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
iGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
iLT
103120003
AFCAA01041
IFreshwater Fishes
IAcipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103130011
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
iLT
103140101
AFCAAO1041
IFreshwater Fishes
IAcipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
[LT
103140102
AFCQC'02520
IFreshwater Fishes
[Etheosioma Okaloosae
[Okaloosa Darter
:G1
ILE
103140102
AFCAAO 1041
^Freshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Qxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
iLT
103140103
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
iGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103140104
AFCNB04090
IMarine Fishes
[Fundulus Jenkinsi
ISaltmarsh Topminnow
IG2
IC
103140105
AFCNB04090
IMarine Fishes
[Fundulus Jenkinsi
ISaltmarsh Topminnow
IG2
ic
[03140107
AFCNB04090
IMarine Fishes
[Fundulus Jenkinsi
;Saltmarsh Topminnow
|G2
;c
103140305
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103140305
AFCAA02030
.'Freshwater Fishes
[Scaphirhynchus Suttkusi
lAlabama Sturgeon
|G1
ILE
103160103
AFCQC04360
IFreshwater Fishes
[Percina Aurora
I Pearl Darter
IG1
IC
103170001
AFCQC04360
IFreshwater Fishes
[Percina Aurora
Pearl Darter
IGl
IC
103170004
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
|LT
03170004
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
|LT
103170006
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
;Gulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103170007
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103170008
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103170009
AFCNB04090
IMarine Fishes
¦Fundulus Jenkinsi
ISaltmarsh Topminnow
IG2
;C
03170009
AFCFA01020
IFreshwater Fishes
[Alosa Alabamae
[Alabama Shad
|G3
|C
103180001
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
iGulf Sturgeon
;G3T2
ILT
103180002
AFCQC04360
IFreshwater Fishes
[Percina Aurora
Pearl Darter
IGl
IC
03180002
AFCFA01020
IFreshwater Fishes
[Alosa Alabamae
^Alabama Shad
IG3
IC
[03180002
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
Gulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103180003
AFCFA01020
IFreshwater Fishes
[Alosa Alabamae
Alabama Shad
103
IC
103180003
AFCFA01020
IFreshwater Fishes
[Alosa Alabamae
[Alabama Shad
IG3
IC
i03180004
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
IGulf Sturgeon
IG3T2
ILT
103180004
AFCQC04360
IFreshwater Fishes
[Percina Aurora
• Pearl Darter
IGl
C
103180004
AFCQC'04360
IFreshwater Fishes
Percina Aurora
1 Pearl Darter
101
c
[03180005
AFCFA0I020
IFreshwater Fishes
[Alosa Alabamae
[Alabama Shad
IG3
IC
103180005
AFCAAO 1041
IFreshwater Fishes
[Acipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
Gulf Sturgeon
G3T2
ILT
103180005
AFCJB31010
IFreshwater Fishes
1Phoxinus Cumberlandensis
•Blackside Dace
:G2
LT
105130101
App .4-2
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-i: Listing Status and Hydro logic Unit Cede (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy" (eont.)
AB1 Identifier
¦ Informal Taxon
i Scientific Name
Common Name
i Global
i Status
i Federal
i Status
; HUC
Code
AFCJB31010
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Phoxinus Cumberiandensis
[Biackstde Dace
;G2
!lt
i0513010l
AFCJB31010
[Freshwater Fishes
•Phoxinus Cumberiandensis
iBlackside Dace
[G2
iLT
=05130102
AFCJB31010
iFreshwater Fishes
-.Phoxinus Cumberiandensis
iBlackside Dace
iG2
iLT
05130103
AFCJB28A90
iFreshwater Fishes
•Notropis Albizonalus
[Palezorie Shiner
iG2
[LE
[05130104
AFCQC02X3O
i Fresh water Fishes
[Etheostoma Percnurum
[Duskytail Darter
iGl
iLE
[05130104
AFCFA0IO2O
iFreshwater Fishes
\Alosa Alabamae
•Alabama Shad
iG3
;C
'[05140101
AFCKA02060
=Freshwater Fishes'
\Noturus Flavipinnis
Yellowfin Madtom
iGl
=(LT,XN)
=06010101
AFCJB50010
[Freshwater Fishes
[Erimvstax Cahni
[Slender Chub
iGl
iLT
i06010101
AFCJB15080
.Freshwater Fishes
¦Hybopsis Monacha
iSpotfin Chub
;G2
[LT
[06010101
AFCJB15080
^Freshwater Fishes
IHybopsis Monacha
iSpotfin Chub
ic.2
[LT
i06010102
AFCJB 15080
iFreshwater Fishes
iHybopsis Monacha
iSpotfin Chub
=G2
iLT
[06010105
AFCJB 15080
Freshwater Fishes
¦Hybopsis Monacha
[Spotfin Chub
;G2
iLT
[06010202
AFCJB 15080
iFreshwater Fishes
IHybopsis Monacha
iSpotfin Chub
=G2
iLT
[06010203
AFCJB500I0
iFreshwater Fishes
\Erimystax Cahni
[Slender Chub
iGl
iLT
=06010205
AFCQC02X30
iFreshwater Fishes
{Etheostoma Percnurum
[Duskytail Darter
[Gl
[LE
[06010205
AFCKA02060
iFreshwater Fishes
\Noturus Flavipinnis
[Yellowfin Madtom
iGl
i(LT,XN)
=06010205
AFCJB50010
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Erimvstax Cahni
[Slender Chub
iGl
[LT
[06010206
AFCFA01020
iFreshwater Fishes
\Alosa Alabamae
[Alabama Shad
iG3
:c
[06040006
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
[Pallid Sturgeon
iG 1G2
[LE
[08010100
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
'.Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
;C
[08010100
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
[Pallid Sturgeon
=G1G2
iLE
[08010100
AFCFA01020
iFreshwater Fishes
iAlosa Alabamae
[Alabama Shad
iG3
!C
=08010100
AFCQC02B00
iFreshwater Fishes
Elheosloma Chienense
[Relict Darter
iG!
[LE
[08010201
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
Scaphirhynchus Albus
•Pallid Sturgeon
iGlG2
iLE
=08020100
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
IScaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
[G1G2
[LE
[08020203
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
[G1G2
[LE
i0803G10Q
AFCAA02010
[Freshwater Fishes
IScaphirhynchus Albus
[Pallid Sturgeon
iGlG2
[LE
i08030207
AFCAA02010
[Freshwater Fishes
iScaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
[G1G2
[LE
=08060100
AFCJB53030
[Freshwater Fishes
'¦Macrhybopsis Meeki
iSicklefin Chub
[G3
;C
=08060100
AFCQC02630
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Etheostoma Rubrum
[Bayou Darter
iGl
[LT
=08060203
AFCQC02630
[Freshwater Fishes
i Etheostoma Rubrum
[Bayou Darter
iGl
iLT
=08060302
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
IScaphirhynchus Albus
[Pallid Sturgeon
[G1G2
[LE
[08070100
AFCAA01041
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipemer Oxyrinchus Desotoi
[Gulf Sturgeon
[G3T2
[LT
[08070205
AFCAA02010
[Freshwater Fishes
\Scaphirhynchus Albus
•Pallid Sturgeon
=G1G2
[LE
[08080101
AFCAA02010
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
[Paliid Sturgeon
iGlG2
iLE
i08Q90100
AFCAA01041
[Freshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
[Gulf Sturgeon
[G3T2
[LT
=08090201
AFCAA01041
iFreshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
[Gulf Sturgeon.
[G3T2
iLT
i08090202
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
IScaphirhynchus Albus
[Pallid Sturgeon
[G1G2
[LE
=08090203
AFCAA01041
[Freshwater Fishes
lAcipenser Oxyrinchus Desotoi
•Gulf Sturgeon
[G3T2
iLT
=08090203
AFCHA07011
iFreshwater Fishes
i Thymallus Arcticus Pop 2
[Arctic Grayling - Upper
[Missouri River Fluvial
[G5T2Q
ic
[10020007
AFCJB53030
iFreshwater Fishes
\Macrhybopsis Meeki
iSicklefin Chub
;G3
c
[10060005
AFCHA07011
[Freshwater Fishes
•Thymallus Arcticus Pop 2
[Arctic Grayling - Upper
.Missouri River Fluvial
[G5T2Q
ic
[10070001
AFCJB53Q20
[Freshwater Fishes
"•¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
[Sturgeon Chub
:G2
ic
[10080007
AFCJB53020
[Freshwater Fishes
'•Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
[02
ic
[10080010
AFCJB53020
[Freshwater Fishes
iMacrhybopsis Gelida
[Sturgeon Chub
:G2
ic
[10090202
AFCJB3705B
[Freshwater Fishes
Rhimchthys Osculus Thermalis
[Kendal! Warm Springs Dace iGSTl
iLE
[10090202
App A-3
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Port A; Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-h Listing Status and Hydro!ogic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species In
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy5 (cont.)
ABI Identifier
i Informal Taxoit
Scientific Name
¦ Common Name
i Global
i Status
i Federal
i Status
HUC
i Code
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
iMacrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
:Q2
ic
i10090207
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
iMacrhybopsis Gelida
iScurgeon Chub
;<32
iC
i10100004
AFCJB53030
iFreshwater Fishes
¦¦Macrhybopsis Meeki
iSicklefin Chub
iQ3
ic
10100004
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
'•Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
ic
i10110101
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
Scaphirhynchus A thus
;Pallid Sturgeon
;GIG2
iLE
iionoioi
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
iC
i10110201
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
c
10110202
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
iC
i10110203
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
jG2
;C
10110204
AFCJB53030
iFreshwater Fishes
iMacrhybopsis Meeki
iSicklefin Chub
=G3
ic
: 10110205
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
'Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
ic
i10110205
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
ic
i10120109
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
iC
10120110
AFGJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
iC
10120111
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
ic
; 10120112
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
ic
i10130102
AFCJB53030
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Meeki
iSicklefin Chub
G1
;C
i10130102
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
St aphirhvni:hus Aibus
'Pallid Sturgeon
:G1G2
iLE
10130102
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
'•¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
iGIG2
;LE
UO130I05
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
ic
i10130202
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Scaphirhynchus A Ibus
iPallid Sturgeon
;G1G2
iLE
i10140101
AFCJB53030
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Meeki
iSicklefin Chub
;G3
iC
iI0140101
AFCAA020I0
iFreshwater Fishes
iScaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
:G1G2
;LE
10140103
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
C"i2
iC .
10140201
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
iC
i10140202
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
;C
i10140203
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
•G2
iC
i10140204
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
iGlG2
;LE
i10150007
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
:G2
iLE
10160004
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Topeka
iTopeka Shiner
;G2
•;LE
i10160006
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
Scaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
;GIG2
iLE
i10160011
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
;G2
iLE
iioidoon
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
iC
i|0!701Ql
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
j.Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
;G2
iLE
i10170101
AFCAA020I0
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
IGIG2
iLE
iionoioi
AFCJB53030
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Meeki
iSicklefin Chub
IG3
iC
i10170101
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
\Notropis Topeka
ii'opeka Shiner
;G2
iLE
510170102
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
;G2
iLE
i10170103
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Topeka
•Topeka Shiner
iG2
iLE
i10170202
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
\Notropis Topeka
iTopeka Shiner
iG2
iLE
i10170203
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
iG2
iC
10180002
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
;G2
ic
i10200101
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
^Scaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
;G1G2
iLE
i10200202
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
\G2
C
;10200202
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Topeka
iTopeka Shiner
;G2
iLE
10200203
AFCJB28960
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Notropis Topeka
iTopeka Shiner
;G2
iLE
i10210006
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
iSturgeon Chub
G2
IC
i10210009
App A-4
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix M
Table Al-1: Listing Status and Hydro logic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species In
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy® (cont.)
ABI Identifier
: Informal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
j Global
j Status
[ Federal
! Status
j HUC
j Code
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
jNotropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
;LE
j10220002
AFCJB53020
'Freshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
j Sturgeon Chub
jG2
jC
j10220003
AFCAA020I0
Freshwater Fishes
'.Scaphirhynchus Albus
jPallid Sturgeon
;G1G2
jLE
j10230001
AFCJB53030
: Freshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Meeki
Sickiefin Chub
jG3
;c
j10230001
AFCJB53020
: Freshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
j Sturgeon Chub
jG2
jC
j10230001
AFCJB53020
: Freshwater Fishes
jMacrhybopsis Gelida
Sturgeon Chub
jG2
;c
= 10230006
AFCJB28960
[Freshwater Fishes
\Nolropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
jLE
j10230006
AFCAA02010
•Freshwater Fishes
jScaphirhynchus Albus
j Pallid Sturgeon
jGlG2
jLE
j10230006
AFCJB53030
jFreshwater Fishes
jMacrhybopsis Meeki
Sickiefin Chub
;G3
jC
j10230006
AFCAA02010
: Freshwater Fishes
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Pallid Sturgeon
jGIG2
jLE
j10240001
AFCJB53020
[Freshwater Fishes
'¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
¦Sturgeon Chub
jG2
jC
j10240001
AFCJB53030
^Freshwater Fishes
¦Macrhybopsis Meeki
Sickiefin Chub
jG3
[C
j10240001
AFCJB53020
jFreshwater Fishes
; Macrhybopsis. Gelida
Sturgeon Chub
jG2
\C
[10240005
AFCAA02010
^Freshwater Fishes
'¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
jPailid Sturgeon
:GIG2
jLE
[10240005
AFCJB53030
iFreshwater Fishes
•Macrhybopsis Meeki
[Sickiefin Chub
Gi
jC
: 10240005
AFCJB53020
jFreshwater Fishes
•Macrhybopsis Gelida
¦Sturgeon Chub
jG2
jC
j10240011
AFCJB53030
[Freshwater Fishes
¦.Macrhybopsis Meeki
Sicklefiii Chub
;G3
;C
[10240011
AFCAA02010
jFreshwater Fishes
Scaphirhynchus Albus
Pallid Sturgeon
jGIG2
jLE
j10240011
AFCJB53020
;Freshwater Fishes
Macrhybopsis Gelida
Sturgeon Chub
:G2
;C
j10250004
AFCJB53020
jFreshwater Fishes
'¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
Sturgeon Chub
jG2
;C
[10250016
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
[Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
jLE
: 10250017
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
'¦Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
jLE
j10260001
AFCJB53O20
jFreshwater Fishes
•Macrhybopsis Gelida
^Sturgeon Chub
ca
ic
[10260008
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
'Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
;G2
jLE
[10260008
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
'¦Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
jLE
[10270101
AFCJB53020
jFreshwater Fishes
"¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
Sturgeon Chub
jG2
jC
[10270102
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
•Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
:G2
;LE
j10270102
AFCJB53030
jFreshwater Fishes
\.Macrhybopsis Meeki
¦Sickiefin Chub
jG3
ic
[10270104
AFCJB53020
jFreshwater Fishes
¦¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
.Sturgeon Chub
;G2
jC
[10270104
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
•.Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
jLE
10270104
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
Noiropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
;LE
[10270202
AFG1B28960
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Topeka
jTopeka Shiner
jG2
jLE .
j10270205
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
¦ Noiropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
jG2
jLE
[10270206
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
¦:G2
jLE
[10290101
AFCLA0I010
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Amblyopsii Rosae
jOzark Cavefish
;G2G3
jLT
[11010001
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
lEtheostoma Cragini
jArkansas Darter
;G3
jC
[11030004
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
Etheostoma Cragini
Arkansas Darter
;G3
IC
[11030009
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
lEtheostoma Cragini
^Arkansas Darter
jG3
;C
[11030010
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Girardi
JArkansas River Shiner
jG2
jLT
jl 1030010
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
jNotropis Girardi
jArkansas River Shiner
;G2
jLT
ji 1030013
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
lEtheostoma Cragini
.Arkansas Darter
jG3
jC
jl 1030013
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
lEtheostoma Cragini
jArkansas Darter
jG3
jc
jl 1030014
AFCQC025 70
jFreshwater Fishes
jEtheostoma Cragini
jArkansas Darter
jG3
jC
jl 1030015
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
;G2
¦:LT
[11030015
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropts Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
;G2
jLT
[11030016
AFCQC02I70
¦Freshwater Fishes
lEtheostoma Cragini
:Arkansas Darter
:G3
jC
jl 1030016
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Topeka
jTopeka Shiner
;G2
jLE
jl 1030017
AppA-5
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix
Table A1 -1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy" (cont.)
ABI Identifier
j Informal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
j Global
! Statu
j Federal
j Status
1 HUC
j Code
AJFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
[Etheostoma Cragini
j Arkansas Darter
;G3
!C
j11040006
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Girardi
: Arkansas River Shiner
jG2
jLT
j11040006
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
-Etheostoma Cragini
; Arkansas Darter
jG3
;c
j 11040007
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
'•¦Notropis Girardi
; Arkansas River Shiner
;G2
:LT
jl 1040007
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
jEtheostoma Cragini
j Arkansas Darter
:G3
'¦C.
;11040008
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
:G2
jLT
j11040008
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
[Etheostoma Cragini
j Arkansas Darter
G3
C
jl 1060002
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
jNotropis Girardi
^Arkansas River Shiner
iG2
jLT
jl 1060002
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
[Notropis Girardi
: Arkansas River Shiner
G2
jLT
jl 1060003
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
'¦Etheostoma Cragini
: Arkansas Darter
;G3
;C
jl 1060003
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
jEtheostoma Cragini
; Arkansas Darter
;G3
;C
jl 1060005
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Topeka
Topeka Shiner
iG2
jLE
jl 1070201
AFCKA02200
jFreshwater Fishes
jNoturus Placidus
jNeosho Madtom
G2
jLT
jl 1070201
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
¦ Notropis Topeka
jTopeka Shiner
:G2
jLE
ji 1070202
AFCKA02200
jFreshwater Fishes
[Noturus Placidus
•Neosho Madtom
iG2
jLT
jl 1070203
AFCJB28960
jFreshwater Fishes
'•Notropis Topeka
jTopeka Shiner
:g2
jLE
jl 1070203
AFCKA02200
jFreshwater Fishes
'Noturus Placidus
jNeosho Madtom
;G2
jLT
jl 1070204
AFCKA02200
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Noturus Placidus
jNeosho Madtom
G2
jLT
jl 1070205
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
•Etheostoma Cragini
'Arkansas Darter
G3
IC
j11070207
AFCKA02200
jFreshwater Fishes
jNoturus Placidus
Neosho Madtom
jG2
jLT
jl 1070207
AFCLAOI010
jFreshwater Fishes
[Amblyopsis Rosae
jOzark Cavefish
¦G2G3
:LT
jl 1070208
AFCLA0I010
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Amblyopsis Rosae
jOzark Cavefish
;G2G3
jLT
jl 1070209
AFCLA01010
jFreshwater Fishes
jAmblyopsis Rosae
jOzark Cavefish
;G2G3
jLT
jl 1110103
AFCQC02170
jFreshwater Fishes
\Etheastoma Cragini
: Arkansas Darter
;G3
jC
jl 1110103
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
[Notropis Girardi
; Arkansas River Shiner
;G2
jLT
U1H0202
AFCQC04210
jFreshwater Fishes
Pcrcina Pantherina
j Leopard Darter
jGi
jLT
=11140108
AFCQC04210
jFreshwater Fishes
[Percina Pantherina
j Leopard Darter
G1
jLT
jl 1140109
AFCJB16070
jFreshwater Fishes
j.Hybognathus Amarus
;Rio Grande Silvery Minnow GIG2
jLE
j 13020201
AFCJB16070
jFreshwater Fishes
\Hybognathus Amarus
jRio Grande Silvery Minnow -G1G2
jLE
j 13020203
AFCJB 13 H 0
jFreshwater Fishes
iGiia Nigrescens
jChihuahua Chub
;G1
jLT
j13030202
AFCHA02101
jFreshwater Fishes
Oncorhvnchus Gilae Gilae
jGila Trout
;G3T1
jLE
j 13030202
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
jNotropis Girardi
;Arkansas River Shiner
jG2
jLT
j13060003
AFCJB28891
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Simus Pecosensis
jPeeos Bluntnose Shiner
jG2T2
jLT
j13060003
AFCNC02070
jFreshwater Fishes
[Gambusia Nobilis
j Pecos Gambusia
:G2
jLE
jI3060003
AFCNC02070
jFreshwater Fishes
[Gambusia Nobilis
jPeeos Gambusia
jG2
jLE
j13060005
AFCNC02070
jFreshwater Fishes
jGambusia Nobilis
jPeeos Gambusia
jG2
jLE
j13060007
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Girardi
jAikansas River Shiner
jG2
jLT
j13060007
AFCJB2889I
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Simus Pecosensis
jPeeos Bluntnose Shiner
jG2T2
jLT
j13060007
AFCNC02070
jFreshwater Fishes
jGambusia Nobilis
Pecos Gambusia
jG2
jLE
j13060008
AFCJB28891
jFreshwater Fishes
jNotropis Simus Pecosensis
jPeeos Bluntnose Shiner
jG2T2
jLT
j13060011
AFCJB28490
jFreshwater Fishes
[Notropis Girardi
,• Arkansas River Shiner
jG2
jLT
j13060011
AFCNC02070
jFreshwater Fishes
[Gambusia Nobilis
Pecos Gambusia
:G2
jLE
113060011
AFCJB 13080
jFreshwater Fishes
[Gila Cypha
j Humpback Chub
jGi
jLE
j14040106
AFCJB53020
jFreshwater Fishes
¦Macrhybopsis Gelida
Sturgeon Chub
jG2
jc
j14040106
AFCJB53020
jFreshwater Fishes
[Macrhybopsis Gelida
Sturgeon Chub
jG2
jC
¦ 14040107
AFCJB 13080
jFreshwater Fishes
'¦Gila Cypha
Humpback Chub
Gl
jLE
j14070006
AFCJC11010
jFreshwater Fishes
Xyrauchen Texanus
jRazorback Sucker
G!
jLE
j14070006
AppA-6
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A' Evaluation Methods
Appendix M
Table Al-l: Listing Status and, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened am
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy" (eontj
Endangered Species in
AB1 Identifier
: loTormal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
[ Global
[ Status
; Federal
: Stains
[ HUC
Code
AFCJB35020
[Freshwater Fishes
I.Ptyckocheilus Lucius
[Colorado Pikeminnow
Igi
i(LE,XN)
[14080101
AFCJB 13080
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Gila Cvpha
[Humpback Chub
[G1
=LE
[15010001
AFCJB13080
[Freshwater Fishes
Gila Cvpha
[Humpback Chub
[G1
[LE
[15010002
AFCJB13080
Freshwater Fishes
¦Gila Cypha
[Humpback Chub
[G1
[LE
[15010003
AFCJC11010
Freshwater Fishes
.Xyrauchen Texanus
[Razorback Sucker
[G1
[LE
[15010005
AFCJB33010
freshwater Fishes
.I'lagopierus Argentissimus
[Woundfin
[G1
[(LE.XN)
[15010010
AFCJB 13170
[Freshwater Fishes
;Gila Seminuda
[Virgin River Chub
[G1
[(PS:LE)
[15010010
AFCJB20040
[Freshwater Fishes
\Lepidomeda Vittata
[Little Colorado Spinedace
=G!G2
[LT
[15020001
AFCJB20040
[Freshwater Fishes
[Lepidomeda Vittata
[Little Colorado Spinedace
[G1G2
[LT
[15020002
AFCJB20040
[Freshwater Fishes
[Lepidomeda Vittata
[Little Colorado Spinedace
[G1G2
[LT
[15020005
AFCJB20040
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Lepidomeda Vittata
[Little Colorado Spinedace
[G1G2
[LT
[15020008
AFCJB2004Q
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Lepidomeda Vittata
[Little Colorado Spinedace
[G1G2
[LT
[15020010
AFCJB 13080
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Gila Cypha
[Humpback Chub
[G1
[LE
[15020016
AFCJB 13100
freshwater Fishes
[Gila Elegans
[Bonytail
ioi
[LE
[15030101
AFCJC11010
[Freshwater Fishes
'•Xyrauchen Texanus
[Razorback Sucker
[G1
[LE
[15030101
AFCJB 13100
[Freshwater Fishes
'¦Gila Elegans
[Bonytail
[G1
[LE
[15030104
AFCJC11010
[Freshwater Fishes
[Xyrauchen Texanus
[Razorback Sucker
[G1
[LE
[15030104
AFCJB35020
[Freshwater Fishes
[Ptychocheilus Lucius
[Colorado Pikeminnow
[G1
[(LE.XN)
[15030107
AFCNB02061
IFreshwater Fishes
\Cyprinodon Macularius
Mucularius
[Desert Pupfish
[G1T1
[CLE)
i15030203
AFCJC11010
[Freshwater Fishes
[.Xyrauchen Texanus
[Razorback Sucker
[G1
[LE
[15030204
AFCJB13100
[Freshwater Fishes
[Gila Elegans
[Bonytail
[G1
[LE
[15030204
AFCHA02101
[Freshwater Fishes
•-.Oncorhynchus Gilae Gilae
[Gila Trout
[G3T1
[LE
[15040001
AFCJB37140
[Freshwater Fishes
[Rhinichthys Cobitis
[Loach Minnow
[G2
[LT
[15040001
AFCJB22010
[Freshwater Fishes
[Meda Fulgida
[Spikedace
:G2
[LT
[15040001
AFCJB37140
[Freshwater Fishes
[Rhinichthys Cobitis
[Loach Minnow
[G2
[LT
[15040002
AFCHA02101
[Freshwater Fishes
:Oncorhynchus Gilae Gilae
[Gila Trout
[G3T1
[LE
[15040002
AFCJB22010
[Freshwater Fishes
[Meda Fulgida
[Spikedace
[G2
[LT
[15040002
AFCJB13160
[Freshwater Fishes
•Gila Intermedia
[Gila Chub
[G2
[C
[15040004
AFCJB37140
[Freshwater Fishes
[Rhinichthys Cobitis
[Loach Minnow
[G2
[LT
[15040004
AFCHA02101
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Gilae Gilae
[Gila Trout
:G3T1
|LE
j 15040004
AFCJCI1010
[Freshwater Fishes
'¦Xyrauchen Texanus
[Razorback Sucker
1G1
[LE
[15040004
AFCJB220I0
['Freshwater Fishes
[Meda Fulgida
•Spikedace
[G2
[LT
[15040005
AFCNB02061
iFreshwater Fishes
\Cyprinodon Macularius
[Macularius
[Desert Pupfish
;G1TI
i(LE)
[15040005
AFCJB37140
[Freshwater Fishes
\Rhinichthys Cobitis
[Loach Minnow
[G2
[LT
[15040005
AFCJB 13160
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Gila Intermedia
[Gila Chub
[G2
[C
[15040005
AFCJCI 1010
[Freshwater Fishes
Xyrauchen Texanus
[Razorback Sucker
[G1
[LE
[15040005
AFCNB02061
iFreshwater Fishes
Cyprtnodon Macularius
'Macularius
•Desert Pupfish
[GITf
|(LB)
[15040006
AFCJB 13160
[Freshwater Fishes
• Gila Intermedia
[Gila Chub
[G2
[C
[15040007
AFCNB02061
[Freshwater Fishes
•Cyprinodon Macularius
[Macularius
:Desert Pupfish
[G1T1
[(LE)
[15050100
AFCJB220I0
[Freshwater Fishes
I.Meda Fulgida
[Spikedace
[G2
[LT
[15050100
AFGJB13160
[Freshwater Fishes
[ Gila Intermedia
[Gila Chub
[G2
[C
[15050202
AFCJB22010
[Freshwater Fishes
'¦Meda Fulgida
[Spikedace
[G2
[LT
[15050203
AFCJB37140
[Freshwater Fishes
'.Rhinichthys Cobitis
[Loach Minnow
[G2
[LT
[15050203
AFCJB13160
[Freshwater Fishes
¦¦Gila Intermedia
Gila Chub
[G2
[C
[15050203
App A-7
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, 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 Conservancy0 (cent.)
ABI Identifier
1 Informal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
Global
Status
j Federal
i Status
i HUC
i Code
AFCNB02061
[Freshwater Fishes
Cyprinodon Macularius
Macularius
iDesert Pupfish
G1T1
i(LE)
115050301
AFCJB13160
'Freshwater Fishes
¦Gila Intermedia
iGila Chub
G2
ic
115050301
AFCJB13I60
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Gila Intermedia
¦Gila Chub
G2
ic
115050302
AFCJB37140
iFreshwater Fishes
Rhmichthys Cobitis
iLoach Minnow
G2
ILT
; 15060101
AFCJC11010
[Freshwater Fishes
Xyrauchen Texanus
IRazorback Sucker
iLE
115060103
AFCJB13160
iFreshwater Fishes
Gila Intermedia
iGila Chub
IC
115060105
AFCJB13160
i Fresh water Fishes
\Gila Intermedia
iGila Chub
G2
ic
115060106
AFCNB02061
[Freshwater Fishes
Cyprinodon Macularius
'¦Macularius
[Desert Pupfish
G1T1
l(LE)
115060106
AFCJB13160
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Gila Intermedia
iGila Chub
iC
115060201
AFCJB22010
IFreshwater Fishes
Meda Fulgida
:Spikedace
iLT
115060202
AFCJC11010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Xyrauchen Texanus
iRazorback Sucker
iLE
[15060202
AFCJB13160
;Freshwater Fishes
iGila Intermedia
iGila Chub
G2
|C
;15060202
AFCJC11010
iFreshwater Fishes
Xyrauchen Texanus
iRazorback Sucker
ILE
115060203
AFCJB13160
iFreshwater Fishes
'Gila Intermedia
iGila Chub
ic
115060203
AFCNB02061
IFreshwater Fishes
'.Cyprinodon Macularius
'¦¦Macularius
iDesert Pupfish
G1T1
KLE).
115070102
AFCJB13160
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Gila Intermedia
iGila Chub
G2
iC
i15070102
AJFCNB02061
iFreshwater Fishes
|iCyprinodon Macularius
"•Macularius
iDesert Pupfish
GiTl
i(LE)
115070103
AFCJB13100
iFreshwater Fishes
\Gila Elegans
jBonytail
|LE
i15070103
AFCNB02062
iFreshwater Fishes
iCyprinodon Macularius Eremus
iQuitobaquito Desert Pupfish
GIT!
|(LE)
115080102
AFCJB13090
iFreshwater Fishes
i Gila Ditaenia
iSonora Chub
G2
|LT
115080201
AFCJB13140
iFreshwater Fishes
1 Gila Purpurea
lYaqui Chub
ILE
115080301
AFCJB13140
•Freshwater Fishes
'¦ Gila Purpurea
iYaqui Chub
|LE
115080302
AFCJB49080
iFreshwater Fishes
XCyprinella Formosa
iBeautifi.il Shiner
G2
ILT
115080302
AFCHA02089
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Clarki Seleniris
iPaiute Cutthroat Trout
G4T1T2
|LT
i16060010
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
[Bull Trout
i(PS)
117010101
AFCAA01051
¦Freshwater Fishes
Acipenser Transmontanus Pop I
iWhite Sturgeon - Kootenai
iRiver
G4T1Q
ILE
117010104
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
i(PS)
117010104
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
Bull Trout
!(PS)
I170J0I05
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
:(PS)
117010213
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
l(PS)
117010214
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
!(PS)
17010215
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
KPS)
17010216
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
i(PS)
: 17010301
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
i(PS)
i17010303
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
'Salvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
KPS)
117010304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
i(PS)
117010304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
;(PS)
17010304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
KPS)
117010304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
Bull Trout
i(PS)
i17010304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
Salvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
i(PS)
117010304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
Salvelinus Confluentus
Bull Trout
KPS)
117010304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Salvelinus Confluentus
Bull Trout
(PS)
117010304
AFCAA01050
IFreshwater Fishes
'¦Acipenser Transmontanus
IWhite Sturgeon
KPS)
117040212
App AS
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Tabic Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) fop Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy® (cont.)
ABI Identifier
i Informal Taxoo
Scientific Name
Common Name
! Global
[ Status
. Federal
i Status
| HUC
i Code
AFCHA05020
^Freshwater Fishes
Salvelinus Confluentus
[Bull Trout
[03
!
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, 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 Conservancy0 (cant.)
ABI Identifier j Informal Faxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
{ Global
i Status
i Federal
i Status
i HUC
• Code
AFCHA0502Q iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
;G3
KPS)
j17060204
AFCHA02050 iFreshwater Fishes
lOncorhynchus Tshawytscha
Chinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
iG5
j(PS)
i 17060204
AFCHA0209M -Freshwater Fishes
-.Oncorhynchus My kiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasm
{G5T2T3Q
;LT
! 17060204
AFCHA05020 ^Freshwater Fishes
¦Salvetinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
iCil
i(PS)
i 17060205
AFCHA02050 -Freshwater Fishes
\Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
{Chinook Salmon Or King
i Salmon
:G5
i(PS)
i17060205
AFCHA0209M -Freshwater Fishes
iOncorkynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin
{G5T2T3Q
iLT
i17060205
AFCHA02050 {Freshwater Fishes
.Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
|G5
{(PS)
: 17060206
AFCHA0209M {Freshwater Fishes
"¦Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
®asin
{G5T2T3Q
:LT
; 17060206
AFCHA05020 ^Freshwater Fishes
[Salvetinus Conjluentus
-Bull Trout
iG3
KPS)
17060206
AFCHA02050 {Freshwater Fishes
lOncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
|G5
{(PS)
: 17060207
AFCHA02042 {Freshwater Fishes
'¦.Oncorhynchus Nerka Pop 1
iSoekeye Salmon - Snake
iRiver
iGSTlQ
;LE
i17060207
AFCHA05020 {Freshwater Fishes
¦Salvetinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
iG3
i(PS)
i17060207
AFCHA0209M freshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin'
{G5T2T3Q
{LT
i17060207
AFCAAO1050 iFreshwater Fishes
iAcipenser Transmonlanus
iWhite Sturgeon
;G4
KPS)
i17060207
AFCHA02050 iFreshwater Fishes
Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
Chinook Salmon Or King
Salmon
jG5
i(PS)
i17060208
AFCHA0209M iFreshwater Fishes
lOncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin
{G5T2T3Q
iLT
i17060208
AFCHA05020 iFreshwater Fishes
iSalvetinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
G3
KPS)
;17060208
AFCHA0209M -Freshwater Fishes
'¦.Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin
{G5T2T3Q
iLT
i17060209
AFCHA05020 iFreshwater Fishes
Salvelinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
;G3
KPS)
i17060209
AFCAAO 1050 iFreshwater Fishes
¦.Acipenser Transmonlanus
jWhite Sturgeon
iG4
i(PS)
; 17060209
AFCHA02050 iFreshwater Fishes
iOncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
;G5
i(PS)
i17060209
AFCHA02042 iFreshwater Fishes
lOncorhynchus Nerka Pop 1
iSoekeye Salmon - Snake
iRiver
iGSTlQ
iLE
i17060209
AFCHA0209M iFreshwater Fishes
'¦.Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin
{G5T2T3Q
iLT
{17060210
AFCHA05020 iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
iG3
KPS)
i17060210
AFCHA02050 iFreshwater Fishes
iOncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
|G5
KPS)
i17060210
AFCHA05020 iFreshwater Fishes
\Salvelinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
;G3
KPS)
i17060301
AFCHA0209M IFreshwater Fishes
.Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin
{G5T2T3Q
iLT
i17060301
AFCHA02050 iFreshwater Fishes
Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
i Salmon
;G5
j(PS)
i17060301
AFCHA0209M iFreshwater Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
Sieelhead - Snake River
iBasin
G5T2T3Q
iLT
• 17060302
AFCHA02050 iFreshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
;G5
j(PS)
{17060302
AFCHA05020 iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Conjluentus
iBull Trout
;G3
KPS)
i17060302
AppA-10
-------
Appendix A1
Table Al-h Listing Status and Hydrologie Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy" (cont.)
ABI Identifier
j Informal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
: Global
Status
i Federal
i Status
1 HUC
i Code
AFCHA0209M
iFreshwater Fishes
•Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
{Basin
|GST2T3Q
iLT
i17060303
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
iSalvelinus Confluentus
{Bull Trout
Ira
i(PS)
i17060303
AFCHA02050
{Freshwater Fishes
\Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
:G5
i(FS)
•17060303
AFCHA0209M
•Freshwater Fishes
\Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin.
:G5T2T3Q
iLT
i17060304
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
iG3
i(PS)
i17060304
AFCHA02050
{Freshwater Fishes
•Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
{Chinook Salmon Or King
{Salmon
iG5
i(PS)
i17060304
AFCHA05Q20
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
iG3
i(pSj
i17060305
AFCHA02050
•Freshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha ¦
{Chinook Salmon Or King
[Salmon
iGS
[(PS)
i17060305
AFCHA0209M
{Freshwater Fishes
•Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
;Basin
{G5T2T3Q
iLT
117060305
AFCHA02050
¦Freshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
iChinook Salmon Or King
iSalmon
:G5
|(PS)
i17060306
AFCHAQ5020
[Freshwater Fishes
¦Salvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
iG3
i(PS)
i 17060306
AFCHA0209M
•Freshwater Fishes
'.Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin
{G5T2T3Q
IT
|17060306
AFCHA05020
iFreshwater Fishes
ISalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
;G3
i(PS)
i17060307
AFCHA05020
: Freshwater Fishes
iSalvelinus Confluentus
iBull Trout
iG3
KPS)
i 17060308
AFCHA02050
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha
•Chinook Salmon Or King
¦Salmon
:G5
i(PS)
i17060308
AFCHA0209M
•Freshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 13
iSteelhead - Snake River
iBasin
{G5T2T3Q
iLT
i17060308
AFCJBI303M
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Gila Bicolor Vaccaceps
iCowhead Lake Tui Chub
G4T1
iPE
;17120007
AFCQNO4O10
iFreshwater Fishes
\Eucyclogobius Newherryi
Tidewater Goby
;G3
;LE,PDL
518010101
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
iEucyclogobius Newherryi
iTidewater Goby
iG3
iLE.PDL
i18010102
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Eucyclogohius Newberryt
iTidewater Goby
;G3
iLE.PDL
i18010108
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
\Eucyclogobius Newherryi
iTidewater Goby
;G3
iLE.PDL
ilSOlOili
AFCJC03010
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Chasmistes Brevirostris
iShortnose Sucker
iGl
iLE
i18010204
AFCJC12010
iFreshwater Fishes
IDellistes Luxarus
iLost River Sucker
;gi
jLE
; 18010204
AFCJC120S0
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Deltisles Luxatus
iLost River Sucker
IGl
;LE
i18010206
AFCJC030I0
iFreshwater Fishes
IChasmistes Brevirostris
iShortnose Sucker
iGl
;LE
i18010206
AFCJC02I40
iFreshwater Fishes
;Catoslomus Microps
¦Modoc Sucker
iGl
;LE
i18020002
AFCHA0205B
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha Pop 7 iChinook Salmon -
•Sacramento River Winter
i iRun
iGSTiQ
iLE
:18020101
AFCHA0205B
iFreshwater Fishes
iOncorhynchus Tshawytscha Pop 7 iChinook Salmon -
i {Sacramento River Winter
iRun
:G5TIQ
;LE
i18020102
AFCHA0205B
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha Pop 7 IChinook Salmon -
i iSacramento River Winter
iRun
;G5T1Q
iLE
; 18020103
AFCJB34020
iFreshwater Fishes
[Pogomchthys Macrolepidotus
Spli trail
;G2
;LT
; 18020104
AFCJB34020
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Pogonichthys Macrolepidotus
iSplittail
iG2
iLT
i18020106
AFCJB34Q20
iFreshwater Fishes
\Pogonichthys Macrolepidotus
iSplittail
iG2
iLT
18020109
AFCHA0205B
iFreshwater Fishes
¦.Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha Pop 7 Chinook Salmon -
Sacramento River Winter
iRun
G5TIQ
iLE
= 18020112
App A-JI
-------
Appendix A1
Tabic Al-1: Listing Status and Hydrologtc Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy" (coflt.)
ABI Identifier
; Informal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
i Global
; Status
i Federal i HUC
i Status i Code
AFCHA0209B
iFreshwater Fishes
Oncorhynchus Mykiss Whitei
:Little Kern Golden Trout
iG5T2Q
;LT 18030001
AFCHA0209B
iFreshwater Fishes
¦ Oncorhynchus Mykiss Whitei
iLittle Kern Golden Trout
iG5T2Q
iLT i18030006
AFCQN04010
;Freshwater Fishes
Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE.PDL i 18050005
AFCQN04010
IFreshwater Fishes
\Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE.PDL ; 18050006
AFCHA0209J
•Freshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 10
iSteeihead - Southern
iCalifomia
:G5T1T2Q
iLE i 18050006
AFCHA0209J
{Freshwater Fishes
"¦.Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 10
•Steelhead - Southern
iCalifomia
FG5T1T2Q
iLE il8060001
AFCHA0209J
iFresh water Fishes
;¦Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 10
ISteeihead - Southern
iCalifomia
IG5TIT2Q
iLE j18060001
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iQ3
iLE.PDL ; 18060001
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
i Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
|G3
iLE.PDL 18060001
AFCQN04010
iFresh water Fishes
iEucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
•G3
iLE.PDL i 18060006
AFCHA0209J
iFreshwater Fishes
•Oncorhynchus Mykiss Pop 10
:'Steelhead - Southern
iCalifomia
;G5T1T2Q
iLE ;18060006
AFCQN040I0
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE,PDL i 18060008
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦¦Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE.PDL i 18060009
AFCPA03011
iFreshwater Fishes
-GasterosU'us Aculealus
j Williamson*
fUnarmored Threespine
Stickleback
iGSTl
:LE |18060010
AFCQN040IO
iFreshwater Fishes
iEucyclogobius Newberryi
¦Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE.PDL 18060011
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
i.Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iQ3
iLE.PDL 18060013
AFCPA03011
iFreshwater Fishes
:Gasterosteus Aculeatus
i Wiiliamsoni
iUnarmored Threespine
iStickleback
iG5Tl
iLE i18060013
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
\Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE.PDL N 8070101
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE,PDL i 18070102
AFCJCQ2190
iFreshwater Fishes
¦ Calostomus Santaanae
Santa Ana Sucker
iGl
iLT i 18070102
AFCJC02190
iFreshwater Fishes
ICatostomus Santaanae
Santa Ana Sucker
iGl
iLT i 18070203
AFCQN04010
iFreshwater Fishes
Eucyclogobius Newberryi
Tidewater Goby
iG3
iLE.PDL i 18070301
AFCNB02090
iFreshwater Fishes
\Cyprinodon Radiosus
iOwens River Pupfish
iGl
iLE i 18090102
AFCJB1303J
iFreshwater Fishes
:Gila Bicolor Snyderi
Owens Tus Chub
iG4Tl
iLE i 18090102
AFCHA02089
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Oncorhynchus Clark) Seleniris
Paiute Cutthroat Trout
iG4TlT2
iLT '18090102
AFCNB02090
iFreshwater Fishes
¦ Cyprinodun Radiosus
Owens River Pupfish
iGl
iLE U 8090103
AFCJBI303J
iFreshwater Fishes
iGila Bicolor Snyderi
Owens Tui Chub
iQ4TI
iLE 118090103
AFCJB1303H
iFreshwater Fishes
"¦Gila Bicolor Mohavensis
; Mohave Tui Chub
G4T1
iLE i 18090207
AFCJBI303H
iFreshwater Fishes
¦¦Gila Bicolor Mohavensis
Mohave Tui Chub
iG4Tl
;LE 18090208
AFCPA03011
iFreshwater Fishes
[Gasterosteus Aculeatus
; Wiiliamsoni
•Unarmored Threespine
-Stickleback
:G5TI
iLE =18100200
AFCNB02060
iFreshwater Fishes
¦ Cyprinodon Macularius
i Desert Pupfish
iGl
iLE i 18100200
AFCJCI1010
Freshwater Fishes
Xvrauchen Texanus
Kazorback Sucker
iGl
iLE i 18100200
AFCAA02010
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Scaphirhynchus Albus
iPallid Sturgeon
:giG2
:le i07i ioooo
AFCAA020I0
iFreshwater Fishes
\Scaphirhynchus Albus
Pallid Sturgeon
GIG2
iLE i 10000000
AFCJB53020
iFreshwater Fishes
\Macrhybopsis Gelida
; Sturgeon Chub
:G2
:C i10000000
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
iG2
iLT ;11040001
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
G2
LT il 1040006
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
"¦¦Notropis Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
:G2
;LT =11040008
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
¦ Notropis Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
G2
iLT i11050001
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
•G2
;LT i11050002
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
'¦Notropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
¦:G2
iLT ; 11050003
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
iNotropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
;G2
LT M1060004
AppA-12
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix A1
Table Al-1: listing Status and Hydrologie Unit Code (HUC) for Threatened and Endangered Species in
30 States Compiled by The Nature Conservancy4 (cont.)
ABI Identifier
1 Informal Taxon
Scientific Name
Common Name
i Global
States
i Federal
: Status
i HUC
Code
AFCJB28490
Freshwater Fishes
INotropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
\G2
ILT
111060006
AFCJB28490
Freshwater Fishes
Notropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
:G2
|LT
511070105
AFCKA02200
1 Freshwater Fishes
¦Noturus Placidus
'Neosho Madtom
¦U2
ILT
111070206
AFCLA010I0
;Freshwater Fishes
•Amblyopsis Rosae
•Ozark Cavefish
IG2G3
ILT
111070206
AFCLA01010
Freshwater Fishes
'¦Amblyopsis Rosae
iOzark Cavefish
IG203
ILT
111070207
AFCLAOSOIO
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Amblyopsis Rosae
lOzaric Cavefish
10203
ILT
111070209
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
IG2
ILT
111090201
AFCJB28490
IFreshwater Fishes
[Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
|G2
ILT
111090202
AFCJB28490
Freshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
IG2
ILT
111090203
AFCJB28490
;Freshwater Fishes
Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
|G2
ILT
il 1090204
AFCJB28490
IFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
;G2
|LT
; 11100 i 01
AFCJB28490
:Freshwater Fishes
1Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
|G2
ILT
111100102
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
;G2
ILT
111100103
AFCJB28490
IFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
IG2
ILT
111100104
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
|G2
ILT
111100201
AFCJB28490
IFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
;G2
|LT
111100203
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
'Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
IG2
ILT
111100301
AFCJB28490
IFreshwater Fishes
iNotropis Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
iG2
ILT
111100302
AFCJB28490
iFrcshwater Fishes
'.Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
IG2
ILT
111100303
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Girardi
Arkansas River Shiner
|G2
ILT
111110101
AFCKA02200
1Freshwater Fishes
•Noturus Placidus
Neosho Madtom
IG2
ILT
111110103
AFCJB28490
IFreshwater Fishes
-Notropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
|G2
ILT
111110104
AFCJB28490
IFreshwater Fishes
INotropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
|G2
ILT
111130210
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Notropis Girardi
IArkansas River Shiner
|G2
|LT
111130304
AFCJB28490
iFreshwater Fishes
'iNotropis Girardi
iArkansas River Shiner
IG2
ILT
111140107
AFCQC04210
IFreshwater Fishes
IPercina Pantherina
i Leopard Darter
IG1
;LT
111140107
AFCQC04210
iFreshwater Fishes
\Percina Pantherina
: Leopard Darter
IG1
;LT
111140108
AFCAA01010
^Freshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Brevirostrum
IShortnose Sturgeon
|G3
;LB
102040202
AFCAA0I040
iFreshwater Fishes
¦Acipenser Oxyrinchus
lAtlantic Sturgeon
103
:(LT,C)
102040201
Source: NatureServe. 2002. Natural Heritage Central Databases. Arlington, VA.
App .4-13
-------
S 316(b) Existing Facilities Benefits Case Studies, Part A: Evaluation Methods
Appendix Al
Table Al-2: Definitions of Abbreviations fop Slebai Status.
Abbreviation
GX
Global Status
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.
GH
Possibly Extinct (species) Known from only historical occurrences, bat may nevertheless still be
extant; further searching needed.
G1
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).
G2
Imperiled Imperiled globally because of rarity or because of some factors) 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).
G3
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.
G4
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.
G5
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.
G#G#
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 than G1G4).
GU
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 tank (e.g., G2G3) is used to
delineate the limits (range) of uncertainty.
G?
Unranked Global rank not yet assessed.
HYB
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.)
9
Inexact Numeric Rank Denotes inexact numeric rank
Q
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.
c
Captive or Cultivated Only Taxon at present is extant only in captivity or cultivation, or as a
reintroduced population not yet established,
T_
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 fellow the same principles
outlined above. For example, the global rank of a critically imperiled subspecies of an otherwise
widespread and common species would be GST I. 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 .4-14
-------
Appendix Ai
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
c
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
values
The taxon has one status currently, but a more recent proposal has been made to change that status 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 in
parentheses
The taxon itself is not named in the Federal Register as having federal status; however, it does 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
values in
parentheses
The taxon itself is not named in the Federal Register as having official federal status; however, all of its infraspecific
taxa (worldwide) do have official status. The statuses shown in 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.
AppA-J5
-------
§ 316(b) Existing Facilities EEBA, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Part B: The Delaware Estuary
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Chapter Bl
This case study presents the results of an analysis
performed by EPA to assess the potential benefits of
reducing the cumulative impacts of impingement and
entrainment (I&E) at cooling water intake structures
(CWIS) within the transition zone of the Delaware Estuary
that are in scope of the proposed § 316(b) Phase II
(existing facilities) regulation. In-scope facilities include
any steam electric power generating facility that (1) is a
point source that uses or proposes to use a cooling water
intake structure, (2) has a design intake flow equal to or
greater than 50 MGD, and (3) withdraws water from
waters of the United States or obtains cooling water by any
sort of contract or arrangement with an independent
supplier (or suppliers) that withdraws water from waters of
the United States.
EPA chose the transition zone of the estuary for a study of
cumulative CWIS impacts because of its ecological, economic, and recreational importance and its susceptibility to harm
from multiple CWIS. The Agency is limiting its analysis of the Delaware Estuary to the transition zone because the facilities
within this zone impinge and entrain the same species. Section Bl-1 of this chapter provides information on both in-scope
and out-of-scope CWIS within the transition zone, Section Bl -2 describes the aquatic environment of the case study area,
Section B1 -3 discusses cooling water use by transition zone CWIS, and Section Bl-4 presents information on the region's
social and economic characteristics.
Bl-l Overview of Transition Zone Case Study Facilities
Figure Bl-1 indicates the locations of all in-scope and out-of-scope CWIS throughout the Delaware River Basin. Those in
green are in scope of Phase II of the § 316(b) regulation. This case study focuses only on CWIS within the transition zone of
the Delaware Estuary, including four in scope power plants (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Hope Creek Nuclear
Generating Station, Edge Moor Power Plant, and Deepwater Generating Station), three out-of-scope power plants (Hay Road,
Logan Generating Company, and Chambers Cogen LP), and six out-of-scope manufacturing facilities (Delaware City
Refinery, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company Chemicals and Pigments Department, General Chemical Corporation, SPI
Polyols, Citisteel, and Sun Refining). The locations of these facilities are indicated in Figure Bl-2. The in scope power
plants of the transition zone are described briefly below, and Table Bl-1 summarizes their technical characteristics.
: Background
Chapter Contents
. ... ._i— ..I
Bl-1
Overview of Transition Zone Case Study
Facilities
Bl-1
BI-2
Environmental Setting
Bl-5
Bl-2. t The Delaware Estuary
Bl-5
B 1-2,2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
BI-6
B 1-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
Bl-7
Bt-3
Water Withdrawals and Uses .............
.... Bl-10
B 1-3,1 Coating Water Use
. ... Bl-10
Bl-4
Socioeconomic Characteristics .
.... Bl-11
B 1-4,1 Major industrial Activities
.., , Bl-12
U 1-4.2 Commercial fisheries
.... Bl-12
Bl-4.3 Recreational Activities
... . Bl-13
Bl-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Figure Bl-i: The Delaware River Basin
™ Out of scope facilities within
the Delaware River Basin
I In scope facilities within
the Delaware River Basin
Delaware Estuary
L~J Delaware River Basin Boundary
PENNSYLVANIA
MARYLAND
Baltimore
i '
• [lit i ¦
Hancock
Delaware River
Basin Boundary
NY
• New York
' >
Trentoiiv—
p .
Philadelphia
n i-ftr .
[Marcus Hook _
r-«l4y
MiHHlil
20 10 0
¦40 20 f)
20 Miles
40 Kilometers
Bl-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary Chapter Bl: Background
Figure B1 -2: The Delaware Estuary and the Case Study Facilities of the Transition Zone
m
Facilities
en
Lower Estuary
1 i
Transitional Zone
i i
Tidal River Zone
i i
Delaware Estuary
C3
Delaware River Basin Boundary
<$r.
PA
%
h
-------
S 316(b) Case, Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Table Bl-1: Summary of Delaware Estuary Power Plants (1999)
Salem
Hope Creek
Edge Moor
Deep water
Plant E1A Code
2410
I 6118 |
593 i
2384
NERC Region j
MAAC
; MAAC ;
MAAC
MAAC
Total Capacity (MW)
2,382
: 1,170 !
