&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Case Study Analysis for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase
II Existing Facilities Rule
Part F - G
May 2002
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821 -R-02-002
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port R Brayton Point
D x C. Q a. D * j. Ox
Part p: Brayton Point Station
Case Study
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Broyton Point
Chapter F1 Introduction
Chapter F1: Introduction
This report presents the results of an evaluation by EPA to
assess the potential benefits of reducing the impacts of
impingement and entrainment (I&E) at cooling water
intake structures (CWIS) at the Brayton Point Station
located on Mount Hope Bay in the Town of Somerset,
Massachusetts across the mouth of the Tauton River from
the city of Fall River. Mount Hope Bay in an upper
embayment of Narragansett Bay, It is an interstate water
comprising waters of both Massachusetts and Rhode
Island.
With a capacity of 1,611 megawatts, Brayton Point Station
is the largest fossil fuel burning steam-electric generating
facility in New England. The station uses a once-through-
cooling water system and is allowed by its current NPDES permit to withdraw up to 1.452 billion gallons a day ( BGDi of
cooling water from Mount Hope Bay and then discharge the heated water back into the Bay at temperatures up to 22 *F above
ambient water conditions. The current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit expired in June
1998, and EPA Region 1 is currently developing conditions for a new NPDES permit. EPA co-issues this permit with the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. EPA must also coordinate permit issuance closely with Rhode Island
because its waters are also affected by the plant and the permit must ensure that both Massachusetts and Rhode Island water
quality standards are satisfied.
Similarly, both states* Coastal Zone Management Programs must be satisfied, along with the federal Essential Fish Habitat
program and other federal requirements. Other significant environmental issues at Brayton Point Station include development
of plans to attain compliance with the tough, new state air regulations, possible assessment of compliance with Clean Air Act
new source review requirements, on-site coal ash management, and concerns in neighboring Freetown where coal ash from
the plant has been landfilled and allegedly contaminated groundwater.
There has been a significant amount of controversy about the plant because of the documented collapse of fish populations in
Mount Hope Bay, an interstate water straddling the Massachusetts/Rhode Island state line, and the debate over the power
plant's role in causing or contributing to the fishery decline. On October 9, 1996, Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RI DEM) issued a report which documented an alarming, sharp decline in abundance of fmfish populations in
Mount Hope Bay that appeared to occur about seventeen years ago with no subsequent recovery in evidence. Additional
review of the data has suggested that the fishery decline actually began, albeit at a gentler pace, before the sharp decline
evidenced around 1985. Adverse effects of plant cooling system operations on aquatic organisms can be divided into the
following major categories; a) cooling water intake emrainment of fish eggs and larvae and other small organisms into the
plant's cooling system; b) cooling water intake impingement oflarger organisms on the intake screening systems; and c)
discharge-related effects from the impacts of the thermal eflluent on the aquatic community and its habitat. Entrainment and
thermal discharge appear to be especially significant issues for this plant, with impingement appearing to be a relatively less
major problem.
Figure Fl-1 by RIDEM shows annual changes in the aggregate catch per tow for 21 fish species in Mount Hope Bay in
relation to changes in total Brayton Point intake flow for 1977 through 1995 (Gibson, 1996). Analysis of these data indicated
a statistically significant decreasing trend over time in Mount Hope Bay fish abundances (p < 0.01), with the decline
averaging 16 percent per year (Gibson, 1996). Moreover, declines in 4 of the species analyzed by RIDFW (winter flounder
(Pleuronectes americanus), windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus), tautog (Tautoga onitis), and hogchoker (Trinectes
maculatus)) were significantly greater in Mount Hope Bay than in the rest of Narragansett Bay.
Chapter Contents
Fl-1
Overview of Case Study Facility
.... Fl-2
Fl-2
Environmental Setting
.... Fl-3
F1-2.I Mount Hope Bay
.... Fl-5
Fl-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
.... Fl-5
F1 -2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
.... Fl-6
F1-3
Socioeconomic Characteristics
.... Fl-7
Fl-3.1 Major Industrial Activities
.... Fl-7
F 1-3.2 Commercial Fisheries
.... Fl-8
F 1-3.3 Recreation
Fl-8
Fl-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Figure Fl - I: Time Series of Annual Mean Coolant Flow at Brayton Point Station and Aggregate Fish Abundance (21 species) in Mount
Hope Bay
r 1200
Fish Abundance
— Coolant Flow
0
f 400
1976 1978 1960 1962 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
year
Sources: Gibson, 1996; personal communication, Meredith Simas, Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point Station, March 23, 2001,
A more recent analysis by the RIDBM (Gibson, 2001) attempted to control for other regional stressors that may be
contributing to winter flounder declines, including overfishing, increased winter water temperatures, and increased predation
on larvae by the shrimp Crangon septemspinosa (Keller and Klein-MacPhee, 2000). The analysis compared the results of
winter flounder trawl surveys near and away from the plant, and confirmed that winter flounder declines near Brayton Point
are not apparent in other parts of Narragansett Bay, Although winter flounder stocks in other parts of the region have
increased, stocks in Mount Hope Bay have not recovered in response to a fishing ban established in 1991, suggesting that
fishing pressure alone did not cause the severe population decline in Mount Hope Bay.
To evaluate the potential benefits of the proposed rule, EPA estimated expected I&E at Brayton Point under current
operations based on an analysis of I&E rates before the accelerated fish population declines that followed the 1984
conversion of unit 4, as discussed in Chapter F3. It should be noted that using the pre-1984 data still probably produces an
underestimate of I&E levels because some data suggests that the plant contributed to a declining fishery before 1984, though
the decline accelerated precipitously after 1984. Unfortunately there is no Mount Hope Bay abundance data from before ,
Brayton Point Station began operations to provide a true baseline unaffected by the plant. Section Fl -1 of this background
chapter provides a brief description of the facility, Section FI-2 describes the facility's environmental setting, and Section Fl-
3 presents information on the area's socioeconomic characteristics.
The Brayton Point Station is located on approximately 100 ha (250 acres) of the Brayton Point peninsula in Mount Hope Bay,
at the confluence of the Lee and Taunton rivers (Figure Fl-2). The facility lies within the Town of Somerset, and the city of
Fall River is located across the Taunton River to the southeast of the facility. The city of Swansea is located across the Lee
River to the north of the facility. The Massachusetts-Rhode Island state line runs diagonally across Mount Hope Bay, which
is an upper embayment of the Narragansett Bay Estuary,
Fl -1 Overview of Case Study Facility
Fl-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Fipre Fl -2: Location of Brayton Point Station in Mount Hope Bay
Town of
Dighton
A NX •
Area of
Enlargement
Somerset
Town of
Swansea
Swansea
Town of
Somerset
Fall River
Brayton Point
Power Plant
0.9
0.9
j;/pn>jccf&/intiiki:/aprs_am]s/Cim'j3l2*Bts_rnod.apr
Fl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl". Introduction
The Brayton Point power plant is in the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC). The plant began commercial service
in 1963 and is operated as a baseload facility, Brayton Point operates eight units: three coal-fired steam-electric generators,
one oil-fired steam-electric generator, and four internal combustion units. In 1998, Brayton Point generated 8.1 million MWh
of electricity. Estimated 1998* revenues for the Brayton Point plant were $552 million, based on the plant's 1998 estimated
electricity sales of 7.7 million MWh and the 1998 company-level electricity revenues of $71.38 per MWh. Brayton Point's
1998 production expenses totaled $211 million, or 2.602 cents per kWh. for an operating income of $341 million.1
Table Fl-I summarizes the plant characteristics of Brayton Point.
Table F1 -1: Summary of Brayton Point Plant Characteristics (1998)
Plant EIA Code
1619
NERC Region
NPCC
Total Capacity (MW)
1,611
Primary Fuel
Coal
Number of Employees
320"
Net Generation (million MWh)
8.1
Estimated Revenues (million)
$552
Total Production Expense (million)
$211
Production Expense (fi/kWh)
2.602?
Estimated Operating Income (million)
$341
Notes: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council
NPCC = Northeast Power Coordinating Council
Dollars are in $2001.
* 1995 data.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy (2001c, 2001e, 200 If).
In response to the developing controversy, federal and state regulatory agencies and former plant owner NEPCO entered into
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in April, 1997, regarding plant operations. The MOA places annual and seasonal caps
on the level of heat discharged and the amount of cooling water withdrawn from the Bay. In the MOA the Company agreed
to limit its operations to levels below that authorized by the (still) current NPDES permit and the agencies agreed not to push
for an immediate modification of the permit. (NEPCO had threatened to appeal any immediate permit modification anyway.)
The intake volume and thermal discharge caps in the MOA represented a compromise between the levels initially sought by
the regulatory agencies and the levels the company claimed were justified. The MOA also indicated that a number of types of
research should be pursued to help with development of a new NPDES permit. When PG&E bought Brayton Point Station it
assumed responsibility for complying with the MOA (the MOA required that agreement to comply with the MOA be made a
condition of any sale of the plant). Since the 1997 MOA, the permittee and the regulatory agencies have been engaged in
extensive monitoring, modeling and study to determine the conditions for a new NPDES permit.
On October 2, 2002, PG&E publicly announced a proposed $250,000,000 environmental improvement plan for the facility
including new air pollution controls, ash recycling facilities, and a new cooling water system using mechanical draft wet
cooling tower that PG&E refers to as the Enhanced Multi-Mode System. The Company intends this plan to address
requirements under the new State air quality regulations, a State Administrative Consent Order addressing ash management
practices, and the new NPDES permit. PG&E states that this new system will reduce heat loadings into Mount Hope Bay,
and reduce cooling water withdrawals from Mount Hope Bay, to pre-1984 levels. The year 1984 is significant because it was
the year that Brayton Point was permitted to switch Unit 4 from a previously closed-cycle cooling system to a once-through
cooling system, and some data suggests that the steep decline in fish populations was coincidental with this modification. (As
noted above, there is also data suggesting that the decline had started earlier but accelerated after Unit 4 began once-through
cooling operations.)
1 The generation, revenue, electricity sales, production expense, and operating income numbers in this section are based on FERC
Form 1 data for the eight months during which the plant was operated as a regulated utility plant. EPA adjusted these values to represent
the entire year using a scaling factor of 1.46 (equal to total 1998 generation divided by 8-month generation, or 8.12 million MWh/5.56
million MWh; total generation is based on U.S. Department of Energy, 2001b, 200 Id).
Fl-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
EPA is working closely with Massachusetts and Rhode Island on the permit, and has also been coordinating with the National
Marine Fisheries Service. The permit will be jointly issued with the state in Massachusetts which does not have NPDES
delegation. EPA is also in close communication with the company regarding the issues and the company has submitted a
substantial of information supporting its view of what limits should be in the new permit. EPA has also received significant
communications from interested environmental groups. In addition, there has been congressional interest in both
Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well as statements of concern by the Governor of Rhode Island. Public interest in the
permit development is high. Over the past year serious concerns have been raised by groups including Save the Bay,
Conservation Law Foundation, the Rhode Island Salt Water Anglers, and the New England Fishery Management Council.
Also, the Rhode Island Attorney General has also been actively engaged in tracking the matter and has publicly threatened to
sue the company over damage to Rhode Island's natural resources. Finally, the permit issues have received substantial
attention in local major media outlets, including a recent front page story in the Boston Globe.
Ownership inforttitniiiii
Brayton Point began operation as a regulated utility plant and is currently owned by USGen New England Inc., an affiliate of PG&E
National Energy Group. Brayton Point was purchased by PG&E Generating Co. from the New England Power Company (NEPCQ) in
1998. Brayton Point is currently operated as a merchant generating plant, selling electricity in the deregulated wholesale generation
market (Standard & Poor's, 2001 b).
PG&E Corporation is one of the largest utility holding companies in the United States, with ownership of or control over approximately
18,000 MW of electric generating capacity and electricity sales of over 80 million MWh in 2000. PG&E Corporation had 20,850
employees and sales of over $26 billion in 2000. However, PG&E Corporation suffered substantial financial losses as a result of the
California energy crisis, when its regulated operations subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, which serves several million electric
and gas customers in Central and Northern California, was unable to pass rising wholesale power prices on to retail consumers. As a
result, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as a subsidiary only but not as PG&E Corporation, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in April 2001 (Hoover's Online, 200Ih; PG&E, 2001; Standard & Poor's, 2001b). _____
Fl -2 Environmental Setting
Fl -2.1 Mount Hope Bay
Mount Hope Bay is an upper ernbayment in the northeast portion of the Narragansett Bay Estuary, which was designated as an
"Estuary of National Significance" by the U.S. Congress in 1987 (NBC, 2001) (Figure 2-1). It is about 10 km (6 miles long),
covering 40 km2 (15.6 square miles) (NBC, 2001). The bottom of the bay is predominantly sandy, and depths average
approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) at mean low water. The state line between Massachusetts and Rhode Island runs from southeast
to northwest across the bay, such that the lower portion falls in Rhode Island.
Circulation of water in the bay is dominated by tidal flow, with average tidal amplitude of 1.3 m (4.4 ft) (NBC, 2001). The
Narragansett Bay estuary has free connection with the open sea, and within it, freshwater from land drainage dilutes sea water.
Fl -2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
The Narragansett Bay Estuary consists of a variety of habitats. Salt marshes, seagrass beds, oyster beds, cobble bottoms, soft
bottoms, tidal flats, beaches, rocky shores, and the open water are all essential elements of the bay ecosystem (NBEP, 1998).
Of particular importance is eelgrass habitat. Eelgrass is a rooted plant that grows densely in shallow coastal waters, in what
are called "eelgrass meadows." It provides food, shelter, and spawning habitat for an abundance of marine life, including
economically important finfish and shellfish species such as winter flounder, tautog , bluefish (Pomatomus solicitor),
American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), northern quahogs or hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), bay scallops (Argopecten
irradians), soft-shelled clams (Argopecten irradians), American lobster (Homarus americanus), and blue crab (Callinectes
sapidus Rathbun) (NBEP, 1998; DeAlteris et al., 2000).
The fish community of Mount Hope Bay is estuarine with coastal migrant fishes. Vast numbers of fish migrate in and out of
Mount Hope Bay in seasonal patterns (NBC, 2001). Approximately 60 species of adult fishes have been identified in the bay.
Truly local species include silverside (Menidia menidia), northern pipefish (Syngnathusfuscus), fourbeard rockling
(Enchelyopus cimbrius), and seaboard goby (Gobiosoma ginsburgi). Local migrants, which move freely within Narragansett
Bay and probably into the adjacent sounds, are winter flounder, windowpane (Scophthalmus aquosus), tautog, and searobin
(Triglidae). Truly migratory species include Atlantic menhaden (Brevoorlia tvrannus), weakfish (Cynoscion regalis),
butterfish (Peprilus triacanlhux), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), and bay anchovy (Anchoa mitchilii). Many of the prominent
Fl-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Narragansett fish species, including striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish, tautog, winter flounder, summer flounder/fluke
(Paraiichthys dcniaius), scup and weak fish, are highly sought after by both commercial and recreational fishermen (NBEP,
1998).
Narragansett Bay is also home to waterfowl and wading birds. Over 350 species of birds have been spotted in the bay's
environs (NBC, 2001). Species such as mergansers (Mergus meraganser), buffleheads (Bucephala albeola). and great blue
herons (Ardea herodias) can be found in the bay during various seasons (NBEP, 1998).
Benthic organisms that inhabit the bay include elarns, quahogs, crabs, lobsters, snails, shrimps, and sponges. The dominant
intertidal organisms in the rocky surfaces include the blue mussel, snail, and barnacles. Soft bottom communities are
composed primarily of bivalves, amphipods, and polychaete worms (NBC, 2001).
Endangered species that live or feed in Narragansett Bay include diamond-back terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin), roseate tern
(Sterna dougallii), and Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempis) (NBEP, 1998),
F! -2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
a. Habitat alteration
Water pollution, dredging, coastal development, and other environmental stressors have nearly eliminated eelgrass in Mount
Hope Bay (NBEP, 1998). Though upper Narragansett Bay once supported extensive seagrass beds, they are now present only
in the southern half of the bay. The vitality of an estuary's eelgrass beds is widely recognized as an indicator of an estuary's
ecological health (Save the Bay, 2001).
The once abundant fish, shellfish, and birds that depend on eelgrass meadows have declined in number, because of habitat
alteration and other stressors. Bay scallops began to decline in the 1950's and have yet to recover. Similarly, winter flounder,
once one of the bay's most important catches, has declined precipitously over the past decade.
b. Overfishing
Fishery landings and stock sizes of many Narragansett Bay fish and shellfish species have changed dramatically (DeAlteris et
al., 2000). The oyster harvest peaked at 6.8 million kg (15 million lb) in 1910, and then declined to less than 4,000 kg
(10,000 lb) from 1955 to 1996. Landings of the northern quahog peaked at 2.3 million kg (5 million lb) in 1955 and then
declined to less than 0.5 million kg (1 million lb) in 1998. In contrast, lobster landings have steadily increased from less than
0.05 million kg (0.1 million lb) in the early 1950's to more than 3.4 million kg (7.5 million lb) in the early 1990*s, Winter
flounder landings steadily increased from less than 0.2 million kg (0.5 million lb) in the 1940's to over 4 million kg (9 million
lb) in the early 1980's, but then declined to about 0.5 million kg (1 million lb) in the late 1990's. Striped bass landings have
fluctuated widely in the last 50 years; the fishery collapsed in the late 1970's, and then increased to almost 0.5 million kg (1
million lb) in the mid-1990's (DeAlteris et al., 2000).
c. Pollution
Narragansett Bay is one of the most densely populated cstuarine systems in the counuy (Caton, 2001). As a result, the bay
must assimilate high levels of industrially derived toxic pollutants, nutrients, and wastewater runoff from the area's 33
wastewater treatment facilities (WWTF).
In addition, large amounts of heat are discharged into Mount Hope Bay by Brayton Point and into the Taunton River, albeit at
lesser amounts, by facilities such as Taunton Municipal and Montaup Station.
Based on 1990 census figures, it is estimated that 0.5 million m3 (125 million gallons) of wastewater are either directly or
indirectly discharged into Narragansett Bay each day (Caton, 2001). The greatest pollution levels can be found at the head of
the bay where the metropolitan areas of Providence, Worcester, and Fall River dispose of their wastewater. Excessive levels
of human waste have a number of effects on aquatic life and the recreational and commercial uses of Narragansett Bay. Of
primary concern are the low levels of dissolved oxygen caused by large nutrient loadings from the WWTFs. Nitrogen
discharged by facilities causes excess plant growth (algal blooms). When the algae die, they are decomposed by bacteria that
consume dissolved oxygen, effectively suffocating fish and other wildlife. Similarly, bacterial nitrification of ammonia
discharged by WWTFs also depletes the bay's waters of dissolved oxygen, making many waters uninhabitable (Caton, 2001).
Human sewage is also responsible for temporary and permanent closures of over 31 percent of Narragansett Bay to shellfish
harvesting (Caton, 2001). Portions of Mount Hope Bay have been permanently closed to shellfish harvesting since the
Fl-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
1940's, and other portions are routinely closed after heavy rains cause overflow of sewage waters. Fall River is presently
working on a multi-million dollar combined sewer outflow abatement program, having already made improvements to its
WWTF.
Narragansett Bay also suffers from industrial toxic pollutants (Caton, 2001). Traces of industrial metals (copper, zinc, iron,
mercury) and organic compounds (PCBs, PHCs, pesticides) are found in bay sediments, creating potential health risks
primarily through the consumption of contaminated seafood. However, the discharge of these pollutants into the bay has
decreased dramatically because of the pretreatment of industrial wastewater (NBEP, 1998).
d. Climate change
Winter water temperatures in Narragansett Bay have increased markedly over the past 40 years. Likely causes include global
warming (Keller and Klein-MaePhee, 2000) and the discharge of waste heat into the bay by Brayton Point Station. This has
resulted in a loss of the usual winter-spring diatom bloom, with potential impacts on higher trophic levels because of changes
in prey availability (Keller et al., 1999). Warmer water in winter may also increase predation rates by the shrimp Crangon
septemspinosa on larval winter flounder, contributing to recent population declines (Keller and Klein-MacPhee, 2000).
e. Surface water withdrawals by CWIS
Steam electric power generation accounts for the single largest intake of water from the Narragansett Bay watershed,
amounting to over 85 percent of all surface water withdrawals, and 100 percent of all saline water withdrawals (USGS, 1995).
Fl - 3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
Bristol County has a population of 534,678 (Table Fl-2; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), of which 18,234 live in the Town of
Somerset. The county has four cities (Attleboro, Fall River, New Bedford, and Taunton) and 16 towns (BCCVB, 2002).
Table Fl-2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Bristol County, Massachusetts, and the State of
Massachusetts
Bristol County
; Massachusetts ;
Rhode Island
Population
534,678
i 6349,097 ;
1,048,319
Land area (square miles)
556
: 7,840 ;
1,045
Persons per square mile
961.7
809.8 :
1,003.2
Median household money income (1997 model-based estimate)
$38,866
$43,015 ;
$36,699
Persons below poverty (%, 1997 model-based estimate)
il.9%
: 10.7% :
11.2%
Housing units
216,918
2,621,989 ;
439,837
Home ownership rate
61.6%
: 61.7% |
60%
Households
205,411
2,443,580 ;
408,424
Persons per household
2.54
2.51
2,47
Households with persons under 18 years (%)
35.6%
32.9% ;
32.9
High school graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
213,057
3,169,566 |
474,612
College graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
52,143
1,078,999 ;
140,160
Data from 2000 except where shown.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
Fl-3.1 Major Industrial Activities
Narragansett Bay hosts a wide range of water-dependent industries, including recreation, shipbuilding, fishing, fish
processing, shipping, and military. Other industries such as electronics, magazines, and auto imports also benefit from
maritime access through Narragansett Bay.
The Town of Somerset is a suburban township with some small-scale resort and second home development. It has 24 km (15 ¦
miles) of waterfront, which are primarily used for recreation. The closest city, Fall River, has more industrial activities with
chemical operations, electrical and food products along with the garment and textile industries. It also draws tourism with the
largest factory outlet district in New England and a World War II memorial (MDHCD, 2001).
Fl-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter Fl: Introduction
Fl-3.2 Commercial Fisheries
Commercial fishing has long been a staple activity in Narragansett Bay, In 1999, the total value of Rhode island's
commercial landings of fish and shellfish was approximately $79 million (RIEDC, 2000), and the total value of
Massachusetts' commercial landings was about $260.5 million (NMFS, 2001a). It is estimated that Narragansett Bay accounts
for 25-75 percent of Rhode Island's shellfish landings, 5 percent of finfish landings, and 10-25 percent of lobster landings
(DeAlteris et al., 2000). The upper bay, near Brayton Point, is a major Fishing area for quahogs. Narragansett Bay produces
about 8 million pounds of quahogs annually, with a landed value of $6 million (NBC, 2001).
The Narragansett Bay commercial fishing industry supports a number of other fishing-related industries, including fish
processing and the manufacture of commercial fishing equipment (NBC, 2001).
F 1-3.3 Recreation
Narragansett Bay's most important economic activities are tourism and recreation. Outdoor recreation, including fishing,
generates an estimated $2 billion in revenues each year (NBEP, 2001).
a. Recreational fishing
More than 100,000 people fish on Narragansett Bay each year. Over 32,000 recreational boats are registered on the bay, and
many more are trailered from out of state. The bay's recreational fishery is valued at more than S300 million per year (NBEP,
2001).
b. Other water-based recreation
Narragansett Bay supports a great deal of other water-based recreation as well (RIEDC, 1999). Pleasure boating is especially
popular, and many races and regattas are held in the summer season. Rhode Island has over 85 marinas, 28 yacht clubs,
approximately 100 public boat launching sites, and over 50 charter and pleasure boats. There are also over 100 swimming
beaches, and camping, picnicking, surfing, and diving are popular activities.
Fl-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Chapter F2: Technical Description of
the Brayton Point Station
Chapter Contents
F2-1 Operational Profile F2-I
F2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal F2-2
F2-3 Brayton Point Generation F2-5
This chapter presents technical information related to the
Brayton Point facility. Section F2-1 presents an
operational profile of the facility and includes Energy
Information Administration (EIA) data on its generating
units. Section F2-2 describes the configuration of the
intake structures and water withdrawals.
F2-1 Operational Profile
During 1999, the Brayton Point power plant operated eight active units.5 Units 1-3 are coal-fired steam-electric generators;
Unit 4 is an oil-fired steam-electric generator. Units 1-3 use cooling water withdrawn from the Taunton River; unit 4 uses
water withdrawn from the Lee's River. The remaining four units are internal combustion turbines that do not require cooling
water. All units became operational between August 1963 and December 1974.
Brayton Point's total net generation in 1999 was 8.7 million MWh, Unit 3 accounted for 4.4 million MWh, or 51 percent, of
this total. Unit 1 and Unit 2 accounted for 1.8 million MWh (21 percent) and 1.7 million MWh (20 percent), respectively.
The capacity utilization of Brayton Point's units ranged from 78 percent (Unit 3) to 86 percent (Unit 1). Unit 4 was on
standby in 1999 and had a capacity utilization of only 18 percent.
Table F2-1 presents details for Brayton Point's eight units.
Tabic F2-1: Brayton Point Generator Characteristics (1999)
Generator ID:
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source'
In-Service
Date
Operating j
Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization"
id or
Associated
CWIS
1
241
ST
BIT
Aug. 1963
Operating
1,812,283
85.8%
I 1
2 j
241
ST
BIT
Jul. 1964
Operating ;
1,746,259
82.7%
i 2
3 i
643
ST
BIT
Jul. 1969
Operating
4,400,369
78.2%
i . 3
4
476
ST
F06
Dec. 1974
Standby
744,188
17.9%
j 4
ici
2.8
IC ;
F02
Mar. 1967
Cold Standby i
204
0.8%
; Not applicable
1C2
2.8
ic ;
F02
Mar. 1967
Cold Standby :
176
0.7%
1C3 :
2.8
IC
F02
Mar. 1967
Cold Standby ;
181
0.8%
1C4 i
2.8
IC
F02
Mar. 1967
Cold Standby ;
188
0,8%
Total
1,611
8,703,848
61.7%
3 Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; IC = internal combustion.
* Energy source categories: Oil; BIT = bituminous coal; F06 = No. 6 Fuel Oil; F02 = No. 2 Fuel.
' For this analysis, capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit
ran at full capacity all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source; U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a and 2001c.
' For the purposes of this analysis, "active" units include generating units that are operating, on standby, on cold standby, on test, on
maintenance/repairs, or out of service (all year). Active units do not include units that are on indefinite shutdown or retired.
F2-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2; Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
F2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
Brayton Point operates two distinct cooling water systems to serve its four generating units. Cooling Water System #1 (CWS
#1) serves generating ynits 1-3 while Cooling Water System #2 (CWS #2) provides cooling water for the fourth generating
unit. The operation of these two systems over time is summarized in Table F2-2 and discussed below.
Table F2-2; Brayton Point Timeline of CWIS Operations
Time
Period
CWIS #1
CWIS #2
1963-
1969
Units 1,2,3 put into operation. All three served by the same intake
structure with the following configuration:
* Source water: Taunton River
~ Six intake bays (2 for each unit)
~ Conventional once-through system
~ Trash rack.
~ Conventional traveling screen (rotated every 8 hours)
~ High pressure spray wash (120 psi) to remove debris and
fish
~ Sluiceway to carry debris and fish to discharge point
beyond the influence of the intake structure
~ Design intake flow: 925 MOD
Seasonal Variation:
N/A
May to October of each year fixed screens are placed on the
trash racks to prevent impingement of horseshoe crabs on the
traveling screen. Fixed screens are hauled and washed as
necessary.
1969-
1973
Operations unchanged from above.
N/A
1974
Operations unchanged from above.
: Unit 4 put into operation. Served by one intake
structure with the following configuration:
~ Source Water: Lee River
~ One intake bay
* Closed-cycle cooling system
~ Trash racks
. * Conventional traveling screen
(uncertain about rotation/cleaning
schedule, but unlikely continuous)
1975-
1981
Operations unchanged from above.
: Operations unchanged from above.
1981
Operations unchanged from above.
Unit 4 begins piggyback operation. Water intake
¦ from Lee River ceases. All cooling water taken
from discharges from CWIS #1
1982
Operations unchanged from above.
. Piggyback operation.
1983
Unit 3 shut down for seven months. (8/83-2/84)
Piggyback operation.
F2-2
-------
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Table F2-2: Brayton Point Timeline of CWIS Operations 1969-Present (cont.)
Time
Period
CWIS #1
CWIS #2
1984
All units operational. No change from configuration above.
: Unit 4 begins once-through cooling (7/15/84)
: with the following configuration:
~ Source water; Lee River
~ One intake bay
» Trash racks
~ Angled traveling screens. Six
traveling screens set 25" from
upstream flow.
~ Fish bypass intakes at the apex of
: angled screens.
~ Fish baskets (with water retention)
mounted to screens.
~ Low-pressure spray to remove
impinged fish.
; ~ High-pressure spray to remove debris.
¦ ~ Separate fish and debris troughs.
~ Screens rotate at various speeds
depending on water differential.
~ Design intake flow: 395 MGD
1985
Unit 3 shut down for seven months. (8/85-2/86).
; Fine mesh screens added to traveling screen
i structure from 3/85-9/85. All other operations
: remain unchanged.
1986-
1993
Unit 3 shut down for six months (8/86-1/87).
Operates at original once-through configuration.
1993
Operates at original configuration.
1 Piggyback for one month
I (2/25/93-3/31/93).
1994
Operates at original configuration.
; Piggyback operation for two months
¦; (2/18/94-4/29/94).
1995
Unit 3 shut down for 2 months (2/18/-4/30). Facility notes this is a
"piggyback equivalent."
; Operates at original once-through configuration.
1996
Operates at original configuration.
; Piggyback operation for two months (2/27-4/30).
1997
MOA U instituted. Traveling screens begin continuous operation on CWIS #1. Faciliiy-widc intake flow restricted to 925
MGD during the winter season and 1,130 MGD during the summer season. Unit 4 required to operate piggyback at least
eight months of the year.
Traveling screens operate continuously.
: Piggyback operation for eight months (2/6-3/30,
: 4/17-5/28, 10/2/97-5/27/98)
1998
No change from above.
: Piggyback operation for eight months (10/1/98-
i 5/30/99).
1999
No change from above.
: Piggyback operation for eight months (10/9'99-
; 5/30/00).
2000
No change from above.
: Piggyback operation for eight months (9/29'00-
: 5/3/01).
F2-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
a. Cooling water system #1
First placed into service in 1963 with the commencement of operations in generating unit #1, CWS #1 consists of one cooling
water intake structure to the east of the main facility that serves a conventional once-through system. A total of six intake
bays (two for each generating unit) withdraw water from the Taunton River, The intake bay depth is approximately 6.1m
below the mean sea level. Intake openings for bays 1-4 (serving generating units 1 and 2) are approximately 3.7m wide, while
those for bays 5 and 6 are approximately 5.2m wide. Each intake bay shares the same technological configuration,
CWS #1 currently employs trash racks and a continuously-rotating traveling screen across each of its six intake bays. Neither
technology is particularly effective at reducing impingement and/or entrainment losses. Cooling water withdrawn from the
Taunton River first passes through the trash racks into the intake channel. Next are conventional traveling screens equipped
with wire mesh panels with openings of 9.5mm2. The screens continuously move in a vertical direction to remove impinged
organisms and debris. Impinged items are washed off the intake screen with a high-pressure spray (120 psi) within the screen
assembly. All debris is deposited in a sluiceway and carried to a discharge point approximately 300ft to the east of the intake
structure.
CWS #1 modifies its intake operations seasonally to account for changes in available cooling water and migratory patterns of
indigenous organisms. From May to October, fixed screens are placed on the trash racks to prevent impingement of
horseshoe crabs on the traveling screens. Since 1993, Brayton Point has operated under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA
II) that effectively limits the maximum intake of CWS #1 to 925 MGD.
b. Cooling water system #2
CWS #2 began conventional once-through operation in 1984 with an angled screen assembly with fish buckets and a fish
diversion/return system to reduce impingement mortality. No entrainment technology is currently in place.
An 18-month study conducted by the New England Power Company at the Brayton Point Station assessed the efficacy of the
angled screen/fish diversion assembly in reducing impingement losses at CWS #2 (Lawler. Matusky & Skelly Engineers,
1987). The study calculated the Diversion Efficiency (DE) of the system (the percentage of organisms that are either
impinged against the screen or diverted into the fish bypass pipe; this does not include entrained organisms) to be 76.3
percent. Excluding bay anchovy from the species increased the DE to 89.7 percent.2 The Total System Efficiency (TSE)
represents the probability that a fish entering the angled screen system will be returned to the source waterbody and survive
for 48 hours. The study calculated the TSE of the system to be 33.1 percent. Excluding bay anchovy from the sample species
increased the TSE to 55.4 percent.3-4
Originally designed as a closed-cycle system and placed into service in 1974 as the source of cooling water for generating
unit #4, CWS#2 currently operates as a conventional once-through system to the north of the main facility. Water is
withdrawn from the Lee River. The entire intake structure is approximately 44m long with an intake opening 34m. Cooling
water enters the intake through eight 3.4m-wide openings that extend from a depth of 5.5m below the mean sea level to 1.2m
above the mean sea level.
Cooling water withdrawn from the Lee River first passes through trash racks that extend to the bottom of the opening at an-
average approach velocity of 0.5 feet per second (fps). Downstream of the trash racks are six traveling screens angled 25"
from the direction of flow in the intake waterway. The screens are set perpendicular to the screenwell floor and have 9.5mm2
mesh panels. At the apex of the triangle formed by the angled screens are fish bypass inlets leading to two fish return pipes
that carry unimpinged fish back to the Lee River. The screens rotate vertically on a continuous basis; the speed is determined
by the differentia! in water height between the upstream and downstream sides of the screen face. Fish impinged against the
traveling screens are captured in fish buckets mounted to each screen assembly. The fish buckets rotate with the screens while
retaining sufficient water for any captured organisms. A low-pressure spray (5-10 psi) removes most aquatic organisms into a
2 Bay anchovy are the dominant fish species, in terms of number, at the Brayton Point facility. Inordinately high impingement rates
for bay anchovy occurred during a six-month test period during which fine mesh screens (1,0mm*) replaced the 9.5mm2 screens. Current
operations only employ the wide mesh screens.
3 [hid.
" EPA does not typically use a 48-hour survival standard when determining the efficacy of an impingement technology. However, for
the purposes of this case study only (Mt. Hope Bay), EPA will use the facility's determination.
F2-4
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
separate fish trough which then carries them to the fish diversion pipe and back to the Lee River. A high-pressure spray (120
psi) washes remaining debris into a debris trough.
At maximum capacity, Brayton Point CWS #2 can withdraw 395 MGD from the Lee River, Since 1997, the facility has
operated under MOA II, which limits the facility-wide intake flow during the winter months to 925 MGD, In an effort to
reduce the entrainment of winter flounder during the spawning season, CWS #2 does not withdraw water from the Lee River
from October through May, During this time, cooling water is obtained by diverting discharged water from CWS #1 to the
intake canal for CWS #2 ("piggyback operation"). Generating units 1-3 typically discharge less heat as a result of operations,
thereby making this process feasible. From 1984 (introduction of the once-through system for CWS #2) to 1997, piggyback
operation was used intermittently. Table F2-3 summarizes the modes of operation of Unit 4 from 1973 through 2000.
Table F2-3: Modes of Operation of Brayton Unit 4 from 1973 to 197B
Year
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
i May ;
Jim
Jul
Aug
Sep
i Oct j
Nov
Dec
j 977
CC.
CC
CC
:¦ CC
; cc
CC
: CC :
CC
cc
: CC :
CC
CC
1978
CC
CC
CC
CC
; cc ;
CC
: cc ;
CC
cc
: cc :
CC
CC
1979
cc
CC :
CC
; cc
: CC .
cc
: CC :
cc
cc
i cc ;
cc
cc
1980
CC
CC
CC
: CC
: CC -
cc
: CC .
cc
cc
: cc ;
cc
cc
1981
PB
PB
PB
PB
; PB .
PB
PB
PB
PB
: PB
PB
PB
1982
PB
PB
PB
PB
: PB
PB
; PB
PB
PB
: PB :
PB
PB
1983
PB
PB
PB
PB
; PB ;
PB
pb :
PB
PB
• PB ;
PB
PB
1984
PB
PB
PB
PB
: PB ;
PB
! oc;
OC
OC
¦ oc :
oc
oc
1985
OC
OC
OC
OC
; OC ;
OC
: OC .
OC
OC
: OC :
oc
oc
1986
OC
OC
OC
: OC
: OC :
OC
: oc
oc
oc
: OC :
oc
oc
1987
OC
OC
OC
: OC
; OC
OC
i oc '
oc
oc
1 oc 1
oc
oc
1988
OC
OC ¦
OC
OC
j OC
OC
: OC ;
oc
oc
: OC ;
oc
oc
1989
OC
OC
OC
! oc
: OC •
OC
; oc ;
oc
oc
; OC :
oc
oc
1990
OC
OC
OC
; oc
j OC ;
OC
: oc :
oc
oc
: OC :
oc
oc
1991
OC
OC
OC
oc
: OC
OC
; OC ;
oc
oc
! OC i
oc
oc
1992
OC
OC
OC
: OC
: OC :
OC
: OC :
oc
oc
: OC ;
oc
oc
1993
OC
OC
PB
i OC
i OC •
OC
; oc ;
oc
oc
: OC :
oc
oc
1994
OC
OC :
PB
PB
; OC
OC
: OC :
oc
oc
; oc r
oc
oc
1995
OC
OC
OC
OC
: OC
OC
; OC ;
oc
oc
; oc :
oc
oc
1996
OC
OC
PB
PB
; OC
oc
1 OC ;
oc
OC
: OC ;
oc
oc
1997 :
OC
PB
PB
PB
i PB
oc
: OC |
oc
oc
i PB
PB
PB
1998 :
PB
PB
PB
PB
I PB
OC
: OC i
oc
oc
: PB ;
PB
PB
1999 :
PB
PB
PB
: PB
; PB
OC
: OC :
oc
oc
; PB
PB
PD
2000 :
PB
PB
PB
: PB
; pb
OC
: OC :
oc
oc
; PB :
• PB
PB
Notes: CC = close-cycle cooling mode; OC = open-cycle mode; PB = piggyback mode.
Source: Personal communication, Meredith Si mas. Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point Station, March 23, 2001.
F2-3 Brayton Point Generation
During 1999, the Brayton Point power plant operated eight active units.5 Totai net generation in 1999 was 8.7 million MWh.
Unil 3 accounted for 4.4 million MWh, or 51 percent, of this total. Unit 1 and Unit 2 accounted for 1.8 million MWh (21
percent) and 1.7 million MWh (20 percent), respectively. The capacity utilization of Brayton Point's units ranged from 78
percent (Unit 3) to 86 percent (Unit I). Unit 4 was on standby in 1999 and had a capacity utilization of only 18 percent.
5 For the purposes of this analysis, "active" units include generating units that are operating, on standby, on cold standby, on test, on
maintenance/repairs, or out of service (all year). Active units do not include units that are on indefinite shutdown or retired.
F2-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F2: Technical Description of Case Study Facilities
Table P2-4 presents details for Brayton Point's eight units.
Table F2-4: Brayton Point Generator Characteristics (1999)
Generator ID
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source'
In-Service
Date
Operating
Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization1
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
241
ST
BIT
Aug, 1963
Operating |
1,812,283
85.8% : 1
2
241
ST
BIT
Jul. 1964
Operating ;
1,746,259
82.7%
; 2
3 :
643
ST
BIT
Jul. 1969
Operating ;
4,400,369
78.2%
: 3
4
476
ST
F06
Dec. 1974
Standby
744,188
17.9%
4
1C1
2.8
IC
F02
Mar. 1967
. Cold Standby ;
204
0.8%
. Not applicable
IC2 !
2.8
IC
F02
Mar. 1967
Cold Standby ;
176 •
0.7%
1C3
2.8
IC
F02
Mar. 1967
Cold Standby -
181
0.8%
1C4
2.8
IC
F02
Mar. 1967
: Cold Standby :
188
0.8% ;
Total
1,611
8,703,848
61.7% !
• Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; IC = internal combustion.
b Energy source categories: Oil; BIT = bituminous coal; F06 = No. 6 Fuel Oil; F02 = No. 2 Fuel.
' For this analysis, capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit
ran at full capacity ail the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001c; U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, for Net Generation and CWIS ID.
Figure F2-1 below presents Brayton Point's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
Figure F2-1: Brayton Point Net Electricity Generation 1970 - 2000 (in MWh)
8.000,000
7,000,000
6,O0D,QDO
c
o
5,000,000
ffl
9
c
9
o
%
z
4,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1995
1985
1990
1970
1975
1980
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2001c, 200 Id.
F2-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3:
Evaluation of I<&E Data
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
potential impingement and entrainment (I&E) of aquatic
organisms in Mount Hope Bay resulting from the CWIS of
Brayton Point. The focus of EPA's evaluation was the
potential impacts of Brayton Point's current operations on
relatively, healthy Fish populations. Because Fish
populations in Mount Hope Bay are currently depressed
well below historical levels, EPA based its evaluation on
the most comprehensive historical time series of I&E data
for Brayton Point (1974-1983) and adjusted these rates for
the facility's current technologies and operations. It
should be noted, however, that using pre-1984 data still
probably produces an underestimate of l&E levels because
there is data suggesting that the plant contributed to a
declining fishery even before 1984, though the decline accelerated precipitously after 1984. Unfortunately, there is no Mount
Hope Bay abundance data from before Brayton Point Station began operations to provide true baseline population levels
unaffected by the plant. Section F3-1 lists fish species that are impinged and entrained at Brayton Point, and Section F3-2
presents life histories of the most abundant species in the facility's I&E collections. Section F3-3 summarizes the facility's
I&E collection methods, and Section F3-4 presents results of EPA's analysis of annual impingement and entrainment. Section
F3-5 summarizes the results of EPA's analyses.
F3-1 Species Impinged and Entrained at Brayton Point
EPA evaluated species known to be impinged and entrained at Brayton Point based on information provided in facility I&E
monitoring reports (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999; personal communication, Meredith Simas,
Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point Station, January 24,2002). Approximately 18 different species have been identified
in Brayton Point's I&E collections since monitoring began in 1972. At least 10 (56 percent) of these species have
commercial and/or recreational value. Table F3-1 lists species identified in the facility's I&E collections. EPA evaluated all
the species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point, except a group of unidentified impinged Fish species.
Chapter Contents
F3-1 Species Impinged and Entrained at Brayton Point .. F3-I
F3-2 Life Histories of Major Species Impinged
and Entrained F3-2
F3-3 Brayton Point Generating Station's I&E Sampling
Methods F3-9
F3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring F3-I0
F3-3.2 Entrainment Monitoring F3-10
F3-4 Annual Impingement and Entrainment F3-11
F3-5 Summary F3-11
F3-1
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F3: Evaluation of 146 Data
Table F3-1: Aquatic Species Identified in I<&E Collections by Brayton Point
Common Name
Scientific Name
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Alewife
¦Alosa pseudoharengus
X
American sand lance
[ Ammodyies americanus
X
Atlantic menhaden
:Brevoorlia tyrannus
X
Atlantic silverside
: Menidia menidia
X
Bay anchovy
'.Anchoa mitchilli
X
Blueback herring
;Alosa aestivalis
X
Butterfish
¦Peprilus triacanthus
X
Hogchoker
; Trinectes maculatus
X
Rainbow smelt
¦ Osmerus mordax mordax
X
Scup
\Stenotomus chrysops
: X
X
Seaboard goby
i Gobiosoma ginsburgi
X
Silver hake
¦ Merluccius bilinearis
X
Striped killifish
iFundulus majalis
X
Tautog
; Tautoga onilis
X
X
Threespine stickleback
: Gasterosteus aculeatus aculeatus
X
Weakfish
¦ Cynoscion regalis
X
X
White perch
Morone americana
X
X
Windowpane
¦.Scophthalmus aquosus
X
Winter flounder
;Pleuronecles americanus
X
: X
Sources: PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999; Matt Caraisa, Fisheries Supervisor, Massachusetts DMF, Personal
Communication, January 31, 2002; personal communication, Meredith Simas, Environmental Engineer, Brayton Point
Station, January 24, 2002.
F3-2 Life Histories of Major Species Impinged and Entrained
Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)
Alewife is a member of the herring family, Clupeidae, and ranges along the Atlantic coast from Newfoundland to North
Carolina (Scott and Grossman, 1998). Alewife tend to be more abundant in the mid-Atlantic and along the northeastern coast.
They are anadromous, migrating inland from coastal waters in the spring to spawn. Adult alewife overwinter along the
northern continental shelf, settling at the bottom in depths of 56 to 110 m (184 ft to 361 ft) (Able and Fahay, 1998). Adults
feed on a wide variety of food items, while juveniles feed mainly on plankton (Waterfield, 1995).
Alewife has been introduced to a number of lakes to provide forage for sport fish (Jude et al., 1987b). Ecologically, alewife is
an important prey item for many fish, and commercial landings of river herring along the Atlantic coast have ranged from a
high of 33,974 metric tons (74.9 million lb) in 1958 to a low of less than 2,268 metric tons (5 million lb) in recent years
(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission , 2000b).
Spawning is temperature-driven, beginning in the spring as water temperatures reach 13 to 15 °C (55 to 59 °F) and ending
when they exceed 27 *C (80.6 *F) (Able and Fahay, 1998). Spawning takes place in the upper reaches of coastal rivers, in
slow-flowing sections of slightly brackish or freshwater.
Females lay demersal eggs in shallow water less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep (Wang and Kcniehan, 1979). They may lay from
60,000 to 300,000 eggs at a time (Kocik, 2000). The demersal eggs are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter. Larvae
hatch at a size of approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0,2 in.) total length (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae remain in the
upstream spawning area for some time before drifting downstream to natal estuarine waters. Juveniles exhibit a diurnal
vertical migration in the water column, remaining near the bottom during- the day and rising to the surface at night (Fay et al.,
1983a). In the fall,.juveniles move offshore to nursery areas (Able and Fahay, 1998).
F3-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Fart F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Maturity is reached at an age of 3 to 4 years for males, and 4 to 5 years for females (Able and Fahay, 1998). The average size
at maturity is 265 to 278 mm (10.4 to 10.9 in.) for males and 284 to 308 mm (11.2 to 12.1 in.) for females (Able and Fahay,
1998), Alewife can live up to 8 years, but the average age of the spawning population tends to be 4 to 5 years (Waterfield,
1995; Public Service Electric and Gas Company, 1999c).
ALEWIFE
(Alosa pseudoharengm)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: River herring, sawbelly, kyak, branch
herring, freshwater herring, bigeye herring, gray herring, ,
grayback, white herring.
Similar species; Blueback herring.
Geographic range: Along the western Atlantic coast from
Newfoundland to North Carolina.'
Habitat: Wide-ranging, tolerates fresh to saline waters,
travels in schools.
Lifespan: May live up to 8 years."
Fecundity: Females may lay from 60,000 to 300,000 eggs at:
a time.J
Scott and Grossman, 1998.
PSEG, 1999c.
Waterfield, 1995.
Kocik, 2000.
Wang and Kemehan, 1979.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
8 Fayetal, 1983a.
Rsh_graghicicourtes^f^w^ork_SgortfishingjndA^atic^esourcesEdiicational^rogMi^MOLi
. Food source: Small fish, zooplankton, fish eggs, amphtpods, mysids/
: Prey for: Striped bass, weakfish, rainbow trout.
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
~ Found in waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) dcep,J
~ Are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter/
Larvae;
"¦ Approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in.) at hatching.'
~ Remain in upstream spawning area for some time before drifting
downstream to natal estuarine waters.
Juveniles:
~ Stay on the bottom during the day and rise to the surface at night.8
~ Emigrate to ocean in summer and fell/
Adults: anadromous
- Reach maturity at 3-4 years for males and 4-5 years for females/
~ Average size at maturity is 265-278 mm (10.4-10.9 in.) for males and
284-308 mm (11.2-12.1 in.) for females/
~ Overwinter along the northern continental shelf/
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia fyrannus)
The Atlantic menhaden, a member of the Clupeidae (herring) family, is a eurohaline species, occupying coastal and estuarine
habitats. It is found along the Atlantic coast of North America, from Maine to northern Florida (Hall, 1995). Adults
congregate in large schools in coastal areas; these schools are especially abundant in and near major estuaries and bays, They
consume plankton, primarily diatoms and dinofiagellaies, which they filter from the water through elaborate gill rakers. In
turn, menhaden are consumed by almost all commercially and recreationally important piscivorous fish, as well as by dolphins
and birds (Hall, 1995).
The menhaden fishery, one of the most important and productive fisheries on the Atlantic coast, is a multimillion-dollar
enterprise (Hall, 1995). Menhaden are considered an "industrial fish" and are used to produce products such as paints,
cosmetics, margarine (in Europe and Canada), and feed, as well as bait for other fisheries. Landings in New England declined
to their lowest level of approximately 2.7 metric tons (5,952 lb) in the 1960s because of overfishing. Since then, landings
have varied, ranging from approximately 240 metric tons (529,100 lb) in 1989 to 1,069 metric tons (2,356,742 lb) in 1998
(Personal Communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring,
Maryland, March 19, 2001).
F3-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Bray tor Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of tAE Data
Atlantic menhaden spawn year round at sea and in larger bays (Scott and Scott, 1988). Spawning peaks during the southward
fall migration and continues throughout the winter off the North Carolina coast. There is limited spawning during the
northward migration and during summer months (Hall, 1995). The majority of spawning occurs over the inner continental
shelf, with less activity in bays and estuaries (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Females mature just before age 3, and release buoyant, planktonic eggs during spawning (Hall, 1995). Atlantic menhaden
annual egg production ranges from approximately 100,000 to 600,000 eggs for fish age 1 to age 5 (Dietrich, 1979). Eggs are
spherical and between 1.3 to 1.9 mm (0.05 to 0.07 in.) in diameter (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Larvae hatch after approximately 24 hours and remain in the plankton. Larvae hatched in offshore waters enter the Delaware
Estuary 1 to 2 months later to mature (Hall, 1995). Juveniles then migrate south in the fall, joining adults off North Carolina
in January (Hall, 1995). Water temperatures below 3 °C (37 *F) kill the larvae, and therefore larvae that fail to reach estuaries
before the fall are more likely to die than those arriving in early spring (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae hatchout at 2.4 to 4.5
mm (0.09 to 0.18 in.). The transition to the juvenile stage occurs between 30 and 38 mm (1.2 and 1.5 in.) (Able and Fahay,
1998). The juvenile growth rate in some areas is estimated to be 1 mm (0.04 in.) per day (Able and Fahay, 1998).
During the fall and early winter, most menhaden migrate south off of the North Carolina coast, where they remain until March
and early April. They avoid waters below 3 °C, but can tolerate a wide range of salinities from less than 1 percent up to 33-37
percent (Hall, 1995). Sexual maturity begins at age 2, and all individuals are mature by age 3 (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Adult fish are commonly between 30 and 35 cm (11.8 and 13.8 in.) in length. The maximum age of a menhaden is
approximately 7 to 8 years (Hall, 1995), although individuals of 8-10 years have been recorded (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Food Source: Phytoplankton, zooplankton, annelid worms, detritusb
: Prey for: Sharks, cod, pollock, hakes, bluefish, tuna, swordfish,
seabirds, whales, porpoises.1'
: Life stage information:
ATLANTIC MENHADEN : Eggs: pelagic
(Hrevoortia lyrannus) ; ~ Spawning takes place along the inner continental shelf, in open
marine waters.'1
~ Eggs hatch after approximately 24 hours.
: Larvae: pelagic
: ~ Larvae hatch out at sea, and enter estuarine waters 1 to 2 months
later,"
: ~ Remain in estuaries through the summer, emigrating to ocean
waters as juveniles in September or October.J
; Adults:
' ~ Congregate in large schools in coastal areas.
~ Spawn year round."
" Hall, 1995.
b Scott and Scott, 1988.
c Dietrich, 1979.
4 Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, 2001.
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: menhaden, bunker, fatback, bugfish.
Similar species: Gulf menhaden, yellowfin menhaden.
Geographic range: From Maine to northern Florida along the
Atlantic coast.*
Habitat: Open-sea, marine waters. Travels in schools.'
Lifespan:
» Approximately 7 to 8 years.*
Fecundity:
~ Females may produce between 100,000 to 600,000 eggs.''
F3-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia)
The Atlantic silverside is a member of the silverside family, Atherinidae, Its geographic range extends from coastal waters of
New Brunswick to northern Florida (Fay et a!.. 1983b), but it is most abundant between Cape Cod and South Carolina (Able
and Fahay, 1998), Atlantic silversides inhabit sandy seashores and the mouths of inlets (Froese and Pauly, 2001). Silversides
are an important species of forage fish, eaten by valuable Fishery species such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis), bluefish
(Pomaiomus salatrix), weakfish (Cynoscion regalLi), and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) (Fay et al,, 1983b; McBride,
1995).
Atlantic silversides spawn in the upper intertidal zone during spring and summer. Spawning appears to be stimulated by new
and full moons, in association with spring tides. On average, females produce 4,500 to 5,000 demersal eggs per spawning
season, which may include four to five separate spawning bouts (Fay et al., 1983b). The eggs are 0.9 to 1.2 mm (0.04 to 0.05
in.) in diameter. Larvae range in size from 5,5 to 15.0 mm (0.2 to 0.6 in.) (Fay et al., 1983b), The sex of Atlantic silversides
is determined during the larval stage, at approximately 32 to 46 days after hatching. Water temperatures between 11 and
19 °C (52 and 66 *F) produce significantly more females, whereas temperatures between 17 and 25 °C (63 and 77 °F) produce
significantly more males (Fay et al, 1983b).
Juveniles occur in estuaries during the summer months, occupying intertidal creeks, marshes, and shore zones of bays and
estuaries. Silversides typically migrate offshore in the winter (McBride, 1995). In studies of seasonal distribution in
Massachusetts, all individuals left inshore waters during winter months (Able and Fahay, 1998).
The diet of juveniles and adults consists of copepods, mysids, amphipods, cladocerans, fish eggs, squid, worms, molluscs,
insects, algae, and detritus (Fay et al,, 1983b). Atlantic silversides feed in large schools, preferring gravel and sand bars, open
beaches, tidal creeks, river mouths, and marshes (Fay et al, 1983b).
Silversides live for only 1 or 2 years, usually dying after completing their first spawning (Fay et al., 1983b). Adults can reach
sizes of up to 15 cm (5.9 in.) in total length (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
ATLANTIC SILVERSIDE
(Menidia menidia)
Family: Atherinidae (silversides).
Common names: Spearing, Sperling, green smelt, sand smelt,
white bait, capelin, shiner/
Similar species: Inland silverside (Menidia beryilina)."
Geographic range; New Brunswick to northern Florida."
Habitat: Sandy seashores and the mouths of inlets.1'
Lifespan: One or 2 years. Often die after their first spawning."
Fecundity: Females produce an average of4,500 to 5,000 eggs
per spawning season,*
Fay et al,, 1983b.
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
McBride, 1995.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from Government of Canada, 2001.
¦ Food Source: Zooplankton, fish eggs, squid, worms, molluscs, insects,
algae, and detritus,*
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, and Atlantic mackerel."
; Life stage information:
: Eggs; demersal
~ Found in shallow waters of estuarine intertidal zones.8
*¦ Can be found adhering to submerged vegetation.*
Larvae:
*¦ Range from 5.5 to 15.0 mm (0.2 to 0.6 in.) in size.*
~ Sex is determined during the larval stage by the temperature
regime. Colder temperatures tend to produce more females, and
warmer temperatures produce more males.'
Adults:
* Overwinter in offshore marine waters."1
~ Can reach sizes of up to 15 em (5.9 in.) total length.11
F3-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Bnayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of IAc t>ata
Tautog (Tautoga onitis)
The tautog is a member of the Labridae family, found in coastal areas from New Brunswick south to South Carolina. It is
most abundant from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to the Delaware Estuary {Atlantic Stales Marine Fisheries Commission,
2Q0Qe). Tautog are most frequently found close to shore, preferring rocky areas or other discontinuities such as pilings,
jetties, or wrecks and salinities of greater than 25 ppt (Jury et al,, 1994). They generally consume mussels, small crustaceans,
and other molluscs (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999).
Tautog have historically supported a primarily recreational fishery. Since 1980, landings have averaged about 3,700 metric
tons (8.1 million lb), with recreational catches accounting for 90 percent of the total (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, 2000e). The majority of Taut.og are harvested by hook and line from private boats (Auster, 1989); however,
there are also significant charter and party boat fisheries. Although commercial landings accounted for only 8.7 percent of the
total from 1982 to 1991, commercial fishing has been increasing because of higher market prices (Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission, 2000h). There is evidence that the fishery is declining, with lower recreational and commercial catch
rates. A survey conducted in Narragansett Bay in 1994 showed the lowest abundance of tautog ever recorded. Tautog are
susceptible to overfishing, particularly because they experience slow growth and reproduction and tend to be easily found
near wrecks and rock piles (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000e).
Tautog migrate inshore in the spring to spawn in inshore waters. Spawning generally occurs between mid-May and August,
peaks in June (Auster, 1989), and primarily takes place at the mouths of estuaries and along the inner continental shelf. In
Narragansett Bay, tautog are known to return to the same spawning sites in the upper estuary each year. Fecundity increases
with age until approximately age 16, when it begins to decline (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999). Females between 3 and 20 years
were documented to contain between 5,000 and 673,500 mature eggs. The eggs are buoyant, and hatch out in approximately
2 to 3 days (Auster, 1989).
Larvae hatch out at 2 to 4 mm (0.079 to 0.157 in.) and migrate vertically in the water column, surfacing during the day and
remaining near the bottom at night, Tautog are the most abundant larval species in Narragansett Bay. As they get older, they
become more benthic (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999). Small juveniles will remain in estuaries year-round, in a home range of
only several hundred meters, becoming torpid over the winter (Jury et al., 1994), while larger ones will join adults in deeper
water. Small juveniles prefer vegetated habitats in depths of less than 1 m (3.3 ft) and are not observed in Narragansett Bay
water deeper than 9 m (30 ft). Older juveniles and adults inhabit reef-like habitats that provide some type of cover (Steimle
and Shaheen, 1999).
Tautog do not tend to migrate far offshore; however, adults move to deeper water in the fall, responding to decreases in
temperature. Although they move to waters as deep as 45 m (148 ft), tautog select areas with rugged topography for cover.
Adults return to coastal waters and estuaries to spawn when waters warm in the spring. Maturity is reached at about 3 to 4
years ofage. Age 7 tautogs in Rhode Island had mean lengths of 348 mm (14 in.) for males and 301 mm (12 in.) for females.
Males may live for over 30 years, while females may live to about 25 years of age (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999).
F3-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part R Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I4E Data
; Food Source: Juveniles feed on amphipods and eopepods. Adults feed
: mainly on blue mussels, small crustaceans, and other molluscs.*
. Prey for: Smooth dogfish, barndoor skate, red hake, sea raven, goosefish,
: striped bass, silver hake, bluefish, seabirds."
TAUTOG
Life stage information:
(Tauloga onitis)
Family: Labridae (wrasses).
Eggs: buoyant
~ Hatch out in 2 to 3 days.*
Common names; tautog, blaekfish, white chin, chub, black
porgy."
; Larvae; pelagic
~ Young larvae migrate vertically in the water column, surfacing during
Similar species: Cunner (Tautogolabrus adspersus)..
the day and remaining near the bottom at night.*
Geographic range: Most abundant from Cape Cod,
• Juveniles: bentkic
Massachusetts to the Delaware Estuary,1'
• ~ Small juveniles prefer vegetated areas in depths less than 1 m (3.3 ft).'
: ~ Larger juveniles prefer covered, reef-like habitats."
Habitat: Rocky shoals around coastal shores.'
Adults;
Lifespan: Maturity is reached at about 3 to 4 years.
: ~ Inhabit reef-like habitats that provide some type of cover.*
Maximum age of over 30 years for males, 25 years for
: * Migrate inshore in late spring to spawn at the mouths of estuaries and
females.-"
along the inner continental shelf."
Fecundity; Mature females may contain between 5,000 and
673,500 mature eggs.d
" Steimle and Shahcen, 1999.
6 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000e.
c Scott and Scott, 1988.
d Auster, 1989.
Fish graphic from; State of Maine Division of Marine Resources, 2001c,
Windowpane (Scophtha/mus aguosus)
Windowpane is a member of the Scophthalmidae family (left-eye flounders) found from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Florida,
inhabiting estuarine and shallow continental shelf waters less than 56 m (184 ft) deep (Able and Fahay, 1998). They have
been found in areas with muddy or sandy bottoms, water temperatures ranging from 0 to 24"C (0 to 75 °F), and salinities of
5.5 to 36 ppt (Chang et al.. 1999).
Spawning occurs over the continental shelf and in estuaries, but not in waters over 20 °C (68 °F) (Kaiser and Neuman, 1995).
The timing of spawning varies with location: in Mid-Atlantic Bight waters, spawning occurs from April through December,
peaking in May and October, while on Georges Bank spawning occurs during summer and peaks in July and August
(Hendrickson, 2000). The estimated average lifetime fecundity of females is 100,000 eggs (New England Power Company
and Marine Research Inc., 1995). Eggs are buoyant and hatch out in 8 days at a water temperature of 11 °C (52 °F) (Chang et
al., 1999). Eggs and larvae are planktonic, but movements are poorly understood. Between 6.5 and 13.0 mm (0.256 and
0.512 in.), eye migration occurs and the body becomes more laterally compressed (Able and Fahay, 1998). Juveniles appear
to use estuaries as nursing areas, and then move to offshore waters in the fail (Kaiser and Neuman, 1995),
Although windowpane have been found to migrate 130 km (81 miles) in a few months, most researchers agree that
windowpane generally do not migrate long distances (Chang et al., 1999).
Windowpane reach sexual maturity at age 3 or 4 (Hendrickson, 2000). Adults reach a maximum length of approximately 46
cm (18 in.), and may live up to 7 years (Scott and Scott, 1988).
While windowpane has not been a particularly important commercial fish, it may become more so as stocks of summer
flounder are overfished. Commercial catches began in 1943, and through 1975 windowpane was harvested as part of an
industrial fishery. Landings in southern New England peaked in 1985 at 2,100 metric tons (4.6 million lb), decreased to a low
of 100 metric tons (0.2 million lb) in 1995, and have remained below 200 metric tons (0.4 million lb) since then. Populations
have also decreased since the 1980's, and overfishing is suspected as a main cause (Hendrickson, 2000).
F3-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
WINDOWPANE
{Scophthalmus aquosus)
Family: Scophthalmidae (left-eye flounder).
Common names: windowpane.
Similar species: turbot (Scophthalmus maximus), brill
(Scophthalmus rhombus).
Geographic range; From the Gulf of St. Lawer.cc to Florida."
Habitat: Estuarine and shallow continental shelf waters of depths
less than 56 m (184 ft)."
Lifespan: Approximately 7 years.1
Fecundity: Average lifetime fecundity of 100,500 eggs."
Able and Fahay, 1998.
b Scott and Scott, 1988.
New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995.
Chang etal., 1999.
Kaiser and Neuman, 1995.
Fish graphic from NEFSC, 2001.
Food Source: Young consume mysids; adults feed on sand shrimp,
: small fish (up to 10 cm), crustaceans, molluscs, and seaweed.
: Prey for: Spiny dogfish, thorny skate, goosefish, Atlantic cod, black
sea bass, weakfish, and summer flounder.'1
Life stage information:
Eggs; buoyant
~ Eggs are buoyant and hatch out in 8 days at a water temperature
of 11 °C.d
Larvae: pelagic
~ Eye migration occurs and the body becomes more laterally
compressed,d
Juveniles;
~ Use estuaries as nursing areas, returning to offshore waters in the
fall.'
Adults:
~ Reach a maximum length of approximately 46 cm.'
~ Seasonally migrate to deeper waters in late autumn to overwlnter.d
Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus)
Winter flounder is a benthic flatfish of the family Pleuronectidae (righteye flounders), which is found in estuarine and
continental shelf habitats. Its range extends from the southern edge of the Grand Banks south to Georgia (Buckley, 1989b).
It is a bottom feeder, occupying sandy or muddy habitats and feeding on bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp,
amphipods, crabs, urchins, and snails (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
Both commercial and recreational fisheries for winter flounder are important. U.S. commercial and recreational fisheries are
managed under the New England Fishery Management Council's Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission's Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder (NEFSC, 2Q00d).
Three groups are recognized for management and assessment purposes: Gulf of Maine, Southern New England-Mid Atlantic,
and Georges Bank. Management currently focuses on reducing fishing levels to reverse declining trends and rebuild stocks.
The Gulf of Maine stock is currently considered overfished (NEFSC, 2000d), Although improvements in stock condition will
depend on reduced harvest, the long-term potential catch (maximum sustainable yield) has not been determined.
The winter flounder is essentially nonmigratory, but there are seasonal patterns in movements within the estuary. Winter
flounder south of Cape Cod generally move to deeper, cooler water in summer and return to shallower areas in the fall,
possibly in response to temperature changes (Howe and Coates, 1975; Scott and Scott, 1988).
Spawning occurs between January and May in New England, with peaks in the Massachusetts area in February and March
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Spawning habitat is generally in shallow water over a sandy or muddy bottom (Scott and
Scott, 1988). Adult fish tend to leave the shallow water in autumn to spawn at the head of estuaries in late winter. The
majority of spawning takes place in a salinity range of 31 to 33 ppt and a water temperature range of 0 to 3 °C (32 to 37 °F).
Females will usually produce between 500,000 and 1.5 million eggs annually, which sink to the bottom in clusters. The eggs
are about 0.74 to 0.85 mm (approximately 0.03 in.) in diameter, and hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953).
F3-8
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part R Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Larvae are about 3.0 to 3.5 mm (0.1 in.) total length when they hatch out. They develop and metamorphose over 2 to 3
months, with growth rates controlled by water temperature (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Larval growth appears to be
optimal with a slow increase from spawning temperatures of 2 "C (36 °F) to approximately 10 °C (50 "F; Buckley, 1982).
Larvae depend on light and vision to feed during the day and do not feed at night (Buckley, 1989b). Juveniles tend to remain
in shallow spawning waters, and stay on the ocean bottom (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Fifty percent of females reach maturity at age 2 or 3 in the waters of Georges Bank, while they may not mature until age 5 in
more northern areas such as near Newfoundland. Females are generally 22.5 to 31.5 cm (8 to 12.4 in.) long at maturity
(Howell et al., 1992).
Winter flounder supports important commercial and recreational fisheries in the area, as it is the thickest and meatiest of the
common New England flatfish (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Annual commercial landings in New England declined from
17,083 metric tons (37.7 million lb) in 1981 to 3,223 metric tons (7.1 million lb) in 1994. The harvest has increased
somewhat since .then, rising to 5,123 metric tons (11.3 million lb) in 2000 (personal communication, National Marine
Fisheries Society, Fish Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD. January 16, 2002.). Winter flounder is
ecologically important as a prey species for larger estuanne and coastal fish such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and
bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) {Buckley, 1989b).
Food source: Bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp, annelid
worms, amphipods, crabs, urchins and snails."
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish.b
Life stage information:
WINTER FLOUNDER
(Pleuronectes americanus)
Eggs: demersal
~ Approximately 0.74 to 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter."
~ Hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days.*
Family: Pleuronectidae (righteye flounders).
Larvae: semi-pelagic
Common names: Blackback flounder, lemon sole, black
~ Approximately 3.0 to 3.5 (0.1 in.) mm total length when they hatch
flounder."
out.'
Similar species: American plaice (Hippoglossoides
Juveniles: demersal
platessoides), European plaice (P. platessus).
* Once winter flounder enter the juvenile stage, they remain benthie,
preferring sandy bottomed substrates.*
Geographic range: From the southern edge of the Grand
Banks south to Georgia.b
Adults:
~ Females mature at ages 2 and 3/
Habitat: Bottom dweller. Found in coastal marine waters.'
~ Migrate seasonally to offshore waters tn the summer, and inshore
waters in the winter.h
Lifespan: May live up to IS years.
Fecundity: Females produce between 500,000 and 1.5 million
eggs annually."
3 Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953.
" Buckley, 1989b.
c Scott and Scon, 1988.
d Grimes ct al., 1989.
' Howell etal., 1992.
Fish graphic from State of Maine Division of Marine Resources
200 Id.
F3-3 Brayton Point Generating Station's ME Sampling Methods
Impingement sampling was conducted from 1972 through 1998. Entrainment sampling has been conducted periodically in
the discharge of units 1, 2, and 3 since 1972. The following sections describe these sampling programs.
F3-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I&E Data
F3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring
Impingement sampling of the revolving screens at units 1,2, and 3 was conducted from 1972 through 1998, Sampling was
conducted year-round, as long as each unit was in operation (USGen New England, 2001).
The traveling screens for units 1, 2, and 3 have 9,5 mm (0.375 in.) mesh (PG&E National Energy Group, 2001). During
impingement sampling, screenwash water was diverted to in-line collection tanks. All fish collected were identified and
counted, although counts were reported separately only for selected species; all other species were reported as a group.
From 1972 to 1996, impingement was monitored three times per week by placing a trap in the sluiceway downstream of the
revolving screens while the wash system was in operation. All of the fish collected in the trap were counted, identified, and
measured. Unit 3 screens, which have the highest impingement rate, were washed three times a day at 8 to 12 hour intervals.
Each of the three weekly collections took place at one of these wash periods. Units 1 and 2 were washed onee per day, and
only two weekly collections were done at these units (New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1998).
Since 1997, the revolving screens have ran continuously and are monitored daily. To monitor impingement rates, the
collection tank is periodically emptied and left in place for a 4 to 8 hour interval (PG&E Generating and Marine Research
Inc., 1999).
To derive annual estimates, the facility extrapolated counts from a weekly sampling period to derive a weekly total (PG&E
Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999). Weekly totals were then summed to estimate an annual total. It should be noted
that the impingement data set used (1974-1983) likely represents an underestimate because that time period did not include or
record any of the occasional large-scale impingement events for menhaden that have occurred at Brayton Point over the years.
For example, in early 2002 an impingement event occurred in which approximately 25,000 menhaden were impinged from
January 5 through February 3, 2002, and then another approximately 6,400 were impinged from February 11 to February 16,
2002.
F3-3.2 Entrainment Monitoring
Entrainment sampling of selected species was conducted in the discharge stream of units 1, 2, and 3 from June 1972 through
December 1985. Until the middle of 1984, entrainment was sampled for units 1,2, and 3 only. When unit 4 switched to once-
through cooling in 1984, sampling was also conducted near the unit 4 discharge headwall from February through mid-May,
except when unit 4 was operating in piggyback mode (see Chapter F2; PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999;
USGen New England, 2001; PG&E National Energy Group, 2001). Sampling ceased from 1986 through 1991. In January
1992, entrainment sampling was reinitiated during the larval season (February through mid-May) for winter flounder only, as
part of an examination of the winter flounder stock decline in Mount Hope Bay (USGen New England, 2001). Initially,
winter flounder entrainment was classified only as larvae or eggs, but from 1978 on, four larval stages were classified (PG&E
Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999). Other species were not classified into separate larval stages.
From 1972 to 1979, sampling was conducted monthly from September through February and weekly from March through
August. In 1979, the sampling frequency was increased to every 4 to 5 days from March through August (Marine Research
Inc. and New England Power Company, 1981). After 1992, the sampling schedule was again changed so that sampling was
conducted from February through mid-May every 4 to 5 days.
Sampling techniques have remained generally the same since 1972 (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999).
Collection was completed by streaming 0.333 mm (0,01 in.) or 0.505 mm (0,02 in.) mesh, 60 cm (24 in.) diameter plankton
nets in the discharge streams of the units. Three samples were taken at each sampling event (PG&E National Energy Group,
2001).
Differences in sampling gear mesh size made it necessary to standardize the entrainment data. Samples from the finer 0,333
mm (0.01 in.) mesh screens were adjusted by the facility to make the data comparable to the 0.505 mm (0.02 in.) mesh
screens, because this size mesh was used in the past to develop baywide winter flounder abundance estimates. An adjustment
factor derived from a mesh comparison study conducted at Brayton Point in 1994 (New England Power Company & Marine
Research Inc., 1995) was used to account for the extrusion of smaller larvae that would have occurred through the larger mesh
net.
To derive annual estimates, the facility standardized larval densities to the number of larvae per 100 m3 (26,000 gallons) of
water within each sampling day (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999). The facility extrapolated these larval
F3-10
-------
§ 316(h) Case Studies, Part F: Broytan Point
Chapter F3; Evaluation of ME Data
densities to annual estimates using the reported monthly average circulating water volume. Since 1992, estimates of larval,
winter flounder entrainment were determined separately for units 1, 2, and 3 combined and for unit 4 alone.
F3-4 Annual Impingement and Entrainment
There are a number of deficiencies in Brayton Point's time series of I&E data. First, I&E data collected over the past decade
or so probably underestimate potential I&E of Mount Hope Bay fish species, since the populations of most fish species in the
area are severely depressed (Gibson, 1996). In addition, Brayton Point's entrainment monitoring since 1985 has included
only winter flounder. Therefore, to estimate potential I&E at Brayton Point under current operating conditions for as many
species as possible, EPA used the most comprehensive historical time series of I&E data for Brayton Point (1974-1983) and .
adjusted these rates for the facility's current operations.
EPA's adjustment of historical I&E rates to reflect current operations considered (1) the effectiveness of the angled screens
on Unit 4, which the facility reports reduce impingement by 55.4%, and (2) the higher current intake flow resulting from the
conversion of Unit 4 to once through cooling in 1984 (see Chapter F2 for technical details). EPA applied a scaling factor of
1.142 to impingement and entrainment data to account for the higher current intake flow and a scaling factor of 0.931 to
impingement data to account for the angled screen. The flow scaling factor was based on the annualized mean operational
flow (Units 1-3) during 1974-1983 of 720 MGD, and the current annualized mean operational flow (Units 1-4) of 822 MGD.
The value 822 MGD for current annualized mean operational flow includes consideration of the fact that Unit 4 is operated in
piggyback mode during selected months. This flow estimate was derived from records of flow provided by the facility. The
use of the scaling factors increased the 1974-1983 entrainment rates by 14.2% and impingement rates by 6,4%.
EPA evaluated its estimates of annual I&E under current Brayton Point operations using the methods described in Chapter A5
of Part A of this document. The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix
F1. Table F3-2 displays EPA's estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) by species. Table F3-3 displays
those numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table F3-4 displays impingement of fishery species as yield lost to fisheries,
and Table F3-5 displays annual impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables F3-6 through F3-9 display the same
information for entrainment at Brayton Point,
F3-5 Summary
Table F3-10 summarizes EPA's estimates of annual I&E impacts of Brayton Point's current operations on Mount Hope Bay
fish species. Results indicate that, on average, current operations may be expected to result in annual impingement of about
45,000 organisms. This represents 69,329 age 1 equivalents, 5,091 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 2,808 pounds of
production foregone each year. Note that impingement losses expressed as age I equivalents are higher than raw losses (the
actual number of organisms of all life stages that are impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are assumed
to be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back
to the start of year I by accounting for mortality during this interval (for details see Chapter A5).
Most impinged species are the forage fish hogchoker, Atlantic silverside, alewife, and bay anchovy, and the fishery species
silver hake and winter flounder. There have also been episodes of high impingement of Atlantic menhaden, reaching several
hundred thousand losses within a few weeks (Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1, personal communication, February 2002), The
most recent event, in winter 2002, involved the impingement of over 25,000 Atlantic menhaden. Annual entrainment
resulting from current operations is estimated to average over 16.7 billion organisms, representing over 3.8 million age 1
equivalents, 70,410 pounds of lost fishery yield, and 69.5 million pounds of production foregone each year.
Most entrained organisms are the forage species American sand lance, bay anchovy, and seaboard goby and the fishery
species winter flounder. The estimated average loss of over a half million age 1 equivalent winter flounder each year is
thought to represent most of the local stock of winter flounder according to estimates by the Rhode Island Division of Fish
and Wildlife (Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1, personal communication, March 14, 2002).
The economic value of Brayton Point's I&E losses is discussed in Chapters F4 (benefits transfer) and F5 (habitat-based
replacement cost). The potential benefits of reducing these losses with the proposed rule are discussed in Chapter F6.
F3-II
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Table F3-2; EPA's Estimate of Brayton Point Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) Derived from Historical Impingement Rates Adjusted for
Current Operations
Year
1974
Alewife
2,450
Atlantic
Menhaden
12,438
Atlantic
Silverside
Bay
Anchovy
Butterfish
264
Hogchoker
2,142
Rainbow
Smelt
Silver
Hake
Striped
Killifish
Tautog
Threespine
Stickleback
Weakfish
White
Perch
Window-
pane
Winter
Flounder
4,020
859
2,450
3,428
89
215
3,468
1,907 .
157
307
2,104
1,571
304
234
17,135
1975
1,928
1,681
684
15,879
102
1,634
129
3,691
73
363
4,718
1976
5,550
897
1,347
1,470
15
5,175
312
1,295
429
409
1,608
182
4,507
348
6,314
1977
37,627
2,571
3,287
2,279
346
22,684
591
19,065
1,898
2,709
822
1,889
4,467
2,025
14,397
24,941
1978
1979
3,090
1,671
17,935
684
21
10,614
2,983
3,515
607
8,433
6,868
213
364
2,500
338
1,109
5,134
468
269
1,319
812
2,548
1,926
465
5,270
5,284
87
1,130
4,087
1980
1981
1,080
872
4,303
806
740
4,438
241
883
576
684
1,025
140
786
1,540
7,891
319
36
4,740
146
38
1,630
412
391
470
780
1,057
37
418
2,008
5,841
1982
4,986
1,023
5,998
129
3,567
3,053
143
16,244
267
3,130
66
3,078
449
1,560
803
727
2,986
1983
Mean
0
2,076
2,690
3,036
6
2,297 -
171
1,816
0
235
387
22
439
74
2,172
4,784
3,350
176
6,984
870
4,900
418
1,131
1,697
503
1,723
1,094
9,048
Minimum
319
0
684
146
6
1,630
129
391
0
215
387
22
418
74
2,172
Maximum
37,627
12,438
3,736
20,760
17,935
4,839
47,842
15,879
740
22,684
3,515
1,153
19,065
5,605
1,898
557
3,078
1,148
5,134
1,889
4,507
2,548
24,941
SD
11,240
4,662
33,496
228
7,256
1,500
661
1,546
889
7,402
Total
59,980
1,762
69,840
8,695
49,001
4,178
11,310
16,967
5,032
17,225
10,939
90,481
0=SampIed, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 11:40:28 MSI 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plantibrayton.projectcd;
PATHNAME:P:/Intake/BraytDn/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projeetedOl/raw.losses.imp.brayton.projected.csv
F3-12
Chapter F3: Evaluation of ME Data
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table F3-3: EPA's Estimate of Annual Impingement of Brayton Point Derived from Historical Impingement Rates Adjusted for Current Operations and
Expressed as Age i Equivalents
Year
i Alewife
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Silverside
Bay
j Anchovy
Butter-
fish
Hog-
choker
Rainbow
Smelt
Stiver
Hake
Striped
Killifish
Tautog
Threespine
Stickleback
Weakflsh
White
Perch
Windowpane
Winter
Flounder
1974
i 3,617
15,717
7,657
| 1,562
415
3,977
3,602
4,038
122
234
5,584
| 188
2,805
367
25,756
1975
j 2,846
2,124
1,303
! 28,870
161
3,033
189
4,349
101
394
3,071
: 366
2,094
282
7,091
1976
! 8,194
1,133
2,567
| 2,672
23
9,609
458
1,526
587
445
2,589
i 217
6,009
420
9,491
1977
; 55,547
3,249
6,261
i 4,144
544
42,121
869
22,460
2,600
2,945
1,324
i 2,251
5,955
2,444
21,641
1978
i 4,562
2,111
34,161
; 1,243
33
19,708
5,166
9,935
291
2,718
1,786
558
1,758
3,076
37,489
1979
; 2,843
587
10,037
! 9,608.
