xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Case Study Analysis for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase
II Existing Facilities Rule
Part C - E
May 2002
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821 -R-02-002
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Part C: The Ohio River
Watershed Case Study
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pari C, The Ohio River
Chapter CI: Background
Chapter CI:
The Ohio River was chosen for a § 316(b) case study
because it is representative of large industrial rivers in the
Untied States with cumulative impacts resulting from
multiple CWLS. The river is a major waterway (lowing
southwest from Pittsburgh toward the Mississippi River.
Throughout its entire length, the river consists of a series
of navigation pools controlled by locks and dams
maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The
locks serve to pass barges from one pool to the next, and
the dams regulate pool elevation. In addition to
navigation, the Ohio River provides water for industrial
and municipal uses, and is an important source of
recreation, including pleasure boating, swimming, and
fishing.
Background
r=!==:=.ii..,... , ,, ¦ , , ..'i
Chapter Contents
Ct-1
Overview of Nine Ohio River Case Study
C: l -1
CI-2
Environmental Setting
. . . . Cl-4
€1-2.1 The Ohio River Basin
. . Cl-4
C! Anuaric Habitat and Biota
. Cl-5
CI-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors , ,
.. CJ-h
CI-3
Water Withdrawals and Use*..
. n-8
Cl-4
Socioeconomic Characteristics
... Cl-8
CI-4.1 Industrial Activities
.. Cl-8
CI-4.2 Commercial Fishing
....a-si
CM.3 Recreational Activities
. . Cl-8
This chapter provides background on the Ohio River case study area. Section Cl-l b an overview of the nine Ohio River
facilities in scope of the Phase II rule lor which l&E data are available, Section CI-2 describes the environmental setting of
the ease study. Section Cl-3 discusses water withdrawal and uses within the Ohio River Basin, and Section Cl-4 describes
socioeconomic conditions near the Ohio River facilities, including industrial, commercial, and recreational activities.
Technical details of the plants are discussed in detail in Chapter C2 Chapter C3 discusses EPA's evaluation of l&E data for
Ohio River facilities. Chapter C4 addresses economic values of baseline damages, and Chanter C5 presents the benefits
analysts.
CI -1 Overview of Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
Figure Cl-l indicates the locations of all CWIS on the Ohio River, including both in scope and out of scope facilities. EPA
evaluated i&O data for nine of the in scope facilities, including WJ J, Sammis, Cardinal, Hammer, Philip Spom, Kyger Creek,
VV.C, Beckjord, Miami Fort, 'fanners Creek, and Clifly Creek (upstream to downstream), f&fi results were extrapolated to
other CWIS facilities as described in Chapter C3 of this report. Locations of the nine case study facilities are indicated in
Table Cl-l and Figure CI-2.
W H Sammis Generating Station. Ohio
The W,H. Sammis plam is located in Jefferson County, Ohio, one-half mile upstream of the New Cumberland Lock and Dam,
near Stratton at rivermile 53,9 (Environmental Science and Engineering, 1991 j. The W.H. Sammis plant is a coat-fired
facility with seven steam electric generating units capable of producing 2,392 MW (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978). The facility uses
once-through cooling with a maximum intake tlow of 1,360 MOD (Environmental Science and Engineering, 1991).
Cardinal Plant, Ohio
The Cardinal facility is located on the Ohio shore of the Ohio River approximately 3 miles southwest of Brilliant, Ohio, and
20 miles upriver from Wheeling, West Virginia. The facility is located in the Pike Island Pool of the Ohio River, 76,7 miles
downstream from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Cardinal facility has three coal-fired units. Units 1 and 2 began operations
in February and July 196?, respectively, are rated at 590 MW, and employ a once-through cooling system (American Electric
Power Service Corporation, 19X1). Unit 3 went on-line in September 1977, is rated at 600 MW, and operates a closed cycle
system with a cooling tower.
CM
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River Chapter CI: Background
Figure C1 -!: Locations of all Ohio Ri ver In Scope and Out of Scope CWIS
WfMniiSi#
-? Out of -scope facilities akmg die Ohio River
M In-scope facilities along the Ohio River !
I Locks; & dams j
Major urban areas j
¦tmMf.
ILLINOIS
Columbus
indwnarofis.
(teytan
¦HJ\'NSY1.VANIA ,
: Pool
Mew \,
CiirotsBrtoMl Pool "']
Pita teyind Pixit <
Y Em&worth Pool
Pool
MeASptrw
Pool
I---.
SmrtNamJ
Pool
I Louiswlle
RKliWFOOi
Sreenup j—f V\
Pool V ~ floM)vi[l« F
Wsik** li»rf:Bj Fool
Beiieviile Pool
Mantkmo
Pool Madam Pool
""X,
RotartC. Byw Fvol
WJjST VIRGINIA
w
Ao
9/ Dc
f"~ John T Myws Canr»ton
POO' POOl
KfSTUCKV
NewouȤn
Pod
Lock a?fKi
Dtwii #53 LOCK .and Dum Pp&
Pi)&
. ' vmumiA
j 30 I,s U M) <-> W Milw
i m 3> 0 m ' no HWKikxiJclers
Toble Cl-1; Case Study Facilities and Navigational Pool Locations
Plant
Watershed Hi t Code
Plant Location
(river mil?)
Ohio River Navigational Pool
W.il. Sammis
0503010t
53.9
New Cumberland
Cardinal
05030106
76.7
Pike Island
Kamnicr
05030106
1 i 1.1
Hannibal Pool
Philip Sporn
0SO30202
2.42
Robert C. Byrd
Kyger Creek
: 05030202
260
Robert C. Byrd
W,C. Beckjord
05090201
453
Mark! and
Miami Fort
05090203
490
¦Marki and
T anners Creek
05090203
494
Vfjrkijnd
Clifty C reck
05140101
560
M M{ ne
Source: EA Engineering Science and Technology and Perry, 2001.
CI-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio River Chapter CI: Background
Figure CI *2: Case Study Facilities and Navigations! Poof and Dam Locations on the Ohio River
Lake Eric
Wi
PA
OH
Ohio
KY
VA
Area of Detail
Pike Island Pool
Tanners
Creek Plant
Waller C, Beckjord |
Generating Siai ion »•
Kammer
Plant
VWttow Islanci Pool
Seltevtfla Poo)
Greenup Pool
m
I
Robert C, Byrd Pool
Philip Spool Plain
Mwkland
Pool
Kammer Plant, Ohio
Kammer Plant is located in north we stem West Virginia on the Ohio River. The facility is on the Hannibal Pool at rivermile
111.1. The Rammer facility consists of three fossil-fueled electric generating units capable of generating 675 MW (225 MW
each). A once-through cowling system draws in water from the Ohio River through six circulating water pumps at 665 MOD
when the facility operates at design conditions. The intake struclure is divided into three sections, each containing three
intake gates, three trash racks, three traveling screens, and two circulating water pumps (Ballelo and Brown, 1980a).
Philip Sporn Plant. West Virginia
The Philip Sporn Plant is located within the Robert Byrd Pool on the West Virginia side of the Ohio River near New Haven.
It is approximately 7,2 km (4.5 miles) downstream of the Racine Locks and Dam (Ballello and Brown. 1980b). The plant
consists of five fossil-fueled once-through cooling generating units rated at 1050 MW that began operating between 1950 and
1960
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CI: Background
Kyger Creek Station, Ohio
The Kyger Creek facility is located near Chesire, Ohio, at rivermik- 260. This is about 21 miles upstream of ihc Gallipolis
lock and dam, in the waterbody bounded by the Kanawha River and the Racine Locks and Dam (Brown and Van Hassel,
1981). Kyger Creek has five coal-fired units that use a once-through cooling system. Units 1 through 5 went on-line between
February and December 1955 (Brown and Van Hassel, 1981).
W.C. Beckjord Generating Station, Ohio
The W,C, Beckjord facility is located 29 km (18 miles) upstream of Cincinnati. Ohio and 4,8 km (3 miles) downstream of
New Richmond, Ohio at rivermile 452.9 (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company* 1979). The facility is located within the
Markland Pot)!. Tins section of the Ohio River is sparsely populated and agriculture is the dominant form of business. The
W.C. Beckjord facility has six coal-fired units that use once-through cooling (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, 1979).
There are two circulating pumps on each unit. Units 1 through 3 were activated in 1952, 1953, and 1954, respectively, while
units 4 through 6 went on-line between 1958 and 1969, Three separate intake structures (ertbhouses) provide water far the
circulating pumps on the six units. Units I and 2 are in one cribhouse, units 3 and 4 are located in the second, and units 5 and
6 are tn the third.
Miami fort Generating Station, Ohio
The Miami Fort Station is located 32 km (20 miles) downstream of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Newport and Covington, Kentucky,
at rivermile 490 (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company. 1979). It sits on the lower third of the Mark land Pool, less than a mile
upstream of where the Great Miami River enters the Ohio River. This section of the Ohio River is heavily industrialized and
receives discharge of chemical, industrial and sewage waste. Six generating units are in operation at the Miami Fort Station;
units 3,4, 5, and 6 are once-through cooling systems and units 7 and 8 are off-stream cooling systems. Units I and 2 were
retired in 1971. Units 3, 4, and 5 are used only in times of high energy demand or when other units are not in function
(Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, 1979).
Tanners Creek Plant, Indiana
Tanners Creek is located near the town of Lawrenceburg. Indiana, approximately 494 miles downstream from Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania (Balleito & Xaabel, 1978b; Knergy Impact Associates Inc., 1978b). Tanners Creek is located in the Markland
Pool of the Ohio River, formed by the structures of the Meldahl Lock and Dam upstream and the Markland Lock and Dam
downstream. The facility uses once-through cooling, drawing approximately LOW; MGD from the Ohio River. There are
four coal-fire units with a total rated power output ofl.CMO MW. There are two separate intake structures. The intake screen
house servicing units 3 and 4 is located upstream of the screen house servicing units 1 and 2.
Cliffy Creek Station, Indiana
Cliity Creek is located near the town of Madison, Indiana, at rivermile 560 (Balletlo and XabeL 1978a; Energy Impact
Associates, 1978a; EA Science and Technology, 1987). Cliffy Creek resides within the MeAlpine Pool on the Ohio River,
formed by the boundaries of the Markland Lock md Dam upstream and the MeAlpine Lock and Dam approximately 76 km
(47 miles) downstream. This cool-fired facility has six generating units that use ortce-though cooling. Each unit is capable of
producing 217 MW cBA Science and Technology, 1987), for a total rated capacity of approximately 1,300 MW.
CI-2 Environmental Setting
CI-2.1 The Ohio River Basin
The Ohio River is formed by the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The river
(lows in a southwesterly direction for 1,582 km {981 miles) to its confluence with the Mississippi River near Cairo, Illinois;
727.2 of those kilometers (450.9 miles) form the southern boundary of Ohio. The river basin covers 525,800 km2 (203,000
mi2), which represents about 5 percent of the total land surface of the lower 48 states. The basin is spread over 10 states; six
of those (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky) border directly on the river. About 14.5 percent
of the Ohio River drainage basin is within Ohio, The Ohio River lias an average annual How of 7,960 in Vs (281.000 cfs) and
€1-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter CI: Background
is a major tributary to the Mississippi River, providing just below 50 percent of the total discharge of the latter. On average,
the Ohio River ts 300 to 500 m (1,000 to \ ,600 ft) wide, and 3-6 m < 10 to 20 It) deep (ORSANCO, i 998),
The modern river consists of a series of long navigation pools controlled by 20 lock and dam (L&D) structures. These
structures are maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The dams regulate pool elevation on the Ohio River and
allow for year-round navigation. The locks serve lo pass barges front one pool to the next.
There are three major tributaries to the Ohio River. The Muskingum River enters the Ohio in the Belleville Pool at the town
of Marietta (rivermile 172.2). The Muskingum is about 181 km (112 miles) long, it drains a surface area of 8,146 km* (3,145
mi*) or about one fifth of the state. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the upper Muskingum basin (ORSANCO, t'W)).
The river is famed for its gameftsh, including flathead catfish (and other catfish species), muskellungc, largemouth bass,
smallmouth bass, spotted bass, and sauger.
The Scioto River enters the Ohio in the Captain Meldahl Pool at Portsmouth {rivermile 356.5). The Scioto River is about 381
km <237 miles) long and flows past the cities of Columbus and Chillicothe. The Olentangy River is its main tributary. The
Scioto River drains a surface area of 6.510 mi**. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the upper Scioto basin (ORSANCO,
1990).
The Great Miami River enters the Ohio in the Mark land Pool at rivermile 491.1, ft drains a surface area of 10,230 km* (3,930
mi2). Agriculture is the dominant land use m the Great Miami River basin (ORSANCO. 1990).
CI-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
Historically, the Ohio River consisted of long, shallow riffle areas (such as the Falls of the Ohio), shallow island back
channels, and overflow sloughs. The river and its habitats underwent dramatic change when a series of lock and dam
structures were completed in 1929 to ease navigation. By 1955, the once free-flowing river was transformed into a series of
20 controlled river pools that maintain a relatively constant water level and How rate year round for navigational purposes.
Each navigational pool along the river is, to some extent, a unique environment. Aquatic species composition and stressors
often differ from pool to pool, and the lock and dam structure restricts dispersal of fish, mussels, and crayfish among pools.
An important environmental impact of the lock and dam system is the loss of both island and wetland habitats. When the lock
and dam system was built, the water level had to be raised in many parts of the Ohio, submerging 31 islands and 4,414
hectares (10,906 acres) of terrestrial habitat {US Army Corps Engineers, 2000). As a result, much of the diverse island and
wetland areas were transformed into deep witter habitats, Although these deep water habitats are still viable, they support a
different set of species and severely impair the aquatic diversity and stability of the Ohio River ecosystem (Personal
Communication, Patricia Morrison, Ohio River Islands National Wildlife Refuge, October 24, 2001).
Within the Ohio River mainstcm area, a variety of distinct habitats help support the river's fish and wildlife. These areas
include islands and backchannels, gravel/sandbars and cobble substrates, and wetlands lloodplam.s Each of these habitats
hosts a different set of the diverse fauna and flora of the Ohio RivertUS Army Corps Engineers. 2000).
~ Islands and Baekchanne fc - With a variety of water depths, current patterns, and substrates, the backchannels and the
Ohio River islands provide a habitat for large number of fish and waterfowl species. The backchannels offer a
unique nursery habitat and feeding area for larger fish, The heads and backchannels around islands are also
renowned among sport fishermen for their dense fish populations (US Army Corps 1-ngineers, 2000).
Gravel/Sand Ban. Cubbk Substrates - Topographical variations in the river bottom arc crucial in maintaining the
diverse plant and animal life of the Ohio River. For instance, clean gravel environments are the preferred spawning
substrate of lithophilic fish (e.g., shoveinose sturgeon, redhorses, blue sucker, and paddlefish), species that use the
clean gravel substrate for spawning, the predominant fish community of the historical Ohio River. Clean gravel
environments have been threatened in recent years because human activity along the Ohio has resulted in siltatton of
these substrates (US Army Corps Engineers, 2000).
*¦ Floodplains - As the Ohio River advances downstream from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, the terrain it traverses
becomes gradually flatter, resulting in a wider and slower river. Downstream of Louisville. Kentucky, the Ohio
River is considered a "floodplain river." The floodplain offers a number of different habitats and zones, including
constantly inundated channels and lakes, overflow riverine wetlands, and dry uplands that are rarely tlooded Fish
populations depend on the overflow areas for food production, feeding, spawning, and rearing of young. Many
CIS
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies. Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CI; Background
organisms have evolved adaptations to allow them to take advantage of habitat changes resulting from the
predictable seasonal Hoods and low water levels, The shallow water habitats are also important feeding areas for
wading birds such as the great blue herons and black crowned night herons. This important habitat is also being
threatened by human activity and is quickly disappearing. In 1978 the Ohio River Basin Commission determined
that the river's lloodplatn encompasses some 342,64? hectares (846,700 acres) of wetland, down drastically from
744,947 hectares (1,840,803 acres) in 1937 (IJS Army Corps Engineers, 2000), The reduction in flooding is due
mostly to flood control dams constructed on the tributaries of the river and is independent of the lock and dam
structure on the Ohio itself (Personal Communication, Patricia Morrison, Ohio River Islands National Wildlife
Refuge, October 24, 2001).
Because of the watershed's central geographic location in the eastern United States, some species with northern affinities and
others with southern affinities occur in the watershed in addition to those common to the central region of the country,
The fish community of the Ohio is especially rich in species and harbors several evolutionary lines not found anywhere else in
the world. The Ohio River supports about 160 fish species, including about 25 species of sport fish (Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, 2001a). Shovelnose sturgeon, paddieflsh, skipjack, herring, river shiner, goldeye, silverband shiner, and
blue sucker are some characteristic large river fish found in the Ohio. However, the composition of the fish community has
been rapidly changing over the past century because of human activities along the river. Since 19(H) a number of fish species
have notably declined in abundance while a number of others are now extinct, including species not found anywhere else in
the world. The series of locks and dams constructed on the river facilitated siitatkm of considerable areas of clean gravel and
rubble .substrate. Lithophilic fish have consequently seen their numbers decline, while fish producing eggs or larvae that float
above the bottom (e.g., freshwater drum, emerald shiner and gizzard shad) have increased in abundance (US Army Corps
Engineers, 2000),
Many songbirds that winter in South America or Latin America breed or inhabit the Ohio River watershed during the spring
and summer. More than 25 species of waterfowl use the river's islands and riverine habitats as feeding and resting areas. In
addition so various shorebirds, waterbirds, and geese, the lower Ohio River area is also home to a significant number of bald
eagles, which have been federally listed as threatened (US Army Corps Engineers, 2000),
CI-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
a. Habitat degradation
The lock and dam structure changed the free-flowing Ohio River into a series of lake-like environments, resulting in profound
habitat changes that have affected native fish and invertebrate communities (Van Hassel et a!., 1988):
~ higher siltation rates in the pools resulted in the loss of gravel substrate and increased the populations of soft-bottom
benthic invertebrates,
*¦ the dams raised the overall level of the river (as intended for navigation purposes) and inundated adjacent land and
tributaries, ihereby producing numerous embayirtems, and
~ the lake-like nature of the river changed the physieochemical characteristics of the surface water, including
temperature dynamics and nutrient cycling,
The composition and abundance of fish responded lo these habitat changes. For example, the navigation pools negatively
affected species that required clean gravel for spawning but increased the abundance of species that produce pelagic eggs. A
number of aquatic species declined because of this profound habitat change. The shovel-nosed sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus
plaUirhynchm) experienced a sharp population decline following the river's impoundment ('ORSANCQ, 1962),
Other species have benefitted from the habitat changes associated with the impoundments. For example, channel catfish
(h-taiuruspunclams) prefer deep, slower flowing water and are attracted to silty bottoms; black bullheads (ictaivrm meias)
prefer silty bottoms with turbid and warmer water. These and other species increased their populations and expanded their
ranges in response lo the changes (ORSANCQ. 1962),
b. Non-native species
Non-native species are species that evolve in one region of the world but arc intentionally or accidentally introduced in
another where they lack natural enemies. If such species become established, they can quickly outcompele andoverwheim
native species. The Great Lakes basin and major midwestern rivers, including the Ohio, have been affected by the presence
of zebra mussels (Drcixsena polymorpha) and sea lamprey (Peimmyicm marinus), Numerous other exotic species have
£.7-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River Chapter CI: Background
gained a foothold in the Great hikes region and eoukl spread farther inland. These species, which include the ruffe
(Gvmnocephalus certtuus), spiny water flea (Bythomphes ct'derxtrocmi), and round goby (Neugohim melanosfomus), have
yei 10 reach the Ohio River system but have the potential to do so and are therefore of longer range concern (Great Lakes
Commission, 2()0 l i.
c. Pollution
Surface water pollution is a major stressor on the Ohio River. Over the past 25 years, water quality has greatly improved
because of stricter suite and federal surface water pollution regulations, bui serious pollution problems remain.
The Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) evaluates the water quality in the river in terms of its ability to
support designated uses; aquatic life, public water supply, recreation, and fish consumption. The use designations are
assessed based on numerical water Quality criteria for 37 conventional pollutants, metal toxicants, and organic toxicants. For
each use, the degree of support is classified into the following categories depending on measured water quality conditions
(ORSAXCO, 1998).
* fully supporting indicates minor or no water quality problems for the designated use,
» partially supporting indicates that the use is precluded some of the time because of water quality problems, and
*¦ not supporting indicates that the use is precluded much of the time because, of water quality problems.
For the aquatic life designated use only, the partial support category is further subdivided into three subcategories for greater
resolution:
~ substantially supporting indicates minor water quality criterion violations for one chemical constituent,
~ moderately supporting indicates criteria violations of multiple constituents or impaired aquatic communities based
on direct biological measurements (including fish population and maeromvertebrate surveys and fish tissue analysis),
and
*• marginally supporting indicates significant adverse impacts on biological communities based on direct
measurements.
Table Cl-2 presents the 1996 designated use support of the Ohio River in Ohio.
Table Cl-2; Designated Use Support for the Ohm River in Ohio
__ __ Aquatic Life Public Water Contact Recreation Fish Consumption
No. of kilometer* (miles) use is fully supported S2I (323.7) : 598(371.3) 0.0 0.0
No. of kilometers (miles) use is partially supported J 50 (92.9), ' 128 <79.6') 587 <364.5) NA"
No. of kilometers (miles) use is not supported ' 0.0 " 0.0 ; 139(86.4) NA
TOTAL 671 (4i{>.<>)* 726(450,9! 726 726 (450.9)
1 The aquatic life use was not assessed for 34.3 miles in Ohio: hence total miles do not add up to 450.9.
Not available*. ORSANCO (1998) did not provide a breakdown between partial uses and nonsupported uses tor this parameter.
Sourrr: ORSANCO, 1998.
QRSANCO (1998) interpreted the data in Table CI-2 as follows:
~ Warm water aquatic life: 150 km (92.9 miles) of river were partially (but substantially) supporting this use in Ohio
due to the exceedence of the chronic and/or aquatic life criteria for copper, cyanide, zinc and lead; no rivermiles in
Ohio are nonsuppwtiug of this use.
~ Public wakT supply: 128 km (79.6 miles) of river were partially supporting this use in Ohio due to stream criterion
violations for dioxin; no rivermiles in Ohio are non supporting of this use.
* Contact recreation: zero miles of river fully supported contact recreation uses; 587 km (364.5 miles) partially
.supported this use; 139 km < 86,4 miles) do not support this use due to excessive levels of pathogens (fecal coliform
and £*, volt). The "'partially support" designation must be interpreted carefully because usage was defined as such in
the absence of bacterial monitoring stations (only six stations downstream from urban areas monitor for pathogens in
the Ohio River over us entire course from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Cairo, Illinois). The partial support
Cl-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter CI: Background
designation in the absence of real data is due of the presence of numerous communities with combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) along the entire length of the river. Waters are classified as "not supporting" when ;;25 percent of
recreation season months do not. meet water quality standards for bacteria.
* Fish consumption; zero miles of river fully support fish consumption due to the presence offish consumption
advisories which apply along the entire Ohio River along the Ohio border. The state of Ohio lias instituted
"restricted consumption" advisories for certain fish species because ofPCBs and/or mercury; the state also
developed "non consumption" advisories for channel catfish 43 cm (17 in.} or longer and alt common carp because
of dangerously high PCB residues.
C1-3 Water Withdrawals and Uses
Steam electric power generation in 1995 accounted for the single largest withdrawal of water from the watersheds in which
the case study facilities are located, totaling 5,704 MOD or 92 percent of all surface water withdrawals (USGS, 1995).
Table C1 -3 summarizes the cooling water intake flow features of the nine in scope facilities with l&E data. The table shows
both design and average annual intake flows and provides flow rates for the source walerbody for comparison purposes. The
mean annual flow is the average flow over the year; "7Q10" is "the lowest stream (low for seven consecutive days that would
be expected to occur once in ten years" (U.S. EPA, 1998c) and hence represents the minimum expected walerbody flow.
CI -4 Socioeconomic Characteristics
CI-4,1 Industrial Activities
The Ohio River serves as a major shipping artery connecting the economies of the East and South with that of the Midwest.
In terms of commercial shipping volume, the Ohio is second only to the Mississippi among U.S. rivers, transporting about 230
million tons of freight each year. Owing to its extensive lock and dam structure, the river is easily navigable and is thus ideal
for industrial shipping activity, primarily by the coal and steel industries (ORSANCO, 2001).
The Ohio River is prominently used by the industrial centers of Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Louisville, where the coal and
steel industries thrive. Consequently, the river is doited with petrochemical plants that use it to conveniently ship and receive
oil and other chemical products. Other materials such as gravel, sand and farm products are also heavily shipped along the
Ohio River's 1,579 km (981 mile) course (US Army Corps Engineers, 1997).
CI-4.2 Commercial Fishing
At one time, the Ohio River supported a small commercial fishery that included carp
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter CI: Background
Table CI-3: Characteristics of 5 316(b) Utility Plants Operating CW1S in Ohio (1999)
El A Plant Code
and Name
EIA
(WIS :
Code
(WIS
Type'
Design Intake
How Rate
(Cfi>
Average AdiiohI Ill C L. Hon of .Source
; Intake Flow Rate Water- ™\ ; WaterbMly (cfs)
, , , , . . Walerhudv
(efs) shed ( ode • Mean Annual ; 7Q10
2866, W.H. Sammis -
1
2
3
OK
OF
OF
212
212 '' '
1,832,7 05030H)i Ohio River
37,405 : 3,388
4
OF
212
5
OF
403
6
OF
677
7 '
OF
862
2828, Cardinal
1 ;
i
OF
OF
• ml
892
1.265,2 05030106 Olw River
37,533 ^ 3,392
3 *
RN
14
13.6
3947, Kammer
1
2
3
OF
OF
OF
356
356
356
815,1 05030106 Ohio River •
38.713 : 3,419
3938, Philip Spom
i 1 *
21
OF
OF
223
223
1,262,7 05030202 ' Ohio River
54,823 ' 4,243
31
OF
223
41
OF
223
51
OF
715
2876, Kygcr Creek
i
OF
361
324 9 05030202 Ohio River :
55,143 : 4,258
2
OF
361
324,9
3
OF
361
324,9
4
OF
361
324,9
5
OF
361
324.9
2830, W C. Bcckjord
1
OF
I OK
38.3 05090201 Ohio River
92,084 ^ 6,417
' 2
OF
124
62.9
3
OF
147
130.9
4
OF
169
20(13
5
OF
260
140.7
6
OF ¦
¦ 336
320.3
2832, Miami Fori
5
OF
154
13.0 : 05090203 Ohio River *
98,615 ' 6,516
6
OF
201
56.1
7-8
RF
35
29.6
988, Tanners Creek
Ul
U2
OF
OF
221
yi i
668,1 05090203 Ohio River
105,245 7,146
U3
OF
312
U4
OF
8m
625 6
983, Clifty Creek
1
OF
339
304.8 0514010! Ohio River
117,440 ; 7,476
i
OF
339
304.8
3
OF
339
304.8
4
OF
339
304.8
5
OF
339
304,8
6
OF
339
304.8
" OF; Once through, freshwater; RF
Recirculating with forced draft cooling iomust; RN; Recirculating with natural draft cooling tower.
Sources: CWIS information; U.S. DOE, 2001a; HUC codes and source waterbody inliwiration; U.S. EPA, I9*2h.
CI-9
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter CI. Background
a. Recreational Fishing
Recreational fishing in Ohio, including the Ohio River and its tributaries, represents a major economic activity in the stale.
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources estimates thai 1.5 million people fish for fun every year, Sportfishmg contributes
more than of $2 billion per year to the state's economy and supports more than 22.000 jobs. According to a U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service survey. Ohio ranked I Ith nationally in the number of people who fish, I Ith in the number of days per year
spent fishing, and 12th in the amount of money spent to support recreational fishing habits. This activity has its greatest
impacts in local communities around Lake Erie, Ohio's larger inland lakes, and the Ohio River (Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, 2001ei,
The Ohio River supports a major recreational fishery. Populations of forage and sportfish improved dramatically alter severe
surface water pollution was brought under control by better treatment of industrial and municipal waste water effluents (Van
ilassel et aL 1988). Twenty-five of the 160'or so different fish species that live in the river support recreational fishing.
A survey of 30.000 anglers conducted in 1992 and 1993 by the Ohio River Fisheries Management Team (ORFMT) concluded
that the catch rates in the Ohio River were often belter than those reported for Lake Erie or other inland lakes. It was
estimated that anglers in the survey spent a combined total of over 3 million hours fishing on the river. The survey also found
that more recreational boaters and fishers were using the Ohio River and its tributaries than in the past (Ohio Department of
Natural Resources, 200Id).
There are strict daily bag and/or size limits on game fish caught in the Ohio River. These limits are set to maintain and
preserve the quality of the recreational fishery, for example, the daily limit for walleyes, sauger. and saugereyes, either in
combination or as a single species, is set at 10 fish per angler. Anglers have a daily bag limit of six largemouth, smallmouth,
and spotted bass, either singly or in combination. There is no minimum size limit for keeper bass in the section of the Ohio
River that borders West Virginia; a 12-inch size limit on bass is enforced on that section of the river which borders Kentucky
(Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001c).
Recreational fishing occurs in all the Ohio River navigation pools along the southern border of Ohio, The key target fish
species and their preferred habitats in the Ohio River are summarized in Table CI-4. The habitats of gamefish most often
used include the main channel shoreline, sand and gravel bars, warm water discharges, stream or river confluences, and the
lailwaters adjacent to locks and dams. The ORFMT survey discussed earlier confirmed that the tailwaters in particular
provide outstanding sporifishing action; anglers concentrate much of their fishing efforts in these areas.
CI-JO
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio River
Chapter CI Background
Recreational p\,^H
Fish Species Cumber-
land
Pike
island
Table CI-A: Recreational Fishing in the Ohio River
Preferr«i Aqutttic Habitats in Ohio River Pools
Willow Belli?- Mark. 0\«r»ll
Hannibal 7 , „ Racine Gatlipolis Greenup Meldahl , , Habitat
Island vllle r land „ ,
Preference
Channel catfish la. 2.3 4. 5.6 la, 2.4. 6 la. 4, 5, : la, 4. la, 4, 5,- la. 4. 5,6 : la, 2, 5, la, 3. 5,6 la, 4, * la, 2, 3» 4,
I Ichtiurtt;,
punctulm)
White bass
[Sfilrnnv
tV) )
Flathead catfish .
(Pylodictix
oiivartx)
Saugcr
(Sicosli-thnii
canadenw)
Spatted bass
(Micro/tierus
putk:lulutux)
Hybrid striped .
bass { Morttnt :
saxatilis hybrid)
Crappte/
sun fish
(Centra rehidae
family)
Smallmouth
bass
{Mtcropurus
dolomieu)
6, 13
5,6, 5,6.13.16
16
4.5
5,6
4,5
2,7
6,13 5,6, 6,13
13, 16 '
lb, it, lb, 4, 5, 6 la. 2,4, • la, 4, lb, 2,5, la, 4,5,6. lb. 4, 5. 3,4,5,6 4. 5, 6 . la, lb. Ic.
4,5,6 ' 5,6 5,6, 6, 13 6 2,4.5,6,
16 13.16
4,<>
4,6
5.6
5,6
2,6, 5,6.13
13
lb. 5.6 lb, 4. 6 1 b. 5, lb, 2.5.
6.7, 6,13
16
4,6 6.13 5,6.9 4,6.9: 2,4,5.6.
9. 13
lb, 4,5,6 lb, 4, 5, : Ib, 3, 4, lb, 3, ^ lb, 2. 3,4,
6 .5,6 4.5.6 5,6,7,13,
16
2,7,9 .I.e. Ld,2, 2, S,H, 5,16 2,1
9. 17 12
7.9
2, J, 7,
2, 7
Not Sc. Id. 2, 5,
Found : 7. S. 9, 12,
16. 17
lb, 5 l.b, l.c, l.b, l.c, 4, I ,b, 2. 6, lb. 4. I.b.2, l.b, 4, 5, 6 l.b, 4, 5, : 3. 4, 5. 6 4,5.6 Ib.l.c.i,
4,5,6 ' 5,6 ¦ It). 13 5.6, 5.6. 13
16
4.X 4,5,8 La. 8, 14 : Ld, 8, . 5, X, 11
14
4.X
6 3,4,5,6,
10, 13. 16
Lsi. 5. H 2, K, 9 4, 5, 8,. La. Ld, 2.
4, 5, 8,9,
I L 14
lb, 5, 9 La. 4, 9, Lb, 2. 5. Lb. 2. 3, 3.5,9,
10 9.10 5.6,9 16
2, 5,9
2.4.9 Lb,6,9, 2,3.9, 2,5,9, La, Lb, 2,
13 15 15 3,4,5,6,
: 9.10,13,
15,16
N»1
Found
Lb, Ld, Lb, 5,6 2.4.5.9 Not Lb, 5,6 l.b. I.e. 4. 5,6,13
5, 8, 10
l.c, Ld, 2. Ld, 2, b, l.c. I.e. I.d, I.e. Ld, 4. I.e. 1.0.
8. 11,12: 10. 11, Ld. 2. 2,8, 12 ^ 5.8 . 2,5,8,
12 H. 12 12
4,5, !5, Not l.b. I.e.
16
Found
I.d. 2.4, 5.
6.9, 13,
15, 16
Walleye
(Siizmiedkm Found 5,6 Found 5.6
vitreum)
l^rgctnourh Not
bass Found
(Mcw/wrej
salmuides)
Source: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2002.
I .a ~ throughout the pool; 1 ,b - upper pool: 1 .e ~ middle pool; I .d - lower pool; 2 - main channel shoreline; 3 = sand and gravel bare; 4
~ warm water discharges* 5 «• strewn continences; 6 tail waters adjacent to locks and dams; 7 deep water with woody cover; & *
embayments, 9 -- rocky shorelines; 10 - around islands; 11 - woody cover; 12 - - weedbeds; 13 - old lock and dam sites; 14 = backwaters
with cover, 15 - bridge abutments; 16 -- river confluences; 17 » deep water.
14. 2, 5,-2.5.8.: l.c, I.d. 2.
H. 12 12 4.5.8, It).
11, 12
Cl-JI
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C2: Technical A Economic Facility Descriptions
Chapter C2: Technical & Economic
Facility Descriptions
This chapter presents additional information related to the
facilities along the Ohio River, Section C'2-1 presents
detailed El A data on the facilities and generating units
addressed by ibis ease study ami within the scope of the
Phase II rulemaking (i.e., m-scope facilities). Section C2-
2 describes the configuration of the intake structure^) at
the lii-seope facilities and out-of-scope electric generating
and industrial facilities,
C2-1 Plant Configuration
This section discusses technical and economic plant and unit data for the nine Ohio River power plants subject to the Phase 2
regulation. Each subsection presents information on the location, size, operation, cooling witter intake structure
characteristics, economic characteristics, and ownership of the nine power plants and their generating units. The final
subsection presents a summary table with key economic statistics.
q. W.H. Sctmmis
The W.H. Sammis Generating Station is located in Jefferson County, Ohio, one-half mile upstream of the New Cumberland
Lock and Dam. The Ohio River in this area averages 22 feet in depth and 1,439 feet in width, and the channel bed slopes 0.2
feet per mile, tn addition to the Satnmis plants, there are 9 small boat facilities. 2 industrial intakes, 1 municipal intake, 11
industrial discharges, and 3 municipal discharges in the New Cumberland Pool {Environmental Science and Engineering,
1991). The W.H, Sanunis plant is on the Ohio shore near St ration, at river mile 53.9 (Environmental Science and
Engineering, 1491). Land use in this section of the river is 39% forest, 27% cropland. 14% each for pasture and urban, and
6% other. Nearby tributaries include Tomlirtsoii Run, located one mile upstream on the east side of the Ohio River, and
Yellow Creek, which is about 3.5 miles upstream on the west side of the river.
The W.H. Sammis plant is a coal-fired facility with
seven steam electric generating units capable of
producing 2,454 MW,1 In addition u> the seven steam
electric generating units, W.H. Sammis operates five
internal combustion units of 2.5 MW each, which do
not require cooling water. (See Table C2-I below.I
Chapter Contents
C2-1 Plant Configuration C2-1
02-? C WIS Configuration aod Water Withdrawal
~ W.H. Sammis Ownership Information
W. H. Sammis is operated as regulated utility plan! by Ohio
Edison, a subsidiary of FirstEnergy FirstEnergy is a
domestic energy company with 13,830 employees.
FirstEnergy owns or controls more than 12,500 MW of
electric generating capacity In 2000, FirstEnergy posted
sales of $7,0 billion (Hoover's Online, 211010
1 The data on electric generating units in this chapter come from U.S. Department of Energy (2001b).
C2-J
-------
Chapter £2: Technics! & Economic Facility Descriptions
Table C2-1: W.H. Sammis Generator Choroclertsticj (1999)
1 nil ID
; Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Sourer'
In-Service
Date
Operating Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization'
ID Of
Associated
CWIS
1
190
ST
BIT
Aug, 1959 :
Operating,
1,245,! 73;
74,7%
1
i
190
ST
BIT
Jul. I960 :
Operating
1,166,4X1
69.9%
2
3
190
ST
BIT
Jul. 1961
Operating
1,355.552
81.3%
3
4
190'
ST
BIT
Nov. 1962
Operating
1,4 02,2 IX
84 J %
4
5
334'
ST
BIT
Ikv 1967
Operating
1,680,064;
57.4%
5
(»
6IW
ST
BIT
Apr. 1969
Operating
4,4 i 7,164
74.2%
6
7
68U:
ST
BIT
¦ Sep.1971
Operating
3,652,144:
61.3%
7
At
HI
: 2.5.
2,5:
IC
IC
I02
P02
Mar. 1972 :
Mar, ! 972 .
Operating
Operating
1.653;
1.5%
Not
applicable
B2
2,5;
IC
FQ2
Mar. 1912 ;
Operating
B3
! ' 2.5'
it;
F02
Mar. 1972 ;
Operating
B4
2.5:
IC
F02
Mar. 1972
Operating
Total
2,468
14,920,449
69,0%
* _ Prime mover categories: ST =• steam turbine; IC - internal combustion.
* Energy source categories, BIT = bituminous coal; F02 No. 2 Fuel Oil.
' Capacity utilization was calculated bv dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation if the unit ran at full
capacity ail the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy 2001 a, 2001b, 200Id.
In 1999, W.H. Sammis had 431 employees and generated 14.9 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity/ Estimated
1999 revenues for the W.H. Sammis plant were approximately SI.2 billion, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity
sales' of 14.2 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues <31*582.04 per MWh. WJl. Sammis *s 1999
production expenses totaled $248 million, or 1.667 cents per KWh, for an operating income of $913 million.
b. Cardinal
The Cardinal Plant is located on the Ohio shore of" the Ohio River approximately 3 miles southwest of Brilliant. Ohio and
20 miles uprtver from Wheeling, West Virginia. The facility is located in the Pike Island Pool of the Ohio River, 76,7 miles
downstream from Pittsburgh, PA, Near the intakes the river is about 1,376 feet wide and 40 feet deep (QST Environmental,
1998). The Cardinal facility has three coat-tired units. Units I and 2 began operation in February and July of 1967,
respectively. Both units are rated at 615 MW and employ a once-through coolmg system. Unit 3 went on-line in September
1977, is rated at 650 MW, and operates a closed cycle system with a cooling tower, (See Table C2-2 below.)
One MWh equals 1,000 KWh,
' Electricity sales are net generation adjusted for utility-specific energy losses, energy furnished without charge, and energy used by
the utility's own efccsiicity department. Sec Chapter C2; Cost Impact Analyst* for details on the estimation of plant-level electricity sales.
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Tobte CZ-2. Cardinci Serwerotor Characteristics (1999)
Capacity Prime Energy i In-Service ^ r. . „ X<< . Capacity .
... „ Operating Status Generation ,.... ,. , . Associated
(MW) Mover- Source' Dale v * (MWh) I tiii*atioii! cw|s
1
615
ST
BIT
: Feb. 1967
Operating
2,W,3l.)9
54,?%
I
2
615
SI
BIT
Jul. i%7
Operating
3,036,031
56.3%-
">
.1 ;
65(1
ST
BIT
Sep. W?
Operating
3,372,1 h>
59.2%
3
Total
1,880
9,355.459
56.8%
* Prime mover categories: SI - steam turbine.
" tncrgy source categories; BIT -=¦ bituminous coal,
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential act generation if the unit rati at full
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
-Wr. v U.S. Department >•!'! ncrg\. 200ta. 200ib.
In 1999, Cardinal had 201 employees and generated 4.4 million megawatt hours (MWh} of electricity. Estimated 1999
revenues for the Cardinal plant were approximately $534 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 8.9
million MWh and the 1999 ECAR (Bast Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement) average electricity revenues of
$60.0? per MWh. Cardinal's 1999 product ion expenses totaled S253 million, or 2.698 cents per KWh, for an operating
income of$2X0 million.
c. Kammer
The Rammer Plant is located in northwestern West Virginia, on the Hannibal Pool, at river mile 111.1 of the Ohio River, it
is situated on the inside of a bend in the river approximately one mile downstream from the confluence of (apt ma C reek. The
Ohio River is approximately 30 to 35 feel deep in the proximity of the Rammer plant (Balleto and Brown, 1980a).
The Rammer facility consists of three coal-fired generating units with a combined generating capacity of ?13 MW (237.5
MW each). (See Table C2-3 below.)
Table C2~3 ICammer generator Characteristics (1999)
Capacity Prime Energy In-Service Operating „ Capacity .
,, . ,. ,, ... hi. Generation Attftclafed
(MW) Mover* Source' Date Status (MWh) witfixatioi ; CW1S
1
23*
ST
BIT
' Jul. I9SK
Operating
1.234.747
59.3%
1
2
238.:
ST
BIT
Nov. I9S8
Operating
1.580,4) 1
76.0%-
")
3 :
238;
S'l-
BIT
Mar. I'm
Operating
1.328,945;
63.9%;
3
Total
713
4,144,103
66.4%
* Prinic mover categories: ST steam turbine.
* Kncrgy source categories: BIT -'-Bituminous C'oal.
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).
Saurce: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001 a. 2001b.
In 1999, Rammer had 150 employees and generated approximately 4.1 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity.
Estimated 1999 revenues for the Kammer plant were approximately $186 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated
electricity sales of 4.0 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $46.94 per MWh. Rammer's 1999
production expenses totaled SA3 million, or 1.530 cents per KWh, for an operating income of $ 123 million.
d. Philip Sporrt
The Pliilip Sporit Plant is located within the Robert Bvrd Pool on the West Virginia side of the Ohio River near New Haven,
It is approximately 4,5 miles downstream of (he Racine Locks and Dam (Balleiio and Brown, l%'0b). The river reaches 25-
30 feet deep near the plant.
O-J
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C- The Ohio River
Chapter C2: Technical A Economic Facility Descriptions
The plant consists of Five coal-fired generating units rated at 1,106 MW which began operating between 1950 and 1960
ifiaileito and Brown, 1980b). Three cooling systems provide cooling water for the facility. (See Table C2-4 below.>
Table CZ-4: Philip Sporn Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit ID
; Capacity
: (MW) ;
Prime
Mover" ;
Energy
Source1'
In-Service ;
Date
Operating Status
Net
Generation :
(MWh)
Capacity
liili/ation
ID of
A*«»eiated
cwis
1
153
ST
BIT
Jan, 1950
Operating
94^.105
71 .<)%;
11
¦>
153
ST
BIT
Jul. 1950 i
f iperaiing
939,61ft.
70.3%;
21
3
153'
ST
BIT
Aug. 1951 ;
Operating
85H.H15
64.3%:
31
4
153
ST
HIT
Feh,1952
Operating
1,014,363:
75.9%:
41
5
4%;
ST
Bit
Dec. I960 i
Operating
2.308,243
5.3.2%:
51
Total
I.IfKi
6.070.142
62.7%
1 Prime mover categories; ST -• steam turbine.
f' Energy source categories; BIT - Bituminous Coal.
• Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation if the unit rati at full
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days ).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. 2001#, 2001b.
In 1999, Phillip Sporn had 177 employees and generated approximately 6.1 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity.
Estimated 1999 revenues for the Phillip Sporn plant were approximately S345 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated
electricity sales of 5.7 million MWh and the 1999 EC'AR (East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement) average
electricity revenues of $60.07 per MWh. Phillip Spam's 1999 production expenses totaled $104 million, or 1.716 cents per
KWh, for an operating income of $241 million.
e. Kyger Creek
The Kvger Creek Station facility is located near
Chesire, Ohio a! river mite 260, This is about 21 miles
upstream of the Gallipolis lock and dam, in the water
body bounded by the Kanawha River and the Racine
iock and dam (Brown and Van I tassel, 1981). Kyger
Creek has five coal-fired units with a combined
capacity of 1,086 MW (2113 MW each). The five
units began operation between February and December
of 1955 and use a once-through cooling system. (See
Table C2-5 below.)
jmMMMmmmm'**'* ui>wfw
4' Kyger Creek and C'liftv Creek Ownership
Information
Kyger Creek is owned by Ohio Valley Electric Corporation
(OVEC) while Cliffy Creek is owned by indiana-Keniucky
Electric Corporation (IKEC), a subsidiary of OVEC. "Both
facilities are regulated power plants.
OVEC and IKEC were formed by investor-owned utilities
furnishing electric service in the Ohio River Valley area in
1952, AHI' and its subsidiaries own thelargesi equity share,
in OVfiC. with'44*2 percent. In 2000, OVEC had 755
employees, posted operating revenues ofS44i million, and
sold 17.2 million MWh of electricity (OV EC
C2-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohia ftiver
Chapter C? Technical A Economic Facility Descriptions
Table C2-5: Kyger Crrrk. Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit II)
; Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source1*
In-Service
Date
Operating Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilisation'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
217'
ST
BIT
Feb. 1955
Operating
i.505,772
' 79.1%-
1
2
: 217:
ST
BIT
Jun. IV55
Operating
1.547,178-
K1.3%:
2
3
: 217..
ST
BIT
Sep. 1955
Opera! ing
1.710,320
89.9%
3
4
; 21?'
ST
BIT
Nov. 1955
Operating
1,582.369:
83.1%:
4
5
217;
ST
BIT
Dec. 1955
Operating
1.472,895'
77.4%.
s
lota 1
1,086'
7,818,5.14
82.2%
* Prime mover categories: ST sieam twrbine.
b Energy source categories: BIT = bituminous coal,
' 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, 200! a, 2001b.
In 1999, Kyger Creek had 3 12 employees and generated 7.X million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity. Estimated I 999
revenues for the Kyger Creek plant were approximately S16K million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of
7.7 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $21,74 per MWh Kyger Creek's 1999 product km
expenses totaled S130 million, or 1.669 cents per KVVIi, for an operating income of S37 million.
f, W C. Beckjord
The VV.C. Beckjord Generating Station is located 18
miles upstream of Cincinnati, Ohio, and three miles
downstream of New Richmond, Ohio, at river mile 452.9
(Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company. 1979). The
facility is located within the Mark land Pool. The Ohio
River is approximately 1.600 feet wide and 25 feet deep
near the facility. This section of the Ohio River is
sparsely populated and agriculture is the dominant form
of business.
The W.C- Beckjord facility has six coal-fired units with u
combined capacity of 1,164 MW. Units t, 2, and 3
began operation in 1952, 1953, and 1954, respectively,
while Units 4.5, and 6 went on-line between 1958 and 1 969. All six units use once-through cooling (Cincinnati (ias &
Electric Company, 1979). In addition, the piant operates four pas turbines of 53 MW each, which do not require cooling
water, (See Table C2-6 below.)
~ W.C. Beckjord and Miami Fort Ownership
Information
W.C. Beckjord and Miami Fort are regulated utility plants
operated by Cincinnati Gas & Electric, a subsidiary of
Cinergy. Cinergy is a domestic energy company with more
than 8,300 employees. Cinergy owns or controls more than
1.3,500 MW of electric generating capacity and posted sales
of $K,4 billion jrj 21000 ^Hoovfir s Chilinc4 2G0Sfe|.
C2 5
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CZ: Technical 4 Economic Facility Descriptions
Table CZ-b
Seckjor-cs Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit 10
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source*
In-Service ;
Date
Operating Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
ltiti?atirin'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
!
100
ST
BIT
Jun. 1952
Operating
667,9X4:
76,3%
I
2
KM)
ST
BIT
Oct. 1953 ;
Operating
681,574
77.8%
2
3
125.
ST
BIT
: Nov. 1954 :
Operating
866,074.
79.1%
3
4
165'
ST
BIT
Jul. 1958 :
Operating
: 1.162.699
80.4%
4
5 '
240:
ST
BIT
Dec, 1962
Operating
1,434,729
68.2%
5
6
434
ST
BIT
Jul. 1969
Operating
2.366,807
62,3%
6
gti ;
C.T2 :
53:
,53\
GT
GT
FOl
F02
Apr. 1972 :
Apr. 1972 ;
(ipcratmg
Operating
62,200.
3.4%
Not
Applicable
GT3
53
GT
PCM
Jun. 1972 ,
Operating
GT4
S3
GT
F02
: Jun. 1972 :
Operating
Total
1,37b
7,242.067
60.1%
" Crime mover categories: ST - steam turbine, GT - gas turbine.
* Energy source categories: BIT Bituminous Coal; F02 <* No. 2 Fuel Oil.
1 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, 200J b, 200Id.
In 1999, Beckjord had 238 employees and generated 7.2 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity. Estimated 1999
revenues for the Beckjord plant were approximately $473 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 7.0
million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $67.62 per MWh. Beckjord's 1999 production expenses
totaled $ 139 million, or 1.925 cents per KWh. for an operating income of $334 million.
g. Miami Fort
The Miami Fort Generating Station is located 20 miles downstream of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Newport and Covington,
Kentucky, at river mile 490 (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, 1979). It sits on the tower third of (he Markland Pool, less
than a mile upstream of where the Great Miami River enters the Ohio River. This section of the Ohio River is heavily
industrialized and receives discharge of chemical, industrial, and sewage waste. Near the facility, the Ohio River is
approximately 1.800 feet wide and 25 feet deep (Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, 1979).
The Miami Fort Station operates four active coal-fired units with a combined capacity of 1,292 MW, Units 5 and 6 use once-
through cooling systems while Units 7 and 8 use recirculating cooling systems. Two additional coal-fired units, units 3 and 4,
were retired from service in 19H2. Unit 5 is used only in times of high energy demand or when other units are not iri function.
In addition to the coal units, Miami Fort has four gas turbines of 16.5 MW each, which do not require cooling water. Two
additional gas turbines were retired in 1996. (See Table C2-7 below.!
C2-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Table C2~7. Miami Fort generator Characteristics (1999)
Capacity Prime Energy ( tn-Smiw owratine Staiw Gene™ifa« C"P*ity ; aJL!Lj
(MW) M«ver* SoBi-ee" Date Operating UlWatfotf CWIS
3
65-
ST
Bit
Dee. 1938
Retired - Apr. 1982
4
65
ST
BIT
Oct. 1942
Retired- Apr. 1982 ;
GT1
57
GT
F()2
Mar. 1971
Retired - Oct. 1996
GT2
GT
FU2
Jun.1971
Retired - Dec. 1996
5
KMt
ST
BIT
Dec, 1449
Operating
261,413'
29.8%'
5
6
168;
ST
BIT
Nov. I%()
Operating
1.2 24.60 .V
8,1.2%;
6
7
512;
ST
BIT
May I <>75
Operating
3.493.557
77,9%'
7-8
8
512-
SI
BIT
Feb. 1978
Operating
3,263.451'
72.7 »v
7-8
GT3
17;
GT
F02
Jul 1971
Operating
8.287'
1.4%.
Not
GT4 .
17;
GT
F(J2
Aug. 1971
Operating
Applicable
GTS
IT
GT
FO?
Sep 1971
Operating
GT6
17-
GT
F02
Oct, 1971
Operating
Total"
1.358
8,251 Jit
69.3%
* Prime mover categories: ST - steam turbine; GT gas turbine.
" Energy source categories: BIT «• Bituminous Coal; F02 --* No. 2 Fuel Oil.
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation it"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, 2(K) Jd.
In 1999, Miami Fort had 261 employees and generated 8.3 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity. Estimated 1999
revenues for the Miami Fort plant were approximately 8541 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of
8.ti million MWh ami the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $67,62 per MWh. Miami Fort's 1999 production
expenses' totaled SI38 million, or 1.670 cents per KWlt, for an operating income of $403 million.
h. Tanners Creek
The Tanners Creek Plant is located near the town of Lau/reneeburg, Indiana, approximately 494 miles downstream from
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Energy Impact Associates Inc., 1978a; Balletto & Zaabel, 1978b). Tanners Creek is located in the
Markland Pool ofthe Ohio River, formed by the structures of the Meldahl Lock and Dam upstream and the Markland Lock
and Dam downstream.
Tanners Creek has four coal-fire units with a total capacity of 1,100 MW. Units 1,2, and 3 began operation in 1951. 1952,
and 1954 respectively. Unit 4 started operation in 1964, The facility uses onee-lhrouglj cooling, drawing approximately
1,066 MGD from the Ohio River. (See Table C2-S below.)
-------
316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C2: Technical & Economic Facility Descriptions
Table CZ
-8: Tanners Creek Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit ID
; Capacity
(MW)*
Prime
Mover"
Energy
Source1"
In-Service :
Bate
Operating Status
Sit ;
; Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
UHItatioit' ;
ID of
Associated
rwis
1
153-
ST
»il
Mar. 1951
Operating
841,025:
63.0%,
U1
2
153,
ST
BIT
Oct. 1952 ;
Operating
874,831 '
65.5%
V2
3
215
ST
BIT
Dec. 1954 :
Operating
1,009.431;
53.5%,
U 3
4
580'
ST
BIT
Jul. 1964 :
Operating
3,179,553:
62.6%:
U4
Total
1,100
5.904,840
61.3%
J Pritm: mover categories: ST = steam tutfcinc:
linergy source categories: BIT «• bituminous coal.
' Capacity utilization w calculated by dividing Che unit's actual net generation by the potential net generation if the unit ran
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
SmimU.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, 2001b.
at full
In 19%, Tanners Creek had 204 employees." It generated 5.9 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity in 1999.
Estimated 1999 revenues for the Tanners Creek plant were $340 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity safes
of 5.6 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $61.09 per MWh. Tanners Creek's 1999 production
expenses totaled $109 million, or 1.841 cents per KWh, for an operating income of $232 million.
«. Cliffy Creek
The Cliffy Creek Station is located near the (own of Madison, Indiana at RM 560 (Ballet)o and Eabcl, 1978a; Energy Impact
Associates, 1978a, EA Science and Technology, 1987). (.'fifty Creek resides within the McAlpine Pool on the Ohio River,
formed by the boundaries of the Markland Lock and Dam upstream, and the McAlptne Lock and Dam approximately 47 miles
downstream. This coal-fired facility has six generating units with a combined generating capacity of 1,304 MW (217.3 MW
each). Units I through 5 were completed in 1955, and unit 6 was completed m 1956.
All six units use once-though cooling. {See Table C2-9 below.)
Table C2 - 9 ¦ Cliffy Creek Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit ID
: Capacity :
i (MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source*
In-Service
Kale i
Operating Status
Net
Generation ;
(MWh)
Capacity ;
UMitatfoV :
IB of
Associated
CWIS
1
217:
ST -
BIT
; Feb. 1955
Operating
1.364,612
71.7%;
1
217;
ST
BIT
May 1955
Operating
1,318,629:
69.3%1
2
3
217.
ST
BIT
Jul. 1955 ¦
^penning
l,35$t,30$i
71.4%:
3
4
217-
ST
Bl'l
! Oct, 1955
Operating
1,473,476
77.4%;
4
5
: 217
Si
BIT
Nov, 1955
Operating
1,497,589.
7ii.7%'
5
(*
217'
ST
BIT
Mar. 1956 •
Operating
1.519,257
79.8%.
6
Total
1.304
H.531,86H
74.7%:
3 Prime mover categories: ST -- steam turbine.
*' Energy source categories; BIT ¦ Bituminous Coal.
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation bv the potential net generation if the unit ran
capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 20(1 la, 2001b.
at full
In 1999, Clifty Creek had 391) employees and generated 8.5 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity. Estimated 1999
revenues for the Citify Creek plant were approximately SI67 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of
4 Employment data for this facility arc not available after 1996,
-------
8 316(b) Co.se Studies, Port C; The Ohio River
Chapter C2: Technical & Economic Facility Descriptions
8.5 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of$l9.73 per MWb. Cliffy Creek's 1999 production
expenses totaled $ 146 million, or 1,708 cents per KWh. for an operating income ol"S22 million,
j, Summary of Facility Economic Characteristics
Table C2-I0 below summarizes the important economic characteristics of the nine Ohio River power plants.
Table C2-10'- Summary of Ohio River Power Wants (1999)
Notes: NKRC'- North American Electric Reliability Council
ECAR * East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement
Dollars are in S2O01.
* 199t> (law.
Source: U.S. Department Of Energy, 2001b, 2001e.
Plant El A Code
im >
282K
3947
3938
2876
NERC Region
ECAR
ECAR
ECAR
ECAR
ECAR
Total Capacity |MW)
2,468
KKS0
7(3
1.106
1.086
Primary' Fuel
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Number of Employees
431
201
150
177
112
Net Generation (million MWh)
149
9.4
4.1
6.1
7.8
Estimated Revenues (million)
SI. 162
S3 34
S1H6
$345
SI 68
Total Production Expease (million!
S24K
$253
S63
$104
S130
Production Expense Ot/KWh)
1,667s:
2 f.«!hc
1,53E«
E7I6(!
1,6690
Estimated Operating income (million)
$913
$2 SO
SI 23
$241
¦S37
W.C. Beekjord
Miami Fort
Tanners Creek
Qlfty Creek
Plant EIA Code
28.10
2832
988
9S3
NERC Region
ECAR
ECAR
ECAR
ECAR
Total Capacity (MW)
1,376
1,358
1,100
1,304
Primary fuel
.CouC
Coa!
Coal
Coal'
Number of Employees
23 K
261
204"
390
Net Generation (million MWh)
7.2
8.3
5.9
8,5
Estimated Revenues (miIIion)
$47 3
S54I
$34(1
$167
Total Production Expense (million)
$139
S!3H
SI 09
$146
Production Expense (c'KWh)
1 M25e
1.670c
I.S41c
1.708*
Estimated Operating Income (million)
S334
$403
S232
$22
C2-v
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies. Port C The Ohio River
Chapter C2; Technical A Economic Facility Descriptions
figure C2-1 below presents the electricity generation history of the nine Ohio River power plants between 1970 and 2000.
:-"ii»urc C2-I: Net Electtricilv Generation 1970 - 2000 {in MWb)
16,005.000
14.000,000
12.000,000
10.000.000
aooo.ooo
6,000,000
4,000,000
hum
2.000,000
-»-¦ VVH Barms
VV»erCB&ci**a
Cardinal
•Marri fat
¦*¦<# Karmw
¦ ¦ Tamars Oaak
ftip Spam
CMtyOree*
Stturee: U.S. Department of Energy. 200 Id.
C2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
This section describes clean water intake structure technologies at power generating facilities on the Ohio River. In all, there
are 29 facilities. EPA has performed a derailed analysts of nine of these facilities, as described in the subsequent sections. At
the end of each section below, additional facilities for which data was collected, but not studied in detail, is included in table
format.
a. W,H, Sommis
Satnmts has one intake structure serving the entire facility. The facility utilizes once-through cooling with a maximum intake
flow of 60 m'/sec (2,104 cfs) {Knvironmemal Science and Engineering, 1991). Water is drawn through a submerged intake
(with a trash rack) under a highway and into a forebay. from which each generating unit withdraws its cooling water. Vertical
traveling screens provide the next level of screening, including a high pressure spray and a trash sluice which empties into the
discharge channel. The screens for units I-4 rotate and undergo the cleaning process each 30 minutes, and the screens lor
units 5-7 rotate continuously when the intake is in use. The maximum intake velocity for the plant is 5,11 ft/s (Geo-Marine
Inc., 1978). The total design intake (low for W.ll. Sammis is 1,803 MGD.
b. Cardinal
Cardinal has five intake structures; 4 supplying units I and 2 (2 each) and one for unit 3. For units 1 and 2, the intakes are
situated along the shoreline of the forebay (307' x 200") and are perpendicular to the flow of the mainsiem. latch section
contains three intake gates, three trash racks, three traveling screens, and one circulating water pump. Cooling water first
passes through a trash rack, which is cleaned by a mechanical rake. Vertical traveling screens provide the next level of
C2-1Q
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C't- Technical & Economic Facility Descriptions
screening, including a high pressure spray and a trash sluice which empties into the discharge channel. The screens rotate and
undergo the cleaning process each S hours, except in conditions of screen blockage when ihe screen will initiate the cleaning
process automatically. Typical intake velocities are approximately 0.74 ft/'s through the trash racks and 1,28 ft/s through the
intake screens (American Electric Power Service Corporation, J 981). The total design intake flow for Cardinal is 1,(61
MOD.
Based on the information provided. »t can be deduced that unit 3 is si recirculating system with a cooling tower. It was also
assumed (hat the passive intake in use at Cardinal is installed at the intake for unit 3. Unit 3 is located several thousand feet
downriver from units I and 2 and operates independently of the other units (American Electric Power Service Corporation,
1981).
c. Kammer
Rammer Plant has one intake structure for each of its three generating units. The three intakes arc located in a I SO foot deep
forebay thai reaches approximately 200 feet into the shoreline and openly joins the mainstem of the Ohio River. The intakes
are situated along the shoreline of the forebay and are perpendicular to the flow of the mainstem (Ballelto and Brown, 1980a).
The total design intake How for Kammer is 1,068 MOD,
The screen house containing the intakes is divided into 3 sections (one for each intake structure), with each section supplying
cooling water for an individual generating unit. Each section contains three intake gales, three trash racks, three traveling
screens, and two circulating water pumps. Cooling water first passes through a trash rack, which is cleaned by a mechanical
rake. Vertical traveling screens provide the next level of screening, including a high pressure spray and a trash sluice which
empties into the discharge channel. The screens rotate and undergo the cleaning process each 8 hours, except in conditions of
screen blockage when the screen will initiate the cleaning process automatically (Bailetto and Brown, 1980a).
d. Phillip Sporn
The Phillip Sporn Plant employs three once-through cooling systems with five separate intake structures (U.S. EPA, 2001c).
Units 1 -4 contain one turbine condenser each, and have an average intake velocity of 1.81 feet per second. Unit 5 contains
two turbine condensers, and has an average intake velocity of 2.17 feel per second. Each intake structure employs trash racks
and intake screens. The total design intake flow for Philip Sporn is 1,038 MOD.
e. Kyger Creek
Kyger Creek has one intake structure for each of its five generating units with each section supplying cooling water for an
individual generating unit. The five intake structures are located in a forebay that reaches approximately 190 feet into the
shoreline and openly joins the mainstem of the Ohio River The intakes are situated along the shoreline of the forebay and is
perpendicular to the flow of the mainstem. (Brown and Vanl tassel, 19811 The total design intake How for Kyger Creek is
1,166 MGD.
The screen house containing the intakes is divided into 5 sections (one for each intake structure). Bach intake structure is
comprised of three intake gates, three trash racks, three traveling screens, and two circulating water pumps. Cooling water
first passes through a trash rack, which is cleaned by a mechanical rake. Vertical traveling screens provide the next level of
screening, including a high pressure spray and a trash sluice which empties into the discharge channel. The sereens rotate and
undergo the cleaning process each 8 hours, except in conditions of screen blockage when the scteen will initiate the cleaning
process automatically. The intake velocity at the Kyger Creek intake structure was measured in 1979, Intake velocities at the
face of the intake ranged from 0.27 fi/s to 1.60 ft/s at depths of up to 5 meters (Brown and Vanllassel, 1981).
f. W C. Beckjord
The Beckjord Station employs three cooling water intake structures. For each structure, water first passes through a trash
rack, which is periodically cleaned by hand. Vertical traveling screens provide the next level of screening, including a high
pressure spray and a trash sluice which empties into the discharge channel. In addition, the facility periodically perforins
system cleaning by chlorinaiion (Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company. 1979), Intake velocities vary from 1.48 to 3,13 fps.
The total design intake flow for W C Beckjord is 739 MOD.
g. Miami Fort
Cooling witter is taken into (he Miami Fort plant via one intake structure (a submerged intake tunnel), which empties into a
forebay prior to entering the intake structures. The average intake velocity through the tunnel is 2.73 ft/s. For units 3 through
6 (once through cooling), water enters the Ibrebav and passes through a trash rack, which is periodically cleaned by hand.
Vertical traveling screens provide the next level of screening, including a high pressure spray and a trash sluice which empties
C2-/J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River Chapter CZ Technical & Economic facility Descriptions
ink) the discharge channel. Units 7 anil 8 are recirculating systems, but take in cooling water via the same intake forebay and
screen house, in addition, the facility periodically performs system cleaning by chlorinatson (Cincinnati Gas and Electric
Company, 1979). The total design intake flow for Miami Fort is 252 MUD.
h Tartners Creek
Tanners Creek is supplied by four cooling water intake structures contained in two separate screen houses. The intake screen
house servicing units 3 and 4 ts located upstream of the screen house servicing units 1 and 2. Water entering the facility must
first pass through trash racks with vertical bare spaced 2.75 inches apart that trap coarse debris. Trash rack debris is removed
by a mechanical rake. After this water passes through the traveling screens which have 3.K inch mesh steel openings. Under
normal operations the traveling screens are moved vertically every K hours, and the screens are sprayed continuously for one
hour, Debris is washed into a trash trough that empties into the discharge channel tl-nergy Impact Associates, 1978a). The
total design intake flow for Tanners Creek is L065 MGD.
The intake veloc ity at the trash racks of TMiners Creek reached 1.4 ft/s at depths of up to 3 3 meters for units 1, 2 and 3, and
3.4 ft/s at a depth of 4.5 meters for unit 4. Additionally, the facility periodically performs system cleaning by chlorination
(Energy Impact Associates, 1978a).
i. Cliffy Creek
Clifty Creek has a total of six intake structures, all located within a single screen house. The screen house is divided into 5
sections (one for each intake structure}. Cooling water first passes through a trash rack, which is cleaned by a mechanical
rake. Vertical traveling screens provide the next level of screening, including a high pressure spray and a trash sluice which
empties into the discharge channel. The screens rotate and undergo the cleaning, process each 8 hours, except in conditions of
screen blockage when the screen will initiate the cleaning process automatically. The make velocity at the trash racks of
CIiity Creek reached 1.6'J ft/s at depths of up to 3 meters (Ballelto and Zabel, 1978a) The total design intake flow for Clifty
Creek is 2,034 MOD.
The configuration of the forebay and the How of the river has given rise to some deposition of sediments in the mouth of the
forebay. A mud bar has developed and is visible under normal (low conditions. Efforts to dredge the bar were halted, due to
the recurring expense and likely minimal effect on improving l&fc rates (Balletic and Zabel, 1978a).
j. Facilities not studied in detail
The following facilities were not analyzed as thoroughly as the above case study facilities. These 20 facilities were used to
determine damage assessments and to assess potential benefits from the proposed rule. As noted, some facilities received
short technical surveys and therefore do not have 'True" values for design intake flow. These flows were estimated based cm
other data. Facilities with combination cooling systems also list the intake flow if the facility were entirely once through
(equivalent once through flow).
C2-12
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Chapter C2; Technical 4 Economic Facility Descriptions
Table C2-11. CWIS Configuration arid Water Withdrawal of Ohio River Facilities Not Studied in Detaii
Facility Name
Beaver Valley
Rock port
Ghent
Bruce Mansfield
Pleasants
JM Gavin
Shawnee
Joppa Stream
Warrick
FB Cullcy
Cane Run
R Gallagher
Coleman
Richard H Gorsuch
Rl Burger
Elmer Smith
Willow Island
JM Stuart
Mill Creek
Wl! Zimmer
CWS Type
! Recirculating
Recirculating
: Recirculating
; Recirculating
Once-through
Onee-th rough
Once-through
Gnec-through
:Onee-through
:Onec-thrcnigh
Once-through
Once-through
Once-through
Combination
Combination
: Combination
Design Intake Flo* (GPD)
(Equivalent Once
Through Flow)
1,"561,376,0! >0"
216,3X2.885''
I 86,95k, 757
Current
Technologies
Intake Screen
Passive intake Structure
Vertical Single Entry/Exit Screen
Fish Conveyance
Dalit may be considered confidential
Data may be cimsuk'ied confidential
wujojog*
1,506.995,1)51'
74X040,000
654.329,^86*
576.35M3S"
524,719,332*
Trash Racks
: Intake Screen
Intake Screen
Fixed Screen
Vertical Single Entry/Exit Screen
Fish Conveyance
. Intake Screen
. Passive Intake
Intake Screen
¦Passive Intake Structure
Intake Screen
Fish Handling and/or Return
Ihilu imjybe considered ionftdentiui
366.421,129*
362.199.S46"
335,944.829*
272, KMS.000
Intake Screen
Intake Screen
Passive Intake
Intake Screen
Trash Racks
Vertical Single Entry,Tixsl Screen
Data mav be considered cunfidential
990,000,000 Trash Racks
(1. 178,100.000) ; Vertical Single FiuryT.xit Screen
2K6,tXKMHK) Vertical Single Entry-Exit Screen
(457,000,000) I'.mtbtried Fish-Debris Trough
Fish Conveyance
73,S48,'WJ Passive intake Structure
(Indeterminate!
* Facility submitted a short technical questionnaire. Design intake flow estimated based on the number of operating days and the average
daily intake.
CI-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C- The Ohio River
Chapter C3. Evaluation of I&E Dots
Chapter C3:
Evaluation of I&E Data
This chapter presents ihc results of EPA's evaluation of
the l&E rates reported by the nine Ohio River in scope
facilities that are described in Chapters CI and C2, and the
results of EPA's extrapolation of these rates 10 other in-
scope and out-of-scope CWIS on the Ohio River, Section
{"3-1 lists species that are impinged and entrained at Ohio
River CWIS, Section C3*2 summarizes the life histories of
the primary species impinged and entrained, Section C3-3
discusses facility methods for estimating annual l&E,
Section C3-4 presents annual impingement at the nine in
scope facilities with l&E data, Section C3-5 presents
annual emraiiiment at the nine facilities. Section C3-6
summarizes EPA's methods for extrapolating l&E rates to
other Ohio River CWIS, Section C3-7 presents
extrapolated annual impingement rates, Section C3-8
presents extrapolated euiratnment rates, and Section C3-9
presents a summary of the total cumulative impact of all
Ohio River CWIS.
C3-1 Ohio River Aquatic Species
Vulnerable to L&E
The Ohio River fish species that are vulnerable to l&E
based on their presence in l&E collections are listed in
Table C3-1. Note that none of these species are considered
commercial species for the purposes of EPA's analysis,
since there are currently no commercial fisheries along the
Ohio portion of the Ohio River. Species without
commercial or recreational value are classified as forage
for EPA's analysis. The main species at risk based on their
abundance in l&E collections are emerald shiner (Notropix
tithi rwnjJvy i, freshwater drum ( Aploditwtus grurtrth'ns).
gizzard shad {Domsama eefmiianum), sauger
(Siizmtedum canadtmse), while bass (Morune chrysops),
white crappie (Pomoxix annularis), and white sucker
(Cettostomux commersoni).
"ggggk
Chapter Contents
C3-1 Ohio River Aquatic Species Vulnerable to l&E C3-1
C3-2 Life Histories of Primary Species impinged
and Entrained C3-3
C3-3 Facility Impingement and Entrainrnent
Monitoring Methods ., C3-I0
C3-3.1 Cardinal Units I and 2 impingement and
Entrainment Monitoring C3-1G
C3-3.2 Clifty Creek Impingement and
Enttainment Monitoring C3-I6
C3-3.3 Kamnicr impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring C3-1?
("3-34 Kyger Impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring C3-17
. C3-3 S Miami Fort Power Station Impingement
and Entrammertt Monitoring C3-1 it
C3-3.6 Philip Spom Impingement and
Entraiwncnt Monitoring C3-18
C3-3 ~ Tanners Impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring C3-19
C3-3.8 W.C. Beckjord Power Station
Impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring €3*20
C3-3.9 W.H. Sammis Impingement and
Entrainment Monitoring -C3»2Q
C3-4 Annual Impingement at Nine Ohio River
Facilities......... C3-21
C3-S Annual Entnnnment at Nine Ohio River Case
Study Facilities —. C3-21
C3-6 Methods Used la Extrapolate l&E Rates to Other
Ohk> River Facilities Cl-22
C3-7 Annual Ijrspiigement at Nine Ohio River Case
Study Pacffitti® . C3-38
C3-S Annual Emrainmen; at Nine Ohio River Case
Study Facilities C3-3X
C 3-9 Cumulative Impacts: Summary of Total Ohio
River l&E ' C3-38
C3-9.1 l&E at In Scope and Out of Scope
Ohio River CWIS C3-38
C3-9.2 Benefits Baseline l&E ar In Scope
Ohio River CWIS C3-52
C3-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3 Evaluation of IAE Data
Table C3-1; Aquatic
Common Name
American ec!
Banded seulpin
Bigeye shiner
Bigmouth buffalo
Black bullhead
Blnck erappie
Blue catfish
Bluegilt
Bluntnosc minnow
Brown bullhead
Carp
Central sioncrolicr
Channel catfish
Chestnut lamprey
Coho salmon
Common shiner
Creek chub
Eastern handed kilt i fish
Emerald shiner
Fantail darter
Fathead minnow
Flathead catfish
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Golden shiner
Goldeye
Goldfish
Grans pickerel
Green sunfish
Highfin earpsucker
Uirgensotiih bass
Logperch
Lonpenr winfish
iumgnosc gar
Madtom species
Mimic shiner
Mooneye
Muxkellunge
Northern hog sucker
Northern pike
Paddlefish
I'umpkm.seed
Species Vulnerable to I At of the Nine Ohio ftsver-
Scientific Name : Recreational ;
¦ AnguiUu twtram
Cotius Carolina?
Notropis hoops
tcttitkux cyprinelius
. Ameiwm melas
¦ Pitmvxts nignmaivlalus X ,
: Sctuluru.s fwcalus X
. l.epomis macrochmis X
: Pimephak-s nuiaius
Ameiurus nehubsus
Cyprinm mrpio [
Campmhmta unomu'um
k-.tahirus punctatus. X '
h'hthyomvzon cmtam'us
Onccrhmchus kisuich . X
Luxilm comutus
¦ $i.'motilus uirifirujculiilits
: Fumlulm diaphanus duphanm ¦
Noimpis atherimmh's
: Elhemltmu flabellare
Pimephales ptonwias
PyMicM olivaris X
Aphdinoim grumiicns
Doro uma mpi'dimum
Moxuslt'ma eryihmrum
Nowmigonus crvsoleucas
¦ f ltmkm aiosoides
Cwuxmis uuratux
Esox amencanus vermivulatm X
LepomU cvaneltm X
Cttrpioiie* wlifer
Mtcmpterm salmoides X
Perch to ctiprmk.s
Lepomtx megahtis X
LepLwsieus asseus
Nowrm spp.
Notrupi.s volucellus
Hiitchm lergixm
Esox miisijumvtigy . X
Hypemelium ttigrimm
Esox lucius X
Polymlm spaihuiti X
Facilities,
Forage
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Lepamis gibhoms
CJ-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of IAE Dota
Tr.bie £3-1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to IAE of the Nine Ohio River Facilities (cent.).
(.'amnion Name .Scientific Name Recreation*) Forage
Quillback Carpiodes cyprinm X
Rainbow smelt ; (hmeru.s mardtu - X
Rainbow trrwt ; Oneorhyrtckux mykisx X
Redear sunftsh Lepwm mimiiopluts X
River catpsucker . Carpimiex mrpio X
River darter Percma shumardi X
River redhofse Maxmii'inu airmutttm X
River shiner N'vtmph blemius X
Rock bass : Amblopliies rupestris X
Rusyface shiner Notmpts ruhetlus X
Sand shiner Notropis stramimus X
Sauger ; Stizoswdion tumtdtme X
Shorthead redhorse Mamstoma macmh'pidwum X
Silver chub Ma(rhyb(.>pxis .uoreriunu X
Silver lamprey h'htkyomyzon unicuspts X
Silver redhorse Maxmloma anmuum X
Sslverjaw minnow Notropk huccatu.\ X
Skipjack herring Almu chrysochhris X
Stnallmouth bass ; Mtcropierm tlokmwit X
Smallrmiuth buffalo • Ictwhus butmtm X
Spotlm shiner Cyprimttu spiloperti . X
Spotted bass • Micropterwtputwmiatt® X ;
Spotted sucker ; Mmytrema nwiumtp* X
Sloneeat : Nvturus flavus X
Striped bass ; Monme saxatiiis X
Thrcadfm shad : Dorosanw pnem'tuw X
Troulpcrch . f'envpsis amuamwycux X
Walleye Siizvswdmn viirvum X
Warmouth ; Lepomis guttmux X
White bass Motone chryaopx X ;
White Catfish .Ameiurus cams X
White crappic f'ommix annularis X
White sucker Catosromux ivmmentwi X
Yellow bullhead Amiilirm natalis . X
Yellow perch . Perca flawtn.&ts X
Stturcex: Dames and Moore, 1977b. 1977c, 1978; Energy Impact Associates Inc., 1978a, 1978b; Geo-Marmc
Inc.. 1978; Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company. 1979; Porter a al„ 1979a, 1979b. 1979c, 1979d; liA
Science and Technology, 19X7; NMFS, 2001a, 2001 b.
C3-2 Life Histories of Primary Species Impinged and Entrained
The life history characteristics of the primary species impinged and entrained at Ohio River CWIS are summarized in the
following sections. The species described are those with the highest I&B rates at the facilities examined (presented it)
Sections C3-4 and C3-5),
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)
Emerald shiner is u member of the family Cyprmidae. It is found in large open lakes and rivers from Canada south throughout
lire Mississippi Valley so the Gulf Coast in Alabama (Scott and Crossman. 1173). Emerald sinner prefer clear waters in the
mid- to upper sections of the water column, and arc most often found in deep, slow moving rivers (Trauitnan, 1981). Because
of its small size, emerald shiner is an important forage fish for many species.
Spawning occurs from July to August in Lake Brte {.Scott and Grossman, Ic>73K Females lay anywhere from 870 to 8,700
eggs (Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970s, which hatch within approximately 24 hours (Scott and Crossman. 1973). Young-
of-year remain in large schools it) inshore waters until the fall, when they move into deeper waters to overwinter (Scott atid
Grossman, 1973). Young-of-year average 5.1 to 7.6 cm (2 to 3 in) in length (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
Emerald shiner move in schools and prefer clear waters over sand or gravel (Froese and Pauly, 2000). They surface at dunk to
feed on mieroertistaceans, midge larvae, zooplankton, and algae (Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970). During the day, they
descend to deeper waters.
Emerald shiner are sexually mature by age 2, though some larger individuals may mature at age I (Campbell and
MacCrimmon. 1970). Most do not live beyond 3 years of age (Fuehs. 1967). Adults typically range in size from 6,4 to 8.4
em (2.5 so 3.3 in) (Trainman, 1981). Populations may fluctuate dramatically from year to year ( I rautman, 1981).
EMERALD Sill NCR
(Noirapis atherinoides)
Family: Cyprmidae.
Food Sources: Mieroenistaceans, midge larvae, zooplankton, algae,'
Prey for: Gulls, terns, mergansers, cormorants, sraallmoulh bass,
yellow perch, and others.1*
Life Stage information
Eggs: demersal
~ Eggs hatch in less than 24 hours,11
Lurwr: pelagic
~ Individuals from different year classes can have varying body
proportions and tin length, as can individuals from different
localities;'
Adults
' Typically range in size from 6.4 to 8.4 em {2.5 to 3.3 in),*
Common names: Emerald shiner.
Similar species; Stiver shiner, rosyfiice sinner.*
Geographic range; From Canada south throughout the
Mississippi valley to the gulf coast m Alabama.*1"
Habitat: Large open lakes and rivers,'
Litepa n: Emerald shiner live to 3 years of age,"'1
Fecundity: Mature by age 2. although some may mature:
at age 1. Females can lay approximately K70 to 8.700
eggs-'..
Trautman. 1981.
11 Froese and Pauly, 2000.
'' Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970.
4 ikon and Crossman. 1973.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Spurtfwhing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Freshwater drum (Aplodinatm grunmens)
Freshwater drum is a member of the drum family, Sciaenidae. Possibly exhibiting the greatest latitudinal range of any North
American freshwater species, its distribution ranges north from Manitoba, Canada, south to Guatemala, and throughout the
Mississippi River drainage basin (Scott and Crossman. 1973). Freshwater drum is not a favored food item of either humans
or other fish (Edsall, 1967; Trautman, 1981; Bur, 1982).
Cj-4
-------
6 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of ME Dato
Based on studies in Lake Erie, the spawning season peaks in July (Daiber, 1953}, although spent females have been found as
late as September (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Females in Lake Erie produce from 43,000 to SOB,(KM! eggs (Datber, 1953).
The eggs are buoyant, floating at the surface of the water < Daiber, 1953; Scott and Crossman, 1973). This unique qualify may
be one explanation for the freshwater drum's exceptional distribution {Scott and Crossman, 1973), Yolk-sac larvae are
buoyant as well, floating inverted at the surfaee of the water with the posterior end of the yolk sac and tail touching the
surface (Swedberg and Walburg, 1970).
Larvae develop rapidly over the course of their first year. Maturity appears to be reached earlier among freshwater dnira
females from the Mississippi River than females from Lake Erie. Daiber (1953) found Lake Erie females begin maturing at
age 5, and 46 percent reach maturity by age 6. Lake Erie males begin maturing at age 4, and by age 5, 79 percent had reached
maturity.
Freshwater drum in western Lake Brie were found to live an average of 4 years, although the oldest male was 8 years of age,
and the oldest female was 14 years (Bdsail, 1967). Adults tend to be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in) long. The largest
reported freshwater drum from the Ohio River was between 8S.9 and 99.1 cm (35 and 39 in) long (Trauiman, 1981).
FRESHWATER DRUM
(ApMinotm grmtnimts]
Food Sources;
Juveniles: Cladoeerarts (plankton), copcpods, dipterans.'
Adults: Dipterans, eladocerans,"1 darters, emerald shiner.'
Prey for;
' * Very few species.
Life Stage Information
Eggs: Pelagic
» The buoyant eggs float at the surface of the water, possibly
accounting lor the species* high distribution.*
Larvae:
: - I'rolarvae flout inverted at the surface of the water with the posterior
end of the yolk sac and their tail touching tlte surface,'
Adults:
~ Tlte species owes its natnc to the audible "drumming'* sound that it is
often heard emitting during summer months."
Tend to be between 30 to 76 em (12 to 30 in! long.4
Family: Sciaenidac,
Conintna name*: Freshwater drum, white perch,
sheepsbead.*
Similar spee(«: White bass, carpsuckere.'
Orographic range,- From Manitoba, Canada, south to
Guatemala. They can he found throughout the Mississippi
River drainage basin.
Habitat; Bottoms of medium to large sized rivers and
lakes,®
Lifespan; The average freshwater drum lives 4 years,
although individuals up to 14 years have been reported."
Fecundity: Females in Lake Erie produced from 43,000 to
508,000 eggs."
* Trautroan, 19SL
6 Froese and Pauly, 2001.
< Bdsail. 1967.