710 .
259
Primary Fuel
Uranium
; Uranium ;
Oil/Coal
Coal/Gas
Number of Employees
425
! 399 j
119
i 48
Net Generation (million MWh)
15.9
; 7.7 j
2.2 i
: 0.38
Estimated Revenues (million) !
SI,3 73
; $663 i
$141
$43
Total Production Expense (million)
$358
! $174 1
$76 |
$18
Production Expense (0/kWh)
2.2560
| 2.2680 1
3.4050 i
4.9080
Estimated Operating income (million)
$1,015
i $489 |
S65
i $25
Notes: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council
MAAC = Mid-Atlantic Area Council
Dollars are in $2001.
Source; Form EIA-860A (NERC Region, Total Capacity, Primary Fuel); FERC Form-1 (Number of Employees, Net Generation, Total
Production Expense).
The Salem Nuclear Generating Station (Salem) is located on the Delaware Estuary in New Jersey, on an artificial peninsula
known as Artificial Island. Artificial Island is the dividing line between the transitional and lower estuary. This section of the
estuary is approximately 4 km (2.5 miles) wide, and is situated in the transition zone of the estuary. Tidal flow in this area is
approximately 11,327 ms/s (400,000 cfs; NJDEP, 2000). Salem operates two large nuclear units of 1,170 MW each.' Both
units serve baseload demand. Unit 1 began operation in 1977, and is licensed to operate through June 30, 2017. Unit 2 began
operation in 1981, and is licensed to operate through October 13,2021. Each unit has a once-through cooling system with a
design flow of 1,584 MGD, Estuary water is drawn in approximately 122 m (400 fl) north of the circulating water system,
where it cools heat exchangers and other equipment before it is discharged back into the estuary (Correia et al., 1993). In
addition to the two nuclear units, Salem operates one gas-fired generating unit, which does not require cooling water.
In 1999, Salem had 425 employees and generated 15.9
million MWh of electricity.2 Estimated 1999 revenues
for the Salem plant were approximately $1.4 billion,
based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales3 of
14.7 million MWh and the 1999 company-level
electricity revenues of $93.14 per MWh. Salem's 1999
production expenses totaled $358 million, or 2.2560 per
kWh, for an operating income of $1,015 million.
The Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station (Hope
Creek) is less than half a mile northwest of the Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, and thus has the same
estuary characteristics as the Salem facility.
Commercial operation at Hope Creek began in 1986.
The facility has one boiling water nuclear reactor
capable of generating 1,170 MW. Like Salem's units,
the Hope Creek reactor is operated as a baseload unit.
1 The data on electric generating units in this chapter come from the 1999 Forms EIA-860A (U.S. Department of Energy 2001b)
(Annual Electric Generator Report - Utility) and 860B (U.S. Department of Energy 2001c) (Annual Electric Generator Report -
Nonutility).
2 One MWh equals 1,000 kWh.
3 Electricity sales are net generation adjusted for utility-specific energy losses, energy furnished without charge, and energy used by
the utility's own electricity department. See Chapter C2: Cost Impact Analysis for details on the estimation of plant-level electricity sales.
Bl-4
Salem and Hope Creek Ownership Information
Salem and Hope Creek both began operation as regulated utility
plants and are both currently owned by PSEG Power. Salem and
Hope Creek were purchased by PSEG Power from Public Service
Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G), a regulated utility company, in
August 2000.
PSEG Power is a wholly owned, nonregulated subsidiary of Public
Service Enterprise Group (PSEG) Incorporated. PSEG Power was
established in 1999 to purchase and operate the nonregulated
generation assets of PSEG (Standard & Poor's, 2001a). PSEG
Power is a domestic, competitive energy company with 3,100
employees. PSEG Power owns or controls more than 11,200 MW of
electric generating capacity and intends to add an additional
6,100 MW, In 2000, PSEG Power posted revenues of $1.0 billion
(PSEG, 200Ia,
-------
6 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
The design flow for the facility is 115,2 MOD, The Hope Creek facility uses a closed-cycle circulating water system
consisting of four circulating water pumps. The system holds 9 million gallons of water (PSEG, 1989).
In 1999, Hope Creek had 399 employees and generated 7.7 million MWh of electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues for the
Hope Creek plant were approximately $663 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 7,1 million MWh
and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $93,14 per MWh. Hope Creek's 1999 production expenses totaled $174
million, or 2.268? per kWh, for an operating income of $489 million.
The Edge Moor Power Plant is located at rivermile 72.3 of the Delaware Estuary, just upstream of Wilmington, Delaware.
The facility began commercial service in 1951. Edge Moor currently has four active generating units: units 3 and 4 are coal-
steam units of 75 and 177 MW, respectively; unit 5 is an oil-steam unit of 446 MW, and unit 10 is a small gas turbine. Edge
Moor's units are located in three separate pumphouses. l'umphouse 1 houses units I and 2, and contains two traveling screens
for each unit; both units retired in 1983. Pumphouse 2 houses units 3 and 4, and contains three traveling screens for unit 3
and two for unit 4. Pumphouse 3 houses unit 5, and contains eight traveling screens. Each unit has one circulating pump
operating full time. The average intake flow at unit 5 is
reported as 558 MGD, and units 3 and 4 have an
average intake flow of 224,5 MGD. The approach
velocity as water passes through the traveling screens at
the intake structures is 0.5 to 0.85 fps. Organisms
impinged on the traveling screens are washed off into a
trough and returned to the Delaware River when the
screens are rotated (Versar, 1990).
In 1999, Edge Moor had 119 employees and generated
2.24 million MWh of electricity. Estimated 1999
revenues were approximately $141 million, based on the
plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 2.16 million
MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues
of $65.20 per MWh. Edge Moor's 1999 production
expenses totaled $76 million, or 3.405p per kWh, for an
operating income of $65 million.
The Deepwater Generating Station is located on the
east side of the Delaware River in New Jersey, just
north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The facility began commercial service in 1930, Deepwater currently has three steam
electric units: unit 1 is a natural gas unit of 96 MW, unit 4 is an oil unit of 53 MW, and unit 6 is a coal unit of 92 MW, Each
unit has a separate cooling water intake. AH three intakes are located approximately 32 m (105 ft) offshore in the Delaware
River (U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a). In the 2000 EPA questionnaire, the Deepwater Generating Station reported the
design intake flow for units 1, 4, and 6 at 151 MGD; the average intake flow for these same units was 104.6 MGD. In
addition to the steam electric unit, Deepwater operates one gas turbine which does not require cooling water.
In 1999, Deepwater had 48 employees and generated approximately 376,000 MWh of electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues
were approximately $43 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 351,000 MWh and the 1999
company-level electricity revenues of $ 122.74 per MWh. Deepwater's 1999 production expenses totaled over $ 18 million, or
4.908£ per kWh, for an operating income of $25 million.
Bl-2 Environmental Setting
Bl-2.1 The Delaware Estuary
The Delaware River Basin (Figure Bl-1) encompasses some 35,066 km2 (13,539 m2), including parts of Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, New York, and Delaware (DRBC, 2001). The main stem of the Delaware River is fed by 216 tributaries along its 531
km (330-mile) course from Hancock, New York, to the mouth of the Delaware Bay, Nearly three-quarters of the nontidal
portion of the river is now included in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Program (DRBC, 2001).
The Delaware Estuary is the tidally influenced portion of the Delaware River Basin, and is one of the largest estuaries of the
U.S. Atlantic Coast (Santoro, 1998; DRBC, 2001). It extends 214 km (133 miles), from the falls at Trenton, New Jersey, to
Edge Moor and Deepwater Ownership Information
Edge Moor and Deepwater both began operation as regulated utility
plants and are both currently owned by Conectiv. Conectiv
purchased Edge Moor torn Delmarva Power & Light Company in
July 2000. Conectiv merged with Atlantic Energy Inc. (previously
the owner of Atlantic City Electric Company) in March 1998 and
assumed ownership of Deepwater,
Conectiv Corporation is a domestic, competitive energy company
with 3,800 employe® (Hoover's Online, 200 Id). Conectiv owns or
controls more than 4,000 MW of electric generating capacity
(Conectiv, 2001). In 2000, Conectiv posted revenues of $5,0 billion
(Hoover's Online, 200Id). During the first quarter of 2002,
Conectiv is anticipated to merge with Potomac Electric Power
Company (PepcoJ in a $2.2 billion transaction that will create a
single holding company which will serve more than 1.8 million
customers in the mid-Atlantic region (PR Newswire, 2001).
Bl-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl*- Background
the mouth of Delaware Bay, and includes some 1,878 km2 (725 mi2) of open water. The C&D Canal at rivermile 59 provides
a sea-level connection between the estuary and the upper Chesapeake Bay, A substantial exchange of water occurs through
the canal, with average net flow from the Chesapeake Bay to the Delaware Estuary.
The annual mean freshwater inflow to the Delaware Estuary is about 574 m3 (20,243 cfs), most of which is provided by the
nontidal Delaware and Schuylkill rivers (PSEG, 1999c). Highest flows are in March and April and lowest flows are in August
and September. Although there is a longitudinal change in salinity from 30 ppt at the mouth of the estuary to freshwater at
Trenton, New Jersey, vigorous mixing results in little variation in salinity with depth (PSEG, 1999c). When freshwater inflow
is low, higher salinity water moves up-estuary, and when freshwater inflow is high, saline waters move down-estuary.
For most of its length, the estuary is a broad, shallow body of water, with an average depth of 5.8 m (19 ft) and maximum
depth of 45.1 m (148 ft). It is divided into three ecological zones based on salinity, turbidity, and biological productivity
(PSEG, 1999c):
~ The first section is the tidal river zone and consists of an 86.9 km (54 miles) long, heavily urbanized, tidal freshwater
area of64.7 km2 (25 mi2). This zone extends from Trenton, New Jersey, to Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, just north of
the Pennsylvania-Delaware state line. It is profoundly affected by urban, commercial, and industrial activities along
its shores. It carries high nutrient levels from municipal discharges and also receives significant inputs of dissolved
metals and organic pollutants.
~ The second section is the transition zone and runs from Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, to Artificial Island, New Jersey.
The transition zone is the focus of this case study. It has a wide salinity range (from 0 to 15 ppt, depending on river
flow and tidal currents), high levels of turbidity and lower levels of biological productivity and diversity than the
lower estuary. The transition zone is brackish and influenced by salt water from the bay. It is also an area with a
significant amount of sedimentation. Because of its brackish nature, it is the least biologically productive of the
three zones. However, extensive shallow mudflats, sandbars, and tidal marshes in the nearshore areas of the
transition zone provide important feeding and nursery areas for hundreds of fish, invertebrates, and bird species.
» The third section is the lower estuary, which is Delaware Bay itself, extending from the mouth of the bay to Artificial
Island. It has the highest salinity levels, ranging from less than 5 ppt to more than 30 ppt depending on flow
conditions, and is responsible for over 90 percent of the biological productivity of the entire estuary.
The map of the Delaware Estuary in Figure Bl-2 shows the locations of these three ecological zones of the estuary and the
locations of the CWIS within the transition zone that are evaluated in this case study.
Bl-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
The major habitats of the Delaware Estuary include the open water (pelagic) zone, littoral zone, benthic zone, and tidal marsh
zone (PSEG, 1999c; U.S. EPA/ORD, 1998). These habitats support a wide range of species and include important spawning
and nursery areas for fish species (Weisberg and Burton, 1993) and nursery and staging areas for migratory birds (i.e., places
where birds temporarily stay, feed, and rest during their migrations). These habitat types are described briefly below.
The open water zone includes all areas with water deeper than 2 m (6.6 ft) at low tide. Herring (Clupeidae) and anchovies
(.Engraulidae) are common in the open waters of the transition zone (PSEG. 1999c). Use of this extensive habitat varies
depending on the species considered. Some species such as the white perch (Morone americana) are year-round residents
and have adapted to the different conditions found throughout the estuary. Others such as striped bass (Morone saxmilis)
enter the estuary to spawn only for relatively short periods of time and then return to the ocean. However, the young of many
resident and transient species spend at least some part of their early life history in the estuary. For example, striped bass hatch
in the transition zone and move downstream in search of nursery habitat, whereas the planktonic life stages of weakfish
(Cynoscion regalis) use tidal fluctuations to migrate upstream. This aquatic environment also supports a rich diversity of
waterfowl and shorebirds that use adjacent terrestrial or semiterrestnal habitat for nesting and resting but rely on the
productivity of the estuary for food and sustenance.
The littoral zone includes the intertidal zone as well as nearshore areas less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep at low tide. The fish
communities of littoral areas vary with salinity and substrate type. Among the most common littoral zone fish species are bay
anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia iyrannus), Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus),
mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus heteroclitus), weakfish, bluefish (Pomatomus saltaior), strip.ed bass, white perch, and
Bl-6
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The be la wore Estuary
Chapter 81: Background
Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) (PSEG, 1999c; U.S. EPA/ORD, 1998). Although less common, American shad (Alosa
sapidissima) is also found in littoral areas of the transition zone.
The littoral zone is also important for geese, ducks, loons, herons, egrets, gulls, tems, and shorebirds such as plovers and
sandpipers; in May and June the estuary's beaches and mudflats host the second largest population of migrating shorebirds in
North America (PSEG, 1999c; Delaware Estuary Program, 1996). These birds are attracted to the eggs of spawning
horseshoe crabs and other food resources, and feast on them on their journey north. The Pea Patch heronry, located on the
upper bay, is the largest heronry in the northeastern United States (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
The benthic zone consists of substrate in the deeper parts of the estuary. Many important commercial and recreational fish
species are found at least seasonally in the benthic zone, including weakfish, bluefish, striped bass, and white perch (PSEG,
1999c).
The tidal marsh zone includes freshwater emergent marshes of the tidal river, tidal scrub/shrub and forested wetlands along
shorelines of tidal tributaries, and the coastal marshes of Delaware Bay (PSEG, 1999c). The most abundant salt marsh fish
include mummichog, spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), white perch, Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, and Atlantic silverside.
B1 -2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
In the 1940's, the lower Delaware was essentially an open sewer, with some reaches so polluted that the water was devoid of
the oxygen needed to support aquatic life (DRBC, 1998). Beginning in the 1960's, comprehensive efforts were undertaken to
address the severe pollution problems, and today the river supports healthy, year-round fish populations of many highly
valued species such as striped bass, herring, and shad.
The Delaware Estuary still faces significant environmental challenges despite the recent improvements in water quality. The
region still experiences habitat and water quality degradation due to industrial and municipal effluent discharges, untreated
storm sewer overflow, nutrient enrichment, agricultural runoff, habitat degradation, and land use changes. As a result,
sections of the estuary contain contaminated sediments, toxic contaminants in surface water, and suboptimal levels of
dissolved oxygen resulting from high nutrient levels. Fish consumption advisories have been issued for several fish species
because of high levels of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in their tissue. Physical habitat alterations in selected parts of the
bay have resulted in losses of hundreds of thousands of adult horseshoe crabs. Even though numerous fish populations
increased over the last two decades, other species, e.g., the Atlantic sturgeon, are experiencing inadequate population growth
or are still declining (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996; DRBC, 1998; Santoro, 1998).
While these stressors will not be directly affected by the § 316(b) regulation, they do affect the health of the ecosystem and
influence the abundance and variety of aquatic organisms present. A solid understanding of factors currently limiting the
waterbody's health is important because the ecosystem surrounding a CWIS is one of the primary determinants of a facility's
potential for adverse environmental impact. In addition, some of the facilities that operate CWIS also contribute to these
other stressors, as discussed below.
a. Habitat destruction, degradation, or modification
It has been estimated that between the mid-1950's and early 1980's, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania lost over
50 percent of their wetlands (Jenkins and Gelvin-Innvaer, 1995). Others have put the loss at closer to 25 percent (Delaware
Estuary Program, 1996). Irrespective of the precise extent of wetland losses, nontidal freshwater and forested wetlands have
been more affected than the tidal marshes. Existing federal and state regulations limit further wetland loss from human
encroachment. However, in the past, tidal wetlands have been lost, degraded, or modified by spoil disposal practices,
residential developments, parallel-grid ditching for mosquito control programs, impoundments, diking to support salt-hay
farming, and agricultural uses. The non-native common reed (Phragmites australis) has overrun large areas of tidal marsh
habitat and outcompeted the diverse native plant species. This has reduced the overall biological value of this type of habitat
by eliminating feeding and nesting areas for waterfowl and wading birds.
Dredging activities to support shipping in the estuary over the last 100 years have had both positive and negative
consequences for estuarine habitats (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996). In many cases, dredge spoils were simply deposited
on adjacent marshlands, which were subsequently lost to industrial development. Other dredged material was deposited on
dredge-disposal islands within the estuary. Trees grew on the dredge-disposal islands and provided habitat for a large number
of nesting colonies of wading birds (Jenkins and Gelvin-Innvaer, 1995).
Bl-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: Hie Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
The dredged ship channel increased the tidal range in the upper estuary because the dense marine water can now push further
upstream. However, other factors involved in this process include general sea level rise and a decrease in the river debit due
to upstream removal of freshwater for drinking water. The intensified ship traffic within the estuary has also resulted in
increased shoreline erosion due to ship wakes. A combination of these two factors has been blamed for a decrease in
intertidal vegetation in the upper and transitional estuary (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
Rising sea levels over the next century in response to global warming are also seen as a significant threat to the well-being of
the tidal wetlands around the estuary (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996). Any further loss can directly affect anadromous and
indigenous fish species by eliminating nursery habitat or resident and migratory bird species by removing nesting, feeding, or
staging areas.
b. Introduction of non-native, species
Under the right environmental conditions, non-native species can upset entire ecosystems. For example, the introduction of
the sea lamprey into the Great Lakes in the 20th century was in part responsible for the decline of big game fish. The more
recent introduction of zebra mussels has had dramatic negative effects on the Great Lakes food chain. Such "exotic" species
can cause tremendous harm by displacing native species or radically changing native habitats,
A number of non-native species such as largemouth and smallmouth bass, grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), hydrilla
(.Hydrilla verticillaia, a prolific aquatic weed), and purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) have become established in and
around the estuary. The zebra mussel, though not yet present in the Delaware River system, could be introduced via ship
ballast water. Nutria, a non-native and destructive rodent introduced elsewhere in the country for its fur, is present along
Chesapeake Bay and has the potential of reaching the Delaware. Proposals have also been made to introduce non-native
species such as the Japanese oyster and Pacific salmon for commercial and recreational reasons (Delaware Estuary Program,
1996),
The common reed (Phragmites australis) exemplifies how a non-native species can have far-ranging effects on an ecosystem.
Phragmites is a highly competitive plant that has overpowered and replaced native marsh plants in thousands of acres of
emergent tidal wetlands along the Delaware Estuary. This has led to a significant drop in available food resources, habitat
diversity, and open water space and affects a number of species, including ducks, which are excluded from these infested
areas. An aggressive eradication program has been proposed to reduce the amount of Phragmites cover in wetlands by
40 percent over the next decade and allow natural revegetation by pre-Phmgmites marsh plants4 (Delaware Estuary Program,
1996). In addition, recommendations have been made for developing and implementing an estuary-wide program to assess
the potential effects of intentional introductions of non-native species and prevent unintentional future introductions
(Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
c. Overfishing
The long-term decline of the Delaware fisheries in the 20th century was due primarily to low dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations and high levels of pollution. Since the early 1980's, when these two problems were brought under control,
many of the original fish stocks have experienced a comeback. The commercial and recreational fisheries resources within
the Delaware Estuary, however, are all strictly regulated to avoid overfishing and protect the stocks. A number of species-
specific fishery management plans have also been developed and implemented throughout the estuary and across
jurisdictional lines to provide coordinated protection. For example:
~ The recovery of the striped bass population in the estuary in the 1970's and early 1980's may have been impeded by
overfishing due to lack of regulatory controls at the time. In fact, Delaware completely closed down the fishery
between 1985 and 1989 to help the stock recover. New Jersey and Pennsylvania ban commercial fishing for this
species. Delaware allows a small gill net fishery. Recreational fishing is permitted tn the three states, but the daily
bag limit is one legal-size fish. In addition, the spawning grounds are closed to striped bass fishing during April and
May (Miller, R.W. 1995).
~ The Atlantic menhaden is a strictly regulated species and has become an important recreational fishery within the
estuary and nontidal river. For example, purse seining for this species is prohibited in most of the bay. In 1992, a
new fishery management plan was adopted by the Atlantic Menhaden Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fishery
4 Phragmites eradication measures often consist of a combination of herbicide and bum treatments, which in themselves may have
negative environmental side effects.
Bl-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Commission, This plan relies on biological "triggers" to tell the fisheries managers when to close the fishery to
protect the species (Hall, 1995).
~ The American shad fishery in the estuary is being managed under a 1982 fishery management plan. The plan sets
forth four specific goals: (1) achieving a predetermined annual spawning population size, (2) supporting a
recreational sport fishery in the nontidal river, (3) maintaining a basic commercial harvesting rate, and (4) restoring
shad spawning areas that have been closed to migration because of dams (Miller, J .P.. 1995).
d. Pollution
The Delaware Estuary is an ecosystem on the rebound from severe water quality impairment (Delaware Estuary Program,
1996). The upper estuary (i.e., the tidal, freshwater portion of the tidal zone) was once considered one of the most polluted
rivers in the United States. From the early 1990's until the 1970's, high biological oxygen demand (BOD) rendered the
region around Philadelphia/Camden almost snoxtc during several months of the year. The lack of DO served as a "pollution
block," preventing the spawning migration of anadromous fish upstream into the nontidal, freshwater reaches of the Delaware
River. As a result, several species, including striped bass and American shad, showed severe population-related declines. A
combination of industrial effluent controls and improvements in municipal sewage treatment, completed in the late 1980's,
has since reversed this problem and has resulted in one of the most successful estuarine water quality improvements in the
world (Santoro, 1998). Indeed, the numbers of juvenile striped bass and American shad have increased more than a
thousandfold since the early 1980's (Weisberg et-al., 1996).
The kind of separation between freshwater- and salt water layers observed in other bays and estuaries, which can lead to
severe DO depletions during the summer months (notably in the Chesapeake Bay), does not typically occur in the Delaware
Estuary. This is because there is little stratification between fresh and salt water due to the unique shape of the estuary, its
relatively shallow depth, and the strong tidal currents within it, all of which promote mixing. Consequently, even though the
Delaware River is highly enriched with nutrients, the combination of high turbidity and hydrologic mixing limits the amount
of DO depletion during the summer months. Occasional DO deficits still reflect inputs of high BOD compounds from the
major urban areas surrounding the upper estuary.
A number of facilities of concern to § 316(b) add to the estuary's pollution load through effluent releases. These include pulp
and paper plants, refineries, chemical facilities, and primary metal facilities. In addition, electric utilities can release
chemicals to the receiving water in the form of antifouling agents or anticorrosives that are added to cooling water to protect
pipes and other structures.
Ongoing sources of pollution in the estuary include contaminated sediments, point and nonpoint sources of aquatic toxicants,
and thermal discharges.
Contaminated sediments
Sediments act as long-term reservoirs for contaminants, which can be released back into the water column or passed up into
the food chain. Several chemicals present in Delaware Estuary sediments (in particular mercury, DDT and its metabolites,
other pesticides, and PCBs) can bioaccumulate and are difficult to eliminate once they are ingested by aquatic organisms. As
a result, the concentrations of these compounds increase as they move up the food chain. This becomes a long-term problem
for predators, in particular piscivores (predators that consume fish), because high levels of these chemicals are present in their
prey. Fish consumption advisories are posted throughout the estuary and a section of the nontidal river because of
unacceptable levels of PCBs in several recreational fish species (DRBC, 1998; Santoro, 1998). In addition, reproductive
success in fish-eating raptors is believed to be impaired by the presence of these chemicals in their food source, because they
lead to egg shell thinning (Clark, 1995; Niles, 1995).
*1* Aquatic toxicants from point and nonpoint sources
Although water quality has improved markedly since new water quality regulations were implemented in the I970's, the
presence of bioaccumulative compounds (DDE, chlordane, PCBs) within the aquatic food chain is still a concern (DRBC,
1998). Fish and shellfish in the Delaware Estuary contain some of the nation's highest levels of chemical contaminants (U.S.
EPA/ORD, 1998). The presence of these chemicals has resulted in fish consumption advisories for channel catfish and white
perch, to limit the potential effects on human health (DRBC, 1998). A 1990 study to assess the chronic toxicity of ambient
waters indicated significant growth reductions of fathead minnow larvae in 8 of 12 surface water samples collected throughout
the upper estuary. These results suggested that large stretches of the upper estuary may be chronically toxic to sensitive life
stages of aquatic organisms under specific hydrological and effluent loading conditions. The most toxic water samples were
collected in areas impacted by industrial and municipal effluent outfalls. It is unclear from the available information if more
Bl-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl; Background
recent bioassay data exist or if additional studies have been conducted to clarify the effects of tides, currents, seasons, and
effluent loadings on the observed toxicity (DRBC, 1998; Santoro, 1998).
*t' Thermal discharges
In the Delaware River Basin, numerous steam-electric and industrial facilities release heated water to the estuary, which can
increase water temperatures above levels that are tolerated by aquatic life. Thermal discharge is a byproduct of the cooling
cycle of power plants and other industrial facilities. Production processes that generate heat generally use cool water to
remove excess heat from the production process and transfer it to the cooling water. The heated water can either be cooled
and reused within the facility (as in closed-cycle or recirculating systems), or it can be directly released to the environment (as
in once-through systems). The environmental impacts of thermal discharges are site specific and depend on factors such as
the size and/or flow of the receiving water, temperature differences between the discharge and the receiving water, the time of
year, and the biological characteristics of the affected aquatic community.
Bl -3 Water Withdrawals and Uses
Nearly 10 percent of Americans rely on the waters of the Delaware River Basin for drinking and industrial use (DRBC, 1998).
The waters of the Delaware River and its tributaries provide drinking water, irrigation water, and water for industrial
manufacturing processes, electricity generation, mining, and livestock. Water use can be classified as either "instream" or
"ofTstream." As its name implies, instream use does not require removal of water from its source and therefore does not
involve intake structures. The primary instream use of water is for hydroelectric power generation, OfTstream water use, on
the other hand, does involve water withdrawals through intake structures and is therefore of interest to the § 316(b) regulation.
This subsection discusses water withdrawals and uses in the Delaware River Basin.
Total water withdrawals from the Delaware River Basin averaged 6,801 MGD in 1995. Of this total, 91 percent were surface
water withdrawals from rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries and 9 percent came from groundwater. The term "water
withdrawal" refers to water removed from the ground or diverted from a surface water source (USGS, 1995).
Large withdrawals of water-can lead to a number of water management and ecological problems. Of greatest concern to this
regulation is the ]&E of aquatic organisms that inhabit the waterbodies from which facilities withdraw water through intake
structures. In addition, overwithdrawal and overconsumption of water can increase salt water intrusion into aquifers that
supply drinking water. An excessive level of salt in drinking water presents a known risk to human health. To date, there is
no evidence that withdrawals from the Delaware River and its tributaries pose salinity or turbidity problems or that
withdrawals are increasing enough to make such problems likely in the future. Because of reduced power generation cooling
and public supply water management programs, water withdrawals for the Delaware Basin have actually decreased since in
the late l98G's (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
Bl-3.1 Cooling Water Use
In 1995, steam electric power generation5 accounted for the single largest intake of water from the Delaware River Basin, at
72 percent of all surface water withdrawals. While this number has decreased in recent years because more power plants have
moved to closed-cycle cooling systems rather than once-through systems (DRBC, 1996), the total withdrawal of this group is
still substantial.
Table Bl-2 summarizes cooling water intake flows of all utility-owned power plants, nonutilities, and manufacturing facilities
in the transition zone of the Delaware River Basin, including facilities subject to § 316(b) regulation and those that are not yet
affected. Both design and average annual intake flow rates are presented.
5 Steam power generation is defined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) as thermoelectric generation, which includes the
generation of electric power with fossil fuel, nuclear, or geothermal energy.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Table Bl-2; Characteristics of 5 316(b) Facilities Operating CWIS In the Transitional Zone of the
Delaware Estuary, 1999
•
CWIS Information
EIA Plant
Code
Plant Name
; Design Intake
EIA CWIS Code CWIS Type* ! Flow Rate
! (ff/see)
Average Annual
Intake Flow Rate
(ft'/sec)
HUC Watershed
Code
Electric Power Plants
593
Edge Moor
; 3
! OF & OS ;
100
60
2040204
4
OF & OS ;
148
107
i 5
; OF & OS |
581
303
2384
Deepwater
; 1
: OS |
101
83
2040204
i 4
; OS j
102
60
; 6
os ;
97 1
76
2410
Salem
! SAl
OS ;
1,678
1,359
2040204
"
1 SA2
! OS j
1,678
1,284
6118
Hope Creek
j HC1
RN
95 I
52
2040204
7153
Hay Road"c
: n/a
i n/a i
n/a
1.6
2040204
10043
Logan Generating
Co."6
| n/a
; n/a 1
n/a j
1.4
2040204
10566
Chambers Cogen
Lpw
i n/a
! n/a ;
n/a
37
2040204
Total Electric Power Plant Intake!
4,5801
3,424
Manufacturing Facilities1'
Delaware City Refinery*
; n/a
339
2040204
BuPonf
; n/a
7
2040204
General Chemical Corporation'
n/a
24
2040204
SP1 Poiyois"1
i n/a
: n/a ;
n/a
5
2040204
Citisteelc'd
j n/a
• n/a |
n/a ;
0
2040204
Sun Refining1-4
I n/a
• n/a j
n/a :
6
2040204
Total Manufacturing Facility Intake;
382
• *
* U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a. Form EIA-767 codes for relevant CWIS types: OF - once through, freshwater; OS - once through,
saline water, RN - recirculating with natural draft cooling tower.
11 Based on EPA's Section 316(b) Industry Survey, these facilities are not in scope of the proposed section 316(b) Phase II rule: Hay Road
because it does not hold an NPDES permit; Chambers Cogen LP because it does not directly withdraw cooling water from a surface water
source. Manufacturing facilities are subject to Phase 111 of the section 316(b) regulations.
L Intake flow information from the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC, 1996).
11 These facilities are not analyzed for this proposed rule because they were not part of the second phase of EPA's industry survey effort.
However, all facilities withdraw from the Delaware River and are therefore presented in this table.
' Listed in DRBC (1996) as an industrial facility ("DuPont Chambers").
Sources: CWIS information: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a (except where noted); HUC codes: Reach File I, U.S. EPA, 1982b.
Bl -4 Socioeconomic Characteristics
The Delaware River Basin is a highly valuable economic resource, providing the physical environment and biological
resources for numerous commercial and recreational activities. It also supplies water for many different purposes, among
others drinking water for 20 million people (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996). The region supports over 6.5 million people
(Delaware Estuary Program, 1996; Santoro, 1998), and includes the city of Philadelphia, the fifth largest metropolitan area in
the country. Between 1970 and 1990, 10 of the 22 counties in the region experienced population growth of more than
20 percent, resulting in rapid suburban development and more than 300,000 new housing units. The regional population is
expected to grow by an additional 14 percent by 2020. The projected growth, however, will not be evenly distributed across
the region. Indeed, the historical urban centers will continue to experience a net population loss, whereas the surrounding
regions will show a net gain. Philadelphia, for example, is projected to lose 76,000 people (5 percent of its current
population) by 2020 (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996; Santoro, 1998).
Bill
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bit Background
Not unexpectedly, the suburban sprawl associated with these demographic changes has profoundly affected land use patterns:
large tracts of forest and agricultural lands have been converted into roads or housing and commercial developments. This
activity consumes land, reduces terrestrial habitats, and directly affects the quality of the water in the estuary (Delaware
Estuary Program, 1996). As an example, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) analyzed the 1990
land use patterns in its nine-county region and extrapolated these results to project future land use consumption through 2020.
In 1990, the DVRPC estimated that 37 percent of the land area was developed. By 2020, the DVRPC projects that 51 percent
of the land area will be developed, leaving less than half as agricultural, wooded, or vacant land or water (Delaware Estuary
Program, 1996).
This subsection highlights the most important economic uses of the Delaware River Basin. Many of these uses may benefit
from § 316(b) regulations and are therefore of particular interest to this study.
Bl-4.1 Major Industrial Activities
a. Shipping
Commercial and recreational shipping activities take place throughout the Delaware Estuary, providing substantial support to
the regional economy. The Port of Philadelphia, for example, generated $335 million in business revenue in 1997 (DRBC,
1998). The Philadelphia Regional Port Authority estimated that state and local taxes from port activities that year totaled $ 13
million and supported 3,622 jobs (DRBC, 1998).
Dredging operations have been ongoing in the Delaware Estuary for more than 100 years to support shipping and
accommodate ever larger ships. Currently, the ship channel is 12-14 m (40 to 45 ft) deep and is maintained by annual
dredging that removes and disposes of over 6 million cubic yards of sediments. In 1996, the cost was SI 5 to $i 8 million
(Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
b. Heavy industry
The Delaware River Basin has one of the largest concentrations of industrial facilities, oil refineries, and petrochemical plants
in the world (DRBC, 1998). Discharges from 162 industries and municipalities and approximately 300 combined sewer
overflows go into the estuary alone.
~ The combined ports of Philadelphia, Camden, Gloucester City, Salem, and Wilmington receive over 70 percent of
the oil, over 1 billion barrels, reaching the east coast of the United States every year. The port complex is the
world's largest freshwater port and ranks second in the nation in total waterbome commerce, generating an income
of over $3 billion and providing 180,000 jobs (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
~ The Delaware Estuary supports the second largest refining-petrochemical center in the United States (Delaware
Estuary Program, 1996).
Bl-4.2 Commercial Fisheries
The Delaware Estuary is home to over 200 species of resident and migratory fish. Many of these species are an invaluable
resource for both commercial and recreational fishing.
~ At least 31 fish species are commercially harvested in the Delaware Estuary. The value of the estuary's commercial
fin fishery was about $1.4 million in 1990 (Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
~ The first recorded oyster landings in the Delaware Bay, in 1880, totaled an estimated 2.4 million harvested oyster
bushels. This number decreased to about 1 to 2 million bushels until the mid-1950's. Over the past 40 years, the
oyster industry was depressed because of two diseases, MSX and Dermo, which ultimately resulted in the closure of
the natural oyster beds in the Delaware Bay. When these beds reopened in 1996, fishermen harvested an estimated
75,000 bushels with a dockside value of approximately $1.6 million (Santoro, 1998).
~ Shad has been an important fishery in the Delaware River since colonial times (Delaware Estuary Program, 2001).
Between 1896 and 1901, the catch of shad in the Delaware River exceeded that of any other river system on the
Atlantic Coast and accounted for up to 30 percent of the entire coastal catch. On average, fishermen landed 5,445 to
6,350 metric tons (12 to 14 million pounds) annually. Shad landings began to decline rapidly in the early 1900s,
mainly due to pollution and overfishing. Although improved water quality and development of a fishery
BI-I2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
management plan led to some recovery after 1975, shad remain well below pre-1900 levels. High numbers of shad
returned from the ocean to spawn in freshwater portions of the Delaware River in 1998 and again in 2000, but 1999
records show a very low number of returns, raising concerns about the extent to which the shad population has
actually recovered. A recent study placed the current annual value of the shad fishery at $3,2 million (DRBC, 1998).
Bl-4.3 Recreational Activities
a. Recreational fishing
The Delaware River Basin provides ample opportunity for recreational fishing ranging from marine fishing to freshwater and
flyfishing. To characterize recreational fishing in the Delaware River Estuary, EPA relied mainly on the Marine Recreational
Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) (NMFS, 2001b).
The MRFSS is a comprehensive coast-wide survey of marine recreational anglers operated by the National Marine Fishery
Service (NMFS). The MRFSS is a long-term monitoring program that provides estimates of effort, participation, and fin fish
catch by recreational anglers. The MRFSS survey consists of two independent, but complementary, surveys: an intercept
survey of anglers at fishing access sites and a random digit-dial telephone survey of households.
The basic intercept survey collects information about anglers'home ZIP code, the length of their fishing trip, the species they
targeted on that trip, and the number of times anglers have fished in the past two and 12 months. Trained interviewers record
the species and numbers of fish caught that are available for inspection and then weigh and measure the fish.
NMFS used the random telephone survey to estimate recreational fishing effort (i.e., trips) on a two-month basis (as opposed
to annual participation) for coastal households. NMFS adjusted effort estimates for coastal households by the ratio of
intercept data of coastal to non-coastal and out-of-state residents to calculate total effort. The survey asked households with
individuals who had fished within two months of the phone call about the mode of fishing, the gear used, and the type of
waterbody where the trip took place for every trip taken within that period. The telephone survey also collected data on the
socioeconomic characteristics of recreational anglers.
The MRFSS found that, on average, participants spend approximately 28 days fishing at Delaware Bay and Atlantic coastal
sites of Delaware and New Jersey each year. The Delaware Bay fishermen tend to travel relatively short distances, on average
40 miles for single-day trips and 107 miles for multiple-day trips. Fishermen taking single- and multiple-day trips spend an
average of S62.43 and $ 100.24, respectively, in pursuit of their target species.4
From 1994 to 1998, recreational anglers in Delaware and New Jersey caught an annual average of:
~ 18.03 metric tons (395,744 pounds) of striped bass;
* 1,265.63 metric tons (2,790,234 pounds) of weakfish;
~ 2,527.29 metric tons (5,571,710 pounds) o f flounder;
*¦ 443.07 metric tons (976,795 pounds) of bluetish; and
~ 1,385.37 metric tons (3,054,216 pounds) of bottom fish (including Atlantic croaker, tautog, spot, and white perch).
Table B1 -3 shows the results of the MRFSS analysis of fishing participation at the lower Delaware Bay Estuary and adjacent
coastal sites in Delaware and New Jersey. The table presents the five-year average of total fishing days by state and by
fishing mode (1994 through 1998); this total number of fishing days includes both single- and multiple-day trips.
Table Bl-3 shows that anglers spent an estimated 5.4 million days fishing at the lower Delaware Bay Estuary and adjacent
Atlantic coastal sites. The NMFS data show that recreational fishing in the estuary and adjacent coastal sites is largely limited
to residents living close to the case study area, such as residents of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.
In addition to species reported by the NMFS, a 1986 creel census found that anglers made 65,690 trips and spent 299,597
hours fishing for shad in the Delaware River. This survey also estimated the economic value of recreational shad fishing in
the Delaware River in 1986 to be $3.2 million (Miller, J.P., 1995).7
* Includes travel and boat expenditures for single-day trips and travel, lodging, and boat expenditures for multiple-day trips,
' This number reflects a $50/day replacement value.
BI-13
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Table Bl-3; Recreational Fishing Participation in the Lower Delaware Bay Estuary and Atlantic Coastal Sites in
Delaware and New Jersey
Visited State
Fishing Mode
| Total Number of Fishing Days at the Delaware and
New Jersey NMFS Sites
DE |
Private or Rental Boat
390,578
DE :
Shore
| 367,402
DE |
Charter Boat
i 43,339
nj ;
Private or Rental Boat
i 2,596,380
NJ j
Shore
j 1,596,531
NJ j
Charter Boat
| 403,523
Total !
! 5,397,753
Source: NMFS, 2001b.
b. Bird watching
Hundreds of thousands of migrating birds use the estuary's
high biological productivity on their way to and from their
overwintering and breeding grounds. In fact, the estuary is
one of the most important feeding sites for shore birds in
North America, with an estimated 425,000 to 1 million
shorebirds arriving during their spring migrations. The
arrival of migratory birds, together with numerous year-
round avian residents, has promoted a burgeoning bird
watching industry. In 1988, an estimated $5.5 million was
spent by more than 90,000 bird watchers in the Cape May
area alone. Much of this activity occurred in the "off-season"
(Delaware Estuary Program, 1996).
Figure B1 -3 shows the most important bird watching areas along the Delaware River Basin. The following text highlights
some of these areas.
••• Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge
The Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refijge extends for approximately 6,070 hectares (15,000 acres) along the Atlantic
Coastal Plain on the western shore of Delaware. The refuge provides a wide diversity of habitat types (including artificial
bays and marshes, upland woods, swamps, brushy thickets, grassy fields, and croplands) and attracts numerous species of
birds. Bombay Hook was originally established in 1937 as a link in the chain of waterfowl refuges that extends from Canada
to the Gulf of Mexico. It is mainly a refuge for migrating and wintering ducks and geese but also hosts numerous other
species of migratory birds (Great Outdoor Recreation Pages, 1999). The importance of Bombay Hook as a recreational area
has increased greatly in the past 25 years, mainly because of the loss of extensive surrounding marshland to urban and
industrial development. Approximately 128,500 visitors explored the refuge in 1998 (Personal Communication, Marion
Pohlman, Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, September 21, 1999).
Wildlife can be seen year round at Bombay Hook, In October and November, waterfowl populations are at their peaks, when
over 100,000 ducks and geese use the refuge. March is the second peak for waterfowl that travel through on their return to
northern breeding grounds. April brings early shorebird migrants. Shorebirds are at their highest concentrations during May
and June, mainly because of the arrival of horseshoe crabs laying eggs along the bay shore and mud flats. These eggs provide
the shorebirds with needed energy to complete their northward migration. Wading birds such as herons, egrets, and glossy
ibis reach their peak numbers during the summer months (Great Outdoor Recreation Pages, 1999). Bombay Hook also hosts
the greatest concentration of snow geese in North America and has a long history of nesting eagles. The refuge includes a 12-
mile auto tour loop and five trails from which visitors can view the wildlife.
Bird Watching in the Delaware Bay
"The marshy convergence of water and land along the Delaware
Bay shoreline, long resistant to human encroachment, encompasses
some of the Atlantic coast's finest birding sites. Waterbirds of one
sort or another, from loons to terns, are present throughout the year.
This is one of the country's best places to find Curlew Sandpiper, a
rare wanderer from breeding grounds in Siberia, and Ruff, another
sandpiper that nests in Scandinavia and northern Asia."
White, 1999
and provided a significant economic boost to the region
Bl-14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuory
Chapter SI: Background
Figure B1 -3: Bird Watching Areas of the Delaware River Basin
* / x.,
Cumden
Gloucester
(rwal Bay B«ukvardl Wildlife MuafetBi
SfiK™ Salem
A
A ABjoftmc ^ ^
a "Rift*.J .
* Matt
Fori ,>tkte Pari f
State Pfcrk ' i Abbotta Mwiioii
A Wildlife M*n*«cniont Area
Edwin B Forsyth e National Wildlife Rcfugr-^ i J
NEW JERSEY
A
Atlantic
f^5& :•*
Viewing Area
Cumberland
Ik iftth Mreet PanllioB,
Oujb Cily
Wild life
National
A .
vflaafcisb"
: MaaaipncalArcj
« Beaicli Vkwras Areal^ ^
r*p« Ma* National WildHfe Reft,,^
Management *. .* <
Are* , .. •'
W '
,4 Wetiamd* Institute
DELAWARE
.Xs, * ~
DF, National IwtuariBt!
- BcseaKb Reserve -
St Jones R.
Delaware """W&lSSS * ,/S.;
Kay \ >nc ^
\i„ '
Wi{diife Management Area •
William D A Jane C HairJr,
Cape May Point State Park Cape Ma? Migrator}- Bird R«fege
XX*,*,.
'¦'X
J Prime Hook - . x
/National Wildlife Kcfugc. m
v X\ Cape Hcnk»pei>
• *' s' Jt\S«ato P»rk
Delaware Bay Viewing Sites
~ Viewing Recreational Site
Rfl Coastal Reach
_j National Wildlife I
Atlantic
Ocean
Sussex
10 0
—i"'M F-r
10 Kiksnwtere
Abi Awac-tatas. Int .
^Delaware Seashore State Park
A
I »fcA
Lindiao
** ite Park ;
^^CCf^Fenwiek Inland State Part
• *\ %
*~«£• ""«I ^ 45' i » '
Source: Delemie* 1993, 1999; USGS, 2000,
Bl-15
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
~J* Cape May Peninsula
The Cape May peninsula is world renowned for its importance to migratory birds. Cape May is situated at the end of a
peninsula separating Delaware Bay from the Atlantic Ocean. The peninsula acts as a funnel for songbirds, shorebirds,
waterfowl, butterflies, and hawks migrating along the Atlantic Flyway. Cape May provides critical staging areas that provide
important resting and feeding opportunities for migrating birds. The Cape May natural and recreational areas include:
~ Cape May Point State Park: A large portion of the park is a designated Natural Area and has more than 3 miles of
trails and boardwalks for nature study and hiking. The "Hawk Watch" observation platform provides an excellent
view of one of the nation's most extraordinary autumn hawk migrations. Beginning in September and extending
through December, tens of thousands of raptors, including bald eagles, peregrine falcons, ospreys, goshawks,
Cooper's hawks, and various species of owl pass the platform (Pettigrew, 1998). From July 1, 1998, through June
30,1999, over 800,000 people visited the park (Personal Communication, Cape May Point State Park, September
21, 1999).
~ Higbee Beach Wildlife Management Area: Higbee Beach is a 2.4 km (1.5 mile) stretch of beach containing the
• last remnant of coastal dune forest on the bay shore, where visitors can admire hundreds of species of migrating
songbirds and hawks. Higbee Beach is managed specifically to provide habitat for migratory wildlife. In addition to
millions of songbirds, nearly 50,000 raptors migrate over the peninsula every year, and many stop here to rest and
feed (Pettigrew, 1998).
~ William D. and Jane C. Blair Cape May Migratory Bird Refuge: This area is recognized as one of the East
Coast's premier birding spots. Thousands of raptors, shorebirds, songbirds, and waterfowl pass through the refuge
on their way south. The refuge provides a haven for two state-listed endangered species: the least tern and the piping
plover. New Jersey's beaches comprise a significant portion of the entire breeding population's nesting habitat.
Recreational viewing reported in the Survey of Sationai Demand fat Water Based Recreation
The Agency used EPA's 1994 Survey of National Demandfor Water-Based Recreation (National Demand Survey, NDS) to
characterize recreational wildlife viewing at the Delaware River Basin. EPA cooperated with the National Forest Service and
several other federal agencies and interested groups to collect data on the outdoor recreation activities of Americans. EPA's
goal was to quantify the number of people who participate in water-based recreation and their total number of recreation trips.
In addition, the survey was intended to explain how water quality conditions and other characteristics of water resources
affect these numbers. Table Bl-4 shows the results of the survey for the Delaware River Basin. The table presents two key
results (shaded columns); (1) the extrapolated national number of people who visited the Delaware River Basin during 1994,
and (2) the extrapolated national number of wildlife viewing trips to the Basin,8
To determine the total number of wildlife viewing participants from each state, EPA used the percentage of survey
respondents from each state that reported having visited the basin and the total number of state residents 18 and older.' In
addition, the survey collected information on the number of times the respondents visited the site of their last viewing trip.
EPA used this number to derive an average number of trips per visitor to the Delaware River Basin and the total number of
wildlife viewing trips by state.
Table B1 -4 uses a 1994 recreation participation survey to estimate wildlife viewing in 2000. Approximately 1.4 million
people used the Delaware River Basin for wildlife viewing.10 These visitors accounted for about 5.1 million recreational trips
to the area. Residents of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware were the most frequent visitors.
8 Notably, the NDS collected information only on the las! site visited. These numbers do not reflect people whose iast visit was to a
different area but who may have also visited the Delaware River Basin on a previous trip during the year. For the remainder of the NDS
results discussion, the reported numbers of respondents and their trips refer only to respondents whose last trip was to the Delaware River
Basin.
' The survey collected information only on respondents 18 or older.
10 Note that given the small sample size, estimates of the total number of trips to the Delaware River Basing have a laiger than
desirable degree of uncertainty.
Bl-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary
Chapter Bl: Background
Table Bl-4: National Number of Participants in Wildlife Viewing in the Delaware River Basin (DRB) in 2000
Home
j 2000 State
, Population
| (IS & over)
Number of
Survey
Respondents
Number of Respondent!. :
with List Recreational ;
Viewing Trip to the DRB ¦
Extrapolated
Number of
Participants in
Number of j
Recreational
Viewing Trips
Average
Number of
Recreational
Extrapolated
Number of
Recreational
State
Total
; % of Survey i
¦ Respondents i
Recreational
Viewing in the
DRB
to the DRB by .
Last Trip
Participants '
Viewing
Trips per
Respondent
Viewing
Trips in the
DRB
CT
j 2,563,877
159
1
; 0.6% !
N/A
1
1.0
N/A
DC
i 457,067
35
2
: 5.7% i
N/A
3
1.5
N/A
DE
i 589,013
51
14
j 27.5% j
161,690
112 |
8.0
1,293,519
FL
; 12,336,038
662
2
i 0.3% i
N/A
2 !
1.0
N/A
IN
i 4,506,089
300
1
: 0.3% ::
N/A
2 i
2.0
N/A
MD
i 3,940,314
257
12
: 4.7% j
183,984
21 ;
1.8
321,971
NC
i 6,085,266
407
1
i 0.2% :
N/A
1 j
1.0
N/A
NJ
6,326,792
346
15
i 4.3% i
274,283
75 ;
5.0
1,371,414
NY
14,286,350
774
4 '
i 0.5% i
73,831
5 |
1.3
92,289
OH
! 8,464,801
650
1
j 0.2% |
N/A
i i
1.0
N/A
PA
: 9,358,833
742
52
i 7.0% ;
655,875
151 !
2.9
1,904,560
VA
5,340,253
389
5
1.3% ;
68,641
9 i
1.8
123,553
W1
3,994,919
299
1
0.3% ;
N/A
1 =
1.0
N/A
Total
5,071
111
1,418303
384
3
S,107307
Source: Survey of National Demand for Water-Based Recreation (U.S. EPA 1994b)
N/A: EPA did not extrapolate sample-based results due to insufficient number of observations.
Bl-17
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 62: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Chapter B2: Technical and Economic
Descriptions of In Scope Facilities of
the Delaware Estuary Transition Zone
Chapter Contents
Operational 1'rofile fcU-1
CW1S Configuration and Water Withdrawal
This chapter presents additional information related to in
scope facilities within the Delaware Estuary transition
zone. Section B2-1 presents detailed EIA data on the
generating units {Salem, Hope Creek, Edge Moor, and
Deepwater) addressed by this case study and within the
scope of the Phase II rulemaking (i.e., in-scope facilities).
Section B2-2 describes the configuration of the intake
structured) at the in-scope facilities and out-of'-scope electric generating and industrial facilities. For the in-scope power
facilities, Section B2-3 presents an evaluation of the specific impacts of the proposed Phase II rule, i.e., defines the baseline
for calculating benefits.
B2-1 Operational Profile
a. Salem
During 1999, the Salem power plant operated three active units.1 Two of these are large nuclear units that use cooling water
withdrawn from the Delaware River (Units 1 and 2). The third unit is a small gas turbine (GT3). The nuclear units began
operation in June 1977 and October 1981, respectively.
Salem's total net generation in 1999 was 16.0 million MWh Unit 1 accounted for 8.0 million MWh, or 50.2 percent of the
plant's total, while Unit 2 accounted for 7.9 million MWh or 49.8 percent. The capacity utilization of these two nuclear units
was 78.1 percent and 77.6 percent, respectively.
Table B2-1 presents details for Salem's three units.
Table B2-I; Salem &eiterator Characteristics (1999).
Unit ID
Capacity
(MW)
Prime Mover1;
Energy
Source*
In-Service
Date
Operating
Statu*
Net Generation
(MWh)
Capacity '
Utilization'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
1,170
np i
UR
Jim. 1977
Operating
8,009,172
78.1%
SA1
2
1,170
np ;
UR
Oct. 1981
Operating
7,949,387
77.6%
SA2
OT3
42
GT i
F02
Jun. 1971
Operating
2,752
0.8%
Not applicable
Total
2382
15,961,311
76.5%
" Prime mover categories: NP = nuclear power; GT = gas turbine.
b Energy source categories: UR = Uranium; F02 = No. 2 Fuel Oil.
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation if the unit ran at fill!
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, 2001b, 2001 d.
' For the purposes of this analysis, "active" units include generating units that are operating, on standby, on cold standby, on test, on
maintenance/repairs, or out of service (all year). Active units do not include units that are on indefinite shutdown or retired.
B2-J
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 82: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Figure B2-1 below presents Salem's electricity generation history between 1977 and 2000 and Figure B2-2 presents Salem's
operational intake flows. Figure B2-1 shows that since 1982, when both of Salem's nuclear units were fully operational,
Salem's generation has ranged between 10 and 18 million MW, During two periods, however, 1983-1984 and 1995-1996,
Salem's generation was considerably lower. During 1995, Unit 1 was operating at only 26.0 percent while Unit 2 was
operating at 20 J percent. Both nuclear units were shut down during 1996, and during 1997, Unit 2 resumed generation at
25.5 percent of capacity while Unit 1 remained shut down (U.S. Department of Energy, 2002).