137
5,539
893
8,091
498
368
8,268
: 321
1,083
1,365
6,143
1980
: 1,595
1,102
8,196
; 1,466
1,166
8,240
355
1,040
790
743
1,651
167
1,048
1,859
11,861
1981
i 471
46
9,028
265
60
3,027
605
461
644
848
1,702
-44
557
2,424
8,779
1982
; 7,360
163
6,794
: 5,551
224
30,162
392
3,687
90
3,346
723
j 1,860
1,071
878
4,489
1983
: 1,510
0
5,123
: 5,520
10
4,265
252
2,140
0
256
623
: 27
586
90
3,264
Mean
: 8,855
2,623
9,113
i 6,090
278
12,968
1,278
5,773
572
1,230
2,732
; 600
2,297
1,320
13,601
Minimum
471
0
1,303
265
10
3,027
189
461
0
234
623
; 27
557
90
3,264
Maximum
: 55,547
15,717
34,161
; 28,870
1,166
42,121
5,166
22,460
2,600
3,346
8,268
i 2,251
6,009
3,076
37,489
SD
; 16,593
4,721
9,217
: 8,477
359
13,474
1,694
6,603
763
1,248
2,415
i 788
2,061
1,073
11,126
Total
88,546
26,232
91,126
: 60,902
2,775
129,681
12,781
57,727
5,724
12,296
27,321
; 5,998
22,967
13,204
136,005
Note; Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are
assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back to the start of year 1 by accounting for mortality
during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter 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 entrapment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1
0=Sampled, but none collected,
Wed Feb 13 11:51:10 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: brayton.projected ; Units: equivalcnt.sums Pathname:
P;/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/seodes/tabIes,output,projected© l/I.equivalent.sums.brayton.projected.esv
F3-/3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Table F3-4: EPA s Estimate of Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Brayton Point Derived from Historical Impingement Rates
Adjusted for Current Operations and Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year
1974
Atlantic Menhaden
Butterfish
10
Rainbow Smelt
4
Silver Hake
1,536
Tautog
104
Weakflsh
White Perch
Windowpane
Winter Flounder
1,845
131
31
34
2,773
1975
249
4
0
1,654
176
256
23
26
764
1976
1977
133
1
1
580
198
151
66
39
1,022
382
14
1
8,543
1,312
1,572
65
226
2,330
1978
248
1
6
3,779
1,211
164
390
19
285
4,037
1979
69
3
1
3,078
224
12
126
661
1980
129
29
0
396
331
117
12
172
1,277
1981
1982
5
19
2
6
1
175
378
31
6
224
945
0
1,403
1,491
1,299
12
81
483
1983
0
0
0
814
114
19
6
8
351
Mean
308
7
1
2,196
548
419
25
122
1,464
Minimum
0
0
0
175
104
19
6
8
351
Maximum
SD
Total
1,845
29
6
8,543
1,491
1,572
66
285
4,037
554
3,080
9
70
2
15
2,512
21,958
556
550
23
99
1,198
5,478
4,189
253
1,223
14,645
Q=SampIed, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 11:51:28 MS I' 2002 jRcsults: I Plant: brayton.prajected ; Units: yield Pathname:
P;/intake/B rayton/Brayton_Seience/sGodes/tablcs.output.projectedO I/l.yieid.brayton.projected.csv
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I4E Data
F3-I4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F; Brayton Point Chapter F3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table F3-5: EPA's Estimate of Annual Impingement at Brayton Point Derived from Historical Impingement Rates Adjusted for Current Operations and
Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Year
i Alewife
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Silverslde
Bay
Anchovy
Butter-
fish
1 Hogchoker
Rainbow
Smelt
Silver
Iiake
Striped
Kiliiflsh
I Tautog
Threesplne
Stickleback
Weakfisli
White
Perch
Window-
pane
| Winter
j Flounder
1974
69
1,348
2
0
4
! 2
21
718
1
i 40
1
43
99
17
: 1,664
1975
i 54
182
0
4
2
| 1
1
773
1
i 67
1
84
74
13
; 458
1976
i 155
97
1
0
0
i 4
3
271
4
i 75
1
50
212
19
i 613
1977
: 1,054
279
1
1
5
19
5'
3,994
16
; 499
0
515
210
112
; 1,398
1978
: 87
181
7
0
0
i 9
30
: 1,767
2
| 461
0
128
62
141
i 2,422
1979
| 54
50
2
1
1
2
5
1,439
3
1 62
2
73
38
63
i 397
1980
; 30
95
2
0
11
4
2
185
5
i 126
0
38
37
85
766
1981
9
4
2
0
1
i 1
4
82
4
i 144
0
10
20
111
; 567
1982
1 140
14
1
1
2
j 14
2
; 656
I
! 567
0
425
38
40
: 290
1983
29
0
J
1
. 0
2
1
: 381
0
43
0
6
21
4
211
Mean
; 168
225
2
1
3
6
7
; 1,026
4
! 208 .
1
137
81
61
879
Minimum
9
0
0
0
0
1
1
82
0
40
0
6
20
4
; 211
Maximum
: 1,054
1,348
7
4
11
; 19
30
. 3,994
16
i 567
2
515
212
141
: 2,422
SD
i 315
405
2
1
3
; 6
10
1,174
5
! 212
1
180
73
49
: 719
Total
; 1,680
2,251
18
8
26
: 59
74
10,265
35
: 2,084
7
1,372
810
605
; 8,788
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 11:51:19 MST 2002 -.Results; I Plant: brayton.projected ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/Intake/Drayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tab!es,output.projeeted01/I.annual,prod,forg,brayton.projectcd.esv
F3-I5
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table F3-6: EPA's Estimate of Brayton Point Annual Entrapment (numbers of organisms) Derived from Historical Entrapment Rates Adjusted for
Current Operations
Year
Alewife
1 :
American Sand ;
Lance j
Atlantic
iLfAnhallAn i
jViennaaen
Atlantic
Silverslde
Bay Anchovy
:
Hogchoker
Rainbow
Smelt
Scup
: Seaboard Goby
1974
: 848,337
3,908,121 ;
448,538,093 |
25,034,653
3,440,864,344
0
9,317,827
0
| 533,634,710
1975
0
29,722,440 j
1,958,145,594 !
2,054,000
i 9,286,758,903
25,143,906
899,822
542,291
; 740,278,378
1976
: 5,913,736
2,770,430 i
2,921,793,521 j
51,003,930
12,676,121,895
150,802,186
84,349
0
1 894,537,113
1977
i 1,578,638
56,329,070 ;
128,713,025 ;
10,607,391
: 7,395,970,990
88,073,974
0
0
; 432,875,632
] 978
; 2,091,279
60,351,262 :
73,693,538 ;
1,542,365
8,672,482,263
67,483,651
1,442,659
0
| 289,763,158
1979
0
191,610,863 1
115,900,493 ;
9,402,729
13,609,577,224
64,661,257
i 1,420,061
0
| 97,031,131
1980
0
18,953,510 :
385,593,622 1
6,601,879
11,292,722,522
259,609,635
1,615,204
12,750,912
: 291,375,379
1981
o
429,543,642 i
3,915,878 |
34,957,087
j 6,349,504,627
120,298,108
| 157,396
13,221,566
1 524,387.972
1982
| 262,627
21,794,637 j
17,192,935 1
16,515,078
' 11,324,946,303
212,128,674
j 91,085
1,995,943
417,135,869
1983
: 70,385
30,258,451 i
197,688,008 i
29,879,285
18,093,306,204
77,957,641
; 18,375,305
0
: 400,688,890
Mean
; 1,076,500
84,520,243 i
625,117,471 |
18,759,840
i 10,214,225,528
106,615,903
3,340,371
2,851,071
| 462,170,823
Minimum
0
2,770,430 :
3,915,878 |
1,542,365
! 3,440,864,344
0
0
0
: 97,031,131
Maximum
: 5,913,736
429,543,642 j
2,921,793,521 ;
51,003,930
; 18,093,306,204
259,609,635
18,375,305
13,221,566
j 894,537,113
SD
: 1,857,205
133,021,447 :
993,768,589 !
16,150,153
i 4,137,368,061
81,063,020
5,967,035
5,378,841
i 229,044,233
Total
i 10,765,003 j
845,202,427 !
6,251,174,706 !
187,598,398
i 102,142,255,276
1,066,159,032
33,403,707
28,510,713
: 4,621,708,234
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 11 ;40:28 MST 2002 Raw.losses. ENTRA1NMENT; Plantibrayton.projeeted;
PATHNAME:P;/Iritakc/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projectcd01/raw,losses.ent.brayton,projected.csv
F3-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayto»i Point Chapter F3 Evaluation of I4E Data
Table F3-6: CPA's Estimate of Broyfon Point Annual Entrainment (numbers of organisms) Derived from Historical Entrapment Rates
Adjusted for Current Operations (cant.)
Year
Silver Hake
| Tatitog :
Threespine
Stickleback
Weakflsh
:
White Perch
Windowpane
; Winter Flounder
1974 ;
0
! 4,095,249,317 i
0
30,634,273
0
i 115,700,207
i 986,595,306
1975 I
0
i 2,562,125,750 i
0
31,509,825
0
I 277,646,365
i 859,825,130
1976
0
i 10,513,607,464 j
0
0
0
i 136,333,892
1,217,354,953
1977 :
0
2,17.8,251,158 1
0
14,404,360
0
; 101,632,473
; 381,833,868
1978 :
196,548
; 5,862,184,934 i
0
28,303,368
57,788
j 590,926,739
i 1,359,249,041
1979 i
0
! 3,132,662,371 i
0
83,878,964
330,550
! 527,866,367
; 668,918,507
1980
0
i 2,635,758,729 !
0
344,491,911
0
! 510,692,636
724,134,196
1981 :
0
| 1,128,620,504 j
0
40,293,328
0
j 257,717,460
| 356,754,776
1982 i
115,756
i 2,517,050,246 i
167,498
59,283,063
49,320
| 698,080,809
| 1,127,118,545
1983 :
122,201
; 4,911,927,271
0
31,941,824
112,843
i 466,673,500
i 277,046,674
Mean i
43,450
; 3,953,743.774 :
16,750
' 66,474,092
55,050
i 368,327,045
i 795,883,100
Minimum !
0
1,128,620,504 |
0
0
0
i 101,632,473
277.046,674
Maximum
196,548
i 10,513,607,464 ;
167,498
344,491,911
330,550
; 698,080,809
| 1,359,249,041
SD
73,094
: 2,690,678,198 j
52,967
100,344,139
104,064
! 216,770,630
| 380,047,652
Total ;
434,505
i 39,537,437,744 ;
167,498
664,740,916
550,501
i 3,683,270,450
i 7,958,830,996
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 11:40:28 MST2002 Raw losses F.NTR AINMFNT; Plant:brayton.projected;
PATHNAME:P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/raw.losses.ent.brayton.projected.csv
F3-17
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Braytor Point
Table F3-7; EPA's Estimate of Annual Entrapment at Braytor* Point Derived from Historical Entrapment Rates Adjusted for Current Operations and
Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents
v Ale-
Year
: wife
American
Sand
Lance
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Silverside
Bay
Anchovy
Hob- : Rainbow : „
choker! Smelt ScU?
Seaboard
Goby
Sliver
Hake
Tautog
Threespine
Stickleback
Weak-
fish
White
Perch
Window-
pane
Winter
Flounder
1974 I 528
20,985
15,764
10,849
471,088
0 ; 20,403 : 0
1,749,359
0
30,833
0
563
0
2,518
27,124
1975 : 0
159,598
43,032
890
1,213,596
8,613 ! 4,812 ; 394
2,426,777
0
20,864
78,264
0
579
0
6,108
115,620
1976 :1,580
14,876
32,550
22,103
1,161,615
43,421 | 1,022 i 0
2,922,733 ' 0
0
0
0
2,959
131,571
1977 ; 982
302,466
2,671
4,597
954,624
34,152 i 0 ; 0
1,419,051 i 0
16,686
0
265
0
2,311
31,646
1978 ; 1,301
317,798
939
668
1,462,657
24,687 i 12,476 : 0
949,612 | 10
45,078
0
520
0
12,195
1,866,911
1979 j 0
1,028,877
1,527
2,927
1,483,081
22,544 j 29,920 ; 0
318,087 | 0
23,962
0
500
1
10,237
691,878
1980 0
101,773
5,974
2,822
1,120,273
81,165 ! 34,032 : 1,812
955,185 : 0
21,101
0
1,757
0
9,942
4,850
559,826 '
1981 ; 0
2,306,485
69
15,074
644,120
38,212 1 3,316 i 1,879
1,719,046 ; 0
8,499
0
226
0
332,930
1982 : 163
1983 . 44
117,029
162,476
187
2,515
7,129
12,931
1,651,529
64,000 i 1,919 I 1,008
1,365,625 i 5
19,471
6,526
345
0
0
13,507
9,064
805,497
2,147,915
24,687 | 387,158 ; 0
1,312,882 : 1
36,732
0
161
508,141
Mean i 460
453,236
10,523
7,999
1,231,050
34,148 i 49,506 ; 509
1,513,836 ! 2
30,149
653
492
0
7,369
507,114
Minimum 0
Maximum : 1,580
14,876
2,306,485
69
43,032
668
471,088
0 i 0 ; 0
318,087 ; 0
8,499
0 0
0
2,311
27,124
22,103
2,147,915
81,165 j 387,158 ; 1,879
2,922,733 i 10
78,264 6,526 ; 1,757
1
13,507
1,866,911
SD i 610
714,399
15,293
7,076 . 488,813
24,349 j 119,279 ; 774
748,897 1 3
19,866
2,064 484
0
4,152
553,383
Total : 4,597
4,532,363
105,229
79,992
12,310,498
341,480; 495,058 : 5,093
15,138,358: 17
301,490
6,526 , 4,917
1
73,691
5,071,144
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 11:51:07 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: brayton,projected ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projccted01/E.equivalent.sums.brayton.projected.csv
F3-18
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F3; Evaluation of I4E Data
Table F3-8: EPA's Estimate of Armuol Entroinment of Fishery Species at Brayton Point Derived from Historical
Entrapment Rates Adjusted for Current Operations and Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year
i Atlantic Menhaden
Rainbow Smelt
Scup
Silver Hake
Tautog
Weakilsh
Windowpane
Winter Flounder
1974
i 1,851
23
0
0
13,737
393
233
2,921
1975
; 5,053
5
41
0
9,296
404
566
12,450
1976
j 3,822
1
0
0
34,870
0
274
14,167
1977
1 314
0
0
0
7,434
185
214
3,408
1978
110
14
0
4
20,084
363
1,130
201,025
1979
I 179
34
0
0
10,676
349
948
74,500
1980
1 701
39
190
0
9,401
1,227
921
60,281
1981
; 8
4
197
0
3,787
158
449
35,849
1982
: 22
2
106
2
8,675
241
1,251
86,734
1983
295
440
0
1
16,366
112
840
54,716
Mean
1,236
56
53
1
13,433
343
683
54,605
Minimum
i 8
0
0
0
3,787
0
214
2,921
Maximum
i 5,053
440
197
4
34,870
1,227
1,251
201,025
SD
i 1,796
136
81
1
8,851
338
385
59,587
Total
12,356
563
535
6
134,326
3,434
6,826
546,050
0=Sampled, but none collected,
Wed Feb 13 11:51:26 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant; brayton .projected ; Units: yield Pathname:
P:/[ntake/Braytan/Brayttm_Scienee/seodes/tables.output,projcetcd01/E.yicld,braytcm.projected.csv
F3-19
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F3: Evaluation of ISE Data
Table F3-9: EPA's Estimate of Annual Entrapment at Brayton Point Derived from Historical Entrapment Rates Adjusted for Current Operations and
Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Year
1974
1975
Ale-
wife
563
0
American
Sand
Lance
80
Atlantic
Menhaden
727,705
Atlantic
Silverside
11.798
Bay
Anchovy
Hog-
choker
Rain-
bow
Smelt
3,635
Scup
0
Sea-
board
Goby
886
Silver
Hake
0
Tautog
62,594,114
Threespine
Stickleback
0
Weakfish
White
Perch
Window-
pane
Winter
Flounder
482,933
0
401,167
0
56,227
5,589,405
605
2,122,523
968
1,326,997
18,901
551
23
1,230
0
38,915,872
0
412,633
0
134,698
6,162,398
1976
2,623
56
1,872,731
24,036
2,013,015
118,326
92
0
2,466
0
160,835,134
0
0
0
66,285
8,273,869
2,460,091
6,696,994
1977
1978
1,047
1,147
133,060
4,999
727
1,061,663
1,104,995
63,806
49,782
0
1,219
0
0
719
510
0
572
33,249,061
89,454,342
0
188,630
0
76
49,040
289,536
1,387
1,392
3,90!
52,050
0
370,643
1979
0
83,937
3,616
2,065,095
48,369
2,443
0
161
0
47,822,827
0
3,338,452
433
260,963
3,063,855
1980
1981
0
0
386
315,765
3,550
3,084
16,421
1,758,507
982,948
199,834
2,779
8,110
484
0
40,090,691
0
14,349,676
0
252,339
3,294,944
8,745
92,237
271
8,409
871
0
17,250,213
0
1,633,686
0
127,934
1,688,902
1982
1983
174
47
444
616
10,852
7,763
1,548,304
164,685
157
533
877
305
38,391,085
278
0
2,377,063
1,334,689
65
148
345,225
230,663
5,195,371
1,379,929
139,510
14,069
2,673,623
59,819
31,613
0
731 .
207
75,115,592
Mean
584
1.737
546,168
8,748
1,501,808
81,576
4,276
1,707
894
108
60,371,893
,28
2,440,664
72
181,291
4,380,576
1,379,929
Minimum
Maximum
0
2,623
872
56 3,550
727
24,036
482,933
0
0
0
161
0
17,250,213
0
278
0
0
49,040
8,745
2,122,523
2,673,623
199,834
31,613
8,409
2,466
572
160,835,134
14,349,676
433
345,225
8,273,869
SD
Total
2,705
17,371
796,209
7,663
641,950
63,106
9,692
3,458
623
196
41,188,478
88
4,321,715
136
107,393
2,325,539
5,841
5,461,683
87,480
15,018,080
815,760
42,760
17,074
8,936
1,083
603,718,930
278
24,406,639
721
1,812,911 :43,805,757
0= Sampled, but none collected.
Wed Feb 13 11:51:17 MST 2002 :Results: E Plant: brayton.projected ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/lntakc/Brayton/Brayton_Sctence/scodes/tables.output.projected01/E.annual.prod.forg.brayton.projected.csv
F3-20
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Braylon Point
Chapter F3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Tabic F3-10: Average Annual Impingement and Entrainment at Brayton Point
(sum of annual means of al! species evaluated)
Impingement Entrainment
Raw losses (# of organisms) 44,752 16,703,221,011
Age 1 equivalents (# offish) 69,329 3,847,045
Fishery yield (lb of fish) 5,091 70,410
Production foregone (lb offish) : _ 2,808 | 69,522,130
mixed,rolIup,chap3.imp Wed Feb 13 13:28:53 MST 2002
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/flowehart.chap3,lMP.csv
mixed.rollup.chap3.ent Wed Feb 13 13:28:54 MST2002
P:/Intake/Brayt0n/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projeetedO 1 /flowchart ,chap3. ENT.csv
F3-21
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline ME Losses
Chapter F4:
Value of I<&E Losses at the Brayton
Point Station Based on Benefits
I pnncr^p I ^rhni/in^c
I l vJ V | w-1 I K!r v» I 11 11 Vj WJ
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic losses that are associated with I&E at the
Brayton Point Station using benefits transfer techniques.
Section F4-1 provides an overview of the valuation
approach. Section F4-2 discusses the value of losses to
recreational fisheries. Section F4-3 discusses the value of
commercial fishery losses, Section F4-4 discusses values
of forage losses, Section F4-5 discusses nonuse values,
and Section F4-6 summarizes benefit transfer results.
F4-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
l&E at Brayton Point affect recreational and commercial
fisheries as well as forage species that contribute to the
biomass of fishery species. EPA evaluated all these
species groups to capture the total economic impact of
I&E at Brayton Point.
Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer
methods, applying results from nonmarket valuation
studies. Commercial fishery impacts are based on
commodity prices for the individual species. The
economic value of forage species losses is determined by estimating the replacement cost of these fish if they were to be
restocked with hatchery fish, and by considering the foregone biomass production of forage fish resulting from I&E losses
and the consequential foregone production of commercial and recreational species that use the forage species as a prey base.
All of these methods are explained in further detail in Chapters A5 and A9 of this document.
Many of the I&E-impacted fish species at Brayton Point are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To avoid
double-counting the economic impacts of I&E on these species, EPA determined the proportion of total species landings
attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied this proportion to the impacted fishery catch. For example, if
30 percent of the landed numbers of one species are harvested commercially at a site, then 30 percent of the estimated catch
of I&E-impacted fish are assigned to the increase in commercial landings. The remaining 70 percent of the estimated total
landed number of l&E-impacted adult equivalents are assigned to the recreational landings.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides both recreational and commercial fishery landings data by state. To
determine what proportions of total landings per state occur in the recreational or commercial fishery, EPA summed the
landings data for the recreational and commercial fishery, and then divided by each category to get the corresponding
percentage. The percentages applied in this analysis are presented in Table F4-1.
, fig
Chapter Contents
F4-I Overview of Valuation Approach F4-1
F4-2 Economic Value of Average Annua! Losses to
Recreational Fisheries Resulting from l&E at
Brayton Point Station F4-3
F4-2.1 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery
Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature F4-3
F4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery
Losses Resulting from i&E at Brayton
Point Station F4-4
F4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery
Losses Resulting from I&E at Brayton Point Station F4-S
F4-3.1 Average Annual I&E Losses of
Commercial Yield at Brayton Point and
Economic Value of Losses F4-5
F4-3.2 Economic Surplus Impacts of
Commercial Landings Losses F4-6
F4-4 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses F4-7
F4-5 Nonuse Values F4-9
F4-6 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value ol l&B at
Brayton Point Station ,, F4-9
F4-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: 8 ray ton Point
Chapter F4; Baseline I4E Losses
Table F4-1; Percentages of Total Impacts in the Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
of Selected Species at Brayton Point Station
Fish Species
Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery
Percent Impacts to
Commercial Fishery
Atlantic menhaden
o ;
100
Butterfish
o :
100
Rainbow Smelt
o
100
Silver Hake
o i
100
Tautog
83 ;
17
Weakfish
95 ;
5
White perch
20 i
80
Windowpane
0 1
100
Winter flounder
8 i 92
Scup
45
55
Wed Feb 13 13:11:19 MST 2002; TableA: Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and
recreational fisheries of selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; Pathname:
P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables,output.projectedOI/TableA.Perc.of
total.impaets.brayton.projeeted.esv
As discussed in Chapter AS of Part A of this document, the yield estimates in Chapter F3 represent the total pounds of
foregone yield for both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this
chapter, Table F4-I partitions total yield between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery.
Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers of fish rather than pounds, foregone recreational
yield was converted to numbers of fish. This conversion was based on the average weight of harvestable fish of each species.
Table F4-2 shows these conversions for the impingement data presented in Section F3-4 of Chapter F3 and Table F4-3
displays the conversions for entrainment data. Note that the numbers of foregone recreational fish harvested are typically
lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of harvest of most fish is greater than age I.
Table F4-2: Summary of Brayton Point's Wean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species
Species
Impingement
Count (#)
Age 1
Equivalents
m
Total Catch
(#)
Total Yield
(lb)
Commercial
Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lb)
Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational
Yield 0b)
Atlantic
menhaden
2,076
2,623
; 851
308
851
308
0
0
Butterfish
176
278
25
7
25
7
0
0
Rainbow smelt
870
1,278
; 20
2
20
2
0
0
Silver hake
4,900
5,773
848
2,196
848
2,196
0
0
Tautog
1,131
1,230
127
548
22
93
105
455
Weakfish
503
600
: 124
419
6
21
118
398
White perch
1,723
2,297
79
25
63
20
16
5
Windowpane
1,094
1,320
582
122
582
122
0
0
Winter flounder
9,048
13,601
: 867
1,465
798
1,347
69
117
Total
21,521
28,999
; 3,522
5,091
3,214
4,116
308
975
F4-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Table F4-3: Summary of Brayton Point's Mean Annual Entrapment of Fishery Species
Species
Entrainment
Count (#)
Age 1
Equivalents
m
Total Catch
(#>
Total Yield
(lb)
Commercial
Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lb)
Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational
Yield (lb)
Atlantic
menhaden
625,117,471 :
10,523
; 3,414
1,236
3,414
1,236
0
«
Rainbow smelt
3,340,371 :
49,506
766
56
766
56
0
0
Scup
¦ 2,851,071 ;
509
46
54
25
29
21
24
Silver hake
43,450
2
| 0
1
0
1
0
0
Tautog
; 3,953,743,774!
30,149
3,112
13,433
529
2,284
2,583
11,149
Weakfish
; 66,474,092 ;
492
| 102
343
5
17
97
326
White perch
55,050
0
; 0
0
0
0
0
0
Windowpane
: 368,327,045 i
7,369
3,246
683
3,246
683
0
0
Winter flounder
: 795,883,100 :
507,114
i 32,331
54,605
29,745
50,237
: 2,587
4,368
Total
: 5,815,835,424:
605,664
i 43,016
70,410
37,730
54,542
5,287
15,868
Chapter F4: Baseline I&E Losses
F4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Losses to Recreational Fisheries
Resulting from I&E at Brayton Point Station
F4-2.1 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay values for increases in recreational catch rates. These increases in
value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as "consumer surplus." In applying this literature to
value I&E impacts, EPA focused on changes in consumer surplus per additional fish caught.
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table F4-4 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to Mt. Hope Bay
fisheries in geographic area and relevant species.
Table F4-4: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
Authors
Study Location and Year
Item Valued
Value Estimate (S2000)
McConnell and Strand
(1994)
Mid- and south Atlantic coast,
anglers targeting specific
species, 1988
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip, values used are for NY*
Small game fish $9,54
Bottom fish S2.54
Flatfish S5.35
Hicks et al. (1999)
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip, from historical catch rates at
all sites, weighted average of MA
and RI
Small game fish $3.61
Bottom fish S2.40
Flatfish 15.04
Agnello (1989)
Atlantic coast, 1981
Mean value per fish caught,
for the Atlantic coast"
Weakfish $2,72
Tudor et al, (2002)'
Delaware Estuary, 1994-98
Willingness to pay for an
additional fish caught per trip
Bottom fish (weakfish) SI 1.50
Small game fish (striped bass) $18.14
Flatfish (flounder) $3.92
" Value was reported as "two month value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip." From 1996 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DDI, 1997), the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 trips in a 2 month period.
Therefore, to convert to a "1 fish per tnp" value EPA divided the 2 month value by 1.5 trips and then multiplied it by 2, assuming the
value of a fish was linear.
b These values were reported as "consumer surplus for an 20 pereent increase in catch rate for all fish." The average catch rate was 4.95
fish per trip, therefore a 20 percent increase in catch is equivalent to 1 more fish,
c Tudor et al. (2002) refers to this document; sec Chapter B-5,
F4-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Broyton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I4E Losses
McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values for the mid- and south Atlantic states using data from the National
Marine Fisheries Statistical Survey. They created a random utility model of fishing behavior for nine states, the northernmost
being New York and the southernmost being eastern Florida. The New York values are used here, as they are the closest
geographically to Brayton Point Station. In this model they specified four categories of fish: small gamefish (e.g., striped
bass), flatfish (e.g., flounder), bottomfish (e.g., weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, perch), and big gamefish (e.g., shark). For
each state and fish category, they estimated per angler values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates.
Hicks et al. (1999) used the same methodology as McConnell and Strand (1994) but estimated values for a day of fishing and
an increase in catch rates for the Atlantic states from Virginia north to Maine. Their estimates were generally lower than
those of McConnell and Strand (1994) and may serve as a lower bound for the values of fish.
Agneilo (1989) estimated one value for increased weakfish catch rates in all the Atlantic states. This study is useful because it
values weakfish specifically, but the area considered ranges from Florida to Maine. This greater area may differ from Mount
Hope Bay, where weakfish is a relatively important recreational species.
Tudor et al. (2002; See chapter B-5 of this document) applied a random utility model (RUM) to the recreational fishery
impacts associated with I&E in the Delaware transitional estuary. The methods, data, and results of the Tudor et al. (2002;
See chapter B-5 of this document) study are discussed in greater detail in Chapters A-10 and B-5 of this document. The
willingness to pay (WTP) estimates derived by this study were not available at the time that the benefits transfer approach was
applied to this case study, therefore the results developed below do not reflect these estimated values. However, the Tudor et
al. (2002; See chapter B-5 of this document) values are consistent with - and for bottom fish and small game fish, somewhat
higher than — the other values cited from the literature and used in this benefits transfer analysis. The Tudor et al. values will
be included in subsequent updates of this case study analysis.
F4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses Resulting from I&E at
Brayton Point Station
EPA estimated the average annual economic value of Brayton Point I&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the I&E
estimates presented in Tables F4-2 and F4-3 and the economic values presented in Table F4-4, Since none of the studies in
Table F4-4 consider fishing in Mount Hope Bay directly, EPA established a lower and upper value for each impacted
recreational species to estimate a unit value for recreational landings. Results are displayed in Tables F4-5 and F4-6, for
impingement and entrainment, respectively. The estimated total losses to the recreational fisheries range from $1,100 to
SI,700 for impingement per year, and from $22,600 to $38,800 annually for entrainment.
Table F4-5: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Broyton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Impingement Data in Table F4-2
Species
; Loss to Recreational Catchi
from Impingement U.
(# of fish)
Recreational Value/Fish
; Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
Low
High
Low
High
Tautog
105
$3.61
$9.54
\ 1380
$1,005
Weakfish
118
$2.40
$2.72
; $289
$321
White perch
16
$2.40
$2.54
; $38
$40
Winter flounder
69
$5.04
$5.35
; $350
$371
Total
308
; $1,056
$1,737
Wed Feb 13 13:11:28 MST 2002; TablcB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: I
Pathname: P:/lntakc/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableB.rcc.losses.brayton.projectcd.I.csv
F4-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Bray+on Point Chapter F4: Baseline IAE Losses
Table F4-6: Average Annual Entrapment of Recreational Fishery Species at Brayton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Entrapment Data in Table F4-3
Species
Loss to Recreational
Recreational Value/Fish
Annual Loss in Recreational
• Value from Entrainment ($2000)
(number of fish)
Low
High
Low
High
Scup
20 i
S2.40
$2.54
; $49
$52
Tautog
; 2,583
S3.61
$9.54
$9,313
$24,642
Weakfish
97
12.40
$2.72
$237
$263
Winter flounder
2,586
$5.04
$5.35
$13,041
$13,838
Total
5,287
$22,641
$38,794
Wed Feb 13 13:11 -.34 MST 2002; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: E
Pathname: P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/seades/tables,output,projeeted01,'TableB.rec.losses.brayton.projeeted.E.csv
F4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses
Resulting from I<&E at Brayton Point Station
F4-3.1 Average Annual I&E Losses of Commercial Yield at Brayton Point and
Economic Value of Losses
I&E losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables F4-2 (for impingement) and F4-3 (for entrainment) based on
the commercial and recreational splits listed in Table F4-1. EPA estimates of the economic value of these losses are
displayed in Tables F4-7 and F4-8 for impingement and entrainment, respectively. Market values per pound are listed as well
as the total market losses experienced by the commercial fishery. Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward
because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market price. The estimates of market loss to commercial fisheries
are $2,700 for impingement per year, and $69,300 annually for entrainment.
Table F4-7; Average Annual Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Brayton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Impingement Data in Table F4-2
Species
Lass to Commercial Catch from
Impingement
(lb of fish)
: Commercial Value
(lb of fish)
Annual Loss in
Commercial Value from
Impingement (S2000)
Butterfish
¦ 7
$0.66
$5
Atlantic menhaden
308
$0.04
$14
Rainbow smelt
; i
$0.19
$0
Silver hake
2,196
; S0.33
$714 '
Tautog
: 93
$0.71
$66
Weakfish
21
$0.75
$16
White perch
20
$1.39
$28
Windowpane
122
S0.56
$68
Winter flounder
1,347
: $1.34
$1,803
Total
4,116
$2,713
Wed Feb 13 13:11:29 MST 2002; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: I
Pathname: P:lntake'Bra>lon/Bra>ioii_Science/scodes'tables.output.projectedOI TableC.contm.losses.brayton.projected.l.csv
F4-5
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayfori Point
Chapter F4: Baseline I5E Losses
Toble F4-8: Average Annual Entrapment of Commercial Fishery Species at Brayton Point Station and
Associated Economic Values Based on the Ervtrainment Data in Table F4-3
Species
Loss to Commercial Catch from
Entrapment
(lb of fish)
; Commercial Value
(lb offish)
Annual Loss in
Commercial Value from
Entrainment
($2000)
Atlantic menhaden
1,236
£0,04
$55
Rainbow smelt
56
$0.19
$11
Scup
: 29
i $0,81
$24
Silver hake
1
$0.33
$0
Tautog
2,284
$0.71
$1,614
Weak fish
: 17
$0.75
$13
Windowpane
683
S0.56
$382
Winter flounder
i 50,237
$1.34 |
$67,222
Total
54,542
: ;
$69,321
Wed Feb 13 13:11:34 MS I 2002; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: braytun.projected; type: E
Pathname: P:/Intake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/seodes/tables.output.projected01/TableC.comm.losses,brayton.prajected.E.csv
F4-3.2 Economic Surplus Impacts of Commercial Landings Losses
EPA expressed changes to commercial activity thus far as changes from dockside market landings. However, to determine
the total impact on economic surplus from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA determined the losses experienced by
producers wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.
The total social benefits (economic surplus) are greater than the increase in dockside landings, because the increased landings
by commercial fishermen contribute to economic surplus in each of a multi-tiered set of markets for commercial fish. The
total economic surplus impact thus is valued by examining the multi-tiered markets through which the landed fish are sold,
according to the methods and data detailed in Chapter A9.
The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of l&E-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of
commercial species as sold dockside by commercial harvesters). The results of this dockside landings value step are described
above. The next steps then entail tracking the anticipated additional economic surplus generated as the landed fish pass from
dockside transactions to other wholesalers, retailers and, ultimately, consumers. The resulting total economic surplus
measures include producer surplus to the watermen who harvest the fish, as well as the rents and consumer surplus that accrue
to buyers and sellers in the sequence of market transactions that apply in the commercial fishery context.
To estimate producer surplus from the landings values, EPA relied on empirical results from various researchers that can be
used to infer producer surplus for watermen based on gross revenues (landings times wholesale price). The economic
literature (Huppert, 1990; Rettig and McCarl. 1985) suggests that producer surplus values for commercial fishing ranges from
50 to 90 percent of the market value. In assessments of Great Lakes fisheries, an estimate of approximately 40% has been
derived as the relationship between gross revenues and the surplus of commercial fishermen (Cleland and Bishop, 1984,
Bishop, personal communication, 2002). For the purposes of this study, EPA believes producer surplus to watermen is
probably in the range of 40% to 70% of dockside landings values.
Producer surplus is one portion of the total economic surplus impacted by increased commercial stocks — the total benefits
are comprised of the economic surplus to producers, wholesalers, processors, retailers, and consumers. Primary empirical
research deriving "multi-market" welfare measures for commercial fisheries have estimated that surplus accruing to
commercial anglers amount to approximately 22% of the total surplus accruing to watermen, retailers and consumers
combined (Norton et al., 1983; Holt and Bishop, 2002). Thus, total economic surplus across the relevant commercial fisheries
multi-tiered markets can be estimated as approximately 4,5 times greater than producer surplus alone (given that producer
surplus is roughly 22% of the total surplus generated). This relationship is applied in the case studies to estimate total surplus
from the projected changes in commercial landings.
F4-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F4: Baseline IAE Losses
Applying this method, estimates of the economic loss to commercial fisheries resulting from I&E at Brayton Point Station
ranges from $4,900 to $8,600 per year for impingement and from $126,000 to $220,600 per year for entrainment.
F4-4 Economic Value of Forage Fish Losses
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationally fished. For the purposes in this study, EPA referred to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species and are important components of aquatic
food webs. Table 1-4-9 summarizes impingement losses of forage species at Brayton Point Station and Table F4-10
summaries entrainment losses. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two alternative
valuation methods.
Table F4-9: Summary of Brayton Point's Mean Annual Impingement of Forage Species
Species
I Impingement Count (#) Age 1 Equivalents (#)
; Production Forgone
TO
Alewife
5,998
8,855
168
Atlantic silverside
4,784
9,113
: 2
Bay anchovy
3,350
6,090
1
Hogchoker
6,984
12,968
: 6
Striped killifish
418
; 572
4
Threespine stickleback
i 1,697
2,732
1
Total
23,231
40,330
181
Table F4 -10: Summary of Brayton Point's Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Species
Species
Entrainment Count (#)
Age 1 Equivalents (#)
Production Foregone
(lb)
Alewife
1,076,500
460 |
584
American sand lance
84,520,243
453,236 ?
1,737
Atlantic silverside
18,759,840
7,999 i
8,748
Bay anchovy
10,214,225,528
1,231,050
1,501,808
Hogchoker
106,615,903
34,148 ;
81,576
Seaboard goby
462,170,823
1,513,836 1
894
Threespirte stickleback
16,750
653 :
28
Total
10,887,385,587 ;
3,241,381 !
1,595,375
Replacement cost of fish
The replacement value of fish can be used in several instances. First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking
of hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would
still be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but
are important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough data to allow calculation of value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as
a proxy for lost fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs, and
replacement costs typically omit problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limiting genetic diversity).
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to l&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table F4-11 displays the replacement costs of two of the forage fish species known to be impinged or
entrained at Brayton Point, The costs are average costs to fish hatcheries-across North America to produce different species
of fish for stocking. The second component of replacement cost is the transportation cost, which includes costs associated
with vehicles, personnel, fuel, water, chemicals, containers, and nets. The AFS (1993) estimates these costs at approximately
F4-7
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline UE Losses
11.13 per mile, but does not indicate how many fish (or how many pounds of fish) are transported for this price. Lacking
relevant data, EPA does not include the transportation costs in this valuation approach.
Table F4-11 also presents the computed values of the annual average forage replacement cost losses. The value of the losses
of forage species using the replacement cost method is $400 per year for impingement and $17,900 per year for entrainment.
Table F4-11:
Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species at Brayton Point Station
Species
Hatchery Costs*
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses (S2000)
(S/lb)
Impingement
Entrainment
Alewife
; 0.34b
$133
$7
American sand lance
; 0.34b i
$0
$591
Atlantic silverside
0.34"
$64
: $56
Bay anchovy
i $3.51
$79
$16,(KM
Hogchoker
; 0.34b
$50
$131
Seaboard goby
i 0.34" ;
$0
$1,055
Striped killifish
; 0.34b
$7
; $0
Threespine stickleback
i $2.58
$65
! $15
Total
$398
; $17,860
3 Values are from AFS (1993). These values were inflated to 2000$ from 1989$, but this could be imprecise for current
Fish rearing and stocking costs.
b Individual species value is not available and thus an average of all species is used.
Wed Feb 13 13:11:29 MST 2002; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: I Pathname:
Pi/iniake/Braytnn/BrayioruScience/scodes/tables.outfnjt.projectedO1 /TabieD.forage.eco.ter.repl.brayton.prDjectedJ.csv
Production foregone value of forage fish ¦
This approach considers the foregone production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from I&E of forage
species based on estimates of trophic transfer efficiency, as discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document. The
economic valuation of forage losses is based on the dollar value of the foregone fishery yield resulting from these losses.
Results for impingement of forage species at Brayton Point range from $73 to $204, and results for entrainment range from
$3,400 to $4,700 per year (Table F4-12). The values listed are obtained by converting the forage species into species that
may be commercially or recreationally valued.
Table F4-12: Mean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Selected Fishery Species Resulting
From Entrainment of Forage Species at Brayton Point Station Based on the Entrainment Data in
Table F4-10
Species
Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value from
Entrainment of Forage Species ($2000)
Low
High
Atlantic menhaden
$1
$1
Rainbow smelt
$19
$33
Scup
$3,149 i
$4,352
Silver hake
$13 ;
$23
Tautog
$1
$2
Weak fish
$1 :
$1
Windowpane
$16
$27
Winter flounder
$182
$307
Total
$3,381
$4,747
Wed Feb 13 13:11:35 MST 2002; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: brayton.projected; type: E Pathname:
P:/lntake/Brayton/Brayton_Scienee/scodes/tables.output.projected01/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.brayton.projected.E.csv
F4-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F4: Baseline IAE Losses
F4-5 Nonuse Values
Recreational consumer surplus and commercial impacts are only part of the total losses that the public realizes from I&E
impacts on fisheries. Nonuse or passive use impacts arise when individuals value environmental changes apart from any past,
present, or anticipated future use of the resource in question. Such passive use values have been categorized in several ways
in the economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (intergeneiational equity)
motives. Using a "rule of thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 percent of the recreational use impact (see
Chapter A9 for further discussion), EPA estimated nonuse values for baseline losses at Brayton to range from $500 to $900
per year for impingement and from $ 11,300 to $ 19,400 per year for entrainment,
F4-6 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I&E at Brayton Point
Station
Table F4-13 summarizes the economic values associated with mean annual I&E at Brayton Point Station. Total impacts range
from $6,500 to $11,600 per year for impingement and from $163,400 to $296,600 per year for entrainment.
Table F4-13: Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual IAE at Brayton Point Station ($2000)
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Commercial: Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market)
Low
$4,934
$126,039
$130,973
High :
58,634
5220,568
$229,202
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Low :
$1,056 i
$22,641
$23,697
High
$1,737 i
$38,794
$40,531
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket) ;
Low
$528 ;
$11,320
$11,849
High ;
$869 i
$19,397
$20,266
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket) | i ¦
Production Foregone;
Low
$73 ;
$3,381
$3,381
High
$204 ;
$4,747
$4,747
Replacement j
$398 :
$17,860
$18,257
Total (Com + Rec + Nonuse + Forage)"
Low
$6,591 ;
$163,382
$169,899
High ;
$11,637
$296,620
$308,257
" In calculating the total low values, the lower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement)
was used and to calculate the total high values, the higher of the two forage valuation methods was used.
Wed Feb 13 13: J 1:36 MST 2002; TableK.summary; Plant: brayton.projected; Pathname:
P:/lntake/Brayton/Brayton_Science/scodes/tabies,output,projectedQl/TableE.summary,brayton,projected,csv
F4-9
-------
Chapter F5; HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Chapter F5:
HRC Valuation of I<&E Losses at
Brayton Point Station
EPA applied the habitat replacement cost (HRC) method,
as described in Chapter A11 of Part A of this document, to
value the average annual losses to impingement and
entrainment (I&E) at the Brayton Point Station (Brayton
Point) cooling water intake structure. To summarize, the
HRC method identifies the habitat restoration actions that
are most effective at replacing the species that suffer I&E
losses at a CWIS, Then, the HRC method determines the
amount of each restoration action that is required to offset
fully the I&E losses. Finally, the HRC method estimates
the cost of implementing the restoration actions, and uses
this cost as a proxy for the value of the I&E losses. Thus,
the HRC valuation method is based on the estimated cost
to replace the organisms lost because of I&E, where the
replacement is achieved through improvement or
replacement of the habitat upon which the lost organisms
depend. The HRC method produces an estimated
annualized total value of the I&E losses at Brayton Point
of $28.3 million, which is the cost of replacing the
impinged and entrained organisms through the restoration
of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), restoration of
tidal wetlands, and installation of fish passageways and
monitoring to quantify the productivity of these habitats
(values to increase species production through
construction of artificial reefs is not included in this
value).
The HRC method is a supply-side approach for valuing
I&E losses in contrast to the more typically used demand-
side valuation approaches (e.g., commercial and
recreational fishing impacts valuations discussed in
Chapter A9 of Part A of this document). An advantage of
the HRC method is that it can address, and value, losses
for all species, including those lacking a recreational or
commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC method explicitly recognizes and captures the
fundamental ecological relationships between those
species with I&E losses at a facility and their surrounding
environment, in contrast to traditional replacement cost
methods such as fish stocking.
EPA used published data wherever possible to apply the HRC method to the I&E losses at Brayton Point. If published data
were lacking, EPA used unpublished data from knowledgeable resource experts. In some cases, EPA used (and documented)
the best professional judgment of these experts to apply reasonable assumptions to their data. In these cases, EPA applied
r__ .... .. ¦ 3
Chapter Contents
F5-1 Step 1: Quantify I&E Losses F5-2
F5-2 Step 2: Identify Habitat Requirements F5-3
F5-3 Step 3: Identify Potential Habitat Restoration
Alternatives to Offset I&E Losses F5-3
F5-4 Step 4: Consolidate, Categorize, and Prioritize
Identified Habitat Restoration Alternatives F5-6
F5-5 Step 5: Quantify the Expected Increases in Species
Production for the Prioritized Habitat Restoration
Alternatives F5-8
F5-5.I Estimates of Increased Age I Fish
Production from SAV Restoration F5-8
F5-5.2 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish
Production from Tidal Wetland
Restoration F5-I3
F5-5.3 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish
Production from Artificial Reef
Development F5-21
F5-5.4 Estimates of Increased Species Production
from Installed Fish Passageways F5-22
F5-5.5 Estimates of Remaining Losses in Age 1
Fish Production from Species Without
an identified Habitat Restoration
Alternative F5-25
F5-6 Step 6: Scaling Preferred Restoration
Alternatives F5-25
F5-6.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Scaling ' F5-25
F5-6.2 Tidal Wetlands Scaling F5-26
F5-6.3 Reef Scaling F5-26
F5-6.4 Anadromous Fish Passage Scaling F5-26
F5-7 Unit Costs F5-27
F5-7.1 Unit Costs of SAV Restoration F5-2?
F5-7.2 Unit Costs of Tidal Wetland
Restoration F5-29
F5-7.3 Artificial Reef Unit Costs F5-33
F5-7.4 Costs of Anadromous Fish Passageway
Improvements F5-33
F5-8 Total Cost Estimation F5-34
F5-9 Conclusions F5-39
F5-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
cost-reducing assumptions, but not beyond the range of values that experts were willing to support as reasonable. In other
words, this HRC valuation seeks the cost of what knowledgeable resource experts consider to be the minimum amount of
restoration necessary to offset l&E losses at Brayton Point.
Cost-reducing assumptions are identified throughout this chapter and were incorporated extensively. Most significantly, the
HRC valuation estimates for the I&E losses at Brayton Point implicitly assumes that the scale of restoration determined for
species for which data were available are sufficient to fully offset the losses for species for which no data was identified. To
the degree this assumption is inaccurate, the results incorporate a downward bias.
Sections F5-1 through F5-8 present the information, methods, assumptions, and conclusions that were used to complete the
HRC valuation of the I&E losses at Brayton Point following the eight steps described in Chapter A11 of Part A of this
document. Section F5-8 also presents additional detail on the valuation of the l&E losses at Brayton Point, providing separate
annualized valuation estimates for the aquatic organisms lost to impingement and for those lost to entrainment.
F5-1 Step 1: Quantify I&E Losses
Brayton Point has reported I&E losses of millions of aquatic organisms each year since it began using a once-through CWIS.
EPA evaluated all species known to be impinged and entrained by Brayton Point, including commercial, recreational, and
forage fish species, based on information provided in facility l&E monitoring reports and detailed in Chapter F3.
Of those species, EPA incorporated the 18 that had losses greater than 0.1 percent of the total impingement or total
entrainment losses at the facility (the criterion for inclusion in the Equivalent Adult Model [HAM]) into the HRC analysis.
The average annual age 1 equivalent losses from I&E at Brayton Point for these 18 species from 1974 to 1983, adjusted for
current operations, calculated by the EAM (see Chapter F3 for additional descriptions of source data and calculation of the
age 1 equivalents) are presented in Table F5-1, in order of decreasing mean annual I&E losses (this information is also
presented in Tables F3-3 and F3-7 for impingement and entrainment losses respectively).
Table F5-1: Mean Annual Age 1 Equivalent I&E Losses of Fishes at Brayton Point,
1974-1983 Adjusted for Current Operations
Species
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Seaboard goby
0
; 1,513,836
1,513,836
Bay anchovy
6,090
1,231,050
1,237,140
Winter flounder
13,601
507,114
520,715
American sand lance
0
453,236
453,236
Rainbow smelt
1,278
! 49,506
i 50,784
Hogchoker
i 12,968
: 34,148
47,116
Tautog
; 1,230
30,149
31,379
Atlantic silverside
! 9,113
7,999
17,112
Atlantic menhaden
: '2,623
10,523
13,146
Ale wife
8,855
460
^ 9,315
Windowpane
i 1,320
7,369
8,689
Silver hake
i 5,773
i 2
5,775
Threespine stickleback
2,732
i 653
3,385
¦ White perch
2,297
0
j 2,297
Weakfish
600
492
: 1,092
Striped killifish
572
0
572
Scup
0
509
509
Butterfish
278
0
278
Total age 1 eq. losses
69,330
3,847,046
3,916,376
FS-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HPC Valuation of IAE Losses
F5-2 Step 2: Identify Habitat Requirements
Determining the best course of action for restoring habitat to offset losses of species to I&E requires understanding the
specific habitat requirements for each species. Habitat requirements for fish may include physical habitat needs such as
substrate types and geographic locations as well as water quality needs and food sources, Chapter F3, Section F3-2, provides
a detailed summary of the habitat components needed for the critical lifestages of several of the species from among those
with high average annual I&E losses at Brayton Point.
F5-3 Step 3: Identify Potential Habitat Restoration Alternatives to
Offset I<&E Losses
Local experts identified six types of projects that could be used near Brayton Point to restore the same species of fish and
aquatic organisms lost to I&E at Brayton Point:
*¦ restore submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
~ restore tidal wetlands
~ create artificial reefs
~ improve anadromous fish passage
~ improve water quality beyond current regulatory requirements
* reduce fishing pressures beyond current regulatory requirements.
Of the project categories listed above, the restoration of SAV and tidal wetlands, the creation of artificial reefs and the
improvement of anadromous fish passages provides benefits to the aquatic community that can be quantified in this HRC
valuation and are described below.
Restore submerged aquatic vegetation
Submerged aquatic vegetation provides vital habitat for a number of aquatic organisms. Eel grass is the dominant species of
SAV along the coasts of New England. It is an underwater flowering plant that is found in brackish and near-shore marine
waters (Figure F5-1). Eelgrass can form large meadows or small separate beds that range in size from many acres to just 1 m
across (Save The Bay, 2001).
SAV restoration involves transplanting eelgrass shoots and/or seeds into areas that can support their growth. Site selection is
based on historical distribution, wave action, light availability, sediment type, and nutrient loading. Improving water quality
and clarity, reducing nutrient levels, and restricting dredging may all be necessary to promote sustainable eelgrass beds.
Protecting existing SAV beds is a priority in many communities (Save The Bay, 2001).
SAV provides several ecological services to the environment. For example, eelgrass has a high rate of leaf growth and
provides support for many aquatic organisms as shelter, spawning, and nursery habitat. SAV is also a food source for
herbivorous organisms. The roots of SAV also provide stability to the bottom sediments, thus decreasing erosion and
resuspension of sediments into the water column (Thayer et al., 1997). Dense SAV provides shelter for small and juvenile
fishes and invertebrates from predators. Small prey can hide deep within the SAV canopy, and some prey species use the
SAV as camouflage (Thayer et al, 1997). Species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point that use SAV beds during early
life stages include Atlantic menhaden, tautog, and rainbow smelt (Laney, 1997).
Restore tidal wetlands
Tidal wetlands (Figure F5-2) are among the most productive ecosystems in the world (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993; Broome
and Craft, 2000). They provide valuable habitat for many species of invertebrates and forage fish that serve as food for other
species in and near the wetland. Tidal wetlands also provide spawning and nursery habitat for many other fish species,
including the Atlantic silverside, striped killifish, and threespine stickleback. Other migratory species that use tidal wetlands
during their lives include the winter flounder and white perch (Dionne et al., 1999). Fish species that have been reported in
restored salt ponds and tidal creeks include Atlantic menhaden, Atlantic silverside, and striped killifish (Roman et al,
submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology). Restoring tidal flow to areas where such flows have been restricted also reduces the
presence of Phragmites austrahs, the invasive marsh grass that has choked out native flora and fauna in coastal areas across
the New England seaboard (Fell et al., 2000).
F5-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Figure F5-1: Laboratory culture of eelorass (Zostero marina)
Source: Boschker, 2001.
Figure F5-2: Tidal creek near Lit+ie Harbor, Cohosset, Massachusetts
Source: MAPC, 2001.
Tidal wetlands restoration typically involves returning tidal flow to marshes or ponds that have restricted natural tidewater
flow because of roads, backfilling, dikes, or other barriers. Eliminating these barriers can restore salt marshes (Figure F5-3),
salt ponds, and tidal creeks that provide essential habitat for many species of aquatic organisms. For example, where
undersized culverts restrict tidal flow, installing correctly sized and positioned culverts can restore tidal range and proper
salinity, [n other situations, such as where low-lying property adjacent to salt marsh has been developed, restoring full tidal
flow may not be possible because of flooding concerns (MAPC, 2001). Salt marshes can also be created by inundating areas
in which no marsh habitat previously existed (e.g., tidal wetland creation). However, a study by Dionne et al. (1999) showed
that while both created and restored tidal wetlands provide habitat for a number of fish, restored tidal wetlands provide much
Jarger and more productive areas of habitat per unit cost than created tidal wetlands.
F5-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Figure F5-3: 5alt morsh near Narragansett Bay, Rhode Islana
Source: Save The Bay, 2001.
Create artificial reefs
Tautog, which are impinged and entrained at Brayton Point, use rocky or reef-like habitats with interstices that provide refuge
from predators, especially during the night when the fish become torpid. These habitats can be created artificially with
cobbles, concrete, and other suitable materials.
Improve anadromous fish passageways
Anadromous fish spend most of their lives in brackish or saltwater but migrate into freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Dams on many of the rivers and streams in this region where anadromous fish historically spawned make these waterways
inaccessible to migrating fish. Anadromous fish impinged and entrained at Brayton Point that would benefit from improved
access to upstream spawning habitat include rainbow smelt, alewife, and white perch.
Improving anadromous fish passage involves many important steps. Dams and barriers connecting estuaries with upstream
spawning habitat can be removed or fitted with fish ladders (Figure F5-4). Removing a dam is often preferable because some
species such as rainbow smelt use fish ladders ineffectively. However, dam removal may not be possible in highly developed
areas needing flood control. In addition, restoring stream habitats such as forested riverbank wetlands and improving water
quality may also be necessary to restore upstream spawning habitats for anadromous fish (Save The Bay, 2001).
FS-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Figure F5-4: Example of a fish ladder at a hydroelectric dam
Source: Pollock, 2001.
F5-4 Step 4: Consolidate, Categorize, and Prioritize Identified Habitat
Restoration Alternatives
EPA categorized and prioritized habitat restoration alternatives to identify the type of restoration program that was best suited
for each of the major species that are impinged or entrained as a result of cooling water intakes. This was done in
collaboration with local experts from several federal, state, and local organizations at a meeting on September 10, 2001
(Table F5-2), and through follow-up discussions that were held with numerous additional organizations (Table F5-3).
Attendees discussed habitat needs and restoration options for each species with significant I&E losses at the facility. They
then ranked these restoration options for each species by determining what single option would most benefit that species. The
alternatives chosen for each species are shown in Table F5-4.
Table F5-2: Attendees at the Meeting on Habitat Prioritization for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Brayton Point September 10, 2001, in Fall River, Massachusetts
Attendee
Organization
Anthony Chatwin
: Conservation Law Foundation
Robert Lawton
; Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
Andrea Langhauser
; Massachusetts Watershed Initiative — Ten Mile and Mount Hope Bay Watersheds
Kathi Rodrigues
; National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center
Chris Powell
I Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Fish and Wildlife Division
Torn Ardito
! Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Narragansctt Bay Estuary Program
Andy Lipsky
;Save the Bay
John Torgan
:Save the Bay
Phil Colarusso
U.S. EPA Region I
John Nagle
.U.S. EPA Region 1
FS-6
-------
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table F5-3: Local Agencies and Organizations Contacted for Information Used in this HRC Analysis
Organization
Applied Sciences Associates
Atlantic Stares Marine Fisheries Council
Connecticut College
Duxbuiy Conservation Agency
Fall River Conservation Commission
Jones River Watershed Association
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Law Enforcement — Division of Marine Fisheries
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program: Center for Coastal Resources
Massachusetts Watershed Initiative
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Narragansctt Estuarine Research Reserve
National Estuary Program — Massachusetts Bays program
National Estuary Program — Narragansctt Bay Estuary Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service
NO A A — National Marine Fisheries Service -- Restoration Center. (Gloucester, MA)
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center (Providence, Rl)
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service (NC)
Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Dept. of Planning and Development, Land Acquisition Program
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Division of Fish and Wildlife
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Marine Fisheries Section
Roger Williams University
Rutgers University
Save The Bay (Rl)
Somerset Conservation Commission
University of California-— Santa Cruz; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of New Hampshire
University of Rhode Island
USEPA — Region 1
USEPA Environmental Effects Research Laboratory — Atlantic Ecology Division/ORD
US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
Wetlands Restoration Program, (Mass Exec. Office of Env. Affairs)
Woods Hole Ocear.ographic Institution
F5-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5-4: Preferred Restoration Alternatives Identified by Experts
for Species Impinged and Entrained at Brayton Point
Species (age 1 eq. losses per year
adjusted for current operations)
Selected Restoration Alternative
Threespine stickleback (3,385)
SAV restoration
Weakfish( 1,092)
SAV restoration
Scup (509)
SAV restoration
Winter flounder (520,715)
Tidal wetlands restoration
Atlantic silverside (17,112)
Tidal wetlands restoration
Windowpane" (8,689)
Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Striped killifish (572)
Tidal wetlands restoration
Tautog (31,379)
Artificial reef creation
Rainbow smelt (50,784)
Anadromous fish passage (remove dams)
Alewife (9,315)
Anadromous fish passage
White perch (2,297)
Anadromous fish passage
Seaboard goby (1,513,836)
No habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
American sand lance (453,236)
Hogchoker (47,116)
Silver hake (5,775)
Bay anchovy (1,237,140)
No habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
Atlantic menhaden (13,146)
Butterfish (278)
* Improved water quality later became the chosen restoration alternative for windowpane because they inhabit depths
greater than accessible to tidal wetland restoration. However, no specific water quality projects were identified.
F5-5 Step 5: Quantify the Expected Increases in Species Production for the
Prioritized Habitat Restoration Alternatives
In Step 5, EPA estimated the expected increases in fish production attributable to implementing the preferred restoration
alternative for each species. These estimates were adjusted to express production as increases in age 1 fish. This simplified
the scaling of the preferred restoration alternatives (see Section F5-6) because the I&E losses were also expressed as age I
equivalents.
Unfortunately, available quantitative data is not sufficient to estimate reliably the increase in fish production that is expected
to result from the habitat restoration actions listed in Table F5-4, There is also limited data available on the production of
these species in natural habitats that could be used to estimate production in restored habitats. Therefore, in this analysis EPA
relied on quantitative information on fish species abundance in the habitats to be restored as a proxy for the increase in
production expected through habitat restoration. The relationship between the measured abundance of a species in a given
habitat and the increase in that species'production that would result from restoring additional habitat is complex and unique
for each species. In some cases the use of abundance data may underestimate the true production that would be gained
through habitat restoration, and in other cases it may overestimate the true production. Nevertheless, this assumption was
necessary given the limited amount of quantitative data on fish species habitat production that is currently available.
F5-5.1 Estimates of Increased Age I Fish Production from SAV Restoration
SAV provides forage and refuge services for many Fish species, increases sediment stability, and dampens the energy of
waves and currents affecting nearby shorelines (Fonseca, 1992). SAV restoration is most effective where water quality is
adequate and SAV coverage once existed. Table F5-5 presents the fish species impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that
would benefit most from SAV restoration, along with annual average I&E losses 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations,
arranged by number of fish lost.
F5-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Broytor Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Table F5-5: Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from SAV
Restoration
Species
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted
for current operations)
Percentage of Total I&E
Losses for All Fish Species
Thrcespinc stickleback
3,385
0.09%
Weakfish
1,092
0.03%
Soup
509
0.01%
Total
4,986
0.13%
F5-5.1.1 Species abundance estimates in SAV habitats
No studies were available that provided direct estimates of increased fish production following SAV restoration for the
species impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that would benefit most from SAV restoration. Therefore, EPA used
abundance estimates to estimate increases in production following restoration. Abundance estimates are often the best
available estimates of local habitat productivity, especially for early life stages with limited mobility. The sampling efforts
that provide abundance estimates in SAV habitat and that were selected for this HRC valuation are described below.
Species abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV
Wyda et al. (in press) provide abundance estimates as fish per 100 m2 of SAV for species caught in otter trawls in July and
August 1996 at 24 sites within 13 Buzzards Bay estuaries, near Nantucket, Massachusetts, and at 28 sites within 6
Chesapeake Bay estuaries. These locations were selected based on information that eelgrass was present or had existed at the
location.
The sampling at each location consisted of six 2-minute sampling runs using a 4.8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm
mesh cod end liner that was towed at 5-6 km/hour. Late summer sampling was selected because eelgrass abundance is
greatest then, and previous research had shown that late-summer fish assemblages are stable.
Forty-three fish species were caught in Buzzards Bay and 60 in Chesapeake Bay. Abundance estimates per 100 mJ of SAV
were reported for all fish species, and abundance estimates for specific SAV density categories were reported for species
caught in more than 10 percent of the total number of trawls (15 species). EPA used only these SAV density-based results
from the Buzzards Bay sampling for this HRC valuation because of its proximity to the facility. These SAV density-based
results are presented in Table F5-6 for species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most
from SAV restoration.
Table F5-6: Average Abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV (eelgrass) Habitats for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Brayton Paint that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Common Name
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 m2)*
Low Density SAV Habitats
High Density SAV Habitats
Threespine stickleback
0.22
; 0.13
Weakfishb no obs, no obs.
Scup . 032_ ; 1.03
¦ High density habitats are eelgrass areas with shoot densities > 100 per nr and shoot biomass (wet) > ! 00 g/nrr. Low density habitats do
not meet these criteria.
b Weakfish were not among the species caught in more than 10 percent of the Buzzards Bay trawls.
Source: Wyda ct al. (in press).
F5-9
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Species abundance in Rhode Island coastal salt pond SAV
Hughes et al. (2000) conducted trawl samples in the SAV habitats of four Rhode Island coastal estuarine salt ponds and in
four Connecticut estuaries during July 1999. As in Wyda et al. (in press), the sampling at each location involved six 2-minute
sampling runs using a 4,8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm mesh cod end liner towed at 5-6 km/hour.
The report does not provide abundance estimates by species. However, a principal investigator provided abundance estimates
expressed as the number of fish per 100 m2 of SAV for the locations sampled in Rhode Island (Point Judith Pond, Ninigret
Pond, Green Iiill Pond, and Quonochontaug Pond; personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological
Laboratory, 2001). Average abundance estimates per 100 mJ of SAV were calculated for each species and allocated to the
same SAV habitat categories that were designated in Wyda et al. (in press) using shoot density and wet weight of shoots from
Hughes et al. (2000). The sampling results for species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting
most from SAV restoration are presented in Table F5-7.
Table F5-7: Average Abundance from Rhode Island SAV Sites for Brayton Point Species that Would Benefit
Most from SAV Restoration
Species
Species Abundance (# fish per 100
m1 of SAV habitat)*
Low Density SAV Habitats
High Density SAV Habitats
Threespine stickleback
: no obs, ;
19.6?
Weakfish
: no obs.
no obs.
Scup
0.17
0.69
* High density habitats are defined as areas with eelgrass shoot densities > 100 per m; and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/m2. Low density
habitats do not meet these criteria.
Source: personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001.
Species abundance in Nauset Marsh (Massachusetts) Estuarine complex SAV
Heck et al. (1989) provide capture totals for day and night trawl samples taken between August 1985 and October 1986 in the
Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex in Orleans/Eastharn, Massachusetts, including two eelgrass beds: Fort Hill and Nauset
Harbor. As in the other SAV sampling efforts, an otter trawl was used for the sampling, but with slightly larger mesh size
openings in the cod end liner (6,3 mm versus 3.0 mm) than in Hughes et al. (2000) or Wyda et al, (in press).
With the reported information on the average speed, duration, and number of trawls used in each sampling period and an
estimate of the width of the SAV habitat covered by the trawl from one of the study authors (personal communication, M.
Fahay, NOAA, 2001), EPA calculated abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV habitat.
Heck et al. (1989) also report that the dry weight of the SAV shoots is over 180 g/m2 at both the Fort Hill and Nauset Harbor
eelgrass habitat sites. Therefore, these locations would fall into the high SAV habitat category used in Wyda et al. (in press)
and Hughes et al. (2000) because the dry weight exceeds the wet weight criterion of 100 g/m2 used in those studies.
Finally, Heck et al. (1989) provide separate monthly capture results from their trawls. The maximum monthly capture results
for each species was used for the abundance estimates from this sampling. Because these maximum values generally occur in
the late summer months, sampling time is consistent with the results from Wyda et al. (in press) and Hughes et al. (2000).
The abundance values estimated from the sampling of the Fort HOI and Nauset Harbor SAV habitats for species impinged and
entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most from SAV restoration are presented in Table F5-8.
F5-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5- HRC Valuation of HE Losses
Table F5-8: Average Abundance in Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex SAV for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained ot Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 in2)*
Fort Hill — High Density SAV
Nauset Harbor— High Density SAV
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
5.92
no obs.
47.08
no obs.
Scup
no obs. i 0.08
* High density habitats are defined as areas with eelgrass shoot densities > 100 per rrr and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/nr.
Source: Heck etal,, 1989.
F5-5.1.2 Adjusting SAV sampling results to estimate annual average increase in production
of age 1 fish
EPA adjusted sampling-based abundance estimates to account for:
*• sampling efficiency
~ capture of life stages other than age 1
differences in the measured abundances in natural SAV habitat versus expected productivity in restored SAV habitat.
The basis and magnitude of the adjustments are discussed in the following sections.
Adjusting for sampling efficiency
Fish sampling techniques are unlikely to capture or record all of the fish present in a sampled area because some fish avoid
the sampling gear and some are captured but not collected and counted. The sampling efficiency for otter trawls is
approximately 40 percent to 60 percent (personal communication, J, Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001).
EPA assumed a cost reducing sampling efficiency of 40 percent for this HRC analysis, and multiplied the SAV sampling
abundance estimates by 2.5 (i.e., divided by 40 percent). This assumption increases SAV productivity estimates and lowers
SAV restoration cost estimates.
Adjusting sample abundance estimates to age 1 life stages
All sampled life stages were converted to age 1 equivalents for comparison to l&E losses, which were expressed as age 1
equivalents. The average life stage of the fish caught in Buzzards Bay (Wyda et al., in press) and the Rhode Island coastal
salt pond (Hughes et al., 2000) was juveniles (i.e., life stage younger than age 1) (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001). Since the same sampling technique and gear was used in Heck et al. (1989), EPA
assumed juveniles to be the average life stage captured in this study as well.
The abundance estimates from the studies were multiplied by the survival rates from juveniles to age 1 for each species to
provide an age 1 equivalent abundance. The juvenile to age 1 survival rate adjustment factors, calculated using the results of
the EAM, are presented in Table F5-9.
Table F5-9: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Species Present at Brayton Point — SAV Restoration
Species
Oldest Life Stage
before Age 1 in
the EAM
I Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
Life Stage Captured in
SAV Sampling Efforts
Estimated Survival
Rate for Juveniles
to Age 1
Threespine stickleback
juvenile
0.3077
juvenile
0.3077
Weakfish®
juvenile 2
0.3697
juvenile
0.3697
Scup
juvenile
0.0671
juvenile
0.0671
' Life stage information was available for two juvenile stages of weakfish. Juvenile 2 represents the older of these two stages
F5-/I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Adjusting sampled abundance for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
No reviewed studies suggested that restored SAV habitat would produce fish at a level different from undisturbed SAV
habitat. Similarly, while service flows from a restored habitat site generally increase over time to a steady state level, limited
anecdotal evidence suggests some restored SAV habitats may begin recruiting and producing fish very quickly (personal
communication, A, Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001). As a result of this limited evidence, and as a cost-reducing assumption, EPA
made no adjustment for differences between restored and undisturbed SAV habitats to account for the final levels of fish
production or potential lags in realizing these levels following restoration of SAV habitat.
F5-5.1.3 Final estimates of annual average age 1 fish production from SAV restoration
EPA calculated age 1 fish production expected from habitats where SAV is restored by multiplying the abundance estimates
from Wyda et al. (in press), Hughes et al. (2000), and Heck et al. (1989) by the adjustment factors presented in the previous
subsection. These results were then averaged, by species, across sampling locations to calculate the final production value
incorporated in the scaling of the SAV restoration alternative.
Table F5-10 presents the final estimates of the increase in age 1 production for two of the three Brayton Point species that
benefit most from SAV restoration (weakfish were not sampled in any of the studies providing abundance estimates).
Table F5-10: Final Estimates of the Increase in Production of Age 1 Fish for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species
Source of Initial
] Species Abundance
Estimate
Species
Abundance
Estimate per
100 m1 of SAV
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
Expected Increase in
Production of Age I
Fish per 100 m2 of
Restored SAV
Threespine
stickleback
Hecketal. (1989) —
iFort Hill
5.92
2.5
: 0.3077
1.0
4,55
Heck et al, (1989) —
:Nauset Harbor
47.08
2.5
0.3077
1.0
36.21
• Hughes et al. (2000)
;— RI coastal ponds
(high SAV)
19.67
2.5
0.3077
1.0
15.13
Wyda et al. (in
I press) — Buzzards
; Bay (Sow SAV)
0.22
2.5
. 0.3077
1.0
0.17
Wyda et al. (in
i press) — Buzzards
Bay (high SAV)
0.13
2.5
0.3077
1.0
0.10
1 Species average
11.23
Weakfish
!Unknown
Scup
; Heck et al. (1989) —
Nauset Harbor
0.08
2,5
0.0671
1.0
0.01
: Hughes et al, (2000)
*— Rl coastal ponds
I (low SAV)
0.17
2.5
i 0.0671
1.0
0.03
! Hughes et al. (2000)
:— RI coastal ponds
Khigh SAV)
0.69
2.5
0.0671
1.0
0,12
Wvda et al. (in
: press) — Buzzards
Bay (low SAV)
0.32
2.5
0.0671
1.0
0,05
iWyda et al, (in
press) — Buzzards
Bay (high SAV)
1.03 :
2.5
0.0671
1.0
0.17
i Species average
0.08
F5-12
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Lasses
F5-5.2 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from Tidal Wetland
Restoration
Tidal wetlands provide a diversity of habitats such as open water, subtidal pools, ponds, intertidal waterways, and tidally
flooded meadows of salt tolerant grass species such as Spartina alterniflora and S. patens. These habitats provide forage,
spawning, nursery, and refuge for a large number of fish species. Table F5-11 identifies the I&E losses for fish species at
Brayton Point that would benefit most from tidal wetland restoration, along with average I&E losses for 1974-1983 adjusted
for current operations, arranged by number of fish lost.
Table F5-11: Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland
Restoration
Species
Annual Average I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalents (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
Percentage of Total I&E Losses
across all Fish Species
Winter flounder
520,715
13.30%
Atlantic silverside
17,112
0.44%
Striped killifish
572
0,01%
Total
538,399
13.75%
Restricted tidal flows increase the dominance of Phragmiles auslralis by reducing tidal flushing and lowering salinity levels
(Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 2001a). Phragmiles dominance restricts fish access to and movement
through the water, decreasing overall productivity of the habitat. Therefore, for the purpose of this HRC valuation, tidal
wetland restoration focuses on returning natural tidal flows to currently restricted areas. Examples of actions that can restore
tidal flows to currently restricted tidal wetlands include the following:
~ breaching dikes created to support salt hay farming or to control mosquitos
~ installing properly sized culverts in areas currently lacking tidal exchange
~ removing tide gates on existing culverts
~ excavating dredge spoil covering former tidal wetlands.
EPA could not find any studies that quantified increased production following implementation of these types of restoration
actions for tidal wetlands. Therefore, EPA used fish abundance estimates from studies of tidal wetlands to estimate the fish
increase in Fish production that can be gained through restoration. The following subsections present the sampling data and
subsequent adjustments made to calculate the expected increased in age I production of fish species.
F5-5.2.1 Fish species abundance estimates in tidal wetland habitats
EPA used results from tidal wetland sampling efforts in Rhode Island to calculate the potential increased fish production from
restored tidal wetland habitat. Available sampling results from Connecticut (Warren et al., 2001) and New Hampshire and
Maine coasts (Dionne et al,, 1999) were not used. The Connecticut results were omitted because regulatory time constraints
prevented the conversion of capture results into abundance estimates per unit of tidal wetland area. The New Hampshire and
Maine results were omitted because the study locations were too distant from Brayton Point and are located north of the
critical ecological divide of Cape Cod-Massachusetts Bay, which affects species mix and abundance.
Species abundance at Sachuest Point Tidal Wetland, Middletown, Rhode Island
Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology) sampled the fish populations in a 6.3 hectare (ha) tidal wetland at
Sachuest Point in Middletown, Rhode island. The sampling was conducted during August, September, and October of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using a 1 m2 throw trap in the creeks and pools of each area during low tide after the wetland surface had
drained. Additional sampling was conducted monthly from June through October in 1998 and 1999 using 6 m2 bottomless lift
nets to sample the flooded wetland surface. The report presents the results of this sampling as abundance estimates of each
fish species per square meter (Table F5-12).
FS-J3
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5- HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table F5- 12: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Sachuest for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
(fish per in2)
1997
1998
1999
Winter flounder
throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
lift net :
no sampling
no obs.
no obs.
Atlantic silverside
throw trap ;
1.23
0.20 j
0.07
lift net
no sampling
no obs.
no obs.
Striped killifish
throw trap
0.70
0.17
0.55
lift net ;
no sampling
0.01
0.01
Source: Roman et al, (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology).
Roman et al. also sampled a smaller portion of the wetland where tidal flows had recently been restored. However, EPA did
not use these results because the sampling was most likely conducted before the system reached full productivity.
Galilee Marsh, Narragansett Rhode, Island
Raposa (in press) sampled the fish populations in the Galilee tidal wetland monthly from June through September of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using 1 m' throw trap in the creeks and pools in the tidal wetland parcels during low tide after the wetland
surface had drained. Raposa presents the sampling results as fish species abundance expressed as number of fish per square
meter. As with the results from Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology), EPA did not use the results from a
recently restored portion of the wetland in this 11RC valuation to avoid a downward bias in the species density results (and
resultant higher restoration costs). The results from this sampling effort are presented in Table F5-13 for the species
impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
Table F5-13: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Galilee for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Technique
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
(fish per m")
1997
1998
1999
Winter flounder
throw trap
no obs,
no obs.
no obs.
Atlantic silverside
throw trap
4.78
1.73
14.38
Striped killifish
throw trap
4.35
3.50
12.40
Source: Raposa, in press.
Coggeshall Marsh, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
Discussions with Kenny Raposa of the Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) revealed that additional fish
abundance estimates from tidal wetland sampling were available for the Coggeshall Marsh located on Prudence Island in the
NERR. These abundance estimates were based on sampling conducted in July and September 2000. The sampling of the
Coggeshall tidal wetland was conducted using 1 m2 throw traps in the tidal creeks and pools of the wetland during ebb tide
after the wetland surface had drained (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001).
The sampling results from this effort are presented in Table F5-14 for the species impinged and entrained al Brayton Point
and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
F5-14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port f: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table F5-14: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Coggeshall for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Fish Density Estimates fit Tidal Wetlands
(fish per m*)
July 2000
September 2000
Winter flounder
throw trap
0.10
; o.io
Atlantic silverside
1 throw trap
0.17
0.07
Striped killifish
throw trap
2.40
0.53
Winter flounder data from Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey at the Chepiwanoxet and
Wickford sample locations
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey samples 18 locations once a month from June through October using a beach seine
that is approximately 60 m (200 ft) long and 3 m (10 ft) wide/deep. The sampled sites vary from cobble reef to sandy
substrate. Winter flounder prefer shallow water habitats with sandy substrate, and such substrate conditions can be restored in
large coastal ponds or pools. Therefore, EPA obtained winter flounder abundance estimates from this survey (personal
communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The two sample locations with
the highest average winter flounder abundance estimates for 1990 through 2000 were in coastal ponds with sandy bottoms.
The average abundance estimates from these sites, Chepiwanoxet and Wickford, are presented in Table F5-15 for samples
taken from 1990 through 2000.
Table F5-15: Average Winter Flounder Abundance, 1990-2000, at the Sites with the Highest Results
from the Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey
Sampling Fish Density Estimates in Sandv Nearshore Substrate (fish per mJ)
Species ~ +
; Technique ; Chepiwanoxet 1990-2000 : Wickford 1990-2000
Winter flounder I beach seine 0,09 0.20
Winter Flounder data from Rhode Island Coastal pond survey at Narrow River, Winnapaug
Pond, and Point Judith Pond
In addition to its juvenile finfish survey, Rhode Island conducts a survey offish in its coastal ponds. The habitat
characteristics in these locations are similar to those that can be restored through tidal wetland restoration. This survey
includes winter flounder.
A Rhode Island coastal pond survey has been conducted since 1998 at the same 16 sites using an approximately 40 m (130 ft)
long seine that is set offshore by boat and then drawn in from shore by hand. For each site, the average of the three highest
winter flounder capture results for 1998-2001, adjusted for the average area covered by each seine set, is presented in Table
F5-16 (personal communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
Table F5-16: Average Winter Flounder Abundance for 1998-2001 at the Sites with the Highest
Results from the Rhode Island Coastal Pond Survey
Species
Sampling
Technique
Average Winter Flounder Density Estimates in
Sandy Nearshore Substrate (fish per m1)
Narrow River Winnapaug Pond Point Judith Pond
Winter flounder
beach seine
0.32 0.21 0.21
F5-J5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-5.2.2 Adjusting tidal wetland sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
The sampling abundance results presented in Section F5-5.2.1 were adjusted to account for the following:
~ sampling efficiency
~ conversion to the age 1 life stage
~ differences in production between restored and undisturbed tidal wetlands
» the impact of sampling timing and location.
Sampling efficiency
As previously described, sampling efficiency adjustments are made to account for the fact that sampling techniques do not
capture all fish that are present. Jordan et al. (1997) estimated that 1 m2 throw traps have a sampling efficiency of 63 percent.
Therefore, EPA applied an adjustment factor of 1.6 (i.e., 1.0/0.63) to tidal wetland abundance data that were collected with 1
m2 throw traps.
The sampling efficiencies of bottomless lift nets are provided in Rozas (1992) as 93 percent for striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), 81 percent for gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis), and 58 percent for sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus).
The average of these three sampling efficiencies is 77 percent (adjustment factor of 1.3, or 1.0/0.77) and is assumed to be
applicable to species lost to I&E at Brayton Point.
Lastly, although specific studies of the sample efficiency of a beach seine net were not identified, an estimated range of 50
percent to 75 percent was provided by the staff involved with the Rhode Island coastal pond survey (personal communication,
J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002). Using the lower end of this range as a cost reducing
assumption, EPA applied a sample efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 (i.e., 1.0/0.5) for the abundance estimates for both the
Rhode Island juvenile fin fish survey and the Rhode Island coastal pond survey.
Conversion to age 1 life stage
The sampling techniques described in Section F5-5.2.1 are intended to capture juvenile fish (personal communication,
K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001). That juvenile fish were the dominant age class taken was
confirmed by the researchers involved in these efforts (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research
Reserve, 2001; personal communication, C, Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001; personal
communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2001). As a result, the sampling results presented in
Section F5-5.2.1 required adjustment to account for expected mortality between the juvenile and age 1 life stages. The
information used to develop these survival rates and the final life stage adjustment factors are presented in Table F5-I7.
Table F5-17: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Brayton Point Species — Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
; Oldest Life Stage before
Age in the
EAM
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age I
Life Stage Captured in
Tidal Wetland
Sampling Efforts
i Estimated Survival Rate
for Juveniles to Age 1
Winter flounder
juvenile
0.1697
juvenile
! 0.1697
Atlantic silverside
juvenile
0.1347
juvenile
: 0,1347
Striped killifish
larvae
0.2107
juvenile
: 0.6054
As noted in Table F5-17, there are no juvenile to age 1 survival rate estimates used in the EAM for striped killifish. However,
survival rate estimates are available for these species from larval stage (the stage just prior to juvenile) to age I. In these
cases, EPA estimated the juvenile to age 1 survival rate by averaging the survival rate for larvae to age I with 1.0 (because
1.0 is necessarily the age 1 to age 1 survival rate). This procedure produces juvenile to age 1 survival rates that are
approximately 0.5, which is near the maximum juvenile to age 1 survival rates used in the EAM for other species. Therefore,
this assumption may lead to an overestimation of the juvenile to age 1 survival rate, and therefore to an overestimation of the
age 1 fish produced by SAV restoration (and an underestimation of the amount of restoration required). Nevertheless, EPA
used the adjustment factors shown in Table F5-17 to convert densities of juveniles in SAV habitat to densities of age 1
individuals, as a cost minimizing assumption.
F5-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F" Braytor. Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Adjusting for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
Restoring full tidal flows rapidly eliminates differences in fish populations between unrestricted and restored sites (Roman et
al., submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology), resulting in very similar species composition and density (Dionne et al., 1999;
Fell et al., 2000; Warren et al, 2001). However, a lag can occur following restoration (Raposa, in press). Given uncertainty
over the length of this lag, and the rate at which increased productivity in a restored tidal wetland approaches its long-term
steady state, EPA incorporated an adjustment factor ofl.Q to signify that no quantitative adjustment was made consistent with
its approach of incorporating cost reducing assumptions.
Adjusting sampled abundance for timing and location of sampling
At high tide, fish in a tidal wetland have access to the full range of habitats, including the flooded vegetation, ponds, and
creeks that discharge into or drain the wetland. In contrast, at low tide, fish are restricted to tidal pools and creeks.
Therefore, sampling conducted at low tide represents a larger area of tidal wetlands than the sampled area. BPA therefore
divided the abundance estimates based on samples taken at low tide by the inverse of the proportion of subtidal habitat to total
wetland habitat. In contrast, no adjustment was applied to abundance estimates based on samples such as those from lift nets
or seines, taken at high tide or in open water offshore. The site-specific adjustment factors in Table F5-18 were based on
information regarding the proportion of each tidal wetland that is subtidal habitat (personal communication, K. Raposa,
Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001).
Table F5-18: Adjustment Factors for Tidal Wetland Sampling Conducted at Low Tide
Tidal Wetland
Ratio of Open Water (creeks, pools)
to Total Habitat in the Wetland
Adjustment Factor
Saehuest Marsh
0.055
18.2
Galilee Marsh
0.084
11.9
Coggeshall Marsh
0.052
19.2
F5-5.2.3 Final estimates of annual average age 1 fish production from tidal
wetland restoration
Table F5-19 presents the final estimates of annual increased production of age 1 fish resulting from tidal wetland restoration
for species impinged and entrained at Brayton Point and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetland restoration.
F5-17
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5. HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table F5-19: Final Estimates of the Annual Increase in Production of Age I Equivalent Fish per Square Meter of Restored Tidal Wetland for Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Winter
flounder
Atlantic
silverside
Source of Initial
Species Density
Estimate
Sampling Location
and Date*
Reported/Calculated
Species Density
Estimate per m! of Tidal
Wetland
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
Sampling Time
and Location
Adjustment
Factor
Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per m1
of Restored Tidal
Wetland1"
Raposa pers
coram 2001
NERR — Prudence Is!.
Coggeshall - July 2000
0.10
1.6
0.1697
1 19.23
0.00
Raposa pers
comm 2001
NERR Prudence Tsl.
Coggeshall Sept. 2000
0.10
1.6
0.1697
1 19.23
0.00
C Powell pers
comm 2001
Chepiwanoxet average
1990-2000 (seine)
0.09
2.0
0.1697
1 1.00
0.03
C Powell pers
comm 2001
Wickford average 1990-
2000 (seine)
0.20
2.0
0,1697
1
1.00
0.07
J Temple pers
comm 2002
Narrow River average
1998-2001 (seine) "
0.32
2.0
0,1697
1
1.00
0.11
J, Temple pers
comm 2002
Wmnapaug Pond average
1998-2001 (seine)
0.21
2.0
0,1697
1 1.00
0.07
J. Temple pers
comm 2002
Point Judith Pond average
1998-2001 (seine)
0.21
2.0
0,1697
1 1.00
0.07
Species average
0,05
Roman et al.,
submitted 2000
to Restoration
Ecology
Sachuest Point— 1997
1.23
1.6
0.1347
1
18.18
0.01
Roman et al.,
submitted 2000
to Restoration
Ecology
Sachuest Point — 1998
0.20
1.6
0.1347
1
18.18
0.00
; Roman et al„
, submitted 2000
Uo Restoration
i Ecology
Sachuest Point — 1999
0.07
1.6
0,1347
1
18.18
0.00
I Raposa pers
icomm 2001
NERR — Prudence HI.
