Draft – May 2001

DRAFT

INITIAL COST ESTIMATES 

Prepared for the May 23, 2001 Public Meeting of Technical Experts

to Review EPA’s Preliminary Data on Cooling Water Intake Structure Technologies in

Place at Existing Facilities and Their Costs 

May 17, 2001

USEPA Office of Science and Technology

Engineering and Analysis Division
Draft – May 2001 1

A. PURPOSE OF THIS DRAFT REPORT

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will conduct a public meeting of technical

experts on May 23, 2001, to review the Agency’s preliminary data on cooling water intake

structure technologies that are in place at existing facilities and the costs associated with the use

of available technologies for reducing impingement and entrainment. The purpose of this meeting

is to elicit individual comments from the technical experts. The topics for discussion are as

follows: there may be occasions when a facility needs to reduce impingement or entrainment of

aquatic organisms, on those occasions, what are the technologies that might be used and what are

the costs and advantages or limitations associated with their use?

This draft report contains the results of preliminary analyses to estimate the cost of cooling water

intake structure and cooling system technologies in place at existing facilities. In a separate

report, EPA will provide information on what cooling water intake structure and cooling system

technologies are in place at existing facilities based on the Agency’s preliminary data analyses 

using responses from the Detailed Industry Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake

Structures (January 2000). 

B. DRAFT MODEL PLANT COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE COSTS

Table 1 – Summary of Draft Model Plant Cooling Water Intake Structure Costs

Description: The table below presents the capital and net increase in annual operation and maintenance

(O&M) and annual costs for selected cooling system technologies installed at facilities with existing oncethrough cooling systems with low, medium, and high cooling water flows.

Cooling

System

CWIS

Improvements

Cooling

Flowa

(gpm)

Intake

Flow

(gpm)

Capital

Cost

Net O&M

Costb

Net / Baseline

Net Annual

Costbc

Net / Baseline

OncethroughNone

Baseline

Scenario

17,400 17,400 $0 $0 / $147,000 $0 / $147,000

104,000 104,000 $0 $0 / $880,000 $0 / $880,000

347,000 347,000 $0 $0 / $2,935,000 $0 / $2,935,000

OncethroughPassive Screens

Intake Velocity

 = 0.5 fps.

17,400 17,400 $160,000 $0 $13,000

104,000 104,000 $808,000 $0 $65,000

347,000 347,000 $2,745,000 $0 $221,000

OncethroughTraveling

Screens with

Fish Baskets

Intake Velocity

 = 0.5 fps

17,400 17,400 $442,000 $19,000 $55,000

104,000 104,000 $1,740,000 $56,000 $196,000

347,000 347,000 $5,759,000 $193,000 $657,000

Wet Tower None 17,400 1,740 $1,230,000 $173,000 $272,000

104,000 10,400 $6,790,000 $842,000 $1,390,000

347,000 34,700 $21,400,000 $2,540,000 $4,270,000
Cooling

System

CWIS

Improvements

Cooling

Flowa

(gpm)

Intake

Flow

(gpm)

Capital

Cost

Net O&M

Costb

Net / Baseline

Net Annual

Costbc

Net / Baseline

Draft – May 2001 2

Wet Tower Passive Screens

Intake Velocity

 = 0.5 fps

17,400 1,740 $1,270,000 $173,000 $275,000

104,000 10,400 $6,916,000 $842,000 $1,400,000

347,000 34,700 $21,740,000 $2,540,000 $4,300,000

Wet Tower Traveling

Screens with

Fish Baskets

Intake Velocity

 = 0.5 fps

17,400 1,740 $1,340,000 $179,000 $389,000

104,000 10,400 $7,070,000 $858,000 $1420,000

347,000 34,700 $22,100,000 $2,570,000 $4,350,000

Dry Tower None 17,400

Equivalent

348 $4,130,000 $863,000 $1,190,000

104,000

Equivalent

2,080 $21,500,000 $4,230,000 $5,970,000

347,000

Equivalent

6,940 $72,600,000 $9,700,000 $15,500,000

a

 Equipment was sized for the cooling water flow shown. These flows represent the once-through or recirculating

flow or, in the case of dry towers they represent the equivalent cooling water flow rate for a similarly sized steam

turbine power plant. These flows are equivalent to 25 million gallons per day (MGD), 150 MGD and 500 MGD.

b

 All costs are net values in which the O&M costs of the baseline technology have been subtracted. For the

baseline facility, the baseline costs for the existing cooling system are also shown after the “/” .