Figure B2-1: Salem Net Electricity Generation 1977 - 2000 (in MWh)
18,000.000
16,000,000
14,000.000
12,000,000
X
s
s
c 10,000,000
o
IS
is
c
$
%
z
4,000,000
2,000,000
1887
1932
1977
1987
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Id,
B2-2
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B2: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Figure B2-2: Salem Operational Intake Flows 1977 - 1998 (in MGD)
Salam Generating Station Historical Annual Water Withdrawal
(Circulating Water System & Service Water System)
Year
Year
Total Withdrawal (MGD)
1977
758
1978
858
1979
644
19B0
1,254
1961
1,596
1982
1,713
1963
1,468
1984
1,336
1985
2,298
1986
2,040
1967
2,082
1988
2,267
1969
2,056
1990
1.903
1991
2,184
1992
1,778
1993
1,763
1994
2,109
1995
1,529
1996
227
1997
949
1998
2,612
Source: PSEG, 2001 f.
b. Hope Creek
Hope Creek operates one active nuclear unit. The unit began operation in November 1986 and uses cooling water withdrawn
from the Delaware River. Hope Creek's total net generation in 1999 was 7,7 million MWh with a capacity utilization of 75,1
percent.
Table B2-2 presents details for Hope Creek's unit.
Table B2-2; Hope Creek Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit ID
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source11
In-Service
Date
Operating Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
1,170
NB
UR
Nov. 1986
Operating
7,701,078
75.1%
HC1
Total
1,170
7,701,078
75.1%
4 Prime mover categories: NB = nuclear.
" Energy source categories: UR = uranium.
c Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation if the unit ran at full
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source; U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, 2001b.
B2-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B2: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Figure B2-3 below presents Hope Creek's electricity generation history between 1986 and 2000. The graph shows that Hope
Creek's generation has been relatively stable since its first full year of operation in 1987, ranging between 6,5 and 9 million
MW, with a capacity utilization of between 64 and 86 percent.
Figure B2-3: Hope Creek Net Electricity Generation 1986 - 2000 (in MWh)
9,000,000
8.000,000
7.000,000
i 6,000,000
*
e
0
1 5,000,000
0
e
0
o
•s 4,000,000
3.000,000
1,000.000
1991
1996
1986
Y#ar
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Id.
B2-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B2: Technical arid Economic Descriptions
c. Edge Moor
During ! 999, the Edge Moor power plant operated four active units. Three of these units employ a steam-electric prime
mover (Units 3 and 4 are coal-fired, Unit 5 is oil-fired) and use cooling water withdrawn from the Delaware River while Unit
10 is a gas turbine. All active units were built between December 1954 and August 1973. Two additional steam-electric
units, Units 1 and 2, were retired during July 1983,
Edge Moor's total net electricity generation in 1999 was 2,2 million MWh. The oil-fired steam-electric unit accounted for
1.2 million, or 54 percent, of this total. The two coal-fired steam-electric units accounted for a combined 1.0 million, or
45 percent. The capacity utilization of Edge Moor's steam-electric units ranged from 30.7 percent to 49.3 percent.
Table B2-3 presents details for Edge Moor's four active and two retired units.
Table B2-3: Edge Moor ©enerator Characteristics (1999).
Unit ID
i Capacity
| (MW)
j Prime
j Mover* j
Energy
Source1"
I In-Service
Date
"• Operating Status ¦
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
; 69
i ST ;
F06
1 Jun. 1951
! Retired - Jul. 1983 1
;
2
; 69
: st
F06
| Jul. 1951
I Retired-Jul. 1983 i
3
i 75
j st j
BIT
! Dec. 1954
: Operating ;
278,410 i
42.4%
3
4
i 177
st :
BIT
| Apr. 1966
; Operating ;
763,383 !
49.3%
. 4
5
i 446
i ST i
F06
; Aug. 1973
; Operating j
1,201,164 |
30.7%
5
10
I 13
i
i 0T !
; ;
F02
i Jun. 1963
! Operating ;
662 j
0.6%
Not
applicable
Total"
710
:
2,243,619 |
36.1%
' Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine, GT = gas turbine.
' Energy source categories: F06 *= No. 6 Fuel Oil, BIT = Bituminous Coal, F02 =N'o. 2 Fuel Oil.
c Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation if the unit ran at full
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
" Total only includes units that are operating.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, 2001b, 200 Id.
B2-5
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 82: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Figure B2-4 below presents Edge Moor's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000. Edge Moor's generation has
varied considerably during this time period, ranging from a high of almost 4 million MWh to a low of less than 1.8 million.
The closure of Units 1 and 2 in 1983 does not seem to have affected Edge Moor's electricity generation profile between 1970
and 2000, '
Figure B2-4: Edge Moor Net Electricity Generation 1970 - 2000 (in MWh)
i.5QQ,QQ0
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
g
2.500,000
1
C
©
i
2,000,000
1,000,000
500.000
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1895
Y»«r
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Id.
B2-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
d. Deepwater
During 1999, the Deepwater power plant operated four active units: Units 1,4, 6, and GTA, Each unit has a steam-electric
prime mover and uses cooling water withdrawn from the Delaware River; while Unit GTA is a gas turbine. All active units
were built between May 1930 and April 1967. In addition, three steam-electric units were retired between June 1991 and July
1994 (Units 3, 5, and 7).
Deepwater's total net generation in 1999 was approximately 0.36 million MWh. Unit 6 accounted for 0.32 million MWh, or
87 percent, of this total. Unit 1 was shut down for five months during 1999 but accounted for most of the remaining
10.5 percent of total net generation. The capacity utilization of Deepwater's active operating units ranged from 4.6 percent
(Unit 1) to 39.2 percent (Unit 6). Unit 4 was on cold standby during 1999 and had a capacity utilization rate of 0.1 percent.
Table B2-4 presents details for Deepwater's four active and three retired units.
Table B2-4: Deepwater Generator Characteristics (1999).
Unit ID
Capacity
(MW)
Prim
Mover*
Energy
Source1"
In-Service
Date
i Net
Operating Status Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
3
53
ST
P06
Mar. 1930
Retired - Jun. 1991
5
20
ST
BIT
Mar. 1942
Retired - Jul, 1994 .
7
27
ST
BIT
May 1957
Retired-Jul. 1994 :
4
53
ST
F06
May 1930
Cold Standby 664
0.1%
4
6
92
ST
BIT
Dec. 1954
Operating 315,683
39,2%
4
1
96
ST
NG
Dec. 1958
Operating 38,262
4.6%
1
GTA
19
GT
NG
Apr. 1967
Operating 9,787
5.9%
Not
applicable
Total"
260
364,396
16.0%
" Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine, GT = gas turbine.
b Energy source categories: F06 = No. 6 Fuel Oil, BIT = Bituminous Coal, NG = natural gas.
c Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation if the unit ran at lull
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
d Total only includes units that are operating.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, 2001b, 2001 d.
B2-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B2: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Figure B2-5 below presents Deepwater's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000. The graph shows that
Deepwater's electricity generation has steadily declined throughout the 30-year time period. The considerable decline in the
mid- 1970s may panly be explained by the construction of two new large nuclear facilities in the region. Three Mite Island
began operation of an 872 MW unit in 1974, A second unit of 961 MW began operation in December of 1978, In addition,
Calvert Cliffs began operation of a 918 MW unit in 1975 and of a second, 911 MW, unit in 1977. These modem baseload
plants may have displaced some of the generation of older, less efficient plants like Deepwater.
Figure B2-5: Deepwater Net Electricity Generation 1970 - 2000 (in MWh)
2,500.000
2,000.000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001d.
B2-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter BE: Technical and Economic Descriptions
B2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
This section describes clean water intake structure technologies at power generating and industrial facilities in the Delaware
River Transition Zone, fn addition to the 4 in-scope power generating facilities, PSE&G's Logan Generating Station and
Conectiv's Hay Road Generating Station are located in the Transition Zone. The Logan Generating Station withdraws only 2
million gallons per day (MGD) from the Delaware River and has Fine mesh wedgewire screens on the intake structure. The
Hay Road Station withdraws only 1.6 MGD and has a wet, closed cycle cooling system. EPA does not have information on
the design of the intake structure at Hay Road or three industrial facilities, SP1 Polyols, Citisteel, and Sun Refining, also in the
Transition Zone. Each of the industrial facilities has intake flows of less than 10 MGD. The combined intake flows for the
three industrial facilities (about 12 MGD) represented only about 0.4 percent of the total cooling water intake flow. For
purposes of estimating damages, EPA has assumed that Hay Road and three industrial facilities have conventional traveling
screens.
a. Salem
PSE&G's Salem Generating Station has twelve separate intake bays in the Delaware River, six bays each for Generating Units
1 and 2. Prior to 1979, Salem Unit 1 had conventional (linkbelt) traveling screens designed for intermittent operation and
debris handling. In 1979, Ristoph traveling screens'with 3/8 inch mesh were installed on the Unit 1 intakes. The screens were
designed for continuous rotation with fish handling and return systems. When Unit 2 came on-line in 1981, its intakes were
designed with the same Ristoph screen system as Unit 1. Salem's screen and fish handling and return systems were most
recently modified in 1994-95 to enhance fish survival. Both the screens and the fish baskets are now constructed of smooth
materials with curved lips on the 10-foot long fish baskets. A low pressure spray is used to remove organisms followed by a
high pressure spray to remove remaining debris. Fish and debris washed from the screens are returned to the river through bi-
directional troughs on the north or south side of the intake structure depending upon the direction of tidal flow.
Under the conditions of the facility's 1994 NPDES permit reissuance, the operator has been required to restore a minimum of
10,000 acres of formerly diked wetlands and/or wetlands dominated by Phragmites Australis. Upland buffer can also count
towards the 10,000 acre total at a 3:1 ratio. This has been ongoing since 1995. In addition, the permit requires the facility to
construct a minimum of five fish ladders on the Delaware River tributaries to restore spawning runs of two species of river
herring, namely alewife and bluebaek herring (steeppass ladder design). The permit also requires the operator to pursue the
study of sound deterrents.
b. Hope Creek
PSE&G's Hope Creek Nuclear Generating station has a natural draft cooling tower system. Water is withdrawn from the
Delaware River at Artificial Island just north of Salem, 20 feet from the shore. The cooling water intake structure consists of:
(1) trash racks and trash rake, (2) curtain wall, and (3) four conventional traveling screens. Each screen is continuously
rotated and baskets have troughs on the lower lips. A 20 pound per square inch (psi) low pressure wash is used to remove
organisms followed by a 90 psi high pressure wash for debris removal. The average intake flow at the facility is 62 MGD to
replace losses from evaporation and drift and the discharge of cooling tower blowdown.
c. Edge Moor
Conectiv's Edge Moor Power Plant withdraws water from the Delaware River. Since 1983, the cooling water intake structure
has consisted of trash racks followed by traveling screens. Units 3 and 4 have a total of five 9.5 mm, dual flow traveling
screens rotated intermittently. Unit 5 has 7 conventional traveling screens and one dual flow screen that are rotated
intermittently once every 8 hours. Organisms and debris are washed off the screens with 80-120 psi sprays into a trough and
then returned to the River. The total design capacity of the cooling water intake structures is about 782 MGD, which is also
the approximate volume of water withdrawn from the river.
d Deep water
Conectiv's Deepwater Generating Station obtains cooling water make-up from three intake bays in the Delaware River at the
Delaware Memorial Bridge. The average intake flow at the facility is 104.6 MGD from the river. The 3 intake bays supply
water to Generating Units 1,4, and 6. As noted above, Unit 4 was on cold standby as of 1999 with only minimal generation
and intake requirements. Water is withdrawn through an intake structure (or intake crib) which is located approximately 75
feet off shore. Each intake is equipped with a single bay and trash racks. The intake water passes through submerged pipes
that are located eight feet (bottom elevation) below mean low water on the shoreline bulkhead opposite the intake crib. The
space between the face of the bulkhead and the back of the intake crib forms a discharge canal that is parallel to the river and
open at both ends. The intake water then passes through on-shore conventional traveling screens where there are two screens
B2-9
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B2 Technical and Economic Descriptions
for each unit. The screens are not rotated on a continuous basis. The screens are equipped with a debris removal system and
return sluice.
e. Chambers Works
Dupont's Chambers Works facility has a dedicated intake structure co-located with the Deepwater Generating Station's
offshore intakes in Delaware River at the Delaware Memorial Bridge. The intake consists of angled bar screens and two
modified traveling screens. The screens are stainless steel wire mesh with 6,4 mm openings and lip troughs. Organisms
removed by the low pressure spray are collected and returned to the river through a fiberglass fish sluice that is not
submerged. Therefore, any surviving organisms returned to the surface waterbody via the return system would experience a
drop in gravity prior to reaching the water surface. The operator can provide flow augmentation, as needed, to the fish sluice.
The screens are rotated and cleaned once every 8 hours. The average intake flow is 37 MGD from the River.
f. Delaware City Refinery
Motiva's Delaware City Refinery withdraws water from the Delaware River via Cedar Creek. Cedar Creek is essentially an
intake canal, used primarily for non-contact cooling. The facility's cooling water intake structure is located at the terminus of
Cedar Creek approximately one mile from the river. The cooling water intake structure consists of a trash rack followed by 9
vertical traveling screens located in front of the circulating water pumps. Six screens have 3/8 inch mesh and the other three
are 3/16 inch mesh. During summer, each screen is rotated once every 8 hours for 30 minutes. During winter, screen rotation
occurs once per day. Organisms and fish are washed off the screen with a 70 psi spray into 6 inch deep trough. The trough
flows back into Cedar Creek about 1,000 feet downstream from the intake. The facility has a small cooling tower on-site.
However, the recirculating flow is minimal compared to the overall intake flow. The average intake flow is 364 MGD from
Cedar Creek.
g. Oupont Chemical and Pigment
The Dupont Chemical and Pigment Department facility has one cooling water intake structure that provides make-up for two
non-contact, once through cooling systems as well as process water for facility operations. The intake is located 180 feet
offshore in the Delaware River. The intake has vertical, conventional single entry/exit traveling screen and fish/debris
conveyance trough. The design capacity of the intake is 33.8 MGD. The average intake flow is 7 MGD from the river.
h. General Chemical Corporation
General Chemical Corporation's Delaware Valley facility has an intake structure located along the Delaware River shoreline.
The structure is dedicated to facility cooling operations and consists of trash racks and conventional vertical traveling screens.
The average intake flow is 33.9 MGD from the river.
B2-1Q
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3' Evaluation of I4E Data
Chapter B3:
Evaluation of I&E Data
Although 20 years of I&E data are available for the Salem
facility, I&E data for other CWIS of the transition zone are
limited. Thus, to evaluate the potential cumulative
impacts of all transition zone CWIS, EPA extrapolated
Salem's I&E rates to other transition zone facilities, as
described in this chapter. Section B3-1 lists Fish and
shellfish species that are impinged and entrained by CWIS
of the transition zone, Section B3-2 summarizes the life
histories of the primary species impinged and entrained,
Section B3-3 describes the methods PSEG used to
estimate I&E at Salem, Section B3-4 presents estimates of
annual impingement at Salem, and Section B3-5 presents
estimates of annual entrainment at Salem. Section B3-6
outlines the methods used by EPA to extrapolate Salem's
I&E rates to other transition zone CWIS, Section B3-7
presents impingement extrapolations, Section B3-8
presents entrainment extrapolations, and Section B3-9
summarizes the cumulative I&E impacts of CWIS of the
transition zone.
B3-1 Transition Zone Species
Vulnerable to I&E
EPA evaluated all fishery species known to be impinged or entrained by the Salem facility and other CWIS of the transition
zone, including commercial, recreational, and forage species. Table B3-1 lists these species and the categories used by the
Salem facility in their assessment of these species for their 1999 Permit Renewal Application (see F-4 Table 1 of Appendix
F). Species names in bold indicate those fishery species considered by Salem to be "representative important species" (RIS)
for assessment purposes. All other species were classified by Salem as non-RIS species.
Several federally listed T&E species are occasionally impinged at these facilities, including shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum), green sea turtle (Chelania mydas), Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), and loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta). However, biological assessments conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National
Marine Fisheries Service indicated that populations of these T&E species are not being jeopardized, and therefore potential
losses of these species were not considered by PSEG in Salem's 1999 Application (PSEG, 1999c). Because of the lack of
I&E data on these species, EPA was unable to evaluate potential CWIS impacts on them.
Table B3-1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E by CWIS in the Transition Zone.
Names in Bold Are Species Designated as RIS by the Salem Facility
(see F-4 Table 1 of Appendix F of the 1999 Salem Permit Renewal Application).
Common Name
Scientific Name
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Alewife
¦Alosa pseudoharengus
•: x :
American eel
¦.Anguilla rostrala
: X j
X
American shad
i Alosa sapidissima
: x i
X
Atlantic cod
; Gadus morhua
X
B3-I
CHAPTER CONTENTS
¦
B3-1
Transition Zone Species Vulnerable to I&E
., B3-I
B3-2
Life Histories of Primary Species Impinged
and Entrained
.. B3-4
B3-3
Salem I&E Monitoring and PSEO's Methods for
Calculating Annual l&E
, BJ-2I
B3-3.i Impingement Monitoring ...
, B3-21
B3-.1 2 Entrainment Monitoring
, B3-23
B3-3J Potential Biases and Uncertainties in
PSEO's l&E Estimates
^;B3.2S
!}¦* 3 4 Overview of KPA's Evaluation of
Salem's l&E Data
, [i.V27
BjM
S Jem's Annua! Impingement
. B3-27
B3-S
Salem s Annual tntratnmsnt .v« ,
. BV33
B3-6
Extrapolation of Salem's f&E Rate to Other
Transition Zom Facilities-
. 133-40
B3-6.I Impingement Eximpolntion
BJ-4!)
B3-6.2 Impingement Extrapolation
. B3-4D
BJ-7
Salem's Cunent t&E
B3-40
B3-N
Cumulative Impacts' Summary of Estimated
Total I&E at Al! Transition Zww CWIS.
. B3-4I
-------
I 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table B3-1; Aquatic Species Vulnerable to IAE by CW1S in the Transition Zone (com.)
Names in Bold Are Species Designated as RIS by the Salem Facility
(see F-4 Table I of Appendix F of the 1999 Salem Permit Renewal Application),
Common Name
Scientific Name
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Atlantic croaker
Micropogonias undulatus
X
; X
Atlantic herring
iClupea harengus \
\ X
Atlantic menhaden
\Brevoortia tvrannus \
X
Atlantic silverside
\Menidia menidia \
X
Atlantic sturgeon
\Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus ;
X
Banded killifish
\Fundulus diaphanus diaphanus !
X
Bay anchovy
Anchou mitchtUi
X
Black crappie
Pomoxis nigromaculatus \
X
Black drum
\Pogonias cromis '
X
\ x
Black sea bass
\Centropristts striata \
X
j X
Blackcheek tonguefish
Symphurus plagiusa ;
X
Blue crab
i Calimectes sapidus
X
i x
Blue runner
i Caranx crysos :
X
Blueback herring
Alosa aestivalis
: X*
X
Blucfish
¦Pomatomus sahator
X
! X
Bluegill
ILepomis macrochirus ;
X
Bluespotted sunfish
¦ tnneacanihus g/oriosus
X
Brown bullhead
¦Ameiurus nebulosus ;
\ x
Butterfish
Pcprilus triacanthm
X
Channel catfish
'•¦Ictalurus punctatus
i x*
Common carp
: Cyprinus carpio carpio i
X
Conger eel
'•Conger oceanims \
! X
Crevallejack
'.Caranx hippos :
X
Cusk-eel
.Lepophidium spp. j
X
Eastern silvery minnow
¦ Hybognathus regius
X
Feather blenny
\Hypsoblermius hentzi i
X
Florida pompano
: Trachinotus carolinus
: X
Fourspine stickleback
;Apeltes quadmcus i
X
Fringed flounder
\Etropus crossotus \
X
Gizzard shad
[Dorosoma cepedianum
X
Goosefish
Lophius amencanus
X
Hake
; Urophycis spp.
X
i x
Harvestfish
] Pcprilus alepidotus ;
X
Herring
\Alosa spp. \
: X
Hogchoker
i Trinectes maculatm
X
Inland silverside
I Menidia beryllina ;
X
Jack
: Caranx hippos ;
| X
King mackerel
"¦¦Scomberomarus cavaila ;
| X
Largemouth bass
¦ Micropterus salmoides .
X
Lined seahorse
{Hippocampus erectus
X
Minnows
'.Fundulus spp. \
X
Mud sunfish
\Acaniharchus pomatis \
X
B3-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 8*. The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3; Evaluation of IAE Data
Table B3-1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to IAE by CWIS in the Transition Zone (cont.).
Names in Bold Are Species Designated as RIS by the Salem Facility
(see F-4 Table I of Append)* F of the 1999 Salem Permit Renewal Application)
Common Name
j Scientific Name ;
Commercial
; Recreational
Forage
Mumrnichog
'¦Fmdulus hetemclitus heteroclitus ;
X
Naked goby
: Gobiosoma bosci ;
; i
X
Northern kingfish
[Mentieirrhus saxaiilts \
; X
Northern pipefish
ISyngnathus fuscus \
X
Northern puffer
\Sphoeroides maculatus j
= X
Northern searobin
]Prionotus carolinus :
j x
Orange filefish
¦ Alutcrus schoepjii j
; x
Oyster toadfish
Opsanus tau :
X
1 x
Permit
\Trachinatus falcatus i
X
Pigftsh
\Orthopristis chrysoptera j
| X
Pipefish
iSyngnalhus spp, i
X
Planehead
¦ Stephanolepis hispidu \
X
Pollock
\ Pollachius pollachius :
i x
Pumpkin seed
\Lepomis gibbosus ;
X
Rainbow smelt
; Osmerus mordax mordax j
X
Red hake
1 Urophycis chuss !
X
; X
Redfiri pickerel
lEsox americanus americanus \
X
Rough silvcrside
\Membras murtinica ;
X
Sandbar shark
\Carcharhinus plumbeus :
i X'
X
Scup
: Siena torn us chrysops j
I X
Sea lamprey
: I'etromyzon mar in us
X
Searobins
\ Trigtidae i
i X
Sheepshead minnow
; Cyprinodon variegatus varieg ;
! x
Shrimp
; Gammarus spp. ;
X
Shrimp
Neomysis spp. ;
X
Silver perch
\Bairdiella chrysoura •
: x
Silversi des
; Membras'Menidia spp.
X
Skilletfish
: Gobiesox strumosus :
X
Smalimouth bass
[Micropterus dolomieui \
X
Smooth dogfish
; Mwitelus canis i
X
Spanish mackerel
IScombcromorus maculatus :
x
Spot
Leiostomus xanthurus
X
; x
Spotted hake
; Urophycis regia ;
i x
Spotted seatrout
:Cynoscion nebuiosus j
; X
Striped anchovy
lAnchoa hepsetus :
X
Striped bass
j Morone saxatiiis
X
i X
Striped cusk-eel
:Ophidian marginatum 1
X
Striped killifish
\Fundulus majalis ;
X
Striped mullet
; Mugil cephalus ;
j x
Striped searobiri
IPrionotus evoians ;
i x
Summer flounder
\Parallchshys dentaus j
X*
: X
Tautog
; Tautoga onitis \
X
i x
B3-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3; Evaluation of I&E Data
Table B3-1; Aquatic Species Vulnerable to ME by CWIS in the Transition Zone (cent,)
Names In Bold Are Species Designated as RIS by the Salem Facility
(see F-4 Table 1 of Appendix F of the 1999 Salem Permit Renewal Application),
Common Name
Scientific Name
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Tessellated darter
Etheustvma ulmstedi \
X
Threespine stickleback
•¦Gasterosteus aculeatus aculeatus .
X
Warmouth
; Lepomis gulosus ;
X
Weakfish
i Cynoscion regalis
X
X
White catfish
Ictalurus cams :
X"
White crappie
\Pomoxis annularis
X
White mullet
IMugii curema
X
White perch
; Morone amerieana
X
X
White sucker
¦ Catostomm commersorti
X
Windowpane
]Scophihalmus aquasus \
X
Xs
Winter flounder
¦Pleuronectes americanus ;
X
Yellow bullhead
\lctalurus naialis
X
Yellow perch
\Perca flavescens ;
X
¦ Designated as being in the recreational fishery at family level only.
Sources: PSEG, 1999c, Attachment 4, Table 1, NMFS, 2001a, NMFS, 2001b,
S3-2 Life Histories of Primary Species Impinged and Entrained
Life history characteristics of the primary species impinged or entrained at the Salem facility are summarized in the following
sections. The species described are those with the highest I&E rates at Salem (presented below in Sections 3.4 and 3.5).
Alewife (Absa pseudoharengusj
Alewife is a member of the herring family, Clupeidae, and ranges along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to North
Carolina (Scott and Grossman, 1998). Alewife tend to be more abundant in the mid-Atlantic and along the northeastern coast.
They are anadromous, migrating inland from coastal waters in the spring to spawn. Adult alewife overwinter along the
northern continental shelf, settling at the bottom in depths of 56 to 110 m (184 ft to 361 ft) (Able and Fahay, 1998). Adults
feed on a wide variety of food items, while juveniles feed mainly on plankton (Waterfield, 1995).
Alewife has been introduced to a number of lakes to provide forage for sport fish (Jude et al„ 1987b). Ecologically, alewife is
an important prey item for many fish, and commercial landings of river herring along the Atlantic coast have ranged from a
high of 33,974 metric tons (74.9 million pounds) in 1958 to a low of less than 2,268 metric tons (5 million pounds) in recent
years (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000b).
Spawning is temperature-driven, beginning in the spring as water temperatures reach 13 to 15 *C, and ending when they
exceed 27 °C (Able and Fahay, 1998). Spawning takes place in the upper reaches of coastal rivers, in slow-flowing sections
of slightly brackish or freshwater.
Females lay demersal eggs in shallow water less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep (Wang and Kemehan, 1979). They may lay from
60,000 to 300,000 eggs at a time (Kocik, 2000). The demersal eggs are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in) in diameter. Larvae
hatch at a size of approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) total length (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae remain in the
upstream spawning area for some time before drifting downstream to natal estuarine waters. Juveniles exhibit a diurnal
vertical migration in the water column, remaining near the bottom during the day and rising to the surface at night (Fay et al,
1983c). In the fall, juveniles move offshore to nursery areas (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Maturity is reached at an age of 3 to 4 years for males, and 4 to 5 years for females (Able and Fahay, 1998). The average size
at maturity is 265 to 278 mm (10.4 to 10.9 in) for males and 284 to 308 mm (11.2 to 12.1 in) for females (Able and Fahay,
1998). Alewife can live up to 8 years, but the average age of the spawning population tends to be 4 to 5 years (Waterfield,
1995; PSEG, 1999c).
B3-4
-------
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
ALEWIFE
(Aiosa pseudoharengus)
\ Food source: Small fish, zooplankton. fish eggs, amphipods, mysids/
; Prey for: Striped bass, weakfish, rainbow trout.
Life stage information;
¦ Eggs: demersal
. ~ Found in waters less than 2 m (6,6 ft) deep,"
• ~ Are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in) in diameter/
; Larvae:
. ~ Approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) at hatching/
i ~ Remain in upstream spawning area for some time before drifting
downstream to natal estuanne waters.
Juveniles:
~ Stay on the bottom during the day and rise to the surface at night.8
~ Emigrate to ocean in summer and fall/
Adults: anadromous
~ Reach maturity at 3-4 years for males and 4-5 years for females/
~ Average size at maturity is 265-278 mm (10.4-10.9 in) for males and
284-308 mm (11.2-12.1 in) for females/
~ Overwinter along the northern continental shelf/
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: River herring, sawbelly, kyak, branch
herring, freshwater herring, bigeye herring, gray herring,
grayback, white herring.
Similar species: Blueback herring.
Geographic range: Along the western Atlantic coast from
Newfoundland to North Carolina."
Habitat: Wide-ranging, tolerates fresh to saline waters,
travels in schools.
Lifespan: May live up to 8 years/'
Fecundity: Females may lay from 60,000 to 300,000 eggs
at a time.11
Location:
~ Range along the western Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to North Carolina.
~ Some landlocked populations exist in the Great Lakes and smaller lakes.
* Scott and Grossman, 1998.
b PSEG, 1999c.
c Waterfield, 1995.
d Kocik, 2000.
' Wang and Kemehan, 1979.
' Able and Fahay, 1998.
8 Fayetal., 1983c.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
American shad (Alosa sapidissima)
American shad is a member of the herring family, Clupeidae, American shad ranges from the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canada,
south to Florida, and are most abundant from Connecticut to North Carolina (Able and Fahay, 1998). An anadromous
species, American shad migrate inland to spawn in natal rivers. Suitable American shad spawning habitat has declined over
the years because of degradation in water quality and the construction of dams blocking natal spawning grounds (Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000b). Though still commercially and recreationally an important species, the
economic importance of American shad has declined in the last century with its decreased abundance (Wang and Kernehan,
1979),
Spawning generally takes place from mid-April through early June, when water temperatures reach 12 "C (Able and Fahay,
1998). The slightly demersal eggs may hatch in 12 to 15 days at 12 "C (54 °F) and in 6 to 8 days at 17 °C (63 *F) (Wang and
Kernehan, 1979; Able and Fahay, 1998), Larvae hatch at 5 to 10 mm (0.2 to 0,4 in), and are pelagic for 2 to 3 weeks. At 25
to 28 mm, shad become juveniles (Able and Fahay, 1998), and will remain in riverine habitats through the first summer,
gradually dispersing downstream (Able and Fahay, 1998). Emigration from estuanne habitats to marine waters occurs in the
fall, and is triggered by decreasing water temperatures, Young-of-yearare approximately 75 to 125 mm (3.0 to 4,9 in) at this
point (Able and Fahay, 1998),
At 1 year, juveniles reach approximately 120 mm (4.7 in). Males tend to mature at 3 to 5 years, while females mature at 4 to
6 years (Able and Fahay, 1998). Mortality rates vary according to spawning grounds. Over half of the American shad that
B3-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
spawn in the Hudson River survive spawning migration and return to spawn again the following year (Wang and Kernehan,
1979), compared to less than 5 percent in the Delaware River (Wang and Kernehan, 1979).
American shad have a potential lifespan of up to 11 years (Carlander, 1969), but generally do not live longer than 8 years
(PSEG, 1999c).
AMERICAN SHAD
(Alma mpidmima)
Family: Chipeidae (herrings).
Common names: Shad, Atlantic shad, white shad.
Similar species: Atlantic herring, alewife, blueback herring,
Atlantic menhaden.
Geographic range: Atlantic coast from the St, Lawrence River
to Florida.* May migrate more than 12,000 miles during their
average lifespan.
Habitat: Marine waters, returning to inland tributaries and
streams to spawn.
Lifespan: Generally up to 8 years."
Fecundity: Females can lay over 600,000 eggs, as several
hovering males fertilize them.'
Food source: Primarily plankton feeders, while at sea they feed on
plankton, small crustaceans, and small fishes.
Prey for: Sea lamprey, striped bass, bluefish.
Life stage information:
Eggs: slightly demersal
~ Shad move far enough upstream for the eggs to drift downstream
and hatch before reaching saltwater.
~ The eggs mature rapidly and transform into young fish in 3 to 4
weeks.
Larvae: pelagic
*¦ Larvae hatch out at 5 to 10 mm (0.2 to 0.4 in) and are pelagic for 2
to 3 weeks.d
Juveniles:
~ The young-of-year remain in fresh to brackish water until early fall
before entering the sea. Some juveniles do not enter the sea and
instead overwinter in deep holes near the mouth of the bay.
Adults: anadromous
~ American shad are anadromous and do not feed during their return
migration.
Location:
~ Inshore and offshore. Atlantic coast from the St. Lawrence River to Florida. Spends most of its life at sea in large schools. It only
enters the freshwater river in which it was bom to spawn.
~ American shad may migrate more than 1,000 miles during their average life span of five years at sea. They enter the bay from
January to June between the ages of 4 and 6 to spawn in the freshwater and low-saiinity tributaries.
• Abie and Fahay, 1998,
b PSEG, 1999c.
c Walburg, I960.
^ Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from State of Maine Department of Marine Resources, 2001a.
Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias unc/ulatus)
The Atlantic croaker is a member of the drum family Sciaenidae. Its distribution ranges from Massachusetts to the Gulf of
Mexico along the Atlantic coast, with the greatest abundance from Chesapeake Bay to Florida (Able and Fahay, 1998;
Desfosse et al,, 1999), Populations of Atlantic croaker fluctuated over the last century, showing high levels in the 1940%, then
declining sharply in the 1950's and 1960's (Joseph, 1972). Numbers remained low until the mid-1970's and steadily
increased since then (Wang and Kernehan, 1979). Commercial landings in Delaware were reported as low as 0.1 metric tons
(220 lb) in 1988, increasing to 6.7 metric tons (14,770 lb) in 1999 (Personal Communication, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland, March 26,2001).
As a bottom-feeding fish, the Atlantic croaker feeds mainly on worms, crustaceans, and fish (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, 2000a). It can tolerate a wide range of salinities ranging from freshwater to 70 ppt (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Spawning occurs offshore from September through December along the continental shelf between Delaware Bay and Cape
Hatteras (Morse, 1980a; Able and Fahay, 1998).
B3-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Female fecundity along the mid-Atlantic coast ranges from 100,800 to 1,742,000 eggs in females from 196 to 390 mm (7,7 to
15.4 in) in total length (Morse, 1980a). Atlantic croaker larvae enter Delaware Bay in fall and spend the winter over the
continental shelf. Young croaker use the estuary as a nursery area in late winter, spring, and summer. Larvae are most
abundant in September-October and juveniles are most abundant in October-January. Young-of-year leave the offshore shelf
waters for inshore estuaries beginning in October, at lengths of 8 to 20 mm (0,3 to 0.8 in) (Able and Fahay, 1998). Young-of-
year are often found over soft mud bottoms at water temperatures between 9.5 and 23.2 "C (49.1 and 73.8 °F), and tend to
overwinter in deeper areas of the same habitats (Cowan and Birdsong, 1995). By age 1, individuals in the Delaware Bay have
reached lengths of 135 to 140 mm (Able and Fahay, 1998). In the fall, age 1 individuals leave their overwintering estuaries to
migrate offshore and south for their second winter (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Maturity begins at lengths of 140 to 170 mm (5.5 to 6.7 in), as Atlantic croaker approach 2 years (White and Chittenden,
1977). Atlantic croaker is a relatively short-lived species, living to a maximum age of 2 to 4 years in the Mid-Atlantic Bight
(White and Chittenden, 1977), Adults tend to be less than 200 mm (7.9 in) long south of Cape Hatteras (North Carolina),
although they can reach more than 350 mm (13.8 in). Individuals north of Cape Hatteras are generally larger (White and
Chittenden, 1977).
ATLANTIC CROAKER
(Mkropogottias undutatus)
Family: Sciaenidae (drums).
Common names: Corvina. hardhead, king billy,
roncadina, and grumbler.
Similar species: Red drum, weakfish, spotted seatrout,
spot.
Geographic range; From Massachusetts to the Gulf of
Mexico along the western Atlantic coast, with the greatest
abundance from Chesapeake Bay to Flori da."
Habitat: Usually found over mud and sandy mud bottoms
in coastal waters and estuaries."
Lifespan: Croaker generally live for 2-4 years."
Fecundity; Females may lay between 100,800 to 1.74
million eggs.4
Pood source: Croaker are opportunistic bottom-feeders that consume a
variety of invertebrates (mysid shrimp, copepods, marine worms) and
occasionally fish.
Prey for: Striped bass, flounder, shark, spotted seatrout, other croaker,
sluefish, and weakfish.
Life stage information:
Eggs; weakly demersal
~ Develop offshore.
Larvae:
~ Larvae are most abundant in September-October.'
Juveniles:
~ Young-of-year migrate to inshore estuaries in the fall, and tend to
overwinter in relatively deep areas with soft mud bottoms.
Juvenile croaker leave estuaries in the fell to spend their second winter
offshore.
Adults:
Maturity begins at approximately 140-170 mm (5.5 to 6.7 in).c
May reach over 350 mm (13.8 in).'
Location:
New Jersey to the Gulf of Mexico and the Western Atlantic Coast. Most abundant between the Chesapeake Bay and Florida.
Adult croaker pinerally spend the spring and summer in estuaries and move offshore and south along the Atlantic coast in the fell
Prefer muddy bottoms and depths less than 120 m.
Euryhaline species — able to tolerate a wide range of salinities.
Destbssc etal., 1999,
Froese and Pauly, 2001,
White and Chittenden, 1977.
* Morse, 1980a.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2001.
B3-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
The Atlantic menhaden, a member of the Clupeidae (herring) family, is a euryhaline species, occupying coastal and estuarine
habitats. It is found along the Atlantic coast of North America, from Maine to northern Florida (Hall, 1995). Adults
congregate in large schools in coastal areas; these schools are especially abundant in and near major estuaries and bays. They
consume plankton, primarily diatoms and dinoflagellates, which they filter from the water through elaborate gill rakers. In
turn, menhaden are consumed by almost all commercially and recreationally important piscivorous fish, as well as by dolphins
and birds (Hall, 1995).
The menhaden fishery, one of the most important and productive fisheries on the Atlantic coast, is a multimillion-dollar
enterprise (Hall, 1995). Menhaden are considered an "industrial fish" and are used to produce products such as paints,
cosmetics, margarine (in Europe and Canada), and feed, as well as bait for other fisheries. Landings in New England declined
to their lowest level of approximately 2.7 metric tons (5,952 lb) in the 1960s because of overfishing. Since then, landings
have varied, ranging from approximately 240 metric tons (529,100 lb) in 1989 to 1,069 metric tons in 1998 (Personal
Communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland,
March 19,2001).
Atlantic menhaden spawn year round at sea and in larger bays (Scott and Scott, 1988). Spawning peaks during the southward
fall migration and continues throughout the winter off the North Carolina coast. There is limited spawning during the
northward migration and during summer months (Hall, 1995). The majority of spawning occurs over the inner continental
shelf, with less activity in bays and estuaries (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Females mature just before age 3, and release buoyant, planktonic eggs during spawning (Hall, 1995). Atlantic menhaden
annual egg production ranges from approximately 100,000 to 600,000 eggs for fish age I to age 5 (Dietrich, 1979). Eggs are
spherical and between 1.3 to 1.9 mm (0.05 to 0.07 in) in diameter (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Larvae hatch after approximately 24 hours and remain in the plankton. Larvae hatched in offshore waters enter the Delaware
Estuary 1 to 2 months later to mature (Hall, 1995). Juveniles then migrate south in the fall, joining adults offNorth Carolina
in January (Hail, 1995), Water temperatures below 3 "C (37 °F) kill the larvae, and therefore larvae that fail to reach estuaries
before the fall are more likely to die than those arriving in early spring (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae hatchout at 2.4 to 4.5
mm (0.09 to 0.18 in). The transition to the juvenile stage occurs between 30 and 38 mm (1.2 and 1.5 in) (Able and Fahay,
1998). The juvenile growth rate in some areas is estimated to be 1 mm (0.04 in) per day (Able and Fahay, 1998).
During the fall and early winter, most menhaden migrate south off of the North Carolina coast, where they remain until March
and early April. They avoid waters below 3 "C, but can tolerate a wide range of salinities from less than 1 percent up to 33-37
percent (Hall, 1995). Sexual maturity begins at age 2, and all individuals are mature by age 3 (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Adult fish are commonly between 30 and 35 cm (11.8 and 13,8 in) in length. The maximum age of a menhaden is
approximately 7 to 8 years (Hall, 1995), although individuals of 8-10 years have been recorded (Scott and Scott, 1988).
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter S3: Evaluation of ME Data
Food Source: Phytoplankton, zooplankton, annelid worms, detritus6
Prey for: Sharks, cod, pollock, hakes, blueftsh, tuna, swordfish,
seabirds, whales, porpoises,1"
Life Stage Information
Eggs: pelagic
~ Spawning takes place along the inner continental shelf, in open
marine waters.1*
~ Eggs hatch after approximately 24 hours.
Larvae: pelagic
~ Larvae hatch out at sea, and enter estuarine waters 1 to 2
months later."
~ Remain in estuaries through the summer, emigrating to ocean
waters as juveniles in September or October.11
Adults
~ Congregate in large schools in coastal areas.
~ Spawn year round.1*
* Hall, 1995.
b Scott and Scott, 1988.
E Dietrich, 1979.
" Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2001.
Atlantic silvers ide (Menidia menidia)
The Atlantic silverside is a member of the silverside family, Atherinidae. Its geographic range extends from coastal waters of
New Brunswick to northern Florida (Fay et al., 1983c), but it is most abundant between Cape Cod and South Carolina (Able
and Fahay, 1998). Atlantic silversides inhabit sandy seashores and the mouths of inlets (Froese and Pauly, 2001). Silversides
are an important species of forage fish, eaten by valuable fishery species such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis), blueftsh
{Pomatomus salatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) (Fay et al., 1983c; McBride,
1995),
Atlantic silversides spawn in the upper intertidal zone during spring and summer. Spawning appears to be stimulated by new
and full moons, in association with spring tides. On average, females produce 4,500 to 5,000 demersal eggs per spawning
season, which may include four to five separate spawning bouts (Fay et al., 1983c). The eggs are 0.9 to 1.2 mm (0.04 to 0.05
in) in diameter. Larvae range in size from 5.5 to 15.0 mm (0,2 to 0.6 in) (Fay et al., 1983c), The sex of Atlantic silversides is
determined during the larval stage, at approximately 32 to 46 days after hatching. Water temperatures between 11 and 19 *C
(52 and 66 *F) produce significantly more females, whereas temperatures between 17 and 25 °C (63 and 77 °F) produce
significantly more males (Fay et al, 1983c).
Juveniles occur in estuaries during the summer months, occupying intertidal creeks, marshes, and shore zones of bays and
estuaries. Silversides typically migrate offshore in the winter (McBride, 1995). In studies of seasonal distribution in
Massachusetts, all individuals left inshore waters during winter months (Able and Fahay, 1998).
The diet of juveniles and adults consists of copepods. mysids, amphipods, cladoeerans, fish eggs, squid, worms, molluscs,
insects, algae, and detritus (Fay et al,, 1983c), Atlantic silversides feed in large schools, preferring gravel and sand bars, open
beaches, tidal creeks, river mouths, and marshes (Fay et al., 1983c).
Silversides live for only 1 or 2 years, usually dying after completing their first spawning (Fay et al, 1983c), Adults can reach
sizes of up to 15 cm (5.9 in) in total length (Froese and Pauly, 2001),
B3-9
ATLANTIC MENHADEN
(Brevoortia tyrannus)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: menhaden, bunker,' fetback, bugfish.
Similar species: Gulf menhaden, yellowfm menhaden.
Geographic range: From Maine to northern Florida along the
Atlantic eoast,"
Habitat: Open-sea, marine waters. Travels in schools.1"
Lifespan:
~ Approximately 7 to 8 years."
Fecundity:
~ Females may produce between 100,000 to 600,000 eggs,c
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of IAE Data
ATLANTIC SILVERSIDE
(MeniduI mcnidia)
Family: Atherinidae (silversides).
Common names: Spearing, Sperling, green smelt, sand smelt,
white bait, capelin, shiner,"
Similar species: Inland silverside (Menidia beryllina}."
Geographic range: New Brunswick to northern Florida*
Habitat: Sandy seashores and the mouths of inlets ,b
Lifespan: One or 2 years. Often die after their first spawning."
Fecundity: Females produce an average of 4,500 to 5,000 eggs
per spawning season."
Food Source: Zooplankton, fish eggs, squid, worms, molluscs, insects,
algae, and detritus."
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, and Atlantic mackerel.1"
Life Stage Information
Eggs: demersal
~ Found in shallow waters of estuarine intertidai zones."
~ Can be found adhering to submerged vegetation.'
Larvae:
~ Range from 5,5 to 15.0 mm (0,2 to 0.6 in) in size."
~ Sex is determined during the larval stage by the temperature
regime. Colder temperatures tend to produce more females, and
warmer temperatures produce more males,"
Adults:
~ Overwinter in offshore marine waters.4
~ Can reach sizes of up to 15 cm (5.9 in) total length.d
* Fay etal., 1983c.
b Froescand Pauly, 2001.
McBride, 1995.
' Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from Government of Canada, 2001.
Bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli)
Bay anchovy is a member of the anchovy family, Engraulidae, and is one of the most abundant species in estuaries along the
Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the United States (Vouglitois et al., 1987). In Delaware Bay, bay anchovy shares the status of
most abundant species with the Atlantic silverside (de Sylva et al., 1962). Because of its widespread distribution and overall
abundance, bay anchovy are an important component of the food chain for recreational and commercial fish, and as such have
indirect economic importance (Morton, 1989).
Bay anchovy is commonly found in shallow tidal areas, feeding mainly on copepods and other zooplankton. It tends to
appear in higher densities in vegetated areas such as eelgrass beds (Castro and C'owen. 1991).
The spawning period of bay anchovy is long, with records ranging from April to November (Vouglitois et al., 1987). In the
Delaware Estuary, the spawning season usually occurs from early April through mid-June (Wang and Kernehan, 1979).
Spawning within the Delaware Estuary primarily occurs in the western part of the C & D Canal, and in the Elk River (Wang
and Kernehan, 1979) (see Figure Bl-1), and has been correlated with areas of high zooplankton abundance (Dorsey et al.,
1996). In Chesapeake Bay, a minimum of 50 spawning events per female was estimated, with spawning events occurring
every 4 days in June and every 1.3 days in July. Spawning generally occurs noctumally, and during peak spawning periods
females may spawn nightly. Fecundity estimates for bay anchovy in mid-Chesapeake Bay were reported at 643 eggs in July
1986 and 731 eggs in July 1987 (Zastrow et al, 1991). The pelagic eggs are 0,8 to 1.3 mm (0.03 to 0,05 in) in diameter
(Able and Fahay, 1998). Size of the eggs varies with increased water salinity.
Eggs hatch in approximately 24 hours at average summer temperatures (Monteleone, 1992). The yolk sac larvae are 1.8 to
2.0 mm (0.07 to 0.08 in) long, with nonfunctioning eyes and mouth parts (Able and Fahay, 1998). Mortality during these
stages is high. Ln a study conducted in the Chesapeake Bay, 73 percent of the eggs died before hatching, and mortality for
surviving larvae was 72 percent within the first 24 hours of hatching (Dorsey et al., 1996).
Growth estimates for larval bay anchovy have been estimated at 0.53 to 0.56 mm (0.021 to 0.022 in) per day in Great South
Bay, New York (Castro and Cowen, 1991), and young-of-year growth rates averaged 0.47 mm (0.02 in) per day in
Chesapeake Bay (Zastrow et al., 1991). Sexual maturity occurs at a length of 40 to 45 mm (1.6 to 1.8 in) in Chesapeake Bay
B3-10
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of IAE Data
(Zastrow et al., 1991). Individuals hatched early in the season may become sexually mature by their first summer (Morton,
1989).
Most young-of-year migrate out of the estuaries at the end of the summer in schools, and can be found in large numbers on the
inner continental shelf in the fall (Vouglitois et al., 1987). The average size for adults is 75 mm (2,95 in) (Morton, 1989),
Bay anchovy live for only 1 or 2 years (Zastrow et al,, 1991).
Near the Salem station, bay anchovy eggs are present from May to November and are most abundant from May to August,
Larvae are present from May to October, with greatest abundance from June to August. Juveniles are present throughout the
year but are most abundant from July to October, Adults are also present year-round and are most abundant from April to
November,
BAY ANCHOVY
(Anckoa mitchUli)
Family: Engraulidae (anchovies).
Common names; Anchovy.
Similar species: Atlantic silverssde.
Geographic range: From Maine, south to the Gulf of
Mexico.*
Habitat; Commonly found in shallow tidal areas with
muddy bottoms and brackish waters; often appears in higher
densities in vegetated areas such as eelgrass beds.b
Lifespan: 1-2 years.'
Fecundity: Females spawn a minimum of 50 times over the
spawning season in the Chesapeake Bay. Fecundity per
spawning event is about 700 eggs."
Food source; Primarily feed on copepods and other zooplankton, as well as
small fishes and gastropods.1
Prey for: Striped bass, weakfish, jellyfish.
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
* Eggs are 0.8-1.3 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in) in diameter."
>¦ Eggs experience an average mortality of 73 percent.11
Larvae:
~ Yolk-sac larvae are 1,8 to 2.0 mm (0,7 to 0.8 in) on hatching.*
~ Daily mortality for yolk-sac larvae is as high as 88 percent.11
~ Daily mortality for 3-15 day old larvae is approximately 28 percent.1'
Juveniles:
* Young-of-year migrate out of estuaries at the end of summer, and can
be found in large numbers on the inner continental shelf in fall,®
Adults:
~ Adults reach sexual maturity at 40 to 45 mm (1.6 to 1,8 in) in
Chesapeake Bay.®
~ The average adult is 75 mm (2.95 in) long/
Location:
Ranges from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, south to the Gulf of Mexico. Spawns in the Delaware Estuary in the Elk River and C&D
Canal.*
~ Most commonly found in shallow tidal areas with muddy bottoms and brackish waters, but can be found in a wide range of habitats.
~ Tolerates a wide range of salinities.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
k Castro and Co wen, 1991.
Zastrow et al., 1991.
1 Dorsey et al., 1996.
Vouglitois et al., 1987.
' Morton, 1989.
Wang and Kemehan, 1979.
Fish graphic from NOAA, 2001 g.
Blue crab (CafHnectes sapidus)
The Atlantic blue crab can be found in Atlantic coastal waters from Long Island to the Gulf of Mexico, Blue crab supports
the most economically important inshore commercial fishery in the mid-Atlantic (Epifanio, 1995); Chesapeake Bay provides
over 50 percent of the commercial landings of Atlantic blue crab nationwide (Epifanio, 1995).
B3-1I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Deb ware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Females typically mate only once within their lifetime. Spawning in the Delaware Bay peaks from late July to early August.
After an elaborate courtship ritual, females lay two to three broods of eggs, each containing over I million egp. Mating
occurs in areas of low salinity. The eggs hatch near high tide and the larvae are carried out to sea by the current (Epifanio,
1995). This stage of the lifecycle is called the zoeal stage. The zoea go through seven molts before entering the next stage,
the megalops stage, and are carried back to estuarine waters (Epifanio, 1995), The zoea stages last approximately 35 days,
and the megalops stage may vary from several days to a few weeks (Epifanio, 1995).
While in the zoeal stage along the continental shelf, larvae are vulnerable to predators, starvation, and transport to unsuitable
habitats. Larvae are especially vulnerable to predators while molting. Dispersal of young Atlantic blue crabs is primarily
controlled by wind patterns, and they do not necessarily return to their parent estuaries (Epifanio, 1995). In the Delaware
Estuary, maturity is reached at approximately 18 months (Epifanio, 1995),
Atlantic blue crabs inhabit all regions of the Delaware Estuary. Males prefer areas of low salinity, while females prefer the
mouth of the estuary. In the warmer months, crabs occupy shallower areas in depths of less than 4.0 m (13 ft). They can
tolerate water temperatures exceeding 35 "C (95 °F), but do not fare as well in cold water (Epifanio, 1995). In winter months,
adults burrow into the bottom of deep channels and remain inactive (Epifanio, 1995). Extremely cold weather has resulted in
high mortality of overwintering crabs (Epifanio, 1995).
Atlantic blue crabs are omnivorous, foraging on molluscs, mysid shrimp, small crabs, worms, and plant material (Epifanio,
1995). Adults prey heavily on juvenile Atlantic blue crab (Epifanio, 1995).
Atlantic blue crab can live up to 3 years (Epifanio, 1995).
Impingeable sizes of blue crab are present throughout the year near Salem, but are most abundant from April to November.
ATLANTIC BLUE CRAB
(Callinecles sapidus)
Family: Portunidae (swimming crabs).
Common names: Blue crab.
Similar species: Lesser blue crab (Collinectes similis).
Lifespan: Up to 3 years. Maturity is reached at i 8 months."
Geographic range: Atlantic coast from Long Island to the
Gulf of Mexico,"
Habitat: Inhabit all areas of the Delaware Estuary, In
warmer weather they occupy shallow areas less than 4 m (13
ft) deep. They burrow into the bottom of deep channels and
remain inactive in winter."
Fecundity: Typically mate once in their lifetime.
Mating occurs in low salinity areas. Females lay two to
three broods of 1 million eggs each.®
Food Source: Atlantic blue crabs are omnivores, foraging on molluscs,
mysids, shrimp, small crabs, worms, and plant material,'
Prey for: Juveniles are preyed upon by a variety of fish (eels, striped bass,
weakfish) and are heavily preyed upon by adult blue crabs,"
Life Stage Information
~ Hatch near high tide.1
Larvae;
~ Carried out to sea by the currant, where they remain for seven molts
before returning to estuaries."
Adults'.