Coggeshall - July 2000
0.17
1.6
0.1347
1 ; 19.23
0.00
i Raposa pers
;comrn 2001
NERR — Prudence isl.
Coggeshall — Sept. 2000
0.07
1.6
0.1347
1 ; 19.23
0.00
; Raposa,
Galilee Marsh — 1997
4.78
1.6
0.1347
1
11.90
0.09
; in press
F5-18
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Braytan Paint Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table F5-19; Final'Estimates of the Annual Increase in Production of Age 1 Equivalent Fish per Square Meter of Restored Tidal Wetland for Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Mast from Tidal Wetland Restoration (cont.)
Species
Source of Initial
Species Density
Estimate
Sampling Location
and Date*
Reported/Calculated
Species Density
i Estimate per irr of Tidal
Wetland
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
Sampling Time
and Location
Adjustment
Factor
Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per m:
of Restored Tidal
Wetland1*
Atlantic
Raposa,
Galilee Marsh ¦— 1998
; 1.73
1.6
0.1347
1
11.90
0.03
silverside
in press
Raposa,
Galilee Marsh — 1999
14.38
1.6
0.1347
I
11.90
0.26
in press
Species average
0.05
Striped
Roman et al,,
Sachuest Point — 1997
: 0.70
1.6
0.6054
1
18.18
0.04
killifish
submitted 2000
to Restoration
Ecology
Roman et al..
Sachuest Point — 1998
0.17 .
1.6
0.6054
1
18.18
0.01
submitted 2000
to Restoration
Ecology
Roman et al.,
Sachuest Point - 1999
0.55
1.6
0.6054
1
18.18
0.03
submitted 2000
to Restoration
Ecology
Roman et al.,
Sachuest Point — 1998
0.01
1.3
0.6054
1
1.00
0.01
submitted 2000
(lift net)
to Restoration
Ecology
Roman et al.,
Sachuest Point — 1999
0.01
1.3
0.6054
1
1.00
0.01
submitted 2000
(lift net)
to Restoration
Ecology
Raposa pers
NERR — Prudence (si.
; 2,40
1.6
0.6054
1
19.23
0.12
comm 2001
Coggeshal! — July 2000
Striped
Raposa pers
NERR — Prudence Isl
0.53
1.6
0.6054
1
19.23
0.03
killifish
comm 2001
Coggeshal! — Sept. 2000
Raposa,
Galilee Marsh — 1997
I 4.35
1.6
0.6054
1
11.90
0.35
m press
Raposa,
Galilee Marsh — 1998
; 3.50
1.6
0.6054
t
11.90
0.28
m press
F5-19
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port F: Brayton Point Chapter F5; HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table F5-19: Final Estimates of the Annual Increase in Production of Age 1 Equivalent Fish per Square Meter of Restored Tidal Wetland for Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Wouid Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration (cont.)
Species
Source of Initial
Species Density
Estimate
Sampling Location
and Date'
Reported/Calculated
Species Density
Estimate per rn! of Tidal
Wetland
12.40
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
1.6
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
0.6054
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
1
Sampling Time
and Location
Adjustment
Factor
11.90
Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per in2
of Restored Tidal
Wetland1"
1,01
Striped
killifish
Raposa,
in press
Galilee Marsh — 1999
Species average
0.19
" Sampling results are based on collections using 1 m2 throw traps unless otherwise noted,
k Calculated by multiplying the initial species density estimate by the sampling efficiency, life stage, and restored habitat service flow adjustment factors and dividing by the sampling
time and location adjustment factor.
c Values of 0.00 presented in the table have an abundance of less than 0.005 fish per so do not appear in the rounding of results for purposes of presentation.
F5-20
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of XAE Losses
F5-5.3 Estimates of Increased Age 2 Fish Production from Artificial Reef
Development
Constructing reefs of cobbles or small boulders was the preferred restoration alternative for tautog because, they generally
favor habitats with interstices that provide forage and shelter from predators. Information for tautog on the annual average
I&E losses for the period 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations at Brayton Point is presented in Table F5-20.
Table F5-2Q: Species with Quantified Age 1 Equivalent I&E Losses at Brayton Point that Would Benefit
Most from Artificial Reef Development
Species
Annual Average l&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalents (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
Percentage of Total l&E Losses
•cross All Fish Species
Tautog
31,379
0.80%
Total
31,379
0.80%
EPA could not find any studies that provided direct estimates of increased tautog production resulting from artificial reef
development. Therefore, EPA used available tautog abundance estimates in reef habitats as a proxy for production. The
following subsections present these abundance estimates along with the adjustments made to convert life stages to age 1
equivalents and to account for habitat and sampling influences on the reported abundance estimates.
F5-5.3.1 Species abundance estimates in artificial reef habitats
Juvenile finfish survey at Patience Island and Spar Island, Rhode Island
The Rhode Island juvenile frnfisb survey samples 18 locations once per month from June through October using a 60 m long
beach seine that is approximately 3 m deep/wide. Among the sampled locations are two artificial cobble habitats, Spar Island
and Patience Island, that have the highest average tautog abundance estimates (fish per square meter) of the 18 locations for
the 1990-2000 period (personal communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001).
These average abundance estimates are presented in Table F5-21.
Table F5-21: Tautog Abundance Estimates from the Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey at the Two
Locations with the Highest Average Values for the Period 1990-2000
Species
Fish Density Estimates in Nearshore Cobble Reef Habitats
Sampling : (r,sh per m!)
Technique : ¦ :
Patience Island Spar Island
Tautog
beach seine 0.028 0.031
F5-5.3.2 Adjusting artificial reef sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA made sampling efficiency, life stage conversion, and restored versus
undisturbed habitat adjustments to production estimates for artificial reef habitats. These adjustments are discussed below.
Sampling efficiency
EPA incorporated the same sampling efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 for the tautog abundance estimates developed from
the Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey as was used in the sampling efficiency adjustments from this survey for winter
flounder. The 2.0 adjustment factor represents the bottom range {cost reducing assumption) of a seine net's sampling
efficiency (50 percent), based on the judgment of the current staff of Rhode Island's coastal pond fish survey (personal
communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
F5-21
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5 HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Conversion to the age 1 equivalent life stage
The information used to develop life stage adjustment factors for juvenile tautog to age I equivalents is presented in Table
F5-22.
Table F5-22: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Brayton Point Tautog — Artificial Reef
Species
; Oldest Life Stage before Age 1 ;
in the EAM
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
: Sampled Life
Stage
Estimated Survival Rate
for Juveniles to Age 1
Tautog
: juvenile
0.0131
juvenile
0.0131
Adjusting for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
EPA incorporated an adjustment factor of 1,0 because no available information suggested that artificial reefs are used
substantially less than natural reefs by tautog and/or that significant delays in the use of artificial reefs follows their
emplacement. To the extent lower levels of tautog use or delays in such use do occur with artificial reefs, incorporating an
adjustment factor of 1.0 represents a cost-reducing assumption..
F5-5.3.3 Final estimates of increases in age 1 production for artificial reefs
Table F5-23 presents the final estimates of annual increased production of age 1 equivalent tautog, based on the average
across all sampling efforts, that would result from artificial reef emplacement.
Table F5-23: Final Estimates of Annual Increased Production of Age 1 Equivalent Tautog per Square Meter of
Artificial Reef Developed
Species
Source of Initial \ ! flL"1?""8
„ . r, . : Abundance Efficiency
Spec,es Density ; ; Adjustm/nt
Estimate ; (fish/n,1 reel) ; Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored vs.
Undisturbed
Habitat Adjustment
Factor
Expected Age 1
Increased
Production (fish per
nr artificial reef)
Tautog
RI juvenile finfish 0.028 2.0
survey, 1990-2000: ;
Patience Island
0.0131
1.0
0.001
RI juvenile finfish : 0.031 2.0 0.013!
survey, 1990-2000; :
Spar Island I
1.0
0.001
Species average
0.001
F5-5.4 Estimates of Increased Species Production from Installed Fish Passageways
A habitat-based option for increasing the production of anadromous species is to increase their access to suitable spawning
and nursery habitat by installing fish passageways al currently impassible barriers (e.g., dams). The anadromous species
impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that would benefit most from fish passageways are presented in Table F5-24, along
with information on their annual average I&E losses for the period 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations.
Table F5-24: Anadromous Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Would Benefit Most from
Fish Passageways
Species
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
Percentage of Total l&E
Losses across All Fish Species
Rainbow smelt
50,784
1.30%
Alewife
| 9,315
0.24%
White perch
2,297 ;
0.06%
Total
62,396
1.59%
F5-22
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part f: Brayton Point
F5-5.4.1 Abundance estimates for anadromous species
No studies provided direct estimates of increased production of anadromous fish attributable to the installation of a fish
passageway. Thus, EPA based increased production estimates on abundance estimates from anadromous species monitoring
programs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, combined with an estimate of the average increase in suitable spawning habitat
that would be provided upstream of the current impassible obstacles following the installation of fish passageways.
Anadromous species abundance in Massachusetts and Rhode Island spawning/nursery habitats
Information on the abundance of anadromous species in spawning/nursery habitat in Massachusetts was available only for a
select number of alewife spawning.runs in the area around the Cape Cod canal, including locations in Massachusetts Hay and
Buzzards Bay (personal communication, K. Rebaek, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Alewife abundance
information was also available for the spawning runs at the Gilbert Stuart and Nonquit locations in Rhode Island. These runs
are almost exclusively alewives, despite being reported as runs of river herring (i.e., blueback herring and alewives; personal
communication, P. Edwards, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The size of these alewife runs
and the associated abundance estimates (number of fish per acre) in available spawning/nursery habitat are presented in Table
F5-25.
Table F5-25: Average Run Size and Density of Alewives in Spawning Nursery Habitats in Select
Massachusetts Waterbodies
Waterbody
Average Alewife Run Size
(number of fish)
I Average Number of Fish per Acre of
Spawning/Nursery Habitat
Back River (MA)
(12 year average)
373,608
766
Mattapoisett River"
(12 year average)
66,457
90
Monument River (MA)
(12 year average)
; 367,521
811
Nonquit system (RI)
(1999-2001 average)
192,173
951
Gilbert Stuart system (RI)
(1999-2001 average)
311,839
4,586
Average across all sites presented
1,441
Average without Mattapoisett River
1,778
" The Mattapoisett River is currently in recovery and production has been increasing in recent years (personal communication,
K Reback. Massachuset Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001).
The Mattapoisett system has low spawning habitat utilization by alewives because of continuing recovery of the system
(personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Therefore, the Mattapoisett River
values were omitted. This raised the production estimates for Fish passageways and reduced the restoration costs for
implementing sufficient fish passageways.
Average size of spawning/nursery habitat that would be accessed with the installation of
fish passageways
Anadromous fisheries staff in Massachusetts revealed that approximately 5 acres of additional spawning/nursery habitat
would become accessible for each average passageway installed (personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). This estimate reflects the fact that previous projects have already provided access to
most of the available large spawning/nursery habitats.
FS-23
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Bray ton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
F5-5.4.2 Adjusting anadromous run sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA considered a number of adjustment factors. However, information was much
more limited upon which to base these adjustments. Adjustments to convert returning alewives to age 1 equivalents and to
account for sampling efficiency were not incorporated {i.e., assumed to be 1.0) because of a lack of information. In addition,
nothing suggested a basis for adjustments based on differences between existing and new spawning habitat accessed via fish
passageways or a lag in use of spawning habitat once access is provided, so EPA used an adjustment factor of 1.0.
F5-5.4.3 Final estimates of annual age 1 equivalent increased species production
The density of anadromous species in their spawning/nursery habitat, the average increase in spawning/nursery habitat from
installation of fish passageways, and adjustment factors are presented in Table F5-26 in providing final estimates of the
expected increase in production of age 1 equivalent fish for anadromous species that are impinged or entrained at Brayton
Point and that would benefit most from installation of fish passageways.
Table F5-26 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish for Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that
Would Benefit Most from Installation of Fish Passageways
Species
Source of Initial
Species Density
Estimate
Species Density
Estimate in
Spawning/Nursery
Habitat
(fish per acre)
Number of Additional
Spawning/Nursery
Habitat Acres per New
Passageway
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
New vs.
Existing
Habitat
Adjustment
Factor
Calculated Annual
Increase in Age 1
Fish per New
Passageway
Installed*
Rainbow
smelt
Unknown
Alewife
Mattapoisett River
— (K. Reback MA
DMF pers. comm,
2001)
90
5 1
1
452
Monument River —
(K. Reback MA
DMF pers. comm,
2001)
811
5 i 1
1
4,054
Back River— (K.
Reback MA DMF
pers. comm, 2001)
766
5 1
1
3,828
Nonquit river
system —
(P. Edwards, RI
DEM, pers comm,
2001)
951
5 1
1
4,757
Gilbert Stuart river
system — (P.
Edwards, Ri DEM,
pers comm, 2001)
4,586
5 1
1
22,929
Species average (excluding Mattapoisett River)"
8,892
White
perch
Unknown
' This value is the product of the values in the five data fields. Species density estimates rounded for presentation.
b As previously noted, the Mattapoisett results are excluded in calculating the species average for alewife because the low density
estimates are attributable to the system recovering from previous stressors.
F5-24
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F; Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HftC Valuation of IAE Losses
F5-5.5 Estimates of Remaining Losses in Age 1 Fish Production from Species
Without an Identified Habitat Restoration Alternative
Some species lost to I&E at Bray ton Point do not benefit directly and/or predictably from SAV restoration, tidal wetland
restoration, artificial reef construction, or improved passageways because the species are pelagic, spawn in deep water, or
spawn in unknown or poorly understood habitats. The species impinged or entrained at Brayton Point that fall into this
category are listed in Table F5-27, along with their annual average l&E losses for 1974-1983 adjusted for current operations.
Table F5-2T; Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point that Lack a Habitat Restoration Alternative
Species
Average Annual I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalent Organisms (1974-1983
adjusted for current operations)
Percentage of Total I&E Losses
for All Finfish or Shellfish Species
Seaboard goby
: 1,513,836
38.65%
Bay anchovy
; 1,237,140
31.59%
American sand lance
i 453,236 ;
11.57%
Hogchokcr
I 47,116
1.20%
Atlantic menhaden
i 13,146 ;
0.34%
Windowpane
i 8,689 ;
0.22%
Silver hake
: 5,775 ;
0.15%
Butterfish
: 278 :
0.01%
Total
3,279,216 ;
83.73%
Despite the magnitude of I&E losses for these species, it was beyond the scope of this Section 316(b) HRC analysts to
develop quantitative estimates of the increased production of age 1 fish for these species through habitat restoration
alternatives.
F5-6 Step 6: Scaling Preferred Restoration Alternatives
The following subsections calculate the required scale of implementation for each of the preferred restoration alternatives for
each species. The quantified l&E losses are divided by the estimates of the increased fish production, giving the total amount
of each restoration needed to offset I&E losses for each species.
F5-6.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Scaling
The information used to scale SAV restoration is presented in Table F5-28.
Table F5-28; Scaling of SAV Restoration Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted
for current
operations)
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per
100 m' of Revegetated Substrate
(rounded)
Number of 100 m1 Units of
Revegetated SAV Required to
Offset Estimated Average Annual
I&E Loss
Scup
509
0.08
6,638
Threespine stickleback
3,385
11.23
301
Weakfish
1,092
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
6,638
F5-25
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayfori Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-6.2 Tidal Wetlands Scaling
The information used to scale tidal wetland restoration is presented in Table F5-29.
Table F5-29: Scaling of Tidal Wetland Restoration far Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted
for current operations)
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per mJ ;
of Restored Tidal Wetland
(rounded)
Number of m2 Units of Restored
Tidal Wetland Required to Offset
Estimated Average Annual
I&E loss*
Winter flounder
520,715.
0.05
10,274,236
Atlantic silverside
17,112
0.05
343,237
Striped killifish
572
0.19 ;
3,031
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
10,274,236
* A restored wetland area refers to an area in a currently restricted tidal wetland where invasive species (e.g., Phragmites spp.)
have overtaken salt tolerant tidal marsh vegetation (e.g., Spartina spp.) and that is expected to revert to typical tidal marsh
vegetation once tidal flows are returned. Waterways adjacent to these vegetated areas are also included in calculating the potential
area that could be restored in a tidal wetland.
F5-6.3 Reef Scaling
The information used to scale artificial reef development is presented in Table F5-30. As expected, the very low productivity
estimate for tautog derived in Section F5-5.3 translates to enormous artificial reef construction needs to offset I&E losses
from a single species comprising only 0.8 percent of total I&E losses at Brayton Point. This result may be correct, but further
investigation of potential tautog productivity at reefs is warranted.
Table F5-30: Scaling of Artificial Reef Development for Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
; Annual Average l&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
: (1974-1983 adjusted for
current operations)
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per m! of
Artificial Reef (rounded)
Number of m: Units of Artificial Reef
Surface Habitat Required to Offset
Estimated Average Annual I&E Loss
Tautog
: 31,379
0.001
40,915,621
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
40,915,621
F5-6.4 Anadromous Fish Passage Scaling
The information used to scale fish passageway installation is presented in Table F5-31.
Table F5-31: Scaling of Anadromous Fish Passageways for Species Impinged or Entrained at Brayton Point
Species
] Annual Average I&E Loss of
Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1983 adjusted for
current operations)
Best Estimate of Increased Production
of Age I Fish per Passageway Installed
(rounded)
Number of New Fish Passageways
Required to Offset Estimated
Average Annual I&E Loss
Alewife
9,315
8,892
1.05
Rainbow smelt
50,784
Unknown
Unvalued
White perch
2,297
Unknown
Unvalued
Assumed units of implementation required to offset l&E losses for all of these species
1.00
F5-26
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
F5-7 Unit Costs
The seventh step of the HRC valuation is to develop unit cost estimates for the restoration alternatives. Unit costs account for
all the anticipated expenses associated with the actions required to implement and maintain restoration. Unit costs also
include the cost of monitoring to determine if the scale of restoration is sufficient to provide the anticipated increase in the
production of age 1 fish per unit of restored habitat.
The standard HRC costing approach generally develops an estimate of the amount of money that would be required up front
to cover all restoration costs over the relevant timeframe for the project. Hence, HRC accounting procedures generally
consider interest earnings on money not immediately spent, and also factor in anticipated inflation for expenses to be incurred
in the future. EPA used HRC costs as a proxy for "benefits" which are then compared to costs in the cost-benefit analysis
chapter. Therefore, the Agency reinterpreted the standard HRC costing approach to make it consistent with the annualized
costs used in the costing chapter of the EBA.
For this analysis, EPA annualized the HRC costs by separating the initial program outlays (one time expenditures for land,
technologies, etc.) from the recurring annual expenses (e.g., for monitoring). The initial program outlays were treated as a
capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7 percent interest rate. EPA then estimated the present value (PV),
using a 7 percent interest rate, of the annual expenses for the 10 years of monitoring of increased Fish production that are
incorporated in the design of each of the habitat restoration alternatives. This PV was then annualized over a 20 year period,
again using a 7 percent interest rate. This process effectively treats the monitoring expenses associated with the habitat
restoration alternatives consistently with the annual operating and maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic
impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. The annualized monitoring costs were then added to the annualized cost of the
initial program outlays to calculate a total annualized cost for the habitat restoration alternative.
The following subsections present the cost components for the habitat restoration alternatives in this HRC along with the
estimates of the annualized costs for implementation costs (i.e., one-time outlays), monitoring costs, and implementation and
monitoring costs combined (all costs presented in year 2000 dollars).
F5-7.1 Unit Costs of SAV Restoration
EPA expressed annualized unit cost estimates for 100 m2 of SAV habitat to provide a direct link to the increased fish
production estimates for SAV restoration based on information from a number of completed and ongoing projects. The
following subsections describe the development of the annualized implementation and monitoring costs for SAV restoration.
F5-7.1.1 Implementation costs
Save the Bay has a long history of SAV habitat assessment and restoration in Narragansett and Mount Hope Bays. A Save the
Bay SAV restoration project begun in the summer of 2001 involved transplanting eelgrass to revegetate 1-6 m1 of habitat at
each of three sites in Narragansett Bay. EPA used cost information from this project to develop unit cost estimates for
implementing SAV restoration per 100 m2 of re vegetated habitat.
Save the Bay's cost proposal estimated that $93,128 would be required to collect and transplant eelgrass shoots from donor
SAV beds over 48 nr of revegetated habitat. These costs include collecting and transplanting the SAV shoots to provide an
initial density of 400 shoots per revegetated square meter of substrate. Averaged over the 48 m2 of habitat being revegetated,
this provides an average unit cost of 51,940 per m2. The unit costs comprise the following categories:
~ labor; 70.7 percent (includes salaried staff with benefits, consultants, and accepted rates for volunteers)
~ boats: 15.2 percent (expenses for operating the boat for the collecting and transplanting)
~ materials and equipment: 9.6 percent
~ overhead: 4,6 percent (calculated as a flat percentage of the labor expenses for the salaried staff).
Contingency expenses were set at 10 percent ($ 194 per m2). The costs of identifying and evaluating the suitability of
potential restoration sites were set at 1 percent ($ 19 per m2). No costs were added for maintaining the service flows provided
by the project, because SAV restoration requires little direct maintenance.
FS-27
-------
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Costs were also adjusted to account for natural growth and spreading from the original transplant sites to the bare spots
between transplants (Short et al., 1997). For example, Dr. Frederick Short (University of New Hampshire's Jackson
Estuarine Laboratory) planted between 120 and 130 TERFS (Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely with Frame Systems), each 1
mJ, in each acre of seabed to be revegetated at a SAV restoration site (personal communication, P. Colarusso, U.S. EPA
Region 1, 2002). Assuming complete coverage over time, this results in a ratio of plantings to total coverage of between I ;31
(130 1 m2 TERFS / 4,047 m: per acre) and 1:34(120 1 m2 TERFS / 4,047 m2 per acre).
However, the initially bare areas between transplants do not revegetate immediately and the unit costs need to be adjusted
accordingly. Therefore, EPA assumed that the area covered with SAV would double each year. Under this assumption, the
entire restoration area would be completely covered with SAV in the sixth year of the restoration project. Using the habitat
equivalency analysis (HEA) method (Peacock, 1999), the present value of the natural resource service flows from the SAV
over the 6 year revegetation scenario is 90 percent of that provided by a scenario where the entire restoration area is
instantaneously revegetated with transplanted shoots.1 Therefore, EPA applied 90 percent of the 1:34 planting-to-coverage
ratio, or 1:30 as an adjustment factor to Save the Bay's cost estimates to account for the expected spreading from transplanted
sites to bare areas in a SAV restoration area. Table F5-32 presents the components of implementation unit cost for SAV
restoration, incorporating this adjustment ratio in the last step.
Table F5-32: Implementation Unit Costs for SAV Restoration
Expense Category
Cost per mJ of SAV Restored
Cost per 100 m1 of SAV Restored
Direct restoration
(shoot collection and transplant)
$1,940 ;
SI 94.000
Contingency costs
(10% of direct restoration)
: $194 ;
SI 9,400
Restoration site assessment (1 % of direct
restoration)
i $19 ;
$1,900
Subtotal without allowance for distribution of
transplanted SAV shoots
; $2,154 ;
$215,400
Discounted planting to coverage ratio for
transplanted SAV
! 30:1 !
30:1
Final implementation unit costs
i $71.80 :
$7,180
Annualized implementation unit costs
: S6.76
$676
F5-7.1.2 Monitoring costs
SAV restoration monitoring improves the inputs to the HRC analysis by quantifying the impact of the SAV restoration on fish
production/recruitment in the restoration area, and the rate of growth and expansion of the restored SAV bed, including
whether areas need to be replanted. The most efficient way to achieve both of these goals would be for divers to evaluate the
number of adult fish in the habitat and the vegetation density, combined with throw trap or drop trap sampling of juvenile fish
using the habitat (Short et al., 1997). Diver-based monitoring minimizes damage to sites, expands the areas that can be
sampled, and increases sampling efficiency compared to trawl-based monitoring (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001).
Save the Bay provided hourly rates for the divers and captain (personal communication, A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001), and
the daily rate for the boat was based on rate information from NOAA's Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole
(personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, 2001). Because SAV monitoring costs will be significantly affected by the size,
number, and distance between restored SAV habitats, large areas can be covered in a single day only when continuous
habitats are surveyed. Smaller, disconnected habitats will require much more time to cover. Therefore, total monitoring costs
are somewhat unpredictable. Unit costs for monitoring were therefore assumed to be equal to the initial per unit revegetation
costs in terms of the up front funding that would be required to cover the 10 years of monitoring (i.e., $7,180). Under the
typical HRC costing construct this was equivalent to a per unit monitoring expense in the first year of $787. This simplifying
assumption is unbiased (i.e., it is not known or expected to over- or underestimate costs). The summary of the available SAV
monitoring costs and the calculated annualized per unit monitoring cost based on an assumed annual expense of $787 per unit
are presented in Table F5-33.
1 The HEA method provides a quantitative framework for calculating the present value of resource service flows that are
expected/observed to change overtime.
F5-28
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Table F5-33: Estimated Annual Unit Costs for a SAV Restoration Monitoring Program
Annual Expenditures
Expense Category
Quantity Daily Rate
Total Cost
Monitoring crew
3 (2 divers and boat captain/assistant) $268
$804
Monitoring boat
I $150
$150
Total daily rate
$954
Assumed annual cost for SAV monitoring per 100 m2 restored habitat
$78?
Annualized monitoring cost per 100 nr restored habitat
$557
F5-7.1.3 Total submerged aquatic vegetation restoration costs
Combining the annualized unit costs for implementation and monitoring, the total annualized cost for a 100 m2 unit of SAV
restoration is $ 1,234 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
F5-7.2 Unit Costs of Tidal Wetland Restoration
Many different actions may be needed to restore flows to a wetland site, and project costs can vary widely, depending on the
actions taken and a number of site-specific conditions (e.g., salinity levels at proposed restoration sites). These issues are
addressed in the following subsections, which present the development of the unit costs for tidal wetland restoration.
F5-7.2.1 Implementation costs
Costs for restoration of tidally restricted marshes depend heavily on the type of restriction that is impeding tidal flow into the
wetland and the amount of degradation that has occurred as a result. Possible sources of the restriction in tidal flow include
improperly designed or located roads, railroads, bridges, and dikes, all of which can eliminate tidal flows or restrict tidal
flows via improperly sized openings. A compilation of tidally restricted salt marsh restoration projects in the Buzzards Bay
watershed (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 2001a) describes restrictions and costs to return tidal flows to
over 130 sites. These cost estimates include expenses for project design, permitting, and construction, and are estimated on a
predictive cost equation that was fitted from the actual costs and budgets for a limited number of projects (Buzzards Bay
Project National Estuary Program, 2001).
Staff involved in the Buzzards Bay assessment provided the current project database, which includes the following
information (personal communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001):
~ nature of the tidal restriction
~ estimated cost to address the tidal restriction
~ size of the affected tidal wetland (in acres)
~ acreage of the Phragmiies in the tidally restricted wetland.
Public agencies undertook some of the work in the projects used to develop the cost estimation equation for the tidally
restricted wetlands in the Buzzards Bay watershed. Because the costs from public agencies are generally lower than market
prices (i.e., the price for the same work if completed by private contractors), EPA adjusted the cost estimates upward by a
factor of 2.0, consistent with the adjustment recommended in the report (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program,
2001) and discussions with project staff and others involved with tidal wetlands restoration programs in the area (personal
communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001; personal communication, S. Block, Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs - Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001),
The adjusted total project costs from the Buzzards Bay project database were then divided by the reported acres of
Phragmites in the wetland to calculate the cost per acre for restoring tidally restricted wetlands where Phragmiies had
replaced the salt tolerant vegetation characteristic of a healthy tidal wetland (sites with no reported acres of Phragmites were
FS-29
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part p: Brayton Point
Chapter F5; HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
eliminated from consideration).2 Table F5-34 summarizes costs based on the cost factor {an input in the cost estimation
equation), type of restriction found at the site, and the number of Phragmites acres at the location. An alternative summary of
these projects is presented in Table F5-35, where the projects are organized by acres of Phragmites at the site, not the current
tidal restriction.
Combined, Tables F5-34 and F5-35 show significant variability in the per acre costs for tidal wetland restoration. Therefore,
EPA incorporated the median cost of $71,000 per acre of tidal wetland restoration into the HRC valuation and calculation of
the unit cost for tidal wetland restoration. Table F5-36 presents the final per acre implementation costs for tidal wetland
restoration and the annualized equivalent implementation cost incorporated in this HRC. These costs include the median per
acre restoration cost of $71,000 and a $750 per acre fee to reflect the assumed purchase price for this type of land based on
the experience of purchases of similar types of land parcels by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's
Land Acquisition Group (personal communication, L, Primiano, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
2001).
2 The adjustment of reported costs upward by a factor of 2.0 was made solely to reflect expected cost differences between private
contractors and public agencies that might perform the work required to restore fall tidal flows. Additional site specific factors, such as
salinity levels, that may affect project eosts by influencing the types of actions taken and/or the time to successful restoration of typical
tidally influenced wetland vegetation at a project site have not been incorporated in this adjustment process.
F5-30
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part R Broy+ori Point
-
Chapter F5: HRC Volua+ion of ME Losses
Table F5-
34: Salt Marsh Restoration Costs
Restriction
Structure Class
Cost
1 Factor
Phragmites
i Acres ;
Number
of Sites
Cumulative
Phragmites
Acreage
across Sites
Average
Phragmites
Acreage
Total Private \
Cost" |
Average Cost per
Phragmites Acre
Restored
Minimum Cost
per Phragmites
Acre Restored
Maximum Cost per
Phragmites Acre Restored
culvert
0.5
:acres < 1 I
16
6,59
0,41
$335,357 i
$50,889
$17,921
$578,081
culvert
0.5
: 1 < acres < 5 ;
u
20.37
1.85
$242,496 i
$11,903 "
$3,242
$71,045
culvert
0.5
5 < acres < 10 :
1
8.56
8.56
$20,825 :
52,434
$2,434
$2,434
dike
0.5
jacres < 1 j
1
0.35
0.35
$13,211 ;
$38,073 i
$38,073
$38,073
road
0.5
; 1 < acres < 5
!
1.67
1.67
$19,116 ;
$11,447
$11,447
$11,447
culvert
1
;acres < 1
31
13.26
0,43
$1,797,450 :
$135,585 ^
$21,518
$10,490,647
culvert
i 1 < acres < 5 ;
23
46.02
2.00
$1,225,745 ;
$26,633 !
$5,312
$84,770
culvert
; 5 < acres <10
2
16.43
8.22
5248,878 !
SI 5,144
$9,898
$22,608
culvert
: 10 < acres < 25 ;
2
41.97
20.99
$91,451
52,179 ;
$1,919
$2,449
dike
10 < acres < 25 |
1
12.00
12.00
$6,053,000 ;
$504,417
$504,417
$504,417
fill
'acres < i
1
0.12
0.12
$31,142
$251,146 i
$251,146
$251,146
road
;acres < 1 :
1
0,10
0.10
$29,396
$293,958 .
$293,958
$293,958
road
: 1 < acres < 5 ;
1
2.31
2,31
$35,231
$15,265
515,265
$15,265
wall
;acres < 1
2
0.96
0.48
5148,819 ;
$154,697 i
$25,661
$5,936,752
bridge
; 3
; acres < 1
8
5.12
0.64
$21,208,029 ;
$4,140,576 !
$184,170
$13,418,293
bridge
: 3
'. 1 < acres < 5
12
27.32
2.28
$27,704,691 :
$1,014,192
$184,048
53,663,062
bridge
i 3
• 5 < acres < 10
2
11.01
5.51
$6,606,000 i
$599,946
$399,746
$800,545
bridge
! 3
i 10 < acres < 25
8
103.49
12.94
$92,094,000 i
$889,883 ;
556,300
$3,300,250
bridge
1 3
:25 < acres < 50
4
157.28
39.32
58,262,000 !
$52,529 :
$22,882
$105,968
bridge
! 3
: 50 < acres
1
113.00
113.00
: $6,163,000 .
$54,540
$54,540
$54,540
railroad
! 4
:acres < 1
1
0.41
0.41
1 $66,841 i
$163,826 ;
$163,826
$163,826
railroad
: 4
: 1 < acres < 5
3
361
1.20
1 $1,078,692 ;
$298,476 ;
$208,033
$13,418,293
' Private costs were estimated by multiplying reported project costs by an adjustment factor of 2.0 to approximate the expense if all work was completed by private contractors.
F5-31
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Broyton Point
Chapter F5 HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table F5-35- Average per Acre Cost of Restoring Phragmites in Buzzards Bay Restricted Tidal
Wetlands, by Size Class of Site
Phragmites Acres
Number of |
Sites
Cumulative
Acreage
Average
Acreage
; Total Private Cost
; Average Cost per Phragmites
Acre Restored (from total
cost and acres)
acres < 1
61
26.91
0.44
; $23,630,245
i $878,121
1 < acres < 5
51 :
101.31
1.99
$30,305,971
; $299,153
5 < acres < 10
s ;
36.00
; 7.20
16,875,703
: $190,992
10 < acres <25
ii
157.46
; 14.31
i $98,238,451
| 5623,895
25 < acres < 50
4
157.28
39.32
$8,262,000
i $52,529
50 < acres
1 ;
113.00
: 113,00
; $6,163,000
$54,540
Total
133
591.96
4.45
$173,475,370
; $293,053 (median = $71,000)
Table F5-36: Implementation Costs per Acre of Tidal Wetland Restoration Incorporated in the HRC valuation
Implementation Cost Description
Source or Estimate
Cost
Restore tidal flows to restricted areas
Median of adjusted costs from Buzzards ;
Bay project database ;
$71,000
Acquire tidal wetlands
Midpoint of range of paid for tidal ;
wetlands by Rhode Island DEM
$750
Total one time implementation costs
$71,750
Annualized implementation costs
! $6,758
F5-T.2.2 Monitoring costs
Neckles and Dionne (1999) present a sampling protocol, developed by a workgroup of experts, for evaluating nekton use in
restored tidal wetlands. The sampling plan calls for different sampling techniques and frequencies to capture fish of various
sizes in both creek and flooded marsh habitats of a tidal wetland. A summary of these recommendations is presented in
Table F5-37.
Table F5-37: Sampling Guidelines for Nekton in Restored Tidal Wetlands
Sampling Location
Sampling Technique : Sampling Time
Sampling Frequency
Creeks
(for small fish)
Throw traps ; midtide
2 dates in August
Creeks
(for larger fish)
Fyke net ; slack tide
2 dates in August (same as for throw trap
work) and 2 dates in spring
Flooded wetland surface
Fyke net .entire tide cycle
1 date in August
Source: Neckles and Dionne, 1999.
The sampling protocol suggests that one technician and two volunteers can provide the necessary labor. The estimated annual
cost in the first year of monitoring is $1,600. This cost comprises $490 in labor for the three workers over 5 days (3 in
August and 2 in the spring, with 8-hour days, $15 per hour for volunteers, and $30 per hour for the technician). The $1,100 in
equipment costs includes two fyke nets at $500 each and two throw traps at $50 each (Neckles and Dionne, 1999). The
annualized equivalent of these monitoring costs is $1,146 and is applied as a per-acre cost for monitoring in this HRC
valuation.
F5-7.2.3 Total tidal wetland restoration costs
Combining the annualized per-acre implementation and monitoring costs for tidal wetland restoration results in an annualized
per-acre cost for tidal wetland restoration of $7,904. This is equivalent to an annualized cost for tidal wetland restoration of
FS-32
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Bray tan Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
SI.95 per rrr of restored tidal wetland (4,047 itr = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the
estimates of increased fish production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis.
F5-7.3 Artificial Reef Unit Costs
The unit cost estimates for developing and monitoring artificial reefs are based the construction and monitoring of six 30 ft x
60 ft reefs made of 5-30 cm diameter stone in Dutch Harbor, Narragansett Bay (personal communication, J, Catena, N OA A
Restoration Center, 2001). While these reefs were constructed for lobsters, surveys of the Dutch Harbor reef have noted
abundant fish use of the structures (personal communication, K. Castro, University of Rhode Island, 2001).
F5-7.3.1 Implementation costs
The summary cost information for the design and construction of the six reefs in Dutch Harbor, as it was received, is
presented in Table F5-38 (personal communication, J. Catena, NOAA Restoration Center, 2001).
Table F5-38: Summary Cost Information for Six Artificial Reefs in Dutch Harbor, Rhode Island
Project Component
Cost
Project design
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Permitting
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Interagency coordination
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
RFP preparation
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Contract management
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Baseline site evaluation
SI 2,280
Reef materials (600 yd3 of 2-12 in, stone)
$12,000
Reef construction
$35,400
Total
$59,680
EPA converted these costs to cost per square meter of surface habitat. The cumulative surface area of the six reefs, assuming
that the reefs have a sloped surface on both sides, and based on the volume of material used, is approximately 1,024 mJ.
Dividing the total project costs by this surface area results in an implementation cost of $58/mJ of artificial reef surface
habitat with an equivalent annualized implementation cost of $5.49/m2.
F5-7.3.2 Monitoring costs
Monitoring costs for the Dutch Harbor reefs were $140,000 over a 5 year period. Assuming this reflects an annual
monitoring cost of $28,000, the equivalent annual monitoring cost is $27/m2 of artificial reef surface habitat with an
equivalent annualized cost of $19.36/mJ,
F5-7.3.3 Total artificial reef costs
Combining the annualized costs for implementation and monitoring of an artificial reef provides a total annualized cost of
$24,85/m2 which EPA used in the Pilgrim HRC valuation.
F5-7.4 Costs of Anadromous Fish Passageway Improvements
EPA developed unit costs for fish passageways from a series of budgets for prospective anadromous fish passageway
installation, combined with information provided by staff involved with anadromous species programs in Massachusetts and
Rhode Island. The implementation, maintenance, and monitoring costs for a fish passageway are presented in the following
subsections.
F5-33
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
F5-7.4.1 Implementation costs
Projected costs for four new Denil type fish passageways on the Blackstone River at locations in Pawtucket and Central Falls,
Rhode Island, provide the base for the implementation cost estimates for anadromous fish passageways (personal
communication, T. Ardito, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The reported lengths of the
passageways in these projects ranged from 32 m to 82 m, with changes in vertical elevation ranging from slightly more than 4
m to approximately 10 m.
The average cost for these projects was $513,750 per project. The average cost per meter of passageway length was $10,300
and per meter of vertical elevation covered was $82,600. These estimates are consistent with the approximate values of
$9,800 per meter of passageway length and $98,000 per vertical meter suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
regional Engineering Field Office (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). While all
parties contacted noted that fish passageway costs are extremely sensitive to local conditions, EPA used the estimate of
$513,750 as the basic implementation unit cost for installing an anadromous fish passage, assuming the characteristics of the
four sites on the Blackstone River are representative of the conditions that would be found at other suitable locations for new
passageways.
F5-7.4.2 Maintenance and monitoring costs
Maintenance requirements for the Denil fish passageway are minimal and generally consist of periodic site visits to remove
any obstructions, typically with a rake or pole (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001).
Denil passageways located in Maine are still functioning after 40 years, so no replacement costs were considered as part of
the maintenance for the structure. Monitoring a fish passageway consists of installing a fish counting monitor and retrieving
its data.
A new fish passageway would be visited three limes a week during periods of migration (personal communication, D. Quinn,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). Each site visit would require 2 hours of cumulative time during 8 weeks of migration.
Volunteer labor costs of $15.39/hr incorporated in Save the Bay's SAV restoration proposal. Therefore, the annual cost for
labor in the first year would be $740. The cost of a fish counter is $5,512, based on the average price of two fish counters
listed by the Smith-Root Company (Smith-Root, 2001),
F5-7.4.3 Total fish passageway unit costs
In developing the unit costs for fish passageways it is first necessary to combine the expected cost of the passageway itself
with the cost of the fish counter as these are both treated as initial one time costs. This combined cost is 1519,262 which has
an equivalent annualized cost of $48,914. The equivalent annualized cost for the anticipated $740 in labor expenses for
monitoring is $523. The resulting combined annualized cost for a new Denil fish passageway that is incorporated in this HRC
valuation is $49,438 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
F5-8 Total Cost Estimation
The eighth and final step in the HRC valuation is to estimate the total cost for the preferred restoration alternatives by
multiplying the required scale of implementation for each restoration alternative by the complete annualized unit cost for that
alternative. EPA made a potentially large cost reducing assumption: no additional HRC-derived benefits were counted in the
total benefits figures for species for which habitat productivity data are not available. If this assumption is valid, then the cost
of each valued restoration alternative (except water quality improvement and fishing pressure reduction, which were not
valued) is sufficient to offset the I&E losses of all Brayton Point species that benefit most from that alternative. EPA then
summed the costs of each restoration program to determine the total HRC-based annualized value of all Brayton Point losses
(i.e., multiple restoration programs were required to benefit the diverse species lost at Brayton Point),
The total HRC estimates for Brayton Point are provided in Table F5-39, along with the species requiring the greatest level of
implementation of each restoration alternative to offset l&E losses from among those for which information was identified
that allowed for the development of estimates of increased fish production following implementation of the restoration
alternative. Because of the sensitivity of these results to the inclusion/exclusion of the tautog-artificial reef results, total HRC
estimates are presented for both scenarios.
F5-34
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Table F5-39: Total HRC Estimates for Brayton Point I4E Losses
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Species Benefitting from the Restoration
Alternative
Required Units of
Restoration
Implementation*
Units of Measure
for Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
Total
Annualized
Cost
Species
Average Annual
I&E Loss of
Age 1
Equivalents
Restore SAV
Restore tidal
wetland
Scup 509
Threespine stickleback 3,385
Weak fish 1,092
Winter flounder : 520,715
Atlantic silvcrsidc 17,112
Striped killifish 572
6,638
301
Unknown
100 m2 of directly
revegetated substrate
$1,233,50
18,187.978
10,274,236
343,247
3,031
nr of restored tidal
wetland
$1.95
$20,069,076
Create
artificial reefs
Tautog 31,379 40,915,621
rn3 of reef surface area
S24.85
$1,016,911,890
Install fish
passageways
Alewife 9,315 1.00
Rainbow smelt : 50,784 Unknown
White perch i 2,297 Unknown
New fish passageway
$49,438
149,438"
Species not
valued
Seaboard goby
Bay anchovy
American sand lance
Hogchoker
Atlantic menhaden
Windowpane
Silver hake
Butterfish
1,513,836
1,237,140
453,236
47,116
13,146
8,689
5,775
278
Unknown for all Restoration measures
unknown - survival and
1 reproduction may be
I improved by other
: regional objectives
such as improving
: water quality or
i reducing fishing
; pressure if projects can
;be identified and are
: permanent
: improvements.
N/A
N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation
Total annualized HRC valuation excluding Tautog-artificial reefs
$1,045,218,361
$28,306,491
" Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
b Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units.
To facilitate comparisons with the costs of alternative control technologies that could be considered to reduce I&E losses at
Brayton Point, the combined I&E losses are broken down with separate values developed for the losses to impingement and
entrainment (Tables F5-40 and F5-41 respectively).
A result of interest from Tables F5-40 and F5-41 is that the sum of the valuations of the impingement and entrainment losses
is close to the valuation when the I&E losses were combined ($28.6 million versus $28.3 million - excluding the tautog
artificial reef results in both cases). This consistency is not a given when the HRC process is used to address I&E losses
separately from I&E losses combined because different species may drive the scaling of the restoration alternatives when I&E
losses are treated separately (e.g., see the results for SAV restoration in Tables F5-40 and F5-41, where different species drive
the scaling for the impingement and entrainment losses, respectively).
An alternative presentation of the HRC valuation of the I&E losses at Brayton Point is presented in Figure F5-5.
FS-35
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port F: Brcytori Point Chapter F5; HRC Valuation of X&E Losses
Table F5-40: Total HRC Estimates for Impingement Losses at Brayton Point
Species Benefitting from the Restoration
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Required Units of
Restoration
Units of Measure
Total
Annualized
Total
Annualized
: Average Annual
for Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Alternative
Species
l&G Loss of
Age 1
Equivalents
Implementation"
Unit Cost
Cost
Restore SAV
Threespine stickleback
2,732
243
100 m3 of directly
$1,233.50
5299,741
Scup
0
0
; revegetated substrate
Weakfish
600
Unknown
Restore tidal
Winter flounder
13,601
268,362
rrr of restored tidal
$1.95
$524,202
wetland
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
: 9,113
i 572
182,796
3,031
wetland
Create
Tautog
; 1,230
1,603,818
:nr of reef surface area
S24.85
$39,861,098
artificial reefs
Install fish
Alewife
; 8,855
LOO
New fish passageway
$49,438
$49,438"
passageways
White perch
Rainbow smelt
2,297
| 1,278
Unknown
Unknown
Species not
Hogchoker
12,968
Unknown for all
: Restoration measures
N/A
N/A
valued
Bay anchovy
Silver hake
Atlantic menhaden
Windowpane
Butterfish
Seaboard goby
American sand lance
6,090
; 5,773
; 2,623
1,320
: 278
0
0
. unknown - survival and
reproduction may be
improved by other
: regional objectives
¦ such as improving
: water quality or
: reducing fishing
pressure if projects can
be identified and are
; permanent
: improvements.
Total annualized HRC valuation
$40,734,479
Total annualized HRC valuation excluding Tautog-aruficiai reefs
$873,381
" Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
h Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units.
F5-36
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F; Brayton Point
Table F5-41: Tote I HRC Estimates for Entrapment Losses at Brayton Paint
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Restore SAV
Species Benefitting fron
Alternati
Species
Scup
Threespine stickleback
Weakfish
i the Restoration
ve
-* Required Units of
Average Annual Restoration
I&E Loss of Implementation"
Age I
Equivalents
Units of Measure
for Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
Total
Annualized
Cost
509 6,638
653 58
492 Unknown
100 m2 of directly
revegetated substrate
$1,233.50
$8,187,978
Restore tidal
wetland
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifisti
507,144 10,005,874
7,999 160,451
0. 0
m2 of restored tidal
wetland
SI.95
$19,544,873
Create
artificial reefs
Tautog
30,149 39,311,802
m2 of reef surface area
$24.85
$977,050,767
Install fish
passageways
Alewife
Rainbow smelt
White perch
460 0.00
49,506 Unknown
0 Unknown
New fish passageway
$49,438
$0"
Species not
valued
Seaboard goby
Bay anchovy
American sand lance
Hogchoker
Atlantic menhaden
Windowpane
Silver hake
Butterftsh
1,513,836 Unknown for all
1,231,050
453,236
34,148
10,523
7,369
2
0
Restoration measures
unknown - survival and
reproduction may be
improved by other
regional objectives
such as improving
water quality or
reducing fishing
pressure if projects can
be identified and are
permanent
improvements.
N/A
N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation
$1,004,783,618
Total annualized HRC valuation excluding Tautog-amfietal reefs
$27,732,851
" Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold,
h Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units.
FS-37
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Figure F5-5: I4E Overview: Broyton Point Habitat-Based Replacement Costs (annualized cost results)
2. SAV costs
1: threespine stickleback $0.3M/yr
E: stup S8.2M/yr
1 scup S8.2M'yr
2. Tidal wetland restoration costs
I: winter flounder$0.5M/yr
K: winter flounder $19,5M/vr
l&E: winicr Bounder S20. LVl/yr
2. Species for which H KC values not calculated
I: 6 fish species unvalued (29.000 lost per year)
E: 7 lish species unvalued (3.3 million lost per year)
I&E: 8 lish species unvalued (3.3 million lost per year)
1, Age 1 equivalents losses per vear
I: 69.000 fish
E:3.8 million fish
3, Total HRC excluding tautog-artilkial reefs
(lidal wetlands + SAV + fish passage!
I: SO.'JM per vear
E:S27.7M/vr"
I&E; S28JM/vr
F5-38
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Bray+on Point Chapter F5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
F5-9 Conclusions
HRC analyses indicate that the cost of replacing organisms lost to I&E at the Brayton Point CWIS through habitat
replacement is at least $28.3 million, in terms of annualized costs, when the tautog-artificial reef losses are excluded (see note
on the tautog habitat productivity uncertainty in Section F5-5.6). This value is significantly greater than the maximum annual
value of $0.3 million for Brayton Point calculated by summing the maximum annual values for the various components from
the commercial and recreational loss method. Recreational and commercial fishing values are lower primarily because they
include only a small subset of species, life stages, and human use services that can be linked to fishing. In contrast, the HRC
valuation is capable of valuing many and, in some cases, all species and life stages, and inherently addresses all of the
ecological and public services derived from organisms included in the analyses, even when the services are difficult to
measure or poorly understood.
Data gaps, time constraints, and budgetary constraints prevented this HRC valuation from addressing most of the aquatic
organisms lost to I&E at Brayton Point. In particular, annual losses of 3.3 million fish comprising 8 species were not included
in this HRC valuation. In addition, when confronted with data gaps EPA incorporated many cost-reducing assumptions. The
Agency used this approach because the purpose of this analysis is an evaluation of potential economic losses from I&E at the
Brayton Point facility and not to implement the identified restoration alternatives. The Agency incorporated these cost-
reducing assumptions to ensure that benefits of various regulatory options would not be over estimated. Actual
implementation of this HRC analysis in terms of restoring sufficient habitat to offset I&E losses at the Brayton Point CWIS is
probably greater, and possibly much greater, than the current annualized estimate of $28.3 million.
F5-39
-------
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Chapter F6". Benefits Analysis for
the Brayton Point Station
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated current I&E at the Brayton Point Station. The
economic benefits that are reported here are based on the
values presented in Chapters F4 and F5, and EPA's
estimates of current I&E at the facility (discussed in
Chapter F3). Section F6-1 summarizes the estimates of
economic loss developed using the benefits transfer (BT)
approach, presented in Chapter F4, and the habitat
replacement cost (HRC) approach, presented in Chapter
F5, Section F6-2 discusses the benefits of potential impingement and entrainment reductions using both the BT and the HRC
approaches. Section F6-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.
F6-1 Summary of Current I&E and Associated Economic Impacts
The flowchart in Figure F6-1 summarizes how the economic estimates were derived from the I&E estimates presented in
Chapter F3 and summarized in Tables F4-2, F4-3, F4-9 and F4-10. Figures F6-2 and F6-3 indicate the distribution of I&E
losses by species category and associated economic values. These diagrams reflect losses with current technologies. All
dollar values and loss percents reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse and
forage species impacts.
The baseline economic loss due to I&E at Brayton Point Station was calculated in Chapters F4 and F5. In Chapter F4, total
economic loss was estimated using a benefits transfer approach to estimate the commercial, recreational, forage, and nonuse
values of fish lost to I&E. This is a demand driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the values that people place on fish. In
Chapter F5, total economic loss was estimated by calculating the cost to increase fish populations using habitat restoration
techniques. This is a supply driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the costs associated with increasing fish populations.
The total annual economic losses associated with each method are summarized in Table F6-1. These values range from
$9,000 to $873,000 for impingement, and from $230,000 to $27.7 million for entrainment. The range of economic loss is
developed by taking the midpoint of the benefits transfer results and the 90th percentile species results from the HRC
approach.
Chapter Contents
""" i
F6-1
Summary of Current I&E and Associated Economic
F6-2
Impacts
Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
F6-1
F6-2
F6-3
Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in
the Benefits Analysis
F6-6
Table F6-1: Total Baseline Economic Loss from IAE (2000$, annually)
Impingement
Entrainment
Benefits transfer approach
(demand driven approach from Chapter F4)a
Habitat replacement cost approach
(supply driven approach from Chapter F5)6
Range
$9,077
$230,001
$873,400
$9,077 to $873,400
$27,732,900
$230,001 to $27,732,900
NA = not yet available.
2 Midpoint of Range from Chapter F4.
b Based on cost to restore 90th percentile species impacted. Note that the lower bound estimates from the HRC
approach reflect restoration of only half the impacted fish species (i.e., the 50th percentile). As such, the low end
values for HRC were not considered in establishing the range of losses.
F6-J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6- Benefits Analysis
F6-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
Table F6-2 summarizes the total annual benefits from I&E reductions, as well as remaining economic losses, under scenarios
ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent reductions in I&E. Table F6-3 considers the benefits of two options with varying
percent reductions of I&E, Table F6-3 indicates that the benefits of one option are expected to range from $2,000 to
$175,000 for a 20 percent reduction in impingement and from $92,000 lo $1 i.l million for a 40 percent reduction in
entrainment. The benefits of another option range from $5,000 to $524,000 for a 60 percent reduction in impingement and
from $138,000 to $16,6 million for a 60 percent reduction in entrainment.
Table F6-2: Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port F: 8 ray ton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Figure F6-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annua! I<&£ at Brayton Point Station and Associated Economic
Values (based on I&E averaged over the period 1974-83 and adjusted for current operations; all results are
annualized)0
Pmductioi
7. Value of nonusc losses
I: S700 {7.7% of $1 loss)
F.: S 15.400 (6.7% of JK loss)
Value of commercial losses
I: 3.200 fish (4.116 lb)
S6.800 (74.7% of $1 loss)
E: 37.700 fish (54.500 lb)
$173,300 (75.4% of $E toss)
5. Value of recreational losses
1: 308 fish (975 lb)
S 1.400 (15.4% of $1 loss)
E: 5.300 fish (15.900 lb)
530.700(13.4% ofSE loss)
6. Value of forage losses (valued
using either replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery vicld)
J: 40.300 fish
5200 < 2.2% of SI loss)
E:3.2 million fish
SI 0.600 (4.6% of SH loss)
2. Age 1 equivalents lost (number offish)'
I; 69.300 fish (40.300 forage. 29,000 commercial arid recreational)
K: 3.8 million fish (3.2 million forage, 605,700 commercial and recreational)
1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc,)'
I; 44.800 organisms
E: 16,7 billion organisms
3, Loss to lisherv (recreational and commercial harvest)'
I: 3.500 fish (5.100 lb)
E:43.000 fish (70.400 lb)
L
8. Habitat replacement cost"
I; $873,000 pervear
E; $27,733,000 per year
" All dollar values are the midpoint of (he range of estimates.
From Table F3-10 of Chapter F3.
* From Tables F4-2, F4-3, F4-9, and F4-10 of Chapter F4,
i Excluding estimated URC costs for artificial reef emplacement, as discussed in Chapter F5.
Note: Species with I&E <1 percent of the total l&E were not valued.
F6-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Figure B6-2: Brayton Point; Distribution of Impingement Losses by Snecies Category and Associated Economic
Values
36.7% Commercial
and Recreational Fish
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
j0% of$/J 11
5.1% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
VALUED as direct loss
commercial and
recreational fishery
(commercial losses are
4.6% of totaI)h
j9QJ% of$!]h
58.2% Forage Fish"
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
P.2% ofSJJ1
Total; 44,800 fish per year (age 1 equivalents)"
Total impingement value: $9,000'"
' Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all ages vulnerable
So the fishery.
* Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values arc 7.7 percent of total estimated $1 loss.
F6-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part R Brayton Point Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
Figure F6-3: Brayton: Distribution of Eritrainment Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic Values
1.1% Commercial and Recreational Fish'
VALUED as direct loss to commercial and
recreational fishery (commercial losses
1.0% of total)b
[88,7%of$E]h
84.3% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED
(valued using
replacement cost
method or as
production foregone to
fishery yield)
[4.6%of$E]b
14.6% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
UNVALUED (i.e., unharvested)
[0% ofSE] b
Total: 16.7 billion fish per year (age 1 equivalents)"
Total entrainment value: $230,000b
" Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all ages
vulnerable to the fishery.
h Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 6.7 percent of total estimated $E loss.
F6-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F= Brayton Point
Chapter F6: Benefits Analysis
F6-3 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits
Analysis
Table F6-4 presents an overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were properly
accounted.
Table F6-4: Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits and HRC Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate
Comments
Used data from 1974-1983 as
baseline for calculating l&E
fipres
Understates benefits"
"here is data suggesting a plant-impacted declining fishery before
985. Therefore numbers based on 1974-1983 may underestimate the'
ull impact that Brayton I&E would have on a healthy fishery.
Long-term fish stock effects not
considered
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Understates benefits"
iPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
ne higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
Understates benefits*
;PA did not analyze how the yearly reductions in fish may make the
tock more vulnerable to other environmental stressors. In addition, as
water quality improves over time due to other watershed activities, the
number of fish impacted by l&E may increase.
Recreation participation is held
constant"
Understates benefits*
Recreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in value per
etivity outing; increased levels of participation are omitted.
Boating, bird-watching, and other
in-stream or near-water activities
are omitted"
Understates benefits"
"he only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
Did not count benefits for
artificial reef installation for the
tautog
Uncertain
As explained above in Section F5-6.3, the available information
uggests very high restoration costs to offset l&E losses for just the
autog, which makes up only 0.8 percent of the l&E losses at Brayton
'oint. This result may be correct, but further investigation of potential
autog productivity at reefs is warranted. Therefore, EPA did not
nclude these values in the HRC total benefits estimate.
HRC based on capture data
assumed to represent age 1 fish
Understates benefits"
ligh percent of less than age 1 fish observed in capture data, thereby
eading to potential underestimate of scale of restoration required.
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Uncertain
EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest relationship (e.g., that a
3 percent change in stock would have a 13 percent change in
andings); this may be low or high, depending on the condition of the
toeks.
Nonuse benefits
Uncertain
iPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
ngling benefits.
Recreation values for various
geographic areas
Uncertain
Some recreational values used arc from various regions beyond the
irayton Point region.
J Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
F6~6
-------
Chopter F7: Conclusions
Chapter F7:
Conclusions
As discussed in Chapter F3, EPA estimates that the cumulative impingement impact of the Brayton Point Station is 69,300
age 1 equivalents or 5,100 pounds of lost fishery yield per year. The cumulative entrainment impact amounts to 3.8 million
age 1 equivalents or 70,400 pounds of lost fishery yield each year.
The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of I&E losses at Brayton Point (as calculated using benefits transfer, in
Chapter F4) indicate that baseline economic losses range from S6.500 to $11,600 per year for impingement and from
$163,400 to $296,600 per year for entrainment (all in $2000).
EPA also developed an HRC analysis to examine the costs of restoring lost impinged and entrained organisms (Chapter F5).
Using the HRC approach, the value of I&E losses at Brayton Point are approximately $873,000 per year for impingement,
and over $27.7 million per year for entrainment (HRC annualized at 7 percent over 20 years, in keeping with estimates for
compliance costs). These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results (from Chapter F4) to develop a
comprehensive estimate of the potential benefits of reducing I&E (summarized in Chapter F6). Benefits were estimated for
different levels of I&E reduction, ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent reductions in l&E. The resulting estimates of the
potential economic benefits of reduced I&E ranged from $5,000 to $524,000 per year for a 60% reduction in impingement
and from $161,000 to $19.4 million per year for a 70% reduction in entrainment (all in $2000).
For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of
reducing I&E at Brayton Point. EPA assumed that the effects of I&E on fish populations are constant over time (i.e., that fish
kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations), EPA also did not analyze whether the number
of fish affected by annual l&E would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality, fishing
restrictions to rebuild depleted stocks, or other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA
also assumed that fishing is the only recreational activity affected.
F7-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Appendix Fl: 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, arid production foregone from l&E data for the Brayton Point facility. Life history data were primarily obtained from
the Brayton Point Permit Renewal Application reviewed by the Brayton Point Technical Advisory Committee (PG&E
National Energy Group, Appendix F, 1999c). If not available in the Permit Renewal Application, the data were compiled
from a variety of other sources, with a focus on obtaining data on local stocks whenever possible. The fishing mortality rates
recommended for stock rebuilding were used, when available. These rates were obtained from the Northeast Fishery Science
Center (NOAA, 2001c).
Table Fl-1:
Alcwife Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality" ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality'
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable :
to Fishery11
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
; 0.544 •
0
o :
0,000022c
Larvae
; 5.5 i
0
0
0.00022*
Juvenile 1
: 2.57 '
0
0
0.00478'
Age 1 +
: 1.04 '
0
0
0.0443"
Age 2+
1.04 ;
0 .
0
0.139*
Age 3+
1.04
0
0 :
0.264'
Age 4+
1.04
0
0
0.386'
Age 5+
1.04
0
o
0.489*
Age 6+
1.04 ;
0
o :
0.568"
Age 7+
i 1.04 j
0
o :
0.626"
Age Si-
1.04 :
0
o :
0.667*
Age 9+
i.04 ;
0
0
0.696'
* PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App Fl-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Appendix F1 Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-2: Atlantic Menhaden Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality*
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable I
to Fishery"
'Weight
(lb)
Eggs
I 1.2
0
0
0.000022®
Larvae
: 4.47
0
0 i
0.00022'
Juvenile 1
: 6.S9
0
0
0.000684'
Age 1 +
\ 0.54
0
: o ;
0.0251"
Age 2+
= 0.45
1.12
0.5
0.235s
Age 3+
0.45
1.12
1
0.4023
Age 4+
; 0.45
1.12
: 1 ! :
0.586*
Age 5+
; 0.45
1.12
1 ;
0.863*
Age 6+-
! 0.45
1.12
i i !
1.08*
Age 7+
; 0.45
1.12
l :
1.27*
Age 8+
i 0.45
1.12
! l
1.43*
* PG&E National Energy Group, 2001,
Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl-3: American Sand Lance Species Parameters
Stage Name
¦ Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality1'
(per stage)
: Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
i 1.41
0
i 0
0.000022*
Larvae
i 2.97
0
; o
0.00022c
Juvenile 1
: 2.9
0
i o
0.00119"
Age 1+
: 1.89
0
! o
0.00384"
Age 2+
0.364
0
i o
0.00733
Age 3+
; 0.364
0
: o
0,0113*
Age 4+
0.364
0
: o
0.0153"
Age 5+
0.364
0
: 0
0.0191*
Age 6+
; 0.364
0
; o
0.0225*
Age 7+
; 0.72
0
i 0
0.0255*
Age 8+
: 0.72
0
i o
0.028*
Age 9+
i 0.72
0
: o
0.0301*
Age 10+
0.72
0
o
0.0319*
Age 11+
0.72
0
o
0.0333s
* PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
" Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
E Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
A pp. Fl-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-4: Atlantic Silverside Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality" Fishing Mortality"
(per stage) (per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.41 0
0
0.000022c
Larvae
5.81 0
0
0.00022'
Juvenile 1
2.63 0
0
0.0049"
Age 1 +
5 3 0
0
0.0205"
Age 2+
6.91 ; 0
0
0.0349*
' PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (200!).
Table Fl-5; Bay Anchovy Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality'
(per stage)
: Fishing Mortality" ;
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.1
0
0 ;
0.000022'
Larvae
7.19
0
0
0.00022'
Juvenile 1
2.09
: 0
0
0.00104*
Age 1 +
2.3
0
0 :
0.0037*
Age 2+
2.3
o
0
0.00765'
Age 3+
2.3
o ;
0
0.0126"
1 PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001 >.
Table Fi-6:
Butterfish Species Parameters
„ N : Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality' ; Fraction Vulnerable
age ame (per stage) (per stage) to Fishery®
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
2.3°
0
o
0.000000002s
Larvae
7.56'
0
o
0.000002s
Age 1 +
0.8'
1.6
0.5
0.02 72"
Age 2+
0,8'-
1.6
1
0.0986h
Age 3+
0,8C
1.6
1
0,944''
* Calculated from survival for Atlantic silverside (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
< NOAA, 2001b.
J NOAA. 2001b. F„ , for Gulf ofMaine - Middle Atlantic,
' Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4,Ox 10"6)*Length(mm):l 26 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
" Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988). Eastern United States.
App. Ft-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values "
Table Fl-7> Hogchoker Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality1*
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable ¦
to Fishery1"
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.04
0
0 i
0.00022''
Larvae
5.2
0
0 1
0.001 lc
Juvenile 1
2.31
0
0 ;
0.00207*
Age 1+
: 2.56
0
0 ;
0.0113"
Age 2+
0.705
0
0
0.0313*
Age 3+
i 0,705
0
0 i
0.061*
Age 4+
| 0.705
0
0 i
0.0976*
Age 5+
0.705
0
¦ 0 i
0.138"
Age 6+
0.705
0
0
0.178"
' PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality,
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001),
Table Fl-8: Rainbow Smelt Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality1
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality1"
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery®
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
4.44
0 0
0.00022d
Larvae
3.12
0
0
0,0011"
Juvenile 1
1.39
0
0
0.00395*
Age 1+
1
0,04
0.5
0.0182'
Age 2+
1
0.04
1
0.046'
Age 3+
1
0.04
1
0.085"
Age 4+
I
0.04
1
0,131'
Age 5+
1
0.04
1
0.18*
Age 6+
1
0,04
1
0.228'
" PG&E National Energy Group, 2001,
' Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977.
c Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
J Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-9: Scup Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality'
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
(»)
Eggs ;
1.43
0
0
0.00022c
Larvae
4.55
0
0
0.001 lc
Juvenile 1
3.36
0
0
0.028"
Age 1+
0.383
0 :
0
0.132"
Age 2+
0.383
0
0
; 0.322»
Age 3+ ;
0.383
0.
4
0.5
0.572'
Age 4+ .
0.383
0.
4
1
0.845"
Age 5+ ¦
0.383
0.
4
1
1.12*
Age 6+ :
0.383
0.
4
1
: 1.3?"
Age 7+ |
0.383
0.
4
1
; 1.59*
Age 8+
0.383
0.
4
1
1.78"
Age 9+ ;
0.383
0.
4
1
1.94'
Age 10+
0.383
0.
4 :
1
2.07*
Age 11+
0,383
0.
4
1
2.23*
2 PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b NOAA, 2001c. F„, for Southern New England - Middle Atlantic.
' Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fl -10: Seaboard Goby Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality"
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality* ;
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
0.288
0
0
0.000022b
Larvae
4.09
o ;
0
0.00022"
Juvenile 1
2.3
o
0
; 0.000485*
Age 1+ I
2.55
o
1
| 0.00205*
" PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-11: Silver Hake Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality (per !
stage)
Fishing Mortality4
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl -13
Tautog Species
Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality* ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality"
(per stage)
: Fraction Vulnerable I
to Fishery5
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.4
0
0 !
0.0022d
Larvae
5.86 :
0
0
0.02^
Juvenile 1
5.02 ;
0
o ¦
0.0637'
Age 1+
0.175
0
; o ;
0.217*
Age 2+
0,175 :
0
: 0 j
0.44s
Age 3+
0.175 i
0
: o
0.734*
Age 4+
0.175 ;
0
i o i
1.08*
Age 5+
0.175
0
i o i
1.48'
Age 6+
0.175
0
o
1.89"
Age 7+
0,175
0
: 0
2,32'
Age 8+
0.175
0
0
2.76'
Age 9+
0.175
0.15
: 0.5 ;
3.18'
Age 10+
0.175
0.15
3.6"
Age 11+
0,175 :
0.15
i I :
4"
Age 12+
0.175 ;
0.15
; 1 :
4.38*
Age 13+
0,175
0.15
: 1 :
4.73*
Age 14+
0.175 :
0.15
5.07*
Age 15+
0,175
0.15
5.38*
Age 16+
0.175 :
0.15
¦ 1 ;
5.67*
Age 17+
0.175
0,15
1
5.94*
Age 18+
0.175 :
0.15
: 1 ;
6.19*
Age 19+
0,175
0.15
1 :
6.42*
Age 20+
0.175
0.15
i :
6.63*
Age 21+
0.175 :
0.15
i i !
6.82*
Age 22+
0.175
0.15
6,99*
Age 23+
0.175 :
0.15
: 1 !
7.15*
Age 24+
0.175 :
0.15
10*
3 PG&E National Energy Group, 2001,
k Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000h. FmgI,t.
' Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
a Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part p Brayton Point
Appendix Fli Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-14: Threespine Stickleback Species Parameters
,,, : Natural Mortality
Stage Name , . J
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality*
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"
Weight
(lb)
Eggs 0.288
0
0
0.00022s
Larvae ! 2.12
0
0
o.ooi r
juvenile 1 1.7
0
0
0.00377"
Age 1+ : 1.42
0
0
0.00917"
Age 2+ 1.42
0
0
0.0112*
Age 3+ 1.42
0 : 0
0.0116*
* PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
k Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table Fi -15: Weokfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality* ; Fishing Mortality'
(per stage) ; (per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.04 : o
0
0.000022c
Larvae
7.67 i 0
0
0.065*
Juvenile 1
2.44 i 0
0
0.13=
Juvenile 2
1.48 ! 0
0
0.195*
Age 1 +
0,349 j 0,5
0.1
0.26*
Age 2+
0.25 ; 0.5
0.5
0.68"
Age 3+
0.25 1 0.5
1
1.12'
Age 4+
0.25 j 0.5
1
1.79"
Age 5+
0.25 j 0,5
1
2.91"
Age 6+
0,25 ; 0.5
1
6.21*
Age 7+
0.25 0.5
1
7.14"
Age 8+
0.25 1 0.5
1
9.16"
Age 9+
0.25 : 0.5
1
10.8"
Age 10+
0.25 i 0.5
1
[2.5°
Age 1 i+
0.25 ; 0.5
1
12,5"
Age 12+
O
vt
O
1
12.5"
Age 13+
0.25 ? 0.5
1
12.5"
Age 14+
0.25 5 0.5
1
12.5'
Age 15+
0.25 0.5
1
12.5"
" PSEG, 1999c.
" Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000d. Management goal,
c Assumed based on data in PSEG (1999c).
App. Fi-8
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part F: Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl -16: White Perch Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality*
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.42
0
0 !
0,00022c
Larvae
4.59
0
0 :
0.001 lc
Age 1 +
0.693
0
0 i
0.0516'
Age 2+
0.693
0
0 :
0.156"
Age 3+
0.543
0.15
0.5 i
0.248"
Age 4+
0.543
0.15
1
0.331"
Age 5+
1.46
0.15
1
0.423'
Age 6+
1.46
0.15
1 :
0.523" ¦
Age 7+
1.46
0.15
1 ;
0.613"
Age 8+
1.46
0.15
1 ;
0.658*
Age 9+
1.46
0.15
1 |
0.794'
* PG&E National Energy Group, 2001,
6 Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
c Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
Table F1 -17: Windowpane Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality1"
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable |
to Fishery1
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.41
0
0 i
0.0011*1
Larvae *
6.99
0
0 :
0.00165d
Juvenile 1
2.98
0
o !
0.00223'
Age 1 +
0.42
0
o
0.0325"
Age 2+
0.42
1.6
0.25
0.122a
Age 3+
0.42
1.6
0.61
0.265"
Age 4+
0.42
1.6
1
0.433*
Age 5+
0.42
1.6
1
0.603*
Age 6+
0.42
1.6
1
0,761*
Age 7+
0.42
1.6
1
0.899"
Age 8+
0.42
1.6
1
1.01'
Age 9+
0.42
1.6
1
1.11'
Age 10+
0.42
1.6
1
1.19*
* PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b NOAA, 2001c, FlariCI for Southern New England - Middle Atlantic,
c USGcn New England, 2001.
4 Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-9
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part R Brayton Point
Appendix Fl: Life History Parameter Values
Table Fl-18: Winter Flounder Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality*
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality1'
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable 1
to Fishery1 ;
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
; 0.288
0
0 |
0.0022d
Larvae 1
2.05
0
0
0.00441'1
Larvae 2
; 3.42
0
0
0.011"
Larvae 3
• 3.52
0
: 0 i
vb
r*-
o
o
Larvae 4
; 0.177
0
0 ;
0.022d
Juvenile 1
i 2.38
0
1 o 1
0.033*
Age 1 +
i '¦!
0.24
0.01
0.208*
Age 2+
; 0.924
0.24
: 0.29 :
0.562=
Age 3+
; 0.2
0.24
0.8 |
0.997"
Age 4+
: 0.2
0.24
0.92 i
1.42'
Age 5+
: 0.2
0.24
0.83
1.78"
Age 6+
i 0.2
0.24
0,89 ;
2.07'
Age 7+
: 0.2
0.24
0.89
2.29"
Age 8+
; 0.2
0,24
0.89 1
2.45*
Age 9+
! 0.2
0.24
0.89 i
2.57"
Age 10+
: 0.2
0.24
0.89 j
2.65'
Age 11+
: 0.2
0.24
0,89
2.71"
Age 12+
| 0.2
0.24
0.89 i
2.75*
Age 13+
0.2
0.24
0.89 i
2.78"
Age 14+
; 0.2
0.24
i ' 0.89 |
2.8*
Age 15+
| 0.2
0,24
i 0.89 ;
2.82"
Age 16+
i 0.2
0.24
: 0.89 ;
2,83"
' PG&E National Energy Group, 2001.
b NOAA, 2001c. Fujgc, for Southern New England - Middle Atlantic.
c Colarusso, 2000.
d Assumed based on data in PG&E National Energy Group (2001).
App. Fl-10
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6- Seabrook and Pilgrim
Part &• Seabrook and Pilgrim
Facilities Case Study
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabroox arid Pilgrim
Chapter 61: Background
Chapter G1
This report presents the results of an evaluation of two
New England coastal facilities, the Seabrook Nuclear
Power Station in Seabrook, New Hampshire, and the
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth,
Massachusetts, The facilities are located in the same
ecological region, but differ in the locations of their
CWIS: Seabrook's intakes are located over 1 mile
offshore, in relatively deep waters, whereas the Pilgrim
intakes are located nearshore in an artificial embayment
created by the construction of a series of breakwaters.
Section G1-1 of this background chapter provides brief
descriptions of the facilities, Section Gl-2 describes the
environmental setting, and Section GI-3 presents
information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the
areas near each facility.
: Background
Chapter Contents
Gl-I
Overview of Case Study Facilities
.Gl-1
Gl-2
Environmental Setting
G1-3
Gl-2.1 Gulf of Maine
Gl-3
G 1-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
GI-3
Gl-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
Gl-4
G1 -3
Socioeconomic Characteristics
Gl-5
G 1-3,1 Major Industries
Gl-5
G 1-3.2 Commercial Fisheries
Gl-5
Gl-3,3 Recreational Activities
,, .01-19
Gl-1 Overview of Case Study Facilities
Seabrook facility
The Seabrook facility is a two-unit 1240 MVV nuclear power
generating station (Normandeau Associates, 1999) located in
southeastern New Hampshire just over the state line from
Massachusetts and approximately 15 miles south of
Portsmouth, New Hampshire (Figure Gl-1). Seabrook is
situated 3.2 km (2 mi) inland from the Atlantic coast on 364
hectares (889 acres) of land, 202 hectares (500 acres) of which
are wetlands.
Commercial operation of the Seabrook station began in 1990.
Seabrook had 840 employees in 1999 and generated 8,7 million
MWh of electricity.' Estimated revenues in 1999 were $932
million, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of
8.2 million MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity
revenues of $113.42 per MWh. Seabrook's 1999 production
expenses totaled almost $182 million, or 2.101 cents per kWh,
for an operating income of $750 million.
Both Seabrook generating units use pressurized-water reactors
and are equipped with a circulating water system for
condensing steam back to feedwater (Normandeau Associates,
1999). The circulating water system uses 5,000 m (17,000 ft)
long pipes to draw ocean water from Ipswich Bay via intakes
2,000 m (7,000 ft) offshore at a depth of 18 m (60 ft), Each
intake is equipped with a 9 m (30 ft) diameter velocity cap to regulate the intake flow. The normal flow at the Seabrook
facility is 811 MGD with a velocity of 0.5 fps. Once used, water in the cooling system is discharged through diffuser nozzles
back into the Atlantic Ocean 1,700 m (5,500 ft) from the plant (New Hampshire Yankee Electric Company, 1986),
Ownership Information
Seabrook is a regulated utility plan operated by North
Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, a subsidiary of
Northeast Utilities
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter &V, Background
Pilgrim facility
The Pilgrim facility is a 670 MW nuclear power plant on the northwest shore of Cape Cod Bay on Plymouth Bay (Entergy
Nuclear General Company, 2000). The facility is about 61 km (38 mi) southeast of Boston and 71 km (44 mi) east of
Providence, Rhode Island (Figure Gl-1).
Figure Gl-1: Locations of the New England Coastal Case Study Facilities
New
Brunswick
• Cities
II Facilities
Quebec
CANADA
US
Seabrook
Power Plant
Ins
Boston
* Yi
Pilgrim
Power Plant
() e e a ii
25
Commercial operation of the Pilgrim station began in 1972, In 1998, Pilgrim generated 5.7 million MWh of electricity.
Estimated 1998 revenues for the Pilgrim plant were $597 million, based on the plant's 1998 estimated electricity sales of 5,3
million MWh and the 1998 company-level electricity revenues of $112.00 per MWh. Pilgrim's 1998 production expenses
totaled $143 million, or 2.503 cents per kWh, for an operating income of $454 million,2
2 Pilgrim was sold to Entergy Nuclear, a nonutility, in July of 1999. Therefore, the FERC Form-1 data presented in this section are
not available for 1999.
G1-2
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part <3; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Pilgrim uses a boiling water reactor to produce steam and a once-through cooling system that draws its water from Plymouth
Bay directly offshore from an embayment created when the facility constructed a series of breakwaters. The cooling system
uses two pipes with an intake capacity of 224 MGD. The intake structure consists of wing walls, a skimmer wall, vertical bar
racks, and vertical traveling screens to remove aquatic organisms* and small debris. The intake approach velocity just before
the screens is 1 fps (ENSR, 2000).
Table Gl-1 summarizes the plant characteristics of the Seabrook and Pilgrim power plants.
Table Gl-1: Summary of Seabrook and Pilgrim Plant Characteristics
Seabrook (1999)
Pilgrim (1998)
Plant EIA Code
6115
1590
NERC Region
NPCC
NPCC
Total Capacity (MW)
1,240
670
Primary Fuel
Uranium
Uranium
Number of Employees ;
840
670*
Net Generation (million MWh)
8.7.
5.7
Estimated Revenues (million dollars).
932
597
Total Production Expense (million dollars)
182
143
Production Expense (£/kWh)
2.101
2.503
Estimated Operating Income (million dollars)
750
454
Notes: NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council
NPCC = Northeast Power Coordinating Council
Dollars are in 12001.
' 1996 data.
Source: Form EIA-860A (NERC Region, Total Capacity, Primary Fuel); FERC Form-1 (Number of Employees, Total Production
Expense); Form EIA-906 (Net Generation).
Gl-2 Environmental Setting
<51-2,1 &u\f of Maine
The Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities are both on the Gulf of Maine, an area bounded to the south and east by tall underwater
landforms called "banks" that form a barrier to the North Atlantic. The western and northern boundaries to the Gulf of Maine
are defined by the coastlines of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.
The Seabrook facility is located on the Browns River near a salt marsh estuary, about 2 miles inland from the coast. The
estuary is formed by the confluence of several waterways, including the Hampton, Browns, and Blackwater rivers and Mill
Creek. Approximately 10% of the estuary is open water, and the remainder is salt marsh. Hampton Harbor, which is located
at the mouth of the Browns River, is a shallow lagoon, roughly 1.9 km (1.2 mi) wide by 2.4 km (1.5 mi) long, behind the
barrier beaches at Hampton and Seabrook (Nonnandeau Associates, 1994b).
The western shore of Plymouth Bay near the Pilgrim facility is a mix of sand beaches, bluffs, and boulder outcroppings
(Kelly et al., 1992). The mouth of the Plymouth Bay estuary is approximately 6.4 km (4 mi) northwest of the Pilgrim facility.
61-2,2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
The aquatic community near the Seabrook facility is typical of that found in the northeastern United States waters
(Normandeau Associates, 1999). The submerged rock surfaces near Seabrook support rich and diverse communities of
attached algae and animals that are a rich food source for more than 30 fish species that use the area as a nursery as well as
for rearing and forage. Several fish species found in the coastal waters near Seabrook support commercial and recreational
fisheries, such as winter flounder (Plewonectes americanus), yellowtail flounder (Limandaferruginea), Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua), Atlantic mackerel {Scomber scombrus), and Atlantic herring (Clupea harengus). Forage fish such as Atlantic
silverside {Menidid menidia) are also present in these waters.
Gl-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6- Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter &V. Background
The part of Cape Cod Bay where the Pilgrim facility is located is a zoogeographic boundary, marking the distributional limits
for many marine organisms (Kelly et al., 1992). Many species typically associated with the seasonally warmer waters south
of Cape Cod, e.g., spotted hake (Urophycis regius), oyster toadfish (Opsanus tau), and rainwater killifish {Lucania parva),
occasionally move north into Cape Cod Bay in mid- to late summer. However, most northern species, e.g., rainbow smelt
(Osmerus mordax), Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), and rock gunnel {Pholis gmnellus), rarely extend into the waters
south of Cape Cod Bay (Able and Fahay, 1998),
SI-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
a. Habitat loss and alteration
The areas surrounding the Pilgrim and Seabrook facilities have long been inhabited, and support a wide range of human
activities. As a result, there has been significant habitat alteration and loss because of wetlands draining/filling for
construction of residential and commercial structures, as well as alterations to subaquatic habitats by fishing and onshore
residential and industrial activities (e.g., laying of discharge pipes). One common alteration relates to the restriction of tidal
flows to tidal wetlands through diking or the construction of roadways with improperly sized culverts among other causes. In
these areas, as the tidal flows have been diminished or eliminated, the formerly salt-tolerant vegetation characteristic of a tidal
wetland were colonized-by less salt tolerant species, notably Phragmiies australis, a tall reed grass that is native to New
England. Phragmiies grows in dense monoculture stands that reduce the ability of the habitat to support aquatic and
terrestrial species.
b. Introduction of non-native species
There are concerns over the introduction of non-native species into the coastal habitats of Massachusetts through ship ballast
water (MIT Sea Grant, 2001). One species that recently colonized southern Massachusetts waters is Hemigrapsus
sanguineus, a crab native to the western North Pacific. 11. sanguineus eats a variety of algae and animals, including juvenile
clams, and affects the local ecology by competing for food and habitat space with native crab species, although it may also
serve as a food source for larger animals (MIT Sea Grant, 2001).