C

 Annual costs are the sum of annual O&M costs and the annualized capital cost assuming a 30 year amortization

period and a discount rate of 7%.

Basis for Cost Estimates

Table 1 provides EPA’s draft initial estimate of the costs that would be incurred by a facility with

an existing once-through cooling system if it were required to modify or replace the existing

cooling system with one of the selected technology scenarios. Within each technology scenario,

costs are presented for cooling systems with three different cooling water flows (or equivalent

measures) representing small, medium, and large facilities. The data presented in the table

includes the net increase in capital, annual O&M, and total annual cost for the selected technology

scenarios as compared to the costs for an existing once-through cooling system. Net costs are

derived by subtracting the estimated costs for the baseline once-through cooling system that has

the same cooling flow or equivalent. Annual costs are the sum of annual O&M costs and the

annualized capital cost. The annualized capital costs (not shown separately) were derived from

the capital costs using an amortization period of 30 years and a discount rate of 7%. The salvage

value of the existing once-through cooling system was assumed to offset capital costs for the

resized water intake system, and therefore, the capital costs did not require adjustment on a net

basis. The technologies are presented in the order of increasing costs. Note that for power plants

these comparative costs do not include consideration of the energy penalty associated with
Draft – May 2001 3

changes in the turbine exhaust pressure that may occur when different types of cooling systems

are used. In general, this penalty varies for different regions and times of year.

Three cooling water flow rates were selected to represent low, medium, and high cooling water

flow values. The values are roughly equivalent to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentile of intake flows

from utilities and non-utilities, as indicated by data from the preliminary Detailed Technical

Questionnaire database. For this initial analysis, no attempt was made to stratify these flow data

according to once-through versus recirculating systems. The flow values picked are 25 MGD,

150 MGD, and 500 MGD, which are equivalent to 17,400 gpm, 104,000 gpm, and 347,000 gpm,

respectively. It was assumed that the cooling water flow rate through the condenser would be

equal for both once-through systems and recirculating wet towers. Additionally, the dry cooling

costs correspond to systems that would have equivalent power generating capacity to wet systems

using the selected cooling water flows.

With the exceptions described below (e.g., retrofit cost assumptions), EPA developed all of these

draft initial cost estimates using the cost data presented in the Economic and Engineering Analysis

of Proposed 316(b) New Facility Rule, August 2000 (EEA).

Technology Selection

The technologies selected for these draft initial cost estimates represent the spectrum of costs

associated with varying degrees of cooling system modification and varying degrees of cooling

water intake structure (CWIS) modifications, where applicable. The costs represent an estimate of

the financial impact of applying the different technology scenarios to an existing once-through

cooling system. The technologies selected are limited to only those for which EPA has already

generated cost estimates.

The alternative cooling system technologies include:

• None (once-through as baseline) 

• Wet towers

• Dry towers

The CWIS improvements include:

• None

• Passive/wedge wire screens

• Traveling screens with fish baskets

Draft initial cost estimates for these CWIS improvements are included for both the once-through

systems and for the intake structure for the reduced intake flow needed for wet towers. These

technologies were selected to represent varying degrees of costs representing low, medium, and
Draft – May 2001 4

high values. These CWIS technologies, however, do not represent the only technologies EPA is

evaluating. Additional technologies being considered but not shown in these estimates include:

• Gunderbooms

• Barrier nets

• Light/sound barriers

• Fish return systems

• Variable speed pumps

Cost estimates for these additional CWIS technologies are still under development.

Technology Summary Description

The following assumptions were used in the development of these draft initial cost estimates.

Baseline Scenario - Once-through Cooling

This scenario represents the baseline existing facility to which the draft costs of all technology

modifications were compared. The draft costs for the baseline system are estimated with the

impact on net costs in mind. Since the technology is already in-place, no capital costs were

estimated. Any salvage value of equipment no longer needed in the alternative cooling system

scenarios, such as large volume pumps, was assumed to offset the cost for new smaller volume

pumps and piping. 

Once-through O&M costs are based on the cooling water pumping energy requirement, since the

surface water pumping requirement would be greatly reduced with installation of cooling towers. 

Note that the cooling tower O&M cost estimates include the recirculation pumping costs. The

once-through pumping costs are based on the selected cooling water flows and the following

assumptions:

• pumping head = 50 ft.