~ Males prefer lower salinity while females prefer the mouth of the bay."
Epifanio, 1995.
B3-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of XAE Dato
Blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)
Blueback herring is a member of the herring family, Clupeidae. It is closely related to the alewife; together they are
commonly referred to as river herring. The range of blueback herring extends from Nova Scotia south to northern Florida,
though they are more abundant in the southern portion of their range (Scott and Scott, 1988). Within the Delaware Estuary,
blueback herring tend to be more abundant in the upper region of the estuary than do the closely related alewife (Waterfield,
1995). Economically, blueback herring are an important bait species for the blue crab industry of the Delaware and
Chesapeake bays. They are also a significant prey item for many estuarine fish species.
Adults spawn from spring to early summer in upstream brackish or freshwater areas of rivers and tributaries. Spawning
occurs at night in fast currents over a hard substrate (Loesch and Lund, 1977). Spawning groups have been observed diving
to the bottom and releasing the semi-adhesive eggs over the substrate, but many eggs are dislodged by the current and enter
the water column, Loesch and Lund (1977) reported fecundity estimates of 45,800 to 349,700 eggs per female, and noted that
fecundity was positively correlated with total fish length up to approximately 300 mm. After spawning, adults move
downstream and return to the ocean.
Eggs float near the bottom for 2 to 4 days until hatching, depending on temperature. At hatching, larvae are 3.1 to 5.0 mm
(0.12 to 0.20 in) (Jones et al., 1978). Larvae become juveniles at approximately 20 mm (0.79 in), or at 25 to 35 days (Able
and Fahay, 1998). Juveniles are distributed high in the water column and avoid bottom depths (Able and Fahay, 1998). In
the early juvenile stages, fish are swept downstream by the tide. Some juveniles will move upstream until late summer before
migrating downstream in late summer to early fall. Juveniles are sensitive to sudden water temperature changes, and emigrate
downstream in response to a decline in temperature (Able and Fahay 1998). By late fall, most young-of-year emigrate to
ocean waters to overwinter (Wang and Kemehan, 1979).
Male blueback herring mature at ages 3 to 4, and females mature at ages 4 to 5. Over half of the adults are repeat spawners,
returning to natal spawning grounds every year (Scherer, 1972). Females tend to grow larger than males and dominate the
older age groups. Blueback herring can live to 8 years (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
Near Salem, blueback herring juveniles are present from winter through late spring and again in fall.
B3-13
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
BLL'EBACK HERRING
(Alosu aestivalis)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: River herring, glut herring, summer herring, kyak,
blackbelly.
Simitar species: alewife, American shad, Atlantic menhaden.
Geographic range; From Nova Scotia south to northern Florida"
Habitat: Euryhaline, marine. Adults form schools and overwinter
near the bottom out from the coast.b
Lifespan; May live up to 8 years."
Fecundity: Fecundity ranges from 45,800 to 349,700 eggs per
female.' Over half of adults are repeat spawners and return to natal
spawning grounds every year.'*
Food source; Shrimp, zooplankton, finfish.
Prey for: Striped bass, wcaktish, bluetish.
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
~ Eggs float near the bottom for 2-4 days.'
Larvae:
* Larvae are 3,1-5.0 mm at hatching.'
~ The larval stage duration is 25-35 days.'
Juveniles:
~ Blueback herring reach the juvenile stage at 20 mm (0.79 in),
or at an age of 25-35 days/
~ Juveniles are distributed high in the water column and avoid
bottom depths.
~ Juveniles tend to move upstream until late summer before
migrating downstream in late summer in response to a decline
in temperature.
Adults:
~ Males mature at ages 3-4, females at ages 4-5.
~ Adults overwinter near the bottom and out from the coast, then
return to shore in late spring to spawn.
Location;
~ Range from Nova Scotia south to northern Florida.
~ More common in upper region of Delaware estuary than the closely related ale wife.
* Scott and Scott, 1988.
b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
' Loesch and Lund, 1977.
11 Scherer, 1972.
' Jones etal,, 1978.
* Able and Fahay, 1998,
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001,
Spot (Leiostonws xanthurus)
Spot is a member of the drum family, Sciaenidae. Its range extends along the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts Bay to
Campeehe Bay, Mexico, and it is most abundant from Chesapeake Bay to South Carolina (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928;
Mercer, 1987). Spot are occasionally harvested for food, but because of their small size, are typically used as bast and in pet
food and fish meal (Hales and Van Den Avyle, 1989), Spot are often caught by anglers because they take the bait easily and
are often found near piers and bridges (Hales and Van Den Avyle, 1989).
Ecologically they are an important species because of their high abundance and their status on the food chain as both predator
and prey for many species. Because of their short lifespan, annual landings tend to consist of a single year class and fluctuate
greatly from year to year, yet show no long-term trends (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000c).
Spawning occurs in deeper waters along the continental shelf from late fall through early spring (Mercer, 1987), Females
produce 30,000 to 60,000 eggs (Phillips et al., 1989), and eggs are 0.72-0.87 mm (0.028 to 0,034 in) in diameter (Able and
Fahay, 1998). Larvae hatch out at 1,5 to 1,7 mm (0.06 to 0,07 in) in length and begin migrating to inshore estuaries, reaching
the nursery estuarine waters in early to late spring. Young larvae show a preference for low salinity waters (Wang and
Kernehan, 1979), and continue to migrate to the upper areas of estuaries to spend the summer. By the fall, young-of-year
reach 10 to 11 cm (3.9 to 4,3 in) (Able and Fahay, 1998). First year growth rates for spot in Chesapeake Bay have been
recorded from 10.5 mm (0.4 in) per month to 19,1 mm (0.8 in) per month (Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928; McCambridge
and Alden, 1984).
B3-14
-------
S 316(b) Cose. Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I b
Habitat: Often found near piers and bridges/ Occurs over sandy
or muddy bottoms in coastal waters up to 60 m (197 ft) in depth."
Lifespan: Up to 5 years."
Fecundity: Females produce 30,000 to 60,(X)0 eggs.c
Food source: Worms, mysid shrimp, copepods.'
Prey for: Striped bass, weakfish, bluefish, flounder, bomto, sandbar
shark.
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
~ Eggs are 0.72-0,87 mm (0,028 to 0.034 in) in diameter.'
Larvae:
~ Larvae are 1.5-1.7 mm (0.06 to 0.07 in) long at hatching.8
~ Larvae migrate to inshore estuary waters, arriving in early to late
spring.
«¦ Young larvae prefer tow salinity waters and are found in upper
estuary waters.
Juveniles:
~ As water temperature decreases in the fall, most young-of-year
spot migrate out to the ocean,
~ Larger individuals tend to leave the estuary earlier.
Adults:
~ Spot mature at 2-3 years.k
» The largest recorded spot was 35,6 cm (14.0 in) long, although
most mature adults are 17.8-20.3 cm (7.0 to 8.0 in).1*
Location;
~ Range along the western Atlantic coast from Massachusetts Bay to Campeehe Bay, Mexico.
~ Found over sandy or muddy bottoms in coastal waters to about 60 m depth.
~ Found in nursery and feeding grounds in river estuaries in summer and fall.
' Hildebrand and Schroeder, 1928.
b Mercer, 1987.
' Hales and Van Den Avyle, 1989.
1 Frocsc and Pauly, 2000,
c Phillips et al., 1989.
' Chao and Musick, 1977.
* Able and Fahay, 1998.
* Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000c.
Fish graphic from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2001.
B3-15
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Striped bass (Morone saxatih's)
Striped bass is a member of the temperate bass family, Moronidae. Both migratory and nonmigratory populations span the
Atlantic coast, from the St. Lawrence River, Canada, to the St. John's River in Florida (Scott and Scott, 1988). Striped bass
has long been an important commercial and recreational species. The perceived decline in striped bass populations was the
reason behind the creation of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in 1942 (Miller, R.W., 1995). Spawning
populations of striped bass were nearly eliminated from the Delaware River in the mid-1900's, because of poor water quality.
Pollution in the lower portions of the Delaware River caused a decline in striped bass reproduction due to a decrease in
dissolved oxygen for several years, but cleanup efforts in the 1980's and I990's resulted in improved water quality and
increased striped bass reproduction (Chittenden, 1971; Weisberg and Burton, 1993; Miller, R.W., 1995). A moratorium was
declared on striped bass fishing in the state of Delaware from 1985 through 1989 (Miller, R.W., 1995). While populations of
striped bass have rebounded, the fishery is still managed closely and tight restrictions on size limits and the length of the
fishing season are kept to maintain the goals established under Amendment 5 of the Striped Bass Fishery Management Plan of
1995 (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000g),
Striped bass are a popular catch among recreational anglers; however, consumption advisories are currently in place for
striped bass from the Delaware River and Bay as a result of bioaccumulation of PCBs (PSEG, 1999c). These advisories
recommend limiting the consumption of striped bass to less than five 267 g (8-oz.) meals per year. A 1997 landings report
estimated the yearly catch by recreational and commercial fisheries to be 4.094 million striped bass (Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, 2000d). Angling efforts are typically centered on the C&D canal, from Port Penn to Augustine Beach,
Delaware, and in the mouths of tributaries south of the canal (PSEG, 1999c). In the Delaware Bay, there are currently no
directed commercial fishing efforts for striped bass, although historically commercial harvesting of striped bass was an
important resource (PSEG, 1999c).
Striped bass are common along mid-Atlantic coastal waters. They are an anadromous fish that spend most of the year in
saltwater but use the upper fresh and brackish water reaches of estuaries as spawning and nursery areas in spring and summer
(Setzler et al.. 1980). The principal spawning areas for striped bass along the Atlantic coast are the major tributaries of
Chesapeake Bay, and the Delaware and Hudson rivers (NOAA, 2001c). The timing of spawning may be triggered by an
increase in water temperature, and generally occurs from April to June (Fay et al., 1983c). Spawning behavior consists of a
female surrounded by up to 50 males at or near the surface (Setzler et al., 1980). Eggs are broadcast loosely in the water and
fertilized by the males. Females may release an estimated 14,000 to 40.5 million eggs, depending on the size of the female
(Jackson and Tiller, 1952). A 23 kg (50 pound) female may produce approximately 5 million eggs (Mansueti and Hollis,
1963).
Striped bass eggs are semibuoyant, and require minimum water velocities to remain buoyant. Eggs that settle to the bottom
may become smothered by sediment (Hill et al., 1989). The duration of larval development is influenced by water
temperature; temperatures ranging from 24 to 15 "C (75 to 59 *F) correspond to larval durations of 23 to 68 days, respectively
(Rogers et al, 1977). Saila and Lorda (1977) reported a 6 percent probability of survival for egg and yolk-sac stages of
development, and a 4 percent probability of survival for the post yolk-sac stage.
At 30 mm (1.2 in), most striped bass enter the juvenile stage. Juveniles begin schooling in larger groups after age 2 (Bigelow
and Schroeder, 1953). Migratory patterns of juveniles vary with locality (Setzler et al., 1980). In both the Delaware and the
Hudson rivers, young-of-year migrate downstream from their spawning grounds to the tidal portions of the rivers to spend
their first summer (Able and Fahay, 1998). In the Delaware River, young-of-year may spend 2 or more years within the
estuary before joining the offshore migratory population (Miller, R.W., 1995). Similar trends were found in the Hudson
River, where individuals were found to stay up to 3 years in estuaries before migrating offshore (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Results of tagging studies reported by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DDNREC,
2000) and Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSEG, 1999c) showed that striped bass tagged in the Delaware Estuary
were recaptured from North Carolina to Maine, However, the majority of tagged fish were recovered between Maryland and
Massachusetts.
Adult striped bass feed in intervals while schooling (Fay et al., 1983c). They primarily eat smaller fish species such as
herring, silversides, and anchovies (Miller, R.W, 1995). Larvae feed primarily on copepods (Miller, R.W, 1995), and
stomach contents of juveniles from the Delaware Estuary show mysid shrimp as a favored food item (Bason, 1971).
Adults may live up'to 30 years (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 200Gd), and have been reported at sizes up to
200 cm (79 in) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
33-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary Chapter B3: Evaluation of HE Data
STRIPED BASS
(Morone saxatilis)
Family: Moronidae (temperate basses).
Common names: Striper, rock fish, linesider, and sea
bass.2
Similar species: White perch.
Geographic range; St. Lawrence River in Canada to the
St. Johns River in Florida, and from the Suwannee River
in western Florida to Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana.*
Habitat: Juveniles prefer shallow rocky to sandy areas.
Adults in inshore areas use a variety of substrates,
including rock, boulder, gravel, sand, detritus, grass,
moss, and mussel beds."
Lifespan: Adults may reach 30 years,b
Fecundity: Females release 14,000 to 40.5 million eggs,
depending on the size of the female.*
Food sources:
~ Larvae feed primarily on mobile plariktonic invertebrates (beetle larvae,
copepodids Daphnia spp.)."
~ Juveniles eat larger aquatic invertebrates and small fishes,*
~ Adults are piscivorous. Clupeid fish are the dominant prey and adults
prefer soft-rayed fishes."
Prey for: Any sympatric piscivorous fish*
Life stage information:
Eggs; pelagic
~ Eggs and newly hatched larvae require sufficient turbulence to remain
suspended in the water column; otherwise, they can settle to the bottom
and be smothered.4
Larvae; pelagic
* Larvae range from 5 to 30 mm (0.2 to 1.2 in)."
Juveniles:
~ Most striped bass enter the juvenile stage at 30 mm (1.2 in) total length."1
~ Juveniles school in larger groups after 2 years of age."
~ Juveniles in the Delaware River generally remain in estuarine areas for 2
or more years before joining the offshore migratory population.'
Adults: Anadromous
~ Adults school offshore, but swim upstream to spawn/
~ May grow as large as 200 cm (79 in}.®
Location:
Estuaries arc spawning grounds and nurseries and thus critically important to their life cycle.
Mature striped bass are found in and around a variety of inshore habitats, including areas off sandy beaches and along rocky
shorelines, in shallow water or deep trenches, and in rivers and the open bay.
St. Lawrence River in Canada to the St. Johns River in Florida, and from the Suwannee River in western Florida to Lake
Pontchartrain, Louisiana.
Migratory behavior is more complex than that of most other anadromous fish. Seasonal movements depend on their age, sex, degree
of maturity, and the river in which they were born.
Mature striped bass move from the ocean into tidal freshwater to spawn in late winter and spring. Spawning generally occurs in
April, May, and early June. Shortly after spawning, mature fish return to the coast. Most spend summer and early fail months in
middle New England near-shore waters. In late fall and early winter they migrate south off the North Carolina and Virginia capes.
Hill etal., 1989.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000d.
Jackson and Tiller, 1952.
Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953.
Miller, R.W, 1995.
Setzier etal, 1980.
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
Fish graphic from NOAA, 2001 b.
Weakfish (Cynoscion regatis)
Weak fish is a member of the family Sciaenidae (drams), which is considered an important recreational and commercial
resource along the Atlantic coast (Seagraves, 1995). Weakfish are found along the eastern seaboard, primarily from
Massachusetts Bay to southern Florida (Seagraves, 1995). Adults travel in schools, following a seasonal migratory pattern
from offshore wintering grounds in the spring to northern inland estuarine spawning grounds with warming of coastal waters
in the spring (Seagraves, 1995). Weakfish spawn in the Delaware Estuary in spring and usually move north as far as
Massachusetts for the summer (Shepherd and Grimes, 1984). These same fish over-winter as far south as Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina. Weakfish favor shallow waters and sandy bottoms. They typically feed throughout the water column on fish,
shrimp, and other small invertebrates (Seagraves, 1995).
B3-J7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Steady declines in weakfish landings since 1980 caused enough concern to prompt the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission to develop a management plan for the species in 1985. In addition, the commission developed three
amendments in an attempt to strengthen the management plan; the third amendment called for a 5-year restoration period to
bring the weakfish population back to its historical age and size structure. Since 1993, annual landings have steadily
increased (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000f). Weakfish are very popular as a recreational fishing target in
Delaware Bay and surrounding coastline. In a survey of Delaware anglers, weakfish was consistently one of the top three
species targeted by anglers from 1982 to 1996 {PSEG, 1999c), Recreational catches of weakfish in Delaware and New Jersey
comprised greater than 70 percent the coastal recreational weakfish catch since 1995 (PSEG, 1999c).
Spawning occurs shortly after the inshore migration, peaking from late April to June, with some geographic variation in
timing. In the fall, an offshore and southerly migration of adults coincides with declining water temperatures (Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission, 20001). Specific spawning time is correlated with the size of the individual; larger fish tend to
spawn earlier (Shepherd and Grimes, 1984), often resulting in a bimodal distribution of size in larvae (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Fecundity of female weakfish varies with locality. A 50 cm (20 in) female weakfish from the New York Bight produced
about 306,000 ova, while southern weakfish of the same size produced 2.05 million ova. Southern weakfish reproduce until
approximately age 5, while northern weakfish can reproduce longer, meaning that lifetime fecundity would be similar
(Shepherd and Grimes, 1984). Shepherd and Grimes (1984) found that females may not release all ova during spawning, and
fertility may only be 60-75 percent of the estimated potential fecundity.
Weakfish eggs hatch approximately 50 hours after fertilization. The pelagic larvae hatch at 1.5 to 1.7 mm (0.6 to 0.7 in) in
length, and move further upstream during the summer months. Though young-of-year are most abundant in estuarine waters,
they have been found in coastal ocean waters and as far upstream as freshwater nurseries. Scales begin to form when larvae
are approximately 14,3 mm (5.6 in) or 26 days old. Growth rates vary considerably depending on locality, salinity, and water
temperature. Weakfish in the Delaware Bay exhibited growth rates from 0.29 mm (0.1 in) per day at 20 *C (68 *F) to 1.49
mm (0.6 in) per day at 28 °C (82 *F) (Able and Fahay, 1998).
In the fall, weakfish less than 4 years of age tend to stay inshore and move southward to inner shelf waters, while older
weakfish move southward to offshore areas until the spring (Seagraves, 1995).
As with most fish, size upon maturity for weakfish varies with locality. In northern weakfish, females mature at 25.4 cm (10
in), and males at 22,9 cm (9 in); in southern weakfish, both sexes mature at 17.8 cm (7 in). By age 2, all individuals are fully
mature (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000f). Weakfish may obtain a maximum size and age of
approximately 80 cm (31.5 in) and 11 years in the northern part of their range (Shepherd and Grimes, 1983).
Weakfish larvae are most abundant near Salem from June to August (PSEG, 1999c). Juveniles occur in summer and early
fall. Eggs are present in some years, primarily in June and July.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3; Evaluation of I4E Data
WEAKFISH
(Cynoscion regalis)
Family: Sciaenidae (drums).
Common names: Gray/bastard/saltwater trout, silver seatrout,
grey/bastard/common/silver weakfish,. chickwick, gray/silver, silver
seatrout.'
Similar species: Red drum, spot, spotted seatrout, Atlantic croaker.
Geographic Range: Along the Atlantic coast from Florida to
Massachusetts, in shallow coastal and estuarine watersb Estuaries
provide feeding areas and spawning grounds for adult weakfish and
are as important as nursery areas are for juveniles.®
Habitat: Occurs over sand and sandy mud bottoms in shallow
coastal waters.'
Lifespan: Can live up to 11 years.4
Fecundity: Reach maturity at approximately 1 year. Fecundity for
fish in the New York Bight is about 306,000. Females may not
release all ova during spawning, meaning that fertility may be only
60-75 percent of total fecundity."
Food source: Juveniles feed primarily on shrimp and other small
invertebrates. Adults consume species such as butterfish, herrings,
silversides, anchovies, young weakfish, Atlantic croaker, spot, scup,
and killifishes/
Prey for: Biuefssh. striped bass, summer flounder, and larger
weakfish/
Life stage information:
Eggs;
~ Hatch approximately 50 hours after fertilization.'
Larvae: pelagic
' * Larvae are approximately 1.5-1.7 mm (0.6 to 0.7 in) long at
hatching.1
; ~ Larvae utilize tidal stream transport to move through the water
column ,c
Juveniles:
~ Growth rates in the Delaware Bay range from 0.29 mm {0.1 in)
per day at 20 "C (68 *F) to 1.49 mm (0.6 in) per day at 28 "C
(82 "F).c
»¦ Juveniles begin to migrate offshore and southward for
overwintering in the fall.'
: Adults:
; ~ Travel in schools, and migrate seasonally from offshore
wintering grounds to northern inland estuarine spawning
grounds in the spring."
: ~ Adults can reach a maximum total length of 80 cm (31.5 m).d
Location:
~ The young use the shore margins of the spawning area as nursery grounds.
~ From spring through autumn, white perch are present on flats and in channels, retreating to deep channels in the winter.
~ They move into waters with low salinity to freshwaters of large rivers in April through June.
~ Located in estuaries and freshwater from Nova Scotia to South Carolina.
~ Frequent areas with level bottoms of compact silt, mud, sand, or clay and show little preference for vegetation, structures, or other
shelter.
~ Able to live in salinities from zero to full strength seawater; they prefer waters < 18 percent salinity.
" Froese and Pauly, 2001.
b Seagraves, 1995,
5 Able and Fahay, S998.
4 Shephard and Grimes, 1983.
c Shephard and Grimes, 1984.
' Seagraves, 1995;
Fish graphic from NOAA, 2001b.
White perch (Morone americana)
White perch is a member of the temperate bass family, Moromdae. Its geographic range extends from the upper St. Lawrence
to South Carolina (Able and Fahay, 1998; Scott and Scott, 1988). Adults can be found in a wide range of habitats, but they
prefer shallow water during warmer months (Stanley and Danie, 1983). In the winter months, adults can be found in deeper,
saline waters (Beck, 1995b). At the larval stage, white perch feed mainly on plankton. Adults feed on a variety of prey,
including shrimp, fish, and crab. Their diet composition changes with seasonal and spatial food availability (Beck, 1995b).
Unlike most other species, white perch has not suffered a drastic population decline in the past century. Because of their
abundance, white perch are valuable for commercial fisheries and the recreational fishing,industry. Their heartiness and
abundance is due to their proliferation, early maturation, ability to utilize a large spawning and nursery ground, and tolerance
of poor water quality (Beck, 1995b).
33-19
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part B. The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of IAE Data
White perch are semi-anadromous, overwintering in deeper estuarine waters and migrating seasonally in the spring to spawn.
Spawning occurs from April through early June in shallow waters of upstream brackish and freshwater tributaries. Fecundity
estimates are higher for white perch than for other species of similar size, with estimates of 20,000 to 300,000 eggs per female
(Stanley and Danie, 1983).
Depending on temperature, larvae hatch out between 2 to 6 days (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae are pelagic, remaining
slightly below the surface of the water. They enter the juvenile stage in 6 weeks, at 20 to 30 mm (0.8 to 1.2 in) (Able and
Fahay, 1998). Juveniles become increasingly demersal with size (Wang and Keraehan, 1979), and school in shallow, inshore
waters through the summer. During the fall, juveniles tend to move offshore into more brackish, deeper waters to overwinter
(Able and Fahay, i 998).
By age 3, white perch range from 72 to 93 mm (2.8 to 3.7 in). Rates of growth are positively correlated with water
temperature during the first year (Able and Fahay, 1998). Most males and females reach maturity at age 2 to 3. Males were
reported to mature at 72 mm (2.8 in) and females at 98 mm (3.9 in) (Stanley and Danie, 1983).
Average annual mortality rates for white perch in the Delaware River are 49 to 59 percent for males and 53 to 65 percent for
females (Stanley and Danie, 1983). Mortality rates appear to be higher for females because females have higher growth rates
and therefore reach a desirable harvest size earlier (Stanley and Danie, 1983). White perch up to 9 years of age have been
caught in Delaware Bay (Wallace, 1971).
White perch larvae occur near Salem from April to July, with greatest abundance in April and May (PSEG, 1999c). Juveniles
occur from October to May. Adults are present throughout the year.
WHITE PERCH
(Morone americana)
Family: Moronjdae, temperate bass.
Common names: White perch.2
Similar species: Striped bass.
Geographic range: Estuaries and freshwater from the upper
St Lawrence to South Carolina."'*
Habitat; Occurs in fresh, brackish, and coastal waters, but
prefers brackish, quieter waters.'
Lifespan: To 17 years (to 9 years in Delaware Bay).
'Fecundity: Semi-anadromous spawners. Spawning occurs
ifrom April to early June in shallow waters of upstream
brackish and freshwater tributaries. Females produce 20,000
to 300,000 eggs,"
Food source; White perch, feed on zooplankton as larvae and juveniles.
Adults primarily consume aquatic insects, but also crustaceans and fish,
including their own young.11
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, walleye.*
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal, semipelaglc
* Hatch out between 2 and 6 days.b
Larvae: pelagic
~ Larvae float slightly below the surface of the water,1'
Juveniles:
~ White perch enter the juvenile stage in 6 weeks, at 20 to 30 mm (0.8
to 1.2 in).b
~ School in shallow, inshore waters through the summer.b
~ Move offshore to brackish, deeper waters to overwinter."
~ Growth rates are positively correlated with temperature during the
first year.11
Adults:
~ Reach maturity at 2 to 3 years of age, and lengths of 72 mm (2.8 in)
for most males and 98 mm (3.9 in) for most females.4
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
" Able and Fahay, 1998.
Scott and Scott, 1988.
i Stanley and Danie, 1983.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sport fishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
B3-20
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
B3-3 Salem I&E Monitoring and PSE&'s Methods for Calculating Annual
Salem is the only facility of the four in-scope facilities of the transition zone (Salem, Hope Creek, Deepwater, Edge Moor)
that is required to collect l&E data on an on-going basis as part of their New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NJPDES) permit, Some l&E data are available for Hope Creek and Deepwater, but only for very limited time periods*
Although Salem's data can be improved upon as discussed later in this chapter, it is one of the most comprehensive l&E data
sets in the nation.
PSEG has sampled impinged and entrained organisms at Salem since station operation began in 1977, l&E data for the years
1978-1998 are available in PSEG's 1999 Permit Renewal Application for Salem (PSEG, 1999e). The application consists of
36 volumes of application material and 167 volumes of appendices and reference material. Some aspects of the sampling
protocol have changed in response to changing sampling objectives, and details of these changes are outlined in Appendix F,
Attachment 1 of the Application (PSEG, 1999c).
The following sections outline methods used by PSEG to estimate l&E losses based on information in Appendix F,
Attachment 1 of the Application (PSEG, 1999c). The figures outlining monitoring steps and methods for calculating l&E are
based on figures from a July 1999 presentation by PSEG to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP).
B3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring
PSEG collects impingement samples by diverting screen wash water from an estuary-bound sluice to an impingement
sampling pool (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 1, Section II.D), Fish collected in the sampling pool are sorted by
species and counted, and the condition of each specimen (live, dead, or damaged) is noted. The length of each specimen of a
sample of each representative important species (RIS) is measured as well as the total weight for all specimens of each
species, fnformation-on station operations, sampling details, and environmental conditions is also recorded.
PSEG processes the impingement sampling data in a series of steps to arrive at an estimate of the number of organisms
impinged and initially alive, and the number impinged and dead, per day of sampling (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment
2, Section I1I.D). The steps for processing the impingement data to estimate the number impinged in the cooling water system
(CWS) per day of sampling are outlined in Figure B3-1.
Figure B3-1: Estimation of Numbered Impinged (CWS) per Day of Sampling
L&E
Number
impinged and
initially alive
(per day)*
Average
number
collected
(per minute)
Average
number
impinged
(per minute)
Number
impinged
(per day)
1,440
minutes
per day
Number
impinged and
dead
(per day)
Collection
efficiency
•Prior to 1996, initially alive fish were further classified as damaged or not damaged.
B3-21
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pert B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3; Evaluation of I&E Data
Since the duration of sampling varies from collection to collection, PSEG first standardizes impingement counts to fish
counted per minute sampled. The number collected is adjusted by a species-specific collection efficiency factor to estimate
the average number impinged per minute (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2, Section III.D.3), Factors are based on
impingement collection efficiency studies conducted by PSEG from 1979 to 1982 and in 1998 (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F,
Section VI) PS EC's collection efficiency factors are duplicated in Appendix B1 of this report.
For each day of impingement sampling, the daily average number of fish sampled per minute is calculated for each species,
length interval, and condition (live, dead, damaged). PSEG uses the estimated number of impinged organisms in the CWS
per day of sampling to calculate the number lost to impingement in the CWS and in the service water system (SWS) each
month (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2, Section III.D).
Figure B3-2 outlines the steps involved in calculating the monthly impingement loss estimate for the CWS, To adjust
impingement estimates for mortality that may occur after collection, PSEG multiplies the initial survival rate oflive or
damaged fish by a species-specific latent mortality rate determined from historical data (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F,
Attachment 2, Section III.D.5), Different latent mortality factors are used for impingement samples from old Ristroph screens
(1977-1995) and new Ristroph screens (1996-1998). The latent screen mortality factors used by PSEG are duplicated in
Appendix B1 of this report. For non-RIS commercial and recreational species, PSEG applied the highest impingement screen
mortality observed for the other species, and bay anchovy parameters were applied to non-RIS forage species.
Figure B3-2: Estimation of Number Lost to Impingement (CWS) in Each Month
Average
number
impinged and
initially dead
(per day)*
Average
number
impinged and
initially alive
(per day)
Latent
mortality
Average
number that
die from latent
mortality
(per day)
Average
number lost
(per day)
in month
n—
Number lost
due to
impingement
in month
Number of
days of plant
operation in
month
~Latent mortality represents 48 hr holding time, except for original screens (96 hr)
The average number that die from latent mortality per day is added to the average number impinged per day that are initially
dead to derive the average number lost per day in each month. This number is then adjusted by the number of days of plant
operation per month to determine the total number lost to impingement in,the CWS per month. This number is adjusted by
the ratio of SWS water withdrawal to CWS water withdrawal for each month to derive an estimate of the number lost to
impingement in the SWS each month (Figure B3-3).
Total impingement loss is then calculated for actual flow conditions by species and life stage for each year (PSEG, 1999c,
Appendix F, Attachment 2, Section 1II.D.6),
B3-22
-------
316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Figure B3-3: Estimation of Number Lost to Impingement (SWS) in Each Month
Estimated number
lost due to
impingement
(CWS) in each
month
Estimated
number lost
due to
impingement
(SWS) in each j
month
Ratio of SWS
water withdrawal!
rate to CWS
water withdrawal |
rate for each
month
B3-3.2 Entrapment Monitoring
PSEG collects entrainnient samples by pumping a volume of water ranging from 50 to 75 mJ through an abundance net and
chamber at 1,0-1.5 m'/min (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 1, Section II.C). The net is a 1 m plankton net with
0.5 mm mesh. After sampling, the net is washed and the contents are rinsed into ajar, preserved, and taken to a laboratory for
identification and counting. All specimens collected are identified to the lowest practical taxon and life stage. For each
sample, total length is measured to the nearest millimeter for a representative subsample of each target species and life stage.
To estimate the density of entrained organisms in the CWS for each day of sampling, PSEG adjusts the average number
collected per cubic meter of water sampled by factors for collection efficiency (including net extrusion and net avoidance),
time of day of sampling, and potential re-entrainment (Figure B3-4), PSEG's net extrusion and net avoidance factors are
duplicated in Appendix B1 of this report. PSEG's uses the average entrainment density for days with sampling to interpolate
the density of entrained organisms for days without sampling to arrive at a density for each day of the year.
Figure B3-4: Estimation of Density of Entrained Organisms for Each Day of Sampling (CWS)
Average
. number
collected per
cubic meter
of water
sampled
Collection
efficiency
adjustment
Night vs. day 1
adjustment I
Recirculation 1
adjustment 1
Average
density of
entrained
organisms
(# per cubic
meter of water
sampled)
PSEG quantifies collection efficiency related to net extrusion for organisms less than 7 mm in total length by determining the
relative probability of capture based on comparison of gear efficiency in the river with gear efficiency in the plant, under the
assumption that densities of larvae in the river and plant are equal (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2,
Section lll.e.2.c.i). For organisms longer than 0.5 mm, collection bias associated with net avoidance and vertical
stratification is quantified based on paired samples collected at the intake and discharge over a 2 week period in 1980 (PSEG,
1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2, Section IlJ.C.2,c,ii).
B3-23
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B- The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of ME Data
To correct for potential bias resulting from a lack of nighttime sampling from 1982 to 1994, PSEG analyzed sampling data to
test for differences among samples taken at different times of day, and developed correction factors to adjust entrainment
estimates for species and life stages that showed a statistically significant day/night effect (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F,
Attachment 2, Section IILC,2.b), Day/night correction factors used to estimate historical losses for bay anchovy juveniles,
larvae of Morone spp,, striped bass juveniles, weak fish eggs, and weak fish juveniles are presented in Appendix F,
Attachment 2, Table 9 of PSEG (1999c),
Adjustment for potential recirculation of previously entrained organisms (re-entrainment) is based on results of a dye survey
conducted in 1998 that indicated that 10 percent of organisms that survive through-plant transport are re-entrained (PSEG,
1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2, Section III.C.3). PSEG's recirculation factors are duplicated in Appendix B1 of this
report.
Once collection numbers are adjusted for collection efficiency, day/night sampling, and potential re-entrainment to derive
estimates of daily entrainment, the daily densities are adjusted by the station water withdrawal rate for each day to estimate
the total number entrained for each day of the year (Figure B3-5).
Figure B3-5: Estimation of Daily Number Entrained for Each Day of the Year (CWS)
Average
density of
entrained
organisms for
days with
sampling
Density of
entrained
Estimated
number
entrained for
each day of
the year
organisms
(#/m3) for
each day of
the year
Station water
withdrawal
rate (cubic
meters per
day) for
each day
Interpolated
density of
entrained
organisms for
days without
sampling
To estimate the daily number of organisms that are actually killed by CWS entrainment, PSEG adjusts the number entrained
for each day of the year by species- and life stage-specific through-plant survival rates estimated from on-site studies, model
simulations, and published results of studies at other facilities (Figure B3-6) (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2,
Section IU.C.4).
PSEG adjusts entrainment estimates for through-plant mortality resulting from thermal mortality, mechanical mortality, and
chemical mortality. Because biocides are not used in the CWS, PSEG assumes that chemical mortality is zero for all species
and life stages at Salem (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2, Section lIl.C.4.b). Thermal mortality was modeled as a
function of exposure temperature, acclimation temperature, and exposure duration (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2,
Section III.C.4.C.), Mechanical mortality was estimated based on studies conducted at the Indian Point Generating Station on
the Hudson River in the 1980's (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, 1989) and using data from the 1984 PSE&G
316(b) Demonstration (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 2, Section III.C.4.a). PSEG's thermal and mechanical
mortality factors are duplicated in Appendix B1 of this report. For non-RIS commercial/recreational species, PSEG assumed
100 percent through-plant mortality, and bay anchovy parameters were applied to non-RIS forage species.
B3-24
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Figure B3-6: Estimation of Daily Number Lost to Entrainment (CWS)
Number
entrained for
eaeh day
of the year
Acclimation
temperature
Thermal
Exposure
duration
mortality
Delta T
Number lost
due to
entrainment
for eaeh day
of the year
Through-plant
mortality
rate
Chemical
mortality
rate
Mechanical
mortality
rate
The number of organisms entrained in the CWS for each day of the year is adjusted by the ratio of SWS water withdrawal to
CWS water withdrawal for each day to derive an estimate of the number lost to entrainment in the SWS each day of the year
(Figure B3-7).
Figure B3-7; Estimation of Daily Number Entrained for Each Day of the Year
Estimated
number
entrained
(CWS) for
each day
of the year
Estimated
number
entrained
(SWS) for
each day of
the year
Ratio of
SWS water
withdrawal rate to
CWS water
withdrawal rate
for each day
of the year
To obtain an annual entrainment loss estimate, PSEG sums all of the daily estimates over the year (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F,
Attachment 2, Section 1I1.C.5).
B3-3.3 Potential Biases and Uncertainties in PSEG's I&E Estimates
Because of the extensive and complex biological information presented in Salem's 1999 Application, NJDEP contracted with
several scientists from ESSA Technologies Ltd. to review and comment on the application (ESSA Technologies, 20001.
ESSA Technologies commended PSEG for the thoroughness of the application, but expressed several concerns about
potential biases and uncertainties in PSEG's estimates of I&E losses. Bias refers to a potential error in which the direction of
the error is known (i.e., an under- or overestimate), whereas uncertainty refers to a potential error with no known directional
bias.
ESSA Technologies (2000) identified several aspects of PSEG's sampling program that increased data uncertainties and
introduced bias in PSEG's I&E estimates, and EPA shares these concerns. For example, ESSA Technologies noted that year-
B3-25
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3; Evaluation of I4E Data
to-year variations in the sampling protocol created a need for data interpolation and extrapolation to fill data gaps, increasing
uncertainty about the true numbers of organisms impinged and entrained. They observed that the need for adjustment of the
1980-1994 entrapment data to account for a lack of nighttime sampling during this period is a particular concern because this
is the only period of complete seasonal coverage and was therefore the basis for extrapolation to other years with incomplete
seasonal coverage,
ESSA Technologies (2000) expressed concern that the sampling changes necessitated the use of numerous adjustment factors
that may have biased I&E estimates. Many adjustments appeared to be biased low, which would result in an underestimate of
losses. For example, ESSA Technologies argued that PSEG may have underestimated the latent screen mortality of impinged
organisms because they did not consider the high velocity and turbulence of exit flume waters in their estimate. The high
velocity of water in the fish return sluice and the extremely turbulent conditions in the sampling pool to which impinged fish
are diverted expose fish to significant stress that could increase, or at least obscure, true impingement mortality. Impingement
mortality may also have been underestimated because PSEG did not take into account impairment in the ability of impinged
organisms that are returned to the estuary to locate prey and avoid predators (Boreman, 1993).
ESSA Technologies (2000) expressed concern about the magnitude of correction needed to adjust entrainment estimates for
net extrusion. In addition, they argued that there may be species-specific errors in PSEG's entrainment estimates because
differences in collection efficiency for different species were not taken into account.
ESSA Technologies (2000) also found that PSEG may have substantially underestimated entrainment mortality by assuming
only moderate rates of mortality as organisms pass through the plant. PSEG based its estimates of thermal mortality on a
probit model (regression equation) that estimates thermal mortality as a function of acclimation temperature, exposure
duration, and exposure temperature (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 1, Section II.C). Because the model was fit to
laboratory data it may not reflect actual rates of thermal mortality experienced by organisms in the condenser water and does
not consider deaths due to cold shock that occur when organisms in the heated condenser water are discharged back into the
cooler receiving waters of the estuary (Boreman, 1993). Mechanical mortality rates were estimated by PSEG from studies in
which larvae were held in jars or aquaria (PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F, Attachment 1, Section ILC), ESSA Technologies
argued that this in vitro environment does not reflect the Stresses faced by larvae on exiting the discharge, and therefore they
concluded that mechanical mortality was probably also underestimated by PSEG. EPA shares these concerns.
ESSA Technologies (2000) also noted some potential sources of mortality not captured by the sampling program. One of
these is mortality of eggs and larvae that are impinged on material clogging intake screens. This material is cleaned off the
screens with high pressure sprays and then is carried away in the impingement discharge flow system. No attempt is made by
PSEG to count any eggs and larvae that are impinged within this material. In addition, certain geographic features near Salem
may have caused a large back eddy, which would cause different flow dynamics depending on tidal cycle, and result in
episodic entrainment patterns that might not have been captured by the sampling program.
In addition to these concerns about the sampling program and estimates of I&E losses, ESSA Technologies (2000) argued
that the natural mortality rates used by PSEG were too high for many species, which would lead to an underestimate of adult
equivalent and yield-per-rccruit losses. They argued that rates were biased high because the "life cycle balancing" method
used by PSEG assumed that fish populations in the Delaware Estuary are at equilibrium. Most fish populations in the estuary
are increasing due to significant water quality improvements and fishing restrictions in recent years, and ESSA Technologies
noted that natural mortality rates of an expanding population are typically lower than for an equilibrium population. In a
rebuttal to the ESSA Technologies review, PSEG (2001 a, f) argued that this would influence their calculations only if higher
than average early survival was responsible for the increased population growth. Instead, PSEG (2001 a, 0 contended that the
increases are largely due to increases in adult survival rates resulting from reduced harvest, and therefore there is no need to
adjust their estimates of early mortality.
PSEG (2001 a,f) also noted that recent spawner-recruit data from National Marine Fishery Service regional stock assessments
for weak fish and striped bass indicate that density-dependent compensation is occurring as stock size increases, resulting in a
decrease in the number of recruits produced per spawner. PSEG (2001 a,f) argued that this implies that early mortality rates of
these species are increasing, not decreasing, suggesting that if PSEG's estimates are biased, they are biased low. Relative to
published values, PSEG's adjusted rates are higher for 10 species, lower for 11 species, and within the range of measured
values for 7 species (PSEG, 200lb,c).
B3-26
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of ME Dote
B3-3.4 Overview of EPA's Evaluation of Salem's I&E Data
Based on the potential biases and uncertainties discussed in the previous section, NJDEP's draft permit requires that "the
uncertainty of the estimated historic annual entrainment loss estimates should be characterized and presented as ranges with
maximum and minimum levels" (NJDEP, 2000), These data requirements were implemented in a June 29, 2001 NJPDES
permit action, but this information is not yet available for review. Therefore, EPA was unable to conduct a formal evaluation
of potential biases and uncertainties in the Salem l&E data for the case study analyses reported here. However, because of
EPA's concern that the uncertainties associated with PSEG's assumptions about l&E survival may significantly underestimate
Salem's l&E rates, particularly for extrapolation purposes, EPA adjusted Salem's estimates to eliminate PSEG's survival
factors for many of its analyses, as discussed in the following sections.
~ Salem's Historical Baseline; Developed using Salem's impingement estimates for 1978-98 and Salem's impingement
survival factors (Tables B3-2 through B3-5), and Salem's entrainment estimates for 1978-98 assuming no through-plant
survival (Tables B3-7 through B3-10).
~ Extrapolation Baseline: Developed using Salem's impingement estimates for 1978-95 and 1997-98 assuming no
impingement survival (Table B3-11), and Salem's entrainment estimates for 1978-95 and 1997-98 assuming no
entrainment survival (Table B3-7). 1996 was eliminated from the analysis because Salem was shut down much of the
year and therefore l&E during this year is not considered representative. The average impingement and entrainment rates
estimated on this basis were used to extrapolate Salem's l&E rates to other transition zone CW1S on the basis of intake
flow.
~ Salem's Benefits Baseline: The baseline used in Chapter B6 to estimate the benefits of the proposed regulation for the
Salem facility was developed using EPA's estimate of Salem's current l&E rates. Current l&E rates were based on
Salem's impingement estimates for 1995 and 1997-1998 assuming impingement survival (Tables B3-20 through B3-22),
and Salem's entrainment estimates for 1978-95 and 1997-98 assuming no through plant survival (Table B3-7). 1996 was
eliminated from the analysis because Salem was shut down much of the year and therefore l&E during this year is not
considered representative.
~ Benefits Baseline for Other In-scope CW1S of the Transition Zone: EPA's estimate of current l&E at transition zone
CWIS was developed using Salem's impingement estimates for 1978-95 and 1997-98 assuming no impingement survival
(Table B3-11), since these facilities do not have technologies for reducing impingement mortality, and Salem's
entrainment estimates for 1978-95 and 1997-98 assuming no entrainment survival (Table B3-7). 1996 was eliminated
from the analysis because Salem was shut down much of the year and therefore l&E during this year is not considered
representative. This baseline was used to estimate benefits of the proposed regulation for Hope Creek, Deepwater, and
Edge Moor (see Chapter B6),
Because PSEG's impingement survival factors reflect the estimated effectiveness of Salem's modified Ristroph screens in
reducing impingement mortality, these factors were retained for EPA's analysis of Salem's historical impingement (Tables
B3-2 through B3-5) and current impingement (Tables B3-20 through B3-22). However, PSEG's impingement survival
factors were eliminated for extrapolation of Salem's impingement rates to facilities without Ristroph screens (see Section B3-
7 and Table B3-11). Salem's entrainment survival factors were eliminated for all analyses (Tables B37 through B3-10)
because EPA found insufficient justification in Salem's 1999 Application for their use.
The results of EPA's analyses are presented in the following sections. The data tables associated with these sections present
annual l&E numbers from facility monitoring and EPA's estimates of these losses expressed as age 1 equivalents, lost fishery
yield, and production foregone, as calculated by EPA according to the methods discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this
document,
B3-4 Salem's Annual Impingement
Annual impingement losses (numbers of organisms) at Salem as calculated by PSEG are presented in Appendix L, Tab 9 of
Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application (PSEG, 1999cJ and duplicated here in Tabic B3-2. For its estimates, PSEG
assumed that some proportion of impinged organisms survive. The species-specific initial and latent screen mortality factors
used by PSEG in its calculations of impingement are presented in Appendix BI. Table B3-3 presents the results of EPA's
calculations to express these losses as numbers of age 1 equivalents,.Table B3^t presents impingement losses as pounds of
yield lost to commercial and recreational fisheries, and Table B3-5 presents the losses as pounds of production foregone.
B3-27
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I<&E bata
PSEG's impingement estimates indicate that impingement losses at Salem vary substantially by species and by year. Over the
period 1978-1998, PSEG's estimates of impingement losses ranged from a minimum of 193 individuals of striped bass and
other Morone species in 1985 to a maximum of 11,264,933 bay anchovy in 1981. In most years, bay anchovy and weak fish
dominate impingement collections, followed by spot and blueback herring. However, according to PSEG's estimates, losses
of Atlantic croaker, blue crab, and white perch at Salem have also been high (over I million) in some years.
Of interest in recent years is PSEG's estimated high losses of Atlantic croaker in 1998, when the station was operating close
to its expected future intake flow rate. This occurred despite the addition of modified Ristroph screens in 1995 to increase
impingement survival. This may be related in part to the increasing trend in Atlantic croaker abundance in the estuary in
recent years (see Appendix J in PSEG, 1999d).
Striped bass impingement has also been generally higher during the past decade, apparently related in part to increases in the
striped bass population in the estuary. Some of this increase is attributed to movement into the estuary of Chesapeake Bay
striped bass via the C&D canal (see Appendix J in PSEG, 1999d).
Although both weakfish and white perch populations have shown significant increases in the estuary in recent years (see
Appendix J in PSEG, 1999d), impingement rates of both species have declined since the installation in 1995 of modified
Ristroph screens designed to increase impingement survival. A study by PSEG indicated that weakfish impingement
mortality declined by 51 percent after installation of the new technology (Ronafalvy et al., 2000).
By contrast, bay anchovy impingement has generally been lower in the past decade. However, a corresponding decreasing
trend in the population of bay anchovy in the estuary has not been detected, and some of the apparent decline in impingement
numbers appears to be related to an exceptionally high year class and related high impingement in 1980 (see Appendix J in
PSEG, 1999d).
Blueback herring and spot impingement has declined in the past decade at the same time populations of these species have
shown significant declines within the estuary (see Appendix J in PSEG, 1999d). However, in the case of spot the decline is in
part because of an exceptionally strong year class in 1988, a year that also showed exceptionally high spot impingement.
B3-28
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter S3: Evaluation of J&E Data
Table B3-2:
Annua) Impingement (numbers of organisms), by Species, at the Salem Station as Estimated by PS EG Using Impingement
Survival Factors (see the initial and latent mortality factors in Appendix B1 of Part B).
Year
1978
Alewife
+ 21%
Alma spp,
17,057
American j Atlantic
Shad ; Croaker
4,549 i 125,822
; Blueback
Bay Herring
Anchovy ; + 79%
j Alosa spp.
2,623,694 | 438,248
j j Striped
: j Bass
Blue Crab ; Spot :: + 58%
! Morotte
\ spp.
111,627 ; 84,519 j 3,213
Weakfish
6,391,256
White
Perch
+ 42%
Morons
*PP;
254,688
Non-RIS
Fishery
Species
Non-RIS
Forage Species
1979
11,513
2,144 i 8,494
1,321,105 ; 651,005
97,434 | 292,471 j 9,625
580,628
541,715
—
_
1980
11,301
6,382 ! 93,232
11,046,658 ; 460,638
501,000 I 146,794 ! 4,350
1,821,462
403,453
_
_
1981
647,832
8,820 : 14,996
11,264,933 i 364,803
347,436 : 857,167 i 1,895
1,818,578
344,726
— '
—
1982
46,951
9,406 j 2,975
3,846,612 i 418,130
122,032 i 979,961 ! 542
967,867
261,912
—
1983
19,584
5,359 ; 2,326
3,784,994 i 224,303
100,953 1 681,704 ; 924
1,038,356
143,904 '
—
—
1984
128,002
3,266 | 853
2,444,847 1 1,335,665
87,890 i 316,579 ; 430
357,125
300,333
—
1985
4,676
11,033 ! 275,670
3,771,190 | 162,478
1,011,790 j 183,679 j 193
1,263,119
582,528
—
_
1986
20,788
11,007 | 233,915
2,011,567 I 467,361
1,228,076 1 52,445 j 2,875
756,956
1,033,048
_
1987
74,461
24,120 ; 1,245,098
3,346,956 | 157,496
834,857 j 2,204 i 6,673
1,095,105
715,912
....
1988
31,082
35,182 ! 4,046
4,657,784 j 357,896
1,247,649 i 1,917,236 j 10,450
427;218
646,825
—
1989
137,998
65,138 : 24,168
781,653 ; 891,085
344,310 : 119,381 ; 26,006
184,538
760,842
1990
50,074
15,393 ! 5,787
1,373,446 i 168,555
178,511 ! 120,833 j 28,003
170,778
575,349
768,431
199!
1992
1993
21,275
23,847
22,874 i 45,535
1,719,784 | 137,107
307,503 i 134,807 1 10,089
688,724
1,318,756
3,759,670
64,807 | 55,267
1,286,667 i 120,649
370,591 ; 2,999 j 20,966
841,319
1,158,199
1,082,303
4,187,464
23,267
22,087 j 176,279
596,243 | 100,999
387,190 I 16,869 1 74,100
723,366
1,043,913
248,137
1,189,847
1994
22,946
6,315 1 31,538
178,764 | 31,835
491,199 | 247,677 ! 23,612
2,130,349
1,266,489
300,779
2,068,499
1995
14,745
7,940 i 610,261
363,601 : 143,846
1,012,348 ! 27,435 j 10,812
890,341
321,359
1,057,789
3,541,198
1996
1,321
829 j 21,010
18,802 i 5,548
83,457 ; 7,281 ; 9,191
130,459
75,006
456,756
876,044
1997
5,899
819 I 266,558
309,018 1 50,879
475,443 j 30,245 ! 12,779
1,582,441
228,996
1,292,807
979,870
1998
8,037
2,214 ! 2,370,135
1,104,126 j - 57,267
280,741 i 2,654 ! 10,660
1,572,811
124,351
452,514
678,595
Nan-RIS species are listed in Table B3-i.
Source: PSEO, 1999e, Appendix L, Tab 9.
B3-29
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table B3-3; Annual Impingement at the Salem Station, by Species, Expressed as Numbers of Age I Equivalents.
Year;
Alenlfe
+21 % Alosa »pp.
j American
i Shad
! Atlantic j Bay Blue i
i Croaker j Anchovy | Crab j
Blueback Herring
+79% Alosa spp.
Spot
Striped Bats
+58% Morone
spp.
iWenMlshi
White Perch
-^42% Morone
spp.
; Non-RIS
; Fishery
; Species
i Non-RIS
Forage
Species
1978 j
2,636
I 400
| 26,237 j 3,207,895 j 106,937 j
45,217
; 47,840 j
2,207
j 237,865 j
205,508
1 NA
j NA
1979 :
5,228
: 28
; 1,694 ; 1,658,005 | 87,450 j
64,659
; 152,505 ;
6,972
; 30,527 \
432,155
i NA
: NA
1980 i
7,399
j 789 j
18,705 12,307,910; 430,887 ;
74,240
i 76,140 j
3,979
; 73,243 |
384,326
; NA ;
NA
1981 i
70,931
; 717 ;
2,991 ;10,305,370 I 494,609 i
45,175
453,422 ;
2,093
; 109,740 1
304,727
: NA ;
NA
1982 i
24,093
! 435 ;
593 ; 4,492,784 ; 151,012 j
79,830
506,074 ;
452
i 54,048 j
232,375
i NA ;
NA
1983 :
2,792
; 120 ;
464 ; 3,840,211 ; 122,827 ;
24,128
; 404,825 ;
1,068
; 66,312 •;
147,348
; NA ;
NA
1984 ;
20,129
; 4 ;
170 ; 3,240,737 i 90,517 ;
138,154
i 168,227 j
183
; 23,718 \
248,481
1 NA |
NA
1985 ;
1,475
I 4,825 ;
61,635 ! 5,436,267 ; 1,012,273 ;
78,420
; 135,544 ;
103
; 125,274 j
459,338
; NA ;
NA
1986 ;
2,811
i 13 |
46,652 | 3,111,302 ; 1,103,054;
62,359
; 27,780 ;
1,621
i 43,753 j
736,078
i NA ;
NA
1987 ;
25,409
; 645
; 248,827 ! 4,954,486 ; 691,684 ;
30,682
: 3,100 ;
3,71!