Other invasive species include bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) and saltspray rose (Rosa rugosa) (Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences, 2001).
c. Overfishing
Based on trends in catch and fishing effort, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) believes that the dominant factor
affecting New England's commercial fish stocks is overfishing (NMFS, 1999b). NMFS statistics show that standardized
trawl effort for groundfish in the Gulf of Maine approximately doubled from 1976 to 1988, yet fishermen saw a decline in
landings and catch per unit effort during that period (Townsend and Larsen, 1992). The changes in commercial fish stocks
brought about by overexploitation also have consequences for the noncommercial and recreational fish species.
d. Pollution
The large population and residential and industrial development near the Pilgrim and Seabrook facilities are a source of
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, which plays a major role in adversely affecting the quality and productivity of the nearby
waters. When rainwater and snowmelt run over farm fields, city streets, timberland, and lawns, other pollutants such as soil
sediments, fertilizers, sewage, and pesticides are picked up and deposited into surface water. Contaminated rainwater often
runs directly into coastal waters such as salt marshes and estuaries, impairing water quality and reducing the productivity of
coastal habitats. Because estuaries serve as the breeding grounds for fish and other wildlife, commercial fisheries are
ultimately affected by NPS pollution (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1994).
One of the most costly consequences of coastal NPS pollution is the closing of shellfish beds because of excessive fecal
coliform counts. Between 1980 and 1994, shellfish bed closings increased dramatically, many the direct result of NPS
pollution from septic systems and from domestic and farm animals (Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management,
1994). Finally, the increase in nutrients entering shallow coastal ecosystems (NBEP, 1998) associated with NPS are seen as
the most widespread factor altering the structure and function of aquatic systems by causing increased macroalgal biomass
and growth. For example, the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve on Cape Cod has experienced a particular
problem with increases in seaweeds, which have decreased the areas covered by eelgrass habitats. Eelgrass serves as a
primary source of food, shelter, and spawning habitat for an abundance of marine life, including economically important
fmfish and shellfish species such as winter flounder, tautog (Tautoga onilis), bluefish (Pomatomus saltaior), quahogs or hard
clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), bay scallops (Argopecten irradians), soft-shelled clams (Mya arenariaI, and blue crab
(Callinectes sapidus Rathbun) (NBEP, 1998).
61-4
-------
Chapter SI: Background
61-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
In 2000, Rockingham County, where the Seabrook facility is located, had a population of 277,359, a home ownership rate of
75.6%, and a median household income of $54,161 (Table Gl-2, U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). In 2000, Plymouth County,
where the Pilgrim facility is located, had a population of 472,822, a home ownership rate of 75.6%, and a slightly lower
median household income than Rockingham County (Table Gl-2; U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
Table 61-2: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Rockingham County, New Hampshire and Plymouth County,
Massachusetts. Data from 2000 Except Where Shown.
Rockingham County
Plymouth County
Population
; 277,359
472,822
Land area (square miles)
695
661
Persons per square mile
; 399.1
715.3
Median household money income (1997 model-based estimate)
$54,161
549,165
Persons below poverty (%, 1997 model-based estimate)
5.1%
S.6%
Housing units
113,023
181,524
Home ownership rate
75.6%
75.6%
Households
104,529
168,361
Persons per household
2,63
2.74
Households with persons under 18 years (%)
38.1%
; 39.1%
High school graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
137,833
232,060
College graduates, persons 25 years and over (1990 data)
41,547
61,614
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
(51-3.1 Major Industries
Tourism is a significant economic factor in the region near the Seabrook facility. The population around Seabrook typically
doubles in the summer months (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002). Other economic activities in the area include
plastics, shoe, and furniture manufacturing, and metal fabrication. Most companies are small, with the largest employing
1,000 people. Total industrial employment is about 3,000 (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002),
The town of Plymouth, near the Pilgrim facility, has relatively little industrial activity (State of Massachusetts, 2002); only
approximately 1% of the land in the town is classified as commercial or industrial. Plymouth, however, is a major tourist
destination, with beaches and the nearby attractions of Plymouth Rock and Plymouth Plantation, which mark where the
Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts and portray life in their initial colony.
G 1-3.2 Commercial Fisheries
Commercial fishing in New Hampshire has generated between $ 10.0 and $ 14.9 million of revenue per year for the past 10
years (personal communication. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver
Spring, MD, 2002). Tables Gl-3 and Gl-4 show the pounds harvested in New Hampshire and the revenue generated for
commercial fisheries from 1990 to 2000. Atlantic cod was the most important commercial fish species, constituting 33% of
the catch and 25% of the revenue. American lobster (Homarus americanus) was 14% of the catch by weight, but a greater
portion of the revenue at 40%. Other commercially important species were spiny dogfish shark (Squalus acanthias), pollock
(Pollachius virens), Atlantic herring, bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), American plaice (Hippoglossoides platessoides), white
hake (Urophycis tenuis), yellowtail flounder, and shrimp.
Commercial fishing in Massachusetts generated between $206 and $306 million in revenue per year between 1990 and 2000
(personal communication, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring,
MD, 2002). Tables GI -5 and GI -6 show the pounds harvested in Massachusetts and the revenue generated for commercial
fisheries from 1990 to 2000. Sea scallop is the most important commercial species by revenue, constituting 5% of the catch
and 25% of the revenue. American lobster was 6% of the catch and 22% of the revenue. Atlantic herring was 17% of the
catch but only 1% of the revenue. Atlantic cod was 14% of the catch and 11% of the revenue. Other commercially important
species are goosefish (Lophius americanus), bluefin tuna, winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, spiny dogfish shark, skates
(Rajidae), and ocean quahog clam.
Gl-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabroak and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Table SI-3: Commercial Fishing Landings in New Hampshire, 1990-2000 (pounds)
Year
SpeCI68._ I 1990 H'mi'Z.CIJW2rxi 'T'1994[H 1995 i 1996 j 1997 ; 1998 ; 1999 j 2000"~i Tota'
Alewife i | i 9,802 j 2,676 i : i i ; 25,994 j j j 38,472
Bass, striped j 37 i j • ; ] ! j ! ¦ i 33 i i 70
Blueflsh ' '7 7 T 'l91^15 T .,27,197 ^ I 228,048 '"[[ 162,622'^ J^27p6o "[ 187,006 ^ 159,833 '[" 62,524""[ 16,691 |""'l2^I29"" {"" 23,92?'"*["l',452,312'"
Bonito, Atlantic ' • ! • • 25 I • '¦ • I 25
Butterfish[ [[ ^ j ''207 ! 472 ! 151 j I ^,975 j 283 j 285 j 731 [" 8,269 j 722 j" 7,335 "1 24,430
Clam, Atlantic surf : 9,010 i \ I I l \ l \ 1,088 j j 10,098
Cod, Atlantic 7' ['3,774,4551 4,649,553' j'"3,608.230'[ 2.961,523' 1 3,014,58i'j 2,764,418'[*2,789,942 [*2,003,1*71 [!,•490,755 [ 350,017 ' | i,'756,330 i"29J62,975"
Crab, Atlantic rock j i I j j 1 24 j i 18 j I I ! i 142
Crab, green '"[ i ; j 3,515 1 j j" [ j j j : ! 3,515
Crab,jonah ; [ 1 j [' 4,500 I j [ 828,403 [" 571,780" [' 207*199 * [ '518,093""[*2,129,975""
Crabs ['*206,616 "[ 42,500 ; 254,091 "[' 170,828" [ 232,014 "['"120,888 " [ 22,395 ["298,544 ' j" 187,175 '[' 457,728 " j 1,046 i 1^993,825
Cunner" ["[' i ; ; j | 367 j 816 ! 576 I 98 ' " j 129 ! 58 1 78 i 2,122
Cusk : 127^928 I 79,864 "" 158^833 ; 67,401 "7" 87,000 'T 102,772 ]""l2l,230' T 'l*07,783 1 "72,278 " !' 40^863 81,181" T uO^m"
J, , ; ' ! ¦ ' ! : ! !¦• ? ! ; ! :
Dory, American john • • • 3 ¦ • i • • : 3
Eel, American j ; ; 285 : 1,384 "" j I ! ! j 423 ! j ! 2,6*92
Eel,conger ;' "502 : 3 1 ""74 j .1 j ""65 ! 39 ; 1,555 ; 103 ; ; ! 2,341
Finfishes unc bait and animal:" 151,625 "[' 395,365 "' "77,456 "['" ! ?" 130,492 ' 43 : ! " 7'i'o j | ' 755,691 "'
food* i ;••;••• •
Finfishes unc for food* " [ 3.309 I '" K162 30 [ 5,155 [ 408,738 : 144,750 [ 234,791* 1 11 5^236'"["300,714 "110,101": 500 1,324,486'
Finfishes une spawn* | 210 [' "527 ; 60 : 1,083" : ; | ! ; | ; ; ' !<8R<)
Flatfish ; 121 ! 55 [ '[" : 2,004 ' ; ; | 37 ! | [' 2,217'
Flounder, summer 20 : 87 14 ! " I 1 I : : 121
Flounder, window-pane ; 7,720 i" 11,795"""4^070 4,093 i 1,713 : 1,760 : " 915 [" "242 " i 387" j 890 ; 1,656 : "35,24'i""
Flounder, wiiiter [' 184,306* 1*161,841 " V * 125^714" [" 8 5,869 ;""80,684 " :""63J29 [' 61,857 ; *30,429 *[" 29,878 "'[" *14,659 ": ' 32,276 "" [" *87*1,242 " '
Flounder, witch ["*71^62 [ *61,788 '["'57^481 [ 59,653 [sejdeT 40,099 [* "34,230 * "["" 35,1*37 * [' *37,944"";" 42,109 ^ ["*104,717 [ *600,426 [
Flounder, yellowtail [ 180^150 [ 196,817"T 129^435 [ 91,9i5l [" 101,8*15 *"[' 124,764 * [' 139,655 '["89,144 " : 61,683 ' [' *95,999 "[ 192,552' I 1,403,915 [
Goose-fish [ 265^089 [ 249^,677 T 266^296 [ 299,776 [ 557,014 [ 935,609 T 996,702 [ 939,124 * ["820,732 * ["1,385,138 [i,872,520* [ "8,587,677**"
Haddock [ 36^057 "[* *40,643 ;""26,b3l"*"; 19^279 [ 19,129 "[" 34^245 [ 24,118 1 29,98iB [ 44,132 "[' *73,579 " '[' 134*301 "'['*481^502*''"
Hagfishes" * "*j ; *"1 j *"'[ ; j [** *8,196 | ^ '"**: ['[['j[[ ."[[:[[J»19(S[[''
Hake, Atlantic red/white* [''343^565 "['*271^280 "['**23,231 \ 8^881 [" 15,068*'"[ " 11^294 "["*3^511* ( 36^629 ] 6,600 i 13,153 ; 30,545 j 790,757
Hake, red 298* 1 834 !" *48,985 !*"*46,455*'"T"'67,312 *"[""31,909 ! i 6 ; \ 1,429 ! j 197,228
Hake, silver [" ['*227,073 ""["172,558 '*185J88 '['mI^W"' ['202,935'T" 194!300 "["242^ I(J8,042 *['243,807' [[358,296 [[2,404,604'*
Hake, white | 1,521* " i' *154,323 T" 632.807'"[ "288^419 ""539,539** ['*481,092"["305,029 | 284,588 [ 193,670 | 630,078 ; 705,446 ; 4,216,512
Haiibut, Atlantic | 848; | 1,133 : 858 j *453 ! 210 * " : 802 " j 924 i 2,395 \ 1,566 ] 2,523 ! 9,552 I 21,264
Herring, Atlantic ["36^000"! 381,070 T *562,413""[ 774^292 [ 435,200^"[ *323^894' [ 33^655 i 152,431 I 260,463 : 2^42,736 ; 5,581,880 i 11,316,034
Lobster, American' [il65830": i',802'B'5Ti',529a92'n j"*i',834,794']"*i,632,829" [ i,414,368" ['i, 194,653 [ 1,380,714 '['1,157^41*1'*16,948,924*
Lump fish ; ; | j ! ! 48 | U002* *"[ * 7,476 "": *" 35 ; •" [[ *[[*[[*[[8,561** *[
Mackerel, Atlantic ['*49,645 [ "*13,659" [ "l 02,264*'"[' 44,898 [ "47^990' "[ "45,812 " [ "27,784[ [ * 10,539 [[ "*18,985 "*[[ 21,350[ [[ 7,620.[[i [[390,546 ['
Mantis shrimps ¦ ; ; ; ; ; J_ 236 ; ; 236
GI-6
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6; Seabrook and Pilgrim _ Chapter 61: Background
Table 61-3: Pounds of Commercial Fishing Landings in New Hampshire, 1990-2000 (pounds) (cont.)
_ . ; Year ;
peCCS i 1990 ; 1991 ; 1992 ; 1993 s 1994 7 1995 ; 1996 T~ 1997 ; 1998 I 1999 j~ 2000 1 ta
Menhaden, Atlantic \ 264,500 j 204,000 j 25,920 j 3,710 \ i | j j 9 I ~ j 498,139
Mussel, blue ! i i ; • • I i 15 i I : 115
Piaice, American [[ [ 206,52q[[[i80,850 [[ 352^115 "["32(6,775'"["321,442'"[ 294,089"';' 347,054 "["246,328" :""213;i584" "[" 178,326""p"l85*612" r 2^852:,795 "
M T'U62J59'i[T,223 348 [ 1,001,842 ["842,534"j"' 81 g[l30" "^1^290,123 ] i',4i'ij644'[ iV640j980 = 'i[337.440 [' 13,546^195
Pout, ocean ' j 5,396 i 5,577 "[' 12,228 ! 5J30 j 2,016 1,830 ] 3,162 : 2,525 j 1,0(51 1 89 : 278 [ 39,292
Rcdfish or ocean perch" [[l[jUS4[[ [' 42,491"" ; ' 11,953 I 16,228 j ' 18,609 . '["" 19,287 "j "'14,774 " ['" 10,755" T[l6,988'"['"44,897 " [ ' 47,992" ["[275',758'"'
Sandworms i : i ; : i ; 599 • • 599
Scallop sea[[['[ '[ ['[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ [[[[[[['[['] j ! 442 [' ' 256 : 256 j U065 [[[6,887 | i '[[[8,906
Scups or porgies • • I 67 ; • • • ; : 67
Sea raven ; ; j j [ : ; 8,884"" j !" "(5,997 j j 227 ^ 65 ' ;"" 16,173 "
Sea urchins ; 59,800 [" 47,797'"'!" 102,494 "['"46,163""[12,117 f" 4,074 j 10,410 ! 18,337 "1 ["'5^041 792 " [ 307,025
Shad, American ! " 38,206 "["'l8,924"" [' 9,903 " i "6,549 '"[" 28,226" [ 30,561"']""35^56l'" ;'" 25,436""[ "l5,169'" [ "3,674 '5,942 ! 218,151
Shark, porbeagle ¦""[' "640 ""j 125" '[ 397 "[ j ; ; ; !'" 7,804 4,024 " !"" 3,137 16,127 "
Shark, spiny dogfish j 185,175 '] ; 402[l84 [ 1,641,614 [ 2,597J92'[ 2,106^255 [1^79,52:3'[ 1,009J40' ; '1,893,425 [i,242,893"[2,334,497 [ 14,492,498'
Sharks j 2.173 [ 8,868 ["5,566" 1" 6,928 ¦ I!,988: ]"l 1,602 "! 10,463 '[" 6,720 ; 869 [" 1,413 ['"97 '66,687"
Sheepshead { ; ; j j I • ; • 63 ! 63
Shellfish ""! ' ! " ! i : : ! "69,831 "'" 82,635" 152,466 "
Shrimp^ marine other [ 986,194' i'"459,'l4i"'[ 220,733 "! 972,705 T,148,57l' [i,658,588": 1,692,017 ['l",256,950" ] "887,059" ;'"375,86l' '["467>56 '| 10,125,775
•Silver-sides ! j j j 8,888 ! j i : '! ; ^ i" 8,888'"
Skates [ "23,140 ' [" "27,37l"""[ 22,223 [ "20,837 ! "81,877"" :""54,486[ "[ '44^688" '¦ ' 37345''?' 42,'l63 ''[ "57,997 "[ ' 84,709 "; ' 496,836 [
Smelt, rainbow ! i 36 i • • ] 346 ; ; ; ; ; 382
Snail's (conchs) [ ; ; ! ! } 4,544 j 5,867 j 19,620 [' 13,449 ' 2,504 ""[" 274 [[46,258'[
Squid, longfin ! I i ] ! ] ii i j ; ; ; ^12
Squid, northern shortfin : 128 I 208 446 ; i 20 i 3 205 ; 861 • 6,075 i 4,518 • 641 j 13,105
Squids | 810 '" [' 6,838 ! 4,555 ! 5,402 j 4^363 j 896 j 3,202 j 1^626 ; 234 ' ! ^ j [' '[ [ 27,926 ^
Sturgeons I 140 i j i ! : ; : ! ; : 140
Tautog ; 5 ! 63 ; 4 ] : ; | ; | [ | ; 72
Tilefish | f j 172 j 36 | 50 ; : ! !' [['[! ^ i ^6 j ^ [[ ^ 284 ^ ^
Tuna, bluefin [ "62,194 " j""267,853 " [ 'l82,554 "[ 128,603 ] 138323104,648 "T "106,505^'"[" 143,024 [ 170.290 [[""79,480 " ; 8,171 [[[ 1,391,645
Tuna, yellowfin ! ! ; j | 462 j ; ; ; ; ; 462
Wolffish, Atlantic ! 25,409 " ! 17,852 *""22^965 |""l9J17 [ "27,980 ['"40,005 "[""34J49" "[ "31,772 " ["'29,703""j 18,606' "[ "21,674" "[ " 289,832
Total ! 11,457,4231 11,221,73 j" 1" 1 d,'573^26i"I'i"i",363,997 113,200,566! 12,758,694 U j,068,246!'l0.895,7Y2"! 10,172,429 ;'i'i,257",637 ' j7.159,767 j* 131,129,463
" Note: "All annual and monthly landing summaries will return only nonconfidential landing statistics. Federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or other information) that
would allow identification of the data contributors and possibly put them at a competitive disadvantage. Most summarized landings are nonconfidential, but whenever confidential
landings occur they have been combined with other landings and usualty reported as "flnlishes, unc" (unclassified) or "shellfishes, unc." Total landings by state include confidential
data and will be accurate, but landings reported by individual species may, in some instances, be misleading due to data confidentiality (Personal communication. National Marine
Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, 2002)."
G/-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Table SI-4: Revenue from Commercial Landings in New Hampshire, 1990-2000
Year
Species ! : : : ; ! ; : , : : : Total
p L 1990 L I 1992 : 1993 1994 : 1995 1996 ; 1997 : 1998 : 1999 : 21)00 j
Aiewife j : j $4,900. j $576 | j : j ; $3,795 ; j" ; $9,271
Bass, striped i 165 i I ! j i i ! ! ¦ $81 I '• $146
Bluefish" " $52,048 '" ["$33,799"' |"''$6i',352:"' " S62i866S76\030""T" 557^23 j"""f' $44.134' T"$ 16^529 "1 '""$5,794"" | $5,302 "1 $9,493 *' j' '$424,578' "
Bonito, Atlantic ! I ! : • • $15 ! ! ! ¦ $15
ButterFish : $559 j $283 : $117 j j $998 ! $89 • $84 j $479 : 57,434 | $474 j $4,095 "j $14,612 ""
Clam,'Atlantic surf : $4,240 ; : : j j ; j j S3,264 ! : | S7504
Cod, Atlantic : $2,487,035": S3;714,543": S3,169,995 [$2,673,803 [$2,708,000 '[$2,469,878 }$2',143,393 ; $i'^35',94l'"rSK549,945''r $mi73" ;'s'l^07,'l27 I $24,753,833
Crab, Atlantic rock • 1 ! • ¦ $13 ; $60 ; ; ¦ • $73
Crab, green : j j $1,177 j ¦ ; | ! ! | ; : : $1,177
Crab, jonah ' : : : [ $1,800 " | ; [ $386,204 '[" $282,042 [ $121,184 [" $310,854 :"$i,102,084"
Crabs ; "$76,72l" T $13,600 ' "$93,075 "[ "$63,938 " i'"$92,297 ' ; $47^209 " f $12,003' "[ "$166,294 [ "$96,485 "j $249,232 ] ' $621 : " $911,475 [
Cunner ' i ; j $253 i $368 ! $211 ; "$61 r' $51 ! $12 ' $'li : $967
Cusk : $60,516 "': $41,960 [ $79,086 '[' $34,970* [" $48^458 "*["$58,651""': ""$67,616 T $55,859 " [ $41,031" 1[ $28,480[T[s44i975[ *[' $561,602 [
Doty, American john 1 j $3 ] j j | : j j S3
Eel,'American ^ : ' '$430 ' '. $2,076"" j : j | [ ""'$486*'"'" : ^ '"[ ' ' * '[[[[ " [" : $2,992 [
Eel, conger $50 : " $1 " "$23" : : : $12 ! $6 j $i75 S2 : T* f $269
Finfishes unc bait and ; $i2,130 " $31,665 $7,571 = i [ $12,333 $43 i ¦ "'$42 ! ! ! $63,784
animal food" ¦::::::: : : :
Finfishes unc "for food* "$2,498 " ": $835 $22 j $642 ["$36^271 "[" $14,414 : ""$22,813" : "$11,506 ' $35*866 ]" $10,505 '[ $48 ! $135,420
Finfishes unc spawn" $21 : $265 $36 ; $958 : : : i • ! j ; $1,280
Flatfish "$97"'""; $14 ; | j $2,443 *1 ! ['[[! [ ['[ [ [S37*[* [""[[ * ^ [[[[[[[[[[[[[ ;. $2,591 [
Flounder, summer $16 $92 $12 : ! • \ j ; : : $120
Flounder, windowpane *"; $1,682 !""S2.8»'i i SI,548"":" "$i ',85i I $802 j $566 ! $385 : $126 j $213 ! $643 : $1,186*" : " $li,8I3
Flounder^''winter $162',050 '[ $17T^68''[''$134,687" ["$88,709*" ['"S87 jl*4'" $69,353*"]''"$67,9CW""[''$38,368"[[*'"$32;873 [ I* $15,948[[ $31,077 j[ $899,45l[[
Flounder,"witch *:"'$1*33*,673" 1"$103,683"l""$81,856*"['"$92:,267'''j'''*S92,4l59'''j'''$70,496*";"'$59>889""["*$71,419' * [ $64,026"'["$59,375"7 $123,949 f "$953,092'[
Flounder, yeilowtail [ "$'i4l',6i9 ]"*$i8*2,027'*[ $120^017 '[" *$94^436" 1" $t 16^499" 1"$ 137^533"T $129,947 '] $1*10,828 [[ [S70,93l[ [['$92,82l[[[[$194,863[[' $1,391,521*
Goosefish i" $138,990 [ $172,399* [ $139^246 [' $167^584 ["$390^52:8 '[' $74i T $806,147 : " $801,504 "[ $'670,769[[$1,714,930 [$2,714,813 :[$8,458,008[
Haddock [ "$46,939 ["$56,015 ;"*$S,859 T " S32,039"" ]"" X29,983 [" ][" mi85[*:[ $30,081 [[[['$37,153* [[ S59,468[[[ $103,640 [ I [$186,665 [ [[$666,967*
Hagfishes j • •••:]: $2,131 i I : | $2,131
Haice, Atlaiitic reid)wh'ite [ $i26,680 [ $95,079 i $M69 ! $U972 [""$3^366 ; 1^541 :'""$6,250 "1 $7,242 [[[ Sl[418[[[["$2,540*[][[ $5,521**[*[[$259,078*[
Hake, red | $136 ! $281 i $8^81 ! $9^219'" ["$1*3,095*"; S2,760""] j $7 ['['[[[[[[[[[['$!«>[[][[[['[ [[ [[ $33,979 [
Hake, silver f" $76,165 [*"$59,863" ["$79,984 " [""$70,214 "1" $79,3 94 " [" $75^955 T $961832 [" ][' S112 j782_[ j ^ [ S41^, 1*98 *[*][ $107,622 [ [["$130,331' [[ $930,080**
Hake, white | $780 [' $85,015"" [" $269,694'"["'$l'35,008 ["$285,078 "'["'$251,888'* ;'$159,7()8[[[$l59,68o[[[$i'3jlo0o[[$439,574[[ $327,459 [$2,244,884
*Halibut[Atiantic I" "$i*,S54" [" $1,789*" : $2,484 ; $1*331 [[[iH4[[[T[[S2j969[[: [[$2,846 [...56,112 I.... 53,36) : $4,532 j S14,867 i $42,11;9
Herring, Atlantic [ $17,680' T'$25,512"" !' $50,681" *[""$87,085* "[* $44,448*1* "$34,506^"T" $31050 ' ; $14,237 ; $23,754 =$148,278 : $306,139 : $755,370
Lobster,"American :'$4,048,800"r$4,934,205 1 3*5,033,1981 **$5,567,109 T"$51566,2*82 [$6J55,660 [$6,563,641'1" $5,5^45,*775"'|$4J02,353 |s5,:916,818 [$4,933,439 ! $59,467,280*
Liirapfish i ! ! : ! | $5 [ $il6 j $78*1 j $2 | | j $904'[" [
Mackerel,'Atlantic $i 4,638": " $'5,550'"" S251582 '" I"' S20.225 "' 1"" 'S2 i"l 117"$13,360 t""'$7,982 "1 $4,982 ! $7,906''"*! $8,611 ; "$4,039 " :" "$133,992""
• -• — "* • • ! - ' •¦¦¦> •• • • • <—*«- • --j > t - ! !• 1 !
Mantis shrimps ^ ; : : ; j : j ! ! $826 : [ $826
Gl-8
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI; Background
Table Gl-4' Revenue from Commercial Landings in New Hampshire, 1990-2000 (cont.)
Species
1W0
1991
1992
1 1993
1994
1995
1996 ;
1997
1998
1999
2000
1 Total
Menhaden, Atlantic
! $5,880
; $8,160
$1,495
! $557
:
:
$5
i $16,097
Mussel, blue
:
$12 •;
$12
Plaice, American
i $207,794
i $168,885
$314,514
i $350,782
! $385,216
: $350,783
$352,272 !
$301,619 i
$287,411
$200,705 :
$177,285
i $3,097,266
Pollock
j $870,009
| $616,293 i $743,414
: $837,745
: $803,698
! $725,822
$578,714 !
$780,992 :
$969,587
$1,429,949 i
$1,045,078
; $9,401,301
Pout, ocean
! $912
i $870 ; $2,083
i $955
i $343
! $303
$433 i
$354 :
$77 : $24 i
$28
: $6,382
Redfish or ocean perch
! $19,097
i $23,444
$6,750
i $9,606
! 111,685
; $11,835 ; $7,376 !
$6,848 1
$9,502
$20,416 i
$18,892
; $145,451
Sandworms
i
:
$2,138 ;
$2,138
Scallop, sea
:
! $772
! $1,386
$1,271 j
$8,077 !
$50,824
i $62,330
Scups or porgics
i $7)
:
:
:
: $71
Sea raven
i $1,285
i
1749 i
$n
$7
! $2,052
Sea urchins
i $22,876
i $33,457
$49,589
: $26,501
•: $6,648
1 $3,359
$11,604 j
$9,039 ;
516,870 i
$4,852 ;
$1,109
; $176,865
Shad, American
i $6,665
: $4,535
$2,429
i $1,764
$8,850
1 $7,789
$4,794 i
$3,605
$530
$642
i $50,642
Shark, porbeagle
j $709
i $90
$203
;
:
$4,851
$1,812
$1,873
i $9,538
Shark, spiny dogfish
; $21,916
S 50,638
1 $252,983
! $393,548
; $397,812
$189,537 i
$145,723 !
$350,488
$205,577
$604,980
i $2,613,202
Sharks
: $2,273
: $6,920
$3,773
i $4,781
: $8,531
! * $7,937
$5,279 !
$3,099 ;
$470
$566
$127
i $43,756
Sheepshead
:
\
$19
$19
Shellfish
$453,741
$482,436
! $936,177
Shrimp, marine other
: $760,886
i $449,781
$252,492
; $932,247
: $818,524
; $1,420,581
$1,274,983 ;
$1,079,186 ;
$790,976
$281,570
$374,583
; $8,435,809
Silversides
i $4,616
$4,616
Skates
i $1,993
; $2,682
$2,027
i $2,491
: $20,706
i $11,833
$12,054 :
$8,500 :
$8,009
$9,670
$12,987
: $92,952
Smelt, rainbow
$43
$395 !
i $438
Snails (cordis)
:
:
; $1,635
SI,707 i
$6,363 1
$4,192
$630
$139
: $14,666
Squid, longfm
:
.
:
1
$11 ;
; : $11
Squid, northern shortfin
i $49
1 $62 i $140
i , v
; $5
: $2
$76 ¦
$252 j
$2,850
$1,611
$302
I $5,349
Squids
i $211
i $1,735
$1,298
! Si, 507
! $1,084
: $333
$941 ;
$189 !
$58
; i $7,356
Sturgeons
! $117
:
• : i
; i $117
Tautog
i $3
i $36
$2
i
"¦ ! ;
; i
i $41
Tilefish
$292
i S29
i $69
_ $32
! $422
Tuna, bluefin
; $539,490
: 52,232,641
SI,208,612
i $1,299,083
: $1,23 1,522
; $1,197,550
$849,403 i
$1,012,606 !
$856,249 j $498,147
$70,562
i $10,995,865
Tuna, yellowfin
! $1,183
i
] M3.
Wolffish, Atlantic
i $9,075
! $7,309
$8,851
i $6,559
i $9,439
i $14,885
$11,732 :
$12,041 :
$11,684
$6,186
$7,973
! $105,734
Total
i$ 10,076,877!$! 3,290,154
$12,054,527;$ 12,941,155:$ 13,397,832|S14,925,401
$ 13,531,968j $ 12,576,587 ;$ 11,186,324 :$ 12,541,7301$13,950,594;$ 140,473,149
* Note; "All annual and monthly landing summaries will return only nonconfidential landing statistics. Federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or other information} that
would allow identification of the data contributors and poSsibly put them at a competitive disadvantage. Most summarized landings are nonconfidential, but whenever confidential landings
occur they have been combined with other landings and usually reported as "finfishes, uncM (unclassified) or "shellfishes, unc." Totai landings by state include confidential data and will
be accurate, but landings reported by individual speeies may, in some instances, be misleading due to data confidentiality (Personal communication, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, 2002),"
GI-9
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Table SI-5: Commercial Fishery Landings in Massachusetts, 1990-2000 (pounds)
peC'eSi" 1990 1 1991 [ 1992 i 1M3 T 1994 1 1995 j 1996 ! - II j 1998 1 199? ; 2000 i _
Alewife | 20,700 j 20,300 ! 18,700 f 18,900 | [ J j" 180 "] ; P' ]"" 78,780
Amberjack ! : ! ; 22 ; 18 ; 49 ; 1 : i ! 48 ! 139
Argentines j j ; ; : ; ; : ; : 10 : 10
Bass, striped " j 59,729" T "' 235,238 j"'" 2 3 7,059''' i" " 266,573 j" " '206,000 " 751 ',477 j" " 695,935' I''' 784,892 '' j'' g'l 0,Ti 2 i" " 766,237 f 796J 59 : 5,703,4l"l
liluefish * ' ' '"" ' f 1,204^33T' 756,'i57 ""829',586 i" 636,205 j" Vj'97^661 ['''558,603 ' f 906,032" "]""435,78'l f363',885 ""411 074 ; ""282,356 j" "'7,580,773 '
Bonito, Atlantic j 3,734 i 4,285 "" i" 87,063 ' 'j 17,263' " • 63,547 ! 39,487 "13,750 | 25,642 i' " 24,161 i 29,724 j 996 > 309,652'
Buttcrfish ; 111,501 j' 27,421 "i 13,030 " j 49,127 j 58,224 48,472 " f "38,162 : 67399 T 50,630 ; 162/770"" T" 75^552"" i 702,288"
Catfishcs and \ : I 19] i •: ] [ j I 9
bullheads i : | i I j I | I j !
Clam, arctic surf" 303,240 : : : i : : ; : ; i ; 303,240""
(Stimpson) \ ; i i i • ; ; > ; i :
Clam, Atlantic !' 21,280 ' j' 24,480 : 79,968 f"326,128 ! i i ! i 35 : i i 451,891
jackknit'e • ! i i j i ! ; ; j : i
Clam, Atlantic surf' i' 1,723,061 j' 'ieO^SU : 2,109,918 ¦ 2,312,560" j'"6,823^403 ; 6,438,392 "f 2,300,262"!""i',544,790 ' 1,670,346' T"880,209" f 734^)52" '""29,143,507"
Clam, ocean quahog; j j* 4,847,629 i 158,206' j 16,717,424 ; 17,512,360 j 20,437,600' | 19,188,980 : 16,530,140 fl 2,397,360 ; 107,789,699
Clam, quahog '" 1,100,341 i i,001,077 : 1,006,675 r 1,098,420 | j \ j ; j 4,206,513"
Clam^'softshell j" 967,629 " : 148,745;" M19.644 T 1,348,920 ! ! j j , i ; " 4,884,938 "
Clams or bivalves \ 72,912 840,591 i 49,904 j j 102 j i : 4,955 : 968,464
Cod," Atlantic" 72,199,655 ;' 62,453,071" | 42,273,472 F36,508,334';' 27,029,568 T 21.294,025 "23,221,482 j 22,189,499 | 20,018,151 f 18,679,722': 19,804,122 f 365,671,101
Craij, Atlantic rock : ! • : ; ; i 265 ; 937 \ ; 105,792 ! ; " 106,994
Crab, cancer ;;••••! 387 • ! 48 435
Crab, deepsea red "; : ; | i j f 2,427,926" j ; * i 5,25"2,739 r"7,680,665"'
Crab, green 800 700 • 1,000 2,500
Crab, horseshoe 2,040 • • ; *153 211 • 275 • 133 • 159 • 14,430 • i 17,401
Crab,jonah I i' j I t''i",327,393 "T*"i'^077*^922"1,204^696'' f *2,696^951""T"I,i 18J94 f i j39J12 f 1,358,571 i 10,522*833
Crabs f 4,598,886 ! 4,910,837"j" 3,822,373 ']"4.479*872" j : i 10,528 : 3,026 j 2,340 i U347,403 "} 3,603,096 |' 3,864,464 ; "26,742,825
Cunner | ; 15 ; 66 i 573 "i 479 i 809 ; 3195 j 664 i 1,160 i 434" "739 "| 5.334
Cusk : 1,615^095 : "1,972,01 l"T'Ui69,i85 "f ,1*84 T" 770,503 :""771,600 '"i""461,832 !" ' 30'l,435 j "'268,149 | 178,328 " j 140,407" i""9,129,729 '
'Dolphin ! 3,688 K" 3,475 ' 4,255 i 797 ; 1,023 ! 4,398 ! 3^959 i *8^056 1 3,808 | 705" '" ;" 4,619 38,783 "
Dory, American 1 ! ; j i 101 1 1,825 | 460 i 4 ! 1,153 | 1,244 1 ! 4,787
john
Eei, American ;' "27,791 23,475 f' "35,798 1 27,693 1 ; 30 j 19 1 304 | : 363" i ^ i >15,473
Eel, conger ! 747 ! 43 !' 350 | 2,216 ! 151 ; 872 : 571 i 208 ! 1^060 ; 2,61 i 'i i ,168 ! 9,997
Escolar i i j ! i : ; j I : i 976 | 976
Finfishcs, ! 391 | ; ! i i j j | ; ! 2 i 393
groundfishes, other ; ' | | "¦ ) j i : ;
Finfishcs, pelagic, I i j : i 34 84 11*8
other • ; * I I j : • ; i I : :
GI-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Table 61-5: Commercial Fishery Landings in Massachusetts, 1990-2000 (pounds) (cont.)
Species
Year
Total
1990 1991
1992
; 1993
1994 1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Finfishes une bait
and animal food"
31,631 I 4,938
112,574
; 49,993
9,833 ; 8,080
28,100
245,149
Finfishes unc for
food*
209,142 : 208,339
120,362
50,249
431,341 ; 131,618
39,551
11,869
8,344
6,591
6,265
1,223,67)
Finfishes unc
genera!"
1,569,000 ;
2,745,943
•
20,006
4,334,949
Finfishes unc
spawn"
95
9
104
Flatfish
111,905 i 150,650
167,102
i 112,377
31,096 ; 20,207
15,255
12,837
1,803
1,572
7,980
632,784
Flounder, summer
628,988 ! 1,121,811
1,383,283
I 954,463
1,031,203 i 1,128,120
800,729
745,171
709,387
812,540
788,998
10,104,693
Flounder,
windowpane
3,659,143 ; 7,676,566
4,275,610
; 3,194,349
923,574 : 1,588,687
2,017,768
980,892
941,919
109,406
300,339
25,668,253
Flounder, winter
1! ,129,732 12,406,600
9,982,728
; 8,657,466
5,694,288 : 6,291,720
8,281,798
9,309,941
8,597,510
7,430,610
8,991,331 .
96,773,724
Flounder, witch
1,548,640 i 1,728,640
2,120,628
j 2,484,740
2,411,680 ! 2,454,202
2,092,391
1,673,440
1,976,581
2,322,016
2,901,059
23,714^017
Flounder, yellowtail
25,579,045 i 13,104,026
10,527,616
j 7,000,662
6,305,520 ; 3,878,007
4,407,382
4,551,397
6,596,358
7,373,272
12,433,647
101,756,932
Goosefish
16,978,441 : 15,592,744
20,952,392
: 26,482,563
27,273,925 ; 31,744,000
27,137,617
27,064,088
27,618,917
26,446,684
20,887,818
268,179,189
Grenadiers
10
10
Groupers
; 415
18
433
Haddock
4,890,381 : 3,453,535
4,376,156
; 1,582,906
566,848 ; 727,534
997,606
2,236,415
4,258,730
4,948,032
6,871,363
34,909,506
Hagfishes
; 869,386
2,372,037 i 3,133,716
3,415,107
1,261,403
2,344,004
5,602,082
18,997,735
Hake, Atlantic
red/white
650 ! 8
57
715
Hake, offshore
silver
: 78
11,589
11,667
Hake, red
1,593,565 1 1,573,577
1,806,616
i 1,512,702
1,407,159 ! 334,964
861,155
689,398
348,853
406,427
395,904
10,930,320
Hake, silver
8,780,783 ; 8,725,814
7,939,837
i 5,456,579
4.699,870 ; 2,829,976
2,734,106
2,850,162
2,797,494
4,274,165
4,934,030
56,022,816
Hake, white
4,649,732 i 4,678,307
5,557,614
; 4,556,670
3,052,208 : 3,364,624
2,488,795
1,372,405
1,953,474
2,077,960
1,997,572
35,749,361
Halibut, Atlantic
12,292 : 21,786
10,347
; 10,446
7,821 ; 10,786
9,815
5,595
8,736
10,474
6,516
114,614
Halibut, Greenland
2
2
Herring, Atlantic
61,917,269: 47,852,491
50,650,281
i 24,719,975
16,106,401 : 31,388,855
48,239,980
53,404,269
74,672,252
23,756,110
9,614,704
442,322,587
King, whiting
150
110 2
1,214
58
115
130
1,779
Leather] ackets
12
00
u*
o
1,934
1,890
1,619
406
407
6,855
Lobster, American
17,054,434! 16,528,168
15,823,077
; 14,336,032
16,100,264 : 15,771,981
15,330,377
15,092,014
13,278,726
15,533,953
14,613,665
169,462,691
Lump fish
I 70
200
58
328
Mackerel, Atlantic
1,417,190; 307,803
972,757
; 434,458
757,444 ; 616,681
899,069
1,236,166
2,333,402
1,330,581
479,268
10,784,819
Mackerel, king and
cero
21 i 1,214
234
81 ! 198
4
685
77
254
2,768
Mackerel, Spanish
6,585 ; 19,698
608
; 5
3,273 ;
15
71
2,407
32,662
Menhaden, Atlantic
1,361,900 ^ 6,326.300
6,606,593
: 1,332,000
: 61,000
8,500
904,200
16,600,493
67-//
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
in Massai
Chapter Gl: Background
Table 61-5: Commercial Fishery Landings
:husetts, 1990-2000
(pounds) (cont.)
Species
Year
Total
1990
1991
1992
1993
! 1994 :
1995
1996
1997
:
1998 1 1999
2000
Mussel, blue
5,479,765 i
5,509,501
I 1,722,705
12,711,971
Octopus
: :
8
8
Opah
640
! 88
728
Oyster, eastern
: 31,388 :
33,085 :
48,580
! 42,185
3' :
155,241
Perch, white
! 27,468 i
7,312 ;
5,845
1 3,206
i 161 1
129
1,699
; 311
665 ! 620
47,416
Periwinkles
; i.
;
52 I 2
54
Plaice, American
1 2,184,670 i
4,308,396 i
6,737,235
• 5,838,508
i 4,628,509 !
4,884,640
! 4,586,529
i 4,191,964
;
4,204,038 i 3,376,840
: 3,625,243
48,566,572
Pollock
! 13,6 U,536 i
9,144,556 i
7,060,004
i 5,595,699
! 4,174,315 j
3,631,827
! 3,079,141
! 4,681,561
6,166,881 ! 4,838,741
: 3,593,979
65,578,240
Pout, ocean
I :
1,634,114 :
392,221
| 198,304
i 116,592 ;
82,708
j 17,498
i 10,589
7,898 i 9,513
: 10,482
2,479,919
Red fish or ocean
: 698,247 ;
618,890 :
945,093
: 742,092
; 598,780 ;
657,981
: 479,518
: 290,387
345,604 : 327,306
; 292,706
5,996,604
perch
;
:
:
1
Scallop, bay
; 254,389 ;
190,847 i
564,82 i
i 136,026
24
1,339
;
:
1,147,446
Scallop, sea
i 22,734,370;
22,015,091 ;
19,398,149
1 8,913,285
; 6,537,408 i
7,706,117
: 8,555,955
! 7,093,022
5,750,901 i 12,270,619
i 16,174,736
137,149,653
Seuipins
: ;
4,810 i
; 265
; :
880
; 5
; 150
6,110
Scups or porgies
i 1,533,459 i
1,219,134 :
1,444,682
i 1,224,625
i 780,550 ;
683,943
; '961,997
! 1,491,570
959,519 i 661,581
! 355,403
11,316,463
Sea bass, black
435,928 i
244,169 ;
43,123
i 39,459
; 20,800 ;
41,525
39,646
1 91,005
:
¦280,696 ! 573,545
i 625,902
2,435,798
Sea cucumber
; ;
135
135
Sea raven
2,663 ;
1,364
10
; 82 j
3
;
175 : 627
4,924
Sea urchins
320 :
2,869
; 733,682
: 562,594 ;
172,407
. 102,772
; 334,456
407,904 : 283,468
2,600,472
Searobins
12,000 ;
130
74
30
167
32
2
950 : 11
13,396
Shad, American
5,600 ;
638 ;
308
419
; 286
441
134
570
1,015 223
; 268
9,902
Shad, American
i 5 i
• 4
9
buck
Shad, American roe
;
13
; 182
750
945
Shark, bigeye
•; 158
158
thresher
Shark, bignose
;
i 13
13
Shark, blue
; 136 ;
• ;
246
382
Shark, dogfish
; 17,806,480;
14,488,910 i
18,375,718
; 26,830,777
1 101,115 !
845,963
; 806
1,148
: 311
78,451,228
Shark, longftn mako
; 129 L
4,736 •
19,998
;
2,548
924 92
28,427
Shark, makos
; 283 i
; :
Shark, night
i i
229
55
284
Shark, nurse
: :
4
i
4
Shark, porbeagle
; 22,867 ;
13,972 :
3,179
i 2,537
i 1,592 !
5,738
1 3,472
3,053
5,816 i 2,356
64,582
Shark, sand tiger
: :
: :
i
560
r
560
Shark, shortfm
! 33,567 ;
57,586 i
69,924
1 97,105
i 87,047 !
119,377
; 53,886
51,041
40,208 j 22,582
; 22,675
654,998
mako
: i
Gl-12
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &\ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter Gh Background
Tabic Gl-5: Commercial Fishery Landings in Massachusetts, 1990-2000 (pounds) (cont.)
Species
Year
Total
i 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Shark, smooth
dogfish
275,000
4,400
9,700
12,795
45
6
11,245
313,191
Shark, spiny dogfish
23,113,049
27,914,222
26,959,238
21,819,727
25,033,929
14,929,804
5,761,654
145,531,623
Shark, thresher
i 1,542
1,090
1,529
791
1,263
421 '
719
107
7,462
Shark, tiger '
14
14
Sharks
75,294
24,507
30,645
25.793
17,798
22,896
19,693
47,252
18,747
8,885
45,507
337,017
Sheepshead ¦
90
90
Shellfish
1,424,444
6,265,148
i,506,909
741,005
636,657
114,434
105,620
342,817
11,137,034
Shrimp, brown • ;
3
365
6,717
7,085
Shrimp, marine,
other
; 2,189,979
1,626,263
643,027
662,113
842,014
1,494,147
1,294,914
709,278
491,760
111,876
243,323
10,308,694
Silversides ;
3
3
Skates
! 12,658,620
12,557,364
13,058,290
13,488,726
14,685,991
6.458,124
19,899,001
8,684,294
14,177,490
10,619,501
14,368,941
140,656,342
Smelt, rainbow
! 1,000
13,200
1,200
1,200
16,600
Snails (conchs) ; ;
70,258
213,450
184,931
156,774
197,739
181,328
192,183
1,196,663
Spot ! ¦:
30
60
90
Squid, longfin
! 1,414,992
1,959,821
681,688
1,390,484
934,101
1,420,698
1,135,166
1,326,198
1,397,935
2,691,001
2,661,560
17,013,644
Squid, northern
shortfin
: 83
200
1,855
1,886
724
137
1,156
1,965,665
1,007,436
15,245
2,994,387
Squids
1 57,409
23,837
8,327
42,325
36,883
30,960
113,039
343,225
39,572
107,433
14,080
817,090
Sturgeons
: 562
1,063
114
481
60
444
2,724
Sword fish
I 2,655,634
1,811,161
1,872,042
1,601,422
1,412,178
1,749,998
1,143,634
1,078,951
1,264,329
1,174,772
1,376,146
17,140,267
Tautog
! 289,074
354,346
292,291
160,336
37,399
35,298
32,579
64.275
91,424
75,685
96,001
1,528,708
Tilefish
! 15,531
2,436
6,206
31,844
5,982
1,926
516
821
8,204
3,924
160
77,550
Toadfishes
100
100
Tuna, albacore
i 39,470
12,860
14,203
7,214
31,920
30,507
21,337
23.054
5,366
6.309
10,741
202,981
Tuna, bigeye
! 71,058
178,935
129,134
196,868
122,366
288,048
187,354
183,847
120,671
77,528
122,331
1,678,140
Tuna, bluefin
! 1,753,140
1,335,841
1,352,007
1,395,955
1,352,480
1,270,756
1,485,666
1,747,076
1,660,103
1,872,165
2,094,389
17,319,578
Tuna, little tunny
7,500
5,006
2,419
2,353
4,869
6.536
1,274
29,957
Tuna, skipjack
198
1,484,540
308,644
56
148
1,793,586
Tuna, yellowfin
189,455
2,173,357
1,145,050
21,365
22,261
56,786
69,951
58,290
24,959
20,520
25,596
3,807,590
Tunas
13,307
420
705
56
1,045
1,539
3,223
6,317
4,648
1,398
1,905
34,563
Wahoo
103
1,102
75
47
51
16
1,394
Weak fish
1,720
1,912
3,033
1,080
535
86
55
410
2,550
527
11,908
Wolffish, Atlantic
589,073
698,546
649,859
710,304
711,928
754,099
584,870
500,334
488,376
400,747
294,985
6,383,121
Total
335,841,904
302,052,566
279,288,959
229,425,468
188,476,531
213,997,116
237,279,246
229,915,320:257,438,385
198,877,420
187,938,490 i 2,660,531,405
fl Note; "Ail annual and monthly landing summaries will return only nonconfidential landing statistics, Federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or other information) that would allow identification
of the data contributors and possibly put them at a competitive disadvantage. Most summarized landings are nonconfidential, but whenever confidential landings occur they have been combined with other
landings aini usually repotted a* "finfishes, uncM (unclassified) 01 "shellfishes, unc.*" Total landings by state include confidential data and will be accurate, but landings reported by individual species may, in
some instances, be misleading due to data confidentiality (Personal communication. National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, 2002)"
G/-/J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part <5: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter GU Background
Table'SI-6: Revenue from Commercial Landings in Massachusetts. 1990-2000
„ Year
Species . f . : ; r ,—_____— , Total
! 1990 1991 ; IW2_J 1993 j _..1?94_ L 1995 i 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 i '
Alewife $1,976 $2,496 I $2,244 ; $2,268 ! I f "$360 f " 1 " F *' 1 ' "$9,344
Arnberjack ' : j I $4 : $6 i $40 i $1 i $1 J $15 1 ' $67
Argentines j $28 I I $28
Bass, striped • $310,460 j $482,024 j $335,480 ; $516,309 i $302,000 j $676,428 j $960,750 | $1,154,243 [ $1,223,245 f $1,196,851 T $2,289,730$9,447,520
BSuefish [ ^ [ ;" MM,555 1" $i'20,570" T'"$139.270" "[ "$259,629$22i'^219~"T'" S146.545"' [''$228,577""[' "$96.321 l"'$157^94.8^"S17i",015""T" $104,692 f $1,897,34 i
Bonito, Atlantic"": $2,061 i"" $2,432 "'["$11.336 ["'$i'3,277 [ "$46,470 i $29,098 " ; $9,'194" T" $19,274 " f $21,282" "$36,338" "]" $2,042 "$192,804
Butterfish [ : $61,326""": $i'i',716 ""I $6,016 [" $2l',674 ! $21,852 $20,527 i $io»251 $29,334 ['"$22J93""'; $80,695 1 $38,388 ' $323,972
Catfishes and ; ; ; $3 ; ; ; I $3
bullheads ; : : : : ; : ; : : :
Clam, arctic surf $271,350 i : j j : : j ; [ $271,350
(Stimpson) : : ¦ • : i : i : :
Clam, Atlantic """$78,900": $84,125 i" $208,755 " ""$240,365" 'i j ; ; j $28 i : • $612,173
jackknife i : i - : : : :
Clam, Atlantic : "$ 1,089^042" j "$1,362,156 ' [ $1,187,246 '] '$1,813,213' [*$6,106,751 $5,511,794 ":"$2,025,273' j $i,"312i263"' j'si Ji'^88^055; ""$653,357" [ $581,102 ' j' "$22,836252*'"
surf ; i : ; • ; : : ;
Clam, ocean j j [ f' $3^069^232"T" $57,583" "j" $6,827,627 1"$7316,842 ; $8,589^407 '' i'$8.'048,'l 12"r $6,904,870 T $5,234,810 " [' $46,b4M83*"''
quahog : i i ! i i i : i . ; I
Clarri, quahog i $5,457,003 j $4,122,098 ; $4,416,757 j $4,098,964 j ! i i i S18'094'822.„
Clarri, softshell "{ '$4,538,252 1" $5,575,5ii T $7,398,251 T $7,748,123' ! I I ! : ' ! ' " ' [' $25,260,140'"
Clams or bivalves1 $58,043" [' '$684,550"'"j $38,564*"; ; $20 j : | ['"$2^481 ; [' $783,658'
Cod, Atlantic j $46,295,857 : $50,649,672 T $35,996,894 ; $32,516,426 ! $25,279,616 I $20,303,945 i $19,880,183 ! $19,111,274 ($20.819,477: $20,871,132 ! $20,651,479 j $312,375,955"
Crab, Atlantic ! ; ! I ! : $135 i $357 j r $49221 | ! $49,713
rock : . : i ; : j : : : j
Crab, cancer i ; \ : i "1 ; " '$193 : '; : $24 : '' $217'"
Crab, deepseared I | I ! ! j i !' $i,'i'l4,i"i7" J i L $3,,636,69« ] $4,750,815 *
Crab, green j $240 j $210 ! $700 j j i : i ; i i i $1,150
Crab, horseshoe "( ; $204 | i 1 $377 ! $75 " '! $119 ! $83 1" ' $156 $7.929[ " _ [_ _ [' "[ [ $8,943 ^ [
Crabjonah i \ j ! ""$569,'i33 " !'""$667J33" T $663,236 T $i,318^895 T $557,411 ? $902,110 "['"$736,339 "T "$5,'414257
Crabs""[ T""$2',375j745""I'"$2,348^025*"[""$"i,727,"675"""["52,052^841'": [""$134,935""": $l',503 j $2,546 '["'$544790'"j[$l,639,076 [['$2,082,330'[!' $12[909,466^[
Gunner ! j $6 j $12 | $14i i $193 ! $241 : $111 ' $236 ( $304 ' $161 : $216 ! SI.621 ^
Cusk J ' $720304^$958,183""[ "$762,352"": '" $533,387 '"J*"$4H208"":'""$449320 "" $274,105 [ $175,084 $186,894 i $138,682 \ 187,446 : $4,720,565
Dolphin [ : $4,230 [ $3^086 i $4,909 | $1,693 ! $i*,539 i $4,349 : $6,427 "1 W.627["'[:[''$5,508[' [[_[S'»743[ ^[[ [$8[5oi [[][[[$48^12[ [[_[
Dory, American "': j" " ! ! | $113 ! $8212 : $193 : $3 : $296 j $739 ; | $2, i 66
john : | j : : • : : : ;
Eel, Amatican f $35,666 [ "'$28,702 | $54245"": $33,632 " l i $14 $13 I $380 i $I82_ J "[ " _ "* " [ "$152,834'['[
Eei,'coiige'r f""$M67 i $16 1 $68 ; $2,847 i $31 ; $456 ; $118 ; $93 : $510 ! $1,516 ! $563 : $7,585""'"'
Escoiar i [ \ j ; i ; ! : : : $ij30 : $i,i3o""[[
Finfishes, : $391 • • • ; : : SI $392
groundfishes, : : \ ; : i : ; :
other : •
Gl-14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter SI: Background
Table SI-6: Revenue from Commercial Landings in Massachusetts, 1990-2000 (cont.)
! 1990 j 1991 j 1992 j_ 1993 i 1994 1995 i 1996 I 199? 1999 \ 2000 i *
Finfishes, pelagic, ; 1 j = j f | $101 i $223 S324
other : ; 1 ; ! ; ; : : :
Finfishesunc bait j $2,583 j SI,381 : $7,202 S3,358 : $776 $564 | ;""S2,333 j j ! $18,197
and animal food • i ¦ • ¦ , ; i ; '¦ ; i
Finfishes unc for | $123,477 i $167,516 ; ' $87,38o"' 7 $43,431 "7" $238,329 ' $85,564 ': $29,260 ' 1 $7,251 j" "$3,870"":"" $3,237"" $3,903 ; is793,218
food : ; : ; : i : j ; :
Finishes unc ; $182,876 ; ; : :""$755,209 \ ' I $25,131 > $963,216
general ; ;
Finfishes unc ; : $46 | : : | : • $40 j j i $86
spawn : 1 ! • : i • ; : ' ;
Flatfish ; $112,108 [ $132,066 | $154,807 $106,080 7 $33,229 "7 524,109 7 ' $17,455 : $14,957 f"$2J25 1 $1,517 I $8.145 ; "$606,598" '
Flounder, summerj $1,408,670 ] $1,727,449 : $2,032,422 I $2,064,498 : "$1,907*260 "7* $2,502,321";' $l,70i,'550 $1,533,127 T $13^608 T Siv635,506 " 1 $1,443,860 S19,343,271"
Flounder, j $1,478,214 j $4,205,901 ;' $2,818,513 i' S2,188,441 ' '$547,793'" I" $995,484 ":"*"s857,876 $509,977 ' 7' $365,004 "j" $34,963 j $91473 ' " I' $14,093,339 "
windowpane ! • ^ ; ; ;
Flounder, winter j $13,343,566j $14,986,080 7 $12,101,594 : "$12,076,208 7 $8,637,768 7" $9,404,437 V $11,765,726 !"$R555,518 f SI 17696^023 T $9,6*72,315 7' $8,898,326 "i $12*5,137,561
Flounder, witch" ; $2,714,961 ; *52*580,414 -" $2,789,942 $3,853*068" :"'$3,862,'469 I $4,209,763*";"$3,583,477";" $2,868,526*'! $3,256,831* • $3,4*14,595 : $3,821,671 $36,955,7i7
Flounder, j $23,039,450 j $13,953,565 $ 11,960,089 : $9,161,035 | '$7,545*101'"^ $5,585,430*' ;' $6,54] ,012 " $7,092,360* 7 $9,051^857$8,496,328 7 $12,510,009 " $114,936^236
yellowtatl : j : ; : i i i
Goosefish I $7,585,652 j $9,698,380 ; $8,23*2,544 '$9,800,666 ; $14,41 V,107 f$2*0,049,943 : $15,863,372 f 515,377,104 $15,"842,'804r$21,871,872 $24,120,969 : $162,854,413
Grenadiers i ! ! ; ; ; $10 • $10
Groupers : ; 5440 : I $36 \ $476
Haddock ; $5,353,690 "i $3,837,254 f $4,721,243 7 $2,157^25*1' i "$798,583*"'f' '$990*,612 *"i* $U78,641*1 $2,455,042 7 $5^411,740": $6,517,286 ': $8,908,612 "'"'$42329,954'
Hagfishes _ i ; : V $234,639 "7 $672,'733 j" $865,459 "V $945,328 " 7 "$326,704 ! '$667,811 " 7 $1,471,539 "7 $5,184,213 "
Hake, Atlantic j ! i 7 " " $469 ! $8 : $22 " " j i 7 ; $499
red/white ¦ ' • • • ; • ; ¦
Hake, offshore " 7 ; i ; ; $40 ' ; 7 7"" $i'i,422* " ; 7 511,462 "'
silver ; : ; : ; : • ; i • ;
Hake, red ; " $302,813 ""; $323,40l"'"$350,571 ;""$291J86 7"$346,453"7 579,502*"'T's'i'87,634'* 7" $145^136' " $98,683 i '"$1*34,134" $98,183 "7 $2,358,296* '
Hake, silver !' $2,260.496'"7 $2,626,274 7 $2,680,547 7 $1,804,195 ; $1,624,163 ! $1,025,444 : $935,348 ! $1,141,722 7$l,419,237 i $2,640,780 \ $2,173,212 : $20,331,418
Hake, white f SI ,872*7620 7 $2,0027978 7 $2,500^236 f $2,033,2 i 1 j $i,646,550 * f $2,184,'550 i $1,492,871 j' "S92§*,584*" !$M59,i52 ! $1,5447366 *! *$1,041,993 j $18,700,Hi
Halibut, Atlantic I $237052 ! $43,*176 "7 $23,641" "7 $1*7,669 " 7 $18J40 : $2777*17"";" $24,931 ! $1*4,144 $21,385 7 $23,957 $19,190 : $257,002""
Halibut, i I ; 7 ! | ; 7 ! SI 7 ¦: $1
Greenland • • • i
Hefring7 Atlantic 7 $2,771,700 7 $2,176,670 7 $2,367,588 7 $1,14878 50*'['"$733,507 7 $ 1,402.941 $2^33,927 7^"$27657,904 "7 $3,9227494'T $ 1,260,226 7 $604,066 7 $2172 79,8 73
King whiting j 7 ; $56 ! | $44 j $2 i $1,1*68 ! $69 i $96 7 ' ' Si l 1 i ' $1*7546 ""
Leather-jackets 7| | 7 ! $6 ! $45 ; $362 7 $K395 * I $904 7 " $1,313 ! $268 I $337 ; * "'$47630'"'
Lobster7'Americanf$43,824,047 t'$467389,9772 :' $487838,763''r'$437l067462";' $58,412734 0 7 $5S',787,476*V"$64",536,'i'i7* 1" $6i7'98b7355'TS48,580»999T" $66,770,985" T'S677,460i826"*!":S665.6883'42'"
Lurripfish ; i I ! j : $1*5 $126 1 1 '* " ' $28 '_ " ' ' $ 169
G1-I5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Table 61-6: Revenue from Commercial Landings in Massachusetts, 1990-2000 (cont.)
Species
Year
Total
1990
1991
1992
¦ 1993
1994
1995
1996 •
1997
1998 !
1999
:
2000
Mackerel, Atlantic 1
$222,187 :
$92,657
1 $144,917
i $112,106
i $247,114
$180,075
$176,680 I
$518,832
I $722,356 1
$338,114
$183,579
$2,938,617
Mackerel, king ;
and cero
$17
$608
$118
$61
$324
$6 ;
$1,100
$166 . |
$474
$2,874
Mackerel, Spanish I
$5,268 I
$9,852
! $307
: $4
i $2,558
$19
$84
$3,532
$21,624
Menhaden, ;
Atlantic ¦
$57,086 ;
$271,055
$263,749
: $53,065
$2,745
$1,870
: :
$36,168
$685,738
Mussel, blue
$1,874,055 1
. $1,859,144
SI,009,308
$4,742,507
Octopus •
$14
$14
Opah
;
$1,078
;
$154
$1,232
Oyster, eastern ¦
$316,252 :
$287,930
$570,302
1 $278,306
; $2
$1,452,792
Perch, white
$41,978 i
$9,748
$7,710
I $4,343
: $267
$144
$2,380 :
$454
: $779 !
$1,079
$68,882
Periwinkles
;
•
; $31 i
$1
$32
Plaice, American :
Pollock
$2,207,701 :
$6,740,597 '
$3,981,730
'$5,354,688'
i $6,429,615
T "$4,616,044
: 56,629,740
['$3^ 735,907
: $5,429,330
f $3,230,555 '
$6,404,579
$3,145,426"
$5,881,754 :
$2,062,066 1
$5,731,852
' "$2,586^51'f'
: $5,407,460 :
I $3,998,778 i
$4,223,372
$3,833*415
¦i
$3,756,403
' $2,705,3 io'"'
$56,083,536
"'$42,009,303""
Pout, ocean ;
$186,530
' $38,584
f $24,397
i $15,486
$11,378
$5,352
$4,168
; $2,041
$2,128
$2,993
$293,057
Redfish or ocean :
perch •
$367,693 ;
$286,192
; $392,914
; $343,002
i $359,127
;
$399,605
$310,026 ;
$188,501
1 $200,246 ;
• :
$170,930
\
$136,736
$3,154,972
Scallop, bay
$1,682,509
$1,362,864
i $4,056,005
; $1,451,532
$180
$2,145
$8,555,235
Scallop, sea :
$90,970,303 ;
$93,233,723
! $96,371,352
: $54,617,754
: $35,799,795
$40,748,009
$49,734,289 :
$47,124,160
$36,037,285 !
$70,334,650
$85,293,917
$700,265,237
Sculpins
$541
: $106
$170
$2
$49
$868
Scups or porgies ¦
$1,003,511
$745,008
I $835,251
; $1,041,525
i $707,719
$959,469
$1,388,842 :
$2,013,431
: $i,699,oi7 :
$773,811
$447,650
$11,615,234
Sea bass, black :
$714,494 :
$517,239
i $108,575
; $98,976
: $56,460
$104,467
$94,190 :
$216,288
: $634,279- :
$961,186
$968,989
$4,475,143
Sea cucumber
$27
$27
Sea raven
S256
$326
: $3
i $8
$2
$26 :
$233
$854
Sea urchins ¦
$144
1 $1,268
1 $338,829
1 $348,401
$135,809
$77,306 1
$279,756
: $356,149 :
$292,643
$1,830,305
Searobins i
$26,280
1 $36
1 $16
i $4
$33
$4 •
$1
: $114 I
$2
:
$26,490
Shad, American :
$2,044 !
$149
$92
; $251
$174
$106
$44
$172
; $252 ;
$28
$52
$3,364
Shad, American ;
buck :
Si
i
i $1
:
$2
Shad, American
roe
:
$32
$67
; $117 ;
$216
Shark, bigeye ;
thresher •
:
$200
i i
$200
Shark, bignose j
:
$9
i ;
$9
Shark, blue •
$204
$221
:
• =
i
$425
Shark, dogfish !
$1,597,669
$1,145,153
i $2,186,537
! $3,541,555
1 $18,970
$ i i 4,654
$806
i $1,553 ¦
;
$202
$8,607,099
Shark, longfin
mako
$109 !
$3,476
; $17,516
I
i
$2,035 :
i $1,097 i
$132
;
$24,365
Shark, makos i
$447 I
!
'! ;
$447
Gl-16
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabraok and Pilgrim Chapter 61: Background
Table 61-6: Revenue from Commercial Landings in Massachusetts, 1990-2000 (cont.)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
i
2000
Total
Shark, night
$115
$33
$148
i
:
Shark, porbeagle
Shark, sand tiger
; $16,411
$12,783
$2,007
$105
: $i ,714
!
$811
.J3.-335...
$2,514
$2,139
: $5,541
$2,154
. i
1
$49,409
Shark, shortfm
mako
:
: $33,740 :
$20,644
$23,399 ;
$567,170
Shark, smooth
dogfish
; S22,000
$450
$1,761
:
; $4,220
$99
: S2
$2,637
$31,169
Shark, spiny
dogfish
;¦ $3,375,624
$5,299,126
$4,934,313
$3,118,850
: $4,297,312
$2,316,803
$1,335,411 |
$24,677,439
Shark, thresher
$496
; $775
1 $465
$289
! $450
$5
$3,253
Shark, tiger
;
$95
;
$95
Sharks
: S66.663
$ IS,456
$19,473
: $19,387
; $11,246
$15,568
L $.14-296..
$33,360
i $13,621 :
$5,031
$12,519 :
$229,620
Sheepshead
1 !
$50''"
$50
Shellfish
Shrimp, brown
! $1,027,502
$2,955,217
$2,078,790
$1
; $ 1,293,713
! $302,402
$70,872
$-1,095"
1 $68,649
i"" $18,558
1 i
$455,459 !
!
$8,252,604
"" $19,654
Shrimp, marine,
other
$1,352,270
$1,343,639
$554,218
; $575,269
: $571,701
$1,092,283
I $917,437
$576,018
1 $380,712 ;
i :
$65,984
$168,653 :
$7,598,184
Silversides
$4
$4
Skates
Smelt, rainbow
; S 1,253,043
: $60
$1,119,667
$2,724
$1,611,536
$84
i $2,058,800
! $84
! $4,239,421
$1,422,682
; $4,386,298
$1,496,587
; $2,494,605 ;
$1,829,753
$2,359,267 1
$24,271,659
$2,952
Snails (conchs)
! $86,903
$358,700
: $344,902
$302,393
! $380,212 :
$381,402
$431,736 !
$2,286,248
Spot
i $15
: $15 !
$30
Squid, longfin
1 $562,922
$1,012,051
$463,675
i $815,094
i $649,976
$889,908
I $877,499
$1,006,012
i $1,292,914 :
$2,120,212
$1,610,534 I
$11,300,797
Squid, northern
short fin
: $27
$36
$192
; $348
| $535
$117
$544
; $558,293 ;
$308,847
$6,004 ;
$874,943
Squids
! $10,024
$10,149
$2,707
1 $ 19,094
i $19,680
$22,918
: $109,119
$358,390
i $37,903 i
$70,776
$7,450 :
$668,210
Sturgeons
; $524
S645
$89
i $308
$500
$2,078
Sword-fish
! $7,724,561
$5,213,806
$5,106,971
: $4,369,054
1 $4,174,420
$4,621,991
: $3,428,561
$2,397,245
= $2,389,189 i
$2,705,730
$3,435,687 i
$45,567,215
Taulog
i $123,843
$149,214
$113,930
; $118,782
i $30,285
$30,413
: $28,562
$96,259
i $147,724 !
$141,239
$166,163 !
$1,146,414
Tilefish
1 $14,543
$3,256
$7,017
1 $27,182
! $9,367
$2,769
$529
$966
: $13,042 ;
$8,581
$286 ;
$87,538
Toadftshes
$1
$1
Tuna, albaeore
i $39,178
$11,706
$13,717
! $5,195
! $19,036
$18,188
! $11,777
$12,086
i $4,108 !
$2,844
$6,937 !
$144,772
Tuna, bigeye
! $152,275
$375,764
$298,085
! $522,550
i $345,593
$566,426
i $557,283
$466,726
1 $275,677 ;
$196,521
$402,347 ;
$4,159,247
Tuna, bluefin
: $17,695,590
$10,383,269
$9,067,201
1 $12,256,397
! $11,576,322
$13,134,219
! $13,016,964
$13,172,177
i $8,777,311 :
$11,781,784
$15,986,813 i
$136,848,047
Tuna, little tunny
59,375
$3,752
! $6,189
i
1318
i $957 ;
$1,679
$238 :
$22,508
Tuna, skipjack
: $39
$111,299
$78,400
1 $22
$324
: ;
$190,084
Tuna, yellow fin
i $208,919
$432,208
$219,193
: $43,823
! $39,055
$96,955
1 $135,878
$117,014
i S48.559 . i
$43,366
$68,307 !
$1,453,277
Tunas
: $15,156
$254
$991
$34
: $3,973
$3,759
$8,966
$13,624
! $14,283 ;
S3,271
$6,762 :
$71,073
Wahoo
$53
$2,129
;
;
1
$99
! $47
i $153 :
$48
$2,529
Weak fish
i $1,342
$1,036
$1,352 '
$524
$408
$69
$7
: $293 :
$1,991
$398
$7,420
G/-/7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI: Background
Species
Wolffish, Atlantic
Table SI-6: Revenue from Commercial Landings in Massachusetts,
_ vt;ar ~
1990-2000 (cont.)
1990
$207,824
1991
$245,031
1992
$213,235
1993
$226,921
1994
$266,351
1995
1996
1997
$277,000 $226,469
$189,208
1998
1999
2000
$233,373 I $165,885 ; $129,913
Total
$2,381,2
0
Total ! $306,288,1661 $302,268,505 ;$291,782,863 i$238,744,112 f $206,482,688 i 5220,229,427 i$232,152,132. $225,036,618 3206,089,767: $260,504,185 i $288,266,950 I $2,777,845,413
* Note: "All annual and monthly landing summaries will return only nonconfidential landing statistics. Federal statutes prohibit public disclosure of landings (or other information) that
would allow identification of the data contributors and possibly put them at a competitive disadvantage. Most summarized landings are nonconfidential, but whenever confidential landings
occur they have been combined with other landings and usually reported as "Jinfishes, une" (unclassified) or "shellfishes, unc," Total landings by state include confidential data and will
be accurate, but landings reported by individual species may, in some instances, be misleading due to data confidentiality (Personal communication, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, 2002)."
Gl-18
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 61: Background
SI-3.3 Recreational Activities
a, Recreational fishing
Striped bass (Morone saxatilis), summer flounder (Paralichthys detalus), Atlantic cod, scup (Stenolomus chrysops), and
bluefish had the greatest number of recreational landings in New England between 1990 and 1998, Information from the
Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) (NMFS, 2001b), a long-term monitoring program that provides
estimates of effort, participation, and finfish catch by recreational fishermen, indicates that 644 marine fishing sites are
located near the three main New England power plants, which are the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities and the Brayton Point
station in Massachusetts, located on Mount Hope Bay, an upper embayrnent of Nanagansett Bay (Figure Gl-2).
EPA used data from both the MRFSS intercept and telephone interviews to evaluate fishing activities in the vicinity of the
Seabrook, Pilgrim, and Brayton Point facilities. MRFSS intercept interviews were conducted at a subset of all NMFS sites.
Approximately 70 percent of all sites near each.plant were included in the survey, A total of 17,397 intercept surveys were
completed at the fishing sites located in the 50-mile radius from the three plants, along with 14,936 telephone surveys.
Table Gl-7 presents the number of NMFS sites within 50 miles of each of the three facilities, MRFSS intercept sites, and the
number of surveys included in this analysis.
Table &1 -7: Intercept Interview Statistics for Sites within 50 Miles of the
Three Major New England Power Plants
Brayton Point
Pilgrim
Seabrook
Total"
NMF sites
410
415
: 213
644
Intercept sites
242
293
140
399
Number of intercept interviews
19,524
14,923
; 8,436
28,260
Number of telephone interviews
14,282 ;
11,150
6,640
21,710
" The total number of sites is less than the sum from each power plant because some sites are within 50 miles of both the Pilgrim and
Brayton Point plants.
Both the Brayton Point and Pilgrim power plants are near highly populated areas, Boston and Providence. Because the
majority of recreational fishermen (83 percent) take single day trips and prefer to visit fishing sites closer to their hometown,
both the number of fishing sites and the number of fishing trips to these sites are higher near Brayton Point and Pilgrim
compared to the Seabrook plant.
MRFSS data indicate that roughly 30 percent of fishermen near the New England facilities target small game species,
including striped bass, Atlantic mackerel, and blue fish. Roughly 9 percent of recreational fishermen specifically targeted
striped bass and an additional 5 percent specifically targeted either bluefish or Atlantic mackerel. Nearly twice as many
fishermen target small game than the next most popular species group, bottom fish (e.g., Atlantic cod and scup). Nine
percent of recreational fishermen target flounders and other flatfish and three percent target Atlantic cod. Less than 1 percent
specifically targets scup.
Between 35 and 40 percent of fishermen do not target any species. Over half of "no target" fishermen fish from the shore and
tend to catch "whatever bites." They often catch small game species because a number of these species have aggressive
behavior and are easy to catch from shore. The percentage of fishermen targeting big game species (e.g., shark, swordfish,
tarpon) ranges from 10 percent at sites near the Brayton Point plant to less than 5 percent at sites affected by either Seabrook
or Pilgrim.
Gl-19
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter SI; Background
Figure Gi -2: NMFS Recreational Fishing Sites and Power Plants
NMFS Sites and Power Plants
Power Plants
Case Study Plants NMFS Sites
• Cutside so Mile Radius
A Within a 25 Mile Radius
(^) Urban Areas f Within a 50 Mile Radius
5 0 S 10 15 Wife
50 Mile
Radius
Ftscsbaqua
Riwr
Seabrook
Ipswwrch
Boston
Radius
Ooq
rrovi
3
Point
W
Atlantic
Ocean
Gi-20
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6. Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 61: Background
b. Tourism and other recreational activity
The Hampton/Seabrook estuary is the most popular recreational softshell clam harvesting area in New Hampshire (New
Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002). The sandy beaches of the area are a popular tourist destination, and are heavily used.
Because of overuse and human development, the dunes in the Hampton/Seabrook estuary have been drastically reduced, and
restoration of sand and dunegrass has recently begun (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002).
Nonfishing related boating activity in the area around Seabrook is primarily recreational, and includes sailing, water skiing,
wind surfing, rowing, kayaking, and canoeing. Just over 90% of the boats registered for "fresh and tidal water" were iri the
"private/rental" class (New Hampshire Estuaries Project, 2002).
Many historical sites attract tourists to Massachusetts bays from around the world, including the area near the Pilgrim facility,
Plymouth County is one of the leading counties in Massachusetts in terms of tourism revenue.
GJ-2I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port &¦ Seabrook arid Pilgrim
Chapter S2: Descriptions of Facilities
Chapter G2:
Technical and Economic Descriptions
of the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
(52-1 Operational Profile
a. Seabrook
The Seabrook power plant operates one 1,240 MW
nuclear unit. The unit began operation in July of 1990 and
uses coaling water withdrawn from the Atlantic ocean.
Seabrook's total net generation in 1999 was 8.7 million
MWli; its capacity utilization was 79.9 percent. Table G2-1
presents generator details for the Seabrook power plant.
Chapter Contents
G2-1 Operational Profile G2-1
G2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal G2-3
Table 62-1: Generator betail of the Seabrook Plant (1999)
Generator
ID
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source'
In-Service ;
Date
Operating Status
Net
Genera tion
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization*
ID of
Associated
CWIS
PP01
1,240
NP
UR
Jul. 1990 :
Operating
8,681,836
79.9%
cw
Total
1,240
; 8,681,836
79.9%
8 Prime mover categories: NP = nuclear.
6 Energy source categories: UR = uranium.
c Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at fall capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source; U.S. Department of Energy, 2001a, 2001b.
G2-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 62: Descriptions of Facilities
Figure G2-1 below presents Seabrook's electricity generation history between 1990 and 2000,
Figure G2-1; Seabrook Net Electricity Generation 1990 - 2000 (in MWh)
10,000,000
1,000,000
X
£
c
o
% 6,000,000 -
to
i
o
%
z.
4,000,000
2,000,000
2000
1990
1995
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200 Id.
b. Pilgrim
The Pilgrim power plant operates one 670 MW nuclear unit. The unit began operation in December of 1972 and uses cooling
water withdrawn from Cape Cod Bay. Pilgrim's total net generation in 1999 was 4.5 million MWh. Its capacity utilization
was 76.2 percent. The plant was sold to Entergy Nuclear, a nonutility, in July of 1999. Table G2-2 presents generator details
for the Pilgrim power plant.
Table 62-2: Pilgrim generator Characteristics (1999)
Generator
ID
Capacity
(MW)" i
Prime
Mover'
Energy
Source11
In-Service
Date
Operating
Status'
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
670
NB
UR
Dec. 1972
SD-Jul. 1999
4,473,327
76.2%
27
Total
670
4,473,327
76.2%
1 Prime mover categories: NB = nuclear.
b Energy source categories: UR = uranium.
c Operating Status: SD = sold to nonutility
" Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at full capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days).
Source: U.S. Department of Energy. 2001a, 2001b.
G2-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabroak and Pilgrim
Chapter S2: Descriptions of Facilities
Figure G2-2 below presents Pilgrim's electricity generation history between 1972 and 2000.
Figure G2-2: Pilgrim Net Electricity Generation 1972 - 2000 (in MWh)
i ,000,000
4,000,000
S
S 3,000,000
0
c
©
o
2,000,000
1,000,000
1977
1987
1997
1972
1982
1992
Year
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 200Id.
62-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
q. Seabrook
The Seabrook Power Station has an intake structure that is located 7,000 feet offshore in the Atlantic Ocean. The intake
structure includes a velocity cap and screens. The facility's 1993 NPDES permit limited the approach velocity to 1.0
feet/second. Intake water flows through a 19-foot diameter tunnel to the plant. The design intake capacity is 918 cfs (593
mgd), which is also the approximate daily intake flow,
b. Pilgrim
The Pilgrim Power Station has two shoreline intakes that draw water from Cape Cod Bay. Intake water is obtained from an
embayrnent, which is separated by two large breakwaters from the open waters of the Bay. The intake structures consist of a
skimmer wall, vertical bar racks, and vertical conventional traveling screens. The average approach velocity is I foot per
second. The screens are periodically rotated based on pressure differential as well as continuously at temperatures less than
30 degrees F to prevent freezing. The intake structure has a dual spray wash system with an initial low pressure wash to
remove light fouling and organisms and a high pressure spray to remove debris. The design intake capacity is 693 cfs (448
mgd), which is also the approximate daily intake flow.
G2-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part fi: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I&E Data
Chapter &3:
Evaluation of I&E Data
EPA evaluated l&E impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
from the CWIS of the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities
using the assessment methods outlined in Chapter A2 of
Part A of this document. Section G3-1 of this chapter lists
fish species that are impinged and entrained at Seabrook
and Pilgrim and Section G3-2 presents life histories of the
most abundant species in the facilities' I&E collections.
Section G3-3 outlines Scabrook's l&E collection methods
and Section G3-4 presents results of EPA's analysis of
annual impingement and entrainment at Seabrook, Section
G3-5 outlines Pilgrim's I&E collection methods and
Section G3-6 presents annual impingement and
entrainment results for Pilgrim. Section G3-7 summarizes
and compares l&E results for the two facilities and Section
G3-8 discusses some potential biases and uncertainties in
I&E results.
63-1 -Aquatic Species Vulnerable
to I&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim
Facilities
EPA evaluated aquatic species impinged and entrained by
the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities, including commercial, recreational, and forage species, based on information provided in
facility I&E monitoring reports. Approximately 84 different species of fish have been identified in I&E collections at
Seabrook since monitoring began in 1990, and at least 58 (69%) of these are valued commercially or recreationally
(Normandeau Associates, 1991, 1993,1994a, 1994b, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999), At the Pilgrim facility,
approximately 68 species have been identified in I&E collections since 1974, and 26 (38%) of these have commercial or
recreational value (Boston Edison Company, 1991-1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996-1999, Stone & Webster Engineering
Corporation, 1977). Table G3-1 lists species identified in Seabrook and Pilgrim I&E collections. Species with impingement
or entrainment losses above one percent of total impingement or entrainment losses respectively were evaluated. Species with
similar life histories were evaluated together.
Table 63-1:
Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
Common Name
Scientific Name
Seabrook
Pilgrim
Commercial
Recreational : Forage
Alewife
Alosa pseucloharengus
/
X
Alligatorfish
.Aspidophoroides monopterygim
/
X
American eel
Angwlla rostrala
/
/
X
X
American lobster
¦ Homarus americanus
/
X
X
American plaice
Hippoglossoides plaiessoides
/
/
X
American sand lance
Ammodytea americanus
/
/
X
American shad
Alosa sapidissimu
/
X
X
Atlantic cod
I Gadus morhua
/
/
X
X
Atlantic herring
; Clupea harengus
/
~
X
Atlantic mackerel
•Scomber seombrus
/
~
X
X ;
Atlantic menhaden
; Brevoortia tvrannus
/
X
X ;
Atlantic moonfish
Selene setapinnis
/
; X
Chapter Contents
G3-1 Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I&E at the Seabrook
and Pilgrim Facilities G3-1
G3-2 Life Histories of Most Abundant Species in
Seabrook and Pilgrim I&E Collections G3-3
G3-3 Seabrook's Methods for Estimating Impingement
and Entrainment 03-13
G3-3,1 Seabrook Impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring G3-13
G3-3.2 Seabrook Entrainment Monitoring G3-13
G3-4 Seabrook's Annual Impingement and Entrainment G3-14
G3-5 Pilgrim's Methods for Estimating Impingement
and Entrainment G3-14
G3-5.1 Pilgrim Impingement and Entrainment
Monitoring G3-14
G3-5.2 Pilgrim Entrainment Monitoring G3-14
G3-6 Pilgrim's Annua! Impingement and Entrainment .. G3-14
G3-7 Summary and Comparison of I&E at Seabrook
and Pilgrim G3-51
G3-8 Potential Biases and Uncertainties in I&E
Estimates G3-51
G3-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table 63-1:
Aquatic Species Vulnerable to I<5£ at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities (cont.)
