xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Case Study Analysis for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Phase
II Existing Facilities Rule
Part H -1
May 2002
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821 -R-02-002
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J, R, Whiting
Part H: J.R. Whiting
Facility Case Study
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Hi J .ft Whiting Chapter HI: Background
Chapter H1: Background
This case study presents the results of an analysis
performed by EPA to assess the potential benefits of
reducing the cumulative impacts of l&E at (.."WIS at the
J.R, Whiting plant, a Great Lakes facility located on Lake
Erie. Section H1-1 of this background chapter provides a
brief description of the facility, Section 111-2 describes the
environmental setting, and Section Ml-3 presents
information on the area's socioeconomic characteristics.
HI -1 Overview of J.R. Whiting
Facility
Chapter Contents
hi «i
Hl-2
Overview of J.R. Whiting Facility HI-!
Environmental Setting HI-3
Hl-2.1 Lake Erie .T BJ-3
Hl-2.2 Aquatic Habitat aad Biota H1*3
Ht-2.3 Major Eovitonawatii StreMors, 111-4
Swo^noiiwChw»c«n*m Hl-5
fll-i.i Major Indiuma) A«n-mcs
Hf-1.3 C cuninercii) JunrriM .
HI-3.3 Recreational FisJierick
The J.R. Whiting power plant is a 346 MW power plant
located on Lake Erie. It began commercial service in 1952 and
currently operates three coal-fired steam-electric units and one
oil-fired gas turbine. J.R. Whiting had 134 employees in 1999
and generated 2.1 million MWh of electricity. Estimated
baseline revenues in 1999 were $141 million, based on the
plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 2.0 million MWh and
the 199 company-level electricity revenues of $71.14 per MWh,
J.R. Whiting's 1999 production expenses totaled S44 million, or
2.060 cents per kWh. for an operating income of $9? million.
The facility is located at Luna Pier. Michigan, on the Woodtick
Peninsula, 10 miles north of Toledo, Ohio, and 35 miles south of
Detroit, Michigan (Figure Hl-t),
4* Ownership htfnrmatinn
J.R. Whiting is a regulated utility plant owned by
Consumers Energy Co., a subsidiary of CMS Energy
Corporation. CMS Energy Corporation is an energy
holding company with over 11,600 employees. The
firm owns or controls almost 8.1 million megawatts of
electric* generating capability. In 2000, CMS posted
sales of 19.0 billion and sold 41.0 million MW h of
electricity (Hoover's Online, 2001c, CMS, 2001),
Table HI-I below summarizes the plant characteristics of the JR. Whiting plant
Table Hl-1: Summary of J.R. Whiting Plant Characteristics (1999).
; J.R. Whiting
Plant ElA Code 1723
NERC Region ECaR
Total Capacity (MW) 346
Primary Fuel Coal
Number of Employees 134
Net Generation (million MWh) 2.1
Estimated Revenues (million dollars) 14!
Total Production Expense (million dollars) 44
Production Expense (tffkWh) 2.060
Estimated Operating Income (million dollars) 97
Notes; NERC = North American Electric Reliability Council
ECAR « East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement
Dollars are i n $2001.
Source: Form ESA-860A (NERC Region. Total Capacity, Primary Fuel); PERC Form-1 (Number of Employees, Total Production
Expense); Form El A-906 (Net Generation).
///-/
-------
Chapter Hi: Background
The Monroe power plant (evaluated in Part I) is located just to the north, where the Raisin River enters Lake Erie, as
indicated in Figure HI -1.
Consumer Power's J.R, Whiting facility has one cooling water intake structure serving one once-through cooling system, The
facility withdraws cooling water from North Maumee Bay (located in western Lake Erie) via a recessed shoreline intake at the
lake surface. The intake has a fish deterrent net located across the recessed portion of the shoreline and a dual entry/single
exit traveling screen. The design intake capacity of the intake is 308 MOD.
Figure Bi-t: Locations of the J.R, Whiting and Monroe Facilities Within the Great Lakes Region
CANADA
W <"*
Mi
. Area of detail
' ^ '
~7]
PA
IN
OH
y
MICHIGAN
OHIO
Anil
Arbor
1 I HS\.
B"
Toiedo
i
m
Detroit
. V
I
C\N
Power Plant
P
1
h R. Whiting
Plant
N
% „ i
liass
wm.
wm
.Mam*'
m
iisllPi
IlllB'Pi
N
V^r
w
iliS
mm
t .i.\
| | Major urban areas
! ! ¦¦
Cleveland
10 5 fl )0 2t> Kiltroclcm
10 5 0 : 10 20 Miles'
In 1980, a deterrent net was installed to reduce high impingement of gizzard shad i(Darosoma cepedianum). emerald shiner
(Notropix athermmdes), spottatl shiner (Notropis htubonius), yellow perch (Perca jlavescen.t), and several other lake fishes
(Consumers Power Company, 1984). Studies indicate that the net has dramatically reduced impingement rates (Consumers
Power Company, 1984, 1994; Figure Hl-2).
Hl-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R Whiting
Chapter HI: Background
Figure 111-2: Estimated Annual Fish Impingement of All Species at Consumers Powers. Company's J,R. Whiting Plant, 1978-199)
HH ' i; fir;;;
nn »n n»o wsi ns:
0«4 IV 8 5
M7T
198 3
»88 HH9
Kill
Source: Consumers Power Company, !9I4;
H1 - 2 Environmental Setting
H1 - 2.1 Lake Eric
Lake Eric has 1,402 km (871,2 miles) of coastline and a surface area of 25,657 km1 (9,906,2 mi2) < U.S. EPA, 2001a). With
an average depth of only 19 m (62 ft), Lake Erie is by far the shallowest of the Great Lakes (University of Wisconsin Sea
Grant, 2001), and therefore the most susceptible to storms, wind tides, and seiches (U.S. EPA, 2000). Its shallowness results
in considerable temperature variations throughout the year. Lake Erie warms quickly in the spring and summer and cools
rapidly in the fall (U.S. EPA, 2QD0). During particularly long, cold winters a large part (or sometimes all) of the lake may
freeze over.
Lake Erie has undergone drastic biological changes during the past 20 years (U.S. EPA. 2000). Although the water was once
severely polluted, water clarity has improved dramatically as a result of stricter water pollution controls as well as filtering by
expanding populations of the introduced zebra mussel (U.S. EPA, 2000).
HI-2,2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
Lake Erie consists of three relatively distinct aquatic regions; the western, central, and eastern basins (U.S. EPA, 20(H) i The
central and eastern basins are deep, with depths reaching approximately 29 and 53 m (95 and 175 ft) respectively. They have
low flushing tales and exhibit noticeable thermal stratification. The western basin, from which J.R. Whiting withdraws its
water, is the shallowest of the three basins. With an average depth of only 7.4 m (24 ft) and a maximum depth of 19 m (82 ft)
(U.S. EPA, 2000), the western basin is so shallow that its entire depth is stirred by wind action. The eyeling motion of the
water resuspends bottom sediments in the water column and makes stratification very rare and brief. The shallow dept.ii of the
basin also results in warmer water and relatively high biological productivity in the area surrounding the J.R. Whiting facility.
Historically, bcnthic organisms, animals that live on or in association with the bottom of the lake, have been dominant in the
western basin. These organisms find an abundance of food in the organic load deposited by the Detroit and Mautnee rivers
directly into the basin. Though it receives a high sediment loading, most sediment eventually moves to the central and eastern
basins. The west basin's shallow sandbanks also provide ideal spawning habitat for fish from all three basins (U.S. EPA,
2000). Typical fish found tn Lake Erie include bowfln, brown trout, carp, chinook salmon, coho salmon, freshwater drum,
lake herring, lake sturgeon, lake trout, lake whitefish, longnose sucker, rainbow smelt, pumpkinseed, and rock, white, and
smallmoutb bass (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant, 2001).
if 1-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part W: J ft Whiting
The Lake Erie shore is composed of silty-clay soils and is predominantly steep with very little beach area (Dodge and
Kavetsky, 1995). Shoreline erosion, caused by the stirring of the lake, results in milky-colored inshore waters. In contrast,
offshore waters are much more transparent. Wind in the central basin causes strong along-shore currents and undertows that
build peninsulas by pulling sediments from the shores. The peninsulas shelter significant remaining wetlands and create bays
that provide spawning and nursery habitat for several fish species.
On the U.S. side, Lake Erie once had significant wetlands, including the 4,OIK) km2 (1544 mi1) Black Swamp at the Maumee
River (Dodge and Kavetsky, 1995). However, the Black Swamp has been reduced to 100 km2 (39 mi3) by agricultural
activities, including conversion. An especially severe problem for Lake Erie's wetland habitats is agricultural nutrients and
sediments, which cause a high level of turbidity, Suspended sediments in the water prevent the establishment of submergent
vegetation and adversely affect the aquatic ecosystem.
Compared to the other Great Lakes, Lake Erie has few areas of rocky substrate for fish spawning. Virtually all such habitat is
encrusted with zebra and quagga mussels, except for areas where waterfowl or fish predalion and ice scour limit mussels to
the sheltered sides of rocks. In addition, the rocky substrates of Lake Erie have also been degraded by algal growth and
sedimentation, further limiting fish spawning habitats. In the Detroit River, contaminated sediments are thought to be
affecting fish eggs. On the Grand River, dams have limited the upstream migration of walleye (Dodge and Kavetsky, 1995).
HI-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
The large human population surrounding Lake Erie has led to a number of major stresses on the aquatic environment (U.S.
EPA, 2000). Nonpoim source pollution combined with the productive waters of the western basin have at times (particularly
1950-1970) resulted in accelerated autrophication, large algal blooms, and anoxic waters. Overfishing and the introduction of
non-native species have hurt some fish populations, though control efforts for both overfishing and invasive species have
helped populations to rebound in recent years (U.S. EPA, 2000),
a. Habitat alteration
The western area of Lake Erie once had an extensive coastal marsh and swamp system stretching from the Detroit River to
Maumee Bay, but most marshes were cleared and drained throughout the 1900's (Dodge and Kavetsky, 1995), About
5300 ha (13,100 acres) of wetlands remain in Ohio, but Michigan's Lake Erie shoreline wetlands have been reduced to only
100 ha (247 acres). Remaining wetlands have been severely degraded.
The Woodtick Peninsula, where J.R, Whiting is located, serves as a barrier beach protecting the wetlands behind it from wave
erosion (U.S. EPA, 2001a), However, the peninsula itself is now being eroded as the sediment drift that once replenished it
has been diminished by structures built to protect shoreline properties. As the Peninsula erodes, so loo do the wetlands.
b. Introduction of nonnative species
The introduced zebra mussel became established in large numbers in Lake Erie the late 1980's and early I990's (U.S. EPA,
2000). As in the other Great Lakes, zebra mussels have altered habitat, the food web dynamic, energy transfer, and how
nutrients are cycled in the lakes. However, filtering by zebra mussels has apparently contributed to a dramatic increase in
Lake Erie's water clarity. A preferred course of action on how to deal with the zebra mussels has not been established by the
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan Committee (U.S. EPA, 2000).
c. Overfishing
Lake Erie has historically encountered problems of overfishing, particularly in the late 1800s (Egerton, 1985). In this century,
the exact impact of overfishing has been debated because decreases in stocks may also be attributed to pollution, invasive
species, and habitat degradation (Egerton, 1985). Ultimately, the governments of the Great Lakes slates and provinces came
together to form the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in 1955, and since then the Commission has studied the issues and set
commercial and recreational fishing quotas to help maintain important fish species (U.S. EPA, 2000).
d Pollution
Discbarges to Lake Erie of persistent toxic chemicals were banned in the 1970s, but effects of these historic discharges
continue to linger (U.S. EPA, 2000). Two sites near the J.R. Whiting facility have been designated as Areas of Concern
(AOC); the Maumtie AQC, which resulted from high concentrations of PCBs in the.Maumee River drainage area, and the
River Raisin AOC, caused by historical discharges of oils and grease, heavy metals, and PCBs into the River Raisin
(U.S. EPA, 2000). -
Ht-4
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R. Whiting
Chapter HI: Background
The presence of PCBs has resulted in fish consumption advisories being issued for Lake Erie, the Ottawa River and the Raisin
River (see Table HI-2). The Ottawa River, in the Maumee drainage area, has the highest fish contaminant concentrations, and
the most restrictive fish consumption advisories. The River Raisin and the Lake Erie FCAs are milder (MDCH, 2001).
Table HI-2: State of Michigan Fish Consumption Advisories for Lake Erie,
Ottawa River, and River Raisin, 2001°
Fhfc Length (in.)
6-8
WO
10-12 1
12-14
14-18
18-22
: 22-26
26-30
30+
Lake Erie
Carp
~
~
~
«
~
*
~
~
~
Catfish
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
*
~
Chinook salmon
*/B ;
AM
: A .-a
* M
: il
A/B
A/B
Coho salmon
am
AM
; am
AM
; am
A/a
a/b
Freshwater drum
A!W
*/~
*/~
*/~
\ AfW
*./~
*/~
*../~
.*/~
Lake trout
A V
*./•:•
A/*
a/*
*/»:•
a/•:•
Rain bow trout
a/b
AM
i AM
a/b
: A/a
A/B
: a/b
Smalimout'n bass
¦ aM
A/a
A/B
A/a
Walleye
*/~
: AfW
*/~
: a/b
a/b
a/b
White bass
il
MM
AM
A*
: A/a
A/a
Whitefish
~/~
~ /~
~/~
~/~
~
~
*
White perch
A/a
A/B
A/a
A/a
Yellow Perch
*/~
*/~
*/~
A/V
; */~
*./~
Ottawa River
All species
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
*
River Raisin (heiow Monroe Dam)
Carp
~
*
*
~
«
~
~
~
~
Freshwater drum
*/a
A*
A/a
A/a
A/a
A/a
: a/b
a/b
A/B
Smallmouth bass
~; *:•
: ~/•;~
~/.;•
White bass
a
A/*
*
~
~
' Limit consumption to 1 meal {% pound) per week.
! Unlimited consumption
• = No consumption.
= Limit consumption to 6 meats (*A pound) per year.
¦ = Limit consumption to 1 meal (>,4 pound) per month.
* If there is only one symbol it is the advice for the whole population. When two symbols arc shown, the first is the advice for the
"general population" and the second is the advice for "children age 15 an
-------
Chapter HI; Background
Table HI-3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Monroe and Neighboring Counties,
; Monroe County, MI Wayne County, Ml Lucas County, OH
Population in 2000
145,945
2,061,162
455,054
Land area in 2000, km' (mi*)
1,427 (551>
1,590(614}
881 (340)
Persons per square mile, 2000
265
; 3,357
1,338
Metropolitan Area
Detroit, Ml
Detroit, MI
Toledo, Oil
Median household money income, 1997 model-based estimate
$48,607
; 535,357
S3"7.064
Persons below poverty, percent, 1997 model-based estimate
7.60%
18.00%
13.60%
Housing units in 2000
56,471
826,145
196,259
Homeownership rate in 2000
81.00%
66.60%
65.40%
Households in 2000
53,772
768,440
182,847
Persons per household tn 2000
2.69
2,64
2.44
Households with persons under i 8 years in 2000
39.10%
37.70%
34.10%
High 3ehool graduates, 25 and older in 1990
60,968
926,603
221,052
College graduates, 25 and older in 1990 ;
8,655
: 180,822
49,393
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001,
HI-3.1 Major Industrial Activities
Monroe County produces agricultural products such as soybeans, grains, corn, sugar beets, potatoes and alfalfa, and industrial
processes such as auto-parts manufacturing, metal fabrication, cement, packaging and glass production (InfoMl, 2001), Luna
Pier, where J.R, Whiting is located, is primarily a resort town with a sandy beach and a half mile crescent shaped pier
stretching out into Lake Erie (InlbMI, 2001).
HI-3.2 Commercial Fisheries
Commercial fishing on Lake Erie has generated between $2 million and $3 million of revenue per year for the last decade
(USGS. 2001c). A small share of this catch comes from the Michigan waters. Tables 111-4 and HI-5 show the pounds
harvested and the revenue generated for the Michigan Lake Erie commercial fishery from 1985 to 1999, Despite fish
consumption advisories, carp is the most important commercial species, comprising 72 percent of the catch and 51 percent of
revenues over this 15-year period. Channel catfish, quillback, and bigmouth buffalo make up most of the remaining harvest
and revenue (USGS, 2001c).
HI-3,3 Recreational Fisheries
Lake Erie fish species also help support several charter boat companies. In 1997, Lake Erie charter boats reported 1,727
excursions with 8,284 anglers (Rakoczy and Wesander-Russell, 1998). Ninety percent of these anglers were local residents.
About half of the 74,000 fish caught on charter boats that year were walleye and about half were yellow perch (Rakoczy and
Wesander-Russell, 1998).
Recreational anglers spent about 175,000 noncharter days fishing the Michigan waters of Lake Erie in 1994 (Rakoczy and
Svoboda, 1997), Their most commonly caught species were yellow perch and walleye (44 percent and 35 percent of the total
harvest, respectively). White bass, channel catfish, freshwater drum, and white perch made up most of the remaining catch.
Total recreational hours (including charier) spent fishing Michigan's Lake Erie dropped in the early 1990s (see Table Hl-6),
but the reasons for this are unclear. Some of the reduction in fishing days may be related to declines in species such as yellow
perch. However, Thomas and Haas (2000) note that (he apparent declines in yellow perch and other species may reflect lower
catchability resulting from an improved ability to avoid fishing gear because of improved water clarity rather than actual
population reductions.
111-6
-------
S 316(b) Cast Stud.es, Part H: J.D. Whiting
Chapter HI: Background
The /'» Spillway or l'ymMHnin% Shite
Park: "It kt'rr Ducks Hulk on f'ishes' Hutks"
Carp swarm above and below the spillway. They compete
with ducks and Canada geese for slices of bread tossed to
them by visitors. The ducks clamor over the seemingly
endless school of carp to get their share. The ducks actually
walk on the back of the carp.
The Spillway is a popular recreational site where visitors
bring old bread or buy it at a nearby concession stand, Birds
and fish compete for the bread. The spillway is the outflow
of a secondary impoundment at the 2500 acre Pymatuning
reservoir / sanctuary that serves as fish propagation waters
for the liricsville Fish Culture Station.
Source. hftp'//www.sidcroads-cam/t>uldoori/spillway him!
Photos: C Lynnc CI Tudor
HI-7
-------
S 316(b) Cosfe Studies, Port H: J R. Whiting Chapter HI; Background
Table HI-4; Pounds of Commercial Landings in the Michigan Waters of Luke Erie
Specie; 1985 i 1986 j 198? j 1988 j 1989 j 1999 j 1991 ; 1992 j t993 j 1W i 1995 j1996 ;_1» | 1998 ; 1999
(ii7?ard shad
; 878,000
2,845
[ 395
1 2,103
23
36,996
24,494
4.988
6,200
Brown bullhead
7,340
7.687
: 4,462
• 5,421
j 3,572
488
704
444
¦ 844
i 659
827
828
744
2,139
7,050
Channel catfish
; 9,253
11.1 S3
; .39,603
15,208
; 11,481
2,025
1,941
2,929
9,152
i 5,760
16,168
24,969
17,936
16,573
7,561
While perch
8
10
64
45
4
White bass
j 4,764
1,397
! 4,142
1,049
i 99!
19
357
i 1,180
: 1,819
1,850
2,923
7,306
1,326
23
Freshwater drum
905
2.032
j 1,825
1,180
290
! 4,206
111
39,673
48,218
8,823
24,507
265
Gars
; 441
; 68
27
90
279
Suckers
: 1,378
123
; 88
436
4,286
72
6,180
1,945
Goldfish
1 55!
188
i 2,951
877
8,416
1,025
;; 501
: HI
517
7,138
10,497
6,862
Carp
: 738,857
'• 367,350
j 685,395
417.365
i 194,320
158,151
198,294
251,365
238,805
! 94,662
329,262
387,67!
325,43.3
620,015
211,055
Quillbuck
! 87,326
I 2,217
i 1,062
1,380
568
6.894
30,204
i 28,175
! 8,930
66,013
73,662
33,937
22,990
Btgnwuth buffalo
• 577
; 14,732
i 17,814
9,471
; 19,549
40,064
104
91,877
15,721
25,894
Totals
; 1,728.400
; 406,681
; 754,942
451,262
i 233,432
201,605
216,276
289,469
; 283,699
: 114,223
454,833
586,867
521,213
721,580
259,993
Source USGS, 200k.
Table HI -5: Revenue from Commercial Landings in the Michigan Waters of Lake Erie
Species
; 1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
19W
1991 i
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
I 1997
1998
1999
Gizzard shad
j $241,450
S342
$40
S274
St
$4,809
; 51,714
$350
$744
Brown bullhead
: $1,834
$1,888
SI,076
SI,355
1895
S123
SI 71 I
Si 22
5213
S185
$189 :
5209
! $253
S599
$1,904
Channel catfish
; $5,364
$6,453
$23,201
$9,114
$6,898
$1,215
SI,138 :
SI ,569
55,580
S3.628
510,189
$14,236
: 59,684
59.281
54,461
White perch
S4 ;
S5
$42
$28
: 52
White bass
: $1,219
SI,073
$3,209
5629
$488
$18 ;
$374
It,191
$1,474
$1,702 ;
$2,661
; $6,213
$1,074
$18
Freshwater drum
; $89
Si 85
$187
$472
$28
S462
S22
$7,538 :
57,714
; $1,411
S4.168
S48
Gars
S17
S1I
$45
SI 12
Suckers
I 5155
$7
S6
$26 ;
$256
: $5
$37!
$253
Goldfish
S827
S47
S495
$201
11,689
S308
$126
5130
$2,929
: $3,466
$2,745
Carp
; 585,409
$38,937
579,199
-$63,611
$26,000
519,590
$23,794 |
S30,612
$31,044
$12,306
536,222
$46,521
¦ $45,562
580,601
$27,438
Quillback
; S5,086
SI 70
$106
$139
$227
52,661
$12,856
$10,144
53.130
$22,446
$26,516
: 56,449
$4,598
Bigmouth buffalo
• $292
16,060
57.148
$3,975
$8,332
$16,358
547
; 540,425
58.018
$11,913
Totals
: S 340,898
S54J73
5114,959
179,342
$43,335
$37,487
529,475
546,216
548,800
$21,036
$78,485
$105,937
- St 15^229
5111,917
$46,779
Source: USGS, 2001c.
HI-8
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port H: J.R. Whiting Chapter HI: Background
Table Hi-6: Michigan Lake Erie Boat Fishery Angler Effort and Primary Species Catch April Through October,
1986 to 3998
Angler Hours
Number of Yellow Perch Harvested
Number of Walleye Harvested
1986*
2,068,779 ;
834,310
605,666
1987 ;
2,455,903 !
619,112
902,378
1988" ;
4,362,452
318,786
1.996,824
J 989 ~
3,799,067
1,466,442
1,092,289
1990 •;
2.4K2.242
770,507
710,508
1991* ;
805,294
378,716
132,322
1992
836,216
255,747
249,713
1993 ;
935,249
473,580
270,376
1994
1,012,595
246,327
216,040
1995
na
343,240
107,909
1996
aa ;
635,233
174,607
1997 :
na :
529,435
112,400
1998 :
na ;
586.277
114,607
* May through October,
11 May through September,
m - not available.
Sources: Rakoczy and Svoboda,
1997; Thomas and Haas, 2000.
Hl-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H J R. Whiting
Chapter H2: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Chapter H2: Technical and Economic
Descriptions of the
J.R. Whiting Facility
H2 -1 Baseline Operational
Characteristics
The J.R, Whiting power plant operates four units, Three
are coal-fired steam electric units that use cooling water
withdrawn from Lake Erie (Units 1-3) while the fourth
unit (Unit 4) is an oil-fired gas turbine that does not require cooling water. The unite began operation between July 19S2 and
May 1968,
J.R. Whiting's total net generation in 1999 was 2.1 million MWh. The three steam turbine units (Units 1-3) had capacity
utilization rates between 71,4 and 77,3 percent. Table 112-1 presents details for J.R. Whiting's four units.
chapter Contents
Table H2-1 - Generator Detail of the J.R. Whiting Plant (1999)
Generator
ID
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover*
Energy
Source'
; In-Service
Date
Operating Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization'
ID of
; Associated
CWIS
1
100
ST
BIT
; Jul. 1952 :
Operating
625,383
71.4%
i 1
2
100
ST
BIT
Dec. 1952
Operating
677,547
77.3%
; 2
3
125
ST
BIT
; Nov. 1953
Operating
807,688
73.8%
1 3
A
21
GT
F02
: May 1968
Operating
1,826
1.0%
; Not
; applicable
Total
346
2,112,444
69.8%
* Prime mover categories; ST — steam turbine; GT « gas turbine,
0 Energy source categories: BIT = bituminous coal; F02 - No, 2 fuel oil.
' Capacity utilization was calculated by dividing the unit's actual net generation by the potential generation if the unit ran at full capacity
all the time (i.e., capacity * 24 hours * 365 days),
Source; U.S. Department of Energy. 2001a, 2001b, 200ld.
Figure 112-1 below presents J.R. Whiting's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
It2-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.ft Whiting Chapter H2: Technical and Economic Descriptions
Figure H2-I: J.R, Whiting Net Electricity Generation 1970 -2000 (in MWh)
3,000,000
2,600,000 mmmm—
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
1970 1975 mo 1985 1$90 1995 2000
Y#«r
Source: Form EIA-906,
H2-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal
The J.R, Whiting facility has one cooling water intake structure serving the entire facility. The facility withdraws cooling
water from North Maumee Bay (located in western Lake Erie) via a recessed shoreline intake at the lake surface. The intake
has a fish barrier net located across the recessed portion of the shoreline and a dual entry/single exit traveling screen, as well
as trash racks located at the entrance to intake structure. In 1996, the facility withdrew an average of 298 MGD at an average
intake velocity of 1.03 feet per second. The total design intake flow for J.R. Whiting is 308 MGD.
H2-2
-------
Chapter H3: Evaluation of I4E Data
Chapter H3:
Evaluation of I&E Data
EPA evaluated impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
from the (.'WIS of the J.R, Whiting Facility using the
assessment methods described in Chapter A5 of Part A
of this document, EPA's analysis focused on I&E
rates at J.R, Whiting before and after installation of a
deterrent net in 198(1 to reduce impingement. The
facility's I&E monitoring program was designed to
evaluate the effectiveness of the net, and therefore
included 2 years of sampling of baseline l&E losses
before installation of the net and several years of
impingement monitoring after (Wupora. 1979, 1980;
Consumers Power Company, 1984, 1988, 1994). EPA
evaluated these two sampling periods to estimate {I)
l&E rates with no technology in place, and (2) the
reduction in impingement resulting from the deterrent
net. Section 113-1 of this chapter lists fish species that are impinged and entrained at J.R. Whiting, Section 10-2 presents life
histories of the most abundant species in the facility's l&E collections, and Section 113-3 summarizes the facility's l&E
collection methods. Section H3-4 presents annual l&E losses before installation of the deterrent net to reduce impingement.
Section 113-3 presents impingement losses following net installation, and Section H3-6 summarizes these results.
iiiiu.jiiiiiii .111 m i, i ..gu.uu III urn "I
Chapter Contents
H3-I Species Vulnerable to l&E H3-1
H3-2 Life Histories of Major Species Impinged and
Entrained H-3-2
HJ-3 J.R. Whiting's Methods for Estimating l&E H3-J1
H3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring H3-I I
H3-3.2 Entrainmem Monitoring H3-12
H3-4 J.R. Whiting's Mutual l&E Na ..... H3-J2
H3-4.I Annua! impingement Without the Net ,. H5-12
113-4,2 Annual t.mr-tmmeni Wiifroui the Net. , H7 IJ
H3-5 J JR. Whjting's Annual Impmgemem With the "to
H3-6 Summary., ..1^45
H3-1 Species Vulnerable to i&E
EPA evaluated all species known to be impinged and entrained by the J.R. Whitmg facility based on information provided in
facility l&E monitoring reports (Wapora, 1979, 1980; Consumers Power Company, 1984, 1988, 1994). Table 113-1 lists
these species, and their classification as recreational, commercial, or forage species.
Table H3-1: Species Vulnerable to I&E by J.R, Whiting
Common Name
; Scientific Nan*
Recreational Commercial
Forage
Atcwife
.Alosa pseudoharengus
X
Biucgil!
l.cpomts macrochsrus
X
Bluntnose minnow
\ Pimephutes notatm
X
Bullhead species
Ameiurus spp.
: x
Carp
: Cyprinm carpiu carpta :
x
Carpsueker or bufl'aloc
rCatostomidae
x
Channel catfish
'ictaluruspunclatus
X X
Crappie species
¦ Pirnaxi spp.
X
Emerald shiner
: Notmpis atherwoiiles
X
Freshwater drum
Aplodinoius grurmiem
; X
Gizzard shad
[Doraxomu cvpedianum
X :
Goldfish
: Camssius au runts aumtus
x
Herring family
"Clupeidae
X
Logpereh '
Percina mprmk'x
X
Minnow family
;Cyprinidac
X
Orangcspotted sun fish
.Leporms humilis
x ;
H3-J
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R. Whiting
Chapter
H3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Toble H3-1: Species Vulnerable
to X<3tE by J R. Whiting (coot.)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Recreational Commercial
Forage
Perch family
• Percidm [
X
Pumpkinseed
] Lepomis gihhosus
X
Rainbow smelt
: Osmerus mordax mordax \
X
Shiner species
,'Cyprimdae
X
Smaflmouth bass
; Micrapierus Momieui
X
Spottai! shiner
; Nolmpis hudsonim
X
Sucker species
\ Catostomidae
X
Sunfish species
: Centrarchidae
X
Tadpole madtam
\Noturus gytinm
x
Troutperch
; Percapsis amiscamaycus \
; x
Walleye
•SUzostedion vitreum
x :
Warmouth
\Lepomis guhsus
X :
White bass
[Morone chrymps \ ¦
X X
White perch
; Morone americana
X
Yellow perch
]PercafIavescens
X
Sources: Wapora. 1979, 1980.
H3-2 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), Alewives entered the Great Lakes region through the Welland Canal which connects
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and by 1949, they were present in Lake Michigan (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute,
2001). Because alewives are not a freshwater species, they are particularly susceptible to osmotic stress associated with
freshwater. Freshwater fish have larger kidneys which they use to constantly pump water from their bodies. Since they lack
this physiological adaptation, alewives are more susceptible to environmental disturbances.
In the Great Lakes, alewives spend most of their time in deeper water. During spawning season, they move towards shallower
inshore waters to spawn. Although alewives generally do not die after spawning, the fluctuating temperatures that the adults
are exposed to when they move to inshore waters often results in mortality due to osmotic stress. In certain years, temperature
changes caused by upwelling may result in a massive die-ofT of spawning alewives (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
institute, 2001).
Alewife has been introduced to a number of takes to provide forage for sport fish (Jude et al, 1987b). Ecologically, alewife is
an important prey item for many fish.
Spawning is temperature-driven, beginning in the spring as water temperatures reach 13 to 15 *C, and ending when they
exceed 27 *C (Able and Fahay, 1998), In their native coastal habitats, alewives spawn in the upper reaches of coastal rivers,
in slow-flowing sections of slightly brackish or freshwater, in the Great Lakes, alewives move inshore toward the outlets of
rivers and streams to spawn (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001),
In coastal habitats, females lay demersal eggs in shallow water less than 2 m (A.6 ft) deep (Wang and Kemehan. 1979). They
may lay from 60,000 to 300,000 eggs at a time (Koctk, 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 ram (0.1 to 0.2 in.) total lengtli (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), fn the fall, juveniles move offshore to nursery areas (Able and Fahay, 1998).
Hi-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H J.R. Whiting Chapter H3i Evaluation of I4E Data
Maturity is reached at 3 to 4 years for males, and 4 to 5 years for females (Able and Fahay, 1998). The average size at
maturity is 265 to 278 mm (10,4 to 10,9 in.) 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 (Waterfkld,
1995; PSEG, 1999c).
Food source: Small fish, zooplankton, fish eggs, amphipods,
mysids.J
(
Prey for; Striped bass, weak fish, rainbow trout.
ALEWIFE
(Alosa pseudoharertgus)
Life stage information:
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Eggs: demersal
* Found in waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep.'
Common names; River herring, sawbelly. kyak.
~ Are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0,03 to 0.05 in) in diameter/
branch herring, freshwater herring, bigeye herring,
gray herring, grayback, white herring.
Larvae:
Similar species: Blueback herring.
~ Approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0,1 to 0.2 in) at hatching,'
~ Remain in upstream spawning ares for some time before
drifting downstream to natal estuaiine waters.
Geographic range: Along the western Atlantic coast
from Newfoundland to North Carolina,* Arrived in the
Juveniles;
Great Lakes via the Wei land Canal.''
* Stay on the bottom during the day and rise to the surface at
night*
Habitat: Wide-ranging, tolerates fresh to saline
~ Emigrate to ocean in summer and fall/
waters, travels in schools.
Adults: anadromous
Lifespan: May live up to 8 years.*1"
~ Reach maturity at 3-4 years for males and 4-5 years for
females.'
Fecundity: Females may lay from 60,000 to 300,000
~ Average size at maturity is 265-278 mm (10.4-10.9 in) for
eggs at a time*
males and 284-308 mm (11.2-12,1 in) for females/
~ Overwinter along the northern continental xhelf.r
* Scott and Grossman, 199g,
k University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 200!.
1 PSEG, 1999c.
4 Waterfield, 1995.
* Kocik, 2000.
' Able and Fahay, 1998,
« Fay etaL, 1983a.
fish xraphic courtesy of New York Sport fishing and Aquatic
Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Gizzard shad (Oorosoma cepedianum)
Gizzard shad is a member of the family Clupeidae Its distribution is widespread throughout the eastern United Stales and
into southern Canada, with occurrences from the Si, Lawrence River south to eastern Mexico (Miller, 1960; Scott and
Crassman, 1973). Gizzard shad are found in a range of salinities from freshwater inland rivers to brackish estuaries and
marine waters along the Atlantic Coast of the United States (Miller, 1960; Carlander, 1969). Gizzard shad often occur in
schools (Miller, 1960). Yoursg-of-year are considered an important forage fish (Miller, 1960), though their rapid growth rate
limits the duration of their susceptibility to many predators (Bodola, 1966), In Lake Erie, gizzard shad are most populous in
the shallow waters of western Lake Erie, around the Bass Islands, and in protected bays and mouths of tributaries (Bodola,
1966).
Spawning occurs from late winter or early spring to late summer, depending on temperature. Spawning has been observed in
early June to July in Lake Erie (Bodola, 1966), and in May elsewhere in Ohio (Miller, 1960), The spawning period generally
lasts 2 weeks (Miller, I960). Mates and females release sperm and eggs while swimming in schools near the surface of the
water. Eggs sink slowly to the bottom or drift with the current, and adhere to any surface they encounter (Miller, 1960).
Females release an average of 378,990 egp annually (Bodola, 1966), which average 0.7S mm (0.03 in.) in diameter (Wallus
et at.. 1990).
H3-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting Chapter H3 Evaluation of I&E Dato
1 latching time can be anywhere front 36 hours to 1 week, depending on water temperature (Bodola, 1966). Young shad may
remain in upstream natal waters if conditions permit (Miller, 1960), By age 2 all gizzard shad are sexually mature, though
some may mature as early as age 1 (Bodoia, 1966). Unlike many other fish, fecundity in gizzard shad declines with age
(Electric Power Research Institute, 1987).
Gizzard shad generally live up to 6 years in Lake Erie, but individuals up to 10 years have been reported in southern locations
(Scott and Crossman, 1973), Mass mortalities have been documented in several locations during winter months, due to
extreme temperature changes (Williamson and Nelson, 1985).
spp?'
GIZZARD SHAD
(Dorosoma cepedianum)
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: Gizzard shad.
Similar species: Thread fin shad s
Geographic range: Eastern North America from the
St. Lawrence River lo Mexico.Ki
Habitat; Inhabits inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and
reservoirs to brackish estuaries and ocean waters."*'"'
Lifespan: Gizzard shad generally live 5 to 6 years,
but have been reported up to 10 years."
Fecundity: Maturity is reached by age 2; females
produce average of 378,990 eggs.b
; Food sources: Larvae consume protozoans, zooplankton, and
small crustaceans.' Adults are mainly herbivorous, feeding on
plants, phytoplankton, and algae. They are one of the few species
• able to feed solely on plant material.0
• Prey for: Walleye, white bass, largemouth bass, crappie, among
; others (immature shad only).1'
Life stage Information:
Eggs; demersal
~ During spawning, eggs are released near the surface and sink
to the bottom, adhering to any surface they touch.
Larvae: pelagic
- Larvae serve as forage to many species.
» After hatching, larvae travel in schools for the first few
months.
Adults
~ May grow as large as 52.1 cm (20.5 in.).8
~ May be considered a nuisance species because of sporadic
mass winter die-oils,1
Truutmar., 1981.
Miller. I960.
Scott and Crossman. 1973.
Fish graphic from Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, 2001.
Emerald shiner {Notropis atherinoides)
Emerald shiner is a member of the family Cyprinidae. It is found in large open lakes and rivers from Canada south throughout
the Mississippi Valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Emerald shiner prefer clear waters in the
mid to upper sections ofthe water column, and are most often found in deep, slow moving rivers and in Lake Erie (Trautrnan,
1981). The emerald shiner is one of the most prevalent fishes in Lake Erie (Trautrnan, 1981). Because of their small size,
they are an important forage fish for many species.
Spawning occurs from July to August iti Lake Erie (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Females lay anywhere from 870 to 8,700
eggs (Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970), which hatch within 24 hours (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Young-of-year remain
in large schools in inshore waters until the fall, when they move into deeper waters to overwinter (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
Young-of-year average 5,1 to 7.6 cm (2 to 3 in,) in length (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
Emerald shiner are sexually mature by age 2, though some larger individuals may mature at age I (Campbell and
MacCrimmon, 1970). Most do not live beyond 3 years of age (Puchs, 1967). Adults typically range from 6.4 to 8.4 cm (2,5
to 3.3 in.) (Trautrnan, 1981), Populations may fluctuate dramatically from year to year (Trautrnan, 19% I).
H3-4
-------
8 316(b) Case Studies, Part- H: J,R, Whiting Chapter H3: Evaluation of I4E Bate
: Food source: Microcrustaceans, midge larvae, zooplankton,
: algae."1
"***~ '
Prey for: Gulls, terns, mergansers, cormorants, smallmouth bass.
yellow perch, and others,11
EMERALD SHINER
(Notropis iitherinoidcs)
Life stage information;
: Eggsi demersal
Family: Cyprinidae (herrings).
: ~ Eggs hatch in less than 24 hours,d
Common names: Emerald shiner.
Larvae: pelagic
: ~ Individuals from different year classes can have varying body
Similar speeiw: Silver shiner, rosy face shiner."
proportions and fin length, as cm individuals from different
localities."
Geographic range: From Canada south throughout
the Mississippi valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama,^
Adults:
: ~ Typically range in size from 6.4 to 8.4 cm (2.5 to 3.3 in.).1
Habitat; Large open lakes and rivers.*'
Lifespan: Emerald shiner live to 3 years.*'1
Fecundity; Mature by age 2, Females can lay
anywhere from approximately 870-8,700 eggs.4
* Trautman, 1981,
6 Frocse and Pauly, 2000.
" Campbell and MacCrimmon. 1970.
11 Scott and Grossman, 1973.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishine and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Corp (Cyprinus carpio carp/a)
Carp is a member of the family of carps and minnows, Cyprinidae, and is abundant in Lake Erie, Carp were first introduced
from Asia to the United States in the I870*s and 1880's. and by the I890's were abundant in the Maumee River and in the
west end of Lake Erie (Trautman, 1981), Carp are most abundant in low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high levels or
organic matter, but tolerate all types of bottom and clear to turbid waters (Traulman, 1981), Carp overwinter in deeper water
and migrate to shallow water, preferably marshy environments with submerged aquatic vegetation in advance of the spawning
season (McCrimmon, 1968), Adults feed on a wide variety of plants and animals, and juveniles feed primarily on plankton.
Carp are often considered a nuisance species because of their habit of uprooting vegetation and increase turbidity when
feeding (McCrimmon, 1968; Scott and Grossman. 1973), Carp are not widely popular fishes for anglers, although carp
fishing may be an important recreational activity in some parts of the United Stales (Scott and Grossman, 1973), They are
occasionally harvested commercially and sold for food (Scott and Grossman, 1973),
Male carp reach sexual maturity between ages 3 and 4, and the females reach maturity between ages 4 and 5 (Swee and
McCrimmon, 1966). Spawning can occur at temperatures between 16 and 28 "C (60,8 and 82.4 *F) with optimum activity
between 19 and 23 *C (66.2 and 73,4 *F) (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966) Fecundity in carp can range from 36,000 eggs for a
39,4 cm (15.5 in.) fish to 2,208,000 in a 85,1 cm (33.5 in.) fish (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966) but individuals may spawn
only about 500 eggs at a given time (Dames and Moore, 1977a). Eggs are demersal and stick to submerged vegetation.
Eggs hatch 3 to 6 days after spawning and larvae tend to lie in shallow water among vegetation (Swee and McCrimmon,
1966), The lifespan of a typical carp in North America is less than 20 years (McCrimmon, 1968). Adult carp can reach 102-
122 cm (40-48 in.) long, and weigh 18-27 kg (40-60 lb) (Trautman. 1981).
H3-5
-------
8 316(b) Case. Studies, Port H: J.R, Whiting Chapter H3 Evaluation of I&E Data
Food source: Omnivorous; diet includes invertebrates.
small molluscs, ostraeods, and crustaceans as welt as
roots, leaves, and shoots of water plants."
Prey for; Juveniles provide limited forage for northern
pike, smallmouth bass, striped bass, and longnosed gar,
CARP
as well as green frogs, bullfrogs, turtles, snakes, mink.h
(Cyprinm carpio earpiv)
Life stage information:
Family: Cyprinidae (minnows or carp).
Eggs: demersal
Common names; Carp,
~ During spawning, eggs are released in shallow,
vegetated water. Eggs are demersal and stick to
Similar species; Goldfish, bufialofishes, carpsuckers."
submerged vegetation.
~ Eggs hatch in 3-6 days."
Geographic range; Wide-ranging throughout the United
States.
• Larvae;
~ Larvae are found in shallow, weedy, and muddy
Habitat: Low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high :
habitats.11
levels or organic carbon. Tolerates relatively wide range
Adults;
of turbidity. Often associated with submerged aquatic ;
vegetation.1' ;
~ May reach lengths of 102-122 cm (40-48 in.),"
Lifespan; Less than 20 years.1"
Fecundity: 36,000 to 2,208,000 eggs per season.* ;
* Trautnuin. 1981.
0 McCrimmon, 1968.
* Swce ami McCnmmon. 1966.
< Wang, 1986a,
Fish graphic from North Dakota Game and Fish Department (1986)
Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
The yellow perch is a member of the Percidae family and is found in fresh waters in the northern and eastern United States
and across eastern and central Canada, Yellow perch are also occasionally seen in brackish waters {Scott and Grossman,
1973). They are typically found in greatest numbers in clear waters with low gradients and abundant vegetation (Trautman,
1981). Perch feed during the day on immature insects, larger invertebrates, fishes, and fish eggs (Scott and Grossman, 1973),
Yellow perch are of major commercial and recreational value in Lake Erse, and the Great Lakes are a major source of yellow
perch to the commercial fishing industry.
Sexual maturity is reached at age 1 for males and at ages 2 and 3 for females (Saila et at, 1987). Pereh spawn in the spring in
water temperatures ranging from 6,7 to 12.2 "C (44-54 *F) (Scott and Grossman, 1973), Adults move to shallower water to
spawn, usually near rooted vegetation, fallen trees, or brush. Spawning takes place at night or in the early morning. Females
lay all their eggs in a single transparent strand that is approximately 3 cm (1.2 in.) wide (Saila et a!„ 1987) and up to 2,1 m (7
ft) long {Scott and Grossman, 1973). These egg cases are semi-buoyant and attach to submerged vegetation or occasionally to
the bottom and may contain 2,000-90,000 eggs (Scott and Grossman, 1973), In western Lake Erie, fecundities for yellow
perch were reported to range from 8,618 to 78,741 eggs (Saila et al., 1987),
Yellow perch larvae hatch within about 8-10 days and are inactive for about 5 days until the yolk is absorbed (Scott and
Grossman, 1973). Young perch are initially pelagic and found in schools, but become demersal after their first summer (Saila
et ai„ 1987),
Adult perch are inactive at night and rest on the bottom (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Females generally grow faster than
males and reach a greater final length (Scott and Grossman, 1973 ). In Lake Brie, perch may reach up to approximately 31 cm
(12 in.) m total length and have been reported to live up to 11 years.
H3-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.6. Whiting
YELLOW PERCH
(Perm flavescem)
Family: Percidae (perches).
Common names: Yellow perch, perch, American perch,
lake perch,11
Similar species; Dusky darter,"
Geographic range: Northern and eastern United Stales,1'
Habitat: Lakes, ponds, creeks, rivers. Found in clear
water near vegetation.,-b
Lifespan: Up to 11 years '
Fecundity: 2,000-90,000 eggs.'
Food source: Immature insects, larger invertebrates,
fishes, and Fish eggs.'
Prey for: Almost all warm to cool water predatory fish
including bass, sunfisb, crappies, walleye, sauger,
northempike, muskeiiunge, and other perch, as well as- a
number of birds,'
Life stage information:
Eggs: semi-buoyant
* Eggs laid in long tubes containing 2,000-90,000
eggs.c
~ Eggs usually hatch in 8-10 days.®
Larvae: pelagic
~ Larvae are 4.1-5.5 mm (0,16-0.22 in.) upon hatching.'1
~ Found in schools with other species/
~ Become demersal during the first summer."
Adults; demersal
~ Reach up to 31 cm (12 in.) m Lake Erie,'
<• Found in schools near the bottom.
' Frocsc and Cauly, 2001.
b Trautman, 1981.
' Scott and Grossman, 1973.
4 Saiiaet aL, 1987b.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Channel catfish (Ictafams punctatus)
Channel catfish is a member of the Ictaluridae (North American freshwater catfish) family, it is found from Manitoba to
southern Quebec, and as far south as the Gulf of Mexico (Dames and Moore, 1977a). Channel catfish can be found in
freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. They prefer deep water wilb clean gravel or boulder substrates and low to moderate
currents (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001b).
Channel catfish reach sexual maturity at ages 5-8, and females will lay 4,000-35,000 eggs dependent on body weight (Scott
and Grossman. 1998). Spawning begins when temperatures reach 24-29 'C (75-85 *F) in late spring or early summer.
Spawning occurs in natural nests such as undercut banks, muskrat burrows, containers, or submerged logs. Eggs
approximately 3,5 mm (0.1 in) in diameter are deposited in a large, flat, gelatinous mass (Wang, 1986a), After spawning, the
male guards the nest and fans it to keep it aerated. Eggs hatch in 7-10 days at 24-26 *C (75-79 *F) and the newly hatched
larvae remain near the nest for several days (Wang, 1986a). Young fish prefer to inhabit riffles and turbulent areas. Channel
catfish are very popular with anglers and are relatively prized as a sport fish (Dames and Moore, 1977a),
113-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port H: J.R. Whiting Chapter H3; Evaluation of I4E Doto
Food source: Small fish, crustaceans, clams, snails.1
Prey for: Chestnut lamprey,"
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
~ 3-4 mm in diameter/
*¦ Hatch in 7-10 days/1
Larvae:
*¦ Remain near nest Tor a few days then disperse to
shallow water.''
» Approx. 6.4 mm (0.25 in.) upon hatching.*1
Adults: demersal
* Average length: 30-36 cm {12-14 in.).1
~ Maximum length: up to 104 cm <41 in.)*
deep water with clean gravel or boulder substrates ' :
Lifespan: Maximum reported age: 16 years 8
Fecundity: 4,000 to 35,000 eggs depending on body
weigh!.'
* Frecse and Pauly, 200 L
* Trautman, 1981.
5 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001b,
4 Wang, 1986a.
5 Scott and Grossman. 1998.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Spoftfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Freshwater drum (Apfodinotus grunmens)
Freshwater drum is a member of the dram family, Sciaenidae, Possibly exhibiting the greatest latitudinal range of any North
American freshwater species, its distribution ranges from Manitoba, Canada, to Guatemala, and throughout the Mississippi
River drainage basin (Scott and Grossman, 1973), The freshwater drum is found in deeper pools of rivers and in Lake Erie at
depths between 1.5 and 18 m (5 and 60 ft) (T rautman. 1981). Drum is not a favored food item of either humans or other fish
(Edsail. 1967; Trautman. 1981; Bur, 1982).
Based on studies in Lake Erie, the spawning season peaks in July (Daiber, 1953), although spent females have been found as
late as September (Scott and Grossman, 1973), Females in Lake Erie produce anywhere from 43,000 to 508,000 eggs
(Daiber, 1953 ). The eggs are buoyant, floating at the surface of the water (Daiber, 1953; Scott and Grossman. 1973). This
unique quality may be one explanation for the freshwater drum's exceptional distribution (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Yolk-
sac larvae are buoyant as well, floating inverted at the surface of the water with the posterior end of the yolk sac and tail
touching the surface (Swedberg and Walburg, 1970).
Larvae develop rapidly over the course of their first year. Maturity appears to be reached earlier among freshwater drum
females from the Mississippi River than females from Lake Erie. Daiber (1953) found Lake Erie females begin maturing at
age 5, and 46% reach maturity by age 6, Lake Erie males begin maturing at age 4, and by age 5. 79% had reached maturity.
The maximum age for fish in western Lake Erie is 14 years for females and 8 years for males (Edsall, 1967). Adults tend to
be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long.
CHANNEL CATFISH
(Ictalarus punctatus)
Family: Ictaluridae (North American freshwater
catfish).
Common names: Channel catfish, graceful catfish.3
Similar species: Blue and white catftshes."
Geographic range: South-central Canada, central
United States, and northern Mexico."
Habitat: Freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. Prefer
H3-S
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H JR Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of 146 Data
FRESHWATER DRUM
tAplodinotus grunniena)
Family; Seiaenidae.
Common names: freshwater drum, white perch,
sheepshead."
Similar species: white bass, carpsuckers."
Geographic range; From Manitoba, Canada, to
^Guatemala. They can be found throughout the
Mississippi River drainage basin.
Habitat; Bottoms of medium- to large-sized rivers
and lakes,"
Lifespan; The maximum age for fish in western
Lake Erie is 14 years for females and K years for
males,1
: Food sources: Juveniles: Ciadocerans (plankton), copepods,
: dipterans."
! Adults: Dipterans, ciadocerans,"1 darters, emerald shiner.'
Prey for: Very few species.
Life stage information:
Eggs; pelagic
~ The buoyant eggs float at the surface of the water, possibly
accounting for the species' high distribution c
Larvae:
~ Proiarvae float inverted at the surface of the water with the
posterior end of the yolk sac and their tail touching the
surface,'
Adults:
~ The species owes its name to the audible "drumming"
sound that it is often heard emitting during summer
months.'
~ Tend to be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long.*
Fecundity: Females in Lake Erie produce from
43,000 to 508,000 eggs/
Traurman. 198!
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
Edsall, 1967.
d Bur, 1982.
Scott and Grossman, 1973,
Swedberg and Wafburg, 1970.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
White bass (Morone chrysops)
White bass is a member of the temperate bass family, Moron idae. It ranges from the St. Lawrence River south through the
Mississippi valley to the Gulf of Mexico, though the species is most abundant in the Lake Erie drainage {Van Oosten, 1942),
White bass has both commercial and recreational fishing value.
Spawning take place in May in Lake Erie and may extend into June, depending on temperatures. Spawning bouts can last
from 5 to 10 days (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Adults typically spawn near the surface, and eggs arc fertilized as they sink to
the bottom. Fecundity increases directly with size in females, the average female lays approximately 565,000 eggs. Eggs
hatch within 46 hours at a water temperature of 15,6 °C (60 *F) (Scott and Grossman, 1973),
Larvae grow rapidly, and young white bass reach lengths of 13 to 16 cm (5.1 to 6.3 in.) by the fall (Scott and Grossman,
1973). They feed on microscopic crustaceans, insect larvae, and small fish. As adults, the diet switches to fish. Yellow perch
are an especially important prey species for white bass (Scott and Grossman. 1973),
Most white bass mature at age 3 (Van Oosten, 1942). Upon reaching sexual maturation, adults tend to form unisexual
schools, traveling up to 11.1 km (6,9 mi) a day. Adults occupy the upper portion of the water column, maintaining depths of
6 m or less (Scott and Grossman, 1973). On average, adults are between 25.4 to .35.6 cm (10 to 14 in.) long (Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, 2001b). White bass rarely live beyond 7 years (Scott and Grossman, 1973).
J/3-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port H: J.ft. Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of IAE Data
WHITE BASS
(Morone chrysopa)
Family; Moronidae.
Common names; White bass, silver bass.
Simitar species: While perch, striped bass."
Geographic range: St. Lawrence River south
through the Mississippi valley to the Gulf of
Mexico, highly abundant in the Lake Erie
drainage.h
Habitat: Occurs in lakes, ponds, and rivers,"
Lifespan: White bass may live up to 7 years.'1
Fecundity; The average female lays
approximately 565,000 eggs.15
Food source; Juveniles consume microscopic crustaceans,
insect larvae, and small fish.b Adults have been found to
consume yellow perch, bluegill, white crappie,'* and carp,M
Prey for: Other white bass.*
Life stage information;
Eggs; demersal
~ Eggs are approximately 0,8 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter.1'
Larvae; pelagic
~ White bass experience their maximum growth in their first
year.1.
Adults".
~ Travel in schools, traveling up to 11,1 km (6.9 mi) a day.h
~ Most mature at age 3.c
~ Adults prefer clear waters with firm bottoms."
Trainman, 1981.
Scoii and Grossman, 1973,
Frocsfi and Pauiy, 2000.
Carfander, J Ą)1.
Van Gosien. 1942.
Fish graphtc comtesy of New York Sponl'ishmg and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 200 i.
Walleye {Stizostedion vitreum)
Walleye is a member of the perch family. Percidac It is found in freshwater from as far north as the Mackenzie River near
the Arctic Coast to as far south as Georgia, and is common in the Great Lakes, Walleye are popular sport fish both in the
summer and winter, They generally feed at night because their eyes are sensitive to bright daylight (Scott and Grossman,
1998).
Walleye spawn in spring or early summer, although the exact timing depends on latitude and water temperature. Spawning
has been reported at temperatures of 5.6 to 11.1 *C <42 to 52 *F), in rocky areas in white water or shoals of lakes (Scott and
Grossman, 1098). They do no! fan nests like other similar species, but instead broadcast eggs over open ground, which
reduces their ability to survive environmental stresses {Carlander, 1997). Females produce between 48,000 and 614,000 eggs
in Lake Erie, and the eggs are 1,4 to 2.1 mm (0.06 to 0.08 in.) in diameter (Carlander, 1997), Eggs hatch in 12-18 days (Scott
and Grossman, 1998), Larvae are approximately 6.0 to 8.6 mm (0.23 to 0.33 in.) at hatching (Carlander, 1997).
Walleye develop more slowly in the northern extent of their range; in Lake Erie they are 8.9 to 20.3 cm (3,5 to 8,0 in. > by the
end of the first growing season. Males generally mature at 2-4 years and females at 3-6 years (Scott and Grossman, 1998),
and females tend to grow faster than males (Carlander, 1997), Walleye may reach up to 78.7 cm (31 in.) long in Lake Erie
(Scott and Grossman, 1998).
H3-10
-------
Chapter H3- Evaluation of I4E Date
WALLEYE
{Stizo*tedion vilreum)
Family; Percidae (perch).
Common names: Blue pike, glass eye, gray pike,
marble eye, yellow pike-perch.4
Similar species: Sauger.'
Geographic range: Canada 10 southern United States.1
Habitat: Large, shallow, turbid lakes; large streams or
rivers.'
Lifespan; Maximum reported age: 12 years.1*
Fecundity: 48,000 to 614,000 in Lake Erie.1'
Food source: Insects, yellow perch, freshwater drum,
crayfish, snails, frogs."
Prey for: Sea lamprey, northern pike, muskeliunge.
sauger."
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
~ 1.4 - 2.1 mm (0.06 - 0.08 in.) in diameter."
~ Hatch in 12-18 days.0
Larvae: j/eicgic
» Appro*. 6.2 - 7..1 mm (0.24 - 0,29 in.) upon
hatching.b
Adults: demersal
~ Maximum length: up to 78.7 cm (31 in.).c
a Frocse and Pauly, 200 i
'' C uria Oder, 1997,
' Scotland Grossman, !998,
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program. 2001.
H3-3 J.R. Whiting's Methods for Estimating L&E
Sampling of impingement and emrainment was conducted from 1978 to 1991 at ihe J.R. Whiting facility. In 1980, a deterrent
net was installed to reduce high impingement rates. Sampling methods are described in the following sections.
H3-3.1 Impingement Monitoring
The methods used by the J.R. Whiting facility to monitor impingement from April through December 1979 are described in
Wapora (1980). There were 76 sampling events, with the most frequent sampling m the spring and fall, and comparatively
less sampling in summer. Impingement monitoring involved backwashing intake traveling screens to remove debris and
impinged organisms, and then collecting organisms For approximately 24 hours. During periods of high impingement rates,
sampling periods were shortened. The collected organisms were then backwashed from the screens into a 9.5 mm (0.375 in.)
mesh basket placed in the backwash trough adjacent to the traveling screen. Impingement sampling duration and intake and
discharge water quality parameters were recorded. The total number of each species of fish was determined, and a
representative subset of 25 fish per species were measured and weighed. Any remaining fish beyond the 25 selected for
measurement were counted and weighed as a group.
Because the duration of sampling varied from collection to collection, impingement counts were first normalized to the total
intake volume for the sampling period. Impingement densities were then scaled to estimate the total number of each species
impinged using daily intake volumes for the monitoring period. The estimated impingement totals reported in Wapora (1980)
were based on the assumption that sampling densities are representative of the overall rate of impingement.
Wapora (1980) does not contain an annual estimate based on the April-December 1979 impingement data. However.
Consumers Power Company (1984) presents impingement estimates for 19 major species for March 1978 to March 1979,
March 1979 to December 1979, February 1980 to December 1980, January 1981 to December 1981, January 1982 to
December 1982, and January 1983 to December 1983. These annual rates wen: evaluated by EPA, as described in Sections
113-4 and 113-5.
H3-II
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R Whiting Chapter H3: Evaluation of I4E Data
H3-3.2 Entrainment Monitoring
Entrainment monitoring methods for the J.R Whiting facility are reported in Wapora {1980). Sampling took place on 25
dates from April through October 1979, with most sampling in June and July, Entrained eggs and larvae were collected from
the discharge canal using a 0.351 ram (0,01 in.) mesh plankton net fitted with a screw-on PVC collection bucket. On each
sampling date, four samples were collected at various times during the day and night. Nets were placed in the canal
perpendicular to the flow for a sampling period of at least 10 minutes.
The flow rate through the sampling net was monitored using a flowmeter centered in the mouth of the net. For each sample,
the total collection time and flow rate were recorded and used to calculate the total volume of water filtered. Once sample
collection was complete, the resulting collection of organisms was transferred to a 10% formalin solution to which Rose
Bengal stain was added to facilitate sorting of iehthyoplankton.
Each entrainment sample was rinsed with tap water in a 0.125 mm (0.005 in.) sieve, and then washed into an enamel sorting
tray. Eggs and larvae were removed from any debris. Samples containing greater than 100 larvae were subsampled with a
plankton splitter, and no sample was split to less than 12,5% of the initial count.
All larvae were counted and the species and developmental stages were noted. In addition, up to 50 larvae of each species
and developmental stage were measured to the nearest 0.1 millimeter. Eggs were counted and up to 50 per sample were
measured to the nearest 0.1 millimeter.
Because the duration of entrainment sampling varied from collection to collection, entrainment counts were first normalized
to the total volume of water filtered during sampling. Entrainment densities were then scaled to the daily intake volumes for
the monitoring period to estimate the total number of each species entrained. The estimated enirammcnt totals were based on
the assumption that sampling densities are representative of the overall rate of entrainment. Since no annual estimate was
given, EPA used entrainment losses for October through August as an annual estimate for the calculations described in
Sections 113-4 and H3-5.
H3-4 J R. Whiting's Annual I&E Without the Net
H3-4.1 Annual Impingement Without the Net
Annual impingement before installation of the deterrent net to reduce impingement is presented in the following tables. Table
H3-2 presents the annual number of impinged organisms without the net as estimated by J.R, Whiting, Table 113-3 presents
these losses expressed as age I equivalents. Table H3-4 presents impingement losses of fishery species expressed as lost
fishery yield, and Table 113-5 presents impingement losses expressed as production foregone. Details of these calculations
are provided Chapter AS of Part A of this document
113-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R. Whiting
Chapter H3 Evaluation of I&E Data
Table W3-2: J.ft. Whiting Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) Without Net, As Estimated by the Foci Iffy
Thu Jan 10 14:21:33 MSI 2002 Raw.losses, IMPINGEMENT
Year
j AJewife
Sullbead
*PP*
Channel
Catfish
| Common
; Carp
Grapple
*PP-
Emerald
Shiner
Freshwater
Drum
Gizzard ; Log- ;
Shad ; perch
Rainbow
Smelt
Sucker j
*PP-
Sonfish
•PP-
Walleye
White : Yellow
Bass : Perch
1978
3,051
1,239
2,310
; 79,825
771
691,515
36,200
6.722.'65 • 6,822 ^
5,181
1,420 j
1,010
7,204
37,771 ; 120,031
1979
311
2,203
2,291
i 30.817
364
582,946
31,353
16,709,084 i 5,078 i
433
660 i
1,054
965
35,2.26 : 56,837
Mean
; 1,68!
1,721
2,300
i 55,3.21
568
637,230
33,776
11,715,924 ! 5,950 ;
2,807
1,040 :
1,032
4,084
36,498 ; 88,434
Minimu
tn
311
1,239
2.291
; 30,817
364
582,946
31,353
6,722,765 ; 5,078 ;
433
660 :
1.010
965
35,226 ; 56,837
Maximu
m
: 3,051
2.203
2,310
• 79,825
771
691,515
36,200
16.709,084 : 6,822 ;
5,181
1,420 ;
1,054
7,204
37,771 120.031
SD
: 1,937
682
13
: 34,654
288
76,770
3,427
7,061,394 : 1,233 ;
3,357
53? ;
31 ; 4,412
1,800 ; 44,685
Total
: 3,362
3,442
4,601
; 110.642
1.135
,274,461
67,553
23,431,849 il 1,900;
5,614
2,080 ;
2,064
8,169
72,997 : 176,868
'iant:jr.whiting.78.79;
FATHNAME:P:/Imake/Great,_Lakes/GL_ScienCŁ/:K0dcs/jr,whmng/tablcs..out:put,?8,79,'rawJosses.imp.jr,whitr!ig,78,79.c5V
Toble N3-3: J,ft. Whiting Annual Impingement Without Net, Expressed as Numbers of Age J Equivalents
Year
Atewlfe
Bullhead
•PP*
Channel j
Catfish ;
Common ;
Carp
Crapple
spp.
Emerald
Shiner
Freshwater
Drain
Gizzard j Log- j
Shad ; perch ;
Rainbow
Smelt
Sucker
*PP-
Sunflsh
spp.
