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, 2011March 28, 2011 i Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. .........................1-1

1.1 S UMMARY OF THE P ROPOSED R EGULATION AND O THER E VALUATED O PTIONS ...............................1-2

1.2 S TUDY D ESIGN

.............................................................................................................................. ....1-2

1.2.1 Coasta l Regions ......................................................................................................... ..................1-3

1.2.2 Great La kes Re gion ...................................................................................................... ...............1-3

1.2.3 Inland Regi on ........................................................................................................... ...................1-4

1.3 O RGANIZATION OF THE D OCUMENT ..................................................................................................1-4

2 BASELINE IMPACTS .............................................................................................................. ......................2-1

2.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... ...2-1

2.2 M AJOR A NTHROPOGENIC S TRESSORS IN A QUATIC E COSYSTEMS ......................................................2-1

2.2.1 Habitat Loss .................................................................................................................. ...............2-2

2.2.2 Water Qu ality ................................................................................................................. .............2-3

2.2.3 Overharve sti ng ................................................................................................................ ............2-7

2.2.4 Invasive Species .............................................................................................................. .............2-7

2.3 CWIS I MPACTS TO A QUATIC E COSYSTEMS ......................................................................................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 ...................................................................................... 2-1 2

2.3.3 Thermal E ffect s ............................................................................................................... ........... 2-12

2.3.4 Chemical Effect s .............................................................................................................. .......... 2-13

2.3.5 Effects of Flow Alteration .................................................................................................... ...... 2-15

2.4 C OMMUNITY

- LEVEL OR I NDIRECT E FFECTS OF CWIS S ................................................................... 2-15

2.4.1 Altered Community Structure and Patc hy Distribution of Species ............................................ 2-16

2.4.2 Altered Food Webs ............................................................................................................. ....... 2-16

2.4.3 Reduced Taxa and Ge netic Diversity ......................................................................................... 2- 16

2.4.4 Nutrient Cyc ling Eff ects ...................................................................................................... ....... 2-17

2.4.5 Reduced Ecologic al Resistance ................................................................................................. 2-17

2.5 C UMULATIVE I MPACTS OF M ULTIPLE F ACILITIES ........................................................................... 2-17

2.5.1 Clustering of Facilities and CWISs on Majo r Rivers ................................................................ 2-17

2.5.2 Implications of Clustered Facilit ies for Cumulati ve Impacts .................................................... 2-18

2.6 C ASE S TUDIES OF F ACILITY I&E M ORTALITY I MPACTS .................................................................. 2-19

2.6.1 Bay Shore Powe r Sta tion

....................................................................................................... .... 2-19

2.6.2 Indian Point Nuclea r Power Plant ............................................................................................ 2 -20

2.6.3 Indian River Power Plant ...................................................................................................... .... 2-21

2.7 C ONCLUSIONS

.............................................................................................................................. ... 2-22

3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT MORTALITY .........................................3-1

3.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... ...3-1

3.2 M ETHODS

.............................................................................................................................. ............3-1

3.2.1 Objectives of I&E Mo rtality An alysis .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.2 I&E Mortality Lo ss Metrics .................................................................................................... .....3-2

3.2.3 Valuation A pproach

............................................................................................................ .........3-3

3.2.4 Rationale for EPA’s Approach for Valua tion of I&E mort ality lo sses ........................................3-3

3.2.5 Extrapolation of I&E Mortality to Develop Regiona l Estimat es .................................................3-5

3.3 I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES B Y R EGION ...............................................................................................3-6

3.3.1 California Region ............................................................................................................. ...........3-6

3.3.2 North Atlan tic Re gion ......................................................................................................... .........3-7March 28, 2011 ii Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 3.3.3 Mid-Atla ntic .................................................................................................................. ...............3-8

3.3.4 South Atlan tic Re gion ......................................................................................................... ....... 3-10

3.3.5 Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................................................ ........... 3-11
3.3.6 Great Lakes Region ............................................................................................................ ....... 3-12

3.3.7 Inland Regi on ................................................................................................................. ........... 3-13

3.3.8 National Es timates

............................................................................................................ ......... 3-14

3.4 L IMITATIONS AND U NCERTAINTIES ................................................................................................. 3-15

3.4.1 Data Limitation and Uncertainty ............................................................................................... 3-15

3.4.2 Structural Un certainty ........................................................................................................ ....... 3-16

3.4.3 Parameter Un certain ty ......................................................................................................... ..... 3-17

3.4.4 Engineering Un certainty ....................................................................................................... .... 3-18

4 ECONOMIC BENEFIT CATEGORIES ASSOCIATED WITH I&E MORTALITY
REDUCTION ..................................................................................................................... ........................... 4-20

4.1 E CONOMIC B ENEFIT C ATEGORIES A PPLICABLE TO THE R EGULATORY O PTIONS FOR I N -S COPE
F ACILITIES

.............................................................................................................................. ....... .4-20

4.2 M ARKET AND N ONMARKET D IRECT AND I NDIRECT U SE B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCED I&E

M ORTALITY

.............................................................................................................................. ...... 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 Prot ection to T&E Species .................................................................. 4-25

4.3 N ONUSE B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCED I&E M ORTALITY .................................................................... 4-25

5 IMPACTS AND BENEFITS ON THREATEN ED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...............................5-1

5.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... ...5-1

5.2 T&E S PECIES A FFECTED BY CWIS S .................................................................................................5-2

5.2.1 T&E Species Identification and Data Co llectio n .........................................................................5-2

5.2.2 Number of T&E Species A ffected per Facility .............................................................................5-3

5.2.3 Number of Facilities Affecti ng Individual T& E Species ..............................................................5-5

5.2.4 Summary of Overlap Between Cooling Wate r Intake Structures and T&E Species ....................5-7

5.2.5 Species with Document ed I&E Mort ality ....................................................................................5-8

5.3 S OCIETAL V ALUES FOR P RESERVATION OF T&E S PECIES A FFECTED BY I&E M ORTALITY ..............5-8

5.4 A SSESSMENT OF B ENEFITS TO T&E S PECIES ................................................................................... 5-10

5.4.1 Economic Valu ation Met hods .................................................................................................... 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 M ETHODOLOGY

.............................................................................................................................. ..6-1

6.1.1 Estimating Consumer and Producer Surplus ..............................................................................6-1

6.2 B ENEFITS E STIMATES FOR R EGIONAL C OMMERCIAL F ISHING ...........................................................6-9

6.2.1 Californ ia .................................................................................................................... .............. 6-11

6.2.2 North Atl antic ................................................................................................................ ............ 6-12

6.2.3 Mid-Atla ntic .................................................................................................................. ............. 6-12

6.2.4 South Atla ntic ................................................................................................................ ............ 6-13

6.2.5 Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................................................ ........... 6-14

6.2.6 The Great Lakes ............................................................................................................... .......... 6-15

6.3 L IMITATIONS AND U NCERTAINTIES ................................................................................................. 6-16March 28, 2011 iii Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 7 RECREATIONAL FI SHING BENEFITS ................................................................................................. ...7-1

7.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... ...7-1

7.2 M ETHODOLOGY

.............................................................................................................................. ..7-1

7.2.1 Estimating Marginal Value per Fish ...........................................................................................7 -2

7.2.2 Calculating Recreational Fishing Be nefits ..................................................................................7-5

7.2.3 Sensitivity Analysis Based on the Kr insky and Robb (1 986) Approach .......................................7-6

7.3 B ENEFITS E STIMATES FOR R ECREATIONAL F ISHING BY R EGION .......................................................7-7

7.3.1 Californ ia .................................................................................................................... ................7-7

7.3.2 North Atlan tic Re gion ......................................................................................................... .........7-8

7.3.3 Mid-Atlantic Region ........................................................................................................... .........7-9

7.3.4 South Atlan tic Re gion ......................................................................................................... ....... 7-10

7.3.5 Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................................................ ........... 7-10

7.3.6 Great Lakes Region ............................................................................................................ ....... 7-11

7.3.7 Inland Regi on ................................................................................................................. ........... 7-12

7.4 L IMITATIONS AND U NCERTAINTIES ................................................................................................. 7-13

7.4.1 Variable Assignments for I ndependent Regr essors ................................................................... 7-13

7.4.2 Exclusion of Error Term from Regression Equation to Predict Marginal Values ..................... 7-13

7.4.3 Other Limitations and Uncertain ties ......................................................................................... 7 -14

8 NONUSE BENEFITS OF REDU CING I&E MORTALITY .......................................................................8-1

8.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... ...8-1

8.2 P UBLIC P OLICY S IGNIFICANCE OF E COLOGICAL I MPROVEMENTS FROM THE P ROPOSED 316( B )

R EGULATION FOR E XISTING F ACILITIES ............................................................................................8-1

8.2.1 Effects on Depleted Fish Populations .......................................................................................... 8-2

8.2.2 Marine Protect ed Areas ........................................................................................................ .......8-2

8.2.3 Restoration of Freshw ater Ecosystems ........................................................................................8- 5

8.2.4 Summary of Evidence for Nonuse Values of Ecosystems Impacted by CWISs ............................8-5

8.3 Q UANTITATIVE A SSESSMENT OF E COLOGICAL N ONUSE B ENEFITS ...................................................8-6

8.3.1 Description of Johnston et al. (2009) and BSPV Methods...........................................................8-6

8.3.2 Benefits Transfer Methodol ogy ................................................................................................. ...8-8

8.4 E STIMATES OF T OTAL WTP BY O PTION AND R EGION ..................................................................... 8-13

8.5 L IMITATIONS AND U NCERTAINTIES ................................................................................................. 8-14

8.5.1 Scale of Fishery Improvements ................................................................................................. . 8-15

8.5.2 Scale and Characteristics of the Affected Po pulation ............................................................... 8-15

8.5.3 Fish Population Size, Type and Improvement fr om the Elimination of I&E Mortality ............. 8-15

9 HABITAT BASED METHODOLOGY FOR ESTI MATING NONUSE VALUES OF FISH
PRODUCTION LOST TO I&E MORTALITY .............................................................................................9 -1

9.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... ...9-1

9.2 E STIMATING THE A MOUNT OF H ABITAT N EEDED TO O FFSET I&E M ORTALITY ................................9-2

9.2.1 Quantify the Mass of Production Lost to I&E Mortality .............................................................9-2

9.2.2 Production per Un it of Ha bitat ................................................................................................ ....9-3

9.2.3 Select Preferred Re storation Habitat .......................................................................................... 9-7

9.2.4 Scaling Habitat Restoration Alterna tives to Offset I&E Morta lity ..............................................9-8

9.3 D EVELOPMENT OF WTP V ALUES FOR F ISH P RODUCTION S ERVICES OF H ABITAT ........................... 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 ........................................................................................................... ...... 9-12March 28, 2011 iv 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 E STIMATING THE V ALUE OF H ABITAT N EEDED TO O FFSET I&E M ORTALITY ................................. 9-13

9.4.1 Determining the Extent of Nonuse Values ................................................................................. 9-13

9.4.2 Estimating Aggre gate Values ................................................................................................... . 9-14

9.5 WTP R ESULTS

.............................................................................................................................. .. 9-15

9.6 L IMITATIONS AND U NCERTAINTIES ................................................................................................. 9-17
9.6.1 Estimating the Extent of th e Affected Po pulation ...................................................................... 9-17
9.6.2 Not All Species and Losse s Are Compen sated ........................................................................... 9-17
9.6.3 Timing of Losses and Restor ation .............................................................................................. 9-17
9.6.4 Application of the Approach to Large Geographic Areas ......................................................... 9-17
9.6.5 Specification of Parame ter Assumptio ns ................................................................................... 9-18

10 NATIONAL BEN EFITS ............................................................................................................. .............. 10-1

10.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... . 10-1

10.2 M ETHODOLOGY

.............................................................................................................................. 10-1

10.3 S UMMARY OF B ASELINE L OSSES AND E XPECTED R EDUCTIONS IN I&E M ORTALITY ...................... 10-2

10.4 N ATIONAL M ONETIZED B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING AND R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY
L OSSES

.............................................................................................................................. .............. 10-4

10.5 B REAK -E VEN A NALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 10-12

11 OPTION 4 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. ................. 11-1

10.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... . 11-1

10.2 E XPECTED R EDUCTIONS IN I&E M ORTALITY UNDER O PTION 4 ...................................................... 11-1

10.3 M ONETIZED B ENEFITS UDER O PTION 4 ........................................................................................... 11-2

12 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... ...................... 12-1

APPENDIX A : EXTRAPOLATION METHODS ............................................................................................ ... A-1

A.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... .. A-1

A.2 M ANUFACTURING F ACILITIES .......................................................................................................... A-1

A.2.1 Traditional Manufacturers (MN Facilitie s) ................................................................................ A-1

A.2.2 Non-utility Manufacturers (MU Facilitie s) ................................................................................ A-5

A.3 E LECTRIC P OWER G ENERATING F ACILITIES ..................................................................................... A-6

A.3.1 Defining the Strata and Control Vari ables ................................................................................. 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 DISC HARGES ............................................................................................................ ................ B-1

B.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... .. B-1

B.2 G ENERAL E FFECTS OF T HERMAL D ISCHARGES ON A QUATIC B IOTA AND E COSYSTEMS .................. B-1

B.3 I NFLUENCE OF S ITE -S PECIFIC F ACTORS AND E NVIRONMENTAL S ETTING ON T HERMAL
E FFECTS

.............................................................................................................................. ............. B-4

B.4 U NCERTAINTIES AND L IMITATIONS OF A SSESSING T HERMAL I MPACTS ........................................... B-5

B.5 C ASE S TUDIES

.............................................................................................................................. .... B-6

B.5.1 Brayton Poin t Sta tion

......................................................................................................... ........ B-6

B.5.2 Quad Cities Nuclear Station (Q CNS) ....................................................................................... B-10

B.5.3 Point Beach Nuclear Station ................................................................................................... . B-12

APPENDIX C : DETAILS OF REGION AL I&E MORTALITY LOSSES ...................................................... C-1

C.1 C ALIFORNIA

.............................................................................................................................. ....... C-1March 28, 2011 v Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation

C.2 N ORTH A TLANTIC ............................................................................................................................ C -3

C.3 M ID -A TLANTIC

.............................................................................................................................. .. C-6

C.4 S OUTH A TLANTIC .......................................................................................................................... C-1 0

C.5 G ULF OF M EXICO ........................................................................................................................... C- 12

C.6 G REAT L AKES

.............................................................................................................................. .. C-14

C.7 I NLAND

.............................................................................................................................. ............ C-17

C.8 N ATIONAL E STIMATES ................................................................................................................... C-20

APPENDIX D : DISCOUNTING BENEFITS ............................................................................................. ......... D-1

D.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... .. D-1

D.2 T IMING OF B ENEFITS ........................................................................................................................ D-1

D.3 D ISCOUNTING AND A NNUALIZATION ............................................................................................... D-3

APPENDIX E : LIST OF T&E SPEC IES OVERLAPPING CWIS ................................................................... E-1

APPENDIX F : DETAILED METHODOLOGIES OF CWIS, AND ESTIMATED BENEFITS OF REGULATION ON, THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .................................................... F-1

F.1 I&E M ORTALITY OF S EA T URTLES .................................................................................................. F-1

F.2 A PPLICATION OF W HITEHEAD (1993)’ S B ENEFIT T RANSFER A PPROACH FOR E STIMATING
WTP FOR T&E S EA T URTLE S PECIES .............................................................................................. F-3

F.3 A PPLICATION OF R ICHARDSON & L OOMIS ’ (2008) WTP M ODEL ..................................................... F-5

APPENDIX G : ESTIMATION OF PRICE CHANGES FOR CONSUMER SURPLUS ............................... G-1

G.1 I NTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................... .. G-1

G.2 M ETHODOLOGY AND R ESULTS ......................................................................................................... G-1

APPENDIX H : DETAILS OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL FISHING BENEFITS ................................... H-1

APPENDIX I : DETAILS OF REGIONAL RE CREATIONAL FISHIN G BENEFITS ................................... I-1

I.1 C ALIFORNIA

.............................................................................................................................. ........ I-1

I.2 N ORTH A TLANTIC

............................................................................................................................. I-6

I.3 M ID -A TLANTIC

.............................................................................................................................. . I-11

I.4 S OUTH A TLANTIC ........................................................................................................................... I- 16

I.5 G ULF OF M EXICO ............................................................................................................................ I -18

I.6 G REAT L AKES

.............................................................................................................................. ... I-22

I.7 I NLAND

.............................................................................................................................. ............. I-27

APPENDIX J : METHODS USED IN TH E HABITAT BASED METHODOLOGY FOR
ESTIMATING NO NUSE VALUES ...................................................................................................... ..........J-1

J.1 E QUATIONS FOR ESTIMATING NONUSE VALUES USING A HABITAT BASED METHODOLOGY ................ J-1

J.2 E STIMATED P RIMARY P RODUCTIVITY AND C ARBON E XPORT IN M ARINE AND A QUATIC
H ABITATS

.............................................................................................................................. ........... J-3

J.3 R EGIONAL D ETERMINATION OF P REFERRED H ABITAT ...................................................................... J-4

J.4 W ILLINGNESS TO P AY FOR F ISH P RODUCTION AND O THER A QUATIC H ABITAT G OODS AND
S ERVICES

.............................................................................................................................. ............ J-6

J.5 N ARRAGANSETT B AY W ETLAND R ESTORATION S TUDY ................................................................... J-8

J.5.1 Survey Development and Da ta Collec tion ................................................................................... J-8

J.5.2 Results ....................................................................................................................... ................... J-9

J.6 D ETERMINING THE A FFECTED P OPULATION AND E STIMATING A GGREGATE V ALUES ..................... J-14March 28, 2011 vi Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## Tables

T ABLE 1-1: I N -S COPE F ACILITIES AND A CTUAL I NTAKE F LOW (AIF) BY R EGION ( BILLIONS OF GALLONS PER DAY ) . 1-3

T ABLE 2-1: A NTHROPOGENIC S TRESSORS I MPACTING A QUATIC E COSYSTEMS P OTENTIALLY A FFECTED
, B OTH
D IRECTLY AND I NDIRECTLY
, BY 316( B ) O PTION S CENARIOS ............................................................................. 2-2

T ABLE 2-2: N UMBER OF 316( B ) F ACILITIES ON 303( D )- LISTED W ATERBODIES
, BY I MPAIRMENT AND R EGION .......... 2-6

T ABLE 2-3: D EPLETED C OMMERCIAL F ISH S TOCKS S UBJECT TO I&E M ORTALITY .................................................... 2-8

T ABLE 2-4: CWIS E FFECTS ON E COSYSTEM F UNCTIONS /C UMULATIVE I MPACTS P OTENTIALLY A FFECTED
, B OTH
D IRECTLY AND I NDIRECTLY
, BY 316( B ) R EGULATIONS ................................................................................... 2-10

T ABLE 2-5. T OP 20 POLLUTANTS DISCHARGED BY 316( B ) FACILITIES
, BY TOTAL ANNUAL LOADINGS IN 2007. ........ 2-14

T ABLE 2-6: U.S. R IVERS WITH L ARGEST W ITHDRAWALS BY I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES ................................................. 2-18

T ABLE 3-1: S UMMARY OF B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND
G ENERATING ) IN C ALIFORNIA
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ................................................. 3-7

T ABLE 3-2: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN C ALIFORNIA
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ......................................................................................................... 3-7

T ABLE 3-3: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS

.............................................................................................................................. ............................................ 3-8

T ABLE 3-4: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ......................................................................................................... 3-8