Common Name
Scientific Name
\ Seabrook
Pilgrim
Commercial
Recreational ;
Forage
Atlantic seasnail
'.Liparis atlanticus
/
X
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
/
/
X
Atlantic tomcod
: Microgadus tomcod
/
/
X :
Atlantic torpedo
: Torpedo nobiliana
X
Bay anchovy
¦Anchoa mitchiUi
/
X
Black ruff
• Centrolophus niger
/
/
X
Black sea bass
: Centropristis striata
/
/
X
X
Blackspotted stickleback
: Gasterosteus wheatlandi
/
X
Blue mussel
¦ Mytilus eduhs
/
/
X
X
Blueback herring
¦ Alosa aestivalis
/
/
X
Blueiish
¦Pomatomus saltator
~
/
X
X
Butterfish
¦Pepritus triacanthus
/
/
X
X ¦
Cleamose skate
Raja eglanteria
/
X
Conger eel
• Conger oceanicus
/
X
Cunner
1 Tautogolabrus adspersus
/
X
X
Flying gurnard
'.Dactylopterus volitans
/
~
X
Fourbeard rockling
.Enchelyopus cimbrius
~
~
X
Fourspine stickleback
¦Apeites quadracus
/
X
Fourspot flounder
: Paralichthys oblongus
/
~
X
Goose fish
Laphius americanus
/
X
Grubby
Myoxocephalus aenaeus
/
/
X
Gulf snailfish
¦Liparis coheni
/
X
Haddock
• Meianogrammus aeglefinus
~
X
X
Hake species
; Lotidae
/
/
X
X
Herring speeies
IClupcidae
X
X
Hogchoker
• Trinectes maculatus
/
/
X
Killifish species
iFundulidae
/
X
Lefteye flounder
iBothidae
/
X
X
Little skate
¦Leucoraja erinacea
/
/
X
Longhom sculpin
; Myoxocephalus
: actodecemspinoms
~
/
X
Lumpfish
• Cyclopterus lumpus
/
/
X
Moustache sculpin
: Triglops murravi
/
X
Mummichog
".Fundulus heterociitus
•heteroclitus
/
/
X
Northern kingfish .
1Menticirrhus saxatilis
~
/
X
Northern pipefish
ISyngnathus fuscus
/
~
X
Northern puffer
iSphoeroides maculatus
/
~
X
Northern searobin
"-Prionotus caralinus
/
~
X
Ocean pout
iZoarces americanus
X
Orange filefish
'.Aluterus schoepfii
/
/
X
Oyster toadfish
¦ Opsanus tau
X
Peariside
i Maurolicus muelleri
~
/
X
Planehead filefish
¦Stephanolepis hispidus
~
/
X
Pollock
¦Pollachius pollachius
/
/
X
X
Radiated shanny
i Ulvaria subhifurcata
~
/
X
Rainbow smelt
¦ Osmerus mordax mordax
~
~
X
X
Red hake
i Urophycis chuss
~
~
X
Redfish (Red drum)
: Sciaenops ocellatus
~
X
Righteye flounders
\ Pleuronectidae
X
X
Rock gunnel
Pholis gunnellus
~
~
X
Rough scad
l Trachurus lathami
X
Round scad
Decapterus punctatus
/
X
Sand lance species
Ammodyte spp.
/
/
X
Sand tiger
: Carchatias taurus
/
X
G3-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of ME Data
Table 63 -1: Aquatic Species Vulnerable to IAE at the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities (cont.)
Common Name
; Scientific Name
Seabrook
Pilgrim
Commercial
Recreational
Forage
Sculpin species
iCottidae
/
/
X
Scup
¦Stenotomus chrysops
~
~
X
X
Sea lamprey
Petramyzvn marinus
/
X
Sea raven
¦ Hemilripterus americanus
/
X
Searobin species
:'Triglidae
/
/
X
Shorthorn sculpin
¦ Myoxocephalus scorpius
/
~
X
Silver hake/Atlantic whiting
: Merluccius bilinearis
/
X
X
Silver-rag
¦Ariomma bondi
/
/
X
Skate species
•Rajidac
X
Smallmouth flounder
: tlropus microstomia
/
X
Smooth dogfish
iMustehis canis
/
/
X
Smooth flounder
iPleurorwctes putnami
/
X
Snailfish species
¦ Cyclopteridae
/
/
X
Spiny dogfish
¦ Squalus acanthias
/
X
Spot
.Leiostomus xanthurus
/
X
Spotted hake
1 Urophycis regia
~
/
X
Striped anchovy
;Anchoa hepsetus
/
X
Striped bass
.Morone saxatiiis
/
/
X
X
Striped eusk-eel
¦ Ophidion marginatum
/
X
Striped killifish
iFundulus majaUs
~
X
Striped searobin
Prionotus evolans
/
/
X
Summer flounder
I Paralichlhys dentatus
/
/
X
X
Tautog
¦ Tautoga oititis
~
/
X
X
Thrccspme stickleback
¦ Gasterosteus aculeatus aculeatus
/
/
X
White hake
\ Urophycis tenuis
/
~
X
White perch
¦Morone americana
/
/
X
X
Windowpane
¦Scophthalmus aquosus
~
~
X
X
Winter flounder
"Phuronectes americanus
/
~
X
X
Witch flounder
; Glyptocephalus cynoglossus
/
X
Wolf-fish
•Anarhtchas lupus
/
X
Wrymouth
j Cryptacanthodes maculatus
/
X
Yeilowtail flounder
Limanda ferruginea
/
X
X
Sources: Saila et al„ 1997; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977; Normandeau Associates 1991, 1993-1995, 1996a,
1996b, 1997; Boston Edison Company, 1991-1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996-1999.
£3-2 Life Histories of Most abundant Species in seabrook and Pilgrim IS£
Collections
Atlantic cod (Badus morhua)
Atlantic cod is a member of the Gadidae family, which includes cods and haddocks. The species is found from Greenland
south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina (Fahay et al., 1999). Atlantic cod is an extremely important commercial and
recreational fish in the United States and Canada. The northern cod stock declined by almost two orders of magnitude
between 1962 and 1992. The collapse of the fishery was due to excessive pressure from fishing (Hutchings, 1996). The 1987
year class was the largest in the period from 1982 to 1998; however, recruitment remains poor and year classes through the
1990s were weak (NOAA, 2001c). Currently the United States and Canadian Atlantic cod fisheries are managed through
techniques such as closures, minimum size limits, days-at-sea restrictions, and quotas.
In U.S. waters, cod are evaluated and managed as two stocks, (I) the Gulf of Maine, and (2) Georges Bank and south
(NEFSC, 2000b). Commercial and recreational fishing occurs throughout the year, but most recreational fishing occurs in
late summer in the lower Gulf of Maine. 'Both commercial and recreational fishing are managed under the New England
G3-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3; Evaluation of I4E Data
Fishery Management Council's Northeast Multispecies Management Plan. The goal of the plan is to reduce Fishing mortality
to levels which will allow stocks to rebuild.
Spawning begins in northern areas as early as February and ends in southern areas as late as December (Scott and Scott,
1988). Cod spawn repeatedly for up to 50 days once a year (Kjesbu, 1989). Annual fecundity increases with age and size
(May, 1967), with large females producing between 3 to 9 million eggs {Fahay et a!., 1999). Spawning occurs at various
depths, from less than 110 m (360 ft) to more than 182 m (597 ft), depending on water temperature (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Eggs are distributed throughout the water column, although their buoyancy tends to concentrate them in a cold intermediate
layer if the water is stratified (Ouellet, 1997). Egg development in cooler waters (0 "Cor 32 °F) usually extends for 40 days
(Scott and Scott, 1988; Ouellet, 1997).
The pelagic larvae move to the bottom during the day and rise at night (Lough and Potter, 1993; Gotceitas et al., 1997). Age
0 and age 1 cod are both found in nearshore environments, preferably over sandy substrates (Fraser et al, 1996), and young
cod often seek cover in eelgrass (Zostera marina) (Gotceitas et al, 1997). Juveniles 40 mm (0.16 in.) or larger are demersal
by day, but will frequently rise up to 5 m (16 ft) off the bottom at night (Lough and Potter, 1993).
Atlantic cod eat a variety of foods throughout their lifetime (Scott and Scott, 1988). Fry eat copepods, amphipods, larvae, and
small crustaceans; juveniles eat larger crustaceans; and adults over 50 cm (19 in.) eat fish, including smaller cod, as well as
invertebrates. Age 0 cod primarily feed during the day, while age 1 cod generally feed at night (Grant and Brown, 1998).
Adult Atlantic cod live in diverse habitats ranging from inshore waters to the outer continental shelf, and from depths of 457
m (1,500 ft) to surface waters. They generally prefer cooler water temperatures ranging from -0.5 to 10 °C (31 to 50 °F; Scott
and Scott, 1988). Off the New England coast, Atlantic cod migrate seasonally, moving into coastal waters in the fall and
returning to deeper waters during spring (Fahay et al., 1999). Adults reach sexual maturity at ages 2 to 4 (NOAA, 2001c).
Cod can reach a total length of 200 cm (78 in.), a maximum weight of 96 kg (212 lb), and a maximum age of 25 (Froese and
Pauiy, 2001).
G3-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part S; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3; Evaluation of I4E beta
ATLANTIC COD
(Gadus morhua)
Family: Gadidae (cods and haddocks).
Common names: Atlantic cod.
Similar species: Greenland cod (G. ogac). Pacific cod
(G. macrocephalus).
Geographic range: Can be found from Greenland
south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.*
Habitat: Diverse habitats ranging from inshore waters
to the outer continental shelf, and from depths of 457 m
(1,500 ft) to surface waters/
Lifespan: Maximum reported age is 25 years.'
Fecundity: Large females may produce between 3 to 9
million eggs."
Fahay et al., 1999.
" Scott and Scott, 1988.
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
* Grant and Brown, 1998.
Ouellet, 1997.
f Lough and Potter, 1993
Fraseretal., 1996.
H Gotccitas et al., 1997.
' Campana et al., 1999.
Fish graphic from NQAA, 2002e,
: Food source: Larvae and juveniles consume copepods,
: amphipods, larvae, and crustaceans. Adults feed on fish,
: including smaller cod, as well as invertebrates,15 Age 0 cod feed
during the day, Age 1 cod feed primarily at night.d
Prey for: Larger cod, squid, pollock, and seals.c
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
~ Distributed throughout the water column."
Larvae: pelagic
~ Move "to the bottom during the day and rise at night/
*¦ Found in nearshore environments, preferably over sandy
substrates or in eelgrass.8,h
Juveniles: demersal
~ Larger juveniles are mainly demersal, but will rise up to
5 m (16 ft) off the bottom at night/
Adults:
Adult Atlantic cod in the Gulf of Maine migrate
northward in fall, traveling up to 500 km (310 miles) to
overwinter off of eastern Canada.'
Move into coastal waters in the fall, and return to deeper
waters during spring."
Atlantic herring {dupea harengus)
Atlantic herring is a member of the Clupeidae family, which includes herring, sardines, and shads. It ranges from
southwestern Greenland and Labrador to South Carolina (Scott and Scott, 1988). Herring fisheries developed in the late
1800's, concurrent with the development of canning technology. Herring were also used as bait for the lobster industry,
which developed at about the same time. Annual landings were as high as 68 million kg (150 million lb) in the late 1800's
(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a). Particularly aggressive foreign fisheries developed in the 1960's on
Georges Bank, with landings peaking at 363 million kg (800 million lb) in 1968. This overfishing contributed to a crash of
the Atlantic herring population. Current annual harvests are in the range of 36 to 45 million kg (80 to 100 million lb)
(Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a), Primary uses of Atlantic herring are as canned sardines, steaks, and
bait for crab, lobster, and tuna fisheries (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a).
Atlantic herring along the northeastern Atlantic coast were previously managed as two stocks, the Gulf of Maine stock and the
Georges Bank stock. However, herring from the two stocks are now considered together as a single coastal stock complex for
current management purposes (NEFSC, 2000c). The offshore fishery collapsed in 1977, and subsequently the commercial
fishery focused on the near shore waters of the Gulf of Maine. Stock biomass has increased substantially in recent years
because of increased spawning and low fishing mortality. Recreational landings in recent years have been inconsequential.
G3-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of ME Data
Spawning occurs throughout the year, peaking in shallow waters in the spring and deeper waters in the fall (Scott and Scoll,
1988). Spawning in waters of coastal Massachusetts takes place usually in October or November at depths ranging from 4 to
110 m (13 to 360 fl) (Kelly and Moring, 1986). Adults may travel long distances to return to spawning grounds, which
consist of rock, gravel, or sandy substrates (Kelly and Morning, 1986). Fecundity increases with age and size, with females
producing between 23,000 and 261,000 eggs (Messieh, 1976), Atlantic herring eggs are demersal, stick to the bottom in
clumps or layers, and often cover the substrate (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a). Eggs are generally 1.0
to 1,4 mm (0.04 to 0.06 in.) in diameter and hatch after 10 to 30 days, depending on temperature. Larvae are 4 to 10 mm (less
than 0.4 in.) in total length (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Larvae disperse to estuaries after hatching, and grow to approximately 30 mm (1.2 in.) long before transforming into juveniles
(Able and Fahay, 1998). Transformation occurs after about 152 days at water temperatures of 7 to 12 "C (44 to 54 °F)
(Doyle, 1977), but can last as long as 240 days for late-spawned (December) herring (Reid et al., 1999). Larvae hatched
earlier in the season tend to grow faster than those hatched later (Jones, 1985). These juveniles, called "brit herring," move in
large inshore schools. Larger juveniles are referred to as "sardines" and are harvested commercially (Jury et al,, 1994).
Adults are found in coastal and continental shelf waters at depths of up to 200 m (656 ft) and in water temperatures front 1 to
18 °C (34 to 64 °F; Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001 a; Froese and Pauly, 2001). Feeding migrations may-
consist of hundreds of thousands of adults. Schools are composed of individuals of similar size classes, and tend to inhabit
the upper water column. Most Atlantic herring migrate south in the fall from feeding grounds off Maine to southern New
England (Kelly and Moring, 1986).
Food sources are primarily small planktonic copepods in the first year, and copepods thereafter, Atlantic herring switch to
filter feeding if the density and size of food are appropriate (Froese and Pauly, 2001). Adult herring will also eat fish eggs,
pteropods (small molluscs), and the larvae of mollusks and fish {Scott and Scott, 1988).
Growth rates of Atlantic herring are highly variable by slock, and herring typically reach maturity between the ages of 3 and 5
(Scott and Scott, 1988). Environmental factors such as temperature, food availability, and population size generally control
growth. Atlantic herring reach 250 mm (10 in.) by the fourth year and may eventually reach 380 mm (15 in.) and 0.68 kg (1.5
lb) (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a). A Gulf of St. Lawrence study reported Atlantic herring of 12 years
(Scott and Scott, 1988).
G3-6
-------
S 316(h) Case Studies, Port S; Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of I4E Data
: Food source: Young of year primarily feed on small planktonic
"W. "WW—
; copepods; adults consume larger copepods, fish eggs, pteropods
^ym J,1 *
: (small molluscs), and the larvae of mollusks and fish."
Prey for: Almost all pelagic predators as well as many seabirds,
ATLANTIC HERRING
. marine mammals, and bottom dwellers (eggs only).'
(Clupea harengus)
Life stage information:
Family: Clupeidae (herrings)."
: Eggs: demersal
Common names; sea herring, sardine, herring.1*
: ~ Stick to the bottom in clumps or layers, and often cover
: the substrate/
Similar species: Pacific herring (C. pallasii), alewives
(Alosa pseudo harengus).8
; Larvae: pelagic
; ~ Larvae disperse to estuaries after hatching."1
Geographic range: Can be found from southwestern
Greenland and Labrador to South Carolina.3
: Juveniles: pelagic
: *¦ Harvested commercially as "sardines.'"
Habitat: Coastal and continental shelf waters at depths
of up to 200 m (656 ft)."
Adults:
: ~ Form schools of hundreds of thousands of individuals of
Lifespan: Up to 12 years*
the same size class/
~ Most migrate south in the fall from feeding grounds off
Fecundity: Females produce between 23,000 and
Maine to southern New England/
261,000 eggs.'
* Scott and Scott, 1988.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2001a,
c Messieh, 1976,
4 Able and Fahay, 1998.
c Jury et al, 1994.
' Kelly and Moung, 1986,
Fish graphic from Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2002
Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scrombrus)
Atlantic mackerel is a member of the Scombridae family, which includes mackerels, tunas, and bonitos. Atlantic mackerel
range from Labrador to Cape Lookout, North Carolina, The species tends to school in large groups in shelf areas with water
temperatures of 9 to 12 °C (48 to 54 *F; Scott and Scott, 1988), Atlantic mackerel is fished both commercially and for sport.
Fish caught in the United States and Canada peaked in 1973 at 400 million kg (400,000 metric tons) per year and declined to
a low of 30 million kg (30,000 metric tons) in the late 1970's. Weak year classes occurred from 1975 through 1980 but
stocks are currently very high (NEFSC, 2000a). Stock increases have resulted from low harvest rates combined with
improved recruitment.
Winters are spent in deeper waters, but mackerel return to shore in springtime to spawn. There are two major spawning areas
for Atlantic mackerel: between Cape Cod and Cape Hatteras, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence (Scott and Scott, 1988). In the
Gulf of St Lawrence, Atlantic mackerel spawn from June to mid-August, whereas in the northern regions of the Mid-Atlantic
Bight they spawn from April to June (Ware and Lambert, 1985). In summer and fall, fish from the Mid-Atlantic Bight move
into coastal areas along the Gulf of Maine, while the northern contingent remains in Canadian waters (Ware and Lambert,
1985).
Females are serial spawners, releasing five to seven successive batches of eggs each year (Morse, 1980b). Fecundity values
for females in U.S. waters of the northwestern Atlantic range from approximately 156,000 to 1,640,000 eggs for females
between 310 and 446 mm (12 to 19 in.) fork length (Griswold and Silverman, 1992). Eggs are pelagic and are released near
the surface, where they concentrate in the upper 10 m (33 ft) of water (Scott and Scott, 1988). At hatching, larvae are about 3
mm (0.1 in.) long (Ware and Lambert, 1985). Larvae grow rapidly, reaching an average size of 200 mm (8 in.) by late fall
(Scott and Scott, 1988).
G3-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Scobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of IAE Data
Atlantic mackerel feed by both filter feeding and prey selection. Food sources include zooplankton, shrimp, crab larvae,
small squid, fish eggs, and young fish such as capelin and herring. After spawning, adults generally migrate in schools to
offshore feeding areas before returning to their overwintering sites (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Once juveniles join the offshore adults, they remain in schools. Adults are obligate swimmers owing to the absence of a swim
bladder {Scott and Scott, 1988), Atlantic mackerel mature at about 2 years or 26 cm (10 in.) (NMFS, 1999b). They may live
up to 17 years and attain length of up to 50 cm (20 in,) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
ATLANTIC MACKEREL
(Scomber scombrus)
Family; Scombridae (mackerels, tunas, bonitos).2
Common names: Mackerel, tinker (half-grown
mackerel).
Similar species;
Geographic range: Can be found from Labrador,
Canada to Cape Lookout, North Carolina."
Habitat: Open marine waters, mainly within the
continental shelf.b
Lifespan: Maximum reported age is 17 years.'"
Fecundity: Females produce approximately 156,000 to
1,640,000 eggs,d
Food source: Zooplankton, shrimp, crab larvae, small squid, fish
eggs, and young capelin and herring.'
Prey for: Porbeagle sharks, dogfish, Atlantic cod, bluefin tuna,
sword fish, porpoises, and harbor seals."
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
~ Eggs are released near the surface."
Larvae; pelagic
~ Grow rapidly, reaching an average size of 200 mm (8 in.)
by late fall.2
Juveniles:
~ Join the offshore adults and remain in schools.6
Adults:
~ School in large groups in shelf areas.'
~ Are obligate swimmers owing to the absence of a swim
bladder.3
Scott and Scott, 1988.
Studholme et al., 1999.
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Griswold and Silverman, 1992.
Fish graphic from NQAA, 2001c.
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
The Atlantic menhaden is a member of the Clupeidae (herring) family, and is a euryhaline species, occupying coastal and
estuarine habitats. It is found along the Atlantic coast of North America, from Maine to northern Florida (Hall, 1995). Adults
congregate in large schools in coastal areas; these schools are especially abundant in and adjacent to major estuaries and bays.
They consume plankton, primarily diatoms and dinoflagellates, which they Filter from the water through elaborate gill rakers.
In turn, menhaden are consumed by almost all piscivorous, recreationally important fish, as well as dolphins and birds (Hall,
1995).
The menhaden fishery is one of the most important and productive fisheries on the Atlantic coast, representing a multimillion-
dollar enterprise worldwide (Hall, 1995). Menhaden are considered an "industrial fish" and are used in products such as
paints, cosmetics, margarine (in Europe and Canada) and feed, as well as bait for other fisheries. The fishery in New England
peaked in the 1950's with 36 million kg (36,000 metric tons) landed. Landings in the 1960's declined to their lowest level of
approximately 2,700 kg (2.7 metric tons) because of overfishing. Since then, landings have varied, ranging from
approximately 200,000 kg (200 metric tons) in 1989 to 1 million kg (1,000 metric tons) in 1998 (personal communication,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, March 19,2001).
G3-8
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port &: Seobrook ond Pilgrim
Chapter &3: Evaluation of ME Data
Atlantic menhaden spawn year round at sea and in larger bays. In waters from Maine to Massachusetts, spawning takes place
from May to October (Scott and Scott, 1988), The majority of spawning occurs over the inner continental shelf, with lesser
activity in bays and estuaries (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Females mature between ages 2 and 3, and release buoyant, planktonic eggs during spawning (Hall, 1995). Atlantic
menhaden annual egg production ranges from approximately 40,000 to 700,000 eggs (Hall, 1995). Eggs are spherical and are
between i .3 to 1.9 mm (0.05 to 0.07 in.) in diameter (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Larvae hatch after approximately 24 hours and remain in the plankton. Those larvae that hatch at sea enter estuarine waters 1
to 2 months later (Hall, 1995). Water temperatures below 3 "C (37 °F) kill the larvae, and therefore larvae that fail to reach
estuaries before the fall are more likely to die than those arriving in early spring (Able and Fahay, 1998), Larvae are 30 mm
(0.1 in.) and 70 mg (0.0001 lb) and juveniles are 38 mm (0.15 in.) and approximately 470 mg (0.001 lb; Lewis et at.. 1972).
The juvenile growth rate is estimated to be 1 mm (0.04 in.) per day (Able and Fahay, 1998).
During the fall and early winter, most menhaden migrate south to the North Carolina capes, where they remain until March
and early April. Few larvae can tolerate waters below 3 °C (37 °F), or waters that rapidly cool to 4.5 "C (40 "F), Adults and
juveniles can tolerate a wide range of salinities from less than 1% up to 33-37% (Hall, 1995). Menhaden spawn in early
spring and winter off North Carolina and in spring and late fall in the mid-Atlantic region (Wang and Kemehan, 1979).
However, primary spawning grounds for Atlantic menhaden are offshore near Cape Cod (Jury et al„ 1994),
Adult fish are usually 30-35 cm (12-14 in.) long and weigh 0,9 kg (2 lb). The maximum age of a menhaden is approximately
7 to 8 years (Hall, 1995), although individuals of 8-10 years have been recorded (Scott and Scott, 1988).
ATLANTIC MENHADEN
(Brevaortia tyrannus)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).3
Common names: Menhaden, moss bunker, fatback."
Similar species: Gulf menhaden (B, patronus), yellowfin
menhaden (B. smithi).
Geographic range: From Maine to northern Florida
along the Atlantic coast.'
Habitat: Open-sea, marine waters. Travels in schools."
Lifespan: Approximately 7 to 8 years.'
Fecundity: Females produce between 40,000 to 700,000
eggs-'
Scotland Scon, 1988.
Bigclow and Schroeder, 1953,
Hali, 1995.
Able and Fahay, 1998.
Fish graphic from U.S. EPA, 2002a.
Food source: Phytoplankton, zooplankton, annelid worms,
detritus.8
Prey for; Sharks, cod, pollock, hakes, bluefish, tuna,
swordfish, seabirds, whales, porpoises.'
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
~ Spawning takes place along the inner continental
shelf, in open marine waters, with less activity in
bay and estuaries."
~ Hatch after approximately 24 hours.1
Larvae: pelagic
~ Hatch at sea, and enter estuarine waters 1 to 2
months later :
>• Remain in estuaries through the summer, -
emigrating to ocean waters as juveniles in
September or October.11
Adults
~ Congregate in large schools in coastal areas
~ Spawn year round, primarily May to October from
Main to Massachusetts."
G3-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE tMta
Conner ( Tautogobbrus adspersus)
Cunner is a member of the Labridae family, which includes the tautog. Cunner is a dominant component of many temperate
marine communities of the western Atlantic Ocean from Newfoundland to Chesapeake Bay {Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
It is a territorial and sedentary species that occupies small, localized ranges within 10 km (6.2 miles) of shore. The species
prefers complex habitats with natural or artificial structures such as bedrock outcrops, glacial boulders, pilings, shipwrecks, or
breakwaters, and juveniles inhabit shallow waters (Lawton et al,, 2000). Although large numbers of cunner were landed in the
late 1800's and early 1900's, today they have little commercial or recreational value (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953).
In Cape Cod Bay, cunner spawn close to shore from mid-March until mid-July (Lawton et al., 2000). In more northern areas
the spawning season lasts from May to September. Spawning peaks in waters near Woods Hole, Massachusetts, during the
first three weeks of June (Lawton et al., 2000). Males and females are able to spawn several times in a day, and more than
once throughout the spawning season (Pottle and Green, 1979). Females produce approximately 5,000 to 600,000 eggs
annually (Steimle and Shaheen, 1999). The number of eggs produced is related to fork length and fish weight; maximum egg
production occurs between the ages of 7 and 9 years and is maintained until approximately 16 years of age (Steimle and
Shaheen, 1999).
Cunner eggs are pelagic and range in size from 0,84 to 0.92 mm (0.033 to 0.036 in.) in diameter (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Eggs hatch after several days in water temperatures of 12.8 to 18.3 °C (55 to 65 *F), and larvae are 2-3 mm (0.08 to 0.11 in.)
long (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). The larval stage lasts 18-37 days (Lawton et al., 2000).
Cunner growth rates during the first year in waters near Nova Scotia range from 0.30 to 0.35 mm (0.01 in.) per day (Tupper
and Boutilier, 1995). Larvae and juveniles collected in July in the Great Bay-Little Egg Harbor area, off the New Jersey
shore, were 5.2-15.6 mm (0.2 to 0.6 in.) long (Able and Fahay, 1998). At age 1, cunner are about 4 to 8 cm (1.6 to 3.1 in.)
long (Serchuk and Cole, 1974).
Adults do not migrate extensively, but they will travel short distances to escape extremes in water temperature (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953). They move to protected areas in the fall and become inactive as water temperatures fall to 7-8 "C (45 to 46
°F). As temperatures decrease further, cunner become dormant (Olla et al, 1975). Some may overwinter in their summer
habitat, but inshore areas that are susceptible to thermal currents are not suitable for the dormant period (Dew, 1976). When
spring water temperatures reach 5 to 6 °C (41 to 43 °F), cunner move to seasonally transitory habitats such as mussel beds and
seaweed (Olla et al., 1979). Cunner are active during the day and become inactive and seek cover at night (Olla et al., 1975).
Cunner are omnivores that feed on mussels, small lobsters, and sea urchins in addition to plant material (State of Maine
Division of Marine Resources, 2001b).
Dew (1976) found that cunner in the mid-Atlantic Bight mature at about age 1. Cunner sampled in Cape Cod Bay were up to
10 years old (Lawton et al, 2000), whereas data for other areas indicate a maximum age of 6 years (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
G3-10
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port Seabroak and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of I&E Data
C U NN ER( Tautogolabrux adspersus)
Family: Labridae (wrasses).
Common names: Perch, sea perch, blue perch,
bergall, chogset, ehoggy."
Similar species: Tautog (Tautoga otitis).
Geographic range: Prevalent from Newfoundland to
Chesapeake Bay.*'
Habitat: Natural or artificial structures within 10 km
of shore.5
Lifespan: May live up to 10 years,c
Fecundity: Females produce approximately 5,000 to
600,000 eggs annually."
Auster, 1989.
Bigelow and Schrocdcr, 1953.
c Lawton et al,, 2000.
d State of Maine Division of Marine Resources, 2001 b.
Scott and Scott, 1988.
' Able and Fahay, 1998.
5 Olla etal, 1975.
Fish graphic from NQAA, 2002c.
Food source: Mussels, small lobsters, and sea urchins in addition
; to plant material.11
Prey for: Other shore fish such as seulpins, seabirds."
Life stage information:
Eggs: pelagic
' ~ Range in size from 0.84 to 0.92 mm (0.033 to 0.036 in.) in
diameter/
, Larvae:
*¦ 0.2-0.3 mm (.008 to 0.012 in.) in length.™
Juveniles:
' ~ Can be found in high abundance in structurally complex
habitats/
! Adults:
' *¦ Inactive as water temperatures fall, but they will travel
short distances to escape extremes in temperature.b
¦ » Become dormant in the winter.'
Winter flounder (P/euronectes americanus)
Winter flounder is a bcnthic flatfish of the family Pleuronectidae (righteye flounders), which is found in estuarine and
continental shelf habitats. Its range extends from the southern edge of the Grand Banks south to Georgia (Buckley, 1989b).
It is a bottom feeder, occupying sandy or muddy habitats and feeding on bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp,
amphipods, crabs, urchins, and snails (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
Both commercial and recreational fisheries for winter flounder are important. U.S. commercial and recreational Fisheries are
managed under the New England Fishery Management Council's Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission's Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder (NEFSC, 2000d).
Three groups are recognized for management and assessment purposes: Gulf of Maine, Southern New England-Mid Atlantic,
and Georges Bank, Management currently focuses on reducing fishing levels to reverse declining trends and rebuild stocks.
The Gulf of Maine stock is currently considered overfished (NEFSC, 2000d). Although improvements in stock condition will
depend on reduced harvest, the long-term potential catch (maximum sustainable yield) has not been determined.
The winter flounder is a nonmigratory species. Tagging studies indicate that winter flounder north of Cape Cod remain in
local inshore waters, while populations south of Cape Cod may disperse up to 3 miles offshore on a seasonal basis (Buckley,
1989b). Water temperature seems to be the most important determining factor of seasonal distribution. Winter flounder near
Newfoundland may remain in shallow waters during the summer as long as temperatures do not exceed 15 C (59 F), while
off of the coast of Rhode Island, winter flounder move to deeper, cooler waters in the summer (Buckley, 1989b).
G3-11
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Scabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (S3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Spawning occurs between January and May in New England, with peaks in the Massachusetts area in February and March
(Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Spawning habitat is generally in shallow water over a sandy or muddy bottom (Seott and
Scott, 1988). Adult fish tend to leave the shallow water in autumn to spawn at the head of estuaries in late winter. The
majority of spawning takes place in a salinity range of 31 to 33 ppt and a water temperature range of 0 to 3 *C (32 to 37 *F).
Females will usually produce between 500,000 and 1.5 million eggs annually, which sink to the bottom in clusters. The eggs
are about 0.74 to 0.85 mm (approximately 0,03 in.) in diameter, and hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days (Bigelow and
Schroeder, 1953).
Larvae are about 3.0 to 3.5 mm (0.1 in.) total length when they hatch out. They develop and metamorphose over 2 to 3
months, with growth rates controlled by water temperature (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Larval growth appears to be
optimal with a slow increase from spawning temperatures of 2 °C (36 °F) to approximately 10 °C (50 °F; Buckley, 1982).
Larvae depend on light and vision to feed during the day and do not feed at night (Buckley, 1989b). Juveniles tend to remain
in shallow spawning waters, and stay on the ocean bottom (Scott and Scott, 1988).
Fifty percent of females reach maturity at age 2 or 3 in the waters of Georges Bank, while they may not mature until age 5 in
more northern areas such as near Newfoundland. Females are generally 22.5 to 31.5 cm (8 to 12.4 in.) long at maturity
(Howell et al., 1992).
Winter flounder supports important commercial and recreational fisheries in the area, as it is the thickest and meatiest of the
common New England flatfish (Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953). Annual commercial landings declined from 17.083 million kg
(17,083 metric tons) in 1981 to 3,223 million kg (3,223 metric tons) in 1994 (personal communication, National Marine
Fisheries Society, Fish Statistics and Economics Division, Silver Spring, MD, January 16, 2002.). Winter flounder is
ecologically important as a prey species for larger estuarine and coastal fish such as striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and
bluefish (Pomatomm saltatrix) (Buckley, 1989b).
G3-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I4E Data
WINTER FLOUNDER
(Pleuronectes americanus)
Family: Pleuroneetidae (righteye flounders)
Common names: Blackback flounder, lemon sole, black
flounder."
Similar species: American plaice (Hippoglossoides
piatessoides), European plaice (P. platessus).
Geographic range: From the southern edge of the Grand
Banks south to Georgia."
Habitat: Bottom dweller. Found in coastal marine
waters .c
Lifespan; May live up to 15 years.
Fecundity: Females produce between 500,000 and 1.5
million eggs annually."
Food source: Bottom-dwelling organisms such as shrimp,
amphipods, crabs, urchins and snails."
Prey for: Striped bass, bluefish.b
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
~ Approximately 0.74 to 0.85 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter."
~ Hatch in approximately 15 to 18 days*
Larvae: semi-pelagic
~ Approximately 3.0 to 3.5 mm (0.1 in.) total length when
they hatch out.3
Juveniles: demersal
» Once winter flounder enter the juvenile stage, they
remain benthic, preferring sandy bottomed substrates.11
Adults:
~ Females mature at ages 2 and 3/
~ Migrate seasonally to offshore waters in the summer,
and inshore waters in the winter.b
" Bigelowanci Schroetlei, 1953.
b Buckley, 1989b.
c Scott and Scott, 1988.
11 Grimes et al,, 1989.
¦ Howell et al., 1992.
Fish graphic from State of Maine Department of Marine Resources, 20014
G3-3 Seabrook's Methods for Estimating Impingement and Entrainment
&3-3.1 Seabrook Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Seabrook has sampled impinged organisms since 1990 (Normandeau Associates, 1990, 1991,1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1995,
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999). Impinged fish are collected after being washed from the 9.525 mm mesh traveling screens within
the circulating water pumphouse. Before 1998, screens were washed once per week, or more frequently during storm
conditions, and collected fish were identified to species and counted (Normandeau Associates, 1999). Because of inadequate
removal of small fish from screenwash debris, the facility believes that estimates from 1990 to 1994 are likely to be
underestimated (Normandeau Associates, 1995). Prior to 1998, the number of Fish impinged in unassessed screenwashes was
estimated based on the volume of debris in the unassessed screenwash and the volume of debris in the assessed screenwash
nearest in time to the collection date. The sum of assessed screenwashes and the calculated value for the unassessed
screenwashes allowed calculation of an annual estimate of ftsh impinged (Normandeau Associates, 1997, 1999). In 1998
sampling procedures were adjusted so that traveling screens were washed at least twice each week and fish were counted in
every screenwash. Since 1998, the annual impingement is the sum of the fish impinged from every screenwash (Normandeau
Associates, 1999; R. Sher, Seabrook Station, personal communication, 2001).
63-3.2 Seabrook Entrainment Monitoring
Seabrook has also conducted entrainment sampling since 1990 (Normandeau Associates, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994b, 1995,
1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999; Saila et al., 1997). Samples are collected with 0.505 mm mesh nets suspended in double-barrel
G3-13
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I<5E Data
collection devices. Initially, three replicate samples were taken once during the day on each sampling date, but beginning in
January 1998 the sampling design changed to include 24-hour sampling. Samples are taken four times each month, and in
four diel periods (2400-0600,0600-1200, 1200-1800,1800-2400 hours). The weekly number of entrained organisms is
estimated by calculating the arithmetic mean density in a sample for each sampling day and multiplying by the cooling water
volume during the week the sample was taken. These weekly estimates are summed for a monthly estimate, and monthly
estimates are summed to derive an annual estimate (Normandeau Associates, 1997). Slight variations in annual extrapolations
methods can be found in Seabrook facility documents for previous years (Normandeau Associates, 1993, 1994a, 1995).
63-4 Seabrook's Annual Impingement and Entrainment
EPA evaluated annual impingement and entrainment at Seabrook using the methods described in Chapter A5 of Part A of this
document.' The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix Gl. Table G3-2
displays facility estimates of annual impingement (numbers of organisms) at the Seabrook facility, by species. Table G3-3
displays those numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table G3-4 displays impingement of fishery species as yield lost to
fisheries, and Table G3-5 displays impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables G3-6 through G3-9 display the
same information for entrainment at Seabrook.
£3-5 Pilgrim's Methods for Estimating Impingement and Entrainment
G3-5.1 Pilgrim Impingement and Entrainment Monitoring
Impingement monitoring at Pilgrim has been conducted three times per week since 1974. Traveling screens are washed over
a 24-hour period, once in the morning, once in the afternoon, and once at night. To estimate annual impingement numbers,
Pilgrim divides the numbers of fish impinged during an impingement monitoring period by the numbers of hours of
monitoring, and then the resulting impingement rate per hour is multiplied by 24 hours and by 365 days to obtain an annual
number. After 1990, if all four intake screens were not washed, then the number of fish impinged was increased by a
proportional factor (Boston Edison Company, 1991-1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996-1999; Entergy Nuclear General Company,
2000).
S3-5.2 Pilgrim Entrainment Monitoring
Entrainment sampling at Pilgrim began in 1974 (Boston Edison Company, 1991-1994,1995a, 1995b, 1996-1999; Entergy
Nuclear General Company, 2000). Samples are taken in triplicate at low tide. In most years sampling was twice a month
from October through February and weekly from March through September. However, this regime was modified in 1994.
Sampling from October through February now involves taking single samples on three separate occasions during two alternate
weeks each month. The standard mesh is 0.333 mm, except from late March through late May, when a 0.202 mm mesh is
used. From March through September single samples are taken three times every week. All sampling is done with a 60 cm
diameter plankton net fitted with a digital flow meter. This allows for calculation of arithmetic mean densities of larvae and
eggs entrained. Annual numbers of entrainment were determined using the full load capacity of the plant (Entergy Nuclear
Generating Company, 2001).
S3-6 Pilgrim's Annual Impingement and Entrainment
EPA evaluated annual impingement and entrainment at Pilgrim using the methods described in Chapter AS of Part A of this
document.' The species-specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses were the same as those used to evaluate
Seabrook's losses and are presented in Appendix Gl. Table G3-10 displays facility estimates of annual impingement
(numbers of organisms) at the Pilgrim facility, by species. Table G3-11 displays those numbers expressed as age 1
equivalents, Table G3-12 displays impingement of fishery species as yield lost to fisheries, and Table G3-13 displays the
Seabrook annual impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables G3-14 through G3-17 display the same information
for entrainment at Pilgrim,
1 In some cases the facility did not identify impinged or entrained organisms at the species level or life history data were not available
for different species in the same family. In these cases, EPA grouped the losses together under a single species.
G3-14
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table S3-2: Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Seabrook, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility
Year
; Ale wife
; American
; Lobster
American
Plaice
American
Sand Lance
Atlantic
Cod
Atlantic
Herring
j Atlantic
; Mackerel
Atlantic
Moonfish
Atlantic
Silverside !
Atlantic
Torpedo
Black Sea
Bass
: Blueback
i Herring
1990
i 0
! 4
0
3
18
44
: 4
0
0
0
0
! 0
1991
: 1
: 29
0
0
28
8
; 13
0
8 i
0
1
0
1992
i o
1 8
0
28
26
22
3
0
67 i
0
0
; o
1993
j 1
I 1
1
3
37
19
! 0
0
156 i
0
0
1 o
1994
; 0
: 3i
0
1,215
59
514
! 0
0
5,348 i
0
0
13
1995
i s
1
0
1,324
120
231
1 0
3
1,621 !
1
3
; 0
1996
: 1,753
: 31
0
823
491
577
i i
0
1,119 |
5
0
: in
1997
i 2,797
: 20
0
182
69
589
i o
0
210 i
0
0
: 323
1998
I 14
! 4
0
708
39
583
i o
1
834
0
3
; 7
Mean
; 508
i 16
0
476
99
287
i 2
0
1,040 i
1
1
50
Minimum
j o
1
0
0
oo
oo
. O ;
0
0 1
0
0
0
Maximum
i 2,797
! 31
1
1,324
491
589 "
; 13
3
5,348 j
• 5
3
323
SD
; 1,035
• 12
0
548
150
273
4
1 •
1,714 :
2
1
; 108
Total
i 4,574
144
1
4,286
887
2,587
¦ 21
4
9,363 I
6
7
454
NA-Not sampled.
O-Samplcd. hut none collected.
Mori Feb 1! 07:56:36 MST 2002 Raw.losscs. IMPINGEMENT; Plant:seabroak.90.98;
PATHNAME:P:/intakc/Scabr
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6; Seobroak and Pilgrim
Table 63-2: Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Seabrook, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility (cant.)
x, : „ ,, _ . ; Conger ; ; Fourbeard ; „ _ . ; ,, Little ;. „ , Northern j Northern i Northern • Ocean = Oyster ; Planehead
Year ; Butterfish i , ; Cunner; _ ... :Goosefish: Grubby : , lumpfish _ , ; _ „ ; „ ... .... : .
i Eel ; RocMing 1 : Skate i r ; Kingfish ; Pipefish ; Puffer s Pout ; Toadflsh j Flleflsh
1990 ! 0 0 : 21 0 i I ! 11 ! 12 I 69 I 0 ! 0 j 0 I 1 : 1 [ 0
1991 i 0 i : 2 1 i 0 i 26 ; 105 I 96 j I ! 6 : 0 ; 2 i 0 i 0
1992 I 2 | 0 ! 13 ; 1 : 0 i 54 ; 48 | 35 | 0 j 2 I 0 I 3 i 0 j 0
1993 i 0 ; 0 ; 13 : 0 i 0 ! 67 i 35 i 131 i 0 1 83 ! 0 i 0 j 0 : 0
1994 I 3 0 : 32 : 0 1 3 ; 2,678 | 190 362 j 0 j 188 0 0 ; 0 j 0
1995 j 14 | 0 j 342 I 6 i 13 i 2,415 : 157 : 355 I 0 ' j 579 j 0 j 6 j 0 j 15
1996 i 3 j 0 ; 1,121 j 19 ! 0 i 1,457 i 225 j 1,064 I 2 I 1,200 j 0 j 1 j 0 1 0
1997 : 223 ! 0 i 233 j 0 j 0 j 430 j 177 j 413 i 0 j 243 | 5 j 0 I 0 | 0
1998 | 9 i 0 ; 309 | 3 ! 7 1 3,269 I 41 j 993 j 0 j 268 i 0 j 7 I 0 I 0
Mean i 28 0 ; 232 • 3 \ 3 \ 1,156 j 110 { 391 : 0 I 285 j 1 | 2 | 0 j 2
Minimum j 0 j 0 j 2 j 0 j 0 - j II j 12 i 35 | 0 j 0 i 0 i 0 ; 0 j 0
Maximum; 223 ; 1 j 1,121 j 19 | 13 | 3,269 j 225 j 1,064 I 2 j 1,200 | 5 7 i 1 i 15
SD j 73 0 j 361 ; 6 j 5 j 1,322 i 79 j 388 I l 390 i 2 .; 3 ; 0 i 5
Total j 254 i 1 ! 2,086 j 30 I 24 j 10,407 I 990 I 3,518 j 3 i 2,569 j 5 j 20 j I i 15
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 07:56:36 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; PIant:seabrook.90.98;
P ATHN AMEtl'r.'intake.'Seabrook-Pi lgrirri'Scicnce/scoiic/seabrook/tablcs. output.9(1.9H. no.mussel'raw. losses, imp. seabrook. ^0.98.csv
G3-I6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook end Pilgrim Chapter 63: Evaluation of ME Data
Table 63-2: Annuel Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Seabrook, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility (cont.)
Year i Pollock
Radiated Shanny
Rainbow Smelt
Red Hake
Rock Gunnel
Rough Scad
Sand Tiger
: Sciilpin Spp,
jScupl
Sea
Lamprey ;
Seal :
Searobin
Spiny
Dogfish
1990 69
4
0
16
14
0
0
; 109
' o i
I |
0 ;
10
1
1991 : 124
1
12
55
11
3
0
143
i 1 ;
5 ;
0 ;
12
2
1992 ; 231
0
67
16
40
0
0
161
; o ;
3 ;
0
1
1
1993 ; 32
0
80
5
25
0
0
; 170
i o :
6 :
o :
1
0
1994 | 1,68!
0
545
2,824
494
0
0
i 402
: o |
o
6 ;
0
1
1995 ; 899
92
213
2,269
1,298
0
0
j 446
: 14 ;
o
6 i
0
0
1996 : 1,835
40
4,489
2,659
1,122
0
57
| 1,381
: 9 :
1 !
o i
0
6
1997 ; 379
2
365
60S
459
0
0
: 434
i 0
6
0 :
11
0
1998 j 536
39
535
926
2,929
0
0
1 365
i 3 :
7 :
o !
1
0
Mean 643
20
701
1,041
710
0
6
; 401
; 3 !
3
i i
4
I
Minimum : 32
0
0
5
11
0
0
j 109
i o i
0
o
0
0
Maximum : 1,835
92
4,489
2,824
2,929
3
57
i 1,381
; 14 ;
7 ;
6
12
6
SD 688
32
1,436
1,207
964
1
19
: 392
: 5 ;
3
3 ;
5
2
Total 5,786
178
6,306
9,371
6,392
3
57
| 3,611
27
29
12 :
36
11
©--Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 07:56:36 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; PIant:seabrook.90.98;
PATI rNAME:P;/Intake/Seabr(x>k-Pilgrim/Seienee/scodc/scabrook/tttbles.output, 90.98.no.mussel/raw.losses,imp.seabrook.90.98.csv
G3-17
-------
Chapter S3; Evaluation of I4E Data
Table S3-2: Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Seabrook, By Species, as Estimated by the facility (cont.)
Year ! Striped j strimed Bass ^ SMpe* I Strlp*d = Tautoe i ThreesPine Unidentified ' White Perch I Windownane i Winter =
; Anchovy ;pe0 B8W : Cusklel _j_ KiiHflsh J "U °6 Stickleback j Uniaen,,,,ed : w",te "rch ; Wmdowpane ; F|ounder • Wo,msh : Wrymouth
1990 i 1 ; 0 ; 0 : 0 i 3 ; 0 i 4 i 1 I 54 ; 21 i 0 : 5
1991 ; "o i o ; o j o i 9 : 3 i 4 ; o ; 155 i 134 ; i ' 15
1992 0 I 0 ; 0 ; 0 ! 9 ! 3 I 5 ; 0 I 9? ; 209 I 0 ; 16
1993 I 0 0 ; 0 ! -0 I 3 ; 17 I 0 i 0 j 103 , 205 i 0 i 12
1994 ; 0 i 0 i 0 4 j 0 ; 67 j 6 j 0 , 985 1,512 ; 0 55 .
1995 i 0 i 4 ! 0 j 0 | 0 i 155 i 40 j 0 j 944 2,323 i 2 i 9
1996 | 0 j 1 : 0 j 47 j 34 | 320 I 88 j 4 i 1,168 3,239 j 13 j 206
1997 j 0 j 0 : 3 j '24 j 0 I 174 ! 49 ; 0 j 1,691 ! 491 j 0 i 3
1998 0 0 i 0 I 0 j 3 | 798 ; 0 j I ^ 776 ; 1,156 : 1 ; 21
Mean I 0 I § 0 j 8 I 7 ! 171 \ 22 \ 1 j 664 ; 1.032 ; 2 ; 38
Minimum ; 0 : 0 i 0 : 0 ; 0 i 0 : 0 ; 0 : 54 : 2t i 0 i 3
Maximum i 1 4 j 3 i 47 i 34 : 798 j 88 i 4 1,691 3,239 j 13 j 206
SD 0 1 i 1 : 16 : 11 j 259 | 31 i 1 588 1,133 ? 4 ? 65
Total i I i 5 j 3 ; 75 j 61 j 1,537 I 196 i 6 5,973 9,290 | 17 ; 342
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 07:56:36 MST2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plant:seabrook.90.98;
PATHNAME: P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90,98.no.mussel/raw.lo5ses.imp.seabrook. 90.98. csv
G3-I8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seobrook ar.d Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table S3-3: iAnnuai Impingement at Seobrook, by Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents
Year
i Alewlfe
American
Plaice
American
Sand Lance
Atlantic
Cod
Atlantic
Herring
Atlantic
Mackerel
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Sflverside
Blueback
Herring
Butter-
fish
Gunner |
Fourbeard
Roclding
Grubby
Little
Skate
; Lump-
i fish
1990
! 0
0
4
22
51
5
0
0
0
0
29 ;
0
13
15
! 76
1991
: l
0
0
34
9
16
0
14
0
0
3 !
1
32
135
: 105
1992
! o
0
41
31
26
4
0
121
0
3
18 ;
1
66
62
i 38
1993 ! 1
1
4
44
22
0
0
281
0
0
18 ;
0
82
45
: 143
1994
i o
0
1,776
71
598
0
0
9,620
15
4
45
0
3,283
244
: 396
1995
; n
0
1,936
144
269
0
9
2,916
0
19
476 ;
7
2,961
201
: 389
1996
i 2,343
0
1,203
588
671
1
118
2,013
121
4
1,562 :
24
1,786
288
: 1,165
1997
: 3,738
0
266
83
685
0
0
378
371
299
325 :
0
527
227
; 452
1998
i 19
0
1,035
47
678
0
!
1,500
8
12
430 :
4
4,008
53
: 1,087
Mean
; 679
0
696
118
334
3
14
1,871
58
38
323
4
1,418
141
| 428
Minimum
i 0
0
0
22
9
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
13
15
i 38
Maximum
i 3,738
1
1,936
588
685
16
118
9,620
371
299
1,562 i
24
4,008
288
: 1,165
SD
: 1,383
0
801
180
318
5
39
3,084
125
98
503 ¦
8
1,620
102
| 425
Total
; 6,113
1
6,267
1,062
3,010
26
128
16,842
522
341
2,906 ;
37
12,759
1,269
: 3,851
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age I equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged individuals are assumed to be distributed
across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back to the start of year I by accounting for mortality during this interval (for details, see description of
S*j in Chapter 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 entrapment losses because the majority of entrained fish
arc younger than age 1.
0=Sampled. but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:49:55 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: seabrook.90,98 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabnx>k-
Pilgrim/Scicncc/8codc/scabrookAablcs.output.90,98.no.mu5Scl/I.cquivaIem,sums.scabrook.90.98.csv
G3-19
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Table 63-3: Annual Impingement at Seabrook, by Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents (cont.)
Year
Northern
Pipefish
Pollock
Radiated
Shanny
Rainbow
Smelt
Red
Hake
Rock
Gunnel
Scuipin
Spp.
Scup
Sea-
robin
Striped
Bass
Striped
Killifish
; Tautog;
Threespine
Stickleback
White
Perch
Window-
pane
Winter
Flounder
1990
0
76
5
0
20
17
134
0
12
0
0
; 3 I
0
1
65
23
1991
8
136
1
16
70
13
175
1
15
0
0
i 10 !
4
: 0
186
147
1992
3
254
0
91
20
49
197
0
1
0
0
: 10 i
4
: o
116
230
1993
113
35
0
108
6
30
208
0
1
0
0
1 3 i
24
i o
124
226
1994
255
1,849
0
738
3,616
601
493
0
0
0
5
: o |
95
1 o
1,182
1,664
1995
786
989
112
288
2,905
1,579
547
16
0
6
0
; 0 i
220
! o
1,133
2,557
1996
1,630
2,018
49
6,078
3,404
1,365
1,693
11
0
1
64
: 37 1
455
j 5
1,402
3,565
1997
330
417
2
494
769
558
532
0
14
0
33
! 0 j
247
i o
2,030
540
1998
364
589
47
724
1,186
3,563
448
4
1
0
0
i 3 I
1,135
i 1
931
1,272
Mean
388
707
24
949
1,333
864
492
4
5
1
11
i \
243
: i
797
1,136
Minimum
0
35
0
0
6
13
134
0
0
0
0
\ o i
0
I 0
65
23
Maximum
1,630
2,018
112
6,078
3,616
3,563
1,693
16
15
6
64
i 37 :
1,135
! 5
2,030
3,565
SD
529
757
39
1,945
1,546
1,173
480
6
7
2
23
i 12 i
368
; 2
706
1,247
Total
3,490
6,363
217
8,538
11,998
7,776
4,427
32
44
7
103
! 67 i
2,185
: 8
7,169
10,226
Note: Impingement tosses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages of impinged
individuals are assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year 1 and the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back to the start of year I by
accounting for mortality during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter A2, Equation 4 arid Equation 5), This type of adjustment is applied to all raw loss
records, but the effect is not readily apparent among cntrainment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1,
O-Samplcd, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:49:55 MST 2002 ;ResuIts; I Plant: seabrook.90,98 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: IVIntake. Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Seience/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/Lequivalcnt.sums.scabrook.90,98,esv
G3-20
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter (53; Evaluation of I4E Data
Table G3-4: Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Seabrook Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year
Alewife
Atlantic Cod
Atlantic Herring I
Atlantic
Mackerel
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Silverside
Blueback
Herring
Butterfish
¦ Cunner
Little Skate
; Pollock
1990
0
7
7- |
1
0
i 0
0
0
I 0
3
: 111
1991
0
11
1 |
2
0
: 0
0
' 0
0
28
j 200
1992
0
10
4
1
0
i 0
; o
0
: o
13
! 373
1993
0
15
3 ;
0
0
1 o
o
0
i o
9
: 52
1994
0
23
83
0
0
i 4
: 0
0
i o
50
: 2,713
1995
0
47
37
0
3
i 1
o
1
! 2
42
i 1,451
1996
12
192
93
0
41
: l
: i
0
| 7
60
| 2,962
1997
19
27
95
0
0
j 0
i 3
14
: 1
47
i 612
1998
0
15
94
0
0
i 1
o
I
i 2
11
i 865
Mean
3
. 39
46
0
5
1
; o
2
j 1
29
! 1,038
Minimum
0
7
i i
0
0
o
o
0
i o
3
; 52
Maximum
19
192
95 |
2
41
i 4
: 3
14
i 7
60
I 2,962
SD
7
59
44
1
13
j 1
1
5
; 2
21
: l,lll
Total
31
348
417
4
44
: 7
'4
16
13
262
j 9,340
0=Samplcd, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:50:05 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/Intakc/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Scicncc/scodc/scabrook/tablc8.output.90.98.no.nitisscl/I.yicld.scabrook.90.98.csv
G3-2I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6- Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of IfiE Data
Table 63-4: Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Seabrook
Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds) (cont )
Year
; Rainbow Smelt ;
Red Hake
Scup
Searobin
Striped Bass
Tautog
; Window pa lie ;
Winter Flounder
1990
! o
4 1
0
1
1 0
4
; 5 :
7
1991
! 0 |
13 j
0
1
i 0
11
14 i
46
1992
i 1 i
4
0
0
i o
11
: 9 ;
73
1993
i 1
1 :
0
o
: o
4
: 9 :
71
1994
: 6 i
644 ;
0
o
; 0
0
: 87 i
525
1995
2 :
518
3
: 0
i 8
0
j 84 i
806
1996
45 :
607 i
2
1 0
i 2
41
1 103 :
1,124
1997
i 4 i
137 :
0
I
i o
0
| 150 ;
170
1998
; 5 i
211 j
1
0
i o
4
j 69 |
401
Mean
: 7 :
238 •
1
: 0
i l
8
j 59 ;
358
Minimum
: o ;
1
0
i o
1 o
0
1 5 !
7
Maximum
i 45 j
644 i
3
i l
; 8
41
! 150 j
1,124
SD
15
275 :
1
: 0
! 3
13
: 52 i
393
Total
64 :
2,138
6
; 2
i '0
74
; 529 :
3,223
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:50:05 MST 2002 Results; I Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/lntake/Seabrook-
PiIgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/I, yield, seabrook.90.98. esv
G3-22
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Table S3-5: Annual Impingement at Seabrook, By
Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Species, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Year
Alewife
American
Sand Lance
Atlantic
Cod
Atlantic
Herring.
Atlantic
Mackerel
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Silverside
Bluebnck
Herring
: Butterflsh
CuMier
Grubby
Little
Skate
Lumpfish
Northern
Pipefish
1990
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1991
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
13
3
0
1992
0
0
4
2 :
0
0
0
0
j 0
0
4
6
1
0
1993
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
0
: 0
0
5
4
5
0
1994
0
9
8
47
0
0
' 3
1
\ o
0
200
23
13
0
1995
0
10
16
21
0
1
1
0
1 o
3
180
19
13
1
1996
73
6
67 .
52 :
0
19
1
6
: o
9
109
28
38
2
1997
117
1
9
54 i
0
0
0
17
j 7
2
32
22
15
0
1998
1
5
5
53
0
0
1
0
; 0
2
244
5
35
0
Mean
21
4
13
26 :
0
2
1
3
1
2
86
14
14
0
Minimum
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
: 0
0
1
1
1
0
Maximum
117
10
67
54
1
19
3
17
i 7
9
244
28
38
2
SD
43
4
21
25
0
6
1
6
: 2
3
99
10
14
1
Total
191
33
121
235
2
20
6
24
i 8
16
776
122
124
4
0 Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:50:00 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: seabrook.90.98 • Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname: P:/lntake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output,90.98.no.rnussel/l.annuai.prod.rorg.seabrook.90,98.csv
G3-23
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port G: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter G3; Evaluation of IAE Data
Table 63-5: Annual Impingement at Seabrook, By Species, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds) (corit.)
Year
: Pollock
Rainbow Smelt
Red
Hake
| Rock Gunnel j
Sculpin
Spp.
iScup
Searobin i
Striped
Bass
i Tautog
Windowpane
Winter Flounder
1990
36
0
3
: 0 |
8
; 0
1 :
0
j o
1
3
1991
i 64
0
10
: 0 :
11
0
1 i
0
i i
3
18
1992
| 119
3
3
i 0 :
12
i 0
o I
0
: 1
2
28
1993
i 17
3
1
; o ;
13
o
o
0
! 0
2
27
1994
: 868
23
494
i 3 1
30
: o
o :
0
: 0
21
201
1995
: 464
9
397
i 7 i
33
: 2
o i
2
i o
20
309
1996
1 948
186
465
L e i
103
i l
o ;
0
1 5
25
431
1997
: 196
15
105
j 3 i
32
i o
1 !
0
1 0
36
65
1998
i 277
22
162
; 16 !
27
1 o
o i
0
'j 0
'17
154
Mean
: 332
29
182
: 4 :
30
; o
o
0
1
14
137
Minimum
i 1"?
0
1
1 0 !
8
i o
0
0
i 0
1
3
Maximum
: 948
186
494 .
: 16 j
103
! 2
i
2
: 5
36
431
SD
; 355
60
211
: 5 ;
29
; 1
0 ;
1
j 1
13
151
Total
i 2,988
262
1,640
i 35 j
269
i 3
3
2
i 1
128
1,236
0=Sarnpled, but none collected,
Fri Feb 08 09:50:00 MST 2002 .Results; I Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; Units: annual.prod,forg Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no. mussel/I.annual.prod.forg. seabrook.90.98.csv
C3-24
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Pari &'¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table 63-6: Annual Entrapment (numbers of organisms) at Seabrook, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility
Year
1990
Alligator-
fish
0
American
Eel
0
American
Plaice
American
Sand Lance
Atlantic
Cod
Atlantic
Herring
Atlantic
Mackerel
519,000,000
Atlantic
Menhaden
100,000
Blue Mussel
Blueflsh
0
Butterfish
0
Cunner
42,700,000
3,000,000
0
3,200,000 : 700,000
3,991,300,000,000
1991
100,000
0
22,000,000
37,300
000
1,500,000 I 500,000
677,800,000
500,000
1,687,400,000,000
0
0
50,000
0
1992
200,000
0
53,100,000
18,100
(K)0
3,000,000 | 4,900,000
456,300,000
1,400,000
121,900,000,000
0
0
1993
0
0
20,200,000
12,000
000
50,400,000 : 9,600,000
112,900,000
100,000
10,050,700,000,000
0
0
4,700,000
1994
200,000
300,000
0
400,000
8,300,000
500,000 i 100,000
0
0
NA
0
0
100,000
4,400,000
1995
1996
0
22,700,000
9,500,000
6,900,000 : 11,200,000
74,500,000
200,000
13,231,000,000,000
0
300,000
100,000
0
86,300,000
14,000,000
9,800,000
4,300,000
305,200,000
100,000
17,931,800,000,000
0
200,000
0
9,200,000
239,700,000
1997
1998
100,000
0
22,600,000
16,623,000
10,100,000
10,662,000
3,800,000
2,100,000
23,500,000
200,000
114,000
1,744,500,000,000
100,000
174,000
14,000
10,970,000
9,506,000
39,316,000
1,493,030,000,000
0
0
17,783,000
Mean
130,444
0
300,000
1,556
27,435,889
13,329,111
10,007,778
4,767,333
245,390,667
301,556
6,281,453,750,000
11,111
55,556
35,403,667
Minimum
0
400,000
0
500,000
100,000
0
0
121,900,000,000
0
0
300,000
0
Maximum
14,000
86,300,000
37,300,000
50,400,000
11,200,000 677,800,000
1,400,000
17,931,800,000,000
100,000
239,700,000
SD
Total
98,193
1,174,000
4,667
14,000
26,684,083
246,923,000
10,214,826
119,962,000
15
568,118
4,345,642 i 252,134,888
435,1 1 1 *
6,612,079,486,100
50,251,630,000,000
33,333
100,000
113,039
77,814,636
90
070,000
42,906,000 ¦ 2,208,516,000
2,714,000
500,000
318,633,000
NA-Not sampled,
O-Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 07:56:41 MST 2002 Raw.losses. ENTRAINMENT; Plant:seabrook.90.98;
PATUN AME:P:/!ntake/Seabrook-Pilgrim'Scicnce/scode/seabrook/tables.output. 90.98, no.mussel/faw,losses.ent.seabrook.90.98,csv
G3-2S
-------
Chapter G3: Evaluation of IcSE Data
Table 63-6: Annual Entrainment (numbers of organisms) at Seabrook, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility (cent.)
Year I
Rockling
Goose fish
100,000
Grubby
0
Lumpfish
Northern
Pipefish
Other
„ , ¦ Radiated
Pollock i
; Shanny
Rainbow
Smelt
Red Hake ; Redfish
Rock
Gunnel
Sculpin
Sjpp.
0
1990 j 159,600,000
12,400
000
0
0
203,550 j 4,800,000
200.000
61,200,000 | 0
0
1991 : 40,400,000
0
22,400,000
19,200
000
0
100,000
1,000,000 i 3,100,000
0
2,600,000 : 0
51,100,000
900,000
1992 : 51,500,000
0
18,900,000
33,500
000
0
300,000
465,964 | 1,100,000
100,000
100,000 : 400,000
45,300,000
1,600,000
1993 : 36,400,000
0
13,800,000
76,900
000
0
0
200,000 ! 200,000
0
800,000 : 0
5,700,000
1,000,000
2,600,000
900,000
1994 1,900,000
0
4,900,000
3,600,000
0
2,000,000
ioo;ooo : o
0
1,000,000 ; 50,000
11,000,000
1995 : 35,800,000
0
17,400,000
33,300,000
0
2,100,000
400,000 ; 2,100,000
0
49,200,000 | 0
15,600,000
1996 : 81,400,000
300,000
18,600,000
65,100,000
100,000
0
400,000 : 2,000,000
100,000
286,800,0001 0
33,800,000
2,600
000
1997 i 72,400,000
0
12,800,000
2,300,000
0
0
200,000 | 300,000
0
410,400,000 0
25,100,000
2,150
000
1998 i 47,193,000
886,000
17,315,000
40,466,000
0
0
2,974,000 j 1,702,000
228,000
26,267,000 | 0
16,872,000
2,960
000
Mean i 58,510,333
142,889
14,012,778
31,862,889
11,111
500,000
660,390 : 1,700,222
69,778
93,151,889 i 50,000
22,719,111
1,634
444
Minimum 1,900,000
0
0
2,300,000
0
0
100,000 i 0
0
100,000 : 0
0
51,100,000
0
2,960
Maximum : 159,600,000
886,000
22,400,000
76,900,000
100,000
2,100,000
2,974,000 ; 4,800,000
228,000
92,306
628,000
410,400,000: 400,000
000
SD ; 44,230,288
Total 526,593,000
296,066
1,286,000
7,233,324
126,115,000
26,037,747
286,766,000
33,333
100,000
884,590
4,500,000
907,482 : 1,552,418
5,943,514 15,302,000
149,771,232: 132,288
838,367,000; 450,000
17,577,835
204,472,000
1,002,586
14,710,000
NA=Not sampled,
0"-Sampled, but none collected.
Men Feb 11 07:56:41 MST 2002 Raw.Iosses. ENTRAINMENT; Plant:seabrook.90.98;
PATHNAME;P:/Intake/Seabrook-PiIgrim/Science/seode/scabrook/tables.output,90.98.no.rmissel/raw.losses,ent.seabrook.90,98.esv
G3-26
-------
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table 63-6: Annual Entrapment (numbers of organisms) at Seabrook, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility (cont.)
Year
Searobin
; Tan tog
Unidentified
Wlndowpane
Winter Flounder
Wrymouth
1990
; 0
; 300,000
700,000 |
40,400,000
520,479,242
: 0
1991
0
i 200,000
4,100,000 ;
19,950,000
800,030,734
! 100,000
1992
o
= 0
1,400,000 |
22,600,000
| 242,018,538
; 0
1993
i o
i o
6,300,000 j
29,200,000
; 62,666,462
0
1994
; 0
i o
800,000 i
200,000
500,000
o
1995
i o
: 0
.;
36,800,000 :
19,400,000
i 60,200,044
o
1996
i 100,000
| 500,000
3,300,000 :
46,200,000
i 172,100,000
: 0
1997
0
i 100,000
4,400,000 :
34,200,000
i 199,800,000
; o
1998
: 0
: 56,000
594,000 ;
19,390,000
! 138,521,000
0
Mean
11,111
; 128,444
6,488,222 i
25,726,667
i 244,035,113
ii,m
Minimum
: 0
i o
594,000 |
200,000
500,000
! o
Maximum
: 100,000
; 500,000
36,800,000 ;
46,200,000
800,030,734
: 100,000
SD
33,333
j 174,876
11,541,012 ;
13,662,276
257,347,153
33,333
Total
100,000
; 1,156,000
58,394,000 j
231,540,000
2,196,316,020
100,000
NA=Not sampled.
Q=Sampled, but none collected.
Nlon Feb 11 07:56:41 MST 2002 Raw.losses. ENTRAPMENT, Plant:seabrook.90.98;
PATHNAME:P:/rntake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables,output,90.98.no.musse1/raw.losscs.cnt,seabrook,90.98.csv
G3-27
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port &: Seobrook and Pilgrim
Tabic G3-7: Annual Entrapment at Seabrook, By Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents
American ¦ American - . .. „ . I Atlantic Atlantic j Atlantic ; ; „ ,, _ . ; „ ; Fourbeard ,, , , ; , „ .
Year . : _ ., : Atlantic Cod : „ , , , ; », ¦. j Blueflsh ; Butterflsh ; Cunner : Grubby ; Lumnfish
: Plaice : Sand Lance ; Herring Mackerel ; Menhaden : Rocklmg ;
1990 | 137 j 0 I 1,682 j 2,041 ! 2,188 j 38 ; 0 ! 0 | 257,980 f 553,743 j 0 2,063
1991 : 628 : 1,112,394 j 3,509 ! 1,458 ! 3,061 ! 21 j 0 ! 0 j 302 i 46,849 i 402,989 ; 3,195
1992 j 1,198 ! 539,795 j 1,214 j 14,287 1 1,915 ; 59 ! 0 | 0 j 0 j 54,207 \ 340,022 j 5,574
1993 j 533 I 357,875 j 1,134 i 27,991 i 474 j 4 i 0 j 0 i 28,396 I 60,164 j 248,270 j 11,358
1994 : 8 j 247,530 j 9 j , 292 : 0 j 0 i 0 | 0 | 604 j 1,962 j 88,154 : 584
1995 ' I 1,995 r 283,318 1 5,463 ] 32^656 "1 313" " j 8 0 178 j 26,583 j 76,991 j 313,036 \ 4,633
1996 : 3,281 I 417,521 i 872 i 12,538 i 1,286 j 4 I 0 ! 65 i 55,584 i 204,123 ! 334,624 i 10,650
1997 j 1,816 | 301,211 j 1,693 | 6,123 j 117 i 8 | 5 1 0 j 1,237,732 ! 304,634 i 230,279 i 337
1998 i 904 I 317,972 j 5,392 j 27,717 j 165 j 22 ! 0 j 0 i 52,661 j 183,680 j 31 1,507 I 6,733
Mean 1,167 397,513 I 2,330 : 13,900 : 1,058 i 18 I 1 i 27 i 184,427 ! 165,150 | 252,098 I 5,014
Minimum j 8 j 0 j 9 i 292 i 0 j 0 j 0 \ 0 i 0 j 1,962 j 0 j 337 .
Maximum ; 3,281 j 1,112,394 j 5,463 I 32,656 j 3,061 j 59 * j 5 j 178 j 1,237,732 j 553,743 ! 402,989 i 11,358
SD 1 1,045 | 304,636 | 1,987 j 12^671 ; 1,105 V ' 19 . ! 2 ; 60 f 403,080 i 174,661 | 130,132 : 4,015
Total 5 10,501 " : 3,577^615 i 20,969 ^ 125J03 9,518 j 166 5 j 242 | 1,659,842 j 1,486,353 j2,268,880 i 45,127
0-Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:49:51 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant; seabrook.90.98 , Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Sc>ence/'seode/seabrook/tables,output,90,98.no,mussel/E.equivaient.sums.seabrook.90.98.csv
G3-28
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table 63-7: Annual Entrapment at Seabrook, By Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents (cont.)
Year
Northern
Pipefish
• Pollock ;
: :
Radiated
Sbaitnv
: :
| Rainbow Smelt i
: :
Red Hake
Rock Gunnel
Sculpin Spp.
j Scarobin
Tautog
Windowpane •
Winter
Flounder
1990 ;
0
i ?
409,203
1 26,168 1
219
0
0
; o
35
19,939 •
71,318
1991 i
0
: 9 ;
264,277
i 0 !
12
7,237,775
16,192
i o
2
4,266 ;
136,415
1992 I
0
: 6 i
93,776
; 13,084 j
0
6,416,266
28,785
r o
0
4,958 j
56,990
1993 i
0
; 2 ;
17,050
1 0 i
3
807,345
17,991
! o
0
6,322 i
38,359
1994
0
i
0
! 0 ;
5
1,558,034
46,775
; o
0
331 j
8
1995 !
0
! 4 !
179,026
; 0 ;
214
2,209,575
16,192
: o
0
9,804 :
64,212
1996 :
7,034
4
170,501
: 486 ;
1,159
4,787,413
46,775
: 2,044
26
15,340 :
197,222
1997 ;
0
i 2 :
25,575
; o :
1,529
3,555,150
38,680
; o
1
23,585 j
53,898
1998 !
0
: 29 ;
145,097
j 29,832
117
2,389,740
53,252
! 0
0
8,306 i
83,990
Mean :
782
; 1 \
144,945
7,730
362
3,217,922
29,405
: 227
7
10,317 ;
78,046
Minimum .
0
\ 1
0
! 0
0
0
0
i o
0
331 :
8
Maximum 1
7,034
; 29 :
409,203
1 29,832 |
1,529
7,237,775
53,252
| 2,044
35
23,585 j
197,222
SD
2,345
9
132,345
j 12,290 ;
571
2,489,715
18,037
: 681
13
7,739 i
57,634
Total ;
7,034
64
1,304,505
; 69,571
3,258
28,961,298
264,641
; 2,044
64
92,851 !
702,411
0=Sampled, but none collected,
Fri Feb 08 09:49:51 MST 2002 ;Rcsults; E Plant: seabrook.90,98 ; Unils: equivalent.sums Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/se8brook/tablcs.output.90.98.no.raussel/E.equivalent.sums,seabrook.90.98.csv
G3-29
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter S3; Evaluation of I&E Data
Table S3-8; Annual Entrapment of Fishery Species at Seabrook Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year
American
Plaice
: Atlantic!
; Cod :
Atlantic
Herring
Atlantic
Mackerel
Atlantic
Menhaden
Blueilsh
Butter-
fish
Cunner
Pollock
Rainbow;
Smelt !
Red
Hake
Sea-
robin
Tautog
Window-
pane
; Winter
I Flounder
S990
16
: 551 ;
283
303
13
0
0
1,163
10
196 i
39
0
39
1,470
| 22,481
1991
72
: 1,149 ;
202
423
7
0
0
1
14
0 i
2
0
2
314
: 43,002
1992
137
i 398 :
1,980
265
20
0
0
0
9
98 i
0
0
0
366
j 17,965
1993
61
! 371 i
3,879
66
1
0
0
128
3
o
0
' 0
0
466
: 12,092
1994
1
i 3 ;
40
0
0
0
0
3
1
o :
1
0
0
24
; 2
1995
228
; 1,788 :
4,526
43
3
0
9
120
6
0 !
38
0
0
723
1 20,241
1996
376
: 285 :
1,738
178
1
0
3
251
6
4 ;
207
102
29
1,131
1 62,170
1997
208
: 554 ;
849
16
3
3
0
5,582
3
0 ;
272
0
1
1,739
: 16,990
1998
104
i 1,765 :
3,842
i 23
8
0
0
237
43
223 !
21
0
1
612
i 26,476
Mean
134
: 763 :
1,927
; 146
6
0
1
832
10
58 ;
65
11
8
761
; 24,602 -
Minimum
1
: 3 j
40
! o
0
0
0
0
I
0 !
0
0
0
24
i 2
Maximum
376
1,788 I
4,526
i 423
20
3
9
5,582
43
223 |
272
102
39
5,739
j 62,170
SD
120
i 651 ;
1,756
; 153
7
1
3
1,818
13
92
102
34
15
571
i 18,168
Total
1,202
: 6,864 :
17,339
! 1,316
57
3
12
7,486
93
521 I
581
102
71
6,845
i 221,419
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:50:03 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: seabronk.90.9S ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgritn/Sctence/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90.98.no,niussel/E,yield.seabrook.90.98.csv
G3-30
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Sea brook and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table G3-9: Annual Entrapment at Seobrook, By Species, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Year
American
Plaice
American
Sand Lance
Atlantic
Cod
Atlantic
Herring
Atlantic
Mackerel
Atlantic
; Menhaden
Butterflsh
Cunner j
Fourbeard
Rorkling
i Grubby
Lumpfish!
Northern
Pipefish
1990
53
0
318
827
3,789
1 0
0
4,552 i
13,170
! o
9,946 i
0
1991
282
41,799
662
59!
5,286
i 0
0
5
1,123
; 39,707
15,400 ;
0
1992
595
20,283
230
5,788
3,318
: 0
o
0
1,300
| 33,503
26,869 ;
0
1993
247
13,448
227
11,340
821
: 0
0
501 .
1,437
i 24,462
57,172 :
0
1994
2
9,301
2
118
0
! o
o
11 1
47
: 8,686
2,840 i
0
1995
68
10,646
1,031
13,230
542
: 14
27
469
1,835
; 30,844
23,863 :
0
1996
357
15,689
167
. 5,080
2,227
: 7
10
981
4,862
; 32,971
51,645 :
268
1997
71
11,318
320
2,481
201
14
0
21,853 ;
7,240
; 22,690
1,702 ;
0
1998
62
11,948
1,019
11,229
286
i 36
o
932
4,367
i 30,693
32,456 ^
0
Mean
193
14,937
442
5,632
1,830
! 8
4
3,256 :
3,931
i 24,840
24,655 i
30
Minimum
2
0
2
118
0
i 0
! 0
o
47
! 0
1,702 ;
0
Maximum
595
41,799
1,031
. 13,230
5,286
1 36
27
21,853 :
13,170
| 39,707
57,172 i
268
SD
195
11,447
374
5,133
1,911
•2
9
7,116 :
4,151
: 12,822
19,865 :
89
Total
1,736
134,433
3,974
| 50,684
16,470
71
37
29,304 '.
35,380
i 223,557
221,893 i
268
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:49:58 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant; seabrook,90.98 ; Units: a initial.prod.forg Pathname: P ;/Intake/Seabrook-
PiIgrim/Seience/scode/scabrook/tables.output.90.98.no.mussel/E. annual, prod, forg.seabrook.90.98.csv
G3-3J
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table 63-9: Annual Entrapment at Seabrook, By Species, Expressed os Production Foregone (in pounds) (cont.)
Year
Pollock
Radiated
Shanny
Rainbow
Smelt
Red Hake
Rock Gunnel
j Sculpin Spp.
Searobin j
Tautog
; Windowpane i
Winter
Flounder
1990
3,231 ;
1,356
3,325
j 3,041,125
0
1 o
0 ;
10
i 1,214 i
50,876
1991
4,595 j
876
0
162,360
79,348
I 1,595
0 :
1
287
97,314
1992
2,885 ;
311
1,662
: 6,245
70,342
! 2,836
0 i
0
i 332 !
40,657
1993
919 :
57
0
37,468
8,851
; 1,773
0 :
0
: 424 :
27,360
1994
459 ;
0
0
i 62,446
17,081
1 4,609
0 1
0
; 19 !
385
1995
1.838 :
593
0
: 2,972,435
24,224
; 1,595
0 :
0
; 596 |
45,800
1996
1,838 ;
565
90
| 16,086,117
52,485
4,609
279 |
8
970 |
1,302,172
1997
919 i
85
0
| 21,212,943
38,975
! 3,811
0 i
0
; 1,403 j
444,367
1998
14,229 i
481
3,790
i 1,623,287
26,199
; 5,247
0 i
0
: 512 ;
566,875
Mean
3,435 :
480
985
i 5,022,714
35,278
j 2,897
31 j
2
640 :
286,201
Minimum
459
0
0
6,245
0
i o
o i
0
19 ;
385
Maximum
14,229 ;
1,356
3,790
; 21,212,943
79,348
I 5,247
279 :
10
1,403 ;
1,302,172
SD
4,255
439
1,559
; 7,925,069
27,295
1 1,777
93 i
4
460 :
432,120
Total
30,914 |
4,324
8,867
i 45,204,425
317,506
i 26,076
279 i
19
5,756 i
2,575,807
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 08 09:49:58 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: seabrook.90,98 ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output.90,98.no,mus5el/E.annual.prod.forg,seabrook.90.98.csv
G'3-32
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G; Seabrook ond Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of X&E Data
Year ; Alewife
1974
1975 '
1976
1977 '
1978 '
1979
1980
198!
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992'
1993'
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
542
na"
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA*
na'
American Eel
NA
na'
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
na"
na"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
'na'"
NA
NA
NA"
na"
"na
na
na
Atlantic ; Bay
Silverside \ Anchovv
Black ; Black Sea
RufT • Bass
Table S3-10; Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Pilgrim, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility
American
Sand Lance
NA
NA
NA
NA
Atlantic
Cod
NA
"' "na
:;na
NA
NA
NA
Atlantic
Herring
NA
"na"
45,065
"na "
"na '
"na"
Atlantic
Mackerel
NA
NA
NA
NA "
NA
NA
Atlantic
Menhaden
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
"NA
Atlantic
Moonfish
NA
na'
na"
na"
. -
* " na
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
"na"
NA
"na"
NA
na"
NA
"na"
NA
"NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
"na"
NA
3,760
NA
"na"
NA
"na"
NA
"na '
NA
"na"
NA
"na"
NA
na"
NA
na"
NA
"na"
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
• " ?02'"
NA
"2,735"
' "na"
20,733
NA "
83,346
1.696
NA
NA
"na
na'
na'
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,114
185*"
NA
NA*'
3,278
NA' '
NA
"na"
NA
"586"
NA
"na'
1,701
4.354"
NA
"38 '
NA
NA
NA
"na
"na
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
na"
na"
na"
NA
na'
NA
na"
na"
NA
"na
NA
"na'
NA
"NA"
NA
na"
NA
na"
NA
10
0
0
0"
NA
......
Blue ;
Mussel •
NA ;
na"":
na"";
na""?
na
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
na"
NA
na"
1,248
"419
"MO""
676"'
131 '
"26,912
"289 '
198'
793
0
O'
! 1
0"
O"
0*
0"
.....
"6"
0
10
"52"
23
0
248
*315''
"l36
"390"
333 j 10
"41,419" j 0
34" 0 "
"Bo i 0"
3,287
1.975
23
52
0
0
11
0
4,806
2,633"
9,365
52
....
......
71
0
" 0 *
0
30
' 0 "
214
288*
296"
' 58 "
"l06
"467"
36
"i'44
0
........
107"
70
12
.....
....
0
"0"
"0"
59
' 1,052"
" 1,584"
1,078
........
40,382"
0
........
63"
' 0"'
"l'j""
187
36,970
"i 5,857"
16,153"
5,814"
0
....
... .
19
35
11
0
0
58
0
5,896
13,811
23
248
629
ii
0
35
39
na'
0
Mean ¦ 3,250
Minimum : 131
Maximum ! 26,972
0
....
19
.....
.....
252
5R"
"467"
7,593
0
45,065
2
0
12
5,048
23 '
40,382
29
0
187"
1,587
185"
13
.. ...
83,346
19,184
23K735"
52
....
109"
10
......
l'o"
58
"26"'
"l27"
107
"0
"629
SD • 7,969 j 3 i 25 i 128 [ 16,703 j 5 ! 12,456 \ 59
Total ' 35,750 j 1! ' " 186 ' 1 2,s'j8"""T'" 91,111"'': 22 i 50,482 j 290"
NA=Not sampted.
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 08:24:29 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plam:pilgrim.74.99;
PATHNAME:P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99. no, mussel/raw.losses. imp.pilgrim,74.99.csv
211
962"
G3-33
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter &3: Evaluation of WE Data
Table S3-10: Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Pilgrim, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility (cent.)
