United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Environmental and Economic Benefits
Analysis for Proposed Section 316(b)
Existing Facilities Rule
EPA 821-R-11-002
March 28, 2011
-------
-------
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION AND OTHER EVALUATED OPTIONS 1-2
1.2 STUDY DESIGN 1-2
1.2.1 Coastal Regions 1-3
1.2.2 Great Lakes Region 1-3
1.2.3 Inland Region 1-4
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENT 1-4
2 BASELINE IMPACTS 2-1
2.1 INTRODUCTION 2-1
2.2 MAJOR ANTHROPOGENIC STRESSORS IN AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 2-1
2.2.1 Habitat Loss 2-2
2.2.2 Water Quality 2-3
2.2.3 Overharvesting 2-7
2.2.4 Invasive Species 2-7
2.3 CWIS IMPACTS TO AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS 2-8
2.3.1 Losses of Fish from I&E Mortality 2-9
2.3.2 I&E Mortality Effects on T&E species 2-12
2.3.3 Thermal Effects 2-12
2.3.4 Chemical Effects 2-13
2.3.5 Effects of Flow Alteration 2-15
2.4 COMMUNITY-LEVEL OR INDIRECT EFFECTS OF CWISs 2-15
2.4.1 Altered Community Structure and Patchy Distribution of Species 2-16
2.4.2 Altered Food Webs 2-16
2.4.3 Reduced Taxa and Genetic Diversity 2-16
2.4.4 Nutrient Cycling Effects 2-77
2.4.5 Reduced Ecological Resistance 2-77
2.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF MULTIPLE FACILITIES 2-17
2.5.7 Clustering of Facilities and CWISs on Major Rivers 2-77
2.5.2 Implications of Clustered Facilities for Cumulative Impacts 2-7$
2.6 CASE STUDIES OF FACILITY I&E MORTALITY IMPACTS 2-19
2.6.1 Bay Shore Power Station 2-19
2.6.2 Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant 2-20
2.6.3 Indian River Power Plant 2-27
2.7 CONCLUSIONS 2-22
3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT MORTALITY 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION 3-1
3.2 METHODS 3-1
3.2.7 Objectives of I&E Mortality Analysis 3-1
3.2.2 I&E Mortality Loss Metrics 3-2
3.2.3 Valuation Approach 3-3
3.2.4 Rationale for EPA 's Approach for Valuation of I&E mortality losses 3-3
3.2.5 Extrapolation of I&E Mortality to Develop Regional Estimates 3-5
3.3 I&E MORTALITY LOSSES BY REGION 3-6
3.3.7 California Region 3-6
3.3.2 North Atlantic Region 3-7
March 28, 2011 i
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
3.3.3 Mid-Atlantic 3-8
3.3.4 South Atlantic Region 3-10
3.3.5 Gulf of Mexico 3-11
3.3.6 Great Lakes Region 3-12
3.3.7 Inland Region 3-13
3.3.8 National Estimates 3-14
3.4 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 3-15
3.4.1 Data Limitation and Uncertainty 3-15
3.4.2 Structural Uncertainty 3-16
3.4.3 Parameter Uncertainty 3-17
3.4.4 Engineering Uncertainty 3-18
4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH I&E MORTALITY
REDUCTION 4-20
4.1 ECONOMIC BENEFIT CATEGORIES APPLICABLE TO THE REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES 4-20
4.2 MARKET AND NONMARKET DIRECT AND INDIRECT USE BENEFITS FROM REDUCED I&E
MORTALITY 4-23
4.2.1 Commercial Fisheries 4-23
4.2.2 Recreational Fisheries 4-24
4.2.3 Subsistence Fishers 4-24
4.2.4 Benefits from Improved Protection to T&E Species 4-25
4.3 NONUSE BENEFITS FROM REDUCED I&E MORTALITY 4-25
5 IMPACTS AND BENEFITS ON THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 T&E SPECIES AFFECTED BY CWISs 5-2
5.2.1 T&E Species Identification and Data Collection 5-2
5.2.2 Number of T&E Species Affected per Facility 5-3
5.2.3 Number of Facilities Affecting Individual T&E Species 5-5
5.2.4 Summary of Overlap Between Cooling Water Intake Structures and T&E Species 5-7
5.2.5 Species with Documented I&E Mortality 5-8
5.3 SOCIETAL VALUES FOR PRESERVATION OF T&E SPECIES AFFECTED BY I&E MORTALITY 5-8
5.4 ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS TO T&E SPECIES 5-10
5.4.1 Economic Valuation Methods 5-10
5.4.2 Case Studies 5-11
5.4.3 Limitations and Uncertainties 5-17
6 COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS 6-1
6.1 METHODOLOGY 6-1
6.1.1 Estimating Consumer and Producer Surplus 6-1
6.2 BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL FISHING 6-9
6.2.1 California 6-11
6.2.2 North Atlantic 6-12
6.2.3 Mid-Atlantic 6-12
6.2.4 South Atlantic 6-13
6.2.5 Gulf of Mexico 6-14
6.2.6 The Great Lakes 6-15
6.3 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 6-16
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
7 RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS 7-1
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 METHODOLOGY 7-1
7.2.1 Estimating Marginal Value per Fish 7-2
7.2.2 Calculating Recreational Fishing Benefits 7-5
7.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis Based on the Krinsky and Robb (1986) Approach 7-6
7.3 BENEFITS ESTIMATES FOR RECREATIONAL FISHING BY REGION 7-7
7.3.1 California 7-7
7.3.2 North Atlantic Region 7-8
7.3.3 Mid-Atlantic Region 7-9
7.3.4 South Atlantic Region 7-70
7.3.5 Gulf of Mexico 7-70
7.3.6 Great Lakes Region 7-11
7.3.7 Inland Region 7-72
7.4 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 7-13
7.4.1 Variable Assignments for Independent Regressors 7-13
7.4.2 Exclusion of Error Term from Regression Equation to Predict Marginal Values 7-13
7.4.3 Other Limitations and Uncertainties 7-14
8 NONUSE BENEFITS OF REDUCING I&E MORTALITY 8-1
8.1 INTRODUCTION 8-1
8.2 PUBLIC POLICY SIGNIFICANCE OF ECOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE PROPOSED 316(B)
REGULATION FOR EXISTING FACILITIES 8-1
8.2.1 Effects on Depleted Fish Populations 8-2
8.2.2 Marine Protected Areas 8-2
8.2.3 Restoration of Freshwater Ecosystems 8-5
8.2.4 Summary of Evidence for Nonuse Values of Ecosystems Impacted by CWISs 8-5
8.3 QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL NONUSE BENEFITS 8-6
8.3.1 Description of Johnston et al. (2009) and BSPVMethods 8-6
8.3.2 Benefits Transfer Methodology 8-8
8.4 ESTIMATES OF TOTAL WTP BY OPTION AND REGION 8-13
8.5 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 8-14
8.5.1 Scale of Fishery Improvements 8-15
8.5.2 Scale and Characteristics of the Affected Population 8-15
8.5.3 Fish Population Size, Type and Improvement from the Elimination of I&E Mortality 8-15
9 HABITAT BASED METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING NONUSE VALUES OF FISH
PRODUCTION LOST TO I&E MORTALITY 9-1
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.2 ESTIMATING THE AMOUNT OF HABITAT NEEDED TO OFFSET I&E MORTALITY 9-2
9.2.1 Quantify the Mass of Production Lost to I&E Mortality 9-2
9.2.2 Production per Unit of Habitat 9-3
9.2.3 Select Preferred Restoration Habitat 9-7
9.2.4 Scaling Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset I&E Mortality 9-8
9.3 DEVELOPMENT OF WTP VALUES FOR FISH PRODUCTION SERVICES OF HABITAT 9-10
9.3.1 Estimating the Importance of Fish Habitat as a Proportion of Habitat WTP Values: Salt
Marshes 9-11
9.3.2 Estimating the Importance of Fish Habitat as a Proportion of Habitat WTP Values:
Freshwater Wetlands 9-12
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
9.3.3 Estimated Proportion of Household WTP Estimates Attributed to Fish Production
Services 9-13
9.4 ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF HABITAT NEEDED TO OFFSET I&E MORTALITY 9-13
9.4.1 Determining the Extent of Nonuse Values 9-13
9.4.2 Estimating Aggregate Values 9-14
9.5 WTP RESULTS 9-15
9.6 LIMITATIONS AND UNCERTAINTIES 9-17
9.6.1 Estimating the Extent of the Affected Population 9-17
9.6.2 Not All Species and Losses Are Compensated 9-17
9.6.3 Timing of Losses and Restoration 9-17
9.6.4 Application of the Approach to Large Geographic Areas 9-17
9.6.5 Specification of Parameter Assumptions 9-18
10 NATIONAL BENEFITS 10-1
10.1 INTRODUCTION 10-1
10.2 METHODOLOGY 10-1
10.3 SUMMARY OF BASELINE LOSSES AND EXPECTED REDUCTIONS IN I&E MORTALITY 10-2
10.4 NATIONAL MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING AND REDUCING I&E MORTALITY
LOSSES 10-4
10.5 BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS 10-12
11 OPTION 4 RESULTS 11-1
10.1 INTRODUCTION 11-1
10.2 EXPECTED REDUCTIONS IN I&E MORTALITY UNDER OPTION 4 11-1
10.3 MONETIZED BENEFITS UDER OPTION 4 11-2
12 REFERENCES 12-1
APPENDIX A : EXTRAPOLATION METHODS A-l
A.I INTRODUCTION A-l
A.2 MANUFACTURING FACILITIES A-l
A. 2.1 Traditional Manufacturers (MN Facilities) A-l
A. 2.2 Non-utility Manufacturers (MU Facilities) A-5
A.3 ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING FACILITIES A-6
A.3.1 Defining the Strata and Control Variables A-7
A. 3.2 Comparison of Results of the Detailed Questionnaire and Post-Stratified Weighting
Schemes A-7
APPENDIX B : CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS DUE TO
THERMAL DISCHARGES B-l
B.I INTRODUCTION B-l
B.2 GENERAL EFFECTS OF THERMAL DISCHARGES ON AQUATIC BIOTA AND ECOSYSTEMS B-l
B.3 INFLUENCE OF SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ON THERMAL
EFFECTS B-4
B.4 UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS OF ASSESSING THERMAL IMPACTS B-5
B.5 CASE STUDIES B-6
B.5.1 Brayton Point Station B-6
B.5.2 Quad Cities Nuclear Station (QCNS) B-10
B.5.3 Point Beach Nuclear Station B-l2
APPENDIX C : DETAILS OF REGIONAL I&E MORTALITY LOSSES C-l
C.I CALIFORNIA C-l
March 28, 2011 iv
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.2 NORTH ATLANTIC C-3
C.3 MID-ATLANTIC C-6
C.4 SOUTH ATLANTIC C-10
C.5 GULF OF MEXICO C-12
C.6 GREAT LAKES C-14
C.I INLAND C-17
C.8 NATIONAL ESTIMATES C-20
APPENDIX D : DISCOUNTING BENEFITS D-l
D.I INTRODUCTION D-l
D.2 TIMING OF BENEFITS D-l
D.3 DISCOUNTING AND ANNUALIZATION D-3
APPENDIX E : LIST OF T&E SPECIES OVERLAPPING CWIS E-l
APPENDIX F : DETAILED METHODOLOGIES OF CWIS, AND ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF
REGULATION ON, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES F-l
F.I I&EMORTALITY OF SEA TURTLES F-l
F.2 APPLICATION OF WHITEHEAD (1993)'s BENEFIT TRANSFER APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING
WTP FOR T&E SEA TURTLE SPECIES F-3
F.3 APPLICATION OF RICHARDSON &LOOMIS'(2008) WTP MODEL F-5
APPENDIX G : ESTIMATION OF PRICE CHANGES FOR CONSUMER SURPLUS G-l
G.I INTRODUCTION G-l
G.2 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS G-l
APPENDIX H : DETAILS OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS H-l
APPENDIX I: DETAILS OF REGIONAL RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS 1-1
.1 CALIFORNIA 1-1
.2 NORTH ATLANTIC 1-6
.3 MID-ATLANTIC 1-11
.4 SOUTH ATLANTIC 1-16
.5 GULF OF MEXICO 1-18
.6 GREAT LAKES 1-22
.7 INLAND 1-27
APPENDIX J : METHODS USED IN THE HABITAT BASED METHODOLOGY FOR
ESTIMATING NONUSE VALUES J-l
J. 1 EQUATIONS FOR ESTIMATING NONUSE VALUES USING A HABITAT BASED METHODOLOGY J-l
J. 2 ESTIMATED PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY AND CARBON EXPORT IN MARINE AND AQUATIC
HABITATS J-3
J.3 REGIONAL DETERMINATION OF PREFERRED HABITAT J-4
J.4 WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR FISH PRODUCTION AND OTHER AQUATIC HABITAT GOODS AND
SERVICES J-6
J.5 NARRAGANSETT BAY WETLAND RESTORATION STUDY J-8
J.5.1 Survey Development and Data Collection J-8
J.5.2 Results J-9
]. 6 DETERMINING THE AFFECTED POPULATION AND ESTIMATING AGGREGATE VALUES J-14
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TABLE 1-1: IN-SCOPE FACILITIES AND ACTUAL INTAKE FLOW (AIF) BY REGION (BILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY) . 1 -3
TABLE 2-1: ANTHROPOGENIC STRESSORS IMPACTING AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED, BOTH
DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY, BY 316(B) OPTION SCENARIOS 2-2
TABLE 2-2: NUMBER OF 316(B) FACILITIES ON 303(o)-LisTED WATERBODIES, BY IMPAIRMENT AND REGION 2-6
TABLE 2-3: DEPLETED COMMERCIAL FISH STOCKS SUBJECT TO I&E MORTALITY 2-8
TABLE 2-4: CWIS EFFECTS ON ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONS/CUMULATIVE IMPACTS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED, BOTH
DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY, BY 316(B) REGULATIONS 2-10
TABLE 2-5. TOP 20 POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED BY 316(B) FACILITIES, BY TOTAL ANNUAL LOADINGS IN 2007 2-14
TABLE 2-6: U.S. RIVERS WITH LARGEST WITHDRAWALS BY IN-SCOPE FACILITIES 2-18
TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND
GENERATING) IN CALIFORNIA, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-7
TABLE 3-2: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN CALIFORNIA, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-7
TABLE 3-3: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS
3-8
TABLE 3-4: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-8
TABLE 3-5: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE MID-ATLANTIC, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-9
TABLE 3-6: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE MID-ATLANTIC, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-9
TABLE 3-7: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS
3-10
TABLE 3-8: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-10
TABLE 3-9: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS
3-11
TABLE 3-10: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-12
TABLE 3-11: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE GREAT LAKES, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION ScENARios3-12
TABLE 3-12: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE GREAT LAKES, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-13
TABLE 3-13: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE INLAND REGION, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-
13
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TABLE 3-14: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) IN THE INLAND REGION, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-14
TABLE 3-15: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) NATIONALLY, AND REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-15
TABLE 3-16: BASELINE LOSSES IN FISHERY YIELD, CATCH, AND PRODUCTION FORGONE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF I&E
MORTALITY AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING) NATIONALLY, AND
REDUCTIONS UNDER OPTION SCENARIOS 3-15
TABLE 3-17: STRUCTURAL UNCERTAINTIES 3-17
TABLE 3-18: PARAMETERS INCLUDED IN EPA's I&E MORTALITY ANALYSIS SUBJECT TO UNCERTAINTY 3-19
TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF BENEFIT CATEGORIES' DATA NEEDS, POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES, APPROACHES, AND
ANALYSES COMPLETED 4-3
TABLE 4-2: SUMMARY OF BASELINE NATIONAL I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND REDUCTIONS IN I&E MORTALITY
LOSSES, BY REGULATORY OPTION 4-7
TABLE 5-1: NUMBER OF T&E SPECIES WITH GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTIONS OVERLAPPING IN-SCOPE CWISs, ON A
PER-FACILITY BASIS 5-4
TABLE 5-2: NUMBER OF FACILITIES WITH CWISs WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF T&E SPECIES, ON A
PER-SPECIES BASIS 5-6
TABLE 5-3: T&E SPECIES WITH DOCUMENTED I&E MORTALITY. SPECIES ARE SEPARATED BY THE TAXONOMIC
RESOLUTION REPORTED FOR THE I&E MORTALITY LOSS 5-9
TABLE 5-4: FEDERAL AND STATE EXPENDITURES FOR T&E SPECIES OVERLAPPING WITH CWIS 5-10
TABLE 5-5: ANNUAL BASELINE I&E MORTALITY AND REDUCTIONS IN BASELINE I&E MORTALITY OF T&E SPECIES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE INLAND REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (A IE) 5-12
TABLE 5-6: ESTIMATED ANNUAL WTP FOR ELIMINATING OR REDUCING I&E MORTALITY OF SPECIAL STATUS FISH
SPECIES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE INLAND REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 5-13
TABLE 5-7: MONETIZED BENEFITS OF A 1 PERCENT INCREASE IN THE PROBABILITY THAT LOGGERHEAD SEA TURTLES
WILL NOT BE EXTINCT IN 25 YEARS 5-17
TABLE 5-8: CAVEATS, OMISSIONS, BIASES, AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE T&E SPECIES BENEFITS ESTIMATES 5-17
TABLE 6-1: CALIFORNIA REGION, SPECIES-SPECIFIC GEAR TYPE, STATUS OF STOCK, AND NET BENEFITS RATIO .... 6-5
TABLE 6-2: NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, SPECIES-SPECIFIC GEAR TYPE, STATUS OF STOCK, AND NET BENEFITS RATIO
6-6
TABLE 6-3: MID-ATLANTIC REGION, SPECIES-SPECIFIC GEAR TYPE, STATUS OF STOCK, AND NET BENEFITS RATIO 6-7
TABLE 6-4: SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, SPECIES-SPECIFIC GEAR TYPE, STATUS OF STOCK, AND NET BENEFITS RATIO
6-8
TABLE 6-5: GULF OF MEXICO REGION, SPECIES-SPECIFIC GEAR TYPE, STATUS OF STOCK, AND NET BENEFITS RATIO
6-8
TABLE 6-6: GREAT LAKES REGION, SPECIES-SPECIFIC GEAR TYPE, STATUS OF STOCK, AND NET BENEFITS RATIO . 6-9
TABLE 6-7: POTENTIAL HARVEST INCREASE FROM ELIMINATING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AS A PERCENTAGE OF
TOTAL HARVEST AND POTENTIAL HARVEST CAPPING RULES USED IN EPA's ANALYSIS 6-10
TABLE 6-8: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 6-11
TABLE 6-9: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 6-12
TABLE 6-10: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 6-13
TABLE 6-11: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 6-14
TABLE 6-12: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 6-14
TABLE 6-13: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 6-15
March 28, 2011 vii
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TABLE 6-14: CAVEATS, OMISSIONS, BIASES, AND UNCERTAINTIES IN THE COMMERCIAL BENEFITS ESTIMATES .... 6-16
TABLE 7-1: INDEPENDENT VARIABLE ASSIGNMENTS FOR REGRESSION EQUATION 7-3
TABLE 7-2: REGION- AND SPECIES-SPECIFIC VARIABLE ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE REGRESSION EQUATION 7-5
TABLE 7-3: MARGINAL RECREATIONAL VALUE PER FISH, BY REGION AND SPECIES* 7-5
TABLE 7-4: CONFIDENCE BOUNDS ON MARGINAL RECREATIONAL VALUE PER FISH, BASED ON THE KRINSKY AND
ROBB APPROACH* 7-7
TABLE 7-5: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 7-8
TABLE 7-6: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 7-9
TABLE 7-7: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 7-9
TABLE 7-8: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 7-10
TABLE 7-9: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 7-11
TABLE 7-10: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY
LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 7-12
TABLE 7-11: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY
LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE INLAND REGION, BY REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) 7-13
TABLE 8-1:316(B) FACILITIES IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, AND IMPROVEMENTS IN I&E MORTALITY
TECHNOLOGIES BY REGULATORY OPTION 8-5
TABLE 8-2: RESULTS OF MIXED LOGIT MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION (BOUNDED TRIANGULAR COST) 8-11
TABLE 8-3: WTP PER PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF FISH 8-12
TABLE 8-4: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AND ESTIMATED FISH NUMBERS FOR THE NORTHEAST U.S. (NORTH
ATLANTIC AND MID-ATLANTIC REGIONS) 8-13
TABLE 8-5: NONUSE VALUE OF ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES BY REGULATORY
OPTION FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND MID-ATLANTIC REGIONS 8-14
TABLE 9-1: SUMMARY OF PRODUCTIVITY VALUES OF PREFERRED SCALING HABITATS BY REGION (KG DRY MASS
ACRE^YR"1) 9-7
TABLE 9-2: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY (METRIC TONS A1E YEAR"1) AND HABITAT RESTORATION AREA (ACRES)
EQUIVALENT TO BASELINE I&E MORTALITY, AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS (METRIC TONS A1E YEAR"1)
AND HABITAT RESTORATION AREA (ACRES) EQUIVALENT TO THESE REDUCTIONS, BY REGION AND
REGULATORY OPTION 9-9
TABLE 9-3: TOTAL ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD WTP PER ACRE OF AQUATIC HABITAT 9-11
TABLE 9-4: HOUSEHOLD WTP PER ACRE PER YEAR FOR FISH PRODUCTION SERVICES 9-13
TABLE 9-5: WEIGHTED WTP FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AREA EQUIVALENT TO BASELINE I&E MORTALITY, AND
WEIGHTED WTP FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AREA EQUIVALENT TO I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS BY REGION
AND REGULATORY OPTION 9-16
TABLE 10-1: BASELINE NATIONAL A1E LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MILLIONS OF AlEs) 10-2
TABLE 10-2: REDUCTIONS IN NATIONAL A1E LOSSES FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MILLIONS OF AlEs) UNDER
OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) 10-2
TABLE 10-3: REDUCTIONS IN NATIONAL A1E LOSSES FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MILLION AlEs) UNDER OPTION
2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) 10-3
TABLE 10-4: REDUCTIONS IN NATIONAL A1E LOSSES FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MILLIONS OF AlEs) UNDER
OPTIONS (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) 10-3
TABLE 10-5: BASELINE NATIONAL I&E MORTALITY AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR ALL IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES BY REGULATORY OPTION 10-3
TABLE 10-6: DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL I&E MORTALITY FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES BY REGULATORY OPTION
10-4
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TABLE 10-7: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES FOR ALL
IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (2009$) 10-7
TABLE 10-8: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS OF OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
(2009$) 10-8
TABLE 10-9: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS OF OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD)
FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (2009$) 10-9
TABLE 10-10: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS OF OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) FOR ALL IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES (2009$) 10-10
TABLE 10-11: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS BY REGULATORY OPTION FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (2009$)
10-11
TABLE 10-12: IMPLICIT NONUSE VALUE—BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS, 3 PERCENT AND 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATES
(2009$) 10-13
TABLE 11-1: DISTRIBUTION OF I&E MORTALITY FOR ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES BY REGION UNDER OPTION 4 (I
EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) 11-1
TABLE 11-2: ANNUAL INCREASE IN RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL HARVEST UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE
WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) 11-2
TABLE 11-3: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BENEFITS OF OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS)
(2009$) 11-3
TABLE 11-4: WEIGHTED WTP FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AREA EQUIVALENT TO I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS BY
REGION UNDER OPTION 4 ((I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) 11-4
TABLE A-1: MN DQ DISTRIBUTION AND CALCULATION OF WEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FACTORS A-4
TABLE A-2:MU ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AND ADJUSTED FLOW BY BENEFITS REGION A-6
TABLE A-3: MATRIX OF STRATA AND CONTROL VARIABLES FOR ADJUSTING DQ WEIGHTS A-7
TABLE A-4: MEAN OPERATIONAL FLOW BY BENEFITS REGION: POST-STRATIFICATION BY MEAN REGIONAL
OPERATIONAL FLOW FOR FACILITIES WITHOUT RECIRCULATION (MOD) A-8
TABLE C-l: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-l
TABLE C-2: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-2
TABLE C-3: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-3
TABLE C-4: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-4
TABLE C-5: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION SCENARIOS
ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-6
TABLE C-6: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-8
TABLE C-6: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY, CONTINUED C-9
TABLE C-7: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-10
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TABLE C-8: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-ll
TABLE C-9: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-12
TABLE C-10: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE GULF OF MEXICO (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-13
TABLE C-ll: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE GREAT LAKES (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION SCENARIOS
ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-14
TABLE C-12: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE GREAT LAKES (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-15
TABLE C-13: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE INLAND REGION (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION SCENARIOS
ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-17
TABLE C-14: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
IN THE INLAND REGION (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION
SCENARIOS ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-18
TABLE C-15: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
NATIONALLY (MILLION AlEs PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION SCENARIOS
ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-20
TABLE C-16: BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT ALL IN-SCOPE FACILITIES (MANUFACTURING AND GENERATING)
NATIONALLY (MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR), AND I&E MORTALITY REDUCTIONS FOR OPTION SCENARIOS
ESTIMATED FOR ALL SOURCES OF MORTALITY C-24
TABLE D-l: TIME PROFILE OF NATIONAL MEAN TOTAL BENEFITS AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES BY REGULATORY OPTION
(2009$, THOUSANDS) D-4
TABLE E-l: LIST OF T&E SPECIES OVERLAPPING ONE OR MORE IN-SCOPE 316(B) COOLING WATER INTAKE
STRUCTURE E-l
TABLE F-l: REPORTED VALUES OF SEA TURTLE ENTRAINMENT F-2
TABLE F-2: A SUBSET OF US-BASED NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS DEDICATED TO SEA TURTLE RESEARCH
AND CONSERVATION F-3
TABLE F-3: VARIABLE DESCRIPTIONS AND VALUES USED FOR EPA's BENEFITS TRANSFER APPLICATION F-5
TABLE F-4: VARIABLES IN THE META-ANALYSIS MODEL AND VALUES USED IN EPA's APPLICATION F-6
TABLE G-l: OWN-PRICE ELASTICITY ESTIMATES FROM LITERATURE REVIEW G-2
TABLE G-2: ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN EX-VESSEL PRICE BY REGION AND SPECIES GROUP G-3
TABLE G-3: ESTIMATED PRICE CHANGES FOR THE CALIFORNIA REGION G-3
TABLE G-4: ESTIMATED PRICE CHANGES FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION G-4
TABLE G-5: ESTIMATED PRICE CHANGES FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION G-5
TABLE G-6: ESTIMATED PRICE CHANGES FOR THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION G-5
TABLE G-7: ESTIMATED PRICE CHANGES FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION G-6
TABLE H-l: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY SPECIES AND REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) H-l
TABLE H-2: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES AND REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) H-2
TABLE H-3: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES AND REGULATORY OPTION (2009$).... H-3
TABLE H-4: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES AND REGULATORY OPTION (2009$). H-4
March 28, 2011 x
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TABLE H-5: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY SPECIES AND REGULATORY OPTION (2009$). H-5
TABLE H-6: COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING OR REDUCING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES
AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY SPECIES AND REGULATORY OPTION (2009$) H-6
TABLE 1-1: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-1
TABLE 1-2: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-2
TABLE 1-3: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY SPECIES
(2009$) 1-3
TABLE 1-4: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-4
TABLE 1-5: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) IN THE CALIFORNIA REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-5
TABLE 1-6: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-6
TABLE 1-7: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-7
TABLE 1-8: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-8
TABLE 1-9: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$)... 1-9
TABLE 1-10: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-10
TABLE 1-11: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-11
TABLE 1-12: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-12
TABLE 1-13: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-13
TABLE 1-14: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-14
TABLE 1-15: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) IN THE MID-ATLANTIC REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-15
TABLE 1-16: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-16
TABLE 1-17: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-16
TABLE 1-18: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-17
TABLE 1-19: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$).. 1-17
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TABLE 1-20: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) IN THE SOUTH ATLANTIC REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-18
TABLE 1-21: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-18
TABLE 1-22: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-19
TABLE 1-23: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-20
TABLE 1-24: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) ..1-21
TABLE 1-25: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-22
TABLE 1-26: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-23
TABLE 1-27: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-24
TABLE 1-28: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-25
TABLE 1-29: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-26
TABLE 1-30: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) IN THE GREAT LAKES REGION, BY
SPECIES (2009$) 1-27
TABLE 1-31: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM ELIMINATING BASELINE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE
FACILITIES IN THE INLAND REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-28
TABLE 1-32: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 1 (I EVERYWHERE) IN THE INLAND REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-29
TABLE 1-33: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 2 (I EVERYWHERE AND E FOR FACILITIES > 125 MOD) IN THE INLAND REGION, BY SPECIES
(2009$) 1-30
TABLE 1-34: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 3 (I&E MORTALITY EVERYWHERE) IN THE INLAND REGION, BY SPECIES (2009$) 1-31
TABLE 1-3 5: RECREATIONAL FISHING BENEFITS FROM REDUCING I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AT IN-SCOPE FACILITIES
UNDER OPTION 4 (I EVERYWHERE WITHOUT NEW UNITS REQUIREMENTS) IN THE INLAND REGION, BY SPECIES
(2009$) 1-32
TABLE J-l: SUMMARY OF ABOVEGROUND PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY (MEASURED IN KG DRY MASS ACRE"1 YR-I) J-3
TABLE J-2: ESTIMATES OF CARBON EXPORT FROM SALT MARSHES J-4
TABLE J-3: STUDIES USED TO ESTIMATE WTP VALUES FOR FISH PRODUCTION SERVICES AND HABITAT J-6
TABLE J-4: DEFINITIONS AND SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR MODEL VARIABLES FOR NARRAGANSETT BAY WETLAND
RESTORATION STUDY J-10
TABLE J-5: CONDITIONAL LOGIT RESULTS FOR NARRAGANSETT BAY WETLAND RESTORATION STUDY J-12
TABLE J-6: PROPORTIONS OF RESTORED WETLAND VALUE ASSOCIATE WITH VARIOUS SERVICE CATEGORIES J-13
TABLE J-7: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY STATE AND PERCENTAGE OF REGIONAL HABITAT ACRES ASSIGNED TO
EACH STATE J-14
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
FIGURE 2-1: MAP OF FACILITIES LOCATED ON 303(D) WATERS AND THOSE LISTED FOR TEMPERATURE 2-4
FIGURE 3 -1: GENERAL APPROACH USED TO EVALUATE I&E MORTALITY LOSSES AS FORGONE FISHERY YIELD 3-4
FIGURE 5-2: CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION PLOT OF THE NUMBER OF T&E SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ON A PER-
FACILITY BASIS BY IN-SCOPE FACILITIES NATIONWIDE. SAMPLE SIZES (I.E., NUMBER OF IN-SCOPE FACILITIES) ARE
NOTED IN PARENTHESES. THE HORIZONTAL AXIS IS EQUIVALENT IN ALL PLOTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
INLAND REGION (NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK *) 5-5
FIGURE 6-1: FISHERY MARKET MODEL, REPRODUCED FROM BISHOP AND HOLT (2003) 6-2
FIGURE 8-2: IN-SCOPE FACILITIES WITH CWISs LOCATED IN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 8-4
FIGURE 8-3: EXAMPLE CHOICE EXPERIMENT QUESTION FROM JOHNSTON ETAL. (2009) 8-9
FIGURE 9-1: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TROPHIC TRANSFER APPROACH 9-3
FIGURE 9-2: TROPHIC LEVELS AND PROCESSES CALCULATED WITH THE SIMPLIFIED, FOUR LEVEL TROPHIC TRANSFER
MODEL 9-4
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
1 Introduction
EPA is proposing regulations implementing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to address the
environmental impacts of cooling water intake structures (CWISs). The withdrawal of cooling water from
streams, rivers, estuaries and coastal marine waters by CWISs causes adverse environmental impacts
(AEI) to aquatic biota and communities in these waterbodies. These impacts are caused through several
means, including impingement mortality (where fish and other aquatic life are trapped on equipment at
the entrance to the CWIS) and entrainment mortality (where aquatic organisms, including eggs, and
larvae are taken into the cooling system, passed through the heat exchanger, then discharged back into the
source body). Additional adverse effects are often associated with CWIS operation, including nonlethal
effects of impingement, thermal discharges, chemical effluents, flow modifications caused by these
plants, and other impacts of variable and unknown magnitudes.
The Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation would establish national performance requirements for the
location, design, construction, and capacity of CWISs (Clean Water Act 1972). This regulation is
designed to minimize the adverse environmental impacts caused by CWIS through reduction of volume,
frequency, and/or seasonality of water withdrawals. The proposed regulations will significantly reduce
impingement and entrainment (I&E) mortality, as well as reduce the magnitude of other impacts (i.e.,
thermal, chemical, and flow alteration) on aquatic ecosystems. Thus, changes in CWIS design or
operation resulting from Section 316(b) regulation are likely to result in enhanced ecosystem function and
increased ecological services provided by affected waterbodies.
The two broad categories of existing facilities are considered to be within the Proposed rule's scope
include: (1) electric generators and (2) manufacturers. In-scope 316(b) facilities include existing electric
generators and manufacturers with a design intake flow (DIP) of at least 2 million gallons per day (MGD)
that use at least 25 percent of the water they withdraw (measured on an average annual basis for each
calendar year) exclusively for cooling purposes.
EPA is required to conduct a benefit-cost analysis under Executive Order 12866 for economically
significant rules. This report presents the methods EPA used for the environmental assessment and for the
benefits analysis of the regulatory options. EPA's analysis had three main objectives: (1) to develop a
national estimate of the baseline magnitude of I&E mortality at in-scope facilities; (2) to estimate changes
in the I&E mortality offish and invertebrates as a result of regulation; and (3) to estimate the national
economic benefits of reduced I&E mortality.
This report describes the regulatory options that EPA considered, and the study design. It identifies the
types of economic benefits that are likely to be generated by improved ecosystem functioning under
different regulatory options for in-scope facilities. The report also presents the basic concepts involved in
analyzing these economic benefits—including benefit categories and benefit taxonomies associated with
market and nonmarket goods and services likely to flow from reduced I&E mortality. Specific chapters of
the report detail the methods used to estimate values for reductions in I&E mortality.
The organization of this report is described in Section 1.3.
March 28, 2011 1-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
1.1 Summary of the Proposed Regulation and Other Evaluated Options
EPA is considering three regulatory options for existing facilities based on two technologies. The three
options would regulate only existing facilities with a DIP for cooling water of 2 MGD or greater. Each
option evaluated in developing this proposed regulation is described below.
> Option 1: I Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All Existing Facilities
that Withdraw over 2 MGD; Determine Entrainment Controls for Facilities Greater than 2 MGD
DIP On a Site-specific Basis.
> Option 2: I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD. Establish Impingement Mortality
Controls at All Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD DIP; Require Flow Reduction
Commensurate with Closed-cycle Cooling By Facilities Greater Than 125 MGD DIP.
> Option 3: I&E Mortality Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All
Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD DIP; Require Flow Reduction Commensurate with
Closed-Cycle Cooling at All Existing Facilities over 2 MGD DIP.
1.2 Study Design
EPA's analysis of the regulatory options examined CWIS impacts and regulatory benefits in seven study
regions (California,1 North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and
Inland). The study regions were chosen based on regional similarities within ecosystems, aquatic species,
and characteristics of commercial and recreational fishing activities. Regional results were then combined
to develop national estimates. The geographical extent of the seven regions, and the water body types
within each region, are described below in Section 1-3. Table 1-1 presents the number of in-scope
facilities and total actual intake flow by study region.
EPA has determined that 158 in-scope facilities currently use closed-cycle cooling water systems that
minimize entrainment losses by greatly reducing the total volume of cooling water withdrawn from
nearby waterbodies. Of these facilities, 59 also meet water intake velocity requirements that minimize
impingement mortality. Although these 59 facilities would be subject to the requirements of the Proposed
Rule, they would not be required to install additional technologies to reduce I&E mortality under the
Proposed Rule. Thus, these facilities do not influence the occurrence and magnitude of benefits.
Includes four in-scope facilities in Hawaii.
March 28, 2011 1-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 1-1: In-Scope
day)
Region
California15
Great Lakes
Inland0
Mid-Atlantic
Gulf ofMexico
North Atlantic
South Atlantic
All Regions
Facilities and Actual
Number of In-Scope
Facilities3
8
67
669
54
30
26
17
871
Intake Flow
(AIF) by Region (billions
Flow Without
Recirculation Recirculated Flow
1.19
18.81
134.87
28.10
12.89
7.04
7.42
210.30
0.00
0.24
3.89
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.05
4.25
of gallons per
Total Flow
1.2
19.0
138.8
28.2
12.9
7.0
7.5
214.5
* This table presents the unweighted number of facilities because weighted facilities counts are
not estimated separately by benefits region. The estimated total weighted number of potentially regulated facilities is 1152 (including
baseline closures).
The California region includes manufacturing facilities in the state of California and four facilities in Hawaii. It excludes coastal
electric generating facilities in the state of California due to state regulation of cooling water intakes for these facilities. There are no
coastal facilities in Oregon and a single facility in Washington classified as a baseline closure.
c A facility in Texas has intakes located in both the Inland and Gulf of Mexico regions. It is included within the Inland region within the
current table to prevent the double counting of facilities.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
1.2.1 Coastal Regions
The five coastal regions (California, North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico)
correspond to those of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). These regions include facilities that withdraw cooling water from estuaries,
tidal rivers and ocean facilities within the NMFS regions. All facilities that withdraw cooling water from
non-coastal waterbodies, such as lakes, rivers, and reservoirs, regardless of geographical location, are
included in the Inland Region (Section 1.2.3)
Coastal regions are defined as follows: the California region includes all estuary/tidal river and ocean
manufacturing facilities in California.2 plus four facilities in Hawaii. The North Atlantic region
encompasses coastal facilities in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.
The Mid-Atlantic region includes coastal facilities in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia. The South Atlantic region includes coastal facilities in
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east coast of Florida. Finally, the Gulf of Mexico region
includes coastal facilities in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and the west coast of Florida.
Coastal regions include a total of 152 facilities.
1.2.2 Great Lakes Region
The Great Lakes region is defined in accordance with the Clean Water Act to include facilities
withdrawing cooling water from Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron (including Lake St. Clair),
Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, and the connecting channels (Saint Mary's River, Saint Clair River, Detroit
2 The California region includes manufacturing facilities in the state of California and four facilities in Hawaii, It excludes coastal
electric generating facilities in the state of California due to state regulation of cooling water intakes for these facilities.
There are no coastal facilities in Oregon and a single facility in Washington classified as a baseline closure.
March 28, 2011 1-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
River, Niagara River, and Saint Lawrence River to the Canadian border) (Great Lakes 1990). The Great
Lakes region is comprised of 67 facilities.
1.2.3 Inland Region
The Inland region includes all in-scope facilities that withdraw water from all inland waterbodies
(excluding those included within the Great Lakes Region) regardless of geographical location. There are
669 such facilities in 39 states (including states with both coastal and inland facilities).
1.3 Organization of the Document
Chapter 2 provides information on the baseline conditions of the water bodies affected by in-scope
facilities. To obtain regional I&E mortality estimates, EPA extrapolated loss rates from facilities for
which I&E mortality data are available (hereafter model facilities), to all in-scope facilities within the
same region. EPA's methods for, and results from, regional I&E mortality models are described in
Chapter 3.
Chapters 4 through 9 describe EPA's analysis of the regional economic benefits of Section 316(b)
regulatory options. EPA provides an overview of all benefits (Chapter 4) and investigates several benefit
categories in detail, including: benefits from improved protection of threatened and endangered (T&E)
species (Chapter 5), commercial fishing benefits (Chapter 6), recreational fishing benefits (Chapter 7),
nonuse benefits (Chapter 8), EPA also assesses I&E mortality losses and benefits using habitat
equivalency analyses (Chapter 9), and summarizes total national benefits for in-scope facilities based on
the results of the regional analyses (Chapter 10). Chapter 11 presents results for a fourth regulatory option
not documented in previous chapters.
Additional details regarding EPA's benefits analysis are presented in Appendix A through Appendix J.
Appendix A presents the extrapolation methods used by EPA to analyze the benefits from reducing I&E
mortality at in-scope facilities; Appendix 2.1.1.1AB describes potential ecological effects due to thermal
discharges; Appendix C presents detailed output from I&E mortality models; Appendix D discusses
economic discounting and the expected timing of benefits; Appendix E presents a list of T&E species
likely impacted by I&E mortality; Appendix F provides extra details on the methodologies used to
estimate the effects of I&E mortality on T&E species, and the benefits from proposed 316(b) regulation;
Appendix G presents EPA's analysis of the potential for I&E mortality reductions to impact the market
price of commercially fished species; Appendix H presents details of the benefits of I&E mortality on
commercial fishing by region; Appendix I presents detailed regional results of the effects of I&E
mortality on recreational fishing benefits; and Appendix J presents extra details on the habitat based
methodology for estimating nonuse values of I&E mortality.
March 28, 2011 1-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
2 Baseline Impacts
2.1 Introduction
This chapter provides a brief summary of adverse environmental impacts from the impingement and
entrainment (I&E) mortality offish and invertebrates in cooling water intake structures (CWISs) used by
electric power plants and manufacturing facilities subject to regulation under Section 316(b) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA).
CWIS impacts do not occur in isolation from other ongoing physical, chemical, and biological stressors
on aquatic habitats and biota in the receiving waterbody. Additional anthropogenic stressors may include,
but are not limited to: degraded water and sediment quality, low dissolved oxygen (DO), eutrophication,
fishing activities, channel or shoreline (habitat) modification, hydrologic regime changes, invasive
species, etc. For example, many aquatic organisms subject to the effects of cooling water withdrawals
reside in impaired (i.e., CWA 303(d) listed) waterbodies. Accordingly, they are potentially more
vulnerable to cumulative impacts from other anthropogenic stressors (USEPA 2006a). The effect of these
anthropogenic stressors on local biota may contribute to or compound the local impact of I&E mortality,
depending on the influence of location-specific factors. In addition to multiple stressors acting on biota
near a single CWIS, multiple facilities and CWISs located in close proximity along the same waterbody
may have additive or cumulative effects on aquatic communities (USEPA 2006a).
Although it is difficult to measure, EPA believes that an aquatic population's compensatory ability—the
capacity for a species to increase survival, growth, or reproduction rates in response to decreased
population —is likely compromised by impingement and entrainment (I&E) mortality losses and the
cumulative impact of other stressors in the environment over extended periods of time (USEPA 2006a).
These cumulative impacts may lead to subtle, less-easily observed changes in aquatic communities and
ecosystem function. These secondary impacts are difficult to isolate from background variability, partly
because of the limited scope and inherent limitations of the data available to characterize I&E mortality.
Since the aquatic habitat quality and health of the biotic community are shaped by the cumulative effect
of many factors, it is important to characterize the environmental context of baseline impacts. This will
permit comparisons between the relative influences of CWIS-related stressors and other factors, and result
in a more accurate estimate of the environmental impact of the Section 316(b) regulation.
This chapter provides a qualitative description of baseline I&E mortality impacts and anthropogenic
stressors found in aquatic environments affected by CWISs.
2.2 Major Anthropogenic Stressors in Aquatic Ecosystems
All ecosystems and their biota are subject to natural variability in environmental conditions (e.g., seasonal
perturbations), as well as periodic large-scale disturbances in environmental settings (e.g., drought, flood,
fire, disease). Indigenous aquatic species and communities are adapted to this natural variability, such that
large-scale events elicit a predictable loss, response and recovery cycle. Conversely, anthropogenic
stressors tend to be more chronic in nature and often do not lead to recognizable recovery phases. Instead
these stressors often lead to long-term environmental degradation associated with lowered biodiversity,
reduced primary and secondary production, and a lowered capacity or resiliency of the ecosystem to
recover to its original state in response to natural perturbations (Rapport and Whitford 1999).
March 28, 2011 2-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Anthropogenic stressors are present to some degree in all major waterbodies of the United States, and are
the result of many different impacts (Table 2-1). Four of the more important stressors include: (i) habitat
loss; (ii) degraded water quality and sediment contamination; (iii) extractive uses of aquatic resources;
and (iv) invasion by non-indigenous species (Rapport and Whitford 1999). CWIS-related impacts are
considered here as a separate, fifth category of anthropogenic stress, one with many apparent similarities
to overharvesting. Other large-scale stressors, such as change in watershed land use and engineering
diversions, may be present. Thus, the true impact of CWISs on an aquatic community may be partly
masked, or difficult to detect, due to the influence of other stressors on the receiving water.
The remainder of this section summarizes effects of these four anthropogenic stressors on the waterbodies
affected by in-scope 316(b) facilities. CWIS impacts on the aquatic ecosystems are summarized in
Section 2.3.
Table 2-1: Anthropogenic Stressors Impacting Aquatic Ecosystems Potentially Affected, Both
Directly and Indirectly, by 316(b) Option Scenarios
Impacted by Regulation
Anthropogenic Stressor
CWIS
Option 1
Yes: Direct
Option 2
Yes: Direct
Option 3
Yes: Direct
Scale of Stressor
Local/Regional/National
Habitat loss
Development
Eutrophication
Climate change
Engineering (below)
No
Yes: Indirect
No
No
No
Yes: Indirect
No
Yes: Direct
No
Yes: Indirect
No
Yes: Direct
Local
Local/Regional
Regional/National/Global
Local/Regional
Engineering diversions
Re-routing
Flow adjustments/removals/
modifications
No
No
Water impoundments/damming No
No
Yes: Direct
No
No
Yes: Direct
No
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Water quality
Eutrophication
Loss of riparian buffer zones
Sedimentation
Chemical pollution (organics,
heavy metals, etc.)
Non-native / invasive species
Extractive uses (e.g. fishing)
Note: Option 1 is I Everywhere,
Everywhere.
Yes: Indirect
No
No
No
Yes: Indirect
Yes: Indirect
Yes: Indirect
No
Yes: Direct
Yes: Direct
Yes: Indirect
Yes: Indirect
Yes: Indirect
No
Yes: Direct
Yes: Direct
Yes: Indirect
Yes: Indirect
Option 2 is I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MOD,
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
and Option 3 is I&E Mortality
2.2.1 Habitat Loss
Structural aquatic habitat is generally recognized as the most significant determinant of the nature and
composition of aquatic communities. Human occupation and restructuring of shorelines; construction and
maintenance of harbors; installation of dams, canals, and other navigational infrastructure; draining of
wetlands for agriculture and residential uses; and degradation of critical fish habitats have all taken a
heavy toll on the numbers and composition of local fish and shellfisheries. Most 316(b) facilities have
been built on shoreline locations where power-generation buildings, roadways, CWISs, canals,
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
2-2
-------
impoundments, and other water storage or conveyance structures have often been constructed at the cost
of natural habitat, including terrestrial, aquatic, and wetlands.
The loss of coastal and estuarine wetlands that serve as important fishery spawning and nursery areas is
particularly severe, with an estimated historical loss of 100 million acres of wetlands since the late 1700s
(Bromberg and Bertness 2005; USEPA 201 Ob). Critical fishery habitat loss is not restricted to nearshore
environments. Decades of fishing activities have degraded offshore bottom habitats (Auster and Langton
1999; Turner etal. 1999).
The main impact of aquatic habitat loss is a reduction in the number offish in the environment, a
concentration of fishery spawning and nursery areas to fewer locations, shifts in species dominance based
on available habitat, and local extirpation of historical fish species. Habitat loss in adjacent shoreline
areas exacerbates the effect of CWIS losses, since many fish species affected by I&E mortality (e.g., bay
anchovy, winter flounder) rely on coastal wetlands as nursery areas.
In riverine environments, the effects of channelization and navigation can also lead to habitat loss. For
example, Tondreau et al. (1982) conducted a 10-year study of the aquatic ecosystem of the Missouri River
near the Neal Generating facility, Sioux City, IA. The investigators found that the combined effects of
channelization, heavy barge traffic, and high river flow rates had resulted in a significant loss offish
habitat. As a result, reported I&E mortality losses were relatively minor, because local fish populations
were already greatly diminished.
2.2.2 Water Quality
Water quality is a major stressor of aquatic biota and habitats. Degraded surface water and sediment
contaminants reflect current and historical industrial, agricultural and residential land use as well as
discharges from wastewater treatment plants. Poor water quality can limit the numbers, composition, and
distribution offish and invertebrates; reduce spawning effort and growth rates; select for pollution-
tolerant species; cause periodic fishkills; or result in adverse effects to piscivorous wildlife.
CWA Section 303(d) listings inventory, on a state-by-state basis, the locations of impaired waters not
meeting designated uses and the known or suspected source(s) of impairment. Figure 2-1 identifies 316(b)
facilities that are within two miles of a 303(d)-listed waterbody (blue shapes), as well as those that are
impaired for temperature (red shapes). The map clearly shows that facilities along the coasts, Great Lakes,
and major waterways such as the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers are located in the vicinity of
impaired waterbodies.
March 28, 2011 2-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Facilities v
* Generator
A Manufacturer
Not near 303(d) waters
BB Within 2 miles of 303(d) waters
•i Within 2 miles of 303(d) waters listed for temperature
Figure 2-1: Map of Facilities Located on 303(d) Waters and Those Listed for Temperature
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
2-4
-------
EPA's analysis of the 316(b) facilities location demonstrated that the majority of facilities, including 71
percent of generators and 79 percent of sampled manufacturing facilities, are within two miles of a
303(d)-listed waterbody (Abt Associates 2010b). Table 2-2 summarizes the number of 316(b) facilities on
waterbodies impaired by any cause, by region. These include impairment due to chemical, physical, and
biological factors, categorized into biological stressors, nutrients, organic enrichment/loading,
bioaccumulation, toxics, unknown causes, and general water quality impairment.
The most common causes of impairment for waterbodies serving as 316(b) source waters are
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pathogens, mercury, as well as organic enrichment/oxygen depletion
and nutrients. The entire universe of all 303(d) water quality impairment causes is much too diverse to
cover fully in this section. However, below we discuss some of the more common and important physico-
chemical impairments in aquatic environment where 316(b) facilities potentially draw cooling water from
and discharge to 303(d) listed waters.
> An oversupply of nutrients can result in excessive algal production, reduced light clarity, more
frequent outbreaks of harmful algal blooms (HABs), high internal loads of biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), and spatial and temporally variable DO levels. In addition, eutrophication can
reduce or eliminate habitat-formers such as coral reefs and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV),
and create other adverse ecological effects. Thermal discharges from 316(b) facilities can
increase receiving water temperature, which may favor formation of blue-green algal blooms.
> Low levels of dissolved oxygen (hypoxia) may be present in many estuaries and coastal waters
(IWG 2010), in the hypolimnia of eutrophic lakes, and in areas of high organic loading (e.g.,
below wastewater treatment plant outfalls). DO concentrations may be further decreased in or
downstream of thermal plumes arising from cooling water return discharges from 316(b)
facilities. Low DO can limit the distribution offish and macroinvertebrates, reduce growth rates,
and alter nutrient and carbon recycling.
> Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (PBTs) such as mercury or PCBs may be present
in waterbodies near 316(b) facilities, due to atmospheric deposition of local air emissions or from
historical uses of PCBs in electrical transformer units, in addition to other urban or industrial
sources. These PBTs can impair water uses by regulatory restrictions or advisories regarding
acceptable ingestion offish consumption (see below), as well as affecting higher trophic level
predators in the food chain.
> Toxic pollutants, such as metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides,
biofouling chemicals, or chlorine may be present in the discharge of 316(b) facilities. This could
lead to local extirpation of sensitive species, or to greatly altered biological communities due to
chronic impacts on viability, growth, reproduction, and resistance to other stressors.
In addition to the 303(d) listings, many of the waterbodies in which the CWIS are located are subject to
fish advisories. Fish advisories are issued by States to protect their citizens from the risk of eating
contaminated fish or wildlife (USEPA 2009a). Fish advisories are recommendations and do not carry
regulatory authority, but they indicate the presence of bioaccumulative chemicals which may pose risk for
humans and piscivorous wildlife and which may also interfere with reproduction and survival of lower
taxa as well.
March 28, 2011 2-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 2-2: Number of 316(b) Facilities on 303(d)-listed Waterbodies, by Impairment and Region
Impairment
California
Great
Lakes
Inland
Mid-
Atlantic
Gulf of
Mexico
North
Atlantic
South
Atlantic
Total
Biological Stressors
Noxious Aquatic Plants
Nuisance Exotic Species
Pathogens
2
1
9
15
2
99
5
1
12
6
2
11
139
Nutrients
Algal Growth
Nutrients
15
1
47
3
1
2
9
1
77
Organic Enrichment / Loading
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion
Sediment
7
9
56
18
1
2
5
4
9
82
29
Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBTs)
Dioxins
Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant
Unspecified
Mercury
PCBs
Pesticides
1
2
3
8
14
28
57
12
13
8
96
142
16
13
4
2
2
2
1
3
1
30
9
135
218
36
Physical Alterations
Flow Alteration
Habitat Alteration
Temperature
Turbidity
6
7
12
9
27
1
3
3
7
18
12
31
Toxics
Ammonia
Chlorine
Metals (Other Than Mercury)
Total Toxicity
Toxic Inorganics
Toxic Organics
3
2
4
3
3
2
43
5
1
12
7
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
58
15
2
18
Unknown / Other Causes
Cause Unknown
Cause Unknown - Fish Kills
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota
Other Cause
1
3
11
1
14
1
2
1
12
1
20
1
Water Quality Use Impairments (General)
Oil And Grease
pH
Salinity /TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides
Taste, Color And Odor
1
3
1
6
8
7
4
3
1
9
11
9
5
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
2-6
-------
EPA's 2008 National Listing of Fish Advisories (NLFA) database indicates that 97% of the advisories are
due (in order of importance) to: mercury, PCBs, chlordane, dioxins, and DDT (USEPA 2009a). Fish
advisories have been issued for 39 percent of the total river miles (approximately 1.4 million river miles)
and 100 percent of the Great Lakes and connecting waterways (USEPA 2009a). Fish advisories have been
steadily increasing over the NLFA period of record (1993-2008), but these increases are interpreted to
reflect the increase in the number of waterbodies being monitored by States and advances in analytical
methods rather than in increasing levels of these problematic chemicals.
The water quality impacts arising from the combination of operations and/or discharges of 316(b)
facilities and other anthropogenic sources (as indicted by the presence of widespread fish advisories)
could result in highly degraded or altered aquatic communities that may be further reduced by I&E
mortality.
2.2.3 Overharvesting
Overharvesting is a general term given to describe the exploitation of an aquatic population (e.g., fish,
shellfish, and kelp) in an unsustainable fashion to the point of reducing or even eliminating much of the
population. Stocks of commercial and recreationally important species are reduced as a result of fishing,
but such fish catches may be sustainable if sufficient recruitment of juveniles into the fishery can replace
population losses from fishing and other stressors. Unfortunately for many aquatic species, Overharvesting
has a long history and in many instances has preceded impacts by other competing anthropogenic
stressors by several centuries (Jackson et al. 2001).
Given that many fisheries are being overfished on a continual basis, Overharvesting continues to be a
problem when considering stocks subject to I&E mortality. For example, the NMFS 2009 status report
indicated that 15 percent of federally monitored fish stocks were being fished at rates above the maximum
sustainable yield ("overfishing"), while 23 percent of species are considered over-exploited
("overfished") (NMFS 2010a). Table 2-3 lists 21 groups of overfished, depleted, or rebuilding
commercial fish stocks occurring in I&E mortality data reported from a subset of in-scope facilities
(NMFS 2010a). Further, this assessment does not include many important fishery species not subject to
federal regulation that may be subject to high I&E mortality such as shad, menhaden, and American
lobster. Moreover, this assessment does not consider any threatened and endangered (T&E) species.
Severe overfishing can drive species to ecological insignificance, where the overfished populations no
longer interact meaningfully in the food web with other species in the community, or even to extinction
(Jackson et al. 2001). The collapse of the Great Lakes whitefish fisheries has been shown to be principally
due to overfishing, although habitat alteration and introduction of a non-indigenous (exotic) invader (sea
lamprey) were also contributory (Rapport and Whitford 1999).
2.2.4 Invasive Species
Non-indigenous, invasive species (NIS) are a significant and increasingly prevalent stressor in both
freshwater and marine environments (Cohen and Carlton 1998; Ruiz et al. 1999). Approximately 300 NIS
are established in marine and estuarine habitats of the continental U.S., and that rate of invasion is rapidly
increasing (Ruiz et al. 2000). Aquatic NIS are taxonomically diverse and include: plants, fish, crabs,
snails, clams, mussels, bryozoans, and nudibranchs. Analysis of freshwater NIS indicated that between
10-15 percent are nuisance species with undesirable effects (Ruiz et al. 1999). The adverse implications
of marine and coastal NIS are generally not as well-characterized as those in freshwater settings.
March 28, 2011 2-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 2-3: Depleted
Commercial
Fish Stocks Subject to
StockorStock Appro aching
Complex Overflshing a Overflshed b Overfished0
American Plaice
Atlantic Cod
Atlantic Sturgeon
Black Sea Bass
Boccacio
Butterfish
Gag
Grouper species
Haddock
Ocean Pout
Pink Shrimp
Pollock
Porgy
Rockfish species
Skate species
Spiny Dogfish
Summer Flounder
Tautog
White Hake
Windowpane
Winter Flounder
Yellowtail Flounder
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No No
Yes
No Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No No
No No
Unknown Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
I&E Mortality
Rebuilding
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Stock Region
North/Mid-Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
Atlantic
South Atlantic
California
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
North/Mid-Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
California
North/Mid-Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
North/Mid-Atlantic
a Fishing mortality exceeds sustainable levels.
b Stock size is below a sustainable biomass threshold.
0 Estimated that the stock will be in an overfished condition by the 4th quarter of 2010.
d Stock is rebuilding to attain a level consistent with maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
Source: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (2010a).
Interactions between NIS and other anthropogenic stressors are likely to affect the colonization and
distribution of native species subject to CWIS impacts. Thermal discharges from 316(b) facilities may
extend the seasonal duration of non-resident organisms, allowing transient summer species to become
permanently established in geographic areas beyond their historical range. For example, in Mount Hope
Bay, increased water temperature due to the Brayton Point Station facility led to an increase in abundance
of the predacious ctenophore Mneimiopsis leidyi as well as increased overwintering in the Bay for this
formerly seasonal resident (USEPA 2002b).
2.3 CWIS Impacts to Aquatic Ecosystems
EPA has determined that multiple types of adverse environmental impacts may be associated with CWIS
operations at 316(b) regulated facilities, depending on site-specific conditions at an individual facility's
site. Many of these facilities employ once-through cooling water systems that impinge fishes and other
aquatic organisms on intake screens if the intake velocity exceeds these organisms' locomotive ability to
move away. Impinged organisms may be killed, injured or weakened, depending on the nature and
capacity of the plant's filter screen configuration, cleaning and backwashing operations, and fish return
system used to return organisms back to the source water. In addition, early life stage fish or planktonic
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
2-8
-------
organisms can be entrained by the CWIS and subjected to death or damage due to high velocity and
pressure, increased temperature, and chemical anti-biofouling agents in the system. This I&E mortality
can act in concert with the other stressors identified above.
The magnitude and regional importance of I&E mortality is generally a function of the operational intake
volumes and the characteristics of the aquatic community in the region (see Chapter 3 for details). I&E
mortality can contribute to: impacts to T&E species (Chapter 5); reductions in ecologically critical aquatic
organisms, including important elements of an ecosystem's food chain; diminishment of organism
populations' compensatory reserves; losses to populations, including reductions of indigenous species
population levels, commercial fisheries (Chapter 6), and recreational fisheries (Chapter 7); and stresses to
overall communities and ecosystems, as evidenced by reductions in diversity or other changes in
ecosystem structure or function. In addition, fish and other species affected directly and indirectly by
CWIS can provide other valuable ecosystem goods and services, including nutrient cycling and ecosystem
stability.
The impacts of I&E mortality occur at many levels of ecological organization and across a wide range of
environmental scales. Table 2-4 presents a summary of direct and indirect impacts of CWISs and I&E
mortality. The effects are identified as direct, indirect, or a combination. This table also indicates the
relative scale (local, regional, national) of the particular effect. In most cases, EPA was unable to estimate
the magnitude of these effects due to a lack of data. In this section, we discuss a subset of these effects.
2.3.1 Losses of Fish from I&E Mortality
The most visible direct impact of I&E mortality is the loss of large numbers of aquatic organisms,
distributed non-uniformly among fish, benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and other
susceptible aquatic taxa (e.g., sea turtles). This has immediate and direct effects on the population size
and age distribution of affected species, and may cascade through food webs. The direct impacts on
populations and age structure are described for commercially (Chapter 6) and recreationally important
fish species (Chapter 7).
Populations of aquatic organisms decline when recruitment rates are lower than mortality rates. Natural
sources of mortality for fish species include predation, food availability, injury, climatic factors and
disease. Anthropogenic sources offish mortality, both proximate and ultimate, include fishing, habitat
modification, pollution, and I&E mortality at CWISs. EPA believes that reducing I&E mortality will
contribute to the health and sustainability offish populations by lowering the total mortality rate for these
populations.
In some cases, I&E mortality has been shown to be a significant source of anthropogenic mortality to
depleted stocks of commercially targeted species (see Table 2-2). For example, I&E mortality (expressed
as age-1 equivalents) equal approximately 10 percent of the average annual recruitment to the Southern
New England/Massachusetts stock of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) (I&E mortality
values from Chapter 3; recruitment data from Terceiro (2008)).
March 28, 2011 2-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 2-4: CWIS Effects on Ecosystem Functions/Cumulative Impacts Potentially Affected, Both
Directly and Indirectly, by 316(b) Regulations
Category
Direct/Indirect
Local/Regional/National
A. Impingement and Entrainment (direct and indirect effects)
Effects on Individuals
Loss of billions of individuals (direct effects)
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton (excluding fish larvae/eggs)
Invertebrates
Fish
Non-fish vertebrates
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Regional/National
Local/Regional/National
Local/Regional/National
Local/Regional/National
Local/Regional/National
Local/Regional/National
Species and Population-Level Effects
Alteration of phenology of system (function of % water reduction in stream)
Altered distribution of populations
Altered niche space
Altered stable age distributions of populations
Loss of keystone species
Loss of T&E species
Novel selection pressure (e.g., negatively buoyant or stationary eggs)
Reduced/altered genetic diversity
Reduced lifetime ecological function of individuals
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct
Direct & Indirect
Direct & Indirect
Direct
Local/Regional/National
Local
Local/Regional
Regional
Local
Regional
Local
Regional/National
Local/Regional
Community and Trophic Relationships
Altered competitive interactions
Disrupted trophic relationships
Disrupted control of disease-harboring insects (e.g., mosquito larvae, etc.)
Increased quantity of detritivores
Loss of ecosystem engineers (due to trophic interactions)
Reduced potential for energy flows (e.g. trophic transfers)
Species diversity and richness
Trophic cascades
Direct & Indirect
Direct & Indirect
Indirect & Direct
Indirect
Indirect & Direct
Indirect
Direct & Indirect
Indirect & Direct
Local
Local
Local/Regional
Local
Local
Local/Regional
Local/Regional/National
Local/Regional
Ecosystem Function
Altered ecosystem succession
Decreased ability of ecosystem to control nuisance species (algae,
macrophytes)
Disrupted cross-ecosystem nutrient exchange (e.g., up/downstream,
aquatic/terrestrial)
Disrupted nutrient cycling
Reduced compensatory ability to deal with environmental stress (resilience)
Reduced ecosystem resistance
Reduced ecosystem stability (alternate states)
Sediment regulation
Substrate regulation
Indirect & Direct
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect & Direct
Direct & Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Local/Regional
Local
Regional
Local/Regional
Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local
B. Thermal Effects (direct and indirect)
Novel selection pressure (e.g., thermal optima, location of breeding, etc.)
Altered phenology
Direct & Indirect
Direct
Regional/National
Local/Regional
Links between temperature and metabolism
Dissolved oxygen (physical)
Dissolved oxygen (bacterial, respiratory rates)
Direct
Indirect
Local
Local
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
2-10
-------
Table 2-4: CWIS Effects on Ecosystem Functions/Cumulative Impacts Potentially Affected, Both
Directly and Indirectly, by 316(b) Regulations
Category
Ecological energetic demands
Ecological nutrient demands
Altered algal productivity
Shifted nutrient cycling
Direct/Indirect
Indirect
Indirect
Direct & Indirect
Indirect & Direct
Local/Regional/National
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
C. Chemical Effects (anti-foulants, etc.)
Altered survival/growth/production
Altered food web dynamics
Indirect & Direct
Indirect
Local
Local
D. Altered Flow Regimes (local and system-wide)
Altered flow velocity
Altered turbulence regime
Direct & Indirect
Direct & Indirect
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
E. Cumulative Impacts (as a concentrated number of facilities)
May push systems over the edge of nonlinearities in the system
Intensified CWIS effects (as above, Section B.)
Intensified thermal effects (as above, Section B.)
Direct/Indirect
Direct/Indirect
Direct/Indirect
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
Local/Regional
In addition to its impact on stocks of marine commercial fish species, I&E mortality increases the
pressure on native freshwater species, such as lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformi) and yellow perch
(Percaflavescens), whose populations have seen dramatic declines in recent years (USDOI 2008;
Wisconsin DNR 2003). Although recovery of these species is greatly affected by fisheries policy (e.g.,
NFSC 2008), I&E mortality represent an additional source of mortality to fish populations being
harvested at unsustainable levels.
Overall, EPA believes that I&E mortality is likely to contribute to reduction in the population sizes of
species targeted by commercial and recreational fishers, particularly for stocks that are undergoing
rebuilding. Although these reductions may be small in magnitude compared to fishing pressure (Lorda et
al. 2000), and often difficult to measure due to the low statistical power of fisheries surveys, a reduction
in mortality rates on overfished populations is likely to increase the rate of stock recovery. Thus, reducing
I&E mortality may lead to more-rapid stock recovery, a long-term increase in commercial fish catches,
increased population stability following periods of poor recruitment and, as a consequence of increased
resource utilization, an increased ability to minimize the invasion of exotic species3 (Shea and Chesson
2002; Stachowicz and Byrnes 2006).
For many fish species, I&E mortality may not lead to measurable reductions in adult populations. These
losses, however, are likely to reduce the compensatory ability of populations to respond to environmental
variability, including temperature extremes, heavy predation, disease, or years with low recruitment.
Additionally, since predation rates are often directly related to the concentration of available prey, I&E
mortality may lead to indirect population effects, whereby reductions in a prey fish may indirectly result
in reductions to predator species or increases to species in apparent competition (Holt 1977).
3 For the last response, there is evidence to support the theory that biodiversity deceases the probability of invasion by an NIS,
particularly in resource-limited environments (Stachowicz and Byrnes 2006).
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
2-11
-------
Moreover, I&E mortality represents a novel selective pressure for fish populations. Consequently,
populations may be selected for resistance to I&E mortality (through behavioral or physiological changes)
at the expense of other, more "natural" evolutionary pressures. Although this may help sustain
populations in the short term, it may reduce genetic diversity and population stability in the long-term.
2.3.2 I&E Mortality Effects on T&E species
T&E species are species vulnerable to future extinction or at risk of extinction in the near future,
respectively. Due to low population sizes, I&E mortality from CWISs may represent a substantial portion
of the annual reproduction of T&E species. Consequently, I&E mortality may either lengthen population
recovery time, or hasten the demise of these species. For this reason, the population-level and social
values of T&E losses are likely to be more important than the absolute number of losses that occur.
Adverse effects on T&E species due to water withdrawals by CWISs may occur in several ways:
> Populations of T&E species may suffer increased mortality as a consequence of I&E mortality.
> T&E species may suffer indirect harm if the CWIS substantially alters the food web in which
these species interact.
> T&E species may suffer indirect harm if the CWIS substantially alters habitat that is critical to
their long-term survival.
Chapter 5 provides detail on CWIS impacts on T&E species.
2.3.3 Thermal Effects
One byproduct of once-through cooling water systems is a release of a heated effluent. Concerns about
the impacts of heated effluents are addressed by provisions of CWA Section 316(a) regulations. Most of
the facilities subject to 316(b) I&E mortality concerns have also been required to address the impact of
thermal pollution in the discharge-receiving waters (Abt Associates 2010b).
Thermal pollution has long been recognized as having effects upon the structure and function of
ecosystems (Abt Associates 2009a). Numerous studies have shown that thermal discharges may
substantially alter the structure of the aquatic community by modifying photosynthetic (Bulthuis 1987;
Chuang et al. 2009; Martinez-Arroyo et al. 2000; Poornima et al. 2005), metabolic, and growth rates
(Leffler 1982), and reducing levels of DO. Thermal pollution may also alter the location and timing of
fish behavior including spawning (Bartholow et al. 2004), aggregation, and migration (USEPA 2002b),
and may result in thermal shock-induced mortality for some species (Ash et al. 1974; Deacutis 1978;
Smythe and Sawyko 2000). Thus, thermal pollution is likely to alter the ecological services provided by
ecosystems surrounding facilities returning heated cooling water into nearby waterbodies.
Adverse temperature effects may also be more pronounced in aquatic ecosystems that are already subject
to other environmental stressors such as high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels, sediment
contamination, or pathogens. Thermal discharges may have indirect effects on fish and other vertebrate
populations through increasing pathogen growth and infection rates. Langford (1990) reviewed several
studies on disease incidence and temperature, and while he found no simple, causal relationship between
the two, he did note that it was clear that warmer water enhances the growth rates and survival of
pathogens, and that infection rates tended to be lower in cooler waters.
The magnitude of thermal effects on ecosystem services is related to facility-specific factors, including
the volume of the waterbody from which cooling water is withdrawn and returned, other heat loads, the
March 28, 2011 2-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
rate of water exchange, the presence of nearby refugia, and the assemblage of nearby fish species. In
addition to reducing total I&E mortality, cooling towers reduce thermal pollution. Consequently, the
installation of closed-system cooling towers could have geographically variable effects on ecosystems,
ranging from comprehensive changes in community structure and habitat type (Schiel et al. 2004), to
localized changes in the relative proportion of species adapted to warm and cold water (Millstone
Environmental Laboratory 2009). Further information on thermal discharges is provided in Appendix
2.1.LIB.
2.3.4 Chemical Effects
One of the environmental impacts associated with power plant operations is the release of chemicals in
the discharge of once-through cooling waters. These chemicals include metals from internal corrosion of
pipes, valves and pumps (e.g., chromium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc), additives (anti-fouling, anti-
corrosion, and anti-scaling agents) and their byproducts, and materials from boiler blowdown and
cleaning cycles.
EPA used the beta version of the Discharge Monitoring Report Pollutant Loading Tool (DMR-PLT)4 to
obtain estimated annual pollutant loadings for facilities regulated under Section 316(b). EPA extracted
data for all facilities in selected Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes: manufacturing (SIC 20
through 39), electric power generation (SIC 4911), and selected other sectors to which 316(b) facilities
have been assigned. Of the 871 facilities in the 316(b) master list, 707 have annual loading estimates in
DMR-PLT; of these, nearly 85 percent are electric power generators. A summary table was generated of
total annual loads for all in-scope facilities. Table 2-5 lists the top 20 pollutants discharged by 316(b)
facilities in 2007, sorted by mass. These chemicals represent pollutants generated by the operation and
maintenance of the facility and other location-specific activities. The most common pollutants include:
total suspended solids, oil & grease, BOD5, total iron and fecal coliform.
In addition to these pollutants, facilities also discharge anti-fouling agents. Biofouling is also a serious
operational concern for power plants. Microbial biofouling on surfaces in cooling water systems can
accelerate metal corrosion, increase resistance to heat transfer energy, and increase fluid frictional
resistance (Cloete et al. 1998). Sessile macrofouling-organisms such as algae, insects, hydroids,
polychaetes, barnacles, mussels and tunicates can colonize intake pipes, bulkheads, and filter screens, and
may clog pipes and reduce intake flows or filter-screen effectiveness. Further, some of these infestations
produce larvae, which can colonize downstream equipment including pipelines, valves, and heat
exchangers. Severe macrofouling-associated problems can include intake flow reduction, increased
pressure drop across heat exchangers, and equipment breakdown.
4 http://app6.erg.com/icisloader/dmrLoadingsAdvSearch.cfm. Note that DMR-PLT is currently in beta testing and there is
only limited documentation on how the loading estimation methodology is implemented in the tool. This tool does not
currently provide discharge estimates categorized by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
March 28, 2011 2-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 2-5. Top 20 pollutants discharged by 316(b) facilities, by total
annual loadings in 2007.
_, Number of Total Loading
Parameter . ,
i i facilities ( (000 pounds/yr)
1 \ Solids, total dissolved
2 j Hardness, total (as CaCO3) \
3 Solids, total suspended
4 [ Solids, total dissolved (at 180 deg. C)
5 Residue, total filterable (at 1 05 C)
6 I Sulfate, total (as SO4) \
1 Chloride (as Cl)
8 Calcium Chloride \
9 BOD, 5-day, 20 deg. C <•
10 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
11 Oil & grease \
12 Carbon, total organic (TOC)
13 Oxy gen demand, chem. (high level) (COD) [
14 Oil and grease, hexane extraction method
15 Sulfate (as S)
16 Iron, total (as Fe)
17 '\ Fluoride, total (as F)
18 Coliform, fecal MF, MFC broth, 44.5 C
1 9 ! Oxygen demand, chem. (low level) (COD) ;
20 Coliform, fecal general
46 { 5,416.4
48 i 2,842.6
619 1,100.6
13 922.5
6 527.8
54 I 416.2
47 403.5
1 ! 175.8
227 ' 111.6
33 105.6
274 j 84.5
76 45.1
45 ; 44.7
80 42.0
11 41.1
220 33.9
34 29.9
19 26.0
11 ! 25.5
108 21.2
Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Pollutant Loading Tool (DMR-PLT)
These anti-fouling and cleaning chemicals potentially pose a risk to organisms downstream of the CWIS
discharge. Adverse effects to aquatic organisms may include acute and residual effects of biocides used as
anti-fouling agents in condenser tubes, or from chemicals resulting from corrosion or use in cleaning of
either stream or cooling cycles (Kelso and Milburn 1979). A typical biofouling procedure is continuous
low-level chlorination at chronic toxicity levels with an occasional high ("shock") dose. The use of
oxidants (chlorine, bromide) can give rise to residuals and/or disinfection byproducts (DBFs) such as
trihalomethanes, haloacetic acid, bromoform, and others (Taylor 2006). Concentrations of released
chemicals are variable among facilities, and are a function of treatment dose, CWIS design, rates of
degradation, and the volume and flushing rate of the receiving water.
With the exception of chlorination impacts (Taylor 2006), the potential effects of chemicals in power
plants' cooling water discharges on local aquatic ecosystems are not well-characterized. In most cases,
chemical effects are considered, along with thermal and mechanical effects, as a component of the
cumulative stress of entrainment on organisms. Little information is available on the chronic or low-level
effects of these discharge chemicals on local ecosystems or in concert with other anthropogenic stressors.
Review of the effects of chemical treatment and discharge into the environment suggests that direct
ecotoxicity in discharge plumes is relatively rare beyond the point of discharge or mixing zone near the
pipe outlet (Poornima et al. 2005; Taylor 2006). However, concentrations of these chemicals may be
additive to low-level chronic adverse effect with other anthropogenic stressors identified above.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
2-14
-------
2.3.5 Effects of Flow Alteration
The operation of CWISs and discharge returns significantly alter patterns of flow within receiving waters
both in the immediate area of the CWIS intake and discharge pipe, and in mainstream waterbodies,
particularly in inland riverine settings. In ecosystems with strongly delineated boundaries (i.e., rivers,
lakes, enclosed bays, etc.), CWISs may withdraw and subsequently return a substantial proportion of
water available to the ecosystem. For example, of the 521 facilities that are located on freshwater streams
or rivers, 31 percent (164) of these facilities have average intake greater than 5 percent of the mean
annual flow of the source waters. Even in situations when the volume of water downstream of in-scope
facilities changes relatively little, the flow characteristics of the waterbody, including turbulence and
water velocity, may be significantly altered. This is particularly true in locations with multiple CWISs
located close to each other.
Altered flow velocities and turbulence may lead to several changes in the physical environment, including
sediment deposition (Hoyal et al. 1995), sediment transport (Bennett and Best 1995), and turbidity
(Sumer et al. 1996), each of which play a role in the physical structuring of ecosystems. Biologically,
flow velocity is a dominant controlling factor in aquatic ecosystems. Flow has been shown to alter
feeding rates, settlement and recruitment rates (Abelson and Denny 1997), bioturbation activity (Biles et
al. 2003), growth rates (Eckman and Duggins 1993), and population dynamics (Sanford et al. 1994).
In addition to flow rates, turbulence plays an important role in the ecology of small organisms, including
fish eggs and larvae, phytoplankton, and zooplankton. In many cases, the turbulence of a waterbody
directly affects the behavior of aquatic organisms, including fish, with respect to swimming speed
(Lupandin 2005), location preference with a waterbody (Liao 2007), predator-prey interactions (Caparroy
et al. 1998; MacKenzie and Kiorboe 2000), recruitment rates (MacKenzie 2000; Mullineaux and Garland
1993), and the metabolic costs of locomotion (Enders et al. 2003). The sum of these effects may result in
changes to the food web or the location of used habitat, and thereby substantially alter the aquatic
environment.
Climate change is predicted to have variable effects on future river discharge in different regions of the
United States, with some rivers expected to have large increases in flood flows while other basins will
experience water stress. For example, Palmer et al. (2008) predict that mean annual river discharge is
expected to increase by about 20 percent in the Potomac and Hudson River basins but to decrease by
about 20 percent in Oregon's Klamath River and California's Sacramento River. Thus, the adverse effects
of flow alteration may increase or decrease over longer periods for larger rivers, depending on their
national location.
2.4 Community-level or Indirect Effects of CWISs
In addition to the direct effects of CWISs, I&E mortality may alter a wide range of aquatic ecosystem
functions and services at the community-level (Table 2-4). Most of these impacts to aquatic community
function and service are poorly characterized, given the limited scope of I&E mortality studies and an
incomplete knowledge of baseline or pre-operational conditions within affected waters.
For example, fish are essential for energy transfer in aquatic food webs (Summers 1989), and for the
regulation of food web structure. Fish play important roles in nutrient cycling (Wilson et al. 2009) and
sediment processes, and are known to play key roles in the maintenance of aquatic biodiversity
(Holmlund and Hammer 1999; Peterson and Lubchenco 1997; Postel and Carpenter 1997; Wilson and
Carpenter 1999).
March 28, 2011 2-15
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
While I&E mortality losses of commercially or recreationally important fish species can be quantified and
monetized (Chapters 3, 6 and 7), the accompanying loss of other aquatic organisms may be poorly
characterized (e.g., lumped into broad taxa such as "forage fish" or "other") or simply not reported. In
addition, I&E mortality on species of lower concern may create unrealized ripples of ecological effect
within the aquatic community. Species may respond to altered ecological circumstances such as reduced
predation, altered food concentrations, or slower nutrient recycling, etc. Therefore, the removal of
selected fish species or considerable biomass by I&E mortality may substantially affect these processes.
Several examples of ecological services indirectly affected by I&E mortality are described below,
although others listed in Table 2-4 may be of equal importance for individual ecosystems.
2.4.1 Altered Community Structure and Patchy Distribution of Species
The role of some aquatic species may be more critical in shaping the structure and composition of the
community than that of others. These keystone species are species that have an effect on community
structure disproportionate to their population (Paine 1966; Paine 1969). Consequently, the loss or
reduction of keystone species may lead to substantial changes in aquatic food webs, and decrease overall
ecosystem stability. Thus, the potential for ecosystem impacts resulting from, for example, the loss of an
important predator fish due to I&E mortality may not be strictly proportional to the number or biomass of
lost fish or foregone fish production.
The operation of CWISs by generating facilities can lead to localized areas of depressed fish and shellfish
abundance. Power plants (and the intake volume they represent) are distributed in a non-uniform manner
along coastlines and rivers, and may be clustered (Section 2.5), such that I&E mortality and the
populations they affect are geographically heterogeneous. This can result in a highly localized and patchy
distribution of aquatic organisms in regional areas. A secondary effect is increased probability of
colonization and establishment by NIS due to niche space availability caused by a local reduction in the
density of native organisms (Byrnes et al. 2007; Ovaskainen and Cornell 2006).
2.4.2 Altered Food Webs
Sources of mortality, including I&E mortality, may disrupt established predator-prey relationships and the
niche space available to species through direct pathways (i.e., mortality of the organism) or indirectly
(i.e., alterations to the food web). The loss of young-of-year (YOY) predators (e.g., striped bass) or
important forage fish (e.g., menhaden and bay anchovy) is likely to affect trophic relationships and alter
food webs. These changes may alter the realized species niche and life history traits due to alterations in
inter- and intra-specific interactions (e.g., predator-prey, competition, mate selection, etc.) (Fortier and
Harris 1989; Hixon and Jones 2005; Jirotkul 1999). These alterations in trophic interactions and food
webs, combined with other CWIS-related impacts such as thermal pollution (Section 2.2.3) or flow
alteration (Section 2.3.5), may lead to rapid changes in life history strategies as a consequence of
facultative (Ball and Baker 1996) or evolutionary changes (Hairston et al. 2005; Reznick and Endler
1982).
2.4.3 Reduced Taxa and Genetic Diversity
I&E mortality may lead to reductions in local community biodiversity (due to destruction of selected
species) or in a loss of genetic diversity in individual fish populations. I&E mortality represents a novel
selective pressure on early life stages that may reduce the genetic diversity of resident fish and prevent the
recovery of depleted stocks (Stockwell et al. 2003; Swain et al. 2007; Walsh et al. 2006). Since many
March 28, 2011 2-16
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
populations stocks are differentiated by oceanic region and/or timing of migratory movements, I&E
mortality could alter the seasonal timing and movement (i.e., phenology) of overall fish populations,
which could have ramifications for predator species.
2.4.4 Nutrient Cycling Effects
I&E mortality impacts may alter the pace of nutrient cycling, and energy transfer through food webs. Fish
species have been shown to have substantial effects on nitrogen, phosphorous, and carbon cycling due to
storage effects (i.e., large quantities of nutrients are found within fish biomass) and translocation effects
(i.e., fish migrate, moving large quantities of nutrients to new ecosystems) (Kitchell et al. 1979; Vanni et
al. 1997). These alterations in nutrient cycling could lead to redirection of nutrient flows to other
components of the ecosystem including water column phytoplankton, benthic macroalgae and attached
epiphytes, with subsequent changes to the condition of critical ecosystem habitats, such as submerged
aquatic vegetation. Juvenile (age-0) Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) are capable of significantly
grazing down plankton concentrations in Chesapeake Bay, leading to more-rapid regeneration of nutrients
and enhanced primary production. Removal of the age-0 menhaden by I&E mortality would lead to
reduced grazing and turnover of nutrients and increased algal density in the water column (Gottlieb 1998).
The amount of nitrogen and phosphorus regenerated in facility discharge water due to nutrient recycling
of I&E mortality biota might also lead to areas of localized nutrient enrichment near outfalls (Abt
Associates 2010a). Additionally, the preferential removal of upper water column species by I&E
mortality could increase energy flow to benthic organisms, and thereby increase the relative importance
of detritivores in bottom communities.
2.4.5 Reduced Ecological Resistance
The effect of long-term or chronic I&E mortality may lead to a decrease in ecosystem resistance and
resilience (i.e., ability to resist and recover from disturbance including invasive species) (Folke et al.
2004; Gunderson 2000). That is, I&E mortality is likely to reduce the ability of ecosystems to withstand
and recover from adverse environmental impacts, whether those impacts are due to anthropogenic effects
or natural variability.
2.5 Cumulative Impacts of Multiple Facilities
Cumulative effects of CWISs are likely to occur if multiple facilities are located in close proximity such
that they impinge or entrain aquatic organisms within the same source waterbody, watershed system, or
along a migratory pathway of a specific species (e.g., striped bass in the Hudson River) (USEPA 2004c).
The cumulative impacts of CWISs may be exacerbated by the presence of other anthropogenic stressors
discussed above (Section 2.2).
EPA analyses suggest that approximately 20 percent of all in-scope facilities are located on waterbodies
with multiple CWISs (USEPA 2004c). Inspection of geographic locations of 316(b) facilities
(approximated by CWIS latitude and longitude) indicates that facilities in inland settings are clustered
around rivers to a greater extent than marine and estuarine facilities (see Figure 2-1).
2.5.1 Clustering of Facilities and CWISs on Major Rivers
To illustrate the potential for cumulative impacts, data from five major U.S. rivers with clustered
concentrations of facilities were reviewed (Table 2-6). Based on the non-uniform distribution of
facilities, locations were noted where the potential for cumulative impacts is high (Abt Associates 201 Ob).
March 28, 2011 2-17
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 2-6:
River
Mississippi
Ohio
Missouri
Illinois
Delaware
U.S. Rivers with
Avg. Annual*
Flow (MGD)
383,266
181,615
49,249
8,079
7,562
Largest Withdrawals by In-scope Facilities
Facilities
57
47
23
11
11
Cumulative
DIP (MGD)
22,436
19,315
10,718
6,259
3,585
DIP as % Avg.
Annual Flow
5.9
10.6
21.8
77.5
47.4
Cumulative
AIF (MGD)
13,170
13,384
6,598
1,605
1,485
AIF as % Avg.
Annual Flow
3.4
7.4
13.4
19.9
19.6
* Source: (USGS 1990)
For example, the Mississippi River provides source water for cooling water for 57 facilities along its
length, with 27 facilities located in Louisiana upstream of the Mississippi River delta. Using facility
intake coordinates as location markers, the relative distances between facilities were estimated (Abt
Associates 2010b). In upper Louisiana, facilities are typically separated by tens of miles; inter-facility
distance decreases downstream of Baton Rouge, LA. Several locations along the Mississippi River have
clusters of facilities:
> Between Ascension and St. James Parishes, a 13-mile span of the river hosts six manufacturing
facilities, three of which have intakes located within the same mile. These facilities have a
combined DIP of nearly 270 MGD.
> Fifteen miles downstream, near Garyville, LA, there is a cluster of three facilities within six miles
of the river stretch.
> Seven miles further downstream near Laplace, LA, six facilities occur on a six-mile stretch of the
river. Four of these facilities, with a combined DIP exceeding 5 BGD (three generators and one
manufacturer), are located within a 1.7 mile section of river.
> Further downstream in Chalmette, LA (just east of New Orleans), three manufacturers, capable of
withdrawing up to 457 MGD, are clustered within four river miles.
Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts is high, and investigating ecosystem effects by
extrapolating results on a per facility basis may likely underestimate the true effects.
2.5.2 Implications of Clustered Facilities for Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact of clustered facilities may be significant, due to the concentrated I&E mortality,
combined intake flows, and the potential for other impacts such as thermal discharges. It should also be
noted that power generation demand and cooling intake water volume is typically at its annual maximum
during mid-late summer, which is also a period of seasonal low flows and highest in-stream temperatures.
The effect of cumulative impacts may be greater in inland or Great Lakes waters due to the following
factors:
> The majority of national AIF is associated with freshwater CWISs.
> Freshwater plants use a greater relative volume of available fish habitat than marine or estuarine
counterparts.
> Seasonal variation in power demand and river flow may increase entrainment potential during
low-flow periods of the year (NETL 2009). Although low flows are traditionally in late summer
March 28, 2011 2-18
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
to early fall, drought conditions and manipulations of water levels may lead to low flow during
other periods. This may be locally significant if periods of low flow overlap with seasonal
concentrations of eggs, developing YOY, and migrating juveniles.
> Freshwater facilities are more likely to be clustered along a waterbody, and pose a greater risk of
cumulative impacts. This is exacerbated by the presence of numerous impoundments associated
with navigational lock and dam structures located on larger river (e.g., Mississippi, Missouri,
Ohio, etc). These impoundments result in slow or slack water conditions with a lower effective
volume than free-flowing reaches or periods of higher flow.
2.6 Case Studies of Facility I&E Mortality Impacts
While the information provided in this chapter provides a broad overview of potential impacts associated
with CWISs, it is highly informative to evaluate these impacts in the context of actual facilities to see how
and to what extent these impacts and I&E mortality are realized, how site-specific factors come into play,
the effects of cumulative impacts, and what has been learned with regard to community-level effects.
Case studies provide useful, detailed information for evaluating I&E mortality and major stressors in the
context of a specific waterbody or region.
As part of the Phase II regulations, review and analyses of I&E mortality data and environmental
information was presented in case studies in EPA's 2002 Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section
316(b) Phase IIExisting Facilities Rule. The document provided detailed analyses of CWIS impacts in
major regional waterbodies throughout the U.S. These cases studies included:
> Delaware Estuary Watershed
> Ohio River Watershed
> Tampa Bay Watershed
> San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary
> Brayton Point Facility
> Seabrook and Pilgrim Facilities
> J.R. Whiting Facility
> Monroe Facility
These regional case studies provide a set of information describing the variety of CWIS impacts under
marine, coastal, and riverine environmental settings. The following sections present three additional case
studies to provide examples of facility-specific CWIS impacts in settings including freshwater coastal
(Bay Shore, Oregon, OH), estuarine (Indian Point, Buchanan, NY), and estuarine-coastal (Indian River,
Sussex County, DE) environments. These briefcase studies also illustrate the quantitative levels of I&E
mortality, the indirect effects of I&E mortality on local aquatic ecosystems, and the cumulative effects of
combined effects (I&E mortality and thermal). Additional information is available each of these
examples.
2.6.1 Bay Shore Power Station
The Bay Shore power station is a 631 megawatt (MW) facility located on the south shore of Lake Erie
near the confluence of the Maumee River and Maumee Bay, OH. Cooling water for the four coal-fired
March 28, 2011 2-19
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
steam-electric units is withdrawn from Maumee River/Maumee Bay via an open intake channel of
approximately 3,700 ft in length, and enters the plant via a shoreline surface CWIS. Approximately 749
million gallons per day (MOD) is withdrawn, including once-through cooling water and sluice water used
for transporting bottom ash from the boilers to ash settling ponds (OEPA 2010). Major environmental
concerns for the facility include I&E mortality and thermal impacts.
Bay Shore Power Station I&E Mortality Losses: Medium-sized Plant with Large-Scale Impacts
A comprehensive demonstration study, conducted in 2005-2006, estimated annual impingement at
greater than 46 million fish per year, the majority of which were forage fish species—emerald shiner
and gizzard shad. Annual estimates for entrainment were equally impressive—209 million fish eggs,
2,247 million fish larvae, and 14 million juvenile fish (OEPA 2010). As noted on the NDPES fact
sheet, "It is likely that Bay Shore Station impinges and entrains more fish than all other power
stations in Ohio combined." Notably, the plant does not currently employ any technologies to
reduced I&E mortality (OEPA 2010).
In addition to I&E mortality effects, concerns have also been raised regarding the size and impact of the
thermal discharge plume—a focus of concern for local residents and commercial fishermen. Depending
on wind patterns and hydrological factors, the thermal plume extends to the south shore of Maumee Bay
(over 1 mile from the facility). The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) assessed the results
from a 2002 thermal mixing zone study, and concluded that the thermal discharge exceeded Ohio water
quality standards for temperature within the thermal plume (>85°F in Maumee Bay), but that the impacts
on aquatic life and designated uses in Maumee River/Bay did not justify reduction of the thermal mixing
zone. However, it did find that the thermal activity could restrict recreational activities in certain areas of
the plant and required the plant owners to conduct a two-year study of the benthic community within the
mixing zone (OEPA 2010).