; 128,477 j
540,814
1 NA |
NA
1988 I
7,234
: 1,262 ;
807 ; 7,457,023 ; 1,098,308 ;
40,597
; 993,151 i
8,014
! 19,004 ;
678,298
1 NA i
NA
1989 |
13,510
! 80 :
! 5,454 ; 1,147,108 j 316,747 j
99,184
j 65,855 j
15,325
: 33,553 ;
752,529
; na i
NA
1990 ;
4,296
; 1,884 ;
: 3,961 i 1,923,258 ; 201,566 ;
2,053
; 62,524 ;
18,440
i 15,173 i
690,946
; NA ;
NA
1991 ;
2,340
i 166 !
; 12,514 I 2,632,605 ; 294,155 ;
30,708
; 89,166 ;
11,106
i 51,978 ;
686,910
; 401,457 ;
3,200,087
1992 |
2,899
i 419
: 15,441 ; 1,998,807 ; 477,614 j
15,064
1 3,357 ;
13,967
; 65,868 ;
1,035,386
; 205,300 i
3,032,060
1993 i
3,058
: 381
I 44,324 ; 725,913 } 387,967 j
11,683
; 8,692 |
18,883
; 30,845 j
793,814
; 74,659 ;
1,438,503
1994 ;
4,323
i 8 j
; 6,549 ; 199,838 ; 439,444 ;
12,944
127,624 j
17,955
; 86,759 ;
872,029
; 101,808 ;
1,472,900
1995 ;
2,054
; io ;
; 151,250 ; 400,287 ; 837,514 ;
18,864
; 38,554 ;
6,713
; 35,243
247,600
; 256,295 ;
2,728,877
1996
136
! H
; 7,656 j 19,780 ; 65,818 ;
755
! 3,797 ;
1,844
; 5,125 ;
50,414
! 121,929 ;
725,920
1997 ;
941
i l
I 58,241 ; 299,061 j 286,356 j
7,480
; 15,640 j
6,312
I 66,917 ;
161,697
1 302,775 ;
964,074
1998 i
3,412
i 1,142
; 485,999 ; 876,041 ; 282,114 j
12,061
; 2,673 ;
4,890
; 65,409 ;
93,927
i 88,394 ;
747,858
Mean i
9,862
1 635
; 57,151 ; 3,344,509 ; 427,564 ;
42,584
I 161,262 j
6,945
i 65,182 ;
464,510
; 194,077 !
1,788,785
Min ;
136
1 1
170 ; 19,780 j 65,818 ;
755
; 2,673 ;
103
; 5,125 ;
50,414
; 74,659 :
725,920
Max ;
70,931
! 4,825
i 485,999 : 12,307,910; 1,103.054;
138,154
! 993,151 ;
18,883
; 237,865 •
1,035,386
I 401,457 ;
3,200,087
SD !
15,873
Total ;
207,106
j 13,339
; 1,200,163 ; 70,234,680 j 8,978,851 ;
894,257
; 3,386,492 j
145,837
; 1,368,830;
9,754,701
; 1.552.617;
14,310,280
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age I equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are
assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back to the start of year I by accounting for mortality
during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter A5, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is applied to all raw loss records, but the effect is not readily
apparent among entminment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1.
NA = Not sampled
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Tue Feb 12 18:03:39 MST 2002; Results; 1 Plant: saiemhistoric; Units: equivalent.suras Pathname:
P:.!ntake'Delawan.-'Del-Scicnce/scodes/tables.output historic damages/I equivalent sums.salem.historic csv
B3-30
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Dcta
Table 83-4: Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at the Salem Station Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year
\ AlewIfe+21%
I Alosa spp.
j American i
1 Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Blue Crab
j Spot
; Striped Bass +58%
Morvne spp.
Weakfish
; White Perch +42%
: Morvnr spp.
Non-RIS Fishery
Species
1978
1 24
: 98 :
5,341
; 3,412
5.358
3,064
187,007
; 90
: na
1979
i 47
i 7 |
345
i 2,791
i 17,080
i 9,676
24,000
j 190
j NA
1980
| 66
1 193 j
3,808
i 13,750
j 8,528
i 5,522
57,583
j 169
! NA
1981
i 633
\ I75 i
609
i 15,783
j 50,783
j 2,904
86,276
; 134
; na
1982
| 215
1 106 i
121
; 4,819
| 56,680
! 628 i
42,492
; 102
| NA
1983
1 25
i 29 I
94
i 3,919
| 45,340
I 1,482
52,134
: 65
: na
1984
; 180
i 1 ;
35
i 2,888
j 18,841
\ 254
18,647
: 109
: NA
1985
1 13
i 1,181 1
12,548
; 32,302
i 15,181
i 144
98,489
j 202
j NA
1986
! 25
: 3 1
9,498
i 35,198
: 3,m
: 2,250
34,398
! 324
: na
1987
j 227
: 158 !
50,658
! 22,072
| 347
i 5,150
101,007
i 238
! NA
1988
| 65 -
j 309
164
| 35,047
; 111,232
! 11,123
14,941
; 298
; NA
1989
j 121
! 20 ;
1,110
j 10,107
1 7,376
! 21,270
26,379
; 331
; NA
1990
i 38
| 461
806
| 6,432
j 7,003
1 25,593
11,929
: 304
i NA
1991
! 2»
j 41
2,548
! 9,386
i 9,987
| 15,414
40,864
: 302
i 35,864
1992
| 26
; 103
3,144
! 15,241
! 376
i 19,386
51,784
i 456
i 18,340
1993
j 27
i 93 ;
9,024
1 12,380
i 974
! 26,210
24,250
j 349
; 6,670
1994
j 39
: 2 ;
1,333
j 14,023
i 14,294
! 24,921
68,209
j 384
j 9,095
1995
i
! 2 :
30,793
j 26,725
j 4,318
j 9,318
27,708
; 109
j 22,896
1996
i i
! 3 i
1,559
| 2,100
j 425
i 2,559
4,029
j 22
| 10,892
1997
; 8
! 0 1
11,857
i 9,138
j 1,752
j 8,761
52,609
1 71
: 27,048
1998
| 30
| 280 :
98,943
1 9,002
j 299
j 6,787
51,423
41
: 7,897
Mean
j 88
; 155 i
11,635
j 13,644
; 18,061
i 9,639
51,246
i 204
I 17,338
Min
i l
! 0 ;
35
: 2,100
1 299
144
4,029
1 22
: 6,670
Max
; 633
i 1,181 i
98,943
1 35,198
1 111,232
i 26,210
187,007
j 456
35,864
SD
! 142
| 265 ;
23,449
| 10,701
! 27,192
i 8,927
41,210
j 127
i 10,568
Total
:: 1,849
1 3,265 i
244,338
j 286,514
j 379,285
i 202,417
1,076,157
i 4,292
| 138,702
NA = Not sampled
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Non-RlS species are listed in Table 133-1.
Tuc Feb 12 18:03:58 MST 2002; Results; I Plant: salem.historic; Units: yield Pathname: P:/Intake/Delawarc/Dcl-Science/scodes/tables.output,historic,damages/I.yield.salem,historic.csv
B3-3I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table B3-5; Annual Impingement at the Salem Station, by Species, Expressed os Production Foregone (in pounds).
Year
Alewife
+21%
Alma spp.
.American)
Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Bay
i Mueback f Striped j ; WMte Perch { Non-RIS
Blue Crab j Herring +79% ; Spot [ Bass +58% j Weaklish ; +42% Morone ; Fishery
i Alosa spp. ; 'Morone spp.; ; __ spp. Species
Non-RIS
Forage
i Species
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
i
1984 :
1985 ;
1986
1987
1988 i
1989* " l"
1990 !
1991 !
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998 1
i
-t-
1.208
3,026
4,419
26,788
14,447
1,170
9,356
725
1,242
14,314
3,681
4,840
1,356
916
1.209
1,331
2,176
920
50
447
1,965
2,402
210
4,675
¦ A.
14,499
820
9,231
: 4,315 j 1,448
j 2,714 i 287
1,642
998
5,943
8,021
2,431
! 815 I 225
! 100 : 82
t
27,915 ! 40,302
336
4,262
8,060
I,986
II,160
r-
-i i-
I 11,160 !
I 1,487 I
j 3,924 ! 14,420
22,589
121,273
391
3,637
6,329
11,454
2,700
193
242
84
25
—-t-
...j..
6,600
35,867
3,578
119,652
9,152
36,180
256,217
j..
2,435
1,218
2,260
1,030
1,546
1,540
372 *
928
922
770
525
120
284
14
242
975
19,881
17,206
72,343
71,992
23,411
17,183
16,131
185,850
211,790
127,351
224,946
*62*499
35,630
41,847
73,970
67,273
87,416
165,441
14,070
58,276
53,341
12,839
17,694
25,299
13,044
27,741
6,700
39,240
25,011
18,789
10,436
11,238"
: 18,309 j
i 43,316 i
DT.ST
j 136,883
1 137,584
I 176,815
r
51,728
88,315
29,470
837
3,585
4,937
2,726
5,918
5,795
256
2,602
4,411
I M33_
j 3.325
j 273,860
r 23^220
i 17,153
i 48,968
3,199
j...,.2:3:39..
i 41,326
1,079
4,280
2,375
6,087
26,048
17,014
8,059
1,580
6,228
267
147
2,967
8,304
: 521,227 :
; 58,940 i
j 161,901 !
! 203,167 !
i i-
| 105,301 i
: 121,846 j
6,616
13,888
i 1,135
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10,451
6,568
i NA
! NA
NA
NA
26,605
38,789
65,835
42,141
204,726
88,536
254,259
"43,273 "
4,710
7,459
NA
NA
13,629
21,899
15,727
74,671
24,548-
23,888
23,953
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37,896
48,234
85,143
23,832
22,367
NA
52,471
71,550 '
20,774
116,550
64,785
36,357
25,648
102,927
92,0*95
18,627
182,867
77,204
25,383
8,423
21,907
91,452
4,591
18,167
12,814
11,010
139,981
148,532
1,586
5,094
3,148
33,969
102,541
38,158
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,273
3,183
586
1,460
2,745
526
741
377
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Total
"t
J
4,552
50
26,788
6,595
95,584
33,697 i 1,629
! 4,010 i
IXJE2
I 27,915 : 256,217 ! 8,021
! ! - i
; 6,230 j 61,783 i 1,945
i !
j 84,204 j 707,632 ; 34,215
..j.
78,469
14,070
224,946
66,142
1,647,847
12,789
256
39,240
11,023
268,567
54,189
1,079
273,860
71,288
; 1,137,968 j
22,592
147
71,550
21,909
474,427
130,029
11,010
521,227 i
110,443 j
2,730,609 :
14,846
1,586
36,357
9,542
311,761
62,709
18,627
102,927
! 37,665
j 501,675
..i.
1,486
377
3,183
I,108
II,892
NA = Not sampled.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Tue Feb 12 18:03:49 MST2002; Results; I Plant; salem.historic; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P :/Intake/Delaware/Dcl-Science/scodes/tables .output, historie.damages/l,annual .prod, forg.salem.hi storic.esv
B3-32
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
B3-5 Salem's Annual Entrainment
Annual entrainment losses (numbers of organisms) at Salem as calculated by PSEG are presented in Appendix L, Tab 8 of
Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application (PSEG, 1999e) and duplicated below in Table B3-6. For its estimates, PSEG
assumed that some proportion of entrained organisms survive. The through-plant survival factors used by PSEG to calculate
entrainment losses are presented in Tab 10 of Appendix L of the Salem Application and presented in Appendix B1 of Part B.
As discussed in Section B3-3.3, an independent review of Salem's 1999 Application by scientists with ESSA Technologies,
Ltd. (2000) concluded that Salem's entrainment rates were most likely underestimated by PSEG because their entrainment
calculations assumed substantial through-plant survival of entrained organisms. EPA concurs with ESSA that Salem's 1999
Application provides inadequate justification for PSEG's assumptions about through-plant survival, and therefore, EPA
recalculated Salem's entrainment without the thermal and mechanical mortality factors used by PSEG for its calculations (see
Appendix Bl for the species-specific thermal and mechanical mortality factors used by PSEG). Table B3-7 presents the
results of EPA's calculations of Salem's annual entrainment rates assuming 100 percent through-plant mortality of entrained
organisms. EPA's entrainment estimates (Table B3-7) are higher than PSEG's (Table B3-6) for all species except Atlantic
menhaden, bay anchovy, and silversides. EPA's entrainment estimate of Atlantic croaker is three times higher than PSEG's
and EPA's estimate for spot is five times higher.
EPA used its estimates of entrainment assuming 100 percent through-plant mortality to express entrainment at Salem in terms
of numbers of age 1 equivalents, fishery yield, and production foregone. Table B3-8 presents numbers of age I equivalents
entrained, Table B3-9 presents entrainment as pounds of yield lost to commercial and recreational fisheries, and Table B3-10
presents entrainment as pounds of production foregone.
As with impingement, entrainment at Salem varies substantially by species and by year. For the period 1978-1998, EPA's
estimates of mean annual entrainment at Salem entrainment range from 55,575 for American shad to nearly 12.5 billion for
bay anchovy. Maximum entrainment during this period was over 45 billion bay anchovy in 1986. Bay anchovy typically
dominate entrainment collections, but several hundred million Atlantic croaker, weakfish, striped bass, and white perch have
also been entrained in many years in the period.
In 1998, exceptionally high numbers of alewife were entrained, over 16 million, compared to a mean of about 1.2 million fo
the period. In 1995 and 1998, unusually high entrainment of Atlantic menhaden occurred, reaching about 180 million
compared to a mean of 20.8 million. Similarly, in 1998 blueback herring entrainment was over 66 million compared to a
mean of about 5.2 million, striped bass entrainment was about 537 million compared to a mean of 39.7 million, and white
perch entrainment was nearly 416 million compared to a mean of 42.6 million. Of note is that Salem's intake flow in 1998
was substantially higher than other years and close to the level of use projected by the facility over the next permit cycle.
In contrast to these recent increases in entrainment rates, spot entrainment was substantially lower than average from 1995 on.
All species showed lower entrainment in 1996, but this was due to a plant shut down during that year (PSEG, 1999e).
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Date
Table B3-6: Annual Entrainment (number of organisms), by Species, at the Salem Station as Estimated by PSE6 Assuming Through-Plant Survival
Ale wife ; .
Year: +21%
Shad
: Alma spp,:
1978; 7,632 ; 3,975
Atlantic j Atlantic
Croaker ; Menhaden
; Blueback
Bay Anchovy j
; Alaxa spp.
j Striped Bassj ; White Perch
Silvenldes j Spot j +58% | Weakflsh ; +42%
j i Morane spp. 1 i Morone «pp.
Non-RIS ; Non-RIS
Fishery Forage
Species* i Species*
784,064 1 0
7,962,051,278 : 775,494
79,935,119 j 5,095,551 j 25,601 j 399,818,310 \ 0
NA i NA
1979: 49,684 \ 0
14,514,986 ; 72,137
3,535,124,407 1 19,274
18,082,977 j 1,095,197 j 20,304 ; 23,192,970 ; 625,399
NA I NA
19801 859,887 j 15,132
755,706 ! 4,276,613
15,155,926,538| 2,812,879
145,109,137; 10,295,704 j 0 ; 256,708,366 ; 27,513,718
NA I NA
1981 ; 2,002,234 j 0
8,156,747 ! 9,206,968
11,714,057,177; 11,852,670
113,240,053; 5,417,848 i 0 ! 45,764,940 i 969,236
NA i NA
1982 : 0 i 0
0 i 4,156,955
3,712,919,795 ! 16,656
22,200,895 ;29,963,409; 0 j 74,456,905 j 18,857,094
NA i NA
1983 i NA i NA
NA j NA
NA | NA
NA j NA i NA j NA j NA
NA i NA
1984] NA 1 NA
NA i NA
NA NA
NA j NA j NA | NA j NA
NA | NA
1985; 163,133 ; 126,276
933,196 ; 0
29,463.744,796: 1,151,370
0 | 183,598 1 0 j 63,615,990 i 447,265
NA i NA
1986 | 348,352 i 59,250
492,348 j 0
45,248,806,030; 1,593,617
0 ! 858,283 | 0 j 110,396,880 i 653,875
Z
>
£
>
1987 i 0 j 62,364
o ; o
40,172,399,532'; 82,394
0 ;' 54,551 ; 0 ; 61,266,9i6 j 628,439
NA ; NA
1988 : 748,616 1 0
1,709,851 ! 0
22,331,488,597; 2,987,578
o ; 73,501,509; o ; 57,063,491 ; 8,968,240
NA i NA
1989; 540,788 ! 0
56,341,150 ; 0
10,163,461,645; 2,395,307
0 ; 1,026,809 j 47,946,144 : 3,026,428 ; 192,130,782
NA i NA
1990; 101,432 ; 0
123,374,873; 0
7,678,380,444 i 260,035
0 j 4,395,303 j 1,312,530 i 6,685,346 j 2,606,258
NA ; NA
1991 : 0 ; 0
131,798,4651 0
19,506,554,577; 0
0 1 1,095,693 j 777,984 i 72,477,718 ; 1,108,499
NA j NA
1992! 319,124 ; 0
71,351,661 i 0
1,570,462,617 ; 864,490
0 ! 0 j 1,728,235 i 10,374,786 ! 3,392,824
NA ! NA
1993 ; 675,884 i 0
75,030,114! 0
11,774,247,388; 2,339,735
0 I 584,884 ! 108,064,811 j 122,672,393 1 37,634,808
NA j NA
1994 j 697,126 j 0
24,782,692 i 0
1,120,303,600 j 2,622,523
0 ! 46,858,797i 7,490,424 i 88,781,352 j 66,926,677
NA j NA
1995 i 477,453 '; 14,474
31,454,237 |l 77,220,933
1,404,485,840 \ 81,566
31,018,748 i 71,245 i 579,481 ; 335,082,605 i 2,039,275
153,969,300:967,814,700
1996 ; 82,548 I 27,559
4,384,613 ! 3,039,455
70,642,422 i 425,090
1,226,981 j 25,366 1 7,288,639 i 14,257,625 1 16,799,904
153,969,300:967,814,700
1997; 52,865 j 746,895
71,819,490 i 16,667,564
1,811,782,029 ; 318,483
6,919,466 j 7,482 j 6,504,598 j 12,600,665 j 7,865,126
153,969,300:967,814,700
1998 114,480,1421 0
132,129,651! 180,557,345
2,003,681,602 \ 59,282,494
51,528,345 j 20,054 1 448,563,394 ! 76,343,394 i 412,839,168
153,969,300 ;967,814,700
Annual entrainment losses of non-RIS fishery and forage species were not reported in Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application. Instead, the facility presented an annual average for
the years 1995-1998. For these years, entrainment of non-RIS fishery species was 153,969,330 organisms per year and entrainment of non-RIS forage species was 967,814,720 organisms
per year (PSEG, 1999e, Appendix L, Tab 8).
NA = Not sampled.
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Source: PSEG, 1999e, Appendix L, Tab 8.
B3-34
-------
Chapter B3: Evaluation of 14 E Data
Table B3-7: Annual Entrainment (number of organisms) at the Salem Station, by Species,
as Estimated by EPA Assuming 100 Percent Through-Plant Mortality.
Alewlfe
Year ; ->-21% Afos
American
Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Atlantic
Menhaden
Bay Anchovy
Blueback
Herring +79%
I tpp.
Sllversides
Spot
4-
: Striped Bass
: +58% Morane
spp.
Weakflsh
: White Perch
4-42%
Mo
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
8,544
55,622
3,975
0
962,662
2,241,544
0
NA
NA
| 15,132
: o
..i..
! o
i NA
¦r
182,631
NA
126,276
389,988 | 59,250
1987
1988
0
838,092
62,364
1989
1990
1991
1992
605,424
113,555
0
357,266
1993
19J4
1995
756,667
780,448
534,519
1996
1997
1998
92,414
59,184
16,210,831
0
0
14,474
27,559
746,894
0
2,177,952
40,319,346
2,099,180
22,657,594
0
72,137
4,276,613
7,962,051,277
0
NA
NA
2,592,205
1,367,631
9,206,968
4,156,955
NA
0
4,749,579
156,502,967
342,707,477
366,106,309
198,198,767
208,416,677
68,840,707
87,372,752
12,179,463
199,498,293
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
" 0 "
0
j 177,220,933
1* 3*039,455
i
j 16,667,564
367,026,271 ; 180,557,344
3,535,124,407
15,155,926,538
11,714,057,178 :
3,712,919,793 :
NA I
NA
29,463,744,795
45,248,806,032 ;
40,172,399,531 |
868,182
21,578
3,149,079
13,269,320
J.
79,935,118 ; 24,990,602
: 18,082,978
i 145,109,137
4' 113,240,054
5,371,280
50,494,214
26.571,274
18,647
NA
: 22,200,895 I 146,952,435
NA
NA
NA
1,288,984
NA
22,331,488,597 j
10,163,461,644 !
7,678,380,445 ;
19,506,554.576 I
1,784,089
92,242
3,344,658
...i "
i 0
2,681,597
291,115
o
; NA
j 900,437
; 4,209,360
; 267,540
j 360,480,535
i 5,035,878
21,556,308
5,373.713
1,570,462,619
11,774,247,387
1,120,303,600
1,404,485,841
70,642,420
1,811,782,028
2,003,681,603
967,815
2,619,384
2,935,971
.1.
; 2,868,503
I 229,814,115
91,315
475,899
j 31,018,749
1,226,981
349,414
124,405
356,549
66,368,030
| 6,919,466
; 51,528,345
36,695
98,353
25,601
20,304
0
0
0
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
57,430,456
1,572,164
931,878
2,070,100
129,441,302
8,899,097
694,109
8,730,418
j 428,114,400
24,617,925
271,959,260
48,426,552
¦1'
78,517,574
NA
NA
10,075,085
118,057,915
62,702,941
60,536,736
3,254,760
7,145,540
77,073,686
11,216,240
130,205,448
95,852,608
356^747,253
15,394,030
7,786,536
536,955,425
13,582,304
80,823,960
0
646,711
27,519,051
1,002,628
18,881,133
NA
NA
462,674
664,022
650,090
9,277,212
194,817,233
2,696,047
1,146,689
3,509,712
38,205,582
67,542,554
2,109,532
16,959,115
7,936,108
415,734,553
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Total
1,273,126
0
16,210,831
3,657,744
24,189,391
; 55,575
0
109,621,746 ; 20,799,893
¦h.
; 746,894 i 367,026,271 ! 180,557,344 i
I 170,575 I 133,246,350 j 55,874,625
| 1,055,924 s 2.082.813.171 \ 395,197,969
12,442,132,648
70,642,420 j
45,248,806,032 i
13,411,735,891 1
236,400,520,311 j
5,296,024
0
66,368,030
15,089,818
100,624,451
: 24,697,985
0
46,605,003
0
39,713,547 ! 99,700,222 j 42,618,981
: 145,109,137 ! 360,480,535
; 42,925,237
| 469,261,723
i 96,477,467
i 885,495,061
536,955,425
124,417,960
754,557,389
i 3,254,760 j
I 428,114,400 !
j :
! 121,478,051 ;
j 1,894,304,218;
0
415,734,553
101,071,419
809,760,647
B3-35
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table B3-7: Annual Entrapment (number of organisms) at the Salem
Station, by Species, as Estimated by EPA Assuming 100 Percent
Through-Plant Mortality (cant,)
Nob-RIS Nob-RIS
Fishery Species" _ Forage Species*
Year
1978
1979'
1980'
NA
NA
"na"
NA
"na"
"na"
1981
j 982
1983"
1984"
198*5"
NA
"na"
"na"
'¦4
NA
"na"
"na"
1986
1987"
1988
"i'989*
Two"
1991
1992
.......
-I-..
NA
NA
"na"
"na"
na
"na"
na
"na"
1993 ;
1994 :
1995
1996
1997"
'j'99'g"
NA
NA
NA
na"
t-
NA
"i53,969,300
153,969,300
153,969,300
153^969,300
...4
.....I.
NA
NA
"na"
"na"
"na"
"na"
"na"
"na
NA
'967,814J06"
967,814,;700'
967,814,700"
967,814,700
Mean
Min
•Max
SD
Total"
153,969,300
'•1
153,969,300
"i '53,969,300'
0
"615,877,300"
I
967,814,700
"967,8^4,700"
"967,814,700
0
3,871,259,000
' Annual entrainment losses of non-RIS fishery and forage species were not reported
in Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application. Instead, the facility presented an annual
average for the years 1995-1998 data. Averaged for these years, entrainment of non-
RIS fishery species was 153,969,330 organisms per year and entrainment of non-RIS
forage species was 967,814,720 organisms per year (PSEG, I999e, Appendix L,
Tab 8).
NA = Not sampled.
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Tue Feb 12 18:23:34 MST2002 Raw.losses. ENTRAINMENT; Plantsalem.historic;
PATHNAME:P:/Intake/DeIaware/Del-Scienee/scodes/tables.output.historie.damages/r
aw.losses.entsalem.historic.csv
B3-36
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table B3-B: EPA's Estimates of Annual Entrainment at the Salem Station, by Species. Expressed as Numbers of Age I Equivalents,
Year
1978
1979
Alewlfe
+21%
Alosa spp.
33
214
Americanj Atlantic
Shad i Croaker
0 i 187,667
0 i 7,349,321
Atlantic
Menhaden
0
7,856
Blueback
Bay Anchovy ; Herring +79%
Alosa spp.
901,202,064 | 3,177
36,089,496 i 79
Silver-
sides
Spot
Striped Bass
+58%
Morone spp.
White Perch I Non-RIS
Weakfish +42% 1 Fishery
; Marane spp, : Species'
Non-RIS
Forage
Species'
7,196
294,761
12,849,708
2,767,731
0
0
7,572,325 j 0 ; NA
119,038 j 407,951 ! NA
NA
NA
1981
8,619
0 ; 1,106,959
1,002,696
317,219,041 ; 48,561
1,251,766
13,691,736
0
227,950 ; 639,195 j NA
NA
NA
1982
0
0 : 0
452,718
108,544,490 ; 68
17,713
61,012,334
0
429,948 ; 487,447 j NA
1983
NA
NA j NA
NA
NA j NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ; NA | NA
NA
1984
NA
NA j NA
NA
NA j NA
NA
NA
NA
NA : NA ; NA
NA
1985
702
155 : 109,948
0
19,766,087 ; 4,717
0
463,980
0
474,167 ; 294,964 ; NA
NA
1986
1,500
73 j 685
0
240,228,921 | 6,529
0
931,631
0
1,949,102 [ 194,770 i NA
NA
1987
0
76 ; 0
0
276,775,535 i 338
0
137,859
0
299,142 : 414,445 | NA
NA
1988
3,223
0 j 387,145
0
779,119,078 ; 12,240
0
183,257,758
0
480,213 : 3,937,433 j NA
NA
1989
1990
369
11
0 ; 23,972,452
0
162,851,234 ; 1,631
0
2,594,904
2,479,335
79,595 3,123,551 ; NA
NA
0 | 51,609,459
0
142,100,458 ; 167
0
10,828,831
99,360
105,794 ; 1,393,936 ; NA
NA
1991
0
0 ; 66,409,497
0
1,353,741,468 ; 0
0
2,062,486
169
826,872 i 731,037 ; NA
NA
1992
218
0 ; 35,296,188
0
99,601,622 | 554
0
0
105,432
365,908 ; 848,321 j NA
NA
1993
461
0 ; 36,627,606
0
114,994,298 j 1,499
0
1,478,092
4,100,226
532,087 , 1,371,627 ; NA
NA
1994
1995
475
1,977
0 | 8,292,818
18 : 15,049,904
0
19,137,281
50,694,237 ! 1,680
33,360,491 1 52
0
1,743
111,206,379
35,850
2,926,134 i 2,816,509 ; NA
NA
41,596
30,092
3,214,782 ; 1,170,460 ; 13,879,730
6,423,701
1996
56
3 ; 1,072,040
331,015
3,293,313 | 688
0
285
177,046
471,205 ; 674,948 ; 13,879,730
6,423,701
M23J01
1997
228
913 121,801,029
1,774,949
32,344,695 j 1,305
0
84
48,394
381,118 ; 137,540 j 13,879,730
1998
6,469
0 | 27,581,872
19,389,774
88,750,958 j 27,295
5,014
11,708
652,225
1,409,028 ; 3,696,144 ; 13,879,730
6,423,701
Mean
1,487
66 : 15,644,598
2,240,107
275,298,261 ; 6,427
102,190
22,592,976
406,744
1,176,343 : 1,183,334 :13,879,730
6,423,701
Min
0
o ; 0
0
3,293,313 | 0
0
0
0
79,595 0 ; 13,879,730
6,423,701
Max
8,619
913 j 66,409,497
19,389,774
1,353,741,468 ; 48,561
1,251,766
183,257,758
4,100,226
7,572,325 ; 3,937,433 ; 13,879,730
6,423,701
SD
2,422
209 ; 19,963,265
6,016,379
362,368,419 ; 12,217
297,009
47,806,599
1,061,913
1,798,880 ; 1,253,917 ; 0
0
Total
28,255
1,256 1 297,247,365
42,562,039
5,230.666,954 ; 122,105
1,941,607
429,266,547
7,728,129
22,350,520 ; 22,483,350 ; 55,518,900
25,694,800
* Annual entrainment losses of non-RIS fishery and forage species were not reported in Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application, Instead, the facility presented an annual average for
the years 1995-1998 (see Table B3-6). The age 1 equivalents presented here are derived from this annual average.
NA = Not sampled.
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Tue Feb 12 18:03:37 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: satem.historic; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
P:/Intake/Dc la ware/Del-Science,'scodes'tablcs. output, historic.da mages/E. equivalent, sums, salem. historic, csv
B3-37
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table B3-9: Annual Entrainment of Fishery Species at the Salem Station Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds).
Year
Alewife
+21%
Alosa spp.
1 American
i Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
j Atlantic
j Menhaden
j SHversides
Spot
; Striped Bass +58% j
Morvne spp, j
Weakfish
i White Perch +42% j
' Morone spp.
ISon-RIS Fishery
Species"
1978
¦i o
i o
38,207
1 0
j 3
1,439,161
! o ;
5,953,264
i o !
NA
1979
; 2
1 0
1,496,229
i 3,943
j 119
309,985
1 0 1
93,586
j 180 !
NA ¦
1980
; 33
i 5
79,967
j 233,739
! 146
2,904,085
i o i
382,173
i 63 :
NA
1981
i 77
! o
225,363
| 503,208
j 504
1,533,468
! 0 !
179,211
i 281 i
NA
1982
; o
1 o
0
j 227,199
i 7
6,833,350
! « !
338,020
I 214 ;
NA
1983
: NA
i NA
NA
j NA
i NA
NA
i NA 1
NA
j NA i
NA
1984
I NA
; NA
NA
: NA
j NA
NA
i NA :
NA
j NA i
NA
1985
i 6
j 38
22,384
\ o
i o
51,966
! o !
372,784
: 130 j
NA
1986
I 13
; 18
139
i o
i o
104,342
i o !
1,532,359
j 86 i
NA
1987
i o
i 19
0
1 o
; 0
15,440
i o |
235,182
1 182 ;
NA
1988
! 29
i o
78,818
! o
! o
20,524,780
! o I
377,537
! 1,733 |
NA
1989
; 3
i o
4,880,487
= o
| 0
290,628
j 3,441,22 5 i
62,576
1 1,374 :
NA
1990
i o
i 0
10,507,030
i o
i o
1,212,824
1 137,909 1
83,174
i 613 !
NA
1991
• o
; o
13,520,130
! o
i o
230,997
j 234 j
650,076
i 322 ;
NA
1992
i 2
i 0
7,185,856
! o
! o
0
j 146,335 ;
287,672
; 373 :
NA
1993
1 4
1 o
7,456,916
! 0
; 0
165,546
;, 5,690,961 1
418,320
; 604 I
NA
1994
1 4
I o
1,688,313
; 0
; o
12,455,060
j 49,759 |
2,300,488
! 1,239 i
NA
1995
. 1 18
i 4
3,063,970
j 9,604,144
i l
4,659
j 41,767 j
2,527,420
1 515 j
1,239,935
1996
1
; i
218,254
j 166,122
i o
32
j 245,733 1
370,455
! 297 !
1,239,935
1997
! 2
; 224
4,438,413
j 890,767
; o
9
| 67,169 j
299,630
i 61 !
1,239,935
1998
I 58
j 0
5,615,319
j 9,730,859
j 2
1,311
j 905,264 |
1,107,759
j 1,626 !
1,239,935
Mean
| 13
; 16
3,185,042
j 1,124,209
: 41
2,530,402
: 564,545 |
924,826
; 521 ;
1,239,935
Min
i o
1 o
0
i o
1 o
0
i o 1
62,576
i 0 i
1,239,935
Max
i 77
1 224
13,520,130
j 9,730,859
i 504
20,524,780
i 5,690,961 |
5,953,264
! 1,733 1
1,239,935
SD
i 22
i 51
4,064,268
| 3,019,351
| 120
5,354,315
j 1,473,895 j
1,414,256
i 552 :
0
Total
i 252
| 307
60,515,790
| 21,359,980
| 781
48,077,640
| 10,726,360 |
17,571,690
I 9,893 i
4,959,740
• Annual entrainment losses of non-RIS fishery species were not reported in Salem's 1999 Permits Renewal Application, instead, the facility presented an annual average for the years 1995-1998 (see Table
B3-6). The fishery yields for non-RIS fishery species presented hero are derived from this annual average,
NA = Not sampled.
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1,
Tuc Feb 12 18:03:55 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: salem.historic; Units: yield Pathname; P:/Imake/Delaware/Dcl-Seience/scodes/tablcs.output,historic.damages/E,yield,salcm,historic,csv
B3-38
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 83: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table B3-10: Annual Entrapment at the Salem Station, by Species, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds).
Year [
1978 i
1979 :
1980 |
Alewtfe +21%
.4law spp.
Americanj Atlantic
Shad ¦ Croaker
39
253
4,375
[ Atlantic : Bay i „ • Silver-
iMenh.de, I Anchovy i Herring+79%
¦ Alma spp.
162
0
461
.1.
127,801
• Striped Bass.
Spot ; +58% I Weakfish
; Marane spp. j __
White Perch
+42%
Mornne spp.
Non-RIS Non-RIS
Fishery Forage
Species' : Species'
I 3,738,114 I
¦i I
; 196,901 |
0
550
32,587*
i 5,044,739
1,867,947
8,296,3 71
2,267
56
8,221
I
34
42
i 3,457,903 j
i 6,976,999 j
1,560
1,237
" 0
119,665,920;
| 513,003
1 5,734,506
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997*"
1998
10,187
0
NA
na""
830
1,772
0
3,809
3,234
592
0
1,909
4,042*
4,169
2,448
494
269
85,638
4
o
o :
i.
NA |
NA [
3,851 I
1,807 j*
1,902 j'
o j*
0
0
j 1,373,572
0
NA
NA
141,791
22,087
0
332,854
1°''
i 29,334,516
4
0 | 33,870,021 j
0 118,016,150]
0 j 18,864,867 j
0 | 5,416,038 j
" j 7,903,765 j 1,618,054
70,156
31,675
NA
NA
0
..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,301,636
i-
1
1,126
22,794
0
4
J..
783,827
15,095,100
20,482,086
23,160
2,030,206
NA
NA
J ..
; 15,433,644 ;
1*2^596,774 "f"
! 21,003,339 i
34,642
49
NA
NA
3,365
4,658
241
8,732
*7,607
1,606*"
0
2,748
7,438
8,337
259
30,794 : 1,321
193,029 | 942,041 : " * 931
1,750,015 j 1,121,473 ; 185,336
12,097,167
5,663,320
4,176,184
J..
j 10,590,381
i 945,053 ;
"\ 6,296J 70 1
I 630,580* i
754,828 j
4
144
2
*NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
*0
0
0
0
0
0
**o"
1
I 3,684,043 j
i 16,441,100 j
NA
NA
124,843
26*5,4*8*3*
37,09*4
i-
; 49,313,420 i
i 698,212 I
I 2,914,184 j
i 556,130 f
¦:
: 0 j
; 397,711 j
| 29,959,930 '
j 1 i ,423
i *1,063* "l
! 313 |
! V*15* '[
0
0
NA
' NA
0
0
0
0
7,217,789
241,566
51,186
269,665
: 1,035,307
j 1,723,094
j NA
j NA
j 937,860
i 5,003,485
]''ij07,528
0
li,178
191,150
NA
NA
NA
[ 1,711,452
182,919
*263,136**
; 2,071,668
814,321
13,401,050 ; 2,146,684 :
I-
627,015
80,395
773/K8
536,200
; 6,555,749
9,693,254 j
1,055,400 I
887,983 |
33,984,300 ; 3,718,167
17,488
137,914
NA
NA
8,070
* 7,794 '
11439
152,913
1,320,113
* * 44,88*1
20,001
34,974
287,486
" 488,538 *"
33,500
135,192
53,961
2,842,755
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
"na
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; 16,152,790 ; 418,599
j 16,152,790 [ 418,599
116,152,7901 418,599'
; 16,152,790; 418,599
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Total
6,529 | 1,713 ] 8,901,987 i 195,749 i 6,674,876 | 14,622 ] 12 j 6,083,567 j 3,009,738 j 3,443,233 | 305,224
0 i 0 i 0 1 0 : 30,794 I 0 ! 0 j 0 I 0 I 182,919 | 0
85,638 j 22J94 i 33,870^021 *[ 1,750,015 1*23,596,774 ; 185,336 j 144 ; 49,313,420; 33,984,300 [19,665,920 ; 2,842,755
19,321 ! 5.203 f 10,849,792
; 16,152,790
i 16,152,790
418,599
418,599
-
= 16,152,790; 418,599
...? ! 0 J 0
144 ; 49,313,420; 33,984,300 [19,665,920;
34 | 12*868,640 j' 8^218,962
124,059 [ 32,544 ; 169,137,748: 3,719,226 i 126,822,647; 277,813 ; 224 j 115,587,800; 57,185,030 [65,421,430; 5,799,247 ;64,611,140 j 1,674,398
526,909 ; 7,003,493
42,075
[ 4,671,217 i 686,407
" Annual entrapment losses of non-RlS fishery species were not reported in Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application. Instead, the facility presented an annual average for the years 1995-1998 (see Tabic
B3-6), The production foregone estimates presented here for these species are derived from this annual average.
NA = Not sampled.
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-I,
Tue Feb 12 18:03:47 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: salem.historic; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/lntakc.'Delaware/Dcl-Seieiice/scodes/tables.output.historic.dan!agcs/E.annual, prod, forg.salem.historic, csv
B3-39
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 8: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
B3-6 Extrapolation of Salem's ME Rates to Other Transition Zone
Facilities
EPA used the results from its detailed analysis of I&E at Salem as a basis for estimating I&E at other CWIS in the transition
zone of the Delaware Estuary. For extrapolation purposes, EPA used Salem's impingement estimates for the years 1978-95
and 1997-98, assuming no impingement survival (see Table B3-11), and Salem's entrainment estimates 1978-95,1997-98,
assuming no entrainment survival (see Table B3-7). 1996 was eliminated from the analysis because Salem was shut down
much of the year and therefore I&E during this year is not considered representative. The average impingement and
entrainment rates estimated on this basis were used to extrapolate Salem's I&E rates to other transition zone CWIS on the
basis of intake flow
Extrapolation was necessary because empirical data describing actual l&E at these facilities are extremely limited or absent.
Because intake characteristics, the fish community, and hydrodynamic conditions associated with transition zone CWIS are
similar, EPA assumed that I&E at Salem is representative of I&E at other transition zone CWIS and that I&E is strictly
proportional to intake flow. The following sections discuss in more detail how EPA used Salem I&E data to develop a model
for extrapolation.
B3-6.1 Impingement Extrapolation
Except for Salem, impingement controls at transition zone CWIS are non-existent or minimal.1 Therefore, to extrapolate Salem's
impingement rates to CWIS without screens, EPA re-calculated Salem's impingement rates without the screen survival factors
used by PSEG for its calculations (see Appendix B1 for the species-specific initial and latent mortality factors used by PSEG
to calculate annual impingement). EPA averaged Salem's species-specific mortality rates by month of highest impingement
to obtain annual initial and latent mortality rates (see shaded areas in Appendix Bl) and then calculated impingement without
these factors. Table B3-11 presents the results of EPA's calculations of Salem's annual impingement assuming 100 percent
mortality of impinged organisms. EPA used these estimates to estimate impingement at other transition zone CWIS expressed
as age 1 equivalents, fishery yield, and production foregone. These results are presented in Tables B3-12, B3-I3, and B3-14,
respectively. Chapter A5 of Part A of this document discusses the methods used to calculate these metrics. Note that in these
tables, the data for Salem are for Salem as an extrapolation model.
B3-6.2 Entrainment Extrapolation
As outlined in Section B3-3.2, PSEG adjusted their entrainment estimates using the thermal and mechanical survival factors
presented in Appendix BI. As discussed previously, EPA believes that PSEG provided insufficient justification for the use of
these through-plant survival factors. Thus, for extrapolation purposes, EPA used the entrainment rates it calculated assuming
no through-plant survival (presented in Table B3-7). Extrapolation results are expressed as age 1 equivalents in Table B3-15,
as foregone fishery yield in Table B3-16, and as production foregone in Table B3-17. Chapter A5 of Part A of this document
discusses the methods used to calculate these metrics. Note that in these tables, the data for Salem are for Salem as an .
extrapolation model.
B3-7 Salem's Current I&E
EPA estimated Salem's current entrainment rates using the data discussed in Section B3-5 and presented in Tables B3-7
through B3-10. Current impingement at Salem was estimated by considering only the years since 1995, when Salem's
Ristroph screens were modified with improved fish handling systems that increase the survival of impinged organisms. The
results of these impingement calculations are presented in Tables B3-I8, B3-19, and B3-20 as age 1 equivalents, foregone
fishery yield and production foregone, respectively.
1 EPA understands that Logan has some impingement control but technical details are lacking. Therefore, for the purposes of the
analysis presented here, EPA assumed none of the transition zone CWIS have impingement controls.
B3-40
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3; Evaluation of IS£ Data
B3-8 Cumulative Impacts: Summary of Estimated Total I&B at All
Transition Zone CWIS
Tables B3-21 and B3-22 summarize the cumulative I&E impacts of all transition zone CWIS (both tn-scope and out of scope)
in terms of numbers of age 1 equivalents, yield lost to fisheries (in pounds), and production foregone (in pounds). The rates
for Salem in these tables are EPA's estimates of Salem's current annual l&E rates, as described above in Section B3-7. EPA
estimates that total fish impingement in the transition zone is 9,648,808 age 1 equivalents, 332,767 pounds of fishery yield,
and 794,381 pounds of production foregone. Total entrainment is substantially greater, estimated as 615,900,092 age 1
equivalents, 16,867,112 pounds of fishery yield, and 72,000,391 pounds of production foregone. Economic valuation of
these losses is discussed in Chapters B4 and B5 of this report. EPA evaluated the data for in-scope facilities only (Salem
Hope Creek, Deepwater, Edge Mo6r) to estimate the potential economic benefits of various regulatory options, as discussed
in Chapter B6.
B3-41
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delawore Estuary
Chapter 83: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table B3-11. Annual Impingement (number of organisms), by Species, at the Salem Station as Estimated by EPA Assuming No Impingement Survival.
Year
Alewife
+21%
Alma spp.
American
: Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Atlantic Bay „ .
.... • , . • Blue Crab
Menhaden : Anchovy
Blueback
Herring +79%
Alam spp.
Spot
Striped Bass
+58%
Morone spp.
Weakflsh
White Perch •
+42% ;
Morone »pp. }
Non-RIS
Fishery
Species
: Non-RIS
Forage
r Species
1978
17,873
| 7,412
259,849
NA ! 2,803,345 i 336,611
464,023
114,685
11,459
9,260,270
514,214 j
NA
| NA
1979
12,063
; 3,493
17,542
NA i 1,411,564 | 293,812
689,293
396,853
34,314
841,270
1,093,725 !
NA
NA
1980
11,841
; 10,397
192,542
NA ; 11,803,050 | 1,510,762
487,729
199,184
15,513
2,639,110
814,573 i
NA
NA
1981
678,796
; 14,368
30,970
NA j 12,036,270 ; 1,047,688
386,261
1,163,085
6,760
2,634,932
696,003 ;
NA
NA
1982
49,196
1 15,323
6,144
NA 1 4,110,000 i 367,990
442,722
1,329,707
1,936
1,402,339
528,803 |
NA
NA
1983
20,521
; 8,732
4,804
NA ! 4,044,164 i 304,423
237,494
925,002
3,298
1,504,471
290,543 i
NA
NA
1984
134,120
i 5,321
1,762
NA j 2,612,252 j 265,032
1,414,221
429,566
1,533
517,437
606,374 i
NA
NA
1985
4,899
i 17,974
569,312
NA j 4,029,411 j 3,051,046
172,033
249,233
688
1,830,128
1,176,126 |
NA
NA
1986
21,782
! 17,931
483,080
NA | 2,149,305 j 3,703,258
494,850
71,162
10,251
1,096,751
2,085,730 j
NA
NA
1987
78,019
j 39,293
2,571,368
NA 1 3,576,131 j 2,517,506
166,760
2,991
23,788
1,586,694
1,445,431 j
NA
NA
1988
32,568
; 57,314
8,356
NA | 4,976,715 j 3,762,281
378,943
2,601,491
37,262
618,996
1,305,942 I
NA
NA
1989
144,594
; 106,115
49,912
NA ! 835,175 j 1,038,268
943,494
161,989
92,719
267,377
1,536,145 j
NA
NA
1990
52,467
; 25,075
11,951
NA i 1,467,489 ; 538,302
1,892
163,959
99,842
247,441
1,551,465 !
NA
NA
1991
22,292
; 37,265
94,039
NA | 1,837,543 i 927,273
321,747
182,919
35,972
833,621
1,390,537 1
1,318,756
3,759,669
1992
24,988
i 105,574
114,135
NA | 1,374,769 ; 1,117,518
127,746
4,069
74,753
1,218,984
2,338,407 ;
1,082,304
4,187,465
1993
24,379
; 35,982
364,050
NA i 637,069 ! 1,167,566
106,938
22,889
264,201
1,048;084
2,107,665 i
248,137
1,189,847
1994
24,043
: 10,288
65,134
NA ' i 191,004 11,481,211
33,707
336,072
84,187
3,086,656
2,557,047 j
300,779
2,068,499
1995
15,450
i 12,935
1,260,307
NA | 388,498 i 3,052,729
152,306
37,226
38,549
1,290,012
648,825 i
1,057,790
3,541,200
1997
22,289
; 1,530
945,130
NA ; 448,347 i 7,552,705
210,344
239,578
108,717
3,091,169
2,521,240 I
1,292,807
979,870
1998
30,369
: 4,137
8,403,714
NA j 1,601,949 i 4,459,744
236,758
21,024
90,681
3,072,358
1,369,101 :
452,514
678,595
Mean
71,127
; 26,823
772,705
NA i 3,116,702 ; 1,924,786
373,463
432,634
51,821
1,904,405
1,328,895 ;
821,870
2,343,592
Min
4,899
; 1,530
1,762
NA i 191,004 1 265,032
1,892
2,991
688
247,441
290,543 j
248,137
678,595
Max
678,796
| 106,115
8,403,714
NA i 12,036,270 i 7,552,705
1,414,221
2,601,491
264,201
9,260,270
2,557,047 |
1,318,756
4,187,465
SD
148,018
! 30,622
1,900,129
NA I 3,322,331 i 1,871,996
335,012
637,518
62,336
1,965,251
701,530 !
470,689
1,465,046
Total
1,422,549
; 536,460
15,454,100
NA ' i 62,334,050 j 38,495,720
7,469,263
8,652,686
1,036,423
38,088,100
26,577,900 ;
5,753,087
16,405,150
NA = Not sampled.
Noii-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Fri Feb 08 14:51:44 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; P!ant:salem) 00.extrapolation
PATHNAME:P;/lntake/Delaware/Del-Science/scodes/tables.output.extrapolation.base!ine/raw.losses.imp.sa!eml(K).extrapolation.csv
B3-42
-------
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table B3 -12: EPA's Estimate of Mean Annual Impingement at Salem Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents Extrapolated ta Other Transition
Zone Facilities,
Facility
Operational
Flow (MGDf
Alewife
American
Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Bay
Anchovy
Blue
Crab
Biueback
herring
Spot
Striped
Bass
Weak-
fish
White
Perch
Non-RIS
Fishery
Species
Non-RIS
Forage
Species
Total
Salem as
extrapolation
model*
1,722
11,438
1,099
163,425
3,773,602
1,709,674
50,307
235,509
28,438
102,131
1,094,565
204,384
1,940,623
7,920,942
Hope Creek
CBI
412
40
5,884
135,867
61,556
1,811
8,479
1,024
3,677
39,409
7,359
69,871
285,191
DuPont
7
46
4
664
15,340
6,950
205
957
116
415
4,449
831
7,889
32,199
Edge Moor
782
5,194
499
74,215
1,713,680
776,402
22,846
106,950
12,914
46,380
497,067
92,815
881,282
3,597,083
Delaware City
Refinery
CBI
2,418
232
34,545
797,672
361,394
10,634
49,782
6,011
21,589
231,372
43,203
410,213
1,674,345
Deepwater
105
695
67
9,927
229,221
103,851
3,056
14,306
1,727
6,204
66,488
12,415
117,880
481,144
Chambers
Cogen
37
246
24
3,511
81,082
36,735
1,081
5,060
611
2,194
23,519
4,392
41,697
170,194
General
Chemical Corp.
34
225
22
3,217
74,289
33,657
990
4,636
560
2,011
21,548
4,024
38,204
155,935
SPI Polyols
5
33
3
475
10,957
4,964
146
684
83
297
3,178
593
5,635
22,999
Sun Refining
6
40
4
569
13,148
5,957
175
821
99
356
3,814
712
6,762
27,599
Logan
Generating Co.
2
13
1
190
4,383
1,986
58
274
33
119
1,271
237
2,254
9,200
Hay Road
2
11
1
152
3,506
1,589
47
219
26
95
1,017
190
1,803
7,360
Totals
-
20,770
1,996
296,774
6,852,748
3,104,716
91,357
427,678
51,643
185,468
1,987,698
371,155
3,524,113
14,384,191
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals
are assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back to the start of year 1 by accounting for
mortality during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter AS, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is applied to all raw loss records, but the effect
is not readily apparent among entrainmenl losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age I.
' Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's average impingement assuming no impingement survival (see Table B3-11). Salem's data for 1996 was not included because the facility was
shut down much of the year,
b Current operational flows from results of EPA's survey of the industry were used for all facilities except for Hay Road, Chambers Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem.
For Hay Road, Chamberts Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem the average intake flow was used based on the EIA data presented in Chapter BI. For Salem, EPA used the
average operational flow for 1978-1998 (excluding 1996, when the facility was shut down).
CBI = Confidential Business Information.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Wed Feb 06 13:09:42 MST 2002; extrapolation salem.extrapolation; endpoint age.i.equiv.imp Pr/INTAKE/Delaware/Del-
Sciencc/'v.ode s/extrnpolation. baseline, facilities'extrapolation.age. 1 .equiv.imp.csv
B3-43
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table B3-13; EPA's Estimate of Mean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Salem Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds) Extrapolated to
Other Transition Zone Facilities.
Facility
• Operational Flow i
i (MGDf
Alewlfe
i American
Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Blue Crab
Spot
Striped
Weakflsh
White i Non-RIS Fishery; _ .
Perch ; Species ; 0
Salem as extrapolation i
model* •
1,722
Hope Creek
DuPont
Edge Moor
Delaware City
Refinery
Deepwatcr
— i—
Chambers Cogen
General Chemical
Corp.
SPI Polyols
Sun Refining
Logan Generating Co.
Hay Road
Totals
CBI
7
782
CBI
105
37
34
102
4
0
46
22
;
-4-
269
33,271
10
1
122
185
57
16
6
5
1
I
0
0
489
i
1,198
i 135
| 15,109
i 7,033
-i
: 2,021
i 715
...J
! 655
1
;
...4
54,556
I,964
222
24,775
II,532
26,377
950
•
J. :10!
: 11,978
...i..
97
116
39
31
60,419
3,314
1,172
1,074
158
190
63
IZZI
i 99,071
J...
...
!
.. i...
5,576
1,602
567
519
77
92
31
25
:•
39,471
1,421
160
17,925
47,899
8,343
2,398
848
777
15
38
6
7
71,678
80,294
482
2,891
326
36,464
16,973 I
4,877
1,725
U8I !
233
280
93
75
145,812
17
2
219
102
29
10
9
...i.