Year
Blue-
Butter-
Cunner
Flying
Fourbeard
Grubby
Hog-
Little
Lump-
Northern i Northern i Northern i Orange
Pearl-
: Planehead
; Pollock
Radiated
fish
fish
Gurnard
Rockling
choker
Skate
fish
Kingfish Pipefish i Puffer ; Filefish
side
! Filefish
Shanny
1974
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA i NA i NA
NA
1 NA
NA
NA
1975
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ; NA i NA ; NA
NA
i NA
NA
NA
S976
NA
NA
NA
¦ NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA i NA ; NA : NA
NA
: NA
: NA
NA
1977
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA i NA : NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1978
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA i NA i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1979
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA : NA NA i NA
NA
NA
; na
NA
1980
NA
NA
1,683
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA ; NA i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1981
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA ! NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1982
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA : NA ; NA
NA
NA
! NA
NA
1983
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA ; NA ; NA
NA
: na
1 NA
NA
1984
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ; NA ; NA 1 NA
NA
: wa
NA
NA
1985
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA NA i NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
1986
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA i NA I NA ; NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
1987
NA
NA
NA
i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA : NA i NA ! NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA i NA ; NA
NA
NA
, NA
NA
1989
NA
NA
NA
! NA
! NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA NA i NA : NA
NA
; NA
! NA
NA
1990
0
1,601
210
; 0
I 0
562
0
0
105
0 29 i 57 : 38
0
; o
: 38
10
1991
0
52
402
: 0
0
804
17
140
87
17 ; 52 262 i 0
0
0
70
35
1992
0
0
34
: o
0
488
0
91
136
0 i 23 [23 10
0
n
11
34
1993
0
13
104
; o
I o
663
0
130
46B
0 117 • 13 i 0
26
0
; 78
52
1994
0
48
83
0
i 0
1,164
0
48
202
0 ; 190 ; 0 i 0
0
i 0
12
154
1995
0
29
288
• 14
1 o
649
0
43
144
0 • 130 i 29 i 0
0
: o
43
72
1996
0
21
211
i o
: o
1,204
0
21
169
0 ; 127 = 0 i 0
0
0
0
21
1997
0
1,040
39
: o
; o
443
0
58
173
0 1 39 1 96 i 0
0
! 0
0
0
1998
15
30
76
• o
: 15
259
0
76
289
0 i 0 0 ; 0
0
0
0
46
1999
0
140
117
; o
! o
933
0
0
210
0 163 ; 0 ¦: 0
0
0
i 47
23
Mean
2
297
295
i
: 2
717
2
61
198
2 : 87 i 48 ; 4
3
1
i 30
45
Minimum
0
0
34
0
• 0
259
0
0
87
0 0 ; 0 ; 0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
15
1,601
1,683
; 14
15
1,204
17
140
468
17 :• 190 : 262 ; 38
26
; 11
¦ 78
SD
5
557
474
: 4
; 5
309
5
49
111
5 : 66 1 81 ! 12
44
Total
15
2,974
3,247
; 14
; 15
i 7,169
17
607
1,983
17 I 870 1 480 i 38
26
• 11
i 299
_ 447
NA=Not sampled,
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 08:24:29 MST2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plant;pilgrim.74.99;
PATHNAME:P:/lntake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.musscl/raw.losscs.imp.pilgrim.74.99.csv
€3-34
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook end Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part S: Seabroak end Pilgrim Chapter 63: Evaluation of ME Data
Table S3-10: Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Pilgrim, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility (cant.)
Year i
Striped Bass; Striped Cusk Eel
Killifish Striped
Tautog !__
Threespine Stickleback
Unidentified
White Perch
Windowpane
Winter Flounder
1974
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA i
NA
514
NA
NA
NA
1975
NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA i
NA
957
NA
NA
NA
1976
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA i
NA
13,396
NA
; NA
NA
1977
NA
NA !
NA
NA
NA
NA
6,551
NA
NA
NA
1978
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA i
NA
6,059
NA
NA
NA
1979 :
NA
NA !
NA
NA
NA i
NA
7,547
NA
i NA
NA
1980 :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA •
4,086
NA
; NA
NA
1981
NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA i
NA
4,406
NA
; NA
NA
1982
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
6,477
: NA
, NA
NA
1983
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3,869
NA
: NA
NA
1984
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA !
NA
958
NA
NA
NA
1985
NA
NA 1
NA
NA
NA •
NA
6,744
: NA
NA
NA
1986
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA !
NA
7,315
: NA
NA
NA
1987
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
1,778
: NA
; NA
NA
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
1,786
; NA
: na
NA
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
5,344
: NA
NA
NA
1990
0
0 ;
0
67
57 :
29
0
: 0
: 163
295
1991
0
0 I
0
139
315
35
0
; 52
227
1,171
1992
0
0 !
0
45
102
23
0
i 79
34
817
1993
13
0 :
13
39
299 ;
78
0
1 0
143
1,184
1994
0
0 ;
0
72
48 ;
297
0
; 24
; 190
1,069
1995
0
0 :
0
58
72
159
0
i 14
158
1,326
1996
0
63 ;
0
21
528
84
0
: 148
275
866
1997
0
0 !
0
0
154 :
39
0
i 39
96
770
1998
0
0 :
15
30
46
61
0
: 30
426
1,493
1999
0
0 ;
0
187
210
23
0
; 163
: 653
1,400
Mean
1
6 :
3
66
183
83
2,992
! 55
' 236
1,039
Minimum
0
o :
0
0
46 :
23
0
Maximum
13
63 ;
15
187
528
297
SD
4
20 ;
6
57
157 !
86
3,535
: 58
181
360
Total
_ 13
63 ;
28
658
1,831 L
_ 828
_ 77,787 ___
; 549
: 2,365
10,391
NA=Not sampled.
0 Sampled, but none collected.
Mori Feb 11 08:24:29 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plant:pilgrim.74.99;
PATHNAME:P:/Initakc/Scabrook-PilgrinVScience/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.inussel/raw.]osses.imp.pi!grim.74.99.csv
G3-36
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter 63: Evaluation of I4E Data
Table 63-11: Annual Impingement at Pilgrim, By Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents
Year
1974
Alewife
6,070
American
Sand Lance
NA
Atlantic I
Cod :
NA !
Atlantic
Herring
" NA
Atlantic
i Mackerel
i NA
Atlantic
Menhaden
NA :
Atlantic
Silverside
NA
; Bay
1 Anchovy i
¦ NA I
Blueback
Herring
NA
| Blueflsh
"I NA
Butterflsh:
NA :
Cunner
NA
1975
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
1,263
i NA ;
NA
i NA
NA
NA
1976
NA
NA
NA
52,439
NA
NA
NA
; NA ;
NA
; na
NA
NA
1977
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
4,920
; NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
1978
NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA . j
NA
i NA
NA
NA
1979
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
37,294
: NA ;
NA
: NA
NA
NA
1980
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA ;
NA
: na
NA :
2,345
198!
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
149,922
: NA ;
NA
; NA
NA :
NA
1982
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
3,051
NA ;
NA
; NA
NA
NA
1983
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,004
: NA :
NA
; NA
NA :
NA
1984
NA
NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA
333
NA ;
NA
NA
NA i
NA
1985
NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
5,896
NA ;
NA
i NA
NA ;
NA
NA
N A
1987
NA
NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA i
NA
! NA
NA
NA
1988
NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA :
1,054
NA i
NA
: na
NA
NA
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
3,060
NA !
NA
; NA
NA
NA
1990
1,668
15
297 •:
387
13 :
4,014
7.832
63
1,127
i 0
2,146 ;
293
1991
560
76
377 ;
48,196
0 ;
2,412
8.645
87 j
623
i 0
70 i
560
1992
334
34
163 ;
40
o !
28 1
4.736
0 :
144
I 0
0 :
47
1993
903
0
467 :
151
0 ;
64
16,846
0
373
i o
17 i
145
1994
175
104
256 ;
42
15 ;
72 .;
66,501
0
327
i o
64 :
116
1995
36,045
0
345 i
168
0 !
1,285 •
28,523
0
1,441
! 0
39
401
1996
O
0
354 :
0
0 :
1,935 :
29,056
: 0
1,407
i 0
28 i
294
1997
386
0
69 i
22
0 :
1,317
10,458
32
399
i 0
1,394 ;
54
1998
265
44
127
125
0 :
1,209
10,606
0 :
140
19
40 i
106
1999
1,060
0 ;
559 !
81
0 !
49,318 !
24,843
0
1,045
i o
188
163
Mean
4,343
27 :
301 :
8,836
3 ;
6,165
20,842
; 18
703
: 2
399
411
Minimum
175
0
69 ;
0
0 !
28
333
i 0
140
i 0
0 i
47
Maximum
36,045
104
559 ;
52,439
15 ;
49,318
149,922
! 87
1,441
: 19
2,146 ;
2,345
SD
10,649
37 I
153 1
19,436
6 ;
15.212
34,508
; 32
507
i 6
746 i
660
Total
47,775
272 :
3,015 !
106,027
28 ;
61,653 :
416,842
! 182 !
7,027
; 19
3,987 ;
4,524
Note: Impingement losses expressed as age I equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because (he ages of impinged individuals are
assumed to be distributed across the interval between the start of year I 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 entrapment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age I.
NA=Not sampled.
0 Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 10:06:07 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: pilgrim,74.99 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: P:/!ntake/Seabrook-
Pi1grim/Science/scode/piIgrimrtabIes.outpiit.74.99.no.mus!el/Lequivalent.sums.pi!gTim.74.99.csv
G3-37
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S3: Evaluation of I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6; Sea brook end Pilgrim
Chapter <53: Evaluation of ME Data
Table 63-11: Annual Impingement at Pilgrim, By Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents (cont.)
Year
Searobln
Striped Bass
Striped Killifish i
Tautog ;
Threespine
Stickleback
White
Perch
Window pane ;
Winter
Flounder
1974
NA
NA
NA :
NA ;
NA
i NA
1 NA :
NA
1975
; NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA ;
NA
1976
i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 NA
1 NA
NA
1977
• NA
NA
NA
NA i
NA
= • NA
i NA ;
NA
1978
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
; NA'
1 NA ;
NA
1979
• NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
; NA
i na :
NA
1980
i NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
; NA
i NA :
NA
1981
i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
i na :
NA
1982
NA
NA
NA ;
NA ;
NA
NA
; NA ;
NA
1983
: NA
NA
NA ;
NA i
NA
NA
i NA ;
NA
1984
NA
NA
NA ;
NA ;
NA
NA
; NA :
NA
1985
i NA
NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA
: NA :
NA
1986
i NA
NA
na ;
NA
NA
NA
; NA !
NA
1987
! NA
NA
na - ;
NA
NA
NA
i NA ;
NA
1988
: NA
NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA
: NA :
NA
1989
1 NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
: NA
i NA
NA
1990
; 25
0
92 i
63
41
: 0
; 196 ;
325
1991
; 150
0
190
346 :
50
69
272 :
1,289
1992
; o
0
62 ;
112
33
i 105
41 :
899
1993
! 80
0
53
328
lit
0
172 :
1,303
1994
i 87
0
99 1
53 ;
422
i 32
228 :
1,177
1995
89
0 :
79 i
79 ;
226
19
190 i
1,460
1996
! 0
94
29
579 i
119
197
330 ;
953
1997
i 71
0
0 i
169 ;
55
52
115
848
1998
i 18
0
41 i
50 !
87
40
i 511 i
1,643
1999
172
0
256 ;
230 :
33
217
! 784 ;
1,541
Mean
69
9
90 ;
201 ;
118
73
284
1,144
Minimum
0
0
0
50
33
: 0
41 :
325
Maximum
! 172
94
256 :
579 1
422
; 217
784 ;
1,643
SD
1 60
30
78 ;
173 !
122
; 78
217
396
Total
i 693
94
901 ;
2,009 I
1,177
! 732
2,839 :
11,438
Note; Impingement losses expressed as age 1 equivalents are larger than raw losses (the actual number of organisms impinged). This is because the ages
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
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
loss records, but the effect is not readily apparent among cntrainment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age I.
NA=Not sampled.
0-Sarnpled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 10:06:07 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: ptlgrim.74.99 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pi1grim/Science/scode/pi!grim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/I.eqiiivalent.sums.pilgritT>.74.99.csv
of impinged
the start of year I
applied to all raw
G3-39
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Tabic S3-12: Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Pilgrim Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year
Ale wife
; Atlantic Cod
Atlantic Herring
Atlantic Mackerel
Atlantic Menhaden
Atlantic Silversidc
Blueback Herring
Blue fish
Butterfisli
Cunner
1974
31
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1975
NA
: na
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1976
NA
f NA
7,268
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1977
; NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1978
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1979
NA
; na
NA
NA
NA
14
NA
NA
NA
NA
1980
; NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11
1981
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
58
NA
NA
NA
NA
1982
NA
i NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1983
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1984
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1985
NA
I NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
1986
; NA
NA
606
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1987
; NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1988
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
NA
1990
8
i 97
54
2
. 1,375
3
9
0
104
1
1991
3
; 123
6,680
0
826
3
5
0
3
3
1992
; 2
i 53
5
0
10
2
1
0
0
0
1993
i 5
; 153
21
0
22
7
3
0
1
1
1994
1
; 84
6
2
25
26
2
0
3
1
1995
: 182
1 113
23
0
440
11
11
0
2
2
1996
; 2
116
0
0
662
n
11
0
1
1
1997
; 2
! 23
3
0
451
4
3
0
67
0
1998
i 1
: 42
17
0
414
4
1
11
2
0
1999
; 5
; 183
11
0
16,888
10
8
0
9
1
Mean
: 22
; 99
1,225
0
2,111
8
5
1
19
2
Minimum
1
1 23
0
0
10
0
1
0
0
0
Maximum
: 182
| 183
7,268
2
16,888
58
11
11
104
11
SD
54
; 50
2,694
1
5,209
13
4
3
36
3
Total
241
; 987
14,695
4
21,112
162
53
11
193
20
NA=Not sampled.
0 Sampled, but none collected,
Mon Feb 11 10:06:21 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: pilgrim.74 99 ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgri m/Science/sccKi c/pilgri m/tables. output. 74.99. no.mussel/l. yield.pilgrim. 74.99.csv
G3-40
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seobrook and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table 63-12: Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Pilgrim Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds) (cont.)
Year
; Little Skate
Pollock
: Rainbow Smelt ;
Red Hake
Scup
Searobiii
Striped Bass
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter Flounder
1974
; NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1975
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1976
; NA
NA
: NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1977
; na
NA
! NA ;
NA
na
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1978
i NA
NA
! 297
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1979
; NA
NA
: NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1980
i NA
NA
i NA i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1981
; NA
NA
¦ NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1982
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1983
; NA
NA
j NA i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1984
; NA
NA
: NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1985
; NA
NA
; NA )
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1986
; NA
NA
i NA i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1987
; NA
NA
l :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1988
; NA
NA
i na ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
; NA
NA
i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1990
! o
61
: 4 :
2
131
1
0
69
14
102
1991
; 37
113
I 7 :
36
70
7
0
384
20
406
1992
! 24
18
: 3 ;
5
5
0
0
124
3
283
1993
: 34
126
: 97
50
3
4
0
364
13
411
1994
! 13
19
! 108 1
14
3
4
0
58
17
371
1995
i 11 ;
69
24
26
0
4
0
88
14
460
1996
i 6 I
0
! 37 :
34
0
0
131
643
24
300
1997
i 15 i
0
i is ;
57
0
4
0
188
8
267
1998
: 20 ;
0
•• s ;
45
3
I
0
56
38
518
1999
I 0 ;
76
1 15 i
138
0
9
0
256
58
486
Mean
i 16 i
48
| 52 :
41
21
3
13
223
21
361
Minimum
i o i
0
; 3 ;
2
0
0
0
56
3
102
Maximum
1 37 ;
126
! 297 i
138
131
9
131
643
58
518
SD
i 13 i
48
; 85 i
39
44
3
41
192
16
125
Total
; 161 i
483
! 622 i
'407
215
34
131
2,230
209
3,60.5
NA=Not sampled,
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 10:06:21 MST 2002 ;ResuIls; I Plant: pilgrim 74.99 ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tabIes.output.74.99.no.imissel/I.yieldlpilgrim,74,99.csv
G3-41
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seobrook and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of I&E Date
Table "S3-13-. Annual Impingement at Pilgrim, By Species, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Year
Alewife
American
Sand Lance
: Atlantic
I Cod
Atlantic
Herring
j Atlantic
i Mackerel
Atlantic
i Menhaden
Atlantic
Silverside
Blueback
Herring
Blue-
fish
Butter-
fish
; Cunner
Grubby
Little
Skate
Lump-
flsh
1974
190
NA
1 NA
NA
j NA
j NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA
NA i
NA
NA
1975
NA
NA
; NA
NA
i NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
| NA
NA ;
NA
NA
1976
NA
NA
! NA
4,094
i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
' NA
NA
NA
NA
1977
NA
NA
i NA
NA
1 NA
; NA
2
NA
NA
NA
! NA .
NA
NA
NA
1978
NA
NA
i NA
NA
; NA
I NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: na
NA ;
NA
NA
1979
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA
: NA
13
NA
NA
NA
; na
NA
NA
NA
1980
NA
NA
; NA
NA
! NA
i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: 13
na :
NA
NA
1981
NA
NA
: NA
NA
; NA
; NA
52 ¦
NA
NA
NA
: na
NA
NA
NA
1982
NA
NA
: NA
NA
: na
; NA
I
NA
NA
NA
: na
NA
NA
NA
1983
NA
NA
: NA
NA
; NA
j NA
1
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
1984
NA
NA
: NA
NA
: NA
: NA
0
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
1985
NA
NA
; NA
NA
; NA
: NA
2
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
1986
NA
NA
: NA
342
; NA
; na
NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
na :
NA
NA
1987
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
; na
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
; na
; NA
0
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
! NA
1
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA ;
NA
NA
1990
52
0
34
30
1
; 628
3
52
0
50
i 2
42
0
4
1991
IS
0
43
3,762
; 0
i 377
3
29
0
2
: 3
60
17
3
1992
10
0
19
3
0
: 4
2
7
0
0
i o
36 ;
11
5
1993
28
0
53
12
0
; 10
6
17
0
0
: i
49
16
17
1994
5
1
: 29
3
I 1
: II
23
IS
0
2
i
87
6
7
1995
1,128
0
; 39
13
i o
: 201
10
66
0
1
i 2
48
5
5
1996
10
0
41
0
: o
303
10 .
64
0
1
! 2
90
3
6
1997
12
0
: 8
2
1 o
! 206
4
18
0
33
i 0
33
7
6
1998
8
0
: 15
10
I o
j 189
4
6
2
1
; i
19
9
10
1999
33
0
i 64
6
! o
! 7,715
9
48
0
4
!
70
0
7
Mean
136
0
1 34
690
: o
I 964
7
32
0
9
1 2
53
7
7
Minimum
5
0
;• 8
0
i o
4
0
6
0
i 0
¦: 0
19
0
3
Maximum
1,128
1
64
4,094
'• 1
i 7,715
52
66
2
50
! 13
90
17
17
SD
333
0
: 17
1,517
; 1
; 2,380
12
23
1
17
; 4
23
6
4
Total
1,495
1
; 345
8,277
; 3
9,644
144
322
2
:• 93
;• 25
535
75 __
: 70
NA=Not sampled.
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 10:06: 14 MST 2002 jResults; I Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; Units: annual .prod, forg Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrirn/Science/scodc/pilgrim/tables,output.74.99.no .mussel/1, annual. prod.forg.pilgrim,74.99,csv
G3-42
-------
Chapter S3: Evaluation of IiE Data
Tabli
5 S3-13:
Annual Impingement at Pilgrim
, By Species,
Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds) (cont.)
Year
Pollock
Rainbow
Smelt
Red
• Hake
Ruck
Gunnel
Sculpin
Spp.
Scup
Searobin
Striped
Bass
Striped
Killiflsh
Tautog
White
Perch
; Windowpane
Winter
Flounder
1974
NA
NA
! MA
NA
NA i
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
1975
NA
NA
| NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1976
NA
NA
: na
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
1977
NA
NA
! NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
! NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA
NA
1978
NA
1,219
; NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1979
NA
NA
: na
NA
NA !
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
1980
MA
NA
I NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA
NA
1981
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1982
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
1983
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
1984
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: na
NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
1985
NA
NA
1 MA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
1986
NA
NA
! NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA
NA
1987
NA
28
; NA
' NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1988
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA
NA
1989
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1990
20
15
; 2
0
1
67
2
: o
1
8
0
: 3
39
1991
36
30
: 27
1
1 ; 36
11
0
1
43
0
: 5
156
1992
6
12
1 4
0
0 i
3
0
0
0
14
0
i 1
109
1993
40
397
I 39
1
1 i
1
6
: 0
0
41
0
: 3
158
1994
6
442
1 10
1
0 i i
7
! o
1
7
0
i 4
142
1995
22
97
: 20
0
0 !
0
7
0
0
10
0
i 3
176
1996
0
153
; 26
1
2 ;
0
0
i 27
0
72
1
6
115
1997
0
66
i 44
0
0 :
0
5
; o
0
21
0
: 2
102
1998
0
32
: 34
0
1 : 2
1
i o
0
6
0
: 9
199
1999
24
60
; 106
0
2 ;
0
13
i 0
2
29
1
: 14
186
Mean
15
212
: 31
0
1 ill
5
; 3
1
25
0
! 5
138
Minimum
0
12
i 2
0
0 i
0
0
; 0
0
6
0
l
39
Maximum
40
1,219
; 106
1
2 ;
67
13
i 27
2
72
1
14
199
SD
15
349
; 30
0
1 i
23
4 ; 8
0
21
0
I 4
48
Total
154
2,549
! 312
3
8 Mil
52
: 27
6
249
2
: 51
1,383
NA-Not sampled.
O-Sampled, but none collected,
Mem Feb 11 10:06:14 MST 2002 ;Results; 1 Plant: pilgrim,74.99 ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
PiSgrim/Seicncc/sc odc/pilgrim/tablcs.autput,74.99.no.mu5sel/Lannual.prod.forg.pilgrirrt.74.99 .csv
G3-43
8 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Table S3-14; Annual Entrapment (numbers of organisms) at Pilgrim, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility,
Year
i Alewlfe
: ;
American !
Plaice
American
Sand Lance j
Atlantic Cod
Atlantic
Herring
Atlantic
1 Mackerel j
Atlantic i
Menhaden |
Atlantic
Silverslde
Blue Mussel
Gunner
1974
! 957,330
NA ;
NA
NA
I NA
; NA ;
76,436,500 ;
323,810
! 2,208,700,000,000
1,177,600,000
1975
; 0
NA
NA ;
NA
: NA
na
7,280,500 i
1,546,620
; 19,122,000,000,000
1,177,600,000
1976
; 12,976 ;
NA ;
NA :
NA
i NA
; na :
21,696,300 ;
2,436,575
; 2,891,200,000,000
1,177,600,000
1977
; NA
NA ;
NA
NA
i NA
i NA i
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
1978
i NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA
I NA :
NA |
NA
NA
NA
1979
: na
NA ;
NA ;
NA
; NA
j NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
1980
: na
NA
NA :
21,839,372
i 1,068,466
! 103,892,540 :
28,529,199 ;
NA
NA
3,378,883,316
1981
: na
NA ;
na !
13,793,664
; 2,471,492
; 504,095,387 ;
43,549,879 ;
NA
: NA
7,152,617,480
1982
! NA
NA
na ;
2,805,705
732,857
; 117,623,074 ;
366,937,320 ;
NA
NA
2,020,915,711
1983
; na
NA ;
NA ;
9,491,864
! 5,880,315
; 189,950,294 ;
2,096,770 ;
NA
NA
5,937,818,325
1984
; NA
NA
NA
12,313,633
468,840
j 22,564,934 !
4,751,607 j
NA
NA
1,767,970,898
1985
i NA
NA ;
NA ;
6,512,593
i 1,580,435
; 1,913,359,781 ;
50,322,124 ;
NA
NA
2,061,768,342
1986
; NA
NA
NA
3,824,754
i 1,811,101
; 277,821,586 ;
24,767,656 ;
NA
NA
1,520,567,067
1987
; NA
NA :
na :
5,745,861
1 5,142,045
i 71,437,855 i
1,872,216 i
NA
NA
4,506,374,514
1988
i NA
NA
NA
3,001,273
; 639,089
; 2,667,010,057 ;
11,987,628 i
NA
NA
1,546,465,819
1989
i NA
NA :
NA
3,515,162
911,487
! 4,739,478,407 ;
15,623,972 ;
NA
NA
4,521,604,135
1990
¦ NA
2,386,979 '
60,886,295 :
3,972,827
; 2,079,483
; 2,318,043,737 ;
10,320,759 :
NA
NA
1,508,146,909
1991
; NA
3,434,141 :
23,485,288 :
3,908,395
; 1,280,273
; 545,771,347 ;
6,256,434 ;
NA
; . NA
691,736,018
1992
j NA
12,355,715 i
108,323,789
3,289,386
; 3,970,208
i 385,697,157 ;
1,510,414 j
NA
: na
2,177,452,952
1993
1 NA .
54,863,855
46,668,316 ;
1,715,237
: 2,098,952
; 1,809,704,207 ;
959,648,788 j
NA
NA
3,250,567,317
1994 ¦
i NA
6,286,118 ;
458,829,894 :
5,023,831
I 16,351,765
; 524,336,520 ;
12,583,586 ;
NA
NA
1,568,239,739
1995
; NA
5,219,224 ;
54,688,357 ;
3,151,964
i 43,247,883
i 1,965,298,971 i
15,700,367 !
NA
: NA
4,163,622,052
1996
1 NA
3,931,000 i
340,701,000
10,912,177
: 9,265,826
; 1,578,317,735 *
13,522,139 ;
NA
NA
2,824,542,922
1997
; NA
4,809,142 ;
106,911,770 i
2,901,829
:: 24,445,056
j 342,747,452 ;
97,182,867 ;
NA
NA
1,817,924,713
1998
: na
8,055,050 ;
41,715,642 :
5,706,922
j 4,026,783
i 586,639,654 j
78,011,253 i
NA
i NA
4,711,882,277
1999
T NA
NA ;
NA
2,397,019
11,379,446
i 35,506,522 ;
33,719,962 |
NA
NA
1,773,984,349
Mean
i 323,435
11,260,136 :
138,023,372 ;
6,291,173
! 6,942,590
| 1,034,964,861 i
81,926,445 ;
1,435,668
i 8,073,966,666,670
2,714,603,689
Minimum
i 0
2,386,979 i
23,485,288 ¦;
1,715,237
468,840
; 22,564,934 ;
1,510,414 !
323,810
2,208,700,000,000
691,736,018
Maximum i 957,330
54,863,855 :
458,829,894 :
21,839,372
i 43,247,883
4,739,478,407 ;
959,648,788 ;
2,436.575
; 19,122,000,000,000
7,152,617,480
SD
; 549,007
16,618,143 j
153,899,234 ;
5,039,143
! 10,525,822
! 1',222,5 3 8,368 ;
205,740,114 ;
1,060,743
i 9,573,961,142,770
1,704,407,272
Total
; 970,306
101,341,224|
1,242,210,351 ;
125,823,468
: 138,851,802
; 20,699,297,217!
1,884,308,240;
4,307,005
.24,221,900,000,000
62,435,884,855
NA-Ncrt sampled.
0 Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb i 1 08:24:30 MST 2002 Raw.losses. KNTRAINMENT: Plant pilgrim.74.99;
PATHN AME:P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/seade/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/raw, Iosses.ent.piIgrim.74.99.csv
G3-44
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Table 63-14; Annual Entrapment (numbers of organisms) at Pilgrim, By Species, as Estimated by the Facility (cont )
Chapter S3; Evaluation of I4E Data
Year
Fourbeard
Rockling
Lumpflsh
Pollock
Radiated
Shanny
Rainbow
Smelt
Red Hake
Rock Gunnel
Scuipin Spp,
Searobin
Tautog
Windowpane
Winter
Flounder
1974
NA
NA
104,972,000;
NA
30,105,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
225,000,000
1975
NA
NA
1 2,144,710 ;
NA
145,400
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
52,280,000
1976
NA
NA
i 21,137,710 ;
NA
87,242
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
33,725,000
1977
NA
NA
! NA I
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1978
NA
NA
! NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1979
NA
NA
NA ;
' NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1980
NA
NA
NA I
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
28,726,407
1981
NA
NA
NA i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
29,856,493
1982
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
21,439,774
1983
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
11,998,509
1984
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
8,334,474
1985
NA
NA
1 NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11,508,028
1986
NA
NA
; NA I
NA
NA
NA -
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
15,221,824
1987
NA
NA
; NA 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA .
NA
NA
NA ;
3,526,013
1988
NA
NA
: NA 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
19,243,313
1989
NA
NA
! NA i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
9,687,852
1990
161,001,461
7,829,710
NA
16,056,794
NA
NA
12,268,408
26,003,576
1,725,190
8,720,243
60,919,472 :
8,678,807
1991
141,180,985
7,257,673
NA j
14,010,361
NA
NA
37,694,011
44,379,996
2,591,103
3,849,374
50,098,443 ;
12,605,283
1992
126,361,457
2,222,841
; NA i
13,014,884
NA
NA
30,028,438
7,409,762
1,389,931
3,142,186
61,663,329 ;
8,811,456
1993
60,326,651
9,340,124
: NA :
19,514,380
NA
NA
7,455,162
38,339,208
3,466,096
4,367,106
152,988,400 ;
10,160,019
1994
60,933,441
10,595,602
; NA ;
13,330,063
NA
23,254,273
62,079,785
34,041,077
1,080,077
1,321,569
73,781,569 :
20,701312
1995
33,524,219
7,828,837
i na ;
16,190,247
NA
4,789,498
13,281,171
31,147,018
2,522,305
2,376,502
42,663,536
13,655,283
1996
29,396,000
4,305,000
; na
32,569,000
NA
14,447,000
33,497,000
50,775,000
1,213,000
5,319,000
99,739,000
18,648,291
1997
95,461,605
8,196,313
i na ;
12,958,397
NA
50,281,351
97,510,007
88,316,035
2,824,213
9,763,040
94,240,177
55,373,718
1998
140,083,704
830,815
; NA |
35,957,121
NA
62,604,501
15,175,912
47,161,167
918,471
28,756,809
115,833,081
86,846,061
1999
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,680,713
Mean
94,252,169
6,489,657
42,751,473 j
19,289,027
10,112,547
31,075,325
34,332,210
40,841,427
1,970,043
7,512,870
83,547,445 :
30,900,375
Minimum
29,396,000
830,815
2,144,710 ;
12,958,397
87,242
4,789,498
7,455,162
7,409,762
918,471
1,321,569
42,663,536
3,526,013
Maximum
161,001,461
10,595,602
104,972,000;
35,957,121
30,105,000
62,604,501
97,510,007
88,316,035
3,466,096
28,756,809
152,988,400 ;
225,000,000
SD
49,932,536
3,299,177
54,714,979 j
8,782,788
17,313,996
24,451,867
29,178,718
22,049,094
903,184
8,439,294
35,562,535 ;
46,599,404
Total
848,269,523
58,406,915
128,254,420;
173,601,247
30,337,642
155,376,623
308,989,894
367,572,839
17,730,386
67,615,829
751,927,007 ;
710,708,630
NA=Not sampled.
0=Sampled, but none collected,
Mori Feb 11 08:24:30 MST 2002 Raw.losses. ENTRAINMENT; Plant;pilgrim,74,99;
PATHNAME. P./Iiitakc/Seabrook-Pilgrim/'Seienee/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74,99,no.musset/rawJosses.ent.pilgrim.74.99.csv
G3-45
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6; Seabraokand Pilgrim Chapter S3; Evaluation of I&E Data
Table S3-15; Annual Entrainment at Pilgrim, By Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents
Year
American
Plaice
: American Sand
Lance
Atlantic
Cod
Atlantic
Herring
Atlantic
Mackerel
Atlantic
Menhaden
Atlantic
Silverside
Cunner
Fuurbeard
Rockling
: Lumpfish
Pollock
1974
; NA
; na '
NA
NA
NA
28,754
1,416
; 724,630 ;
NA
; NA
1,201
1975
; NA
! NA ;
NA
NA ;
NA
2,383
! 3,578
; 724,630 ;
NA
NA
70
1976
; NA
i na ;
NA
NA ;
NA
5,842
i 10,265
: 724,630 ;
NA
NA
206
1977
: NA
! NA 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
: na i
NA
NA
NA
1978
NA
; NA !
NA
NA :
NA
NA
; NA
: NA ;
NA
; NA
NA
1979
NA
I NA I
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
; NA ;
NA
; NA
NA
1980
; NA
; na ;
3,758
3,115 ;
1,459
5,305
: NA
; 1,314,956 ;
NA
NA
NA
1981
: NA
NA ;
5,292
7,206 ;
16,812
15,454
: NA
; 4,660,735 ;
NA
; NA
NA
S9B2
; NA
; NA :
567
2,137
925
16,201
i NA
; 421,665 ;
NA
NA
NA
1983
; NA
! NA ;
500
17,145 ;
2,695
506
: NA
; 1,313,416 ;
NA
NA
NA
1984
NA
! NA ;
1,583
1,367 ¦:
98
202
NA
! 323,971 :
NA
; NA
NA
1985
i NA
! -NA ;
3,463
4,608 ;
10,130
5,256
NA
: 603,370 •:
NA
NA
NA
1986
; NA
i na ;
2,474
5,281 i
3,844
2,292
NA
430,335 :
NA
NA
NA
1987
: NA
i NA ;
387
14,993 ;
310
609
; NA
1,046,996 ;
NA
NA
NA
1988
NA
: NA
644
1,863 ;
11,351
1,430
i NA
: 320,441 ;
NA
1 NA
NA
1989
! NA
NA ;
. 340
2,658 ;
22,903
2,161
; NA
! 1,116,427 ;
NA
: NA
NA
1990
•; 47
; 1,815,806 :
3,707
6,063 :
9,942
1,546
: NA
; 1,279,249 :
583,611
; 1,303
NA
1991
1 67
! 700,399 ;
627
3,733 ;
5,321
439
; NA
; 222,102 ;
714,005
i i ,208
NA
1992
! 242
i 3,230,530 :
1,149
11,576 ;
1,990
444
i NA
; 406,666 ;
438,229
370
NA
1993
1,076
I 1,391,785 ;
1,067
6,120 ;¦
7,978
44,749
: na
: 672,052 ;
211,060
1,554
NA
1994
123
; 13,683,639 ;
4,511
47,678 !
2,358
1,336
; NA
i 339,643 ;
301,560
; 1,763
NA
1995
102
! 1,630,966 i
1,455
126,100 ;
17,325
4,883
NA
i 1,022,608 ;
119,501
: 1,303
NA
1996
77
; 10,160,693 :
5,696
27,017
9,882
3,514
NA
i 608,403 :
266,426
i 716
NA
1997
: 94
i 3,188,419 ;
2,608
71,276 ;
2,622
20,516
; NA
i 909,960 j
393,940
; 1,364
NA
1998
1S8
; 1,244,082 |
1,809
11,741 ;
5,062
14,609
; NA
i 3,014,964 ;
672,366
; 138
NA
1999
NA
: NA i
1,120
33,180 ;
171
7,991
; NA
; 648,654 i
NA
NA
NA
Mean
: 221
i 4,116,258 ;
2,138
20,243 i
6,659
8,105
; 5,087
; 993,500 !
411,189
; 1,080
492
Minimum
47
; 700,399 ;
340
1,367 ;
98
202
1 1,416
1 222,102 |
119,501
: 138
70
Maximum
; 1,076
! 13,683,639 ;
5,696
126,100 ;
22,903
44,749
i 10,265
; 4,660,735 ;
714,005
; 1,763
1,201
SD
326
; 4,589,722 ;
1,708
30,691 i
6,520
11,010
! 4,613
; 988,573 i
208,799
i 549
617
Total
; 1»988
; 37,046,318 :
42,758
404,856 i
J33,! 79 _
_ 186,422
15,260
: 22,850,503 ;
3,700,698
i 9,718
1,477
NA=Not sampled.
0=Satnpled, but none collected,
Mon Feb 11 10:06:01 MST 2002 .Results: E Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scade/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/E.equivaleiit.sums.pilgrim.74.99.csv
G3-46
-------
Chapter S3: Evaluation of IdE Data
Tobie 63-15: Annual Entroinment ot Pilgrim, By Species, Expressed as Age 1 Equivalents (cont )
.Vmt j Radiated Shanny ; Rainbow Smelt J Red Hake [Rock Gunnel i_ Sculpin Spp, J Searobln Tautog Windowpane [Winter Flounder
1974 j NA j 3,938,972 j NA ; NA ¦ NA ; NA i NA : NA I 731,769
1975 | NA i 19,024 ; NA j NA 1 NA i NA i NA i NA j 170,030
'1976 j NA | 11,415 j NA j NA : NA j NA i NA ; NA i 109,684
197 7 i NA | NA | NA ; NA j NA I NA ; NA NA | NA
197 8 | NA i . NA j NA j NA ' NA ; Na" "T NA ! NA f NA
197 9 ; NA ; NA | NA ; NA NA j NA*'" f NA " | NA • NA
1980 j NA j NA j NA j NA j NA | NA | NA i NA t 126,854
1981 ; NA ; NA NA j NA ; NA NA . NA \ NA : 110,909
1982 j NA ! NA I NA f NA ! NA : NA j NA i NA I 182,727
1983 j NA • NA j NA j NA j NA j NA • NA i NA ; 110,701
1984 j NA NA NA j NA I NA | NA ! NA ' NA ; 128,815'
1985 j NA | NA I NA i NA j NA f NA NA i NA j ' ' 98,949
1986 i NA ; NA "" : NA' i NA NA I NA NA "1 NA j 75,135
1987 ; NA j NA | NA j NA !" NA i NA NA NA' "j 30,164
1988 I NA j NA ! NA i NA ; " NA f NA j NA "j ' * NA ' " i "207,002
1989 1 NA ; NA NA 1 NA j NA ; NA i NA I NA ! 47,147
1990 i 1,368,852 \ NA NA ' j 1,737,690 ! ' 467,819 i 3*238 f 1,016 '1 12,584 | 72,462
1991 j 1,194,392 j NA NA j 5,338,958 i 798,421 j' 4,864 ; 449 T 10,349 j 72,170
1992 ; 1,109^527* ! NA ; NA I 4,253,211 ! 133,306 j "" 2^609 366 ': 12,737 ; 73,003
1993 j 1,663,613 j NA ! NA ; 1,055,945 "! 689,744 I 6,506 j 509 \ 31,602 I 70,569
1994 : 1,136,396 j NA j 1,156 j 8,792,945 j 612,418 j 2,027 ] 154 j 15,241 I 163,886
1995 i 1,380,229 | NA 238 ' 1,881,138 ' 560,352 j 4,735 : 277 I 8,813 j 136,714
1996 I" 2,776,528 \ NA ; 718 ' 4,744,496 : 913,471 | 2,277 \ 620 ; 20,602 ! 236,922
1997 I UMJli | NA ' 2,500 j 13,811,262 i',588,855 I 5,301 I 1,138 I 19,467 | 659,882
1998 j 3,065,367 ; NA ; '" 3,112 " ; "2,149,508 848,456 j"" 1,724 i"3,351 | 23,927 j" I,i66,820
1999 \ NA \ NA 'j ' NA ! NA 1 NA : NA : NA : NA ; 37,806
Mean : 1,644,402 j 1,323,137 ; 1,545 j 4,862,795 j 734,760 ; 3,698 | 875 j 17,258 ; 209,571
Minimum ; 1,104,711 j 11,415 238 1,055,945 133,306 j 1,724 *";" 154"'; 8,813 ! 30,164*'
Maximum 1 3,065,367" " ; 3,938,972 i 3,"112 ! 13,811,262 i',588,855 j 6,506 f 3^51 *! 31,602 j I! 166,820*
SD j 748,738 \ 2,265,383 i 1.216 f "4J32.857 1 396,676'" 1 1*695 j 983*" ! 7,346 j 272,956
Total 1 14^799,615 j 3i969^41l j 7,724 [ '43,765,153 " [ " 6.612,841 T J3.282 _ [ 7J79 j _!55,32J : 4,820,123
NA=Not sampled,
Q=Sampled, but none collected.
Mori Feb 11 10:06:01 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: pilgrim.74,99 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: P;/intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrin]/Sdence/scode/piIgrim/tables,output.74.99.no.mussel/E.equivalent.sums,pilgrim,74.99,esv
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part S; Seabrook ond Pilgrim
G3-47
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: Seabroak and Pilgrim Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Tabic S3-16: Annual Entrainment of Fishery Species at Pilgrim Expressed as yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year
Atlantic
Cod
Atlantic
Mackerel
Gunner j
Atlantic
Herring
: Atlantic
; Menhaden
American
Plaice
Pollock
Rainbow
Smelt
Red
Hake
Sea-
robin
Atlantic
Silverside
Tautog
Window- 1
pane j
Winter
Flounder
1974
NA
NA
3,268 :
NA
: 9,846
NA
1,763
29,473
NA
NA
1
NA
NA |
230,673
1975
NA
NA
3,268 :
NA
816
NA
103
142
NA
NA
1
NA
NA :
53,598
1976
NA
NA
3,268
NA
2,001
NA
302
85
NA
NA
4
NA
NA ;
34,575
1977
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA i
NA
1978
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
1979
NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
1980
1,230
202
5,930 :
432
; 1,817
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
39,988
1981
1,732
2,325
21,020 :
999
5,292
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
34,962
1982
186
128
1,902 ;
296
5,548
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
57,601
1983
164
373
5,923 :
2,376
173
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
34,896
¦1984
518
14
1,461 i
189
69
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
40,606
1985
1,134
1,401
2,721 ;
639
1,800
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
31,191
1986
810
532
1,941 :
732
785
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
• NA j
23,685
1987
127
43
4,722 I
2,078
209
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
9,509
1988
211
1,570
1,445 ;
258
490
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA !
65,253
1989
111
3,167
5,035 :
368
: 740
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA i
14,862
1990
1,214
1,375
5,769 ;
840
529
5
NA
NA
NA
161
NA
1,128
928 ;
22,842
1991
205
736
1,002 ;
517
: 150
8
NA
NA
NA
242
NA
498
763 j
22,750
1992
376
275
1,834 |
1,604
• 152
28
NA
NA
NA
130
NA
407
939 ;
23,013
1993
349
1,103
3,031 :
848
; 15,323
123
NA
NA
NA
324
NA
565
2,330 ;
22,245
1994
1,477
326
1,532 i
6,608
457
14
NA
NA
206
101
NA
171
1,124 ;
51,661
1995
476
2,396
4,612 ;
17,477
i 1,672
12
NA
NA
42
236
NA
307
650 ;
43,096
1996
1,864
1,367
2,744 ;
3,744
i 1,203
9
NA
NA
128
113
NA
688
1,519 !
74,684
1997
854
363
4,104 ;
9,879
; 7,025
11
NA
NA
445
264
NA
1,263
1,435 !
208,013
1998
592
700
13,597 ;
1,627
5,003
18
NA
NA
555
86
NA
3,721
1,764 ;
367,814
1999
! 367
24
2,925 i
4,599
i 2,737
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
11,917
Mean
700
921
4,481 :
2,806
! 2,776
25
723
9,900
275
184
2
972
1,272 ;
66,062
Minimum
111
14
1,002 :
189
; 69
5
103
85
42
86
1
171
650 ;
9,509
Maximum
; 1,864
3,167
21,020 ;
17,477
! 15,323
123
1,763
29,473
555
324
4
3,721
2,330 j
367,814
SD
i 559
902
4,458 ;
4,254
; ' 3,770
37
906
! 16,950
217
84
2
1,092
' 542 ;
86,043
Total
i 13,997
18,417
103,056;
56,112
: 63,837
228
2,168
; 29,700
1,376
1,657
6
8,748
11,451 :
1,519,434
NA=Not sampled,
O-Sampled, but none collected,
Mon Feb 11 10:06:17 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables,output,74.99.iio.musscl/E.yield.pilgrim.74,99.csv
G3-48
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G Seabrook ard Pilgrim
Table 63-17: Annual Entrapment at Pilgrim, By Species, Expressed as Production Foregone (in
Chapter 63: Evaluation of I&E Data
Year
; Alewife j
American
i American Sand 1
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic
Atlantic I
Atlantic
Cunner
Fourbeard
; Lumpflslt
Plaice
Lance
Cod
Herring
Mackerel
: Menhaden !
Silverside
Ruckling
Pollock
1974
: 3,498 :
NA
; NA !
NA
NA
1975
: 0
NA
; NA :
NA i
NA
NA
i ;
425
382
NA
NA
4
1976
: o j
NA
i NA
NA :
NA
NA
4 :
5
382
NA
NA
28
1977
: na ;
NA
NA
NA j
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1978
: NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1979
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1980
: NA
NA
NA
6 :•
1
24
7 ;
NA
24,267
NA
! NA
NA
1981
: NA ;
NA
; NA
3 ;
3
• 56
5 :
NA
2,317
NA
NA
NA
1982
: NA
NA
: NA
1 ;
1
32
118 ;
NA
672
NA
NA ¦
NA
1983
: NA :
NA
NA
2
8
44
0 i
NA
1,972
NA
NA
NA
1984
NA
NA
f NA ;
3 i
1
7
2 ;
NA
588
NA
NA
NA
1985
: NA ;
NA
NA
2 ;
, 2
557
14
NA
682
NA
: NA
NA
1986
• NA j
NA
; NA i
1 ;
2,139
66
7 ;
NA
503
NA
NA
NA
1987
NA i
NA
NA
1 ;
7
21
0 :
NA
1,496
NA
; NA
NA
1988
: NA :
NA
NA
1 ;
1
795
3 :
NA
514
NA
: NA
NA
1989
: NA i
NA
! NA
i :
1
1,394
4 :
NA
1,499
NA
NA
NA
1990
i NA ;
1
68,231
700
2,456
17,208
2,506 i
NA
23,009
67
6,280
NA
1991
: NA ;
2
: 26,318
119
1,512
143
714 ;
NA
4,139
65
5,821
NA
1992
: NA ;
6
121,391
217 ;
4,690
113
719 :
NA
7,886
52
: 1,783
NA
1993
; na
25
680
202 ;
2,479
537
72,767
NA
12,915
25
: 7,491
NA
1994
: NA ;
3
514,178
851
19,316
4,073
2,167 ;
NA
6,502
28
f 8,498
NA
1995
i NA j
2
797
275
51,088
528
7,909 ;
NA
19,388
14
1 6,279
NA
1996
i NA :
2
4,964
1,076 ;
13
¦ 450
5,693
NA
11,652
17
i 3,453
NA
1997
! NA i
2
1,558
492 :
28,877
95
33,242 !
NA
16,618
41
; 6,574
NA
1998
: NA j
4
46,748 ;
342 ;
4,757
158
23,675
NA
54,618
15,974
¦ 666
NA
1999
: NA ;
NA
NA ;
212 ;
13,442
10
12,947
NA
12,006
NA
; na
NA
Mean
: 1,166 :
5
87,207
225 ;
6,540
1,316
7,066 1
143
8,886
1,809
; 5,205
59
Minimum
: o ;
1
680
1 ;
1
7
0 i
0
382
14
: 666
4
Maximum
; 3,498 ;
25
514,178
1,076 :
51,088
17,208
72,767 ;
425
54,618
15,974
j 8,498
146
SD
I 2,020 ;
8
; 165,163
319 j
12,990
3,851
16,634 |
244
12,652
5,312
• 2,646
76
Total
; 3,498 :
46
i 784,865 ;
4,507 ;
130,797
26,311
162,512 ;
430
204,389
16,284
; 46,846
178
NA=Not sampled,
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mon Feb 11 10:06; 10 MST 2002 -.Results; E Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrini/Science/seode/pilgri«Ti/tabIes.output.74.99.no.iT»ussel/E.annual.prod.forg.pHgrim.74.99.csv
G3-49
-------
Chapter S3: Evaluation of IAE
Tabie G3-17: Annual Entrapment at Pilgrim, By Species, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds) (cont.)
Year
; Radiated Shanny ;
Rainbow Smelt
Red Hake ;
Rock Gunnel •;
Sculpin Spp.
Searobin
Tautog
Wiitdowpane
Winter Flounder
1974
: NA
26,577
: NA :
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
! NA
778
1975
1 NA
128
NA ;
NA j
NA
NA
NA
; NA
181
1976 '
i NA ;
77
NA i
NA i
NA
NA
NA
: na
117
1977
; na
NA
NA ;
NA j
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
1978
! NA
NA .
NA ;
NA ;
NA
NA
NA .
1 NA
NA
1979
: na
NA
: NA i
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
! NA
NA
1980
NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
i NA
234
1981
1 NA
NA
: NA ;
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
; NA
259
1982
; NA
NA
NA ;
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
! NA
195
1983
I NA
NA
NA
NA |
NA
NA
NA
; NA
106
1984
: NA j
NA
NA ;
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
; NA
89
1985
: NA
NA
NA 1
NA i
NA
NA
NA
; NA
97
1986
na :
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
; NA
125
1987
i NA
NA
NA ;
NA :
NA
NA
NA
:• na
27
1988
NA
NA
na ;
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
! NA
172
1989
j NA
NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
:: NA
85
1990
4,537
NA
: NA i
19,050 :
46,095
23,470
293
: 144,307
51,695
1991
3,959
NA
NA i
58,532 i
78,670
35,250
129
i 118,674
51,519
1992
3,678 ;
NA
na ;
46,628 i
46
1
106
; 146,069
52,080
1993
5,514
NA
NA ;
' 11,576 i
67,962
47,153
147
; 362,402
50,364
1994
j 3,767 :
NA
2,152,223 i
96,398 ;
210
14,693
44
; 174,775
116,938
1995
! 4,575 :
NA
443,276 ;
20,623 |
192
34,314
80
; 101,062
97,529
1996
i 9,204
NA
; 1,337,095 |
52,014 j
90,006
1
179
! 236,264
169,001
1997
: 79 ;
NA
4,653,626 ;
6,818 ;
544
38,421
328
i 223,238
470,681
1998
10,161 ;
NA
; 5,794,155 ;
23,565 ;
83,600
12,495
967
274.388
832,257
1999
! NA
NA
NA ;
NA ;
NA
NA
NA
! NA
26,976
Mean
i 5,053 :
8,927
2,876,075 ;
37,245 |
40,814
22,866
253
i 197,909
83,544
Minimum
79 ;
77
; 443,276 ;
6,818 :
46
1
44
; 101,062
27
Maximum
: 10,161 ;
26,577
; 5,794,155 :
96,398 ;
90,006
47,153
967
; . 362,402
832,257
SD
3,031 |
15,285
; 2,263,063 ;
28,804 |
40,359
17,090
284
; 84,241
192,674
Total
45,474 ;
26,782
! 14,380,377 ;
335,206 !
367,323
i 205,798
2,273
i 1,781,178
1,921,503
NA=Not sampled.
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Mori Feb 1 i 10:06:10MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
PilgTim/Seiencc/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel/E.annual.prod.forg.pilgrim.74.99.csv
G3-50
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦. Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63 Evaluation of I4E Data
£3-7 Summary and Comparison of I&E at seabrook and Pil&rim
The data presented in Sections G3-4 and G3-6 indicate that the fish species most often impinged at both Seabrook and Pilgrim
are fishery species. At Seabrook, the most frequently impinged fishery species are winter flounder, red hake and Atlantic
silverside. At Pilgrim, the most abundant fishery species in impingement collections are Atlantic silverside, Atlantic herring,
rainbow smelt, and Atlantic menhaden,
Entrainment rates at both facilities are several orders of magnitude higher than impingement rates. At Seabrook, the fish
species most frequently entrained include the fishery species Atlantic mackerel, winter flounder, and red hake. At Pilgrim, the
fishery species most frequently entrained include Atlantic mackerel and cunner. Entrainment losses of some forage fish are
also high at both facilities, including fourbeard rockling, lumpfish, and rock gunnel at Seabrook, and American sand lance,
fourbeard rockling, and lumpfish at Pilgrim.
The data presented in Sections G3-4 and G3-6 also indicate that I&E at Seabrook"s offshore intake is substantially lower than
I&E at Pilgrim's nearshore intake. EPA compared age 1 equivalent losses for years when both facilities were operating,
including-1990-1993 and 1995-1998 (Seabrook was shut down during much of 1994 and so this year was not considered in
the comparison). Total losses averaged over these years for the 32 species that are either impinged or entrained at both
facilities indicate that impingement averages 68% less at Seabrook and entrainment averages 58% less.
63-8 Potential Biases and Uncertainties in I&E Estimates
Pilgrim and Seabrook used different methods to estimate annual l&E, and therefore the l&E estimates of the two facilities
may not be strictly comparable. In addition, Seabrook was shut down during parts of 1994 and 1997 (Normandeau
Associates, 1999), Table G3-18 outlines the main factors that should be taken into account in comparing I&E losses at the
two facilities.
Table S3 -18: Differences in Methods Used by Pilgrim and Seabrook to Estimate Annual ME and Potential
Effects on EPA's Results
Estimation Parameters
Pilgrim
Seabrook
Effect on Comparison of Facility Losses
Mesh size for entrainment
sampling
0.202 and 0.333 mm
: stage 1 and 2 larvae were
; adjusted for mesh extrusion
;0.505 mm
• No adjustment
0
Flow used for density
calculations
: Design flow
: Operational flow
Likely to overestimate the difference between
the two facilities.
Entrainment sampling
frequency
i 2-6 times per month
;4 times per month
U
Impingement sampling
frequency
; 8 hours 3 times per week
,2 to 3 times per
iweek
U
Adjustment for day/night
sampling
Sampling day and night
No sampling at night
;and no adjustment
Likely to underestimate the difference'between
the two facilities.
U = Uncertain (could underestimate or overestimate the difference between the two facilities)..
0 = No effect.
The effect of various mesh sizes seems to have been adjusted properly at each facility, so differences in mesh sizes appear
unimportant in comparing losses. At Pilgrim, mesh correction values were applied to both eggs and larvae to decrease the
effect of different mesh sizes (0.202 and 0,333 mm) on I&E estimates. In contrast, Seabrook did not apply mesh correction
values because a comparison of sampling efficiency with 0.505 mm and 0.333 mm mesh sizes in 1998 indicated that such a
correction was unnecessary, Seabrook found that the flow through each mesh size and the total volume sampled for each
mesh size were identical, and there were no significant differences in ichthyoplankton densities based on sampling with the
different mesh sizes (Normandeau Associates, 1999).
Another potentially important difference in methods concerns the flow volume used to calculate entrainment density.
Seabrook used the weekly cooling water volume measured during the week an entrainment sample was taken, whereas Pilgrim
used the full-load flow. Pilgrim used this value even if the station was out of service and less than full capacity was being
G3-S1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port &'¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 63: Evaluation of IAE Data
circulated. Therefore, Pilgrim may have overestimated annual l&E losses, which would result in an overestimate of any
differences in loss rates between the two facilities.
Time of day of sampling may also affect estimates of losses. At Pilgrim, entrainment sampling was conducted at least once a
month at night, whereas prior to 1998 entrainment sampling at Seabrook took place only during the day. Different sets of
organisms are susceptible to entrainment in the day and the night. Therefore, by sampling only during the day, Seabrook may
have underestimated entrainment, resulting in an underestimate of differences in l&E rates at the two facilities.
Entrainment sampling frequencies differed between Seabrook and Pilgrim, but the effect of sampling frequency on l&E has
never been studied. Therefore, the potential importance of various entrainment sampling frequencies on a comparison of
losses between Seabrook and Pilgrim is unknown.
Methods used to estimate annual impingement numbers also differed between the two facilities. Once or twice a week,
Seabrook collected all fish impinged on the traveling screens and summed the fish impinged in the individual screenwashes to
obtain yearly estimates. In contrast, Pilgrim collected impinged fish over an 8 hour period three times per week and estimated
hourly impingement rates by dividing the numbers of fish impinged during the monitoring period by the numbers of hours of
monitoring. These rates were then multiplied by 24 hours and 365 days to obtain annual impingement numbers. The effect of
these differences in collection methods is uncertain.
G3-52
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
Chapter G4:
Value of I&E Losses at the Seabrook
and Pilgrim Facilities Based on
Benefits Transfer Techniques
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation of
the economic losses associated with I&E at the Seabrook
and Pilgrim facilities using benefits transfer techniques.
Section G4-1 provides an overview of the valuation
approach, Section G4-2 discusses the value of losses to
recreational fisheries, Section G4-3 discusses the value of
commercial fishery losses, Section G4-4 discusses values
of forage losses, Section G4-5 discusses nonuse values,
and Section G4-6 summarizes benefits transfer results.
&4-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim affect recreational and
commercial fisheries as well as forage species that
contribute to the biomass of fishery species, EPA
evaluated all these species groups to capture the total
economic impact of I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim.
Chapter Contents
G4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach .,..,.,,... . G4-1
G4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Loses to
Recreational Fisheries Resulting from I&E at
Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities G4-7
G4-2.1 Economic Values of Recreational
Fishery Losses from the Consumer
Surplus Literature G4-7
G4-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery
Losses at Seabrook and Pilgrim G4-7
G4-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial
Fishery Losses Resulting from I&E at Seabrook
and Pilgrim G4-I0
G4-4 Economic Value offonigc Fish Losses G4-13
G4-4.1 Replacement Cost of Fish G4-15
G4-4.2 Production Foregone Value of Forage
Fish G4-16
G4-5 Nonuse Values G4-18
G4-6 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of
I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim ................. G4-1E
Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer NHHHHBHHBBHHHHBBHBBHHHHHBHHHII
methods, applying results from nonmarket valuation
studies. Commercial fishery impacts are based on
commodity prices for the individual species. The economic value of forage species losses is determined by estimating the
replacement cost of these fish if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish, and by considering the foregone biomass
production of forage fish resulting from I&E losses and the consequential foregone production of commercial and recreational
species that use the forage species as a prey base. All of these methods are explained in further detail in Chapters A5 and A9
of this document.
Many of the I&E-impacted fish species at Seabrook and Pilgrim are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To
avoid double-counting the economic impacts of I&E on these species, EPA determined the proportion of total species
landings attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied this proportion to the impacted fishery catch. For
example, if 30 percent of the landed numbers of one species are harvested commercially at a site, then 30 percent of the
estimated catch of I&E-impacted fish are assigned to the increase in commercial landings. The remaining 70 percent of the
estimated total landed number of I&E-impacted adult equivalents are assigned to the recreational landings.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides both recreational and commercial fishery landings data by state. To
determine what proportions of total landings per state occur in the recreational or commercial fishery, EPA summed the
landings data for the recreational and commercial fishery, and then divided by each category to get the corresponding
percentage. The percentages applied in this analysis are presented in Table G4-1.
G4-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64; Baseline I4E Losses
Table 64-1: Percentages of Total Impacts in the Recreational and Commercial Fisheries
of Selected Species at Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
Fish Species
' Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery
Percent Impacts to
Commercial Fishery
Alewife
! o ;
100
American plaice
0 :
100
Atlantic cod
: 6 :
94
Atlantic herring
i 0 :
100
Atlantic mackerel
i 62 \
38
Atlantic menhaden
l o ;
100
Atlantic silverside
: o !
100
Bluebaek herring
100
0
Bluefish
; 50 ;
50
Butrerfish
i 7 ¦:
93
Cunner
; 87
13
Little skate
i 0 :
100
Pollock
; 2 !
98
Red hake
1 0 ;
100
Scup
j 45 ;
55
Searobin
i too :
0
Striped bass
! 86 j
14
Tautog
i 63 i
37
White perch
i 89 ;
11
Windowpane
: 3 ;
97
Winter flounder
70 ;
30
Fri Feb 08 10;11;00 MST 2002 ; TableA:Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and
recreational fisheries of selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; Pathname: P:/lntake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tables.output,90.98.no.rnusseLrrableA.Perc.of
totaI,impacts,seabrook.9Q.98.csv
As discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document, the yieid estimates presented in Chapter G3 represent the total pounds
of foregone yield for both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this
chapter, Table G4-1 partitions total yield between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery.
Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers 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.
Tables G4-2 and G4-3 show these conversions for the Seabrook and Pilgrim impingement data presented in Chapter G3, and
Tables G4-4 and G4-5 displays the conversions for entrainment data. Note that the numbers of foregone recreational fish
harvested are typically lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of harvest of most fish is greater than
age 1.
G4-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter 64: Baseline ME Losses
Table 64-2: Summary of Seabroak's Wean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species
Species
Impingement
Count (#)
; Age 1 Equivalents
(*>
Total Catch
m
Total Yield
(lbs)
Commercial Catch
(#)
Commercial Yield
(lbs)
Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational Yield
(lbs)
Alewife
i 508
; 679
7
3
i ^
3
0
0
Atlantic herring
287
j 334
104
46
\ 104
46
0
0
Dlueback herring
; 50
; 58
2
0
: 0
0
2
0
Butterfish
j 28
: 38
3
2
: 3
2
0
0
Cod Atlantic
1 99
118
20
39
: 19
36
1
2
Cunner
| 232
i 323
7
1
\ 1
0
6
1
Little skate
no
; 14!
37
29
: 37
29
0
0
Mackerel, Atlantic
; 2
! 3
I
0
o
0
0
0
Menhaden, Atlantic
1 12
; 54
5
5
! 5
5
0
0
Pollock
643
; 707
154
1,038
! 151
1,017
3
21
Rainbow smelt
j 701
949
21
7
! 9
3
12
4
Red hake
1,041
: 1,333
394
238
i 394
238
0
0
Scup
3
! 4
0
1
; o
0
0
0
Searobin
i ^
; 5
0
0
! 0
0
0
0
Silvcrside, Atlantic
: 1,040
! 1,871
58
1
| 58
1
0
0
Striped bass
; 1
i i
0
1
; o
0
0
1
Tautog
j 7
i 7
2
8
; 1
3
1
5
White perch
; l
1 1
0
0
: o
0
0
0
Windowpane
1 664
i 797
295
59
286
57
9
2
Winter flounder
; 1,032
i 1,136
286
358
86
107
200
251
Total
; 6,465
i 8,519
1,396
1,837
; 1,160
1,548
236
289
\\aIexandria\projcct\INTAKE\Scabrook-Pilgrim\Science\seode\seabrook\tables.oiitpvit.90.98.no.mussel\flawchart.rMP.NEW.xls
G4-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter 64: Baseline ME Losses
Table 64-3: Summary of Pilgrim's Mean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species
Species
Impingement
Count (#)
j Age 1
j Equivalents (#)
Total Catch <#)
Total Yield (lbs) j
Commercial
Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lbs)
Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational
Yield (lbs)
Alewife
; 3,250
1 4.343
43
22 ;
43
22
0
: 0
Atlantic cod
252
; 302
52
99 :
49
93
3
; 2
Atlantic mackerel
: 2
i 3
1
o i
0
0
0
0
Blueback herring
: 612
| 703
15
5 i
0
0
15
1 3
Blue fish
; 2
: 2
1
1
0
1
0
1
Butterfish
297
i 399
: 29
19 ;
27
18
2
: 1
Cunrtcr
! 295
i 4ii
; 9
2 :
1
0
7
; 1
Herring, Atlantic
7,593
8,836
; 2,743
1,225 :
2,743
1,225
.0
: 0
Little skate
61
78
i 20
16 i
20
16
0
1 0
Menhaden, Atlantic
i 5,048
i 6,165
I 2,011
2,111
2,011
2,111
0
¦ 0
Pollock
30
i 33
: 7
1 48 :
7
47
0
: o
Rainbow smelt
5,118
: 6,929
; 154
i 52 ;
63
21
91
i 14
Red hake
178
i 229
! 68
| 41 j
68
41
0
o
Scup
97
114
i 13
: 21 |
7
! 12
6
4
Searobin
: 56
; 69
6
! 3 j
0
; 0
6
; 2
Silverside, Atlantic
11,587
j 20,842
651
651
8
0
: 0
Striped bass
: 6
i 9
1
i 13 ;
0
2
1
; 5
Tautog
i 183
i 201
56
; 223 I
21
i 83
35
! 54
White perch
55
| 73
0
; o ;
0
: 0
0
1
Windowpane
236
j 284
105
; 21 j
102
i 20
3
! o
Winter flounder
: 1,039
! 1,144
287
i 361 i
86
: 108
201
; 98
Total
35,997
j 51,168
: 6,270
i 4,292 j
5,900
1 3,827
, ....
I
1
1
: 186
\\^exandria\projectMNTAKE\Seabrook-Pilgrim\Sciencc\scode\pilgrim\tables.output.74.99\flowchart.IMP.NEW»csv
G4-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port &• Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter S4: Baseline IAE Losses
Table (54-4: Summary of Seobrook's Mean Annual Entrainment of Fishery Species
Species
Entrainment
Count (#)
j Age 1
j Equivalents (#)
Total Catch (#)
i Total Yield (lb*)
Commercial
Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lbs)
Recreational
Catch m
Recreational
Yield (lbs)
Alcwife
0
i o
0
! 0
; 0
0
0
o
Atlantic herring
4,767,333
i 13,900
4,315
! 1,927
4,315
1,927
0
! o
Bhjefish
II, til
! 1
0
0
; o
0
0
o
Butterfish
55,556
1 27
2
1
i 2
1
0
o
Cod, Atlantic
10,007,778
; 2,330
402
763
: 378
717
24
: 46
Cunner
35,403,667
I 184,427
3,840
832
499
108
3,341
; 724
Little skate
0
i o
0
; 0
! 0
0
0
; o
Mackerel, Atlantic
245,390,667
i 1,058
207
1 146
: 79
56
128
: 91
Menhaden, Atlantic
301,556
19
6
; 6
6
6
0
i 0
Plaice, American
27,435,889
: 1,167
230
134
230
134
0
o
Pollock
660,390
; 7
2
! 10
2
10
0
i o
Rainbow smelt
69,778
: 7,730
171
: * 58
70
24 ¦
101
34
Red hake
93,151,889
: 362
107
; , 65
107 '
65
0
o
Searobin
11,111
! 227
18
i 11
0
0
18
; 11
Tautog
128,444 '
i 1
2
: 8
j 1
3
I
! 5
Windowpane
25,726,667
10,317
3,818
761
3,703
738
115
; 23
Winter flounder
244,035,113
i 78,046
19,615
! 24,602
; 5,885
7,381
13,731
I 17,221
Commercial and Recreational
687,156,949
; 299,623
32,736
i 29,323
i 15,276
11,168
17,460
18,155
Species Total
Walexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook-Pilgrim,&ience\scode\seabrook\tab1es.outpu!.90.98.no.musser\fl owchart.ENT.NEW.xls,
G4-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter 64: Baseline ME Losses
Table G4-5: Summary of Pilgrim's Mean Annual Entrapment of Fishery Species
Species
! Entrainment Count (#)1
Age 1 Equivalents j
m
Total Catch (#)
! Total Yield
(lbs)
j Commercial Catch (#) j
Commercial
Yield (lbs)
Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational
Yield (lbs)
Alewife
| 323,435 j
o i
0
| 0
! 0 i
0
0
0
Atlantic cod
: 6,291,173 |
2,138 :
369
: 700
; 347 ;
658
22
32
Atlantic mackerel
i 1,034,964,861 j
6,659 i
1,303
921
495 ;
350
808
439
Cunncr
: 2,714,603,689 !
993,500 i
20,688
4,481
| 2,689 ;
582
17,999
3,449
Herring, Atlantic
I 6,942,590 !
20,243 ;
6,284
: 2",806
: 6,284 ;
2,806
0
0
Menhaden, Atlantic
i 81,926,445
8,105 ;
2,644
i 2,776
: 2,644 j
2,776
0
0
Plaice, American
| 11,260,136 1
.221 |
43
; 25
i 43 ;
25
0
0
Pollock
; 42,751,473
492
107
: 723
: 105 :
708
2
2
Rainbow smelt
i 10,112,547
1,323,137 i
29,309
1 9,900
| 12,017 i
4,059
17,292
674
Red hake
31,075,325
1,545 1
457
j 275
I 457 :
275
0
0
Searobin
i 1,970,043
3,698 j
300
i 184
i o ;
0
300
64
Silversidc, Atlantic
i 1,435,668
5,087 |
159
i 2
! 159 ¦ i
2
0
0
Tautog
7,512,870
875 |
242
! 972
! 90 ;
360
153
212
Windowpane
83,547,445
17,258 i
6,387
: 1,272
i 6,195 :
1,234
192
13
Winter flounder
30,900,375
209,571 :
52,672
i 66,062
i 15,802 ;
19,819
36,870
40,908
Total
4,065,618,075
2,592,529 !
120,963
i 91,099
! 47,326 ;
33,654
73,638
45,794
\\alexandria\project\rNTAKE\Seabrook-Pilgrim\Science\scode\pilgrirn\tables.outpiit.74.99\flowchart.ENT.NEW.csv
G4-6
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I4E Losses
G4-2 Economic Value of Average Annual Losses to Recreational Fisheries
Resulting From I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
&4-2.1 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses from the Consumer Surplus
Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay (WTP) values for increases in recreational catch rates. These
increases in value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as "consumer surplus." In applying this
literature to value I&E impacts, EPA focused on changes in consumer surplus per additional fish caught.
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table G4-6 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Cape Cod
and Ipswich Bay-fisheries in the vicinity of the Seabrook and Pilgrim stations.
Tabic &A-6- Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
Authors
Study Location and Year Item Valued
Value Estimate ($2000)*
McConnell and
Strand (1994)
Mid- and south Atlantic coast,
anglers targeting specific
species, 1988
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip for NY"
NY flatfish $5.35
NY small game fish S9.54
NY bottom fish $2.54
Tudor et al. (2002)c
Delaware Estuary, 2001
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip
DE weakfish $11.50
DE striped bass $18.14
DE bluefish $3.94
DE Flounder $3,92
Hicks et al. (1999)
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip, from historical catch rates at
all sites, for NH and MA
NH and MA flatfish $5.29
NH and MA small game fish $3.69
NH and MA bottom fish $2.43
"The recreational WTP values reported in subsequent tables are incorrectly stated as being slightly less than the values reported
here. This indicates that the recreational losses in those tables arc moderately understated,
b Value was reported as "two month value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip," From 1996 "National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DOl, 1997}, the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 trips in a 2 month
period. Therefore, to convert to a " 1 fish per trip" value, EPA divided the 2 month value by 1.5 trips and then multiplied it by
2, assuming the value of a fish was linear.
c See chapter B5 of this document. These values were not applied in the analysis, but remain listed here for comparison.
McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values for the mid- and south Atlantic states using data from the N'MFS
Survey. They created a random utility model of fishing behavior for nine states, the northernmost being New York. In this
model they specified four categories of fish: small gamefish (e.g., striped bass), flatfish (e.g., flounder), bottomfish (e.g.,
weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, perch), and big gamefish (e.g., shark). For each fish category, they estimated per angler
values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates.
Tudor et al. (2002; see chapter B5 of this document) applied a random utility model (RUM) to the recreational fishery
impacts associated with I&E in the Delaware Estuary. The methods, data, and results of the Tudor et al. (2002; see chapter
B5 of this document) study are discussed in greater detail in Chapters A10 and B5 of this document. These values were not
applied in the Seabrook-Pilgrim analysis because the McConnell and Strand (1994) study is more geographically precise, but
they are listed here as a basis for comparison.
Hicks et al. (1999) used the same method as McConnell and Strand (1994) but estimated values for a day of fishing and an
increase in catch rates for the Atlantic states from Virginia north to Maine. Their estimates were generally lower than those of
McConnell and Strand (1994) and may serve as a lower bound for the values of fish.
(54-2.2 Economic Values of Recreational Fishery Losses at Seabrook and Pilgrim
EPA estimated the average annual economic value of Seabrook and Pilgrim I&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the
I&E estimates presented in Tables G4-2 through G4-5 and the economic values presented in Table G4-6. Because none of
the studies in Table G4-6 considered the region around Seabrook and Pilgrim directly, EPA created a lower and upper value
G4-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G4: Baseline IAE Losses
for New Hampshire and Massachusetts for each impacted recreational species, and then calculated a weighted average value
based on the proportion of landings from each state. Results are presented in Tables G4-7 through G4-10. The estimated total
losses at Seabrook to the recreational fisheries range from $1,100 to $1,300 for impingement per year (Table G4-7), and from
$75,000 to $87,200 annually for entrainment (Table G4-8), The estimated losses at Pilgrim range from $1,500 to $2,100 for
impingement per year (Table G4-9), and from $287,900 to $408,800 annually for entrainment (Table G4-10),
Table G4-7. Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Seabrook and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Loss to Recreational
Recreational Value/Fish
Annual Loss in Recreational
; Value from Impingement ($2000)
(number of fish)
Low
High
Low
High
Blueback herring
i 2 i
$2.28
$2.73
; $5 j
$6
Butterfish
1 <1 :
$3.75
$8.56
1 $1 :
$2
Cod Atlantic
: l :
$2.28
$2.46
; $3 ;
$3
Gunner
. i 6 ;
$2.28 ;
$2.73
; $13 ;
$16
Mackerel, Atlantic
:
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &' Seabrock and Pilgrim Chapter G4; Baseline I4E Losses
Tabic G4-9: Average Annual Impingement of Recreational Fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated
Economic Values
Species
Loss to Recreational
| Catch from Impingement
Recreational Value/Fish
Annual Loss in Recreational
Value from Impingement
($2000)
(number of fish)
Low
High
Low
High
Atlantic cod
i 3 :
$2,28
$2.46
; $7
! $8
Atlantic mackerel
<1
$3.75
$8.56
$1
$3
Blucback herring
15
$2.28
$2.73
: $33
! $40
Biucfish
<1
$3.75
$8.56
i Si
; $2
Butterfish
2
$3,75
$8.56
S8
$17 '
Gunner
i 7
$2.28
$2.73
$17
; $20
Pollock
; <1 :
$2.28
$2.41
: $0
: $0
Rainbow smeit
91 i
$3.75
$8.56
: $340
; $775
Scup
: 6
$2.28
$2.73
$14
$17
Searobin
; 6
$2.28
$2.56
i $13
; $14
Striped bass
1
$3.75
$8.56
: $4
$9
Tautog
; 35 :
$2.28
$2.48
' $80
i $87
Windowpane
3
$4.80
$5.51
; $15
$17
Winter flounder
201
$4,80
$5.49
; $966
; $1,105
Total
371
i $1,499
i $2,115
Note; Numbers of fish are rounded here but not in calculations.
Thu Feb 07 17:19:25 MST 2002 ; TablcB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: pilgrim.74,99 ; type: I
Pathname: P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Seience/scode/pilgnni/tables.output,74.99.no.mussel/TablcB.rcc.losses.pilgriin,74,99.I.csv
Table S4-1Q: Average Annual Entrapment of Recreational Fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated Economic
Values,
Species
j Loss to Recreational Catch:
from F.ntrainment
Recreational Value/Fish
; Annual Lass in Recreational Value
from Entrainment ($2000)
(number of fish)
Low
High
Low i
High
Atlantic cod
22
$2.28
$2.46
i $5i i
$54
Atlantic mackerel
808
$3.75
S8.56
$3,030 ;
$6,916
Gunner.
: 17,999
$2.28
$2.73
$41,037 ;
$49,136
Pollock
- 2 :
$2.28
$2.41
$5
$5
Rainbow smelt
17,292
$3.75
$8.56
$64,847 ;
$148,023
Searobin
300
$2.28
$2.56
: $684 !
$768
Tautog
: 153 ;
$2.28
$2.48
i $348 !
$378
Windowpane
192 i
$4.80
$5.51
: $920 ;
$1,056
Winter flounder
: 36,870 1
$4.80
$5.49
$176,978 i
$202,418
Total
: 73,638 :
: $287,897 :
$408,755
Note: Numbers of fish are rounded here but not in calculations.
Thu Feb 07 17:19:34 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: E Pathname:
P:'Intake.'Seabrook-Pilgnm'Science/scodc'piljmni/tables.output.74.99.no.mussel.TableB.rec.losses, pilgn.m.74.99. F~csv
G4-9
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I&E Losses
64-3 Economic Value of Average Annual Commercial Fishery Losses
Resulting From I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim
Values for commercial fishing losses are relatively
straightforward because commercially caught fish are a
commodity with a market price (blue mussel are riot included in
EPA's valuation of commercial fishery losses as discussed in
the accompanying box). Losses to commercial catch (pounds)
resulting from I&E at Seabrook are presented in Table G4-2
(for impingement) and Table G4-4 (for entrainment).
Commercial losses at Pilgrim are presented in Table G4-3 (for
impingement) and Table G4-5 (for entrainment). The market
value of foregone commercial yield at Seabrook is $978 for
impingement per year (Table G4-11), and $11,542 annually for
entrainment (Table G4-12). The market value of foregone
commercial yield at Pilgrim is $517 for impingement per year
(Table G4-I3), and $30,787 annually for entrainment (Table
G4-I4).
Table 64-11: Average Annua! Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Seabrook and Associated
Economic Values
Species
! Loss to Commercial Catch from Impingement
(lb of fish)
Commercial Value
(lb of fish)
Annual Loss in Commercial Value
from Impingement ($2000)
Alewife
: 3
$0.17
$1
Atlantic herring
46
$0.05
$2
Butterfish
; 2
$0.47
$1
Cod Atlantic
36
$0.83
$30
Little skate
i 29
$0.19
$6
Menhaden, Atlantic
5
$0.04
$0
Pollock
1,017
$0.69
$702
Rainbow smelt
j 3
$0,20
$1
Red hake
: 238
$0.22
$52
Silverside, Atlantic
l
$0.54
SO
Tautog
; 3
SO 64
S2
Windowpane
; 57
$0.57
$32
Winter flounder
107
$1.38
$148 .
Total
1,548
1978
Fri Feb 08 10:11:07 MST 2002 ; Tablet.': commerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Scieiice/scode/seabrook/tables.output,90.98.EO.mussel/TabIeC.comm.losses.seabroak.90.98.I.csv
Recorded impingement and entrainment of blue mussel
at Seabrook and Pilgrim ranges from 2.2 trillion in
1974 to 19.1 trillion in 1975. Corresponding yield
ranges from 1.2 to 10.4 billion pounds. Based on a
commercial value in some parts of New England of
$0.24 per pound, these losses equate to $2.6 billion
annually. However, blue mussel in the area around
Seabrook and Pilgrim are considered a nuisance
species because they clog intake screens (Entergy
Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) and compete
with commercially desirable species, such as soft shell
clam (Mike Hickey, MA Division of Marine Fisheries,
personal communication, January 16,2002). As a
result, EPA did not consider blue mussel losses in its
benefits analysis.
G4-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline IAE Losses
Table G4-12: Average Annual Entrainment of Commercial Fishery Species at Seabrook and
Associated Economic Values
Species
; Loss to Commercial Catch :
from Entrainment
(lb of fish)
Commercial
Value
(lb of fish)
Annual Loss in Commercial
Value from Entrainment
($2000)
Atlantic herring
1,927
S0.05
$96
Butterfisb
| 1
$0.47
$1
Cod Atlantic
I 717
$0.83
$595
Cunner
108
$0.37
$40
Mackerel, Atlantic
• : 56
$0.28
$16
Menhaden, Atlantic
; 6
$0.04
$0
Plaice, American
134
$1.20
$160
Pollock
10
$0.69
$7
Rainbow smelt
; 24
$0.20
$5
Red hake
i 65
$0.22
$14
Tautog
; 3
$0.64
$2
Windowpane
738
$0.57
$421
Winter flounder
; 7,381
$1.38
$10,185
Total
11,168
$11,542
Fri Feb 08 10:11:16 MST 2002 ; TableC: commerieal lasses and value for selected species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: E
Pathname: P:/lntake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/seabrook/tabIes.output,90.98.na.mussein"ableC.comm.lo$ses.seabrook.90.98.E.csv
Table &4-13; Average Annual Impingement of Commercial Fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated Economic
Values
Species
; Loss to Commercial Catch from Impingement
i (lb of fish)
; Commercial Value
(lb of fish)
Annual Loss in Commercial Value
from Impingement (S2OQ0)
Alewife
: 22
$0.17
$4
Atlantic cod
93
$0.83
$77
Blue fish
1
$0.25
$0
Butterfish
: '8
$0.47
$8
Herring, Atlantic
1,225
$0.05
S61
Little skate
16
: SO. 19
$3
Menhaden, Atlantic
j 2,111
$0.04
$84
Pollock
; 47
| S0.69
$33
Rainbow smelt
21
I S0.20
$4
Red hake
41
; $0.22
$9
Scup
: 12
$1.05
$12
Silverside, Atlantic
1 8
: $0.54
$4
Striped bass
2
$1.50
$3
Tautog
; 83
$0.64
$53
Windowpane
: 20
S0.57
$12
Winter flounder
; 108
$1.38
$149
Total
; 3,827
$517
Thu Feb 07 17:19:25 MST 2002 ; TableC: cornmerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgri m/Science'scode-pilgriin.'tables, output. 74.99. no.mussel TableC.comni.losses.pil grim.74.99.1.csv
G4-IJ
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S4: Baseline ME Losses
Table 64-14: Average Annual Entrapment of Commercial fishery Species at Pilgrim and Associated
Economic Values
Species
; Loss to Commercial Catch from i
En trainmen!
(Ib of fish)
Commercial Value
(lb offish)
Annual Loss in Commercial
Value from Entrainment
($2000)
Atlantic cod
I 658 I
S0.83
$546
Atlantic mackerel
350 ;
$0.28
S98
Gunner
582
S0.37
$216
Herring, Atlantic
2,806 i
S0.05
$140
Menhaden, Atlantic
2,776
$0.04
$111
Plaice, American
25 ;
$1.20
$30
Pollock
708 ;
$0.69
$489
Rainbow smelt
; 4,059 j
$0.20
$812
Red hake
i 275 :
. $0.22
$61
Silverside, Atlantic
2
S0.54
$1
Tautog
360
$0.64
$230
Windowpane
1,234 :
$0.57
$703
Winter flounder
19,819 i
$1.38
$27,350
Total
33,654 ;
$30,787
Thu Feb 07 ! 7:19:34 MST 2002 ; TableC: commerical losses and value for selected species; Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: E Pathname;
P:/Intake/Seabrook-Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tables.output.74,99.no.musselfrrableC.comm.losses.pilgrim.74.99.E,csv
EPA has expressed changes to commercial activity thus far as changes from doekside 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 doekside landings, because the increased landings
by commercial fishermen contribute to economic surplus in each of a multi-tiered set of markets for commercial fish. The
total economic surplus impact thus is valued by examining the multi-tiered markets through which the landed fish are sold,
according to the methods and data detailed in Chapter A9.
The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of I&E-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of
commercial species as sold doekside by commercial harvesters). The results of this doekside landings value step are described
above. The next steps then entail tracking the anticipated additional economic surplus generated as the landed fish pass from
doekside 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 thai apply in the commercial fishery context.