2.6.2 Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant
The Indian Point nuclear power plant is a 2,045 MW facility located in Buchanan, Westchester County,
New York, on the east shoreline of the Hudson River. Cooling water (up to 2,500 MGD) for the two
nuclear-fired steam-electric units (Units 2 and 3) is withdrawn from the estuarine portion of the Hudson
River through three intake structures on the shoreline (NYSDEC 2003a). The heated non-contact cooling
water is discharged through sub-surface diffuser ports in a discharge canal located downstream of the
intake structures.
Due to concerns regarding impact to fish, particularly anadromous striped bass populations, as well as a
high level of involvement and litigation from local stakeholder groups, the Indian Point power generation
plant (along with other Hudson River power plants) has been particularly well-characterized in terms of
I&E mortality impacts. Accordingly, the Hudson River aquatic community has been sampled and studied
over many decades, with detailed investigation starting in the 1970s.
Results suggest that I&E mortality impacts to the local and transient anadramous fish species are
substantial. For example, studies offish entrainment in 1980 predicted fish class reductions ranging from
6 to 79 percent, depending on fish species (Boreman and Goodyear 1988). Subsequent sampling work
predicted year-class reductions due to I&E mortality of 20 percent for striped bass, 25 percent for bay
anchovy, and 43 percent for Atlantic tomcod. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concluded these
March 28, 2011 2-20
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
levels of mortality "could seriously deplete any resilience or compensatory capacity of the species needed
to survive unfavorable environmental conditions" (USEPA 2004a).
Indian Point Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) details cumulative effects:
The FEIS estimated, from samples collected between 1981 and 1987 for three facilities (Indian Point,
Roseton, Bowline Point), that the average annual entrainment losses from these plants included 16.9
million American shad, 303.4 million striped bass, 409.6 million bay anchovy, 468 million white
perch, and 826.2 million river herring (NYSDEC 2003b). The loss of such large numbers of forage
fish species and the potential impact on higher level piscivores is of high concern. The FEIS also
viewed the overall effect of the CWIS impacts on the aquatic community as analogous to habitat
degradation rather than overfishing. This judgment was based on evidence that the entire aquatic
community was affected rather than only specimens of higher trophic level species.
The FEIS considered the role of other major environmental factors currently or historically present in the
Hudson River. These factors have the capacity to affect fish populations either positively (enhancements)
or negatively (stressors). Relevant factors include, but are not limited to: improvements to water quality
due to upgrades to sewage treatment plants, invasions by exotic species (e.g., zebra mussel), chemical
contamination by toxins (e.g., PCBs and heavy metals), global climate shifts such as increases in annual
mean temperatures and higher frequencies of extreme weather events (e.g., the El Nino-Southern
Oscillation), and stricter management of individual species stocks such as striped bass (USEPA 2004a).
Recently (April 2010), the NYSDEC denied a request by Indian Point for a CWA Section 401 Water
Quality Certificate. The CWA requires that, prior to any federal agency issuing a license or permit for a
particular project (in this case, the approval of the State Discharges Permit Elimination System [SPDES]
permit), it must certify that the project meets State water quality standards. The NYSDEC denial letter
cited, among other concerns, continuing concerns over I&E mortality including potential impacts to two
sensitive species—the Shortnose Sturgeon (currently listed as endangered) and the Atlantic Sturgeon
(under consideration for endangered species status).
2.6.3 Indian River Power Plant
The Indian River Generating Station (IRGS) is a 784 MW facility located in Sussex County, Delaware,
on the south shore of the Indian River. Cooling water for three of the IRGS's four coal-fired steam-
electric units is withdrawn upstream from the freshwater portion of Indian River via an intake canal at a
maximum rate of 411 MGD, or 21 times the average flow rate of Indian River. Heated return water is
discharged via a canal into the upper reaches of Island Creek, a small tributary of Indian River, entering at
Ward Cove. Island Creek and Ward Cove are part of a large estuarine stretch (approximately 150 acres)
of Indian River that provides important fish and crab habitat. Its lower salinity and location in the estuary
make it attractive to important species such as bay anchovy, spot, menhaden larvae, and young blue crabs.
Indian River Power Plant has impact on important local species:
The 2003 316(b) Comprehensive Demonstration Study for the Indian River Power Plant reported
I&E mortality for a number of important species (Entrix 2003, as described in Bason 2008). This
I&E mortality has been recalculated by a local stakeholder group as age-1 equivalents for bay
anchovy (1.6 million), blue crab (300,000), croaker (270,000), and menhaden (60,000) (Bason 2008).
March 28, 2011 2-21
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Due to the size of the heated discharge relative to the receiving water, thermal effects of the plant were
also investigated. Based upon monitoring data collected from 1998-1999, the 316(a) report assessed the
effects of elevated water temperatures on ecosystem communities with a focus on eight important fish
species: bay anchovy, menhaden, winter and summer flounder, croaker, spot, striped bass, and weakfish.
This report determined that juvenile and adult target species, although able to avoid areas of high water
temperature, were not permanently restricted from most stretches of the Indian River, nor did they suffer
loss of habitat services associated with these segments. The study concluded an overall condition of no
adverse effect, or no appreciable harm, on the fish and shellfish populations in the Indian River and
Delaware Bay (Entrix 2001).
Despite the overall conclusion of no adverse effect, there were documented localized thermal impacts of
consequence. For example, during warmer months, the thermal discharge reached potential adverse levels
in Island Creek, often extending downstream to Ware Cove (Entrix 2001). The mortality associated with
sub-adult stages offish and crabs and the avoidance of the area by sub-adult and adult fish were
substantial issues. In addition to direct thermal impacts to biota, temperature-related reductions in DO
were observable (mean reduction = 0.6 mg/1) in the discharge canal. These reductions contributed to the
amplitude of the day-night (diel) cycle of DO concentrations, already widely fluctuating due to
cumulative effects of eutrophication in the river (Bason 2008).
2.7 Conclusions
Considerable information is available on the direct effects of CWISs and I&E mortality (Chapter 3) on
commercially (Chapter 6) and recreationally important (Chapter 7) species derived from the accumulated
data from facility-specific basis 316(b) studies and investigations. This has allowed EPA to monetize the
potential environmental benefits that would arise as reduction in water withdrawals occur based of future
316(b) regulations.
However, as demonstrated in this section, there is much less information and high uncertainty regarding
the magnitude and importance of indirect and/or cumulative impacts of CWISs, particularly effects on
lower trophic organisms or ecosystem functions. This condition is due to the limitations of 316(b)
sampling programs, as well as the failure of permitting process to consider the additive or cumulative
effects of other major anthropogenic stressors. While EPA can identify and hypothesize regarding the
direction and relative importance of impacts of CWISs on the totality of the aquatic ecosystem (i.e., not
just focused on selected higher trophic level predator species and common prey), EPA is currently unable
to connect these effects with quantifiable environmental benefits. Thus, it is highly likely that the total
environmental and monetary impacts of CWISs are significantly underestimated, and that characterization
of the fuller spectrum of benefits arising from reducing or eliminating I&E mortality will await future,
targeted research efforts.
March 28, 2011 2-22
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Assessment of Impingement and Entrainment Mortality
3.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the methods EPA used to convert results from impingement and entrainment
mortality (I&E mortality) sampling studies into metrics suitable as inputs for EPA's Section 316(b)
benefits analysis.5 Section 3.2 provides a brief overview of impingement and entrainment (I&E) loss
metrics, and outlines how they were used in benefits analysis. Section 3.3 presents I&E mortality losses,
by region, under baseline conditions, and the reductions in these losses under alternative regulatory
options. Section 3.4 discusses limitations and uncertainties in the I&E mortality analysis.
EPA's I&E mortality assessment methods are discussed in detail in Chapter A-l of the Regional Benefits
Analysis for the Final Section 316(b) Phase III Existing Facilities Rule (Regional Benefits Analysis)
(USEPA 2006b). Changes in methodology since EPA's Phase III analysis include: (1) the addition of new
I&E mortality data for several California facilities, (2) engineering reductions for power generators were
estimated for sample facilities that received the detailed questionnaire rather than for all in-scope
generators, and (3) changes in the proportionate reduction in I&E mortality under new regulatory options
were estimated. Other modifications are identified in relevant portions of Section 3.2.
3.2 Methods
3.2.1 Objectives of I&E Mortality Analysis
EPA's evaluation of I&E mortality data had four main objectives:
> To develop regional and national estimates of the magnitude of I&E mortality
> To standardize I&E mortality rates using common biological metrics that allow comparison
across species, years, facilities, and geographical regions
> To provide I&E mortality metrics suitable for use in national economic benefits analysis
> To estimate changes in metrics as a result of estimated reductions in I&E mortality under
alternative regulatory options.
EPA's use of these methods for national rulemaking does not imply that these methods are the best or
most suitable for studies of single facilities. In many cases, site-specific details on local fish populations
and waterbody conditions may make other assessment approaches, such as population or ecosystem
modeling, possible.
For the purposes of its national analysis, EPA assumed 100 percent impingement mortality and 100 percent entrainment
mortality. This assumption is discussed at length in Chapter A7 of the Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section
316(b) Existing Facilities Rule (USEPA 2004b). Briefly, EPA assessed 37 entrainment survival studies and found them
variable, unpredictable, unreliable, and not defensible. As such, these studies support an assumption of 0 percent survival for
entrained organisms in benefits assessments.
March 28, 2011 3-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
3.2.2 I&E Mortality Loss Metrics
Three loss metrics were derived from facility I&E mortality monitoring data available to EPA: (1) age-1
equivalents, (2) forgone fishery yield, and (3) production forgone. These metrics are described briefly
below. Equations used to calculate metrics and other details are provided in Chapter A-l of EPA's
Regional Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2006b).
3.2.2.1 Age-1 Equivalents
The Equivalent Adult Model (EAM) is a method for converting organisms of different ages (life stages)
into an equivalent number of individuals in any single age (Goodyear 1978; Horst 1975). For its 316(b)
analyses, EPA standardized all I&E mortality losses into equivalent numbers of 1-year-old fish, a value
termed age-1 equivalents (AlEs). This conversion allows losses to be compared among species, years,
facilities, and regions.
To conduct EAM calculations requires a life history schedule, for each species, incorporating age-specific
mortality rates. Using these species-specific survival tables, a conversion rate between all life history
stages and age 1 is calculated. For life history stages younger than 1 year of age, the conversion rate is
calculated as the product of all stage-specific survival rates between the stage at which I&E mortality
occurs and age 1. Consequently, the loss of an individual younger than age 1 results in a conversion rate
less than 1. For individuals older than 1 year, the conversion rate is calculated as the quotient of all stage-
specific survival rates between the stage at which I&E mortality occurs and age 1. Consequently, the loss
of an individual older than age 1 results in a conversion rate greater than 1.
Additional details on the EAM calculation are provided in Chapter A-l of EPA's Regional Benefits
Analysis (USEPA 2006b). For the results presented in this chapter, the treatment of early life stages in this
calculation considers all larval life stages reported in the original I&E mortality studies.
3.2.2.2 Forgone Fishery Yield of Commercial and Recreational Species
Fishery yield is a measure of the biomass harvested from a cohort offish.6 EPA expressed I&E mortality
of harvested species in terms of forgone (lost) fishery yield. To convert losses to forgone fishery yield,
EPA used the Thompson-Bell equilibrium yield model (Ricker 1975). EPA's application of the
Thompson-Bell model assumed that 1) I&E mortality losses reduce the future yield of harvested adults,
and 2) reductions in I&E mortality rates will lead to an increase in harvested biomass.
The Thompson-Bell model is based on the principles used to estimate the expected yield in any harvested
fish population (Hilborn and Walters 1992; Quinn and Deriso 1999). The general procedure involves
multiplying age-specific harvest rates by age-specific weights to calculate an age-specific expected yield.
The lifetime expected yield for a cohort offish is the sum of all age-specific expected yields. Details of
these calculations are provided in Chapter A-l of EPA's Regional Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2006b).
3.2.2.3 Production Forgone for All Species
Production forgone is an estimate of the biomass that would have been produced had individuals not been
impinged or entrained (Rago 1984). It is calculated for all forage species from species- and age-specific
growth rates and survival probabilities. This forgone biomass represents a decrease in prey availability for
predator species, and is calculated because I&E mortality losses for forage species are not included in the
forgone fishery yield calculations. Additional details regarding the calculation of production forgone are
provided in Chapter A-l of EPA's Regional Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2006b).
A cohort of fish refers to fish produced in the same year, also referred to as a year-class of fish.
March 28, 2011 3-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
3.2.3 Valuation Approach
EPA's benefits analysis focused on increased commercial and recreational fishery harvests estimated
from projected reductions in I&E mortality losses. For consistency with reported harvest data,
commercial harvest is reported in pounds and recreational harvest is reported in numbers offish. To
project changes in fishery harvests, EPA integrated two components of fishery yield that change as a
consequence of I&E mortality: direct contributions of commercially and recreationally harvested species
(hereafter fishery species), and indirect contributions of forage species consumed by fishery species
(Figure 3-1). The direct contribution of fishery species to yield (left side of Figure 3-1) is calculated by
converting A1E losses to forgone yield as described in Section 3.2.2. The contribution of forage species
to fishery yield is measured as a biotic transfer of mass through the food web to fishery species that are
subsequently harvested (right side of Figure 3-1). EPA used a simple trophic transfer model for this
purpose (discussed in Chapter A-1 of EPA's Regional Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2006b), assuming a
trophic transfer efficiency of 0.10 (Pauly and Christensen 1995).7 Trophic transfer efficiency represents
the fraction of forage species biomass incorporated into predator (fishery) species biomass. EPA
estimated total changes to commercial and recreational harvest yield as the sum of the contributions of
fishery and forage species. For benefits analysis, total yield was separated into commercial and
recreational fractions based on the proportion of harvest occurring within each type of fishery, and
benefits were calculated for harvestable adult fish. Details of the commercial and recreational fishing
benefits analysis are provided in Chapters 6 and 7 of this report, respectively.
3.2.4 Rationale for EPA's Approach for Valuation of I&E mortality losses
EPA's approach to estimating changes in fish harvest assumed that I&E mortality losses result in a
reduction in the number of harvestable adults, and that I&E mortality reductions result in increases to
future fish harvests. This approach estimates incremental fishery yield forgone because of I&E mortality
and does not require knowledge of population size or total yield of a fishery.
EPA's forgone fishery yield analysis requires species- and stage-specific schedules of natural mortality
(M), fishing mortality (F), and weight-at-age. The yield model assumes that these key parameters (F, M,
and weight-at-age) are independent of I&E mortality rates for all species. EPA recognizes that this
assumption does not fully reflect the dynamic nature offish populations. However, by conducting benefits
analysis using estimates of foregone yield, EPA was able to use a simple and direct measure of the
potential economic value associated with each I&E-related death. EPA believes that this approach was
warranted given: (1) the scope and objectives of its analysis of harvested species, (2) data availability, and
(3) difficulties in distinguishing the causes of population changes. Each of these factors is discussed
below.
3.2.4.1 Scope and Objectives of EPA's Analysis of Harvested Species
EPA's overall objective was to develop regional- and national-scale estimates of the magnitude of I&E
mortality at hundreds of facilities that are in the scope of the proposed rule nationwide. As a consequence
of the large geographic scope and multiple ecosystems involved, EPA modeled fishery yield using a
relatively simplified approach to estimate the vulnerability of dozens of species to I&E mortality on a
7 EPA notes that its model of trophic transfer is a very simple and idealized representation of trophic dynamics; it is not
intended to capture the details of trophic transfer in actual aquatic ecosystems. In reality, food webs and trophic dynamics
are much more complex than EPA's simple model implies, and include details that are specific to each particular aquatic
ecosystem. This complexity was beyond the scope of EPA's analysis and the available data.
March 28, 2011 3-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
national scale. Although sufficient data may exist to model the effects of I&E mortality on population and
community-level impacts, sufficient data do not exist at the national scale to make such studies feasible.
Fishery
Species
I&E Mortality
Losses
Forage
Species
Convert to
Age-1
Equivalents
Convert to
Production
Forgone
Trophic
Transfer
Convert to
Forgone Fishery
Yield
Convert to
Forgone Fishery
Yield
Total
Forgone Fishery
Yield
Commercial
Fraction
Recreational
Fraction
Commercial
Harvest
(pounds)
T
Recreational
Harvest
(# of fish)
T
Monetize
(Chapter 6)
Monetize
(Chapter 7)
Figure 3-1: General Approach Used to Evaluate I&E Mortality Losses as Forgone Fishery
Yield
3.2.4.2 Data Availability and Uncertainties Related to Modeling Fish Harvest
Forgone fishery yield and production forgone models used by EPA required age-specific life history data
for all species analyzed. EPA acknowledges that many fish population models are available, and that
these models may produce more accurate population-level impacts of I&E mortality. EPA did not pursue
the development of species-specific population models for several reasons:
> Constructing population models requires a large set of parameters and numerous assumptions
about the nature of stock dynamics for each species, including current stock size, stock-
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
3-4
-------
recruitment relationships, changes to growth and mortality rates as a function of stock size, and
the separation of certain species into geographically based stock units. Because of these
limitations, fewer than 40 percent of U.S.-managed commercially harvested fish stocks have been
fully assessed (NMFS 2009; NMFS 2010b). As such, the information necessary to build more-
complex population models is available only for a subset of harvested species, which represent a
minor fraction of I&E mortality.
> Numerous difficulties exist in the definition of the size and spatial extent offish stocks. As a
result, it is often unclear how I&E mortality losses at particular cooling water intake structures
(CWISs) can be related to specific stocks at a regional scale. For example, juvenile Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoortia tryannus) found in Delaware Bay recruit from both local and long
distances (Light and Able 2003). As a result, estimating the effects of local I&E mortality on
recruitment rates would not be sufficient to understand the stock-recruitment relationship for
Delaware Bay menhaden.
Consequently, due to issues of data availability and difficulties estimating the effects of localized I&E
mortality on regional-scale fish stocks, EPA determined that the construction of population models for all
species subject to I&E mortality was not feasible. The level of uncertainty that would accompany the
construction of such models (if constructing them were even possible) would be difficult to defend with
available data at both the national and population level for many species.
3.2.4.3 Difficulties Distinguishing Causes of Population Changes
It is fundamentally difficult to demonstrate a causal relationship between a single stressor and changes in
fish population sizes. Fish populations are affected by multiple nonlinear stressors and are constantly in
flux. As such, determining whether changes to fish populations are the consequence of an identifiable
stressor due to natural fluctuation around an equilibrium stock size is difficult. Fish recruitment is a
multidimensional process, and identifying and distinguishing the causes of variance in fish recruitment
remains a fundamental problem in fisheries science, stock management, and impact assessment (Boreman
2000; Hilborn and Walters 1992; Quinn and Deriso 1999). Consequently, resolving issues of population
fluctuation was beyond the scope and objectives of EPA's Section 316(b) benefits analysis.
3.2.5 Extrapolation of I&E Mortality to Develop Regional Estimates
EPA examined I&E mortality losses and the economic benefits of reducing these losses at a regional
scale. Estimated benefits were then aggregated across all regions to produce a national benefits estimate.
Regions were based on regions used by fisheries management agencies such as the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). The geographical scope of all regions is described in Chapter 1 (Section 1.2).
To obtain regional I&E mortality estimates, EPA extrapolated losses observed at 97 facilities with I&E
mortality data (hereafter model facilities) to all in-scope facilities within the same region. Extrapolation of
I&E mortality rates was necessary because only a subset of all in-scope facilities have conducted I&E
mortality studies. To allow extrapolation, EPA assumed that all facilities, regardless of size, have similar
I&E mortality rates after normalization by flow. I&E mortality data were extrapolated on the basis of
operational flow, in millions of gallons per day (MOD), where MOD is the average operational flow over
the period 1996-1998 as reported by facilities in response to EPA's Section 316(b) Detailed
Questionnaire and Short Technical Questionnaire. Operational flow at all facilities was scaled using a
multiplicative factor that reflected the effectiveness of in-place technologies used to reduce I&E
mortality. During the extrapolation procedure, EPA also applied weighting factors to in-scope facilities
March 28, 2011 3-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
based on questionnaire results. Weighting factors for the current analysis were based on results of the
Detailed Questionnaire. Additional details of EPA's extrapolation methods are provided in Appendix A.
The assumption that I&E mortality is proportional to flow is consistent with other published I&E
mortality studies and models. Power plants on the Great Lakes exhibit an increasing relationship (on a
log-log scale) between plant size (measured as electrical output) and I&E mortality rates (Kelso and
Milburn 1979), and Goodyear (1978) predicted entrainment on the basis of the ratio of cooling water flow
to source water flow. Additionally, the Spawning and Nursery Area of Consequence (SNAC) model, used
as a screening tool for assessing potential I&E mortality impacts at Chesapeake Bay facilities, assumes
that entrainment is proportional to cooling water withdrawal rates (Polgar et al. 1979).
EPA recognizes that there may be substantial variability in actual I&E mortality losses per MGD resulting
from a variety of time- and facility-specific features, such as sampling date, location and type of intake
structure, as well as from ecological features that affect the abundance and species composition offish in
the vicinity of each facility. Consequently, EPA's extrapolation procedure relies heavily on the
assumption that I&E mortality rates recorded at model facilities are representative of I&E mortality rates
at other facilities in the region. Although this assumption may not be met in some cases, limiting the
extrapolation procedure within regions reduces the likelihood that model facilities are unrepresentative.
EPA believes that its method of extrapolation makes the best use of a limited amount of empirical data,
and is the only feasible approach for developing a national estimate of I&E mortality, and the associated
benefits of I&E mortality reduction. While acknowledging that extrapolation introduces uncertainty into
I&E mortality estimates, EPA has not identified information suggesting a systematic bias in regional loss
estimates based upon extrapolation.
3.3 I&E Mortality Losses By Region
3.3.1 California Region
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
California region are 36.83 million AlEs per year, of which 17.56 million (47 percent) are forage fish.
Approximately 5.59 percent of total baseline A1E losses are assigned a direct use value from recreational
or commercial fishing (Table 3-1). Table C-lof Appendix C presents species-specific data on
impingement and entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all
options. Among commercially and recreationally-harvested species, the greatest losses occur in crabs,
rockfishes, and sea basses (Appendix Table C-l).
The majority of I&E mortality in the California region occur due to entrainment (Appendix Table C-l).
Because Option 1 does not reduce entrainment losses in the majority of facilities, it reduces baseline I&E
mortality of A1E by only 1.9 percent (Table 3-1). Conversely, by requiring the installation of closed-cycle
cooling towers, which effectively reduce entrainment mortality, Options 2 and 3 reduce A IE losses by
85.5 and 89.4 percent, respectively, providing over 40 times the reduction in A1E losses (Table 3-1).
March 28, 2011 3-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 3-1: Summary of Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in California, and Reductions Under Option
Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I
Facilities > 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
36.83 0.69
17.56 0.18
19.28 0.52
2.06 0.06
5.59 7.96
31.50
14.99
16.51
1.76
5.60
Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and
32.92
15.67
17.25
1.84
5.60
Efor
Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 14.05 million pounds offish,
leading to a decrease in fishery yield of more than 3.28 million pounds per year (Table 3-2). Option 1 is
estimated to result in increased fishery yields of 0.02 million pounds per year. Under Options 2 and 3,
however, estimated increases to fishery yields are more than 100 times greater, at 2.80 and 2.93 million
pounds per year, respectively (Table 3-2).
Table 3-2: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in California, and Reductions Under
Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs) 3.28 0.02 2.80 2.93
Foregone Commercial Catch (Ibs) 1.38 O.01 1.18 1.23
Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 1.02 0.04 0.88 0.92
Production Foregone (Ibs) 14.05 0.10 11.99 12.54
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in California can be found in Appendix Table C-2.
3.3.2 North Atlantic Region
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
North Atlantic region are 60.00 million AlEs per year, 78 percent of which are forage fish.
Approximately 2.06 percent of total baseline A IE losses are assigned a direct use value from recreational
or commercial fishing (Table 3-3). Table C-3 of Appendix C presents species-specific data on
impingement and entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all
options. Briefly, the vast majority (99 percent) of all A1E losses in the North Atlantic occur as a
consequence of entrainment mortality (Appendix Table C-3). Notably, the combined I&E mortality of
winter flounder, cunner, and sculpins account for 97 percent of all I&E mortality of commercially and
recreationally-harvested species.
March 28, 2011 3-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Because Option 1 does not reduce entrainment losses, it reduces baseline I&E mortality A IE losses by
less than 1 percent (Table 3-3). Conversely, by requiring the installation of closed-cycle cooling towers,
which effectively reduce entrainment mortality, Options 2 and 3 reduce A1E losses by 81.7 and 85.7
percent, respectively, providing more than 100 times the benefits of Option 1 by A1E (Table 3-3).
Table 3-3: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and I&E Mortality Reductions at All In-
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the North Atlantic, and
Reductions Under Option Scenarios
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Baseline
Reductions in Losses
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
60.00
47.02
12.98
1.23
2.06
0.43
0.38
0.06
0.01
1.52
49.02
38.42
10.60
1.01
2.06
51.40
40.29
11.11
1.06
2.06
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities > 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 26.99 million pounds offish,
leading to a decrease in fishery yield of 1.02 million pounds per year (Table 3-4). Option 1 is estimated to
result in increased fishery yields of less than 0.01 million pounds per year. Under Options 2 and 3,
however, estimated increases to fishery yields are more than 100 times greater, at 0.83 and 0.87 million
pounds per year, respectively (Table 3-4).
Table 3-4: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in the North Atlantic, and Reductions
Under Option Scenarios
Baseline
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Losses
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs)
Foregone Commercial Catch
Foregone Recreational Catch
Production Foregone (Ibs)
(Ibs)
(fish)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD;
1.02
0.45
0.76
26.99
Reductions in Losses
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.03
0.83
0.37
0.62
22.01
0,
0,
0,
23,
.87
.39
.65
.09
Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the North Atlantic can be found in Appendix Table C-4.
3.3.3 Mid-Atlantic
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
Mid-Atlantic region are 990.06 million AlEs per year, including 751.07 million AlEs of forage fish (75.9
percent). Approximately 3.11 percent of total baseline A IE losses are assigned a direct use value from
recreational or commercial fishing (Table 3-5). Table C-5 of Appendix C presents species-specific data
March 28, 2011 3-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
on impingement and entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all
options. Briefly, the vast majority (95 percent) of all A1E losses in the Mid-Atlantic occur as a
consequence of entrainment mortality. Nearly half (45.9 percent) of the I&E mortality estimated for
commercially- and recreationally-harvested species occurs in Blue Crab, and substantial I&E mortality
(i.e., greater than 20 million A1E) is estimated for Atlantic Croaker, Atlantic Menhaden, Spot, and White
Perch.
Because of the high proportion of I&E mortality losses attributed to entrainment mortality, it is estimated
that Options 2 and 3 will reduce I&E mortality by 91.9 and 93.0 percent, respectively (Table 3-5).
Conversely, Option 1 is projected to reduce I&E mortality by approximately 3.9 percent, more than 20
times smaller than the reductions estimated to occur under Options 2 and 3.
Table 3-5: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and I&E Mortality Reductions at All In-
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic, and
Reductions Under Option Scenarios
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Baseline Reductions in Losses
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
990.06 38.69 909.74 920.90
751.07 14.27 688.96 697.59
238.98 24.42 220.78 223.31
30.77 6.09 28.66 28.95
3.11 15.75 3.15 3.14
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
The I&E mortality model projects that baseline I&E mortality results in 80.73 million pounds of foregone
production, and decreases fishery yield by 22.53 million pounds per year (Table 3-6). Option 1 is
estimated to result in increased fishery yields of 5.40 million pounds per year. Under Options 2 and 3,
increased fishery yields are 21.01 and 21.22 million pounds per year, respectively (Table 3-6).
Table 3-6: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic, and Reductions
Under Option Scenarios
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year)
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs)
Foregone Commercial Catch (Ibs)
Foregone Recreational Catch (fish)
Production Foregone (Ibs)
Baseline Reductions in Losses
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
22.53 4.73 21.01 21.22
11.59 3.75 10.91 11.01
9.08 0.55 8.36 8.46
80.73 10.16 74.73 75.56
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the Mid-Atlantic region can be found in Appendix Table C-6.
March 28, 2011 3-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
3.3.4 South Atlantic Region
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
South Atlantic region are estimated to be 33.40 million AlEs per year, including 31.22 million forage fish
AlEs. Approximately 1.03 percent of total baseline A1E losses are assigned a direct use value from
recreational or commercial fishing (Table 3-7). Table C-7 of Appendix C presents species-specific data
on impingement and entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all
options. Unlike other regions, the majority (67 percent) of all A1E losses in the South Atlantic occur as a
consequence of impingement mortality. Among commercially- and recreationally-harvested species, I&E
mortality is greatest in Drums and Croakers and Blue Crab.
Due to the high proportion of I&E mortality lost to impingement, Option 1 is projected to reduce I&E
mortality by 42.5 percent. However, because the installation of closed-cycle cooling towers reduces water
usage, Options 2 and 3 are projected to reduce I&E mortality by approximately 84.6 and 84.7 percent
(Table 3-7), approximately double the estimated reductions of Option 1.
Table 3-7: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and I&E Mortality Reductions at All In-
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the South Atlantic, and
Reductions Under Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I
Facilities > 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
33.40 14.20
31.22 13.43
2.19 0.77
0.35 0.11
1.03 0.75
28.28
26.43
1.85
0.29
1.03
Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and
28.30
26.45
1.85
0.29
1.03
Efor
Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 0.86 million pounds per year,
leading to a decrease in fishery yield of approximately 0.16 million pounds per year. Option 1 is
estimated to result in increased fishery yields of 0.05 million pounds per year. Under Options 2 and 3,
however, estimated increases to fishery yields are more than 2 times greater, at 0.13 and 0.13 million
pounds per year, respectively (Table 3-8).
Table 3-8: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in the South Atlantic, and Reductions
Under Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs)
Foregone Commercial Catch (Ibs)
Foregone Recreational Catch (fish)
Production Foregone (Ibs)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD;
0.16 0.05 0.13
0.10 0.05 0.08
0.13 0.02 0.11
0.86 0.14 0.72
Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.72
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
3-10
-------
Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the South Atlantic region can be found in Appendix Table C-8.
3.3.5 Gulf of Mexico
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-9 and Table 3-10. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
Gulf of Mexico are estimated to be 135.64 million AlEs per year, including 47.75 million forage fish
AlEs. Approximately 8.56 percent of total baseline A1E losses are assigned a direct use value from
recreational or commercial fishing (Table 3-9). Table C-9 of Appendix C presents species-specific data
on impingement and entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all
options. The majority (67 percent) of all A IE losses in the Gulf of Mexico occur as a consequence of
entrainment mortality. Among commercially- and recreationally-harvested species, I&E mortality is
greatest in Blue Crab, and Pink Shrimp, which together account for 68 percent of A IE losses with direct
use value. Other fish species with substantial I&E mortality (i.e., greater than 5 million A1E) include
Black Drum, Menhaden, and Silver Perch (Appendix Table C-9).
Due to the low proportion of I&E mortality lost to impingement, Option 1 is projected to reduce I&E
mortality by only 25.4 percent. In contrast, Options 2 and 3 are projected to reduce I&E mortality by 78.2
and 78.3 percent, respectively (Table 3-9), approximately triple the estimated reductions of Option 1.
Table 3-9: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and I&E Mortality Reductions at All In-
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Gulf of Mexico, and
Reductions Under Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I
Facilities > 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
135.64 34.50
47.75 4.31
87.89 30.19
11.61 4.59
8.56 13.29
106.02 106.21
34.09 34.16
71.94 72.05
9.75 9.76
9.20 9.19
Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 76.06 million pounds per year, 43
percent of which is foregone fishery yield. Option 1 is estimated to reduce foregone fishery yields by 2.99
million pounds, while Options 2 and 3 are estimated to reduce foregone fishery yields by 23.43 and 23.48
million pounds, respectively (Table 3-10).
Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the Gulf of Mexico can be found in Appendix Table C-10.
March 28, 2011 3-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 3-10: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in the Gulf of Mexico, and
Reductions Under Option Scenarios
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year)
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs)
Foregone Commercial Catch (Ibs)
Foregone Recreational Catch (fish)
Production Foregone (Ibs)
Baseline Reductions in Losses
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
32.81 2.99 23.43 23.48
5.56 1.46 4.36 4.37
2.85 0.67 2.20 2.21
76.06 5.77 53.84 53.96
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
3.3.6 Great Lakes Region
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-11 and Table 3-12. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
Great Lakes are 53.50 million AlEs per year, including 46.46 million A1E of forage fish. Approximately
1.50 percent of total baseline A1E losses are assigned a direct use value from recreational or commercial
fishing (Table 3-11). Table C-l 1 of Appendix C presents species-specific data on impingement and
entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all options. Briefly,
among commercially and recreationally-harvested species, the greatest losses occur in Smelts and
Sunfish.
The vast majority (83 percent) of I&E mortality losses in the Great Lakes occur due to impingement
(Appendix Table C-l 1). Accordingly, Option 1 reduces baseline A IE I&E mortality by 71.5 percent
(Table 3-11). By requiring the installation of closed-cycle cooling towers, which reduce the volume of
water required for cooling purposes, Options 2 and 3 reduce A1E losses by 95.7 and 96.0 percent,
respectively (Table 3-11).
Table 3-11: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and I&E Mortality Reductions at All In-
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes, and
Reductions Under Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I
Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
53.50 38.23
46.46 33.46
7.04 4.77
0.80 0.49
1.50 1.28
51.13 51.35
44.46 44.64
6.67 6.70
0.75 0.75
1.47 1.47
Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 32.02 million Ibs offish, leading to
a decrease in fishery yield of 0.70 million pounds per year (Table 3-12). Option 1 is estimated to result in
increased fishery yields of 0.42 million pounds per year. Under Options 2 and 3, however, estimated
March 28, 2011 3-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
increases to fishery yields are approximately 50 percent greater, at 0.65 and 0.65 million pounds per year,
respectively (Table 3-12).
Table 3-12: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes, and Reductions
Under Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs) 0.70 0.42 0.65 0.65
Foregone Commercial Catch (Ibs) 0.35 0.23 0.33 0.33
Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 0.35 0.18 0.32 0.32
Production Foregone (Ibs) 32.02 7.34 27.19 27.49
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the Great Lakes region can be found in Appendix Table C-12.
3.3.7 Inland Region
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-13 and Table 3-14. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
Inland region are 879.49 million AlEs per year, including 713.71 million A1E of forage fish.
Approximately 1.43 percent of total baseline A IE losses are assigned a direct use value from recreational
or commercial fishing (Table 3-13). Table C-13 of Appendix C presents species-specific data on
impingement and entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all
options. Briefly, the majority (66.4 percent) of all A1E losses in the Inland region occur as a consequence
of impingement mortality (Appendix Table C-13). Notably, the I&E mortality of sunfish account for 78.4
percent of the I&E mortality of commercially and recreationally-harvested species.
Option 1 reduces baseline I&E mortality A1E losses by 55.5 percent (Table 3-13). The installation of
closed-cycle cooling towers under Options 2 and 3 reduce A1E losses by 91.6 and 93.5 percent,
respectively, providing a benefit more than 60 percent larger than the benefits of Option 1 (Table 3-13).
Table 3-13: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and I&E Mortality Reductions at All In-
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region, and
Reductions Under Option Scenarios
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I
Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Baseline
Losses
879.49
713.71
165.78
12.59
1.43
Everywhere;
Reductions in Losses
Option 1
488.22
459.64
28.59
4.32
0.89
Option 2 Option 3
805.86
665.29
140.57
11.06
1.37
Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and
822.46
676.63
145.83
11.39
1.38
Efor
March 28, 2011 3-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
The decrease in production due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 407.08 million pounds of
fish, leading to a decrease in fishery yield of 11.01 million pounds per year (Table 3-14). Option 1 is
estimated to result in increased fishery yields of 3.77 million pounds per year. Under Options 2 and 3,
however, estimated increases to fishery yields are more than two times greater, at 9.67 and 9.96 million
pounds per year, respectively (Table 3-14).
Table 3-14: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region, and Reductions
Under Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs)
Foregone Commercial Catch (Ibs)
Foregone Recreational Catch (fish)
Production Foregone (Ibs)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD;
11.01 3.77 9.67
0.01 0.01 0.01
12.59 4.32 11.06
407.08 102.90 351.01
Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
9.96
0.01
11.39
362.84
Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the Inland region can be found in Appendix Table C-14.
3.3.8 National Estimates
Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reductions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory
options are presented in Table 3-15 and Table 3-16. Estimated total baseline I&E mortality losses
nationally are 2,188.92 million AlEs per year, including 1,654.78 million A1E of forage fish.
Approximately 2.71 percent of total baseline A1E losses are assigned a direct use value from recreational
or commercial fishing (Table 3-15). Table C-13 of Appendix C presents species-specific data on
impingement and entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all
options. Briefly, the majority (65.8 percent) of all A1E losses nationally occur as a consequence of
entrainment mortality (Appendix Table C-13).
Option 1 reduces baseline I&E mortality A1E losses by 28.1 percent (Table 3-15). The installation of
closed-cycle cooling towers under Options 2 and 3 reduce A1E losses by 90.5 and 92.0 percent,
respectively, providing a benefit approximately three times larger than the benefits of Option 1 (Table
3-15).
March 28, 2011 3-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 3-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and I&E Mortality Reductions at All In-
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally, and Reductions
Under Option Scenarios
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year)
All Species (million A IE)
Forage Species (million A IE)
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E)
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish)
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I
Facilities > 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Baseline Reductions in Losses
Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
2188.92 614.97 1981.55 2013.55
1654.78 525.66 1512.64 1535.44
534.15 89.31 468.91 478.11
59.41 15.66 53.28 54.05
2.71 2.55 2.69 2.68
Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
The decrease in production due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 637.78 million pounds of
fish, leading to a decrease in fishery yield of 71.50 million pounds per year (Table 3-16). Option 1 is
estimated to result in increased fishery yields of 11.99 million pounds per year. Under Options 2 and 3,
however, estimated increases to fishery yields are more than four times greater, at 58.52 and 59.24 million
pounds per year, respectively (Table 3-16).
Table 3-16: Baseline Losses in Fishery Yield, Catch, and Production
Forgone as a Consequence of I&E Mortality at All In-scope Facilities
(Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally, and Reductions Under
Option Scenarios
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Foregone Fishery Yield (Ibs)
Foregone Commercial Catch (Ibs)
Foregone Recreational Catch (fish)
Production Foregone (Ibs)
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD;
71.50 11.99 58.52
19.43 5.49 17.23
26.79 5.77 23.55
637.78 126.44 541.48
Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
59.24
17.41
24.06
556.20
Raw numbers of national I&E mortality losses can be found in Appendix Table C-16.
3.4 Limitations and Uncertainties
There are four major kinds of uncertainty that may lead to imprecision and bias in EPA's I&E mortality
analysis: data, structural, statistical, and engineering uncertainty. Data limitations and uncertainty refers to
uncertainty and inconsistency in sampling methodologies used in facility-specific I&E mortality studies.
Structural uncertainty reflects the simplification built into any model of a complex natural system.
Parameter uncertainty refers to uncertainty in the numeric estimates of model parameters. Finally,
engineering uncertainty refers to the fact that facilities do not operate identically on an annual basis.
3.4.1 Data Limitation and Uncertainty
Quantification of regional and national I&E mortality losses is based on cumulative data generated by
collection at individual facilities. In turn, these data are heterogeneous products of location-specific
investigations set in differing geographic and ecological provinces. Interpretation of the significance and
March 28, 2011 3-15
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
trends of I&E mortality at regional and national scales (and of the accompanying ecological benefits upon
mitigation) must consider the strengths and weaknesses of this data.
The I&E mortality data from model facilities constitute a heterogeneous composite of results from many
facility-specific studies. Sampling effort and data quality control vary tremendously among I&E mortality
studies and baseline source water characterization programs. While there is broad EPA guidance as to the
overall objectives and requirements for facility-specific data collection, there is little uniformity among
studies as to the intensity, frequency and duration of data collection as well as the scope of target biota
collected, identified, and enumerated. Sampling regimes may be properly adjusted to ensure that changes
in local biotic activity associated with diurnal, tidal, and lunar cycles are incorporated; or may reflect
regularly spaced sampling points with little concern paid to capturing environmental variability.
In addition to the differences in environmental scope, sampling methods are not uniform among studies
with regard to the types and meshes of sampling nets, deployment location of sampling nets (e.g., outside
or within the intake structure), length and weight measurements, observations of field conditions,
characterization of reference areas, etc. In addition to different sampling methods and timing, some
sampling programs are designed primarily to estimate I&E mortality losses for a select suite of
recreational or commercially important aquatic organisms. Studies differ in their taxonomic sorting
classes and specificity of identification of impinged and entrained organisms (e.g., eggs, ichthyoplankton,
zooplankton, etc.). Thus, many I&E mortality studies are poorly suited to provide insight into the direct
and indirect impacts to forage fish species, non-vertebrate organisms (zooplankton, tunicates, algae,
worms, etc.), or community/ecosystem impacts. For older facilities, sampling data commonly lack pre-
operational (i.e., baseline) samples or community surveys to compare to the results of more-current I&E
mortality data. Finally, few I&E mortality studies are designed to allow evaluation of community impacts
or ecosystem effects (Section 2.4).
Within regions, studies of I&E mortality from model facilities are typically composed of data from a
relatively limited number of facilities. Most facility-specific I&E mortality studies are limited to one or
two years, and are rarely replicated within a time period that allows direct comparison of trends without
historical complications due to fishery stock trends, climatic changes, or shifts in collection methods or
water quality. Thus, studies within a regional database may not accurately represent average climatic and
oceanographic conditions (e.g., El Nino years). Additionally, studies within the database may include
historical (>20 years) and recent data, thus incorporating considerable uncertainty due to the annual
variability of highly dynamic fish stocks. Thus, extrapolation from regional collections of facility-specific
studies may not provide a true regional estimate because the available data may or may not be fully
representative of regional trends and/or of associated ecological benefits derived from mitigating I&E
mortality impacts.
3.4.2 Structural Uncertainty
The models EPA used to evaluate I&E mortality simplify complex processes. The degree of
simplification is substantial, but necessary, because of limited data availability and the need to generate
estimates on a national scale. Simplification occurs with respect to many processes within the model, to
ensure computational tractability and national applicability (Table 3-17).
EPA recognizes these uncertainties, but believes that addressing each of these uncertainties in a
defensible way would require data that does not currently exist (see Section 3.2.4.2), would be time-
consuming and resource-intensive to develop, and would lead to greater parameter uncertainty (Section
3.4.3).
March 28, 2011 3-16
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 3-17: Structural Uncertainties
Aspect of Model General Description Specific Treatment in Model
Biological Life history traits are fixed Life history parameters in the models (i.e., growth, survival) are constant
submodels through time and are thus independent of biological conditions (e.g., fish
densities, seasonality, weather, recruitment variability, food availability,
fisheries pressure, etc.).
No trophic effects Indirect food web effects such as trophic cascades, growth and population
limitations due to a lack of food, etc., are not considered. Trophic transfer
is treated simplistically.
Outside impacts not addressed I&E mortality loss rates are affected by a variety of outside influences not
included in the model (e.g., fisheries pressure, pollution, future
development, invasive species, climate change, etc.).
Valuation National nonuse benefits not Fish species grouped into two categories: harvested or not harvested (i.e.,
structure addressed forage for harvested species). Only commercial and recreational harvests
are assigned monetary values at the national level. Nonuse values of I&E
mortality is estimated for the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions only.
Fishing pressure constant The valuation procedure assumes that fisheries harvests will increase
proportionately to decreases in I&E mortality losses, independent of
Federal and State policies on commercial and recreational fishing (i.e.,
fisheries quotas, closures, bag limits, etc.).
3.4.3 Parameter Uncertainty
Parameter uncertainty refers to variability in the value of parameters used in biological and economic
modeling. All parameters must be estimated from sampling studies that cannot identify the true values of
interest due to statistical and logistical limitations. These limitations are broadly driven by three
processes, including parameter fluctuation through time, geographic location, and sampling.
The true value of many biological parameters fluctuates on an annual basis, due to changes in weather,
food availability, indirect food-web effects, and compensatory population dynamics. Consequently,
parameter values used within biological submodels, despite being based upon the best available data
obtained from the scientific literature, cannot be without error due to annual variability in fish growth and
(natural and fisheries) mortality rates. Similarly, because I&E mortality rates are driven by a combination
of intake flow and the presence of vulnerable fish, actual I&E mortality cannot remain constant through
time.
True values of biological parameters and facility I&E mortality vary geographically. Biological
parameters may vary substantially within regions due to changes in substrate, water temperature and
salinity, etc., while facility I&E mortality data may be strongly connected to local substrates, distance
from shore, depth, etc. It follows, then, that using biological data and extrapolating facility-specific I&E
mortality rates to the regional scale will result in parameter variability based solely on geographic
considerations.
Finally, all model parameters contain uncertainty because they are small samples from a much larger
dataset. Biological parameters such as mortality rates must be estimated using incomplete sampling data.
Facility-reported I&E mortality studies necessarily subsample cooling water, and often do not take
replicate samples across tidal periods, seasons, time of day, and between years. Moreover, these studies
often present I&E mortality with limited taxonomic detail (i.e., the identification of eggs, larvae, and
juveniles is not species-specific), and do not have standard methodologies. As is the case with
retrospective data, these studies also reflect the biological and physical state of the waterbody when
March 28, 2011 3-17
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
studies were conducted. In some cases, the state of the waterbody itself has changed substantially since
sampling was conducted.
EPA recognizes many sources of parameter uncertainty in its models (Table 3-18), all of which lead to
uncertainty in point estimates of I&E mortality losses. The nature of these uncertainties, however, does
not inherently bias the point estimate. EPA believes that all biological and physical parameters were
reported in good faith, and as such, parameter estimates are unlikely to be biased in aggregate, but
distributed both above and below true parameter values. Thus, EPA believes that parameter uncertainty
has resulted in imprecision rather than inaccuracy in model output.8
3.4.4 Engineering Uncertainty
EPA's evaluation of I&E mortality was also affected by uncertainty about the engineering and operating
characteristics of the study facilities. It is unlikely that plant operating characteristics (e.g., seasonal,
diurnal, or intermittent changes in intake water flow rates) are constant throughout any particular year. As
such, the timing of sampling, and the annual repeatability of I&E mortality, may be biased by facility
operating conditions. EPA assumed that the facilities' loss estimates were provided in good faith and did
not include any biases or omissions that significantly modified loss estimates.
Accuracy refers to the degree of closeness of model results to the actual value. Precision refers to the reproducibility of model
output, or the degree to which repeated measurements (or samples, for example from different model facilities) under similar
conditions will result in the same model output.
March 28, 2011 3-18
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 3-18: Parameters Included in EPA's I&E Mortality Analysis Subject to Uncertainty
Model Aspect
Parameter
Description
I&E mortality Sampling regimes
monitoring /loss rate
estimates
Extrapolation
assumptions
Species selection
Sensitivity of fish to
I&E mortality
Sampling regimes are subject to numerous plant-specific details. No
established guidelines or performance standards for how to design and conduct
sampling regimes. Not all sampling studies measured both impingement and
entrainment mortality.
Extrapolation of monitoring data to annual I&E mortality rates assumes
sampling occurred under average conditions, and that diumal/seasonal/annual
cycles in fish presence and vulnerability and various technical factors (e.g., net
collection efficiency; hydrological factors affecting I&E mortality rates) do not
play a substantial role in the accuracy of extrapolation. No established
guidelines or consistency in sampling regimes.
Criteria for the selection of species evaluated in I&E mortality studies are not
well-defined nor uniform across facilities. At many facilities, I&E mortality
data was collected for only a subset of species, usually only fish and shellfish.
Entrainment mortality was assumed by EPA to be 100%. Back-calculations
were done in cases where facilities reported entrainment rates that assumed
<100% mortality. These calculations were limited by data reporting (i.e.,
species-specific survival rates were not always provided). Impingement
survival was included if presented in facility documents.
Biological/life
history
Natural mortality rates
Growth rates
Geographic
considerations
Forage valuation
Natural mortality rates (M) difficult to estimate, and vary with time and
geography. Model results are highly sensitive to M.
Simple exponential growth rates or simple size-at-age parameters used, and
assumed constant across all locations and years.
Migration patterns; I&E mortality occurring during spawning runs or larval
out-migration; location of harvestable adults; intermingling with other stocks.
Harvested species assumed to be food limited; trophic transfer efficiency to
harvested species estimated by EPA based on general models; no consideration
of trophic transfer to species not impinged and entrained.
Fish stock
characteristics
Fishery yield
Harvest behavior
Stock interactions
For most harvested species, only one species-specific value for fishing
mortality rate (F) was used for all stages subject to harvest. Used stage-specific
constants for fraction vulnerable to fishery.
No assumed dynamics among harvesters to alter fishing rates or preferences in
response to changes in stock size. Recreational access assumed constant (no
changes in angler preferences or effort).
I&E mortality losses assumed to be part of reported fishery yield rates on a
statewide basis. No consideration of possible substock harvest rates or
interactions, no unreported catch.
Ecological
system
Fish community
Spawning dynamics
Hydrology
Meteorology
Long-term trends in fish community composition or abundance were not
considered (general food webs assumed to be static), nor were indirect trophic
interactions. Used constant value for trophic transfer efficiency, and specific
trophic interactions were not considered. Trophic transfer to organisms not
impinged and entrained is not considered.
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to choice of spawning areas
and timing of migrations that could affect vulnerability to I&E mortality
(e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of intake structure).
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to flow regimes and tidal
cycles that could affect vulnerability to I&E mortality (e.g., presence of larvae
in vicinity of CWIS).
Sampled years assumed to be typical with respect to vulnerability to I&E
mortality (e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of intake structure).
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
3-19
-------
Economic Benefit Categories Associated with I&E Mortality
Reduction
Changes in CWIS design or operations resulting from the regulatory options for the proposed Section
316(b) regulation for in-scope facilities are expected to increase the numbers of aquatic organisms present
and increase local and regional fishery populations. They will do this by reducing impingement and
entrainment (I&E) mortality offish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms.
The aquatic organisms affected by CWISs provide a wide range of ecosystem services. Ecosystem
services are the physical, chemical, and biological functions performed by natural resources and the
human benefits derived from those functions, including both ecological and human use services (Daily
1997; Daily et al. 1997). Scientific and public interest in protecting ecosystem services is increasing with
the recognition that these services are vulnerable to a wide range of human activities and are difficult, if
not impossible, to replace with human technologies (Meffe 1992).
In addition to their importance in providing food and other goods of direct use to humans, the organisms
lost to impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E mortality) are critical to the continued functioning of
the ecosystems of which they are a part. Fish are essential for energy transfer in aquatic food webs,
regulation of food web structure, nutrient cycling, maintenance of sediment processes, redistribution of
bottom substrates, the regulation of carbon fluxes from water to the atmosphere, and the maintenance of
aquatic biodiversity (Holmlund and Hammer 1999; Peterson and Lubchenco 1997; Postel and Carpenter
1997; Wilson and Carpenter 1999). Many of these ecosystem services can be maintained only by the
continued presence of all life stages offish and other aquatic species in their natural habitats. Section 2.3
provided detail on potential CWIS impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Due to a lack of data, many of these
impacts could not be successfully evaluated or monetized.
4.1 Economic Benefit Categories Applicable to the Regulatory Options for In-
Scope Facilities
The economic benefits of reducing I&E mortality at in-scope facilities stem from both market and
nonmarket goods and services that the affected resources provide. These benefits can be divided into the
following categories (Table 4-1, below).
> Market benefits: Market benefits are positive welfare impacts that can be quantified using
money-denominated measures of consumer and producer surplus. The most obvious example of
market benefits from reduced I&E mortality is benefits to commercial fisheries. Changes in I&E
mortality will directly affect the price, quantity, and/or quality offish harvests; and the monetary
value of the changes can be measured directly through market measures of consumer and
producer behavior. Market benefits may be further categorized in terms of direct and indirect
benefits. By definition, all market benefits are use benefits, as they involve either direct or
indirect uses of goods or services.
• Market direct use benefits: Market direct use benefits are benefits related to goods directly
used, and bought and sold in markets; for example, fish caught for sale to consumers.
• Market indirect use benefits: Indirect use benefits are those that contribute indirectly to an
increase in welfare for users of the resource. Market indirect use benefits are benefits that
March 28, 2011 4-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
occur through indirect or secondary effects on marketed goods. For example, an increase in
the number of forage fish may increase the population of commercially valuable species,
which are marketed to consumers. Thus, reducing I&E mortality of forage species can
indirectly result in welfare gains for commercial fishers and consumers who purchase fish.
> Nonmarket benefits: Nonmarket benefits consist of goods and services that are not traded in the
marketplace, but are nonetheless positively affected by reduced I&E mortality. Higher catch rates
for recreational fishing are an obvious nonmarket benefit. Anglers place a high value on catching
fish during their fishing trips, so higher catch rates from reduced I&E mortality will translate
directly to greater utility from participation in recreational fishing. Because the monetary value of
these improvements cannot be established by observing market transactions, nonmarket valuation
techniques must be employed to estimate such benefits. Nonmarket benefits may be further
categorized in terms of direct and indirect use benefits, and nonuse benefits.
• Nonmarket direct use benefits: Nonmarket direct use benefits consist of goods and services
that have direct uses, but are not traded in the marketplace. Higher catch rates for recreational
fishing provide a typical nonmarket direct use benefit.
• Nonmarket indirect use benefits: Nonmarket indirect use benefits contribute indirectly to
an increase in welfare for nonmarketed uses of a resource. For example, the options' positive
impacts on local fisheries may generate an improvement in the population levels and diversity
offish-eating bird species. In turn, avid bird watchers might obtain greater enjoyment from
their outings, as they are more likely to see a wider mix or greater numbers of birds. The
increased welfare of the bird watchers is thus an indirect consequence of the regulatory
options' initial impact on fish..
• Nonuse benefits: Nonuse, or passive, benefits occur when individuals value improved
environmental quality without any past, present, or anticipated future use of the resource in
question. Individuals may gain utility simply from knowing that a particular good exists
(existence value), or from knowing that a good is available for others to use now and in the
future (bequest value). Nonuse benefits of reduced I&E mortality may include increased
biodiversity, improved conditions for the recovery of T&E species that have no direct or
indirect uses, and welfare gains to nonusers when reduced I&E mortality to forage species
improve overall ecosystem function.
Table 4-1 displays the benefit categories expected to be affected by the regulatory options considered for
the Section 316(b) regulation for in-scope facilities. The table also reveals the various data needs, data
sources, and estimation approaches associated with each category. Many ecosystem services with
potential nonuse values could not be quantified or monetized due to a lack of sufficient data. A complete
list of the ecosystem services potentially affect by reduction in I&E mortality is presented in Chapter 2
(Table 2-4).
March 28, 2011 4-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 4-1: Summary of Benefit Categories' Data Needs, Potential Data Sources, Approaches, and
Analyses Completed
Benefit Category
Basic Data Needs
Potential Data Sources/
Approaches/Analyses Completed
Market Goods, Direct Use
> Increased commercial landings
Estimated change in landings of specific
species
Estimated change in total economic
impact
> Based on facility-specific I&E
mortality data and ecological
modeling.
> Changes in commercial fishery
landings are estimated using a
market-based approach.
> Indirect economic impacts are not
estimated due to data constraints.
Market Goods, Indirect Use
Increase in:
> Equipment sales, rental, and repair
> Bait and tackle sales
> Consumer market choices
> Choices in restaurant meals
> Property values near the water
> Ecotourism (charter trips, festivals, other
organized activities with fees such as
riverwalks)
> Estimated change in landings of specific
species
> Relationship between increased
fish/shellfish landings and secondary
markets
> Local activities and participation fees
Estimated numbers of participating
individuals
Indirect market impacts are not
estimated, due to data constraints
such as lack of information on the
relationship between increased
fish/shellfish yield and secondary
impacts.
Nonmarket Goods, Direct Use
> Improved value of a recreational fishing
trip due to increased catch of
targeted/preferred species and incidental
catch
> Improved value of subsistence fishing
> Estimated number of affected anglers
> Value of an improvement in catch rate
Changes in the value of a
recreational fishing trip are estimated
based on benefit transfer (including
recreational use values of selected
T&E species).
Changes in the value of subsistence
fishing is not estimated.
> Increase in recreational fishing
participation
> Estimated number of affected anglers or
estimate of potential anglers
> Value of a fishing day
Not estimated due to data
constraints.
Nonmarket Goods, Indirect Use
Increase in value of boating, scuba-diving,
and near-water recreational experience
from:
> Enjoying observing fish while boating,
scuba-diving, hiking, or picnicking
> Watching aquatic birds fish or catch
aquatic invertebrates
> Estimated number of affected near-
water recreationists, divers, and boaters
> Value of boating, scuba-diving, and
near-water recreation experience
Not estimated due to data
constraints such as number of
affected recreational users.
> Increase in boating, scuba-diving, and
near-water recreation participation
> Estimated number of affected boating,
scuba-diving, and near-water
recreationists
> Value of a recreation day
Not estimated. Changes in
recreational participation are
expected to be negligible at the
regional level because fishery yield
impacts are generally small.
Nonuse Goods
Increase in nonuse values such as:
> Existence (stewardship)
> Altruism (interpersonal concerns)
> Bequest (interpersonal and
intergenerational equity) motives
> Appreciation of the importance of
ecological services apart from human
uses or motives (Table 2-4)
> I&E mortality estimates
> Primary valuation research using stated
preference approach
> Applicable studies upon which to
conduct benefit transfer
> Location of CWISs and T&E species
ranges
Estimate nonuse values for an
increase in relative fish abundance
within two benefits regions using
benefits transfer. Not estimated for
other regions due to a lack of
applicable studies.
Used geographic information
system (CIS) data to identify T&E
species potentially impacted by
CWISs based on the overlap of
CWIS locations and T&E species
ranges.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
4-3
-------
4.2 Market and Nonmarket Direct and Indirect Use Benefits from Reduced
I&E Mortality
Direct use benefits are the simplest to envision. The welfare of commercial, recreational, and subsistence
fishers is improved when fish stocks increase and their catch rates rise or effort decreases. Higher catch
rates increase the revenue and growth of commercial fisheries, the enjoyment of recreational fishing trips,
and the availability of food for subsistence fishers—all of which are quantifiable benefits arising directly
from changes in I&E mortality. Methodologies for estimating use values for recreational and commercial
species are well developed, and some of the species affected by I&E mortality have been extensively
studied. As a result, estimation of associated use values is often considered to be straightforward.
Indirect use benefits refer to welfare improvements for those individuals whose activities are enhanced as
an indirect consequence of fishery or habitat improvements generated by the regulatory options for in-
scope facilities. For example,an improvement in the population of a forage fish species may not be of any
direct consequence to recreational or commercial fishers. However, the increased presence of forage fish
will have an indirect effect on commercial and recreational fishing values if it increases food supplies for
commercial and recreational predatory species. Thus, improvements in forage species populations can
result in a greater number (and/or greater individual size) of those fish that are targeted directly by
recreational or commercial fishers. In such an instance, the incremental increase in recreational and
commercial fishing benefits would be an indirect consequence of the regulatory options' effect on forage
fish populations.
The following sections discuss the benefits estimates presented in each chapter of this report, and
techniques for estimating benefits of reduced I&E mortality for each category of benefits.9
4.2.1 Commercial Fisheries
Commercial fishing benefits include both direct and indirect market use values. The social benefits
derived from increased landings by commercial fishers can be valued by examining the markets through
which the landed fish are sold. The first step of the analysis involves a fishery-based assessment of I&E
mortality-related changes in commercial landings (pounds of commercial species as sold dockside by
commercial harvesters). The changes in landings are then valued according to market data from relevant
fish markets (dollars per pound) to derive an estimate of the change in gross revenue to commercial
fishers. The final steps entail converting the I&E mortality-related changes in gross revenues into
estimates of social benefits. These social benefits consist of the sum of the producers' and consumers'
surpluses that are derived as the changes in commercial landings work their way through the multi-market
commercial fishery sector.
Indirect use values in markets occur through increases in commercial species caused by increased
numbers of forage fish. An improvement in the population of a forage fish species may not be of any
direct consequence to commercial fishers. However, the increased presence of forage fish will have an
indirect effect on commercial fishing values if it increases food supplies for commercial predatory
species. Thus, improvements in forage species populations can result in a greater number (and/or greater
individual size) of those fish that are targeted directly by commercial fishers. In such an instance, the
9 Many of the fish species affected by I&E mortality at CWIS sites are harvested both recreationally and commercially. To
avoid double-counting the economic impacts of I&E mortality of these species, EPA determined, based on historic NMFS
landings data, the proportions of total species landings attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied these
proportions to the total number of affected fish.
March 28, 2011 4-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
incremental increase in commercial fishing benefits would be an indirect consequence of the regulatory
options' effect on forage fish populations. See Chapter 3 for a discussion on the indirect influence of
forage fish on abundance of commercial and recreational species.
Chapter 6 of this report provides more detail on EPA's analysis of commercial fishing benefits from
reducing I&E mortality at the in-scope facilities' cooling water intakes.
4.2.2 Recreational Fisheries
Recreational fishing benefits include both direct and indirect nonmarket use values. The benefits of
recreational use cannot be tracked in the market, since much of the recreational activity associated with
these fisheries occurs as nonmarket events. However, a variety of nonmarket valuation methods exist for
estimating use value, including both "revealed" and "stated" preference methods (Freeman III 2003).
These methods use other observable behavior to infer users' value for environmental goods and services.
Examples of revealed preference methods include travel cost, hedonic pricing, and random utility models.
Compared to nonuse values, nonmarket use values are often considered relatively easy to estimate, due to
their relationship to observable behavior, the variety of revealed preference methods available, and public
familiarity with the recreational services that surface waterbodies provide.
To evaluate the recreational benefits of the regulatory options for in-scope facilities, EPA developed a
benefit transfer approach based on a meta-analysis of recreational fishing valuation studies. The analysis
was designed to measure the various factors that determine willingness to pay (WTP) for catching an
additional fish per trip. The estimated meta-model allows calculation of the marginal value per fish for
different species, based on resource and policy context characteristics.
Indirect use values for forage species occur through increases in recreational species caused by increased
numbers of forage fish. An improvement in the population of a forage fish species may not be of any
direct consequence to recreational anglers. However, the increased presence of forage fish will have an
indirect effect on recreational fishing values if it increases food supplies for recreational predatory
species. Thus, improvements in forage species populations can result in a greater number (and/or greater
individual size) of those fish that are targeted directly by recreational anglers. In such an instance, the
incremental increase in recreational fishing benefits would be an indirect consequence of the regulatory
options' effect on forage fish populations. See Chapter 3 for a discussion on the indirect influence of
forage fish on abundance of commercial and recreational species.
Chapter 7 of this report provides detail on the application of the meta-regression model to estimating
recreational fishing benefits from the alternative regulatory options.
4.2.3 Subsistence Fishers
Subsistence fisheries benefits include both direct and indirect nonmarket use values. Subsistence use of
fishery resources can be an important issue in areas where socioeconomic conditions (e.g., the number of
low-income households) or the mix of ethnic backgrounds make such fishing economically or culturally
important to a component of the community. In cases of Native American use of affected fisheries, the
value of an improvement can sometimes be inferred from settlements in legal cases (e.g., compensation
agreements between affected tribes and various government or other institutions in cases of resource
acquisitions or resource use restrictions). For more-general populations, the value of improved
subsistence fisheries may be estimated from the costs saved in acquiring alternative food sources
(assuming the meals are replaced rather than foregone). This method may underestimate the value of a
subsistence-fishery meal to the extent that the store-bought foods may be less preferred by some
March 28, 2011 4-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
individuals than consuming a fresh-caught fish. Subsistence-fishery benefits are not included in EPA's
benefits regional analyses. Impacts on subsistence fishers may constitute an important environmental
justice consideration, leading to underestimation of the total benefits of the regulatory options. EPA's
analysis of the regulation's impacts on low-income populations and subsistence fishers is presented in
Chapter 9 of the Economic Analysis of the Proposed 316(b) Regulation.
4.2.4 Benefits from Improved Protection to T&E Species
T&E and other special status species can be adversely affected in several ways by CWISs. T&E species
can suffer direct harm from I&E mortality; they can suffer indirect impacts if I&E mortality at CWISs
adversely affects another species upon which the T&E species relies within the aquatic ecosystem (e.g., as
a food source); or they can suffer impacts if the CWIS disrupts their critical habitat (e.g., via thermal
discharges). The loss of individuals of listed species from CWISs is particularly important because, by
definition, these species are already rare and at risk of irreversible decline because of other stressors.
Benefits from improved protection of T&E species can include both direct and indirect nonmarket use
values, as well as nonuse values. EPA identified nine special status fish species, six in California and
three in the Inland region, for which I&E mortality data were available. Due to their special status as well
as the fact that most of these species have either very limited or no direct uses, the major portion of the
values for T&E species are nonuse values. However, some of these species have potentially significant
recreational and commercial use values (e.g., sturgeon and paddlefish). EPA applied benefit transfer to
estimate recreational use values for a subset of T&E species for which limited catch and release fisheries
exist. EPA did not estimate potential commercial use values of these species due to the lack of market
data.
Chapter 5 of this report provides more detail on EPA's analysis of T&E species benefits from reducing
I&E mortality at in-scope facilities' cooling water intakes.
4.3 Nonuse Benefits from Reduced I&E Mortality
Comprehensive estimates of total resource value include both use and nonuse values, such that the
resulting total value estimates may be compared to total social cost. Recent economic literature provides
substantial support for the hypothesis that nonuse values, such as option and existence values, are greater
than zero. In fact, small per capita nonuse values held by a substantial fraction of the population can be
very large in the aggregate. "Nonuse values, like use values, have their basis in the theory of individual
preferences and the measurement of welfare changes. According to theory, use values and nonuse values
are additive" (Freeman III 1993).10 Consequently, both EPA's own Guidelines for Preparing Economic
Analysis and OMB's Circular A-4, governing Regulatory Analysis, support the need to assess nonuse
values (USEPA 2000a; USOMB 2003). Excluding nonuse values from consideration is likely to
substantially understate total social values.
Reducing I&E mortality offish and shellfish may result in both use and nonuse benefits. Of the
organisms that are anticipated to be protected by the regulatory options for the Section 316(b) regulation
for in-scope facilities, only a tiny fraction will eventually be harvested by commercial and recreational
fishers and therefore can be valued with direct use valuation techniques. Unharvested fish, which were
not assigned direct use value in this analysis, constitute the majority—97 percent—of the total loss, as
10 This additive property holds under traditional conditions related to resource levels and prices for substitute goods in the
household production model (Freeman III 1993).
March 28, 2011 4-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
summarized in Table 4-2 which reports total I&E mortality losses and reduction in I&E mortality losses
by four loss categories: all species, forage species, total commercial and recreational species, harvested
commercial and recreational species. Although unlanded forage fish contribute to the yield of harvested
fish and therefore have an indirect use value that is captured by the direct use value of the commercial
species, this indirect use value represents only a portion of the total value of unlanded fish. Society also
values both landed and unlanded fish for reasons unrelated to their use value—for example, individual
welfare may be affected simply by knowing these fish exist. Additionally, nonuse values are likely to be
substantial because fish and other species found within aquatic habitats impacted directly and indirectly
by CWISs provide other valuable ecosystem goods and services. These include nutrient cycling and
ecosystem stability. Therefore, a comprehensive estimate of the welfare gain from reducing I&E mortality
must include an estimate of nonuse benefits.
In contrast to direct and indirect use values, nonuse values are often considered more difficult to estimate.
Stated preference methods, or benefit transfer based on stated preference studies, are the generally
accepted techniques for estimating these values (USEPA 2000a; USOMB 2003). Stated preference
methods rely on carefully designed surveys, which either (1) ask people about their WTP for particular
ecological improvements, such as increased protection of aquatic species or habitats with particular
attributes, or (2) ask people to choose between competing hypothetical "packages" of ecological
improvements and household cost where their choice implies a WTP value. In either case, values are
estimated by statistical analysis of survey responses.
Table 4-2: Summary of Baseline National I&E Mortality Losses and Reductions in
I&E Mortality Losses, by Regulatory Option
Baseline Reductions in Losses
IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Losses Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
All Species (million A1E) 2188.92 614.97 1981.55 2013.55
Forage Species (million A IE) 1654.78 525.66 1512.64 1535.44
Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E) 534.15 89.31 468.91 478.11
Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 59.41 15.66 53.28 54.05
A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 2.71 2.55 2.69 2.68
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities > 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Nonuse values may be more difficult to assess than use values for several reasons. First, nonuse values
are not associated with easily observable behavior. Second, nonuse values may be held by both users and
nonusers of a resource. Because nonusers may be less familiar with particular services provided by a
resource, their values may be different from the nonuse values for users of the same resource. Third, the
development of a defensible stated preference survey is often a time- and resource-intensive process.
Fourth, even carefully designed surveys may be subject to certain biases associated with the hypothetical
nature of survey responses (Mitchell and Carson 1989). Finally, efforts to disaggregate total WTP into its
use and nonuse components have proved troublesome (Carson et al. 1999).
Although EPA is not always able to estimate changes in affected resources' nonuse service values as part
of regulatory development, an extensive body of environmental economics literature reveals that the
public holds significant value for service flows from natural resources well beyond those associated with
direct uses (Boyd et al. 2001; Fischman 2001; Heal et al. 2001; Herman et al. 2001; Ruhl and Gregg
2001; Salzman et al. 2001; Wainger et al. 2001). Studies have documented public values for the nonuse
March 28, 2011 4-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
services provided by a variety of natural resources potentially affected by environmental impacts,
including fish and wildlife (Loomis et al. 2000; Stevens et al. 1991); wetlands (Woodward and Wui
2001); wilderness (Walsh et al. 1984); critical habitat for T&E species (Hagen et al. 1992; Loomis and
Ekstrand 1997; Whitehead and Blomquist 1991); shoreline quality (Grigalunas et al. 1988); and beaches,
shorebirds, and marine mammals (Rowe et al. 1992), among others. However, given EPA's regulatory
schedule, developing and implementing stated preference surveys to elicit total value (i.e., nonuse and
use) of environmental quality changes resulting from environmental regulations is often not feasible.11
Existing stated preference studies suggest that nonuse benefits of aquatic habitat improvements may be
significant. For example, results from a study of public values of migratory fish restoration projects in
Rhode Island showed that nonuse motives such as existence and bequest values were rated as "important"
or "very important" by 62 and 76 percent of survey respondents, respectively. Use motives such as
commercial and recreational fishing, on the other hand, were rated as "important" or "very important" by
only 38 and 43 percent of the survey respondents, respectively (Johnston et al. 2009, unpublished data).
Additional detail regarding Johnston et al. (2009) is provided in Chapter 8, Section 8.3.1.
Many ecosystems impacted by CWISs provide goods and services that contribute to well-being (see
Chapter 2), but may be generally unrecognized because of their indirect nature. As such, valuations based
on stated preferences are unlikely to capture the full complement of ecologically-based services with
economic value (Costanza and Folke 1997). Despite these limitations, benefit transfers based on stated
preference studies are the generally accepted techniques for estimating nonuse values. EPA was able to
identify a single study that could be used to estimates total values (nonuse and use values) for reductions
in I&E mortality in some regions. Chapter 8 of this report provides more detail on EPA's quantitative
analysis of nonuse benefits from reducing I&E mortality at the in-scope facilities' cooling water intakes.
1' EPA designed a stated preference survey to separately estimate total value (including use and nonuse value) of potential
aquatic resource improvements that might occur because of the proposed 316(b) regulation. However EPA did not have
sufficient time to fully develop and deploy this survey and derive reliable quantitative estimates of the monetary value of
reducing those impacts at the national level. Benefit transfer of values from existing stated preference studies was used by
EPA in the absence of an original study. For more details on development of the survey, see the Information Collection
Request entitled "Development of Willingness to Pay Survey Instrument for Section 316(b) Cooling Water Intake
Structures".
March 28, 2011 4-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
5 Impacts and Benefits on Threatened and Endangered Species
5.1 Introduction
Threatened and endangered (T&E) species are species vulnerable to future extinction or at risk of
extinction in the near future, respectively. These designations may be made because of low or rapidly
declining population levels, loss of essential habitat, or life history stages that are particularly vulnerable
to environmental alteration. In addition to T&E labels, the designation "species of concern" includes
species that warrant special protection due to inherent vulnerabilities to habitat modification, disturbance,
or other human impacts. Together, these stressors may result in the species becoming threatened or
endangered in the foreseeable future.12
The withdrawal of cooling water from streams, rivers, estuaries and coastal marine waters leads to the
impingement and entrainment (I&E) of a large number of aquatic organisms. For species vulnerable to
future extinction, impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E mortality) from cooling water intake
structures (CWISs) may represent a substantial portion of annual reproduction. Consequently, I&E
mortality may either lengthen recovery time, or hasten the demise of these species. For this reason, the
population-level and social values of T&E losses are likely to be disproportionately higher than the
absolute number of losses that occur.
Adverse effects of CWISs on T&E species may occur in several ways:
• Populations of T&E species may suffer direct harm as a consequence of I&E mortality. This
direct loss of individuals may be particularly important because T&E species have severely
depressed population levels that are approaching local, national, or global extinction.
• T&E species may suffer indirect harm if the CWIS substantially alters the food web in which
these species interact. This might occur as a result of altered populations of predator or prey
species, the removal of foundation species, or (for species with parasitic life history stages)
the loss of a host species.
• CWISs may alter habitat that is critical to the long-term survival of T&E species. This might
occur as a consequence of changes in the thermal characteristics of local waterbodies, altered
flow regimes, turbidity, or changes in substrate characteristics as a consequence of any of
these changes (Chapter 2).
By definition, T&E species are characterized by low population levels. As such, it is unlikely that these
species will be recorded in I&E mortality monitoring studies due to the logistical limitations of sampling
and identification effort, time of day, season, and year. For T&E species to be recorded in monitoring
studies, 1) an individual of a T&E species must be captured by a CWIS during the (often short) sampling
window, and 2) the organism must be identifiable. Thus, despite the fact that the population impacts of
I&E mortality on T&E species may be high, they are difficult to ascertain and quantify within a
framework designed for common, more-abundant species. Thus, EPA identifies spatial overlap between
CWISs and T&E species to estimate the potential for adverse I&E mortality impacts on T&E species.
To simplify the discussion, in this chapter EPA uses the terms "T&E species" and "special status species" interchangeably
to mean all species that are specifically listed as threatened or endangered, plus other species with special status designation
at the state or federal level.
March 28, 2011 5-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
From an economic perspective, T&E species affected by CWISs may have both use and nonuse values.
However, despite the existence of T&E species with potentially high use values (e.g., Pacific Salmonids),
the majority of T&E species affected by I&E mortality are obscure, relatively unknown, and may not
have any direct uses (e.g., delta smelt). Given the protected nature of T&E species and the fact that the
majority of T&E species do not have direct uses, the majority of the economic value for T&E species
must come from nonuse values. Strictly speaking, species-specific estimates of nonuse values held for the
protection of T&E species can be derived only by primary research using stated preference techniques.
However, the cost, administrative burden, and time required to develop primary research estimates to
value effects of the 316(b) regulation on T&E species are beyond the schedule and resources available to
EPA for this rulemaking. As an alternative, EPA considered a benefit transfer approach that relies on
information from existing studies (USEPA 2000a).
EPA was able to use a benefit transfer approach to estimate changes in recreational use values for a subset
of T&E species that are highly valued by recreational anglers (i.e., paddlefish13 and sturgeon).
Commercial and nonuse values are not monetized for any of the affected species. Therefore, benefit
estimates presented in this chapter are incomplete and likely to be highly conservative (i.e., low).
In this chapter, EPA explores the extent to which CWISs may affect species protected by the Endangered
Species Act on national and regional scales (Section 5.2), documents the value society places on the
protection of T&E species (Section 5.3), and applies economic valuation studies of T&E species to case
studies of sea turtles and fmfish in the Inland region (Section 5.4).
5.2 T&E Species Affected by CWISs
To assess the potential impacts of CWISs on T&E species, EPA constructed a database that identifies
spatial overlap between CWISs and vulnerable life history stages of all aquatic T&E species for which
data are available. The database allowed EPA to estimate the potential for adverse I&E mortality impacts
on T&E species.
5.2.1 T&E Species Identification and Data Collection
First, all species currently listed or in consideration for listing under the Endangered Species Act (as of
January 16, 2010) with aquatic life history stages were identified using the US Fish and Wildlife Service
Environmental Conservation Online System (USFWS 2010b). This primary list of all T&E species was
filtered to include only species with life history stages vulnerable to CWIS mortality according to life
history data. Examples of vulnerable stages include planktonic egg stages, free-swimming larval stages,
and adult life history stages that occur near shore. Life history data used to exclude species from further
consideration was obtained from a wide variety of sources (AFSC 2010; ASMFC 2010; Froese and Pauly
2009; NatureServe 2009; NEFSC 2010; PIFSC 2010a; PIFSC 2010b; SEFSC 2010; SWFSC 2010;
USFWS 201 Ob). After filtering by life history data, the list of T&E species potentially affected by I&E
mortality contained 247 species.
Whenever possible, the geographical distribution of T&E species susceptible to I&E mortality was
obtained in geographic information system (GIS) format as polygon (shape) files, line files (for
13 Note: the American Paddlefish is listed on T&E species lists for many states, but is not currently protected nationally under the
US Endangered Species Act. A review of the species' status in 1992 revealed that although the species did not then meet the
requirements to be listed as threatened at the federal level, the US Fish and Wildlife Service expressed its concern for the future
of the species.
March 28, 2011 5-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
inhabitants of small creeks and rivers) and as a subset of geodatabase files. Data sources include the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2010a), NCAA's Office of Response and Restoration (NOAA
2010a), NatureServe (NatureServe 2009), and NOAA NMFS (NMFS 2010b; NMFS 2010c; NMFS
2010d). For several freshwater species, geographic ranges were available only as 6-digit hydrologic unit
codes (HUC) (NatureServe 2009; USFWS 2010a). For these species, GIS data layers were generated
using a GIS HUC database obtained from the USGS (Steeves and Nebert 1994). For several species, no
GIS data could be acquired. For these species, species distribution descriptions were compared with
mapped CWISs, and inspected for geographic overlap. In all such cases (e.g., the "inarticulated
brachiopod," Lingula reevii, endemic to Kaneohe Bay, HI) there were no in-scope CWISs within 10
kilometers, and further inspection was not warranted.
5.2.2 Number of T&E Species Affected per Facility
To investigate the potential for individual facilities to affect a wide variety of T&E species, EPA
calculated the number of T&E species affected on a per-facility basis. This calculation allowed EPA to
assess the magnitude of differences between regions of CWIS effects on T&E species.
Nationally, 88 of the 247 aquatic T&E species assessed or 36 percent had vulnerable life history stages
that either overlapped with CWISs, or had records of entrainment or impingement mortality (Appendix
E). These species overlapped with 446 of 871 in-scope facilities (51 percent). Among facilities, the
variability in the number of T&E species potentially affected ranges between 0 and 26 species (Table
5-1), with more than 90 percent of facilities affecting fewer than 5 T&E species, and more than 99 percent
of facilities affecting fewer than 12 species (Figure 5-1).
Excluding facilities whose CWISs do not overlap with at least one T&E species, the average number of
species per facility is 3.89 (minimum 0, maximum 26) (Table 5-1). Sea turtles and freshwater mussels had
the highest overlap rate on a per-facility basis, averaging 4.83 and 3.53 species per facility, respectively.
Anadromous, freshwater, and marine fish had lower overlap rates with facility CWISs, averaging slightly
higher than 1 species per interacting facility (Table 5-1).
Driven by the high number of I&E mortality freshwater mussels overlapping with facility CWISs, the
majority of all species by facility interactions occur in the inland region. However, the shape of
cumulative distribution plots is similar among regions after accounting for sample size, suggesting that
the overall probability of a facility affecting one or more T&E is not a function of geographic region
(Figure 5-2).
March 28, 2011 5-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 5-1: Number of T&E Species with Geographical Distributions Overlapping In-
scope CWISs, on a Per-facility Basis
T&E Species per Facility3
All Facilities
Subset of Affected Species1
All T&E Species
T&E Freshwater Mussels
T&E Sea Turtles
T&E Anadromous Fish
Other T&E Freshwater Fish
Other T&E Marine Fish
# Species
88
43
6
13
21
o
J
Avg
1.99
1.14
4.83
0.13
0.09
0.13
Max
26
22
5
o
J
4
2
Interacting Facilities2
Avg
3.89
3.53
4.83
1.08
1.33
1.42
Max
26
22
5
3
4
2
T&E species included species of concern and species under review for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(freshwater) or NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (marine). Only species overlapping with a minimum of one CWIS
are included.
Interacting Facilities = all facilities with CWIS inside the range of at least one T&E species
3 Avg = average, Max = maximum
:"— oo
o _•
CS '•—'
0- 0
(D
o
\
0
n^
10
15
\^
20
25
Species per Facility
Figure 5-1: Empirical cumulative distribution function plot of the number of T&E species
potentially affected on a per-facility basis by in-scope facilities nationwide.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
5-4
-------
Is
4—»
—
O
-------
Table 5-2: Number of Facilities with CWISs Within the Geographical
Distribution of T&E Species, on a Per-species Basis
Facilities per T&E Species3
Subset of Affected Species1'2 Species Interactions _ Avg _ Max
All T&E Species
88
1734
19.70
T&E Sea Turtles
652
108.67
T&E Freshwater Mussels
43
836
19.44
85
T&E Anadromous Fish
13
115
8.85
64
Other T&E Freshwater Fish
21
64
3.05
Other T&E Marine Fish
17
5.67
11
T&E species included species of concern and species under review for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (freshwater) or NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (marine). Only species overlapping with a
minimum of one CWIS are included.
Two species of coral are included in the 'All Species' category, and not in any subcategory
3 Avg = average, SD = standard deviation, Med = median, Max = maximum
When species were analyzed within life history trait, sea turtles had the highest average number of
overlapping facilities (108.7) (Table 5-2), a value skewed by these species' extensive ranges (i.e., entire
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and/or Pacific coast), and the potential for I&E mortality impacts at all life
stages. The six sea turtle species examined were the six species with the highest number of overlapping
CWISs. Following sea turtles, freshwater mussels had the highest average number of overlapping
facilities (19.4 facilities per species). Excepting turtles, freshwater mussels accounted for 9 of the top 10
species sorted by the count of CWISs affecting them (Figure 5-4). Following freshwater mussels,
anadromous fish species were most likely to be affected, with an average of 8.9 facilities per species
(Table 5-2). This average, however, is highly skewed by a single species offish (the pallid sturgeon,
o
03
03
3
|
o
CO
o
JIj ^O
.2 o
^j
t-H
o
O ^
IN
O
p
O
5 10 15 20
Species per Facility
25
Figure 5-3: Empirical cumulative distribution function plot of the number of facilities that
overlap geographically with vulnerable life history stages of T&E species. Species represented
on the plot are those that overlap with a minimum of one in-scope facility. Sample size is 88.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
5-6
-------
Scaphirhynchus albus) which accounted for 54 percent of all overlap between facilities and anadromous
fish species (Figure 5-4). Excepting the pallid sturgeon, anadromous fish had a similar level of potential
exposure to I&E mortality as non-diadromous fish: freshwater and marine fish species averaged
approximately 3.5 facilities with potential I&E mortality per species (Table 5-2, Figure 5-4). In addition
to finfish and shellfish, elkhorn and staghorn corals (Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis) also have the
potential for I&E mortality impacts: both species have the potential to be affected by 25 facilities.
5.2.4 Summary of Overlap Between Cooling Water Intake Structures and T&E Species
Nationally, 36 percent of T&E species assessed have vulnerable life history stages that overlap with a
minimum of one CWIS (Table 5-1), suggesting a high probability of T&E populations' being affected by
I&E mortality. The potential for these impacts is widespread: T&E species overlap CWISs in all
geographical regions of the country (Figure 5-2), in all waterbody types, and across multiple life histories
(Figure 5-4). Overall, 51 percent of in-scope facilities overlap with at least one T&E species (Table 5-1),
while 36 percent of aquatic endangered species overlap with at least one CWIS. Finally, our analysis
includes only federally listed T&E species. Thus, the number of T&E species (including those species
defined as threatened or endangered under state law) affected by I&E mortality is understated.
W ,-r
_0> 5 1
O
-------
5.2.5 Species with Documented I&E Mortality
EPA identified several T&E species with documented I&E mortality (Table 5-3). In addition to
documented instances of T&E mortality, EPA identified I&E mortality not identified to species but whose
genus matched T&E species overlapping with the reporting facility's CWIS (Table 5-3). Although these
are not confirmed I&E mortality of T&E species, they provide evidence that additional T&E species are
likely to be directly affected by I&E mortality.
Including only individuals identified to species, EPA identified more than 130,000 baseline losses of
T&E species (Table 5-3). However, for several reasons, T&E species suffering I&E mortality are likely to
be underreported. First, T&E species are found at low population densities, and the volume of water
sampled by facility-level impingement and entrainment studies is low. Thus, it is likely that many T&E
species suffered I&E mortality outside of sampling periods and are never recorded. Second, because a
high proportion of all I&E mortality occur during early life history stages (i.e., egg, larvae) when species
identification is more challenging, T&E species may not be recognized during sampling (e.g., endangered
species of darter, including the Cherokee and duskytail darters, may be reported as "darter," or
"unidentified darter").
5.3 Societal Values for Preservation of T&E Species Affected by I&E Mortality
This section examines governmental spending, policy decisions, and private donations on the preservation
and restoration of T&E species. It provides evidence of societal preferences for T&E preservation and
spending related to ensuring sustainability of T&E species.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) annually reports expenditures for the conservation of T&E
species. Using the report for fiscal year 2008 (USFWS 2009) EPA calculated total government (federal
and state) expenditures for the 88 federally listed T&E species with vulnerable life history stages that
overlap CWISs (Table 5-4). Excluding expenditures on T&E species not subject to I&E mortality,
expenditures on T&E species potentially affected by CWISs exceeded $465 million, and accounted for 86
percent of all governmental spending on Fish, Marine Reptiles, Crustaceans, Corals and Clams listed
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during FY 2008 (USFWS 2009).
In addition to direct governmental spending associated with the protection of T&E species that overlap
with CWISs, the presence of these species often guides policy discussions, and may require the
installation of abatement technologies that reduce T&E species mortality and allow these species to
migrate. For example, the life history of the American paddlefish (Polyodon spathuld) (listed on many
state T&E species lists, but not protected under the ESA) is occasionally discussed during Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission relicensing of dams, because of the animal's highly migratory life history. In the
Wisconsin River, for example, Alliant Energy has been required to install a multi-million dollar fishway
at the Prairie du Sac dam, primarily to allow the passage of paddlefish and lake sturgeon (WPLC v. FERC
2004).
March 28, 2011 5-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 5-3: T&E species with documented I&E
resolution reported for the I&E mortality loss
Resolution Common Name
Species Atlantic Salmon
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon
Delta Smelt
Green Sea Turtle
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Longfin Smelt
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle
Pallid Sturgeon
Sacramento Splittail
Steelhead Trout
Topeka Shiner
Genus Alabama Sturgeon
Atlantic Sturgeon
Blackside Dace
Blue Shiner
Boulder Darter
Cherokee Darter
Chum Salmon
Duskytail Darter
Etowah Darter
Green Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Neosho Madtom
Palezone Shiner
Pygmy Madtom
Scioto Madtom
Shortnose Sturgeon
Snail Darter
Unarmored Threespine Stickleback
mortality. Species are separated
Latin Name
Salmo salar
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus kisutch
Hypomesus transpacificus
Chelonia mydas
Eretmochelys imbricata
Lepidochelys kempii
Dermochelys coriacea
Caretta caretta
Spirinchus thaleichthys"
Lepidochelys olivacea
Scaphirhynchus albus
Pogonichthy macrolepidotus"
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Notropis Topeka
Scaphirhynchus suttkusi
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus
Phoxinus cumberlandensis
Cyprinella caerulea
Etheostoma wapiti
Etheostoma scotti
Oncorhynchus keta
Etheostoma percnurum
Etheostoma etowahae
Acipenser medirostris
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Noturus placidus
Notropis albizonatus
Noturus stanauli
Noturus trautmani
Acipenser brevirostrum
Percina tanasi
Gasterosteus aculeatus •williamsoni
by the taxonomic
Baseline I&E Mortality
Qualitative
5,470b
Qualitative
62,526b
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
5-50b
24,9 19b
Qualitative
50
45,188b
5b
15b
8,174b
785,667
10b
94,608,786
3,529,746
3,529,746
22
3,529,746
3,529,746
785,667
785,667
41,021b
19,421,686b
41,021b
41,021b
785,667
259,500b
2,922b
Notes: Species listed as threatened or endangered under state laws, such as the American Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), are not
included in this list.
"Qualitative" indicates the species is reported by name from a minimum of one facility, but no loss estimates are provided.
Baseline losses reported for genera reflect losses for all species within the genus. Losses are likely dominated by more-common
congeners.
" This species is under review for listing under the Endangered Species Act
b This estimate is not derived using extrapolation procedures
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
5-9
-------
Considerations for T&E species have also been responsible for changes in water diversions on the San
Joaquin-Sacramento River delta, limiting water for downstream users. Under current regulations, the
volume of water removed from the San-Joaquin-Sacramento River at the Banks Pumping Plant is limited
from December to June, to protect Delta Smelt (NRDC v. Kempthorne 2007). This restriction limits the
volume of water available for consumption as drinking water and for use in large-scale irrigation projects.
Water restrictions, due to the potential for negative effects on Delta Smelt populations, have been
estimated to result in the loss of 21,100 farm-related jobs and $703 million in agricultural revenue in 2009
alone (Boxall 2010; Howitt et al. 2009).14
Table 5-4: Federal and State Expenditures for T&E
Species Overlapping with CWIS
Expenditure
Life History (2009$, millions)
Anadromous Fish $ 383.2
Corals $ 0.3
Freshwater Fish $ 44.4
Freshwater Mussels $ 5.6
Marine and Estuarine Fish $ 0.2
Sea Turtles $ 33.9
All Species Overlapping CWIS $ 467.6
All Fish, Marine Reptile, Crustacean,
Coral, and Clam Species $ 541.7
Although government spending and policy decisions made to protect or enhance stocks of T&E species
are not direct indications of economic benefits, they indicate that society does place a significant value on
protecting and restoring species of concern.
5.4 Assessment of Benefits to T&E Species
5.4.1 Economic Valuation Methods
For several reasons, it is difficult to estimate the benefits of preserving T&E species by reducing I&E
mortality. First, the contribution to ecosystem stability, ecosystem function, and life history remain
relatively unknown for many T&E species. Second, because much of the wildlife economic literature
focuses on commercial and recreational benefits that are not relevant for many protected species (i.e., use
values), there is a paucity of economic data focused on the benefits of preserving T&E species.
Consequently, nonuse values comprise the principal source of benefit estimates for most T&E species.
To obtain an accurate estimate of the nonuse values of T&E species affected by I&E mortality, 1)
quantitative I&E mortality impacts, and the benefits of policy options, must be estimated for T&E
species; and 2) an economic value must be obtained for the value of reducing I&E mortality as a
consequence of increased population sizes, extinction avoidance, and, for certain species (e.g.,
Salmonids), the potential for re-establishment of a commercial fishery.
14 Water diversion in the San Joaquin-Sacramento River is currently undergoing active litigation. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota
Water Authority, etal. v. Salazar, etal, USDC Case No. 1:09-CV-407 OWW GSA, and consolidated cases.
March 28, 2011 5-10
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Benefit transfer involves extrapolating existing estimates of nonmarket values to geographic locations or
species that differ from the original analytical situation. Thus, the approach transfers estimates of values
for preserving T&E species in one region to another region, or to a similar species. Ideally, the resource
(i.e. species), policy variable (e.g., change in species status, recovery interval, population size, etc.), and
the benefitting population (i.e., defined human population) are identical. Such a match rarely occurs.