; w«u-
: eye
White
Baa
Yellow
Perch
Total
1978
3,505
1,441
2,977 j
87,500 ;
933
818,373
41,766
11,739,860= 9,117 ;
6,970
1,70!
1,683
: 8,288
50,643
141,464
12,916,222
1979
357
2,562
2,953 ;
33,780 ;
441
689,887
36,174
29.178.814 6,786 i
582
791
1,757
t,no
47,230
66,986
30.070,211
Mean
1,931
2,001
2,965 :
60,640 :
687
754,130
38,970
20,459,337: 7,951 i
3,776
1,246
1,720
: 4,699
48,937
104,225
21.493,216
Minimum
' 357
1,441
2,953 s
33,780 :
441
689,887
36,174
11,739.860 6,786 ;
582
791
1,683
1.110
47.230
66,986
12,916,222
Maximum
•3,505
2,562
2,977 i
87,500
933
818,373
41,766
29,178.814 • 9,117 i
6,970
1,701
1,757
I 8,288
50,643
141,464
30,070,211
SD
, 2,226
793
17
37,986 !
348
90,853
3,954
12,331,203 j 1,648 ¦
4,516
644
52
.: 5,075
; 2,413
52,664
12,129,702
Total
; 3,863
4,002
5,930 ;
121,280 ;
1,374
1,508,260
77,941
40,918,675; 15,903;
7,552
2,491
3,440
i 9,398
: 97,873
208,450
42,986,432
Note: Impingement tosses 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 acro&s the interval between the start of year 1 arid the start of year 2, and then the losses are normalized back to the start of year 1 by accounting for mortality
during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter AS, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is applied to all raw toss records, but the effect is not
readily apparent among entrapment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age i.
Thu Jan 10 14:29:33 M5T 2002 ;Results; 1 Plant; jr.whiting,78,79 ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
P:/lntateGrcat_Lakes/GLJ5rience/scodes/]r.whtting,''tables.output,78.79/!.cquiva!ent.sums,jr.whitmg.78,79.csv
H3-I3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R Whiting
Chapter H3; Evaluation of lit Data
Table H3-4: Annual Impingement of Fishery Specks at J.R. Whiting, Without Net Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries {in pounds)
Year
: Bullhead ;
*PP-
Channel :
Catfish ;
Common
Carp
Crappie
spp.
\ Freshwater
Dram
Gizzard
Shad
Sucker
spp.
; Sunflsh
spp.
: Walleye!
White
Bass
Yellow
Perch
! Total
1978
22
93 :
42,282
8
j 2,219
463,399 :
21
1
| 1.455 ;
4,280
334
; 514,113
1979 .
: 39
92 ;
16,323
4
: 1.922
1,151,753
10
; 1
: 195 ;
3,992
158
| 1,174.488
Mean
: 30
93 ;
29.303
6
i 2,070
807,576 ;
15
¦ 1
; 825 ;
4,136
246
; 844.300
Minimum
22
92
16,323
4
¦¦ 1,922
463,399 :
10
1
i 195 ;
3,992
158
514,113
Maximum
39
93 ;
42.282
g
i 2,219
1,151,753 i
21
: 1
: 1,455 ;
4.280 ;
334
; 1,174,488
SD
•2
i ;
18,356
3
210
486,740 ;
8
o
: 891 ;
204
124
; 466,956
Total
60
185
58,606
11
4,140
1,615,152 :
31
i
1,650 |
8.272 ^
492
¦I 1,688,601
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Thu Jan 10 14:29:40 MST 2002 ;Resuto;) Plant: jE.wiming.18.79 ; Units
yield Pathname:
P:/lntake/Great_Lakes,!GL_S€knc&'scodes/jr.whiting>'tablcs.outpi«.78.79/l.j.'ield.jr.whiting.78,?9,csv
Table H3-5; J.ft. Whiting Annual Impingement Without Net, Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds)
Year : Alcwifc
• Bullhead i Channel j Common; Crappie
*pp.
Catfish
Carp
SPP-
Emerald
Shiner
Freshwater i Gizzard
Drum Shad
Log-
pereh
Rainbow S«her ! StrafM Wall- Whtte
Sntk i spp- i spp, | eye Bass
Yellow:
Perch
Total
1978
1979
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
206
21
114
21
206
131
227
38
67
52
38
67
21
105
155
154
155
154
155
t
309
27,277
10,530
18.904
10.530
27,277
S 1.842
37,80?
32
15
23
15
32
12
47
10.056
8.477
9.267
8.477
10.056
1.116
18.533
3.972
3,440
3.706
3.440
3.972
376
7.412
209,925
521,757
365,841
209,925
52 i,757
220,499
731.682
45
34
40
34
45
8
79
50
4
27
4
50
32
54
0 - Sampled, but none collected.
Thu Ian 10 14:29:37 MST20O2 ;Rcsults; 1 Plant; jr.whiting.78.79 ; Units: annual .prod, forg Pathname;
P:/ln«ake/Orcai_Lakcs.'GL_S€iencc/seade
-------
5 316(b) Cose Studies, Part N: J.R. Whiting Chapter H3: Evaluation of I&E Dote
H3-4.2 Annual Entrainment Without the Net
Annual entrainment before net installation is presented in the following tables. Table H3-6 presents the annual number of
entrained organisms without the net as estimated by J.R. Whiting, Table FI3-7 presents these losses expressed as age I
equivalents, Table H3-8 presents entrainment losses expressed as lost commercial and recreational fishery yields, and Table
H3-9 presents entrainment losses expressed as production foregone. Details of these calculations are provided in Chapter A5
of Part A of this document.
H3-5 J.R. Whiting's Annual Impingement With the Net
Results of impingement monitoring after installation of the net indicate 92% reduction in impingement averaged over the
years 1981-1991. The tables in this section present annual impingement rates after net installation Table 113-10 presents
annual impingement (numbers of organisms) with the net as estimated by J.R, Whiting, Table 113-11 presents these losses
expressed as age I equivalents, Table H3-12 presents impingement losses with the net expressed as lost commercial and
recreational fishery yields, and Table H3-13 presents losses with the net expressed as production foregone. Details of these
calculations are provided in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document. No entrainment monitoring was conducted after net
installation.
H3-6 Summary
Table H3-I4 summarizes total l&E at J.R. Whiting before net installation in terms of raw losses, age I equivalents, fishery
yield, and production foregone. Table H3-I5 displays this information for impingement at J.R. Whiting after installation of
the deterrent net. EPA estimates that without the net, baseline impingement damages at J.R. Whiting amount to
21,493,415 age I equivalent fish per year, representing 844,301 pounds of foregone fishery yield each year. With the net, lost
fishery yield is reduced to 62,730 pounds per year. The following chapters discuss the estimated economic value of baseline
I&E damages at J.R. Whiting without the net, the economic benefits of the deterrent net in reducing baseline impingement,
and the potential economic benefits of various §"316(b) regulatory options.
H3-15
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part H; J R. Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table H3-6: J R. Whiting Annual Entroinment (numbers of organisms) Without Net, As Estimated by the Facility
Year i Bluntnose Minnow i Channel Catfish i Common Carp 1 Crappie spp.
Emerald
Shiner
! Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Lug perch
1979 1,623,716 28,918 7,372,177 132,964
7,584,514
32,762,696
569,558,422
191,471
Thu Jan 10 14:21:34 MST 2002 Raw.losscs, ENTRAPMENT; Plant:jr.whi»ng,78,79;
PATHNAME:P:
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port H: J R Whiting Chapter H3: Evaluation of HE Data
Table H3-10. J R. Whiting Annual Impmgemert (numbers of organisms) With Net. 4s Estimated by the Facility
Year
I Atewlfe
Bull- i
bead '
spp- ;
Channel '
Catfish :
Common
Carp
Crapple :
i w-
Emerald :
Shiner i
Fresh-
water
Drum
Gizzard
; Shad
L<^
perch
\ Others
: Rainbow
i Smelt
: Sucker :
| «pp. i
Sun- ;
fish
spp. ;
Wall-
eye
White !
Bass :
White I
Perch i
Yellow
Perch
1981.
( 605
138 :
1,903 !
10,507
; 917
201.851 :
37,610
: 2,605,856
2,494
: NA
! 723
; 154
2,090 ;
441'
19,421
o :
34,044
1982
^ 0
107 ;
1,832 i
1,567
: 501
14,050 :
8,309
; 610,812
640
; NA
: 8
; 38 ;
646
283
5,612 ;
0 ;
4,864
1983
: 0
64 :
1,(19? ;
1,174
; 655 :
n.217 ;¦
2,297
i 752,149
1,298
: NA
| 22
| 29
1,025
83
2,815 :
0 ;
3,431
1984
: na
NA :
NA
NA
I NA i
NA
NA
i NA
NA
: NA
; NA
: NA
NA '
NA
NA :
NA :
NA
1985
:: NA
NA :
NA
NA
; NA •
NA i
NA
] NA
NA
j NA
: NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA ;.
NA :
NA
1986
i NA
NA :
NA
NA
i NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA
; NA :
NA •
NA
NA ;
NA [
NA
198?
: 0
67 ;
250 ;
122
181 ;
5,604
886
1 72,428
0
i 177
0
; 0
290 ;
9
269 :
1,697 :
892
1988
; na
NA ;
NA
NA
: NA ;
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
: na
; NA
NA
NA
na ;
NA
NA
1989
: NA
NA ¦
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; na
NA
: NA
: NA
NA
NA ;
NA
NA ;
NA i
NA
1990
' NA
NA :
NA :
NA
; NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
: NA
: NA
; NA '¦
NA :
NA
NA :
NA |
NA
1991
: 0
21 :
578 i
405
; 58
354
4,254
; 300,253
0
; 356
; 0
o ;
395 :
2
686 :
8,698 ;
515
Mean
: 12!
79
i.i32 ;
2,755
462
46.615
10,671
: 868,300
886
; 266
151
; 44
8R9
164
5,761
2,079 :
8,749
Minimum
0
21 :
250 ;
122
58
354
886
; 72,428
0
: i 77
; 0
0
290 :
2
269 ;
0 ;
515
Maximum
; 605
138
1.903 :
10,507
917
201,851 ;
37,610
: 2,605,856
2,494
356
723
: 154 :
2,090 i
441
19,421 ;
8,698 ;
34.044
SD
: 271
45 :
737
4,372
349
86,939 ;
15,316
1.006,849
1.047
127
320
¦ 64 ¦
728 ;
192
: 7,925 |
3J72 ;
14,254
Total
; «os
397 :
5.660 :
13,775
i 2.312
.233,076 ;
53,356
i 4,341,498
4,432
; 533
; 753
: 221 :
4,446 .
818
28,803 :
(0,395 ;
43,746
N'A * Not sampled.
0 = Sampled, but none collected,
Thu Jan 10 14:52:24 MST2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plant:jr.whiting,8l.plus;
PATONAME:P:<1ntalcc/Great_Lakcs,;GL_Sciencc.;scodefrijr.whiting;!ables. output. 81. plus- raw.losses. imp.jr.whiting.81.plus.csv
H3-1?
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port H: J.&. Whiting
Chapter H3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Year
Aiwife
Bull-
head
spp.
Table H3-11: J.R. Whiting Annual Impingement With Net. Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents
Fresh-
Channel
Catfish
Common
Carp
Crap pit
*PP-
Emerald
Shiner
wafer
Drum
Gizzard
Shad
Log-
perch
Rain-
bow
Smelt
Sucker
SPP-
Sun-flub
*PP
Wall-
eye
WWte
Bass
White
Perch
Yellow
Perch
1981
1982
1983
184
1985
1986
198?
1988
1989
1990
1991
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
695
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
159
0
695
311
695
160
124
74
NA
NA
NA
78
NA
NA
NA
24
92
24
160
52
462
2,453
2,36
1,414
NA
NA
NA
322
NA
NA
NA
745
1,459
322
2,453
949
7,295
11,517
1,718
I,287
NA
NA
NA
134
NA
NA
NA
444
3,020
134
II,517
4,792
15,099
1,110
606
793
NA
NA
NA
219
NA
NA
NA
70
560
70
1,110
423
2,799
238,880
16,627
13,275
NA
NA
NA
6,632
NA
NA
NA
419
55,167
419
238,880
102,888
275,834
43,393
9,587
2,650
NA
NA
NA
1,022
NA
NA
NA
4,908
12,312
1,022
43,393
17,671
61,561
4,550,566
1,066,652
1,313,466
NA
NA
NA
126,480
NA
NA
NA
524,327
1,516,298
126,480
4,550.566
1,758,245
7,581.491
3,333
855
1,735
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
1,185
0
3,333
1,399
5,923
973
11
30
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
20
0
97
43
1,013
184
46
35
NA
NA
NA
0
NA
NA
NA
0
53
0
184
76
265
3,483
1,077
1,708
NA
NA
NA
483
NA
NA
NA
658,
1.482
483
3.483
1.214
7,410
507
326
95
NA
NA
NA
1.0
NA
NA
NA
2
188
2
507
•221
941
26,039
7,524
3,774
NA
NA
NA
361
NA
NA
NA
920
7,724
361
26,039
10,626
38,619
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
2,263
NA
NA
NA
11,597
2.772
0
11,597
5,030
13,860
40,123
5,733
4,044
NA
NA
NA
1,051
NA
NA
NA
607
10,312
607
40,123
16,800
51,558
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 fosses are normalized back to the start of year 1 by accounting for mortality
during this interval (for details, see description of S*j in Chapter A5, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is applied to all raw loss records, but the effect is not readily
apparent among entrapment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1.
NA = Not sampled.
0 - Sampled, but none collected.
Thu Jan 10 15:33:14 MST 2002 ;Results; i Plant: jr whiting.81 plus ; Units: equivalent sums Pathname:
P:,!lntake/Great_Lakes.!'GL_Seienee/sccides/jr,whitjng%bles.outpiit.il.plus/l.equivalent.sums,jr.whiting.81.pius.csv
m-w
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H; J R. Whiting Chapter H3 Evaluation of I4E Data
Table H3-I2; Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at J.ft. Whiting With Met Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds)
Year 1
Bullhead
spp. '
Channel
Catfish
: Common
Carp
; Crapple
«PP
Freshwater
Drum
Gizzard Shad i
Sucker
•PP.
i Sunfhh spp
| Walleye
: White Bass
| White Perch ;
YeBow
Perch
1981 ;
2
77
: 5,565.
; 9
2,305
179,62 i
2
5
; 89
2,201
¦ 0 :
95
1982 :
2
74
: 830
; 5
509
42,103
1
0
; 57
• 636
: 0 :
14
1983 |
1
44
i 622
7
141
51,845 ;
0
; 1
i n
: 319
: 9 :
10
1984 •
NA
NA
i NA
: na
NA
NA
NA
: NA
: NA
NA
NA ;
NA
1985 i
NA
NA
i NA
NA
NA
NA |
NA
: NA
i Na
NA
; NA ;
NA
1986 ;
NA
NA
; na
NA
NA
NA =
NA
i NA
; na
i NA
NA ;
NA
1987
1
to
65
2
54
4,992
0
0
¦ 2
30
: 1 ;
2
1988
NA
NA
i NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA
• NA
NA
NA ;
NA
1989
NA
NA
: NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
r NA
; NA :
NA
1990
NA ;
NA
; NA
NA
NA
• NA
NA
NA
; NA
NA
NA
NA
1991 ;
o :
23
1 215
S
261
; 20,696
0
0
; 0
: 78
:¦ 5 i
1
Mean :
1
46
' 1,459
5
654
59,852
1
: !
; 33
653
i ;
24
Minimum
0
10
¦ 65
1
54
4,992
0
o
; 0
30
; 0 ;
1
Maximum
2
77
3.565
9
2,305
179,621
2
i l ¦
; 89
2,201
: 5 ;
95
SD
1
30
2,316
4
939
69,402
1
o
; 39
898
i 2 :
40
Total :
7
228
7,296
23
3,270
299,258
3
^ _ 3
; 165
| 3,264
; 6 :
122
N'A - Not sampled.
0 - Sampled, but none collected.
Thu lan 10 15:33:21 MST 2002 :Rcsuhs; 1 Plant: jr.whinng.8I plus; Units: yield Pathname;
P: Intake lireat.J.akcs Gl._Scicncc scodes.*jr.whitinj',tables.t>utput.81 plusl.yield.jr whit mg. ft I .plus.csv
Hi-19
-------
fi 316(b) Cose Studies, Port M: J R. Whiting Chapter H3: Evaluation of ME Data
Table H3-13: J.R. Whiting Annuo! Impingement With Net. Expressed as Production Fwegorte (In pounds)
Year
Alewife
Bullhead
spp.
Channel
Catfish
Common
Carp
Grapple
SPP
j Emerald
i SWner
Freshwater
Drum i
Gizzard
Shad |
Log*
perch
Rainbow
1 Smelt
Sucker
«W>.
Sunfish
SPP-
Wall-
eye
i White ;
: Bass :
White
Perch
Yellow
Perch
1981
41
4
128
3,590
38
i 2,935
; 4.127 ;
81,370 :
17
: 7
20
6
182
; 1,587 •
0
438
1982
0
3
123
535
21
i 204
i 912 ;
19,073 i
4
0
5
¦ 2
117
: 459 ;
0
63
1983
0
2
74
401
27
i 163
! 252 ;
23,487 i
9
i 0
4
3
34
: 230 ;
0
44
1984
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I NA ¦
NA
¦ NA
1985
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; NA i
NA
NA
: na
NA
NA
NA
i na ;
NA
. NA
19R6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA ;
NA ¦
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: na ;
NA
NA
1987
0
-5
17
42
7
81
: 97 ;
2,262
0
o
0
1
4
; 22 ;
8
11
1988
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA :
NA
NA
; NA ;
NA
NA
NA
i na ;
NA
; NA
1989
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
i NA
NA I
NA
NA
: NA ;
NA
NA
NA
1 NA ;
NA
; NA
1990
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
: NA
NA ;
NA
NA
: NA ;
NA
NA
NA
; na ;
NA
NA
1991
0
1
39
138
2
5
i 467 i
9,376
0
0
a
1
1
: 56
39
7
Mean
; 8
2
76
941
19
i 678
i 1,171
27,113
6
1 i
6
3
68
i 471 :
9
: 113
Minimum
0
I
17
42
; 2
: 5
; 97 !
2,262
0
; o ;
0
1
I
1 22 :
0
f
Maximum
41
4
128
j 3,590
j 38
i 2.935
i 4,127 ;
81,370
17
7 ;
20
6
182
: 1,587 ;
39
438
SD
: IS
1
50
; 1,494
? 14
; 1,264
i 1,681 ;
31,440
7
3
8
2
79
: 648 :
17
; 183
Total
12
380
; 4,707
j 95
! 3,389
: 5,855 :
135,567
30
7 '
28
13
338
: 2,351 ;
47
: 563
NA = Not sampled.
0 = Sampled, but none collected.
Thu Jan 10 15:33:17 MST 2002 ;ResuIt$; I Plant: jr.whiting.81.plus ; Units: armuatprod.forg Pathname:
P:/l(«akc/Orcat J,akes/GL_Scicnce/seode&''jr.whitiiig/tabks.o'utpuS.81 .plus/f.anriualprod.forgjr,whiting J! .ptus.csv
H3-20
-------
8 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting ' Chapter H3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table HI-14: Average Annual Impingement end Entrapment at J.R,
Whiting Before Net Installation
(sum of annual means of all species evaluated)
Entrain meat
1,182.989,$! 8
1,831,713
Fishery yield (lbs offish) 84430! 70,045
Production foregone (lbs of fish) 404,074 290,215
Table H3-15- Average Annual Impingement at
J.R Whiting Following Net Installation
(sum of annual means of all species evoluoted)
Impingement
Raw losses (# of organisms)
949,124
Age 1 equivalents (# of fish)
1,612,966
Fishery yield (lbs of fish)
62,730
Production foregone (lbs of fish)
30,685
Note: Entrainment was not sampled after installation of the impingement deterrent net.
Impingement
Raw losses (# of organisms) 12,588,366
Age I equivalents (# of fish) 21,493,215
if3-21
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline ME Losses
Chapter H4: Economic Value of I&E
Losses Based on Benefits
T ransfer
This chapter presents an analysis using benefits
transfer techniques of the economic losses associated
with I&E at the J.R. Whiting facility without the
currently installed impingement deterrent net using
l&E data for 1978 and 1979 only (baseline). Section
114-1 provides an overview of the valuation approach,
Section H4-2 discusses the value of recreational
fishery losses, Section H4-3 discusses commercial
fishery values, Section H4-4 discusses the value of
forage species losses, Section H4-5 discusses nonuse
values, and Section H4-6 summarizes the benefits
transfer results. Chapter H5 discusses the results of an
alternative valuation approach (the Habitat-based
Replacement Cost methodology) and Chapter H6
discusses potential benefits of reductions in I&E.
H4-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
Fish losses from I&E at J.R. Whiting affect commercial and recreational fisheries, as well as forage species that contribute to
the biomass of commercial and recreational species. EPA evaluated all of these species groups to capture the total economic
impact of I&E at J.R. Whiting.
Commercial fishery impacts are based on commodity prices for the individual species. Recreational fishery impacts are based
on benefits transfer methods, applying the results from nonmarket valuation studies. The economic impact of forage species
losses is determined by estimating the replacement cost of these fish if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish (ignoring
several costs and issues associated with restocking), and by considering the foregone biomass production of forage fish
resulting from I&E losses and the consequential foregone production of commercial and recreational species that prey on the
forage species. All of these methods are explained in further detail in the Chapter A9 in Part A of this document.
Many of the I&E-impacted fish species at J.R. Whiting are harvested both recreationaliy and commercially. Table H4-1
presents the percentage impacts of the I&E losses occurring to the commercial and recreational fisheries. To avoid
double-counting the economic impacts of l&E occurring to species that are both commercially and recreationaliy fished but
for which locally and applicable catch data were not available, EPA assumed that 50 percent of the estimated catch of
I&E-impacted fish are assigned to a loss in commercial landings, and the remaining 50 percent of the estimated total number
oflosses due to I&E are assigned to the recreational landings.
Techniques
r . .. ..—.... . — —j
Chapter Contents
H4-1 Overview of Valuation Approach H4-1
H4-2 Value of Baseline Recreational Fishery Losses
at J.R. Whiting Facility H4-3
H4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational
Losses Based on Literature H4-3
H4-2.2 Baseline Economic Losses from
Recreational Fishing H4-4
H4-3 Baseline Economic Losses from Commercial
Fishing 114-5
H4-4 Indirect Use: Forage Fish H4-6
114-5 Nonuse Values H4-8
H4-6 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Economic
Losses at J.R. Whiting H4-1Q
H4-I
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting Chapter H4; Value of Baseline I4E Losses
Table H4-!;
Percentages of Total IAE Impacts at J.R, Whiting Occurring to
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Fish Species
Percent Impacts to Recreational Fishery Percent Impacts to Commercial Fishery
Bullhead spp.
o ¦
o
o
Channel catfish
50 50
Common carp
0 100
Crappie spp.
ioo ; o
Gizzard shad
O :
O ;
O
Sucker spp.
; o ioo
Sunfish spp.
O
o
Walleye
o
o
o
White bass
. o
LA
o
White perch
: 100 : 0
Yellow perch
100 : 0
Wed Jan 09 14:09:50 MST 2002 ; Table A: Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and recreational fisheries of selected
species; Plant: jr. whiting.78.79 ; Pathname: P:/Intake/Great_Lake&/GL_Science/scodes/jr.wbiting/tables.output.78.79/TableA.Perc.of
total.impacts.jr.whiting.78.79.csv
As discussed in Chapters A5 and A9 of Part A of this document, the yield estimates presented in Chapter H3 are expressed as
total pounds for both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this chapter,
total yield was partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery (presented in
Table H4-1). Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers 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 H4-2 shows these conversions for the impingement data presented in Section H3-4.1 of Chapter H3 and
Table 114-3 displays these data for the entrainment estimates given in Section 113-4 2. Note that the numbers of foregone
recreational fish harvested are typically lower than the numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of harvest of most
fish is greater than age 1.
Table H4-2: Summary of Mean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at J.R. Whiting
(without impingement deterrent net)
Species
Impingement
Count (#)
Age 1
Equivalents (if)
Total Catch
m
Total Yield
Ob)
Commercial
Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lb)
Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational
Yield (lb)
Bullhead
1,721
2,001
96
30
96
30
0
0
spp.
Channel
catfish
2,300
2,965
: 112
93
56
46
56
46
Common
55,321
60,640
4,482
29,303
4,482
29,303
0
0
carp
Crappie spp.
568
687
10
6
0
0
10
6
Freshwater
drum
33,776
38,970
2,265
2,070
2i265
2,070
0
0
Gizzard
shad
11,715,924
20,459,337
; 2,608,142
807,576
2,608,142
807,576
0
0
Sucker spp.
1,040
1,246
31
15
31
15
0
0
Sunfish spp.
1,032
1,720
10
1
0
0
10
1
Walleye
4,084
4,699
381
825
0
0
381
825
White bass
36,498
48,937
5,872
4,136
2,936
2,068
2,936
2,068
White perch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Yellow
perch
88,434
104,225
1,953
246
0
0
1,953
246
Total
11,940,698
20,725,427
2,623,353
844,300
2,618,007
841.109
5,346
3,191
\\alexandria\project\I NT AKE\Great_Lakes\GL_Science\scodes\jr. whiting\tables,output. 78.79\fiowehart.Imp.New.xls
H4-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
Table H4-3: Summary of Mean Annual Entrainment of Fishery Species at J.R, Whiting
(without Impingement deterrent net)
Species
Entrainment
Count
m
Age I
Equivalents
(#)
Total Catch
<#>
Total Yield
(lb)
Commercial
Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lb)
Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational
Yield (lb)
Channel catfish
; 28,918
143
5
4
3
2
3
I
Common carp
' 7,372,177
36,496
2,697
17,636
2,697
17,636
0
0
Crappie spp
132,964
5,391
79
45
0
0
79
23
Freshwater
drum
; 32,762,696
29,768
: 1,731
1,581
1,731
1,581
0
0
Gizzard shad
: 569,558,422
1,221,061
; 155,660
48,198
155,660
48,198
0
0
Sucker spp
268,228
3,853
95
48
95
48
0
0
Sunfish spp
i 1,040,904
350,828
i 2,053
127
0
0
2,053
64
Walleye
0
0
: o
0
0
0
0
1
White bass
: 5,679,922
28,118
3,374 '
2,377
1,687
1,188
1,687
594
White perch
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Yellow perch
; 2,788,745
12,360
232
29
0
0
232
15
Total
: 619,632,976
1,688,020
: 165,927
70,045
161,873
68,654
4,054
699
\\alexandria\project\INTAKE\Great_Lakes\GL_Science\scodes\jr. whiting\tables.output.78.79\flowchart.ENT.New.xls
H4-2 Value of Baseline Recreational Fishery Losses at J.R. Whiting
Facility
H4-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses Based on Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay values for increases in recreational catch rates. These increases in
value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as a "consumer surplus" per additional fish caught.
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table H4-4 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Great Lakes
fishery in geographic area and relevant species.
Table H4-4: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
Authors
Study Location and Year
Item Valued
Value Estimate (S2000)
Boyle et al. (1998)
National, by state, 1996
;Catch rate increase of J fish per trip
; Bass (low/high)
$1.58-$5.32
Sorgetal. (1985)
Idaho, 1982
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
¦Wanmwater fish
$5.02
Milliman et al.
Green Bay
: Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
¦Yellow perch
$0.31
(1992)
Charbonr.eau and
National, 1975
; Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
! Walleye
17.92
Hay (1978)
; Catfish
$2.64
iPanfish
$1.00
" Value was reported as "two month value per angler for a half fish catch increase per trip." From 1996 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DOI, 1997), the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 trips in a 2 month
period. Therefore, to convert to a "1 fish per trip" value EPA divided the 2 month value by 1.5 trips and then multiplied it by 2,
assuming the value of a fish was linear.
H4-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
Boyle et al. (1998) used the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation to estimate the
marginal economic value of an additional bass, trout, and walleye per trip,
Sorg et al, (1985) used travel cost and contingent valuation methods to estimated the value of recreational fishing at 51 sites
in Idaho. Several of the species valued in Sorg et al, are also found in the Great Lakes fishery.
Milliman et al. (1992) used a logit model and the responses, creel data, and the responses to a contingent valuation
dichotomous choice survey question the study estimated the value of recreational fishing for Yellow Perch in Green Bay,
Michigan.
Charbonneau and Hay (1978) used travel cost and contingent valuation methods to estimate the consumer surplus for a season
of the respondent's favorite wildlife-related activity. These consumer surplus values were then converted to a one fish
increase per trip.
EPA estimated the economic value of I&E impacts to recreational Fisheries using the I&E estimates presented in Tables H4-2
and H4-3 and the economic values in Table H4-4. Since none of the studies discussed in the previous section consider the
Great Lakes fishery directly, EPA used these estimates to create a range of'possibie consumer surplus values for the
recreational fish landings gained by reducing impingement and entrainment at J R. Whiting. To estimate a unit value for
recreational landings, EPA established a lower and upper value for the recreational species, based on values reported in
studies in Table H4-4.
H4-2.2 Baseline Economic Losses from Recreational Fishing
EPA applied a 50/50 recreational and commercial split to obtain the losses to the recreational fishery where a fish is both
commercially or recreationally harvested. If not commercially harvested, recreational losses were assumed to be 100 percent
of losses due to I&E, and vice versa. Results are displayed in Tables H4-5 and H4-6, for impingement and entrainment,
respectively. The total losses to the recreational fisheries are estimated to range from $7,300 to $20,900 for impingement per
year, and from $3,500 to $ 11,700 annually for entrainment.
Table H4-5- Baseline Annual Recreational Impingement Losses at the J.R. Whiting Facility and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Lou to Recreational Catch :
from Impingement
Recreational Value/Fish
: Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
(# offish)
Low
High
Low
High
Channel catfish
56
$2.64
S5.02
$147
$280
Grapple spp.
10
$1.00
$5.02
: $10
$51
Sunfish spp. -
10
$0.31
$1.00
i $3
$10
Walleye
381
$5.02
$7.92
: $1,912
$3,016
White bass
2,936
$1.58
S5.32
; $4,639
$15,619
White perch
0 :
$0.31
SI.00
$0
$0
Yellow perch
1,953
$0.31
$1.00
: $606
$1,953
Total
5,346
; $7,316
$20,929
Tues Feb 05 MSI 2002 ; Table B: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79; type: I
Pathname: P:/lntake/Grcat_Lakes/GL_Sciencc/scodcs/jr.whiting/tablcs.output.78.79/TabIeB.ree.Iosses.jr,whiting,78.79.l.csv
H4-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.ft. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I5E Losses
Table H4-6: Baseline Annual Recreational Entrapment Losses at the J.ft. Whiting Facility and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Loss to Recreational ;
: Catch from Entrainment
Recreational Value/Fish
Loss in Recreational Value from
Entrainment
(# offish)
Low
High
Low
High
Channel catfish
: 3
$2,64
$5.02
$7
$14
Crappie spp.
: 79
SI.00
$5.02
$79
$399
Sunfish spp.
: 2,053
$0.31
$1.00
S637
$2,053
Walleye
i 0
$5.02
$7.92
SO
$0
White bass
; 1,687 :
$1.58
$5.32
$2,665
$8,975
Yellow perch
; 232 :
$0.31
$1.00
$72
$232
Total
4,054
$3,460
$11,672
Tue Feb 05 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79; type: E
Pathname;
P;/Intake/Oreat_Lake&/GL_Sciencc/scodes/jr,Mvhiting/tables.output.78.79/TabieB.rec.losses.jr.whiting.78,79.E,csv
H4-3 Baseline Economic Losses from Commercial Pishing
I&E losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables H4-2 (for impingement) and H4-3 (for entrainment) based
on the recreational and commercial splits in Table H4-1. EPA estimates of the economic value of these losses are displayed
in Tables H4-7 and H4-S. Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward because commercially caught fish are
a commodity with a market price. The market value of foregone landings to commercial fisheries is $128,300 for
impingement per year, and $11,600 annually for entrainment.
Tables H4-7 and H4-8 express commercial impacts based on dockside market prices only. However, to determine the total
economic impact from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA also determined the losses experienced by producers
wholesalers, retailers and consumers. The total social benefits (economic surplus) are greater than the increase in dockside
landings, because the increased landings by commercial fishermen contribute to economic surplus in each of a multi-tiered set
of markets for commercial fish. The total economic surplus impact thus is valued by examining the multi-tiered markets
through which the landed fish are sold, according to the methods and data detailed in Chapter A9.
The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of I&E-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of
commercial species as sold dockside by commercial harvesters). The results of this dockside landings value step are described
above. The next steps then entail tracking the anticipated additional economic surplus generated as the landed fish pass from
dockside transactions to other wholesalers, retailers and, ultimately, consumers. The resulting total economic surplus
measures include producer surplus to the watermen who harvest the fish, as well as the rents and consumer surplus that accrue
to buyers and sellers in the sequence of market transactions that apply in the commercial fishery context.
To estimate producer surplus from the landings values, EPA relied on empirical results from various researchers that can be
used to infer producer surplus for watermen based on gross revenues (landings times wholesale price). The economic
literature (Huppert, 1990; Rettig and McCarl, 1985) suggests that producer surplus values for commercial fishing ranges from
50 to 90 percent of the market value. In assessments of Great Lakes fisheries, an estimate of approximately 40% has been
derived as the relationship between gross revenues and the surplus of commercial fishermen (Cleland and Bishop, 1984,
Bishop, personal communication, 2002), For the purposes of this study, EPA believes producer surplus to watermen is
probably in the range of 40% to 70% of dockside landings values.
Producer surplus is one portion of the total economic surplus impacted by increased commercial stocks — the total benefits
are comprised of the economic surplus to producers, wholesalers, processors, retailers, and consumers. Primary empirical
research deriving "multi-market" welfare measures for commercial fisheries have estimated that surplus accruing to
commercial anglers amount to approximately 22% of the total surplus accruing to watermen, retailers and consumers
combined (Norton et al., 1983; Holt and Bishop, 2002). Thus, total economic surplus across the relevant commercial fisheries
multi-tiered markets can be estimated as approximately 4.5 times greater than producer surplus alone (given that producer
surplus is roughly 22% of the total surplus generated). This relationship is applied in the case studies to estimate total surplus
from the projected changes in commercial landings.
H4-S
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I4E Losses
Table H4-7: Baseline Mean Annual Commercial Impingement Losses at
J.R. Whiting Facility and Associated Economic Values
Species
; Loss to Commercial Catch :
; From Impingement (lb of fish)
Commercial :Li
Value/Fish
ass in Commercial Value
from Impingement
Bullhead spp.
30
S0.33
$10
Channel catfish
46
S0.76
$35
Common carp
29,303
$0.16
$4,688
Freshwater drum
2,070
$0.21
$435
Gizzard shad
807,576
$0.15
$121,136
Sucker spp.
: 15 i
$0,09
$1
White bass
2,068
$0.98 !
$2,027
Total
841,109
$128,333
Tue Feb 05 MST 2002 ; Table C; commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; type: I
Pathname:
P:/Intakc/Great_Lakes/OL_Scicnce/scodes/jr.whiting/tablcs.output.78.79/TablcC.comm.losses.jr.whiting.78.79.I.csv
Table H4-8: Baseline Wean Annua! Commercial Entrapment Losses at
J.R. Whiting Facility and Associated Economic Values
Species
Loss to Commercial Catch
j from Entrainment (lb of fish) ;
Commercial
Value/Fish
Loss in Commercial Value
from Entrainment
Channel catfish
2
$0.76
$2
Common carp
17,636
$0.16
$2,822
Freshwater drum
1,581
$0.21
$332
Gizzard shad
48,198
$0.15
$7,230
Sucker spp.
48
$0.09
$4
White bass
: 1,188
$0.98
$1,165
Total
68,654
$11,554
Tue Feb 09 MST 2002 ; Table C: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: jr.whiting.7K.79: type: E
Pathname:
P:/lntakc/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/seodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78,79/TabicC.comm,losscs.jr.whitmg.78.79.E.csv
Accordingly, EPA estimates that the total baseline economic loss to commercial fisheries ranges from $233,000 to $408,000
for impingement per year, and from $21,000 to $37,000 annually for entrainment at the J.R. Whiting facility (before
installation of the impingement deterrent nel).
H4-4 Indirect Use: Forage Fish
Many species affected by J&E are not commercially or recreationally fished. For the purposes of this study, EPA refers to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species, and are important components of aquatic
food webs. Table H4-9 summarizes impingement losses of forage species at J.R. Whiting before net installation and Table
H4-10 summarizes entrainment losses. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two
alternative valuation methods.
H4-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R, Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline ME Losses
Table H4-9. Summary of Mean Annual Impingement of Forage Fish at
J.R. Whiting (without impingement deterrent net)
Species
Impingement Count ;
m
Age 1 Equivalents
(#)
Production Foregone
(lb)
Alewife
1,681
1,931
114
Bluntnosc minnow
0
0
; 0
Emerald shiner
637,230
754,130
9,267
Logperch
5,950
7,951
40
Rainbow smelt
2,807 :
3,776
•: 27
Forage species total
647,668 i
767,789
9,447
\\alexandria\project\ns!TAKE\Oreat_Lakes\QL_Science\scodes\jr.whiting\tables.output,78.79
\flowchart.Imp.New.xls
Table H4-10: Summary of Mean Annual Entrapment of Forage Fish at
J.R. Whiting (without impingement deterrent net)
Species
Entrainmeat Count
m
Age 1 Equivalents
(#)
¦Production Foregone
(lb)
Alewife
0
o
1 o
Bluntnose minnow
1,623,716
46,669
! 199
Emerald shiner
7,584,514
69,046
20,775
Logperch
191,471
7,405
570
Rainbow smelt
155,897
20,575
714
Total
9,555,598
143,695
22,257
\\alexandria\project\lNTAKE\Great_Lakes\GL_Science\scodes\jr.whiting\tables.output.78.79
\flowchart.ENT.New.xls
Replacement value of fish
The replacement value of fish can be used in several cases. First, if a fish kill of a fishery species is mitigated by stocking of
hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would still
be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but are
important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species' stocks). Third, where there are not
enough data to value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as a proxy for lost
fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs, and replacement costs
typically omit problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limiting genetic diversity).
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table H4-11 displays the replacement costs of forage species at J.R. Whiting. The annual costs of
replacing annual forage losses are $18,000 for impingement and $2,500 for entrainntent. The per pound costs listed in Table
H4-11 are average costs to fish hatcheries across North America to produce different species of fish for stocking (AFS. 1993).
H4-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port H: J.ft Whiting
Table H4-11: Replacement Cost of Forage Losses at J.R. Whiting (2000$)
Species
Hatchery Costs'
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses
($2000)
($/Jb)
Impingement
Entrainment
Alewite
: $0
52 i
$30
$0
Biunmosc minnow
: $2
21
SO
$603
Emerald shiner
: $0
9i ;
$17,862
i $1,635
Logpereh
: $i
05
$107
| S99
Rainbow smelt
$0
34 ;
$25
$136
Total
$18,025
$2,474
* These values were inflated to 2000$ from 1989S, but this couid be imprecise for current fish rearing and stocking costs.
Source; Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kill, AFS 1993.
Tue Feb 05 MST 2002 ; Table D: loss in selected forage species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; type: 1 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output,78.79/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.jr.whiting,7S.79.l.csv
The second component of replacement cost is the transportation cost, which includes costs associated with vehicles,
personnel, fuel, water, chemicals, containers, and nets. The AFS (1993) estimates these costs at approximately SI.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.
Production foregone value of forage fish
This approach considers the foregone biomass production of commercial and recreational fishery species resulting from I&E
of forage species based on estimates of trophic transfer efficiency, as discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this document.
The economic valuation of forage losses is based on the dollar value of the foregone fishery yield resulting from the loss of
forage.
Summary of values of baseline forage fish losses
Tables H4-12 and H4-13 display the values for baseline losses of forage fish based on the production foregone of fishery
yield for I&E, respectively. Baseline losses range from $200 to $400 for impingement and from S40 to $100 for entrainmenl.
H4-5 Nonuse Values
Recreational consumer surplus and commercial impacts are only part of the total losses that the public realizes from I&E
impacts on fisheries. Nonuse or passive use impacts arise when individuals value environmental changes apart from any past,
present or anticipated future use of the resource in question. Such passive use values have been categorized in several ways in
the economic literature, typically embracing the concepts of existence (stewardship) and bequest (intergenerational equity)
motives. Using a "rule of thumb" that nonuse impacts are at least equivalent to 50 percent of the recreational use impact (see
Chapter H6 for further discussion), nonuse values for baseline losses at J.R. Whiting are estimated to range from $3,700 to
$10,500 for impingement and from $1,700 to $5,800 for entrainment.
H4-8
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Port H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline lit Losses
Table 144-12: Mean Annual Economic Value of
Production Foregone of Selected Fishery Species
Resulting from Impingement of Forage Species at
J.R. Whiting,
Species
; Loss in Production Foregone
from Impingement
Low
High
Bullhead spp.
$7
$12
Channel catfish
$27
$50
Common carp
$9
$16
Crappie spp.
$9
$43
Freshwater drum
$4
; $7
Gizzard shad
$12
$21
Slicker spp.
SO
$1
Sunfish spp.
$21
$69
Walleye
$22
$35
White bass
; $55
$147
Yellow perch
: $ii
$34
Total
$178
$435
Tue Feb 05 10:47:18 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected
forage species; Plant: jr.whinng.7S.79 ; type: I Pathname:
P:/intake/Grear_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr. whiting/tables.
output.78.79/TableD.ibrage.eco.ter.repl.jr.whiting.78.79.I.csv
Table H4-13: Mean Annual Value of Production
Foregone of Selected Fishery Species Resulting from
Entrapment of Forage Species at J.R. Whiting.
; Loss in Production Foregone
Species
from Entrainment
Low
High
Channel catfish
$10
$19
Common carp
$4
$8
Crappie spp.
$1
$4
Freshwater drum
Si
S2
Gizzard shad
$5
58
Sunfish spp.
$16
$52
White bass
$6
; $15
Yellow perch
$0
$1
Total
$43
$109
Tue Feb 05 10:47:24 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage
species; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; type: E Pathname:
P:/lntake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79
/TableD.forage.eco.ter.repl.jr.whiting. 78.79.E.csv
H4-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H; J.ft. Whiting
Chapter H4: Value of Baseline I&E Losses
H4-6 Summary of Annual Value of Baseline Economic Losses at
J.R. Whitens
Table H4-14 summarizes the total economic value of annual baseline I&E at the J.R. Whiting facility. Total impacts range
from $244,000 to $458,000 per year from impingement and from $26,000 to $57,000 per year from entrainment. These
reflect losses before installation of the deterrent net that reduced impingement significantly (see Chapter H6).
Table H4-14: Summary of Values of Baseline Annual IAE Losses at J.R. Whiting Facility
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Commercial: Total surplus (direct use, market) j
Low
$233,333 j
$21,007
; $254,340
High
$408,332 i
$36,763
$445,095
Recreational (direct use, nonmarket)
Low
$7,316 :
S3,460
$10,777
High i
$20,929 j
$11,672
: $32,601
Forage (indirect use, nonmarket) i j
Production Foregone;
Low
1178 j
$43
; $221
High i
$435
$109
| $544
Replacement
$18,025 i
$2,474
1 $20,499
Nonuse (passive use, nonmarket)
Low i
$3,658
$1,730
$5,388
High I
$10,465
$5,836
$16,301
Total (Com + Rec + Forage + Nonuse)" j
Low
$244,485
$26,241
$270,726
High
$457,750
$56,745
$514,496
' in calculating the total low values, the lower of the two forage valuation methods (production foregone and replacement)
was used and lo calculate the total high values, the higher of two forage valuation methods was used.
Tue Feb 05 MST 2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 ; Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr. whiting/tables. output.78.79/TableEsummary.jr.whiting,78.79.csv
H4-I0
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R, Whiting
Chapter H5; Streamlined HRC Valuation of IiE Losses
Chapter H5:
Streamlined HRC Valuation of I<&E
Losses at the J.R. Whiting Facility
This chapter presents the results of EPA's streamlined
habitat-based replacement cost (HRC) valuation of
l&E losses at the J.R. Whiting facility in Monroe,
Michigan, for the following scenarios:
~ the cost of offsetting all l&E losses without
the currently installed impingement deterrent
net using l&E data for 1978 and 1979 only
(baseline losses);
~ the cost of offsetting 95 percent of baseline
losses, assumed to be equivalent to
installation of a cooling tower;
~ the cost of offsetting losses equivalent to
installation of the net using the difference in
average annual impingement for 1978-1979
compared to 1981-1991.
A description of the HRC method and the process for
undertaking a complete HRC valuation of l&E losses is provided in Chapter A11 of Part A of this document. To summarize,
a complete HRC valuation of l&E losses reflects the combined costs for implementing habitat restoration actions,
administering the programs, and monitoring the increased production after the restoration actions. In a complete HRC
valuation, these costs are developed by first identifying the preferred habitat restoration alternative for each species with l&E
losses and then scaling the level of habitat restoration until the losses across all the species for that restoration alternative have
been exactly offset by the expected increases in production of each species. The total value of the l&E losses at the facility is
then calculated as the sum of the costs across the set of preferred habitat restoration alternatives that were identified.
The HRC method is thus a supply-side approach for valuing l&E losses in contrast to the more typically used demand-side
valuation approaches (e.g., commercial and recreational fishing impacts valuations). An advantage of the HRC method is that
the HRC values address losses for species lacking a recreational or commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC explicitly recognizes and captures the fundamental ecological relationships between species with l&E losses at a facility
and their surrounding environment by determining the value of l&E losses through the cost of the actions required to provide
an offsetting increase in the existing populations of those species in their natural environment.
Streamlining was necessary to meet the schedule of the 316(b) existing sources rule and entailed combining Step 2
(identification of species habitat requirements), Step 3 (identification of habitat time and budget constraints typically faced by
NPDES permit t restoration alternatives), and Step 4 (consolidation and prioritization of habitat restoration alternatives),
restricting the analysis to readily available information, and eliminating site visits, in-depth discussions with local experts, and
development of primary data (see Chapter A11 of Part A of this document), which would be required before doing an actual
restoration. Despite these restrictions, the streamlined HRC provided a more comprehensive, ecological-based valuation of
the l&E losses than valuation by traditional commercial and recreational impacts methods. In addition, the streamlined HRC
valued direct, indirect, and passive uses not included in more traditional economic valuation techniques used in Chapter H4
and H6.
Chapter Contents
H5-1 Quantify l&E Losses by Species (Step 1) H5-2
H5-2 Identify Species Habitat Requirements (Step 2),
Identify Habitat Restoration Alternatives (Step 3),
and Prioritize Restoration Alternatives (Step 4) .... H5-3
H5 -3 Quantify the Benefits for the Prioritized Habitat
Restoration Alternatives (Step 5) H5-4
H5-4 Scale the Habitat Restoration Alternatives to
Offset l&E Losses (Step 6) H5-S
H5-5 Estimate "Unit Costs" for the Habitat Restoration
Alternatives (Step 7) H5-7
H5-6 Develop Total Cost Estimates for l&E Losses
(Step 8) H5-8
H5-7 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Streamlined
HRC Analysis H5-9
H5-I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HftC Valuation of IAE Losses
The annualized costs, in 2000 dollars, of restoring sufficient fish production habitat to offset the I&E losses in perpetuity for
each scenario at the J.R. Whiting facility are as follows:
~ Baseline losses: $0.2 - $3.5 million
~ Losses equivalent to those avoided by a cooling tower: $0.2 - $3.3 million
~ Losses equivalent to those avoided by the barrier net in place at J.R. Whiting: $0.1 - $1.0 million.
The following subsections describe the streamlined HRC valuation applied to the J.R. Whiting facility and the advantages and
disadvantages of streamlining the HRC method.
H5-1 Quantify IAE Losses by Species (Step 1)
The streamlined HRC method relies on the same estimates of annual age 1 equivalent species losses that are developed in
Chapter H3 and incorporated in the commercial and recreational fishing impacts valuation presented in Chapters H4
(baseline) and H6 (cooling tower and barrier net). EPA developed these estimates using I&E data reported directly by the
facility (Wapora, 1979,1980; Consumers Power Company, 1984,1988, 1992). Total I&E losses at the facility may be
underestimated, particularly if certain species were not targeted by monitoring efforts or if short duration population spikes
occurred outside of monitoring events. The HRC method inherently reduces the former problem by targeting restoration
activities that might benefit species lost but not monitored, but like all other measures of I&E losses, it relies on representative
monitoring.
Various life stages of organisms were lost to I&E at J.R. Whiting. As with other facilities, primarily early stages such as eggs
and larvae are entrained, and primarily juveniles and adults are impinged. However, EPA estimated total losses for each
species by converting all losses to a common equivalent life stage by applying average mortality rates between life stages for
each species. These mortality rates were derived from the literature and best professional judgment, Conversion between life
stages did not change the overall scale of required restoration in the streamlined HRC method because many eggs are
equivalent to few adults on both the I&E loss and increased production sides of the HRC equation. For example, if on
average one adult survives from 10 eggs via a 90 percent cumulative mortality rate and 1 acre of habitat produces 10 eggs,
then restoration of 1 acre is needed to produce either one adult or 10 eggs.
Age 1 equivalent I&E losses of 17 species of fish were calculated using the available I&E monitoring data available from the
J.R. Whiting facility from 1978 through 1991. These data are presented in Chapter H3 of this document. A summary of
average annual age 1 equivalent losses in the different scenarios under consideration is presented in Table H5-1.
Several species impinged or entrained at J.R. Whiting are important to commercial or recreational fishing, including walleye,
yellow perch, catfish, and crappie. Many others, including alewife, rainbow smelt, bluntnose minnows, emerald shiners, and
herrings, indirectly affect commerce and recreation because they are prey for commercially or recreationally important aquatic
and terrestrial wildlife species such as salmon and northern pike, bald eagles, and mink. Furthermore, all of the species
provide numerous, complex, ecological services as sources of carbon and energy transfer through the food web, as well as
continuous interactive exploitation of niches available in the Great Lakes ecosystem (a system already under tremendous
stress from exotic species introductions, hazardous substance contamination, nonpoint source runoff, heat contamination,
habitat loss, overfishing, and I&E) from multiple sources.
For example, freshwater drum feed on a variety of small fish. When food supplies are short, freshwater drum often out-
compete other species and thereby may increase mortality rates or decrease growth rates for those species (Edsall, 1967). In
addition, several species of Centrarchids, including the crappie, are sensitive to the size of their predators' population. When
predators such as walleye are absent, species such as crappie can overcrowd their habitats and exhaust their own food
supplies, resulting in stunted growth (Wang, 1986a; Steiner, 2000). Finally, some species are already subject to wide
fluctuations in population size from year to year, and may not be able to tolerate I&E losses, particularly at certain times of
the year. For example, the gizzard shad is often subject to high mortality in the winter (Miller, 1960).
H5-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
Table N5-1: Average Annual IAE Losses of Age 1 Equivalent Fish at the J.ft. Whiting Facility
Baseline Scenario: (1978 and 1979) Reductions in l&E
Species
Impinged
Entrained
Total
Cooling Tower
Scenario: 95% of
Baseline Losses
Barrier Net
Scenario: 1978-1979
vs. 1981-1991*
Gizzard shad
; 20,459,337
1,221,061
21,680,398
20,596,378
18,943,039
Emerald shiner
; 754,130
69,046
823,176
782,017
698,963
Sunfish spp.
1,720
350,828
352,548
334,921
: 238
Yellow perch
104,225
12,360
116,585
110,756
: 93,913
Common carp
; 60,640
36,496
97,136
92,279
; 57,620
White bass
48,937
28,118
77,055
73,202
: 41,213
Freshwater drum
38,970
29,768
68,738
65,301
; 26,658
Blunmose minnow
N/A"
46,669
46,669
44,336
j N/A"
Rainbow smelt
3,776
20,575
24,351
23,133
: 3,573
Logperch
7,951
7,405
15,356
14,588
6,766
Crappie spp.
i 687
5,391
6,078
5,774
; 127
Sucker spp.
i 1,246
3,853
5,099
4,844
! 1,193
Walleye
4,699
N/A"
4,699
4,464
; 4,511
Channel catfish
2,965
143
: 3,108
2,953
: 1,506
Bullhead spp.
i 2,001
N/Ab
2,001
1,901
: 1,909
Ale wife
1,931
N/Ab
1,931
1,834
: 1,792
White perch'
N/Ab
N/A"
N/A"
N/A"
! N/A"
Total
: 21,493,215
1,831,713
23,324,928
22,158,681
19,883,021
* Indirect evidence suggests the barrier net only reduces impingement, so only the difference in pre- and post-barrier net
impingement estimates of age 1 equivalents were estimated.
b N/A for a species reflects no data reported as opposed to a reported value of 0. N/A for the barrier net always corresponds to
N/A for baseline impingement.
e Impingement losses of white perch prior to the installation of the barrier net were not reported. Quantified impingement losses
are reported for subsequent years, making white perch a species with recorded quantified I&E impacts at the J.R. Whiting facility.
N5-2 Identify Species Habitat Requirements (Step 2), Identify Habitat
Restoration Alternatives (Step 3), and Prioritize Restoration Alternatives
(Step 4)
EPA combined steps 2, 3, and 4 of the HRC method by seeking a single habitat restoration program capable of increasing
production for most of the species with quantified l&E losses at J.R. Whiting. Addressing each of these steps separately for
each of the I&E species would improve the analysis but would require more time than was available for the analysis for the
proposed rule.
J.R. Whiting's CWISs are located in the shallow and enclosed end of Maumee Bay (western Lake Erie) and are surrounded by
marsh and wetlands, including the Woodtick Peninsula and the lands of the Erie Shooting Club (R. Micka, Lake Erie-Clean
Up Committee Inc., personal communication, 2001). Further, species affected by I&E clearly use these habitats, as
demonstrated by their I&E at the facility. In addition, wetland restoration and preservation programs are active in many Great
Lakes states, providing a good source of readily available information on restoration costs. Finally, readily available
information describes fish species use of Great Lakes' coastal wetlands that can be used as a proxy for increased production
benefit estimates. Therefore, coastal wetland restoration is the preferred restoration alternative for offsetting the I&E losses at
the J.R. Whiting facility in this streamlined HRC valuation.
H5-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5' Streamlined HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
H5-3 Quantify the Benefits for the Prioritized Habitat Restoration
Alternatives (Step 5)
A literature search revealed a study (Brazner, 1997) that provides fish capture data by species from sampling efforts
conducted at a series of Green Bay (Lake Michigan) coastal wetland and sand beach sites. No other studies provide more
direct measures of increased fish species production following Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration, or fish capture data in
wetlands closer to the J.R. Whiting facility. However, the Brazner study sampled wetlands in the warmer, shallower, more
eutrophic waters of southern Green Bay, which are similar to the waters of western Lake Erie. After examining the data from
the Brazner study and discussing them with the author, EPA dropped less similar sites from northern Green Bay. For each of
the species lost at J.R. Whiting, a match was found with a species, or combination of species, among those captured at the
southern sites in the Brazner study. Table H5-2 shows the species caught in the Brazner study that were paired with the
species being lost at the J.R. Whiting facility (this represents only a fraction of the species caught in these southern locations
in the Brazner study).
Table H5-2: Species with IAE Loss Estimates at J.R. Whiting and the Corresponding Species Captured
in Green Bay Wetland Sampling
Species with I&G Loss Estimates at J.R. Whiting
Corresponding Species Caught in Sampling of Green Bay
Coastal Wetlands (Brazner, 1997)
Alewife
Yes
Bluntnose minnow
; Yes
Bullhead spp.
; Yes (as black, brown, and yellow bullhead)
Channel catfish
•'Yes
Common carp
.Yes
Crappie spp.
Yes (as black crappie)
Emerald shiner
¦Yes
Freshwater drum
Yes
Gizzard shad
i Yes
Logperch
Yes
Rainbow smelt
Yes
Sucker spp.
; Yes (as white sucker)
Sunfish spp.
; Yes (as green sunfish)
Walleye
•Yes
White bass
Yes
White perch
iYes
Yellow pereh
; Yes
Because of the close match between the physical habitats of southern Green Bay and western Lake Erie and the confirmation
of similar species between the sites, EPA estimated densities for each southern Green Bay species and used them as a proxy
for direct measurements of potential increased production following wetland restoration. This approach assumed that
additional wetland habitat restored near J.R. Whiting would provide similar densities of each species as the wetland habitats
sampled in Green Bay. Direct measurements of densities of each species before and after actual wetland habitat restorations
in western lake Erie could test this assumption and improve the reliability of the HRC valuation for J.R. Whiting.
EPA developed the density estimates for each species for each site using aggregate sampling results provided by the author
(J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001). Table H5-3 provides a summary of the Green Bay
capture data (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001) for each species that has quantified l&E
losses at J.R. Whiting. Data for each of four Green Bay sites are presented, as are the average and maximum of all four sites.
H5~4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R, Whiting
Chapter H5; Streamlined HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table H5-3: fireen Bay Wetland Abundance Data
Species Name for HRC
Analysis
Number Captured: Lower Green Bay Wetland Locations'
Summary Statistics
Long Tail
; Point Wetland
Little Tail Point;
Wetland
Atkinson
Marsh
I Sensib# Wildlife |
Refuge
Average
Maximum
Yellow perch
: 3,525
942
333
1,108
1,477
i 3,525
Gizzard shad
384
264
160
137 I
236
! 384
Bluntnose minnow
: 285
116
15
259
169
; 285
Alewife
265
142
92
124 |
156
265
Emerald shiner
113
31
251
224 :
155
251
White bass
52
226
106
9 ;
98
226
Sucker spp.b
: 14
10 i
1
103
32
103
Carp
; 19
• 10 .;
3
I i
8
: 19
Green sunfish
3
5
22
2
8
: 22
Bullhead spp.c
: 9
4
0
2
4
9
Freshwater drum
; 4
4
7
l :
4
; 7
White perch
0
0
0
: 7 ;
2
; 7
Crappie spp.d
; 1
¦2
I
1 ;
1
! 2
Channel catfish
: 0
0
3
0 ;
1
1 3
Logperch
0
0
0
1
0
1
Rainbow smelt
: 0
1
0
0 |
0
1
Walleye
: 1
0
0
0 :
0
: i
* Number captured 111 samples of 100 meters linear coastal wetland frontage. Reflects age 1 fish (not eggs and larvae).
Sucker spp. values are those reported for white sucker.
' Bullhead spp. values are the sum of the black, brown, and yellow bullhead values at each location.
4 Crappie spp. values are those reported for black crappie.
The raw capture data were converted to density estimates for each species by assuming that each sampling event of 100 m of
linear coastal wetland frontage corresponded to an average of 100 m of perpendicular width of connected coastal wetlands
(i.e., each sampling event included fish from an assumed 100 m x 100 m area of wetlands). This assumption is based on
discussions with the author about the likely perpendicular width of the sampled wetlands that was being used as habitat by the
sampled species (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, personal communication, 2001). A further adjustment was then made to the raw
capture data to recognize the fact that shoreline sampling would capture only a portion of the fish actually using the 100 m x
100 m wetland habitat. After discussions with the author, the capture data were increased by a factor of 100 (1/0.01), based
on the assumption that only 1 percent of the fish present or relying on the wetland habitat were captured in the sampling event.
The resulting per acre average density estimates for each species was used in the HRC equation as the measure of increased
production that would most likely be provided by wetland habitat restoration near J.R. Whiting. The maximum per acre
density estimate for each species was used as an upper bound estimate of fish density that would result from wetland
restoration near the J.R. Whiting facility.
Brazner (1997) captured young-of-year (younger than age 1), age 1 fish, and adult fish (older than age 1) in the Green Bay
wetlands. In this evaluation, the capture data were treated as if it represented age 1 fish, which eliminated the need to apply
mortality rates to adjust for survival between life stages for each species, as was done for I&E losses. Since Brazner (1997-)
reports a high percentage of young-of-year fish captured at all Green Bay sites, this assumption most likely results in a slight
overestimation of age 1 fish densities, and therefore potentially underestimates the scale of restoration required to offset the
average annual I&E loss for each species (i.e., it underestimates baseline losses from I&E).
H5-4 Scale the Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset I&E Losses
(Step 6)
EPA calculated the amount of Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration required to offset I&E losses for each species at the
J.R. Whiting facility by dividing the average annual I&E loss for each species in each scenario by its per-acre estimate of
increased production of age 1 equivalents. The results of this scaling for the baseline scenario are presented in Table H5-4.
H5-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Tabie H5-4; Wetland Restoration Required to Offset ME Losses at the J.R. Whiting CW1S
(baseline scenarios, i.e., without net)
Species
Average Annual
Age 1 Equivalents
Lost to I&E
Per-Unit Production Benefit (age 1 fish per
restored coastal wetland acre)
Required Acres of Wedand Restoration to
Offset I&E Loss
Average Value
Maximum Value
Across Sites
Based on Average
Production Value
Based on Maximum
: Production Value
Rainbow smelt
24,351
10
40
2,407
; 602
Gizzard shad
21,680,398
9,561
15,540
2,268
1,395
Logperch
15,356
10
40
1,518
379
Sunfish spp.
352,548
324
890
1,089
396
Walleye
4,699
10
40
464
116
Freshwater drum
68,738
162
283
425
243
Common carp
97,136
334
j 769
291
126
Emerald shiner
823,176
6,263
10,158
131
: 81
Crappie spp.
6,078
51
81
120
75
Channel catfish j
3,108
30
121
102
| 26
White bass
77,055
3,976
9,146
19
i s
Bullhead spp.
2,001
152
364
13
i 5
Bluntnose minnow
46,669
6,829
11,534
7
: 4
Sucker spp.
5,099
1,295
: 4,168
4
; l
Yellow perch
116,585
59.774
142,657
2
i 1
Alewife
1,931
6,303
10,725
0.3
i 0.2
White perch
N/A-
71
283
N/A
N/A
Whether using average or maximum production values, over half of the species listed in Table H5-4 would require that
hundreds or thousands of acres of wetland habitat be restored to fully offset the I&E losses caused by the J.R. Whiting CWIS.
If Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration is the best natural restoration alternative for offsetting losses for each of these
species, then approximately 2,400 acres of coastal wetland restoration is required to fully offset all l&E losses under the
baseline scenario using the average adjusted per acre density estimates (because restoring either rainbow smelt or gizzard
shad would require that much wetland restoration, and all other species would be fully restored as well). However, without
further discussions with local experts, and perhaps additional investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration
activities and per-acre production benefits (particularly for the species driving the highest acreage needs), these assumptions
may not be valid. On the other hand, the benefit of any given restoration program should always vary among species, and
species with relatively high productivity or low I&E losses cannot drive the HRC results without sacrificing necessary offsets
for other species with lower productivity or higher I&E losses. As seen in the results in Table H5-4, a large restoration
requirement can reflect either low productivity of the restored habitat for the species (e.g., rainbow smelt) or very large I&E
losses (e.g., gizzard shad).
Table H5-4 also shows that both the scale and distribution of the estimates of required wetland restoration change when
maximum species density estimates are substituted for the averages. EPA used average species density estimates as the
primacy source of information because they are more representative of wetland productivity in the Brazner study, and more
accurately reflect the difficulties of achieving full function in restored versus native habitats.1
Since a rigorous investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration alternatives and per-unit production estimates
was not completed under the streamlined approach, using the highest restoration requirement (for rainbow smelt) may not be
justified. Therefore, the restoration requirements were ordered for all of the species so that percentiles could be calculated.