To estimate producer surplus from the landings values, EPA relied on empirical results from various researchers that can be
used to infer producer surplus for watermen based on gross revenues (landings times wholesale price). The economic
literature (Huppert, 1990; Rettig and McCarl, 1985) suggests that producer surplus values for commercial fishing ranges from
50 to 90 percent of the market value. In assessments of Great Lakes fisheries, an estimate of approximately 40% has been
derived as the relationship between gross revenues and the surplus of commercial fishermen (Cleland and Bishop, 1984,
Bishop, personal communication, 2002). For the purposes of this study, EPA believes producer surplus to watermen is
probably in the range of 40% to 70% of doekside landings values.
Producer surplus is one portion of the total economic surplus impacted by increased commercial stocks — the total benefits
are comprised of the economic surplus to producers, wholesalers, processors, retailers, and consumers. Primary empirical
research deriving "multi-market" welfare measures for commercial fisheries have estimated that surplus accruing to
commercial anglers amount to approximately 22% of the total surplus accruing to watermen, retailers and consumers
combined (Norton et al., 1983; Holt and Bishop, 2002). Thus, total economic surplus across the relevant commercial fisheries
multi-tiered markets can be estimated as approximately 4.5 times greater than producer surplus alone (given that producer
G4-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter ©4: Baseline IAE Losses
surplus is roughly 22% of the total surplus generated). This relationship is applied in the case studies to estimate total surplus
from the projected changes in commercial landings.
Applying this method, estimates of the economic loss to commercial fisheries resulting from I&E at Seabrook range from
$1,800 to $3,100 per year for impingement and from $21,000 to $36,700 per year for entrainment. For I&E at Pilgrim,
estimates range from $900 to SI ,600 per year for impingement and from $56,000 to $98,000 per year for entrainment.
GA-4 Economic Value of Forage Fisn Losses
Many species affected by l&E are not commercially or recreationally fished, For the purposes in this study, EPA referred to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species and are important components of aquatic
food webs. Based on the analysis of l&E data presented in Chapter G3, Table G4-15 summarizes impingement losses of
forage species at Seabrook and Table G4-16 summaries entrainment losses. Impingement of forage species at Pilgrim is
summarized in Table G4-17 and entrainment losses are summarized in Table G4-18. The following sections discuss the
economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation methods.
Tabic 64-15: Summery of Sea brook's Mean Annual Impingement of
Forage Species
Species
; Impingement
i Count (#)
; Age 1 Equivalents
09
Production
Foregone (lbs)
American sand lance
476
; 696
4
Fourbcard roeklmg
3
4
0
Grubby
1,156
1,418
86
Killifish striped
8
: li
0
Lumpfish
391
428
14
Northern pipefish
285
388
0
Radiated shanny
20
24
0
Rock gunnel
; 710
864
4
Sculpin spp.
401
492
30
Threespine stickleback
: 171
; 243
0
Forage species total
: 3,621
4,568
138
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook-
PiIgrim\Science\scode\seabrook\tables.output.90.98.no.mussel\flowchart.IMP.NEW.xls
G4-13
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter ©4: Baseline IAE Losses
Table (54-16: Summary of Seabrook'5 Mean Annua! Entrapment of Forage
Species
Species
Impingement
Count (#)
Age 1 Equivalents i
m
Production Foregone
(lbs)
American sand lance
13,329,111
397,513
14,937
Fourbeard rockling
58,510,333 I
165,150
3,931
Grubby
14,012,778
252,098
24,840
Killifish striped
0 ;
0
0
Lumpfish
31,862,889 !
5,014
24,655
Northern pipefish
11,111 i
782 ;
30
Radiated shanny
1,700,222 ;
144,945
480
Rock gunnel
22,719,111 I
3,217,922 :
35,278
Sculpin spp.
1,634,444 i
29,405
2,897
Threespine stickleback
0 .:
0
0
Forage species total
143,779,999 i
4,212,828
107,049
\\alexaiidria\project\INT AKE\Seabrook-
Pilgrim\Science\scode\seabrook\tables,output,90.98.no.mussel\f!owchart,ENT.NEW.xls
Table 64-17; Summary of Pilgrim's Mean Annual Impingement of Forage
Species
Species
Impingement
Count (#)
Age 1 Equivalents.
! m
Production
Foregone (lbs)
American sand lance
19
] 27
0
Bay anchovy
i 11
18
0
Fourbeard rockling
2
! 2 :
0
Grubby
i 717
879
53
Hogehoker
: 2
; 2
0
Killifish striped
66
; 90
1
Lumpfish
: 198
217
7
Northern pipefish
1 87
118
0
Radiated shanny
45
54
0
Rock gunnel
i 63
; 77
0
Sculpin spp,
i n
; 13
1
Threespine stickleback
83
118
0
Total
| 1,304
1,616
63
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook-
Pilgrim\Science\scode\pilgrim\tables.output.74.99\flowchartlMP.NEW.csv
G4-14
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part S; Seabraok and Pilgrim
Chapter <54: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 64-18: Summary Pilgrim's Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Species
Species ; EntrainmentCount (#) "Age 1 Equivalents (#) Production Foregone (lbs)
American sand lance
138,023,372
i 4,116,258 !
87,207
Fourbeard rockling
94,252,169
411,189
1,809
Lumpfish
6,489,657
1,080
5,205
Radiated shanny
; 19,289,027
1,644,402
5,053
Rock gunnel
! 34,332,210
4,862,795
37,245
Sculpin spp.
j 40,841,427
734,760
40,814
Total
; 333,227,862
11,770,483 :
177,333
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Seabrook-
Pilgrim\Science\scode\pilgrim\tables.output.74.99\flowchart.ENT,NEW,csv
64-4,1 Replacement Cost of Fish
The replacement value of fish can be used in several instances. First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking
of hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would
still be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but
are important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough data to allow calculation of value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as
a proxy for lost fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs, and
replacement costs typically omit problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limiting genetic diversity).
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Tables G4-19 and G4-20 display the replacement costs of some of the forage fish species known to be
impinged or entrained at Seabrook or Pilgrim. The costs are average costs to fish hatcheries across North America to produce
different species of fish for stocking (AFS, 1993). The second component of replacement cost is the transportation cost,
which includes costs associated with vehicles, personnel, fuel, water, chemicals, containers, and nets. The AFS (1993)
estimates these costs at approximately $1.13 per mile, but does not indicate how many fish (or how many pounds of fish) are
transported for this price. Lacking relevant data, EPA did not include the transportation costs in this valuation approach.
Tables G4-19 and G4-20 also presents the computed values of the annual average forage replacement cost losses at the two
facilities. The value of forage losses at Seabrook using the replacement cost method is $20 per year for impingement and
$5,600 per year for entrainment. Forage losses at Pilgrim are valued at $90 per year for impingement and $30,900 per year
for entrainment.
Table &4-19- Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species at the Seabrook Facility.
Species
1 Hatchery Costs "¦*
(S/lb)
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses (S200Q)
Impingement
Entroionwnt
American sand lance
0.34
$1
$633
Fourbeard rockling
0.34
$0
$226
Grubby
0.34
$2
$346
Lumpfish
0.34
$2
$25
Northern pipefish
• 0.34
$1
$2
Radiated shanny
i 0.34
$0
$31
Rainbow smelt
0.34
$12 !
$94
Rock gunnel
0.34
$1
$4,181
Sculpin spp.
0.34
$1
$40
Total
$20
$5,580
* Values are from AFS (1993). These costs use the average value for all species listed in AFS (1993) since the species listed
are not included in AFS (1993).
b These values were inflated to $2000 from $1989, but this could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
ThuJanl7U;32:33MST2002;TabIcD:Iossinse!eetedforagespecies;Plant:seabrook,90.98;type:lPathname;P;/lntake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Seience/seode/seabrook/tables,output.90.98.no.mussel/TablcD,forage.eco,ter.repI.seabrook,90.98.1.esv
G4-1S
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part G; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter (54: Baseline IAE Losses
Table &4-20: Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species at the Pilgrim Facility.
Species
; Hatchery Costs *-k ;
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses ($2000)
i (S/lb)
Impingement
Entrainment:
American sand lance
0.34 ;
$0
$6,557
Fourbeard rockling
; 0.34
$0
$563
Grubby
: 0.34 ;
$1
0
Lumpfish
: 0.34 ;
$1
$5
Radiated shanny
! 0.34 1
$0
$348
Rainbow smelt
; 0.34
S85
$16,137
Rock gunnel
; 0.34 ;
$0
$6,319
Sculpin spp.
1 0.34 1
SO
$1,010
Total $88
$30,939
* Values arc from AFS (1993). These costs use the average value for all species listed in AFS (1993) since the species listed
are not included in AFS (1993).
b These values were inflated to $2000 from $1989, but this could be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
ThuJanl710:34:23MST2002;TableD:lossinseleetedforagespecies;PIant;pilgrim.74.99;type;IPathname:P:/Intake/Seabrook-
Pilgrim/Science/scode/pilgrim/tab!es.output.74.99.rio.rnussel/rableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.pilgrim.74.99J.csv
64-4.2 Production Foregone Value of Forage Fish
This approach considers the foregone production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from I&E of forage
species based on estimates of trophic transfer efficiency, as discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document. The
economic valuation of forage losses is based on the dollar value of the foregone fishery yield resulting from these losses.
Results for entrainment of forage species at Seabrook are presented in Table G4-21. Results for entrapment of forage species
at Pilgrim are presented in Table 04-22. The values listed are obtained from converting the forage species into species that
may be commercially or recreationally valued. The values range from $65,700 to $141,500 per year for entrainment at
Seabrook. For Pilgrim, the values range from $25,400 to $33,300 per year for entrainment. Impingement values were
negligible and thus are not discussed.
Note that the results using the production foregone approach indicate higher losses at Seabrook than at Pilgrim, even though
the replacement cost approach yields the opposite finding. This reflects the differences in the approaches, wherein
replacement costs reflect the number of fish lost, and the production foregone approach captures how the different mix of fish
losses may alter recreational and commercial biomass.
G4-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 64: Baseline I4E Losses
Tabic G4-21; Wean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Fishery Species Resulting from Entrainment of
Forage Species at Seabrook.
Species
Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value
Low
High
Atlantic herring
$4
$7
Blucfish
$63,013
$137,347
Butterfish
$58
$112
Cod Atlantic
$331
$569
Gunner
$289
$347
Mackerel Atlantic
$39
$87
Menhaden Atlantic
$592
$1,035
Plaice American
$311
$544
Pollock
; $0
$1
Rainbow smelt
$49
$111
Searobin
$266
$298
Tautog
$357
$518
Windowpane
$259
$388
Winter flounder
$122
$156
Total
$65,690
$141,520
Fri Feb 08 10:11:16 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: seabrook.90.98 ; type: E Pathname:
P:/lntake/Seabrook-Pilgiim/Science/scode/5eabiook/tables.output.90.9S.no.mussel/TableD.farage.eco.ter.tepLseabrook.90.98.E.csv
Table 64-22: Wean Annual Value of Production Foregone of Fishery Species Resulting from Entrainment of
Forage Species at Pilgrim
: Annual Loss in Production Foregone Value from Entrainment
Species j of Forage Species ($2000)
! Low | High
Atlantic cod $549 $944
Atlantic mackerel $1,421 $3,202
Gunner ' ' ' S564 ' '• *"' $679
Herring Atlantic $568 $993
Menhaden Atlantic S229 1401
Plaice American | $2,287 $4,003
Pollock $161 $281
Rainbow smelt $80 $181
Searobin ' " : $15,895 $17,847
Silverside Atlantic $16 $29
Tautog $646 $936
Wirtdowpane S2 $4
Winter flounder $2,968 $3,790
Total" ' $25,387 $33,288
Thu Feb 07 17:19:35 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage species: Plant: pilgrim.74.99 ; type: E Pathname:
F:/Intake/Seabrook-PiIgrim/Scienee/scode/pilgrim/tables.oiitput.74.99.no.mussel/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl,piIgrim.74.99.E.csv
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S4: Baseline I&E Losses
64-5 Nonuse Values
Recreational consumer surplus and commercial impacts are only part of the total losses that the public realizes from I&E
impacts on fisheries. Nonuse or passive use impacts arise when individuals value environmental changes apart from any past,
present, or anticipated future use of the resource in question. Such passive use values have been categorized in several ways
in the economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (intergenerational equity)
motives. Using a "rule of thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 percent of the recreational use impact (see
Chapter A9 in Part A of this document for further discussion), EPA estimated nonuse values for baseline losses at Seabrook,
to range from $500 to $600 per year for impingement and from $37,500 to $43,600 per year for entrainment. At Pilgrim,
nonuse values for baseline losses range from $700 to $1,100 per year for impingement and from $143,900 to $204,400 per
year for entrainment,
64-6 Summary of Mean Annual Economic Value of I4E at seabrook and
Pilgrim
Tables G4-23 and G4-24 summarize the economic values associated with mean annual l&E at the Seabrook and Pilgrim
facilities. Total impacts at Seabrook range from $3,400 to $5,100 per year for impingement and from $139,100 to $309,100
per year for entrainment. Total impacts at Pilgrim range from $3,200 to $4,900 per year for impingement and from $513,200
to $744,400 per year for entrainment.
Table &A-Z3- Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter &4: Baseline I4E Losses
Table &4-Z4: Summary of Economic Valuation of Mean Annual IAE at Pilgrim Facility ($2000).
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Commercial: Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market);
Low
$940 i
$55,976
$56,916
High !
$1,646
$97,958
$99,603
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket) - ,
Low
S 1,499 ;
$287,897
$289,396
High ;
$2,115
$408,755
$410,869
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Low
$749 ;
$143,949
$144,698
High ;
SI,057 ;
$204,377
$205,435
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket) |
Production Foregone:
LOW :
NA i
$25,387
$25,403
High ;
NA ;
$33,288
$33,314
Replacement:
$88
$30,939
$31,027
Total (Com + Rec + Nonuse + Forage)"
Low
53,276
$513,209
$516,485
High •
$4,905
1744,377
$749,283
* In calculating the total low values, the lower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement)
was used and to calculate the total high values, the higher of the two forage valuation methods was used.
NA= Not included because values negligible.
Thu Feb 07 17:19:36 MST 2002 ; TableE. summary; Plant: pitgrim.74.99 ; Pathname: P:/lntake/Seabrook-
Pilgri m/Sciencc scode/pilgrim<'tables. output. 74.99.no.mussel/TableE. summary.pilgrim. 74.99. csv
G4-19
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I<&E
Losses at the Pilgrim Facility
EPA applied the habitat replacement cost (HRC) method,
as described in Chapter A11 of Part A of this document, to
value the average annual losses to impingement and
entrainment (I&E) at the Pilgrim cooling water intake
structure (CWIS) (Seabrook was not evaluated because of
budget constraints). To summarize, the HRC method
identifies the habitat restoration actions that are most '
effective at replacing the species that suffer I&E losses at a
CWIS, Then, the HRC method determines the amount of
each restoration action that is required to offset fully the
I&E losses. Finally, the HRC method estimates the cost of
implementing the restoration actions, and uses this cost as
a proxy for the value of the I&E losses. Thus, the HRC
valuation method is based on the estimated cost to replace
the organisms lost because of I&E, where the replacement
is achieved through improvement or replacement of the
habitat upon which the lost organisms depend. The HRC
method produces an estimated annualized total value of
$9.2 million, which is the cost of replacing the impinged
and entrained organisms through the restoration of
submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), restoration of tidal
wetlands, construction of artificial reefs, and installation of
fish passageways and monitoring to quantify the
productivity of these habitats.
The HRC method is a supply-side approach for valuing
I&E losses in contrast to the more typically used demand-
side valuation approaches (e.g., commercial and
recreational fishing impacts valuations discussed in
Chapter A9 of Part A of this document). An advantage of
the HRC method is that it can address, and value, losses
for all species, including those lacking a recreational or
commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC method explicitly recognizes and captures the
fundamental ecological relationships between those
species with I&E losses at a facility and their surrounding
environment, in contrast to traditional replacement cost
methods such as fish stocking.
Chapter Contents
j
G5-1
Step 1:
Quantify I&E Losses
, G5-2
G5-2
Step 2:
Identify Habitat Requirements ..........
G5-3
G5-3
Step 3:
Identify Potential Habitat Restoration
Alternatives to Offset I&E Losses
. G5-3
G5-4
Step 4: Consolidate, Categorize, and Prioritize
Identified Habitat Restoration Alternatives ......
. G5-7
GS-5
Step 5: Quantify the Expected Increases in Species
Production for the Prioritized Habitat Restoration
Alternatives
G5-9
G5-5.1
Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish
Production from SAV Restoration
. G5-9
G5-5.2
Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish
Production from Tidal Wetland
Restoration
G5-14
G5-5.3
Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish
Production from Artificial Reef
Development
G5-23
G5-5.4
Estimates of Increased Species
Production from Installed Fish
Passageways
G5-25
G5-5.5
Estimates of Remaining Losses in Age 1
Fish Production from Species Without
an Identified Habitat Restoration
Alternative
G5-28
G5-«
Step 6: Scaling Preferred Restoration
Alternatives
G5-28
G5-6.1
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Scaling
G5-28
G5-6.2
Tidal Wetlands Scaling
G5-29
G5-6.3
Reef Scaling
05-29
G5-6.4
Anadromous Fish Passage Scaling ....
G5-30
G5-7
Unit Costs
J25-3A
G5-7.1
Unit Costs of SAV Restoration
G5-30
G5-7.2
Unit Costs of Tidal Wetland Restoration
G5-32
G5-7.3
Artificial Reef Unit Costs
05-36
G5-7.4
Costs of Anadromous Fish Passageway
-
Improvements
G5-36
G5-8
Total Cost Estimation
G5-37
G5-9
Conclusions .
G5-42
EPA used published data wherever possible to apply the
HRC method to the I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility. If published data were lacking, EPA used unpublished data from
knowledgeable resource experts. In some cases, EPA used (and documented) the best professional judgment of these experts
to apply reasonable assumptions to their data. In these cases, EPA applied cost-reducing assumptions, but not beyond the
range of values that experts were willing to support as reasonable. In other words, this HRC valuation seeks the cost of what
knowledgeable resource experts consider to be the minimum amount of restoration necessary to offset I&E losses at the
Pilgrim facility.
GS-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Cost-reducing assumptions are identified throughout this chapter and were incorporated extensively. Most significantly, the
HRC valuation estimates for the l&E losses at the Pilgrim facility implicitly assumes that the scale of restoration determined
for species for which data were available are sufficient to fully offset the losses for species for which no data was identified.
To the degree this assumption is inaccurate, the results incorporate a downward bias.
Sections G5-1 through G5-8 present the information, methods, assumptions, and conclusions that were used to complete the
HRC valuation of the l&E losses at the Pilgrim facility following the eight steps described in Chapter A11 of Part A of this
document. Section G5-8 also presents additional detail on the valuation of the l&E losses at the Pilgrim facility, providing
separate annualized valuation estimates for the aquatic organisms lost to impingement and for those lost to entrainment.
G5-1 Step 1: Quantify 16E Losses
The Pilgrim facility has reported l&E losses of millions of aquatic organisms each year since it began using a once-through
CWIS. EPA evaluated all species known to be impinged and entrained by the Pilgrim facility, including commercial,
recreational, and forage fish species, based on information provided in facility l&E monitoring reports and detailed in Chapter
G3.
Of the 63 species of fish with reported l&E losses at the Pilgrim facility, EPA incorporated the 34 species that had losses
greater than 0.1 percent of the total impingement or total entrainment losses at the facility (the criterion for inclusion in the
Equivalent Adult Mode! [EAMJ) into the HRC analysis. The average annual age 1 equivalent losses from I&E at Pilgrim for
these 34 species from 1974 to 1999 calculated by the EAM (see Chapter G3 for additional descriptions of source data and
calculation of the age 1 equivalents) are presented in Table G5-1, in order of decreasing mean annual I&E losses (this
information is also presented in Tables G3-6 and G3-10).
In addition, quantitative estimates of blue mussel losses were available for a number of years in Pilgrim's I&E monitoring
reports. The losses for blue mussels were quantified as age I equivalents using the same EAM model. The I&E losses for
blue mussels are also presented in Table G5-1.
Table 65-1: Mean Annual Age 1 Equivalent IAE Losses of Fishes at the Pilgrim Facility, 1974-1999
Species
Impingement
Entrainment
; Total
Finfish
Rock gunnel
i 77
4,862,795
i 4,862,872
American sand lance
27
4,116,258
1 4,116,285
Radiated shanny
: 54
1,644,402
; 1,644,456
Rainbow smelt
i 6,885
1,323,137
i 1,330,022
Gunner
411
993,500
i 993,911
Seulpin spp.
: 13
734,760
1 734,773
Fourbeard rockling
; 2
411,189
j 411,191
Winter flounder
; 1,144
209,571
i 210,715
Atlantic herring
8,836
20,243
; 29,079
Atlantic silverside
20,842
5,087
| 25,929
Wmdowpane
i 284
17,258
1 17,542
Atlantic menhaden
6,165
8,105
i 14,270
Atlantic mackerel
3
6,659
i 4662
Alewife
4,343
0
] 4,343
Searobin
: 69
' 3,698
"¦ 3,767
Atlantic cod
301
2,138
1 2,439
Red hake
: 229
1,545
1 1,774
Lumpfish
: 217
1,080
1,297
Tautog
: 201
875
1,076
Grubby
\ 879
NA
| 879
G5-2
-------
S 316{h) Case Studies, Part &: Seabroak and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of 14 E Losses
Table 65-1: Mean Annual Age 1 Equivalent IAE Losses of Fishes at the Pilgrim Facility, 1974-1999
(cont.)
Species ;
Impingement
Entrapment
Total
Blueback herring
703
NA
: 703
Pollock
33
492
: 525
Butterfish
399
NA
: 399
American plaice l
0
221
i 221
Northern pipefish 118
NA ; 118
Threespine stickleback ! 118
NA
118
SCUP ;
114
NA
; 114
Striped killifish
90
NA
i 90
Little skate
78
NA
i 78
White perch
73
NA
| 73
Bay anchovy 18
NA
; 18
Striped bass
9
NA
: 9
Bluefish
2
NA
1 2
Hogchoker ;
2
NA
; 2
Total age 1 eq. flnfish losses
52,739
14,363,013
! 14,415,752
Shellfish
Blue mussel j
15
160,000,(MX),000
; 160,000,000,000s
Total age 1 eq. shellfish losses
15
160,000,000,000
; 160,000,000,000*
' Rounded to nearest billion.
G5-2 Step 2; Identify Habitat Requirements
Determining the best course of action for restoring habitat to offset losses of species to I&E requires understanding the
specific habitat requirements for each species. Habitat requirements for fish may include physical habitat needs such as
substrate types and geographic locations as well as water quality needs and food sources. Chapter G3, Section G3-2. provides
a detailed summary of the habitat components needed for the critical lifestages of several of the species from among those
with high average annual I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility.
65-3 Step 3; Identify Potential Habitat Restoration Alternatives to
Offset IAE Losses
Local experts identified six types of projects that could be used near the Pilgrim facility to restore the same species of fish and
aquatic organisms lost to I&E at the Pilgrim facility:
~ restore submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV)
* restore tidal wetlands
~ create artificial reefs
~ improve anadromous fish passage
~ improve water quality beyond current regulatory requirements
~ reduce fishing pressures beyond current regulatory requirements.
Of the project categories listed above, the restoration of SAV and tidal wetlands, the creation of artificial reefs and the
improvement of anadromous fish passages provides benefits to the aquatic community that can be quantified in this HRC
valuation and are described below.
G5-3
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Port G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Restore submerged aquatic vegetation
Submerged aquatic vegetation provides vital habitat for a number of aquatic organisms. Eelgrass is the dominant species of
SAV along the coasts of New England. It is an underwater flowering plant that is found in brackish and near-shore marine
waters (Figure G5-1). Eelgrass can form large meadows or small separate beds that range in size from many acres to just 1 m
across (Save The Bay, 2001).
SAV restoration involves transplanting eelgrass shoots and/or seeds into areas that can support their growth. Site selection is
based on historical distribution, wave action, light availability, sediment type, and nutrient loading. Improving water quality
and clarity, reducing nutrient levels, and restricting dredging may all be necessary to promote sustainable eelgrass beds.
Protecting existing SAV beds is a priority in many communities (Save The Bay, 2001).
SAV provides several ecological services to the environment. For example, eelgrass has a high rate of leaf growth and
provides support for many aquatic organisms as shelter, spawning, and nursery habitat. SAV is also a food source for
herbivorous organisms. The roots of SAV also provide stability to the bottom sediments, thus decreasing erosion and
resuspension of sediments into the water column (Thayer et al., 1997). Dense SAV provides shelter for small and juvenile
fishes and invertebrates from predators. Small prey can hide deep within the SAV canopy, and some prey species use the
SAV as camouflage (Thayer et al., 1997). Species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim that use SAV beds during early life
stages include Atlantic menhaden, striped bass, tautog, bluefish, and rainbow smelt (Laney. 1997),
Figure 65-1: Laboratory culture of eelgrass (Zostera marina)
Source: Boschker, 2001
Restore tidal wetlands
Tidal wetlands (Figure G5-2) are among the most productive ecosystems in the world (Mitseh and Oosselink, 1993; Broome
and Craft, 2000). They provide valuable habitat for many species of invertebrates and forage fish that serve as food for other
species in and near the wetland. Tidal wetlands also provide spawning and nursery habitat for many other fish species,
including the Atlantic silverside, striped killifish, threespine stickleback, and mummiehog. Other migratory species that use
tidal wetlands during their lives include the winter flounder, striped bass, Atlantic herring, and white perch (Dionne et al,,
1999), Fish species that have been reported in restored salt ponds and tidal creeks include Atlantic menhaden, blueback
herring, Atlantic silverside, striped killifish, and mummiehog (Roman et al, submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology).
Restoring tidal flow to areas where such flows have been restricted also reduces the presence of Phragmites amtralis, the
invasive marsh grass that has choked out native flora and fauna in coastal areas across the New England seaboard (Fell et al,,
2000).
G5-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65- HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Figure S5-2: Tidal creek near Little Harbor, Cohasset. Massachusetts (Source'- MAPC, 2001)
Tidal wetlands restoration typically involves returning tidal flow to marshes or ponds that have restricted natural tidewater
flow because of roads, backfilling, dikes, or other barriers. Eliminating these barriers can restore salt marshes (Figure G5-3),
salt ponds, and tidal creeks that provide essential habitat for many species of aquatic organisms. For example, where
undersized culverts restrict tidal flow, installing correctly sized and positioned culverts can restore tidal range and proper
salinity. In other situations, such as where low-lying property adjacent to salt marsh has been developed, restoring full tidal
flow may not be possible because of flooding concerns (MAPC, 2001). Salt marshes can also be created by inundating areas
in which no marsh habitat previously existed (e.g., tidal wetland creation). However, a study by Dionne et al. (1999) showed
that while both created and restored tidal wetlands provide habitat for a number of fish, restored tidal wetlands provide much
larger and more productive areas of habitat per unit cost than created tidal wetlands.
Figure S5-3: Salt marsh near Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island (Source: Save the Bay, 2001)
G5-S
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6: Seabreokand Pilgrim
Chapter 55: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Create artificial reefs
Several species of fish found near the Pilgrim facility use rocky or reef-like habitats with interstices that provide refuge from
predators. These habitats can be created artificially with cobbles, concrete, and other suitable materials. Species impinged
and entrained at Pilgrim that commonly use reef structures for refuge include tautog, cunner, and blue mussels (Foster et al,
1994; Castro et al., in press). Both cunner and tautog become torpid at night and require places to hide from their prey.
Improve anadromous fish passageways
Anadromous fish spend most of their lives in brackish or saltwater but migrate into freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Dams on many of the rivers and streams in this region where anadromous fish historically spawned make these waterways
inaccessible to migrating fish. Anadromous fish impinged and entrained at Pilgrim that would benefit from improved access
to upstream spawning habitat include rainbow smelt, alewife, and white perch.
Improving anadromous fish passage involves many important steps. Dams and barriers connecting estuaries with upstream
spawning habitat can be removed or fitted with fish ladders (Figure G5-4). Removing a dam is often preferable because some
species such as rainbow smelt use fish ladders ineffectively. However, dam removal may not be possible in highly developed
areas needing flood control. In addition, restoring stream habitats such as forested riverbank wetlands and improving water
quality may also be necessary to restore upstream spawning habitats for anadromous fish (Save The Bay, 2001).
Figure 65-4: Example of a fish ladder at a hydroelectric dam
Source: Pollock, 2001,
G5-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter ©5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
G5-4 STEP 4: CONSOLIDATE, CATEGORIZE, AND PRIORITIZE IDENTIFIED HABITAT
Restoration Alternatives
EPA categorized and prioritized habitat restoration alternatives to identify the type of restoration program that was best suited
for each of the major species that are impinged or entrained as a result of cooling water intakes. This was done in
collaboration with local experts from several federal, state, and local organizations at a meeting on September 12, 2001
(Table G5-2), and through follow-up discussions that were held with numerous additional organizations (Table G5-3),
Attendees discussed habitat needs and restoration options for each species with significant l&E losses at the facility. They
then ranked these restoration options for each species by determining what single option would most benefit that species. The
alternatives chosen for each species are shown in Table G5-4.
Table 65-2: Attendees at the Meeting on Habitat Prioritization for Species Impinged and Entrained at
Pilgrim September 12, 2001, in Lakeville. Massachusetts
Attendee
Organization
Bob Green
; Massachusetts DEP
Robert Lawton
; Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
George Zoto
; Massachusetts Watershed Initiative - South Coastal Watersheds
Kathi Rodrigues
; National Marine Fisheries Service - Restoration Center
David Webster
: U.S. EPA Region 1
Sharon Zaya
lU.S. EPA Region 1
Nick Prodany
;U.S. EPA Region I
John Nagle iU.S, EPA Region I
Table 65-3: Local Agencies and Organizations Contacted for Information Used in this HRC Analysis
Organization
Applied Sciences Associates
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council
Connecticut College
Duxbury Conservation Agency
Fall River Conservation Commission
Jones River Watershed Association
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
Massachusetts'Department of Environmental Protection
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Law Enforcement — Division of Marine Fisheries
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sea Grant Program: Center for Coastal Resources
Massachusetts Watershed Initiative
Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
Narrapansett Estuarine Research Reserve
National Estuary Program — Massachusetts Bays program
National Estuary Program — Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center (Gloucester, MA)
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service — Restoration Center (Providence, RI)
NOAA — National Marine Fisheries Service (NC)
G5-7
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Tabic 65-3: Local Agencies and Organizations Contacted for Information Used in this HRC Analysis
(cont.)
Organisation
Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Dept. of Planning and Development, Land Acquisition Program
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Division of Fish and Wildlife
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management — Marine Fisheries Section
Roger Williams University
Rutgers University
Save The Bay (RI)
Somerset Conservation Commission
University of California — Santa Cruz: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of New Hampshire
University of Rhode Island
USEPA — Region 1
USEPA Environmental Effects Research Laboratory— Atlantic Ecology Division/ORD
US Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
Wetlands Restoration Program, (Mass Exec, Office of Env. Affairs)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Table G5-4: Preferred Restoration Alternatives Identified by Experts for
Species Impinged and Entrained at Pilgrim
Species (age 1 eq. losses per year)
Selected Restoration Alternative
Atlantic cod (2,439)
:SAV restoration
Pollock (525)
: SAV restoration
Northern pipefish (118)
: SAV restoration
Threespine stickleback (118)
! SAV restoration, tidal wetland restoration
American sand lance (4,116,285)
; Tidal wetlands restoration
Winter flounder (210,715)
Tidal wetlands restoration
Atlantic silverside (25,929)
Tidal wetlands restoration
Windowpane1 (17,542)
Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Grubby (879)
! Tidal wetlands restoration
Striped killifish (90)
; Tidal wetlands restoration
Striped bass (9)
; Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Bluefish (2)
;Tidal wetlands restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Rock gunnel (4,862,872)
Artificial reef creation
Radiated shanny (1,644,456)
| Artificial reef creation
Cunner (993,911)
! Artificial reef creation, SAV restoration
Sculpin spp. (734,773)
Artificial reef creation, SAV restoration (improve habitat for prey)
Tautog (1,076)
: Artificial reef creation, SAV restoration
Rainbow smelt (1,330,022)
; Anadromous fish passage (remove dams)
Alewife (4,343)
1 Anadromous fish passage
Biucback herring (703)
: Anadromous fish passage
White perch (73)
Anadromous fish passage
G5-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Table G5-4: Preferred Restoration Alternatives Identified by Experts for
Species Impinged and Entrained at Pilgrim (cant.)
Species (age 1 eq. losses per year) : Selected Restoration Alternative
Blue mussels (160,000,000,000) -No habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
Fourbeard rockiing (411,191)
Atlantic herring (29,079)
Searobin (3,767)
Red hake (1,774) i
Lumpfish (1,297)
American plaice (221) i
Scup(114)
Little skate (78)
Hogchoker (2)
Atlantic menhaden (14,270) ; No habitat restoration/replacement alternative was identified.
Atlantic mackerel (6,662) j
Butterfish (399) !
Bay anchovy (18)
" Improved water quality later became the chosen restoration alternative for windowpane because they
inhabit depths greater than accessible to tidal wetland restoration. However, no specific water quality
projects were identified.
£5-5 Step 5: Quantify the Expected Increases in Species Production for
the Prioritized Habitat Restoration Alternatives
In Step 5, EPA estimated the expected increases in fish production attributable to implementing the preferred restoration
alternative for each species. These estimates were adjusted to express production as increases in age 1 fish. This simplified
the scaling of the preferred restoration alternatives (see Section G5-6) because the l&E losses were also expressed as age 1
equivalents.
Unfortunately, available quantitative data is not sufficient to estimate reliably the increase in fish production that is expected
to result from the habitat restoration actions listed in Table G5-4. There is also limited data available on the production of
these species in natural habitats that could be used to estimate production in restored habitats. Therefore, in this analysis EPA
relied on quantitative information on fish species abundance in the habitats to be restored as a proxy for the increase in
production expected through habitat restoration. The relationship between the measured abundance of a species in a given
habitat and the increase in that species*production that would result from restoring additional habitat is complex and unique
for each species. In some cases the use of abundance data may underestimate the true production that would be gained
through habitat restoration, and in other cases it may overestimate the true production. Nevertheless, this assumption was
necessary given the limited amount of quantitative data on fish species habitat production that is currently available.
G5-5.1 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from SAV Restoration
SAV provides forage and refuge services for many fish species, increases sediment stability, and dampens the energy of
waves and currents affecting nearby shorelines (Fonseca, 1992), SAV restoration is most effective where water quality is
adequate and SAV coverage once existed. Table G5-5 presents the fish species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that would
benefit most from SAV restoration, along with annual average I&E losses 1974-1999, arranged by number offish lost,
GS-9
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part G- Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-5: Fish Species' Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would
Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1999)
Percentage of Total I&E
Losses for All Fish Species
Atlantic cod
; 2,439
0.02%
Pollock
: 525
0.00%
Northern pipefish
118
0.00%
Threespine stickleback
118
0.00%
Total
3,200
0.02%
65-5.1.1 Species abundance estimates in SAV habitats
No studies were available that provided direct estimates of increased fish production following SAV restoration for the
species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that would benefit most from SAV restoration. Therefore, EPA used abundance
estimates to estimate increases in production following restoration. Abundance estimates are often the best available
estimates of local habitat productivity, especially for early life stages with limited mobility. The sampling efforts that provide
abundance estimates in SAV habitat and that were selected for this HRC valuation are described below.
Species abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV
Wyda et al. (in press) provide abundance estimates as fish per 100 m2 of SAV for species caught in otter trawls in July and
August 1996 at 24 sites within 13 Buzzards Bay estuaries, near Nantucket, Massachusetts, and at 28 sites within 6
Chesapeake Bay estuaries. These locations were selected based on information that eelgrass was present or had existed at the
location.
The sampling at each location consisted of six 2-minute sampling runs using a 4.8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm
mesh cod end liner that was towed at 5-6 km/hour. Late summer sampling was selected because eelgrass abundance is
greatest then, and previous research had shown that late-summer fish assemblages are stable.
Forty-three fish species were caught in Buzzards Bay and 60 in Chesapeake Bay. Abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV
were reported for all fish species, and abundance estimates for specific SAV density categories were reported for species
caught in more than 10 percent of the total number of trawls (15 species). EPA used only these SAV density-based results
from the Buzzards Bay sampling for this HRC valuation because of its proximity to the facility. These SAV density-based
results are presented in Table G5-6 for species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most from SAV
restoration.
Table 65-6: Average Abundance in Buzzards Bay SAV (eelgrass) Habitats for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Common Name
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 mJ)*
Low Density SAV Habitats High Density SAV Habitats
Atlantic cod"
no obs. : no obs.
Pollockh
no obs. no obs.
Northern pipefish
0.19 0.99
Threespine stickleback
0.22 i 0.13
' High density habitats are eelgrass areas with shoot densities > 100 per nr and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/nr. Low density habitats do
not meet these criteria.
b Atlantic cod and pollock were not caught in any Buzzards Bay trawls.
Source: Wyda et al. (in press).
G5-I0
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Species abundance in Rhode Island coastal salt pond SAV
Hughes et al. (2000) conducted trawl samples in the SAV habitats of four Rhode Island coastal estuarine salt ponds and in
four Connecticut estuaries during July 1999. As in Wyda et al. (in press), the sampling at each location involved six 2-minute
sampling runs using a 4.8 m semi-balloon otter trawl with a 3 mm mesh cod end liner towed at 5-6 km/hour.
The report does not provide abundance estimates by species. However, a principal investigator provided abundance estimates
expressed as the number of fish per 100 mJ of SAV for the locations sampled in Rhode Island (Point Judith Pond, Ninigret
Pond, Green Hill Pond, and Quonochontaug Pond; personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological
Laboratory, 2001). Average abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV were calculated for each species and allocated to the
same SAV habitat categories that were designated in Wyda et al. (in press) using shoot density and wet weight of shoots from
Hughes et al. (2000). The sampling results for species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most
from SAV restoration are presented in Table G5-7,
Table 65-7; Average Abundance from Rhode Island SAV Sites far Pilgrim Species
that Would Benefit Most, from SAV Restoration
Species
Species Abundance (# fish per 100 m2 of SAV habitat)*
Low Density SAV Habitats
High Density SAV Habitats
Atlantic cod
i no obs.
no obs.
Pollock
no obs.
no obs.
Northern pipefish
0.23
3.03
Threespine stickleback
i no obs.
19.67
* High density habitats are defined as areas with eelgrass shoot densities > 100 per :ir and shoot biomass (wet) > 100 g/m2. Low density
habitats do not meet these criteria.
Source: persona! communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001.
Species abundance in Nauset Marsh (Massachusetts) estuarine complex SAV
Heck et al. (1989) provide capture totals for day and night trawl samples taken between August 1985 and October 1986 in the
Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex in Orleans/Eastham, Massachusetts, including two eelgrass beds: Fort Hill and Nauset
Harbor. As in the other SAV sampling efforts, an otter trawl was used for the sampling, but with slightly larger mesh size
openings in the cod end liner (6.3 nun versus 3.0 mm) than in Hughes et al. (2000) or Wyda et al. (in press).
With the reported information on the average speed, duration, and number of trawls used in each sampling period and an
estimate of the width of the SAV habitat covered by the trawl from one of the study authors (personal communication, M.
Fahay, NOAA, 2001), EPA calculated abundance estimates per 100 m2 of SAV habitat.
Heck et al. (1989) also report that the dry weight of the SAV shoots is over 180 g/m2 at both the Fort Hill and Nauset Harbor
eelgrass habitat sites. Therefore, these locations would fall into the high density SAV habitat category used in Wyda et al. (in
press) and Hughes et al. (2000) because the dry weight exceeds the wet weight criterion of 100 g/m2 used in those studies.
Finally, Heck et al. (1989) provide separate monthly capture results from their trawls. The maximum monthly capture results
for each species was used for the abundance estimates from this sampling. Because these maximum values generally occur'in
the late summer months, sampling time is consistent with the results from Wyda et al. (in press) and Hughes et al. (2000).
The species abundance values estimated from the sampling of the Fort Hill and Nauset Harbor SAV habitats are presented in
Table G5-8.
G5-11
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 65-8: Average Abundance in Nauset Marsh Estuarine Complex SAV for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from 5AV Restoration
Species
Species Abundance (# fish per 100
mJ)'
Fort Hill — High Density SAV
Nauset Harbor — High Density SAV
Atlantic cod
; no obs.
no obs.
Pollock
no obs,
no obs.
Northern pipefish
i 0.68
6.11
Threespine stickleback
5.92
47.08
" High density habitats are defined as areas with eeigrass shoot densities > 100 per nr and shoot biomass (wet) > i 00 g/nv.
Source; Heck ct al., 1989.
G5-5.1.2 Adjusting SAV sampling results to estimate annual average increase in production
of age 1 fish
EPA adjusted sampling-based abundance estimates to account for:
~ sampling efficiency
~ capture of life stages other than age 1
» differences in the measured abundances in natural SAV habitat versus expected productivity in restored SAV habitat.
The basis and magnitude of the adjustments are discussed in the following sections.
Adjusting for sampling efficiency
Fish sampling techniques are unlikely to capture or record all of the fish present in a sampled area because some fish avoid
the sampling gear and some are captured but not collected and counted. The sampling efficiency for otter trawls is
approximately 40 percent to 60 percent (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001).
EPA assumed a cost reducing sampling efficiency of 40 percent for this HRC analysis, and multiplied the SAV sampling
abundance estimates by 2,5 (i.e., 1.0 divided by 40 percent). This assumption increases SAV productivity estimates and
lowers SAV restoration cost estimates.
Adjusting sample abundance estimates to age 1 life stages
All sampled life stages were converted to age 1 equivalents for comparison to l&E losses, which were expressed as age 1
equivalents. The average life stage of the fish caught in Buzzards Bay (Wyda et al., in press) and the Rhode Island coastal
salt pond (Hughes et al., 2000) was juveniles (i.e., life stage younger than age 1) (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001). Since the same sampling technique and gear was used in Heck et al. (1989), EPA
assumed juveniles to be the average life stage captured in this study as well.
The abundance estimates from the studies were multiplied by the survival rates from juveniles to age 1 for each species to
provide an age 1 equivalent abundance. The juvenile to age 1 survival rate adjustment factors, calculated using the results of
the EAM, are presented in Table GS-9.
As noted in the table, there are no juvenile to age 1 survival rate estimates used in the EAM for three of the species.
However, survival rate estimates are available for these species from larval stage (the stage just prior to juvenile) to age 1. In
these cases, EPA estimated the juvenile to age 1 survival rate by averaging the survival rate for larvae to age 1 with 1.0
(because 1.0 is necessarily the age 1 to age 1 survival rate). This procedure produces juvenile to age 1 survival rates that are
approximately 0.5, which is near the maximum juvenile to age 1 survival rates used in the EAM for other species. Therefore,
this assumption may lead to an overestimation of the juvenile to age 1 survival rate, and therefore to an overestimation of the
age 1 fish produced by SAV restoration (and an underestimation of the amount of restoration required). Nevertheless, EPA
used the adjustment factors shown in Table G5-9 to convert densities of juveniles in SAV habitat to densities of age 1
individuals, as a cost minimizing assumption,
G5-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter* 65: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Table 65-9: Life Stage Adjustment Factors fop Species Present at Pilgrim — SAV Restoration
Species
Oldest Life Stage
before Age 1 in the
EAM
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
Life Stage Captured in
SAV Sampling Efforts
Estimated Survival
Kate for Juveniles
to Age 1"
Atlantic cod
larvae
0.0023
juvenile
0.5012
Pollock
juvenile
0.0019
juvenile
0.0019
Northern pipefish
larvae
0.0703
juvenile
0.5352
Threespine stickleback
larvae
0.0567
juvenile
0,5284
" When the EAM included information only for larvae (younger than juvenile) to age 1, the juvenile to age 1 survival rate
was assumed to be the average of larvae to age 1, and age 1 to age 1 (1.0).
Adjusting sampled abundance for differences between restored and undisturbed habitats
No reviewed studies suggested that restored SAV habitat would produce fish at a level different from undisturbed SAV
habitat. Similarly, while service flows from a restored habitat site generally increase over time to a steady state level, limited
anecdotal evidence suggests some restored SAV habitats may begin recruiting and producing fish very quickly (personal
communication, A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001), As a result of this limited evidence, and as a cost-reducing assumption, EPA
made no adjustment for differences between restored and undisturbed SAV habitats to account for the final levels of fish
production or potential lags in realizing these levels following restoration of SAV habitat,
65-5.1.3 Final estimates of annual average age 1 fish production from SAV restoration
EPA calculated age 1 fish production expected from habitats where SAV is restored by multiplying the abundance estimates
from Wyda et al. (in press), Hughes et al. (2000), and Heck et al. (1989) by the adjustment factors presented in the previous
subsection. These results were then averaged, by species, across sampling locations to calculate the final production value
incorporated in the scaling of the SAV restoration alternative.
Table G5-10 presents the final estimates of the increase in age I production for two of the four Pilgrim species that benefit
most from SAV restoration (Atlantic cod and pollock were not sampled in any of the studies providing abundance estimates).
G5-J3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table S5-10: Final Estimates of the Increase in Production of Age 1 Fish for Fish Species Impinged or
Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from SAV Restoration
Species
Source of Initial
; Species Abundance
Estimate
Species
Abundance
Estimate per
100 m1 of
SAV
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored
Habitat Service
Flow
Adjustment
Factor
Expected Increase in
Production of Age I
Fish per 100 m2 of
Restored SAV
Northern
pipefish
i'Hecketal, (1989) —
iFort Hill
0.68
2.5
0.5352
1.0
0.91
; Heck etal.(1989) —
INauset Harbor
6.11
2.5
0.5352
1.0
8.17
; Hughes et al. (2000) —
i RI coastal ponds (low
iSAV)
0.23
2.5
0.5352
1.0
0.31
iHughes et al. (2000) —
LRI coastal ponds (high
iSAV)
3.03
2.5
0.5352
1.0
4.06
; Wyda et al. (in press)
i— Buzzards Bay (low
SAVi
0.19
2.5
0.5352
1.0
0.25
' Wyda et al. (in press)
i— Buzzards Bay (high
iSAV)
0.99
2.5
0.5352
1.0
1.32
; Species average
2.50
Threespine
stickleback
Heck etal, (1989) —
;Fort Hill
5.92
2.5
0.5284
1.0
7.82
i Heck et al. (1989) —
: Nauset Harbor
47.08
2.5
0.5284
1.0
62.19
; Hughes et al. (2000) —
; RI coastal ponds (high
iSAV)
19.67
2.5
0.5284
1.0
25.98
: Wyda et al. (in press)
;— Buzzards Bay (low
iSAV)
0.22
2.5
0.5284
1.0
0.29
• Wyda et al. (in press)
i— Buzzards Bay (high
iSAV)
0.13
2.5
0.5284
1.0
0.17
i Species average
19.29
Atlantic cod
: Unknown
Pollock
; Unknown
£5-5.2 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from Tidal Wetland
Restoration
Tidal wetlands provide a diversity of habitats such as open water, subtidal pools, ponds, intertidal waterways, and tidally
flooded meadows of salt tolerant grass species such as Spartina alterniflora and S. patens. These habitats provide forage,
spawning, nursery, and refuge for a large number of fish species. Table G5-11 identifies the I&E losses for fish species at
Pilgrim that would benefit most from tidal wetland restoration, along with average I&E losses for 1974-1999, arranged by
number of fish lost.
GS-14
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table 65-11: Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would
Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Cnani txs
£2 a *!>
Annual Average I&E Loss of Age 1
Equivalents (1974-1999)
; Percentage of Total l&E Losses across all
Fish Species
American sand lance
4,116,285
28.55%
Winter flounder
210,715
1.46%
Atlantic silverside
25,929
! 0.18%
Grubby
879
0.01%
Striped kiflifish
90
0.00%
Striped bass
9
; o.oo%
Bluefish
2
i o,oo%
Total
4,353,909
! 30.20%
Restricted tidal flows increase the dominance of Phragmites australis by reducing tidal flushing and lowering salinity levels
(Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 2001a), Phragmites dominance restricts fish access to and movement
through the water, decreasing overall productivity of the habitat. Therefore, for the purpose of this HRC valuation, tidal
wetland restoration focuses on returning natural tidal flows to currently restricted areas. Examples of actions that can restore
tidal flows to currently restricted tidal wetlands include the following:
~ breaching dikes created to support salt hay farming or to control mosquitos
~ installing properly sized culverts in areas currently lacking tidal exchange
~ removing tide gates on existing culverts
~ excavating dredge spoil covering former tidal wetlands.
EPA could not find any studies that quantified increased production following implementation of these types of restoration
actions for tidal wetlands. Therefore, EPA used fish abundance estimates from studies of tidal wetlands to estimate the fish
increase in fish production that can be gained through restoration. The following subsections present the sampling data and
subsequent adjustments made to calculate the expected increased in age 1 production of fish species.
65-5.2.1 Fish species abundance estimates in tidal wetland habitats
EPA used results from tidal wetland sampling efforts in Rhode Island to calculate the potential increased fish production from
restored tidal wetland habitat. Available sampling results from Connecticut (Warren et al, 2001) and New Hampshire and
Maine coasts (Dionne et al., 1999) were not used. The Connecticut results were omitted because regulatory time constraints
prevented the conversion of capture results into abundance estimates per unit of tidal wetland area. The New Hampshire and
Maine results were omitted because the study locations were too distant from the Pilgrim facility and are located north of the
critical ecological divide of Cape Cod-Massachusetts Bay, which affects species mix and abundance.
Species abundance at Sachuest Point tidal wetland, Middletown, Rhode Island
Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology) sampled the fish populations in a 6.3 hectare (ha) tidal wetland at
Sachuest Point in Middletown, Rhode Island. The sampling was conducted during August, September, and October of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using a 1 nr throw trap in the creeks and pools of each area during low tide after the wetland surface had
drained. Additional sampling was conducted monthly from June through October in 1998 and 1999 using 6 m2 bottomless lift
nets to sample the flooded wetland surface. The report presents the results of this sampling as abundance estimates of each
fish species per square meter (Table G5-12).
Roman et al. also sampled a smaller portion of the wetland where tidal flows had recently been restored. However, EPA did
not use these results because the sampling was most likely conducted before the system reached full productivity.
G5-15
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrock and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Table G5-I2: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Saehuest for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
(fish per in2)
1997
1998
1999
American sand lance
i throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
; lift net
no sampling
no obs.
no obs,
Winter flounder
: throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
; lift net ;
no sampling
no obs.
no obs.
Atlantic silverside
i throw trap ;
1,23
0.20
0.07
j lift net
no sampling
no obs.
no obs.
Grubby
: throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
; lift net
no sampling
no obs.
no obs.
Striped killifish
; throw trap
0.70
0.17
0.55
lift net :
no sampling
0.01
0,01
Striped bass
i throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
: lift net
no sampling
no obs.
no obs.
Bluefish
: throw trap
no obs. :
no obs.
no obs.
I lift net
no sampling
no obs.
no obs.
Source: Roman et al. (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology).
Galilee Marsh, Narragansett Rhode, Island
Raposa (in press) sampled the fish populations in the Galilee tidal wetland monthly from June through September of 1997,
1998, and 1999 using 1 m2 throw trap in the creeks and pools in the tidal wetland parcels during low tide after the wetland
surface had drained, Raposa presents the sampling results as fish species abundance expressed as number of fish per square
meter. As with the results from Roman et al, (submitted 2000 to Restoration Ecology), EPA did not use the results from a
recently restored portion of the wetland in this HRC valuation to avoid a downward bias in the species density results (and
resultant higher restoration costs). The results from this sampling effort are presented in Table G5-13 for the species
impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
Table G5-13: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Galilee for Fish Species
Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Fish Density Estimates in Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands
(fish per m1)
; Technique .—
1997
1998
1999
American sand lance
i throw trap ;
no obs.
j no obs.
no obs.
Winter flounder
throw trap !
no obs.
: no obs.
no obs.
Atlantic silverside
; throw trap ;
4.78
: 1.73 :
14.38
Grubby
:throw trap !
no obs.
: no obs.
no obs.
Striped killifish
throw trap
4,35
3.50
12.40
Striped bass
; throw trap :
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
Bluefish
! throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
no obs.
Source: Raposa, in press.
G5-16
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Vol notion of I<4E Losses
Coggeshall Marsh, Prudence Island, Rhode Island
Discussions with Kenny Raposa of the Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR) revealed that additional fish
abundance estimates from tidal wetland sampling were available for the Coggeshall Marsh located on Prudence Island in the
NERR. These abundance estimates were based on sampling conducted in July and September 2000. The sampling of the
Coggeshall tidal wetland was conducted using 1 m2 throw traps in the tidal creeks and pools of the wetland during ebb tide
afler the wetland surface had drained (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001).
The sampling results from this effort are presented in Table G5-14 for the species impinged and entrained at Pilgrim and
identified as benefitting most from tidal wetlands restoration.
Table £5-14: Abundance Estimates from the Unrestricted Tidal Wetlands at Coggeshall for Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Species
Sampling
Fish Density Estimates in Tidal Wetlands
(fish per nt!)
Julv 2000
September 2000
American sand lance
: throw trap ;
no obs.
no obs.
Winter flounder
; throw trap ;
0.10
0.10
Atlantic silverside
; throw trap
0.17
0.07
Grubby
| throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
Striped killifish
; throw trap 1
2.40
0.53
Striped bass
1 throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
Bluefish
; throw trap
no obs.
no obs.
Winter flounder data from Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey at the Chepiwanoxet and
Wickford sample locations
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey samples 18 locations once a month from June through October using a beach seine
that is approximately 60 m {200 ft) long and 3 m (10 ft) wide/deep. The sampled sites vary from cobble reef to sandy
substrate. Winter flounder prefer shallow water habitats with sandy substrate, and such substrate conditions can be restored in
large coastal ponds or pools. Therefore, EPA obtained winter flounder abundance estimates from this survey (personal
communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The two sample locations with
the highest average winter flounder abundance estimates for 1990 through 2000 were in coastal ponds with sandy bottoms.
The average abundance estimates from these sites, Chepiwanoxet and Wickford, are presented in Table G5-15 for samples
taken from 1990 through 2000.
Table G5- 15: Average Winter Flounder Abundance, 1990-2000, at the Sites with the
Highest Results from the Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey
Species
Sampling
Technique
Fish Density Estimates in Sandy Nearshore Substrate (fish per nta)
Chepiwanoxet 1990-2000 Wickford 1990-2000
Winter flounder
beach seine
0.09 0.20
Winter flounder data from Rhode Island Coastal Pond Survey at Narrow River, Winnapaug
Pond, and Point Judith Pond
In addition to its juvenile finfish survey, Rhode Island conducts a survey of fish in its coastal ponds. The habitat
characteristics in these locations are similar to those that can be restored through tidal wetland restoration. This survey
includes winter flounder.
A Rhode Island coastal pond survey has been conducted since 1998 at the same 16 sites using an approximately 40 m (130 ft)
long seine that is set offshore by boat and then drawn in from shore by hand. For each site, the average of the three highest
G5-17
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of XAE Losses
winter flounder capture results for 1998-2001, adjusted for the average area covered by each seine set, is presented in Table
G5-16 (personal communication, J, Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
Table 65-16: Average Winter Flounder Abundance for 1998-2001 at the Sites with the Highest
Results from the Rhode Island Coastal Pond Survey
Species
: Sampling
Technique
Average Winter Flounder Density Estimates in
Sandy Nearshore Substrate (fish per nt2)
Narrow River Winnapaug Pond Point Judith Pond
Winter flounder
; beach seine
0.32 0.21 i 0.21
65-5.2.2 Adjusting tidal wetland sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
The sampling abundance results presented in Section G5-5.2,1 were adjusted to account for the following:
~ sampling efficiency
~ conversion to the age 1 life stage
~ differences in production between restored and undisturbed tidal wetlands
~ the impact of sampling timing and location.
Sampling efficiency
As previously described, sampling efficiency adjustments are made to account for the fact that sampling techniques do not
capture all fish that are present. Jordan et al. (1997) estimated that 1 m2 throw traps have a sampling efficiency of 63 percent.
Therefore, EPA applied an adjustment factor of 1,6 (i.e.,-1.0/0.63) to tidal wetland abundance data that were collected with 1
m2 throw traps.
The sampling efficiencies of bottomless lift nets are provided in Rozas (19921 as 93 percent for striped mullet (Mugil
cephalus), 81 percent for gulf killifish (Fundulus grandis), and 58 percent for sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus).
The average of these three sampling efficiencies is 77 percent (adjustment factor of 13, or 1.0/0.77) and is assumed to be
applicable to species lost to I&E at Pilgrim.
Lastly, although specific studies of the sample efficiency of a beach seine net were not identified, an estimated range of 50
percent to 75 percent was provided by the staff involved with the Rhode Island coastal pond survey (personal communication,
J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002). Using the lower end of this range as a cost reducing
assumption, EPA applied a sample efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 (i.e., 1.0/0.5) for the abundance estimates for both the
Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey and the Rhode Island coastal pond survey.
Conversion to age 1 life stage
The sampling techniques described in Section G5-5.2.1 are intended to capture juvenile fish (personal communication,
K. Raposa, Narraganseit Estuarine Research Reserve, 2001). That juvenile fish were the dominant age class taken was
confirmed by the researchers involved in these efforts (personal communication, K. Raposa, Narragansett Estuarine Research
Reserve, 2001; personal communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001; personal
communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2001). As a result, the sampling results presented in
Section G5-5.2.1 required adjustment to account for expected mortality between the juvenile and age 1 life stages. The
information used to develop these survival rates and the final life stage adjustment factors are presented in Table G5-17.
G5-I8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Scab rook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of WE Losses
Table 65-19: Final Estimates of the Annual Increase in Production of Age I Equivalent Fish per Square Meter of Restored Tidal Wetland for Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration
Source of Initial
Species Density
" Estimate
Sampling Location
and Date"
Reported/Calculated
Species Density
Estimate per m! of Tidal
Wetland
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
Sampling Time
and Location
Adjustment
Factor
Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per m2
of Restored Tidal
Wetland6'
Unknown
Raposa pers
camm 2001
NERR — Prudence Is!.
Coggeshall - July 2000
0.10
1.6
0.2903
1
19.23
0.00
Raposa pers
comm 2001
•JERR — Prudence Isl.
Coggeshall — Sept. 2000
0.10
1.6
0,2903
1
19.23
0.00
C Powel! pers
comm 2001
Chepiwanoxet average
990-2000 (seine)
0.09
2.0
0.2903
1
1.00
0.05
C Powell pers
comm 2001
Wickford average 1990-
000 (seine)
0.20
2.0
0.2903
1
1.00
0,12
J. Temple pers
coram 2002
Harrow River average
998-2001 (seine)
0.32
2.0
0.2903
1
1.00
0.19
J. Temple pen
comm 2002
Winnapaug Pond average
998-2001 (seine)
0.21
2.0
0.2903
1
1.00
0.12
J. Temple pers
comm 2002
'oint Judith Pond average
998-2001 (seine)
0.21
2.0
0.2903
1
1.00
0.12
Species average
0.09
Roman et al.,
submitted 2000
t<5 Restoration
Ecology
Sachuest Point — 1997
1.23
1.6
0.5022
1
18.18
0.05
Roman et al.,
submitted 2000
to Restoration
Ecology
Sachuest Point - - 1998
0.20
1.6
0.5022
1
18.18
0.01
Roman et al,,
submitted 2000
to Restoration
Ecology
Sachuest Point — 1999
0.07
1.6
0.5022
1
18.18
0.00
Raposa pers
comm 2001
NERR — Prudence Isl.
Coggeshall - July 2000
0.17
1.6
0.5022
I
19.23
0.01
Raposa pers
comm 2001
NERR — Prudence Isl.
Coggeshall — Sept. 2000
0.07
1,6
0.5022
1
19.23
0.00
Raposa,
in press
Galilee Marsh — 1997
4.78
1.6
0.5022
1 11.90
0.32
05-20
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Table 65-19; Final Estimates of the Annuel Increase in Production of Age 1 Equivalent Fish per Square Meter of Restored Tidal Wetland for Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration (cant.)
Species
Source of Initial
; Species Density
Estimate
Sampling Location
and Date*
j Reported/Calculated
Species Density
; Estimate per m2 of Tidal
Wetland
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Lire Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
Sampling Time
and Location
Adjustment
Factor
Increased Production
or Age 1 Fish per m*
or Restored Tidal
Wetland'
Atlantic
silverside
Raposa,
; in press
Galilee Marsh — 1998
: L73
1.6
0.5022 | 1
11.90
0.12
Raposa,
:in press
Galilee Marsh— 1999
14.38
1.6
0.5022 ! 1
11.90
0.97
: Species average
0.19
Grubby
Unknown
Striped
killifish
; Raman et al.,
: submitted 2000
: la Restoration
: Ecology
Sachuest Points 1997
: 0.70
1.6
0.5474 ; 1
18.18
0.03
: Roman et al.,
: submitted 2000
: to Restoration
Ecology
Sachuest Point— 1998
: 0.17
1.6
0.5474 ; 1
18.18
0.01
; Roman et al.,
: submitted 2000
¦ to Restoration
j Ecology
Sachuest Point — 1999
0.55
1.6
0.5474 1
18.18
0.03
] Roman et at,,
submitted 2000
: to Restoration
I Ecology
Sachuest Point — 1998
(lift net)
: 0.01
1.3
0.5474 I
1.00
0.01
•Roman et a).,
submitted 2000
¦ to Restoration
'¦Ecology
Sachuest Point— 1999
(lift net)
; 0.01
1.3
0.5474 1
1.00
0.01
\ Raposa pers
;comm 2001
NERR Prudence Isl.
Coggeshall — July 2000
2.40
1.6
0.5474 1
19.23
0.11
Striped
killifish
: Raposa pers
: cornm 2001
NERR — Prudence Isl.
Coggeshall — Sept. 2000
0.53
1.6
0.5474 1
19.23
0.02
; Raposa,
:in press
Galilee Marsh - 1997
: 4.35
1.6
0.5474
1
11.90
0.32
I Raposa,
:in press
Galilee Marsh — 1998
! 3.50
1.6
0,5474 ; !
¦ 11.90
0.26
G5-21
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seobrook and Pilgrim Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table G5-19: Final Estimates of the Annual Increase in Production of Age 1 Equivalent Fish per Square Meter of Restored Tidal Wetland for Fish
Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would Benefit Most from Tidal Wetland Restoration (cont.)
Species
Source oflnitial
Species Density
Estimate
Sampling Location
and Date"
Reported/Calculated
Species Density
Estimate per mJ of Tidal
Wetland
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored Habitat
Service Flow
Adjustment
Factor
Sampling Time
and Location
Adjustment
Factor
Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per m1
of Restored Tidal
Wetland"
Striped
killifish
Raposa,
in press
Galilee Marsh — 1999
12.40
1.6
0.5474
1
. 11.90
0.91
Species average
0.17
Striped
bass
Unknown
Bluefish
Unknown
' Sampling results arc based on collections using 1 m2 throw traps unless otherwise noted.
' Calculated by multiplying the initial species density estimate by the sampling efficiency, life stage, and restored habitat service flow adjustment factors and dividing by the sampling
time and location adjustment factor.
' Values of 0,00 presented in the table have an abundance of less than 0.005 fish per m' so do not appear in the rounding of results for purposes of presentation.
G5-22
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Senbrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of T4E Losses
S5-5.3 Estimates of Increased Age 1 Fish Production from Artificial Reef
Development
Constructing reefs of cobbles or small boulders was the preferred restoration alternative for a number of species impinged or
entrained at Pilgrim, These species generally favor habitats with interstices that provide forage and shelter from predators.
The species that would benefit most from artificial reef development are identified in Table G5-20, along with information on
their annual average l&E losses for the period 1974-1999,
Table 65-20: Species with Quantified Age 1 Equivalent IAE Losses at Pilgrim that
Would Benefit Most from Artificial Reef Development
Species
; Annual Average I&E Loss of Age 1
! Equivalents (1974-1999)
i Percentage of Total I&E Losses across
All Fish Species
Rock gunnel
I 4,862,872
i 33.73%
Radiated shanny
j 1,644,456
i 11.41%
Curmer
1 993,911
: 6.89%
Sculpin species
i 734,773
i 5.10%
Tautog
| 1,076
0.01%
Total
; 8,237,088
i 57.14%
EPA could not find any studies that provided direct estimates of increased fish production resulting from artificial reef
development. Therefore, EPA used available fish abundance estimates in reef habitats as a proxy for production. The
following subsections present these abundance estimates along with the adjustments made to convert life stages to age 1
equivalents and to account for habitat and sampling influences on the reported abundance estimates.
G5-5.3.1 Species abundance estimates in artificial reef habitats
Tautog data from juvenile finfish survey at Patience Island and Spar Island, Rhode Island
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey samples 18 locations once per month from June through October using a 60 m long
beach seine that is approximately 3 m deep/wide. Among the sampled locations are two artificial cobble habitats, Spar Island
and Patience Island, that have the highest average tautog abundance estimates (fish per square meter) of the 18 locations for
the 1990-2000 period (personal communication, C. Powell, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001).
These average abundance estimates are presented in Table G5-21.
Table 65-21: Tautog Abundance Estimates from the Rhode Island Juvenile Finfish Survey at the Two
Locations with the Highest Average Values for the Period 1990-2000
Species
Sampling
Technique
Fish Density Estimates in Nearshore Cobble Reef Habitats
(fish per m2)
Patience Island
Spar Island
Tautog
beach seine
0.028
0.031
Cunner from the Pilgrim facility intake breakwater (Plymouth, Massachusetts)
Lawton et al. (2000) estimated the size of the adult cunner population residing on the inner and outer breakwaters at the
Pilgrim facility based on the results of a tagging study and baited traps during 1994 and 1995. The adult population estimates
were reported as a central estimate with upper and lower 95 percent confidence intervals. EPA converted these estimates into
density estimates (adult fish per square meter of habitat) with information on the size of the habitat in each location (personal
communication, M. Camisa, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). The estimated adult cunner populations, the
size of the breakwater habitats, and the resulting adult cunner abundance estimates for the central and upper 95 percent
confidence interval estimate are presented in Table G5-22.
G5-23
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrookand Pilgrim
Chapter 65; HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table S5-2E: Adult Cunner Abundance Estimates in Reef Habitat of the
Inner and Outer Breakwaters at the Pilgrim Facility
Location
Estimated
Habitat Area ;
(mJ)
Year
Adult Cuimer Population
Estimate
Assumed Adult Cunner
Density Estimates
(fish/m*)
Central
Estimate
; Upper 95% CI
Estimate
Based on Central
Estimate
Based on Upper
95% CI Estimate
Outer breakwater
1,060
1994
3,628
4,265
3.42
4.02
1995
5,833
7,569
5.50
7.14
Average
4,731
5,917
4.46
5.58
Inner breakwater
992 :
1994
3,780
5,772
3.81
5.82
1995
3,467
4,127
3.49
4.16
Average
3,624
4,950
3.65
4.99
Average across inner and outer breakwaters
4.06
5.29
G5-5.3.2 Adjusting artificial reef sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA made sampling efficiency, life stage conversion, and restored versus
undisturbed habitat adjustments to production estimates for artificial reef habitats. These adjustments are discussed below.
Sampling efficiency
EPA incorporated the same sampling efficiency adjustment factor of 2.0 for the tautog abundance estimates developed from
the Rhode Island juvenile finflsh survey as was used in the sampling efficiency adjustments from this survey for winter
flounder. The 2.0 adjustment factor represents the bottom range (cost reducing assumption) of a seine net's sampling
efficiency (50 percent), based on the judgment of the current staff of Rhode Island's coastal pond fish survey (personal
communication, J. Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2002).
The sampling efficiency of the baited traps and tagging procedure used in Lawton et al. (2000) was assumed to be 1.0, since
the results of the study already incorporate sampling efficiency for cunner as reported.
Conversion to the age 1 equivalent life stage
The information used to develop life stage adjustment factors for juvenile fish to age 1 equivalents is presented in Table G5-
23 for the species other than cunner impinged or entrained at Pilgrim and identified as benefitting most from artificial reef
development (sampled cunner were mostly adults, as described below).
Table S5-23: Life Stage Adjustment Factors for Pilgrim Species — Artificial Reef
Species
Oldest Life Stage before Age 1
in the EAM
Estimated Survival
Rate to Age 1
Sampled Life
Stage
Estimated Survival Rate
for Juveniles to Age 1
Rock gunnel
larvae
0.1416
juvenile
0.5708
Radiated sharuiy
larvae
0.0853
juvenile
0.5426
Sculpin spp.
larvae
0.0180
juvenile
0.5090
Tautog
larvae
0.0001
juvenile
0.5001
The Rhode Island juvenile finfish survey primarily captures juvenile tautog. However, the size distribution of cunner reported
by Lawton et al. (2000) suggests that primarily adult fish were captured. Some of these cunner were most likely older than
age !. To convert the raw cunner numbers to age 1 equivalents, EPA used the same factor of 1.39 that was used in the EAM
to convert the raw numbers of cunner impinged to age I equivalents.
(75-24
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Adjusting for differences between restored and undisturbed Habitats
EPA incorporated an adjustment factor of 1,0 because no available information suggested that artificial reefs are used
substantially less than natural reefs by the species listed in Table G5-20 and/or that significant delays in the use of artificial
reefs follows their emplacement. To the extent lower levels of fish species use or delays in such use do occur with artificial
reefs, incorporating an adjustment factor of 1.0 represents a cost-reducing assumption.
65-5.3.3 Final estimates of increases in age 1 production for artificial reefs
Table G5-24 presents the final estimates of annual increased production of age 1 fish, based on the average across all
sampling efforts, that would result from artificial reef development for species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim.
Table 65-24: Final Estimates of Annual Increased Production of Age 1 Equivalent Fish per Square
Meter of Artificial Reef Developed for Pilgrim Species
Species
Source of Initial
Species Density
Estimate
Species
Abundance
Estimates
; (fish/nr reel)
Sampling
Efficiency
Adjustment
Factor
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
Restored vs.
Undisturbed
Habitat
Adjustment
Factor
Expected Age 1
Increased
Production (fish
per trr artificial
reel)
Rock gunnel
; Unknown
Radiated
shanny
i Unknown
Cunner
Lawton et al. (2000),
; Plymouth MA
: 4.06'
1.0
1.39
1.0
5,64
Sculpin spp.
: Unknown
Tautog
;RI juvenile fin fish
; survey, 1990-2000:
; Patience Island
0.028
2.0
0.5001
1.0
0.03
R1 juvenile tin fish
survey. 1990-2000:
; Spar Island
0.031
2.0
0.5001
1.0
0.03
Species average
0.03
* Average of the central population estimates for the inner and outer breakwaters.
<55-5.4 Estimates of Increased Species Production from Installed Fish Passageways
A habitat-based option for increasing the production of anadromous species is to increase their access to suitable spawning
and nursery habitat by installing fish passageways at currently impassible barriers (e.g., dams). The anadromous species
impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that would benefit most from fish passageways are presented in Table G5-25, along with
information on their annual average I&E losses for the period 1974-1999.
Table G5-25: Anadromous Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at
Pilgrim that Would Benefit Mast from Fish Passageways
Species
Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents (1974-1999)
Percentage of Total I&E
Losses across All Fish Species
Rainbow smelt
1,330,022
9.23%
Atewife
i 4,343
0.03%
Bluebaek herring
j 703
0.00%
White perch
| 73 :
0,00%
Total
1335,141
9,26%
GS-25
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Port 6: 5eabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Lasses
£5-5.4.1 Abundance estimates for anadromous species
No studies provided direct estimates of increased production of anadromous fish attributable to the installation of a fish
passageway. Thus, EPA based increased production estimates on abundance estimates from anadromous species monitoring
programs in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, combined with an estimate of the average increase in suitable spawning habitat
that would be provided upstream of the current impassible obstacles following the installation of fish passageways.
Anadromous species abundance in Massachusetts and Rhode Island spawning/nursery habitats
Information on the abundance of anadromous species in spawning/nursery habitat in Massachusetts was available only for a
select number of alewife spawning runs in the area around the Cape Cod canal, including locations in Massachusetts Bay and
Buzzards Bay (personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Alewife abundance
information was also available for the spawning runs at the Gilbert Stuart and Nonquit locations in Rhode Island. These runs
are almost exclusively alewives, despite being reported as runs of river herring (i.e., blueback herring and alewives; personal
communication, P. Edwards, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The size of these alewife runs
and the associated abundance estimates (number of fish per acre) in available spawning/nursery habitat are presented in Table
G5-26.
The Mattapoisett system has low spawning habitat utilization by alewives because of continuing recovery of the system
(personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). Therefore, the Mattapoisett River
values were omitted. This raised the production estimates for fish passageways and reduced the restoration costs for
implementing sufficient fish passageways.
Table 65-26: Average Run Size and tensity of Alewives in Spawning
Nursery Habitats in Select Massachusetts Waterbodies
Waterbody
Average Alewife Run Size
(number of fish)
: Average Number of Fish per Acre of
Spawning/Nursery Habitat
Back River (MA)
(12 year average)
373,608
I 766
Mattapoisett River1
(12 year average)
66,457
; 90
Monument River (MA)
{12 year average)
367,521
j 811
Nonquit system (Rl)
(1999-2001 average)
192,173
; 951
Gilbert Stuart system (RI)
(1999-2001 average)
311,839
; 4,586
Average across all sites presented
1 1,441
Average without Mattapoisett River
: 1,778
• The Mattapoisett River is currently in recovery and production has been increasing in recent years (personal communication,
K. Reback, Massachuset Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001).
Average size of spawning/nursery habitat that would be accessed with the installation of
fish passageways
Anadromous fisheries staff in Massachusetts revealed that approximately 5 acres of additional spawning/nursery habitat
would become accessible for each average passageway installed (personal communication, K. Reback, Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries, 2001). This estimate reflects the fact that previous projects have already provided access to
most of the available large spawning/nursery habitats.
GS-26
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabroak and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of ME Losses
£5-5.4.2 Adjusting anadromous run sampling results to estimate annual average increase in
production of age 1 fish
As with the other restoration alternatives, EPA considered a number of adjustment factors. However, information was much
more limited upon which to base these adjustments. Adjustments to convert returning alewives to age 1 equivalents and to
account for sampling efficiency were not incorporated (i.e., assumed to be 1.0) because of a lack of information. In addition,
nothing suggested a basis for adjustments based on differences between existing and new spawning habitat accessed via fish
passageways or a lag in use of spawning habitat once access is provided, so EPA used an adjustment factor of 1.0.
S5-5.4.3 Final estimates of annual age 1 equivalent increased species production
The density of anadromous species in their spawning/nursery habitat, the average increase in spawning/nursery habitat from
installation of fish passageways, and adjustment'factors are presented in Table G5-27.
Table S5-27: Estimates af Increased Age 1 Fish for Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Would
Benefit Most from Installation of Fish Passageways
Species
Source of Initial
Species Density
Estimate
Species Density
Estimate in
Spawning/Nursery
Habitat
(fish per acre)
Number of Additional
Spawning/Nursery
Habitat Acres per New
Passageway
Life Stage
Adjustment
Factor
New vs.
Existing
Habitat
Adjustment
Factor
Calculated Annual
Increase in Age 1
Fish per New
Passageway
Installed*
Rainbow
smelt
Unknown
Aiewife
Mattapoisett River
— (K. Reback MA
DMF pers. comm.
2001)
90
5
1
1
452
Monument River —
(K. Reback MA
DMF pers. comm.
2001)
811
5
I
1
4,054
Back River — (K.
Reback MA DMF
pers. comm, 2001)
766
5
I
1
3,828
Nonquit river
system —
(P. Edwards, Rt
DEM, pers comm,
2001)
951
5
1
1
4,757
Gilbert Stuart river
system — (P.
Edwards, Ri DEM,
pers comm, 2001)
4,586
5
1
1
22,929
Species average (excluding Mattapoisett River)1"
8,892
Blueback
herring
Unknown
White
perch
Unknown
" This value is the product of the values in the five data fields. Species density estimates rounded for presentation.
b As previously noted, the Mattapoisett results are excluded in calculating the species average for ate wife because the low density
estimates are attributable to the system recovering from previous stressors.
G5-27
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6; Sen brook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IdE Losses
G5-5.5 Estimates of Remaining Losses in Age 1 Fish Production from Species
Without an Identified Habitat Restoration Alternative
Some species lost to I&E at Pilgrim do not benefit directly and/or predictably from SAV restoration, tidal wetland restoration,
artificial reef construction, or improved passageways because the species are pelagic, spawn in deep water, or spawn in
unknown or poorly understood habitats. The species impinged or entrained at Pilgrim that fall into this category are listed in
Table G5-28, along with their annual average I&E losses for 1974-1999.
Table G5-28- Fish Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim that Lack a Habitat Restoration Alternative
Species
Average Annual I&E Loss or Age 1
Equivalent Organisms (1974-1999)
Percentage of Total l&E Losses
for All Finfish or Shellfish Species
Finfish
Fourbeard rockling
411,191
2.85%
Atlantic herring
j 29,079
0.20%
Windowpane
17,542
0.12%
Atlantic menhaden
i 14,270
0.10%
Atlantic mackerel
| 6,662
0.05%
Searobin
j 3,767
0.03%
Red hake
1,774
0.01%
Lumpfish
! 1,297
0.01%
Butterfish
; 399
0.00%
American plaice
221
0.00%
Scup
114
0.00%
Little skate
j* 78
0.00%
Bay anchovy
j 18
0.00%
Hogchoker
! 2
0.00%
Total
486,414
337%
Shellfish
Blue mussels
i 160,000,000.000"
¦ 100%
3 Rounded to the nearest billion.
Despite the magnitude of I&E losses for these species, it was beyond the scope of this Section 316(b) HRC analysis to
develop quantitative estimates of the increased production of age 1 fish and shellfish for these species through habitat
restoration alternatives.
G5-6 Step 6; Scaling Preferred Restoration Alternatives
The following subsections calculate the required scale of implementation for each of the preferred restoration alternatives for
each species. The quantified I&E losses are divided by the estimates of the increased fish production, giving the total amount
of each restoration needed to offset I&E losses for each species.
S5-6.1 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Scaling
The information used to scale SAV restoration is presented in Table G5-29.
GS-28
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table 65-29: Scaling of SAV Restoration Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Species
: Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1999)
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age 1 Fish per
100 m2 of Revegetated Substrate
(rounded)
Number of 100 m1 Units of
Revegetated SAV Required to
Offset Estimated Average Annual
I&E Loss
Northern pipefish
; 118
2.50
47
Threespine stickleback 118
19.29
6
Atlantic cod
; 2,439
Unknown
Unknown
Pollock
525
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset l&E losses for all of these species
47
G5-6.2 Tidal Wetlands Scaling
The information used to scale tidal wetland restoration is presented in Table G5-30,
Table 65-30: Scaling of Tidal Wetland Restoration for Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Species
; Annual Average I&E ;
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1999)
Best Estimate of Increased
i Production of Age 1 Fish per ra! ;
of Restored Tidal Wetland
(rounded)
Number of m! Units of Restored
Tidal Wetland Required to Offset
Estimated Average Annual
I&E loss*
Winter flounder
! 210,715
: 0.09 i
2,429,812
Atlantic silverside
I 25,929
i 019
139,539
Striped killifish
1 90
! 0.17 ;
527
American sand lance
| 4,116,285
: Unknown
Unknown
Grubby
! 879
; Unknown :
Unknown
Striped bass
! 9
Unknown j
Unknown
Bluefish
i 2
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed unit* of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species;
2,429,812
' A restored wetland area refers to an area in a currently restricted tidal wetland where invasive species (e.g., Phragmites spp.)
have overtaken salt tolerant tidal marsh vegetation (e.g., Spartina spp.) and that is expected to revert to typical tidal marsh
vegetation once tidal flows are returned. Waterways adjacent to these vegetated areas are also included in calculating the potential
area that could be restored in a tidal wetland,
65-6,3 Reef Scaling
The information used to scale artificial reef development is presented in Table G5-31.
Table G5-31: Scaling of Artificial Reef Development for Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Species
\ Annual Average I&E Loss
of Age 1 Equivalents
(1974-1999)
Best Estimate of Increased
Production of Age I Fish per m2 of
Artificial Reef (rounded)
Number of m! Units of Artificial Reef
Surface Habitat Required to Offset
Estimated Average Annual I&E Loss
Gunner
993,911
5.64
176,218
Tautog
i 1,076
0.03
36,699
Rock gunnel
1 4,862,872
Unknown
Unknown
Radiated shanny
i 1,644,456
Unknown
Unknown
Sculpin species
i 734,773
Unknown
Unknown
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
176,218
G5-29
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &'¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HfiC Valuation of I&E Losses
65-6.4 Anadromous Fish Passage Scaling
The information used to scale fish passageway installation is presented in Table G5-32,
Table (55-32: Scaling of Anadromous Fish Passageways for Species Impinged or Entrained at Pilgrim
Species
Annual Average I&E
Loss of Age 1
Equivalents
(1974-1999)
Best Estimate of Increased Production
of Age 1 Fish per Passageway
Installed (rounded)
Number of New Fish Passageways
Required to Offset Estimated
Average Annual I&E Loss
Alewife
4,343
8,892
0.49
Rainbow smelt
1,320,022
Unknown
Unvalued
BJueback herring
703
Unknown
Unvalued
White perch
73
Unknown
Unvalued
Assumed units of implementation required to offset I&E losses for all of these species
0.49
65-7 Unit Costs
The seventh step of the HRC valuation is to develop unit cost estimates for the restoration alternatives. Unit costs account for
all the anticipated expenses associated with the actions required to implement and maintain restoration. Unit costs also
include the cost of monitoring to determine if the scale of restoration is sufficient to provide the anticipated increase in the
production of age 1 fish per unit of restored habitat.
The standard HRC costing approach generally develops an estimate of the amount of money that would be required up front
to cover all restoration costs over the relevant timeframe for the project. Hence, HRC accounting procedures generally
consider interest earnings on money not immediately spent, and also factor in anticipated inflation for expenses to be incurred
in the future. EPA used HRC costs as a proxy for "benefits" which are then compared to costs in the cost-benefit analysis
chapter. Therefore, the Agency reinterpreted the standard HRC costing approach to make it consistent with the annualized
costs used in the costing chapter of the EBA.