Despite discrepancies in these variables, however, a benefits transfer approach can provide useful insights
into the social benefits gained by reducing I&E mortality of T&E species.15
5.4.2 Case Studies
EPA attempted to estimate the benefits of regulation for all T&E species with documented and quantified
losses at CWIS. In most cases, EPA was unable to locate or calculate key components of the analysis
necessary to apply a benefits transfer approach. However, EPA was able to obtain sufficient data to
estimate the economic benefits to two categories of T&E species: a subset of T&E fish species in the
inland region, and loggerhead sea turtles. The case studies of potential economic benefits from a decrease
in T&E mortality are discussed below.
5.4.2.1 Inland Region
Baseline Losses of Special Status Species and Reductions in Losses Due to Regulatory Options
EPA estimated losses for three T&E species in the Inland region: pallid sturgeon, American paddlefish,
and Topeka shiner. However, sufficient data were available to estimate the benefits of regulation for only
the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), and the American paddlefish (Polyodon spathula). As such,
benefits estimates address only 80-84 percent of documented T&E A1E losses in the Inland region (Table
5-5).
The pallid sturgeon is listed as an endangered species under the ESA; the American paddlefish is not
listed federally. In the early 1990s, the U.S. FWS conducted a review of the paddlefish for threatened
status, but ultimately did not list the species (Allardyce 1991). However, the review noted that immediate
efforts were needed to restore stocks and degraded habitats (Allardyce 1991). Although not currently
protected federally, paddlefish are protected by 11 states.
The American paddlefish is a large (85 inches length and more than 220 Ibs) species with roe suitable for
caviar. The species once supported a large commercial fishery in the Mississippi Valley, and currently
supports a limited recreational fishery in some states. Likewise, the pallid sturgeon is one of the largest
(30-60 inches) fishe found in the Missouri-Mississippi River drainage, with specimens weighing up to 85
pounds. Because their large size makes them a desirable commercial and trophy sport fish, and because
they have roe suitable for caviar, both pallid sturgeon and American paddlefish have potentially
significant direct use values. All extractive uses of the pallid sturgeon, however, are prohibited under the
ESA.
To estimate total baseline losses due to I&E mortality, EPA used the EAM to model AlEs for each of the
three T&E species (Chapter 3).16 The choice of facilities used to extrapolate I&E mortality from model
facilities was based on species' historic ranges and current distributions. In addition to baseline estimates
of I&E mortality for pallid sturgeon, paddlefish, and Topeka shiner, EPA calculated reductions in losses
under three regulatory options (Table 5-5).
15 Types of benefit transfer studies are discussed at length in U.S. EPA (2000a).
16 Paddlefish and pallid sturgeon losses were observed at nine and two model facilities, respectively.
March 28, 2011 5-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 5-5: Annual Baseline I&E Mortality and Reductions in Baseline I&E Mortality
of T&E Species at In-scope Facilities in the Inland Region, by Regulatory Option
(A1E)
Species
Pallid Sturgeon
Paddlefish
Topeka Shiner
Total
Value Type
Nonuse
Use and Nonuse
Nonuse
Baseline3
17,628
88
3,669
21,384
Option 1
8,631
73
3,069
11,773
Option 2
15,946
85
3,546
19,577
Option 3
16,317
86
3,581
19,984
* The I&E mortality data used to develop regional estimates are from sampling at the Wabash and Cayuga facilities in
1976, the only year of sampling data for these facilities.
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = 1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
Benefit Transfer Approach: Estimated WTP for Protection of Inland T&E Species
A Nonuse Values
EPA identified two studies that estimated both nonuse and use values for sturgeon. One study found that
citizens of Maine are willing to pay $37.02 (2009$) as a one-time tax to create a self-sustaining
population of shortnose sturgeon (Kotchen and Reiling 2000), a species listed as endangered under the
ESA (NMFS 2004). A separate study found that lake sturgeon is a popular wildlife-viewing species in
Wisconsin, and that viewers place a substantial value on protection of lake sturgeon populations. The
average viewer's WTP to maintain the current sturgeon population of Wisconsin's Lake Winnebago
system was $121.30 (2009$). Since the estimated number of sturgeon viewers in 2002 was 3,176
individuals, total WTP for sturgeon-viewing opportunities in the Winnebago system was $0.39 million
(2009$). Together, the results of these studies indicate that nonuse values for preservation of sturgeon are
likely to be significant. However, EPA was unable to monetize total nonuse benefits from reduced I&E
mortality, because reliable population estimates needed to transfer the values were unavailable.
B Use Values
Pallid sturgeon and paddlefish have potentially high commercial use values as sources of roe. This value
has increased dramatically owing to the collapse of Caspian Sea sturgeon populations (Speer et al. 2000).
Paddlefish roe have been reported to sell for more than $300 per pound, and as much as 3 Ibs of roe may
be harvested from a large female (McKean 2007). Despite these reports, EPA was unable to reliably
quantify total commercial values for these species due to a lack of market data.
Recreational use values for sturgeon and paddlefish caught in inland waters or paddlefish were not
available. Based on a review of literature describing these species, EPA determined that sturgeon species
(including white, green, and pallid sturgeons) and paddlefish share many characteristics, including roe
suitable for caviar, and their value as game fish. Consequently, WTP values for sturgeon obtained in
California were used to value recreational use of these species in the Inland region. A limited recreational
fishery (mostly catch and release) exists for paddlefish in several states; although harvesting pallid
sturgeon is illegal, the species is sometimes caught by recreational anglers.
To estimate recreational use values for paddlefish and pallid sturgeon, EPA applied estimates from a
random utility model (RUM) analysis conducted to evaluate recreational fishing benefits of the 2004
Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule. Model results indicate that California anglers were willing to pay
March 28, 2011 5-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
$69.88 (2009$) to catch a sturgeon (USEPA 2004b), a value transferred to anglers for pallid sturgeon and
paddlefish in the Inland region (Table 5-6).17
The undiscounted recreational use value from eliminating baseline I&E mortality is approximately $1,238
thousand, while use values from reducing pallid sturgeon and paddlefish I&E mortality range from $608
thousand to $1,146 thousand for the three regulatory options considered. Annualized benefits range from
$498 to $719 thousand at a 3 percent discount rate, and from $454 to $561 thousand at a 7 percent
discount rate. EPA notes that these value estimates underestimate total values of reducing I&E mortality
to T&E species in the Inland region, because both nonuse and commercial values, likely to be substantial,
are not incorporated.
Table 5-6: Estimated Annual WTP for Eliminating or Reducing I&E Mortality of Special
Status Fish Species at In-scope Facilities in the Inland Region, by Regulatory Option
(2009$)
Annual Benefits (2009$, thousands)
T&E Species
Pallid Sturgeon
Paddlefish
Total Undiscounted
Baseline
$1,231.8
$6.1
$1,238.0
Option 1
$603.1
$5.1
$608.2
Option 2
$1,114.3
$5.9
$1,120.2
Option 3
$1,140.3
$6.0
$1,146.2
3% Discount Rate
Annualized Value
$1,144.3
$498.0
$719.0
$717.8
7% Discount Rate
Annualized Value
$1,140.0
$454.3
$560.7
$549.7
11 The I&E mortality data used to develop regional estimates are from sampling at the Wabash and Cayuga facilities in 1976,
the only year of sampling data for these facilities.
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = 1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for Facilities
> 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere.
5.4.2.2 Potential Nonuse Values for T&E Species in the Inland Region
To illustrate the potential magnitude of nonuse values for T&E species affected by I&E mortality in the
Inland region, EPA applied a WTP meta-analytical model (Richardson and Loomis 2009) to hypothetical
scenarios. Because EPA does not currently have region-wide I&E mortality for all T&E species, nor
population models to estimate the effect of I&E mortality on population size, estimates are presented only
to assess the range of benefits potentially resulting from 316(b) regulatory options. The modeled
scenarios estimate the WTP for 0.25 percent and 0.5 percent increases for all T&E fish populations in the
Inland region.
EPA estimated nonuse values using benefit transfer according to Richard and Loomis (2009) (details in
Appendix F, Section F.3). Excepting all policy-relevant variables, EPA used the mean values for all
model parameters, and converted estimates to 2009$ using the Consumer Price Index (USBLS 2010).
For a 0.25 percent change in T&E fish population size, projected WTP per household per year is $ 1.02
(2009$). With 59.6 million households18, total WTP for T&E fish in the Inland region is $60.31 million.
17 The Phase II analysis did not estimating WTP for catching a sturgeon in other states. Given similarity in species characteristics
EPA used WTP for sturgeon caught in California to value sturgeon and paddlefish species in the Inland region.
18 Household number in the Inland region is calculated for states where at least T&E species affected by I&E mortality is
found.
March 28, 2011 5-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
For a 0.5 percent change in T&E fish populations, WTP per household is $1.85 per year, resulting in
WTP values of $110.25 million in the Inland region (all values 2009$).
5.4.2.3 Sea Turtles
Six species of sea turtles are found in U.S. waters: green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys
imbricata), Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead
(Caretta caretta), and Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles. All have extensive ranges, migrate
long distances during their lifetime, and are listed as either threatened or endangered (T&E) under the
ESA. Because of these large ranges, there is substantial overlap between sea turtle habitat and CWISs for
in-phase power generating and manufacturing facilities. Additionally, since individuals of all ages and
sizes are susceptible to impingement and entrainment (Norem 2005), there are more than 730 potential
species x CWIS interactions that may result in the injury or death of these T&E species (Table 5-1, details
in Appendix Section F.I).
Evidence for Public Values for Sea Turtles
In addition to research sponsored by the National Science Foundation and various private philanthropic
organizations, federal and state governmental spending on sea turtle protection under the ESA totaled
$33.8 million in FY2008 (Table 5-4). Moreover, there are dozens of academic, nonprofit, and ecotourism
organizations that recruit thousands of volunteers every year to participate in sea turtle conservation and
research projects (Appendix Table F-2). Volunteers are often required to undergo substantial training at
their own expense and commit to long hours (often during the night). For example, the nonprofit group
Earthwatch matches volunteers with academic researchers working at field stations around the world. By
paying to spend time working with scientists on research projects, volunteers support sea turtle research
and conservation both financially and logistically, working to gain first-hand experience of conservation
issues. Trips may last from days to several weeks, and often require a commitment of 10 or more hours
work per day. For example, on one 10-day volunteer trip with a cost of $2,450 (plus airfare), volunteers
spend time tagging, measuring, and weighing leatherback seat turtles in Trinidad, patrolling beaches from
sundown to the early hours of the morning (Earthwatch Institute 2010).
Baseline Losses of Special Status Species and Reductions in Losses Due to Regulatory Options
There are several passive-use (e.g., wildlife viewing and photography) and nonuse values associated with
U.S. sea turtle populations. Many households express passive use value by participating in ecotourism
activities, such as visiting sea turtle nesting areas, or by participating in sea turtle conservation activities
(Frazer 2005). Additionally, a high proportion of governmental expenditures on T&E species are for turtle
species (Table 5-4), suggesting that the public values the preservation of sea turtle populations.
Power plants are known to entrain and impinge all six species of sea turtles found in U.S. waters (Norem
2005), with more than 730 occurrences of overlap between species ranges and CWISs (Table 5-1).
Incidences of mortality have been reported at facilities in California, Texas, Florida, South Carolina,
North Carolina, and New Jersey (National Research Council 1990; Plotkin 1995). These facilities span a
wide range of intake flows (fewer than 30 to more than 1,400 million gallons per day average intake
flow), suggesting that sea turtle mortality is not limited to large intakes. Although quantitative reports are
available from a few power stations, high-quality data is available from only one source, the St. Lucie
Nuclear Power Plant, at Hutchinson Island, FL, where annual capture rates range from 350 to 1,000
turtles (Appendix Table F-l). Despite the fact that mortality rates due to entrainment are estimated to be <
3 percent, approximately 85 percent of entrained organisms show evidence of injury as a result of
entrainment (Norem 2005). As such, true mortality rates from CWISs may be higher than reported,
March 28, 2011 5-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
particularly for individuals who are recaptured repeatedly (37 percent of green and 13 percent of
loggerhead sea turtles entrained between May and December 2000 were recaptured individuals) (Norem
2005).
Although the magnitude of I&E mortality is believed to be small relative to fishing-related mortality, the
cumulative impact of I&E mortality is unclear. The only study presenting a quantitative estimate of
annual I&E mortality estimated mortality rates to be between 5 and 50 individuals per year (Plotkin
1995). Consequently, EPA does not believe sufficient data exist to estimate baseline sea turtle mortality
due to entrainment and impingement at regional or national scales. However, due to lower population
sizes, long life-span, and high reproductive potential of adult turtles (Grouse et al. 1987), EPA believes
the effect of 316(b) regulation is likely to have a small effect on the long-term viability of turtle
populations.
Benefit Transfer Approach: Potential WTP for Protection of Sea Turtle Species
A Per-household WTP
EPA identified a study that used a stated preference valuation approach to estimate the total economic
value (i.e., use and nonuse values) of a management program designed to reduce the risk of extinction for
loggerhead sea turtles (Whitehead 1993). The mail survey asked North Carolina households whether they
were willing to pay a bid amount for a management program that reduces the probability that loggerhead
sea turtles will be extinct in 25 years.
EPA used Whitehead (1993) to assess the range of benefits potentially resulting from 316(b) regulatory
options (detailed methodology in Appendix Section F.2). Available data sources and biological models
were reviewed to assess the potential impact of baseline losses and reductions on the probability of sea
turtle extinction over 25 years. Although analyses of sea turtle extinction risk have been conducted (e.g.,
Conant et al. 2009), EPA was unable to identify an existing model or analysis that could be readily used
in conjunction with available mortality data to estimate the marginal impacts of CWISs on sea turtle
extinction risk. Estimates from the literature suggest that I&E mortality is of relatively low importance
compared to other human-induced mortality such as shrimp trawling and other fisheries (Plotkin 1995).
However, Grouse et al. (1987) found that mortality at juvenile and subadult life stages can have a
substantial effect on population growth, suggesting that small changes in survivorship at these age classes
could have a measurable impact on extinction risk. EPA believes that the marginal change in extinction
probability of loggerhead sea turtles due to 316(b) regulatory options is unlikely to be lower than 0.01
(i.e., a 1 percent decrease in the probability over 25 years). This assessment is based upon reports that
I&E mortality may result in the loss of more than 100 turtles per year (Appendix Table E-l), and because
turtle population growth rates are known to be sensitive to changes in juvenile and subadult mortality
(Grouse etal. 1987).
EPA used a value of 0.01 within Whitehead's (1993) modeling framework to bound household values for
changes in extinction risk for loggerhead sea turtles as a consequence of 316(b) regulation (details of this
calculation are in Appendix Section F.2). Although this assessment is not based on formal quantitative
analysis of extinction risk, it is intended to illustrate the range of potential benefits associated with
reductions in sea turtle losses. Using the published mean values for all other model parameters, EPA
calculated an annual household value of $0.35 (2009$). Estimates were converted to 2009 dollars using
the consumer price index (USBLS 2010).
March 28, 2011 5-15
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
B Total WTPfor all Households
Whitehead's (1993) study for loggerhead sea turtle management activities was based on a state-wide
survey of North Carolina residents. However, the large geographic range of sea turtles suggests that
households of many coastal states through their U.S. range would value activities that decrease their
extinction risk. There is also the potential for differential values within and across states. Households
farther from the resource may value sea turtle survival less than households near the ocean, due to lower
likelihood of participation in passive uses of the resource. Although EPA recognizes that the application
of the benefit transfer may overestimate household values for states with population centers far from sea
turtle habitat, evidence from the literature suggests that households may value changes in environmental
resource that are occurring at great distances. For example, Pate and Loomis (1997) found that
respondents were willing to ascribe stated preference values to environmental amenity changes in other
states. As such, by focusing on residents of coastal states only, estimated benefits may undervalue
national willingness to pay for the preservation of loggerhead sea turtles.
For the purposes of assessing potential benefits from improvements to a sea turtle population, EPA
focused solely on impacts to loggerhead sea turtles (one of six T&E sea turtle species in the US). By
focusing only on loggerhead sea turtles, EPA notes that estimated benefits are likely to be lower than
those held by individuals for all T&E turtle species. This species of turtles was chosen because they are
late-maturing, have an existing population model (Grouse et al. 1987), an existing valuation study
(Whitehead 1993), and are the most commonly affected species of turtle (Appendix Table F-l). The U.S.
range of loggerhead sea turtles includes the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and North
Atlantic 316(b) regions (USFWS 2010c). Assuming affected populations include all households within
states with 316(b) existing facilities that potentially have an impact loggerhead sea turtles, 53.35 million
households would be willing to pay for improved protection of this species (Table 5-7). By applying the
mean household value of $0.35 (2009$) across all four regions, the total annual WTP for a 1 percent
increase in the survival probability of loggerhead sea turtles annualized at a 3% discount rate over 25
years is $16.6 million. Annualized benefits for each region are presented in Table 5-7, assuming that
benefits begin to accrue in 2012 and continue throughout the compliance period. Because EPA does not
currently have accurate national estimates of I&E mortality for turtle species, nor are population models
available that estimate the effect of 316(b) regulation on population size and extinction risk, estimates are
presented only to assess the potential range of benefits, and are not included in national totals. Actual
benefits may be higher or lower than these estimates, with Option 2 and Option 3 likely to provide
substantially greater benefits than Option 1.
March 28, 2011 5-16
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 5-7: Monetized Benefits of a 1 Percent Increase in the Probability that Loggerhead
Sea Turtles Will Not Be Extinct in 25 Years
Region
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico3
Total
States Included
CT, MA, ME, NH,
RI
DE, MD, NJ, NY,
PA, VA
FL, GA, NC, SC
FL, LA, MS, TX
-
Number of
Households
(millions)
5.40
20.97
11.85
15.13
53.35
Annualized Benefits
(2009$, millions)
3% Discount Rate
$1.67
$6.51
$3.67
$4.69
$16.55
7 % Discount Rate
$1.62
$6.31
$3.56
$4.40
$16.04
* Florida households are included in both the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. To prevent double-counting, Florida
households were apportioned between these regions based on relative AIF.
Note: Because of uncertainty in estimates of increased survival probability, and because benefits were not calculated for options,
these values are not included in national totals.
5.4.3 Limitations and Uncertainties
Table 5-8 summarizes the caveats, omissions, biases, and uncertainties known to affect the estimates
developed for the benefits analysis of sea turtles (Section 5.4.2.3), and T&E finfish in the Inland (Section
5.4.2.1) region.
Table 5-8: Caveats, Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the T&E Species Benefits Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate Comments
Change in T&E populations due to
I&E mortality is uncertain
Uncertain
Projected changes in number offish affected may be
underestimated because neither cumulative impacts of
I&E mortality over time nor interactions with other
stressors are considered.
I&E mortality effects are not
estimated for all T&E species and
all regions
Estimates understated
EPA was unable to estimate I&E mortality of T&E
species for all regions, due to lack of data. The large
amount of overlap between T&E ranges and CWIS
suggests that many affected species are likely to be
missing from I&E mortality reports.
Benefit estimates include only a
subset of species identified as
affected
Estimates understated
EPA was unable to apply benefit transfer of values for
all affected species. Benefits estimates address 80-84
percent of documented T&E A1E losses in the Inland
region.
Benefit estimates used in benefit
cost analysis include only
recreational use values
Estimates understated
EPA applied recreational use values to estimate benefits
for the species included in the analysis. T&E species
have primarily nonuse values, which were not
monetized. In addition, some of the affected species
have commercial use values, which were not estimated.
Benefit transfer introduces
uncertainties
Uncertain
EPA applied a recreational use value for sturgeon in
California to value sturgeon and paddlefish in the Inland
region. This value may over- or understate recreational
values in the Inland region.
Ecological consequences of
reduced numbers of T&E species
Estimates understated
WTP values are unlikely to include damage to food-
webs and ecosystem stability as a consequence of the
removal or restoration of T&E species.
Effects of thermal impacts from
CWIS on T&E populations is
uncertain
Uncertain
EPA has no data with respect to the effect of thermal
discharge on T&E species.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
5-17
-------
6 Commercial Fishing Benefits
Commercial fisheries can be adversely affected by impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E
mortality) in addition to many other stressors. Commercially landed fish are exchanged in markets with
observable prices and quantities; however, estimating the change in economic surplus from increases in
the number of commercially landed fish requires consideration of various conceptual and empirical
issues. This chapter provides an overview of these issues, and indicates how EPA estimated the change in
commercial fisheries-related economic surplus associated with the elimination of baseline I&E mortality
and reduction in baseline I&E mortality under the regulatory options considered for the Section 316(b)
regulation. The chapter includes a review of the concept of economic surplus, and describes economic
theory and empirical evidence regarding the relationship between readily observable dockside prices and
quantities and the economic welfare measures of producer and consumer surplus that are suitable for
benefit-cost estimation.
Section 6.1 describes the methodology used to estimate the commercial fisheries-related benefits
including conceptual and empirical discussions of producer and consumer surplus. Section 6.2 presents
the commercial fisheries-related benefits by region; and Section 6.3 presents the limitations and
uncertainties associated with EPA's analysis.
6.1 Methodology
The methodology employed to estimate the commercial fishing benefits associated with the regulatory
options for the proposed Section 316(b) regulation closely follows the analysis conducted for the Section
316(b) Phase III Final Rule (USEPA 2006b). Changes from that analysis include updated estimates of
I&E mortality losses and reductions, and updated dockside prices. The dockside prices are now estimated
based on the 5-year average price between 2005 and 2009, from commercial fishing landings data
obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS).
EPA measured commercial fishing benefits as changes in producer surplus. EPA considered estimating
consumer surplus values associated with reductions in I&E mortality, but found that dockside prices
would not change enough to produce measurable shifts in consumer surplus. The details of this analysis
and the estimated price changes are presented in Section 6.2 and in Appendix G.
6.1.1 Estimating Consumer and Producer Surplus
The total loss to the economy from I&E mortality impacts on commercially harvested fish species is
determined by the sum of changes in both producer and consumer surplus (Hoagland and Jin 2006). EPA
modeled I&E mortality losses using the methods presented in Chapter 3 of this document. EPA assumed a
linear relationship between stock and harvest. That is, if 10 percent of the current commercially targeted
stock were harvested, EPA assumes that 10 percent of any increase in that species due to lower I&E
mortality losses would be harvested. Thus, the percentage increase in harvest is assumed to be the same as
the percentage increase in fish. The percentage offish harvested is based on historical fishing mortality
rates. EPA used historical NMFS landings data on commercial and recreational catch to determine the
proportions of total species landings attributable to recreational and commercial fishing. EPA applied
these proportions to the estimated total change in harvest to distribute benefits between commercial and
recreational fisheries.
March 28, 2011 6-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Producer surplus provides an estimate of the economic benefits to commercial fishers, but welfare
changes can also be expected to accrue to final consumers offish and to commercial consumers
(including processors, wholesalers, retailers, and middlemen) if the projected decrease in catch is
accompanied by an increase in price. These impacts can be expected to flow through the tiered
commercial fishery market (as described in Holt and Bishop (2002)).
This study used a fishery market model to estimate changes in welfare as a result of changes in the level
of the commercial fishing harvest. The market model takes as inputs the expected change in harvest and
baseline gross revenues, and provides as outputs the expected change in producer and consumer surplus.
In general, the analysis of market impacts involves the following steps (Bishop and Holt (2003)):
1. Assessing the net welfare changes for fish consumers due to changes in fish harvest and the
corresponding change in fish price.
2. Assessing net welfare changes for fish harvesters due to the change in total revenue, which could
be positive or negative.
3. Calculating the increase in net social benefits when the fish harvest changes.
Figure 6-1 illustrates a simplified fishery market model as shown in Bishop and Holt (2003). For
simplicity, the model assumes that the fishery is managed on quota basis with the baseline quota shown as
F1 and baseline dockside or ex-vessel price as P1. It uses an inverse demand function, P(F), because fish
are perishable with the quantity harvested driving price in the short run.
Price $
T
C
U
V
W
X
Y
z
P(F)
F Quantity
Figure 6-1: Fishery Market Model, reproduced from Bishop and Holt (2003)
6.1.1.1 Step 1: Assessing Benefits to Consumers
The downward sloping line labeled P(F), depicted in Figure 6-1, represents a general equilibrium demand
function that accounts for markets downstream of commercial fishers. As described above, the vertical
curve F1 is the quantity offish supplied to the market by commercial fishers under the baseline
conditions. Equilibrium is attained at the point where P(F) equals F1. The intersection of these two lines
gives the price P1 at which quantity F1 is sold. In this case the total amount paid by consumers for fish is
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
6-2
-------
equal to P1 x F1, which is equal to the area of the boxes U + V + Win the graph. The consumer surplus or
benefit to consumers is equal to the area of the triangle T.
The measurement of the benefits from reducing I&E mortality relies on the assumption that a decrease in
mortality offish, larvae, and eggs under a scenario of reduced I&E mortality would increase fish
populations and the quantity offish supplied to consumers (i.e., an increase from F1 to F2). If the quantity
offish available to the market increases from F1 to F2, this in turn would result in a lower market price for
fish (i.e., P2). This changes the total amount paid by consumers to P2 x F2, which is equal to the area of
the boxes V + W + Y + Z. This may be less than or greater than area U + V + W, but unequivocally
increases the consumer surplus so that it is equal to the area of the triangle T + U + X. The difference in
consumer surplus between the reduced I&E mortality scenario and the current baseline scenario (i.e., U
+ X) is the measure of benefits to consumers from reducing I&E mortality.
Estimating the change in price offish from changes in commercial fish harvest requires the following
input data: (1) An estimate of the baseline prices and quantities of the commercial fishing harvest, (2) the
estimated change in the commercial fishing harvest under the reduced I&E mortality scenario, and (3) an
understanding of the price elasticity of demand for fish. The baseline commercial fishing prices and
harvest quantities were estimated from NMFS landings data from 2005 to 2009 for regional markets for
relevant species. Chapter 3 describes the methods and data used in estimating baseline I&E mortality
losses and reductions under the regulatory options.19 The price elasticity of demand for fish measures the
percentage change in demand in response to a percentage point change in fish price. Thus, the inverse
elasticity, or price flexibility, measures the percent change in price for a given percent change in quantity.
EPA did not include estimates of changes in consumer surplus for commercial species. Prices must
change in order for consumer surplus to change. EPA estimated the expected price changes from
eliminating baseline levels of I&E mortality losses, and found them to small, ranging from 0.13 percent to
2.1 percent. Appendix G of this document presents the detailed calculations and results. Consumer
surplus measures that have been estimated by NMFS for past environmental impact statements tend to be
quite low.20 Most species offish have numerous close substitutes, and most fisheries are price-takers in
the world market. Therefore, if harvest of one or several species increases, prices are unlikely to change
by a significant amount.
6.1.1.2 Step 2: Assessing Producer Surplus
In an unregulated fishery, the long-run change in producer surplus due to an increase in fish stocks will be
zero percent of the change in gross revenues, because in open access fisheries, excess profits are always
driven to zero at the margin. Most fisheries are, however, regulated with quotas or restrictive permits to
prevent overfishing. Thus, there are lasting economic benefits to commercial fishers from reductions in
I&E mortality and the subsequent increase in harvest. Fishery regulations seek to create sustainable
harvests that maximize resource rents.21 In a regulated fishery, I&E mortality impacts reduce the number
offish available to harvest. This may lead to more-stringent regulations and decreases in harvest. In this
For several species, the predicted changes in harvest were quite large. EPA increased scrutiny on results for species with 10
percent or greater predicted change in harvest, to determine whether such increases were in fact reasonable estimates. In
some cases, EPA capped the predicted harvest increases. The methods used and caps are described in Section 6.2.
Personal communications with NMFS economists Cindy Thomson (2008), Eric Thunberg (2008), and Steve Freese (2008).
In addition, even in open access fisheries, inframarginal rents are earned by at least some boats (personal communication,
Thunberg 2008).
March 28, 2011 6-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
case, the change in producer surplus can be related to the change in harvest and the resulting gross
revenue.
In Figure 6-1, the line C represents the cost to the producer of supplying a pound offish. The model
assumes that average cost is equal to marginal cost, that is, C is constant for all pounds produced.22 When
the supply of fish is equal to F1, the commercial fishers sell F1 pounds of fish at a price of P1 and earn
revenues equal to U + V + W. The area between P1 and C is the producer surplus that accrues to
producers for each pound offish. Total producer surplus realized by producers is equal to (P1 - C) x F1. In
the example, this producer surplus is equal to the area ofU+V. The area Wis the amount that producers
pay for capital and labor and to suppliers if the harvest equals F1 (e.g., fishing gear and the costs of
operating in the market).
When supply increases to F2, the producers sell F2 pounds offish at a price of P2. The total cost to
produce F2 increases from Wto W + Z. The total producer surplus changes from U + Vto V + Y. This
change may be either positive or negative, depending on the relative elasticity of demand, which changes
the relative sizes of areas U and Y.
In theory, producer surplus is equal to normal profits (total revenue minus fixed and variable costs),
minus the opportunity cost of capital. The fixed costs and inputs are incurred independently of the
expected marginal changes in the level offish landings (Squires et al. 1998; Thunberg and Squires 2005).
Total variable costs including labor, fuel, ice, and other supplies, however, vary directly with the level of
landings. Furthermore, since the opportunity cost of capital is estimated to be only about 0.4 to 2.6
percent of producer surplus, normal profits are assumed to be a sufficient proxy for producer surplus
(USEPA 2004b). As a result, assessment of producer surplus is reduced to a relatively straightforward
calculation in which the change in producer surplus is calculated as a species- and region-specific fraction
of the change in gross revenue due to increased landings.
The change in producer surplus, captured by "normal profits," is assumed to be equivalent to a fixed
proportion of the change in gross revenues, as estimated from the change in the commercial harvest due to
reducing I&E mortality and the change in prices associated with the increased commercial harvest. As
discussed above, EPA estimated price changes to be negligible, and therefore did not include price
changes in the model. EPA estimated species- and region-specific Net Benefits Ratios which represent the
fractional share of gross revenue associated with net benefits. EPA's approach for estimating Net
Benefits Ratios using available data on variable costs from sources such as the National Marine Fisheries
Service is described in more detail in Section A4-10 of US EPA (2006b). EPA then applied the Net
Benefits Ratio to the estimated change in gross revenue under the 316(b) regulatory options to estimate
the increase in producer surplus. The Net Benefits Ratios are shown by region and species in Table 6-1
through Table 6-6; they range from 0.15 to 0.85.23'24 See Chapter 1, Section 1.2 for a definition of the
seven study regions. The Inland region is excluded from the analysis due to a negligible commercial
fishing harvest in this region. EPA notes that this approach yields an estimate of benefits to commercial
22 If marginal cost increases as harvest increases, some of the producer surplus per unit will be lost due to the increased costs.
23 Positive Net Benefits Ratios reflect the assumption that there will be rents (profits) to commercial fishers in regulated
fisheries. When calculating the Net Benefits Ratios, EPA assumed that the predicted changes in harvest are such that fixed
costs and variable costs per ton will not change. If costs remain constant, a marginal change in harvest is more likely to
result in increases in profit and positive producer surplus.
24 In the case of species aggregates (e.g., forage species), EPA assumed that the net benefit ratio is equal to the simple average of
all empirically estimated net benefit ratios in the region. Species aggregates are listed as "Other" in Table 6-1 to Table 6-6.
March 28, 2011 6-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
fisherman, not benefits to society as a whole. As described in Section 6.1.1.1, EPA did not estimate
changes in consumer surplus.
Table 6-1: California Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and Net Benefits Ratio
Species
Main Management
Method
Main Gear
Type
Status of Stock
Net Benefits as a
Ratio of Gross
Revenue (NBRatio)
Anchovies
Annual landings
Roundhaul
Unknown
0.64
Cabezon
Total allowable catch
Hook-and-line
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
0.52
Crabs
Seasonal closures
Pots and traps Unknown
0.74
Drums and Croakers
Permits
Nets
Unknown
0.42
Dungeness Crab
Size, no females, closed
during molting season
Traps
Unknown
0.74
Flounders
Quotas
Bottom trawl
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
0.64
California Halibut
Total allowable catch
Longline
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
0.58
Other
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.53
Rockfishes
Quotas
Trawls
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Smelts
Seasonal closures
Nets
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
0.62
California Scorpionfish
Sculpins
Sea Basses
Shad, American
Shrimp
Quotas
Nonrestrictive permits
Season, size, gear
restrictions
None
Seasonal closures
Otter trawl
Trawls
Gillnets
Nets
Trawl
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Unknown
0.47
0.64
0.66
0.00
0.15
Surfperches
Quotas
Handlines
Unknown
0.37
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
6-5
-------
Table 6-2: North Atlantic Region, Species-Specific Gear
Ratio
Species
Bluefish
Butterfish
Atlantic Cod
Crabs
American Plaice
Windowpane
Winter Flounder
Flounders
Red Hake
Silver Hake
Atlantic Herring
Atlantic Mackerel
Atlantic Menhaden
Other
White Perch
Pollock
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Shad, American
Skates
Tautog
Weakfish
Main Management
Method
Quotas
Quotas
Time/area closures
Size, sex, season
Size
Time/area closures
Quotas
Total allowable landing
Quotas
Quotas
Total allowable catch
Annual quota
Notreg. In this area
N/A
Size limits
Time/area closures
Open access
Quotas
Open access (by catch)
Mortality targets
Catch limits
Possession limits
Size limits
Main Gear
Type
Gillnets
NA
Otter trawl
Traps
Otter trawl
Bottom trawl
Otter trawls
Bottom trawl
Otter trawls
Otter trawls
Purse seine
Unknown
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
Bottom trawl
Unknown
Otter trawls
Unknown
Unknown
Otter trawl
Otter trawl
Trawls
Type, Status of Stock, and
Net Benefits
Net Benefits as a
Status of Stock Ratio of Gross
Revenue (NBRatio)
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Unknown
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
N/A
Unknown
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Unknown
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Unknown
Fully exploited
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
0.63
0.64
0.66
0.57
0.63
0.63
0.64
0.63
0.62
0.63
0.76
0.77
0.68
0.57
0.82
0.71
0.00
0.69
0.00
0.60
0.68
0.46
0.76
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
6-6
-------
Table 6-3: Mid-Atlantic Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and Net Benefits Ratio
Species
Alewife
American Shad
Atlantic Croaker
Atlantic Menhaden
Black Drum
Blue Crab
Bluefish
Butterfish
Crabs
Drums and Croakers
Flounders
Other
Red Hake
Scup
Searobin
Silver Hake
Spot
Striped Bass
Striped Mullet
Tautog
Weakfish
White Perch
Main Management
Method
Bans, species of concern
Chesapeake fishery
closed
Gear restrictions
Open access
Quotas
Limits on female crabs,
size
Quotas
Quotas
Season, size
Gear restrictions, quotas
Quotas
N/A
Quotas
Quotas
Open access
Quotas
License
Quotas
Gear restrictions
Possession limits
Size limits
Size limits
Main Gear
Type
Fish weirs
Unknown
Gillnets
Purse seine,
otter trawl, gill
net
Unknown
Pots
Gillnets
Unknown
Unknown
Nets
Bottom trawl
N/A
Otter trawls
Otter trawls
Unknown
Otter trawls
Haul seines
Gill nets
Cast nets
Otter trawl
Trawls
Unknown
Net Benefits as a Ratio
Status of Stock of Gross Revenue
(NBRatio)
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing except for
small by-catch allowance
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Unknown
Unknown
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Unknown
Unknown
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
N/A
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Unknown
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Unknown
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Unknown
0.85
0.84
0.74
0.67
0.70
0.57
0.63
0.64
0.57
0.74
0.65
0.73
0.62
0.69
0.00
0.63
0.84
0.67
0.70
0.46
0.76
0.82
March 28, 2011 6-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 6-4: South Atlantic Region, Species-Specific Gear
Ratio
Species
Blue Crab
Crabs
Drums and Croakers
Atlantic Menhaden
Other
Spot
Stone Crab
Weakfish
Main Management
Method
Size limits
Size, sex, season
Open access (by catch)
Five year annual cap on
reduction fishery in
Chesapeake
N/A
License
Size
Size limits
Main Gear
Type
Pots
Traps
Otter trawl
bottom, gill nets
Unknown
N/A
Haul seines
Traps
Trawls
Type, Status of Stock,
Status of Stock
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Overfished
Unknown
N/A
Unknown
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
and Net Benefits
Net Benefits as a Ratio
of Gross Revenue
(NBRatio)
0.57
0.57
0.54
0.76
0.59
0.70
0.58
0.64
Table 6-5: Gulf of
Ratio
Species
Blue Crab
Black Drum
Leather) acket
Mackerels
Menhaden
Other
Sea Basses
Sheepshead
Shrimp
Spot
Stone Crab
Striped Mullet
Mexico Region, Species-Specific Gear
Main Management
Method
Limited entry, pot limits
Limited access permits
N/A
Quotas
Seasonal/area closures
N/A
Quotas
Size
Same as pink shrimp
License
Size
Gear restrictions
Main Gear
Type
Pots
Hand lines, gill
nets
Rod/reel, hand
and long lines,
pots and traps
Hook-and-line
Purse seines
N/A
Traps
Cast net
Unknown
Haul seines
Traps
Strike nets
Type, Status of Stock,
Status of Stock
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Unknown
Unknown
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Fully exploited
N/A
Overfished or subject to
overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Unknown
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
Not overfished or subject
to overfishing
and Net Benefits
Net Benefits as a Ratio
of Gross Revenue
(NBRatio)
0.72
0.69
0.00
0.75
0.76
0.46
0.72
0.84
0.43
0.54
0.71
0.79
March 28, 2011 6-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 6-6: Great Lakes Region, Species-Specific Gear Type, Status of Stock, and Net Benefits Ratio
M . M Net Benefits as a Ratio
Species A, ,, , ^ Main Gear Type Status of Stock of Gross Revenue
r Method Jr ^TVTTJTI <.- ^
(NBRatio)
Bullhead
Freshwater Drum
Other
Smelt
White Bass
Whitefish
Yellow Perch
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
State specific
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Gill and trap nets
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
6.1.1.3 Step 3: Estimating Net Social Benefits When the Fishing Harvest Increases
The change in net social benefits when the commercial fishing harvest increases from F1 to F2 is
estimated by adding the results from Steps 1 and 2. Because area Uis a transfer from commercial fishers
to consumers, it does not affect social benefits.25 Therefore, the change in net social benefits is areaX + Y
(see Figure 6-1). However, if demand elasticity is such that changes in price are negligible, areaXwill be
negligible relative to Y, and total social benefits will be measured by area Y. See Appendix G on EPA's
analysis of the estimated price changes due to reducing I&E mortality losses at CWIS sites by region and
species.
6.2 Benefits Estimates for Regional Commercial Fishing
The first step of the analysis of commercial fishing benefits involves a fishery-based assessment of I&E
mortality-related changes in harvested species landings. Many of the fish species affected by I&E
mortality at CWIS sites are harvested both recreationally and commercially. As described in Section
6.1.1, EPA assumed a linear relationship between stock and harvest and used historical NMFS landings
data on commercial and recreational catch to determine the proportions of total species harvest
attributable to recreational and commercial fishing. EPA applied these proportions to the estimated total
change in harvest to distribute benefits between commercial and recreational fisheries. The estimated
change in commercial fishery harvest was then used as a basis for estimating changes in producer surplus
in the commercial fishing industry.
EPA further assessed species with estimated harvest increases from the elimination of I&E mortality
exceedinglO percent of baseline harvest from 2005 to 2009. This was done to evaluate whether potential
harvest increases under 316(b) regulatory options are reasonable when compared to historic harvest data.
Table 6-7 lists the species and potential percent increases in harvest over baseline harvest from
eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses for the fourteen species found to exceed 10 percent. The species
of concern are cabezon, California halibut, rockfishes, and sculpins in the California region; sculpins in
the North Atlantic region; drums and croakers, spot, and weakfish in the Mid-Atlantic region; black drum,
drums and croakers, leatherjacket, spot, and striped mullet in the Gulf of Mexico region; and smelt in the
Great Lakes region. No species with 10 percent or greater potential change in harvest were found in the
South Atlantic region. The increases range from 12 percent for striped mullet in the Gulf of Mexico to
25,110 percent for sculpins in the North Atlantic.
Note that in the model shown in Figure 6-1, X + Y = U + X + [(V + Y) - (U + V)] = U + X + (Y - U)
March 28, 2011 6-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 6-7: Potential Harvest Increase from Eliminating I&E Mortality Losses as a Percentage of Total
Harvest and Potential Harvest Capping Rules Used in EPA's Analysis
Baseline Baseline _ , ...
n • j TT .t TOT^T Potential
Region and Harvest I&E Losses „. T
„ . .., , ... , % Increase
Species (thousand (thousand . TT ,
,, . ,, . in Harvest
Ibs) Ibs)
California Cabezon
California Halibut
California Rockfishes
California Sculpins
North Atlantic Sculpins
Mid- Atlantic Drums and
Croakers
Mid-Atlantic Spot
Mid- Atlantic Weakfish
Gulf of Mexico Black
Drum
Gulf of Mexico Drums and
Croakers
Gulf of Mexico
Leatherjacket
Gulf of Mexico Spot
Gulf of Mexico Striped
Mullet
Great Lakes Smelts
55.6
629.9
2,668.4
3.5
<0.1
11,430.1
3,286.9
497.0
4,397.3
81.0
65.6
18.1
10,347.7
522.2
a. MSY (maximum sustainable yield).
b. Average of most recent four peaks in harvest.
c. MSY for rockfishes for the West Coast.
d. MSY for all scorpionfish and sculpins.
Sources: EPA estimates of I&E mortality losses;
54.4
126.4
1,168.7
2.6
25.1
1,519.2
2,033.0
741.9
1,885.2
40.3
90.7
40.0
1,278.3
105.9
98%
20%
44%
74%
25,110%
13%
62%
149%
43%
50%
138%
221%
12%
20%
NMFS data on baseline
,„ . 90th MSY or
Maximum „ ... „ _,,
TT , Percentile of Other
Harvest A, „
1979-2009 MaX' , Capping
... , Harvest Rule
(thousand ... , ... ,
,v, , (thousand (thousand
' Ibs) Ibs)
374.2
1,337.1
58,189.5
19.5
4.8
16,575.2
4,766.2
15,389.6
10,347.2
1,787.4
509.3
442.8
33,141.6
4,107
256.7 207.2a
1,256.3 l,158.5b
43,216.7 77,161. 8C
7.1 482. 8 d
4.0
16,252.9
4,398.3
7,023.5
6,977.2
1,193.3
437.5
299.1
27,395.6
3,520
Cap Used
Don't cap
Don't cap
Don't cap
Don't cap
Cap at 90th
Don't cap
Cap at 90th
Don't cap
Don't cap
Don't cap
Don't cap
Don't cap
Don't cap
Don't cap
harvest, historical landings, and MSY.
Economists and biologists with NMFS recommended using either maximum sustainable yield (MSY),
allowable biological catch (ABC), or historical harvest to determine reasonable caps on projected total
harvest under the post-compliance scenario.26 NMFS scientists recommended using 25 years or more of
historical catch, because many populations peaked around 25 years ago—at that time there were virgin,
non-exploited populations, so that maximum harvests were achievable. Using historical catch data from
NMFS, EPA determined the maximum landings for the years 1979 through 2009, and calculated the 90th
percentile of landings for those years. NMFS biologists provided MSY where available (for California
cabezon and all West Coast rockfishes). NMFS biologists suggested that sculpins in California be
evaluated in combination with scorpionfish, as these species are grouped when determining the MSY.
They also noted that halibut harvests fluctuate greatly, as the stock is highly variable. There is no stock
assessment for halibut, so NMFS biologists suggested averaging the most recent four peaks in harvest.27
26 Cindy Thomson, NMFS, personal communication (2008).
27 Cindy Thomson, NMFS, personal communication (2008).
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
6-10
-------
MSY or ABC data were not available for the species of interest in the other regions.28 Therefore, EPA
capped potential harvest increase at the 90th percentile of annual harvest from 1979 to 2009. The only
species for Based on this criteria and the NMFS scientists' recommendations, EPA capped estimated
harvest increases for two species when estimated commercial fishing benefits, sculpins in the North
Atlantic and spot in the Mid-Atlantic.
The following sections present estimated benefits from commercial harvest changes in six of the seven
study regions. The Inland region is excluded from the analysis due to a negligible commercial fishing
harvest in this region.
6.2.1 California
Baseline levels of I&E mortality account for 1,379 thousand pounds of commercial fishing losses
annually in the California region, as shown in Table 6-8. Rockfishes account for the major portion of
overall losses in this region. The annual undiscounted commercial fishing benefits of eliminating baseline
I&E mortality losses are estimated to be approximately $1,394 thousand, as shown in Table 6-8.
Applying a 3 percent discount rate, the annualized benefits of eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses
are estimated to be $1,236 thousand. Applying a 7 percent rate, these annualized benefits are
approximately $1,195 thousand.
As shown in Table 6-8, annual commercial harvest is estimated to increase by approximately 7 thousand
pounds under Options 1, 1,176 thousand pounds under Option 2, and 1,230 thousand pounds under
Option 3. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are
approximately $4 thousand under Option 1, $751 thousand under Option 2, and $776 thousand under
Option 3. Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are
approximately $3 thousand under Option 1, $573 thousand under Option 2, and $589 thousand under
Option 3. (Table 6-8). Appendix Table H-l presents species-specific results for the estimated annual
increase in harvest and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.
Table 6-8: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the California Region, by Regulatory Option
(2009$)
Annual Increase in Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
Regulatory Option Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
1,379
7
1,176
1,230
Undiscounted
1,394
5
1,189
1,243
3% Discount Rate
1,236
4
751
776
7% Discount Rate
1,195
3
573
589
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
28 Based on information from NMFS and other Web sites, and personal communication with Nichola Meserve of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission (2008).
March 28, 2011 6-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
6.2.2 North Atlantic
Baseline levels of I&E mortality account for 430 thousand pounds of annual commercial fishing losses in
the North Atlantic region, as shown in Table 6-9, with flounders playing a particularly important role.
EPA estimated the annual undiscounted benefits to commercial fishers from eliminating baseline I&E
mortality losses to be approximately $471 thousand, as shown in Table 6-9. Total annualized benefits
from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses, applying a 3 percent discount rate, are estimated to be
$418 thousand. Applying a 7 percent rate, these annualized benefits are approximately $404 thousand.
As shown in Table 6-9, annual commercial harvest is estimated to increase by approximately 3 thousand
pounds under Option 1, 352 thousand pounds under Option 2, and 369 thousand pounds under Option 3.
Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are approximately $2
thousand under Options 1, $231 thousand under Option 2, and $242 thousand under Option 3. Discounted
at 7 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are approximately $1 thousand under
Option 1, $171 thousand under Option 2, and $179 thousand under Option 3 (Table 6-9). Appendix Table
H-2 presents species-specific results for the estimated annual increase in harvest and monetary benefits to
commercial fishers.
Table 6-9: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the North Atlantic Region, by Regulatory
Option (2009$)
Annual Increase in Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
Regulatory Option Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
430
3
352
369
Undiscounted
471
2
385
403
3% Discount Rate
418
2
231
242
7% Discount Rate
404
1
171
179
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
6.2.3 Mid-Atlantic
Baseline levels of I&E mortality account for approximately 10,672 thousand pounds of commercial
fishing losses annually in the Mid-Atlantic region, as shown in Table 6-10. Atlantic menhaden, blue crab,
drums and croakers, spot, and weakfish are the primary drivers of I&E mortality losses in the Mid-
Atlantic region. The annual undiscounted benefits to commercial fishers from eliminating baseline I&E
mortality losses are estimated to be $3,192 thousand, as shown in Table 6-10. Applying a 3 percent
discount rate, annualized benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses are estimated to be
$2,831 thousand. Applying a 7 percent rate, these annualized benefits are approximately $2,737 thousand.
As shown in Table 6-10, annual commercial harvest is estimated to increase by approximately 3,750
thousand pounds under Option 1, 10,152 thousand pounds under Option 2, and 10,224 thousand pounds
under Option 3. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are $342
thousand under Options 1, $1,615 thousand under Option 2, and $1,629 thousand under Option 3.
Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are approximately $303
March 28, 2011 6-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
thousand under Option 1, $1,124 thousand under Option 2, and $1,134 thousand under Option 3 (Table
6-10). Appendix Table H-3 presents species-specific results for the estimated annual increase in harvest
and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.
Table 6-10: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Regulatory Option
(2009$)
Annual Increase in Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
Regulatory Option Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
10,672
3,750
10,152
10,224
Undiscounted
3,192
436
3,010
3,035
3% Discount Rate
2,831
342
1,615
1,629
7% Discount Rate
2,737
303
1,124
1,134
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
6.2.4 South Atlantic
Baseline levels of I&E mortality account for more than 99 thousand pounds of commercial fishing losses
in the South Atlantic region, as shown in Table 6-11. The estimated undiscounted annual commercial
fishing benefits of eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses are driven primarily by spot, followed by
Atlantic menhaden, blue crab, and stone crab, and total $23 thousand, as shown in Table 6-11. Applying a
3 percent discount rate, the annualized benefits of eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses are estimated
to be $21 thousand. Applying a 7 percent rate, these annualized benefits are $20 thousand.
As shown in Table 6-11, annual commercial harvest is estimated to increase by approximately 84
thousand pounds under Options 2 and 3 and 45 thousand pounds under Option 1. Discounted at 3 percent,
the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are $12 thousand under Options 2 and 3, and $8
thousand under Option 1. Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial
fishers are approximately $8 thousand under Options 2 and 3, and $7 thousand under Option 1 (Table
6-11). Appendix Table H-4 presents species-specific results for the estimated annual increase in harvest
and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.
March 28, 2011 6-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 6-11: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the South Atlantic Region, by Regulatory
Option (2009$)
Annual Increase in Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
Regulatory Option Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
99
45
84
84
Undiscounted
23
10
20
20
3% Discount Rate
21
8
12
12
7% Discount Rate
20
7
8
8
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
6.2.5 Gulf of Mexico
Baseline levels of I&E mortality account for more than 5,559 thousand pounds of commercial fishing
losses in the Gulf of Mexico region annually, as shown in Table 6-12. These losses are driven by black
drum, Atlantic menhaden, and striped mullet. The estimated undiscounted annual commercial fishing
benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses are approximately $3,747 thousand, as shown in
Table 6-12. Applying a 3 percent discount rate, estimated commercial fishing benefits from eliminating
baseline I&E mortality losses are estimated to be $3,463 thousand. Applying a 7 percent rate, these
annualized losses are approximately $3,450 thousand.
As shown in Table 6-12, annual commercial harvest is estimated to increase by approximately 4,400
thousand pounds under Options 2 and 3, and 1,500 thousand pounds under Option 1. Discounted at 3
percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are approximately $588 thousand under
Option 1 and $1,800 under Options 2 and 3. Discounted at 7 percent, the annualized benefits to
commercial fishers are estimated to be approximately $1,400 thousand under Options 2 and 3, and $537
thousand under Option 1 (Table 6-12). Appendix Table H-5 presents species-specific results for the
estimated annual increase in harvest and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.
Table 6-12: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Regulatory
Option (2009$)
Annual Increase in Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
Regulatory Option Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
5,559
1,459
4,364
4,371
Undiscounted
3,747
719
2,832
2,837
3% Discount Rate
3,463
588
1,806
1,804
7% Discount Rate
3,450
537
1,394
1,390
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
March 28, 2011 6-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
6.2.6 The Great Lakes
Baseline levels of I&E mortality account for more than 346 thousand pounds of commercial fishing losses
in the Great Lakes region annually, as shown in Table 6-13. These losses are driven by the impingement
of smelts and whitefish. The annual undiscounted commercial fishing benefits from eliminating baseline
I&E mortality losses in this region are estimated to be approximately $87 thousand, as shown in Table
6-13. Total annualized commercial benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses, applying a 3
percent discount rate, are estimated to be $80 thousand. Applying a 7 percent rate, these annualized losses
are approximately $80 thousand as well.
As shown in Table 6-13, annual commercial harvest is estimated to increase by approximately 330
thousand pounds under Options 2 and 3, and 227 thousand pounds under Option 1. The increase in
commercial harvest under Option 1 is relatively close to Options 2 and 3 due to the relative importance of
impingement mortality compared to total I&E mortality in the Great Lakes region. Discounted at 3
percent, the estimated annualized benefits to commercial fishers are approximately $53 thousand under
Options 2 and 3 and by $48 thousand under Option 1. Discounted at 7 percent, the annualized benefits to
commercial fishers are estimated to be approximately $44 thousand under Option 1 and $41 thousand
under Options 2 and 3 (Table 6-13). Appendix Table H-6 presents species-specific results for the
estimated annual increase in harvest and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.
Table 6-13: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Great Lakes Region, by Regulatory Option
(2009$)
Annual Increase in Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
Regulatory Option Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
346
227
326
328
Undiscounted
87
58
82
83
3% Discount Rate
80
48
53
53
7% Discount Rate
80
44
41
41
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
March 28, 2011 6-15
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
6.3
Limitations and Uncertainties
Table 6-14 summarizes the caveats, omissions, biases, and uncertainties known to affect the estimates that
were developed for the benefits analysis.
Table 6-14: Caveats, Omissions, Biases, and Uncertainties in the Commercial Benefits Estimates
Issue
Impact on Benefits Estimate
Comments
Change in commercial landings due to
I&E mortality is uncertain
Uncertain
Projected changes in harvest may be
underestimated because cumulative
impacts of I&E mortality overtime,
interactions with other stressors, and
population changes are not considered.
Some estimates of commercial harvest
losses due to I&E mortality under current
conditions are not region/species-specific
Uncertain
EPA estimated the impact of I&E
mortality in the case study analyses
based on data provided by the facilities.
The most current data available were
used. However, in some cases these data
are 20 years old or older. Thus, they may
not reflect current conditions.
Effect of change in stocks on landings is
not considered
Uncertain
EPA assumed a linear stock to harvest
relationship, so that a 10% change in
stock would have a 10% change in
landings; this may be low or high,
depending on the condition of the stocks.
Region-specific fisheries regulations also
will affect the validity of the linear
assumption.
Effect of uncertainty in estimates of
commercial landings and prices is
unknown
Uncertain
EPA assumes that NMFS landings data
are accurate and complete. In some cases
prices and/or quantities may be reported
incorrectly.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
6-16
-------
Recreational Fishing Benefits
7.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the estimated benefits to recreational anglers from improved recreational fishing
opportunities due to reductions in impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E mortality) under the
regulatory options considered for the Section 316(b) regulation. For this analysis, EPA used a benefit
transfer approach based on a meta-analysis of economic studies of recreational fishing benefits from
improved catch rates. Benefit transfer involves adapting research conducted for another purpose to
address the policy questions at hand (Bergstrom and De Civita 1999). Because benefit-cost analysis of
environmental regulations rarely affords sufficient time to conduct original stated or revealed preference
studies specific to policy effects, benefit transfer is often the only remaining option for providing
information to inform policy decisions. EPA notes that Smith et al. (2002, p. 134) state that "...nearly all
benefit cost analyses rely on benefit transfers...."
Boyle and Bergstrom (1992) define benefit transfer as "the transfer of existing estimates of nonmarket
values to a new study which is different from the study for which the values were originally estimated."
There are four types of benefit transfer studies: point estimate, benefit function, meta-analysis, and
Bayesian techniques (USEPA 2000a). These may be categorized into three fundamental classes: (1)
transfer of an unadjusted fixed value estimate generated from a single study site; (2) the use of expert
judgment to aggregate or otherwise alter benefits to be transferred from a site or set of sites; and (3)
estimation of a value estimator model derived from study site data, often from multiple sites (Bergstrom
and De Civita 1999). Recent studies have shown little support for the accuracy or validity of the first
method, leading to increased attention to, and use of, adjusted values estimated by one of the remaining
two approaches (Bergstrom and De Civita 1999). The third class of benefit transfer approaches includes
meta-analysis techniques, which have been increasingly explored by economists as a potential basis of
policy analysis conducted by various government agencies charged with the stewardship of natural
resources.29
Section 7.2 provides a brief overview of the benefit transfer methodology used for estimating the
recreational fishing benefits, and highlights the updates to methodology. Chapter A5 of EPA's Regional
Benefits Analysis of the Final Section 316(b) Phase III Existing Facilities Rule (USEPA 2006b) provides
a detailed description of the benefit transfer methodology that is employed in this analysis. Section 7.3
presents the recreational fishing benefits by region, and Section 7.4 summarizes the limitations and
uncertainties inherent in EPA's analysis of recreational fishing benefits.
7.2 Methodology
EPA's analysis of recreational fishing benefits from reducing I&E mortality at cooling water intake
structures (CWISs) at the in-scope facilities includes the following general steps:
1. Estimate the forgone catch of recreational fish (in number of fish) attributable to I&E
mortality under current conditions. EPA modeled these losses using the methods presented in
Meta-analysis is "the statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purposes of integrating
the findings" (Glass 1976).
March 28, 2011 7-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Chapter 3 of this document. EPA's estimates of recreational fish losses are expressed as the
number of harvestable adults, rather than age-1 equivalents (AlEs), so as to not overstate the
increases in catch resulting from 316(b) regulatory options.30 Many of the fish species affected by
I&E mortality at CWIS sites are harvested both recreationally and commercially. EPA used the
proportion of total species landings attributable to recreational fishing to estimate baseline
welfare losses to recreational anglers from current levels of I&E mortality and benefits from
reducing I&E mortality under alternative policy options.
2. Estimate the marginal value per fish. EPA used the estimated meta-regression described in
Chapter A5 of EPA (USEPA 2006b) to estimate marginal values per fish for the species affected
by I&E mortality at Phase II facilities. To calculate the marginal value per fish for the affected
species, EPA chose input values for the independent variables based on the affected species
characteristics, study regions, and demographic characteristics of the affected angling
populations. The study design variables were selected based on current economic literature. This
step is described in more detail in Section 7.2.1.
3. Estimate the value of forgone recreational catch lost to I&E mortality under the baseline
scenario by multiplying the marginal value per fish by the number of recreational fish currently
lost to I&E mortality that would otherwise be caught by recreational anglers.
4. Estimate recreational fishing benefits from reducing I&E mortality losses at the in-scope
facilities' CWISs by multiplying the marginal value per fish by the reduction in recreational
fishing losses under the alternative policy options.
7.2.1 Estimating Marginal Value per Fish
To estimate marginal values per fish for the species affected by I&E mortality at in-scope facilities, EPA
used a benefit transfer function based on meta-analysis of recreational fishing studies from the Section
316(b) Phase III Final Rule. The general approach follows standard methods illustrated by Johnston et al.
(2006) and Shrestha et al. (2007), among many others (Rosenberger and Phipps 2007). This function
allows EPA to forecast willingness to pay (WTP) based on assigned values for model variables, chosen to
best represent a resource change in the 316(b) policy context. EPA's meta-analysis results imply a simple
benefit function of the following general form:
\n(WTP) = intercept + ^(coefficient^Independent Variable Values;) (Eq. 7-1)
Here, \n(WTP) is the dependent variable in the meta-analysis—the natural log of WTP for catching an
additional fish. The independent variables included in the meta-analysis characterize the species being
valued, study location, baseline catch rate, elicitation and survey methods, demographics of survey
respondents, and other specific characteristics of each study.
To calculate the marginal value per fish for the species affected by in-scope facilities, EPA chose input
values for the independent variables based on the affected species' characteristics, study regions, and
demographic characteristics of the affected angling populations. The study design variables were selected
based on current economic literature. Table 7-1 provides the independent variable names, the estimated
variable coefficients (coefficient?), and the assigned input values for each of the independent variables in
the model.
' Adult fish of harvestable age means that they are the age at which they can legally be harvested.
March 28, 2011 7-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
EPA followed Johnston etal. (2006) in assigning values for methodological attributes (i.e., variables
characterizing the study methodology used in the original source studies), which are set at mean values
from the metadata except in cases where theoretical considerations dictate alternative specifications. This
follows general guidance from Bergstrom and Taylor (2006) that meta-analysis benefit transfer should
incorporate theoretical expectations and structures, at least in a weak form. In this instance, two of the
methodology variables, RUM nest and high_resp_rate, are included with an assigned value of one.
RUM^year is given the value of 9.37, which corresponds to the average study year, 1985.
EPA decided not to include the error term when using the regression equation to predict marginal values
per fish. Bockstael and Strand (1987) argue that if the econometric error in an equation is primarily due to
omitted variables, the error term should be included, but if the error is primarily due to random
preferences, it should be excluded. EPA did not conclude whether the error is primarily due to omitted
variables or random preferences. Because the error term is positive, the empirical effect of including this
term is to increase the predicted marginal values. Therefore, EPA excluded the error term in order to
result in more- conservative estimates. EPA also notes that when the error term is excluded, the values
predicted by the regression equation are more consistent with those from the underlying studies.
Table 7-2 presents region- and species-specific values for the input variables that vary across regions and
Table 7-3 presents the estimated marginal value per fish for all species affected by I&E mortality in each
region.
Table 7-1: Independent Variable Assignments for Regression Equation
Variable
Intercept
SP conjoint
SP_dichot
TC individual
TC_zonal
RUM_nest
RUM nonnest
sp_year
tc year
RUM_year
sp mail
sp_phone
high resp rate
inc thou
age42_down
age43 up
trips 19_down
trips20 up
Coefficient
-1.4568
-1.1672
-0.9958
1.1091
2.0480
1.3324
1.7892
0.08754
-0.03965
-0.00291
0.5440
1.0859
-0.6539
0.003872
0.9206
1.2221
0.8392
-1.0112
Assigned Value
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
9.37
0
0
1
Varies
0.0972
0.2711
0.1100
0.3350
Explanation
The equation intercept was set to one by default.
Current academic literature suggests that nested RUM models
to one, and the other study methodology variables were set to zero.
RUM^year was set equal to the average value across the studies in
the analysis 9 37
Since RUM nest was the model specified above, sp mail and
sp_phone were set to zero.
High survey response rates are desirable because they may provide
more-accurate estimates, so high response rate was set to one.
Inc thou was set to the median household income for each study
region evaluated, based on U.S. Census data.
•
•
nonlocal
3.2355
Because the default (zero) value for the nonlocal dummy variable
represents a combination of local and nonlocal anglers, nonlocal
was set to zero.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
7-3
-------
Table 7-1: Independent Variable Assignments for Regression Equation
Variable
big_game_pac
big game natl
big_game_satl
small_game_pac
small_game_atl
flatfish_pac
flatfish_atl
other sw
musky
pike walleye
bass_fw
trout_GL
trout_nonGL
salmon_pacific
salmon_atl_more
y
salmon_GL
steelhead_pac
steelhead_GL
cr nonyear
cr_year
catch year
spec_cr
shore
Source. -U.S. EPA
Coefficient
2.2530
1.5323
2.3821
1.6227
1.4099
1.8909
1.3797
0.7339
3.8671
1.0412
1.7780
1.8723
0.8632
2.3570
5.2689
2.2135
2.1904
2.3393
-0.08135
-0.05208
1.2693
0.6862
-0.1129
(2006b)
Assigned Value
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
0
0
1
Varies
Explanation
Species-targeted variables were assigned input values based on
study region. In general, the match between the affected species
and the variables in the meta-analysis equation was good.
The variable cr nonyear was assigned species and region-specific
values for the coastal and Great Lakes regions based on catch rates
2002; 2003) and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR 2002). For the Inland region, EPA assigned values to the
cr nonyear variable based on the average values for each species
from the studies. The variable spec cr was set to one. Cr^year and
catch^year were set to zero, since catch per trip and catch per day
are more common measures of angling quality.
Shore was assigned values based on NMFS (2002; 2003) and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USDOI and USDOC 2002) survey data
indicating the average percentage of anglers who fish from shore in
each region.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
7-4
-------
Table 7-2: Region- and Species-specific Variable Assignments for the Regression Equation
Region
Variable
inc thou
Shore
Species
Small gameb
Flatfish0
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfishd
Trout
Unidentified
Species Type
Dummy Variable3
small_game atl,
small _game_pac
flatfish_ati,
flatfish jac
other sw
Salmon GL
pike -walleye
bass^fw
„ ,.„ . North
California . ,,
Atlantic
54.385 55.000
24.0 24.0
Baseline Catch
2.7 1.6
1.3 1.0
1.7 1.7
1.7 1.7
Mid-
Atlantic
51.846
23.1
South
Atlantic
40.730
30.0
Rate, Expressed in Fish
1.6
1.0
1.7
4.7
1.7
2.2
1.5
1.7
1.7
Gulf of
Mexico
36.641
25.0
Great
Lakes
44.519
48.0
Inland
58.240
57.0
per Day (cr nonyear)
2.2
1.7
1.9
0.2
0.8
0.2
4.7
3.2
1.9
2.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
4.7
3.2
3.8
1 This column indicates which species type dummy variable was set to one to represent each species.
b For "small game" fish in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Inland regions, small_game_atl
was set to one. For "small game" fish in the California region, small_game_pac was set to one.
0 For "flatfish" in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and Inland regions, flatfish_atl
was set to one. For flatfish in the California region, flatfish_pac was set to one.
d To indicate that the target species was "panfish," all species type dummy variables were set to zero.
Source: U.S. EPA (2006b)
Table 7-3: Marginal Recreational Value per Fish, by Region and Species3
Species
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Trout
Unidentified
California North Atlantic
$7.23
$9.73
$2.95
$3.09
a All values are in 2009$.
Source: U.S. EPA (2006b), converted to
$5.92
$5.94
$2.97
$3.00
2009$ using
Mid-Atlantic
$5.88
$5.60
$2.91
$1.06
$3.23
South
Atlantic
$5.70
$5.60
$2.84
$2.86
Gulf of
Mexico
$5.61
$2.76
$3.65
Great Lakes
$13.22
$4.10
$8.53
$1.32
$9.41
$6.20
Inland
$5.34
$13.22
$4.09
$8.98
$1.06
$2.81
$2.22
the Consumer Price Index (USBLS 2010),
7.2.2 Calculating Recreational Fishing Benefits
EPA estimated the recreational welfare gain from eliminating current I&E mortality losses and the
recreational welfare gain from the regulatory options by combining estimates of the marginal value per
fish with the estimated recreational fishing losses under the baseline level of I&E mortality and the
reduction in recreational fishing losses attributable to each regulatory option. To calculate the recreational
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
7-5
-------
welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses, EPA multiplied the marginal value per fish
by the number offish that are lost due to baseline I&E mortality that would otherwise be caught by
recreational anglers. To calculate the recreational welfare gain from each analyzed option, EPA
multiplied the marginal value per fish by the estimated additional number offish caught by recreational
anglers that would have been impinged or entrained in the absence of the regulation. As explained in
Chapter 3 of this report, these calculations express recreational fish losses as the number of harvestable
adults.
7.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis Based on the Krinsky and Robb (1986) Approach
The meta-analysis model briefly described above can be used to predict mean WTP for catching an
additional fish. However, estimates derived from regression models are subject to some degree of error
and uncertainty. To better characterize the uncertainty or error bounds around predicted WTP, EPA
adopted the statistical procedure described by Krinsky and Robb in their 1986 Review of Economics and
Statistics paper, "Approximating the Statistical Property of Elasticities." The procedure involves sampling
from the variance-covariance matrix and means of the estimated coefficients. WTP values are then
calculated for each drawing from the variance covariance matrix, and an empirical distribution of WTP
values is constructed. By varying the number of drawings, it is possible to generate an empirical
distribution with a desired degree of accuracy (Krinsky and Robb 1986). The lower or upper bound of
WTP values can then be identified based on the 5th and 95th percentile of WTP values from the empirical
distribution. These bounds may help decision-makers understand the uncertainty associated with the
benefit results.
The results of EPA's calculations are shown in Table 7-4. The table presents 95th percentile upper
confidence bounds and 5th percentile lower confidence bounds for the marginal value per fish for each
species in each region. These bounds can be used to estimate upper and lower confidence bounds for the
WTP for improvements in recreational catch rates from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses or
reducing I&E mortality losses under each regulatory analysis option. Refer to EPA (2006b) for more
detail on the specific calculations. The 5th percentile values shown in Table 7-4 show that, with the
exception of panfish, even the lowest estimates of recreational value are greater than $1 per fish.
March 28, 2011 7-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 7-4: Confidence Bounds on Marginal Recreational Value per Fish, Based on the
Krinsky and Robb Approach3
„ . /-,!•*• North
Species California ... ,.
1 Atlantic
Mid- South
Atlantic Atlantic
Gulf of Great T , ,
,„ . T , Inland
Mexico Lakes
5th Percentile Lower Confidence Bounds1"
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Trout
Unidentified
$4.19
$5.10
$1.78
$8.40
$1.85
95th Percentile Upper Confidence
Small game
Flatfish
Other saltwater
Salmon
Walleye/pike
Bass
Panfish
Trout
Unidentified
$12.40
$18.56
$4.87
$28.70
$5.16
$2.12
$3.80
$1.78
$1.80
Bounds'1
$16.70
$9.40
$4.96
$5.01
$2.26
$3.74
$1.84
$0.53
$1.90
$15.46
$8.49
$4.58
$2.10
$5.71
$2.71
$3.86
$2.14
$2.14
$11.99
$8.25
$3.77
$3.81
$2.86
$2.13
$8.12
$2.17
$4.41
$0.69
$6.08
$2.36 $3.32
$11.00
$3.60
$21.53
$7.77
$16.56
$2.48
$14.61
$5.89 $11.67
$1.60
$8.12
$11.98
$4.27
$0.53
$1.51
$1.08
$18.00
$21.53
$8.49
$19.01
$2.10
$5.27
$4.58
" All values are in 2009$.
b Upper and lower confidence bounds based on results of the Krinsky and Robb (1986) approach.
Source: U.S. EPA (2006b), converted to 2009$ using the Consumer Price Index (USBLS 2010).
7.3 Benefits Estimates for Recreational Fishing by Region
7.3.1 California
Table 7-5 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality under
the baseline conditions at in-scope facilities in California. Baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E
mortality in the California region amount to 1.0 million fish per year. The majority of recreational losses
from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attributable to entrainment of rockfish and sea bass.
Table 7-5 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from
eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses at in-scope facilities in California. The estimated mean
annual welfare gain to California anglers from eliminating all of these losses is $2.9 million and $2.8
million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively. The majority of the monetized
recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating entrainment
of "other saltwater" fish31. Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.
31 The "other saltwater" species group includes banded drum, black drum, chubby, cod family, cow cod, croaker, grouper,
grunion, grunt, high-hat, kingfish, lingcod, other drum, perch, porgy, rockfish, sablefish, sand drum, sculpin, sea bass, smelt,
snapper, spot, spotted drum, star drum, white sea bass, wreckfish, other bottom species, other coastal pelagics, and "no
target" saltwater species.
March 28, 2011 7-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
As shown in Table 7-5, the estimated reduction in I&E mortality leads to an estimated annual increase in
recreational fishery harvest of less than 0.1 million fish under Option 1 and approximately 0.9 million fish
per year under Options 2 and 3. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain to
California anglers is approximately $0.1 million under Option 1, $1.7 million under Option 2, $1.8
million under Option 3. Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $1.3
million and $1.4 million under Options 2 and 3, and $0.1 million under Option 1 (Table 7-5). Appendix I
presents additional species-specific results.
Table 7-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality
Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the California Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)
Regulatory
Option
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Annual Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(harvestable adult fish)
1,022,339
36,438
876,841
915,750
Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
3 % Discount Rate
5th
$1,740
$51
$1,037
$1,096
Mean
$2,923
$85
$1,741
$1,840
95th
$4,917
$141
$2,929
$3,095
7 % Discount Rate
5th
$1,681
$46
$792
$832
Mean
$2,823
$75
$1,330
$1,396
95th
$4,750
$125
$2,237
$2,349
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
7.3.2 North Atlantic Region
Table 7-6 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality under
the baseline conditions at in-scope facilities in the North Atlantic region. Baseline recreational fishing
losses from I&E mortality in the North Atlantic region amount to 0.8 million fish per year. The majority
of recreational losses from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attributable to entrainment of
winter flounder, cunner, and sculpin. Table 7-6 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the potential
welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses at in-scope
facilities in the North Atlantic. The estimated mean annual welfare gain to North Atlantic anglers from
eliminating all of these losses is $2.8 million and $2.7 million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates, respectively. The majority of the monetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline
I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating the entrainment of "flatfish" and "other saltwater" fish.
Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.
As shown in Table 7-6, the estimated reduction in I&E mortality leads to an estimated annual increase in
recreational fishery harvest of less than 0.1 million fish under Option 1, 0.6 million fish under Option 2,
and 0.7 million fish under Option 3. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain
to North Atlantic anglers is less than $0.1 million under Option 1, $1.5 million under Option 2, and $1.6
million under Option 3. Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain is less than
$0.1 million under Option 1, $1.1 million under Option 2, and $1.2 million under Option 3 (Table 7-6).
Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.
March 28, 2011 7-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 7-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality
Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the North Atlantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)
Regulatory
Option
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Annual Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(harvestable adult fish)
761,183
1,495
620,929
651,307
Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
3 % Discount Rate
5th
$1,765
S3
$939
$1,018
Mean
$2,838
$5
$1,510
$1,638
95th
$4,596
$9
$2,446
$2,652
7 % Discount Rate
5th
$1,705
$3
$698
$756
Mean
$2,742
$5
$1,122
$1,216
95th
$4,440
$8
$1,817
$1,969
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
7.3.3 Mid-Atlantic Region
Table 7-7 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality under
the baseline conditions at in-scope facilities in the Mid-Atlantic region. Baseline recreational fishing
losses from I&E mortality in the Mid-Atlantic region amount to 9.1 million fish per year. The majority of
recreational losses from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attributable to I&E mortality of spot,
Atlantic croaker, and "other saltwater" fish. Table 7-7 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the potential
welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses at in-scope
facilities in the Mid-Atlantic. The estimated mean annual welfare gain to Mid-Atlantic anglers from
eliminating all of these losses is $25.6 million and $24.7 million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates, respectively. The majority of the monetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline
I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating the entrainment of other saltwater fish. Appendix I presents
additional species-specific results.
As shown in Table 7-7, the estimated reduction in I&E mortality leads to an estimated annual increase in
recreational fishery harvest of approximately 0.6 million fish under Option 1, 8.4 million fish under
Option 2, and 8.5 million fish under Option 3. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated mean annualized
welfare gain to Mid-Atlantic anglers is $14.1 million and $14.4 million under Options 2 and 3, and $1.6
million under Option 1. Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $9.8
million and $10.0 million under Options 2 and 3, and $1.4 million under Option 1 (Table 7-7). Appendix
I presents additional species-specific results.
Table 7-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality
Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)
_. , Annual Increase
Regulatory _, .
Recreational Har
Option
(harvestable adult
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Scenarios: Baseline =
Facilities > 125 MOD;
9,081,061
549,015
8,359,591
8,459,880
Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest
'm (2009$, thousands)
frh) 3 %
5th
$15,239
$846
$8,381
$8,584
Discount Rate
Mean
$25,569
$1,577
$14,073
$14,410
Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option
Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere; Option 4 =
95th
$44,467
$3,136
$24,501
$25,078
7 % Discount Rate
5th
$14,721
$749
$5,831
$5,975
1=1 Everywhere; Option 2
I for Facilities > 50 MOD
Mean
$24,701
$1,396
$9,792
$10,030
95th
$42,958
$2,776
$17,049
$17,456
= I Everywhere and E for
March 28, 2011 7-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
7.3.4 South Atlantic Region
Table 7-8 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality under
the baseline conditions at in-scope facilities in the South Atlantic region. Baseline recreational fishing
losses from I&E mortality in the South Atlantic region amount to 0.1 million fish per year. The majority
of recreational losses from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attributable to I&E mortality of
"other saltwater" fish, especially spot and croakers. Table 7-8 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the
potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses at in-
scope facilities in the South Atlantic. The estimated mean annual welfare gain to South Atlantic anglers
from eliminating all of these losses is approximately $0.3 million evaluated at both 3 percent and 7
percent discount rates. The majority of the monetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E
mortality are attributable to eliminating impingement of "other saltwater" fish. Appendix I presents
additional species-specific results.
As shown in Table 7-8, the estimated reduction in I&E mortality leads to an estimated annual increase in
recreational fishery harvest of approximately 0.1 million fish under Options 2 and 3, and less than 0.1
million fish per year under Option 1. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain
to South Atlantic anglers is $0.2 million under Options 2 and 3, and less than $0.1 million under Option 1.
Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $0.1 million under Options 2 and
3, and less than $0.1 million under Option 1 (Table 7-8). Appendix I presents additional species-specific
results.
Table 7-8: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality
Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the South Atlantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)
Annual Increase in
Regulatory „ ,.
° Recreational Harvest
(harvestable adult fish"
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Scenarios
Facilities
133,897
15,882
112,139
112,301
Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
3%
5th
$257
$28
$141
$141
Discount Rate
Mean
$346
$37
$190
$190
: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option
>125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere; Option 4 =
95th
$469
$50
$257
$257
7 % Discount Rate
5th
$249
$24
$103
$103
1=1 Everywhere; Option 2
I for Facilities > 50 MOD
Mean 95
$335
$33
$139
$139
= I Everywhere and
th
$453
$45
$188
$188
Efor
7.3.5 Gulf of Mexico
Table 7-9 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality under
the baseline conditions at in-scope facilities in the Gulf of Mexico region. Baseline recreational fishing
losses from I&E mortality in the Gulf of Mexico region amount to 2.9 million fish per year. The majority
of recreational losses from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attributable to the impingement of
spotted seatrout and the entrainment of black drum and "other saltwater" fish. Table 7-9 shows the results
of EPA's analysis of the potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating baseline
recreational fishing losses at in-scope facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. The estimated mean annual welfare
gain to Gulf of Mexico anglers from eliminating all of these losses is $8.9 million and $8.8 million
evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, repectively. The majority of the monetized
recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality are attributable to both the impingement of
March 28, 2011 7-10
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
"small game" fish and the entrainment of "other saltwater" species. Appendix I presents additional
species-specific results.
As shown in Table 7-9, the estimated reduction in I&E mortality leads to an estimated annual increase in
recreational fishery harvest of approximately 2.2 million fish under Options 2 and 3, and 0.7 million fish
per year under Option 1. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain to Gulf of
Mexico anglers is $2.4 million under Option 1, and $4.9 million under Options 2 and 3. Discounted at 7
percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $2.2 million under Option 1, and $3.8 million
under Options 2 and 3 (Table 7-9). Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.
Table 7-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality
Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)
Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest
Regulatory AlmUal InCreaSC ln (2009$, thousands)
Option
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
(harvestable adult fish)
2,851,347
665,697
2,204,063
2,208,009
3 % Discount Rate
5th
$6,022
$1,398
$3,225
$3,258
Mean
$8,852
$2,422
$4,866
$4,906
95th
$13,506
$4,334
$7,642
$7,690
7 % Discount Rate
5th
$5,999
$1,275
$2,491
$2,510
Mean
$8,818
$2,210
$3,760
$3,781
95th
$13,456
$3,953
$5,908
$5,926
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
7.3.6 Great Lakes Region
Table 7-10 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality
under the baseline conditions at in-scope facilities in the Great Lakes region. Baseline recreational fishing
losses from I&E mortality in the Great Lakes region amount to 0.3 million fish per year. The majority of
recreational losses from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attributable to impingement of
whitefish and entrainment of "unidentified" species. Table 7-10 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the
potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses at in-
scope facilities in the Great Lakes. The estimated mean annual welfare gain to Great Lakes anglers from
eliminating all of these losses is $2.0 million evaluated at both 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates. The
majority of the monetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality are attributable to
eliminating the impingement of "other trout" and "unidentified" fish. Appendix I presents additional
species-specific results.
As shown in Table 7-10, the estimated reduction in I&E mortality leads to an estimated annual increase in
recreational fishery harvest of approximately 0.2 million fish per year under Option 1, and 0.3 million fish
under Options 2 and 3. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain to Great
Lakes anglers is $1.3 million under Options 2 and 3, and $1.0 million under Option 1. Discounted at 7
percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $1.0 million under Options 2 and 3, and $0.9
million under Option 1 (Table 7-10). Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.
March 28, 2011 7-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 7-10: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Great Lakes Region, by Regulatory Option
(2009$)
Regulatory
Option
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Annual Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(harvestable adult fish)
349,648
176,089
317,974
320,196
Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
3 % Discount Rate
5th
$1,127
$561
$720
$725
Mean
$1,984
$951
$1,261
$1,271
95th
$3,544
$1,638
$2,241
$2,261
7 % Discount Rate
5th
$1,123
$511
$559
$561
Mean
$1,977
$867
$979
$984
95th
$3,530
$1,495
$1,739
$1,750
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
7.3.7 Inland Region
Table 7-11 shows the results of EPA's analysis of the recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality
under the baseline conditions at in-scope facilities in the Inland region. Baseline recreational fishing
losses from I&E mortality in the Inland region amount to 12.6 million fish per year. The majority of
recreational losses from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attributable to I&E mortality of
"bass," "panfish," and "unidentified" species groups. Table 7-11 shows the results of EPA's analysis of
the potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses at
in-scope facilities in the Inland region. The estimated mean annual welfare gain to Inland anglers from
eliminating all of these losses is $34.4 million and $34.2 million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rates, respectively. The majority of the monetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline
I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating I&E mortality of "bass," "panfish," and "unidentified" fish.
Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.
As shown in Table 7-11, the estimated reduction in I&E mortality leads to an estimated annual increase in
recreational fishery harvest of approximately 11.1 million fish and 11.4 million fish under Options 2 and
3, and 4.7 million fish per year under Option 1. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated mean annualized
welfare gain to Inland anglers is $19.9 million and $20.7 million under Options 2 and 3, and $10.5
million under Option 1. Discounted at 7 percent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $9.6
million under Option 1, $15.3 million under Option 2, and $15.8 million under Option 3 (Table 7-11).
Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.
March 28, 2011 7-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 7-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E
Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Inland Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)
Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest
Regulatory AlmUal InCreaSC ln (2009$, thousands)
jf ,. Recreational Harvest
Option 3 % Discount Rate 7 % Discount Rate
(harvestable adult fish)
5th Mean 95th 5th Mean 95th
Baseline 12,592,464 S16,566 S34,376 $71,653 S16,504 S34,247 $71,384
Option 1 4,321,037 £5,071 £10,545 £22,049 $4,626 £9,619 $20,115
Option 2 11,061,370 £9,578 £19,879 $41,449 S7,361 S15,277 $31,856
Option3 11,389,049 £9,966 £20,684 S43,122 S7,592 S15,755 S32,847
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for
Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
7.4 Limitations and Uncertainties
A number of limitations and uncertainties are common to all WTP values predicted using benefit transfer.
To better characterize the uncertainty or error bounds around predicted WTP, EPA adopted the statistical
procedure described by Krinsky and Robb in their 1986 Review of Economics and Statistics paper
"Approximating the Statistical Property of Elasticities." This procedure was used to generate lower and
upper bound WTP values identified as the 5th and 95th percentile of values from the empirical
distribution. Additional detail regarding the Krinsky and Robb approach is provided in Section 7.2.3.
These bounds may help decision-makers understand the uncertainty associated with the benefit results for
the elimination of baseline I&E mortality losses and 316(b) regulatory options.
Specific limitations and uncertainties associated with the estimated regression model and the underlying
studies are discussed in Section A5-3.3 of EPA (2006b). Additional limitations and uncertainties
associated with implementation of the meta-analysis approach are addressed below.
7.4.1 Variable Assignments for Independent Regressors
The per-fish values estimated from the model depend on the values of the input variables in the meta-
analysis. EPA assigned values to the input variables based on established economic theory and
characteristics of the affected species and regions. However, because the input values for some variables
are uncertain, the resulting per-fish values and benefits estimates also include some degree of uncertainty.
7.4.2 Exclusion of Error Term from Regression Equation to Predict Marginal Values
EPA decided not to include the error term when using the regression equation to predict marginal values
per fish. Bockstael and Strand (1987) argue that if the source of econometric error in an equation is
primarily due to omitted variables, the error term should be included, but if the error is primarily due to
random preferences, it should be excluded. EPA did not conclude whether the error is primarily due to
omitted variables or random preferences. Because the error term is positive, the empirical effect of
including this term is to increase the predicted marginal values. Therefore, EPA excluded the error term in
order to result in more- conservative estimates. EPA also notes that when the error term is excluded, the
values predicted by the regression equation are more consistent with those from the underlying studies.
This indicates that convergent validity is greater when the error term is excluded.
March 28, 2011 7-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
7.4.3 Other Limitations and Uncertainties
In addition to the limitations and uncertainties involved with the study data and model estimation, which
are discussed in Section A5-3.3e of EPA (2006b), there are limitations and uncertainties involved with the
calculation of per-fish values from the model, and with the use of those values to estimate the welfare
gain resulting from the regulatory options considered for the final Section 316(b) regulation for existing
Phase II facilities.
The validity and reliability of benefit transfer—including that based on meta-analysis—depends on a
variety of factors. While benefit transfer can provide valid measures of use benefits, tests of its
performance have provided mixed results (e.g., Desvousges et al. 1998; Smith et al. 2002; Vandenberg et
al. 2001). Nonetheless, benefit transfers are increasingly applied as a core component of benefit-cost
analyses conducted by EPA and other government agencies (Bergstrom and De Civita 1999; Griffiths
undated). Smith et al. (2002, p. 134) state that "nearly all benefit cost analyses rely on benefit transfers,
whether they acknowledge it or not."
An important factor in any benefit transfer is the ability of the study site or estimated valuation equation
to approximate the resource and context for which benefit estimates are desired. As is common, the meta-
analysis model presented here provides a close but not perfect match to the context in which values are
desired.
The final area of uncertainty related to the use of the regression results to calculate regulatory benefits is
uncertainty in the estimates of I&E mortality. There are a number of reasons why recreational losses due
to I&E mortality may be higher or lower than expected. Projected changes in recreational catch may be
underestimated because cumulative impacts of I&E mortality overtime are not considered. In particular,
I&E mortality estimates include only individuals directly lost to I&E mortality, not their progeny.
Additionally, the interaction of I&E mortality with other stressors may have either a positive or negative
effect on recreational catch. Finally, in estimating recreational fishing losses, EPA used the most current
I&E mortality data available provided by facilities, which in some cases may not reflect current
conditions.
March 28, 2011 7-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
8 Nonuse Benefits of Reducing I&E Mortality
8.1 Introduction
Comprehensive estimates of total resource value include both use and nonuse values, such that the
resulting total value estimate may be compared to total social cost. "Non-use values, like use values, have
their basis in the theory of individual preferences and the measurement of welfare changes. According to
theory, use values and non-use values are additive" (Freeman III 1993). Consequently, excluding nonuse
values from consideration is likely to substantially understate total social values. Recent economic
literature provides substantial support for the hypothesis that nonuse values are greater than zero for many
types of environmental improvements. Moreover, when a substantial fraction of the population holds even
small per capita nonuse values, these nonuse values can be very large in the aggregate. As stated by
Freeman (1993), "there is a real possibility that ignoring non-use values could result in serious
misallocation of resources." Consequently, both EPA's own Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analysis
and OMB's Circular A-4, governing regulatory analysis, support the need to assess nonuse values
(USEPA 2000a; USOMB 2003).
The vast majority (97 percent) of current (i.e., baseline) impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E
mortality) losses at cooling water intake structures (CWISs) consist of forage species or unlanded
individuals of recreational and commercial species (Chapter 3). Although these forage fish and unlanded
fish do not have direct use values, they may be valued by users (commercial fishers and recreational
anglers) and nonusers of fisheries resources. Additionally, the nonuse values are likely to be substantial,
because fish and other species found within aquatic habitats impacted directly and indirectly by CWISs
provide other valuable ecosystem goods and services, including nutrient cycling and ecosystem stability.
Therefore, a comprehensive estimate of the welfare gain from reducing I&E mortality losses must include
an estimate of nonuse benefits.
The following sections present EPA's qualitative and quantitative assessments of nonuse benefits. EPA
qualitatively evaluated the public's nonuse values for aquatic habitats by considering evidence from
existing aquatic restoration and protection programs (Section 8.2). This chapter also presents EPA's
benefit transfer approach for the quantification of nonuse benefits associated with reductions in I&E
mortality offish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms under the 316(b) regulatory options in the North
Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Regions (Section 8.3). Section 8.4 presents estimated nonuse benefits under the
316(b) regulatory options.
8.2 Public Policy Significance of Ecological Improvements from the
Proposed 316(b) Regulation for Existing Facilities
Changes to CWIS design and operation resulting from 316(b) regulation of existing facilities is expected
to reduce I&E mortality losses offish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms. These direct benefits are
believed to lead to increases in local and regional fishery populations and ecosystem stability. Moreover,
many indirect ecosystem goods and services are affected by I&E mortality, thermal effects, and flow
alteration. Due to the wide-ranging nature of these indirect effects, EPA believes that regulation is likely
to enhance the value of ecosystem goods and services provided by aquatic habitats, and that regulation
will help reduce the overall impact of anthropogenic effects on aquatic systems affected by CWISs. Table
2-4 provides a detailed list of ecosystem services potentially affected by the proposed 316(b) regulation.
March 28, 2011 sT
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
EPA assessed the potential magnitude of nonuse benefits that are quantified, but not monetized using
information regarding government spending on the protection, restoration, and regulation of various
aquatic habitats. This included Marine Protected Areas (Section 8.2.2) and a subset of freshwater
ecosystems undergoing large-scale restoration efforts (Section 8.2.3). This spending serves as a lower
bound of nonuse values in a subset of geographical locations
8.2.1 Effects on Depleted Fish Populations
EPA believes that reducing fish mortality from impingement and entrainment (I&E) would contribute to
the health and sustainability of the affected fish populations by lowering the overall level of mortality for
these populations. Fish populations suffer from numerous sources of mortality, both natural and
anthropogenic. Natural sources include weather, predation by other fish, and the availability of food.
Human impacts that affect fish populations include fishing, pollution, habitat changes, and I&E mortality
losses at CWISs. Fish populations decline when they are unable to sufficiently compensate for their
overall level of mortality. Although it is difficult to measure, EPA believes that an aquatic population's
compensatory ability—the capacity for a species to increase survival, growth, or reproduction rates in
response to decreased population —is likely compromised by impingement and entrainment mortality
(I&E mortality) losses and the cumulative impact of other stressors in the environment over extended
periods of time (USEPA 2006a). Lowering the overall mortality level increases the probability that a
population will be able to compensate for mortality at a level sufficient to maintain its long-term health.
In some cases, I&E mortality losses may be a significant source of anthropogenic mortality to already-
depleted stocks of commercially targeted species (see Table 2-3). Depleted saltwater fish stocks affected
by I&E mortality include winter flounder, Atlantic Cod, and rockfishes, for example (NMFS 2010a). As
discussed in Section 2.3.1, I&E mortality also increases the pressure on freshwater species native to the
Great Lakes, such as lake whitefish and yellow perch, whose populations have dramatically declined in
recent years (USDOI 2008; Wisconsin DNR 2003).
The federal government and the states have recognized the public importance of maintaining sustainable
fisheries, achieving recovery of depleted fish stocks, and ensuring that functioning ecosystems are passed
to future generations. Actions these governments have taken include buying fishing licenses and fishing
vessels from individual fishers when stocks appear depressed, imposing restrictions on commercial and
recreational harvests, conducting large-scale ecosystem restoration projects (USDOI 2008), and creating a
national system of marine protected areas (Executive Order No. 13158 2001). Together, these
governmental actions suggest that the public holds substantial nonuse values for aquatic habitats.