Using the 100th percentile (rainbow smelt) would offset losses for all of the species, as appropriate under a complete HRC
.' The maximum snecies-density-based estimates are included only as a sensitivity analysis and reflect a minimal scale of restoration
that would be required if Lake Erie wetland restorations were much more highly successful then EPA anticipates. Detailed, repeated
monitoring of l&E species in areas where restoration has occurred will increase the accuracy of future analyses.
H5-6
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
analysis. However, the 90th and 50th percentiles (corresponding to gizzard shad and emerald shiner, respectively) were used
to bound the estimate of the required scale of restoration. Using a lower percentile than the 100th recognizes that further
analyses (or monitoring) might identify restoration programs more efficient and less costly than wetland restoration for
species with the highest wetland restoration needs, or might produce better and higher wetland restoration productivity
estimates (lower cost) for those same species. Nevertheless, using lower percentiles risks underestimating the costs of needed
restoration because most species benefit from wetland restoration, and wetland restoration could easily prove to be the best
alternative for those species with the greatest wetland restoration needs. Further, improved analysis and monitoring are as
likely to lower productivity estimates as they are to raise them. Therefore, percentiles less than the 50th were rejected as
unreasonable.2
Table H5-5 presents the 90th and 50th percentile results from the distribution of required Great Lakes coastal wetland
restoration calculated using the average species density estimates as a proxy for increased species production for each of the
I&E scenarios under consideration and combined average annual l&E losses of age 1 equivalent fish. Table 115-5 also
presents the results using the maximum species density estimates as a sensitivity analysis.
Table H5-5: Acres of Coastal Wetland Restoration Required under Different IAE Scenarios with
Alternative Increased Production Benefits Assumptions
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
I&E Scenario (preferred alternative)
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test)
; 90th Percentile Result 50th Percentile Result
90th Percentile Result ; 50th Percentile Result
Baseline 2,268
In lieu of cooling tower; 2,154
131 602 i 81
125 572 ; 77
In lieu of barrier net 669
50 167 12
H5-5 Estimate "Unit Costs" for the Habitat Restoration Alternatives
(Step 7)
EPA calculated annualized per-acre costs for restoring coastal wetlands in a Great Lakes ecosystem from the information in
the Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP) produced for the Lower Fox River/Green Bay Natural
Resource Damage Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting, 2000), which incorporated a similar
program as a restoration alternative. The RCDP's per-acre cost included expenses for the restoration implementation
(fieldwork), project administration, maintenance, and monitoring.
The RCDP's wetland restoration program focused on acquiring lands around Green Bay that are currently in agricultural use
and that are located on hydric soils (an indicator of a wetland area). These former wetlands were generally brought into
agricultural production through the draining or tiling of the land. Therefore, most of the expense (63 percent) in the RCDP's
per-acre cost estimates was for land acquisition and restoration actions necessary to re-establish functioning wetlands.
Maintenance costs (9 percent) consisted of expenses for periodic mowing and burning to maintain the dominance of wetland
vegetation. The remaining expenditures (28 percent) covered anticipated administrative expenses for the program. The per-
acre cost estimates for the various components of the wetland restoration program as presented in the Lower Fox River/Green
Bay RCDP are provided in Table H5-6 along with the equivalent annualized per-acre cost that is used to value the required
scale of wetland restoration in this streamlined HRC (the development of this annualized value is discussed in the following -
paragraph).
2 For instance, using the 25th percentile restoration requirement from Table H5-4 (7 acres for bluntnose minnow) would be valid only
if further analysis produced superior (cheaper or more productive) restoration alternatives, or superior wetland productivity estimates that
were higher for most of the species, including rainbow smelt, gizzard shad, sunfish spp., logpereh, walleye, freshwater drum, common carp,
emerald shiner, crappic spp., channel catfish, white bass, and bullhead spp. Even the 50th percentile value that we use as a lower bound
estimate assumes that eight of these species could each be produced more effectively with different restoration alternatives, or that wetland
productivity is actually higher for all eight species.
HS-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J R Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table H5-6: Wetland Restoration Costs (2000 dollars)
Restoration Program Component
$/Acre
Cost Method
Land acquisition
; 3,000
: Survey of land prices
Land transaction costs
600
.20 percent of land price, reflects agency (U.S. FWS) experience
Restoration action
2,600
Project experience (See Table Source)
Contingency on restoration action
I 260
: iO percent of restoration actions, consistent with standard practice
Project maintenance
: 590
i Project experience (See Table Source)
Monitoring
340
' 5 percent of total of land acquisition, land transaction, restoration
i action, and maintenance
Agency (landowner) overhead (project
administration)
2,900
;38.84 percent of sum of all other cost, reflects agency (U.S. FWS)
; experience
Total Cost
; 10,300
Total Annualized Cost
1,540
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting, 2000.
In annualizing the RCDP's unit costs for this streamlined HRC, EPA made a distinction between expected initial one-time
program outlays (expenditures for land, transaction costs, restoration actions, contingency, and agency overhead) and
anticipated recurring annual expenses {project maintenance and monitoring). Those costs that were viewed as initial program
outlays were treated as a capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7 percent interest rate providing an annualized
value of $882 from their initial combined value of $9,360. EPA then estimated the present value (PV), using a 7 percent
interest rate, of the recurring annual expenses for 10 years as this is the length of time incorporated for monitoring in the
complete HRC valuations conducted for the Bray ton Point and Pilgrim facility case studies. This PV for the recurring annual
expenses was then annualized over a 20 year period, again using a 7 percent interest rate resulting in an annualized expense of
$658. This process effectively treats the. monitoring expenses associated with the wetland restoration consistently with the
annual operating and maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. The
annualized recurring expenses were then added to the annualized initial program outlays resulting in a total annualized cost
for the wetlands restoration alternative of $ 1,540 per acre.
However, these unit costs probably understate the cost of monitoring that would be sufficient to measure per-unit production
benefits in restored wetlands, which could then improve future HRC calculations. In the RCDP's wetland restoration
monitoring program, the emphasis was on evaluating whether the hydrology of the former wetlands and the associated
vegetation were returning over time, activities that could be achieved with relatively minimal effort. In contrast, a monitoring
program capable of addressing whether anticipated increases in the production of certain species were being achieved in the
restored wetland areas would require a far more significant commitment of time and resources, resulting in commensurately
larger expenditures.
H5-6 Develop Total Cost Estimates for I<&E Losses (Step 8)
EPA estimated the total annualized cost to offset the average annual I&E losses at the J.R. Whiting facility by multiplying the
50th percentile and 90th percentile results of the required acreage of wetland-restoration (see Table H5-5) by the annualized
per-acre wetlands restoration costs from the RCDP (see Table H5-6). These results are presented in Table H5-7.
Table H5-7: Total Annualized Costs for a Wetland Restoration Program to Offset I&E Losses
(millions of 2000 dollars)
I&E Scenario
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
(preferred results)
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test)
90th Percentile Result | 50th Percentile Result
90th Percentile Result ; 50th Percentile Result
Baseline
$3.5
$0.2
$0.9
: $0.1
In lieu of cooling tower
$3.3
$0.2
$0.9
$0.1 ¦
In lieu of barrier net
$1.0
$0.1
$0.3
$0.0*
* Exact value of 519,103 is converted to $0.0 when rounded for presentation in millions.
H5-8
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of IAE Losses
The results of the streamlined HRC provide an annualized present value estimate of roughly $3.5 million for a program of
Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration that would offset the average annual age 1 equivalent losses from the baseline period
in perpetuity using the 90th percentile results and average species density estimates. Using the same 90th percentile selection
rule and the average species density results, the preferred results provide a value for installing a cooling tower that would
eliminate 95 percent of the baseline l&E losses in perpetuity of S3.3 million, white the reduced impingement from the barrier
net is valued at $ 1.0 million assuming the estimated average annual reduction in lost age 1 equivalents continues in perpetuity.
Incorporating the maximum observed species density from any of the sampled wetlands in Green Bay reduces the value of the
90th percentile scenario results to roughly one-fourth the average species density results.
Table H5-8 shows the results of the streamlined HRC analysis for impingement losses, entrainment losses, and total l&E
losses separately.
Table H5-8: Present Value and Annualized Results for the Monetization of IAE Losses at J.R. Whiting
Incorporating Average Species-Specific Density Estimates (millions of 2000 dollars)
l&E Scenario
; Component of l&E ;
Annualized Value
; LOSS
90th Percentile
50th Percentile
Baseline
; Impingement
SI.2
$0.2
; Entrainment
$1.7
j $0.2
l&E total"
S3.5
$0.2
Cooling tower
i l&E total ;
S3.3
; $0.2
Barrier net*
; Impingement (Total)
$1.0
| $0.1
" The total is not equal to the sura of the results from the l&E components because of different numbers of species in these components as
well as different rankings of the species based on the extent of required restoration in these components.
b For the barrier net analysis, the impingement results also serve as the total results because no entrainment monitoring was done in the
post-net period.
H5-7 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Streamlined HRC Analysis
The fundamental appeal of the HRC is its ability to incorporate and value environmental losses that are either undervalued or
ignored by traditional valuation approaches, such as recreational and commercial fishing valuation (see Chapter All in Part A
of this document for additional discussion). The primary advantage of the streamlined HRC is the limited effort and time
required to provide regulators with an initial assessment of whether a complete HRC is justified. For facilities like J.R.
Whiting with relatively large l&E impacts and l&E impacts to many species not targeted by anglers, a complete HRC is likely
to be worthwhile, even given budgetary and time constraints associated with permit re-issuance cycles. In addition, the
streamlined HRC provides regulators with a framework to evaluate mitigation proposals put forth by industry to address
residual l&E losses associated with the permitted BTA.
The primary weakness of the streamlined HRC is the uncertainty resulting from limited opportunities to access local resource
experts and unpublished primary data in the selection of a preferred restoration alternative, the development of per-unit
production benefits for each species, and the estimation of restoration unit costs.
For these reasons, streamlining an HRC may be most appropriate when:
~ a limited number of species experience l&E losses or the majority of l&E losses are realized by a small number of
species
~ the regulator is familiar with, or can quickly determine, the preferred restoration alternative for these critical species
~ benefits information from evaluations of local habitats is available, and extrapolations do not lead to extreme
variability
~ published sources of information allow estimation of all important aspects of the restoration costs.
If these conditions are absent, a complete HRC analysis will provide a more comprehensive estimate of the losses associated
with l&E than provided by traditional valuations.
In conclusion, the streamlined HRC method provides regulators, industry, and the public with an important method to quickly
estimate the likely value of l&E losses at 316b-regulated facilities. Further, because regulators and local experts can often
H5-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting Chapter H5: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
quickly assess whether appropriate and necessary information exists for the valuation of I&E resources, streamlining may
offer many opportunities to broaden the evaluation of I&E to include ecological and related public services, even when facing
significant time and budgetary constraints.
115-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
for the J.R. Whiting Facility
This chapter presents the results of EPA*s evaluation
of the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated I&E at the J.R. Whiting facility. The
economic benefits that are reported here are based on
the values presented in Chapters H4 and H5, and
EPA's estimates of I&E at the facility with and
without an impingement deterrent net in place (see
Chapter H3). Section H6-1 summarizes the estimates
of baseline economic loss developed in Chapters H4
and H5. Section H6-2 summarizes the economic
benefits attributable to the impingement deterrent net installed at the J.R. Whiting facility to reduce impingement. Section
H6-3 discusses anticipated reductions in current l&E under the proposed regulation. Section H6-4 presents the estimated
total economic benefit attributable to the regulation. Section H6-5 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.
Chapter Contents
i
116-1
Summary of Figures of Baseline Losses
.H6-1
116-2
Baseline Economic Losses
. H6-1
H6-3
Economic Benefits of Installing a Barrier Net
.H6-5
H6-4
Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation ...
. H6-5
116-5
Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties .
.H6-6
H6-1 Summary Fisures of Baseline Losses
The flowchart in Figure H6-1 summarizes how the economic estimates for J.R. Whiting were derived from I&E estimates
presented in Chapter H3. Figures 116-2 and H6-3 indicate the distribution of l&E- losses by species category and associated
economic values. These diagrams reflect the baseline losses without the net. All dollar values (and loss percents) reflect
midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse, and forage.
H6-2 Baseline Economic Losses
Baseline economic losses due to I&E at the J.R. Whiting facility were calculated in Chapters H4 and H5. In Chapter 114, total
economic loss was estimated using a benefits transfer approach to estimate the commercial, recreational, forage, and nonuse
values of fish lost to l&E. This is a demand-driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the values that people place on fish. In
Chapter H5, total economic loss was estimated by calculating the cost to increase fish populations using habitat restoration
techniques (HRC approach). This is a supply-driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the costs associated with producing fish in
natural habitats.
The total annual economic losses associated with each method are summarized in Table H6-1. These values range from
$351,000 to $1,210,000 for impingement, and from $41,000 to $1,669,000 for entrainment. The range of economic loss is
developed by taking the midpoint of the benefits transfer results and the 90th percentile species results from the HRC
approach.
H6-I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port H: J .ft. Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
Figure H6-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual I<&E at J.ft. Whiting Before Installation of the
Impingement Deterrent Net and Associated Economic Values (all results are annualized)" b
8. Habitat replacement cost
I: SI.210.000 per vear
E:$ 1,669.000 per year
7, Values of n on use losses
I: S7.000 (2.0% ofSl losses)
E: $4,000 (9.1% of$li tosses)
5. Value of recreational losses
I: 5.300 fish (3,200 lb)
$14,000
(4.0% of$l tosses)
E: 4,100 fish (700 1b)
$8,000
(18.2% of SE losses)
4, Value of commercial losses
I: 2.6 million fish
(841.0001b)
$321,000
(91.4% of $1 losses)
E: 162.000 fish (69,000 lb)
$29,000
(69.6% of $E losses)
6. Value of forage losses
(valued using cither replacement
cost method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
I: 767.800 fish
$9,000 (2.6% of $1 losses)
E*. 143.700 fish
$1,000 (3.1% of $E losses)
3. Loss to recreational and commercial harvest
I: 2.62 million fish (844.000 lb)
E: 1 66.000 fish (70,000 lb)
2. Age I equivalents lost (number offish)
I: 21.5 million (768.000 forage. 20.7 million commercial and recreational)
E: 1.8 million (1 43.700 forage. 17 million commercial and recreational)
1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)
I: 12.6 million organisms
E: 629.2 million organisms
• All dollar values are the midpoint of the range estimates.
b I&.E loss estimates are from Tables H4-2, H4-3, H4-9, and H4-I0 in Chapter H4.
Note: Species with l&E <1% of the total l&E were not valued.
H6-2
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H: J R. Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
Figure H6-2 J R Whiting; Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic
Values
3 Forage Fish* 12.2/1) Consncrcisl and
UNDERVALUED Recreational Fish"
(valued using y' VALUED as direct loss
replacement cost / commercial and
method or as / recreational fishery -
production foregone / [95.4%of$I]b
to fishery yield) f \
[2.6%, of SI]h / \
84.2% Commercial and
Recreational Fish'
UNVALUED /
(i.e., unharvested)
[0% of$lJ b
Total: 21.5 million fish per year (age 1 equivalent)*
Total value: $351,100b
" Impacts shown are to age 1 equivalents, except that impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts to fish 2 or more years
of age, depending on the age of entry into the fishery.
6 Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 2.0% of total estimated $1 loss.
116-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part Hi J.R. Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
Figure H6-3: J,ft. Whiting: Distribution of Entrapment Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic
Values
83.1% Commercial and
Recreational Fish*
UNVALUED
(i.e., un harvested)
[0%of$E]b
7,8% Forage Fish
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacerrent cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[3.0% ofSEJ b
9% Commercial and
Recreational Fish3
VALUED as direct loss
to fishery
[87.9% ofSEJ b
Total: 1.8 million fish per year (age 1 equivalent)
Total value: $41,5O0b
" Impacts shown are to age I equivalents, except that impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts to fish 2 or more years
of age, depending on the age of entry into the fishery.
* Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 9.1% of total estimated SE loss.
H6-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
Table H6-1: Total Baseline Economic Loss from ME (2000$, annually)
Impingement
Entrainment
Benefits transfer approach
(demand driven approach from Chapter 114)"
$351,000
$41,000
Habitat replacement cost approach
(supply driven approach from Chapter H5)b
$1,210,000
$1,669,000
Range
; $351,000 to $1.2 million
$41,000 to $1.7 million
" Midpoint of Range from Chapter H4,
b Based on cost to restore 90th percentile species impacted. Note that the lower bound estimates from the HRC
approach reflect restoration of only half the impacted fish species (i.e., the 50th percentile). As such, the low end
values for HRC were not considered in establishing the range of losses.
H6-3 Economic Benefit of Installing a Barrier Net
In 1980, J R. Whiting installed a deterrent net to reduce impingement at the facility. This dramatically reduced the number of
fish impinged (from an average of 21.5 million age 1 equivalents per year to an average of 1.6 million per year). The total
economic loss from impingement with the net installed is just 8 percent of the baseline value, or from $28,000 to $97,000 per
year.
As summarized in Table H6-2, the total economic benefit of the J.R. Whiting net can be calculated by subtracting the total
economic loss from impingement with the net installed from the baseline economic loss from impingement without the net.
Thus, the economic benefits attributable to the net are $323,000 to $1.1 million per year.
The net does not appear to significantly affect entrainment at the site, so there are no entrainment benefits attributable to the
net.
Table H6-2: Economic Benefits of J.R. Whiting Barrier Net
Impingement Reduction (2000$ annually)
Baseline economic loss
$351,000 to $ 1.2 million
Economic loss with net installed
$28,000 to $97,000
Total economic benefit of net
$323,000 to $ 1.1 million
H6-4 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulation
The impingement deterrent net installed at the J.R. Whiting facility meets the requirements set forth in the proposed
regulation for impingement reduction. Therefore, there are no anticipated reductions in impingement attributable to the
regulation at this site. However, under the proposed regulation, J.R. Whiting would be required to take additional measures to
reduce entrainment. Such measures could include the installation of fine mesh screens or using passive intake of cooling
water. Table H6-3 summarizes the total annual benefits from entrainment reductions, under scenarios ranging from 10
percent to 90 percent reductions in entrainment. Table H6-4 considers the benefits of two options with varying percent
reductions of l&E. Table H6-4 indicates that the benefits are expected to range from S21,000 to $835,000 for a 50 percent
reduction in entrainment.
116-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R, Whiting
Chapter H6: Benefits Analysis
Table H6-3: Summary of Current Economic Losses and
Benefits of a Range of Potential Entrapment
Reductions at J.R. Whiting Facility ($2000)
Lntrainment
Baseline losses
; low
$41,000
high
51,670,000
Benefits of 10% reductions
: lOW
S4,000
high
$167,000
Benefits of 20% reductions
; low
$8,000
high
5334,000
Benefits of 30% reductions
low
112,000
high
$501,000
Benefits of 40% reductions
low
$16,000
high
$668,000
Benefits of 50% reductions
low
$21,000
; high
$835,000
Benefits of 60% reductions
low
$25,000
; high
$1,002,000
Benefits of 70% reductions
low
$29,000
; high
$1,169,000
Benefits of 80% reductions
: low
$33,000
high
$1,336,000
Benefits of 90% reductions
low
$37,000
high
$1,503,000
Table H6-4: Summary of Benefits of Potential
Entrainment Reductions at J.R. Whiting Facility
($2000)
Entrainment
50% entrainment reduction
low
$21,000
high
$835,000
H6-5 Summary of Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits
Analysis
Table H6-5 presents an overview of omissions, biases, and uncertainties in the benefits estimates. Factors with a negative
impact on the benefits estimate bias the analysis downward, and therefore would raise the final estimate if they were properly
accounted for.
H6-6
-------
Chapter H6; Benefits Analysis
Tabic H6-5: Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits and HRC Estimates
Issue
Impact on
Benefits Estimate
Comments
Long-term fish stock effects 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
constant1
Understates benefits*
Recreational benefits only reflect anticipated increase in value per activity outing;
increased levels of participation are omitted.
Boating, bird-watching, and
other ln-strcain or near-water
activities are omitted*
Understates benefits"
The only impact to recreation considered is fishing.
HRC monitoring program costs
for wetland restoration not
consistent with evaluating fish
production/abundance
Understates benefits"
A monitoring program to determine wetland production/abundance of fish would
be more labor intensive than current monitoring program
HRC based on capture data
assumed to represent age 1 fish
Understates benefits*
High percent of less than age 1 fish observed in capture data, thereby leading 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 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.
Nonuse benefits
Uncertain
EPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational angling benefits.
Recreation values for various
geographic areas
Uncertain
Some recreational values used are from various regions beyond the Great Lakes.
a Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
H6-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R, Whiting
Chapter H7: Conclusions
Chapter H7:
Conclusions
EPA examined economic value of impingement and entrapment at J.R. Whiting before net installation (1978-1979) to
estimate the losses at the plant without the deterrent net and potential I&E damages at other Great Lakes facilities that do not
employ impingement or entrainment reduction technologies. Average annual impingement before net installation was about
21.5 million age 1 equivalents and average annual entrainment was about 1.8 million age 1 equivalents (see Table H3-14). As
indicated in Chapter H6, average impingement without the net is valued at between $351,000 and SI .2 million per year, and
average entrainment is valued at between $41,000 and $1.7 million per year {all in $2000).
The results of EPA's evaluation of l&E rates at J.R. Whiting also indicate that a deterrent net can be very effective at
reducing impingement. Facility monitoring data indicate that annual impingement at J.R. Whiting declined an average of
92% over the period 1981 -1991 (see impingement data presented in Chapter H3). EPA estimated that the economic benefits
of reducing impingement with the net can be substantial, ranging from $323,000 to $1.1 million per year (all in $2000).
EPA also estimated the potential economic benefits of additional technologies that might currently be applied to reduce CWIS
impacts at J.R. Whiting (Chapter H6). EPA assumed that no further impingement technology would be required at J.R.
Whiting, since the deterrent net appears to minimize impingement to the extent possible. However, EPA estimated that the
benefits of 60% entrainment reductions (which may result from installation of fine mesh nets or using passive intake of
cooling water) would range from $25,000 to $ 1.0 million per year (all in $2000).
The upper ends of the" valuation of losses and benefits at J.R. Whiting include results of the HRC method for valuing
impingement and entrainment losses. HRC-based estimates of the economic value of impingement and entrainment losses at
J.R. Whiting were included with the transfer-based estimates to provide a better estimate of loss values, particularly for forage
species for which valuation techniques are limited The HRC technique is designed to provide a more comprehensive,
ecological-based valuation of impingement and entrainment losses than valuation by traditional commercial and recreational
impacts methods. Losses are valued on the basis of the combined costs for implementing habitat restoration actions,
administering the programs, and monitoring the increased production after the restoration actions.
For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of
reducing I&E at Great Lakes facilities (Chapter H6). EPA assumed that the effects of I&E on fish populations are constant
over time (i.e., that fish kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations). EPA also did not
analyze whether the number of fish affected by l&E would increase as populations increase in response to improved water
quality or other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA also assumed that fishing is the
only recreational activity affected and that fishing effort does not increase in response to increases in recreational catch.
H7-I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evoluate ME
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter
~ ~ fr mmr f ¦ VI m r ^ V v jgpv ¦ f ^*0* jf • • W m W
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I4E
Table HI-2: Bluntnose Minnow Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality : Fishing Mortality
(per stage) (per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable :
to Fishery"
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
: 2.3s : 0
0
0,QQ0000985f
Larvae
2.06b i 0
0
0.000375"
Age 0
| 2.06" 1 0
0 ;
0,00208s
Age 1+
: 1° 0
0 :
0.005851
Age 2+
V 0
o
0.0121B
Age 3+
]'• ; 0
o :
0.0143'
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
h Calculated from estimated survival (Froese and Pauly, 2001) using the equation: (natural mortality) =
-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
c Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.466xl0j4)*l.ength(rnni)'!* = weight! g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
' Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
1 Length from Carlander, 1969.
Wed Jan 09 14:10:57 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting 78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Qreat_Lakes/GL_Seience/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.bluntnose.niinnow.csv
Table HI
-3: Bullhead Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality (per
stage)'
: Fraction Vulnerable to j
Fishery4
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
: - 2.3'
0
0
0.000000559s
Larvae
4.61"
0
0
0.000186"
Age 0
1.39° :
0
0 :
0.00132'
Age 1+
; 0,223"
Q.2231"
o.5 ;
0.0362®
Age 2+
0.223*-' ;
0.2231'
1
0.0797'
Age 3+
; 0.223'
0.223c
1
0.137'
Age 4+
i 0.223'
0.223e
I
0.233'
Age 5+
0.223c :
0.223'
1
0.402'
Age 6+
0.223c
0.223=
; I :
0.679"
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from estimated survival for channel catfish (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural
mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
* Calculated from survival for brown bullhead (Carlander, 1969) assuming that half of mortality was natural and half
was fishing, using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN((survival)V:).
" Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
' Calculated based on survival for brown bullhead (Carlander, 1969) assuming that halfof mortality was natural and
half was fishing, using the equation: (fishing mortality) = -LN((survival)").
' Weight calculated from length using the Formula: (8.80x10 6)*Length(mm)3 Wl = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
* Length from Wang, 1986a.
k Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
' Length from Carlander, 1969.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:02 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname;
P:/Iritake/Great_Lakes/GL_Seienee/scodes/jr.whiring/tabIes.output.78,79/lifehistory,bullhead.spp.csv
App. 111-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I4E
Table HI-4:
Channel Catfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)
; Fraction Vulnerable to i
Fishery" ;
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2.3'
0s
0
0.000000408s
Larvae
4.61"
0"
0
0.0000S918
Age 0
1.39"
0"
o :
0.00987"
Age J +
0.41'
0.4!'
0.5
0.0554k
Age 2+
0.4 r
0.41c
1
0.189"
Age 3+
0.41 =
0.41'
1
0.43fih
Age 4+
• 0.41c
0.41c
1
0.71"
Age 5+
0.411'
0.4 r
: •
1.22"
Age 6+
0.4 lc
: 0.4 lc
i
1.55"
Age 7+
0.41'
0.41e
l
2.27"
Age 8+
0.41Ł
0.415
i
2Mh
Age 9+
0.4 lc
0.4 S-
1
3.41"
Age 10+
0.4 r
o.4r
; 1
5.59"
Age 1 i+
0,41=
i 0.4 r
• 1
5.81'
Age 12+
0.41'
0.41'
l
5.92"
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
' Calculated based on survival from (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality).
' Calculated based on survival from (Miller, 1966) assuming that half of mortality was natural and half was fishing,
using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN((survival)'').
4 Recreational and commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1. Based on hake (Saila et al, 1997).
e Calculated based on survival from (Miller, 1966) assuming that half of mortality was natural and half was fishing,
using the equation: (fishing mortality) = -LN((survival)'").
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.94xlO"6)»Length(mm)313 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
8 Length from Wang, 1986a.
* Length from Carlander, 1969.
1 Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:07 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.1whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/lntake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/iifehistory.channel.eatfish.csv
App, Hl-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.ft. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
Table HI-5:
Common Carp Spec
ies Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)
Fraction Vulnerable j
to Fishery* i
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2.3a
0d
o :
0.000000143'
Larvae
4.6lb
O1
o i
0.0000118f
Age 0
1.39"
: 0:'
: 0 j
0.0225g
Age 1+
0.13C
0.13'
0.5
0.791
Age 2+
0.13C
0.13C
I
1.21s
Age 3+
0.13'
0.13C
1 :
1.81s
Age 4+
0.13C
: 0,13C
1 |
5.13s
Age 5+
0.13C
| 0.13'
! 1 1
5.52"
Age 6+
0.13"
: 0.13s
1
5.82"
Age 7+
0.13'
i 0.13'
; 1 i
6.76'
Age 8+
0.13c
; o.i 3c
: ¦ i ;
8,17"
Age 9+
i 0.13C
i 0.13'
:: i 1
8.55"
Age 10+
0.13c
; 0.13'
i ;
8,94b
Age 11+
: 0.13"
0.13s
i •
9.76h
Age 12+
0.13'
: o.i 3c
i
10.2"
Age 13+
0.13c
i 0.13'
i ;
I0.6"
Age 14+
0.13°
i 0.13°
: 1
11.1"
Age 15+
0,13'
: 0.13'
11.5"
Age 16+
0.13=
: 0.13C
: 1 :
12"
Age 17+
: o. 13"'
: 0.13'
i 1 i
' 12,5h
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001, assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
d Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
* Weight calculated from length using the formula: (l.lxlO's)*Lcngth(mrn)J-025 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
f Length from Wang, 1986a.
8 Length from Carlander, 1969.
h Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
Wedlan 09 14:11:12 MST 2002 Results; Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intakc'Great_Lakev'GL Science/scodcs/ji. whiting/tables, output. 78.79/lifehis!ory.common, carp.csv
App. HI-4
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port H- J.ft. Whiting
Toble HI-6:
Crappie Species Parameters
Stage Name
! Natural Mortality :
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery '
Weight (Ib)d
Eggs
; 1.8"
0
0
0.0000000179*
Larvae
0.498"
0
o
0,00000857*
Age 0
2.93*
0
o
0.012'
Age 1 +
0.292" I
0.292"
0.5
0.128'
Age 2+
0.292"
0.292"
1
0.193'
Age 3+
; 0.292"
0.292"
1
0.427'
Age 4+
; Q.292b
0.292"
1
0.651'
Age 5+
: 0.292"
0.292"
1
0.888'
Age 6+
i 0.292"
0.292"
1
0.925'
Age 7+
! 0.292'
0.292"
1
0,972"
Age Si-
0.292"
0.292"
1
1.08'
Age 9+
0.292"
0.292"
1
1.26f
' 1JarteiI and Campbell, 2000. Black ctappie.
b Bartcll and Campbell, 2000 assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing. Black crappie.
' Recreational species, vulnerable to fishing at age 1,
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1.014xl0^)*Lcngth(min):i°"' = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
c Length from Wang, 1986a,
' Length from Carlander, 1977.
8 Length assumed based on Carlander, 1977.
Wed Jan 09 14; 11:17 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant; jr.whittng.78,79 Pathname:
P:/lntake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr. whiting/tables. output.78.79/Iifehistory.crappie.spp.csv
Table HI-7:
Emerald Shiner Species Parameters
Stage Name
! Natural Mortality
(per stage)
• Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery11
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
; 2.3"
0
o :
0.000000252'
Larvae
! 4.61"
: 0
o ;
0.0016'
Age 0
0.776"
0
0 :
0.0135*
Age 1 +
0.371"
0
o :
0,026s
Age 2+
i 4.61"
o
o I
0.0478s
Age 3+
4.61s
0
0
0.IQ6*
3 Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN( survival) - (fishing mortality).
" Wapora, 1979.
' Assumed based on Wapora, 1979.
4 Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula; (1,114xl0~VLength(min); v~ = weight(g) (Fuchs, 1967).
' Length assumed based on Trautman, 1981.
8 Length from Trautman, 1981.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:22 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78,79 Pathname:
P:'Intake/Great_Lake.y GL_Science/scode s/jr. whit ing/tables.output. 78.79,'lifehistory.emerald.shiner.csv
App. HI-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate IAE
Table HI-8: Freshwater brum Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery4 ! We'8ht(lb)
Eggs
2.27*
0"
o ; o.oooooii'
Larvae
6.13"
0"
0 0.00000295r
Age 0
1.15"
1.15"
0.5 i 0.0166f
Age 1 +
0.155'*
0.155*
1 : 0.05"
Age 2+
0.155'
0.155'
1 0.206s
Age 3+
0.155"
0.155"
1 0,438s
Age 4+
0.155c
0.155"
1 0.638'
Age 5+
0.155'
0.155"
1 ; 0.794s
Age 6+
0.155'
0.155'
1 ; 0.95*
Age 7+
0.155'
0.155'
1 1.09s
Age 8+
0.155'
0.155"
1 1.26s
Age 9+
0.155'
0.155'
1 1.448
Age 10+
0.155'
0.155"
1 i 1.6s
Age 11+
0.155'
0.155"
1 1.78s
Age 12+
0.155'
0.155'
1 2«
* Bartell and Campbell, 2000,
11 Bartell and Campbell, 2000 assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
c Froese and Pauly, 2001, assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
d Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 0.
5 Assumed based on Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
' Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
8 Scott and Grossman, 1973.
Wed Jan 09 14:11 ;27 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lake^GL_Seience/scodes/jr.whiting/tables,output.78.79/lifehi5tory.freshwater.drum,csv
App. Hl-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R. Whiting
Table HI-9: Gizzard Shad Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
: Fraction Vulnerable ¦
to Fishery*
Weight (lb)
Eggs
; 2.3a
0
: 0 ;
0.00000221
Larvae
; 6.33"
0
o
0.00000663"
Age 0
0.511"
0
0 |
0.0107"
Age 1+
; i.45c
1.45'
0.5 :
0.141*"
Age 2+
: 1.27'
1.27*
1
0.477"
Age 3+
j 0.966'
0.966'
i 1 ;
0.64"
Age 4+
i 0.873'
0.873s
" 1 ;
0.885"
Age 5+
: 0.303'
Ci
o
o
; 1 |
1.1?"
Age 6+
: 0.303'
0.303'
i 1 i
1.54"
* Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Wapora, 1979.
' Wapora, 1979, assuming half of mortality was natural and half was fishing.
J Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
'* Assumed based on Wapora, 1979.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:32 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Grcat_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output,78,79/lifehistory.gizzard.shad.csv
Table HI-10: Logperch Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
: Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"1
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery*
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2.3*
0
0
0.00000000309f
Larvae
1.9b
0
0 i
0.000276s
Age 0
1.9"
o
o
0,00345f
Age 1 +
0.7'
0
o
0,0128'
Age 2+
0.7C
o
0
0.0274'
Age 3+
0.7=
0
o
0,0443'
¦ Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: {natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
" Calculated from estimated survival based on (Froese and Pauly, 2001) using the equation: (natural mortality)
= -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.240x 10 ')*Length(mm)! = weight(g) (Carlander,
1997).
' Length from Carlander, 1997.
g Length assumed based on Carlander, 1997.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:36 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting,78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Oreat_Lakes/GL_Scicnee/seodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78,79/lifehistory.logperchxsv
App. HI-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H; J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I4E
Table Hl-11*. Rainbow Smelt Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
i (per stage)
; Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable ¦
to Fishery®
Weight (lb)4
Eggs
; 3.32"
0
0
0.0000000115"
Larvae
i 2.65"
0
0 :
0.00000233'
Age 1 +
; 0.72°
i 0
0 :
0.0195f
Age 2+
i 0,72b
: o
o
0.0418
Age 3+
0.72h
o
o
0.177*
Age 4+
| 0.72"
0
o I
0,338f
Age 5+
0,72b
o
0
0.537f
Age 6+
G.72b
; o
0
0.597f
' Calculated from survival from (Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, 1977) using the equation:
(natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
c Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.23x 1 O^Lengthfmm)3'14 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
c Length from Able and Fahay, 1998.
f Length assumed based on Able and Fahay, 1998 and Scott and Scott, 1988.
1 Length from Scott and Scott, 1988.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:41 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/lntake/GreatJLakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.rainbow.smeIt.csv
Table Hl-
12: Sucker Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality
(per stage)
; Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery'
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2,05"
0
0 ;
0.0000000135'
Larvae
: 2.56*
0
0
0.00000198e
Age 0+
; 2.3a
0
0
0.000145'
Age 1 +
0.274"
0,274"
0.5 ;
0.0447'
Age 2+
i 0.274"
0.274"
i ;
0.249f
Age 3+
0.274"
0.274b
l :
0.305f
Age 4+
0.274"
0.274s
l ;
0.609f
Age 5+
0.274"
0.274b
i ;
0.823f
Age 6+
0.274b
0.274"
i
0.929f
a Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
' Bartell and Campbell, 2000 assuming half of mortality is natural and half is fishing.
c Commercial species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
4 Weight calculated from length based on river carpsucker using the formula: (6.13x 10"6)*Length(mm):!'w^l =
weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
' Length assumed based on Carlander, 1969.
f Length from Carlander, 1969.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:45 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.ontpuL78.79/lifehistory.sucker.spp.csv
App. Hl-8
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Port H: J.R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate ME
Table HI-13: Sunfish Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
= (per stage)
i Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery*
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
; up
0
0 :
0.00000000736'
Larvae
; 0.687*
0
o i
0.000000994'
Age 0+
j 0.687*
o
o !
0.0008 788
Age 1 +
1.61s
o
0 ¦:
0.00666"
Age 2+
1.61"
: 0
0
0.0271s
Age 3+
; 1.5-
j 1.5"
0.5 j
0.0593*
Age 4+
! 1.5"
1.5"
i =
0.0754s
Age 5+
: 1.5"
i i-5"
l ;
0.142"
Age 6+
: 1.5"
1.5d
i ;
0.I88
Age 7+
i 1.5b
1.5J
1 :
0.214s
Age 8+
: 1.5"
1.5" '
i ;
0.232*
* Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed from (Carlander, 1977) using the equation; (natural mortality) =
-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
b Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed from (Carlander, 1977) using the equation: (natural mortality) =
-LN((survival)K).
= Recreational species; vulnerable to fishing at age 3,
d Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed from (Carlander, 1977) using the equation: (fishing mortality) =
-LN((survivai)K).
' Weight calculated from length based on pumpkinseed using the formula: (6.13x10"')*Lcngth(n]ni)J"2'2 =
wcight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
f Length for Pumpkinseed from Wang, 1986a.
8 Length for Pumpkinseed from Carlander, 1977.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:50 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part H; J,R. Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I&E
Table HI-14: Walleye Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
• Fishing Mortality
(per stage)5
Fraction Vulnerable I
to Fishery'
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
1.05"
0
0
0.00000000506'
Larvae
3.55s
0
0
0.0000768s
Age 0+
1.93"
0
0
0.036
Age 1 +
0,0474b
0,6d
0.5
0.328s
Age 2+
0.0474"
0.6d
1 :
0.907*
Age 3+
0.0474b
; 0.6"
1
1.77*
Age 4-
0.0474b
: 0.6"
1 i
2.35"
Age 5+
0.0474b
: 0.6"
l i
3.37s
Age 6+
0.0474"
; 0.6"
l |
3.97g
Age 7+
0.0474"
0.6"
l i
4.66f
Age 8+
0.0474b
: 0.6"
l ;
5.58s
* Calculated from survival from (Carlander, 1997) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival)
-(fishing mortality).
b Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
c Recreational species; vulnerable to fishing at age 1.
d McDermot and Rose, 2000.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.296xl0"6)*Length(mm)"5 = weigh t(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
' Length assumed based on Carlander, 1997.
• Length from Carlander, 1997.
Wed Jan 09 14:11:55 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/lntake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr,whiting/tables.output,78,79/lifchistary.walIeye,csv
Table HI-15:
White Boss Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable
to Fishery*
Weight (lb)
Eggs
2.3*
0
0
0.0000000266f
Larvae
4,61"
0
0
0.00000174s
Age 0+
1.39b
0
0
0.174h
Age ! +
0.42Ł
0
0
0,467h
Age 2+
0.42c
0.7
0.5
0.644*
Age Si-
0.42'
0.7
1
1,02h
Age 4+
0.42*
0,7
1
1.16"
Age 5+
0.42c
0.7
1
1.26h
Age 6+
0.42s
0.7
1
1.66"
Age 7+
OAT
0.7
1
1.68'
' Calculated from assumed survival using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from survival from (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d McDermot and Rose, 2000.
c Assumed based on fishing mortality.
' Weight calculated from assumed length of I mm using the formula: (1.206xl0 ')*Length(mm)3132 = weight(g)
(Van Oosten, 1942),
8 Weight calculated from length of 3.8mm (Carlander, 1997) using the formula: (1.206x10') * Length(mm),''S2
= weight(g) (Van Oosten, 1942).
h Carlander, 1997.
' Assumed based on Carlander, 1997,
Wed Jan 09 14:12:00 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Seience/seodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78,79/lifehistory.white.bass,csv
App. HI-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part H: J.R Whiting
Appendix HI: Life History Parameter Values Used to Evaluate I4E
Table HI-16: White Perch Species Parameters
Stage Name
Eggs
Natural Mortality
(per stage)"
2.75
: Fishing Mortality
(per stage)*
: 0
Fraction Vulnerable i
to Fishery*
0
Weight (lb)
0.000022"
Yolksac larvae
2.1
0
o
0.00946®
Post-yolksae larvae
3.27
i o
0
0,0189c
Juvenile 1
0.947
5 0
o
0.0283'
Juvenile 2
0.759
0
o
0,0378c
Age 1+
0.693
! 0
0
0.0472'
Age 2+
0.693
0
o
0.0567*
Age 3+
0.693
0.15
0.0008
0.103*
Age 4+ :
0.689
0.15
0.0266 '
0.15*
Age 5+ ;
1.58
0.15
0.212
0.214*
Age 6+
1.54
0.15
0.48
0.265*
Age 7+ i
1.48
0.15
0,838
0.356*
Age 8+
1.46
0.15
1
0.387*
Age 9+
1.46
0.15
1
0.516*
Age 10+
1.46
0.15
1
0.619*
* Based on Delaware Estuary white perch from PSEG, 1999c.
b Assumed based on PSEO, 1999c.
Wed Ian 09 14:12:05 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whitmg.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/QL_Science/scodes/jr,whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.white.perch.esv
Table HI-17: Yellow Perch Species Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality
(per stage)
; Fishing Mortality
(per stage)4
Fraction Vulnerable ;
to Fishery*
Weight (lbs)
Eggs
: 2.75*
0
0 i
0.0000022'
Larvae
3.56"
o
0 ;
0.00000384"
Age 0+
i 2.53"
1 o
o ;
0.0232"
Age 1+
0.361"
o
o
0.0245"
Age 2+
: 0,248b
1 o
o
0.043Sb
Age 3+
0.504b
; 0.7
o.5 ;
0.098?"
Age 4+
0.504b
: 0-7
i
0.132b
Age 5+'
; 0.504"
j 0.7
i
0.1666
Age 6+
Q.504c
0.7
i
0.214"
* Based on Delaware Estuary yellow perch from PSEG, 1999c.
" Wapora, 1979.
I Assumed based on Wapora, 1979.
II MeDermot and Rose, 2000.
1 Recreational species; vulnerable to fishing at age 3.
1 Assumed based on Wapora, 1979.
Wed Jari 09 14:12:10 MST 2002 Results: Life history Plant: jr.whiting.78.79 Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/jr.whiting/tables.output.78.79/lifehistory.yelIow.perch.csv
App, Hl-Il
-------
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Part I: Monroe
Facility Case Study
-------
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
Chapter XI: Background
This case study presents the results of an analysis
performed by EPA to assess the potential benefits of
reducing impingement and entrainment (I&E) at
cooling water intake structures (CW1S) at the Detroit
Edison Monroe Power plant, located at the mouth of
the River Raisin on the western shore of Lake Erie
(Figure 11-1), Section 11-1 of this background chapter
provides a brief description of the facility, Section 11-
2 describes the environmental setting, and Section 11-3
presents information on the area's socioeconomic
characteristics.
II -1 Overview of Monroe
Facility
The Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant is a four-unit, 3,293 MW fossil fuel, steam electric power plant (Cole, 1978;
Goodyear, 1978; Jude et al., 1983). The facility is located where the River Raisin enters Lake Erie, just north of the J.R.
Whiting facility, evaluated in Part H of this case study document (Figure 11 -1). The first unit went online in 1971, and all
four generating units were completed by 1974. Each unit has four circulating water pumps, each of which is capable of a flow
of 7.3 m3/sec (116,000 gpm). Monroe is one of the largest fossil fuel burning power plants in the United States (Detroit
Edison, 2002).
Monroe operates a once-through cooling system (Goodyear, 1978). The cooling water intake draws a maximum flow of 85
m'/sec (3,000 cfs) (Cole, 1978). The 100 m (328 ft) long cooling water intake channel is located about 650 m (2,133 ft)
upstream from the mouth of the River Raisin (Goodyear, 1978). The intake has two screenhouses and 12 circulating water
pumps (Jude et al,, 1983), Each pump is equipped with trash racks with vertical bars spaced 7.6 cm (3in.) apart, and a
traveling screen with 1 cm (0.4in.) openings (Goodyear, 1978). The traveling screens normally rotate once each 8 hours, but
will rotate at a higher speed when debris restricts flow (Jude, et al., 1983), The cooling water discharge canal, which is 1.8
km (1.1 mi) long and 171 m (561 ft) wide, empties into Plum Creek just upstream of its confluence with Lake Erie
approximately 2.5 km (1.6 mi) south-southwest of the mouth of the River Raisin (Goodyear, 1978).
Monroe uses a fish return system to divert fish from the intake channel (Jude et al., 1983; Dodge, 1998), reducing
impingement by an estimated 60 percent (Dodge, 1998). Fish and debris are diverted by the traveling screens to a pump, and
transported into a series of pipes that discharge into Lake Erie east of the plant.
The cooling water design flow of the Monroe plant of 1,975
MGD is 4 times greater than the River Raisin's average flow
(Dodge, 1998), During most of the year, the entire flow of the
river is withdrawn, and Lake Erie water is drawn upstream to
the plant to provide the additional water required, reversing the
flow of the river at its mouth (Goodyear, 1978; Cole, 1978).
It began commercial service in 1969 and currently operates four
coal-fired steam-electric units and five oil-fired internal
combustion turbines, Monroe had 345 employees in 1999 and
generated 18.3 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity.
Estimated baseline revenues in 1999 were $1.4 billion, based on the plant's 1999 estimated electricity sales of 17.2 million
MWh and the 1999 company-level electricity revenues of $81.59 per MWh. Monroe's 1999 production expenses totaled
$284 million, or 1,553 cents per KWh, for an operating income of $1.1 billion.
Chapter Contents
Jl-I Overview of Monroe Facility 11-1
11-2 Environmental Setting 11-3
11-2.1 The River Raisin 11-3
11 -2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota .¦ 11-4
11 -2.3 Major Environmental Stressors 11-4
11-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics 11-6
11-3.1 Major Industrial Activities 11-6
11-3,2 Commercial Fisheries 11-6
11-3,3 Recreational Fisheries ................ II -8
11-3.4 Other Water-Based Recreation 11-8
v Ownership Information
Monroe is a regulated utility plant owned by Detroit
Edison, a subsidiary of DTE Energy Company. DTE
Energy is an energy holding company with over 9,100
employees. The firm owns or controls over 11 million
megawatts of electric generating capability. In 2001,
DTE Energy posted sales of $7.8 billion. 2000
electricity sales were 55 million MWh (Hoover's
Online, 2002; DTE Energy, 2002).
11-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
Figure 11 -1: Location of Monroe Power Plant on the River Raisin and Lake Erie. J.R. Whiting Power Plant is just south of Monroe
Power Plant
V CANADA
'V
' Ml
Area of Detail
—ir
PA
IN
OH
MICHIGAN
OHIO
Ann
Arbor
Toledo
S1U
Detroit
V
CANADA
Monroe
Power Plant
J. R. Whiling j i
Plant
Bass
Islands
N
W Sqfe E
Facility
| | Major urban areas
Cleveland
Akron
9 4.5 0 9 IB Kilometers
10 5 0 10 20 Miles
11-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
Table 11-1 below summarizes the plant characteristics of the Monroe plant.
Table 11-1: Summary of Monroe Plant Characteristics (1999)
Monroe
Plant EIA Code
1733
NERC Region
ECAR
Total Capacity (MW)
3,293
Primary Fuel
Coal
Number of Employees
345
Net Generation (million MWh)
18.3
Estimated Revenues (billion) ¦
$1.4
Total Production Expense (million)
$284
Production Expense (j/KWh)
1.5530
Estimated Operating Income (billion)
$1.1
Notes: NF.RC = North American Electric Reliability Council
ECAR = East Central Area Reliability"Coordination Agreement
Dollars are in S200L
Source: Form EIA-860A (NERC Region, Total Capacity, Primary Fuel!; FERC Form-1
(Number of Employees, Net Generation, Total Production Expense).
11-2 Environmental Setting
The Monroe plant withdraws water from both the River Raisin and Lake Erie. The following section focuses on the River
Raisin to avoid repetition of information in Part H, the case study of J.R. Whiting. Readers seeking more information on
Lake Erie are referred to Chapter H1 of Part H of this document.
11-2.1 The River Raisin
The River Raisin drains approximately 2,770 km2 (1,070 mi2) in Michigan and northwestern Ohio (Dodge, 1998; USGS,
2001b). The mainstem of the river is about 240 km (150 mi) long, and the drop in elevation is about 146 m (480 ft) from the
headwaters to the mouth (Dodge, 1998), The average discharge measured at a station approximately 19 km (12 mi) upstream
from the mouth is 21 m'/sec (741 cfs). The annual flow pattern is representative of a snowmeit-fed river, with high flows in
March and April and low flows in July through October. It is believed that the river was named "Raisin" by French explorers
who discovered plentiful grapevines growing along its banks.
The River Raisin has been affected by many factors over time (Dodge, 1998). Agricultural activity has contributed to flow
instability and erosion, which in turn have altered the channel structure. In addition, agricultural land use contributes to
sedimentation problems, altered temperature regimes, and nutrient loading. Point source pollution from industrial and
municipal sources was a problem for many years, but has been dramatically reduced since the 1970'.%. Despite the potential
for recreational use, public perception of the river as polluted, with limited access and poor fishery management mean that it
is not heavily used.
The lower portion of the River Raisin was identified by the International Joint Commission as one of Michigan's 14 Areas of
Concern (AOCs) because of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and metal contamination of fish and sediments (Dodge, 1998).
The River Raisin AOC is defined as the lower portion of the river from the Winchester Bridge Dam in Monroe, extending 0.8
km (0.5 mi) out into Lake Erie, and 1.6 km (1 mi) north and south along the nearshore zone of the lake (Dodge, 1998;
U.S. EPA, 2001b).
11-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
11-2.2 Aquatic Habitat and Biota
The lower River Raisin has an average gradient of 0,91 m per km (3,0 ft per mi), and a firm stream bed composed of cobble,
rock, sand and limestone bedrock (Dodge, 1998). Because of the bedrock substrate, much of the river is usually shallow and
wide. Overall, the river has a diversity of benthic macroinvertebrate and fish species. The northern clearwater crayfish
(Orconectes propinquus) is found throughout the river. The lower River Raisin once supported 20 species of mussels, but a
recent survey found only four species.
A survey conducted by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in 1985 identified 36 fish species in the lower reach of
the river (Dodge, 1998). Smallmouth bass were abundant, although they are not found in the middle reaches because of the
shallow gradient there. Lake Erie fish are not typically found in the River Raisin, because access is restricted by a series of
dams.
Many of the fish identified in I&E studies at the Monroe Plant (see Table 13-1) are common to the River Raisin (Dodge,
1998), These species include spotfin shiner (Cyprinelia spiloptera), emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides), common carp
(Cyprinus carpio), bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus), white sucker (Catostomus commersoni), northern hog sucker
(Hypentelium nigricans), bullheads (Ameiurus spp.), northern pike (Esox lucius), muskellunge (Esox masquinongy), rainbow
trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbasus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), crappies
(Pomoxis spp,), yellow perch (Perca Jlavescens), logperch (Percina caprodes), and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum).
Other species, particularly those impinged and entrained most frequently at the plant, are most likely drawn from Lake Erie
(Dodge, 1998). These species include gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), alewife (Aiosa pseudoharengus), rainbow
smelt (Osmerus mordax). burbot (Lota lota), freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens), and white bass (Morone chrysops).
Species of special concern identified by the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) found in the River Raisin include
the black redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei), brindled madtom (Noturus miurus), and pugnose shiner (Notropis anogenus).
Threatened species identified by MNFI are creek chubsucker (Erimyzon obtongus), eastern sand darter (Ammocrypta
peilucida), silver shiner (Notropis photogenis), and southern redbelly dace (Phoxinus erythrogaster).
11-2.3 Major Environmental Stressors
Human activity in the River Raisin basin has led to a number of major stresses on the aquatic environment (Dodge, 1998).
Dam construction and habitat alteration have affected habitat quality on the river. Prior to the 1970's, extensive point source
pollution from municipal and industrial sources, particularly paper mills, resulted in PCB and metal contamination of the
sediments and biota in the river. Fish communities have also been affected by stocking of species such as common carp and
rainbow trout, as well as accidental introductions of invasive species.
a. Habitat alteration
The River Raisin has experienced extensive modification over time (Dodge, 1998). There are 22 dams on the river mainstem,
38 dams on tributaries, and numerous small dams on smaller streams. The construction of dams has altered the flow regime
of the river and eliminated much of the highest gradient habitat in the mainstem. Approximately 94 percent of the River
Raisin basin is devoted to agricultural use. Activities associated with the extensive agricultural development in the basin such
as deforestation, channelization and wetland drainage have reduced the quality and diversity of aquatic habitat. Although
urban land use is minimal (estimates range from 2 to 3 percent), development is increasing and affects the flow regime of the
river.
River Raisin habitat for fish (fish that migrate from lakes up rivers, like salmon, walleye, and white bass)
has been eliminated by the combination of the large water withdrawals by the Monroe power plant and the series of dams in
the lower river (Dodge, 1998), While spring spawning runs of walleye and white bass have increased dramatically in other
western Lake Erie tributaries, they are absent in the River Raisin,
b. Introduction of nonnative species
The introduced zebra mussel became established in large numbers in Lake Erie and its tributaries in the late 1980*s and early
1990's (U.S. EPA, 2000). Zebra mussels have altered habitat, food web dynamics, energy transfer, and nutrient cycles in the
lakes. However, filtering by zebra mussels has apparently contributed to a dramatic increase in Lake Erie's water clarity. A
preferred course of action on how to deal with the zebra mussels has not yet been established by the Lake Erie Lake wide
11-4
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Management Plan Committee (U.S. EPA, 2000). Zebra mussels have been found in headwater lakes of the River Raisin
(Dodge, 1998).
Another invasive species of concern in the River Raisin is the rusty crayfish (Ownedes rusticus), an aggressive specie-; that
outcompetes native crayfish and is a predator of fish eggs. Although sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) is an invasive
species of concern in Lake Erie, it has not been found in the River Raisin (Dodge, 1998).
c. Overfishing
Overfishing is not a significant stressor on the River Raisin (Dodge, 1998). While major sport fish like largemouth bass are
present and other species like smaUmouth bass, muskellunge, rainbow trout, and walleye are stocked, fishing pressure on the
lower River Raisin is only light to moderate. This may be because river fishing is more difficult than nearby lake fishing,
because there are competing uses, and because of the number of dams along the river, which impede passage of boats.
d. Pollution
Discharges to Lake Erie and its tributaries of persistent toxic chemicals were banned in the 1970's, but effects of these
historical discharges continue to linger (U.S. EPA, 2000). Water quality in the River Raisin was historically affected by both
industrial point source pollution and agricultural nonpoint source pollution. Today, sediments, water, and biota are
contaminated with PCBs and metals such as zinc, chromium, and copper (Dodge, 1998; U.S. EPA, 2001b).
The presence of PCBs has resulted in fish consumption advisories being issued for the River Raisin and Lake Erie (see Table
11-2; MDCH, 2001).
Table 11-2: State of Michigan Fish Consumption Advisories for the River Raisin and Lake Erie, 2001"
Fish Length (in.)
6-8
8-10
10-12
12-14
14-18
18-22
! 22-26
26-30
30+
River Raisin (below Monroe Dam)
Carp
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Freshwater drum
/¦
/¦
/¦
/¦
.
/¦
A
/¦
Smallmouth bass
: ~/~
~/*;*
White bass
/•:*
~
~
#
Lake Erie
Carp
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Catfish
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Chinook salmon
/¦
/¦
/¦
/¦
/¦
/¦
/¦
Coho salmon
/¦
m
/¦
m
' '¦
/¦
Freshwater drum
/~
/~
/~
/~
/~
/~
/~
/~
/~
Lake trout
/•;•
• tu-
. /•:•
: /•:•
/*
/•:•
Rainbow trout
'¦
/¦
rn
m
'¦
m
m
Smallmouth bass
m
/¦
M
Walleye
/~
/~
/~
A
m
m
White bass
/¦
m
/¦
/¦
m
/¦
Whitefish
~/~
~/~
~/~
~/~
~
~
~
White perch
/¦
m
/¦
/¦
Yellow Perch
/~
/~
r*
/~
/T
/~
: Limit consumption to I meal ('A pound) per week.
= Unlimited consumption
~ = No consumption.
v = Limit consumption to 6 meals (14 pound) per year,
¦ = Limit consumption to 1 meal (A pound) per month.
' If there is only one symbol it is the advice for the whole population. When two symbols are shown, the first is the adviee for the
"general population" and the second is the advice for "children age 15 and under and women who are pregnant, nursing, or expect to bear
children,"
Source: MDCH, 2001,
//-J
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
e. Surface water withdrawals by CWIS
Steam electric power generation accounts for 68 percent of all surface water withdrawals from Lake Erie and its surrounding
watersheds in the United States (USGS, 1995), The watersheds draining into the western Lake Erie hydroiogic subregion are
more heavily used by cooling water intake structures, which represent 92 percent of all surface water withdrawals.
11-3 Socioeconomic Characteristics
The Monroe plant is located in Monroe County, Michigan, a rural county bordered to the east by Lake Erie and to the north
and south by more urban counties (Wayne County, Michigan, and Lucas County, Ohio). In 2000, Monroe had a population of
145,945, a high rate of home ownership, and a higher median income than surrounding counties (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).
The socioeconomic characteristics of Monroe and neighboring counties are summarized in Table 11-3.
Table 11-3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Monroe arid Neighboring Counties
Monroe County, MI
; Wayne County, MI
Lucas Comity, OH
Population in 2000
145,945
2,061,162
455,054
Land area in 2000, km1 (mi2)
1,427(551)
I 1,590(614)
881 (340)
Persons per square mile, 2000
265
3,357
1,338
Metropolitan Area
; Detroit, Ml
Detroit, Ml
Toledo, OH
Median household money income, 1997 model-based estimate
$48,607
$35,357
$37,064
Persons below poverty, percent, 1997 model-based estimate
7.60%
18.00%
13.60%
Housing units in 2000
56,471
826,145
196,259
Homeownership rate in 2000
81.00%
66.60%
65.40%
Households in 2000
53,772
768,440
182,847
Persons per household in 2000
2.69
2.64
2.44
Households with persons under 18 years in 2000
39.10%
37.70%
34.10%
High school graduates, 25 and older in 1990
60,968
926,603
221,052
College graduates, 25 and older in 1990
8,655
180,822
49,393
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.
11-3.1 Major Industrial Activities
Monroe County produces agricultural products such as soybeans, grains, corn, sugar beets, potatoes, and alfalfa, and
industrial processes such as auto parts manufacturing, metal fabrication, cement, packaging, and glass production (InfoMI,
2001). The city of Monroe is the county seat and the largest city in the county. Industrial activity in the city is dominated by
steel production, paper products, furniture, electrical power and auto parts.
11-3.2 Commercial Fisheries
There is no commercial fishing on the River Raisin. In Lake Erie, commercial fishing generated between $2 million and $3
million of revenue per year over the last decade (USGS, 2001c). A small share of this catch comes from Michigan waters.
Tables 11-4 and 11-5 show the pounds harvested and the revenue generated for the Michigan Lake Erie commercial Fishery
from 1985 to 1999. Despite fish consumption advisories, carp is the most important commercial species, comprising 72
percent of the catch and 51 percent of revenues over this 15-year period. Channel catfish, quillback, and biginouth buffalo
make up most of the remaining harvest and revenue (USGS, 2001c).
11-6
-------
Chapter II: Background
Table 11-4: Pounds of Commercial landings in the Michigan Waters of Lake Erie, 1985-1999
Species
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
: 1999
Gizzard shad
; 878,000
2,845
395
2,103
23
36,996
24,494
4,988
i 6,200
Brown bullhead
; 7,340
7,687
4,462
5,421
3,572
488
704
444
844
659
827
828
744
2,139
j 7,050
Channel catfish
1 9,253
11,183
39,603
15,208
11,481
2,025
1,941
2,929
9,152
5,760
16,168
24,969
17,936
16,573
i 7,561
White perch
8
10
64
45
4
White bass
| 4,764
1,397
4,142
1,049
991
19
357
1,180
1,819
1,850
2,923
7,306
1,326
i 23
Freshwater drum
; 905
2,032
1,825
1,180
•
290
4,206
111
39,673
48,218
8,823
24,507
; 265
Gars
441
68
27
90
279
Suckers
| 1,378
123
88
436
4,286
72
6,180
i 1,945
Goldfish
551
188
2,951
877
8,416
1,025
501
HI
517
7,138
10,497
6,862
Carp
; 738,857
367,310
685,395
417,365
194,320
158,151
198,294
251,365
238,805
94,662
329,262
387,671
325,433
620,015
; 211,055
Quillbaek
i 87,326
2,217
1,062
1,380
568
6,894
30,204
28,175
8,930
66,013
73,662
33,937
22,990
Bigmouth buffalo
577
14,732
17,814
9,471
19,549
40,064
104
91,877
15,721
i 25,894
Totals
I 1,728,400
406,681
754,942
451,262
233,432
201,605
216,276
289,469
283,699
114,223
454,833
586,867
521,213
721,580
i 259,993
Source: USGS, 2001c,
Table 11-5: Revenue from Commercial Landings in the Michigan Waters of Lake Erie, 1985-1999
Species
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994 ; 1995
1996
1997 ; 1998 i 1999
Gizzard shad
S241,450
$342
$40
$274 ; SI
$4,809
$1,714 j $350 ; $744
Brown bullhead
$1,834
$1,888
$1,076
51,355
$895
$123
$171
5122
$213
$185 ; $189
$209
$253 ; $599 | $1,904
Channel catfish
$5,364
$6,453
$23,201
59,114
$6,898
$1,215
$1,138
$1,569
$5,580
$3,628 ; $10,189
$14,236
$9,684 : $9,281 ; $4,461
While perch
$4
$5
: $42
$28
$2 ; ;
While bass
$1,219
$1,073
$3,209
S629
$488
$18
$374
$1,191
$1,474 . $1,702
$2,661
$6,213 ; $1,074 j $18
Freshwater drum
$89
$185
$187
$472
$28
$462
$22 ; $7,538
$7,714
$1,411 : $4,168 : $48
Gars
$17 ;
$11
$45 ; $112 ;
Suckers
S155
$7
$6
; $26
$256
$5 i $371 1 $253
Goldfish
$827
$47
$495
$201
51,689
$308
$126
; 5130
$2,929
$3,466 | $2,745 ;
Carp
$85,409 ; $38,937
$79,199
$63,611
$26,000
$19,590
$23,794
$30,612
$31,044
$12,306 $36,222
$46,521
$45,562 I $80,601 527,438
QuilSback
$5,086 i $170
$106
5139
$227
52,661
$12,856
$10,144
$3,130 : $22,446
$26,516
$6,449 ; $4,598 ;
Bigmouth buffalo
$292 i $6,060
$7,148
$3,975
$8,332
$16,358
$47
$40,425 ; $8,018 ; $11,913
Totals
$340,898 i $54,773
$114,959
$79,342
$43,335
$37,487
$29,475
$46,216
$48,800
$21,036 : $78,485
$105,937
$115,229 : $111„917 : $46,779
Source: USGS, 2001c.