For this analysis, EPA annualized the HRC costs by separating the initial program outlays (one time expenditures for land,
technologies, etc.) from the recurring annual expenses (e.g., for monitoring). The initial program outlays were treated as a
capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7 percent interest rate. EPA then estimated the present value (PV).
using a 7 percent interest rate, of the annual expenses for the 10 years of monitoring of increased fish production that are
incorporated in the design of each of the habitat restoration alternatives. This PV was then annualized over a 20 year period,
again using a 7 percent interest rate. This process effectively treats the monitoring expenses associated with the habitat
restoration alternatives consistently with the annual operating and maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic
impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. The annualized monitoring costs were then added to the annualized cost of the
initial program outlays to calculate a total annualized cost for the habitat restoration alternative.
The following subsections present the cost components for the habitat restoration alternatives in this HRC along with the
estimates of the annualized costs for implementation costs (i.e., one-time outlays), monitoring costs, and implementation and
monitoring costs combined (all costs presented in year 2000 dollars).
£5-7.1 Unit Costs of SAV Restoration
EPA expressed annualized unit cost estimates for 100 m2 of SAV habitat to provide a direct link to the increased fish
production estimates for SAV restoration based on information from a number of completed and ongoing projects. The
following subsections describe the development of the annualized implementation and monitoring costs for SAV restoration.
G5-7.1.1 Implementation costs
Save the Bay has a long history of SAV habitat assessment and restoration in Narragansett and Mount Hope Bays. A Save the
Bay SAV restoration project begun in the summer of 2001 involved transplanting eelgrass to revegetate 16 m2 of habitat at
G5-30
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &"¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
each of three sites in Narragansett Bay. EPA used cost information from this project to develop unit cost estimates for
implementing SAV restoration per 100 m7 of re vegetated habitat.
Save the Bay's cost proposal estimated that $93,128 would be required to collect and transplant eelgrass shoots from donor
SAV beds over 48 m2 of revegetated habitat. These costs include collecting and transplanting the SAV shoots to provide an
initial density of400 shoots per revegetated square meter of substrate. Averaged over the 48 m2 of habitat being revegetated,
this provides an average unit cost of $ 1,940 per nr. The unit costs comprise the following categories:
~ labor: 70.7 percent (includes salaried staff with benefits, consultants, and accepted rates for volunteers)
~ boats: 15.2 percent (expenses for operating the boat for the collecting and transplanting)
~ materials and equipment: 9.6 percent
~ overhead: 4.6 percent (calculated as a flat percentage of the labor expenses for the salaried staff).
Contingency expenses were set at 10 percent ($194 per m2). The costs of identifying and evaluating the suitability of
potential restoration sites were set at 1 percent ($19 per m2). No costs were added for maintaining the service flows provided
by the project, because SAV restoration requires little direct maintenance.
Costs were also adjusted to account for natural growth and spreading from the original transplant sites to the bare spots
between transplants (Short et aL, 1997). For example, Dr. Frederick Short (University of New Hampshire's Jackson
Estuarine Laboratory) planted between 120 and 130 TERFS (Transplanting Eelgrass Remotely with Frame Systems), each 1
nr. in each acre of seabed to be revegetated at a SAV restoration site (personal communication, P. Colarusso, U.S. EPA
Region 1, 2002). Assuming complete coverage over time, this results in a ratio of plantings to total coverage of between 1:31
(130 1 m1 TERFS / 4,047 m2 per acre) and 1:34 (120 1 m2 TERFS / 4,047 m2 per acre).
However, the initially bare areas between transplants do not revegetate immediately and the unit costs need to be adjusted
accordingly. Therefore, EPA assumed that the area covered with SAV would double each year. Under this assumption, the
entire restoration area would be completely covered with SAV in the sixth year of the restoration project. Using the habitat
equivalency analysis (HEA) method (Peacock, 1999), the present value of the natural resource service flows from the SAV
over the 6 year revegetation scenario is 90 percent of that provided by a scenario where the entire restoration area is
instantaneously revegetated with transplanted shoots.1 Therefore, EPA applied 90 percent of the 1:34 planting-to-coverage
ratio, or 1:30 as an adjustment factor to Save the Bay's cost estimates to account for the expected spreading from transplanted
sites to bare areas in a SAV restoration area. Table G5-33 presents the components of implementation unit cost for SAV
restoration, incorporating this adjustment ratio in the last step.
Table 65-33: Implementation Unit Costs for SAV Restoration
Expense Category
I Cost perm2 of SAV Restored ; Cost per 100 itf of SAV Restored
Direct restoration
(shoot collection and transplant)
SI,940 :
S 194,000
Contingency costs
(10% of direct restoration)
$194
SI 9,400
Restoration site assessment (1% of direct
restoration)
SI9
SI,900
Subtotal without allowance for distribution of
transplanted SAV shoots
$2,154 i
£215,400
Discounted planting to coverage ratio for
transplanted SAV
30:1 :
30:1
Final implementation unit costs
; $71.80 i
S7.180
Annualized implementation unit costs
$6.76 |
$676
1 The HEA method provides a quantitative framework for calculating the present value of resource service flows that are
expected/observed to change over time.
GS-31
-------
6 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
65-7.1.2 Monitoring costs
SAV restoration monitoring improves the inputs to the HRC analysis by quantifying the impact of the SAV restoration on fish
production/recruitment in the restoration area, and the rate of growth and expansion of the restored SAV bed, including
whether areas need to be replanted. The most efficient way to achieve both of these goals would be for divers to evaluate the
number of adult fish in the habitat and the vegetation density, combined with throw trap or drop trap sampling of juvenile fish
using the habitat (Short et al,, 1997). Diver-based monitoring minimizes damage to sites, expands the areas that can be
sampled, and increases sampling efficiency compared to trawl-based monitoring (personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA
Marine Biological Laboratory, 2001).
Save the Bay provided hourly rates for the divers and captain (personal communication, A. Lipsky, Save the Bay, 2001), and
the daily rate for the boat was based on rate information from NOAA's Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole
(personal communication, J. Hughes, NOAA, 2001). Because SAV monitoring costs will be significantly affected by the size,
number, and distance between restored SAV habitats, large areas can be covered in a single day only when continuous
habitats are surveyed. Smaller, disconnected habitats will require much more time to cover. Therefore, total monitoring costs
are somewhat unpredictable, Unit costs for monitoring were therefore assumed to be equal to the initial per unit revegetation
costs in terms of the up front funding that would be required to cover the 10 years of monitoring (i.e., $7,180). Under the
typical HRC costing construct this was equivalent to a per unit monitoring expense in the first year of $787. This simplifying
assumption is unbiased (i.e., it is not known or expected to over- or underestimate costs). The summary of the available SAV
monitoring costs and the calculated annualized per unit monitoring cost based on an assumed annual expense of $787 per unit
are presented in Table G5-34.
Table S5-34: Estimated Annual Unit Costs for a SAV Restoration Monitoring Program
Annual Expenditures
Expense Category Quantity
Daily Rate
Total Cost
Monitoring crew : 3 (2 divers and boat captain/assistant) |
$268
S804
Monitoring boat . 1 ,
S150
$150
Total daily rate
S954
Assumed annual cost for SAV monitoring per 100 m2 restored habitat
$787
Annualized monitoring cost per 100 m2 restored habitat
S557
65-7.1,3 Total submerged aquatic vegetation restoration costs
Combining the annualized unit costs for implementation and monitoring, the total annualized cost for a 100 m2 unit of SAV
restoration is 51,234 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
65-7,2 Unit Costs of Tidal Wetland Restoration
Many different actions may be needed to restore flows to a wetland site, and project costs can vary widely, depending on the
actions taken and a number of site-specific conditions (e.g., salinity levels at proposed restoration sites). These issues are
addressed in the following subsections, which present the development of the unit costs for tidal wetland restoration.
65-7.2.1 Implementation costs
Costs for restoration of tidally restricted marshes depend heavily on the type of restriction that is impeding tidal flow into the
wetland and the amount of degradation that has occurred as a result. Possible sources of the restriction in tidal flow include
improperly designed or located roads, railroads, bridges, and dikes, all of which can eliminate tidal flows or restrict tidal
flows via improperly sized openings. A compilation of tidally restricted salt marsh restoration projects in the Buzzards Bay
watershed (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, 2001) describes restrictions and costs to return tidal flows to
over 130 sites. These cost estimates include expenses for project design, permitting, and construction, and are estimated on a
predictive cost equation that was fitted from the actual costs and budgets for a limited number of projects (Buzzards Bay
Project National Estuary Program, 2001).
G5-32
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65; HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Staff involved in the Buzzards Bay assessment provided the current project database, which includes the following
information (personal communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001):
~ nature of the tidal restriction
~ estimated cost to address the tidal restriction
~ size of the affected tidal wetland (in acres)
~ acreage of the Phragmites in the tidally restricted wetland.
Public agencies undertook some of the work in the projects used to develop the cost estimation equation for the tidally
restricted wetlands in the Buzzards Bay watershed. Because the costs from public agencies are generally lower than market
prices (i.e., the price for the same work if completed by private contractors), EPA adjusted the cost estimates upward by a
factor of 2.0, consistent with the adjustment recommended in the report (Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program,
2001) and discussions with project staff and others involved with tidal wetlands restoration programs in the area (personal
communication, J. Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program, 2001; personal communication, S. Block, Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs - Wetlands Restoration Program, 2001).
The adjusted total project costs from the Buzzards Bay project database were then divided by the reported acres of
Phragmites in the wetland to calculate the cost per acre for restoring tidally restricted wetlands where Phragmites had
replaced the salt tolerant vegetation characteristic of a healthy tidal wetland (sites with no reported acres of Phragmites were
eliminated from consideration).2 Table G5-35 summarizes costs based on the cost factor (an input in the cost estimation
equation), type of restriction found at the site, and the number of Phragmites acres at the location. An alternative summary of
these projects is presented in Table G5-36, where the projects are organized by acres of Phragmites at the site, not the current
tidal restriction.
Combined, Tables G5-35 and G5-36 show significant variability in the per acre costs for tidal wetland restoration. Therefore,
EPA incorporated the median cost of $71,000 per acre of tidal wetland restoration into the HRC valuation and calculation of
the unit cost for tidal wetland restoration. Table G5-37 presents the final per acre implementation costs for tidal wetland
restoration and the annualized equivalent implementation cost incorporated in this HRC. These costs include the median per
acre restoration cost of $71,000 and a $750 per acre fee to reflect the assumed purchase price for this type of land based on
the experience of purchases of similar types of land parcels by the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's
Land Acquisition Group (personal communication, L. Primiano, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management,
2001).
2 The adjustment of reported costs upward by a factor of 2.0 was made solely to reflect expected cost differences between private
contractors and public agencies that might perform the work required to restore full tidal flows. Additional site specific factors, such as
salinity levels, that may affect project costs by influencing the types of actions taken and/or the time to successful restoration of typical
tidally influenced wetland vegetation at a project site have not been incorporated in this adjustment process.
G5-33
-------
Chapter 65; HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table ©5-35: Salt Marsh Restoration Costs
Restriction
Structure Class
:
:
j
Cost
Factor
: i
: :
j Phragmites Acres j
: :
Number
of Sites
Cumulative
Phragmites
Acreage
across sites
Average
; Phragmites
Acreage
; Total Private
Cost*
:
i
Average Cost per
Phragmites Acre
Restored
:
:
;
:
Minimum Cost i
per Phragmites }
Acre Restored i
Maximum Cost per
Itragmites Acre Restored
culvert
0,5
;
; acres < 1 ;
16
6.59
; o.4i
i S335,357
$50,889
$17,921 1
$578,081
culvert
0,5
! | < acres < 5 ;
11
20.37
i 1,85
| $242,496
$11,903
$3,242 j
$71,045
culvert
0.5
;5 < acres < 10 j
1
8.56
i 8.56
; $20,825
$2,434
$2,434 j
$2,434
dike
:
0.5
;acres < 1 ;
1
!
;
0.35
0.35
4
; $13,211
j
$38,073
$38,073 !
$38,073
road
0,5
: 1 < acres < 5 '
1
1.67
; i .67
: $19,116
$11,447
i
$11,447 j
$11,447
culvert
1
I acres < 1 ;
,j
31
13.26
1 0.43
i $1,797,450
$135,585
$21,518 ;
$10,490,647
culvert
1
; 1 < acres < 5
23
46.02
; 2.00
| $1,225,745
i
$26,633
:
$5,312
$84,770
culvert
1
;5< acres <10 ;
2
16.43
8.22
i $248,878
$15,144
$9,898 i
$22,608
culvert
1
j 10 < acres <25 ;
2
41.97
| 20.99
i $91,451
:
$2,179
i
$1,919 |
$2,449
dike
1
; 10 < acres <25 !
1
12.00
: 12.00
| $6,053,000
$504,417
$504,417
$504,417
fill
1
:acres < 1 i
1
0.12
; 0.12
: $31,142
$251,146
$251,146 i
$251,146
road
1
Iacres < 1 ;
1
;
0.10
| 0.10
! $29,396
$293,958
$293,958 ;
$293,958
road
1
11 < acres < 5 ;
1
2.31
j 2.31
! $35,231
$15,265
$15,265 i
$15,265
wall
1
i acres < 1 ¦¦
2
0.96
; 0.48
; $148,819
$154,697
$25,661 |
$5,936,752
bridge
3
acres < I j
8
i
5.12
: 0.64
i $21,208,029
:
$4,140,576
• $184,170
$13,418,293 .
bridge
3
j 1 < acres < 5 !
12
:
27.32
| 2.28
1 $27,704,691
:
$1,014,192
:
$184,048 !
$3,663,062
bridge
3
< acres <10 j
2
11.01
j 5.51
! $6,606,000
$599,946
$399,746 ;
$800,545
bridge
:
3
j 10 < acres <25 ;
8
103.49
j 12,94
j $92,094,000
$889,883
:
1
$56,300 i
$3,300,250
bridge
3
;25 < acres < 50 i
4
i
157.28
i 39.32
! $8,262,000
$52,529
1
$22,882 ;
$105,968
bridge
:
3
;50 < acres i
1
113.00
j 113.00
| S6,163,000
:
$54,540
$54,540 j
$54,540
railroad
4
i acres < 1 !
1
:
:
0.41
: 0.41
; $66,841
$163,826
$163,826 ;
$163,826
railroad
4
: 1 < acres < 5 1
3
:
3.61
: 1.20
j $1,078,692
!
$298,476
i
$208,033 =
$13,418,293
' Private costs were estimated by multiplying reported project costs by an adjustment factor of 2,0 to approximate the expense if all work was completed by private contractors.
G5-34
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IiSE Losses
Table 65-36: Average per Acre Cost of Restoring Phragmites in
Buzzards Bay Restricted Tidal Wetlands, by Size Class of Site
Phragmites Acres
Number of
Sites
Cumulative
Phragmites
Acreage across
sites
Average
Acreage
Total Private Cost
Average Cost per Phragmites
Acre Restored (from total
cost and acres)
acres < 1
61
26.91
0.44
523,630,245
$878,121
1 < acres < 5
51
101,31
1.99
$30,305,971
$299,153
5 < acres < 10
5
36.00
7.20
$6,875,703
$190,992
10 < acres < 25
11
157.46
14.31
598,238,451
$623,895
25 < acres < 50
4
157.28
39.32
$8,262,000
152,529
50 < acres
1
113.00
113.00
$6,163,000
$54,540
Total
133
591.96
4.45
$173,475,370
$293,053 (median = $71,000)
Table G5-37: Implementation Costs per Acre of
Tidol Wetland Restoration Incorporated in the HRC valuation
Implementation Cost Description
Source of Estimate
Cost
Restore tidal flows to restricted areas
Median of adjusted costs from Buzzards
Bay project database
$71,000
Acquire tidal wetlands
Midpoint of range of paid for tidal
wetlands by Rhode Island DEM
$750
Total one time implementation costs
$71,750
Annualized implementation costs
$6,758
65-7.2.2 Monitoring costs
Neckles and Dionne (1999) present a sampling protocol, developed by a workgroup of experts, for evaluating nekton use in
restored tidal wetlands. The sampling plan calls for different sampling techniques and frequencies to capture fish of various
sizes in both creek and flooded marsh habitats of a tidal wetland. A summary of these recommendations is presented in
Table G5-38.
Table 65-38'- Sampling guidelines for Nekton in Restored Tidal Wetlands
Sampling Location
! Sampling Technique : Sampling Time
Sampling Frequency
Creeks
; Throw traps ; midtide
: 2 dates in August
(for small fish)
Creeks
; Fyke net slack tide
2 dates in August (same as for throw trap
(for larger fish)
; work) and 2 dates in spring
Flooded wetland surface
; Fyke net i entire tide cycle
1 date in August
Source: Neckles and Dionne, 1999.
The sampling protocol suggests that one technician and two volunteers can provide the necessary labor. The estimated annual
cost in the first year of monitoring is $1,600. This cost comprises $490 in labor for the three workers over 5 days (3 in
August and 2 in the spring, with 8-hour days, $ 15 per hour for volunteers, and $30 per hour for the technician). The $ 1,100 in
equipment costs includes two fyke nets at $500 each and two throw traps at $50 each (Neckles and Dionne, 1999). The
annualized equivalent of these monitoring costs is $1,146 and is applied as a per-acre cost for monitoring in this HRC
valuation.
G5-35
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part G: Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
65-7.2.3 Total tidal wetland restoration costs
Combining the annualized per-acre implementation and monitoring costs for tidal wetland restoration results in an annualized
per-acre cost for tidal wetland restoration of $7,904. This is equivalent to an annualized cost for tidal wetland restoration of
$1.95 per m3 of restored tidal wetland (4,047 m2 = 1 acre) which is incorporated into this HRC for consistency with the
estimates of increased ftsh production from tidal wetland restoration which are also expressed on a per m2 basis.
G5-7.3 Artificial Reef Unit Costs
The unit cost estimates for developing and monitoring artificial reefs are based the construction and monitoring of six 30 fl x
60 ft reefs made of 5-30 cm diameter stone in Dutch Harbor, Narragansett Bay (personal communication, J. Catena, NOAA
Restoration Center, 2001). While these reefs were constructed for lobsters, surveys of the Dutch Harbor reef have noted
abundant fish use of the structures (personal communication, K. Castro, University of Rhode island, 2001).
65-7.3.1 Implementation costs
The summary cost information for the design and construction of the six reefs in Dutch Harbor, as it was received is presented
in Table G5-39 (personal communication, J. Catena, NOAA Restoration Center, 2001).
Table 65-39: Summary Cost Information for Six Artificial Reefs in Dutch Harbor, Rhode Island
Project Component
Cost
Project design
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Permitting
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Interagency coordination
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
RFP preparation
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Contract management
not explicitly valued, received as in-kind services
Baseline site evaluation
Reef materials (600 yd'of 2-i 2~iiT stone)
Reef construction
512,280
$12,000
$35,400
Total
$59,680
EPA converted these costs to cost per square meter of surface habitat. The cumulative surface area of the six reefs, assuming
that the reefs have a sloped surface on both sides, and based on the volume of material used, is approximately 1,024 in2.
Dividing the total project costs by this surface area results in an implementation cost of $58/'m2 of artificial reef surface
habitat with an equivalent annualized implementation cost of $5.49.'nr\
65-7.3.2 Monitoring costs
Monitoring costs for the Dutch Harbor reefs were $140,000 over a 5 year period. Assuming this reflects an annual
monitoring cost of $28,000, the equivalent annual monitoring cost is $27/mJ of artificial reef surface habitat with an
equivalent annualized cost of $19,36/m2.
65-7.3.3 Total artificial reef costs
Combining the annualized costs for implementation and monitoring of an artificial reef provides a total annualized cost of
$24,85/m2 which EPA used in the Pilgrim HRC valuation.
65-7.4 Costs of Anadromous Fish Passageway Improvements
EPA developed unit costs for fish passageways from a series of budgets for prospective anadromous fish passageway
installation, combined with information provided by staff involved with anadromous species programs in Massachusetts and
G5-36
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Rhode Island. The implementation, maintenance, and monitoring costs for a fish passageway are presented in the following
subsections,
©5-7.4.1 Implementation costs
Projected costs for four new Denil type fish passageways on the Blackstone River at locations in Pawtucket and Central Falls,
Rhode Island, provide the base for the implementation cost estimates for anadromous fish passageways (personal
communication, T, Ardito, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001). The reported lengths of the
passageways in these projects ranged from 32 m to 82 m, with changes in vertical elevation ranging from slightly more than 4
m to approximately 10 m.
The average cost for these projects was $513,750 per project. The average cost per meter of passageway length was $10,300
and per meter of vertical elevation covered was $82,600. These estimates are consistent with the approximate values of
$9,800 per meter of passageway length and $98,000 per vertical meter suggested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
regional Engineering Field Office (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). While all
parties contacted noted that fish passageway costs are extremely sensitive to local conditions, EPA used the estimate of
$513,750 as the basic implementation unit cost for installing an anadromous fish passage, assuming the characteristics of the
four sites on the Blackstone River are representative of the conditions that would be found at other suitable locations for new
passageways.
65-7.4.2 Maintenance and monitoring costs
Maintenance requirements for the Denil fish passageway are minimal and generally consist of periodic site visits to remove
any obstructions, typically with a rake or pole (personal communication, D. Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001),
Denil passageways located in Maine are still functioning after 40 years, so no replacement costs were considered as part of
the maintenance for the structure. Monitoring a fish passageway consists of installing a fish counting monitor and retrieving
its data,
A new fish passageway would be visited three times a week during periods of migration (personal communication, D. Quinn,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2001). Each site visit would require 2 hours of cumulative time during 8 weeks of migration.
Volunteer labor costs of $15,39/hr incorporated in Save the Bay's SAV restoration proposal. Therefore, the annual cost for
labor in the first year would be $740. The cost of a fish counter is $5,512, based on the average price of two fish counters
listed by the Smith-Root Company {Smith-Root, 2001).
£5-7.4.3 Total fish passageway unit costs
In developing the unit costs for fish passageways it is first necessary to combine the expected cost of the passageway itself
with the cost of the fish counter as these are both treated as initial one time costs. This combined cost is $519,262 which has
an equivalent annualized cost of $48,914. The equivalent annualized cost for the anticipated $740 in labor expenses for
monitoring is $523. The resulting combined annualized cost for a new Denil fish passageway that is incorporated in this HRC
valuation is $49,438 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
65-8 Total Cost Estimation
The eighth and final step in the HRC valuation is to estimate the total cost for the preferred restoration alternatives by
multiplying the required scale of implementation for each restoration alternative by the complete annualized unit cost for that
alternative. EPA made a potentially large cost reducing assumption: no additional HRC-derived benefits were counted in the
total benefits figures for species for which habitat productivity data are not available. If this assumption is valid, then the cost
of each valued restoration alternative (except water quality improvement and fishing pressure reduction, which were not
valued) is sufficient to offset the I&E losses of all Pilgrim species that benefit most from that alternative, EPA then summed
the costs of each restoration program to determine the total HRC-based annualized value of all Pilgrim losses (i.e., multiple
restoration programs were required to benefit the diverse species lost at Pilgrim).
The total HRC estimates for the Pilgrim facility are provided in Table G5-40, along with the species requiring the greatest
level of implementation of each restoration alternative to offset I&E losses from among those for which information was
identified that allowed for the development of estimates of increased fish production following implementation of the
restoration alternative.
G5-37
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table 65-40: Total HRC Estimates for Pilgrim I4E Losses
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Species Benefitting from the Restoration
Alternative
Required Units
of Restoration
Implementation*
Units of Measure
for Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
Total
Annualized
Cost
Species
Average Annual
I&E Loss of Age
1 Equivalents
Restore SAV
Northern pipefish
Threespine stickleback
Atlantic cod
Pollack
118
118
2,439
525
47
6
Unknown
Unknown
100 tn2 of directly
revegctated substrate
SI,233.50
157,975
Restore tidal
wetland
Winter flounder
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
American sand lance
Gnibby
Striped bass
Blueftsh
210,715
25,929
90
4,116.285
879
9
2
2,429,812
139,539
527
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
or of restored tidal
wetland
$1.95
S4,746,249
Create artificial
reefs
Cunner
Tautog
Rock gunnel
Radiated shanny
Sculpin spp.
993,911
1,076
4,862,872
1,644,456
734,773
176,218
36,699
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
m2 of reef surface are
S24.85
54,379,701
Install fish
passageways
Alewife
Rainbow smelt
Biueback herring
White perch
4,343
1,330,022
703
73
0.49
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
New fish passageway
S49.437.64
S49,438b
Species not valued
Blue mussel
Fourbeard rockling
Atlantic herring
Windowpane
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic mackerel
Searobin
Red hake
Lumpfish
Butterfish
American plaice
Scup
Little skate
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
160,000,000,000
411,191
29,079
17,542
14,270
6,662
3,767
1,774
1,297
399
221
114
78
18
2
Unknown for all
Restoration measures
unknown — surviva
and reproduction may
be improved by othe
regional objectives
such as improving
water quality or
reducing fishing
pressure if projects
can be identified anc
are permanent
improvements.
N/A
N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation
$9,233,362
* Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold and have been rounded to the nearest unit,
11 Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units, and increased production data are lacking for most affected
anadromous species. Therefore, one new passageway was assumed to be warranted.
To facilitate comparisons with the costs of alternative control technologies that could be considered to reduce I&E losses at
the Pilgrim facility, the combined I&E losses are broken down with separate values developed for the losses to impingement
and entrainment (Tables G5-41 and G5-42 respectively).
A result of interest from Tables G5-41 and G5-42 is that the sum of the valuations of the impingement and entrainment losses
is close to the valuation when the I&E losses were combined ($9.6 million versus $9.2 million). This consistency is not a
given when the HRC process is used to address I&E losses separately from I&E losses combined because different species
may drive the scaling of the restoration alternatives when I&E losses are treated separately (e.g., see the results for tidal
wetlands in Tables G5-4I and G5-42, where different species drive the scaling for the impingement and entrainment losses,
respectively).
An alternative presentation of the HRC valuation of the I&E losses at the Pilgrim facility is presented in Figure G5-5.
G5-38
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HOC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table 65-41: Total HRC Estimates for Impingement Losses at Pilgrim
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Species Benefitting from the Restoration
Alternative
Required Units of
Restoration
Implementation*
Units of Measure
for Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
Total
Annualized
Cost
Species
Average Annual
Impingement Loss
of Age 1
Equivalents
Restore SAV
Northern pipefish
118
47
100 m: of directly
$1,233.50
S57,975
Threespine stickleback
118
6
re vegetated
Atlantic cod
301
Unknown
substrate
Pollack
33
Unknown
Restore tidal
Atlantic silversidc
20,842
112,163
m2 of restored tidal
$1.95
$219,092
wetland
Winter flounder
1,144
13,000
wetland
Striped killifish
90
527
Grubby
879
Unknown
American sand lance
27
Unknown
Striped bass
9
Unknown
Blue fish
2
Unknown
Create artificial
Tautog
201
6,855
m1 of reef surface
S24.85
$170,333
reefs
Cunner
411
70
area
Rock gunnel
77
Unknown
Radiated shanny
54
Unknown
Sculpin spp.
13
Unknown
Install fish
Alewife
4,343
0.49
New fish
149,437.64
S49.438'
passageways •
Rainbow smelt
6,885
Unknown
passageway
Blueback herring
703
Unknown
White perch
73
Unknown
Species not valued
Blue mussel
150
Unknown for ail
Restoration
N/A
N/A
Atlantic herring
8,836
measures unknown
Atlantic menhaden
6,165
— survival and
Butterfish
399
reproduction may
Windowpane
284
be improved by
Red hake
229
other regional
Lumpfish
217
objectives such as
Scup
114
improving water
Little skate
78
quality or reducing
Searobin
69
fishing pressure if
Bay anchovy
18
projects can be
Atlantic mackerel
3
identified and are
Fourbeard roekling
2
permanent
Hogchoker
2
improvements.
American plaice
0
Total annualized HRC valuation
1496,878
• Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
" Anadromous fish passageways must be implemented in whole units, and increased production data are lacking for most affected
anadromous species. Therefore, one new passageway was assumed to be warranted.
G5-39
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: 5eabrook arid Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of IdrE Losses
Table 65-42: Total HRC Estimates for Entrapment Losses at Pilgrim
Species Benefitting from the Restoration
Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Alternative
Required Units
of Restoration
Implementation*
Units of Measure
Total
Annualized
Unit Cost
Total
Annualized
Cost
Species
Average Annual
Entrainment Loss
of Age 1
Equivalents
for Preferred
Restoration
Alternative
Restore SAV
Northern Pipefish
0
0
100 m2 of directly
$1,233.50
Unvalued
Theespine stickleback
0
0
revegetated substrate
Atlantic cod
2,138
Unknown
Pollack
492
Unknown
Restore tidal
Winter flounder
209,571
2,416,621
nr of restored tidal
SI.95
$4,720,482
wetland
Atlantic silverside
Striped killifish
Grubby
Striped bass
Blucfish
American sand lance
5,087
0
0
0
0
4,116,258
27,376
0
0
0
0
Unknown
wetland
Create artificial
Gunner
993,500
176,145
m2 of reef surface
$24.85
$4,377,887
reefs
Tautog
Rock gunnel
Radiated shanny
Sculpin spp.
875
4,892,795
1,644,402
734,760
29,843
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
area
Install fish
Alewife
0
0
New fish
$49,437.64
Unvalued
passageways
Rainbow smelt
Blueback herring
White perch
1,323,137
0
0
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
passageway
Species not valued
Blue mussel
Fourbeard rockling
Atlantic herring
Windowpane
Atlantic menhaden
Atlantic mackerel
Searobin
Red hake
Lumpfish
American plaice
Butterfish
Scup
Little skate
Bay anchovy
Hogchoker
159,000,000,000
411,189
20,243
17,258
8,105
6,659
3,698
1,545
1,080
221
0
0
0
0
0
.Unknown for all
Restoration
measures unknown -
survival and
reproduction may be
improved by other
regional objectives
such as improving
water quality or
reducing fishing
pressure if projects
can be identified and
arc permanent
improvements.
N/A
- N/A
Total annualized HRC valuation
59,098,389
* Numbers of units used to calculate costs for each restoration alternative are shown in bold.
G5-4Q
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &¦ Seabroak and Pilgrim
Chapter 65: HRC Valuation of ISE tosses
Figure 65-5: I«$E Overview: Pilgrim Habitat-Based Replacement Costs (annualized cost results)
2. Tidal wetland restoration costs
I: Atlantic silvcrside $219k/yr
E: winter flounder $4,7M/yr
I&E: winter Ooundcr $4.7M
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G5; HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
65-9 Conclusions
HRC analyses indicate that the cost of replacing organisms lost to I&E at the Pilgrim CWIS through habitat replacement is at
least $9,2 million in terms of annualized costs. This value is significantly greater than the maximum annual value of $0.7
million for Pilgrim calculated by summing the maximum annual values for the various components from the commercial and
recreational loss method. Recreational and commercial fishing values are lower primarily because they include only a small
subset of species, life stages, and human use services that can be linked to fishing. In contrast, the HRC valuation is capable
of valuing many more and, in some cases, all species and life stages, and inherently addresses all of the ecological and public
services derived from organisms included in the analyses, even when the services are difficult to measure or poorly
understood.
Data gaps, time constraints, and budgetary constraints prevented this HRC valuation from addressing most of the aquatic
organisms lost to I&E at the Pilgrim facility. In particular, annual losses of 160 billion blue mussels and 490,000 fish
comprising 14 species were not included in this HRC valuation. In addition, when confronted with data gaps EPA
incorporated many cost-reducing assumptions. The Agency used this approach because the purpose of this analysis is an
evaluation of potential economic losses from I&E at the Pilgrim facility and not to implement the identified restoration
alternatives. The Agency incorporated these cost-reducing assumptions to ensure that benefits of various regulatory options
would not be over estimated. Actual implementation of this HRC analysis in terms of restoring sufficient habitat to offset
I&E losses at the Pilgrim CWIS is probably greater, and possibly much greater, than the current annualized estimate of $9.2
million.
G5-42
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter G6: Benefits Analysis
Chapter G6- Benefits Analysis for
the Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
This chapter presents the results of CPA's evaluation of
the economic benefits associated with reductions in I&E at
the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities.. The economic
benefits that are reported here are based on the values
presented in Chapter G4 and EPA's estimates of current
I&E at these facilities (discussed in Chapter G3 J. Section
G6-1 presents a summary of l&E losses and associated
economic values. Section G6-2 presents economic losses
at Pilgrim expressed in terms of habitat replacement costs
(HRC), as discussed in Chapter G5. Section G6-3
discusses potential benefits of reductions in l&E based on
both the benefits transfer approach presented in Chapter G4
and the HRC approach presented in Chapter G5. Section G6-4 discusses the uncertainties in the benefits analysis.
G6-1 Overview of I&E and Associated Economic Values
The flowchart in Figure G6-1 summarizes how economic values of I&E losses at Seabrook were derived from the l&E
estimates discussed in Chapter G3. Figures G6-2 and G6-3 indicate the distribution of Seabrook's l&E losses by species
category and associated economic values. Figures G6-4 through G6-6 present this information for the Pilgrim facility. These
diagrams reflect baseline losses based on current technology. All dollar values and percentages of losses reflect midpoints of
the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse, and forage values.
Chapter Contents
G6-I
Overview of I&E and Associated Economic
Values
. G6 -1
06-2
Baseline Losses Using HRC Method
G6-3
Anticipated Economic Benefits of Reduced l&E
from Various Technologies - .
.06-8
G6-4
Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties
in the Benefits Analysis
. <36-9
G6-1
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Sea brook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure (56-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual IAE at the Seabrook Facility and
Associated Economic Values (based on current configuration; al! results are annualized)0
7. Nonuse Values
I: S600 (14.0% of $1 loss)
E: 540.600(18.1% of SE loss)
4. Value of Commercial losses
J: 1.200 fish (1300 lb)
$2,400 (57.6% of $1 loss)
E: 15,300 fish (11.200 lb)
S28.900 (12.9% ofSE loss)
5. Value of Recreational losses
I: 236 fish (290 lb)
$1,200 <28.0% of $1 toss)
E; 17.500 fish (18200 lb)
$81.200 (36.2% of $E loss)
6. Value of Forage losses
(valued using either replacement
cost method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
I: 4,600 fish
$20(0.4% of SI loss)
£:4.2 million fish
$73,600(32.8% of$E loss)
1. Number of organisms lost (eggs larvae, juveniles, etc.)'
I: 10.000 organisms
E: 831 million organisms
2. Age 1 equivalents Inst (number of flsh)h
I: 13,100 fish (4.600 forage,8,500 commercial and recreational)
E;4,5 million fish (4.2 million forage, 299.600 commercial and recreational)
3. Loss to fishery (recreational and commercial harvest)
I: 1.400 fish (1.800 lb)
E: 32,700 fish (29,300 lb)
" All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
k From Tables G4-2, G4-4, G4-15 and G4-16 of Chapter G4.
Note: Species with I&E <1% of the total l&E were not valued.
G6-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port G: Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure G6-2: Seobrook: Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category
54.2% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
[0%of$l]
35.1% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[0.4%of$l]h
Total: 13,100 fish per year (age 1 equivalents)
Total impingement value = $4,200b
10.7% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
VALUED (as direct loss to
fishery, commercial losses are
9.2% of total)
[85.6% of SI] b
* Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreational iy harvested fish include impacts for
all ages vulnerable to the fishery.
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 14.0% of total estimated SI loss.
G6-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &'• Seobrook and Pilgrim
Chapter &b~- Benefits Analysis
Figure S6-3: Seabrook: Distribution of Entrainment Losses by Species Category
0.7% Commercial and
Recreational Fish'
VALUED (as direct loss to
fishery; commercial losses are
0.3% of total)
[49.1%of$E] b
93,4% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[32,8% of SE] b
5,9% Commercial and
Recreational Fish8
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
[0% of$E] b
Total: 4.5 million fish per year (age 1 equivalents)
Total entrainment value = S224,100b
" Impacts shown are to age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for
all ages vulnerable to the fishery.
6 Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 18.1% of total estimated SE loss.
G6-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure &6-4: Overview and Summary of Average Annual I&E at the Pilgrim Facility and Associated
Economic Values {based on current configuration; all results are annualized)0
8. Habitat replacement cost
1: $840,000 per year
E: $ 12.3 million per year
7. Nomise Values
I: $900 (22.3% of SI loss)
E: $174,300 (27.7% of $E loss)
4. Value of Commercial losses
1: 5.900 fish (3.800 lb)
SI.300 (31.9% of II loss)
E:47,300 fish (33,700 lb)
$77,000 (12.2% of $F. loss)
S, Value of Recreational losses
I: 371 fish (186 lb)
$1,800 (44.6% of $1 loss)
E; 73.600 fish (45.800 lb)
$348,600 (55.4% of $F loss)
6. Value of Forage losses
(valued using either replacement
cost method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
I; 1,600 fish
$90 (1.3% of $1 loss)
E: 11.2 million fish
$29,300 (4.7% of $E loss)
I, Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)"
I: 37,100organisms
E: 4.40 billion organisms
2. Age 1 equivalents lost (number of fish/1
I: 52.800 fish (1.600 forage,51.200 commercial and recreational)
E; 14.4 million fish (11.8 million forage. 2.6 million commercial and recreational)
3. Loss to fishery (recreational and commercial harvest)1
1: 6,300 fish (4.300 lb)
E: 121.000 fish (91.1001b)
* All dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
6 From Tables G4-3, G4-5, G4-17, and 04-18 of Chapter G4.
Note: Species with I&E <1% of the total I&E were not valued.
G6-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Figure S6-5: Pilgrim: Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated
Economic Values
3,1% Forage Fish"
UNDERVALUED (valued using
replacement cost method or as
production foregone to fishery
yield)
[1.3% of SI] b
11.9% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
VALUED as direct loss to
fishery (commercial tosses
are 11.2% of total)
[76,4% of$J1b
85.1% Commercial and
Recreational Fish"
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
\0%of$I]h
Total: 52,800 fish per year (age 1 equivalents)*
Total impingement value; $4, KM11
* Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for
all ages vulnerable to the fishery.
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values arc 22.3% of total estimated $1 loss.
G6-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter S6; Benefits Analysis
Figure S6-6: Pilgrim: Distribution of Entrapment Losses by Species Category and Associated
Economic Values
77.8% Fora^ Fish1
UNDERVALUED
(valued using
replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery
yield)
[4.7%of$E]h
21.4% Commercial and
Recreational Fish'
UNVALUED (i.e.,
unharvested)
[0%of$E]b
0.8% Commercial and
Recreational Fish*
VALUED as direct loss to
fishery (commercial
losses are 0.3% of total)
[67.6% of$Ej b
Total: 14.4 million fish per year (age 1 equivalents)
Total entrain tnsnt value = $628,800"
" Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts to all
ages vulnerable to the fishery.
b Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 27.7% of total estimated SE loss.
G6-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66; Benefits Analysis
&6-Z Baseline Losses Using HRC Method
Chapter G5 presented baseline economic losses using the HRC approach. Baseline losses for I&E are $0.5 million and S9.1
million per year, respectively, for Pilgrim, These HRC values were used as an upper bound of I&E losses, while the midpoint
of the benefits transfer values were used as a lower bound. The HRC approach was not applied to I&E for Seabrook.
G6-3 Anticipated Economic Benefits of Reduced I&E from Various
Technologies
Tables G6-1 and G6-2 show the estimated economic benefits of various I&E reductions at the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities,
respectively. The benefits of reducing l&E at Seabrook are expected to range from $2,000 to $3,000 per year for a 60%
reduction in impingement and from $97,000 to $216,000 per year for a 70% reduction in entrainment. The benefits of
reducing I&E at Pilgrim are expected to range from $2,000 to $298,000 per year for a 60% reduction in impingement and
from $440,000 to over $6.4 million per year for a 70% reduction in entrainment.
Note that the results' derived for Pilgrim reflect loss estimates derived from an HRC analysis; similar HRC findings are not
available for Seabrook. This is a key reason why the Pilgrim losses are much higher than the Seabrook estimates, at the upper
end of the range.
Table 66-1; Summary of Current Economic Losses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
I&E Reductions at Seabrook Facility ($2000)
i Impingement Entrainment f Total
Baseline losses
low
j $3,000
i $139,000
$142,000
high
1 $5,000
| $309,000
$314,000
Benefits of 10% reductions
low
!" $0
i $14,000
$14,000
high
i $1,000
; $31,000
$31,000
Benefits of 20% reductions
low
i ii.ooo
; $28,000
$28,000
high
: $1,000
: $62,000
$63,000
Benefits o f 30% reductions
low
$1,000
$42,000
$43,000
high
: $2,000
$93,000
:
$94,000
Benefits of 40% reductions
low
j $1,000
$56,000
$57,000
high
; $2,ooo
$124,000
$126,000
Benefits o f 50% reductions
low
: $2,000
; $70,000
I.
$71,000
high
| $3,000
: $155,000
t
$157,000
Benefits of 60% reductions
low
i $2,000
; $83,000
$85,000
high
; $3,000
; $185,000
¦
$188,000
Benefits of 70% reductions
low
i $2,000
$97,000
$99,000
high
; $4,000
$216,000
$220,000
Benefits of 80% reductions
low
$2,000
$111,000
$114,000
high
$4,000
$247,000
$251,000
Benefits of 90% reductions
low
$3,000
i $125,000
$128,000
high
$5,000
$278,000
$283,000
G6-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabraok and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Table S6-2: Summary of Current Economic tosses and Benefits of a Range of Potential
I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 66: Benefits Analysis
Table S6-3; Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate
Comments
Long-term fish stock affects not "
considered
Understates benefits'
EPA assumed that the effects on stocks are the same each year, and that
the higher fish kills would not have cumulatively greater impact.
Effect of interaction with other
environmental stressors
Understates benefits"
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.
Recreation participation is held
constant"
Understates benefits'
Recreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in value per
activity outing; increased levels of participation are omitted.
Boating, bird-watching, and other
in-stream or near-water activities
are omitted'
Understates benefits"
The only impact to reereation considered is fishing.
HRC does not cover losses for all
species
Understates benefits"
As a result of the HRC method, species with losses that are not
addressed can only increase the HRC total valuation
Nonuse benefits
Uncertain
EPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
angling benefits
Effect of change in stocks on
number of landings
Uncertain
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.
Recreation values for various
geographic areas
Uncertain
The recreational values used are from various regions and are not from
New England in particular.
" Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
G6-J0
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part S: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Chapter 67: Conclusions
Chapter G7-
Concl usions
As indicated in Chapter G4, average impingement losses at Seabrook are valued at between $3,000 and $5,000 per year, and
average entrainment losses are valued at between $139,000 and $309,000 per year (all in $2000). Average impingement
losses at Pilgrim are valued at between $3,000 and $5,000 per year, and average entrainment losses are valued at between
$513,000 and $744,000 per year (all in $2000), These values reflect estimates derived using benefits transfer.
Benefits estimates were based on percentage reductions in estimated current I&E at Seabrook and Pilgrim (Chapter G6).
EPA also-developed an HRC analysis to value I&E losses at Pilgrim (Chapter G5), Using the HRC approach, the value of
I&E losses at Pilgrim are approximately $497,000 for impingement, and over $19.1 million per year for entrainment (HRC
annualized at 7 percent over 20 years). These HRC estimates were merged with the benefits transfer results (from Chapter
G4) to develop a more comprehensive range of loss estimates for the Pilgrim facility. HRC results were used as an upper
bound, while the midpoints of benefits transfer estimates were used as a lower bound, On this basis, EPA estimates potential
annual benefits of reduced l&E at Pilgrim ranging from $2,000 to $298,000 per year for a 60% reduction in impingement, and
from $440,000 to $6.4 million for a 70% reduction in entrainment. The annual benefits of reduced I&E at Seabrook are
estimated to range from $2,000 to $3,000 for a 60% reduction in impingement and from $97,000 to $216,000 for a 70%
reduction in entrainment.
In interpreting these results, it is important to consider several critical caveats and limitations of EPA's analysis. These
caveats have been detailed in preceding chapters. EPA included forage species impacts in the economic benefits calculations,
but because techniques for valuing such losses are limited, the final estimates may well underestimate the full ecological and
economic value of these losses. Thus, on the whole, EPA believes the estimates developed here underestimate the economic
benefits of reducing I&E at similar facilities.
G7-1
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &i Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Appendix G1: Life History Parameter
Values Used to Evaluate I<&E
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age 1 equivalents, fishery
yields, and production foregone from I&E data for the Seabrook and Pilgrim facilities. Life history data and fishing mortality
rates were compiled from a variety.of sources, with a focus on obtaining data on local stocks whenever possible.
Table 61-1: Alewife Species Parameters
Stage Name
j Natural Mortality •
; (per stage) j
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
! Fraction Vulnerable !
to Fishery" ;
Weight
0b)
Eggs
j 0,9"
0
; 0 i
0.0022'
Larvae
1 5.75*
0
i 0 :
0.0066 ic
Juvenile 1
; 10.1"
0
i o ;
0.022c
Age 1+
: 0.7"
0
: 0 :
0.0303*
Age 2+
i 0.7" |
0
; 0 !
0.125*
Age 3+
i 0.7"
0
; o i
0.348"
Age 4+
! 0.7"
0.1
: 0.45 j
0.443"
Age 5+
; 0.7"
0.1
i 0.9 ;
0.496"
Age 6+
! 0.7s :
0.1
: i 1
0.536"
Age 7+
| 0,7' i
0.1
; i I
0.598"
Age 8+
! 0.7' ;
0.1
1 i :
0,723d
* Based on alewife in the Delaware Estuary, as provided in PSEG, 1999c.
b Froese and Pauly, 2001.
c Assumed based on size (Able and Fahay, 1998).
" Scott and Scott, 1988.
App. Gl-I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port S- Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61. Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-2:
American Plaice Sped
es Parameters
Stage Name
j Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality ;
! (per stage)*
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"1
Weight
(lb)*
Eggs
: 2.3"
: o
0
0.0000000111'
Larvae
9.13"
1 0
0
0.0000173'
Age 1 +
0,2C
: o i
0
0.00537s
Age 2+
: 0.2-
i 0.32 :
0.5
0.05458
Age 3+
i 0,2'
: 0.32 i
1
0,121h
Age 4+
i 0.2e
: 0.32 |
1
0.212f
Age 5+
: 0.2'"
; 0.32 !
1
0.322'
Age 6+
i 0.2;
: 0.32 :
1
0,467f
Age 7+
: 0.2C
\ 0.32 j
1
0.652f
Age 8+
0.2'
; 0.32 :
1
0,822f
Age 9+
; o.2c
i 0.32 I
1
1.02f
Age 10+
i 0.2C
i 0.32 i
1
1.25f
Age 11+
: 0.2e
: 0,32 1
1
1.51f
Age 12+
1 0.2C
; 0.32 i
1
1.81f
Age 13+
: o.2E
: 0.32 |
1
2.15r
Age 14+
; o,2c
: 0.32 ;
1
2,4f
Age 15+
0.2C
0.32 1
1
2.67r
Age 16+
; 0.2=
! 0.32 |
1
2.96f
Age 17+
; 0.2C
: 0.32 ;
1
3.27f
Age 18+
i 0.2"
i 0.32 !
I
3.6'
Age 19+
i 0,2C
: 0.32 :
1
3.96f
Age 20+
: 0.2=
: 0,32 i
1
4,34r
Age 21+
i 0.2'
i 0.32 :
i
4.74f
Age 22+
i 0.2C
i 0.32 i
I
5.17f
Age 23+
: o.2c
: 0.32 |
1
5.63f
Age 24+
0.2'
; 0.32 :
I
5.87r
Age 25+
| 0.2C
f 0.32 I
1
5.94h
" Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival)- (fishing mortality).
h Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survtval) - (Fishing
mortality).
c NOAA, 1993.
d OBrien, 2000, Fraction vulnerable assumed based on size.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.970x10'')*Length(mm)3'345 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
' Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
8 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988) and Shultz, 2001.
k Length from Shultz (2001).
App. Gl-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seobrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table SI-3: American Sand Lance Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
; Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery'
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
| 2.3s
0
1 o i
0.000000000353'
Larvae
4.19"
0
; o i
0.000485f
Age 1+
; >c
0
; 0
0,00469f
Age 2+
: r
0
: o :
0,0313'
Age 3+
1 V
0
! 0 ;
0.0636r
Age 4+
; le
0
; 0 i
0.106'
Age 5+
; r
0
; 0 1
0.144*
Age 6+
i I'
0
i 0 i
0.19'
Age 7+
1 r
0
: 0 i
0.231s
Age 8+
i r
0
1 0 i
0.246s
Age 9+
! 'c
0
; o I
0.262'
* Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silvcrside) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival)'- (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Northern sand lance,
d Not a recreational or commercial species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.2xlO"')*Length(mm)i-,*: = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
' Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
8 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott {1988).
Table Gl-4¦ Atlantic Cod Species Parameters
Stage Name
• Natural Mortality
; (per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery4
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
! 4.87*
0
0
0.0000000974'
Larvae
i 6.75b
0
0
0.00000186r
Age 1 +
0.4C
0
0
0.0225*
Age 2+
! 0.2C
0.29
0.5
0.245"
Age 3+
i 0.2C
0.29
1 i 0.628s
Age 4+
0.2C
0.29
1 1.29«
Age 5+
: 0.2' :
0.29
1 i 2.45*
Age 6+
! 0.2' :
0.29
1 : 3.33*
" Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
h Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
' Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000.
4 NOAA, 2001c.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula: (8.85x10"6)*Length(mm)3 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
' Length from Froese and Pauly (200!).
» Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
App. Gl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &\ Scobrook arid Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-5: Atlantic Herring Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
; Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)"
Eggs
3.36a
0
: o
: 0.00000(H) 170'
Larvae
6,53"
0
i o
i 0.000222'
Age 1+
0.2"
0.28
: 0.5
1 0.02438
Age 2+
: 0.2"
0.28
i 1
i 0.158"
Age 3+
j 0.2b
0.28
1
1 0.291"
Age 4+
0.2b
0.28
I
! 0.42h
Age 5+
: 0.2b
0.28
1
i 0.467'
Age 6+
1 0.2b
0.28
1
I 0.53 5k
Age 7+
I 0.2"
0.28
: i
| 0MT
Age 8+
: 0.2b
0.28
; l
: 0.66?
Age 9+
| 0.2"
0.28
.; 1
; 0.734"
Age 10+
! 0.2b
0.28
i i
i 0.716h
Age 11 +
i 0.2b
0.28
: 1
i 0.812"
Age 12+
i 0.2b
0.28
i i
| 0.907"
Age 13+
! 0.2b
0.28
i i
| 0.915'
Age 14-
: 0.2b
0.28
i
| 0.924'
Age 15+
; o.2"
0.28
i
j 0.932'
Age 16+
i 0,2b
0.28
i
1 0.941'
* Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial species vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.22xlO"*)*Lcngth(nun)1 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
c Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
5 Length from Reid et al. (1999).
6 Length from Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2001a).
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
' Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
App, GI-4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook ond Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-6: Atlantic Mackerel Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)®
: Fraction Vulnerable
; to Fishery4
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
; 2.39"
0
; 0
0.0000000362f
Larvae
10.6*
0
: 0
0.00000088
Age 1 +
0.52"
0
i o
0.309"
Age 2+
; 0.37*>
0.25
1 0.5
0.5 lh
Age 3+
; 0.37"
0.25
i 1
0.639"
Age 4+
; 0,37b '
0.25
: 1
0.752"
Age 5+
: 0.37h
0.25
1
0.825"
Age 6+
0.37h
0.25
: l
0.918"
Age 7+
: 0.37"
0.25
; i
1.02"
Age 8+
0.37b
0.25
i i
1.1"
Age 9+
0.37"
0.25
1 l
1.13'
Age 10+
; 0,37"
0.25
; 1
1.15"
Age 11+
0.37"
0.25
! 1
1.22"
Age 12+
0.37"
0.25
1
I.22h
Age 13+
: 0.37"
0.25
! 1
1.22h
Age 14+
0.37b
0.25
: 1
1.22h
' Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation: (natural mortality) =
-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Overholtz et al., 1991.
£ NOAA. 2001c.
J Recreational and commercial species. Vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 2.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3,039xl0')*Length(mm)318 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001). Atlantic cod.
' Length assumed based on Atlantic cod (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
8 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
* Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
' Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
A pp. Gl-S
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table Si-7; Atlantic Menhaden Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
: Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"1
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
| 2,08a
0
: o
0.0000000602f
Larvae
i 8.56"
0
i o
0.00000068f
Age 1 +
0.45"
0
; o
0.545d
Age 2+
0.45"
0.8
! 0.5
0.855d
Age 3+
0.45b
0.8
: 1
l.08d
Age 4+
0.45b
0.8
| 1
1.31"
Age 5+
i 0.45"
0.8
; l
1.47d
Age 6+
| 0.45h
0.8
; i
1.59"
Age 7+
j 0.45"
0.8
i
3.36s
Age 8+
0.45"
0.8
: 1
5.21h
* Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation: (natural mortality) =
-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
b NOAA, 2001c.
5 Ruppcrt et al., 1985,
d Durbin et al, 1983,
" Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.02xlO"6)*Length(mni)i }'J' = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
' Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
« Length assumed based on Durbin et al. (1983) and Scott and Scon (1988),
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
Table SI-8: Atlantic Silverside Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery"
Weight
(Ib)r
Eggs
i 2.3=
0
0 j
0.0000000246'
Larvae
6.12"
0
0 |
0.000108s
Age 1+
j 2,!c
0.19
0.5 !
O
o
o
Age 2+
i 2.lc
0.19
1 ! 0.0186k
* Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
" Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
i NOAA, 2001c. Atlantic herring.
e Commercial species. Vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
f Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.691xlO'4)*Length(mm)3 l,B = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001).
8 Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
App. GI-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-9:
Bay Anchovy Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)*
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery"
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
1.04
0
0 I
0.000022"
Yoiksac larvae
1.57
0
o ;
0.000551"
Post-yolksac larvae 1
2.11
o
o !
0.00108b
Post-yolksae larvae 2
4.02
0
0 ;
0.00161"
Juvenile 1
0.0822
o
o i
0.00214b
Juvenile 2
0.0861
o
0 :
0.00267"
Juvenile 3
0.129
o
0 :
0.0032"
Juvenile 4
0.994
o
0 i
0.0037b
Agel+
1.62
0
0 |
0,00381'
Age 2+
1.62
o
0 |
0.00496*
Age 3+
1.62
i o
0 i
0.00505*
» PSEG, 1999c.
b Assumed based on PSEG, 1999c,
Table SI-10:
Blue Mussel Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality ; Fishing Mortality
(per stage) (per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery®
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs ;
2.3'
; od
0 :
0.00022
Larvae
4.61"
; 01*
o i
0,0022
Age 1 + :
0.602'
0.602'
0.5 :
0.0662
Age 2+
0.602'
i 0.602c
1 :
0.0728
Age 3+
0,0555s
i 0.0555'
1 1
0.0794
Age 4+
0.0555'
; 0.0555'
l :
0.0833
Age 5+
0.0555'
; 0.0555'
l ;
0.0838
Age 6+
0.0555'
; 0.0555'
1 i
0.084
Age 7+
0.Q555C
| 0.0555'
I ;
0.0842
Age 8+
0.0555"
0.0555'
1 :
0.0843
Age 9+ |
Q.0555'
; 0.0555'
1 i
0.0843
Age 10+ !
1.2*
i 1.2'
1 i
0.0843
Age 11+ !
1.2C
1.2'
i ;
0.0843
Age 12+ :
1.2C
j i.2c
i i
0.0843
' Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN( survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977} using the equation: (natural mortality)
= -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
1 Calculated from survival (Author Unknown, 2001) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality). Assumed half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
" Shaw etal., 1988.
c Commercial species. Vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Newell, 1989.
App. Gl-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim Appendix 61: Life History Pora meter Values
Table SI-11: Blue back Herring Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)'
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
; Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
Gb)
Eggs
I 0,558 i
0
; o
; 0,000022"
Yolksac larvae
: 1.83 ;
0
; 0
1 0.0032 lb
Post-yolksac larvae 1
i 1.74
0
; 0
; 0,0064b
Juvenile 1
; 3.13
0
; 0
; 0.00959'
Juvenile 2
: 3,13 i
0
0
i 0.0128"
Age 1 +
: 0.3 ;
0
¦; o
; 0.016"
Age 2+
: 0.3 i
0
0
0.0905"
Age 3+
; 0.3
0
; 0
0.204'
Age 4+
0.9
0
0
: 0.318"
Age 5+
; 1.5 ;
0
i 0
; 0.414".
Age 6+
! 1-5
0
0
i 0.488s
Age 7+
1.5
0
: 0
: 0.545
Age 8+
: 1,5 i
0
; 0
; 0.576"
* PSEG, 1999c.
6 Assumed based on PSEG, 1999c.
Table SI-12;
tlluefish Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality \
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
: Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
| 2.3* i
0
;. o
; 0.0000000386*
Larvae
; 5.27" ;
0
: o
i 0.0000033 38
Juvenile 1
? S.2T
0
1 o
: 0,000116'
Age 1 +
\ 0.35' 5
0.4
: 0.5
; 0.54h
Age 2+
; 0.35' :
0.4
1
i 0.785"
Age 3+
; 0.35'
0.4
: l
1.91"
Age 4+
0.35c
0.4
I
2.45'
Age Si-
i 0,35c j
0.4
i
: 3.06'
Age 6+
; 0.35' ;
0.4
l
: 3.78'
Age 7+
: 0.35c ;
0.4
1
4.58'
Age 8+
0.35c
0.4
; i
) 5,49'
Age 9+
0.35c ;
0.4
; 1
6,5'
Age 10+
0.35" ;
0.4
: l
7.64'
Age 11+
: 0,35c
0.4
: l
8.87'
Age 12+
0.35c !
0.4
: 1
; 10.3h
" Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silveiside) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality),
c NOAA, 1993.
55 NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
f Weight calculated from length using the formula: (l,749xlO'5)*Length(min)-! 71 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 20011.
8 Length from Wang and Kemehan (1979).
h Length from Clayton etal. (1978).
' Length assumed based on Clayton et al, (1978).
App. Gl-S
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrock and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-13: Butterfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
| Natural Mortality i
: (per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)1*
\ Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
; Weight
I (lb)'
Eggs
j 2.3* :
0
0
! 0,00000000248s
Larvae
i 8.13b ;
0
0
: 0.00000151*
Age 1+
: 0.4" :
0.76
j 0.5
| 0.0272h
Age 2+
i 0.4s i
0.76
1
i 0.0986"
Age 3+
! 0,4' ;
0.76
I
0.94411
' 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).
c NOAA, 1993.
d NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.6x1 U 'l'Lcngthimm)'= weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001),
8 Length from Able and Fahay(1998).
h Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
Table 61-14: Curmer Species Parameters
Stage Name
I Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
j Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery®
Weight
Eggs
: 3.49" :
0
0
0,00000000877°
Larvae
: 5.8* :
0
0
0.0000023 6C
Age 1+
: 0.831' |
0
0
0.003 IF
Age 2+'
; 0.831" :
0.1
0.5
0.0246'
Age 3+
i 0.286" 1
0.1
; 1
0.0749'
Age 4+
i 0.342" I
0.1
1
0.145f
Age 5+
; 0.645"
0.1
i
0.229f
Age 6+
i 1.26" ;
0.1
i 1
0,624s
* Calculated from survival (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000.
* Commercial and recreational speeies, of minimal catch (Entergy Nuclear Generation Company, 2000).
Fishing mortality and fraction vulnerable assumed.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.0x10 6)*Length(mm); 22 = weight(g) (Serchuk and Cole,
1974).
c Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
f Length from Serchuk and Cole (1974).
' Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
App. Gl-9
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-15: Fourbeard Rockling Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'1
! Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery"1
Weight
flh)*
Eggs
2.3* ¦
0
: 0 ;
0.00000000605'
Larvae
! 5.17" ;
0
; 0 j
0.000000896'
Age 1+
0,49c
0
! o ;
0.00403'
Age 2+
0.49°
0
: o ;
0.0347'
Age 3+
0.49° ;
0
1 o \
0.0848'
Age 4+
0.49c
0
\ 0 ;
0.149'
Age 5+
; 0.49c :
0
! 0 i
0.241f
Age 6+
0.49' :
0
1 o !
0J31r
Age 7+
0.49s
0
; o 1
0.482'
Age 8+
; 0.49 :
0
; 0 i
0.623f
Age 9+
0.49'" :
0
: 0 i
0.788s
' Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
* Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
8 Weight calculated from length using the formula: (12.74x 10"f')*Length(mm)3106 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly,
2001),
' Length assumed based on Froese and Pauly (2001).
8 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
Table 61-16; Grubby Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"1
'¦ Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"1
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
! 2.3* 1
0
i o
| 0.00000021 lf
Larvae
; 4.7" ;
0
; 0
i 0,000359'
Age 1+
: 0.46= ;
0
! o
: 0.00404f
Age 2+
: 0.46' i
0
j o
! 0.139r
Age 3+
0.46" !
0
i o
i 0.332'
Age 4+
! 0.46c |
0
; 0
: 0.42'
Age 5+
i 0.46c i
0
; 0
0.475'
Age 6+
0.46c :
0
! 0
i 0.541r
Age 7+
; 0.46" :
0
¦ 0
i 0.576'
Age 8+
: o.46c :
0
: o
0.612'
Age 9+
: 0,46c i
0
i o
1 0.637s
" Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
k Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LH(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001. Longhom sculpin.
4 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula for longhom sculpin: (1,034x 10"s)*Length(mm)3"Gj =
weight(g) (Clayton et al., 1978).
' Length assumed based on Clayton et al. (1978).
8 Length for longhom sculpin from Clayton et al. (1978).
App. Gl-10
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part &¦ Scab rook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table SI-17: Hogchocker Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'1
; Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery11
Weight
(lb)«
Eggs
2.24'
0
: 0
0.000000237'
Larvae
- 6.73b
0
0
0.00123'
Age 1+
; 0.25°
0
0
0.00778'
Age 2+
; 0.25c
0
i o
0.0295'
Age 3-
! 0.25c
0
; 0
0.0877s
Age 4+
0.25'
0
: 0
0,19*
Age 5+
; 0.25s
0
; 0
0.4248
Age 6+
0.25£
0
; 0
0.561"
" Calculated from survival (New England Power Company and Marine Research inc., 1995) using the
equation; (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.947*10^)*Length(mm)2 MS = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
f Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
8 Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Froese and Pauly (2001).
11 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
Table 61-18. Little Skate Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality ;
\ (per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery* ;
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
2.94'
0
o ;
0.000774
Larvae
; 0.2521'
0
o i
0.0138
Age 1+
i 0,4C
0.4
0.5 i
0.157
Age 2+
:: 0.4C
0.4
i !
0.394
Age 3+
i 0.4e
0.4
1 ;
0.75
Age 4+
i 0.4' :
0.4
i i
1.15
Age 5+
0.4C
0.4
i |
1.51
Age Si-
: 0.4' ;
0.4
: i :
1.62
Age 7+
| 0.4"= i
0.4
: i 1
1.65
Age 8+
! 0.4C 1
0.4
; 1 1
1.72
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation; (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' NOAA, 1993.
J NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial species assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Weight calculated from length (Scott and Scott, 1988) using the formula: (8.32x 10^)*Length(mm)',7J =
weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part Seabrook arid Pilgrim
Appendix G1: Life History Parameter Values
Table Sl-19: Uimpfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
¦ Natural Mortality |
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery"1
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
j 2.3' |
0
0
0.0Q0Q004f
Larvae
i 9.39" ;
0
0
0.000993'
Age 1+
; o.i9c ;
0
0
0,0147s
Age 2+
: 0.19s i
0
0
0.0584"
Age 3+
; 0.19' i
0
0
0.149"
Age 4+
I 0.19C :
0
0
0.686h
Age 5+
| 0.19* i
0
0
1.868
* Calculated from survival for Atlantic silverside (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
4 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.755x10"5)*Length(mm)i9M = wcight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
f Length for rock gunnel from Able and Fahay (1998).
8 Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998).
Table SI-20: Northern Pipefish Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*1
: F raction Vulnerable :
to Fishery4 ;
Weight
(lb)*
Eggs
2.3* |
0
i 0 i
0.0000000157'
Larvae
j 3.31" |
0
: 0 j
0.00168f
Age 1+
; o.75: ;
0
1 o ;
0.00871B
Age 2+
: 0.75s ;
0
: 0 •:
0.01248
Age 3+
: 0.75c |
0
i 0 i
0.0168'
Age 4+
! 0.75' i
0
1 0 :
0.0222s
Age 5+
0.75s :
0
i 0 1
0.0285'
' Calculated from assumed survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using
the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
1 Froese and Pauly, 2001, Broad-nosed pipefish.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula for sargassum pipefish; (9.407xl0"4)*Length(mm)266 = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001).
' Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
E Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
App. GI-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part 6: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-21: Pollock Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality ;
; (per stage)*
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
; Fraction Vulnerable
I to Fishery'
Weight
(lb)"
Eggs
I 0.922 ;
0
1 0
: 0.0000000203'
Larvae
j 4.07 ;
0
; o
: 0.00000104'
Juvenile
: 6.93 :
0
i 0
i 0.00166'
Age 1+
• 0.2
0
1 0
i 0.657'
Age 2+
i 0.2 :
0.2
: 0
5
j 1.3f
Age 3+
• 0.2 ;
0.2
| 1.73'
Age 4+
i 0.2 ;
0.2
j 3.24'
Age 5+
! 0.2 !
0.2
i 4.93' '
Age 6+
| 0.2 i
0.2
S.T
Age 7+
i 0.2 ¦
0.2
\ 6.83r
Age 8+
| 0.2 i
0.2
: 8.46'
Age 9+
; 0.2 ;
0.2
; 9.93f
Age 10+
i 0.2 :
0.2
12'
Age 11 +
1 0.2 i
0.2
; 14.8f
Age 12+
: 0.2 ;
0.2
: 16.4'
Age 13+
: 0.2 :
0.2
: 18.1f
Age 14+
: 0.2 :
0.2
; 19.9f
Age 15+
1 0.2 I
0.2
21.2f
« Saiiaetal,, 1997.
b NOAA; 2001c.
c Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 2,
" Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.894xl0"<,)*Length(mm):i WK = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
5 Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
' Length from Saila et al (1997).
App. G1-J3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61; Life History Parameter Values
Table SI-22: Radiated Sharmy Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality i
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)d
i Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
1 2.3* i
0
1 0
0.0000000091'
Larvae
3.11" ;
0
: o
0.00000948'
Age 1+
0.44c ;
0
: 0
0.000622f
Age 2+
0.44c i
0
o
0.00415'
Age 3+
| 0.44s
0
; 0
0.00846f
Age 4+
! 0.44c !
0
: o
0.0151f
Age 5-
0.44c !
0
1 o
0.0194f
Age 6+
j 0.44' 1
0
o
0.0244'
Age 7+
1 0.44' j
0
; 0
0.0303f
Age 8+
j 0,44' |
0
i o
0.0336s
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation; (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality),
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
11 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
1 Weight calculated from length using the formula for rock gunnel: (4. l25xlO'6)*Length(mm):l'1"8 = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001).
' Length assumed based on Froese and Pauly (2001).
8 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
Table 61-23: Rainbow Smelt Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality i
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)®
i Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery'
! Weight
! (lb)'
Eggs
j 3.32' ;
0
! 0
j 0,0000000861'
Larvae
j 2.66* ;
0
0
j 0.00273®
Age 1+
; o.72b ;
0
' o
; 0.0359f
Age 2+
j 0.72b ;
0
; 0
: 0.134'
Age 3+
; 0.72"
0
: 0
j 0.289f
Age 4+
\ 0.72" j
0
i 0
j 0.585'
Age 5+
; 0.72b ;
0
; o
i 0.942f
Age 6+
: ' 0.72" i
0
: 0
; 1.27*
• Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
" Froese and Pauly, 2001.
e Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
" Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.903x10"5)*Lcngth(mm)2-81 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
e Length from Able and Fahay( 1998).
¦ Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Froese and Pauly (2001).
8 Length from Froese and Pauly (2001).
App. Gl-14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &; Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-24: Red Hake Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)*
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
Fractioa Vulnerablei
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
: 1.22
0
; 0
0.000000002385
Larvae 2mm
1 0.67
0
o ;
0.0000000535r
Larvae 2.5mm
: 0.67
0
o
0.000000109'
Larvae 3,0mm
: 0.67
0
0
0,000000194'
Larvae 3.5mm
i 0.67 :
0
; o
0.000000316'
Larvae 4.0mm
! 0.67 I
0
; o
0.000000482'
Larvae4.5mm
; 3.35
0
; o
0.00000070!'
Juvenile
! 4.83
0
; 0 !
0.00145'
Age 1 +
: 0.4
0.39
0.5
0.124'
Age 2+
; 0.4 :
0.39
1
0 465*
Age 3+
| 0.4
0.39
; i i
0,578'
Age 4+
; 0.4
0.39
: 1 ;
0.723'
Age 5+
i 0.4 .:
0.39
1 i
0.928*
Age 6+
: 0.4 :
0.39
1
1.17"
Age 7+
i 0.4 !
0.39
! 1 !
1.45"
Age 8+
I 0.4 !
0.39
: 1 ;
1.78"
Age 9+
! 0.4 ;
0.39
; I
2.15"
Age 10+
: 0.4 :
0.39
i i i
2.3s
* Saila et al„ 1997.
b NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula for white hake: (2.692xI0"*)*Length(mm);u72 = weight(g) {Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
' Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
f Length from Saila et al. (1997),
' Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
h Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
Table 61-25: Reck Sunnel Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality ;
| (per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"1
Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery" :
Weight
0b)'
Eggs
; 2.3s ;
0
0 1
0.0000000737'
Larvae
: 2.ST
0
o i
0.00000948"
Age 1+
\ 0.44s ;
0
o i
0.00382'
Age 2+
; 0.44c :
0
o i
. 0,0128f
Age 3+
i 0.44s j
0
0 j
0.0223f
Age 4+
j 0.44c I
0
0 j
0.0371f
Age 5+
| 0.44c ;
0
0 i
0.049'
' Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) *= -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
* Froese and Pauly, 2001. Radiated shanny,
' Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishery mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.l25xI0"6)*Lcngth(mm)J<"< = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
' Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
8 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
App, Gl-15
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port S; Seabroak and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table G1-Z6: Sculpin Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)-
| Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery"1
Weight
W
Eggs
: 2.3" i
0
: o ;
0.00000021 lf
Larvae
: 4.7b :
0
o
Q.000359r
Age 1+
! 0.46° |
0
\ 0 :
0.00404*
Age 2-f
| 0.46c ;
0
1 0 :
0.139s
Age 3+
0.46-- ;
0
i o
0.3328
Age 4+
: 0.46= 1
0
; o
0.42s
Age 5+
; 0.46' 1
0
: 0
0.4758
Age 6+
i o.46c
0
1 o i
0.5418
Age 7+
\ 0.46c j
0
i o :
0.5768
Age 8+
i o.46c ;
0
i 0 ;
0.612s
Age 9+
I 0.46c I
0
! o i
Q.637'
" Calculated from assumed survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside)
using the equation; (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survrval) - (fishing
mortality).
* Froese and Pauly, 2001. Longhom sculpin.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula for longhom sculpin; (1.034x 10'VLcngth(mm)1005 =
weight(g) (Clayton et al., 1978).
f Length assumed based on Clayton et al. (1978).
8 Length from Clayton et al. (1978). Longhom sculpin.
App. Gl-16
-------
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-27: Scup Species Parameters
Stage Name
• Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)4
; Fraction Vulnerable;
to Fishery*
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
2.3s
0
0 , i
Q.00Q00Q3548
Larvae
5.47" ;
0
0 ;
0.00107s
Age 1+
0.29'*
0,14
0.5 ;
0.073s
Age 2+
i 0.29' ;
0.14
: 1 :
0.244s
Age 3+
i 0.29' ;
0.14
1 i
0.495h
Age 4+
0.29'
0.14
1 :
0.806"
Age 5+
I 0.29' ;
0,14
: 1 ;
1.1"
Age 6+
i 0.29' ;
0,14
1
1.46b
Age 7+
0.29'
0.14
; 1 ;
L88h
Age 8+
0.29'
0,14
: i ;
2.37"
Age 9+
i 0,29c i
0,14
1 :
2.94"
Age 10+
: o.29c i
0,14
i :
3.58h
Age 11+
0.29' i
0.14
1 !
4.3"
Age !2+
: 0.29* ;
0.14
l i
4.83"
Age 13+
i 0.29'
0.14
l :
4.97s
* Calculated from assumed survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside)
using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
6 Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation; (natural mortality) = -LN(sutvival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
" NOAA, 2001c.
c Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula for sheepshead porgy: (1.649x 10"")*Length(mm)2 666 =
weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
5 Length from Clayton etal. (1978).
h Length assumed based on Clayton et al. (1978).
App. Gl-17
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &•. Seobrook end Pilgrim
Appendix SI: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-28: Searobin Species Parameters
Stage Name .
j Natural Mortality :
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
: Fraction Vulnerable 1
\ to Fishery"
Weight
(lb)f
Eggs
: 2.3* " '
0
i o |
0.00000286®
Larvae
i 4.57h i
0
o ;
0.0000229®
Age 1+
i 0,42c i
0.1
i 0.5 ;
0.0231s
Age 2+
i 0.42' :
0.1
: 1
0.185s
Age 3+
! 0.42® i
0.1
i 1 :
0.3618
Age 4+
: 0.42' i
0.1
: ' 1
0.5648
Age 5+
0.42; :
0.1
: 1 ;
0.758s
Age 6+
i 0.42' ;
0.1
; i i
0.992s
Age 7-
: o.42c :
0.1
: 1 ¦:
1.17*
Age 8+
i 0.42® j
0.1
i 1 1
1.27"
* 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).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001. Northern searobin.
* Assumed based on hake (Saila et al., 1997).
e Recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula for longhom sculpin: (1.034x10 !)*Length(mm)I0°! =
weigbt(g) (Clayton et al„ 1978).
8 Length assumed based on Froese and Pauly (2001).
* Length from Froese and Pauly (2001),
App. GI-18
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part G: Seabrook and Pilgrim
/Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-29:
Striped Bass Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)"
i Fishing Mortality
(per stage)1"
! Fraction Vulnerable I
to Fishery* !
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
; 1.39
0
0 ;
0.000022'
Yolksac larvae
; 2.22
0
0
0.097*
Post-yolksac larvae
I 5.08
0
o ;
0.194'
Juvenile 1
; 2.28
0
0 :
0.291 =
Juvenile 2
: 1
0
o i
0.388c
Age 1+
i 1.1
; 0
; o ;
0.485d
Age 2+
; o.i5
0.31
0.06 :
2.06"
Age 3+
; o.i5
0.31
0.2 ;
3.314
Age 4+
0.15
0.31
0.63 !
4.93"
Age 5+
! 0.15
i 0.31
; 0.94 !
6.5"
Age 6+
0.15
0.31
; i :
8.58'
Age 7+
0.15
; 0.31
0.9 ;
12,3'
Age 8+
; o.i5
0.31
0.9 :
14.3d
Age 9+
0.15
0.31
0.9
16.1*
Age 10+
! 0.15
0.31
0.9
18.8"
Age 11+
0.15
: 0.31
0.9 :
19.6"
Age 12+
0.15
; 0.31
0.9 :
22.4"
Age 13+
0.15
i 0.31
0.9 ;
27'
Age 14+
; 0.15
0.31
0.9 |
34.6"
Age 15+
: 0.15
0.31
0.9 i
41.5"
• PSEG, 1999c.
b NOAA, 2001c.
c Length assumed based on PSEG (1999c).
d Length from PSEG (1999c).
Table ©1-30: Striped Killifish Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality j
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
i Fraction Vulnerable j
to Fishery* j
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
i 2.3" 1
0
: 0 i
0.000000864'
Larvae
i 3" i
0
! 0 |
0.0000182f
Age 1 +
i 0.777"
0
0
0.0l21f
Age 2+
OUT
0
; o :
O.0327r
Age 3+
\ 0.777''
0
; 0
0.055 lf
Age 4+
| 0.777" ]
0
0 :
0,0778r
Age 5+
i 0.777b
0
o i
0.0967r
Age 6+
: 0.777" :
0
0
0.113'
Age 7+
; 0.777" ;
0
i o ;
0.158'
" Calculated from survival for Atlantic silverside (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from survival for mummichog (Meredith and Lotrich, 1979) using the equation: (natural mortality)
= -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
" Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
4 Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.6xlO"s)*Length(mm)2'K = weight(g) (Carlaiider, 1969).
e Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
f Length from Carlander( 1969).
App. GI-19
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Ufe History Parameter Values
Table 61-31: Tautog Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality i
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
! Fraction Vulnerable j
\ to Fishery"1 ;
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
: 2,53" ;
0
! 0 i
0.0000000689r
Larvae
: 9.75" :
0
: o i
0.00000185f
Age 1 +
0.06b |
0.29
o.s ;
0.0104s
Age 2+
i 0.06"
0.29
¦ i
0.183h
Age 3+
j 0.06" i
0.29
i i !
1.4"
Age 4+
0.06" !
0.29
i i i
3.2T
Age 5+
: 0.06" |
0.29
i i i
4.62"
Age 6-
| 0.06" |
0.29
! I i
6.3"
* Calculated from survival (New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995) using the
equation: (natural mortality) =-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
6 New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995.
c Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000e.
d Commercial and recreational species. Assumed to be vulnerable to fishing mortality at age 1.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (3.318xlO's)*Lxngth(mm)21M = weighi(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
f Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
* Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
h Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988),
Table 61-32: Threespine Stickleback Species Parameters
Stage Name
| Natural Mortality j
(per stage) j
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
; Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery" j
Weight
(ib)*
Eggs
; 2.3* i
0
: 0 i
0.0000000227r
Larvae
| 3.53" |
0
i o ;
0.00000127r
Age 1+
; o.9; ;
0
i 0 :
0.0000648
Age 2+
: 0.9' :
0
1 0 ;
0.0002448
Age 3+
: 0-9c !
0
i o i
0.000422s
Age 4+
j 0,9' •:
0
I o ;
0.00203s
• Calculated from survival (Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) (Atlantic silverside) using the equation:
(natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
1 Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
5 Weight calculated from length using the formula for sea stickleback: (2.1 Ox 10 6)*Length(mm)1 m = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001),
' Length from Wang (1986a).
8 Length from Scott and Scott (1988).
App. Gl 20
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies, Part &¦ Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table 61-33: White Perch Species Parameters
Slage Name
i Natural Mortality 1
(per stage)*
Fishing Mortality
(per stage}*
1 Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery* j
Weight
(lb)
Eggs
i 2.75
0
: 0 :
0.000022'
Yolksac larvae
: 2.1 :
0
i 0 ;
0.00946"
Post-yolksac larvae
i 3.27 :
0
i 0 :
0.0189"
Juvenile 1
| 0.947 i
0
: 0 j
0.0283k
Juvenile 2
i 0.759 i
0
o !
0.03 78b
Age 1+
0,693 ;
0
o i
0.0472'
Age 2+
:' 0.693 :
0
; o ;
0.0567"
Age 3+
; 0.693 :
0.15
0.0008 i
0,103*
Age 4+
; 0.689 ;
0.15
0.0266 i
0.15*
Age 5+
i 1.58
0.15
; 0.212 i
0.214*
Age 6+
j 1.54 ;
0,15
0.48 i
0.265*
Age 7+
I 1.48 ;
0.15
i 0.838 1
0.356"
Age 8+
; 1.46
0.15
! 1 1
0.387*
Age 9+
1.46 ;
0.15
1 i
0.516*
Age 10+
1.46
0.15
i i
0.619s
2 PSHG, 1999c.
6 Assumed based on PSEO, 1999c.
Table 61-34- Window pane Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*1
; Fraction Vulnerable |
to Fishery'
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
j 2.64*
0
0 i
0.0000000818
Larvae
; 6.47"
0
: 0 :
0.00000847
Age 1 +
i 0.39c i
1.6
0.02
0.00634
Age 2+
i 0.39c 1
1.6
0.25
0.0409
Age 3+
j 0.39' :
1.6
: 0.61 j
0.188
Age 4+
•: 0.391-
1.6
1 ;
0.384
Age 5+
i 0.39c ;
1.6
; i !
0.S48
Age 6+
I 0.39* • j
1.6
i 1 i
0.663
Age 7+
j o.39e :
1.6
: I
0.808
Age 8+
1 0.39' i
1.6
: 1 ;
2.53
" Calculated from survival (New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc., 1995) using the
equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001,
" NOAA, 2001c.
' USGen New England, 2001. Winter flounder.
f Weight calculated from length (Clayton et al, 1978) using the formula: (2.IOxlO ')*Length(mm)3 00 =
weight(g) (Clayton et al, 1978).
App. Gl-21
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part &: Seabrook and Pilgrim
Appendix 61: Life History Parameter Values
Table SI-35: Winter Flounder Species Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality j
(per stage) j
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"1
• Fraction Vulnerable;
; to Fishery"
Weight
(lb)'
Eggs
j 5.39' j
0
i o
0.00000000726r
Larvae 1
: 0.354"' i
0
: 0
0.0000004428
Larvae 2
; 0.708" :
0
o ;
0.000001088
Larvae 3
; 2.83b 1
0
1 0 :
0.00000933s
Larvae 4
i 0.708b !
0
I o :
0.0000135s
Juvenile
i \.1T \
0
! o i
0.000161h
Age 1+
i 0.2® ;
0.24
i 0,01
0.012'
Age 2+
; 0.2= :
0.24
: 0.29 :
0.1821
Age 3+
; 0.2- ;
0.24
! 0.8 :
0.425'
Age 4+
| 0.2C i
0.24
0.92 ;
0.73 8j
Age 5+
j 0.2C i
0,24
0.83 ;
1.08'
Age 6+
: 0.25 ;
0.24
: 0.89 i
1.4'
Age 7+
i 0.2° j
0.24
0.89 :
1.69'
Age 8+
i 0.2C ;
0.24
0.89
1.94'
Age 9+
; o.2c i
0.24
| 0.89 |
2.16'
Age 10+
o.2' ;
0.24
j 0.89 j
2.33'
Age 11+
: 0.2' :
0.24
0.89 :
2.49'
Age 12+
i 0.2C i
0.24
| 0.89 ;
2.61'
" Calculated from survival (PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc., 1999) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
* Calculated from survival (Saila et al, 1997) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Colarusso. 2000.
" NOAA, 2001c.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula: (6.591 x 10"6)*Length(mm):1-'0, = weight! g) (Colarusso,
2000).
' Length from Able and Fahay (1998).
8 Length from Saila et al. (1997).
h Length assumed based on Saila et al. (1997) and Colarusso (2000).
' Length from Colarusso (2000).
App, Gl-22
------- |