Bur, tyx:
* Scott and Crossman. 1973.
Swedberg and Waiburg, 1970,
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sport fishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Gizzard shad (borosoma cepedianum)
Gizzard shad is a member of the family Clupeidae, Its distribution is widespread throughout the eastern United States and
into southern Canada, with occurrences from the St. Lawrence River south to eastern Mexico (Miller. I960; Scolt and
Crossman, 1973). Gizzard shad are 1'bund in a range of salinities from freshwater inland rivers to brackish estuaries and
marine waters along the Atlantic Coast of the United States (Miller, I960; Coriander, 1969). (ii//ard shad often occur in
schools (Miller. 1960). Young-of-year are considered an important forage fish (Miller, 1960). though their rapid growth rate
CI-5
-------
Chapter C3: Evaluation of X4E Data
limits the duration of their susceptibility to many predators {Bodola. 1966). Gizzard shad occur in all of the impoundment
pools of the Ohio River and account for nearly half of the fish sampled in Ohio River surveys (Hunter Environmental Services
Inc.. 1989).
Spawning occurs from late winter or early spring to late summer, depending on temperature. Spawning has been observed in
early June to July in Lake Erie (Bodola, 1966), and in May elsewhere in Ohio (Miller, I960), The spawning period generally
lasts two weeks (Miller, i960). Males and females release sperm and eggs while swimming in schools near the surfaee of the
water. Bggs sink slowly toward the bottom or drift with the current, and adhere to any surface they encounter (Miller, I960),
Females produce an average of 378,990 eggs annually (Bodola. I960), which average 0,75 mm (0.03 in) in diameter (Wallus
el al.. 1990).
1 latching time may be anywhere from 36 hours to one week, depending on temperature {Bodola. 1966), Young shad may
remain in upstream natal waters if conditions permit, (Miller, 1960). By age 2 all gizzard shad arc sexually mature, though
some may mature as early as age 1 (Bodola, 1966). Unlike many other fish, fecundity in gizzard shad declines with age
(Electric Power Research Institute, 1987).
Gizzard shad generally live up to 5 to 7 years, but individuals up to 10 years have been reported in southern locations (Miller,
I960; Scott and Grossman, 1973). Mass mortalities due to extreme temperature changes have been documented in several
locations during winter months (Williamson and Nelson, 1985).
Food Sources: larvae consume protozoans, zooplankton, and small
^
crustaceans.* Adults arc mainly herbivorous, feeding on plants,
phymplankton, and algae. They are one of the tew species able to
feed solely on plant material."
Prey for; Walleye, white bass, largemouth bass, crappie: among
GIZZARD SHAD
others (immature shad only)."
{Durosoma eepedwnum)
Life Stage Information
Family: Clupeidac (herrings).
Eggs: Demerml
Common names; Gizzard shad.
* During spawning, eggs are released near the surface and sink
toward the bottom, adhering to any surfaee they touch.
Similar species: Threadfin shad."
Larvae: Pelagic
Geographic range; Eastern North America from the Si.
~ Larvae serve as forage to many species.
Lawrence River to Mexico.1"'''
~ After hatching, larvae travel m schools for the first few months.
Habitat: Inhabits inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and reservoirs
Adult-,
to brackish estuaries and ocean waters,"''
~ May grow as large as 52.1 cm (20.5 mi."
~ May be considered a nuisance species because of sporadic mass
Lifespan: Gizzard shad generally live 5 to 7 years, but. have
winter die-offs,'
been reported at'ages of up to 10 years.6
Fecundity; Maturity is reached at ages 2 to 3, females may
produce between 59,480 and 378,990 eggs."
* Trautman, 1981,
* Miller, i960.
' Scott and Grossman, 1973.
Fish graphic from Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 2001.
Sauger (Stizostedion canadense)
Sauger is a member of the perch family, I'ercidae. Its distribution extends from the Si. Lawrence River system south to
northern Louisiana and throughout the Mississippi drainage. Sauger is primarily limited to freshwater systems and only
occasionally found in brackish water (Scott and Grossman, 1973; Carlander, 1997), It is a close relative of the walleye, and
the two species were once thought to be a single species, with the darker colored sauger mistaken for the male of the -species
(Trauiraan, 19K1). Once plentiful in western Lake Hrie, sauger have declined over the last 100 years. Commercial fishing of
C3-6
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio River Chapter C3 Evaluation of I4E Dcta
sauger in Lake Erie was banned in 1968. While abundance in the Ohio River was never as high as in Lake Erie, it has
remained more stable over the years (Trautrnan, 19K f).
Spawning in early April has been documented in Tennessee and in Lake Erie (Carlander, 1997). Males arrive at the spawning
grounds before the females. Estimates of female Fecundity range from 9,000 to 96.000 eggs per female (Scott and Grossman,
I9?3). Sauger arc able to hybridize with walleye, producing what are locally known as "saugeyes" (Carlander, 1997).
Females broadcast their sticky eggs, which harden and become semtbuoyant and nonadhesive. Kggs are 1.44 to 1.86 turn
<0.06 to 0.07 in) in diameter. Hatching takes place anywhere From 25 to 29 days at temperatures of 4.4 to 12.8 *C (40 to
55 *f (Scott and Grossman, 1973), Yolk-sac larvae are 4,5 to 6.2 mm (0.1 % to 0.24 in) long after hatching (Scott and
Cros.snun, 1973), and in Ohio, young-of-vear are 7.6 to 15.2 cm (2,6 to 6.0 in) by October (Trautrnan. 1981).
Male sauger typically mature at age 2, and females have been documented to mature anywhere from age 2 to 8 (Scott and
Grossman, 1973; Carlander. 1997). In the Ohio River region, sauger generally do not live more than K years (Carlander.
1997). Adult male sauger in the Ohio River usually obtain average lengths of 23 cm (9 in), and females obtain lengths of 25.4
to 40.6 em (10 to 16 in) (Trautrnan, 19HI). The Ohio Slate record for sauger ts 62.2 cm (24.5 in) (Ohio Department of
Natural Resources-. 2001b).
SAUCER
{Suiasicdion canwiense)
Family: Pcrctdae (perches)
C ommon names: Sanger, Jack salmon.'
• specie*; Walleye, blue pike
Geographic range: St. Lawrence River system south to
northern Louisiana throughout the Mississippi drainage'
Habitat: Inhabits sand and gravel runs, and sandy or
muddy pools of rivers. Occasionally found in lakes and
impoundments,J
Lifespan: Up to 8 years in the Ohio River region.''
Food Source: Juveniles teed on cladocerans, chironofflids, fish fry.'
Adults arc sight predators, feeding mainly on gizzard shad and emerald
shiner, other prey ineiude freshwater drum, channel catfish, mimic shiner.'
Prey for: Other sauger, northern pike, walleye, and yellow perch."
Life Stage Information
Eggs: Demersal
~ Eggs sink to the bottom after hardening, falling between rocks and
gravel.''
~ Eggs may take 25 to 29 days to hatch.
Larvae: Pelugk
* • Yolk-sac larvae are 4.5 to 6,2 mm (II, 18 to 0.24 in) long alter
hatching"
Adults
~ Can hybridize with walleye (hybrids are known as saugeyes},'1
~ Males in the Ohio River average 23 cm (9 in), females arc 25.4 to
40.6 cm (10 to 16 in)."
Fecundity: Females product anywhere lh>m V.000 to
96,000 eggs.1
* Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001 b.
b Trautrnan. 1981,
* Scott and Grossman, 1973.
¦» Froese and Pauly. 2001.
Carlander. 1997.
' Wahl, D.I I. and L.A. Nielsen, 1985.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
White bass {Morone chrysops)
White bass is a member of the temperate bass family, Pereichthyidae, It ranges from the St. Lawrence River south through
the Mississippi valley to the Gulf of Mexico, though the species is most abundant in the Lake Erie drainage (Van Oosten,
1942). Although while bass is native to the Ohio River, populations were introduced to several of the river's impoundments
following,dam construction (Trautrnan, 19X1),
Spawning take place in May in Lake Erie and may extend into June, depending on temperatures. Spawning bouts can last
from 5 to 10 days (Scott and Grossman, 1973), Adults typically spawn near the surface, and eggs are Fertilized as they sink
Ci-7
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part C- The Ohto River
Chapter C3; Evaluation of IAE Data
toward the bottom. Fecundity increases directly with size in females. The average female lays approximately 565,000 eggs.
Eggs hatch within 46 hours at a water temperature of I 5.6 "C (60 *P) (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
Larvae grow rapidly, and young white bass reach lengths of 13 to 16 cm {5.1 to 6.3 in) by the fall
-------
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Crappic are very popular for sport fishing (Hansen 1951; Dames and Moore, 1977a), Because while crappie are such a
prolific species, they often become overcrowded. This can lead to depletion of their food supply and result in slower growth
rates and smaller sizes (Cariander, 1969; Steiner, 2000),
Food Sources: Larvae feed on algae, insects;, and
mieroerustaeeans; young teed primarily on /ooplankton;
and adults eat several different types offish, including
gizzard shad, perch, and small crappie,'
Prey for; Northern pike, muskellunge."
Life Slai;f information
Kggi; Ocrtu'r.su/
~ Uiid in nests and guarded by the male. Females often
male with several males »t» a single spawning season.'1'
Larvae:
~ 1,22-1 ,9S ram {0.05 to 0,08 in) at hatching.1'
» Remain in nesi until they can swim freely,J
Adults: Demersal
~ Average length: 15.4 to 30,5 em (6-12 in) *
» Noted as an abundant species in the Ohio River in
studies done in 1957-1959 and 1976-1978.*
aisu near aquatic vegetation,"
Ufwpa n: The highest reported age is It) years."
Fecundity: Mature at 2-3 years,'1 Females produce between 5,000 :
and 30,000 eggs." * :
a I roese and I'auK. 2000.
" Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001b.
' Trautmaii. 1981.
J Wang, 1986b.
1" Dames and Moore, 1977a.
' Cariander, 1969.
Fish graphic from North Dakota Game and Fish Department, I9K6.
White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)
The white sucker is a member of the Catostomidae family, and is found throughout most of Canada, and south to North
Carolina and New Mexico in the United States (Froese and Pauly, 2000). It inhabits small and large streams, ponds, lakes,
and reservoirs.
Male white suckers reach sexual maturity between ages 2 and 6, and females mature I to 2 years later (Twomey et ul.. 1984).
White suckers typically run upstream in the spring to spawn. They spawn over shallow gravel substrate, usually in riffles or
swift water, but they have been observed spawning in lakes (Cariander, 1969). Females may .scatter 20,000 to 50.0(H) eggs
with several males (Steiner, 2000). The eggs may drift downstream before sticking to the gravel (Steiner, 2000), After
hatching, larvae remain in the safety of the gravel for up lo 2 weeks before moving on.
Adults primarily inhabit pools and areas of slow to moderate velocity, but are tolerant of a wide range of conditions. White
suckers move toward shore at dawn and dusk to feed. They are omnivorous bottom feeders, feeding on plants, zoopluiticton,
insects, tnollusks, and crustaceans (Steiner, 2000).
Since 1925, this species has been one of the six most abundant fishes in collections across Ohm (Trautmaii, 1981). It is a
popular catch among anglers, and is especially easy to catch during spawning runs (Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
2001b). ¦
WHITE CRAPPIE
(Pomoxb annularis)
Family: Centrairhidae fsttrtfishes).*
Common namrs: While crappie, papcrmouth, specks."
Similar species: Black crappie, roekbasi'
Geographic range: Central United Stales, including the
Mississippi and Great Lakes basins to the Gulf Coast*J
Habitat: Prefers pools, backwaters of creek, rivers, lakes, and
ponds over sand and mud bottoms. Often found in turbid water.
CS-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port C The Ohio River
WHITE SUCKER
(Cutostomus commenont)
Family; Catostomidac {suckers).
Common names: White sucker, common sucker. mullet,"
Simitar species: tongnose sucker,1'
Geographic range: Must of Canada, md south through North
Carolina to New Mexico in the United States*
Habitat: Small and large streams, ponds, takes, and reservoirs.
Adults primarily inhabit pools and areas of stow (o moderate
velocity, but are tolerant of a wide range of conditions, Prefer
swift water and gravel bottoms for spawning,- '1
L.ifctpxn: The average lifespan is 5-7 years,
Fecundity: Mates mature between 2 and 6 years, females I to 2
years later,"' females produce 20,000 to 50.000 eggs.'
" Frtwse and I'auly, 2000,
* Traulman, 198S*
c Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001b.
J Twomcy et af, 1984,
' Stewart, 1926.
' Steiner, 2O00.
Fish graphic Irom North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 19X6.
Chapter C3: Evaluotion of UE Data
F"u«d Sources: Fry feed on plankton and small invertebrates;
bottom feeding commences upon reaching a length of 1.6 to 1J
em (0.6 io 0,7 m),* Adults are omnivorous, feeding on plants,
».n>pla«ktoi». insects, mollusks, and crustaceans.'
Prev for; Birds, fishes. lamprey, and mammals.*
Life Stage Information
ERCs:
~ Eggs are released over shallow gravel substrate.11
Larvae:
~ Approximately 8 mm (0,3 in) upon hatching/
~ Remain in gravel substrate for up to 2 weeks.'
Adults: Demersal
~ Maximum si?.e is approximately 64 cm {25 in >.*
~ One of the six most abundant fishes in collections in Ohio
since 1925,"
C3-3 Facility Impingement and Entrainment Monitorins Methods
This section discusses l&E monitoring at the Ohio River facilities. Sampling methods were slightly different at each facility.
Descriptions of these methods are presented irt the facility documents and summarized in Tables C3-2 and C3-3, Tables C3-4
and €3-5 indicate how 1&6 monitoring data were used to develop annual I&E rates.
In reviewing the l&E monitoring data presented here, it is important to note that the available data are over 20 years old and
may not reflect current conditions. In fact, increases in fish populations resulting -from Ohio River water quality improvements
over the past 20 years could result in substantially higher rates- of l&E than those in available reports.
C3 3 1 Cardinal Units 1 and 2 Impingement and Entrapment Monitoring
Cardinal impingement monitoring
NUS Corporation conducted impingement monitoring for Cardinal units 1 and 2 from May 11, 1978, to May 4, 1979 (Poller
et al., 1979a), Samples were collected weekly from May through the end of October, Biweekly collections were made from
November through March, at which time weekly collections were resumed and continued until May. Collections were taken
for 28 hours, with fish removed from the traveling screens al 4 hour intervals. The fish collection basket was placed in the
screen wash Hume of units I and 2. The basket screen contained 9.5 mm (0,37 in) diameter holes.
Samples were sorted into groups of live, dead, and dead before impingement (Poller el al, 1979a), Those specimens
considered dead before impingement were not included in the impingement estimates. Specimens were identified to the
CJ-/0
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C The Ohto River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Data
lowest possible (axon. The average number of fish impinged during the first 24 hours of a 28 hour study was multiplied bv
365 days in a year to generate an annual estimate of 163,543 (Potter et at, W>a).
To calculate the tosses in terms of numbers pet" species, EPA multiplied the percent impinged for each species for the number
of days sampled by the total annual estimate (see Table C3-4 ),
€3-1/
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C; The Ohio Stver
Chapter C3: Evaluation of IdE Data
Table C3-2: Summary of Impingement Sampling for aiF Ohio River Facilities,
Facility Conducted by
Cardinal* :NUS Corp.
Cliffy Creek'* TitA
Kammer* NUSCorp.
Kygerf 'N'liS Corp,
M
i For!'
Dames and Moore
•Inc: Wapora, Inc.
Philip Sporn1' NUSCorp.
Tanners
Creek8
wc
Beckjord*
WH Sammis'
¦ETA
Dairies and Moore
Inc; Wapora, Inc.
Xieo-Marme
Sampling
Dates
Ma> ! 1. 1978-
M.iv 4. 1979
jApriiis, 197 i-
. April 27. im
' :M'bv I 1978 -
May 1, 1979
| April 10, 1978-
. April 3, 1979
'April, 1977-
: March, 1978
'ivlayll. 1918- '
.May 17, 1979
¦May, 1977'-'
:May. 1978
*Aprii,"l977- '
March, 1978
¦April. 1977- '
:March. 1978
Survey
Period
28 hours
Sampling Interval
'4 hours
Cleaning
Ron
"Yes
32 hours '4 hours
28 hours 4 hours
28 hours '4 hours
24 hours ! 2 hours
¦28 hours -1 hours
¦32 hours 4 hours
24 hours T2 hours,
24 hours
:Ycs
:Ycs
Yes
•Yes
Yes
¦Yes
,Ycsh
:n»
Retaining Basket
9.5 mm (0,375 in) diameter
'mesh basket
[93 mm (0,375 in) wire mesh
Sampling Frequency
;9.5 mm (0.375 in) sq. mesh
'basket
9.5 mm (0,375 in) stj. mesh
basket
9,5 mm (0,375 in) wire mesh
9.5 mm (0.375 in) sq mesh
basket*
9.5 mm (0.375 in) wire mesh
9,5 mm (0.375 in) wire mesh®'
Unknown design
I hrevery 3 Im for
the 24 hr period
' These methods were assumed to be the same as alt other NUC Corporation impingement studies. This page was missing from the document.
These methods were assumed to be the same as those at Miami Fort, This page was missing from the document.
References;
' Potter et ai, [979a.
Energy Impact Associates, Inc., 1978a,
' Potter'etal, 1979b,
' Potter et al., 1979c.
* Cincinnati Oik and Electric Company, 1979.
i: Potter ctal., 1979*1.
' Energy Impact Associates 1978b.
' Geo-Marine Inc., 1978.
Weekly: May - Oct. 1978, April-May 1979
Bimonthly: Nov 1978 - March 1979
Weekly: April - Oct 1977. April mi
•Bimonthly: Nov, 1977 - March 1978
•Weekly: May - Oct, |j>7fi. April-May 1979 "
:Bintomhly; Nov. 1978 - March 1979
¦Weekly: April - Oct I97R, late March-April 1079
Bimonthly: Nov. 1978 - March 20. 1979
rWeekly: April - Oct. 1977
¦Bimonthly: Kov. 19~7 - March 1978
AVeekly: May - Oct. 1978, April-May 1979
Bimonthly: Nov. 1978 - March 1919
'weekly: Mm - October 1977. April-May 1978'""
: Biweekly from December through March
'Weekly: Aprii - June 1977
• Bimonthly: July 1977 - March 1978
r Approximately every S days
(>•-y:
-------
8 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Tabic C3-3: Summary of Entramment Sampling for oil Ohio River Facilities.
Facility : Conducted By ; Survey Period : Sampling Interval Method Used Fitter Notes
Cardinal* 'XL'S Corp. 'March 16. 1978 :6 hour intervals over Taken from taps of ail 505 Jim (0.02 in) mesh Weekly; March - Sept. 1978
> February 1979 ;24 hr. survey period circulating water pumps, net Bimonthly: Sept-Oct 1978
.through 1 in. hose .Monthly: Nov. 1978-Feb. 1979
Clifty Creek1" :EIA .April 29, 1977- Continuously fur 24 ;2 submersible pumps. I m =500 Jim (0.02 in) mesh Weekly: April through Aug. (977, April 1978
:Aprii 27, 1978 hrs, from surface and 1.5 m from .net Bimonthly: Sept. 1977, March 1978
: : .bottom ¦ Monthly: Oct. 1977 - Feb. 1978
Rammer* KUS Corp. :;March 13. 1978 :6 hour intervals over Taken from taps of all -505 Jim (0.02 in) mesh 'Weekly: March - Aug. 1978
February. '24 hr. survey period circulating wafer pumps, net Bimonthly: Sept.-Get. 1978
'1979 " " through fin. hose ; Monthly: Nov. i 978- Feb. S979
Kvget*-" KUS Corp. March 13, 1978 6 hour intervals over Taken from taps of all '505 Jim (0.02 in I mesh Weekly: March - Aug. 1978
:~ February. '24 Hr. survey period circulating water pumps. 'net Bimonthly: Sept-Oct. 1978
;I979 " ; " through fin. hose iMonthlyfNov. 1978- Feb. 1979
Miami Fort4 Dames and April-August. ; 12 hour intervals over Taken from tap of circulating 1.0(10 Jim (0.04 it» J mesh 'Weekly: April - Aug. 1977
Moure hit: 1977 24 hour survey period water pump. net
Wapora. Inc.
Philip Sporn' NUS Corp. >farch 16. 1978 ;6 hour intervals over Taken from taps of all SOS Jim (0.02 in) mesh Weekly: March - Aug, 1978
-February, -24 hr. survey period 'circulating water pumps, .net Bimonthly: Sept-Oct, 1978
•1979 through I in. how Monthly: Nov. 1978- Feb. 1979
Tanners Creek1 EIA ;May, 1977- Continuously for 24 ;2 submersible pumps, 3 ft. ;500 Jim (0,02 in) mesh Weekly: May through Oct. 1977, April 1978
.May, 197? hrs, ifrom surface and 4,5-6 ft. from net " Bimonthly: Sept.-Oct. 1977, March 197$
i " : bottom ; Monthly: Oct. 1977 -Feb. ! 978
WC Beckjord* Dames and ;April-Augu$t, 12 hour intervals over Taken front tap of circulating 1,000 Jim (0.04 in J mesh 'Weekly: April - Aug. 1977
Moore Ittc; JI977 .24 hr. survey period : water pump. net
Wapora. Inc.
WH Sammis*1 Gco-Marine 'April-August, .4 2-hr. samples were Taken from tap of CW1S 505 Jim (0.02 in) mesh April through June: Every 4 days
¦ 1977 taken i net July through August: Every 8 days
* Potter ct a!., 1979a,
*' Energy Impact Associates. Inc., 1978a.
' Potter et al„ 1979b.
•* Potter eta!.. 1979c.
1 Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979.
' Potter ct at., !979d,
* F.ncrgy Impact Associates 197Sb.
kGco-Marinc Inc.. 1978.
CJ-./J
-------
i 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C. The Ohio fttvef
Chapter C3 Evaluation of I<5E Dota
Table C3-4: Methods Used for Estimating Annual Impingement.
Facility Facility Annual Impingement Estimates EPA Annua! Impingement Estimates
Cardinal'- .Multiplied average number of fish impinged during first 24 hrs, by 365, Calculated by multiplying percent impinged for each species by the reported annual
impingement estimate of 163,593.
Clifty Creek* Each interval treated as replicate, extrapolated mean to weekly estimate, summed T.Ssed as reported
to monthly, summed to annual.
Kammei* Multiplied average number of fish impinged during first 24 hrs. by 365. Calculated by dividing the number impinged for each species by the total number of
:fish impinged (o get a percentage of impingement for each species. This number was
then multiplied by the reported annual impingement estimate of 12,520,
Kvger" Multiplied average number of ftsh impinged during first 24 hrs, by 365. .Calculated percent impingement of each species out of total number impinged, then
:multiplied percent each species bv the reported annua! impingement estimate of
^ 186,223.
Miami Forf' Multiplied by 365 days/number sampling days (39) 'Calculated by multiplying the number of fish impinged for each species by the
fraction of days sampled within the year (365 days/36 days, or 10.139).
Philip Spom' Multiplied average number of fish impinged during first 24 hrs. by 365. Calculated percent impingement of each species out of total number impinged, then
multiplied percent each species bv the reported annual impingement estimate of
; 52,136.
Tanners Creek* Each interval treated as replicate, extrapolated mean to weekly estimate, summed Used as reported
-to monthly, summed to annual.
WC Ikckjordh Only reported for some species Calculated by multiplying the number of fish -Calculated for all species,
impinged for each species by the fraction of days sampled within the yew.
WH Sammis* Extrapolated to a 24 hour period, then multiplied by the sample interval, and Calculated by summing the number impinged for each species as presented in Geo-
summed values for annual estimate. Marine Inc., PO (Appendix), then dividing this number by the total number
'impinged (47,463} to get a percent impingement for each species. These percentages
were then multiplied by the reported annual impingement estimate of 380,793.
* Potter et al.. 1979a.
*¦ Energy Impact. Associates, Inc.. 1978a,
1 Potter et al.," 1979b.
i! Potter et al., 1979c.
* Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979.
' Potter et at,, !979d.
1 l-nergy impact Associates, Inc.. I97RK
15 Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979.
' Geo-Marine Inc., 1978.
CS-14
-------
S 316(b) Case 5+udies, Pari C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I4E Dcto
Facility
Cardinal*
Cliffy Creek"
Kammer
Tsble C3-5 Methods Used for Estimating Annual Entrapment.
Kygef*
Miami Fort*
Philip Nponi'
Tanners ('reck'
VVC Beckjord*1
Wlf Sammis
: Facility Annual Entrainment Estimates
:MuItip!y average number of individuals per 100 m3 q j-y ^
;by volume of water for 24 hour estimate, calculated monthly estimate, summed in annual
estimate assuming 0 for months samples were not analyzed.
Multiply average number of individuals per It'I'm'
;by volume of water for weekly estimate, grouped by months, calculated weekly mean,
•summed to monthly, then annual,
'Multiply average number of individuals per 100 531 ff.
by volume of water for 24 hour estimate, calculated monthly estimate, summed to annual
estimate assuming 0 for months samples were not analysed.
;Multiply average number of individuals per 100 ra"' q 53 j p-i}
'by volume of water for 24 hour estimate, calculated monthly estimate, summed to annual
;esiimate assuming 0 for months samples were not analyzed.
•Not calculated. Daily loss estimates were calculated by the number of larvae entrained per
cubic meter by the daily plant intake volume.
EPA Annual Entrainment Estimates
:MultipIy average number of individuals per HXlm'jj js.'j
by volume of water for 24 hour estimate, calculated monthly estimate, summed to annual
:esiirrmte assuming 0 for months samples were not analyzed.
Multiply average number of individual? per Mil) trr ^
•by volume of water for weekly estimate, grouped by'months, calculated weekly mean,
summed to monthly, then annual.
Taleulatcd using data from April-August. Daily loss estimates were calculated by the
number of larvae entrained per cubic meter by the daily plant intake volume.
Multiplied average number of individuals per 100 m' jj j-jj
by volume of water for 24 hour estimate, calculated monthly estimate, summed to annual
estimate assuming 0 for months samples were not analyzed.
Potter et al, I9?9a.
Energy Impact Associates. Inc.. l97Sa.
Potter et al., 1979b,
Potter et al.. I979e.
Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company. 1979.
Potter et al., 1979d.
Energy Impact Associates. Inc.. 1978b.
Cincinnati Gas and F.lcctric Company, 1979,
Geo-Marine Inc.. N"V
I 'sec as reported
Calculated percent entrained for each species from the total number
"impinged, then multiplied percent entrained by the reported annual
entrainment estimate of 7CI.057.7S9.
.Used as reported
.Used as reported
Calculated by extrapolating the daily loss estimates for each species to
monthly estimates based on the number of sampling days out of the
number of days per month, then added monthly estimates for each
species to arrive at an annual estimate.
Used as reported
Calculated by multiplying percent entrained for each species by the
reported annual entrainmen! estimate of 11 ,"89.99"
Used as reported
Calculated by multiplying percent entrained for each species by die
'reported annual entrainment estimate ofl7.362.20S.
C3-15
-------
Chapter C3: Evaluation of T&E Data
Cardinal entrapment monitoring
NUS Corporation conducted entrainment monitoring at Cardinal units i and 2 from March 1*97? through February 1978
(Potter et al„ 1979a), Sampling was conducted weekly from March through September 1978, bimonthly in September and
October 1978, and monthly front November 1978 through February 1979. Continuous 24-hour samples were collected for
larval entntinment. Samples were collected from taps on circulating pumps through a 1 inch hose into a 505 ft m (0.02 in)
mesh'sue plankton net. At ft hour intervals, samples were collected Irons the net and preserved for analysis. Sample volumes
were determined at 3 hour intervals by placing flow meters in the Sine of How of the discharged water. Samples taken from
September 1978 through February 1979 were not analyzed at the request of the facility operator,
Annual estimates were calculated by extrapolating daily estimates of each taxa collected by the volume of water from one
circulating pump to all operating pumps for each sample date (Potter et al„ 1979a; Table €3-5). This value was then assumed
constant for all days between collection dates, and extrapolated to a monthly estimate. Monthly estimates were then summed
to generate annual estimates, It was assumed that no ichthyopiankton were entrained from September through February,
C3-3.2 Cliffy Creek Impingement and Entrapment Monitoring
Cliffy Creek impingement monitoring
Energy impact Associates conducted impingement monitoring at Clifty Creek from April 1977 through April 1978 (Energy
impact Associates, Inc., !978a), Impingement samples were taken weekly from April to October 1977, in April 1978, and
bimonthly from November 1977 to March 1978, Following a cleaning run in which all operational screens were baekwashed
of debris, a retaining basket constructed of 9,7 mm (0.38 in) mesh screen was placed over the side of the screen house to catch
the debris and fish being washed out of the trash trough. Screens were baek washed at 4-hour intervals over a 32 hour
sampling period. At the end of each 4-hour sampling interval, the retaining basket was emptied, and the fish were removed
and sorted from the debris. The fish were then identified, counted, weighed, and measured. Extrapolating from the 4-hour
sampling interval allowed an annual calculation of the mean number offish impinged. Each 4-hour interval was used as a
replicate for the 32-hour sampling period to calculate the mean number and weight of each species. The estimate was then
extrapolated to a weekly estimate, then summed to obtain a monthly estimate, and a yearly estimate,
Impingement sampling was conducted again in 1985-1986 (EA Science and Technology, 1987). Collections were made twice
a month from December 1985 through February 1986, and weekly from March 1986 through December 1986, Samples were
collected from the traveling .screens every 8 hours for a 24 hour period on sample dates. The collection basket was
constructed of 9,5 mm (0.375 in) mesh, and was placed in the debris trough of the traveling screens before the traveling
screens were washed. AH organisms and debris rinsed from the traveling screens were caught in the collection basket. Fish
were sorted, identified, and counted. Fish obviously dead before impingement were not included in the estimate of annual
impingement. Annual estimates were made by first multiplying the 24 hour bimonthly impingement values by 15 and the
weekly values by 7 to reflect the number offish impinged during each sampling interval {the number of days between
sampling events) (Table C3-4). These values were summed to generate monthly and annual estimates of fish impingement.
Cliffy Creek entrapment monitoring
Energy Impact Associates performed entraimncnl sampling from April 1977 through April 1978 (Energy Impact Associates,
Inc., 1978a}. A total of 33 sampling periods took place between April 29, 1977 and April 27. 1978, each conducted over a 24
hour survey period. The sampling periods took place weekly from April through August, bimonthly in September, monthly
from October to February, bimonthly in March, and returned to weekly in April 1978.
Sampling was conducted using two submersible pumps (Energy Impact Associates, Inc.. 1978a). The pumps were placed in
front of the traveling screen, with one pump positioned approximately I m (3.3 IF) from the surface and the other
approximately 1,5 m (4,9 ft) from the bottom, behind the intake gate opening. Samples were generally collected from units 1
and 6 only. Water was continuously pumped through a 500 [im (0.02 in) mesh plankton net for 24 hours, These samples
were then analyzed for species identification, enumeration, and life stage.
Fntrainmcm results from units 1 and 6 were extrapolated to develop an annual estimate for the whole facility by multiplying
the average number of larvae entrained by the volume of water withdrawn from the Ohio River by the facility during the
sampling period (Energy Impact Associates, Inc., 1978a). This number was extrapolated to a weekly estimate, grouped by
month, arid then used to calculate a weekly average. These weekly averages were then extrapolated to monthly etttrainment
losses and summed to determine a total annual loss estimate.
CJ-/6
-------
Chapter C3. Evaluation of I4E Data
The EPA obtained annual estimates for each species by calculating the percent entrainment for each species for the number of
days sampled, then multiplied the percent entrained by the reported annual entrainment estimate of 70.05?, W (Table C3-4).
C3-3.3 Kammer Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Kammer impingement monitoring
NUS Corporation conducted impingement monitoring from May 8, 1978 through May 1,1979 (Potter et aL 1979b). Samples
were collected weekly from May 1978 through October 24, 1978, Biweekly collections were made from November through
March, at which time weekly collections were resumed and continued until May, Collections lasted 28 hours, with fish
removed front the traveling screens at 4 hour intervals. The fish collection basket was placed at the lower end of the screen
trash trough. The basket screen contained 9.5 turn (0,375 in) diameter holes.
Samples were sorted into groups of live, dead, and dead before impingement (Potter et at., 1979b). Those specimens
considered dead before impingement were not included in the impingement estimates. Specimens were identified lo the
lowest possible taxon. The average number offish impinged during the first 24 hours of a 28 hour study was multiplied by
365 days in a year to generate an annual estimate.
Annual impingement estimates are not pr esented in the facility document by species. To calculate the annual losses in terms
of numbers per species, EPA multiplied the percent impinged for each species lor the number of days sampled by the total
annual estimate (Table C3-4).
Kammer entrainment monitoring
NUS Corporaiion conducted entrainment monitoring from March 1977 through February 1979 (Potter et ai„ 1979b),
Sampling was conducted weekly from March through August 1978, bimonthly in September and October 1978, and monthly
from November 1978 through February 1979, Continuous 24-hour samples were collected from taps on circulating pumps
through a 2,5 cm (1 in) hose into a 505 jtm (0.02 to) mesh size plankton net. At 6 hour intervals, samples were collected from
the net and preserved for analysis. Sample volumes were determined at 3 hour intervals by placing flow meters in the line of
How of the discharged water. Samples token from September 1978 through February 1979 were not analyzed at the request of
the facility operator
Annual estimates were calculated by extrapolating daily estimates of each taxa collected by the volume of water from one
circulating pump to all operating pumps for each sample date (Potter et al., 1979b). This value was then assumed constant for
all days between collection dates, and extrapolated to a monthly estimate. Monthly estimates were then summed to generate
annual estimates. It was assumed that no ichthyoplankton were entrained from September through February ("fable C3-5),
C3-3.4 Kyger Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Kyger Creek impingement monitoring
NUS Corporation conducted impingement monitoring from April 10, 1978, through Aprs! 3, 1979 (Potter et al., 1979c),
Samples were collected weekly from April 1978 through October 1978. Biweekly collections were made from November
through March, at which time weekly collections were resumed and continued until May. Collections lasted 28 hours, with
fish removed from the traveling screens at 4 hour intervals. The fish collection basket was placed at the lower end of the
screen trash trough. The basket screen contained 9,5 nun (0,375 in) diameter holes.
Samples were sorted into groups of live, dead, and dead before impingement (Potter et al, 1979c), Those specimens
considered dead before impingement were not included in the impingement estimates. Specimens were identified to the
lowest possible taxon. The average number of fish impinged during the first 24 hours of a 28 hour study was multipliec by
365 days in a year to generate an annual estimate of 186,223 fish.
EPA used this annual estimstie to calculate annual estimates for each species by calculating the percent impingement of each
species out of total number impinged, then multiplying the percent for each species by the reported annual impingement
estimate (Table ( 3 4),
C3-I7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Kyger Creek entrapment monitoring
NUS Corporation conducted entrainment monitoring from March 13, 197? through February 1979 (Potter ri al., 1979c).
Sampling was conducted weekly from March through August 1978, bimonthly in September and October 1978, and monthly
from November 1978 through February 1979, Continuous 24-hour .samples were collected from taps on circulating pumps
through a 1 inch hose into a 505 (0,02 in) mesh size plankton net. Hvery 6 hours samples were collected from the net and
were preserved for analysis. Sample volumes were determined at 3 hour intervals* by placing flow meters in the line of flow
of (he discharged water. Samples taken from September 1978 through February 1979 were not analyzed at the request of the
fiicilny operator.
Annual estimates were calculated by extrapolating daily estimates of each laxa collected by the volume of water from one
circulating pump to all operating pumps for each sample date (Potter et al., 1979c). This value was then assumed constant for
alt days between collection dates, and extrapolated to a monthly estimate. Monthly estimates were then summed to generate
annual estimates. It was assumed that no ichthyoplankton were entrained front September through February.
EPA used the annual entrainmenl numbers for each species as reported (Table C3-5).
C3-3.5 Miami Fort Power Station Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Miami Fort impingement monitoring
Dames and Moore conducted impingement sampling from April 1977 through March 1978 (Cincinnati Gas and Electric
Company, 1979). Samples were collected from the traveling screens once a week from April through October 1977, and once
every two weeks from November 1977 through March 1978. The screens were thoroughly cleaned before each sampling and
left in place for 12 hours. At the end of the 12 hours, the screens were washed and the impinged fish were collected from the
wash trough using multiple metal sampling screens composed of 9.5 mm (0.375 in) mesh screen identical to the traveling
screens. The process was repeated 12 hours later to obtain a 24 hour sampling period. Samples w'ere preserved and analyzed
for identification and enumeration. Annual estimates were not calculated by the facility,
EPA developed annual estimates by multiplying the number of fish impinged for each species by the fraction of days sampled
within the year (365 days/36 sampling days, or 10.139) (Table C3-4>.
Miami Fort entrapment monitoring
Dames and Moore conducted entrainment sampling from April through August 1977 (Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company,
1979). Samples were collected from the tap on the circulating pump for unit 6. Unit 6 is the largest generating unit at Miami
Fort that uses a once-through cooling system. Once a week, samples were collected for two blocks of time, each covering 12
hours to obtain a 24 hour sampling period showing daily variations in larval activity. Water collected from the taps was
strained through a 1,000 nm (0-04 in) mesh net, and samples were preserved for analysts.
Daily loss estimates were calculated by the number of larvae entrained per cubic meter by the daily plant intake volume
(Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979). No annual entrainment estimates were presented in the facility's § 316(b)
demonstration report.
EPA developed annual estimates by extrapolating the daily loss estimates for each species to monthly estimates based on the
number of sampling days out of the number of days per month, then added these monthly estimates for each species to arrive
at an annual estimate (Table C3-5),
C3-3.6 Philip Sporn Impingement and Entrapment Monitoring
Philip Sporn impingement monitoring
NUS Corporation conducted impingement monitoring from May 11, 1978, to May 17, 1979 (Potter et al., 1979d). Samples
were collected weekly from May through the end of October. Biweekly collections were made front November through
March, at which time weekly collections were resumed and continued until May. Assuming that NUC Corporation used the
same procedures as they did in three other impingement monitoring reports, collections lasted 28 hours, with fish removed
from the traveling screens at 4 hour intervals. The lish collection basket was placed in the screen wash flume of units 1 and 2.
CJ-/A'
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I4E Data
The basket screen contained 9,5 mm (0.375 in) diameter holes. Sampling periods of this length in time would capture
differences in daily variation.
Samples were sorted into groups of live, dead, and dead before impingement (Potter et al.% 1979d). Those specimens
considered dead before impingement were not included in the impingement estimates. Specimens were identified to die
lowest possible t.ux The average number offish impinged during the first 24 hours of a 28 hour study was multiplied by 365
days in a year to generate a total annual impingement estimate of 52,136.
To calculate the annual impingement estimate for each species, EPA calculated the percent impingement of each species out
of the total number offish impinged, then multiplied the percent for each species by the reported annual impingement
estimate {'fable C3-4).
Philip Sporn entrainment monitoring
Entrainment samples were taken from March 16, 1978 through February 1979 with the following frequency of sampling:
weekly from March through August 1978, bimonthly from September to October, and monthly from November 1978 through
February 1979 (Potter et at., I979d). Continuous 24-hour samples were collected for larval entrainment. Samples were
collected from taps on circulating pumps through a 1 inch hose, into a 505 |j.m (0,02 in) mesh size plankton net. Every 6
hours samples were collected from the net and were preserved for analysis. Sample volumes were determined at 3 hour
intervals by placing How meters in the line of flow of the discharged water. Samples taken from September 1978 through
February 1979 were not analyzed at the request of the facility operator.
Annual estimates were calculated by extrapolating daily estimates of each taxa collected by the volume of water from one
circulating pump to all operating pumps for each sample date (Potter et a!., 1979d), This value was then assumed constant for
all days between collection dates, and extrapolated to a monthly estimate. Monthly estimates were then summed to generate
annual estimates. It was assumed that no ichthyoplankton were entrained from September through February.
EPA used the annual entrainment numbers for each species as reported (Table <.'3-5».
C3-3.7 Tanners Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Tanners Creek impingement monitoring
Energy Impact Associates conducted impingement monitoring at Tanners Creek from May 1977 through May 1978 (Energy'
Impact Associates, inc., 1978b), Sampling was done weekly from May through October 1977 and April to May 1978, and
biweekly from December through March. Pish were collected from the intake traveling every 4 hours during a 32 hour study
period. Collections were made once a week from March through October, and onee every 2 weeks from November until mid-
March of the following year. Fish were collected in 9.7 mm (0.3# in) mesh baskets that were placed in the trash troughs of
the traveling screens. Baskets were emptied at the end of each 4 hour sample period. Fish were then identified, counted,
measured, and weighed.
Annual estimates were made by determining the average number of each fish species impinged in a 4 hour interval on each
sample date (bnergy Impact Associates, Inc., 1978b). This estimate was extrapolated to a weekly estimate, which was
summed with other weekly estimates to generate a monthly impingement estimate. Monthly impingement estimates were then
summed to determine an annual estimate.
EPA used the annual impingement numbers for each species as reported (Table (.'.3-4).
Tanners Creek entrainment monitoring
Energy Impact Associates conducted entrainment monitoring from May 1977 through May J978. Sampling was done weekly
from May through August 1977 and April to May 1978; biweekly in September. October, and March; and monthly front
November through February (Energy Impact Associates, Inc., 1978b). Samples collected from September through February
were not analysed. Submersible pumps were placed under water in front of (he (raveling screens near the intake structure at
units 1 and 3. The surface pumps were placed approximately 0.9 m (2.95-ff) below the waters surface and the bottom pumps
were placed 1.4 to 1.8 in (4.6 to 5,9 ft) from the bottom, behind the intake gate opening. The pumps were operated
continuously for 24 hours during each collection period. Water from the pumps emptied into a 500 Jim (0.02 in) mesh
plankton net. Larvae collected were identified and eounled per the unit volume of water sampled.
CJ-/V
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pert C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Dcta
Annual estimates were made by first determining Ihc mean number of fish and larvae per species entrained per 100 in' (3,531
ft3) of water in the 24 hour sampling period (Energy Impact Associates, Inc., 1978b). These values were then extrapolated to
weekly estimates, which were then summed for monthly and yearly estimates.
EPA calculated the annual entrainment estimate by multiplying the percent of fish entrained for each species by the reported
annual entrainment estimate of 11,789,997 (Table €3-5).
C3-3.8 W.C Bcckjord Power Station Impingement and Entroinmcnt Monitoring
For the Bcckjord facility. EPA assumed that sampling methods were the same as those used at the Miami Fort Power Station,
which were presented together in the same document (Cincinnati Gas and Blectric Company, 1979).
W.C. Beckjord impingement monitoring
To sample impingement, intake screens were thoroughly cleaned and left in place for 12 hours. Ai the end of 12 hours, the
screens were washed and the impinged fish were collected from the wash trough using multiple metal sampling screens
composed of 9.5 mm (0.375 mi mesh screen identical to the traveling screens. The process was repeated 12 hours later to
obtain a 24 hour sampling period Samples were preserved and analyzed for identification and enumeration.
impingement samples were collected at Intake 3 once a week from April through June 1977, and bimonthly from July 1977
through March 1978 (Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979). If more than 100 fish were removed from the traveling
screens at Intake 3, then the traveling screens at Intakes ! and 2 were sampled. Out of 32 days of impingement sampling,
(make 3 was sampled for 25 days, and Intakes 1 and 2 were sampled 7 out of the 32 sampling days, The facility calculated
annual impingement for selected species by multiplying the number of fish impinged by the number of days per year divided
by the number of sampling days (Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979; Table C3-4).
W.C. Beckjord entrapment monitoring
Entrainment samples were collected from taps on circulating pumps on units 2,4, 5, and 6 from April through August 1977
(Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979), The majority of the samples were taken from unit 6 since it is located
upstream of the other units and uses the most circulating water. During the sampling, unit 6 was taken out of service for
maintenance, and unit 5 became the primary source for the samples. Units 2 and 4 were sampled three times each during the
sampling regime. Once a week samples were collected from one of the units for two blocks of time, each covering 12 hours.
In this manner, 24 hours of continuous sampling was achieved, to ensure that daily variations in larval activity would be
captured. Water collected from the taps was strained through a 1,000 |tm (0.04 in) mesh net, and samples were preserved for
analysis.
Daily loss estimates were calculated by multiplying the number of larvae entrained per cubic meter by the daily plant intake
volume (Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company, 1979). The sum of the monthly estimates for each species for April through
July was reported as the annual emrainment estimate, which assumes no entrainment from August through March. EPA used
these numbers as provided in the facility's 316(b) Demonstration Report for the annual entrainment estimates (Table C3-5),
£3-3,9 W H Sommis Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
W.H, Sommis impingement monitoring
Dames and Moore collected impingement samples approximately every 8 days from April 7, 1977, io March 27, 1978
(Cieo-Marine Inc., 1978). Samples were collected by diverting the screen wash flow into a basket constructed by Ohio Edison
for a 1 hour sampling interval every 3 hours for each 24-hour sampling period. Fish that were obviously dead before
impingement were removed from the sample. Annual estimates were made by multiplying the number of fish impinged per 1
hour sample by 3 to extrapolate to a 24 hour period. • This number was then multiplied by the sample interval (generally 8
days) to get an estimate for that time period, and these estimates were summed to obtain the annual impingement estimate of
380,793.
EPA calculated impingement estimates for each species by summing the number impinged for each species as presented in
Geo-Marinc Inc. (1978, appendix), then dividing this number by the total number impinged (47,463) to gel a percent
impingement for each species. White the facility reported a total of 47,464 organisms impinged, EPA calculated 47,463 from
(1-20
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C. The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of ME 5ato
(he data repotted in the appendix. The percentages were then multiplied by the reported annual impingement estimate (Table
('3-4)
W H Sammis entrainment monitoring
Geo-Marine conducted W.ll. Sammis entrainmem monitoring in 197? (Cieo-Marine Inc., 1978). Entrainment samples were
collected approximately every 4 days between April and early July, and every K days from early July through the end of
August. Because of the daily patterns exhibited by larvae* .sample collections were spread out over a 24-hour period on each
sample date, four 2-hour sample collections were made over each 24-hour period. Two samples were collected during the
day, and two were collected at night to account for the die! movements of ichthyoplankton. resulting tti a total of H hours of
sampling time per 24-hour day. Samples were collected by tapping mlo a 457 mm (IS in) line in the main condenser cooling'
line of the ('WIS. The water passed through a 10 cm (4 in) tap. then was filtered through a 505 fttn (0.02 in) mesh size
plankton net. Every 8 days additional sampling was conducted at dawn and dusk for 2 hours at each time period, resulting in
a total of 600 mJ(21,189 ft') of water being filtered on these days.
An annual entrainment estimate of 17,362,208 was calculated by multiplying the average number of larvae entrained per 100
m' (3,531 ft1} of water during a given sampling period by the sampling interval and by the volume of water withdrawn from
the Ohio River by the power plant for that sampling period for the months of April through August (Geo-Marme Inc., 1978).
It was assumed that no entrainment took place outside of those months.
Annual entrainment estimates for each species were calculated by EPA by multiplying the percent entrained for each species
by the reported annual entrainment estimate of 17,362,208 (Table C3-5),
C3-4 Annual Impingement at Nine Ohio River Facilities
Annual impingement (numbers of organisms) as estimated from facility monitoring are presented in Table C'3-6. Table C3-7
presents the results of EPA's calculations to express these losses as age 1 equivalents. Table C3-8 presents impingement of
fishery species as pounds of lost yield, and Table C3-9 presents impingement as pounds of production foregone- The
equations used for these calculations are presented m Chapter A5 of Pan A this document.
Note that the numbers of species in tables of age 1 equivalents, yield, and production foregone, are fewer than the number of
species listed in the table of raw losses. This is because the life history data required to calculate these metrics are unavailable
for many species. In such cases, species were grouped and evaluated using life history data for a single representative species.
The life history data used these calculations arc presented in Appendix CI, Appendix C2 defines the species groups used to
calculate losses of rare species for which life history data were lacking.
In examining the impingement results, it is important to bear in mind that the available impingement data are for only a single
year of sampling conducted 25 years ago. As noted previously, these data are likely to underestimate current impingement
rates because of improvements in fish populations since the data were collected,
C3-5 Annual Entrainment at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
Annual entrainment (numbers of organisms) as estimated from facility monitoring are presented in Table C3-I0. The
following sections present the results of calculations performed by EPA to express these losses as age I equivalents (Table
C3-1 f), foregone fishery yield (Table C3-I2), and btomass production foregone (Table C3-I3) using the methods described
in Chapter A5 of Pari A of this document and the life history data in Appendix CI.
Note that the numbers of species in the tables of age i equivalents, yield, and production foregone are fewer than the number
of species listed in the table of raw losses. This is because the life history data required to calculate these metrics are
unavailable for many species, in such cases, species were grouped and evaluated using life history data for a single
representative spcctes. The life history data used these calculations are presented in Appendix CI. Appendix C2 defines the
species groups used to calculate losses of rare species for which life history data were lacking.
As rioted for impingement, it is important to bear in mind that entrainment results are likely to underestimate entrainment
because of improvements in fish populations since the data were collected over two decades ago,
C3-21
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter 03: Evaluation of I4E Data
C3-6 Methods Used to Extrapolate I<&E Rates to Other Ohio River
Facilities
KPA used the results from its detailed analysis of I&E a? the 9 Ohio River ease study facilities (presented above in Sections
t'3-4 and C3-5) as a basis for estimating I&E at other Ohio River CW1S, Extrapolation was necessary because there are no
l&li data for these other facilities. For the extrapolations, EPA assumed that i&B is strictly proportional to intake flow and
that I&E at the 9 Ohio River case study facilities are representative of I&E at other CW1S in the same or nearby pools..' Table
C3-14 indicates the pool locations of all Ohio River CW1S that were e valuated by EPA, and Table C3 I5 indicates how these
facilities were grouped according to pool for RPA's analyses. Table C3-16 summarizes how facilities with and without i&E
data were linked for extrapolation purposes, EPA extrapolated impingement and entramment separately using each of three
I&E metrics (age-1 equivalents, fishery yield, and production foregone). Impingement results are presented in Tables C3-I?
through (.'3-22. Entrainment results are presented in Tables (.'3 23 through C'3 2X Cumulative impacts are summarized in
Tables C3-29 and C3-30.bused on the sum of the mean for each pool. The economic value of these losses is discussed in
Chapters C4 (benefits transfer) and C5 (RUM analysis). The potential benefits of reducing these losses with the proposed
rule are discussed in Chapter E6.
' Because many facilities consider intake flow to be "confidential business information" not all of the intake flows used in these
calculations arc presented in this report.
CJ-22
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table C3 6: Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms), by Spcces ot Nine Ohio River CWIS as Estimated
fram facility Monitoring.
Sptti«
W.C.
Heckjord
Cardinal
If
Kamnwr
Kyger
Creek
Miami .
Fort
Philip
Sporn
Tanners
Creek
W.H.
Sammis
American eel
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
Banded sculpin
0
0
•>
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bigmouth buffalo
t)
0
1.378
0
0
180
12
258
; 0
Black bullhead
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
Black crappic
172
13.270
.1,932
326
2,062
154
3,537
'553'
3,346
Bluegil!
228
3.292
9,826
269
2.047
184
1,836
1,7X0
1.725
Bluntnose minnow
0
1,601
21
f>5
374
o
36
; 0
' 995
Brown bullhead
0
2411
136
65
54
0
97
64
650
Channel catfish
217
10,542
1,670
7ngnosc gar
0
0
306
0
54
30
36
27
0
Madtoni spp.
0
0
(!
0
0
0
0
(5
24
Minnow «pp,
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
Mooneye
11
y
4.107
{J
218
358
1)
1,560
" 0
MuskcUyii|ii;
0
90
0
0
0
0
i)
0
: 24
Northern pike
0
0
0
8
y>
0
24
0
' 0
Paddlefish
11
0
504
SI
0
800
0
' 4,289
0
Percid spp.
It
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rainbow smelt
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rainbow trout
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
!t
48
Red bass
0
o
0
0
0
0
12
!)
0
River carpsuckcr
491
o
0
0
265
4,271
0
341
0
Sanger
1,825
167
7.449
65
2.451
4.576 "
1,702
1,886
48
Silver chub
23
0
742
8
498
270
960
148
0
Silver lamprey
ts
0
6
0
0
(1
24
0
0
Skipjack herring
1,711
64
89,012
0
156
18,671
36
32.571
* 1,564
Smafhnouth bass
0
334
73
70
0
36
21
722
Stonccat
0
0
4
0
1)
0
0
0
' 0
Stonerollcr
t)
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
Striped bass
0
0
112
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
Sucker spp.
0
179
2,290
41
0
0
9?
0
554
Sunfish spp.
0
1,588
634
0
0
0
0
0
1.584
CS-23
-------
6 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Table 03-b- Annuo: Impingement (numbers of organisms), by Spectes. at Nine Ohio River CWIS as Estimated
from Facility Monitoring (cant,),
Species
= W.C.
fUckjord
Cardinal
Oifry
Creek
' KimnitY
Kyger
Creek
Miami
Fort
Philip
Sporn
1 Tanners
Creek
W.II.
Saminis
Trouiperch
0
o
I)
33
0
0
0
i o
' 329
Unidentified
34
0 •
X
0
" fi
616
A
ic. '
0
Walleye
Q
26
119
: 0
X
0
0
¦ 0 ' '
n
While bass
924
94H
15.1.14
: ' '163'
"7X6
: 3,392
170
T 2,$44 :1
' 6,651
Yellow perch
ll
21 s' ;
17
f 16
' 140
0
' 49 '
r o *
"X34
0 -• Sampled, bui none collected or rounded w 0.
Tue Uce 25 19:20:06 MST 2 (KM P^INTAK&'Ohio/Ohio„Scicncft's«Hje/
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part Q The Ohio River
Table C3-7: Annual Impingement at 9 Ohio River CWIS Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents.
- ... ; Bigmouth • Black ; Black ... ; Bluntrom Brown ; Channel | Common : Darter Emerald Freshwater; Gizzard Golden
• : Buffalo Bullhead Crappic j Minnow Bullhead; Catfish Carp \ *pp, ; Shiner Drum I Shad : Redhorse
W.C. : 0 0 208 272 ; {> 0 : 280 12 0 1.841 9.041 ! 45,413 j 449
Beckjord . : ; : . I
Cardinal j 0 0 • 16,063 : 3,926 ; 2,34! 29? j 13,58? • 1,649 ' 25? ; 34.803 : 768 : 148,398 i 536
Clifiy Creek ' 1,746 0 . 2,338 : 11,718 • 31 166 \ 2,153 39! 0 3,546 : 122,503 ! 2.117,457 : 295
Rammer 0 0 . 395 321 95 SO 1,020. : 92 0 2.587 273 : 11.629 ' 238
Kyger 0 0 j 2.4% : 2,441 ' 546 66 6,73! 14? 0 . 16.243 ; 30,143 : 190,578 ; 20?
Creek
Miami Fort : 0 37 187 '220 0 0 951 32? 0 ; 1,939 45,828 j 207,445 ' 4159
Philip Spom 15 0 ; 4.2S2 ; 2,1X9 . 53 119 ! 7.505 : 69 0 ; 4,324 16,101 '• 28.S26 ; 92
Tanners 327 O i 669 2.12.1 ; 0 7S 905 286 0 : 2.446 ; 22.923 157,660 ; 54
Creek
WJ!. 0 0 ' : 4,050 2,057 : 1,455 792 i 14,839 . 11,117 1 0 : 53,731 ; 28 42",921 427
Sammis :
Mean value . 232 4 ; 3.410 . 2J07 ; 502 178 5,330 : 1,565 : 29 ; 13,496 ' 27,512 370,592 ; 301
0 Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 19:18:32 MSI 2001 P;?lN"f AKl:.'Ohic»"Ohks_Scieflec.'scode-'ohi»,s«mmarv.tabks.'t>hi«ium.ae1.imp.csv
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of ME Data
Facility :
Kvper
Creek
.Miami
For!
Philip
Sporn
IfiR-
perch
0
w.c,
Rcckjord
Cardinal : Q
Cliffy : 190
Creek
Kammer 22
146
50
97
Tanners 7
Creek •
W.H. 386
Sammis
Mean
value
UK)
Table C3-7; Annual Impingement at 9 Ohio River CWI5 Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents (cant.).
River r. T"T Small- Striped Sucker Sunfl*ih
ongear Minnow ; Muikel- Paddle- Perth j Rainbow
spp. : Smelt
Sunfish spp
IS 0
0
0
204
791
0
405
157
0
175
I)
0
0
0
lunge
0
9fi
0
0
0
0
0
36
14
fish
0
0
643
0
0
1,021
0
5,479
0
794
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
Skip-
„ , Saueer lack
C arpsucker Herring
622 ; 2.056 2.287
0
0
0
335
5.412
0
432
0
756
m ¦ m
8,392 : 118.953
74
t,762
0
208
5.156 24.951
1.917 49
2,(25 43.527
54 2,091
2,525 21.350
mouth Bass Bas* : spp. spp.
0 0 0 0
520
485
106
102
0
53
30
1.047
260
52
0
0
0
19
0
123
0
70S
445
0
2,640
70S
WaHevc
0
q . 227 2.647 * 29
168 ' 2,901 1,056 ; 137
83
29
White
Bass
1,115
1.144
IXJhf:
197
949
4,094
205
0
8,028
3,778
Yellow
Perch
0
400
31
30
257
f)
89
0
1.531
260
0 Sampled, but skh>c collected or rounded to 0.
Tuc Dec 25 19:18:32 MST2001 P:/lNTAKlr^Ohio'QhMi_Sci£nc«/scotie'ohio.suniiTiar,y.tablcs;ohtosum.a<;l.inip.csv
("3-26
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Chapter C3 Evaluation of 146 Data
Table C3-8- Annual Impingement at 9 Ohio River facilities Expressed as Yield Lost to
Facility
W.C. Beckjord
Cardinal
C'hlly ("reek
Rammer
Kyger Creek
Miami Fori
Philip Sporn
Tanners Creek
W.H, Sammis
Mean value
Fisheries (in pounds}.
Black Crappie
133
19
3
36
0
34
Blut^ill
0
1
Channel Catfish
9
425
67
32
210
30
234
28
464
167
0 = Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tuc Dec 25 19:18:40 MST 2001
Pi/INTAK&Ohio.'Ohio^Scienee/setMJe/ohio.suninmry.labteyoiiiosum.yicld.imp.csv
Table £3-8: Annual Impingement at 9 Ohio River facilities Expressed as Yield Lost to
Fisheries (ill pounds) (cont )
Facility
Muikcllunue
Piiddli-
fiih
Saucer
Snwllmouth
Bass
Striped
Bass
SunfKh
spp.
Walleye
White
Bast
W.C. Beekjord
0
0
1(18
0
0
0
0
85
Cardinal
"J
0
10
21
0
1
5
87
Clifty Creek
o
133
440
20
233
0
24
1,392
Rammer
0
0
4
4
0
0
0
15
Kyger Creek
0
0
145
4
0
0
2
72
Miami Fort
o
211
27!
0
i)
IS
0
312
Philip Sporn
0
0
10!
2
0
0
0
16
Tanners Creek
0
1,134
1! 1
I
0
0
0
0
W.H. Sammis
0
0
3
43
0
1
IS
612
•Mean value
0
IM
132
i 1
26
0
5
IBS
0 - Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 19;18:40 MST 2«0I
Pi/rNTAKE/Ohiti'Ohit^Sciaiee/HCoiJe/ohio.suinmary.tahtewohiosum.ytekijnip.csv
C3-27
-------
8 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3 Evaluation of IAE bato
Table C3 9: Annual Impingement at 9 Ohio River Facilities Expressed as
Production Foregone (in pounds).
Facility
Bigmoutb
Buffalo
Black
Bullhead
Black
Grapple
Blnegill
Hluntnriit
Minnow
Brown
Bullhead
Channel
Catfish
Common ;
• Carp
Darter
spp.
Emerald
Shiner
• Freshwater
Drum
Ckstard
Shut}
Golden
Redhorse
W.C.
Bcckjord
n
0
?
3
0
0
!5
3
0
HI
860
3.S79
24
Cardinal
0
0
548
47
3
12
70S
• 4-64
1
1K9
73
12,<>77
29
Gifly Creek
516
0
80
)40
0
7
112
; no ;
(1
19
11,650 :
180.881
16
Rammer
0
0
13
4
0
3
53 •
26
0
14
26
993
13
Kyger
Creek
D
0
85
29
1
J
351
w ;
0
X«
2.867
16,280
1!
Miami Fort
0
1
6
3
0
0
50
: 92 ;
0
11
4.358
17.721
22
Philip Sporn
5
0
1 4fc
26
0
5
391
19 :
{)
23
1.531
2.462
5
Tanners
Creek
97
0
23
25
0
3
47
: SO '
0
13
2.1X0
67,339
3
Wii
Snmmis
ft
0
138
24
}
33
774
; j,130 ;
0
292
3
36.555
• 23
Mean value
69
0
116
33
1
7
278
441 '
0
73
2.616
37,643
16
0 = Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
"lue Dec 25 19:18:36 MST 2001 P: IMTAKlv'OhttvOhio Science seode/objo.sammary.tables'obio&um.pf.imp.cs*
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part C; The Ohio River
Chapter C3 Evaluation of IAE Data
Table C3-9: Annual Impingement of 9 Ohio River Facilities Expressed as Production Foregone {in pounds) (cont.).
„ ... l.ongear Minnow Paddle- Perch „ Skipjack Smallmouth Slriptd Sucker Sunfish, ; White ; Vellow
Sunfish : spp, fish spp. : Herring ; Bass Bass ; spp. • spp. *• Bass Perch
W.C 0 0 0 0 52 733 J 410 0 0 0 0 0 104
Beckjord !
Cardinal; 0 0 . 5fi 0 0 : 6? : 15 37 . 0 . 19 4 II 107
Clifty 1 0 ; 0 1,634 I 0 : 2.9W 21.306 35 ¦ 47 . 245 2 49 1,709
Creek .
Kanimcr : 0 0 ¦ 0 0 * 0 ; 26 ; 0 8 0 4 0 0 IS
Kygcr : I : 1 0 0 ; 28 984 ; 37 7 0 _ a t) 3 89
Creek ; ; : •
Miami -00 . 0 ! 2,595 ; 456 • 1,837 4.469 0 0 • 0 0 0 3S3
Fort ;
Philip : o s o o ; o ' m " 9 4 • 0 : 10 « 0 19
Spom ; ,
Tanners ; 0 0 0 1 ^ ,<521 36 757 7,7% 2 0 0 0 0 0
Creek
W.H. 2 0 15 0 0 19 374 75 0 59 4 30 751
Sammis , ;
Mean ; 0 0 8 2,017 ; 64 . 900 3.824 19 : 5 38 . I ; 10 354
value '
0 Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
1 lie Dec 25 19:18:36 MST 2001 P:,1NT.\KE-Ohio;Ohio_Seiencc./si:ode.-ohio.summarv' tables oliiosum.pf imp.csv
C3-29
-------
i 316(b) £ase Studies, Part C- The Ohio ftivcr
Table C3-10; Annual Entroinment (numb«i*s of organisms), by Species, at 9 Ohio River CWI5 as Estimated from Facility Monitoring,
Species Beckjord ^ Cardinal Cliffy Creek ; Kammer ; Kvger Creek ; Miami Fort ; Philip Sporn ; W.H, Sarnmis
Black crappic 404,596 j 38,200 14,517 0 ; 1.520.400 J 0 26,700 18.194 104,173
Blucgiii : o ; o 29,033 ;a:0;o;'a.o:o
Blumnosc minnow : 0 • 3S.234.900 ; 145,167 \ JII,249,300 i 59.223,900 ! 0 15,082,500 0 ; 2,048.741
Brown bullhead : 0 : 0 29.033 j 0 : 0 0 : 64,200 0 69,449
Channel catfish ! 3,879 " { 76,400 29.033 : 82.400 ; 481JOO . 0 . 19,100 181,944 277.795
Common carp 4.200.488" • S58.700 14.517 ; 4.770,600 . 130.089.600 : 13,867,678 27.648300 9.097 5.59(1631
Darter spp. 0 412,100 It it 0 0 0 0 0
Tabic C3-10; Annual Entrainment {numbers of organisms), by Species, at 9 Ohio River CWI5 as Estimated from Facility Monitoring (cont )
Species • gec^jorlj Cardinal • Cliffy Cretk i K a miner Kyger Creek ; Miami Fort i Philip Sporn Creek ; W.H. Saimm's
Emerald shiner 0 ' 725,100 435,502 ; 0 j 9.595,600 ; 21.091,478 :• 783.000 ! 118.263 : 2.830,040
Freshwater drum 73,321 ; 38.200 159.684 J 0 i 45,288,800 . 15,607,150 : 7.597,100 118,264 0
Gizzard shad 0 ; 0 29.033 0 329,500 = 19,277,962 45.800 454.K61 225.709
Golden rcdhorsc . 0 : 0 ; 0 : 0 2 02,800 0 0 0 0
Herring spp. 0 0 0 ; 2.121,700 0 ; 0 0 0 0
Logperch 0 0 : 0 0 44,400 ; 0 0 27,291 : 503.504
Longear sunfista 0 j 0 0:0? 1,445.200 ; 0 j 532,80(1 9,097 0
Minnow spp. 1,037,966 ; 0 0 0 ; 0 ; 5.394,868 ; 0 36,3X9 ¦ 0
Mooneye ; 0 : 0 * 0 : 0 0 0 0 ; 9,097 ; 0
Mooneye goldeye 0 0-0 0 285,300 0 22,900 0 0
CI-J!)
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pan C: The Ohio River Chapter C2 Evaluotion of I&E Data
Table C3-10: Annual Entroinment {numb«rs of organisms), by Species, at 9 Ohio River CWIS as Estimated from Facility Monitoring (cont )
Specks B«kjord Ctrdinal Ciiftv Creek ; K a miner ; Kyger Creek ; Miami Fort Philip Sporn ; ^Cree" W-H. Sarnrms
PatMlefish 0 0 : 0 0 0 (I 0 ¦ 27,292 0
Perch spp, 1 204,342 f 0 : 0 0 ' 0 : 0 0 0 0
River carpsucker J 48.364.734 : 0 0 0 211,297.200 3.440.994 - 0 i 8.014.651 0
Saucer 0 0 319,368 0 0 | 7.247.990 ; 0 9,097 0
Silver chub 0 0 0 : 0 ^ 513,400 : 0 | 0 0 0
Skipjack herring ! 2.095.906 . 580.200 26!.301 0 ! 4.358.100 J 0 949.800 545,833 0
Smallmouth bass : t.897,260 ' 0 145.167 1} 95.100 ^ 658.260 19,!Of! 0 34.724
Table C3-10. Annual Entrainment (numbers of organisms), by Species, at 9 Ohio River CWIS as Estimated from Facility Monitoring (cent.).
Species
W.C.
Beekjord
Cardinal
Cliffy Creek
Kimmer
¦ Kyger Creek
Miami Fort
: Philip Sporn ;
Tanners
Creek
W.H. Samml*
Stonccai
o
0
0
0
0
0
o :
0
121.535
Sucker spp
0
190,80(1
¦ 64.744.662
183.400
: ()
0
: 16.958,600
u
190.984
Simfish spp
: 0
0
; 1.451.674
0
: o
147.936
0
0
243.071
Unidentified
: 0
36.352,00ft
' 2.194.181
62.605.700
: 107.662.900 ¦
67,437,529
40.400.0(10 ;
2.22S,819
4.271.595
Walleye
; ¦ o
810,400
5X'.Oft7
478.200
: 15,659,000
0
. 2,091.100
0
312,520
W'huc bass
; 1,442.562
0
14.517
82,400
114.100
2JP j,864
0
0
69,449
Yellow perch
: 0
633,500
IJ
628,! 00
. 1.199.400
0
1,637,500 :
0
468,780
0 ¦- Sampled, hut tn>rc collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 19:20,05 MST 2001 P; TNTAKfl/Ohio Ohi«_Science scode-ohio surnmarv.iablcs/ohiosimi.rawJos£.ent.csv
C3-3I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C. The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table C3-1J; Annual Entrapment at 9 Ohio River CWIS Expressed as NJumbers of Age 1 Equivalents
... , Black _. . Bluntnose Brown Channel Common Darter i Kmc raid ; Freshwater ; (Vi/jard ; Golden Herring
flCI 1 * Crappie Minnow Bullhead Catfish ; Carp spp, Shiner Drum Shad Redhorse spp,
WX. Bcckjord 16.405 0 1) 0 ; 19 i 20.794 0 0 32 0 : 0 0
Cardinal 1.549 0 ; 1.098,788 j 0 ; 378 4.251 ! 14.5.14 ; 32,959 17 ; 0 0 j 0
Cliftv Creek ' 1,478 569 ; 7,033 f 1,613 144 ; 5,80? ; 0 ; 169,054 : 18.612 1,416 ; 0 : 0
Kammer 0 0 : 3,197,065 ; 0 408 : 23,617 | 0 0 0' ; 0 0 ; 843
Kyger Creek : 61.648 0 ; 1.701.967 ; 0 2,385 ; 644.008 ! 0 436,164 : 19.822 1,498 1,859 ; 0
Miami Fort 0 0 ; 0 0 0 : 68,652 ; 0 i 958.704 6,831 87,62" 0 ; 0
Philip Sporn ! 1.083 0 | 433.438 \ 318 " 95 : 136,873 j 0 \ 35.591 3,325 • 208 0 ' 0
Tanners Creek ! 738 0:0; "0 65.590 ; 1.639 : I) i 47,305 1.712 : 46,890 " 0 : 0
W.H. Sainrais ; 4,224 0 i 58.876 : 344 1,375 j 27.676 j 0 j 128.638 0 1.026 0 0
Mean value ;. 9,681 63 | 721,908 I 1.364 7,822 103,924 1.615 : 200,935 : 5,595 : 15.407 • 207 '94
0 = Sampled, bill none eollecied or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 19:18:43 MST 2001 P:,TNTAK&'Ohio'Ohi0..SciOTce'sc ; White Yellow
*C " ; perch ; Sunfish spp. fish ; spp. j Carpsucker ; * M"er j Herring s Bass spp. spp. * ®*e : Bass Perch
W.C. Beckjord 0 \ 0 ! 29,829 ; 0 ; 7,207 ; 694,736 0 833 ; 152.930 0 0 0 ; 7,141 0
Cardinal , 0 ; 0 ; 0 i 0 0 i 0 I 0 ; 231 • 0 ; 2.741 0 ; 6,525 : 0 , 30.021
Cliftv Creek 0 ; 0 : 0 ! 0 ¦ 0 } 0 i 3.534 ¦ 3,309 : 11.701 930.025 ; 494.103 : 468 . 5J07 ; (}
Kammcr 0 : 0 ; 0 l Q 0 l 0 i 0 ; 0 0 ; 2,634 0 ; 3,851 " 408 ; 29,766
Kyger Creek. • 1,566 1 487,093 j 0 : 0 I 0 ; 3,035,181 j 0 1,732 7.666 0 ' 0 126,089 ; 565 56,839
Miami Fori •• 0 0 j 155,037 0 | 0 • 49.428 \ 80.212 ' 0 . 53.060 0 . 49,861 0 ; 10.267 • 0
Philip Sporn ; 0 ; 179,576 i 0 ; 0 0 0 i 0 377 : 1,540 , 243.602 ! 0 , 16,838 ; 0 ' 77,601
Tanners Creek ; 12,799 j 6.092 ! 2,8.3« : 2.072 : 0 115,127 3,015 ; 1.472 ; 0 0 ; 0 0 : 0 0
W.H. Sammis i 17,758 : 0 i 0 0 ; 0 ; 0 0 | 0 ; 2,"99 •' 2,743 i 81.925 ' 2.51.6 ; 344 ; 22,215
Mean value j 3,569 i 74,751 ? 20,856 ; 230 J 801 ! 432,719 * 9,640 ! 884 ; 25,522 i 131.305 ; 69,543 ; 17,365 ; 2.726 • 24,049
0 = Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
7 ue Dec 25 19:18:43 MST200! P:/JKT.^KE/Ohio/Ohio^Scienee'seode.'ohb,summary,tables/ohiosuni.aeI .eisl.csv
C3-32
-------
6 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CJ: Evaluation of I4E Data
Toble C3-12 Annual Entrainment at 9 Ohio River Facilities Expressed as Vietd Lost to
fisheries (in pounds).
Facility Black Crappie Channel Catfish
W.C. Bcckjorci _ * 13,6 I
Cardinal 13 12
ditty Creek 12 4
Kammcr 0 13
Kyger Creek ; 511 75
Miami Fort 0 . 0
Philip Sporri .9 3
Tanners Creek ; 6 2.049
W.H. Sammis 35 ' 4.1
Mean value Rfl 244
0 = Sampled, hut none collected or rounded in 0
Tuc Dec 25 19; I S:5 I MST 2001
P:/INTAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Scicncc/scodctohirt.sumimry.raWcwohk»sHm.virfd.««.csv
Table C3-12:
Annual Entroinment at 9 Ohio River Facilities Expressed
as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
(cont.).
Facility
Lnngear
Suit fish
Paddl«fisti
Sauger
Smallmnurh Bass
Sunfish app. |
Walleye
White Ba»s
W.C. Beckjord
0
' o
0
6,245
0
0
544
Cardinal :
0
; (s
ft
0
0
! 145
0
Clifty Creek
0
: {)
IKS
47K
179
82
442
Kammcr
0
fi
0
0
0
676
31
Kyger (..'reck
[77
()
0
313
0
,22.133
' 43
Miami Fori
0
0
4,209
; 2,167
18
0
7X2
Philip Sporn
65
«
0
63
0
2.956
0
Tanners Creek
*%
£.
429
158
0
0
0
0
W.H. Sammis
0
0
0
114
.'li
442
* 26
Mean value
27
48
506
1.042
25
3.048
: 208
ft • Sampled, h»i none collected or rounded H> 0
Tuc Dec 25 19:18:51 MST 2001 P:/|NTAKiyOhro/01i!o„Sciencc/scode'ohio.summaryjablew>hiosimi.yield.ent.csv
CJ-3J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3 Evaluation of I4E Data
0 -- Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 19:18:47 MST 2001 P: 1NTAKE;Ohior()hio„Sciencc ;scodfc'ohio.s«mm3r\.iaWes.'ohtosuni.pf.eBi.csv
Table C3-13
Annual Entrapment at 9 Ohio River Facilities Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds).
Facility
Black
Crappie
BliiegiJI
; Rluntnosc
; Minnow
Brown
Bullhead
Channel
Catfish
; Common
Carp
; Darter
tpp.
; Emerald
Shiner
Freshwater ¦
Drum
Gizzard
Shad
Golden
Rtdhwsc
Herring
spp.
W.C. Beekjtml
14.380 ;
0
0
0
6
j 27,960
; o
: 0
47 :
0
0
0
Cardinal
1,358 i
0
; 48,60)
0
125
: 5.7 i 6
; UX9
^ 4,844
25
0
0
0
nifty Creek
650
30
: 210
1.992
47
: H.297
0
5.266
3,75? ;
2,327
•: 0
0
Kammer
0 :
0
: 141,411
(1
134
: 31,755
0
; o
0 ¦
0
, 0
169
Kvger Creek
54,037 ,
0
75,281
<1
786
H65.938
0
: 64.101
29,098
7.603
3.312
0
Miami l ort
o ;
0
0
0
0
92,310
0
: 140,897
! 0,028 ;
444.K44
0
0
Philip Sporn
: 949
0
; 19.172
66
31
S 84.040
; 0
; 5,231
4,881
1,057
0
0
Tanners Creek
647 ;
0
: o
0
8,744
5.199
0
1,450
369 :
39.573
0
0
W.H Sammis
: rj
:
: fn
0
: 2.604
71
453
. 37,214
0
¦ IS, 905
0
5,208
0
0
Mean value
8,414 :
3
31,920
237
1,148
139.826
132
; 26,744
5.356
55,624
368
19
Table C3-J3;
Annual Entrapment at 9 Ohio River Facilities- Expressed os Production Foregone (in pounds) (cant,).
Facility
; Log- :
perch
Longe*r
Sundsh
i Minnow
spp.
Paddle-
; fish
Perch
spp.
River
Carpsucker ;
Saugcr
Skipjack
Herring
: SmaHmouth
Bass
; Sucker
spp.
Sunfisb
spp,
Walleye
W.C. Beckjord
«
0
i 127
0
590
i 58-H.639 :
0
22.301
443
0
0
0
Cardinal
; »
0
; o
: o
0
0 ¦
0
6.173
0
: 2.322
0
19,287
Cfifty Creek
0
0
i o
: 0
0
o
7,849
9.295
1,810
: 787.996
5,444
6
Rammer
0
0
0
: (1
0
0
0
0
I o
" -i on
0
52
Kyger Creek
; 128 ;
2.576
0
: o
I)
: 2,571,661 ;
0
46,371
1,186
: 0
0
372,669
Miami Fort
; 0 :
0
6.858
; o
0
^ 41.880
178.126
0
154
; o
49
0
Philip Sp<3FTI
<) :
950
i o
0
0
o :
0
10,106
238
; 206.400
0
226
Tanner-; Creek
113
56
: 3o
i 8,941
0
! 97.545 :
3.586
6,587
0
i 0
0
0
W.H Sammis
• 1,453 ;
0
i 0
' o
0
i o
0
0
433
; 2.324
433
7.438
Mean value
: 188 :
39S
: 779
i 993
66
I 366.636 i
21.062
11,204
474
i ! 11,253
65 S
44,408
White
Bass
10.958
0
3.837
626
867
15.753
0
0
528
3.619
Yellow
Perch
n
3.6X5
0
3,654
6.977
0
9.525
0
2,727
2,952
0 - Sampled, but none collected or rounded Jo 0.
1 ue Dec 25 19:18:4? MST 2001 P:!iNTAK.E^OStioi'Oliio_Scienc«/sco«le/ohio.siiiiimafy.tables?ohlosuin.pf.eiit.esv
(3-34
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C- The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table C3-14: Ohio River CWIS, Operational flows, CWIS Locations, and Status in Relation to the Proposed 8
316(b) Phase II Rule. Facility Names in Bold are the 9 Ohio River Facilities with WE Data.
Facility Name
Operational :
Flow (MGO)
Poo!
Length of Pool"
* In-Seope
Richard H Gorsueh
244,8
Belleville Pool
162-207
: yes
Cane Run
358.4
Cannclton Pool
607-721
yes
DuPont
NR
Canneiton Pool
607-721
no
Mill Creek
210.3 ;
Cannelton Pool
607-721
yes
R. Gallagher
NR
Camtelton Pool
607-721
yes
Rohm and Haas Co. Louisville Plant
: 41.1
Canttelton Pool
607-721
no
Bayer Corp
3.7 ;
Hannibal Pool
84.2-127
no
Kammw
NR •
Hannibal Poo!
84.2-127 •
.. yes
Mitchell
nr ;
Hannibal Pool
84.2-12?
no
Ormct Aluminum Mill Product!; Corporation
4,fi
Hannibal Pool
84,2-127
no
PPG Ind. Inc. (7o P.P.O. Industries Inc.
i24.lt
Hannibal Pool
84.2-127
no
RE. Burger
225.0
Hannibal Pool
84.2-127
ye*
A.B. Brown
5.6 j
John T. Myers Pool
776-846
110
Count rymark Cooperative inc.
0.6
John T. Myers Pool
776-846
no
General Electric Company
<>5 ;
John T Myers Pool
776-846
no
.loppa Steam
568.2
Lock and Dam 53 Poo!
939-062
yes
Shawnee
1,210.0 ,
Luck and Dam 53 Pool
939-962
yes
East Bend
1.3
Markland Pool
436-531,5
no
Miami Fort
207,0 ;
Markland Pool
436-531.5
yes
Tanner* Creek
1,092,0 ;
Markland Pool
436-531.5
yes
W.H Zimmer
410 !
Markland Pool
436-531.5
yes
Walter C, Beckjord
5<»2.o ;
Markland Pool
436-53.1.5
yes
Cttfty Creek
NR ;
Mc Alpine Pool
531.5-607
yes
Ghent
63.9 ;
Me Alpine Poo!
S31.5-607
yes
North American Stainless - Ghent
1.0 ;
MeAIpine Pool
531.5-607
no
Trimble County
9.3
MeAlpine Pool
5 3!. 5-607
no
H.L. Spurloek
3,5
Melclaht Pool
345-436
no
J.M. Stuart
773.3
Meldahl Pool
345-436
yes
Killen Station
7,6
MetriaM Pool
345-436
no
"New Boston Coke - American Buckeye Division
8.6
Meldahl Pool
345-436
no
G.F. Weaton Power Station Zinc Corporation of America
' 68.0
Montgomery Poo!
13-32
no
Beaver Valley Nuclear
86,8
New Cumberland Pool
32-54.4
yes
Brace Mansfield
NR
New Cumberland Poo! :
32-54.4
yes
W.H, Sammis
NR
New Cumberland Poo!
32-54.4
¦yes
Coleman
248.0
Newburgh Pool
721-776
. y«
Elmer Smith
235.9
Newburgh Pool
721-776
yes
F.B. Culley
358.3
Newburgh Pool
721-776
yes
Rockport
i 15.2
Newburgh Pool
721-776
yes
Warrick
475.0
Newburgh Pool
721-776
yes
Cardinal - Units J and 2 Only
NR
Pike Island Pool
54.4-84.2
yes
Weirion Steel Corporation
! 70.6
Pike Island Pool
54.4-84,2
no
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. - Yorkville Plant
3,6
Pike Island Poo!
54.4-84.2
no
Gen. J.M. Gavin
32,8 :
Robert C. Byrd Pool
239-282
yes
C3-35
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C3 Evaluation of I4E bata
Table C3-14: Ohio River CWIS, Operational Flows CWIS Locations, and Status in Relation to the Proposed
Rule. Facility Names in Bold are the 9 Ohio River Facilities with I<5E Data (cont )
Facility Name
Kyger Creek
Mountaineer
Philip Spftrn
Pleasants
Willow Island
Operational
Flow (MC.m
1.119.0
Nil
870.6
NR
MR
Pool
Length cif Pool*
Rohm C. Byrd Pool
Robert V, Byrd Pool
Robert C, Byrd Pool
Willow Island Pool
Willow Island Pool
23l>-282
239-282
2TO-2K2
127-131
137-131
In-Scope
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
* Pool length is from EA Engineering Science ami Technology, 2001; US Army Corps Engineers Pittsburgh District, 2001; and US Army
Corps Engineers Huntington District. 2001. ,
NR = Not reported (mav be considered CBI by facility).
Table C3-15:
Outline of IAE Extrapolations for Ohio River CWIS..
Ohio Facilities With I&l. Data
Facilities Extrapolated To
CliAy Creek
j Ghent, North American Stainless, Trimble, Cane Run. Du Pont. Mill Creek, Gallagher.
• Rohm & Haas, Coleman, Elmer Smith, Cullev. Rockport, Warwick. AB Brown, Count)
:Mark, Genera) Electric, Joppa Steam. Shawnee
Kvger Creek, Philip Sporn
'Richard H. Gorsueh, Mountaineer, Gen IM Gavin
Miami Fort, Tanners Creek. W.C. Beckjord
iSpurloek. Stuart. Kitlen. New Boston Coke. Zsnvner, East Bend
W.H Satnmis
:GF Wlieaton. Beaver, Bruce Mansfield
Rammer
: Willow Is., Bayer Mitchell, Ormet, PPG, RE Burger, Pleasants
Cardinal
! Weirton. Wheclmg-Pittsburg
CJ-J6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part O The Ohio River
Chapter C3- Evaluation of I
-------
Chapter Ci Evaluation of I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River Chapter C3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table C3-17: EWs Estimates of Annual Impingement at All In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River
CWIS. by Species and Pool, Expressed as Numbers of Age i Equivalents.