11-7
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
11-3.3 Recreational Fisheries
Recreational fishing is minimal in the lower portion of the River Raisin, and most Fishing is concentrated in the lakes of the
upper basin (Dodge, 1998). A combination of factors such as limited access and a public perception of the river as polluted
contributes to the lack of recreational fishing in the river. The lower River Raisin does have good smallmouth bass habitat
and experiences light to moderate fishing pressure. Because of logjams and other obstacles, bank and wading fishing tends to
be more popular than boat fishing.
Recreational fishing in Lake Erie is more predominant. Recreational anglers spent about 175,000 noncharter days fishing the
Michigan waters of Lake Erie in 1994 (Rakoczy and Svoboda, 1997). Their most commonly caught species were yellow
perch and walleye (44 percent and 35 percent of the total harvest, respectively; Table 11-6). White bass, channel catfish,
freshwater drum, and white perch made up most of the remaining catch. Total recreational hours averaged approximately 2
million between 1986 and 1994 (Table 11-6).
Table 11-6: Michigan Lake Erie Boat Fishery Angler Effort and Primary Species Catch April Through October,
1986 to 1998
Angler Hours
i Number or Yellow Perch Harvested
; Number of Walleye Harvested
1986*
i 2,068,779
834,310
; 605,666
1987
: 2,455,903
619,112
! 902,378
1988"
| 4,362,452
318,786
; 1,996,824
1989
: 3,799,067
1,466,442
i 1,092,289
1990
2,482,242
770,507
i 780,508
1991s
i 805,294
378,716
132,322
1992
: 836,216
255,747
1 249,713
1993
; 935,249
473,580
| 270,376
1994
1,012,595
246,327
i 216,040
1995
na
343,240
107,909
1996
na
: 635,233
! 174,607
1997
na
529,435
: 112,400
1998
na
I 586,277
i 114,607
® May through October,
" May through September,
na = not available.
Sources: Rakoczy and Svoboda, 1997; Thomas and Haas, 2000.
11-3.4 Other Water-Based Recreation
The River Raisin is used for other recreational activities such as canoeing, power boating, and hunting (Dodge, 1998).
Although passage is complicated by six low-head dams in Monroe, canoeing activity occurs just upstream of Monroe. The
current is gentle for easy nonpower boating, although flow may be too low at some times of the year. The town of Blissfield
sponsors a canoe race each September. Motor boating is concentrated in the lakes of the upper portion of the River Raisin
watershed and at the mouth of the River Raisin. Many private marinas are located downstream of the last dam on the river,
and boaters access Lake Erie from the river.
Although limited, some hunting occurs along the River Raisin. The Sharonville State Game Area, located in Jackson and
Washtenaw Counties, is managed for deer, small mammal, and fowl hunting. Waterfowl hunting includes wood duck and
Canada goose. Other game areas managed for similar hunting opportunities are the Onsted State Game Area, the Somerset
State Game Area, and the Lake Hudson State Recreation Area. In Monroe County, The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources manages the Petersburg State Game area for deer and small game hunting.
11-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter II: Background
*•* Ihe IJnesvillv, -! Spiltnuy w Pynwuminfi Sme
Park:—-"It hetr Duck* M aik itit / iv/x-s' Hacks "
Carp swarm above and below the spillway. They compete
with ducks and Canada geese for slices of bread tossed to
them by visitors. The ducks clamor over the seemingly
endless school of carp to get their share. The ducks actually
walk on the back of the carp.
The Spillway is a popular recreational site where visitors
bring old bread or buy it at a nearby concession stand. Birds
and fish compete for the bread. The spillway is the outflow
of a secondary impoundment at the 2500 acre Pymatuning
reservoir / sanctuary that serves as fish propagation waters
for the Linesville Fish Culture Station.
Source: http://www.sideroads.com/outdoots/spillway.htm1
Photos: © Lyntie G. Tudor
11-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies. Part I: Monroe
Chapter 12: Technical Description of Mori roe
Chapter 12: Technical Description
of
This chapter presents technical information related to
the case study facility. Section 12-1 presents detailed
Energy Information Administration (EIA) data on the
generating units addressed by this case study and in
scope of the Phase II rulemaking. Section 12-2
describes the configuration of the facility's intake
structures.
12-1 Operational Profiles
Baseline operational characteristics
The Monroe power plant operates nine units. Four are coal-fired steam electric units (Units 1-4) that use cooling water
withdrawn from the River Raisin while five units (Units IC1-IC5) are oil-fired internal combustion turbines that do not require
cooling water. The internal combustion turbines began operation in 1969 while the four coal units began operation between
June 1971 and May 1974.
Monroe's total net generation in 1999 was 18.3 million MWh. The four steam turbine units (Units 1 -4) had capacity
utilization rates between 50.4 and 73.3 percent. Table 12-1 presents details for Monroe's nine units.
Monroe
1 -
CHAPTER CONTENTS
12-1 Operational Profiles 12-1
12-2 CWIS Configuration and Water Withdrawal 12-2
Table 12-1: Generator Detail of the Monroe Plant (1999)
Generator
ID
Capacity
(MW)
Prime
Mover"
Energy
Sourceb
In-Service
Date
Operating Status
Net
Generation
(MWh)
Capacity
Utilization'
ID of
Associated
CWIS
1
817
ST
BIT
: June 1971
Operating
4,667,517
65.2% 1
2
823
ST
BIT
i March 1973
Operating
3,633,349
50.4%
2
3
823
ST
BIT
: May 1973
Operating
4,755,872
66.0%
3
4
817
ST
BIT
• May 1974
Operating
5,249,776
73,3%
4
IC1
2,8
iC
F02
Nov. 1969
Operating
1,916
1,6%
Not
1C2
2.8
IC
F02
: Dec. 1969
Operating
Applicable
IC3
2.8
IC
F02
Nov. 1969
Operating
1C4
2.8
IC
F02
Dec. 1969
Operating
ICS
2.8
IC
F02
Nov. 1969
Operating
Total
3,293
18,308,430
63,5%
• Prime mover categories: ST = steam turbine; 1C = internal combustion turbine.
k Energy source categories: BIT = bituminous coal; F02 = No. 2 fuel oil.
c Capacity utilisation 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, 2001 d.
12-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 12: Technical Description of Monroe
Figure 12-1 below presents Monroe's electricity generation history between 1970 and 2000.
Figure 12-1: Monroe Net Electricity Generation 1970 -2000 (in MWh)
25,000,000
15,000,000
c
o
a
©
e
9
a
10,000,000
©
z
5,000,000
2000
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Yoar
Source: Form EIA-906.
12-2 CWIS Configuration a no Water Withdrawal
The Monroe Power Station is located at the mouth of the River Raisin, approximately 2000 ft upstream from the open water
of western Lake Erie. Monroe currently employs two intake structures that supply cooling water to the facility's once-through
cooling system. Water from the River Raisin is diverted down a man-made intake canal to the intake structures. The first
intake structure is 330 feet from the canal opening, while the second structure is 880 feet from the opening. Both structures
share the same design and technology configuration.
Intake water drawn into one of the two structures passes through trash racks consisting of vertical bars spaced 7.6 cm apart
and under a skimmer wall to one of the eight intake bays. Each intake bay contains fish collecting pans and guide screens that
divert most impingeable organisms to a fish pump. Fish pumped out of the intake canal are deposited in a fish return pipe 20
cm in diameter. The return pipe expands to 66 cm in diameter downstream from the diversion point. Diverted fish are
returned to Lake Erie at the end of a rocky jetty. Intake water not diverted with pumped fish passes through a vertical
traveling screen to the circulating pumps and through the condenser. Traveling screens are rotated every eight hours, except
during periods of high impingement. Heated water returns to the River Raisin via a discharge canal located to the west of the
main powerhouse.
At maximum capacity, the Monroe Power Plant can withdraw 1,975 MGD through its two cooling water intake structures,
representing 4 times the mean annual flow of the source water, the River Raisin. Because of the proximity of the intake canal
to Lake Erie (-2000 ft.) and the large volume of water required for cooling operations at the facility. Monroe often draws
water from Lake Erie up the mainstem of the river to the intake canal. Seasonal variations {spring flood) prevent this from
occurring on a daily basis.
12-2
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 12: Technical Description of Monroe
During the 1970s, Detroit Edison evaluated a fish pump and return system at its Monroe facility for its ability to reduce the
impingement of aquatic organisms. Data from a 1977 316(b) demonstration study indicate a diversion rate associated with
the fish pumps of 95 percent, meaning 95 percent of the fish passing through the trash racks into the main portion of the intake
structure were successfully diverted through the return system to Lake Erie, The survival rate of diverted fish is unclear.
Given the nature of the diversion (mechanical pumps), the distance of the return pipe (-2000 ft.), and the differences between
the original and terminal environments (River Raisin vs. Lake Erie), it is reasonable to assume that some number of diverted
fish do not survive for an extended period of time after the return to Lake Erie. However, there have been no studies of long-
term survival.
No technologies are currently in place to reduce entrainment mortality.
12-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13= Evaluation of IAE Data
Chapter lo:
Evaluation of I<&E Data
EPA evaluated impacts to aquatic organisms resulting
from the CWIS of the Monroe facility using the
assessment methods described in Chapter A5 of this
document. EPA focused its evaluation on data
collected when the facility was operated as it is
currently configured. Section 13-1 lists fish species
that are impinged and entrained at Monroe, Section 13-
2 presents life histories of the most abundant species
in the facility's I&E collections, and Section 13-3
summarizes the facility's I&E collection methods.
Section 13-4 presents annual l&E data, and Section 13-
5 summarizes the results of EPA's evaluation of
Monroe's I&E data.
13-1 Species Impinged and Entrained at Monroe
Table 13-1 lists species known to be impinged and entrained at Monroe, and their'classification as recreational, commercial,
or forage species. In general, EPA evaluated only those species with impingement and entrainment numbers greater than 1
percent of the total at the facility. However, species that were uncommon in I&E collections were still included if they had
commercial or recreational value and there was available site specific life history information.
Table 13-1: Species Vulnerable to I&E by Monroe
Common Name
Scientific Nairn
recreational
Commercial
Forage
Alewife
; Alosa pseudoharengux
X
Black bass
¦ Micropterus dolomieui
X
Black bullhead
¦ Ameiurus meias
x ;
Black crappie
: Pomoxis nigromaculatus
X
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
X
Blunmose minnow
: Pimephales notatus
X
Bowfin
: Anna calva
x
Brown bullhead
\ Ameiurus nebulosus
x ;
Burbot
- Lota lota
X
x
Carp
: Cyprinus carpio carpio
X :
Central mudmtnnow
\ Umbra limi
X
Channel catfish
: Iclalurus punctatus
x
X :
Chinook salmon
Oncorhvnchus Ishawytscha
X
x
Coho salmon
; Oncorhynchus kisutch
X
X :
Emerald shiner
Notropis atherinoides
X
Fathead minnow
Pimephales promelm
X
Flathead catfish
\ Pylodictis olivaris
X
Freshwater drum
Aplodtnolus grunniens
X ;
a
Chapter Contents
13-1
Species Impinged and Entrained at Monroe ....
... 13-1
13-2
Life Histories of Major Species Impinged and
Entrained
.., 13-2
13-3
Methods for Estimating I&E at Monroe
.. 13-12
13-3.1 Impingement Monitoring
.. 13-12
13-3.2 Entrainment Monitoring
.. 13-13
13-4
Annual Impingement and Entrainment
.. 13-14
13-5
Summary
.. 13-14
13-1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter r3: Evaluation of IAE Data
Table 13-1: Species Vulnerable to IAE by Monroe (cont.)
Common Name
Scientific Name
Recreational
Commercial Forage
Gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
X :
Golden redhorse
Moxostoma erylhrurum
X
Goldfish
Carassius auratus auratus
x
Green sunfish
Lepomis cvanellus
; X
Hornyhead chub
Nocomis biguttatus
X
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
X
Logperch
Percina caprodes
x
Longnose gar
Lepisosieus osseus
: X
Mottled sculpin
Cottus bairdii
x
Muskellunge
Esox masquinongy
X
Northern hog sucker
Hypenielium nigricans
x !
Northern pike
Esox lucius
X
Pumpkin seed
Lepomis gibbosus
X
Quillback
Carpiodes cyprinus
x
Rainbow smelt
Osmerus mordax mordax
X
x
Rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss
x
X
Rock bass
Ambiopliies rupeslris
X
Silver lamprey
Icthyomyzon unicuspis
x
Smallmouth bass
Micropterus dolomieui
x
Spotfin shiner
Cyprinella spiloptera
i X
Spottail shiner
Notropis hudsonius
X
Sunfish species
Centrarchidae
: X
Tadpole madtom
Noturus gyrinus
X
Troutperch
Percopsis omiscumaycus
! x
Walleye
Stizostedion vitreum
x
White bass
Morone chrysops
X
X :
White crappie
Pomoxis annularis
X
White perch
Morone americana
X
White sucker
Catostomus commersoni
X ;
Whitefish species
Coregoninae
• X
x
Yellow bullhead
Amcturus natalis
X
Yellow perch
Percaflavescens
X
Sources: (Andrew Nuhfcr, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, personal communication, 2/13/02; Jude et al.,
1983; Cole, 1978; Goodyear, 1978)
13-2 Life Histories of Major Species 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), Alewives entered the Great Lakes region through the Welland Canal, which connects
Lake Erie and Lake .Ontario; by 1949, they were present in Lake Michigan (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute,
2001). Because alewives are not a freshwater species, they are particularly susceptible to osmotic stress associated with
freshwater. Freshwater fish have larger kidneys, which they use to constantly pump water from their bodies. Since alewives
lack this physiological adaptation, they are more susceptible to environmental disturbances.
13-2
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of I4E Data
In the Great Lakes, aiewives spend most of their time in deeper water. During spawning season, they move to shallower
inshore waters to spawn. Although aiewives generally do not die after spawning, the fluctuating temperatures that the adults
are exposed to when they move to inshore waters often results in mortality due to osmotic stress. In some years, temperature
changes caused by upwelling may result in a massive die-off of spawning aiewives (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant
Institute, 2001).
Alewife has been introduced to a number of lakes to provide forage for sport fish (Jude et al., 1987b). Ecologically, alewife is
an important prey item for many fish.
Spawning is driven by water temperature, beginning in the spring as water temperatures reach 13 to 15 °C (55.4 to 59.0 *F),
and ending when they exceed 27 °C (80.6 °F) (Able and Fahay, 1998). In their native coastal habitats, aiewives spawn in the
upper reaches of coastal rivers, in slow-flowing sections of slightly brackish or freshwater. In the Great Lakes, aiewives move
inshore to the outlets of rivers and streams to spawn (University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001).
In coastal habitats, females lay demersal eggs in shallow water less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep (Wang and Kemehan, 1979). They
may lay from 60,000 to 300,000 eggs at a time (Kocik, 2000). The demersal eggs are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in
diameter. Larvae hatch at a size of approximately 2,5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in.) total length (Able and Fahay, 1998). Larvae
remain in the upstream spawning area for some 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).
Maturity is reached at 3 to 4 years for males, and 4 to 5 years for females ( Able and Fahay, 1998). The average size at
maturity is 265 to 278 mm (10.4 to 10.9 in.) for males and 284 to 308 mm (11.2 to 12.1 in.) for females (Able and Fahay,
1998). Alewife can live up to 8 years, but the average age of the spawning population tends to be 4 to 5 years (Waterfield,
1995; PSEG, 1999c).
: Food source: Small fish, zooplankton, fish eggs, amphipods, mysids.d
: Prey for; Striped bass, weak fish, rainbow trout.
: Life stage information:
ALEWIFE
(AInsa pseudoharengus) Eggs: demersal
i ~ Found in waters less than 2 m (6.6 ft) deep/
~ Are 0.8 to 1.27 mm (0.03 to 0.05 in.) in diameter/
Larvae:
'¦ ~ Approximately 2.5 to 5.0 mm (0.1 to 0.2 in) at hatching/
~ Remain in upstream spawning area for some time before drifting
downstream !o natal esWarine 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/
Fecundity: Females may lay from 60,000 to 300,000 eggs at;
a time."
a Scott and Grossman, 1998.
b University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001.
' PSEG, 1999c.
1 Waterfield, 1995.
' Kocik, 2000.
f Able and Fahay, 1998.
8 Fay et at., 1983a.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Family: Clupeidae (herrings).
Common names: River herring, saw.belly, 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.* Arrived in the Great
Lakes via the Welland Canal."
Habitat: Wide-ranging, tolerates fresh to saline waters,
travels in schools.
Lifespan: Generally 4-5 years but may live up to 8 years.''11
13-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of IAE Data
Carp (Cyprmus carpio carpio)
Carp is a member of the family of carps and minnows, Cypiinidae, and is abundant in Lake Erie. Carp were first introduced
from Asia to the United States in the 1870's and 188Q's, and by the 1890's were abundant in the Maumee River and in the
west end of Lake Erie (Trautman, 1981). Carp are most abundant in low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high levels or
organic matter, but tolerate all types of bottom and clear to turbid waters (Trautman, 1981). Carp overwinter in deeper water
and migrate to shallow water, preferably marshy environments with submerged aquatic vegetation in advance of the spawning
season (McCrimmon, 1968). Adults feed on a wide variety of plants and animals, and juveniles feed primarily on plankton.
Carp are often considered a nuisance species because of their habit of uprooting vegetation and increasing turbidity when
feeding (McCrimmon, 1968; Scott and Crossman, 1973). Carp are not widely popular fishes for anglers, although carp
fishing may be an important recreational activity in some parts of the United States (Scott and Crossman, 1973), They are
occasionally harvested commercially and sold for food (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
Male carp reach sexual maturity between ages 3 and 4, and the females reach maturity between ages 4 and S (Swee and
McCrimmon, 1966). Spawning can occur at water temperatures between 16 and 28 °C (60.8 and 82.4 *F) with optimum
activity between 19 and 23 "C (66.2 and 73.4 *'F) (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966). Fecundity in carp can range from 36,000
eggs for a 39.4 cm (15.5 in.) fish to 2,208,000 in a 85.1 cm (33.5 in.) fish (Swee and McCrimmon, 1966), but individuals may
spawn only about 500 eggs at a given time (Dames and Moore, 1977a). Eggs are demersal and stick to submerged vegetation.
Eggs hatch 3 to 6 days after spawning and larvae lend to lie in shallow water among vegetation (Swee and McCrimmon,
1966). The lifespan of a typical carp in North America is less than 20 years (McCrimmon, 1968). Adult carp can reach 102-
122 cm (40-48 in.) long, and weigh 18-27 kg (40-60 lb) (Trautman, 1981).
i Food source: Omnivorous; diet includes invertebrates, small
; molluscs, ostracods, and crustaceans as well as roots, leaves,
; and shoots of water plants.1
' "•"Ą :'%.
; Prey for: Juveniles provide limited forage for northern pike,
: smalimouth bass, striped bass, and longnosed gar, as well as
i green frogs, bullfrogs, turtles, snakes, mink.b
CARP
(Cyprmus carpio carpio)
! Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
Family: Cyprinidae (minnows or carp).
\ ~ During spawning, eggs are released in shallow,
; vegetated water. Eggs are demersal and stick to
Common names: Carp.
submerged vegetation.
• ~ Eggs hatch in 3-6 days.'
Similar species: Goldfish, buffalofishes, carp suckers. '
Larvae;
Geographic range: Wide-ranging throughout the United
' ~ Larvae are found in shallow, weedy, and muddy
States.
habitats.'1
Habitat: Low-gradient, warm streams and lakes with high
Adults:
levels or organic carbon. Tolerates relatively wide range of
: ~ May reach lengths of 102-122 cm (40-48 in,).*
turbidity. Often associated with submerged aquatic
vegetation.15
Lifespan: Less than 20 years.1"
Fecundity: 36,000 to 2,208,000 eggs per season.1
* Trautman, 198!.
b McCrimmon, 1968.
' Swee and McCrimmon, 1966.
d Wang, 1986a.
Fish graphic from North Dakota Game and Fish Department, 2002.
13-4
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of IdE Data
Channel catfish (Ictafarus punctatus)
Channel catfish is a member of the Ictaluridae (North American freshwater catfish) family, It is found from Manitoba to
southern Quebec, and as far south as the Gulf of Mexico (Dames and Moore, 1977a). Channel catfish can be found in
freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. They prefer deep water with clean gravel or boulder substrates and low to moderate
currents (Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001b).
Channel catfish reach sexual maturity at ages 5-8, and females will lay 4,000-35,000 eggs dependent on body weight (Scott
and Grossman, 1998). Spawning begins when water temperatures reach 24-29 °C (75-85 °F) in late spring or early summer.
Spawning occurs in natural nests such as undercut banks, muskrat burrows, containers, or submerged logs. Eggs
approximately 3.5 mm (0.1 in) in diameter are deposited in a large, flat, gelatinous mass (Wang, 1986a). After spawning, the
male guards the nest and fans it to keep it aerated. Eggs hatch in 7-10 days at 24-26 °C (75-79 *F), and the newly hatched
larvae remain near the nest for several days (Wang, 1986a). Young fish prefer to inhabit riffles and turbulent areas. Channel
catfish are very popular with anglers and are relatively prized as a sport fish (Dames and Moore, 1977a).
Food source: Small fish, crustaceans, clams, snails.*
Prey for: Chestnut lamprey."
Life stage information:
CHANNEL CATFISH
(Icialarus punctatus) Eggs: demersal
; ~ 3-4 nim (0.12-0.16 in.) in diameter.'
~ Hatch in 7-10 days.d
Family: Ictaluridae (North American freshwater catfish).
Common names: Channel catfish, graceful catfish *
Similar species: Blue and white catfishes.1"
Geographic range: South-central Canada, central United
States, and northern Mexico,"
Habitat: Freshwater streams, lakes, and ponds. Prefer deep
water with clean gravel or boulder substrates."
Lifespan: Maximum reported age: 16 years.'
Fecundity: 4,000 to 35,000 eggs depending on body
weight/
2 Froese and Pauly, 2001.
b Trautman, 19B1.
5 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 2001b.
d Wang, 1986a.
' Scott and Grossman, 1998.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Larvae:
~ Remain near nest for a few days then disperse to
shallow water."1
~ Approx. 6,4 mm (0.25 in.) upon hatching.'
Adults: demersal
~ Average length: 30-36 cm (12-14 in.).E
~ Maximum length; up to 104 cm (41 in.).5
Emerald shiner (Natropis atherinoides)
Emerald shiner is a member of the family Cyprinidae. It is found in large open lakes and rivers from Canada south throughout
the Mississippi Valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama (Scott and Grossman. 1973). Emerald shiner prefer clear waters in the
mid- to upper sections of the water column, and are most often found in deep, slow moving rivers and in Lake Erie
(Trautman, 1981). The emerald shiner is one of the most prevalent fishes in Lake Erie, although populations may fluctuate
dramatically from year to year (Trautman, 1981). Because of its small size, it is an important forage fish formally species.
Spawning occurs from July to August in Lake Erie (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Females lay anywhere from 870 to 8,700
eggs (Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970), which hatch within 24 hours (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Young-of-year remain
B-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
in large schools in inshore waters until the fall, when they move into deeper waters to overwinter (Scott and Grossman, 1973),
Young-of-year average 5.1 to 7.6 cm (2 to 3 in.) in length (Scotl and Grossman, 1973).
Emerald shiner are sexually mature by age 2, though some larger individuals may mature at age 1 (Campbell and
MacCrimmon, 1970). Most do not live beyond 3 years (Fuchs, 1967). Adults typically range from 6.4 to 8.4 cm (2.5 to 3.3
in.) (Trautman, 1981).
EMERALD shiner
(Notropu atherinoides)
Family: Cyprinidae (herrings).
Common names: Emerald shiner.
Similar species: Silver shiner, rosyfaee shiner."
Geographic range: From Canada south throughout the
Mississippi valley to the Gulf Coast in Alabama.1"
Habitat: Large open lakes and rivers.1'
Lifespan: Emerald shiner live to 3 years.1
Fecundity: Mature by age 2. Females can lay anywhere j.
from approximately 870 to 8,700 eggs.3 ! •
Trautman, 1981.
Froese and Pauly, 2000.
Campbell and MacCrimmon, 1970.
Scott and Crossman, 1973.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Food source: Microcmstaceans, midge larvae, zooplankton, algae.
Prey for: Gulls, terns, mergansers, cormorants, smallmouth bass,
yellow perch, and others.11
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
* Eggs hatch in less than 24 hours.11
Larvae; pelagic
* Individuals from different year classes can have varying body
•proportions and fin length, as can individuals from different
localities."
Adults:
~ Typically range in size from 6.4 to 8.4 cm (2.5 to 3.3 in.).*
Freshwater drum (Apbdinotus grunniens)
Freshwater drum is a member of the drum family, Sciaenidae. Possibly exhibiting the greatest latitudinal range of any North
American freshwater species, its distribution ranges from Manitoba, Canada, to Guatemala, and throughout the Mississippi
River drainage basin (Seott and Crossman, 1973), The freshwater drum is found in deep pools of rivers and in Lake Erie at"
depths between 1.5 and 18 m (5 and 60 ft) (Trautman, 1981). Drum is not a favored food item of either humans or other fish;
however, it supports a minor commercial fishery (Edsall, 1967; Trautman, 1981; Bur, 1982),
Based on studies in Lake Erie, the spawning season peaks in July (Daiber, 1953), although spent females have been found as
late as September (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Females in Lake Erie produce anywhere from 43,000 to 508,000 eggs
(Daiber, 1953). The eggs are buoyant, floating at the surface of the water (Daiber, 1953; Scott and Crossman, 1973), This
unique quality may be one explanation for the freshwater drum's exceptional distribution (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Yolk-
sac larvae are buoyant as well, floating inverted at the surface of the water with the posterior end of the yolk sac and tail
touching the surface (Swedberg and Walburg, 1970).
Larvae develop rapidly over their first year. Maturity appears to be reached earlier in freshwater drum females from the
Mississippi River than in females from Lake Erie. Daiber (1953) found Lake Erie females begin maturing at age 5, and 46
percent reach maturity by age 6. Lake Erie males begin maturing at age 4, and by age 5, 79 percent had reached maturity.
The maximum age for fish in western Lake Erie is 14 years for females and 8 years for males (Edsall, 1967). Adults tend to
be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long.
13-6
-------
I 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of I4E Dcta
FRESHWATER DRUM
(Aplodinotus grunitiens)
Family; Sciaenidae.
Common names: freshwater drum, white perch,
sheepshead'
Similar species: white bass, carpsuckers."
Geographic range: From Manitoba, Canada, to
Guatemala. They can be found throughout the
Mississippi River drainage basin.
Habitat: Bottoms of medium to large sized rivers and
lakes,b
Lifespan: The maximum age for fish in western Lake
Erie is 14 years for females and 8 years for males.'
Fecundity: Females in Lake Erie produce from 43,000
to 508,000 eg p.*
Food sources; Juveniles: Cladocerans (plankton), copepods,
dipterans.d Adults: Dipterans, cladocerans," darters, emerald shiner. :
Prey for: Very few species.
; Life stage information:
i jEfgs." pelagic
~ The buoyant eggs float at the surface of the water, possibly
accounting for the species* high distribution."
: Larvae,*
~ Prolarvae float inverted at the surface of the water with the
¦ posterior end of the yolk sac arid their tail touching the surfacef
Adults:
The species owes its name to the audible "drumming" sound that
it is often heard emitting during summer months."
Tend to be between 30 to 76 cm (12 to 30 in.) long.'
Trautman, 1981
Froese and Pauly, 2001.
Edsali, 1967.
* Bur, 1982.
Scott and Grossman, 1973.
' Swedberg and Walburg, 1970.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
Gizzard shad is a member of the family Clupeidae. Its distribution is widespread throughout the eastern United States and
into southern Canada, with occurrences from the St. Lawrence River south to eastern Mexico (Miller, 1960; Scott and
Crossman, 1973). Gizzard shad-are found in a range of salinities from freshwater inland rivers to brackish estuaries and
marine waters along the Atlantic Coast of the United States (Miller, 1960; Carlander, 1969). Gizzard shad often occur in
schools (Miller, 1960). Young-of-year are considered an important forage fish (Miller, 1960), though their rapid growth rate
limits the duration of their susceptibility to many predators (Bodola, 1966). In Lake Erie, gizzard shad are most populous in
the shallow waters of western Lake Erie, around the Bass Islands, and in protected bays and mouths of tributaries (Bodola,
1966).
Spawning occurs from fate winter or early spring to late summer, depending on temperature. Spawning has been observed in
early June to July in Lake Erie (Bodola, 1966), and in May elsewhere in Ohio waters (Miller, 1960). The spawning period
generally lasts 2 weeks (Miller, 1960). Males and females release sperm and eggs while swimming in schools near the surface
of the water. Eggs sink slowly to the bottom or drift with the current, and adhere to any surface they encounter (Miller, 1960).
Females have been reported to release an average of 378,990 eggs annually (Bodola, 1966), which average 0.75 mm (0.03
in.) in diameter (Wallus et a!.. 1990).
Hatching time can be anywhere from 36 hours to 1 week, depending on water temperature (Bodola, 1966). Young shad may
remain in upstream natal waters if conditions permit (Miller, 1960). By age 2 all gizzard shad are sexually mature, though
some may mature as early as age 1 (Bodola, 1966). Unlike many other fish, fecundity in gizzard shad declines with age
(Electric Power Research Institute, 1987).
13-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13; Evaluation of ME Data
Gizzard shad generally live up to 6 years in Lake Erie, but individuals up to 10 years have been reported in southern locations
(Scott and Grossman, 1973). Mass mortalities have been documented in several locations during winter months, due to
extreme temperature changes (Williamson and Nelson, 1985).
Food sources: Larvae consume protozoans, zooplankton, and small
crustaceans.' Adults are mainly herbivorous, feeding on plants,
phytoplankton, and algae. They are one of the few species able to
feed solely on plant material.1'
Prey for: Walleye, white bass, largemouth bass, crappie, among
others (immature shad only).1'
Life stage information:
Eggs: demersal
~ During spawning, eggs are released near the surface and sink to
the bottom, adhering to any surface they touch.
Larvae: pelagic
~ Larvae serve as forage to many species.
~ After hatching, larvae travel in schools for the first few months.
Adults:
~ May grow as large as 52,1 cm (20.5 in.).*
~ May be considered by some to be a nuisance species because of
sporadic mass winter die-offs,3
Lifespan: Gizzard shad generally live 5 to 6 years, but have
been reported up to 10 years.b
Fecundity: Maturity is reached by age 2; females produce
average of 378,990 eggs.1'
" Trautman, 1981.
* Miller, 1960,
c Scott and Grossman, 1973.
Fish graphic from Iowa Dept. of Natural Resources, 2001.
Lake whitefish (Coregonus dupeaformis)
Lake whitefish are a member of the whitefish family, Salmonidae (Coregoninae subfamily). They are distributed widely in
fresh water from Alaska, through Canada and south into the Great Lakes and northern New England (Scott and Grossman,
1998). They are a valuable commercial and recreational fish and are prized for their fine tasting meat as well as their eggs,
which are prepared and marketed as caviar. Their liver is also used for pate.
Lake whitefish spawn in the autumn, usually in November and December, in the Great Lakes (Scott and Grossman, 1998).
They deposit demersal eggs in shallow water of less than 7.6 m (25 ft) over rocky, hard, or sandy substrate. Fecundity is
estimated at 16,100 eggs per pound of fish. The eggs are initially about 2.3 mm (0.09 in.) in diameter, but increase to up to
3.2 mm (0.13 in.) after 24 hours in the water. Eggs do not hatch right away, but overwinter and hatch in April or May when
water temperatures rise (approximately 140 days; Froese and Pauiy, 2001). The optimal temperature range for development
is 0.6-6.1 *C (33-43 °F; Scott and Grossman, 1998).
Young whitefish develop rapidly, and reach the commercial size of 0.9 kg (2 lb) at age 3 in Lake Erie (Scott and Grossman,
1998). They may reach a length of 676 mm (26.6 in.) in Lake Erie. Males generally mature and die earlier than females.
GIZZARD SHAD
(Dorosnma cepedianum)
Family: Cltipeidae (herrings).
Common names; Gizzard shad.
Similar species: Threadfin shad."
Geographic range: Eastern North America from the St.
Lawrence River to Mexico.6 '
Habitat; Inhabits inland lakes, ponds, rivers, and reservoirs
to brackish estuaries and ocean waters.*-*
13-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of ISE Data
¦it? ^*4
Food source: Young consume cope pods, cladocerans. and
insect larvae. Adults consume eggs and small fish such as
darter, alewife, minnow, and stickleback."
LAKE WHITEFISH
Prey for: Lake trout, northern pike, burbot, yellow walleye,
whitefish, Parasitized by sea lamprey.8
(Coregonus clupeaformis)
Life stage information:
Family: Salmonidae, subfamily Coregonirme (whitefish).'
Common names; Whitefish, Great Lakes whitefish,
humpback whitefish.''
Eggs: demersal
~ 2.3-3.2 mm (0.09-0.13 in.) in diameter."
~ Hatch in 140 days."
Geographic range: Alaska and Canada to Great Lakes and
New England.*
Larvae:
*¦ Approx. 12 mm (0.47 in.) at 1 week,'
~ Concentrate in shallow water of about 30 cm (12 in.).'
Habitat: Lakes and large rivers.1
Adults: demersal
* Maximum length in Lake Erie: up to 67.6 cm (26.6 in.);
Lifespan: Maximum reported age: 28 years. In Lake Erie,
live to approximately 16 years," i
Fecundity: 16,100 eggs per pound in Lake Erie."
" Scott and Grossman, 1998.
" Froese and Pauly, 2001.
c University of Saskatchewan, 2002.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sport fishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Walleye (Stizosted/on vitreum)
Walleye is a member of the perch family, Percidae. It is found in freshwater from as far north as the Mackenzie River near
the Arctic Coast to as far south as Georgia, and is common in the Great Lakes, Walleye are popular sport fish both in the
summer and winter.
Walleye spawn in spring or early summer, although (he exact timing depends on latitude and water temperature. Spawning
has been reported at water temperatures of 5.6 to 11,1 *C (42 to 52 °F), in rocky areas in white water or shoals of lakes (Scott
and Crossman, 1998). They do not fan nests like other similar species, but instead broadcast eggs over open ground, which
reduces their ability to survive environmental stresses (Carlander, 1997). Females typically produce between 48,000 and
614,000 eggs in Lake Erie, and the eggs are 1.4 to 2.1 mm (0.06 to 0.08 in.) in diameter (Carlander, 1997), Eggs hatch in 12-
18 days (Scott and Crossman, 1998). Larvae are approximately 6,0 to 8.6 mm (0.23 to 0,33 in.) at hatching (Carlander,
1997).
Walleye develop more slowly in the northern extent of their range; in Lake Erie they typically are 8,9 to 20.3 cm (3.5 to 8,0
in.) by the end of the first growing season. Males generally mature at 2-4 years and females at 3-6 years (Scott and Crossman,
1998), and females tend to grow faster than males (Carlander, 1997). Walleye may reach up to 78.7 cm (31 in.) long in Lake
Erie (Scott and Crossman, 1998).
13-9
-------
Chapter 13: Evaluation of XAE Data
Food source: Insects, yeliow perch, freshwater drum,
crayfish, snails, frogs."
Prey for: Sea lamprey, northern pike, muskeliunge, sauger,'
WALLEYE
(Stizostedion vilreum)
Life stage information;
Family: Percidae (perch).
Eggs: demersal
* 1.4-2.1 mm (0.06-0.08 in.) in diameter."
~ Hatch in 12-18 days.c
Common names: Blue pike, glass eye, gray pike, marble
eye, yellow pike-perch.*
Larvae: pelagic
~ Approx. 6.2-7.3 mm (0.24-0.29 in.) upon hatching.6
Similar species: Sauger.'
Adults: demersal
~ Maximum length: up to 78.7 cm (31 in.).1'
Geographic range: Canada to southern United States.'
Habitat: Large, shallow, turbid lakes; large streams or
rivers.®
Lifespan: Maximum reported age: 12 years."
Fecundity: Broadcast spawners; in Lake Erie, 48,000 to
614,000 eggs per spawn." .
" Froese and Pauly, 2001.
b Carlander, 1997.
" Scott and Grossman, 1998.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
White bass (Morone chrysops)
White bass is a member of the temperate bass family, Moronidae. It ranges from the St. Lawrence River south through the
Mississippi valley to the Gulf of Mexico, though the species is most abundant in the Lake Erie drainage (Van Oosten, 1942),
White bass has both commercial and recreational fishing value.
Spawning take place in May in Lake Erie and may extend into June, depending on water temperatures. Spawning bouts can
last from 5 to 10 days (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Adults typically spawn near the surface, and eggs are fertilized as they
sink to the bottom. Fecundity increases directly with size in females; the average female lays approximately 565,000 eggs.
Eggs hatch within 46 hours at a water temperature of 15.6 *C (60 °F) (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
Larvae grow rapidly, and young white bass reach lengths of 13 to 16 cm (5.1 to 6.3 in.) by the fall (Scott and Crossman,
1973). They feed on microscopic crustaceans, insect larvae, and small fish. As adults, the diet switches to fish. Yellow perch
are an especially important prey species for white bass (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
Most white bass mature at age 3 (Van Oosten, 1942). Upon reaching sexual maturation, adults tend to form unisexual
schools, traveling up to 11.1 km (6.9 mi) a day. Adults occupy the upper portion of the water column, maintaining depths of
6 m (19.7 ft) or less (Scott and Crossman, 1973). On average, adults are between 25.4 to 35.6 cm (10 to 14 in.) long (Ohio
Department of Natural Resources, 2001 b). White bass rarely live beyond 7 years (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
13-10
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13; Evaluation of I4E Data
Food source: Juveniles consume microscopic crustaceans, insect
larvae, and small fish.1. Adults have been found to consume yellow
perch, bluegill, white ciappie." and carp."
Prey for: Other white bass,;
WHITE BASS
(Morone chrysops)
Life stage information:
Family; Moronidac.
Eggs: demersal
~ Eggs are approximately 0.8 mm (0.03 in.) in diameter.1*
Common names: White bass, silver bass.
Larvae: pelagic
~ White bass experience their maximum growth in their first year,1
Similar species: White perch, striped bass."
Adults:
Geographic range: St. Lawrence River south through : *"
the Mississippi valley to the Gulf of Mexico, highly
abundant in the Lake Erie drainage.1*
Travel in schools, traveling up to 11.1 km (6.9 mi) a day.1
Most mature at age 3.'
Adults prefer clear waters with firm bottoms.*
Habitat: Occurs in lakes, ponds, and rivets."
Lifespan: White bass may live up to 7 years."1
Fecundity: The average female lays approximately
565,000 eggs."
" Trautmun, 1981.
b Scott and Grossman, 1973.
c Froese and Pauly, 2000.
d Carlander, 1997.
' Van Oosten, 1942.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
Yellow perch (Perca ftavescens)
The yellow perch is a member of the Percidae family and is found in fresh waters in the northern and eastern United States
and across eastern and central Canada. Yellow perch are also occasionally seen in brackish waters (Scott and Grossman,
1973). They are typically found in greatest numbers in clear waters with low gradients and abundant vegetation (Trautman,
1981). The Great Lakes are a major source of yellow perch for the commercial fishing industry. Perch feed during the day on
immature insects, larger invertebrates, fishes, and fish eggs (Scott and Crossman, 1973).
Sexual maturity is reached at age 1 for males and at ages 2 and 3 for females (Saila et a!., 1987). Perch spawn in the spring in
water temperatures ranging from 6.7 to 12.2 "C (44 to 54 °F) (Scott and Grossman, 1973). Adults move to shallower water to
spawn, usually near rooted vegetation, fallen trees, or brush. Spawning takes place at night or in the early morning. Females
lay all their eggs in a single transparent strand that is approximately 3 cm (1.2 in.) wide (Saila et al., 1987) and up to 2.1 m (7
ft) long (Scott and Crossman, 1973). These egg cases are semi-buoyant and attach to submerged vegetation or occasionally to
the bottom and may contain 2,000-90,000 eggs (Scott and Crossman, 1973). In western Lake Erie, fecundities for yellow
perch were reported to range from 8,618 to 78,741 eggs (Saila et al, 1987).
Yellow perch larvae hatch within about 8-10 days and are inactive for about 5 days until the yolk is absorbed (Scott and
Crossman, 1973). Young perch are initially pelagic and found in schools, but become demersal after their first summer (Saila
et al., 1987),
Adult perch are inactive at night and rest on the bottom (Scott and Crossman, 1973). Females generally grow faster than
males and reach a greater final length (Scott and Crossman, 1973). In Lake Erie, perch may reach up to approximately 31 cm
(12 in.) in total length and have been reported to live up to 11 years.
13-11
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of IAE Data
YELLOW PERCH
(Perca flavescens)
Family: Percidae (perches).
Common names: Yellow perch, perch, American perch, lake
perch.*
Similar species: Dusky darter.16
Geographic range: Northern and eastern United States.'
Habitat: Lakes, ponds, creeks, rivers. Found in clear water
near vegetation.*"
Lifespan: Up to 11 years."
Fecundity: 8,618 to 78,741 eggs.'
Food source: Immature insects, larger invertebrates, fishes,
and fish eggs.c
Prey for: Almost all warm to cool water predatory fish,
including bass, suntish, crappies, walleye, sauger, northern
pike, muskellunge, and other perch, as well as a number of
birds.'
Life stage information:
Eggs; semi-buoyant
~ Eggs laid in long tubes containing 2,000-90,000 eggs.'
~ Eggs usually hatch in 8-10 days/
Larvae; pelagic
~ Larvae are 4.1-5.5 mm (0.16-0.22 in.) upon hatching.-1
~ Found in schools with other species.'
~ Become demersal during the first summer.'1
Adults: demersal
~ Reach up to 31 cm (12 in.) in Lake Erie.'
~ Found in schools near the bottom.
a Froese and Pauly, 2001.
6 Trautman. 1981.
e Scott and Grossman, 1973.
d Sailaetal., 1987.
Fish graphic courtesy of New York Sportfishing and Aquatic Resources Educational Program, 2001.
13-3 Methods for Estimating I<&E at Monroe
EPA examined I&E data from a variety of facility and agency monitoring reports. Impingement data were collected in 1972,
1973, and 1975 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Goodyear, 1978), in 1982-83 by the University of Michigan Great
Lakes Research Division (Jude et al., 1983), and in 1985-86 by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Andrew
Nuhfer, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, personal communication, 2/13/02). Entrainment data
were collected in 1973, 1974, and 1975 by the U.S. EPA (Cole, 1978) and in 1982-83 by the University of Michigan Great
Lakes Research Division (Jude et al., 1983). For this benefits case study, EPA determined that only the data for the 1980's
are relevant for an evaluation of the facility as it is currently operated and configured. The methods used to collect these data
are summarized below.
13-3.1 Impingement Monitoring
University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division, 1982-1983
Impingement was sampled by scientists from the University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division once per week from
February 18, 1982, to February 1, 1983 (Jude et al., 1983). Samples were collected once a week for the 52 week sampling
period, and one additional sample was collected on February 25, 1982, to sample a large gizzard shad impingement event.
Sampling lasted for 24 hours and was conducted on Monday to Tuesday, or Tuesday to Wednesday (if Monday was a
holiday).
Samples were collected from the two screenhouses via a conveyor belt, which delivered impinged fish from the traveling
screens to a dump truck. Trucks were checked to ensure that they were not switched during the sampling period. After the 24
hour sampling period, either all of the fish were counted or, if the collection was too large to count, a subsample was
collected. Subsampling was done by leveling the collected fish in the truck bed, visually dividing the bed into square
13-12
-------
Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
sections, assigning a number to each section, and randomly selecting a subset of sections (usually two). The remaining fish
were spread evenly again, and the length, width, and depth of the pile were measured. The volume of unsampled fish was
converted to an estimated weight using a conversion factor of 0.758 g/cm\ which was derived from 10 replicates of 20 kg
(44.09 lb) samples of alewives. This conversion was checked on several dates by comparing the volume of the fish sampled
to the volume of the unsampled fish. When the resulting relationship from the volume comparison was consistently different
from that calculated by the conversion factor because of variations in fish size and percentage of nonfish debris, the volume
comparison was used to determine the percentage of fish subsampled. Estimates of the total number of fish impinged in a
sampling period were made from subsampled counts by scaling up to the total amount for a sampling period.
During the large gizzard shad impingement event on February 25, 1982, the sampling method had to be altered because the
fish were filling up trucks too quickly to be subsampled according to the usual protocol. A subsarr.pie of gizzard shad was
collected from each truck, with an attempt made to collect a representative size distribution. Fish other than gizzard shad that
were seen were also collected. The time to fill each truck and the volume of fish in the truck were recorded. A subset of the
trucks was measured and the information applied to other truckloads collected that day.
The University of Michigan calculated average daily impingement rates by dividing the sum of impingement during all
sampling days in the month by the number of sampling days. They then calculated monthly impingement by multiplying the
average daily impingement by the number of days in the month. Annual impingement was the sum of all 12 months in the
study.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1985-1986
Impingement was also sampled by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from May 16, 1985, to May 6,
1986.
Samples were collected on 3 days in May and June 1985, 5 days per month in July and August 1985, and 4 days per month
from September 1985 through April 1986, so that a total of 49 samples were collected. The day of sampling was randomly
selected from weekdays (Monday through Friday). The duration of sampling was approximately 24 hours, although shorter
periods were sampled when impingement was high and longer periods were sampled when there were few fish.
Samples were collected from the two screenhouses via a conveyor belt, which delivered impinged fish from the traveling
screens to a dump truck. When the number of fish collected could be processed in less than 5 hours, the entire sample was
counted. When this was not the case, the collection was subsampled. Subsampling was done by leveling the collected fish in
the truck bed, visually dividing the bed into square sections, assigning a number to each section, and randomly selecting a
subset of sections (approximately 40 percent). Equal numbers of buckets of debris and fish were collected from each selected
section to draw a subsample. The subsamples and the remaining fish were weighed to determine what percentage of the total
of the subsamples represented. On days when subsamples were taken, they represented an average of 26 percent by weight of
the total collection. Subsamples were extrapolated to the total amount by multiplying by an expansion factor (calculated by
dividing the weight of the total collection by the weight of the subsample).
The Michigan DNR calculated daily impingement values for each species by standardizing the collection rate to a 24 hour
period. Periodic estimates were derived by multiplying the daily estimate by the number of days in a period of time
represented by that sampling event (approximately 7). They then calculated monthly totals by summing the periodic rates for
a given month. Final annual estimates are representative of both screenhouses combined.
13-3,2 Entrapment Monitoring
University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division, 1982-1983
Entrainment sampling was also conducted from February 1982 to February 1983 (Jude et al., 1983). Samples were taken
weekly from March through August; twice a month in January, February, September, and October; and once per month in
November and December.
Lake and river water in the intake canal was often stratified because of temperature differences. Thus, samples used to
estimate entrainment were collected in the discharge canal, because the water was well mixed. Larvae were collected using a 1
0.5 m (1.6 ft), 363 Jim (0.0014 in) mesh net. A flowmeter was used to measure the volume of water per sample, usual ly
13-13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port B: "Hie Delaware Estuary
Chapter 83: Evaluation of I&E Data
between 20 and 55 m3 (706 and 1,942 ft3). Four replicate samples were collected in each of four daily periods on each
sampling date.
In their calculations, the Michigan DNR first multiplied the mean density in each of the four daily periods by the total weekly
volume of water that passed through the plant during the corresponding daily period. Then these estimates for each daily time
period were summed to estimate a weekly total across all time periods. Annual estimates were calculated by Michigan DNR
by summing all of the weekly estimates,
13-4 Annual Impingement and Entrainment
EPA evaluated annual I&E at Monroe using the methods presented in Chapter AS of Part A of this document. The species-,
specific life history values used by EPA for its analyses are presented in Appendix II. Table 13-2 displays estimates of annual
impingement (numbers of organisms) at Monroe for the years of monitoring (1982 and 1985). Table 13-3 presents these
numbers expressed as age 1 equivalents, Table 13-4 displays annual impingement of fishery species as pounds of lost fishery
yield, and Table 13-5 displays annual impingement expressed as production foregone. Tables 13-6 through 13-9 display the
same information for entrainment at Monroe for 1982.
The results of EPA's analysis indicate that both impingement and entrainment collections at Monroe are dominated by gizzard
shad, followed by white bass, yellow perch, and freshwater drum. Impingement rates are about 4.5 times entrainment rates.
However, more commercial and recreational species are entrained than impinged. About 34.3 million gizzard shad, 0.7
million white bass, 0.3 million yellow perch, and 0.15 million freshwater drum age 1 equivalents are impinged per year.
Annual age 1 equivalents entrained average about 8.7 million gizzard shad, 0.8 million white bass, 0.6 million yellow perch,
and 0.15 million freshwater drum. Impingement and entrainment of all species combined results in over 2 million pounds of
lost fishery yield per year.
13-5 Summary
Table 13-10 summarizes EPA's estimates of annual I&E at Monroe. Results indicate that, on average, nearly 21 million
organisms are impinged at Monroe each year. This represents 35.8 million age 1 equivalents, 1.4 million pounds of lost
fishery yield, and 0.7 million pounds of production foregone. Over 4.6 billion organisms are entrained per year, representing
about 11.6 million age 1 equivalents, 0.6 million pounds of lost fishery yield, and 3.5 million pounds of production foregone.
The economic value of these losses is discussed in Chapter 14, and the potential benefits of reducing these losses with the
proposed rule are discussed in Chapter 15.
B3-14
-------
i 316(b) Case. Studies, Part X: Monroe Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
Table 13-2: Estimates of Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Monroe, 1982 and 1985
Year
Alewife
Blue- ;
Bluntnose
Minnow
| Bullhead
| spp.
Carp
Central
Mudminnow
Channel
Catfish
Coho
Salmon
;
Crappie i
Fathead
Minnow
: Freshwater
Drum
Gizzard Shad
Gnlden
Redhorse
Hornyhead ;
Chub
Log-
perch
1982
250
750 i
6
i 1,732
7,100
12
1,333
18
1,310 i
170
i 160,000
30,000,000
12
210 :
96,800
1985 •
0
0 i
0
0
0
0
0
0
o i
0
96,847
9,310,023
0
0 j
137,854
Mean
125
375 :
3
; 866
3,550
6
666
9
655 |
85
: 128,424
19,655,012
6
105 |
117,327
Minimum
0
o ;
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
: 96,847 _
9,310,023
0
0 |
96,800
Maximum
250
750 1
530 ¦
6
: 1,732
7,100
12
1,333
18
1,310 ;
170
; 160,000
30,000,000
12
210 j
137,854
SD
177
4
i 1,225
5,020
8
943
13
926 i
120
| 44,656
14,630,023
8
148 |
29,030
Total
250
750 i
6
1 1,732
7,100
12
1,333
18
1,310 :
170
i 256,847
39,310,023
12
210 :
234,654
0=Sampled, but none collected,
Fri Feb 15 13:29:27 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plantmonroe; PATHNAME:P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodesi'monroe/tables.output/raw,losses.imp.rtionroe.csv
Table 13-2: Estimates of Annual Impingement (numbers of organisms) at Monroe, 1982 and 1985 (cont.)
— — __ " . — , —— — ¦"¦¦¦
Year
Longnose
Gar
Mottled;
Sculpin :
Muskel-
lunge
Northern
Pike
j Rainbow
; Trout
Shiner ;
spp. ;
Silver ;
Lamprey ;
Srnallmouth
Bass
Smelt
Suckers
: Sunflsh :
Tadpole
Mad torn
: Walleye
White : Yellow
Bass ! Perch
Other
1982
140
60
7
86
68 ; 320,012;
270 ;
194
: 2,300
8,278
! 7,412 j
580
: 26,000
530,000 1 370,000 . 0
1985
0
o
0
0
: o
;
40,491 ;
•0
0
i 6,221
0
: 0 ;
0
i 7,374
567,550 i 78,246
24,817
Mean
70
30 i
4
43
34
180,252:
135 !
97
; 4,260
4,139
: 3,706 ;
290
: 16,687
548,775 i 224,123
12,408
Minimum
0
0 :
0
0
;
0
40,491
o :
0
: 2,300
0
o !
0
i 7,374
530,000 j 78,246
0
Maximum
140
60
7
86
: 68
320,012 i
270 :
194
: 6,221
8,278
: 7,412 i
580
i 26,(K)0
567,550 | 370,000
24,817
SD '
99
42
5
61
48
197,651 :
191
137
i 2,773
5,853
! 5,241 j
410
! 13,171
26,552 :206,301
17,548
Total
140
60
7
86
68
: 360,503 :
270 ;
194
! 8,521
8,278
: 7,412 :
580
; 33,374
1,097,550 ; 448,246
24,817
0=Sampled, but none collected,
Fri Feb 15 13:29:27 MST 2002 Raw.losses. IMPINGEMENT; Plant:monroe; PATIINAME;P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/raw.losses.imp,monroe.csv
13-15
-------
i 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Table 13-3: Annuo! Impingement at Monroe Expressed as Numbers of Age 1. Equivalents, 1982 and 1985
Year
1982
Alewife
311
Blue-
gill
894
Bull-
head
SPP.
2,014
Carp
7,783
Channel
Catfish
1,718
Cripple
Fresh-
water
Drum
Gizzard
Shad
Log-
perch
Muskel-
lunge
Shiner
spp.
Sitiall-
itiouth
Bass
Smelt
Suckers
Sun-
flsb
Wall-
eye
35,303
White
Bass
Yellow
Perch
1,586
184,603
52,388,535
129,361
8
378,718
281
2,770
9,916
12,353
639,692
436,069
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
111,739
16,257,949
184,225
0
47,919
0
7,493
0
0
10,013
685,014
92,218
Mean
156
447
1,007
3,891
859
793
148,17!
34,323,242
156,793
4
213,319
141
5,132
4,958
6,177
22,658
662,353
264,144
Minimum
Maximum
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
111,739
16,257,949
129,361
0
47,919
0
2,770
0
0
10,013
639,692
92,218
311
894
2,014
7,783
1,718
1,586
184,603
52,388,535
184,225
8
378,718
281
7,493
9,916
12,353
35,303
685,014
436,069
220
632
1,424
5,503
1,215
1,121
51,523
25,548,182
38,794
5
233,910
199
3,340
7,011
8,735
17,883
32,047
243,139
Total
311
894
2,014
7,783
1,718
1,586
296,342
68,646,484
313,586
8
426,637
281
10,264
9,916
12,353
45,316
1,324,706
528,287
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 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 A5, Equation 4 and Equation 5). This type of adjustment is applied to all raw loss records, but the effect is not readily
apparent among entrainment losses because the majority of entrained fish are younger than age 1.
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 15 13:35:00 MST 2002 -.Results; I Plant: monroe ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname: " •
P:/lntake/Great_IJakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/rables.autput/I.equivalent.sums.monroe.csv
Table 13-4; Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Monroe Expressed as Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds), 1982 and 1985
Year
Bullhead
spp.
Carp
Channel
Cattish
Crappie
Freshwater
Drum
Gizzard
Shad
Smallmouth ;
Bass
Smelt
1 Suckers
Sunfish
: Walleye 1
White |
Bass ;
Yellow
Perch
1982
44
3,761
54
13
9,806
2,067,893
11 i
24
j 123
4
! 520 i
48,743 ;
465
1985
0
0
0
0
5,936
641,738
0 i
64
j 0
0
i 148 ;
52,196 |
98
Mean
22
1,880
27
7
7,871
1,354,816
6 :
44
; 62
2
i 334 ;
50,469 ;
282
Minimum
0
0
0
0
5,936
641,738
0 1
24
! o
0
: 148 :
48,743 :
98
Maximum
44
3,761
54
13
9,806
2,067,893
H 1
64
: 123
4
1 520 ;
52,196 :
465
SD ;
31
2,659
38
9
2,737
1,008,444
8 i
29
; 87
3
: 263 :
2,442 I
259
Total i
44
3,761
54
13
15,742
2,709,631
11 :
88
! 123
4
j 668 :
100,939 i
563
0=Sampled, but none collected.
Fri Feb 15 13:35:17 MST 2002 ;Results; I Plant: monroe ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/lntake/GreatJLakcs/GL_Scicnce/seodes/monroe/tables.output/I,yield.monroe.csv
13 -16
-------
Chapter 13: Evaluation of I&E Data
Year j Alewife
1982
1985
Table 13-5: Annual Impingement at Monroe Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds), 1982 and 1985
r Fresh-
Blue
gill
11
0
Bull- :
head Carp
spp- ;
2,426
0
53
0
Channel
Catfish
Crappie ; water
i Drum
54
0
; 17,556
j 10,627
Gizzard j Log- j Muskel-
Shad i perch I lunge
936,779
290.714
645
918
Shiner
spp.
4,654
589
Small-
mouth
Bass
20
0
Smelt ; Suckers
Sun-
fish
31
85
1,057
0
21
Wall-
eye
White
Bass
6,388 ; 59,868
1,812 : 64,109
Yellow
Perch
4,761
1,007
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
SD
Total
Fri Feb 15 13
0 Sampled, but none collected
5
0
11
26
0
53 :
37
53
213
0
426
716
426
27
0
54
38
54
; 14,091
: 10,627
i 17,556
i 4,900
: 28,183
613,747
290,714
936,779
456,837
781
645
918
193
1,227,494 : 1,563 j
2,621
589
4,654
874
243
10
0
20
14
20
58
31
85
38
116
529
0
1,057
747
1,057
0
21
15
4,100 : 61,988
1,812 i 59,868
6,388 64.109
3,236 : 2,999
2,884
1,007
4,761
2,655
21
8,199 :123,977: 5,768
35:09 MST 2002 ;Results. I Plan
monroe ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakcs/GL_Scicnce/scodes/monroe/tables.output/I.annual.prod.forg.monroe.csv
Table 13-6: Estimates of Annual Entrainment (numbers of organisms) at Monroe, 1982
Year
Burbot
Carp
Channel Catfish ; Crappie Freshwater Drum
Gizzard Shad
Logperch
Shiner spp.
1982
; 2,770,000
I 79,700,000
4,160,000 ; 580,000 158,000,000
4,080,000,000
2,983,000
30,420,000
Fri Feb 15 13:29:29 MST 2002 Raw.losses. ENTRAINMENT; Plant:monroe,
PATHNAME:P:'Intake'Great J..akes/GL ..Science'scocies'nionroe'tables output'raw losses.enr monroe.csv
Table 13-6: Estimates of Annual Entrainment (numbers of organisms) at Monroe, 1982 (cont.)
Year
Smallmouth Bass
Smelt
Suckers : Sunfish
Walleye
White Bass
Whitefish
Yellow Perch . Unknown
1982
599,000
11,000,000
6,204,000 j 923,000
2,080,000
156,000,000
190,000
128,000,000 : 38,300,000
Fri Feb 15 13:29:29 MST 2002 Raw.losses ENTRAINMENT; Plannmonroe;
PATHNAME:P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tabIes.output/raw.losses.ent.monroe.csv
Table 13-7; Annual Entrainment at Monroe Expressed as Numbers of Age 1 Equivalents, 1982
Year
Burbot
Carp
Channel: „ . ; .
,, _ , Crappie water
Catfish ! • „
: Drum
Gizzard ; Log- j Shiner
Shad j perch j spp.
Small-
mouth
Bass
Smelt
Suckers
Sunfish
Walleye
White
Bass
White-
fish
Yellow
Perch
1982
1,765
394,554
20,594 j 23,517 ; 143,558
8,747,005 : 115.373 276.928
48,283
89,543
89,117
311,090
16,749
772,277
81
567,330
Fri Feb 15 13:34:58 MST 2002 ;ResuIts; E Plant: monroe ; Units: equivalent.sums Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/E.equivalent.surns.monroe.csv
13-17
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 13: Evaluation of UE Data
Year
1982
Table 13-8: Annual Entrapment of Fishery Species at Monroe Expressed os Yield Lost to Fisheries (in pounds), 1982
Burbot
Carp
206 . 190,659
Channel
Catfish
643
Crappie
195
Freshwater
Drum
7,626
Gizzard
Shad
i Smallmouth
Bass
i Smelt
Suckers I Suitfish Walleye i
; 345,264
1 i ,972
; 766
1,108 i 113 : 247 !
White Bass
Whitefish
Yellow Perch
58,845
73
605
Fri Feb 15 13:35:! 5 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: monroe ; Units: yield Pathname: P:/Intake/GreatJLakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/E,yield,monroe.csv
Table 13-9 Annual Entrapment at Monroe Expressed as Production Foregone (in pounds), 1982
Year ; Burbot ¦ Carp
1982
<1 :578,130
Channel
Catfish
6,789
_ , : Freshwater
Crapp,e Drum
Gizzard
Shad
Logperch
Shiner spp.
Smallmouth
Bass
Smelt
Suckers : Sunllsh
Walleye
White
Bass
Yellow
Perch
20,614 ; 101,515
970,508
8,873
83,324
7,469
5,350
95,408 : 1,645
28,802
1,185,004
354,467
Fri Feb 15 13:35:07 MST 2002 ;Results; E Plant: monroe ; Units: annual.prod.forg Pathname:
P:/lntake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.autput/E.annualprod.forg.monroe.csv
Table 13-10: Average Annual Impingement and Entrapment at Monroe (sum of
annual means of all species evaluated)
Impingement
Entraininent
Raw losses (# of organisms)
20,889,043
; 4,663,609,000
Age 1 equivalents (# of fish)
' 35,814,243
: 11,617,765
Fishery yield (lb of fish)
1,415,820
j 608,321
Production Foregone (lb offish)
702,14 V
3,447,899
mixed.rollup.chap3.ent Fri Feb 15 14:09:44 MST 2002
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/flowchart.chap3.ENT.csv
mixed.rollEp.chap3.imp Fri Feb 15 14:09:42 MST 2002
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/flowchart.chap3.IMP.csv
13-18
-------
Chapter 14: Baseline I<ŁE Losses
Chapter 14: Economic Value of I&E
Losses Based on Benefits Transfer
Techniques
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation
of the economic losses associated with I&E at the
Detroit Edison Monroe Power Plant using benefits
transfer techniques. Section 14-1 provides an overview
of the valuation approach, Section 14-2 discusses the
value of recreational fishery losses, Section 14-3
discusses commercial fishery values, Section 14-4 '
discusses the value of forage species losses. Section 14-
5 discusses nonuse values, and Section 14-6
summarizes the benefits transfer results.
14-1 Overview of Valuation
Approach
Fish losses from I&E at Monroe affect recreational and
commercial fisheries as well as forage species that
contribute to the biomass of recreational and
commercial species. EPA evaluated all of these
species groups to capture the total economic impact of
I&E at Monroe.
Recreational fishery impacts are based on benefits transfer methods, applying the results from nonmarket valuation studies.
Commercial fishery impacts are based on commodity prices for the individual species. The economic value of forage species
losses is determined by estimating the replacement cost of these fish if they were to be restocked with hatchery fish, and by
considering the foregone biomass production of forage fish resulting from l&E losses and the consequential foregone
production of commercial and recreational species that use the forage species as a prey base. All of these methods are
explained in further detail in the Chapter A9 of Part A of this document.
Many of the fish species impacted by I&E at Monroe are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To avoid
double-counting the economic impacts of I&E on these species, EPA determined the proportion of total species landings
attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied this proportion to the impacted fishery catch. For example, if
30 percent of the landed numbers of one species are harvested commercially at a site, then 30 percent of the estimated catch
of I&E-impacted fish are assigned to the increase in commercial landings. The remaining 70 percent of the estimated total
landed number of I&E-impacted adult equivalents are assigned to the recreational landings.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides both recreational and commercial fishery landings data by state. To
determine what proportions of total landings per state occur in the recreational or commercial fishery, EPA summed the
landings data for the recreational and commercial fishery, and then divided by each category to get the corresponding
percentage. The percentages applied in this analysis are presented in Table 14-1.