0
875
18,258
657
74
8,292
3,860
1,109
392
359
53
64
21
17
33,157
j 241,212
1
: 8,685
981
109,540
50,988
14,652
5,183*
4,749
840
280
: 224
| 438,034
; not included because the facility was shut
" Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's average impingement assuming no impingement survival (see Table B3-11), Salem's data for 1996 '
down much of the year.
b Current operational flows from results of EPA's survey of the industry were used for all facilities except for Hay Road, Chambers Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem. For
Hay Road, Chamberts Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem the average intake flow was used based on the EIA data presented in Chapter B1. For Salem, EPA used the average
operational flow for 1978-1998 (excluding 1996, when the facility was shut down).
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
CBI = Confidential Business Information.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Wed Feb 06 13:09:35 MST 2002; extrapolation salemlOO.extrapolation; endpoint yield.lbs.imp P;/INTAKE/Delaware/Del-
Science/scodes/extrapolation.baseline.facilities/extrapolation.yield.lbsimp.csv
B3-44
-------
S 316(b) Case 5+udies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table B3-14. EM's Estimate of Mean Annual Impingement at Salem Expressed us Production Foregone {in pounds) Extrapolated to Other Transition
Zone Facilities.
Facility
Operational
Flow
(MGD>*
:
:
I Aiewlfe
American
Shad
Atlantic j Bay
Croaker j Anchovy
Blue ; Blueback
Crab I herring
Spot
§ Striped
¦ Bass
Weak-
fish
White
Perch
Non-RIS • Non-RIS
Fishery
Species
Forage
CnA«iae
3|#C*Wsl**
Total
Salem as extrapolation j
model* :
r-
i.
Hope Creek
DuPont
Edge Moor
Delaware City
Refinery
Deepwater j
Chambers Cogen }
General Chemical j
Corp. j
SPI Polyols j
# i
Sun Refining j
Logan Generating Co. ;
Hay Road \
Totals I
1,722
CBI
7
782
CBI
105
37
34
5,334
192
22
2,422
6,931 j 93,769 ; 1,850 ; 318,159; 15,283
79,316 i 91,414 ; 204,299 j 35,017
1,128
324
115
105
9,687
250
28
3,148
1,465
421
149
136
20
24
8
6
12,587
67
8
840
391
3,376
381
42**583
19,821
!
5,696 : 112
2,015 i 40
•
1,846 36
272
327
109
87
170,282
5
6
2
2
3,360
11,455
1,293
144,483
550
62
6.940
2,856
322 ;
. 36,019 I
; 67,253 : 3.231 ; 16,766 !
19,326
6,836
*6,263*
924
928
328
301*
1,109 :
;¦
370 :
296 j
577,767 :
i 4,818 ;
j 1,704 I
53
18
14
**27,753*
i 1,561
4
; 230
'*
: 276
¦•} -
; 92
74
66,815
331 j 7,356 j
372 | 830 |
41,513 ! 92,777 j
19,323 i 43,185 ;
5,553 :
i i..
12,410 i
1,964 ! 4,390
1.800 T 4,022*
265
319
106
85
.1.
593
712
237
190
1,261 ;
142 I
15,902 i
7,402 I
I
2,127 |
752 \
I,
689 |
2,406
272
30,342
14,124
4,059
1,436
1,315*
•t !¦
: 102 =
") !
: 122 : 233
194
: 144,036 ! 166,004 j 371,001
41
33
63,591
78
62
121,334
1,624
58
7
737
343
875,327
31,516
; 3,558
| 397,506
185,028
;.
99
35
"" 32 *
5
6
2
2
2,948
4..
53,170
18,808
17,232
2,542
3,050
1,017
813
; 1.589,567
* Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's average impingement assuming no impingement survival (see Table B3-II). Salem's data for 1996 was not included because the facility was shut
down much of the year.
11 Current operational flows from results of EPA's survey of the industry were used for all facilities except for Hay Road, Chambers Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem. For
Hay Road, Chamberts Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem the average intake flow was used based on the EIA data presented in Chapter B! For Salem, EPA used the average
operational flow for 1978-1998 (excluding 19%, when the facility was shut down).
CBI = Confidential Business Information.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Wed Feb 06 13:09:38 MST 2002 extrapolation salemlOO.exlrapolation; endpoint pf.lbs.imp P:/TNTAKE/Delaware/Del-
Science/scodes/extrapolation.baseline.facilities/extrapolation.pf.Ibs.imp.csv
B3-45
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Dato
Table B3-15: EPA's Estimate of Mean Annual Entrapment at Salem Expressed as Numbers af Age 1 Equivalents Extrapolated to Other Transition Zone
Facilities.
Facility
Operational
Flow
(MGD)"
1,722
Ale- : American
wife : Shad
1,567 i 70
Atlantic
Croaker
16,454,185
Atlantic
Men-
haden
2,346,168
Bay
Anchovy
290,409,647
TX 1 Silver-
back
herring j
6,745 j 107,867
Spot
23,848,126
Striped
Bass
419,505
Weakftsh
1,215,517
White
Perch
Non-RIS
Fishery
Spedea
Non-RIS
Forage
Species
Total
Salem as
extrapolation
model"
1,211,578
13.879,726
6,423,701
339,404,878
Hope Creek
CBI
56 ; 3
592,427
84,473
10,456,096
243 | 3,884
858,643
15,104
43,764
43,622
499,735
231,283
12,220,152
DuPont
7
6 i 0
66,887
9,537
1,180,527
27 1 438
96,944
1,705
4,941
4,925
56,422
26,113
1,379,695
Edge Moor
782
711 32
7,472,226
1,065,449
131,881,733
3,063 | 48,985
10,829,985
190,507
551,994
550,206
6,303,104
2,917,151
154,131,600
Delaware
City
Refinery
CBI
331 ! 15
3,478,120
495,938
61,387,405
1,426 = 22,801
5,041,067
88,676
256,939
256,106
2,933,926
1,357,856
71,744,121
Deepwater
105
95 j 4
999,482
142,514
17,640,447
410 ! 6,552
1,448,614
25,482
73,835
73,595
843,101
390,197
20,616,580
Chambers
Cogen
37
34 ; 1
353,545
50,411
6,239,929
145 j 2,318
512,416
9,014
26,117
26,033
298,229
138,024
7,292,672
General
Chemical
Corp.
34
31 | 1
323,924
46,188
5,717,124
133 | 2,124
469,484
8,259
23,929
23,852
273,242
126,460
6,681,664
SPI Polyols
5
5 i 0
47,776
6,812
843,234
20 ! 313
69,245
1,218
3,529
3,518
40,301
18,652
985,496
Sun Refining
6
5 | 0
57,332
8,175
1,011,880
24 j 376
83,095
1,462
4,235
4,222
48,361
22,382
1,182,595
Logan
Generating
Co.
2
2 j 0
19,111
2,725
337,293
8 j 125
27,698
487
1,412
1,407
16,120
7,461
394,198
Hay Road
2
1 j 0
15,288
2,180
269,835
6 j 100
22,159
390
1,129
1,126
12,896
5,969
315,359
Totals
--
2,845 j 126
29,880,303
4,260,570
527,375,149
12,249 j 195,883
43,307,476
761,808
2,207,343
2,200,189
25,205,163
11,665,247
616,349,010
* Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's average entrainment assuming no entrainment survival (see Table B3-7), Salem's data for 1996 was not included because the facility was shutdown
much of the year.
b Current operational flows from results of EPA's survey of the industry were used for all facilities except for Hay Road, Chambers Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem. For
Hay Road, Chamberts Cogen, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, and Salem the average intake flow was used based on the EIA data presented in Chapter BI. For Salem, EPA used the average
operational flow for 1978-1998 (excluding 1996, when the facility was shut down).
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
CBI = Confidential Business Information.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Wed Feb 06 13:09:43 MST 2002 extrapolation salem 1 OO.extrapolation; endpoint age. 1 .cquiv.ent P:/INTAKE/Delaware/Dcl-
Science/scodes/extrapolation,bascline,facilities/exrrapolation.age.l.equiv,ent.esv
33-46
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies. Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table B3-16- EPA's Estimate of Mean Annual Entrainment of Fishery Species at Salem Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds) Extrapolated to
Other Transition Zone Facilities.
Facility
; Operational
Flow (MGD)6
Alewife
American
Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Atlantic
Menhaden
; Silversldes
Spot
Striped
Baas
Weakliih
White
Perch
Non-MS
Fishery
Species
Total
Salem as extrapolationj
model" ;
Hope Creek !
DuPont j
Edge Moor :
Delaware City j
1,722
CBI
7
782
CBI
Refinery
Deep water
Chambers Cogen
General Chemical
Corp.
SPI Poiyols
Sun Refining
Logan Generating Co.
Hay Road
Totals
j
1
j
105
37
34
0
0
0
0
25
.. J...
17
1
0
8
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
3,349,863
120,611
13,617
1,521,250
708,101
" 203,482
71,977
65,947
1...
:
9,727
* 11,672*"
3,891
3,113
6,083,251
1,177,437
42,393
4,786
534,701
248,889
71,521
25,299
23,180
3,419
4J03*"
1,368
1,094
2,138,189
43
2
0
20
9
2,670,978
96,168
10,858
1,212,953
564,597
0
0
79
162,244
57,390
52,582
i 7,755
I" 9,307
• 3,102
i
| 2,482
j 4.850,415
582,257
20,964
2,367
264*416
123,079
35,368
12,511
11,463
955,624
533
1,691
2,029
676
541
1,057,361
34,407 i 19
,239,935 j 8,943,422
i
44,643
322,005
1...3:885...
I 433,971
j 202,002
1
; 58,048
j 20,533
| 18,813
I.
2,775
3,330
1,110
888
1,735384
2
242
113
32
11
10
j 5,040 i 36,355
| 563,083 ; 4,061,415
262,100 | 1,890,479
:
75,318 : 543,253
26,642 j 192,164
* 24,410 "! 176,064
96
3,600
4,320
1,440
1,152
25,968
31,162
10,387*
8.310
2,251,685 :16,240,984
• Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's average entrainment assuming no entrainment survival (see Table B3-7). Salem's data for 1996 was not included because the facility was shut
down much of the year.
b Current operational flows from results of EPA's survey of the industry were used for all facilities except for Hay Road, Chambers Cogen, SPI Poiyols, Sun Refining, and Salem. For
Hay Road, Chamberts Cogen, SPI Poiyols, Sun Refining, and Salem the average intake flow was used based on the EIA data presented in Chapter 111, For Salem, EPA used the average
operational flow for 1978-1998 (excluding 1996, when the facility was shut down).
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
CBI = Confidential Business Information.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Wed Feb 06 13:09:36 MS I 2002 extrapolation saicml 00 extrapolation; endpoint yield.lbs.ent P:/1NTAKE/Delaware/Dct-
Scicnce/scodes/extrapolation.baseline.facilities/ejttrapolation.yield.lbs.ent.csv
B3-47
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table B3-J7: EPA's Estimate of Mean Annuol Entroinment at Salem Expressed as Production Foregone {in pounds) Extrapolated to Other Transition Zone
Facilities.
Facility
Operational ¦ ^|ewjj-e iAmerican! Atlantic
Flow (MGD)
Shad
Atlantic
Croaker -Menhaden
Bay iBIueback: Silver- ;
Anchovy ; herring j sides '
Spot
Striped
Bass
Weakfish
Wliite
Perch '
Non-RIS Non-RIS
Fishery
Specie*
Forage
Species
Total
Salem as
extrapolation
model"
1,722
6,865
Hope Creek
DuPont
Edge Moor
1
CBl
7
782
247
28
3,117
;
:
...1..
;
'r
-i"
1,745 • 9,352,996 ; 205,337 :¦ 7,043,992 = 15,361
...i i..
| 336,751
12
CBl
I-
! 1,451
63
7
793
369
I"
7,393
835
253,616
28,634
; 38,020
-i t-
: 4.247,411 : 93,248 I 3,198,839
553
62
6.976
6,421,484 ; 3,133,998 i 3,575,8911314,670116,152,785 f 418,599 =32,834.248
: : ; ; ; :
; : : it
4 1 1 " I I - I- I
: 231,203 i 112,839 j 128,749 ; 11,330 j 581,575 ; 15,072 ! I,l82.t85
.........
I 26,104 i 12,740 . . . .
-f -> .......
I 2,916,144 j 1,423,221 {1,623,895 j 142
14,536 j 1,279 ! 65,662
t
1,702
7,335,353 • 190,096
; 1,977,056 | 43,405
.L
1,488,974 j 3,247
-r
!,484
105
37
• ^ i...
417 T 106 t 568,132 i 12,473 ! 427,875 i 933 ! 1
•: 4 4 * : ¦: i
148 j 38 ; 200,964 ; 4,412 j 151,352 j 330 j 0
*6*62,47i 1*755.879 j 66.516 j 3,414,410 j
ill I
190,369|2I7,211 ; 19,114 | 981,174 {25,427
1,357,387
390,062"
137,976 ; 67,339 j 76,834 ; 6,761 ; 347,069 ; 8,994
133,473
14,910,791
6,940,573
1,994,461
705,498
34
135
34 i 184,127 • 4,042
138,671
20
24
'*8*
12,466
2
3,170
27,157
32,589
10,863
596
715
238
20,453
24,544
8,181
! 16,S
8,690
191
6,545
302
45
54
18
-?
-4
984,758: 372,886 :12,791,676: 27,895
4...
14
0
0
0
0
23
126,416
18,645
22,375
7,458
Delaware City
Refinery
Deepwater
Chambers
Cogen
General
Chemical
Corp.
SPI Polyois
Sun Refining
Logan
Generating Co.
Hay Road
Totals
¦ Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's average entrainmem assuming no entrainment survival (see Tabie B3-7). Salem's data for 1996 was not included because the facility was shut down
much of the year.
b Current operational flows from results of EPA's survey of the industry were used for all facilities except for Hay Road, Chambers Cogen, SPI Polyois, Sun Refining, and Salem. For
Hay Road, Chamberts Cogen, SPI Polyois, Sun Refining, and Salem the average intake flow was used based on the ElA data presented in Chapter B!. For Salem, EPA used the average
operational flow for 1978-1998 (excluding 1996, when the facility was shut down).
0 =¦ Sampled, but none collected.
CBl ¦= Confidential Business Information,
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Wed Feb 06 13:09:40 MST 2002 extrapolation salcm I OO.extrapolation; endpoint pf.lbs.cnt P:/INTAKE/Dclaware/Del-
Seienee/scodes/extrapolation.baselinc.facilities/extrapolation.pf.lbs.entxsv
61,697
70,396
{ 6,195
317,990
{ 8,241
646,389
T
!
:
9,100
10,383
| 914
46,901
{ 1,215
95,338
10,920
;
12,460
; 1,096
56,281
1 1,459
;
114,405
3,640
:
4,153
{ 365
18,760
{ 486
38,135
...i
I 5,967 i 2,912 j 3,323 ! 292 j 15,008 : 389 j 30,508
*11,661,222;5,691,24616,493,709 !571,431 {29,332,970 {760,164 159,626,003
B3-48
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Table B3-
18: Salem's Current Impingement Rate Expressed us Numbers of Age I Equivalents.
Year j
Alewife
+21%
Alosa spp.
i American
Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Bay
Anchovy
Bine Crab
Blueback
: Herring +79%
Alosa tpp.
j Spot
Striped Bass
+58% Moron t
spp.
i Weakfbh
White Perch
+42% Morn tie
spp.
Non-RIS ,
Fishery !
Specie*
Non-RIS
Forage
Species
1995 i
2,054
i »o
151,250
400,287
837,514
j 18,864
j 38,554
6,713
i 35,243
247,600
256,295 i
2,728,877
1997 ;
941
1
58,241
299,061
286,356
j 7,480
! 15,640
6,312
1 66,917
161,697
302,775 i
964,074
1998 ;
3,412
: 1,142
485,999
876,041
282,114
; 12,061
; 2,673
4,890
j 65,409
93,927
88,394 1
747,858
Mean j
2,136
384
231,830
525,130
468,661
| 12,802
i 18,956
5,972
; 55,856
167,741
215,821 j
1,480,270
Mtn ;
941
: 1
58,241
299,061
282,114
| 7,480
i 2,673
4,890
i 35,243
93,927
88,394 j
747,858
Max 1
3,412
: 1,142
485,999
876,041
837,514
| 18,864
i 38,554
6,713
; 66,917
247,600
302,775 j
2,728,877
SD i
1,238
: 656
224,976
308,084
319,442
; 5,728
18,168
958
i 17,867
77,014
112,776 I
1,086,716
Total i
6,407
; 1,153
695,490
1,575,389
1,405,984
| 38,405
i 56,867
17,916
! 167,568
503,224
647,464 :
4,440,810
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than'raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are
assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 arid the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back to the start of year 1 by accounting for mortality
during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter A5, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is applied to all raw loss records, but the effect is not readily
apparent among entrainment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age I.
Non-RJS species are listed in Table B3-1,
Fri Feb 01 16:43:32 MST 2002; Results; I Plant; salcmlOO.benefits: Units: equivalcnt.sums Pathname:
P:/Intake/Delaware/Del-Science/scodes/tables.output,benefits.baseline/r,equivalcnt.sums.salemlOO.benefits.csv
Table B3-19: Salem's Current Impingement of Fishery Species Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds).
Year i
Alewife+21%
Alosa spp.
1 American
; Shad
Atlantic
Croaker
Blue
Crab
¦ Spot
Striped Bass +58%
Morone spp.
¦ Weakflsh
White Perch +42%
Morone tpp.
Non-RIS Fishery
Species
1995
18
! 2
30,793
26,725
! 4,318
9,318
\ 27,708
109
22,896
1997
8
! 0
11,857
9,138
; 1,752
8,761
I 52,609
71
27,048
1998
30
| 280
98,943
9,002
; 299
6,787
| 51,423
41
7,897
Mean
19
| 94
47,198
14,955
; 2,123
8,289
i 43,913
74
19,280
Min
8
i o
11,857
9,002
j 299
6,787
i 27,708
41
7,897
Max ;
30
| 280
98,943
26,725
i 4,318
9,318
; 52,609
109
27,048
SD i
11
i 161
45,802
10,193
| 2,035
1,330
j 14,047
34
10,075
Total
57
i 282
141,593
44,865
| 6,369
24,866
! 131,740
221
57,841
0 = Sampled, bat none collected.
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1,
Fri Feb 01 16:43:53 MST 2002; Results;! Plant: salem100.benefits. Units: yield Pathname:
P:/Intake/Delaware/Del-Science/scodes/tables.output.benefits.baseline/I.yield.saIemlOO.benefits.csv
B3-49
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 83: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table 83-20: Salem's Current Impingement Rate Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds).
Year
1995
997
998
Alenife +21%
A lose spp,
920
447
1,965
j Americans; Atlantic
: Shad • Croaker
Bay
Anchovy j
Blue
Crab
¦ Blueback
j Herring +79%
Alosa spp.
Spot
. .j..-
.......
-
242
25
6,600
119,652
36,180
256,217
284
242
975
165,441
58,276
53,341
795
2,602
4,411
j 41,326
Striped Bass
+58%
Momue spp.
! White Perch Non-RTS
Weakfish | +42% Morone i Fishery
i SPP- I Species
4,280
2,375
20,774
18,167
12,814
77,204
139,981 |
148,532 i
8,423
5,094
3,148
; 95,452
I 102,541
! 38,158
Non-RIS
Forage
Species
2,745
741
377
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Total
1,111
447
1,965
: 2,289 i 137,350 ; 500 ; 92,353 ;
1 25 1 36,180 1 242 * ! 53,341 !
i f i *
; 6,600 : 256,217 I 975 : 165,441 i
i ' 4 " * i 4.....
777 I 3,735 j 111,081 j 412 I 63,344 i
i f 1 !
3,332 j 6,867 I 412,050 i 1,501 ; 277,058 !
4,269
2,602
5,795
15,993
"V
2,375 ;
j...
17,252
'l*23l4*'
; 41,326 ; 20,774
1,601 j 21,959 i 4,058
12,807 | 47,980 j 51,755
:
-i~
121,906
77,204
148,532
38,948 :
365,717 f
5,555
3,148
8,423
77,383
2,667
16,665
; 38,158 ;
4
; 102,541 =
i t-
j 34,420 :
I 232,150 1
1,288
377 '
2,745
1,275
3,863
Non-RIS species are listed in Table B3-1.
Fri Feb 01 16:43:43 MST 2002; Results; I Plant: salcmlOO.bencfws: Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/Int8kc/Del8ware/Del-Science'scode&'tablcs.output.bcncfits.baseltnc/I.annua!.prod.forg.salcm 100. benefits.csv
B3-50
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table B3-21; Summary of Cumulative Impingement Impacts of Delaware Estuary Transition Zone CWIS (sum of
annual means of all species evaluated)
Facility
Raw Loses
| # of Age 1 j
; Equivalents ;
Lb or Fishery Yield
Lb of Production Foregone
Salem" :
6,633,845
j 3,185,559 !
135,945
477,249
Hope Creek i
_
i 285,191 ;
8,685
31,516
DuPont ;
—
; 32,199 i
981
3,558
Edge Moor i
—
| 3,597,083 j
109,540
397,506
Delaware City Refinery )
_
i 1,674,345 1
50,988
185,028
Deepwater :
_
i 481,144 i
14,652
53,170
Chambers Cogen 1
—
; 170,194 !
5,183
18,808
General Chemical Corp, ;
—
i 155,935 |
4,749
17,232
SPI Polyols j
—
! 22,999 i
700
2,542
Sun Refining i
—
i 27,599 ;
840
3,050
Logan Generating Co. ;
—
j 9,200 !
280
1,017
Hay Road j
—
: 7,360 j
224
813
TOTALS ;
—
1 9,64830* 1
332,767
794.381
" Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's current impingement (see Section B3-7).
Table B3-22: Summary of Cumulative Entrapment Impacts of Delaware Estuary Transition Zone CWIS (sum of
annual means of all species evaluated)
Facility
Raw Losses
; a of Age J :
. Equivalents j
Lb of Fishery Yield
Lb of Production Foregone
Salem"
1 14,660,055,610
; 338,955,960 j
9,569,550 :
45,208,635
Hope Creek
i —
! 12,220,152 ;
322,005 i
1,182,185
DuPont
: —
! 1,379,695 i
36,355
133,473
Edge Moor
\ —
! 154,131,600 i
4,061,415
14,910,791
Delaware City Refinery
: —
! 71,744,121 :
1,890,479 !
6,940,573
Deepwater
; —
I 20,616,580 i
543,253 j
1,994,461
Chambers Cogen
1 —
i 7,292,672 j
192,164 i
705,498
General Chemical Corp.
; —
! 6,681,664 i
176,064 i
646,389
SPI Polyols
—
| 985,496 i
25,968 1
95,338
Sun Refining
i —
i 1,182,595 j
31,162 I
114,405
Logan Generating Co.
| —
i 394,198 i
10,387 i
38,135
Hay Road
I —
! 315,359 i
8,310 j
30,508
TOTALS
i —
; 615,900,092 :
16,867,112
72,000,391
" Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's current entrainment (see Section B3-7).
B3-S1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary Chapter B4: Baseline ME Losses
Chapter B4:
Economic Value of I&E Losses Based
on Benefits Transfer Techniques
This chapter presents an analysts using benefits transfer
techniques of economic losses associated with I&E in the
Delaware Estuary transition zone. Most of the chapter
discusses I&E impacts at the Salem facility because this is
the only facility in the transition zone that reported
comprehensive I&E data. I&E results from the Salem
facility were extrapolated to other in-scope and out-of-
scope transition zone facilities (see Section B3-6 of
Chapter B3) and summed to obtain total I&E at all
transition zone CWIS (see summary of results in Section
B3-9 of Chapter B3). Sections B4-1 to B4-6 of this
chapter discuss the economic value of I&E at the Salem
facility. Section B4-7 discusses the economic value of
I&E at all in-scope facilities (Salem, Hope Creek, Edge
Moor, and Deepwater), and Section B4-8 discusses
economic values for all in-scope and out of scope
transition zone CWIS.
B4-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
I&E at transition zone CWIS affect recreational and
commercial fisheries as well as forage species that
contribute to the biomass of recreational and commercial
species. EPA evaluated all these species groups to capture
the total economic impact of I&E at transition zone CWIS.
Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer methods, applying the results from nonmarket valuation studies.
Commercial fishery impacts are based on commodity prices for the individual species. The economic value of forage species
losses is determined by estimating the replacement cost of these fish if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish, and by
considering the foregone biomass production of forage fish resulting from l&E losses and the consequential foregone
production of commercial and recreational species that use the forage species as a prey base. AH of these methods are
explained in further detail in the Chapters A5 and A9 of Part A of this document.
Many of the I&E-impacted fish species at CWIS sites are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To avoid
double-counting the economic impacts of I&E on these species, EPA determined the proportion of total species landings
attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied this proportion to the impacted fishery catch. For example, if
30 percent of the landed numbers of one species are harvested commercially at a site, then 30 percent of the estimated catch
of I&E-impacted fish are assigned to the increase in commercial landings. The remaining 70 percent of the estimated lotal
landed number of I&E-impacted adult equivalents are assigned to the recreational landings.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides both recreational and commercial fishery landings data by state. To
determine what proportions of total landings per state occur in the recreational or commercial fishery, EPA summed the
B4-I
Chapter Contents
B4-1
Overview of Valuation Approach
. B4-1
B4-2
Economic Value of Average Annual Recreational
Fishery Losses at the Salem Facility............
B4-3
B4-2 I Economic Values for Recreational Losses
From Consumer Surplus Literature
. B4-3
B4-2.2 Average Annual I&E Losses of
Recreational Yield at Salem and Economic
Value of Losses
B4-5
B4-3
Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial
Fishery Losses at the Salem Facility
: B4-7
B4-3.1 Average Annual I&E Losses of
Commercial Yield at Salem and Economic
Value of Losses
. 04-7
B4-3.2 Economic Impaas of Commercial
Landings Losses
. B4-8
B4-4
Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
B4-9
B4-5
Nonuse Values
B4-11
134-6
Summary of Mean Annual Value of Economic
Losses at Salem
B4-H
B4-?
Total Economic Damage* for Generating Facilities
Regulated Under Phase 2
04-12
IW-K
Tgtal Economic Damages for All Transition
7onc CWIS
U4-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline I&E Losses
landings data for the recreational and commercial fishery, and then divided by each category to get the corresponding
percentage. The percentages applied in this analysis are presented in Table B4-1.
As discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document, the yield estimates in Chapter B3 represent the total pounds of
foregone yield for both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this
chapter, total yield was partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery, as
shown in Table B4-1. Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers of fish rather than pounds,
foregone recreational yield was converted to numbers of fish. This conversion was based on the average weight of
harvestable fish of each species. Table B4-2 shows these conversions for the Salem impingement data presented in Section
B3-7 of Chapter B3 and Table B4-3 displays these data for the entrainment estimates given in Section B3-5. Note that the
numbers of foregone recreational fish harvested are typically lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age
of harvest of most fish is greater than age 1. -
Table B4-1; Percentages of Total Impacts in the Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
of Species at Salem Facility.
~ , „ Percent Impacts to Percent Impacts to
peue* Recreational Fishery Commercial Fishery
Aicwifc'
j 0 j
100
American shad
i 56 !
44
Atlantic croaker
; 10 ;
90
Atlantic menhaden
i 0 ;
100
Blue crab
: 4 :
96
Silverside*
i 0 ;
100
Spot
1 18
82
Striped bass
! 97 ;
3 .
Weakfish
! 3! ;
69
White perch
: 42 :
58
Non-RIS fishery speciesb
; 26 :
74
* Obtained from NMFS, 2001a and b.
b Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 lists non-RIS fishery species. The commercial/recreational split used is an
average of the splits for the other species listed above.
Source: PSEG, 1999c, Appendix F.
Table B4-2:
Summary of Salem's Wean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species.
Species
: Impingement i
Count (#)
Age 1
Equivalent! (#)
iTotal Catch!
; (#) •
Total
Yield 0b)
. Commercial ^Commercial; Recreational
; Catch (#) ; Yield (lb) j Catch (0)
i Recreational
Yield (lb)
Alewife
i 9,560 i
2,136
! 44 :
19
! 44 !
19
0
\ 0
American shad
j 3,658 ;
384
1 23 j
94
i 10 j
41 :
13
i 8
Atlantic croaker
j 1,082,318 !
231,830
! 28,064 1
47,198
: 25,258 j
42,478 1
2,806
i 674
Blue crab
| 589,511 |
468,661
j 53,269 ;
14,955
51,138 j
14,357 j
2,131
85
Spot
j 20,111 ;
18,956
i 5,120
2,123
; 4,199 |
1,741 :
922
! 55
Striped bass
! 11,417
5,972
! 743 ;
8,289
i 22 :
249 :
721
1,149
Weakfish
j 1,348,531 |
55,856
; 8,020
43,913
¦ 5,534 j
30,300 |
2,486
; 1,945
White perch
i 224,902 i
167,741
I 318
74
i 184 ;
43 :
133 1
i 5
Non-RIS fishery
species"
j 934,370 i
215,821
1 17,895
19,280
j 13,242 j
14,267 \
4,653
i 716
Total
| 4,224,378 1
1,167,358
| 113,496 ;
135,945
I 99,632 j
103,495 !
13,865
4,638
" Table B3-! of Chapter B3 lists non-RIS species.
B4-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline ME Losses
Table B4-3: Summary of Salem's Mean Annual Entrainment Results for Fishery Species.
— -J-
Species ¦
Entrainment
Count (#)
Age 1
Equivalents (#)
Total !
Catch (#) ;
Total Yield
; Commercial
! Catch (#)
! Commercial:
; Yield (lb) j
Recreational;
Cateh (#) !
Recreational
Yield (lb)
:
Alewife !
1,338,721
1,567
32 i
14
i 32
14 ;
0 |
0
American shad !
57,131
70
4
17
i 2
1" 1*792*691 *
: 8 i
2 j
8
Atlantic croaker j
115,035,206
16,454,185
1,991,879 j
3,349,863
: 3,014,877 ;
199,188 1
287.131
Atlantic menhadenj
21,786,584
2,346,168
723,773 !
1,177,437 ! 723,773
: 1,177,437 :
0 j
0
Silversides |
Spot ;
26,001,930
107,867
3,959 =
43
i 3,959
43 ;
0 i
0
49,187,259
23,848,126
6,441,601 |
2,670,978
; 5,282,113
; 2,190,202 ;
1,159,488 ;
: i
412,094
Striped bass ;
41,434,832
419,505
52,189 i
582,257
: 1,566
T 120,424
17,468 i
50,624 |
484.105
Weakfish !
104,383,899
1,215,517
.174,528 |
955,624
! 659,381 i
54,104 1
253,923
White perch j
44,044,530
1,211,578
2,295 j
533
1,331
309
964 !
192
Non-RIS fishery ;
species3 ¦
153,969,330
13,879,726
1,150,863 ;
1,239,935
i 851,639
! 917,552 |
;
299,224 i
46,055
Total •
557,239,422
59,484,307
10,541,123!
9,976,701
: 8,777,529
i 7,977,290 ;
1,763,594 i
1,483,508
' Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 lists non-RIS species.
B4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Recreational Fishery Losses at the
Salem Facility
B4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses from Consumer Surplus Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay values for increases in recreational catch rates, These increases in
value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as "consumer surplus," For the application of this
literature to value I&E impacts, EPA focused on changes in consumer surplus per additional fish caught.
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table B4-4 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to Delaware
Estuary fisheries in geographic area and relevant species.
McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values for the mid- and south Atlantic states using data from the National
Marine Fisheries Statistical Survey. They created a random utility model of fishing behavior for nine states, the northernmost
being New York. In this model they specified four categories of fish: small gamefish (e.g., striped bass), flatfish
(e.g., flounder), bottomfish (e.g., weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, perch), and big gamefish (e.g., shark). For each fish
category, they estimated per angler values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates.
Hicks et al. (1999) used the same method as McConnell and Strand (1994) but estimated values for a day of fishing and an
increase in catch rates for the Atlantic states from Virginia north to Maine. Their estimates were generally lower than those of
McConnell and Strand (1994) and can serve as a lower bound for the values of fish.
Agnello (1989) estimated one value for increased weakfish catch rates in all the Atlantic states. This study is useful because it
values weakfish specifically, but the area considered ranges from Florida to Maine. This large study area may differ from the
Delaware Estuary, where weakfish is a very important recreational species.
Norton et al. (1983) estimated the value of the striped bass fishery for the mid-Atlantic coast, including Delaware and New
Jersey.
Tudor et al. (2002; see Chapter B5 of this document) estimated willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for increases in recreational
catch rates for selected species in Delaware Bay Estuary (values also were derived for the Ohio River and Tampa Bay). The
analysis used random utility modeling (RUM) to estimate WTP for an additional fish per trip. These values estimated were
not applied in the Salem benefits transfer'analysis done here in this chapter, but are discussed and used in Chapter B5, and
applied to baseline losses in Chapter B6.
B4-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline I4E Losses
Table B4-4: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates,
Authors
Study Location and Year
Item Valued
Value Estimate ($2000)
McConnell and Strand
(1994)
Mid- and south Atlantic coast,
anglers targeting specific
species, 1988
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip for DE and NJ"
DE small game fish
DE bottom fish
NJ small game fish
NJ bottom fish
$15.45
$0,13
59,19
$1.75
Hicks etal. (1999)
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip, from catch rates at all sites,,
for DE and NJ
DE small game fish
DE bottom fish
NJ small game fish
NJ bottom fish
$3.13
$2.39
53.49
$2,01
Agnello (1989)
Atlantic coast, 1981
Mean value per fish caught,
for the Atlantic coast'
Weakfish
$2.72
Norton etal. (1983)
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1980
Catch rate increase of 1 striped
bass per trip, for mid-Atlantic
Striped bass
SI 5.55
Tudor et al. (2002)'
Delaware Estuary, 1994-1998
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip, for DE
Weakfish
Striped bass
Bluefish
Flounder
511.50
$18.14
53.94
13.92
* Value was reported as "two month value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip." From 1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DOI, 1997); the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 trips in a 2 month period.
Therefore, to convert to a "1 fish per trip" value, EPA divided the 2 month value by 1.5 trips and then multiplied it by 2, assuming the
value of a fish was linear.
b These values were reported as "consumer surplus for an 20 percent increase in catch rate for ail fish," The average catch rate was 4.95
fish per trip, therefore a 20 percent increase in catch is equivalent to 1 more fish.
£ See Chapter B5 of this document.
EPA used results from these studies (al! except Tudor et al„ 2002; see Chapter B5 of this document) to create a range of
possible consumer surplus values for the recreational fish landings foregone because of impingement and entrainment at
Salem.
To estimate a unit value for recreational landings, EPA established a lower and upper value for the recreational species, based
on values reported in the studies in Table B4-4. Because the studies in Table B4-4 are geographically specific, EPA created a
lower and upper value for Delaware and New Jersey, and then calculated a weighted average value based on the proportion of
landings from each state. These values are presented in Table B4-5.
B4-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pari B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline I4E Losses
Table B4-5; Average Recreational Value by Species for Delaware and New Jersey, 1990-1998.
Species
State
Percentage Catch ;*
Value/Fish (S2(>«0)
j Weighted Average ($2000)
Low
High
Low
High
Atlantic croaker ;
DE
67.4% :
$0.13
: $2.oi
NJ
32.6%
$1.75
| $2.39
: $0.66
; $2.27
American shad
DE
50.0%
$0.13
| $2.01
NJ
50.0% ;
$1.75
I 12.39
i $0.94
j $2.20
Spot ;
DE
66.5% i
$0.13
i $2.01
NJ
33.5% ;
$1.75
! $2.39
| $0.67
: $2.26
Striped bass
DE
9.2% i
$3.13
NJ
90.8% ;
$3.49
$15.55*
i $3.46
i $15.55
Weakfish
DE
36.5% :
$0.13
NJ
63.5% ;
$1.75
$2.72"
: $1.16
: $2.72
White perch
DE
69.6% j
$0.13
i $2.01
NJ
30.4% i
$1.75
i $2.39
: $0.62
$2.27
Blue crabc j
DE
;
-
I
NJ
i
-
!
i $ 1.25s
| $4.55'
Non-RIS fishery ;
species'1 ;
DE
I
-
i
NJ
i
-
:
= $1.25"
; $4.55"
• Striped bass high value taken from Norton et al. (1983) and is the same for both states.
6 Weakfish high value taken from Agnello (1989) and is the same for both states.
' Recreational catch and value information has not been located, thus EPA used an equally weighted average value of the
other species listed in the table.
* Recreational values used are averaged from all other species' values. See Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 for list of non-RIS
fishery species.
Source: NMFS, 2001b.
B4-2.2 Average Annual I&E Losses of Recreational Yield at Saiem and Economic
Value of Losses
EPA estimated the economic value of I&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the I&E estimates presented in Tables B4-2
and B4-3 and the economic values in Table B4-5. Results are displayed in Tables B4-6 and B4-7, for impingement and
entrainment, respectively. The estimated total loss to recreational Fisheries ranges from $16,400 to $57,600 per year for
impingement, and from $1,523,400 to $5,373,000 per year for entrainment.
B4-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 84: Baseline IAE Losses
Table B4-6: Mean Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Solem and Associated
Economic Values Based on the Impingement Data Summarized in Table B4-2 and Discussed in Section
B3 - 7 of Chapter B3,
Species
Loss to Recreational
! Catch from Impingement
(number of fish)
i Recreational Value/Fish"
Low High
Annual Loss in Recreational
Value from Impingement
(S 2(100)
Low High
American shad
; 13
! $0.94
$2.20
$12
i $28
Atlantic croaker
2,806
i $0.66
$2.27 !
$1,847
\ $6,360
Atlantic menhaden
i NA
NA
j NA
Blue crabfc
; 2,131
| $1.25
$4.55
$2,667
j $9,686
Silversides
NA
NA
: NA
Spot
I 922
j $0.67
$2.26
$620
! $2,085
Striped bass
| 721
! $3.46
$15.55 j
$2,491
| $11,206
Weakfish
! 2,486
i $1.16
S2.72
$2,881
| $6,762
White perch
133
| $0.62
$2.27 ;
$83
| $304
Non-RIS fishery species'
! 4,653
: $1.25
$4.55
$5,816
i $21,170
Total
i 13,865
516,417
| $57,601
NA = data not available.
• Recreational values stated are weighted averages, as calculated in Table B4-5, and values listed here are rounded to two
digits, but are not rounded in the calculations.
b Recreational catch and value information has not been located, thus EPA used an equally weighted average value of the
other species listed in the table.
e Recreational values used are averaged from all other species' values. See Table B3-I of Chapter B3 for list of non-RIS
fishery species.
Fri FebOl 16:59:11 MST 2002; Table B: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: salem 100.benefits, type: I
Pathname: P:/lntake/Delaware/Del-Science/scode&/tables.output.benefits.baseline,TabieB.rec.losses.salemlOO.benefits.I.csv
Table B4-7: Mean Annual Entramment of Recreational Fishery Species at Solem and Associated Economic
Values Based on the Entrapment Presented in Table B4-3 and Discussed in Section B3-5 of Chapter B3.
Species
i Loss to Recreational Catch;
from Entrainment i_
Recreational Value/Fish*
| Annual Loss in Recreational Value
from Entrainment ($2000)
(number offish)
Low
High
Low
High
American shad
; 2 i
$0.94
$2.20
\ $2
$5
Atlantic Croaker
199,188
$0.66
! $2.27
$131,090
$451,384
Spot
. 1 1,159,488 j
$0.67
; $2.26
; $779,988
$2,623,574
Striped bass
; 50,624 I
$3.46
: $15.55
; $175,000
$787,199
Weakfish
54,104
$1.16
! $2.72
| $62,690
$147,162
White perch
; 964
$0.62
; $2.27
I $600
$2,193
Non-RIS fishery species'
| 299,224 ;
$1.25
I $4.55
; $374,031
$1,361,471
Total
j 1,763,594 i
1 $1,523,400
$5,372,987
* Recreational values stated are weighted averages, as calculated in Table B4-5, and values listed here are rounded to two digits, but are
not rounded in the calculations. Thus, annual losses that are reported here may differ from calculations made with the rounded values.
b Recreational values used are averaged from all other species' values. See Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 for list of non-RIS fishery
species.
Fri Feb 01 16:59:27 MST 2002; Table B: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: salemlOO.benefits; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Delaware/Del-Science/scodes/tables,output.bemefits.baselinefrableB,rec.losses.salemlOO.benefits,E.Gsv
B4-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4; Baseline ISE Losses
B4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses at the
Salem Facility
64-3.1 Average Annual I&E Losses of Commercial Yield at Salem and Economic
Vaiue of Losses
I&E losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables B4-2 (for impingement) and B4-3 (for entrainment) based
on the commercial and recreational splits listed in Table B4-1. EPA estimates of the economic value of these losses are
displayed in Tables B4-8 and B4-9 for impingement and entrainment, respectively. Market values per pound are listed as
well as the total market losses experienced by the commercial fishery. Values for commercial fishing are relatively
straightforward because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market price. The estimates of market loss to the
commercial fisheries are $98,000 per year for impingement, and $5,814,700 per year for entrainment.
Table B4-8: Mean Annual Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Salem and Associated Economic Values
Based on the Impingement Data Presented in Table B4-2 and Discussed in Section B3-7 of Chapter B3.
Species
Loss
;
to Commercial Catch from Impingement
(lb of fish)
Commercial Value i Ai
{lb of fish)1"
tnual Loss In Commercial Value
from impingement ($2000)
Alewife
-}
19 ;
SQ.I1 i
$2
American shad
41 ;
$0.72 1
$30
Atlantic croaker
"'?
42,478 ;
S0.70 ;
$29,735
Atlantic menhaden
;
NA ;
S0.07 :
NA
Blue crab
:
14,357 i
$1.02 i
$14,644
Spot
;
"¦t
1,741 1
$0.85 ;
$1,480
Striped bass
249 ¦ :
$3.18 i
S791
Weakfish
30,300 :
$1.24 ;
$37,572
White perch
43 !
SI.20 :
$51
Non-RIS fishery species8
14,267 !
$0.96 i
.513,697
Total
103,495 ;
$98,001
NA = data not available.
" Commercial value used is the average commercial value for the other species. See Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 for list of r.or.-RIS fishery
species.
b Values are rounded to two decimal places here for listing but not in the calculations
Fri Feb 01 16:59:27 MST2002 ; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: salem lGO.benefits; type: I Pathname:
P:/lntake/Dclawarc/Del-Science/scodes/tables.outpu!.ber.ctits.basclme.TableC.comm.losses.saleml(X) benefits. 1.csv
B4-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 0: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4; Baseline I4E Losses
Table B4-9: Mean Annual Entrainment of Commercial Fishery Species at Salem and Associated
Economic Values Based on the Entrainment Data Presented in Table B4-3 and Discussed in
Section B3-5 of Chapter B3,
Species
; Lass to Commercial Catch ;
from Entrainment
(lb of fish)
Commercial
Value
(lb of fish)6
: Annual Loss in Commercial
Value from Entrainment
($2000)
Alewife
; 14
$0,11
i $2
American shad
i 7 :
$0.72
j $5
Atlantic croaker
: 3,014,877 ¦:
$0.70
; $2,110,414
Atlantic menhaden
: 1,177,437 i
$0.07
i $88,184
Silversides
: 43 ;
$0.46
$20
Spot
I 2,190,202
$0.85
j $1,861,672
Striped bass
; 17,468
$3.18
$55,547
Weak fish
1 659,381
$1.24
! 5817,632
White perch
1 309 i
$1.20
| $371
Non-RIS fishery species*
; 917,552 :
$0.96
| $880,850
Total
i 7,977,290
; $5,814,696
• Commercial value used is the average commercial value for the other species. See Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 for
list of non-RIS fishery species.
b Values are rounded to two decimal places here for listing but not in the calculations.
Fri Feb 01 16:59:30 MST 2002 ; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: salem I OO.benefits;
type: E Pathname: P:/lntake/Dclaware/Dcl-
Science/scodes/tables.output.benefits.baseline/TableC.comm.losses.salemIOO.benefits.E.csv
B4-3.2 Economic Impacts of Commercial Landings Losses
The previous section expresses changes to commercial activity as changes in dockside market prices. However, to determine
the total economic impact from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA also determined the losses experienced by producers
wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.
The total social benefits (economic surplus) are greater than the increase in dockside landings, because the increased landings
by commercial fishermen contribute to economic surplus in each of a multi-tiered set of markets for commercial fish. The
total economic surplus impact thus is valued by examining the multi-tiered markets through which the landed fish are sold,
according to the methods and data detailed in Chapter A9.
The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of l&E-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of
commercial species as sold dockside by commercial harvesters). The results of this dockside landings value step are described
above. The next steps then entail tracking the anticipated additional economic surplus generated as the landed fish pass from
dockside transactions to other wholesalers, retailers and, ultimately, consumers. The resulting total economic surplus
measures include producer surplus to the watermen who harvest the fish, as well as the rents and consumer surplus that accrue
to buyers and sellers in the sequence of market transactions that apply in the commercial fishery context.
To estimate producer surplus from the landings values, EPA relied on empirical results from various researchers that can be
used to infer producer surplus for watermen based on gross revenues (landings times wholesale price). The economic
literature (Huppert, 1990; Rettig and McCarl, 1985) suggests that producer surplus values for commercial fishing ranges from
50 to 90 percent of the market value. In assessments of Great Lakes fisheries, an estimate of approximately 40% has been
derived as the relationship between gross revenues and the surplus of commercial fishermen (Cleland and Bishop, 1984,
Bishop, personal communication, 2002). For the purposes of this study, EPA believes producer surplus to watermen is
probably in the range of 40% to 70% of dockside landings values.
Producer surplus is one portion of the total economic surplus impacted by increased commercial stocks — the total benefits
are comprised of the economic surplus to producers, wholesalers, processors, retailers, and consumers. Primary empirical
research deriving "multi-market" welfare measures for commercial fisheries have estimated that surplus accruing to
commercial anglers amount to approximately 22% of the total surplus accruing to watermen, retailers and consumers
B4-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline ME Losses
combined (Norton et al., 1983; Holt and Bishop, 2002). Thus, total economic surplus across the relevant commercial fisheries
multi-tiered markets can be estimated as approximately 4.5 times greater than producer surplus alone (given that producer
surplus is roughly 22% of the total surplus generated). This relationship is applied in the ease studies to estimate total surplus
from the projected changes in commercial landings.
Applying this method, estimates of the baseline economic loss to the commercial fisheries ranges from $ 178,200 to $311,800
per year for impingement, and from 110,572,200 to $18,501,300 per year for entrainment for the Salem facility,
B4-4 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
Many fish species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationafly fished. For the purposes in this study, EPA referred
to these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species and are important components of aquatic
. food webs. Table B4-10 summarizes impingement losses of forage species at Salem and Table B4-11 summarizes
entrainment losses. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation
methods.
Table B4-10:
Species
Summary of Salem's Mean Annual Impingement of Forage Species.
Impingement Count (#) : Age 1 Equivalents (#) j Production Foregone (lb)
Bay anchovy
; 592,248
525,130 |
500
BSueback herring
; 83,997
12,802 i
4,269
Non-RIS Forage"
i 1,733,222
1,480,270 !
1,288
Total
| 2,409,467
2,018,201
6,057
¦ Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 lists non-RIS species.
Table B4-11: Summary of Salem's Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Species.
Species j Entrainment Count (#) ; Age 1 Equivalents (#) ; Production Foregone (lb)
Bay anchovy ;
13,129,437,661
i 290,409,647 ;
7,043,992
Blueback herring ;
5,563,808
6,745 ;
15,361
Non-RIS forage* j
967,814,719
i 6,423,701 I
1.255.798
Forage sum ;
14,102,816,188
296,840,093
8,315,151
* Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 lists non-RIS species.
Replacement cost of fish
The replacement value of fish can be used in several instances. First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking
of hatchery fish, then losses to commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would still
be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but are
important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough data to allow calculation of the value of losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be
used as a proxy for lost fishery values.
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table B4-12 displays the replacement costs of two of the forage fish species known to be impinged or
entrained at Salem. The costs are average costs to fish hatcheries across North America to produce the fish for stocking. The
second component of replacement cost is the transportation cost, which includes costs associated with vehicles, personnel,
fuel, water, chemicals, containers, and nets. The AFS (1993) estimates these costs at approximately $1.13 per mile, but does
not indicate how many fish (or how many pounds of fish) are transported for this price. Lacking relevant data, EPA does not
include the transportation costs in this valuation approach.
B4-9
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 0: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline I&E Losses
Table B4-12 also presents the annual average replacement cost for impinged and entrained forage species at Salem, The
value of these losses using the replacement cost method is $2,246 per year for impingement and $130,224 per year for
entrainment.
Table B4-12- Replacement Costs for Losses of Forage Fish Species at the Salem Facility.5
Species
Hatchery Costs
I (Mb) f
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses ($2000)
Impingement Entrainment
Bay anchovy
(all U.S. regions)
I $0.11
$220
$121,838
Blueback herring
(all U.S. regions)
1 $0.52 |
$106
$56
Non-RIS forage species''
| $0.34
$1,920 :
$8,330
Total
$2,246 j
$130,224
* Values are from AFS (1993). These values were inflated to $2000 from $1989, but this could be imprecise for current
fish rearing and stocking costs.
" This is an average value for all species listed in AFS (1993). See Table B3-1 of Chapter B3 for list of non-RIS forage
species.
Production foregone value of forage fish
This approach considers the foregone production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from I&E of forage
species based on estimates of trophic transfer efficiency, as discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document. The
economic valuation of forage losses is based on the dollar value of the foregone fishery yield resulting from these losses.
Table B4-13 displays the results for impingement of forage species at Salem and B4-14 displays results for entrainment. The
values listed are obtained by converting the forage species into species that may be commercially or recreationally valued.
The values range from $30 to $80 per year for impingement and from $48,500 to $ 129,900 per year for entrainment.
Table B4-13: Mean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Selected
Fishery Species Resulting from Impingement of Forage Species at Salem
Based on the Impingement Data Presented in Table B4-10 and Discussed
in Section B3-7 of Chapter B3.
Annual Los in Production Foregone Value
Species 1 from Impingement of Forage Species (S2000)
Low [ High
Atlantic croaker
: $5 :
$9
Blue crab
5 $4 !
S9
Spot
I $4 ;
$8
Striped bass
: $3 i
$11
Weakfish
j $8 :
$14
White perch
i $o :
$1
Non-RIS fishery species"
: $5 ;
111
Total
1 $30 i
$63
" See Table B3-I of Chapter B3 for list of non-RIS fishery species.
Fri Feb 01 16:59:21 MST 2002; Table D: loss in selected forage species; Plant:
salcmlOO.benefus; type; 1 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Delaware/Del-Science/'scodes/tables.output.benefits.baseline/TableD.forage.eco.te
r.repl .sal em 100 .benefits.I.csv
B4-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline ME Losses
Table B4-14: Wean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Selected
Fishery Species Resulting from Entrapment of Forage Species at Salem
Based on the Entrainment Data Presented in Table B4-11 and biscussed in
Section B3-5 of Chapter B3.
Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value
from Entrainmenl of Forage Species ($2000)
Low High
Alewife
$18
$31
American shad
$161 i
$299
Atlantic croaker
14,122 I
$7,444
Atlantic menhaden
$6,944
$12,152
Silversides
; $25,247 i
$44,182
Spot
$10,908 |
$22,385
Striped bass
$909 :
$3,174
Wcakfish
$6,705 :
$11,896
White perch
i $451 i
$1,193
Non-RIS fishery species'
$398
$839
Total
; $55,862 :
$103,595
* See Tabic B3-1 of Chapter B3 for list of non-RIS fishery species.
Fri Feb 01 16:59:33 MST 2002; Table D: loss in selected forage species; Plant:
salem 100-benefrts; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Delawaie/Del-Science/seodes/tables.output.benefits,baselin»TabteD.forage.eco.te
r.repl.salem 1 OO.bencfits.E.csv
B4-5 Nonuse Values
Recreational consumer surplus and commercial impacts are only part of the total losses that the public realizes from I&E
impacts on fisheries. Nonuse or passive use impacts arise when individuals value environmental changes apart from any past,
present, or anticipated future use of the resource in question. Such passive use values have been categorized in several ways
in the economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (intergenerational equity)
motives. Using a "rule of thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 percent of the recreational use impact (see
Chapter A9 for further discussion), EPA estimated nonuse values for baseline losses at Salem to range from $8,200 to
$28,800 per year for impingement and from $761,700 to $2,686,500 per year for entrainment.
B4-6 Summary of Mean Annual Value of Economic Losses at Salem
Table B4-15 summarizes the estimated current annual I&E at the Salem facility and the economic valuation of these losses.
Estimated total impacts range from SO.2 million to $0.4 million per year for impingement and from $12.9 million to $26.7
million per year for entrainment.