Species
: Hannibal
Pool
Markland
Pool
Mc Alpine
Pool
SewbiirRh
Pool
Pike Island
Pool
Robert C,
Byrd Pool
Total
Rigmouth buffalo
i 0 '
760
7.104
0
0
20
7,884
Black bullhead
: (i
85
0
»
: o
0
85
Black crappie
; 786
1,351
9.513
4,745
19,623
4,361
40,379
Biuegill
639
2,7! 3
47,677
2,410
4,796
2.979
61.214
Blunt nose minnow
; 190
0
125
1,704
2,860
386
5.265
Brown bullhead
: 158
m
675
928
363
119
2.425
Channel catfish
2,028
2
8.758
17,387
16.599
9.159
56.293 •
Common carp
183
516
1,590
13,026
¦ 2,014
135
17.464
Darter spp,
0
0
0
0
314
0
314
Emerald shiner
5,145
9,478
14.429
62,957
42.516
13,232
147,757
Freshwater drum
543
83,134
498,423
33
939
29.751
6I2.X22
Gizzard shad
: 23,131
432.906
8,615,185
501,397
: 181,286
141,157
9,895,(W»2
Golden redhorse
473
1.840
1,201
500
654
193
4,861
I-ngpervli
43
66
775
452
o
156
1,493
Longcar sun fish
406
273
0
0
0
770
(.448
Minnow spp.
0
K
0
0
: o
0
8
Muskcltunge
: 0
0
(1
30
118
0
148
Paddlefish
n
7.558
2,617
0
0
0
10.175
Perch spp.
0
146
0
0
0
0
146
Rainbow smell
0
0
19
0
0
0
19
River earpsueker
0
6.583
0
0
0
431
7.015
Sauger
146
12.431
34.145
64
3,010
50,026
Skipjack herring
f
60.626
483,977
2,450
105
165
547,322
Smallmouth bass
212
24
1,973
1,226
635
99
4.169
Striped bass
0
0
683
0
0
0
683
Sucker spp.
103
0
11.803
X22
278
159
13,164
Sunfish spp.
0
0
4,296
3,093
3,234
0
10,623
Walleye
0
0
557
97
36
6
696
White bass
' 392
10.282
74,319
9.406
1,398
743
96,539
Yellow perch
60
0
127
1.794
488
223
2.691
Total 34.637 ; 631324 ; 9.819.970 624.522 : 278.482 207.252 ' J1.598,1 SS
Note: In some cases, impingement losses* expressed as age I equivalents may be larger than raw loss estimates, This can
occur because She ages of the impinged fish are assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year I and
the start- of year 2. and then normalized hack to the start of year 1 by accounting for mortality during this interval (sec
Chapter A 2 of Part A for details).
0 Sampled, but none collected or rounded to (3,
Tue Dec 25 20:03:17 MST 2001
Pr/lNTAKIi/CMno/Ohio^Science/seode/ohio.extrapoItttron/ail.ohio.raciiitics.cxtrapoiation/summary.tables/agg.age, Lcqwv.I.
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter CI* Evaluation of IAE 6ata
Species
Black ernppic
Blucgill
Channel catfish
Longear sun fish
Mirttww spp
Musketltirijjc
Paddlefish
Sanger
Smaifmotith bass
Striped bsiss
Sunflsh spp.
Walleye
While bass
Total
McAlpine
Pool
Newburgh Pike Island
Pool
8
f>
0
0
"o
30
116
0
0
0
" 783 '
3,08"
81
94 fc
2
08
5/»63
>J.486
Tool
39
0
543
0
0
0
0
3
SO
* o
I?
71?
S.372
519
0
0
2
0
12
26
a
1
6
106
836
286
CI
0
0
0
158
4
0
(J
543
Total
335
Table C3-18: EPA's Estimates of Annual Impingement at All In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River
CWIS, by Species and Pool, Expressed as Yield Lost of Fisheries (in pounds).
Robert C.
Byrtf Pool
79 : 39 . 163 : 36
9
274
0
0
0
542
,792
Hannibal
Paol
7
0
63
0
0
0
0
Markland
Pool
tl
74
0
0
0
1,565
652
1.759
I
0
t
2,106
2,625
170
'?4K
4
122'
7.356
15,43')
• 0 - Sampled, bur none collected or rounded to 0,
Tue Dec 25 20:03:32 MST 2001
P:/IKTAKf-/Ohio/Ohio_Scicnce/Kcode,-'ohio. extrapolation/ all. nhin.faci lilies. extrapolation/summary .tahles/sifig.yteid.lbs. I. csv
C3-40
-------
8 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C3: Evaluation of 14 E Data
Table C3-19: EPA's Estimates of Annual Impingement at AH In Scope ond Out of Scope Ohio River
CWIS, by Species and Pool, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds),
Marktand ¦ McAlplne ; Newburgh ; Pike Island Robert C.
Species
Hannibal
Pool
Pool
Pool
Pool
Pool
Byrd Pool
Total
Black bullhead
0
•J
0
0
0
0
: 2
Black crappie
; 27
46
324
162
669
149
: 1,377
Blucgill
8
32
568
29
57
35
• 720
Blumtrose minnow
: 0
0
0
4
I
; 7
Brown bullhead
?
8
28
38
15
S
: 100
Channel catfish
106
123
457
907
865
478
- 2,9.35
Common carp
52
145
448
3,668
567
38
4,917
Darter spp.
: 0
0
0
0
2
0
: 2
Emerald shiner
; 28
51
78
342
231
72
803
Freshwaler drum
* 52
7.906
47,401
3
89
2,829
i 58.281
Gizzard shad
1.976
; 78,736
735.940
42,831
15,486
12,058
I 887,02 S
Golden rcdhorse
25
99
65
27
35
10
261
Logperch
0
0
4
0
I
7
l/>ngcar sunfish
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
Muskcltunge
0
: o
0
17
68
0
85
Paddlefish
0
19,202
6,649
0
0
0
¦ 25,851
Perch spp.
: o
1
0
0
0
0
i
River earpsticker
i 0
555
0
0
(I
36
591
Sanger
: 52
4,43 0
12,167
23
82
1,073
17,826
Skipjack herring
; 0
: 10,H5'S
86.688
439
19
30
; 98,034
Smallmouth bass
: 15
; J
14!
SR
45
7
298
Striped bass
; o
i o
[92
0
0
0
192
Sucker spp.
; 9
: 0
995
59
23
13
t.110
Sunfish spp.
: 0
0
7
5
5
0
18
Walleye
0
0
200
35
13
250
While bass
37
962
6.955
880
131
69
9.035
Yellow perch
0
0
0
4
1
1
7
Tor*l
; 2,393
123,385
901,408
49,572
18,408
16,914
1,112,080
0 » Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 20:03:46 MST 2001
Pr/INTAKE/i01)j<»/OWo_Sc»ence/scode/ohio.exirapolaiion/all.ohio.facilitics.cxtra|»Jaiton/sumfT»ry.tables'agg,pf.IbsJ.csv
C3-4/
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C" The Ohio River Chapter C3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table C3-20. EPA s Estimates of Annual Impingement at All In Scope Ohio River CWI5. by Species
and Pool, Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents.
Species
. Hannibal
Pool
; Marktand
Pool
Mc Alpine
Pool
New burgh
Pool
Pike Maud
Pool
Robert C,
fty rd Pool
Total
Bigmouth buffalo
0
749
6,988
0
0
20
7.757
Black bullhead
; 0
84
0
0
o
0
84
Black crappiu
674
1,332
9,3 5S
4.503
16,063
4,326
36,255
Bluest 11
i 548
2,674
46,900
2,287
3,926
2.955
59,289
Ulunmosc minnow
163
0
123
1,617
2,341
383
4,627
Urown bullhead
136
179
664
88!
297
i 18
2,274
Channel catfish
1,739
2.32*
8,615
16,500
13.5X7
9,085
51,855
Common carp
157
509
1.564
12,361
1,649
134
16,373
Darter spp.
; o
0
0
0
257
0
257
Emerald shmcr
• ; 4.412
; 9.341
14,194
59,745
34,803
13,125
135.620
Freshwater drum
: 466
8 13)39
490,297
31
768
29,510
603,011
Gizzard shad
: 19,835
: 426,682
8,474,732
475,816
148,398
140,014
9,685.477
Golden rodhorsc
405
1,813
1,182
475
536
191
4,602
Logpercb
37
65
762
429
0
155
1,449
1 A>ngear sutifish
34 8
269
0
0
0
763
1,380
Minnow spp.
0
8
0
0
t)
O
8
Muskellonge
0
0
0
29
9ft
0
125
Paddlcfish
0
7,449
2,574
o ¦
0
0
: 10,024
Pcrcid spp.
0
' 143
0
0
0
0
143
Rainbow smell
; o
• o
19
0
0
0
19
River carpsucker
o
6,489
0
0
0
428
6,917
Sauger
125
12,252
33,589
60
188
2.986
49.200
Skipjack, herring
0
59,754
476,0X7
2.325
86
164
^ 538,415
Smallmoulh bass
182
' 23
1,941
1,164
520
99
3,928
Striped bass
(J
0
672
0
0
0
i 672
Sucker spp.
KS
0
11,611
780
227
157
12,864
Sunfish spp,
0
0
4.226
2,936
; 2,647
0
: 9,809
Walleye
0
0
54H
92
2,9
6
675
White bass
336
KM 34
73,107
! 8,926
1,144
736
; 94,384
Yellow perch
51
O
125
1,702
400
221
2,499
Total
29,701
624,219
9,659,875
' 592,659
; 227,962
205.574
: 11,3 3 9,99
0 « Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 20:10:34 MST 2001
l>:/IN1V\KE/Ohio/()hio_Scitfnce/sc»)dc/obii>.c3cirapolatiija,in,seapc.racili!ii-s.beiit-tits/suiwiiary'.ii!bles.|'agg,agcJ.equivJ,c»v
C3-42
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C The Ohio River Chapter C3: Evaluation of WE Data
Table €3-21; CPA's Estimates of Annual Impingement ot All In Scope Ouo River CWXS, by Species
and Pool, Expressed as yield Lost of Fisheries (in pounds).
, Hannibal MarUanit ! McAlpin* Newburjjh ; Pike Island Robert C, ill
Pool Pool Pool Pool Poof By rd Pool
Black crappie 6 II 78 ¦ 37 : 133 36 301
Bluegslt 0 ! 9 0 t . I H
Channel catfish
54
73
269
516 :
425
2S4
1,620
Muskcllungc
!)
0
0
0
0
Paddlcftsli
0
1,542
533
0
0
0
2,075
-Sanger
7
643
1,763
3
10
157
2,582
Smallrnouth bass
n
1
79
4X
21
4
160
Striped bass
0
0
932
0
0
0
932
Sunfish spp.
: (i
0
1
1
0
4
Walleye
0
0
96 .
16
5
1
119
White bass
26
772
5,571
ftM)
87
56
7,192
Total
100
3,042
9,331
1,302
6X4
538
14.W8
(I = Sampled, hut none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 20:10:52 MST 2001
P:/1NTAK, E/Ohio;Ohio_Sc tencc/scodc/ohio.extrapatotion/in. scope. facilHics.berniftts/'sumniiiry.tablcs/agg.yicld. lbs. S, esv
CS-43
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: Th« Ohio River
Tabic C3-22; EPA's Estimates of Annuo) Impingement at Ail In Scope Ohio River CWIS, by Species
and Pool, Expressed as Production Foregone (m pounds).
Species
Hannibal
Poi»l
Murkland
Fool
Mc Alpine
Pool
New burgh
Pool
Pike Island
Pool
Kotwri C. ;
llyrd Pool
Total
Bigrnouth buffalo
0
222
2.067
0
0 ;
6
' 2,294
Black bullhead
0
2
0
0
o :
0
2
Black crappie
2.1
45
319
154
548
148
1.236
Dlucgill
7
; 32 .
5SJS
21
47 ;
35
706
Bluntno.se minnow
; 0
0
0
2
3 :
1
6
Brown bullhead
; 6
7
27
36
12
5
94
Channel catfish
01
121
449
860
708 :
474
2,704
Common carp
44
143
440
3.4X0
464 ;
3X
4.610
Darter spp.
i 0
0
0
0
I i
0
1
Emerald shiner
24
51
77
325
1K9
71
737
Freshwater drum
44
7.793
46.62K
3
73
2.806
57.347
Gizzard shad
: i.6
24?
l.ogpcrch
0
0
4
2
0
1
1
Longcar sun fish
1
0
0
0
0
I
2
Muskel lunge
i o
0
0
17
56 :
0
72
PackiWkh
0
18,926
6,541
o
o
0
25,466
Perch spp.
0
1
0
0
0 !
0
1
River earpsueket
: 0 .
547
0
0
0 :
36
583
Sanger
45
4.366
11,969
: 21
67
{,064
17,532
Skipjack hen mi?
0
10,703
M5.274
416
15
29
96,438
Smallmouth bass
13
2
139
S3
37 ;
7
280
Striped bass
; 0
0
189
0
o
0
189
Sucker spp.
7
0
•m
66
19
13
1,085
Suniixh spp
0
0
7
S
4
0
17
Walleye
0
0
197
33
i!
2
243
White bitss
31
94X
6,842
835
107
69
8,833
Yellow perch
0
0
0
4
i
1
6
Total
2,052
121,611
8K6.7I3
: 47,042
15,(169
16,777
1,089,26
0 = Sampled, hut none collected or rounded to 0.
Tuc Dee 25 20-11:09 MST 2001
P:/lNTAK.E/Ohio/OhK>„Scicnte/scwlc'ohjo.extrapolation/tn. scope, facilities. tamctHS/suirorary.tablc&'agg.pf.lbs.l. csv
C3-44
-------
Chapter C3: Evaluation of IAE Dcfa
Table C3- 23: EPA's Estimates of Annual Entrainment at All In Scope end Out of Scope Ohio River
CWIS, by Species and Pool, Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents.
Species
Hunnibal
Pool
Markland
Pool
McAlpiot-
Pool
Newbtirgh
Pool
Pike island
Pool
Robert C
Bvrd Pool
Toial
Black crappie
0
13,288
6,013
4,949
1,892
40,359
66,501
Hluegill
1)
0
2,316
0
O
0
2.316
Blunsnosu minnow
' 6,3.59,492
0
28,613
68,9X6
1,342,297
1,373,845
9,173,233
Brown bullhead
, 0
0
47,251
403
0
204
47,858
Channel catfish
811
50,854
585
1,611
462
1,595
55.918
Common curp
46,978
72,150
23,625
32,429
5,193
502,391
682,766
Darter spp.
0
t!
0
Cl
17,755
0
17,755
Emerald shiner
0
779,756
687,821
- 150,726
40.263
303,510
: 1,962,076
Freshwater drum
: 0
6,(46
75,726
0
20
14,892 ¦
97,285
Gizzard shad
: o
104.264
5,762
1,202
0
1,098
112,326
Golden red horse
0
0
0
0
0
1,196
1,196
Herring spp.
1,677
<)
(1
0
0
0
1,677
Logperch
0
14,880
0
20,80?
0
1,007
36,695
Longcar sunfish
0
7.DS2
0
0
o
428,911
435,993
Minnow spp,
: 0
145,48')
0
; 0
t)
0
¦ 145,489
Muskellunge
0
0
(1
o
0
0
0
Paddlefish
0
2,409
0
: o
0
0
. 2,409
Perch spp.
0
16,758
0
0
0
0
: 16,758
Rainbtw smelt
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
River carpsuckcr
ft
666,034
f)
0
0
3,905,457
4,571,492
Sauger
0
64,SOS
14,380
0
0
0
78,889
Skipjack herring
0
1,78?
13.463
0
282
1,357
i 16.889
Smalimouth bass
0
159,662
47,609
' 3.280
0
5.922
; 216,473
Sucker spp.
5.240
0
3,783,944
¦ 3,214
3,348
313,450
4.109,197
Sim fish spp.
0
115.941
2,010,330
. 95,992
0
0
2,222,263
Walleye
7,659
ft
i ,902
2,949
7.972
91.954
: 112,436
White bas.N
811
20,239
23,625
41)3
0
363
45,442
Yellow perch
59.209
O
O
26.030
36,675
86,494
208,407
ToOI : 6,481,878 2,24),748 6,772,966 4f2,98t> ¦ 1,45b. 160 7,074,007 24.439.740
0 - Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 20:03:09 MST 2001
P:/INTAKE/Ohio./OI»o„Scteii«.*/scode/ohi«.cxtrapolatiotvalLohio,raciliiics.cxmi|K>lat.ion/summary.i;iblc»agg.agc.I.equiv,E
.CSV
C3-45
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C The Ohio ftiver
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table C3-24: EPA's Estimates of Annual Entramment at All In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio ftiver
CW1S, by Species and Pool, Expressed as Yield Lost of Fisheries (in pounds).
Species
Hannibal
Pool
Markland
Pool
McAlpini-
Pool
Ni»wburgh
Pool
Pike bland ;
Pool
Robert C.
Byrd Poo!
Total
Black crappie
0
no
50
41
lb
335
551 '
Channel catfish
25
1,5X9
18
50
14
50 :
1,747
Logperch
0
0
0
0
0
0
(j
I .mtgv'ar sun fish
0
3
0
0
0
156
158
PaddlcfHh
0
499
0
0
0
o :
499
Saugcr
0
3,385
755
u
0
o :
4,140
Smallnloulh bass
0
6,5 20
1,944
134
0
242 •
8,840
Sunfish spp.
0
42
730
35
0
0
807
Wiilkvc
1,545
0
334
518
1,399 •
16,141
19,7,37
While bass
62
1,542
1,800
31
o •
28 ;
3,463
Total
1,432
13,689
5,632
XIM •
1,430
I ('.'>5 •
39,<«2
0 ~ Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tito Dec 25 20:03:24 MSI 2001
P:,1NTAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Scicnce<'sc«le/ohio.cxlrap
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port C- The Ohio ftiver
Chapter C3'- Evaluation of IAE Data
Table C3-25: EPA's Estimates of Annuo! Entreinment at Ail In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio River
CW1&, by Species and Pool, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds).
Species
: Hannibal
Poo!
Markland
Pool
Me Alpine
Pool
Vewburgh
Pool
Pike Island
Pool
Robert C.
Bird Pool
Total
Black crappie
0
11.047
2.646
4,338
1.659
35,376
55,665
Biucgill
0
0
120
0
0
0
120
Blunmose minnow
281.290
0
852
3,051
59,372
60,767
405,333
Brown bullhead
! 0
0
8,105
84
0
43
8.231
Channel catfish
26H
6,783
193
531
152
526
8.452
Common carp
63,16?
97,251
33,757
43,604
6,9X3
675,519
: 920,281
Darter spp.
0
0
0
0
1,453
0
1,453
Emerald shiner
0
110333
21,425
22,152
5.917
44,606
204.4,33
Freshwater drum
0
Si .095
15.286
0
30
21,861
45.272
Gizzard shad
0
375,471
9,467
6,103
0
5,572
396,612
lioldcn redltorse
0
0
0
0
0
2,131
2.131
Herring spp,
337
0
0
0
0
0
337
Logperch
0
131
0
1,702
0
82
1,916
Longear sun fish
<>
65
0
0
0
2.269
2,333
Minnow spp,
; o
5,437
0
0
0
0
5,437
Muskel lunge
o
O
0
0
0
0
0
Paddlcfish
i}
10,3%
0
0
0
0
10.396
Perch spp.
G
1,371
0
0
0
0
1,371
River earpsueker
0
564,321
0
0
0
3,309,033
3,873,353
Sauger
0
14(1,845
31.934
0
0
0
; 172,779
Skipjack herring
0
22,3') 1
37,817
0
7,542
36,335
104,084
Smalimouth bass
0
463
7,365
507
0
916
9,251
Sucker spp,
4,440
0
3,200,077
2,724
2,837
265,581
i 3,481,658
Sunfish spp.
0
113
22,152
508
0
0
22773
Walleye
103
0
25
S.715
23,56 i
239,907
: 272,311
White bass
1,245
31,056
15.610
61#
0
558
49.086
Yellow perch
7,268
0
0
3,105
4,502
10,617
25.582
Total
* 35X, 11 ?
1,38<>, 167
3,412,831
97.831
1 14,006
4,7 H,698
I 10,080,651
0 - Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 20:03:39 MST 2001
P;/INP1 AKE/'Oh)tt,Ohio_Scicncc/scod€/t)hio,oxtnipo!aiion,a]Lohio.tai.-ii»!c-s.cxirapola!ion,suiiimary.Jable,ii/agg.pf.Ibs.LLcsv
C 3-47
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C- The Ohio River
Chapter CI Evaluation of I&E Data
Tabic C3-26: EPA's
Estimates of Annual Entrainmert at All In Scope Ohio River CWXS, by Species
ond Pool, Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents.
Species
Hannibal
Pool
i Mar Hand
Poo!
McAlpine
Pool
Newlmreii
Pool
Pike Island
Pool
Robert C.
fiyrcl Pool
Total
Black cnipple
0
. 13,0%
5,915
4,697
! ,549
40,032
65,289
Btuegill
: 0
: o
2.279
0
0
0
2,279
Bluntnosc minnow
; 5.453.285
o
28,146
65,466
1,098,788
1,362,719
8,008,405
Brown bullhead
0
o
46,480
382
0
203
47,1166
Channel catfish
: 6%
; 50,122
575
1,529
378
1,582
54,883
Common carp
, i 40,284
:. 71,113
23.240
30,774
4,251
498.323
667.985
Darter spp.
o
: 0
0
0
14,534
0
: 14,534
Emerald shiner
0
: 768,545
676.60K
143,036
32,959
301,052
1,92.2,200
Freshwater drum
0
6,551
74,492
0
17
14,771
95,831
Gizzard shad
0
102,765
5.66*
1,141
0
i ,089
^ 110.663
Golden redhorse
o
: 0
0
0
0
1,186
1,186
Herring spp.
I 1.438
: 0
0
o
0
0
! 1.438
Logpercb
: o
14,666
0
19,745
0
999
•' 35.411
Lcmgcar sun fish
0
6.9.K0
0
0
0
425,438
; 432,418
Minnow spp.
0
: 143,397
0
0
0
0
: 143,397
Piiddieftsb
0
2,374
0
0
0
0
; 2.374
Perch spp.
0
: 16,517
0
0
0
p
16,517
River carpsueker
0
: 656,459
0
0
0
• 3,873,1531
: 4,530,289
Saugtr
0
63,581
14.146
(i
0
0
; 77,727
Skipjack herring
0
1,761
13,243
o
23!
1,346
; 16,581
Smallmouth bass
<>
; 157,367
46,832
3,112
0
5,874
; 213.186
Sucker spp.
4,494
i o
3,722,255
3,050
2,741
. 310,912
I 4,043,451
Sunfish spp.
0
: 114,274
1.977,555
y i ,094
0
0
2,182,923
Walleye
6,568
o
1.871
2,798
6,525
91,210
: 108,973
White bass
6 96
19,948
23,240
382
0
360
; 44,627
Yellow perch
50,772
0
0
24,702
30,021
85,794
1 191,288
Tola!
: 5,558,23!
; 2,209,518
6,662,547
391,910
1,191,995
7.016,722
; 23.030,922
0 Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0,
Tue Dec 25.20:10:27 MSI 2001
F:/ltS'tAKE/Ohio/OhiiS^Sciencc,;scode./ohi£).cxtrap<.>lation-''in.sciipe.feci.litics,benclifs.'sumn5ary.tsiblc!i'agg-age,l equiv.E.csv
C3-48
-------
Chapter C3: Evaluation of IiE Data
Table C3-27. EPA's Estimates of Annual Entrainment ot All In Scope Ohio River CWIS. by Species
and Poof, Expressed as Yield Lost of Fisheries (in pounds).
Specie#
Hannibal
Pool
Marklani!
PlHll
Mc Alpine
Pool
Nwlmrgh
Pool
Pike Island
Pool
Robert C.
Hyrd Pool
Total
Black cnippic
0
109
4'i
39
13
332
541
Channel catfish
; 22
1,566
IK
4X
12
49
1,715
bwigenr sun fish
0
3
<1
0
0
155
157
Paddleftsh
0
491
it
0
0
(1
491
Saugcr
0
3,336
742
0
0
0
4,079
Stnallmouth bass
0
6,426
1,912
127
0
240
8,706
Sunfish spp.
0
42
¦IK
33
0
0
793
Walleye
1.153
0
328
491
1,145
16.01 1
IV, 129
White bass
53
1,520
1,771
29
l>
27
3,400
Tow!
1,228
13.493
5,540
767
1.170
I6,«14 '
39,012
I) Sampled, but nunc collected or rounded to 0.
1'ue Dec 25 20; 10:44 MS I 2001
P:/INTAKE/Obiii-Ohiti_Scicnce^i«Mdc'<>hio.extrapo]ati«a;»n.K:<>pc.raci lilies. beacfits/suiiMiwry.tBbles/agg.yi«W.lbs.E. csv
CJ-49
-------
Chapter C3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table C3-28; EPA's Estimates of Annual Entroimnent est All In Scope Ohio River* CWIS, by Species
and Pool, Expressed as Production Foregone (m pounds).
species
Pool
Pout
Pool
Pool
Pool
B>rd Pool
I.OUI
Black crappie
(1
i 1,47 V
2.602
4,117
1.358
: 35,089
54,646
Btuegill
0
0
IIS
0
0
0
118
Biuntnosc minnow
241,207
0
S3 9
2,896
48.601
60,275
353.8;*
Brown bullhead
0
0
7.973
79
0
! 42
8,095
Channel catfish
229
6,6X5
190
504
125
: 522
8,255
Common carp
54,166
95,853
33,207
41.379
5,716
' 670,049
900,369
Darter spp.
0
0
0
0
1.189
0
1,189
Emerald shiner
0
. 108,747
21.076
21,021
4,844
; 44,245
199,933
Freshwater drum
0
; 7,979
15.037
0
25
; 21,684
44,724
Gizzard shad
(1
370,072
9.313
5,791
0
5,52?
390,703
Golden rcdhorsc
0
0
0
0
0
2,114
2,114
Herring spp
2 KM
1)
• 0
0
0
0
289
Logperch
0
; Lw
0
1,615
0
; 82
1,827
Uwgcar sun fish
0
64
0
0
0
; 2,250
2,314
Minnow spp.
0
; 5.359
0
0
0
; 0
5,359
Padtllcfish
0
10,246
I)
0
0
: 0
10,246
Perch spp.
0
1,35!
0
t)
0
(1
1,351
River carpsueker
0
556,207
0
0
0
; 3,282,236
3,838,443
Saugcr
0
138,820
• 31,413
0
0
: o
170,233
Skipjack herring
0
22,06V
37.200
0
6,173
; 36.041
101,483
Smatlmouth bass
0
456
7,245
481
0
909
9,091
Sucker spp.
3.807
0
3,153,808
2,585
1 3'2
; 263,430
3,425,953
Sunftsh spp.
0
111
21,790
482
0
0
i 22,383
Walleye
m
0
25
8.270
19,287
237.964
265,634
White bass
1.068
30.609
15.355
587
0
^ 553
48,172
Yellow perclt
6.232
0
0
3,032
3,685
10,53)
23,480
Tutal
307,086
1.366,238
3,357,192
92,840
93,324
' 4,673.543
: 9,890,223
0 ~ Sampled, but none collected or rounded to 0.
Tue Dec 25 20"! 1:02 MST 2001
P:/iNTAKK/Ohio/Ohio„Sci«:ric«:/se<>dc/ohio.cxinip<)lariori/m.sc<)f>e,fiiciIttt«s.bencfitt;suinrJiary,tabls;s/agg,pf.Ibs.E.csv
cs-so
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River Chapter C3 Evaluation of ME 5ato
Table C3-29: Summary, by Poof, of Cumulative Impingement Impacts of All In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio
River CWIS
Pools
# of Age I Equivalent*
Lbs of Fishery Yield
Lbs of Production Foregone
Hannibal Pool
34,637
116
2.393
Markland Pool
633.324
3,087
123.385
.McAlpine Pool
9,819.970
9,486
901,408
Ncwburgh Poo!
624,522
1.372
49.572
Pike Island Pool
278.482
836
18.408
Robert C. Byrd Pool
207,252
543
16,914
Total
11,598.1 S8
15,439
f 1,112.081)
Thu Dec 27 09:47:12 MST 2001
P:/{NTAKE/()hio/Ohio,.Scicncc.'scode--ohio,extrapolation,'alLoh to. feci! itics.cxtrapoSatioii/siimrnafy.tables/pool.rollup.AL-L.imp.csv
Table C3-30 Summary, by Pool, of Cumulative Enfrainment Impacts of All In Scope and Out of Scope Ohio
River CWIS
Pools
#of Age I Equivalents
Lbs of Fishery Yield
Lbs of Production Foregone
1 larmibal Pool
6,481,878
1,432
358,1 17
Markland Pool
2,241,748
13,689
1,386,167
McAlpine Pool
6,772,966
5,632
3,412.831
Ncwburgh Pool
412.980
809
97,831
Pike Island Pool
1.456,160
1,430
114,006
Robert C. Byrd Pool
7,074,007
16,951
4.711,698
Total 24.4.19,74!) 39,942 10,080,651
Thu Dec 27 09:47:14 ,\1S I 200 f
P;/lNTAKE/Ohk>/Ohio_ScicnW''«;ode/ohio,e«;trapolation/altt)inoJacil!ties,extrapt)iaiK>n/sunTOar>'.tablcs/'pj)ol.rolIup.ALL,erit.€sv
Table C3•31: Summary, by Pool, of Cumulative Impingement Impacts of All In Scope Ohio River CWIS
t> of Age 1 Equivalents
29,701
624t2]i|
9.659,875
592.659
227,962
205,574
1 1,339,991
Pool*
Hannibal Pool
Markland Pool
McAlpine Pool
Ncwburgh Poo!
Pike Island Pool
Robert C. Byrd Pool
Total
Tue Dec 25 20:14:28 MST 2001
IV! NTAKE'Ohio/Ohio Science/ scode/otiio.eMrapolatiowin.seope.faciliiiw.beridits/surnmary.tabiesy/pooI.rollup.inscopejmp
Lbs of Fhherj Vield
100
3.042
9,33 I
1,302
6X4
53k
14.998
Lbs of Production Foregone
2,052
121.611
886,713
47,042
15,069
16,777
1,089,264
Table C3-32: Summary, by Pool, of Cumulative Cntroinment Impacts of All In Scope Ohio River CWIS.
Pools # of Age I Equivalents Lb§ of Fishery Yield ; Lbs of Production Foregone
Hannibal Pool 5.558.231 1,228 307,086
Markland Pool 2,209,5IS 13,493 1,366,238
McAlpine Pool""" 6,662,547 ' 5,540 ; 3,357.192
Ncwburgh Pool 391.9JO 767 92.84#
Pike Island Pool 1.191,995 IJ 70 93,324
Robert C Byrd Pool 7,016,722 " 16.814 4,673,543
Tata! 23,030,922 39,012 9.890,223
Tuc Dec 25 20:14:30 MST 2001
P:/INTAKE/Ohio/OhK)_Scienec/sc«
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
C3-9.2 Benefits Baseline — I&E at In Scope Ohio River CWIS
EPA's estimate of the cumulative impingement impact of all in scope Ohio River CWIS is summarized in Table C3-31.
Results indicate thai annual impingement at in scope facilities is 1 f,3 million age 1 equivalents, 15,000 pounds of lost fishery
yield, or 1,1 million pounds of production foregone. The estimated cumulative entrainment impact, of in scope CWIS is
summarized in Table C3-32, Annua) entrainment at in scope facilities is about 23 million age i equivalents, 39,000 pounds of
lost fishery yield, or 9.9 million pounds of product ion foregone,
I&E rates at in scope facilities were evaluated for the benefits analysis discussed in Chapter C6. Because the facilities have
not changed their CWIS since the time of I&E data collection, the historical data used to estimate I&E at in scope CWIS were
assumed to represent current I&E rates for the purposes of this analysis. However, as noted previously, EPA believes that
these estimates are likely to be underestimates of current I&E rates because of increases in fish populations since the time of
l&E data collection 25 years ago, which have likely led to increases in the numbers of organisms vulnerable to l&E.
It is also important to bear in mind that most l&E losses at Ohio River facilities tire forage species, and therefore analysis of
Fishery yield alone will underestimate l&E impacts. As discussed in subsequent chapters, this is an important issue for the
economic valuation of I&E tosses in Chapter C4 (benefits transfer) and Chapter C5 (RUM analysis), and for the benefits
analysis in Chapter C6. since economic methods for valuing forage losses are limited.
C3-52
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C: The Ohio ftiver
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline I4E Losses
Chapter C4:
Value of Baseline I&E Losses from
Selected Facilities on the Ohio River
This chapter presents the results of El'A's evaluation using
benefits transfer techniques of the economic losses that are
associated l&E at Ohio River facilities. First, summed
results for the nine case study facilities with I&E data are
presented. Then, the extrapolation of these results to other
Ohio River CWIS is discussed. Section C4-1 provides an
overview of the valuation approach. Section C4-2
discusses losses to recreational fisheries, Section ('4-3
discusses the value of forage losses. Section C4-4
discusses nonu.se values. Section C4-5 summarizes the
economic valuation of losses at the nine case study
facilities, and Section C4-6 discusses the extrapolation of
these values to other Ohio River CWIS.
C4-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
t&E at Ohio River CWIS affect recreational fisheries as
well as forage species that contribute to the biomass of
fishery species, There are no commercial fisheries located
in the study area.
EPA evaluated berth fishery and Ibrage species losses to capture the total economic value of l&E losses at Ohio River CWIS.
Recreational fishery impacts were based on benefits transfer methods, applying results from nonmarket valuation studies. The
economic value of forage species losses was estimated by two methods, (1) the replacement cost ol stocking hatchery fish to
replace fish impinged and entrained, or (2) the foregone production o: commercial and recreational species that use the forage
species as a prey base. Ail of these methods are explained in further detail to Chapters AS and A9 oJ'this document. -
As discussed in Chapters A5 of Part A, the yield estimates presented in Chapter C3 are expressed as total pounds. Because
the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers of fusli rather than pounds, foregone recreational yield was
therefore converted to numbers of fish. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvestable fish of each species.
Note that the numbers of foregone recreational lish harvested are typically lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses,
since the age of harvest of most fish is greaier than age 1.
Chapter Contents
st.-v
DM ¦
Overview of Valuation Approach
f'4-i
C4-2
Economic Value of Average Annual Losses to
Recreational Fisheries Resulting from l&E at Nine
Facilities on the Ohio River
C4-2
C4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses
from the Consumer Surplus Literature .,
C'4-2
"C4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery
Losses Resulting from l&E at Nine Ohio
River Case Study facilities
C'4-3
C4-3
tconomic Value of Forage fish Losses
C4-4
C4-3.1 Replacement Cost of Fish
€4-4
C4-3.2 Production Foregone Value of
Forage Fish
C4-5
C4-4
Nowise Values
C4*4
C4-5
Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I&E
at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
C4-7
C'4-6
Extrapolation of Baseline losses lo Other facilities
on the Ohio River
C4-?
C4-!
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Chapter C4; Value of Baseline I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part O. The Ohio River Chapter C4 Value of Saselme ME Losses
Samples and Bishop (1985} estimated the impact at" increased success rates at various sites in Lake Michigan and the annual
value of ihe alternative fishing sites. After modeling the demand for each of the 11 study sites and estimating the annual value
for each site they developed a model to explain the variation in the annual site values that: accounted lor site and quality
characteristics, The results of this mode! were used to develop an estimate that the value of an additional fish landed
(associated with a 1 percent improvement in the success rate) would have an average value across the sites of $6.75 ($1978),
Mittiman et al. (1992) estimated the value of yellow perch in Green Hay by calculating the net benefits derived from
implementing various perch rehabilitation programs.
Since none of the studies consider the Ohio River directly, EPA used these estimates to create a range of possible consumer
surplus values for the increases in recreational landings expected to result by reducing l&E at Ohio River facilities.
To estimate a unit value for recreational landings, EPA established a lower ami upper value for the recreational species, based
on values reported in studies in Table C4-1, Because the studies in Tabic C4-1 are geographically specific, EPA created u
lower and upper value.
CA-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from ME at Nine
Ohio River Case Study Facilities
Recreational losses are displayed in Tables ("4-2 and C4-3 for l&E. respectively. Total losses to the recreational fisheries
from l&E at the nine Ohio River case study facilities are estimated to range from S12.51K) to $27,300 per year for
impingement, and from $ 111,200 to $212,500 per year for entratnment. Results for individual facilities are presented in
Appendix C3.
Table CA-Z. Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Nine Ohio River Case Study
Facilities and Associated Economic Values
lUs.tnltec.tttton.lCttchi Recreation.! V.In/FMi ^ Lo« in Rccre.rio,,.! V.tue from
Species ; from Impingement _ Impugn***
(# offish)
Low
High
fjm
High
Black erappie
452
SI.TO
$5,02
S452
$2,271
Bluegill
47
$0,31
$1.00
$15
$47
Channel catfish
1.8(15
$2.64
$5,02
$4,764
$9,060
Longear sunftsb
V
SO.31
SI.00
' S3
$9
Paddlefish
54
S1.00
S5.02
S54
Kf>9
Sauger
429
S5.02
$7.92
$2,154
S3.39K
Smallmouth bass
165
$1.58
$3.95
$261
$(>51
Striped bass
21
S1 1.08
$15.55
S231
S325
Sunfish spp.
J 7
SO.31
si.oo
$12
S3 7
Walleye
21
$5.02
sim
SI 05
S166
White bass
2.7_Seieiice/seode.ohio,summary.tablcs/ohiosum.tableB.imp.csv
C4-J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part O The Ohio River Chapter C4 Value of Baseline X&E Losses
Table C4-3; Average Annua! Entroinment of fter.reotionol Fishery Species at Nine Ohio River Cose Study
Facilities and Associated Economic Values
| IxmioItemrttoMl I Recreational Value/Fish j L«« ta Rec«.to..i Vatae r««
Species | Caleb from ErrtraiiimetM j. J^SSSSSSSSS. ——-
; ib' »rnsh> low High Low High
Black crappie 1.284 Sl.00 15.02 S1.2S4 $6,447
Bluegil! i $0.31 SI.WJ SO Si
Channel catfish 2,648 S2.64 S5.CO 56,991 SI3,294
Longcar sun fish 3,938 $0,31 Si. 00 S 1.221 $3,938
I'atldkiisli 16 i Si,00 $5.02 S16 $78
Saugcr 1,638 $5.02 $7.92 $8,223 $12,973
Smallmuulh bass 16,170 $1.58 . $3.95 S25.S4B S63.870
Simfehspp. 3,663 $0.31 St.00 51,135 S3,663
Walleye 12.666 S5.02 < , $7,92 $63,581 j S i00.311
White bass 2,014 51.58 $3.95 $3,182 $7,956
Yellow perch I ' $0,31 SI.Oil SO SI
Toial 44,038 : : ^ Sill.1X2 $212,532
ohiosuins Wed Dec 26 10:37:52 MSI' 2001 P:/lKTAKE;C)hio/Ohin_Science/s£{Hte/ohio.summary.tab!c.s,;'ohiosum,iabteB.em.esv
C4-3 Economic Value of Forase Fish Losses
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationallv fished. For the purposes in Shis study, EPA refers to all
of these species as forage Fish, Forage fish include species that are prey for other species and are important components of
aquatic food webs. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation
methods.
C4-3.1 Replacement Cost of Fish
The replacement value of fish can be used in several cases. First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking of
hatchery fish, then losses to (he 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 he 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 arc not
enough use data to value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries;, replacement cost
C4-4
-------
Chapter F7: Conclusions
Chapter D7:
Conclusions
The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of l&E losses at Big Bend (as calculated using benefits transfer (Chapter
D4) indicate that economic losses range from 559,600 to $65,900 per year for impingement and from S7.0 million to $7,3
million per year for enhainment (all in $2000). Economic losses associated with l&E at all in scope facilities in Tampa Bay
(Big Bend, PL Bartow, PJ Gannon, and Hookers Point) range from $ 146,800 to SI62,200 for impingement and from $17-2
million to $18.1 million per year for entrainment,
EPA also developed a random utility model (RUM) to estimate recreational losses associated with l&E in the Tampa Bay
ease study area. As shown in Chapter D5, the average annual recreation-related losses for three species at the in scope
facilities amount to approximately $2,4 million per year (impingement and entrainment impacts combined). Results for the
RUM analysis {Chapter D5) were merged with the benefits transfer-based estimates (Chapter D4) to create an estimate of
recreational losses from l&E (as shown in Chapter D(>), Losses incorporating RUM results for all tn scope facilities range
from $0.79 million lo SO.80 million per year for impingement and from S19.6 million to $20,95 million per year for
entrainment (all in $2000).
EPA also estimated the economic benefit of a range of l&E reductions for the four in scope facilities (Chapter D6). The
resulting estimates of the economic value of an 80% reduction in l&E range from 50,63 million to S0.64 million per year for
impingement reductions, and from $15,7 million lo $16.4 million per year for entrainment reductions (all in $2000).
For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of
reducing l&E at Tampa Bay facilities. EPA assumed that the effects of l&E on fish populations are constant over time
(i.e.. that fish kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations!. EPA also did not analyze
whether the number of fish affected by l&E would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality or
other improvements in environmental conditions.
D7-J
-------
Appendix CI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate ME
Appendix bl: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I<&E
The tables in ibis appendix present ihe life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age I equivalents, fishery
yields, and production foregone from l&E data for the Tampa Bay facilities. Life history data were compiled from it variety
of sources, with a focus cm obtaining data on local stucks whenever possible, Fishing mortality rates used to calculate yield
are target fishing mortality rates, whet? established, When target rates were unavailable. F« or actual fishing mortality was
used.
Table D1 -1 Bay Anchovy Species Parameters
s 1^ Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fraction Vulnerable to Weight4
' 1,4 a,,tt (per stage) (per stage)' Fishery* (lb)
Eggs 1.9),
App. Dl-t
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 0: Tampa Bay
Appendix 01: Life History Parameter Values Used re Evaluate I4E
Table f>! -2 Black brum Species Parameters
Natural Mortality \ Fishing Mortality Fraction Vulnerable
Stage Name , .
(per stage)* ; (per stage)"
t 2,27 0
I 1 ac | 106 977" " " "o.'is"
Age 18 + ' 0.097? 0 15
Age 19+ 0.0977 O.I5
Age 20*' ' "" "O.wiil" ' 0.15
Age 21+ 0,0977 * ' " 0.15
Age 22+- " ' *' " 0.0977 * j ' """ 0.15'
Age 23' !" ' 0.0977 : 0.15
\ge24- ' 0.0977 0.iS'
•\ge25- ' ^ | 0i)9?7 ; 0.15*
Age 26- ^ 0.0977 : 6.15
Age 27-- ' : 0,0977 : 0J5
Age 28-- 0.0977' * "0,I5
Age 29+ ' 0.0977 ' 0.15
Age 30" ^ ' 0,097? 0.15
Age 31+ 0.0977" ' : 'o.ls'
Age 32- ' " . 110977 1 t.US'
Age 33'+ : (L0977 " ' ; 0,15
Age 34- "" * ' (U)9?7 '* 0.15
Age 35~ ¦" ' 0,0977 " 0,"l5'
Age 36- '' *6.0977 " 0.15
Age 37*- " ' 0.0977' ' i " 0,15
Age 38* : 0,0977 ' 0.15
Age 39- 0,0977 '""" " ()j5
Age 40-*-' 03)977""" 0.15
* Egg lo juvenile: Based on Illinois freshwater drum from Band I and Campbell (2000>. Adult stages from
Leard ct al. {1993),
* fcrsonal communication with Michael D. Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.
Florida Marine Research Institute, January 2.3, 2002 (FiMi.
* Weight ealeulated from length using the formula (1.33*10'"')'"Length jirnti)"* « Weight (gj from Carlnodcr
(1969).
'' Length from Sutter et al. (1986).
* Length from Able and Fahav (1998).
' Length from Murphy and Taylor (1989).
Weight"
to Fishery
0.000000000199*
O.OOOOOOOOWS"
0.000000947"
0.00866
0,337
A pp. DI-2
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part £>•, Tampa Bay Appendix DL Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate !<&£
Table 01-3: Blue Crab Species Parameters
s N Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fraettoit Vulnerable Weighf
(per stage) (per stage)' to Fishery*1 (lb)
/.ocu . I .3 h' () 0 U,O0O0tK)!3fiJ
Juvenile 1 13.8* 0 0 0.0000059*
Age I - lk I 0,5 0.135'
Age 2+ )' I I 0.406s
Agc3+- Is I I o.#88<
Age 4~ ; 1" I I 0,95'
Age 5-' lh I I l,0lc
Age 6- J" I I 1. 15f
" Calculated from suruval (Rose and Cowan, 1993) using the equation (natural mortality) - -LN (survival) -
(fishing mortality),
'* Fui(!r, from Murphy ct al. (2000). Fraction vulnerable assumed.
* Weight calculated from length using the formula (2.211*10'"^Length (mtnr * Weight (g) from Murphy
et al. (2000).
J Length from Van den Avyle arid Fowler (19X4).
' Length from Delaware Estuary blue crab from PSEG (1999h).
' Length assumed based on PSECi (1999b).
Table Dl-4: Chain Pipefish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Egg
Larvae
AgeJ-.
Agc2»
Age 3+
Age 4-*
Age 5~
Natural Mortality
(per Mage)
2.3-
3.31"
0.75*
0.75'
0.75'
0.75'
0.75*
Fishing Mortality
(per «t age)'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
Weight*
(ib)
0.00000001 57'
0.00 iMr
0.00871"
0.0151'
0.0207s
0.02 3 V
0.0285'
" Calculated from survival for Atlantic stlverside m Massachusetts (Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1977) using the equation (natural mortality)«*-LN (survival) - (fishing mortality).
Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) *¦ -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
s Froese and Pauly, 2001. Broad-nosed pipefish.
4 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
* Weight calculated from length using the formula for Sargasxum pipefish (9.407*10 "^Length (mm)***--
Weight (g) (rem Froese and I'auly (20011.
' Length for northern pipefish from Scott and Scott (1988),
8 Length assumed based on northern pipefish from Scott and Scot! (19K8).
Table D1 -5' &oby Species Parameters
Stag* Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)'
larvae
Juvenile
Age 1 -
0.288
4,09
2.3
2.55
Fishing Mortality
i!f5.si*SeJ.*
o
0
0
0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
0
0
* Based on Narragansctt Bay goby from Pli&E National Energy Group (2001).
h Assumed based on PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Weight.
(ib)
0.
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part D Tampa Boy
Appcroix Dl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evolucte IAE
Stage Name
%g
larvae
Age »•*
Age 2+
Age 3 ¦
Age 4 •
Age 5-
Age 6
Age 7+
Table Dl-6: &ulf Kiilifish Soecies Parameters
Natural Mortal t\
(per stage i
2.3"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
3"
o.7 ir
o ,nr
0.777*
0.777*
0 777c
0.777'
0.77T
Fraction Vulnerable
Jo Fishery'1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Weighf
(lb)
0,000(X)0H64f
0.0000J 82"
0.0121*
0.0327*
0.055 H
0.0778'
0,0967"
0.113*
0.158*
* Calculated from survival lor Atlantic stlvemide in Massachusetts (Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1977) using the equation (natural mortality) ~ -LN (survival) - (fishing mortality).
* Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) ~ -LN {survival}* (fishing
mortality),
* Calculated from survival (Meredith and Lotrieh, 1979) using the equation {natural mortality) = -LN
(survival) - {fishing mortality),
J Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula lor striped killifish (2.600*10 s)*I.aigth Weight
(g) from Cariaixier (1969).
' Length tor striped killifish from Able imd Fahay C1998),
* Length for striped killifish from Coriander (1969).
Table Bl-7: Hogchoker Species Parameters
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
2.24*
F ruction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
fishing Mortality
Stage Name
(per wage)
Larv.ie
Weighf
m
0.000000237'
0.00123'
0.0077Sf
0.029S!
0.0877*
0.19!
0.424*
0.561"
" Calculated from survival for Narrupiwctt Bay hogchoker (New Ei d I wcr Company and Marine
Research inc., 1995) using the equation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival)«(fishing mortality).
" Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural morality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Based on Narragansett Day hogchoker from New England Power Company and Mamie Research Inc.
(1995).
J Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated farm length using: the formula (1.947* JO4)* Length Weight (g) from Freest-
and Pauly (2001).
' Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
*•' Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (199X) and Froese and Pauly (2001).
'* Length fk>m Froese and Pauly {20011.
,4pp. Dl-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Tampa Bay
Appendix 01: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate XAE
Stage Name
Egg
LflFVIlC
AgcL'
Age 2~
Age 3*
Age 41
Toble Dl-8; Leatherjacket Species Parameters
Natural Mortality ; Fisttinu Mortality
(per stage) (per stage)'1
0 HI?" 0
9.52° 0
0.34' 0 0
0.34* t) 0
0.34* 0 0
0.34* : 0 0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
0
0
Weight*
(lb)
0,0000000209'
0.02U9'
0.168*
0.46r
0.511'
0.565"
* Based on Delaware Estuary Atlantic croaker from PSBG (IW9e).
'' Calculated from extrapolated survival using the ctjjation (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
* Frocse and Pauly, 2001. Unicorn leatherjackei.
4 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
* Weight calculated from length using the formula CM97*lO"")*Length (mm)'-= Weight (g) from Froese arid
Pauiy (2001).
' Length assumed based on Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2001),
* Length from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2001).
Toble DJ-9; Me.nhoden Species Parameters
t,, Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fraction Vulnerable Weight"
W*8eName ; . (p.*mm ; (per .tag*," : to Fi*h„r (lb)
Egg 2.08" . 0 0 O.IMXHX»0«)2i
Larvae 8.56s 0 0 0.00000068'
Age I +¦ ' ' i.l>' .0 0 0.545'
Age 2- 1.1" 2 0.5 0.855'
Age 3- ; 1.1" * 2' ! 1.08'
Age 4 • I.I' 2 I 1.31'
Age 5-f- 1,)(' 2 1 1.47'
Age 6*- l.r 2 I 1.59'
Age 7" i.V- " " 2 I 3.36"
Age8- I Uh 2' ' ' ' ' I ' 5.21"
4 Calculated from survival (Bntergy Nuclear (jewrairon Company. 2000) using ihe equation (natural
mortality)" -LN (survival) - (fishing mortality).
h f-0, from Vaughau et al. (2000),
* Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed,
" Weight calculated from length using the formula (G.ttel'IOTLengih (nmt)v:",= Weight (g) from Froese
and Paulv (2l-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part D* Tampa Bay Appendix Dl: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
Table 01-10: Pinfish Species Parameters
c, Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fraction Vulnerable Weight'
e (per Stage) (per sta^ej" (o Fishery' (lb)
Egg 2,3* 0 0 - 0.00000001 18
Larvae 7.39'" ; 0 (I 0.0000238
Juvenile 1,91- ; 0 0 0,00669
Age H 0.344 ; 0J4 0.5 0.0791
Age 2-1- OM1' a .VI i 0.218
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation (natural mortality)v -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
'' Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) - -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Nelson, 199.8.
J Annua! fishing morality rate (F) from Froe sc and Pauly (2001}. Assumed that half of mortality was natural
and half was fishing.
' Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
1 Weight calculated from length (Muncy, 1984) using the formula (5.W I OT'Length (mm)' *H-• Weight (g>
from Froese and Pauly (2001).
Table 51-11: Pink Shrimp Species Parameters
„ ^ Natural Mortality ; Fishing Mortality !•*ruction Vulnerable ! Weight*
ge; ame , jpCr stage) (per stage)' to Fishery' (lb)
Egg 3.22" 0 0 : 0.000000000209'
Prolarvae 1. 7*1 . 0 0 ' 0.00000274f
Postlarvac , 1.7" ' 0 0 ^ 0.000026T
Juvenile 0J4* 0,14 I 0.0473'
Age 1+ 0.14* 0.14 1 0.077*'
" Calculated from survival for pink shrimp in Massachusetts (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.
1980a) using the equation (natural morality) * -LN (survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Costelto and Alien. 1970,
1 Annual total mortality (2), fishing mortality (F). and fraction vulnerable from Bielsa et al. (J983).
* Weight calculated from length using the formula (6.247*! 0 "^Length (mm)1 ~WI ~ Weight (g) from Bielsa et
al, 11983),
' Length from TBNEP (1992b).
1 Length assumed based on TBNEP {1992b).
App. DI-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port b: Tnmpa Boy Appendix Di Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
Table D1 -12. Scaled Sardine Species Po^ometers
„ .. ; Natural Mortality Kt»hin]j Mortality Fractiuii Vulnerable Weight'
** (per stage) (per stage)* to Fishery' (lb)
Kgg 2.12' I) 0 0.0000000903"
Prolarvatr 0.56" ; 0 0 9.00000139"
Post larvae 6.53' 0 ; 0 0.WW226'"
Age It t,02*" 0 0 0.0324'
* Calculated from survival for scaled sardine in Massachusetts (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.
)9X1 'a) vising the equation (natural mortality) - -1 S (.survival) - (fishing mortality).
Daily mortality: Institute for Marine Research (2002). Duration of stage lor sealed sardine in Massachusetts
(Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 19M0a>.
' Extrapolated.
Frocsc and Pauly. 2001.
* Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
1 Weight calculated from length using the formula (8.l66*l04,)*l^ngth (mm)1 '**= Weight |g! from Pierce et
al.tfUOl).
* Length from 1 foude et al, (1l>74),
* Length from Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation 119R0a).
' Length from Springer arid Woodbufn (I%0) and Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation (1 vH0.it.
Table 01-13: Searobin Species Parameters
„ ., : Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality i Fraction Vulnerable Weight*
86 (per mage) * (per Mage)" to Fishery- (lb)
Egg 2..V 0 0 0.00000286'
Larvae 4.57" 0 0 0,0000229'
Age!» 0.42' : 0 0 0.0231'
Age 2+ 0.42' 0 : 0 ; 0.077Q1
Age ) • 0.4 ?' 0 , 0 0.IS5'
Age 4- ; 0.42' 0 0 ; 0,361'
Age 5t 0.42' 0 0 0,455'
Age 6 - 0,42' 0 0 ; 0.507'
Age 7- 0,42' 0 S) 0.564'
Age if" 0.42" 0 0 0.624"
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation (natural mortality) - -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality).
'' Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation (natural mortality) »• -LN (survival} - (fishing
mortality).
' Proese and Pauly, 2001. Northern searobm.
* Not caught in measurable quantities, thus no fishing mortality (Personal communication with Michael P.
Murphy, Florida Fish ami Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marine Research Institute, January 23,
2002).
* Weight calculated from length using the formula for longhorn seulpin {l.034*10",)*Uugth (111111)"""-
Weight (g) from Clayton et al. (l'>78).
' Length assumed based on Froesie and Pauly (2001 J.
* l.engtli from Froese and Pauly (2001),
App. IJi-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Appendix Dl: life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
Tabic Dl -14: Sheepshead Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing .Vlortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
Weight4
(lb|
•Kge
2.3"
0
G
0.000000049(F
Larvae
7.39"
0
0
0,0000241''
Juvenile
1.91'
0
0 :¦
0.0016?'
Age 1 +
l,98J
0
o ;
0,9X1'
Age 2t
1.98"
0
0 ;
i 22'
Age 3-
I.W
0.45
0.5
1.56*
Age 4*
L9»J
0.45
1
2.33*
i«r» :
5ft ¦
< .
1.98"
0.45
1 ;
2,43J
Age 64
1 98"
0.45
1
2,45'
Age ?f
1,9KJ
0.45
1
2,47'
Age 8+
1.98"
0.45
1
2,49'
Age 9+
; i m4
0,45
1
2.5 H
Age 10'
1.98"
0.45
1 :
2.53'
Age 11-c
I w
0.4 S
1
2,55j
Age 12
I Mc
0.45
1
2.5 T
Age 13-
! M4
0,45
t
2.59'
Age 14*
I.9S*1
0.45
i
2.61-'
Age 15*
I ,.
» Weight calculated from length using the formula (2.247*l« ')*Lcngtb (inra)-""" Weight (g) from Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2002b).
11 Length from Pattillo et at. (1997).
' Length from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2002b).
1 Length extrapolated.
A pp. D1~S
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port D: Tampa Bay
Appendix 5L Life History Parameter Values Used to evaluate I4E
Table Dl • 15 Silver Perch Species
Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality ; Fraction Vulnerable
(per stage) (per stage)' to Fisher)'
Weight"
(lb)
U'.«
2.75" 0
0
0.0000000272''
Larvae
5.37" 0
0
0,00000771*
Juvenile
1.7]"' 0
0 :
0.0445*
Age f +
3.84" 0
0
0.273'
Age 2^
3.S411 . o.i ;
0.5
0,415'
Age 3+
3.84" 0.1 ;
1
0.607*
* Based on Delaware Estuary white perch from PS KG (1999cJ.
* Frocsto and Pauly, 2001.
* Annual fishing mortality rate (F) and fraction vulnerable from personal communication with Michael D,
Murphy, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Marino Research Institute, January 23,
2002,
11 Weight calculated from length using the formula (2.683*10"')*LcngB» (mra)**'" -- Weight (g) from Froese
and Pauly (2001).
1 Length from Able and Fahay (1998). '
' Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
(2001)
" Length from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (2001),
Table 01 -16: Spotted Seatrout Species Parameters
s . Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fraction Vulnerable' Weight*
age. aroe (per stage) (per stage)* to Fishery ' (lb)
Egg 2.3" 0 0 0.00000000737"
Pretarvae 1.5" 0 0 0.000000U69H11
Postlarvae
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Pact D: Tampa Bay
Appendix Dl' Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate ME
Table Dl -17:
Stone Oob Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per itage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)5'
Fraction Vulnerable ;
: to Fishery* ;
Weight*
Sib)
Zoca 1
1.97"
0
o ;
OiKKKJOOIOI'
Zoea 2
! .97"
0
0 :
0.0000004 IT"
/.OCA 3
i.y?"
0
0
0.00000109'
Zoea 4
1,97"
0
o ;
0.00000226*
Zoea 5
1.97"
0
o ;
0.00000405*
Mcgalopa
1,97"
0
o ;
0.00000662'
juvenile
1.97' •
0
0
0.0000182'
Age 1 »
0.939s"
0.751
0.5 :
1.02'
Age 2- :
0.939b
0.751
1 ;
3.63'
Age 3-
0.93m*
0,751
1
7.12'
Age 4*
0,939"
0,751.
1
IQr
* Calculated from survival (Ben et al, 1978) using the equation (natural mortality) - -LN (survival) - (fishing
mortality),
" Annual fishing mortality rate (F) from Ehrhardt et al. (1990).
' Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed,
* Weight calculated from length using the formula (0.0Q3)*Lcngth (mtn)' "-- Weight (g) from Sullivan
(1979).
'' Length from Van den Avyle and Fowler (1984).
r Length from i.mdherg and Marshal) (!984)
Stage Name
E«».
Prolans
Postlarvae
Age f'
Age 2+
Toble Dl -18: Tidewater Stlverslde Species Parameters
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fraction Vulnerable
(per stage) (per silage)"1 to Fishery4
2.3- 0 0
3.0f>h 0 0
3.06" : (I 0 :
2.1* ' 0 0 :
2.iv ; o o
Weight*
)_
0,0000000052ft1
0.00000163*
O.OOOOOS54h
0.0!19*
0.0224'
* Calculated from survival /;. DI-IO
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
Chapter C4:
Value of Baseline I<&E Losses from
Selected Facilities on the Ohio River
This chapter presents the results oFEPA's evaluation using
benefits transfer techniques of the economic losses (hat are
associated I&E at Ohio River facilities. First, summed
results for the nine case study facilities with I&E data are
presented. Then, the extrapolation of these results to other
Ohio River CWIS is discussed. Section C4-1 provides an
overview of the valuation approach, Section C4-2
discusses losses to recreational fisheries. Section C4-3
discusses the value of forage losses. Section C4-4
discusses nonuse values, Section C4-S summarizes the
economic valuation of losses at the nine case study
facilities, and Section (46 discusses the extrapolation of
these values to other Ohio River ( WIS
C4-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
I&E at Ohio River CWIS affect recreational fisheries as
well as forage species that contribute to the biontass of
fishery species. There are no commercial fisheries located
tn the study area.
Chapter Contents
C4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach C4-I
C4-2 Economic Value of Average Annua! Losses to
Recreational Fisheries Resulting from I&E at Kmc
Facilities on the Ohio River 04-2
t'4-2, L Economic Values for Recreational Losses
from the Consumer Surplus Literature C4-2
C'4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery
Losses Resulting from l&fc at Nine Ohio
River Case Study Facilities —, C4-J
t'4-3 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses C4-4
C4-3. i Replacement Cost of Fish C4-4
C4-3.2 Production Foregone Value of
Forage Fish C4-5
C4-4 Nonuse Values C4>6
('4-5 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I&E
at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities C4-7
C4-6 Extrapolation of Baseline Losses to Other Facilities
on the Ohio River C4-7
EPA evaluated both fishery and forage species losses to capture the total economic value of I&E losses at Ohio River CWIS.
Recreational fishery impacts were based on benefits transfer methods, applying results from mm market valuation studies The
economic value of forage species losses was estimated by two methods, (I) the replacement cost of stocking hatchery fish to
replace fish impinged and entrained, or (2) the foregone production of commercial and recreational species that use the forage
species a s a prey base. All of these methods are explained in further detail in Chapters AS and A9 of this document.
As discussed in Chapters AS of Part A, the yield estimates presented in Chapter C3 are expressed as total pounds, Because
the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers of fish rather than pounds, foregone recreational yield was
therefore converted to numbers of fish. This conversion was based on (he average weight of harvests We fish of each species.
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 mosi fish is greater than age 1.
C4-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IdE Lasses
C4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Losses to Recreational Fisheries
Resulting from IAE at Nine Facilities on the Ohio River
CA-2 \ Economic Values for Recreational Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for increases in recrenlional catch rates. These
increases in value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as "consumer surplus" per additional fish
caught.
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. Tabic C4-1 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Ohio River
fishery in geographic area and relevant species.
Table C4-1: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates for Species in the Ohio River
Authors Study Location and Year Item Valued Value Estimate ($2000)
MiUiman et al. (1992) Green Bay, if 86 .Recreation and commercial net : Yellow perch $0.31
• benefits trom proposed perch
; rehabilitation programs
Samples and Bishop I Lake Michigan, 1978 ;Catch rale improvement of 1 Lake Michigan trout/salmon SI6.01
(1985) :percent '
Boyle et al. (1998)
Cabrtianeau and Hay
(I97K)
Sorget al, ((985)
Norton et at. (1983) -Mid-Atlantic coast. 1979-1980 ; Catch rate increase of I swiped Striped bass $11.08 - $15.55
bass per trip
Norton et al (1983) estimated the value of the striped bass fishery for the mid-Atlantic coast, including Delaware and Mew
Jersey. The value of the recreational fishery was estimated using a travel cost method (TCM) and data from the 1979 NMFS
survey. The value of the commercial fishery was calculated by valuing the catch using catch data and prices from 1980.
Sorg et al. (1985) developed estimates of the willingness to pay for a fishing trip under the existing conditions among licensed
Idaho steelhcad anglers, using data gathered in 1982. Mean willingness to pay was estimated using data from an iterative
bidding contingent valuation (CV) survey, resulting in a value of S31.45. and from a TCM. where the results range from
SI 9.89 to $27.87. In addition, the CVM portion of the study developed mean estimates of the marginal willingness to pay for
a doubling in the numher offish caught per trip, with a value of $9.91. and for a 50 percent increase in the size of the fish
caught over current conditions, with a value of $7.69 (all values in $ 1982),
Cahrbaneau and Hay (197 8) estimated the value ofpanftsb. catfish, and walleye by sampling a large group of sportsmen to
see what increased costs would force a respondent to stop his/her favorite and second-favorite hunting and fishing activities.
Boyle et al, (1998) used the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation to estimate the
value of bass and rainbow trout across the country. Respondents were asked a contingent valuation question that determined
the regional values of these two species.
United States. 1996
Mississfppi Plyway (Central
:U.S.). 1978
: Central Idaho, 19K2
; WTP (increased costs! to get
: someone to stop bass or trout
; fishing
; WTP (increased costs I to get
someone to stop doing his/her
. favorite and second-favorite
; hunting or fishing activities
: Other bass •
; Rainbow trout
SI -58 - S3.95
$3.25 -S3.71
Catfish $2.64
Pumpkmseed. Sur,fish. Perch, Crappie,
Bluegill, Paddlelish,
:Muskellusige, Panfish St.00
: Walleye S7.92
; Doubling the catch rate per trip
; Catfish, Crappie, Walleye
Northern Pike, Grass pickerel,
Sauger, Paddleftsh, Muskellunge,
Warmwater fish $5.02
C4-2
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies. Part C- The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline ME Losses
Samples and Bishop (1985) estimated the impact of increased success rates ai various sites in Lake Michigan and the annual
value of the alternative fishing sites. Alter modeling the demand for each of the 11 study sites and estimating the annual value
for each site they developed a model to explain the variation in the annual site values that accounted for site and quality
characteristics, The results of this model were used to develop an estimate that the value of an additional fish landed
(associated with a 1 percent improvement in the success rale) would have an average value across the sites of $6.75 ($1978).
Milliman ct al. < 1992) estimated the value of yellow perch in Green Bay by calculating the net benefits derived from
implementing various perch rehabilitation programs.
Since none of the studies consider the Ohio River directly, EPA used these estimates to create a range of possible consumer
surplus values for the increases in recreational landings expected to result by reducing l&E at Ohio River facilities.
To estimate a unit value for recreational landings. EPA established a lower and upper value for the recreational species, based
on values reported in studies in Table ("4-1. Because the studies in Table C4-I are geographically specific. EPA created a
lower and upper value.
CA-Z.Z Economic Values of Recreational fishery Losses Resulting from I&E at Nine
Ohio River Case Study Facilities
Recreational losses are displayed in Tables C4-2 and C4-3 for l&E. respectively. Total losses to the recreational fisheries
from i&E at the nine Ohio River case study facilities are estimated to range from $ 12,500 to $27,300 per year for
impingement, and from SI i 1,200 to $212,500 per year for entrainment. Results for individual facilities are presented in
Appendix (3.
Table C4-2; Average Annuel Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species ot Kline Ohio River Case Study
Facilities and Associated Economic Values
Species
: Loss to Recreation*! C atch
from Impingement •_
(# of fish)
Recreational Value/Fish
Loss in Recreational Value frum
Impingement
Low
High
Lot*
High
Black crjppic
452
•S1.0O
$5.02
S452
S2.27I
Bluegill
47
$0.31 :
St.oo
S15
$47
Channel catfish
1.805
$2.64
S5.02
$4,764
$9,060
Longear sunfish
9
SO. 31
S1.00
$3
S9
I'addlctish
54
Si.00
$5.02
$54
$269
Sauger
429
S5.02
$7.92
$2,154
$3,398
.Smalimoutfi bass
165
5f 1.58
S3.95
$261
S65!
Striped bass
2!
sn.08
SI 5.55
$231
$325
Sunfish spp.
37
$0.31
SI.00
$12
S37
Walleye
21
S5.02
$7.92
SI 05
SI 6fi
White bass
: 2,79i
SI.58
$3.95
54,410
SI 1,026
Total
5,8.12
SI 2,461
; $27,259
Wed Dec 26 10:37:52 MST 2001 P'/fNTAKE/Ohio/Ohit^Sctcnce/scode/ohio.summary.iablcs/ohiosum.tabkB.inip.csv
C4-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IAE tosses
Table C4¦¦ 3; Average Annual Entrainment of Recreational Fishery Species at Nine Ohio River Case Study
facilities and /Associated' Economic Values
SpeClCS
Los* to Recreational
Catch from Enrrainnicnt
{# offish)
Recreational Yilue/Flih
Loss in Rwreational Value from
t.urrainmem
Low High
Black crappie 1,284 Si.1)0 $5.02
Biuegil! : i ' $0.31 $1,00
Channel catfish 2,648 ' $2.64 ; $5,02
Longcar sunfish 3.938 SO.31 ' SI. 00
Paddlelish 16 Si.OS) ; S5.02
Sauger J .638 $5.02 S7.92
Smallmouth bass : 16,170 SI.5H $3,95
Suntish spp. 3,663 ; S0.3J SI.00
Walleye 12.666 .; $5,02 $7.92
While bass J 2,014 $1,58 Si.95
Yciknv perch I "SO.31 SI,00
Total : 44,038 __
ohiosonn Wed Dec 26 10:37:52 MST 2001 P:/INTAKl/Ohio_Scwn<;e?scodi;/ohio.summarY.table.s/ohic!Sum,tableB.eni.csv
Low
SI.2K4
$0
$6,991
SI,221
SI6
S#.223
$25,548
SI.135
$63.5X1
S3.182
so
$111,182
High
56,447
$1
SI3,294
S3.93K
$78
S 12,073
$63,870
S3,663
5100,311
$7,956
SI
$212,532
CA-3 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or reereatranaUy fished. For the purposes in this study, EPA refers to all
of these species as Forage fish. Forage fish include species that are prey for other species and are important components of
aquatic food webs. The following sections discuss (he economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation
methods.
C4-3.1 Replacement Cost of Fish
The replacement value offish can be used in several cases, first, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking of
hatchery fish, then tosses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would still
be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught m the commercial or recreational fishery, but are
important as forage or bait, the replacement value can he used as a lower bound estimate of their value {it is a lower bound
because tt would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species* stocks). Third, where there are not
enough use data to value losses to lire recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as a proxy for lost
fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs.
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish, 'fable C4-4 displays replacement costs for Ohio River species impinged and entrained based on values in
the American Fisheries Society's Sourcebook for i he Investigation and Valuation offish KiUx (AFS, 1993). Totals for the
nine case study facilities are 5394,400 per year for impingement and $437,100 per year for entniinment. The costs listed are
average costs to fish hatcheries across North America 10 produce different species offish for stocking. The second
component of replacement cost is the transportation cost, which includes costs associated with vehicles, personnel, fuel,
water, chemicals, containers, and nets. AFS (1993) estimates these costs at approximately $1.13 per mile, but does not
indicate bow many fish (or how many pounds of fish) are transported for this price, Lacking relevant data, EPA did not
tnclude the transportation costs in this valuation approach.
C4-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies. Port C. The Ohio River
Chapter C4 Value of Baseline 14E losses
Table C4-4; Replacement Cost of Forage Species Impinged and
Entrained ot the Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities'""
Specie*
Hatchery
Costs
(S/lb)
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses
($2000)*
Impingement Kntriinmeai
Bigmouth buffalo
SO, 4 2
S998
SO
Black bullhead
S1.04
SI
SO
BiuoSiwsc minnow
$2,21
S5S
$83,996
Brown bullhead
SI. 04
SM9
SI.147
Common carp
SO. 20
$469
SI 43,464
Darter spp.
S2.84
S9
S528
Emerald shiner
$0.91
S2.877
S42J34 '
Freshwater drum
$0,34
S4J26
$9X1
. These values were inflated to J2000 from Si989, but this
could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
Wed Dec 2b 10:38:58 MS I 2001
P:/lNTAKfc/Ohio/Ohio_Scitf!H.*ey!
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River Chapter C4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
Table C4-5: Mean Annual Value of Production Foregone of
Selected Fishery Species Resulting from Impingement of Forage
Species at Nine Ohio River Case Study Facilities
Annual Lots in Production Foregone Value from
Species lagitafeiMBt of Forage Sj*ci« ($200®)
Low High
Black crappic $463 $2,326
Bluegil! ' ' ' $52 $169
Channel catfish , $2,042 $3,884
Longcar suntish 5394 SI,272
Muskollutigc $0 SI
Paddlefish $3 SI,!
Saugw $2X5 $450
Smallmuuth bass SI,508 $
Striped bass $1,576 $2,212
Sunfish spp. $667 $2,150
Walleye $569 $898
White buss SLOW • $2,748
Yellow perch $0 SI
Total " ' ' $8,659 $19,891
Wed Dew 26 10:38:5H MST 2001
P;'I\ FAKL Ohio/Ohio^Scicncc/scode/ohio,summary .tablcii/ohio$um.tablcD.iinp
.CSV
Table C4-fe; Mean Annuo! Value of Production Foregone of Selected
Fishery Species Resulting from Entrapment of Forage Species at
Nine Ohio ftiver Case Study Facilities
Annual l-oss in Production Foregone Value from
Species Entrainment of Fory Species ($2000)
Low High
Black crappic $308 "il 545
Biuegtll $21 V68
Channel catfish $5,340 $10,154
Longear sunfish S4.041 $13,035
Paddle fish $1 SS
Sanger $222 S3 51
Smallmauth buss $187,062 $467,655
Sunfish spp. $4,656 $15,019
Walleye : $109,985 $173,522
White bass : $1,674 $4,186
Total $313,310 $685.53,S
Wed Dec 26 10:38:58 MST 2001
i,:/!NI'AK.E/Ohio..-C)hio„Sciencc/sc«!e.'o)iio.suninmry',tabScs/ohtosuiti,l«bleD,ew,esv
C4-4 NonusE Values
Recreational consumer surplus and commercial impacts are only part of the total losses lhat the public realizes from l&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
C4-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River Chapter C4. Value of Baseline ME Lcsses
I he economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence {stewardship) mid bequest (intergeneralional equity >
motives. Using a "rule of thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 percent of the recreational use impact i see.
Chapter A9 of this document for further discussion), nonuse values of I&E losses at the nine Ohio River case study facilities
are estimated to range from $6,200 to $13,600 per for impingement und from £55.600 to S 106,300 per for entrainment.
C4-5 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I4E at Nine Ohio River
Case Study Facilities
Table C4-7 summarizes the estimated total annual economic value of l&E losses at the nine Ohio River case study facilities
Total impacts range from $27,400 to $435,300 per year for impingement, and from $480,100 to $ 1,004,300 per year from
entrainment.
Table CA-7: Summary of Baseline Mean Annual XAE Value Losses at Nine Selected Facilities on the
Ohio River ($2000)
Impingement Entrainment Total
Recreational(Direct Use, Nonmarkct) Low $12,461 SI 11,1X2 $123,643
; High $27,259 $2)2.532 $2393 S
Forage (Indirect Use, Ncmmarkei}
Production Foregone Low 58,659 S313,310 S321,964
i High $19,891 $685,538 S705.42V
Replacement 1394,3% $437,06! $831,457
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarkct) Low $6,230 $55,591 561,821
High . $13,630 SI 06.266 S119,896
Total (Rec * forage * Nonuse)" Low S27JSO $480,083 $507,433
High • $435.2*5 __ _ SI,(KM,336 Si,4 3^,621
* 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 hither of two forage valuation methods was used.
Wed Dec 26 10:4 t:36MST 2001
P:/iNTAKE/Ohio/Ohio_Science.,scodc/ohio.sutnmary.iables.'oli!ostirn.iahleL, SUMMARY, csv
C4-6 Extrapolation of Baseline Losses to Other Facilities on the Ohio
River
Table C4-K summarizes the estimated baseline economic losses calculated for all in-scopc and out-of scope facilities on the
Ohio River by extrapolating the results from the previous analysis. For the analysis, facilities were grouped according to their
locations m Ohio River navigational pools, as discussed in Chapter C3, Results for the six pools combined ibr all in scope
and out of scope Ohio River facilities range from $74,70!) to $1,388,300 per year for impingement and from $784,400 to
$2,443,800 per year for entrainment. Table C4-') displays results for just the in scope facilities. Values for the in scope
facilities are 572,700 to $ 1,358,700 per year for impingement and S76.K.400 so 52,393,000 per year for entrainment.
C4-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River Cnop'er C4: Value of Bcseline TAE Losses
Tobie C4-8: Values of tAum Annual Baseline IAE Losses at In orid Out of Scope Facilities Grouped as Pools
on the Ohio River
Impingement Losses (2000S) Lntraimiienl Lamm (2000$)
fwli — — ' ' t *— — •
Low High ; Low High
Hannibal Pool
S494
S3,749
$35,020 i
$98,309
Mark! and Pool
$15,830
$189,246
S2K7.3IX :
SI,384,754
McAlpinc Pool
$44,243
Si ,057,334
S2M.46K
$448,605
New Cumberland
$5,669
$67,480
S3,1.73
$11,1X7
Pike island Pool
$3,676
$29,307
$5,072
$28,135
Robert C'. Byrd Pool
S4.758
$41,1KX
SI 89,373 ;
S472.797
Total
574,670
Sf.388,305
$784,424
52,443,787
extrapolution.summary. Fr« Dec 28 J7:52:37 M.ST 2001
!^/INTAKK/Obio/Oliio_SciCTce.,"sa>de/n/in.seopciacstitics.bcncfiis/sumiisa[>'.table8/exfrapolafion.suinmar>'..esv
C4-8
-------
i 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Introduction
Cooling water intake structures (CWISs) withdrawing
water from the Ohio River impinge and entrain many
species sought by recreational anglers. These species
include catfish, bass, sunlisli, walleye, sauger, perch, and
others. Increased fish mortality from l&K in the Ohio
River may therefore affect fishing quality at the Ohio
River fishing sites and, as a result, the welfare of anglers
visiting these sites.
This ease study uses a random utility model (RUM)
approach to estimate the effects of improved fishing
opportunities due to reduced impingement and
entrainment (f&E) in the Ohio River, The ease study
focuses on fishing sites along the following six pools of
the Ohio River; Hannibal, Markland, McAlpine, New
Cumberland, Pike Island, and Robert C. Byrd. A
120-mile radius buffer zone arouad these six pools formed
the geographic area of the case study. BP A defined this
area based on the distances that local anglers are likely to
travel to fish the Ohio River for single-day trips. Figure
C5~ I depicts the ease Study area.
The case study relies on tht* 1994 Motional Demand Study (NDS) for Water-Based Recreation (U.S. HI'A, 1 W4a) combined
with biological data describing fishing conditions in the study area. Only the state of Ohio provided adequate biological data.
EPA therefore estimated anglers' behavior with a RUM based on the subset of the NDS sample that includes Ohio-anglers
only. The Agency then used the model to estimate economic values associated with recreational fishery losses from l&E in
the Ohio River as applied to all anglers residing in the study area.
Chapter A10 of Part A prov ides a detailed description of the RUM methodology used in this analysis. The following sections
describe the data set used in the analysis and present analytic results.
C5~ 1 Data Summary
This section describes the data and supporting analyses required to implement the RUM analysis. The studs requires the
following general categories of data and supporting analyses:
~ information on socioeconomic characteristics of anglers and their preferences (i.e.. where they fish and what species
they target);
~ anglers' choice set of recreational sites, including the sues visited by anglers and substitute sites in their choice sets;
~ information on site characteristics that are likely to be important determinants of anglers* behavior; and
~ estimated price of visiting the sites.
These four data categories arc described below.
C5-1.1 Summary of Anglers' Characteristics
Information on anglers" preferences and characteristics came from the IW4 National Demand Study (NDS) for Water-Based *
Recreation (U.S. EPA, 1994a). The NDS survey collected data on demographic characteristics and water-based recreation
behavior using a nationwide stratified random sample of 13,(159 individuals aged 16 and older. EPA used a subset of the
NDS sample that includes only single-day trips to sites located in tht* state of Ohio to estimate the RUM of recreational
C5-1
Chapter Contents
€5-1 Data Summary CS-I
CS-1,1 Summary of Anglers* Characteristics .... C'5-l
CS-1.2 Recreational Fishing Choice Sets C5-4
C5-I.J Site Attributes C5-5
CS-I,4 Travel Cost C5-7
CS'2 Site Choice Models C5-7
C5-3 Trip Participation Model CS»9
C5-4 • • • Welfare Estimaitcs C5-I0
C5-4.! f snnviiing Changes in the Quality of
Pishing Sites ....................— CS-10
C5-4..2 Estimating Uvnsm from l&F in the
Ohio River CS-I I
C5-4.J EstKnaung Fishery Losses from I&.E for
Individual Pools in the Ohio River C5-I3
("5-5 Limitations and Uncertainties C5-14
C3-5.1 Considering Only Recreational Values .. C5-14
C5-5.2 Modeling C5-I4
C5-5.3 Data C5-I4
C5-5.4 Potential Sources of Survey Bias C5-I5
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C' The Ohio River
fishing behavior. As noted above, the Agency did not use observations from other stales falling within the case study area in
the RUM analysis because only the state of Ohio provided fish abundance data necessary for characterizing fishing sites
located along (he Ohio River and the relevant substitute sites. The Ohio sub-sample included 909 observations. Of those,
122 took recreational fishing trips. Excluding respondents with missing data on key variables, such as name of the visited
water body, home town, and respondents who took multiple day trips results in 74 usable observations.
When estimating the total welfare changes from l&E effects in the Ohio River on the quality of recreational fishing sites, the
Agency included all anglers from the 120-mile radius taking both single- and multiple-day trips,, Section C5-6 of this report
provides details of this analysis.
"fable C'5-l provides descriptive statistics for all anglers residing in the case study area who take single day trips, These data
are presented by state to compare characteristics of Ohio's anglers with anglers residing in other states. Tabic C5-I shows
that anglers" preferences vary only slightly across states, likely making the Ohio subsample used in the RUM analysis
representative of all anglers residing in the 120-mile itone. The following paragraphs compare characteristics of Ohio anglers
with characteristics of anglers from other states included in the case study area,
A majority of Ohio anglers taking single-day trips (84 percent) prefer to visit lakes or reservoirs. The remaining 16 percent
visit streams and rivers, Allocation of fishing trips among water body types is similar in most states included in the study
area. The only two notable differences are:
* three to eight percent of anglers from Indiana, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania visit marine water bodies in addition to
freshwater bodies
~ a majority of anglers in West Virginia (55 percent) prefer to visit streams and rivers.
A majority of Ohio anglers (51 percent i target warmwater species, 46 percent target coldwater species, and the remaining
three percent target anadromous species. Ohio anglers' preferences are consistent with angler's preferences from the states of
Indiana and Kentucky and are somewhat different from anglers* preferences in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. A majority
of anglers from Pennsylvania and West Virginia target coldwatcr species. However, differences in allocation of target species
between Ohio's anglers and Pennsylvania and West Virginia arc unlikely to have a significant effect on welfare estimates for
two reasons:
~ a significant portion of Pennsylvania and West Virginia anglers (25 and 27 percent) target warmwater species; and
~ both coldwatcr (salmon) and warmwater species (e.g., sauger) are affected by l&E in the Ohio River.
Half of the Ohio anglers used either private or rental boats on their fishing trips, compared to between 20 and 40 percent in
other states. This difference is likely to stem from the size of water bodies included in anglers choice set. Anglers from Ohio
arc more likely to visit large water bodies such as Lake Eric or the Ohio River compared to anglers, from, for example,
Kentucky or West Virginia who might also fish at smaller water bodies where a boat may not be necessary.
On average, anglers in the case study area travel from 31.36 miles to b t. 11 mile for a single day trip. The Ohio estimate of
34.63 miles represents a low value.
CJ-J
-------
5 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Pert C The Ohio River
Chapter C5: CUM Analysis
Table C5 • 1
Profile of Single-Day Fishing Trips by State
7.