As discussed in Chapters A5 and A9 of Part A of this document, the yield estimates presented in Chapter 13 are expressed as
total pounds for both the commercial and recreational catch combined. For the economic valuation discussed in this chapter,
total yield was partitioned between commercial and recreational fisheries based on the landings in each fishery (presented in
Table 14-1). Because the economic evaluation of recreational yield is based on numbers of fish rather than pounds, foregone
recreational yield was converted to numbers of fish, based on the average weight of harvestable fish of each species. Table
Chapter Contents
14-1 Overview of Valuation Approach ...... I4-J
14-2 Value of Baseline Recreational Fishery Losses
at the Monroe Facility 14-3
14-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses
Basal on Literature 14-3
14-2.2 Baseline Losses in Recreational Yield at
Monroe and Value of Losses 14-4
14-3 Value of Baseline Commercial Fishery Losses
at the Monroe Facility 14-5
14-3.1 Baseline Losses in Commercial Yield at
Monroe and Value of Losses 14-5
14-4 Value of Forage Fish Losses at the Monroe Facility 14-7
14-5 Nonuse Values for Baseline Losses at the
Monroe Facility 14-9
14-6 Summary ofMean Annual Values of Baseline
Economic Losses at the Monroe Facility 14-9
14-1
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I; Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I4E Losses
14-2 shows these conversions for impingement and Table 14-3 displays these data for entrainment using the data presented in
Section 13-4 of Chapter 13. Note that the numbers of foregone recreational fish harvested are typically lower than the
numbers of age 1 equivalent losses, since the age of harvest of most fish is greater than age 1.
Table 14-1: Percentages of Total I&E Impacts at Monroe Occurring to Recreational and
Commercial Fisheries"
Fish Species
Percent Impacts to
Recreational Fishery
Percent Impacts to
Commercial Fishery
Bluegill
: ioo
0
Bullhead spp.
: o
100
Burbot
: 50
50
Carp
; o
100
Channel catfish
50
50
Crappie
; 100
0
Freshwater drum
: 0 ;
100
Gizzard shad
i o
100
Muskellunge
: 100
0
Smallmouth bass
; ioo
0
Smelt
: 50 :
50
Suckers
! 0
100
Sim fish
100
0
Walleye
• 100
0
White bass
; 50 :
50
Whitefish
: 50
50
Yellow perch
100
0
* Accurate recreational landings data for Lake Erie have not yet been located, and thus EPA applied a 50/50
split for species that are both commercially and recreationally harvested.
Fri Feb 15 13:45:13 MST 2002 ; TableA: Percentages of total impacts occurring to the commercial and
recreational fisheries of selected species; Plant: raonroe; Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/seodes/monroe/tables.output/TableA.Perc.of total, impacts.monroe.csv
Table 14-2: Summary of Mean Annual Impingement of Fishery Species at Monroe
Species
Impingement
Count (#)
Age 1
Equivalents (#)
Total
Catch (#)
Total
Yield (lb)
Commercial
Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lb)
Recreational
Catch (#>
Recreational
Yield (lb)
Bluegill
375
447
1
0
0
0
1
0
Bullhead spp.
866
1,007
50
22
50
22
0
0
Carp
3,550
3,891
288
1,880
288
1,880
0
0
Channel catfish
666
859
32
27
16
13
16
13
Crappie
655
793
12
7
0
0
12
7
Freshwater
drum
128,424 ¦
148,171
8,614
7,871
8,614
7,871
0
0
Gizzard shad
19,655,012
34,323,242
4,375,502
1,354,816
4,375,502
1,354,816
0
0
Muskellunge
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Smallmouth
bass
97
141
10
6
0
0
10
6
Smelt
4,260
5,132
117
44
58
22
58
22
Suckers
4,139
4,958
122
62
122
62
0
0
Sunfish
3,706
6,177
36
2
0
0
36
2
Walleye
16,687
22,658
178
334
0
0
178
334
White bass
548,775
662,353
54,381
50,469
27,190
25,235
27,190
25,235
Yellow perch
224,123
264,144
2,237
282
0
0
' 2,237
282
Commercial and
Recreational
Species Total
20,591,339
35,443,976
4,441,580
1,415,820
4,411,841
1,389,920
29,739
25,900
14-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I4E Losses
Table 14-3: Summary of Mean Annual Entrapment Results of Fishery Species at Monroe
Species
¦ Entrainment
; Count "(#)
Age 1
Equivalents (#)
iTotal Catch
w
Total Yield
(lb)
¦ Commercial
! Catch (#)
Commercial
Yield (lb)
: Recreational
Catch (#)
Recreational
Yield flb)
Burbot
: 2,770,000 :
1,765
132
206
i 66
103
66
52
Carp
: 79,700,000 :
394,554
I 29,161
190,659
I 29,161
190,659
: 0
0
Channel
catfish
: 4,160,000 i
20,594
¦ 775
643
387
322
387
161
Crappie
580,000
23,517
347 :
195
0
0
; 347
98
Freshwater
drum
! 1S8,000,000
143,558
8,346 j
7,626
; 8,346
7,626
1 0
0
Gizzard shad
;4,080,000,000
8,747,005
; 1,115,062 :
345,264
: 1,115,062
345,264
0
0
Smallmouth
bass
i 599,000
48,283
3,399
1,972
! 0
0
i 3,399
986
Smelt
: 11,000,000
89,543
2,038
766
1,019
383
1,019
192
Suckers
i 6,204,000
89,117
: 2,198 ;
1,108
2,198
1,108
i 0
0
Sunfish
: 923,000
311,090
1,821
113
0
0
1,821
57
Walleye
: 2,080,000
16,749
: 132
247
0
0
: 132
124
White bass
; 156,000,000
772,277
: 63,406 :
58,845
; 31,703
29,423
: 31,703
14,712
Whitcfish
| 190,000
81
1 50 j
73
25
36
25
18
Yellow perch
i 128,000,000
567,330
: 4,805
605
0
0
4,805
303
Commercial
and
Recreational
Species Total
4,630,206,000
11,225,463
: 1,231,670 i
608,321
1,187,966
574,923
43,704
16,704
14-2 Value of Baseline Recreational Fishery Losses at the Monroe Facility
14-2.1 Economic Values for Recreational Losses Based on Literature
There is a large literature that provides willingness-to-pay values for increases in recreational catch rates. These increases in
value are benefits to the anglers, and are often referred to by economists as a "consumer surplus" per additional fish caught.
When using values from the existing literature as proxies for the value of a trip or fish at a site not studied, it is important to
select values for similar areas and species. Table 14-4 gives a summary of several studies that are closest to the Great Lakes
fishery in geographic area and relevant species.
McConnell and Strand (1994) estimated fishery values using data from the National Marine Fisheries Statistical Survey.
They created a random utility model of fishing behavior for nine Atlantic states, the northernmost being New York. In this
model they specified four categories of fish: small gsmefish (e.g., striped bass), flatfish (e.g., flounder), bottomfish
(e.g., weakfish, spot, Atlantic croaker, perch), and big gamefish (e.g., shark). For each fish category, they estimated per
angler values for access to marine waters and for an increase in catch rates.
Boyle et al. (1998) used the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation to estimate the
marginal economic value of an additional bass, trout, and walleye per trip.
Sorg et al. (1985) used travel cost and contingent valuation methods to estimated the value of recreational fishing at 51 sites
in Idaho. Several of the species valued in Sorg et al. are also found in the Great Lakes fishery.
Milliman et al. (1992) used a logit model, creel data, and the responses to a contingent valuation dichotomous choice survey
question the study estimated the value of recreational fishing for yellow perch in Green Bay, Michigan.
14-3
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Losses
Table 14-4: Selected Valuation Studies for Estimating Changes in Catch Rates
Authors
Study Location and Year
Item Valued
Value Estimate ($2000)
McConnell and
Strand (1994)
Mid- and south Atlantic coast,
anglers targeting specific
species, 1988
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per
trip"
Small gamefish $10.06
Hicks etal.( 1999)
Mid-Atlantic coast, 1994
Catch rate tnerease of 1 fish per trip
Small gamefish $2,95
Bottomfish $2.38
Boyle et al. (1998)
National, by state, 1996
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
Bass (low/high) SI .58 - $5.32
Sorget al. (1985)
Idaho, 1982
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
Warmwater fish $5.02
Milliman et al.
(1992)
Green Bay
Catch rate increase of 1 fish per trip
Yellow perch $0.31
Charbonneau and
Hay (1978)
National, 1975
Catch rate increase'of 1 fish per trip
Walleye $7.92
Catfish $2.64
Panfish $1.00
" Value was reported as "two month value per angler tor a half fish catch tnerease per trip." From 1996 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation (U.S. DOI, 1997), the average saltwater angler takes 1.5 trips in a 2 month
period. Therefore, to convert to a "1 fish per trip" value, EPA divided the 2 month value by 1,5 trips and then multiplied it by
2, assuming the value of a fish was linear.
Charbonneau and Hay (1978) used travel cost and contingent valuation methods to estimate the consumer surplus for a season
of the respondent's favorite wildlife-related activity. These consumer surplus values were then converted to a one fish
increase per trip,
14-2.2 Baseline Losses in Recreational Yield at Monroe and Value of Losses
Since most of these studies discussed in the previous section do not consider the Great Lakes fishery directly, EPA used these
estimates to create a range of possible consumer surplus values for the recreational fish landings gained by reducing
impingement and entrainment at the Monroe facility. To estimate a unit value for recreational landings, EPA established a
lower and upper value for the recreational species, based on values reported in studies in Table 14-4. EPA estimated the
economic value of l&E impacts to recreational fisheries using the I&E estimates presented in Tables 14-2 and 14-3 and the
economic values in Table 14-5.
EPA used the percentages listed in Table 14-1 to obtain losses to recreational fisheries. Results are displayed in Tables 14-5
and 14-6, for impingement and entrainment, respectively, and are expressed as average annual I&E and corresponding values.
The estimated total loss to recreational fisheries ranges from S44,800 to $149,100 for impingement per year, and from
$62,800 to $209,100 annually for entrainment.
14-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe Chapter 14; Baseline I«SE Losses
Table 14-5:
Baseline Mean Annual Recreational Impingement Losses at the Monroe Facility and
Associated Economic Values
Species
i Loss to Recreational Ditch:
Recreational Value/Fish
Loss in Recreational Value from
Impingement
(number of fish)
Low
High
Low
High
Bluegill
1
$0.31
$1.00
$0
: $1
Channel catfish
16
$2.64
$5.02
$43
: $81
Crappie
i 12
$1.00
$5.02
$12
$59
Smallmouth bass
: 10
SI.58
$5.32
; $16
: $53
Smelt
58
$2.95
$10.06
; $172
; $588
Sun fish
36
$0.31
$1.00
$11
! $36
Walleye
178
$5.02
; $7.92
$896
$1,413
White bass
; 27,190
$1,58
$5.32
$42,961
$144,653
Yellow perch
2,237
$0.31
$1.00
; $694
i $2,237
Total
: 29,739 :
$44,804
$149,121
Fri Feb 15 13:45:23 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: monroe ; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Seience/scodes/monroe/tabSes.output/TableB.rec.losses,monroe.Lcsv
Table 14-6: Baseline Mean Annual Recreational Entrainment Losses at the Monroe Facility and Associated
Economic Values
Species
Loss to Recreational
•: Catch from Entrainment
Recreational Value/Fish
($2000)
Annual Loss in Recreational
: Value from Entrainment ($2000)
(number of fish)
Low
High
Low
High
Burbot
66
$2.95
$10.06
$194
$662
Channel catfish
; 387
$2.64
$5.02
$1,023
| $1,945
Crappie
; 347
$1.00
$5.02
1347
$1,740
Smallmouth bass
3,399
$1.58
$5.32
$5,370
i $18,082
Smelt
1,019
$2.95
$10.06
$3,006
$10,251
Sunfish
1,821
$0.31
| $1.00
$564
$1,821
Walleye
132
$5.02
$7.92
$662
$1,045
White bass
•; 31,703
$1.58
S5.32
: $50,091
: $ J 68,660
Whitefish
25
$1.50
$2.38
$37
i $59
Yellow perch
4,805
$0.31
$1.00
$1,490
i $4,805
Total
43,704
$62,784
$209,070
Fri Feb 15 13:45:28 MST 2002 ; TableB: recreational losses and value for selected species; Plant: monroe ; type: E Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/manroe/tables.autput/TableB.rec.losse5.monroe.E.esv
14-3 Value of Baseline Commercial Fishery Losses at the Monroe Facility
14-3.1 Baseline Losses in Commercial Yield at Monroe and Value of Losses
I&E losses to commercial catch (pounds) are presented in Tables 14-2 (for impingement) and 14-3 (for entrainment) based on
the commercial and recreational splits listed in Table 14-1. Values for commercial fishing are relatively straightforward
because commercially caught fish are a commodity with a market price. EPA estimates of the economic value of these losses
are displayed in Tables 14-7 and 14-8. Market values per pound are listed as well as the total market losses experienced by the
commercial fishery. The estimates of market loss to the commercial fisheries are 5229,900 for impingement per year, and
$113,400 annually for entrainment.
14-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Table 14-7: Baseline Mean Annual Commercial Impingement Losses at the Monroe Facility and
Associated Economic Values
Loss to Commercial Catch from ; _ . ,, Annual Loss in
, Commercial Value , ... ,
species Impingement - _ . Commercial Value from
j (lb offish) ' ° ' i Impingement (S2000)
Bullhead spp.
22
$0.33
i $7
Burbot
0
$0.35
$0
Carp
1,880
$0.16
$301
Channel catfish
13
$0.76
: $10
Freshwater drum
7,871
; , $0.21
$1,653
Gizzard shad
1,354,816
$0.15
5203,222
Smelt
22
$0.35
$8
Suckers ;
62
$0.17
: $10
White bass ' ;
25,235
: ¦ $0.98
$24,730
Whitefish
0
$0.82
i $0
Total '
1,389,920
$229,942
Fri Feb 15 13:45:23 MST 2002; TableC: commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant: monroc; type: I Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Seience/scodes/monroc/tabies.output/TableC.comm.losses.monroe,Lcsv
Table 14-8: Baseline Mean Annual Commerciol Entrainment Losses at the Monroc Facility and
Associated Economic Values
Species
Loss to Commercial Catch:
from Entrainment
(lb offish)
Commercial Value
(S/lboffish)
Annual Loss in Commercial
Value from Entrainment
($2000)
Burbot
103
$0.35
$36
Carp
190,659
$0.16
$30,505
Channel catfish
322
S0.76
$245
Freshwater drum
7,626
S0.21
$1,601
Gizzard shad
345,264
$0.15
$51,790
Smelt
383
$0.35
$134
Suckers
1,108
$0.17
$188
White bass
29,423
$0.98
$28,834
Whitefish
36
$0.82
$30
Total
574,923
$113,363
Fri Feb IS 13:45:29 MST 2002 ; TableC; commercial losses and value for selected species; Plant; monroe; type: E Pathname;
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableC.comm.losses.mo"nroe.E.esv
Tables 14-7 and 14-8 express commercial impacts based on changes from dockside market landings only. However, to
determine the total economic impact from changes to the commercial fishery, EPA also determined the losses experienced by
producers wholesalers, retailers, and consumers.
The total social benefits (economic surplus) are greater than the increase in dockside landings, because the increased landings
by commercial fishermen contribute to economic surplus in each of a multi-tiered set of markets for commercial fish. The
total economic surplus impact thus is valued by examining the multi-tiered markets through which the landed fish are sold,
according to the methods and data detailed in Chapter A9.
The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of 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
14-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I«5E Lasses
docksids 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.
Applying this method, EPA estimates that baseline economic loss to commercial fisheries ranges from $418,000 to $732,000
per year for impingement, and from $206,000 to $361,000 per year for entrainment at the Monroe facility.
14-4 Value of Fora&e Fish Losses at the Monroe Facility
Many species affected by I&E are not commercially or recreationally fished. For the purposes of this study, EPA refers to
these species as forage fish. Forage fish are species that are prey for other species, and are important components of aquatic
food webs. Table 14-9 summarizes impingement losses of forage species at Monroe and Table 14-10 summarizes entrainment
losses. The following sections discuss the economic valuation of these losses using two alternative valuation methods.
Table 14-9: Summary of Mean Annual Impingement of Forage Fish at Monroe
Species
Impingement Count
(#)
Age 1 Equivalents (#) ;
Production Foregone
(lb)
Alewite
125
156
2
Logperch
117,327
156,793
781
Shiner spp
J 80.252
213.319
2,621
Forage species total
297,704
370,267
3,405
Table 14-10: Summary of Mean Annual Entrainment of Forage Fish at Monroe
Species
Entrainment Count
m
Age 1 Equivalents (#)
Production Foregone
(lb)
Alewife
0
0
0
Logperch
2,983,000
115,373
8,873
Shiner spp.
30,420,000
276,928
83,324
Forage species total
33,403,000
392,301
92,197
14-7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I&E Losses
Replacement cost of fish
The replacement value of fish can be used in several instances. First, if a fish kill of a fishing species is mitigated by stocking
of hatchery fish, then losses to the commercial and recreational fisheries would be reduced, but fish replacement costs would
still be incurred and should be accounted for. Second, if the fish are not caught in the commercial or recreational fishery, but
are important as forage or bait, the replacement value can be used as a lower bound estimate of their value (it is a lower bound
because it would not consider how reduction in their stock may affect other species" stocks). Third, where there are not
enough data to value losses to the recreational and commercial fisheries, replacement cost can be used as a proxy for lost
fishery values. Typically the consumer or producer surplus is greater than fish replacement costs, and replacement costs
typically omit problems associated with restocking programs (e.g., limiting genetic diversity).
The cost of replacing forage fish lost to I&E has two main components. The first component is the cost of raising the
replacement fish. Table 14-11 displays the replacement costs of two of the forage fish species known to be impinged or
entrained at Monroe. The costs are average costs to fish hatcheries (in dollars per pound) across North America to produce
different species 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 $1.13 per mile, but does not indicate how many fish (or how many pounds of fish) are transported for this
price. Lacking relevant data, EPA does not include the transportation costs in this valuation approach.
Table 14-11 presents the computed values of the annual average forage replacement costs. The value of the losses of forage
species using the replacement cost method is $7,000 per year for impingement and SB,000 per year for entrainment.
Table 14-11: Replacement Cost of Various Forage Fish Species at the Monroe Facility"
Species
Halcher>' Costs |_
Annual Cost of Replacing Forage Losses ($2000)
| (Mb)
Impingement
Entrainment
Ale wife
: $0.52 i
$1
$0
Logperch
: $1.05 ' :
$2,104
$1,548
Shiner spp.
: $0.91 :
$5,053
$6,559
Total
$7,158
$8,108
* Values are from AFS (1993).
Fri Feb 15 13:45:24 MST 2002 ; TableD: loss in selected forage species; Plant: monroe ; type: I Pathname:
P:/lntake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableD.farage,eco,ter.repl,monroe.!,csv
Production foregone value of forage fish
This approach considers the foregone biomass production of commercial and recreational fishery species fish resulting from
I&E losses of forage species based on estimates of trophic transfer efficiency as discussed in Chapter A5 of Part A of this
document. The economic valuation of forage losses is based on the dollar value of the foregone fishery yield resulting from
the loss of forage.
Table 14-12 displays the results of this method of valuing forage species lost from entrainment. Impingement results were
insignificant (as estimated by this method) and thus are not discussed. The values listed are obtained by converting the forage
species into species that may be commercially or recreational ly valued. The values of entrainment losses range from
$822,000 to $ 1.6 million per year.
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 14: Baseline I4E Losses
Table 14-13: Summary of Valuation of Baseline Mean Annual I«SE at Monroe Facility ($2000)
Impingement
Entrainment
Total
Commercial: Total Surplus (Direct Use, Market)
Low
$418,076
$206,115
$624,191
High :
$731,632
1360,702
$1,092,334
Recreational (Direct Use, Nonmarket)
Low
$44,804
$62,784
$107,588
High ;
$149,121
$209,070
$358,191
Nonuse (Passive Use, Nonmarket)
Low
$22,402
$31,392
$53,794
High i
$74,560
$104,535
$179,095
Forage (Indirect Use, Nonmarket)
Production Foregone
Low
NA
$822,275
; $822,275
High i
NA
$1,579,051
i $1,579,051
Replacement
$7,158
$8,108
i $15,266
Total (Com + Rec + Nonuse + Forage)"
Low
$492,440
$308,399
; $800,839
High ;
r-
$2,253,358
$3,215,829
NA = Results were not significant arid thus are not reported.
" In calculating the total low values for entrainment, 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. For
impingement, only the replacement value results are used.
Fri Feb 15 13:45:31 MST 2002 ; TableE.summary; Plant: monroe ; Pathname:
P:/Intake/Great_Lakes/GL_Science/scodes/monroe/tables.output/TableE,summary,monroe.csv
14-10
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Chapter 15:
Streamlined HRC Valuation of I<&E
Losses at the Monroe Facility
This chapter presents the results of EP A's streamlined
habitat-based replacement cost (HRC) valuation of
I&h losses at the Monroe facility in Monroe,
Michigan, for a baseline scenario based on I&E data
for the years 1982 and 1985.
A description of the HRC method and the process for
undertaking a complete HRC valuation of I&E losses
is provided in Chapter A11 of Part A of this
document. To summarize, a complete HRC valuation
of l&E losses reflects the combined costs for
implementing habitat restoration actions,
administering the programs, and monitoring the
increased production after the restoration actions. In a
complete HRC valuation, these costs are developed by
first identifying the preferred habitat restoration
alternative for each species with I&E losses and then
scaling the level of habitat restoration until the losses
across all the species for that restoration alternative
have been exactly offset by the expected increases in production of each species. The total value of the I&E losses at the
facility is then calculated as the sum of the costs across the set of preferred habitat restoration alternatives that were identified.
The HRC method is thus a supply-side approach for valuing I&E losses in contrast to the more typically used demand-side
valuation approaches (e.g., commercial and recreational fishing impacts valuations). An advantage of the HRC method is that
the HRC values address losses for species lacking a recreational or commercial fishery (e.g., forage species). Further, the
HRC explicitly recognizes and captures the fundamental ecological relationships between species with I&E losses at a facility
and their surrounding environment by determining the value of I&E losses through the cost of the actions required to provide
an offsetting increase in the existing populations of those species in their natural environment.
Streamlining was necessary to meet the schedule of the 316(b) existing sources rule and entailed combining Step 2
(identification of species habitat requirements), Step 3 (identification of habitat restoration alternatives), and Step 4
(consolidation and prioritization of habitat restoration alternatives), restricting the analysis to readily available information,
and eliminating site visits, in-depth discussions with local experts, and development of primary data (see Chapter A11 of Part
A of this document), which would be required before doing an actual restoration. Despite these restrictions, the streamlined
HRC provided a more comprehensive, ecological-based valuation of the I&E losses than valuation by traditional commercial
and recreational impacts methods. In addition, the streamlined HRC valued direct, indirect, and passive uses not included in
more traditional economic valuation techniques used in Chapters 14 and 16.
The calculated range in annualized costs, expressed in 2000 dollars, of restoring sufficient fish production habitat to offset the
l&E losses in perpetuity at the Monroe facility for the baseline scenario is $1.1 - $14.4 million.
The following subsections describe the streamlined HRC valuation applied to the Monroe facility and the advantages and
disadvantages of streamlining the HRC method.
Chapter Contents
15-1 Quantify l&E Losses by Species (Step 1) 15-2
15-2 Identify Species Habitat Requirements (Step 2),
Identify Habitat Restoration Alternatives (Step 3),
and Prioritize Restoration Alternatives 15-3
15-3 Quantify the Benefits for the Prioritized Habitat
Restoration Alternatives (Step 5) 15-3
15-4 Scale the Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset
I&E Losses (Step 6) 15-5
15-5 Estimate "Unit Costs" for the Habitat Restoration
Alternatives (Step 7) 15-7
15-6 Develop Total Cost Estimates for I&E Losses
(Step 8) 15-8
15-7 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Streamlined HRC
Analysis 15-9
IS-I
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
15-1 Quantify I&E Losses by Species (Step 1)
The streamlined HRC method relies on the same estimates of annual age 1 equivalent species losses that are developed in
Chapter 13 from data reported directly by the facility and incorporated in the commercial and recreational fishing impacts
valuation presented in Chapter 14. Total I&E losses at the facility may be underestimated, particularly if certain species were
not targeted by monitoring efforts or if short duration population spikes occurred outside of monitoring events. The HRC
method inherently reduces the former problem by targeting restoration activities that might benefit species lost but not
monitored, but like all other measures of S&E losses, it relies on representative monitoring.
Various life stages of organisms were lost to I&E at the Monroe facility. As with other facilities, primarily early stages such
as eggs and larvae are entrained, and primarily juveniles and adults are impinged. However, EPA estimated total losses for
each species by converting all losses to a common equivalent life stage by applying average mortality rates between life stages
for each species. These mortality rates were derived from the literature and best professional judgment. Conversion between
life stages did not change the overall scale of required restoration in the streamlined HRC method because many eggs are
equivalent to few adults on both the I&E loss and increased production sides of the HRC equation. For example, if on
average one adult survives from 10 eggs via a 90% cumulative mortality rate and 1 acre of habitat produces 10 eggs, then
restoration of 1 acre is needed to produce either one adult or 10 eggs.
Age 1 equivalent I&E losses of 20 species of fish were calculated using the available I&E monitoring data available from the
Monroe facility. A summary of average annual age 1 equivalent losses from the available data is presented in Table 15-1.
Tabic 15-1
Average Annual I4E Losses of Age 1 Equivalent Fish at the Monroe Facility
Baseline Scenario: (1982 and 1985)
apecies
Impinged
Entrained
Total
Gizzard shad
34,323,242
: 8,747,005 :
43,070,247
While bass
662,353
772,277 i
1,434,630
Yellow perch
264,144
567,330
831,474
Shiner spp.
213,319
276,928
490,247
Carp
3,891
394,554
398,445
Sunfish spp.
6,177
311,090
317,267
Freshwater drum
148,171
143,558
291,729
Logperch
156,793
115,373
272,166
Smelt
5,132
89,543
94,675
Suckers
4,958
; 89,117
94,075
Smallmouth bass
141
48,283
48,424
Walleye
22,658
16.749
39,407
Crappie spp.
793
23,517
24,310
Channel catfish ;
859
i 20,594
21,453
Burbot
0
1,765
1,765
Bullhead spp.
1,007
0
1,007
Bluegill
447
0
447
Alewife
156
0
156
Whitefish
0
: 8i
81
Muskellunge
4
o
4
Total
35,814,245
11,617,764
47,432,009
15-2
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of ME Losses
Several species impinged or entrained at the Monroe facility are important to commercial or recreational fishing, including
walleye, yellow perch, catfish, and crappie. Many others, including alewife, smelt, and shiners, indirectly affect commerce
and recreation because they are prey for commercially or recreationally important aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species such
as salmon and northern pike, bald eagles, and mink. Furthermore, all of the species provide numerous, complex, ecological
services as sources of carbon and energy transfer through the food web, as well as continuous interactive exploitation of
niches available in the Great Lakes ecosystem (a system already under tremendous stress from exotic species introductions,
hazardous substance contamination, nonpoint source runoff, heat contamination, habitat loss, overfishing, and l&E) from
multiple sources.
For example, freshwater drum feed on a variety of small fish. When food supplies are short, freshwater drum often oui-
compete other species and thereby may increase mortality rates or decrease growth rates for those species (Edsall, 1967). In
addition, several species of Centrarchids, including the crappie, are sensitive to the size of their predators' population. When
predators such as walleye are absent, species such as crappie can overcrowd their habitats and exhaust their own food
supplies, resulting in stunted growth (Wang, 1986a; Steiner, 2000). Finally, some species are already subject to wide
fluctuations in population size from year to year, and may not be able to tolerate l&E losses, particularly at certain times of
the year. For example, the gizzard shad is often subject to high mortality in the winter (Miller, 1960).
15-2 Identify Species Habitat Requirements (Step 2), Identify Habitat
Restoration Alternatives (Step 3). and Prioritize Restoration Alternatives
(Step 4)
EPA combined steps 2, 3, and 4 of the HRC method by seeking a single habitat restoration program capable of increasing
production for most of the species with quantified l&E losses at the Monroe facility. Addressing each of these steps
separately for each of the l&E species would improve the analysis but would require more time than was available for the
analysis for the proposed rule.
The selection of coastal wetland restoration as the preferred restoration alternative for offsetting the l&E losses at the Monroe
facility builds of the work conducted in the streamlined HRC valuation of the l&E losses at the nearby J.R. Whiting facility.
This decision is viewed as appropriate recognizing the relative proximity of the Monroe and J.R. Whiting facilities, the
existence of coastal wetland preservation and restoration programs in many Great Lakes states, and the prior knowledge that
many of the fish species with quantified age 1 equivalent l&E losses at the Monroe facility have readily available information
describing their abundance in Great Lakes* coastal wetlands which can be used as a proxy for increased production benefit
estimates.
15-3 Quantify the Benefits for the Prioritized Habitat Restoration
Alternatives (Step 5)
A literature search revealed a study (Brazner, 1997) that provides fish capture data by species from sampling efforts
conducted at a series of Green Bay (Lake Michigan) coastal wetland and sand beach sites. No other studies provide more
direct measures of increased fish species production following Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration, or fish capture data in
wetlands closer to the Monroe facility. However, the Brazner study sampled wetlands in the wanner, shallower, more
eutrophic waters of southern Green Bay, which are similar to the waters of western Lake Erie. After examining the data from
the Brazner study and discussing them with the author, EPA dropped less similar sites from northern Green Bay. For almost
all of the species with quantified l&E losses at the Monroe facility, a match was found with a species, or combination of
species, among those captured at the southern sites in the Brazner study. Table 15-2 shows the species caught in the Brazner
study that were paired with the species being lost at the Monroe facility (this represents only a fraction of the species caught in
these southern locations in the Brazner study).
Because of the similarity between the physical habitats of southern Green Bay and western Lake Erie and the confirmed
presence of similar species in both locations, EPA estimated densities for each southern Green Bay species and used them as a
proxy for direct measurements of potential increased production following wetland restoration. This approach assumed that
additional wetland habitat restored near the Monroe facility would provide similar densities of each species as the wetland
habitats sampled in Green Bay. Direct measurements of densities of each species before and after actual wetland habitat
restorations in western lake Erie could test this assumption and improve the reliability of the HRC valuation for the Monroe
facility.
15-3
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Table 15-2: Species with ME Loss Estimates at the Monroe Facility and the Corresponding Species
Captured in Green Bay Wetland Sampling
Species with I&E Loss Estimates at
the Monroe Facility
; Corresponding Species Caught in Sampling of Green Bay Coastal
Wetlands (Brazner, 1991)
Alewife
^Yes
Bluegill
Yes
Bullhead spp.
:Yes (as sum of black, brown, and yellow bullhead)
Burbot
:No
Carp
Yes
Channel catfish
Yes
Grapple spp.
; Yes (as black crappie)
Freshwater drum
:Yes
Gizzard shad
:Yes
Logpereh
!Yes
Muskellunge
'Yes
Shiner spp.
Yes (as sum of common, emerald, golden, spotfin, and spottail shiner)
Smallmouth bass
: Yes
Smelt
Yes (as rainbow smelt)
Suckers spp.
; Yes (as white sucker)
Sunfish
Yes (as green sunfish)
Walleye
: Yes
White bass
Yes
Whitefish
iNo
Yellow perch
:Yes
EPA developed the density estimates for each species for each site using aggregate sampling results provided by the author
(J. Brazrier, U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001). Table 15-3 provides a summary of the Green Bay
capture data (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, Duluth Lab, personal communication, 2001) for each species that has quantified I&E
losses at the Monroe facility for which a matching species or groups of species was available. Data for each of four Green
Bay sites are presented, as are the average and maximum of all four sites.
The raw capture data were converted to density estimates for each species by assuming that each sampling event of 100 in of
linear coastal wetland frontage corresponded to an average of 100 m of perpendicular width of connected coastal wetlands
(i.e., each sampling event included fish from an assumed 100 m x 100 in area of wetlands). This assumption is based on
discussions with the author about the likely perpendicular width of the sampled wetlands that was being used as habitat by the
sampled species (J. Brazner, U.S. EPA, personal communication, 2001). A further adjustment was then made to the raw
capture data to recognize the fact that shoreline sampling would capture only a portion of the fish actually using the 100 m x
100 m wetland habitat. After discussions with the author, the capture data were increased by a factor of 100 (1/0.01), based
on the assumption that only 1% of the fish present or relying on the wetland habitat were captured in the sampling event.
The resulting per acre average density estimates for each species was used in the HRC equation as the measure of increased
production that would most likely be provided by wetland habitat restoration near the Monroe facility. The maximum per
acre density estimate for each species was used as an upper bound estimate of fish density that would result from wetland
restoration near the Monroe facility.
Brazner (1997) captured young-of-year (younger than age 1), age 1 fish, and adult fish (older than age 1) in the Green Bay
wetlands. In this evaluation, the capture data were treated as if it represented age 1 fish, which eliminated the need to apply
mortality rates to adjust for survival between life stages for each species, as was done for I&E losses. Since Brazner (1997)
reports a high percentage of young-of-year fish captured at all Green Bay sites, this assumption most likely results in a slight
overestimation of age 1 fish densities, and therefore potentially underestimates the scale of restoration required to offset the
average annual I&E loss for each species (i.e., it underestimates baseline losses from I&E).
15-4
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I; Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I<4E Losses
Table 15
-3: Green Bay Wetland Abundance Data
Species Name for HRC
Analysis
Number Caplured: Lower Green Bay Wetland Locations*
Summary Statistics
Long Tail
; Point Wetland
Little Tail Point i
Wetland
Atkinson Sensiba Wildlife
Marsh Refuge
Average
Maximum
Yellow perch
3,525
942
333
1,108
1,477
3,525
Shiner spp.r
1,202
499
526 :
769
749
i 1,202
Gizzard shad
; 384
264
160
137
236
384
Ale wife
265
142
92 ;
124
156
; 265
White bass
i 52
226
106 ;
9
98
i 226
Sucker spp.c
: 14
10
1
103
32
'103
Carp
19
10
3 :
1
8
: 19 '
Sunfish *
3
5 ;
22
2
8
i 22
Bluegill
18
3
0 i
6
7
18
Freshwater dram
4
4
7 i
1
4
I 7
Bullhead spp.1
I 9
4
o i
2
4
; 9
Crappie spp.f
: 1
2
l i
1
1
\ 2
Channel catfish
o
0
3 :
0
1
1 3
Muskellunge
2
o
0
0
1
1 2
Small mouth bass
0
o
o 1
2
1
: 2
Logperch
0
0
o !
1
0
| 1
Smelt.'
0
1
o i
0
0
1
Walleye
1
0
o !
0
0
1
Burbot
not captured in Green Bay wetlands
n/a
n/a
Whitefish
not captured in Green Bay wetlands
n/a
i n/a
* Number captured in samples of 100 meters linear coastal wetland frontage. Reflects age 1 fish (not eggs and larvae).
b Shiner spp. values are the sum of the common, emerald, golden, spotfin, and spottail shiner vakes at each location.
* Sucker spp. values are those reported for white sucker.
J Sunfish values are those reported for green sun fish.
* Bullhead spp. values are the sum of the black, brown, and yellow bullhead values at each location.
f Grapple spp. values are those reported for black crappie,
8 Smelt values are those reported for rainbow smelt.
15-4 Scale the Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset I&E Losses
(Step 6)
EPA calculated the amount of Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration required to offset I&E losses for each species at the
Monroe facility by dividing the combined average annual I&E loss for each species in the baseline scenario by its per-acre
estimate of increased production of age 1 equivalents. The results of this scaling are presented in Table 15-4.
Whether using average or maximum production values, over half of the species listed in Table 15-4 would require that
hundreds or thousands of acres of wetland habitat be restored to fully offset the I&E losses caused by the Monroe facility's
CWIS. If Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration is the best natural restoration alternative for offsetting losses for each of
these species, then approximately 26,900 acres of coastal wetland restoration is required to fully offset all I&E losses under
the baseline scenario using the average adjusted per acre density estimates (because restoring logperch would require that
much wetland restoration, and all other species would be fully restored as well). However, without further discussions with
local experts, and perhaps additional investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration activities and per-acre
production benefits (particularly for the species driving the highest acreage needs), these assumptions may not be valid. On
the other hand, the benefit of any given restoration program should always vary among species, and species with relativ ely
high productivity or low I&E losses cannot drive the HRC results without sacrificing necessary offsets for other species with
lower productivity or higher I&E losses. As seen in the results in Table 15-4, a large restoration requirement can reflect either
low productivity of the restored habitat for the species (e.g., logperch and smelt) or very large I&E losses (e.g., gizzard shad).
15-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 15-4: Wetland Restoration Required to Offset Combined ME Losses at the-Monroe CWI5
Species
Average Annual
i Age 1 Equivalents
Lost to I&E
i Per-Unit Production Benefit (age 1 fish per ; Required Acres of Wetland Restoration to
restored coastal wetland acre) j Offset l&E Loss (rounded to nearest acre)
I Average Value
Maximum Value
Across Sites
! Based on Average
; Production Value
Based on Maximum
Production Value
Logperch
272,166
10
40
26,901
6,725
Smelt
94,675
! 10
40
9,358
2,339
Gizzard shad
; 43,070,247
9,561
15,540
4,505
2,771
Walleye
i 39,407
; io
40
; 3,895
974
Smallmouth bass
48,424
20
: 81
2,393
598
Freshwater drum
: 291,729
162
283
: 1,802
1,030
Carp
398,445
334
769
1,193
518
Sunfish
1 317,267
324
890
980
356
Channel catfish
21,453
30
121
707
177
Crappie spp.
24,310
: 51
81
i 481
300
White bass
1,434,630
: 3,976
9,146
361
157
Suckers spp.
i 94,075
1,295
4,168
73
23
Shiner spp.
490,247
30,312
48,645
16
10
Yellow perch
831,474
59,774
142,657
14
6
Bullhead spp.
1,007
152
364
7
3
Biucgill
447
273
728
2
I
Muskellunge11
4
20
81
0
0
Alewife®1
156
6,303
10,725
: • 0
0
Burbot
1,765
n/a
Whitefish
81
n/a
* The exact requirement for restored wetland acreage for nwskellunge is 0,20 acres under the average production value estimate and 0.0S
acres under the maximum production value estimate. Both values are rounded to 0 acres for presentation.
s The exact requirement for restored wetland acreage for alewife is 0.02 acres under the average production value estimate and 0.01 acres
under the maximum production value estimate. Both values are rounded to 0 acres for presentation.
Table 15-4 also shows that both the scale and distribution of the estimates of required wetland restoration change when
maximum species density estimates are substituted for the averages, EPA used average species density estimates as the
primary source of information because they are more representative of wetland productivity in the Brazner study, and more
accurately reflect the difficulties of achieving full function in restored versus native habitats.1
Since a rigorous investigation of the relationship between feasible restoration alternatives and per-unit production estimates
was not completed under the streamlined approach, using the highest restoration requirement (for logperch) may not be
justified. Therefore, the restoration requirements were ordered for all of the species so that percentiles could be calculated.
Using the 100th percentile (logperch) would offset losses for all of the species, as appropriate under a complete HRC
analysis. However, the 90th and 50th percentiles (corresponding to smelt and channel catfish, respectively) were used to
bound the estimate of the required scale of restoration. Using a lower percentile than the 100th recognizes that further
analyses (or monitoring) might identify restoration programs more efficient and less costly than wetland restoration for
species with the highest wetland restoration needs, or might produce better and higher wetland restoration productivity
estimates (lower cost) for those same species. Nevertheless, using lower percentiles risks underestimating the costs of needed
restoration because most species benefit from wetland restoration, and wetland restoration could easily prove to be the best
alternative for those species with the greatest wetland restoration needs. Further, improved analysis and monitoring are as
1 The maximum species-density-based estimates are included only as a sensitivity analysis and reflect a minimal scale of restoration
that would be required if Lake Erie wetland restorations were much more highly successful then EPA anticipates. Derailed, repeated
monitoring of i&E species in areas where restoration has occurred will increase the accuracy of future analyses.
15-6
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
likely to lower productivity estimates as they are to raise them. Therefore, percentiles less than the 50th were rejected as
unreasonable.2
Table 15-5 presents the 90th and 50th percentile results from the distribution of required Great Lakes coastal wetland
restoration calculated using the average species density estimates as a proxy for increased species production for the baseline
scenario and combined average annual I&E losses of age 1 equivalent fish. Table 15-5 also presents the results using the
maximum species density estimates as a sensitivity analysis.
Table 15-5: Acres of Coastal Wetland Restoration Required under Different IAE Scenarios with
Alternative Increased Production Benefits Assumptions
I&E Scenario
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
(preferred alternative)
Acres of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test)
90th Percentile Result ; 50th Percentile Result
90th Percentile Result ; 50th Percentile Result
Baseline
9,358 707
2,771 300
15-5 Estimate "Unit Costs" for the Habitat Restoration Alternatives
(Step 7)
EPA calculated annualized per-acre costs for restoring coastal wetlands in a Great Lakes ecosystem from the information in
the Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP) produced for the Lower Fox River/Green Bay Natural
Resource Damage Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting. 2000), which incorporated a similar
program of Great Lakes wetland restoration as a restoration alternative. The RCDP's per-acre cost included expenses for the
restoration implementation (fieldwork), project administration, maintenance, and monitoring.
The RCDP's wetland restoration program focused on acquiring lands around Green Bay that are currently in agricultural use
and that are located on hydric soils (an indicator of a wetland area). These former wetlands were generally brought into
agricultural production through the draining or tiling of the land. Therefore, most of the expense (63%) in the RCDP's per-
acre cost estimates was for land acquisition and restoration actions necessary to re-establish functioning wetlands.
Maintenance costs (9%) consisted of expenses for periodic mowing and burning to maintain the dominance of wetland
vegetation. The remaining expenditures (28%) covered anticipated administrative expenses for the program. The per-acre
cost estimates for the various components of the wetland restoration program as presented in the Lower Fox River/Green Bay
RCDP are provided in Table 15-6 along with the equivalent annualized per-acre cost that is used to value the required scale of
wetland restoration in this streamlined HRC (the development of this annualized value is discussed in the following
paragraph).
In annualizing the RCDP's unit costs for this streamlined HRC, EPA made a distinction between expected initial one-time
program outlays (expenditures for land, transaction costs, restoration actions, contingency, and agency overhead) and
anticipated recurring annual expenses (project maintenance and monitoring). Those costs that were viewed as initial program
outlays were treated as a capital cost and annualized over a 20-year period at a 7% interest rate providing an annualized value
of $882 from their initial combined value of $9,360. EPA then estimated the present value (PV), using a 7% interest rate, of
the recurring annual expenses for 10 years as this is the length of time incorporated for monitoring in the complete HRC
valuations conducted for the Brayton Point and Pilgrim facility case studies. This PV for the recurring annual expenses was
then annualized over a 20 year period, again using a 7% interest rate resulting in an annualized expense of $658. This process
effectively treats the monitoring expenses associated with the wetland restoration consistently with the annual operating and
maintenance costs presented in the costing, economic impact, and cost-benefit analysis chapters. The annualized recurring
expenses were then added to the annualized initial program outlays resulting in a total annualized cost for the wetlands
restoration alternative of $1,540 per acre.
2 For instance, using the 25th percentile restoration requirement from Table 15-4 (14 acres for yellow perch) would be valid only if
further analysis produced superior (cheaper or more productive) restoration alternatives, or superior wetland productivity estimates that
were higher for most of the species, including logperch, smelt, gizzard shad, walleye, smallmouth bass, freshwater dram, carp, sunfish,
channel catfish, crappie, white bass, suckers, and shiner spp. Even the 50th percentile value that we use as a lower bound estimate assumes
that eight of these species could each be produced more effectively with different restoration alternatives, or that wetland productivity is
actually higher for all eight species.
15-7
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Port I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I&E Losses
Table 15-6:
Wetland Restoration Costs (2000 dollars)
Restoration Program Component
S/Acre
Cost Method
Land acquisition
3,000
; Survey of land prices
Land transaction costs
j 600
: 20% of land price, reflects agency (U.S. FWS) experience
Restoration action
2,600
Project experience (See Table Source)
Contingency on restoration action
260
i 10% of restoration actions, consistent with standard practice
Project maintenance
; 590
; Project experience (See Table Source)
Monitoring
; 340
;5% of total of land acquisition, land transaction, restoration action,
; and maintenance
Agency (landowner) overhead (project
administration)
2,900
; 38.84% of sum of all other cost, reflects agency (U.S. FWS)
| experience
Total Cost
10,300
Total Annualized Cost
| 1,540
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting, 2000.
However, these unit costs probably understate the cost of monitoring that would be sufficient to measure per-unit production
benefits in restored wetlands, which could then improve future HRC calculations. In the RCDP's wetland restoration
monitoring program, the emphasis was on evaluating whether the hydrology of the former wetlands and the associated
vegetation were returning over time, activities that could be achieved with relatively minimal effort. In contrast, a monitoring
program capable of addressing whether anticipated increases in the production of certain species were being achieved in the
restored wetland areas would require a far more significant commitment of time and resources, resulting in commensurately
larger expenditures.
15-6 Develop Total Cost Estimates for I&E Losses (Step 8)
EPA estimated the total annualized cost to offset the average annual I&E losses at the Monroe facility by multiplying the 50th
percentile and 90th percentile results of the required acreage of wetland restoration (see Table 15-5) by the annualized per-
acre wetlands restoration costs from the RCDP (see Table 15-6). These results are presented in Table 15-7.
Tabic 15-7: Total Annualized Costs for a Wetland Restoration Program to Offset I&E Losses
(millions of 2000 dollars)
I&E Scenario
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates
(preferred results)
Cost of Required Wetland Restoration with
Maximum Species-Specific Density Estimates
(sensitivity test)
90th Percentile Result
50th Percentile Result
$1.1
90th Percentile Result ! 50th Percentile Result
Baseline
$14.4
S4.3 ; S0.5
The results of the streamlined HRC provide an annualized present value estimate of roughly $ 14.4 million for a program of
Great Lakes coastal wetland restoration that would offset the average annual age 1 equivalent losses from the baseline period
in perpetuity using the 90th percentile results and average species density estimates. Incorporating the maximum observed
species density from any of the sampled wetlands in Green Bay reduces the value of the 90th percentile scenario results to
between one-third and one-fourth the average species density results.
Table 15-8 shows the results of the streamlined HRC analysis for impingement losses, entrainment losses, and total I&E losses
separately.
15-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 15: Streamlined HRC Valuation of I4E Losses
Table 15-8; Annualized Results for the Monetizotion of I4E Losses at the Monroe Facility Incorporating
Average Species-Specific Density Estimates (millions of 2000 dollars)
l&E Scenario
: Component of I&E
Annualized Value
Loss
90th Percentile
50th Percentile
Baseline
; Impingement
$5.5
S0.0*
Entrainment
$13.6
$1.4
: I&E total1"
$14.4
$1.1
" The exact value of 524,141 is rounded to $0.0 when rounded to millions of dollars for presentation.
s The total is not equal to the sum of the results from the l&E components because of different numbers of species in these
components as well as different rankings of the species based on the extent of required restoration in these components.
15-7 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Streamlined HRC analysis
The fundamental appeal of the HRC is its ability to incorporate and value environmental losses that are either undervalued or
ignored by traditional valuation approaches, such as recreational and commercial fishing valuation (see Chapter A11 in Part A
of this document for additional discussion). The primary advantage of the streamlined HRC is the limited effort and time
required to provide regulators with an initial assessment of whether a complete HRC is justified. For facilities like Monroe
with relatively large I&E impacts and l&E impacts to many species not targeted by anglers, a complete HRC is likely to be
worthwhile, even given budgetary and time constraints associated with permit re-issuance cycles. In addition, the streamlined
HRC provides regulators with a framework to evaluate mitigation proposals put forth by industry to address residual I&E
losses associated with the permitted BTA.
The primary weakness of the streamlined HRC is the uncertainty resulting from limited opportunities to access local resource
experts and unpublished primary data in the selection of a preferred restoration alternative, the development of per-unit
production benefits for each species, and the estimation of restoration unit costs.
For these reasons, streamlining an HRC may be most appropriate when:
~ a limited number of species experience I&E losses or the majority of I&E losses are realized by a small number of
species
~ the regulator is familiar with, or can quickly determine, the preferred restoration alternative for these critical species'
~ benefits information from evaluations of local habitats is available, and extrapolations do not lead to extreme
variability
~ published sources of information allow estimation of all important aspects of the restoration costs.
If these conditions are absent, a complete HRC analysis will provide a more comprehensive estimate of the losses associated
with I&E than provided by traditional valuations.
In conclusion, the streamlined HRC method provides regulators, industry, and the public with an important method to quickly
estimate the likely value of I&E losses at § 316(b)-regulated facilities. Further, because regulators and local experts can often
quickly assess whether appropriate and necessary information exists for the valuation of l&E resources, streamlining may
offer many opportunities to broaden the evaluation of I&E to include ecological and related public services, even when facing
significant time and budgetary constraints.
15-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis for the
Monroe Facility
This chapter presents the results of EPA's evaluation
of the economic benefits associated with reductions in
estimated current I&E at the Monroe facility. The
economic benefits reported here are based on the
values presented in Chapters 14 and 15, and EPA's
estimates of I&E at the facility (see Chapter 13).
Section 16-1 presents a summary of I&E losses and
associated monetized losses. Section 16-2 presents
estimated economic benefits of reduced I&E, and
Section 16-3 discusses the uncertainties in the analysis.
16-1 Overview of I&E and Associated Economic Values
The flowchart in Figure I6-I summarizes how the economic values of l&E losses at Monroe were derived from the I&E
estimates in Chapter 13. Figures 16-2 and 16-3 indicate the distribution of I&E losses by species category and associated
economic values. These diagrams reflect baseline losses based on current technology. All dollar values and percentages of
losses reflect midpoints of the ranges for the categories of commercial, recreational, nonuse, and forage values.
Baseline economic losses due to L&E at Monroe were calculated in Chapters 14 and 15. In Chapter 14, total economic loss
was estimated using a benefits transfer approach to estimate the commercial, recreational, forage, and nonuse values 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 15, total
economic loss was estimated by calculating the cost to increase fish populations using habitat restoration techniques (HRC
approach). This is a supply-driven approach, i.e., it focuses on the costs associated with producing fish in natural, habitats.
The total annual economic losses associated with each method are summarized in Table 16-1. These values range from
$727,000 to $5,529,000 for impingement, and from $1,281,000 to $13,629,000 for entrainment. The range of economic loss
is developed by taking the midpoint of the benefits transfer results and the 90 th percentile species results from the HRC
approach.
16-2 Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulations
Table 16-2 summarizes the total annual benefits from I&E reductions under scenarios ranging from 10 percent to 90 percent
reductions in I&E. Table 16-3 indicates that the benefits are expected to range from $582,000 to $4.4 million for a 80 percent
reduction in impingement and from $640,000 to $6.8 million for a 50 percent reduction in entrainment.
Chapter Contents
16-1
Overview of l&E and Associated Losses
. 16-1
16-2
Potential Economic Benefits due to Regulations ,
, 16-1
16-3
Summary of Omissions, Biases, and
Uncertainties in the Benefits Analysis
16-5
16-1
-------
§ 326(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Figure 16-1: Overview and Summary of Average Annual I&E and Associated Economic Values for the Monroe
Facility (all results are annualized)" '
Production
foregone
Replace-
ment
& Habitat replacement cost
I: $5,529,000 per year
E:$l 3.629.000 per year
7. Value of nutiusc losses
1: $49,000 (6.7% of SI loss)
E: $68,000 (5.3% of $E loss)
5. Value of recreational losses
J: 29.700 fish (25.900 lb)
$97,000 (13.3% of $1 loss)
E:43.700 fish (16.700 lb)
$136,000 (10.6% of $li loss)
4. Value of commercial losses
I: 4.4 million fish (1.4 million lb)
$575,000 {79.0% of 51 loss)
E: 1.2 million fish (574.900 Ib)
$283,000 (22.1% of SE loss)
6. Value of forage losses (valued
using either replacement cost
method or as production foregone
to fisher)' vield)
1: 370,3*00 fish
$7,000 (1.0% of $1 toss)
E: 392.300 fish
$794,000 (62.0% ol'SK loss)
1. Number of organisms lost (eggs, larvae, juveniles, etc.)
I: 20-9 million organisms
E: 4.7 billion organisms
2. Age I equivalents lost (number of fish)
I: 35.8 million fish (370.300 forage. 35.4 million commercial and recreational)
E: 11.6 million fish (392,300 Ibrajje, 11.2 million commercial and recreational)
3. Loss to fishery- (recreational and commercial harvest)
k 4.4 million fish (1.4 million lb)
E: 1.2 million fish (608.300 Ib)
' Ail dollar values are the midpoint of the range of estimates.
* !&E loss estimates are from Tables 14-2,14-3,14-9. and 14-10 in Chapter 14.
Note: Species with l&E < I % of the toal I&E were not valued.
16-2
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
Figure 16-2: Monroe; Distribution of Impingement Losses by Species Category and Associated Economic Vaiues
1.0% Forage Fish -
UNDERVALUED (valued
using replacement cost
method or as production
foregone to fishery yield)
[1.0% of$I] b
86.6% Commercial
and Recreational Fish"
UNVALUED
(i.e., unharvested)
[0%of$I]b
12,4% Commercial and
Recreational Fish8
VAUJED as direct loss to
commercial and
recreational fishery
(commercial losses are
12,3% oftotal)
[92.3% of SI]
Total: 35.8 million fish per year (age I equivalents)8
Total impingement value: $727,500b
* Impacts shown arc to age 1 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 6.7% of total estimated $1 loss.
16-3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
Figure 16-3'- Monroe: Distribution of Entrapment Losses by Species tateqory and Associated Economic Values
3.4% Forage Fish'
UNDERVALLIED (valued using
replacement cost method or as
production foregone to fishery
yield)
[62.0% of$E] b
86.0% Corwncreial and
Recreational Fish3
UNVALUED
(i.e., unharvested)
[0%of$E]b
10.6% Commercial and
Recreational Fisha
VALIM) as direct loss to
commercial and
recreational fishery
(commercial losses are
10.2% of total)
[32.7% ofSE] b
Total: 11.6 million Ssh per year (age 1 equivalents)
Total entrainment value: $1.3 million1*
' Impacts shown are to age I equivalent fish, except impacts to the commercially and recreationally harvested fish include impacts for all ages
vulnerable to the fishery.
'' Midpoint of estimated range. Nonuse values are 5.3% of total estimated $E loss.
16-4
-------
Chapter 16: Benefits Analysis
Table 16-1: Total Baseline Economic Loss from I
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies, Part I: Monroe Chapter 16; Benefits Analysis
Table 16-4: Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Benefits Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate
Comments
Long-term fish stock effects 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 because of other watershed activities,
; the number of fish impacted by I&E may increase.
Recreation participation is held
constant"
Understates benefits'
Recreational benefits estimated via benefits transfer reflect only
.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 recreation considered is fishing.
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.
Nonuse benefits
Uncertain
EPA assumed that nonuse benefits are 50 percent of recreational
angling benefits.
Use of unit values from outside
the Great Lakes
Uncertain
The recreational and commercial values used are not all studies from
the Great Lakes specifically.
HRC based on capture data
assumed to represent age 1 fish
Understates benefits1
High percent of less than age 1 fish observed in capture data, thereby
leading to potential underestimate of scale of restoration required
HRC monitoring program costs
for wetland restoration not
consistent with evaluating fish
production/abundance
Understates benefits*
A monitoring program to determine wetland production (abundance of
fish) would be more labor intensive than current monitoring program.
* Benefits would be greater than estimated if this factor were considered.
16-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Chapter 17; Conclusions
Chapter 17: Conclusions
As summarized in Chapter 13, EPA estimates that impingement at the Monroe facility is 35.8 million age 1 equivalents or 1.4
million pounds of lost fishery yield per year. Entrainment impact amounts to 11.6 million age 1 equivalents or 608,300
pounds of lost fishery yield each year.
The results of EPA's evaluation of the dollar value of I&E at Monroe (as calculated using benefits transfer, in Chapter 14)
indicate that baseline economic losses range from $492,400 to $962,500 per year for impingement and from $308,400 to
$2,253,400 per year for entrainment (all in $2000).
EPA also developed an HRC analysis to examine the costs of restoring I&E losses at Monroe. The HRC results for
impingement ($5.5 million) and entrainment ($13.6 million) were used for upper bounds, and the midpoints from the benefits
transfer method were used for lower bounds. Combining these approaches, the value of I&E losses at Monroe range from
approximately $0.7 million to $5,5 million per year for impingement and from $1.3 million to $13.6 million per year for
entrainment (all in $2000).
EPA also estimated the economic benefit of the proposed rule for the Monroe facility (Chapter 16). The resulting estimates of
the economic value of benefits for the proposed rule range from $582,000 to $4.4 million per year for 80 percent
impingement reductions, and from $769,000 to $8.2 million per year for 60 percent entrainment reductions (all in $2000).
For a variety of reasons, EPA believes that the estimates developed here underestimate the total economic benefits of
reducing I&E at the Monroe facility. EPA assumed that the effects of I&E on fish populations are constant over time
(i.e., that fish kills do not have cumulatively greater impacts on diminished fish populations). EPA also did not analyze
whether the number of fish affected by I&E would increase as populations increase in response to improved water quality or
other improvements in environmental conditions. In the economic analyses, EPA also assumed that fishing is the only
recreational activity affected.
17-1
-------
Appendix II
Appendix II: Monroe Life History
D \/_l
r ararnefer Values
The tables in this appendix present the life history parameter values used by EPA to calculate age 1 equivalents, fishery
yields, and production foregone from I&E data for the Monroe facility.
Table 11-1: Aiewife Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)'
Fishing Mortality :
(per stage)"
Fraction Vulnerable to •
Fishery'
Weight (lb)
Eggs
11.5
0
0
0.0000221
Larvae
5.5
0
0
0.011'
Age 1+
: 0-5
0
o
0.016"
Age 2+
: 0.5
o
0
0.0505"
Age 3+
0.5
0
0
0.0764*
Age 4+
: 0.5
0
0
0.0941*
Age 5+
0.5
o
0
0.108*
Age 6+
0.5
0
0
0.13"
Age 7+
0,5
0
0
0.149*
' Spigarelli etal,, 1981.
b Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
' Assumed based on Spigarelli et at. (1981).
Table 11-2: Bluegill Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality Fishing Mortality Fraction Vulnerable to
(per stage) (per stage)" Fishery*
Weight (lb)f
Egg5 i
1.73" i
0
o ;
0.00000001088
Larvae
0.576"
o
o
0.00000156s
Age 0+
4.62'
0
o
0.00795h
Age 1+
0.39b
0
o ;
0.00992"
Age 2+
0.151'
0
0 ;
0.032h
Age 3+
0.735"
0.735
0.5
0.0594"
Age 4+
0.735"
0.735
1 i
0.104"
Age 5+
0.735"
0.735
I :
0.189*"
Age 6+
0.735"
0.735
1 |
0.193"
Age 7+
0.735"
0.735
1
0.209*1
Age 8+
0.735"
0.735
1
0.352"
Age9+
0.735"
0.735
1
0.3931'
3 Bartell and Campbell, 2000,
I Froese and Pauly, 2001.
c Calculated from survival (Carlander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality).
II Carlander, 1977. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
c Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (4.33x 10"')*Length(mrn):l 3
-------
i 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11
-3: Bullhead Species Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable to;
Fishery1'
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2.3s
0
0
0.000000559r
Larvae
4.61"
0
0
0.000188
Age0+
| 1.39"
0
0
0.00132"
Age 1+
0.223'
0.223
0.5
0,0362"
Age 2+
; 0.223'
0.223
1
0.0797"
Age 3+
; 0.223'
0.223
1 0.137"
Age 4+
| 0.223'
0.223
1
0.233h
Age 5+
0.223'
0.223
1 0.402"
Age 6+
i 0.223'
0.223
1
0.679"
Age 7+
: 0.223'
0.223
1 i
0.753*
Age 8+
0.223'
0.223
1
0.815"
Age9+
; 0.223°
0.223
1 0.823'
* Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
b Calculated from survival for channel catfish (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
c Calculated from survival for brown bullhead (Carlander, 1969) using the using the equation; (natural mortality) = -
LN(survival) - (fishing mortality). Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
J Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
* Weight calculated from length using the formula for black bullhead; (S.797xlO'i'l*Lengtli(iiun)i"" = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
' Length for black bullhead from Wang (1986a).
1 Length assumed based on Wang (1986a) and Carlander (1969).
" Length for black bullhead from Carlander (1969).
1 Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
Tabic 11-4; Burbot Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable to:
Fishery*
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
; 2.3'
0
o
0.0000000120f
Larvae
8.05b
0
0.00000144f
Age 1+
¦ 0.462c
0.1
0,5 |
0.129»
Age 2+
0.462'
0,1
1 :
0.513'
Age 3+
0.462'
0.1
1
0,842®
Age 4+
; 0.462'
0,1
1 :
1.23s
Age 5+
0.462'
0,1
' 1 ;
1,99s
Age 6+
0,462'
0.1
l :
2.68"
Age 7+
: 0.462'
0.1
1 ;
2.97s
Age 8+
0,462'
0,1
1 :
3,35*
Age9+
0.462'
0,1
1 '
3.57^
Age 10+
i 0.462'
0,1
1
4.098
' Calculated from assumed survival using the using the eaiation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
" Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
' Calculated from survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality), Fishing
mortality rate assumed based on minimal mortality (Schram et al., 1998),
13 Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula; (2.084xI0*6)*Lcngth(mm)3JM = wcighti.g) (Schramet al., 1998).
f Length from Snyder (1998).
8 Length from Scott and Grossman (1998).
App. J1-2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix
Table 11-5: Corp Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
; Fraction Vulnerable to;
Fishery*
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2.3'
0
0
0,000000143'
Larvae
4.6 lb
0
0
0.0000118f
Age 0+
1.39k
0
: 0
0.0225s
Age 1+
0,13®
0.13
0.5
0.79*
Age 2+
0.13'
0.13
: 1 ;
1.218
Age 3+
0.13C
0.13
1
1.818
Age 4+
0.13=
0.13
» ;
5.13s
Age 5+
0.13c
0.13
I
5.52"
Age 6+
0.13c
0.13
1
S.S2h
Age 7+
0.13'
0.13
1
6.76s
Age 8+
i 0,13c
0.13
1 1
8.17s
Age9+
0.13'
0.13
! I ;
8.55'
Age 10+
; 0.13-
0.13
; 1
8-94*
Age 11+
: 0.13'
0.13
1
9.76"
Age 12+
0.13'
0.13
; 1 :
i0.2h
Age 13+
i 0.13'
0.13
; i
10.6"
Age 14+
0.13'
0.13
i
ll.l"
Age 15+
0.13'
0.13
i
11.5"
Age 16+
: 0.13=
0.13
i
12h
Age 17+
0.13'
0.13
: 1
12.5k
* Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality),
b Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
d Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
5 Weight calculated from length using the formula: (1,095x 10 5)*Lcngth(mm)10!' = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
r Length from Wang (1986a).