• energy cost = $0.08/KWh

• pump efficiency = 70%

• operating time = 7860 hrs/yr.

These annual O&M pumping costs are deducted from the annual costs for alternative technologies

to obtain net costs for the alternative technologies. For wet cooling towers, only 90% of this cost

is deducted, since, as described below, an estimated 10% of the original withdrawal is still

pumped as make-up water.
Draft – May 2001 5

Once-through with Passive Screens

The addition of passive screens represents a medium cost with respect to CWIS improvements for

which EPA has developed draft cost estimates. The screens are sized for an intake velocity of 0.5

fps. The capital cost estimates used are based on new facilities and therefore an additional cost

equal to 30% of the capital cost was added to account for modifications to the existing structure

associated with retrofitting. Since the screens are cleaned using an air backwash system, there is

no appreciable increase in O&M costs over the baseline system. Since backwash debris must be

swept away naturally, these screens may not be appropriate for locations with low water

velocities. Since the low cooling flow value was within the cost curve range for the largest unit

costed, 10 ft wide traveling screens were used for all three flow volumes. For the two higher

flows >26,000 gpm (high end of the cost curve), costs were developed for four and 13 parallel 10

ft wide units. The cost data in Chart 30 of the EEA was used.

Once-through with Traveling Screens with Fish Baskets

The addition of traveling screens with fish handling features (a.k.a. fish baskets) represents a high

cost with respect to CWIS improvements for which EPA has developed draft cost estimates. The

traveling screens with fish baskets are sized for an intake velocity of 0.5 fps. The capital costs are

based on new facilities and, therefore, an additional cost equal to 30% of the capital cost was

added to account for modifications to the existing structure associated with retrofitting. Since the

low cooling flow value was within the cost curve range, 14 ft wide traveling screens were used

for all three flow volumes. For the high flow >104,000 gpm (high end of the cost curve), costs

were developed for two parallel 14 ft wide units. The cost data in Chart 36 and 41 of the EEA

were used.

Wet Towers without CWIS Improvements

The use of wet towers results in substantial reduction in, but not the elimination of, cooling water

requirements and therefore represents a medium level of improvement to the cooling system itself

for which EPA has developed draft cost estimates. The cooling system technology selected

consists of a recirculating wet tower constructed of redwood with an approach of 10 oF. 

Redwood construction was selected because it corresponds to the median capital cost for cooling

towers made from different building materials (see Chart 8 of EEA). EPA recognizes that

redwood is not commonly used as a tower construction material and chose redwood towers

simply because they represent the median cost.

 

Wet towers still need make-up water to account for evaporation, drift and blowdown. The makeup flow volume is assumed to be equal to 10% of the recirculating flow, resulting in intake flows

of 1,740 gpm, 10,400 gpm, and 34,700 gpm for the small, medium, and large facilities,

respectively. An intake flow factor of 10% instead of the estimated average value of 5% was

chosen to account for overall variations. Thus, a 10% factor is considered a conservative

estimate (i.e., the estimated intake volumes and CWIS costs for wet towers are close to the high
Draft – May 2001 6

end of what would be expected). The new intake system will require modification to

accommodate the reduced flow. It is assumed that the salvage value of the existing intake

equipment such as pumps (currently sized for 10 times the reduced intake volume) will offset the

capital cost for the much smaller equipment required for the modified intake system. The cost

estimates include the treatment and discharge of cooling tower blowdown (Scenario 1 from

EEA). This technology scenario does not include any CWIS improvements to the surface water

intake and therefore there are no CWIS costs. Note that the estimated O&M costs include the

recirculating cooling water pumping, which is sized for the cooling needs of the plant, not the

intake/makeup water requirements. The costs for the wet towers were derived from data in

Charts 10 and 19 of the EEA.

Wet Towers with Passive Screens

The addition of passive screens represents a medium cost with respect to CWIS improvements for

the intake system for wet towers. Wet towers with passive screens consist of the same

recirculating redwood wet tower as described above. This scenario uses the same passive screen

technology (as described for the once-through system above) as part of the make-up water intake

structure. The capital costs are based on new facilities and therefore an additional cost equal to

30% of the capital cost was added to account for modifications to the existing structure

associated with retrofitting. The costs for the systems with low, medium, and high intake flows

were based on 2-ft wide, 10-ft wide, and 10-ft wide screens, respectively. The cost for the large

facility was based on two parallel 10-ft wide screens.