N
Allocation of Trips by
Water Body Type (%
anglers)
Lake Stream Ocean
Type of Water Fislied «n Last Trip
(% of anglers)
Cold Warm Salt ^romouj
Ffebrf
from Boat
(%
Anglers)
Average:
Travel :
distance ;
Avg
Visits
Avemge
Number of
Fish Caught
IN
40
80%
15% .
5%
45%
47%
5%
3%
40%
61.11
7.23
7,! 3
KY
37 :
7(1%
27%
3% •
19%
76% :
3%
3%,
24%
47.07
4.73'
6.47
MI.)'
1
NA
0%
0%
NA
0%
0%
0%
0%
NA
NA
N\
NY"
0
NA
. NA •.
NA .
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
N\
OH
74
X4%
16%
0%
46%
51%
0%
3%
47%
34.63
6.91
4.79
PA
38 •
68%
: 24% ;
8%
68%
27%
. 5%
0%
• 32%
31,36
4,72
4.94
VA"
0
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WV
20
45%
55% •
0%
75%
25% -
0%
0%
20%
36.90
10.20
14.25
Total
210
4 NA; no or few sample observations arc available for the buffer zone included in ihe cose study. Note that the Agency included NY,
M0, and VA counties that fall m the case study area in benefit estimation (see Figure C5-1 J.
Table C5-2 summarizes socioeconomic characteristics of the sample anglers participating in recreational fishing in Ohio and
other stales in the wise study area. As shown in table C5-2, socioeconomic characteristics ol' anglers are similar across states
included in the case study area, The average annual income of the respondent anglers was between $49,000 and $50,000 in
both Ohio and other states,® Ninety-three percent of the Ohio anglers are white, with an average age of about 40 years.
Anglers from other stales are a little bit younger with an average age of about 39/' Fewer non white anglers from other slates
(about two percent participate in recreational fishing compared to Ohio {about seven percent). Nine percent of (he Ohio
anglers and eight percent of anglers from other states had not received a high school diploma. Only 23 and 29 percent of
anglers from Ohio and other stales, respectively, had graduated from college. More than 60 percent of the anglers in ail states
are males, Twenty seven percent of the anglers in Ohio and 22 percent in other states indicated that they had children aged
six and younger. Approximately 54 percent of anglers in Ohio and 50 percent in other states had children aged seven to 16
years.
Table C5-2 shows that on average anglers spew 12.6 days fishing during the past year. Anglers made an average of 6.91 trips
to the current site, with an average trip cost of S52.K7 (' Average travel time to and from the site was less than 30
minutes.
1 Missing income was computed based using a state-specific regression.
- This analysis does not include anglers under the age of 16. which may result in an ovorcstimotion of the recreational angler's
average age.
' All costs are in 1994$, representing the 1994 survey year. All costs/benefits will be updated to 2000S later in this analysis (i.e., for
welfare estimation).
-------
S 316(b) Wotershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River Chapter C5: CUM Analysis
Table Cb-Z Data Summary for Anglers Residing in the Cose Study Area
Variable
Number of
Observations ;
Mean Value*
Sid Dev
Minimum
Maximum
Ohio
Smnplt
Other:
States'
Ohio
Sample
Other
States
Ohio
Sample
Other
Slates :
Ohio
Sample
Other
States !
Ohio
Sample
Other
States
Trip Cost
n
N \
$52.87
NA
$72.95
NA
$0.29
Ha
S42S.27
NA
Travel Time
74 ¦
NA
0.33
NA :
1,12
NA
0
NA
8.2
NA
Visits
74
S37
6.91
6.26
10.05
11, ?y
1
1 ;
70
100
No High
School
74
137
0,09
0.0R :
0.29
0,27 :
0 :
0
t
1
College
Degree
74
i37 ;
0,23
0.29
0.42
0.15
0
0
1
1
African
American
74
137 ;
0.07
0.02
0.25
0.15
0
0
J
1
Age
74
137 :
40.39
38.88 ^
13.35
13.63
St
16
77
72
Presence of
children aged
6 and
younger
74
137 :
0.27
0.23
0.45
0.42
0
0
1
1
Presence of
children aged
7 to 16 years
74
137 :
0,54
0.50
0.50
0.50
0
0
i
1
Household
Income
74
137 ;
S49.345
&49.909 ;
$32,352
$31,068 :
s7,5oo :
54,999 :
SI 50.000
$150,000
Male
74 ^
137 !
0.66
0.61
0.4K
0.40
(i
0
1
1
Annual trips
74
137 ;
12.57
11 KX
22.76
23.35
1
1
150
230
4 For dummy variables, such as "mate," that take the value ofO or 1, the reported value represents a portion of the survey respondents
possessing the relevant characteristic. For example. 65 percent of the surveyed anglers arc males.
NA: No! applicable to anglers from states other tlmn Ohio because EPA estimated travel cost and travel time variables for the site
choice model.
Cb-l 2 Recreational Fishing Choice Sets
Figure C5-J shows the geographic area included in the analysis. To analyze welfare effects from l&E in the Ohio River
throughout the study area, the Agency first modeled recreational anglers* behavior in the state of Ohio. As shown in Figure
C'5-i, most of the Ohio state is included in the case study area. This analysis assumes that Ohio anglers am potentially
choose from all water bodies in the state of Ohio. Ohio is a water-rich state, with more than 24,000 miles of named and
designated rivers and streams with 45 i miles bordering on the Ohio River, 200.000 lake and reservoir acres, and about 230
miles of Lake Erie shoreline (Ohio EPA, 1996), Fish are found throughout Ohio in almost every inland surface water body
and Lake Eric,
Baeh consumer choice set theoretically includes hundreds of substitutable recreation sites in Ohio and in the neighboring
states. To prevent the recreation site analysis from becoming overly complex, the Agency created randomly-chosen reduced
choice sets consisting of 40 recreation sites. EPA then analyzed a sample of recreation sites for each consumer observation,
bach participant choice set, by definition, includes the site actually visited by the respondent. EPA drew additional sites for
each consumer from a geographic area defined by a distance constraint, using 120 miles as the limit for travel distance used in
the analysts, EPA used the resulting aggregate choice set of sites to model angler decisions regarding trip allocation across
recreation sites within a (20 mile radius from his home town.
C5-4
-------
Chapter C5 RUM Analysis
EPA identified recreational fishing sites based on Reach File version 1 (hereafter RF1) and information on recreational
fishing areas provided by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources {U.S. EI'A, 1997; Ohio Department of Natural
Resources; 1W6). A recreational fishing site is defined as an RFI reach or a designated fishing area on an RFI reach. Ohio
has 1144 recreation reaches. These reaches comprise the universal opportunity set. Of these, 580 observations are known
recreational sites (e.g., designated fishing areas or parks); 664 observations are RF! reaches without a known recreational
site, and eight observations are neither located in RFI nor identified as known recreation sites but were visited by an NDS
respondent.
Figure C5-1: Ohio River Pools and Fishing Origins
,v - ^—
Location of Fishing Trip Origin
in Relation to Ohio River Pools
Z trip ' v>£io
PENNSYLVANIA
) ^mikmUe
Grimmp
I «,•»;>. i7 r: Hw'i
, .» e
" Markhtmi
,Z ' Mehlahl
MvAiptnr
KKNT! t KV
¦Source- U.S.. i f t IVV7
C5-1.3 Site Attributes
This analysis assumes thai the angler chooses among site alternatives based on several observable attributes. The attributes
included in this analysis include quality of the fishing site, the type arid size of the water body, presence of boat launching
facilities, and the site's aesthetic quality, EPA obtained data on site characteristics from three main sources, EPA's RFI; the
Ohio Department of Natural Resources (OI)NR); and the Ohio Water Resource Inventory (OWRI) database (U.S. EPA. 1997;
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 1996; and OH EPA, 19%),
q. Quality of the fishing site
To specify the fishing quality of the case study sites, EPA used information on relative fish abundance expressed in pounds of
fish per 300 meters water body length. Fish abundance is the most important attribute of a fishing site from the anglers'
perspective because fish abundance is closely related to catch rate, the most important characteristic of a fishing site from an
angler's perspective (MeConnel! and Strand, 1994), Fish abundance is also a policy variable of concern because fish
abundance is directly affected by fish mortality due to l&E. The fish abundance 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.
In this analysis, EPA used the square-root offish abundance to ensure the decreasing marginal utility offish density.
CS-5
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C. The Ohio River Chapter C5- RUM Analysis
Data on fish abundance came from the OWRI database (Oil EPA, 19%), Ohio EPA has operated a systematic monitoring of
the state's river, stream, and lake resources since 1980 using biological, chemical and physical assessment tools and
indicators. Ohio EPA collected data on various biological measures to support the use of biological indicators in assessing
aquatic life use attainment in surface waters, These measures include fish abundance and condition, species richness and
composition, and trophic composition. Fish abundance can be characterized by two metrics: the number of individuals per
unit distance arid fish weight per unit distance (e.g., 300 meters), EPA chose fish weight per unit distance as the most
appropriate measure of fish abundance for the Ohio ease study because fish weight is a function of both number of fish and
fish size. Both factors likely influence how anglers value a recreational fishing site (Ohio EPA, 1996; Ohio EPA, 1988),
Ohio EPA assessed 70, 60, and 42 percent of large, medium, and small rivers and streams, respectively; 64 percent of lakes
and reservoirs; and all of the Lake Erie shoreline, EPA used the OWRI fish abundance value for a given site where available.
In the absence of observed abundance values, EPA used an Inverse Distance Weighted (IWD) interpolation technique to
calculate an average fish abundance for a given fishing site. The 1DW technique estimates a value for any given location by
assuming that each input value has an influence on that location. This influence diminishes with distance according to a
predetermined power parameter, The Agency first located any available fish abundance values within five kilometers from a
given fishing site and then used the fish abundance values of the nearest lour sites as input values for calculating fish
abundance for lite site in question. EPA used squared distance values to weight all input values for this calculation.
b Physical characteristics of the fishing site
Lakes and rivers represent different types of aquatic babttai therefore offer different recreational fishing opportunities to an
angler. Physical dimensions of the water body may be also important to an angler for various reasons. For example, smaller
water bodies are likely to support fewer fish compared to larger water bodies. Use of boats may be also restricted to non-
motorized boats oolv on small water bodies.
RF1 provided water body type
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case. Studies,. Part C: The Ohio fciver4
Chapter £5: &UM Analysis
C5 -1.4 Travel Cost
EPA used Ztpfip software to estimate distances from the household Zip code to each fishing site in the individual opportunity
sets,56 As noted above, a fishing site is defined as an RFl reach or a designated fishing area within a reach, I fan RFI reach
lias several designated fishing areas, HPA assumed that anglers visited the fishing area nearest to their homes, Otherwise,
EPA measured the distance between the household Zip code and the reach midpoint. The program used the closest valid Zip
code to match unknown Zip codes. The average one-way distance to a visited site is 42.99 miles.
EPA estimated trip "price" as the sum of travel costs plus the opportunity cos! 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. KPA multiplied round-trip distance by
average motor vehicle cost per mite ($0.29, 1994 dollars).' To estimate the opportunity cost of travel time, EPA first divided
round-trip distance by 40 miles per hour to estimate trip time, and then if the angler was employed, multiplied it by the
household's wage to yield the opportunity cost of tune. HPA estimated household wage by dividing household income by
2.0HO (i.e., the number of full-time hours potentially worked per year).
The Agency assumed that employed respondents lost income during the trip (LOSEINC •-1). Employed respondents are
assigned a time cost in the trip cost variable. Approximately 73 percent of the survey respondents were assumed to lose
income. EPA calculated visit price for employed anglers as;
Visit Price - Round Trip Distance x $.29 ~ x Wage If LOSEINC = I (C5-I)
40 mph
EPA assumed that respondents who are retired, unemployed, or homemakers do not lose income during the trip
(LOSEJNOQ). Visit price for retired, unemployed or homemakers was calculated as follows:
Visit Price - Bound Trip Distance x S.29 If LOSEINC - 0 (C5-2)
For those respondents who did not lose income during the trip (LOSE1NOO), EPA used an additional variable equal to the
amount of time spent on travel. EPA estimated travel time as the round-trip distance divided by 40 mph:
Travel Time » Round Trip Distance .'40 If LOSEINC = 0
(C5-3)
0 If LOSEINC 1
The Agency used a log-linear ordinary least square regression model to estimate wage rates for the 20 percent of the survey
respondents who did not report their income. This regression is described in Chapter B5 of this document. The average
imputed household income is $42,183 per year and the corresponding hourly wage is Si 3.94.
C5-2 site Choice Models
EPA used a RUM, described in Chapter AI0 of Pan A, to estimate anglers' site choices. The model assumes that the
individual angler makes a choice among mutually exclusive site alternatives based on the attributes of those alternatives. EPA
identified anglers' choice sets based on a travel distance constraint (Parsons. 1997), All fishing sites within a 120 mile radius
from the angler's hometown are eligible for inclusion in the angler's choice set. Individual choices may include hundreds of
sites. To prevent the model from becoming overly complex, EPA estimated the site choice model using the site actually
visited and 39 randomly drawn sites within the choice set area for each Ohio angler.
J The program was created by Daniel Jkllcrsiam and is available through the U.SIM at
http;//usda-maunlib.eomell.edu/datasei!v'genefat;930t4.
" Note that EPA estimated distances to all recreation sues m the consumer's opportunity set. The Agency used a random draw from
the opportunity set lor the purpose of estimating the model parameters but estimated the inclusive value using all recreation sites in the
consumer's opportunity set.
EPA used the 1994 government rate (SO,29) tor travel reimbursement to estimate travel costs per mile traveled, This estimate
includes vehicle operating cost only.
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, fort C: The Ohio River Chapter C5 RUM Analysis
An angler's choice of sites relies on utility maximization Maddala, i 983; McFadden 1981)- An angler will choose site j i f the
utility («,) from visiting site j is greater than that from vising other sites (A), such that:
u > uk for h - 1, J and h * j (C'5-4)
Recreational fishing models generally assume that anglers first choose a fishing mode (i.e., boat or shore) and species (e.g.,
warmwater and coldwaier), and then a site. Instead of incorporating the angler's decision regarding the mode of fishing and
target species in the model, the Agency assumed that the mode/species choice is exogenous to the model and the angler
simply chooses the site. EPA used the following general model to specify the deterministic part of (he utility function;8
v = f(TC), TTj, RAMP}, ln(RCHSZE,), RIVER, fiWGTp ftWGTt. TKNf, AWQCJX) (C5-5)
the expected utility for site j (j-1 ,,.,40);
travel cost at site j;
travel time for survey respondents who don't receive wages;
presence of a boat ramp at site /;
the logarithm of the reach length;
a dummy variable that takes the value of I if the water body is a river, 0 otherwise;
* square root of relative fish abundance (pounds per 300 meters) at site/ on Lake Erie;
=* square root of relative fish abundance (pounds per 300 meters) at site j on river reaches:
ambient concentrations of TKN at site j; and
a dummy variable that takes the value of I if in-stream concentrations of at least one toxic
pollutant exceed its threshold value for aquntie life protection, 0 otherwise.
Table C5-3 gives the parameter estimates for this model.
where;
vi
T€(
TTj
RAMP,
LnCRClISZE),
RIVER,
SQRTCGWGT,)
SQRTXRWGTj)
TKN,
AWQC_EX,
Table Cb-3:
Estimated Coefficients for the Conditional Site Choice
Variable
Estimated Coefficient
(-statistics
TRAVEL COST
4k0463
-21.530
TRAVEL. TIME
-0,40 i 5
-.V#H6
RAMP
: |. 5976
13.138
RIVER
-0.9219
-3.953
LN(RCHSZE)
0.5793
6.858
SQRT (RWCrrj
0.0681
2.385
SQRT (GWGT)
» ,264V
5.150
TKN
-0.1 194
-1.005
AWQC„EX
-0.2431
-1.548
'Fable C5-3 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 thai anglers prefer to visit sites
closer to their homes (other things being equal). A positive coefficient on the boat ramp indicates that anglers owning a boat
are more likely to choose sites with a boat ramp. A positive coefficient on the reach size variable shows that anglers are more
likely to visit larger water bodies. The river variable coefficient is negative, indicating that anglers are likely to prefer the
Great Lakes or inland lakes. The model shows that anglers prefer sites with more fish and cleaner water, all else being equal.
s See Chapter Alt! of Pari A for details on model specification.
C5-S
-------
Chapter C5; RUM Analysis
The probability of a site visit increases as relative fish abundance increases because catch rale, (he most important site
characteristic from an angler's perspective, is a function uf fish abundance and angler's experience. The greater coefficient
on the Great Lakes fish abundance variable (SQRT(GWGT)) compared to the river fish abundance variable (SQRT{RWGT)>
indicates that anglers value Great Lakes fishery more than inland-fishery. Pt»r water quality has a negative impact on an
angler's decision U> visit a particular site. Higher ambient concentrations of TKN in surface water have u significant negative
effect on the probability of site selection. This is not surprising, since elevated nutrient concentrations are indicative of
potential eutrophieation problems, which may lead to a foul smell in surface water and unattractive visual effects. This
variable's insignificant coefficient is likely due to the correlation between the presence uf nutrients and that of toxic pollutants
in surface water. The presence of toxic pollutants also has a negative effect on anglers' choices of fishing sites. The
AWQC„EX variable coefficient is significant at the 88,b percentile only,''
C5-3 Trip Participation 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 (Parsons et ai., 1999; Feather et a I, 1995; Bailsman et al„ 1995), The participation
model relies on socioeconomic data and estimates of individual utility (the inclusive value) derived from the site choice
model. This section discusses results from the Poisson model of recreational fishing participation, including statistical and
theoretical implications of the model. A detailed discussion of the Poisson model is presented in Chapter Alt) of Part A.
The dependent variable, (he number of recreational trips within the past 12 months, is an integer value ranging from one to
200. The Agency first tested the Ohio data on the number of fishing trips for overdispersion to determine whether to use the
negative binomial form of the Poisson model. The Poisson model is appropriate if the dispersion parameter is equal to zero,
otherwise the negative binomial is more appropriate (Winkelmarm, 2000). The analysis found that the overdispersion
parameter
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Cose Studies, Part C- The Ohio River Chapter C5; RUM Analysis
Table C5-4:
Trip Participation Model (Negative Binomial Model)
Variable
Coefficient
t-statisties
IVBASI-
<) 14 s
1,708
sons
tf.308
0.555
COI-lECiF.
0,789
! 46X
AGE
0,2 8«
2.282
MALE
6.456
0.967
MAUL.KIDS
'0.119
0.243
Ft Nt .KIDS
!),726
Overdwpersion Parameter
2.936
a(alpta)
ft.827
5.437
The positive coefficient on the inclusive value index (fVBASE) 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 sis an increase in fish abundance and catch rate, to result in an increase in the number of fishing
trips to the affected sites- The magnitude of the estimated coefficient, however, indicates thai changes in fishing participation
in response to improvements it) recreational fishing quality will be modest.
The model shows that education is likely 10 influence trip frequency, The NOUS variable coefficient is positive;, but not
significant, indicating thai people who did not complete high school and those with a high school diploma are equally likely to
participate in recreational fishing. Conversely, the COLLEGE variable coefficient is negative and significant at the 85lh
percentile, indicating that respondents who attended college are less likely to participate in fishing than those who have only a
high school education.
The AGE variable coefficient is positive and significant, indicating that older people are likely to take more fishing trips, A
positive but insignificant coefficient for the MALE variable indicates that males and females are equally likely to participate
in fishing activities, This result is somewhat counterintuitive. An insignificant sign on this variable is likely to be caused by
two over-influential observations. Two female respondents reported the largest number of trips {100 and 150) in the Ohio
sample. EPA attempted to correct the effect of over-intluenlial observations by setting the maximum number of fishing trips per season to
90 in the fishing participation model. This correction did not affen the significance of the MALE vanabtc
The presence of children in the household has different effects on fishing participation for males and females. Females with
children are more likely to participate tn fishing activities. This result is not surprising, because mothers are more likely to
provide transportation for their children and to participate in their activities. Conversely, tiie presence of children in the
household does not have a significant effect on a mole's participation in recreational fishing.
The coefficient on the dispersion parameter alpha (ex) is significantly different Irons zero, indicating the negative binomial
form is the most appropriate for this analysis,
C5-4 Welfare Estimates
This section presents estimates of welfare losses to recreational anglers from fish mortality due to t&B, and potential welfare
gains from improvements in fishing opportunities due to reduced fish mortality stemming from the §316b rule.
C5-4.1 Estimating Changes in the Quality of Fishing Sites
The Agency estimated effects of I&E in the Ohio River on the quality of recreational fishing sites tinder different policy
scenarios in terms of changes in relative fish abundance within each of the six pools included in the study, EPA used
estimates of the losses to recreational fisheries based on l&b of the relevant fish species, as described in Chapter C3 of this
document, to estimate changes in total fish biomass in a given pool from reducing l&E, Assuming that fish abundance is
uniform within each pool, changes in relative fish abundance under different policy scenarios can be calculated as follows:
CS-/0
-------
Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
A Fish Weight per 300 m ~ Z&09L iSSS. x 300 m (C 5-6)
Pool Length
where;
A Fish Weight per 300 m -estimated change in relative fish abundance in lbs per 300 m;
Fishery Losses -- estimated losses t» recreational fishery lbs per year;
Pool Length - pool length in meters; and
300 m unit distance used in calculating relative fish abundance (meters).
Table C5-5 presents results of this analysis for each of the six pools.
Table C5-5;
Estimated Changes in Fishery Yield from Eliminating oil
IAE in the Ohio River
Eftimated Fishery Lo*s to l&K (pounds offish)
Estimated Change in Fish
Abundance from Eliminating
l&K (lbs per 300 m)
Pool
Pool Size
Pounds of Fish Impinged
Hounds of Fish Entrained
All Phase 2 ,,lt,
~ Facilities ; Ail fad,ties
(meters)
Pliasf 2 All
Phase 2
All
Hannibal
73.700
100 116
1.228
1.432
5,40 6.30
Mark land
164.785
3,042 3,0X7
13,493
13.6K9
30.10 30,54
MeAlpme
126,534
9,331 9.486
5,540
5,632
35.25 35 84
New
Cumberland
38.664
i .302 1.372
767
809
16.05 16.92
Pike Island
50,198
6X4 8.16
1,170
1,430
II,OX 13,54
Robert C,
Byrd
70,685
53K 543
16,814
16.951
73.65 74.25
Total
ft A
14,998 15,439
39,012
.19.942
.NA NA
C5-4.2 Estimating tosses from ME in the Ohio River
The recreational behavior model described in the preceding sections provides a means for estimating the economic ef fects of
recreational fishery kisses from i&E in the Ohio River. First, EPA estimated the welfare gain to recreational anglers from
eliminating fishery losses due to I&E. This estimate represents economic damages to recreational anglers from I&E of
recreational fish species in the Ohio River under the baseline scenario.
EPA estimated anglers' willingness to pay for improvements in the quality of recreational fishing due to I&E elimination by
first calculating an average seasonal welfare loss per angler and then multiplying it by the total number of anglers residing it?
the 120-mile buffer zone. The Agency calculated the average seasonal welfare loss to an Ohio angler from I&E effects in the
Ohio River based on the subsarnple of 65 Ohio anglers residing within 120 miles of the Ohio River,®" This analysis assumes
the estimated average welfare loss to an Ohio angler is representative of the welfare loss to anglers residing in other stales
included in the study area,
To estimate per trip seasonal welfare losses to an angler residing in the study area, the Agency combined the estimated model
coefficients with the estimated changes in relative fish biomass from eliminating I&E at the CWIS located in the six pools of
the Ohio River. Individual estimates were then averaged across 65 Ohio anglers residing in the 120-mile zone. Table ("5-6
presents the estimated welfare loss per trip and per season (averaged over the Ohio anglers residing in the 120-mile zone!
associated with t&E of recreational species. The estimated economic value of recreational fishery losses from I&E at the 43
CWIS located in the case study is $0,12 per trip or $ 1.24 per recreation season, EPA also estimated that the economic value
of recreational fishery losses from I&E as the 29 Phase 2 CWIS is SO. 12 per trip or $1.21 per recreation season.
EPA used a sample of 74 Ohio anglers to analyze recreational anglers" behavior.
C5-/1
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Chapter C5; RUM Analysis
Table C5-6: Per Trip and Seasonal Welfare Sain Associated with
Eliminating IAE in the Ohio River
Policy Scenario
Per Trip Seasonal ; Percentage
Welfare Welfare : Increase in
Gain Gain number of
(2000$) (2000$) ; Trips
Eliminating !&£ at All Phase 2 CW1S
Eliminating l&E at All CWIS
S0.S 2
SO, 12
$1.21
$1.24
0.(14%
0.04%
EPA calculated the total damages to recreational anglers from l&E in the Ohio River by combining the estimated seasonal
welfare loss to an angler with the total number of recreational anglers residing in the buffer zone. The Agency based its
estimate of the total number of anglers who can potentially travel to the Ohio River fishing sites on the total adult population
residing within the 120 mile buffer zone and the percent of adult population participating in recreational fishing as follows:
~ First, EPA estimated the resident population in the 120-mile butter zone using the U.S. Census Bureau (2000). The
Agency included population block groups in the study area based on whether or not the block group eentroid fell
within the buffer zone. EPA then estimated the number of individuals aged 16 and older in the spatially-selected
block groups to get the total eligible population within the buffer zone for a given state.
~ Then, EPA estimated the slate-specific percent of the population participating in recreational fishing based on the
" Finally, EPA estimated the total number of anglers residing within the 120-mile buffer zone for each state by
multiplying the relevant resident population by the state-specific percent of the population engaged in recreational
fishing and then summing over state specific estimates.
Table C5-7 presents the results of this calculation.
As shown in Table C5-7, between 13 and 33 percent of recreational anglers take multiple-day trips.. EPA determined the
single- and multiple-day splits based on the proportion of single-day trips in the NDS sample used for the Ohio River case
study. EPA estimated welfare changes to multiple-day anglers based on the estimated welfare changes to single-day anglers
and a simple linear extrapolation technique. The Agency assumed that per day welfare gain from improved fishing site
quality is independent of trip length. EPA therefore adjusted seasonal welfare change for multiple-day anglers by multiplying
the seasonal welfare change estimated for single-day anglers by the average number of days per multiple-day trip. Table C5-8
provides an average trip length for multiple day trips by state.
NDS data.
C5-I2
-------
5 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Port C- The Ohio River Chapter C5; RUM Analysis
Table G5
-7; Recreational fishing Participation in the Ohio
River Zone by State and by Duration
Number of Fishing Trips By Slate and Duration
Stale
Total Anglers i
Single Day
% of Total
Multiple Day
: Avg. Trip
% or Total Length
(day*) .
11.
1,10s)
74,7%
25 3%
6.74
m
6%, 421
HI, 3%
IK.7%
4,00
K.Y
727.501
77, H%
22.2%
4.00
Mb
i 7.144
86.3%
13.7%
5,71
NY
3,%7
77.0%
23,0%
7.62
OH
1.476,133
77.3%
22.7%
437
PA
(556,757. :
73.4%
2M>%
3.KS
VA ^
14,702 :
67,0%
33,0%
4.39
WV
328,944
7<5.3%
2f!.7%
3.67
Total
3.W2«678
EPA calculated the economic values of recreational losses from l&E in the Ohio River by multiplying the estimated seasonal
welfare losses for each type of angler {e.g., single-day and multiple-day) by the number of anglers in each trip category
residing in the 120-mile buffer .zone. The estimated recreational losses (2000$) to recreational anglers from l&E in the Ohio
River at all Phase 2 facilities and all facilities in the study area are $8.06 and $H.23 million, respectively. Table C5-8 presents
results of these calculations.
Tab!# C5-S: Welfare Losses Associated with I<4E
at the Ohio River CWIS
Polio Scenario
Welfare Estimates
(21I00S)
Baseline Welfare Losses from all
CWIS in the Ohio River $8,232,4<>i:
Baseline Welfare Losses from the
Phase 2 ("WIS 58,059,275
C5-4.3 Estimating Fishery Losses from L&E for Individual Pools in the Ohio River
The Agency also estimated losses to recreational anglers from l&E in each of six pools of the Ohio River. EPA calculated
pool-specific losses by first estimating the percentage of the total recreational losses (pounds of fish) from I&H in the Ohio
River attributed to a given pool and then applying the estimated percentage to the estimated welfare loss from I&K in the Ohio
River. Table C5-V presents calculation results by pool and by the type of environmental effect (i.e., impingement vs.
cntrainment). Table C5-9 shows that recreational losses from l&E at (he Ohio River CWIS vary significantly across si*
pools. The estimated I&li losses at the iti-scopc CWIS range from SO.2 million for the Hannibal pool to $2.6 million for the
Robert C. Byrd pool. Table C5-9 also shows that total cntrainment losses ($5.9 million) are more than two-and-a-half dines
higher than the total impingement losses ($2.3 million). For some pools (e.g., New Cumberland and MeAlpine), however, the
value of impingement losses exceeds the value of entraintnent losses.
C5-J3
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies, Part Q, The Ohio River Chapter C5: RUM Analysis
Table C5-9:
Welfare Losses from IAE in the Ohio River by Pool (2000$)
Pool
Losses from l&E at AH Phase 2 In-Scope CWIS
Impingement Entrainmeui l&E
Lutsrs from I&K at All CWIS in the Ohio River
Impingement Entraiiiment l&E
1 lannibal
SI 4,884
$183,208
SI9HXW1
$17,291
$212,837
$230,128
Markland
5453,995
52.013,362
S2.467.357
5458,859
$2,034,936
$2,493,795 ;
McAlpinc
' $1,392,371
$826,6 SO
$2,21 <3,021
SI,410,046
S837.143
$2.247,1H9 ;
New
Cumberland
S I'M, 262
$114,489
: $308,751
$203,925
$120,184
$324,! 08
Pike Island
$102,115
5)74.614
$276,729
$124,269
$212,497
$336,767
Robert C
Ryrd
S 80.335
; 52,508,991
$2,589,326
$80,682
S2,519,822
$2,600,504
Total
: $2,237,962
; $5,821,313
! $H,(i59,275
$2,295,072
$5,937,419 :
$8,232,491
C5-5 Limitations and Uncertainties
C5-5.1 Considering Only Recreational Values
This RUM study understates the total benefits of improvements in fishing sue quality because estimates are limited to
recreation benefits. Other forms of benefits, such as habitat values tor a variety of species such as freshwater drum, minnows,
and American eel(in addition to recreational fish) are also likely to be important.
C5-5.Z Modeling
a Multiple-day trips
This analysis did not use a model specifically for multiple-day trips, which yielded an insufficient number of observations,
EPA instead used linear extrapolation from single-day trip estimates to evaluate multiple-day trips. This extrapolation may
either over- or understate benefit estimates, but the degree of error is likely to be insignificant because the majority of fishing
trips fall into the single-day trip category.
fa. Model assumptions
The model necessarily assumes that trips are independent choice occasions because it uses data for the latest fishing trip for
each angler to predict behavior, The model does not account for the fact that choices regarding trips across a season or year
might be correlated.
C5-5.3 Data
The geographic distribution of sample observations used in the analysts of anglers* behavior is likely to result in
underestimation of benefits from reduced I&E in the Ohio River. As shown in Figure C5-1, most of the Ohio fishing trips
originated from locations remote from the Ohio River, Because travel distance has u negative impact on site selection,
improvements in remote fishing sites are likely So have a lower value to anglers, other things being equal, Conversely, most
Itshmg trips in other states included in the ease study originated from the areas thai are in close proximity to the Ohio River.
If observations from other case study states thai fall into the 120-mile zone were included in the model, anglers' benefits from
improvements in the Ohio River fishery would hkelv be larger. In addition, substitute sites in Ohio include Lake Erie reaches
that attract many anglers (see Sections C5-1.I and C5-4). The presence of prominent recreational sites in close proximity to
an angler's home town will likely diminish the value of other sites. The Ohio River is the largest close water body for many
anglers residing in other case study states; these anglers may therefore assign more value to the Ohio River fishery.
C.i 14
-------
Chapter C5- RUM Analysis
C5-5.4 Potential Sources of-Survey Bias
a. Recall bias •
Recall bias can occur when respondents are asked, such us in the N'DS survey, the number of their recreation days over the
previous season. 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. For this reason, some researchers believe that
recall bias tends to lead to the number of recreation days being overstated. More avid participants often neglect to consider
days missed due to bud 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 thai they enjoy and value.
Taken together, these sources of recall bias may result in an overstatement of the actual number of recreation days.
b. Sampling effects
Recreational demand studies frequently face observations that do not fit general recreation patterns, such as observations of
avid participants. These participants can be problematic because they claim to participate, in an activity an inordinate number
of times. This reported level of activity is sometimes correct but sometimes overstated, perhaps due to recall bias. These
observations tend to be overly influential even when the report-, are correct.
O-/J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port C- The Ohio fttver Chapter' C6: Benefits Analysis for the Ohio River
Chapter C6¦
Benefits Analysis for the Ohio River
This chapter presents the results ofEPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits associated with l&E reductions at
Ohio River facilities. The economic benefits that arc
reported here are based on the values presented in Chapter
C4, and EPA's estimates of current I&B at in scope
facilities (discussed in Chapter C3). Section C6-1
summarises the estimates of economic loss developed in
Chapters t'4 and CI Section C'6-2 presents the economic
benefits from reduced l&H at facilities that arc in scope of
the § 316(b) Phase II rule, and Section C6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.
Chapter Contents
Cfi-i Economic Benefits pf Reduced l&E of Fishery
Species At Ohio River Facilities CG-!
C'6-2 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties
in the Benefits Analysis Cft-3
C6-1 Economic Benefits of Reduced IAE of Fishery species At Ohio River
Facilities
Tabic C6-I shows the losses in recreational landings due to l&E at Ohio River facilities based on the l&E data presented in
Chapter C3, In evaluating this information, it is important to bear m msnd that most l&K losses at Ohio River (acuities are
forage species, and therefore fishery yield represents only a portion of total losses.
Table C6-l_;_EFA*s Estimate of Annuel IAE at Ohio River Facilities Expressed as Lost Recreational Fishery Yield
! Ohio River Case Study Facilities (*>) lit ScopeOhio Kiver Facilities (29) AH Ohto River Facilities (48)
Species
Loss to Recreational
Catch from
Impingement (number
of fish 1
I.OyS lO
Recreational
Catch from
Kntraiamcirt
(number of
r«h)
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
Impingement
(number of fish)
Low to
Recreational
Catch from
Entrainment
(number of fab)
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
Impingement
(number of fish)
Loss to
Recreational
Catch from
i Entrainment
: (number of fish)
Black ciapp.c
452
1,284
615
1.939
676
: 1,967
Biuegdt
; 4?
!
3 23
4
J 27
4
Channel catfish
1,805
2.648
2JKV
5.896
2.560
r 5,990
Longear sunfish
9
3,938
13
5,062
. 14
5,104
Paddlclish
54
16
131
36
133 '
36
Sanger
429
1,638
1,158
3,868
1.176
3,925
Snullmooth bass
165
16.170
28,7
37,577
304
38,135
Striped bass
21
0
H4
0
85
0
Sunfish spp.
37
3,663
57
12,777
62
13,007
Wal leve
21
12,666
55
16,223
57
16,564
Whiiehass
2,791
2,0 M
7.95K
5,331
8.137
5,422
Yellow perch
0
1
0
1
0
1
Total
5,832
44,038
12.K70
X8,?n
13,332
90,155
Thu Dec 27 23:29:12 MST 2001 I':/INTAKJ' OhM»'Ohi»^Science/scode'ol»io.SMmniary.ti»Wcs/
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Chapter Ct>; Benefits Analysis for the Ohio ftiver
All Ohio River Facilities (-18)
RUM Analysis
. Table C6-2: EPA's Estimate of Recreation Losses Resulting from Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Ohio River Facilities ($2000)
Ohio River Case Study Facilities (9) In Scope Ohio River Facilities (29)
Basic Analysis RUM Analysts Baste Analysis RUM Analysis i Basic Analysis
Low High Low High Low High
512.46!*'")" $27,259 : N'A ; 527,155 559,405 : 52,237,962
Total St 2,461 to 527,259 S2,237,9«.
528,101 : $61,550 . S2.295.072
$2,295,072
NA data not available
Thu Dec 27 23:29:15 MST 2001 Pi'INTAKE.'Ohio-'Ohio.Seioicci'scoiic/ohw.siJmmaryjabks/ohio.currensJosscs.csv
Tqble C6-3: EPA's Estimate of Recreation Lasses Resulting from Entrapment of Recreational Fishery Species at Ohio River Facilities ($2000)
Ohio River Case Sttidv Facilities (9) In Scope Ohio River Facilities (29) ^ All Ohiit River Facilities (48)
Bask Analysis ; RUM Analysis Baste Analysis ROM Analysis ; Basic Analysts RUM^Analysis
Lou High Low High Low High :
$111,182 S212,532 ' NA | S19IJ22 ' $385,959 • 55,821.313 ; $195,108 ; 8392,566 '• 55.937,419
Total $111,182 to S2I2.532 55,821.313 s _ 55,937.419
NA — data not available
Thu Dec 27 23:29:15 MST 2001 P-/INTAKE.''Ohkt/CMtio„Sctcnce-scode-'ohw.summary.!ablcs/ohio.ciirtent.losa;s.esv
C6-2
-------
S 316(b) Com Studies, Part C; The Ohio fewer Chapter C6: Benefits Analysis for the Ohio River
Table C6-4 summarizes the baseline economic losses from l&E a! Ohio River in scope facilities and displays the expected
benefits from a range of l&E reductions. The baseline losses (including both the benefits transfer and RUM results) range
from $3.4 million to $4.6 million per year for impingement and from $9,1 million u> $9.7 million per year for emrainmeni.
The benefits of i&E reductions at in scope facilities are $ 1.7 million to $2.3 million per year for a 50% reduction in
impingement and SO.91 million to $0.97 million per year for a 10% reduction in entrainment.
Table C6-4: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
I4E Reductions for In Stcrpc Facilities on the Ohm River ($2000)
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Baseline losses
low
$3,384.00!)
$9,075,000
$12.458,000
high
$4,561,(RIO
$9,718,000
S 14.279,000
Ucneftis of 10% reductions
low
$338,000
5907.000
$1,246,000
high
S45f>,000
$972,000
SI.4 28.000
Benefits of 20% reductions
low
S677.000
SI,815,000
S2.492.0OO
high
$912,000
SI.944,000
S2.856.000
Benefits of 30% reductions
low
S 1,015,000
S2.722.000
S3.73 8,000
high
Sl,3«U»0
S2.915.000
$4,284,000
Benefits of 40% reductions
low
$1,353,000
$3,630,000
S4.983.000
high
S 1.824.000
S3,887,000
$5,712,000
Benefits of 50% reductions
low
S1,692,000
14,537,000
56,229,000
high
$2,281,1)00
$4,859,000
S7,140,000
Benefits of 60% reductions
low
$2,030,000
$5,445,000
S7,4 75,000
high
52,737,000
S5.831.OtW
58,567,000
Benefit* of 70% redactions
low
$2,369,000
$6,352,000
$SU2l,ffl>0
high
S3,193,000
$6,803,000
$9,W5,0OO
Benefits of 80% reductions
low
S2.707.000
S7,26G,OftO
19.967,000
high
$3,649,000
$7,774,000
S 11,423.000
Benefits of 90% reductions
low
S3,045,000
SK. 167.000
S11.213,000
high
S4 J 05,000
$8,746,000
512,851,000
C6-2 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits
ANALYSIS
Table C6-5 presents an overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were
accounted for.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter C6: Benefits Analysis far the Ohio River
Table C6-5 Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Estimates
Long-term ftsh stock affects not
considered
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Recreation participation is held
constant
Boating, bird-watching, and
other in-stream w near-water
activities are unrated.
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Nctnusc benefits
Use of unit values from outside
the Ohio River
impact on Benefits Estimate
Understates benefits
Understates benefits
Understates benefits
Understates benefits
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Extrapolations to other facilities:
Water qual tty changes
One year of data
Uncertain
Understates benefits
Uncertain
Comments
, EPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each
year, and thai the higher fish mortality would not have
cumulatively greater impact,
; EPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may
make the stock more vulnerable to other environmental
stressors. In addition, as water quality improves over time
due to other watershed activities, the number of fish
impacted by i&E may increase.
Recreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in
; value per activity outing: increased levels of participation are
omitted. RUM analyses do embody participation increases,
however.
. The only impact to recreation considered is fistung.
= EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship, that a 13
percent change in stock would have a 13 percent change in
landings; this may be low or high, depending on the
; condition of the stocks,
: EPA assumed that nonusc benefits arc 50 percent of
recreational angling benefits.
The recreational values used arc not from studies of the Ohio
; River specifically.
; S/MGD basis for extrapolation over- or understates benefits
I of other facilities in the watershed.
• Water quality has improved in the river since the sampling
year, which suggests thai current I&E would be appreciably
higher than observed in the data collection period.
.The available data is from 1977. which is nearly 25 years ago
so it is unknown whether the year is representative of current
' l&F
C6-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Chapter CT; Conclusions
Chapter C7: Conclusions
KPA evaluated She impacts of l&E using facility-generated data at nine CWIS along a 500-mile stretch of the Ohio Ris er,
(.spanning from the western portion of Pennsylvania, along the southern border of Ohio, and into eastern Indiana). Tin- results
were then extrapolated to the 20 other facilities along this stretch of the river that are in scope of the § 3 f 6(b) Phase 11 rule (a
total of 29 facilities) as well as an additional 19 facilities that arc out of"scope.
To estimate l&E impacts for (he OJiio, EPA evaluated the available l&B biological monitoring data at the nine case study
facilities (W,€, Beckjord, Cardinal, Clifly Creek, JCammer. Kyger Creek, Miami Fort, Philip Spora, Tanners Creek, and WH
Sammis). The l&E results were extrapolated to the remaining ht-scope facilities to derive an l&E baseline for all facilities
subject to the proposed rule. Additional extrapolations were made to out-of-seope facilities so that total l&E could be
estimated as well. The extrapolations were made on the basis of relative operating size (operating MOD) and by river pool
(Hannibal. Mark land. McAlpine, New Cumberland, Pike Island, and Robert C. Byrd pools).
The results indicate that impingement at all facilities (in scope and out of scope) causes the mortality of approximately 11.6
million age I equivalent fish per year, or 15,500 pounds of lost fishery yield annually (Table C3-29), For entrainment, the
results indicate that all facilities combined (in-scope and out-of-scope) cause the mortality of approximately 24.5 million age
1 equivalent ftsh per year, representing nearly 40.000 pounds of lost fishery yield annually (Tables C3-30).
For in-scope facilities only, the results indicate that impingement causes the mortality of approximately 11.3 million age I
equivalent fish per year, or nearly 15,000 pounds of lost fishery yield annually < I able ("3-31). EPA estimates that entrainment
at in scope facilities results in the loss approximately 23 million age 1 equivalent fish per year or 39,000 pounds of lost
fishery yield annually (Table C3-32).
In addition to estimating the physical impact of l&E in terras of numbers of II sh lost because of the operation of all in-scope
and out-of-scope CWIS in the Ohio River case study area, EPA also examined the estimated economic value of the l&E
losses. The economic value of these losses is based on benefits transfer based values applied to losses to the recreational
fishery, nonuse values, and the partial value of forage species impacts (measured as partial replacement costs or fishery
production foregone). Chapter C4 provides an indication of the estimated cumulative economic value associated with l&E at
all in-scope and out-of-scope CWIS in the case study area based on data available for the nine case study facilities and
extrapolated to She other facilities on the basis of flow and river pool.
EPA also developed a random utility model (RUM) to provide primary estimates of the recreational fishery losses associated
with l&E in (he Ohio River case study area (Chapter C5). These primary research results supplement the benefits transfer
estimates derived in Chapter C4. As shown in Chapter C5„ the RUM estimate of recreation-related fishery losses at in scope
facilities is approximately $8,1 million per year (l&E combined).
In Chapter C6, results for the RUM analysis (Chapter C5) were merged with the benefits transfer-based estimates (Chapter
C4) in a manner that avoids double counting. Results indicate that baseline losses at in scope facilities amount to between
$3.4 million and $4,6 million per year for impingement. Entramment-related baseline losses at in scope facilities amount to
between $9,1 million and 59,7 million per year,
EPA also estimated the economic benefits of a range of f&E reductions (Chapter C6). The estimates economic benefits of the
proposed rule are SI.? million to S2.3 million per year for a 50% impingement reduction and $7.3 million to $7.8 million per
year for a 10% reduction in entrainment (all in S2000).
The Ohio River case study is intended to reflect the level of l&E. and hence the benefits associated with reducing l&E
impacts, for CWIS along major rivers of the United States, However, there are several factors that suggest that the Ohio
River case study findings may he a worse case scenario in terms of estimating the benefits of the proposed regulation at
facilities along major inland rivers of" the United States. These factors include the following:
~ The l&E data developed by the facilities were limited to one year only, and are from 1977 (nearly 25 years ago).
The fact ihai the data are so old, and pertain to a period of time when water quality in the case study area was worse
than it is currently, suggests that the numbers of impinged and entrained fish today (the regulatory baseline) would be
CM
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Chapter O Cor.ciusions
appreciably higher than observed in She data collection period. In addition, the reliance on a monitoring period of
out- year or less implies that the naturally high variability in fishery populations is not captured in the analysis, and
the results may reflect a year of above or below average l&E.
* The Ohio River is impacted by numerous significant anthropogenic stressors in addition to f&E. The river's
hydrology has been modified by a series of 20 dams and pools, and the river also has been impacted by municipal
and industrial wastewater discharges along this heavily populated and industrialized corridor. To the degree to
which these multiple stressors were a typically extensive along the Ohio River (in 1977) relative to those along other
CWIS-impacted rivers in the United States fin 2002), the case study will yield smaller than typical l&E impact
estimates,
' The Ohio Ri ver is impacted by cumulative effects of l&E over time and across a large number of CWIS. The case
study segment of the river has 29 facilities that are in scope for the Phase II rulemaking, plus an additional 19
facilities that are out of scope. Steam electric power generation accounted for 5.873 MGD of water withdrawal from
the river basin, amounting to more than 90 percent of the total surface water withdrawals according to 1995 data
from USGS,
Because of these circumstances on the Ohio River, the results EPA obtained for this case study probably are not a
representative basis for evaluating l&E and regulatory benefits on other inland rivers, hi fact, the limited and outdated nature
of the l&E data suggests that the results obtained for the case study probably underestimate the current losses attributable to
l&E along the Ohio River, and thus underestimate the benefits of the proposed Phase II rule.
In interpreting the results of this case study analysis, it is important to bear in tmnd that the valuation of l&E losses is
complicated by the lack of market value for forage species, which comprise a large proportion of total losses at Ohio River
facilities, Forage species have no direct market value, but are nonetheless a critical component of aquatic food webs, EPA
included forage species impacts in its economic benefits calculations, but because techniques for valuing such losses are
limited, the final estimates underestimate the full ecological and economic value of these losses. In addition, the several
limitations in the I&K data available for Ohio River facilities and the many stressors that, affect the river suggest that the
results obtained by EPA underestimate the benefits of the rule relative to current Ohio River conditions. Therefore, the results
are also likely to appreciably underestimate the benefits of l&E reductions at other inland river facilities.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port C The Ohio River appendix CI
Appendix CI: Ohio River Fish
Species Life History Parameter
Values
The tables in this appendix summarize the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age 1 equivalents, fishery
yield, and production foregone from I&E data for the Ohio River case study,
Table Cl-1: Bigmouth Buffalo Life History Parameters.
„ Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality : Fraction Vulnerable to ... . ,. ... .„
St"8eN"ml^ : tper stt|je)k Fishery* VVt>ghl (lbS)
Eggs 2.87 0.0 0.0000000202*
Larvae
1.72
0
0
0.00214'
Age 0
2.98
.0
0
0.00851*
Age 1 •
0.548
0
0
1.14*
Age 2-
0.548
0
0
\M2>
A jjjc 3-
0.548
0
0
2.6."?'
Age 4+
0.548
()
0
US'
Age 5+
0,548
i)
0
4.64*
Age 6*
0.548
u
0
5,04*
Age 7*
0.548
0
0
11.1*
Age 8+
0.548
0
0
12 t
Age 9+
0,548
(1
0
16.8*
Age itH
0,548
0
0
27 8*
Age 11-
0,548
!)
0
28*
Age 12-
0.548'
0
0
.16, I*
•\gc 13-
0.548
(1
t)
36.2"
Age 14-
'! t! m
0
0
36.y
Age 15- 0.548 0 0 36.5'
" Bartell and Campbell. 2000.
* Not a commercial or recreational species, thus iu> fishing nxmality.
1 Assumed,
'' Weight calculated from length using the ft>rtnula: (2..W*M)")*Length(mmr '"= Wcigbt(gm) (Carlandcr,
' Klcinluitz, 2000.
' Assumed based on Coriander. 1969,
* Carlartder, I WW).
A pp CI-I
-------
I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Appendix C2
Appendix C2: Species Groups for
Ohio River
The tab! e in this appendix presents the species; groups used by EPA to evaluate i&B of rare species ior the Ohio River case
study, Rare species were grouped together and evaluated as a group based on life history data lor a representative species.
Tabic C2 -1: Aggregation of Species at 9 Ohio River Facilities.
Facility : Species Croup Species Included
W.C. '• Black crappiii Crappic specie*; white crappic
Beckjord ;channel catfish Catfish species; flalhead catfish
. Freshwater drum Drum species
River carpsueker Quillbaek; sucker spp.
: Skipjack herring ¦ Herring species
Cardinal Black crappic Crappic species; white crappic
Bluntnosc minnow Minnow species
Brown bullhead ! Ycllow bul Ihcad
:Channel catfish ¦ Catfish species; white catfish
¦Common carp ; Goldfish
• Darter species - Etheostoma darter; troutpereh
Emerald shiner Common shiner; golden shiner; mimic shiner, sand shiner, shiner species, spot fin shiner
Golden redhorse ; Redhorse species, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse
; Skipjack herring _ I (erring species
Smallmouth bass Lorgcroouth bass; spotted bass; temperate bass species
Sucker species Carpiodes sucker; catosiomidae sucker; northern hogsueker, quillbaek; spotted sucker; white sucker
Sunfish species :Ceiurarchidae sunfish. green sunfish, Lepemm- sunfish, Mivrvpk-rus surtfisb. pumpkinseed. redear
; sunfish, rock bass, warmouth
Walleye Saujter walleye
- Yellow perch Percid species; yellow perch
Olifty Bigmoutb buftato .'Smallmouth buffalo
Creek Black crappic Crappie species; white crappic
: Bluntnose minnow 1 Minnow species; fathead minnow
Brown bullhead Yellow bullhead
Channel catfish Blue cattish; catfish species; llathead catfish
:Common carp Goldthh
Emerald shiner liigcyc shiner; emerald shiner; golden shiner, mimic sinner; river shiner; rosyface shiner; sand shiner;
:shiner species; spotfm shiner
Gizzard shad Threadfm shad
Golden redhorse :Redhorse species, shorthead redhorse, silver redhorse
: Logpereh ' Fantail darter; river darter
Skipjack herring Herring species
: Sniallmouth bass Largemouth bass; spotted bass; bass species
Sucker species Carpsuekcr/buflato; northern hogsucker, river earpsueker; (juillack; spotted sucker; white sucker
Clirty Sunfish species Green sunfish; hybrid sunfish; lonjiear sunfish; pumpkinseed; redear sunfish, rock bass; warmouth
t reck Walleye Sauger/walleyc
App. C2-I
-------
Appendix CZ
Facility
Table C2-1: Aggregation of Species at 9 Ohio River Facilities (cent)
Specie* Group
Species Included
Hammer
Black crappic
Wh i crappic
Blonmose minnow
. Minnow species
: Brown bullhead
! Yellow bullhead
Channel catfish
Catfish species; flathead catfish; while catfish
Common carp
; Goldfish
; Emerald shiner
: Golden shiner, mimic shiner
; Golden redhorse
; Redhorse species: silver redhorse
Logpereh
: Darter species
: Longear sunfish
Ceiitrarchidae sunfish, great simftsh, Lcpumis sunfish, Mitmptmis sunfish, pumpkinseed. rcdear
simfish. rock bass.
Small mouth bass
; Largcimsuth bass, spotted bass, temperate bass species
Sucker species
[Northern hogsueker; quillback; sucker species; white sucker
Walleye
• Sauger/walleye
Yd low perch
j Pereid species
Kygcr
Black crappic
; Crappic species; white crappic
Creek
Bluntnosc minnow
Minnow species
Channel catfish
Catfish; catfish family; flutbead cattish
Emerald .sinner
:Golden stiinei, mimic shiner
Golden redhorse
: Redhorse species; shorihead redhorse; silver redhorse
Logpereh
Darter species
Longcarsunfish
.Cenrrarehrdac sunfish; green sunfish; Lepomis species; longcar sunfish; Microptenis sunfish;
•puimpkiiiseai; rock bass; warmouth
•River carp sucker
;Caipiodes sucker, Calostotnidac sucker; quillback. spotted sucker; sucker species; white sucker
Skipjack herring
Alma herring; Clupcidac herring
Smalimouth bass
. Largcmcmth bass; temperate bass species
Walleye
Saugw'watleye
Yellow perch
j>erty
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pert C The Ohio River
appendix CZ
Table C2-1; Aggregation of Species ot 9 Ohio River Facilities (cont)
Facility ; Specie* Group
Species Included
Philip
Spurn
I aimers
Creek
W.H.
Sanimis
: Emerald shiner
; Golden redhorse
Longear sunfish
Skipjack herring
Smalimourh bass
i Sucker species
•Walleye
Yellow perch
Bigmouth buffalo
Black crappie
Cammim carp
; Emerald shiner
: Golden redhorse
; Lungear sun fab
Minnow species
: River catpsueker
; Skipjack hernne
; Smallmouth bass
: Black erappic
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Common carp
Emerald shiner
Golden redhorse
; Logpcrch
Smallrouuih bass
Sucker species
Sunftsh species
Walleye
Yellow perch
Gulden shiner; Mimic shiner, Nvmipis species
' Silver redhorse
Cemrarchtdae sunlish; green nunfish; Leptmua species; iongear sunfisft; Mtcm/nerux suntlsh;
.pumpkinseed; warmouth
; Herring species
: Largcmuulh bass; spotted bass; temperate bass species
; Northern hagsucker; quillbaek
;Sauger'walleye
'Pcrckl species
: Smallmotuh buffalo
Crappie species; white erappic
: Goldfish
River shiner; rosyfacc shiner
Redhorse species; river redhorse: shorthead redhorse
Sunftsh family , wamwuth
Minnow family
Quillbaek: spotted sucker: sucker family; white sucker
I ierrmg species
Largeimuith bass
Crappie species; white erappic
Black bullhead: yellow bullhead
Blue catfish; channel catfish
Carp/goldfish; carp/minnow species; common carp, goldfish
Common shiner; golden shiner; mimic shiner, shiner species, spotfin shiner
River redhorse: shorthead redhorse
Darter species
¦ I-iirgeroouth bass; spotted bass
Northern hogsueker; quillbaek; sucker species; white sucker
Cenlrarchidae sunftsh; green sunfish: Lv/xmh' sunfish; longcar sunftsh; pumpkinseed; rock I
;sunfish species, warmouth
Walleye pike
; Pcreid .species
,4pp. C2-3
-------
S 316(b) Case, Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Appendix Ci
Appendix C3¦ Individual Facility
Results for Annual Losses and Value
of L&E at Nine Facilities on the
Ohio River
The tables in this appendix present the individual facility results for estimating l&E losses at nine facilities where I&K data
are available for the Ohio River case study. The summed results are presented in Chapter C4.
Table C3-1 • Baseline Annual Recreational Entrainmcnt Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Beckjord facility,0
Los« to Recreational
Catch from Entraininent
(# offish)
242
Specie*
Black Crappic
Channel Catfish
Smallmouth Bass
White Bass
Total
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Recreational Value/Fish
Lots in Recreational Value from
Rntrainment
10,766
586
ii.595
Low
SI.W
S2.64
SI.5X
S1.58
High
S5.SJ2
5,5.02
S3.95
S3.9 5
Low
$242
'$2
$17,0 HI
S926
S18, ISO
High
Si.214
S4
S42.525
$2,316
S46.058
Table C3-2: Beseiine Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species ot
Beckjord Facility."
Luss to Ri-crtsiliontil Catch
Specirt from Impingement
(# offish)
Black Crappic
Bluegill
Channel Catfish
Sauger
White Bass
Total
Kurviliiual \ aluut isli
3
I
II
39
92
145
Law
S-1.00
$0.3)
S2.t>4
$5.02
Si.SK
High
S5.02
si.oo
55.02
$7.92
S3.95
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
$3
SO
S2K
SI 95
SMS
$371
HiRh
SIS
SI
$53
S307
$362
S738
" See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. CJ-J
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Table C3-3: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and Values at
Beckjord Facility.'
s Loss in Replacement Value «f ; Ecosystem V^iie fr ni impingement
1 Forage Fish from Impingement {ovf High
Common Carp $3,287
Freshwater Drum SJ
Minnow Species $386
Percid Species $97
Rivet Carpsuckcr $5,901
Skipjack, Herring SSS
Smuilmoutk Bass SO $88,360 S220.900
White Bass ¦ Mi SI95 S4g?
Total $9,758 $89,287 $222,900
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
TabieC3-4: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annuo! Entrapment Losses and Values
of Beckjord Facility,®
Species
: Loss in Replacement
; Value of f orage Fish
from Kntrainmcnl
t.oss In Ecosystem Value from
Entrainmenl
LOW
High
Black Crappte
St)
S8
. $41
Bluegill
so
SI
S3
Channel Catfish
so
S36
$68
Common Carp
S2
Emerald Shiner
S44
Freshwater Drum
SI 76
Gizzard Shad
$4,965
Golden Rcdhorsc
$50
Longear Sunftsh
SO
S20
S65
Pcrcid Species
Ml
River Carpsucker
S5
Saugcr
SO
S5
$8
Skipjack Herring
S234
White Bass
SO
S2fe
$65
Tota!
S5,4?5
S%
$251
" See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-2
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River Appendix C3
Table C3-5- Summery of Baseline Annual ME Value Losses at Beekjord Facility."
Impingement Entrainment Total
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonnurkcij
Low
$371
SIS, 180
S18,551
High
$738
$46,058
546,796
Nonusc
$223,151
kcpl.iceiiwn;
S5.475
$9,758
SIS,233
Total (Rcc » Nonuse Repl)
Low
$6,031
537,028
543,059
High
S6.5K2
578,845
S85.427
Total (Rcc * Eco ~ Nunusc)
Low
$652
SI 16,557
Sit 7,209
High
S 1,358
S291.W7
5293,345
" See Chapter C4 ft>r sources of dollar values.
Tubt« C3-6: Baseline Annual Recreational Entrapment Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Cardinal Facility."
Species
Loss to Recreational
Catch from Kntrainnwnl
Recreational Value/Fish
Loss la Recreational Value from
Knlrainmtnt
(# or fish)
Low
High
l^>»
High
Black Crappic
23
$1.00
S5.02
S23
SI 15
Channel Cattish
14
$2.64
$5,02
$38
S71
Walleye
529
S5.02
S7.92
$2,655
$4,188
Total
566
$2,715
84,374
' See CTiapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-J
-------
Appendix C3
Table C3-7; Baseline Annuo! Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Cardinal Facility."
Loss lo Recreational Catch; R^tioml V.lue/Kish Lm*ln """?*»»« from
•Species frum Impingement - ,
(# offish) l ow High Low High
Black Crappie 237 $1.00 S5.02 SB? SI,189
BluegiU 7 $0.31 $1.00 $2 S7
Channel Catfish 51) $2.64 S5.CC S 1,349 ; $2,566
Sauger 4 $5,02 S7.92 SI 8 $2H
Smaltmouth Dasu : 37 Sl.58 S3.95 SS8 SMS
Suit fish 15 $0.3 S Si.'Hi $5 SS5
Walleye 2 S5.02 ; $7,92 %\2 ¦ 119
Whiic Bass 94 SI .58 S3,95 SMS $371
Total 907 ; S 1,829 $4.3j«0
' Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-8: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and-Values
at Cardinal Facility.2
i Loss in Replacement L.udv in Ecosystem Value from Impingement
Species : Value of forage Fteh ? * — ; —
¦ from Impingement ''!,w ^ High
Black Crappie $0 S3 $15
Blumnose Minnow SI4,205
Channel Callish SO $52 $99
Common Carp S672
Darter Species S52ii
Emerald Shiner S7H1
Skipjack Herring $24 ,
Sucker Species £260
Walleye $0 $24 S3*
Total $16,469 $79 SI 52
" See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
•!/>/; C3-4
-------
6 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C" The Ohio River
Append)* C3
Table €3-9; Selected forage Species Baseline Annual Entramment Losses and Values
at Cardinal Facility *
Specie*
Low in Replacement;
Value of For#}!*' Fish
from Entrapment
Lost in Ecosystem Value from
Fntrainnient
Low High
Black Crapptc
$0
$15
.$74
Bluegill
SO
S2
S5
ttluntnosc Minnow
S30
Brown Bullhead
$28
Channel Catfish
SO
$65
SI 23
Common Carp
$261
Darter Species
S<>
Emerald Shiner
$824
Freshwater Drum
SIS
Gizzard Shad
S 16,223
Golden Redhorsc
$59
Saugcr
SO
$9
$14
Skipjack Herring
$9
Smallmouth Bass
$0
$53
SI 32
Sucker Species
S22
Sunftsh
$0 :
S3?
SI IX
Walleye
SO
$38
$61
White Bass
S4?
SI IK
Total
$17.4X0
$265
$645
* See Chapter C4 far sources of dollar values.
App. C3-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies. Part C: The Ohio River Appendix
Table C3-10- Summary of Baseline Annual I4E Value Losses at Cardinal Facility "
impingement EntrainraeAt Total
Recreational {Direct Use, Nonmarket) Low $1,829 $2,715 $4,54$
High ; S-U40 $4,374 S8.715
Nonuse{Passive Use.Noomarke!) lx>w S9I5 Si,358 $2,272
: High : $2.17!) S2, i 87 : >4.357
forage (Indirect Use. Nonmarket) ;
Ecosystem Low • $265 $79 $344
; High : $645 $152 $797
Replacement:' SI 7,480 $16,469 $33,949
Total (Rcc - Nonuse > Rcpl) ' Low : $20,224 520,542 $40,766
: High ' S23.W1 S23.031 $47,021
Total (Ree - Eco Nonuse) Low S3.009 $4,152 ; $7,161
High ' S7J56 $6,713 •! _S 13.869
" See ("niiptcr t '4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-! 1' Baseline Annual Recreational fcntrninment Losses and Value for Selected Species ot
Cliffy Creek Facility.1
; Loss to Recreational i k®*® '¦> Recreational Value from
Species ; Catch from Entrainnient Recreational Value/Fish Entriiiiunent
; ..... . Low ... - HiRh Low i_ High
Black Crappic ; 22 $1,011 S5.02 S22 ; $109
Blucgilt : I SO. 31 SI.00 SO ; SI
Channel Catfish 5 S2.64 55,02 S14 : S27
Sauger t>7 ; $5.02 - 17.92 S335 $528
Small mouth Bass K24 $1.58 $3.95 $1,301 S3,254
Suiifish . 2.«92 ' $0.31 SI.00 ' $K97 52,892
Walleye 38 $5.02 SI.92 $190 S300
White Bass 477 SI.58 S3.95 $753 $1,883
Total 4,325 S3,513 $8,995
• See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
A pp. C3-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C- The Ohio River Appendix C'i
Table C3-12; Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Clifty Creek facility."
Im Rwre^nal Crnch Recreation.) Value/Fish 10SS in *«"?*»¦» trom
Species from Impingement ; ; iWJS™!!™.
<#urr«h) low High Low High
Black Crappic 34 $1.00 $5.02 $.14 $ 173
Bluegill 22 $0.31 SI (HI : $7 $22
Channel Catfish XI S2.64 S5.02 $214 1407
Paddlcfwh 5 SI.00 $5.02 S5 $24
Sauger 158 55.02 ' $7.92 $795 $1,255
Smallmouth Bass 34 Si.SK $3.95 S54 Si.35
Striped Bass 21 SI 1.08 $15.55 S23! S325
Sunfish 6 $0.31 SI.00 $2 S<>
Walleye II , S5.02 ; S7J2 S56 $88
White Bass 1.5(H) SJ.5X ' S3.'95 $2,370 $5.'>24
Total 1,873 * $3,768 S8.3S8
3 See Chapter C4 lor sources of dollar values.
Table C3 -13: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entrainwent tosses and Values ot
Clifty Creek Facility.0
Loss in Replacement l05S Ecosystem Value from Kniriimnent
Specie*
Value lift org |>e Fish "
from Entrsinment
Low
High
Black Crappic
SO
$63
S316
Bluegill
SO
S21
$68
Bluntnosc Minnow
$91
Brown Bullhead
$1,085
Channel Catfish
SO
S565 :'
S 1,075
Common Carp
$91X
Emerald Shiner
$4,004
Freshwater Drum
S363
Gizzard Shad
SI 55
Sauger
$0
$80
SI 26
Skipjack Herring
S33X
Smallmouth Bass
SO
S1,349
$3,373
Sucker Species
$88,175
Sunfish
so
S309
$997
Walleye
so
$56,976
S89.89I
White Bass
so
S36X
$921
Total
S9S.128
$59,732
$96,767
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C'3-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Pact C; The Ohio River
Table C3-14: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and Values
at Chfty Creek facility.8
Species
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
from Impingement
Loss in Ecosystem Value from impingement
low High
Bignwuth Buffalo
$834
Black Crappie
SO
S2J3
$ 1,067
Blucgiil
SO
$24
$??
Brown Bullhead
$15
Channel Catfish
SO
$937
S1.7K2
Common Carp
$62
Emerald Shiner
$84
Freshwater Drum
$2,3X8
Gizzard Shad
S231,489
Golden Rcdhorse
S33
Logpereh
S3
Paddlefish
SO
SI
$7
Saugcr
$0
SI 31
$206
Skipjack Herring
SO.154
Sinallraout!) Bass
SO
S766
$1,916
Striped iias.s
so
SI, 576
$2,212
Sucker Species
$275
Sun fish
$0
S52'i
$1,706
Walleye
so
$363
S573
White Bass
St)
$682
$1,705
Total
§247,337
$5,223
$ i i ,253
•* See Chapter C4 for sources of dolla r values.
Appendix C3
App. C'.i-S
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-15: Summary of Baseline Annuo! I4E Value Losses at Cliffy Creek Facility.
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarke?)
Nonuac (Passive Use, Nonmarkct)
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarkct)
Ecosystem:
Replacement
Total (Rec +• Ncmusc - RepI)
Total t Rec ¦* Eco - Nomine)
Low
High'
1,0ft'
High
Low
llijth
I..OW
High
Low
High
Impingement
S3J68
$8,35 8
$1,884
S4,170
$5,223
$11,253
$247,337
$252,9X8
$259.8*1
S10,874
$23,790
Entrainment
Total
S3.513
$Si,W5
$ 1,756
S4,407
S59.732
$96,767
595,128
$100,397
S 108.621
565,002
SI 10.259
S7,28!
$17,353
S3,640
S8.676
S64.955
S 108,019
S342.46S
S353.3X6
S36K.494
$75,876
$ 134,(149
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-16: Baseline Annual Recreational Entrapment Losses and Value for Selected Species at
fcommer Facility,"
Specie#
Channel Catfish
Walleye
White Bass
Total
" See (Chapter 04 for sources of dollar values.
Lob to Recreational
Catch from Liitrainimnl
(# offish)
! 5
312
33
.161
Kttrta(iun»l Value/Fish
Low High
$2.64 $5,02
$102' $7.92
SI,58 $3.95
Lo»\ in Recreational Value from
Entraiiuneitt
Low
$41
SI,566
S53
$1,660
High
$77
12,47!
SI 32
52,6X1
Table C3-17; Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value far Selected Species at
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Port C' The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-18: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and Values
at Hammer Facility,0
Species
Loss in Replacement |,us« in
; Value of lorage fish —
: from Impingement
Ecosystem Value from Impingement
l.o» High
Black Crappie
$0
SI
$7
Hlunmose Minnow
st
Brown Bullhead
S7
Channel Catfish
SO
S(>
Sll
Common Carp
sis
Emerald Shiner
$61
Freshwater Drum
S5
Gizzard Shad
S 1.271
Golden Redborse
$26
Longest Sunftsh
SO
$3
SiO
Sauger
SO •
SI
SI
Smallmouth Bass
so
$5
$12
Sucker Species
; S5
While Uass
so
$4
$10
Total
SI,393
520
$52
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Toble C3-19: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entrapment Losses and Values
at Kammer facility "
Species
Lvm in Replacement
; Value of Forage fish _—
from tntminaient ;
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
Entrainnietit
Low High
Blunt nose Minnow
S41,332
Chun net Catfish
So
SI 48
$282
Common Carp
S3,733
Herring
Sucker Species
Walleye
White Bass
Total
S86
$250
SO
SO
545,401
XI 4,926
S42
SIS,115
$23,548
$104
123,934
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
A pp. CJ-/0
-------
Appendix C3
Table C3-20: Summary of Baseline Annual ME Value Losses at Kammer Facility.
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarkct)
Nomisc (Passive Use, NonmarkcO
Forage (Indirect Use, N'orimarket)
Low
High
Low
High
Ecosystem Low
; High
Replacement:
Total (Rcc •> IMonusc - Rq>l) Low
: High
Total (Rec " F.co » Nonusc) Low
¦ _ High
" See Chapter C4 lor sources of dollar values.
Impingement
SI 52
$m
S76
$164
S20
$52
S 1,393
S1,621
$1,885
$248
£544
Kntraifintrnt
S 1,660
S2.6H1
$830
SI, 340
SIS,115
$23,934
S4 5.401
$47,891
$49,422
SI 7.60S
S27.95S
Total
Si.SI 2
$3,009
SW6
51,504
SIS,135
S23 Mb
$46,793
$49,511
S51,307
S 17,853
$28,499
Table C3-25: Baseline Annua! Recreational Entrainment Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Kyger Facility.0
Lutk to KecrcalNiaal Loss in Rrt-rtatioaal Value from
Species Catch from Lntruintmni Recreational Value/Fish Entraiiirncnt
(*»fr,sh> Low M „h Law tli|h
Black Crappie 909 $1.00 % » $909 $4,562
Channel Cattish 90 S2.64 S5.02 $237 $450
UmgwSunfish 2.851 SO, 31 SUM) : $884 S2.851
Smallmouth Uass 540 SI,58 S3.95 : $853 $2,132
Wallcvc 10.218 $5.02 S7.92 $51,246 Sxi>.92'>
White Bass; 46 S) 58 S3.95 $73 $183
Total 14,654 $54,251 S91J07
' See Chapter C4 tor sources of dollar values.
App, a-1!
-------
fi 316(b) Case Studies, Port C The Ohr« ftiver Appendix
Table C3-2Z; Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Kyger Facility,"
I Loss to Recreational Catch Recr«.ion.l Vanish 1 "** lB «f ""eattoMl Value from
Species from tmpinKrment I.. ...... ; Impin^im-nt
(# offish) Low High Low High
Black Crappie 37 Si (if $5.02 S3? $185
Bluegil! 5 $0,31 Si.OO SI . $5
Channel Catfish 253 S2.64 S5.02 Sr.f.S $1,271
Longear Sunfish 5 SCO I Sl.O'i : SI S5
Sauger 52 $5.02 S7.92 $262 $413
Smallmouth Bass 7 S1.58 S3.« SI I S2K
Walleye ' f $5,02 : S7.92 $4 S6
White Bass 7B . S1.5H : $3.95 : SJ23 ; S308
Total 437 . : Si.10* S2.220
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-23- Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Irrvpmgement Losses ond
Values ot Kyger Facflity.®
Species
Lets iii Replacement
Vatue of Forage Fish __
from Impingement
Low in Ecosystem V alue from
impingement
. Litw High
Black Crappie
SO
SI 73
S866
Biuntnose Minnow
522,003
Chatmc! Catfish
so
S3.09!)
55,876
Common Carp
S101,794
Emerald Shiner
$10,331
Freshwater Drum
$386
Gizzard Shad
$164
Golden Redhon*
$205
Log perch
S2I
Longem* Sunfish
SO
$3,519
$11,351
River Carpsueker
$25,790
Skipjack Herring
SI 77
Smallmmith Bass
so
57,375
$18,438
Walleye
so
S i ,412
52,228
White Bass
$0
$867
•JO
V> .
Total
$ 160,8 7 (
$16,436
§40,927
" See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. -C3-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part C The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3 - 24 Selected Forage Species &Qselirte Annual Entramment Losses and Values
at ICyger Facility,"
Loss in Replacement , OM in E«»»ysteni Value from
Species Value of Forage Fish L t-ntrainment
from Entraiimirnt Low Hiih
Black G'rappic $0 $23 SI 18
Blucgill SO S3 Sm
Blumnuse Minnow $7
Brown Bullhead $6
Channel Catfish $0 SI03 SI96
Common Carp $22
hmcraki Shiner S3H5
Freshwater Drum S5-SK
Gizzard SJukI $20,835
Golden Redhorae $23
Logpcrch $2
Longear Sunfish SO S5K SIKK
River Carpsuckcr ¦ S3 ; '•
Saugcr SO S14 S23
Skipjack Herring $21
Smallmourh Bass SO 584 S211
Walleye SO $61 $9?
White Bass SO S75 ' $188
Total $21,891 _ S423 : _ SLD29
" See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-Z5 Sum nary of Baseline Annual I4E Vnlue Losses at Kyger Facility "
Impingement
Entrainment
Twill
Commercial Total Sutplit--11Jitcct Use, Market)
Low
SO
so
$0
1 ligh
' SO
" so
$0 '
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Low
$ M 08 ;
$54,251
555,359
High |
$2,220
$91,107
S93.327
Nonuse (Passive 1 Kc, Noti market)
Low ;
$554 " :
S27.I26
527,680
High'
si .no :
$45,554
S46.663
Forage (Indirect Use. Nonmarkct).
Ecosysiem _
Low
$423
SI 6.436
$16,859
High
SI, 029
540,927
S41,956
Replacement
S2I.X91
% (60,871
" "$182,763
Total (Rec + Notrase 4 Rcpl)
Low
S23.553
$242,24*
$265,801
High J
$25,221 *
$297,532
S322.753
Tola! (Rec > Eco + Nonuse)
Low
$2,085 '
$97,813
$99,898
S4,358 ;
S 177,587
SI 81,94(»
! Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. ( 3-13
-------
Appendix C3
Table C3-26; Baseline Annuo! Recreational Entrapment Losses ond Value for Selected Species at
Miami fort Facility."
Loss 10 Recreational l-«ss in Recreational Value from
Species Catch from Entratinmcnt Recreational Value/Fish Kntrainment
^ . I .OH High _ l.o« High
Black Cnppic $ 1.00 $5.02
Bluest! I S0.31 SI.00 7 ;
Channel Catfish $2,64 S5.02 '
Lepomis Species 292 $0.3! SI.00 r $90 $292
Sanger 1,514 $5.02 S7.92 ' $7,602 ' SI 1.994
Smailmaufh Bass 335 ' T $L5
-------
Appendix C3
Toble C3-29- Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entrapment Losses and Values
at Miami Fort Facility,*
Lois in Replacement |,„ss jn Ecosystem Value from Enlrainment
Species - Value of Forage Fish r™ —r* —
from Kntrainmfnf Cow High
Black Bullhead SI
it lack { rappie SO $3? $1X5
BluegiJI SO $4 SI 3
Channel Catfish SO $163 S310
Common Carp S52
Emerald Shiner $46
Freshwater Drum SK93
Gizzard Shad S22.679
Golden Rcdhursc $45
Logpcreh SI
f'addlcfish Si)
River Carp sucker S46
Sanger $0
Skipjack Herring 52,549
White Bass, SO
Total $26,312
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Table Nonuse)
LOW
$2,033
S11 (>,063
SUS.tWfe
High ?
$4,338
$2X2,785
S2S7.I23
¦' Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
SO $1
S23 S36
SiiX 5296
S345 S842
Apr- CS-I5
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port C The Ohio River Appendix
Tabl« C3-31; Baseline Annuo! Recreational Entromment Losses and Value for Selected Species at P,
Sporn Facility.®
Loss t» Recreational low in Recreational Value from
Specie* Catch from Entminntent Recreational Value/Fisto fc-ntrainment
<# "f r,,,h! _.W Jf£?L_ ^ High
Black Crappte 16 $1.00 SS.02 $16 $80
Channel Catfish 4 $2,64 $5.02 S9 SIS
Lcmgear Sunftsh i,05l SO. 31 SI. 00 S326 $1,051
Smallmouth Bass 10B $1 5k $3,95 : SI?t ; $42X
Walleye 1.365 $5.02 $7.92 56,850 S 10,807
Total 2.544 __ S7,373^ S12JW
* Scu Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values..
Table C3-32- Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at P.
Sporn Facility."
Species
Los* to Recreational Catch
from Impingement „
(# of foil)
Recreational Value/Fish
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
High
Low
High
Black Crappie
63
SLOO
$5,02
$63
S317
Btwgtll
4
$0.31
% 1 .(HI
$1
5.4
Channel Catfish
282
$2,64
$5.02
S745 J
$1,417
Longear Sunfish
2
SO,31
$ 1,00
SI
$2
Sauger
36
$5.02
S7J2
SI82
S2X7
Snwllmouth Bass
4
$1.58
S3.9 5
: S6
S15
White bass
t7
S! .58
$.3,95
$27
$67
Total
409 ;
S i 7.77
S.36,78
SI,025
$2,109
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. C3-16
-------
Appendix C3
Table C3-33: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Lasses and
Values at P. Sporn Facility.8
Lois in Replncemenl: Loss in Ecosystem Value from Impingement
Specie* : Value of Forage Fish r~ ~ "T~~
from tmpinyenn nl Imv, High
Bigmoufh Buffalo $7
Black Crappie SO $5 S25
Blucgill SO Si S2
Uluntnosc Minnow $ I '
Brown ButIhcad SI 1
Channel Catfish $0 S22 S4I
Common Carp SI!
Emerald Shiner SI02
Freshwater Drum $314
Gizzard Shad S3.151'
Golden Rcdhorse $10
Logpcrch SI
LongcarSuntish $0 SI2 $40
Sauger SO $3 S5
Skipjack Herring $$
Smallmouth Bass 10 SIX S44
Sucker S12
While bass " $0 $16 $39
Total $3,626 $76 $W»
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values..
App. CJ-17
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-34: Selected Forage Species Soseiine Annual Entrainmcnt Losses and Values
at P, Sporn Facility,'
Species
Black Crappic
Blimtnosu Minnow
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Ixingeur Sunfish
Skipjack Herring
Smalimuuth Bass
Sucker
V\"aitc\c
Total
• I,»»in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
: rroro Entrainmcnt
SO
$5,604
S30
so
521,634
SS43
$65
$23
$0
' S39
so
$23.0%
SO
$51,332
Loss in Kcosystrni Value from
Entrainmtnt
Low
S20
S3 64
$414
5868
$36,637
$38,302
Si 02
$691
SI,3 35
$2,169
$57,801
$62,099
' See Chapter C4 for sources <»f dolWi values.
Tobic C3-S5- Summary of Baseline Annual IAE Value Losses ct P. Sporn Facility,"
Impingement Kotrainmrqt Total
Recreational (Direct Use. Monnuirket) Low $1,025 $7,373 $8,397
¦ High $2,109 SI 2,3X5 $14,493
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarkct) - U»' 5512 $3,686 $4,199
High ¦ $1,054 $6,192 $7,247
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarkct)
Ecosystem Low $?<» $38,302 $38,378
: nigh : si% $62,099 $62,295
Replacement; ; S3.626 $51,332 S54.958
Total
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port C' The Ohio River Appendix C3
Table C3-36; Baseline Annual Recreational Entrapment Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Tanner Facility."
Low tu Recreations! »" Reweatkmal Vuiuc from
Specie* Catch from tntrainmcnt Recreational Value/Fish Entmimm-nt
! (#«rnili> Mw H{gh Lw¥ _ High
Black Crappie li SI,00 S5.02 SI I $55
Channel Catfish 2,468 S2.M S5.02 * $6,514 " $12,387
l^nrtgear Sun fish 36 $0,31 $1.00 SI! $36
Patldlcftsh 16 S t .00 $5.02 : $16 ' $78
Sauger 57 15.02 $7.92 * S2K6 S45S
Total 2.587 $6,837 [ _ SI3.006
5 See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
Tnb'c C3-37. Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses and Value for Selected Species at
Tanner Facility. *
Species
Loss to Recreational Catch
from Impingement
Recreational Value/Fish
Lou in Recreational Value from
Impingement
* See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values,
(#orrish>
Low
High
Low
High
Black Crappie
10
S 1.0(5
$5,02
SID
S50
Bluegill
4
SO. 31
$1.00
$1
S4
Channel Catfish
34
S2.64
$5.02
$90
$171
Lcmgeur Sunfish ;
1
SO. 31 '
St. 00
SO
SI
Patidlcfish
41
$1.00
$5,02
S41
S207
Sauger
40
$5.02
S7.92
$201
S318
Smatlmouth Buss
1
SI.58
S3,'>5
S3
iS
Total
132
S347
$758
App. C3-I9
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part O The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Tabic C3-30: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Impingement Losses and
Values at Tanner Facility,"
Species
Lew in Replacement
Value of Forage Fish
: from Impingement
Loss ill KcmysUni Value from
Impingement
Low High
Black Crappic
SO
S9
$46
Channel Catfish
so
$405
S769
Common Curp
$575
Emerald Shiner
$1,120
Freshwater Drum
S3 3
GiMard Shad
S5.126
Logpereh
S172
LongearSunfish
so
$108
$349
Minnow Specks
S3?
Paddlcfish
$0
SI
$5
River Carpsucker
S97S
Sauger
SO
$4,3
$68
Skipjack Herring
$150
"Total
S8.192
$5«>
Si ¦!
' See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
App. CJ-JO
-------
Appendix C3
Table C3-39: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annua! Entroinment Losses arid Values
at Tenner Facility.*"
Species
Bigmouth Buffalo
Black Crappie
Blucgill
Brown Bullhead
Channel Catfish
Common Carp
Emerald Shiner
Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Golden Redhorse
Longear Sunfish
Faddletlsh
River Carpsucker
Sauger
Skipjack Herring
Smallmuuth Bass
Total
Loss in Replacement
Value of f itra|>e Kish
froii! Kiitrainmrnr
SI 56
SO
$0
$7
So
S45
S5S
$447
SI 7,236
Sfi
so
so
$4
$0
S4.447
SO
$22,406
Loss in Ecosystem Value from
tntrmnnicnl
Low
SI21
S14
$532
l?oo
si
S74
$435
S1,476
High
S606
$44
SI,Oil
$4
SI 17
Si,OK 7
$3,137
See Chapter ("4 for sources of dollar values.
Table C3-40; Summary of Baseline Annual I&E Value Losses at Tanner Facility.*
Impingement Enlrainnwnt Total
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket) Low $34? $6,837 87,185
: High : S75S SI 3,006 $13,764
Nonusc (Passive Use. Nonmarkct) Low Si74 S3,419 S3.592
: High S3"1) S6.503 $6,8S2
Forage (indirect Use, Nonmarkcl) .