B4-11
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline t&E Losses
Table B4-15: Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual ME at Salem Facility ($2000).
Impingement j
Entrainment
Total
Percent of
Impingement
Impacts*
Percent of
Entrainment
Impacts1
Commercial: Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market) | Low
SI 78,184
$10,572,175
810,750,359
81.2%
73.4%
! High
S311,822
$18,501,306
$18,813,128
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket) j Low
$16,417
$1,523,400
$1,539,816
12.3%
17.4%
! High
$57,601
$5,372,987
$5,430,588
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket) j Low
SB, 208
$761,700
$769,908
6.1%
8.7%
.j High
$28,800 ;
$2,686,493
$2,715,294
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket) j
0.4%
0.5%
Production Foregone; Low
$30 j
$55,862
$55,893
: High
$63
$103,595
$103,659
Replacement:
$2,246 {
$130,224
$132,470
Total (Com + Rec + Nonuse + Forage)b j Low
$202,839 j
$12,913,137
$13,115,976
100%
100%
; High
$400,469 i
$26,691,011
$27,091,480
¦ Midpoints of the ranges are used to calculate percentages.
b In calculating the total low values, the lower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement) was used and
to calculate the total high values, the higher of the two forage valuation methods was used.
Fri Feb 01 16:59:39 MST 2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant: salem 100.benefits ; Pathname: P:/Intake/Delaware/Del-
Science/scodes/tablcs, output.benefits.basel ine/TableE.summary.salem 1 QO.benefits.csv
B4-7 Total Economic Damages for Generating Facilities Regulated Under
Phase 2
I&E results for the Salem facility were extrapolated to other in-scope transition zone facilities (see Section B3-6 of Chapter
B3) and summed to obtain total losses from I&E at all in-scope transition zone CWIS. Table B4-16 displays estimates of the
economic value of these losses. Results range from $0.4 million to $0.8 million per year for impingement and from $20.0
million to $41.4 million per year for entrainment.
Table B4-16: EPA's Estimates of Average Annual Economic Losses at In-scope CWIS of the Transition
Zone of the belaware Estuary ($2000).
Impingement Losses
Entrainment Losses
Total
Facility r~
Low
High
Low
High
: Low
High
Salem* j
$202,839
$400,469
j $12,913,137
$26,691,011
| $13,115,976 i
$27,091,480
Hope Creek ;
$13,963
$28,920
i $464,933
$961,000
j $478,896 |
$989,921
Edge Moor ;
$176,114
$364,771
I $5,864,154
$12,121,005
; $6,040,268
$12,485,776
Deep water (w/o ;
Chambers Cogen) ;
$23,557
$48,792
! $784,387
$1,621,301
; $807,944 ;
$1,670,092
Total ;
$416,473
$842,952
1 $20,026,611
$41,394,317 '
| $20,443,084 j
$42,237,269
* Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's current i&E assuming no impingement or entrainment survival, as discussed in Section B3-7
of Chapter B3. Salem's data for 1996 was not included because the facility was shut down much of the year.
Wed Feb 06 13:15:50 MST 2002 extrapolation.summary; salem 1 OO.extrapolation
P:/INTAKE/Delaware/Del-Science/scodes/extrapolation.benefits.facilities/extrapolation.sunimarynew.csv
B4-12
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B4: Baseline ME Losses
B4-8 Total Economic Damages for All Transition Zone CWIS
Table B4-17 displays EPA's estimates of the mean annual economic losses for all transition zone CWIS (both in scope and
out of scope of the proposed rule). Results for these facilities together range from $0.5 million to $1.1 million per year for
impingement and from $23.4 million to $48.5 million per year for entrainment.
Table B4-17: EPA's Estimates of Average Annual Economic Losses at All CWIS of the Transition Zone of
the Be!aware Estuary ($2000).
Facility f~
Impingement Losses
Entrainiuent losses
Tola
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Salem"
$202,839
i $400,469
1 $12,913,137
1 $26,691,011
; $13,115,976 ;
$27,091,480
Hope Creek
$13,963
1 $28,920
$464,933
; $961,000
i $478,896 ;
$989,921
Dupont ;
$1,576
$3,265
$52,492
$108,500
; $54,069 1
$111,765
Edge Moor
$176,114
$364,771
i $5,864,154
; $12,121,005
: $6,040,268 i
$12,485,776
Delaware City
Refinery
$81,976
; $169,791
j $2,729,606
$5,642,002
: $2,811,583 j
$5,811,793
Deepwater (w/o
Chambers Cogen) !
$23,557
! $48,792
$784,387
$1,621,301
I $807,944
$1,670,092
Chambers Cogen •
$8,333
1 $17,259
i $277,460
$573,500
; $285,793
$590,759
Gen Chem
Corporation
$7,635
; $15,813
$254,213
$525,450
$261,848 ¦
$541,263
SPI Polyols
$1,126
i $2,332
i $37,495
i $77,500
: $38,621 ;
$79,832
Sun Refining
$1,351
; $2,799
$44,994
$93,000
i $46,345
$95,799
Logan Generating ;
Co
$450
! $933
$14,998
$31,000
i 115,448 ;
$31,933
Hay Road
$360
j $746
$11,998
| $24,800
i $12,359 :
$25,546
Total i
$519,282
; $1,055,891
; $23,449,867
$48,470,070
i $23,969,149 j
$49,525,961
¦ Based on EPA's estimate of Salem's current I&E assuming no impingement or entrainment survival, as discussed in Section B3-7
of Chapter B3. Salem's data for 1996 was not included because the facility was shut down much of the year.
Wed Feb 06 13:09:58 MST 2002 extrapolation.summary, salem 1 OO.extrapolation
P:/INTAKLE/Delaware/Del-Science/scodes/extrapolation,baseline.feeilities/extrapolation.surnmarynew.csv
B4-I3
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part The belaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
Introduction
This case study uses a random utility model (RUM)
approach to estimate the effects of improved fishing
opportunities due to reduced impingement and
entrainment (I&E) in the Delaware River Estuary. The
case study focuses on marine fishing sites in the Delaware
River Estuary and the Atlantic coastal areas of Delaware
and New Jersey, The study area was selected for
consistency with the study area selected for the I&E
analysis and does not include all recreational sites
potentially affected by I&E in the Delaware Estuary.
Cooling Water Intake Structures (CWISs) withdrawing
water from the Delaware Estuary impinge and entrain
many of the species sought by recreational anglers. These
species include striped bass, weak fish, croaker, spot,
flounder, and other less prominent species. Some of these
species (e.g., weakfish, flounder, and striped bass) inhabit
a wide range (e.g., striped bass ranges from North
Carolina to Maine). Therefore, increased fish mortality
from l&E in the Delaware Estuary may affect recreational
fishing from North Carolina to Maine.
The study's main assumption is that, all else being equal, anglers will get greater satisfaction and thus greater economic value
from sites with a higher catch rate. This benefit may occur in two ways: first, an angler may get greater enjoyment from a
given fishing trip with higher catch rates, yielding a greater value per trip; second, anglers may take more fishing trips when •
catch rates are higher, resulting in greater overall value for fishing in the region.
The following sections focus on the data set used in the analysis and analytic results. Chapter A10 of Part A of this document
provides a detailed description of the RUM methodology used in this analysis.
B5-1 Data Summary
EPA's analysis of improvements in recreational fishing opportunities in the Delaware Estuary relies on a subset of the Marine
Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) combined with the 1994 Add-on MRFSS Economic Survey (NMFS, 1999a;
QuanTech, 1998).' The model of recreational fishing behavior relies on the subset that includes only single-day trips to sites
located in the Delaware Bay or along the Atlantic coasts of Delaware and New Jersey.2 In addition, the sample excludes
respondents missing data on key variables (e.g., home town). This truncation resulted in a sample of 2,075 anglers.
The Agency included both single and multiple day trips in estimating the total economic gain from improvements in fishing
site quality from reduced I&E. Details of this analysis are provided in Section B5-6 of this chapter.
1 For general discussion of the MRFSS see Chapter A10 or "Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics: Data user's Manual," NMFS
2001b.
2 New Jersey included all sites located in counties bordering the Delaware Bay, but only those Atlantic coast sites located in the Cape
May and Atlantic counties,
B5-1
Chapter Contents
B5-1 Data Summary R5-1
B5.1.1 Summary of Anglers* Characteristics .. B5-2
B5-I.2 Recreational Fishing Choice Sets B5-4
B5.1.3 Site Attributes B5-6
B5.1.4 Travel Cost B5-8
B5-2 Site Choice Models B5-9
B5-3 Trip Frequency Model B5-! 1
B5-4 Welfare Estimates 135-13
BS-4.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of
Fishing.Sites ... BS«I3 -
BS-4.2 Estimating Losses from l&E in the
Delaware Bstusry 85-14
B5-5 1 .imitations and Uncertainty B5.J(>
B5-5.I Geographic Area of the Case Study .. B5-S6
B5-5.2 Extrapolating Single-Day Trip Results
to bnimate Benefits from Multiple-
Day Trip-,
B5-.V3 Considering Only Recreational Values B5-1V
B5-5.4 Potential Sources uf Survey Bias BS-19
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
B5-1.1 Summary of Anglers' Characteristics
a. Fishing modes and targeted species
A majority of the interviewed anglers (63 percent) fish from either a private or a rental boat (see Table B5-1 below).
Approximately 21 percent fish from the shore; the remaining 16 percent fish from a party or charter boat. In addition to the
mode of fishing, the MRFSS contains information on the specific species targeted on the current trip. The most popular
species, targeted by 29 percent of anglers, is summer/winter flounder. The second most popular species, targeted by 21
percent of anglers, is weakfish. Approximately 26 percent of anglers did not have a designated target species. Of the
remaining anglers, six, five, two, and 11 percent target striped bass, blue fish, bottom fish (e.g., white perch, croaker and
spot), and big game fish (e.g., yellowfin tuna), respectively.3-4
The distribution of target species is not uniform by fishing mode. For example, more than half the anglers fishing from
private/rental boats target either flounder (35,3 percent) or weakfish (26.2 percent). The majority of shore anglers, on the
other hand, either don't target any particular species (38.3 percent) or target bottom fish (18.8 percent). Flounder remains the
most popular species among anglers fishing from party/charter boats (29,1 percent), followed by "no target" and bottom
species (20 percent).5 A relatively large percentage of charter boat anglers target big game species (10.8 percent) compared
to a negligible percentage of anglers targeting big game species from either private or rental boats (0.7 percent) or shore
(0 percent).
Anglers fishing from private or rental boats and anglers fishing from shore and charter boats target different species, EPA
modeled recreational fishing behavior using anglers fishing from private or rental boats. The Agency could not extend the
RUM to other Fishing modes due to an insufficient number of observations for species of concern (i.e., striped bass and
weakfish).
Table B5-1: Species Group Choice by Mode of Fishing
All Modes
Private/Rental Boat
Party/Charter Boat
Shore
Species
Frequency
Percent
Frequency
Percent by
Mode
Frequency
Percent by
Mode
: Frequency :
Percent by
Mode
No target
535
25.67%
294
22.53%
70
j 21.02%
; 171 I
38.34%
Striped bass
134
6.43%
86
6.59%
17
; 5.11%
1 31 :
6.95%
Bluefish
99
4,75%
36
2,76%
11
1 3.30%
! 52 |
11.66%
Flounder
610
29.27%
461
35.33%
97
| 29.13%
52 i
11.66%
Weakfish
433
20.78%
342
26.21%
35
| 10,51%
! 56 !
12.56%
Big game fish
45
2.16%
9
0.69%
36
| 10.81%
; 0 j
0.00%
Bottom fish
219
10.51%
68
5,21%
67
! 20.12%
84 j
18.83%
All species
2,075
100.00%
1,305
100.00%
333
i 100.00%
: 446 ;
100.00%
3 Bottom fish includes dogfish sharks, catfish, white perch, white bass, black sea bass, scup, drums, spot, northern kingfish, Atlantic
croaker, tautog. and Atlantic bonito.
* Big game fish includes mackerel, mako, and blue sharks, dolphin, tuna, bluefin tuna, and yellowfin tuna.
5 Note that bottom species targeted by offshore anglers and charter boat anglers are different. Charter boat anglers usually target
tautog, black sea bass, and drums, while offshore anglers target white perch, catfish, and dogfish sharks,
B5-2
-------
i 316(b) Watershed Cose Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
b. Anglers' characteristics
This section presents a summary of angler characteristics for the Delaware Bay region as defined above. For this data
comparison the study uses both the observations valid for the site choice model and those valid for the trip participation
model. Those valid for the trip participation model include only anglers who responded to the economic add-on survey. The
following trip profile information relies on the 2,075 site choice observations, of which 239 responded to the economic add-
on survey and therefore are valid also for the trip participation model. Table B5-2 summarizes characteristics of the sample
anglers fishing the NMFS site in the Delaware Bay area.
The average income of the respondent anglers was $44,109, with 87 percent having reported their household income. Ninety-
four percent of the anglers are white, with an average age of about 47 years. Educational attainment information indicates that
14 percent of the anglers had not received a high school diploma, while only 15 percent had graduated from college, The
average household size was 2.95 individuals. Nearly 20 percent of the anglers are retired, while 13 percent are self-employed.
Forty-seven percent of the anglers indicated that they had flexible time when setting their work schedule.
Table B5-2 shows that on average anglers spent 28 days fishing during the past year. The average duration of a fishing trip
was 4.2 hours per day. Anglers made an average of 2.2 trips to the current site, with an average trip cost of $25.73 ($1994)*
Average travel time to and from the site was just under two hours. Fifty-eight percent of the Delaware Bay anglers own their
own boat. Finally, the average number of years of fishing experience was 23. This analysis does not include anglers under
the age of 16, which may result in overestimation of the average age of recreational anglers and years of experience.
6 All costs are in S1994 because that was the MRFSS survey year. All costs/benefits will be updated to $2000 later in this analysis
(i.e., for welfare estimation).
B5-3
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Port &: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 85: RUM Analysis
Table B5-2:
Data Summary for Delaware Bay/Atlantic Coast Anglers
Variable
•N
Mean"
StdDev
Minimum
Maximum
Trip Cost ;
2075
i 24.47
21.62
0
224.73
Travel Time j
2075
| 2.02
1.67
0
13.79
Visits :
2075
1 2.20
5.55
1
88
Own a boat I
239
1 0.58
0.49
0
1
High School
239
! 0.14
0.35
0
1
College Degree :
239
I 0.15
0.36
0
1
Retired i
239
! 0.20
0.40
0
1
!
Age i
. 239
1 47.16
14.16
20
81
Years Fishing :
239
! 23.30
14.34
1
63
Household Size 1
239
| 2.95
1.27
1
7
Flexible Time
239
1 0.47
0.50
0
1
Male
239
i 0.92
0.28
0
I
White ;
239
i 0.94
0.24
0
1
Household Income i
239
j $44,108.91
$23,767.07
$7,500.00
$150,000.00
Annual trips :
239
i 28.34
39.83
1
200
a. For dummy variables such as "Own a Boat" that take the value of 0 or 1, the reported value represents » portion of the survey respondents possessing
the relevant characteristic. For example, $8 percent of the surveyed anglers own a boat.
B5-1.2 Recreational Fishing Choice Sets
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intercept sites included in the analysis are depicted in Figure B5-1. For
tractability, the study aggregates NMFS intercept sites into 48 fishing zones based on Reach File version 1 (hereafter RF1)
(Parsons and Needelman, 1992; McConnell and Strand, 1994). The 48 fishing zones (hereafter fishing sites), along with the
angler's state of residence, define the individual's choice set. Based on the survey observations, residents of Delaware and
Maryland almost exclusively visited sites within Delaware while New Jersey residents visited sites within New Jersey. Only
two sampled anglers from Delaware visited New Jersey sites and one sampled person from New Jersey visited a fishing site
located in Delaware. Pennsylvania residents, however, tended to visit sites located in both Delaware and New Jersey.
Based on these findings, EPA assumed that Delaware and Maryland anglers select their destination from 23 fishing zones
located in the Delaware Bay and along Delaware's Atlantic coast. Similarly, EPA assumed that New Jersey residents select
their destination among fishing zones located on the New Jersey side of the Delaware Bay or along New Jersey's Atlantic
Coast. Given the size of the Delaware Bay, it is reasonable to assume that fishing zones on the opposite side of the bay are
not included in anglers' choice set (Parsons and Hauber, 1997).7 EPA assumed that all fishing zones on both sides of the
Delaware Bay are included in the choice sets for Pennsylvania anglers. Table B5-3 summarizes choice sets available for
recreational anglers residing in Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
7 EPA attempted a model in which individual choice sets for Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey residents included fishing sites on
both sides of the Delaware Bay. The Agency also attempted a nested structure, assuming that anglers first select a state and then a fishing
site. Both model variations performed poorly.
B5-4
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
Figure B5-1; NMFS Intercept Sites Included in RUM Analysis
Salem
NEWJERSEY
Allan lie
s*
Cape.
May*
Location of the NMFS Sites
In the Delaware Bay Area
Universal Opportunity Sat
FBI Coastal Ranch
1
Source: U.S. EPA, 1997.
B5-5
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
1
Angler's State of
Residence
'able B5-3: Nurr
Number of
Anglers per
State
ber of Sites Available
States) Included in
Choice Set
for Individual Choice Sets {by State)
Number of Sites in Choice Set
Total Number of
Sites
# of Delaware Bay ; H of Atlantic
Sites ; Coast Sites
Delaware
1176
Delaware
23
16 i 7
Maryland
173
Delaware
23
16 ; 7
New Jersey
320
New Jersey
25
9 ; 16
Pennsylvania
415
Delaware, New Jersey
48
25 23
B5-1.3 Site Attributes
This analysis assumes that the angler chooses between site alternatives based on several observable attributes. The attributes
included in this analysis include catch rates for fish species of concern, presence of boat launching facilities, and the site's
aesthetic quality.
Catch rate is the most important attribute of a fishing site from the anglers' perspective (McConnell and Strand, 1994; Haab
et al, 2000). This attribute is also a policy variable of concern because catch rate is a function of fish abundance, which is
affected by fish mortality due to I&E. The catch variable in the RUM therefore provides the means to measure baseline losses
in l&E and changes in anglers' welfare attributed to changes from I&E due to the 316b rule.
To specify the fishing quality of the case study sites, EPA calculated historic catch rate based on the NMFS catch rate from
1994 to 1996 for recreationally important species, such as weakfish. striped bass, bluefish. and flounder (McConnell and
Strand, 1994). Other species of interest (e.g., white perch, Atlantic croaker, American shad, and spot) did not produce enough
observations to permit a RUM analysis. EPA therefore bundled all species other than weakfish, striped bass, bluefish, and
flounder into two aggregate groups — big game fish and bottom fish — and calculated group-specific catch rates.- No sample
anglers targeted species in the "other fish" category (i.e., eel). The bottom fish and big game groups include the following
species:8
~ Big game: mako, blue, bluefin and yellowfin tuna, and dolphin; and
~ Bottom fish: dogfish sharks, catfish, white perch, black sea bass, scup, drums, northern kingfish, tautog, Atlantic
croaker, and spot.
The catch rates represent the number of fish caught on a fishing trip divided by the number of hours spent fishing (i.e., the
number of fish caught per hour per angler). The estimated catch rates are averages across all anglers in a given year over the
three-year period. The big game and bottom fish catch rates are weighted average catch rates for all species in the group,
weighted by sample proportion for each species.
The catch rate variables include total catch, including fish caught and kept and fish released. Some NMFS studies use the
catch-and-keep measure as the relevant catch rate. Although a greater error may be associated with measured number of fish
not kept, the total catch measure is most appropriate because a large number of anglers catch and release fish. The total catch
rate variables include both targeted fish catch and incidental catch. For example, striped bass catch rates include fish caught
by striped bass anglers and anglers who don't target any particular species. This method may underestimate the average
historic catch rate for a given site because anglers not targeting particular fish species are usually less experienced and may
not have the appropriate fishing gear. EPA considered using targeted species catch rates for this analysis, buit discovered that
this approach did not provide a sufficient number of observations per fishing zone to allow estimation of catch rates for all
fishing sites included in the analysis.
8 None of the anglers included in the sample data set targeted small game species other than striped bass and bluefish.
B5-6
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
EPA estimated the catch rate for each combination of recreational fishing zone in the study area and fish species of interest
using a standard Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation technique. The IDW technique estimates a value for any
given location by assuming that each input value has an influence on that location. This influence diminishes with distance
according to a predetermined power parameter. If available, EPA used observable catch rate values for a given site to
estimate average catch rales for that site, If no observed catch rates were found, EPA used an inverse distance squared
estimation technique to calculate an average catch rate for a given zone/species combination. The Agency first located any
site visits within five kilometers from a given fishing zone and then used the catch rates of the nearest four sites visited as
input values for calculating historic catch rates for the species in question.
For anglers who don't target any species, EPA used weakfish, flounder, and bottom fish catch rates to characterize the fishing
quality of a fishing site, EPA based its assessment on the analysis of fish species caught by no-target anglers. The MRPSS
provided information on species caught for 78 percent of the 532 no-target anglers. Of those, 48 percent caught bottom fish,
10 percent caught small game (i.e., either striped bass or blue fish), 13 percent caught weakfish, and ten percent caught
flounder. The remaining 19 percent caught other fish species.
Anglers who target particular species generally catch more fish in the targeted category because of specialized equipment and
skills than anglers who don't target these species. Of the anglers who target particular species, bottom fish anglers catch the
largest number of fish per hour (0.95), followed by anglers who catch weakfish (0,89) and flounder (0.86). Anglers who
target big game fish catch fewer fish than anglers targeting any other species or species group. Table B5-4 summarizes
average catch rates by species for all sites in the study area.
Table B5-4: Average Catch Rate by Species/Species Group
for the Delaware Boy and Coastal Sites
Species/Species Group
Average Catch Rate
(fish per angler per hour)
Striped bass
0.608
Weakfish
0.894
Flounder
0.860
Bluefish
0.498
Bottom fish
0.947
Big game fish
0.275
Some RUM studies have used predicted, rather than actual, catch rates (Haab et al., 2000; Hicks et al., 1999; McConnell and
Strand, 1994). This practice allows for individual characteristics to affect catch rates; for example, anglers with different
levels of experience may have different catch rates. Haab et al. (2000) compared historic catch-and-keep rates to predicted
catch-and-keep rates and found that historic catch-and-keep rates were a better measure of site quality. The authors also
found that the choice of catch rate had little effect on the travel cost parameters. Hicks et al. (1999) found that using historic
catch rates resulted in more conservative welfare estimates than predicted catch rate models. Consequently, EPA favored this
more conservative approach
EPA included two additional site attributes in the model: presence of boat launching facilities and fishing site aesthetic
quality.
~ Presence of boat launching facilities. Anglers who own a boat view the presence of a boat ramp as an important
factor that may affect site choice. EPA therefore obtained information on the presence of boat ramps at the study
sites from the Delaware and New Jersey Atlas and Gazetteer (DeLorme, 1999; DeLorme, 1993). The Agency also
used information provided in the MRFSS to supplement information from the Atlas and Gazetteer, EPA used a
dummy variable (Boat_Ramp=l) for whether or not a site has a boat ramp.
BS-7
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
»¦ Fishing site aesthetic quality. Visual appearance of the site may play an important role in an angler's decision to
visit a particular site because the site's aesthetic quality will likely affect the angler's recreational trip enjoyment,
EPA used ambient concentrations of Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) as a proxy for visual water quality at the fishing
sites.' Nitrogen is the major limiting nutrient regulating primary productivity in coastal ecosystems (U.S. EPA,
1991). Excessive nitrogen loading in coastal waters can stimulate or enhance the impact of microscopic algal species
and lead to algal blooms. Such blooms, sometimes referred to as brown or red tides, result in unattractive site
appearance. Such algal blooms can also release potent neurotoxins to surface water that may affect higher forms of
life, including humans.10
B5-1.4 Travel Cost
EPA used ZipFip software to estimate distances from the household Zip code to each fishing zone in the individual
opportunity sets." As noted above, a fishing zone is defined as a tidal river or a coastal reach. If a fishing zone has
designated fishing areas, EPA assumed that anglers visited the fishing area nearest to their homes. Otherwise, EPA measured
the distance between the household Zip code and the reach midpoint. The program used the closest valid Zip code to match
unknown Zip codes. The average one-way distance to the visited site is 40.3 miles.
EPA estimated trip "price" as the sum of travel costs plus the opportunity cost of time following the procedure described in
Haab et al. (2000). Based on Parsons and Kealy (1992), this study assumed that time spent "on-site" is constant across sites
and can be ignored in the price calculation. To estimate consumers' travel costs, EPA multiplied round-trip distance by
average motor vehicle cost per mile ($0.29, 1994 dollars),12 To estimate the opportunity cost of travel time, EPA first divided
round-trip distance by 40 miles per hour to estimate trip time, and used the household's wage to yield the opportunity cost of
time. EPA estimated household wage by dividing household income by 2,080 (i.e., the number of full time hours potentially
worked).
Only those respondents who reported that they lost income during the trip (LOSEINO1) are assigned a time cost in the trip
cost variable. Information on the LGSEINC variable was available only for a subset of survey respondents who participated
in the follow-up telephone interviews. Approximately three percent of the 239 telephone interview participants reported that
they lost income. Given that only a small number of survey respondents reported lost income, EPA assumed that the
remaining 1836 anglers who did not participate in the telephone interview did not lose income during the trip. EPA
calculated visit price as:
Visit Price = CRound Trip Distance * $.29 + ^oun^ TripDteance x jj- iQSEINC = 1
¦ 40 mph (5-1)
Round Trip Distance * $.29 If LOSEINC = 0
For those respondents who do not lose income, the time cost is accounted for in an additional variable equal to the amount of
time spent on travel. EPA .therefore estimated time cost as the round-trip distance divided by 40 mph:
Travel Time = 1 Round Trip Distance/AO If LOSEINC = 0
, (5-2)
I If LOSEINC =1
* The relevant data on TKN concentrations come from EPA's water quality database (STORET),
10 Humans who eat seafood contaminated by toxic algae can experience shellfish poisoning, including Ciguatera Fish Poisoning,
Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning, or Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning.
'1 The program was created by Daniel Hellerstam and is available through the USDA at
http://usda.maunlib.cornell.edu/datasets/general/93014.
12 EPA used the 1994 government rate (10.29) for travel reimbursement to estimate travel costs per mile traveled. This estimate
includes vehicle operating cost only.
BS-8
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5; RUM Analysis
EPA used a log-linear ordinary least square regression model to estimate wage rates for the 13 percent of the 239 survey
respondents who participated in the telephone interview but did not report their income. The estimated regression equation
used in wage calculation is :
Lnijncome) = 0.14 * male + 0.10 * age - 0.0017 * age2 + 0.32 * employed
+ 0.147 x boatown + 0.818 log (stinc)
where:
INCOME = the reported household income;
MALE = 1 for males;
AGE = age in years;
EMPLOYED = 1 if the respondent is currently employed and 0 otherwise;
BOATOWN = 1 if the respondent owns a boat; and
STINC = the average income of residents in the corresponding states.
All variables in the estimated income regression are statistically significant from zero at 99th percentile. The average imputed
household income for anglers who do not report income is $61,894 per year and the corresponding hourly wage is $29.76.
B5-2 Site Choice Models
The nature of the MRFSS data leads to the RUM as a means of examining anglers' preferences (Haab, et al, 2000). Anglers
arrive at each NMFS site by choosing among a set of feasible sites. Interviewers intercept individual anglers at marine fishing
sites along the Atlantic coast, including the Delaware Bay area, and collect data on the anglers' origins and catch (including
number and weight of species caught).
The RUM assumes that the individual angler makes a choice among mutually exclusive site alternatives based on the
attributes of those alternatives (McFadden, 1981). The number of feasible choices (J) in the study area is 48. For anglers
residing in Delaware or New Jersey, the feasible choice set is restricted to the sites located in the home state. The study
assumes that anglers from other states can choose from all 48 fishing zones.
An angler's choice of sites relies on utility maximization. An angler will choose site j if the utility (m,) from visiting site j is
greater than that from vising other sites (h), such that:
u > uh for h = 1, J and h * j (5-4)
Anglers choose the species to seek and the mode of fishing in addition to choosing a fishing site. Available fishing modes
include shore fishing, fishing from charter boats, or fishing from private or rental boats. The target species or group of
species include weakfish, striped bass, blueftsh, flounder, bottom fish, and big game fish. Anglers may also choose not to
target any particular species.
Recreational fishing models generally assume that anglers first choose a mode and species, and then a site. The nested logit
model generally avoids the independence of relevant alternatives (IIA) problem, in which sites with similar characteristics that
are not included in the model have correlated error terms. The nested structure based on mode/species and then site choice
therefore assumes that sites selected for certain modes and/or species have similar characteristics.0
Fishing modes and species do not clearly define differences among Delaware Bay area sites. The same sites feature several
fishing mode/species combinations. The likely differences among all sites in the study area makes the IIA problem
insignificant. The Agency did not include the angler's choice of fishing mode and target species in the model, instead
assuming that the mode/species choice is exogenous to the model and that the angler simply chooses the site. EPA used the
following general model to specify the deterministic part of the utility function:14
13 See Chapter A10 of Part A of this document for greater detail.
14 See Chapter A10 of Part A of this document for details on model specification.
B5-9
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
v (site J) = f (TCj, TTf BO AT RAMPp Ln(NMFS)r SQRIXQJ * Flag(s), TKN) (5-5)
where:
TCj
TTj
BOAT_RAMPj
Ln(NMFS)j
SQRT(QjS)
Flag(s)
TKN,
the expected utility for site j (j=l,...48);
travel cost at site j;
travel time for survey respondents who cannot value the extra time according to the wage rate;
presence of a boat ramp at site j; and
the log of the number of sites within a reach;
square root of the historic catch rate for species s at site j;l>
1 if an angler is targeting this species; 0 otherwise;
ambient concentrations of TKN at site j
The analysis assumes that each angler in the estimated model considers site quality based only on the catch rate for the
targeted species. Theoretically, an angler may catch any of the available species at a given site (McFadden, 1981). If,
however, an angler truly has a species preference, then including the catch variable for all species available at the site would
inappropriately attribute utility to the angler for a species not pursued (Haab et al,, 2000). To avoid this problem, the Agency
used an interaction variable SQRT (Qjs) * Flag (s), such that the catch rate variable for a given species is turned on only if the
angler targets a particular species {Flag (s) =1). Because a large number of no-target anglers catch either weakiish or
flounder, and because these two species are the most frequently targeted in the Delaware Bay area, EPA used both weakfish
and flounder catch rates to characterize a site's fishing quality for the no-target angler group.
The analysis tested various alternative model specifications, but the model presented here was the most successful at
explaining the probability of selecting a site. For example, a model that included catch rates for bottom species, striped bass,
and bluefish for no-target anglers did not produce meaningful results. The additional catch rate variables either had a wrong
sign or were insignificant for no-target anglers. The analysis also ran separate models for anglers targeting each species or
group of species {i.e., flounder, striped bass, weakfish, and no-target). The presented model and species-specific models
produced very similar results. "
The final model presented here is a site choice model that includes all fish species. The analysis therefore assumes that each
angler has chosen a mode/species combination followed by a site based on the catch rates for that site and species. The model
examines only private/rental boat anglers because anglers using different fishing modes target different species. The single
model is appropriate for this case study because the most important valuation question is how different catch rates for the
species of interest will affect recreational fishing values in the case study area. EPA estimated all RUM and Poisson models
with LIMDEP™ software {Greene, 1995). Table B5-5 gives the parameter estimates for this model.
One disadvantage of the specified model is that the model looks at site choice without regard to mode or species, whereas
species selection is an integral part of the nested RUM. Once an angler chooses a target species no substitution is allowed
across species (i.e., the value of catching, or potentially catching, a different species is not included in the calculation).
Therefore, improvements in fishing circumstances related to other species will have, no effect on angler's choices.
Table B5-5 shows that most coefficients have the expected signs and are statistically significant at the 95th percentile. Travel
cost and travel time have a negative effect on the probability of selecting a site, indicating that anglers prefer to visit sites
closer to their homes (other things being equal). A positive sign on the boat ramp indicates that anglers owning a boat are
more likely to choose sites with a boat ramp. The more interview locations within a reach, the more likely that anglers visited
the reach.
15 The analysis used the square root of the catch rate to allow for decreasing marginal utility of catching fish (McCotinell and Strand,
1994).
-------
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
Table B5-5:
Estimated Coefficients for the Conditional
Site Choice
. Variable
Estimated Coefficient
(-statistics
TRIPCST
| -0.Q24 |
-3.355
TIMECST
! -0,893 i
-10.211
BT_RAMP
! 1,13! ;
13.306
InfNMFS)
| 1.924 :
56.035
SQRT (CL^rok)
i 2.811 I
18.219
SQRT (Q,,^,,^,)
! 3.551 !
9.880
SQRT (Qblaefish)
! 2.868 i
3.764
SQRT •
1 1.363 |
9.186
SQRT (Qbo<;^)
j -0.554 ;
-2.036
SQRT (Q^jg ga„ie)
| 0.724 !
0.160
SQRT (Q^cJ x No.Target
1 1.256 [
6.515
SQRT(Qjta^a,,)x No.Target
; 1.627 |
7.064
TKN
-0.994 i
-20.593
The probability of a site visit increases as the historic catch rate for fish species increases, but bottom species and big game
species form two notable exceptions. As shown in the model, the catch rate for bottom species has a negative impact on site
selection. The catch rate for big game species, while positive, has an insignificant effect on site selection. These results are
likely to be due to the relatively small number of anglers in the sample who actually target big game and bottom species from
private or rental boats. Finally, higher ambient concentrations of nitrogen in coastal water are indicative of potential
eutrophication problems and negatively affect the probability of site selection. In other words, anglers prefer sites with more
fish and cleaner water, all else being equal.
EPA used historic catch rates for the two most popular species in the area, weakfish and flounder, to characterize fishing site
quality for no-target anglers. The models presented in Table B5-5 show that no-target anglers seem to place a lower value on
the catch rate of particular species such as weakfish than anglers targeting this species. This result is not surprising. Many
species can contribute to sites* perceived quality for no-target anglers because they catch whatever bites. As indicated by
similar coefficient values on the historic catch of weakfish and flounder, no-target anglers would almost equally enjoy
catching either of these two species.
B5-3 Trip Frequency Model
EPA also examined effects of changes in fishing circumstances on an individual's choice concerning the number of trips to
take during a recreation season. EPA used the negative binomial form of the Poisson regression model to estimate the number
of fishing trips per recreational season. The participation model relies on socioeconomic data and estimates of individual
utility (the inclusive value) derived from the site choice model (Parsons et al., 1999; Feather et al, 1995), This section
discusses results from the Poisson model of recreational fishing participation, including statistical and theoretical implications
of the model. A detailed discussion of the Poisson model is presented in Chapter A10 of Part A.
The dependent variable, the number of recreational trips within past 12 months, is an integer value ranging from one to 200.
The Agency first tested the Delaware and New Jersey data on the number of fishing trips for overdispersion to determine
whether to use the Poisson model of the negative binomial model. If the dispersion parameter is equal to zero, then the
Poisson model is appropriate; otherwise the negative binomial is more appropriate. The analysis found that the
overdispersion parameter is significantly different from zero and therefore the negative binomial model is the most
appropriate for this case study.
B5-11
-------
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
Independent variables of importance include age, ethnicity, gender, education, household size, whether or not the individual
has a flexible work schedule, and whether he (or she) owns a boat. Variable definitions for the trip participation model are:
IVBASE: an inclusive value estimated using the coefficients obtained from the site choice model;
NOHS: equals 1 if the individual did not complete high school, 0 otherwise;
COLLEGE; equals 1 if the individual completed college, 0 otherwise;
RETIRED: equals 1 if the individual is retired, 0 otherwise;
AGE: individual's age in years. If not reported, the individual's age is set to the sample mean;
YRSFISH: number of years participating in recreational fishing. If the individual did not report years of fishing
experience, this variable is set to the sample mean;
HOUSE_SZ: household size;
OWNBT: equals 1 if individual owns a boat, 0 otherwise;
FLEXTIM: equals I if the individual can set a flexible work schedule; 0 otherwise;
Constant; a constant term
a (alpha): overdispersion parameter estimated by the negative binomial model.
Table B5-6 presents the results of the trip participation model. All but one parameter estimate in the participation model have
the expected signs. The model shows that the most significant determinants of the number of fishing trips taken by an angler
are the quality of the fishing sites (IVBASE), fishing experience (YRSFISH), and boat ownership (OWN_BOAT).
Table B5-6:
Trip Participation Model (Negative Binomial Model)
Variable
Coefficient
t-statistics
Constant
: 2,22
4.267
IVBASE
| .146
2.727
NOHS
.326
1.359
COLLEGE
! -0.221
-1.212
RETIRED
-0.071
-0.284
AGE
j -0.012
-1.577
YRSFISH
; 0.012
2.129
HOUSE.SZ
-0.040
-0.626
OWN_BOAT
.565
3.500
FLEXTIM
i 051
0.313
a (alpha)
; 2.976
10.596
The positive coefficient on the inclusive value index (IVBASE) indicates that the quality of recreational fishing sites has a
positive effect on the number of fishing trips per recreational season. EPA therefore expects improvements in recreational
fishing opportunities, such as an increase in fish abundance and catch rate, to result in an increase in the number fishing trips
to the affected sites.
The model shows that education also influences trip frequency. People who did not complete high school (>JOHS=l) tend to
take more fishing trips than those with a high school diploma. Respondents who attended college are less likely to participate
in fishing than those who have only a high school education.
Both the AGE and RETIRED variables are negative, meaning that .younger people are more likely to go fishing, A negative
sign on the retired variable is counterintuitive because retirees have more leisure time to pursue their interests. A negative
sign on the household size variable (HOUSEJ5Z) indicates that anglers who have larger families tend to take fewer
recreational trips.
B5-12
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
A flexible work schedule (FLEXTIM=1) and boat ownership (OWN_BOAT) have a positive effect on an individuals'
decision to take a fishing trip. Finally, more experienced anglers (YRSFSH) take more recreational fishing trips than less
experienced anglers.
B5-4 Welfare Estimates
This section presents estimates of welfare losses to recreational anglers from fish mortality due to I&E, and potential welfare
gains from improvements in fishing opportunities due to reduced fish mortality stemming from the 316b rale.
B5-4.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
To estimate changes in the quality of fishing sites under different policy scenarios, EPA relied on the recreational fishery
landings data by state and the estimates of recreational losses from l&E on the relevant species corresponding to different
technology options. The National Marine Fisheries Service provided the recreational fishery landings data for the states of
Delaware and New Jersey. EPA estimated the losses to recreational fisheries using the physical impacts of I&E on the
relevant fish species and the percentage of total fishery landings attributed to recreational fishery, as described in Chapter B4
of this document.
The Agency estimated changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites under different policy scenarios in terms of the
percentage change in the historic catch rate. EPA assumed that catch rates will change uniformly across all marine fishing
sites along the Delaware and New Jersey coast because species considered in this analysis (i.e., weakfish, striped bass, and
flounder) inhabit a wide range of states (e.g., from North Carolina to Massachusetts). EPA used five-year recreational landing
data (1994 through 1998) for inland sites to calculate an average landing per year for weakfish and striped bass.16 EPA then
divided losses to the recreational fishery from I&E by the total recreational landings for the states of Delaware and New
Jersey to calculate the percent change in historic catch rate from eliminating I&E completely. Table B5-7 presents results of
this analysis for the Salem NGS facility only, for all Phase 2 facilities in the transitional estuary, and for all facilities in the
Transitional Estuary.17
Estimates were not provided for other species because of data limitations. For example, flounder was not included as a
representative important species (RIS) in the I&E monitoring performed by Salem NGS, therefore, the Agency was not able
to estimate baseline losses of benefits due to the regulation of this species. For other species such as Atlantic croaker and
spot, EPA was unable to estimate an empirical model of anglers' behavior due to insufficient number of observations.
" Inland sites include sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers, bay, estuaries, and other areas of salt or brackish water (NMFS, 2001b).
" Other facilities include Hope Creek, Dupont Nemours, Edge Moor, Motiva, Deepwater.
B5-13
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5- RUM Analysis
Table B5-7: Estimated Changes in Catch Rates from Eliminating ali I4E of
Wcakfish and Striped Bass In the Transitional Estuary
Estimated Fishery I&E
Total
Recreational
Landings for
DE and .NJ
Combined
(fish per
year Y
Percent Increase in Recreational
Catch from Elimination of I&E
Species
Number
Salem
Only
of Fish Imj
Phase 2
(ringed
All
Numbe
Salem
Only
r of Fish Entrained
Phase 2 ; Ail
Salem
Only
All
Phase 2
Facilities'1
All
Facilities'
Weakfish
2,486
4,990
6,196
54,104
83,904 I 98,253
2,790,234
2.03%
3.19%
3.74%
Striped bass
721
1,201
1,432
50,624
78,508 : 91,933
395,744
12.97%
20.14%
23.59%
a. Source: The Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey, 1994-1998. Total recreational Landings arc calculated as a five year
average (1994-1998) for inland sites,
b. Facilities included in this analysis are: Saiem, Hope Creek, Edge Moor, Deepwater (without Chambers Cogen).
c. Facilities included in this analysis are: Salem, Hope Creek, DuPont, Edge Moor, Delaware City Refinery, Deepwater (without
Chambers Cogen), Chambers Cogen, Gen Chem Corporation, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, Logan Generating Co., and Hay Road.
B5-4.2 Estimating Losses from I4E in the Delaware Estuary
The recreational behavior model described in the preceding sections provides a means for estimating the economic effects of
changes in recreational fishery losses from I&E in the Delaware Bay Estuary. First, EPA estimated welfare gain to
recreational anglers from eliminating fishery losses due to I&E. This estimate represents economic damages to recreational
anglers from l&E of recreational fish species in the Delaware Estuary under the baseline scenario. EPA then estimated
benefits to recreational anglers from implementing various CWIS technologies (see Section B5-4.3 and Chapter B6).
EPA estimated anglers' willingness to pay for improvements in the quality of recreational fishing due to I&E elimination by
first calculating an average per trip welfare gain based on the expected changes in catch rates from eliminating I&E. Table
B5-8 presents the compensating variation per trip (averaged over all anglers in the sample) associated with reduced fish
mortality from eliminating I&E for each fish species of concern."
Results shown in Table B5-8 are not surprising. The more desirable the fish, the greater the per trip welfare gain. Anglers
targeting striped bass have the largest per trip gain ($9.77) from eliminating I&E in the Delaware Estuary. Striped bass is a
small game species prized for both its fighting skills and taste. In contrast, the per trip welfare gain for anglers targeting
weakfish is much smaller ($2.00). Because weakfish is smaller and more abundant in the Delaware Estuary than striped bass,
it is less valued by recreational anglers. Finally, no-target anglers, who don't have well-defined preferences and who derive
satisfaction from catching a variety of fish species, have the lowest welfare gain ($0.74) from eliminating I&E of the affected
species.
Table B5-8 also reports the willingness to pay for a one-unit increase in historic catch rate by species. The estimated values
are consistent with those available from previous studies (see Table B4-2 in this document). The value of increasing the
historic catch rate varies significantly by species and by angler type. Target anglers value the increase of one additional
striped bass the most, followed by weakfish, with blue fish and flounder following. The value of increasing the historic catch
rate for a given species is generally lower for no-target anglers.
18 A compensating variation equates the expected value of realized utility under the baseline and post-compliance conditions,
more detail see Chapter A10 of Part A of this document.
For
-------
i 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B-' The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5; RUM Analysis
Table B5-8. Per Trip Welfare Gain from Eliminating I
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
The Agency assumed lhal the welfare gain per day of fishing is independent of the fishing mode and the number of days
fished per trip and therefore equivalent for all modes (i.e., private or rental boat, shore, and charter boat) for both single- and
multiple-day trips. However, per trip welfare gain differs across recreational species. EPA therefore estimated the number of
fishing trips associated with each species of concern and the number of trips taken by no-target anglers. EPA used the
MRFSS sample to calculate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken by no-target anglers and anglers targeting each
species of concern and applied these percentages to the total number of trips to estimate species-specific participation. Table
B5-10 shows the calculation results. Anglers targeting flounder account for the largest number of fishing days at the
Delaware and New Jersey NMFS sites (2,044,291). No-target anglers and anglers targeting weakfish rank second and third,
fishing 1,133,742 and 969,714 days per year, respectively. Anglers targeting big game species have the lowest number of
fishing days per year (49,747).
The estimated number of trips represents the baseline level of participation. Anglers may take more fishing trips as
recreational fishing circumstances change. EPA used the estimated trip participation model to estimate the percentage
increase in the number of trips due to l&E elimination. The estimated percentage increase ranges from 0.2 percent for no-
target anglers to 3.3 percent for anglers targeting striped bass. This result is not surprising because anglers historically
respond slowly to demographic trends, circumstances in the fisheries, and competing opportunities for anglers. EPA
calculated the number of recreational fishing trips under the eliminated I&E scenario by applying the estimated percentage
increase to the baseline number of trips. The estimated increase in the total number of recreational fishing days ranges from
2,608 days for no target anglers to 5,915 trips for anglers seeking weakfish (see Table B5-10). The estimated aggregate
increase in the number of fishing days for no target anglers and anglers targeting weakfish and striped bass is 10,870.
Tables B5-1 J, B5-12, and B5-13 provide welfare estimates for three policy scenarios. First, Table B5-11 presents losses to
recreational anglers from baseline l&E of weakfish and striped bass from Salem NGS. Estimates presented in Table B5-I2
represent the welfare gain to recreational anglers from the elimination of l&E of weakfish and striped bass from all Phase 2
CW1S, and Table B5-13 details the losses that occur from baseline l&E of weakfish and striped bass by all facilities in the
transitional estuary. Recreational losses (2000$) to Delaware and New Jersey anglers from I&E of 2 species at Salem NGS,
at all Phase 2 facilities in the transitional estuary, and all facilities in the transitional estuary range from $2.69to $2.70 million,
from $4.23 to $ 4.26 and from $4.95 to, $ 4,99 million, respectively.
B5-5 Limitations and Uncertainty
B5-5.1 Geographic Area of the Case Study
Limiting the case study area to the Delaware River Estuary and the Atlantic coastal sites of Delaware and New Jersey may
result in missed benefits. Many popular target species that spawn in the Delaware River Estuary inhabit a wide range of
areas. For example, weakfish, flounder, and striped bass that together attract 56 percent of all anglers in the area can be found
from North Carolina to Massachusetts (flounder and weakfish) or to Maine (striped bass). A watershed-based approach that
restricts its analysis to recreation activities within the watershed boundary state misses benefits that occur at more remote
locations. This omission will likely be more significant for species that spawn mainly in the Delaware Estuary
(i.e., weakfish).
B5-5.2 Extrapolating Single-Day Trip Results to Estimate Benefits from Multiple-
Day Trips
Use of per day welfare gain estimated for single-day trips to estimate per day welfare gain associated with multiple-day trips
can either understate or overstate benefits to anglers taking multiple-day trips. Inclusion of multi-day trips in the model of
recreational anglers' behavior can be problematic because multi-day trips are frequently multi-activity trips. An individual
might travel a substantial distance, participate in several recreation activities including shopping and sightseeing, ail as part of
one trip. Recreational benefits from improved recreational opportunities for the primary activity are overstated if all travel
1 costs are treated as though they apply to the one recreational activity of interest. EPA therefore limited the recreational
behavior model to single-day trips only and then extrapolated single-day trip results to estimate benefits to anglers taking
multiple-day trips.
B5-16
-------
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
Tabic B3-10: Recreational Fishing Participation by Species and Fishing Mode
Species
Mode: Private Rental Roan
IS umber of Fishing Days
Mode: Off Shore
Number of Fishing Days
Mode: Charter Boat
Number of Fishing Days
Total Number of
Fishin; Days per Year
ti
G
"E
i
With Improved Fishing
Quality
41
S
1
n
£
With Improved Fishing
Quality
a>
i
i
With Improved Fishing
Quality
ti
5
I
6
With Improved Fishing
Quality
I
m
i
5
£
tim
1
1
91
V
s
a
w
It.
5
8
St
m
m
1
s
I
£
1
I
i
i
«
m.
<
I
m
us
I
sss
I
1
1
$
£
a
U
£
3
!
m
us
!
3
u
(fe
&
e
w
m
m
973,913
S
s
!
£
<
974,660
Weak fish
651,942
653.735
654,765
655,267
294,744
295,554
296,020
296,247
23,029
23,092
23,129
23,146
969,714
972,381
Striped
bass
36,949
37,229
37,385
37,459
60,681
61,323
61,579
61,700
3,909
3,939
3,955
3,963
101,718
102,491
102,919
103,122
Blue fish
233,171
NA
NA
NA
105,322
NA
NA
NA
1,630
NA
NA
NA
340,122
NA
NA
NA
Flounder
1,483,921
NA
NA
NA
438,381
NA
NA
NA
121,990
NA
NA
NA
2,044,291
NA
NA
NA
Bottom
fish
116,442
NA
NA
NA
462,776
NA
NA
NA
177,249
NA
NA
NA
756,467
NA
NA
NA
Big
game
fish
47,468
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
2,280
NA
NA
NA
49,747
NA
NA
NA
No
target
414,957
415,372
415,625
415,741
602,010
602,612
602,979
603,147
116,776
116,893
116,964
116,997
1,133,742
1,134,876
1,135,568
1,135,885
Total*
2,986,958
1,963,933
446,862
5,397,753
a. Sum of individual values may not add up to totals due to the rounding error.
B5-17
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies; Part B, The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
Table B5 -11: Total Estimated Baseline Losses from
I4E of Weakfish and Striped Bass from Salem NGS (2000$)
Total Losses
Species
i Low Value
High Value
Weakfish ; $1,046,127
$1,049,580
Striped bass i $4.16,873
$423,751
No target i $1,223,081
$1,224,548
Total recreational use ; 52,686,082
$2,697,880
Table B5-12: Total Estimated Baseline Losses from I&E
of Weakfish and Striped Bass in the Transitional
Estuary by In-Scope Phase 2 Facilities" (2000$)
Species
Total Losses
Low Value
High Value
Weakfish
; $1,653,557
$1,662,156
Striped bass
I $646,872
$663,561
No target
; $1,933,257
$1,936,931
Total recreational use
; $4,233,686
$4,262,647
a. Facilities included in this analysis are: Salem, Hope Creek, Edge Moor,
Deepwater (without Chambers Cogen).
Table B5-13: Total Estimated Baseline Losses from I4E
of Weakfish and Striped Bass in the Transitional Estuary
by 411 Facilities"
Species
¦ Total Lossei
Low Value
High Value
Weakfish
i $1,934,774
$1,946,756
Striped bass
; $756,480 ;
$776,401
No target
$2,262,043 i
$2,267,246
Total recreational use
: $4,953,295 i
$4,993,223
a. Facilities included in this analysts are: Salem, Hope Creek, DuPont, Edge Moor,
Delaware City Refinery, Deepwater (without Chambers Cogen), Chambers Cogen.
Gen Chem Corporation, SPI Polyols, Sun Refining, Logan Generating Co., and
Hay Road.
-------
§ 326(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part B, The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B5: RUM Analysis
B5-5.3 Considering Only Recreational Values
This study understates the total benefits of improvements in fishing site quality because estimates are limited to recreation
benefits. Many other forms of benefits, such as habitat values for a variety of species (in addition to recreational fish), nonuse
values, etc., are also likely to be important,
B5-5.4 Potential Sources of Survey Bigs
The survey results could suffer from bias, such as recall bias and sampling effects.
o. Recall bias
Recall bias can occur when respondents are asked, such as in the MRFSS survey, the number of their recreation days over the
previous season. Some researchers believe that recall bias tends to lead to the number of recreation days being overstated,
particularly by more avid participants. Avid participants tend to overstate the number of recreation days because they count
days in a "typical" week and then multiply them by the number of weeks in the recreation season. They often neglect to
consider days missed due to bad weather, illness, travel, or when fulfilling "atypical" obligations. Some studies also found
that the more salient the activity, the more "optimistic" the respondent tends to be in estimating the number of recreation days.
Individuals also have a tendency to overstate the number of days they participate in activities that they enjoy and value.
Taken together, these sources of recall bias may result in an overstatement of the actual number of recreation days.
b. Sampling effects
Recreational demand studies frequently face observations that do not fit general recreation patterns, such as observations of
avid participants. These participants can be problematic because they claim to participate in an activity an inordinate number
of times. This reported level of activity is sometimes correct but often overstated, perhaps due to recall bias. Even where the
reports are correct, these observations tend to be overly influential (Haab et al., 2000). EPA set the upper limit of the number
of fishing trips per year to 180 days to correct for potential bias caused by these observations when estimating trip
participation models. Instead of dropping four survey observations with the number of annual trips reported as greater than
180, the Agency set the number of annual trips to the upper bound (i.e., 180 trips).