' Length from Carlander (1969).
h Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
-------
§ 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11-6: Channel Catfish Parameters
Stage Nairn
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
; Fraction Vulnerable to ;
Fishery"
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2.3'
0
0
0.000000408'
Larvae
4,61"
0
0
0.0000191'
Age 0+
1.39"
0
o
0.00987s
Age 1 +
0.41"
0.41
0.5
0.0554®
Age 2+
0,4 lc
0.41
0.189*
Age 3+
0.41'
0.41
0,436®
Age 4+
0.41c
0.41
0.718
Age Si-
0.4 lc
0.41
1.22s
Age 6+
0.41c
0.41
1.55s
Age 7+
0,4 lc
0.41
2.27s
Age8+
0.4 r
0.41
•
2.66"
Age 9+
; 0.4 lc
0.41
1 :
3.41"
Age 10+
: 0.4 lc
0.41
1
5.592
Age 11+
i 0.4tc
0.41
5.81"
Age 12+
0.41"
0,41
5.92'
* Calculated from assumed survival using the using the eqiation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality),
" Calculated from survival (Qeo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality).
c Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc.. 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality). Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
d Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
e Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.945xI0",l)*Length(mm)3133 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
f Length from Wang (1986a).
8 Length from Carlander (1969).
" Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
Table 11-7: Croppie Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality
(per stage)"
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
! Fraction Vulnerable to;
Fishery*
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
1.8"
0
: 0
0.0000000179°
Larvae
0.498*
0
o
O.OOOO0857C
Age 0+
2.93"
0
; o
O
o
Age 1+
0.292b
0.292
0.5
0.128f
Age 2+
: 0.292"
0.292
1
0.193f
Age 3+
0,292b
0.292
1 •
0.427'
Age 4+
0.292"
0.292
1
0.651'
Age 5+
0,292"
0.292
1
0.888'
Age 6+
0.292"
0.292
1 :
0.925f
Age 7+
0.292"
0,292
1
0,972f
Age 8+
0.292"
0.292
1
1.08'
Age9+ 0.292" 0.292 1 1.26f
* Bartell and Campbell, 2000. Black crappie.
b Bartell and Campbell, 2000. Black crappie. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing,
c Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
d Weight calculated from length using the formula for black crappie: (1.014x 10"5)*Length(mm)"*6 = weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
* Length for black crappie from Wang (1986a).
1 Length for black crappie from Carlander (1977).
App. 11-4
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11-8:
Freshwater Drum Parameters
Stage Name
. Natural Mortality ;
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
; Fraction Vulnerable to ;
Fishery'
Weight (lb)
Eggs
2.2?
0
0
0.000001 ld
Larvae
i 6.13a
0
0 :
0.00000295'
Age 0 •
US'
1.15
; 0.5
0.0166"
Age 1+
: 0.155"
0.155
1 ;
0.05'
Age 2+
0.155"
0.155
1
0.206'
Age 3+
; 0.155"
0.155
: 1 :
0.438'
Age 4+
0.155"
0.155
: i i
0.638e
Age 5+
0.155"
0.155
1 :
0.794'
Age 6+
: 0.155"
0.155
1 ^
0.95c
Age 7+
: 0.155"
0.155
: 1 :
1.09c
Age 8+
0.155"
0.155
: 1 !
1.26'
Age9+
: 0,155"
0.155
1
1.44* '
Age 10+
: 0.155b
0.155
1
1.6*
Age 11+
i 0.155"
0.155
1
1.78e
Age 12+
0.155"
0.155
1
Y
' F5artel 1 and Campbell, 2000.
b Froese and Pauly, 2001. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
' Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed,
d Assumed based on Bartell and Campbell (2000).
' Scott and Crossman, 1973.
Table 11
-9- &i2zard Shad Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
{per stage)"
! Fraction Vulnerable to:
Fishery"1
Weight (lb)
Eggs
2.3"
0
0
0.0000022'
Larvae
: 6,33"
0
o
0.00000663"
Age 0+
0.511"
0
0
0.0107"
Age 1+
1.45*
1.45
0.5
0.141"
Age 2+
l.27«
1.27
I
0.4?7b
Age 3+
0.966c
0.966
1 !
0.64"
Age 4+
0.873''
0.873
; I
0.885"
Age 5+
0.303c
0.303
I
1.17"
Age 6+
0.303c
0.303
1
1.54"
3 Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN( survival) - (fishing
mortality).
'» Wapora, 1979.
e Wapora, 1979. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
J Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
' Assumed based on Wapora (1979),
App. 11-5
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11-10: Logperch Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"1
Fraction Vulnerable toi
Fishery"
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
2.3*
0
o ;
3.09E-09'
Larvae
1.9"
0
0
0.000276s
Age 0+
1.9"
0
0 i
0.0034Sf
Age 1 +
; o ,r
0
; o ;
0.0128'
Age 2+
j O.T
0
o
0.0274'
Age 3+
o.r
0
o
0.0443'
" Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality).
' Froese and Pauly, 2001.
d Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.240x10'7)*Length(mm)6 641 = weight(g) (Carlander.
1997).
' Length from Carlander (1997).
s Length assumed based on Carlander (1997).
App. 11-6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix XI
Table 11
-11: Muskellunge Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
i Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"1
: Fraction Vulnerable to ;
Fishery1
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
1.08*
0
0
0.0000002058
Larvae
5,49b
0
0
0.0133"
Age 0+
5.49b
0
; 0 :
0.0451*
Age 1-
0.151"
0
0
0.3658
Age 2+
0.15C
o
o
1.1»
Age 3+
0.15C
0
0
1.53®
Age 4+
0,15C
: 0
; 0
2.72s
Age 5+
0.15"
0
i o
6.19®
Age 6+
0.15C
0
0
7.02s
Age 7+
0.15C
0
0
8.92"
Age 8+
0.15C
0
0
12.3s
Age9+
0.15c
0
0
13,9*
Age 10+
0.075"
0.075
0.5
16.6B
Age 11+
0.07511
0.075
! 1
19*
Age 12+
0.075"
0.075
; l
24.2'
Age 13+
0.075"
0.075
: 1
25.3*
Age 14+
0.075"
0.075
i
30«
Age 15+
0.075"
0.075
; i
32.4*
Age 16+
0.075a
0.075
i
34.3*
Age 17+
0,075"
0,075
i
45.6*
Age 18+
' o
©
•n)
0,075
i
45.8"
Age 19+
0.075"
0.075
: 1
47.7s
Age 20+
0.075"
0.075
1 1 i
48.8"
Age 21+
0.0754
0,075
: 1
48.9h
Age 22+
0.075"
0.075
1
49"
Age 23+
0.075"
0.075
I :
49.1"
Age 24+
0
©
""J
01
0.075
1
49.2'
Age 25+
0.075"
0,075
1
49.3"
Age 26+
0.07511
0.075
1
49.4"
Age 27+
0.075i
0.075
1
49,4h
" Calculated from survival (Carlander, 1997) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN (survival) -
(fishing mortality).
b Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the .eqjation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality).
* Froese and Pauly, 2001.
" Froese and Pauly, 2001. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
e Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed based on Pennsylvania (1999).
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (5.590xl0"6)*Length(mtn)3 016 = weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
8 Length from Carlander (1969).
* Length assumed based on Carlander (1969),
App. 11-7
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies, Part I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11-12: Shiner Species Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
¦ (per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stagey
Fraction Vulnerable to i
Fishery'
Weight (lb)11
Eggs
2.3*
0
0
0.000000252°
Larvae
4,6 Ih
0
0
0.0016'
Age 0+
0.776b
0
o
0.0135'
Age 1 +
0.371"
0
0
0.026f
Age 2+
4.61b
0
o
0.0478f
Age 3+
4.61b
0
o
0.106f
1 Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
b (Wapora, 1979), Emerald shiner.
c Not a commercial or recreational species, thus no fishing mortality.
J Weight calculated from length using the formula for emerald shiner: (l,l44xlO"')*Length(miT!)2 =
weight(g)(Fuchs, 1967).
5 Length assumed based on (Trautman, 1981).
r Length from (Trautman, 1981).
Table 11-13: Smallmouth Bass Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable to;
Fishery4
Weight (lb)e
Eggs
1.9*
0
o
0.000000331'
Larvae
2.T
0
0
0.0000198'
Age 0+
0.446"
0
0 :
0.0169"
Age 1+
0.86'
0.23
; 0.5 ;
0.202s
Age 2+
1.17c
0.322
: 1 ;
0.518s
Age 3+
: 0.755*
0.208
1
0.733s
Age 4+
: 1.05'
0.288
I i
1.048
Age 5+
0.867'
0.238
l i
1.44s
Age 6+
0.8671
0.238
1 :
2.24s
Age 7+
; 0.867c
0.238
1 i
2.56"
Age 8+
0.867'
0.238
I
2.92"
Age9—
0.867c
0.238
1 i
3,3*
' Calculated from survival (Carlander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality).
° Bartell and Campbell, 2000.
Ł Carlander, 1977.
11 Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2.494x 10"3)*Length(mm)2 '"7 = weighi(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
' Length from Wang (1986a).
8 Length from Carlander (1977).
* Length assumed based on Carlander (1977).
App. 11-8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11-14: Smelt Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)*
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
0
Fraction Vulnerable to
Fishery1"
Weight (lb)c
0
0.0000000115"
Larvae
Age 1 +
5.5
0.4
0
0,03
0
0.5
0.00000233d
0,0195c
Age 2+
Age 3+
Age 4+
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.041f
0.177f
0,338s
Age 5+
Age 6+
0.4
0.4
0.03
0.03
0.5378
0.597s
" Spigarelli et a!., 1981.
b Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
1 Weight calculated from length using the formula for rainbow smelt: (5.23x10'i)*Length(mm)3''H =¦ weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 200 S).
* Length for rainbow smelt from Able and Fahay (1998).
' Length assumed based on Able and Fahay (1998) and Scott and Scott (1988).
' Length for rainbow smelt from Scott and Scott (1988).
8 Length assumed based on Scott and Scott (1988).
Table 11-15: Sucker Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)"
! Fraction Vulnerable to:
; Fishery*
Weight (lb)d
Eggs
2.05"
0
: 0 :
0.0000000135=
Larvae
j 2.56*
0
: 0 :
0.0000019SC
Age 0+
2.3*
0
: 0
0.000145'
Age 1 +
0,274b
0.274
0.5 :
0.0447'
Age 2+
; 0.274"
0.274
1
0,249r
Age 3+
0.274"
0.274
1 1 1
0.305f
Age 4+
0.274"
0.274
1
0,609r
Age 5+
0.274"
0.274
1
0.823f
Age 6+
0.274"
0.274
1
0.929f
" Bartell and Campbell, 2000,
b Bartell and Campbell, 2000. Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
c Commercial species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
J Weight calculated from length using the formula for river carpsuckcr: (6.130x lO^'I-engrhCmm)-"** -
weight(g) (Froese and Pauly, 2001).
c Length assumed based on Carlander (1969).
' Length from Carlander (1969),
App. 11-9
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11-16: Sunfish Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)1
: Fraction Vulnerable to j
Fishery" i
Weight (lb)'
Eggs
1.71"
0
o ;
Q.Q0000000736f
Larvae
0.687b
0
0
0,000000994'
Age 0+
0.687"
0
0
0.000878s
Age 1 +
: 1.61"
0
0 :
0.00666'
Age 2+
1.61"
0
o
0,0271s
Age 3+
; i.5c
1.5
: 0.5 :
0,0593®
Age 4-
1 1.5' •
1.5
^ i :
0.0754s
Age 5+
: 1.5'
1.5
1 ;
0.1428
Age 6+
1-5'
1.5
1 i
0.188
Age 7+
; 1.5'
1.5
; 1 :
0.214E
Age 8+
1.5'
1.5.
: 1
0.232s
* Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed (Cariander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) -
-LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
6 Calculated from extrapolated survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) -
(fishing mortality).
® Calculated from survival for pumpkinseed (Cariander, 1977) using the using the equation: (natural moiOtality)
= -LN(survival) - (fishing mortality). Assumed half of total mortality was natural and half was fishing.
d Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula for pumpkinseed: (3.3 J 7x I(f !*Lertgih(mm"'? = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001).
1 Length for pumpkinseed from Bartell and Campbell (2000).
* Length for pumpkinseed from Cariander (l 977).
Table 11-17: Walleye Parameters
Stage Name
Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality ; Fraction Vulnerable to
(per stage)' Fishery*
Weight (lb)*
Eggs
.05°
0
0
0,00000000506f
Larvae
Age 0+
Age 1 +
Age 2+
Age-3+
Age 4+
Age 5+
Age 6+
3.55;'
1.93"
0.7'
0.7*
0.7'
0.7'
o.r
0.7'
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0
0
0.5
1
1
1
1
0.0000768s
0.03s
0.328s
0.907s
1.77s
2.35s
3,37*
3.97s
Age 7+
Age 8+
0.7''
0.7'
0.1
0.1
4.66s
5,58f
Age 9+
0.7'
0.
1
5.75®
* Calculated from survival (Cariander, 1997) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) ¦
(fishing mortality).
11 Banell and Campbell, 2000.
c Thomas and Haas, 2000,
d Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
' Weight calculated from length using the formula: (2,297x 10*)*Length(mm)J= weight(g) (Froese and
Pauly, 2001).
f Length assumed based on Cariander (1997).
8 Length from Cariander (1997).
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies, Port I: Monroe
Appendix II
Table 11
-18; White Bass Parameters
Stage Name
i Natural Mortality i
; (per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)11
i Fraction Vulnerable to 1
Fishery*
Weight (lb)
Eggs
2.3*
0
o ;
0.0000000266'
Larvae
4.61*
0
o
0.00000174'
Age 0+
: 1.39" i
0
o
0,174"
Age 1+
0.42s
0.7
o :
0.467*
Age 2+
; 0.42'
0.7
0.5 ;
0.644"
Age 3+
0.42c
0.7
1 :
1.02s
Age 4+
: 0.42'
0.7
1 :
1.16s
Age 5+
1 0.42' ;
0.7
1 :
1.26s
Age 6+
i 0.42c
0.7
1 :
1.66s
Age 7+
i 0.42"
0.7
1 ;
1.68h
* Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality).
b Calculated from survival (Geo-Marine Inc., 1978) using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -
LN(survival) - (fishing mortality).
* Froese and Pauly, 2001.
J McDermot and Rose, 2000.
1 Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed,
' Weight calculated from assumed length based on (Carlander, 1997) using the formula: (1.206xl0'5)*
Lengthfmm)3"2 = weight(g) (Van Oosten, 1942).
1 Carlander, 1997.
k Assumed based on Carlander (1997).
App, Il-l I
-------
Appendix II
Table
11-19: Whitcfish Parameters
Stage Name
: Natural Mortality
(per stage)
: Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
: Fraction Vulnerable to;
Fishery1
Weight 0b)'
Eggs
2.3"
0
0
0.000000252'
Larvae
: 8.2"
0
0 :
0.0001718
Juvenile
0.25c
; o
o ;
0.0117"
Age 1+
0,25c
0.997
0.5 '
0.705r
Age 2+
0.25'
0.997
i
1.27'
Age 3+
0.25'
0.997
; 1
2.32f
Age 4+
0.25c
0.997
• >
2.85f
Age 5-
; 0.25c
0.997
1 i
3.52f
Age 6+
: 0.25'
0.997
: I !
4.09f
Age 7+
0.25'
0.997
1
4.76'
Age 8+
: 0.25'
: 0.997
1
S.T
Age 9+
0,25*
0.997
1
5.73"
Age 10+
; 0.25'
i 0.997
I
5.85'
Age 11+
: 0,25'
; 0.997
1
6.1f
Age 12+
i 0.25'
0.997
1
6.83r
Age 13+
0.25c
0.997
l •
7.1 lf
Age 14+
0.25'
; 0.997
1 i
7.29'
Age 15+
0.25'
0.997
1 :
7.32"
Age 16+
; 0.25*
0.997
I
8.66r
' Calculated from assumed survival using the using the equation: (natural mortality) = -LN(survival) - (fishing
mortality),
" Froese and Pauly, 2001.
' Schorfhaar and Schneebergcr. 1997.
d Commercial and recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
c Weight calculated from length using the formula for lake whitcfish: (4.721xlO"g)*Length(mm)'! 152 = weight(g)
(Froese and Pauly, 2001).
' Length from Scott and Grossman (1998).
2 Length from Fish (1932),
b Length assumed based on Scott and Grossman (1998).
Table II-20; Yellow Perch Parameters
Stage Name
; Natural Mortality
(per stage)
Fishing Mortality
(per stage)'
Fraction Vulnerable to;
Fishery11
Weight (lb)
Eggs
; 2.75"
0
0
0,0000022'
Larvae
3.56"
0
0
0.00000384"
Age 0+
2.53"
0
0
0.0232"
Age 1+
0.361"
0
o ;
0.Q245b
Age 2+
0.248"
0
0
0.0435b
Age 3+
0.844"
0.36
0.5 :
0.0987"
Age 4+
; 0.844"
0.36
1
0.132"
Age 5+
0.844" i
0.36
1
0.166"
Age 6+
0.844"
0.36
I
0.214b
a PSEG, 1999c.
b Wapora, 1979.
c Thomas and Haas, 2000.
4 Recreational species. Fraction vulnerable assumed.
c Assumed based on Wapora (1979).
A pp. 11-12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Glossary
7Q10: The lowest average seven-eonseeutive-day low flow with an average recurrence frequency of once in 10 years
determined hydrologically.
Adipose fin: A small, fleshy fin behind the main dorsal fin in bony fish; most common in trout and salmon.
Adverse environmental impact (AEI): Within the context of this case study and the §316(b) regulation, adverse
environmental impacts are said to occur whenever there is entrainment or impingement of aquatic organisms due to the
operation of a specific cooling water intake structure.
Aerobic: Requiring the presence of free oxygen to support life.
Agnathan: Any member of the vertebrate class Agnatha, the jawless fishes.
Air/swim bladder: A large, thin-walled sac in many fish species that may function in several ways, e.g., as a buoyant float, a
sound producer and receptor, and a breathing organ.
Anal fin: The median, unpaired fin on the ventral margin between the anus and the caudal fin in fishes.
Alevin(s): A young fish; especially a newly hatched salmon when still attached to the yolk sac; In North America alevins are
sometimes called 'sac-fry.'
Algal blooms: The exponential growth of algal populations in response to excessive nutrient input. Algal blooms can
adversely affect water quality.
Amphipods: A group of mostly small (5 to 20 mm), predominantly marine crustacean species characterized by a laterally-
compressed, many-segmented body; most live on or in bottom substrates.
Anadromous: Pertaining to fish that spend a part of their life cycle in the sea and return to freshwater streams to spawn, for
example, salmon, steelhead, and shad. Contrast with catadromous.
Anoxic: Absence of oxygen. Usually used in reference to an aquatic habitat.
Anthropogenic; Coming from or associated with human activities.
Anus: The opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal, through which the solid refuse of digestion is excreted to the
outside.
Aortic arch: One member of a series of paired, curved blood vessels that arise from the ventral aorta, pass through the gills,
and join with the dorsal aorta.
Arteries: Blood vessels that carry blood away from the heart to all parts of the body.
Arterioles: The smallest branches of an artery, which eventually merge with capillaries.
Arthropods: An extremely large group of related terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species; well-known aquatic
representatives, all of them crustaceans, include shrimps, copepods. crabs, mysids, and amphipods.
Atrium: A muscular heart chamber that receives blood from the veins and in turn pumps it into the ventricle.
Axial musculature: The large muscle mass that runs from head to tail on both sides of the body in fish. It is the power plant
responsible for swimming, and typically represents up to half the mass of a fish.
Bayou: A sluggish marshy inlet or outlet associated with a lake, river, or other surface water body.
Glossary 1
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Benefits transfer: An approach to valuing an environmental improvement 111 which the results of existing research on the
benefits of an environmental improvement are applied to estimate the benefits in a different, but similar, situation.
Benthic: Adjective that refers to something of or pertaining to benthos. See also: Benthos.
Bentbic Invertebrates: Those animals without backbones (e.g. insects, crayfish, etc.) that live on or in the sediments of an
aquatic habitat.
Bentbic zone: The lowermost region of a freshwater or marine profile in which the benthos resides. In bodies of deep water
where little light penetrates to the bottom the zone is referred to as the benthic abyssal region and productivity is relatively
low. In shallower (i.e. coastal) regions where the benthic zone is well lit, the zone is referred to as the benthic littoral region
and it supports some of the world's most productive ecosystems.
Benthos: Plants or animals that live in or on the bottom of an aquatic environment such as an estuary.
Bequest (value): The value that people place on conserving a natural resource for use by future generations.
Best technology available (BTA): The best technology treatment techniques for field application, taking cost into
consideration.
Bile: A bitter, alkaline, yellow or greenish liquid secreted by the liver, that aids in absorption and digestion, especially of fats.
Biockle: A chemical which can kill or inhibit the growth of living organisms such as bacteria, fungi, molds, and slimes.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD): The amount of dissolved oxygen consumed by microorganisms as they decompose
organic material in polluted water.
Biological surplus: In fisheries, the annual excess of organisms that can be harvested without reducing future productivity.
Biomass; (1) the amount of living matter in an area, including plants, large animals and insects; (2) plant materials and animal
waste used as fuel.
Blood: The fluid pumped throughout the body by the heart; it consists of plasma in which red blood cells, white blood cells,
thrombocytes, and other specialized cell types are suspended.
Blood plasma: The plasma or liquid portion of blood.
Brackish: Having a salinity between that of fresh and sea water.
Branchial cavity: The area in the mouth containing the gills in fish.
Buccal cavity: The inner cavity associated with the mouth.
Buoyancy: The ability to float or rise in a fluid.
Buoyant: Having buoyancy; capable of floating.
Cannibalism: Animals eating other members of their own species.
Capillaries: Tiny blood vessels, usually < 1 mm long, with a diameter no wider than a single red blood cell; they form dense
networks that connect arterioles and venules, and are the site for physiological exchange with individual cells.
Carapace; Shell, as in a turtle shell or crab shell.
Cartilage: A firm, elastic, flexible type of connective tissue of a translucent whitish or yellowish color.
Cartilaginous: Pertaining to cartilage.
Glossary 2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Cartilaginous ray; A supporting rod in fish fins made from cartilage.
Catadromous: Descriptive of fish species which mature in freshwater environments but migrate to the ocean to spawn.
Caudal fin: The tail of a fish, used mainly to generate forward propulsion.
Caudal peduncle; A narrow, stalk-like structure connecting the tail to the posterior end of the fish's body.
Central nervous system (CNS): The part of the nervous system comprising the brain and spinal cord.
Chloride cell; A specialized cell located in the gills and used by both salt- and freshwater fish to regulate internal salt
balances.
Chondrichthyes: The class of vertebrates composed of cartilaginous fish species, including sharks, rays, skates and
chimaeras,
Chromatophores: A group of specialized pigment cells located in the dermis, partially responsible for coloration in fish.
Circulatory vessels; A tube of the circulatory system, such as an artery or vein, which contains or conveys blood.
Closed-cycle (cooling system); A cooling water system in which heat is transferred by recirculating water contained within
the system.
Cohort; A group of individuals having a statistical factor (as age or class membership) in common in a demographic study.
Colonial; Term describing the habit by certain bird species to nest in large groups called colonies.
Combined sewer overflow (CSO): Discharge of a mixture of storm water and domestic waste when the flow capacity of a
combined sewer system is exceeded during rainstorms.
Cone; One of two types of light-sensitive cells located in the retina of the eye; sensitive to color and light intensity.
Confluence; The area where two or more streams or rivers join together
Conjoint analysis: A method for using surveys to determine the values that people place on a good by asking them to choose
between several combinations of environmental quality and the cost of providing that level of quality.
Consumer surplus: The extra value that consumer would be willing to pay for a good beyond the good's actual sale price.
Consumptive use: The loss of water through various processes, including:
Consumptive use (of water): Refers to water use practices whereby water is not returned to its source due to loss from
evaporation, evapotranspiration. or incorporation in a manufacturing process.
Continental shelf: Part of the continental margin, the ocean floor from the coastal shore of continents to the continental
slope, usually to a depth of about 200 meters. The continental shelf usually has a very slight slope, roughly 0.1 degrees.
Contingent valuation method (CVM); A stated preference method for using surveys to ask people what they would be
willing pay for a non-market good (especially an environmental good) contingent on a specific hypothetical scenario and
description of the good.
Conus arteriosus: Muscular heart chamber responsible for passing blood from the ventricle into the ventral aorta, toward the
gills.
Cooling water intake structures (CWISs): The total physical structure and any associated constructed waterways used to
withdraw water from waters of the U.S. The cooling water intake structure extends from the point at which water is
withdrawn from the surface water source to the first intake pump or series of pumps.
Glossary 3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Copepods: A large group of planktonic or benthic crustacean species; one defining characteristic of this group are the single
or double egg sacs carried posteriorally by the females.
Cornea: The transparent, exterior part of the eye located in front of the pupil.
Countercurrent exchange: The transfer of heat or gases between currents of blood passing by one another in capillary beds;
the beds run parallel to each other but in opposite directions.
Cranium: The part of the skull that encloses the brain.
Critical habitat: Term used in the Federal Endangered Species Act to denote the whole or any part or parts of an area or
areas of land comprising the habitat of an endangered species, an endangered population or an endangered ecological
community that is essential for the survival of the species, population or ecological community.
DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane is a chlorinated pesticide which is banned in the U.S.
Demersal; (1) Dwelling at or near the bottom of a body of water, such as demersal fish. (2) Sinking to or deposited near the
bottom of a body of water, such as demersal fish eggs.
Demersal egg: A fish or aquatic invertebrate egg that sinks to the bottom.
Dermal denticles: Small, toothlike scales covering the skin of most sharks, skates, and rays, giving their skin the feel of
sandpaper.
Dermis: The dense inner layer of skin underneath the epidermis.
Dermo: A disease caused by a single-cell organism (protozoan) that infects oysters, (http://www.bayjournal.com/95-
04/oysterl .htm)
Desiccation: The loss of water from pore spaces of sediments through compaction or through evaporation caused by exposure
to air.
Diatoms: Any of the microscopic unicellular or colonial algae constituting the class Bacillarieae. They have a silicified cell
wall, which persists as a silica skeleton after death and forms kieselguhr (loose or porous diatomite). Diatoms occur
abundantly in fresh and salt waters, in soil, and as fossils. They form a large part of plankton.
Dinoflagellates: Any of numerous, chiefly marine, plankton of the phylum Pyrrophyta (or, in some classification schemes, the
order Dinoflagellata), usually having flagella, one in a groove around the body and the other extending from its center.
Direct use benefits: The benefits that people derive from the use (or consumption) of a good.
Dissolved oxygen (DO): Oxygen gas which is dissolved in the water column and available for breathing by aquatic
organisms; DO levels vary by temperature, salinity, turbulence, photosynthetic activity and internal oxygen demand.
Diurnal: Pertaining to fish and other species that are active during the day (opposed to nocturnal).
Dorsal aorta: A major blood vessel in fish, which carries oxygenated blood from the gills to the rest of the body.
Dorsal fin: The fin(s) present on the back of most fish.
Dorsal musculature: That part of the axial musculature located above the horizontal septum.
Ecological niche: The portion of the environment which a species occupies. A niche is defined in terms of the conditions
under which an organism can survive, and may be affected by the presence of other competing organisms.
Ecosystem: All the organisms in a particular region and the environment in which they live. The elements of an ecosystem
interact with each other in some way, and so depend on each other either directly or indirectly.
Glossary 4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Effector cell: A cell that carries out a response to a nerve impulse.
Effluent; Wastewater — treated or untreated — that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall. Generally
refers to wastes discharged into surface waters.
Endemism: Native to a particular area or region.
Endocrine system; An integrated group of glands that releases hormones into the blood stream.
Endolvmph: The fluid contained within the canals and sacs of the inner ear.
Entrapment: The incorporation of fish, eggs, larvae, and other plankton with intake water flow entering and passing through
a cooling water intake structure and into a cooling water system.
Environmental stressor: A physical or chemical disturbance that changes the quality of terrestrial or aquatic habitats
Epidermis: The outer layer of the skin.
Epipelagic (zone): The uppermost, normally photic layer of the ocean between the ocean surface and the tbermocline, usually
between depths of 0-200 m; living or feeding on surface waters or at midwater to depths of 200 m.
Epithelium: Any animal tissue that covers a surface or lines a cavity, and which performs various secretory, transporting, or
regulatory functions.
Equilibrium population: Population in a state of balance.
Esophagus: A muscular tube connecting the mouth to the stomach.
Estuarine: Living mainly in the lower part of a river or estuary; coastlines where marine and freshwaters meet and mix;
waters often brackish (i.e., mixohaline, with salt content 0.5 - 30%).
Euryhalinc: Descriptive term for an organisms that can tolerate wide ranges in salt concentrations.
Eutrophication: The uncontrolled growth of aquatic plants in response to excessive nutrient inputs to surface waters; the
process of enrichment of water bodies by nutrients.
Evapotranspiration: The loss of water from the soil both by evaporation and by transpiration from the plants growing in the
soil.
Existence value: The value that people derive from knowledge that a good exists, even if they do not use it and have no plans
to use it.
Exotic species: Species that evolve in one region of the world but are intentionally or accidentally introduced in another,
where they lack natural enemies and can take over local ecosystems.
Extinction: The death of an entire species.
Fecundity: Number of eggs an animal produces during each reproductive cycle; the potential reproductive capacity of an
organism or population.
Filter feeding: A food gathering strategy which consists of passing water over gill structures to strain out food particles.
Fish consumption advisories; Limitations imposed by regulatory agencies on the number of fish or shellfish meals that can
be consumed by particular segments of the general population, due to the presence of chemical residues in the target
organisms.
Fledging: Period in a bird's life from hatching to first flight.
Glossary 5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Fledgling: Young bird in the fledging stage.
Food web: AH the interactions of predator and prey, included along with the exchange of nutrients into and out of the soil.
These interactions connect the various members of an ecosystem, and describe how energy passes from one organism to
another.
Forage: Prey or food species of an animal.
Fry: Newly hatched young fish.
Gall bladder: A small sac, located in the liver, that stores and concentrates bile.
Gill bar: One of a series of bony or cartilaginous arches on each side of the pharynx that support the gills; also referred to as
"branchial arches."
Gill filament: One of a series of structures that project out of a gill bar and support numerous gill lamellae.
Gill lamellae: Tiny, parallel, thin-walled and leaf-like projections which cover the gill filaments; these are the actual locations
within the gill where gases are exchanged between water and blood.
Gill netting: A passive fish capturing device which uses vertical walls of netting set out in a straight line; capture is based on
the fortuitous encounter of aquatic organisms with the net.
Gill raker: Stiff projections along the inner margins of the branchial arches; some fish species use these structures to strain
incoming food particles.
Gill septum: Flap-like gill cover in cartilaginous fish, which prevents oxygen-poor water from being drawn back into the
branchial cavity during breathing.
Glycogen: The principal carbohydrate storage material in animals.
Gonads: Generic name for sex organs (ovaries and testes).
Growth rate: Rate of change over time the body mass or body length of a species.
Habitat-based replacement costs (HRC): Method which determines the cost of offsetting ecological losses by increasing
production of those resources through restoration of natural habitats.
Habitat equivalency analysis (HEA): A service-to service approach for restoration scaling that quantifies changes in the
flow of services from natural resources while accounting for the magnitude, timing, and duration of those service flow
changes over time.
Haemal spines: The ventral spine in the caudal vertebra.
Heart: A hollow, multi-chambered, muscular organ used for pumping blood throughout the circulatory system.
Hemoglobin: Iron-rich protein packed in red blood cells; responsible for carrying oxygen to the tissues and removing carbon
dioxide.
Heteroskedasticity: A condition in regression analysis in which the size of the error term is correlated with one or more
explanatory variables, potentially creating biased regression estimates.
Horizontal septum: A tough membrane dividing the axial musculature into dorsal and ventral halves.
Hybridize: To crossbreed between two different species.
Hydrodynamics: The study of fluid motion and fluid-boundary interaction.
Glossary 6
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
Glossary
Ichthvoplankton: Earliest life stages (chiefly eggs and larvae) of certain fish species which remain suspended in the water
column as plankton for up to several weeks.
Imbricate scale: A type of scale in fish, which overlaps like tiles on a roof.
Impingement: The entrapment of aquatic organisms on the outer part of an intake structure or against a screening device
during periods of intake water withdrawal.
Inelastic: Not elastic; slow to react or respond to changing conditions.
Inner ear: Equilibrium organ located in the skull.
Integument: Covering or skin.
Intertidal: The area along the coastline exposed to the air and submerged by the sea during each tidal cycle.
Intestine: The lower part of the alimentary canal, extending from the pyloric caeca to the anus.
Invertebrate: Animals that lack a spinal column or backbone, including mollusks (e.g., clams and oysters), crustaceans (e.g.,
crabs and shrimp), insects, starfish, jellyfish, sponges, and many types of worms.
Invertebrate drift: Invertebrates that float with the current.
Kidneys: In fish, a pair of elongated organs that run along the dorsal part of the abdominal cavity; they form and excrete
urine, regulate fluid and electrolyte balance, and act as endocrine glands.
Lacustrine: Related to open freshwater bodies such as lakes, reservoirs, and impounded rivers.
Lateral line: The line, or system of lines, of sensory organs located along the head and sides by which fish detect water
current and pressure changes and vibrations.
Lens: A transparent spherical object in the eye, situated behind the iris, which focuses incoming light on the retina.
Leptocephali: A colorless, transparent, flattened larva, esp. of certain eels and ocean fishes,
Leptoid scale: A type of scale found mostly in higher bony fish.
Limnetic (zone): Surface layer where most photosynthesis takes place.
Littoral (zone): Shallow nearshore region defined by the band from 0 depth to the outer edge of rooted plants.
Liver: A large, reddish-brown, glandular organ with multiple functions, including: bile secretion, fat and carbohydrate
storage, yolk manufacture, blood detoxification, blood cell production, and other metabolic processes.
Lymph: A clear, yellowish fluid formed from liquid constituents of blood that have leaked out of capillaries and into the
surrounding tissues.
Lymphatics: A network of vessels for returning lymph back to the circulatory system.
Macula: A sensory tissue found in inner ear sacs and canals.
Mangrove: One of several different species of semi-aquatic trees growing along marine and estuarine shorelines in tropical
and subtropical regions of the world; also refers to the habitat created by these trees.
Marine: Refers to the ocean.
Mean: Arithmetic average computed by dividing the sum of a set of terms by the number of terms.
Glossary 7
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Mean annual flow: The average of daily flows over a calendar year.
Median; A value in an ordered set of values below and above which there is an equal number of values or which is the
arithmetic mean of the two middle values if there is no one middle number.
Median fin; See vertical ftn.
Mesohaline: Water with a salt content ranging between 5 and 18 parts per thousand (ppt).
Metrie; A standard of measurement.
Migration: The movement of animals in response to seasonal changes or changes in the food supply.
Mollusks; A large group of invertebrate species; major subgroups in freshwater habitats are represented by gastropods (i.e.,
snails) and bivalves (i.e., clams and mussels).
Monetization; In the context of this rulemaking, the process of placing a monetary value on a physical environmental change.
Monte Carlo; A stochastic modeling technique that involves the random selection of sets of input data for use in repetitive
model runs. Probability distributions are generated as the output of a Monte Carlo simulation.
Mortality rate; Death rate. Includes Natural mortality Rate and Fishing mortality rate.
Mosaic scale: An arrangement whereby scales do not overlap but instead abut each other like pieces in a mosaic.
Mouth: The opening through which food and water passes into the buccal cavity of fish.
MSX: A disease caused by a protozoan that infects oysters.
Mud flats; An intertidal area characterized by soft, muddy substrate; typically found along tidal creeks or in quiet backwaters.
Muscle segment: a.k.a. myomeres; a block of muscles, the contraction of which produces movement in the body.
Myomeres: Individual W-shaped muscle blocks that are a part of the axial musculature.
Mysids: Small (<3 cm), shrimp-ltke crustaceans of the order Mysidacea that go by the common name of opossum shrimp;
they are morphologically similar to crayfish but have greatly elongated and modified appendages for use in active swimming.
Nasal pit: One or two small depressions in the head region of fish, which contain the olfactory epithelium.
Navigation pool: A long stretch of river maintained at a minimum depth by a dam, and accessible via one or more gated
locks. *
Nearctic: Designates a biogeographic subregion which includes the arctic and temperate parts of North America and
Greenland,
Nematodes: Unsegmented round worms, some of which are parasitic.
Neritic Province: Area over the continental shelf.
Neural circuitry: The intricate and interconnected web of nerves that make up the nervous system.
Neural spine: A thin, upward-facing bony outgrowth of the vertebrae in most fish species.
Neuromast: A group of sensory cells that together make up the lateral line.
Non-consumptive use (of water): Refers to water use practices whereby water is returned to its source after it has been used.
Glossary 8
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Non-native species: a.k.a. exotic or invasive species; these terms refer species which evolve in one region of the world but
are intentionally or accidentally introduced in another where they lack natural enemies and can take over local ecosystems.
Noil-response bias: Potential bias in survey results that occurs when people who choose not to respond to a survey would
have answered in ways that significantly differ from those who did respond,
Nonuse benefits: The value that people derive from a good that they do not use (types of non-use benefits include bequest
value, existence value, and option value).
Notochord: A stiff, rod-like structure that provides the major axial support in the body of adult lower chordates, including
cyclostomes.
Nursery habitat: Any one of a number of aquatic habitats used by the early lifestages of many fish and invertebrate species
to complete.their development or find food and shelter.
Oceanic Province: A pelagic division of the ocean, located beyond the continental shelf-
Ocular fluid: The transparent liquid that fills the inside of the eye.
Olfaction: The sense used to perceive and distinguish odors.
Olfactory bulbs: That part of the brain involved with the sense of smell.
Olfactory ceil: A specialized cell used to detect the presence of odor molecules.
Olfactory epithelium: The collection of olfactory cells, supporting cells, mucus glands, and nerve endings located inside the
nasal pit.
Oligohaline: Water with salinity ranging between 0.5 to 5 parts per thousand (ppt).
Omnivorous: Feeding on both animals and plants.
Open-cycle (cooling system): A cooling water system in which heat is transferred using water (fresh or saline) that is
withdrawn from a river, stream or other water body (man-made or natural), or a well, that is passed through a steam condenser
one time, and then returned to the stream or water body some distance from the intake. Typically, such waters are required to
be cooled in cooling ponds before returning to a stream or other body of water. Also referred to as once-through cooling.
Operculum: The bony gill cover of fishes which prevents oxygen-poor water from being drawn back into the branchial cavity
during breathing.
Optic nerve: A bundle of sensory tissue that conducts electrical impulses from the retina to the brain.
Ornithological: Of, or relating to birds.
Osmoregulation: The process by which organisms maintain a proper internal fluid and alt balance.
Osmoregulatory adjustment: An change in the internal fluid and salt balance of fish in response to fluctuations in external
salt concentrations.
Ossified: Hardened like or into bone.
Osteichtliyes: The class of lower vertebrates comprising the bony fishes.
Otolith: A small mass of calcified material deposited on top of the macula within the inner ear.
Ova: Plural of ovum; egg or female gamete.
Glossary 9
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Paired fins: Pectoral fins, placed just behind the gills, and the pelvic fins, variable in position and sometimes lacking entirely.
Pancreas: A gland, situated near the stomach, that secretes digestive juices into the intestine through one or more duets.
Parr: Life stage of fish between the fry and smolt stages where ovoid parr markings are well developed along the side of the
fish; a young salmon or trout living and feeding in freshwater, before the migration to a sea.
Pathogen: An organism (usually microbial) capable of inducing disease in humans or wildlife receptors.
Pectoral fin: Either of a pair of fins usually situated behind the head, one on each side of the fish.
Pelagic: Referring to the open sea at all depths (pelagic animals live in the open sea and are not limited to the ocean bottom).
Pelagic egg: A fish or aquatic invertebrate egg that stays suspended in the water column for part or whole of its development.
Pelvic fin: Either of a pair of fins on the lower surface of the body located behind the pectoral fins.
Pelvic girdle: A bony or cartilaginous arch supporting the pelvic fins.
Percentile: A value on a scale of one hundred that indicates the percent of a distribution that is equal to or below it.
Peripheral nervous system; The portion of the nervous system lying outside the brain and spinal cord.
Pharyngeal region: The area of the mouth located near the pharynx.
Pharynx: The part of the throat into which the gill slits open.
Photic (zone): Zone where light is sufficient for photosynthesis; in oceanic waters above approximately 200 m in depth.
Photosynthesis: The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon
dioxide and water using light as an energy source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a byproduct. Chlorophyll
typically acts as the catalyst in this process.
Phvtoplankton: Small, often single-celled plants that live suspended in bodies of water (e.g., estuaries).
Piscivorous: Feeding on fish.
Placoid scale: Another name for dermal denticle.
Planktivorous: Feeding on plankton.
l'lanktonic: Free-floating. Plankton are tiny free-floating organisms.
Pneumatic duct: The duct connecting the air bladder to the gut in the adults of certain fish species.
Polychaetes: Scientific name for marine worms.
Pulychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): A large group of related chemicals with oil-like properties which were widely used in
the past in electrical transformers.
Polycyclie aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): A large group of related chemicals characterized by multiple ring structures;
derived mainly from crude oil or from combustion processes.
Potamodramous: Fish that migrate from lakes up rivers or streams, like salmon, walleye, and white bass.
Predator: Organism which hunts and eats other organisms. This includes both carnivores, which eat animals, and herbivores,
which eat plants.
Glossary 10
-------
Glossary
Prey: Organism hunted and eaten by a predator.
Primary consumer: An organism that feeds mostly on plant material, all herbivores are primary consumers.
Primary productivity: Transformation of chemical or solar energy to biomass. Most primary production occurs through
photosynthesis, whereby green plants convert solar energy, carbon dioxide, and water to glucose and eventually to plant
tissue.
Producer surplus: The extra value that producers receive for a good beyond the price they would be willing to sell the good
for.
Profunda! (zone): Deep-water zone in lakes or oceans that is not penetrated by sunlight.
Propagule: A floating structure used for reproduction in sea grasses and other aquatic plant species; the propagule is
transported by currents and takes root when reaching a favorable habitat.
Protrusible mouth: A mouth that projects forward as a tube when opened.
Purse seine; A large seine, for use generally by two boats, that is drawn around a school of fish and then closed at the bottom
by means of a line passing through rings attached along the lower edge of the net.
Pyloric caeca: A number of finger-like extensions located at the end of the stomach in bony fish species, which probably help
in food digestion and absorption.
Recall bias: Potential bias in a survey results that occurs when participants provide false information because they cannot (or
incorrectly) remember their actions in the past.
Receptor cells: A class of cells of the nervous system that specialize in detecting external stimuli.
Recruitment: Usually refers to the addition of new individuals to the fished component of stock. It may also refer to new
additions to sub-components, e.g., 'recruitment to the fishery" refers to fish entering the actual fishery, and this is determined
by the size and age at which they are first caught,
Rectum: The comparatively straight, terminal section of the intestine, ending in the anus.
Red blood cells: One of several types of cells that make up blood; they are packed with hemoglobin and carry oxygen to the
cells and tissues and carbon dioxide back to the respiratory organs.
Red body: The blood-rich organ that secretes gases into the swim bladder.
Red tide: The explosive growth of toxic unicellular algae which can cause the affected surface waters to turn reddish.
Replacement cost: The cost of replacing the services provided by an environmental good that has been damaged or
destroyed.
Restoration: The return of an ecosystem or habitat to its original community structure, natural complement of species, and
natural functions.
Rete mirabile A dense bundle of countercurrent capillaries located in the red body; it extracts gases from the incoming blood
for secretion into the swim bladder.
Retina: The light-sensitive tissue at the back of the eye that receives the image produced by the lens; contains the rods and
cones.
Revealed preference: Refers to a class of valuation methods that analyze consumer purchases of a good (especially housing)
to determine the values they place on the characteristics of the good.
Riparian: Having to do with the edges of streams or rivers.
Glossary 11
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
River debit; The volume of water which flows downstream during a certain period of time.
Riverine: Living in a river; living in flowing water.
Rod: One of two types of light-sensitive cells located in the retina; provides vision in dim light or semidarkness.
Rotifer: Any microscopic animal of the phylum (or class) Rotifera, found in fresh and salt waters, having one or more rings
of cilia on the anterior end.
Salinity: A measure of the salt concentration of water. Higher salinity means more dissolved salts.
Salt barrens: A type of habitat created when low lying land along a coastline is flooded by spring tides; the area develops
into a hyper saline habitat that supports salt resistant terrestrial plants after the sea water recedes or evaporates.
Salt marsh: A tidally-influenced semi-aquatic habitat which supports salt tolerant plant species.
Secchi disk: A 20 cm-wide black and white round plastic disk which is lowered into the water to measure the transparency of
the water column.
Sedge: Any rushlike or grasslike plant of the genus Carex, growing in wet places.
Sedimentation: (1) Strictly, the act or process of depositing sediment from suspension in water. Broadly, all the processes
whereby particles of rock material are accumulated to form sedimentary deposits. Sedimentation, as commonly used, involves
not only aqueous but also glacial, aeolian, and organic agents. (2) (Water Quality) Letting solids settle out of wastewater by
gravity during treatment.
Sinus venosus: The heart region that collects incoming oxygen-poor blood and passes it on to the atrium.
Skuli: The bony framework or skeleton of the head, enclosing the brain and supporting the face.
Smolt: The post-parr form in which the young of sea-going fish (especially trout and salmon) migrate from freshwater to the
sea.
Spartina: A genus of salt-tolerant grasses found in coastal regions.
Spawning / spawn: Release or deposition of spermatozoa or ova, of which some will fertilize or be fertilized to produce
offspring; fish reproduction process characterized by females and males depositing eggs and sperm into the water
simultaneously or in succession so as to fertilize the eggs.
Speciation: Formation of new species, through reproductive isolation?
Species diversity: Number, evenness, and composition of species in an ecosystem; the total range of biological attributes of
all species present in an ecosystem.
Species evenness: The distribution of individual organisms among the species present in a sample or area; evenness is low
when most individuals belong to a few species, as is often the case in disturbed or contaminated environments. Evenness
increases when the organisms belong to many different species, as is the case in more pristine environments.
Species richness: The number of species present in a sample.
Sphincter: A circular band of voluntary or involuntary muscle that encircles an orifice of the body or one of its hollow
organs.
Spinal cord: The thick bundle of nerve tissue that comes from the brain and extends through the spinal column.
Spine: The spinal or vertebral column; also referred to as the backbone.
Glossary 12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Glossary
Spiral valve: A structure located in the intestine of all Chondrichthyes and some primitive bony fish species, which controls
the flow of digested food and enhances the absorption of food molecules.
Spleen: A highly vascular, glandular, ductless organ that serves as a blood reservoir; it also forms mature lymphocytes and
removes old red blood cells from the circulatory system.
Squalene: Oil found in the liver of many shark species, which creates buoyancy.
Staging area: Places where birds temporarily stay, feed, and rest during their annual migrations.
Stated preference; Refers to a class of valuation methods that use surveys to elicit the value that people place on non-market
good.
Static: Not changing.
Stochastic: Random.
Stock; Group of individuals of a species which can be regarded as an entity for management or assessment purposes; a
separate breeding population of a species; term used to identify a management unit of fishery species.
Stomach: A sac-like enlargement of the alimentary canal, forming an organ for storing, diluting, and digesting food.
Stratified random sample: A sample in which the survey population is separated into several groups (or strata) and then
subjects are randomly selected from each group.
Striated muscle: The skeletal portion of the muscle tissue; striated muscle forms the bulk of the body's muscle tissue and
gives the body its general shape.
Subsistence (fishing or angling): Fishing primarily to supply food (as opposed to fishing for recreation).
Substrate: "Supporting surface" on which an organism grows. The substrate may simply provide structural support, or may
provide water and nutrients. A substrate may be inorganic, such as rock or soil, or it may be organic, such as wood.
Subtidal; The area of the ocean or estuary starting at the low tide line and extending outwards; the subtidal zone remains
submerged, even during low tide.
Suspended solids: Minute particles (e.g., clay flecks or unicellular algae) present in the water column, which are small
enough to resist rapid settling.
Swale: A low place in a tract of land, usually moister and often having ranker vegetation than the adjacent higher land.
Sympatrie: Occurring in the same area; capable of occupying the same geographic ranges without loss of identity by
interbreeding
Tailwater: The turbulent river water immediately adjacent to or just downstream of a lock and dam (L&D) structure; it
includes areas around the lock flushing valves and the dams themselves.
Tapetum: A highly-reflective membrane located in the back of the retina, which enhances night vision.
Taste bud: One of numerous small, flask-shaped bodies, chiefly in the epithelium of the tongue, which are responsible for
detecting taste molecules.
Taste pore: The opening of the taste bud to the outside world.
Taxa; Plural oftaxon; a taxon is a group of organisms comprising one of the categories in taxonomnic classification (i.e.,
phylum, class, order, family, genus, or species). The term is used when organisms cannot be identified at the species level.
Such organisms include larval or juvenile lifestages that do not yet have their adult forms; they can be designated with
certainty only at a higher taxonomic level.
Glossary 13
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
Glossary
Teleost: A subgroup of the bony fish; includes most species of aquarium, sport, and food fish.
Temperate: Moderate climate with long, warm summers and short, cold winters.
Terminal mouth: A mouth located in the front of a fish (as opposed to a sub-terminal mouth, located underneath the head).
Threatened and endangered (species) (T&E): Animals, birds, fish, plants, or other living organisms recognized as
threatened with extinction by anthropogenic (man-caused) or other natural changes in the environment. Used interchangeably
in this document with "special status species,"
Thrombocytes: One of the three principal types of blood cells found in blood plasma; they help initiate the clotting process.
Tidal range: The difference in height between the average low tide and high tide line.
Trophic cascade: An impact that trickles down through the food web with repercussions for the larger ecosystem; top-down
effect of predators on the biomass of organisms at lower trophic levels.
Trophic level: A feeding level in an ecological community; plant eaters are at a lower trophic level than meat eaters.
Trophic transfer efficiency : Proportion of production of prey that is converted to production of consumers at the next
trophic level.
Tropical: Climate characterized by high temperature, humidity and rainfall, found in a belt on both sides of the equator.
Turbidity; Suspended particles in a water sample causing light to scatter or absorb; high turbidity may be harmful to aquatic
life because it can decrease light penetration and inhibits photosynthesis in the water column.
Urea: A toxic compound occurring in urine as a product of protein metabolism.
Variance: The square of the standard deviation. A measure of the dispersion of data or how much values in a sample differ
from the sample average.
Vegetative growth: An asexual reproductive strategy used by sea grasses and other plants; it consists of sending out one or
more shoots that grow into new plants in the immediate vicinity of its "parent."
Vein: One of the system of branching vessels conveying blood from various parts of the body back to the heart.
Ventral aorta: The artery that carries blood from the heart to the aortic arches (Kirnmel et al., 1995).
Ventral fin: Either of a pair of fms on the lower surface of the body in fish; variable in position and sometimes lacking
entirely.
Ventral musculature: Part of the axial musculature that is located below the horizontal septum.
Ventricle: A muscular heart chamber that receives blood from the atrium and pumps it into the conus arteriosus
Venule: A small vein.
Vertebrae: The bones or segments composing the backbone.
Vertebrate: Any species having vertebrae; having a backbone or spinal column; examples include fish, amphibians, reptiles,
birds, and mammals.
Vertical fins: Fins situated along the centerline of the body; include dorsal, anal, and caudal fms.
Visceral nervous system: An additional component of the nervous system that serves the gut, circulatory system,'glands, and
other internal organs.
Glossary 14
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
glossary
Visual pigments: Light-sensitive molecules found in rods and cones within the retina.
Water withdrawal: The removal of water from the ground or diversion from a surface water source for use by agriculture,
municipalities, or industries.
Watershed: Drainage area of a stream, river, or lake leading to a single outlet for its runoff; synonymous with catchment.
Weberian ossicles: A chain of bony processes of the anterior vertebrae that connect the swim bladder to the head region in
certain fish species.
Welfare gain: In the context of this rulemaking, the benefit to society from an environmental improvement.
White blood cells: One of the three principal types of blood cells found in blood plasma; they fight bacterial infections and
other diseases.
Willingness-to-pay: The value that people will pay to obtain a good (usually associated with the results of a stated preference
study).
Zooplankton: A generic term referring to the small life stages (i.e., eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults) of many fish and
invertebrate species.
(Sources: Cole, 1983; Goldman and Home, 1983; Nicholson, 1994; Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1995;
Madigan et al, 1997; San Diego Natural History Museum, 1998; Shaw, 1998; U.S. EPA, 1998c; Water Quality Association,
1999; Childrens Mercy Hospital, 2000; Washington Tourist.com, 2000; Froese and Pauly, 2001; Lackey, 2001; Madzura,
2001; Mouratov, 2001; University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, 2001; Badman's Tropical Fish, 2002; Chapin, 2002;
Chudler, 2002; Eckliardt, 2002; Ehlinger, 2002; Encyclopedia Britannics Online, 2002; European Environment Agency,
2002; Fish Endocronology Research Group, 2002; Greenhalgh, 2002; King and Mazzotta, 2002; Lexico LLC, 2002; Lycos,
Inc., 2002; Merriam-Webster Online, 2002; Nature Conservation Council of NSW, 2002; NRDC, 2002; UCMP, 2002; U.S.
EPA, 2002c)
Glossary 15
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
References
Able, K.W. and M. P. Fahay. 1998. The First Year in the Life of Estuarine Fishes in the Middle Atlantic Bight, Rutgers
University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
AFS (American Fisheries Society). 1993. Sourcebook for Investigation and Valuation of Fish Kills. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD,
Agnelio, R. 1989. The Economic Value of Fishing Success: An Application of Socioeconomic Survey Data. Fishery Bulletin.
Vol. 87:1.
Ak?akaya, H.R., and L.R. Ginzburg. 1991. Ecological risk analysis for single and multiple populations. In A, Seitz, and V.
Loeschcke, eds., Species Conservation: A Population-Biological Approach. Birkhaeuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, pp.
73-87.
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 1999. White-winged Scoters! What are they? Alaska Department of Fish and Game
website, imp: v>»«ndl'u wikliil'c utick scoter sa<;cr.h[in Accessed 4/1/02.
Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology, Structure and Function of Running Waters. Chapman & Hall, New York.
Allen, D.M., J.H. Hudson, and T.J. Costello. 1980. Postlarval shrimp (Penaeus) in the Florida Keys: Species, size, and
seasonal abundance. Bulletin of Marine Science 30( I ):21 -33.
American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP). 2001. American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP).
hi in n,'.».;ii'n.eiini jiwui liictxhim October 25,2001.
American Electric Power Service Corporation. 1981. Cardinal Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section
316(b). Ohio Power Company of the American Electric Power System and Buckeye Power, Inc. March 30.
Arrow, K.. R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Learner, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report of the NOAA panel on contingent
valuation. Federal Register 58( 10):4602-4614.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000a, Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Croaker.
hup- wnn,;isin I isli"..2)'Mmn --ivakcrI .mini Accessed July 12, 2000.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000b. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Shad and River Herring, •
bap: » w » .fcisinl'c 1 >|t.\l >n".C<):Mui)i M'(. >1 I .hum. Accessed 7/13/00.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000d. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Striped Bass.
hup: v-...isnilV.or'j nTRHaSnp did,I. Accessed 7/13/00.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 200Oe. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Tautog.
hnp- -.isiiv't..'; j I'rour.nn-- 'i \s 1' »i,; Accessed 11/27/00.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000f. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Weakfish.
ii'ip, t»»nr:_ 1 A ¦ ...is: Accessed 7/13/00,
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 2000g. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Striped Bass,
Imp: » » v ..isiml ¦'i l: j'r. ¦ l1 : i-1 -Ii"..2iA hjm jut n jul '¦11'", .1' Ike- k-v- Sl-H^ss! \11'Rt > _HIH> I'M P.html. Accessed
7/12/00.
References I
-------
References
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 20Q0h. Review of the ASMFC Fishery Management Plan for Tautog (Tauioga
onitis), \nip: l:ish",0"M;2in I'-Mi'1 2""""w2"'i {:hi«"/'i>2»'>Rcv lew^.htm. Accessed 11/00.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2001a. Interstate Fisheries Management Program: Atlantic Herring.
hup: ot .on;• Pri1 tsb".>21 >N~1 unt A. 11!: !¦' ft i *v(.»I .linni. Accessed 2/12/01 ¦
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2001b. Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden.
hi in: -.v.', n .;wni;c.t>r^ I'n'ui'.i'ri--- ¦' t r" .,2o.\ i ljm 2<»»»' i' x' !v -J1 'k i ¦'n 11 u.ien2h ) F VIp [ i'i'M. Accessed 3/19/01.
Ault, J.S., G.A. Diaz, S.G. Smith, J. Luo, and J.E. Serafy. 1999. An efficient sampling survey design to estimate pink shrimp
population abundance in Biscavne Bay, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:696-712.
Auster, P.J. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(North and Mid-Atlantic) Tautog and Cunner, Biological Report 82.
Author Unknown, 2001. Blue Mussel Morphology and Anatomy, Physiology, Life Cycle and Reproduction. From the home
page for the study of Blue Mussel (Mytilus edulis) aquaculture industry in Green Bay, Newfoundland. A compilation of
research done by students of Indian River High School. Imp: v ¦¦ .irii.im..:; i:u:e\.him. Accessed 06/30/01.
Badman's Tropical Fish. 2002. Glossary of Terms. hitr>: h;itiman>ir ..bimi. Accessed 3/29/02.
Bailey, R.M. and G.E. Smith. 1981. Origin and geography of the fish fauna of the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 38:1539—1561.
Baird, P.H. 1990. Influence of abiotic factors and prey distribution on diet and reproductive success of three seabird species
in Alaska. Onus Scand. 21:224-235.
Balletto, J.H. and H.W. Brown. 1980a. Rammer Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section 316(b). Prepared for
the Ohio Power Company of the American Electric Power System by the American Electric Power Service Corporation, May
20.
Balletto, J.H. and H.W. Brown. 1980b. Philip Spom Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section 316(b).
Prepared for the Appalachian Power Company and Ohio Power Company of the American Electric Power System. March 7.
Balletto, J.H. and S.A. Zabel. 1978a. Clifty Creek Station Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section 316(b). Prepared
for Indiana - Kentucky Electric Corporation. September 26.
Balletto, J.H. and S.A. Zabel. 1978b. Tanners Creek Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500 Section 316(b).
Prepared for Indiana & Michigan Electric Company.
Bamthouse, L.B. 2000. Impacts of power-plant cooling systems on estuarine fish populations: the Hudson River after 25
years. Environmental Science & Policy 3:S341-348.
Barrett, R.T. and Y.V. Krasnov. 1996. Recent responses to changes in stocks of prey species by seabirds breeding in the
southern Barents Sea. J. Mar. Sci. 53:713-722.
Bartell, S.M. and K.R. Campbell. 2000. Ecological Risk Assessment of the Effects of the Incremental Increase of Commercial
Navigation Traffic (25, 50, 75, and 100 Percent Increase of 1992 Baseline Traffic) on Fish, ENV Report 16. Prepared for
U.S. Army Engineer District, Rock Island. July.
nno: u ¦¦ >\ ;ii>; a:s:k'c.,h-i!'', .ii;-: ivy !¦:<¦ >in.p. ct» ru"'rt> r-vv RPTic.tmn. Accessed 2000.
Bason, W.H. 1971. Ecology and Early Life History of Striped Bass, Morone saxaiilis, in the Delaware Estuary. Bulletin No,
4. Thesis. Middletown, DE. 122 pp.
BCCVB. 2002, Southeastern Massachusetts, Bristol County Convention & Visitors Bureau.
'PIP. ' >. V ..-Kill :? ¦ >i. ¦: :;n: 1.h'i;Accessed 1/02.
References 2
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
BEA, 1998. Bureau of Economic Analysis National Accounts Data: Gross Product by Industry.
imp: mvv\.iy;i,ii
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies
References
Bockstael, N.E., K.E. McConnell and I.E. Strand. 1991. In: Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, John B.
Braden and Charles D. Kolstad (eds.). New York: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
Bodola, A. 1966. Life history of the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Sueur), in western Lake Erie. Fishery Bulletin
65(2):391-425.
Boler, R.N., R.C. Malloy, and E.M. Lesnett. 1991. Surface water quality monitoring by the environmental protection
commission of Hillsborough County, pp. 111-135. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2,
February 27-March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 pp.
Bone, Q. and N.B. Marshall. 1995. Biology of Fishes. Blackie Academic & Professional, UK.
Boreman, J. 1977. Impacts of Power Plant Intake Velocities on Fish. FWS/OBS-76/20.1. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program.
Boreman, J. 1993. Evaluation of the PSE&G Estimates of Entrainment and Impingement Mortality at the Salem Nuclear
Plant. Prepared for Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. December.
Boreman, J. 2000. Surplus production, compensation, and impact assessments of power plants. Environmental Science &
Policy 3:S445-S449.
Boschker, E. 2001. Pictures of Saltmarshes and Seagrass Beds
imp- 'a DHio.kii.ix'. nl huiin-mi^cs ln'schkrr PieunyH. Imnn. Accessed 11/20/01,
Boston Edison Company. 1991. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 37, January 1990-December 1990. April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1992. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 39, January 1991-December 1991. April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1993, Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 41, January 1992-Deeember 1992, April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1994. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 43, January 1993-December 1993. April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1995a. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 45, January 1994-December 1994. April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1995b. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 46, January 1995-June 1995. October 31.
Boston Edison Company. 1996. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station, Semi-Annual Report
Number 47, January 1995-December 1995. April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1997a. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 49, January 1996-December 1996. April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1997b. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 50, January 1997-June 1997, October 3 1.
Boston Edison Company. 1998. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 51, January 1997-Deeember 1997. April 30.
Boston Edison Company. 1999. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual Report
Number 53, January 1998-December 1998. April 30,
References 4
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Boyd, J,, D, King, and L.A. Wainger, 2001, Compensation for Lost Ecosystem Services: The Need for Benefit-Based
Transfer Ratios and Restoration Criteria, Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20{2):393-4l2.
Boydstun, L.B., R.J. Hal lock, and T.J. Mills. 1992. Anadromous Fishes: Salmon. Pages 60-65 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees,
and C.W, Haugen (eds.), California's Living Marine Resources and their Utilization, California Sea Grant, Sea Grant
Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California Sea Grant Extension Program, University of California, Davis, CA.
Boyle, K.J. and R.C. Bishop. 1987. Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-Cost Analyses: A Case Study Involving Endangered Species.
Boyle, K.J,, B. Roach, and D.G. Waddington. 1998. 1996 Net Economic Values for Bass, Trout and Walleye Fishing, Deer,
Elk and Moose Hunting, and Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Prepared by the U, S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Report 96-2, August.
Brazner, J.C. 1997. Regional, Habitat, and Human Development Influences on Coastal Wetland and Beach Fish Assemblages
in Green Bay, Lake Michigan. Journal of Great Lakes Research 23( 1 ):36-51,
Breffle, W.S., and R.D. Rowe. 2002. Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs. Land
Economics forthcoming, May 2002.
Broome, S.W. and C.B. Craft. 2000, Tidal salt marsh restoration, creation, and mitigation. Chapter 37 in Reclamation of
Drastically Disturbed Lands. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wl.
Brown, H. W. and J. H. VanHassel. 1981. Kyger Creek Station Demonstration Document for P.L.92-500 Section 316(b).