Keosystcm; Low $1,476 SS6G $2,042
High : S3.K37 SK237 ' S5.074
Replacement 522,406 $8,192 $30,599
Total (Rec Nonusc - Repl) : Low .$22,927 SlX,449 $41,376
High : $23,544 827,702 151,245
Tola! (Rec < Eco < Nonusc) ' Low S 1,997 SIOJ22 S12.819
High 54,975 $20,746 $25,721
* Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
A pp. C3-2f
-------
Appendix
Tabic C3-41: Baseline Annual ftecreaticenal Entrwrwnent Losses and Value for* Selected Species at
W,H. Sammts Facility,8
[ Loss to Recreational l oss in Recreational Value from
Species Catch from Entrainmetit Recreational Value/Fish Entraiimwm
(# offish) ^ ^ _ Low _ _ High ; Low High
Black Crappic 62 $1,00 $5.02 $62 $313
Channel Catfish 52 $2.64 S5.02 SI37 $260
SraaiSroauth Bass 197 Si.58 S3.95 S31! $77*
Swtftxh Species 480 $0.3) SI.00 $149 $480
Walleye 204 $5.02 $7,92 St,024 51.615
VVhitt Bass 2k $1.58 S3.95 $45 SU1
Total 1,023 $1,72? : S3,55?
• See Chapter C'4 for sources of dollar valuer
Table C3-42- Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement tosses one' Value far Selected Species at
W.H. Sammts Facility '
Lots to Recreational Catch Recreational Value/Fish Lom in v'lm f™m
Species from Impingement iSBSSES!!!
offish) Low High Low High
Black Crappie M) SI.00 $5.02 160 $300
Blucgiit 4 $0,31 ' $1.00 SI S4
Channel Catfish 558 S2.M 55.02 $1,474 S2.803
Sauger I $5.02 S7.92 $5 SH
Smallmouth Bass 74 Sl.5« $3.95 SI 16 : $291
Sunfish Species '15 $0.31 S 1.4X5 S5 : $15
Wallcvc 7 S5.02 S7.92 S34 $53
White Bass 65» SI.58 -• S3.95 $1,041 ; $2,603
Total 1.378 _ _ J : $2,736 : .$6,077
Sec Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values.
-------
S 316(b) Case, Studies, Part C: The Ohio River
Appendix C3
Table C3-43: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annua! Impingement Losses and Values at
W.H, Sammrs Facility,0
Specie*
Loss in Replacement
Value of Forage Fi»h
I.oss in Kcosvstem Value from Impingement
from impingement
Low
High
Black Orappie
SO
$1
Sfi
Bkminose Minnow
$761
Brown Bullhead
S32
Channel Catfish
SO
$22
$42
Emerald Shiner
$3,047 :
Gizzard Shad
SI 12 ;
Smallmouth Bass
SO
$53
SI 32
Sucker Species
$260
Suniish Species
$0
S25
SHI
Wallcve
$0
$10
$16
White Bass
$0
S6
S16
Total
S4.212
S! IS
S293
See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar values,
Table C3-44: Selected Forage Species Baseline Annual Entramment Losses and Values at
W.H- Sammis Facility,'
Low ill Replacement [.ok in Ecosystem Value from Kntrainment
Speeies 'Value of borage Fish "
from Kntrainraent I'"* High
Black ("nippie SO $41 $204
Bluegill SO 55 ! ' SIS
Bluntncwc Minnow $ 19
Brawn Bullhead $74
Channel Catfish $0 SI71) S341
Emerald Shiner SI,27.1 ;
Freshwater Drum SI
UtZMttJ Shad $4(>,?82
Golden Redhorse S4T
Sanger SO ' S2S * iV)
Skipjack Herring S2I4
Smallmtmil? Bass SO $147 $366
Sucker Species $67
Sunfish Species SO S101 $326
Walleye SO $106 * $I6S
White Bass SO $130 ' $326
Total S4S.475 ' S734 ' ' si.787
* See Chapter C4 lor sources of dollar values.
App, < "J-J.i
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part C- The Ohio River Appendix C3
Table C3-45; Summery of Baseline Annual 1AE Value Losses at W.W. Sammis Facility,®
Impingement Eittntinmeiit Total
Recreational (Direct Use. Nonmarkci) : Low ; $2,736 SI,727 $4,463
High ' $6,077 j $3,557 $9,634
Nomise (Passive Use, Nonmarkci) Low . SI, 368 S864 $3,232
' High ; 13,039 " ' ' 51,778 " 14,817
Forage (Indirect Use, Newmarket) :
Ecosystem: Lf»w $734 $118 $852
High * '$1,787 ' $293 $2,079
Replacement, $48,475 $4.2 J2 SS2.W8
Tola! (Ret + Nonusc • Repi) ¦ Low ; $52,580 1 $6,803 $59,383
High ' ' 557,5'JI : $9,548 ' ' " $67,139
Total (Rce -¦ Eco ¦» Nonusc) Low $4,839 52,708 $7,547
¦ High : $10,903 ' $5,628 _ * $_i 6.531
' See Chapter C4 for sources of dollar value*.
App. C3-24
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part t>: Tampa Bay
Part D: The Tampa Bay Watershed
Case Study
-------
S 316(b) Cast Studies, Port b: Tampa Boy
Chapter Dl: Background
Chapter D1 • Background
Tampa Bay is Florida's largest estuary and is at the heart
of a fast-growing region of more than 2 million people
(TBNEP, 1996a). Tampa Bay was selected for a case
study to represent CWIS impacts and potential benefits for
facilities located on estuaries of the Southeastern Atlantic
and Gulf coasts. Section Ol-l of this background chapter
provides a brief description of the Tampa Bay facilities
considered in this case study, Section DI-2 describes the
environmental setting and current stressors, and Section
DI-3 presents information on the area's socioeconomic
characteristics.
Dl -1 Overview of Case Study
Facilities
Industry surveys conducted by EPA in support of the §316(h) rulemaking identified five steam electric utility plants, one
nonutilily plant, and two manufacturing plants located tn the five watersheds draining into Tampa Bay. This ease study
focuses on the four facilities that are in scope of the Phase 11 rule:
*• PL Bartow (Florida Power Corporation)
~ Big Bend (Tampa Electric Company)
» FJ Cannon (Tampa Electric Company)
~ ! looker's Point1 (Tampa Electric Company).
The location of these facilities is indicated in Figure Dl-1.
Many of the aquatic species impacted by these facilities are also impinged and entrained at two facilities north of Tampa Hay,
the Anclote power plant and the Crystal River power plant.
Big Bend is a 1,988 MW power plant located in Middle
Tampa Bay. The facility began commercial service in 1969.
Big Bend currently operates four steam-electric coal units. In
addition, it has three oil-fired gas turbines that do not require
cooling water, la 1999, Big Bend had 346 employees and
generated 9.1 million MWh of electricity.J Estimated 1999
revenues for the Big Bend plant were approximately $653
million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of
8.7 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity
revenues of $74 99 per MWh. Big fiend's 1999 production
expenses totaled $250 million, or 2.743 cents per kWh, for an
operating income of S403 million.
r?*,
Chapter Contents
Dl-l
Overview of Case Study Facilities
Dl-l
Dl-2
Environmental Setting
Dl-4
Di-2.1 Tampa Bay .
DM
Dl~2.2 Aquaoe Habitat and Biota. .. ..
Dl-5
U: -2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
Dl-7
m-j
Socioeconomic Characteristic*
, ... DMI
Dl-3.1 Major Industrial Activities
. ..m-ii
Di-3.2 Commercial fishing
... Dl-l 1
DI-3.3 Recreational Fishing
. . UI-ll
D 1-3.4 Other Wa*er-Baxed Hjecreation
... DM2
v Hmtd. f J iianttmi, tint! Httoker'* Point
Ownership Informatitui
Big Bend, FJ Gannon, and Hooker's Point arc regulated utility
plants owned by Tampa Electric Company. TECO Energy is
the parent of Tampa Electric Company, TECO Energy is a
domestic energy company with almost 6.000 employees sind
sate of S2.3 billion m 20<)0. TECO Energy owns or controls
3,900 MW of electric generating capacity. In 2000, TECO
Energy had retail sales of 16.6 million MWh of electricity
(TECO, 2002; Hoover's Online, 200!j).
1 Note that Hooker's Point is scheduled for closure in 2003.
'' One MWh equals l.smu kWh.
£>/-/
-------
316(b) Case Studies, Port t>: Tampa Boy
Figure Di-1: Locations of the Tampa Bay Case Study Facilities
Chapter D1 Background
i Georgia
i
1 ^t/antic
Ocean
Florida,
Gulf
*
\
of
\
Mexico
...X,
Aresfe
of
v.. *
Detail W
/
N
W-rcjlphE
si
S
S*\
< \ '••• y~ \
f I / S Vvw-
\f )•.' .nv^* \ Hooker's Point
¦ f ¦¦'' ^ n r^' Power Plant
Kj
il>r
«£¦*
¦¦~4:
Bartow Plant
' ;
Old
Tampa
Ha-,
Gannon
Station
_ xYv
'I '* . A*w> ^
•IfUhbomugh
Buy "
GULF
OF
MEXICO
\
Middle
Tampa
Bay
¦¦
K
Big Bend
, Power r,
I Station <
Mullet Key
Egiwrnt Key —
Passage Kay '
Anna Maria
Island
" Lawt
er
Tampa
Bay
/
s
,v?/r
/ .\fa n
4 2 0 4 8 KtioimMe;
¦4 2 0 4 8 Miles
'v.,,
/"""v
D! 2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 0; Tampa Bay
Chapter Dl: Background
The FJ Cannon Power Station is a ciml-fired facility that began commercial operation in 1957 and is located in
Hillsborough Bay. The facility used to operate six coal-fired units, with a combined capacity of 1,302 MW, and one small
gas turbine. However.' H-CO recently entered into a settlement of a lawsuit for alleged Clean Air Act violations, brouglv.
against TECO by the U.S. Justice Department on behalf of the I; PA. As part of the settlement, TECO will convert F J Gannon
from a coal burning to a natural gas-fired combined-cycle facility. The repowcring is slated to be completed m 2004
(Lazaroff. 2000).
In 1999, FJ Gannon reported having 284 employees and generating 5,0 million MWh of electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues
for the FJ Gannon plant were approximately $356 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 4.7 million
MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $74.99 per MWh. FJ Gannon's 1999 production expenses totaled
$163 million, or 3,280 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $193 million. It should be noted that this information
represents pre-conversion operating conditions and may no longer be applicable once the conversion to combined-cycle units
is completed,
Hook-cr's Point is a 233 MW power plant located in Hillsborough Bay. The facility began commercial service in 1948 and
has been operated m a peaking plant for the past 20 years. Hooker's Point has five active, oil-fired generating units. In 1999,
Hooker's Point had 35 employees and generated 0,18 million M Wh of electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues for the Hooker's
Point plant were $ 13.2 million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of0.17 million MWh and the 1999
company-level electricity revenues of S74.99 per M Wh. Hooker's Point's 1999 production expenses totaled $13,0 million, or
7,083 cent.s per kWh. for an operating income of $0.14 million. Hooker's Point is scheduled for closure in 2003.
PL Bartow is a 717 MW power plant located in Old Tampa
Bay. The plant began commercial service in 1958, PI, Bariov.
operates seven units; two oil-fired steam-electric units, one
natural gas-fired steam-electric unit, two oil-fired gas turbines,
and two natural gas-fired gas turbines. In 1999, PL, Bartow had
71 employees and generated approximately 2.6 million MWh of
electricity. Estimated 1999 revenues for the PL Bartow plant
were approximately $184 million, based on the plant's 1999
estimated electricity sales of 2.4 million MWh and the 1999
company-level electricity revenues of $76.09 per MWh. PL
Bartow's 1499 production expenses totaled $82 million, or
3.214 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $101 million.
~ i'l Htirton' Ownership Information
PL Bartow is owned by Florida Cower Corporation, a
subsidiary of Progress Energy, which was founded in 2000
when utility holding company Carolina Power &. Light
(CP&L) Energy acquired Florida Power. Progress Energy is
a domestic energy company with 16.000 employees and
sales of $4.1 billion m 2000, The firm owns 21 million MW
of electric generating capacity and sold almost 60 million
MWh of electricity in 2WXS (Progress Energy, 2001:
Hoover's Online, 200lj).
Table Dl-l summarizes the important economic characteristics of the four Tampa Bay power plants.
Dl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port &: Tampa Boy
Chapter 51; Background
Table Dl-1; Summery of Big Bend, FJ Sonnon. Hooter's Point, and PL Bartow Plant Characteristics, 1999
Big B*nd
FJ Gannon
Hooter'i Point
PL Barlow
Plant !:.! A code
645
•:,46
647
634
NERC region
FRCC
FRCC
FRCC
FRCC
Total capacity (MW)
i,OT8
1.320
233
717
Primary fuel
Coal
Coal
Oil-il
Osl-H
Number of employees
346
284
35
71
Net generation (million tVfWbj
9.1
5.0
0.2
2.6
Estimated revenues (million)
S653
S3 56
Si 3
$184
Total production expense (million)
S250
SI 63
$13
$82
Production expense (g/kWh)
2.743e
3.280C:
7.0K3C
3.214*
Estimated operating income (million)
S403
$193 ;
$0.14
; sioi
Notes: NERC ~ North American Electric Reliability Council
FRCC = Florida Reliability Coordinating Council
Dollars are in $200)
Simnv U.S. DOE, 2001a (NBRC Region, Total (rapacity, Primary Fuel); U.S. DOE, 2001c (Number of Employees, Net Generation,
Total Production Expense).
Di -2 Environmental Setons
D1 -2,1 Tampa Bay
Tampa Bay is a subtropical estuary thai occurs in a transition zone between a temperate climate to the north and a tropical
climate to the south {Lewis and Estevez, 1988). The bay is Florida's largest estuary, covering 1,035 km*' (400 mi3) at high
tide, with an average width of 15 km (9,3 mi). The bay's waters are well-mixed and unxtratified because of the large tidal
volume, relatively small freshwater input, and the overall shallowness of the estuary, averaging only about 4 m (13.1 fl) in
depth.
Tampa Bay can be visualized as an upright "Y" divided into four major sections (Figure Dl-I) (Johansson, 1991; TBNEP,
1995; TBNEP. 1996a):
~ Hillsborough Hay forms the head of the estuary and represents the right arm of the "Y.™ The City ofTampa borders
ti on the north and the west. Hillsborough Hay is about 14.5 km (9 mi) long, has a coastline of 207 km {128.5 mi),
and is the most industrialized, developed, and degraded of the four sections. It represents about 10 percent of the
Tampa Bay surface area. The Hooker's Point, Big Bend, and Gannon facilities are located in Hillsborough Bay. _
» Old Tampa Bay represents the left arm of the "Y". It is about 19,3 km {J 2 mi) long, has a coastline of .139.8 km
(211 mi), and represents 19,5 percent of the total surface area ofTampa Bay.
~ Middle Tampa Bay is the central section. It is about 19,3 km (12 mi) long and is bordered along its eastern side by
Saint Petersburg. It represents 30 percent of the total surface area ofTampa Bay and has a coastline of 262.8 km
(163.2 mi).
~ Lower Tampa Bay is Tampa Bay's southernmost section, lit. entrance to she Gulf is approximately 8 km (5 mi)
wide and is lined by several islands, including Anna Maria Island, Passage Key, Eginonl Key. and Mullet Key. It is
about 20,9 km (13 mi) long, represents 24 percent of the total surface area of Tampa Bay, and has a coastline of
121.6 km (75,5 mi).
The four largest tributaries that enter Tampa Bay are the Hillsborough and Ahifia rivers, which empty into Hillsborough
Bay, the Little Manatee River, which empties into Middle Tampa Bay, and the Manatee River, which empties into Lower
Tampa Bay. The Hillsborough River has the largest flow of the bay's four major tributaries. It is heavily channelized and
has been extensively dredged, so it provides little aquatic habitat. The Alalia River is also heavily impacted. Its drainage
basin includes phosphate mines and fertilizer processing plants, and lower sections of the river arc characterized by poor
Dl-4
-------
Chapter Dl: Background
water quality, By contrast, the Little Manatee Kiver shows little impact of pollution or development. The river's lower
reach is classified as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), a designation thai prohibits any activity that could degrade the
river's surface water quality (Baler et al, 1991; Clark, 1991; Flanncry es al, 1991). The Manatee River is broad, shallow,
and relatively unchanneled, Although little of the natural shoreline remains tn the river's tower third, which is flanked by the
cities of Brademon and Palmetto, the river's middle arid upper sections contain large areas of pristine estuarine habitat,
totaling nearly two-thirds of all tidal river wetlands in Tampa Bay {Edwards, 1991; Esievez et al., 1991).
D 1-2.2 Aqyattc Habitat and Biota
Tampa Bay supports over 200 species of rnacroalgae, 250 fish species, ami some* 1200 macroinvertebrate species (including
scallops, crabs, and shrimps; Bcever. 1997). In terms of primary production, the bay is considered a phytoplankion-based
system, although mangroves, sea grasses, and salt marsh vegetation are also important (Lewis and Estevez, 1988). These
resources provide food for herbivorous secondary producers, including zuoplankton and plankton-feeding fishes such as bay
anchovy (Anchaa mitchiili), In turn, these animal-, provide food lor carnivorous fishes, including midearnivores. e.g., striped
kill!fish {Fumiulidat' majalis), and spot (Leiosiomusxanlhurvs), and carnivores, e.g., spotted sea trout (Cynoscion
nebulosus), red drum {Sciaenops ocellatux). snook (Cemropomu.s untiecimulix). and tarpon (Megahps uilanticm).
Carnivorous fishes iri turn provide energy for the many top carnivores that consume fish, particularly birds. A generalized
Tampa Bay food web is shown in Figure DI-2.
The major habitat types supporting the Tampa Bay food web include open water habitat, bottom habitat, emergent vegetation
(seagrasses, mangroves, and salt marshes), mudflats, and salt barrens (TBNEP, 1996c). Water column habitats include (I) the
Lower Bay's high salinity and relatively deep areas, (2) die more brackish shoreline areas, (3) the low salinity but tidally
influenced tributaries, and (4) the strictly freshwater tributary portions. Fish species dominate the aquatic life of open water
habitats.
Most of the bottom habitat of Tampa Bay is classified as unconsolidated sediment, or soft bottom (Lewis and Esievez, 1988).
Soil bottom habitats are used by invertebrates such as clams, worms, conches, and sea squirts. Hard bottom habitats include
natural rock outeroppings, bridge and dock pilings, sea walls, oyster reefs, and a number of artificial reefs. Although
relatively rare in Tampa Bay, hard bottom habitats are quite valuable because they create attachment sites for shellfish and
attract fish species prized by anglers, including snook and redfish. They are also provide important shore bird habitat,
The extensive shallow areas that fringe the bay support large sea grass beds, mangrove forests, and salt marshes. A notable
exception is Hillsborough Bay, where all the sea grass beds and most mangrove stands were lost because of eutrophiealion,
shoreline development, and filling operations.
Sea grasses play a vital role in the Tampa Bay ecosystem because they:
~ provide nursery habitat and food for juvenile finftsh and for shrimp, crabs, and other invertebrates:
~ stabilize shifting sands on the bottom of the bay;
~ clarify the water column by trapping silt and fine particulate matter; and
~ provide food for the endangered manatee.
Large mangrove forests line the eastern shores of Lower Tampa Bay and Middle Tampa Bay, and are also common along Old
Tampa Bay, Salt marshes line the bay's tributaries and quiet backwaters.
Both mangroves and salt marshes provide habitat for the juveniles uf many highly valued fish species, including mullet,
snook, red drum, and tarpon (TBNEP, 1996c). Mangrove-blanketed islands in Tampa Bay support the most diverse colonial
waurhird nesting colonies in North America. These islands host 40,000 pairs of 25 different species of birds annually, from
the familiar white ibis (EuJocimux aibws) and great blue heron (Artka henuhas) to the reddish egret (Egretta rufescenx) —
the rarest heron in the nation (TBNEP, 2001). An estimated 7,608 hectares < 18,800 acres) of mangrove forests and salt
marshes currently remain throughout Tampa Bay (TBNEP, 1996a).
Mud flats are low-lying areas of the bay and its backwaters that are exposed with each receding tide, Mud flats are prime
foraging habitat for resident wading birds and for migratory birds such as avocets, sandpipers, ducks, and gulls. Today, fewer
than 364 hectares (900 acres) of mud flats remain in Tampa Bay, mostly along She southeastern shore (TBNEP, 1996a).
DI-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pari D: Tampo Boy
Chapter 01: Background
Figure D1 -2: A Generalized Tampa Bay Food Web
TOP
CARNIVORES
MANGROVES AND
MARSH GRASSES
HUMANS
PHYTOPLANKTON
Sf
PLANKTON
FEEDERS
ZOOPLANKTON
CARNIVORES
Bay anchovy
Gulf menhaden
Inland silversWe
LITTER
Spotted saatroui
Sheepshead
Red drum
Srwjok
Tarpon
MACRO-ALGAE
*
DETRITAL
FEEDERS
DETRITUS
Pink shrimp
ue crab
Black mullet
M1D-C
EPIPHYTES
& '
DEPOSIT FEEDERS
I
Spot
Striped kilfifish
Rainwater catfish
Hogchoker
Figure modified from figure 69 in Lewis and Esievc/, 1988,
Photo references: Bay anchovy and spot: N0AA. 2902a; Zooptankion: USOS. 2001 e: Ospfey: Government of Nova Scotia, 2000; Fishing photo; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2002: Pink
shrimp; NOAA. 2002c; Deposit feeders: NOAA, 200.2c; Mangrove ant! marsh gmses; epiphytes: South Florida Water Management District, 2002; PhytoplankUm: N!H. 1999: Macro-algae: NSW Department of
Land and Water Conservation, 2001,
DI-6
-------
Chapter Df Background
Sail barrens (or salt Hats or salinas) are created when low-lying land, typically behind a mangrove stand or tidal marsh on
slightly higher ground, is flooded once or twice a month during spring tides. After the water recedes or evaporates, the area
develops into a hyper-saline habitat that supports low-growing succulent plants and attracts foraging wading birds.
The tidal influence of the bay reaches front 16.7 to 35.4 km (10.4 to 22 mi) upstream into the major bay tributaries, creating
vital nursery habitat for many Tampa Bay fish species. Extensive sampling of the Little Manatee River's tidal sections
showed heavy use in the lower 16 km (9.9 mi) by early life stages of estuarine fish species (Peebles et al„ 1991), Nearly 70
fish species, including Atlantic menhaden, bay anchovy, snook, red drum, spotted scatroul, .spot, and striped mullet, use the
river as nursery habitat. The Manatee River estuary system encompasses the free-flowing sections of both the Manatee and
Braden rivers. This area also provides critical nursery habitat for juvenile snook, spotted seatrout, striped mullet, red drum,
and many other Tampa Bay fish species (Edwards, 1991; lleyl and Zimmerman, 1997),
Dl-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
a. Habitat degradation and loss
Intense development has led to profound land use changes in the Tampa Bay region (TBNEP, 1994), Satellite images show
that by 1989 developed land made up over 40 percent of Tampa Bay watersheds. Half of the original shoreline has been
developed, and nearly half of the bay's marshes and mangrove stands have disappeared over the past 50 years,
The bay itself" has been physically modified by shipping channels that were dug to provide ocean vessels access to Tampa
Bay's major ports (TBNEP, 1994). Dredging to keep shipping channels open is an ongoing effort, with about 1 million cubic
yards of sediment removed annually at a cost of SHI million. Although most dredging occurs in the deeper parts of the bay,
away from sensitive habitats, suspended sediments from dredging can be carried to nearby sea grass beds by prevailing water
currents, decreasing water clarity and light penetration and thereby inhibiting sea grass growth. Disturbed sediment also
contributes to the overall nitrogen load responsible for algal blooms in the bay.
The dredged material itself can have beneficial uses (TBKEP, I9%a; Fonferek. 1997). For example, beach quality dredge
spoils placed on local beaches slow the erosion of downdrift beaches, and enhance sea turtle nesting grounds and colonial bird
nesting habitat. Most dredge spoils from the upper segments of Tampa Bay arc deposited on two large spoils islands in
Hillsborough Bay. where they have created bird habitat,
Most Tampa Bay tributaries are altered to one degree or another by dams, channelization, flow alterations, or shoreline
hardening as a result of residential and industrial development. The hardening and straightening of waterways affects
sensitive shallow water and shoreline habitats, prevents settling of sediments, and changes How regimes, all of which
contribute to species declines (Clark, 1991). The largest dams, located on the Hillsborough and Manatee rivers, divert up to
one third of their annual flow to provide water for human uses, Dams blocking the Braden and Manatee rivers have prevented
snook, and other fish species from using upstream nursery habitats in these rivers (Estevez and Marshall, 1997; lleyl and
Zimmerman. 1997),
b. Overfishing
Both commercial and recreational fisheries in Tampa Bay are tightly regulated because of intense fishing pressure. In-the past
decade, most commercial fishing practices were banned to give depleted stocks a chance to recover. In 1993, purse seining
was banned to protect bait fish species (e.g., bay anchovy) and in 1995, gill netting was banned to protect mullet and other
highly valued commercial species,
c. Eutrophication
Eulrophication has been a major factor in the long-term decline of the Tampa Hay ecosystem (TBNEP, 1992a). Excess
nitrogen Irotn partially treated sewage led to severe algal blooms starting in the early I950's. These blooms blocked light
reaching sea grass beds, reducing growth and survival. As sea grass beds were lost, aquatic species declined because sea
grasses provide critical nursery and feeding habitat for aquatic life throughout the bay
Starting in the late 1970's. improved municipal sewage treatment plants greatly reduced the amount of nitrogen released to the
Bay, The waters cleared up enough by the late 1980's to allow sea grasses to reeolomze areas from which they had been
excluded to insufficient water clarity and light penetration,
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part D" Tampa Bay
Currently, most of the nitrogen loading to the bay comes from storm water runoff and atmospheric deposition
{TBNEP. 1996b). The distribution of nitrogen input to the bay is quite uneven. Hillsborough Bay receives by fur the largest
share, nearly 40 percent of the total annual input. Eulrophicatton is one of the prime reasons that the extensive sea grass beds
that once fringed Hillsborough Bay have disappeared (TBNEP, 1996a),
d. Aquatic toxicants and contaminated sediments
Toxics of concern in Tampa Bay include heavy metals (e.g., cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc),
polycyclie aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH'S). chlorinated hydrocarbons (such as polychlarinated biphctiyls, PCRs, and some
pesticides) (Carr el al., 1996; TBNEP, I9%a; Zarbock et al., W7). Some of these compounds bioaccumulate in food chains
and represent a long-term hazard to aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans.
Toxicants enter the bay by several routes, including storm water runoff, atmospheric deposition, and industrial and municipal
wastewater outfalls. There is a net transport of sea water and associated material along the axis of the main shipping channel
toward the head of the bay (Lewis and Rslevez, 1988).
Several surveys and toxicity assessments indicate thai high concentrations of contaminated sediments are found around
marinas, harbor facilities, large urban centers, storm water outfalls, and industrial outfalls (Carr et a!., 1996: TBNEP, 1996a;
Zarbock et al., 1997), The upper half of Hillsborough Bay is particularly affected, because of its industrial nature and the
presence of the Port of Tampa, Other areas of concern include parts of the western half of Old Tampa Bay, the Port of Saint
Petersburg, and sections of Boca Ciega Bay and Bayborough Harbor, both of which are located in Lower Tampa Bay
(Pinellas County).
The State of Florida routinely issues fish consumption advisories for Tampa Bay to protect pregnant woman and young
children from high levels of methyl mercury in certain fish species, including Spanish mackerel {Scomheromorus maculatuK),
the C'revallc jack {Caranx hippos), the gafftopsail catfish (Bagtv marinus). the ladyltsh (Efaps saurus), awl several shark
species (TBNEP, 1996a), Women of childbearing age and young children are advised not to consume more than one fish
meal per month. Other adults should consume no more than one fish mea! per week.
e. Surface water withdrawals by CWIS
Steam electric power generation accounts for the single largest intake of water from the Tampa Bay region, amounting to over
95 percent of all surface water withdrawals (USGS, 1995). PI, Bartow, Big Bend, FJ Gannon, and Hooker's Point all
withdraw water directly from Tampa Bay. These plants employ once-through systems and do not recirculate their cooling
water. Combined, they accounted for an average intake How of approximately 3,000 MGD in 1997. Table DL2 summarizes
cooling water intake flows of all utility-owned power plants, nonutilities, and manufacturing facilities of Tampa Bay.
Df-fi
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part 5; Tampa Bay
Chapter Dl: Background
Table Dl-2. Of,'15 Characteristics of S316{b) Facilities
in the Tampa Bay Estuary, 1997
EIA Plant
Code
Plant Name ;
HIC
Watershed
Code
! Source Water
Body
: p«>
CWIS
Code'
CWIS Type"
; Design Intake Flow
: (millioit gallons/day)
Average Annual Intake
Flow Rate
(million gallons/day)
Distance from :
Shore
Depth Below
Surface (feet)*
Utility Plants
634
PL Bartow
3100206
: Tampa Bay
1 f>tUi:lY 1
I
OS
158
495
0 ;
12
645
Big Bend
3100206
¦ Hillsborough
orci
OS
346
309
o :
9
Bay
: (Estuary)
OTC2
OS
m
32 i
0
9
OTC3
OS
346
310
o ;
9
OTC4
OS
359
338
o
9
646
I'J Gannon
3100206
Hillsborough
OTCI
OS
151
114
o :
19
Bay
(Estuary)
ore:
OTC3
OS
OS
15 i
1ft 3
113
141
0
0
19
16
OTC4
OS
183
137
0
16
otcs
OS
253
210
0
16
OTC6
OS
346
249
0
16
647
Hooker's Point
3100206
Hillsborough
OTCI
OS
43
28
0
: Bay
(Estuary) :
OTC2
OTC3
OS
OS
41
41
29
29
0
0
23
23
OK "4
OS
54
36
0
23
OTCS
OS
70
46
0
23
N (inutility Plants*
IV a
Pinellas County;
Resource
Recovery ;
3100206
Lake or :
Reservoir ;
1
Recirculating
Towers
0.75
Manufacturing FacilHies"
n'a
Cargtll
; Fertilizer
3S00204
Lake or
Reservoir
1
2
Recirculating
Towers
Recirculating
Towers
4.6
0.5
ti a
* IMC Agrico — :
Comp
3100204
Lake or
Reservoir
Water Jack
Pump
RC
4.13
D!-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 0- Tampa Bay
Chapter" Dl: Background
Table 51-2: CWIS Characteristics of §3J6(b) Facilities in the Tampo Boy Estuary, 1997 (cent.)
* CWIS codes as listed in U.S. DOE. 2001a (utility plants only),
h U.S. DOE, 2001a Codes far CWIS types:
OC: Once through,, with cooling pond or canal;
OF: Once through, fresh water:
OS: Once through, saline water,
KC Recirculating with cooling pond or canal;
RF; Recirculating with forced draft cooling tower;
RN: Recirculating with natural draft cooling tower.
£ U.S. OOF. 2001a ( utility plants- only).
" Data from U.S. EPA, !99Ba{§3t6(b} Industry Scteener Questionnaire: Phase I Cooling Water Intake Structures, October 1998).
Dl-10
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port Gs: Tampa Bay
Chapter Dl: Background
D1 - 3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Over 2 million people live in the thief counties bordering Tampa Bay The region's three largest cities are Tampa (291,000
people), Saint Petersburg (241,000 people), nod Clearwater (104,000 people).
bl -3 1 Mojor Industrial Activities
Tampa Bay is home to three international harbors (TBNEP, 1996a). Petroleum product shipment is one of Tampa Bay's main
trade activities. On an average (Jay, more than 4 million gallons of petroleum products and many other hazardous materials
pass in and out of Tampa Bay (TBNEP, 2001). Tampa Bay's three major ports are described below.
~ The Port of Tampa is Florida's largest harbor and ranks among the top 10 harbors nationwide in trade activity. Bulk
cargo ships are responsible for the movement of 25 million tons of phosphate and related products in Tampa Bay,
more than any other port in the world. The Port of Tampa is also becoming a premier cruise ship destination.
fc Port Manatee is the fifth largest of Florida's 14 deepwater seaports. According to the Tampa Port Authority, the
Port of Tampa is responsible for 93,000 jobs and $10.6 billion in spending (Port Manatee, 2000; TPA, 2002),
~ The fort of St. Petersburg specializes itt one-day cruises, and is also the homeport for cruises to Mexico,
Dl-3.2 Commercial Fishing
The once-active commercial fishing industry in Tampa Bay has declined dramatically because of overharvesting and habitat
deterioration (TBNEP, 1992b), The commercial fishery for snook has been closed since the 1950's, Commercial landings of
spotted seatrout dropped fourfold front the early 1950's to the early 1980*s, The red drum harvest decreased by 82 percent
until the fishery was closed in 1987. In 1993, purse seining was banned to protect bait fish species (e.g., bay anchovy) that
are important prey for other fish and birds. A ban on gill netting (the "Florida net ban"), implemented in 1995, seeks to save
declining stocks of mullet, which previously made up about half of all commercial landings of ftnfish and shellfish in Tampa
Bay, The ban also benefits other highly valued species, such as the spotted seatrout and sheepshead. Commercial landings of
ftnfish decreased by 4? percent between 1995 and 1996 as a result of the giil net ban (TBNEP, 1996a; Nelson et a!.. 1997).
Although commercial shrimping is the most important commercial fishery in Florida, a viable commercial shrimp fishery no
longer exists in Tampa Bay. There remains only minor activity in food and bait shrimping of pink shrimp and other penaeid
species. The blue crab commercial fishery is the fourth largest in Florida, but the harvest of blue crab in Tampa Bay
generates less than 5 percent of Florida's west coast commercial landings (TBNEP, 1992b). The harvest of oysters and clams
has been severely restricted or closed altogether because of documented or presumed contamination by fecal pathogens that
enter the bay from various point and nonpoint sources (TBNEP, 1996a).
Dl-3.3 Recreational Fishing
Tampa Bay provides recreational fishing opportunities for many sought-after species, including snook, spotted sea trout,
tarpon, and red drum (TBNEP, 1992b). To characterize recreational fishing in the Tampa Bay area, EPA relied on the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRPSS) (NMFS, 2001a). The MRFSS found that each year anglers fishing
from shore and private or rental boats spend 60.3 and 53.5 days fishing in Tampa Bay and adjacent coastal sites, respectively.
Tampa Bay fishermen tend to travel relatively short distances, on average 15.1 miles for single-day trips. Fishermen taking
single day trips spend an average of $21.37 per day in pursuit of their target species, 1
From 1997 to 1999, recreational anglers in Tampa Bay caught an annual average of:
*¦ 72,233 black drum
» 43,411.292 spotted seatrout
' 783,407 sheephcad
includes travel and boat expenditures for single-day trips and travel, lodging, and boat expenditures for multiple day trips.
DI-JI
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 0: Tampa Say Chapter Dt- Background
Table Df-3 shows that anglers spent an estimated 6,4 million days fishing in Tampa Bay and adjacent coastal sites. The
NMFS data indicate that the number of angler days spent in the rase study area accounts for 88,004 percent of the total angler
days in western Florida.
Tabic ftl -3¦ Results of MRFSS Analysis of Ffshtng Participation in Tampa Bay and Adjacent Coastal Sites
Firth* Mode Tutal Number of Fishing Days at Tampa Bay NMFS Sites
Private or Rental Boot 3,285,500
Shore 2,7«3,465
Charter Boat 361,258
total 6,43(1,129
Dl-3,4 Other Water-Based Recreation
a. Recreational viewing
St* state parks are located within the Tampa Bay region. These parks olTer the opportunity to view popular marine species
such as sea turtles, botilenose dolphins, and the endangered manatee. Sea turtles can occasionally be seen nesting on beaches
and within state parks. Dolphins are plentiful, and more than 500 reside in the bay year-round. They can be viewed from the
shore or from charter boats offering sightseeing tours.
Tampa Hay is also home to two national wildlife refuges;
~ Chmsahowhzka National Wildlife Refuge is composed of 12,343 hectares (30,500 acres) of saltwater bays,
estuaries, and brackish marshes. The variety of habitats found in the refuge support approximately 250 species of
birds, 50 species of reptiles and amphibians, and 25 species of mammals. Endangered and threatened species on the
refuge include manatees, sea turtles, and bald eagles.
~ Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge encompasses approximately 142 hectares (350 acres) and was established to
provide nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for brown pelicans and other migratory birds (National Audubon
Society, 2000).
Tampa Bay provides bird watchers with numerous species to observe. From year-round residents to species that over-winter
in the region or pass through on their way to points further south, thousands o f birds are seen daily in the Tampa Bay area.
Wintering species join the thousands of birds rearing their young in several breeding colonies found on islands in the bay,
where nests are safe from predators and disturbance. 'Many parks provide prime viewing spots for the avid birder, both on the
mainland and on Tampa Bay islands. Five of Florida's 45 Audubon Society chapters tire located in the Tampa Bay area.
Table DI-4 presents information from EPA's 1994 Survey of National Demand for recreational viewing in the Tampa Bay
estuary.' The table lists all U.S. states from which at least one resident visited Tampa Hay on their last viewing trip during
1993. EPA estimated that about 7.1 million people used the Tampa Bay estuary for recreational viewing in 1993. These
visitors accounted for 18.4 million visits to the area. The survey results show that visitors came from 20 different states.
Ohio and Pennsylvania residents were the most frequent visitors, representing approximately 18.4 percent and 15.7 percent of
all viewers to the bay, respectively. Florida residents accounted for the highest absolute number of visits, 8.1 million,
representing roughly 44 percent of all recreational viewing trips to Tampa Bay.
b. Swimming and boating
Tampa Bay has some 30 miles of sandy shoreline and seawalls (T ampa Flay Beaches, 2001), which feature some of the nicest
beaches in the Gulf of Mexico. Three Pinellas beaches — Catedcsi Island, Fort DeSoto Park, and Sand Key Park. — rank
consistently among the top 20 beaches m the nation for cleanliness, parking availability, aitd color and composition of the surf
and sand (Towery Publishing, 2000). These beaches offer various water-based recreational activities, including boating,
swimming, snorkeling/scuba diving, parasailing. jetski rentals, aqua bikes, and paddle boats.
Tabic Dl-4 presents information from EPA's 1994 NDS Survey of National Demand for Recreational viewing in Tampa Bay.
Dl-12
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 0: Tampo Bay
Chapter 51: Background
Table 01-4: Recreational Viewing in the Tampo Boy Estuary'
AR 1,789,229 128 1 7.69% 137.633 ; t I 137,633
CT 2,494,772 : 159 ; 1 2.50% 62,369 ; I I 62,369
FL 10.509,197 662 38 5.80% : 609,694 504 13 8,086.466
CA 5.049,783 373 4 ; 8.33% 420,815 ; 5 I 526,019
IL 8,628.335 466 4 7.14% 616,310 4 1 616,310
IN 4.240,26$ 300 4 12.12% 513,972 8 2 1.027,944
KY 2.829,980 - 219 1 5.00% ! 141,499 i ! 141,499
MA 4,607,944 249 ! 5.88% 271,056 : 1 I 271,056
MI 7,019.973 ; 576 2 1.14% . 79,772 • 3 2 119,659
MN 3.302,335 245 2 3.77% 124,616 : . 3 2 186,925
MO 3.880,036 277 2 " 6.06% ' 235,154 4 2 470,307
NJ 5.959,401 347 2 0.98% 58.140 4 2 116,281
NM 1,134,379 105 1 14.29% 1 162,054 ' 1 I 162,054
NY 13,678,730 ; 774 7 • 3.68% 503,953 ; 7 I 503,953
OH 8,226.2 H 650 12 16.00% 1,316,194 16 I 1.754,925
OK 2.364,?5R 143 I : 4.55% 107,489 2 2 214,978
PA 9,153.39! 742 6 12.24% 1,120.823 IS 3 3,362,470
SC ; 2,687.675 181 1 0.43% 11,686 I 1 11,686
TN 3.812,044 296 3 11,54% 439,851 3 I 439,851
VA •. 4.88438 389 2 2,11% 102,827 ; 2 I 102.827
W1 3.706.711 299 2 2.60% 96,278 2 1 96,278
Total 7.S80 97 i 7,132,185 : 591 18,411,490
' Extrapolated numbers may not add tip due to independent rounding,
Sour,:v; U.S. EPA. 1994b. *
D/-/J
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay Chapter D2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Chapter D2: Technical Description of
Case Study Facilities
Chapter Contents
L)2-l Operational Profiles D2-t
D2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal 02-5
This chapter presents technical information related to the
case study facilities. Section D2-I presents detailed
Energy Information Administration (E1A) data on She
generating units addressed by this case study and within
the seope of the Phase II rulemaking (i.e., iu-scope
facilities). Section D2-2 describes the configuration of the
intake structures at the in-scope facilities.
D2-1 Operational Profiles
Baseline operational characteristics
a, Big Bend
During 1999, the Big Bend power plant operated seven units: four toa.-tired steam-electric generators (Units 1, ST2-ST4)
that use cooling water withdrawn from Middle Tampa Bay, and three oil-fired ga.s turbines (Units GTI-GT3) that do not
require cooling water. Three of the steam-electric units began operation between 1970 and 1976; the fourth steam unit began
operation in 1985.
Big Bend's total net generation in 1999 was 9.1 million MWh. The steam turbine units (Units l,ST2-ST4) accounted for 99.2
percent of total net generation. The capacity utilization of Big Bend's steam turbine units ranged from 53.7 percent (Unit
ST3) to 57,3 percent (Unit ST2).
Table D2-I presents details for Big Bend's seven units.
Table £>2-1: Big Bend Generator Characteristics (1999)
Capacity Prime Energy In-Service . » , „ ,, Capacity
». _» f t . Operating Mams Generation , : Associated
MW Mover* .Source4 Dal* 1 (MWh> wation1 cWIS
I
446
ST
. HIT
Oct. 1970
Operating
2,220,110
56,9%
OTC1
ST2
440
ST
' BIT
Apr. 1973 .
Operating
2,235,357 ;
57.3%
OK 2
STJ
446
ST
BIT
May 1976 :
Operating
: 2.094,605 :
5,1.7%
: 'OTO
ST4
4S(.
ST
BIT
Feb. 19H5
Operating
2.502,326
58.8%
OTC4
GTi
18
GT
F02
Feb. 1969
Operating
70, f 0 i .
4.6%
: N<)t
GT2
79
GT
fOl
Nov. 1974 :
Operating
^ Applicable
GT3
79
GT
F02
Nov. 1974 i
Operating
Total
1 9%
9,122,499
52.1%
" Prime mover categories: ST steam turbine. OT - gas turbine,
* Energy source categories: BIT = Bituminous Coal, FG2 • No. 2 Fuel Oil.
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at full capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source • U.S. DOE, 2001b; U.S. DOE, 2001a (Net Generation and C'WIS ID); U.S. DOE, 200Id (GT Net Generation), .
D2-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 0: Tampa Bay Chapter D2; Technical Description of Case. Study Facilities
Figure D2-1 below presents Big Bend's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
Figure D2-1: Big Bend Net Electricity Generation 1970-2000 (m MWh)
10.000.000
C
O
%
62
G
ft
%
Z.
2.000.000
1980
tm
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Id.
b. F.J. Gannon
During 1999, the FJ. Gannon power plant operated seven active units. Six of these are coal-fired steam-electrie units that use
cooling water withdrawn from Hillsborough Bay (Units 1-6), The seventh unit is a small gas turbine (GT1). The-steam-
electric units began operation between September 1957 and October 1967,
FJ. Gannon's total net generation in 1999 was 5.0 million MWh. The capacity utilization of the steam units ranged from 38.4
percent (Unit ft) and 55 J percent (Unit Sj." Table D2-2 presents details for FJ. Gannon's seven units. It should be noted that
this information represents pre-repowering operating conditions and may no longer be applicable once the conversion to
combined-cycle units is completed.
Figure D2- 2 below presents FJ. Gannon's electricity generation history between 1970 ant! 2000,
1 Unit 6 experienced an explosion in April !999 (Hundley, ! 999) and was off-line for approximately two months. Net generation and
capacity utilization for Unit 6 may therefore under-represenf "normal" operating conditions.
-------
§ 316(b) Cese Studies, Part D: Tampa Say Chapter D2 Technical Description of Cose Study Facilities
Table D2-2; F.J. Gannon Generator Characteristics (1999)
Total
U20
4,%6.444
43,0%
Unit II)
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover'
Energy
Source"
In-Service
Date
Operating Status
Net
: Generation
(MWb)
Capacity
Utiiustian'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
i
125
ST
BIT
Sep. 1951
Operating
476,66*
43.5%
OUT
2
125
ST
HIT
Nov. 1958
Operating
434,667
39.7%
OTC2
3
1X0
ST
HI f
' Oct. I960
Operating
725,338
46.1%
OTC3
4
188
ST
BIT
Nov. 1963
Operating
655,39*
39.9%
OTC4
5
239
ST
BIT
Nov. 1965
Operating
; 1.170.215
55.8%
OTC5
6
446
ST
HIT
. Oct. 1967
Operating
1,500,422
3S.4%
OTC6
GTS
IB
GT
F02
Mar. 1969
Operating
3,736
2.4%
Not
Applicable
" Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; GT - gas turbine.
* Energy source categories: BIT = bituminous coal; F02 ~ No. 2 Fuel Oil.
* Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at full capacity
.ill the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 daysi
Stmrce: U.S. DOE, 200 lb; U.S. DOE. 200Ia(Net Generation ami CWIS ID): U.S. DOE, 200Id (GT Net Generation).
Figure D2-2: F.J. Gannon Net Electricity Generation 1970-2000 (in MWh)
7,000.000
6,000.000
5,000,000
4.000.000
3,000.000
I
X
2.000.000
1.000.000
liSias
2000
ikirr U.S. fXHi. 200id
1)2-3
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay
Chapter D2; Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
c. Hookers Point
During 1999, (he Hookers Point power plant operated five units. All units are oil-fired steam-electric units thai use cooling
water withdrawn from Hillsborough Bay. The five units began operation between July 1948 and May 1955.
Hookers Point's total net electricity generation in 1999 was 184 thousand MWh. The capacity utilization of (lookers Points
units is low, between 7.6 percent (Unit 4) to 12,2 percent (Unit 3), for a plant total of 9.0 percent.
Table D2-3 presents details for Hookers Point's five units.
Table D2-3: Hookers Point Generator" Characteristics (1999)
Unil ID
Capacity
(MVV)
Prime
Mover"
: Energy
• Source1"
In-Service
Date
; Operating Status
Net Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization*
ID of Associated
cwis
t
: 33
ST
F06
Jul. 1948
Operating
22,261
7.7%
OTC1-4
2
35
• ST
: F06
Jun. 1950
Operating
34,747
11,5%
OTCl-4
3
35
ST
P06
Aug. 1950
Operating
36,899
12.2%
OTC1-4
4
49
ST
FO<>
Oct. 1953
Operating
32,520
7.6%
OTCI-4
5
s:
ST
F06
May 1955
Operating
57,230
8.0%
OTC5
Total
233
183,657
9.0%
* Prime mover categories: ST - steam turbine.
b Energy source categories: F06 = No. 6 Fuel Oil.
1 Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the writ's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at full capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Snun e: U.S. DOE. 200!b; U.S. DOE, 2001a {\e: Generation and (.'WIS ID).
figure 1)2-3 below presents Hookers Point's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
Figure D2-3: Hookers Point Net Electricity Generation 1970-201)0 (in MWh)
800.000
fc
c
600.000
z
400,000
200.000
1980
1986
1990
2000
rem
Smutv: U.S. DOE, 200W.
-------
Chapter D2 Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
d, P.L. Bartow
During 1999, ihe P.L. Bartow power plant operated seven units. Three are steam eteciric units, two oil-fired (Units ST1-ST2)
and one natural gas-fired (Unit ST3). The remaining four are smaller gas turbine units, two oil-fired (PI. F3) and (wo natural
gas-fired (P2, P4). The steam turbine units began operation between September 1958 and July 1963 {Units ST1-ST3), The
gas turbine units all began operation in May and June of 1972 (PI-P4).
P.L. Bartow's total ne! generation in 1999 was 2.6 million MWh. The steam-electric units accounted for almost 95 percent of
total net generation. The capacity utilization of these three units was between 47.6 percent IST2) and 62.5 percent (ST3).
Table 132-4 presents details lor P.L. Bartow's seven units.
Table P L. Bartow Generator Characteristics (1999)
Unit ID
Capacity
(mw)" ;
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source" :
ln-Srrv»ce •
l>ate
Operating Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization*
ID of
Associated
CWIS
STl
12$
ST
F06
Sep. S95X ;
Operating
582,039
52.1%
I
ST2
12K :
ST
F06
Aug. 1961 1
Operating
531,551 :
47.6%
1
ST3
239
ST
NG
Jul. 1963
Operating
t ,310.304 :
62.5%
I
PI
P2
5ft
56
GT
CiT
$>02
N(i
May 1972 :
Jun. 1972 :
Operating
Operating
139,587
7.1%
Not
applicable
P3
56 :
GT
F02
Jun. 1972
Operating
1*4
56
CiT
NG
Jun. 1972
Operating
Total
717
2,563.481
40.8%
4 Prime mover categories: ST • steam turbine; CiT = gas turbine.
" Energy source categories: F06 -- No. 6 Fuel Oil; NO = Natural Gas; F02 « No. 7 Fuel Oil.
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing (he unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at full capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days;.
Source: U.S. DOE. 2001b; U.S. DOE, 2001a (Net Generation and CWIS !D>, U.S. DOE. 200Id (CiT Net Generation).
Figure D2-4 below presents P.L. Bartow's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
D2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
This section describes cooling water intake structure technologies at the case study facilities,
a. Hookers Point
The Hookers Point facility is located in the Sparkmun Channel, upstream of the Tampa Bay, approximately 25 miles from the
inouth of the bay. The facility has two intake structures, each intake supplies a separate once through cooling system. These
intakes are both submerged shoreline intakes.
According to survey data, the facility withdraws approximately 70 million gallons per day (MODS. An estimated design
intake flow (D1F) was calculated at 123 MOD for this facility/
Hookers Point also employs a passive intake system at its intake structure.
*' Design intake flows were not requested in the short technical survey. As such, an estimated DIF was calculated for these facilities,
using other information about the facility {actual intake How and operating days).
AM
-------
Chapter D2. Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Figure D2-4; P.L Banow Net Electricity Generation J970-2000 (i« MWh)
f
I
1970 1975 196$ 1985 19S0 199S- 2000
¥«a r
Snutvc U.S. IX2(KH J,
b. P L Bartow
The Bartow facility is located in a northwest branch ofTampa Bay, approximately 15 miles from the mouth of the bay. The
facility has one intake structure located in a manmade canal on the bay which supphes water to a once through cooling
system. The canal is J ISO feet in length and 25ft deep at the intake structure, The facility has a design mtake flow of 476
MOD, according to survey data.
The intake structure is comprised of six subsurface intake bays flush with the shoreline. Each intake bay is similarly designed
and lias a design through-screen velocity of 13 ft/sec. Cooling water first passes through a trash rack, and then a vertical
traveling screen, The screens do have a spray wash system for debris, which empties directly into the bay. Cooling water is
discharged via a separate channel,
c. Big Bend
Due to the presence of fine mesh traveling screens and a fish conveyance at Big Bend, the benefits analysis is separated into
two distinct scenarios: the first, an analysis with these technologies functioning and the second with them not in use. The
distinctions are explained below.
*** St t'ttat tt> J
Big Bend Power Station is located along the eastern shore ofTampa Bay, approximately 20 miles from the mouth of the hay.
The facility has two intake structures, each supplying two generating units and their respective cooling systems. Both intakes
are once through systems and located in an intake canal of over 3000 feet in length. The facility has a design intake (low of
1395 MOD, according to survey data. Originally, the facility was to use a closed cycle recirculating cooling system-a spray
channel-far its cooling needs. However, during its construction in 1975, Tampa Electric concluded that this technology was '
not necessary for Big Betid to comply with the recently developed 316 requirements and a once through with dilution system
1)2-6
-------
Chapter D2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
was constructed instead. (Stone and Webster. 19H0a) The dilution pumps have since been taken permanently offline. (U S.
EPA, 2001c)
Each intake structure is made up of 4 intake bays. Cooling water passes through a double entry/single exit traveling screen
(dual flow with 3/8" mesh size} with a spray wash for debris. The design through screen velocity is approximately 9,5 ft'sec,
{U.S. EPA, 2001c) although previous documents showed that the design through screen velocities for Units 1-3 were
approximately 1,93 ft/sec. (Stone and Webster, 1980a).
Based on the findings From a monitoring smdy (Stone and Webster, 1980b), a fine mesh traveling screen (with a spray wash)
and a fish conveyance (which empties beyond the influence of the facility) were installed on Intake 2 to reduce entrainment
mortality. These technologies are operated from March 15 to October 15"', in place of the conventional intake technologies,
which are relumed to use in the other months. These screens have been found to be between 86% and 95% effective in
reducing entrainment when operating, but have encountered operational difficulties in the past that may inhibit their
effectiveness. However, for this scenario, it was assumed that the technologies are fully operational.
"J* Sft'nurio 2
The facility designed and installed a fine mesh traveling screen with a fish conveyance in 1985 when Unit 4 was built. It was
intended to operate from March 15,t! to October 1.5!fe, the period of highest potential entrainment for the waterbody. However,
due to operational problems with saltation in the screen well, there have been periods when the fine mesh screens were not
implemented as required. In addition, dredging of the screen well has not been performed, as it may interfere with nearby
manatee populations. For this scenario, it was assumed that the fine mesh screen and fish conveyance are non-functioning,
thereby possibly requiring Big Bend to implement further technologies to reduce impingement and entrainment.
d. f.J. Gannon
Gannon Station is located approximately 25 miles from the mouth of Tampa Bay in the northeast section of the bay. The
facility's cooling water system is once through and has one intake structure with six intake bays, one for each generating unit.
The intake is located in a 1101) ft intake canal with a skimmer wall for intake bays 1, 2, and 3, According to survey data, the
facility has a design intake flow of 2465 MOD.
Not all intake bays are similarly designed. Bays 1 and 2 have trash racks and the others do not. Bays 1, 2, and 3 use a
vertical traveling screen, whereas bays 4, 5, and 6 each have a double entry/single exit traveling (dual flow) screen. The
design through screen intake velocity varies between bays from t .02 ft/sec (bay 1) to i .61 ft/sec (bay 6).
D2-?
-------
S 31&(b) Case Studies, Part tK Tampa Bay
Chapter 53-' Evaluation of IAE Data
Chapter D3:
Evaluation of IAE Data
Although I&t data are available for the Big Bend facility,
I&h data have not been collected at any other Tampa Bay
CWIS, Thus, to estimate the potential cumulative impacts
of all in-scope facilities of Tampa Bay. EPA extrapolated
Big Bend's l&E rates to cither Tampa Bay ('WIS, as
described in this chapter. Section D3-1 lists fish and
shellfish species that are impinged and entrained at Big
Bend, Section,D3-2 summarizes the life histories of the
species most often impinged and entrained, and Section
D3-3 describes the methods used by Big Bend to estimate
l&E. Section D3-4 presents results ofEPA's analysis of
annual impingement at Big Bend, and Section D3-5
presents annual entrainment results. Section D3-6 outlines
the methods used by EPA to extrapolate Big Bend's l&E
rates to other m-scope facilities in Tampa Bay. Section
D3-7 presents impingement extrapolations, Section D3-8
presents entrainment extrapolations, and Section 1)3-9
summarizes the cumulative l&E impacts of all in-scope
('Wis of Tampa Bay. The methods used by HPA to
analyze l&E data are described in Chapter A5 of Part A of
this document,
D3-1 Tampa Bay Aquatic Species
Vulnerable to IAE
EPA evaluated aquatic species impinged and entrained at Big Bend, including commercial, recreational, and forage species,
based on information provided in facility l&E monitoring reports, Approximately 85 different species of aquatic organisms,
including fish, crustaceans, and moliusks, were identified m l&E collections at Big Bend in 1976-1977 and 1979-1980
(Conservation Consultants Inc. 1977; U.S. iiPA, 1981). Table D3-) lists major species identified in Big Bend's l&E
collections and their status as commercial, recreational, or forage species. HPA evaluated all species with commercial and
recreational value and available site specific life history information. EPA did not evaluate species which did not meet tlte.se
criteria and which had impingement numbers less than 5 percent of the facility total or entrainment numbers less than 7
percent of the facility toial.
.II11..1....
Chapter Contents
D3-I Tampa Bay Aquatic Species Vulnerable to S&B .... D3-1
03*2 Life I listories of Primary Species Impinged
and Entrained D3-3
D3-3 Big Bend impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring Methods 03*14
l-U-4 Annual impingement ai Big Bend ......... U3-14
D3-5 Annual Entrainment at Big Bend D3-15
D3-6 EPAk Methods for Extrapolating Big Berart l&E
Rates to Other In-Seopc facilities of Tampa Bay.. D3-15
D3-7 LP As Hxtimates of Big Bend's Impingement
Extrapolated to Other In-Scope Facilities of
Tampa Bay . . . D3-.15
D3-S EPA's Estimates of Bsg Bend's Entrainment
Extrapolated to Other In-Scope Facilities of
Tampa Bay D3-15
D3-9 Cumulative Impacts: Summary of Total l&E of
Tampa Bay in-Scope Facilities D3- i 5
D3-10 Evaluation of Recent I arval Abundance Records
as Indicators of Current Entrainment Losses at
Tampa Bay CWIS D3-24
1)} i
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port 5; Tampa Boy
Chapter D3 Evaluation of ME Dots
Table D3- i ¦ Major Aquatic Spec c Vulnerable to I4E at the Big Bend Facility in Tampa Boy
Common Name Scientific Name Commercial Recreational : Forage
Atlantic blue crab Calhnectes .wpitius X X
Atlantic bumper -.Chloroncambrus vhrysunts X
Atlantic spadefixh . Chmtudipwrus fiiher X
Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchitti ' X
Black drum Pogoniwt mwfe X X
Blackcheek tongucfish Sympftums pkgntsa X
Chain pipefish :.Sy»t(iMthu> Umtsiumte : X
Clown goby : Kin n>v.ohut\ (iitew : X
Code goby : Gabiasama rohuxtum ' X
Dusky pipefish Syngnathm (h»idae . \ X
Feather blcnny 5 Hyp.wbfcnnim kenai : X
Fksrida stone crab ; Menippe mercenurui X X
Gulf killilish ; Pmduim gmndis gremdix : X
Ciulf menhaden • liwvoortia pammux X
I logchoker Trinectes mucuiuius X
Inland silvcrside Menidia Imylima , X
Lcathcrjacket : OUgopliU's smmjx X
Leopard searobin ' Prianutm scitulua X
Lined seahorse Hippvcumpus crvcim ; X
Lined sole Aehirux lincuiM : X
Northern kmgfish ¦.Memicirrhus Mixatilix X
Pigfish ¦Onhofwislis chrysopivm X X
Pinfish Lagodon rhomboidcx X ; X '
Pink shrimp : Pmueus dutmmm duwdrum X .
Puffer spp. ~Sphoemules spp, X ; X !
Redfin needlefish Stmnyylura rwtatu notata ' X
Rough xilversidc \Memhrus martmica ; X
Sand seatrout Cymmim arenmiax X
Scaled sardine flarengutu jaguana X
Sheepshead [An'hmargm pnibamcephahts X X !
Silver perch Bairdieltachrysaura ; X ;
Skilletfish Gobiesox *frumoxws X
Southern kingfish • Mentwhrhus amm'emus X
Spotted seatrout • Cynttscioti m/bttimus X :
Striped anchovy .Anchoa hepsutua ; X
Tidewater silvcrside Menidia penuvtulae ; X
Drunv'croaker spp. Family Sciaemdae X . X
Herring spp, 'Family Clupekiae X
Jaek/pompano spp. : Family Carangidae ; X
Other invertebrates* • ; X _
* Other invertebrates include other species of shrimp (such as arrow, burrowing, combclaw, glass, grass, longcyc, mantis, nwd,
nigh!, sargasxum, snapping, and tree shrimp), other species of crab (such as commensal, fiddler, hermit, horseshoe, marsh, mud,
mussel, pea, porcelain, spider, and true crab), barnacles, brief squid, isopods. shellfish, sea squirts, segmented worms, and tube
worms.
Sources: Conservation Consultants Inc. 1977; U.S. EPA, 1981,
D3-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pai*t b Tampa Bay
D3-Z Life Histories of Primary species Impinged and Entrained
Bay anchovy (Atichoa milchilli)
Bay anchovy is a member of the anchovy family, Eiigraulidae. It is one of the most common species in the Tampa Buy
estuary (TBNEP, 1992b), as well as one of the most abundant species in estuaries along tire mid-Atlantic region and
throughout the Gulf of Mexico (Wang and Kernehao, 1979), Bay anchovy range from Maine to the coastal Gulf of Mexico,
and young life stages carl be found in every estuary in the Middle Atlantic Bight (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Bay anchovy are present, in a wide range of habitats along the western Atlantic coast, front hypersaline oeean waters to 'idal
fresh waters. They are more commonly found in shallow tidal areas and vegetated areas such as eelgrass beds, feeding on
copepods and other zooplankton (Castro and Cowcn. 1991). Eggs and larvae may be more common in the higher salinity
regions of the Tampa Bay estuary, where salinity is greater than 18 ppt (TBNEP,, 1992b).
The spawning period of bay anchovy in Tampa Bay lasts from spring through fall, peaking between April and July (TBSEP,
1992b). A study conducted in Tampa Bay found that spawning began when water temperatures reached 20 'C (68 T) and
ended by November (TBNEP, 1992b). Spawning typically occurs in water less than 20 m deep (65.6 li) (Robmette, 1983),
and has been correlated with areas of high zooplankton abundance! Able and Fahay, 1998). Icthyoplankton collections
conducted in and around Tampa Bay suggest that bay anchovy spawn within the Tampa Bay estuary (TBNEP, 1992b).
Spawning generally occurs at night, and during peak spawning periods females may spawn nightly, fecundity estimates for
bay anchovy in mid-Chesapeake Bay were reported at 643 eggs per spawning episode in July 1986 and 731 eggs per
spawning episode in July 1987 (Zastrow el at,. 1991 s.
The pelagic eggs are 0.8 to 1.3 mm (0.03 to 0,05 in.) in diameter (Able and Fahay, 1998). Size of the eggs varies with
increased water salinity. Eggs hatch in approximately 24 hours at average summer water temperatures (Monteleone, 1992),
The yolk sac larvae are 1.8 to 2.0 mm (0,07 to 0,08 in.) long, with nonfunctioning eyes and mouth parts (Able and Fahay,
1998). Mortality during these stages is high (Leak and lloude, 1987).
Early juvenile stages of bay anchovy in Tampa Bay are approximately 15 mm (0.6 to.MTBENlN 1992b). Individuals hatched
early in the season may become sexually mature by their first summer (Robmette, 1983). The average size lor adults is
approximately 75 mtn (2.95 in.) (Morton, 1989). Bay anchovy live for only I or 2 years (Zastrow et af, 1991).
There was an important bait fishery for bay anchovy in Tampa Bay until 1993, when the fishery was closed because of a
declining population. Bay anchovy remains an important component of the food chain for recreational and commercial fish
(Morton, 19B9),
D3-3
-------
316(b) Case Studies, Part D Tampo Bay
Chapter ts3; Evaluation of IAE Data
BAY ANCHOVY
(Auction mitchiUi)
Family: Engraulidae (anchovies).
Common names; Anchovy,
Similar species: Atlantic silverskle.
Geographic range: From Maine, south lo 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 eeigrass buds,11
Lifespan: 1-2 years/
Fecundity: Fecundity per spawning event is about 700
eggs. During peak spawning periods, females tray spawn
nightly1
* Able and Faftoy. 199X.
Castro and Cowcn. 1991.
" Zastrow ct a),, 1991.
'' Dorsey et al, 1996,
' TBENP, 1992b.
1 Leak and Houtte, 1987.
* Vouglitoisctai., !98?.
" Morton, i9X9.
Fish graphic from NOAA. 2001a,
Food source: Primarily feed on cope pods and other
axsplankton, as well as small fishes and gastropods.15
Frcv for: Snook, spotted seatrout, white seatrout. gulf
flounder, and lizard fish.'"
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
*- Eggs are 0.8-1.3 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter.11
Larvae:
- Yolk-sac larvae are 1.8 to 2.0 mm (0.7 to 0.8 in.) on
hatching/
~ Predalion mortality ranges from 18 to 2X"4 per day.'
Juveniles:
* Young-of-year migrate out of estuaries at the end of
summer, and can be found in large numbers on the inner
continental slid fin fall,"
Adults;
> The average adult is 75 mm (2.95 in.) long.h
Atlantic blue crab (Ca/ffnectes sapidus)
Blue crab belongs to the family Pottunklae, also known as swimming crabs (Churchill, 1921), The Atlantic blue crab can be
found in Atlantic coastal waters from Long Island to the Gulf of Mexico (Hpifanto, 1995), Blue crabs are most abundant near
bays and river mouths, but are found in brackish or fresh water (Churchill, 1921; Tagatz, 1968). In Tampa Bay, megalopal
stage crabs are usually found at the base of estuaries or in seagrass beds, and as juveniles mature they migrate up the estuary
(TBENP, 1992b). Blue crabs generally are found in shallower water in the summer and deeper water in the winter.
In areas of tipper Tampa Hay. blue crab mating occurs from midwinter through spring and in September in low salinity waters
of the upper estuary (TBENP, 1992b). Males can mate several times, but females are believed to mate only once (Tagatz,
1968). After mating, females store sperm in seminal receptacles, where sperm can remain viable for up to 1 year. Females
then move into the high salinity waters of Tampa Bay or into the Gulf of Mexico to spawn (TBENP, 1992b), Females that
mate in the fall usually wait until the following spring to spawn, when water temperatures are warmer (Tagatz, 1968).
Spawning peaks in Tampa Bay occur in March or April with a second smaller peak in September (TBENP, 1992b). The eggs
are carried externally by the female, during this stage females are referred to as "sponge or berried" (TBENP, 1992b),
Although females mate only once, they may spawn more than once (Tagatz, 1968). The second or third spawning usually
takes place later in the summer after the first spawning, or in the following spring (Tagatz, 1968; Paitillo et al., 1997).
Females usually produce 1 to 2 million eggs per spawning (Tagatz, l%8). Eggs are approximately 0.025 mm {0.001 in.) in
diameter {Churchill. 1921),
DJ-4
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Port D; Tampa Boy Chapter 03; Evaluation of IAE Data
The eggs balch near high tide and the larvae are carried out to sea by the current (Epifanio, 1995). This stage of the lifecycle
is called the zoeai stage. The /oca go through seven molts before entering the next stage, the megalops stage, and are carried
back to esauarine waters (Epifanio, 1995). The zoeal stage lasts approximately 35 days, and the megalops stage may vary
from several days to a tew weeks {Epifanio, 1995). While in the 2oeal stage along the continental shelf, larvae are vulnerable
to predators, starvation, and transport to unsuitable habitats. Larvae arc 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 (Kpifanin, 1995).
The diet of the Atlantic blue crab varies with the crab's habitat, its life cycle stage, and the time of the year, and generally
depends on what food sources are available (TBHNP, 1992b). North of Tampa Bay, in the Apalachicola estuary of Florida,
Laughlin (1982) found the primary food source for adult blue crabs to be bivalves. Smaller juveniles fed on plant matter,
ostracods (small segmented crustaceans) and detritus, while larger juveniles consumed fishes, gastropods, plants and xanihid
crabs. Large juveniles and adults also fed on fishes, xanthid crabs, and smaller blue crabs (Laughlin, 1982). Atlantic blue
crab is also an important food source to upper level carnivores (e.g., spotted seatrout), and is a key species in the food web as
a scavenger-predator species (TBENP, 1992b).
In Tampa Buy maturity is usually reached at 130-1.19 mm (5 15.5 in.) carapace width for females (TBENP, 1992b). Male
crabs reach maturity after ! year, when they are approximately 89 mm (3.5 in.) carapace width (TBENP, 1992b). The blue
Crab has a life span of 3 to 4 years (Tagatz, 1968), Causes of mortality include fungal infection, ptedation. CWIS, or
excessively high or low water salinities or temperatures (TBENP, 1992b). Larval mortality is more often the result of water
temperature and salinity extremes, whereas juvenile mortality is usually the result of exceeding the estuarine carrying capacity
(TBENP, 1992b).
Total annual landings of commercial Atlantic blue crab along the west coast of Florida equaled 2.5 million kg <5.5 million lb)
in 1991. Commercial landings of Atlantic blue crab from Tampa Bay contribute approximately 3.6 percent of Florida west
coast landings annually (TBNEP, 1992b). In 1987. the proportion of Gulf of Mexico landings to U.S. national landings
reached its peak at IX percent; since 1990, it has declined to less than 30 percent (Patlillo et al.. 1997). Landings in the Gulf
of Mexico peaked in 1988 at approximately 35.H million kg (79 million lb) and were approximately 28.1 million kg (62
million lb) in 1996 (NMFS, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland, personal communication.
May 2001).
1)3-5
-------
Chapter D3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Food source; Atlantic blue crabs are ommvores, forcing on
molluscs, niysids, shrimp, small crabs, worms, and plant
material,"
Prey for: Juveniles are preyed upon by a variety of fish (eels,
striped bass, weak fish) and are heavily preyed upon by adult
blue crabs,* Adults are prey for fmh such as spotted seatrout, red
drum, sheepshead, and black drum, as well as raccoons and bird
species.6
Life siajje information:
Eggs:
~ Eggs hatch near high mlc."
Larvae;
* Larvae are curried out to sea by the current, where they
remain lor seven molts before returning to estuaries."
~ Larvae are carried back into estuaries during the rnegalops
Geographic range: Atlantic coast from Long Island to the stage
Gulf of Mexico.*
Adults:
Habitat: Inhabit all areas of the Tampa Estuary. In ~ Males prefer the lower salinity in upper parts of the bay,
warmer weather they occupy shallow areas less than 4 m whereas females prefer the mouth of the bay."
(13 if) deep. They burrow into the bottom of deep
channels and remain inactive in winter,2 ~ Although mating occurs only once, females may spawn two
to three times.'"
Fecundity: Typically mate once in their lifetime. Mating
occurs in low salinity areas, Females lay two to
three broods of 1 million eggs each."
a Bpifamo, 1995.
* TBN'EP, 1992b,
1 Tagatz, 1968,
Spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebu/osus)
Spotted seatrout is a member of the drum and croaker family Sciaenidac (Froese and Pauly, 2001). IS is commonly found
throughout the Ciulf of Mexico and ranges along the Atlantic coast front Cape Cod to Florida, As a top carnivore within its
ecosystem and a popular sport fish, it is both ecologically and economically important in Tampa Bay (Lassuy, 1983),
Spotted seatrout complete their entire life cycle in inshore waters (Lassuy, 1983), and there is little interestuary movement
(Pattillo et a!,, 1997) Larvae are found in central Tampa Bay. while juveniles and adults are more commonly found in
nearshore, vegetated seagrass areas (TBENP, 1992b). Juveniles may also be found in marshes and unvegetated backwater
areas (McMichael and Peters, 1989), Historical seagrass bed loss, particularly in Hillsborough Bay and the upper half of Old
Tampa Bay, partly accounts for seatrout decline in Tampa Bay, This population may not fully recover until seagrass beds
repopulate most of their historical range (TBNEP, 1992b),
Spotted seatrout spawn in Tampa Bay from early April through October, with two major seasonal peaks in the spring and
summer. Minor monthly peaks associated with the full moon also occur (McMichael and Peters, 1989). Based on the
distribution of larvae within the Tampa Bay estuary, McMichael and Peters (1989) determined thai spawning occurs in the
middle and lower bay, and possibly in nearshore gulf waters,
females may lay up to 0,75 million eggs per spawn, or up to 10 million eggs annually (Thomas, 2001). Eggs of the spotted
seatrout are approximately 0.9 mm (0.036 in.) in diameter (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, l9K0a). Matching
occurs after 40 hours al a water temperature of 25 *C (77 ' F|, Larvae hatch out at approximately 1.3 mrn (0,05 in.) standard
ATLANTIC BLUE CRAB
(Caliinectea supidus)
Family: Portuntdae (swimming crabs).
Common names: Blue crab.
Similar species: Lesser blue crab (Callinecie.s ximilts),
Lifespan: Up to 4 years. Maturity is reached at 18
months.'
D3-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part D" Tampa Bay
Chapter D3 Evaluation of I&E Data
length and become demersal after 4 to 7 days (Lassuy, 1983). Transformation to the juvenile stage occurs at 10 to 12 mm
(0.39 to 0.47 m.) (Pattillo etal., 1997).
Most females reach maturity by 220-240 mm (8.7-9.4 in.), while all males are fully mature by 200 mm (7.9 in.) (Pattillo et a!.,
1997). Estimated maximum ages for spotted seatrnut are 6 to 8 years for females and 5 to 9 years for mules (Pattillo el al,,
1997),
The diet of juvenile spotted seatrout in Tampa Bay consists mainly ofcopepods. Once the fish reach approximately 15-30
mm (0,6-1.2 in,), they also cat fish and shrimp (McMichad and Peters, 1989). As adults, spotted seatrout are top carni wares,
and feed on several fish species in the Tampa Bay estuary, including bay anchovy, stlverstdes, code goby, clown goby, silver
perch, and mojarnis (McMiehael and Peters, 1989, TBENP, 1992b).
Spotted seatrout are a major component of both commercial and recreational fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1992, 637,8
billion kg (703.1 million tons) of spotted seatrout were landed in the Gulf of Mexico, of which 233.3 billion kg (257.2 million
tons) were caught in Florida waters (Pattillo et al., 1997). Landings in Tampa Bay have decreased from approximately
408,000 kg (900,000 lb) in the early 1950's to approximately 91,000 kg (200,000 lb) in the early 1980's, which may be
partially attributable to the loss of seagrass habitat in the bay (TBENP, 1992b).
Fund source: Copepods, shrimp, and fish, including buy auchovv,
silversides, clown goby, silver perch, and mojarras.**
Prey for: Snook, tarpon, barracuda, Spanish mackerel, king
mackerel, bluelish,'
Life stage information:
» Eggs are approximately 0,9 mm (0.036 in.) in diameter.*
Larvae:
» Larvae are found in the deeper central areas of Tampa Bay.1'
Adults;
~ Decline of spotted seatrout can be attributed to the loss of
historical seagrass habitat,"'
Geographic range: Atlantic coast from Cape Cod to
Florida.1*
Habitat: Primarily shallow, vegetated seagrass beds
within estuaries.''
Fecundity: Up to 0.75 million eggs per spawn, or up
to 10 million eggs per female annually.1'
* Murphv and Taylor, 1994,
'' Froeseand Paulv, 2001,
1 TBENP, 1992b.
" Thomas,2001,
' McMieliae! and Peters, 19X9.
' TUN liP. 1992b.
» Storsc ami Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980a.
Graphic from U.S. tiPA,,2002b.
SPOTTEDSEATROUT
(Cvnvscion nt-bulosus)
Family: Sciaenidae (drum family).
Common names: Spoiled seatrout.
Similar species: Weak fish.
Lifespan: Up to 8 years for females and 9 years for
males.'1
D3-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D' Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I4E Dato
Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum duorarum,
Pink shrimp range from the lower portions of Chesapeake Bay to the Florida Keys and along the Gulf of Mexico (Perez
Farfante, 1969), Large populations are found off the southwestern coast of Florida and the southeast portion of the Gulf of
Campeehc. Pink shrimp are found in the highest densities at depths of 11 to 35 m (36 to 115 ft), but are abundant to 65 m
(213 ft). Individuals have been found as deep as 330 m (1,082 ft) (Perez Farfante, 1969}.
Pink shrimp was separated into two subspecies by Perez Farfante {Costelio and Allen, 1970). Penaeus duorarum duoarum
inhabits the northwestern Atlantic Ocean usid the Gulf of Mexico, whereas Penaeus duorarum notialis is found in the
Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic coast of South America, and the Atlantic coast of Africa.
Adult pink shrimp prefer firm or hard sandy or mixed substrate bottoms (Williams, 1958; Perez Farfante, 1969}. Juveniles
and subadults are more commonly found in seagrass substrates (Ault et al., 1999). Adults can survive in waters ranging from
10 to 35.5 '(' (50 to 96 *F) (Pattillo et al.. 1997). Adults are primarily nocturnal, while postiarvae, juveniles, and subadults
are active during the day (Perez Farfante, l%9>. Pink shrimp are bottom-feeders, ingesting algae, plants, crustaceans, and
fish larvae as well as mud and sand (Perez Farfante, 1969),
Females reach sexua! maturity at approximately 69 to 89 imn (2.7 to 3.5 in.) total length, while males appear to be sexually
mature at 65 mm (2.6 in.) total length (Perez Farfante, 1969), Fecundity increases linearly with body weight, and fecundity
for females weighing between 10.1 and 66.8 g (0,4 to 2,4 ox.) has been estimated al 44,000 us 534,000 eggs (Martosubroto,
1974). Pink shrimp move out of the estuary into deeper offshore waters to spawn, usually at depths of 3.5 to 50m(l 1,5 to
164 ft) (Perez Farfante, 1969}. Spawning occurs throughout the year, although there is evidence that spawning is more
intense during the spring and summer months (Cummings, 1961; Perez Farfante, 1969). Eggs measure approximately 0.23 to
0.33 mm (0.009 io 0,013 in.) in diameter (Costelio and Allen, 1970), and are opaque and yellow-brown.
Pink shrimp develop through several larval stages extending for 15 to 25 days in laboratory studies (Perez Farfante. 1969),
As larvae progress through their various life stages they range in size from nuuplii, 0.35 to 0,61 mm (0.013 to 0.024 in.), to
protozoeae, 0.86 to 2,7 mm (0.03 to 0.11 in.), so tnyses, 2.9 to4.4 mm (0,11 to 0.17 in.) (Costelio and Allen, 1970). Larvae
arc more sensitive to water temperature than adults, growing normally only between 21 and 26 *C (69.8 and 78,8 *F) (Pattillo
et at, 1997).
Advanced larval pink shrimp enter estuaries when they are approximately 8 mm (0.31 in.) (Costelio and Allen, 1970). They
usually remain for 6-9 months before returning to open water as benthic juveniles, although some individuals may spend little
or no time in an estuary (Costelio and Allen, 1966; Beardsley, 1970; Allen et al., 1980). A study conducted in the Everglades
Natrona! Park in Florida indicated that juvenile pink shrimp tend to rise into the surface waters during ebb tides to travel out
of estuarine areas (Beardsley, 1970). Mark-reeapturc studies indicate that offshore adult populations are connected to specific
nursery estuaries (Costelio and Allen, 1966), Pink shrimp production is highly dependent on survival and growth in these
nursery habitats (Sheridan, 1996). The average pink shrimp lives up to 83 weeks, but pink shrimp can potentially live for
over 2 years (TBNEP, 1992b).
Pink shrimp are one of the most valuable species of commercial shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico (Perez Farfante, 1969;
Beardsley, 1970; Sheridan, 1996). Annual landings in the gulf through the 1990's averaged about 8,200 metric tons (9,039
tons) {NMFS, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, Maryland, personal communication, May 2001).
The pink shrimp fishery off Florida is concentrated in the winter and spring months (Perez Farfante, 1969}. The Tortugas
Grounds, off the southwestern coast of Florida, produced an average of 4,525 metric tons (4,988 tons) of shrimp tails between
I960 and 1980 (Sheridan, 1996). However, landings in Tonugas declined for unknown reasons in the 1 Ws, reaching a low
of 2,000 metric tons (2,204 ions). Catches rebounded to over 4,000 metric tons (4,409 tons) by 1994 (Sheridan, 1996).
Ecologically, pink shrimp is an important food source for important gamefish, including the spotted seatrout, snook,
mangrove snapper (Lutjunux f> risen.*), red grouper (Epinephelus murk)), black grouper (Mycteropen-a bonaci), and king
mackerel (Scomheromortix cavalla). Botilenose dolphins and many species of wading and divmg birds also prey on this
organism (TBNEl\ 1992b).
D3-S
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part D. Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I<4E Data
Food source: Algae, plants, crustaceans, and fish larvae as well as
mud and sand.'1
.1™ 1
Prey for: Mangrove snapper, red grouper, black grouper, king
1
: mackerel, bottlenose dolphins, and many species of wading and
diving birds,''
PINK SHRIMP
(Pejiaeus duorarum duorarum)
Life stage information:
Futility: Palaemonidae.
Eggs:
•* Eggs measure approximately 0.23 to 0.33 mm (0.009 to 0,013
Common names: Pink shrimp.
in.) in diameter.1
~ Eggs are opaque and yellow-brown.'
Similar species: Pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum
noiialix}"
Larvae;
~ Advanced larval pink shrimp enter estuaries as developmental
Lifespan: The average pink shrimp lives up to 83
nurseries when they are approximately 8 mm (0.31 in.).c
weeks,1*
Adults:
Geographic range: from the lower portions of
» Pink shrimp are one of the most valuable species of commercial
Chesapeake Bay to the Florida Keys and along the
shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico,'1'1'*
Gulf of Mexico.'
Habitat: Prefer firm or hard sandy or mixed substrate
bottoms*'
Fecundity: Fecundity for females weighing between
10.1 and 66,8 g (0.440 2.4 ox.) has been estimated at
44,000 to 534,000 eggs.4
* Perez hirtame. 1969,
! TBNGP, 1992b.
" Williams, I9SR.
J Martosubroto, 1974,
' Costcllo and Allen. 1970.
' Beardsley, 1970,
8 Sheridan, 1996.
Graphic from N'OAA, 2002b.
Silver perch (Bairdielia chrysoura)
Silver perch is a member of the family Sciaenidae. It ranges along the Atlantic coast from New York to Florida, and
throughout the Gulf of Mexico IFrocse and I'aulv. 2001 >, Of the 13 species of sciaeitids in Tampa Bay, silver perch is one of
the most abundant {! BFNP, 1992b). Though silver perch are of little recreational and commercial value, they are an
important component of the food chain as both a benthic predator and prey species of high abundance.
Silver perch spawn year-round in Tampa Hay and south Florida estuaries, with larval peaks occurring in April and May
(TBENP, 1992b). Spawning seems u> occur in deeper areas of buys and estuaries, although eggs have been found in offshore
waters. A study of 11 females weighing between 55.3 and 123.8 g (1.95 and 4.37 at.) found an average fecundity of 90,407
eggs (Pattillo et al.J997 t
Eggs are buoyant and range from 0.59 to 0.82 mm (0.02 to 0.03 in.) in diameter (Pattillo et al.l'W). Incubation ut a water
temperature of 20 °C lasts approximately 40 to 50 hours, while incubation at 27 *C lasts approximately 18 hours (Pattillo el
s»l,1997). Yolk-sac larvae hatch out at 1.5 to 1,9 mm (0,06 to 0,07 in.). The newly-hatched larvae remain plank tonic for
several weeks and sink to the bottom after reaching 8 to 25 mm (0.3 to 1.0 in.). Larvae abundance peaks in April and May,
but secondary peaks also occur in August, September, and January, Small juvenile silver perch less than 3.0 cm (1.2 in.) long
are present during most months in Tampa Bay (TBNL'P, 1992b), Silver perch reach the juvenile stage at 10 to 12 mm (0.39
D3-9
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part t>; Tampa Bay Chapter D3: Evaluation 0f IAE Data
to 0.47 in.). The growth rate for juveniles during May through November is approximately 15 mm {0.59 in.) per month
(PallilioetaL, 1997).