B5-19
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis
Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis for
the Delaware Estuary
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated current I&E at CWIS in the transition zone of
the Delaware Estuary. The economic benefits that are
reported here are based on the values presented in Chapter
B4, and EPA's estimates of current I&E at in-seope
facilities (summarized in Section B3-9 of Chapter B3).
Sections B6-1 and B6-2 summarize the estimates of
economic loss developed in Chapters B4 and B5. Section
B6-3 presents the economic benefits of reducing I&E with the
analysis,
B6-1 Summary Fisures of Salem's Baseline Losses
The flowchart in Figure B6-1 summarizes how the economic estimates for the Salem facility were derived from the I&E
estimates presented in Chapter B3. Figures B6-2 and B6-3 indicate the distribution of I&E losses by species category and
associated economic values. These diagrams reflect the baseline losses based on current technology (including screens). All
dollar values (and loss percents) reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse, and
forage.
Chapter Contents
Bfi-t Summary Figures
-------
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure B6-1. Overview ond Summary of Average. Annual XAE ct Saiem cna Associated Economic Values (based on
current in-piace technologies, e.g., ftistroph screens; oil results arc annualized)"
3. Loss to recreational and commercial harvest
I: 113500 fish (136.000 Ib)d
E: 10.5 million fish (9,98 million lb)1'
7. Value of n on use losses'
I: $62,500 (14.4% of total SI loss)
E: $2.73 million (12.0% of total SF. loss)
4. Value of commercial losses1
I: 99.600 fish (103.500 lb)
$245,000(56.5% of tonl
S! loss)
E: 8.78 million fish
(7.98 million lb)
S 14.5 million
(63.7% of total SF. loss)
6. Value of forage losses
(valued using cithcrreplacement
cost method or as production
foregone to fishing yield)'
1: 2.0 million fish
$1,100 {0.3% of total SI
less)
E: 297 million fish
$93,000 (0.4% of total
SE loss)
I, Number of organ isms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)
I: 6.6 million organisms'*
K: 14.7 billion organisms"
Value of recreational losses
I: 13.900 fish (4.600 lb)
$99,600 RUM*
(23.0% of total SI loss)
$25,300 BT
(5.8% of total SI loss)
K; 1.76 million fish
(1.-48 million lb}
$2.59 million KtJM!
(11.4% of total SE loss)
$2,86 million BT'
(12.5% of total $E loss)
2. Age 1 equivalents lost (numberof fish)
1: 3.2 million fish (2.0 million forage. 12 million commercial and recreational)*1
Li: 356.3 million fish (297 million forage, 59 million commensal and recreational)"
* All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
b From Table B3-21 in Chapter B3.
£ From Table B3-22 in Chapter B3.
J From Tables B4-2 and B4-10 in Chapter B4.
c From Tabies B4-3 and B4-11 in Chapter B4.
F Benefits transfer, Chapter B4.
* Random Utility Model, Chapter B5.
B6-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6; The Delaware Estuary Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis
Figure B6-2: Soiem: Distribution of Impingement Losses Sy Species Category and Associated Economic Values
63.4% Forage Fish8
UNDERVALUED {valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[0.3% of$IJ b
33,1% Commercial arid
Recreational Fish3
UNVALUED (i.e., unharvested)
[0% ofSlJ b
Total: 3.2 million fish per year (age I equivalents)8
Total injtingement value = $433,500h
3.6% Commercial and
Recreational Fish1
VALUED as direct loss to
fishery (commercial losses are
3.1%oftotal)
[85.3% of SI] b
" Impacts shown are to age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all
ages vulnerable to the fishery.
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 14.4 percent of total estimated $1 loss.
B6-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis
Figure B6-3; Satem; Distribution of Entrainment Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic Values
83.3% Forage Fish3
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[0.5% ofSEJ11
13.8% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
UNVALUED (i.e., unharvested)
[0% ofSEJ h
' 2.9% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
VALUED as direct toss to
fishery (commercial losses
arc 2,5% of total)
[87.6% ofSE] b
Total; 356.3 million fish per year (age 1 equivalents)*
Total entrapment value = $22.8 million0
" Impacts shown are to age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all
ages vulnerable to the fishery.
* Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 12.0 percent of total estimated SE loss.
Tables B6-1 and B6-2 summarizes losses to commercial and recreational landings due to I&E at CWIS of the Delaware
Estuary transition zone.
Tables B6-3 and B6-4 display the economic losses to recreation combining the benefits transfer and RUM analysis methods.
For all of the in-scope facilities, the losses range from $ 173,800 to $219,100 per year for impingement and from $6,069,900
to $10,984,800 per year for entrainment.1
1 The RUM results have been disaggregated between impingement (3,7 percent) and cfflrainmerit (96.3 percent) on the basis of their
relative impacts on weakfisti and striped bass. Although the RUM results are nonlinear with respect to the number of fish impacted, the
relatively small amount of impingement effects (relative to those for entrainment) suggests that linearity may be acceptable as a
disaggregation approach for the small increment involved.
B6-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part §: The Delaware Estuary
Table B6-1: EPA's Estimate of Current Average Annual I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis
Table B6-3: EPA's Estimate of Current Recreational Economic Losses from Impingement at Facilities Located in the Delaware Estuary Transition Zone
($2000).
Salem
In-scope Facilities in the Transition Zone
All Transition Zone Facilities
Species
Basic Analysis
Rum Analysis
Basic Analysis
Rum Analysis
Basic Analysis
Rum Analysis
LOW :
High
Low
i High ;
Low High
Low
High
Low
i High
Low
High
Striped bass j
$2,491 j
SI 1,206
$15,424
: $15,679 1
$3,861 : $17,369
: $23,934 |
$24,552
$4,524
; $20,350
: $27,990 !
$28,727
Weakfish* :
52,881 ¦;
$6,762
$83,961
j $84,143
$4,466 i $10,481
: $132,712 :
$133,166
: 55,232
j $12,280
i $155,282 j
$155,918
Other species;
$11,045 j
$39,633
NA
j NA 1
$17,120 j $61,431
NA
NA
1 $20,058
1 $71,974
! NA i
NA
Total®1 i
$110,430 to SI39,455
$173,766 to $219,149
$203,330 to $256,619
NA = Not Available,
Salem baseline losses stated hero will differ slightly from the historical losses reported in Chapter B4 because different years are used in the baseline analysis of current l&E than in the
historical analysis.
" Weakfish results include RUM results for "no target" anglers because there is virtually no overlap between the catch reported by "no target anglers" and the species included in the
"other species" category.
b Total are based on summing results of the RUM analysis for weakfish and striped bass with the "other species" results from the basic benefits transfer analysis.
Table B6-4: CPA's Estimate of Current Recreational Economic Losses from Entrainment at Facilities Located in the Delaware Estuary Transition Zone
($2000).
Species
Salem
In-scope Facilities in the Transition Zone
Basic Analysis Rum Analysis
All Transition Zone Facilities
Basic Analysis
Rum Analysis
Basic Analysis Rum Analysis
Low
High
Low
High
Low High Low High
Low High Low High
Striped bass j
$175,000
| $787,199 i
$401,449
i $408,072 ;
$271,250 j $1,220,158 i $622,938 j $639,009
5317,800 | $1,429,553 j $728,490 j $747,674
Weakfish*
$62,690
1 $147,162 i
$2,185,247
i 12,189,985 j
$97,170 j $228,101 j $3,454,102 j $3,465,921
$113,845 i $267,246 j $4,041,535 j $4,058,084
Other species;
$1,285,711
j $4,438,627 j
NA
NA i
$1,992,852 i $6,879,872 : NA i NA
$2,334,851 i $8,060,547 i NA j NA
Totalb |
$3,872,407 to $7,036,684
$6,069,892 to $10,984,802
$7,104,876 to $12,866,305
NA = Not Available.
Salem baseline losses stated here will differ slightly from the historical losses reported in Chapter B4 because different years are used in the baseline analysis of current I&E than in the
historical analysis.
Weakfish results include RUM results for "no target" anglers because there is virtually no overlap between the catch reported by "no target anglers" and the species included in the
"other species" category.
11 Total are based on summing results of the RUM analysis for weakfish and striped bass with the "other species'" results from the basic benefits transfer analysis.
B6-6
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis
B6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
Table B6-5 summarizes the total annual benefits from I&E reductions, as well as remaining economic losses, under scenarios
ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent reductions in I&E. Table B6-6 considers the benefits of two options with varying
percent reductions of I&E. Table B6-6 indicates that the benefits are expected to range from $107,000 to 1162,000 for a 20
percent reduction in impingement and from $ 10.2 million to $ 18.1 million for a 40 percent reduction in entrainment. The
benefits of another option range from $320,000 to $487,000 for a 60 percent reduction in impingement and from 115.3
million to $27.2 million for a 60 percent reduction in entrainment.
B6-5: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential I&E
Reductions at Four In-Scope Facilities on the Delaware Estuary ($2000),
,
; low
I mpi ngemen t
Entrainment
Total
Baseline losses
5533,000
$25,493,000
$26,027,000
i high
$812,000
$45,268,000
52,549,000
: $46,080,000
Benefits of 10 percent reductions
: low
high
low
$53,000
$2,603,000
$81,000
SI 07,000
$4,527,000
! $4,608,000
Benefits of 20 percent reductions
$5,099,000
; $5,205,000
high
$162,000
; $160,000
$9,054,000
$7,648,000
i $9,216,000
Benefits of 30 percent reductions
Benefits of 40 percent reductions
Benefits of 50 percent reductions
; low
: $7,808,000
! high
; lOW
$243,000
$213,000
$13,581,000
$13,824,000
$10,197,000
$18,107,000
$12,747,000
i $10,411,000
! $18,432,000
: $13,013,000
• high
; low
high
; $325,000
$267,000
j $406,000
$22,634,000
$23,040,000
Benefits of 60 percent reductions
i low
• high
low
j $320,000
$15,296,000
; $15,616,000
$487,000
; $373,000
$27,161,000
$17,845,000
$31,688,000
| $27,648,000
Benefits of 70 percent reductions
$18,219,000
i $32,256,000
? high
: $568,000
Benefits of 80 percent reductions
; low
$427,000
$20,395,000
; $20,821,000
; high
; $649,000
$36,215,000
! $36,864,000
Benefits of 90 percent reductions
: low
$480,000
$22,944,000
; $23,424,000
; high
: $730,000
$40,742,000
i $41,472,000
Table B6-6- Summary of Benefits of Potential IAE Reductions at Four In Scope Facilities
on the Delaware Estuary ($2000).
Impingement Entrainment Tote)
Option A
low
$107,000
$10,197,(MX) ;
SI 0,304,000
(20% reduced impingement,
high
$162,000
$18,107,00) j
$18,269,000
40% reduced entrainment)
$15,296,000 j
Option B
low
$320,000 i
$15,616,000
(60% reduced impingement,
high
$487,000 "
$27,161,000 i
$27,648,000
60% reduced entrainment)
B6-7
-------
S 316(b) Case, Studies, Port B; The Delaware Estuary
B6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits
Analysis
Table B6-7 presents an overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were properly
accounted.
Table B6-7: Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Estimates.
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate
Comments
Long-term fish stock affects not
considered
Understates benefits'
SPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
the higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Understates benefits3
iPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the
tock more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as
water quality improves over time due to other watershed activities, the
umber of fish impacted by I&E may increase.
Recreation participation is held
constant"
Understates benefits*
tecreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in value per
ctivity outing; increased levels of participation are omitted. RUM
analyses for striped bass and weakfish do embody participation
n creases, however.
Boating, bird-watehing, and other
in-stream or near-water activities
are omitted2
Understates benefits"
"he only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Uncertain
IPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship, that a 13 percent
hange in stock would have a 13 percent change in landings; this may
>e low or high, depending on the condition of the stocks.
Nonuse benefits
Uncertain
iPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
angling benefits.
Use of unit values from outside
Delaware Estuary
Uncertain
Tie recreational and commercial values used are from the state and or
mid-Atlantic region, but are not from studies of Delaware Estuary
pecifieally.
Extrapolation from Salem to
Other Facilities
Uncertain
Unknown whether S/MGD basis for extrapolation over- or understates
jenefits of other facilities in the estuary.
2 Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
Chapter B6: Benefits Analysis
B6-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio River
Part C • The Ohio River
Watershed Case Study
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter B7: Conclusions
Chapter B7
Conclusions
*
The results of EPA's evaluation ofl&E rates at CWIS in the Delaware Estuary transition zone indicate that cumulative
impacts can be substantial. As summarized in Chapter B3, Tables B3-2I and B3-22, the cumulative impingement impact
amounts to over 9.6 million age I equivalent fish per year (over 332,000 ib of fishery yield foregone), and the entrainment-
related losses are much greater, at nearly 616 million age 1 equivalent fish lost (and more than 16 million lb of fishery yield
foregone).
EPA's analysis shows that even when losses at individual facilities in the transition zone appear insignificant, the total of all
I&E impacts on the same fish populations can be sizable. For example, an estimated 43,764 age 1 equivalents of weakftsh are
lost as a result of entrainment at Hope Creek, which operates with closed cycle cooling and therefore has relatively low
entrainment rates. However, the number of total weakfish age I equivalents lost as a result of entrainment at all transition
zone CWIS is over 2.2 million (Chapter B3, Table B3-15).
EPA has conservatively estimated such cumulative impacts on Delaware Estuary species by considering the I&E impacts of
only transition zone CWIS. In fact, many of the species affected by CWIS within the transition zone move in and out of this
area, and therefore may be exposed to many more CWIS than those considered here (see Figure B1-1 in Chapter B1).
Regardless of the geographic extent of an evaluation of cumulative impacts, it is important to consider how I&E rates relate to
the relative abundance of species in the source waterbody. Thus, low I&E does not necessarily imply low impact since it may
reflect low population abundance, which can result from numerous natural and anthropogenic factors, including long-term
I&E impacts of multiple CWIS. On the other hand, high population abundance in the source waterbody and associated high
I&E may reflect waterbody improvements that are independent of impacts from or improvements in CWIS technologies. Or,
high levels of I&E impacts on a species may indicate a high susceptibility of that given species to CWIS effects.
In addition to estimating the physical impact of I&E in terms of numbers of fish lost because of the operation of all in-scope
and out-of-scope CWIS in the Delaware Estuary transition zone, EPA also examined the estimated economic value of the
losses from l&E. Chapter B4 provides an indication of the estimated cumulative impact of l&E at the all in-scope and out-of-
scope CWIS in the case study area, based on data available for the Salem facility and then extrapolated to the other facilities
on the basis of flow. As indicated in Chapter B4, average baseline losses from all facilities in the case study area for
impingement are valued at between roughly $0.5 million and $1.1 million per year, and average baseline losses from
entrainment are valued at between approximately $23.4 million and S48.5 million per year (all in $2000).
EPA also developed a random utility model (RUM) to provide primary estimates of the recreational fishery losses associated
with I&E in the Delaware case study area. As shown in Chapter B5, the average annual recreation-related fishery losses at all
facilities in the transition zone amount to approximately $5.0 million per year (impingement and entrainment impacts
combined). For the in-scope facilities covered by the proposed Phase 2 rule, the losses due to I&E were estimated via the
RUM to amount to approximately $4.2 million per year. Results for the RUM analysis (Chapter B5) were merged with the
benefits transfer-based estimates (Chapter B4) in a manner that avoids double counting.
EPA also estimated the economic benefits of a range of l&E reductions for the four in-scope CWIS in the case study area
(Chapter B6). For the benefits analysis, adjustments to I&E rates were made to suitably reflect the regulatory baseline (i.e., to
reflect changes some facilities made over the years to reduce I&E). Benefits estimates were then based oil percentage
reductions (from 10 percent to 90 percent) in estimated current I&E for the regulation-impacted facilities (Salem, Hope
Creek, Edge Moor, and Deepwater). The resulting estimates of the economic value of benefits for reduced I&E range from
$0.3 million to $0.5 million per year for 60% impingement loss reductions, and from $17.8 million to $31.7 million per year
for 70% entrainment loss reductions (all in $2000).
In interpreting the results of the case study analysis, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of the
analysis. These caveats have been detailed in each preceding chapter. In the economic valuation component of the analysis,
valuation of I&E losses is often complicated by the lack of market value for forage species, which may comprise a large
proportion of total losses. For example, EPA estimates that over 527 million age 1 equivalents of bay anchovy may be lost to
B7-I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: The Delaware Estuary
Chapter 67: Conclusions
entrainment at transition zone CWIS each year (over 85 percent of the total of more than 616 million estimated lost age 1
individuals for all species combined, as shown in Chapter B3, Table B3-I5). Bay anchovy has no direct market value, but it
is nonetheless a critical component of estuarine food webs. EPA included forage species impacts in the economic benefits
calculations as discussed in Chapter A9 of Part A, but because techniques for valuing such losses are limited, the final
estimates may well underestimate the full ecological and economic value of these losses. Thus, on the whole, EPA believes
the estimates developed here underestimate the economic benefits of reducing l&E.
B7-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary Appendix B1
Appendix Bl: Survival Factors and
Other Parameters Used by PSE6 to
Estimate L&E Losses at Salem
The tables in this appendix present the survival factors and other parameters used by PSEG to estimate I&E losses at the
Salem facility. This information is taken from Appendix L of Salem's 1999 Permit Renewal Application (PSEG, 1999e).
¦4pp. BI-1
-------
Appendix B1
Intrainment
Table Bl-1: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for Alewife at the Salem Station, 1978-1998
i
Mechanical j
SWS
Net Extrusion"
Net Avoidance*
Mortality" Thermal Mortality*
Biodde*
Recirculation*
Mortality*
Egg
;na
NA
:
0
0.1
1
Yolk Sac
;<4 mm, = 1/0.11;
5-32 mm,
Oi
83 i-l4.194-0.015T*
0
0.1
1
:4-7 mm,
= 1/(1.13486-
0.02697 *
length);
+2.15B log,„t + 0.473TE
Post-yolk Sac
;= I/(-1.0767 +0.2967 *
length)
32-60 mm,
0.J
83 1
0
0.1
1
= 1/(0.36294 -
0.00285 *
length);
Juvenile
:na
> 60 mm, = 1/0.1919
0.883 I
0
0.1
1
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
Collection j SWS
Efficiency* i Mortality"
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
; Jus Jul
Aug
Sep ;
Oct
Nov
Dee
Live* (1977-1995)
Age 0 ;
0.7737 | 1
1
1
0.992
1
0 996
; 1 j 1 j
t
i i
0.709
0.728
0.71
Age 1 ;
0.7737 ! 1
0.994
0.994
0.994
0.994
0 994
; 0.994 1 0.994 |
0.994
0.994 j
0.994
0,763
0,994
Age 2 j
0.7737 ! I
0,994
0 994
0.994
0 994
0.994
: 0.994 i 0.994 1
0.994
0.994 !
0.994
0.763
0.994
Damaged" (1977-1995)
Age 0 i
0.7737 i I
1
1
0.992
1
0 996
1 ; 1 ;
1
i ;
0.709
0 728
0.71
Age 1 ;
0.7737 j 1
0,994
0.994
0.994 .
0.994
0.994
i 0.994 ! 0.994 1
0.994
0.994 !
0.994
0.763
0.994
Age 2 .:
0.7737 i 1
0.994
0.994
0.994
0.994
0.994
0.994 • 0.994 1
0.994
0.994 i
0.994
0.763
0.994
Live and Damaged1* (1996-1998)
Age 0 ;
0.7737 1 1
0.208
0 208
0.208
0.139
0.208
^ 0.208 ! 0.208 |
0.208
0.208 i
0.208
0.208
0 208
Age 1 i
0.7737 ! 1
0.208
0 208
0 208
0.139
oros
: 0.208 1 0.208 |
0.208
0,208 1
0.208
0.208
0 208
Age 2 ;
0.7737 i 1
; 0.208
0.208
0.208
0.139
0.208
: 0.208 i 0.208 1
0.208
0.208 1
0.208
0,208
0 208
Ta = Acclimation temperature, T, = Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
" The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation ofentrainmcnt and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
h The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrapment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area = data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
App. Bl-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Table Bl-2: Parameters Used by PSE& to Calculate of Historic Losses for American Shad at the Salem Station, 1978-1998
Entrainment
I j I Mechanical 1 j | j SWS
_\ Net Estrusion* ]_ Net Avoidance* j Mortality1 j Thermal Mortality* j Biocide* j Recirculation* : Mortality*
Egg |NA :NA I I j | 0 I 0.1 i 1
YolkSac ;<4 mm, = 1/0,11; j 5-32 mm, I 0.883 M4.I94 - 0.015TA j 0 j 0.1 \ 1
\4-7 mm, j= 1/(1.13486 - 0.02697 • length); j i+2,158 log,<,t + 0,473TE : j j
Post-yolk Sac I l/(-l .0767 + 0.2967 * length) j32-60 mm, ¦ 0.883 ¦ ¦ 0 I 0.1 I 1
i |= 1/(0.36294 - 0.00285 * length); j j | j j
Juvenile ;NA ;> 60 mm, = 1/0,1919 j 0.883 ; 0 ; 0,1 : I
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
Collection ; SWS 5 ill!
| Efficiency* j Mortality* ; Jan Feb Mai* Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nw Dec
Live* (1977-1995)
Age0 i 0.7737 I 1 0 239 0.61 061 0 581 0.61 " 0.61 j 0.61 "T" 0.61 J 0.61 j 061 0.286^ 0.149
Age 1 ; 0.7737 J I r OJ73 0273 , 0.273 0.273 0273 0.273 I 0.273 J 0.273 f 0.273 ! 0.273 0.213 0273
Damaged" (1977-1995)
Age 0 i 0,7737 ! 1 QJ39 061 0*61~ ~oTiil 0.61 0.61 i 0.61 i 0.6*1 ! 0.61 [ 0.6! 0.286 0 149
Age I | 0.7737 I 0273 0.273 0 273 0.273 0.273 0.273 _ j_ 0.273 j 0.273 ! 0.273 I 0273 0.273 0.273
Live and Damaged" (1996-1998)
Age 0 i 0.7737 i I 0208 " 0,208 0.20$ 0 139 0.208 0 208 ; 0.208 ! 0.208 j 0.208 ! 0.208 ' 0.208 0208
Age 1 0.7737 j I • 0208 • 0208 , 0.208 0.139 0208 0.208 0208 I 0.208 J 0.208 \ 0.208 - 0.208
Ta = Acclimation temperature, TE =• Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
* The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
b The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area = data used by EPA in the calculation of impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
App. Bl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part B; The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table Bl-3: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for Atlantic Croaker at the Salem Station, 1978-1998
Entrainment
j j i Mechanical j j j i SWS
Net Extrusion' Net Avoidance* Mortality* j Thermal Mortality" j Bioclde* Recirculation* I Mortality*
Egg |NA iNA 1 1 1 ! 0 i 0.1 i 1
Yolk Sac ;<4 mm, = 1/0.11; ;5-32mm, ; 0.36 ;-35.451 - 0.75ITA ; 0 j 0.1 ; 1
•4-7 mm, j= 1/(1.13486-0.02697 » length); ! ;+0 log,„t+ 1.663Tt | j j
Post-yolk Sac •= I/(-1.0767 +¦ 0.2967 * length) :32-60 mm, ¦ 0.36 i ¦ 0 : 0.1 • 1
; j- 1/(0.36294 - 0.00285 * length); I j j j \
Juvenile ;NA j> 60 mm, = 1/0.1919 j 0.36 j j 0 | 0.1 ; 1
Impingement
: Latent Screen Mortality
! Collection j SWS {
j Efficiency* : Mortality* : Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Live* (1977-1995)
Age 0 ; 0.8448 ; 1 0 286 0 286 0 286 0 286 0 286 0 286 0.286 0 286 0.286 0 286 0.286 0.286
Age I i 0.8448 1 0.286 0 286 0 286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0,286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286
Damaged" (1977-1995)
Age 0 j 0.8448 I 1 0.833 0.833 0.833 0 833 0 833 O.S33 0.833 0 833 0 833 0 833 0 833 0.833
Age 1 ! 0.8448 1 0.833 0 833 0.833 0 833 0 833 0.833 0.833 0.833 0 833 0 833 0 833 0 833
Live and Damaged6 (1996-1998)
Age 0 i 0.8448 j 1 j 0 387 0.387 0.3R7 0.387 0 313 0,271 0.102 0.387 0.387 0019 0.0G5 0.107
Age! j 0.8448 1 0 387 0.387 a-387_ 0387 _0JL13 _0271 « i02_ 0 387 0.387 0.0'.9 0,005 0.107
Ta = Acclimation temperature, Tt = Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
* The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix F. Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
** The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area = data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
App. Rl-4
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table Bl-4; Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Lasses for Bay Anchovy at the Salem Station, 1978-1998.
Entrainment
Net Extrusion*
Net Avoidance"
Mechanical
Mortality*
Thermal Mortality*
Biocide*
Recirculation*
sws
Mortality"
Egg
NA
NA
1
0
0.1
I
Yolk Sac
<4 mm, = I/O, 11;
5-32 mm,
1
-7.751 - 0,174Ta
0
0.1
1
4-7 mm,
= 1/(1.13486 - 0.02697 * length);
+0.995 Iog,„t + 0.427Te
Post-yolk Sac
l/(-1.0767 + 0.2967 * length)
32-60 mm,
1
0
0.1
1
= 1/(0.36294 - 0.00285 * length);
Juvenile
NA
> 60 mm. = 1/0.1919
1
0
0.1
1
Adult
NA
1
0 ¦
0.1
1
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
; Collection
; Efficiency*
SWS
Mortality*
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
M*y
Jon -
Jid
Aug
Sep
Oct
No*
Dec
Live* (1977-1995)
Age 0
j 0.7496
1
j 0.815
0.815
j 0.815
0815
0.815
0.815
0.815
0.805
0.81
0.718
0.675
0.815
Age 1
; 0.7496
1
| 0,884
0,884
i 0.815
0.815
0.718
0.884
0.857
0.805
0.81
0.718
0.675
0.815
Age 2
j 0.7496
1
j 0,884
0.884
j 0.884
0815
0 ¦'IS
0.884
0 857
0.805
0.81
0.718
0.675
0.815
Age 3
! 0.7496
1
| 0.884
0.884
j 0.884
0 884
0.718
0.884
0.857
0.805
0.81
0.718
0.675
0.815
Damaged* (1977-1995)
AgeO
| 0.7496
1 i 0.946
1
j 0.946
I
1
1
1
0.863
0.946
1
0.946
0.946
Age 1
j 0.7496
1 ! 1
1
! 0.946
0.953
0.965
0.908
0.975
0.863
0 946
1
0.946
0.946
Age 2
; 0.7496
1 1 1
1
| 1
0953
0.965
0.908
0975
0.863
0.946
1
0.946
0.946
Age 3
i 0.7496
1
i 1
1
| 1
1
0965
0 908
0.975
0.863
0946
1
0.946
0.946
Live
and Damaged1' (1996-1998)
Age 0
| 0.7496
1 ! 0.761
0.761
i 0.761
0 49
0.483
0.741
0.761
0.761
0.761
0.194
0.255
0.761
Age 1
i 0.7496
1 i 0.761
0.761
j 0.761
0.49
0 483
0.741
. 0.761 .
0.761
0,761
0.194
0.255
0,761
Age 2
; 0.7496
1 i 0.761
0.761
| 0.761
0.49
0.483
0.741
0.761
0.761
0.761
0.194
0.255
0.761
Age 3
! 0.7496
1
| 0.761
0.761
i 0.761
0.49
0.483
0.74 i
: 0.761 j
0.761
0.761
0.194
0.255
j 0,761
T, = Acclimation temperature, TL = Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
* The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of enttainment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
b The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area = data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
App. Bl-5
-------
Appendix B1
Table Bl-5: Parameters Used by PSES to Calculate Historic Losses for Blueback Herring at the Salem Station, 1978-1998.
Enlralnment
Net Extrusion
¦
Net Avoidance
1
Mechanical
Mortality* | Thermal Mortality*
Bloclde*
Recirculation*
SWS
Mortality"
Egg
|NA
NA
1 j
0
0.1
1
Yolk Sac
Post-yolk Sac
Juvenile
;<4 mm, - 1/0.11;
14-7 mm,
|= !/(-1.0767 + 0.2967 *
|na
length)
5-32 mm,
- 1/(1.13486-0.02697 *
32-60 mm,
= 1/(0.36294-0.00285 *
> 60 mm, = 1/0.1919
length);
length);
0.883 j-14.194 - 0.015TA
i+2,158 log,0t + 0.473TE
0.883 i
0,883 i
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
j
I
1
1
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
Collection i SWS ;
Efllcieaey* 1 Mortality* ;
Jan
Fell
Mar
Apr
Mav Jtiit
Jul
Aug
• Sep
; I
i Oct [
Nov
Dee
Live* (1977-1995)
Age 0 :
0.7737 ! 1
0.636
0.636
1
I
I 1
1
1
i 1
i 0.636 !
0.636
0.636
Age 1 ;
0.7737 1 1 j
1
1
1
1
i ; l
1
0.636
j 0.636
| 0.636 ;
0.636
0.636
Age 2 i
0.7737 ! 1 :
1
1
J ;
I
1 ! l
1
0.636
| 0.636
; 0.636 ;
0.636
0 636
Age 3 j
0.7737 | 1 i
I
¦ ¦ 1 :
1 j
1
1 i
1
0.636
; 0.636
; 0,636
0.636
0.616
Age 4 :
0,7737 | 1 j
I
l
1 I
1
i l
1
0.636
j 0.636
\ 0.636 j
0.636
0.636
Age 5 :
0.7737 j 1 |
1
i
1 :
i
i i
1
0.636
j 0.636
| 0.636 |
0.036
0.636
Damaged' (1977-1995)
AgeO ;
0.7737 i 1 1
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982 i 0.982
0,982
0,982
j 0.982
; 0.982 ;
0.982
0.982
Age! i
0.7737 S 1 t
0.982
0 982
0.982 :
0.982
0.982 0.982
0.982
0.982
| 0.982
j 0.982 i
0.982
0.982
Age 2 i
0.7737 I 1 i
0.982
0 082
0.982 ;
0 982
0.982 . 0.982
0.982
0.982
| 0,982
I 0.982 :
0 982
0.982
Age 3 ;
0.7737 j 1 i
0 082
0.982
0.982
0.982
0.982 i 0>»82
0.982
0.982
; 0.982
| 0.982 i
0.982
0.982
Age 4 ;
0.7737 1 1 !
0.982
0.982
0 982 ;
0.982
0.982 ¦ 0.982
0.982
0.982
j 0,982
i 0.982 i
0.982
0.982
Age 5 j
0.7737 1 1 ¦
0.982
0.982
0982
0.982
0.982 ' 0.982
0.982
0.982
; 0.982
i 0.982 •
0.982
0.932
Live and Damaged" (1996-1998)
AgeO :
0.7737 i 1 \
0 208
0.208
0 208 ;
0 139
.0208 : 0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
| 0.208 :
0.208
0.208
Age 1 :
0.7737 | 1 !
0.208
0.208
0208 :
0 179
0.208 ; 0,208
0.208
0.208
i 0.208
! 0.208 :
0.208
0.208
Age 2 :
0.7737 j 1
0 208
0 20R
0,208 ;
0 139
0.208 0 208
0.208
0.208
j 0.208
| 0.208 i
0.208
0208
Age 3 ;
0.7737 j 1 |
0 20K
o:os
0.208 :
0.139
0,208 0 208
0.208
0.208
; 0.208
j 0.208 [
0.208
. 0,208
App. Bl-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table Bl-5: Parameters Used by P5E& to Colculate Historic Losses for Bluebaek Herring at the Salem Station, 1978-1998 (cant.).
Impingement
Collection
Efficiency'
Intent Screen Mortality
sws
Mortality* Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mir
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
D«
Live and Damaged* (1996-19981
Age 4
1 0.7737 1
1
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.139
. 0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0 208
0.208
Age 5
: 0.7737 i
1
0.208
0.208
0.208
0 139
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
0.208
Ta = Acclimation temperature, Tt - Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
" The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of en trainmen! and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Saiem Application,
b The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application,
Shaded area - data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
Table il-6: Parameters Used by PSE© to Calculate Historic Losses for Spot at the Salem Station, 1978-1996.
Entrainment
Impingement
Collection
Efficiency"
SWS
Mortality*
Jan
Mechanical
sws
Net Extrusion*
Net Avoidance*
Mortality*
Thermal Mortality*
Biocide*
Recirculation"
Mortality*
Egg
iNA
NA
1
0
0.1
l
Yolk Sac
;<4 mm, = 1/0.11;
5-32 mm,
0.185
1-37.16428 -0.66867TA
0
0.1
1
;4-7 mm,
= 1/(1.13486-0.02697 * length);
i+0 logiot + 1.78425Te
Post-yolk Sac
!= l/(-l,0767 + 0.2967 * length)
32-60 mm.
0.185
0
0,1
I
= 1/(0.36294 - 0.00285 * length);
Juvenile
iNA
> 60 mm. 1/0.1919
0.185
0
0.1
1
Latent Screen Mortality
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Mm . M
Live* (1977-1995)
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Age 0
! 0.7965
1
j 0.559
0.559
0.559
0.559 I
0.444
0.11 = 0.239 ;
0.294
0.382 .
0.559
0,307
0
Age 1
; 0,7965
1
; 0.559
0.559
0.559
0.559
0.444
0.11 0.231
Damaged* (1977-1995)
0.294
0.382
0.559
0.307
JL
Age 0
! 0.7965
1
j 0.96
0.96
0,96
0.96
0.96
0.96 0.96
096
0.96
096
0.96
0.96
Age 1
i 0.7965 ¦
1
0.96
0,96
0,%
0.96
096
; iM 1 !
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
App. Bl-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table BI-6: Parameters Used by P5EG to Calculate Historic Losses for Spot at the Salem Station, 1978-1998 (eont.).
Impingement
I.atent Screen Mortality
i Collection
1 Efficiency"
SWS
Mortality'
Jan
Feb
Mar
j Apr
May Jim
Jul
Anf
Sep
Oct
Nov
1 Dec
Live and Damaged1" (1996-! 998)
Age 0
! 0.7965
1
j 0.045
0.045
| 0.045
0.045
0.045 0.045
0.045
0.045
0.045
0.045
0.045
! 0.045
Age 1
i 0.7965
1
| 0.045
0.045
i 0.045
r>iU5
0.045 0.045
0.045
0.045
0.045
0.045
0.045
i 0.045
Ta = Acclimation temperature, TE = Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
' The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
k The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area = data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
Table 81-7: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for Striped Bass at the Salem Station, 1978-1998.
Entrainment
Mechanical
SWS
Net Extrusion"
Net Avoidance*
Mortality"
Thermal Mortality*
Biocide*
Recirculation*
Mortality"
Egg
A
NA
I
0
0.1
1
Yolk Sac
4 mm, = 1/0.11;
5-32 mm,
0.484
-7.771 - 0.096Ta
0
0.1
1
-7 mm,
= 1/(1.13486 - 0.02697 * length);
+2.300 logiot + 0.346T|
Post-yolk Sac
l/(-1.0767 + 0.2967* length)
32-60 mm,
0.484
o
0.1
1
= 1/(0.36294 - 0.00285 * length);
Juvenile
A
> 60 mm, = 1/0.1919
0.484
o
0.1
1
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
Collection ; SWS
Efficiency* j Mortality"
Ju
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mtv
Jan
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Not
Dee
Live" (1977-1995)
Age 0
! 0.9269
1
0 077
0.07?
0.077
0 077
0 077
0 077
0.077
0077
0.077
0.077
0077
0.077
Age 1
! 0.9269
1
0 077
0 077
0 077
0077
0 077
0 077
0.077
0,077
0.077
0 077
0.077
0.077
Age 2
0.9269
0.077 0.077 0.077 . 0.077 0.077 0.077 0.077 :
Damaged* (1977-1995)
0 077
0.077
0.077
0.077
0.077
Age 0
i 0.9269 i
0 3.13
0.333
0 3*3
0.333
fl 133
0 333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0 333
0.333
0.333
Age 1
i 0,9269 i
0.333
0.333
0 331
0.333
0 333
0.333
0 333
0.333
0 333
0 333
0.333
0 333
Age 2
i 0.9269 :
0.333
0.313
0.333
0.333
0.333
0 333
0 333
0 333
0.333
0.333
0 333
0 333
App Bl-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table 81-7: Parameters Used by PSE6 to Calculate Historic Losses for Striped Bass at the Salem Station, 1978-1998 (cont.J.
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
I Collection
sws J
T
1
; Efficiency*
Mortality* 1
Jan
l-eb
Mar
Apr
May
Jbi
Jllf
A«*
Live
and Damaged1" (1996-1998)
Age 0
| 0.9269
1
0.057
0 057
0 05?
0.057
0 057
0057
0.057
0057
Age 1
j 0.9269
1 |
0057
0057
0 0*7
0 057
0 057
0.057
0057
0.057
Age 2
! 0.9269
^ 1
0.057
0057
0 057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0 057
Oct
Nov
Dec
TA = Acclimation temperature, T,
0.057
0.057
0 05?
0.057
0 057
0 057
; Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
* The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
b The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entramment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area = data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, I999e.
0.054 0.015
0.054 0.015
0.054 0.015
Table Bl-8: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for Weakfish at the Salem Station, 1978-1998.
Entrainmeiit
Impingement
Mechanical ;
SWS
Net Extrusion"
Net Avoidance*
Mortality* Thermal Mortality*
Biocide*
Recirculation*
Mortality*
Egg jNA
NA
1 1
0
0.1
1
Yolk Sac ; <4 mm, - 1/0.11;
5-32 mm,
0,64 i-9.01577 -0.09229TA
0
0!
1
;4-7 mm,
= 1/(1.13486 - 0,02697 * length);
;+1.2856 logjflt +
Post-yolk Sac i ¦= I /(-1.076 7 + 0.2967 * length)
32-60 mm.
0.64 ;0.42717TE
0
0.1
1
= 1/(0.36294 - 0,00285 * length);
Juvenile 'NA.
> 60 mm, = 1/0.1919
0.5 ;
0
0.1
I
Latent Screen Mortality
Collection ¦; SWS
Efficiency* ; Mortality*
Jan
| Feb j
Mar
'
r Apr
May
: r
Sun Jo!
A*g
$*9
Oct
Nov
Dec
Live* (1977-1995)
Age 0 i
0.7915 ! 1
0.563
1 0.563 :
0.563
; 0.563
0 563
0.274 0.346 j
0.422
0.334
0.563
0.376
0.376
Age 1 j 0.7915 j 1
0.422
i 0.422 :
0.422
0.422
0.422
9J74 J 0.346 |
0422
0.334
; 0.422
0.422
0.422
Damaged* (1977-1995)
Age 0 !
0.7915 ! 1
0,864
i 0.864 1
0.864
0.864
0.864
0 78S 0 767
0,784
0.734
0.864
0.781
0.781
Age 1 j
0.7915 j 1
0.781
1 0.781 1
0.781
| 0.781
0.781
0.781 0.767 :
0 784
0.714
0.781
0.781
0.781
App. Bl-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part EJ: The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table Bl-8: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses far Weokfish at the Salem Station, 1978-1998 (cont.).
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
Collection ; SWS
Efficiency* ; Mortality' ;
Jan Feb Mar
Apr
May Juc Jb! Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Live and Damaged" (1996-1998)
Age 0 |
0.7915 j i ;
0.579 ! 0.579 1 0.579
I 0.579
0.579 ; 0.494 0.579 0.315
0.079
0 579
0.579
0.579
Age 1 :
0.7915 j 1 ;
0.579 | 0.579 1 0.579
i 0.579
0 579 0.494 0 579 0115
0.079
0.579
0.579
0.579
Ta = Acclimation temperature, T, = Exposure temperature, t = transit time.
* The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entramment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
b The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of enrrainment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 1 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area = data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
Impingement
Table Bl-9; Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for White Perch at the Salem Station, 1978-1998.
Entrainment
Mechanical
SWS
Net Extrusion*
Net Avoidance* j
Mortality*
Thermal Mortality*
Biocide*
Recirculation*
Mortality*
Egg
|na
NA |
1
!=-7.594 - 0.063TA
0
0.1
1
i+4.057 log,#t + 0308TE
Yolk Sac
: <4 mm, - J /0.11:
5-32 mm, ¦
0,829
;= -15.814 - 0,1 I2Ta
0
0,1
1
;4-7 mm.
«= 1/(1.13486-0.02697 * length); j
j+2.796 log10t + 0.545TE
Post-yolk Sac
h 1 ( 1 0767 + 0 2967 length)
32-60 mm, . j
0.829
j- -7.594 - 0.063TA
0
0.1
1
= 1/(0.36294 - 0.00285 * length); j
!+4,057 log„t + 0.308TE
Juvenile
;na
> 60 mm, - 1/0.1919 =
0.829
j» -7.594 - 0.063TA
0
0.1
1
:+4,057 logi0t + 0.308TE
Latent Screen Mortality
Collection j SWS i
Efficiency* i Mortality' : Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
Mav
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
¦mm.
Dec
Live* (1977-1995)
Age 0
i 0.9269
i 0
0
0 072
0.13
0
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.021
0.025
0.015
Age 1
; 0.9269
1 0
0
0 0^2
0 M
0
j 0.044
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.021
: 0.025
0.015
Age 2
; 0.9269
i ! 0
0
0.072
; 0.13
0
• 0.044
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.021
, 0.025
0 015
Age 3
j 0.9269
1 0
0
0,072
; on
0
| 0 044
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.021
: 0.025
0.015
: 0.9269
0
0.072
; 0.13
0
" 0 044
i 0.055
0015
Age 5
I 0.9269
1 : 0
0
0,072
. 0.13
0
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.044
0.021
0 025
0.015
App. Bl-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B The Delaware Estuary
Appendix Bt
Table B1 -9: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for White Perch at the Salem Station, 1978-1998 (cant).
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
; Collection ;
sws
j Efficiency" j
Mortality
J»tt
Feb
M*r
Apr
May
Jun
Jul i
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
I ive" (1977-1995)
Age 6
: 0.9269 |
!
0
0
0.072
0.13
0
' 0.044
0.044 |
0.044
j 0.044
0.021
0 025
0 015
Age 7
i 0.9269 j
1
0
0
0.072
0J3
0
0.044
0.044 i
0.044
j 0.044
0.021
0025
; o.oi5
Age 8
j 0.9269 !
1
0
0
0.072
Oil
0
¦1 0.044
0.044 j
0.044
j 0.044
0.021
0.025
0 015
Damaged" (1977-1995)
Age 0
1 0.9269 i
1
0.84
0.974
0.672
0.97
0.815
0.75
0.405 |
0.405
j 0.405
0.639
i 0.655
0.84
Age 1
1 0.9269 j
1
0.84
0 974
0 672
097
0.815
0.75
0.405 j
0.405
i 0.405
0.639
0.655
0.84
Age 2
1 0.9269 i
1
0.84
0.974
0.672
0.97
0.815
075
0.405 |
0.405
| 0.405
0.639
0.655
0.S4
Age 3
j 0.9269 j
1
0.84
0.974
0.672
0.97
0.815
; 0.75
0.405 |
0.405
| 0.405
0.639
¦ 0.655
; 0.84
Age 4
1 0.9269 !
1
0.84
0.974
0.672
0.97
0.815
0,75
0.405 |
0.405
| 0.405
0.639
0.655
0.84
Ag= 5
\ 0.9269 |
1
0 84
0.974
0.672
0.97
0.815
0.75
0.405 j
0.405
j 0.405
0.639
' 0.655
0.84
Age 6
i 0.9269 \
1
j 0J4 ' :
0.974
0.672
0.97
0.815
0.75
0.405 j
0.405
| 0.405
0.639
0.655
0.84
Age 7
i 0.9269 j
1
084
0.974
0.672
0.97
0815
0 75
0.405 i
0.405
| 0.405
0.639
' 0.655
0.84
Age 8
I 0.9269 j
1
0.84
B 974
0.672
0.97
0.815
0,75
0.405 !
0.405
! 0.405
0.639
0.655
0.84
Live and Damaged" (1996-1998)
Age 0
j 0.9269 j
1
0.057
0.057
0057
0.057
0.057
0 057
0.057 |
0.057
j 0,057
0.057
. 0.054
0,015
Age 1
! 0.9269 i
1
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057 i
0.057
; 0.057
0.057
0.054
0.015
Age 2
i 0.9269 j
1
0,057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057 j
0.057
: 0.057
0.057
0.054
0.015
Age 3
j 0.9269 i
1
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
! 0.057
0.057 ;
0.057
j 0.057
0.057
0.054
: 0.015
Age 4
i 0.9269 i
1
0.G57
0057
0.057
0057
0.057
0.057
0.057 !
0.057
i 0.057
0.057
1 0.054
0.015
Age 5
; 0.9269 1
1
! 0.057
0 057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057 |
0.057
j 0.057
0.057
: 0.054
. 0.015
Age 6
1 0.9269 !
1
, 0.057
1
0.057 ,
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057 !
0.057
| 0.057
i 0,057
: 0.054
0.015
Age 7
| 0.9269 j
1
0.057
0.057 ;
0.057
0.057
0.057
j 0.057
0,057 1
0,057
; 0.057
i 0.057
i 0.054
0.015
Age 8
! 0.9269 I
1
: 0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
0.057
^ 0.057
0.057 |
0,057
0,057
j 0,057
0.054
0.015
Ta = Acclimation temperature, Tt = Exposure temperature, t --transit time.
* The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrain me nt and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of PSEG. 1999e.
k The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix L, Attachment 4 of PSEG, I999e. ¦
Shaded area = data used in the calculation of impingement losses assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
App. Bf-II
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Table Bl-10: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for Gammarvs sp. at the Salem Station, 1978-1998.
Entrainment
Mechanical
j SWS
Net Extrusion*
Net Avoidance*
Mortality*
Thermal Mortality*
Biocide*
Recirculation*
i Mortality*
All life stages
NA
1.25
j 0,014
j -11.942 - 0,269TA
1 + 1.205 log10t + 0.585Te
0
0.1
: l
Ta = Acclimation temperature, TE = Exposure temperature, t -transit time.
' The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
Appendix B1
Table Bl-11: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for Neomysis americana at the Salem Station, 1978-1998,
Entrainment
All life stages
Net Extrusion*
NA
Net Avoidance*
1.25
Mechanical :
Mortality" j Thermal Mortality*
0.1151 j -9.444-0.1331A
j+1.3301 log,„t + 0.486Tf
Biocide*
0
Recirculation*
0.1
sws
Mortality"
Ta = Acclimation temperature, TE - Exposure temperature, t -transit time,
" The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
Table Bl-12; Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate Historic Losses for Blue Crab at the Salem Station, 1978-1998.
Impingement
Latent Screen Mortality
i Collection
SWS i
j Efficiency*
Mortality* :
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov ;
Dec
Live* (1977-1995)
Age 0
j 0.7496
1 i
0.10
0.10
0.10
0 10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0 10
0.10 |
0.10
Age 1
| 0.7496
1 j
0.10
0,10
0.10
. 0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
o.io j
0.10
Age 2
| 0.7496
1 j
0.10
0.10
0,10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0 10
0.10
0 10
0.10 ;
0.10
Age 3
| 0.7496
1 |
0.10
0,10
0.10
o.io
0.10
0.10
0.10
O.10
0 10
0.10
0.10 i
0.10
Damaged' (I9"?7-1995)
Age 0
i 0.7496
j 1
0.50
0.50
0.50
< 0.$©
0.50
; 0.59
0 50
0 50
0.50
0.50
0.50 !
0.50
Age 1
| 0.7496
i 1
0.50
0.50
0.50
; 0.50
0.50
0.50
0 50
0 50
0 50
0.50
0.50 ;
0.50
Age 2
i 0,7496
i l
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0 50
0.50
050
0 50
0.50
0 50
0.50 |
0.50
Age 3
j 0.7496
l
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0 50
0 50
0.50
0 50
0.50
o.so
0.50 ;
0.50
App. BI-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table Bl-12: Parameters Used by PSEG to Calculate
Historic Losses for Blue Crab at the Salem Station
1978-1998 (cont.)
Impingement
I. a tent Screen Mortality
" The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix F, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
'' The parameters used by PSEG in the calculation of entrainment and impingement are described in Appendix G, Attachment 2 of the 1999 Salem Application.
Shaded area ~ data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999e.
; Collection
i Efficiency*
sws i
Mortality* j
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Im id ¦' Aug
Live and Damaged1 (1996-1998)
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dee
Age 0
j 0.7496
i i
0.182
0.023
0,023
0.026
0.024
0.023
0.026
0,025
0.023
0023
0.023
0,031
Age 1
j 0.7496
i i
0.182
0,023
0,023
0.026
0.024
0.023
0 026
; 0.025
0,023
0 023
0,023
0.031
Age 2
i 0.7496
l i
0.182
0.023
0.023
0.026
0.024
0.023
0.026
0.025
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.031
Age 3
| 0.7496
l 1
0.182
0.023
0.023
0026
0.024
0.023
0.026
0 025
0 023
0.023
0.023
0.031
Table Bl-13:
Initial Impingement Mortality,
Old and New Screens,
as Used by PSES to Calculate Impingement.
Species
Jail :
Feb
Mar I
Apr
Mav
Jim
\ Jul
i Aug I
Sep
Oet
Nov
Dec
SGS Initial Impingement Mortality (Old Screens, 1977-1995)
Blue crab
40.0%
60.0% ;
22.2% j
1,0%
1.2%
2.7%
2 2%
1.6%
1 6%
1 0%
0,1% :
0.3%
Blueback herring
14.5%
25.3%
17.0%
18.0%
22.9%
25.0%
j 19.0%
! 43.5% j
7.7% :
13.9% -
12 3%
14.9%
Alewife
12.5%
1X6%
8.6%
19.7%
14.1%
26.4%
: 25.0%
; 20,0% j
15.4% ;
55.8% ¦
8.0%
7.6%
American shad
5-7%
5.1%
10.3%
16.7%
10.5%
NA
j 50.0%
! 66.7% j
NA
7,9% F
9.3%
10.1%
Bay anchovy
: 54.9% i
41.7% :
42 9% f
34.3%
35,5%
41.6%
49.0%
39.9%
27.5%
20.3%
21.7%
21.8%
White perch
89%
5J%
80%
7.1%
18.4%
; 17.6%
j 17.3%
i 16.1% i
10.3% j
9.5% ,
7.2%
7.4%
Striped bass
; 5.1% 5
iM-"?
8.0%
8.2%
7.7%
2.6%
5.6%
8.8%
18.2%
3 8%
3.5%
5.0%
Weakfish
i na j
NA :
NA j
NA
16 7%
43.8%
22 8%
18.2%
12.3%
9 3%
13.7%
10.0%
Spot
• 8.4% j
NA
NA j
NA
21.1%
18.7%
24.5%
20.2%
19.8% :
10.6%
9.7% :
9.8%
Atlantic croaker
| 23.4%
12.1%
NA
NA
11.5%
14.3%
16.7%
16.7%
3.0%
3.5%
5.3%
19.2%
SGS Initial Impinge
nt Mortality (New
Screens, 1996-19981
Blue crab
! NA j
20.0% ;
8.3% i
2.2%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
1.0%
1.7%
1.0%
2.4% i
NA
Blueback herring
.' 2.1%
2.1%
2.6%
3.4%
NA
NA
NA
1 NA |
9.1% |
2.6% .
NA ¦
2.7%
Alewife
NA
8.3%
5.3%
0.0%
NA
NA
j 50.0%
| NA j
NA j
25.0% :
3.7%
NA
American shad
33.3%
NA
NA
NA
NA
: na
j NA
: NA i
NA |
NA
NA
33 3%
Bay anchovy
! 18.0% I
40 0%
9.1%
36.9%
14.3%
11.1%
16.3%
157%
19.4%
2!.7%
14.4%
40.0%
White perch
; 2.6%
0 9%
1.8%
0.7%
2.1%
: 11.6%
| 3.9%
NA
2.6% |
0 9%
0 5%
0.7%
App. Bl-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part B: The Delaware Estuary
Appendix B1
Table Bl-13: Initio! Impingement Mortality, Old and New Screens, as Used by PSES to Calculate Impingement (cent.).
Species
Jan
Feb
Mar |
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
i Nov
Dec
SOS Initial Impingement Mortality
(New Screens, 1996-1998)
Striped bass
NA
2.1%
1.1%
1.8%
NA
6.7%
5.8%
7.8%
NA
NA
2.4%
NA
Weak fish
NA
| NA
NA ;¦
NA
NA
10.5%
13,1%
6.5%
3.7%
2.5%
i NA
NA
Spot
2.4%
NA
NA
NA
NA
10%
12.5%
NA
2-.4%
30%
2.3%
4.4%
Atlantic croaker
19 1%
10 6%
11.9%
3.1%
4.6%
2.9%
6.5%
1.4%
2 7%
19%
3.0%
5.4%-
Shaded area ™ data used by EPA to calculate impingement assuming no survival.
Source: PSEG, 1999c.
App. BI-I4
------- |