Prepared for the Ohio Valley Electric Corporation and American Electric Power Service Corporation. June 24,
Buckley, J. 1989a. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(North Atlantic). Rainbow Smelt, Biological Report 82(11.106). 11 p.
Buckley, J. 1989b. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (North
Atlantic). Winter flounder. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.87). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR
EL-82-4. 12 pp.
Buckley, L.J. 1982. Effects of temperature on growth and biochemical composition of larval winter flounder
Pseudopleuronectes americanus. Marine Ecology Progress Series 8:181-186.
Bur, M.T, 1982. Food of freshwater drum in western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research 8(4):672-675.
Burgman, M.A., S. Person, and H.R, Ak^akaya. 1993. Risk Assessment in Conservation Biology. Chapman & Hall, London.
Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program. 2001 a. Atlas of Tidally Restricted Salt Marshes: Buzzards Bay Watershed,
Massachusetts. Draft Final. Prepared for Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program, Boston, MA and Massachusetts
Environmental Trust, January.
Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program 200 lb. "buzzbay2001 sma-atlas-public.xls". Summary of the tidally restricted
wetlands in the Buzzards Bay watershed as of the fall of 2001. Estimates of the acres of phragmites at each location are
included along with an initial restoration cost estimate and description of the nature of the tidal restriction. Received from Joe
Costa, Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program. 2001.
CALFED. 2000a. Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan. Response to Comments, Volume II. July.
CALFED. 2000b. Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan. Volume 1 - Ecological Attributes of the San Francisco Bay-Delta
Watershed. htir>- .-nlilni »,iu-r t-a,gi« cm m»iiincw.i July.
CALFED. 2002. CALFED Bay-Delta Program, mir . r.f,,» c-j ij.» . Accessed 1/02.
California Department of Fish and Game 2001a. "grandtabXL.xls": Received from California Department of Fish and Game,
Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch
References 5
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
California Department of Fish and Game 2001b. "Green Sturgeon.xls": Received from California Department of Fish and
Game, Central Valiey Bay-Delta Branch.
California Department of Fish and Game 2001c. "Steelhead - AL.LCOUNT.xls" deceived from California Department of
Fish and Game
California Department of Fish and Game, 2002a. The economic importance of sport fishing.
hup- wvm dIL' t:.;.L!iiv H-hinf i-u'n.sms'^h.inmi. Accessed 1/18/02.
California Department of Fish and Game 2002b. Marine Sportfish Identification Pictures.
hup: u v, mni ni>i'nni\i .Inmi. Accessed 1/21/02.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2002c. Wildlife Gallery-Anadromus Species Resources.
imp: u u " Li;ii.ip,id. hi mi. Accessed 1/21/02.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2002d. Young-of-thc-year Striped Bass Abundance Indices
hnp- w '.L'" i-ini;1 Di'A itH* chrin--.liiml. Accessed 1/02.
California Energy Commission. 2001. Contra Costa Unit 8 Power Project, Application for Certification (00-AFC-1). May
2001.
Campana, S.E., G.A. Chouinard, J.M. Hanson, and A. Frechet. 1999. Mixing and migration of overwintering Atlantic cod
(¦Gadus morhua) stocks near the mouth of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
56:1873-1881.
Campbell, J.S. and H.R. MacCrimmon. 1970. Biology of the emerald shiner, Notropis atherinoides Rafmesque in Lake
Simcoe, Canada. Journal offish Biology, v. 2, p. 259-273.
Carlander, K..D. 1969. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology; Life History Data on Freshwater Fishes of the United States
and Canada, Exclusive of the Perciformes. Iowa State University Press, Ames.
Carlander, K.D. 1977. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Centrarchid Fishes of the United States
and Canada, Volume Two, Ames, IA, Iowa State University Press.
Carlander, K.D. 1997. Handbook of Freshwater Fishery Biology: Life History Data on Icthyopercid and Percid Fishes of the
United Slates and Canada, Volume Three, Ames, 1A, Iowa State University Press.
Carr, R.S., E.R Long, H.L. Windom, D.C. Chapman, G. Thursby, G.M. Sloane, and D.A. Wolfe. 1996. Sediment quality
assessment studies of Tampa Bay, Florida. Environ, Toxicol Chem. 15(7): 1218-1231.
Carson, R.T. and R.C. Mitchell. 1993. The value of clean water: The public's willingness to pay for boatable, fishable, and
swimmable quality water. Water Resources Research 29(7): 2445-2454.
Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, and R.C, Mitchell. 1999. The Theory and Measurement of Passive Use Value. In Valuing
Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and Developing
Countries. Edited by Ian J. Bateman and Kenneth G. Willis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carson, R.T., N.E. Flores, K.M. Martin, and J.L. Wright, 1996. Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference
Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods. Land Economics. 72(1 ):80-99.
Carson, R,, W.M. Hanneman, R.J. Knopp, J.A. Krosnick, R.C. Mitchell, S. Presser, P.A. Ruud, and V.K. Smith. 1994.
Prospective Interim Lost Use Value Due to DDT and PCB Contamination in the Southern California Bight. Prepared by
Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Inc. for NOAA. La Jolla, CA.
Castro, L.R. and R.Jy. Cowen. 1991, Environmental factors affecting the early life history ofbay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in
Great South Bay, New York. Marine Ecology Progress Series 76:235-247.
References 6
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Castro, K.M., J.S. Cobb, R.A. Wahle, and J. Catena, In Press. Habitat addition and stock enhancement for American lobsters,
Homarus americanus. Marine and Freshwater Research.
Caton, P.A. 2001. Developing an Effluent Trading Program to Address Nutrient Pollution in the Providence and Seekonk
Rivers, Working Draft (12/6/01). imp: eii\.-kulic> hrn-Ai. cuu ilv--.-is jmr vuion Tradinc .
CDWR (California Department of Water Resources). 1994. Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on
Delta Smelt and Sacramento Splittail, Biological Assessment prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological
Services. Sacramento Field Office by California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Mid
Pacific Region, August 1994.
Chadwick, U.K., D.E. Stevens, and L.W. Miller. 1977. Some factors regulating the striped bass population in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Pages 18-35 in: W. Van Winkle ted.), Proceedings of the Conference on
Assessing the Effects of Power Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations, Gatlinburg. T ennessee, May 3-6, 1977.
Pergamon Press, NY.
Chang, S., P.L. Berrien, D.L, Johnson, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document; Windowpane,
Scophthalmus aquosus, Life History and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-137.
September. 32 pp. hup: v.^v. .ncl'sc.innl-- neiM- iniM)c,uit'!i> .
Chao, L.N. and J. A. Musick. 1977. Life history, feeding habits, and functional morphology of juvenile sciaenid fishes in the
York River estuary. Virginia. Fish. Bull. 75(4):657-702.
Chapin, F.S, 111. 2002. Textbook: Principles of Ecosystem Ecology (draft): Glossary.
Imp; » w" ,l":u'uU\ .uai'ctln I'iVsc l;cp'.e\t.tiimi. Accessed 4/1/02.
Charbonneau, J.J. and M. Hay. 1978. Determinants and Economic Values of Hunting and Fishing. Nationwide. Published by
Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.
Cherry, D.A. and R.J. Currie. 1998. Effects of Impingement/F.ntrainment at the Kanawha River Plant on the Fish Community
Structure of the Kanawha River: Reflections on the 20 Year Study, In: EPR1 Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical
Workshop. EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV. D. Dixon
and K. Zammit (eds.).
Cheung, T.S. 1969. The environmental and hormonal control of growth and reproduction in the adult female stone crab,
Menippe mercenaria (Say). Biological Bulletin 136:327-346.
Childrens Mercy Hospital. 2000. Strata: What is a stratified random sample and why would I want to use one?
hup sh \sw y-mb-edu Accessed 4/2/02.
Chittenden, M.E., Jr. 1971. Status of the striped bass, Morone saxatilis, in the Delaware River. Chesapeake Sci. 12:131 -136.
Christensen, S.W., and C.P. Goodyear. 1988. Testing the validity of stock-recruitment curve fits. American Fisheries Society
Monograph 4:219-231.
Christensen, S.W., D.L. DeAngelis, and A.G, Clark. 1977. Development of a stock-progeny model for assessing power plant
effects on fish populations. In W. Van Winkle, ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power-Plant
Induced Mortality on Fish Populations. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 196-226.
Chudler, E.H. 2002. Adventures in Neuroanatomy: Divisions of the Nervous System.
I
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Clark, K.E. 1995. Osprey, In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, (eds.) The Delaware
Estuary Program, pp. 395-400.
Clark, P.A. 1991. Management directions and needs for Tampa Bay tidal tributaries, pp.497-510. In: Proceedings, Tampa
Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-Marcb 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528
pp.
Clayton, G., C. Cole, S. Murawski, and J. Parrish. 1978, Common Marine Fishes of Coastal Massachusetts. Contribution No.
54 of the Massachusetts Cooperative Fishery Research Unit. 231 pp.
Cleland and Bishop. 1984. An Assessment of the Economic Conditions of the Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Saint
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and a Cost-Return Analysis of
Treaty Commercial Fishermen - 1981.
CMS Energy Corporation (CMS). 2001. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31,2000, filed on March 23, 2001.
Cohen, M.A. 1986. The Costs and Benefits of Oil Spill Prevention and Enforcement. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management 13:167-188.
Colamsso, P. 2000. Winter Flounder Life History Information. Draft. From Phil Colarusso, EPA Region 1. Brayton Point
TAC Meeting, 11/17/00,
Cole, G.A. 1983. Textbook of Limnology. Third Edition. Waveland Press, Inc. Prospect Heights, Illinois.
Cole, R. 1995. Bluefish. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). The Delaware
Estuary Program, pp. 147-150.
Cole, R.A. 1978. Entrainment at a Once-Through Cooling System on Western Lake Erie, Volume I. EPA-600/3-78-070. July.
Conectiv. 2001. 10-K, filed on March 15, 2001.
Conservation Consultants Inc. 1977. Ecological Studies at Big Bend Steam Electric Station (Tampa Electric Company): An
Analysis and Summary of Studies on the Effects of the Cooling Water System on Aquatic Fauna: A 316 Demonstration
Biological Study. Volume III (Volume 3 of Final Report of Biological Surveys of the Big Bend Area). August.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. 1975. Environmental Report to Accompany Application for Facility License
Amendment for Extension of Operation with Once-Through Cooling for Indian Point Unit No, 2,
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority. 1983. Hudson River Ecological Study in
the Area of Indian Point: 1982 Annual Report.
Consumers Power Company. 1984. Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J R Whiting Plant. Prepared for the Michigan
Water Resources Commission. June.
Consumers Power Company. 1988. Report of Deterrent Net Performance, J R Whiting Plant. Prepared for the Michigan
Water Resources Commission.
Consumers Power Company. 1992. Summary of Deterrent Net Performance at JR Whiting Plant.
Consumers Power Company. 1994. Luddington Pumped Storage Project: 1994 Annual Report of Barrier Net Operation.
December 22.
Contra Costa County. 2002. About the County, mip: .,y,f.»nminv
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M, Grasso, B, Hannon et al. 1997. The Value of the World's Ecosystem '
Services and Natural Capital, Nature 387:253-260.
Costello, T.J. and D.M. Allen. 1966. Migrations and geographic distribution of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, of the
Tortugas and Sanibel grounds, Florida. Fishery Bulletin 65(2):449-459.
Costello, T.J, and D.M, Allen, 1970. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Pink Shrimp, In; Proceedings of the World Scientific
Conference on the Biology and Culture of Shrimps and Prawns. Volume IV: Species Synopses., Mexico City, June 12-21,
1967. FAO Fisheries Reports No. 57, Vol 4. pp. 1499-1537.
Cowan, J.H., Jr. and R.S, Birdsong. 1995. Seasonal occurrence of larva! and juvenile fishes in a Virginia Atlantic coast
estuary with emphasis on drums (Family Sciaenidae). Estuaries 8(l):48-59.
Crawford, R.J.. and B.M. Dyer. 1995. Responses by four seabird species to a fluctuating availability of Cape Anchovy
Engraulis capensis off South Africa. Ibis 137:329-339.
Cummings, W.C, 1961. Maturation and spawning of the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 90:462-468.
Cummings, R., Ganderton, P. and McGuckin, T., 1994. Substitution effects in CVM values. Am. J. Agric. Economics., 76:
205-214.
Gushing, D.H. 1982. Climate and Fisheries. Academic Press, London,
Daiber, F.C. ! 953. Notes on the spawning population of the freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque) in western
Lake Erie. American Midland Naturalist 50(1): 159-171.
Dames & Moore. 1977a. 316(b) Demonstration for the Cayuga and Wabash River Generating Stations. Prepared for Public
Service Indiana. August 30.
Dames & Moore. 1977b. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316(b) Study. First Quarterly Data
Presentation, April 1, 1977 to June 30, 1977.
Dames & Moore. 1977c. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316(b) Study: Second Quarterly Data
Presentation, July 7, 1977 to September 28, 1977.
Dames & Moore. 1978. Miami Fort and Walter C. Beckjord Generating Stations 316(b) Study: Third and Fourth Quarterly
Data Presentation, October 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978.
Daniels, R. A. and P. B. Moyle. 1983. Life history of splitlail (Cyprinidae: Pogonichthvs macrolepidotus) in the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Fishery Bulletin 81(3):647-654.
Davis, G., M.D. Nichols, and T.M. Hannigan. 1999. Management of the California State Water Project. Department oŁ
Natural Resources. Bulletin 231-98. November.
Day, J.W., Jr., C.A.S. Hall, W.M. Kemp, and A. Yanez-Arancibia. 1989. Estuarine Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
DDNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control). 2000, Striped Bass Spawning Stock
Assessment,, Project: F-47-R-9 Anadromous Species Investigations.
de Sylva. D.P., F. Kalber, Jr., and C.N. Shuster, Jr. 1962. Fishes and Ecological Conditions in the Shore Zone of the Delaware
Estuary, with Notes on Other Species Collected in Deeper Water. Info. Ser. Publ. No. 5. University of Maryland Mar. Lab.
DeAlteris, J.T., M, Gibson, and L.G. Skrobe. 2000. Fisheries of Rhode Island Narragansett Bay Summit 2000 White Paper,
Working Draft (4/14/00). llMi': v !a .nhcn.-'ru -limn;-- I kIk:'.v t'i ">i•.
DeHart, R.E. 1994. Brayton Point Station Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Summary, October 20.
References 9
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
References
Delaware Estuary Program. 1996. Discover its Secrets — A Management Plan for the Delaware Estuary.
Delaware Estuary Program. 2001. Delaware Estuary Indicators, hup: \\-v> v\ .dcicr.ure shad.pdl". Accessed 10/8/01.
Deloime 1993. Maryland/Delaware Atlas & Gazetteer. Freeport, ME. 1993
Delorme 1995. Ohio Atlas & Gazetteer. Freeport, ME.
Delorme 1997. Florida Atlas and Gazetteer, Yarmouth, ME. 1997.
Delorme 1999. New Jersey Atlas & Gazetteer. Yarmouth, ME. 1999.
Desfosse, J., II. Austin, L. Daniel, W. Laney, and H. Speir. 1999. 1999 Review of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Croaker (Micropogonias undulatus). Imp: wu".asmUM>ri; Program:* Vi.c<>in pmverPlants.html. Accessed 2/5/02.
Dew, C.B. 1976. A contribution to the life history of the cunner, Tauiogolabrus adspersus, in Fishers Island Sound,
Connecticut. Chesapeake Science 17:101-113.
Dietrich, C.S. 1979. Fecundity of the Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus. Fishery Bulletin 77(1):3Q8-311.
Dionne, M., F.T. Short, and D. M. Burdick. 1999. Fish utilization of restored, created, and reference salt-marsh habitat in the
Gulf of Maine. In: Fish Habitat: Essential Fish Habitat and Rehabilitation. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MI), pp.
384-404.
Dixon, D.A. 1999. Catalog of Assessment Methods for Evaluating the Effects of Power Plant Operations on Aquatic
Communities. Final Report. Report number TR-112013.
Dodge, D. and R. Kavetsky, 1995. Aquatic Habitat and Wetlands of the Great Lakes. SOLEC Working Paper presented at
State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem Conference. August. EPA 905-R-95-014. Chicago, 111,: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, hup: v-.w .L'pn tun 'jnliikes solec t'4h;ihii:n .
Dodge, K.E. 1998, River Raisin Assessment. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Special Report
23. Ann Arbor, MI. hiip: wu u.dnr. state, mi. n* mm.ifr ilrlihra spl-ii;i1 reports si'23 sr2?Tex:.pdi. Accessed 2/5/02.
Dorsey, S.E., E.D. Houde, and J.C. Gamble, 1996. Cohort abundances and daily variability in mortality of eggs and yolk-sac
larvae of bay anchovy. Anchoa mitchilli. in Chesapeake Bay, U.S. Fish. Bull. 94:257-267.
Doyle, M J. 1977. A morphological staging system for the larval development of the herring, Clupea harengus. L.J. Journal
of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K. 57:859-867.
DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1996. 1996 Delaware River Withdrawal and Consumptive Use Estimates (Tidal
Estuary Portion), hup: wu ». stale .ni. us-ttrin- ^ itbdnmnlsWxlHni.
DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 1998. Delaware River and Bay Water Quality Assessment: 1996-1997 305(b)
Report.
DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission). 2001. Ecological Significance of Delaware Bay.
hup: »xv«.ii.iti-.niilrhc st'orchird'. ccni<»'j.iiii¦ j. Accessed 2001,
DTE Energy Company 2002. DTE Energy Company. Annual Report 2000.
imp u v- » .dlcencrux .cum up. esinrs :inmi:11 .ir.^)*>!) ivsiiityinini. March 6, 2002.
References 10
-------
References
Durbin, A.G., E.G. Durbin, T.J. Smayda, and P.G. Verity. 1983. Age, size, growth, and chemical composition of Atlantic
menhaden, Brevaortia lyrannus, from Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Fishery Bulletin 81(1): 133-141.
EA Engineering Science and Technology. 1986. Entrainment and Impingement Studies at Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station 1984-1985. Prepared for GPU Nuclear Corporation. July.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology. 1989, Indian Point Generating Station 1988 Entrainment Survival Study. Final,
Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority. August.
EA Engineering, Science and Technology. 1997. Encina Power Plant Supplemental 316(b) Assessment Report. Final.
Prepared for San Diego Gas & Electric.
EA Engineering Science and Technology. 2000. Review of Entrainment Survival Studies: 1970-2000. Prepared for Electric
Power Research Institute, Inc.
EA Engineering Science and Technology. 2001. 2000 Ohio River Ecological Research Program. Final Report. Prepared for
American Electric Power Service Corporation, Cinergy, Indiana Kentucky Electric Corporation, Buckeye Power Inc. October.
EA Engineering Science and Technology and E. Perry. 2001. Leslie-Matrix Modeling of Possible 316(b) Effects on Selected
Ohio River Fishes. Prepared for American Electric Power, American Municipal Power-Ohio, Buckeye Power, Cinergy, First
Energy, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. January. 26 p.
EA Science and Technology. 1986. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. 1985 Annual Report.
Prepared under contract with Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc. and New York Power Authority.
EA Science and Technology. 1987. Final Report: Clifty Creek Station Impingement Study and Impact Assessment.
EA Science and Technology, 1990. Results of Entrainment and Impingement Studies Conducted at the Braidwood Nuclear
Station and the Adjacent Kankakee River. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company.
Eckhardt, G.A. 2002. The Edwards Aquifer Homepage: Glossary of Water Resource Terms.
Imp: u ,cd\%:'rds;iuiin'cr.nci .himl. Accessed 3/29/02.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1978a. Impact of the Cooling Water Intake at the Indian River Power Plant: A 316(b) Evaluation.
Prepared for Delmarva Power & Light Co. May.
Ecological Analysts Inc. ! 978b. Port Jefferson Generating Station Entrainment Survival Study. Prepared for Long Island
Lighting Company. December.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1980a. Entrainment Survival Studies at the Cayuga Generating Plant, Prepared for Public Service of
Indiana. March.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1980b. Potrero Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316(b) Demonstration. Prepared for
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. January.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981a. Contra Costa Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. Prepared
for PG&E.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 198lb. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1979 Annual
Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York and Power Authority of the State of New York. April.
Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1981c. Pittsburg Power Plant Cooling Water Intake Structures 316b Demonstration. Prepared for
PG&E.
Ecological Analysts Inc. 1982. Indian Point Generating Station Entrainment Survival and Related Studies 1980 Annual
Report. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York and Power Authority of the State of New York, January,
Edsall, T.A. 1967. Biology of the freshwater drum in western Lake Erie. Ohio Journal of Science 67(6):321-340.
References SI
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Edwards, E.A., D.A. Krieger, G. Gebhart, and O.E. Maughan. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: White Crappie. U.S.
DOl Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10.7.
Edwards, R.E. 1991. Nursery habitats of important early-juvenile fishes in the Manatee River estuary system of Tampa Bay.
p. 237-252. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL.
(S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds,), 528 p.
Egerton, F.N. 1985. Overfishing or Pollution? Case History of a Controversy on the Great Lakes. Great Lakes Fishery
Commission Technical Report No. 41. January.
Ehlinger, T. 2002. General Glossary Homepage, hup: u u v. .uvun.ci.lu iVopic chlnucr !:ins-;arv.htm. Accessed 3/29/02.
Ehrhardt, N.M., D.J. Die and V.R. Restrepo. 1990. Abundance and impact of fishing on a stone crab (Menippe mercenaria)
population in Everglades National Park, Florida. Bull Mar. Sci. 46(2):311-323.
Electric Power Research Institute, 1987. Gizzard Shad. In: Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature
Reviews Volume 2: Compensation in Fish Populations Subject to Catastrophic Impact. Prepared for Electric Power Research
Institute, Palo Alto, California by University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI. EPRI EA-5200, Project 1633-6. pp.
3-18-3-27.
Eminelt, R.L., S.L. Stone, S.A. Hinton, and M.E. Monaco. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in
West Coast Estuaries, Volume II: Species Life History Summaries. ELMR (Estuarine Living Marine Resources) Report No.
8. NQAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Rockville, MD.
Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 2002, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http: 'A.m.ch.umi. Accessed 4/1/02.
Energy Impact Associates Inc. 1978a, Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies at Cliftv Creek Station. Final Report,
Energy Impact Associates Inc. 1978b. Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies at Tanners Creek Power Plant: Final Report
{Tanners Creek Plant Demonstration Document for P.L, 92-500 316(b), Volume II, Appendix B). Prepared for Indiana &
Michigan Electric Company.
ENSR. 2000. Redacted Version 316 Demonstration Report - Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear
Generation Company.
Entergy Corporation. 2001, About Entergy, hup: w«u.enieruv.coni .iiuhu ujiauti iM- October 2, 2001.
Entergy Nuclear Generation Company. 2000. Marine Ecology Studies Related to Operation of Pilgrim Station. Semi-Annual
Report Number 55, January 1999-December 1999.
Entergy Nuclear General Company, 2001. Marine ecology studies related to the operation of pilgrim station. Report number
57. January 2000-December 2000.
Environment Canada, 2001. Double-crested cormorant. Environment Canada website.
hup: v.»u.uc.iv.iic.c;i iaunc im>c;ui\ tic iikt hmil dt»nbk'-cre>u-ti ^.-itni^»ra;)¦ .hin11, Accessed 4/1/02.
Environmental Science & Engineering Inc. 1991. 1990 Ohio River Ecological Research Program; Executive Summary.
Prepared for American Electric Power Service Corporation, Ohio Edison Company, Ohio Valley Electric Corporation,
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Indiana Kentucky Electric Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority. October.
Environmental Science Associates. 1998. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's
Application for Authorization to Sell Certain Generating Plants and Related Assets (Application No. 98-01-008 to the State of
California Public Utilities Commission).
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 2000. ArcView GIS 3.2a; ArcView Spatial Analyst 2.0. Redlands, CA.
Epifanio, C.E. 1995. Atlantic Blue Crab. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds,),
pp. 43-49.
References 12
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Emst Peebles, St. Petersburg (FL) 2001. "peebIes.florida.ELS.xls": ambient density data at Tampa Bay.
ESSA Technologies (ESSA Technologies Ltd.). 2000. Review of Portions of New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NJPDES) Renewal Application for the Public Service Electric & Gas' (PSE&G) Salem Generating Station. Final
Report. (Attachment A: Permit No. NJ0005622 Discharge to Surface Water, Surface Water Permit Renewal Action).
Prepared for New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Estevez, E.D. and M.J. Marshall. 1997. A landscape-level method to assess estuarine impacts of freshwater inflow alterations,
p. 217-236. In; Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October
21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Estevez, E.D., R.E. Edwards, and D.M. Hayward. 1991. An ecological overview of Tampa Bay's tidal rivers, p. 263-275. In:
Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1, 1991 (Treat, S.F. and P. A. Clark, eds.), 528 p.
European Environment Agency. 2002. EUN1S Habitat classification. February.
him: mrw .unlipnic.lvd^riv Mh" tl'M.s home.html. Accessed 3/29/02.
Fahay, M.P., P.L. Berrien, D.L. Johnson, W W. Morse. 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Source Document: Atlantic Cod, Gadus
morhua, Life history and Habitat Characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-124. Website.
hup: '¦'« ».iK'ik'.iiinl^.'jov nelsc rul'licaiinn?- icvriiy'tM^cne?- current techntcmo Ailuntn-C oil 12 4,mil*. Accessed 11/2/01.
Farber, S. 1987. The Value of Coastal Wetlands for Protection of Property against Hurricane Wind Damage. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 14:143-151.
Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983a. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic): Aiewife / Blueback Herring, FWS/OBS-82/11.9. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. October. 25 pp.
Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983b. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) Atlantic Silverside. FWS/OBS-82/i 1.10.
Fay, C.W., R.J. Neves, and G.B. Pardue. 1983c. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic). Striped bass. Report No. FWS/OBS-82/11.8. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Div.
Biol. Serv.
Feather, Peter M.; Daniel Hellerstein; and Theodore Thomaso. 1995. A Discrete-Count Model of Recreational Demand.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29: 214-227.
Feinerman, E,, and K, Knapp. 1983. Benefits from Groundwater Management: Magnitude, Sensitivity, and Distribution.
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(4):703-710.
Fell, P.E., R.S. Warren, and W.A. Niering. 2000. Restoration of salt and brackish tidelands in southern New England. In:
Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology, M.P. Weinstein and D. A. Kreeger (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Boston, MA, pp. 845-858.
Finkel, A.M. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. Center for Risk Management, Resources for the Future.
Washington, DC, p. 68
Fischman, R.L. 2001. The EPA's NEPA Duties and Ecosystem Services. Stanford Environmental Law Journal
20(2):497-536.
Fish Endocrinology Research Group. 2002. Endocrine Control ofTeleost Osmoregulation. University of St. Andrews.
imp: ;k uk s<.vn leu' k ici>m.tun. Accessed 4/1/02.
Fish, M.P. 1932. Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fishes from Lake Erie, and its tributary waters.
Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries 47:293-398.
References 13
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Fisher, A. and R, Raucher. 1984, Intrinsic benefits of improved water quality: Conceptual and empirical perspectives.
Advances in Applied Micro-Economics 3:37-66.
Fitzhugh, G.R., H A. Thompson, and T.G. Snider III. 1993. Ovarian development, fecundity, and spawning frequency of
black dram Pogonias cromis in Louisiana. Fishery Bulletin 91(2):244-253.
FL DEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Meeting between EPA, contractors, and Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. December.
Fiannery, M.S., H.C. Downing, G.A. MeGarry, and M.O. Walters. 1991. Increased nutrient loading and base flow
supplementation in the Little Manatee River watershed, p. 369-395. In: Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2.
February 27-March 1, 1991 (Treat, S.F. and P.A. Clark, eds,), 528 p.
Fletcher, R.I., and R.B. Deriso. 1988. Fishing in dangerous waters: remarks on a controversial appeal to spawner-reeruit
theory for long-term impact assessment. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:232-244.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2001. Fishing Lines Fish Identification Section.
hup: mnrint-jishcnes-.M-'j !i>hinubnes llsh id?.pdf. Accessed 12/12/01.
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2002a. Marine Fisheries, httrr' marmerWherio-.org llsh.-silverper.mu.
Accessed 1/02.
¦Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2002b. Status and Trends 2001 Report - Florida's Nearshore and
Inshore Species, htm: tvan .l"h>ndamarinc.ore features ariK'ic.asp''Ki:-4'»f> 1. Accessed 1/02.
Florida Power Corporation. 1985. Crystal River Units 1, 2 and 3§316 Demonstration. Final Report — Appendix.
Fogarty, M.J., A.A Rosenberg,.and M.P. Sissenwine. 1992. Fisheries risk assessment: A case study of Georges Bank haddock.
Environmental Science and Technology 26(3):440-447.
Fogarty, M.J., M.P. Sissenwine, and E.B. Cohen. 1991. Recruitment variability and the dynamics of exploited fish
populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6:241-246.
Fonferek, W.J. 1997. Dredged material management - a federal perspective, p. 95-99. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area
Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.). Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program.
Fonseca, M.S. 1992. Restoring seagrass systems in the United States. In: Restoring the Nation's Marine Environment, G.W.
Thayer (ed.). Maryland Sea Grant College, College Park, MD, pp. 79-109.
Foster, K.L., F.W. Steimle, W.C. Muir, R.K. Kropp, and B.E. Conlin. 1994. Mitigation potential of habitat replacement;
Concrete artificial reef in Delaware Bay'— Preliminary results. Bulletin of Marine Science 55(2-3):783-795.
Fraser, S., V. Gotceitas, and J. A. Brown. 1996. Interactions between age-classes of Atlantic cod and their distribution among
bottom substrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:305-314.
Freeman, R.F. and R.K. Sharma. 1977. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume II: Inland
Waters. Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/ES-56 Volume II. March. 323 pp.
Friedman, S, Morgan 2002. The Inflation Calculator. :i»n: w wv .nyyscy-'.ewn wH,nmn infl.cm
Froese, R. and D. Pauly, Eds. 2000. FishBase 2000. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management. Los
Bafios, Laguna, Phillippines.
Froese, R, and D. Pauly (eds.) 2001, FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication, nun nuw.iishli;isc.»rL'. Accessed
10/01. '
References 14
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Fuchs, E, H. 1967. Life history of the emerald shiner, Notropis alherinoides, in Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota,
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 96:247-256.
Galbraith, H,, l.C.T, Nisbet, J.J. Hatch, and T.H. Kunz, 1999, Age-related changes in efficiency among breeding common
tems Sterna hirundo: Measurement of energy expenditure using doubly-labeled water. J. Avian Biol. 30:85-96.
Garwood, G.P. 1968. Notes on the life histories of the silversides, Menidia beryllina (Cope) and Membras martinica
(Valenciennes) in Mississippi Sound and adjacent water. Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish
Commissioners 21:314-323.
Geo-Marine Inc. 1978. 316(b) Demonstration for the W. H. Sammis Generating Station. Prepared for Ohio Edison Company.
September 8.
Getz, W.M., and R.G. Haight 1989. Population Harvesting. Demographic Models of Fish, Forest, and Animal Resources.
Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.
Gibson, M. 1996. Comparisons of Trends in the Finfish Assemblage of Mt. Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay in Relation to
Operations at the New England Power Brayton Point Station. June 1995. Revised August 1996.
Gibson, M. 2001. Letter to Phil Colarusso of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-New England re: Winter Flounder
Regulations in Rhode Island. October 3, 2001.
Ginzburg, L.R., L.B. Slobodkin, K. Johnson, and A.G. Bindman. 1982. Quasi-extinction probabilities as a measure of impact
on population growth. Risk A nalysis 2:171-181.
Goldman, C.R. and A.R. Home. 1983. Limnology, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Goodyear, C.D. 1978. Evaluation of 316(b) Demonstration: Detroit Edison's Monroe Power Plant. Final Report for the Period
April 1977 through December 1977. Prepared for the Great Lakes Area Office, Office of Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. Administrative Report No. 83-3.
Goodyear, C.P. 1977a. Assessing the impact of power plant mortality on the compensatory reserve of fish populations. In W.
Van Winkle, ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power-Plant Induced Mortality on Fish
Populations. Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 186-195.
Goodyear, C.P. 1977b. Mathematical Methods to Evaluate Entrainment of Aquatic Organisms by Power Plants. Report No.
FWS/OBS-76/20.3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Power Plant Team, Ann Arbor, MI.
Goodyear, C.P, 1978, Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach. FWS/OBS - 78/65, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, July,
Goodyear, C.P. 1980. Compensation in fish populations. In: C H. Hocutt and J.R. Stauffer, Jr., eds. Biological Monitoring of
Fish. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, pp. 253-280.
Gotceitas, V., S, Fraser, and J.A. Brown. 1997. Use of eelgrass beds [Zostera marina) by juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus
morhua). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1306-1319.
Gottholm, B.W. and D.D. Turgeon. 1992. Toxic Contaminants in the Gulf of Maine. National Status and Trends Program for
Marine Environmental Quality, NOAA. 15 p.
Government of Canada. 2001. The Fisheries Then and Now; Prince Edward Island. Species website.
linn iviiiMici u-s >naic:, Accessed 12/12/01.
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2002. Fisheries and Aquaculture. Pelagics.
imp- v ¦¦¦ 'J" .ii' .m i'-h.Hi Njv. K-- lv;,iL'k> ' ¦ -. Accessed Ml 1/02.
Government of Nova Scotia. 2000. Nova Scotia Canada. Natural Resources,
iitiK -v- .'.v- !¦- ..m 11.1ih - i!" . Accessed 1/30/02.
References IS
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Grant, S.M. and J. A. Brown. 1998. Diel foraging cycles and interactions among juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) at a
nearshore site in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:1307-1316.
Great Lakes Commission. 2001. Great Lakes Information Network, bun: ^ w u/-iran-lakcs.nei, Accessed 2001.
Great Outdoor Recreation Pages. 1999. Destinations: Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge website.
Imp: www .iMi-p.i-om u»rn re.Munw us mrdc bomh.t.iiini. Accessed August, 2001.
Greene, William H. 1995. Limdep Version 7 User's Manual. Plainview, NY: Econometric Software, Inc.
Greenhalgh, M. 2002. The Wild Trout: Glossary, hiir: vn»t-trfiu:.tv.ufc-.ih'ssarv.httn. Accessed 3/29/02.
Grigalunas, T.A., J,J. Opaluch, D. French, and M Reed. 1988. Measuring Damages to Marine Natural Resources from
Pollution Incidents under CERCLA: Applications of an Integrated Ocean Systems/Economic Model. Marine Resources
Economics 5:1-21.
Grimes, B.H., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D. Moran. 1989, Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental
Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic) Summer and Winter Flounder., Biological Report
82(11.112). 18 p.
Griswold, C.A. and M.J, Silverman. 1992. Fecundity of the Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the Northwest Atlantic
in 1987. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 12:35-40.
Gulland, J.A. 1974. The Management of Marine Fisheries. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
Haab. Timothy €., John Whitehead, and Ted McConnell 2000. The Economic Value of Marine Recreational Fishing in the
Southeast United States: 1997 Southeast Economic Data Analysis. Final Report. U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. July.
Hafher. H., P.J. Dugan, M. Kersten, O. Pinneau, and J.P, Wallace. 1993. Flock feeding and food intake in little egrets Egretta
garzetta and their effects on food provisioning and reproductive success. Ibis 25-32.
Hagen, D., J. Vincent, and P. Welle. 1992. Benefits of Preserving Old Growth Forests and the Spotted Owl. Contemporary
Policy Issues 10:13-25.
Hales, L.S. and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989, Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes
and invertebrates (South Atlantic) — Spot. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.91). U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers TR EL-82-4.
Hall, W.R. 1995, Atlantic Menhaden, In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). The
Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 219-225.
Hanemann, M., J. Loomis, and B. Kanninen. 1991. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice
Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73(4): 1255-1263.
Hansen, D,F. 1951. Biology of the white crappie in Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 25(41:211-265.
Harpman et al, 1993, Nonuse economic Value: Emerging Policy Analysis Tool. Rivers, Volume 4, Number 4,280-291.
Harrison, P. 1983. Seabirds — An Identification Guide. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Hausman, J.A., G.K. Leonard, and D. McFadden 1995, A Utility-Consistent, Combined Discrete Choice and Count Model:
Assessing Recreational Use Losses Due to Natural Resource Damage. Journal of Public Economics 56: 1-30.
Hazleton Environmental Science Corporation. 1978. The Survival of Entrained Icthyoplankton at Quad-Cities Station 1978.
Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company, Chicago, Illinois.
References 16
-------
References
Heal, G., G.C. Daily, P R Ehrlich, J. Salzrnan, C. Boggs, J. Hellmann, J. Hughes, C. Kxenien, and T. Ricketts. 2001.
Protecting Natural Capital Through Ecosystem Service Districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):333-364.
Heck, K.L., K.W. Able, M.P. Fahay, and C.T, Roman. 1989. Fishes and decapod crustaceans of Cape Cod eelgrass meadows:
Species composition, seasonal abundance patterns and comparison with unvcgetated substrates. Estuaries 12(2):59-65.
Helfman, G.S., B.B. Collette, and D.E. Facey. 1997. The diversity of fishes. Blackwell Science. 528 pp.
Hendrickson, L. 2000. Windowpane Flounder. NOAA. Imr-. >"¦ ¦> mv> :-psvn lldrs mndim. Accessed 2/1/02.
Herbold, B., and P.B. Moyle. 1989. The Ecology of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Biological Report No 85(7.22).
Herbold, B.. A, Jassby. and P.B. Moyle. 1992. Status and Trends Report on Aquatic Resources of the San Francisco Bay
Estuary. Technical Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA,
Herman, J.S., D.C. Culver, and J. Salzrnan. 2001. Groundwater Ecosystems and the Service of Water. Stanford
Environmental Law Journal 20(2):479-496.
Heyl, M.G. and J.A. Zimmerman. 1997. Manatee River salinity response to reservoir releases, p. 209-215. In: Proceedings of
the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our Knowledge, October 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.),
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Hicks, D.B. 1977. Statement of Findings for the Coleman Power Plant, Henderson, Kentucky. October 14. 5 pp.
Hicks, R., S. Steinback, A. Gautam, and E. Thunberg 1999. Volume II: The Economic Value of New England and
Mid-Atlantic Sport fishing in 1994. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-38.
Hilborn, R. 1987. Living with uncertainty in resource management. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:1-5.
Hilborn, R. and C.J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, Choice, Dynamics and Uncertainty. Chapman
and Hall, London and New York.
Hildebrand, M.1974. 1974. Analysis of Vertebrate Structure. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 710 p.
Hildebrand, S.F. 1922. Notes on habits and development of eggs and larvae of the silversides Menidia menidia and Menidia
beryl Una. Fishery Bulletin 38:113-120.
Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fisheries 43 (Part 1): J-388.
Hill, J., J.W. Evans, and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (South Atlantic) Striped Bass. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 82(11.118). U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 35 pp.
Holling, C.S. 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for people. Ecological Applications
6:733-735.
Holmlund, C.M., and M. Hammer. 1999. Ecosystem services generated by fish populations. Ecological Economics
29:253-268.
Holt, M.T. and R.C. Bishop. 2002. A semi flexible normalized quadratic inverse demand system; An application to the price
formation of fish. Empirical Economics. Forthcoming.
Hoover's Online. 2001a. Company capsule for American Electric Power Company, Inc.
hi!p. .h-'in ers-cutn c<> i-ujiMiu- -I K? 1 i'o. i'n is- "-i.nHii'. Accessed 10/25/0i.
References 17
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
References
Hoover's Online. 2001b. Company capsule for Cinergy Corp. ».ip: u ,|p,»',j!».cnm w capsule* I ".2 i <'»3.J253 1 .(><>.htmi.
Accessed 10/25/01.
Hoover's Online. 2001c. Company capsule for CMS Energy Corporation,
nun: v- v. »jiq.'UTs.ppip i-i- cupsmc i'.2\ ?v . >03p" .. Accessed 10/18/01.
Hoover's Online, 2001 d. Company capsule for Conectiv. inin: v n .im-.v cr.-.wm c»» ainsi.iie "i).2! ft3.5ft3?9.ou.lumi.
Accessed 9/28/01.
Hoover's Online. 2001 ,e Company capsule for Entergy Corporation.
imp: "svv lio»orv.Liini co c.in--»lc--i U.2 l<0.1cf l-».o.com co c,ins»ic3 o.ZKv.l I !!3,'>".hunl, Accessed 10/25/01.
Hoover's Online. 2001 g. Company capsule for Northeast Utilities.
hup; wuu,.h<"nyrs'.i,<'in c.2H»3.i I IJ5.OQ.himl. Accessed 10/10/01.
Hoover's Online. 200 li. Company capsule for Progress Energy, Inc.
imp, hu'a.hoovers.emu c-o capsule f> i>.2i63.[it3>)i>,oo.hun|, Accessed 10/16/01.
Hoover's Online. 2001 j. Company capsule for TECO Energy, Inc.
imp: ww" .ho. in crs.coni co eanMilc " 'OHv.l I J2'>.(it».imni. Accessed 10/16/01.
Hoover's Online. 2002. Company capsule for DTE Energy Company.
imp: b» w.Ihii'u'i>a)uii c capsu'e e i'.2 I 63. HM53.QO.himi. Accessed 3/6/02.
Horst, T.I. 1975a. The assessment of impact due to entrainment of ichthyoplankton. Fisheries and Energy Production
Symposium.
Horst, T.J. 1975b. The Equivalent Adult Model. A General Model for Fisheries Impact Assessment,
Houde, E.D., W.J. Richards, and Y.P. Saksena. 1974. Description of eggs and larvae of scaled sardine, Harengula jaguana.
Fishery Bulletin 72(4): 1106-1122.
Howe, A. and P. Coates. 1975. Winter flounder movements, growth, and mortality off Massachusetts. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 104:13-29.
Howell, P., A, Howe, M. Gibson, and S. Ayvanzian. 1992. Fishery Management Plan for Inshore Stocks of Winter Flounder
(Pleuronectes americanus). Fishery Management Report 2!, of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, 138 pp.
Hughes, J.E., L.A. Deegan, J.C. Wyda, and A. Wright. 2000. An Index of Biotic Integrity Based on Fish Community
Structure Applied to Rhode Island and Connecticut Estuaries. The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods
Hole, MA,
Hundley, Kris. 1999. St. Petersburg Times, Problems have halted plant before. April 9, 1999.
Hunter Environmental Services Inc. 1989. Ohio River Ecological Research Program Final Report. 1988.
Huppert, D. 1989. Measuring the Value of Fish to Anglers: Application to Central California Anadroroous Species. Marine
Resource Economics. Vol. 6.
Huppert, D.D. 1990. Economic Benefits from Commercial Fishing. Draft report to National Marine Fisheries Service.
References 18
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Hutchings, J.A. 1996. Spatial and temporal variation in the density of northern cod and a review of hypotheses for the stock's
collapse, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53:943-962.
Hutchings, J.A. and R.A. Myers. 1994. What can be learned from the collapse of a renewable resource? Atlantic cod, Gadus
morhua, of Newfoundland and Labrador. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:2126-2146.
Hynes, H.B.N. 1970, The Ecology of Running Water. University of Toronto Press. 555 pp.
Information Please LLC, © 1999, 2001. At: iiitoiilciise.iu-o.vcom . Accessed 4/02.
InfoMI. 2001. Monroe County, Michigan. Imp, \w\u.n>ulinn;i'.:.c>.>ni county mi munroe . Accessed 10/11/01.
Institute for Marine Research. 2002, Institute for Marine Research, Kiel Larvalbase. hup: w ww,larvulbase,orunc.ia.us dnr oriuiniz.i l\vh fish iall>h ial"ish.inm. Accessed 11/5/01.
Jackson, H.W. and R.E. Tiller. 1952. Preliminary Observations on Spawning Potential in the Striped Bass, Roccus saxatilis
(Walbaum). Md, Dep. Res. Educ. No. 93. 15 pp.
Jacobson, P.M., E. Lorda, DJ. Danila, J.D. Miller, C.A. Tomichek, and R.A. Sher. 1998. Studies of Cooling Water Intake
Effects at Two Large Coastal Nuclear Power Stations in New England. In: EPRJ Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical
Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24,
Berkeley Springs, WV,
Jenkins, D. and L.A. Gelvin-Innvaer. 1995. Colonial wading birds. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove
and R.M. Nyman, (eds.). The Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 335-345.
Johansson, J.O R. 1991, Long-term trends of nitrogen loading, water quality and biological indicators in Hillsborough Bay,
Florida, p. 157-176. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1, 1991,
Tampa, FL. (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds.), 528 p.
Johnson, D.R. and W. Seaman. 1986, Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and
Invertebrates (South Florida): Spotted Seatrout., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.43). 30 p,
htm: u'.vv>.nm'c.Liov mlb nub HI
Jones, C. 1985. Within-season differences in growth of total larval Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus. Fishery Bulletin
83:289-298.
Jones, P.W., F.D. Martin, and J.D. Hardy, Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval,
and juvenile stages. Vol. I. Acipenseridae through Ictaluridae. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Center for Environmental
and Estuarine Studies University of Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington.
Jones & Stokes Associates Inc. 1998. Environmental Assessment for PG&E's Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan for
Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants. Draft. August 10, 1998. (JSA 97-144.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California and the National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, California.
Jordan, F., S. Coyne, and J.C. Trexler. 1997. Sampling fishes in vegetated habitats: effects of habitat structure on sampling
characteristics of the i-m2 throw trap. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:1012-1020.
Joseph, E.B. 1972. Status of Sciaenid stocks of the middle Atlantic coast, Chesapeake Sci. 13(2):87-100.
Jude, D.J., P.J. Mansfield, and M. Perrone, Jr. 1983. Impingement and entrainment offish and effectiveness of the fish return .
system at the Monroe Power Plant, western Lake Erie, 1982-1983. University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division,
Special Report 101, Ann Arbor.
References 19
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
References
Jude, D.J., P.J. Mansfield, PJ. Schneeberger, and J.A. Wojcik. 1987a. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations:
Literature Reviews, Volume 2: Compensation in Fish Populations Subject to Catastrophic Impact, EA-5200. Volume 2,
Research Project 1633-6. Final Report, May 1987. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Jude, D.J., F.J. Tesar, S.F. Deboe, and T.J, Miller. 1987b. Diet and selection of major prey species by Lake Michigan
salmonines, 1973-1982. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(5):677-691.
Jury, S.H., J.D. Field, S.L. Stone, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and
Invertebrates in North Atlantic Estuaries. ELMR Rep. No. 13. NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,
Silver Spring, MD. 221pp.
Kaiser, S.C. and M.J. Neuman. 1995. Flounder. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary, L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman
(eds.) The Delaware Estuary Program.
Kaoru, Y. 1993. Differentiating Use and Nonuse Values for Coastal Pond Water Quality Improvements. Environmental and
Resource Economics 3:487-494.
Kaplan, C. 2000. Condenser and Cooling Tower Make-Up Flows for a 1000 MW Steam Electric Power Plant, Memo to Tetra
Tech, Inc. June 26, 2000.
Kaufman, K. 1996. Lives of North American Birds. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Keller, A.A. and G. Klein-MacPhee. 2000, Impact of elevated temperature on the growth, survival, and trophic dynamics of
winter flounder larvae: A mesocosm study. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:2 382-2392.
Keller, A.A., C.A. Qviatt, H,A, Walker, and J.D. Hawk. 1999, Predicted impact of elevated temperature on the magnitude of
the winter-spring phytoplankton bloom in temperate coastal waters: a mesocosm study. Limnology and Oceanography
44:344-356.
Kelly, K.H. and J.R. Moring. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and
invertebrates (North Atlantic)- Atlantic herring. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11,38). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
TREl.-82-4. 22pp.
Kelly, J.F., and B. Van Home. 1997. Effects of food supplementation on the timing of nest initiation in belted kingfishers.
Ecology 78:2504-2511.
Kelly, B„ R. Lawton, V. Malkoski, S. Correia, and M. Borgatti. 1992. Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Marine Environmental
Monitoring Program Report Series No. 6. Final Report on Haul-Seine Survey and Impact Assessment of Pilgrim Station on
Shore-Zone Fishes, 1981-1991. Prepared by the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement,
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries for Boston Edison Company. December 30. 31 pp.
Kelso, J.R.M.,and G.S. Milbum. 1979, Entrainment and impingement of fish by power plants in the Great Lakes which use
the once-through cooling process. Journal of Great Lakes Research 5:182-194.
Kennish, M.J. 2000. Chapter 5, Case Study 4: San Francisco Estuary Project. Pages 255-336 in: M.J. Kennish (ed.) Estuary
Restoration and Maintenance: The National Estuaiy Program. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL.
Kimmel, C.B., W. W. Ballard, S. R. Kimmel, B. Ullmann, and T. F. Schilling. 1995. Stages of Embryonic Development of
the Zebrafish. Developmental Dynamics 203:253-310 (1995). Reprinted only by permission of Wilev-Liss, a subsidiary of
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. At: imp: /!]i» />KH»k stano
Kirnmerer, W.J. 1999. How density-dependence can be important and still be lost in the noise. Paper presented at Power
Generation Impacts on Aquatic Resources Conference, April 12-15, 1999, Renaissance Waverly Hotel, Atlanta, GA.
Conference organizers; Electric Power Research Institute and U.S. Department of Energy,
King, D.M. and Mazzotta, M. 2002. Ecosystem Valuation. Methods, Section 6: Contingent Valuation Method.
hiT' . i-i\. in tie c.-. gin —.ir.iru1" -¦ n Accessed 4/2/02.
References 20
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Kitts, A. and E. Thunberg. 1998. Description and Impacts of Northeast Groundfish Fishery Buyout Programs, Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 98-12. November.
Kjesbu, O.S. 1989. The spawning activity of cod, Gadus morhua L. Journal of Fish Biology 34:195-206.
Kleinholz. C.W. 2000. Species Profile: Bigmouth Buffalo. SRAC Publication No. 723. Southern Regional Aquaculture
Center. June.
Kocik, J.. 2000. River Herring. From: Status of Fisheries Resources off Northeastern United States website.
Imp, nwn.wi. w hoi.ciln .-.nv-n ni'lioirim Accessed 3/26/01.
Kotchen, M. J. and S.D. Reiling 2000. Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation of nonuse values: a
case study involving endangered species. Ecological Economics 32:93-107.
Lackey, R.T, 2001. Fisheries: History, Science, and Management. National Health and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory. November, linn: www .cpa.gm weti pauc> Mui'i ia-.'Ko r>ur*-iiMon.i'nm. Accessed 4/1/02.
Lane, J. A., C.B. Portt, and C.K.. Minns. 1996a, Adult habitat characteristics of Great Lakes Fishes. Canadian Manuscript
Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2358.
Lane, J. A., C.B. Portt, and C.K.. Minns. 1996b. Nursery habitat characteristics of Great Lakes fishes. Canadian Manuscript
Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2338.
Laney, R.W. 1997. The relationship of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) ecological value to species managed by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC): Summary for the ASMFC SAV subcommittee. In; Atlantic Coastal
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Impacts, State Regulation, and Value to
Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks, C.E. Stephen and T.E. Bigford (eds,). ASMFC Habitat Management Series #1, Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission.
Lassuy, D.R. 1983. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements (Gulf of Mexico)- Spotted Seatrout.
USFWS FWS/OBS-82/11.4.
Laughlin, R.A. 1982. Feeding habits of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, in the Apalaehicola estuary. Florida, Bull.
Mar. Sci. 32:807-822.
Lawler, J.P. 1988. Some considerations in applying stock-recruitment models to multiple-age spawning populations.
American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:204-218.
Lawler J.E., W T. Hogarth, B.J. Copeland, M.P. Weinstein. R.G. Hodson, and H.Y. Chen. 1980. Techniques for Assessing
the Impact of Entrainment and Impingement as Applied to the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant. Pages 3-307 in L.D. Jensen
(ed.) Paired Position Papers, Issues Associated with Impact Assessment: Proceedings of the Fifth National Workshop on
Entrainment and Impingement. Ecological Analysts Inc. and Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA,
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1975. 1974 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies - Bowline Point and Lovetl
Generating Stations. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1976. 1975 Hudson River Aquatic Ecology Studies — Bowline Point and Lovett
Generating Stations: Vol, 1: Chapters 1-IX. Prepared for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1983. 1979 and 1980 Data Analyses and Application of Empirical Models of Hudson
River Fish Populations. Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. August.
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1985. 2.0 Entrainment Survival Studies. In: Quad Cities Aquatic Program 1984 Annual
Report. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison, Chicago, Illinois.
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1987. Brayton Point Station Unit 4 Angled Screen Intake Biological Evaluation
Program: Volume I. October.
References 21
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1989. Biological Evaluation of Chambers Works Water Intake Located at Atlantic City
Electric Company's Deep water Generating Station. September.
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1991. 1990 Impingement Studies at the Bowline Point Generating Station. Prepared for
Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc.
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1993. Impingement and Entrainment Study at Zion Nuclear Generating Station July
1991 - July 1993. Prepared for Commonwealth Edison Company. October.
Lawler Matusky & Skelly Engineers. 1999. Brayton Point Power Station Entrainment Survival Study, 1997-1998. Draft.
Prepared for US Gen New England, Inc., Brayton Point Station, Somerset, MA, Pearl River, NY.
Lawton, R„ B. Kelly, P. Nitsehke, J. Boardman, and V. Malkoski. 2000. Final Report Studies (1990-1997) and Impact
Assessment of Pilgrim Station on Cunner in Western Cape Cod Bay. Massachusetts Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Environmental Law Enforcement. Division of Marine Fisheries.
Layton, D., and G. Brown. 1998. Heterogenous Preferences Regarding Global Climate Change. Presented at NOAA
Applications of Stated Preference Methods to Resource Compensation Workshop, Washington, D.C.
Lazaroff, C. 2000. Environment News Service, Florida Utility Agrees to $1 Billion Pollution Control Program. March 1,
2000.
Leak, J.C. and E.D. Houde. 1987. Cohort growth and survival of bay anchovy, Anchoa milchilli, larvae in Biscayne Bay,
Florida. Marine Ecology Progress Series 37:109-122.
Leard, R., R. Matheson, K. Meador, W. Keithly, C. Luquet, M. Van Hoose, C. Dyer, S. Gordon, J. Robertson., D. Horn, and
R. Scheffler. 1993. The black drum fishery of the Gulf of Mexico, United States: A regional management plan. Gulf States
Marine Fisheries Commission. Report Number 28, Ocean Springs, MS. May.
Lee, D.S., Gilbert, C.R., Hocutt, C.H., Jenkins, R.E., McAllister, D.E., and J.R. Stauffer. 1980. Atlas of North American
freshwater fishes. Publication #1980-12 of the North Carolina Biological Survey.
Lewis R. and G. Seegert. 1998. Entrainment and impingement studies at two powerplants on the Wabash River in Indiana. In:
EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section
316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.
Lewis, R.M., E.P. Wilkins, and H.R. Gordy, 1972. A description of young Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus, in the
White Oak River estuary, North Carolina. Fishery Bulletin 70( 1): 115-118.
Lewis, R.R., III, and E.D. Estevez. 1988. The ecology of Tampa Bay, Florida: an estuarine profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Biol. Rep. 85(7.18). 132 pp.
Lexico LLC. 2002. Dictionary.com. Imn: v>v. w.diction;m cm Accessed 4/2/02.
Liermann, M., and R. Hilbom. 1997. Depensation in fish stocks: A hierarchic Bayesian meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1976-1984.
Liermann, VI., and R. Hilborn. 2001. Depensation: evidence, models and implications. Fish and Fisheries 2:33-58.
Lindberg, W.J. and M.J. Marshall. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes
and Invertebrates (South Florida) - Stone Crab. U.S. Fish Widl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/11.21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
TR EL-82-4. 17 pp.
Loesch, J.G. and W.A. Lund, Jr. 1977. A contribution to the life history of the blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 106:583-589.
Lohner, T. 1998. Fish Entrainment, Impingement, and Long-term Monitoring Studies at Ohio River Power Plants.
Presentation at EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.
References 22
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Loomis, J. 1988. The Bioeconomic Effects of Timber Harvesting on Recreational and Commercial Salmon and Steelhead
Fishing: A Case Study of Siuslaw National Forest. Marine Resource Economics. Vol. 5.
Loomis, J., and E. Ekstrand, 1997. Economic Benefits of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl: A Scope Test Using a
Multiple Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 22(2):356-366.
Loomis, J. B. and White, D. S. 1996. Economic benefits of rare and endangered species: Summary and meta-analysis.
Ecological Economics 18:197-206.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, E. M. Strange, K, Fausch, and A. Covich. 2000. Measuring the total economic value of restoring
ecosystem services in an impaired river basin; results from a contingent valuation survey. Ecological Economics 33:103-117.
Lough, R.G. and D.C. Potter. 1993. Vertical distribution patterns and diel migrations of larval and juvenile haddock
Melanogrammus aeglefmus and Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua, on Georges Bank. Fishery Bulletin 91:281-303.
Ludwigs, J.D. 1998. Kleptoparasitism in common terns Sterna hirundo as an indicator of food shortage. Vogelwelt
119:193-203.
Lycos, Inc. 2002. Infoplease.com. htip- i'ifi>plca-i.-.Kcn-.v-oin . Accessed 4/1/02.
Mace, P.M. 1994. Relationships between common biological reference points used as thresholds and targets of fisheries
management strategies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 51:110-122.
Maddala, G.S. 1983. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
MADEP. (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection). 2000. Selected Federal and State Grant Funded
Indicative Project Summaries: FFY 1996-2000. January 2000.
Madigan, M.T., J.M. Martinko, and J. Parker. 1997. Brock Biology of Microorganisms. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. 2001. Southeastern Massachusetts Natural Resource Atlas. March 2001.
imp: » w » iiianiiniei ui t;>cma» ;Ula:-.l»nih Accessed 11/29/01.
Mansueti, R.J. and E.H. Mollis. 1963. Striped Bass in Maryland Tidewater. University of Maryland Natural Resources
Institute. Educ. Ser. 61. 28 pp.
MAPC. 2001. Atlas of Tidal Restrictions on the South Shore of Massachusetts. Prepared by Metropolitan Area Planning
Council for the Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration Program, Boston. June 20.
Marcy, B. C., A. D. Beck, and R. E. Ulanowicz. 1978. Effects and Impacts of Physical Stress on Entrained Organisms. In:
Power Plant Entrainment: A Biological Assessment. Academic Press, New York, NY. pp. 136-188.
Marine Research Inc. and New England Power Company. 1981. New England Power Company Brayton Point Generating
Station, Mount Hope Bay, Somerset, Massachusetts: Final Environmental Impact Report and Sections 316(a) and 316(b)
Demonstrations with the Proposed Conversion of Generating Unit No. 4 from Closed-Cycle Cooling to Once-Through
Cooling. June.
Martosubroto, P. 1974. Fecundity of pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum Burkenroad. Bulletin of Marine Science 24(3):606-627.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service. 2002. Black drum.
hlli'- u" n .ilnr.Niak .nui.it:- n-Ik'i h-> c..Uk .iimn i'l.icKijiinii hl.n-Mlnnn.imnl. Accessed 1/21/02,
Masnik, M. T. and J. H. Wilson. 1980. Assessment of the Impacts of the Salem and Hope Creek Stations on Shortnose
Sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum LeSueur. Prepared by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. April,
References 23
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Mason, D. 2002. Natural Recruitment of Salmonids in the Muskegon River, Michigan. NOAA Great Lakes Environmental
Research Laboratory Salmonid Recruitment in the Muskegon. h:n~.: v. «•••< .L'kTi.noii.i.ups ask mis edvmason09-4.html.
Accessed 1/21/02.
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management. 1994. The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program-in
Massachusetts; Coastal Brief Volume No. 12, 1994. Imp: c/.m np-.iiK.iiim. Accessed 11/15/01.
Matthews, W.J. 1998. Patterns in Freshwater Fish Ecology. Chapman & Hall, New York.
May, A.W. 1967. Fecundity of Atlantic cod. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 24(7): 1531-1551.
Madzura, T. 2001. Glossary of Water-Related Terms. University of Missouri Outreach and Extension.
mip: i'Uirc;u-li inin iviin\ in kesoiin.v-; i?IPssar\ ukissnrv.ilHnl. Accessed 3/29/02.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 1995. About Oyster Diseases. Bay Journal Vol. 5, No. 2. April.
Imp: uww.Kn inurnai.cinr l.>5-l)4 insieri .him Accessed 4/1/02.
McBride, R.S. 1995. Marine Forage Fish. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.)
The Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 211-217.
McCambridge, J.T. Jr. and R.W. Alden, III. 1984. Growth of juvenile spot, Leiostomus xanthurus Lacepede, in the nursery
region of the James River, Virginia. Estuaries 7(4B);478-486.
McConnell. K. and 1. Strand. 1994. The Economic Value of Mid and South Atlantic Sport fishing: Volume 2. Cooperative
Agreement #CR-811043-01-0 between the University of Maryland at College Park, the Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
McCrimmon, H.R. 1968. Carp in Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 165. Ottawa, Ontario. 93 pp.
McDermot, D. and K.A. Rose. 2000. An individual-based model of lake fish communities: Application to piscivore stocking
in Lake Mendota, Ecological Modelling 125:67-102.
McEwan. D. 1992. Pages 67-70 in Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen (eds.), California's Living Marine Resources
and Their Utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California Sea Grant Extension
Program, University of California, Davis, CA.
McFadden, D, 1981. Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice. In: C.F. Manski and D.L. McFadden, Eds., Structural
Analysis of Discrete Data, Cambridge, MA; MIT Press.
McFadden, J.T., and J.P. Lawler, eds. 1977. Supplement 1 to influence of Indian Point Unit 2 and other steam electric
generating plants on the Hudson River estuary, with emphasis on striped bass and other fish populations. Unpublished report
prepared for Consolidated Edison Co. of New York.
McMichael, R.H., Jr. and K.M. Peters. 1989. Early life history of spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus (Pisces: Sciaenidae)
in Tampa Bay, Florida. Estuaries Vol. 12, No. 2, p. 98-110.
MDCH. 2001. Michigan 2001 Fish Advisory: Important Facts to Know if You Eat Michigan Fish. Michigan Department of
Community Health, bitn: >• u ,m
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
Meng. L., and P.B. Moyle. 1995. Status of splittail in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 124:538-549.
Mercer, L.P. 1987. Fishery Management Plan for Spot. Fisheries Management Report of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, No. 11. North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Morehead City.
Meredith Simas (Brayton Point Station) 2002. "brayton.ENT1973.1985.xls": Entrapment data at Brayton Point from 1973 to
1985
Meredith, W.H, and V.A. Lotrich. 1979, Production dynamics of tidal creek population of Fundulus heterocliius (linnaeus).
Estuaries and Coastal Marine Science 8:99-118.
Merriam-Webster Online. 2002. Collegiate Dictionary, hnn: wm.nw.^nr (hcnm,;u% Jinn Accessed 4/1/02.
Messieh, S.N. 1976. Fecundity studies on Atlantic herring from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and along the Nova Scotia
Coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105:384-394.
Michaud D.T. 1998. Wisconsin Electric's Experience with Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies. In: EPRJ Clean Water
Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K. Zammit (eds.). EPRJ Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical
Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.
Miller, E.E. 1966. Channel Catfish. In: Inland Fisheries Management. California Department of Fish and Game, pp. 440-463.
Miller, J.P. 1995. American shad. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, (eds.). The
Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 251-257.
Miller, R.R. 1960. Systematics and biology of the gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and related fishes. Fishery Bulletin
60:371-392.