To summarize, EPA believes that reducing fish mortality from I&E mortality along with other measures
would contribute to the recovery of damaged fish populations.
8.2.2 Marine Protected Areas
A Marine Protected Area (MPA) is "any area of the marine environment that has been reserved by
federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part or all of
the natural and cultural resources therein" (Executive Order No. 13158 2001). In some states, the majority
of coastal waters are found within MPAs (e.g., Massachusetts, Hawaii). The ecological importance of
MPAs varies widely because of their broad focus on the preservation and maintenance of cultural and
natural resources, and/or sustainable production (NMPAC 2006). Consequently, evaluating the impact of
CWISs on the entire universe of MPAs may overstate the nonuse values for the ecological benefits
associated with reductions in I&E mortality. For this reason, EPA focused on MPAs within the National
March 28, 2011 sT
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Estuary Program (NEP). The NEP was established in the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act
(CWA) because the "Nation's estuaries are of great importance to fish and wildlife resources and
recreation and economic opportunity [and because maintaining] the health and ecological integrity of
these estuaries is in the national interest" (Water Quality Act 1987). In addition to the 28 estuaries
designated under the NEP (USEPA 2010a), EPA included facilities found in Chesapeake Bay (itself
protected by the Chesapeake Bay Program [CBP]).
Substantial federal and state resources have been directed to the NEP and Chesapeake Bay Program to
enhance conservation of and knowledge about estuaries. From 2005 to 2007, NEP budgeted $965 million
to protect and restore aquatic habitat, conduct outreach and research, upgrade stormwater infrastructure,
and implement other priority actions to benefit the health of the 28 constituent estuaries. Approximately
$130 million (13.5 percent) of the funding was designated for restoration programs (USEPA 2008).
Between fiscal years 1995 and 2004, direct funding by federal and state governments to restore
Chesapeake Bay averaged $366 million (GAO 2005), with an additional $131 million in direct spending
in fiscal year 2005 (CBP 2007). Moreover, recent governmental action is likely to increase federal
spending on restoration efforts in the future (Executive Order No. 13508 2009). All told, these
expenditures reflect high public values for restoring (or protecting) the biological integrity of these
ecosystems.
A total of 116 Section 316(b) facilities exist on 75 waterbodies within MPAs designed to preserve natural
resources and/or to ensure sustainable production (NOAA 2010b) (Figure 8-2; Table 8-1). Although these
facilities are found in fresh, brackish, and marine waters, and in all regions of the country except
California, the vast majority of 316(b) facilities occurring within MPAs occur in coastal waters, and are
most highly concentrated in the Northeastern United States (i.e. both coastal and inland facilities) (Figure
8-2; Table 8-1). Under Option 1, 87 percent of in-scope facilities found within MPAs obtain reductions in
impingement mortality (IM), while entrainment mortality (EM) is not reduced at any facilities (Table
8-1). Under Options 2 and 3, impingement mortality is reduced at 92 and 97 percent of 316(b) facilities in
MPAs, while the addition of closed-cycle cooling results in reduced entrainment mortality at 72 and 92
percent of in-scope facilities found in MPAs, respectively (Table 8-1).
March 28, 2011 8-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
California Region
Gfeat Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
| | Inland
I^X^j Mid Atlantic
[•••••| North Atlantic
I "". "I South Atlantic
Figure 8-2: In-scope Facilities with CWISs Located In Marine Protected Areas.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
8-4
-------
Table 8-1: 316(b) Facilities in Marine Protected Areas, and Improvements in I&E Mortality
Technologies by Regulatory Option
Number of Facilities with Improved Technologies by Policy Option
Benefits Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
Scenarios: Baseline
125 MOD; Option 3
Affected
Waterbodies
0
18
24
5
9
o
J
14
73
Baseline
316(b)
Facilities3
0
9
10
23
44
20
10
116
Option 1
I
Mortality
0
17
40
10
8
8
18
101
= Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option
= I&E Mortality
Everywhere.
E
Option 2
I
Mortality Mortality
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1= I Everywhere;
0
19
41
10
10
9
18
107
Option 2
E
Mortality
0
16
31
9
10
8
9
83
Option 3
I
Mortality
0
20
43
10
10
9
20
112
E
Mortality
0
20
40
9
10
9
18
106
= I Everywhere and E for Facilities >
8.2.3 Restoration of Freshwater Ecosystems
Reducing the effect of CWISs at 316(b) facilities is likely to benefit aquatic ecosystems nationwide, but
the largest magnitude of improvements may occur in areas of the Great Lakes Basin and Mississippi
River, with their high density of facilities. These freshwater bodies are subject to large-scale ecosystem
restoration efforts that indicate public support for restoring the ecological health of these ecosystems
(Northeast Midwest Institute 2010; USDOI 2008; USFWS 2011; Upper Mississippi River Basin
Association 2004).
Nationally, ecosystem restoration efforts focus on many issues, including coastal habitat restoration,
protection offish species, and conservation of migratory birds. For example, the federal government
provided in excess of $1.7 billion for sport fish restoration between fiscal years 2005-2009 (USFWS
2010d), and has initiated a 5-year multi-agency initiative to restore the ecosystems of the Great Lakes, for
which $475 million was appropriated in fiscal year 2010 (CEQ et al. 2010). The restoration of major
inland river ecosystems has been recognized as a worthwhile goal, with more than $100 million spent on
restoring ecosystems along the Mississippi River (Brescia 2002; USEPA 2004c). Additionally, substantial
federal funding for river restoration has been proposed for FY2011, with more than $730 million
requested for major projects in the Missouri, Mississippi, Columbia, and Kissimmee rivers (USOMB
2010a; USOMB 2010b). These projects include the construction offish ladders, restoration of wetland
nursery habitat, and the reduction of pollution. These expenditures indicate a high value placed on the
maintenance and restoration of ecosystem function and the integrity of freshwater ecosystems.
8.2.4 Summary of Evidence for Nonuse Values of Ecosystems Impacted by CWISs
Overall, the public appears to hold substantial nonuse values for ecosystems and species impacted by
CWISs. For example, governments at various levels have committed to the designation of MPAs at large
scales. Governments also have committed substantial resources to the restoration of degraded aquatic
ecosystems. This evidence suggests that the nonuse benefits of 316(b) regulation, although unquantified,
are substantial. Additional discussion of nonuse impacts occurring under baseline conditions is provided
in Chapter 2.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
8-5
-------
8.3 Quantitative Assessment of Ecological Nonuse Benefits
Stated preference (SP) methods and benefit transfers based on SP studies are the generally accepted
techniques for estimating nonuse values. SP methods rely on surveys that ask people to state their
willingness to pay (WTP) for particular ecological improvements, such as increased protection of aquatic
species or habitats with particular attributes. As mentioned above, EPA is in the process of developing a
SP survey to estimate total WTP for improvements to fishery resources affected by I&E mortality from
in-scope 316(b) facilities. This survey will provide estimates of total WTP which includes both use and
nonuse values, will allow estimates of value associated with specific choice attributes (following standard
methods for choice experiments), and will provide insight into the relative importance of use versus
nonuse values in the 316(b) context. EPA did not have sufficient time before this notice of proposed
rulemaking to fully develop and deploy this survey and thus derive estimates of the monetary value of
reducing I&E mortality impacts at the national level. In the absence of original study values, EPA
identified a recent SP study conducted by Johnston et al. (2009) that is closely related to the 316(b) policy
context. Johnston et al. (2009) developed a Bioindicator-Based Stated Preference Valuation (BSPV)
method specifically for applications to ecological systems.32 Like EPA's planned survey, this study
addresses policy changes that introduce forage fish to aquatic habitat but for which ultimate population
effects are unknown. The study was originally developed to address Rhode Island residents' preferences
for the restoration of migratory fish passage over dams within an in-state watershed. It estimates nonuse
values by asking respondents to consider changes in ecological indicators reflecting quantity of habitat,
abundance of wildlife, ecological condition, and abundance of migratory fish species.
EPA used Johnston et al. (2009) to conduct a benefits transfer to quantify nonuse benefits associated with
reductions in I&E mortality under the 316(b) regulatory options for the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic
benefits regions. The study's choice experiment allows direct estimation of households' WTP for policies
that increase the number offish in watersheds by changing human industrial uses of aquatic ecosystems.
Section 8.3.1 describes Johnston et al. (2009) and BSPV methods in greater detail. This is followed by a
description of EPA's benefits transfer methods using Johnston et al. (2009) (Section 8.3.2) and estimated
benefits for 316(b) regulatory options (Section 8.4).
8.3.1 Description of Johnston et al. (2009) and BSPV Methods
Johnston et al. (2009) developed the BSPV method to promote ecological clarity and closer integration of
ecological and economic information within SP studies. The study's focus on improved ecological
valuation is an EPA priority as described in findings of EPA's Science Advisory Board on valuing the
protection of Ecological System and Services (USEPA 2009b). In contrast to traditional SP valuation,
BSPV employs a more structured and formal use of ecological indicators to characterize and
communicate welfare-relevant changes. It begins with a formal basis in ecological science, and extends to
relationships between attributes in respondents' preference functions and those used to characterize policy
outcomes. Specific BSPV guidelines ensure that survey scenarios and resulting welfare estimates are
characterized by (1) a formal basis in established and measurable ecological indicators, (2) a clear
structure linking these indicators to attributes influencing individuals' well-being, (3) consistent and
meaningful interpretation of ecological information, and (4) a consequent ability to link welfare measures
to measurable and unambiguous policy outcomes. The welfare measures provided by the BSPV method
can be unambiguously linked to models and indicators of ecosystem function, are based on measurable
1 The study was funded by the EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) competitive grant program.
March 28, 2011 8-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
ecological outcomes, and are more easily incorporated into benefit cost analysis. It also provides a means
to estimate values for ecological outcomes that individuals might value, even though they may not fully
understand all relevant ecological science.
Johnston et al. (2009) developed the BSPV methods for a case study addressing public preferences for the
restoration of migratory fish passage in Rhode Island's Pawtuxet Watershed. The BSPV survey (Rhode
Island River: Migratory Fishes and Dams) was designed to estimate WTP of Rhode Island residents for
options that would provide fish passage over dams and access to between 225 and 900 acres of historical
habitat within the Pawtuxet Watershed to which there is currently no fish passage. The watershed
currently provides no spawning habitat for migratory fish; access to all 4,347 acres of potential habitat is
blocked by 22 dams and other obstructions (Erkan 2002).
The survey was developed and tested over 2!/2 years through a collaborative process involving
interactions of economists and ecologists; meetings with resource managers, natural scientists, and
stakeholder groups; and 12 focus groups with 105 total participants. In addition to survey development
and testing in focus groups, individual interviews were conducted with both ecological experts and non-
experts. These included cognitive interviews (Kaplowitz et al. 2004), verbal protocols (Schkade and
Payne 1994) and other pretests conducted to gain additional insight into respondents' understanding and
interpretation of the survey. Careful attention to development and testing helped ensure that the survey
language and format would be easily understood by respondents, that respondents would have similar
interpretations of survey terminology and scenarios, and that the survey scenarios captured restoration
outcomes viewed as relevant and realistic by both respondents and natural scientists. In all cases, survey
development paid particular attention to the use and interpretation of ecological indicators and related
information in the survey.
The choice scenarios and restoration options presented within the survey were informed in part by data
and restoration priorities in the Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Anadromous Fishes to Rhode Island
Coastal Streams (Erkan 2002). Additional information was drawn from the ecological literature on fish
passage restoration, interviews with ecologists and policy experts, and other sources described below.
Consistent with the strategic plan, the choice experiment within the survey addressed restoration methods
that neither require dam removal nor would cause appreciable changes in river flows; considered options
included fish ladders, bypass channels and fish lifts. The choice experiment addresses forage species such
as alewife and blueback herring that neither are subject to current recreational or commercial harvest in
Rhode Island nor are charismatic species. Hence, the species affected are a close analog to the forage fish
affected in the 316(b) policy context. Moreover, the policy context of Johnston et al. (2009) involves
changes to technologies used within in-water structures (i.e., the use offish ladders or fish lifts at dams),
providing another parallel to the 316(b) context, which also involves the use of new technologies within
in-water structures to mitigate harm to aquatic organisms.
The choice experiment asked respondents to consider alternative options for the restoration of migratory
fish passage in the Pawtuxet Watershed. Respondents were provided with two multiattribute restoration
options, "Restoration Project A" and "Restoration Project B," as well as a status quo option that would
result in no policy change and zero household cost. An example choice question is presented in Figure 8-
3. Prior to administration of the choice experiment questions, the survey provided information: (1)
describing the current status of Rhode Island river ecology and migratory fish compared to historical
baselines, (2) characterizing affected ecological systems and linkages, (3) describing the methods and
details offish passage restoration, and (4) providing the definitions, derivations and interpretations of
March 28, 2011 8-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
ecological indicators used in the survey scenarios, including the reason for their inclusion. All survey
language and graphics were pretested carefully to ensure respondent comprehension.
The restoration options are characterized by seven attributes, including five ecological indicators, one
attribute characterizing public access, and one attribute characterizing unavoidable household cost. The
included ecological indicators characterize: (1) the quantity of river habitat accessible to migratory fishes,
(2) the number offish migrating to upstream habitat, (3) the abundance offish suitable for recreational
harvest, (4) the abundance offish-dependent wildlife, (5) and overall ecological condition.
8.3.2 Benefits Transfer Methodology
The following subsections describe EPA's benefits transfer methods using the BSPV study. Section
8.3.2.1 describes the estimation of WTP for a percentage increase in fish numbers using the BSPV study,
and Section 8.3.2.2 describes the application of BSPV WTP values to I&E mortality reductions under
316(b) regulatory options.
8.3.2.1 Estimating WTP for a Percentage Increase in Fish Numbers
As shown in Figure 8-3, within Johnston et al. (2009)'s choice scenarios each ecological attribute is
expressed in relative terms with regard to upper and lower reference conditions (i.e., best and worst
possible in the Pawtuxet) as defined in survey informational materials. Relative scores represent percent
progress towards the upper reference condition (100 percent), starting from the lower reference condition
(0 percent). This also implies bounds on the potential attribute levels that might occur in the choice
questions, following guidance in the literature to provide visible choice sets (Bateman et al. 2004). The
number offish affected by 316(b) regulations is many times larger than that considered by Johnston et al.
(2009) — therefore it would be inappropriate to apply the Johnston et al. (2009) values per fish to the
316(b) fish reduction estimates (which exceed the maximum reference condition for Johnston et al.
(2009)) to obtain a WTP value for this rulemaking. In order to conduct a benefit transfer that closely
follows Johnston et al. (2009)'s study design for the Pawtuxet Watershed, resource improvements should
be expressed as a percentage improvement relative to the existing resource condition. A variant of
Johnston et al.'s (2009) model was hence used to conduct a benefit transfer predicated on percentage
improvements in the fish condition, relative to the reference condition for each ecosystem. As
improvements are bounded by the 100 percent reference condition in all cases, this at least partially
ameliorates the scale concern described above. The remainder of this section describes EPA approach for
estimating WTP per percentage improvement based on Johnston et al. (2009).
March 28, 2011 8-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Question 6. Projects A and B are possible restoration projects for the Pawtuxet
River, and the Current Situation is the status quo with no restoration. Given a
choice between the three, how would you vote?
Effect of
Restoration
Fish Habitat
Catchable Fish
Abundance
Fish-Dependent
Wildlife
Aquatic Ecological
Condition Score
Public Access
$
Cost to your
Household per Year
HOW WOULD YOU
VOTE?
(CHOOSE ONE
ONLY)
Current
Situation
(no restoration)
0%
0 of 434? river acres
accessible to fish
0%
0 out of 1 .2 million
possible
80%
116 fish/hour found out
of 145 possible
55%
20 of 36 species native
to Rl are common
65%
Natural condition out of
100% maximum
Public CANNOT walk
and fish in area
$0
Increase in Annual
Taxes and Fees
Q
I vote for NO
RESTORATION
10%
450 of 4347 river acres
accessible to fish
33%
395,000 out of 1 .2
million possible
80%
116 fish/hour found out
of 145 possible
80%
28 of 36 species native
to Rl are common
80%
Natural condition out of
100% maximum
Public CANNOT walk
and fish in area
$5
Increase in Annual
Taxes and Fees
a
I vote for
PROJECT A
5%
225 of 4347 river acres
accessible to fish
20%
245,000 out of 1 .2
million possible
70%
102 fish/hour found out
of 145 possible
65%
24 of 36 species native
to Rl are common
70%
Natural condition out of
100% maximum
Public CAN walk and
fish in area
$5
Increase in Annual
Taxes and Fees
a
I vote for
PROJECT B
Figure 8-3: Example Choice Experiment Question from Johnston et al. (2009)
March 28, 2011 8-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
When specifying mixed logit models for SP choice experiments, economic theory provides guidance
regarding certain aspects of model specification. For example, the parameter on program cost is expected
to have a negative sign, reflecting a positive marginal utility of income. To ensure an appropriate sign for
this parameter within mixed logit models, a common solution is to specify a lognormal distribution on the
sign-reversed cost parameter. This solution, however, leads to well-known ambiguities for WTP
estimation related to the long right-hand tail of the lognormal distribution, and often unrealistic mean
WTP estimates over the entire distribution (Hensher and Greene 2003; Johnston and Duke 2007). As a
result of this well-established problem, Hensher and Greene (2003, p. 148) recommend alternatives
including the bounded triangular distribution for the program cost parameter.
Here, following Hensher and Greene (2003), the random utility model is estimated using maximum
likelihood ML with Halton draws in the likelihood simulation. Coefficients on program cost (cost) and
migrants (the percentage point increase in the number of migratory fish able to reach watershed habitat)
are important for estimating WTP for a percentage increase in fish numbers. Coefficients on all variables
except that on program cost (cost) are specified as random with a normal distribution. This includes the
variable migrants. The coefficient on annual household cost (cost) is specified as random with a bounded
triangular distribution as specified above with the mean equal to the spread (m=s), ensuring a positive
marginal utility of income. Sign-reversal is applied to the cost variable prior to estimation, so that the
expected parameter sign is positive (Hensher and Greene 2003).33 Table 8-2 presents model results.
Because the mixed logit model includes random coefficients, EPA estimated WTP using the welfare
simulation approach of Johnston and Duke (2007; 2009) following Hensher and Greene (2003). The
procedure begins with a parameter simulation following the parametric bootstrap of Krinsky and Robb
(1986), with ^=1000 draws taken from the mean parameter vector and associated covariance matrix. For
each draw, the resulting parameters are used to characterize asymptotically normal empirical densities for
fixed and random coefficients. For each of these R draws, a coefficient simulation is then conducted for
each random coefficient, with £=1000 draws taken from simulated empirical densities. Here, all
coefficient simulations draw from a normal distribution except for that on cost, which draws from a
bounded triangular distribution with m=s=Q.Q5148015. Because the use of a triangular distribution on
program cost ameliorates the "long tails" problem of the lognormal distribution, and also due to
differences in the estimated functional form, these results provide lower WTP estimates, particularly for
relatively small increases in fish numbers. Welfare measures are calculated for each draw, resulting in a
combined empirical distribution of R*S observations from which summary statistics are derived. The
resulting empirical distributions accommodate both the sampling variance of parameter estimates and the
estimated distribution of random parameters. Here, we follow Hu et al. (2005) and simulate welfare
estimates as the mean over the parameter simulation of mean WTP calculated over the coefficient
simulation (i.e., mean of mean WTP).
33 Because the mixed logit model includes random coefficients, we estimate WTP using the welfare simulation approach of
Johnston and Duke (2007; 2009) following Hensher and Greene (2003). The resulting empirical distributions accommodate
both the sampling variance of parameter estimates and the estimated distribution of random parameters. We follow Hu et al.
(2005) and simulate welfare estimates as the mean over the parameter simulation of mean WTP calculated over the
coefficient simulation (i.e., mean of mean WTP).
March 28, 2011 8-10
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 8-2: Results of Mixed Logit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (Bounded Triangular
Cost)
Variable
Coefficient
Standard Error
b/ St. Er.
P[|Z|>z]
Random parameters in utility functions
NEITHER
ACRES
MIGRANT
ACCESS
CATCH
WILD
IBI
COST
Derived standard
NsNEITHER
NsACRES
NsMIGRANT
NsACCESS
NsCATCH
NsWILD
NsIBI
TsCOST
-5.412
0.047
0.028
1.538
-0.004
0.024
0.016
0.051
deviations of parameter distributions
5.424
0.076
0.004
1.950
0.030
0.031
0.043
0.051
1.489
0.013
0.009
0.274
0.008
0.009
0.017
0.009
1.140
0.028
0.017
0.372
0.031
0.024
0.036
0.009
-3.635
3.637
3.266
5.609
-0.474
2.755
0.957
5.998
4.760
2.686
0.214
5.239
0.981
1.279
1.181
5.998
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.635
0.006
0.338
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.831
0.000
0.326
0.201
0.238
0.000
Parameter Descriptions:
neither - Alternative specific constant (ASC) associated with the status quo, or a choice of neither plan.
acres - The number of acres of river habitat accessible to migratory fish.
migrant - The percentage point increase in the number of migratory fish able to reach watershed habitat.
access - Indicates whether the restored area is accessible to the public for walking and fishing.
catch - The number of catchable-size fish in restored areas.
•wild - Number of fish-eating wildlife species that are common in restored areas.
IBI- Index of biotic integrity (IBI) score reflecting the similarity of the restored area to the most undisturbed
watershed in Rhode Island.
cost - The household annual cost required to implement the restoration program.
Estimated benefit functions from the EPA/STAR choice experiment survey allow one to distinguish
benefits associated with resource uses from those associated primarily with nonuse motives. Within the
benefit transfer application, WTP is quantified for increases in non-harvested fish alone based on the
implicit price for migratory fish changes. This transfer holds constant all effects related to identifiable
human uses (e.g., effects on catchable fish, public access, observable wildlife, etc.). The remaining
welfare effects—derived purely from effects on forage fish with little or no direct human use—may
therefore be most accurately characterized as a nonuse benefit realized by households.
The above simulation provides a WTP estimate of $0.76 per percentage point increase in migratory fish,
where zero represents no fish and 100 percent represents the maximum possible number offish that may
be supported by the ecosystem, following Johnston et al. (2009). Results for total household WTP for a
series of percentage improvements in fish numbers are shown below in Table 8-3.34 These percentage
improvements do not represent population increases; rather, they reflect new fish within a specific habitat
34 Within the Pawtuxet Watershed study area (the original study location), each percentage point increase in migratory fish is
equivalent to 12,250 individual fish.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
8-11
-------
area that may be counted. EPA transferred this estimate of $0.76 per percentage improvement to estimate
nonuse benefits of 316(b) regulatory options.
Table 8-3: WTP per Percentage Increase in the Number of Fish
Percentage Point Increase WTP per % Increase in the _ , , „,,„, TT , ,,
• IVT u CTT i. £r u m i. Total WTP per Household
in Number of Fish Number of Fish
1
12
20
33
100
$0.76
$0.76
$0.76
$0.76
$0.76
$0.76
$9.13
$15.21
$25.10
$76.05
8.3.2.2 Estimating Total WTP for Eliminating or Reducing I&E Mortality at CWISs
The BSPV study was developed as a case study is for a watershed-level policy in Rhode Island. While it
provides parameterized benefit functions that require the fewest assumptions to implement for benefit
extrapolation to the 316(b) case, estimates are likely to be representative of nonuse values held by
individuals residing in the Northeast U.S. EPA expects that it would provide less accurate estimates of
nonuse values for residents of other U.S. regions outside the Northeast. EPA was unable to identify
valuation studies conducted in other regions which would provide benefit functions of comparable quality
and applicability to the 316(b) regulatory context. Although other studies in the literature value changes in
aquatic resources, they don't provide a good match to the 316(b) policy scenario in terms of the expected
resource change. The large number of assumptions required for developing benefits transfer based on
these studies would result in greater uncertainties compared to application of the BSPV study. Therefore,
EPA restricted the benefits transfer to the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic EPA 316(b) study regions.
The structure of the BVSP choice experiment dictates that WTP estimates for each species are not
additive. Rather the overall WTP should be evaluated based on the single species that would experience
the greatest relative increase in abundance from restoration. To match the original valuation scenario to
the 316(b)policy scenario , EPA evaluated model results and available biological data to determine the
species for which relative abundance is most affected by I&E mortality. By comparing baseline age-1
equivalent losses to an estimate of total baseline fish abundance. EPA identified winter flounder as the
species suffering the greatest from baseline I&E mortality in the Northeast U.S. (i.e., North Atlantic and
Mid-Atlantic regions). EPA's analysis was limited to species with readily available estimates of spawning
stock biomass for the Northeast U.S. from stock assessments conducted by the NOAA Northeast
Fisheries Science Center. This included a review of four species:winter flounder, striped bass, bluefish,
and Atlantic butterfish. (Table 8-4). All four species are harvested commercially, however fish of
commercial species may be forage during early life-stages and have nonuse values. The total baseline
I&E mortality in the North-Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions were evaluated together to represent the
Northeast U.S. for consistency with the available stock assessments, which include waters from Maine
south to North Carolina.
March 28, 2011 8-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 8-4: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses and Estimated Fish Numbers for the
Northeast U.S. (North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Regions)
Baseline I&E Losses Estimated Fish Numbers
PeC1CS (millions of A1E) (millions)3
Winter Flounder 6.502 21.1
Striped Bass 1.399 14.3
Bluefish 0.001 116.1
Atlantic Butterfish 0.008 28.9
* Estimated population size was calculated by applying a conversion factor (Ibs per fish) to an
esitmate of spawning stock biomass.
EPA expects that decreasing I&E mortality will lead to increased fish abundance in affected waterbodies.
EPA assumes that the total number of fish introduced to local habitats throughout the Northeast under
each regulatory option would be equivalent to the sum of age-1 equivalent reductions for the North
Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions. Application of the BSPV model results requires that the increases be
expressed as a percentage improvement from current conditions relative to a maximum number offish
that could be supported by the ecosystem. EPA assumed a maximum of 99 million fish based on the
estimated biomass maximum sustainable yield from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center assessment of
the Southern New England stock (NOAA 2006) and a conversion factor of 1.2 Ibs pounds per fish.
EPA's calculation of nonuse values from eliminating or reducing I&E mortality losses for each regulatory
option involved the following steps:
1. Calculate the percent change increase in total winter flounder numbers in the Northeast U.S. (the
North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions combined) by comparing age-1 equivalent reductions
under each regulatory option relative to a baseline of 99 million fish.
2. Multiply the percentage change in fish numbers by $0.76 (Table 8-3) to calculate the WTP per
household per year for the relative increase in winter flounder numbers resulting from the
regulatory option.
3. Calculate regional WTP for each regulatory option by multiplying WTP per household by the
total number of households within the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions, respectively.
The results from implementing these steps for each of the 316(b) regulatory options are described in
Section 8.4.
8.4 Estimates of Total WTP by Option and Region
Table 8-5 summarizes EPA's estimates of WTP for increased fish numbers resulting from the 316(b)
regulatory options in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions. EPA estimates that elimination of
baseline losses would increase the number of winter flounder in the Northeast U.S. by more than 6.5
million fish. This is equivalent to a 6.6 percent increase in winter flounder relative to a maximum of 99
million fish (i.e., 6.5 million divided by 99.0 million). Multiplying the 6.6 percent increase by a value of
$0.76 per percentage increase (as presented in Table 8-3) yields a household WTP of $4.99 per year.
Applying the household WTP values to the number of households in each region results in annualized
WTP values of $26.3 million and $102.3 million for the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions,
respectively, using a discount rate of 3 percent. Annualized WTP values are $26.8 million for the North
Atlantic and $104.0 million for the Mid-Atlantic using a discount rate of 7 percent.
March 28, 2011 8-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
EPA estimates that Option 1 would increase winter flounder numbers by less than 0.1 percent in the
North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic waters. Applying per household WTP to this percent increase in the
number of winter flounder ($0.02) to the number of households in each region yields the total WTP for
improvements in winter flounder abundance. The estimated annualized WTP values are approximately
$0.1 million and $0.4 million for the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions, respectively, using both 3
percent and 7 percent discount rates (Table 8-5). Table 8-5 also presents household WTP and annualized
WTP for Option 2 and Option 3.
Table 8-5: Nonuse Value of Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses by
Regulatory Option for All In-scope Facilities in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Regions
Reduction in Northeast IM&EM (millions of age- 1
equivalents)
Maximum Population (millions of fish)
Percentage Increase in Fish within Northeast
Waters
Household WTP per Percent Increase in Fish
Numbers (2009$)
Annual WTP per Household (2009$)
Baseline
6.50
99.0
6.56%
$0.76
$4.99
Option 1
0.03
99.0
0.03%
$0.76
$0.02
Option 2
5.32
99.0
5.37%
$0.76
$4.08
Option 3
5.57
99.0
5.63%
$0.76
$4.28
North Atlantic
Number of Households (millions)
Annual WTP (millions of 2009$)
Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions
of 2009$)
Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions
of 2009$)
5.4
$26.9
$26.3
$26.8
5.4
$0.1
$0.1
$0.1
5.4
$22.0
$14.8
$11.5
5.4
$23.1
$15.5
$12.0
Mid-Atlantic
Number of Households (millions)
Annual WTP (millions of 2009$)
Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions
of 2009$)
Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions
of 2009$)
21.0
$104.6
$102.3
$104.0
21.0
$0.5
$0.4
$0.4
21.0
$85.6
$57.3
$44.5
21.0
$89.7
$60.0
$46.5
Scenarios: Baseline = Elimination of Baseline I&E Mortality losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1
Everywhere and E for Facilities with > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
8.5
Limitations and Uncertainties
A number of issues are common to all benefit transfers. Benefit transfer involves adapting research
conducted for another purpose in the available literature to address the policy questions at hand. Because
benefits analysis of environmental regulations rarely affords enough time to develop original SP surveys
that are specific to the policy effects, benefit transfer is often the only option to inform a policy decision.
Some of the limitations and uncertainties associated with implementing a benefits transfer using Johnston
et al. (2009) are addressed below. Broader limitations and uncertainties associated with benefit transfer in
general are discussed by Johnston and Rosenberger (2010).
March 28, 2011 8-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
8.5.1 Scale of Fishery Improvements
Given the scale of the Johnston et al. (2009) survey upon which these results are based, the most reliable
results apply within the range of the choice experiment data (e.g., fish percentage point increases < 33
percent). Again, the maximum possible increase within the Pawtuxet policy context, 100 percent, is
defined as the maximum number offish that can be supported by the Pawtuxet Watershed with fish
passage. Transfer to increases in fish below this magnitude may introduce uncertainty in the WTP
estimate per percentage increase in fish numbers.
8.5.2 Scale and Characteristics of the Affected Population
The results of Johnston et al. (2009) reflect WTP for improvements in nearby watersheds, and there may
be a decline in WTP as policy areas become more distant. The most reliable application of these results
would be to calculate WTP for I&E mortality reductions in a single local watershed. However, the 316(b)
regulation would reduce I&E mortality losses and would improve fish populations in multiple watersheds
within some states. As noted, it was assumed for these purposes that households have consistent values
for improvements in multiple watersheds within their state or region. Moreover, for transfers based on
absolute fish numbers, it is assumed that the per household WTP for changes in the numbers offish for all
watersheds located within their state, including watersheds that are shared by multiple states, would be at
least equal to the WTP value for improvements in a single watershed. Hence, estimated per household
WTP is based on the average watershed improvement within the state—an approach to scale effects that
likely provides conservative welfare estimates.
The Johnston et al. (2009) study context was a single watershed in Rhode Island. Using the benefits
transfer approaches outlined here, the benefit function is applied to all states in the North Atlantic and
Mid-Atlantic regions without adjustment, based on mean household income or local watershed
characteristics. Some heterogeneity in WTP would be expected across states and regions due to diversity
in species and public values. EPA did not extend the benefits transfer beyond the North Atlantic and Mid-
Atlantic regions because of the potential for substantial differences in preferences, demographics, and
species characteristics in other regions compared to the original context of Johnston et al. (2009).
8.5.3 Fish Population Size, Type and Improvement from the Elimination of I&E Mortality
For the purposes of the benefit transfer it was assumed that the number offish gained by eliminating I&E
mortality would be equal to baseline I&E mortality losses and reductions under each option. These
increases are not intended to represent changes in fish population.
There is some uncertainty regarding the geographic range of species included in the analysis. Based on
information from NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center, the range of species included here extends
south of the Mid-Atlantic region to North Carolina. The lack of adjustment based on the additional
geographic range factor leads to more-conservative estimates of benefits to the North Atlantic and Mid-
Atlantic regions.
Finally, while both the study and policy contexts involve forage fish, the specific species compositions
involved differ between Johnston et al. (2009) and 316(b). For example, most of the fish affected within
Johnston et al. (2009) are migratory fish such as river herring, while such species may make up a smaller
proportion of those affected by CWISs. If WTP is sensitive to the specific type of forage fish involved,
this could be a potential source of generalization error.
March 28, 2011 8-15
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Habitat Based Methodology for Estimating Nonuse Values of Fish
Production Lost to I&E Mortality
9.1 Introduction
The loss of commercially- or recreationally-important aquatic species due to impingement and
entrainment mortality (I&E mortality) at CWISs is typically valued as a direct use loss (e.g., commercial
and recreational harvest). However, aquatic species without any direct uses account for 97.3 percent of
I&E mortality at cooling water intake structures (CWIS) (Chapter 3). Therefore, estimating the total
(inclusive of nonuse) value of these losses is important when determining the benefits of reducing
impingement and entrainment (I&E) mortality.
One way to estimate the value of direct I&E mortality is to approximate the area of habitat required to
produce and support these organisms. Because fish habitat has been valued by many existing studies,
habitat provides an indirect basis for valuing the nonuse values offish. These values may be transferred
because members of the general public are aware of the fish production services provided by eelgrass
(submerged aquatic vegetation, SAV) and wetlands; individuals express support for programs that include
increasing SAV and wetland areas with the expressed goal of restoring depleted fish and shellfish
populations (Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; 1998).
Thus, the habitat-based method for estimating nonuse values offish lost to I&E mortality is a two-step
process. First, the area of habitat required to replace fish and shellfish lost to I&E mortality is estimated.
The public's WTP for this habitat is then assessed. When combined, these data yield an estimate of
household values for improvements in fish and shellfish habitat, which in turn provides an indirect
estimate of the benefits of reducing or eliminating I&E mortality.
This benefit transfer approach involves four general steps:
1. Estimate the area of habitat necessary to support the number of organisms lost to I&E mortality.
2. Develop WTP values for fish production services of habitat ecosystems.
3. Estimate the total value of baseline nonuse I&E mortality by multiplying WTP values for fish and
shellfish services by the area of habitat required to offset I&E mortality.
4. Estimate the direct nonuse benefits of proposed regulatory options, in terms of the value of
decreased I&E mortality, by multiplying WTP values for fish and shellfish services by the area of
habitat required to offset I&E mortality.
This methodology estimates only those nonuse values related to I&E mortality of organisms, and not any
indirect ecosystem effects of I&E mortality, or or chemical effects of CWISs (Chapter 2). EPA does not
include values generated using this habitat based approach within its estimates of total benefits for
eliminating or reducing I&E mortality under the 316(b) regulatory options. While they illustrate the
potential magnitude of nonuse values, EPA does not consider HEA appropriate for a primary analysis of
nonuse benefits. The remainder of this chapter describes the methodology and estimates of total WTP
values for lost aquatic organisms, using a habitat equivalency analysis in conjunction with a benefit
transfer of habitat values. It also includes a description of limitations and uncertainties of this approach.
March 28, 2011 9-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
9.2 Estimating the Amount of Habitat Needed to Offset I&E Mortality
The first step in the habitat-based method for valuing nonuse I&E mortality values is estimating the area
of habitat needed to offset I&E mortality. The process of quantitatively adjusting the size of the
restoration action such that the services that it provides equal those that were lost due to I&E mortality of
aquatic organisms is referred to as restoration scaling (NOAA 2006; Strange et al. 2002). A restoration
project is correctly "scaled" when it achieves ecological equivalence. Ecological equivalence is met when
the magnitude of a restoration reproduces the ecological services provided by a resource prior to injury.
Restoration scaling approaches are based on the principles of Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA). HEA
was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to determine public
compensation for natural resource losses following natural resource damage assessments (NRDAs) that
occur under the auspices of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). HEA is a service-to-service scaling approach: it
does not assume a one-to-one trade-off in resources, but instead in the natural resource services that these
resources provide (NOAA 2006). In order to fully compensate for natural resource damages, restoration
action must provide services of the same type and quality as those lost. Discounting is used to account for
time lags between the loss of services and their restoration.35
To estimate the impact of I&E mortality and the benefits of regulation using a habitat-based methodology,
EPA selected a trophic transfer approach to scale restoration. The trophic transfer approach is based on
food-web connectivity that occurs between primary producers and the production of resident and transient
fish (French McCay and Rowe 2003; Kneib 2003). Using this approach, the area of habitat necessary to
provide fish and shellfish lost due to I&E mortality is calculated through food-web interactions to
estimate the area of habitat necessary to compensate for these losses. Such an approach has been used to
scale restoration to compensate for injuries to aquatic resources under various NRDAs as well as for
estimating restoration necessary to compensate for I&E mortality under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process (Balletto et al. 2005; French McCay et al. 2002; NOAA
2009; Penn and Tomasi 2002; PSEG 2006; Teal and Weinstein 2002). The trophic transfer approach
requires four basic steps to estimate the area of habitat restoration necessary to compensate for I&E
mortality (Figure 9-1).
EPA estimated values in each region using a single habitat characteristic of the region. Although the
Agency recognizes that many species lost to I&E mortality rely upon more than one habitat during their
life history, a single habitat was chosen as most representative for each region to ensure data availability,
ensure calculation simplicity, and provide a representative habitat required by many species in the region.
9.2.1 Quantify the Mass of Production Lost to I&E Mortality
The first step in application of the trophic transfer is estimating the mass of production lost to I&E
mortality. This calculation requires estimating the number of organisms lost to I&E mortality on an
annual basis (Chapter 3) as well as determining the annual reduction of productivity as a consequence of
these losses. Additionally, this step requires estimating the benefits projected to accrue as a result of
regulation.
35 "The discount rate incorporates the standard economic assumptions that people place a greater value on having resources
available in the present than on having their availability delayed until the future" (p.7) (NOAA 2006). For the methods
discussed, the standard discount rate is 3%.
March 28, 2011 9-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Within the trophic transfer framework, losses are calculated as the annual biomass production associated
with organisms lost to I&E mortality. The vast majority of organisms lost to I&E mortality are less than 1
year of age at the time of loss (numerically, the greatest losses occur for eggs and larvae, as discussed in
Chapter 3). For this reason and to simplify computation, EPA converted all I&E mortality to age-1
equivalents. These losses were then multiplied by the mass of age-1 equivalents and the ratio of dry to
wet mass to estimate the dry mass of lost productivity on an annual basis (Appendix Equation J-l).
Quantify regional I&E Mortality as
otcp J.i
a measure of lost productivity
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
I
Select a restoration habitat
for all benefits regions
Quantify expected
productivity increases
from habitat restoration
i
Scale habitat restoration
to offset I&E Mortality and estimate
benefits under regulatory options _,
Figure 9-1: Implementation of the Trophic Transfer Approach
9.2.2 Production per Unit of Habitat
The second step for implementation of the trophic transfer is the calculation of production per unit of
habitat. Each acre of restored habitat generates some quantity of primary productivity per year, measured
here as the annual accumulation rate of dry biomass (i.e., kg dry mass per acre per year). Some proportion
of this productivity is exported from the ecosystem due to factors such as water movement; this
productivity is not available to the ecosystem. Remaining primary productivity is then converted to
secondary productivity using trophic conversion based on a highly simplified four-level food chain
(Figure 9-2). Trophic conversion efficiencies (or trophic transfers) refer to the inefficiency of energy
exchange between trophic levels. They can be thought of as the production rate of biomass of predatory
organisms per unit biomass of food (Penn and Tomasi 2002; Strange 2008). EPA assumed that all
consumers in the simplified food chain model are food-limited, and that the production of consumers is
proportional to gains in prey abundance based on trophic conversion efficiencies (French McCay and
Rowe 2003).
EPA specified all I&E mortality species as secondary consumers when scaling restoration.36 Thus, to
compare fish production lost to I&E mortality to production gained through habitat restoration, primary
productivity from habitat must to be converted to an equivalent amount of production of secondary
' EPA's assumption that I&E mortality species are secondary consumers is consistent with PSEG's assumptions when scaling
restoration for the Salem facility (e.g., Balletto et al. 2005; PSEG 2006) and assumptions in multiple NPJDAs when scaling
restoration to compensate for fish losses due to oil spills (e.g., French McCay et al. 2002; Penn and Tomasi 2002).
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
9-3
-------
consumer. This calculation requires estimated values for primary production, carbon export, and
conversion efficiencies from primary production to detritus, detritus to primary consumers, and primary
consumers to secondary consumers (Appendix Equation J-2). The remainder of this section describes
these parameters in detail, and how EPA obtained estimates of these values.
Trophic Conversion
Loss of energy due
to metabolic processes
Trophic Conversion
Trophic Conversion
Primary Productivity
Accumulation of energy
and nutrients by autotrophs
Detritus
Freshly dead or partially
decomposed organic matter
Primary Consumers
Organisms that consume detritus
and/or primary production. Includes
macroinvertebrates and plankton.
Secondary Consumers
Consumers of primary consumers,
including young-of-year fish
I Carbon Export
Loss of productivity by
water movement
Figure 9-2: Trophic Levels and Processes Calculated with the Simplified,
Four Level Trophic Transfer Model
9.2.2.1 Primary Production per Acre
EPA identified five habitat types for scaling regional I&E mortality losses based on (1) importance as
foundation species (i.e., species involved in habitat formation) with trophic linkages to secondary
production, (2) regional geographic distribution, and (3) the availability of published values of primary
productivity (Section 9.2.3). These habitats include: eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows in the North
Atlantic; saltmarsh dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) in the Mid-Atlantic, South
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico; giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) forests in California; and wetlands
dominated by broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia) in the Inland and Great Lakes regions.
Although estimates of primary productivity (PP) are best generated through site-specific study, it is
common for analysts to use estimates from the literature when scaling restoration (e.g., French McCay et
al. 2002; Penn and Tomasi 2002). EPA identified peer-reviewed sources for each habitat type used to
scale I&E mortality. For each of the seven 316(b) regions, EPA compiled net primary productivity (NPP)
values from the primary scientific literature as well as reviews or past compilations of primary
productivity values. EPA standardized these values to the metric of kg dry mass per acre per year. In
cases when multiple sites were measured within an investigation, EPA used the average value.
Primary production depends on several factors, including but not limited to the conditions and
characteristics of the study site and study methodology. Due to geographic variations in growing season
and climate, primary productivity of species may differ substantially both within and among regions
(Appendix Table J-l). For example, regional productivity estimates used in past salt marsh scaling
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
9-4
-------
applications include 2,204 kg dry mass acre" in Rhode Island (French McCay and Rowe 2003), 6,636 kg
dry mass acre"1 yr"1 in New Jersey, (PSEG 2006; Strange 2008), and 11,716 kg dry mass acre"1 in
Louisiana (Perm and Tomasi 2002) (Appendix Table J-l).37 To obtain regionally-applicable values for
primary productivity, EPA used an average of habitat-specific productivity values from a minimum of
four published values in all calculations (Appendix Table J-l).
The NPP fraction most easily converted to detritus (freshly dead or partially decomposed organic matter
(Ricklefs 2001)), and therefore available for secondary production, is above-substrate primary production.
Consequently, EPA included above-substrate primary production in its calculations. This includes all
emergent stems and leaf tissue in cordgrass and cattail, and leaf tissue for eelgrass and turtle grass. For
giant kelp, which uses a benthic holdfast, all biomass production in the water column was included in
estimates of NPP.38 Estimates of NPP also include primary production of epiphytic periphyton or
macroalgae (e.g., attached to root stalks in wetland and saltmarsh, or to submerged leaves of eelgrass or
kelp). Additionally, EPA included algal productivity in NPP estimates. In the North and Mid-Atlantic
regions, NPP estimates include 533 kg dry mass acre-1 yr-1 of algal productivity [based on scaling
assessments conducted in Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware salt marshes (French McCay and
Rowe 2003; PSEG 2006; Strange 2008)]. This is equivalent to 16 percent of average mean aboveground
macrophyte productivity within the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions (Appendix Table J-l).39
For all other habitats, the contribution of epiphytes and algae was set to 10 percent of annual aboveground
NPP of the foundation species.
9.2.2.2 Trophic Conversion Efficiencies
Trophic conversion efficiencies (or trophic transfer) account for the relative inefficiency of energy
transfer between trophic levels (Penn and Tomasi 2002; Strange 2008). Trophic conversion efficiency is
normally described as the production of predator per unit of prey or food item. Using a highly simplified
trophic structure, trophic conversion efficiencies were applied to three trophic steps:
> Primary productivity to detritus
> Detritus to primary consumers
> Primary consumers to secondary consumers
There is evidence that algae and vascular plant detritus40 is important for production at higher trophic
levels (Kneib 2003). However, there is substantial uncertainty regarding the most appropriate
specification of the trophic conversion efficiency from primary productivity to detritus. For example, the
trophic conversion efficiency of smooth cordgrass (S. alterniflora) biomass to detrital material has been
estimated to be between 0.50 and 0.60. EPA conservatively assigned a transfer efficiency of 0.40 from
Estimates of NPP were converted to kg dry mass/acre/year. Measurements reported as g carbon (C)/area/time were converted
using a species-specific organic carbon content and appropriate adjustment for areal and time increments. Although EPA
recognizes that the proportion of organic carbon in vascular plants is seasonally dynamic, this variability was not considered
critical for estimation.
38 This assumption is likely to underestimate NPP for some species, since it does not consider conversion of roots and rhizomes
to the organic detritus pool that may be used by the secondary consumers.
39 French McCay and Rowe (2003) assumed 429 kg dry mass acre"1 yr"1 when scaling salt marsh in Rhode Island, while PSEG
assumed 636 kg dry mass acre"1 yr"1 while scaling salt marsh in New Jersey and Delaware (PSEG 2006; Strange 2008).
40 Vascular plant detritus includes dead organic material from plants having a vascular system of xylem and phloem (Walker
1995) such as S. alterniflora.
March 28, 2011 9-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
primary productivity to detritus to account for uncertainty regarding the importance of detritus for nekton
production.41 Some past NRDAs have not explicitly included this trophic step (e.g., French McCay et al.
2002; Penn and Tomasi 2002), but have included a low efficiency from primary productivity to primary
consumers, reflecting the fact that a high percentage of primary productivity is broken down by
decomposers such as bacteria, molds and fungi (French McCay and Rowe 2003).
In its simplified trophic model, EPA assumed that primary consumers subsist off the detrital complex,
which includes macroinvertebrates and zooplankton. A trophic conversion efficiency of 0.2 is assumed in
the transfer of detritus material to primary consumers. Conversion efficiencies for fish and invertebrate
consumers in freshwater and marine environments range from 0.1 to 0.3 (French et al. 1996). EPA used a
value of 0.2, the mid-point of the range commonly used for scaling injuries (e.g., Balletto et al. 2005;
French McCay et al. 2002; Penn and Tomasi 2002).
Secondary consumers are assumed to include fish in their first year (i.e., young-of-year; defined as age-0
fish). EPA assumed a trophic conversion efficiency of 0.2 from primary to secondary consumers,
consistent with past scaling assessments (e.g., Balletto et al. 2005; French McCay et al. 2002; Penn and
Tomasi 2002) 42
9.2.2.3 Carbon Export
Although quantifying local production is necessary to develop estimates of restoration area, it is not
realistic to assume that all NPP remains within the local ecosystem. Export from aquatic ecosystems may
be substantial, particularly in open or semi-enclosed ecosystems with substantial riverine or tidal flux. In
these systems, tidal exchange and flushing may remove a large proportion of the local productivity before
it is consumed and assimilated by local consumers (e.g., Cebrian 2002; Teal 1962). Consequently, if NPP
export is not considered in trophic transfer models, the amount of habitat restoration required to
compensate for lost ecosystem goods and services is likely to be underestimated. Although some scaling
calculations conducted as part of NRDAs do not explicitly include an export adjustment (e.g., French
McCay et al. 2002; Penn and Tomasi 2002), others acknowledge that productivity many be transported
out of the area (French McCay and Rowe 2003).43
The rate at which net primary productivity is exported (E) depends on site-specific characteristics
including marsh height, tidal flushing dynamics, and species mix. An examination of annual NPP from a
variety of U.S. and international studies in wetlands had a median value of 22 percent NPP export
(Appendix Table J-2). The uncertainty inherent in estimating carbon flux from ecosystems is large
(Cebrian 2002) and variability in carbon export high. Accordingly, estimating trophic transfer values for
habitats with unknown nutrient dynamics is fraught with uncertainty. EPA recognizes that the amount of
NPP exported from the habitats (1) is not available locally to sponsor trophic transfer and secondary
production, and (2) will be highly variable from site to site, depending on several factors including tidal
or riverine flushing, droughts, storm events, and year-to-year variability in plant production. Recognizing
41 The assumed value of 0.40 is consistent with the trophic transfer model that PSEG used to scale habitat restoration for the
Salem facility. PSEG refers to its trophic model as the "Aggregate Food Chain Model" (PSEG 2006; Strange 2008).
The trophic steps outlined match those used by PSEG for the Aggregate Food Chain Model (Balletto et al. 2005; PSEG 2006),
and are generally consistent with those used in miscellaneous NPJDAs (e.g., French McCay et al. 2002; Penn and Tomasi
2002).
43 The PSEG AFCM assumed that 45% of primary productivity is lost to the ocean and was not converted to fish and invertebrate
secondary productivity (PSEG 2006; Strange 2008), based on values from a Georgia salt marsh (Teal 1962).
March 28, 2011 9-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
these limitations, EPA assumed, in all habitats, that 25 percent of net primary production is exported from
the system and is not transferred to higher trophic levels.
9.2.3 Select Preferred Restoration Habitat
To best compensate for I&E mortality, restored habitats should produce the full complement of impacted
species in each region. However, uncertainties regarding the species-specific benefits of restoration
actions make scaling habitat loss on a per-species basis impractical. EPA's application of the trophic
transfer approach treats the production of secondary consumers as a proxy for the provision of food and
nutrient cycling considered to be important ecological services (French McCay and Rowe 2003). Under
this assumption, services are considered to be restored when production of secondary consumers due to
restoration is equivalent to that lost annually due to I&E mortality. It is unnecessary for restored habitats
to compensate for losses on a species-by-species basis.44 This approach underestimates restoration to the
extent that the public has higher total nonuse values for individual species that may have commercial,
recreational or nonuse values.
To simplify analysis, one habitat type was chosen in each region as the basis for scaling I&E mortality.
To select the most appropriate habitat type within each region, a subset of species, broader taxonomic, or
functional groupings that accounted for 50-90 percent of the biomass lost to I&E mortality (typically, the
top 5-6 species/groupings) for each 316(b) region were identified. Nursery habitat and life history traits
for young-of-year fish were obtained (Fishbase 2009), and a habitat type that benefitted the greatest
percentage of A1E losses was selected in each region (Appendix Section J.3). Because many aquatic
organisms experience I&E mortality early in their life history (e.g., eggs, larvae, and juveniles), this step
directly addresses the life stages most at risk of I&E mortality. Where available information for ecological
habitat and nursery characteristics did not indicate a preferred habitat, ecosystems characterized with
higher primary productivity per acre were favored.
Table 9-1: Summary of Productivity Values of Preferred Scaling Habitats by Region (kg
dry mass acre"1 yr"1)
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Species Sample Size
Giant kelp
Macrocystis pyrifera
Eelgrass
Zostera marina
Smooth cordgrass Spartina
alterniflora
Smooth cordgrass Spartina
alterniflora
Smooth cordgrass Spartina
alterniflora
Broadleaf cattail
Typha latifolia
Broadleaf cattail
Typha latifolia
4
6
10
13
13
14
14
For ease of calculation, the mean values were rounded to the nearest 50 kg dry
Macrophyte
NPP Algal NPP
7,300
3,750
3,350
6,350
6,350
6,200
6,200
mass per acre"1 yr"1.
730
375
533
533
533
620
620
Total NPP
8,030
4,125
3,880
6,883
6,883
6,820
6,820
44 EPA's treatment of productivity as a proxy for important ecosystem services is consistent with the implicit assumptions of
various past scaling assessments conducted as part of NRDAs (e.g., French McCay et al. 2002; French McCay and Rowe
2003; Penn and Tomasi 2002).
March 28, 2011 9-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
9.2.4 Scaling Habitat Restoration Alternatives to Offset I&E Mortality
Calculating the area required to compensate for annual I&E mortality combines estimates in increased
biomass production of secondary consumers (Section 9.2.2) from preferred restoration habitats (Section
9.2.3) with quantified I&E mortality (Chapter 3; Section 3.3 ).
The scale of restoration required to compensate for I&E mortality is the quotient of annual I&E mortality
divided by the expected increase in secondary production associated with a unit area of habitat (Appendix
Equation J-3). Thus, a CWIS causing I&E mortality of 20,000 kg dry mass per year (across all species)
would have to restore 200 acres of habitat that produced 100 kg dry mass of secondary production per
acre per year. Conversely, if a regulatory option reduces I&E mortality by 5,000 kg dry mass per year,
then its annual benefit is equivalent to 50 acres of similarly-productive habitat.
Table 9-2 presents the I&E mortality reductions and equivalent habitat restoration area for each region
under the proposed regulatory options. Among regions, habitat restoration area equivalent to baseline I&E
mortality ranged from 410 acres in the South Atlantic region, to 76,432 acres in the Inland region. The
total habitat area equivalent to I&E mortality reductions for all regions is approximately 54,000 acres
under Option 1, 127,000 acres under Option 2, and 129,000 acres under Option 3. The rank order of
regions by area of habitat equivalent to estimated I&E mortality reductions due to policy options differed
among options, due to differences in the effectiveness of 316(b) regulatory options. Notably, however, the
equivalent habitat restoration area was always greatest in the Inland region (Table 9-2).
March 28, 2011 9-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 9-2: Baseline I&E Mortality (metric tons A1E year"1) and Habitat Restoration Area (acres) Equivalent to Baseline I&E Mortality, and I&E
Mortality Reductions (metric tons A1E year"1) and Habitat Restoration Area (acres) Equivalent to These Reductions, by Region and
Regulatory Option
Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
I&E I&E I&E I&E
Losses Losses Losses Losses
Secondary (metric (metric (metric (metric
Productivity tons A1E, Equivalent tons A1E, Equivalent tons A1E, Equivalent tons A1E, Equivalent
(kg acre-1 dry Restoration dry Restoration dry Restoration dry Restoration
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
(All Regions)
Habitat
Giant kelp
Macrocystis
pyrifera
Eelgrass
Zostera marina
Smooth cordgrass
Spartina
alterniflora
Smooth cordgrass
Spartina
alterniflora
Smooth cordgrass
Spartina
alterniflora
Broadleaf cattail
Typha latifolia
Broadleaf cattail
Typha latifolia
-
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E
Mortality Everywhere
year-1)
96
50
47
83
83
82
82
-
Mortality Losses;
weight)
282
158
1,735
34
1,252
463
6,255
10,179
Option 1
Area (acres)
2,930
3,183
37,242
410
15,158
5,654
76,432
141,009
= I Everywhere;
weight)
o
5
1
240
13
340
253
3,424
4,275
Option 2 = I
Area (acres)
36
23
5,150
159
4,122
3,091
41,834
54,415
Everywhere and
weight)
241
129
1,608
29
988
425
5,723
9,142
Area (acres)
2,503
2,601
34,511
346
11,958
5,195
69,927
127,041
weight)
252
135
1,626
29
989
428
5,843
9,301
E for Facilities >125 DIP MGD; Option
Area (acres)
2,617
2,727
34,890
347
11,978
5,229
71,390
129,178
3 = I&E
March 28, 2011 9-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
9.3 Development of WTP Values for Fish Production Services of Habitat
The approach EPA used to develop WTP values for fish production services is to 1) estimate the number
of acres of habitat required to produce fish equivalent to those lost due to I&E mortality; and 2) evaluate
citizens' WTP for this habitat—not for the fish produced by the habitat. This method is consistent with
NCAA's preferred methods for NRDA under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), since NCAA's NRDA
regulations focus on restoration of injured resources, rather than monetary compensation for damages. For
lost interim values pending restoration, additional habitat may be restored in lieu of monetary
compensation. NOAA refers to this as "compensatory restoration" (NOAA 1997). EPA calculated the
amount of "service-to-service" compensatory restoration—in the form of restored habitat—required to
offset losses, and then evaluated WTP for restoring this area of habitat. Whereas NOAA recommends
restoring such acreage to compensate for I&E mortality, EPA does not suggest that the restoration be
carried out. Instead, EPA quantifies the benefits, in the form offish production, that the restored habitat
would provide. This value provides a proxy for the nonuse values not otherwise estimated in this
document.
EPA performed an in-depth search of the economic literature to identify valuation studies that estimate
WTP for aquatic habitat services. From this review, EPA identified seven studies relevant for its analysis
(Appendix Section J.4). For inclusion in this list, studies were required to meet the following criteria:
> Specific Amenity Valued: Environmental quality change being valued affects habitat similar to
those habitat types included in the trophic transfer model.45
> U.S. Studies: Studies surveyed U.S. populations to value domestic resources.
> Research Methods: Valuation methods were supported by journal literature and inclusive of
nonuse values (e.g., contingent valuation, conjoint analysis).
EPA applied values from seven studies for all 316(b) regions, based on consideration of the study
location, habitat type, and services provided relative to biological scaling assumptions (i.e., Section 9.2).
If a study was not applicable in a region, EPA transferred values from studies conducted in other 316(b)
regions for the same habitat type. Reported WTP values per acre of habitat restored represent the average
of mean values from individual valuation studies (Table 9-3).
Eelgrass habitat was selected for restoration scaling in the North Atlantic region. The Peconic Estuary
study (Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al.
1998), conducted on the East End of Long Island, NY within the Mid-Atlantic region, was the only study
identified by EPA that estimates WTP per acre of eelgrass habitat. Although EPA recognizes that there is
uncertainty when applying WTP values to external 316(b) regions, substantial differences in values are
unlikely in this case due to the close proximity of the study area to the North Atlantic region and
similarity in resource characteristics including assemblage of species supported by eelgrass habitat.
45 Valuation studies were excluded from consideration if the habitat services provided by the study habitat were substantially
different, or provided in drastically different ratios, than the restoration habitat used for scaling (e.g., Dillmanetal. 1993;
Roberts and Leitch 1997).
March 28, 2011 9-10
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 9-3: Total Annual Household
316(b) Region
WTP acre ' yr ' (2009$)
WTP Per Acre of Aquatic Habitat
Valuation Studies Applied
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
EPA was unable to
0.0761
0.0672
0.0431
0.0431
0.0131
0.0118
Peconic Estuary Study (Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al.
2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998)
Peconic Estuary Study (Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al.
2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch etal. 1995; Opaluch etal. 1998)
Bauer, Cyr, and Swallow (2004), Peconic Estuary Study
(Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996;
Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998)
Bauer, Cyr, and Swallow (2004), Peconic Estuary Study
(Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996;
Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998)
de Zoysa (1995), Mullarky (1997), Mullarky (1999), Bishop et
al. (2000)
de Zoysa (1995), Mullarky (1997), Mullarky (1999), Blomquist
and Whitehead (1998), Whitehead and Blomquist (1991)
identify an applicable valuation study for kelp habitat, the preferred scaling habitat for the California region.
EPA was unable to identify studies estimating the value of saltmarsh habitat in the South Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico regions. Therefore, it was necessary to apply wetland values from valuation studies
conducted in other 316(b) regions: EPA identified two applicable saltmarsh habitat values, from Rhode
Island (Bauer et al. 2004) and New York (Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996;
Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998). EPA recognizes that substantial uncertainty may occur when
applying wetland values outside the region from which they were obtained, due to variation in habitat
condition and resident preferences. However, it is not clear that application of these results will
overestimate or underestimate WTP for wetland habitats.
Only one study was identified that estimated WTP for wetland restoration in the Great Lakes region
(Bishop et al. 2000). However, riverine wetlands inland of the Great Lakes provide fish production, which
contributes to fish populations in the Great Lakes. Consequently, EPA also applied studies that estimated
WTP for riverine wetland habitat in states adjacent to the Great Lakes (de Zyosa 1995; Mullarkey 1997;
Mullarkey 1999). These studies were also applied to the Inland 316(b) region.
9.3.1 Estimating the Importance of Fish Habitat as a Proportion of Habitat WTP Values:
Salt Marshes
To estimate the proportion of value associated with fish habitat, EPA used data from the 2001 Survey of
Rhode Island Residents. The survey instrument, Rhode Island Salt Marsh Restoration: 2001 Survey of
Rhode Island Residents, was designed to assess tradeoffs among attributes of salt marsh restoration plans
in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island (Johnston et al. 2002b). Development involved extensive background
research, interviews with experts in salt marsh ecology and restoration, and 16 focus groups with more
than 100 residents (details on survey development are in Appendix Section J.5.1).
Survey data indicate that respondents favored plans that restored larger areas of salt marsh. Comparisons
among specific improvements to habitat and mosquito control revealed that respondents placed the
greatest weight on mosquito control, followed by habitat improvements for shellfish, fish, and birds,
respectively (Johnston et al. 2002b).
From the survey data, EPA calculated the proportion of wetland restoration value associated with
different wetland services. Across all scenarios presented in the survey, the proportion of WTP values
March 28, 2011 9-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
associated with fish habitat, bird habitat, shellfish habitat, mosquito control, and other services were
0.256, 0.198, 0.278, 0.121, and 0.147, respectively. (Additional results and discussion are in Appendix
Section J.5.2.)
EPA assumed that 25.6 percent of WTP per acre of salt marsh is associated with fish production services
for all regions based on these data. EPA recognizes that the findings of the Johnston et al. (2002b) study
are best applied to areas within or near the North Atlantic region for which coastal populations (i.e.,
preferences) are similar and salt marsh services are most similar. However, EPA was unable to identify
comparable stated preference studies conducted within the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of
Mexico regions.
There is general consensus that marine tidal wetlands and seagrasses provide good to excellent fish
production function for many important commercial, recreational and forage species (Graff and
Middleton 2003; Street et al. 2005), by providing favorable conditions for the growth and survival of
juveniles and young-of-year (Deegan et al. 2000). It is true that the precise role of such habitats as
nurseries for juvenile fish has recently been critically re-examined, suggesting the need for better
quantification of the precise role of nearshore ecosystems in producing more adult fish (Beck et al. 2003).
However, the fish production function of tidal wetlands would be considered high. By applying survey
findings from Rhode Island across these regions, EPA assumes that preferences for salt marsh restoration
and salt marsh services are not substantially different among regions. However, true regional WTP values
may be higher or lower than those estimated within Narragansett Bay.
9.3.2 Estimating the Importance of Fish Habitat as a Proportion of Habitat WTP Values:
Freshwater Wetlands
EPA was unable to identify any studies that permitted the apportionment of WTP for freshwater wetlands
among habitat services. However, EPA reviewed the published literature to identify and estimate the
proportion of WTP value that is associated with fish production.
Tidal freshwater wetlands are located inland of estuaries. They experience tidal fluctuations, but are not
regularly exposed to water with substantial salinity. As such, these communities are dominated by
freshwater plants (e.g., cattails, bulrushes, etc). These wetlands are commonly used by freshwater,
estuarine, marine and migratory fish: their dense vegetation provides refuges for juveniles, and protected
spawning areas. Additionally, because nutrient cycling in these marshes is rapid, food is readily available
(Graff and Middleton 2003). As described by Mitchell et al. (2009b) and consistent with the findings of
Johnston et al. (2002b), EPA assumed that 25 percent of WTP per tidal marsh acre is associated with fish
production services.
Non-tidal freshwater wetlands connected to large bodies of water (including the Great Lakes) may also
have enhanced fish production function. For example, it has been estimated that 75 percent offish species
in the Great Lakes use coastal marshes during some part of their life cycle (Jude and Pappas 1992;
Meixler et al. 2005; Stephenson 1990). Moreover, Lake Erie is reported to support the best fishery of the
Great Lakes, in terms of diversity and number, partly because of its extensive system of adjoining coastal
marshes (Graff and Middleton 2003). Consequently, EPA assumed that 20 percent of WTP per acre for
freshwater marshes in the Great Lakes is associated with fish production services based on the generally-
recognized importance of this habitat to fisheries. EPA used a value lower than recognized for marine
marshes to reflect the absence of a regular tidal cycle that can provide habitat diversity within the
ecosystem.
March 28, 2011 9-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
The importance offish production in isolated non-tidal freshwater wetlands, forested wetlands (i.e.,
seasonally flooded areas), swamps, bogs, etc., has not been well-quantified. Although wetlands attached
to lakes or fringing marshes on rivers may be locally productive, isolated shallow depressions, headwater
swamps, or seepage-derived wetlands may have poor or non-existent fish production (Graff and
Middleton 2003). Consequently, EPA believes the average importance of isolated non-tidal freshwater
marshes is far lower than similarly-sized marshes in marine systems or freshwater marshes connected to
significant water bodies. Thus, EPA conservatively assumed that 10 percent of the WTP per acre is
associated with fish production services.
9.3.3 Estimated Proportion of Household WTP Estimates Attributed to Fish Production
Services
EPA assumed that 25.6 percent of household WTP values for salt marsh restoration are attributable to fish
production services (Section 9.3.1). Similarly, EPA assumed values of 20 percent for freshwater marshes
in the Great Lakes Region, and 10 percent for wetlands in the Inland region (Section 9.3.2). Finally,
because the Peconic surveys used to estimate WTP for eelgrass habitat were described specifically as fish
and shellfish habitat, EPA assigned 100 percent of the estimated WTP for eelgrass restoration to fish
production services. Consequently, by multiplying total WTP per acre restored habitat per year (Table
9-3) by estimates of the proportional contribution offish production services, EPA obtained WTP per acre
per year for fish production services in preferred habitats for all 316(b) regions with the exception of
California (Table 9-4).
Table 9-4: Household WTP per Acre per Year for Fish Production Services
Total WTP acre' yf1 % Attributed to Fish WTP acre ' yr'1 for Fish
316(b) Region (2009S) Production Services Production Services (2009S)
California - - -
North Atlantic1 0.0761 100.0% 0.0761
Mid-Atlantic 0.0672 25.6% 0.0172
South Atlantic 0.0431 25.6% 0.0110
Gulf of Mexico 0.0431 25.6% 0.0110
Great Lakes 0.0131 20.0% 0.0026
Inland 0.0118 10.0% 0.0012
Note: EPA was unable to identify an applicable valuation study for kelp habitat, the preferred scaling habitat for the California
region.
9.4 Estimating the Value of Habitat Needed to Offset I&E Mortality
9.4.1 Determining the Extent of Nonuse Values
Evaluating the total regional WTP value per acre of wetlands or eelgrass requires estimating the extent of
the population holding nonuse values for these resources. EPA defined the population as the total number
of households in the state following the methods used by several published studies (e.g., Bauer et al.
2004; Blomquist and Whitehead 1998; Mullarkey 1997; Whitehead and Blomquist 1991).
Households in close proximity are likely to value gains offish in affected waterbodies, as will households
in counties that do not directly abut affected water bodies. Evidence from Johnston et al. (2002b)
indicates that this value can extend to the statewide level. Analysis of data from the Rhode Island Salt
March 28, 2011 9-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Marsh Restoration Survey (Johnston et al. 2002b) reveals that values ascribed to even relatively small-
scale salt marsh restoration actions (i.e., 3-12 acres) were stated by respondents from various parts of the
state. A study by Pate and Loomis (1997) found that respondents outside the state in which a study site is
located were also willing to ascribe stated preference values to the amenity being studied. It compared
WTP values for environmental programs designed to improve wetland habitat in the San Joaquin Valley,
CA across households in the Valley, California households outside the Valley, and households in
Washington State, Oregon, and Nevada. They found that CA households outside the San Joaquin Valley
expressed similar WTP compared to residents of the Valley, with households outside the state even
holding positive WTP for the environmental programs. Thus, it is reasonable to assume in the context of
316(b) analysis that residents within an affected state would have positive values for fish habitat
improvements within state waters.
The magnitude of habitat restoration efforts sufficient to compensate for I&E mortality would require a
large geographical footprint. EPA recognized that, if implemented, this footprint would be divided into
many sites dispersed throughout each region. To estimate WTP for fish production services that best
reflect compensation for I&E mortality, EPA assigned habitat restoration based on the estimated
distribution of I&E mortality throughout each 316(b) region based on the proportion of total AIF of in-
state facilities relative to total regional AIF. The proportional breakdown of restoration area by state and
region is presented in Appendix Table J-7.
9.4.2 Estimating Aggregate Values
EPA calculated aggregate WTP for each 316(b) region as follows based on the area of habitat required to
compensate for I&E mortality (Table 9-2), estimates of household WTP per acre per year for fish
production services (Table 9-4), and the size of the affected population (Appendix Table J-7).
1. Multiply the number of regional habitat acres needed to offset I&E mortality under the baseline
condition or equivalent to I&E mortality reduction effect on fish production under the proposed
316(b) regulation (Table 9-2) by the percentage of area attributed to each state within the 316(b)
region (Appendix Table J-7) to obtain the magnitude of habitat restoration by state.
2. Multiply regional household value per acre of restored habitat (Table 9-4) by the estimated
number of habitat acres within 316(b) region (from 1, above) to obtain total household WTP for
improved fish production in the waters affected by the 316(b) regulation by state for each region.
3. For each region, multiply total WTP per household for each state (Step 2) by the number of
households within the state, and sum across all states within the region to obtain unadjusted WTP
for habitat restoration within the 316(b) region.
EPA recognizes that WTP per household per acre is likely to be marginally decreasing as the scale of
restoration increases (e.g., Bishop et al. 2000), particularly if all statewide households are simultaneously
valuing fish production services provided by large-scale restoration of multiple habitat types. Household
values for policy changes may not be additive, and the sum of WTP values when policies are assessed
separately may exceed the total value of policies when assessed simultaneously. Simply summing the
statewide values for multiple 316(b) regions may overestimate the value offish production services from
additional habitat acreage.
Based on this assessment, EPA incorporated a weighting adjustment in order to limit the potential for
overestimation of total WTP in cases where households within a given state are assigned values for
March 28, 2011 9-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
multiple 316(b) benefits regions (e.g., Mid-Atlantic and Inland). State-level WTP values within a 316(b)
region were adjusted based on the relative magnitude of regional restoration area compared to total
restoration area assigned to the state. For example, if a state were to be assigned 100 acres from the Mid-
Atlantic region and 300 acres from the Inland region, the statewide WTP for the Mid-Atlantic and Inland
regions would be multiplied by factors of 0.25 (100 acres/400 acres) and 0.75 (300 acres/400 acres),
respectively. In the final step of estimating aggregating values for each region, weighted WTP values
were summed across all states to calculate the total annual WTP associated with each 316(b) region.
9.5 WTP Results
Table 9-5 presents the estimated WTP for habitat restoration area necessary to compensate for I&E
mortality under baseline conditions, as well as estimated WTP for habitat restoration area equivalent to
I&E mortality reductions under proposed regulatory options. EPA was unable to identify household WTP
for the preferred scaling habitat (giant kelp) in the California region (Table 9-3). As such, national
estimates of WTP are understated.
National WTP for habitat restoration to compensate for baseline I&E mortality is approximately $3.6
billion and $3.7 billion using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively (Table 9-5). Under both
discount rates, WTP for habitat restoration in the Mid-Atlantic region represents 61 percent of the
national total. Despite representing 54 percent of the national area of restoration necessary to compensate
for baseline I&E mortality (Table 9-2), WTP for habitat restoration in the Inland region represented only
7 percent of national WTP. This difference is in large part due to lower household WTP values for habitat
restoration than values found in other regions.
At a 3 percent discount rate, total national WTP for habitat restoration equivalent to I&E mortality
reductions under Option 1 is $513.3 million (Table 9-5). Because they reduce entrainment losses in the
majority of facilities, and because 66 percent of national I&E mortality occurs due to entrainment
mortality (Chapter 3), WTP for Options 2 and 3 is about four times greater than WTP for Option 1.
Assuming a 3 percent discount rate, national WTP for both Options 2 and 3 is approximately $2.1 billion
(Table 9-5).
March 28, 2011 9-15
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 9-5: Weighted WTP for Habitat Restoration Area Equivalent to Baseline I&E Mortality, and Weighted WTP for Habitat
Restoration Area Equivalent to I&E Mortality Reductions by Region and Regulatory Option
Household
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
WTP acre
Habitat year"1
Giant kelp
Macrocystis
Eelgrass 0.076
Zostera marina
Smooth cordgrass 0.017
Spartina
Smooth cordgrass 0.011
Spartina
Gulf of Mexico Smooth cordgrass 0.011
Spartina
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
(All Regions)
Broadleaf cattail 0.003
Typha latifolia
Broadleaf cattail 0.001
Typha latifolia
-
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses;
I&E Mortality Everywhere
i
Baseline
-
388.7
2,234.2
0.8
732.2
18.9
264.3
3,639.0
Weighted WTP for Regulatory Options
3% Discount Rate
Option ]
-
0.5
210.3
0.4
153.4
10.4
138.5
513.3
Option 1=1 Everywhere;
I Option 2
-
216.2
1,280.4
0.5
390.6
12.2
167.8
2,067.6
Option 2 = I
Option 3
-
226.9
1,295.4
0.5
389.6
12.2
170.6
2,095.1
Everywhere
Baseline
-
395.2
2,271.5
0.8
744.4
19.2
268.7
3,699.8
(2009$, millions)
7% Discount Rate
Option 1
-
0.4
195.5
0.3
142.6
9.7
128.7
477.2
and E for Facilities >125
Option 2 Option 3
-
168.0
929.1
0.4
305.9
9.6
130.0
1,542.8
DIP MGD;
-
176.2
940.7
0.4
305.0
9.6
131.6
1,563.4
Option 3 =
March 28, 2011
9-16
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
9.6 Limitations and Uncertainties
Benefit transfer involves adapting research conducted for another purpose in the available literature to
address the policy questions at hand. Because benefits analysis of environmental regulations rarely
affords sufficient time to develop original stated preference surveys that are specific to the policy effects,
benefit transfer is often the only option to inform a policy decision. Consequently, there are several
limitations and uncertainties to this approach.
9.6.1 Estimating the Extent of the Affected Population
The magnitude of the affected population has a multiplicative effect on total WTP values for I&E
mortality. EPA acknowledges that I&E mortality can have impacts not restricted to state boundaries, due
to the migratory nature offish populations, and the fact that multiple states may share impacted
watersheds. EPA's approach underestimates WTP if members of a population value I&E mortality
occurring in different states.
9.6.2 Not All Species and Losses Are Compensated
EPA scaled restoration to compensate total production lost annually in each region rather than on a
species-specific basis. This assumes that secondary production is a proxy for important ecosystem
services such as food provision and nutrient cycling. This approach is likely to underestimate needed
restoration to the extent that the public has higher nonuse values for specific species (for example,
threatened and endangered species) that are under-compensated when habitat restoration is scaled based
on total losses.
9.6.3 Timing of Losses and Restoration
Fish production services provided by a restored habitat may increase over time as the habitat undergoes
natural successional processes, or conversely, fish production services may decline or cease if habitat
restoration is not successful. EPA scaled restoration using primary productivity values reflective of
mature habitat: scaling based on mature habitat is consistent with valuation studies that provide WTP for
marginal habitat acres. EPA is not suggesting that restoration of habitat area estimated by the described
approaches actually be implemented. If restoration were implemented, primary productivity values used
in the calculation would likely overestimate marginal gains of restored habitats and would therefore
underestimate WTP. If available, the inclusion of site-specific information regarding the trajectory and
duration of restoration benefits would improve the accuracy of scaling estimates.
9.6.4 Application of the Approach to Large Geographic Areas
Application of the habitat-based approach for compensating I&E mortality on a regional scale is uncertain
because of the diversity of habitats and species within a region. Many species offish require more than
one habitat: the non-restored habitat may represent the limiting factor for fish populations. Moreover, due
to site-specific effects, species losses due to I&E mortality are likely to vary both among and within
regions. Similarly, people may have diverse values for habitats across a state. Although such effects exist,
EPA assigned ecological parameter values based on average values for a region. Also, most valuation
studies included in the analysis used statewide survey populations. Consequently, mean values reflect the
diversity of valuation that occurs throughout a state.
March 28, 2011 9-17
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Valuation studies were not available for all habitats and regions. Primary WTP values were applied in
regions when a reasonable value for the restored habitat was unavailable. Valuation studies are most
accurately applied to areas near the original study location, and may underestimate or overestimate values
in other states or regions.
Uncertainty also exists in estimates of proportionate habitat value associated with fish production
services. Application of the Johnston et al. (2002b) study may lead to overestimation or underestimation
of WTP for fish habitat services of wetlands outside Rhode Island: the study is most appropriately
transferred within southern New England and nearby areas where coastal populations (i.e., preferences)
and coastal wetland conditions (i.e., ecology) are similar. In the absence of comparable studies conducted
within individual regions, however, the estimate of Johnston et al. (2002b) was applied across regions for
saltmarsh habitat.
9.6.5 Specification of Parameter Assumptions
EPA's implementation of a trophic transfer approach required the estimation of several parameter inputs
(e.g., primary productivity values, carbon export, trophic conversion efficiencies). These values represent
extrapolations from different scales, regions, or ecosystems, and are dependent on many simplifying
assumptions. Scaling results may exhibit substantial sensitivity to these assumptions. For example, EPA
applied a simple four-level food chain to all fish species, and used mean value for trophic transfer
efficiencies across all habitats (French et al. 1996). The scientific literature indicates substantial
uncertainty in values estimated in local habitats, and fish species vary greatly in their position in natural
food webs. Additionally, natural variability will impact production and consumption in all habitats.
Consequently, productivity estimates cannot be viewed as representing anything more than a simplified
average value.
March 28, 2011 9-18
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
10 National Benefits
10.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the results of the seven regional analyses, and presents EPA's estimates of the
national benefits of the regulatory options for in-scope 316(b) facilities:
> Option 1: I Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All Existing Facilities
that Withdraw over 2 MGD DIP; Determine Entrainment Controls for Facilities Greater than 2
MGD DIP On a Site-specific Basis.
> Option 2: I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD. Establish Impingement Mortality
Controls at All Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD DIP; Require Flow Reduction
Commensurate with Closed-cycle Cooling By Facilities Greater Than 125 MGD DIP.
> Option 3: I&E Mortality Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All
Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD DIP; Require Flow Reduction Commensurate with
Closed-Ccycle Cooling at All Existing Facilities over 2 MGD DIP.
Greater detail on the methods and data used in the regional analyses is provided in the previous chapters
of this report. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the methods used to estimate impingement mortality and
entrainment (I&E mortality), and a summary of the estimated baseline I&E mortality losses and
reductions in I&E mortality under the proposed 316(b) regulatory options. See Chapters 5 through 8 for a
discussion of the methods used to estimate the value of I&E mortality losses and the benefits of the
alternative policy options.
EPA was unable to estimate monetized nonuse benefits for I&E mortality losses in all regions. Therefore,
the benefits estimates presented in this section do not reflect total benefits associated with reducing I&E
mortality at in-scope facilities, and overall national benefits may accordingly be higher. Section 10.2
describes EPA's methodology for aggregating benefits at the national level; Section 10.3 summarizes
baseline losses and expected reductions in I&E mortality; Section 10.4 presents national benefits; and
Section 10.5 discusses nonuse benefits and presents a break-even analysis.
10.2 Methodology
EPA notes that quantifying and monetizing the benefits that result from reductions in I&E mortality under
the regulatory options considered for the Section 316(b) facilities rulemaking is challenging. The
preceding sections of this report discuss specific limitations and uncertainties associated with estimating
reductions in I&E mortality losses and monetized benefits. EPA estimated national-level benefits by
summing benefit estimates over the seven study regions. Thus, national benefit estimates are subject to
the same uncertainties inherent in the valuation approaches used for assessing each of the four benefit
categories (threatened and endangered species, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and nonuse
values). The national benefits estimates do not include habitat-based values presented in Chapter 9; the
habitat-based analysis was conducted for illustrative purposes to demonstrate the potential magnitude of
total value inclusive of nonuse values. The combined effect of these uncertainties is of unknown
magnitude and direction (i.e., the estimates may over- or understate the anticipated national level of use
benefits). Nevertheless, EPA has no data to indicate that the results for any of the benefit categories are
atypical or unreasonable.
March 28, 2011 10-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
10.3 Summary of Baseline Losses and Expected Reductions in I&E Mortality
Based on the results of the regional analyses, EPA calculated total I&E mortality losses under baseline
(i.e., pre- regulatory) conditions and the total amount by which losses would be reduced under each of the
regulatory options. The number offish lost at in-scope facilities is presented in terms of age-1 equivalent
(A1E) losses (i.e., the number of individual fish of different ages impinged and entrained by facility
intakes, expressed as AlEs).
Table 10-1 presents baseline impingement, entrainment, and total I&E mortality losses. The table shows
that total national losses for all in-scope facilities are 2.2 billion fish in terms of AlEs. EPA notes that the
count of total lost organisms is larger than values expressed in AlEs. This table shows that about 46
percent of all A1E losses, or 1.0 billion fish, occur in the Mid-Atlantic region, followed by the Inland
region with 0.9 billion fish lost. More-detailed discussions of the I&E mortality losses in each region are
provided in Chapter 3 of this report.
Table 10-1: Baseline National A1E Losses at All In-scope Facilities (millions of A1Es)
Region Impingement Mortality Entrainment Mortality I&E Mortality
California 0.8 36.0
North Atlantic 0.6 59.4 60.0
Mid-Atlantic 50.7 939.4 990.1
South Atlantic 22.5 10.9 33.4
Gulf of Mexico 45_1 90.6 135.6
Great Lakes 44_1 9.4 53.5
Inland 583.6 295.9 879.5
National Total 747.4 1,441.5 2,188.9
EPA also calculated the total national I&E mortality losses prevented by each of the regulatory options.
These prevented losses are based on the expected reductions in I&E mortality at each facility due to
technology installation required under each option. Table 10-2 through Table 10-4 present expected
reductions in I&E mortality, expressed as AlEs, by region, under regulatory options considered in EPA's
analysis. The tables show that at in-scope facilities, Option 1 reduces A1E losses by 0.6 billion fish. In
comparison, Option 2 and Option 3 both reduce A1E losses by approximately 2.0 billion fish.
Table 10-2: Reductions in National A1E Losses for All In-scope Facilities (millions of
A1Es) Under Option 1 (I Everywhere)
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf ofMexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
Impingement Mortality
0.7
0.4
38.7
14.2
34.5
38.2
488.2
615.0
Entrainment Mortality
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
I&E Mortality
0.7
0.4
38.7
14.2
34.5
38.2
488.2
615.0
March 28, 2011 10-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 10-3: Reductions in National A1E Losses for All In-scope Facilities (million A1Es)
Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD)
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
Impingement Mortality
0.8
0.6
49.5
19.2
44.7
43.7
564.1
722.5
Entrainment Mortality
30.7
48.4
860.3
9.1
61.3
7.5
241.8
1,259.0
I&E Mortality
31.5
49.0
909.7
28.3
106.0
51.1
805.9
1,981.6
Table 10-4: Reductions in National A1E Losses for All In-scope Facilities (millions of A1Es)
Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere)
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
National Total
Impingement Mortality
0.8
0.6
49.6
19.2
44.8
43.8
569.6
728.3
Entrainment Mortality
32.1
50.8
871.3
9.1
61.4
7.6
252.9
1,285.2
I&E Mortality
32.9
51.4
920.9
28.3
106.2
51.3
822.5
2,013.5
Table 10-5 presents EPA's estimates of the current level of total annual I&E mortality losses and the
reduction in total annual I&E mortality by option for the three metrics presented in Section 3.2.2. Option
3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) results in the greatest reduction in I&E mortality, followed by Option 2 (I
Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) and Option 1 (I Everywhere), respectively, for all of the
metrics.
Table 10-5: Baseline National I&E Mortality and I&E Mortality Reductions for All In-
scope Facilities by Regulatory Option
_ , _ . »„.„. -1,^ Forgone Fishery Yield Biomass Production Forgone
Regulatory Option Millions of AlEs , .... ,,\ „ .... „ „
(million Ibs) (million Ibs)
Baseline 2,188.9 7L5 637.8
Option 1 615.0 133 137.6
Option 2 1,981.6 58.6 542.2
Option 3 2,013.5 59.2 556.2
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E
for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
As shown for all regions in Table 10-6, and by region in Chapter 3 of this report, the harvested
commercial and recreational fish species that have direct use values comprise between 1 and 9 percent of
baseline I&E mortality losses in each region, resulting in a national average of only 3 percent of I&E
mortality losses receiving a monetary value based on direct use. The remaining 97 percent of I&E
mortality losses include unharvested recreational and commercial fish and forage fish which do not have
March 28, 2011 10-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
direct use values. EPA's nonuse analysis was limited two of the seven benefits regions and nonuse values
were not estimated for unharvested fish in the remaining five benefits regions. The total estimated
benefits are likely to be significantly understated due to the regional limitations of EPA's nonuse analysis
and the relatively large fraction of I&E mortality reductions which are not commercially or recreationally
harvested.
Table 10-6: Distribution of National I&E Mortality for All In-scope Facilities by Regulatory
Option
Regulatory Option
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
(a)
All Species
(millions of
AlEs)
2,188.9
615.0
1,981.6
2,013.5
(b)
Forage Species
(millions of
AlEs)
1,654.8
525.7
1,512.6
1,535.4
(O
Commercial and
Recreational
Species
(millions of AlEs)
534.1
89.3
468.9
478.1
(d)
Harvested
Commercial and
Recreational
Species
(millions of fish
harvested)3
59.4
15.7
53.3
54.0
A1E Fish Assigned
a Direct Use Value
as Percentage of
Total
(column d /
column a)
2.7%
2.5%
2.7%
2.7%
a Harvestable fish are adult fish of the age at which they can legally be harvested.
Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for
Facilities > 125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
10.4 National Monetized Benefits from Eliminating and Reducing I&E Mortality
Losses
EPA's estimates of total national baseline losses and total national benefits under each option are based
on EPA's regional estimates of monetized baseline losses and regulatory option benefits. To address the
differences in the timing of benefits and costs, EPA developed a time profile of total benefits from all in-
scope facilities that reflects when benefits from compliance-related changes at each facility would be
realized. The methodology that EPA used to develop this time profile is detailed in Appendix D. For each
study region, EPA first calculated the undiscounted benefits (i.e., commercial and recreational fishing
benefits, including recreational fishing benefits from an increased abundance of T&E species) from the
expected annual I&E mortality reductions under the regulatory options, based on the assumptions that all
facilities in each region would achieve compliance and that benefits would be realized immediately
following compliance. Then, since there would be regulatory and biological time lags between
promulgation of the regulatory options and the realization of benefits, EPA created a time profile of
benefits that takes into account the fact that benefits do not begin immediately. Using this time profile of
benefits, EPA discounted the total benefits generated in each year of the analysis to 2012, the year when
the rule becomes effective, using discount rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.46 Appendix D of this report
provides detail on EPA's development of the time profile of benefits.
The 3 percent rate represents a reasonable estimate of the social rate of time preference. The 7 percent rate represents an
alternative discount rate, recommended by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), that reflects an estimated
opportunity cost of capital.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
10-4
-------
EPA estimated mean national use values, as well as values that include the 5th percentile lower bound and
95th percentile upper bound of the recreational benefits estimates.47 Table 10-9 through Table 10-11
present these results for each region and for the nation as a whole. As described in above, the national
benefits estimates do not include habitat-based values presented in Chapter 9.
Table 10-7 shows that the total annual national value of losses due to CWIS at in-scope facilities,
discounted at 3 percent, includes $76.9 million in recreational fishing losses, $8.0 million in commercial
fishing losses, $1.1 million in T&E species losses, and $128.6 million in forgone nonuse benefits. The
total benefits of elimination of baseline CWIS, discounted at 3 percent, are $214.7 million per year, with
estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound for recreational values,
totaling $180.5 million and $281.0 million, respectively.
Discounted at 7 percent, the total annual national value of losses due to CWIS includes $75.6 million in
recreational fishing losses, $7.9 million in commercial fishing losses, $1.1 million in T&E species losses,
and $130.8 million in forgone nonuse benefits. The total use value of fishery resources lost, discounted at
7 percent, is $215.5 million per year, with estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th
percentile upper bound for recreational values, totaling $181.8 million and $280.8 million, respectively.
Total monetized losses are greatest in the Mid-Atlantic region. More-detailed discussions of the valuation
of impacts under the baseline conditions in each region are provided in Chapters 5 through 8 of this
document.
Table 10-8, Table 10-9, and Table 10-10 present EPA's estimates of the regional and national benefits of
reducing I&E mortality under each of the regulatory options (2009$, discounted at 3 percent and 7
percent). The national value of these reductions in I&E mortality losses, evaluated at a 3 percent discount
rate, is as follows:
> Option 1 (I Everywhere) results in national benefits of $17.6 million per year, with estimates
based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound for recreational values,
totaling $10.0 million and $30.3 million (Table 10-8).
> Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) results in national benefits of $120.8
million per year, with estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile
upper bound for recreational values, totaling $101.3 million and $158.7 million (Table 10-9).
> Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) results in national benefits of $125.6 million per year,
with estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound for
recreational values, totaling $105.5 million and $164.9 million (Table 10-10).
Evaluated at a 7 percent discount rate, the national use benefits of the regulatory analysis options are
somewhat smaller:
> Option 1 (I Everywhere) results in national benefits of $16.0 million per year, with estimates
based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound for recreational values,
totaling $9.1 million and $30.3 million (Table 10-8).
> Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities with > 125 MGD) results in national benefits of
$92.2 million per year, with estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th
47 The lower estimates of value presented in this chapter are measured by the sum of the 5th percentile lower bound estimates
of recreational values plus the mean value estimates for all other categories of value. The higher estimates of value presented
in this chapter are measured by the sum of the 95th percentile upper bound estimates of recreational values plus the mean
value estimates for all other categories of value.
March 28, 2011 10-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
percentile upper bound for recreational values, totaling $77.6 million and $120.6 million (Table
10-9).
> Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) results in national use benefits of $95.7 million per year,
with estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound for
recreational values, totaling $80.7 million and $124.9 million (Table 10-10).
The majority of benefit values are attributable to recreational fishing and nonuse benefits. Table 10-11
provides a convenient summary of benefits for the three regulatory options. More detailed discussions of
regional benefits under each option are provided in Chapters 5 through 8 of this report.
March 28, 2011 10-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 10-7: Summary of National Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses for All In-scope Facilities (2009$)
Recreational Fishing Benefits
Region
Low
Mean
High
Annualized Benefits3 (2009$, millions)
Commercial
Fishing T&E Species Nonuse
Benefits0 Benefits'1'6 Benefits
Low
Total Benefits'"
Mean
High
3% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$1.7
$1.8
$15.2
$0.3
$6.0
$1.1
$16.6
$42.7
$2.9
$2.8
$25.6
$0.3
$8.9
$2.0
$34.4
$76.9
$4.9
$4.6
$44.5
$0.5
$13.5
$3.5
$71.7
$143.2
$1.2
$0.4 - $26.3
$2.8 - $102.3
$0.0
$3.5
$0.1
$1.1
$8.0 $1.1 $128.6
$3.0
$28.5
$120.4
$0.3
$9.5
$1.2
$17.7
$180.5
$4.2
$29.6
$130.7
$0.4
$12.3
$2.1
$35.5
$214.7
$6.2
$31.3
$149.6
$0.5
$17.0
$3.6
$72.8
$281.0
7% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$1.7
$1.7
$14.7
$0.2
$6.0
$1.1
$16.5
$42.0
$2.8
$2.7
$24.7
$0.3
$8.8
$2.0
$34.2
$75.6
$4.8
$4.4
$43.0
$0.5
$13.5
$3.5
$71.4
$141.0
$1.2
$0.4 - $26.8
$2.7 - $104.0
$0.0
$3.4
$0.1
$1.1
$7.9 $1.1 $130.8
$2.9
$28.9
$121.5
$0.3
$9.4
$1.2
$17.6
$181.8
$4.0
$29.9
$131.5
$0.4
$12.3
$2.1
$35.4
$215.5
$5.9
$31.6
$149.7
$0.5
$16.9
$3.6
$72.5
$280.8
* All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire period
of this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.