T ABLE 3-5: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS 3-9

T ABLE 3-6: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ......................................................................................................... 3-9

T ABLE 3-7: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS

.............................................................................................................................. .......................................... 3-10

T ABLE 3-8: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ....................................................................................................... 3-10

T ABLE 3-9: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS

.............................................................................................................................. .......................................... 3-11

T ABLE 3-10: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ....................................................................................................... 3-12

T ABLE 3-11: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE G REAT L AKES
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS 3-12

T ABLE 3-12: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE G REAT L AKES
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ....................................................................................................... 3-13

T ABLE 3-13: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS 3-

13March 28, 2011 vii Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation T ABLE 3-14: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ....................................................................................................... 3-14

T ABLE 3-15: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) N ATIONALLY
, AND R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ........... 3-15

T ABLE 3-16: B ASELINE L OSSES IN F ISHERY Y IELD
, C ATCH
, AND P RODUCTION F ORGONE AS A C ONSEQUENCE OF I&E

M ORTALITY AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING ) N ATIONALLY
, AND
R EDUCTIONS U NDER O PTION S CENARIOS ....................................................................................................... 3-15

T ABLE 3-17: S TRUCTURAL U NCERTAINTIES ............................................................................................................. 3-17

T ABLE 3-18: P ARAMETERS I NCLUDED IN EPA’ S I&E M ORTALITY A NALYSIS S UBJECT TO U NCERTAINTY .............. 3-19

T ABLE 4-1: S UMMARY OF B ENEFIT C ATEGORIES ’ D ATA N EEDS
, P OTENTIAL D ATA S OURCES
, A PPROACHES
, AND
A NALYSES C OMPLETED

.............................................................................................................................. ....... 4-3

T ABLE 4-2: S UMMARY OF B ASELINE N ATIONAL I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND R EDUCTIONS IN I&E M ORTALITY
L OSSES
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION .................................................................................................................... 4-7

T ABLE 5-1: N UMBER OF T&E S PECIES WITH G EOGRAPHICAL D ISTRIBUTIONS O VERLAPPING I N

- SCOPE CWIS S
, ON A
P ER

- FACILITY B ASIS

.............................................................................................................................. ............ 5-4

T ABLE 5-2: N UMBER OF F ACILITIES WITH CWIS S W ITHIN THE G EOGRAPHICAL D ISTRIBUTION OF T&E S PECIES
, ON A
P ER

- SPECIES B ASIS

.............................................................................................................................. .............. 5-6

T ABLE 5-3: T&E SPECIES WITH DOCUMENTED I&E MORTALITY

. S PECIES ARE SEPARATED BY THE TAXONOMIC

RESOLUTION REPORTED FOR THE I&E MORTALITY LOSS . .................................................................................. 5-9

T ABLE 5-4: F EDERAL AND S TATE E XPENDITURES FOR T&E S PECIES O VERLAPPING WITH CWIS ........................... 5-10

T ABLE 5-5: A NNUAL B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY AND R EDUCTIONS IN B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY OF T&E S PECIES

AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (A1E) ........................................ 5-12

T ABLE 5-6: E STIMATED A NNUAL WTP FOR E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY OF S PECIAL S TATUS F ISH
S PECIES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ........................ 5-13

T ABLE 5-7: M ONETIZED B ENEFITS OF A 1 P ERCENT I NCREASE IN THE P ROBABILITY THAT L OGGERHEAD S EA T URTLES
W ILL N OT B E E XTINCT IN 25 Y EARS ............................................................................................................... 5-17

T ABLE 5-8: C AVEATS
, O MISSIONS
, B IASES
, AND U NCERTAINTIES IN THE T&E S PECIES B ENEFITS E STIMATES ....... 5-17

T ABLE 6-1: C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, S PECIES -S PECIFIC G EAR T YPE
, S TATUS OF S TOCK
, AND N ET B ENEFITS R ATIO .... 6-5

T ABLE 6-2: N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, S PECIES -S PECIFIC G EAR T YPE
, S TATUS OF S TOCK
, AND N ET B ENEFITS R ATIO

.............................................................................................................................. ............................................ 6-6

T ABLE 6-3: M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, S PECIES -S PECIFIC G EAR T YPE
, S TATUS OF S TOCK
, AND N ET B ENEFITS R ATIO 6-7

T ABLE 6-4: S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, S PECIES -S PECIFIC G EAR T YPE
, S TATUS OF S TOCK
, AND N ET B ENEFITS R ATIO

.............................................................................................................................. ............................................ 6-8

T ABLE 6-5: G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, S PECIES -S PECIFIC G EAR T YPE
, S TATUS OF S TOCK
, AND N ET B ENEFITS R ATIO

.............................................................................................................................. ............................................ 6-8

T ABLE 6-6: G REAT L AKES R EGION
, S PECIES -S PECIFIC G EAR T YPE
, S TATUS OF S TOCK
, AND N ET B ENEFITS R ATIO . 6-9

T ABLE 6-7: P OTENTIAL H ARVEST I NCREASE FROM E LIMINATING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AS A P ERCENTAGE OF
T OTAL H ARVEST AND P OTENTIAL H ARVEST C APPING R ULES U SED IN EPA’ S A NALYSIS .............................. 6-10

T ABLE 6-8: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ............................. 6-11

T ABLE 6-9: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) .................... 6-12

T ABLE 6-10: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ......................... 6-13

T ABLE 6-11: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ..................... 6-14

T ABLE 6-12: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ..................... 6-14

T ABLE 6-13: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$)........................... 6-15March 28, 2011 viii Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation T ABLE 6-14: C AVEATS
, O MISSIONS
, B IASES
, AND U NCERTAINTIES IN THE C OMMERCIAL B ENEFITS E STIMATES .... 6-16

T ABLE 7-1: I NDEPENDENT V ARIABLE A SSIGNMENTS FOR R EGRESSION E QUATION ................................................... 7-3

T ABLE 7-2: R EGION

- AND S PECIES

- SPECIFIC V ARIABLE A SSIGNMENTS FOR THE R EGRESSION E QUATION ................. 7-5

T ABLE 7-3: M ARGINAL R ECREATIONAL V ALUE PER F ISH
, BY R EGION AND S PECIES A ................................................ 7-5

T ABLE 7-4: C ONFIDENCE B OUNDS ON M ARGINAL R ECREATIONAL V ALUE PER F ISH
, B ASED ON THE K RINSKY AND
R OBB A PPROACH A

.............................................................................................................................. ............... 7-7

T ABLE 7-5: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ............................... 7-8

T ABLE 7-6: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ...................... 7-9

T ABLE 7-7: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ........................... 7-9

T ABLE 7-8: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ..................... 7-10

T ABLE 7-9: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ..................... 7-11

T ABLE 7-10: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY
L OSSES AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) .............. 7-12

T ABLE 7-11: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY
L OSSES AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ........................ 7-13

T ABLE 8-1: 316( B ) F ACILITIES IN M ARINE P ROTECTED A REAS
, AND I MPROVEMENTS IN I&E M ORTALITY
T ECHNOLOGIES BY R EGULATORY O PTION ......................................................................................................... 8-5

T ABLE 8-2: R ESULTS OF M IXED L OGIT M AXIMUM L IKELIHOOD E STIMATION (B OUNDED T RIANGULAR C OST ) ...... 8-11

T ABLE 8-3: WTP PER P ERCENTAGE I NCREASE IN THE N UMBER OF F ISH .................................................................. 8-12

T ABLE 8-4: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AND E STIMATED F ISH N UMBERS FOR THE N ORTHEAST U.S. (N ORTH
A TLANTIC AND M ID -A TLANTIC R EGIONS ) ...................................................................................................... 8-13

T ABLE 8-5: N ONUSE V ALUE OF E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES BY R EGULATORY
O PTION FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC AND M ID -A TLANTIC R EGIONS ................... 8-14

T ABLE 9-1: S UMMARY OF P RODUCTIVITY V ALUES OF P REFERRED S CALING H ABITATS BY R EGION ( KG DRY MASS

ACRE -1 YR -1 ) ............................................................................................................................. .......................... 9-7

T ABLE 9-2: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY ( METRIC TONS A1E YEAR -1 ) AND H ABITAT R ESTORATION A REA ( ACRES )

E QUIVALENT TO B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY
, AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS ( METRIC TONS A1E YEAR -1 )

AND H ABITAT R ESTORATION A REA ( ACRES ) E QUIVALENT TO T HESE R EDUCTIONS
, BY R EGION AND
R EGULATORY O PTION

.............................................................................................................................. ......... 9-9

T ABLE 9-3: T OTAL A NNUAL H OUSEHOLD WTP P ER A CRE OF A QUATIC H ABITAT ................................................. 9-11

T ABLE 9-4: H OUSEHOLD WTP PER A CRE PER Y EAR FOR F ISH P RODUCTION S ERVICES .......................................... 9-13

T ABLE 9-5: W EIGHTED WTP FOR H ABITAT R ESTORATION A REA E QUIVALENT TO B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY
, AND
W EIGHTED WTP FOR H ABITAT R ESTORATION A REA E QUIVALENT TO I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS BY R EGION

AND R EGULATORY O PTION

............................................................................................................................. 9-16

T ABLE 10-1: B ASELINE N ATIONAL A1E L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES ( MILLIONS OF A1E S ) ...................... 10-2

T ABLE 10-2: R EDUCTIONS IN N ATIONAL A1E L OSSES FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES ( MILLIONS OF A1E S ) U NDER
O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) ............................................................................................................................. 10-2

T ABLE 10-3: R EDUCTIONS IN N ATIONAL A1E L OSSES FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES ( MILLION A1E S ) U NDER O PTION
2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) .................................................................................. 10-3

T ABLE 10-4: R EDUCTIONS IN N ATIONAL A1E L OSSES FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES ( MILLIONS OF A1E S ) U NDER
O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) .................................................................................................... 10-3

T ABLE 10-5: B ASELINE N ATIONAL I&E M ORTALITY AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES BY R EGULATORY O PTION .............................................................................................................. 10-3

T ABLE 10-6: D ISTRIBUTION OF N ATIONAL I&E M ORTALITY FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES BY R EGULATORY O PTION

.............................................................................................................................. .......................................... 10-4March 28, 2011 ix Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation T ABLE 10-7: S UMMARY OF N ATIONAL B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES FOR A LL
I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ... 10-7

T ABLE 10-8: S UMMARY OF N ATIONAL B ENEFITS OF O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ..................................... 10-8

T ABLE 10-9: S UMMARY OF N ATIONAL B ENEFITS OF O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD)

FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (2009$) ........................................................................................................... 10-9

T ABLE 10-10: S UMMARY OF N ATIONAL B ENEFITS OF O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ................ 10-10

T ABLE 10-11: S UMMARY OF N ATIONAL B ENEFITS BY R EGULATORY O PTION FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (2009$)

.............................................................................................................................. ........................................ 10-11

T ABLE 10-12: I MPLICIT N ONUSE V ALUE —B REAK -E VEN A NALYSIS
, 3 P ERCENT AND 7 P ERCENT D ISCOUNT R ATES (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ................................... 10-13

T ABLE 11-1: D ISTRIBUTION OF I&E M ORTALITY FOR A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES BY R EGION U NDER O PTION 4 (I

E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) .................................................................................... 11-1

T ABLE 11-2: A NNUAL I NCREASE IN R ECREATIONAL AND C OMMERCIAL H ARVEST U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE

WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) ........................................................................................................... 11-2

T ABLE 11-3: S UMMARY OF N ATIONAL B ENEFITS OF O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ..................................... 11-3

T ABLE 11-4: W EIGHTED WTP FOR H ABITAT R ESTORATION A REA E QUIVALENT TO I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS BY
R EGION UNDER O PTION 4 ((I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) ...................................... 11-4

T ABLE A-1: MN DQ D ISTRIBUTION AND C ALCULATION OF W EIGHT A DJUSTMENT F ACTORS .................................. A-4

T ABLE A-2: MU A DJUSTMENT F ACTORS AND A DJUSTED F LOW BY B ENEFITS R EGION ............................................ A-6

T ABLE A-3: M ATRIX OF S TRATA AND C ONTROL V ARIABLES FOR A DJUSTING DQ W EIGHTS ................................... A-7

T ABLE A-4: M EAN O PERATIONAL F LOW BY B ENEFITS R EGION : P OST -S TRATIFICATION BY M EAN R EGIONAL
O PERATIONAL F LOW FOR F ACILITIES W ITHOUT R ECIRCULATION (MGD) ....................................................... A-8

T ABLE C-1: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY .............................................................................. C-1

T ABLE C-2: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY .............................................................................. C-2

T ABLE C-3: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY .............................................................................. C-3

T ABLE C-4: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY .............................................................................. C-4

T ABLE C-5: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION S CENARIOS
E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ................................................................................................. C-6

T ABLE C-6: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY .............................................................................. C-8

T ABLE C-6: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY
, CONTINUED ......................................................... C-9

T ABLE C-7: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................ C-10March 28, 2011 x Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation T ABLE C-8: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................ C-11

T ABLE C-9: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................ C-12

T ABLE C-10: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................ C-13

T ABLE C-11: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE G REAT L AKES ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION S CENARIOS
E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................................... C-14

T ABLE C-12: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE G REAT L AKES ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................ C-15

T ABLE C-13: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE I NLAND R EGION ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION S CENARIOS
E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................................... C-17

T ABLE C-14: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

IN THE I NLAND R EGION ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION
S CENARIOS E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................ C-18

T ABLE C-15: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

N ATIONALLY ( MILLION A1E S PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION S CENARIOS
E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................................... C-20

T ABLE C-16: B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT A LL I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES (M ANUFACTURING AND G ENERATING )

N ATIONALLY ( MILLION INDIVIDUALS PER YEAR ), AND I&E M ORTALITY R EDUCTIONS FOR O PTION S CENARIOS
E STIMATED FOR A LL S OURCES OF M ORTALITY ............................................................................................... C-24

T ABLE D-1: T IME P ROFILE OF N ATIONAL M EAN T OTAL B ENEFITS AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES BY R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$, THOUSANDS ) ............................................................................................................................. ........... D-4

T ABLE E-1: L IST OF T&E S PECIES O VERLAPPING O NE OR M ORE I N -S COPE 316( B ) C OOLING W ATER I NTAKE
S TRUCTURE

.............................................................................................................................. ......................... E-1

T ABLE F-1: R EPORTED V ALUES OF S EA T URTLE E NTRAINMENT ............................................................................... F-2

T ABLE F-2: A SUBSET OF US- BASED NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS DEDICATED TO SEA TURTLE RESEARCH

AND CONSERVATION

.............................................................................................................................. ............ F-3

T ABLE F-3: V ARIABLE D ESCRIPTIONS AND V ALUES USED FOR EPA’ S B ENEFITS T RANSFER A PPLICATION ............... F-5

T ABLE F-4: V ARIABLES IN THE M ETA -A NALYSIS M ODEL AND V ALUES U SED IN EPA’ S A PPLICATION ..................... F-6

T ABLE G-1: O WN -P RICE E LASTICITY E STIMATES FROM L ITERATURE R EVIEW ......................................................... G-2

T ABLE G-2: E STIMATED P ERCENTAGE C HANGE IN E X -V ESSEL P RICE BY R EGION AND S PECIES G ROUP .................. G-3

T ABLE G-3: E STIMATED P RICE C HANGES FOR THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION .................................................................. G-3

T ABLE G-4: E STIMATED P RICE C HANGES FOR THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION ......................................................... G-4

T ABLE G-5: E STIMATED P RICE C HANGES FOR THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION ............................................................. G-5

T ABLE G-6: E STIMATED P RICE C HANGES FOR THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION ......................................................... G-5

T ABLE G-7: E STIMATED P RICE C HANGES FOR THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION .......................................................... G-6

T ABLE H-1: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY S PECIES AND R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ......... H-1

T ABLE H-2: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES AND R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) H-2

T ABLE H-3: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES AND R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) .... H-3

T ABLE H-4: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES AND R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) . H-4March 28, 2011 xi Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation T ABLE H-5: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY S PECIES AND R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) . H-5

T ABLE H-6: C OMMERCIAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING OR R EDUCING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES

AT I N -S COPE F ACILITIES IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY S PECIES AND R EGULATORY O PTION (2009$) ...... H-6

T ABLE I-1: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ............................................................................ I-1

T ABLE I-2: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ...................................... I-2

T ABLE I-3: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ........................................ I-3

T ABLE I-4: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ............ I-4

T ABLE I-5: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) IN THE C ALIFORNIA R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... .......................... I-5

T ABLE I-6: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ................................................................... I-6

T ABLE I-7: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ............................. I-7

T ABLE I-8: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... .......................... I-8

T ABLE I-9: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ... I-9

T ABLE I-10: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) IN THE N ORTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-10

T ABLE I-11: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ..................................................................... I-11

T ABLE I-12: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ............................... I-12

T ABLE I-13: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-13

T ABLE I-14: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ..... I-14

T ABLE I-15: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) IN THE M ID -A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-15

T ABLE I-16: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ................................................................. I-16

T ABLE I-17: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ........................... I-16

T ABLE I-18: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-17

T ABLE I-19: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) .. I-17March 28, 2011 xii Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation T ABLE I-20: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) IN THE S OUTH A TLANTIC R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-18

T ABLE I-21: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) .................................................................. I-18

T ABLE I-22: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ............................ I-19

T ABLE I-23: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-20

T ABLE I-24: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) .. I-21

T ABLE I-25: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) IN THE G ULF OF M EXICO R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-22

T ABLE I-26: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ....................................................................... I-23

T ABLE I-27: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ................................. I-24

T ABLE I-28: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-25

T ABLE I-29: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ....... I-26

T ABLE I-30: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) IN THE G REAT L AKES R EGION
, BY
S PECIES (2009$ ) ....................................................................................................................... ........................ I-27

T ABLE I-31: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM E LIMINATING B ASELINE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE
F ACILITIES IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ................................................................................. I-28

T ABLE I-32: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 1 (I E VERYWHERE ) IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ........................................... I-29

T ABLE I-33: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 2 (I E VERYWHERE AND E FOR F ACILITIES > 125 MGD) IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ...................................... I-30

T ABLE I-34: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 3 (I&E M ORTALITY E VERYWHERE ) IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) .................. I-31

T ABLE I-35: R ECREATIONAL F ISHING B ENEFITS FROM R EDUCING I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AT I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES
U NDER O PTION 4 (I E VERYWHERE WITHOUT N EW U NITS R EQUIREMENTS ) IN THE I NLAND R EGION
, BY S PECIES (2009$) ....................................................................................................................... ...................................... I-32

T ABLE J-1: S UMMARY OF A BOVEGROUND P RIMARY P RODUCTIVITY ( MEASURED IN KG DRY MASS ACRE -1 YR -1 ) ........ J-3

T ABLE J-2: E STIMATES OF C ARBON E XPORT FROM S ALT M ARSHES ........................................................................... J-4

T ABLE J-3: S TUDIES U SED TO E STIMATE WTP V ALUES FOR F ISH P RODUCTION S ERVICES AND H ABITAT .................. J-6

T ABLE J-4: D EFINITIONS AND S UMMARY S TATISTICS FOR M ODEL V ARIABLES FOR N ARRAGANSETT B AY W ETLAND
R ESTORATION S TUDY

.............................................................................................................................. ......... J-10

T ABLE J-5: C ONDITIONAL L OGIT R ESULTS FOR N ARRAGANSETT B AY W ETLAND RESTORATION S TUDY ................. J-12

T ABLE J-6: P ROPORTIONS OF R ESTORED W ETLAND V ALUE A SSOCIATE WITH V ARIOUS S ERVICE C ATEGORIES ...... J-13

T ABLE J-7: N UMBER OF H OUSEHOLDS BY S TATE AND P ERCENTAGE OF R EGIONAL H ABITAT A CRES A SSIGNED TO
E ACH S TATE

. ............................................................................................................................. ....................... J-14March 28, 2011 xiii Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## Figures

F IGURE 2-1: M AP OF F ACILITIES L OCATED ON 303( D ) W ATERS AND T HOSE L ISTED FOR T EMPERATURE .................. 2-4

F IGURE 3-1: G ENERAL A PPROACH U SED TO E VALUATE I&E M ORTALITY L OSSES AS F ORGONE F ISHERY Y IELD ..... 3-4

F IGURE 5-2: C UMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION PLOT OF THE NUMBER OF T&E SPECIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ON A PER

FACILITY BASIS BY IN

- SCOPE FACILITIES NATIONWIDE

. S AMPLE SIZES ( I

. E
., NUMBER OF IN

- SCOPE FACILITIES ) ARE

NOTED IN PARENTHESES

. T HE HORIZONTAL AXIS IS EQUIVALENT IN ALL PLOTS
, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE
I NLAND REGION ( NOTED WITH AN ASTERISK *). ................................................................................................. 5-5

F IGURE 6-1: F ISHERY M ARKET M ODEL
, REPRODUCED FROM B ISHOP AND H OLT (2003) ........................................... 6-2

F IGURE 8-2: I N

- SCOPE F ACILITIES WITH CWIS S L OCATED I N M ARINE P ROTECTED A REAS . ...................................... 8-4

F IGURE 8-3: E XAMPLE C HOICE E XPERIMENT Q UESTION FROM J OHNSTON ET AL

. (2009) .......................................... 8-9

F IGURE 9-1: I MPLEMENTATION OF THE T ROPHIC T RANSFER A PPROACH .................................................................... 9-3

F IGURE 9-2: T ROPHIC L EVELS AND P ROCESSES C ALCULATED WITH THE S IMPLIFIED
, F OUR L EVEL T ROPHIC T RANSFER
M ODEL

.............................................................................................................................. ................................ 9-4March 28, 2011 1-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## 1 Introduction

EPA is proposing regulations implem enting Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to address the environmental impacts of cooling water intake struct ures (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 wate rbodies. 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 organism s, 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 ass ociated with CWIS operation, including nonlethal effects of impingement, thermal discharges, chemi cal effluents, flow modifications caused by these plants, and other impacts of variable and unknown magnitudes.