Wet Towers with Traveling Screens with Fish Baskets

The addition of traveling screens with fish baskets represents the high cost with respect to CWIS

improvements for the intake system for wet towers. Wet towers with traveling screens with fish

baskets consist of the same recirculating redwood wet tower as described above. This scenario

uses the same traveling screen with fish baskets technology (as described for the once-through

system above) as part of the make-up water intake structure. The capital costs are based on new

facilities and therefore an additional cost equal to 30% of the capital cost was added to account

for modifications to the existing structure associated with retrofitting. The costs for the system

with low, medium, and high intake flows were based on 2-ft wide, 10-ft wide, and 14-ft wide

screens, respectively.

Dry Cooling

A dry system nearly eliminates the need to withdraw surface water and, therefore, represents the

highest level of improvements to the cooling system itself. Dry cooling involves the replacement

of the existing surface condenser with an air cooled condenser. The draft costs presented are for

cooling systems sized for power plants that would otherwise use comparable volumes of cooling

water as the three flow rates used to estimate costs for the water-based cooling systems. The
Draft – May 2001 7

conversion factor used is for a steam turbine power plant using a cooling factor of 12,000

BTUs/ton and 3 gpm cooling water/ton for wet systems and 15,000 BTUs/ton for dry systems. 

The make-up water requirements are very low (EPA estimates 2% of equivalent flow) and,

therefore, EPA assumes the pumping and CWIS cost (if any is needed) will be insignificant

compared to the total cost and that the salvage value of the once-through pumping equipment will

more than offset any costs for equipment needed to supply this water. As a result, only one dry

cooling technology scenario is evaluated. 

One cost not addressed for dry cooling installation at existing facilities that previously utilized

once-through or recirculating cooling towers is the potential need for replacement turbines. EPA

is developing and gathering data to address steam turbine retrofitting costs and needs. This

potential cost is not included in the estimates presented above and could represent a significant

capital cost incurrence. 

C. DRAFT RESTORATION COST ESTIMATES

The following draft initial cost estimates for restoration are drawn from materials EPA prepared

prior to proposal of regulations for cooling water intake structures at new facilities (65 Fed.Reg.

49060).

Historically, restoration measures, as used in the context of section 316(b) determinations, include

practices that seek to compensate for the fish or aquatic organisms killed, or enhance the aquatic

habitat in the waterbody in which a cooling water intake structure operates. Examples of

restoration measures that have been included as conditions of permits include creating, enhancing,

or restoring wetlands; developing or operating fish hatcheries or fish stocking programs; removing

impediments to fish migration; enhancing natural resources in an impacted watershed; and other

projects designed to replace fish or restore habitat. Such projects have proven useful in

permitting certain cooling water intake structures because they provide a substantial degree of

flexibility to the permit writer to address the adverse environmental impact caused by a cooling

water intake structure. 

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, there are three components

to a restoration measure being used for mitigation purposes:

• restoration of the injured habitat or species to baseline (primary restoration);

• compensation for the interim loss of resources from the time of injury until the resources

recover to baseline (compensatory restoration); and

• performance of the damage assessment (NOAA, 1999).

EPA developed draft initial cost estimates for two primary restoration approaches. The first

approach is the restoration or creation of habitat. The purpose of habitat restoration is to restore

all or some ecological functions, such as increased forage or protective cover, to a currently
Draft – May 2001 8

degraded habitat. This is typically accomplished through reseeding, replanting, removal of

invasive species, physical modification of the site, or some combination of these efforts. Habitat

creation, rather than restoring an existing habitat, involves the direct modification of a site to

establish new habitat. This process is similar to site restoration, however, it can involve extensive

modification of the site substrate, alteration of site hydrology, and excavation work to modify site

topography. 

Due to the more extensive reliance on site modification, habitat creation tends to be more costly

than the restoration of existing but degraded habitat. 

For freshwater rivers, lakes and reservoirs, the most common type of habitat restored is wetlands.

For tidal rivers, estuaries, and oceans, there is a greater variety of habitats restored, ranging from

salt marshes to oyster reefs. 

The second approach to restoration does not restore habitat for the species impacted due to

cooling water intake but, instead, mitigates the loss of organisms through restocking. For this

analysis, EPA made the conservative assumption that a facility implementing restoration measures

would do both habitat restoration and fish restocking.