A range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the meta-
analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefits
for some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values for commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are added
to the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.0 No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial
fishing analysis.
Recreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this report
for more detail on EPA's analysis of T&E benefits.
e Zeros represent values less than 1,000.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
March 28, 2011
10-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 10-8: Summary
Region
of National Benefits
Recreational
of Option
1 (I Everywhere) for All In-scope Facilities (2009$)
Annualized
Benefits3 (2009$,
millions)
Fishing Benefits Commercial
Low Mean
Fishing
High Benefits0
T&E Species
Benefits"'6
Nonuse
Benefits
Low
Total Benefits'"
Mean
High
3% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$0.1
$0.0
$0.8
$0.0
$1.4
$0.6
$5.1
$8.0
$0.1
$0.0
$1.6
$0.0
$2.4
$1.0
$10.5
$15.6
$0.1 $0.0
$0.0 $0.0
$3.1 $0.3
$0.1 $0.0
$4.3 $0.6
$1.6 $0.0
$22.0
$31.4 $1.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
$0.5
$0.5
-
$0.1
$0.4
-
-
-
-
$0.5
$0.1
$0.1
$1.6
$0.0
$2.0
$0.6
$5.6
$10.0
$0.1
$0.1
$2.3
$0.0
$3.0
$1.0
$11.0
$17.6
$0.1
$0.1
$3.9
$0.1
$4.9
$1.7
$22.5
$33.4
7% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.7
$0.0
$1.3
$0.5
$4.6
$7.2
$0.1
$0.0
$1.4
$0.0
$2.2
$0.9
$9.6
$14.2
$0.1 $0.0
$0.0 $0.0
$2.8 $0.3
$0.0 $0.0
$4.0 $0.5
$1.5 $0.0
$20.1
$28.5 $0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
$0.5
$0.5
-
$0.1
$0.4
-
-
-
-
$0.5
$0.0
$0.1
$1.4
$0.0
$1.8
$0.6
$5.1
$9.1
$0.1
$0.1
$2.1
$0.0
$2.7
$0.9
$10.1
$16.0
$0.1
$0.1
$3.5
$0.1
$4.5
$1.5
$20.6
$30.3
1 All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire period
of this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.
A range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the meta-
analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefits
for some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values for commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are added
to the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.0 No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial
fishing analysis.
Recreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this report
for more detail on EPA's analysis of T&E benefits.
e Zeros represent values less than 1,000.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
March 28, 2011
10-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 10-9: Summary of National Benefits of Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) for All In-scope Facilities (2009$)
Annualized Benefits a(2009S, millions)
Region
Recreational Fishing Benefits
Low
Mean
High
Commercial
Fishing T&E Species Nonuse
Benefits0 Benefits'1'6 Benefits
Total Benefits
Low
Mean
High
3% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$1.0
$0.9
$8.4
$0.1
$3.2
$0.7
$9.6
$24.0
$1.7
$1.5
$14.1
$0.2
$4.9
$1.3
$19.9
$43.5
$2.9
$2.4
$24.5
$0.3
$7.6
$2.2
$41.4
$81.5
$0.8
$0.2
$1.6
$0.0
$1.8
$0.1
$0.7
$4.5 $0.7
-
$14.8
$57.3
-
-
-
-
$72.1
$1.8
$15.9
$67.3
$0.2
$5.0
$0.8
$10.3
$101.3
$2.5
$16.5
$73.0
$0.2
$6.7
$1.3
$20.6
$120.8
$3.7
$17.4
$83.5
$0.3
$9.4
$2.3
$42.2
$158.7
7% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$0.8
$0.7
$5.8
$0.1
$2.5
$0.6
$7.4
$17.8
$1.3
$1.1
$9.8
$0.1
$3.8
$1.0
$15.3
$32.4
$2.2
$1.8
$17.0
$0.2
$5.9
$1.7
$31.9
$60.8
$0.6
$0.2
$1.1
$0.0
$1.4
$0.0
$0.6
$3.3 $0.6
-
$11.5
$44.5
-
-
-
-
$55.9
$1.4
$12.3
$51.4
$0.1
$3.9
$0.6
$7.9
$77.6
$1.9
$12.7
$55.4
$0.1
$5.2
$1.0
$15.8
$92.2
$2.8
$13.4
$62.7
$0.2
$7.3
$1.8
$32.4
$120.6
1 All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire period
of this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.
A range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the meta-
analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefits
for some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values for commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are added
to the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.0 No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial
fishing analysis.
Recreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this report
for more detail on EPA's analysis of T&E benefits.
e Zeros represent values less than 1,000.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
March 28, 2011
10-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 10-10: Summary of National Rpnpfitg nf Dntinn 3 MJtF Mortality F\/pr\/whprpl fnr All In-grnnp Farilitipg
Annualized Benefits3 (2009$, millions)
Region
Recreational Fishing Benefits
Low
Mean
High
Commercial
Fishing T&E Species Nonuse
Benefits0 Benefits 'e Benefits
Total Benefits
Low
Mean
High
3% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$1.1
$1.0
$8.6
$0.1
$3.3
$0.7
$10.0
$24.8
$1.8
$1.6
$14.4
$0.2
$4.9
$1.3
$20.7
$44.9
$3.1
$2.7
$25.1
$0.3
$7.7
$2.3
$43.1
$84.2
$0.8
$0.2
$1.6
$0.0
$1.8
$0.1
$0.7
$4.5 $0.7
$1.9
$15.5 $16.7
$60.0 $70.2
$0.2
$5.1
$0.8
$10.7
$75.5 $105.5
$2.6
$17.3
$76.1
$0.2
$6.7
$1.3
$21.4
$125.6
$3.9
$18.3
$86.7
$0.3
$9.5
$2.3
$43.8
$164.9
7% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$0.8
$0.8
$6.0
$0.1
$2.5
$0.6
$7.6
$18.3
$1.4
$1.2
$10.0
$0.1
$3.8
$1.0
$15.8
$33.3
$2.3
$2.0
$17.5
$0.2
$5.9
$1.8
$32.8
$62.5
$0.6
$0.2
$1.1
$0.0
$1.4
$0.0
$0.5
$3.3 $0.5
$1.4
$12.0 $12.9
$46.5 $53.6
$0.1
$3.9
$0.6
$8.1
$58.5 $80.7
$2.0
$13.4
$57.7
$0.1
$5.2
$1.0
$16.3
$95.7
$2.9
$14.1
$65.1
$0.2
$7.3
$1.8
$33.4
$124.9
1 All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire period
of this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.
A range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the meta-
analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefits
for some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values for commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are added
to the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.0 No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial
fishing analysis.
Recreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this report
for more detail on EPA's analysis of T&E benefits.
e Zeros represent values less than 1,000.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
March 28, 2011
10-10
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 10-11 • Summary of National Benefits hv Renulatnrv Ontion for All In-scnne Facilities f2009$l
Annualized Benefits3 (2009$, millions)
Recreational Fishing Benefits Commercial Fishing T&E Species
Regulatory Option Low
Mean
High
Benefits0 Benefits"'6
Nonuse
Benefits
Total Benefits
Low
Mean
High
3% Discount Rate
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
$42.7
$8.0
$24.0
$24.8
$76.89
$15.62
$43.52
$44.94
$143.2
$31.4
$81.5
$84.2
$8.05
$0.99
$4.47
$4.52
$1.14
$0.50
$0.72
$0.72
$128.64
$0.52
$72.10
$75.48
$180.5
$10.0
$101.3
$105.5
$214.72
$17.63
$120.80
$125.65
$281.0
$33.4
$158.7
$164.9
7% Discount Rate
Baseline
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
$42.0
$7.2
$17.8
$18.3
$75.64
$14.21
$32.40
$33.30
$141.0
$28.5
$60.8
$62.5
$7.89
$0.89
$3.31
$3.34
$1.14
$0.45
$0.56
$0.55
$130.78
$0.48
$55.94
$58.52
$181.8
$9.1
$77.6
$80.7
$215.45
$16.04
$92.21
$95.71
$280.8
$30.3
$120.6
$124.9
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = 1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality
Everywhere
11 All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the
entire period of this analysis (2012 through 2062). See Appendix D for detail.
A range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the
meta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated
recreational use benefits for some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values for commercial fishing benefits
and T&E species benefits are added to the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.
c No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing analysis.
Recreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon).
See Chapter 5 of this report for more detail on EPA's analysis of T&E benefits.
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
10-11
-------
10.5 Break-Even Analysis
Comprehensive estimates of total resource value include both use and nonuse values, such that the
resulting total value estimates may be compared to total social cost. Recent economic literature provides
substantial support for the hypothesis that mean nonuse values are greater than zero. Moreover, when
small per-capita nonuse values are held by a substantial fraction of the population, they can be very large
in the aggregate. While the general proposition is true, in this specific context we have been able to
estimate nonuse values for only two of the seven benefits regions.
As shown in Table 10-6 above, nearly all—97 percent—I&E mortality losses at cooling water intake
structures under current conditions (the baseline scenario) consist of either forage species or unlanded
recreational and commercial species that are not harvested and thus were not assigned direct use values.
Although individuals do not use these resources directly, they may value changes in the status or quality
of these resources. EPA did not estimate nonuse values for forage and unlanded species occurring in five
of the seven benefits regions. Due to the uncertainties of providing estimates of the magnitude of nonuse
values associated with the regulatory options for all regions, this section provides an alternative approach
for evaluating the potential relationship between benefits and costs. The approach used here applies a
"break-even" analysis to identify what the unmonetized nonuse values would have to be in order for the
proposed options to have benefits that are equal to costs.
The break-even approach uses EPA's estimates of monetized commercial and recreational use benefits for
the regulatory options, and subtracts them from the estimated annual compliance costs incurred by
facilities subject to the options. The resulting "net cost" enables one to work backwards to estimate what
the nonuse values would need to be (in terms of willingness to pay per household per year) in order for
total annualized benefits to equal annualized costs. Table 10-12 provides this assessment for the proposed
options. The table shows benefit values using a 3 percent or 7 percent discount rate, respectively.
As shown in Table 10-12, for total annualized benefits to equal total annualized costs, nonuse values per
household would have to be at least $3, but may be as great as $40 under the 3 percent discount rate,
depending on the regulatory option. The 7 percent discount estimates show that nonuse values per
household would have to be $4 to $42, depending on the regulatory option.
March 28, 2011 10-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 10-12: Implicit Nonuse Value—Break-Even Analysis, 3 Percent and 7 Percent Discount
Rates (2009$)
Use Benefits
Regulatory Option3 (2009$,
millions)3
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3
$17.11
$48.71
$50.17
$15.55
$36.27
$37.19
Annual Social
Cost (2009$,
millions)b
3%
$383.80
$4,462.90
$4,631.62
7%
$458.81
$4,699.35
$4,862.05
Number of Households
Annual Nonuse
„ _ ,_ in States with In-scope
Benefits Necessary to
H 316(b) Facilities
Break Even (2009$) c'd , .„. ,e
(millions)
Discount Rate
$366.69
$4,414.19
$4,581.45
Discount Rate
$443.26
$4,663.08
$4,824.86
114.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
Annual Break-
Even Nonuse WTP
per Household
(2009$)'
$3.20
$38.54
$40.00
$3.87
$40.71
$42.12
Scenarios: Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere
a Benefits are discounted using a 3% or 7% discount rate, respectively. Use benefits include estimated commercial fishing benefits, recreational
fishing benefits, and use benefits for T&E species.
The total social cost of the final rule includes facility compliance costs and administrative costs.
c Annualized compliance costs minus annualized use benefits.
11 Nonuse benefits may also include unmonetized use benefits, i.e., improvements in bird watching.
eFrom U.S. Census 2000 (BLS): http://factfinder.census.gov.
f Dollars per household per year that, when added to use benefits, would yield a total annualized benefit (use plus nonuse) equal to the
annualized costs.
While this approach of backing out the "break-even" nonuse value per household does not answer the
question of what nonuse values might actually be for the regulatory options, these results do frame what
the unknown values would have to be in order for benefits to equal or exceed costs. The break-even
approach poses the question: "Is the true per-household willingness to pay for the nonuse amenities
(existence and bequest) associated with an option likely to be greater or less than the 'break-even' benefit
levels displayed in Table 10-12?" The results of EPA's Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA) (Chapter 9)
illustrate the potential magnitude of nonuse values for 316(b) regulatory options. However, EPA does not
consider HEA appropriate for a primary analysis of nonuse benefits due to limitations of the approach and
assumptions required for its application to 316(b) regulatory options.
March 28, 2011 10-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
11 Option 4 Results
11.1
Introduction
In addition to the three regulatory options presented in the preceding chapters of this report, i.e., Options
1, 2, and 3, EPA analyzed an additional regulatory option - Option 4: I for Facilities > 50 MOD - in
developing the Proposed 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation. Option 4 is the same as Option 1:1
Everywhere, in all respects except for not requiring I mortality control for facilities less than 50 MGD.
Because EPA analyzed Option 4 after completing the analysis and documentation of the three main
regulatory options, the analysis results for Option 4 are presented separately in this chapter. The
methodology used to estimate the benefits of Option 4 are identical to those used for Options 1, 2, 3. See
Chapters 3 through 9 for additional detail regarding EPA's methodology. This chapter presents the results
for Option 4 in two parts:
> The expected reductions in I&E Mortality under Option 4; and
> The monetized benefits under Option 4, including recreational fishing, commercial fishing, T&E
species, and nonuse benefits.
11.2 Expected Reductions in I&E Mortality under Option 4
Based on the results of the regional analyses, EPA calculated the total amount by which I&E mortality
losses would be reduced under Option 4. The number offish lost at in-scope facilities is presented in
terms of age-1 equivalent (A IE) losses within Table 11-1. All reductions in I&E mortality under Option 4
are associated with reduced impingement. The reduction in national A IE losses is 602 million, or
approximately 98 percent of the reductions under Option 1 (I Everywhere). The percentage of national
A1E losses assigned a direct use value is 2.6 percent, slightly higher than the percentage observed under
Option 1. The remaining 97 percent of I&E mortality losses include unharvested recreational and
commercial fish and forage fish which are not assigned direct use values. Reductions in I&E mortality for
T&E species are slightly less than Option 1 (Table 5-5). Appendix C provides additional detail regarding
reductions in I&E mortality losses under Option 4.
Table 11-1: Distribution of I&E Mortality for All In-scope Facilities by Region Under Option 4 (I
Everywhere without New Units Requirements)
Region
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
All Species
(million A1E)
0.7
0.4
38.6
14.2
34.2
37.9
476.3
602.4
Forage Species
(million A1E)
0.2
0.4
14.3
13.4
4.3
33.2
448.4
514.1
Commercial &
Recreational Species
(million A1E)
0.5
0.1
24.4
0.8
30.0
4.7
27.9
88.3
Commercial &
Recreational Harvest
(million fish)
0.1
0.1
6.1
0.1
4.6
0.5
4.2
15.5
A1E Losses
with Direct Use
Value (%)
8.0%
1.5%
15.8%
0.7%
13.3%
1.3%
0.9%
2.6%
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
11-1
-------
11.3 Monetized Benefits Under Option 4
EPA's estimation of regional and national benefits under Option 4 are based on EPA's regional estimates
of reductions in I&E mortality losses. Option 4 would result in an estimated increase of approximately 5.7
million harvestable recreational fish and an estimated annual increase of 5.5 million pounds of
commercial harvest (Table 1 l-2Error! Reference source not found.). Monetized nonuse benefits are
based on estimated increase in winter flounder abundance of 0.03 percent, calculated using the approach
described in Chapter 8. Under Option 4, recreational fishing benefits account for the majority of the
national benefits similar to Option 1 (I Everywhere). As described in Chapter 10, EPA estimated mean
values, as well as values that include the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound of the
recreational benefits estimates.
Table 11-2: Annual Increase in Recreational and Commercial Harvest Under
Option 4 (I Everywhere without New Units Requirements)
Annual Increase in Recreational Annual Increase in Commercial
Region Harvest Harvest
(harvestable adult fish) (thousand Ibs)
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
35,421
1,495
548,496
15,882
660,672
174,601
4,215,546
5,652,113
6.5
2.9
3746.3
45.1
1448.4
225.1
-
5474.3
Overall, monetized benefits under Option 4 are slightly less than those estimated for Option 1:
> Using a 3% discount rate, Option 4 results in national benefits of $17.3 million per year, with
estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound for
recreational values, totaling $9.8 million and $32.8 million (Table 11-3). Use benefits are
estimated to be $16.8 million with an annual break-even nonuse WTP of $2.70 per household
based on total social costs of $326.6 million.
> Using a 7% discount rate, Option 4 results in national benefits of $15.8 million per year, with
estimates based on the 5th percentile lower bound and 95th percentile upper bound for
recreational values, totaling $8.9 million and $29.8 million (Table 11-3). Use benefits are
estimated to be $15.3 million with an annual break-even nonuse WTP of $3.21 per household
based on total social costs of $383.1 million.
Table 11-4 summarizes results from applying the habitat-based approach described in Chapter 9. Similar
to other options, the Inland region accounts for the majority of habitat acres. National weighted WTP is
estimated to be $510 million and $474 million using discount rates of 3% and 7%, respectively. As
described in previous chapters, EPA did not include values estimated using the habitat-based approach
within its estimate of national benefits as presented in Table 11-3.
March 28, 2011 11-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 11-3: Summary of National Benefits of Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) (2009$)
Annualized Benefits3 (2009S, millions)
Recreational Fishing Benefits
Region
Low
Mean
Commercial Fishing T&E Species
High Benefits0 Benefits'1'6
Total Benefits'"
Nonuse
Benefits Low
Mean
High
3% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
so.i
so.o
$0.8
$0.0
$1.4
$0.6
$4.9
$7.8
$0.1
$0.0
$1.6
$0.0
$2.4
$0.9
$10.3
$15.3
$0.1
$0.0
$3.1
$0.1
$4.3
$1.6
$21.5
$30.8
$0.0
$0.0
$0.3
$0.0
$0.6
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0 $0.5
$0.1
$0.1 $0.1
$0.4 $1.6
$0.0
$2.0
$0.6
$5.4
$0.5 $9.8
$0.1
$0.1
$2.3
$0.0
$3.0
$1.0
$10.8
$17.3
$0.1
$0.1
$3.9
$0.1
$4.9
$1.7
$22.0
$32.8
7% Discount Rate
California
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
$0.0
$0.0
$0.7
$0.0
$1.3
$0.5
$4.5
$7.1
$0.1
$0.0
$1.4
$0.0
$2.2
$0.9
$9.4
$13.9
$0.1
$0.0
$2.8
$0.0
$3.9
$1.5
$19.6
$28.0
$0.0
$0.0
$0.3
$0.0
$0.5
$0.0
$0.4
$0.9 $0.4
$0.0
$0.1 $0.1
$0.4 $1.4
$0.0
$1.8
$0.6
$5.0
$0.5 $8.9
$0.1
$0.1
$2.1
$0.0
$2.7
$0.9
$9.8
$15.8
$0.1
$0.1
$3.5
$0.1
$4.5
$1.5
$20.1
$29.8
* All benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame of the analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire period of
this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.
A range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the meta-
analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefits for
some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values for commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are added to the
respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.0 No significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishing
analysis.
Recreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this report
for more detail on EPA's analysis of T&E benefits.
c Zeros represent values less than 1,000.
March 28, 2011
11-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table 11-4: Weighted WTP for Habitat Restoration Area Equivalent to I&E Mortality Reductions by
Region under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD)
Region
California
Secondary
Productivity
(kg acre-1 year-1)
96
I&E Losses _, . ,
Equivalent
(metric tons „
. ,,-r, . Restoration
A1E, dry
. , . Area (acres)
weight)
3 35
Household Weighted WTP (2009$,
WTP*^1 millions)
year1 3%
(2009$) Discount
Rate
0.0
7%
Discount
Rate
0.0
North Atlantic 50 1 23 0.076 0_5 0.4
Mid-Atlantic 47 240 5,145 0.017 211.1 196.3
South Atlantic 83 13 159 0.011 0_4 0.3
Gulf of Mexico 83 338 4,091 0.011 152.7 142.0
Great Lakes 82 251 3,065 0.003 10.4 9.6
Inland 82 3,340 40,813 0.001 134.8 125.4
Total
(All Regions) - 4,186 53,331 - 509.9 474.0
March 28, 2011 11-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
12 References
Abelson, A. and M. Denny (1997). "Settlement of Marine Organisms in Flow." Annual Review of
Ecology & Svstematics 28: 317.
Abt Associates, Inc. (2009a). Summary of Ecological Effects of Thermal Discharge. Cambridge, MA.
Memorandum to EPA dated October 28, 2009. 28.
Abt Associates, Inc. (2009b). Wetland Fish Production Memo to EPA, WA 02-9 Task 4. December 24,
2009.
Abt Associates, Inc. (2010a). Estimates of the amount of TN and TP regenerated by I&E losses (Under
Work Assignment 2-09, Task 4) Cambridge, MA. Memorandum to EPA dated January 21, 2010.
3.
Abt Associates, Inc. (2010b). Source Water Body Comparisons (Under Work Assignment 2-09, Task 4).
Memorandum to EPA dated February 23, 2010. 13.
Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (2010). Alaska
Fisheries Science Center Publications Database. Available at
http://access.afsc.noaa.gov/pubs/search.cfm.
Allardyce, D. A. (1991). Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: notice of findings on petition to
list the paddlefish. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pierre, South Dakota.
Anonymous (1997). "Tidal Wetlands in New York State." New York Conservationist 51(psupp 4-5).
Asche, F., T. Bjorndal, et al. (2005). Demand Structure for Fish. Institute for Research in Economics and
Business Administration. Bergen, Norway. SNF Project No. 5256: SIP Resource Management.
Ash, G. R, N. R. Chymko, et al. (1974). "Fish kill due to 'cold shock' in Lake Wabamun, Alberta."
Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 11: 1822-1824.
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) (2010). "Managed Species." Available at
http: //www .asmfc. org/managedspecie s .htm.
Auster, P. J. and R. W. Langton (1999). "The effects of fishing on fishery habitat." American Fishery
Society Symposium 22.
Axelrad, D. M., K. A. Moore, et al. (1976). Nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon flux in Chesapeake Bay
marshes. In Virginia Water Research Bulletin 79. Virginia Water Resources Research Center,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Blacksburg, VA. Virginia Water Research
Bulletin 79.
Bach, S. D., G. W. Thayer, et al. (1986). "Export of Detritus from Eelgrass (Zostera-Marina) Beds near
Beaufort, North-Carolina, USA." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 28: 265-278.
Ball, S. L. and R. L. Baker (1996). "Predator—Induced Life History Changes: Antipredator Behavior
Costs or Facultative Life History Shifts?" Ecology 77(4): 1116-1124.
Balletto, J. H., M. V. Heimbuch, et al. (2005). "Delaware Bay salt marsh restoration: Mitigation for a
power plant cooling water system in New Jersey, USA." Ecological Engineering 25(3): 204-213.
Barnett, P. R. O. (1972). "Effects of Warm Water Effluents from Power Stations on Marine Life."
Proceedings of the Roval Society B: Biological Sciences 180(1061): 497-509.
Bartholow, J. M., S. G. Campbell, et al. (2004). "Predicting the thermal effects of dam removal on the
Klamath River." Environmental Management 34(6): 856-874.
Bason, C. (2008). Comments on the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Draft Permit for
the Indian River Generating Station. Delaware Center for the Inland Bays. April 4, 2008.
Bateman, I. J., M. Cole, et al. (2004). "On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity." Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 47(1): 71-93.
Bauer, D. M., N. E. Cyr, et al. (2004). "Public Preferences for Compensatory Mitigation of Salt Marsh
Losses: a Contingent Choice of Alternatives." Conservation Biology 18(2): 401-411.
March 28, 2011 12-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Beal, B. F., R. L. Vadas Sr., et al. (2004). "Annual Aboveground Biomass and Productivity Estimates for
Intertidal Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in Cobscook Bay, Maine." Northeastern Naturalist
11 (Special Issue 2): 197-224.
Beck, M. W., K. L. Heck Jr., et al. (2003). "The Role of Nearshore Ecosystems as Fish and Shellfish
Nurseries." Issues in Ecology 11: 1-12.
Beitinger, T. L., W. A. Bennett, et al. (2000). "Temperature Tolerances of North American Freshwater
Fishes Exposed to Dynamic Changes in Temperature." Environmental Biology of Fishes 58(3):
237-275.
Bell, F. W. (1986). "Competition from Fish Farming in Influencing Rent Dissipation: The Crawfish
Fishery." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(1): 95-101.
Bennett, S. J. and J. L. Best (1995). "Mean flow and turbulence structure over fixed, two-dimensional
dunes: implications for sediment transport and bedorm stability." Sedimentologv 42(3): 491-513.
Bergstrom, J. C. and P. De Civita (1999). "Status of Benefits Transfer in the United States and Canada: A
Review." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 47(1): 79-87.
Bergstrom, J. C. and L. O. Taylor (2006). "Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and
practice." Ecological Economics 60(2): 351-360.
Biles, C. L., M. Solan, et al. (2003). "Flow modifies the effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning:
an in situ study of estuarine sediments." Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
285-286:165-177.
Bishop, R. C., W. S. Breffle, et al. (2000). Restoration Scaling Based on Total Value Equivalency: Green
Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Final Report. Prepared by Stratus Consulting, Inc.
Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and U.S.
Department of Justice. October 25, 2000.
Bishop, R. C. and M. Holt (2003). Estimating Post-harvest Benefits from Increases in Commercial Fish
Catches with Implications for Remediation of Impingement and Entrainment Losses at Power
Plants. In Agricultural & Applied Economics Staff Paper Series. University of Wisconsin-
Madison, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics. Staff Paper No. 458. Available at
http://www.aae.wisc.edu/pubs/sps/pdf/stpap458.pdf
Blomquist, G. C. and J. C. Whitehead (1998). "Resource quality information and validity of willingness
to pay in contingent valuation." Resources and Energy Economics 20(2): 179-196.
Bockstael, N. E. and I. E. Strand Jr. (1987). "The Effect of Common Sources of Regression Error on
Benefit Estimates." Land Economics 63(1): 11-20.
Boreman, J. (2000). "Surplus production, compensation, and impact assessments of power plants."
Environmental Science & Policy 3(Supplement 1): 445-449.
Boreman, J. and P. Goodyear (1988). "Estimates of Entrainment Mortality for Striped Bass and Other
Fish Species Inhabiting the Hudson River Estuary." American Fisheries Society Monograph 4:
152-160.
Borey, R. B., P. A. Harcombe, et al. (1983). "Water and organic carbon fluxes from an irregularly flooded
brackish marsh on the upper Texas coast, U.S.A." Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science 16(4):
379-402.
Boxall, B. (2010). "Despite dire predictions, California farm jobs aren't disappearing." Los Angeles
Times. February 22, 2010.
Boyd, J., D. King, et al. (2001). "Compensation for Lost Ecosystem Services: The Need for Benefit-
Based Transfer Ratios and Restoration Criteria." Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2):
393-412.
Boyle, K. J. and J. C. Bergstrom (1992). "Benefit transfer studies: Myths, pragmatism, and idealism."
Water Resources Research 28(3): 657-663.
Brescia, C. J. (2002). Testimony of Christopher J. Brescia, President of Midwest Area River Coalition
2000, on Proposals for a Water Resources Development Act of 2002, before the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, United States Senate. June 18, 2002.
March 28, 2011 12-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Bresette, M., J. Gorham, et al. (1998). "Site Fidelity and Size Frequencies of Juvenile Green Turtles
(Chelonia mydas) Utilizing Near Shore Reefs in St. Lucie County, Florida." Marine Turtle
Newsletter 82: 5-7.
Brock, T. D. (1985). "Life at High Temperatures." Science 230: 132-138.
Bromberg, K. D. and M. D. Bertness (2005). "Reconstructing New England salt marsh losses using
historical maps." Estuaries 28(6): 823-832.
Bulthuis, D. A. (1987). "Effects of temperature on photosynthesis and growth of seagrasses." Aquatic
Botany 27(1): 27-40.
Byrnes, J. E., P. L. Reynolds, et al. (2007). "Invasions and Extinctions Reshape Coastal Marine Food
Webs." PLoS ONE 2(3): e295.
Cahoon, D. R. (1975). "Net productivity of emergent vegetation at Horn Point Salt Marsh," Thesis, MS.
University of Maryland.
Caparroy, P., M. T. Perez, et al. (1998). "Feeding behaviour of Centropages typicus in calm and turbulent
conditions." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 168: 109-118.
Capps Jr., O. and J. A. Labregts (1991). "Assessing Effects of Prices and Advertising on Purchases of
Finfish and Shellfish in a Local Market in Texas." Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics
July: 181-194.
Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, et al. (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. Bateman, I. J. and K. G. Willis. New York, Oxford University
Press: 97-130.
Cebrian, J. (2002). "Variability and control of carbon consumption, export, and accumulation in marine
communities." Limnol. Oceanogr. 47(1): 11-22.
Cheng, H.-t. and O. Capps Jr. (1988). "Demand Analysis of Fresh and Frozen Finfish and Shellfish in the
United States." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70(3): 533.
Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) (2007). Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network Access to
Federal Funds: A Collaborative Effort of the Chesapeake Bay Federal Agencies Committee and
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Network. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis,
Maryland. 101.
Choi, D. H., J. S. Park, et al. (2002). "Effects of thermal effluents from a power station on bacteria and
heterotrophic nanoflagellates in coastal waters." Marine Ecology Progress Series 229: 1-10.
Chuang, Y.-L., H.-H. Yang, et al. (2009). "Effects of a thermal discharge from a nuclear power plant on
phytoplankton and periphyton in subtropical coastal waters." Journal of Sea Research 61(4): 197-
205.
Clean Water Act (1972). 33 U.S.C. 1326(b).
Cleary, D. (1969). Demand and Prices for Shrimp. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, Division of Economic Research. Working Paper No. 15.
Cloete, T. E., L. Jacobs, et al. (1998). "The chemical control of biofouling in industrial water systems."
Biodegradation9(l): 23-37.
Cohen, A. N. and J. T. Carlton (1998). "Accelerating invasion rate in a highly invaded estuary." Science
279(5350): 555.
Coles, S. L. (1984). "Colonization of Hawaiian reef corals on new and denuded substrata in the vicinity of
a Hawaiian power station." Coral Reefs 3(3): 123-130.
Conant, T. A., P. H. Dutton, et al. (2009). Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta Caretta) 2009 Status Review
Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Report of the Loggerhead Biological Review Team to
the National Marine Fisheries Service. August 2009. 222.
Cooke, S. J., C. M. Bunt, et al. (2004). "Understanding fish behavior, distribution, and survival in thermal
effluents using fixed telemetry arrays: a case study of smallmouth bass in a discharge canal
during winter." Environmental Management 33(1): 140-150.
March 28, 2011 12-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Costanza, R. and C. Folke (1997). Valuing Ecosystem Services with Efficiency, Fairness, and
Sustainability as Goals. In Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Daily,
G. Washington, B.C., Island Press.
Grouse, D. T., L. B. Crowder, et al. (1987). "A Stage-Based Population Model for Loggerhead Sea
Turtles and Implications for Conservation." Ecology 68(5): 1412-1423.
Daily, G. C., Ed. (1997). Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Washington,
D.C., Island Press.
Daily, G. C., S. Alexander, et al. (1997). Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by
Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC, Ecological Society of America.
Dame, R., T. H. Chrzanowski, et al. (1986). "The Outwelling Hypothesis and North Inlet, South-
Carolina." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 33: 217-229.
Dame, R. F., J. D. Spurrier, et al. (1991). "Annual Material Processing by a Salt-Marsh Estuarine Basin in
South Carolina, USA." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 72: 153-166.
Dankers, N., M. Binsbergen, et al. (1984). "Transportation of water, particulate and dissolved organic and
inorganic matter between a salt marsh and the Ems-Dollard estuary, The Netherlands." Estuarine.
Coastal and Shelf Science 19(2): 143-165.
Davis, C., S. Yen, et al. (2007). Consumer Demand for Meat Cuts and Seafood, Selected Paper. Presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, July 29-August 1,
Portland, OR.
Day, J., W. Smith, et al. (1973). Community structure and carbon budget of a salt marsh and shallow bay
estuarine system in Louisiana. Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University. Baton
Rouge, LA. Publication No. LSU-SG-72-04.
Dayton, P. K. (1985). "Ecology of Kelp Communities." Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 16:
215-245.
de La Cruz, A. A. (1974). "Primary productivity of coastal marshes in Mississippi." Gulf Research
Reports 4: 351-356.
de Zyosa, A. D. N. (1995). "A Benefit Evaluation of Programs to Enhance Groundwater Quality, Surface
Water Quality and Wetland Habitat in Northwest Ohio," Dissertation, Doctor of Philosophy. Ohio
State University.
Deacutis, C. F. (1978). "Effect of Thermal Shock on Predator Avoidance by Larvae of Two Fish
Species." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 107(4): 632-635.
Deegan, L. A., J. E. Hughes, et al. (2000). Salt Marsh Ecosystem Support of Marine Transient Species. In
Concepts and Controversies in Tidal Marsh Ecology. Weinstein, M. P. and D. A. Kreeger,
Springer Netherlands: 333-365.
Desvousges, W. H., F. R. Johnson, et al. (1998). Environmental Policy Analysis with Limited
Information: Principles and Applications of the Transfer Method. Northampton, MA, Edward
Elgar Publishers.
Dillman, B. L., L. J. Beran, et al. (1993). Nonmarket valuation of freshwater wetlands: The Francis
Beidler forest. South Carolina Water Resources Research Institute, Clemson University. 53.
Doll, J. P. (1972). "An Economic Analysis of Shrimp Ex-Vessel Prices, 1950-1968." American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 54(3): 431-440.
Dominion (2011). "Brayton Point Power Station." Available at
http://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/brayton-point-power-station.jsp.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (2008). Point Beach Nuclear Plant Evaluation of the Thermal
Effects Due to a Planned Extended Power Uprate. Prepared for FPL Energy Point Beach, LLC.
August 2008.
Earthwatch Institute (2010). "Trinidad's Leatherback Sea Turtles." Available at
http://www.earthwatch.org/exped/sammy.html. Accessed May 25, 2010.
Eckman, J. E. and D. O. Duggins (1993). "Effects of Flow Speed on Growth of Benthic Suspension
Feeders." Biology Bulletin 185(1): 28-41.
March 28, 2011 12-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Eggers, J. M. (1989). Incidental capture of sea turtles at Salem Generating Station. Delaware Bay. New
Jersey. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology.
NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-232, Jekyll Island, Georgia, U. S. Dept. of Commerce.
Eggers, J. M., M. W. Haberland, et al. (2001). "Growth of Juvenile Loggerhead Sea Turtles Near
PSE&G's Salem Generating Station, Delaware Bay, New Jersey." Marine Turtle Newsletter 59:
5-7.
Enders, E. C., D. Boisclair, et al. (2003). "The effect of turbulence on the cost of swimming for juvenile
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)." Canadian Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 60(9): 1149-
1160.
Entrix, Inc. (2001). "An ecological risk-based 316(a) demonstration for the Indian River power plant:
report prepared for Conectiv Energy."
Entrix, Inc. (2003). An ecological risk-based 316(b) demonstration for the Indian River power plant:
report prepared for NRG Energy, Inc. Wilmington, DE.
Erkan, D. E. (2002). Strategic Plan for the Restoration of Anadromous Fishes to Rhode Island Coastal
Streams. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Wakefield, RI.
Ernest, R. G., R. E. Martin, et al. (1988). Sea turtle entrapment at a coastal power plant. Proceedings of
the Southeastern Workshop on Aquatic Ecological Effects of Power Generation, December 1986,
Mote Technical Report No. 124, Sarasota, FL, Mote Marine Laboratory.
Esteves, B. S., A. Enrich-Prast, et al. (2008). "Allometric relations for Typha domingensis natural
populations." Acta Limnologica Brasiliensia 20(4): 305-311.
Executive Order No. 13158 (2001). Marine Protected Areas, 3 CFR (2001, comp). p. 273.
Executive Order No. 13508 (2009). Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. 74 Federal Register
23099 (May 14, 2009).
Feijtel, T. C., R. D. Delaune, et al. (1985). "Carbon Flow in Coastal Louisiana." Marine Ecology -
Progress Series 24: 255-260.
Fischman, R. L. (2001). "The EPA's NEPA Duties and Ecosystem Services." Stanford Environmental
Law Journal 20(2): 497-536.
Fishbase (2009). Fishbase: A Global Information System on Fishes. Available at
http://www.fishbase.org/home.htm.
Folke, C., S. Carpenter, et al. (2004). "Regime Shifts, Resilience, and Biodiversity in Ecosystem
Management." Annual Review of Ecology. Evolution. & Svstematics 35(1): 557-581.
Fortier, L. and R. P. Harris (1989). "Optimal foraging and density-dependent competition in marine fish
larvae." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 51: 19-33.
Fourqurean, J. W. and J. C. Zieman (2002). "Nutrient content of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum
reveals regional patterns of relative availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Florida Keys
USA." Biogeochemistry 61(3): 229-245.
Frazer, N. B. (2005). Conflicting Views of Sea Turtles: How many do we need, how much are they
worth? Presented at the Centre for Maritime Reserach Conference, People and the Sea II, July 7-
9.
Freeman III, A. M. (1993). Non-use values in natural resource damage assessment. In Valuing Natural
Assets. Kopp, R. J. and V. K. Smith. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future.
Freeman III, A. M. (2003). The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and
Methods. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future.
Freese, S., Northwest Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, Sustainable Fisheries Division (2008).
Seattle, WA. August 14, 2008.
French, D., M. Reed, et al. (1996). The CERCLA type A natural resource damage assessment model for
coastal and marine environments (SIMAP), Technical Documentation, Vol. I - Model
Description. Final Report, submitted to the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance,
United States Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C. April. Contract No. 14-0001-91-C-
11.
March 28, 2011 12-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
French McCay, D., P. Peterson, et al. (2002). Restoration scaling of benthic, aquatic and bird injuries to
oyster reef and marsh restoration projects. Administrative Record Document I.D. Number 2049.
Available at http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/chalk_point/pdf/cpar2049.pdf.
French McCay, D. P. and J. J. Rowe (2003). "Habitat restoration as mitigation for lost production at
multiple trophic levels: Restoration scaling in the marine environment." Marine Ecology -
Progress Series 264: 233-247.
Froese, R. and D. Pauly (2009). "Fishbase (version 07/2009)." Fisheries Centre, University of British
Columbia. Available atwww.fishbase.org.
Gallagher, J. L. (1975). "Effect of an Ammonium Nitrate Pulse on the Growth and Elemental
Composition of Natural Stands of Spartina alterniflora and Juncus roemerianus." American
Journal of Botany 62(6): 644-648.
Gibson, M. R. (2002). Winter flounder abundance near Brayton Point Station, Mt. Hope Bay revisited:
separating local from regional impacts using long-term abundance data. Rhode Island Division of
Fish and Wildlife Research. Research Reference Document 2/1.
Glass, G. V. (1976). "Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research." Educational Researcher
5(10): 3-8.
Goodyear, C. (1978). Entrainment Impact Estimates Using the Equivalent Adult Approach, FWS/OBS-
78/65. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. July.
Gottlieb, S. J. (1998). "Nutrient removal by age-0 Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrranus) in Chesapeake
Bay and implications for seasonal management of the fishery." Ecological Modelling 112(2-3):
111-130.
Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2005). Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved strategies are
needed to better assess, report, and manage restoration progress. Washington, D.C. GAO-06-06.
94.
Grace, J. B. and R. G. Wetzel (1982). "Variations in growth and reproduction within populations of two
rhizomatous plant species: Typha latifolia and Typha angustifolia." Oecologia 53(2): 258-263.
Graff, L. and J. Middleton (2003). Wetlands and Fish: Catch the Link. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Springs, MD. 48.
Great Lakes (1990). 33 U.S.C 1268(a)(3)(b).
Griffiths, C. (undated). The Use of Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental Policy Making. In Working
Paper. National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC.
Grigalunas, T. A., J. J. Opaluch, et al. (1988). "Measuring Damages to Marine Natural Resources from
Pollution Incidents under CERCLA: Application of an Integrated Ocean Systems/Economic
Model." Marine Resource Economics 5(1): 1-21.
Gunderson, L. H. (2000). "Ecological Resilience - In Theory and Application." Annual Review of
Ecology & Systematics 31: 425.
Gustafson, T. D. (1976). "Production, Photosynthesis, and the Storage and Utilization of Reserves in a
Natural Stand of Typha latifolia" Dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Hagen, D. A., J. W. Vincent, et al. (1992). "Benefits of Preserving Old-Growth Forests and the Spotted
Owl." Contemporary Economic Policy 10(2): 13-26.
Hairston, N. G., S. P. Elmer, et al. (2005). "Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and
evolutionary time." Ecology Letters 8(10): 1114-1127.
Hanemann, W. M. (1984). "Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete
responses." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66(3): 332-341.
Hayes, D. B., H. R. Dodd, et al. (2006). "Effects of small dams on cold water stream fish communities."
American Fisheries Society Symposium: 587-601.
HDR Engineering, Inc. (2009). Quad Cities Nuclear Station Adjusted Thermal Standard CWA 316(a)
Demonstration. Final Draft. Prepared for Exelon Nuclear. November, 2009.
Heal, G., G. C. Daily, et al. (2001). "Protecting Natural Capital through Ecosystem Service Districts."
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2): 333-364.
March 28, 2011 12-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Hensher, D. and W. Greene (2003). "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice." Transportation
30(2): 133-176.
Herman, J. S., D. C. Culver, et al. (2001). "Ground-water Ecosystems and the Service of Water." Stanford
Environmental Law Journal 20(2): 479-496.
Hilborn, R. and C. J. Walters (1992). Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice. Dynamics and
Uncertainty. New York, Chapman and Hall. 570.
Hillman, R. E., N. W. Davis, et al. (1977). "Abundance, diversity, and stability in shore-zone fish
communities in an area of Long Island Sound affected by the thermal discharge of a nuclear
power station." Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 5(3): 355-381.
Hixon, M. A. and G. P. Jones (2005). "Competition, predation, and density-dependent mortality in
demersal marine fishes." Ecology 86(11): 2847-2859.
Hoagland, P. and D. Jin (2006). "Science and Economics in the Management of an Invasive Species."
BioScience 56(11): 931-935.
Holly Jr., F. M., S. Li, et al. (2004). River temperature predictions downstream of Quad Cities Nuclear
Generating Station. Preliminary Draft. Submitted to Exelon Generation. Iowa Institute of
Hydroscience & Engineering (IIHR), University of Iowa. Iowa City, IA. April, 2004.
Holmlund, C. M. and M. Hammer (1999). "Ecosystem services generated by fish populations."
Ecological Economics 29(2): 253-268.
Holt, M. T. and R. C. Bishop (2002). "A semiflexible normalized quadratic inverse demand system: an
application to the price formation offish." Empirical Economics 27(1): 23-47.
Holt, R. D. (1977). "Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities." Theoretical
Population Biology 12(2): 197-229.
Hopkinson, C. S., J. G. Gosselink, et al. (1978). "Aboveground Production of Seven Marsh Plant Species
in Coastal Louisiana." Ecology 59(4): 760-769.
Horst, T. J. (1975). The Assessment of Impact Due to Entrainment of Ichthyoplankton. In Fisheries and
Energy Production: A Symposium. Saila, S. B. Lexington, D.C. Heath.
Howes, B. L., J. W. H. Dacey, et al. (1985). "Annual Carbon Mineralization and Belowground Production
of Spartina Alterniflora in a New England Salt Marsh." Ecology 66(2): 595-605.
Howitt, R. E., D. MacEwan, et al. (2009). "Economic Impacts of Reductions in Delta Exports on Central
Valley Agriculture." ARE Update 12(3): 1-4.
Hoyal, D. C. J. D., J. F. Atkinson, et al. (1995). "The effect of turbulence on sediment deposition."
Journal of Hydraulic Research 33(3): 349-360.
Hu, W., M. M. Veeman, et al. (2005). "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer
Preferences and the Value of Information." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53(1):
83-102.
Interagency Working Group (IWG) (2010). Scientific Assessment of Hypoxia in U.S. Coastal Waters.
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. May 2010.
Jackson, J. B., M. X. Kirby, et al. (2001). "Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems." Science 293(5530): 629-637.
Jiang, Z.-B., J.-N. Zeng, et al. (2009). "Potential impact of rising seawater temperature on copepods due
to coastal power plants in subtropical areas." Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology. 368(2): 196-201.
Jirotkul, M. (1999). "Population density influences male-male competition in guppies." Animal
Behaviour 58(6): 1169-1175.
Johnson, M. (1970). Preliminary report on species composition, chemical composition, biomass, and
production of marsh vegetation in the upper Patuxent Estuary, Maryland. Chesapeake Biological
Laboratory. Solomons, MD. Ref No. 70-130.
Johnston, R. J. and J. M. Duke (2007). "Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy
Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter?" American Journal of Agricultural Economics
89(4): 1098-1115.
March 28, 2011 12-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Johnston, R. J. and J. M. Duke (2009). "Willingness to Pay for Land Preservation across States and
Jurisdictional Scale: Implications for Benefit Transfer." Land Economics 85(2): 217-237.
Johnston, R. J., T. A. Grigalunas, et al. (2002a). "Valuing Estuarine Resource Services Using Economic
and Ecological Models: The Peconic Estuary System Study." Coastal Management 30(1): 47.
Johnston, R. J., G. Magnusson, et al. (2002b). "Combining Economic and Ecological Indicators to
Prioritize Salt Marsh Restoration Actions." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 84(5):
1362-1370.
Johnston, R. J., J. J. Opaluch, et al. (2001). "Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland." Growth
& Change 32(3): 305-325.
Johnston, R. J., M. H. Ranson, et al. (2006). "What Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A Meta-
Analysis of Recreational Fishing Values." Marine Resource Economics 21(1): 1-32.
Johnston, R. J. and R. S. Rosenberger (2010). "Methods, Trends and Controversies in Contemporary
Benefit Transfer." Journal of Economic Surveys 24(3): 479-510.
Johnston, R. J., E. T. Schultz, et al. (2009). Improving the Ecological Validity of Non-Market Valuation:
Development and Application of Bioindicator-Based Stated Preference Valuation for Aquatic
Restoration. Presented at the AERE Sessions at the American Agricultural Economics
Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, WI, July 26-28.
Johnston, R. J., S. K. Swallow, et al. (1999). "Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with
Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed
Management." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38(1): 97-120.
Johnston, R. J., T. F. Weaver, et al. (1995). "Contingent valuation focus groups: insights from
ethnographic interview techniques." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 24(1): 56-69.
Jude, D. J. and J. Pappas (1992). "Fish Utilization of Great Lakes Coastal Wetlands." Journal of Great
Lakes Research 18(4): 651-672.
Kaldy, J. E. and K. H. Dunton (2000). "Above- and below-ground production, biomass and reproductive
ecology ofThalassia testudinum (turtle grass) in a subtropical coastal lagoon." Marine Ecology -
Progress Series 193: 271-283.
Kaplowitz, M. D., F. Lupi, et al. (2004). Multiple Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated-
Choice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands. In Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey
Questionnaires. Presser, S., J. M. Rothget, M. P. Couperet al. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Keefe, W. (1972). "Marsh Production: A Summary of the Literature." Contributions in Marine Science
16: 163-181.
Keller, A. A., C. A. Oviatt, et al. (1999). "Predicted Impacts of Elevated Temperature on the Magnitude
of the Winter- Spring Phytoplankton Bloom in Temperate Coastal Waters: A Mescosm Study."
Limnology and Oceanography 44(2): 344-356.
Kelso, J. R. M. and G. S. Milburn (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(2): 182-194.
Kennish, M. J. (2001). "Coastal Salt Marsh Systems in the U.S.: A Review of Anthropogenic Impacts."
Journal of Coastal Research 17(3): 731-748.
Kirby, C. J. (1972). "The Annual net primary production and decomposition of salt-marsh grass Spartina
alterniflora in Baratuna Bay estuary of LA," Thesis, PhD. Louisiana State University.
Kirby, C. J. and J. G. Gosselink (1976). "Primary Production in a Louisiana Golf Coast Spartina
Alterniflora Marsh." Ecology 57(5): 1052-1059.
Kitchell, J. F. (2007). The ecology of Lake Michigan: past, present, and future. Prepared for Wisconsin
Electric Power Company, Oak Creek Facility.
Kitchell, J. F., R. V. O'Neill, et al. (1979). "Consumer Regulation of Nutrient Cycling." Bioscience 29(1):
28-34.
Kneib, R. T. (2003). "Bioenergetic and landscape considerations for scaling expectations of nekton
production from intertidal marshes." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 264.
March 28, 2011 12-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Kotchen, M. J. and S. D. Railing (2000). "Environmental attitudes, motivations, and contingent valuation
of nonuse values: a case study involving endangered species." Ecological Economics 32(1): 93-
107.
Krinsky, I. and A. L. Robb (1986). "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities." Review
of Economics & Statistics 68(4): 715.
Krishnamoorthy, R., H. E. S. Mohmed, et al. (2008). "Temperature effect on behavior, oxygen
consumption, ammonia excretion and tolerance limit of the fish fingerlings Alepes djidaba"
Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 50: 169-174.
Langford, T. E. L. (1990). Ecological effects of thermal discharges. Barking, Essex, Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers Ltd.
Lee, S. Y. (1990). "Net Aerial Primary Productivity, Litter Production and Decomposition of the Reed
Phragmites-Communis in a Nature-Reserve in Hong-Kong - Management Implications." Marine
Ecology - Progress Series 66: 161-173.
Leffler, C. W. (1972). "Some effects of temperature on the growth and metabolic rate of juvenile blue
crabs, Callinectes sapidus, in the laboratory." Marine Biology 14(2): 104-110.
Liao, J. C. (2007). "A review offish swimming mechanics and behaviour in altered flows." Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362: 1973-1993.
Light, P. R. and K. W. Able (2003). "Juvenile atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in Delaware Bay,
USA are the result of local and long-distance recruitment." Estuarine. Coastal and Shelf Science
57(5-6): 1007-1014.
Limnetics, Inc. (1974). An environmental study of the ecological effects of the thermal discharges from
Point Beach, Oak Creek, and Lakeside Power Plants on Lake Michigan. Study conducted for
Wisconsin Electric Power Company by Limnetics, Inc. Milwaukee, WI.
Lin, B.-h., H. S. Richards, et al. (1988). "An Analysis of the Exvessel Demand for Pacific Halibut."
Marine Resource Economics 4: 305-314.
Loomis, J. and E. Ekstrand (1997). "Economic Benefits of Critical Habitat for the Mexican Spotted Owl:
A Scope Test Using a Multiple-Bounded Contingent Valuation Survey." Journal of Agricultural
and Resource Economics 22(2): 356-366.
Loomis, J., P. Kent, et al. (2000). "Measuring the total economic value of restoring ecosystem services in
an impaired river basin: results from a contingent valuation survey." Ecological Economics 33(1):
103-117.
Lorda, E., D. J. Danila, et al. (2000). "Application of a population dynamics model to the probabilistic
assessment of cooling water intake effects of Millstone Nuclear Power Station (Waterford, CT)
on a nearby winter flounder spawning stock." Environmental Science & Policy 3(Supplement 1):
471-482.
Lupandin, A. I. (2005). "Effect of Flow Turbulence on Swimming Speed of Fish." Biology Bulletin 32(5):
461-466.
MacKenzie, B. R. (2000). "Turbulence, larval fish ecology and fisheries recruitment: a review of field
studies." Oceanologica Acta 23(4): 357-375.
MacKenzie, B. R. and T. Kiorboe (2000). "Larval Fish Feeding and Turbulence: A Case for the
Downside." Limnology and Oceanography 45(1): 1-10.
Mallin, M. A., K. L. Stone, et al. (1994). "Phytoplankton community assessments of seven southeast U.S.
cooling reservoirs." Water Research 28(3): 665-673.
Marrasse, C., E. Lim, et al. (1992). "Seasonal and daily changes in bacterivory in a coastal plankton
community." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 82(3): 281-289.
Marshall, D. E. Odum, H. T. and A. F. Chestnut (1970). Characteristics ofaSpartina Marsh Which is
Receiving Treated Municipal Sewage Wastes. In Studies of Marine and Estuanne Ecosystems
Developing with Treated Sewage Wastes, Institute of Marine Science, University of North
Carolina Annual Report 1969-1970. Odum, H. T. and A. F. Chestnut. 317-358.
March 28, 2011 12-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Martinez-Arroyo, A., S. Abundes, et al. (2000). "On the Influence of Hot-Water Discharges on
Phytoplankton Communities from a Coastal Zone of the Gulf of Mexico." Water. Air & Soil
Pollution 119(1-4): 209-230.
Mazany, L., N. Roy, et al. (1996). "Multi-product allocation under imperfect raw material supply
conditions: the case offish products." Applied Economics 28(3): 387-396.
Mazzotta, M. J. (1996). "Measuring Public Values and Priorities for Natural Resources: An Application
to the Peconic Estuary System," Dissertation, PhD. University of Rhode Island.
McKean, A. (2007). "$50 an Ounce: Can Montana's paddlefish survive the growing international demand
for their eggs?" Montana Outdoors. May-June 2007.
McLusky, D. S. (1981). The estuarine ecosystem. New York, NY, Wiley.
McMahon, R. F. (1975). "Effects of Artificially Elevated Water Temperatures on the Growth,
Reproduction and Life Cycle of a Natural Population of Physa Virgata Gould." Ecology 56(5):
1167-1175.
Meffe, G. K. (1992). "Techno-Arrogance and Halfway Technologies: Salmon Hatcheries on the Pacific
Coast of North America." Conservation Biology 6(3): 350-354.
Meixler, M. S., K. K. Arend, et al. (2005). Fish Community Support in Wetlands within Protected
Embayments of Lake Ontario. Center for the Environment, Cornell University. 0380-1330.
Available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B984D-4VT136F-
F/2/f80b2fb5a0075204ec24390533ec789c.
Mendelssohn, I. and K. Marcellus (1976). "Angiosperm production of three Virginia marshes in various
salinity and soil nutrient regimes." Chesapeake Science 17(1): 15-23.
Meserve, N., National Fisheries Management Plan Coordinator, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. (2008). Washington, D.C. August 15, 2008.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (2002). Data from the 2001 Recreational Angler
Survey. Charlevoix Fisheries Research Station. Received from David Clapp, Charlevoix Great
Lakes Research Station. Charlevoix, MI.
Millstone Environmental Laboratory (2009). Annual Report 2008: Monitoring the Marine Environment
of Long Island Sound at Millstone Power Station, Waterford, Connecticut. Millstone
Environmental Laboratory. Millstone, CT.
Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson (1989). Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method. Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future.
Mitsch, W. J., C. J. Anderson, et al. (2002). Net primary productivity of macrophyte communities after
nine growing seasons in experimental planted and unplanted marshes. Annual Report. Olentangy
River Wetland Research Park.
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (2006). Ecological Effects of the Moss Landing Power Plant Thermal
Discharge. A report submitted to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Integrated
Monitoring Network (SIMoN) and Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation.
Mullarkey, D. J. (1997). "Contingent Valuation of Wetlands: Testing Sensitivity to Scope," Dissertation,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Mullarkey, D. J. (1999). Sensitivity to Scope: Evidence from a CVM Study of Wetlands. Presented at the
American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Nashville, TN, August 8-11,
1999.
Mullineaux, L. S. and E. D. Garland (1993). "Larval Recruitment in Response to Manipulated Field
Flows." Marine Biology 116(4): 667-683.
Murray, L. and R. L. Wetzel (1987). "Oxygen production and consumption associated with the major
autotrophic components in two temperate seagrass communities." Marine Ecology - Progress
Series 38: 231-239.
National Energy Testing Laboratory (NETL) (2009). Impact of Drought on United States Steam Electric
Power Plant Cooling Water Intakes and Related Water Management Issues. DOE/NETL-
2009/1364. April 2009.
March 28, 2011 12-10
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1998a).
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the East Pacific Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas).
National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (1998b).
Recovery Plan for U.S. Pacific Populations of the Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea).
National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2009).
Recovery Plan for the Northwest Atlantic Population of the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta
carettd), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2001). Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion, the
NMFS Highly Migratory Species Division Office of Sustainable Fisheries' proposal to authorize
fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS
FMP).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2002). "Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), Snapshot Query."
National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/stl/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2003). "Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Intercept Survey." National Marine
Fisheries Service. Available athttp://www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/the_mrfss.html.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2004). "Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)." Available at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/fish/Shortnose_sturgeon.html. Accessed October 14,
2004.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2009). 2008 Report to Congress: The Status of U.S. Fisheries. Silver Spring, MD. 23.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2010a). 2009 Report to Congress: The Status of U.S. Fisheries. Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Available at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2010b). Fish Stock Sustainability Index: 2009 Quarter 4 Update Through December 31,
2009. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring,
Maryland. 3.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2010c). NOAA Fisheries Geographic Information Systems, Fisheries Data: Critical
Habitat. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/gis/data/critical.htm.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) (2010d). "NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office, GIS
Data." Available at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/salmon/layers/finalgis.htm.
National Marine Protected Areas Center (NMPAC) (2006). A classification system for Marine Protected
Areas in the United States. Silver Spring, MD.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (1997). Scaling Compensatory Restoration
Actions: Guidance Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
December 1997.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2006). Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An
Overview. Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
March 21, 1995 (Revised October 4, 2000 and May 23, 2006).
March 28, 2011 12-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2010a). Environmental Sensitivity Index
(ESI) Maps. Office of Response and Restoration. Available at
http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/topic_subtopic_entry.php?RECORD_KEY(entry_subtopic_t
opic)=entry_id,subtopic_id,topic_id&entry_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=463&subtopic_id(entry_su
btopic_topic)=8&topic_id(entry_subtopic_topic)=l (in GIS Geodatabase Format).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (201 Ob). National Marine Protected Areas
Center: The Marine Protected Areas Inventory. Available at
http://mpa.gov/dataanalysis/mpainventory/.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, et al. (2009). Draft Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Environmental
Assessment. For the November 26, 2004 M/T Athos I Oil Spill on the Delaware River near the
Citgo Oil Refinery in Paulsboro, New Jersey.
National Research Council (1990). Decline of the Sea Turtles: Causes and Prevention. Washington, D.C.,
National Academies Press.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. Kempthorne. 2007. 506 F. Supp. 2d 322. (E.D. Cal.
2007).
NatureServe (2009). "NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life." Available at
http: //www .nature serve. org/explorer/.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (2003a). Fact Sheet: New York
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Draft Permit Renewal with Modification,
Indian Point Electric Generating Station. Buchanan, NY. November 2003.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (2003b). Final Environmental
Impact Statement: Concerning the Applications to Renew NYSPDES Permits for the Roseton 1
& 2 and Indian Point 2 & 3 Steam Electric Generating Stations, Orange, Rockland and
Westchester Counties.
Nixon, S. W. and C. A. Oviatt (1972). "Preliminary Measurements of Midsummer Metabolism in Beds of
Eelgrass, Zostera Marina" Ecology 53(1): 150-153.
Norem, A. D. (2005). "Injury assessment of Sea Turtles utilizing the neritic zone of the Southeastern
United States," Thesis, Master of Science. University of Florida.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (2008).
Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stocks through 2007: Report of the 3rd Groundfish
Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III), Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts, August 4-8, 2008. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries. Northeast
Fisheries Science Center Reference Document 08-15. 884.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (2010).
"Northeast Fisheries Science Center Publications." Available at
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, L.
Hendrickson, et al. (2006). "Status of Fishery Resources off the Northeastern US." Available at
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/sos/spsyn/fldrs/winter/.
Northeast Midwest Institute (2010). "Upper Mississippi River Basin." Available at
http://www.nemw.org/index.php/policy-areas/water-and-watersheds/upper-mississippi-river-
basin. Accessed March 7, 2010.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2010). Notice: Nextera Energy Point Beach, LLC; Point Beach
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No
Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Reactor Power. December 10, 2010. 75 Federal Register 237: 77010-77017.
Odum, E. P. and M. E. Fanning (1972). "Comparison of the productivity of Spartina alterniflora and
Spartina cynosuroides in Georgia coastal marshes." Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science
31: 1-12.
March 28, 2011 12-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) (2010). Fact Sheet: National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (DPDES) Permitting Program. Bayshore Station. Oregon, OH. March 2010.
Opaluch, J. J., T. Grigalunas, et al. (1995). "Environmental Economics in Estuary Management: The
Peconic Estuary Program." Maritimes 38(3): 21-23.
Opaluch, J. J., T. Grigalunas, et al. (1998). Resource and Recreational Economic Values for the Peconic
Estuary. Report prepared for Peconic Estuary Program, Suffolk County Department of Health
Services, Riverhead, NY, by Economic Analysis, Inc., Peace Dale, RI.
Ovaskainen, O. and S. J. Cornell (2006). "Space and Stochasticity in population dynamics." Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 12781-12786.
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
(2010a). "Fishery Biology and Stock Assessment Division." Available at
http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/fbsad/index.php.
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center (PIFSC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service
(201 Ob). Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Staff Publications Database. Available at
http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/library/publication_search.php.
Paine, R. T. (1966). "Food web complexity and species diversity." American Naturalist 100: 65-75.
Paine, R. T. (1969). "A Note on Trophic Complexity and Community Stability." The American Naturalist
103(929): 91-93.
Palmer, M. A., C. A. Reidy Liermann, et al. (2008). "Climate change and the world's river basins:
anticipating management options." Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(2): 81-89.
Pate, J. and J. Loomis (1997). "The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of
wetlands and salmon in California." Ecological Economics 20(3): 199-207.
Pauly, D. and V. Christensen (1995). "Primary Production Required to Sustain Global Fisheries." Nature
374(6519): 255-257.
Penko, J. M. and D. C. Pratt (1986). "Growth and Mortality of Shoots in Three Populations ofTypha
glauca Godr." Journal of the Minnesota Academy of Science 52(3): 25-28.
Penn, T. and T. Tomasi (2002). "Calculating resource restoration for an oil discharge in Lake Barre,
Louisiana, USA." Environmental Management 29(5): 691-702.
Peterson, C. H. and J. Lubchenco (1997). Marine Ecosystem Services. In Nature's Services. Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Daily, G. C. Washington, D.C., Island Press: 177-194.
Plotkin, P. T., (Ed) (1995). National Marine Fisheries Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status
Reviews for Sea Turtles Listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. National Marine
Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD.
Pohl, O. (2002). New jellyfish problem means jellyfish are not the only problem. New York Times. May
21,2002.
Polgar, T. T., J. K. Summers, et al. (1979). Evaluation of the effects of the Morgantown SES cooling
system on spawning and nursery areas of representative important species. Final report. PB-80-
111743. 149.
Poornima, E. H., M. Rajadurai, et al. (2005). "Impact of thermal discharge from a tropical coastal power
plant on phytoplankton." Journal of Thermal Biology 30(4): 307-316.
Postel, S. and S. Carpenter (1997). Freshwater Ecosystem Services. In Nature's Services. Societal
Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Daily, G. C. Washington, DC, Island Press: 195-214.
PSEG (2006). Salem Generating Station NJPDES Permit No. NJ 0005622 Application for Renewal.
Quinn, T. J. and R. B. Deriso (1999). Quantitative Fish Dynamics. New York, Oxford University Press.
560.
Rago, P. J. (1984). "Production forgone: An alternative method for assessing the consequences offish
entrainment and impingement losses at power plants and other water intakes." Ecological
Modelling 24(1-2): 79-111.
Rapport, D. J. and W. G. Whitford (1999). "How Ecosystems Respond to Stress." BioScience 49(3): 193-
203.
March 28, 2011 12-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Rassweiler, A., K. K. Arkema, et al. (2008). "Net Primary Production, Growth, and Standing Crop of
Macrocystis Pyrifera in Southern California." Ecology 89(7): 2068-2068.
Reimold, R. J. and R. A. Linthurst (1977). Primary Productivity of Minor Marsh Plants in Delaware,
Georgia, and Maine. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg,
MS. Technical Report D-77-36. 104.
Reznick, D. and J. A. Endler (1982). "The Impact of Predation on Life History Evolution in Trinidadian
Guppies (Poecilia reticulatd)." Evolution 36(1): 160-177.
Richardson, L. and J. Loomis (2009). "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare
species: An updated meta-analysis." Ecological Economics 68(5): 1535-1548.
Ricker, W. E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological statistics offish populations. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, Bulletin 191.
Ricklefs, R. E. (2001). The Economy of Nature. New York, W.H. Freeman and Company.
Rizzo, W. and R. Wetzel (1985). "Intertidal and shoal benthic community metabolism in a temperate
estuary: Studies of spatial and temporal scales of variability." Estuaries and Coasts 8(4): 342-351.
Roberts, L. A. and J. A. Leitch (1997). Economic Valuation of Some Wetland Outputs of Mud Lake,
Minnesota-South Dakota. North Dakota State University, Department of Agricultural Economics,
North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station. Agricultural Economics Report No. 381.
Rocha, A. V. and M. L. Goulden (2009). "Why is marsh productivity so high? New insights from eddy
covariance and biomass measurements in a Typha marsh." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
149(1): 159-168.
Roman, C. T. and F. C. Daiber (1989). "Organic-Carbon Flux through a Delaware Bay Salt-Marsh - Tidal
Exchange, Particle-Size Distribution, and Storms." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 54: 149-
156.
Rosenberger, R. and T. Phipps (2007). Correspondence and Convergence in Benefit Transfer Accuracy:
Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature. In Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods.
Navrud, S. and R. Ready, Springer Netherlands. 9: 23-43.
Rowe, R. D., W. D. Shaw, et al. (1992). Nestucca Oil Spill. In Natural Resource Damages. Ward, K. and
J. Duffield. New York, Wiley and Sons: 527-554.
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.
Ruiz, G. M., P. Fofonoff, et al. (1999). "Non-Indigenous Species as Stressors in Estuarine and Marine
Communities: Assessing Invasion Impacts and Interactions." Limnology and Oceanography
44(3): 950-972.
Ruiz, G. M., P. W. Fofonoff, et al. (2000). "Invasion of Coastal Marine Communities in North America:
Apparent Patterns, Processes, and Biases." Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 31: 481-
531.
Salzman, J., B. H. Thompson Jr., et al. (2001). "Protecting Ecosystem Services: Science, Economics, and
Law." Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2): 309-332.
Sanford, E. B., D. Bertness, et al. (1994). "Flow, food supply and acorn barnacle population dynamics."
Marine Ecology - Progress Series 104: 49-62.
Schiel, D. R., J. R. Steinbeck, et al. (2004). "Ten Years of Induced Ocean Warming Causes
Comprehensive Changes in Marine Benthic Communities." Ecology 85(7): 1833-1839.
Schkade, D. A. and J. W. Payne (1994). "How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A
Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation." Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 26(1): 88-109.
Schlesinger, W. H. (1997). Biogeochemistry: an analysis of global change. San Diego, CA, Academic
Press.
Schulze, W. D., R. D. Rowe, et al. (1995). Contingent Valuation of Natural Resource Damages due to
Injuries to the Upper Clark Fork River Basin State of Montana Natural Resource Damage
Litigation Program, prepared by RCG/Hagler Bailly. Boulder, CO.
March 28, 2011 12-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Shea, K. and P. Chesson (2002). "Community ecology theory as a framework for biological invasions."
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 17(4): 170-176.
Shrestha, R., R. Rosenberger, et al. (2007). Benefit Transfer Using Meta-Analysis in Recreation
Economic Valuation, in Benefit Transfer Accuracy: Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature. In
Environmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods. Navrud, S. and R. Ready. Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 161-177.
Smith, L. M. and J. A. Kadlec (1985). "Fire and Herbivory in a Great Salt Lake Marsh." Ecology 66(1):
259-265.
Smith, V. K., G. Van Houtven, et al. (2002). "Benefit Transfer via Preference Calibration: 'Prudential
Algebra' for Policy." Land Economics 78(1): 132.
Smythe, A. G. and P. M. Sawyko (2000). "Field and laboratory evaluations of the effects of'cold shock'
on fish resident in and around a thermal discharge: an overview." Environmental Science &
Policy 3(Supplement 1): 225-232.
Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (2010).
SouthEast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR). Available at
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/.
Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) of the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (2010).
"Southwest Fisheries Science Center Fisheries Ecology Publications Database." Available at
http://swfsc.noaa.gOv//publications/fedbin/qrypublications.asp?ParentMenu!d=54.
Speer, L., L. Lauck, et al. (2000). Roe to Ruin: The Decline of Sturgeon in the Caspian Sea and the Road
to Recovery. Available athttp://www.caviaremptor.org/roe_to_ruin.PDF.
Squires, D., S. Freese, et al. (1998). Cost-Benefit Analysis of Pacific Whiting Allocation. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Administrative Report LJ-97-05.
Squires, L. E., S. R. Rushforth, et al. (1979). "Algal response to a thermal effluent: study of a power
station on the Provo River, Utah, USA." Hydrobiologia 63(1): 17-32.
Stachowicz, J. J. and J. E. Byrnes (2006). "Species Diversity, invasion success, and ecosystem
functioning: disentangling the influence of resource competition, facilitation, and extrinsic
factors." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 311: 251-262.
Steever, E. Z. (1972). "Productivity and vegetations studies of tidal saltmarsh in Stonington Connecticut:
Cottrell marsh," Thesis, Masters of Science. Connecticut College.
Steeves, P. and D. Nebert (1994). l:250,000-scale Hydrologic Units of the United States. U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston, VA. Vector Digital Data file. Available at
http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/huc250k.xml.
Stephenson, T. D. (1990). "Fish Reproductive Utilization of Coastal Marshes of Lake Ontario Near
Toronto." Journal of Great Lakes Research 16(1): 71-81.
Stevens, T. H., J. Echeverria, et al. (1991). "Measuring the Existence Value of Wildlife: What Do CVM
Estimates Really Show?" Land Economics 67(4): 390-400.
Stockwell, C. A., A. P. Hendry, et al. (2003). "Contemporary evolution meets conservation biology."
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18(2): 94-101.
Strange, E., H. Galbraith, et al. (2002). "Determining Ecological Equivalence in Service-to-Service
Scaling of Salt Marsh Restoration." Environmental Management 29(2): 290-300.
Strange, E. M. (2008). Restoration to Offset Environmental Impacts of Coastal Power Plants. Prepared for
the California Energy Commission, Agreement #500-04-025.
Street, M. W., A. S. Deaton, et al. (2005). "Wetlands." In North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries.
Morehead City, NC. Available athttp://www.ncfisheries.net/habitat/chppdocs/F_Wetlands.pdf
656.
Stroud, L. M. and A. W. Cooper (1968). Color-infrared Aerial Photographic Interpretation and Net
Primary Production of a Regularly-flooded North Carolina Salt marsh. University of North
Carolina Water Resources Research Institute. Report 14. 86.
March 28, 2011 12-15
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Sullivan, K., D. J. Martin, et al. (2000). An analysis of the effects of temperature on salmonids of the
Pacific Northwest with implications for selecting temperature criteria. Sustainable Ecosystems
Institute. Portland, OR.
Sumer, B. M., A. Kozakiewicz, et al. (1996). "Velocity and Concentration Profiles in Sheet-Flow Layer
of Movable Bed." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 122(10): 549-558.
Summers, J. K. (1989). "Simulating the indirect effects of power plant entrainment losses on an estuarine
ecosystem." Ecological Modelling 49(1-2): 31-47.
Sun, J. F. (1995). Understanding the US Demand for Shrimp Imports and Welfare Distributions.
International Cooperation for Fisheries and Aquaculture Development: Proceedings of the 7th
Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, 3.
Swain, D. P., A. F. Sinclair, et al. (2007). "Evolutionary response to size-selective mortality in an
exploited fish population." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274(1613):
1015-1022.
Taylor, C. J. L. (2006). "The effects of biological fouling control at coastal and estuarine power stations."
Marine Pollution Bulletin 53(1-4): 30-48.
Taylor, D. I. and B. R. Allanson (1995). "Organic-Carbon Fluxes between a High Marsh and Estuary, and
the Inapplicability of the Outwelling Hypothesis." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 120: 263-
270.
Teal, J. M. (1962). "Energy Flow in the Salt Marsh Ecosystem of Georgia." Ecology 43(4): 614-624.
Teal, J. M. and M. P. Weinstein (2002). "Ecological engineering, design, and construction considerations
for marsh restorations in Delaware Bay, USA." Ecological Engineering 18(5): 607-618.
Teixeira, T. P., L. M. Neves, et al. (2009). "Effects of a nuclear power plant thermal discharge on habitat
complexity and fish community structure in Ilha Grande Bay, Brazil." Marine Environmental
Research 68(4): 188-195.
Terceiro, M. Northeast Fisheries Science Center (2008). Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic winter
flounder. In Assessment of 19 Northeast Groundfish Stock through 2007: Report of the 3rd
Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III). Northeast Fisheries Science Center.
Northeast Fisheries Science Center, U.S. Department of Commerce. Woods Hole, MA. Reference
Document 08-15. 2.457-452.528.
Thorn, R. M. (1988). Benthic Primary Production in the Eelgrass Meadow at the Padilla Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve, Washington. NOAA Technical Report Series OCRM/MEMD FRI-
UW-8808. February 1988.
Thomson, C., Economist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center (2008).
Santa Cruz, CA. August 12 and 18, 2008.
Thunberg, E., Natural Resource Management Economist, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Social
Science Branch. (2008). Woods Hole, MA. August 8 and 22, 2008.
Thunberg, E. and E. Squires, Economists, U.S. National Fisheries Service, Social Science Branch (2005).
Woods Hole, MA. February 18, 2005.
Tomasko, D., C. Dawes, et al. (1996). "The effects of anthropogenic nutrient enrichment on turtle grass
(Thalassia testudinum) in Sarasota Bay, Florida." Estuaries and Coasts 19(2): 448-456.
Tondreau, R., J. Hey, et al. (1982). Missouri River Aquatic Ecology Studies: Ten Year Summary (1972-
1982). Prepared for Iowa Public Service Company. Sioux City, IA.
Tsoa, E., W. E. Schrank, et al. (1982). "U.S. Demand for Selected Groundfish Products, 1967-80."
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 64(3): 483-489.
Turner, S. J., S. F. Thrush, et al. (1999). "Fishing impacts and the degradation or loss of habitat structure."
Fisheries Management & Ecology 6(5): 401-420.
Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) (2000). Assessment Update for the Kemp's Ridley and
Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of
Commerce. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-444. 115.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) (2010). "Consumer Price Index." Available at
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm. Accessed October 3, 2010.
March 28, 2011 12-16
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). "American Factfinder." Available at http://factfinder.census.gov.
U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) (2008). "Fisheries: Aquatic and Endangered Resources." Great
Lakes Science Center, U.S. Geologoical Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. Available at
http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/main.php?content=research_risk&title=Species%20at%20RiskO&menu
=research. Accessed June 23, 2004.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Commerce
(USDOC) Economics and Statistics Administration, et al. (2002). 2001 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Available at
http://fa.r9.fws.gov/surveys/surveys .html#survey_reports.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1977). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance Manual
and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities' Environmental Impact Statements.
Office of Water, Enforcement Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (1980). Field Guide to Evaluate Net Primary Production
of Wetlands. Environmental Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. EPA-600/8-80-037.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2000a). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.
EPA 240-R-00-003. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2000b). Section 316(b) Industry Survey. Detailed
Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures and Industry Short Technical
Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake Structures, January 2000 (OMB Control Number
2040-0213). Industry Screener Questionnaire: Phase I Cooling Water Intake Structures, January,
1999 (OMB Control Number 2040-0203).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2002a). Case Study Analysis for the Proposed Section
316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-02-002. February 2002.
Available at http://www.epa.gOv/waterscience/316b/phase2/casestudy/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2002b). Clean Water Act NPDES Permitting
Determination for Thermal Discharge and Cooling Water Intake from Brayton Point Station in
Somerset, MA. United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 1: New England. NPDES
Permit No. MA0003654.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2004a). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System - Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at
Phase II Existing Facilities. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 125.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2004b). Regional Analysis Document for the Final
Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. Office of Science and Technology, Engineering
and Analysis Division. EPA-821-R-02-003. February 12. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase2/casestudy/final.htm. Accessed October 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2004c). Technical Development Document for the
Proposed Section 316(b) Rule for Phase III Facilities. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-04-015.
November 1.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2006a). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System - Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures and
Phase III Facilities. 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 125.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2006b). Regional Benefits Analysis of the Final
Section 316(b) Phase III Existing Facilities Rule. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-04-007. Available
at http://www.epa.gOv/waterscience/316b/phase3/index.html#finalrba. Accessed October 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008). "Sustainable Financing Strategies." National
Estuary Program. Available at http://water.epa.gov/type/oceb/nep/fund.cfm. Accessed September
30, 2008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009a). National Fish Advisory Listings 2008:
Technical Fact Sheet. EPA-823-F-09-007. September 2009.
March 28, 2011 12-17
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2009b). Valuing the Protection of Ecological Systems
and Services: A Report of the EPA Science Advisory Board. Office of the Administrator, Science
Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-09-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2010a). National Estuary Program Booklet.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (201 Ob). "Office of Wetlands website." Available at
http: //www .epa.gov/wetlands/awm.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2009). Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species
Expenditures: Fiscal Year 2008. US Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program.
252.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2010a). "Critical Habitat Portal." Available at
http ://crithab .fws .gov/.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (201 Ob). "Environmental Conservation Online System."
Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2010c). "North Florida Ecological Services Office: Loggerhead
Sea Turtle (Caretta carettd)" Available at
http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/turtle%20factsheets/loggerhead-sea-turtle.htm.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2010d). Sport Fish Restoration Program Final Apportionments
(1952-2010). United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration
Program. Arlington, VA. 12.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2011). "Native Species Conservation." U.S. FWS, Great Lakes
- Big Rivers. Available at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/topic-nativespecies.htm.
Accessed March 7, 2011.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (1990). Water Fact Sheet: Largest Rivers in the United States. U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior. Reston, VA. Open-File Report 87-242.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (USOMB) (2003). Circular A-4, September 17. Available at
http: //www. whitehouse .gov/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4 .pdf.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (USOMB) (2010a). Appendix of the Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2011. Office of Management and Budget, United States Government
Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 1413 pp.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (USOMB) (2010b). Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2011. Office of Management and Budget, United States Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C. 184 pp.
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (2004). "River and Basin Facts." Available at
http://www.umrba.org/facts.htm. Accessed June 23, 2004.
Valiela, I., J. M. Teal, et al. (1975). "Production and Dynamics of Salt Marsh Vegetation and the Effects
of Experimental Treatment with Sewage Sludge. Biomass, Production and Speies Composition."
Journal of Applied Ecology 12(3): 973-981.
van der Valk, A. G. and C. B. Davis (1978). Primary Production of Prairie Glacial Marshes. In
Freshwater Wetlands. Ecological Processes and Management Potential. Good, R. E., D. F.
Whigham and R. L. Simpson. New York, Academic Press.
Vandenberg, T. P., G. L. Poe, et al. (2001). Accessing the Accuracy of Benefits Transfer: Evidence from
a Multi-Site Contingent Valuation Study of Groundwater Quality. In The Economic Value of
Water Quality. Bergstrom, J. C., K. J. Boyle and G. L. Poe. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar: 101-
120.
Vanni, M. J., C. D. Layne, et al. (1997). ""Top-down" trophic interactions in lakes: effects offish on
nutrient dynamics." Ecology 78(1): 1-20.
Wainger, L. A., D. King, et al. (2001). "Wetland Value Indicators for Scoring Mitigation Trades."
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20(2): 413-478.
Walker, P. M. B. (1995). The Woodsworth Dictionary of Biology. Edinburgh, W&R Chambers Ltd.
Walsh, M. R., S. B. Munch, et al. (2006). "Maladaptive changes in multiple traits caused by fishing:
impediments to population recovery." Ecology Letters 9: 142-148.
March 28, 2011 12-18
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Walsh, R. G., J. B. Loomis, et al. (1984). "Valuing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for
Wilderness." Land Economics 60(1): 14-29.
Walton, T. E. (1972). "Primary Productivity, Succession and Management of aNew Jersey Coastal
Marsh," Thesis, Master of Regional Planning. University of Pennsylvania.
Wang, Z. A. and W. J. Cai (2004). "Carbon Dioxide Degassing and Inorganic Carbon Export from a
Marsh-Dominated Estuary (The Duplin River): A Marsh CO2 Pump." Limnology and
Oceanography 49(2): 341-354.
Water Quality Act (1987). (P.L. 100-4), §317(a)(l)(A) and (B) adding §320 to the CWA, 33, US.C.
§1330. 33 U.S.C. 1326(b), 33 USC 1268, Sec. 118(a)(3)(b).
Whigham, D. F. and R. L. Simpson (1975). Ecological studies of the Hamilton Marshes, Progress Report
for the period June 1974 - January 1975. Biology Department, Rider College. Lawrenceville, NJ.
185.
White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al. (2010).
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Action Plan: FY2010-FY2014. February 21.
Whitehead, J. C. (1993). "Total Economic Values for Coastal and Marine Wildlife: Specification,
Validity, and Valuation Issues." Marine Resource Economics 8(2): 119-132.
Whitehead, J. C. and G. C. Blomquist (1991). "Measuring Contingent Values for Wetlands: Effects of
Information About Related Environmental Goods." Water Resources Research 27(10): 2523-
2531.
Williams, T. M., T. G. Wolaver, et al. (1992). "The Ely Creek ecosystem study ~ organic carbon
transport within a euhaline salt marsh basin, North Inlet, South Carolina." Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 163(1): 125-139.
Wilson, M. A. and S. R. Carpenter (1999). "Economic Valuation of Freshwater Ecosystem Services in the
United States: 1971-1997." Ecological Applications 9(3): 772-783.
Wilson, R. W., F. J. Millero, et al. (2009). "Contribution of Fish to the Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle."
Science 323(5912): 359-362.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR) (2003). "Adrift on the sea of life."
Wisconsin Natural Resources June: 17-21.
Wisconsin Power & Light Company (WPLC) v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004.
363 F.3d 453. (DC Circ. 2004).
Woodward, R. T. and Y.-S. Wui (2001). "The economic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis."
Ecological Economics 37(2): 257-270.
Woodwell, G. M., D. E. Whitney, et al. (1977). "The Flax Pond Ecosystem Study: Exchanges of Carbon
in Water Between a Salt Marsh and Long Island Sound." Limnology and Oceanography 22(5):
833-838.
March 28, 2011 12-19
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Appendix A: Extrapolation Methods
A.1 Introduction
Survey sample weights for manufacturing facilities and electric power generating facilities were used in
the analysis of 316(b) Phase II and Phase III regulations (USEPA 2004b; USEPA 2006b). To account for
differences between electric power facilities that received the DQ and those that received the Short
Technical Questionnaire (STQ), and to account for 316(b) study regions, new weights were developed.
These weights are referred to as new benefits weights. This appendix explains the development of these
facility-level weights and their use in the benefits analysis for the proposed 316(b) regulation.
A.2 Manufacturing Facilities
The current analysis of manufacturing facilities incorporates a set of technical weights developed for the
2006 Final Phase III Rule. These technical weights are based on engineering information obtained from
the 316(b) Manufacturers Questionnaire, including an estimate of the number of affected facilities and the
cost of installing new technology. However, because technical weights do not account for facility location
or intake flow, they cannot be used to directly estimate intake flow at a regional level, a key parameter for
the benefits analysis. This section presents new benefits weights developed by EPA for in-scope
manufacturing facilities.
New benefits weights were developed by adjusting technical weights for traditional manufacturers (MN
facilities)48 and non-utility manufacturers (MU facilities) such that estimates of regional mean operational
flow are consistent with EPA's best estimates for manufacturing facilities. EPA chose this characteristic
because operational intake flow is the most important factor in the benefits analysis: I&E mortality losses
as a function of mean operational intake flow. EPA included eight regions when developing weights for
MN and MU facilities: North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, California, Pacific
Northwest,49 Great Lakes, and Inland regions.50
Information on total regional flow was not available for MN and MU facilities. Thus, EPA used the
number of facilities present in any single region as a control variable. This presumes that the flow
characteristics of these represented facilities are the same as the DQ facilities. The following two sections
describe development of weight adjustment factors for MN and MU facilities, respectively.
A.2.1 Traditional Manufacturers (MN Facilities)
EPA stratified the universe of MN facilities by study region and industry category so that the regional
distribution of in-scope MN facilities corresponds to the actual geographic distribution of all MN facilities
48 MN facilities include aluminum, steel, chemical, pulp and paper, and petroleum refining manufacturing industries. Note that
Food and Kindred Products is not included in this list of industries for two reasons: a) this industry was not included in the
original stratification of manufacturers, and b) all facilities later identified to be in the Food and Kindred Product industries
were part of the MU universe.
49 The Pacific Northwest region is ultimately excluded from the benefits analysis because it includes a single DQ facility which is
projected to close as baseline.
50 See Chapter 1 for additional information regarding regional definitions.
March 28, 2011 A-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
in a given industry.51 Under this approach, EPA first determined the distribution of in-scope facilities by
study region, and then calculated adjusted benefits weights based on this distribution.
Determining the Distribution of In-scope Facilities by Study Region
EPA obtained latitude-longitude coordinates (lat-long) for all facilities in relevant Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes52 that have NPDES permits within PCS (Permit Compliance System) and
ICIS-NPDES (Integrated Compliance Information System- NPDES). Facilities within relevant SIC codes
were assigned to a study region using lat-long. A map of RF1 reaches53 was also used to indicate whether
the facility location is coastal/estuarine or inland. Table A-l presents the distribution of the facility
universe according to region and industry based on the PCS/ICIS data.
The sample frame for the survey screener of manufacturing facilities did not include all facilities in the
relevant SIC codes. Information on which facilities were included in the sample frame for the screener is
not available. Therefore, EPA used two simplifying assumptions to develop weight adjustment factors:
(1) the universe of in-scope facilities in any single industry equals the sum of DQ facilities weights and
(2) the geographic distribution of NPDES permitted facilities in the relevant SIC codes is representative
of the geographic distribution of in-scope facilities.
For each industry, EPA assumed that the geographic distribution of facilities included in the EPA
PCS/ICIS database was equivalent to the geographic distribution of the DQ frame. To meet this
assumption, EPA redistributed the weights of in-scope DQ facilities in each study region to match the
geographic distribution of facilities in the PCS/ICIS database. The second and third columns in Table A-l
present the estimated distribution of in-scope MN facilities based on PCS/ICIS data.54
Calculating Adjusted Weights for Benefits Analysis
EPA first compared the regional distribution of weighted of in-scope DQ facilities to the distribution of
facilities present in the PCS/ICIS universe. Table A-l presents the distribution of DQ facilities based on
technical weights, the weight adjustment factors for MN facilities, and the expected number of DQ
facilities for all regions. The number of DQ facilities in each region was re-estimated using the PCS/ICIS
distribution of facilities in that region. This adjustment factor was defined as the quotient of the number of
DQ facilities within a region and industry divided by the original number of weighted DQ facilities
assigned to the same stratum. If the PCS/ICIS facilities universe indicated that a region had a small
number of facilities within a single industry and did not have DQ facilities (e.g., the North Atlantic region
for the Aluminum sector), EPA assumed that no in-scope facilities existed within the stratum. Because
regions without DQ facilities comprised a small fraction of the PCS/ICIS facility universe, this
assumption is likely to introduce negligible error. If the adjusted weight for a sample DQ facility was less
than one, it was assigned a weight of one so that its actual flow would be fully counted. The cost analysis
51Weights were not adjusted for petroleum refineries because survey screeners were sent to the entire universe and DQs were sent
to all in-scope facilities. Weights for facilities determined to be in other industries after receipt of the DQ were given
weights of 1, which were not adjusted.
52The SIC code describes the primary activity of the facility.
53EPA's reach file (RF1) is a database of interconnected steam segments of "reaches" that comprise the surface water drainage
system for the United States.
54EPA used the following databases to obtain information on the number of facilities in each SIC code: FRS (Federal Registry
System), PCS (Permit Compliance System), ICIS-NPDES (Integrated Compliance Information System- NPDES) and TRI
(Toxics Release Inventory). None of these databases records intake flow.
March 28, 2011 A-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
estimates 32 facilities to close under baseline conditions. Accordingly, EPA excluded the baseline
closures and their weights from the benefits analysis and weights readjustment.
The final two columns of Table A-l present estimated total flow for each sector and region when both
original DQ and adjusted weights have been applied. In many sectors, estimated flow is slightly smaller
due to the lack of DQ facilities combinations of region and industry. Conversely, weight-adjusted flow in
the chemical sector increases slightly due to good coverage of DQ facilities which shifted weights to
facilities with above-average flow.
March 28, 2011 A-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table A-1: MN DQ Distribution and
Benefits Region
Distribution of
Facilities in
PCS/ICIS
Databases
Number
Calculation of Weight Adjustment Factors
Number of
DQ-
„, . , , , Adjustment
% weighted * .
„ ^... i Factor
Facilities
Adjusted
Weight
Estimates
Regional Mean
Operational Flow
(MGD)
DQ-
weighted
Adjusted
Weight
Estimates
Aluminum
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Northwest
California
Inland
Total
7
11
1
2
1
0
0
95
117
6%
9%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
81%
100%
No DQs2
No DQs2
No DQs
3
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
13
16
0.09
1.01
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
13
14
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
30.3
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
87.0
117.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
88.3
98.0
Chemical
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Northwest
California
Inland
Total
16
75
9
32
100
4
5
951
1,192
1%
6%
1%
3%
8%
0%
0%
80%
100%
No DQs
4
4
17
4
No DQs
4
112
146
2.14
0.26
0.23
2.85
0.14
1.04
0
9
1
4
12
0
1
117
144
No DQs
28.7
56.4
331.0
283.9
No DQs
1.5
1,782.8
2,484.3
0.0
61.3
14.5
77.1
809.8
0.0
0.4
1,860.0
2,823.1
Paper
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Northwest
California3
Inland
Total
2
7
8
19
2
3
0
354
395
1%
2%
2%
5%
1%
1%
0%
90%
100%
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
3
No DQs
No DQs
3
91
96
1.684
1.00
0.95
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
86
94
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
6.7
No DQs
No DQs
32.2
1,242.9
1,281.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.0
32.2
1,181.4
1,224.8
Steel
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Northwest
California
Inland
Total
3
5
1
25
3
1
2
214
254
1%
2%
0%
10%
1%
0%
1%
84%
100%
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
6
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
28
34
0.54
1.03
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
29
32
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
2,054.3
No DQs
No DQs
No DQs
519.6
2,573.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,112.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
535.0
1,647.1
Petroleum
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Northwest
California
Inland
Total
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
15
19
0%
11%
0%
0%
6%
0%
6%
78%
100%
No DQs
2
No DQs
No DQs4
1
No DQs
1
15
19
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
15
19
No DQs
203.4
No DQs
No DQs
42.6
No DQs
31.8
250.7
528.4
0.0
203.4
0.0
0.0
42.6
0.0
31.8
250.7
528.4
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
A-4
-------
Table A-1: MN DQ Distribution and Calculation of Weight Adjustment Factors
Benefits Region
Distribution of
Facilities in
PCS/ICIS
Databases
Number
%
Number of
DQ-
. , , , Adjustment
weighted * .