The Proposed Section 316(b) Regulation would estab lish 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 imp acts 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 lik ely to result in enhanced ecosystem function and increased ecological services provided by affected waterbodies.

The two broad categories of existing facilities are cons idered 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 (DIF) of at least 2 million gallons per day (MGD) that use at least 25 percent of the water they wi thdraw (measured on an average annual basis for each calendar year) exclusively for cooling purposes.

EPA is required to conduct a benefit-cost an alysis under Executive Order 12866 for economically significant rules. This report presents the methods EPA used for the environmen tal assessment and for the benefits analysis of the regulatory options. EPA’s an alysis had three main objectives: (1) to develop a national estimate of the baseline magnitude of I&E morta lity at in-scope facilities; (2) to estimate changes in the I&E mortality of fish 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. Th e report also presents the basic concepts involved in analyzing these economic benefits—including benefi t 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 1-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 1.1 Summary of the Proposed Regu lation 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 DI F for cooling water of 2 MGD or greater. Each option evaluated in developing this pr oposed regulation is described below.

 Option 1: I Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality C ontrols at All Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD; Determine Entrainm ent Controls for Facilities Greater than 2 MGD DIF On a Site-specific Basis.

 Option 2: I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All Existing Facilities that Withdr aw over 2 MGD DIF; Require Flow Reduction Commensurate with Closed-cycle Cooling By Facilities Greater Than 125 MGD DIF.

 Option 3: I&E Mortality Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD DI F; Require Flow Reduction Commensurate with Closed-Cycle Cooling at All Existing Facilities over 2 MGD DIF.



### 1.2 Study Design

EPA’s analysis of the regulatory options examined CW IS impacts and regulatory benefits in seven study regions (California, 1 

### North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atla ntic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, and Inland). The study regions were cho sen based on regional similarities w ithin ecosystems, aquatic species,
and characteristics of commercial and recreational fish ing activities. Regional results were then combined to develop national estimates. The geographical exte nt of the seven regions, and the water body types within each region, are described below in Secti on 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 current ly 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 woul d be subject to the requirements of the Proposed Rule, they would not be required to install add itional technologies to reduce I&E mortality under the Proposed Rule. Thus, these facilities do not influen ce the occurrence and magnitude of benefits.

1 Includes four in-scope facilities in Hawaii.March 28, 2011 1-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 1-1: In-Scope Facilities and Actual Int ake Flow (AIF) by Region (billions of gallons per day)

Region Number of In-Scope

Facilities a Flow Without

Recirculation Recirculated Flow Total Flow

California b 8 1.19 0.00 1.2

Great Lakes 67 18.81 0.24 19.0

Inland c 669 134.87 3.89 138.8

Mid-Atlantic 54 28.10 0.07 28.2

Gulf of Mexico 30 12.89 0.00 12.9

North Atlantic 26 7.04 0.00 7.0

South Atlantic 17 7.42 0.05 7.5 All Regions 871 210.30 4.25 214.5

a 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 (i ncluding baseline closures).

b The California region includes manufacturing facilities in the state of California and four facilities in Hawaii. It excludes c oastal 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 Gu lf 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 At mospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These regions include fac ilities that withdraw cooling water from estuaries, tidal rivers and ocean facilities within the NMFS regi ons. All facilities that withdraw cooling water from non-coastal waterbodies, such as lakes, rivers, and r eservoirs, regardless of geographical location, are included in the Inland Region (Section 1.2.3)

Coastal regions are defined as follows: the Californi a 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 Main e, 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. Th e South Atlantic region includes coastal facilities in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and the east co ast of Florida. Finally, the Gulf of Mexico region includes coastal facilities in Texas, Louisiana, Missi ssippi, 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 th e 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 f acility in Washington classifi ed as a baseline closure.March 28, 2011 1-4 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 Regi on) 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 cond itions of the water bodies affected by in-scope facilities. To obtain regional I&E mortality estimat es, EPA extrapolated loss rates from facilities for which I&E mortality data are available (hereafter mo del 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 th e regional economic benefits of Section 316(b) regulatory options. EPA provides an overview of all bene fits (Chapter 4) and investigates several benefit categories in detail, including: benefits from impr oved protection of threatened and endangered (T&E) species (Chapter 5), commercial fishing benefits (Chapt er 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 tota l national benefits for in-scope facilities based on the results of the regional analyses (Chapter 10). Chap ter 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 2.1.1.1A B 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 be nefits; Appendix E presents a list of T&E species likely impacted by I&E mortality; Appendix F pr ovides 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 fo r I&E mortality reductions to impact the market price of commercially fished species; Appendix H presen ts details of the benefits of I&E mortality on commercial fishing by region; Appe ndix 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 2-1 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 of fish 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 waterb ody. 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 anthrop ogenic 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 factor s. 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 effect s 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 envi ronment 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 bi otic 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 natura l variability in environmental conditions (e.g., seasonal perturbations), as well as periodic large-scale disturban ces in environmental setti ngs (e.g., drought, flood, fire, disease). Indigenous aquatic species and communiti es are adapted to this natu ral variability, such that large-scale events elicit a predictable loss, respon se and recovery cycle. Conversely, anthropogenic
stressors tend to be more chronic in nature and ofte n do not lead to recognizable recovery phases. Instead these stressors often lead to long-term environmenta l degradation associated with lowered biodiversity, reduced primary and secondary production, and a lowe red capacity or resiliency of the ecosystem to recover to its original state in response to na tural perturbations (Rapport and Whitford 1999).March 28, 2011 2-2 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) ex tractive uses of aquatic resources; and (iv) invasion by non-indigenous species (Ra pport and Whitford 1999). CWIS-related impacts are considered here as a separate, fifth category of anth ropogenic 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 infl uence of other stressors on the receiving water.

The remainder of this section summa rizes effects of these four anthr opogenic stressors on the waterbodies affected by in-scope 316(b) facilities. CWIS im pacts 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

Anthropogenic Stressor Impacted by Regulation

Scale of Stressor Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

CWIS Yes: Direct Ye s: Direct Yes: Direct Local/Regional/National

Habitat loss

Development No No No Local Eutrophication Yes: Indirect Yes: Indi rect Yes: Indire ct Local/Regional Climate change No No No Regional/National/Global Engineering (below) No Yes: Dire ct Yes: Direct Local/Regional Engineering diversions

Re-routing No No No Local/Regional Flow adjustments/removals/
modifications No Yes: Direct Yes: Direct Local/Regional Water impoundments/damming No No No Local/Regional Water quality

Eutrophication Yes: Indirect Yes: Indi rect Yes: Indire ct Local/Regional Loss of riparian buffer zones No No No Local/Regional

Sedimentation No Ye s: Direct Yes: Di rect Local/Regional Chemical pollution (organics, heavy metals, etc.) No Yes: Dire ct Yes: Direct Local/Regional Non-native / invasive species Ye s: Indirect Yes: Indirect Yes: Indirect Local/Regional Extractive uses (e.g. fishing) Yes: Indirect Yes: Indirect Yes: I ndirect Local/Regional Note: Option 1 is I Everywhere, Option 2 is I Everywhere a nd E for Facilities > 125 MGD, and Option 3 is I&E Mortality Everywhere.



### 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 degr adation of critical fish ha bitats have all taken a heavy toll on the numbers and composition of local fi sh and shellfisheries. Most 316(b) facilities have been built on shoreline locations where power-g eneration buildings, roadways, CWISs, canals,March 28, 2011 2-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### impoundments, and other water storage or conveyance stru ctures have often been constructed at the cost of natural habitat, including te rrestrial, aquatic, and wetlands.

The loss of coastal and estuarine wetlands that ser ve as important fishery spawning and nursery areas is particularly severe, with an estimated historical lo ss of 100 million acres of wetlands since the late 1700s (Bromberg and Bertness 2005; USEPA 2010b). Critical fishery habitat loss is not restricted to nearshore environments. Decades of fishing activities have degr aded offshore bottom habitats (Auster and Langton 1999; Turner et al. 1999).

The main impact of aquatic habitat loss is a reducti on in the number of fish 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 histori cal fish species. Habitat loss in adjacent shoreline areas exacerbates the effect of CWIS losses, since ma ny 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 channelizati on 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. Th e investigators found that the combined effects of channelization, heavy barge traffic, and high river fl ow rates had resulted in a significant loss of fish habitat. As a result, reported I&E mortality losses we re 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 industr ial, agricultural and residential land use as well as discharges from wastewater treatment plants. Poor water quality can limit the numbers, composition, and distribution of fish and invertebrates; reduce spaw ning effort and growth rates; select for pollutiontolerant species; cause periodic fishkills; or result in adverse effects to piscivorous wildlife.

CWA Section 303(d) listings inventory, on a state-by-sta te basis, the locations of impaired waters not meeting designated uses and the known or suspected s ource(s) of impairment. Figure 2-1 identifies 316(b) facilities that are within two miles of a 303(d)-liste d waterbody (blue shapes), as well as those that are impaired for temperature (red shap es). 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, 20112-4Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationFigure 2-1: Map of FacilitiesLocated on 303(d) Waters and Those Listed for TemperatureMarch 28, 2011 2-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### EPA’s analysis of the 316(b) facilities location demons trated 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). Tabl e 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, mercur y, 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 discu ss some of the more common and important physicochemical impairments in aquatic environment wher e 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 (HAB s), high internal loads of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and spatial and temporally variab le DO levels. In additio n, eutrophication can
reduce or eliminate habitat-formers such as cora l reefs and submerged a quatic vegetation (SAV), and create other adverse ecological effects. Thermal discharges from 316(b) facilities can increase receiving water temperature, which may fa vor 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 c oncentrations may be further decreased in or downstream of thermal plumes arising from c ooling water return discharges from 316(b)
facilities. Low DO can limit the distribution of fish and macroinvertebrates, reduce growth rates, and alter nutrient and carbon recycling.

 Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances (P BTs) such as mercury or PCBs may be present in waterbodies near 316(b) facilities, due to atmo spheric deposition of local air emissions or from
historical uses of PCBs in electrical transformer units, in addition to othe r urban or industrial sources. These PBTs can impair water uses by re gulatory restrictions or advisories regarding acceptable ingestion of fish 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 water bodies in which the CWIS are located are subject to fish advisories. Fish advisories are issued by Stat es 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 bioaccumulati ve chemicals which may pose risk for humans and piscivorous wildlife and which may also in terfere with reproduction and survival of lower
taxa as well.March 28, 2011 2-6 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 MidAtlantic Gulf of
Mexico North
Atlantic South
Atlantic Total
Biological Stressors
Noxious Aquatic Plants 2 2
Nuisance Exotic Species 2 9 11
Pathogens 1 15 99 5 1 12 6 139

Nutrients
Algal Growth 1 1

Nutrients 15 47 3 1 2 9 77
Organic Enrichment / Loading
Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 7 56 1 5 4 9 82

Sediment 9 18 2 29

Persistent, Bioaccumulative, Toxic (PBTs)

Dioxins 1 14 13 2 30 Fish Consumption Advisory - Pollutant Unspecified 8 1 9
Mercury 2 28 96 4 2 3 135

PCBs 3 57 142 13 2 1 218

Pesticides 8 12 16 36
Physical Alterations

Flow Alteration 7 7

Habitat Alteration 6 12 18

Temperature 9 3 12
Turbidity 27 1 3 31

Toxics

Ammonia 3 1 4

Chlorine 2 2
Metals (Other Than Mercury) 3 4 43 7 1 58
Total Toxicity 2 5 2 1 15
Toxic Inorganics 1 1 2
Toxic Organics 3 12 3 18

Unknown / Other Causes

Cause Unknown 11 1 12

Cause Unknown - Fish Kills 1 1
Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 1 3 14 2 20

Other Cause 1 1
Water Quality Use Impairments (General)

Oil And Grease 6 3 9

pH 3 8 11
Salinity/TDS/Sulfates/Chlorides 1 1 7 9

Taste, Color And Odor 4 1 5March 28, 2011 2-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 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 to tal river miles (approximately 1.4 million river miles) and 100 percent of the Great Lakes and connecting wa terways (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 bei ng monitored by States and advances in analytical methods rather than in increasing levels of these problematic chemicals.

The water quality impacts arising from the combinat ion 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 aqua tic 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 th e point of reducing or even eliminating much of the population. Stocks of commercial a nd recreationally important species are reduced as a result of fishing, but such fish catches may be sustaina ble if sufficient recruitment of j uveniles into the fishery can replace population losses from fishing and other stressors. Unfort unately for many aquatic species, overharvesting has a long history and in many instances has pr eceded 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 pe rcent of species are considered over-exploited (“overfished”) (NMFS 2010a). Table 2-3 lists 21 gr oups of overfished, depleted, or rebuilding commercial fish stocks occurring in I&E mortality da ta reported from a subset of in-scope facilities (NMFS 2010a). Further, this assessment does not incl ude 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 consid er 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 ot her species in the community, or even to extinction (Jackson et al. 2001). The collapse of the Great Lakes wh itefish fisheries has been shown to be principally due to overfishing, although habitat alteration a nd introduction of a non-indige nous (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 Car lton 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 taxonomi cally 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 effect s (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 2-8 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Interactions between NIS and other anthropogenic st ressors are likely to affect the colonization and distribution of native species subject to CWIS im pacts. Thermal discharg es from 316(b) facilities may extend the seasonal duration of non-resident organism s, allowing transient summer species to become permanently established in geographic areas beyond thei r 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 faciliti es, depending on site-specific cond itions at an individual facility’s site. Many of these facilities employ once-through coo ling water systems that impinge fishes and other aquatic organisms on intake screens if the intake velocity exceeds th ese organisms’ locomotive ability to move away. Impinged organisms may be killed, in jured 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 wa ter. In addition, early life stage fish or planktonic

Table 2-3: Depleted Commercial Fish Stocks Subject to I&E Mortality

Stock or Stock Complex Overfishing a Overfished b Approaching
Overfished c Rebuilding Stock Region

American Plaice No Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Atlantic Cod Yes Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Atlantic Sturgeon No Yes Yes Atlantic

Black Sea Bass Yes Yes Yes South Atlantic

Boccacio No No No Yes California

Butterfish No Yes Yes Mid-Atlantic

Gag Yes No Yes No South Atlantic/Gulf of Mexico
Grouper species Yes Yes Yes Gulf of Mexico

Haddock No Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Ocean Pout No Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Pink Shrimp No Yes No South Atlantic

Pollock No No No Yes North/Mid-Atlantic
Porgy No Yes Yes South Atlantic
Rockfish species Yes Yes Yes California

Skate species No Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Spiny Dogfish No No No Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Summer Flounder No No No Yes Mid-Atlantic

Tautog Yes Unknown Unknown N/A Atlantic

White Hake Yes Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Windowpane No Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Winter Flounder Yes Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

Yellowtail Flounde r Yes Yes Yes North/Mid-Atlantic

a Fishing mortality exceeds sustainable levels.

b Stock size is below a sust ainable biomass threshold.

c Estimated that the stock will be in an overfished condition by the 4th quarter of 2010.

d Stock is rebuilding to attain a level consis tent with maximum sustainable yield (MSY).
Source: National Marine Fisher ies Service (NMFS) (2010a).March 28, 2011 2-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### organisms can be entrained by the CWIS and subjected to death or damage due to high velocity and pressure, increased temperature, and chemical anti-biof ouling 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 mortalit y is generally a function of the operational intake volumes and the characteristics of the aquatic communit y in the region (see Chapter 3 for details). I&E mortality can contribute to: impacts to T&E species (Cha pter 5); reductions in ecologically critical aquatic organisms, including important elements of an eco system’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 an d other species affected directly and indirectly by CWIS can provide other valuable ecosystem goods a nd 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 partic ular 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 ma y 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 d ecline when recruitment rates are lo wer than mortality rates. Natural sources of mortality for fish species include predatio n, food availability, injury, climatic factors and disease. Anthropogenic sources of fish mortality, both pr oximate and ultimate, include fishing, habitat modification, pollution, and I&E mortality at CWIS s. EPA believes that reducing I&E mortality will contribute to the health and sustainability of fish pop ulations 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 (s ee Table 2-2). For example, I&E mortality (expressed as age-1 equivalents) equal approxima tely 10 percent of the average a nnual 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 2-10 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 2-4: CWIS Effects on Ecosystem Functions/C umulative 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 (direc t effects) Direct Regional/National Phytoplankton Direct Local/Regional/National Zooplankton (excluding fish larvae/ eggs) Direct Local/Regional/National Invertebrates Direct Local/Regional/National Fish Direct Local/Regional/National Non-fish vertebrates Direct Local/Regional/National

Species and Population-Level Effects Alteration of phenology of system (function of % wate r reduction in stream) Direct Local/Regional/National Altered distribution of popu lations Direct Local Altered niche space Direct Local/Regional Altered stable age distributions of populations Direct Regional Loss of keystone species Direct Local Loss of T&E species Direct Regional Novel selection pressure (e.g., negatively buoyant or stationary eggs) Direct & Indirect Local Reduced/altered genetic diversity Di rect & Indirect Regional/National Reduced lifetime ecological function of individuals Direct Local/Regional