Juveniles tend to prefer structural habitats such as seagrass beds, rocks, piers, jetties, and seawalls- They are often
numerically dominant in seagrass beds throughout Tampa Bay (TBNliP, 1992b). in warmer months, shallow areas are
preferred, During the colder months, large juveniles and adults move to deeper bay or offshore waters, Adult silver perch are
most often found in shallow coastal areas outside Tampa Bay, where salinities exceed 30 ppt (TBNEP, 1992b),
Sexual maturity Ls reached within the first year in the southern parts of its range. Maturity occurs at approximately 95 mm
(3.7 in.) for both males and females (Patiillo et al., 1997), Silver perch may live up to 6 years, and can reach approximately
240 mm (9.4 in.) (Pattilio et al, 1997).
The silver perch is a bcnthic carnivore. Smaller juveniles (7 to 20 mm, 0.3 to 0.8 in.) feed primarily on crustaceans such as
copepods, mysids, amphipods, gammarids, shrimp, and crab larvae. Large juveniles and adults feed mainly on mysids, fish,
and shrimp (TBNEP, J 992b), The stiver perch is a known prey species for juvenile spotted seatrout in Tampa Bay (TBNEP,
1992b).
' Food source: Juveniles feed primarily on crustaceans such as
copepods, mysids, amphipods, gammarids, shrimp, and crab larvae.
Large juveni les and adults feed mainly on mysids, fish, and shrimp.''
"•«««&,. — '•*
: Prey for: Juvenile spotted seatiout.1
SILVER PERCH
(Bairdieila chrysoura)
Life stage information:
Family: Sciaenidae.
: *¦ fcggs range from 0.59 to 0.82 mm (0.02 to 0.03 in.) in
diameter,"
Common names: Silver perch, silver croaker.
Larvae:
Similar Species: Blue croaker.
~ Newly hatched larvae remain planktonic for several weeks and
sink to the bottom after reaching X to 25 rnm (0.3 to 1,0 in.),''
Lifespan: May live up to 6 years,"
Juveniles;
Geographic range: Along the Atlantic coast from
[ *¦ Small juvenile silver perch less than 3.0 em (1 .2 in.) long are
New York to Florida, and throughout the Gulf of
present during most months in Tampa Bay.'
Mexico '
Adults:
Habitat: Prefer structural habitats such as seagrass
: ~ Adults are most often found in shallow coastal areas outside
beds, rocks, piers, jetties, and seawalls.6
Tampa Bay.*
Fecundity; A study of 11 females weighing between
55.3 and 123.8 g (1,95 to 4,37 oz.) found an average
feeundity of 90,407 eggs:'
' Pattilio et #(,.1997.
'* Froese and Pauly, 2001,
< TBNEP, 1992b.
Graphic from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2002a.
D3-I0
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part D Tampa Bay
Chapter D3' Evaluation of I4E Data
Black drum (Pogomas cromisy
Black drum is one of the largest members of the family Sciaenidae (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries
Service. 2002), They are found from the Bay of Fundy south to Argentina (Fitzhugh et al., 1993). Black drum is a schooling
species, with a maximum abundance in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Schools estimated at hundreds of tons of black drum
have been observed in this area (N'ielund and Wilson, 1993). Adults are found in offshore waters and enter estuarine hiibitats
only to spawn (Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service. 2002).
Female black drum reach maturity at approximately 628 to 699 mm (24,7 to 27.5 in.), corresponding to ages 5-6, and few
individuals reach maturity before age 5 (Murphy and Taylor, 1989; Nieland and Wilson, 1993). Males mature when slightly
smaller (450 to 499 mm, 17.7 to (9.6 in.) and younger (2 years) than females {Murphy and Taylor, 1989)
Males and females are spatially segregated for much of the year. Fitzhugh et at. (1993) observed higher proportions of males
in offshore waters and higher proportions of females in inshore waters between November and May, the period of
reproductive development and spawning,
Mature adults enter estuaries to spawn (Wang and Kemehan, 1979). Spawning in Tampa Bay takes place primarily in the
lower bay or nearshore waters, during the evening (Peters and McMiehael, 1990; Saucier and Bui"/.. 1993). Females spawn
approximately every 3-4 days from November to May (Fitzhugh et al, 1993). and spawning peaks in April or March (Murphy
and Taylor, 1989). Nieland and Wilson (1993) estimated thai annual fecundity per female ranged from 13 million eggs for a
small (5 kg, 11 lb) age 11 female to 67 million eggs for a large (11.5 kg, 25.4 lb) age 19 female. Overall mean annual
fecundity in 3 years of .studies was 38 million ova per female.
Black dram eggs are buoyant and float on the surface (Saucier and Baitz, 1993). Eggs are approximately 0.8 to 1.0 mm (0.3
to 0.4 in.) in diameter (Wang and Kemehan, 1979). Eggs hatch after approximately 24 hours if waters are 20 '(' (Pattilio el
a).. 1997).
Larval development occurs in estuarine environments. Larvae inhabit bottom waters during the duv and rise to upper areas of
the water column at night. In Tampa Bay. larvae are most abundant in late March. Larvae in Tampa Bay measure
approximately 1.8 to 7.3 mm (0.07 to 0.29 in.). Juveniles range from 10 to 210 mm (0.39 to K.27 in.). When they reach 100
mm (3.94 in.), juveniles disperse throughout Tampa Bay (Peters and McMiehael, 1990). Adults can live up to 50 to 6(1 years
(Murphy and Taylor, 1989).
The feeding habits of black drum change with maturity (Peters and McMiehael. 1990). Larval black drum feed on copepods,
while juveniles focus primarily on motlusks and amphipods. Adults mainly consume bivalves and gastropods. Black drum
larger than 30 mm will also consume fish.
Black drum are harvested commercially and recreaiionally in the Gulf of Mexico (Leard et al., 1993). The popularity of the
fishery increased through the late I970"s and 198Q*s, most likely because of increased regulation of other species such as red
dram {Scidempx ocellatm), expanding markets, and changes in preference. Annual landings in the Gulf of Mexico averaged
about 3,000 metric tons (3,306 tons) between 1981 and 1990 (NMFS. Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division. Silver
Spring. Maryland, personal communication. May 2001). Pressures on the black drum fishery may increase because of further
catch restrictions on other gulf species (Beckman et al.. i 990). However, evidence suggests that the species would not
support intensive fishery because of slow growth associated with its longevity (Murphy and Taylor. 19X9), Landings were
somewhat lower in the 1990's than in the 1980's, averaging about 2,000 metric tons (2.204 tons; NMFS. Fisheries Statistics
and Economics Division. Silver Spring, Maryland, personal communication. May 2001),
1)3-U
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port D: Tampa Say
Chapter D3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Fond source: Larval black drum feed on eopepods, while juveniles
focus primarily on moliusks and amphipods. Adults mainly
consume bivalves and gastropods, Bluek drum larger than 30 mm
will also consume fish.e
Prey for; Larger carnivorous fish species.
BLACK DRUM
Life stage information:
(Pogonkix from is)
Family: Sciaenidae (drums and croakers).
Eggs:
~ Eggs are buoyant and float on the surface.
Common names: Black drum, striped drum.
Larvae:
~ In Tampa Bay, larvae arc most abundant in late March/
Similar species; Red drum.
Lifespan: Adults can live up to 50 to 60 years:
Adults:
* One of" the largest members of the family Setaenidae,'
Geographic range: From the Bay of Furtdy south to
Argentina.h
Habitat; Adults are found in offshore waters arid enter
estuarine habitats only to spawn,'
Fecundity: Can range from 13 million eggs for a small
female to 67 million eggs for a large female,'-'
* Murphy and Taylor, i9K9
" FitzhughetaL. 1993.
* Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service, 2002.
4 Nicland ami Wilson, 1993.
1 Peters and MeMichael, 1990.
' Saucier and Bate, 1993.
Graphic from U.S. EPA, 2002b.
Florida stone crab (Memppe mcrccnaria,
Stone crabs are members of the Xanthadae. crab family. The Florida stone crab (Menippe mercenaria) and the Gulf stone
crab {M. adina) are found in the Gulf of Mexico. The Florida stone crab, found in Tampa Bay (Nelson, 1992), ranges from
North Carolina, around the peninsula of Florida as far west as the Big Bend region, and as far south as Belize. The Gulf stone
crab ranges from the Florida Big Bend region west and south to northern Mexico. The two species are very similar, and they
hybridize in overlapping habitats.
Stone crabs are found in coastal marine to estuarine environments. They require substrate suitable for refuge, using available
cover such as pilings, seagrass beds, and rocky areas (Bert and Stevely, 1989) Stone crabs will also dig burrows as deep as 1
m {3.3 ft) or more, primarily enlarging existing structures (Beck. 1995a). Juveniles are often found on oyster clumps (Wilber
and Herrnktnd, I98h). Lack of habitat complexity adversely affects stone crab growth and fecundity (Beck, 1995a).
Stone crabs are nocturnal, and feed on gastropods, bivalves, and small crustaceans (Wilber and Herrnktnd, 1986). They
migrate from intertidal areas in the fall to overwinter in deeper subtidal waters, most likely to avoid cooler temperatures
associated with shallow waters in winter.
Mating pairs of stone crabs are found in the spring and fall, and the highest densities of gravid females occur in August (Bert
and Stevely. I9K9). In southwestern Florida, Sullivan (1979) reported that spawning peaked in May and September, and
spawning activity increased when water temperature rose above 20 "C (68 *F), Ovarian development is also correlated with
local wafer temperature, with optimal development at 28 *C (82.4 T) (Cheung, 1969). Females carry egg masses of up to
500,000 eggs, dependent on body size (Beck, 1995a), After hatching one egg mass, a female may deposit another within a
D3-I2
-------
Chapter 03: Evaluation of I4E Data
week (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984), Spawning may occur up to six successive limes without another mating. The sticky-
eggs are attached to the female until larvae are hutched in approximately 9 to 14 days (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984).
Stone crab larvae are free-swimming and plank tonic (Bert et a!.. 1978). Larvae pass through five aiea! stages, reaching the
first crab stage in approximately 27 to 30 days (Lindberg and Marshall, 1984). Larvae have very low survival rates due
primarily to predaium from fish and other /nop lank ton (Bert et aL, I97S). A water temperature of 30 "C (86 I | and salinities
of 30 to 35 ppt are optimal for growth and survival. Juveniles molt every 4(1 days for approximately 320 days until the adult
form is achieved at a carapace width of about 35 mm (1.4 in.). Predators of juvenile stone crabs include the mud crab
(Neopanope taxana), species of grouper, and black seabass {Centraprisfis striata) (Bert et aL, 1978).
Adult males and females can grow to a carapace width of 130 and 145 mm (5.1 and 5.7 m ; for females and males,
respectively (Lindberg and Marshall, 19X4). and may live up to X years or more (Restrepo, 19X9). Predators of adult stone
crabs include species of octopi, the Florida horse conch {Pkumploca giganlea), and sea turtles (Bert et aL, 197X).
Stone crabs are a highly valuable commercial species. During the J981-1982 season, annual landings in Florida were at a
high of 1,2 million kg (2.6 million lb) of claws (Williams and Felder, 1986). Florida landings in 1990 were valued at over
SI5 million (Restrepo, 1992). The fishery is unique in that the large claws are removed and the crabs are released, meaning
that they do not necessarily die from harvesting (Restrepo, 1992). Males have larger claws and thus are most likely to be
harvested (Restrepo, 1989), Males are generally 2,25 years old at entry to the fishery. Claw regeneration to the legal st/e of
70 mm. propodus length may take more than a year (Restrepo, 1992).
Food source: Feed on gastropods, bivalves, and small crustaceans/
Prey fur; Juveniles are prey for mud crab, grouper, and black sea
bass. Adults are prey for species ol'octopi, the Florida horse conch,
and sea mules'
Life stage information:
figgs:
~ The sticky eggs are attached to the female until larvae are
hatched in approximately 9 to 14 days *
Larvae:
~ Larvae are free-swimming and planktonie,
~ Larvae pass through five zoeal stages reaching the First crah
stage in approximately 27 to 30 days,8
Atiuim
*¦ The large claws of adults are harvested and the adults are
thrown back to regenerate new claws. Claw regeneration tp the
legal si/e of 70 rmn propodus length may take more than a
year.11
Fecundity: Females carry egg masses of up to 500,000
eggs, dependent on body size.'1
* Restrepo, 1989.
h Nelson, 1992.
' Bert and Sicvely, 19X9,
i Beck, 1995a.
"* Wither and I ierrnkind, IWfr.
' BerteraL, I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part b: Tampo Boy
Chapter D3'- Evaluation of IAE Data
D3-3 Bis Bend Impingement ano Entrainment Monitoring Methods
I&F data are available for the Big Bend facility for 1976-77 and 1979-80, During this lime, only three units were in
operation. In 1985, a fourth unit was completed. It was operated with the same flow rate as each of the other three units. As
necessary to estimate the current impact ofBig Bend with all 4 units operating. EPA extrapolated impingement and
entramment data for units 1-3 to unit 4 based on (low,
Big Bend impingement monitoring
Big Bend conducted impingement sampling for dominant species at 2 week intervals from January 1976 to March 1977
(Conservation Consultants Inc., 1977). Only one of Big Bend's three units was sampled. Every 6 hours during each 24-hour
sampling period, the screens were washed and the screen wash was filtered into a 9,7 mm (038 in.) mesh basket.
To estimate annual impingement for the facility using the 1976-77 sampling data, EPA first multiplied the single unit rates by
3 and divided the results by the number of sampling days (31), Annual impingement rates for the three existing units were
then calculated by multiplying this daily rate by 365. Finally, EPA multiplied these annual rates by 1,33 to represent the
annua! impingement of the three existing units and a fourth unit of equal flow.
Impingement sampling was also conducted from March 14, *1979. to February 12, 1980 (Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1980a; U.S. EPA, 1981) using methods similar to those used in 1976. Collections were made approximately
every 2 weeks over this period of time. The facility estimated annual impingement for the three existing units using a
trapezoidal integration, which used the mean impingement of two consecutive sampling periods as the estimated value for all
dates that full between them. Annual estimates for the three existing units were then made assuming that the facility operated
at KM) percent load, EPA multiplied these annual rates by t .33 to represent the annual impingement of the three existing units
and a fourth unit of equal (low.
Big Bend entramment monitoring
Big Bend conducted cntrainmcnt sampling at 2 week intervals from January 1976 to March 1977 (Conservation Consultants
Inc., 1977), Entramment at units 1-3 was estimated from samples collected at the plant discharge within the discharge flume.
Samples were collected with a metered plankton net with a 363 |im <0,014 in.) mesh and 1 m (3.3 ft) mouth diameter towed at
2 knots. AH larvae were sorted and placed in vials, and later reexamined to confirm sorting (except for bay anchovy because
they were too plentiful). Three random 10 mL aliquots were withdrawn from each sample and sorted for eggs. If there were
100 or more eggs of a species m an aliquot, the number of eggs was used to extrapolate the number of eggs in the entire
sample on a volume basis. For species with less than 100 eggs in the first aliquot, the entire sample was sorted, identification
was made to the lowest taxoti possible, A constant How rate of 15,21 m'Vsec was assumed for each of the three units.
The facility estimated entrainment by normalizing the number of individuals per cubic meter by the number of sampling trips
and multiplying by the total flow of the plant for the number of days the plant operated during a period of time (Conservation
Consultants Inc., 1977), A period was defined as including half the days since the previous sampling trip and half the days"
until the next sampling trip. Then daily rates were calculated and used to estimate monthly totals for the existing 3 units. To
estimate annual entramment from these data, EPA calculated the sum of all monthly totals from January 1976 to December
1976. EPA then multiplied these annual estimates by 1.33 to represent the annual entramment of the three existing units and a
fourth unit of equal flow.
Emrainment was also sampled every 2 weeks from February 1979 to February 1980 (Stone and Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1980a; U.S. EPA, 1981). The facility used density data from the intake canal to calculate entramment because
samples in the discharge were not considered representative due to low sampling water volumes. Samples were collected with
two nets with 1 m (3.3 ft) mouth diameter and 505 |J.m (0.020 in.) mesh, equipped with a flowmeter. Tows were oblique,
from bottom to top. Subsampfes were taken from the samples and sorted lor selected spectes only. In their final calculations,
U.S. EPA (1981) Region 4 estimated annual emrainment for the three existing units and a fourth proposed unit at 100 percent
load.
D3-4 Annual Impingement at Big Bend
EPA evaluated annual impingement at Big Bend Units 1-4 using the methods described in Chapter A5 of Part A of this
document. The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix Dl, Table D3-2
D3-14
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part D Tampa Bay
Chapter D3' Evaluation of I&E Data
displays estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) at Big Bend lor the years of monitoring {1976-1977 and
I979-I9H0), Table D3-3 displays iha.se numbers expressed as age ! equivalent. Table D3-4 displays annual impingement of
fishery species expressed as yield tost to fisheries, and Table D3-5 displays annual impingement expressed as production
foregone.
The available data indicate that in the late ll>70*s mean annual impingement at Big Bend amounted to about 419,286 age I
equivalents, 11,113 pounds of tost fishery yield, and 5,858 pounds of production foregone each year. Impingement losses
were dominated by silver perch, pink shrimp, and bay anchovy,
D3-5 Annual Entrainment at Bis Bend
EPA evaluated annual entrainment at Big Bend Units 1-4 using the methods in Chapter A5 of Pan A of this document, The
species-specific life history values used by El'A for ils analyses are presented in Appendix Dl, Table 03-6 displays estimates
of annual entrainment [numbers of organisms) at Big Bend for the years of monitoring (1976-1977 and 1979-19801. Table
03-7 displays those numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents. Table 03-8 displays annual ensrainmern of fishery species
expressed as yield lost to fisheries, and Table D3-9 displays annual entrainment expressed as production foregone.
Results indicate that in the late |970's, entrammenl at Big Betid was substantial, and far exceeded impingement rates, Mean
annual entrainment amounted to over 7.71 billion age i equivalents, 22.8 milium pounds of lost fishery yield, and nearly 47.9
million pounds of production foregone. The forage species bay anchovy accounted for most entrainment losses. Kntrainment
of fishery species was dominated by black drum (99% of the total lost fishery yield).
D3-6 EPA's Methods for Extrapolating Bis Bend's !<&E Rates to Other In-
Scope Facilities of Tampa Bay
EPA used the results from its detailed analysis of l&E at Big Bend as a basis lor estimating l&E at other in-scope CWIS of
Tampa Bay (Hooker's Point, PL Bartow, Fi Gannon). Extrapolation was necessary because there are no empirical data
describing actual l&E at these other facilities. Because intake characteristics, the fish community, and hydrodynamie
conditions associated with the CWIS of Tampa Bay arc similar, EPA assumed that l&E at Big Bend is representative of l&E
at other Tampa Day CWIS and that l&E is strictly proportional to intake flow. EPA extrapolated l&E separately using each
of the three l&E metrics discussed previously (age 1 equivalents, fishery yield, and production foregone). The results are
presented in Sections D3-7 and 03-8. and cumulative impacts of all Tampa Bay CWIS are summarized in Section D3-9.
Economic valuation of these baseline losses ts discussed in Chapter D4 of this report. A RUM analysis of l&E losses is
presented in Chapter 1)5 Benefits of reducing estimated current l&E at Big Bend and other in-scope facilities are discussed
in Chapter D6.
03-7 EPA's Estimates of Bis Bend's Impingement Extrapolated to Other In-
Scope Facilities of Tampa Bay
EPA's estimates of Big Bend impingement extrapolated to other in-scope facilities of Tampa Bay are presented in Table D3-
1(J as age I equivalents, in Tabic D3-11 as foregone fishery yield, and in Table D3-I2 as production foregone.
D3-8 EPA's Estimates of Bis Bend's Entrainment Extrapolated to Other In-
Scope Facilities of Tampa Bay
EPA's estimates of Big Bend entrainment extrapolated to other in-scope facilities of Tampa Bay are presented in Table D3-13
as age 1 equivalents, in Tabic 03-14 as foregone fishery yield, and in Table D3-I5 as production foregone.
D3-9 Cumulative Impacts; Summary of Total ME of Tampa Bay In-Scope
Facilities
Tables 03.-16 and D3-I7 summarize the cumulative l&E impacts of all Tampa Bay in-scope facilities in terms of numbers of
age 1 equivalents, yield lost to fisheries fin pounds), and production foregone (in pounds).
1)3-/5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port D Tarapc Bay
Table E>3-2: An'nuoi Impingement (numbers of organisms) ot Big Bend, 1976-1977 and 1979-1980
Year
Atlantic
Bumper
Bay
Anchovy
Black
Drum
Blue
Crab
Florida Stone
Crab
Leopard
Searobin
Pinflsh
Pink
Shrimp
Scaled
Sardine
Silver
Perch
Spottpd
Seatr ut
1 nidentifled
Fish
Other
Invertebrates
1976-1977
11.886
51.066
0
30.912
0
8,409
13.389
142,816
0
130,508
12,309
; 54,778
171.098
1979-1980
NA
10,972
56
; 16.958
798
NA
NA
97,755
219
28,928
283
NA
NA
Mean
i 11,886
31,019
2»
I 23,935
399
8,409
¦ 13,389 '•
120,286
110
79.718
6,296
54,778
171,098
Minimum
• 11.886
10,972
0
;¦ 16,958
0
8,409
13.389
97.755
0
28,928 •
283
54,778
171,098
Maximum
i 11,886
51,066
56
: 30.912
798
8,409
: 13,389 .
142,816
219
130.508
12.309
54,778
171,098-
SD
NA
28,351
39
9,86?
564
NA
¦; NA '
31,863
155
71,828
8,503
NA
NA
Total
11,886
62,039
56
; 47,870
798
8.409
. 13,389 .
240,571
219
159,435
12.592
54,778
171,098
NA-Not sampled.
(i1-Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 10; 18:12 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plmt:btgbni».M;
l>AHfN'AMK:(,;/lniake'Tflmpa_.Bay;T3mpa_Sciencc;;sciK!e./fab!es.output.tinjt.!.4.:raw.k5sscs.iiKp.bfgbend,unitJ.4.csv
Tobfe 53- 3• Annual Impingement at Big Send Expressed as Number of Age 1 EquVaicnts, 1976-1977 and 1979-1980
Year . B*-V Black Drum Blue Crab , ; i*®''®1'.''' Pinflsh Pink Shrimp Scaled Sardine Silver Perch Spotted Seatrout
Anchovy ; Stone C rab Searobin ' *
1976-1977 85,319 0 ¦¦ 49.396 0 10,150 16.641 ; !6.\f>M 0 255.523 16.643
1979-1980 18,332 63 ' 27.097 * 1.239 NA NA ' 111,352 323 56,638 383
Mean ' 5i.X26 7\ 38,247'' : ' ' 62o"~ " ioj50 1 l^MI : 11 jJ6^|"
Minimum 18,332 0 = 27.097 ; 0 . 10,150 ' 16.641 : 111,352 0 ' 56.638 383
Maximum 85,319 63 49,396 ; 1,239 10.150 16,641 162.681 323 255.523 16.64.1
SD ; 47,367 ; 44 15,768 : 876 NA NA 36,295 228 : 140.633 11.497
Total ; 103,652 : 63 76,493 j 1,239 ; 10.150 16,641 i 274,033 323 ; 312.161 17,026
Note: impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). Tins 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 A2. Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is applied to all raw
loss records, but the effect is not readily apparent among entrainment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1.
NA=Nof sampled.
0--Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb M 15:28:19 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: bigbcnd.unit. 1.4 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
P:-rIntake:Tampa_Bay'rampa_Scienee;scctde/table5.output,unit.! .4/1. cqtiiva lent.sum$.higbend.unit. 1.4.csv
03-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pact b: Tampa Say
Chapter 03: Evaluation of IfiE Dato
Year
1976-1977
1979-1980
Table 53-4 Annuel Impingement of Fishery Species at Big Bend Expressed as Yield Lost to fisheries
fin pounds), 1976-1977 and 1979-1980
Florida Stone Crab Pinftsh Pink Shrimp
; 438 1,156
NA 791
Black Drum
0
271
Blue Crab
4.306
2,362
0
869
Silver Perch
28
6
Spotted Seatroul
i 1,3(M)
260
Mean
S 35
3.334
435
438
974
17
5,780
Minimum
0
2,362
0
438
791
6
260
Maximum
271
4,306
i 869
438
1.156
28
11.300
SD
191
1,375
615
NA
258
15
7,807
Total
271 ' T
6,669
869
438
1,948
34
11,561
NA-Noi sampled.
0 Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 04 15:28:26 MST 2002 ;Rcsu!li: I Plant: bigbcnd.umt.
P;• 1 make-Tampa.BayTampa_Scienee-;scode tables,output.unit. 1
1,4 ; Units: yield Pathname:
,4i.yteld.btgbend.ijnit.l .4.CSV
Table D3-5: Annual Impingement at Big Send Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds), 1976
1977 and 1979-1980
Year Bay Anchor
Black Drum
Blue Crab , Florida Stone Crab Leopard Searwbi
n Pinfisb
Pink Shrimp
Sihtr Perch Spotted Seatrwl
1976-197? ; 14
0
1,614
> 0
286
1.065
1,069
PS 3.891
1979-1980 . 3
30
885
468
KA
NA
732
39 90
Mean 8
15
1,250
234
im
: 1.065
901
im 1,991
Minimum 3
0
S85
0
286
1.065
732
39 90
Maximum 14
30
1,614
468
286
1,065
1,069
P8 3.891
SD 8
21
515
331
KA
239
98 2,688
Total 17
30
2.4V9
468
286
1,065
1,801
217 3,981
NA Not sampled.
Q-Sampkd, but none collected.
Mon Feb 04 i 5:28:23 MST 2002 ;Results: I Plant: bigbcrid.imit. 1.4 : Units: annual .prod, forg Pathname:
P: IntakeTampa_13ay Tartipa_Scicnce/sco
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studtes, Part b Tampa Bay
Chapter C3 Evaluation of IAE Data
Table D3-&; Estimates of Annual Entrapment (numbers of organisms) at Big Bend, 1976-1977 and 1979-1980
Year
Atlantic
Bumper
Atlantic
Spadefish
Bay Anchovy
Black Drum
Btenny : Chain
Spp, Pipefish
Feather
Blenny
Florida Stone
(rah
Goby Spp.
Hog-
choker
Kingcroaker
Spp.
1976-
1977
238.515,550
22.Rfi2.700
6S.938.975.227
3,559,816.953
: 14,423,584 : 1.898.240
109,490.521
' 6,680.261.357
i t.^59.538,582
8,714,160 ;
559,003.921
1979-
19S0
NA
NA
107.209.466.196
82,433,155,962
: NA NA
NA
2,416.375,102 .
NA
HA
NA
Mean
238.515.550
22.862,700
81074.220,71!
42.996.486,457
; 14.423,584 : 1,898,240
109,490,521
: 4,548.318.230
: 1,759,3.38.582
8,714, (60
559.003,921
Minimum
238,515,550:22,862.701)
68.938.975,227
3,559.816.953
; 14.423,584 . 1,898,240
109.490.521
2.416.375,102
¦; 1,759.538,582
8.714.160 ,
559.003,921
Maximum
'238,515,550
22.862.700
107,209.466,196
82,433,155.962
: 14.423,584 : 1,898,240
109.490.521
. 6,680,261,357
; 1,759,538.582
8.714,160
559.003.921
SO
NA
NA
27,06! ,325,684
55,771.872.868
. NA NA
NA
3,015.022,885
NA
NA
NA
Total
238.515,550
22.862,700
176.148,441,423
85,992,972,915
• 14,423,584 : 1.898,240
109,490.521
: 9,096,636,459
; 1,759,538,582
8.714.160 ;
559.003,921
NA-Not sampled.
Fri Feb08 10:18:16 MST2002 Raw,losses. ENTRAfNMENT; PIan1:bigbtmdumt.l,4;
PATHNAME:P:-Jntakc/Tampa_Bay.Tarnpa,_S^ience;scc>d£.;tablevoutpui, unit. 1.4,'raw.losses.eni.bi.iibend.umt. I.4.csv
Table D3-6; Estimates of Annual Entroinment (numbers of organisms) ot Big Bend, 1976-1977 and 1979-1980 (cont )
Year
Leather-
jacket
Leopard
Searobin
Lined
Seahorse
¦Lined Sole
Menhaden
Spp.
Northern
Kingfith
Ptgfifh
Pink
Shrimp
Palter ; Pupfuh
Spp. Spp,
Scaled Sardine
Sheep*, head
1976-
1977
470369.263 .
61,443.340
; 370,272
168.699,847
1,110.949
257,998.720
591.314,422
; 9,287.656
2,016,945 ^ 2,688,196
831,359,060
341,829,950
1979-
1980
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
¦ 18,580,432
NA NA
1,R!3,389,165
NA
Mean
470.369,263 :
61,443.340
; 370.272
168,699.847
Uf 0,949
257,998.720
•' 591.314,422
13,934.044
2,016,945 ; 2.688,1%
1,322,374,112
341,829.950
Minimum
470.369.263
61,443.340
; 370,272
168,699,847
1,110.949
: 257,998,720
591,314,422
• 9,287,656
2.016,945 ; 2,688.196
831,359,060
341,829,950
Maximum
470,369,263 i
61,443,340
i 370,272
168,699,M 7
1,110,949
, 257.99S.720
591,314,422
; 18,580.432
2.016.945 ; 2,688,196
1,813,3X9,165
341,829,950
SD
NA
NA
• NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
' 6,570,985
NA ; NA
694,400,14?
NA
Total
470.369,263 ;•
61,443,340
i 370,272
168,699.847
1,110,949
257,998,720
591,314,422
; 27,868,088
2.016.945 ; 2,688,196
2,644,748,225
341,829,950
NA-Not sampled.
In Feb 08 SO: 18; 16 MSI
2002 Raw.losses. ENTRAINMENT; Planrbigbend.unit.l .4;
PATHNAME:P:.'"lntake'Tampa_Bay.Tampa„Science,'sccKle/tabl(.*s.ootpui.un»i. I.4<'raw.losse
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D'. Tampa Boy
Table D3-6¦ Estimates of Annoal Entrapment (numbers of organisms) ct Big Send, 1976-1977 and 1979-1980 (cent.)
Year
Silver Perch
. Southern Kingfish
Spotted Seatrout
Tidewater Silverside
Unidentified Fish
Other Invertebrate
1976-1977
70,320,444,165
447.944
234,835,174
29,080,849
80,179, i 83
713.062,016,671
1979-1980
8,854,830,343
NA
35,612,546
1.597,396
NA
NA
Mean
39.587.637.254
447.944
135.223,860
! 15.339.123
80,179.183 !
? 13,062.016,671
Minimum
8,854,830,343.
447.944
35,612.546
1.597,396
80.179,183
713,062,016,671
Maximum
70.320,444.165
447.944
234.835,174
29,080,849
80,179,183
713,062,016,671
SD
; 43,462,752.344
NA
140,871,672
19,433,736
NA
NA
Total
; 79.! 7.5,274,508
447,944
2*0.447,720
30,678,246 .
80.179.183
713,062.016,671
NA-Not sampled,
Fri Feb 08 10:18:16 MST 2002 Raik.losses. EKTRAINMENT: Plam;bigbcnd.onit. 1 .4:
PAT! rN'AME:I':/1ntakc.iTaiupa_Bay.Tarnpa_Scicticc/sc(K!e.,!abl js,output.unit. 1,4:raw,losses.CTiE,bi|bend, unit, 1,4 ,csv
1976
197?
Table 53 -7. Annuo! Entroinment at Big Bend Expressed as Number of Age 1 Equivalents, 1976-1977 and 1979-1990
Year Rat Anrbovy
8.499
6.893
1979-
1980
Black Chain Goby Hog- : Leather- Leopard
Drum Pipefish ; Spp. choker jacket Searohin
842,984 : 442,998 • 133,515; 607.581 : 5.767.205 20,777 25,299 , 660,704 424
06,648 10.009,916 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Pink Sealed Sheep*- Silver Spotted
Shrimp .Sardine : head Perch Seatrout
396,154 177,723 62.117 7,605,227. 47,332
792.526 2.498.337 . NA 944.277 ' 7.420
Tidewater
Sitverside
12 f, 680
142,824
Mean 7,696,574,816 5,226,457 : 133,515 ; 318,035 : 5,767.205 :.20.777 " 25,299
Minimum . 6.893.306,648 ' 442.998 133,515 ' 28.489 ! 5,767,205 ; 20.777 25,299
Maximum 8,499,842,984 -10,009.916 133,515 607.581 ; 5,767.205 ! 20.777 25.299
SD 1,135,992,738 ¦ 6.764,832 NA '• 409.480! NA : NA KA
Total . 15.393.149,632 : 10,452.914 133,515 i 636,069 : 5,767.205 ! 20.777 ' 25,299
660,704 ¦ 424 ' 594,340 . 1.338,030 ' 62,117 4.2^4.752 : 27.476 : 132,252
660.704 . 424 3 96.154 • 177,723 62,117 944.277 7,420 121,680
660,704 . 424 792,526 2.498.337 62.117 .7,605,227 47,532 142,824
NA : NA : 280.278 :• 1.640,921 : NA '4,710.003 '• 28,363 14,951
660,704 424 : 1.188,680 2,676.060 62,117 . 8,549.504 - 54,952 , 264,504
NA - Nut sampled.
Mori Feb 04 15:28:16 MST 2(Hi2 ;Resalts: E Plant: bigbcnd.unit.l .4'; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
i,:rTr\take=Tampa_8ay;Tainpa_Scieiice-sc(Kle.tables.ou!put.uriit. 1.4'E-Cqiiivaknt.sunis.bsgbend.unit, 1.4,csv
D3-I9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part t>: Tampa Bay
Table 53-9; Annuo! Entroinment of Big Bend Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)., 1976-1977 and 1979-1980
Table 03-8: Annual Entrapment of Fishery Species at Big Bend Expressed as Yield Lost fa Fisheries (in pounds),
1976-1977 and 1979-1980
NA -' Nn? sampled.
Moo Feb 04 15:28:24 MST 2002 ;ResuIts; E Plant: bigbend.unit. 1.4 ; Units: yield Pathname:
P:/lmake-"TamjK»_Bay.-'Tampa_Scknceiaiode<'ltiWes.outpwt.ui»it 1.4TE. yield,bigbend.umt. 1,4xsv
Florida
Y Bay Black Chain " Goby Hog- Leather- Leopard 1 Pink Scaled Sheeps- Silver Spotted Tidewater
"r Anchovy : Drum Pipefish Spp. choker jacket : Searobtn : Shrimp Sardine head : Perch Seatrout SHverslde
1976- • 21,619,895 ; 14 180 : 739 ; 3,014 : 10 -5,843,34V 59,619 j $1,921 ' 17,931 13 4,870,516 20,034,368 : 2
1977 ¦: ; ^
1979- : 18.402,298 ¦ !6,492,342 NA ' 557,737 : NA NA NA NA ' 37,997 • 1,236.410: NA ' 604,955 21.299 2.879
1980 : : = ;
Mean • HSjTum"' 8.246,1 78 180 ¦'279.238 i 55^619 T^^2^*€i£7.l70*^ »3 : 2,?37.735~loi27l3?l 1.441
Minimum i 18,402,298 • 14 I !80 ; 739 ; 3,014 : 10 . 5,843,346 . 59,619 ; 37,997 : 17.931 13 604.955 21,299 2
Maximum ^ 21,619.895 ; 16,492,342; 180 ; 557.737 : 3,014 • 10 ! 5.843,346 • 59,619 ; 87.927 : 1,236,410 13 j 4,870,516 ; 20,034.368 , 2,879
SD | 2,275,185 ; 11.661,837; NA j 393.857 i NA : NA ; NA NA ; 35,305 ; 861,595 ' NA : 3,016,207 : 14.151,377 ; 2,034
Total ' 40.022.193j 16.492,356; 180 : 558,475 ! 3,014 . 10 ' 5,843,346 • 59,619 '125,924; 1,254.340__ 13 : 5,475,471 20,055.667 : 2,882
NA=Not sampled.
Mori Feb 04 15:28:21 MST 2002 ^Results; H Plant: bigbemiumt. 1.4 ; Units; annual.prod forg Pathname:
P:.intakcTanipaJBav"Tampa_Scicnce!sccide>labies.output,uni(,1.4/E.annuaLprod.Forg.bigbcnd,unit.] ,.4.csv
D3-2V
-------
Chapter 03 Evaluation of IAE Date
Table D3-10: EPA's Estimate of Mean Annual Impingement ot Big Bend Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents
Extrapolated to Other In-seepe Facilities of Tampo Bay
Facility
Bay
Anchovy
Black
Drum
Blue
Crab
Florida
Stone Crab
Leopard
Searobin
Plnliih
' Pink Shrimp
Scaled
Sardine
Silver Perch
Spotted
Sea trout
Totals
Big Bend
51,826
31
• 38.247
620
10.150
16.641
137,016
161
156,081
8,513
419,286
FJ Gannon
49,549
30
36,566
593
9.704
15,9 ifl
:: 130,995
154
149,222
K.13'l
: 41X1,862
Hookers Point
3,327
2
2,455
40
(>52
1,068
8,7%
10
10.020
547
26,917
PI. Bartow
22.886
14
16,88*)
274
4,482
' 7.348
60.505 J
71
68,9.24
3.759
: 185.152
Total
127,588
76
94,158
! ,526
24,988
40.968
337,312 :
396
384,247
20,958
! 1,032.217
<"alcxandria-projcct-=lNTAKBTainpa_Bay'Tarapa_SckTicesaxieH,Klrapolatioi«.to .other. fadlftics'Chapter.B3'-l.cquivatent.xls
1'29.-02
Table 53-11: EPA's Estimate of Mean Annua! Impingement of Fishery Species at Big Bend Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries
(in pounds) Extrapolated to Other In-scope Facilities of Tampa Bay
Facility Black Dram JBIueCrab ; Florida Stone Crabj Pinflsh Pink Shrimp Silver Perch Spotted Seatrout Totals
Big Bend 135 3,334 435 438 974 17 5,780 11.113
FJ Gannon 129 3,187 416 419 931 16 5,52ft 10,625
Hookers Point 9 214 28 28 63 i 371 713
PL Barrow 60 1,472 192 193 430 * 2,552 4,'.50?
Total 332 8,208 1,071 ' 1,078 2,39ft 42 14,229 27.358
Valexandna projeci'iINTAKE'!Tampa_Hav,Tampa^Science,-scode-«stfapolatton.to.othcr.fe£rilities-C1tapier.B.3-I.yieM.x!s
1:29:02
Table D3-12 £pA s Estimate of Mean Annual Impingement at Big Bend Expressed Production Foregone
(in pounds) Extrapolated to Other In-scope Facilities of Tampa Boy
Facility
Bay Anchovy
Black Drum ; Blue Crab
Florida Stone Crab
Leopard Searobin •
Pinflsh
; Pink Shrimp
Silver Perch Spotted Seatrout
Totals
Big Bend
8
15 1.250
234
2S6
1,065
; 90S
108
1,991
5,858
FJ Gannon
8
14 1,195
224
1,018
861
103
1,904
5.601
Hookers Point
1
1 80
15
18
68
: 58
7
128
376
PL Bartow
4
7 552
103
126
470
: 398
48
879
5 2,587
Total
20
37 • 3,077
576
704 ;
2,622
2,218
¦ 266
4.902
14,421
•.'alexandria'-project'INTAKE\Tampa_Ba>''tTampa^Sdctice-scode-e!ttrapolatton.to.othcr.fadlit»es:Oapter.B3J.anmial.prod,foif.xls
! :2V 02
/AW/
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies. Port b- Tampa Bay
Chcpter D3; Evaluation of I&E Data
Table D3-I3- EPA's Estimate of Mean Annuol Entroinment at Big Send Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents
Extropoioted to Other In-scope Facilities of Tampa Bay
Facility
Bay Anchovy
Black Drum
Chain Pipefish
| Florida Stone Crab J
Goby Spp,
Hogchoker
Leatherjaeket
Leopard :
Searobin
Menhaden Spp.
Big Bcnil
7,696.574,816
5,226.457
133.515
318,035
5,767,205 :
20,777
25,299
660.704 .
424
FJ Gannon
7,358,368.906
4,996.794
127.fi IK
304.060
5.513,780 ;
19.864
24.187
631.671 :
405
Hookers Point
494,100.408
335,525
,1571
20,417
370,240 '
1.334
1,624
42,416
27
PL Bartow
3,398,725,350
2,307,948
58,959
140,44 i
2,546,736 i
9,175
11,172
: 291,760 :
187
Total
18.947,769,480
12,866,724 i
328,693
782,953
14,197,961
51.150
62.282
•1,626,550:
1,044
\'iaIexandria'>pruje«iNTAKE\Ta«ipa_Di»yi-T«^a_Scicnce'vSfodc^xlr(ipolarion,io.otlwr.6cH«tes--Chaptcr.B3>.E.equjv4lent,xls
l/29.'02
Table 03-13; EPA's Estimate of Mean Annual Ertframmenf at Big Bend Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents Extrapolated
to Other In-scope Facilities of Tempo Bay (cent,)
Facility
Pink Shrimp
: Scaled Sardine
Sbeepshead
Silver Perch
. Spotted Seat rimt ;
Tidewater
Silverside
Totals
Big Bend
594,340
1,338,030
62,117
4.274,752
2~.4"6
' 132,252
7,715.156.199
FJ Gannon
568,223
; 1,279,234
59.387
4.086,909
j 26.269
126,441
7.376,133,779
Hooker*. Point
38,155
85.S98
3,988
274,428
1 ."64
8,490
495,293,285
PL Bartow
262,454
590.860
27.430
1,887,685
12.133
58,401
3,406,930,691
Total
1,463.173
3,294,022 ;;
152,922
10,523,774
67,642
325,584
18,993,513,953
'•^ksandria'spmjec!\rNTA.KE5Tanipa_Bay*Tanipa_Scfcncc\scodc';exirapolation !o,oiber,facilitiesChap!er,B3de:.cxSrapoiation.io. other. faeilitics'Chapter. B3\E.vield.xls
i'29/02
D3-::
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay-
Chapter 03: Evaluation of I<46 Data
Table D3-I5; EPA's Estimate of Mean Annuo! Entrapment at Big Bend Expressed as Production Foregone
(in pounds) Extrapolated to Other In- scope Facilities of Tompts Bay
Facility
Dig Bend
FJ Gannon
J lookers Point
PL Barlow
Bay
Anchovy
Black
Brum
Chain ; Ir'"rit,a <;«bv
Pip^nsh sPP.
20,011,097 8,246,178 . ISO ; 279,238 3,014
19,131,762 . 7,883.821 . 172 ' 266,96*'2,882
1.284,661 529.384 12 . 17,926 : 193 f
8.836,68"? 3,641,424 79 i 123.309 : 1.331 i
Hog-
choker
10
10
Leather-
jacket
5,843,346
5,586.575
375.128
2,580,359
Leopard
Searebln
59.619
56.999
3,827
26,321
Pink Scaled
Shrimp : Sardine
62,962
60,195
4,042
27,803
627,17(1
599,611
40,263
276.952
Sheeps-
hrad :
.13 :
12
1
6
Silver
Perch
Spotted ; Tidewater
Seairouf Silverslde
Tot 8 Is
i 2.717,735 10,027,833, 1.441
2,617.432 9.587,186 . 1,378
; 175,756 643,761 . 93
;• i.208,955 . 4,428.184 ' 636
47.899.S36
45,795,003
3,075,047
21,152.057
Total
49,264.207 20,300,807 443 687,441 - 7,420 : 25 -14.385.409 146,773 155,003; 1,543,995 . 32 ; 6,739,878 24,686,964 ; 3,548
117,921,942
,-'iaIe*andria'nroject'ler.B35E.aM«i8l.prod.forg.xIs
l/29.'02
D3-23
-------
8 316(b) Case Studies, Part D- Tempo Bey Chapter 03; Evaluation of I4E Data
Table D3 -16: Summary of Cumulative Impingement Impacts of In-seope Facilities of Tampa Bay
Facility # of Age 1 Equivalents Lb of Fishery Yield Lb or Production Foregone
Big Bend 419.286 11,113 5.K58
FJ Gannon 400,862 10,625 5,601
Honkers Point 26,917 713 376
PL Bartow 185.152 4,907 2,587
Trt_ 1.032.217 1 27.35* 1 14,421
\U*icxa»driaiproject\INTAKE\Tatnpa_Biiy\TasTipa„ScJc!»ce'«ctHlc'*xtrapolation.to.otheriaci!itiesClwpter.B3'«ammaryxu»«
i.impael.xls
1/29/02
Table 03-17: Summary of Cumulative Entrapment Impacts of In - scope Facilities of Tampa Bay
Facility # or Age 1 Equivalents Lb of Fishery Yield Lb of Production Foregone
Big Bend 7,715.156.199 . 22.788,688 47,899,836
FJ Gannon 7,376,133,779 _ 21,787,299 45,795,003
Hookers Point 495,293,285 1,462.975 3,075,047
PL Bartow 3.406.930,691 10,063,242 21.152.057
Total : ' 18.993.513.953 ' 5o. i 02.204. """"""" 117.92 i ,942
V\ak*xandriaipr<>ject\INTAKEV!'ampa_BayVranipa_Sciericc*iScodt.'k:Ktr4p(>latjoii.io.othCT.faciHtius'>C!hapler,B3surnraar>*.cuni
,E. impact.xls
37285
EPA estimates that total annual impingement in Tampa Bay is about 1,032,217 age i equivalents, 27,358 pounds of lost
fishery yield, and 14,421 pounds of production foregone. Impingement losses are dominated by species for which viable
fisheries no longer exist, including pink shrimp and bay anchovy,
Entrainment in Tampa Bay is substantially greater than impingement, estimated at 18,9 billion age 1 equivalents, 56.1 million
pounds of lost fishery yield, and 117,9 million pounds of production foregone each year. Bay anchovy and black drum
dominate entrainment collections and may be particularly vulnerable to Tampa Bay CW1S because of their schooling
behavior and the bay's shallow waters.
The economic value of estimated i&E losses in Tampa Bay is discussed in Chapters ,D4 (benefits transfer) and D5 (RUM
analysis), and the potential benefits of reducing these losses with the proposed rule are discussed in Chapter D6.
D3-10 Evaluation of Recent Larval Abundance Records as Indicators of
Current Entrainment Losses at Tampa Bay CWIS
Entrainment sampling at Big Bend was conducted in 1976-197? and 1979-1980, and therefore may not be an accurate
representation of current entrainment rates. EPA has identified no records of impingement or entrainment monitoring that are
more recent. Therefore, to gain some insight about entrainment rates in recent years, EPA analyzed records of larval
abundance in Tampa Bay in 1988-1989 and 1998-2001 (unpublished data provided by Dr. Ernst Peebles, University South
Florida).
An analysis of larval density records to estimate cntrainnienl rests on the premise that entrammen; is largely determined by the
ambient density of organisms in the source water body and intake flow. The majority of organisms subject to entrainment,
including lish larvae, arc weak swimmers or planktonic. As a result, it is reasonable to assume that the density of organisms
in the intake How is equal to the ambient density of organisms in the source water body near the intake structure.
Environmental sampling programs that quantify the abundance offish larvae typically use small mesh plankton nets that are
efficient at capturing roughly the same types of organisms that comprise the entrained species group; therefore, sampling
conducted close to CWIS provides a good surrogate for entrainment monitoring conducted within the actual cooling water
stream within a facility.
D3-24
-------
Chapter D3' Evaluation of IAE Data
Larval abundance in Tampa Bay and its tributaries from 1988 to 2001 was investigated by Dr. Ernst Peebles (unpubltshed
data, University South Florida), The majority of the samples were collected in 1988 and 19X9, and no sampling was
conducted from 1990 to 1997. Sample stations considered in this case study were located in Tampa Bay, Hillsborough Bay,
and in the lower reaches of Hillsborough River, Alalia River and Little Manatee River. Sample stations located in tlw rivers
were
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pert 5: Tampa Bay
Chapter D3: Evaluation of I<4E Dato
Table D3-18; Mean Annual Fish Losses Due to Entrainment at Biy Bend
Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents (millions)
Species
Facility
Monitoring
1977-1979
Larval
Densities
19B8-ZMT
Difference
Bay anchovy
¦ 7.696.6
1,420.7
-6,275.9
Black drum
S.2
0.2
-5.1
Chain pipefish
0,1
22.0
- 21 9
Goby spp,
; 5.8
39.4
-33.5
1 iogehoker
0.0
O.i
+0.1
Menhaden spp,
: 0.0
0.0
0.0
Pin fish
o.o
9,8
Pink shrimp
; o,6
0.0
-0.6
Scaled sardine
; 1.3
O.i
-1.2
Searobin
0,7
1.3
-K).6
Sheepshead
0.1
o.o
-0.1
Silver perch
4.3
8,5
-4 2
Spotted seatrnut
0.0
26.3
+26.3
Stone crab
0.3
0.0
-0,3
Tidewater silverside
0.1
0.7
+0.6
Fow!
7,715,1
1,189.2
-6,185,1
Nate: Estimates for 1977-197 9 are based on actual cntr&intncm monitoring and estimates for
1988-2001 arc based on estimates of ambient fish density in the general vicinity of Big Bend.
agcOl equiv Pri Feb 08 14:23:00 MST 2002 l,:/INTAK.E/Turnpa„BayrFamp«_S«iencfc*teHnpa
vtrtcomp xls
D3-26
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, fart D:Tampa Boy
Chapter t>4: Value of Baseline I4E Losses
Chapter D4:
Value of Baseline I<&E Losses
from Four Facilities on Tampa Bay
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic losses associated with l&E a! four facilities
on Tampa Bay: P L. Bartow (Florida Power Corporation),
Big Bend (Tampa Electric Company ), FJ. Gannon
(Tampa Electric Company), and Hooker's Point (Tampa
Electric Company).
04-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
l&E at Big Bend affect commercial and recreational
fisheries as well as forage species that contribute to (he
btomass of fishery species. EPA evaluated all of these
species groups to capture the total economic impact of
l&E at Big Bend,
Commercial fishery impacts are based on commodity
prices for the individual species. Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer methods, applying the results
from n on market valuation studies (EPA also conducted a primary analysis of recreational fishery benefits, which is presented
in Chapter D5). The economic impact of forage species losses is determined by estimating the replacement cost of these fish
if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish, and by considering the foregone biomass production of forage fish resulting
from l&E losses and the consequential foregone production of commercial and recreational species that prey on the forage
species. All of these methods are explained in further detail in the Chapter D3 of ibis document.
Many of the i&B-impacted fish species at CWIS sites are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To avoid
double-counting the economic impacts of l&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-tmpacied lush are assigned to the increase in commercial landings. The remaining 70 percent of the estimated total
landed number of l&E-impaeled adult equivalents are assigned to the recreational landings.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides both recreational and commercial fishery landings data hy state. To
determine what proportions of total landings per stale occur in the recreational or commercial fishery, EPA summed the
landings data for the recreational and commercial fishery, and then divided by each category to get the corresponding
pereemage. The percentages applied in this analysis are presented in Table D4-S,
As discussed in Chapters AS and A9 of Part A. the yield estimates presented in Chapter 03 are expressed as total pounds for
both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this chapter, total yield was
partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery. Because the economic
evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers 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. Note that the numbers
of foregone recreational fish harvested are typically lower than the numbers ofage 1 equivalent losses, since the age of
harvest of most fish ts greater than age I.
Chapter Contents
04-1 Overview of Valuation Approach . „ D4-I
D4-2 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses ... D4-2
D4-2.I Economic Values for Recreational Losses
Based on Literature D4-2
D4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery
Losses Resulting from l&E at Btg Bend .. D4-3
D4-? Economic Value of Aveiage Annual Commercial
Fishery Losses Resulting from l&E at Big Bend . ,. D4-4
1)4-4 Indirect Usie: Forage Fish D4-5
D4~5 Nowise Values , D4-6
D4-6 Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual
l&F, at Big Bend D4-6
D4-7 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Fxonomic
Losses from [&£ at Tampa Hay Facilities i>4-7
D4-!
-------
Chapter D4. Value of Baseline IAE Losses
TaWe 04-1: Percentages of Total Impacts Occurring to the Commercial and Recreational
Fisheries of Selected Species at Big Bend Facility
... . s . Percent Impacts to Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery Commercial Fishery
Black drum 55 45
Blue crab IB S2
Menhaden spp. (I 100
Pin fish 97 ?
Pink shrimp 0 100
Shecpshcad 84 16
Silver perch 100 0
Spotted seatrout 10!) 0
Stone crab 'IX N2
Moa Jan 28 09:01:39 MST 2002 : t'abIcA;Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and recreational
fisheries of selected species; Plant: bigbend.unii. 1.4 ; Pathname:
P;/lmake>'Tampa_BaY.,*tam|w_$dejicc/seode/tab!es.output.uiiit.!,4/TabfcA.i,e!i\af totaJ.irapacts.bigbcnd.unit I Acsv
D4-2 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses
D4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses Based on Literature
Several studies provide wiiltngness-lo-pav (WTP) values for increases in recreational catch rate. These increases in value
are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as a "consumer surplus" per additional fish caught.
When using values From the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, ii is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table D4-2 gives a summary of two studies that are closest to Tampa Bay in
geographic area and relevant species. The results of the RUM analysis (in Chapter D5) are consistent with these values
ranging from $2.80 to $5,46 per added fish caught (see Table D5-12),
Table D4-2; Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes ift Catch Rates
Authors Study Location and Year htm Valued Value Estimate (S21WU)
McConuell ami Mid- and south Atlantic coast, ; Catch rate increase of I fish per -/.mall gatnefish (FL) $8.88
.Strand 11994) anglers targeting specific trip" bonomfish (FL) $230
species, 1988
Milon et al, (1994) ; Florida, anglers targeting ;Caich rate increase of I fish per ;king mackerel $5,53
specific species, 199! -trip and 1 fish cvtay 3rd trip,
" Value was reported as "two month value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip." Front 1996 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DO!. 1997), the average saltwater angler takes J ,5 trips tn 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 :t by
2, assuming the value of a fish was linear.
McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values for the mid- and south Atlantic states using data from the National
Marine Fisheries Statistical Survey. They created a random utility model of fishing behavior for nine states, the northernmost
being New York, In this model, they specified four categories of fish; small gamefish (e.g., striped bass), flatfish
(e.g., flounder), bottom fish ('e.g., weakfish. spot, Atlantic croaker, perch), and big gamefish (e.g., shark). For each lish
category, they estimated per angler values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates. For this analysis,
EPA used only the values McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated for Florida.
D4-2
-------
Chapter IV' Value of Baseline ME Losses
Milon et nl (1994) surveyed over 4,000 anglers to ascertain their willingness-to-pay values for increases in king mackerel
caught. Specifically, average catch increases from 1 fish every 3rd trip to I fish every trip were evaluated by the authors. The
value listed in Tabic D4-2 is the averaged WTP value between those two scenarios.'
No known recreational values were located for blue crab. KPA used a value estimate in this analysis obtained by averaging
the combined values of the species of fish lhat had been estimated from McConnelt and Strand < 1994) and Milon et al.
(1994).
D4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from IAE at Big
Bend
Tables D4-3 and D4-4 present the loss to recreational catch from impingement and entrainment, respectively, and apply the
values listed in Table D4-2 to obtain losses in recreational value from l&E at Big Bend. Total losses to recreational fisheries
arc estimated to be $34,100 for impingement per year, and $194,700 annually for entrainment.
Table 04-3: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Big Bend
and Associated Economic Values
Specks
Black drum
Blue crab
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Total
Loss In Recreational Catch
from Impingement
(# of fish)
4
1,750
2,342
40
2,105
Recreational
Value/Fish
Low in Recreational Value
frum impingement
$:jo
S3.5')'
$2.30
$2,30
S8.SK
$5 5v»
6,263
$9
$9,7X2
S5.3&6
S93
SI 8,693
$122
534,085
* Recreational value used is an average from the range of all other species" values.
Mon Feb 04 2002 ; TableB; recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: bigbend.umt,1.4 : type: 1
Pathname:
P:.,lntiikoTampa_Bay :Tumpa_Scicncc/seoifc/tables.output.umt. 1,4,TahleB.rec.loss«s,bigbend.unit. 1,4.l.csv
Table D4-4 Average Annual Entrainment of Recreational fishery Species at Big Bend and
Associated Economic Values
Recreational
Value/Fish
Species from Entrainmeat {# or fisl. ,
Black drum 666,473 $2.30
Sheepshead 101 $2.30
Silver perch 1,102 $2.30
Spotted seatrout 6,794 $8,88
Stone crab 11.227 S5.59*
Total 6K6J98
* Black drum losses are capped at $68,878, which is double the value of the mean annual 1981-1986 recreational
landings (a period prior to a sharp decline in landings).
* Recreational value used is an average from the range of all other species' values.
Mon Feb 04 2002 , TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: bigbend.umt, 1.4, type: £
Pathname:
P:-'lntake/Tampa_Bay.'Tampa_Scietice/scode/tables.output unit. 1,4/Cappctl.TableH.rec.losses.higbend.iinitJ.4.E.csv
Uh in Recreational Value from
Entrainment
$68,878"
S232
52,535
$60,333
¦ $62,761
S 194.739
' The l&E data listed in the following sections did not end up including mackerel, so these values were not applied in the analysis,
but remain listed here for valuation comparison purposes.
D4-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port D Tampa Bay Chapter D4: Value of Bcselme TAG Losses
D4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses
Resulting from IAE at Bis Bend
Baseline losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables 1)4-5 (for impingement) and D4-6 (for eruraioment).
Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market
price. The market value of foregone landings to the commercial fisheries is $4,600 for impingement per year, and $260,900
annually for emrainnient,
Tabic 04-5: Average Annuo! Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Big Bend and
Associated Economic Values
Loss to Commercial : _ , , , . ,
, , . C ommeraal Loss in Conuiitrm! Value
Species Catch from Impintrcitienl ,, , ,
Jb ff h) Value/Hili frwii impingement
Black drum 60 $0.44 $26
Blue crab ' 2,734 . $0.62 $1,695
Pinftsh 13! > S3.18 $418
Pink shrimp 974 i S2.10 ¦ $2,240
Stone crab 356 $0.62 $221
Total 4,255 $4,600
,Mon Feb 04 2002 ; TahleC: conanerical losses and value for selected species; flam* bigbend.unit.1.4 , type; I
Pathname;
Pi/ljitake'l'ampa^Bay/rampa^Scicncc^saKk/tablcii.iKitpm.umL 1.4/Tab}eCxonmlosse&bij^nd.unii. 1 AI.csv
Table D4-6: Averoge Annuo! Entroinment of Commercial Fishery Species ot Big Bend and
Associated Economic Values
Lass to Commercial Catch . ,., »
.. , i. . • , ^ . ... , .... . l-o» in Commercial Value
Spectef from Entrainment Commercial Valnc/finb , , .
,r.. from F.ntrainmcnl
(lb of fish)
Black drum 9,918,509 $0.44 $137,756"
Menhaden spp. 52 SO. 17 - $9
Pink shrimp 4,224 $2.3(1 SV,7I5
Shccpshcad 33 SO. 50 $17
Stone crab 182,870 $0,62 51)3,379
Total __ . 10,105,689 ' li6?:!76
4 Commercial value ofbfeck drum cntrainmcnt losses are capped at $137,756, which is the value of double the mean
annual 1981*86 commercial landings (a period prior to a sharp decline m landings).
Mon Feb 04 2002 ; TabtcC" cotnmerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: bigbend.unit. 1.4; type: E
Pathname:
f ;/lntake/"T'ampa_Bay.-,'ra«ipa,,Sciciice/scode/iablcs. output.unii. 1.4/C'appetl.TahlcC.comm.iosses.higbenri.uttit. 1,4.E.csv
Changes to commercial activity thus Car have been expressed as changes from dockside market prices. However, to determine
the total economic impact from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA determined the losses experienced by producers
(watermen), wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.
The total social benefits (economic surplus) are greater than the increase in dockside landings, because the increased landings
by commercial fishermen contribute to economic surplus in each of a multi-tiered set of markets for commercial fish. The
total economic surplus impact thus is valued by examining the multi-tiered markets through which the landed fish are sold,
according to the methods and data detailed in Chapter A9.
The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of 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
B4-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay-
Chapter D4: Value of Baseline t&E losses
dockxide 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 limes wholesale price). The economic
literature (I lupperi, 1990; Rettig and MeCarl, 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, I '>84.
Bishop, personal communication, 2002). For the purposes of this study, RPA 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 ""multHnarket" welfare measures for commercial fisheries have estimated that surplus accruing to
commercial anglers amount to approximately 22% of the total surplus accruing lo watermen, retailers and consumers
combined (Norton et al„ 1983: Holt and Bishop, 2002). Thus, total economic surplus across the relevant commercial fisheries
multi-tiered markets can be estimated as approximately 4.5 times greater than producer surplus alone (given that producer
surplus is roughly 22% of the total surplus generated). This relationship is applied tn the case studies to estimate total surplus
from the projected changes in commercial landings.
Accordingly, the total economic loss to the commercial fisheries ranges from $8,400 to $14,600 for impingement per year,
and from $474,300 to $830,100 annually for eutrainment at Big Bend.
D4-4 Indirect Use: Forage Fish
Many species affected by l&E are not commercially or recrcattonally fished. For the purposes of this study, EPA refers to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species and are important components of aquatic
food webs. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of forage losses using two alternative valuation methods.
Replacement value of fish
The replacement value offish can be used in several cases. First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking of
hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacemem 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 a fleet other species* stocks). Third, where there are not
enough use data, to value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as a proxy tor lost
fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs, and replacemem costs
typically omit problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limning genetic diversity).
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&E has two main components The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table D4-7 displays the replacement costs and associated baseline value losses of selected species at the
Big Bend Facility. The annual costs of replacing baseline annual forage losses are approximately $100 for impingement and
$6,214,100 for entrainmeiu. The per pound costs listed in Table 1)4-7 are average costs to fish hatcheries across North
America to produce different species offish lor stocking.
D4-S
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part DTampa Bay
Table 04-7; Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species for the Big Bend facility (2000$)
Hatchery Costs* Annual Cost of Replacing Forage t osses
Swedes • . - ¦ * — * —
CS/lb) Impingement F.ntrainment
Bay anchovy ^ $0.1! S42 $6,1X8,121
Chain pipefish SO,34s SO S39S
Gobyspp. $0.34* $0 54,020
Hogchoker $0.34* $0 S55
Leatherjacket $0J4b SO SI,441
Scaled sardine $0.34b 52 $14,75!
Searobm ' S0.34" ; $80 55,(78
Tidewater silvcrside SO, 51 SO SI 74
Total ¦ $123 J6.2I4.135
1 These values were inflated to 2OO0S from 19X9$, but this could be imprecise for current fish rearing ami stocking costs-
'' Individual species value is not available and thus an av crags of all species is used.
Source: Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kill. AFS, IW3.
Mon Feb 04 2002 ; TaWcD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: bigbouLunit. 1.4 ; type: I Pathname;
P-'lntake/Tan^>9_Ba5'/T®n'p«_Sciei»ce/sco00 per year from impingement and from 56,980,600 to $7,336,300 per year from entrainment.
D4-6
-------
Chapter D4' Value of Baseline ME Losses
Table 04-8: Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual ME at Big Bend
Commercial; Total surplus (direct use, marketi
Recreational (direct use, noti market)
Forage (indirect use, n on market) using the
Replacement Cost Approach
Nomisc (passive use, mmnurkel i
Total (Corn » Rcc ¦*- Forage - Nonage)
Low
High
Low
High
Impingement
SS363
S 14,636
$34,085
SI 23
St 7,043
S 59,014
$65,886
Entrapment
$474,320
SSOO.059
S!<>4,73'»
$6,214,135
S97.370
S6.9XU.564
57,336,303
Mom Feb 1)4 16:20:51 MKT 2002 , TiibleE,summary; Plant: bigbowi .unit, 1.4 : Pathname:
P:/Jn!ake./Tampa_Bay/Tampa_Se!ej>c&-si,ade/eibies.outpu!.unii.i,4eapped.TableE.sumniEiry,bigbend,ur»t. I -4.
Total
14X2.683
5844,695
$228,824
$6,214,258
SI 14,412
$7,040,178
17,402,190
CSV
D4-7 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Economic Losses from I4E at
Tampa Bay Facilities
Table D4-9 summarizes the estimated annual baseline losses from I&E at the other Tampa Bay facilities, using the Big Bend
data. The results were extrapolated to other facilities based on operation flows (MGD). Total impacts range from $146,800
to $162,200 per year from impingement and from $ 17,185,100 to $ 18,060,800 per year from entrainmcnt for the four Tampa
Bay facilities.
Table D4-9; EPA's Estimates of Average Annua! Economic Losses at In -Scope CWIS
of Tompa Bay Based on IAE Estimates
^ ^ Impingement Losses Entrminment Losses Total
Low High l4>v» High Low High
Big Bend $59,614. $65,886 $6,980,564 $7,336,303 S7,040,)78 $7,402,190
F,J. tiannon $56,994 S62.99I $6,673,821 57,013,929' S6.730.8I5 S7.076.920
Hookers- Point S3.827 $4,230 S448,!34: $470,972 $451,961 - $475,202
P.L.Bartow $26,325' $29,095 $3,0X2,542. S3.239.633 $3,108,867 53,268,728
Total $146,760; $162,202. $17,185,062, SIH,060,837. SI 7,331,822; 818,223,039
V\alexandna'ipr<>)ect\lNTAKE'Tampii_I3ayVrampa_Se«enceucodescxfnipolattHi».to.other.facilities\Chapter.B4average.annual-econ Josses,
xls 2/7/2002 (CAPPED)
1)4 7
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies; Port •}. Tampa Bay
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Chapter D5: 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 entrapment
(l&E) in the Tampa Bay Region. Cooling Water intake
Structures (CWiSsS withdrawing water from Tampa Bay
impinge and entrain many of the species sought by
recreational anglers. These species include spotted
seatrout, black drum, sheepshead, pinfish, and silver perch.
The study area includes Tampa Bay itself and coastal sites
to the north and south of Tampa Bay. The study includes
sites in five counties:
~ Pasco.
* Pinellas,
* Hillsborough.
*¦ Manatee, and
~ Sarasota.
Chapter contents
D5-5
Data Summary
. 05-1
D5-1.1 Angler Characteristics
, D5-I
DS-I.2 Choice Seis
. D5-4
OS-13 Site Attributes
.05-6
' D5*l ,4 Travel Cost
.¦DS-7
D5-2
Ste Choice Model
[)5-9
D3-3
Trip Participation Model-
D5-I0
D5-4
Welfare .Estimates .............. t
D5-J1
D5-4.1 E'.stimaling Changes in the Quality of
Fishing Sites
DS-ll
DS-4.2 Estimating Bcnctits from Eliminating
l&E in the Tampa Bay Region
D5-I2
D5-S
Limitation!> and Uncertainly
D5-16
D5-S 1 Site Quality
D5-H5
D5-5.2 Extrapolating Single-Day Trip Results to
Estimate Benefits from
Multiple-Day Trips
D5-Hj
D5 -5.3 Considering Only Recreational Values .
D5-16
D5-5 .4 Sources of Survey Bias
D5-16
The study's main assumption is that anglers will gel
greater satisfaction, and thus greater economic value, from sites where the catch rate is higher, all else being equal This
benefit may occur in two ways: first, an angler may get greater enjoyment from a given fishing trip when catch rates are
higher, and thus get a greater value per trip; second, anglers may take more fishing trips when catch rates are higher, resulting
in greater overall value for fishing in the region.
The following sections focus on the data sei used m the analysis and analytic results. Chapter AID of Part A provides a
detailed description of the analysis methodology.
55-1 Dat* SUMAMRy
Ef'A's analysis of improvements in recreational fishing opportunities in the Tampa Bay Region relies on a subset of the 1997
Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey (MRFSS) combined with the 1997 Add-on MRFSS Economic Survey (AMES)
and the follow-up telephone survey for the Southeastern United States (NMFS. 2001b; QuanTech, 1998), Data collection
occurred in two-month waves, over the course of a year, from March 1997 through February 1998. The model of recreational
fishing behavior relies on the subset thai includes only single-day trips to sites located in the study area, excluding
respondents missing data on key variables (e.g., home ZIP code). This truncation resulted in a sample of 1,183 anglers,
fishing from 52 sites in the study area. The NMFS surveys are described tn more detail in Chapter A10.
The Agency included both single- and multiple-day trips in estimating the total economic gain from improvements in fishing
site quality from reduced l&K. Details of this analysis are prov ided in Section D5-3 of this chapter.
D5-1.1 Angler Characteristics
o. Fishing modes and targeted species
The majority of anglers in the sample (67 percent) fish from a prjvaie or rental boat; 29 percent fish from shore; and only four
percent fish from charier boats. The Agency evaluated five species and species groups in the model:
DS-J
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part t>, Tampa Bay Chapter D5: SUM Analysis
~ drums (including red and black drum)
~ spotted seatrout,
~ gamefish,
~ snapper-grouper, and
~ other.1
Effects of changes in catch rales for particular species in the drams, gamefish and snapper-grouper categories can still be
estimated because the catch rates for the combined categories are weighted averages.
Table D5-1 shows species targeted by fishing mode and for ail modes, and table 1)5-2 compares species targeted on the
intercepted trip to species generally targeted. EPA calculated species targeted on the intercepted trip based on anglers'
reported first and second primary targets. If the angler's first target was in the "other" category and the second target was a
species of interest, the observation was included in the observations with the targeted species. Sucli observations were
excluded from the "other" species category. For the species of interest, 21.5 percent »f anglers target gamefish", 16.2 percent
target spotted seatrout, 16.5 percent target snapper-grouper1, and 12,3 percent target drums.
Tabic t>5-
1: Species Group Choice by Mode of Fishing
AH Modes
Private/rental boat
Party/charter boat
Shore
Species
Frequency
Percenl
Frequency
Percent
by Mode
Frequency
Percent by
Mode
Frequency ;
Percent
by Mode
No.Target
376
3s.78% ¦;
203
25.5%
12
26.1%
161
47-1%
Other
20
1 .69%
It !
1.38%
0
It 0%
9
2,6%
Drums
146
i 2.34% .
124
15.6%
J
2,2%
21
6. t%
Spotted
Seatrout
!'.>2
16.23% ;
171 I
21.5%
0
; o.o%
21
6.1 %
Gamefish
254
: 21.47%
157
I9,X%
n
23.9%
86 :
25,2%
Snapper-
Grouper
195
16.48% ;
i2y ;
16,2%
22
47,8%
44
12.9%
All Species
1,183
: 100,00% :
795
100%
46
100%
342
J 00%
Table D5-2 Generally Targeted Species vs.
Species Targeted on Intercepted Trip
Species f
Number
Generally Turpi
Targeted on Intercepted Trip
Percent
Number
Percent
Drums 344
29.1
146
12,3
Spotted Seatrout 77
6.5
; 192
16,2
Oametish . 197
16.7
254
21.5
Snapper-Grouper : 193
16.3
195
16.5
1 "Other** species may include the following species families or genus: herring, puller, eel, skate, sardine, sunltsh, skate, ray, requiem
shark.
•' Ciamcfish include snook, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, pompuno, permit, cobia, Atlantic tarpon, hammerhead shark, mackerels,
and tunas.
•' Snapper-grouper include miscellaneous groupers in the epinepheius and mycteropen-u groups, red grouper, gag grouper, other
miscellaneous groupers, snapper, gray snapper, sea bass, jacks, punt, hogfish, and sheepsiiead.
D5-2
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Port D, Tampa Boy
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Almost 32 percent of the sample did not targe! a particular species on the intercepted trip. An additional 2 percent target a
species in the "other" category. Around 40 percent of the "no-target" anglers do not generally target a species, Of those "no
target" anglers who do generally target a species, 33 percent generally target drums, 25 percent generally target snapper-
grouper. 15 percent generally target game fish, and seven percent-generally target spotted seatrout.
The distribution of target species is not uniform by fishing mode, for example, while 15.6 percent of private/rental boat
anglers target drums, only 6,1 percent of shore anglers, and 2,2 percent of charter boat anglers target drums, While 21,5
percent of boat anglers target spotted seatrout, only 6.1% of shore anglers, and no charter boat anglers target spotted seatrout.
The percentages for game fish do not differ greatly, with 25.2 percent of shore anglers targeting gameilsh, and 19.8 percent
and 23.9 percent ofboat and charter boat anglers, respectively, targeting gamefish. A large number ofchaner boat anglers
(47,8 percent) target snapper-grouper, while 16,2 percent ofboat anglers and 12.9 percent of shore anglers target fish in this ¦
category.
b. Summary of angler characteristics
Almost 62 percent of the anglers in the sample own a boat {72V-11X3), including 26 percent of anglers intercepted on a
charter trip, 78 percent of anglers intercepted on a boat trip, and 27 perceni of anglers intercepted on shore.
Of the 394 boat and charter anglers reporting the distance traveled from shore, 74 percent (291) fished ten miles or less from
shore and 26 percent (103) fished more than len miles front shore. Eighty-two percent of charter anglers who reported
distance from shore fished more than ten miles front shore, and 22 percent of private'rental boat anglers who reported
distance fished more than ten miles from shore. Of the 1,1 K2 anglers reporting, 1,166 or 98.7 percent fished with hook and
line, five {,4 percent) fished with cast net, ten (.85 percent) fished with spear, and one (.08 percent) fished with a hand line.
Seventy-seven percent of the 1,16) anglers reporting employment status are employed. Of those who are nol employed, 64
percent are retired. Approximately 93 percent of those reporting employment status work full-time, seven percent work part-
time, and less than one percent arc variably or seasonally employed. Approximately 46 percent receive a salary rather than an
hourly wage. Almost 91 percent of the sample are male, and 94 percent are white, 'fable D5-3 summarises angler
characteristics.
The study compared boat, charter, and shore mode anglers 10 investigate any important differences among the groups, Table
D5-4 compares demographics by fishing mode. Anglers who prefer different fishing modes do nol appear to differ greatly in
terms of demographics.
Table D5- 3: Angler Characteristics (N-1,183 unless otherwise specified)
Variable
Mean'
Std IH'v
MS«
Max
Male
0.90
0,29
0
I
White (K = I ,152)
0.94
0.24
6
I
Employed i N 1, i ft 1)
0,77
0.42
0
i
Retired
0.14
0.35
0
1
Owns a boat
0.62
0.49
o
I
Age in Years (N;- i, 1571
42,K4
14.1
16
95
Household Income
547,521
$28,420
$7,500 .
S2OO.000
n of Years fishing Experience
21.IV
14.6
0
HO
(N--1.I46) ; ;
* For dummy variables such as "Owns y Boat" that take the value of 0 or I, the reported value
represents u portion of the survey respondents possessing the relevant characteristic. For
example, 62 percent of the surveyed anglers own a boat.
1)5-3
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Tabic D5-4: Comparison of Boat, Charter, and Shore Mode Anglers
Mean
Standard. Deviation
, ¦
Maximum
Shore income
540,212
$n,m
S7.50Q
S200.Q00
Boat income
S 50,229
$29,491
$7,500
5200,000
Charier income
S5 5,054
S31,013
$20,000
SI 37,500
Shore age
43.6
15.6
16
Vi
Boat age
42.4
13,4
16
95
Charier age
45.1
14.1
16
75
Shore years fished
19,3
15.4
0
70
Boat years fished
22.0
: 14.3
0
80
Charter years fished
^ 20,7
. . 14.0
. .0. .
50
c. Number of trips
Table D5-S shows the number of trips taken in the last twelve months by mode and generally targeted species. Charter boat
anglers tend to fish significantly less often than boat or shore anglers. I lowever, there ss not a large difference m activity
among anglers who target different species often.
Table D5-5* Number of Trips by Mode and generally Targeted Species
Variable
Nombtr of
Anglers
Mean# Trips
Standard
Deviation
Min
Max
Fishing Mode
Charter
46
22.17
55.8!
0
300
Pvt/renfa!
778
5.154
55.%
0
360
Shore
339
60.28
71.06
0
364
Generally Targeted Species
Drams
339
59,23
59 73
0
300
Spotted seatrout
75
53.24
66,86
1
364
(iameftsh
194
72,45
74.04
0
364
Snapper-arouper
192
40.52 ^
43.00
0 •
300
D5-1.2 Choice Sets
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) intercept sites included in the analysis are depicted in Figure D5-1.
There are 52 fishing sites, and the analysis assumes that every angler faces the full choice set, since the region studied is
relatively small- In other words, each angler will potentially fish at any of iJjc 52 locations in the area. Tabic D5-6 shows the
number of observations and intercept sites for each county.
D5-4
-------
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Figure D5-1; NMFS Intercept Sites Included in RUM Analysis
Gulf
Mexictf
L
¥nsn
a.y—T
KVKiVtiil
•ft' I i§H'i*i?S«t
lumpit c£
^ ?si
%r .
c
,g.
V
Manatee
Location of the NMFS Sites
in Lhf Tampa Bay Area
m NMPSCWSUkK Site
Kft k«wh
D «°»n*v
n
*K*j
Sarasota
T1
D5~5
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Cose Studies: Port D, Tampa Bey
Toble D5 - 6; Number of Anglers Intercepted at NMFS Sites by County
Number of Observations Percent of Sample Number of Intercept Sites
County
Pasco
247
20.88
39.05
20.46
Pinellas
462
20
Hillsborough
Manatee
146
86
1,18)
242
12,34
11
8
8
Sarasota
Total
52
05-1.3 Site Attributes
The model uses catch rales for the species of interest, as well as the presence of boat ramps and marinas to measure site
quality. Catch rate is the most important attribute of a fishing site from the angler's perspective (McCortnell and Strand,
1994; l-laab et af, 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 l&E, The catch rate variable in the RUM therefore provides the means to measure
baseline losses in l&E and changes in anglers* welfare attributed to changes from l&E due to the 316b rule.
To specify the fishing quality of the ease study sites, EPA calculated historic catch rate based on the NMFS catch rate from
1995 to 1997. The catch rates represent the number of fish caught on a fishing trip divided by the number of hours spent
fishing: ihe number of fish caught per hour pur angler. The estimated catch rates arc averages across all anglers in a given
year over the three-year period. The gamefish and snapper-grouper catch rates are weighted average catch rates for all
species in the group, weighted by the proportion of sample for each species. The no targes anglers were assumed to face an
average catch rate calculated as a weighted average of all species, using ihe percent who generally target each species as the
weights.
EPA estimated the catch rate Ibr 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 wtth distance
according to a squared distance value. If available, EPA used observable catch rate values for a given site to estimate average
catch rates for that site. If no observed catch rales wore 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 tn question.
Some RUM studies have used predicted, rather than actual, catch rates (Ilaab et al., 2000; Hicks et al.. 1999; McConnell anti
Strand, 1994). This practice allows for individual characteristics to affect catch rales, for example, anglers with different
levels of experience may have different catch rates. Baab 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. They also found that
the choice of catch rate had little effect on the travel cost parameters. Hicks et al. {1999) found that using historical catch
rates resulted in more conservative welfare estimates than predicted catch rale models. Consequently, EPA favored this more
conservative approach.
The NMFS surveys collect two catch rate measures: total catch (including fish discarded or used for bait), and fish caught and
kept, which were available for measurement by the interviewer. Some of the NMFS studies use the catch and keep measure
as the relevant catch rate. Although greater error may be associated with measured numbers of fish not kept, the total catch
measure is most appropriate in the Tampa area because a large number of anglers catch and release lish. There are many
reasons for fish releases, including:
» Enjoyment of the sport rather than lish consumption;
» Environmental regulations (e.g., bag limits for recreational fish species);
~ Individual concents about dwindling fish stocks; and
~ Concerns over possible pollutants in lish caught.
D5*6
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part 0, Tampa Bay
Chapter 05 RUM Analysis
Some fish of particular interest, e.g.. tarpon, are never kept. Table D5-7 shows ihe average catch rates by species. On
average, the "other" species category has the highest catch rate, followed by spotted seatrout, drums, snapper-grouper, and
gamefish.
Table 05-7-
Average Catch Rate by Species/Species Group
{fish per angler per boor)
Species/Specif*
Group
Average Catch Kale (fish per angler per hour)
Shore Mode
Boat Mode
Shore and Boat
Modes
Drams
0.312
0.524
0.446
Spotted Seatrout
0.792
I.16B
1,157
Gamefish
0,181
0,351
0,325
Snapper-Grouper
0.267
0,499
0,404
Other Species
' 2.635
2,118
2.0S 1
D5-1.4 Travel Cost
EPA estimated trip "price" for each angler as the sum of travel costs plus the opportunity cost of time, following the
procedure described in Haab ct al, (2000). Based on Parsons and Kealy {1992!, this sludy assumed that time spent "on-site"
is constant across sues and can be ignored in the price calculation.
EPA used ZipFip software to calculate the one-way distance to each site for each angler4 Several people reported out-of-state
Zip codes, and were deleted from the analysis. Although the analysis could not determine whether the reported Zip codes are
accurate measures of anglers" trip origins, interviewers asked respondents for the Zip code of their winter residence rather
than their permanent residence,*1 The analysis therefore assumes; that anglers are traveling from the Zip code reported in the
data,6 The average estimated one-way distance to the site visited is 15.1 miles.
To estimate anglers* travel costs. EPA multiplied round-trip distance by average motor vehicle cost per mile ($0.31, 1997
dollars).7 The model adds the opportunity cost of travel time, measured in terms of wages lost, to the travel cost fortho.se
who would have lost income by taking the fishing trip. For these anglers the dummy variable LOSEINC equals one. Travel
times equal the round-trip distance divided by a travel speed of 40 mph and multiplied by the angler's hourly wage as
calculated below.
The travel cost variable in the model was calculated as follows;
Visit Price X Round Trip Distance * $.31 * SSS^LJ^^SS!!!^ * (fVage) If LOSEINC - 1
< 40 mph Eq, D5-I
I Round Trip Distance * $.31 if LOSEINC = 0
* The program was created by Daniel Heilerstein and is available through the USPA at
http:-7usda,tiiiunltb.ec>rnell.edu./dtttaseis/geiieral/9.?t)l4.
* Correspondence with an economist at NMFS (Amy Ciuatam, KMFS Economist, September 2001).
" Thirteen observations where estimated travel time did not closely approximate reported travel times were deleted from the analysis, .
because of unreliable travel time estimates.
EPA used the Federal Travel Regulations mileage reimbursement fate for June 7, 1990 September 8, 199K (FTR Amendment 4Ki.
This estimaie includes vehicle operating costs only.
7)5-7
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay Chapter D5- RUM Analysis
The analysis assumes thai anglers whose incomes are not flexible (e.g., people on salary), do not consider the dollar cust of
the time given up to travel to a recreational site. These anglers stilt have an opportunity cost for their travel time, which could
otherwise be spent doing something else, like fishing. In other words, a shorter distance traveled allows for a longer time
spent fishing. For these anglers, the analysis included an additional rouwl-trip travel time variable calculated as*.
{
Travel Time - 1 Round Trip Distance/40 if LOSEINC ~ 0
' Eq. 1)5-2
0 If LOSEINC = I
The average one-way estimated travel time to the visited site is 22.7 minutes, while the average reported travel time is 29.7
minutes. This discrepancy is due to the difference between actual and measured travel miles.
'The model identified anglers who lost income while traveling by creating the l.OSIiINC dummy variable as follows.
Approximately seven percent of respondents who answered (62/909). reported that they lost income during (heir fishing trip.