Habitat Restoration Costs

The cost of a habitat restoration project depends on numerous site-specific factors including the

type of habitat being restored, the size of the project, the cost of suitable land, the extent of site

preparation needed, and the anticipated survival rate of the restored biota. As a result, habitat

restoration project costs are highly site-specific and can vary greatly from project to project.

Furthermore, such site-specific conditions and extreme cases cannot be accurately accounted for

when developing cost estimates at the national level.

For purposes of costing a habitat restoration project, habitat type (e.g. wetlands, sea grass, reef)

and project size are the two key factors that predominately determine costs. Therefore to develop

cost estimates for a habitat restoration project, an estimate of the size of the project and habitat is

needed. 

A habitat equivalency analysis would need to be performed to determine both the type and extent

of habitat to be restored. In this type of analysis the first step is to calculate the extent of damage

typically in terms of reduced biomass, species diversity and population levels, or loss of benefits

derived from the impacted area. Then the per hectare increase in biota that is anticipated from

various habitat restoration measures is estimated. Using this information the scope of the

restoration project could then be derived. 

For purposes of this initial costing exercise, EPA made assumptions as to the required size or type

of habitat restoration project that each facility would be likely to undertake. EPA assumed salt

marsh, sea grass, and oyster reef restoration are the types of projects used for estuaries, tidal
1 Based on a literature review of wetland restoration/creation case studies (NOAA, 1996), a typical project

size was estimated to be 200 hectares.

Draft – May 2001 9

river, and oceans. EPA derived cost estimates for each of these habitats from a literature review

of restoration project costs published in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s

Primary Restoration Guidance Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the

Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The document reported cost information for salt marsh restoration,

seagrass restoration, and oyster reef restoration in 1992 dollars on a per hectare basis. 

EPA assumed the type of habitat restoration project that would most likely be available for

streams, nontidal rivers, lakes, and reservoirs, is wetlands restoration and creation. Given that

tidal rivers, estuaries, and coastal water bodies are typically larger in size and more biologically

diverse than freshwater rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs, EPA assumed that there would be a

greater abundance of potential restoration projects available for facilities to consider. Therefore,

it was assumed that facilities would choose projects where restoration could be achieved primarily

through replanting and reseeding that required little to no construction costs in order to minimize

the cost of the restoration measure. The costs for habitat restoration in the salt water habitats are

based primarily on replanting or reseeding costs with minimal construction work necessary. The

literature reviewed for wetlands creation (NOAA,1996) did include both project size and site

preparation cost information. 

When developing costs for a potential requirement for restoration at new facilities, EPA

anticipated that the average size of most facility restoration projects would be considerably

smaller than that of a typical restoration project, which is assumed to be approximately 200

hectares.1 The reason for this was an assumption that new facilities subject to the requirements of

the proposed Section 316(b) New Facility regulations would meet the various proposed

limitations for capacity, proportional flow, velocity and use of additional technologies such as fish

diversion or return systems. Therefore, to represent the expected small, median, and large project

sizes, EPA chose size estimates of 5, 10, and 30 hectares, which are approximations of the lowest,

median, and largest project sizes that fall into the first 25th percentile of project sizes in the

literature review of wetland restoration projects (NOAA,1996). For an existing facility with much

larger intake capacity, the draft costs presented below at Worst Case Scenario for Restoration,

below, may be more appropriate. 

Furthermore, EPA assumed that on average facilities with larger flows would impinge and entrain

a greater number of fish and other aquatic fauna. Therefore, EPA assumed that the lowest,

median, and highest flow facilities would require project sizes of 5, 10, and 30 respectively. Table

1 provides these flow rates and the corresponding restoration project size. From this assumed

corresponding relationship between flow and project size, EPA developed an equation which

could be used for estimating the project size for the rest of the facilities conducting habitat

restoration. 
Draft – May 2001 10

Table 1. Estimated Relationship Between Facility Flow and Restoration Project Size

Facility Flow Rates (gpm) Corresponding Project Size

Smallest 1,700 5 hectares

Median 9,000 10 hectares

Largest 53,000 30 hectares

Equation for relationship between flow (gpm) and project size (ha).