Community and Trophic Relationships Altered competitive interactions Direct & Indirect Local Disrupted trophic relationships Direct & Indirect Local Disrupted control of disease-harboring insects (e.g., mosquito larvae, etc.) Indirect & Direct Local/Regional Increased quantity of detritivores Indirect Local Loss of ecosystem engineers (due to trophi c interactions) Indirect & Direct Local Reduced potential for energy flows (e.g. trophic transfers) Indirect Local/Regional Species diversity and richness Direct & Indirect Local/Regional/National Trophic cascades Indirect & Direct Local/Regional

Ecosystem Function Altered ecosystem succession Indi rect & Direct Local/Regional Decreased ability of ecosystem to control nuisance species (algae, macrophytes) Indirect Local Disrupted cross-ecosystem nutrient exchange (e.g., up/downstream, aquatic/terrestrial) Indirect Regional Disrupted nutrient cycling Indi rect & Direct Local/Regional Reduced compensatory ability to deal with environmental stress (resilience) Direct & Indirect Regional Reduced ecosystem resistan ce Indirect Local/Regional Reduced ecosystem stability (alternate states) Indirect Local/Regional Sediment regulation I ndirect Local/Regional Substrate regulati on Indirect Local

B. Thermal Effects (direct and indirect) Novel selection pressure (e.g., therma l optima, location of breeding, etc.) Direct & Indirect Regional/National Altered phenology Direct Local/Regional Links between temperature and metabolism Dissolved oxygen (physical) Direct Local Dissolved oxygen (bacterial, respiratory rates) Indirect LocalMarch 28, 2011 2-11 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 2-4: CWIS Effects on Ecosystem Functions/C umulative Impacts Potentially Affected, Both Directly and Indirectly, by 316(b) Regulations Category Direct/Indirect Local/Regional/National
Ecological energetic demands Indirect Local/Regional Ecological nutrient demands Indirect Local/Regional Altered algal productivity Dir ect & Indirect Local/Regional Shifted nutrient cycling Indirect & Direct Local/Regional

C. Chemical Effects (anti-foulants, etc.) Altered survival/growth/producti on Indirect & Direct Local Altered food web dynamics Indirect Local

D. Altered Flow Regimes (local and system-wide) Altered flow velocity Direct & Indirect Local/Regional Altered turbulence regime Direct & Indirect Local/Regional

E. Cumulative Impacts (as a concentrated number of facilities) May push systems over the edge of nonlinearities in the system Direct/I ndirect Local/Regional Intensified CWIS effects (as above, Section B.) Direct/Indirect Local/Regional Intensified thermal effects (as above, Se ction B.) Direct/Indi rect 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 ( Perca flavescens ), whose populations have seen dramatic declines in recent years (USDOI 2008; Wisconsin DNR 2003). Although recovery of these speci es is greatly affected by fisheries policy (e.g., NFSC 2008), I&E mortality represent an additional s ource 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 stoc k recovery. Thus, reducing I&E mortality may lead to more-rapid stock recove ry, a long-term increase in commercial fish catches, increased population stability following periods of poo r recruitment and, as a consequence of increased resource utilization, an increased ability to minimize the invasion of exotic species 3 

### (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 pr edation, disease, or years with low recruitment. Additionally, since predation rates are often directly related to the concentrati on of available prey, I&E mortality may lead to indirect population effects, wher eby 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 deceas es the probability of invasion by an NI S, particularly in resource-limited envir onments (Stac howicz and Byrnes 2006).March 28, 2011 2-12 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Moreover, I&E mortality represents a novel selectiv e pressure for fish populations. Consequently, populations may be selected for resistance to I&E morta lity (through behavioral or physiological changes) at the expense of other, more “natural” evolu tionary pressures. Although this may help sustain populations in the short term, it may reduce genetic diversity and population st ability 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 mort ality from CWISs may represent a substantial portion of the annual reproduction of T&E species. Conseque ntly, 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 numbe r of losses that occur.

Adverse effects on T&E species due to water wit hdrawals 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 CW IS 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 pr ovisions 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-rece iving waters (Abt Associates 2010b).

Thermal pollution has long been recognized as ha ving effects upon the structure and function of ecosystems (Abt Associates 2009a). Numerous st udies have shown that thermal discharges may substantially alter the structure of the aquatic co mmunity by modifying photosynthetic (Bulthuis 1987; Chuang et al. 2009; Martinez-Arroyo et al. 2000; Po ornima 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, a nd 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 pronoun ced in aquatic ecosystems that are already subject to other environmental stressors such as high bi ochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels, sediment contamination, or pathogens. Thermal discharges may ha ve indirect effects on fish and other vertebrate populations through increasing pathogen growth and in fection 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 te nded 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, theMarch 28, 2011 2-13 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### rate of water exchange, the presence of nearby refugi a, and the assemblage of nearby fish species. In addition to reducing total I&E mortality, cooling to wers reduce thermal pollution. Consequently, the installation of closed-system cooling towers could have geographically variable effects on ecosystems, ranging from comprehensive changes in community stru cture and habitat type (Schiel et al. 2004), to localized changes in the relative proportion of sp ecies adapted to warm and cold water (Millstone Environmental Laboratory 2009). Further informati on on thermal discharges is provided in Appendix

1 

### 2.1.1.1B

1 

### .

2.3.4 Chemical Effects

One of the environmental impacts associated with po wer plant operations is the release of chemicals in the discharge of once-through cooling waters. These ch emicals include metals from internal corrosion of pipes, valves and pumps (e.g., chromium, copper, iron, nickel, and zinc), additives (anti-fouling, anticorrosion, and anti-scaling agents) and their bypr oducts, and materials from boiler blowdown and cleaning cycles.

EPA used the beta version of the Discharge M onitoring Report Pollutant Loading Tool (DMR-PLT) 4 

### to obtain estimated annual pollutant loadings for fac ilities regulated under Section 316(b). EPA extracted
data for all facilities in selected Standard Industr y 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 pow er generators. A summary table was generated of total annual loads for all in-scope facilities. Tabl e 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-speci fic activities. The most common pollutants include: total suspended solids, oil & grease, BOD 5 

### , 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 bi ofouling on surfaces in cooling water systems can accelerate metal corrosion, increase r esistance 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 coloni ze intake pipes, bulkheads, and filter screens, and may clog pipes and reduce inta ke flows or filter-screen effectiveness. Further, some of these infestations produce larvae, which can colonize downstream e quipment including pipelines, valves, and heat exchangers. Severe macrofouling-associated problem s can include intake flow reduction, increased pressure drop across heat excha ngers, and equipment breakdown.

4 http://app6.erg.com/icisloader/dmrLoadi ngsAdvSearch.cfm. Note that DMR-PLT is cu rrently 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 2-14 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.

Parameter Number of
facilities Total Loading (‘000 pounds/yr)

1 Solids, total dissolved 46 5,416.4 2 Hardness, total (as CaCO3) 48 2,842.6 3 Solids, total suspended 619 1,100.6 4 Solids, total dissolved (at 180 deg. C) 13 922.5 5 Residue, total filterable (at 105 C) 6 527.8 6 Sulfate, total (as SO4) 54 416.2 7 Chloride (as Cl) 47 403.5

8 Calcium Chloride 1 175.8

9 BOD, 5-day, 20 deg. C 227 111.6

10 Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 33 105.6

11 Oil & grease 274 84.5

12 Carbon, total organic (TOC) 76 45.1

13 Oxygen demand, chem. (high level) (COD) 45 44.7

14 Oil and grease, hexane extraction method 80 42.0

15 Sulfate (as S) 11 41.1

16 Iron, total (as Fe) 220 33.9

17 Fluoride, total (as F) 34 29.9

18 Coliform, fecal MF, MFC broth, 44.5 C 19 26.0

19 Oxygen demand, chem. (low level) (COD) 11 25.5

20 Coliform, fecal general 108 21.2 Source: Discharge Monitoring Report Pollutant Loading Tool (DMR-PLT)



### These anti-fouling and cleaning chemicals potentially po se a risk to organisms downstream of the CWIS discharge. Adverse effects to aquatic organisms may in clude acute and residual effects of biocides used as anti-fouling agents in condenser tubes, or from ch emicals 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 residua ls and/or disinfection byproducts (DBPs) 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 flus hing 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 eco systems are not well-characterized. In most cases, chemical effects are considered, along with therma l 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 di scharge 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). Ho wever, concentrations of these chemicals may be
additive to low-level chronic adverse effect with other anthropogenic stressors identified above.March 28, 2011 2-15 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 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 a nd discharge pipe, and in mainstream waterbodies, particularly in inland riverine settings. In ecosyst ems 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 av erage 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 characteris tics 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 sever al changes in the physical environment, including sediment deposition (Hoyal et al. 1995), sediment tr ansport (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 (Abe lson 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 importa nt role in the ecology of small organisms, including fish eggs and larvae, phytoplankt on, and zooplankton. In many cases, the turbulence of a waterbody directly affects the behavior of aquatic organism s, including fish, with respect to swimming speed (Lupandin 2005), location preference with a waterbody (L iao 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 ha bitat, and thereby substa ntially 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 Klam ath 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 Indi rect Effects of CWISs

In addition to the direct effects of CWISs, I&E mo rtality 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 th e limited scope of I&E mortality studies and an incomplete knowledge of baseline or pre-ope rational 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 importa nt roles in nutrient cycling (Wilson et al. 2009) and sediment processes, and are known to play key rol es in the maintenance of aquatic biodiversity (Holmlund and Hammer 1999; Peterson and Lubchenc o 1997; Postel and Carpenter 1997; Wilson and Carpenter 1999).March 28, 2011 2-16 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### While I&E mortality losses of commercially or recreati onally 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 broa d taxa such as “forage fish” or “oth er”) 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 nut rient recycling, etc. Therefore, the removal of selected fish species or considerable biomass by I&E mo rtality 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 criti cal 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 substan tial 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 sp ace 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 di srupt 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 we b). 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-p rey, 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 su ch as thermal pollution (Section 2.2.3) or flow alteration (Section 2.3.5), may lead to rapid chang es in life history strategies as a consequence of facultative (Ball and Baker 1996) or evolutionary ch anges (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 commun ity biodiversity (due to destruction of selected species) or in a loss of genetic diversity in indivi dual 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 manyMarch 28, 2011 2-17 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### populations stocks are differentiated by oceanic re gion and/or timing of migratory movements, I&E mortality could alter the seasonal timing and moveme nt (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 cyc ling, and energy transfer through food webs. Fish species have been shown to have substantial effect s 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 conditi on 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 or ganisms, 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 di sturbance including invasive species) (Folke et al. 2004; Gunderson 2000). That is, I&E mo rtality is likely to reduce the ability of ecosystems to withstand and recover from adverse environmental impacts, whet her 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 mu ltiple facilities are located in close proximity such that they impinge or entrain aquatic organisms with in 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 exacerbate d 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) indicat es 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, da ta 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 fo r cumulative impacts is high (Abt Associates 2010b).March 28, 2011 2-18 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 2-6: U.S. Rivers with Larges t Withdrawals by In-scope Facilities

River Avg. Annual* Flow (MGD) Facilities Cumulative DIF (MGD) DIF as % Avg.
Annual Flow Cumulative AIF (MGD) AIF as % Avg.
Annual Flow Mississippi 383,266 57 22,436 5.9 13,170 3.4
Ohio 181,615 47 19,315 10.6 13,384 7.4
Missouri 49,249 23 10,718 21.8 6,598 13.4
Illinois 8,079 11 6,259 77.5 1,605 19.9
Delaware 7,562 11 3,585 47.4 1,485 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 upstr eam of the Mississippi River delta. Using facility intake coordinates as location markers, the relativ e 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. Se veral locations along the Mississippi River have
clusters of facilities:

 Between Ascension and St. James Parishes, a 13-mi le span of the river hosts six manufacturing facilities, three of which have intakes located within the same mile. These facilities have a combined DIF of nearly 270 MGD.

 Fifteen miles downstream, near Garyville, LA, ther e 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 DIF 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 im pacts such as thermal dischar ges. 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). Althou gh low flows are traditionally in late summerMarch 28, 2011 2-19 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, developi ng YOY, and migrating juveniles.

 Freshwater facilities are more likely to be clustere d 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 locat ed 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 Facilit y I&E Mortality Impacts

While the information provided in this chapter provides a broad overvi ew of potential impacts associated with CWISs, it is highly informative to evaluate thes e 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 ev aluating I&E mortality and major stressors in the context of a specific waterbody or region.

As part of the Phase II regulations, review and an alyses 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 II Existing 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 informat ion 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 brief case st udies 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-firedMarch 28, 2011 2-20 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### steam-electric units is withdrawn from Maumee Ri ver/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 (MGD) is w ithdrawn, 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.

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 therma l plume extends to the south shore of Maumee Bay (over 1 mile from the facility). The Ohio Environm ental Protection Agency (OEPA) assessed the results from a 2002 thermal mixing zone study, and conclude d that the thermal dischar ge exceeded Ohio water quality standards for temperature within the thermal plume (>85 o 

### F in Maumee Bay), but that the impacts on aquatic life and designated uses in Maumee River/Ba y did not justify reducti on of the thermal mixing zone. However, it did find that the thermal activity co uld restrict recreational activities in certain areas of the plant and required the plant owners to conduct a tw o-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 estua rine portion of the Hudson River through three intake structures on the shore line (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, particul arly anadromous striped bass populations, as well as a high level of involvement and litigation from local st akeholder 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 Rive r aquatic community has been sampled and studied over many decades, with detailed inv estigation starting in the 1970s.

Results suggest that I&E mortality impacts to th e local and transient anadramous fish species are substantial. For example, studies of fish entrainmen t in 1980 predicted fish class reductions ranging from 6 to 79 percent, depending on fish species (Borem an 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. Th e Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concluded these Bay Shore Power Station I&E Mortality Losses: Me dium-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 entrainmen t 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).March 28, 2011 2-21 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### levels of mortality “could seriously deplete any res ilience or compensatory capacity of the species needed to survive unfavorable environmental conditions” (USEPA 2004a).

The FEIS considered the role of other major environmen tal factors currently or historically present in the Hudson River. These factors have the capacity to aff ect 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 extrem e weather events (e.g., the El Nino-Southern Oscillation), and stricter management of individua l species stocks such as striped bass (USEPA 2004a).

Recently (April 2010), the NYSDEC denied a request by Indian Point for a CWA Section 401Water 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, conti nuing concerns over I&E mortality in cluding potential impacts to two sensitive species—the Shortnose Stur geon (currently listed as endange red) 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 wa ter for three of the IRGS’s four coal-fired steamelectric 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 Cr eek, 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 anc hovy, spot, menhaden larvae, and young blue crabs.

Indian Point Final Environmental Impact Stat ement (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 b ass, 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 le vel 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 judgm ent was based on evidence that the entire aquatic
communit y was affected rather than onl y s p ecimens of hi g her tro p hic level s p ecies.

Indian River Power Plant has impact on important local species: The 2003 316(b) Comprehensive Demonstration St udy for the Indian River Power Plant reported I&E mortality for a number of important species (E ntrix 2003, as described in Bason 2008). This I&E mortality has been recalculated by a local stakeholder group as age-1 equivalents for bay
anchov y ( 1.6 million ), blue crab ( 300

, 000 ), croaker ( 270

, 000 ), and menhaden ( 60

, 000 ) ( Bason 2008 )

.March 28, 2011 2-22 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Due to the size of the heated dischar ge 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 fl ounder, croaker, spot, striped bass, and weakfish. This report determined that juvenile and adult targ et 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 segment s. 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, th ere were documented localized thermal impacts of consequence. For example, during warmer months, th e thermal discharge reached potential adverse levels in Island Creek, often extending dow nstream to Ware Cove (Entrix 2001). The mortality associated with sub-adult stages of fish and crabs and the avoidan ce of the area by sub-adult and adult fish were
substantial issues. In addition to direct thermal im pacts to biota, temperature-related reductions in DO were observable (mean reduction = 0.6 mg/l) in the discharge canal. These reductions contributed to the amplitude of the day-night (diel) cycle of DO c oncentrations, 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 inv estigations. This has allowed EPA to monetize the potential environmental benefits that would arise as re duction 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. Th is condition is due to the limitations of 316(b) sampling programs, as well as the failure of permittin g process to consider the additive or cumulative effects of other major anthropogenic stressors. Wh ile 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 high ly likely that the total environmental and monetary impacts of CWISs are si gnificantly underestimated, and that characterization of the fuller spectrum of benefits arising from reduc ing or eliminating I&E mortality will await future, targeted research efforts.March 28, 2011 3-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## 3 Assessment of Impingement and Entrainment Mortality

3.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the methods EPA used to co nvert results from impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E mortality) sampling studies into metr ics 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 re ductions in these losses under alternative regulatory options. Section 3.4 discusses limitations and un certainties in the I&E mortality analysis.

EPA’s I&E mortality assessment methods are di scussed in detail in Chapter A-1 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 fo r power generators were estimated for sample facilities that received the de tailed questionnaire rather than for all in-scope generators, and (3) changes in the proportionate re duction in I&E mortality under new regulatory options
were estimated. Other modifications are iden tified 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 do es not imply that these methods are the best or most suitable for studies of single facilities. In many c ases, site-specific details on local fish populations and waterbody conditions may make other assessment approaches, such as population or ecosystem modeling, possible.

5 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 entrainm ent survival studies and found them variable, unpredictable, unreliable, and not defensible. As such , these studies support an assump tion of 0 percent survival for entrained organisms in benefits assessments.March 28, 2011 3-2 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 mort ality 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 ot her details are provided in Chapter A-1 of EPA’s Regional Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2006b).

3.2.2.1 Age-1 Equivalents


### The Equivalent Adult Model (EAM) is a method for c onverting 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 (A1Es). This conversion allows losses to be compared among species, years, facilities, and regions.

To conduct EAM calculations requires a life history sc hedule, 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 surv ival rates between the stage at which I&E mortality occurs and age 1. Consequently, the loss of an indivi dual younger than age 1 results in a conversion rate less than 1. For individuals older than 1 year, the conv ersion rate is calculated as the quotient of all stagespecific 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-1 of EPA’s Regional Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2006b). For the results presented in this chap ter, 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 of fish. 6 

### EPA expressed I&E mortality of harvested species in terms of forgone (lost) fisher y yield. To convert losses to forgone fishery yield, EPA used the Thompson-Bell equilibrium yield m odel (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 morta lity rates will lead to an in crease 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 an d 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 of fish is th e sum of all age-specific expected yields. Details of these calculations are provided in Chapter A-1 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 bi omass represents a decrease in prey availability for predator species, and is calculated because I&E morta lity 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-1 of EPA’s Regional Benefits Analysis (USEPA 2006b).

6 A cohort of fish refers to fish produced in the same year, also referred to as a year-class of fish.March 28, 2011 3-3 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 comme rcial 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 recreati onal harvest is reported in numbers of fish. 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 contributi ons 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 recreationa l 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 ha rvest 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 ha rvest 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 incr emental 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 yi eld model assumes that these key parameters (F, M, and weight-at-age) are independent of I&E morta lity rates for all species. EPA recognizes that this assumption does not fully reflect the dynamic nature of fish 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-rela ted death. EPA believes that this approach was warranted given: (1) the scope and objectives of its anal ysis of harvested species, (2) data availability, and (3) difficulties in distinguishing the causes of populati on 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- a nd 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 ecosyst ems involved, EPA modeled fishery yield using a relatively simplified approach to estimate the vulne rability of dozens of species to I&E mortality on a

7 EPA notes that its model of trophic tr ansfer is a very simple and idealized re presentation 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 3-4 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.