The analysis used other information to infer responses in the case oi'274 anglers who did not answer this question. Most of
the 274 anglers (267/274) reported being unemployed, while others reported receiving a salary rather than an hourly wage; the
model assumed thai these anglers did not lose income by taking-lhe fishing trip. Four respondents (less than one percent)
provided insufficient information to determine employment status. To be conservative, the analysis assumed that these
individuals did not lose income.
The data set lacked 415 values (35 percent of responses) for household income. The analysis imputed incomes for these
anglers by first converting household income categories to dollar amounts using the category midpoints. For income category
">S 175,000," the analysis capped the income variable at$200.000, following Haab el al, (2000).
Next, the analysis used a regression analysis to predict the missing values of income in a data set with observations for all
variables considered important in determining household income. The analysis regressed the log of household's categoty
midpoint income on factors hypothesized to influence income. The estimated regression equation used in wage calculation is:
LnKJncome) ~ 0.14 * male * 0,10 * age - 0.0017 * age2 * 0.32 * employed
* 0.15 x hoatown + 0.81 log (slinc)
Eq. 1)5-3
where;
INCOME - the reported household income;
MALE 3 1 for males and 0 otherwise;
AC58 - age in years;
EMPLOYED I if the respondent is currently employed and 0 otherwise;
HOATOWN 1 if the respondent owns a boat and 0 otherwise; and
ST1NC -¦ • the average income of residents in Florida*
The average stale income variable has the largest coefficient (0.81) and therefore explains most of the variability in income,
followed by employment, then gender and boat ownership, with age having the smallest influence. The mode! R2 is .9967.
Based on this model, the predicted average household income for anglers who did not report income is $40,785 per year.
EPA estimated household wage by dividing household income by 2,080 (i.e., the number of full time hours potentially
worked). Table D5-8 shows summary statistics for reported travel time and expenses for the intercepted trip.
4 The average income for Florida is S3 i ,900, based on Haab, et. al, 2000,
VJ-ff
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, Tampa Bay Chapter 05 RUM Analysis
Table 05-8: Summary of Statistics for Travel Cost and Trip Expenses
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Household hourly wage
53.01
$96.15
S22.X5 :
SI 3.66
Travel cost
Si.32
S 173,78
$21.20
S16.I2
Reported Round trip travel time (hours)
0
25
.50
J3
Reported expenses (travel < other)
so
Shit)
S 14.94
526,19
Reported expenses (travel+other+boat fee)
$0
$1,620
$213? •
S6(».25
D5-2 Site Choice Model
This section presents results of the RUM, estimated using a conditional logit model for site choice. In the conditional logil
model estimated here, the measurable component of utility is estimated as:
v/k)
P, TC, {k)
p 2TT(k) + RAMP-MAR +
Ij^SQRT^ (k)
Eq. D5-4
where:
TCj(k)
TT/k)
SQRTQ„
-------
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Similarities between sites in the Tampa region data set are not clearly distinguished in terms of mode and species. Several
mode/species combinations are fished at the same sites. Also, the likely differences among all Tampa region sites make the
HA problem likely to be insignificant. The analysis therefore uses a non-nested RUM in which anglers compare sites and
choose the one offering the highest utility level for each trip occasion.
The analysts tested various alternative model specifications, but the model presented here was most successful at explaining
the probability of selecting a site." Models with dummy variable interactions between mode and site and species and site did
not produce statistically significant interactions. A model with an interaction term between "no-target" anglers and the catch
rate for other species found that this interaction was not significant, implying that the "other" target anglers and "no-target"
anglers do not differ significantly. This conclusion makes sense, based on summary statistics for "no-target" anglers
presented in the data section.
The analysis also ran separate models by mode and species. These models included each site/species combination as a
separate choice. Software limitations required the 52 sites to be aggregated into 15 composite sites for these models, yielding
75 separate site/species choices. These models did not explain the variations in data as well as the single mode! with 52 site
choices.
The best model presented here is a site choice model that includes boat mode anglers for all species. This analysts therefore
models only site choice and assumes that each angler has chosen a mode/species followed by a site based on the catch rate for
that site and species.
Table D5-9 presents model results. All coefficients, except for the other species catch rate, are significant at the 95"1
percentile or better, with expected signs. The results indicate that the average angler who targets a species most highly values
snapper-grouper, followed by gamefish, drums, spotted seatrout, and other species. Travel time (TT) is more important than
travel cost
-------
i 316(b) Watershed Case Studies; Part D, Tampa Bay Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
The dependent variable, the number of recreational trips within the past 12 months, is an integer value ranging from 0 n» 365.
To avoid overpredictiun of the number of fishing trips, EPA set the number of trips for anglers reporting over 200 trips per
year to 200 in the model estimation.'3
Table D5-1Q shows the negative binomial model results. The variables in the final model are:
IVRASE the inclusive value for each angler from the RUM;
MALE «• I if male;
0WN„80AT = I if person owns a boat and fishes by pvt_rer»tal mode,
DRTARG = I if drums are generally targeted;
GATARG - 1 if gamefish are generally targeted; and
ALPHA = overdisperston coefficient.
The analysis used the angler's "generally targeted" species, rather than species targeted on the intercepted day, to interpret the
RDTARG and GATARG variables, See the data section for more detail.
Af! parameters are'significant, with expected signs. The results indicate that anglers with higher values per trip, as indicated
by the fVBASE variable, males, boat owners who fish by boat, and those targeting drums and gamefish, will take more fishing
trips per year.
Additional tested variables were not statistically significant. These variables include whether the angler is employed, retired,
unemployed (including retired people), a homemaker or student, or while; the angler's age; years of fishing experience;
income; and whether the angler generally targets spotted seatrout or generally targets snapper-grouper.
Table D5-IG:
Negative Binomial Model Results "
Variable
Coefficient
T-Ststiitic
Constant
3.281
21.2
-------
Chapter D5; RUM Analysis
affected by l&E, These species are black drum, spoiled seatrout, arid sheepsbead.l3'M EPA estimated the losses to
recreational fisheries using the impacts of l&E on the relevant fish species and the percentage of total fishery landings
attributed to the recreational fishery, as described in Chapter D3,
The Agency estimated changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites under different policy scenarios in terms of the
percentage change in the historic catch rate. EPA assumed that catch rates will change uniformly across all marine fishing
sites in the Tampa Bay region, because species considered in this analysis inhabit a wide range that extends beyond the region
of interest (Paltillo, et al„ 1997). EPA used the average recreational landings for a 3-year period (1997 through 1999J, for
sites within State waters.15 EPA then divided l&E losses to the recreational fishery by the total recreational landings for the
Tampa Bay area for each species of concern to calculate the percent change in historic catch rate from baseline losses- (i.e.,
eliminating l&E completely). Table D5-1 i presents results of this analysis.
Table 55-11; Estimated Changes in Catch Rates from Eliminating all ME of
Block Drum, Spotted Seatrout and Sheepsnead
Estimated Fishery l&E
(number of flsb/year)
Speuw Number . Number of
of Fish Fish
impinged Entrained
Total
Recreational
Landing* Tor
Tampa
Region
(lUlt/yrari
Percent Increase in
Recreational Catch from
Elimination of l&E
Black Drum 54,449 l&E*
72,233
75-38%
Spotted Scatrtml 5,183 16.726
5.411.292
0.4cm
Sheawhead1' 0 248
783,407
.0,03%
2 Total l&E for black drum was calculated based on a cap value of 54,449 fish, This value was
calculated based on the average black drutti recreational landings for a period of five years {1981
to 1986).
Sbcepshead belongs to the snapper grouper species category.
EPA also estimated values for changes in the quality of recreational fishing sites for an increase in the catch rate by one fish
of each species at all sites.
D5-4.2 Estimating Benefits from Eliminating ME in the Tampa Bay Region
The recreational behavior model described in the preceding sections provides a means for estimating the economic effects of
changes in recreational fishery losses from l&E in the Tampa Bay region. First, EPA estimated welfare gain to recreational
anglers from eliminating fishery losses due to l&E. This estimate represents economic damages to recreational anglers frotjt
l&E of recreational fish species in the Tampa Bay region under the baseline scenario.
EPA estimated anglers* willingness to pay for improvements in the quality of recreational fishing due to l&E elimination by
first calculating an average per trip welfare- gain based on the expected changes in catch rases from eliminating l&E.
1' Sheep-shead belongs to the snapper grouper species category
" f'inlish and silver perch were also affected by l&E, However, NMFS docs not provide recreational landings data for these species,
and these species are included in the "other species" category in this analysis, and thus did not have significant values to anglers in our
sample. Thus, these species were not included in the l&E welfare analysis.
'* Stale waters include sounds, inlets, tidal portions of rivers, bay, estuaries and other areas ol salt or braetash water; and ocean waters
to 3 nautical miles offshore (NMFS, 200 lb).
OJ-/2
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part 5, Tampa Bay
Chapter 55: RUM Analysis
a. Per trip/per additional fish benefits
Table D5-12 presents ihc compensating variation per trip (averaged over alt anglers in the sample) associated with reduced
fish mortality from eliminating l&E for each fish species of concern;"' and for a one fish catch rate increase for each species,1'
Table D5-12: Per Trip Welfare Sain from Eliminating I&E of 5rums,
Spotted Seatrout and Sheepshead in the Tampa Say Region (2000$)
Targeted Species
Per Trip Welfare Gain
from (Elimination of l&E
VVTP for no Additional Fish
per Trip
Black and Red Drums
-
S3,66
Black Drum
$7,04
-
Spotted Seatrout
S1.76
S2.B0
Gamefish
-
$5.46
Snapper-Grouper
(includes sheepshead)
SI.74
S5.I5
The results show that anglers targeting black drum have the largest per trip welfare gain ($7.04) from eliminating I&E in the
Tampa region, Anglers targeting spotted seairout and sheepshead have smaller per-trip gains (S.! 76 and $ 1,74 respectively).
The large gains for black drum are due to the large predicted increase m catch rates. In general, based on a one fish per trip
increase in catch rate, gamefish and snapper-grouper are the most highly valued fish in the study area, followed by drums and
spoiled seatrout. 1 ia.ib, el al. (2000) report a range of values for a unit increase in catch per trip, using the 1997 MRFSS data
for western Florida, The values estimated tor the Tampa area are consistent with their estimates, llaab et al. estimated values
for increasing an angler's eateh by one fish per trip. The estimated values for snapper-grouper range from $3.78 to $5.58; the
authors* values for spotted seal rout range from 10.31 to S1.09; and their estimated values for red drum range from $3,68 to
$16.92.,8W They do not estimate values for gamefish, but do estimate values for coastal migratory pelagic fish, which range
from S2.92 to $26.30/"
b. Estimating total participation
EPA calculated total economic values by combining the estimated per trip welfare gam with the total number of trips lo sues
in the Tampa Bay region. NMFS provided information on the total number of fishing trips for western Florida. EPA
estimated the number of trips for the case study area by first calculating the percent of total intercept, surveys from western
Florida conducied in the Tampa Bay ease study area (48.(14%), Multiplying the total number of trips in western Florida by
the estimated percent of intercept surveys in the Tampa Day area yields the number of fishing trips in the study area.
The total number of trips includes both single- and multiple-day trips, with multiple day trips expanded to estimated fishing
days by NMFS.'1 The Agency assumed thai the welfare gain per day of fishing is independent of the number of days fished
per trip and therefore equivalent for single- and multiple-day trips, Table D5-13 presents the estimated number of days fished
by mode for the Tampa Bay Region,
'* A compensating variation equates the expected value of realized utility under the baseline and posl-compiianee conditions. For
more detail see Chapter A10 of Part A.
1 The one fish per trip increase was converted to ,24 fish per hour, based on an average trip length of 4.1 hours.
! laab cl al, (2(100) report their dollar estimates in 199? dollars. Their estimates have been converted to 2000$ here for purposes of
comparison.
FPA's estimate for drums is on the low end of I he estimates from Haub el al, <2000>. However, Haah et al.'s values are for red
drum, while EPA's estimate is for both black and red drum. Black drum is not as highly valued by anglers as red drum (Pattillo ct al„
1997).
llaab et al.'s (2000) coastal migratory pelagic group includes bluefish. cobia, dolphin, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, eero, and
little tunny.' EPA's gamefish group includes hammerhead shark, snook, king mackerel, Spanish mackerel pompano, cobia, tuna, and
Atlantic tarpon.
" Based an email communication with NMFS staff (Alan Lowther, NMFS Statistician, January 2001 i.
W-/J
-------
S 316(b) Watershed Case Studies; Part D» Tempo Bay
Chapter D5: RUM Analysis
Tabic D-13- Recreational fishing Participation by Fishing Mode
Private and/or Rental Boats
Shore
Fishing Mode
Total Number
of l is hi tig Days per Year in Ta mpa
Cast Study Area
3,2K5,S«>
2,783,465
Charter Boat
361,258
6,430,229
Total
Source; NMFS, 2001b,
Per trip welfare gains differ across recreational species. HP A therefore estimated She number of fishing trips associated with
each species of concent. Again, EPA used the MRFSS sample to calculate the proportion of recreational fishing trips taken
by anglers targeting each species of concern, and applied these percentages to the total number of trips to estimate species-
specific participation. Table D5-14 shows the calculation results," For all fishing modes, anglers targeting gamefish take the
most trips each year, fol lowed by those targeting snapper-grouper, drums, and spotted seatrout. The number of trips for
anglers targeting black drum was calculated by multiplying total trips for drums by the percent of drum anglers who generally
target black drum. The number ofsheepshead trips was calculated in a similar manner, based on snapper-grouper trips.
The estimated number of trips represents the baseline level of participation. Anglers may take more fishing trips when fishing
quality improves. EPA used the estimated trip participation model to estimate the percentage change in the number of fishing
trips with the elimination of I&E. and for a one fish per trip increase in catch rates at each site. For elimination of t&E, the
estimated percentage increases are ,93% for anglers who target sheepshead, .94% for anglers who target spotted seatroul, and
3.82% for anglers who target black drum. For a 1 fish increase in catch rates, the estimated percentage increases range from
1.5 percent for anglers who target spotted seatrout, to 2.95 percent for anglers who target garoeftsh. The increased number of
trips are shown in Table D5-14.
c Estimating total benefits to Tampa Bay anglers
Table DS-13 provides welfare estimates for the two policy scenarios* the elimination of l&K in the Tampa region, and a one
fish per trip increase in catch rates. For elimination ofl&E, total benefits would be S2.3S0.303 per year estimated at the
baseline number of trips, and S2.4I0,288 per year estimated at the predicted increased number of trips. For a one fish
increase, for all fishing modes, total benefits would be $23.1 million per year estimated at the baseline number of trips, and
$23.7 million per year estimated at the predicted increased number of trips.
" The number of trips shown includes trips taken by anglers who did not target on the intercepted trip. The number of trips for "no
target" anglers for each species was calculated based on the total number of no target anglers multiplied by the percent of no targes anglers
who generally target each species.
D5-N
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Cose Studies: Port D, The Tampa Bay Chapter E>5: Tompc Bay Recreational Fishing Cose Study
Table D5-
14: Recreational Fishing Participation by Species and Fishing Mode
Mode; Private Rental Boats
Number of Fishing Days
Mode: Shore
Number or Fishing Days
Mode: Charter Boat
Number or Fishing Days
Total Number of
Fishing Days per Year
Species
1
With Improved Fishing :
Quality
J
With Improved Fishing
Quality
With Improved Fishing
Quality
%
SB
: With Improved Fishing
Quality
"I
£
Elimina-
tion oT
i&K
+1 Fish"
8
1
Elimina-
tion of
I&E
+ J Flih*
J
Elimina-
tion of +1 Fish* ;
I&E
s
a
; Elimina-
tion of
I&E
+ 1 Fish'
Drums
719.133
„
733,312
358,169
365,231
15,691
i 6,000
! ,195,656
1,219,231
Black
Drum
22,598
23,46!
11.255
11.615
493
512
37.571
39,007
..
Spotted
Sealrou!
752,175
759,248
763,469
203,404
205,31?
206.458
__
...
i, 125,163
1,142,057 ,
1,135,743
Ciarnefish
735,618
-
757,323
789.546
-
812.842 ¦
102.089
105,101
1,565,305
-
1,611,490
Snapper-
Grouper
681,955
700.938
496,616 •
510.440 *
204.204
: 209,888
i.369,500
—
1.407,621
Sheep
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies; Port D, The Tampa Bay Chapter D5:Tampa Boy Recreational Fishing Case Study
Table D5-15: Total Welfare Estimates for I4E Baseline Losses and 1 fish
Increase in Catch Rates (2000$)
+ 1 Hsh
liast'tine I&K 1 li Value Low N a!ue Mi}.' ^ alue
S4.3H0.7KH S4,467,163
Drums (Red ami Black)
Black Drum
Spotted Seatrout
Gameiish
Snapper-Grouper
Shecpshead
Totals
S3,146,749 • S.I.W.WS $1,976,135 : S1,W4,717
SSi,541,457 : Sfi JW.479
$264,651 $274,451
D5-5 Limitations and Uncertainty
05-5,1 Site Quality
The Tampa Bay model uses historic catch rates and the presence of boat ramps and marinas as the sole measures of site
quality. Other potential measures of quality are omitted. These might include the size of fish caught or the likelihood of
catching a large fish. Other si'le quality variables related to aesthetics and amenities of sites might also be important.
However, EPA was unable to obtain adequate data cm any of these variables,
D5-5.2 Extrapolating Single-Day Trip Results to Estimate Benefits from Multiple ~
Day Trips
Use of per day welfare gait) estimated for single-day trips to estimate per day welfare gain associated with multiple-day trips
can either understate or overstate benefits to anglers taking multiple-day trips. Inclusion of multi-day trips in the model of
recreational anglers' behavior can be problematic because multi-day trips are frequently multi-activity trips. An individual
might travel a substantial distance, participate in several recreation activities including shopping and sightseeing, all as part of
one trip. Recreational benefits from improved recreational opportunities for the primary activity are overstated if all travel
costs are treated as though they apply to the one recreational activity of interest. EPA therefore limited the recreational
behavior model so single-day trips only and then extrapolated single-day trip results to estimate benefits to anglers taking
multiple-day trips.
D5-5.3 Considering Only Recreational Values
This study understates the total benefits of improvements in fishing site quality because estimates are limited to recreation
benefits. Many other forms of benefits, such as habitat values for a variety of species (in addition lo recreational fish), nonuse
values, etc., are also likely to be important.
D5-5.4 Sources of Survey Bias
a. Recall bias
Recall bias can occur when respondents are asked, such as in the NDS 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 may also overstate She 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.
B5-16
-------
§ 316(b) Watershed Case Studies: Part D, The Tampa Bay Chapter D5 Tompa Bay Recreational Fishing Cose Study
b. Sampling effects
Recreational demand studies frcquemly lace observations thai do not fit genera! recreation patterns, such as observations of
avid participants. These participants can be problematic because they claim to participate in an activity an inordinate number
ol 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. I*PA set the upper limit of the number of fishing trips per
year to2Q0 days to correct for potential bias caused by these observations when estimating trip participation models. Note
that the Agency used the NMPS estimate of the baseline number of trips that was corrected for avidity bias. The estimated
participation model was used tor estimating percentage change in total participation in the Tampa Bay area. Therefore,
sampling effects are unlikely to have a significant impact on welfare estimates.
c. Modeling
The model necessarily assumes that trips are independent choice occasions because it uses data for an individual intercepted
trip for each angler to predict behavior. The model does not account for the fact that choices regarding trips across a season
or year might be correlated. The Tampa Bay ease study does not use mode-specific catch rates in the model. The inclusion of
catch rates by mode and site might capture differences in value by mode.
1)5-1?
-------
Chapter W>! Benefits Analysis
Chapter D6: Benefits Analysis for
Four Facilities on Tampa Bay
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits to fisheries that are associated with
reductions in estimated current I&E at four facilities on
Tampa Bay. The economic benefits reported here are
based on the values presented in Chapter D4, and EPA's
estimates of current i&.E (discussed in Chapter D3).
Section D6-I presents a summary of i&E losses, and
associated monetized losses, for Big Bend. Section D6*2
then describes the economic benefits from the reduced
I&E and Section D6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the
analysis.
D6-1 Overview of ME ano Associated Economic Values
The flowchart in Figure D6-1 reveals how the valuation of loss is derived, starting with data expressed as numbers of
organisms lost from i&E. Figures D6-2 and D6-3 display the current impingement and entraioment impacts, respectively, on
age I equivalents of the various fisheries. These piecharts reflect the baseline losses based on current technology, and all
dollar values and percentages of tosses reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse,
and forage.
Chapter Contents
'TmBSi
1)6-1
Overview of l&fc ami Associated Economic
Losses ,. ..
. D6-I
D6-2
Economic Benefits of Reduced ! ofOmissiony ftidscs. and Uncertainties
in titie Benefits Analysis
. D6-G
D6-1
-------
Chapter D6" Benefits Analysis
Figure 56-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual J.&E of 819 Send facility, Tampa Bay and Associated
Economic Values (based on current configuration; all results are annualized)"
I. Number «f organism* tost (eggs, larvae, jm eailev etc.)
1: 284,00U organisms
E; IM frill ion organisms
7. Nudum: losses
I: i 10? .5 DO (321% of SI toss!
F-: S426.4P0 <5.2% ef $E .toss)
4. Commercial tarns
I: 2 1.400 fish (4.300 lb)
$» 1,580(3.6*4 of $1 kiss)
E: 640.000 Fish j 10.1 million lb)
$652200- (!5.»i«rSE -hm)
6. Forage lowe-s {valued using
replacement cosl mcrhoti)
I: 62.100 fish
si::i(oo4%l>!'si i»s)
E;7.7 billion iixh
V, 2 millions. V!i,of
$1 lu».M
2. Age I equivalent\ lost (number c»f fkb)
I: 420.000 fish (62,100 forage. 357,100 commercial ami recreational)
F: 7 71 hilliaj fish (7:7 biilk>» forage, HI.? million commercial .itvl tecrcatiomil>
3, l,o.« to fithcrv (recreational anil commercial harvest)
h .27.000 Mi (11.100 lb)
E: 1,3 inilljtin Cish {22.8 million lb)
5, Kecreatiooal l»*se»
1; (¦>JOO fish (3.400 Ih)
SI9l.«w:RtjMh
(59.5% of SI loss)
SI5.400 BP
(4,8% of $1 loss)
£:6W.D00 fish (-6.2 million tt»
$787,400 RUM" :
<9.7%ofSE tote)'-- -
S65.300 0P
<0.8% of S£-toss) -
" All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
1 Random Utility Model.
c Benefits iruiisJci
Now: Species with l&K <1% of the total MtE were not valued,
D6-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part ft: Tampa Bay
Chapter 56 Benefits Analysis
Figure 86- 2- Big 8t,nd: Distribution of Impingement Lasses by Species Category or»d Associated Economic
Values
6.5% Forage Fish ~~""
UN DER V ALUQ) (valu
using rcplacrnvnt cos
method)
(0.04% h
7$. 7% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvesied)
(0"ouj'$l]h
#jtw
'¦mm
Total: 419,300 fish per year (age I equivalents)"*
Total impingement value: $322,100''
6.45% Commercial and
Recreational Fish''
VALUED (as direct loss
io commercial and
recreational fishery)
(67.mofSfjb
a Impact shown arc to age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationaliy harvested fish include impacts tor all ages
vulnerable lo the fishery.
* Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse valuta are 32.1% of loiai est!mated $1 lass.
IM-J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Bay Chapter Dfc- Benefits Analysis
Figure B6-3; 8>g Bend: Distribution of EntrainmenT Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic
Values
0,02% Commercial and Recreational Fish
VALUED (as direct loss to commercial
and recreational fishery)
[18,5au o/XE] h
99.86% Forage Fish"
UNDERVALUED
(valued using
replacement cost
method)
f76.3% ofSE]b
0.12% Commercial and Recreational Fish*
UNVALUED (i.e., unharvested)
0% ofSE)'
Total: 7.7 billion fish per year (age I equivalents)"
Total cntrainment value: $8.1 million1'
* Impacts shown are u» age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested flW» include impacts for all ages
vulnerable to the fishery.
h Midpoint of estimated rjoge Ntmasi,' values ai£ 5,2"% oftitl^l estimated SE loss.
D6-4
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port D Tampa Bay Chapter D6: Benefits Analysis
D6-2 Economic Benefits of Reduced I&E at the Four In-Scope Facilities on
Tampa Bay
Tables D6-I and !)<>•• 2 provide the baseline monetized recreational loss estimates for impingement and entrainment,
respectively. Both tables indicate results from the basic analysis (benefit transfer) from Chapter IM. and the RUM analysis
from Chapter D5, The two approaches are combined to develop a range of estimates for recreational fishery losses at
baseline.
Table D6-1; CPA's Estimate of Current Recreational Economic Losses
(benefits baseline) from Impingement for Recreational Species at
Facilities located on Tampa Say ($2000)
in-Sfopc Facilities (Big Send, FJ Gannon,
Species Hookers Point, PL Bartow)
Basic Analysis Rum Analysis*
Black drum $23 $0
Blue crab S24,OX I NA
Pinfish St,1,260 NA
Silver perch $228 NA
Spotted scatrout $46,020 $4?],751
Stone crab S301 NA
Tot# _ __ $509.621
" The RUM results include increased participation.
* RUM results used (in place of Basic Analysis results) where given.
NA = Not Available.
'.\iitexandria\project\INTAKE\Tanipa_Bay\Tanipa_Sciaice'«code'«xinipolatkj».to.othcr,
fadlities\rcd.baselinc.rutTU.xls
37285
Table D6-2: EPA's Estimate of Current Recreational Economic Losses
(benefits baseline) from Entrapment For Recreational Species at
Facilities Located on Tampa Bay ($2000)
ln-Scope FacOitie* (Big Bend, FJ Gannon,
Specie* Hookers Point, PL Bartow)
Basic Analysts Rum Analysis"
Black drum St69,567 $274,451
Shcepshead 1ST. 5141,12 i
Silver perch $6,242 NA
Spotted searrcmt SMS,531 S 1,522.966
Stone crab SI54,507 NA
Total* S2.tm.2H7 _ _
4 The RUM results include increased participation.
k RUM results used (in place of Basic Analysis results) where given.
NA « Not Available.
\\alexandria\pr0jecf-lNTAKE\Tampa_Bay"Tampa„Scienee\sc0de'w?arapolaiic»ti, to.other.
facilittes\red,byselineram,E,xls
1/29/02
Table D6-3 summarizes the total current losses, plus the potential benefits of a range of l&E reductions. The benefits of
reducing l&E at Tampa Bay tn-seope facilities are expected to range from S471,000 to $480,000 for a 60% reduction in
impingement and from $13,7 million to $14.3 million per year for a 70% reduction in entrainment.
D6-S
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part D: Tampa Boy
Chapter Dfe Benefits Analysis
D6-3: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential 146
Reductions at Four In Scope Facilities on Tampa Say ($2000)
Impingement
t'. n train me nt
Tula!
Baseline Losses
low
$785,000
$19,615,000
$20,400,000
high
SK01,000
$20.491,000
$21,291,000
Benefits of 10% reductions
tow
579,000
$1,961,000
$2,040,000
high
S 80,00(1
$2,049,000
$2,129,000
Benefits of 20% reductions
low
$! 57,000
$3,923,000
$4,080,000
high
$160,000
$4,098,000
54,258,000
Benefits of 30% reductions
low
$236,000
$5,884,000
56,120,000
high
5240,000
56,147,000
S6.3S7.000
Benefits of 40% reductions
low
$314,000
S7.846.000
$8,160,000
-
high
$320,000
$8,196,000
S8.517.000
Benefits of 50% reductions
low
1393,000
$9,807,000
SI 0,200,000
high
S400.000
$10,245,000
$10,646,000
Benefits of 60% reductions
low
$471,000
SI 1,769,000
$12,240,000
high
$480,000
$12,294,000
$12,775,000
Benefits of 70% reductions
Urn
$550,000
$13,730,000
$14,280,000
high
$561,000
$14,343,000
S14.904,000
Benefits of 80% reductions
low
S62#,Q00
$15.692,000
516,320,000
high
$641,000
$16,393,000
$17,033,000
Benefits of 90% reductions low $707,000 517,653,000 518,360,000
high ; $721.000 ; SI 8,442.000 __ 519,162,000
D6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits
Analysis
Tabic D6-4 presents an overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were properly
accounted.
D6-6
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Bart D: Tampa Bay
Chapter t>6: Benefits Analysis
Ikuc
Table 06
-4; Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Estimates
: Impact on Benefit* Kilinulf:
Comments
Long-term fish stock effects not
considered
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Recreation participation is held
constant"
Boating, bird-watching, and other
in-strcam or near-water activities
are omitted*
Effect ofchange in stocks on
number of landings
Nonuse benefits
Use of unit values from outside
Tampa flay Estuary
Extrapolation from Big Bend to
other facilities
Understates benefits1
Understates benefits"
Understates benefits11
Understates benefits*
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncertain
EPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
the higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact
:EPA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the
r stock more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as
: water qualify improves over time due to other watershed activities, the
number of fish impacted by l&E may increase.
: Recreational benefits estimated via benefits transfer only reflect
: anticipated increase tn value per activity outtng; increased levels of
participation are omitted, RUM analyses do embody participation
increases, however.
The only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
• EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship, that a 13 percent
; change in stock would have a 13 percent change in landings; this may
be low or high, depending on the condition of the- stocks.
El'A assumed that nonuse benefits arc 50 percent of recreational
: angling benefits.
The recreational and commercial values used are from the state and/or
: mid-Atlantic region, but are not from studies of Tampa Bay
; specifically.
Unknown whether S/MGD basis for extrapolation over- or understates
benefits of other facilities tn the estuary.
Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
D6-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part E- Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Part E: San Francisco
Bay/Delta Estuary
-------
Chapter El: Background
Chapter E1:
Background
The Sao Francisco Bay and tile Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delia combine to form the largest estuary along the
U.S. Pacific Coast {Kennish, 2000), The San Francisco
Bay/Delta Estuary supports numerous fish species that
have shown substantial declines in recent years as u result
(if human activities, particularly extensive use and
redistribution of freshwater inflow to the delta, A number
of these species are currently threatened with extinction,
including numerous native fishes that are vulnerable to
impingement and entrainment by the cooling water intakes
of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants which are
located in the delta (sec Figure EJ-1). In December 1997,
the operator of these facilities entered into a Section 2081
Management Authorization with the California
Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the California
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to address state-listed species (Jones and Stokes, 1998). A multtspecies Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP) is currently being drafted for the NMFS and the USPWS to request an incidental take permit under Section 10 of
the federal ESA (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Chapter contents
..-..-Si
01-1
Overview (if Case Study Facilities ... .
. El-1
El-2
Environmental Sen ins ...
El-3
El -2.! The San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary ,
.. El-3
EI-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
•
E 1-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
.. F.l-4
EJ-3
Socioeconomic Characteristics
El-3.1 Industrial Activities
£1-3.2 Commercial Fishing -,
Bl-3.3 Recreational Fishing
El-3.4 Other Water-Based Recreation
. - £1-7
This case study discusses losses of fish species at the
Pittsburg and Contra Costa plants and the potential
economic benefits of reducing losses under 316(b)
regulation. Economic valuation is based on other efforts to
mitigate fish losses related to bay-delta water use.
El -1 Overview of Case Study
Facilities
The Pittsburg Power Plant is on the south shore of'Suisun
Bay. just west of the confluence of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers. The Contra Costa plant is on the south shore
of the San Joaquin River about 8 km (5 miles) upstream of
the Pittsburg plant in an industrial area near Antioeh. about
96,6 km (60 miles) northeast of San Francisco. Both power
plants generate electricity from steam turbines with boilers
fueled by natural gas.
Pittsburg Power Plant
The Pittsburg plant is a 1,984 MW steam-electric power
plant in the Western Systems Coordinating Council
(WSCC). The plant began commercial service in 1954, It
currently has seven active, natural gas-fired generating
~ —
Thfi-ak'tu'tL !:.nih>n%«n
-------
Chapter €1: Background
units': Units 1-6 use a once-through cooling system, and Unit 7 water is cooled through two mechanical-draft cooling towers
and a cooling pond,
in 1998, Pittsburg had 139 employees and generated almost 5 million MWh of electricity {net of plant use). Estimated 1998
revenues for the Pittsburg plant were approximately $445 million, based on the plant's 1998 electricity sales of 4.5 million
MWh arid the 1998 company-level electricity revenues of $99,16 per MWh. Pittsburg's 19951 production expenses totaled
over $165 million, or 3.395 cents per kWh, for an operating income of approximately $280 million.
Contra Costa Power Plant
The Contra Costa power plant is in the WSCC. Contra Costa consists of seven generating units divided into three facilities
(Southern Energy Delta. LLC, 20t)Q), All seven units rely on once-through cooling. Units 1-3 were built in 1951 and Units 4
and 5 were built in 1953. Units 6-7 were added in 1964. Currently, only Units 6 and 7 are regularly producing electricity for
a total of 676 MW. Units 1-3 are on long-term standby and Units 4 and 5 are operated as synchronous condensers, providing
power quality support but not power generation. A Unit 8 is currently planned (Steve Galio, Project Manager, Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants, personal communication, 9'18/0(1).
Contra Costa had 60 employees in 1998 and generated almost 1.9 million MWh of electricity (net of plant use). Estimated
baseline revenues in 1998 were approximately SI 73 million, based on the plant's 1998 estimated electricity sales of 1.7
million MWh and the 1998 company-level electricity revenues of $99,16 per MWh. Contra Costa's 1998 production
expenses totaled almost $61 million, or 3.201 cents per kWh, for an operating income of approximately $112 million.
Table El-1 summarizes the plant characteristics of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants.
Table El-1; Summary of Pittsburg and Contra Costa Plant Choraetert sties (1998)
Pittsburg
Contra Costs
Plant E1A code
271
228
NERC region
WSCC
WSCC
Total capacity (MW)
1,9X4
676
Primary fuel
Gas
Gas
Number of employees
139
60
Net generation (million MWh)
4.9
1.9
Estimated revenues (million)
$445
$173
Total production expense (million)
SI 65
$61
Production expense ic kWh)
3.395
3,201
Estimated operating income
$280
SI 12
Notes; NERC - North American Electric Reliability Council
WSCC = Western Systems Coordinating Council
Dollars are in S2(K)I.
Source: Form E1A-860B {'NERC Region, Total Capacity); FERC Form-1 (Primary Fuel, Number of Employees, Total
Production Expense); Him) E1A-W6 (Net Generation).
Pittsburg and Contra Costa, both began operation as regulated utility plants. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
owned the two plants until April 1999, when they were sold to Southern Energy, Inc., a competitive energy provider and
subsidiary of Southern Company. In September 2000, Southern Company announced the initial public offering of 66.7
million shares, or 19,7 percent, of common stock in Southern Energy, Inc. In January 2001, Southern Energy, Inc. changed
its name to Miram Corporation and became a fully independent, publicly traded company after completion of a spin-olY from
Southern Company in April 2001 (Mtranl Corporation, 2001a).
' For the purposes of this analysis, "active" units include generating units that are operating, on standby, on cold standby, on test, on
mamtenanee/repairs, or out of service (all year). Active units do not include units that are on indefinite shutdown or retired.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
Miranl Corporation is a global, competitive energy company with 7,000 employees worldwide, Mirant owns or controls more
than 20,000 MW of electric generating capacity and is developing another 9.0(H) MW (Vlirunt Corporation, 2001a). In 2-000,
Mi rant posted revenues of $13.3 billion and sold 186 million MWh of electricity (Mirant Corporation, 2001c).
El-2 Environmental Setting
El-2A The Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
The San Franc isco Hay portion of the Bay-Delia Estuary consists of several distinct hydrographic segments (Kennish, 2000;
Figure El-I S. from north to south these include Suisun Bay, Carqutncz Strait, San Pablo Bay, central San Francisco Bay, and
south San Francisco Bay. The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the northeastern-most portion of the estuary. It is a
network of sloughs, marshes, channels, streams, and emhaymeiits that includes the northern delta (dominated by waters of the
southward flowing Sacramento River), the southern delta (dominated by the waters of the northward-flowing San Joaquin
River), and the eastern delta (dominated by the waters of the Cosuranes and Mokeiumne rivers).
Figure El-I: Locations of Facilities within the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
/
7
\
Oregon
„ .ililornia
Area of
--I
Detail
i ,,
facilities
Major urban areas
Pittsburg
Power Plant
Sacramento
'm
AdHdc
p
CoaccwJ
Sloektrtn
9 4.g::Q .,',.,.,.8 -W-
7 3.5 0 7
San
Franti-ico
Oakland
, . , Contra Costa
Pumping flint
% _
Tracy
Pumping Plant
: 2l Mitos-:
\ San
Jose
Freshwater inflow and tidal exchange interact io determine salinity within the estuary (Keunish, 2000). Saltwater from
adjacent coastal waters enters San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate and freshwater enters the upper estuary from rivers
of the Central Valley. The Sacramento River accounts for 80% of the total discharge from the Central Valley, and the San
Joaquin River contributes 15%. Inputs of freshwater from the delta peak in winter and spring, lowering salinities in the
£7-J
-------
Chapter El: Background
northern estuary, and sometimes in the southern estuary as far south as south San Francisco Bay. Reduced freshwater inputs
in summer and fail result in greater saltwater intrusion from the bay into the delta. Deep channels such as the Carquinez Strait
arc characterized by strong up estuary bottom flows of saltwater.
In addition to the negative effects of reduced freshwater Hows as a result of water diversions, the flow, patterns created by
water exports transport many larval and juvenile fish away from the delta s("hadwick et al, 1977). Although the pumping
plant intakes are screened and large numbers of young fish are salvaged at the screens and returned to the estuary near
Antioch, millions of eggs and larvae are entrained annually. Many millions more eggs and larvae are entrained in the siphons
and putnp.s of local diversions, as well as in the CWJS of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities, adding substantially to total
fish losses (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981a, 1981c).
El-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
The diverse ecological conditions of the San Francisco Hay/Delta Estuary provide habitat for a wide variety of aquatic
organisms, including 230 species of birds, 52 species of fish, and 45 species of mammals (llerbold and Moyle, 1989; llerbold
el al., 1992). About half of the waterfowl and shorebirds that migrate along the Pacific Flyway and two-thirds of the state's
salmon pass through the bay-delta estuary during their migrations. Many of the region's fish species support commercial or
recreational fisheries within the estuary or nearby coastal waters.
The aquatic community in the vicinity of Pittsburg and Contra Costa is typical of freshwater to low salinity estuarine habitats
( l lerbold and Moyle, 1989; l lerbold et at., 1992). As in the rest of the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary, aquatic life in this
area is influenced by effects of water development on freshwater flows. When freshwater flow is low (<10,000 cfs), the
brackish transition between salt and fresh water lies east of the Pittsburg plant, but when (lows are high (>50,000 cfs). the
transition occurs downstream in the Carquine* Strait or Sat! Pablo Bay (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000), Monthly salinity
averages 0.1 to 5 ppt near the Pittsburg facility, but during drought periods, salinity can be as high as 12.6 ppt. Salinity near
the Contra Costa plant typically varies from 0 to 1.5 ppt, reaching as high as 2.5 ppt.
The wide, shallow channels and brackish conditions of the estuary near the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities support
abundant small invertebrates, such as mysid shrimp (NeamysLs mercedis), that provide a rich food source for the more than 50
fish species that use the area as a nursery, rearing and feeding area (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996h). A number of
anadromous fish migrate through the area to the freshwater reaches of tributary rivers to spawn, including striped bass
(MoronesaxMilis), American shad (Alma sapidimma), and white sturgeon (Acipcnxer transmonlwus), as well as several
special status species, including green sturgeon (Ac. mt'dirmiris), the Sacramento winter-run ESU chinook salmon
(Oncorhyttchus tshawyfscha), the Central Valley ESU steelhead {O. mykiss), the Central Valley spring-run ESU cliinook
salmon, and the Central Valley fall/late fall run ESU chinook salmon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b).' Suisun Bay,
where the Pittsburg plant is located, is considered critical habitat for the endangered Sacramento winter-run ESU chinook
salmon and the threatened delta smelt {Hypomesus imnspacifiats). Other special status species in the area include
Sacramento splittail (Poganichlhys macrokpidotus) and longfm smelt (Spirinchus thakichihys).
El-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
Altered flow regimes and decreased freshwater flows (as a result of water development), accelerating land development,
exposure to pollutants, increased dredging and waterway modification, power plant operations, and competition from
normative species have all contributed to marked declines in the native fish species of the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
(llerbold and Moyle, 1989; llerbold et al., 1992).
Urban development
The San Francisco Bay region is the fourth largest urban area in the United States. Approximately 30% of the land
surrounding the bay and 10% of the land in the three delta counties is urbanized (Kennish, 2000). Because of its urban nature
and associated nonpoint source runoff, a variety of contaminants impact the estuary. The estuary receives approximately 8.2
trillion to 65.8 trillion kg (9.0? million to 72.5 million tons) of pollutants annually. These include biological pollutants such
as sewage, inorganic nutrients and metals, organic chemicals such as pesticides and solvents, and suspended solids. Many of
* ESU refers to "evolutionary significant unit."
Ei-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E San Francisco Boy/Delta Estuary
the contaminants in the estuary are carcinogenic or otherwise harmful and there are concerns about the health effects of
regular consumption of contaminated seafood in sonic areas of the bay.
Water development
Massive water development has created major stresses on the San Francisco Bay/Delta aquatic ecosystem over the past 50
years (Kennish, 2000). Today, the delta is the center of California's extensive water distribution system, providing over half
of the state's supply of freshwater. The export of fresh water from the delta has increased steadily since the 1940s, when the
federal Central Valley Project (CVP) began diverting water into the Contra Costa Canal. SlitI the largest water development
project in the world, the CVP currently operates 20 dams and reservoirs, eight power plants, and about 500 miles of canals
and aqueducts, tn 1951, the federal Delta-Mendota Canal began to export delta water southward to farms in the San Joaquin
Valley, In 1968, the SWP began exporting delta water into the California Aqueduct, The aqueduct conveys water southward
into the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California, The project operates 22 dams and reservoirs and several hundred miles
of canals and aqueducts. There are now more than 100 reservoirs in the Central Valley watershed, over 1,100 miles of Delta
levees, and 2,000 water diversions from the Delta (Kennish, 2000).
Water development has had numerous major impacts on aquatic organisms of the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary,
particularly fish species (lierbold and Moyle, 19SO; lierbold et al.. 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b), Fish and
aquatic food sources are entrained through diversion pumps, downstream transport of fish larvae and young juveniles to
nursery areas is reduced, and migratory patterns are disrupted by "reverse flows." Reverse flows occur when freshwater
inflow is low and pumping of water for export is high (Kennish, 2000). Under these conditions, the lower San Joaquin River
changes direction and flows upstream.
Upstream diversions reduce freshwater flows through the delta to San Francisco Bay by an average of one-third of the total
annual flaw (Kennish, 2000), Historically, delta outflow was reduced by 50-70% in dry years, but recent standards set the
maximum diversion at 35% from February through June and 65% from July through January (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1996b). Delta outflow is the amount of freshwater that flows downstream past Chtpps Island into Suisun Bay, An index of
outflow is calculated from the amount of delta inflow, exports from the delta by the CVP, SWP, and Contra Costa Canal, and
depletions within the delta (CDWR, 1994),
Diversions and altered (low regimes affect salinity and flow patterns, concentrations of pollutants, and the biological
productivity of the estuary (Kennish, 2000). Increased saltwater intrusion into northern reaches of the bay, particularly the
western delta and Suisun Bay, is a now major threat to biological communities and the supply of freshwater for drinking and
irrigation.
Because freshwater input regulates the estuary's salinity gradient, the amount of freshwater How strongly influences the
abundance and diversity of aquatic organisms (Kennish, 2000), When delta discharge is high and estuarine salinity is
reduced, a stratified water column develops, which isolates phytoplankton in the photic zone where growth is enhanced.
Increased production of phytoplankton m turn promotes production of other components of the estuarine food web. In
contrast, when delta inflow is low, salinity increases and the water column is less stratified, reducing production of
phytoplankton and the pelagic food web.
In addition to reducing the amount of delta outflow, water storage has also altered the timing of flows, which can have an
even greater effect on biological productivity than reduced flow quantity alone (lierbold et a!., 1992), Water stored during
winter and spring months for release later in the year when flows are naturally low greatly reduces natural runoff from
snowincli in spring. Loss of high (lows in spring have a number of negative consequences on estuarine production. Under
natural conditions, high spring Hows help flush contaminants out of the estuary, support migration and spawning of
anadromous fish, and determine the location and productivity of the "entrapment zone" (Kennish, 2(M)0), The entrapment
zone (also referred to as the null zone) is where incoming ocean water mixes with freshwater flowing downstream, trapping
nutrients and enhancing the growth of estuarine plants and animals,
In June 1994, federal and state agencies signed a Framework Agreement under the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to improve
ecological conditions in the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary (CALFED, 2002). The agreement formally establishes
cooperation in three major areas of Bay-Delta management;
» formulation of water quality standards
~ coordination of SWP and CVP operations with regulatory requirements, and
~ development of long-term solutions to bay-delta environmental problems,
El-5
-------
Chapter El Background
Agreement on water quality standards was formalized in the Bay-Delta Accord of December !W, The accord established:
* spring export limits expressed as a percentage of delta inflow.
~ regulation of the estuary's salinity gradient so that a salt concentration of 2 ppt is located where Jt may be most
beneficial to aquatic life,
~ spring flows in the lower San Joaquin River to bench; chinook salmon, and
~ intermittent closure of the Delta Cross Channel gates to reduce entrainment of fish into the delta.
Under the ! 994 Bay-Delta Accord and the resulting 1995 State Water Quality Plan, a salinity standard was established based
on relationships between salinity and the abundance and survival of various aquatic species (Kenmsh. 2000). The standard is
expressed in terras of the so-called "X2." the distance from the Golden Gate to the upstream point where the average daily
salinity is 2 ppt measured 1 m (3.3 ft) from the bottom (CALFED, 2002). The standard restricts the penetration of saltwater
up estuary and the seasonal location of X2 in the delta. The amount of freshwater diverted to the CVP and the SWP is
controlled so that the X2 remains near the Carquinez Strait.
Power plant operations
It is thought that the salinity standard will influence the seasonal distribution of special status fish species near the Pittsburg
arid Contra Costa power plants, including delta smelt, longfm smelt, chinook salmon, steclhead, and Sacramento splittail
(PG&E, 1998). Analysis by CAl.FED's interagency Ecological Program Estuarine Ecology Team predicted the following
relationships among delta outflow, fish species distributions, and power plant operations:
In low outflow years, with a more upstream location of X2:
~ Delta smelt may experience increased entrainment,
~ Sacramento splittail may have a greater proportion of its population shifted upstream near the power plant intakes,
~ Longfin smelt may experience increased eotrainment because larvae would not be transported as I'ar downstream and
the brackish water nursery areas of San Pablo and Suisun bays would shift to the delta, and
~ Chinook salmon and steelhead outmigrating smolts may move less rapidly downstream, increasing (heir exposure to
power plant intakes.
Normative species
Accidentally introduced species have generally been quite successful in the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary, and dominate
many habitats to the detriment of native species fKennish, 2000). Most of the common macroinvertebrates m the bay were
introduced, and exotic species constitute more than half of the fish in the delta area, Invertebrates sueh as the soft-shelled
clam {Mya arenaria) and the Japanese littleneck clam (Tapes japonica) were introduced early in the 19th century, along with
sbtpworms {Teredo navalixi and oyster drills (Urosalpinx cincenm). In addition, in recent years the introduced Asian clam
(Poiamocvrbula amuremis) has decimated the planktonic food supply of invertebrates and young fish (Kennish, 2000).
El-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
The Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants are located in Contra Costa County. In 2000, the population of Contra Costa
County was 948,816 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), ft is more densely populated than Solano County, which borders Contra
Costa to the north, but less densely populated than .Sacramento County, which lies upstream ('fable El -2). Contra Costa has a
lower unemployment rate and higher rate of home ownership than either of its neighboring counties.
El-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E San Fronosco Boy/Delta Estuary
Table El-2- Socioeconomic Characteristics of Contra Costa and Neighboring Counties
Contra Coda Count)' : Solano County i Sacrament# County
Population in 2000 ' ¦ 948.KI6 394,542 1,223.499
Land area in 2000, 720 (278) 829(320) 966(373}
1'crson.s per square mile, 2000 I ,3 IX 476 1,267
Metropolitan Area Oakland ; Vallcjo-FairikW«Napa; Sacramento
Median household money income, 1997 model-based estimate $54,275 $46,1 i 5 $39,461
Persons below poverty, percent, 1997 m«dcl-based estimate 8,7% II.3% 17.2%
Housing units in 2
-------
S 316(b) Case 5tudies, Part Er San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter El: Background
and delta currently support 290 shoreline parks, 200 duck clubs, 300 marinas, and 500,000 recreational boaters (Kennish,
2000). The delta alone provides over 12 million user-days of"recreation each year (Kenntsh, 2000).
Table El-3: 1996 Annual California Angler Trip and Etjuipment Expenditures
Expenditure Item Resident Nonresident Total
Trip Expenditures
Fond, drink ami refreshments $341,095,262 $16,032,627 $357,127,890
Lodging ' SI 14,297,328 56,269,732 Si 20,567.060
Public- transportation $19,928,061 SI8.467.0J6 ; $38,395,077
Private transportation : S274.779.W9 • S I 3,244,966 : $288,024,914
Boat M 1 $104,572,179 52,075,959 SI06.648,138
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees $46,295,514 SI 1,227,618 ; $57,523,133
Public land use or access fees $25,779,489 $446,044 $26,225,532
Private land use or access fees $5,422,403 $73,144 $5,495,548
Boat launching fees $82,662,540 $118,076 S82.780.5I6
Boat mooring, storage, maintenance and insurance $223,721,709 $905,019 $224,626,728
Equipment rental $28,817,277 SI.414,265 530,231,542
Bait (live, cut, prepared) $79,002,176 $1,879,133 $80,881,309
Ice S25.924.9S0 $523,501 $26,448.4X2
Heating and cooking fuel $9,114,086 $234,482 $9,348,567
Fishing Equipment Expenditures
Rods, reels, pole;, and rod making components $218,753,011 53,550,708 $222,303,719
Lines and leaders $45,754,939 $875,075 $46,630,014
Artificial lures, flies, baits and dressing $66,491,927 $683,423 $67,175,350
Hooks, sinkers, swivels, etc, $30,048,369 $574,512 $30,622,881
Tackle boxes ' ' $6.585,954 $2I5>32 " " " 16,801,6.%"
Creels, stringers, fish bags, landing nets and gaff hooks $6,250,785 $183,693 $6,434,478
Minnow traps, seines and bait containers $3,194,462 SO $3,194,462
Depth finders, fish finders and other electronic fishing devices S21,987,930 $44,350 . $22,032,280
ice fishing equipment SO $0 $0
Other fishing equipment $43,619,641 $1,991,73! $45,611,372
Auxiliary Purchases for Fishing
Camping equipment S6t,427.2(H) $147,99? $61,575,19?
Binoculars, field glasses, telescopes, etc. $4,337,705 $0 $4,337,705
Special fishing clothing, foul weather gear, bowls, waders, etc. $45,(67.662 $523,710 $45,691,372
Special Equipment Purchased far l-mhinx
Bass boat $116,393,467 $0 $116,393,467
Other motor boat $15,456,806 $0 $15,456,806
Canoe or other non-motor boat $10,576,962 SO 510,576,962
Boat motor, boas trailer/hitch or other boat accessories $37,126,88! $0 $37,126,881
Pickup, camper, van, trawl or tent trailer, motor home, $838,355,866 $33,552,316 $871,908,182
House trailer
Cabin SO SO $0
Trail bike, dune buggy, 4x4 vehicle, 4-wheeler, snowmobile $111,170,400 $0 $111,170,400
Other special equipment including ice chest $12,934,383 $225,839 $13,160,222
£7-v
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E' San Froncisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Tabic El-3: 1996- Annual California Angler Trip arid Equipment Expenditures (cont )
Expenditure Item Resident .Nonresident Total
Other Expenditures
Fishing license fees
545,759,247
12,333.070
$48,092.3)6
Other fees
$4,651,899
$220,357
$4,872,256
Owned or leased property
524,518,910
$0
$24,518,910
Processing and taxidermy costs
S2.223.408
$0
S2.223.408
Books arid magazines
SI8,182.419
$7X2,758
: SI 8,965,177
Does or contributions to organizations
526,595,059
$11,698
S26.606.757
Other purchases
S6.449.731
$102,671
S6.552.403
STATE TOTALS
^ S3,205,427,980
SI!8,951,219
' $3.324.359.199_
Source- California Department of Fish and Game, 2()02a.
£1-9
Chcpter El: Background
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: Son Francisco Say/Delta Estuary Chapter E2' Technical Description of Facilities
Chapter E2:
Technical Description of Facilities
This Chapter presents additional information related to the
Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities. Section E2-1
presents detailed El A data on the generating units
addressed by this case study and within the scope of the
Phase H rulemaking. Section E2-2 describes the
configuration of the intake structures} at the facilities.
Section E2-3 presents an evaluation of the specific impacts
of the proposed Phase II rule, i.e., defines the baseline for calculating benefits. Section E2-4 describes other (non 316-8)
impacts associated with the proposed rule. Section E2-5 provides a benefits summary.
E2 -1 Operational Profile
Pittsburg
During 1999, the Pittsburg power plant operated seven active units.' All seven units employ a steam-electric prime mover
and use cooling water withdrawn from the San Joaquin River, Four of Pittsburg's units were built in 1954 (Generator
IDs 1-4). Each of these units has a generation capacity of 163 MW, Two units of 325 MW each were added between
September I960 and June 1961 (Generator IDs 5-6). Ctttshurg's last generator, a 682 MW unit, was installed in December
1972 (Generator ID 7).
Two of Pittsburg's seven units were classified as "operating" in 1999, while four units were on standby and one unit was on
cold standby. Pittsburg's total gross generation in 1999 was approximately 3.8 million MWh. Unit 7 accounted for almost
1.8 million MWh. or 48 percent, of this total. The capacity utilization of Pittsburg's units ranged from 5.7 to 14.4 percent for
units I to 4,20.0 percent for unit 5, and 28.2 to 30 percent for units 6 and 7/
"fable E2-1 presents details for Pittsburg's seven active units.
Table 62-1
Pittsburg Generator Characteristics (1999)
Generator
Capacity
Prime
Energy
In-Service Operating
Cross Generation
Capacity
ID of Associated
ID
IMW},..
Mover*
Sou ret11
Date Status
(MWh)
Utilization ;
CWIS
PP01
163
ST
NG
Sep, 1954 . Standby
206,000;
14.4%
. 1
PP02
163
ST
NG
Aug, 1954: Standby
185.000:
¦13.0%
2 '
PP03
163
ST
NG
Dee, 1954 Standby
131,000:
3
PP04
163
ST
NG
Dec. 1954; Cold Standby
H2.0OO;
5.7%:
4
PP05
325
ST
NG
Sep, 1960 Standby
569,000:
20.0%:
5
PP06
325
ST
NG
J'un. 1961 Operating
804.000!
28.2%:
6
PP07
6K2
ST
NG
JJeeJ 972J Operating
! .790,000;
30.0%.
7
Ti>tal
1,984
3,767,000
21.7%
" Prime mover categories: ST ~ steam turbine.
*" Energy source categories: NO * natural gas.
Source: Form EIA-860B. Form EIA-767 for CWIS ID.
1 For the purposes of this analysts, "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 arc on indefinite shutdown or retired,
- For this analysis, capacity utilization was calculated by dividing She unit's actual gross generation by the potential gross generation
if the unit ran at full capacity ail the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Chapter Contents
E2-1 Operational Profiic E2-1
E2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal E3-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter E2; Technical Description af Facilities
Figure E2-1 below presents Pittsburg's electricity generation history between 1970 and 1999.
Figure £2-1; Pittsburg Net Electricity feneration 1970 - 1999 (trt MVVh)
12,000.000
10,000.000
8.000.000
e 6.000,000 figgi
©
4,000,000
2.DOO.DDO
US
1970
1975
1980
1985
Year
1990 1995
Source: form El A-906, Form EIA-860B.
Contra Costa
During 1999, Contra Costa operated two active steam-electric generating units. Each unit has it generation capacity of
approximately 340 MW, began operation in 1964, and uses cooling water withdrawn from the San Joaquin River. In addition,
Contra Costa has five retired steam-electric units with a combined capacity of 580 MW. Ail five units were retired in 1994,
Both of Contra Costa's active units were operating in 1999. They accounted for a gross electricity generation of almost 2.5
million MWh. The capacity utilization of these units in 1999 was 42.1 percent and 40,0 percent, respectively,1
On May 29, 2001, the California Energy Commission approved a proposed capacity addition to the Contra Costa power plant.
The proposed Unit 8 would be a 530 MW natural gas-fired, combined cycle unit located within the existing Contra Costa site
complex According so the project description. Unit 8 would not require the withdrawal of additional water from the San
' For this analysis, capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual gross generation by the potential gross generation
if the unit ran at full capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days),
E2-2
-------
Chapter E2 Technical Description of Facilities
Joaquin River because is would re-use water withdrawn for use in Units 6 and 7, The project proposal also includes
construction of a new 10-ccll cooling tower. Since use of the new cooling tower would require approximately 5,000 gallons
per minute (GPM) of makeup water, consumptive use of water at the plant is projected to increase (California Energy
Commission. 2001), The startup date for Unit 8 was originally scheduled for 2003, However, as of June 1. 2001, it was
unclear when construction would begin because of uncertainty about California energy market rules (Miranl Corporation,
2001a).
Table E2-2 presents details for Contra Costa's two active, five retired, and one proposed units.
Toble £2-2:
Generator Detail of the Contra Costa Plant (1999)
Generator
ID
Capacity i
{M\V) ;
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source"
In-Service
Date
Operating Status
Grew
Gem-ration ;
IMWhl
Capacity
Utilization
i»#r
Associated
CWIS
Exist
ng Units
!
116 ;
ST
NG
Jitn.lMl
: Retired - Jun. I*}94
1
3
nt. :
in,;
ST
S1
; NG
NG
Aug. i<>5!
Aug. 195!
: Retired - Aug. 1994
Retired - Aug. I9l)4
4
117
ST
NG
Jul. 1953
Retired - Jut. i')94
5
115
ST
NG
Oct. XQS3
Retired • Oct 1994
CC06
339
ST
NG
Jan. l%4
Operating
1,250,000 :
42.1%
6
CC07
337 :
ST
NG
Jan. 1904
Operating
1,180,000 .
40.0%
7
Total
676
2,430,000
41.0%
Proposed Units
Unit 8
53!) •
CC
NG
n/a
Proposed
n/a :
n/a
' Prime mover categories; ST = Steam turbine; CC - Combined-cycle.
* Energy source categories: NG = natural gas,
* Totals only include nors-rciired units.
Source: Form E1A-&60B, Form E1A-767 for CWIS ID. Information tor retired unite from Form EIA-860A. Information for proposed
unit from California Energy Commission. 2001.
E2-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chcpter E2: Technical beseription of Facilities
Figure E2-2 below presents Contra Costa's electricity generation history between 1970 and 1999.
Figure £2-2: Contra Costa Net Electricity generation 1970 -1999 (in MWh)
9,000,000
b,oc».ooo
7,000,000
6,000,000
| 5,000,000
s 4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1970
1975
1980
1985
Ysar
1990
1995
Source: Form F.lA-906, Form EIA-860B,
E2-2 CW1S Configuration and Water Withdrawal
The Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities withdraw water from estuarine waterbodies. At Pittsburg Landing, the Agency has
estimated that the design intake flow (161 cubic feet per second (cfs)) is approximately 0,70 percent of the tidal excursion
volume in the area. At Contra Costa, the design intake How is approximately 0,47 percent of the tidal excursion.
Monitoring studies in 1978 and 1979 demonstrated that several hundred million fish were impinged or entrained each year by
the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981a; 1981c), Striped bass accounted for about half
of these losses, and initial efforts to reduce l&E focused on development of the best technology available (BTA) to reduce
losses of striped bass. In recent years, attention has shifted to special status fish species, but BTA for these species is still
under review (Southern Bnergy California, 2000).
To reduce striped bass losses, a fish pump removal system was installed at Units 1 -5 of the Contra Costa facility to remove
fish from the area in front of the screens. The facility determined that the pump was effective in reducing impingement rates
and maintaining high survival ol'impinged fish that were returned to the water body. In addition, intake design criteria were
F.2-4
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies. Parr E- San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter EH' Technical Description of Facilities
implemented at Contra Costa Units 6 and 7 and at Pittsburg Units 1-7 to minimize impingement, including an intake approach
velocity of 0.8 fps, configuration of the intake structure to include lateral fish escape routes, and location of intake screen
parallel to the shoreline.
In 1986, the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Boards established additional NPDES
permitting requirements for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities to protect striped bass (Permit CA0004KKD for the
Pittsburg Power Plant and Permit CA0004863 for the Contra Costa Power Plant). This striped bass BTA program is
discussed in Southern Energy California (2000). Among the operational adjustments still in place is the preferential use of
Pittsburg Unit 7, which is equipped with a closed-cycle system, during spring when young striped bass are present.
Entrainment of striped bass varies in direct proportion to the volume of cooling water drawn into the Pittsburg and Contra
Costa intakes (Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981a; 1981e). Because closed-cycle cooling requires far less water, preferential
operation of Pittsburg Unit 7 during the spring striped bass entrapment period (defined as May to mid-July unless modified
by results of field sampling) greatly reduces striped bass losses.
In addition to preferential operation of Pittsburg Unit 7, PG&E was required to install variable-speed circulating water pump
controls for the once through cooling systems of Pittsburg Units 1-6 and Contra Cosia Units 6-7 (Southern Energy California.
2000), Variable speed drives (VSD) are designed to reduce the volume of cooling water provided to a unit during periods
when unit load is low, PG&E was required to install VSDs for the once-through cooling systems of Pittsburg Units 1-6 and
Contra Costa Units 6-7 (Southern Energy California, 2000). The facilities' current NPDES permits also specify actions to
minimize impingement of striped bass, including the frequency of intake screen rotation and cleaning and debris removal to
maintain an optimal bar-rack velocity (Permit CA0004&80 for the Pittsburg Power Plant and Permit CA0DO4863 for the
Contra Costa Power Plant).
Other structural and operational modifications (discussed in Southern Energy California. 2000) included:
~ Operation and dispatch of units during spring (May-July) to reduce unit operations, cooling water flows, and the
frequency of discharge temperatures above 86 degrees F,
* Operation of mechanical crossovers to reduce cooling water volumes at Contra Costa Units 1-3,
~ Installation of a hydrogen cooler at Contra Costa Units 6 and 7.
* Entrainment monitoring of striped bass to determine the optimal lime to implement operational changes to protect
striped bass.
*¦ Entrainment monitoring to dispatch units based on distribution of larva! striped bass and to evaluate the effectiveness
of actions to reduce striped bass losses.
Originally, a performance standard was applied to evaluate the striped bass BTA program. The standard required a 79%
reduction in striped bass losses from the historical baseline (Environmental Science Associates, 1998). However, in 1993,
striped bass monitoring at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities was discontinued to avoid harm to delta smelt following its
federal and stale listing as a threatened species. As a result, the requirement for a 79% reduction in losses was removed in
1995, and striped bass loss estimates are now estimated on the basis of conditions in a prior year with similar flow conditions
(NPDES Permit No. CA0004880 for the Pittsburg Power Plant and NPDES Permit No. CA0004K63 for the Contra Costa
Power Plant).
Initially, the facilities were required to stock hatchery striped bass to mitigate for unavoidable l&E of striped bass
(Environmental Science Associates, 1998). However, because of concern that hatchery-reared striped bass might prey on
endangered juvenile winter-run chinook salmon, the stocking program was discontinued in 1992, In 1995. the stocking
provision was replaced by an annual mitigation dollar amount to provide funding for aquatic habitat restoration
(Environmental Science Associates, 1998). Under she mitigation agreement, any money owed by the facilities is paid into the
California Department of Fish and Game Striped Bass Fund under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities are required to evaluate the performance of the striped bass BTA program on an
annual basis (Environmental Science Associates. 1998). A computer model is used to estimate losses based on hourly cooling
water volume for each unit, hourly discharge water temperatures, and the measured or assumed density of striped bass
susceptible to entrainment during the Mav-July entrainment period. As a result of the sampling prohibition to avoid harm to
delta smelt, striped bass entrainment is now estimated using data for a year with similar flow conditions. For any given year,
the model calculates the percent reduction in striped bass losses by comparing current losses with the average for 1976,1978,
and 1979, before structural and operational BTAs were applied. Pre-BTA losses, expressed as 150 mm striped bass
equivalents, amounted to 116.486 in 1976, 80,476 in 1978, and 143,031 in 1979, representing an average of 113,331 striped
bass per year (PG&E, 1995).
E2-5
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part E: San Francisco Boy/Delta Estuary Chapter EE: Technical Description of Facilities
The ability to reduce striped bass losses varies between years in response to changes in system demand for operation of the
units, availability of alternative sources of generation, and the temporal and spatial distribution of larval striped bass
(Environmental Science Associates, 1998). However, in all years the facilities report a substantial reduction in striped bass
losses resulting from the use of circulating water pump VSDs and "other technologies. Over the period 1995 to 1999, striped
bass losses were reduced by 78% to 94% (Table 1:2-3 S.
Table E2-3: Facility Estimates of Annual Reductions in Striped Boss tosses
With Application of BTA at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants
Year % Reduction in Pre-BTA Losses'
1995 93.9
1996 ! K2.0
1997 78,0
1998 91.7
1999 89,0
' Annual pre-BTA tosses were J 13.331 based on the average for 1976, 197ft, and 1979,
Sources: Best Technology Available Technical Reports for the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants for the years 1995 to 1999
(PCi&te, 1995, 1997, J 99#, 1999; Southern Energy California, 2000).
Other special fish protection measures have recently been proposed by Southern Energy, the operator of the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa facilities, The June 2000 draft HCP for the facilities proposes to reduce current tosses of sensitive fish species
by installation of an "aquatic filter barrier." Known commercially as a Gunderboom "Marine Life Exclusion System," this
technology is a filter curtain comprised of treated polypropylene/polyester fabric that encloses a plant's intake and prevents
the passage of small particles, including fish eggs and larvae, into the intake (http:/; www,gunderboom.com).
Based on studies at the Lovett facility in New York, it is expected that this technology will reduce current entramment losses
at Pittsburg and Contra Costa by at least 80% (Sieve Gallo, Southern Energy, personal communication, 9/18/00). Although
this may not have a significant impact on striped bass losses, which have already been reduced considerably as a result ofine-
st rtped bass BTA program ('fable E2-3), it may have a considerable effect on entralnment of special status species, which can
be substantial in years of high densities near the facilities.
-------
S 316(b) Cast Studies, Pact E: Son Francisco Boy/Uelto Estuary Chapter E3; Evaluation of IAE Data
Chapter E3:
Evaluation of I<&E Data
Summary; Combined Impacts of Pittsburg trod Contra Cost
EPA evaluated impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
from the CWIS of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities
using the assessment methods described in Chapter AS of
this document, EPA's analysis focused on impacts to
threatened and endangered (T&E) fish species, The
combination of decreasing freshwater Hows and the
entrainment of early life stages in both government water
project intakes and power plant intakes has contributed to
a dramatic decline in the abundance of fishes in the
Bay-Delta estuary and the subsequent listing of several
ftsh species as threatened or endangered. Section E3-1 of
this chapter lists all ftsh species that are known to be
impinged or entrained at Pittsburg and Contra Costa,
Section E3-2 summarizes life histories of species
evaluated by EPA, and Section E3-3 outlines the facilities*
J&B monitoring methods. Section E3-4 presents annua!
impingement estimates. Section E3-5 presents annual eWrainraent estimates, and Section E3-6 summarizes results for the two
facilities combined, . "
£3-1 Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa
Power Plants
Table E3-1 lists species that, because of their life histories, arc vulnerable to I&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities,
as well as their designations as recreational, commercial, or forage species, or their special status classifications. EPA's
analysts focused on losses of striped bass and special status species. However, HP A noted that other species are also
impinged or entrained at Pittsburg and Contra Costa,
Chapter Contents
1-3-1 Aquatic Species Vulnerable to l&L ar the
Pitisburg and Contra Costa Power Plants E3-I
F3-2 t.tfe Histories of Species impinged and Entrained
at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Plants £3-2
E3-3 Facility Methods for Estimating I&E E3-1C
F,3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring E3-1Q j
E3-3.2 Entrapment Monitoring E3-H) i
E3-'i Annual Impingement E3-U
tU-s Annual Entrainment E3-I4 >
E3-6 Summary: Combined Impacts of Pittsburg and
Contra Costa E3-16
E3-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pert E: Sari Francisco Boy/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3* Evaluation of ME Data
Table E3-1 Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I
-------
Chapter E3; Equation of I&E Data
Four races of chinook salmon use (he Sacramento-San Joaquin River system {Moyle, 1976; Yoshiyama et al., 2000). These
include the fall run, late fall run, winter run, and spring run chinook salmon, in the Sacramento River, the winter run spawns
from April to July, and the other runs spawn from July to December (Moyle, 1976), Spawning once occurred into the upper
reaches of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, but dams have limited spawning to the lower reaches of these rivers
and their tributaries (Moyle, 1976; Yoshiyama et a!., 2000). The Central Valley laic fall tun was recently evaluated as a part
of a proposed listing of the fall run under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although it was decided that the
combined Central Valley fall/late-fall run currently does not qualify for formal protection, both runs remain under
consideration as candidate species (Yoshiyama el al., 2000), The Sacramento River winter run is listed as endangered under
both the slate and federal ESA. The Central Valley spring run is listed as threatened under both statutes.
The four Centra! Valley runs of chinook salmon are vulnerable to l&f, at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants. Adults
have been observed near the plants in October, and larvae (alevms) have been collected from inshore, shallow areas of Suisun
Bay in January and February (Wang, 1986a). Parr have been observed throughout the estuary in spring, with peak migration
occurring tn May and June (Wang, 1986a).
CHINOOK SALMON
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
Family: Salmomdae isalmon and trout),
C ommon nanus: Black mouth, king salmon, quinnat
salmon, spring, tyce."
Similar species: Stcelhcad.
Geographic range: Arctic and Pacific from Point Hope.
Alaska to Ventura River, California,J
Habitat: Oceans, streams and lakes." Prefers gravel
substrates for spawning,5*
Lifespan: Can live up to 9 years."
Fecundity: 2,000 to 14.000 eggs."
" Froeseand Pauly, 2001.
b Wang, 1986a,
Fish graphic from NEjr'SC. 2001.
FcmmJ sources:
» In streams, food is mainly terrestrial insects and small crustaceans."
~ In oceans, chinook salmon consume fish, crustaceans, and other
invertebrates,"
Prey for:
» Striped bass, American shad, seulptns, Sacramento squawfish, sea gulls,
mergansers, kingfishers.*""
Life itajje information:
demersal
»¦ Eggs range from 6.0 to 8.5 mm (0.24 to 0.33 in).6
~ Deposited and buried in gravel, and arc bright orange-red in color.*'
Larvae: demersal for 2-3 weeks, then free-swimmmg*
~ Approximately 20 mm (0,79 in) at hatching.
Juveniles;
~ found in shallow and open waters of the Sacramento - San Joaquin
Estuary,"
' Remain tn freshwater for 1-2 years,**
~ Drift feeders.'
Adults:
~ Return to natal streams from the sea for spawning."
~ Reach up to 147 cm iSk in).*
Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus)
The delta smelt is a pelagic member ofthe smelt family (Osmeridae), it is a small, short-lived species that is found only in the
bay-delta estuary, in areas with low salinities (Moyle, 1976; Moyle ct al,, 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b). It is
the only smelt species endemic to California and the only true native cstuarinc species found in the delta (Moyle et al„ 1992).
The spawning period of delta smelt is relatively long, and adults may spawn from December to May, although most spawning
occurs in February and March (Moyle. 1976). Before spawning in the fall, delta smelt congregate in upper Suisun Bay and
the lower reaches ofthe delta (Moyle, 197ft). Spawning takes place in freshwater along river margins and adjoining dead-end
sloughs ofthe western delta. Fecundity is low, ranging from only 1,247 to 2,590 eggs per female (Moyle, 1976). Adults
apparently-die shortly after spawning, at the end of their I-year life span (Moyle ct al., 1992).
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part E-' San Francisco Boy/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3' Evaluation of IAE Data
tiggs are demersal and adhesive, sticking to aquatic plants and gravel, and are therefore unlikely lo be drawn into cooling
water intakes, although the larvae are vulnerable (Bruce Herbold, EPA Region 9, personal communication, September I,
2000), After hatching, the buoyant larvae are carried downstream to the entrapment zone, the highly productive areas where
freshwater and salt water mix. This zone is located in Suisun Buy in years of high freshwater inflow. Juveniles move
downstream to San Pablo Bay and Carquinez Strait before turning back to Suisun Hay for spawning.
The delta smelt was once one of the most common fish species in the bay-delta estuary, hut the species has declined nearly 90
percent over the last 20 years. A number of physical and biological factors have contributed lo declines in recent years,
including increased water exports, competition and predation from the accidentally introduced inland silverside (Menidia
heryllitta), drought conditions in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and changes in food availability (CDWR, 1994; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1996b). Another major factor is the seasonal location of the entrapment zone. The location of the
entrapment zone is a function of the timing and magnitude of delta outflow. There is a significant positive relationship
between delta smelt abundance and the number of days that the entrapment zone is located within Suisun Bay from February
through June (Moyle et at., 1992). Habitat and prey availability for delta smelt are greater when the entrapment zone is in this
area because Suisun Bay is broad and shallow, and therefore light penetrates most of its waters, promoting algal growth (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996b), Algal growth under these conditions provides an abundant food supply for zooplankton,
which in turn provide food for plankton-eating fish like delta smelt.
Altered How patterns caused primarily by agricultural water diversions during spawning also appear to contribute to delta
smelt population losses by increasing the likelihood of entrainment of spawning adults and newly hatched larvae in diversion
pumps (.Moyle et a!., 1992). In dry years, delta smelt are concentrated in upstream areas, whereas in wet years overall habitat
conditions are more favorable and delta smelt are more widely distributed. When favorable conditions result in wider
distribution, more delta smell are affected by water diversion pumps (CDWR, 1994). The California Department of Water
Resources (CDWR) estimated that entrainment losses of delta smelt at delta diversions reached 1.2 million in 1992 (CDWR.
1994).
Losses of delta smelt related to other water uses equal or exceed those at government water project pumps (CDWR, 1994).
For example, because of their schooling behavior and preference for the region around Suisun Bay, del ta smelt are highly
vulnerable to the intakes of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants. Monitoring of this species has not been required of
the power plants, and the only estimates of l&E are based on incidental collection in striped bass monitoring samples in the
late 1970's (Ecological Analysts, 1981a, 198k), Nonetheless, the data indicate that in the late 1970*s delta smell were one of
the most common fish speetes in the vicinity of the plants and experienced I&E in the millions each year.
Delta smelt is currently listed as a threatened species by both the USf WS and California. Historically, the delta smell
occurred from Suisun Bay upstream to the city of Sacramento on the Sacramento River and upstream to Mossdale on the San
Joaquin River (Moyle et al., 1992). The size of the current population is uncertain, but in the early 1990's the population was
estimated to be about 280,000 (Southern Energy Delta, LLC!, 2000). liven at this population size, the delta smelt is
considered highly vulnerable lo environmental stressors because of its I-year life cycle and low fecundity. Low fecundity and
a short life span mean that even as few as 2 successive years of low reproductive success could decimate the population
(Moyle, 1976).
EJ-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port E= San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Food sources:
~ Juveniles cat planktomc erustaeeims, small insect larvae, unci mysid
shrimp."
Prey for:
DELTA SMELT
(Hypomesus trampacifkus)
Life Stage inforinjlion:
Family; Osroeridae israelii.
Eggs; demersal
~ Eggs are adhesive and stick to aquatic plants and gravel,'
~ Approximately I mm (0 t)4 in) in diameter.1'
Common names: none,
Similar species: Ltmgfm smelt.
larvae; pelagic
» Larvae arc approximately 5.5 to 6.0 mm {0,22 to 0.24 in) at hatching."
~ Found near surface of water column h
Geographic range: Sacramcntx* - San Joaquin Delta:
Habitat: Deadend sloughs., inshore areas of the delta and
lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.h
Juvenile*: pelagic
» Juveniles are concentrated in the Suisun Bay and the delta arid in the
lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.1*
Lifespan; Only live for one year.'
Adults:
~ Reach 12 cm (4,7 in);
Fecundity: Fecundity is low, ranging from only 1,247 to
2,5l)0 eggs per female," Delta siibIi die shortly after
spawning."
* Frocse and Pauly. 2001.
* Wang, 1986a.
k Moyfectai, 1992.
11 Movie, 197(5.
* Bruce Herbold, EPA Region 9, persona! communication. September 1, 20(10.
Fish graphic from California Department ofFish and Game. 2002c.
Green sturgeon {Acipenser med/rostris)
The greet: sturgeon is a member of the sturgeon family Actpenseridae (Emrneu et al., 1991; Southern Energy Delta, LLC,
2000). It is an anadromuus species that is closely related to the white sturgeon (A, iransmontanus)»though it shows a greater
preference for marine waters, spending little time in freshwater, It is not abundant in any Pacific Coast estuary, and therefore
life history characteristics are poorly known (Emmett et al., 1991). Along the North America coast it is found from Mexico
north to the Bering Sea (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Although not abundant in the bay-delta, in the Columbia River green sturgeon is caught commercially with the while sturgeon,
but it is considered inferior eating and therefore less valuable (Bmmett et al, 1991). Green sturgeon is also incidentally
captured in the white sturgeon recreational fishery.
Females mature at 15 to 20 years of age (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Spawning occurs in California in spring and
early summer in deep, fast water in the lower reaches of the Sacramento and Klamath Rivers (Emmett et al., 1991; Southern
Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). The green sturgeon is a broadcast spawner, with fecundity ranging from 60,000 to 140,000 eggs
per female (Emmett el al., 1991). Juveniles are found in freshwater areas of the San Joaquin Delta in summer (Emmett et al,,
1991). By age 2, juveniles move to the ocean. Adults move back into estuaries in spring and early summer to feed and
spawn. Adults can reach up to 2.1 m (6.9 ft) m length and live up to 60 years (Emmett et al, 1991).
Great sturgeon are found near the Pittsburg and Contra Costa power plants as adults migrating to freshwater rivers to spawn
in spring and as juveniles moving to the ocean (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Green sturgeon has been identified as a
species of concern in this area ( Southern Energy Delta. LLC, 20(H)).
E3-S
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Food sources:
~ Juveniles consume umphopods and mysid shrimp.*1
Prey fur:
»
GREEN STURGEON
(Acipemer medirostris}
Life stag? information:
Eggs:
: ~ Little known, difficult to differentiate from white sturgeon.'1
Family: Aeipenseridae {sturgeon!.
Common names: none.
: Lurvut:
- Little known, difficult to differentiate from white sturgeon."1
Similar species; While sturgeon.
Juveniles:
» Found tn freshwater areas of the San Joaquin Delta in summer,*
Geographic range: North America from the Aleutian
Islands and the Gulf of Alaska to En solatia, Mexico,"
A dully: ariadramous
¦ * Prefer marine environments.'-"
Habitat; Spawn in freshwater rivers, found in estuaries in
spring, and in oceans."-1
Lifespan: live up to 60 years,'
Fecundity: Females mature at 15 to 20 years,5' Females
produce 60.000 to 140,000 eggs."
' Hrocse and Pauly. 2001.
h Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000.
' Emmett et al,, S991,
J Wang, 1986a.
Fish graphic from California Department of Fish and Came. 2002b.
Longfin smelt {Sptrinchus thaleichthys)
Long fin smell is a member of the smelt family (Osmeridae) (Moyle, J 4>76.k Longfin smelt is a native planktivore with a
reproductive biology that is simitar to delta smelt (Moyle, 1976, Wang, J986a; Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Emmett et a!.,
1991). It is an aiudrtmwu.s species that is abundant in many Pacific Coast estuaries from Monterey Bay, California, as far
north as Prince William Sound, Alaska (Emmet! et al., 1991 K Longfin smelt have been sold seasonally in bay-delta fish
markets (Wang, J 986a), They also provide /bod for numerous predatory fishes, birds, and marine mammals (Emmett et al.,
1991),
Adult longfin smelt are (bund in conditions ranging from seawater to freshwater during their upstream spawning migrations
(Moyle, 1976; Wang, 1986a; Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Emmett et al., 1991). Adults also show vertical migrations within
the water column, concentrating in bottom waters during the day and surface waters al night. Spawning occurs in winter and
spring in rivers (Kennish, 2000),
In California, longfin smelt are concentrated around San Pablo Bay, but the population also shows distinct seasonal
movements (Moyle, 1976). Early summer is spent in San Francisco and San Pablo bays. In August, longfin smelt move into
Suisun Bay, and in winter they congregate for spawning in upper Sutsun Bay and the lower delta. In April and May, large
schools of juveniles move back downstream, and concentrate in the Carqumez Strait, San Pablo Bay, and San Francisco Bay-
throughout spring and summer.
Most longfin smelt rcaeh maturity at age 2 (Moyle. 1976: Wang, 19H6a; Herbold and Moyle, 1989; Emmett et at., 1991).
Spawning takes place in freshwater at night from December to June, and is known to occur near both the Pittsburg and Contra
Costa plants (Wang, 1986a). The majority of adults die after spawning, but some females apparently live to spawn a second
time (Moyle, 1976), The average female produces 18,000 to 24,000 eggs (Kmmetl et al., 1991), Eggs are demersal and
adhesive and are deposited singly over rocks and submerged vegetation. Larvae are pelagic, and are found tn surface waters
from the Cor^uine* Strait to the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, Schools of larvae often also include
£3-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E; Sen Frctrieiscc Boy/t>eltc Estuary Chapter E3: Evaluation of !<&£ Data
delta smelt (Wang, 1986a), and it can be difficult to distinguish the two species in l&E samples. Juveniles range from 22 to
X8 mm (0.9 to IS in) in length, while adults average 10!) mm (3.9 in) (Emmctt el aL, 1991). In the bay-delta esmary,
abundance is positively correlated with the amount of freshwater inflow from February to September (Herbofd and Moyle,
1989). Long fin smelt has been identified as a species of" concern (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Food sources:
; ~ Otaphanosoma, Diaptomus. Bpischura, mysid shrimp, and other small
crustaceans/1
Prtv for:
~ Predatory fish, birds, and marine mammals.1'
Life stage information:
Egg*: demersal
: ~ Eggs are approximately 1,2mm (0.04 in)."
~ Eggs are deposited singly,1"
' Larvae: pelagic
• ~ Larvae are 6 9 to 8 mm (0.27 to 0,31 in) at hatching.''
~ Larvae are found mostly on the surface of the water/
Geographic range: Northern Pacific from Prince William ' Juveniles:
Sound, Alaska to Monterey Bay. California/ : ~ Range from 22 to 28 mm (0.9 to 3.5 in) in length/
-» Juveniles are found in the middle to bottom of the water column®
Habitat: Close to shore, in 'bays and estuaries/ Prefers
rocky, hard or sandy substrates and aquatic vegetation for Adulu:
cover." ~ Adults average 100 mm (3,9 in).' ,
Lifespan; Live up in 3 years -1
Fecundity: Females mature at 2 years and usually spawn .
orily once, producing 18,000 to 24,000 eggs.'
" Froese and Pauly. 2001.