 -4E-09 * flow 2 + 0.0007 * flow + 3.766 = project size

EPA used these assumptions and the unit habitat restoration costs reported in the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Primary Restoration Guidance Document for Natural

Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to develop the habitat

restoration costs reported in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2. Draft Estimated Restoration Project Costs for Estuaries, Tidal Rivers and Oceans (1992 $)

1992 dollars mean$/ha 5 ha 10 ha 30 ha

Salt Marsh Restoration1 $25,559 $127,794 $255,588 $766,763

Sea Grass Restoration2 $96,804 $484,019 $968,037 $2,904,112

Oyster Reef Restoration3 $6,038 $30,188 $60,376 $181,128

Assuming Equal Probability $42,800 $214,000 $428,000 $1,284,001

Assuming Equal Probability in 1999$4 $51,000 $256,000 $512,000 $1,537,000

1. Median cost based upon eight salt marsh replanting and reseeding studies (NOAA, 1996).

2. Sea Grass restoration costs assume an equal probability for both temperate and subtropical sea grass restoration. The

median per hectare cost for temperate sea grass is $24,620, based upon five restoration studies. The median cost for (NOAA,

1996).

3. Median cost based upon 15 oyster reef restoration studies (NOAA, 1996).

4. Cost figures were adjusted to 1999 dollars using a 19.7% inflation factor, using the Consumer Price Index.

Table 3. Draft Habitat Restoration Costs (1999$)

Restoration Project Size 5 ha 10 ha 30 ha

Fresh Water Wetland Restoration $229,000 $388,000 $893,000

Equation for relationship between wetlands restoration/creation project size(ha) and project cost($).1

56,475*size -0.241 = project cost

1. Equation derived from 15 case studies reported

Project size estimates were based upon the anticipated cooling water intake flow for each facility

under consideration as EPA developed proposed regulations for cooling water intake structures at

new facilities. 
Draft – May 2001 11

Fish Restocking Costs

Fish restocking can be used as either the primary means of restoration or compensatory

restoration purposes during the recovery period for the habitat restoration measure. Facilities

may decide to use restocking for primary restoration purposes when a suitable restoration site is

not available to them, and when the impingement and entrainment losses primarily affect fish

species that can be obtained from fish hatcheries. When habitat restoration is employed facilities

will need to restock fish during the initial years following the implementation of the habitat

restoration project, while flora and fauna become reestablished at the restoration site. 

EPA chose three commonly restocked species: salmon, trout, and bass, to represent the estimated

per fish cost for restocking, and assumed that they would be restocked with equal probability on a

national scale (i.e. the species specific costs were averaged). 

Fish are typically sold on a per-inch basis. Larger fish have a higher survival rate, but are also

generally more expensive. As a result, a mixture of juvenile and mature fish are usually used for

restocking purposes. EPA chose a restocking mix of 50 percent five inch fish, 30 percent seven

inch fish, and 20 percent of the fish at 10 inches. Using national hatchery cost averages for the

three representative species, and the assumed stocking mixture, the estimated cost per fish is

$1.42 (1999 dollars) (NOAA, 1996).

Typically when fish are restocked, it is for mitigation purposes. Fish are usually restocked on an

annual basis (NOAA, 2000), so the total annual number of fish restocked is based on the

estimated losses per year. As with habitat restoration, determining the scope of the restocking

effort is made difficult by the lack of information concerning new facilities. As a result, EPA took

the same approach as with habitat restoration and based the restocking rate on the expected flow

for each facility. The range of restocking rates EPA chose is between 25,000 and100,000 fish per

year. EPA also selected a travel distance for restocking of 500 miles per trip, and that the number

of fish transported per trip was 25,000.4 Table 4 provides the estimated restocking costs for the

representative species and for various restocking rates.

Table 4. Draft Annual Fish Restocking Costs for Restoration Measures (1999$)

Type of Cost

Number of Fish Restocked

25k 50k 100k

Transportation Cost $700 $1,400 $2,900

Fish Cost* $35,500 $70,900 $141,900

Total Cost** $36,200 $72,000 $145,000

*Cost is based on the $1.42 per fish cost.