Figure 3-1: General Approach Used to Evaluate I&E Mortality Losses as Forgone Fishery
Yield

3.2.4.2 Data Availability and Uncertain ties Related to Modeling Fish Harvest


### Forgone fishery yield and production forgone models u sed 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-leve l 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, stockI&E Mortality

Losses

Convert to

Age-1 Equivalents Convert to Production

Forgone

Convert to Forgone Fishery Yield Convert to Forgone Fishery Yield

Total Forgone Fishery Yield

Commercial

Harvest (pounds) Recreational
Harvest (# of fish) Fishery Species Forage Species

Trophic Transfer

Sum

Monetize (Chapter 6) Monetize (Chapter 7) Commercial

Fraction Recreational FractionMarch 28, 2011 3-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation



### recruitment relationships, changes to growth and mortality rates as a function of stock size, and the separation of certain species into geogra phically 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 morecomplex population models is av ailable only for a subset of harvested species, which represent a minor fraction of I&E mortality.

 Numerous difficulties exist in the definition of th e size and spatial extent of fish 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 un derstand the stock-recruitment relationship for Delaware Bay menhaden.

Consequently, due to issues of data availability a nd 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 we re 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 Distinguishin g 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 equilibri um stock size is difficult. Fish recruitment is a multidimensional process, and identifying and distingu ishing the causes of variance in fish recruitment remains a fundamental problem in fisheries science, stock management, and impa ct 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 acros s 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 a ll regions is described in Chapter 1 (Section 1.2).

To obtain regional I&E mortality estimates, EPA extr apolated losses observed at 97 facilities with I&E mortality data (hereafter model facilities) to all in-sco pe facilities within the same region. Extrapolation of I&E mortality rates was necessary because only a subset of all in-scope fac ilities 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 ga llons per day (MGD), where MGD 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 effectiv eness of in-place technologies used to reduce I&E mortality. During the extrapolation procedure, EPA al so applied weighting factors to in-scope facilitiesMarch 28, 2011 3-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### based on questionnaire results. Weighting factors for th e current analysis were based on results of the Detailed Questionnaire . Additional details of EPA’s extrapola tion 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 entrainmen t on the basis of the ratio of cooling water flow to source water flow. Additionally, the Spawning an d Nursery Area of Consequence (SNAC) model, used as a screening tool for assessing potential I&E mort ality impacts at Chesapeake Bay facilities, assumes that entrainment is proportional to cooling wa ter 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 affe ct the abundance and species composition of fish 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 assu mption may not be met in some cases, limiting the extrapolation procedure within regions reduces the lik elihood that model facilitie s are unrepresentative.

EPA believes that its method of extrapolation makes th e best use of a limited amount of empirical data, and is the only feasible approach for developing a na tional estimate of I&E mortality, and the associated benefits of I&E mortality reducti on. While acknowledging that extra polation introduces uncertainty into I&E mortality estimates, EPA has not identified inform ation 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 reduc tions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory options are presented in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. Es timated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the California region are 36.83 million A1Es 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-1of Appendix C presents species-specific data on impingement and entrainment losses under the baselin e conditions and estimated reductions under all options. Among commercially and recreationally-harvest ed species, the greatest losses occur in crabs, rockfishes, and sea basses (Appendix Table C-1).

The majority of I&E mortality in the California region occur due to entrainment (Appendix Table C-1). 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). C onversely, by requiring the installation of closed-cycle cooling towers, which effectively reduce entrainm ent mortality, Options 2 and 3 reduce A1E losses by 85.5 and 89.4 percent, respectivel y, providing over 40 times the redu ction in A1E losses (Table 3-1).March 28, 2011 3-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 3-1: Summary of Baseline I&E Mort ality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in California, and Reductions Under Option
Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 36.83 0.69 31.50 32.92 Forage Species (million A1E) 17.56 0.18 14.99 15.67 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E) 19.28 0.52 16.51 17.25 Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 2.06 0.06 1.76 1.84 A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 5.59 7.96 5.60 5.60

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 14.05 million pounds of fish, 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 mo re 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 Mort ality at All In- scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in California, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 3.28 0.02 2.80 2.93 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) 1.38 <0.01 1.18 1.23 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 1.02 0.04 0.88 0.92 Production Foregone (lbs) 14.05 0.10 11.99 12.54

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### 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 reduc tions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory options are presented in Table 3-3 and Table 3-4. Es timated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the North Atlantic region are 60.00 million A1Es per year, 78 percent of which are forage fish. Approximately 2.06 percent of total baseline A1E 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 baselin e 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 pe rcent of all I&E mortality of commercially and recreationally-harvested species.March 28, 2011 3-8 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 A1E losses by less than 1 percent (Table 3-3). Conversely, by requir ing 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 a nd I&E Mortality Reductions at All Inscope Facilities (Manufacturing and Gene rating) in the North Atlantic, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 60.00 0.43 49.02 51.40 Forage Species (million A1E) 47.02 0.38 38.42 40.29 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E) 12.98 0.06 10.60 11.11 Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 1.23 <0.01 1.01 1.06 A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 2.06 1.52 2.06 2.06

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is estimated to be 26.99 million pounds of fish, leading to a decrease in fishery yield of 1.02 million poun ds 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 mo re 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 Mort ality at All In- scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the North Atlantic, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 1.02 <0.01 0.83 0.87 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) 0.45 <0.01 0.37 0.39 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 0.76 <0.01 0.62 0.65 Production Foregone (lbs) 26.99 0.03 22.01 23.09

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### 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 reduc tions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory options are presented in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6. Es timated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the Mid-Atlantic region are 990.06 million A1Es per year, in cluding 751.07 million A1Es of forage fish (75.9 percent). Approximately 3.11 percent of total b aseline A1E losses are assigned a direct use value from recreational or commercial fishing (Table 3-5). Table C-5 of Appendix C presents species-specific dataMarch 28, 2011 3-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### on impingement and entrainment losses under the base line 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 occu rs in Blue Crab, and substantial I&E mortality (i.e., greater than 20 million A1E) is estimated for At lantic 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 morta lity by approximately 3.9 percent, more than 20
times smaller than the reductions estimat ed to occur under Options 2 and 3.

Table 3-5: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses a nd I&E Mortality Reductions at All Inscope Facilities (Manufacturing and Ge nerating) in the Mid-Atlantic, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 990.06 38.69 909.74 920.90 Forage Species (million A1E) 751.07 14.27 688.96 697.59 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1 E) 238.98 24.42 220.78 223.31 Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 30.77 6.09 28.66 28.95 A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 3.11 15.75 3.15 3.14

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### The I&E mortality model projects that baseline I&E mo rtality results in 80.73 m illion pounds of foregone production, and decreases fishery yield by 22.53 mill ion 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 Mort ality at All In- scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 22.53 4.73 21.01 21.22 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) 11.59 3.75 10.91 11.01 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 9.08 0.55 8.36 8.46 Production Foregone (lbs) 80.73 10.16 74.73 75.56

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the Mid-Atla ntic region can be found in Appendix Table C-6.March 28, 2011 3-10 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 reduc tions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory options are presented in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8. Es timated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the South Atlantic region are estimated to be 33.40 milli on A1Es per year, includin g 31.22 million forage fish A1Es. Approximately 1.03 percent of total base line 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 base line conditions and estimated reductions under all options. Unlike other regions, the majority (67 percen t) of all A1E losses in the South Atlantic occur as a consequence of impingement mortality. Among commerc ially- 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 inst allation of closed-cycle c ooling 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 a nd I&E Mortality Reductions at All Inscope Facilities (Manufacturing and Gene rating) in the South Atlantic, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 33.40 14.20 28.28 28.30 Forage Species (million A1E) 31.22 13.43 26.43 26.45 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E) 2.19 0.77 1.85 1.85 Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 0.35 0.11 0.29 0.29 A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 1.03 0.75 1.03 1.03

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### 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 approxi mately 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 Mort ality at All In- scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the South Atlantic, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 0.16 0.05 0.13 0.13 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.08 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 0.13 0.02 0.11 0.11 Production Foregone (lbs) 0.86 0.14 0.72 0.72

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

LossesMarch 28, 2011 3-11 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the South A tlantic region can be found in Appendix Table C-8.

3.3.5 Gulf of Mexico

Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reduc tions to I&E mortality under the three regulatory options are presented in Table 3-9 and Table 3-10. Es timated total baseline I&E mortality losses in the
Gulf of Mexico are estimated to be 135.64 million A1Es per year, including 47.75 million forage fish A1Es. Approximately 8.56 percent of total base line 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 base line conditions and estimated reductions under all options. The majority (67 percent) of all A1E losses in the Gulf of Mexico occur as a consequence of entrainment mortality. Among commercially- and recrea tionally-harvested species, I&E mortality is greatest in Blue Crab, and Pink Shrimp, which togeth er account for 68 percent of A1E 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), approximat ely triple the estimated reductions of Option 1.

Table 3-9: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses a nd I&E Mortality Reductions at All Inscope Facilities (Manufacturing and Gene rating) in the Gulf of Mexico, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 135.64 34.50 106.02 106.21 Forage Species (million A1E) 47.75 4.31 34.09 34.16 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E) 87.89 30.19 71.94 72.05 Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 11.61 4.59 9.75 9.76 A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 8.56 13.29 9.20 9.19

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### 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 3-12 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 Mort ality 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) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 32.81 2.99 23.43 23.48 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) 5.56 1.46 4.36 4.37 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 2.85 0.67 2.20 2.21 Production Foregone (lbs) 76.06 5.77 53.84 53.96

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### 3.3.6 Great Lakes Region

Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reduc tions 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 A1Es per year, includin g 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-11 of Appendix C pr esents species-specific data on impingement and
entrainment losses under the baseline conditions and estimated reductions under all options. Briefly, among commercially and recreationally-harvested sp ecies, 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-11). Accordingly, Option 1 redu ces baseline A1E 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 an d 3 reduce A1E losses by 95.7 and 96.0 percent, respectively (Table 3-11).

Table 3-11: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses a nd I&E Mortality Reductions at All Inscope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 53.50 38.23 51.13 51.35 Forage Species (million A1E) 46.46 33.46 44.46 44.64 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E) 7.04 4.77 6.67 6.70 Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 0.80 0.49 0.75 0.75 A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 1.50 1.28 1.47 1.47

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Production foregone due to baseline I&E mortality is est imated to be 32.02 million lbs of fish, leading to a decrease in fishery yield of 0.70 million pounds per y ear (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, estimatedMarch 28, 2011 3-13 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### increases to fishery yields are approximately 50 percen t 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 Mort ality at All In- scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 0.70 0.42 0.65 0.65 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) 0.35 0.23 0.33 0.33 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 0.35 0.18 0.32 0.32 Production Foregone (lbs) 32.02 7.34 27.19 27.49

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the Great La kes region can be found in Appendix Table C-12.

3.3.7 Inland Region

Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reduc tions 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 A1Es per year , including 713.71 million A1E of forage fish. Approximately 1.43 percent of total baseline A1E 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 baselin e conditions and estimated reductions under all options. Briefly, the majority (66.4 percent) of a ll A1E losses in the Inland regi on occur as a consequence of impingement mortality (Appendix Table C-13). Nota bly, the I&E mortality of sunfish account for 78.4 percent of the I&E mortality of commercia lly 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 unde r Options 2 and 3 reduce A1E losses by 91.6 and 93.5 percent, respectively, providing a benefit more than 60 percent la rger than the benefits of Option 1 (Table 3-13).

Table 3-13: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses a nd I&E Mortality Reductions at All Inscope Facilities (Manufacturing and Ge nerating) in the Inland Region, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 879.49 488.22 805.86 822.46 Forage Species (million A1E) 713.71 459.64 665.29 676.63 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1 E) 165.78 28.59 140.57 145.83 Commercial & Recreational Harvest (million fish) 12.59 4.32 11.06 11.39 A1E Losses with Direct Use Value (%) 1.43 0.89 1.37 1.38

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

LossesMarch 28, 2011 3-14 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### The decrease in production due to baseline I&E mort ality 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 Mort ality at All In- scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 11.01 3.77 9.67 9.96 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 12.59 4.32 11.06 11.39 Production Foregone (lbs) 407.08 102.90 351.01 362.84

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Raw numbers of I&E mortality losses in the Inla nd region can be found in Appendix Table C-14.

3.3.8 National Estimates

Estimated baseline I&E mortality, and estimated reduc tions 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 A1Es 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 baselin e 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 unde r Options 2 and 3 reduce A1E losses by 90.5 and 92.0 percent, respectively, providing a benefit approximately three ti mes larger than the benefits of Option 1 (Table 3-15).March 28, 2011 3-15 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 3-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses a nd I&E Mortality Reductions at All Inscope Facilities (Manufacturing and Gene rating) Nationally, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 2188.92 614.97 1981.55 2013.55 Forage Species (million A1E) 1654.78 525.66 1512.64 1535.44 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1 E) 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 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### The decrease in production due to baseline I&E mort ality 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 Mort ality at All In- scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) Nationally, and Reductions Under Option Scenarios

IM&E Loss Metric (million per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Foregone Fishery Yield (lbs) 71.50 11.99 58.52 59.24 Foregone Commercial Catch (lbs) 19.43 5.49 17.23 17.41 Foregone Recreational Catch (fish) 26.79 5.77 23.55 24.06 Production Foregone (lbs) 637.78 126.44 541.48 556.20

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Raw numbers of national I&E mortality losses can be found in Appendix Table C-16.



### 3.4 Limitations a nd 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 un certainty. Data limitations and uncertainty refers to uncertainty and inconsistency in sampling methodologi es 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 fac ilities do not operate identically on an annual basis.

3.4.1 Data Limitation and Uncertainty

Quantification of regional and national I&E morta lity losses is based on cumulative data generated by collection at individual facilities. In turn, these da ta are heterogeneous products of location-specific investigations set in differing geogr aphic and ecological provinces. Inte rpretation of the significance andMarch 28, 2011 3-16 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### trends of I&E mortality at regional and national scal es (and of the accompanying ecological benefits upon mitigation) must consider the stre ngths 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 qua lity control vary tremendously among I&E mortality studies and baseline source water characterization progr ams. While there is broad EPA guidance as to the overall objectives and requirements for facility-specifi c 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, tid al, and lunar cycles are incorporated; or may reflect regularly spaced sampling points with little con cern paid to capturing environmental variability.

In addition to the differences in environmental sc ope, 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 wei ght measurements, observati ons of field conditions, characterization of reference areas, etc. In add ition 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 or ganisms. 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 ar e poorly suited to provide insight into the direct and indirect impacts to forage fish species, non-ve rtebrate organisms (zooplankton, tunicates, algae,worms, etc.), or community/ecosystem impacts. For older facilities, sampling data commonly lack preoperational (i.e., baseline) samples or community survey s 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 co mposed of data from a relatively limited number of facilities. Most facility-sp ecific I&E mortality studies are limited to one or two years, and are rarely replicated within a time pe riod that allows direct comparison of trends without historical complications due to fishery stock trends, cl imatic 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). Additi onally, studies within the database may include historical (>20 years) and recent data, thus incor porating considerable uncer tainty due to the annual variability of highly dynamic fish stocks. Thus, extrap olation from regional collections of facility-specific studies may not provide a true regional estimate becau se the available data may or may not be fully representative of regional trends and/or of associat ed ecological benefits derived from mitigating I&E mortality impacts.

3.4.2 Structural Uncertainty

The models EPA used to evaluate I&E mort ality simplify complex processes. The degree of simplification is substantial, but necessary, because of limited data availability an d 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 th at addressing each of these uncertainties in a defensible way would require data that does not cu rrently exist (see Section 3.2.4.2), would be timeconsuming and resource-intensive to develop, and would lead to greater parameter uncertainty (Section 3.4.3).March 28, 2011 3-17 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
submodels Life history traits are fixed Life history parameters in the models (i .e., growth, survival) are constant 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, invasi ve species, climate change, etc.).
Valuation

structure National nonuse benefits not
addressed Fish species grouped into two categorie s: harvested or not harvested (i.e., 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 At lantic and Mid-Atlantic regions only. Fishing pressure constant The valuation procedur e assumes that fisheries harvests will increase proportionately to decreases in I&E mortality losses, independent of Federal and State policie s 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 va lue of parameters used in biological and economic modeling. All parameters must be estimated from sa mpling studies that cannot identify the true values of interest due to statistical and logistical limita tions. These limitations are broadly driven by three processes, including parameter fluctuation thro ugh time, geographic location, and sampling.

The true value of many biological parameters fluctuat es 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 annua l 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 fac ility 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 extrapol ating 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 su bsample 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 de tail (i.e., the identification of eggs, larvae, and juveniles is not species-specific), and do not ha ve standard methodologies. As is the case with retrospective data, these studies also reflect the biol ogical and physical state of the waterbody whenMarch 28, 2011 3-18 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 lo sses. The nature of these un certainties, 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 estimat es are unlikely to be biased in aggregate, but
distributed both above and below tr ue parameter values. Thus, EPA be lieves 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 unlikel y that plant operating ch aracteristics (e.g., seasonal, diurnal, or intermittent changes in intake water flow ra tes) 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’ lo ss estimates were provided in good faith and did not include any biases or omissions that significantly modified loss estimates.

8 Accuracy refers to the degree of closeness of model results to the actual value. Precision refe rs to the reproducibility of mod el output, or the degree to which repeated measurements (or sample s, for example from different model facilities) under similar conditions will result in the same model output.March 28, 2011 3-19 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 monitoring /loss rate
estimates Sampling regimes Sampling regi mes are subject to numerous plant-specific details. No established guidelines or performance st andards for how to design and conduct sampling regimes. Not all sampling st udies measured both impingement and entrainment mortality. Extrapolation assumptions Extrapolation of monitoring data to annual I&E mortality rates assumes sampling occurred under average conditions, and that diurnal/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 accurac y of extrapolation. No established guidelines or consistency in sampling regimes. Species selection 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 sp ecies, usually only fish and shellfish. Sensitivity of fish to I&E mortality 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 ca lculations 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 Natural mortality rates (M) difficult to estimate, and vary with time and geography. Model results are highly sensitive to M. Growth rates Simple exponential growth rates or simple size-at-age parameters used, and
assumed constant across al l locations and years. Geographic
considerations Migration patterns; I&E mortality occu rring during spawning runs or larval out-migration; location of harvestable a dults; intermingling with other stocks. Forage valuation Harvested species assumed to be food limited; trophic transfer efficiency to harvested species estimated by EPA base d on general models; no consideration of trophic transfer to specie s not impinged and entrained.
Fish stock
characteristics Fishery yield 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. Harvest behavior No assumed dynamics among harves ters to alter fishing rates or preferences in response to changes in stock size. R ecreational access assumed constant (no changes in angler preferences or effort). Stock interactions 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 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. Spawning dynamics Sampled years assumed to be ty pical 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). Hydrology Sampled years assumed to be typica l with respect to fl ow regimes and tidal cycles that could affect vul nerability to I&E mortality (e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of CWIS). Meteorology Sampled years assumed to be ty pical with respect to vulnerability to I&E mortality (e.g., presence of larvae in vicinity of intake structure).March 28, 2011 4-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## 4 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 of fish, shel lfish, 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, includ ing 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 wi de 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 ess ential 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; Pete rson and Lubchenco 1997; Postel and Carpenter 1997; Wilson and Carpenter 1999). Many of these ecosy stem services can be maintained only by the continued presence of all life stages of fish and other a quatic 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 InScope 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 im pacts that can be quantified using money-denominated measures of c onsumer and producer surplus. The most obvious example of market benefits from reduced I&E mortality is be nefits to commercial fisheries. Changes in I&E mortality will directly affect the price, quantity, and/or quality of fish harvests; and the monetary value of the changes can be measured directly through market measures of consumer and producer behavior. Market benefits may be furthe r 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 be nefits 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 thatMarch 28, 2011 4-2 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 pop ulation of commercially valuable species, which are marketed to consumers. Thus, re ducing I&E mortality of forage species can indirectly result in welfare gains for commerc ial fishers and consumers who purchase fish.