Miller, R.W. 1995. Striped Bass. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman (eds.). The
Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 135-141.
Miiliman, S.R., B.L. Johnson, R.C. Bishop, and K.J. Boyle. 1992. The bioeconomics of resource rehabilitation: A
commercial-sport analysis for a Great Lakes Fishery. Land Economics 68(2): 191-210, . ,
Milon, J.W., E. Thunberg, C.M. Adams, and C.T.J. Lin. 1994. Recreational Anglers' Valuation of Near-Shore Marine
Fisheries in Florida. Florida Sea Grant College Program. Technical paper-73. January.
Mirant Corporation. 2001a. Mirant Completes Spin-Off From Southern Company. News Release, April 2, 2001.
Mirant Corporation 2001b. Mirant Corporation. Mirant Unsure of Start Date for Plant Expansion. News Release, June 1,
2001.
Mirant Corporation. 2001c. Southern Energy, Inc. 8-K, filed on January 19, 2001.
MIT Sea Grant. 2001. "Marine Bio Invaders", fiiyiL nm c.)n. Accessed 11/19/2001.
Mitchell, R.C. and R T. Carson. 1986. The Use of Contingent Valuation Data for Benefit/Cost Analysis of Water Pollution
Control. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC. September.
Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Monaghan, P., J.D. Uttley, M.D. Burns, C. Thaine, and J. Blackwood. 1989. The relationship between food supply,
reproductive effort and breeding success in arctic terns Sterna paradisaea. J. Anim. Ecol. 58:261-274.
Monteleone, D.M. 1992. Seasonality and abundance of ichthyoplankton in Great South Bay, New York. Estuaries
! 5f2l:230-23K.
References 25
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Mood, Alexander M, Franklin A. Graybill, and Duane C. Boes. 1974, Introduction to the Theory of Statistics, McGraw-Hill,
New York,
Morey, Edward R. 1999, Two RUMS unCLOAKED: Nested Logit Models of Site Choice and Nested Logit Models of
Participation and Site Choice, In; Herriges and Kling, Eds,, Valuing Recreation and the Environment. Edward El gar, pp.
65-120.
Morse, W.W. 1980a. Maturity, spawning, and fecundity of the Atlantic croaker, Mieropogonias undulatus, occurring North
of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. U.S. Fish. Bull. 78(1);190-195.
Morse, W.W, 1980b, Spawning and fecundity of Atlantic mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in the Middle Atlantic Bight, Fishery
Bulletin 78:103-108.
Morton, Timothy. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates
(Mid-Atlantic): Bay Anchovy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82(11.97). February, 1989.
Mouratov, D. 2001, MarineReference.com; Marine Glossary. Imp. w » w .niarineiciergnce.coro tth»»an . Accessed 4/1/02.
Moyle, P. B, 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of.California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cecil. 1996, 1996. Fishes; An introduction to ichthyology, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. 590 pp.
Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D, E Stevens, and L. W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status of delta smelt in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:67-77.
Muncy, R.J. 1984. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Gulf
of Mexico): Pinfish., FWS/OBS-82/11.26. 30 p. Imp: u'wu.nwn.'.iMv 'ulh nub oiftft.pdf.
Murphy, M.D. and R.G. Taylor. 1989, Reproduction and growth of black dram, Pogonias cromis, in northeast Florida.
Northeast Gulf Science 10:127-137.
Murphy, M.D. and R.G. Taylor. 1994. Age, growth, and mortality of spotted seatrout in Florida waters. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 123:482-497,
Murphy, M.D., G.A. Nelson, and R.G. Muller. 2000. Florida's Inshore and Nearshore Species: 2000 Status and Trends
Report. 37 p. imp: tloriiianianiic.oi'.;.
Murphy, R.C. 1952. Oceanic Birds of South America. Am. Mus. Nov., New York.
Myers, R.A. 2001. Compensation in Fish: A Review. Appendix B ofUtility Water Act Group comments on the § 316(b) new
sources rule. Unpublished manuscript.
Myers, R.A., and N.J. Barrowman, 1996. Is fish recruitment related to spawner abundance? Fisheries Bulletin 94:707-724.
Myers, R.A., and N.G. Cadigan. 1993. Density-dependent juvenile mortality in marine demersal Fish, Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50; 1576-1590.
Myers, R.A., K.G. Bowen, and N.J, Barrowman. 1999. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2404-2419.
Myers, R.A., J. Bridson, and NJ. Barrowman. 1995. Summary of worldwide stock and recruitment data. Canadian Technical
Reports in Fisheries and Aquatic Science 2024; I -327.
Myers, R.A., N.J. Barrowman, J.A. Hutchings, and A.A. Rosenberg. 1996. Population dynamics of exploited fish stocks at
low population levels. Science 26:1106-1108.
Narragansett Estuarine Research Reserve 2001. "Prudenee_lsiand_data.xls". Estimates of the abundance of species captured
in sampling efforts within the tidal wetlands of the Coggeshall marsh on Prudence Island in the Narragansett Estuarine
References 26
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Research Reserve in July and September 2000. Received from Kenny Raposa of the Narragansett Estuarine Research
Reserve, 2001.
National Audubon Society. 2000. Refuge map. Florida, hup: \\y. amiub'm.ppj aimpait'n rcfmie reiunes ilondn.hnrt',.
Accessed 1/02.
National Geographic Society. 1969, 1969. Wondrous World of Fishes, 2nd edition. Washington, DC.
National Geographic Society. 1999. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, National Geographic Society, Washington,
D.C. (1999).
Natural Heritage Network 2001. Natural Heritage Network at hue: » » ^ .ihiunv>er\c.orn nhp us pmmams.mn), (3/3/00)
Nature Conservation Council of NSW. 2002. Environmental Glossary: Glossary Item: Critical Habitat.
imp: u n m .iKvn>v.i>ri:.;itj -jjox-Hirv (.'rinc:illKii,>it;?i.mn)i. Accessed 3/29/02.
NatureServe. 2002. Natural Heritage Central Databases. Arlington, VA . U.S.A.
NBC. 2001. Narragansett Bay: An Introduction. Narragansett Bay Commission, hup: narnihm .com. Accessed 10/16/01.
NBEP. 1998. Working Across the Watershed: 1998 Report. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
linn: w »«.iihcp.i're pubs pat" uuuv^x.pdl. Accessed 12/05/01.
NBEP. 2001. About the Bay. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. Imp: « ».nhcp.oru index.html Accessed 10/16/01,
Neckles, H, and M. Dionne (eds.), 1999. Regional Standards to Identify and Evaluate Tidal Wetland Restoration in the Gulf
of Maine; A GPAC Workshop, June 2-3. Prepared for the Global Programme of Action Coalition for the Gulf of Maine
(GPAC) and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. The Wells National Estuaries Research Reserve, Wells, ME.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2000a. Report of the 30th Northeast Regional Stock Assessment Workshop
(30th SAW) Stock Assessment Review Committee (SARC) consensus summary of assessments. Northeast Fish. Sci. Cent.
Ref, Doc. 00-03.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center), 2000b. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States.
Atlantic cod. Imp: u.ir'Isl .nuti'vem mi-. s-p^Mi pp fin! . Accessed 1/16/02.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2000c. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States.
Atlantic herring. Imp. h jvr-.c.nmKun'i sp-.\p pp hen-inp Accessed 1/16/02.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2000d, Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States.
Winter flounder. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, imp, v. '* v- .ncispnmrs.pm mi> spsvn IKirs u inter. Accessed 1/16/02.
NEFSC (Northeast Fisheries Science Center). 2001. NMFS Northeast Fisheries Science Center Presents.. .Fish FAQ.
hup: » va u .t)el>e.pmr>.pi l:iq fishlauZa lilnn. Accessed 1/16/02.
Nelson, D.M, (ed.). 1992. Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Gulf of Mexico Estuaries, Volume I:
Data Summaries. ELMR Report Number 10. NOAA 'NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division. Rockville, MD.
273 pp.
Nelson, G.A, 1998. Abundance, growth, and mortality of young-of-the-year pintish, Lagodon rhomboides, in three estuaries
along the gulf coast of Florida. Fishery Bulletin 96:315-328.
Nelson, G.A.. R.H. McMichael, T.C. MacDonals, and J.R. O'Hop. 1997. Fisheries monitoring and its use in fisheries
resources management, p. 43-56. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our
Knowledge, October 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Nelson, J.S. 1994. 1994. Fishes of the world, 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons. 600 pp.
References 27
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Nevada Division of Water Planning, 1997. Water Words Dictionary - A Compilation of Technical Water, Water Quality,
Environmental, and Water-Related Terms. At: nttn: *vwvv.Ntau-.m,n> cm- dn-'-i
New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. 1995. Brayton Point Station Annual Biological and Hydrological
Report, January-December 1994. August.
New England Power Company and Marine Research Inc. 1998. New England Power Company Brayton Point Station 1997
Annual Biological and Hydrological Report. August.
New Hampshire Estuaries Project 2002. Draft Technical Characterization, hup; u ebster.stale.nil.usnhep , Accessed 1/02.
New Hampshire Yankee Electric Company. 1986. Seabrook Station: Facility Description. 37 pp.
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Imp: n n .^i,iic iii .tis dep en^h*« v .-i.nntl'r.t-f. ! cenp iv, ..en.mini.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999a. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics: Data User's Manual. Office of
Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division 1999.
imp: v.iiv M.nmi'.Lsn >•! ivciv;itioi::»' 'ivcarcli wocctiurfy.himi.Jirty 12.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1999b. Our Living Oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources,
1999. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-41, 301 pp.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001a. Annual Commercial Landing Statistics website.
h::p: w.x.nmi?,::.'' -i i cnmmcrci:n . Accessed9/01.
References 28
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
References
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2001b, The Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey Page of the National
Marine Fisheries Service Website, hup: HUH.suimis-Li'i- 1 rccrcaiH>n;;l sunm indcA.htmi. Accessed 3/01.
NMFS. (National Marine Fishery Service). 2001c. National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS).
Imp: u w u .st.mill's.inn Ml ccon rcc ccnii.htm'.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 200 Id. Office of Protected Resources. Shortnose Sturgeon, National Marine
Fishery Service (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources,
blip, n \\^.tnnj>.in>;i,i.ii(>\ pro' rc-. siiecio tis!'. Nhi: ~nirt:ci'n ii¦ p;¦
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 200 le. Sea Turtle Protection and Conservation. Office of Protected Resources.
Illtli: w u .ninls.nuaa.inn p»n rc> PRj "! uriics mrPi.-.ium!
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1993. Status of the Fishery Resources Off the Northeastern
United States for 1993. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC 101. National Marine Fisheries Service, 140 pp.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1.200 la. Bay Anchovy. NOAA Coastal Service Center website,
l:ttp: acebasm speeiiiirbnv.anch.hini. Accessed 10/18/01.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration),. 2001b. NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Species Information
website, imp: noaa.chcsmteakeh-is .net liberies spcuo.ntm. Accessed 12/01,
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2001c. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern
United States, imp: ww «.nelsc.mill's,am :;os . Accessed 11/01.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)., 2002a. Characterization Of The Ashepoo-Combahee-Edisto
(Ace) Basin, South Carolina, Species Gallery, hup: acehqsin-.pccual I'tsh.him, Accessed 1/30/02,
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2002b. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska
Regional Office. Pink Shrimp (Pandalus borealis), Imp: wA«.tuki.noa;i.LHn ir;wl shr >lii-imp».htm. Accessed 1/17/02.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2002c. NOAA Photo Library.
Imp: " u w pboioiiKihKia.fin insiorii nniN i:-jliU34<,,npn. Accessed 1/1,1/02.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2002d. NOAA's Biogeography Program. Gulf of Mexico
Essential Fish Habitat: LA/MS/AL. imp: Pniew.iii"-[in:i;^i-. pivilcp Uh w-H-elh mmcrL-.mi. Accessed 1/17/02.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).. 2002e. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Research
Programs, hup: sIl'IKwijcn.ni>.s.n«>:ui.e<>'. research program.-- runil. Accessed 1/11/02.
Normandeau Associates Inc. 1984. Hudson River Ecological Study in the Area of Indian Point: 1983 Annual Report.
Prepared for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and New York Power Authority.
Normandeau Associates. 1990. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1989. A Characterization of Baseline Conditions in the
Hampton-Seabrook Area, 1975-1989. A Preoperational Study for Seabrook Station. Prepared for Public Service Company of
New Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division. September.
Normandeau Associates. 1991, Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1990. A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in
the Hampton-Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for Public Service Company of New
Hampshire, New Hampshire Yankee Division. November.
Normandeau Associates, 1993. Seabrook Environmental Studies, 1992, A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in
the Hampton-Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy Service
Corporation, August.
Normandeau Associates. 1994a. Evaluation of Seabrook Station Estuarine Benthos Program. Prepared for North Atlantic
Energy Service Corporation. October. Bedford, NH.
References 29
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Normandeau Associates, 1994b. Seabrook Environmental Studies 1993, A Characterization of Environmental Conditions in
the Hampton-Seabrook Area During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy Service
Corporation. September.
Normandeau Associates. 1995. Seabrook Station 1994. Environmental Studies in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation. October.
Normandeau Associates. 1996a. Seabrook Station 1995. Environmental Studies in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station, Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation. August.
Normandeau Associates. 1996b. Seabrook Station 1996. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation. January.
Normandeau Associates. 1997. Seabrook Station 1997. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton-Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation. September.
Normandeau Associates. 1999. Seabrook Station 1998. Environmental Monitoring in the Hampton - Seabrook Area. A
Characterization of Environmental Conditions During the Operation of Seabrook Station. Prepared for North Atlantic Energy
Service Corporation, October.
Normandeau Associates Inc. 2000. Impingement and Entrainment at the Cooling Water Intake Structure of the Delaware City
Refinery, April 1998 - March 2000. Prepared for Motiva Enterprises LLC, Delaware City Refinery, Delaware City, DE.
August.
North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation. 1999. Seabrook Station Sea Duck Entrapment Report. March 22, 1999.
North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 1986. Fishes of North Dakota. North Dakota Game and Fish Department,
Bismarck, ND. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page.
Imp: u« wi\ asihuyc nn>i> iidfislic'^ ridiHho.lnm (Version 02FEB98).
Northeast Utilities. 2001a. 2000 Summary Annual Report, filed on April 12, 2001.
Northeast Utilities. 2001b. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on March 28, 2001.
Northeast Utilities Environmental Laboratory. 1999. Monitoring the Marine Environment of Long Island Sound at Millstone
Nuclear Power Station 1998 Annual Report. 274 pp.
Norton, V., T, Smith, and I. Strand (eds. ,1. 1983. Stripers: The Economic Value of the Atlantic Coast Commercial and
Recreational Striped Bass Fisheries. Maryland Sea Grant Publication. UM-SG-TS-83-12,
NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Managing Wastewater in Costal Urban Areas. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
NRDC. 2002. Glossary of environmental terms, imp: »¦ '.v.-- nnk: ivh-ivn.. ;¦ h.asp. Natural Resources Defense
Council. Accessed 3/29/02.
NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation (New South Wales State Government Department of Land and Water
Conservation), 2001. Caring for our Natural Resources. Imp., j'.i- ..nivaiv wcilatuis-Tinjis i*:ia almc . Accessed
1/30/02.
O'Brien, L. 2000. American Plaice. NOAA, 5 p. htm: n -wim ,;;wM^vn Iklr^plaicc . Accessed 06/30/01.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Ohio Public Hunting & Fishing Areas. ODNR, 1996.
References 30
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2001a. Division of Wildlife Fish Identification.
hup: wildliic iishine fisiiiu (.lei.rjii.ntiii. Accessed 8/28/01.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2001b. Life History Notes, hup: » u-n .Unr. state.oh.n^ »iiJtsk- resources ck-faii!:,htm.
Accessed 03/20/01.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2001c. Ohio River Fishing Regulations and License Reciprocity.
hiip w v', w .iJiir.siiik-.i'h.ir-. voluble fishing fi.-inv^-, 1 V.ht•.11;mi. Accessed 2001.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 200 Id. Ohio River Offers Excellent Sport fishing Opportunities.
imp "¦ •¦¦Ms ,tiin-.mhk'.oI).u> tiOllsli-nkt ohiomcr.htffl \. Accessed 10/26/2001.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 200 le. Recreational Sportfishing Pumps More Than $2 Billion Into Ohio's Economy,
Imp. ^ " .isoh h'.ml. Accessed 2002.
Ohio EPA 1988. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Volume II: Users Manual for Biological Field
Assessment of Ohio Surface Waters. State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Ecological Assessment Section
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio EPA 1996. Ohio Waste Resource Inventory. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Monitoring and Assessment
Section.
Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) 2000. Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC). Annual Report - 2000, Ohio
Valley Electric Corporation and subsidiary Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corporation. 2000,
Olla, B.L., A.J. Bejda, and A.D. Martin. 1975. Activity, movements, and feeding behavior of the cunner, Tautogolabrus
adspersus, and comparison of food habits with young tautog, Tautoga onitis, off Long Island, New York, Fishery Bulletin
73(4):895-9G0.
Olla, B.L., A.J. Bejda, and A.D. Martin. 1979. Seasonal dispersal and habitat selection of cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus,
and young tautog, Tautoga onitis, in Fire Island Inlet, Long Island, New York. Fishery Bulletin, Vol.77( 1);255-261.
Olsen, D.; Richards, J., and Scott, D. R. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of Columbia River Basin
salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2( 1 ):44-56.
Oro, D. 1996. Interspecific kleptoparasitism in Audouin's gull Larus audouinii at the Ebro Delta, northeast Spain: A
behavioral response to low food availability. Ibis 138:218-221.
ORSANCO. 1962. Aquatic life resources of the Ohio River. An inventory and evaluation of fish populations, limnological
conditions, commercial fishing, and sports fishing, with historical notes. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
ORSANCO. 1990. Assessment of nonpoint source pollution of the Ohio River. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission.
ORSANCO. 1998. Biennial assessment of Ohio river water quality conditions for water years 1996 and 1997. Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
ORSANCO. 2001. Ohio River Facts. ORSANCO Web Page, nnp: » " «.¦ .r-ai^ni'u mini*, incixinm. Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission. Accessed 10/22/01.
Ouellet. P. 1997. Characteristics and vertical distribution of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) eggs in the northern Gulf of St.
Lawrence, and the possible effect of cold water temperature on recruitment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 54:211 -223.
References 31
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
References
Overholtz, W. 2002. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States,
Atlantic Mackerel. Imp: netM-.nmts.ty, mk-sp%vh tip macKcrci . Accessed 1/11/02,
Overholtz, W.J.. R.S, Armstrong, D.G. Mountain, and M, Tercerio. 1991, Factors Influencing Spring Distribution,
Availability, and Recreational Catch of Atlantic Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the Middle Atlantic and Southern New
England Regions,, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-85. 13 pp.
Parsons, G. and A. Hauber 1997. Spatial Boundaries and Choice Set Definition in a Random Utility Model of Recreational
Demand. Land Economics 76(1): 86-89.
Parsons, Q. and M.J. Kealy 1992. Randomly Drawn Opportunity Sets in a Random Utility Model of Land Recreation. Land
Economics 68(1): pp 93-106.
Parsons, G.R. and M.S. Needelman 1992, Site Aggregation in a Random Utility Model of Recreation. Land Economics 68(4):
418-433.
Parsons, G.R., P.M. Jakus, and T. Tomasi 1999. A Comparison of Welfare Estimates from Four Models for Linking Seasonal
Recreational Trips to Multinomial Logit Models of Site Choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38;
143-157.
Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E, Monaco. 1997. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates in
Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume II: Species life history summaries. ELMR Report No.l 1, NOAA/NOS Strategic
Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 377 p.
Peacock, B. 1999. Habitat Equivalency Analysis: Conceptual Background and Hypothetical Example. National Park Service
Report. April 30.
Peebles, E.B., J R. Hall, and S.G. Tolley. 1996. Egg production by the bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli in relation to adult and
larval prey fields. Marine Ecology Progress Series 131:61-73.
Peebles, E.B., M.S. Flannery, R.E. Matheson, and J.P, Rasl. 1991, Fish nursery utilization of the Little Manatee River estuary:
relationships to physicochemical gradients and the distribution of food resources, p. 341-367. In: Proceedings, Tampa Bay
Area Scientific Information Symposium 2. February 27-March 1, 1991, Tampa, FL. (S.F. Treat and P.A. Clark, eds,), 528 p.
Pennsylvania. 1999. Rules and Regulations; Title 58-Recreation, Fish and Boat Commission [58 PA. Code CHS. 61 and 65]
limn «« .nahuHeim.uim secure uaia voL'-' 2'-)-2n 2U 2n rr.ptin. Accessed 11/01,
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2002. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, hup: » u v-. .denr.stale.pa.wrcf 1'ramla.inni. Accessed 3/3/02.
Perez Farfante, 1. 1969. Western Atlantic shrimps of the genus Penaeus. U.S. Fish Wildi Serv. Fish Bull. 67:461 -591.
Peters, K.M, and R.H. McMichael, Jr. 1990, Early life history of the black drum Pogonias cromis (Pisces: Sciaenidae) in
Tampa Bay, Florida. Northeast Gulf Science 1 l(l):39-58.
Peterson, C.H., and J. Lubchenco. 1997. Marine ecosystem services. Pages 177-194 in: G.C. Daily, ed., Nature's Services,
Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC,
Pettigrew, L, 1998. New Jersey Wildlife Viewing Guide. Falcon Publishing.
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1995. Best Technology Available 1995 Technical Report for the Contra Costa
and Pittsburg Power Plants. Submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1997. Best Technology Available 1996 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants. Submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
References 32
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 1998. Best Technology Available 1997 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants. Submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company), 1999. Best Technology Available 1998 Technical Report for the Pittsburg and
Contra Costa Power Plants. Submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
PG&E {Pacific Gas and Electric Company). 2001. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, filed on April
17, 2001.
PG&E Generating and Marine Research Inc. 1999, 1998 Annual Report, Brayton Point Station, Somerset, Massachusetts.
September.
PG&E National Energy Group. 2001. Brayton Point Station permit renewal application, NPDES permit no. MA0003654.
316(a) and (b) demonstration. Executive summary and appendices. November.
Phillips, J.M., M.T. Huish, J.H. Kerby, and D.P. Moran. 1989. Species Profiles; life histories and environmental requirements
of coastal fishes and invertebrates (mid-Atlantic) — Spot. U.S. Fish Widl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82111.98. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 13 pp.
Pierce, D.J., B, Mahmoudi, and R.R, Wilson, Jr. 2001. Age and growth of the scaled herring, Harengula jaguana, from
Florida waters, as indicated by microstructure of the sagittae. Fish. Bull. 99:202-209. hti;i: iishhull.noa:i.!.'ovWI IK.pdi",
Accessed 12/13/01.
Pollock, J. 2001. Jeffery Pollock for Congress: Dam Issues. Imp: \\.nnllock4c»tnuivss.coin-issues dam.lmml. Accessed
11/21/01.
Port Manatee. 2000. Port Manatee. Imp: portinamiicc.v.-pns. Accessed 1/02.
Postel, S,, and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. Pages 195-214 in: G.C. Daily, ed., Nature's Services,
Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, island Press, Washington, DC.
Potter, W.A. 1978. Assessment of the Effects of Impingement and Entrainment on the Fish Community of the New River,
Virginia. Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 70 pp.
Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C. J, Cook. 1979a. Cardinal Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment
Studies.
Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C.J. Cook. 1979b. Kammer Plant Demonstration Document for P.L. 92-500
Section 316(b) Volume II: Kammer Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies.
Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C.J. Cook, 1979c. Kyger Creek Station Fish Impingement and Entrainment
Studies.
Potter, W.A., E.D. Maruhnich, R.L. Shema, and C.J. Cook, 1979d. Philip Spom Plant Demonstration Document for P.L.
92-500 Section 316(b) Volume II, Appendix B: Philip Sporn Plant Fish Impingement and Entrainment Studies.
Pottle, R.A. and J.M, Green. 1979. Field observations on the reproductive behaviour of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus
(Waldbaum), in Newfoundland. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57:247-256.
PR Newswire - USA. 2001. Imp. ^ u rum '_-i* 'Ki kirvlm c articles, hi mi 'id: ') 1OSI17) H)~?0 i.
Progress Energy. 2001. Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2000, Filed on March 29, 2001,
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1989. Assessment of the Impacts of the Salem and Hope Creek
Generating Stations on Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochefys kempt) and Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) Sea Turtles.
References S3
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999a. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ00G5622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix C: Attachments C-l through C-2 March 4.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999b. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJQ0Q5622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix C: Attachments C-9 through C-14. March 4.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999c. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622,
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix F, Section 316(b) Demonstration (Volume 2).
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999d. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No, NJ00G5622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix J: Analysis of Trends for Selected Finfish and
Blue Crab.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company), 1999e. Permit Renewal Application NJPDES Permit No. NJQ0Q5622.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company Salem Generating Station. Appendix L: Data Set Descriptions.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 1999f. Salem NPDES Permit Application, Appendix H.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 2001a. About PSEG Power.
hup: •,»w w.p.scii.com compiling prmor .ibiHii.iiiml, Accessed 9/28/01.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company), 2001b. PSEG Response to ESSA Report on the 1999 Salem Permit
Application.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 2001c. PSEG's Specific Comments on Proposed Terms and Conditions
and Fact Sheet, Part 2. Draft NJPDES Permit No. NJ0005622, Salem Generating Station.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company), 200Id. Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. IO-K405 filed on
03/06/2001.
PSEG (Public Service Electric and Gas Company). 200 le. PSEG. hi!p; wwv. .nst'ii.t'i'in-cnmpnniex pmver''overvi
-------
§ 316(b) Case. Studies
References
Reid, R.N.. L.M. Cargnelli, S.J. Griesbach, D.B. Packer, D.L. Johnson, C.A. Zetlin, W.W. Morse, and P.L. Berrien. 1999.
Essential fish habitat source document: Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus, life history and habitat characteristics., NOAA
Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-126. September.
Resource Data International (RD1) 2001. Resource Data International (RD1). 2001. NEWGen Database. Plant Data Sheet for
Gannon power plant. November 2001.
Restrepo. V.R. 1989. Growth estimates for male stone crabs along the southwest coast of Florida: A synthesis of available
data and methods. Trans. Am Fish. Soc. 118:20-29.
Restrepo, V.R. 1992. A mortality model for a population in which harvested individuals do not necessarily die: The stone
crab. Fish Bull., U.S. 90:412-416.
Rettig, R. and B. McCarl. 1985. Potential and Actual Benefits from Commercial Fishing Activities. In: Making Information
More Useful for Salmon and Steelhead Production Decisions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWR-8, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon, pp. 199-212.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. 2001a. "Mthopebay_RIjuvfinfishsurvey.xls". Annual abundance
estimates for tautog and winter flounder from various-sampling sites in and near Mt. Hope Bay for the period 1990-2000 that
were developed from data collected as part of the Rhode Island juvenile linfish survey program. Received from Chris Powell,
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management - Fish and Wildlife Division, 2001.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, 2001b. "RIsaltpond_templesampling.xls". Winter flounder capture
and abundance estimates from sampling conducted from 1994 - 2001 as part of the Rhode Island coastal pond survey
program. Received from Jennifer Temple, Rhode Island Division of Fish and Wildlife, 2001.
Richkus, W.A. and R. McLean. 1998. Historical Overview of the Efficacy of Two Decades of Power Plant Fisheries Impact
Assessment Activities in Chesapeake Bay. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop. D. Dixon and K.
Zammit (eds.). EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.
Ricker, W.E. 1975. Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, Bulletin 191.
RIEDC. 1999. The Rhode Island Economy. Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation
httn; ¦,',»%» .neik-.qim mltVnih* R1"«-2<)t-.finhhii\ .P!.>!'. Accessed 1/29/02.
RIEDC. 2000. Rhode Island Annual Economic Trends. Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation
hup: v--»u.netlL'.coiii iiillpuh.s \iinunI"t.l'ii [ r;_-iui>..Pi>:. Accessed 1/29/02.
Robinette, H.R. 1983. Species Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates
(Gulf of Mexico): Bay anchovy and striped anchovy. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Div. Biol. Serv., Rep. No.
FWS/OBS-82/11,14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rep. No. TR EL-82-4.
Rogers, B.A., D.T. Westin, and S.B'. Saila. 1977. Life Stage Duration Studies on Hudson River Striped Bass , Morone
saxatillis (Walbaum). University of Rhode Island, Applied Mar. Res. Group, NOAA Sea Grant, Mar. Tech. Rep. 31. Ill pp.
Roman, C.T., K.B. Raposa, S.C. Adamowicz, M.-J. James-Ptrri, and J.G. Catena. Submitted 2000. Quantifying vegetation
and nekton response to tidal restoration of a New England salt marsh. Submitted to Restoration Ecology.
Ronafaivy, J.P., R.R. Cheesman, and W.M. Matejek. 2000. Circulating water traveling screen modifications to improve
impinged fish survival and debris handling at the Salem Generating Station. Environmental Science and Policy Volume 3,
Supplement I, pages S377-S382.
Rose; K.A. and J.H. Cowan. 1993. Individual-based model of young-of-the-year striped bass population dynamics. I. Model
description and baseline simulations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 122:415-438,
Rose, K A . J.H. Cowan, Jr., K.O. Winemiller, R A. Myers, and R. Hilborn. 2001. Compensatory density-dependence in fish
populations: Importance, controversy, understanding, and prognosis. In Press, Fish and Fisheries.
References 35
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Ross, D.A. 1995. 1995. Introduction to Oceanography, Harper Collins College Publishers. 496 pp.
Rothschild, B.J. 1986. Dynamics of Marine Fish Populations. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Rottmann, R. W., R. Francies-Floyd, and R. Durborow. 1992. The Role of Stress in Fish Disease., SRAC Publication No.
474. Southern Regional Aquaculture Center, Stoneville. MS. February. 3 p.
ht!p: pnn.kic.ciln ;niu.inii: puMicm mm}.: t':ic el's m'.ic 4~4ls.tn.ir.
Rowe, R.D., W.D. Shaw, and W. Schulze. 1992. Nestucca Oil Spiil. In: Natural Resource Damages, edited by K. Ward and J.
Duffield. New York: Wiley and Sons,
Rozas, L.P. 1992. Bottomless lift net for quantitatively sampling nekton on intertidal marshes. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 89:287-292.
Ruhl, J.B., and R.J. Gregg. 2001. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Environmental Law: A Case Study of Wetlands
Mitigation Banking. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):365-392.
Ruppert, IX, R.L. Reish. R.B. Deriso, and R.J. Carroll. 1985. A stochastic population model for managing the Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoorlia tyrannus) fishery and assessing managerial risks. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
42:1371-1379.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1993. Review of San Diego Gas & Electric Encina Power Plant
316(b) Demonstration. Draft. Prepared for U.S. EPA Region 9. 18 pp.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation), 1994. Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water Intake
Technologies. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Permits Division by Science
Applications International Corporation, Falls Church, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1995. Preliminary Draft Working Paper: Biological Impacts from the
Intake of Cooling Water. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Permits Division by
Science Applications International Corporation, Falls Church, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1996a. Background Paper Number 2: Cooling Water Use for
Selected U.S. Industries. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance, Permits Division by
Science Applications International Corporation, Falls Church, VA.
SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation).. 1996b. Supplement to Background Paper Number 3: Cooling Water
Intake Technologies. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Wastewater Management by Science Applications International
Corporation, Fails Church, VA.
Saila, S.B. and E. Lorda. 1977. Sensitivity analysis applied to a matrix model of the Hudson River striped bass population. In:
Proceedings of a Conference on Assessing the Effects of Power Plant Induced Mortality on Fish Populations, Gatlinburg,
Tennessee, May 3-6, 1977. W, Van Winkle (ed.). Pergamon Press, NY. pp. 311-332.
Saila, S.B., X. Chen, K. Erzini, and B. Martin. 1987. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews.
Volume 1: Critical Evaluation of Case Histories of Fish Populations Experiencing Chronic Exploitation or Impact. EA-5200,
Volume 1, Research Project 1633-6. Final Report, May 1987. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Saila, S.B., E. Lorda, J.D. Miller, R.A. Sher, and W.H. Howell. 1997. Equivalent adult estimates for losses of fish eggs,
larvae, and juveniles at Seabrook Station with use of fuzzy logic to represent parametric uncertainty. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 17:811-825.
Salzman, J., B.H. Thompson, Jr., arid G.C. Daily. 2001. Protecting Ecosystem Services: Science, Economics, and Law.
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):309-332.
Samples, K.C. and R.C. Bishop. 1985. Estimating the Value of Variations in Angler's Success Rates: An Application of the
Multiple-Site Travel Cost Method, Marine Resource Economics 2(1 ):55-74.
References 36
-------
i 316(b) Case. Studies
References
San Diego Natural History Museum, 1998, Shark Glossary, imp: n v.« .sdnhm.uru lias sharks liln^an. .him I Accessed 4/1/02.
Sanders, L.D., R.G. Walsh, and J.B. Loomis. 1990, Toward Empirical Estimation of the Total Value of Protecting Rivers.
Water Resources Research 26(7): 1345-1357,
Santoro. E.D. 1998. Delaware Estuary Monitoring Report. Delaware Estuary Program.
Saucier, M.H. and D.M. Baltz, 1993. Spawning site selection by spotted seatrout, Cynoscion nebulosus, and black drum,
Pogonias cromis, in Louisiana. Environmental Biology of Fishes 36:257-272.
Save the Bay. 2001. Eelgrass: A Critical Narragansett Bay Habitat, imp: ^ u v>.*a\chnv.oru bavi^uc* cclgra^.mw. Accessed
10/12/01,
Savidge, I.R., J.B. Gladden, K.P, Campbell, and J.S. Ziesenis. 1988. Development and sensitivity of impact assessment
equations based on stock-recruitment theory. American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:182-190.
Scherer, M.D. 1972. The Biology of the Blueback Herring, Alosa aestivalis (Mitchill) in the Connecticut River above the
Holyoke Dam, Holyoke, Massachusetts. Master's Thesis. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Schoelkopf, R. And E. Stetzar. 1995. Marine turtles. Pages 305-309 in: L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, eds. Living Resources of
the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program.
Schorfhaar, R.G. and P.J, Schneeberger. 1997. Commercial and Sport Fisheries for Lake Whitefish in Michigan Waters of
Lake Superior, 1983-96. State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division Research Report Number
2034. June 30. hup: u» « Alnr.Mtue.mi.ti> nr lirlihrq re^.:jrch ivnori> 2i>34rr,pdi'.
Schram, S.T., T.N. Halpern, and T.B. Johnson. 1998. Ecology of Burbot in Western Lake Superior. In: Biology and
Management of Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay (eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Baltimore,
MD, July 27-30. Imp, w usv-hdM\n'.i!li>-mp.' c.'.wi awrjiBan'iM.mii.
Schultz, Ken 2001. The Angling Authority; Species Encyclopedia.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184.
Scott, W.B. and E.J. Grossman. 1998. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada Bulletin 184 ed.
Gait House, Oakville, Ontario, Canada.
Scott, W.B. and M.G. Scotl. 1988, Atlantic fishes of Canada. Can. Bull. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 219. 731 pp.
Seagraves, R.J. 1995. Weak fish. In: Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. L.E. Dove and R.M. Nyman, (eds,). The
Delaware Estuary Program, pp. 293-298.
Serchuk, F. and C. Cole. 1974. Age and growth of the cunner, Tautogolabrus adspersus (Waldbaum), Pisces (Labridae), in
the Weweantic River Estuary, Massachusetts. Chesapeake Science 15(4):205-213.
Setzler. E.M., W.R. Boynton, K.V. Wood, H.H. Zion, L. Lubbers, N.K. Mountford, P. Frere, L. Tucker, and J.A. Mihursky.
1980. Synopsis of Biological Data on Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis (Walbaum). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular
433. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
June 1980.
Sharma, R.K. and R.F. Freeman. 1977. Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume I: The Great
Lakes. ANL'ES-56 Volume I. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 218 pp.
Shaw, M. 1998. Biology 71.125 Glossary, 'mp « » iity»ihn*>. wicik-c hu»i»;:n.-,u .•vannrcs i;ih»ii>svhiml
Accessed 4/1/02.
References 37
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Shaw, W.N., T.J, Hassler, and D.P. Moran. 1988. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal
Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Southwest): California Sea Mussel and Bay Mussel., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 82(11.84). 16 p.
Shepherd, J.G.. and D.H. Cashing. 1990, Regulation in fish populations: myth or mirage. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society, London B 330:151-164.
Shepherd, G.R. and C.B. Grimes. 1983. Geographic and historic variations in growth of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in the
Middle Atlantic Bight. Ł7.5. Fish. Bull. 81(4):8Q3-813,
Shepherd, G.R. and C.B. Grimes. 1984, Reproduction of weakfish, Cynoscion regalis, in the New York Bight and evidence
for geographically specific life history characteristics. U.S. Fish. Bull. 82(3):501-511.
Sheridan, P. 1996. Forecasting the fishery for pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, on the Tortugas grounds, Florida. Fishery
Bulletin 94:743-755.
Shirey, C. A,, C. C. Martin, and E. J. Stetzar. 1997. Abundance of sub-adult Atlantic sturgeon and areas of concentration
within the lower Delaware River. Final Report, Grant No. NA66FG0326. Prepared for the Delaware Division of Fish and
Wildlife.
Short, R., R. Davis, and D. Burdick. 1997. Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) habitat restoration in New Bedford Harbor,
Massachusetts. Scope of work in proposal submitted to the New Bedford Harbor Trustee Council. Prepared by the
Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire. July 17.
Simmons, R.L., A.V. Zale, and D.M, Leslie. 1997. Physical and biological factors affecting seasonal double-crested
cormorant densities at Oklahoma reservoirs. Colonial Waterbirds 20:31-40.
Smith, C.L. 1985. The inland fishes of New York State. The New York State Department of-Environmental Conservation
(ISBN 0-9615433-0-2), 522 pp.
Smith-Root. 2001. Online Store, hup: v-.smith-nun.con; More . Accessed 12/01.
Snyder, D.E. 1998. Burbot — Larval Evidence for More than One North American Species? In: Biology and Management of
Burbot, V. Paragamian and D. MacKinlay (eds). International Congress on the Biology of Fish, Baltimore, MD, July 27-30.
Imp: w-hcb.piic.illb-mpo.tic.ca cunnrcss I'iurlu'l.ndf.
Sorg, C.F., J.B. Loomis, D.M. Donnelly, G.L, Peterson, and L.J. Nelson. 1985. Net Economic Value of Cold and Warm
Water Fishing in Idaho. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO
Resource Bulletin RM-11. November.
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Marine Resources Research Institute. SEAMAP Target Species
website, hup: v:iier.tinr mann-.- mm so;im:ip .MUVk-'-.inm. Accessed 12/12/01.
South Florida Water Management District. 2002. Coastal Ecosystems. Photos.
Imp: wuv-.-j'w md.-jnv nru »rp '¦> rp cc - "'T iv inin2 .vn» ^ pirni,bt'isl. Accessed 1/30/02.
Southern California Edison Company. 1987. Report on 1987 Data: Marine Environmental Analysis and Interpretation: San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. 27 pp.
Southern Energy California, 2000. Best Technology Available 1999 Technical Report for the Contra Costa and Pittsburg
Power Plants. Submitted to the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
Southern Energy Delta, LLC. 2000. Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan, Pittsburg and Contra Costa Power Plants.
Draft-Revision 5, June 30, 2000. Prepared for the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Santa Rosa, CA, ¦
References 38
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Spicer G.( T. O'Shea, and G. Pichler. 1998. Entrainment, Impingement and BTA Evaluation for an Intake Located on a
Cooling Water Reservoir in the Southwest. In: EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, D, Dixon and K.
Zammit (eds.) EPRI Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Technical Workshop, September 22-24, Berkeley Springs, WV.
Spigarelli, S.A., A.J. Jensen, and M.M. Thommes. 1981. An Assessment of the Impacts of Water Intakes on Alewife,
Rainbow Smelt, and Yellow Perch Populations in Lake Michigan, Prepared by Argonne National Laboratory and U.S. EPA.
ANL/ES-109, EPA-905/3-81-001. March.
Spratt, J,D, 1992. Pacific Herring. Pages 86-89 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen (eds.), California's Living
Marine Resources and their Utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California
Sea Grant Extension Program, University of California, Davis, CA.
Springer, V.G. and K.D. Woodbura. 1960. An ecological study of the fishes of the Tampa Bay area. Mar. Lab. Prof. Pap.,
Fla. St. Bd. Conserv., Ser. 1:1-104.
Standard & Poor's. 2001a. Public Service Enterprise Group — Stock Report. September 1,2001.
Standard & Poor's. 2001b. Stock Report for PG&E Corporation. September 29,2001.
Stanley, J.G. and D.S. Danie. 1983. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and
invertebrates (north Atlantic):white perch. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Services Program FWS/OBS-82/11.7.
12 pp.
State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 2001a. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Clupeidae, Herrings. ;.np- » v. ^ .'Uk.mc.us Jmr rri.-ivanon.il fishes shad.him. Accessed
7/18/01.
State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 2001 b. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Labridae, Wrasses, Cunner. Inm: -.w. siaic nu'.u.s Jmr recreational fishes runner.him.
Accessed 2/6/01.
State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 2001c. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch. Family Labridae, Wrasses, Tautog. Imp: v> » w „..!iw u;- tlmr rccre;iiu»nal fishes miiu»a.hun.
Accessed 2/6/01,
State of Maine Department of Marine Resources. 200 Id. Maine Division of Marine Resources. 2001. Saltwater Anglers
Guide, Know Your Catch, Family Pleuronectidae, righteye flounders.
hup: » w vi .state meats Jmr iwiv.itlonal lisncs »iinerfioiiiHler.ltiiii, Accessed 2/6/01.
State of Massachusetts. 2002. Plymouth, Plymouth County, hup: v, .,vaic.nia.u> dhed i pro file 239.pdf. Accessed 1/9/02,
State of New York, Department of Environmental Conservation. 2001. State of New York, Department of Environmental
Conservation, List of Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern Fish & Wildlife Species of New York State.
him: « v, v. .Joe.state.m .us u civile JI v. mr mHlilc ctuispci- ciseitsi.hiini Accessed 3/3/01,
Steimle, F.W. and P.A. Shaheen. 1999. Tautog (Tautoga onitis) life history and habitat requirements. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-NE-118. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Steiner, L, 2000, Pennsylvania Fishes, Pennsylvania Fish Commission, Harrisburg, PA,
Imp: sik---.si.ite.pa.us I'A |,\ec 1 1' Hiiai I'^nhinK eh a-nnK.jam Accessed 10/30/2001.
Stevens, D.E. 1992, Striped Bass. Pages 72-75 in: Leet, W.S., C.M. Dewees, and C.W. Haugen (eds.), California's Living
Marine Resources and their Utilization. California Sea Grant, Sea Grant Extension Publication UCSGEP-92-12. California
Sea Grant Extension Program, University of California, Davis, CA.
Stevens, D.E., L.W. Miller, and B.C. Bolster, 1990. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A Status Review of Delta
Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Candidate Species Status Report
90-2.
References 39
-------
References
Stevens, T. I!.; Field, M. K.; More, T. A„ and 01 ass, R. J. 1994, Contingent valuation of rare and endangered species: An
assessment, W-133 Benefits and Cost Transfer in Resource Planning.
Stevens, T.H., J. Echeverria, RJ. Glass, T. Hager, and T.A, More. 1991. Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What
Do CVM Estimates Really Show? Land Economics 67:390-400,
Stewart, N.H, 1926. Development, growth, and food habits of the white sucker, Catostomus commersonii Lesueur. Fishery
Bulletin 42:147-184.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1977. Supplemental Assessment in Support of the 316 Demonstration, Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2, Boston Edison Company. Boston, MA.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1980a. 316(A) and (B) Demonstration Big Bend Station - Unit 4, Volume I and
Volume II, Appendices, Prepared for Tampa Electric Company. August I.
Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 1980b. Fine Mesh Screen Prototype Study Final Report: Big Bend Power Station
Unit 4, Tampa Electric Company. Prepared for Tampa Electric Company. November 1980.
Strange, E, M,, K. D. Fausch, and A. P, Covich, 1999. Sustaining ecosystem services in human-dominated watershed:
biohydrology and ecosystem processes in the South Platte River Basin. Environmental Management 24( 1 ):39-54.
Strange, E.M., H. Galbraith, S, Bickel, D. Mills, D. Beltman, and J. Lipton. 2002. Determining ecological equivalence in
service-to-service scaling of salt marsh restoration. Environmental Management 29(2): 290-300.
Studholme, A.L., D.B. Packer, P.L, Berrien, D.L. Johnson, C. A. Zetlin, and W.W. Morse. 1999. Essential fish habitat
document: Atlantic Mackerel, Scomber scombrus, life history and habitat characteristics. NOAA Technical Memorandum
NMFS-NE-14I,
Stupka, R.C. and R,K, Sharma. 1977, Survey of Fish Impingement at Power Plants in the United States Volume III: Estuaries
and Coastal Waters. ANL/ES-56 Volume III. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 305 pp.
Suddaby, D. and N. RatcIifFe. 1997. The effects of fluctuating food availability on breeding arctic terns Sterna paradisaeu.
The Auk 114:524-530.
Sullivan, J.R. 1979. The Stone Crab, Menippe mercenaria, in the Southwest Florida Fishery. Florida Marine Research
Publications Number 36, Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Florida.
Summers, J.K. 1989. Simulating the indirect effects of power plant entrainment losses on an estuarine ecosystem. Ecological
Modelling, 49 (1989). pp. 31-47.
Sutherland, RJ. and R.G. Walsh. 1985, Effect of Distance on the Preservation Value of Water Quality, Land Economics
61(3)282-291.
Sutter, F.C.. R.S. Waller and T.D. Mcllwain. 1986. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal
fisheries and invertebrates (Gulf of Mexico)-Black Drum. U.S. Fish Widl. Sen.'. Biol. Rep. 82(11.51), U.S. Army Corps of
Eng. TR LE-82-4. 10 pp.
Swedberg, D.V. and C.H. Walburg. 1970, Spawning and early life history of the freshwater drum in Lewis and Clark Lake,
Missouri River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 99:560-570
Swee, U.B. and H.R. McCrimmon, 1966. Reproductive biology of the carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Lake St. Lawrence,
Ontario. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 95(4|:372 380.
Systec Engineering, Inc. 1987. Compensatory Mechanisms in Fish Populations: Literature Reviews, Volume 3: A Critical
Review of Mathematical Models for Fish Compensation Mechanisms. EA-5200. Volume 3, Research Project 1633-6. Final
Report, May 1987, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
References 40
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Taft, E.P. 1999. Fish protection technologies: A status report. Presentation at Power Generation Impacts on Aquatic
Resources Conference, Atlanta Georgia, April 12-15, 1999.
Tagatz. M.E. 1968. Biology of the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus Rathbun in the St. John's River, Florida. Fish Bulletin, U.S.
67( I); 17-33,
Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce. 2001. Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce Website.
Imp: '.v vs n .liiillhuiK'hes-iiiniiiniiav.i'om
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
Thomas M,V, and R.C. Haas. 2000. Status of Yellow Perch and Walleye Populations in Michigan Waters of Lake Erie,
1994-98. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division, Fisheries Research Report 2054, August.
Thomas, P. 2001. Thomas Research Group. Species Information.
imp: v.,inni>i.uic\a>.rdn pi'upic M;in'ih<'»iiis sr>ci-R> inform,itH'ii.inni, Accessed 1/30/02.
Thurber. N.J. and D.J. Jude. 1985. Impingement Losses at the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant during 1975-1982 with a
Discussion of Factors Responsible and Possible Impact on Local Populations. Special Report No. 115 of the Great Lakes
Research Division, Great Lakes and Marine Waters Center, University of Michigan.
TofFlemire, T.J., S.O. Quinn, and I.G. Carcich. 1980. Sediment and Water Sampling and Analysis for Toxics; Relative to
PCB in the Hudson River, New York State Department of Environment Conservation Technical Paper No. 64, 23 pp.
Towery Publishing. 2000. introTampaBav. hup: ,imr.na;pp:>h;p .c"i» ymcrunnmcni hen.lnmt Accessed 8/00.
Townsend, D.W. and P.F. Larsen (eds.). 1992. The Gulf of Maine: Proceedings of a Seminar Held May 22, 1989,
Washington, D.C., NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Regional Synthesis Series Number 1. NOAA, Washington, D.C. 135 p.
TPA (Tampa Port Authority). 2002. News Release. Tampa Port Authority Announces Port of Tampa Reaches its Zenith.
hup: www i.iniii.ipon com piirasp'.'PAt >1. N AM I:=Nens- arx!eni:. Accessed 1/31/02.
Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio, with Illustrated Keys, Revised ed. Ohio State University Press.
Tupper, M. and R.G. Boutilier. 1995. Effects of conspecific density on settlement, growth and post-settlement survival of a
temperate reef fish. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 191:209-222.
Twomey, K.A., K,L. Williamson, and P.C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability
curves: White sucker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/10,64.
UC'MP. 2002. UCMP Glossary. University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology, imp: ^\yw_ucmr> herkelc\.cdu.
Accessed 4/1/02.
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. 2001. Fish of the Great Lakes: Fish Glossary.
hun: scanr.ipi msc.cdu Ljivatlnkcsfrlvjlossap, htm!. Accessed 3/29/02.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes 2001. Consumer Price Index (CPI) data: U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Consumer Prices and Price Indexes. CP1-U, Not Seasonally Adjusted.
Imp: .hls.iitn cpi homo.him. Accessed 2001.
U.S. Census Bureau 2000. ss00002.ufl. ftp://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/Summary_File_l Accessed 12/21/01.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. State and County QuickFacts, hup: qnn-i' tacivccnMi>.:."" . Last Revised: Friday, 07-Sep-2001
13:28.41 EDT.
U.S. Census Bureau 2002a. "2khxx.zip". Demographic data.
ftp://ftp2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demographic_profile/0_AlLState/. Downloaded in February, 2002.
U.S. Census Bureau 2002b. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Estimates.
Imp-: jibe-. s.iipL- cMinuiii'uiL.inini. Downloaded February, 2002.
U.S. Circuit Court. 1989. State of Ohio v. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S. District Court, District of Columbia,
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001a. Energy Information Administration (FJA). Form EIA-767. Steam-Electric
Plant Operation and Design Report. Accessed for 1999.
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001b. Energy Information Administration (E1A), Form EIA-860A (1999). Annual
Electric Generator Report - Utility. Accessed for the years 1999 and 2000.
References 42
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2001c. Form EIA-860B. Annual Electric Generator Report - Nonutility. Accessed ,
for the year 1999.
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 200 Id. Energy Information Administration (El A). Form EIA-906. Power Plant
Report. (Effective January 2001, the Form EIA-906, Power Plant Report, superseded Form EIA-759, Monthly Power Plant
Report, and Form EIA-900, Monthly Nonutility Power Plant Report. Accessed for the years 1970-2000.
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 200 le. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC Form No. 1; Annual
Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others. Select data 1995-1999.
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 200If. Form ElA-861. Annual Electric Generator Report - Utilities. Accessed for the
year 1999.
U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2002. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA). Roster
of Nuclear Generating Units Operable as of December 31, 1995.
Inin: >> u .ctn tlot'.'ji'' cncal'nuclear piiH sinnmaHcs ni"-?'-1'' jpcp c.hlmt. Accessed 4/4/02.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2001. Treasury Bill Rates.
hlto: v. u.hml.hiTnut tin ihtii.cin'. Accessed 12/12/01.
U. S. District Court. 1997. United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Melvin A. Fisher, Kane Fisher, Salvors, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, M/V/ Bookmaker, M/V Dauntless, M/V Tropical Magic, Their Engines, Apparel, Tackle, Appurtenances, Stores
and Cargo, in Rem, Defendants; Motivation, Inc, Plaintiff V. Unidentified, Wrecked and Abandoned Sailing Vessel, Etc.,
Defendant: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Case No. 92-1Q027-C1V-DAVIS; Case No. 95-10051-CIV-DAVIS.
7/1903.
U.S. District Court. 1999. United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Defendant; Board of
Trustees of the International Improvement Trust Fund of the State of Florida and Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Plaintiff, V. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., Defendant; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Case No.
97-2510-CIV-Davis/Brown; 97-10075-CIV-Davis/Brown. U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida. September 27.
U.S. DOI (Department of Interior), 1997. 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.'U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1976. Development Document for Best Technology Available for the
Location, Design, Construction, and Capacity of Cooling Water Intake Structures for Minimizing Adverse Environmental
Impact. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Effluent Guidelines Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1981. Environmental Impact Statement, Tampa Electric Company Big
Bend Unit 4. Technical Reference Document Volume II. Draft., EPA 904/9-81-070b.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982a. Determination Regarding Modification of NPDES Permit No.
MA0003654 for Brayton Point Station, Somerset, MA. 107 pp.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1982b. U.S. EPA Reach File Version 1.0 (RF1) for the Conterminous
United States (CONUS). GIS coverage.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control. EPA/505/2-90-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency). 1994a, National Demand for Water-Based Recreation Survey.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Policy Evaluation and Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998 Database
Retrieval.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994b. Survey of National Demand for Water Based Recreation. U.S.
EPA Office of Policy.
References 43
-------
S 316(b) Case Studies
References
U.S. EPA {U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 1997. USEPA Reach File Version 1.0 (RF1) for the Conterminous United
States, lian tij.di.cpa.m-v iimIi prnHvK rl'l met:*.him:.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. 316(b) Industry Screener Questionnaire: Phase 1 Cooling Water
Intake Structures, October 1998.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F,
Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998c. Terms of Environment at nun. K/KI'Aierms . As
of May 13,1998. Accessed 1/02.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan 2000. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, hup. .cixi.lmh -jIiipq irikecric lannOHHi . Accessed 12/01.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a. Coastal Wetlands of the Great Lakes. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, hup: .epa.L-pv »lnpo solec fMam- ,>< oA.mml. Accessed 12/01.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. River Raisin Area of Concern.
hup: u w v. amm.'juv unlikes juc rvratsin.hinn. Last Revised December 18, 2001. Accessed 2/5/02,
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001c. Survey Data from Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase 11
Cooling Water Intake Structures.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a. Indian River Lagoon, National Estuary Program. Fishes of the
IRL. imp: " " « -cp.i.'jus >>uu» uL-can^'l;ia)H>ii licri'inL'himi. Accessed 1/11/02.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. Drums.
hup: u.cp-j.L'o- iwi'« occurs Iiiiumn drmn.liimi Accessed 1/17/02.
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002c. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program; Glossary.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, hup: tvw*.ena.thn umn' mull paihoucn '-ilossarv.mm. Accessed 4/1/02.
U.S. EPA/ORD (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Research and Development), 1998. Condition of the
Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. EPA 600-R-98-I4.
U.S. FDA. 2001. U.S. Food & Drug Administration Seafood Products Research Center. Center for Food Safety & Applied
Nutrition. Regulatory Fish Encyclopedia website. Imp- un.iiM.ii ida.am •;v;Vic'ich.htmi. Accessed 10/18/01.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. The Endangered Species Act of 1973. A Summary of the ESA and Implementation
Activities. Updated October 1996. httn: yiulnmicriHl.lHxm" e>:iMim iiiim. Accessed 10/10/00.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996b. Recovery Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000, Habitat conservation planning and incidental
take permit processing handbook imp: ciuLin^-iyd hvvum in-p iwpiii <¦ 'k ,hu. i- Accessed 3/6/00.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Stratus Consulting. 2000. Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP).
Lower Fox River / Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Justice, Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Attorney General. October 25.
University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2001. University of California Museum of Paleontology and the Regents of
the University of California. Glossary of Natural History Terms. rj!|.- ¦-» .ucnuOvrki'io .cdu eli*s;srv 'jl"s.virv.hunl.
Accessed 4/02.
References 44
-------
S 316(b) Cose Studies
References
University of Saskatchewan, 2002. Lake Whitefish. (Coregonus clupeaformis).
Imp: mk-raki". ski;iiera>,.'ti\e moduli's fisheries hsh i\pv hiicfish.himl. Accessed 2/6/02.
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant. 2001. Fish of Lake Erie. imp, uun.sc.mnint uisc.edu ureal kikotlsli l.akecne.him .
Accessed 10/29/01
US Army Corps Engineers. 1997. UMR-IWW System Navigation Study. Waterway Traffic Forecasts for the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. Volume 1: Summary Contract No. DACW72-95-D-004. Task Order 0003, Final Report. April 7,
1997.Imp; u » v. jin i .usace.anm .mii ptiu n.i >uah eeon repnro " ai lor llmcT hi nv-'haeKN
US Army Corps Engineers. 2000. Integrated Decision Document and Environmental Assessment, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division. Produced for the Oho River Ecosystem Restoration Program. Cincinnati.
October.
US Army Corps Engineers. 2001a. Huntington District Navigational Charts.
imp: c,K'.ir'i!,i.)s,ic<.'.,trni>. mi! Ri'cr < juris >lc!.»uli hnn. Accessed 12/5/01,
US Army Corps Engineers, 2001b. Pittsburgh District Navigational Charts, imp: u ww.lrp.usace.amn .mil navmde.vhim.
Accessed 12/5/01.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1997, National Outdoor Recreation Supply Information System. Database created by the U.S.
Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness, and Urban/Wildland Interface Research Group, Atlanta, GA.
USGen New England. 2001. Variance Request Application and Partial Demonstration Under the Clean Water Act, Section
316(a) and (b) in Support of Renewal ofNPDES Permit No, MA 000 3654 for USGen New England, Inc.'s Brayton Point
Station, May 24.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 1995. National .Water-Use Data Files, him: ater.usns.'jox wniuse spread1'?.html. U.S.
Geological Survey. Accessed 2/02.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2000. Federal Land Features of the United States (polygon). Reston, VA. 2000.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001a. Alaska Science Center - Biological Science Office. Marine Habitat.
1 ill it s*. ww .nhst. .us;."-, um rcM-aiyh seahiniA loraff Itsli mnnnehahnal hoinr.iuml. Accessed 1/30/02.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001b, National Water-Quality Assessment Program — Lake Erie - Lake St. Clair Basin.
Fact Sheet 94-056. USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program.
Ivip: v. v.»-.ih.cr.tisjjviim mmi.i Y.-.'MOM».titmi. Accessed 2/5/02.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2001c. Total Pounds and Dollar Value of Commercial Catch in U.S. Waters of the Great
Lakes by Year, State, Lake, and Species. U.S. Geological Survey.
hup. ^ v. u .!ilse.uMj>-in", dam e
-------
§ 316(b) Case Studies
Versar Inc. 1990. Evaluation of the Section 316 Status of Delaware Facilities with Cooling Water Discharge. Final Report.
Prepared for Delaware Department of Natural Resources. April
Vouglitois, J.J., K.W. Able, R.J. Kurtz, and K.A, Tighe, 1987. Life history and population dynamics of the bay anchovy in
New Jersey. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116 (2): 141 -153.
Wahl, D.H. and L.A. Neilsen, 1985. Feeding ecology of the Sauger (Stizostedion canadense) in a large river. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 42, p. 120-128.
Wainger, L.A., D. King, J. Salzman, and J. Boyd. 2001. Wetland Value Indicators for Scoring Mitigation Trades. Stanford
Environmental Law Journal 2G(2):413-478,
Walburg, C.H, 1960. Abundance and life history of the shad, St. Johns River, Florida. U.S. Fish. Bull. 60(177):4S7-501.
Wallace, D.C. 1971. Age, growth, year class strength, and survival rates of the white perch, Morone americana (Gmelin) in
the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Chesapeake Science. 12(4): 205-218.
Wallus, R., B. L. Yeager, and T. P. Simon. 1990. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River
Drainage, Volume I: Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN.
Walsh, R., Bjonback, R.D., Rosenthal, T.D. and Aiken, R., 1985. Public Benefits of Programs to Protect Endangered Wildlife
in Colorado Symposium on Issues and Technology in the Management of Impacted Western Wildlife. Thome Ecological
Institute, Glenwood Springs, CO.
Walsh, R.G., D.M. Johnson, and J.R. McKean. 1990. Nonmarket Values from Two Decades of Research on Recreation
Demand. In: Advances in Applied Micro-Economics, V.K. Smith and A.N. Link (eds,). JAI Press.
Walsh, R.G., J.B. Loomis, andR.A. Gillman. 1984. Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for Wilderness. Land
Economics 60( 1): 14-29.
Wang, J.C.S. 1986a, Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early
Life Histories. Prepared by the CA Dept. of Water Resources, CA Dept. of Fish and Game, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Technical Report 9 (FS/B10-4ATR 86-9). Prepared for the Interagency Ecological Study
Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. January. World Wide Web electronic publication.
htir: elib.cs.hcikelcx .cdu k»>nce u'> litml home.Inns!. Accessed 11/01.
Wang, J.C.S. 1986b. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early
Life Histories. Technical Report 9 (FS/BI0-4ATR 86-9). Prepared for the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
Wang, J.C.S. and R.J. Kemehan. 1979. Fishes of the Delaware estuaries: A guide to early life histories. E.A. Communication.
Ecological Analysts, Inc., Towson, MD.
Wapora. 1979. Impingement and Entrainment Assessment Using the Production Foregone Analysis at J.R. Whiting Plant
During 1978, Prepared for Consumers Power Company. October.
Wapora. 1980, Impingement, Entrainment and Nel Deterrent Studies at the J.R, Whiting Plant During 1979. Final, Prepared
for Consumers Power Company. June. 68 pp.
Ware, D.M. and T.C. Lambert. 1985. Early life history of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in the southern Gulf of St.
Lawrence. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:577-592.
Warke, G.M., K.R. Day, J.E. Greer, and R.D. Davidson. 1994. Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo) populations and patterns of
abundance at breeding and feeding sites in northern Ireland, with particular reference to Lough Neagh. Hydrobiologia
279:91-100.
Warren, R.S., P.E. Fell, R. Rozsa, A.H. Brawley, A C. Orsted, E.T Olson, V. Swamy, and W.A. Niering. 2001. Salt marsh
restoration in Connecticut: 20 years of science and management. Submitted to Restoration Ecology.
References 46
-------
S 316(b) Case. Studies
References
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002, 2001-2002 Fishing Regulations Pamphlet,
Imp: w wv .w.i.jov «dlu l"ish reus iishreu>.hnn. Accessed 1/30/02.
Washington Tourist.com. 2000. Salmon Glossary, tiujy sv>'" AvashmLnoinounst.com salmon lournev nlossars .lunil. Accessed
3/29/02
Water Quality Association. 1999. Water Quality Glossary, rntf: u
-------
5 316(b) Case Studies
References
Yoshiyama, R. M,, E, R. Gerstung, F. W, Fisher, and P. B. Moyle, 1996. Historical and Present Distribution of Chinook
Salmon in the Central Valley Drainage of California. In: Status of the Sierra Nevada: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final
Report to Congress, Volume 3: Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information, Accessed on the internet
08/29/01. Regents of the University of California, Davis, CA.
Zarbock, H., J. Schulten, E. Long, and D. MacDonald. 1997. Sediment contamination in Tampa Bay - sources, risks, and
management, p. 281-293. In: Proceedings of the Tampa Bay Area Scientific Information Symposium 3: Applying Our
Knowledge, October 21-23, 1996 (S.F. Treat, ed.), Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Zastrow, C.E., E.D. Houde, and L.G. Morin. 1991. Spawning, fecundity, hatch-date frequency and young-of-year growth of
bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli, in mid-Chesapeake Bay. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 73:161-171.
References 48
------- |