** Total cost figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

When restocking is being used as the only means of restoration, EPA assumed that facilities will

continue to restock at the same annual rate. However, when restocking is used for compensatory

restoration during the interim recovery period for the habitat, EPA assumed that the rate of

restocking will decrease as flora and fauna become established at the site.
Draft – May 2001 12

Based upon a series of case studies that document the establishment of flora and fauna at the

restored site, EPA determined that three to fifteen years was a reasonable recovery period for

wetland projects and one to five years for estuary/tidal river projects (NOAA, 1996). Using the

documented recovery rate from a restoration project on the Salmon River, EPA developed a

habitat recovery equation. Table 5 provides the information from the case study and the resulting

equation. This equation was then used to approximate the recovery rate for fish species using the

habitat. EPA estimated that facilities could reduce the restocking at an inversely proportionate

rate to the recovery of the fish. Because of the more rapid recovery rate of estuarine habitats,

EPA assumed that by the second year, the restocking level could be reduced by 40% , by 70% in

year three, 90% in year four, and would not be necessary by year five.

Table 5. Recovery Rate Based Upon the Salmon River Restoration Project

Years after project % recovery of vegetation at site

0 0%

2 31%

10 91%

15* 100%

Equation for the Percentage Recovery forWetland Restoration Projects

((-0.0051*(Year2 ))+ (0.1416*Year) + 0.0193)= %Recovery

* The recovery of the site was monitored for 10 years, so the recovery rate for year 15 was assumed based upon

information from other case studies.

Draft Worst-Case Scenario for Restoration

EPA decided to cost a worst-case scenario for a large coal-fired or nuclear power plant with high

cooling water flow based on a restoration case study from a large nuclear plant with a large

cooling water intake flow. EPA correlated flow, size of restoration project (per hectare), and the

unit cost of restoration measures to develop a reasonable estimate of costs for a restoration

project on a dollar per gallon per minute ($/gpm) of cooling water flow. EPA used a worst-case

cost estimate for fish restocking of 1 million fish per year. Table 6 shows the resulting draft,

initial worst-case estimates.

Table 6. Draft Capital and O&M Costs for Restoration Worst-Case Scenarios (1999$)

Restoration Capital Cost O&M Cost for Restoration

During First Year

Coal-fired- Max flow for recirc $68,000,000 $1,448,000 

Coal-fired - Avg flow for Top 1/3 of once through systems $6,000,000 $1,448,000 

Nuclear - Max flow for recirc $143,000,000 $1,448,000 

Nuclear - Avg flow for Top 1/3 of once through systems $16,000,000 $1,448,000 

Restoration References
Draft – May 2001 13

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, April 1999, Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An

Overview, Damage Assessment and Restoration Program, NOAA, Silver Spring, Maryland.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, August 1996, Primary Restoration Guidance

Document for Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,

Prepared for NOAA’s Damage Assessment and Restoration Program. Silver Spring, Maryland.

Prepared by EG&G Washington Analytical Services Center, Inc.

Personal communication between Todd Doley of SAIC and Russell Bellmer of NOAA, May 18,

2000.

Personal Communication between Todd Doley of SAIC and the fish restocking service (Fish

Wagon 1-800-643-8439) on May 22, 2000. 

D. DRAFT BIOLOGICAL MONITORING COSTS

The following draft initial cost estimates for biological monitoring were not derived from cost

modeling exercises, but rather represented cost estimates provided by contractors with experience

in impingement/entrainment monitoring. A consensus of these experts formed the basis for these

draft cost estimates. The draft cost estimates differ depending on the type of waterbody being

sampled (with the exception of impingement monitoring). For example, the equipment, effort and

expertise needed to sample an ocean facility would be more costly than that needed to monitor a

facility located on a stream or small river. 

SOURCEWATER BASELINE CHARACTERIZATION (as described at proposed 

40 CFR 125.86 (65 Fed. Reg. 49119)

Freshwater stream/river -- $8,000 to 25,000

Lake/reservoir -- $8,000 to 35,000

Estuary/tidal river -- $8,000 to 50,000

Ocean -- $8,000 to 70,000

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING - ENTRAINMENT (as described at proposed 

40 CFR 125.87 (65 Fed. Reg. 49121)

Freshwater stream/river -- $15,000 to 40,000

Lake/reservoir -- $15,000 to 40,000

Estuary/tidal river -- $20,000 to 50,000

Ocean -- $20,000 to 50,000

BIOLOGICAL MONITORING - IMPINGEMENT (as described at proposed 

40 CFR 125.87 (65 Fed. Reg. 49121)

Freshwater stream/river -- $10,000 to 25,000

Lake/reservoir -- $10,000 to 25,000
Draft – May 2001 14

Estuary/tidal river -- $10,000 to 25,000

Ocean -- $10,000 to 25,000