 Nonmarket benefits: Nonmarket benefits consis t 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 nonmarke t 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 r ecreational fishing. Because the monetary value of these improvements cannot be established by obser ving market transactions, nonmarket valuation techniques must be employed to estimate such benefits. Nonmarket bene fits may be further categorized in terms of direct and indi rect 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 impr ovement in the population levels and diversity of fish-eating bird species. In turn, avid bi rd 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 recove ry 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. Th e 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 moneti zed due to a lack of sufficient data. A complete list of the ecosystem services potentially affect by re duction in I&E mortality is presented in Chapter 2 (Table 2-4).March 28, 2011 4-3 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 l andings 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 l andings of specific species

 Relationship between increased fish/shellfish landings and secondary
markets

 Local activities a nd 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 nearwater 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 (inter personal 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 (GIS) 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 4-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 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 thei r catch rates rise or effort decreases. Higher catch rates increase the revenue and growth of commercial fi sheries, the enjoyment of recreational fishing trips, and the availability of food for subs istence fishers—all of which are quantifiable benefits arising directly from changes in I&E mortality. Methodologies for es timating use values for recreational and commercial species are well developed, and some of the species a ffected by I&E mortality have been extensively studied. As a result, estimation of associated use va lues is often considered to be straightforward.

Indirect use benefits refer to welfare improvements for those individuals who se activities are enhanced as an indirect consequence of fishery or habitat impr ovements generated by the regulatory options for inscope facilities. For example,an improvement in the p opulation of a forage fish species may not be of any direct consequence to recreational or commercial fish ers. However, the increased presence of forage fish
will have an indirect effect on commercial and recr eational 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 in stance, the incremental increase in recreational and commercial fishing benefits would be an indirect c onsequence of the regulatory options’ effect on forage fish populations.

The following sections discuss the benefits estimat es 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 comme rcial landings (pounds of commer cial species as so ld dockside by commercial harvesters). The changes in landings are th en valued according to market data from relevant fish markets (dollars per pound) to derive an estim ate 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 c onsist of the sum of the producers’ and consumers’ surpluses that are derived as the ch anges in commercial landings work their way through the multi-market commercial fishery sector.

Indirect use values in markets occur through in creases in commercial species caused by increased numbers of forage fish. An improvement in the popul ation 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 populati ons can result in a greater number (and/or greater individual size) of those fish that are targeted direc tly 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 determ ined, based on historic NMFS landings data, the proportions of total specie s landings attributable to recreational and commercial fishing, and applied these proportions to the total number of affected fish.March 28, 2011 4-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### incremental increase in commercial fishing benefits w ould 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 a nd indirect nonmarket use values. The benefits of recreational use cannot be tracked in the market, sin ce 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 trav el cost, hedonic pricing, and random utility models. Compared to nonuse values, nonmarket use values are ofte n 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 regulat ory 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 allo ws 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 popul ation 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 populati ons can result in a greater number (and/or greater individual size) of those fish that are targeted direc tly 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 app lication 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 a nd 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 backgro unds 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 infe rred from settlements in legal cases (e.g., compensation agreements between affected tribes and various gove rnment 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 th e 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 th e store-bought foods may be less preferred by someMarch 28, 2011 4-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### individuals than consuming a fresh-caught fish. Subs istence-fishery benefits are not included in EPA’s benefits regional analyses. Impacts on subsistence fi shers 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 sp ecies relies within the aquatic ecosystem (e.g., as a food source); or they can suffer impacts if the CW IS 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 ca n include both direct and indirect nonmarket use values, as well as nonuse values. EPA identified nine sp ecial 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 ve ry 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 in clude both use and nonuse values, such that the resulting total value estimates may be compared to to tal 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, u se values and nonuse values are additive” (Freeman III 1993). 10 

### Consequently, both EPA’s own Gu idelines 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 of fish and shellfish ma y result in both use and nonuse benefits. Of the organisms that are anticipated to be protected by th e regulatory options for the Section 316(b) regulation for in-scope facilities, only a tiny fraction will eventu ally be harvested by commercial and recreational
fishers and therefore can be valued with direct u se valuation techniques. Unharvested fish, which were not assigned direct use value in this analysis, cons titute the majority—97 percent—of the total loss, as

10 This additive property holds under traditional conditions rela ted to resource levels and pr ices for substitute goods in the household production model (Freeman III 1993).March 28, 2011 4-7 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 fo rage 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 portio n of the total value of unlanded fish. Society also
values both landed and unlanded fish for reasons unrel ated 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 a quatic 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 b ased on stated preference studies, are the generally accepted techniques for estimating these valu es (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 im plies 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

IM&EM Loss Metric (per year) Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 All Species (million A1E) 2188.92 614.97 1981.55 2013.55 Forage Species (million A1E) 1654.78 525.66 1512.64 1535.44 Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1 E) 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 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Reductions in Losses Baseline

Losses



### Nonuse values may be more difficult to assess than use values for several reasons. First, nonuse values are not associated with easily observable behavior. Se cond, 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 sa me resource. Third, the development of a defensible stated preference surv ey is often a time- and resource-intensive process. Fourth, even carefully designed surveys may be subj ect 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 prove d 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 na tural 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 nonuseMarch 28, 2011 4-8 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 habita t for T&E species (Hagen et al. 1992; Loomis and Ekstrand 1997; Whitehead and Blomquist 1991); shore line quality (Grigalunas et al. 1988); and beaches, shorebirds, and marine mammals (Rowe et al. 1992), among others. Ho wever, given EPA’s regulatory schedule, developing and implementing stated prefer ence 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 hab itat 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 exis tence and bequest values we re 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, re spectively (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 th ese limitations, benefit transfers based on stated preference studies are the generally accepted techniqu es for estimating nonuse values. EPA was able to identify a single study that could be used to estim ates 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.

11 EPA designed a stated preference survey to separately es timate 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 de rive reliable quantitative estima tes 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 detail s 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 5-1 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, resp ectively. These designations may be made because of low or rapidly declining population levels, loss of essen tial habitat, or life history stages that are particularly vulnerable
to environmental alteration. In addition to T&E labels, the designa tion “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 numbe r of aquatic organisms. For species vulnerable to future extinction, impingement and entrainment mo rtality (I&E mortality) from cooling water intake structures (CWISs) may represent a substantial por tion of annual reproduction. Consequently, I&E mortality may either lengthen recovery time, or hast en the demise of these species. For this reason, the population-level and social values of T&E losses are li kely 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 ha rm 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 CW IS 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 (fo r 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 chang es in the thermal characteristics of local waterbodies, altered flow regimes, turbidity, or changes in substr ate characteristics as a consequence of any of these changes (Chapter 2).
By definition, T&E species are char acterized by low population levels. As such, it is unlikely that these species will be recorded in I&E mortality monitoring st udies 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 speci es. Thus, EPA identifies spatial overlap between CWISs and T&E species to estimate the potential fo r adverse I&E mortality impacts on T&E species.

12 To simplify the discussion, in this chapter EPA uses the te rms “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 designatio n at the state or federal level.March 28, 2011 5-2 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 mort ality are obscure, relatively unknown, and may not have any direct uses (e.g., delta smelt). Given the pr otected 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, sp ecies-specific estimates of nonuse values held for the protection of T&E species can be derived only by pr imary research using stated preference techniques. However, the cost, administrative burden, and time re quired 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 co nsidered 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., paddlefish 13 

### and sturgeon).
Commercial and nonuse values are not monetized for a ny 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 app lies economic valuation studies of T&E species to case studies of sea turtles and finfish 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 speci es, EPA constructed a database that identifies spatial overlap between CWISs and vulnerable life hi story stages of all aquatic T&E species for which
data are available. The database allowed EPA to es timate 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 consider ation 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 st ages 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. Li fe 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 20 10a; PIFSC 2010b; SEFSC 2010; SWFSC 2010; USFWS 2010b). After filtering by life history data, th e 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 current ly protected nationally under the US Endangered Species Act. A review of th e species’ status in 1992 re vealed that although the spec ies did not then meet the requirements to be listed as threatened at the federal level, the US Fish and Wildlife Servic e expressed its concern for the fu ture of the species.March 28, 2011 5-3 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), NOAA’ 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 ra nges 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, spec ies 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 record s 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 potentiall y affected ranges between 0 and 26 species (Table 5-1), with more than 90 percent of facilities affecti ng 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, aver aging 4.83 and 3.53 species per facility, respectively. Anadromous, freshwater, and marine fish had lower ov erlap 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 freshwa ter mussels overlapping with facility CWISs, the majority of all species by facility interactions o ccur 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 5-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 5-1: Number of T&E Species with Geographical Distributions Overlapping Inscope CWISs, on a Per-facility Basis

Subset of Affected Species 1 # Species Av g Max Av g Max All T&E Species 88 1.99 26 3.89 26
T&E Freshwater Mussels 43 1.14 22 3.53 22
T&E Sea Turtles 6 4.83 5 4.83 5
T&E Anadromous Fish 13 0.13 3 1.08 3
Other T&E Freshwater Fish 21 0.09 4 1.33 4
Other T&E Marine Fish 3 0.13 2 1.42 2

1 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.

2 Interacting Facilities = all facilities with CWIS inside the range of at least one T&E species

3 Avg = average, Max = maximum All Facilities Interacting Facilities 2 T&E Species per Facility 3

Figure 5-1: Empirical cumulative distribution function plot of the number of T&E species potentially affected on a per-facility b asis by in-scope facilities nationwide.March 28, 2011 5-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 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 equi valent in all plots, with the exception of the Inland region (noted with an asterisk *).



### 5.2.3 Number of Facilities Affecting Individual T&E Species

To investigate the cumulative potential for CWISs to affect individual T&E species, EPA calculated the number of facilities affecting each T&E species. There are 1,734 examples of species by facility interactions across 88 T&E species nationally, resulting in an average of 19.7 facilities per species (Table 5-2). Consequently, many T&E species are likely to be affected by a large number of facilities. Thus, even if individual facilities have low I&E mortality of T&E species, the cumulative effect of in-scope 316(b) facilities on these populations may be substantial. The variation among species was large and ranged between 1 and 135 facilities per species (Table 5- 2). Overall, 19 percent of species are affected by 1 facility, 50 percent of species affected by fewer than 6 facilities, 80 percent of species affected by fewer than 24 facilities, and 90 percent affected by fewer than 44 facilities (Figure 5-3).March 28, 2011 5-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 5-2: Number of Facilities wi th CWISs Within the Geographical Distribution of T&E Species, on a Per-species Basis

Subset of Affected Species 1,2 Species Interactions Avg Max All T&E Species 88 1734 19.70 135
T&E Sea Turtles 6 652 108.67 135
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 7
Other T&E Marine Fish 3 17 5.67 11

1 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.

2 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 Facilities per T&E Species 3



### When species were analyzed within life history tra it, sea turtles had the highest average number of overlapping facilities (108.7) (Table 5-2), a value skewed by these species’ exte nsive 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 th e 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 a ffected, with an average of 8.9 facilities per species (Table 5-2). This average, however, is highly skewed by a single species of fish (the pallid sturgeon,

Figure 5-3: Empirical cumulative distribution fu nction plot of the numbe r 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 5-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 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 vul nerable life history stages that overlap with a minimum of one CWIS (Table 5-1), suggesting a high probability of T&E populati ons’ 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 endange red 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 la w) affected by I&E mortality is understated.

Figure 5-4: Cumulative distribution plots of the number of facilities likel y to affect individual threatened or endangered species, grouped by species life history trait. Sample sizes (species per life history trait) are in parentheses, and represent those species potentially affected by a minimum of one in-scope facility.March 28, 2011 5-8 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 5.2.5 Species with Documented I&E Mortality

EPA identified several T&E species with documente d 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 re porting facility’s CWIS (Table 5-3). Although these are not confirmed I&E mortality of T&E species, th ey provide evidence that additional T&E species are likely to be directly affected by I&E mortality.

Including only individuals identifie d to species, EPA identified more than 130,000 baseline losses of T&E species (Table 5-3). However, for several reaso ns, 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 entrainmen t studies is low. Thus, it is likely that many T&E species suffered I&E mortality outside of sampling pe riods 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 sa mpling (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 (USFW S 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 spathula ) (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 5-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 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.

Resolution Common Name Latin Name Baseline I&E Mortality

Species Atlantic Salmon Salmo salar Qualitative

Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 5,470 b

Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Qualitative

Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus 62,526 b

Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Qualitative

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Qualitative

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Qualitative

Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Qualitative

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta 5-50 b

Longfin Smelt Spirinchus thaleichthys a 24,919 b

Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Qualitative

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus 50

Sacramento Splittail Pogonichthy macrolepidotus a 45,188 b

Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss 5 b

Topeka Shiner Notropis Topeka 15 b

Genus Alabama Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus suttkusi 8,174 b

Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus 785,667

Blackside Dace Phoxinus cumberlandensis 10 b

Blue Shiner Cyprinella caerulea 94,608,786

Boulder Darter Etheostoma wapiti 3,529,746

Cherokee Darter Etheostoma scotti 3,529,746

Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus keta 22

Duskytail Darter Etheostoma percnurum 3,529,746

Etowah Darter Etheostoma etowahae 3,529,746

Green Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris 785,667

Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi 785,667

Neosho Madtom Noturus placidus 41,021 b

Palezone Shiner Notropis albizonatus 19,421,686 b

Pygmy Madtom Noturus stanauli 41,021 b

Scioto Madtom Noturus trautmani 41,021 b

Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 785,667

Snail Darter Percina tanasi 259,500 b

Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni 2,922 b

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 specie s within the genus. Losses are likely dominated by more-common

congeners.

a This species is under review for lis ting under the Endangered Species Act

b This estimate is not derived using extrapolation proceduresMarch 28, 2011 5-10 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Considerations for T&E species have also been respons ible 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-Sacram ento 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 nega tive effects on Delta Smelt populations, have been estimated to result in the loss of 21,100 farm-related jobs and $703 million in ag ricultural revenue in 2009 alone (Boxall 2010; Howitt et al. 2009). 14



### 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 Bene fits 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 ar e not relevant for many protected species (i.e., use values), there is a paucity of economic data fo cused 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 obtai ned for the value of reducing I&E mortality as a consequence of increased population sizes, extincti on 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 Ri ver is currently undergoing active litigation. See San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, et al. v. Salazar, et al., USDC Case No. 1:09-CV-407 OWW GSA, and consolidated cases. Table 5-4: Federal and State Expenditures for T&E Species Overlapping with CWIS

Life History Expenditure (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 Re ptile, Crustacean, Coral, and Clam Species $ 541.7March 28, 2011 5-11 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Benefit transfer involves extrapolating existing estim ates of nonmarket values to geographic locations or species that differ from the original analytical situatio n. Thus, the approach transfers estimates of values for preserving T&E species in one region to another re gion, or to a similar species. Ideally, the resource (i.e. species), policy variable (e.g., ch ange in species status, recovery interval, population size, etc.), and the benefitting population (i.e., defi ned human population) are identical. Such a match rarely occurs. Despite discrepancies in these variables, however, a bene fits 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 regulati on for all T&E species with documented and quantified losses at CWIS. In most cases, EPA was unable to lo cate or calculate key components of the analysis necessary to apply a benefits transfer approach. Ho wever, 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 tu rtles. 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 In land region: pallid sturgeon, American paddlefish, and Topeka shiner. However, sufficient data were ava ilable 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 80–8 4 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 c onducted a review of the paddlefish for threatened status, but ultimately did not list the species (Allar dyce 1991). However, the review noted that immediate efforts were needed to restore stocks and degrad ed habitats (Allardyce 1991). Although not currently protected federally, paddlefish are protected by 11 states.

The American paddlefish is a large (85 inches length a nd more than 220 lbs) 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 desira ble commercial and trophy sport fish, and because they have roe suitable for caviar, both pallid st urgeon and American pa ddlefish 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 A1Es 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 curre nt distributions. In addition to baseline estimates of I&E mortality for pallid sturge on, 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 5-12 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 Value Type Baseline a Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Pallid Sturgeon Nonuse 17,628 8,631 15,946 16,317

Paddlefish Use and Nonuse 88 73 85 86 Topeka Shiner Nonuse 3,669 3,069 3,546 3,581

Total 21,384 11,773 19,577 19,984

a 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 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I 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 Re iling 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 valu e on protection of lake sturgeon populations. The average viewer’s WTP to maintain the current st urgeon population of Wisc onsin’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 oppor tunities 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 lbs 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 sp ecies 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 describi ng 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 th ese species in the Inland region. A limited recreational fishery (mostly catch and release) exists for paddl efish 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 ev aluate recreational fishing benefits of the 2004 Section 316(b) Phase II Final Rule. Model results indi cate that California anglers were willing to payMarch 28, 2011 5-13 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### $69.88 (2009$) to catch a sturgeon (U SEPA 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 eliminati ng baseline I&E mortality is approximately $1,238 thousand, while use values from reducing pallid st urgeon 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 ra te, and from $454 to $561 thousand at a 7 percent

discount rate. EPA notes that these value estimates unde restimate 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 Eliminat ing or Reducing I&E Mortality of Special Status Fish Species at In-sco pe Facilities in the Inland Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Pallid Sturgeon $1,231. 8 $603.1 $1,114.3 $1,140.3
Paddlefish $6.1 $5.1 $5.9 $6.0 Total Undiscounted $1,238.0 $608.2 $1,120.2 $1,146.2

Annualized Value $1,144.3 $498.0 $719.0 $717.8

Annualized Value $1,140.0 $454.3 $560.7 $549.7

a 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 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. 3% Discount Rate

7% Discount Rate T&E Species Annual Benefits ( 2009$, thousands)

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 mo del (Richardson and Loom is 2009) to hypothetical scenarios. Because EPA does not currently have regi on-wide I&E mortality for all T&E species, nor population models to estimate the effect of I&E morta lity on population size, estimates are presented only to assess the range of benefits potentially resu lting 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 ac cording to Richard and Loomis (2009) (details in Appendix F, Section F.3). Excepting all policy-releva nt 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 households 18 

### , 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 st urgeon in other states. Given simi larity in species characterist ics EPA used WTP for sturgeon caught in California to valu e 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 5-14 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 substantia l 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 entrainmen t (Norem 2005), there are more than 730 potential species x CWIS interactions that may result in the inju ry or death of these T&E species (Table 5-1, details in Appendix Section F.1).