„ ^... i Factor
Facilities
Regional Mean
Operational Flow
(MGD)
Adjusted
Weight
Estimates
DQ-
weighted
Adjusted
Weight
Estimates
Other
Inland
Total
1
1
100%
100%
1 1.00
1
1
1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
Total for All Industries
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Northwest
California
Inland
Total
28
100
19
78
107
8
8
1,630
1,978
1%
5%
1%
4%
5%
0%
0%
82%
100%
NoDQs
6
4
29
5
NoDQs
8
259
312
0
11
1
13
13
0
5
260
304
NoDQs
232.0
56.4
2,422.3
326.5
NoDQs
65.5
3,887.0
6,989.8
0.0
264.7
14.5
1,210.0
852.4
0.0
64.4
3,919.5
6,325.5
EPA did not adjust weights for petroleum refineries because the DQ was a census of in-scope facilities, nor for facilities in "other"
industries because they were outside the five SIC codes for which weights were developed and are not assumed to represent any
other facilities.
2Though these regions account for more than 5% of Aluminum manufacturers but have no DQs, the average flow for Aluminum
manufacturers is less than 10 MGD. Potential benefits associated with these facilities would be relatively minor.
3While the PCS/ICIS data did not identify any Paper facilities in the California Region, there was 1 DQ facility in this region with a
weight of 3. This weight was not adjusted.
4There was 1 DQ refinery in the Great Lakes region. However this facility was assessed as a baseline closure in the economic
analysis and thus receives an adjustment factor of 0.
A.2.2 Non-utility Manufacturers (MU Facilities)
EPA accounted for the geographic distribution of MU facilities using a methodology similar to that used
for MN facilities. Weights were adjusted so that the distribution of the weighted number of DQ facilities
matched the actual geographic distribution of the facility universe. Under this approach, EPA first
determined the distribution of in-scope facility by study region, and then calculated adjusted weights for
use in the benefits analysis.
Determining the Distribution of In-scope Facilities by Study Region
The entire universe of MU facilities was known based on the survey screener and the OTIS Facility-finder
tool was used to obtain facility location data.55 EPA distributed the universe of facilities among study
regions based on the regional distribution of MU facilities with location data from OTIS Facility-finder.
Calculating Adjusted Weights for Benefits Analysis
For each study region, EPA compared the estimated number of MU facilities with the DQ-weighted
number of facilities in the region. An adjustment factor was calculated as the quotient of the estimated
number of facilities in each region divided by the DQ-weighted number of facilities in each region. If the
adjusted weight for a facility was less than one, it was assigned a weight of one to fully account for the
55 While the survey screener asked for facilities' flow, EPA was unable to develop adjustment factors using total flow as a control
variable.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
A-5
-------
flow of the sampled facility. Adjustment factors and adjusted flow by benefits region are presented in
Table A-2.
Table A-2: MU Adjustment Factors and Adjusted Flow by Benefits Region
Benefits Region
Estimated _ _ _ , , _ . . ,
_ ..... DO- . ,. . . Total Original
Facilities . ^, , Adiustment „, .,.,>,
„ T weighted * . Weighted Flow
from In-scope „ ..... Factor f»i«-.T»\
™- * ••. *• Facilities (MGD)
Distribution v '
Total Adjusted
Weighted Flow
(MGD)
MU Facilities
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Great Lakes
Gulf of Mexico
Pacific Northwest
California
Inland
Total
Inland
6
3
2
14
8
0
2
163
198
NU
N/A
5
6
NoDQs
12
6
1
1
174
205
Facilities Determined to
12
1.2
0.5
1.2
1.3
0.0
2.0
0.9
be Manufacturers
16
220.9
440.8
NoDQs
1,186.4
577.0
0
3.6
9,464.7
11,893.5
392.9
275.3
369.0
0.0
1,400.0
744.0
0.0
7.3
8,880.9
11,676.6
392.9
Paper
Grand Total
N/A
217
12,286.4
12,069.5
'Two facilities that were surveyed as non-utilities (NU) were later determined to be non-utility manufacturers and are analyzed as such in
the cost analysis. Their weights were not adjusted because they were not part of the original MU facility universe and are both in the
inland region. Given that the maj ority of MU facilities are located in the Inland region the use of original weights is unlikely to bias
regional benefit results
A.3 Electric Power Generating Facilities
The benefits analysis for electric power generating facilities uses a combination of weights from the
316(b) Phase II and Phase III analyses and sample weights developed to support the 2010 analysis.
Weights from Phase II and Phase III accounted for non-sampled facilities and non-respondents to industry
surveys and are referred to as the original survey weights56
When estimating national-level benefits, sample weights based on facility-specific (e.g., size and
engineering) characteristics can lead to conditional bias. In particular, this approach does not consider
factors influencing the occurrence and size of benefits such as the location of facilities subject to the
regulatory options, actual intake flow, similarities among aquatic species affected by these facilities, and
characteristics of commercial and recreational fishing activities in the area. EPA used a post-stratification
weight adjustment to calculate benefits weights that account for data dimensions not included in the
original sample design. These benefits weights re-scale DQ-based weights using additional information
from the STQ so that total regional flows represented by both weighting systems are equivalent.
The remainder of this appendix describes the post-stratification weight adjustment for electric power
generating facilities. Section A.3.1 describes how the strata were defined. Section A.3.2 presents and
discusses the estimates resulting from the post-stratified weighting schemes and compares these to the
original DQ weights.
6In general, the original survey weights are numerically very low, as EPA had either DQ or STQ information for 621 out of the
634 electric generating facilities presumed to be in scope of the regulation. For more information on EPA's Section 316(b)
Industry Surveys, please refer to the Information Collection Request (USEPA 2000b).
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
A-6
-------
A.3.1 Defining the Strata and Control Variables
EPA included six study regions when developing benefits weights for electric power generating facilities:
North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, Inland, and California
regions. Strata characteristics used to adjust weights are presented in Table A-3.
I&E mortality losses are largely a function of mean operational intake flow and characteristics of local
fishery resources. Therefore, regional non-recirculated operational flow is the most important factor in
defining strata for the benefits estimation, and it is more important to group estimated total benefits by
non-recirculated intake flow in a study region than by number of facilities. When calculating weights,
EPA included a strata based on a 125 MGD DIP so that benefit estimates accurately reflect changes in
technology under the options analyzed under the regulation.
Table A-3: Matrix of Strata and Control Variables for Adjusting DQ Weights
Mean Operational Flow (GPD)
Strata
Facilities with Recirculation Facilities without Recirculation
Technology1 Technology
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South Atlantic
Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
California2
Total
DIP < 125
MGD
0
68
46
0
57
1,258
0
1,429
DIP > 125
MGD
0
0
0
0
181C
2,221
0
2,402
DIP < 125
MGD
238
257
0
0
343
1,900
0
2,738
DIP > 125
MGD
6,510
26,518
7,033
9,049
15,428
117,989
1,135
183,663
Includes all electric generating facilities with recirculating technology regardless of intake velocity.
2Generators in the state of California were excluded from the analysis; however, the California region includes
three facilities in Hawaii.
A.3.2 Comparison of Results of the Detailed Questionnaire and Post-Stratified
Weighting Schemes
EPA assigned post-stratification weights (Table A-3) so that tabulations of total mean operational flow by
region and DIP threshold correspond to the best estimates of operational flow based on information
provided by both DQ and STQ questionnaires. Estimated mean operational flow under various weighting
procedures are presented in Table A-4. Regional control total is calculated using operational flow data
from DQ and STQ and facility-level original sample weights that account for non-sampled facilities and
non-respondents. The DQ total is the total operational flow of facilities to which weights are applied. By
design, the post-stratification estimate of mean operational flow equals the control total estimate. Benefits
weights are determined as the quotient of the control total divided by the DQ total. The number of
March 28, 2011 A-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
facilities estimated using these weights may not match the control estimate of the population of facilities.
For example, when average mean operational flow in the DQ sample of facilities is lower than the total
operational flow of all facilities in a given region, larger sample weights must be assigned to ensure the
estimated sample-weighted operational flow is equivalent to the control total. Thus, although total
operational flow is equivalent, the number of facilities estimated using these weights may be an
overestimate of facilities within the region. This shortcoming is not important, however, because DQ
weights are not used to estimate the number of facilities.
During the weight development process, EPA assessed the variance of the new weights to examine their
reasonableness. Weights with smaller variance generally lead to estimates with smaller variance unless
the larger variance of the weights reflects the characteristics on which the estimates depend. Since mean
operational flow is the most important factor in determining benefits, EPA believes that accounting for
this factor while minimizing the variance of the weights is the best approach. This is accomplished by
assigning an equal weight to all facilities within a given stratum. One alternative would be to adjust the
original DQ weight. However, adjusting original DQ weights increases the variance of new weights. The
additional variance is not likely to reflect the characteristics on which the estimates depend, and therefore
these weights are inferior.
Table A-4: Mean Operational Flow by Benefits Region: Post-Stratification by Mean
Regional Operational Flow for Facilities Without Recirculation (MGD)
Recirculating Flow
Non-recirculating Flow
Region
North Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
South
Atlantic1"
Gulf of
Mexico
Great Lakes
Inland
Total
< 125 DIP (MGD)
DQ
Total
0
58
0
0
0
528
587
Control
Total
0
68
46
0
57
1,258
1,429
> 125 DIP (MGD)
DQ
Total
0
0
0
0
0
620
620
Control
Total
0
0
0
0
181C
2,221
2,402
< 125 DIP (MGD)
DQ
Total
209
231
0
0
120
1,003
1,625
Control
Total
238
257
0
0
343
1,900
2,799
> 125 DIP (MGD)
DQ
Total
2,978
8,743
3,481
6,751
5,199
51,560
80,631
Control
Total
6,510
26,518
7,033
9,049
15,428
117,989
194,997
A total of five STQ facilities with baseline (one in the South Atlantic and four in the Great Lakes) did not have a DQ facility to
represent them within the region and DIP strata. Their flow was added to the respective non-recirculating totals when calculating
benefits weights, and are assigned the same benefits weights as non-recirculating facilities within the same region and DIP category.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
A-8
-------
Appendix B: Consideration of Potential Ecological Effects due to
Thermal Discharges
B.1 Introduction
Impacts of thermal discharges, along with other stressors, are a relevant consideration when assessing the
potential impacts of electric power plant cooling water intakes (CWIS) and associated discharges. Several
studies have demonstrated the adverse effects that increased temperatures or altered seasonal thermal
regimes have on local biota and fauna. In some cases, studies have indicated little or no apparent harm is
caused by the thermal discharges. This emphasizes the need for NPDES permit writers to consider site-
specific factors when assessing the potential ecological effects due to thermal discharges.
This appendix provides information on the general effects of thermal discharges on aquatic biota and
ecosystems, considers the influence of site-specific factors and environmental settings on determining the
level (if any) of ecological impacts, and discusses limitation and uncertainty associated with thermal
studies. It also presents three case studies from power plants in different environmental settings (Brayton
Point Station, Quad Cities Nuclear Station, and Point Beach Nuclear Plant) which underwent detailed
thermal studies under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 316(a) provisions and which show the importance
of site specific factors in determining the potential for appreciable harm. The Section 316(a)
demonstrations described in the three case studies represent unusually complete and thorough
investigations of thermal impacts to receiving aquatic ecosystems. Thermal investigations at other power
plants are highly site-specific, but typically have a much reduced scope and effort compared to those
portrayed by the case studies.
It should be noted that even at power plants where demonstrations of no appreciable harm have been
made to regulatory authorities under Section 316(a), supporting thermal studies nonetheless often show
periods during which thermal limits are exceeded. Impacts of thermal discharges should therefore be
revisited on a case-by-case basis as conditions change, for example(i) if plants increase their power
capacity (i.e., "uprate") and increase thermal loads to the receiving waterbody; (ii) if the thermal
assimilative capacity of the receiving waterbody is otherwise compromised; or (iii) in the face of new
evidence that cooling water discharges are causing appreciable harm to the balanced, indigenous
population/community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife or fail to ensure the protection or propagation of the
population. Such assessments need to consider the extent, duration, timing, and frequency of adverse
thermal impacts, the target threshold temperature for each species, the potential for adverse temperature
effects on larger ecological processes, and other relevant site-specific factors.
B.2 General Effects of Thermal Discharges on Aquatic Biota and Ecosystems
Thermal discharges affect aquatic organisms by elevating water temperatures or altering seasonal patterns
of temperature change. Temperature is considered a master environmental variable for aquatic
ecosystems, affecting virtually all biota and biologically mediated processes, chemical reactions, as well
as structuring the physical environment of the water column. There is a well-established scientific
literature cataloguing the impacts of elevated or variable temperature on a wide spectrum of aquatic life,
including numerous species-specific determinations of thermal tolerance limits for growth, survival,
reproduction and behavior (e.g., Beitinger et al. 2000; Leffler 1972; McMahon 1975).
March 28, 2011 B-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Much of the relevant primary research on power plant thermal discharges dates from the 1970's-1980's;
typically based on laboratory studies, field investigations, or environmental impact assessments
associated with the siting, permitting, and/or operation of power plants with significant thermal plumes
(e.g., Barnett 1972; Coles 1984; Hillman et al. 1977; Langford 1990 (for review); Squires et al. 1979).
These studies found that the thermal discharges may affect aquatic species growth, survival and
reproduction, altered community diversity and density, and may have led to shifts in ecological habitat.
The character and magnitude of the observed impacts varies among the studies, however.
Interest in this topic and relevant studies have also re-emerged in the last decade as part of a greater effort
associated with the assessment and characterization of potential effects of global climate change (e.g.,
Schiel et al. 2004). The material below provides a representative, exemplary mix of studies on thermal
effects for organisms and communities in a range of trophic levels or ecosystems with some emphasis on
more recent research. The majority of the cited studies were identified from internet searches and cross-
referencing appropriate permitting databases57.
Primary Producers
Thermal discharges affect aquatic primary production through direct effects on photosynthetic activity
and selection of temperature-tolerant species in phytoplankton, periphyton, macroalgae and submerged
aquatic vegetation (SAV) and indirectly through temperature-related changes in nutrient availability and
grazer activities. Several studies reported that thermal discharges substantially altered the local abundance
and structure of the aquatic community, particularly benthos and periphyton (e.g., Chuang et al. 2009;
Martinez-Arroyo et al. 2000; Schiel et al. 2004; Squires et al. 1979). Studies by Mallin et al. (1994)
suggest that indirect effects of discharge altered the phytoplankton community taxonomic structure near
the outfall and in general, support different communities of algae than those present in the background
waters. Several authors suggest that residual chlorine (anti-fouling agent) may also influence these
patterns (Choi et al. 2002; Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 2006; Poornima et al. 2005).
Primary Heterotrophs
The bacterial and microbial components of aquatic ecosystems generally have a positive response to
increasing water temperature - growth rates and bacterially mediated processes are enhanced until
temperature tolerance limits are approached. Most studies found that the growth rates of bacteria and
water temperatures are positively correlated. In contrast, Choi et al. (2002) found lower rates of bacteria
production near outfalls but attributes this effect to residual chlorine in the discharge water rather than
temperature alone.
Zooplankton
Zooplankton and other pelagic macroinvertebrates typically increase their grazing activities and growth
rate in response to increased temperature. Marasse et al. (1992) observed a higher rate of bacteria
consumption (i.e., bacterivory) by samples of plankton that were incubated at higher temperatures. Jiang
et al. (2009) suggests that copepod species with larger body sizes are more sensitive to thermal increases
and that this water temperature increase induces mortalities of copepods. As noted for other organisms,
Abt Associates used several general search engines for preliminary searches for scientific and grey literature including Scirus:
http://www.scirus.com/; Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/; and Dogpile: http://www.dogpile.com/, as well as publicly
available information from NPDES permits and related Section 316a/316b studies.
March 28, 2011 B-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
estuarine copepods have more tolerance to thermal stress than those from more stenothermal, deepwater
environments.
Benthic Community
Benthic species and communities are often particularly vulnerable to thermal discharge due to their
association with the substrate and limited ability to migrate from impacted areas. Growth rates and
spawning times are usually accelerated by increased temperature (Barnett 1972). McMahon (1975) and
Leffler (1972) found that snails and blue crabs, respectively, exhibit more rapid growth at higher
temperatures, but both studies also observe greater species mortality. The study by Coles (1984) found a
positive effect with the thermal effluent as both the number of organisms and the colonization by coral
reef propagules near the outfall were significantly greater than background areas. A recent study of
benthic communities and associated biota near a nuclear power plant discharge show that the thermal
pollution alters composition and decreases richness in benthic cover (Teixeira et al. 2009).
Fish
Fish are extremely well-studied with regard to temperature tolerance and thermal limits in both the
laboratory and field. The thermal habitat requirements of coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater fish
species are well-characterized (e.g., Beitinger et al. 2000; Sullivan et al. 2000) and these may be the basis
for regulatory sub-classification of water bodies. Thermal discharges can influence the spatial distribution
offish due to direct responses to altered temperature (i.e., attraction, avoidance), effect on dissolved
oxygen concentrations, and impacts to prey and habitat availability (Cooke et al. 2004; Sullivan et al.
2000). Rapid fluctuations and decreases in water temperature, usually associated with steep thermal
gradients in temperate winter waters, can lead to "cold shock" with reduced survival (Ash et al. 1974;
Deacutis 1978). Smythe and Sawyko (2000) evaluated the effect of "cold shock" on fish and found no
effect on larger predator species, though a forage species (gizzard shad) had lower survival rates. Some
studies of thermal discharges have not observed significant effects in local fish communities. Hillman et
al. (1977) and Krishnamoorthy et al. (2008) found that impacts on shore-zone fish and fingerlings from
power station discharges were minimal. A study of salmonids by Sullivan et al. (2000) maintains that
direct mortality from temperature is unlikely since acute lethal temperatures are rarely, if ever, observed
in the field. Specifically, this study suggests that there is little or no risk of mortality if the annual
maximum temperature is less than 26°C, but suggests a site-specific analysis when annual maximum
temperatures exceed 24°C.
Ecosystem Functions and Services
In addition to the species-specific impacts, investigators have looked at the effects of thermal discharges
on the structuring of species assemblages and communities, as well as secondary ecosystem function and
services. Thermal discharges may have both detrimental and beneficial effects. For example, the
bleaching and destruction of coral reefs by elevated thermal discharges is well documented, but Coles
(1984) in the Moss Landing study found that the thermal effluent may have some beneficial effects, such
as enhancing new coral regrowth or providing preferred water temperatures for avian birds and mammals.
Work in seven Southeastern U.S. cooling reservoirs indicated that direct thermal effects on phytoplankton
communities were generally minimal, but that the smaller reservoirs were more prone to algal blooms due
to nutrient trapping and elevated temperatures (Mallin et al. 1994). Indirect effects of excessive thermal
loads in these reservoirs caused ecosystem-wide alterations arising from both top-down (higher trophic
consumers) and bottom-up (primary producers) effects. Martinez-Arroyo et al. (2000) found that
phytoplankton subjected to elevated water temperature exhibited lowered photosynthetic capacity and
March 28, 2011 B-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
light harvesting efficiency and required more light to reach a net oxygen production. Thus, primary
production and oxygen levels, both critical ecosystem functions, may be decreased as a result of elevated
temperatures.
Teixeira et al. (2009) evaluated the effect of thermal discharge on fish communities and habitat structure
in rocky substrates near a nuclear power plant in southeastern Brazil. Their studies indicate the heated
effluents affected the habitat structure as well as fish community structure and its eco-spatial distribution.
Lowered fish species richness was observed in the impacted area and this was attributed to effects to
differences in benthic cover of a habitat former (i.e., reduced abundance of Sargassum weed).
B.3 Influence of Site-Specific Factors and Environmental Setting on Thermal
Effects
As noted above, the environmental setting (i.e., the nature of the receiving waters) can have a pronounced
influence on the potential for and the magnitude of adverse thermal impacts on biota. While physical
features near the discharge and temporal climatic patterns usually dictate the observed level of thermal
deviations for any given discharge, several environmental factors may be important in determining the
magnitude of potential impacts, including: geographic location, marine vs. freshwater environments,
volume of receiving water, rate of water exchange, other heat loads, and local habitats.
Geographic location
Geographic location determines the duration and intensity of annual solar heating and usually dictates the
resulting maximum ambient temperatures for the receiving waters. The more southerly the facility, the
higher the seasonal temperature maxima is likely to be, increasing the possibility of reaching upper
thermal temperature limits for sensitive organisms. Despite acclimation, relatively few North American
aquatic organisms will tolerate chronic water temperatures in excess of 35-40°C (Brock 1985). Northerly
receiving waters will have lower maximum ambient temperatures in summer, but will also exhibit greater
seasonal variation; with a more extreme temperature gradient between discharge and surface water during
winter. Conversely, sub-tropical water temperatures have less seasonal variation and a more consistent
thermal gradient is maintained between discharge and ambient conditions. Adverse effects to aquatic
organisms are generally most pronounced at the acute and chronic high lethal temperatures and/or due to
rapid fluctuations (e.g., "cold shock").
Marine vs. Freshwater Receiving Waters
Adverse thermal impacts have been documented in both freshwater and marine ecosystems, but the
likelihood of impacts may be considered slightly greater in freshwaters simply due to the presumption
that marine waters constitute a greater thermal reservoir due to larger volume and tidal flushing.
However, as noted above, site-specific features will dictate the effective volume and the flushing rate,
which are likely to be the key to vulnerability of receiving water ecosystem to thermal impacts. Clearly,
the magnitude of thermal impacts also depends on the composition of the local biota and whether such
organisms are temperature-sensitive. The sensitivity of coldwater freshwater fish (e.g., trout, salmonids,
darters) to increased water temperature and associated lowering of available dissolved oxygen has been
well characterized (Beitinger et al. 2000; Sullivan et al. 2000). There is less temperature-sensitivity in
marine estuarine fish, which are often more tolerant than offshore fish, since they are subject to regular
environmental fluctuations.
Receiving Water Volume
The volume of the receiving water is a critical factor since it determines the total amount of heat that can
March 28, 2011 B-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
be absorbed by a water body while still remaining at an acceptable temperature. The effective volume
subject to the thermal discharge may be significantly less than that of the entire water body if it is
constrained physically (e.g., narrow discharge channel, small coastal embayment) or can vary in the short
term (e.g., low tide, hydropower releases), seasonally (e.g., thermally stratified lakes, salinity stratified
estuary), or longer (e.g., multi-year droughts). Due to the buoyant properties of warm water, the effective
mixed volume can be reduced even further if the thermal plume is not effectively or rapidly mixed into
the receiving waters.
Rate of water exchange
The rate of water exchange is another factor which can compensate for a small effective volume. A short
hydraulic residence time (HRT) (i.e., rapid flushing) of the receiving water at the point of the thermal
discharge can rapidly dissipate a high heat load. Large fast rivers, open ocean outfalls, and coastal
embayments with sweeping longshore currents, etc. can generally better tolerate thermal discharges and
have limited or highly localized impacts to biota. Poorly flushed systems, those with seasonal flow
minima, or episodic hydrologic inputs, are more likely to experience widespread or persistent thermal
impacts. In some cases, the flow or volume of the thermal discharge may be very much greater than the
receiving water.
Local land use
Local land uses may also be influential in that they can provide additional thermal loads to the water body
independent of the thermal discharge. Developed urban areas having watersheds with large percentages of
impervious cover may produce large storm water flows with temperatures that are well above ambient
temperatures in the receiving waters. Agricultural lands and irrigation return water may also increase
local thermal loading. Channelization and removal of riparian buffer vegetation can increase water
temperature through lack of shading, reflective artificial substrates, and removal of deep pool habitats.
Local Habitats
Benthic biota and/or habitats (e.g., oyster reefs, eelgrass, and mussel beds) found in nearshore
environments are often subject to greater impact since these largely sessile communities are affixed to the
substrate. On the other hand, mobile aquatic organisms can track temperature change and fine-tune their
temporal and spatial distribution (Cooke et al. 2004). Biota can sometimes avoid adverse thermal impacts
by seeking out localized areas of cooler or better aerated waters (e.g., deep pool, tributary stream, bottom
waters) for short-term or seasonal residence. These areas provide habitat that may allow the temperature-
sensitive organisms to persist and emigrate back into the affected water body once the thermal stress is
reduced. Thermal effects could be more severe in homogenous environments (e.g., open water column,
unstratified reservoir) where the biota does not have access to these refugia. Thermal displacements from
spawning habitat due to dam construction and operation (e.g., bottom water releases) has also been a
concern in western rivers and elsewhere (Bartholow et al. 2004; Hayes et al. 2006).
B.4 Uncertainties and Limitations of Assessing Thermal Impacts
One of the major difficulties in accurately characterizing the influence of thermal discharges on aquatic
communities is the uncertainty due to the potential influence of other abiotic water quality factors.
Thermal discharges from power plant cooling systems often contain elevated levels of additional
constituents including, but not restricted to: residual chlorine, total suspended solids, total dissolved
solids, cleaning agents and surfactants, metals, and nutrients. The presence of these constituents may
March 28, 2011 B-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
complicate the interpretation of the environmental factor(s) that are responsible for observed changes in
biotic communities.
For example, several of our studies on thermal effects on primary producers noted that residual chlorine
in the discharge may be responsible for some of the observed effects (Chuang et al. 2009; Poornima et al.
2005). Interaction of thermal effects and heavy metals was responsible for some phytoplankton taxonomic
changes in one reservoir investigated by Mallin et al. (1994). Looking at the behavior of smallmouth bass,
Cooke et al (2004) found that a majority of a local radio-tagged population overwintered in the warmest
portions of a thermal discharge to Lake Erie. However, this area also was high in habitat complexity, had
adequate flow velocity refuges, and abundant forage so selection for this habitat may not be a simple
thermal preference.
Adverse temperature effects may also be more pronounced in aquatic ecosystems which are already
subject to other environmental stressors such as high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels, sediment
contamination, or pathogens. Thermal discharges may have indirect effects on fish and other vertebrate
populations through increasing pathogen growth and infection rates. Langford (1990) reviewed several
studies on disease incidence and temperature, and while he found no simple, causal relationship between
the two, he did note that it was clear that warmer water enhances the growth rates and survival of
pathogens, and that infection rates tended to be lower in cooler waters.
B.5 Case Studies
Three case studies were selected for large power generating stations whose thermal discharges may have
a potential impact to the local aquatic community/ecosystem. These three case studies provide examples
of investigations of thermal impacts in different environmental settings (marine coastal embayment,
coastal Great Lake, and freshwater river) and with potential effects investigated at differing spatial scales
(community, habitat, ecosystem).
B.5.1 Brayton Point Station
Brayton Point Station (EPS) is a 1538 megawatt (MW) coal and oil-fired electrical generating station
located in Somerset, MA. This facility takes cooling water from and discharges heated effluent to Mount
Hope Bay (MHB), a large coastal embayment whose waters lie within Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Generation Unit 1 began operating in 1963, Unit 2 in 1964, Unit 3 in 1969, and Unit 4 in 1974 (Dominion
2011). One of the most thorough examinations of the individual and cumulative effects of a power plant
thermal discharge was conducted as part of the regulatory review of the CWA Section 316(a) variance
request application submitted in May 2001 as part of the NPDES discharge permit (Permit No. MA
003654) renewal for EPS. The permitee's 316(a) variance request application looked to keep the existing
permit temperature criteria (maximum temperature of 95°F; delta (departure from ambient) temperature of
22° F) and to reduce the total heat load from the existing permit limits. However, these thermal criteria
were still less stringent than what would be required by either technology-based or water quality-based
discharge limits.
CWA 316(a) authorizes alternative thermal discharge limits when it is demonstrable that the proposed
thermal limits "will assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population (BIP) of
shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on that body of water." To evaluate whether the thermal limits proposed
in the May 2001 316(a) variance request application would meet this protective criterion, EPA, in
accordance with the 316(a) Technical Guidance Manual (USEPA 1977), conducted a review of the
historical and current conditions of MHB biota on a community-by-community evaluation and considered
March 28, 2011 B-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
potential thermal impacts to phytoplankton, zooplankton, habitat formers, shellfish, fmfish, and other
vertebrate (i.e., sea turtles and mammalian) wildlife. The findings of the community impact analyses are
contained in the "Clean Water Act NPDES Permitting Determinations for Thermal Discharge and
Cooling Water Intake from Brayton Point Station in Somerset, MA" (USEPA 2002b) dated July 22, 2002
(hereafter "Determinations"} and summarized below.
For each of the community types, the Determinations provides a preliminary consideration of whether the
community's nature, estuarine setting, and water column distribution within MHB relative to the location
and magnitude of the BPS thermal discharge would result in a finding of "low potential impact areas" and
lessened environmental concerns for the granting of the 316(a) variance. For those communities in MHB
for which a "low potential impact" conclusion was not possible, the severity of the thermal effect was
gauged by comparison to a list of a priori decision criteria for each community.
EPA judged that MBH was not a low potential impact area for phytoplankton. As seagrasses and salt
marshes have historically declined in importance in MHB, the phytoplankton community is the dominant
primary producer (USEPA 2002b). The recent (2001) occurrence of a nuisance blue-green algal bloom
(dominated by the cyanophyte Anacystis aeruginosd) in MHB near BPS may be due to the high nutrients
and warm water temperatures which favor formation of such bloom. It was considered likely that thermal
plume from BPS was a contributing factor. Perhaps of greater importance is the finding that the MHB
phytoplankton community does not undergo the typical winter-spring phytoplankton bloom cycle (Keller
et al. 1999). Extensive work was conducted on plankton communities in experimental mesocosms where
temperature was shifted to mimic the expected thermal conditions in MHB surface waters. Extrapolating
these changes seen in the mesocosms, such changes in phytoplankton population dynamics could very
likely lead to significant impacts within the trophic dynamics of the MHB food web. Redirecting carbon
away from benthic consumers and into pelagic food webs could represent a reduction in prey species for
benthic-feeding fmfish such as winter flounder, windowpane flounder, hogchoker, and tautog.
EPA judged that MHB was not a low potential impact area for zooplankton since it is an estuary that
serves as a spawning site for numerous fish and invertebrate species (USEPA 2002b). The most
noticeable thermal effect in this community is the recent increase in abundance of the ctenophore
Mneimiopsis leidyi and increased overwintering in MHB for this formerly seasonal resident. Dramatic
increases in comb jellies (i.e., ctenophores) are usually indicative of stressed ecosystems with symptoms
of increased water temperatures, increased nutrient levels, and depleted fish stocks (Pohl 2002). Since M.
leidyi is a voracious consumer of pelagic fish eggs as well as zooplankton by which it competes with
young-of-year winter flounder, it was concluded that BPS was significantly contributing to thermal
increases in MHB and facilitating expansion of the range and time of year distribution of the comb jellies.
Eelgrass is a coldwater plant that ranges from North Carolina to Canada and grows well in soft-bottom,
low energy environments. Despite the current lack of eelgrass, the EPA judged that MBH was not a low
potential impact area for habitat formers since the historic presence of extensive eelgrass meadows shows
that it is capable of supporting this habitat type (USEPA 2002b). Experimental work has shown that
optimal temperature ranges for photosynthesis decrease with increasing turbidity (Bulthuis 1987) so that
in turbid waters, eelgrass growth decreases with increased temperature, because photosynthetic rates
decrease and respiration rates increase. Based on the current lack of eelgrass, it was concluded that the
combination of poor water quality and increased water temperature result in an "exclusion zone" for
eelgrass growth in MHB (USEPA 2002b). Since BPS helps to elevate the water temperature over
significant portions of the bay, it is considered a contributory cause to this exclusion.
March 28, 2011 B-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
EPA judged that MBH was not a low potential impact area for shellfish and macroinvertebrates due to the
presence of commercially important species, their "substantial" densities, the spawning and nursery areas
in MHB, and the important role in ecosystem function that this community provides (USEPA 2002b).
Benthic sampling indicated that there have been no significant changes in the benthic community between
the 1970's and mid-1990's or over the span of time when BPS has been active and the annual heat flux
was increased. The sampling also indicates a strong representation in the benthic community of the
amphipodAmpelisca which is a preferred prey item for juvenile winter flounder. Overall, EPA found no
substantial evidence of harm to shellfish and macroinvertebrates from the current thermal discharge, and
any alternative which reduces the thermal discharge would be acceptable.
EPA judged that MHB was not a low potential impact area for finfish due to the presence of numerous
recreational and commercially important species, the important spawning and nursery areas, and the
potential for blockage offish migration (USEPA 2002b). The analysis for finfish was specifically targeted
at determining the appropriate thermal discharge limits for BPS in order to protect finfish populations and
included a retrospective examination of total finfish abundance trends in relation to plant operations. The
analysis determined an acceptable annual flux of heat into MHB that is protective of finfish populations,
based on the temperature thresholds for acute and chronic mortality as well as for several sub-lethal
effects for some representative important species (RIS).
The finfish stocks in MHB have declined precipitously since 1984-1985, a period which marked the shift
of Unit 4 at BPS from closed-cycle to once-through cooling operations. Further, work by Gibson (2002)
suggests that winter flounder have been declining since at least the initiation of sampling in 1972. While
BPS had been operational for 9 years at that point, no fishery data are available to estimate what the
finfish community was like prior to 1972. Comparison of the record of annual heat flux to MHB over that
last 28 year period to records of finfish abundance led EPA to conclude that an annual heat flux of 28
trillion British thermal units (tBTU) to MHB, as proposed in the 316(a) variance request application,
would be unable to stop or reverse a decline in fish populations and thus would not be protective of the
finfish community.
The temperature tolerance limits of 16 RIS were reviewed to establish temperature thresholds for the
more sensitive of these species (winter flounder, striped bass). These thresholds were used to establish
critical temperatures for three target depth strata (surface, middle, and bottom waters) at two key seasonal
periods (winter, summer). Winter corresponds to the period (March 1 -31) of active winter flounder
spawning and when large numbers of larval planktonic winter flounder are present in MHB. The summer
index period (July 15 - August 15) corresponds to the warmest time of the year.
Predictive hydrothermal models (CORMIX for near-field effects; WQMAP for far-field effects) of MHB
provided a means of evaluating the potential thermal impacts caused by the current (i.e., existing permit),
the proposed (i.e., the requested 316(a) variance), and two alternative reduced heat flux options for BPS
operations, as well as a "no-plant" condition. During warm summer conditions, the proposed operational
heat flux would impact 62% of the bottom water strata as compared to 4% under a no-plant scenario,
while other alternative operating options would have reduced impact proportional to their proposed total
heat fluxes. Using this method, it is possible to show impacts to all target depth strata during summer
conditions and impacts to the bottom strata during winter.
The study also considered other heat effects on finfish caused by the thermal discharge. The first involved
the attractive nuisance nature of the thermal plume (USEPA 2002b). The plume acts as an attractant for
large numbers of striped bass and bluefish in the fall and winter and disrupts their seasonal migration. The
crowding of large numbers of these species into a restricted area increases the potential for weakening or
March 28, 2011 B-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
diseases to occur since the warm temperatures increase their metabolism at the same time there is reduced
feeding due to a lack of prey. Similarly, the trapping of Atlantic menhaden in the thermal plume affects
their migration and likely increases I&E losses due to longer periods spent in proximity to intake
structures and which has been evidenced by several recent large winter impingement loss events. Another
effect noted was the establishment in MHB of smallmouth flounder (Etropus microstomus) which is at the
northern limit of its geographic distribution range. It is important to note that an increased abundance or
distribution shift to a warm water species is not indicative of protection of a BIP.
EPA judged that MBH is a low potential impact area for other vertebrate life since it is not a significant
habitat for marine mammals or sea turtles (USEPA 2002b). Overall, there is no potential for harm from
the current thermal discharge and any alternative which reduces the thermal discharge would be
acceptable.
A summary of current ecosystem thermal effects and predicted impacts associated with the proposed
thermal flux was prepared (USEPA 2002b). The current thermal effects for which there appears to be no
disagreement include:
> Appearance of nuisance algal blooms;
> Absence of normal winter-spring phytoplankton bloom;
> Overwintering of the ctenophore Mneimiopsis leidyi;
> Overwintering of striped bass and bluefish in discharge canal;
> Increased abundance of smallmouth flounder in MHB;
> Thermal avoidance of most of MHB by adult winter flounder; and
> Multiple fish kills as a result of large impingement events in the winter.
Evaluating the proposed 316(a) variance request, EPA predicted that, under the proposed thermal
discharge under the 316(a) variance request, the following would occur:
> Large areas of MHB would be avoided by juvenile winter flounder and striped bass during warm
summer months;
> Extensive areas of MHB would experience water temperatures resulting in chronic toxicity to
juvenile winter flounder;
> Reduced winter flounder egg hatching success for the entire MHB for the warmest winter
months;
> Increased predation on winter flounder eggs and larvae by sand shrimp; and
> Potential exclusion of eelgrass.
EPA also considered potential impacts from other stressors that could be responsible for mortality of
fmfish in MHB; including overfishing, predators, water quality, brown tides, and I&E (USEPA 2002b).
Each of these stressors was examined for its potential role in causing or contributing to the fmfish
collapse. Analyses of these other potential stressors indicated that while possibly contributory, the adverse
effects of each were generally exacerbated by the thermal conditions caused by the EPS plume.
Based on the hydrothermal and ecological analyses conducted and documented in the Determinations
document, EPA concluded that a BIP has not been maintained in MHB and that the current BPS thermal
discharge is a significant contributor to this problem (USEPA 2002b). Further, the proposed thermal
reductions in annual heat flux contained in the 316(a) variance request application would not allow for the
recovery of the winter flounder or the wider balanced indigenous ecosystem. Accordingly, EPA denied
the permitee's variance request and reissued the NPDES permit in 2003 with the provision for installing
closed-cycle cooling in all four of the power units.
March 28, 2011 B-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
B.5.2 Quad Cities Nuclear Station (QCNS)
Quad Cities Nuclear Station (QCNS) is a dual-unit nuclear fueled steam electric generating facility (SIC
4911) located on a 765-acre site along the Mississippi River in Cordova, Illinois. QCNS Units I (866 net
megawatts (MW)) and 2 (871 net MW) began commercial production of electricity in 1973. QCNS
withdraws water from the Mississippi River for non-contact condenser cooling and various service water
uses. After passing through the condensers, the cooling water from Units 1 and 2 mixes and then exits to
the River via a discharge canal. QCNS is located on Pool 14 of the Mississippi River, at approximate
River Mile 506.5 above the confluence of the Ohio River.
The thermal discharge is authorized under the Station's NPDES Permit, issued by the ILEPA. Thermal
limits in the NPDES Permit are based on Illinois environmental regulations, and studies and
Demonstrations related to the thermal plume are performed under CWA Section 316(a). During the latest
NDPES permit renewal cycle, QCNS requested issuance of a 316(a) variance for a proposed alternative
thermal standard, specifically relaxation of a maximum thermal excursion temperature limits by 2°F
during late summer months (July-September), which would increase the predicted frequency of expected
thermal excursions from 1% to 3%. This variance request was based on a demonstration that future
operations of QCNS would assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous community
(BIC) offish, wildlife, and shellfish, particularly within Pool 14.
To evaluate the potential thermal impacts of QCNS' discharge on Pool 14, a number of comprehensive
studies were conducted (including thermal plume modeling and field surveys, review of current
("prospective analysis") and historic ("retrospective demonstration") biota monitoring, and water quality
assessment. The thermal plume modeling is contained in "River temperature predictions downstream
of Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station" (Holly Jr. et al. 2004). The elements and findings of the
biological and water quality assessments are contained in the "Quad Cities Nuclear Station Adjusted
Thermal Standard CWA 3l6(a) Demonstration. Final Draft" (HDR 2009) dated November 2009
(hereafter "Demonstration") and summarized below.
The thermal plume model study was able to successfully reproduce temperature field data (collected
September 2003) without any adjustment of non-physical parameters (Holly Jr. et al. 2004). The model
was used to show compliance of the thermal plume with the proposed alternative standard. The model
validation revealed the importance of including site-specific river-entraining structures such as wing dams
and chute closure dams in the model, as they have an important influence on the thermal flow patterns in
the vicinity of the QCNS and local Steamboat Island (Holly Jr. et al. 2004).
Current and past monitoring efforts have collected data on a variety of aquatic communities, including
phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates (including freshwater mussels), ichthyoplankton,
and finfish, which are summarized in the Demonstration (HDR 2009). For the prospective assessment,
QCNS conducted comprehensive literature surveys, analyzed field data, and followed EPA approved
protocols for assessing potential thermal impacts on Representative Important Species (RIS) offish. RIS
species selected for the QCNS Demonstration included largemouth bass, channel catfish, spotfin shiner,
and walleye. River and plant operating conditions were selected to provide a conservative assessment of
potential power plant-related biological effects (i.e., the biothermal assessment focused on the months of
June, July, August, and September). The results indicate that the proposed alternative thermal standard
would have a negligible impact on largemouth bass, channel catfish, and a slightly positive one for spotfin
shiner (i.e., increased growth) (HDR 2009). Walleye chronic mortality could be increased by 8.5%
March 28, 2011 B-10
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
immediately downstream of the mixing zone, but placed in the areal relationship of the discharge to Pool
14, this would translate to a <1% effect on the walleye population in the Pool (HDR 2009).
The retrospective assessment indicated some changes in the upper trophic levels (i.e., finfish) in Pool 14
since the Station began operating, but concluded that those changes are not attributable to the thermal
input from QCNS (HDR 2009). In addition, the overall stability and health of upper trophic levels over
the length of the monitoring period suggests that lower trophic levels (i.e., zooplankton, phytoplankton)
have remained stable and abundant, providing an adequate food supply to allow and sustain growth of the
finfish and mussel populations. The retrospective assessment also found that neither nuisance species
(e.g., zebra mussel) nor heat tolerant species offish have come to predominate in Pool 14 due to QCNS
operations (HDR 2009).
In addition, the Demonstration examined the potential for harmful interactions between the QCNS
thermal discharge and other pollutants, including dissolved organic carbon, total phosphorus, total
nitrogen, biocides (i.e., anti-fouling chemicals), heavy metals, and other thermal discharges located
upstream. This analysis indicated that there was no evidence to suggest that the small amount of
additional heat that would be permitted to be discharged to Pool 14 under the proposed alternative
standard would have an adverse synergistic effect with other pollutants (HDR 2009).
QCNS, based on their interpretation of EPA guidance documents and 316(a) Demonstrations for other
facilities, maintained that the overall standard of compliance (i.e., protection of the BIC) would be
demonstrated by meeting a series of functional criteria. Because this is a request for a change in the
thermal standard, the Demonstration needed to show that these conditions will be satisfied in the future if
the proposed standard was adopted:
> No substantial increase in abundance or distribution of any nuisance species or heat tolerant
community;
> No substantial decreases in formerly abundant indigenous species or community structure to
resemble a simpler successional stage than is natural for the locality and season, other than
nuisance species;
> No unaesthetic appearance, odor, or taste of the water;
> No elimination of an established or potential economic or recreational use of the waters;
> No reduction in the successful completion of life cycles of indigenous species, including those of
migratory species;
> No substantial reduction of community heterogeneity or trophic structure;
> No adverse impact on threatened or endangered species;
> No destruction of unique or rare habitat, without a detailed and convincing justification of why
the destruction should not constitute a basis of denial; and
> No detrimental interaction with other pollutants, discharges, or water-use activities.
Based on the results of the thermal plume modeling study, the prospective analysis, the retrospective
assessment, and the successful meeting of the criteria listed above, QCNS concluded that past or future
operations have not caused appreciable harm to the BIC.
B.5.3 Point Beach Nuclear Station
Point Beach Nuclear Plant (PBNP) is located on the western shore of Lake Michigan in Two Rivers,
Manitowoc County, WI. The facility consists of two nuclear powered steam electric generating units with
a total net capacity of 1,540 megawatts thermal (MWt) each. Generation Unit 1 began commercial
March 28, 2011 B-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
operation in December 1970 and Unit 2 in October 1972 (EA 2008). The units operate with a once-
through cooling water system (EA 2008). Cooling water is withdrawn from a deep intake (22 ft contour)
in Lake Michigan and current pumping capacity is estimated to be 680,000 gallons per minute. Each unit
discharges the non-contact cooling water to Lake Michigan via its own outfall located at a mean
temperature increase of 11.5°C (20.7°F) above the intake water temperature at the maximum flow rate
(EA 2008).
PBNP planned to implement an extended power uprate (EPU) at both units in the 2010/2011 time frame
that was expected to increase the existing plant output by approximately 17 percent. The proposed EPU
does not result in an increase in water being withdrawn from Lake Michigan, nor will it result in an
increase in the amount of water discharged to Lake Michigan (NRC 2010). However, EPU did require
modification of the facility's Wisconsin Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit for the discharge
of a pollutant from a point source into waters of the state (which includes the addition of heat from a
point source). According to a modeling study performed by PBNP in 2008, the temperature of the
discharge water was expected to increase by a maximum of 3.6 °F (2.0 °C) and the thermal plume expand
as a result of the proposed EPU (NRC 2010).
In support of the permit modification request, PBNP prepared an assessment of the potential impacts of
the thermal discharge from the planned EPU (i.e., the "Planned Change"). This assessment is summarized
in "Point Beach Nuclear Plant Evaluation of the Thermal Effects Due to a Planned Extended Power
Uprate" (EA 2008). Since there currently are no temperature limits in the PBNP WPDES permit or
thermal water quality standards for Lake Michigan, this assessment represented a "good faith effort" by
PBNP to demonstrate that the impacts of the EPU would not have a significant effect on the fish or
shellfish communities in Lake Michigan (EA 2008).
Evaluation of the potential effects on the Lake Michigan aquatic community in the vicinity of the PBNP
post-EPU discharge was based on a review of historical and current monitoring data collected in the
vicinity of the facility and other power plants that utilize Lake Michigan water for once-through cooling
(EA 2008). Those study results were compared to expected responses of 16 Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resource (WDNR) selected Representative Important Species (RIS) to the projected higher
discharge temperatures and larger thermal plume that will result from the planned EPU. The evaluation
placed emphasis on the RIS and whether or not the BIC in the vicinity of the PBNP discharge would
continue to be protected.
The assessment relied heavily on the findings of the Type I CWA Section 316(a) Demonstration
conducted by the plant in the 1970s as well as the 1976 finding by WDNR that no appreciable harm had
occurred to the local BIC due to plant operations (EA 2008). The studies involved investigations of
primary and secondary trophic levels from phytoplankton through fish in both reference and thermally
affected areas (EA Engineering 2008; Limnetics 1974, as cited in EA 2008).
Recent entrainment and impingement monitoring studies at PBNP indicate that the same species that were
common in the vicinity of the facility during the Type I Demonstration remain common near the plant
despite lake-wide changes in the Lake Michigan fish community (Kitchell 2007, as cited in EA 2008).
Recent fisheries data collected from both PBNP and the Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP), which
is located only five miles north of PBNP, show that the same species seasonally occur in nearshore areas
in the vicinity of the shoreline discharge structures. These findings indicate that the BIC is protected
under similar operating conditions as have occurred historically at PBNP.
Evaluation of the modeled discharge temperatures and plume configurations under the planned EPU
indicates that the predicted area, volume, and behavior of the plume will not be substantially different
March 28, 2011 B-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
than under current PBNP operating conditions and similar to those evaluated during the Type 1
Demonstration (EA 2008). Based on the thermal model results using a 0.2 ft/sec along-shore current, the
planned EPU would expand the surface area of the 6.0°C contour from 27 to 39 acres; the 4.0°C contour
would increase from 79 to 105 acres; and the 2.0°C contour would increase from 315 to 390 acres (EA
2008). These projected increases in plume size are relatively small compared to the surface area available
for mixing. Under critical summer conditions the buoyant plume provides an area of safety as well as a
zone of passage when discharge temperatures approach or exceed upper avoidance temperatures of the
RIS fish.
The RIS evaluation showed that the predicted impact of the warmer and larger thermal plume as a result
of the EPU at PBNP will be negligible (EA 2008). Thermal criteria for some of the 12 RIS fish species
would be exceeded in the plume, but mainly at the point of discharge or in small areas for relatively brief
periods of time. Fish readily move into and out of thermal discharge plumes, depending on their thermal
requirements and the thermal regime of the plume at any given time. Cool and coldwater fish species
would be somewhat restricted with regard to use of the plume area, especially during summer, but they
generally spend the summer well offshore. In addition, the warmwater RIS could slightly benefit from the
warmer temperatures. Combining these observations with the size of the PBNP plume relative to
available lake habitat, it was concluded that the larger and warmer thermal plume resulting from the
planned EPU would have a minimal and insignificant impact on the fish community in Lake Michigan
(EA 2008). Similar conclusions were reached for the four invertebrate RIS (shellfish and opossum
shrimp).
Overall, the assessment concluded that the increased heat load to the discharge would not endanger the
protection and propagation of a BIC of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in and on Lake Michigan. This
conclusion was based on several lines of evidence including:
> The PBNP Type I Demonstration established that the original thermal plume did not cause "prior
appreciable harm;"
> The PBNP thermal plumes resulting from the planned EPU will not be substantially larger than
the original/existing plumes;
> There have been no changes in the aquatic community attributable to operation of the facility that
would preclude reliance on the results of the Type I Demonstration for PBNP;
> The changes to the Lake Michigan fish community that have occurred during the past 50 years
have occurred on a lake-wide basis;
> The impacts on RIS will be negligible; and
> The conclusion with respect to the effect of the planned EPU is consistent with assessments
undertaken at other power plants on Lake Michigan.
While the cooling water thermal plume of PBNP was expected to be larger as a result of the proposed
EPU, it was not expected to disrupt the local BIC or have a signficant impact on RIS of Lake Michigan
(EA 2008). Recently, as part of the plant's operating license renewal, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission developed a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the power uprate. The draft EA was
issued in December 2010 with a finding of no significant impact (NRC 2010).
March 28, 2011 B-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Appendix C: Details of Regional I&E Mortality Losses
C.1 California
Table C-1: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the California Region (million A1Es
per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
American shad
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
Crabs (other)
Sea Basses
Shrimp (other)
Drums and croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Fish (other)
Northern anchovy
Rockfishes
Salmon
Sculpins
Smelts
Striped bass
Sunfish
Surfperches
Total (all species)
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses,
Facilities > 50 MOD)
B
0.20
0.59
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.34
0.02
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.11
0.79
1 2
0.18 0.20
0.52 0.58
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.04 0.05
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.30 0.34
0.01 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.10 0.11
0.69 0.78
3 4
0.20 0.17
0.59 0.50
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.05 0.04
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.34 0.29
0.02 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.11 0.10
0.79 0.68
Entrainment
B 1
17.35 <0.01
18.69 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.06 <0.01
0.23 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
7.80 <0.01
2.83 <0.01
0.63 <0.01
0.23 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.10 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.03 <0.01
6.33 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.43 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 <0.01
<0.01 O.01
<0.01 <0.01
36.04 <0.01
2
14.79
15.93
<0.01
0.05
0.20
<0.01
6.65
2.41
0.53
0.19
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
0.03
5.39
<0.01
0.36
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
30.72
1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities >
3
15.47
16.66
<0.01
0.05
0.21
<0.01
6.95
2.52
0.56
0.20
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
0.03
5.64
<0.01
0.38
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
32.13
125 MOD),
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
I&E
B 1
17.56 0.18
19.28 0.52
<0.01 <0.01
0.06 <0.01
0.23 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
7.82 0.02
2.83 <0.01
0.63 <0.01
0.27 0.04
<0.01 <0.01
0.11 <0.01
0.01 <0.01
0.38 0.30
6.34 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.44 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.11 0.10
36.83 0.69
2
14.99
16.51
<0.01
0.05
0.20
<0.01
6.67
2.41
0.54
0.24
<0.01
0.09
0.01
0.37
5.41
<0.01
0.38
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.11
31.50
3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4
3
15.67
17.25
<0.01
0.05
0.21
<0.01
6.98
2.53
0.57
0.25
<0.01
0.10
0.01
0.37
5.66
<0.01
0.39
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.11
32.92
= Option
4
0.17
0.50
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.29
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
0.68
4 (I for
March 28, 2011
C-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-2: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the California Region
individuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
Species B
American shad <0.01
Blennies <0.01
Bluegill <0.01
Brown bullhead <0.01
Cabezon <0.01
California halibut <0.01
California scorpionfish <0.01
Chinook salmon <0.01
Crabs (other) 0.05
Delta smelt <0.01
Drums and croakers 0.41
Dungeness crab <0.01
Fish (other) 0.09
Flounders 0.01
Gobies <0.01
Herrings 0.06
Longfm smelt <0.01
Northern anchovy 0.86
Pacific herring <0.01
Rockfishes 0.03
Sacramento splittail <0.01
Salmon <0.01
Sculpins 0.02
Sea Basses <0.01
Shrimp (other) 0.03
Silversides 0.11
Smallmouth bass <0.01
Smelts <0.01
Striped bass <0.01
Sunfish <0.01
Surfperches 0.13
Total (all species) 1.82
1 2
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.03
<0.01 <0.01
0.18 0.20
<0.01 <0.01
0.04 0.04
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.03
<0.01 <0.01
0.38 0.42
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.02
0.05 0.05
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.06 0.06
0.80 0.90
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses. 1 = Option 1
Values for all options reflect reductions in losses.
3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.21
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.43
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.90
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.18
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.37
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.77
Entrainment
B
<0.01
914.88
<0.01
<0.01
6.65
7.71
<0.01
<0.01
7,238.91
0.01
915.22
0.09
1,299.61
319.23
1,579.24
26.23
<0.01
826.63
36.16
63.96
0.01
<0.01
47.94
13.24
429.24
121.84
<0.01
3.63
11.31
<0.01
<0.01
13,861.76
1 2
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 389.87
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 2.83
<0.01 3.29
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 3,084.81
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 390.01
<0.01 0.04
<0.01 553.82
<0.01 136.04
<0.01 672.98
<0.01 11.18
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 352.26
<0.01 15.41
<0.01 27.26
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 20.43
<0.01 5.64
<0.01 182.92
<0.01 51.92
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 1.55
<0.01 4.82
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 5,907.09
3 4
<0.01 <0.01
407.84 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
2.96 <0.01
3.44 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
3,227.00 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
407.99 <0.01
0.04 <0.01
579.35 <0.01
142.31 <0.01
704.00 <0.01
11.69 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
368.50 <0.01
16.12 <0.01
28.51 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
21.37 <0.01
5.90 <0.01
191.35 <0.01
54.31 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
1.62 <0.01
5.04 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
6,179.38 <0.01
(million
I&E
B
<0.01
914.88
<0.01
<0.01
6.65
7.72
<0.01
<0.01
7,238.96
0.01
915.63
0.09
1,299.70
319.24
1,579.24
26.28
<0.01
827.49
36.17
63.99
0.01
<0.01
47.96
13.24
429.27
121.95
<0.01
3.63
11.31
<0.01
0.13
13,863.58
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.18
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.38
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.80
2
<0.01
389.87
<0.01
<0.01
2.83
3.29
<0.01
<0.01
3,084.83
<0.01
390.22
0.04
553.86
136.04
672.98
11.20
<0.01
352.68
15.41
27.27
<0.01
<0.01
20.44
5.64
182.93
51.97
<0.01
1.55
4.82
<0.01
0.06
5,907.98
3
<0.01
407.84
<0.01
<0.01
2.96
3.44
<0.01
<0.01
3,227.03
<0.01
408.20
0.04
579.39
142.31
704.00
11.72
<0.01
368.93
16.12
28.53
<0.01
<0.01
21.38
5.90
191.36
54.37
<0.01
1.62
5.04
<0.01
0.06
6,180.28
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.18
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.37
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
0.77
(I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 1 25 MGD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 = Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD).
March 28, 2011
C-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.2 North Atlantic
Table C-3: Baseline I&E
(million A1 Es per year),
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
American plaice
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Bluefish
Butterfish
Crabs (other)
Gunner
Fish (other)
Pollock
Red hake
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Silver hake
Skates
Striped bass
Tautog
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total (all species)
Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated
B
0.55
0.08
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.03
0.63
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses, 1
4 = Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MOD)
Impingement
123
0.38 0.54 0.55
0.06 0.08 0.08
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.02 0.03 0.03
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.02 0.02 0.02
0.43 0.62 0.63
= Option 1 (I Everywhere),
4
0.38
0.06
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.43
Generating) in the
for All Sources of
Entrainment
B
46.46
12.90
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.04
O.01
O.01
0.01
4.26
0.01
O.01
0.01
1.94
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.11
0.01
O.01
0.02
6.35
59.37
1 2
O.01 37.88
0.01 10.52
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 0.01
O.01 0.10
O.01 0.02
0.01 0.03
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 3.47
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 1.58
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 0.09
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.02
0.01 5.18
<0.01 48.40
3
39.74
11.03
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.02
0.03
O.01
O.01
0.01
3.64
0.01
O.01
0.01
1.66
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
O.01
0.02
5.43
50.77
2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities >
4
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
<0.01
North Atlantic
Mortality
I&E
B 1
47.02 0.38
12.98 0.06
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 O.01
0.13 0.01
0.02 O.01
0.04 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.03 0.02
4.26 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
1.94 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.11 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.02 0.01
6.38 0.02
60.00 0.43
2
38.42
10.60
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.03
O.01
O.01
0.03
3.47
0.01
O.01
0.01
1.59
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.09
0.01
O.01
0.02
5.20
49.02
3
40.29
11.11
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.11
0.02
0.03
O.01
O.01
0.03
3.64
0.01
O.01
0.01
1.66
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
O.01
0.02
5.46
51.40
4
0.38
0.06
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.43
125 MOD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere),
March 28, 2011
C-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-4: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the North
individuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Species
Alewife
American plaice
American sand
lance
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic herring
Atlantic
mackerel
Atlantic
menhaden
Atlantic
silverside
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Blueback
herring
Bluefish
Butterfish
Crabs (other)
Gunner
Fish (other)
Fourbeard
rockling
Grubby
Hogchoker
Lumpfish
Northern
pipefish
Pollock
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Red hake
Rock gunnel
Sculpins
Scup
B
0.05
<0.01
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
0.14
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
0.02
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Impingement
1 2 3
0.02 0.03 0.03
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.06 0.08 0.08
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.05 0.07 0.07
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.03 0.03
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.03 0.03
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
4
0.02
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Entrainment
B
5.76
199.21
1,469.03
<0.01
117.38
87.31
7,067.69
4,206.13
96.58
6.28
55,820.08
<0.01
0.06
12.15
<0.01
29,170.94
521.45
464.23
431.08
549.17
44.89
1.15
3.46
110.36
17.65
<0.01
395.87
218.67
16.64
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
2.35
81.20
598.82
<0.01
47.85
35.59
2,880.99
1,714.54
39.37
2.56
22,753.85
<0.01
0.02
4.95
<0.01
11,890.91
212.56
189.23
175.72
223.86
18.30
0.47
1.41
44.99
7.19
<0.01
161.37
89.13
6.78
3 4
2.46 <0.01
85.19 <0.01
628.20 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
50.19 <0.01
37.33 <0.01
3,022.33 <0.01
1,798.65 <0.01
41.30 <0.01
2.68 <0.01
23,870.13 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
5.20 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
12,474.26 <0.01
222.99 <0.01
198.52 <0.01
184.34 <0.01
234.84 <0.01
19.20 <0.01
0.49 <0.01
1.48 <0.01
47.19 <0.01
7.55 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
169.29 <0.01
93.51 <0.01
7.12 <0.01
Atlantic (million
I&E
B
5.81
199.21
1,469.20
<0.01
117.38
87.34
7,067.69
4,206.15
96.71
6.28
55,820.11
<0.01
0.06
12.16
0.04
29,170.95
521.51
464.23
431.10
549.22
44.89
1.16
3.47
110.36
17.70
<0.01
395.88
218.67
16.65
1
0.02
<0.01
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
2.37
81.20
598.90
<0.01
47.85
35.60
2,880.99
1,714.55
39.43
2.56
22,753.86
<0.01
0.02
4.96
0.02
11,890.91
212.59
189.23
175.73
223.88
18.30
0.47
1.41
44.99
7.22
<0.01
161.37
89.14
6.79
3 4
2.49 0.02
85.19 <0.01
628.28 0.06
<0.01 <0.01
50.19 <0.01
37.35 0.01
3,022.33 <0.01
1,798.66 <0.01
41.37 0.05
2.69 <0.01
23,870.15 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
5.20 <0.01
0.02 0.01
12,474.27 <0.01
223.02 0.02
198.52 <0.01
184.35 <0.01
234.86 0.01
19.20 <0.01
0.49 <0.01
1.48 <0.01
47.19 <0.01
7.57 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
169.29 <0.01
93.51 <0.01
7.12 <0.01
March 28, 2011
C-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-4: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the North Atlantic (million A1Es per
year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Species
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Silver hake
Skates
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Tautog
Threespine
stickleback
Weakfish
White perch
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total (all
species)
B
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.01
0.01
0.09
0.90
Imp
1
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.31
ngement
2
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.44
3
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.05
0.45
4
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.31
Entrainment
B
2,379.58
11.48
568.71
<0.01
<0.01
0.06
29,299.93
0.09
342.21
0.28
2,066.54
6,688.08
142,390.18
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
969.99
4.68
231.82
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
11,943.48
0.04
139.49
0.12
842.38
2,726.25
58,042.28
3
1,017.57
4.91
243.20
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
12,529.42
0.04
146.34
0.12
883.71
2,860.00
60,889.79
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
I&E
B
2,379.58
11.48
568.75
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
29,299.94
0.11
342.21
0.30
2,066.55
6,688.17
142,391.08
1
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.31
2
969.99
4.68
231.84
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
11,943.49
0.05
139.50
0.12
842.39
2,726.30
58,042.72
3
1,017.57
4.91
243.21
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
12,529.42
0.05
146.34
0.13
883.71
2,860.04
60,890.23
4
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.31
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses. 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 = Option 4 (I for Facilities >
50 MGD). Values for all options reflect reductions in losses.
March 28, 2011
C-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.3 Mid-Atlantic
Table C-5: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic (million
per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic menhaden
Black crappie
Black drum
Blue crab
Bluefish
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Butterfish
Channel catfish
Crabs (other)
Crappie
Gunner
Freshwater drum
Menhadens
Muskellunge
Fish (other)
Red drum
Red hake
Scup
Searobin
Silver hake
Silver perch
Smallmouth bass
B
18.71
32.00
0.04
<0.01
0.31
0.01
21.72
O.01
O.01
1.44
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
1.30
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
Impingement
1 2
14.27 18.25
24.42 31.22
0.03 0.04
O.01 O.01
0.24 0.30
0.01 0.01
16.57 21.19
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
1.10 1.40
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.02
0.02 0.03
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.99 1.27
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
3 4
18.31 14.26
31.33 24.39
0.04 0.03
O.01 O.01
0.31 0.24
0.01 0.01
21.26 16.55
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
1.41 1.10
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.02 0.01
0.03 0.02
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
1.27 0.99
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
Entrainment
B 1
732.37 0.01
206.98 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
21.59 0.01
0.01 0.01
3.16 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
108.17 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
10.81 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
2
670.71
189.56
O.01
O.01
19.77
0.01
2.89
O.01
O.01
99.07
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
9.90
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
3
679.28
191.98
O.01
O.01
20.03
0.01
2.93
O.01
O.01
100.33
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
10.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
4
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
A1ES
I&E
B 1
751.07 14.27
238.98 24.42
0.05 0.03
O.01 O.01
21.90 0.24
0.01 0.01
24.88 16.57
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
109.61 1.10
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.02 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.02 0.01
0.03 0.02
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
12.10 0.99
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
2
688.96
220.78
0.04
O.01
20.08
0.01
24.08
O.01
O.01
100.47
0.01
0.01
0.02
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
11.16
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
3
697.59
223.31
0.05
O.01
20.33
0.01
24.19
O.01
O.01
101.74
0.01
0.01
0.02
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
11.29
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
4
14.26
24.39
0.03
O.01
0.24
0.01
16.55
O.01
O.01
1.10
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.99
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
March 28, 2011
C-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-5: I&E Mortality Losses at All
A1Es) Estimated Under Baseline and
In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic
Option Scenarios for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Tautog
Weakfish
White perch
Whitefish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Total (all species)
B
2.95
0.01
O.01
<0.01
0.02
0.02
O.01
1.43
2.66
0.01
O.01
0.02
50.71
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losse
Facilities > 50 MGD)
1 2
2.25 2
O.01 O
O.01 O
O.01 O
0.02 0
0.01 0
O.01 O
1.09 1
2.03 2
O.01 O
O.01 O
0.01 0
38.69 49.
s, 1 = Option 1
3
88 2.89
01 0.01
01 O.01
01 0.01
02 0.02
02 0.02
01 O.01
40 1.40
59 2.60
01 0.01
01 O.01
02 0.02
47 49.64
(I Everywhere
4
2.25
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
O.01
1.09
2.03
0.01
O.01
0.01
38.65
Entrainment
B 1 2 3
35.15 O.01 32.19 32.60
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
1.39 O.01 1.27 1.29
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01
2.71 0.01 2.48 2.51
23.88 O.01 21.87 22.15
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01
0.11 0.01 0.10 0.10
939.35 <0.01 860.27 871.26
4
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
<0.01
Region (million
I&E
B
38.10
0.01
1.40
0.01
0.02
0.02
O.01
4.14
26.53
0.01
O.01
0.12
990.06
1
2.25
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
O.01
1.09
2.03
0.01
O.01
0.01
2
35.07
0.01
1.28
0.01
0.02
0.02
O.01
3.88
24.46
0.01
O.01
0.11
38.69 909.74
, 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere),
3
35.49
0.01
1.30
0.01
0.02
0.02
O.01
3.91
24.75
0.01
O.01
0.11
920.90
4
2.25
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.01
O.01
1.09
2.03
0.01
O.01
0.01
38.65
4 = Option 4 (I for
March 28, 2011
C-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-6:
per year),
Species
Alewife
American shad
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic
menhaden
Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic (million individuals
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement Entrainment I&E
B
0.33
0.06
2.28
<0.01
70.44
Atlantic silverside 1.40
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Black crappie
Black drum
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Bluegill
Bluntnose
minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Butterfish
Carp
Chain pipefish
Channel catfish
Crabs (other)
Crappie
Gunner
Darters
Fish (other)
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Grubby
Herrings
Hogchoker
0.13
13.78
<0.01
<0.01
2.87
1.27
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5.34
<0.01
0.34
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.53
1234B12 34B12 34
0.13 0.16 0.16 0.13 6.10 <0.01 2.80 2.83 <0.01 6.44 0.13 2.96 2.99 0.13
0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 67.07 <0.01 30.71 31.11 <0.01 67.13 0.02 30.74 31.13 0.02
0.87 1.11 1.12 0.87 689.03 <0.01 315.51 319.54 <0.01 691.31 0.87 316.62 320.66 0.87
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
26.87 34.36 34.48 26.85 122.59 <0.01 56.13 56.85 <0.01 193.03 26.87 90.50 91.33 26.85
0.53 0.68 0.69 0.53 110.15 <0.01 50.44 51.08 <0.01 111.55 0.53 51.12 51.77 0.53
0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.05
5.25 6.72 6.74 5.25 98,332.37 <0.01 45,026.92 45,602.31 <0.01 98,346.15 5.25 45,033.64 45,609.05 5.25
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
1.09 1.40 1.40 1.09 3,396.61 <0.01 1,555.33 1,575.20 <0.01 3,399.48 1.09 1,556.72 1,576.60 1.09
0.48 0.62 0.62 0.48 24.27 <0.01 11.11 11.26 <0.01 25.54 0.48 11.73 11.88 0.48
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01 0.12 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
2.04 2.60 2.61 2.03 3,804.94 <0.01 1,742.30 1,764.57 <0.01 3,810.28 2.04 1,744.91 1,767.18 2.03
O.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.13 0.17 0.17 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.34 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.13
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 143.88 <0.01 65.88 66.72 <0.01 143.88 <0.01 65.88 66.72 <0.01
O.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.20 0.26 0.26 0.20 25,970.61 <0.01 11,892.08 12,044.05 <0.01 25,971.14 0.20 11,892.34 12,044.31 0.20
March 28, 2011
C-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-6: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic (million individuals
per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species B
Menhadens <0.01
Muskellunge <0.01
Northern pipefish 0.03
Rainbow smelt <0.01
Red drum 0.02
Red hake 0.07
Scup <0.01
Seaboard goby 0.02
Searobin <0.01
Shiners <0.01
Silver hake 0.02
Silver perch <0.01
Silversides <0.01
Smallmouth bass <0.01
Spot 9.17
Spotted seatrout <0.01
Striped bass 0.04
Striped killifish 0.32
Striped mullet <0.01
Suckers <0.01
Summer flounder 0.08
Sunfish <0.01
Tautog <0.01
Threespine
stickleback 0.01
Weakfish 3.31
White perch 2.81
Whitefish <0.01
Windowpane <0.01
Winter flounder 0.06
Total (all
species) 114.86
1
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3.50
<0.01
0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.26
1.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
43.81
234
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02 0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.04 0.04 0.03
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
4.47 4.49 3.49
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02 0.01
0.16 0.16 0.12
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.04 0.04 0.03
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
1.61 1.62 1.26
1.37 1.37 1.07
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.03 0.03 0.02
56.03 56.22 43.77
Entrainment
B
0.11
<0.01
10.64
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
13,691.58
<0.01
1.00
<0.01
<0.01
2.84
<0.01
232.64
<0.01
1,060.00
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
486.50
2,335.12
<0.01
<0.01
92.01
150,580.20
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
0.05
<0.01
4.87
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
6,269.45
<0.01
0.46
<0.01
<0.01
1.30
<0.01
106.53
<0.01
485.38
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
222.77
1,069.26
<0.01
<0.01
42.13
68,951.48
3 4
0.05 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
4.93 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
6,349.56 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.46 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
1.32 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
107.89 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
491.58 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
225.62 <0.01
1,082.93 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
42.67 <0.01
69,832.59 <0.01
I&E
B
0.11
<0.01
10.67
<0.01
0.02
0.07
<0.01
13,691.59
<0.01
1.00
0.02
<0.01
2.85
<0.01
241.80
<0.01
1,060.04
0.32
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
489.81
2,337.92
<0.01
0.01
92.07
150,695.05
1
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3.50
<0.01
0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.26
1.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
43.81
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses. 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 1 25 MGD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 = Option 4 (I for
reflect reductions in losses.
2
0.05
<0.01
4.89
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
6,269.46
<0.01
0.46
<0.01
<0.01
1.30
<0.01
111.00
<0.01
485.40
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
224.39
1,070.63
<0.01
<0.01
42.16
69,007.51
Facilities > 50 MGD)
3
0.05
<0.01
4.95
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
6,349.57
<0.01
0.46
<0.01
<0.01
1.32
<0.01
112.37
<0.01
491.60
0.16
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
227.24
1,084.30
<0.01
<0.01
42.70
69,888.82
Values for all
4
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3.49
<0.01
0.01
0.12
O.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.26
1.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
43.77
options
March 28, 2011
C-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.4 South Atlantic
Table C-7: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the
(million A1 Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
Atlantic menhaden
Blue crab
Crabs (other)
Drums and croakers
Flounders
Fish (other)
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Weakfish
Total (all species)
Impingement
B 1 2 3 4
21.27 13.43 18.13 18.14 13.43
1.22 0.77 1.04 1.04 0.77
0.25 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.16
0.45 0.29 0.39 0.39 0.29
O.01 O.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 O.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01
0.28 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.18
0.20 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.12
O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01 O.01
22.50 14.20 19.18 19.19 14.20
Entrainment
B
9.94
0.96
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.80
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.10
0.01
O.01
O.01
10.91
1
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
<0.01
2 3
8.29 8.
0.80 0.
0.02 0.
0.01 0.
0.02 0.
0.67 0.
O.01 <0.
0.01 0.
O.01 <0.
0.01 0.
0.08 0.
0.01 0.
O.01 <0.
O.01 <0.
9.10 9.
31
81
03
01
02
67
01
01
01
01
08
01
01
01
11
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses, 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities
Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MOD)
4
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
<0.01
South Atlantic
Mortality
I&E
B
31.22
2.19
0.28
0.45
0.02
0.82
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.28
0.29
0.01
O.01
O.01
33.40
> 125 MOD), 3 =
1
13.43
0.77
0.16
0.29
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.18
0.12
0.01
O.01
O.01
14.20
2
26.43
1.85
0.24
0.39
0.02
0.69
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.24
0.25
0.01
O.01
O.01
28.28
3
26.45
1.85
0.24
0.39
0.02
0.69
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.24
0.25
0.01
O.01
O.01
28.30
4
13.43
0.77
0.16
0.29
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.18
0.12
0.01
O.01
O.01
14.20
Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 =
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
C-10
-------
Table C-8: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the South Atlantic (million
individuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
Species
Atlantic
menhaden
Atlantic
silverside
Bay anchovy
Blue crab
Crabs (other)
Drums and
croakers
Fish (other)
Flounders
Gobies
Herrings
Pinfish
Scaled sardine
Shrimp (other)
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Weakfish
Total (all
species)
B
0.82
0.13
25.54
0.90
<0.01
0.22
1.67
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.03
8.90
0.45
0.72
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
39.42
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E MortE
options reflect reductions in losses
1
0.26
0.04
8.06
0.28
<0.01
0.07
0.53
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.81
0.14
0.23
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
12.44
lity losses.
2
0.35
0.05
10.89
0.38
<0.01
0.09
0.71
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
3.79
0.19
0.31
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
16.80
1 = Option 1
3 4
0.35 0.26
0.05 0.04
10.89 8.06
0.38 0.28
<0.01 <0.01
0.09 0.07
0.71 0.53
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 <0.01
3.79 2.81
0.19 0.14
0.31 0.23
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.01
16.81 12.44
Entrainment
B 1
157.54 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
2,402.75 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
667.97 <0.01
2,376.84 <0.01
272.99 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
3,576.38 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
71.34 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
1,040.49 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
2,152.83 <0.01
35.30 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
100.99 <0.01
12,855.43 <0.01
(I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E
2
65.70
<0.01
1,002.00
<0.01
278.56
991.19
113.84
<0.01
1,491.43
<0.01
29.75
<0.01
433.91
<0.01
897.77
14.72
<0.01
42.12
5,360.98
3
65.81
<0.01
1,003.65
<0.01
279.02
992.83
114.03
<0.01
1,493.89
<0.01
29.80
<0.01
434.62
<0.01
899.25
14.75
<0.01
42.19
5,369.82
for Facilities > 125 MOD), 3 =
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
I&E
B
158.36
0.13
2,428.30
0.90
667.97
2,377.05
274.66
<0.01
3,576.38
0.01
71.34
0.03
1,049.39
0.45
2,153.54
35.30
<0.01
101.04
12,894.86
Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere)
1
0.26
0.04
8.06
0.28
<0.01
0.07
0.53
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.81
0.14
0.23
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
12.44
4 = Option
2
66.05
0.05
1,012.88
0.38
278.56
991.28
114.55
<0.01
1,491.43
<0.01
29.75
0.01
437.70
0.19
898.08
14.72
<0.01
42.14
5,377.79
4 (I for Facilities
3
66.15
0.05
1,014.54
0.38
279.02
992.92
114.74
<0.01
1,493.89
<0.01
29.80
0.01
438.42
0.19
899.56
14.75
<0.01
42.20
5,386.64
> 50 MGD). V
4
0.26
0.04
8.06
0.28
<0.01
0.07
0.53
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2.81
0.14
0.23
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
12.44
ilues for all
March 28, 2011
C-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.5 Gulf of Mexico
Table C-9: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Gulf of Mexico (million
A1 Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Blue crab
Leather] acket
Mackerels
Menhadens
Fish (other)
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Total (all species)
B
5.63
39.42
1.65
0.01
5.66
0.69
0.01
4.95
1.48
0.03
21.44
0.08
O.01
0.94
O.01
0.28
0.38
1.26
0.19
0.37
45.05
1 2
4.31 5.59
30.19 39.15
1.27 1.64
0.01 0.01
4.33 5.62
0.53 0.68
0.01 0.01
3.79 4.92
1.14 1.47
0.02 0.03
16.42 21.29
0.06 0.08
O.01 O.01
0.72 0.93
O.01 O.01
0.22 0.28
0.29 0.38
0.96 1.25
0.14 0.18
0.28 0.37
34.50 44.74
3
5.60
39.18
1.64
0.01
5.62
0.69
0.01
4.92
1.47
0.03
21.31
0.08
O.01
0.93
O.01
0.28
0.38
1.25
0.19
0.37
44.78
4
4.28
29.96
1.26
0.01
4.30
0.52
0.01
3.76
1.13
0.02
16.30
0.06
O.01
0.71
O.01
0.21
0.29
0.96
0.14
0.28
34.24
Entrainment
B 1
42.12 O.01
48.47 0.01
O.01 O.01
5.93 0.01
19.03 O.01
0.03 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.05 O.01
0.16 0.01
1.07 O.01
13.40 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.36 0.01
0.03 O.01
5.11 0.01
0.09 0.01
0.15 O.01
0.41 0.01
2.62 O.01
90.59 <0.01
2
28.49
32.79
O.01
4.01
12.87
0.02
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.72
9.07
0.01
O.01
0.25
0.02
3.46
0.06
0.10
0.28
1.77
61.28
3 4
28.56 O.01
32.87 0.01
O.01 O.01
4.02 0.01
12.90 O.01
0.02 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.03 O.01
0.11 0.01
0.73 O.01
9.09 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.25 0.01
0.02 O.01
3.47 0.01
0.06 0.01
0.10 O.01
0.28 0.01
1.78 O.01
61.43 <0.01
I&E
B 1
47.75 4.31
87.89 30.19
1.65 1.27
5.94 0.01
24.68 4.33
0.72 0.53
0.01 0.01
5.00 3.79
1.64 1.14
1.10 0.02
34.84 16.42
0.10 0.06
O.01 O.01
1.30 0.72
0.04 O.01
5.40 0.22
0.47 0.29
1.41 0.96
0.60 0.14
2.99 0.28
135.64 34.50
2
34.09
71.94
1.64
4.02
18.49
0.71
0.01
4.95
1.58
0.75
30.36
0.09
O.01
1.18
0.02
3.74
0.44
1.35
0.47
2.14
106.02
3
34.16
72.05
1.64
4.03
18.53
0.71
0.01
4.96
1.58
0.76
30.40
0.09
O.01
1.18
0.02
3.75
0.44
1.35
0.47
2.14
106.21
4
4.28
29.96
1.26
0.01
4.30
0.52
0.01
3.76
1.13
0.02
16.30
0.06
O.01
0.71
O.01
0.21
0.29
0.96
0.14
0.28
34.24
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses, 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 =
Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD)
March 28, 2011
C-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-10: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Gulf of Mexico (million
individuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
Species
Atlantic croaker
Bay anchovy
Black drum
Blue crab
Chain pipefish
Fish (other)
Gobies
Gulfkillifish
Hogchoker
Leather] acket
Mackerels
Menhadens
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Red drum
Scaled sardine
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Spotted
seatrout
Stone crab
Striped mullet
Tidewater
silverside
Total (all
species)
B 1
15.45 5.92
4.33 1.66
0.02 <0.01
11.26 4.31
0.07 0.03
7.43 2.85
0.14 0.05
0.04 0.01
0.15 0.06
0.95 0.36
<0.01 <0.01
16.06 6.15
0.12 0.05
43.73 16.74
0.16 0.06
0.32 0.12
<0.01 <0.01
1.18 0.45
<0.01 <0.01
0.45 0.17
1.39 0.53
1.20 0.46
0.27 0.10
0.45 0.17
0.30 0.11
105.48 40.39
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses
reflect reductions in losses.
2
7.67
2.15
0.01
5.59
0.03
3.69
0.07
0.02
0.07
0.47
<0.01
7.98
0.06
21.71
0.08
0.16
<0.01
0.58
<0.01
0.23
0.69
0.60
0.14
0.22
0.15
52.38
3 4
7.68 5.87
2.15 1.65
0.01 <0.01
5.60 4.28
0.03 0.03
3.69 2.82
0.07 0.05
0.02 0.01
0.07 0.06
0.47 0.36
<0.01 <0.01
7.98 6.10
0.06 0.04
21.73 16.62
0.08 0.06
0.16 0.12
<0.01 <0.01
0.58 0.45
<0.01 <0.01
0.23 0.17
0.69 0.53
0.60 0.46
0.14 0.10
0.23 0.17
0.15 0.11
52.42 40.09
Entrainment
B
162.35
301,092.72
96,328.24
280.96
2.13
9,784.29
3,407.68
<0.01
198.72
794.02
<0.01
269.13
107.79
126.32
1.10
2,962.36
<0.01
68.82
382.88
88,985.72
34.75
5,338.00
28,711.01
15.17
34.36
539,088.54
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
54.91
101,837.44
32,580.73
95.03
0.72
3,309.30
1,152.57
<0.01
67.21
268.56
<0.01
91.03
36.46
42.73
0.37
1,001.95
<0.01
23.28
129.50
30,097.30
11.75
1,805.45
9,710.82
5.13
11.62
182,333.86
1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 1 25 MGD),
3 4
55.05 <0.01
102,087.75 <0.01
32,660.81 <0.01
95.26 <0.01
0.72 <0.01
3,317.44 <0.01
1,155.40 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
67.38 <0.01
269.22 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
91.25 <0.01
36.55 <0.01
42.83 <0.01
0.37 <0.01
1,004.41 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
23.33 <0.01
129.82 <0.01
30,171.28 <0.01
11.78 <0.01
1,809.89 <0.01
9,734.68 <0.01
5.14 <0.01
11.65 <0.01
182,782.02 <0.01
3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality
I&E
B
177.81
301,097.05
96,328.26
292.22
2.19
9,791.72
3,407.82
0.04
198.87
794.97
<0.01
285.19
107.91
170.05
1.26
2,962.69
<0.01
70.00
382.88
88,986.17
36.14
5,339.20
28,711.29
15.62
34.66
539,194.01
Everywhere), 4 =
1
5.92
1.66
<0.01
4.31
0.03
2.85
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.36
<0.01
6.15
0.05
16.74
0.06
0.12
<0.01
0.45
<0.01
0.17
0.53
0.46
0.10
0.17
0.11
40.39
2
62.59
101,839.59
32,580.74
100.62
0.75
3,312.99
1,152.64
0.02
67.28
269.03
<0.01
99.00
36.52
64.44
0.45
1,002.11
<0.01
23.86
129.50
30,097.53
12.44
1,806.05
9,710.95
5.36
11.77
182,386.23
Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD)
3 4
62.73 5.87
102,089.90 1.65
32,660.83 <0.01
100.86 4.28
0.75 0.03
3,321.13 2.82
1,155.47 0.05
0.02 0.01
67.45 0.06
269.69 0.36
<0.01 <0.01
99.23 6.10
36.61 0.04
64.56 16.62
0.45 0.06
1,004.57 0.12
<0.01 <0.01
23.92 0.45
129.82 <0.01
30,171.50 0.17
12.47 0.53
1,810.49 0.46
9,734.82 0.10
5.37 0.17
11.80 0.11
182,834.44 40.09
Values for all options
March 28, 2011
C-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.6 Great Lakes
Table C-11: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses
(million A1Es per year), and I&E Mortality
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Channel catfish
Crappie
Freshwater drum
Muskellunge
Fish (other)
Rainbow smelt
Salmon
Sculpins
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Total (all species)
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E
= Option 4 (I for Facilities >
B 1
38.62 33
5.51 4
O.01 <0
0.01 0
O.01 O
0.01 0
O.01 O
0.01 0
O.01 O
0.02 0
O.01 O
0.06 0
0.37 0
O.01 O
0.01 0
O.01 O
4.49 3
0.02 0
0.01 0
0.05 0
0.23 0
0.26 0
44.13 38
Mortality losses, 1
50 MOD)
at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in
Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources
Impingement
2
46 38.20
77 5.45
01 O.01
01 0.01
01 O.01
01 0.01
01 O.01
01 0.01
01 O.01
02 0.02
01 O.01
05 0.06
32 0.36
01 O.01
01 0.01
01 O.01
89 4.45
02 0.02
01 0.01
04 0.05
20 0.22
23 0.26
23 43.65
3 4
38.29 33.17
5.46 4.73
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.02 0.02
O.01 O.01
0.06 0.05
0.36 0.32
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
4.46 3.86
0.02 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.05 0.04
0.23 0.20
0.26 0.22
43.75 37.91
Entrainment
B
7.84
1.53
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.05
O.01
0.01
0.07
O.01
0.02
O.01
0.02
1.18
0.01
0.09
0.01
0.07
9.37
1
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
<0.01
2 3
6.26 6.36
1.22 1.24
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.04 0.04
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.05 0.05
O.01 O.01
0.02 0.02
O.01 O.01
0.02 0.02
0.95 0.96
O.01 O.01
0.08 0.08
0.01 0.01
0.05 0.05
7.48 7.60
4
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
<0.01
the Great Lakes
of Mortality
I&E
B 1
46.46 33.46
7.04 4.77
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.02 O.01
0.07 0.02
O.01 O.01
0.06 0.05
0.44 0.32
O.01 O.01
0.03 0.01
O.01 O.01
4.52 3.89
1.20 0.02
0.01 0.01
0.14 0.04
0.23 0.20
0.33 0.23
53.50 38.23
2
44.46
6.67
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.06
O.01
0.06
0.42
O.01
0.02
O.01
4.46
0.96
0.01
0.12
0.22
0.31
51.13
3
44.64
6.70
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
0.02
0.06
O.01
0.06
0.42
O.01
0.02
O.01
4.47
0.98
0.01
0.13
0.23
0.31
51.35
4
33.17
4.73
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.01
O.01
0.02
O.01
0.05
0.32
O.01
0.01
O.01
3.86
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.20
0.22
37.91
= Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MOD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4
March 28, 2011
C-14
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TableC-12:
individuals
Species
Alewife
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluntnose minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Chinook salmon
Crappie
Darters
Emerald shiner
Fish (other)
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Golden redhorse
Herrings
Logperch
Muskellunge
Rainbow smelt
Salmon
Sculpins
Shiners
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spotted sucker
Baseline
per year),
B
28.95
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.40
0.19
0.07
14.94
<0.01
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
0.51
<0.01
<0.01
0.57
<0.01
4.07
<0.01
I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
1 2
12.54 14.32
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.17 0.20
0.08 0.09
0.03 0.03
6.47 7.39
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.10 0.11
<0.01 <0.01
0.22 0.25
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.25 0.28
<0.01 <0.01
1.76 2.01
<0.01 <0.01
3 4
14.35 12.44
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.20 0.17
0.10 0.08
0.03 0.03
7.40 6.42
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.11 0.09
<0.01 <0.01
0.25 0.22
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.28 0.24
<0.01 <0.01
2.02 1.75
<0.01 <0.01
Entrainment
B
38,098.88
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
13.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.53
3,239.89
0.20
<0.01
0.90
2.87
47.50
40,037.77
221.20
3,846.52
<0.01
11.15
10.26
<0.01
74.33
6.16
3.50
132.24
<0.01
150.69
<0.01
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
15,213.50
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5.20
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
1,293.74
0.08
<0.01
0.36
1.15
18.97
15,987.73
88.33
1,535.98
<0.01
4.45
4.10
<0.01
29.68
2.46
1.40
52.80
<0.01
60.17
<0.01
3
15,443.27
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5.27
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
1,313.28
0.08
<0.01
0.36
1.16
19.25
16,229.19
89.66
1,559.17
<0.01
4.52
4.16
<0.01
30.13
2.50
1.42
53.60
<0.01
61.08
<0.01
4 B
<0.01 38,127.84
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 13.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 0.53
<0.01 3,239.94
<0.01 0.20
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 0.90
<0.01 2.88
<0.01 47.90
<0.01 40,037.96
<0.01 221.27
<0.01 3,861.45
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 11.15
<0.01 10.48
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 74.84
<0.01 6.16
<0.01 3.50
<0.01 132.81
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 154.75
<0.01 <0.01
1
12.54
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.17
0.08
0.03
6.47
<0.01
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
0.22
<0.01
<0.01
0.25
<0.01
1.76
<0.01
Lakes (million
I&E
2
15,227.82
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
5.20
<0.01
<0.01
0.21
1,293.76
0.08
<0.01
0.36
1.15
19.17
15,987.82
88.36
1,543.36
<0.01
4.45
4.20
<0.01
29.93
2.46
1.40
53.09
<0.01
62.18
<0.01
3 4
15,457.62 12.44
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
5.28 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.22 <0.01
1,313.30 0.02
0.08 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.37 <0.01
1.17 <0.01
19.45 0.17
16,229.28 0.08
89.70 0.03
1,566.58 6.42
<0.01 <0.01
4.52 <0.01
4.27 0.09
<0.01 <0.01
30.38 0.22
2.50 <0.01
1.42 <0.01
53.88 0.24
<0.01 <0.01
63.10 1.75
<0.01 <0.01
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
C-15
-------
Table C-12: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes (million
individuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
Suckers
Sunfish
Threespine
stickleback
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Total (all species)
B
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
0.10
0.71
50.99
1
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.04
0.31
22.09
2
<0.01
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.05
0.35
25.22
3 4
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.04 0.03
<0.01 <0.01
0.03 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
0.05 0.04
0.35 0.31
25.28 21.90
Entrainment
B
2.31
7.03
0.69
<0.01
38.35
<0.01
0.17
30.26
85,976.38
1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
0.92
2.81
0.28
<0.01
15.31
<0.01
0.07
12.08
34,331.75
3
0.94
2.85
0.28
<0.01
15.54
<0.01
0.07
12.27
34,850.27
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
I&E
B
2.32
7.03
0.76
<0.01
38.40
<0.01
0.27
30.98
86,027.37
1
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.04
0.31
22.09
2
0.93
2.81
0.31
<0.01
15.34
<0.01
0.12
12.44
34,356.97
3
0.94
2.85
0.32
<0.01
15.57
<0.01
0.12
12.62
34,875.54
4
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.04
0.31
21.90
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses. 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 = Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD). Values
for all options reflect reductions in losses.