11 Wang. lV86a,
' Emroett et al., 1991.
Fish graphic from California Department of Fish and Game. 2002c.
Sacramento splittail {Pogonichthys macrolepidotus)
Sacramento splittail is a member of the minnow family (Cyprinidae) and a freshwater native of California's Central Valley
(Moyle, 1976; Daniels and Moyle, 1983; Wane. 1986a), Splittail are bottom foragers that can reach up to 40.6 em (16 in) in
length. Juveniles provide forage for squaw-fish and striped bass.
Historically, splittail were abundant in the lakes and rivers of the Central Valley, including upstream reaches of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries. However, dams and diversions have restricted upstream access, and
splittail are now limited in their distribution to freshwater and brackish conditions in the lower reaches of the Sacramento
River, the delta, Suisun Marsh. San Pablo Bay, and Napa Marsh. Over the past 15 years, the species has declined by over 60
percent, primarily as a result of increasing water exports and the loss of shallow-water habitat (Meng and Moyle, 1995).
Sacramento splittail was listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act by the USFWS effective March 1999.
Splittail spawn in the delta in spring over Hooded vegetation in tidal freshwater and oligohalmc areas (Wang, 1986a; Kermtsh.
2000). The spawning season can extend from late January to July, but most spawning occurs from March through May as
water levels and temperatures increase, females mature at 1-2 years and produce up to 250,000 eggs (Daniels and Moyle,
1983). Eggs are demersal and adhesive and therefore unlikely to be entrained, but larvae and small juveniles are vulnerable.
The delta and Suisun Bay are important nursery areas f Kennish, 2000). Larvae tire known to concentrate near the PtUsburg
plant at New York Slough (Wang, 1986a), Juveniles are particularly abundant in Suisun Marsh and the Montezuma Slough
of Suisun Bay (Meng and Moyle, 1995), Most splittail complete their life cycle in 5 years.
LONCFIN SMELT
(Spirinchus ihaleichihys)
Faultily: Osmcridae (smelt).
Common miner. Pacific smelt, Sacramento smell."
Similar species: Delta smelt.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Boy/belta Estuary
Chapter E3- Ewjiua+ion of IAE Data
SACRAMENTO SPLITTAIL
(Fogonh-kthys mat rolfpidntus)
Food sources:
~ Bottom liir.mcrs
~ Juveniles prey on algae, pcleeypods, and simphipods.'
'Prey for:
~ Juveniles arc prey Tor squawlish and striped bass."
Family; Cyprmidtie (minnow).
Common numes: Splittail '
Similar species:
GeograpMc range: Formerly throughout the Saeramento-
San Joaquin River drainage, now restricted to the San
Francisco Bay Delia and lower Sacramento River.*
Habitat: Backwaters and pools of rivers and lakes.*
Lifespan: Live for S yearv"
I .iff stage information:
Egga: demersal
~ Eggs are adhesive, and unlikely to be entrained/
•• Mature eggs are i.3 to 1,6 ntsn (0,05 to 0.06 in).'
Larvae: planktome
:• ' Hatch at less than 6.5 mm (0.26 in)*
Juveniles:
~ Found in shallow and open water from the delta to San Pablo Bay.'
Aduttsx
Fecundity: Females mature at 1-2 years and produce up
to 250,000 eggs."'
* Frocse and Pauly, 2001.
Meng and Movie. 1995,
Daniels and Moyle, 1983,
Moylc. 1976.
Wang, 1986a.
Kemiish, 2000,
Fish graphic from California Department of Fish and tlaroe, 2002c.
Spawn in the delta in spring over flooded vegetation in tidal freshwater
and oligohalme areas."
May reach 40,6 cm (Hi in) in length,1'
Steel head ( Oncorhynchus rnyktss)
Steelbead is an anadromous form of rainbow trout and is part of the salmon and trout family (Saltnonidae) (Moyle. 1976;
Herbuld and Moyle, 1989; Emmett et al., 1991). It is ecologically similar to chinook salmon.
There are at least two subspecies or races of steelbead in California, defined by when adult fish enter freshwater to spawn
(fcmmett et al., 1991). The winter run of steelhcad that uses the Central Valley migrates upstream during fall, winter, and
early spring and spawns from December to June, while the summer run migrates during spring, summer, and early fall and
spawn the following spring.
Construction of Shasta Dam blocked access to half of the suitable spawning habitat lor steelbead in the Sacramento River
drainage, contributing to serious population declines (Herbold and Moyle, 198*)), Olher causes of decline include dewatered
streams resulting from excessive water diversions, rapid flow fluctuations from water conveyance, high water temperatures in
summer below reservoirs, and entratnmetn of juveniles into government water project pumps (McEwan. 1992). In March
1998, the winter run was listed as threatened by the NMFS. Much of the production of steelbead now occurs in hatcheries.
Hatchery steelhcad have lower survival and reproductive rates than wild steelbead and can reduce the genetic diversity of wild
stocks by interbreeding (Emmett et al. 199!).
Steelhcad eggs, larvae (alevins). and young juveniles (fry and parr) are riverine life stages that normally remain in freshwater
for 1-4 years (Emmett et a I., 1991). Alevins range from 14 mm (0 55 in.) at hatching to about 2X mm (1.1 in.). Hggsand
alevins are bent hie and infaunal, Fry and parr are found in areas with cover and move to deeper water as they grown. Parr
transform into srtiolts as they move through rivers and esluanes on their migration to the ocean, where they remain for 1-5
years before returning to their natal river as adults to spawn. The average female produces 1,500 to 5,000 eggs (Emmett et
al.. (991),
E3-S
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/bclta Estuary
Juveniles are found in all habitats of the delta, but it is unknown how long the delta is used as a nursery area i Her bo id and
Moyle, 1989). Food sources in freshwater and estuarine areas include gammarid amphipods. crustaceans, and small fish
(Moyle, 1976), Juveniles range from 28 mm (1.1 in.) to 400 mm (i 5.7 in.) (Emmett et aL, ]991).
Food source*:
*» Gammarid amphipods, crustaceans, small fish.*
; Prey for:
STEELHEAD
Life siage information:
(Oncurhynchux mykissj
Eggs: beinhic
: * Spawned in riverine fresh water.
Family: Salmon idae (salmon and trout).
; larvae: benlhic
Common mines: Coast range trout, hardhead, rainbow
'" Larvae range from 14 to 28 mm (0.55 to 1J in)."
trout, salmon trout.'
Juveniles:
Similar species: Chinook salmon.
¦ * Juvenilis range from 28 to 400 mm (LI to 15.7 in}.1'
~ Found in all habitats of the delta."
Geographic range; Eastern Pacific from Alaska to Raja
California, Mexico."
: Adults: Anadromous
Habits 1:
» Two subspecies or races of steelhcad are defined by the timing of
spawning (winter run & summer rum."
Lifespan: Adults may reach 11 years."
; ~ May grow as iarge as 120 em (47 in).*
Fecundity: Females produce from 1,500 to 5,000 eggs,1'
* Frocse and Pauly. 2001.
° Emmett el af. 1991,
' Moyle, 1976.
4 Herbold and Moyle, S 9X9.
Fish graphic from Mason, 2002.
Striped bass {Morone saxatths)
Striped bass was intentionally introduced lo the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system during the 1 N70\(Moyle, i 976;
Emmett et al. 1991; Stevens, 1992). Unlike some East Coast populations that make extensive coastal migrations.
Sacramento-San Joaquin River populations appear to spend most of their lives in bays and estuaries. Adults move into bays
{some into the delta) in the fall, overwinter in the buy and delta, and then after spawning in spring, move back to the ocean
{Moyle, 197ft).
Commercial fishing for striped bass in the San Francisco Bay system has been prohibited since 1935 because of demands by
sporf anglers (Stevens, 1992). The San Francisco striped bass recreational fishery is one of the most important recreational
fisheries on the Pacific Coast. In 1985, it was valued at over $45 million annually iStevens, 19921. However, the
Sacramento-San Joaquin population has declined since the early 1960*8. Poor recruitment of young striped bass is thought to
be tire primary reason for the decline in the adult stock {Stevens, 1992).
Striped bass spawn in schools at night (Stevens, 1992). Spawning occurs in freshwater, beginning in April in California and
peaking in May and early June. Females mature at age 5, producing an average of 250,000 eggs per year. Striped bass can
live up to 20 years, and exceed 22.7 kg (50 lb) in weight, thus showing high reproductive potential.
Larval striped bass feed on opossum shrimp in the delta and Suisuri Bay. reaching about 3.8 cm (1.5 in) in length by late
summer {Stevens, 1992). Large numbers of eggs and larvae are killed by the intakes of the Pittsburg and Contra Costa plants
and government water projects, contributing to poor recruitment (Stevens, 1992; Southern Energy Delta. LLC, 2000), A
number of restoration and management actions are in place to improve recruitment. However, striped bass are voracious
predators on small fish, including several delta T&E species or species of concern such as delta smelt, longfin smelt, and
Sacramento splittail, complicating management efforts.
EJ-9
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part E: Son Francisco Bey/Delta Estuary
Chapter E3: Evaluation of ME Data
STRIPED BASS
(Marone saxatiiis)
Family: Morunidae (temperate basses).
Common names; Striper, reckfisb, Imcssdcr, and sea
bass."
Similar species: White perch.
Geographic range: S», Lawrence River in Canada to the
St- Johns Ri ver in Florida, and from the Suwannee River ¦
in western Florida to Lake Puntchartrain. Louisiana.6
Intentionally introduced to Saeramcnlo-San Joaquin River
system.'
Habitat: Sacramento-San Joaquin River populations
spend most of their lives in bays and estuaries/ 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,11
loot! sources:
• * Larvae feed primarily on mobile planktonic invertebrates (beetle larvae,
copepodids Daphniu spp.t/
' * Juveniles cat larger aquaiie invertebrates and small fishes.1'
~ Adults are piscivorous. Clupcid ftsh are the dominant prey and adults
prefer soft-rayed fishes/
Prey for: Any sympatrie 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 he smothered.'
larvae: pelagtr
~ Larvae range from 5 to SO mm {0.2 to
in).'
Juveniles:
~ Most striped bass enter the juvenile stage at 30 mm (1.
~ Juveniles school in larger groups after 2 yean; of age,'
Adults-. Anaiiromous
in) total length/
Adults move into bays in the fail, overwinter in the bay and delta, and
after spawning in the spring,, return to the ocean/
May grow as large as 200 cm (79 in)/
Fecundity; Females mature at age 5 and produce an
average of 250,000 eggs per year/
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
Hill ct aL. I»."
Movie, 1976.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000d.
Stevens, 1992.
Bigelow and Schrucde.i. 1953.
Fish graphic from California Department of Fish and Game, 2002b.
E3-3 Facility Methods for Estimating I&E
Results of facility l&E studies are summarized in Appendix B of the draft Habitat Conservation Plan {Southern Energy Delia,
LLC, 2000) and presented below. Data are for the 1-year monitoring period its 1978-1979 and the average for 1987-1090 (for
impingement) and the average for 1986-1980 (for entrainment).
E3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring
Impingement sampling was conducted about once a month from March 1978 to April 1979, as well as from August to
February for 1987 to 1990 (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000). Impingement samples represent the total volume of
circulating water during sampling and therefore reflect all fish impinged during the sampling period. Mortality of impinged
organisms was assumed to be ICX) percent.
E3-3.2 Entrainment Monitoring
Eturaiiiment sampling was conducted in a relatively smalt volume of circulating water during one 24-hour sampling period
each week from April 1978 to April 1979, as well as from May to raid-July for 19X6 to 1992 (Southern Energy Delta, LLC,
2000). Numbers of entrained individuals collected were converted to a density estimate (number per m-') and combined with
cooling water flow (m* during each week} to estimate the total number entrained per year. Mortality of entrained organisms
was assumed to be 100 percent.
£3-10
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part E' Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter E3: Evaluation of WE Data
E3-4 Annual Impingement
EPA evaluated annual impingement at Pittsburg and Contra Costa using the methods described in Chapter A2 of Part A of
this document. The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix El,
Table E3-2 displays facility estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) at tbc Pittsburg facility for striped bass
and special status species. Table E3-3 displays impingement losses of striped bass and special status species expressed as age
I equivalents* Table t-,3-4 displays impingement expressed as ioa recreational fishery yield (lor striped bass only), and Table
E3-5 displays impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables E3-6 through £3-9 display the same information for the
Contra Costa facility.
Table E3-2: Facility Estimates of Annual Impingement
(numbers of organisms) ot the Pittsburg facility _____
Monitoring • Chinook : n.h j „ Lougfin Sacramento e. „ . i
Period. Salmon UdU SnwM Smelt SpllH.il Steeltotl I
1978-1979 : HQS 14,107 137,261 8,7.32 0 111,299
Avg. 1987- : 106 283 12,677 212 0 ; ' ' " NA
1990 ; '
Mean 451 7,195 . 74,969 4,472 0
Minimum 106 283 . 12,677 212 " 0 '
Maximum ' 808 14,107 " 137,261' K.732 " 0
SD ' 496 9,775 8 8,094 6,025 0 " -
Total '] y 14 ¦ " 14.390 f 149.938"''; 8,944 0 : 'Jv'"
0—Sampled, but none collected.
M«nJ»n2l I2:00:43MST2002RawjosscsJMPIN€»EMENT;Plam:pittsburg;
PATHNAME: P,7lntake<'CaliPCalif,Scienei:/scodcs/pittsbur^h/taWes.t>utput/'raw.los*es.imp.pittsburg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC. 2000),
Table £3-3 Annuel Impingement at the Ptftsburg Facility
Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents
Monitoring Period
Chinook
Salmon
Dell# Smelt
Longfin
Smelt
] Sacramento \ ~ , , »
| Splittaii i Striped Haw
1978-1979
S73
22,076
181,597
10,329 128.956
Avg. I9K7-1990
1 14
443
16,772
: 251 NA
Mean
493
11,259
99,184
5.290 :
Minimum
114
443
16.772
251
Maximum ¦
873
22,076
181.597
10.329 :
SD
S36
11297
110,54 V
; 7,127 ;
Total
987
22,519
'4S 1<.»)
• 10.580
NA;>>Not sampled.
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual
number of organisms impinged l. This is because the ages of impinged individuals are assumed10
be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the
losses are normalised back to the start of year I by accounting for mortality during this interval
{for details, see description of S*j in Chapter A2, Equation 4 and Equation 5t, This type of
adjustment is applied to all raw toss records, but the effect is not readily apparent among
enttainmenr losses because the majority of entrained fish arc younger than age 1.
Mon Jan 21 12:03:45 MST 2002; Results: I Plant: pttmburg; Units: equivaient.sums Pathname:
l>:/lmake/Calil7Calif_Scieiice/«eodes/pitt»burglv'tables,outpia;Lct|uivakT!{.sums.pittsbtiirg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
E3~I I
-------
Chapter E3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table E3-4 : Annual Impingement of Striped Bass at the Pittsburg
Facility Expressed as Yield Lost to the Recreational Fishery (in pounds)
Year Striped Bass
I97H-1979 46,yyi
Mori Jan 21 12:03:51 MST 2002; Results; I Plant: ptttsburg; Units: yield Pathname:
I'l/Inlake/CatifCaiillSeienccfsicotles/pmAurglv'tabies.output'l.yieiil.pittsburg.cs'v
Table £3-5: Annual Impingement ct the Pittsburg Facility
Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Chinook. Salntcm: Delta Smell Longfm Smell Sacramento Splittail Striped Bass
I97S-1979 : 2,735 30 1. 174 1,055 16,674
Avg. IW-
IW0 359 1 , 108 26 NA
Mean 1,547 16 r 641 540
Minimum 359 I (08 26
Maximum : 2.735 30 1,174 LC155
SD 1.680 2! 754 72$
Total 3.fW4 31 1.282 1,080
NA=Not sampled.
MonJan21 l2:03r47MST2fl02:Rcsults;IPiani:piltsburg;Untts:annual.proiJ.forgPathname:
P:/lnEake/t*aiiPCaliCScience^codes/pif«burgh/!ahles,<»utput/!.afmual.pKid.forg.pinsburgxw
Scmn-e: Appendix U in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000),
Table E3-6 Facility Estimates of Annual Impingement
(numbers of organisms) at the Cantre Costa Facility
Monitoring
Period ;
Chinook
Salmon
: Delta Smelt
Lungfin
Smelt
Sacramento
Spiittail
Su-tlhtad
Striped Btta
1978-1979
1,083
8,253
19.475
12.455
38
136,14V
Avg, I9K7-
W0
0
942
336
88V
0
NA
Mean
542
4,548
y,yo6
,475
12,455
38
SD
766
5,170
13,533
8.178
27
Total
1,083
9,195
19,811
13,344
38
NA- Not sampled.
0 Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 11:20:56 MST 2002 RawJosses. IMPINGEMENT; Plannconlraensta;
PATHN AM£:P:/lntake/Calif
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part B- San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter E3: Evaluation of IAE Goto
Table £3-7; Annual Impingement at the Contra Costa facility Expressed :/lntake/C'aliPCaiif.Scknce'seodes/coritraco.|iUi,,tables,output'*l.annual,prod.forg.eontracosta.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 21)00).
E3-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Bay/Del to Estuary
Chapter E3 Evaluation of IAE Data
E3-5 Annual Entrainment
EPA evaluated annua! entrainment at Pittsburg and Contra ( osta using the methods described in Chapter A2 ot" Part A of this
document. The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix El. Table E3-I0
displays facility estimates of annual entramrrienl (numbers of organ isms) at the Pittsburg facility for all species collected.
Table E3-11 displays impingement losses of striped bass and special status species expressed as age I equivalents,
Table E3-12 displays impingement expressed as lost recreational fishery yield (for striped bass only), and 'fable E3-I3
displays impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables B3-I4 through E3-17 display the same information for die
Contra Costa facility.
Monitoring Period
Table E3-10: Facility Estimates of Annual Entrainment
(numbers of organisms) at the Pittsburg Facility
Chinook „ . ,, Langfin Sacramento
Delta Smelt
Striped I
1978-1979
Avfi. 1986-1992
23,598
0
65,839,484
1.680,187
190,229
232,641
155,289
336.037
284,370,000
NA
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
11,799
0
"23,598
16,686
23,598
33,759,836
1,680,187
"65.839,484
45.367,474
67,519,671
211,435
190,229
232,641
29.990
422,X70
245,663
155,289
336.037
127,808
491.326
NA - Nut sampled.
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 12:00:44 MST 2002 Raw.losses. ENTRAPMENT; Plant:pinsburg;
PATHNAME:l,:/ln!akc/CaliPCalit.Scieiict/scodcs/pitisburgh'mbles.output/rawjosses,eni.pinsburg,csv
Source: Appendix U in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table
E3-1I
Annual Entrapment at the Pittsburg Facility
Expressed as
Age 1 Equivalents
Monitoring Chinook
Period Salmon
Delta Smelt
Langfin Smelt
Sacramento
SpltUail
Striped Bass
1978-1979
122
; 392,928
257
16
1,456,81(1
Avg. 1986-1992 :
1!
10,097
314
34
NA
Mean
61
, 201,512
285
25
Minimum
0
10,097
257
16
Maximum
122
: 392,928
314 :
34
SD
86
270.702
40 ;
13
Total
122
i 403,025
571
50
NA=Not sampled.
0-Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 12:03:43 MST 2002; Results; E Plant: pinsburg; Units: equivalent-sums Pathname:
P;/lntake/CaIi!?Cattf_Science/scodes/pit!sburgii/tables.output/Eequivalent.sums.pitisburg.c,sv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table £3-12: Annual Entrapment of Striped Bass at the Pittsburg Facility
Expressed as Yield Lost to the Recreational Fishery (in pounds)
Year _ Striped Buss
1978-1979 __ 530,850
Mon Jan 21 12:03:50 MS I" 20(12, Results; E Plant: pittxburg; Units: yield Pathname:
P:/lntake/CaliK. 4tlif_Setetice/seocIes/pittsburgh'Utbles.output.''E.yteld.ptttsburg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000),
£3-14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/belta Estuary Chapter E3*. Evaluation of IAE Dots
Table £3-13= Annuo! Entrapment at the Pittsburg Facility Expressed as
Production foregone (in pounds)
Monitoring Period
I97X-1979
Avg. 1986-1992
Chinook
Salmon
1,316
Delta Smelt
5,691
146
Longfut
Smelt
7
:urg.csv
Source: Appendix B in the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
Table E3-14: Facility Estimates of Annual Entrainment
(numbers of organisms) at the Contra Costa Facility
Monitoring Chinook „ ^ „ „ Loagfm Sacramento .
_ , Delta Smelt „ * Striped Bass
Period Salmon kmelt Spliltail r
1978-1979 10,318 : 21,755,741 O 189,659 81,000,000
Avg, 19864992: 0 1.565.933 : 71,179 94,905 NA
Mean 5,159 : 11,660,837 35,590 ; 142,282
Minimum 0 1.565,933 0 ; 94,905
Maximum' '1 " 10318 * *f 21,755.741* T Vl'.m'"* " 189,659 --
SD T "7,296 ' ' "(4,276,350 ? " 50,331 67,001 -
Total 10,31# 23.WI.o74 71,179 ' 2X4,564 ''
NA Noi sampled.
O'-'Saiiipliii, but none collected.
Mon Jan 21 II ;20:57 MST 21W5 Kaw.1o*$c&. EN1 RAINMtiNT; Phus^uMmcosta;
PATi'lNAM>".:P;/lnwke/C:alif Citif' Sciei»cc.,!>«)tlcM/t
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E; Son Frcmetsco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter E3: Evaluation of MB Data
Table E3-16; Annual Entramment of Strjpcd Bass at the Contra Costa Facility
Expressed as Yield Lost to the Recreational Fishery (in pounds)
Ye»r Striped Bass
I97X-I979 179,421
Man Jan 21 11:24:27 MST 2002; Results; B Plant: comraeosta; Units: yield Pathname:
P:/!tt(akc/CnliP("alitlScience/scoiles/coiHracossa;,tal>Ics.ouiput/E.y[cicl,eo»{njcosta.cHv
Stmnv Appendix B in the dral! Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Encrgv Delia, LLC, 2000),
Table 63-17; Annual Entrainment at the Contra Costa Facility Expressed as
Production Foregone (m pounds)
.. . „ . . : Chinook „ „ .. Longftn :Sacramento „
Monitoring Period IMX* Smelt s^l. SpHttml B,M
(975M979 575 1,816 0 M> <<6,797
Avg. I9H6-1992 ; 0 Life 3 Is ,\A
Mean 2U 976 1 - 27
Minimum 0 136 0 18
Maximum 575 1,816 3 36
SD 407 1,187 2 : 13
Total 575 1.952 3 54
N'A=Not sampled,
O-'SitmpfoL but none collected,
Mon Jan 21 11:24:25 MST 2002; Results; R Plant: conlracosta: Units: anmial.prod.foif ("athname:
P:/lntate/CalifC'altf_Science/scodes/eontraeosta/table'U'>utput/E.annual.pn,»d.ft>rg.coritra«>sta,esv
Source: Appendix B in she draft Habitat Conservation Plan (Southern Energy Delta, LLC, 2000).
E3-6 Summary; Combined Impacts of Pittsburg and Contra Costa
Table E3~ 18 summarises EPA's estimates of annual impingement at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities combined, and
Tabic E3-19 summarizes annual entraimnenl. Based on available data, EPA estimates that, on average, 247,448 striped bass
and 108.811 individuals of special status species may be impinged at the facilities each year. This represents 286,7(15 age I
equivalents of striped bass or 104,473 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 145,004 age I equivalents of special status species, or
5,477 pounds of biomass production foregone, The available data also indicate that over 3<>5 million striped bass and over 46
million individuals of special status species are entrained annually at the two facilities, representing 1.950.565 age I
equivalents of striped buss or 710,770 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 269,334 age 1 equivalents of special status species or
4,923 pounds of btomass production foregone.
Table E3-18: 'Average Annual Impingement arid Entrapment of Striped
Bass at Pittsburg and Contra Costa (both facilities combined)
Impingement Entrninment
Raw losses (rl pf organisms) 247,448 365.370,000
Age I equivalents (rf of fish) 286.705 1,950.565
Fishery yield (lbs offish) 104,47) 710,770
Production foregone (lbs offish) 37,070 3X6,43!
P:\INTAKE\Catif\Calif_Science\scodes\Econ Tubles\fk>wchart.calif. ENT.esv
p;\lNTAKE\CalifC'alif_Sciencevscodes\Econ Tnblcs\flowchart.calif.lMP.csv
£3-16
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port E: Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter E3; Evaluation of I&E bato
Tabic E3-19; Average Annual Impingement and Entroirwent of Special
Status Species ot Pittsburg and Contra Costa (sum of annual means of afl
species evaluated at the two facilities combined)
Impinsjt'nifiil EntrahMlMMl
Raw losses (# of organisms) 108,8 i 1 46,072,601
Age I equivalents ((? of fish) 145,004 269,334
Fishery yield (ibs of fish) —-- —
Production foregone (lbs of fish") 5,477 ; 4,923
P;MKTAK£\CaliftCa1iLScience«aKks\Econ TaMes\fl
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port £: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter €4: Value of Baseline ME Losses
Chapter E4: Economic Value of
I&E Losses Based on Benefits
Transfer Techniques
This chapter presents an analysis using benefits transfer
techniques of the economic losses associated with I&E of
striped bass at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities in
the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary. Section 1:4-1
provides an overview of the valuation approach, Section
E4-2 discusses the value of recreational fishery losses.
Section E4-3 discusses nonuse values, and Section E4-4
summarizes benefits transfer results. Chapter E5 discusses
economic values associated with losses of special status
species.
E4-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
Chapter Contents
E4-1
Oveivicw of Valuation Approach
. 64-1
E4-2
Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses
Resulting from f&K at Pittsburg and Contra Costa
. E4-1
E4-2.1 Economic Values from the Consumer
Surplus Literature
. £4-1
1:4-2.2 Economic Values Applied to Losses of
Striped Bass Resulting from i&E at
Pitt&burg and Centra Costa
. E4-2
M-l
Numise Values
. E4-3
F4-4
Summary of Annual Value of Bascimc Economic
Losses at Pittsburg and Contra Costa
844
EPA reviewed I&E data for five fishery species for this valuation analysis (American shad, northern anchovy. Pacific herring,
starry flounder, and striped bass) and determined that l&'E losses and associated dollar values were only significant for striped
bass. In addition, fishing harvest and mortality rates for the other four fishery species are uncertain or unavailable. Therefore,
only recreational fishery losses resulting from I&E of Striped bass are considered here. In addition, impingement and
enlrainment of forage species other than special status species were not included in this assessment, since their losses were
insignificant relative to concerns about special status species in these waters (discussed in Chapter E5). Because only striped
bass was evaluated in the benefits transfer analysis, the results presented here underestimate the value of fishery losses at the
two plants.
Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers of fish rather than pounds, the foregone
recreational yield of striped estimated in Chapter E3 was converted to numbers of fish for the benefits transfer analysis, as
indicated in Tables E4-2 and E4-3. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvestabte striped bass. Note that the
numbers of foregone recreational fish harvested are lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of
harvest of most fish is greater thun age i.
E4-2 Economic Value of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from I&E at
Pittsburg and Contra Costa
E4-2.1 Economic Values from the Consumer Surplus Literature
Striped bass are a valuable recreational fish in both Atlantic and Pacific coastal waters. Table E4-I shows some studies that
value additional catch of striped bass and other small game fish. Most studies are from the Atlantic coast and are included for
comparison. The study that applies most directly to the San Francisco Ray/Delta Estuary is that done by Huppert (1989). In
this study. Huppert found that anglers were willing to pay $58.y? each (in 1999 dollars) per year to avoid a 50 percent
reduction in striped bass and ehinook salmon catch rates, and $74.79 each (in 1999 dollars) per year to have a ! 00 percent
increase in striped bass and ehinook salmon catch rates. EPA used Ihippert's (1989) estimates of angling trips per year and
current catch rates to estimate anglers" willingness to pay to increase striped bass catch rates by one fish per trip or to avoid a
/:•/-/
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part E: Sen Francisco Bay/Det»c Estuary Chapter E4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
decrease in catch rales by one fish per irip. The other- studies .summarized in Table E4»t find similar values tor increased
catch rales for striped bass and other small game fish on the Atlantic coast
Table E4-1: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rotes
Authors Study Location and Year Item Valued Value Estimate (S2M0)
Happen (1989) San Francisco Bay, 1985-1986 .OTP to avoid a I fish per trip decrease .Chinook salmon/striped bass $14.14
. us catch rote' iChinook salmon/striped bass $9,11
WTP to have a t fish per trip increase
in catch rate"
Norton et al. Mid-Atlantic coast, 1980 Catch rate increase of 1 striped bass per New England striped bass $26.39
(198.'?) trip, for New England, mid-Atlantic, Mid-Atluntic striped bass SI5,55
• and Chesapeake Chesapeake striped bass 111 .OK
McConnell and Mid- and south Atlantic coast, anglers :Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip* Small game fish SI0.40
Strand {1994> targeting specific species, 1988 average overall east coast states
Hicks eral. : Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994 Catch rate increase of I fish per trip. Small game fish S3.3ft
(1999 j : " front historical catch rates at at! sites,
:tbr al! mid-Atlantic coast states
" Average willingness to pay (WTP) per angler per year to avoid a 50 percent reduction in catch ($58.0?) or to have a 100 percent
increase in catch ($74.79) (average of valuations from a travel cost model and a contingent valuation model). The average angler took
6.2 trips per year and caught 1.36 salmon/striped bass per trip. Therefore, we estimate that an increase of one fish per trip would be
worth 18.87 (1.36 fisb/trip * 6.2 trips/year - 8.43 fish/year; $7$'year 5 8.43 fish,-'year - $8.8?/fish). Avoiding a SO percent reduction in
catch per trip would be worth $13.77 (S58.07/trip <- 6,2 trips/year -«¦ (1,36 fish/trip x 50%)!.
" Value was reported as "two months value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip." From i 996 National Survey of fishing.
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DDI, 1997), the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 trips in a 2 month period.
Therefore, to convert to a "I fish per trip" value we divided the 2 month value by 1 -5 trips and then multiplied it by 2, assuming the
value of a fish was linear.
E4-2.2 Economic Values Applied to Losses of Striped Bass Resulting from I&E at
Pittsburg and Contra Costa
EFA used 1 luppert's estimates (1989) to calculate the dollar value of l&l -related losses to recreational landings of striped
bass. Results for Pittsburg are displayed in Table K4-2 and results ibr Contra Costa are displayed in Table K4-3. The
estimated loss resulting from l&E at Pittsburg ranges from $ 111,500 to $173,000 per year for impingement, and from
$ 1,259,2001$! ,954,500 per year for entrainmem. The estimated loss resulting from l&E at Contra Costa ranges from
$136,400 to S211,600 per year for impingement, and from $426,800 to $662,400 per year for cnirainmcnt
Table £4-2, Mean Annuo! Recreational Losses and Associated Economic Values for
Striped Bass ot the Pittsburg Facility
Source
Lou to
i Recreational
Catch
Expressed ¦»
Pounds i>f Fish
Loss to
Recreational
Catch
Expressed as
Numbers of
Fish
Recreational Value/Fish
Loss to Recreational Value
from Impingement (520(H))
Impingement
Entrapment
46.911
530,850
12,236
138,225
Low
S9.ll
$9.1 i
High
$14,14
$14.14
Low
$11 1,467
SI.259,229
High
S173.012
$1,954,500
Mon Jao 14 09:01:41 MST 2002 ; Table}): recreational losses and value for selected species. Plant: pittsburg: type: 1 Pathname:
P:/lmake/CaHt?Calif_Sesenc e/seodes/pttisburgh/tabks.output/TableB.rec. losses, piwsburg.l.csv
E4 2
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part E" San Francisco Bay/be (to Estuofy
Chapter E4; Value of Baseline IAE Losses
Table E4 3- Mean Annual ftecreatiortal Losses and Associated Economic Values for
Striped Bass at the Contra Costa facility
l ow. Ui l0,s ,0 , . ,,, , , Loss in Recreational Value
,r„ lwlweTO„„KM„,
„ . t C atch
Source Catch . . ;—' —: — :
_ . Expressed n
Pounds* of Fish Sun*""«f l-«» High Low High
_ _ • _ ^,sh
Impingement 57,482 14.968 S9J5 S14.I4 $136,354 S211,641
Emraiiuncnt i 79,921 46,848 $9.11 _ S14.I4 $426,790 $662,438
Mon Jan 14 09:18:52 MS'I" 2002 ; TablcB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: eontracosta : type: 1
Pathname: P;/lnmke,CiyifTaliOkience/«odes/eo«traeosta/tables.output/TableB.f£c,losses,contraeostai,esv
E4-3 Nonuse Values
Recreational consumer surplus is only part of ihe total kiss that the public realizes from l&E impacts on fisheries. Nonuse, or
passive use, impacts occur when individuals value environmental changes apart from any past, present, or anticipated future
use of the resource in question. Such passive use values have been categorized in several ways in the economic literature,
typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (imergenerattonal equity) motives. Using a "rule of
thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 pcrccnl of the recreational use impact (see Chapter A9 it) Part A of
this document for further discussion), EPA estimates thai nonuse values for striped bass losses at Pittsburg range from
$55,700 to $86,500 per year for impingement and from $629,600 to $977,300 per year for ernrainment At Contra Costa,
nonuse values for striped bass losses range from $68,200 to $105,800 per year for impingement and from $213,400 to
$33 i .200 per year for entrainment,
E4-4 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Economic Losses at Pittsburg
and Contra Costa
Tables E4-4 and B4-5 summarize the estimated annual baseline losses from l&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa facilities,
respectively. Total impacts range from $167,200 to 5259,500 per year for impingement and from S2.056.000 to $3,191,300
per year for entrainment at Pittsburg, and from $204,500 to $317,500 per year for impingement and from ${>40,200 to
$993,700 per year for entrainment at Contra Costa.
Table E4 4: Summary of Baseline Annual IAE Value Losses at Pittsburg Facility ($2000)
Mon Jan 2111:54:30 MST 2002 ; TabtcE.summary; Plant: pittsburg; Pathname:
P:/lntake/CalifCalif..Seieriee/sc<.tdes/cor'ii:racosia/tables.output/r:»bicK.suit«Mi>'.p)ttsburg.csv
Impingement
Entrain meitl
ToUl
Recreational (Direct Use, Noiffisarkef)
Lou
$111,467
S 1,259,229
$ 1,370,696
High
$17,1.012
SI,954,500
52,127,512
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Low
S55.734
$629,615
$685,349
High
S 8 6,506
$977,250
S 1,063.756
Total! Ree - Nonuse S
Low
$167,201
S1.8R8.X44
12,056,045
High
$259,5 i H :
52,931.750
S3.191.26X
E4-3
-------
Chapter E4: Value of Baseline IAE Losses
Table E4-5- Summary of Baseline Annual I&£ Vatue Losses ot Contra Costa Facility ($2000)
Impingement
Entrain meni
Total
Recreational (Direct Use. Nonmarkct)
Low
S136,354
S426.7W)
$563,144
H«eti
S21 1,64 i
S662.43K
$874,079
Nowise (Passive Use, NonmarketJ
Low
S6KJ77
$213,395
S2X 1.572
High
Si 05.821
$331,219
S4 3 7,040
Total (Rce -• Nonusc)
Low
S2M.531
$640,185
SS44.7l(»
Nigh .
S317.462
SW.65?
S1.311,119
Mem Jan 21 11:54:30 MST 2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant xtMilracosta; Pathname:
P:/iti£akc/Calit?Calst_Scit'ncc/scodcs,.-'c«mracosia/wblcs,oii!pui,'TableE,siimiiiary,coiJtracos!a.C}iV
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port E Sen Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
Chapter E5: Societal Revealed
Preference Approach for Valuing
Special Status Fish Species
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic tosses from affected special status .fish
species and habitats that arc associated with impingement
and enirainment (i&E) at the Contra Costa and Pittsburg
facilities in the San Francisco Estuary.
E5-1 Valuing Special Status
Species
The economic benefits of preservation or restoration of
threatened and endangered (T&E). or other fish species
designated with a special status, are often derived as nonuse values. The standard benefits transfer approach used for other
species often does not apply to special status species because T&E species are protected from recreational or commercial
fishing. Other T&E fish have been so depleted that any recent use estimates from angling participation or landings would not
be indicative of the species* potential value for direct use (e.g., striped bass or several salmon species). So, while
consumptive use benefits for some T&E fish may be estimated when populations recover in the future, for now, use-related
benefits are not readily estimable given available data.
Given the lack of direct use value associated with T&E species, nonuse values are therefore the main source for benefit
estimation for these species. To estimate nonuse values, one approach is generally available stated preference methods - •
such as the contingent valuation method (CVMj. However, CVM or other primary stated preference approaches are not a
feasible approach for EPA to apply in this rulemaking because the lime and cost associated with conducting the necessary
primary research is beyond resources and time schedule available to the Agency.
As a result, EPA is pursuing an approach that uses actual sums of money which society has dedicated to restoring and
preserving T&E species fish as an'indication of society's revealed preference valuation for protecting those species. Money
set aside in programs designed specifically to protect T&E species or values foregone by water users in taking actions to
protect species can be used as an indication of the value thai society places on preserving T&E species.
The revealed preference approach to valuing T&E species fish in the bay-delta ecosystem involves several steps. First, the
costs that society had demonstrated that it is willing to pay to restore T&E fish species is calculated. For the bay-delta region,
a federal- and state-level effort known as the CALFKD Bay-Delta Program is a muitiyear program that brings together many
of the efforts to restore the bay-delta ecosystem. One of the first goals under this program is to protect and restore T&E fish
populations. Annual costs to protect T&.E fish are estimated from total CALFED costs. In addition, water users are foregoing
approximately 3-4 million acre feet (Af) of water per year for improved fish habitat that would normally go to municipal and
agricultural water users in Central and Southern California. These values are summed to reveal a total willingness to pay.
Second, the number of T&E fish needed to restore populations to prcdccline levels is calculated. These calculations are based
on historical records ofabundance of T&E species in the bay-delta area. Target populations based on prcdccline levels for
T&E species are compared with estimates of current abundance to determine the number offish to be restored. Third, by
combining the cost and fish estimates outlined above, a revealed preference dollar per fish value can be calculated. This
dollar per fish value can then be used to value age I equivalent losses at baseline for l&E at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa
facilities.
Chapter Contents . .
E5-I Valuing Special Status Species . . E5-I
1:5-2 Habitat Restoration Cosus b5-2
F5-3 Opportunity Costs af Waier Use Foregone to
Protect Special Status Species Fish £5-3
E5-4 Current Abundance and Restoration Targets E5-4
E5-5 Iota! Costs for Special Status Species Fish E5-5
k5-6 Conclusions £5-6 ;
o-/
-------
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference Approach
E5-2 Habitat Restoration Costs
Caiiibraians have made significant investments to protect and restore bay-della native fish populations. Improvements have
been made to fish habitats by increasing stream flaws, installing screening devices and fish passages, removing dams,
changing water flows, and controlling temperatures. These changes in operations and technologies all entail significant costs,
which society has shown to be wiling to pay for the protection and restoration of healthy fish populations, particularly the
threatened and endangered species of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. These investments provide a means to evaluate
the loss imposed on society when a portion of these same fisheries are adversely impacted by l&E.
One of the programs through which investments to protect and restore bay-delta fish populations will be made is through the
CALFED program. The CALFED program is designed to guide restoration and management of the bay-delta area over the
ncut 30 years or more, The CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPPj ts one of the interrelated CALFF1D plans
designed to restore the ecological health of the bay-delta ecosystem. The EftPP ts designed to improve and restore aquatic
and terrestrial habitats and natural processes to support stable, self-sustaining populations of plant and animal species. The
ERPP has.six strategic goals, the first of which is to recover at-risk native species in the bay-delta ecosystem and to minimize
the need for future endangered species listings of native species in the bay-delta ecosystem by reversing downward population
trends of native species currently not listed. There are nine special status species identified under the ERPP with a goal of
recovering each species. These species are delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, Sacramento spltllail, Sacramento
winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, late-fall-run chinook salmon, fall-run Chinook salmon,
and Central Valley steelhead.
CALFED implementation will proceed in stages, starting with over S8 billion invested in Stage I, which covers the first 7
years of the 30 year or more program (CALFED, 2000b). Over $1.4 billion of this total will be spent on the ERPP and
environmental water quality. A majority of the amount spent on the ERPP rn stage I benefits special status species, especially
fish. However, because of Ihe interrelated nature of the CALFED process, it is impossible to tell exactly what percentage of
funds spent will benefit special status fish species. Table E5-1 shows projected CALF'ED program costs for Stage 1 for all
program elements.
Table E5-1 Estimated Costs for CALFED Program Stage 1 (millions of dollars) (2000 dollars)
Program Element
1 ;
2
Program Veari
3 4 5
6
1
Total
Ecosystem restoration
$22(1 ;
S165
S125
SI 20
$170
SI 70
M70
SI,140
Environmental water quality
$15
S33
S>38
$4S
$50
$48
S4K
$280
Environmental water account
' $50 :
$50
$50
$50
so
»
$0 .
S200
Water use efficiency
; S3l :
$62
S299
SMI
$641
SMI
S641
S2.95 b
Water transfers
S3
S3
S3
$2
$2
SI
SI
S15
Watershed management
$4(1 :
$45
545
5.45
S45
$40
$40 :
S.100
Drinking water quality
S4f
$78
SS2
$110
SI 1<»
: Si20
$128
$675
Levees
: S33 ;
$76
sn
582
S45
S<>5
$65 ¦
S444
Storage
$50 :
$75
$138
$208
S2«i
$349
$339
S 1,425
Conveyance
S29
$66
SI 50
SI 98
$220
SI 60
SW
S92I
CALFED science program
. $25
$30
$45
$50
sso
$50
$50
$300
Total
$537
$683
Si, 053
S 1.554
S 1,605
$1,644
SI,580
$8,656
Oascd on July 2000 numbers in EIS/EIR. updated according to Terry Mills of CALFED.
Environmental water quality separated out of ecosystem restoration cost estimate.
Source: CALFED, 2000b. "
An unofficial estimate of the total cost for habitat restoration needed over the life of the CALFED project is $2.5 billion ID.
Daniel. CiOMIIill, Sacramento office, personal communication. June 2001. Mr. Daniel was involved with design of the
ERPP). If" the ratio of the Stage I habitat restoration costs to the total restoration costs is assumed to apply for all program
elements, total CALFED program costs can be estimated. Using this method, total CALFED costs would reach 119 billion
over the .50 year or more life of the program.
E5-2
-------
s 316(b) Case. Studies, Port £; Son Francisco Bay,'Delta Estuary Chapter E5. Reveoled Preference Approach
As the CALFED program progresses, fewer funds will directly benefit special status species fish. At the low end, it is
assumed that over the life of the program 40 percent of the ERPP funds, 40 percent of the money spent on environmental
water quality, and 90 percent of the Environmental Water Account (EWA) benefit special status fish,' This assumption
results in an estimated expenditure of $1.64 billion. At the other end of the spectrum, it is assumed that 80 percent of the
ERPP funds and the environmental water quality element benefit special status species, and that 10 percent of each of the
other CALFED program elements also benefit special status species, except the EWA, where the 90 percent benefit level is
maintained. This high cost assumption results in an estimate of costs to restore special status species fish of $4.43 billion.
In order to check estimates for habitat restoration costs by comparison against another cost estimation method, a most likely
scenario for allocation of total CALFED program costs to special status species fish was developed. For that scenario, 60
percent of the ERPP and environmental water quality funds, 90 percent of the EWA funds, and 10 percent of the other
program categories directly benefit special status species fish. This scenario indicates costs totaling S3.81 billion.
The other approach, developed for comparison purposes, is to estimate the habitat restoration costs directly. Three main
categories of costs are considered: 1) cost for fish screens, 2) cost for tidal wetland habitat restoration in the delta, and 3) cost
for riparian habitat restoration in streams feeding the delta. This direct approach is developed below.
Approximately 5,000 efs of diversions are related to large water projects in the delta - the State Water Project (SWP) and
the Central Valley Project (CVP). At $ 10,000 per els. the cost to screen these diversions would be $50 million. With another
$75 to $80 million to retrofit screens at power plants in the delta, and SI00 million to screen smaller diversions for agriculture
and other uses, the total for fish screens in the delta is approximately $225 million (Michael Thabault, US fish and Wildlife
Service, personal communication, June 2001).
For tidal wetland restoration in the delta, the cost per acre of restoration is generally expected to range from $10,000 to
$ 100,000, depending on many factors including the density of existing development in the area, comparable real estate costs
in the area, and other factors. CALFED estimates that the goal for restoration of tidal wetland and related habitat is
approx imately 110,000 acres (CALFED, 2000a). Using a tidal wetland restoration value of $30,OCX) per acre {selected from
range of $20,000 to $50,000 suggested by D. Daniel, CH2M Hill, personal communication, June 2001).' the total cost would
be $3.3 billion.
For stream restoration outside of the delta, restoration costs per acre are approximately $4,000 {Dick Daniel, Cl 12M Hill,
personal communication, June 2001). CALFED estimates thai there are approximately 33,200 acres of riparian and riverine
aquatic habitat or stream channel meander habitat to restore (CALFED, 2000a), The total cost for riparian habitat would be
approximately $132.7 million. Adding the three cost components, the total restoration costs appear to be about $3.6 billion
($2%.2 million if annualized over 30 years to match the project life length of the CALFED program, using an interest rate of
7 percent). This direct approach cost estimate is comparable to the revealed preference approach cost estimate derived above
(S3.8 billion),
E5-3 Opportunity Costs of Water Use Foregone to Protect special Status
Species Fish
Several actions have been taken to increase stream flows for improved fish habitat. The most significant reduction in water
use to meet these increases in stream (lows has been experienced by urban and agricultural water users who obtain their
supplies from the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has had to tut back on supply to its CVP customers to comply with the
various water needs and restrictions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act
iCESA), the CVP Improvement Act (CVPIA), and the new bay-delta water quality standards issued in 1995 by the State
Water Resources Control Board. For these purposes, the Bureau has reduced by 40 percent to 60 percent its usual 7 million
AF per year delivered to water users without water rights (Earl Cummtrtgs, California Division of Water Resources,
Environmental Services Oflke. personal communication, March 2000; Jeff Sandberg, Central Valley Project, personal
The EWA is set up to provide additional water for protection offish beyond the regulatory actions required for water project
operations. The F.WA is a cooperative effort to give water managers the flexibility needed to protect fish as well as maintain water project
operations.
* The smaller range ($20,000 to SSO.OOO as compared to S10,000 to S100.000) was used because most of the land acquisition costs to
date have been in the low end of the SI 0,000 to $100,000 range, and values in the high end of the range are not expected until competition
increases for land more desirable for development.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Ei San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5: Revealed Preference -Approach
communication, March 2000), Thus, the Bureau has foregone 3 to 4 million of acre feel per year for environmental water use
intended for the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, EPA estimated a range of value to California water users from $155 to
$425 per AP (the Calculation is explained in Appendix E3, and is a weighted average reflecting agricultural and municipal
uses). Using this estimate, the value to California water users of the water the Bureau has foregone ranges from $465 million
to $1.7 billion annually.
E5-4 Current Abundance and Restoration Targets
To calculate the number of fish needed to restore T&E species fish, the current abundance ofT&li .species was estimated and
subtracted from target abundance for each species. Estimates of current abundance, target abundance, and number of fish
needed to restore T&E fish populations are given in Table J*5-2.
Table E5-2: Recovery Goal for Special Status Species Abundance in Boy Delta Region
Special Status Fish Species Target Abundance' Current Abundance* Difference'
Delta smelt 1.634.065 334,855 1299.2 HI
Longfin smelt: 6,382,9-1.1 636,225 5,746,6SW
Sacramento splittail 24,41 S 7,973 16,445
Green sturgeon I ,liOt! 739 261
Winter-run chinook salmon 35,929 1,232 34.697
Spring-run chinook salmon ¥,248 7,683 1,565
Fall-run chinook salmon 219,394 2X4,KM J
Late-tall run ehinook salmon 19,261 *,078 11,183
Central Valley steclhead 40,0<)0 8.525 31.475
Total X .366,228 1.290,204 7.141.524
* Target abundance are targets tor recovery of special status species based on CALFED Ecosystem Restoration
Program Plan stated goal to return species abundance to prc-declme levels, AH targets for salmon are the median
value from the 1970-1974 time period. The values for delta smelt, longfin smelt and Sacramento splittail were set
to the median value from 1970 to 1972. The value for steclhead corresponds to the estimated population level in
the and green sturgeon target is identified in the BRPP as the median value from the 19H0's.
" Current abundance is equal to the median value for the period 1990-2000 or the median of"the most recent values
available from 1990 onward.
*' The difference represents the number of fish lor each species needed to move from current abundance to target
abundance.
* The median number of lall-run chinook salmon in the I Wn is greater than the median value from the early
1970's target period. There lore, the number of fish required for restoration was set to 0.
EPA calculated the current abundance of salmon species from data provided by California Department of Fish and Game,
Native Anadrornous Fish and Watershed Branch. The median abundance for 1900 to 2000 was taken to be representative of
current abundance. Current abundance of Central Valley sleelhead was calculated from data provided by California
Department of Fish and Game. The median abundance for 1990 to 1996 was taken to be representative- of current abundance
(values after 1996 were not used because the data were incomplete). Green sturgeon abundance was calculated from data
provided by the California Department of Fish and Game, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch. The median of available values
in the 1990s was taken as representative of current abundance.
To estimate the abundance of"the Sacramento splittail, longfin smelt, and delta .smelt in the delta, data were used from the fall
midwater trawl survey. This trawl survey is conducted annually by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and
provides the most accurate index of the abundance of these special status species. Each fall, the CDFG counts the number of
striped bass, delta smelt, longfin smelt, American shad, and splittail caught in their 12 ft by 12 ft nets (CDFG. 2002d). This
sampling covers a large geographic area within the delta and has been conducted fairly consistently for more than 30 years.
Using these abundance indices, along with a technique first introduced by Stevens et al. (19901, EPA was able to estimate the
bay-deita population of each species.
In their 1990 report to the California Fish and Game Commission. Stevens et al. (1990) calculated the delta smelt population
by using the ratio of juvenile delta smelt to young striped bass caught in the fall trawl. 'This ratio was multiplied against
E5-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Chapter E5 Revealed Preference Approach
striped bass population numbers that were derived from a life tabic analysis. The resulting population estimate of delta smelt
is the only known attempt to approximate total delta smelt populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Unfortunately,
only 8 years of striped bass populations were presented to the commission. Using the 8 years of available striped bass
populations, EPA extrapolated longfm. delta smelt, and splittail populations through the IWO's and into 2000. This
extrapolation involved!
~ averaging (across the 8 years) the percentage of the total striped bass population caught in the trawling runs; and
» dividing the average percentage of the bass population caught in the trawling runs by the delta smelt. Sacramento
splittail, and longfm smelt abundance indices.
Population numbers derived for delta smelt, longfm smelt, and Sacramento splittail using this method are shown in Appendix-
E3.
CALFED set targets for the restoration of the nine special status fish species included in the ERPP (Table E5-2). In general,
the overall goal for each species target is set to restore fish numbers to equal abundance and dispersion in the delta before the
major decline in these species. For most species, this means restoring numbers to those recorded in the 1960's and 1970's.
Because complete data sets were only available for most species -back through 1970, restoration targets for salmon species
were set using data from 1970-1974. The median value from this period was used as the restoration target, EPA used
specific restoration targets listed in the LiRPP of 40,(M>0 steelhead and 1,000 green sturgeon greater than 1 meter
-------
Chapter Ei>" Revealed Preference Approach
Table E5-4: Impingement Losses at the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Fee" t> (£000 dollars)
Species
: Contra Costa
Pittsburgh
Total
Low Losses
High Lowes
Chinook salmon
585
493
1,078
S90.250
S310,766
Delta smelt
7,195
11,259
18.454
S 1,544,969
' S5.319.9I9
Longfin smelt
13,105
99,184
1 12,289
S9.400.H3 5
$32,370,673
Sacramento splittail
7,892
5,290
1 1X2
$1,103,597
$3,800,107
Total special status
28,777
: 116,22ft
141 fl)3
512.139,651
$41,801,465
Table £5-5: fntramment Losses at the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Facilities (2000 dollars)
Species
Chinook salmon
Delta smelt
Longfin smelt
Sacramento splittail
Total special status
Contr* Costa
27
67,.162
4X
14
67,451
Pittsburgh
61
201.512
285
25
201.883
Total
88
;
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part E- San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter E6 Benefits Analysis
Chapter E6: Benefits Analysis
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation o('
the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated !&£ at the Pittsburg and Contra Cosia facilities.
The economic benefits that are reported here are based on
the values presented in Chapters E4 (benefits transfer) and
E5 (societal revealed preference), and EPA's estimates of
l&E at the facilities based on available data (discussed in
Chapter E3). Section E6-I summarizes the estimates of
economic loss. Section E6-2 discusses the benefits of
potential impingement and entrainmem reductions, and
Section E6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis,
E6-1 Summary of Current l&E and Associated Economic Impacts
Table E6-1 shows the current economic losses (based on both the benefits transfer approach and the revealed preference
approach), and the flowchart in Figure K6-1 summarizes how the economic estimates were derived from the I&B estimates
discussed in Chapter E3. All dollar values and loss percent® reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of recreational,
nonuse and special status species impacts.
Table E6-1: Summary of Current Economic Losses at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa Facilities (2000$ annually}''
Pittsburg Contra Costa
: Impingement Entrainment Impingement ; Kntrainmeot
low : S 167.201 S 1,888,844 : $204,531 $640,185
high ; $259.5IX ¦ 52,931,750 ^ S317,462 . $993,657
tow : $9,730,441 . S16.W1.645 : 12,409,210 ; $5,646,988
high ' $33,505,631 ; S58.i98.831 : $8,295,843 | 519.444,774
low S9.X97.642 ; 518,790.489 ' $2,613,741 ; S6.287.183
: high : $33,765,149 i 561,130.581 58,613,296 ; S2l).43S,4.il
4 Losses and benefits reflect the sum of estimates for recreational and non-use values.
11 Combined economic losses are equal to the sum of tosses calculated under the benefits transfer and revealed preference approaches.
The estimates are summed because the benefits transfer results reflect striped bass only, whereas the revealed preference results reflect
other (T&E) species.
r ¦--- -
Chapter Contents
ECi- I Summary of Current l&li and Associated Economic
Impacts E6-I
E6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation .... E6-1
1*6-3 Summary of Omissions, biases, and Uncertainties
in the Benefits Analysis £6-3
Total current economic losses: Benefits transfer approach
(striped bass)
Total current economic tosses; Revealed preference approach
for species of special concern
Total current economic tosses: Combined
E6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
Table E6-2 summarizes the total annual benefits from l&E reductions, as well as remaining economic tosses, under scenarios
ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent reductions in l&E, 1 abl e E6-3 considers the benefits of two options with varying
percent reductions of l&E. Table E6-3 indicates that the benefits of one option are expected to range from $2.5 million to
$8.5 million for a 20 percent reduction in impingement and from $ 10,0 million to $32.6 million for a 40 percent reduction in
entrainment. The benefits of another option range from $7.5 million to $25.4 million for a 60 percent reduction in
impingement and from 515-0 million to $48.9 million for a 60 percent reduction in entrainment.
£6-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, fort & San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Chapter 66 Benefits Analysis
Figure E6-I: Overview and Summary of Average Annual l&E at Pittsburg and Contra Costa and Associated Economic
Values (all results are annualized)'
1. Nu mber of organisms Just (egg., larvae, juveniles, etc.)1'
I: 356300 organisms
E:41I million organisms
2. Age 1 equivalents lust (number of fish)h
I: 431.700 fish (145,000 special status species. 286,700 recreational)
E:2,2 million fish (269,300 special status species. 1,9 million recreational)
Societal
revealed
preference
V
3, Loss to recreational harvest of striped bass'
I: 27,200 fell (104.5001b)
E: 185.100 fish (710,800 lb)
4 Value of striped buss recreational
losses
I: 185,100 (79.000 lb)
$474,000
Ei 27,200 (11.6001b)
$3.2 million
. Value of special status species
losses
1; 269.300 fish
$27 million
E: 145.000 fish
$50 million
* AH dollar values are the midpoint of (he range of inmates.
*' t*r«m tables i- >• i S and K3-I9 of'CliapicT O
1 ^rom Inbles 1:4-2 and 14.* ol ( hapk-r K4.
Note; Specie* with l&K I percent oithe towJ kVt- mere nol vaittwd
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies. Port E: San Francisco 8ay/t>elfa Estuary Chapter E6: Benefits analysis
£6-2: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential I4E
Reductions at Pittsburg and Contra Costa Facilities in San Francisco Estuary ($2000)
Impingement
Entrain meat
Total
Baseline Losses
Kva
$12,511,000
$25,078,000
^ 537,589,000
high
$42,3755,000
SSI,569,000
' SI 23,947,000
Benefits of 10% reductions
low
SI,25 LOW
S2.50X.000
: 53,759,000
high
$4,238,000
$8.157.000
$12,395,000
Benefits of 20% reductions
low
$2,502,00!)
55,016.000
$7,518.000
high
$8,476,000
$16,314,000
; S24.789.000
Benefits of 30% reductions
low
$3,753,000
57,523,000
5! 1,277.000
: high
SI 2,714.000
524,471,000
$37,184,000
Benefits of 40% reductions
low
55.005,000
$10,031,000
¦ Si 5,036,000
high
SI 6.951,000
$32,628,000
549.579,000
Benefits of 50% reductions
low
i • $.6,256,000
$12,539,000
$18,795,000
high
$21,189.000
S40.785.000
S61,974,000
Benefits of 60% reductions
low
$7,507,000
SI 5.047,000
$22,553,000
high
$25,427,000
548,941,000
S74.36S.000
Benefits of 70% reductions
low
$8,758,000
SI 7.554.000
• S26.3I2.000
high
S29.665.QOO
$57,098,000
$86,763,000
Benefits of 80% reductions
low*
$10,009,000
$20,062,000
$30,071,000
high
; 533,903,(XX)
165,255,000
S99,158,000
Benefits of 90% reductions
.low
S11.260,000
$22,570,000
' S33,830;000
high
S38.141.000
$73,412,000
$111,553,000
E6-3 Summary of Benefits of Potential ME Reductions at Pittsburg and Contra Costa
facilities In San Francisco Estuary ($-2000)
; Impingement : Entrainment Total
Preferred Option low : S2.502.tXK> SI0.031.000 $12,533,000
(Option 3) : high ' $8,476,000 $32,628,000 S41,104.000
Waterbody/Capacity-based low i $7,507,000 §15,047,000 ; $22,554,000
(Option I) ; high ; S25.427.000 S4S,94U»€^ ' S74J68.000
E6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits
Analysis
Table E6-4 presents au overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were properly
accounted.
E6-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: San Francisco Bay/belta Estuary
Chapter E6 Benefits Analysis
Table E6
4: Omissions, Biases, arid Uncertainties in the Impact Estimates
Benefits T nuiifer
Issue
Omitted recreational and
commercial species
Long-term fish stock affects
not considered
impact on R#nefiis
Estimate
Comments
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Recreation participation is •
held constant
Boating, bird-watching, ami
other in-stream or near-water
activities are omitted
Value of threatened and
endangered species
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Nonuse measurement
Excluded speviCs
Program goals not met vei
Other restoration program
funds not considered
Understates benefits*
Understates benefits*
Understates benefits'
Understates benefits"
Understates benefits*
Uncertain
Uncertain
Uncurtain
Understates benefits
Understates benefits
Understates benefits
^ This analysis examined only a subset of species in this area because of data
= availability (e.g., only striped bass was evaluated for recreational losses, and no
:commercial ornon-T&E forage species were included).
; EPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that the
"higher fish kills would not have a cumulatively greater impact,
EPA does not consider how the yearly reductions in fish may make the stock
:more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as water quality
, improves over time due to other watershed activities, the number offish
: impacted by I&E may increase
; Recreational benefits for striped bass only reflect anticipated increase in value
;per activity outing; increased levels of participation are omitted
¦The only impact to recreation considered is fishing, and only for striped bass.
¦ EI'A assumed values to be comparable to the per fish protection costs for the
: CALKED and water diversion programs.
: hi'A assumed a linear stock So harvest relationship for striped bass; e.g., that a
: 13 percent change in stock would have a 13 percent change in landings; this may
he low or high, depending on the condition of the sucks,
; EPA assumed that iionuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational angling benefits
; for striped bass only.
Revealed Preference
There may be additional species affected by l&E not included in the analysis
(e.g., birds)
; Restoration of special status fish species has not occurred yet and may take much
:roorc investment to occur, which would largely increase the per fish value
There are additional habitat restoration funds from other restoration programs
such as CVPIA which benefit special status fish species and have not been
: included in the CALFBD habitat restoration costs
Exclusion of some species
which benefit from T&f*
programs
Uncertain
Uncertain
Fish restoration and protection programs benefit more than the special status fish
listed, and thus the per fish value may be lower than stated here. I lowever, the
per fish values are only applied to l&E impacts to special status species. The net
impact is uncertain.
Data from late 1970's reflect a time when numbers of special status fish were
: higher than currently found (and may thus overstate current I&E impacts).
: I lowever, I&E data from the laic HtgQVearly 1990's reflect drought periods
when special status species mimhers were low. On net, impact on loss estimates
is uncertain. Further, J&K impacts should reflect anticipated higher populations
as they recover over time.*
* Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered,
I&E data are from time
periods that may not represent
current impacts on special
status species
E6-4
-------
5 316(b) Cast Studies, Part E: San Francisco Bay/belta Estuary
Chapter E7: Conclusions
The results of EPA's evaluation ofl&E of striped bass and special status fish species at the Pittsburg and Contra Costa
facilities demonstrate the significant economic benefits that can be achieved if tosses of highly valued species are reduced by
the proposed § 316(b) rate. The benefits were estimated by reference to other programs already in place to protect and
restore the declining striped buss populat ion and threatened and endangered fish species of the San Francisco Bay/Delta
region.
Based on limited facility data, EPA estimates that the striped bass recreational catch is reduced by about 165,429 fish per year
due to impingement at the two facilities and 185,073 fish per year due to entrainment. As indicated in Chapter E4, estimated
impingement losses of striped bass are valued at between $372,000 and $577,000 per year, and estimated emninmcra losses
are valued at between $2.53 million to $3.93 million per year (all in $2000).
EPA estimates that the total loss of special status fish species at the two facilities is (45,(MB age 1 equivalents per year
resulting front impingement and 269,334 age i equivalents per year due to entrainment. Estimated impingement losses of"
these species are valued at between $12.14 million and $41.81 million per year, and estimated entrainment losses are valued
at between S22.55 million and $77.64 million per year fail in $2000).
EPA estimates that reducing impingement by 60% will yield annual benefits of $7.5 million to $25.4 million. The benefits of
reducing entrainment by 70% will yield annual benefits of $ 17.6 million to S57.1 million.
In interpreting these results, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of the analysis. These caveats
have been detailed in the preceding chapters. No commercial fisheries losses, or non-T&E forage species losses, are included
in the analysis. Recreational losses are analyzed only for striped bass. There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of
restoration programs in terms of meeting special status fishery outcome targets.
It is important to note that under the Endangered Species Act losses of all life stages of endangered fish are of concent, not
simply losses of adults. However, because methods are unavailable for valuing losses offish eggs and larvae, EPA valued the
losses of threatened and endangered species based on the estimated number of age I equivalents that are lost. Because the
number of age 1 equivalents is substantially less than the original number of eggs and larvae lost to impingement and
entrainment. and because the life history data required to calculate age 1 equivalent are uncertain for these rare species, this
method of quantifying l&E losses may result in an underestimate of the true benefits to society of 316(b) regulation. Thus, on
the whole, EPA believes the estimates developed here underestimate the economic benefits of reducing I&E of special status
species.
Chapter E7: Conclusions
F.7-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pari E; Son Francisco Boy/Delta Estuary
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Appendix El: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I&E
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age 1 equivalents, fishery
yields, and production foregone from l&B data for the Pittsburgh and Contra Costa facilities. Life history data were compiled
from a variety of sources, with a focus on obtaining data on local stocks whenever possible.
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age 1 +
Age 2+-
Age 3+
Age 4-
Age 5-
Age 6-
Age 7+
Age Sf
Age '.'•••
Table El-1: Chinook Salmon Species Parameters
Natural Mvrtality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fmctiun Vulnerable
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part £: Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix El- Life History Parameter Values
Stage Name
Eggs
Larvae
Age i-
Toble El-2; Delta Smelt Species Parameters
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
J.15" 0 0
5.K" 0 0
Fishing Mortality
(per Mage)''
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
o
a
Weight
{»*>»
0.(MKKMKKM)273'
0.0000012'
0.00418s
a Buckley. 1 W». Rainbow smelt.
h Calculate*} from extrapolated survival using ihc equation; (natural mortality) - -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
1 Proese and Pauly, 2001.
J Threatened and endangered species, thus rto fishery.
* Weight calculated from length using the formula for Capelin: (! .24*lf)'!')",Lcngth(mm)1 ¦' = wcigWg)
(Froesc and Pauly, 21)01). No length-weight relationship for delta smelt was available. Capclirt was used
because it was the only species in the same family for which a relationship was available.
' Length from Wang, 1986a.
8 Length from Movie et al„ 1992.
Static Name
Fishing Mortality
(per stage )J
Eggs ^
Larvae
Age I-
A(se2-"
Age 3^-
Table El-3; Longfirt Smelt Species Parameters
Natural Mortality
1.15-1 0
7,3h 0
MT' 0
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
U
0
0
0.67''
0.67«
Weight
..J*)1'
0.0000(XXXV49.V
0,00000344'
0.0(1224*
0.02 i 8*
0.0821b
' Buckley, 19N9a. Rainbow smelt.
*' Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Froesc and Pauly, 2001.
J Threatened and endangered species, thus no fishery.
Weight calculated from length using the formula for Capelin: (L24xlO")*Lenjiith(mm),*'? ~ wetghHg)
(Froesc and Pauly, 2001). No length-weight relationship for kmgfin smelt was available. Capelin was used
because it was the only species in the same family fur which a relationship was available.
' Length from Wang, 1986a.
» Length assumed based on Wang. 1986a ami Frocse and Pauly, 2001,
* Length from Froesc and Pauly, 2001.
App, El -J
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies. Part E San Froricisco Bay/Delta Estuary Appendix El: Ufe History Parameter Values
Table El-4: Sacramento Spl'ttoH Species Parameters
„, : Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fnrttoo Vulnerable Weight
stage me I (pers«age> " | (perstafef;to Fisher/ s (Jt>*r
Hggs ; Is IS 0 ^ {1.000000251'
Larvae 9.89b 0 0 ; 0.0000268'
Age I- 0,37' ; 0 0 0.06«4«
Age 2- 0.3r 0 0 ; 0.252*
Age 3- 0.3T O 0 0.48!*
Age 4- 0.37' 0 ; 0 0.705*
Age 5 * 0,37' 0 U i,05«
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation; (natural mortality) r -LN(survivafl - (fishing
mortality).
* Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality} - -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Threatened and endangered species, thus no fishery,
* Weight calculated from length using the formula for Tui chub; (3.51x10^)*Length
-------
Appendix El: Life History Parameter Values
Table El -5: Striped Bass Species Parameters
k, Natural Mortality Fishing MorUlifv Fraction Vulnerable ; Weigh!
afe aim . ^)er stage) (per sta|e)' to Fishery* (ItH)d
Eggs 1.5* 0 i) 0.00000()K37!
Larvae 5 to 6mm S1' 0 . 0 ' 0.00000369'
Larvae 7 lo 1 Omm 101" 0 0 0.0000l3t«
larvae 11 to 14mm 0.939* 0 0 0 (XHXmiy
Larvae 15 to 18mm 0.651" 0 0 0.0000901*
Larvae 19mm 0.061b U • 0 0.000136*
Larvae 20 to 24mm 0.312H 0 0 O.0O0208'
Uirvac 25 to 29mm 0.286" 0 0 0.000398'
Larvae 30 to 34mni 0.3 34'" 0 0 0.000618s
Larvae 35 to 39mm 0,375b 0 0 ' 0,000979s
Larvae 40 so 44mm 0.4411' 0 0 0.00136*
Larvae 45 to 49tnm 0.9041' • 0 0 0.00195"
Larvae 51 to 75mm 0.7" 0 0 0.00422*
Larvae 76 to iOOmro 0.35s 0 0 0.0106*
Age I- 0,32'' 0 ; 0 0.019'
Age 2- 0.32' 0.18 ; 0.06 O N'
Age 3^ 0.32! 0.18 0.2 0.K73'
Age 4- 0.32s' 0.18 0.63 1,79'
Age 5-' , 0.321 0.1X 0.94 - 2.56'
Age 6-1- - 0.32' 0.18 1 3.86'
Age 7- 0.32'" 0.18 1 5.04'
Age K * : C),32; 0 i s 1 6.12'
Age 9- 0.32' 0.18 1 7.13r
¦' Based on information for Delaware Estuary striped buss m I'SKO. 1999c.
* Ecological Analysts Inc., 1981a.
' Sctzlcr c( o!., Il)80.
J Weigh! calculated (rem length using the formula; (I.I8xIO's)*Lengtfo
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part E San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix E2: Valuing Water Uses Foregone
Appendix E2: Valuing Water
Uses Foregone
it is difficult to identify the precise value of the water lost to municipal and agricultural users as a result of programs that
increase freshwater flows to the delta. Water is not an actively traded commodity, such as crop or gasoline, where market
transactions provide clear market prices. Information is available, however, thai can be used to approximate water values.
This section looks at available evidence and makes an estimate of expected water values.
Identifying water value translates into answering the question, "How much would water agencies be willing to pay today to
secure permanent water supplies of delta surface waters?" To answer this question EPA investigated both what water users are
currently paying for delta surface waters delivered by the California State Water Project (SWP) and recent California water
market transactions-
State Water Project
The SW1" is the largest state-built, multipurpose water project in the nation, Its main purpose is water supply to store
surplus water during wel periods and distribute it to areas of need throughout California. Construction began after passage of
a $1.75 billion public bond issue in I960. The main storage reservoir is Lake Oroville in northern California. Water is
transported through the Feather and Sacramento rivers and a system of canals, pipelines, pumping plants, and power plants for
the use by agricultural and urban users (29 water agencies), it is likely that SWp water deliveries will be lowered to increase
delta flows, in the same manner that CVP diversions already have been reduced.
Table E2-I shows what SWP water customers currently pay for SWP water. Water costs vary widely by geographic region
largely because of differences in conveyance costs. SWP water is least expensive in the San Joaquin and Feather River areas,
between $65 and $69 per acre foot (AF) of entitlement, or between $83 and $88 per AF for water delivered (assuming 78
percent of entitlement is delivered in an average year). The delivered price of SWP water to the coastal areas (e.g., Santa
Barbara) is as great as $986/per AF,' The average weighted cost of delivered SWP water is $182/AP.
Table E2
-1; State Water Project
Costs
Service Area
Cost of Entitlement
(VAFJ*
I Effective co*i for water
delivered
i (S/AFf
Entitlement
(AF per Yrar)*
% Entitlement
San Joaquin
$65
S83
1,178,937
50.2%
Feather River
$69
S88
1,421
0.1%
South Bay Area
St 13
SI 45
147,186
6.3%
North Bay Area
SI 80
S231
37,871
1.6%
Southern California
S233
5299
973.254
41.5%
Coastal Area
S769
$986
8,538
0.4%
Average/Total
S142
S182
2,347,207
100,0%
* Information from Davis et al. 1999. Excludes other deliveries.
" Adjusted to reflect actual delivery of entitlement averages of 78 percent {e.g., S65/0.78 = $83).
1 This is only the SWP cost. Many users pay additional costs to transport water from SWP facilities to their location. Santa Barbara
pays the Central Coast Water Authority, for example, to move water to their service area. Additional costs are also associated with treating
water.
App. E2-!
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Port E: Son Francisco Say/Delta Estuary
Appendix E2; Valuing Water Uses foregone
These costs provide information on the lower bound of water value. The 29 purchasing water agencies value the water by at
least the amount they pay for the water, or else they would dispose or sell their interest in the SWP, The $83/AF cost estimate
provides a firm lower bound of the value of water to its current buyers (users). Most of the water used in the San Joaquin
Area is used for agriculture. Hence, the $83/AF estimate provides a firm lower bound for agricultural water. In other words,
if CALFED offered to buy SWP users" entitlement rights at $83/AF of delivered water ($65/AF of entitlement water), there
would be very few, if any, sellers. Thus, EPA applied a range of from $100 to 5200 per AF as the value of water to
agricultural users, given that it costs these users at least S83/AF to obtain.
The SWP water costs also indicate that an offered water price would have to be high for municipal users to surrender their
SWP water entitlements, in the central coast counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, the offer would need to exceed
S986/AF. the effective price that this area is currently willing u> pay for SWP water. That is. municipal users in some portions
of California are paying nearly $ 1,000/A F for water from the SWP. The value of water is high in this area because of the
limited and expensive alternative water supply options {e.g., desalination). The acceptance price might he lower for other
municipal agencies that have other, less expensive alternative water supplies.
Water market transactions
Another approach that can be used to estimate the value of water is reviewing recent California water transactions, EPA
identified 20 transactions in California from January 1*>9K lo-March 2000 (see Table E2-2). Most of the transactions (14)
involved municipal agencies purchasing water supplies to serve growing populations. The average water price associated
with these municipal transactions ranged from $90 to $412/AF. and averages S267/AF. livery transaction had unique
circumstances and conditions that may affect the transaction price (e.g., reliability of water yield, water quality, duration of
the purchase agreement). The water transactions involving groundwater in West Coast Basin. Central Basin, and the Main
San Gabriel Basin showed municipal users selling water in the $300 to S320/AF range.
Four transactions involved municipal users purchasing SWP water. These transactions included a one-time payment of
S1,000/AF entitlement (1,000 AF per year, indefinitely), plus assumption of SWF expenses. This translates into an average
price of S2W/AF on an annual AF basis.
From this information, EPA estimated the approximate value of water for municipal agencies to be at least S300/AF. The
SWP deliveries to southern California cost about $299/AF delivered Given expected future water shortages, EPA surmises
that not main municipal customers ( e.g.. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) would sell their interests in
SWP water for $300, Hence, the value is most likely much higher.
Summary
Our review indicates that the lost value to agricultural and municipal users is at least SI00 and S30Q/AF, respectively. These
estimates are probably biased downward, and we therefore show an upper bound value of S20O/AF and S1,000/AF for
agricultural and municipal users, respectively.
For the purposes of this project, we need to identify a weighted average value of water lost because of enhancements in water
flows into the delta for environmental purposes. We weighed the value per AF estimates based on the assumption of a
proportional cutback in water supplies between agricultural and municipal users. We used Central Valley Project and SWP
water uses as a basis for our weighting. Table E2-3 shows the results and a weighted value of water from S15S/AF to
$425/AF, Applying these values to 3 to 4 million AF per year, the opportunity cost of the water use foregone is in the range
of $465 million to $ 1.7 billion annually.
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E; Son Francisco Bay/Gel+a Estuary
appendix E2: Vcluing Woter Uses Foregone
Table E2-2; Recent California Water Transactions
No. S/AP AFY* ! Hie' Sonrct Transaction Date
Acquirer
Supplier
Average Price S/AF
Average Price S: AF
Average Price $,'AF
All
M
PT
203
267
54
I
S45
1.000 .
1
Surface
Lease
1998
2
$90
5,000 -.
M
: Surface
,Lease
199R
3
sm
s,t)(«);
M
r Surface
Purchase
11998
4
$300
4,531 :
M
Ground
¦ Purchase
; 7/98- 6/99
5
SI 50
10,000
M
.Ground
; Lease
Feb-99
6
S320
2.748
M
Ground
: Purchase
7/98 - 6'99
7
; S241
15,000
M
' Surface
: Purchase
' Oct-99
8
: $164
54,352
M
Ground
;Lease
7/9$ - 6/99
9
; S200
5.950
M
; Surface
; Lea.se
1998
10
; S240
23,416
M
Ground
Lease
7/98 - 6/99
It
: S36I
4.000
M
Surface
Purchase
Jun-99
12
; S297
13.697
M
; Surface
Lease
1998 "
13
: S3 80
41,000
M
.'Surface
Purchase
: May-99
14
: 5409
20,000
M
'Surface
: Lease
Oct-99
15
' S412
10.000
M
Surface
: Lease
Jtm-99
16
: $55
: 30,000
M & 1
Surface
¦Lease.
/Nov-99
17
: S30
10,000
pT
Surface
: Lease
•2000
18
$60
50,000
PT
¦ Surface
; Lease.
:(3«t-99
19
$60
: 30.000
PT
Surface
; Lease
: Jun-99
20
: $65
. 10.00ft
PT
Both
:Lease
2000
Various
PafmdaleWD
Mojave Water Agency
CastaicLakeWA
City of San Diego
Santa Margarita WD
Garfield WD : Mad era Irrigation District
Alameda County FCWCDs'7 Byron Bethany ID
Western Hills WD Bcwnda Mesa Water District
Various : Various
Orange County , San Bernardino Valley
Various Various
Alameda County FCWCD*7 Lost Kills Water District (Ag)
Various Various
City of! nglewood Western Water Company
Various
:nel«dgcWD
.'CA Dept of Water Resources
Wheeler Ridge WD
Western Water Company
Western Water Company
Stockton East Water District •0akdWe& South San Joaquin Ids
Bureau of Rec Semitropic Water Storage District
Bureau of Rec . Osktlak & South San Joaquin ids
Bureau of Rec
Bureau of Rec
: Ag transfer of surplus water supplies
; 15-year lease near S.F.
transfer of SWP entitlement; S 1,000-AF + SWP costs
2 adjudicated basins in Southern CA
1-year lease Bunker Hill Basin near L.A
Main San Gabriel Basin near I ..A
; transfer of SWP entitlement; Si.OOQ-'AF + SWP costs
2 adjudicated basins in Southern CA
¦.5-year lease near LA.
: I -year lease: Main Ran Gabriel Basin near L.A.
;transferofSWP entitlement; SI .(HW-'AF* SWP costs
¦reduce aquifer overdraft in Southern CA
'transferof SWP entitlement; SU50-AF + SWP costs
. J -year lease in Southern CA
' t -year lease ir Southern CA
• 10-year lease of Stanislaus River water
: I -year lease for San Joaquin Valley Wildlife Refuges
: I-year lease to augment San Joaquin River flows
Vemaiis Adaptive Management IDs San Joaquin River augmentation
San Luis Canal C ompany : I-year lease for San Joaquin Valley Wildlife Refuges
* Price for purchases arc converted intoS'AF terms using an infinite time horizon and a 10 percent annual discount rate. Dollars are current for the year of the transaction (1998,1999, or 20001.
b Acre-feet per year,
'' I ~ irrigation, M <* municipal, PT ~ public trust.
App. E2-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Parr £: Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
Appendix E2: Valuing W'ofer Uses Foregone
Table E2-3: Summary of Uses and Values for Foregone Production to SWP and CVP Water Users
Water liter Type
Municipal
Agricultural
Total
Source: Davis et al„ 1999
SWV and CVP Water
Delivered
(AF/yr)
2.569,328
6,697,256
9.266,584
% of Use
2X%
72%
100%
Estimated Value to Users
(S/AF)
$30(1 to S1000
S)00 to S2<»
SI55 to S42J
App. E2-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part E Son Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary Appendix E3 Presentation of Population Estimates
Appendix E3: Presentation of
Population Estimates
The historical (target) and current abundance of the delta smelt. longfm smelt and Sacramento splittail species were estimated
in order to calculate the number of fish needed to restore the current population to pte-decline levels. This appendix, a
supplement to Chapter E-5. describes the methodology used to estimate historical and current abundance ot"these T&B
species.
In their 1990 report to the California Fish and Game Commission, Stevens et al, (1990) calculated the delta smelt population
by using the ratio of juvenile delta smelt to young striped bass caught in the fall midwater trawl survey, This ratio was
multiplied by striped bass population numbers that were derived (torn a life table analysis and the resulting population
estimate of delta smelt is the only known attempt to approximate total delta smelt populations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
delta. Unfortunately, only 8 years of striped bass populations were presented to the Commission. Using the 8 years of
available striped bass populations, EPA extrapolated longfm, delta smelt, and splittail populations through the 1990s and into
2000. This extrapolation involved:
"• averaging (across the 8 years) the percentage of the total strtped bass population caught in the trawling runs; and
~ dividing the average percentage of the bass population caught in the trawling runs by the delta smelt, Sacramento
splittail, and krogfin smelt abundance indices taken from the Fall midwater trawl survey conducted annually for more
than 30 years.
Tables E3-1 and E3-2 show annual population numbers derived for delta smelt, longfin smelt, and sacramento splittail using
this methodology. Table £3-1 shows population estimates for the baseline 8 years from I %8 to 1985 (nonsequential years
are due to trawling surveys not conducted in that specific year). Table B3-2 presents population estimates for 1990-2(100
based on the average population-caught indiee of 0.13% (striped bass caught versus population estimate) that was calculated
across the baseline range {1%8-1985).
Table £3-1; Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Population Estimates of Striped Bass,
Sacramento Splittail, Delta and Lortgfin Smelt (1968-1985)
Species : m* J: l«7fl J 1971 _ 1972 1975 _
Striped bass* ; 1,800,000 .8.100,000:11.900.000 ; 12,700,000 -1.600.000
Delta smelt , 302,390 J,634.065; I.(.30,634 : 2,620,372 ! 245,207
Longfin smelt : 1.433,744 '¦(>,382,913:20.006,867 : 1,574,295 : 991,733
Splittail ¦ 7.K20 : 24,418 i 22,526 : 26,929 1,407
' Note: Population estimates to: delta. longftn and splittail in this tabic are equal to each year's ratio of striped bass
caught vs. population (Stevens ct al, 1990), divided by annual trawling abundance indices.
1977 I9R4 1985
400.000 I i f ,800,000 4,700,000
217,894; 326.333 : 293,750
95.130 :13.3 74,290: 2,649,091
0 . 2K,6S» : 40,057
App. E3-J
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port E: Son Francisco Bay/t>elta Estuary
Appendix E3 Presentation of Population Estimates
Table F3-Z Sacramento-Son Joaquin Delta Population Estimates of Striped Bass,
Sacramento Spfiftail, Deitc and Longfm Smelt (1990-2000)
Sgedt*; I WO 1991 1992 1993 19*4 IWS . 1W6 IW7_ ; 1998 IW9 ; 20tt0
Striped ' 1,053.199 752,627 l,t>30.426 1,24i,356 1.003,768 385,SKI 312,532 452.X52 975,864 431,325.310,037
bass* :
Delta ; 290,208 : 549,322 124,375 859,462 ' HI,322 716,750 101.254 • 241,574 334,855 ! 6H8.845 i 602,739
smelt
Longfm 193,738 106,835 60,593 636,225 : 434,514 6,TO,233 ^ i.Htb,617 550,119 5.305,063 4,179.312.2,741,029
Mitel!
SpliMail 6,378 J 14,351 2,392 7,973 2.392 60,593 17,540 ' 797 224,034 31,0^4 ^ 6,378
* Note; Population estimates for striped bass, delta, longHn and splittail in this tabic arc equal U> the average of 1968-1985 population
estimates developed in Table E3-1 for the striped bass caught vs. bass population ratio (0.13%) divided by the annual trawling abundance
indices for the relevant species.
App. E2-2
------- |