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 spe nding on sea turtle protection under the ESA totaled $33.8 million in FY2008 (Table 5-4). Moreover, ther e are dozens of academic, nonprofit, and ecotourism organizations that recruit thousands of volunteers ever y 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 researcher s working at field stations around the world. By paying to spend time working with scientists on resear ch projects, volunteers support sea turtle research and conservation both financially and logistically, wo rking 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 leatherb ack seat turtles in Trinid ad, patrolling beaches from sundown to the early hours of the mo rning (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 facilitie s 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 lim ited 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-1). Despite the fact that mort ality 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 5-15 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### particularly for individuals who are recaptured re peatedly (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 morta lity 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 da ta 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 (Crouse 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 preferen ce valuation approach to estimate the total economic value (i.e., use and nonuse values) of a management pr ogram designed to reduce the risk of extinction for loggerhead sea turtles (Whitehead 1993) . The mail survey asked North Ca rolina 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 A ppendix Section F.2). Available da ta sources and biological models were reviewed to assess the potential impact of base line 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 exis ting 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 sh rimp trawling and other fisheries (Plotkin 1995). However, Crouse et al. (1987) found that mortality at juven ile and subadult life stages can have a substantial effect on popula tion growth, suggesting that small chang es in survivorship at these age classes could have a measurable impact on extinction risk. EP A believes that the marginal change in extinction probability of loggerhead sea turtles due to 316(b) regu latory 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-1), and because turtle population growth rates are known to be sens itive to changes in juvenile and subadult mortality (Crouse et al. 1987).

EPA used a value of 0.01 within Whitehead’s (1 993) modeling framework to bound household values for changes in extinction risk for logger head sea turtles as a consequence of 316(b) regulation (details of this calculation are in Appendix Section F.2). Although th is assessment is not based on formal quantitative analysis of extinction risk, it is intended to illustra te 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 convert ed to 2009 dollars using the consumer price index (USBLS 2010).March 28, 2011 5-16 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### B Total WTP for 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 diffe rential 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 va lues 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 coast al 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 logger head 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 w as chosen because they are late-maturing, have an existing population model (Crouse et al. 1987), an existing valuation study (Whitehead 1993), and are the most commonly affected species of turtle (Appendix Table F-1). 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 a ffected 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 fo r improved protection of this species (Table 5-7). By applying the mean household value of $0.35 (2009$) across all f our 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 mo rtality for turtle species, nor are population models available that estimate the effect of 316(b) regula tion 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 estimat es, with Option 2 and Option 3 likely to provide substantially greater be nefits than Option 1.March 28, 2011 5-17 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

3% Discount Rate 7 % Discount Rate North Atlantic CT, MA, ME, NH,

RI 5.40 $1.67 $1.62

Mid-Atlantic DE, MD, NJ, NY,

PA

, VA 20.97 $6.51 $6.31

South Atlantic FL, GA, NC, SC 11.85 $3.67 $3.56

Gulf of Mexico a FL, LA, MS, TX 15.13 $4.69 $4.40

Total - 53.35 $16.55 $16.04 Annualized Benefits

(2009$, m illions)

a 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 optio ns, these values are not included in national totals. Number of

Households

(millions) Region States Included



### 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 (S ection 5.4.2.3), and T&E finfish in the Inland (Section 5.4.2.1) region.

Table 5-8: Caveats, Omissions, Biases, and Unce rtainties 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 of fish 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. Bene fits 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 cons equences of reduced numbers of T&E species Estimates understated WTP values are unlikely to include damage to foodwebs 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 6-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## 6 Commercial Fishing Benefits

Commercial fisheries can be adversely affected by impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E mortality) in addition to many other stressors. Commer cially 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 c onsideration of various conceptual and empirical issues. This chapter provides an overview of these issu es, 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 regula tory 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 relatio nship between readily observable dockside prices and quantities and the economic welfare measures of produ cer and consumer surplus that are suitable for
benefit-cost estimation.

Section 6.1 describes the methodology used to estim ate 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 re gion; and Section 6.3 pr esents the limitations and uncertainties associated with EPA’s analysis.



### 6.1 Methodology

The methodology employed to estimate the commercial fi shing benefits associated with the regulatory options for the proposed Section 316(b) regulation clo sely follows the analysis conducted for the Section 316(b) Phase III Final Rule (USEPA 2006b). Changes fro m that analysis include updated estimates of I&E mortality losses and reductions, an d 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 Ad ministration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

EPA measured commercial fishing be nefits as changes in producer su rplus. EPA considered estimating consumer surplus values associated with reductions in I&E mortality, but found that dockside prices would not change enough to produce m easurable shifts in consumer surplus. The details of this analysis and the estimated price changes are presen ted 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 (H oagland and Jin 2006). EPA modeled I&E mortality losses using the methods presente d 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 percenta ge increase in harvest is assumed to be the same as the percentage increase in fish. The percentage of fi sh 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 harv est to distribute benefits between commercial and
recreational fisheries.March 28, 2011 6-2 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 of fish and to commercial consumers (including processors, wholesalers, retailers, and mi ddlemen) if the projected decrease in catch is accompanied by an increase in price. These impact s 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 ch anges 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 exp ected 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 consum ers 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 bene fits 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 mana ged on quota basis with the baseline quota shown as

F

1 

### and baseline dockside or ex-vessel price as P 1 

### . It uses an inverse demand function, P(F) , because fish are perishable with the quantity harvest ed driving price in the short run.

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 comme rcial fishers. As described above, the vertical

curve F 1 

### is the quantity of fish supplied to the ma rket by commercial fishers under the baseline conditions. Equilibrium is attained at the point where P(F) equals F 1



### . The intersection of these two lines gives the price P 1 

### at which quantity F 1 

### is sold. In this case the total amount paid by consumers for fish isMarch 28, 2011 6-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### equal to P 1 

### × F 1



### , which is equal to the area of the boxes U + V + W in 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 of fish, larvae, and eggs under a scenar io of reduced I&E mortality would increase fish populations and the quantity of fish supplied to consumers (i.e., an increase from F 1 

### to F 2 

### ). If the quantity
of fish available to the market increases from F 1 

### to F 2



### , this in turn would result in a lower market price for fish (i.e., P 2 

### ). This changes the total amount paid by consumers to P 2 

### × F 2



### , 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 c onsumers from reducing I&E mortality.

Estimating the change in price of fish from change s in commercial fish harvest requires the following input data: (1) An estimate of the baseline prices a nd 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 fo r 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 a nd 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 percenta ge 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 cons umer 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, a nd 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 fo r past environmental impact statements tend to be quite low. 20 

### Most species of fish have numerous close subs titutes, and most fisheries are price-takers in the world market. Therefore, if harvest of one or sev eral species increases, pri ces are unlikely to change by a significant amount.

6.1.1.2 Step 2: Assessing Producer Surplus


### In an unregulated fishery, the long-ru n change in producer surplus due to an increase in fish stocks will be zero percent of the change in gross revenues, becau se in open access fisheries, excess profits are always driven to zero at the margin. Most fisheries are, how ever, 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 of fish available to harvest. This may lead to more-s tringent regulations and decreases in harvest. In this

19 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 ha rvest increases. The methods used and caps are described in Section 6.2.

20 Personal communications with NMFS economists Cindy Thomson (2008), Eric Thunberg (2008), and Steve Freese (2008).

21 In addition, even in open access fisheries, inframarginal rents are earned by at least some boats (personal communication, Thunberg 2008).March 28, 2011 6-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### case, the change in producer surplus can be relate d 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 of fish. The model assumes that average cost is equa l to marginal cost, that is, C is constant for all pounds produced. 22 

### When the supply of fish is equal to F 1



### , the commercial fishers sell F 1 

### pounds of fish at a price of P 1 

### and earn revenues equal to U + V + W. The area between P 1 

### and C is the producer surplus that accrues to producers for each pound of fish. Total producer surplus realized by producers is equal to (P 1 

### - C) × F 1



### . In the example, this producer su rplus is equal to the area of U + V. The area W is the amount that producers pay for capital and labor and to su ppliers if the harvest equals F 1 

### (e.g., fishing gear and the costs of operating in the market).

When supply increases to F 2



### , the producers sell F 2 

### pounds of fish at a price of P 2



### . The total cost to produce F 2 

### increases from W to W + Z. The total producer surplus changes from U + V to V + Y. This change may be either positive or negative, depending on the relative el asticity of demand, which changes
the relative sizes of areas U and Y.

In theory, producer surplus is equal to normal prof its (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 of fish la ndings (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 assume d to be a sufficient proxy for producer surplus (USEPA 2004b). As a result, assessment of producer surp lus 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 “norma l 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 asso ciated 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 re gion-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 cost s 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 re venue under the 316(b) regulatory options to estimate the increase in producer surplus. The Net Benefits Ra tios 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 fro m 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 cost s.

23 Positive Net Benefits Ratios reflect the assumption that ther e 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 averag e 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 6-5 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 Perm its 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 0.62

California Scorpionfish Quotas Otter trawl Unknown 0.47 Sculpins Nonrestrictive pe rmits Trawls Unknown 0.64

Sea Basses Season, size, gear
restrictions Gillnets Unknown 0.66

Shad, American None Nets Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.00

Shrimp Seasonal closures Trawl Unknown 0.15

Smelts Seasonal closures Nets Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.66

Surfperches Quotas Handlines Unknown 0.37March 28, 2011 6-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 6-2: North Atlantic 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)

Bluefish Quotas Gillnets Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.63

Butterfish Quotas NA Unknown 0.64

Atlantic Cod Time/area closures Otter trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.66

Crabs Size, sex, season Traps Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.57

American Plaice Size Otter trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.63

Windowpane Time/area closures Bottom trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.63

Winter Flounder Quotas Otter trawls Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.64

Flounders Total allowable landing Bottom trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.63

Red Hake Quotas Otter trawls Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.62

Silver Hake Quotas Otter trawls Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.63

Atlantic Herring Total allowable catch Purse seine Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.76

Atlantic Mackerel Annual quota Unknown Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.77

Atlantic Menhaden Not reg. In this area Unknown Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.68

Other N/A N/A N/A 0.57
White Perch Size limits Unknown Unknown 0.82

Pollock Time/area closures Bottom trawl Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.71

Sculpins Open access Unknown Unknown 0.00

Scup Quotas Otter trawls Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.69

Searobin Open access (by catch) Unknown Unknown 0.00 Shad, American Mortality target s Unknown Fully exploited 0.60

Skates Catch limits Otter trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.68

Tautog Possession limits Otter trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.46

Weakfish Size limits Trawls Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.76March 28, 2011 6-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 6-3: Mid-Atlantic 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)

Alewife Bans, species of concern Fish weirs Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.85

American Shad Chesapeake fishery
closed Unknown Overfished or subject to overfishing except for small by-catch allowance 0.84

Atlantic Croaker Gear restrictions Gillnets Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.74

Atlantic Menhaden Open access Purse seine, otter trawl, gill

net Unknown
0.67

Black Drum Quotas Unknown Unknown 0.70

Blue Crab Limits on female crabs,
size Pots Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.57

Bluefish Quotas Gillnets Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.63

Butterfish Quotas Unknown Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.64

Crabs Season, size Unknown Unknown 0.57

Drums and Croakers Gear restri ctions, quotas Nets Unknown 0.74

Flounders Quotas Bottom trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.65

Other N/A N/A N/A 0.73

Red Hake Quotas Otter trawls Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.62

Scup Quotas Otter trawls Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.69

Searobin Open access Unknown Unknown 0.00

Silver Hake Quotas Otter trawls Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.63

Spot License Haul seines Unknown 0.84

Striped Bass Quotas Gill nets Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.67

Striped Mullet Gear restrictions Cast nets Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.70

Tautog Possession limits Otter trawl Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.46

Weakfish Size limits Trawls Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.76

White Perch Size limits Unknown Unknown 0.82March 28, 2011 6-8 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 6-4: South Atlantic 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)

Blue Crab Size limits Pots Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.57

Crabs Size, sex, season Traps Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.57

Drums and Croakers Open access (by catch) Otter trawl bottom, gill nets Overfished 0.54

Atlantic Menhaden Five year annual cap on reduction fishery in Chesapeake Unknown Unknown 0.76

Other N/A N/A N/A 0.59 Spot License Haul seines Unknown 0.70

Stone Crab Size Traps Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.58

Weakfish Size limits Trawls Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.64

Table 6-5: Gulf of Mexico Region, Species-Specifi c 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)

Blue Crab Limited entry, pot limits Pots Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.72

Black Drum Limited access permits Hand lines, gill

nets Unknown 0.69

Leatherjacket N/A Rod/reel, hand and long lines, pots and traps Unknown
0.00

Mackerels Quotas Hook-and-line Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.75

Menhaden Seasonal/area cl osures Purse seines Fully exploited 0.76

Other N/A N/A N/A 0.46

Sea Basses Quotas Traps Overfished or subject to overfishing 0.72

Sheepshead Size Cast net Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.84

Shrimp Same as pink shrimp Unknown Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.43

Spot License Haul seines Unknown 0.54

Stone Crab Size Traps Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.71

Striped Mullet Gear restrictions Strike nets Not overfished or subject to overfishing 0.79March 28, 2011 6-9 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

Species Main Management
Method Main Gear Type Status of Stock Net Benefits as a Ratio
of Gross Revenue (NBRatio) Bullhead State specific Gill and trap nets Unknown 0.29 Freshwater Drum State specific Gill and trap nets Unknown 0.29 Other State specific Gill and trap nets Unknown 0.29 Smelt State specific Gill and trap nets Unknown 0.29 White Bass State specific Gill and trap nets Unknown 0.29 Whitefish State specific Gill and trap nets Unknown 0.29 Yellow Perch State specific Gill and trap nets Unknown 0.29

6.1.1.3 Step 3: Estimating Net Social Bene fits When the Fishing Harvest Increases


### The change in net social benefits when the commercial fishing harvest increases from F 1 

### to F 2 

### is estimated by adding the results from Steps 1 and 2. Because area U is a transfer from commercial fishers to consumers, it does not affect social benefits. 25 

### Therefore, the change in net social benefits is area X + Y (see Figure 6-1). However, if demand elasticity is such that changes in price are negligible, area X will 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 reduc ing 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 fishi ng benefits involves a fishery-based assessment of I&E mortality-related changes in harvested species landi ngs. Many of the fish species affected by I&E mortality at CWIS sites are harvested both recrea tionally and commercially. As described in Section 6.1.1, EPA assumed a linear relationship between stoc k and harvest and used historical NMFS landings
data on commercial and recreationa l catch to determine the propor tions 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 cha nges in producer surplus in the commercial fishing industry.

EPA further assessed species with est imated harvest increases from the elimination of I&E mortality exceeding10 percent of baseline harvest from 2005 to 200 9. This was done to evaluate whether potential harvest increases under 316(b) regulatory options are reas onable 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 four teen 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, a nd weakfish in the Mid-Atlantic region; black drum, drums and croakers, leatherjacket, spot, and striped mulle t in the Gulf of Mexico region; and smelt in the Great Lakes region. No species with 10 percent or gr eater potential change in harvest were found in the South Atlantic region. The increases range from 12 per cent for striped mullet in the Gulf of Mexico to 25,110 percent for sculpins in the North Atlantic.

25 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 6-10 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 6-7: Potential Harvest Increase from Elimin ating I&E Mortality Losses as a Percentage of Total Harvest and Potential Harvest Capping Rules Used in EPA’s Analysis

Region and Species Baseline
Harvest (thousand lbs) Baseline
I&E Losses (thousand lbs) Potential
% Increase
in Harvest Maximum
Harvest
1979-2009 (thousand lbs) 90th
Percentile of
Max.
Harvest (thousand lbs) MSY or
Other Capping
Rule (thousand lbs) Cap Used

California Cabezon 55.6 54.4 98% 374.2 256.7 207.2 a Don’t cap

California Halibut 629.9 126. 4 20% 1,337.1 1,256.3 1,158.5 b Don’t cap

California Rockfishes 2,668.4 1,168.7 44% 58,189.5 43,216.7 77,161.8 c Don’t cap

California Sculpins 3.5 2.6 74% 19.5 7.1 482.8 d Don’t cap

North Atlantic Sculpins <0.1 25.1 25,110% 4.8 4.0 Cap at 90 th

Mid-Atlantic Drums and
Croakers 11,430.1 1,519.2 13% 16,575.2 16,252.9 Don’t cap

Mid-Atlantic Spot 3, 286.9 2,033.0 62% 4,766.2 4,398.3 Cap at 90 th

Mid-Atlantic Weakfish 497.0 741. 9 149% 15,389.6 7,023.5 Don’t cap

Gulf of Mexico Black
Drum 4,397.3 1,885.2 43% 10,347.2 6,977.2 Don’t cap

Gulf of Mexico Drums and
Croakers 81.0 40.3 50% 1,787.4 1,193.3 Don’t cap

Gulf of Mexico Leatherjacket 65.6 90.7 138% 509.3 437.5 Don’t cap

Gulf of Mexico Spot 18.1 40.0 221% 442.8 299.1 Don’t cap

Gulf of Mexico Striped
Mullet 10,347.7 1,278.3 12% 33,141.6 27,395.6 Don’t cap

Great Lakes Smelts 522.2 105.9 20% 4,107 3,520 Don’t cap
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; NMFS data on baseline harvest, historical landings, and MSY.



### Economists and biologists with NMFS recommended us ing either maximum sustainable yield (MSY), allowable biological catch (ABC), or historical harv est 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 ar ound 25 years ago—at that time there were virgin, non-exploited populations, so that maximum harvests we re achievable. Using historical catch data from NMFS, EPA determined the maximum landings for th e years 1979 through 2009, and calculated the 90 th


### percentile of landings for those years. NMFS biolog ists provided MSY where available (for California cabezon and all West Coast rockfishes). NMFS biolog ists 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 grea tly, 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 6-11 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### MSY or ABC data were not available for th e species of interest in the other regions. 28 

### Therefore, EPA capped potential harvest increase at the 90 th 

### percentile of annual harvest from 1979 to 2009. The only species for Based on this criteria and the NMFS sci entists’ recommendations, EPA capped estimated harvest increases for two species when estimated co mmercial fishing benefits, sculpins in the North Atlantic and spot in the Mid-Atlantic.

The following sections present estimated benefits fro m commercial harvest changes in six of the seven study regions. The Inland region is excluded from th e 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 Tabl e 6-8. Rockfishes account for the major portion of overall losses in this region. The annual undiscounted co mmercial fishing benefits of eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses are estimated to be approxima tely $1,394 thousand, as shown in Table 6-8. Applying a 3 percent discount rate, the annualized be nefits 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 un der 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-1 presents species-specific results for the estimated annual increase in harvest and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.

Table 6-8: Commercial Fishing Benefits fr om Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the California Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

Undiscounted 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Baseline 1,379 1,394 1,236 1,195 Option 1 7 5 4 3 Option 2 1,176 1,189 751 573 Option 3 1,230 1,243 776 589

Regulatory Option Annual Increase in

Commercial Harvest (thousand lbs) Annualized Benefits from In crease in Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

28 Based on information from NMFS and other Web sites, and pe rsonal communication with Nic hola Meserve of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisher ies Commission (2008).March 28, 2011 6-12 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 th ousand pounds of annual commercial fishing losses in the North Atlantic region, as shown in Table 6-9, w ith flounders playing a particularly important role.
EPA estimated the annual undiscounted benefits to commercial fishers from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses to be approximatel y $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 annua lized benefits are appr oximately $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 Op tion 2, and 369 thousand pounds under Option 3. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated annualized be nefits 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 th ousand under Option 3 (Table 6-9). Appendix Table H-2 presents species-specific results fo r the estimated annual increase in harvest and monetary benefits to
commercial fishers.