March 28, 2011
C-16
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.7 Inland
Table C-13: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region (million
A1 Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
American shad
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Channel catfish
Crappie
Freshwater drum
Menhadens
Muskellunge
Fish (other)
Rainbow smelt
Salmon
Sauger
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Striped bass
Sturgeons
Sunfish
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Total (all species)
B
549.42
34.17
0.05
0.18
0.07
2.11
0.03
0.02
1.63
0.11
1.19
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.14
O.01
0.10
0.24
0.01
0.16
O.01
19.92
0.06
2.35
2.58
O.01
3.24
583.59
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses,
Facilities > 50 MGD)
1 2
459.64 531.05
28.59 33.03
0.04 0.05
0.15 0.18
0.06 0.06
1.76 2.04
0.02 0.03
0.02 0.02
1.36 1.58
0.09 0.11
1.00 1.15
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.01 0.01
0.12 0.13
O.01 O.01
0.08 0.09
0.20 0.23
0.01 0.01
0.13 0.15
O.01 O.01
16.66 19.25
0.05 0.05
1.97 2.27
2.16 2.49
O.01 O.01
2.71 3.13
488.22 564.08
3
536.22
33.35
0.05
0.18
0.06
2.06
0.03
0.02
1.59
0.11
1.16
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.14
O.01
0.09
0.23
0.01
0.15
O.01
19.44
0.05
2 29
2.52
O.01
3.16
569.57
1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 =
4
448.42
27.89
0.04
0.15
0.05
1.72
0.02
0.02
1.33
0.09
0.97
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.11
O.01
0.08
0.19
0.01
0.13
O.01
16.25
0.05
1.92
2.10
O.01
2.64
476.31
Entrainment
B 1
164.29 0.01
131.61 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.50 O.01
0.18 O.01
0.04 0.01
O.01 O.01
1.01 O.01
1.40 O.01
6.31 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.06 0.01
0.21 0.01
O.01 O.01
1.75 O.01
3.70 0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01
0.02 O.01
110.06 0.01
0.68 0.01
2.66 0.01
0.55 O.01
O.01 O.01
2.44 O.01
295.89 <0.01
2
134.24
107.54
O.01
O.01
0.41
0.15
0.04
O.01
0.82
1.14
5.16
O.01
O.01
0.05
0.17
O.01
1.43
3.03
0.01
O.01
0.02
89.93
0.56
2.18
0.45
O.01
1.99
241.78
Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities >
3
140.41
112.48
O.01
O.01
0.43
0.15
0.04
O.01
0.86
1.20
5.40
O.01
O.01
0.05
0.18
O.01
1.49
3.16
0.01
O.01
0.02
94.07
0.58
2.28
0.47
O.01
2.08
252.90
125 MGD),
4
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
O.01
O.01
0.01
<0.01
I&E
B
713.71
165.78
0.05
0.19
0.57
2.29
0.07
0.03
2.64
1.51
7.51
O.01
O.01
0.07
0.35
O.01
1.84
3.94
0.01
0.16
0.03
129.98
0.74
5.01
3.13
O.01
5.67
879.49
123
459.64 665.29 676.63
28.59 140.57 145.83
0.04 0.05 0.05
0.15 0.18 0.18
0.06 0.47 0.49
1.76 2.19 2.21
0.02 0.06 0.06
0.02 0.03 0.03
1.36 2.40 2.45
0.09 1.25 1.31
1.00 6.31 6.56
O.01 O.01 O.01
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.01 0.06 0.06
0.12 0.30 0.31
O.01 O.01 O.01
0.08 1.52 1.59
0.20 3.25 3.39
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.13 0.15 0.15
O.01 0.02 0.02
16.66 109.18 113.51
0.05 0.61 0.64
1.97 4.45 4.57
2.16 2.94 2.99
O.01 O.01 O.01
2.71 5.12 5.24
488.22 805.86 822.46
4
448.42
27.89
0.04
0.15
0.05
1.72
0.02
0.02
1.33
0.09
0.97
O.01
O.01
0.01
0.11
O.01
0.08
0.19
0.01
0.13
O.01
16.25
0.05
1.92
2.10
O.01
2.64
476.31
3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 = Option 4 (I for
March 28, 2011
C-17
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TableC-14:
individuals
Species
Alewife
American shad
Bay anchovy
Baseline
per year),
B
42.79
19.04
0.03
Bigmouth buffalo 0.04
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Bluegill
Bluntnose
minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Burbot
Carp
Channel catfish
Crappie
Darters
Emerald shiner
Fish (other)
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
Golden redhorse
Hogchoker
Logperch
Menhadens
Muskellunge
Rainbow smelt
River carpsucker
Salmon
Sauger
0.34
0.35
<0.01
185.69
35.57
0.15
0.05
0.04
<0.01
0.37
2.03
0.59
0.99
3.99
83.22
4.58
311.11
<0.01
0.07
0.03
1.00
<0.01
0.02
0.19
0.03
<0.01
0.23
I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Impingement
1234
17.90 20.68 20.88 17.46
7.96 9.20 9.29 7.77
0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.14 0.16 0.16 0.14
0.14 0.17 0.17 0.14
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
77.67 89.74 90.62 75.78
14.88 17.19 17.36 14.51
0.06 0.07 0.07 0.06
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.15 0.18 0.18 0.15
0.85 0.98 0.99 0.83
0.25 0.29 0.29 0.24
0.42 0.48 0.49 0.41
1.67 1.93 1.95 1.63
34.81 40.22 40.61 33.96
1.91 2.21 2.23 1.87
130.14 150.36 151.82 126.96
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
0.42 0.48 0.49 0.41
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01
0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08
0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.09 0.11 0.11 0.09
Entrainment
B
1.29
O.01
<0.01
5.38
0.04
24.81
<0.01
1,750.15
48.04
4,918.57
0.35
3.68
16.04
4,209.21
209.76
67.69
161.74
724.99
68,076.66
3,010.39
19,070.18
81.15
2.86
O.01
32.30
O.01
<0.01
59.23
5.15
<0.01
314.24
1 2
O.01 0.53
<0.01 O.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 2.20
O.01 0.02
<0.01 10.14
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 715.03
<0.01 19.63
O.01 2,009.49
<0.01 0.14
<0.01 1.50
<0.01 6.55
<0.01 1,719.68
O.01 85.70
<0.01 27.66
<0.01 66.08
<0.01 296.20
<0.01 27,812.84
O.01 1,229.90
<0.01 7,791.16
<0.01 33.15
<0.01 1.17
<0.01 O.01
O.01 13.20
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 O.01
<0.01 24.20
<0.01 2.10
O.01 <0.01
<0.01 128.39
3
0.55
<0.01
<0.01
2.30
0.02
10.60
<0.01
747.92
20.53
2,101.92
0.15
1.57
6.85
1,798.78
89.64
28.93
69.12
309.82
29,092.11
1,286.47
8,149.52
34.68
1.22
O.01
13.80
<0.01
<0.01
25.31
2.20
<0.01
134.29
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Region (million
I&E
B
44.07
19.04
0.03
5.42
0.38
25.16
O.01
1,935.85
83.61
4,918.72
0.40
3.72
16.04
4,209.58
211.80
68.28
162.74
728.98
68,159.89
3,014.97
19,381.30
81.15
2.92
0.03
33.30
O.01
0.03
59.43
5.18
<0.01
314.47
1
17.90
7.96
0.01
0.02
0.14
0.14
O.01
77.67
14.88
0.06
0.02
0.02
O.01
0.15
0.85
0.25
0.42
1.67
34.81
1.91
130.14
O.01
0.03
0.01
0.42
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.01
O.01
0.09
2
21.20
9.20
0.01
2.22
0.18
10.30
O.01
804.77
36.82
2,009.57
0.17
1.52
6.55
1,719.86
86.68
27.94
66.56
298.12
27,853.06
1,232.11
7,941.52
33.15
1.20
0.01
13.68
O.01
0.01
24.29
2.12
<0.01
128.49
3
21.43
9.29
0.02
2.32
0.18
10.77
O.01
838.53
37.89
2,101.99
0.17
1.59
6.86
1,798.96
90.63
29.22
69.60
311.77
29,132.72
1,288.70
8,301.34
34.68
1.25
0.01
14.29
O.01
0.01
25.41
2.22
<0.01
134.40
4
17.46
7.77
0.01
0.02
0.14
0.14
<0.01
75.78
14.51
0.06
0.02
0.02
<0.01
0.15
0.83
0.24
0.41
1.63
33.96
1.87
126.96
<0.01
0.03
0.01
0.41
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.01
<0.01
0.09
March 28, 2011
C-18
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
TableC-14:
individuals
Baseline
per year),
I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region (million
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
Shiners
Silversides
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spotted sucker
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Sturgeons
Suckers
Sunfish
Three spine
stickleback
Walleye
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Yellow Perch
Total (all
species)
B
3.41
0.04
1.52
0.14
<0.01
<0.01
1.64
<0.01
<0.01
0.16
6.38
<0.01
0.15
2.63
3.87
<0.01
8.88
721.46
1 2
1.43 1.65
0.02 0.02
0.64 0.74
0.06 0.07
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.69 0.79
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.07 0.08
2.67 3.08
<0.01 <0.01
0.06 0.07
1.10 1.27
1.62 1.87
<0.01 <0.01
3.71 4.29
301.78 348.67
3
1.66
0.02
0.74
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.80
<0.01
<0.01
0.08
3.11
<0.01
0.07
1.28
1.89
<0.01
4.33
352.06
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses. 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 =
reductions in losses.
4
1.39
0.02
0.62
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.67
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
2.60
<0.01
0.06
1.07
1.58
<0.01
3.62
294.41
Entrainment
B
296.49
46.52
0.54
54.51
O.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.46
4,342.48
648.07
<0.01
169.80
1,067.79
660.65
0.75
1,100.04
111,183.92
1
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities >
2 34
121.13 126.70 <0.01
19.00 19.88 O.01
0.22 0.23 <0.01
22.27 23.30 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
O.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.59 0.62 O.01
1,774.13 1,855.73 <0.01
264.77 276.95 <0.01
O.01 <0.01 <0.01
69.37 72.56 <0.01
436.25 456.31 <0.01
269.91 282.33 O.01
0.31 0.32 <0.01
449.42 470.10 <0.01
45,424.39 47,513.71 <0.01
I&E
B 1
299.90 1.43
46.56 0.02
2.06 0.64
54.65 0.06
<0.01 O.01
O.01 <0.01
1.64 0.69
<0.01 <0.01
1.46 O.01
4,342.64 0.07
654.45 2.67
O.01 <0.01
169.95 0.06
1,070.42 1.10
664.53 1.62
0.75 O.01
1,108.92 3.71
111,905.38 301.78
125 MOD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 = Option 4 (I for Fadlitie
2
122.78
19.02
0.96
22 34
<0.01
<0.01
0.79
<0.01
0.60
1,774.21
267.85
O.01
69.45
437.52
271.78
0.31
453.71
45,773.07
3
128.37
19.90
0.97
23.36
<0.01
<0.01
0.80
<0.01
0.62
1,855.81
280.06
O.01
72.64
457.60
284.22
0.32
474.43
47,865.77
4
1.39
0.02
0.62
0.06
<0.01
<0.01
0.67
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
2.60
<0.01
0.06
1.07
1.58
<0.01
3.62
294.41
s > 50 MGD). Values for all options reflect
March 28, 2011
C-19
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
C.8 National Estimates
Table C-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally (million A1Es per
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Species
All forage species
All harvested species
Alewife
American plaice
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic mackerel
Atlantic menhaden
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Black drum
Blue crab
Bluefish
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Butterfish
Cabezon
California halibut
California scorpionfish
Channel catfish
Crabs (other)
Sea Basses
Shrimp (other)
Crappie
Gunner
B
634.40
113.00
0.04
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
1.97
<0.01
<0.01
21.97
0.18
0.07
0.01
7.55
<0.01
2.11
0.03
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.65
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
Impingement
1 2
525.66 611.97
89.31 110.56
0.03 0.04
<0.01 <0.01
0.04 0.05
<0.01 <0.01
1.50 1.95
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
16.73 21.40
0.15 0.18
0.06 0.06
0.01 0.01
5.72 7.41
<0.01 <0.01
1.76 2.04
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
1.38 1.60
0.07 0.09
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.09 0.11
<0.01 <0.01
3 4
617.31 514.11
111.04 88.31
0.04 0.03
<0.01 <0.01
0.05 0.04
<0.01 <0.01
1.95 1.49
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
21.48 16.71
0.18 0.15
0.06 0.05
0.01 0.01
7.42 5.68
<0.01 <0.01
2.06 1.72
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
1.61 1.35
0.09 0.07
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.11 0.09
<0.01 <0.01
Entrainment
B 1
1020.37 <0.01
421.14 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 <0.01
21.59 <0.01
0.12 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
3.23 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.50 <0.01
5.93 <0.01
127.20 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.18 <0.01
0.06 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.06 <0.01
0.23 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
1.01 <0.01
7.82 <0.01
2.83 <0.01
0.63 <0.01
1.42 <0.01
4.26 <0.01
2 3
900.67 918.13
358.35 367.07
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01
19.77 20.03
0.10 0.11
0.02 0.02
2.95 2.99
<0.01 <0.01
0.41 0.43
4.01 4.02
111.94 113.23
<0.01 <0.01
0.15 0.15
0.05 0.05
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.05 0.05
0.20 0.21
<0.01 <0.01
0.82 0.86
6.66 6.97
2.41 2.52
0.53 0.56
1.16 1.21
3.47 3.64
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
year),
I&E
B
1654.78
534.15
0.05
<0.01
0.06
0.01
23.56
0.13
0.02
25.20
0.19
0.57
5.94
134.75
<0.01
2.29
0.09
0.03
<0.01
0.06
0.23
<0.01
2.66
7.91
2.83
0.63
1.53
4.26
1
525.66
89.31
0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
1.50
<0.01
<0.01
16.73
0.15
0.06
0.01
5.72
<0.01
1.76
0.03
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.38
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
2
1512.64
468.91
0.04
<0.01
0.06
0.01
21.72
0.11
0.02
24.35
0.18
0.47
4.02
119.34
<0.01
2.19
0.08
0.03
<0.01
0.05
0.20
<0.01
2.42
6.75
2.41
0.54
1.27
3.47
3
1535.44
478.11
0.05
<0.01
0.06
0.01
21.98
0.11
0.02
24.47
0.18
0.49
4.03
120.65
<0.01
2.21
0.08
0.03
<0.01
0.05
0.21
<0.01
2.48
7.06
2.53
0.57
1.32
3.64
4
514.11
88.31
0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.01
1.49
<0.01
<0.01
16.71
0.15
0.05
0.01
5.68
<0.01
1.72
0.03
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
1.35
0.07
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
<0.01
March 28, 2011
C-20
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally (million
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
Drams and croakers
Dungeness crab
Flounders
Freshwater dram
Leather] acket
Mackerels
Menhadens
Muskellunge
Fish (other)
Northern anchovy
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Pollock
Rainbow smelt
Red dram
Red hake
Rockfishes
Salmon
Sauger
Sculpins
Scup
Sea basses
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver hake
Silver perch
Skates
B
0.07
<0.01
0.01
1.21
0.69
<0.01
4.95
<0.01
2.87
0.34
0.03
21.44
<0.01
0.51
0.09
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
0.10
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.94
<0.01
<0.01
0.56
<0.01
1
0.05
<0.01
0.01
1.01
0.53
<0.01
3.79
<0.01
2.20
0.30
0.02
16.42
<0.01
0.44
0.07
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.72
<0.01
<0.01
0.39
<0.01
2 3
0.07 0.07
<0.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01
1.17 1.18
0.68 0.69
<0.01 <0.01
4.92 4.92
<0.01 <0.01
2.82 2.83
0.34 0.34
0.03 0.03
21.29 21.31
<0.01 <0.01
0.50 0.50
0.09 0.09
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
0.09 0.09
0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.93 0.93
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.52 0.52
<0.01 <0.01
4
0.05
<0.01
0.01
0.99
0.52
<0.01
3.76
<0.01
2.19
0.29
0.02
16.30
<0.01
0.43
0.07
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.71
<0.01
<0.01
0.39
<0.01
Entrainment
B 1 2 3
1.03 <0.01 0.86 0.87
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.10 <0.01 0.08 0.09
6.36 <0.01 5.20 5.44
0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.05 <0.01 0.04 0.04
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
11.04 <0.01 10.06 10.19
0.03 <0.01 0.03 0.03
1.08 <0.01 0.73 0.73
13.40 <0.01 9.07 9.09
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.28 <0.01 0.22 0.23
0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
6.33 <0.01 5.39 5.64
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
1.75 <0.01 1.43 1.49
2.39 <0.01 1.96 2.06
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.38 <0.01 0.26 0.26
0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
5.11 <0.01 3.46 3.47
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
A1Es per
year),
I&E
B
1.10
<0.01
0.11
7.57
0.72
<0.01
5.01
<0.01
13.90
0.38
1.11
34.84
<0.01
0.78
0.11
<0.01
6.34
<0.01
1.84
2.41
<0.01
<0.01
1.31
0.04
<0.01
5.68
<0.01
1
0.05
<0.01
0.01
1.01
0.53
<0.01
3.79
<0.01
2.20
0.30
0.02
16.42
<0.01
0.44
0.07
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.72
<0.01
<0.01
0.39
<0.01
2
0.93
<0.01
0.10
6.37
0.71
<0.01
4.96
<0.01
12.88
0.37
0.76
30.36
<0.01
0.72
0.10
<0.01
5.41
<0.01
1.52
1.98
<0.01
<0.01
1.19
0.02
<0.01
3.98
<0.01
3
0.94
<0.01
0.10
6.62
0.71
<0.01
4.96
<0.01
13.02
0.37
0.76
30.40
<0.01
0.73
0.10
<0.01
5.66
<0.01
1.59
2.08
<0.01
<0.01
1.19
0.02
<0.01
3.99
<0.01
4
0.05
<0.01
0.01
0.99
0.52
<0.01
3.76
<0.01
2.19
0.29
0.02
16.30
<0.01
0.43
0.07
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
0.08
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.71
<0.01
<0.01
0.39
<0.01
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
C-21
-------
Table C-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In
and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios
scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally (million A1Es per year),
Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
Smallmouth bass
Smelts
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Stone crab
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Sturgeons
Summer flounder
Sunfish
Surfperches
Tautog
Walleye
Weakfish
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Yellow perch
Total (all species)
B
0.24
4.50
3.52
1.26
0.19
0.17
0.37
<0.01
0.02
19.95
0.11
<0.01
0.06
1.44
2.40
5.24
0.23
<0.01
0.04
3.50
747.40
1
0.20
3.90
2.66
0.97
0.14
0.14
0.28
<0.01
0.02
16.69
0.10
<0.01
0.05
1.10
2.01
4.18
0.20
<0.01
0.03
2.93
614.97
2
0.23
4.45
3.42
1.26
0.19
0.16
0.37
<0.01
0.02
19.29
0.11
<0.01
0.05
1.40
2.32
5.08
0.23
<0.01
0.04
3.39
722.53
3 4
0.23 0.19
4.46 3.87
3.43 2.66
1.26 0.96
0.19 0.14
0.16 0.14
0.37 0.28
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 0.02
19.47 16.29
0.11 0.10
<0.01 <0.01
0.05 0.05
1.41 1.10
2.34 1.96
5.12 4.13
0.23 0.20
<0.01 <0.01
0.04 0.03
3.42 2.86
728.35 602.42
Entrainment
B 1
3.70 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
35.34 <0.01
0.15 <0.01
0.41 <0.01
1.40 <0.01
2.62 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
111.25 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.11 <0.01
0.68 <0.01
2.71 <0.01
2.76 <0.01
24.43 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
6.46 <0.01
2.50 <0.01
1441.52 <0.01
2
3.03
0.02
32.33
0.10
0.28
1.28
1.77
0.02
<0.01
90.88
<0.01
0.09
0.56
2.48
2.25
22.32
<0.01
0.02
5.28
2.05
1259.02
3
3.16
0.02
32.75
0.10
0.28
1.30
1.78
0.02
<0.01
95.03
<0.01
0.10
0.58
2.51
2.35
22.62
<0.01
0.02
5.53
2.14
1285.20
4
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
I&E
B
3.94
4.52
38.86
1.42
0.60
1.57
2.99
0.03
0.02
131.20
0.11
0.11
0.74
4.14
5.16
29.67
0.23
0.03
6.50
6.00
2188.92
1
0.20
3.90
2.66
0.97
0.14
0.14
0.28
<0.01
0.02
16.69
0.10
<0.01
0.05
1.10
2.01
4.18
0.20
<0.01
0.03
2.93
614.97
2
3.26
4.47
35.75
1.36
0.47
1.44
2.14
0.02
0.02
110.17
0.11
0.09
0.61
3.88
4.57
27.40
0.23
0.02
5.32
5.43
1981.55
3
3.40
4.48
36.18
1.36
0.47
1.46
2.14
0.02
0.02
114.50
0.11
0.10
0.64
3.92
4.70
27.74
0.23
0.02
5.57
5.55
2013.55
4
0.19
3.87
2.66
0.96
0.14
0.14
0.28
<0.01
0.02
16.29
0.10
<0.01
0.05
1.10
1.96
4.13
0.20
<0.01
0.03
2.86
602.42
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses, 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MOD), 3 = Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere), 4 = Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MOD)
March 28, 2011
C-22
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
March 28, 2011 C-23
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally (million individuals
year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality
Species
Alewife
American plaice
American sand
lance
American shad
Atlantic cod
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Atlantic
mackerel
Atlantic
menhaden
Atlantic
silverside
Atlantic tomcod
Bay anchovy
Bigmouth
buffalo
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Black drum
Blennies
Blue crab
Blueback herring
Bluefish
Bluegill
Bluntnose
minnow
Brown bullhead
Bullheads
Burbot
Butterfish
Cabezon
California
halibut
B
72.13
O.01
0.16
19.09
O.01
17.73
0.04
<0.01
71.28
1.66
0.14
43.71
0.04
0.34
0.35
0.03
<0.01
15.03
186.97
0.03
35.57
0.16
0.06
0.04
O.01
O.01
<0.01
O.01
Impingement
1 2
30.59 35.19
O.01 <0.01
0.06 0.08
7.98 9.23
<0.01 <0.01
6.79 8.79
0.01 0.02
<0.01 O.01
27.14 34.72
0.62 0.80
0.05 0.07
15.00 19.79
0.02 0.02
0.14 0.16
0.15 0.17
0.01 0.01
O.01 O.01
5.69 7.37
78.16 90.37
0.01 0.01
14.88 17.19
0.07 0.08
0.02 0.03
0.02 0.02
O.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 O.01
<0.01 <0.01
3 4
35.42 30.04
O.01 O.01
0.08 0.06
9.32 7.79
<0.01 O.01
8.80 6.74
0.02 0.01
O.01 <0.01
34.84 27.11
0.81 0.62
0.07 0.05
19.82 14.98
0.02 0.02
0.17 0.14
0.17 0.14
0.01 0.01
O.01 <0.01
7.38 5.66
91.24 76.26
0.01 0.01
17.36 14.52
0.08 0.07
0.03 0.02
0.02 0.02
O.01 O.01
<0.01 O.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01 O.01
Entrainment
B 1
38,112.03 <0.01
199.21 O.01
1,469.03 <0.01
67.08 <0.01
117.38 <0.01
851.39 <0.01
87.31 O.01
7,067.69 <0.01
4,486.26 <0.01
206.73 <0.01
6.28 <0.01
457,647.92 O.01
5.38 <0.01
0.04 <0.01
24.81 <0.01
96,328.24 <0.01
914.88 O.01
3,677.57 <0.01
1,774.42 <0.01
0.06 <0.01
48.04 <0.01
4,931.58 O.01
0.46 <0.01
3.68 <0.01
16.57 <0.01
12.15 <0.01
6.65 O.01
7.71 <0.01
2
15,219.17
81.20
598.82
30.72
47.85
370.43
35.59
2,880.99
1,836.37
89.81
2.56
170,620.21
2.20
0.02
10.14
32,580.73
389.87
1,650.35
726.14
0.02
19.63
2,014.69
0.19
1.50
6.76
4.95
2.83
3.29
3 4
15,449.11 <0.01
85.19 <0.01
628.20 <0.01
31.11 <0.01
50.19 <0.01
374.59 <0.01
37.34 <0.01
3,022.33 <0.01
1,921.31 <0.01
92.38 <0.01
2.68 <0.01
172,563.84 <0.01
2.30 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
10.60 <0.01
32,660.81 <0.01
407.84 <0.01
1,670.46 <0.01
759.17 <0.01
0.02 <0.01
20.53 <0.01
2,107.19 <0.01
0.20 <0.01
1.57 <0.01
7.07 <0.01
5.20 <0.01
2.96 <0.01
3.44 <0.01
per
I&E
B
38,184.16
199.21
1,469.20
86.17
117.38
869.12
87.34
7,067.69
4,557.54
208.39
6.42
457,691.63
5.42
0.38
25.16
96,328.27
914.88
3,692.60
1,961.39
0.09
83.61
4,931.75
0.52
3.72
16.58
12.16
6.65
7.72
1
30.59
O.01
0.06
7.98
O.01
6.79
0.01
O.01
27.14
0.62
0.05
15.00
0.02
0.14
0.15
0.01
O.01
5.69
78.16
0.01
14.88
0.07
0.02
0.02
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
2
15,254.35
81.20
598.90
39.94
47.85
379.21
35.61
2,880.99
1,871.09
90.61
2.63
170,640.00
2.22
0.18
10.30
32,580.75
389.87
1,657.73
816.51
0.04
36.82
2,014.77
0.22
1.52
6.77
4.96
2.83
3.29
3
15,484.53
85.19
628.28
40.43
50.19
383.39
37.35
3,022.33
1,956.15
93.19
2.75
172,583.66
2.32
0.18
10.77
32,660.83
407.84
1,677.85
850.41
0.04
37.89
2,107.27
0.23
1.59
7.07
5.20
2.96
3.44
4
30.04
O.01
0.06
7.79
O.01
6.74
0.01
O.01
27.11
0.62
0.05
14.98
0.02
0.14
0.14
0.01
O.01
5.66
76.26
0.01
14.52
0.07
0.02
0.02
O.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
March 28, 2011
C-24
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally (million individuals per
year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
B
1 2
3 4
Entrainment
B
1 2
3
4
I&E
B
1 2
3
4
California
scorpionfish
<0.01
O.01 O.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01 O.01
O.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Carp
0.41
0.17
0.20
0.20
0.17
7,449.10 <0.01
3,112.06 <0.01
7,449.51
0.17
3,013.62
3,112.26
0.17
Chain pipefish
0.07
0.03
0.04
0.04
2.13
<0.01
0.72
0.72 <0.01
2.20
0.03
0.75
0.76
0.03
Channel catfish
2.06
0.86
1.00
1.01
0.84
209.96 <0.01
85.78
89.72
<0.01
212.02
0.86
86.77
90.73
0.84
Chinook salmon
Golden redhorse
O.01
O.01
<0.01
O.01
O.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01 <0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.07
0.03
0.03
2.86 <0.01
1.17
1.22 <0.01
2.92
1.20
1.25
<0.01
Crabs (other)
Crappie
Gunner
Darters
Delta smelt
Drums and
croakers
Dungeness crab
Emerald shiner
Fish (other)
Flounders
Fourbeard
rockling
Freshwater drum
Gizzard shad
Gobies
0.12
0.60
O.01
1.01
<0.01
0.63
O.01
4.39
98.00
0.01
O.01
4.65
326.39
0.14
0.05
0.25
O.01
0.42
O.01
0.25
O.01
1.84
40.36
O.01
<0.01
1.94
136.74
0.05
0.06
0.29
<0.01
0.49
O.01
0.30
<0.01
2.13
47.39
<0.01
<0.01
2.25
157.91
0.07
0.06
0.29
O.01
0.49
<0.01
0.30
<0.01
2.14
47.80
O.01
<0.01
2.27
159.39
0.07
0.05
0.24
<0.01
0.41
<0.01
0.24
O.01
1.80
39.49
O.01
<0.01
1.90
133.51
0.05
7,906.88
68.59
29,170.94
164.61
0.01
3,292.06
0.09
772.49
123,797.72
319.23
464.23
3,231.60
22,916.70
8,788.33
O.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
3,363.37
28.01
11,890.91
67.23
O.01
1,381.20
0.04
315.16
49,732.40
136.04
189.23
1,318.23
9,327.13
3,416.01
3,506.02
29.29
12,474.26
70.28
<0.01
1,400.82
0.04
329.07
51,319.67
142.31
198.52
1,376.14
9,708.69
3,454.69
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
7,907.01
69.19
29,170.95
165.62
0.01
3,292.68
0.09
776.88
123,895.72
319.24
464.23
3,236.24
23,243.09
8,788.47
0.05
0.25
O.01
0.42
O.01
0.25
<0.01
1.84
40.36
O.01
<0.01
1.94
136.74
0.05
3,363.43
28.30
11,890.91
67.71
<0.01
1,381.50
0.04
317.29
49,779.79
136.04
189.23
1,320.48
9,485.04
3,416.08
3,506.08
29.58
12,474.27
70.77
<0.01
1,401.11
0.04
331.22
51,367.47
142.31
198.52
1,378.40
9,868.08
3,454.76
0.05
0.24
O.01
0.41
<0.01
0.24
O.01
1.80
39.49
<0.01
<0.01
1.90
133.51
0.05
Grubby
Gulfkillifish
Herrings
Hogchoker
Leatherjacket
Logperch
Longfin smelt
Lumpfish
Mackerels
Menhadens
Muskellunge
Northern
anchovy
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.74
0.95
1.22
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
16.06
0.02
0.86
O.01
0.01
0.03
0.28
0.36
0.51
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
6.15
O.01
0.38
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.36
0.47
0.59
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
7.98
0.01
0.42
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.36
0.47
0.60
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
7.98
0.01
0.43
O.01
0.01
0.03
0.28
0.36
0.50
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
6.10
<0.01
0.37
431.10
<0.01
37.37
26,718.51
794.02
42.56
<0.01
44.89
O.01
269.24
<0.01
826.63
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
175.73
<0.01
15.63
12,183.16
268.56
17.29
O.01
18.30
<0.01
91.08
O.01
352.26
184.35
<0.01
16.21
12,346.27
269.22
17.96
<0.01
19.20
<0.01
91.30
<0.01
368.50
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
431.12
0.04
37.44
26,719.25
794.97
43.77
<0.01
44.89
O.01
285.30
0.03
827.49
O.01
0.01
0.03
0.28
0.36
0.51
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
6.15
O.01
0.38
175.74
0.02
15.66
12,183.52
269.03
17.88
<0.01
18.30
<0.01
99.05
0.01
352.68
184.36
0.02
16.24
12,346.63
269.69
18.56
<0.01
19.20
O.01
99.28
0.01
368.93
<0.01
0.01
0.03
0.28
0.36
0.50
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
6.10
<0.01
0.37
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
C-25
-------
Table C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally (million individuals per
year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
Northern
pipefish
Pacific herring
Pinfish
Pink shrimp
Pollock
Radiated shanny
Rainbow smelt
Red drum
Red hake
River carpsucker
Rock gunnel
Rockfishes
Sacramento
splittail
Salmon
S auger
Scaled sardine
Sculp ins
Scup
Sea Basses
Seaboard goby
Searobin
Sheepshead
Shiners
Shrimp (other)
Silver hake
Silver perch
Silversides
Skates
Skipjack herring
Smallmouth bass
B
0.04
O.01
0.12
43.73
<0.01
O.01
0.76
0.18
0.08
0.03
<0.01
0.03
O.01
<0.01
0.23
0.35
0.02
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
1.18
<0.01
3.98
8.93
0.05
0.91
0.16
O.01
1.52
0.14
1
0.01
O.01
0.05
16.74
<0.01
<0.01
0.32
0.07
0.03
0.01
O.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.13
0.01
<0.01
O.01
<0.01
0.45
<0.01
1.67
2.82
0.02
0.32
0.07
<0.01
0.64
0.06
2 3
0.02 0.02
O.01 <0.01
0.06 0.06
21.71 21.73
O.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.37 0.37
0.09 0.09
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
O.01 <0.01
0.01 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
O.01 <0.01
0.11 0.11
0.17 0.17
0.01 0.01
O.01 <0.01
O.01 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.58 0.59
O.01 <0.01
1.93 1.95
3.81 3.81
0.03 0.03
0.42 0.42
0.08 0.08
<0.01 <0.01
0.74 0.74
0.07 0.07
4
0.01
O.01
0.04
16.62
<0.01
O.01
0.32
0.07
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.13
O.01
<0.01
<0.01
O.01
0.45
<0.01
1.64
2.82
0.02
0.32
0.07
O.01
0.62
0.06
Entrainment
B 1
11.79 <0.01
36.16 O.01
179.13 <0.01
126.32 <0.01
3.46 <0.01
110.36 <0.01
151.21 O.01
1.10 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
5.15 <0.01
395.87 <0.01
63.96 O.01
0.01 <0.01
6.16 <0.01
314.24 <0.01
2,962.36 <0.01
270.10 O.01
16.64 <0.01
13.24 <0.01
16,071.16 <0.01
80.30 <0.01
382.88 O.01
429.73 <0.01
1,469.73 <0.01
568.71 <0.01
88,985.72 <0.01
171.19 O.01
O.01 <0.01
0.54 <0.01
54.51 <0.01
2
5.34
15.41
66.21
42.73
1.41
44.99
61.07
0.37
O.01
2.10
161.37
27.26
O.01
2.46
128.39
1,001.95
110.96
6.78
5.64
7,239.43
27.96
129.50
174.39
616.82
231.82
30,097.30
72.23
<0.01
0.22
22.27
3 4
5.43 <0.01
16.12 <0.01
66.35 <0.01
42.83 <0.01
1.48 <0.01
47.19 <0.01
62.99 <0.01
0.37 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
2.20 <0.01
169.29 <0.01
28.51 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
2.50 <0.01
134.29 <0.01
1,004.41 <0.01
116.30 <0.01
7.12 <0.01
5.90 <0.01
7,367.13 <0.01
28.24 <0.01
129.82 <0.01
180.77 <0.01
625.97 <0.01
243.20 <0.01
30,171.28 <0.01
75.51 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
0.23 <0.01
23.30 <0.01
I&E
B
11.83
36.17
179.25
170.05
3.47
110.36
151.97
1.27
0.08
5.18
395.88
63.99
0.01
6.16
314.47
2,962.72
270.13
16.65
13.24
16,071.18
81.48
382.88
433.71
1,478.66
568.76
88,986.63
171.35
<0.01
2.06
54.66
1
0.01
<0.01
0.05
16.74
<0.01
<0.01
0.32
0.07
0.03
0.01
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.09
0.13
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.45
<0.01
1.67
2.82
0.02
0.32
0.07
<0.01
0.64
0.06
2
5.36
15.41
66.27
64.44
1.41
44.99
61.45
0.46
0.04
2.12
161.37
27.27
<0.01
2.46
128.49
1,002.12
110.97
6.79
5.64
7,239.44
28.54
129.50
176.32
620.63
231.85
30,097.72
72.30
<0.01
0.96
22.34
3 4
5.45 0.01
16.12 <0.01
66.40 0.04
64.56 16.62
1.48 <0.01
47.19 <0.01
63.36 0.32
0.46 0.07
0.04 0.03
2.22 0.01
169.29 <0.01
28.53 0.01
<0.01 <0.01
2.50 <0.01
134.40 0.09
1,004.59 0.13
116.31 <0.01
7.12 <0.01
5.90 <0.01
7,367. 14 <0.01
28.83 0.45
129.82 <0.01
182.71 1.64
629.78 2.82
243.22 0.02
30,171.70 0.32
75.59 0.07
<0.01 <0.01
0.97 0.62
23.37 0.06
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
C-26
-------
Table C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally (million individuals per
year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continued
Impingement
Species
Smelts
Spot
Spotted seatrout
Spotted sucker
Stone crab
Striped bass
Striped killifish
Striped mullet
Sturgeons
Suckers
Summer
flounder
Sunflsh
Surfperches
Tautog
Threespine
stickleback
Tidewater
silverside
Walleye
Weakfish
White bass
White perch
Whitefish
Windowpane
Winter flounder
Yellow perch
Total (all
species)
B
4.07
11.27
1.21
O.01
0.27
1.68
0.32
0.45
O.01
0.17
0.08
6.40
0.13
<0.01
0.11
0.30
0.15
3.35
2.68
6.70
0.10
0.02
0.15
9.59
1,034.92
1 2
1.76 2.01
4.25 5.47
0.46 0.60
O.01 <0.01
0.11 0.14
0.70 0.81
0.12 0.16
0.17 0.23
O.01 O.01
0.07 0.08
0.03 0.04
2.67 3.09
0.06 0.06
O.01 O.01
0.05 0.06
0.11 0.15
0.06 0.07
1.28 1.63
1.12 1.30
2.70 3.25
0.04 0.05
O.01 0.01
0.06 0.08
4.02 4.64
421.62 500.44
3 4
2.02 1.75
5.48 4.25
0.60 0.46
O.01 O.01
0.14 0.10
0.82 0.68
0.16 0.12
0.23 0.17
O.01 O.01
0.08 0.07
0.04 0.03
3.12 2.61
0.06 0.06
O.01 <0.01
0.06 0.05
0.15 0.11
0.08 0.06
1.64 1.28
1.31 1.10
3.27 2.66
0.05 0.04
0.01 O.01
0.08 0.06
4.68 3.93
504.14 413.70
Entrainment
B 1
154.31 O.01
2,420.22 O.01
5,373.31 O.01
O.01 O.01
28,711.01 <0.01
1,071.31 <0.01
0.06 <0.01
15.17 O.01
1.46 <0.01
4,344.79 <0.01
O.01 <0.01
655.10 <0.01
<0.01 O.01
29,299.93 <0.01
0.78 <0.01
34.36 <0.01
169.80 <0.01
929.71 O.01
1,106.14 <0.01
2,996.05 <0.01
0.92 <0.01
2,066.54 <0.01
6,780.09 O.01
1,130.30 <0.01
1,055,936.41 <0.01
2
61.72
1,016.05
1,820.18
<0.01
9,710.82
490.20
0.03
5.13
0.59
1,775.05
<0.01
267.58
O.01
11,943.48
0.31
11.62
69.37
404.38
451.56
1,339.29
0.37
842.38
2,768.38
461.51
400,351.83
Scenarios: B = Baseline I&E Mortality losses. 1 = Option 1 (I Everywhere), 2 = Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MOD), 3 = Option
losses.
3 4
62.70 <0.01
1,018.92 <0.01
1,824.64 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
9,734.68 <0.01
496.62 <0.01
0.03 <0.01
5.14 <0.01
0.62 <0.01
1,856.67 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
279.80 <0.01
<0.01 <0.01
12,529.42 <0.01
0.32 <0.01
11.65 <0.01
72.56 <0.01
414.14 <0.01
471.86 <0.01
1,365.37 <0.01
0.39 <0.01
883.71 <0.01
2,902.67 <0.01
482.36 <0.01
407,417.58 <0.01
3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere),
I&E
B
158.39
2,431.49
5,374.51
O.01
28,711.29
1,072.98
0.38
15.62
1.46
4,344.96
0.08
661.50
0.13
29,299.94
0.89
34.66
169.96
933.06
1,108.82
3,002.75
1.02
2,066.57
6,780.24
1,139.89
1,056,971.34
1
1.76
4.25
0.46
<0.01
0.11
0.70
0.12
0.17
O.01
0.07
0.03
2.67
0.06
O.01
0.05
0.11
0.06
1.28
1.12
2.70
0.04
O.01
0.06
4.02
421.62
2
63.73
1,021.52
1,820.77
<0.01
9,710.95
491.01
0.18
5.36
0.60
1,775.13
0.04
270.67
0.06
11,943.49
0.37
11.77
69.45
406.02
452.86
1,342.54
0.42
842.39
2,768.46
466.15
400,852.27
3
64.72
1,024.41
1,825.24
O.01
9,734.82
497.44
0.18
5.37
0.62
1,856.75
0.04
282.92
0.06
12,529.42
0.37
11.80
72.64
415.78
473.17
1,368.65
0.44
883.72
2,902.75
487.05
407,921.72
4
1.75
4.25
0.46
O.01
0.10
0.68
0.12
0.17
O.01
0.07
0.03
2.61
0.06
O.01
0.05
0.11
0.06
1.28
1.10
2.66
0.04
O.01
0.06
3.93
413.70
4 = Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD). Values for all options reflect reductions in
March 28, 2011
C-27
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Appendix D: Discounting Benefits
D.1 Introduction
Discounting refers to the economic conversion of future benefits and costs to their present values,
accounting for the fact that individuals tend to value future outcomes less than comparable near-term
outcomes. Annualization refers to the conversion of a series of annual costs or benefits of differing
amounts to an equivalent annual series of constant costs or benefits. Discounting and annualization are
important because these techniques allow for the comparison of benefits and/or costs that occur in
different time periods.
For the benefits analysis of the regulatory options for the proposed Section 316(b) Rule, EPA's
discounting and annualization methodology included three steps. First, EPA developed a time profile of
benefits to show when benefits occur. Second, the Agency calculated the total discounted value of the
benefits as of the year 2012. Finally, EPA annualized the benefits of the regulatory options over a 50-year
time span. The following sections explain these steps in detail.
D.2 Timing of Benefits
In order to calculate the annualized value of the welfare gain from the regulatory analysis options
considered for the proposed Section 316(b) Rule, EPA developed a time profile of total benefits from all
facilities that reflects when benefits from each facility will be realized. EPA first calculated the
undiscounted welfare gain from the expected annual regional reductions in impingement and entrainment
mortality (I&E mortality) under each option, based on the assumptions that all facilities in each region
would achieved compliance and that benefits are realized immediately following compliance. Then, since
there are regulatory and biological time lags between the potential promulgation of each respective
regulatory option and the realization of benefits, EPA created a time profile of benefits that takes into
account the fact that benefits do not begin immediately.
Regulatory-related time lags occur because facilities will not always achieve compliance in the same year
that costs are incurred. Facilities will face regulatory requirements once the rule takes effect, but it will
take time to make the required changes. For this analysis, EPA assumed that facilities, in the aggregate,
would achieve compliance on a uniform schedule over the 5-year periods 2013-2017, 2018-2022, or
2023-2027 with all activities associated with the achievement of compliance estimated to occur uniformly
over this period. Facilities required to comply with impingement mortality limits are assumed to achieve
compliance on a uniform schedule over the 5-year period 2013-2017. Non-nuclear electric generating
facilities required to reduce intake flow commensurate with closed cycle cooling are assumed to achieve
compliance on a uniform schedule over the 5-year period 2018-2022. Nuclear electric generating facilities
and manufacturing facilities required to reduce intake flow commensurate with closed cycle cooling are
assumed to achieve compliance on a uniform schedule over the 5-year period 2023-2027. Following the
achievement of compliance, all operational effects of compliance (i.e., reduction in I&E mortality losses)
are also assumed to occur as though they originated from a compliance schedule that is uniformly spread
over the 5-year window. Compliance is assumed to continue until the year 2056 for all facilities. See
Chapter 11 of the EA report for more detail.
March 28, 2011 D-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
The biological time lags that affect the timing of commercial and recreational fishing benefits (including
recreational use of threatened and endangered species) occur because most fish that would be spared from
I&E mortality would be in larval or juvenile stages. Since these fish may require several years to grow
and mature before commercial and recreational anglers can harvest them, there would be a lag between
installation of technologies to reduce I&E mortality and realization of commercial and recreational
angling benefits. For example, a larval fish spared from entrainment (in effect, at age zero) may be caught
by a recreational angler at age three, meaning that a three-year time lag arises between the installation of
technologies to reduce I&E mortality and the realization of the estimated recreational benefit. Likewise, if
a one-year-old fish is spared from impingement and is then harvested by a commercial fisherman at age
two, there is a one-year lag between the installation of technologies to reduce I&E mortality and the
subsequent commercial fishery benefit. In general, fish that tend to be harvested at young ages will have
relatively short time lags between implementation of technologies to reduce I&E mortality and the
subsequent timing of changes in catch. In contrast, long-lived fish that tend to be caught at relatively older
ages would tend to have longer time lags (and, hence, the effects of discounting would be larger, resulting
in lower present values).
In order to model the biological lags between installation of technologies to reduce I&E mortality and
realization of commercial and recreational benefits, EPA collected species-specific information on ages of
fish at harvest to estimate the average time required for a fish spared from I&E mortality to reach a
harvestable age. The estimated time lags vary, depending on the life history of each fish species affected.
EPA used this information, along with information about the estimated age and species composition of
I&E mortality losses in each study region, to develop a benefits recognition schedule for facilities in each
region.58
Following achievement of compliance, commercial and recreational fishing benefits from facilities in
most regions (the California, North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic regions) are assumed to
increase over a seven-year period to a long-term, steady-state average, equal to the approximated per-
facility benefit value discussed above, according to a numerical profile of <0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95,
1.0>. This profile indicates the fraction of the steady-state benefit value (i.e., the percentage of
commercial and recreational fish spared from I&E mortality that reach a harvestable age) that is realized
in each of the first seven years following the achievement of compliance at a facility.
For regions with a relatively high contribution of impingement to total I&E mortality (the Inland, Great
Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico regions), EPA used an adjusted profile of <0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0> for
commercial and recreational fishing benefits. This adjusted profile reflects the fact that impinged fish are
usually larger and older than entrained fish and thus benefits will be realized sooner in these regions.
These profile values are approximations based on a review of the age-specific fishing mortality rates that
were used in the I&E mortality analysis and best professional judgment.
In all regions, this fraction remains 1.0 until the final year of compliance, 2056. The commercial and
recreational fishing benefits profile declines at the end of the compliance period in the same fashion that it
increases at the beginning of compliance. . Specifically, at the end of the compliance period, benefit
values follow a profile of <1.0, 0.9, 0.8, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05, 0.0> with the last benefits occurring in 2061.
Therefore, the analysis of benefits encompasses a 50-year period from rule promulgation and first
58 The benefits profile aggregated across all facilities in a region or nationwide was calculated using facility-level sample
weights. These facility-level sample weights were designed so that the weighted actual regional intake flow for the sample
facilities is the same as the estimated actual regional intake flow for the entire universe of facilities. These sample weights
and their derivation are described in more detail in Appendix A.
March 28, 2011 D-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
occurrence of compliance-related costs in 2012 until the final benefits in 2061. The number of years when
benefits do not equal zero varies among the in-scope facilities depending on the year that it initially
achieves compliance.
For nonuse benefits and the HEA analysis, EPA assumes that there is no initial biological lag at the start
of the compliance period because benefits are not based on the harvest offish spared from I&E mortality.
Benefits are assumed to begin accruing immediately when a facility comes into compliance and to
continue in full (i.e., fraction of 1.0) until the year 2056.
The nonuse and HEA analysis include a linear decline in benefits starting at the end of the compliance
period following a profile of <1.0, 0.83, 0.67, 0.50, 0.33, 0.17, 0.0> with the last benefits occurring in
2061. This profile reflects the fact that increases in fish abundance and biological production resulting
from reductions in I&E mortality will return to baseline overtime. The duration of the profile is
consistent with analyses for commercial and recreational fishing benefits and its trajectory is based on
best professional judgment.
D.3 Discounting and Annualization
Using the time profile of benefits discussed above, EPA discounted the total benefits generated in each
year of the analysis to 2012 using the following formula:
-.r , XH Benefits,
Present Value = ^ t_20n Equation D-1
t (1 + r)
where:
Benefits^ = benefits in year t
r = discount rate (3 percent and 7 percent)
t = year in which benefits are incurred
After calculating the present value (PV) of these benefit streams, EPA calculated their constant annual
equivalent value (annualized value) using the annualization formula presented below, again using two
discount rates, 3 percent and 7 percent.59 Although the analysis period extends further, EPA annualized
benefits over the assumed period of compliance for in-scope facilities. This same annualization concept
and period of annualization were also followed in the analysis of costs, although for costs the time
horizon of analysis for calculating the present value is shorter than for benefits. Using the same
annualization period for both benefits and social costs allows comparison of constant annual equivalent
values of benefits and costs that have been calculated on a mathematically consistent basis. The
annualization formula is as follows:
Annualized Benefit = PV of Benefit * Equation D-2
where:
r = discount rate (3 percent and 7 percent)
« = annualization period, 50 years for the benefits analysis
The three percent rate represents an estimate of the social rate of time preference.
March 28, 2011 D-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table D-l presents a summary of the time profile of benefits discounted at the 3 percent and 7 percent
rates for each of the regulatory options on the national scale. The table also presents the total value and
annualized value that are equivalent to this stream of benefits.
Table D-1: Time Profile of National Mean Total Benefits at In-scope Facilities by
Regulatory Option (2009$, thousands)
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
Option 1 : 1 Everywhere
3%
Discount
Rate
0
0
$0
$470
$1,309
$4,165
$7,461
$10,765
$13,640
$16,019
$16,464
$16,347
$16,047
$15,598
$15,144
$14,703
$14,274
$13,859
$13,455
$13,063
$12,683
$12,313
$11,955
$11,606
$11,268
$10,940
$10,622
$10,312
$10,012
$9,720
$9,437
$9,162
$8,895
$8,636
$8,385
$8,141
$7,903
$7,673
$7,450
$7,233
$7,022
7%
Discount
Rate
0
0
$0
$448
$1,205
$3,705
$6,393
$8,882
$10,838
$12,255
$12,126
$11,590
$10,952
$10,248
$9,577
$8,951
$8,365
$7,818
$7,306
$6,828
$6,382
$5,964
$5,574
$5,209
$4,869
$4,550
$4,252
$3,974
$3,714
$3,471
$3,244
$3,032
$2,834
$2,648
$2,475
$2,313
$2,162
$2,020
$1,888
$1,765
$1,649
Option 2: 1 Everywhere
and E for Facilities with
DIE > 125 MGD
3%
Discount
Rate
0
0
$0
$32
$85
$264
$458
$652
$14,443
$28,190
$44,411
$61,484
$77,979
$86,028
$93,426
$98,547
$103,581
$108,187
$108,905
$109,142
$108,273
$105,740
$102,961
$100,080
$97,165
$94,335
$91,588
$88,920
$86,330
$83,816
$81,374
$79,004
$76,703
$74,469
$72,300
$70,194
$68,150
$66,165
$64,238
$62,367
$60,550
7%
Discount
Rate
0
0
$0
$30
$78
$235
$392
$538
$11,102
$20,863
$31,724
$42,366
$51,791
$55,095
$57,672
$58,596
$59,322
$59,674
$57,873
$55,871
$53,379
$50,188
$47,045
$44,021
$41,141
$38,449
$35,934
$33,583
$31,386
$29,333
$27,414
$25,620
$23,944
$22,378
$20,914
$19,546
$18,267
$17,072
$15,955
$14,911
$13,936
Option 3 :I&E
Mortality Everywhere
3%
Discount
Rate
0
0
$0
$7
$20
$72
$126
$181
$14,415
$28,616
$45,435
$63,150
$80,270
$88,729
$96,529
$102,101
$107,577
$112,604
$113,471
$113,816
$112,912
$110,279
$107,385
$104,379
$101,339
$98,387
$95,522
$92,739
$90,038
$87,416
$84,870
$82,398
$79,998
$77,668
$75,406
$73,209
$71,077
$69,007
$66,997
$65,046
$63,151
7%
Discount
Rate
0
0
$0
$7
$19
$64
$109
$150
$11,064
$21,160
$32,437
$43,496
$53,294
$56,808
$59,571
$60,695
$61,599
$62,100
$60,292
$58,257
$55,661
$52,337
$49,062
$45,906
$42,903
$40,096
$37,473
$35,022
$32,731
$30,589
$28,588
$26,718
$24,970
$23,337
$21,810
$20,383
$19,050
$17,803
$16,639
$15,550
$14,533
Option 4: I for
Facilities with DIE >
50 MGD
3%
Discount
Rate
$0
$0
$0
$463
$1,288
$4,091
$7,329
$10,576
$13,400
$15,737
$16,179
$16,064
$15,769
$15,329
$14,882
$14,449
$14,028
$13,619
$13,223
$12,837
$12,464
$12,101
$11,748
$11,406
$11,074
$10,751
$10,438
$10,134
$9,839
$9,552
$9,274
$9,004
$8,742
$8,487
$8,240
$8,000
$7,767
$7,541
$7,321
$7,108
$6,901
7%
Discount
Rate
$0
$0
$0
$441
$1,186
$3,638
$6,280
$8,726
$10,647
$12,040
$11,915
$11,389
$10,762
$10,070
$9,412
$8,796
$8,220
$7,683
$7,180
$6,710
$6,271
$5,861
$5,478
$5,119
$4,784
$4,471
$4,179
$3,905
$3,650
$3,411
$3,188
$2,979
$2,785
$2,602
$2,432
$2,273
$2,124
$1,985
$1,855
$1,734
$1,621
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
D-4
-------
Table D-1: Time Profile of National Mean Total Benefits at In-scope Facilities by
Regulatory Option (2009$, thousands)
Option 1:1 Everywhere
Option 2:1 Everywhere
and E for Facilities with
DIE > 125 MGD
Option3: I&E
Mortality Everywhere
Option 4: I for
Facilities with DIE >
50 MGD
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
Total
Present
Value"
Annualized
Value"
3%
Discount
Rate
$6,818
$6,619
$6,426
$6,239
$6,057
$5,881
$5,128
$4,415
$1,120
$555
$270
$0
0
0
0
$453,679
$17,632
7%
Discount
Rate
$1,541
$1,440
$1,346
$1,258
$1,176
$1,099
$922
$765
$186
$89
$42
$0
0
0
0
$221,341
$16,038
3%
Discount
Rate
$58,787
$57,074
$55,412
$53,798
$52,231
$50,710
$42,374
$34,749
$17,101
$10,326
$5,135
$0
0
0
0
$3,108,232
$120,794
7% 3%
Discount Discount
Rate Rate
$13,024
$12,172
$11,376
$10,632
$9,936
$9,286
$7,475
$5,906
$2,772
$1,608
$770
$0
0
0
0
$1,272,593 $3
$61,312
$59,526
$57,792
$56,109
$54,475
$52,888
$44,184
7%
Discount
Rate
$13,582
$12,694
$11,863
$11,087
$10,362
$9,684
$7,794
$36,224 $6,156
$17,875
$10,799
$5,371
$0
0
0
0
,232,893
$92,200 $125,649
a The total present value is equal to the sum of the values of the benefits realized
b The annualized value represents the total present value of the benefits of the rej
Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.
$2,897
$1,682
$805
$0
0
0
0
$1,320,887
$95,711
3%
Discount
Rate
$6,700
$6,505
$6,315
$6,131
$5,953
$5,779
$5,039
$4,339
$1,101
$546
$266
$0
$0
$0
$0
$445,825
$17,327
7%
Discount
Rate
$1,515
$1,416
$1,323
$1,236
$1,155
$1,080
$906
$751
$183
$87
$41
$0
$0
$0
$0
$217,499
$15,760
in all years of the analysis, discounted to 2012.
julation, distributed over a 50-year period.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
D-5
-------
Appendix E: List of T&E Species Overlapping CWIS
Table E-1: List of T&E Species Overlapping One or More In-Scope 316(b) Cooling Water Intake
Structure
Latin Name
Common Name
Acipenser brevirostmm
Acipenser medirostris
Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi
Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus
Acropora cervicornis
Acropora palmata
Alasmidonta heterodon
Amblyopsis rosae
Arkansia wheeleri
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mydas
Conradilla caelata
Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus)
Cyprinella caerulea
Cyprogenia stegaria
Dermochelys coriacea
Dromus dramas
Elliptic* steinstansana
Epioblasma brevidens
Epioblasma florentina florentina
Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri)
Epioblasma obliquata obliquata
Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua
Epioblasma penita
Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum
Epioblasma torulosa rangiana
Epioblasma torulosa torulosa
Epioblasma turgidula
Eretmochelys imbricata
Etheostoma etowahae
Etheostoma percnurum
Etheostoma scotti
Etheostoma wapiti
Fusconaia cor
Fusconaia cuneolus
Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni
Gila bicolor mohavensis
Hemistena lata
Hypomesus transpacificus
Lampsilis abrupta
Lampsilis higginsii
Lampsilis powellii
Lampsilis virescens
Lepidochelys kempii
Shortnose Sturgeon
Green Sturgeon
Gulf Sturgeon
Atlantic Sturgeon
Staghorn Coral
Elkhorn Coral
Dwarf Wedgemussel
Ozark Cavefish
Ouachita Rock Pocketbook
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Green Sea Turtle
Birdwing Pearlymussel
Pygmy Sculpin
Blue Shiner
Fanshell
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Dromedary Pearlymussel
Tar River Spinymussel
Cumberlandian Combshell
Yellow (Pearlymussel) Blossom
TanRiffleshell
Catspaw (Purple Cat's Paw Pearlymussel)
White (Pearlymussel) Catspaw
Southern Combshell
Green (Pearlymussel) Blossom
Northern Riffleshell
Tubercled (Pearlymussel) Blossom
Turgid (Pearlymussel) Blossom
Hawksbill Sea Turtle
Etowah Darter
Duskytail Darter
Cherokee Darter
Boulder Darter
Shiny Pigtoe
Finerayed Pigtoe
Unarmored Threespine Stickleback
Mohave Tui Chub
Cracking Pearlymussel
Delta Smelt
Pink (Pearlymussel) Mucket
Higgins Eye (Pearlymussel)
Arkansas Fatmucket
Alabama Lampmussel
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
E-1
-------
Table E-1: List of T&E Species Overlapping One or More In-Scope 316(b) Cooling Water Intake
Structure
Latin Name
Common Name
Lepidochelys olivacea
Leptodea leptodon
Margaritifera hembeli
Microphis brachyums lineatus
Notropis albizonatus
Notropis Topeka
Noturus placidus
Notums stanauli
Noturus trautmani
Obovaria retusa
Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias
Oncorhynchus keta
Oncorhynchus Msutch
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oregonichthys crameri
Pegiasfabula
Percina rex
Percina tanasi
Phoxinus cumberlandensis
Plethobasus cicatricosus
Plethobasus cooperianus
Pleurobema clava
Pleurobema collina
Pleurobema marshalli
Pleurobema plenum
Pleurobema taitianum
Potamilus capax
Potamilus inflatus
Pristis pectinata
Ptychocheilus lucius
Quadrula fragosa
Quadrula intermedia
Quadrula sparsa
Quadrula stapes
Rivulus marmoratus
Salmo salar
Salvelinus confluentus
Scaphirhynchus albus
Scaphirhynchus suttkusi
Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni
Toxolasma cylindrellus
Villosa perpurpurea
Villosa trabalis
Xyrauchen texanus
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle
Scaleshell Mussel
Louisiana Pearlshell
Opossum Pipefish
Palezone Shiner
Topeka Shiner
Neosho Madtom
Pygmy Madtom
Scioto Madtom
Ring Pink (Mussel)
Greenback Cutthroat
Chum Salmon
Coho Salmon
Steelhead Trout
Chinook Salmon
Oregon Chub
Littlewing Pearlymussel
Roanoke Logperch
Snail Darter
Blackside Dace
White (Pearlymussel) Wartyback
Orangefoot (Pearlymussel) Pimpleback
Clubshell
James Spinymussel
Flat Pigtoe
Rough Pigtoe
Heavy Pigtoe
Fat Pocketbook
Alabama (=Inflated) Heelsplitter
Smalltooth Sawfish
Colorado Pikeminnow (=Squawfish)
Winged Mapleleaf
Cumberland (Pearlymussel) Monkeyface
Appalachian (Pearlymussel) Monkeyface
Stirrupshell
Mangrove Rivulus
Atlantic Salmon
Bull Trout
Pallid Sturgeon
Alabama Sturgeon
Alabama Cavefish
Pale (Pearlymussel) Lilliput
Purple Bean
Cumberland (Pearlymussel) Bean
Razorback Sucker
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
E-2
-------
Appendix F: Detailed Methodologies of CWIS, and Estimated Benefits
of Regulation on, Threatened and Endangered Species
F.1 I&E Mortality of Sea Turtles
Six species of sea turtles are found in U.S. waters: Green, Hawksbill, Kemp's Ridley, Leatherback,
Loggerhead, and Olive Ridley sea turtles. All have extensive ranges, migrate long distances during their
lifetime, and are listed as either threatened or endangered (T&E) under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Because of these large ranges, there is substantial overlap between sea turtle habitat and cooling
water intake structures (CWIS) for in-phase power generating and manufacturing facilities. Moreover,
because individuals of all ages and sizes are susceptible to impingement and entrainment (Norem 2005),
there are more than 730 locations of potential species x CWIS interactions that may result in the injury or
death of these T&E species.
Power plants are known to entrain and impinge all species of sea turtles, with individual incidences of
mortality reported from California, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and New Jersey
(Plotkin 1995). Although the cumulative impact of this mortality is unclear, it is believed to be relatively
small considered to fishing mortality. Although quantitative reports are available from a few power
stations (Table F-l), high-quality data is available from only one source, the St. Lucie Nuclear Power
Plant, at Hutchinson Island, FL, where annual capture rates range from 350-1000 turtles. Although
estimated mortality rates due to entrainment are < 3%, approximately 85% of entrained organisms show
evidence of injury as a result of entrainment (Norem 2005). As such, true mortality rates from CWIS may
be higher than reported, particularly for individuals who are recaptured repeatedly (37% of Green and
13% of Loggerhead sea turtles entrained between May and December 2000 were recaptured individuals)
(Norem 2005).
In addition to research sponsored by the National Science Foundation, federal and state governmental
spending on sea turtles under the ESA totaled $33.8 million in FY2008 (USFWS 2009). Moreover, the
number of volunteer organizations dedicated to sea turtle recovery (Table F-2) provides further evidence
of the high non-use values placed upon the survival of these animals by the public.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
F-1
-------
Table F-1: Reported Values of Sea Turtle Entrainment
Facility
Crystal River, FL
Brunswick, NC
Oyster Creek, NJ,
Salem, NJ,
Hope NJ
Salem, NJ
Salem, NJ
Salem, NJ
St. Lucie, FL
San Diego, Edison
San Diego, Encina, Edison
St. Lucie, FL
St. Lucie, FL
St. Lucie, FL
St. Lucie, FL
All US Waters
Species
Kemp's Ridley, Loggerhead
Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley,
Green
Loggerhead
Kemp's Ridley
Green
Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley,
Green
Loggerhead
Kemp's Ridley
Loggerhead
Olive Ridley
Green
Leatherback
Hawksbill
Green
Kemp's Ridley
Loggerhead
Takes
Non-lethal
40
50
40
7
8
23
18
6
6313
Lethal
5
11
8
3
2
2
8
6
169
Dates
1998
2000
1999
1999
1999
1991
1980-1988
1980-1988
1976-2005
Takes /yr
Non-lethal
40
50
40
7
8
23
2.25
0.75
225.5
Lethal
5
11
8
3
2
2
1
0.75
6
Qualitative Reports Only
20
19
2297
34
5-50
1976-1998
1976-1998
1976-1998
1976-1998
Annual
Estimate
0.95
0.90
109.38
1.62
5-50
Source
TEWG (2000)
NMFS (2001)
NMFS (2001)
Eggers (2001)
Eggers (1989)
NMFS (2009)
(NMFS and USFWS
1998b)
(NMFS and USFWS
1998a)
Bresette et al
(1998)
Bresette et al
(1998)
Ernest etal (1988)
Bresette et al
(1998)
Plotkin (1995)
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
F-2
-------
Table F-2: A subset of US-based nongovernmental organizations dedicated to sea turtle
research and conservation
Name
Amelia Island Sea Turtle Watch, Inc.
Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle
Research
Bald Head Island Conservancy
California Turtle & Tortoise Club
Caribbean Conservation Corporation
Chelonian Research Foundation
Clearwater Marine Aquarium
Coastal Research and Education
Society of Long Island, Inc., New
York State Sea Turtle Program
Conservation International Sea Turtle
Flagship Program
Earthwatch
Gulf Coast Turtle and Tortoise Society
Hawksbill Sea Turtle Recovery
Project
Malama na Honu
Marine Turtle Specialist Group
Maryland Marine Mammal and Sea
Turtle Stranding Network
National Aquarium in Baltimore,
Marine Animal Rescue Program
National Save the Sea Turtle
Foundation
Network for Endangered Seaturtles
Ocean Conservancy
Riverhead Foundation for Marine
Research and Preservation
Sanibel-Captiva Conservation
Foundation
Sea Turtle Restoration Project
Share the Beach, Sea Turtle
Volunteering Program
The Leatherback Trust
The Turtle Foundation
Group Type
Volunteer
Academic
Volunteer
Volunteer
Nonprofit
Academic
Nonprofit/Volunteer
Nonprofit/Volunteer
Nonprofit
Nonprofit/Ecotourism
Volunteer
Government/Volunteer
Nonprofit/Volunteer
Academic
Government/Volunteer
Nonprofit/Volunteer
Nonprofit
Volunteer
Nonprofit
Nonprofit/Volunteer
Nonprofit/Volunteer
Nonprofit
Volunteer
Nonprofit
Nonprofit
Web Address
www.ameliaislandseaturtlewatch.com/
accstr.ufl.edu/
www.bhic.org/STPP.shtml
www.tortoise.org/
www.helpingseaturtles.org/
www.chelonian.org/
www.seewinter.com/what-we-do/nesting
www.cresli.org/cresli/turtles/turtpage.html
www.conservation.org/discover/centers_pr
ograms/sea_turtles/Pages/seaturtles.aspx
www.earthwatch.org
www.gctts.org/
www.fpir.noaa. gov/PRD/prd_volunteer_op
ps.html
malamanahonu.org/
www. iucn-mtsg. org/
www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/oxford/resea
rch/fwh/strandingprogram.html
www.aqua.org/oceanhealth_marp.html
savetheseaturtle.org/
www.nestonline.org/
www. oceanconservancy . org/
www.riverheadfoundation.org/index.asp
www.sccf.org/
www.seaturtles.org
www.alabamaseaturtles.com/
leatherback.org/
www .turtle-foundation, org
F.2 Application of Whitehead (1993)'s Benefit Transfer Approach for Estimating
WTP for T&E Sea Turtle Species
EPA identified a study that used a stated preference valuation approach to estimate the total economic
value (i.e. use and non-use values) of a management program designed to reduce the risk of extinction for
loggerhead sea turtles (Whitehead 1993). The mail survey asked North Carolina households whether they
were willing to pay a bid amount for a management program which reduces the probability that
loggerhead sea turtles would be extinct in 25 years. Within the model framework, the baseline extinction
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
F-3
-------
risk and change from the management program are expressed in terms of a supply probability. Supply
probability reflects the probability that "the wildlife resource will continue to exist so it can be enjoyed by
recreational users and non users (p. 121)" (Whitehead 1993). The household value is expressed as option
price, or willingness to pay under conditions of future supply and demand uncertainty. The option price is
estimated by solving for the dollar amount which would make respondent indifferent to utility with and
without the management program. The function used to estimate option price (Model B from Whitehead
(1993)) is:
OP (1991$) = 1.272 [p2(r2-q2)] / 0.029 Equation F-3
Variable definitions for the parameters in the function are described in Table F-3.
EPA used Whitehead (1993) to assess the range of benefits potentially resulting from 316(b) regulatory
options. Available data sources and biological models were reviewed to assess the potential impact of
baseline losses and reductions on sea turtle supply probability (r2-q2). While analyses of sea turtle
extinction risk have been conducted (e.g., Conant et al. 2009), EPA was unable to identify an existing
model or analysis which could be readily used in conjunction with available mortality data to estimate the
marginal impacts of CWIS on sea turtle extinction risk. Estimates from the literature suggest that
impingement and entrainment mortality is of relatively low importance compared to other human-induced
mortality such as shrimp trawling and other fisheries (Plotkin 1995). However, Grouse et al. (1987) found
that mortality at juvenile and subadult life stages can have a substantial effect on population growth,
suggesting that small changes in survivorship at these age classes could have a measurable impact on
extinction risk. As such, EPA believes that marginal change in supply probability of loggerhead sea
turtles due to 316(b) regulatory options is unlikely to be lower than 0.01 (i.e., a 1% increase in 25 year
survival probability).
EPA specified a marginal improvement of 0.01 within Whitehead's (1993) modeling framework to bound
household values for changes in extinction risk for loggerhead sea turtles as a consequence of 316(b)
regulation. Although this assessment is not based on formal quantitative analysis of extinction risk, it is
intended to illustrate the range of potential benefits associated with reductions in sea turtle losses. Using
the author's mean values for demand probability (p2) and supply probability without the management
program (q2) (Table F-3), EPA calculated an annual household value of $0.35 (2009$). Estimates were
converted to 2009 dollars using the consumer price index (USBLS 2010).
March 28, 2011 F-4
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table F-3: Variable Descriptions and Values used for EPA's Benefits Transfer Application
Value Used in EPA's
Variable Name Description Applications
OP Option Price - The amount a household would be willing to pay under
conditions of supply and demand uncertainty Estimated by the model
p2 Demand Probability - for wildlife users, demand uncertainty occurs
when it is indeterminate whether recreational use of the wildlife
resource will be pursued because of uncertain travel costs, income,
and tastes. For nonusers, demand uncertainty depends on uncertain
tastes. 0.51
n a Supply Probability without the Management Program - probability
H2
that the resource will continue to exist in 25 years without
implementation of the management program. 0.43
r2 Supply Probability with the Management Program - probability that
the resource will continue to exist in 25 years with implementation of
the management program. 0.44
(r2-q2)b Marginal increase in supply probability resulting from the
management program 0.01
a The model results are linear for marginal improvements in supply probability.
b EPA notes that a marginal change in supply probability of 0.01 is substantially less than changes used by Whitehead (1993) for model
estimation. Whitehead (1993) estimated an annual household willingness topayvalue of $10.98 (1991$) for a mean increase in supply
probability of 0.47 in 25 years.
F.3 Application of Richardson & Loomis' (2008) WTP Model
To illustrate the potential magnitude of nonuse values for T&E species affected by I&E mortality in the
California and Inland regions, EPA applied a WTP meta-analytical model (Richardson and Loomis 2009)
to hypothetical scenarios. Because EPA does not currently have region-wide I&E mortality losses for all
T&E species, nor population models to estimate the effect of I&E mortality on population size, estimates
are presented only to assess the range of benefits potentially resulting from 316(b) regulatory options. The
modeled scenarios estimate the WTP for 0.25% and 0.5% increases for all T&E fish populations in the
California and Inland regions.
The model used by EPA to estimate nonuse values using benefit transfer is a double log specification
(Model 4 from Richardson and Loomis (2009)), where:
In WTP (2006$) = -153.231 + 0.870 In CHANGESIZE + 1.256 VISITOR+ 1.020 FISH + 0.772
MARINE + 0.826 BIRD - 0.603 In RESPONSERATE+ 2.767 CONJOINT + 1.024 CHARISMATIC -
0.903 MAIL + 0.078 STUDYYEAR Equation F-4
Model variables are described in Table F-4. Excepting all policy-relevant variables, EPA used the mean
values for all model parameters, and converted estimates to 2009$ using the consumer price index
(USBLS2010).
March 28, 2011 F-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table F-4: Variables in the Meta-Analysis Model and Values Used in EPA's Application
Variable Name Description Value Used in EPA's Application
In WTP Natural log of willingness to pay Estimated by model
1 CHANCFST7F Natural log of the percentage change in Log of percentage change in fish
the population of the species of interest population: ln(.25) and ln(.5)
-s7TOTT/~vT> = 1 if survey respondents are visitors _ _
VIM 1 UK ^ ^ ,- 11 ,• • i , U.U
rather than full-time residents
FISH
MARINE
BIRD
InRESPONSERATE
CONJOINT
CHARISMATIC
= 1 for fish species
= 1 for marine mammals
= 1 for bird species
Natural log of the survey response rate
= 1 for conjoint method surveys
= 1 for charismatic species
1.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
MAIL Indicates mail surveys 0.9
STUDY YEAR Year of study 2007
March 28, 2011 F-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Appendix G: Estimation of Price Changes for Consumer Surplus
G.1 Introduction
EPA considered estimating consumer surplus values associated with reductions in impingement and
entrainment mortality (I&E mortality), but found that dockside prices would not change enough to
produce measurable shifts in consumer surplus. This appendix presents the details of this analysis and the
estimated price changes by region and species.
G.2 Methodology and Results
To properly estimate price changes, it is necessary to consider the contribution of the species to the
overall market. Because individual demand functions incorporating substitutes are not available for most
species, EPA estimated price changes in the following way. First, the Agency estimated the total baseline
harvest for relevant species (commercial species of similar types to those affected by I&E mortality), in
three categories: finfish, shrimp, and crabs.60' The totals for finfish were summed for the East Coast and
Gulf, and for the West Coast; while totals for shrimp and crabs were summed across all coastal regions.61
Next, EPA calculated the percentage change in harvest if baseline I&E mortality losses were to be
eliminated, by dividing the total increase in harvest from elimination of baseline I&E mortality by the
total harvest. The percentage change in price for each region and species was then estimated by dividing
the percentage change in harvest by the elasticity for the species group (finfish, shrimp, or crabs).
This last step requires estimates of elasticities. The price elasticity of demand for fish measures the
percentage change in demand in response to a percentage change in fish price. Thus, the inverse elasticity,
or price flexibility, measures the percentage change in price for a given percentage change in quantity.
EPA's review of the economics literature identified several potentially relevant studies, including Asche,
Bjorndal, and Gordon (2005); Capps and Lambrgets (1991); Cheng and Capps (1988); Tsoa, Schrank, and
Roy (1982); Davis, Yen, and Hwan-Lin (2007); and Lin, Richards, and Terry (1988).
Table G-l presents the own-price elasticities identified in the literature review for those commercial
species where I&E mortality losses were estimated. Since elasticities can vary by species, the Agency
grouped the own-price elasticities found in the literature review into three categories: (1) saltwater fish,
(2) shrimp, and (3) crabs. The median elasticities within each of these groups, presented in the fourth
column of Table G-l, are the elasticities used in this analysis. Table G-l shows that there is a substantial
amount of variation in the elasticity estimates, so by selecting the median elasticity rather than taking an
average, the influence of the more extreme estimates is reduced.62
For example, offshore species such as tuna and swordfish, baitfish species, and shellfish were not included.
Harvests for Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the totals.
Only two studies were available for crabs, so EPA used the mean elasticity for crabs. The Agency did not distinguish
between finfish elasticities for the East and West Coast, because some sources provide elasticities based on models that
include both regions.
March 28, 2011 G-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table G-1 : Own-Price Elasticity Estimates from Literature Review
Species _
Group SPeC1CS
Saltwater Cod
Study
Elasticity
-0.54
Median Species
Group Study
Elasticity
-1.89 Cheng and Capps (1988)
Notes
Saltwater Cod
-3.15
-1.89
Bell (1986) as cited in Asche,
Bjorndal and Gordon (2005)
Saltwater Cod(Blocks) -3.16
Mazany, Roy and Schrank (1996) as
-1.89 cited in Asche, Bjorndal and Gordon
(2005)
Saltwater Cod(Fillets) -0.46
-1.89
Tsoa, Schrank and Roy (1982)
Long run estimate.
Saltwater Cod(Fillets) -1.89
-1.89
Asche, Bjorndal and Gordon (2005)
Saltwater Flounder
Mazany, Roy and Schrank (1996) as
-1.63 -1.89 cited in Asche, Bjorndal and Gordon
(2005)
Saltwater Flounder/Sole -0.45
-1.89
Cheng and Capps (1988)
Saltwater Flounder/Sole -1.04
-1.89
Tsoa, Schrank and Roy (1982)
Long run estimate.
Saltwater Halibut
Lin, Richards and Terry (1988) as
-5.56 -1.89 cited in Asche, Bjorndal and Gordon
(2005)
Saltwater Perch
Saltwater Perch
Saltwater Perch
-0.70
-3.09
-0.60
-1.89
-1.89
-1.89
Cheng and Capps (1988)
Capps and Lambrgets (1991)
Tsoa, Schrank and Roy (1982)
Long run estimate.
Saltwater Perch
-215.00
-1.89
Bell (1986) as cited in Asche,
Bjorndal and Gordon (2005)
Saltwater
Saltwater
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Rockfish
Whitefish
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
Shrimp
-3.55
-5.24
-0.70
-1.08
-0.30
-2.84
-1.89
-1.89
-0.63
-0.63
-0.63
-0.63
Capps and Lambrgets (1991)
Capps and Lambrgets (1991)
Cheng and Capps (1988)
Davis, Yen and Hwan-Lin (2007)
Davis, Yen and Hwan-Lin (2007)
Capps and Lambrgets (1991)
Low income
estimate.
High income
estimate.
Shrimp Shrimp
-0.63
-0.63
Doll (1972) as cited in Cheng and
Capps (1988)
Shrimp Shrimp
0.28
-0.63
Cleary (1969) as cited in Cheng and
Capps (1988)
Shrimp Shrimp
-0.57
-0.63
Sun (1995) as cited in Asche,
Bjorndal and Gordon (2005)
Crabs
Crabs
-0.77
-1.31
Cheng and Capps (1988)
Crabs
Crabs
-1.84
-1.31
Capps and Lambrgets (1991)
Table G-2 shows the results of the calculations of percentage changes in price. These percentage changes
were applied to the baseline prices to develop estimates of prices for the increased harvests that would
result from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses. Table G-3 to Table G-7 show the projected prices
after eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses.63 For a 0.27 percent change in total harvest in California,
63 Values of 0.0 for increased harvest from elimination of baseline I&E mortality losses may include increases less than 0.1
thousand Ibs.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
G-2
-------
finfish prices are predicted to change by 0.14 percent; for a 5.52 percent change in harvest for the East
Coast and Gulf, finfish prices are predicted to change by 2.92 percent; for a 0.11 percent change in
harvest of shrimp, prices are predicted to change by 0.17 percent; and for a 0.26 percent change in harvest
for crabs, prices are predicted to change by 0.20 percent. This translates into very small changes
(generally one to two cents) in ex-vessel prices per pound for the species affected by I&E mortality.
Because of the negligible effects on prices, EPA did not include measures of changes in consumer surplus
in the commercial fishing benefits estimates.
Table G-2: Estimated Percentage Change
Region
California
East Coast and Gulf
All Regions
All Regions
Baseline
Species Increase in
Group Harvest3
(Ibs)
Finfish 1,373,100
Finfish 15,758,900
Crabs 678,900
Shrimp 327,700
in Ex-Vessel Price
Total Average
Annual Harvest1"
(Ibs)
546,791,850
397,297,400
315,657,146
289,878,937
by Region and Species Group
Percentage
Change in
Harvest
0.25%
3.97%
0.22%
0.11%
Elasticity
-1.89
-1.89
-1.31
-0.63
Percentage
Change in
Price
-0.13%
-2.10%
-0.16%
-0.18%
a. Estimated increase in harvest due to elimination of baseline I&E mortality.
b. Sum of total landings for all relevant species; source - NMFS landings data.
Table G-3: Estimated
Species
American Shad
Anchovies
Cabezon
California Halibut
California Scorpionfish
Commercial Crabs
Commercial Shrimp
Drums and Croakers
Dungeness Crabs
Flounders
Other
Rockfishes
Sculpins
Sea Basses
Smelts
Surfperches
Total
Price Changes for the
Average Annual Harvest
2005-2009 (thousand Ibs)
75.1
22,607.2
55.6
629.9
7.9
1,290.8
2,552.2
77.0
14,370.0
474.8
57,125.4
2,668.4
3.5
6.5
319.5
30.9
102,294.7
California Region
Price Per Pound
(2009S)a
$0.98
$0.05
$5.83
$4.06
$3.40
$1.33
$1.93
$0.63
$2.07
$0.45
$0.89
$1.25
$3.43
$2.39
$0.38
$1.92
Increase in Harvest from
Elimination of Baseline
I&E Losses (thousand
Ibs)
0.0
0.6
54.4
126.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
4.9
4.3
10.1
4.7
1,168.7
2.6
0.0
0.2
0.5
1,379.0
New Price
Per Pound
(2009S)a
$0.98
$0.05
$5.82
$4.05
$3.40
$1.33
$1.93
$0.63
$2.07
$0.45
$0.89
$1.25
$3.43
$2.39
$0.38
$1.92
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
G-3
-------
Table G-4: Estimated Price Changes for the North Atlantic Region
Species
Average Annual Harvest
2005-2009 (thousand Ibs)
Price Per Pound
(2009S)a
Increase in Harvest from New Price
Elimination of Baseline Per Pound
I&E Losses (thousand Ibs) (2009$)"
American Shad
38.1
169
$0.68
Atlantic Cod
15,427.3
$1.55
2.4
$1.52
Atlantic Herring
106,047.1
112
18.0
$0.12
Atlantic Menhaden
5,548.6
110
5.0
$0.10
Bluefish
1,077.2
$0.47
$0.46
Butterfish
550.9
$0.66
0.2
$0.65
Commercial Crabs
158
0.4
$0.58
Flounders
17,675.4
$1.87
386.9
$1.83
Mackerels
38,896.8
$0.14
2.3
3.14
Other
270,552.6
$0.44
3.9
$0.43
Pollock
14,567.6
155
$0.54
Red Hake
576.9
145
$0.44
Sculpins
125
4.0
$0.24
Scup
4531
0.1
$0.84
Searobin
23.9
$0.12
0.1
$0.12
Silver Hake
9,613.2
153
0.6
3.52
Skate Species
31,638.4
120
0.5
$0.20
Tautog
147.1
$2.03
4.9
$1.99
Weakfish
28.2
$1.48
0.2
$1.45
White Perch
6.6
$1.45
$1.42
Total
53,2054.6
429.6
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
G-4
-------
Table G-5: Estimated
Species
Alewife
American Shad
Atlantic Herring
Atlantic Menhaden
Black Drum
Blue Crab
Bluefish
Butterfish
Commercial Crabs
Drums and Croakers
Flounders
Other
Red Hake
Scup
Searobin
Silver Hake
Spot
Striped Bass
Striped Mullet
Tautog
Weakfish
White Perch
Total
Price Changes for the Mid-Atlantic Region
. . 1TT , T.-T.T.J Increase in Harvest from
Average Annual Harvest Pnce Per Pound _,. ... „_ ,.
™ns ™nr> fa. j lu ^ sinnnrta Elimination of Baseline
2005-2009 (thousand Ibs) (2009$) T „ _ T ,,, , ,, .
v i \ i j££ Losses (thousand Ibs)
173.3
111.4
1,284.2
338,097.3
93.8
62,874.0
2,906.3
501.3
2,240.2
11,430.1
6,468.0
462,429.6
150.7
3,225.6
12.0
3,867.0
3,286.9
5,413.8
20.3
135.9
497.0
1,190.0
906,408.6
$0.21
$0.92
$0.11
$0.07
$1.26
$1.17
$0.43
$0.85
$0.60
$0.49
$2.01
$0.32
$0.52
$0.98
$0.22
$0.67
$0.74
$2.02
$0.53
$2.64
$1.10
$0.76
0.4
1.5
0.1
4,915.4
0.3
1,014.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
1,519.2
8.7
1,264.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
1,111.4
88.6
0.3
0.0
741.9
4.0
10,671.9
New Price
Per Pound
(2009S)a
$0.21
$0.90
$0.11
$0.07
$1.23
$1.15
$0.42
$0.83
$0.60
$0.48
$1.97
$0.31
$0.51
$0.96
$0.22
$0.66
$0.72
$1.98
$0.52
$2.58
$1.08
$0.74
Table G-6: Estimated
Species
Atlantic Menhaden
Blue Crab
Commercial Crabs
Drums and Croakers
Other
Spot
Stone Crab
Weakfish
Total
Price Changes for the South
Atlantic Region
Average Annual _ . _ _ ,
TT r->«w»s i«w»r> Price Per Pound
Harvest 2005-2009 onium"
(thousand Ibs) (MW>V
3,726.8
36,414.4
518
8,333.3
93,761.3
1,167.6
101.1
266.5
144,289.1
$0.11
$0.91
$1.51
$0.40
$1.17
$0.65
$4.56
$0.93
Increase in Harvest
from Elimination of
Baseline I&E Losses
(thousand Ibs)
55.7
4.2
0.0
14.9
3.0
20.4
0.5
0.7
99.4
New Price
Per Pound
(2009S)a
$0.11
$0.91
$1.51
$0.39
$1.15
$0.64
$4.55
$0.91
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
G-5
-------
Table G-7: Estimated Price Changes for the Gulf of Mexico Region
Species
Average Annual _ . _
Harvest 2005-2009 on
(thousand Ibs) *•
Increase in Harvest from
'er Pound Elimination of Baseline
09S)a I&E Losses (thousand
Ibs)
New Price
Per Pound
Atlantic Menhaden 930,460.2 $0.06 988.4 $0.06
Black Drum 4,397.3 $0.83 1,885.2 $0.81
Blue Crab 56,804.0 $0.77 228.5 $0.77
Drums and Croakers 8LO $6.47 4O3$6.33
Leatherjacket 65.6 $1.40 90.7 $1.37
Mackerels 3,967.4 $1.04 0.3 $1.02
Other 1,250,334.1 $0.41 240.5 $0.40
Pink Shrimp 8,696.5 $2.06 327.7 $2.06
Sea Basses 66.6 $0.97 0 $0.95
Sheepshead 1,366.3 $0.41 0 $0.40
Spot 18.1 $0.43 40.0 $0.42
Stone Crab 5,313.9 $4.23 439.0 $4.22
Striped Mullet 10,347.7 $0.67 1,278.3 $0.66
Total 2,271,918.70 '. 5,558.9
March 28, 2011 G-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Appendix H: Details of Regional Commercial Fishing Benefits
Table H-1: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the
California Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)
Average
Annual
Species Name Harvest 2006-
2009
(thousand Ibs)
American Shad
Anchovies
Cabezon
California Halibut
California Scorpionfish
Commercial Crabs
Commercial Shrimp
Drums and Croakers
Dungeness Crabs
Flounders
Other
Rockfishes
Sculpins
Sea Basses
Smelts
Surfperches
Total (undiscounted)
Total (3% Discount Rate)
Total (7% Discount Rate)
75.1
22,607.2
55.6
629.9
7.9
1,290.8
2,552.2
77.0
14,370.0
474.8
57,125.4
2,668.4
3.5
6.5
319.5
30.9
102,294.7
'rice per
Pound
Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest
(thousand Ibs)
Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
$0.98
$0.05
$5.83
$4.06
$3.40
$1.33
$1.93
$0.63
$2.07
$0.45
$0.89
$1.25
$3.43
$2.39
$0.38
$1.92
0.0
0.6
54.4
126.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
4.9
4.3
10.1
4.7
1,168.7
2.6
0.0
0.2
0.5
1,379.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.6
2.6
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.5
6.7
0.0
0.6
46.4
107.8
0.0
1.3
0.0
4.3
3.8
8.8
4.1
996.4
2.2
0.0
0.1
0.5
1,176.4
0.0
0.6
48.5
112.8
0.0
1.4
0.0
4.5
3.9
9.1
4.2
1,042.2
2.3
0.0
0.1
0.5
1,230.3
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.6
2.5
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.4
6.5
Annual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0.0
166.5
298.8
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.3
6.6
2.9
2.2
907.7
5.7
0.0
0.0
0.4
1,393.9
1,236.0
1,195.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.3
0.3
2.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.7
3.7
3.3
0.0
142.0
254.8
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.1
5.7
2.5
1.9
774.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
0.4
1,188.7
750.8
573.3
0.0
148.5
266.5
0.0
1.4
0.0
1.2
6.0
2.6
2.0
809.6
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
1,243.3
776.0
589.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.3
2.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
4.6
3.6
3.2
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1=1 Everywhere; Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MOD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality
Everywhere; Option 4 = 1 for Facilities > 50 MGD
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
H-1
-------
Table H-2: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the North
Atlantic Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)
Species Name
American Shad
Atlantic Cod
Atlantic Herring
Atlantic Menhaden
Bluefish
Butterfish
Commercial Crabs
Flounders
Mackerels
Other
Pollock
Red Hake
Sculpins
Scup
Searobin
Silver Hake
Skate Species
Tautog
Weakfish
White Perch
Total (undiscounted)
Total (3% Discount Rate)
Total (7% Discount Rate)
Average
Annual .
Harvest 2006- "
2009 '
(thousand Ibs)
38.1
15,427.3
106,047.1
5,548.6
1,077.2
550.9
15,107.8
17,675.4
38,896.8
270,552.6
14,567.6
576.9
0.0
4,531.0
23.9
9,613.2
31,638.4
147.1
28.2
6.6
532,054.6
ce per
Kind
Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest
(thousand Ibs)
Baseline
$0.69
$1.55
$0.12
$0.10
$0.47
$0.66
$0.58
$1.87
$0.14
$0.44
$0.55
$0.45
$0.25
$0.86
$0.12
$0.53
$0.20
$2.03
$1.48
$1.45
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses;
Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
0.0
2.4
18.0
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
386.9
2.3
3.9
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
4.9
0.2
0.0
429.6
Option
Option 1 Option 2
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
1=1 Everywhere;
0.0
2.0
14.8
4.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
315.8
1.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
4.0
0.2
0.0
351.7
Option
Option 3 Option 4
0.0
2.1
15.5
4.3
0.0
0.2
0.4
331.2
1.9
3.4
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.1
0.1
0.6
0.5
4.2
0.2
0.0
368.6
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
1.3
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
2 = 1 Everywhere and E
Annual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
Baseline Option 1 Option 2
0.0
2.5
1.7
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
460.2
0.3
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
4.5
0.3
0.0
471.2
417.9
404.0
for Facilities >125
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
1.5
1.3
MOD;
0.0
2.0
1.4
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
375.5
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
3.7
0.2
0.0
384.6
230.6
171.3
Option 3 =
Option 3 Option 4
0.0 0.0
2.1 0.1
1.4 0.0
0.3 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0
0.1 0.1
393.9 1.5
0.2 0.0
0.8 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.0
0.2 0.0
0.1 0.0
3.8 0.0
0.2 0.0
0.0 0.0
403.4 1.9
241.5 1.5
179.3 1.3
I&E Mortality
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
H-2
-------
Table H-3: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the Mid-
Atlantic Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)
Species Name
Alewife
American Shad
Atlantic Herring
Atlantic Menhaden
Black Drum
Blue Crab
Bluefish
Butterfish
Commercial Crabs
Drums and Croakers
Flounders
Other
Red Hake
Scup
Searobin
Silver Hake
Spot
Striped Bass
Striped Mullet
Tautog
Weakfish
White Perch
Total (undiscounted)
Total (3% Discount Rate)
Total (7% Discount Rate)
Average
Annual .
Harvest 2006- "
2009 '
(thousand Ibs)
173.3
111.4
1,284.2
338,097.3
93.8
62,874.0
2,906.3
501.3
2,240.2
11,430.1
6,468.0
462,429.6
150.7
3,225.6
12.0
3,867.0
3,286.9
5,413.8
20.3
135.9
497.0
1,190.0
906,408.6
ce per
nine!
$0.21
$0.92
$0.11
$0.07
$1.26
$1.17
$0.43
$0.85
$0.60
$0.49
$2.01
$0.32
$0.52
$0.98
$0.22
$0.67
$0.74
$2.02
$0.53
$2.64
$1.10
$0.76
Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest
(thousand Ibs)
Baseline
0.4
1.5
0.1
4,915.4
0.3
1,014.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
1,519.2
8.7
1,264.4
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
1,111.4
88.6
0.3
0.0
741.9
4.0
10,671.9
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option
Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.4 0.4
1.3 1.4
0.1 0.1
3,273.9 4,758.3 4,780.2
0.2
10.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
16.5 1,
3.4
126.9 1,
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
120.0 1,
0.4
0.2
0.0
196.1
0.3
3,749.8 10,
1=1 Everywhere;
0.3 0.3
929.6 941.4
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.3 0.3
392.6 1,410.2
8.3 8.3
167.9 1,181.3
0.8 0.8
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1
111.4 1,111.4
81.2 82.2
0.3 0.3
0.0 0.0
694.9 701.4
3.7 3.7
151.6 10,224.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
3,270.8
0.2
10.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
16.5
3.4
126.8
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
119.9
0.4
0.2
0.0
196.0
0.3
3,746.3
Option 2 = 1 Everywhere and E
Annual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Baseline Option 1 Option 2
0.1
1.1
0.0
223.3
0.3
678.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
549.3
11.9
293.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
693.6
119.2
0.1
0.0
619.3
2.5
3,192.2
2,831.2
2,736.8
for Facilities
0.1
0.0
0.0
148.7
0.2
6.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
6.0
4.5
29.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
74.9
0.6
0.1
0.0
163.7
0.2
435.5
342.0
302.7
>125 MOD;
0.1
1.0
0.0
216.1
0.3
621.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
503.5
11.2
270.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
693.6
109.2
0.1
0.0
580.0
2.3
3,010.1
1,614.8
1,124.0
Option 3 =
Option 3 Option 4
0.1
1.0
0.0
217.1
0.3
629.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
509.9
11.3
273.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
693.6
110.6
0.1
0.0
585.5
2.3
3,035.4
1,629.0
1,133.9
I&E Mortality
0.1
0.0
0.0
148.6
0.2
6.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
6.0
4.5
29.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
74.8
0.6
0.1
0.0
163.6
0.2
435.1
341.6
302.4
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
H-3
-------
Table H-4: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses
Atlantic Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)
Average
Annual
Pri
Species Name Harvest 2006-
2009 '
(thousand Ibs)
Atlantic Menhaden 3,726.8
Blue Crab 36,414.4
Commercial Crabs 518.0
Drums and Croakers 8,333.3
Other 93,761.3
Spot 1,167.6
Stone Crab 101.1
Weakfish 266.5
Total (undiscounted) 144,289.1
Total (3% Discount Rate)
Total (7% Discount Rate)
ce per
jund
$0.11
$0.91
$1.51
$0.40
$1.17
$0.65
$4.56
$0.93
Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest
(thousand Ibs)
Baseline
55.7
4.2
0.0
14.9
3.0
20.4
0.5
0.7
99.4
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option
Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
Option 1
31.4
2.6
0.0
0.3
1.5
8.6
0.3
0.4
45.1
Option 2
47.4
3.6
0.0
12.4
2.5
17.3
0.5
0.6
84.2
1=1 Everywhere; Option
Option 3
47.4
3.6
0.0
12.4
2.5
17.3
0.5
0.6
84.3
Option 4
31.4
2.6
0.0
0.3
1.5
8.6
0.3
0.4
45.1
2 = 1 Everywhere and E
at In-Scope Facilities in the South
Annual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Baseline
4.7
2.2
0.0
3.2
2.1
9.3
1.4
0.4
23.3
20.7
20.0
for Facilities
Option 1
2.7
1.4
0.0
0.1
1.1
3.9
0.9
0.2
10.2
8.0
7.1
>125 MOD;
Option 2
4.0
1.9
0.0
2.7
1.8
7.9
1.2
0.4
19.8
11.5
8.4
Option 3 =
Option 3
4.0
1.9
0.0
2.7
1.8
7.9
1.2
0.4
19.8
11.5
8.4
Option 4
2.7
1.4
0.0
0.1
1.1
3.9
0.9
0.2
10.2
8.0
7.1
I&E Mortality
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
H-4
-------
Table H-5: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses
Mexico Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)
Average
Annual .
Pri
Species Name Harvest 2006-
2009 '
(thousand Ibs)
Atlantic Menhaden 930,460.2
Black Dram 4,397.3
Blue Crab 56,804.0
Drams and Croakers 81.0
Leather] acket 65.6
Mackerels 3,967.4
Other 1,250,334.1
Pink Shrimp 8,696.5
Sea Basses 66.6
Sheepshead 1,366.3
Spot 18.1
Stone Crab 5,313.9
Striped Mullet 10,347.7
Total (undiscounted) 2,271,918.7
Total (3% Discount Rate)
Total (7% Discount Rate)
ce per
nine!
$0.06
$0.83
$0.77
$6.47
$1.40
$1.04
$0.41
$2.06
$0.97
$0.41
$0.43
$4.23
$0.67
Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest
(thousand Ibs)
Baseline
988.4
1,885.2
228.5
40.3
90.7
0.3
240.5
327.7
0.0
0.0
40.0
439.0
1,278.3
5,558.9
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option
Everywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MOD
Option 1
749.3
3.1
40.2
30.8
66.2
0.2
164.8
154.4
0.0
0.0
24.8
104.1
121.5
1,459.4
Option 2
978.5
1,276.5
171.2
40.0
88.7
0.3
230.8
285.5
0.0
0.0
37.3
340.1
914.9
4,363.8
1=1 Everywhere; Option
Option 3
979.2
1,279.7
171.5
40.0
88.8
0.3
231.0
285.9
0.0
0.0
37.3
340.7
916.9
4,371.3
Option 4
743.6
3.1
39.9
30.6
65.7
0.2
163.6
153.3
0.0
0.0
24.6
103.3
120.5
1,448.4
2 = 1 Everywhere and E
at In-Scope Facilities in the Gulf of
Annual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Baseline
44.1
1,087.6
126.3
140.7
0.2
45.7
293.4
0.0
0.0
9.3
1,323.1
676.0
3,746.5
3,462.9
3,449.9
for Facilities
Option 1
33.5
1.8
22.2
107.7
0.2
31.3
138.3
0.0
0.0
5.8
313.8
64.2
718.7
588.4
536.8
>125 MOD;
Option 2
43.7
736.5
94.6
139.7
0.2
43.8
255.7
0.0
0.0
8.7
1,024.7
483.9
2,831.5
1,805.7
1,394.2
Option 3 =
Option 3
43.7
738.3
94.8
139.8
0.2
43.9
256.0
0.0
0.0
8.7
1,026.6
484.9
2,836.9
1,804.3
1,390.4
Option 4
33.2
1.8
22.0
106.8
0.2
31.1
137.2
0.0
0.0
5.7
311.4
63.7
713.3
584.0
532.7
I&E Mortality
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
H-5
-------
Table H-6: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses
Lakes Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)
Species Name
Bullhead
Freshwater Drum
Other
Smelts
White Bass
Whitefish
Yellow Perch
Total (undiscounted)
Total (3% Discount Rate)
Total (7% Discount Rate)
Average
Annual .
Harvest 2006-
->nno Pound
2009
(thousand Ibs)
569.7 $0.41
497.5 $0.16
13,819.0 $0.94
522.2 $0.91
432.2 $0.68
9,406.5 $0.87
1,609.7 $2.08
40,675.8
Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest
(thousand Ibs)
Baseline
0.8
16.1
97.2
105.9
22.0
101.9
2.3
346.2
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option
Everywhere; Option 4 = 1 for Facilities > 50 MGD
Option 1
0.7
3.8
35.0
91.2
6.4
88.3
1.6
227.0
Option 2
0.8
13.7
85.3
104.6
19.0
100.8
2.2
326.4
1=1 Everywhere; Option
Option 3
0.8
13.8
86.1
104.9
19.2
101.1
2.2
328.0
Option 4
0.7
3.8
34.7
90.5
6.4
87.6
1.6
225.1
2 = 1 Everywhere and E
at In-Scope Facilities in the Great
Annual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
Baseline
0.1
0.8
26.6
27.8
4.3
25.9
1.4
86.8
80.3
80.0
for Facilities
Option 1
0.1
0.2
9.6
24.0
1.3
22.4
0.9
58.4
47.8
43.6
>125 MGD
Option 2
0.1
0.6
23.3
27.5
3.7
25.6
1.3
82.2
52.9
41.1
; Option 3 =
Option 3
0.1
0.6
23.6
27.6
3.8
25.6
1.3
82.6
53.0
41.0
Option 4
0.1
0.2
9.5
23.8
1.3
22.2
0.9
57.9
47.4
43.3
I&E Mortality
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
H-6
-------
Appendix I: Details of Regional Recreational Fishing Benefits
1.1 California
Table 1-1: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-
scope Facilities in the California Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
California halibut
Flounders
Total (Flatfish)
Striped bass
Total (Small Game)
Cabezon
California scorpionfish
Croakers
Rockfish
Sculpin
Sea bass
Smelts
Sunfish
Surfperch
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
38,418.0
246.0
38,664.0
1,209.0
1,209.0
7,158.0
58.0
32,132.0
285,002.0
111,780.0
512,501.0
21.0
13.0
30,172.0
978,837.0
3,629.0
1,022,339.0
Value per Fish
5th
S5.ll
S5.ll
$5.11
S4.21
$4.21
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
$1.79
$1.86
Mean
S9.76
S9.76
$9.76
S7.26
$7.26
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
$2.96
$3.10
95th
S18.62
S18.62
$18.62
S 12.43
$12.43
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
$4.89
$5.18
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
196.7
1.3
198.0
5.0
5.0
12.8
0.1
57.5
509.8
200.0
916.8
0.0
0.0
54.0
1,751.0
7.0
1,960.0
1,740.0
1,681.0
Mean
374.6
2.4
377.0
9.0
9.0
21.2
0.2
95.0
842.9
330.6
1,515.8
0.1
0.0
89.2
2,895.0
11.0
3,292.0
2,923.0
2,823.0
95th
715.4
4.6
720.0
15.0
15.0
35.0
0.3
157.1
1,393.2
546.4
2,505.3
0.1
0.1
147.5
4,785.0
19.0
5,539.0
4,917.0
4,750.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-1
-------
Table 1-2: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the California Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
Mean
95"
Mean
95"
California halibut
71.0
S5.ll
9.76 $18.62
1.5
Flounders
22.0
S5.ll
9.76 $18.62
0.2
0.5
Total (Flatfish)
92.0
$5.11
$9.76 $18.62
0.0
1.0
2.0
Striped bass
S4.21
S7.26 $12.43
Total (Small Game)
0.0
$4.21
$7.26 $12.43
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cabezon
10.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
California scorpionfish
50.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
0.1
0.1
0.2
Croakers
4,696.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
8.4
13.9
23.0
Rockfish
636.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
1.1
1.9
3.1
Sculpin
3,284.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
9.7
16.1
Sea bass
284.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
0.5
1.4
Smelts
17.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
0.1
0.1
Sunfish
1.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
Surfperch
26,391.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
47.0
78.3
129.1
Total (Other Saltwater)
35,369.0 $1.79
$2.96
$4.89
63.0
105.0
173.0
Total (Unidentified)
976.0
$1.86
$3.10
$5.18
2.0
3.0
5.0
Total (Undiscounted)
36,438.0
66.0
109.0
180.0
Total (3% discount rate)
51.0
85.0
141.0
Total (7% discount rate)
46.0
75.0
125.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-2
-------
Table 1-3: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the California
Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
California halibut
Flounders
Total (Flatfish)
Striped bass
Total (Small Game)
Cabezon
California scorpionfish
Croakers
Rockfish
Sculpin
Sea bass
Smelts
Sunfish
Surfperch
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscoiinted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase ii
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adull
fish)
32,753.0
213.0
32,967.0
1,031.0
1,031.0
6,103.0
57.0
28,097.0
242,999.0
95,765.0
436,840.0
20.0
12.0
29,711.0
839,604.0
3,240.0
876,841.0
i
Value per Fish
t
5th
S5.ll
S5.ll
$5.11
S4.21
$4.21
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
SI. 79
S1.79
SI. 79
SI. 79
$1.79
$1.86
Mean
S9.76
S9.76
$9.76
S7.26
$7.26
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
S2.96
$2.96
$3.10
95th
S18.62
S18.62
$18.62
S12.43
$12.43
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
S4.89
$4.89
$5.18
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
167.9
1.1
169.0
4.0
4.0
10.9
0.1
50.3
434.7
171.3
781.5
0.0
0.0
53.2
1,502.0
6.0
1,681.0
1,037.0
792.0
Mean
319.9
2.1
322.0
7.0
7.0
18.0
0.2
83.1
718.6
283.2
1,291.9
0.1
0.0
87.9
2,483.0
10.0
2,822.0
1,741.0
1,330.0
95th
610.0
4.0
614.0
13.0
13.0
29.8
0.3
137.3
1,187.8
468.1
2,135.3
0.1
0.1
145.2
4,104.0
17.0
4,748.0
2,929.0
2,237.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-3
-------
Table 1-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) in the California Region, by Species
(2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
Mean
95"
Mean
95"
California halibut
34,260.0 S5.ll
9.76 $18.62
174.9
333.8
637.9
Flounders
222.0
S5.ll
9.76 $18.62
1.1
2.2
4.1
Total (Flatfish)
34,482.0 $5.11
$9.76 $18.62
176.0
336.0
642.0
Striped bass
1,078.0 S4.21 S7.26 $12.43
5.0
13.0
Total (Small Game)
1,078.0 $4.21
$7.26 $12.43
5.0
8.0
13.0
Cabezon
6,383.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
11.4
18.9
31.2
California scorpionfish
57.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
0.1
0.2
0.3
Croakers
29,198.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
52.2
86.3
142.7
Rockfish
254,174.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
454.5
751.6
1,242.4
Sculpin
100,044.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
178.9
295.9
489.0
Sea bass
456,964.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
817.2
1,351.3
2,233.6
Smelts
21.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
0.1
0.1
Sunfish
12.0
SI.79
S2.96
S4.89
0.1
Surfperch
29,987.0 S1.79
S2.96
S4.89
53.6
8.7
146.6
Total (Other Saltwater)
876,840.0 $1.79
$2.96
$4.89 1,568.0 2,593.0
4,286.0
Total (Unidentified)
3,349.0 $1.86
$3.10
$5.18
6.0
10.0
17.0
Total (Undiscounted)
915,750.0
1,755.0 2,948.0
4,959.0
Total (3% discount rate)
1,096.0 1,840.0
3,095.0
Total (7% discount rate)
832.0 1,396.0
2,349.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-4
-------
Table 1-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the California Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
Mean
95th
5th
Mean
95th
California halibut
69.0
$5.11
$9.76
$18.62
1.5
Flounders
21.0
$5.11
$9.76 $18.62
0.2
0.5
Total (Flatfish)
90.0
S5.ll
$9.76
$18.62
0.0
1.0
2.0
Striped bass
$4.21
$7.26 $12.43
Total (Small Game)
$4.21
$7.26
$12.43
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cabezon
10.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.89
California scorpionfish
49.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.8
0.1
0.1
0.2
Croakers
4,565.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.89
8.1
13.5
22.3
Rockfish
618.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.8
1.1
3.0
Sculpin
3,192.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.89
5.7
9.5
15.6
Sea bass
276.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.8
0.5
1.3
Smelts
16.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.89
0.1
Sun fish
1.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.8
Surfperch
25,654.0
$1.79
$2.96
$4.89
45.5
76.1
125.4
Total (Other Saltwater)
34,382.0 $1.79
$2.96
$4.89
61.0
102.0
168.0
Total (Unidentified)
949.0
$1.86
$3.10
$5.18
2.0
3.0
5.0
Total (Undiscounted)
35,421.0
64.0
106.0
175.0
Total (3 % discount rate)
50.0
83.0
137.0
Total (7% discount rate)
44.0
73.0
121.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-5
-------
1.2 North Atlantic
Table 1-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-
scope Facilities in the North Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic mackerel
Bluefish
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Atlantic Cod
Gunner
Pollock
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
White Perch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
fish)
310,442.0
310,442.0
903.0
1.0
0.0
33.0
937.0
1,281.0
107,374.0
4.0
323,088.0
128.0
823.0
14,323.0
0.0
447,021.0
2,783.0
761,183.0
5th
$3.81
S3.81
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
S2.13
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
S1.79
S1.80
Mean
$5.96
$5.96
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$3.01
95th
$9.42
$9.42
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$5.03
5th
1,182.0
1,182.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
2.3
191.9
0.0
577.5
0.2
1.5
25.6
0.0
799.0
5.0
1,988.0
1,765.0
1,705.0
Mean
1,850.0
1,850.0
5.8
0.0
0.0
0.2
6.0
3.8
320.2
0.0
963.4
0.4
2.5
42.7
0.0
1,333.0
8.0
3,197.0
2,838.0
2,742.0
95th
2,925.0
2,925.0
15.4
0.0
0.0
0.6
16.0
6.4
533.7
0.0
1,606.0
0.6
4.1
71.2
0.0
2,222.0
14.0
5,177.0
4,596.0
4,440.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-6
-------
Table 1-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the North Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic mackerel
Bluefish
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Atlantic Cod
Gunner
Pollock
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
White Perch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
fish)
836.0
836.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
40.0
19.0
1.0
345.0
8.0
45.0
17.0
0.0
476.0
181.0
1,495.0
5th
$3.81
S3.81
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
S2.13
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
S1.80
Mean
$5.96
S5.96
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
S5.94
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
S2.98
$3.01
95th
$9.42
S9.42
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$5.03
5th
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
Mean
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
95th
8.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.0
1.0
11.0
9.0
8.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-7
-------
Table 1-8: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the North Atlantic
Region, by Species (2009$)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Species Harvest
(harvestable adult
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic mackerel
Blueiish
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Atlantic Cod
Gunner
Pollock
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
White Perch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
iisn;
253,297.0
253,297.0
736.0
1.0
0.0
27.0
764.0
1,054.0
87,542.0
3.0
263,485.0
106.0
682.0
11,681.0
0.0
364,555.0
2,313.0
620,929.0
Value per Fish
5th
$3.81
S3.81
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
S2.13
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
S1.80
Mean
$5.96
$5.96
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$3.01
95th
$9.42
$9.42
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$5.03
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
964.0
964.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
1.9
156.6
0.0
471.2
0.2
1.2
20.9
0.0
652.0
4.0
1,622.0
939.0
698.0
Mean
1,510.0
1,510.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.2
5.0
3.1
261.0
0.0
785.6
0.3
2.0
34.8
0.0
1,087.0
7.0
2,608.0
1,510.0
1,122.0
95th
2,387.0
2,387.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
13.0
5.2
435.1
0.0
1,309.6
0.5
3.4
58.1
0.0
1,812.0
12.0
4,223.0
2,446.0
1,817.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-8
-------
Table 1-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) in the North Atlantic Region, by Species
(2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic mackerel
Bluefish
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Atlantic Cod
Gunner
Pollock
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
White Perch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
11S11)
265,676.0
265,676.0
772.0
1.0
0.0
29.0
801.0
1,104.0
91,836.0
3.0
276,392.0
111.0
713.0
12,253.0
0.0
382,413.0
2,417.0
651,307.0
5th
$3.81
S3.81
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
S2.13
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
S1.79
$1.80
Mean
$5.96
S5.96
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
S5.94
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
S2.98
S3.01
95th
$9.42
S9.42
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
S4.97
S5.03
5th
1,012.0
1,012.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
2.0
164.3
0.0
494.4
0.2
1.3
21.9
0.0
684.0
4.0
1,701.0
1,018.0
756.0
Mean
1,583.0
1,583.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.2
5.0
3.3
273.8
0.0
823.9
0.3
2.1
36.5
0.0
1,140.0
7.0
2,736.0
1,638.0
1,216.0
95th
2,503.0
2,503.0
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
13.0
5.5
456.5
0.0
1,374.0
0.6
3.5
60.9
0.0
1,901.0
12.0
4,430.0
2,652.0
1,969.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-9
-------
Table 1-10: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the North Atlantic Region, by Species
(2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
5th
Mean
95"
-th
Mean
95th
Winter flounder
Total (flatfish)
Atlantic mackerel
Bluefish
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (small game)
Atlantic Cod
Gunner
Pollock
Sculpin
Scup
Searobin
Tautog
White Perch
Total (other saltwater)
Total (unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
836.0
836.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
40.0
19.0
1.0
345.0
8.0
45.0
17.0
0.0
476.0
181.0
1,495.0
$3.81
S3.81
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
$2.13
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
$1.79
S1.79
S1.80
$5.96
S5.96
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
$5.94
S5.94
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
$2.98
S3.01
$9.42
S9.42
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$16.76
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$4.97
$5.03
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
5.0
5.0
8.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
2.0
1.0
11.0
9.0
8.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-10
-------
1.3 Mid-Atlantic
Table 1-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline
scope Facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Summer Flounder
Winter Flounder
Total (Flatfish)
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sunfish
Total (Panfish)
Bluefish
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Black drum
Gunner
Scup
Searobin
Silver perch
Smallmouth bass
Spot
Striped mullet
Tautog
White perch
Whitefish
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
5,310.0
4,946.0
10,256.0
3.0
16.0
3,847.0
11.0
2,891.0
1.0
966.0
221.0
7,956.0
126.0
2,667.0
1,768.0
166,917.0
459,710.0
631,187.0
0.0
0.0
1,782,932.0
57.0
255.0
0.0
1.0
8.0
1.0
57.0
5,388,053.0
12.0
0.0
33,237.0
426.0
7,205,039.0
1,226,622.0
9,081,061.0
Value per Fish
5th
$3.74
$3.74
$3.74
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
S0.53
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
S2.26
$0.00
so.oo
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
S1.85
S1.91
Mean
$5.62
$5.62
S5.62
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
S1.06
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
S5.90
$0.00
so.oo
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
S2.92
$3.24
95th
$8.52
$8.52
$8.52
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$0.00
$0.00
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$5.74
I&E Mortality Losses at In-
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
19.7
18.3
38.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.1
4.0
0.3
6.0
4.0
377.4
1,039.3
1,427.0
0.0
0.0
3,304.3
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
9,985.6
0.0
0.0
61.6
0.8
13,353.0
2,344.0
17,166.0
15,239.0
14,721.0
Mean
30.0
28.0
58.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.0
2.9
0.0
1.0
0.2
8.0
0.7
15.7
10.4
985.1
2,713.0
3,725.0
0.0
0.0
5,205.0
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
15,729.6
0.0
0.0
97.0
1.2
21,034.0
3,978.0
28,803.0
25,569.0
24,701.0
95th
45.0
42.0
87.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
0.0
6.2
0.0
2.1
0.5
17.0
2.0
41.4
27.4
2,589.8
7,132.5
9,793.0
0.0
0.0
8,205.4
0.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
24,796.9
0.1
0.0
153.0
2.0
33,159.0
7,036.0
50,092.0
44,467.0
42,958.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-11
-------
Table 1-12: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Species Harvest
(harvestable adult
fishl
Summer Flounder
Winter Flounder
Total (Flatfish)
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sunfish
Total (Panfish)
Bluefish
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Black drum
Gunner
Scup
Searobin
Silver perch
Smallmouth bass
Spot
Striped mullet
Tautog
White perch
Whitefish
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
4,051.0
499.0
4,550.0
3.0
12.0
787.0
8.0
2,205.0
1.0
0.0
169.0
3,185.0
96.0
2,035.0
1,349.0
796.0
121,529.0
125,805.0
0.0
0.0
19,396.0
43.0
195.0
0.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
44.0
318,070.0
9.0
0.0
2,541.0
325.0
340,629.0
74,846.0
549,015.0
Value per Fish
5th
$3.74
$3.74
S3.74
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
S0.53
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
S2.26
$0.00
so.oo
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
S1.85
S1.91
Mean
$5.62
$5.62
S5.62
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
S1.06
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
S5.90
$0.00
so.oo
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
S2.92
$3.24
95th
(ho c')
j>o.j2
$8.52
S8.52
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
S2.10
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$0.00
SO.OO
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
S4.60
$5.74
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
5th
15.1
1.9
17.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
0.2
4.6
3.0
1.8
274.3
284.0
0.0
0.0
35.9
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
589.2
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.6
631.0
143.0
1,077.0
846.0
749.0
Mean
23.1
2.9
26.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.0
0.6
12.0
8.0
4.7
716.8
742.0
0.0
0.0
56.6
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
928.2
0.0
0.0
7.4
0.9
994.0
243.0
2,009.0
1,577.0
1,396.0
95th
34.7
4.3
39.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.4
7.0
1.5
31.6
20.9
12.4
1,885.7
1,952.0
0.0
0.0
89.3
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1,464.2
0.0
0.0
11.7
1.5
1,568.0
429.0
3,994.0
3,136.0
2,776.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-12
-------
Table 1-13: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses
Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the
Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Summer Flounder
Winter Flounder
Total (Flatfish)
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sunfish
Total (Panfish)
Bluefish
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Black drum
Gunner
Scup
Searobin
Silver perch
Smallmouth bass
Spot
Striped mullet
Tautog
White perch
Whitefish
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
5,180.0
4,569.0
9,749.0
3.0
16.0
3,585.0
10.0
2,820.0
1.0
885.0
216.0
7,536.0
123.0
2,602.0
1,724.0
152,927.0
430,538.0
587,915.0
0.0
0.0
1,634,350.0
55.0
249.0
0.0
1.0
8.0
1.0
56.0
4,959,382.0
12.0
0.0
30,638.0
415.0
6,625,167.0
1,129,224.0
8,359,591.0
Value per Fish
5th
$3.74
$3.74
$3.74
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$0.00
$0.00
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.91
Mean
$5.62
$5.62
$5.62
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$0.00
$0.00
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$3.24
95th
Cc ^o
J>O.JZ
$8.52
$8.52
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$0.00
$0.00
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$5.74
at In-scope
Mid-Atlantic
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
19.1
16.9
36.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.1
4.0
0.3
5.9
3.9
345.7
973.2
1,329.0
0.0
0.0
3,028.8
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
9,190.9
0.0
0.0
56.8
0.8
12,278.0
2,158.0
15,805.0
8,381.0
5,831.0
Mean
29.2
25.8
55.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.9
0.2
8.0
0.7
15.4
10.2
902.6
2,541.1
3,470.0
0.0
0.0
4,771.2
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
14,478.0
0.0
0.0
89.4
1.2
19,341.0
3,662.0
26,536.0
14,073.0
9,792.0
95th
44.1
38.9
83.0
0.0
0.0
7.6
0.0
6.0
0.0
1.9
0.5
16.0
1.9
40.4
26.7
2,372.8
6,680.2
9,122.0
0.0
0.0
7,521.5
0.3
1.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
22,823.8
0.1
0.0
141.0
1.9
30,490.0
6,477.0
46,188.0
24,501.0
17,049.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-13
-------
Table 1-14: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Species
(2009$)
Species
Summer Flounder
Winter Flounder
Total (Flatfish)
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sunfish
Total (Panfish)
Bluefish
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Black drum
Gunner
Scup
Searobin
Silver perch
Smallmouth bass
Spot
Striped mullet
Tautog
White perch
Whitefish
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
5,198.0
4,622.0
9,820.0
3.0
16.0
3,622.0
10.0
2,830.0
1.0
896.0
216.0
7,595.0
123.0
2,611.0
1,730.0
154,871.0
434,593.0
593,930.0
0.0
0.0
1,655,004.0
55.0
250.0
0.0
1.0
8.0
1.0
56.0
5,018,970.0
12.0
0.0
30,999.0
417.0
6,705,773.0
1,142,763.0
8,459,880.0
Value per Fish
5th
$3.74
$3.74
S3.74
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
S0.53
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
S2.26
$0.00
$0.00
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.91
Mean
$5.62
$5.62
$5.62
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$0.00
$0.00
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$3.24
95th
Co co
j>o. JZ,
$8.52
$8.52
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$0.00
$0.00
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$5.74
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
19.6
17.4
37.0
0.0
0.0
1.9
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.5
0.1
4.0
0.3
5.9
3.9
350.2
982.7
1,343.0
0.0
0.0
3,067.0
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
9,301.1
0.0
0.0
57.4
0.8
12,427.0
2,183.0
15,995.0
8,584.0
5,975.0
Mean
29.1
25.9
55.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.9
0.2
8.0
0.7
15.4
10.2
914.0
2,564.7
3,505.0
0.0
0.0
4,831.4
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
14,651.8
0.0
0.0
90.5
1.2
19,576.0
3,706.0
26,851.0
14,410.0
10,030.0
95th
44.5
39.5
84.0
0.0
0.0
7.6
0.0
6.0
0.0
1.9
0.5
16.0
1.9
40.5
26.8
2,402.9
6,742.8
9,215.0
0.0
0.0
7,616.6
0.3
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
23,098.1
0.1
0.0
142.7
1.9
30,861.0
6,555.0
46,731.0
25,078.0
17,456.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-14
-------
Table 1-15: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses
Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the Mid-Atlantic Region,
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Species Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
Summer Flounder
Winter Flounder
Total (Flatfish)
Black Crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Sun fish
Total (Panfish)
Bluefish
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Striped bass
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Atlantic croaker
Atlantic herring
Black drum
Gunner
Scup
Searobin
Silver perch
Smallmouth bass
Spot
Striped mullet
Tautog
White perch
Whitefish
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
4,047.0
499.0
4,546.0
3.0
12.0
786.0
8.0
2,203.0
1.0
0.0
169.0
3,182.0
96.0
2,033.0
1,347.0
796.0
121,415.0
125,687.0
0.0
0.0
19,377.0
43.0
195.0
0.0
1.0
5.0
1.0
44.0
317,770.0
9.0
0.0
2,538.0
324.0
340,307.0
74,775.0
548,496.0
Value per Fish
5th
$3.74
$3.74
S3.74
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
S0.53
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
$2.26
S2.26
$0.00
so.oo
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
$1.85
S1.85
S1.91
Mean
$5.62
$5.62
S5.62
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
S1.06
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$5.90
$0.00
so.oo
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
$2.92
S2.92
S3.24
95th
Co co
j>o. JZ,
$8.52
S8.52
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
S2.10
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$15.52
$0.00
SO.OO
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
$4.60
S5.74
at In-scope
, by Species (2009$)
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
5th
15.1
1.9
17.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
2.0
0.2
4.6
3.0
1.8
274.3
284.0
0.0
0.0
35.9
0.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
589.2
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.6
631.0
143.0
1,076.0
845.0
748.0
Mean
23.1
2.9
26.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
3.0
0.6
12.0
8.0
4.7
716.8
742.0
0.0
0.0
56.5
0.1
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
927.2
0.0
0.0
7.4
0.9
993.0
243.0
2,007.0
1,576.0
1,395.0
95th
34.7
4.3
39.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.4
7.0
1.5
31.5
20.9
12.3
1,883.7
1,950.0
0.0
0.0
89.2
0.2
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1,462.3
0.0
0.0
11.7
1.5
1,566.0
429.0
3,991.0
3,133.0
2,773.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-15
-------
1.4 South Atlantic
Table 1-16: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-
scope Facilities in the South Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Flounders
Total (Flatfish)
Spotted seatrout
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Croakers
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spot
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
tish)
778.0
778.0
1,898.0
455.0
2,353.0
96,913.0
1,518.0
76.0
30,313.0
128,820.0
1,945.0
133,897.0
Value
per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
5th Mean 95th
$3.87
$3.87
$2.72
$2.72
S2.72
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
S2.14
S2.15
$5.61
S5.61
$5.72
$5.72
S5.72
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
S2.85
S2.86
(DO OO
j>o.Zo
S8.28
$12.04
$12.04
$12.04
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
S3.78
S3.82
5th Mean 95"
3.0 4.0
3.0 4.0
4.8 10.5
1.2 2.5
6.0 13.0
207.6 276.1
3.3 4.3
0.2 0.2
64.9 86.4
276.0 367.0
4.0 6.0
290.0 390.0
257.0 346.0
249.0 335.0
6.0
6.0
22.6
5.4
28.0
365.6
5.7
0.3
114.4
486.0
7.0
529.0
469.0
453.0
Table 1-17: Recreational
Facilities Under Option
Species
Flounders
Total (Flatfish)
Spotted seatrout
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Croakers
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spot
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E
1 (I Everywhere) in the South Atlantic
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
tish)
491.0
491.0
0.0
224.0
224.0
1,762.0
0.0
48.0
12,733.0
14,543.0
624.0
15,882.0
Value
per Fish
Mortality
Region,
Losses at In-scope
by Species (2009$)
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
5th Mean 95th
$3.87
S3.87
$2.72
$2.72
S2.72
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
S2.14
S2.15
$5.61
S5.61
$5.72
$5.72
S5.72
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
S2.85
S2.86
$8.28
S8.28
$12.04
$12.04
$12.04
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
S3.78
S3.82
5th Mean 95"
2.0 3.0
2.0 3.0
0.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0
3.8 5.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.1
27.1 35.9
31.0 41.0
1.0 2.0
35.0 47.0
28.0 37.0
24.0 33.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
6.7
0.0
0.2
48.2
55.0
2.0
64.0
50.0
45.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-16
-------
Table 1-18: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E
Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities >
Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Flounders
Total (Flatfish)
Spotted seatrout
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Croakers
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spot
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
663.0
663.0
1,583.0
386.0
1,969.0
80,881.0
1,266.0
65.0
25,654.0
107,866.0
1,641.0
112,139.0
Value
per Fish
5th Mean
$3.87
$3.87
$2.72
$2.72
$2.72
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.15
$5.61
$5.61
$5.72
$5.72
$5.72
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.86
Mortality Losses at In-scope
125 MGD) in the South Atlantic
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
95th
$8.28
$8.28
$12.04
$12.04
$12.04
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.82
5th Mean 95
3.0 4.0
3.0 4.0
4.0 8.8
1.0 2.2
5.0 11.0
173.2 230.2
2.7 3.6
0.1 0.2
54.9 73.0
231.0 307.0
4.0 5.0
243.0 327.0
141.0 190.0
103.0 139.0
th
5.0
5.0
19.3
4.7
24.0
305.2
4.8
0.2
96.8
407.0
6.0
443.0
257.0
188.0
Table 1-19: Recreational
Facilities Under Option
(2009$)
Species
Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) in the South Atlantic Region, by Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
Kt.v.1
Value
per Fish
5th Mean
Flounders
Total (Flatfish)
Spotted seatrout
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Croakers
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spot
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
663.0
663.0
1,586.0
387.0
1,972.0
81,012.0
1,268.0
65.0
25,677.0
108,023.0
1,642.0
112,301.0
$3.87
$3.87
$2.72
$2.72
$2.72
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.15
$5.61
$5.61
$5.72
$5.72
$5.72
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.85
$2.86
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
95th
$8.28
$8.28
$12.04
$12.04
$12.04
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.82
5th Mean 95
3.0 4.0
3.0 4.0
4.0 8.8
1.0 2.2
5.0 11.0
174.0 231.0
2.7 3.6
0.1 0.2
55.1 73.2
232.0 308.0
4.0 5.0
243.0 327.0
141.0 190.0
103.0 139.0
th
5.0
5.0
19.3
4.7
24.0
306.0
4.8
0.2
97.0
408.0
6.0
443.0
257.0
188.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-17
-------
Table 1-20: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 4 (1 for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the South Atlantic Region, by Species
(2009$)
Species
Flounders
Total (Flatfish)
Spotted seatrout
Weakfish
Total (Small Game)
Croakers
Pinfish
Silver perch
Spot
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
491.0
491.0
0.0
224.0
224.0
1,762.0
0.0
48.0
12,733.0
14,543.0
624.0
15,882.0
Value per Fish
5th Mean
$3.87 $5.61
S3.87 S5.61
$2.72 $5.72
$2.72 $5.72
S2.72 S5.72
$2.14 $2.85
$2.14 $2.85
$2.14 $2.85
$2.14 $2.85
S2.14 S2.85
$2.15 S2.86
95th
$8.28
S8.28
$12.04
$12.04
$12.04
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.78
$3.82
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
3.8
0.0
0.1
27.1
31.0
1.0
35.0
28.0
24.0
Mean
3.0
3.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
0.0
0.1
35.9
41.0
2.0
47.0
37.0
33.0
95th
4.0
4.0
0.0
3.0
3.0
6.7
0.0
0.2
48.2
55.0
2.0
64.0
50.0
45.0
Gulf of Mexico
Table 1-21: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline
scope Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Mackerels
Red drum
Spotted seatrout
Total (Small Game)
Atlantic croaker
Black drum
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
1,156.0
26,719.0
512,503.0
540,378.0
179,036.0
1,542,661.0
257,750.0
119.0
118,160.0
46.0
1,474.0
30,308.0
49,804.0
2,179,358.0
131,612.0
2,851,347.0
Value per Fish
5th Mean
$2.87 $5.63
$2.87 $5.63
$2.87 $5.63
S2.87 S5.63
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
$2.14 $2.78
S2.14 S2.78
S2.36 $3.66
95th
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$5.91
I&E Mortality Losses
atln-
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
3.3
76.6
1,470.0
1,550.0
382.3
3,294.3
550.4
0.3
252.3
0.1
3.1
64.7
106.4
4,654.0
311.0
6,515.0
6,022.0
5,999.0
Mean
6.5
150.4
2,885.1
3,042.0
497.3
4,284.6
715.9
0.3
328.2
0.1
4.1
84.2
138.3
6,053.0
482.0
9,576.0
8,852.0
8,818.0
95th
12.8
294.9
5,656.4
5,964.0
646.6
5,571.5
930.9
0.4
426.7
0.2
5.3
109.5
179.9
7,871.0
778.0
14,612.0
13,506.0
13,456.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-18
-------
Table 1-22: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Mackerels
Red dram
Spotted seatrout
Total (Small Game)
Atlantic croaker
Black dram
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
885.0
17,368.0
351,547.0
369,800.0
136,979.0
2,576.0
5,161.0
91.0
65,096.0
0.0
59.0
18,785.0
4,732.0
233,480.0
62,417.0
665,697.0
5th
$2.87
$2.87
$2.87
S2.87
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
S2.14
S2.36
Mean
$5.63
$5.63
$5.63
$5.63
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
S2.78
S3.66
95th
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
S3.61
S5.91
5th
2.5
49.8
1,008.6
1,061.0
292.8
5.5
11.0
0.2
139.1
0.0
0.1
40.1
10.1
499.0
147.0
1,707.0
1,398.0
1,275.0
Mean
5.0
97.8
1,979.2
2,082.0
380.2
7.1
14.3
0.3
180.7
0.0
0.2
52.1
13.1
648.0
228.0
2,959.0
2,422.0
2,210.0
95th
9.8
191.7
3,879.6
4,081.0
494.6
9.3
18.6
0.3
235.0
0.0
0.2
67.8
17.1
843.0
369.0
5,293.0
4,334.0
3,953.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-19
-------
Table 1-23: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the Gulf of Mexico
Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Mackerels
Red dram
Spotted seatrout
Total (Small Game)
Atlantic croaker
Black dram
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
1,148.0
25,256.0
492,047.0
518,450.0
177,750.0
1,044,602.0
176,490.0
119.0
106,846.0
31.0
1,021.0
28,270.0
35,647.0
1,570,775.0
114,838.0
2,204,063.0
5th
$2.87
$2.87
$2.87
S2.87
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
S2.14
S2.36
Mean
$5.63
$5.63
$5.63
S5.63
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
S3.66
95th
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$5.91
5th
3.3
72.5
1,412.2
1,488.0
379.5
2,230.5
376.9
0.3
228.1
0.1
2.2
60.4
76.1
3,354.0
271.0
5,113.0
3,225.0
2,491.0
Mean
6.5
142.2
2,770.3
2,919.0
493.6
2,900.8
490.1
0.3
296.7
0.1
2.8
78.5
99.0
4,362.0
420.0
7,701.0
4,866.0
3,760.0
95th
12.7
278.7
5,430.6
5,722.0
642.0
3,772.7
637.4
0.4
385.9
0.1
3.7
102.1
128.7
5,673.0
679.0
12,073.0
7,642.0
5,908.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-20
-------
Table 1-24: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species
(2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
Mackerels
Red dram
Spotted seatrout
Total (Small Game)
Atlantic croaker
Black dram
Pinfish
Sea bass
Searobin
Sheepshead
Silver perch
Spot
Striped mullet
Total (Other Saltwater)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
lisn)
1,149.0
25,279.0
492,479.0
518,907.0
177,884.0
1,047,164.0
176,912.0
119.0
106,965.0
31.0
1,024.0
28,298.0
35,724.0
1,574,119.0
114,982.0
2,208,009.0
5th
$2.87
$2.87
$2.87
$2.87
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.14
$2.36
Mean
$5.63
$5.63
$5.63
$5.63
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$2.78
$3.66
95th
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$11.04
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$3.61
$5.91
5th
3.3
72.5
1,413.2
1,489.0
379.8
2,235.9
377.7
0.3
228.4
0.1
2.2
60.4
76.3
3,361.0
272.0
5,122.0
3,258.0
2,510.0
Mean
6.5
142.3
2,772.2
2,921.0
494.1
2,908.4
491.4
0.3
297.1
0.1
2.8
78.6
99.2
4,372.0
421.0
7,714.0
4,906.0
3,781.0
95th
12.7
279.0
5,435.3
5,727.0
642.4
3,781.9
638.9
0.4
386.3
0.1
3.7
102.2
129.0
5,685.0
680.0
12,091.0
7,690.0
5,926.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-21
-------
Table 1-25: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species
(2009$)
Species
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
Value per Fish
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009S, thousands)
Mean
95"
Mean
95th
Mackerels
878.0
$2.87
$5.63 $11.04
2.5
4.9
9.7
Red dram
17,237.0 $2.87
$5.63
$11.04
49.5
97.0
190.2
Spotted seatrout
348,894.0
$2.87
$5.63 $11.04
1,001.0
1,964.0
3,850.1
Total (Small Game)
367,009.0 S2.87
$5.63 $11.04 1,053.0
2,066.0
4,050.0
Atlantic croaker
135,945.0
$2.14
$2.78
$3.61
290.4
491.1
Black dram
2,556.0 $2.14
$2.78
$3.61
5.5
7.1
9.2
Pinfish
5,122.0
$2.14
$2.78
$3.61
10.9
14.2
18.5
Sea bass
91.0
$2.14
$2.78
$3.61
0.2
0.3
0.3
Searobin
64,604.0
$2.14
$2.78
$3.61
138.0
179.6
233.4
Sheepshead
$2.14
$2.78
$3.61
Silver perch
58.0
$2.14
$2.78
$3.61
0.1
0.2
0.2
Spot
18,644.0 $2.14
$2.78
$3.61
39.8
51.8
67.3
Striped mullet
4,696.0
$2.14
$2.78
$3.61
10.0
13.1
17.0
Total (Other Saltwater)
231,717.0 $2.14
$2.78
$3.61
495.0
644.0
837.0
Total (Unidentified)
61,946.0 $2.36
$3.66
$5.91
146.0
227.0
366.0
Total (Undiscounted)
660,672.0
1,694.0
2,936.0
5,253.0
Total (3 % discount rate)
1,387.0
2,404.0
4,301.0
Total (7% discount rate)
1,265.0
2,193.0
3,923.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-22
-------
1.5 Great Lakes
Table 1-26: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-
scope Facilities in the Great Lakes Region, by Species (2009$)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Species Harvest
(harvestable adult
«,,u\
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sun fish
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
Northern Pike
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
23.0
23,688.0
23,710.0
69,428.0
69,428.0
11.0
27.0
571.0
4,785.0
5,802.0
6,516.0
14,657.0
13,996.0
18,055.0
64,420.0
1,253.0
1,253.0
0.0
250.0
250.0
190,587.0
349,648.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.42
$4.42
S4.42
$6.10
S6.10
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$8.16
S8.16
$2.18
$2.18
S2.18
S3.33
Mean
$8.56
$8.56
$8.56
$9.43
S9.43
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
S1.33
$13.27
$13.27
$4.11
$4.11
$4.11
$6.22
95th
$16.61
$16.61
$16.61
$14.66
$14.66
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$21.61
$21.61
$7.80
$7.80
$7.80
$11.71
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
0.1
104.9
105.0
424.0
424.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
3.3
4.1
4.6
10.2
9.8
12.6
45.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
635.0
1,219.0
1,127.0
1,123.0
Mean
203.0
203.0
203.0
655.0
655.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
6.3
7.7
8.6
19.3
18.5
23.8
85.0
17.0
17.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1,185.0
2,146.0
1,984.0
1,977.0
95th
394.0
394.0
394.0
1,018.0
1,018.0
0.0
0.1
1.4
12.0
14.5
16.3
36.6
35.0
45.1
161.0
27.0
27.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2,232.0
3,834.0
3,544.0
3,530.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-23
-------
Table 1-27: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the Great Lakes Region, by Species (2009$)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Species Harvest
(harvestable adult
«_u\
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sun fish
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
Northern Pike
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
19.0
6,939.0
6,958.0
60,141.0
60,141.0
9.0
23.0
460.0
112.0
4,248.0
290.0
12,641.0
192.0
12,437.0
30,413.0
845.0
845.0
0.0
217.0
217.0
77,515.0
176,089.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.42
$4.42
S4.42
$6.10
$6.10
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
S0.70
$8.16
S8.16
$2.18
$2.18
S2.18
S3.33
Mean
$8.56
$8.56
S8.56
$9.43
$9.43
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$13.27
$13.27
$4.11
$4.11
$4.11
$6.22
95th
$16.61
$16.61
$16.61
$14.66
$14.66
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$21.61
$21.61
$7.80
$7.80
$7.80
$11.71
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
0.1
30.9
31.0
367.0
367.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.1
2.9
0.2
8.7
0.1
8.6
21.0
7.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
258.0
685.0
561.0
511.0
Mean
60.0
60.0
60.0
567.0
567.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.1
5.6
0.4
16.6
0.3
16.4
40.0
11.0
11.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
482.0
1,162.0
951.0
867.0
95th
116.0
116.0
116.0
882.0
882.0
0.0
0.1
1.1
0.3
10.6
0.7
31.6
0.5
31.1
76.0
18.0
18.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
908.0
2,001.0
1,638.0
1,495.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-24
-------
Table 1-28: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses
Facilities Under Option 2 (1 Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the
Region, by Species (2009$)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Species Harvest
(harvestable adult
fi*h\
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sun fish
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
Northern Pike
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
22. 0
20,444.0
20,466.0
68,676.0
68,676.0
10.0
27.0
557.0
3,846.0
5,568.0
5,267.0
14,487.0
11,220.0
17,155.0
58,137.0
1,187.0
1,187.0
0.0
247.0
248.0
169,259.0
317,974.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.42
$4.42
S4.42
$6.10
S6.10
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$8.16
S8.16
$2.18
$2.18
S2.18
S3.33
Mean
$8.56
$8.56
$8.56
$9.43
S9.43
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
S1.33
$13.27
$13.27
$4.11
$4.11
$4.11
$6.22
95th
$16.61
$16.61
$16.61
$14.66
$14.66
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$21.61
$21.61
$7.80
$7.80
$7.80
$11.71
at In-scope
Great Lakes
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
0.1
90.9
91.0
419.0
419.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.7
3.9
3.7
10.2
7.9
12.1
41.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
564.0
1,124.0
720.0
559.0
Mean
175.0
175.0
175.0
648.0
648.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
5.1
7.4
7.0
19.2
14.9
22.7
77.0
16.0
16.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1,053.0
1,970.0
1,261.0
979.0
95th
340.0
340.0
340.0
1,007.0
1,007.0
0.0
0.1
1.4
9.6
13.9
13.1
36.1
28.0
42.8
145.0
26.0
26.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
1,982.0
3,502.0
2,241.0
1,739.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-25
-------
Table 1-29: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) in the Great Lakes Region, by Species
(2009$)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Species Harvest
(harvestable adult
K~l.\
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black crappie
Bluegill
Channel catfish
Crappie
Rainbow smelt
Sculpin
Smelts
Sun fish
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
Northern Pike
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
23.0
20,651.0
20,674.0
68,832.0
68,832.0
10.0
27.0
559.0
3,902.0
5,590.0
5,343.0
14,520.0
11,386.0
17,232.0
58,570.0
1,192.0
1,192.0
0.0
248.0
248.0
170,680.0
320,196.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.42
$4.42
S4.42
$6.10
$6.10
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
$0.70
S0.70
$8.16
S8.16
$2.18
$2.18
S2.18
S3.33
Mean
$8.56
$8.56
S8.56
$9.43
$9.43
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
$1.33
S1.33
$13.27
$13.27
$4.11
$4.11
$4.11
$6.22
95th
$16.61
$16.61
$16.61
$14.66
$14.66
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$21.61
$21.61
$7.80
$7.80
$7.80
$11.71
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
0.1
90.9
91.0
420.0
420.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.7
3.9
3.7
10.2
8.0
12.1
41.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
569.0
1,131.0
725.0
561.0
Mean
177.0
177.0
177.0
649.0
649.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
5.2
7.4
7.1
19.3
15.2
22.9
78.0
16.0
16.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1,062.0
1,982.0
1,271.0
984.0
95th
343.0
343.0
343.0
1,009.0
1,009.0
0.0
0.1
1.4
9.7
13.9
13.3
36.2
28.4
43.0
146.0
26.0
26.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
1,999.0
3,526.0
2,261.0
1,750.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-26
-------
Table 1-30: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 4 (1 for Facilities > 50
-------
1.6 Inland
Table 1-31: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline
scope Facilities in the Inland Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Smelts
Sun fish
White Perch
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
American shad
Striped bass
Sturgeon
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
190,994.0
1,656,537.0
1,847,530.0
2,061.0
2,061.0
31,025.0
145,478.0
433,471.0
14,807.0
5,390.0
441,689.0
386,810.0
308.0
9,240.0
1.0
1,511,686.0
5,479.0
625,983.0
3,611,368.0
5.0
5.0
3,070.0
19,797.0
1,735.0
24,603.0
36.0
180,270.0
209,854.0
390,160.0
6,716,737.0
12,592,464.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.28
$4.28
S4.28
$1.52
S1.52
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$8.16
S8.16
$1.61
$1.61
$1.61
S1.61
$1.98
$1.98
$1.98
S1.98
S1.08
Mean
$9.01
$9.01
$9.01
$2.83
S2.83
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
S1.06
$13.27
$13.27
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
S5.36
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
S4.10
S2.23
95th
$19.08
$19.08
$19.08
$5.29
S5.29
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
S2.10
$21.61
$21.61
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$4.60
I&E Mortality Losses at In-
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
818.3
7,097.7
7,916.0
3.0
3.0
16.4
76.9
229.0
7.8
2.8
233.4
204.4
0.2
4.9
0.0
798.7
2.9
330.7
1,908.0
0.0
0.0
5.0
32.2
2.8
40.0
0.1
357.2
415.8
773.0
7,283.0
17,923.0
16,566.0
16,504.0
Mean
1,721.3
14,929.7
16,651.0
6.0
6.0
32.8
153.7
458.0
15.6
5.7
466.7
408.7
0.3
9.8
0.0
1,597.3
5.8
661.5
3,816.0
0.0
0.0
16.5
106.2
9.3
132.0
0.1
739.7
861.1
1,601.0
14,985.0
37,191.0
34,376.0
34,247.0
95th
3,643.5
31,600.6
35,244.0
11.0
11.0
65.3
306.0
911.7
31.1
11.3
929.0
813.6
0.6
19.4
0.0
3,179.6
11.5
1,316.7
7,596.0
0.0
0.0
55.4
357.3
31.3
444.0
0.3
1,537.2
1,789.5
3,327.0
30,898.0
77,520.0
71,653.0
71,384.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-28
-------
Table 1-32: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the Inland Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Smelts
Sunfish
White Perch
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
American shad
Striped bass
Sturgeon
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
9,573.0
649,610.0
659,182.0
1,642.0
1,642.0
25,176.0
14,071.0
334,160.0
4,771.0
3,245.0
228,275.0
24,144.0
258.0
3,097.0
1.0
193,777.0
4,067.0
298,679.0
1,133,719.0
4.0
4.0
2,569.0
16,562.0
184.0
19,315.0
30.0
7,809.0
13,152.0
20,991.0
2,486,184.0
4,321,037.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.28
$4.28
S4.28
$1.52
S1.52
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
S0.53
$8.16
S8.16
$1.61
$1.61
$1.61
S1.61
$1.98
$1.98
$1.98
S1.98
$1.08
Mean
$9.01
$9.01
S9.01
$2.83
$2.83
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$13.27
$13.27
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$2.23
95th
$19.08
$19.08
$19.08
$5.29
$5.29
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$21.61
$21.61
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$4.60
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
41.0
2,783.0
2,824.0
2.0
2.0
13.3
7.4
176.6
2.5
1.7
120.6
12.8
0.1
1.6
0.0
102.4
2.1
157.8
599.0
0.0
0.0
4.1
26.6
0.3
31.0
0.1
15.6
26.3
42.0
2,696.0
6,194.0
5,071.0
4,626.0
Mean
86.3
5,854.7
5,941.0
5.0
5.0
26.6
14.9
353.1
5.0
3.4
241.2
25.5
0.3
3.3
0.0
204.8
4.3
315.6
1,198.0
0.0
0.0
13.7
88.3
1.0
103.0
0.1
32.0
53.9
86.0
5,547.0
12,880.0
10,545.0
9,619.0
95th
182.6
12,392.4
12,575.0
9.0
9.0
53.0
29.6
703.0
10.0
6.8
480.2
50.8
0.5
6.5
0.0
407.6
8.6
628.3
2,385.0
0.0
0.0
46.4
299.3
3.3
349.0
0.3
66.6
112.2
179.0
11,437.0
26,933.0
22,049.0
20,115.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-29
-------
Table 1-33: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 2 (1 Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the Inland Region, by
Species (2009$)
Species
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Smelts
Sun fish
White Perch
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
American shad
Striped bass
Sturgeon
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3% discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
157,772.0
1,469,625.0
1,627,397.0
1,977.0
1,977.0
29,849.0
121,385.0
413,894.0
12,951.0
4,984.0
401,691.0
320,377.0
298.0
8,104.0
1.0
1,269,826.0
5,204.0
564,857.0
3,153,418.0
5.0
5.0
2,968.0
19,136.0
1,450.0
23,554.0
35.0
148,695.0
173,822.0
322,552.0
5,932,467.0
11,061,370.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.28
$4.28
$4.28
$1.52
S1.52
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$8.16
$8.16
$1.61
$1.61
$1.61
$1.61
$1.98
$1.98
$1.98
$1.98
$1.08
Mean
$9.01
$9.01
$9.01
$2.83
$2.83
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$13.27
$13.27
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$2.23
95th
$19.08
$19.08
$19.08
$5.29
$5.29
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$21.61
$21.61
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$4.60
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
676.0
6,297.0
6,973.0
3.0
3.0
15.8
64.1
218.7
6.8
2.6
212.2
169.3
0.2
4.3
0.0
670.9
2.7
298.4
1,666.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
30.9
2.3
38.0
0.1
294.6
344.4
639.0
6,433.0
15,751.0
9,578.0
7,361.0
Mean
1,421.9
13,245.1
14,667.0
6.0
6.0
31.5
128.3
437.3
13.7
5.3
424.4
338.5
0.3
8.6
0.0
1,341.7
5.5
596.8
3,332.0
0.0
0.0
15.9
102.4
7.8
126.0
0.1
609.9
713.0
1,323.0
13,236.0
32,690.0
19,879.0
15,277.0
95th
3,009.7
28,035.3
31,045.0
10.0
10.0
62.8
255.3
870.6
27.2
10.5
844.9
673.9
0.6
17.0
0.0
2,671.0
10.9
1,188.1
6,633.0
0.0
0.0
53.7
346.1
26.2
426.0
0.3
1,267.7
1,482.0
2,750.0
27,290.0
68,154.0
41,449.0
31,856.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-30
-------
Table 1-34: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) in the Inland Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Smelts
Sun fish
White Perch
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
American shad
Striped bass
Sturgeon
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
164,627.0
1,509,996.0
1,674,624.0
1,999.0
1,999.0
30,167.0
126,378.0
418,926.0
13,347.0
5,077.0
410,600.0
334,101.0
300.0
8,347.0
1.0
1,320,111.0
5,273.0
578,320.0
3,250,948.0
5.0
5.0
2,997.0
19,322.0
1,509.0
23,828.0
35.0
155,207.0
181,266.0
336,508.0
6,101,138.0
11,389,049.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.28
$4.28
$4.28
$1.52
S1.52
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
S0.53
$8.16
S8.16
$1.61
$1.61
$1.61
S1.61
$1.98
$1.98
$1.98
S1.98
S1.08
Mean
$9.01
$9.01
S9.01
$2.83
S2.83
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
S1.06
$13.27
$13.27
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$2.23
95th
$19.08
$19.08
$19.08
$5.29
$5.29
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$21.61
$21.61
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$4.60
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
705.4
6,469.6
7,175.0
3.0
3.0
15.9
66.8
221.4
7.1
2.7
217.0
176.6
0.2
4.4
0.0
697.6
2.8
305.6
1,718.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
30.8
2.4
38.0
0.1
307.2
358.8
666.0
6,616.0
16,216.0
9,966.0
7,592.0
Mean
1,483.6
13,609.0
15,092.0
6.0
6.0
31.9
133.6
442.8
14.1
5.4
434.0
353.1
0.3
8.8
0.0
1,395.3
5.6
611.2
3,436.0
0.0
0.0
16.1
103.8
8.1
128.0
0.1
637.0
743.9
1,381.0
13,612.0
33,654.0
20,684.0
15,755.0
95th
3,140.5
28,805.5
31,946.0
11.0
11.0
63.5
265.8
881.2
28.1
10.7
863.7
702.7
0.6
17.6
0.0
2,776.7
11.1
1,216.4
6,838.0
0.0
0.0
54.1
348.7
27.2
430.0
0.3
1,323.3
1,545.4
2,869.0
28,066.0
70,160.0
43,122.0
32,847.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
1-31
-------
Table 1-35: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope
Facilities Under Option 4 (1 for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the Inland Region, by Species (2009$)
Species
Smallmouth bass
White bass
Total (Bass)
Whitefish
Total (Other Trout)
Black bullhead
Black crappie
Bluegill
Brown bullhead
Bullhead
Channel catfish
Crappie
Menhaden
Rainbow smelt
Smelts
Sunfish
White Perch
Yellow perch
Total (Panfish)
Salmon
Total (Salmon)
American shad
Striped bass
Sturgeon
Total (Small Game)
Northern pike
Sauger
Walleye
Total (Walleye/Pike)
Total (Unidentified)
Total (Undiscounted)
Total (3 % discount rate)
Total (7% discount rate)
Annual Increase in
Recreational
Harvest
(harvestable adult
fish)
9,339.0
633,751.0
643,090.0
1,602.0
1,602.0
24,562.0
13,727.0
326,002.0
4,655.0
3,165.0
222,702.0
23,555.0
251.0
3,021.0
1.0
189,046.0
3,967.0
291,387.0
1,106,041.0
4.0
4.0
2,506.0
16,158.0
179.0
18,843.0
29.0
7,619.0
12,831.0
20,479.0
2,425,487.0
4,215,546.0
Value per Fish
5th
$4.28
$4.28
S4.28
$1.52
S1.52
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$0.53
$8.16
S8.16
$1.61
$1.61
$1.61
S1.61
$1.98
$1.98
$1.98
S1.98
S1.08
Mean
$9.01
$9.01
$9.01
$2.83
S2.83
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
$1.06
S1.06
$13.27
$13.27
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$5.36
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$4.10
$2.23
95th
$19.08
$19.08
$19.08
$5.29
$5.29
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$2.10
$21.61
$21.61
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$18.07
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$8.53
$4.60
Annual Benefits from Increase in
Recreational Harvest
(2009$, thousands)
5th
40.0
2,715.0
2,755.0
2.0
2.0
13.0
7.2
172.1
2.5
1.7
117.6
12.4
0.1
1.6
0.0
99.8
2.1
153.9
584.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
25.7
0.3
30.0
0.1
15.3
25.7
41.0
2,630.0
6,043.0
4,947.0
4,513.0
Mean
84.2
5,711.7
5,796.0
5.0
5.0
26.0
14.5
344.6
4.9
3.3
235.4
24.9
0.3
3.2
0.0
199.8
4.2
308.0
1,169.0
0.0
0.0
13.4
86.6
1.0
101.0
0.1
31.3
52.6
84.0
5,411.0
12,566.0
10,287.0
9,384.0
95th
178.2
12,089.8
12,268.0
8.0
8.0
51.7
28.9
685.6
9.8
6.7
468.3
49.5
0.5
6.4
0.0
397.6
8.3
612.8
2,326.0
0.0
0.0
45.2
291.6
3.2
340.0
0.2
65.1
109.6
175.0
11,157.0
26,275.0
21,511.0
19,623.0
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
I-32
-------
Appendix J: Methods Used in the Habitat Based Methodology for
Estimating Nonuse Values
J.1 Equations for estimating nonuse values using a habitat based
methodology
Equation J-1: estimating lost production from I&E mortality on an annual basis.
Productivity loss due to I&E mortality is calculated as:
n k
SPx,tot = Z Z Lt,j,* x Ci,i x M< x DMi Equation J- 1
i=i j=\
where:
^ SPx,totis the estimated loss in regional production for all I&E mortality species under regulatory
option x, measured in kg dry mass per year.
> LiiX is the number of individuals of species /' (with « species in the region) at life history stage j
(with k life history stages) lost to I&E mortality under regulatory option x. Measured in organisms
per year.
> Cfj is the ratio used to convert losses of species i and life history stage j into age-1 equivalents.
> Mi is the mass of an individual of species i at age 1. Measured in kg.
> DM; is the ratio of dry mass to wet mass for species /'.
Equation J-2: Estimating habitat-based fish production
The calculation of secondary productivity per acre (SPrest) is as follows:
SPrest = PP x (1 - E) x TC, x TC2 x TC3 Equation J-2
where:
> PP is primary productivity per acre of restoration
> E is the rate of productivity export, the portion of primary productivity excluded from transfer to
higher trophic levels
> TCi the trophic conversion efficiency from primary productivity to detritus
> TC2 the trophic conversion efficiency from detritus to first level consumers
> TC3 the trophic conversion efficiency from first level consumers to second level consumers
March 28, 2011 J-1
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Equation J-3: Estimating habitat-based fish production
The number of habitat acres (^4) estimated to generate annual productivity equivalent to reduction in I&E
mortality achieved by regulatory option x is calculated for each region as:
Equation J-3
V 2=1 Jl
where:
> Ax is the number needed to achieve ecological equivalence with option x
> SPitX is the total increase in secondary productivity per year for species / under option x
> SPrest is the total secondary productivity gained per year per acre or restoration
March 28, 2011 J-2
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
J.2 Estimated Primary Productivity and Carbon Export in Marine and Aquatic Habitats
Table J-1: Summary of Aboveground Primary Productivity (measured in kg dry mass acre"1 yr"1)
Sample
Species Study Region(s) Size Min Max Mean Sources
Eelgrass
Zostera marina
Smooth cordgrass
Spartina alterniflora
Smooth cordgrass
Spartina alterniflora
Turtle grass
Thalassia testudinum
Giant Kelp
Macrocystis pyrifera
Broadleaf cattail
Typha latifolia
North Atlantic, Mid-
Atlantic, and South
Atlantic
North Atlantic and Mid-
Atlantic
South Atlantic and Gulf
of Mexico
Gulf of Mexico
California
Great Lakes and Inland
6
10
13
5
4
14
934
1,416
1,331
1,329
1,472
2,024
Sample size is the number of estimates included in calculation of the mean value.
7,561
6,520
16,148
3,570
11,344
12,971
3,745
3,332
6,372
2,417
7,312
6,199
Beal et al. (2004), Nixon and Oviatt (1972), Murray and Wetzel (1987),
Rizzo and Wetzel (1985), Bach et al. (1986)
Reimold and Linthurst (1977)*, Valiela, Teal, and Sass (1975)*, Steever
(1972)*, Walton (1972)*, Cahoon (1975)*, Mendelssohn and Marcellus
(1976)*
Stroud and Cooper (1968)*, Marshall (1970)*, Odum and Fanning
(1972)*, de la Cruz (1974)*, Kirby (1972)*, Kirby and Gooselink (1976)*
Tomasko et al. (1996), Kaldy and Dunton (2000)
Dayton (1985), Rassweiler (2008)
Gustafson (1976)*, Penko and Pratt (1986), Grace and Wetzel (1982),
Mitsch et al (2002), Smith and Kadlec (1985), Rocha and Goulden (2009),
van der Valk and Davis (1978)*, Keefe (1972)*, Whigham and Simpson
(1975)*, Johnson (1970)*
The sample size differs from the number of sources because several studies provide multiple productivity values from
different sites.
Values reported in units of g C m"2 day"1 were converted using specifes-specific factors.
> Eelgrass - carbon accounts for 38% of dry weight biomass (Thorn 1988).
> Smooth cordgrass - carbon accounts for 45% of dry weight biomass (French McCay and Rowe 2003; Gallagher 1975).
> Turtle grass - carbon accounts for 36.4% of dry weight biomass (Fourqurean and Zieman 2002).
> Kelp - carbon accounts for 33% of dry weight biomass (Dayton 1985).
> Broadleaf cattail - carbon accounts for 40.2% of dry weight biomass (Esteves et al. 2008).
* Indicates values were taken from USEPA (1980).
March 28, 2011
J-3
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table J-2: Estimates of Carbon Export from Salt Marshes
C Export ANPP Export as
Location
Cape Cod, MA
Flax Pond, NY
Canary Creek, DE
Ware Creek, VA
Carter Creek, VA
Beaufort, NC
Beaufort, NC
Beaufort, NC
Ely Creek, SC
Ely Creek, SC
North Inlet, SC
Ely Creek, SC
Duplin River, GA
Sapelo Island, GA
Sapelo Island, GA
Barataria Basin, LA
Barataria Basin, LA
Barataria Basin, LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
Coon Creek, TX
EMS-Dollard Marsh
Netherlands
Kariega Marsh,
South Africa
Hong Kong
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
(gCi
3
-53
159
115
142
40
124
32
252
493
456
242
1090
393
365
224
296
183
226
47
55
161
821
80
26
25
-125
16
0
58
51
142
431
117
99
164
n yr ) (g C m
67.5
372
252
599
599
548
568
837
1080
1080
1059
1028
2025
878
992
600
550
860
1147
926
1267
599
2416
540
518
559-900
500
200-300
880
105
181
1080
1080
1080
1080
1080
yr1) %ofNPP
4.4%
-14.2%
63.1%
19.2%
23.7%
7.3%
21.9%
3.9%
23.3%
45.6%
43.1%
23.5%
12.8-53.8%
44.8%
36.8%
37.3%
53.8%
21.3%
19.7%
5.1%
4.3%
26.8%
34.0%
14.9%
5.0%
2.7-4.5%
-25.00%
5.0-8.0%
0.0%
55.8%
28.2%
13.2%
39.9%
10.8%
9.1%
15.2%
Dominant Species
Spartina alternaflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina alterniflora
Panicum hemitomo
Eleocharis sp
Spartina patens
Distichlis spicata
Spartina alterniflora
Spartina patens
Distichlis spicata
Puccinellietum maritime
Spartina anglica
Spartina perennis,
Chenolea diffusa
Phragmites communis
Source
Howes etal(1985)'
Woodwell etal (1977)
Roman &Daiber( 1989)
Axelradetal. (1976)
Axelradetal. (1976)
Bach etal. (1986)*
Bach etal. (1986)*
Bach etal. (1986)*
Williams etal. (1992)*
Williams etal. (1992)*
Dame etal (1986)
Dame etal. (1991)
Wang and Cai (2004)
Teal (1962)
Teal (1 962)* 2
Feijtel etal (1985)
Feijtel etal (1985)
Feijtel etal (1985)
Day etal. (1973)*
Hopkinson et al. (1978)*
Hopkinson etal. (1978)*
Hopkinson etal. (1978)*
Hopkinson etal. (1978)*
Hopkinson etal. (1978)*
White etal. (1978)*
Borey etal. (1983)
Dankers etal (1984)
Tay lor &Allanson( 1995)
Lee (1990)*
McLusky(1981)*
McLusky(1981)*
Schlesinger(1997)*
Schlesinger(1997)*
Schlesinger(1997)*
Schlesinger(1997)*
Schlesinger(1997)*
* Indicates values taken from Cebrian (2002).
1 Carbon export for Howes et al. (1985) was calculated based on annual sediment budget in mol m"2 yr"1.
2 These values were calculated directly based on Teal (1962) and differ from values included in the meta-data of Cebrian (2002).
J.3 Regional Determination of Preferred Habitat
In the North Atlantic region, species accounting for the greatest proportion of I&E mortality [rock gunnel
(42% of regional I&E mortality), winter founder (11%), radiated shanny (7%), cunner (7%), American
sand lance (7%) and seaboard goby (7%)] are generally found in estuarine, sandy or nearshore rocky reef
areas, and are not strongly associated with coastal wetlands (Fishbase 2009). Therefore, eelgrass was
selected for scaling I&E mortality losses in the North Atlantic.
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
J-4
-------
In the Mid-Atlantic region, species with the greatest I&E mortality by mass [bay anchovy (65% of the
regional I&E mortality losses), blue crab (10%), Atlantic menhaden (5%) and spot (4%)] are commonly
found in tidal salt marshes (Fishbase 2009). Consequently, the preferred habitat for restoration projects is
smooth cordgrass, the dominant foundation species in Atlantic salt marshes.
Similarly, in the South Atlantic, important I&E mortality species [bay anchovy (71%), forage shrimp
(13%), gobies (4%) and other forage fish (4%)] are associated with salt marshes dominated by cordgrass.
Thus, saltmarsh is the preferred habitat choice for this region.
In the Gulf Coast region, there is less dominance by a single species in I&E mortality results [pink shrimp
(30%) blue crab (15%) bay anchovy (14%) and other forage fish (11%)], and there is no strong ecological
argument for preferring turtle grass or saltmarsh. Consequently, due to its higher productivity, smooth
cordgrass was chosen as the preferred habitat type for regional restoration calculations.
In California, the preferred habitat choice is the highly productive giant kelp (M. pyriferd), known to be a
nursery habitat for many fish species.
In the Great Lakes and Inland regions, the freshwater macrophyte broadleaf cattail (T. latifolid) was
selected for restoration calculations.
March 28, 2011 J-5
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
J.4 Willingness to Pay for Fish Production and Other Aquatic Habitat Goods and Services
Table J-3: Studies Used to Estimate WTP Values for Fish Production Services and Habitat
Study
Survey
Year
Location
(State)
Habitat
WTP acre J
(2009S)1
Population
(Sample Size)
Change Valued
Survey Methods
Peconic Estuary Study 1995
(Johnston et al. 2002a;
Johnston etal. 2001;
Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch
etal. 1995; Opaluch etal.
1998)
New York Eelgrass and Eelgrass -
Salt marsh $0.07608
Saltmarsh-
$0.0672
East End Long
Island Households
(968 completed
surveys)
Eelgrass presented at current
level of 9,000 acres, "no action"
level of 8,000 acres, and with
restoration level of 11,000 acres.
Wetlands presented at their
current level of 16,000 acres,
"no action" level of 12,000
acres, and with restoration level
of 17,500 acres.
Used an original contingent
choice study to estimate
relative preferences of
residents for preserving key
natural and environmental
resources.
Bauer, Cyr, and Swallow 2004
(2004)
Rhode Island Salt marsh $0.0190
Rhode Island
Households (320 in-
person surveys
administered)
Survey level included four levelsStated-preference survey
of wetland preservation or
restoration; 33, 64, 101, or 135
acres. One-time payment
converted to annual value
assuming 3% discount rate.
designed to elicit public
preferences for salt marsh
mitigation projects and to
determine public willingness
to trade off mitigation-site
attributes such as cost, size,
public access, and presence of
endangered species.
DeZoysa(1995)
1994 Ohio
Freshwater $0.0299
wetlands
Residents of
Maumee, Ohio (476
responses)
Wetlands program description
indicated that the proposed
program would restore and
protect 3,000 acres of wetlands
from a baseline of 10,000
existing acres that were
declining.
The study used the contingent
valuation method with seven
versions of the survey, each
of which described a different
resource conservation
program involving
groundwater, surface water,
wetlands, or some
combination thereof.
Bishop et al. (2000)
1999 Wisconsin Freshwater $0.00125
wetlands
Households within a
ten county area
around Green Bay
(470 responses)
Restoration level ranging up to a Total Value Equivalency
11,600 acre increase in wetlands (TVE) study conducted to
within five miles of Green Bay, support restoration planning
WI to support birds, fish, and
other wildlife equivalent to a
20% increase from the 58,000
baseline acres. WTP reported
here is the mid-point of marginal
values for 5% and 20% changes.
conducted as part of the
Lower Fox River/Green Bay
NRDA.
March 28, 2011
J-6
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table J-3: Studies Used to Estimate WTP Values for Fish Production Services and Habitat
Study
Survey
Year
Location
(State)
Habitat
WTP acre J
(2009S)1
Population
(Sample Size)
Change Valued
Survey Methods
Mullarky (1997; 1999) 1994
Wisconsin Freshwater S0.00822
wetlands
Wisconsin residents
(239 complete
surveys)
Case study of a highway
expansion project in Northwest
Wisconsin which would require
filling of 110 acres of wetlands.
One-time payment converted to
annual value assuming 3%
discount rate.
Contingent valuation study of
Wisconsin wetlands. Losses
would be mitigated by the
creation of 220 acres of
isolated basin along the
highway; WTP reported here
is based on a mean from the
"scope group" which was not
informed that mitigation was
being conducted.
Blomquist and Whiteheadl990
(1998)
Kentucky Freshwater $0.0056
wetlands
Kentucky residents
(379 responses)
WTP to purchase and manage Contingent valuation study
500 acres which if not purchasedresulting in WTP values for
would be mined and reclaimed four separate wetland types.
after ten years. WTP reported here is for the
Flat creek persistent emergent
wetland, which is most
consistent with scaled habitat.
Whitehead and Blomquistl989
(1991)
Kentucky Freshwater $0.0037
wetlands
Kentucky residents
(215 responses)
WTP for purchase and Contingent valuation study
management of the with three groups with each
approximately 5,000 acres Clear presented different
Creek wetland which would be information about related
mined if not purchased. environmental resources.
Smaller sample than
Blomquist and Whitehead
(1998)
1 WTP values were converted to 2009$ based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
2 Mullarky (1997; 1999) present multiple WTP estimates based on the survey
the polychotomous choice format. The reported value is based for the "scope
responses.
group used for the estimate ("base group" or "scope group") and certainty level treatment of
group", which was not informed regarding mitigation, and the highest certainty level for
March 28, 2011
J-7
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
J.5 Narragansett Bay Wetland Restoration Study
J.5.1 Survey Development and Data Collection
EPA designed a survey instrument, entitled Rhode Island Salt Marsh Restoration: 2001 Survey of Rhode
Island Residents to assess tradeoffs among attributes of salt marsh restoration plans. Development of this
survey required more than 16 months and involved extensive background research, interviews with
experts in salt marsh ecology and restoration, and 16 focus groups with more than 100 Rhode Island
residents. Numerous pretests, including verbal protocol analysis (Schkade and Payne 1994) ensured that
the survey language and format would be easily understood by respondents, and that respondents would
have a common understanding of survey scenarios (cf Johnston et al. 1995).
Johnston et al. (2002b) chose attributes distinguishing restoration plans based on background research,
expert interviews, and focus groups. The authors tailored these attributes to reflect primary salt marsh
services in the northeast United States that would be influenced by restoration activities, and
characterized each wetland by the size of the marsh, together with effects of restoration, on (1) habitat for
birds, (2) habitat for fish, (3) habitat for shellfish, (4) potential to control mosquito nuisance, (5)
recreational access, and (6) household cost.64 Based on the results of focus groups and expert interviews,
habitat and mosquito control services were presented from a standardized, statewide perspective. For
example, improvements to fish habitat were characterized as "ecological improvements to RI fish
populations... [resulting from a particular restoration project]... as judged by wetlands experts, compared
to all other potential salt marsh restoration projects in Rhode Island."
Following the general approach of Johnston et al. (1999), the conjoint (or multi-attribute choice) survey
presented respondents with four sets of discrete choices, each involving two alternative, multi-attribute
restoration plans. The authors used fractional factorial design to construct a range of survey questions
with an orthogonal array of attribute levels, resulting in 80 contingent choice questions divided among 20
unique booklets. Attributes distinguishing plans were selected based on background research, expert
interviews, and focus groups. All attributes were free to vary over their full range for both restoration
plans presented in each question, with no imposed ordering of attribute levels between the two plans.
Based on these attributes, respondents chose one of the two plans, or chose "Neither Plan."
The survey was conducted from September through December, 2001. Respondents were intercepted in
person at Rhode Island Department of Motor Vehicle offices, public libraries, and other survey sites.
Interviewers did not tell respondents that the survey concerned salt marsh restoration. Rather,
interviewers asked respondents to participate in an important survey regarding "environmental issues in
Rhode Island," to reduce the potential for topic-related nonresponse. Following the general approach of
Johnston et al. (1999), the survey presented respondents with four sets of discrete choices, each involving
two alternative, multi-attribute restoration plans. Attributes included in the survey included the size of salt
marsh restoration, and the importance of (1) habitat for birds, (2) habitat for fish, (3) habitat for shellfish,
64Additional, non-habitat services that may be provided by salt water wetlands include, among others, nutrient transformation,
storm buffering, and coastal erosion control. Interviews with experts on salt water wetland functions in New England (and
Rhode Island in particular) indicated, however, that wetland restoration would provide negligible impacts on these non-
habitat functions in the majority of cases. They based this assessment on the small size of most New England coastal
wetlands, and on the fact that restoration may not always increase substantially the ability of a wetland to provide such
functions as storm buffering or erosion control. Based on this advice, the survey focused mainly on wetland habitat
functions.
March 28, 2011 J-8
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
(4) the potential for mosquito control, (5) recreational access, and (6) household cost. Based on variations
in the presented attributes of conservation plans, respondents either chose either one of two plans
presented, or chose "Neither Plan." In total, interviewers collected 661 completed surveys, providing
complete and usable responses to 2,341 individual contingent choice questions (89% of a potential 2,644).
J.5.2 Results
Table J-4 presents variables incorporated in the analysis of salt marsh restoration choices. These variables
include: (1) a dummy variable identifying the "neither" option, (2) quadratic interactions between this
dummy and certain demographic characteristics, and (3) variables for the restored salt marsh attributes.
Mean values for salt marsh attributes (Table 9-5) indicate the mean values of these attributes over all
completed surveys included in the analysis. The final column of the table calculates these mean values
with "neither plan" data rows excluded. (As noted above, each wetland restoration choice included the
option of choosing neither plan. In the multinomial logit data, these options are presented as a "plan" with
zeros for all wetland attributes.)
Table J-5 presents results for a conditional logit model of survey data. The model is significant at p
<0.0001 (-2LnL P2=l 157.56, df = 13); all individual parameter estimates are significant at p <0.05, with
most significant at p <0.01.
The signs of parameter estimates correspond with prior expectations derived from focus groups, where
prior expectations exist. Respondents favor plans that restore larger salt marshes; improve bird, fish, and
shellfish habitat; control mosquitoes; provide public access; and result in lower costs to the household.
Comparing preferences for habitat improvements and mosquito control (all measured on a ten-point
scale), respondents placed the greatest weight on mosquito control, followed by habitat improvements for
shellfish, fish, and birds, respectively. The likelihood of rejecting restoration outright (i.e., choosing
neither plan) was smaller for members of environmental organizations, and larger for members of
taxpayers organizations, lower income individuals, and more highly educated individuals (Johnston et al.
2002b). Changes in education and income do not influence the marginal utility offish and shellfish
habitat, or that of other wetland attributes.
Results of the conjoint analysis (i.e., the public survey results) presented by Johnston et al. (2002b) allow
policy makers to rank restoration projects based on their estimated influence on residents' welfare. These
results also allow assessment of residents' willingness to trade off elements of wetland restoration plans,
or WTP for particular wetland attributes. Finally, for any specified restoration plan, provided that
incremental gains or losses in wetland services are known, it allows the calculation of the proportion of
the total gain in social value attributable to a particular service (e.g., fish habitat).
To estimate the proportion of value associated with fish habitat, in a representative, conservative scenario,
EPA began with the average wetland restoration scenario considered by the Rhode Island survey sample.
The mean values of wetland attributes presented to survey respondents provide the most representative set
of results from which value proportions may be estimated, and forecast the value proportions that would
result from an average survey respondent confronted with an average wetland restoration scenario, as
characterized by the Rhode Island Salt Marsh Restoration Survey data. Excluding all "Neither Plan"
scenarios, which offered zero restoration, Table J-4 summarizes the mean values for services considered
by the Rhode Island sample.
March 28, 2011 J-9
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table J-4: Definitions and Summary Statistics for Model Variables for Narragansett Bay Wetland
Restoration Study
Variable
Name
Neither
Environ
Taxgrp
Loincome
Hiedu
Birds
Fish
Shellfish
Mosquito
Size
Pro-access
Con-access
Platform
Both
Cost
Mean, Excluding
Whole Sample "Neither Plan"
Description Mean (Std. Dev.) Scenarios3
Neither=l identifies "neither plan" options
Dummy variable identifying respondents with membership in
environmental organizations
Dummy variable identifying respondents with membership in taxpayer
associations
Dummy variable identifying respondents with household income less than
$35,000/year
Dummy variable identifying respondents with greater than a four-year
college degree
Ecological improvement to statewide bird populations resulting from
specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt
marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale)
Ecological improvement to statewide fish populations resulting from
specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt
marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale)
Ecological improvement to statewide shellfish populations resulting from
specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt
marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale)
Increased ability to control statewide mosquito nuisance resulting from
specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt
marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale)
Size of restored salt marsh (minimum 3 acres; maximum 12 acres)
Dummy variable indicating that respondent feels that access to salt
marshes should be "somewhat limited" or "unlimited"
Dummy variable indicating that respondent feels that access to salt
marshes should be "severely limited" or "prohibited"
Dummy variable indicating that restoration provides "viewing platforms"
but no "trails"
Dummy variable indicating that restoration provides both "viewing
platforms" and "trails"
Annual cost of restoration plan in increased taxes (minimum $0; maximum
$200)
0.333
(0.471)
0.190
(0.392)
0.023
(0.151)
0.245)
(0.430)
0.182
(0.386)
2.761
(2.607)
2.908
(2.653)
2.907
(2.652)
2.908
(2.651)
4.889
(4.397)
0.837
(0.370)
0.227
(0.419)
0.222
(0.415)
0.222
(0.415)
63.169
(70.782)
0.000
0.190
0.023
0.245
0.182
4.141
4.361
4.362
4.362
7.334
0.837
0.163
0.340
0.332
94.754
a Each wetland restoration choice included the option of choosing neither plan. In the multinomial logit data, this option is presented as a "plan" with
zeros for all wetland attributes. The final column of the table calculates means with the "neither plan" zeros excluded.
Although mean values are used for most attributes (i.e., wetland attributes or services considered by
survey respondents in choice scenarios), changes in certain attributes are set to zero to correspond more
closely with the policy scenario and with the Peconic study (because the purpose of this analysis is to
assess the proportion of the Peconic wetland values that may reasonably be attributed to fish habitat
services). For example, because the Peconic study survey did not specify or discuss the provision of
viewing platforms or trails at preserved wetlands, EPA assumed that survey respondents to the Peconic
study did not consider such provisions when making survey choices. Accordingly, in calculating value
proportions in this analysis using the Rhode Island data, EPA assumed that viewing platforms and trails
are not provided.
EPA also assumed that any wetland created or restored to provide fish habitat will likely not provide a
great degree of additional mosquito control, because a large proportion of existing salt marshes have
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
J-10
-------
already been modified to minimize mosquito production.65 For this reason, modern marsh restoration
typically does not provide a significant increase in mosquito control. Rather, it often replaces older, more
detrimental (to marsh function and habitat) forms of mosquito control with Open Marsh Water
Management (OMWM), in which open water and natural fish predation is used to control mosquito
nuisance (Kennish 2001). OMWM has not been an "unqualified success" at eliminating the mosquito
nuisance (New York Conservationist 1997). Accordingly, for many salt marshes, the positive net effect of
restoration on mosquito nuisance, if any, is often minimal. To generate the most conservative estimates,
however, and in recognition of the fact that some salt marsh restoration projects may provide significant
mosquito control, EPA also estimated value proportions assuming that significant additional mosquito
control is provided. For all other wetland attributes included in the Rhode Island survey, EPA used the
mean values shown in the final column of Table J-4.
Estimation of value proportions is based on the estimated utility function v(.), which specifies the utility
provided by a wetland restoration plan as a function of the attributes or services provided by that plan
(Johnston et al. 2002b). That is, following the standard random utility model of Hanemann (1984), the
underlying model specifies respondents' choices using the conditional logit specification, in which the
probability (P,) of choosing any wetland restoration plan / (plan A, plan B, or neither plan) over the two
remaining options (/' or k) is given by:
Pi= - - Equation J-4
exp[v,. (•)] + exp[v; (•)] + exp[vt (•)]
where v(.) represents the relative benefits or utility resulting from each restoration option, including the
"neither plan" option. The function v(.) is typically estimated as a simple function of program attributes
(in this case wetland restoration); in practice linear, functional forms are often used (Johnston et al.
2002b).
From the assumptions and model noted above, the attribute definitions given in Table J-4, and the model
results of Table J-5, the estimated utility function used to calculate value proportions is specified as
v(.) = 0. U9l(birds) + Q.l465(fish) + 0. 15^1 (shellfish) +
Equation J-5
O.l6ll(mosquito) + 0.05 10(s/ze)
If mosquito control is not provided, then mosquito=0. Given this linear specification, the proportion of
wetland restoration value provided by the gain in fish habitat services is given by
Vfish(')~Vfish(')=0 T-, .. T ,-
— - - - Equation J-6
V/fcfcO)
where v(.)fsh represents the value of v(.) with the gain in fish habitat services set to its mean value (as
described above), and v(.)fish=0 represents the value of the function with the gain in fish habitat services
set to zero.
65The mosquito control variable was included in the survey in response to the strong concern of Rhode Island residents over the
impact of restoration on mosquitoes and related illnesses for which mosquitoes are the primary vector. Wetlands experts
indicated, however, that salt marsh restoration had limited impact on mosquito populations in most cases.
March 28, 2011 J-11
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table J-5: Conditional Logit Results for Narragansett Bay Wetland
restoration Study
Parameter Estimate Std. Error z P>|z|
Neither
Neither x Environ
Neither x Tax
Neither x Loincome
Neither x Hiedu
Birds
Fish
Shellfish
Mosquito
Size
Pro-access x Platform
Pro-access x Both
Cost
-2LnL P2
1.157
-1.182
0.868
0.310
0.415
0.119
0.147
0.159
0.161
0.051
0.168
0.431
-0.007
1157.56
0.193
0.223
0.365
0.144
0.169
0.015
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.010
0.083
0.084
0.001
Prob>P2
5.98
-5.30
2.38
2.16
2.46
7.78
9.36
9.78
9.95
5.22
2.03
5.11
-14.23
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0170
0.0310
0.0140
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0420
0.0001
0.0001
Table J-6 shows the resulting value proportions, in which EPA calculated the proportion of wetland
restoration value associated with different wetland services based on mean values of wetland attributes
presented to survey respondents, as discussed above. Analogous methods were used to assess value
proportions associated with shellfish and other habitat services; Table J-6 shows these results for
comparison. The table also illustrates the results of a sensitivity analysis in which EPA calculated
analogous value proportions for wetland habitat services, but allow wetland size to vary. Wetland size
was allowed to vary from its minimum value in the Rhode Island survey data (3 acres) to its maximum
value (12 acres), while holding habitat service changes constant. EPA chose these size values to be
representative of unrestored salt water wetlands currently existing in Narragansett Bay, which are
typically quite small (i.e., less than five acres). The three estimates of acreage are therefore likely closer
to the "average" Rhode Island wetland than estimates based on larger acreages. (In actual wetlands,
changes in restored acres are typically correlated with larger gains in habitat services (Johnston et al.
2002b). To illustrate even more conservative estimates, however, Table J-6 contains cases in which
restored wetland size increases from the mean, without any resultant increase in habitat services.)
Across scenarios the proportion of value associated with fish habitat ranges from 0.2035 to 0.3231, with a
mean value over all scenarios of 0.2564 (Table J-6). Scenario la is perhaps the most representative
scenario for estimating value proportions for two reasons: (1) restored wetlands are not expected to
provide additional mosquito control and (2) other wetland attributes are set to their mean values. Its
results are somewhat higher than those of scenario 3a, which represents the mean value over all scenarios
presented. To be conservative (i.e. low) in its estimates, EPA used the proportion calculated in scenario 3a
(0.2564) as an estimate of the proportion of total wetland restoration value attributable to gains in fish
habitat services, given representative, mean values for other wetland services.
March 28, 2011 J-12
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
Table J-6: Proportions of Restored Wetland Value Associate with Various Service
Categories
Percentage of Value Associated with Service:
Restoration Scenario
la: No additional mosquito
control; mean values for all other
attributes
Ib: No additional mosquito
control; mean values for habitat
gains; Size=3 acres
Ic: No additional mosquito
control; mean values for habitat
gains; size=12 acres
2a: Mosquito control at mean
value; mean values for all other
attributes
2b: Mosquito control at mean
value; mean values for habitat
gains; size=3 acres
2c: Mosquito control at mean
value; mean values for habitat
gains; size=12 acres
3a: Mean over all scenarios
Fish Habitat
0.291
0.323
0.262
0.220
0.238
0.204
0.256
Bird Habitat
0.224
0.249
0.202
0.170
0.184
0.157
0.198
Shellfish
Habitat
0.315
0.350
0.284
0.239
0.258
0.220
0.278
Mosquito
Control
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.242
0.262
0.224
0.121
Other"
0.170
0.077
0.251
0.129
0.057
0.195
0.147
"Results assume that restoration does not provide viewing platforms or hiking trails.
b Other services may include, among others, nutrient transformations, storm buffering, and coastal erosion control.
Although these numbers are not directly comparable to other results found in the literature, they appear to
be reasonable and conservative compared to similar proportions generated for freshwater habitats. For
example, Schulze et al. (1995) estimate that between 32.98 percent and 33.44 percent of WTP for
resource cleanup in the Clark Fork River Basin was associated with "aquatic resources and riparian
habitat" (p. 5-13).
EPA also considered directly the parametric results of Table J-5 for further support of the soundness of
the proposed value proportions. Estimates presented in Table J-5 indicate that the parametric weights are
similar among the dominant wetland services in Narragansett Bay (i.e., bird habitat services, fish habitat
services, shellfish habitat services, and mosquito control). In other words, the parameter estimates are
very similar among these four variables. This correspondence suggests that restoration providing similar
scale improvements for each of these services should produce a roughly equivalent increment to utility.
Given the four habitat services considered in the survey (including mosquito control), each service
provides roughly 1/4 (or 25 percent) of the total marginal utility associated with the combination of
habitat improvements and mosquito control. For wetlands that do not provide substantial access
provisions (e.g., boardwalks) and that are of moderate or small size, it would be highly improbable for the
proportion of value associated with fish habitat to fall significantly below the 25.64 percent
approximation estimated here.
March 28, 2011 J-13
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
-------
J.6 Determining the Affected Population and Estimating Aggregate Values
Table J-7: Number of Households by State and Percentage of Regional Habitat Acres Assigned to
Each State.
State
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
IA
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WV
WY
No. of North South
Households California Atlantic Mid-Atlantic Atlantic
1,836,096 . ...
1,132,706 . ...
2,266,797 -
12,371,970 100.00%
1,891,368 . ...
1,365,529 - 29.83%
268,559 . ...
329,246 - - 5.08%
7,252,011 - - - 70.27%
3,472,892 - - - 2.66%
1,248,977 . ...
4,821,525 . ...
2,501,050 . ...
1,120,251 . ...
1,695,340 . ...
1,595,221 . ...
2,533,224 - 49.80%
2,138,174 - - 24.02%
561,927 - 3.54%
3,977,292 -
2,095,360 . ...
2,373,024 . ...
1,106,531 . ...
383,318 . ...
3,562,025 - - - 19.12%
285,857 . ...
719,904 . ...
518,506 - 12.92%
3,186,057 - - 22.20%
735,720 . ...
947,691 . ...
7,303,783 - - 31.93%
4,622,384 -
1,431,014 . ...
1,476,434 . ...
5,021,383 - - 0.17%
419,621 - 3.91%
1,718,297 - - - 7.94%
327,165 . ...
2,449,562 -
8,271,247 . ...
837,511 . ...
2,996,176 - - 16.60%
260,831 . ...
2,519,727 . ...
2,302,752 . ...
756,778 . ...
211,883 . ...
Gulf of
Mexico Great Lakes
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
53.26%
-
-
3.76%
11.63%
-
-
7.44%
-
-
-
35.46%
1.27%
-
2.28%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.52%
11.95%
-
-
0.20%
-
-
-
-
37.02%
-
-
-
-
16.21%
-
-
Inland
5.90%
1.53%
0.21%
<0.01%
0.22%
0.14%
<0.01%
0.02%
0.54%
2.36%
1.73%
7.30%
4.58%
1.56%
2.53%
5.02%
0.11%
0.34%
0.08%
1.62%
1.56%
4.51%
0.66%
0.13%
6.24%
0.65%
2.17%
0.17%
0.08%
0.03%
0.05%
1.85%
4.92%
1.36%
0.04%
4.77%
-
4.36%
0.01%
6.81%
17.89%
0.03%
1.32%
0.23%
0.18%
1.23%
2.80%
0.16%
March 28, 2011
Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation
J-14
------- |