Table 6-9: Commercial Fishing Benefits fr om Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the North Atlantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

Undiscounted 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Baseline 430 471 418 404 Option 1 3 2 2 1 Option 2 352 385 231 171 Option 3 369 403 242 179

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

Regulatory Option Annual Increase in

Commercial Harvest (thousand lbs) Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)



### 6.2.3 Mid-Atlantic

Baseline levels of I&E mortality account for appr oximately 10,672 thousand pounds of commercial fishing losses annually in the Mid-Atlantic region, as s hown in Table 6-10. Atlan tic menhaden, blue crab,drums and croakers, spot, and weakfish are the primary drivers of I&E mortality losses in the MidAtlantic region. The annual undiscounted benefits to commercial fishers from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses are estimated to be $3,192 thousa nd, 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 per cent 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 be nefits to commercial fishers are approximately $303March 28, 2011 6-13 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 r esults for the estimated annual increase in harvest and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.

Table 6-10: Commercial Fishing Benefits fr om Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in th e Mid-Atlantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

Undiscounted 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Baseline 10,672 3,192 2,831 2,737 Option 1 3,750 436 342 303 Option 2 10,152 3,010 1,615 1,124 Option 3 10,224 3,035 1,629 1,134

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

Regulatory Option Annual Increase in

Commercial Harvest (thousand lbs) Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)



### 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 morta lity losses are driven primarily by spot, followed by Atlantic menhaden, blue crab, and stone crab, and to tal $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 ra te, 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 fi shers 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 Opti ons 2 and 3, and $7 thousand under Option 1 (Table 6-11). Appendix Table H-4 presents species-specific r esults for the estimated annual increase in harvest and monetary benefits to commercial fishers.March 28, 2011 6-14 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 6-11: Commercial Fishing Benefits fr om Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the South Atlantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

Undiscounted 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Baseline 99 23 21 20 Option 1 45 10 8 7 Option 2 84 20 12 8 Option 3 84 20 12 8

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

Regulatory Option Annual Increase in

Commercial Harvest (thousand lbs) Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)



### 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 sh own in Table 6-12. These losses are driven by black drum, Atlantic menhaden, and st riped mullet. The estimated undiscounted annual commercial fishing benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality loss es are approximately $3,747 thousand, as shown in Table 6-12. Applying a 3 percent discount rate, estim ated 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 co mmercial fishers are approximately $588 thousand under Option 1 and $1,800 under Options 2 and 3. Discount ed at 7 percent, the annualized benefits to commercial fishers are estimated to be approximate ly $1,400 thousand under Options 2 and 3, and $537 thousand under Option 1 (Table 6-12). Appendix Ta ble 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 fr om Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in th e Gulf of Mexico Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

Undiscounted 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate Baseline 5,559 3,747 3,463 3,450 Option 1 1,459 719 588 537 Option 2 4,364 2,832 1,806 1,394 Option 3 4,371 2,837 1,804 1,390

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

Regulatory Option Annual Increase in

Commercial Harvest (thousand lbs) Annualized Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 6-15 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 th an 346 thousand pounds of commercial fishing losses in the Great Lakes region annually, as shown in Ta ble 6-13. These losses are driven by the impingement
of smelts and whitefish. The annual undiscounted comme rcial 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 elim inating baseline I&E mortality losses, applying a 3 percent discount rate, are estimated to be $80 thou sand. 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 thou sand 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 mort ality in the Great Lakes region. Discounted at 3 percent, the estimated annualized benefits to comme rcial fishers are approximately $53 thousand under Options 2 and 3 and by $48 thousand under Option 1. Di scounted at 7 percent, the annualized benefits to commercial fishers are estimated to be approxi mately $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 fr om Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in th e Great Lakes Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

Undiscounted 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate

Baseline 346 87 80 80 Option 1 227 58 48 44 Option 2 326 82 53 41 Option 3 328 83 53 41

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

Regulatory Option Annual Increase in

Commercial Harvest (thousand lbs) Annualized Benefits from Incr ease in Commercial Harvest (2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 6-16 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, a nd 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 commercia l landings due to I&E mortality is uncertain Uncertain Projected changes in harvest may be
underestimated because cumulative impacts of I&E mortality over time, 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 7-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## 7 Recreational Fishing Benefits

7.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the estimated benefits to r ecreational 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 ec onomic 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 stud y for which the values were originally estimated.” There are four types of benefit transfer studies: poi nt estimate, benefit function, meta-analysis, and Bayesian techniques (USEPA 2000a). These may be cat egorized into three fundamental classes: (1) transfer of an unadjusted fixed va lue 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 st udy 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 increasing ly explored by economists as a potential basis of policy analysis conducted by various government ag encies charged with the stewardship of natural

resources. 29



### Section 7.2 provides a brief overview of the bene fit transfer methodology used for estimating the recreational fishing benefits, and highlights the upda tes 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 regi on, 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 fro m reducing I&E mortality at cooling water intake structures (CWISs) at the in-scope facili ties 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

29 Meta-analysis is “the statistical analysis of a large collec tion of results from individual studies for the purposes of integ rating the findings” (Glass 1976).March 28, 2011 7-2 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 (A1Es), 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 bot h recreationally and commercially. EPA used the proportion of total species landings attributable to recreational fishing to estimate baseline
welfare losses to recreational a nglers 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 marg inal 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 indepe ndent variables based on the affected species characteristics, study regions, and demogra phic characteristics of the affected angling populations. The study design variables were sel ected based on current economic literature. This step is described in more detail in Section 7.2.1.

3. Estimate the value of forgone recreational ca tch 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 otherw ise 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-analy sis of recreational fishing studies from the Section 316(b) Phase III Final Rule. The general approach fo llows standard methods illustrated by Johnston et al. (2006) and Shrestha et al. (2007), among many others (Rosenberg er 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:

ln (WTP) = intercept + ∑ (coefficient i 

### )(Independent Variable Values i 

### ) (Eq. 7-1)

Here, ln (WTP) is the dependent variable in the meta-ana lysis—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, elicita tion 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 aff ected species’ characteristics, study regions, and demographic characteristics of the affected angling po pulations. The study design variables were selected based on current economic literature. Table 7-1 provid es the independent variable names, the estimated variable coefficients ( coefficient i 

### ), and the assigned input values for each of the independent variables in
the model.

30 Adult fish of harvestable age means that they ar e the age at which they can legally be harvested.March 28, 2011 7-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### EPA followed Johnston et al. (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 cons iderations 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 us ing the regression equation to predict marginal values per fish. Bockstael and Strand (1987) argue that if th e 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 conc lude 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. Th erefore, 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 cons istent 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 Coefficient Assigned Value Explanation Intercept -1.4568 1 The equation inte rcept was set to one by default.
SP_conjoint -1.1672 0

Current academic literature sugg ests that nested RUM models produce the most accurate valuation results, so RUM_nest was set to one, and the other study methodology variables were set to zero. SP_dichot -0.9958 0
TC_individual 1.1091 0
TC_zonal 2.0480 0

RUM_nest 1.3324 1

RUM_nonnest 1.7892 0

sp_year 0.08754 0 RUM_year was set equal to the average value across the studies in the analysis, 9.37. tc_year -0.03965 0

RUM_year -0.00291 9.37
sp_mail 0.5440 0 Since RUM_nest was the model specified above, sp_mail and sp_phone were set to zero. sp_phone 1.0859 0

high_resp_rate -0.6539 1 High survey response rates are desirable because they may provide more-accurate estimates, so high_response_rate was set to one.

inc_thou 0.003872 Varies Inc_thou was set to the median household income for each study region evaluated, based on U.S. Census data.
age42_down 0.9206 0.0972 Age42_down and age43_up were set to their sample means. age43_up 1.2221 0.2711
trips19_down 0.8392 0.1100 Trips19_down and trips20_up were set to their sample means. trips20_up -1.0112 0.3350

nonlocal 3.2355 0 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 7-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 7-1: Independent Variable Assignments for Regression Equation

Variable Coefficient Assigned Value Explanation big_game_pac 2.2530 Varies

Species-targeted variables were assigned input values based on characteristics of the species affected by I&E mortality and the study region. In general, the ma tch between the affected species
and the variables in the me ta-analysis equation was good. big_game_natl 1.5323 Varies
big_game_satl 2.3821 Varies
small_game_pac 1.6227 Varies
small_game_atl 1.4099 Varies
flatfish_pac 1.8909 Varies
flatfish_atl 1.3797 Varies
other_sw 0.7339 Varies
musky 3.8671 Varies
pike_walleye 1.0412 Varies
bass_fw 1.7780 Varies
trout_GL 1.8723 Varies
trout_nonGL 0.8632 Varies
salmon_pacific 2.3570 Varies
salmon_atl_more

y 5.2689 Varies

salmon_GL 2.2135 Varies
steelhead_pac 2.1904 Varies
steelhead_GL 2.3393 Varies
cr_nonyear -0.08135 Varies The variable cr_nonyear was assigned species and region-specific values for the coastal and Great Lakes regions based on catch rates data provided by the National Ma rine Fisheries Service (NMFS 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. cr_year -0.05208 0
catch_year 1.2693 0

spec_cr 0.6862 1

shore -0.1129 Varies Shore was assigned values based on NMFS (2002; 2003) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US DOI and USDOC 2002) survey data indicating the average percentage of anglers who fish from shore in each region.
Source:U.S. EPA (2006b)March 28, 2011 7-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 7-2: Region- and Species-specific Vari able Assignments for the Regression Equation

Variable Region

California North
Atlantic MidAtlantic South
Atlantic Gulf of
Mexico Great
Lakes Inland

inc_thou 54.385 55.000 51.846 40.730 36.641 44.519 58.240

Shore 24.0 24.0 23.1 30.0 25.0 48.0 57.0

Species Species Type Dummy Variable a Baseline Catch Rate, Expressed in Fish per Day ( cr_nonyear )

Small game b small_game_atl

, small_game_pac 2.7 1.6 1.6 2.2 2.2 2.1

Flatfish c flatfish_atl

, flatfish_pac 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.5

Other sa ltwater other_sw 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7

Salmon Salmon_GL 0.2 0.2
Walleye/pike pike_walleye 0.8 0.8

Bass bass_fw 0.2 0.2

Panfish d 4.7 4.7 4.7

Trout 3.2 3.2

Unidentified 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.9 3.8

a 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-Atlant ic, 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.

c 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 Species a

Species California North Atlantic Mid-Atlantic South
Atlantic Gulf of
Mexico Great Lakes Inland

Small game $7.23 $5.92 $5. 88 $5.70 $5.61 $5.34

Flatfish $9.73 $5.94 $5.60 $5.60

Other saltwater $2.95 $2.97 $2.91 $2.84 $2.76

Salmon $13.22 $13.22
Walleye/pike $4.10 $4.09

Bass $8.53 $8.98

Panfish $1.06 $1.32 $1.06

Trout $9.41 $2.81

Unidentified $3.09 $3.00 $3.23 $2.86 $3.65 $6.20 $2.22

a All values are in 2009$. Source: U.S. EPA (2006b), converted to 2009$ us ing 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 recreationalMarch 28, 2011 7-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### welfare gain from eliminating baseline I&E mortality losses, EPA multiplied the marginal value per fish by the number of fish that are lost due to base line I&E mortality that would otherwise be caught by recreational anglers. To calculate the recreati onal welfare gain from each analyzed option, EPA multiplied the marginal value per fish by the estimated additional number of fish 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 regressi on models are subject to some degree of error and uncertainty. To better characterize the uncertain ty or error bounds around predicted WTP, EPA adopted the statistical procedure describ ed 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 covarian ce matrix, and an empirical distribution of WTP values is constructed. By varying the number of dr awings, it is possible to generate an empirical distribution with a desired degree of accuracy (K rinsky and Robb 1986). The lower or upper bound of
WTP values can then be identified based on the 5 th 

### and 95 th 

### 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 95 th 

### percentile upper
confidence bounds and 5 th 

### percentile lower confidence bounds for th e 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 an alysis option. Refer to EPA (2006b) for more detail on the specific calculations. The 5 th 

### 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 7-7 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 Approach a

Species California North
Atlantic MidAtlantic South
Atlantic Gulf of
Mexico Great
Lakes Inland

5 th Percentile Lower Confidence Bounds b Small game $4.19 $2.12 $2.26 $2.71 $2.86 $1.60 Flatfish $5.10 $3.80 $3.74 $3.86 Other saltwater $1.78 $1.78 $1.84 $2.14 $2.13 Salmon $8.40 $8.12 $8.12 Walleye/pike $2.17 $11.98 Bass $4.41 $4.27 Panfish $0.53 $0.69 $0.53 Trout $6.08 $1.51 Unidentified $1.85 $1.80 $1.90 $2.14 $2.36 $3.32 $1.08
95 th Percentile Upper Confidence Bounds b Small game $12.40 $16.70 $15.46 $11.99 $11.00 $18.00 Flatfish $18.56 $9.40 $8.49 $8.25 Other saltwater $4.87 $4.96 $4.58 $3.77 $3.60 Salmon $28.70 $21.53 $21.53 Walleye/pike $7.77 $8.49 Bass $16.56 $19.01 Panfish $2.10 $2.48 $2.10 Trout $14.61 $5.27 Unidentified $5.16 $5.01 $5.71 $3.81 $5.89 $11.67 $4.58

a All values are in 2009$.

b Upper and lower confidence bounds based on resu lts of the Krinsky and Robb (1986) approach. Source: U.S. EPA (2006b), converted to 2009$ us ing the Consumer Price Index (USBLS 2010).



### 7.3 Benefits Estimates for R ecreational 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 Ca lifornia. Baseline recreational fishing losses from I&E mortality in the California region amount to 1.0 milli on fish per year. The majority of recreational losses from I&E mortality under baseline conditions are attribut able to entrainment of rockfish and sea bass. Table 7-5 shows the results of EPA’s analysis of th e potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from eliminating baseline recreational fi shing losses at in-scope facilities in California. The estimated mean annual welfare gain to California anglers from elim inating all of these losses is $2.9 million and $2.8 million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent discount ra tes, respectively. The majority of the monetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mort ality are attributable to eliminating entrainment
of “other saltwater” fish 31 

### . Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.

31 The “other saltwater” species group includes banded drum, bl ack drum, chubby, cod family, cow cod, croaker, grouper, grunion, grunt, high-hat, kingfish, lingcod, other drum, perch, por gy, rockfish, sablefish, sand drum, sculpin, sea bass, smelt

, snapper, spot, spotted drum, star drum, white sea bass, wreckfish, other bottom sp ecies, other coastal pelagics, and “no target” saltwater species.March 28, 2011 7-8 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 per cent, 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, th e estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $1.3 million and $1.4 million under Options 2 and 3, a nd $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 Calif ornia Region, by Regul atory Option (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Baseline 1,022,339 $1,740 $2,923 $4,917 $1,681 $2,823 $4,750 Option 1 36,438 $51 $85 $141 $46 $75 $125 Option 2 876,841 $1,037 $1,741 $2,929 $792 $1,330 $2,237 Option 3 915,750 $1,096 $1,840 $3,095 $832 $1,396 $2,349 Annual Increase in

Recreational Harvest (harvestable adult fish)

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Optio n 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Ev erywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGD

Regulatory

Option 3 % Discount Rate 7 % Discount Rate Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest (2009$, thousands)



### 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 baselin e conditions are attributable to entrainment of winter flounder, cunner, and sculpin. Table 7-6 show s the results of EPA’s analysis of the potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from elimina ting 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 m onetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating the en trainment 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 pe rcent, the estimated mean annualized welfare gain to North Atlantic anglers is less than $0.1 million und er Option 1, $1.5 million under Option 2, and $1.6 million under Option 3. Discounted at 7 percent, the est imated mean annualized welfare gain is less than $0.1 million under Option 1, $1.1 m illion under Option 2, and $1.2 milli on under Option 3 (Table 7-6). Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.March 28, 2011 7-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 7-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in the North At lantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Baseline 761,183 $1,765 $2,838 $4,596 $1,705 $2,742 $4,440 Option 1 1,495 $3 $5 $9 $3 $5 $8 Option 2 620,929 $939 $1,510 $2,446 $698 $1,122 $1,817 Option 3 651,307 $1,018 $1,638 $2,652 $756 $1,216 $1,969 Annual Increase in

Recreational Harvest (harvestable adult fish)

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Optio n 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Ev erywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGD

Regulatory

Option Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest (2009$, thousands)

3 % Discount Rate 7 % Discount Rate



### 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 th e 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 conditi ons 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 elimina ting 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 $2 4.7 million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively. The majority of the m onetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating the en trainment 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 milli on and $14.4 million under Op tions 2 and 3, and $1.6 million under Option 1. Discounted at 7 percent, th e estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $9.8 million and $10.0 million under Options 2 and 3, a nd $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-At lantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Baseline 9,081,061 $15,239 $25,569 $44,467 $14,721 $24,701 $42,958 Option 1 549,015 $846 $1,577 $3,136 $749 $1,396 $2,776 Option 2 8,359,591 $8,381 $14,073 $24,501 $5,831 $9,792 $17,049 Option 3 8,459,880 $8,584 $14,410 $25,078 $5,975 $10,030 $17,456 Annual Increase in

Recreational Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Regulatory

Option

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Optio n 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Ev erywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGD Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest (2009$, thousands)

3 % Discount Rate 7 % Discount RateMarch 28, 2011 7-10 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. Ta ble 7-8 shows the results of EPA’s analysis of the potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from el iminating baseline recreational fishing losses at inscope facilities in the South Atlantic. The estimated me an 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 impingeme nt 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 m illion fish under Options 2 and 3, and less than 0.1 million fish per year under Option 1. Discounted at 3 pe rcent, 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 annualiz ed 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 At lantic Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Baseline 133,897 $257 $346 $469 $249 $335 $453 Option 1 15,882 $28 $37 $50 $24 $33 $45 Option 2 112,139 $141 $190 $257 $103 $139 $188 Option 3 112,301 $141 $190 $257 $103 $139 $188 Annual Increase in

Recreational Harvest (harvestable adult fish)

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Optio n 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Ev erywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGD

Regulatory

Option Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest (2009$, thousands)

3 % Discount Rate 7 % Discount Rate



### 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 an d “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 eliminati ng all of these losses is $8.9 million and $8.8 million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rat es, repectively. The majority of the monetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mort ality are attributable to both the impingement ofMarch 28, 2011 7-11 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 milli on 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$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Baseline 2,851,347 $6,022 $8,852 $13,506 $5,999 $8,818 $13,456 Option 1 665,697 $1,398 $2,422 $4,334 $1,275 $2,210 $3,953 Option 2 2,204,063 $3,225 $4,866 $7,642 $2,491 $3,760 $5,908 Option 3 2,208,009 $3,258 $4,906 $7,690 $2,510 $3,781 $5,926 Annual Increase in

Recreational Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Regulatory

Option

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Optio n 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Ev erywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGD 3 % Discount Rate Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest (2009$, thousands)

7 % Discount Rate



### 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 c onditions are attributable to impingement of whitefish and entrainment of “unidentified” species. Ta ble 7-10 shows the results of EPA’s analysis of the potential welfare gain to recreational anglers from el iminating baseline recreational fishing losses at inscope 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 e liminating baseline I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating the impingement of “other trout” and “unidentified” fish. Appe ndix I presents additional species-specific results.

As shown in Table 7-10, the estimated reduction in I& E mortality leads to an es timated annual increase in recreational fishery harvest of approximately 0.2 milli on 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 ga in is $1.0 million under Options 2 and 3, and $0.9 million under Option 1 (Table 7-10). Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.March 28, 2011 7-12 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 7-10: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in th e Great Lakes Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Baseline 349,648 $1,127 $1,984 $3,544 $1,123 $1,977 $3,530 Option 1 176,089 $561 $951 $1,638 $511 $867 $1,495 Option 2 317,974 $720 $1,261 $2,241 $559 $979 $1,739 Option 3 320,196 $725 $1,271 $2,261 $561 $984 $1,750 Annual Increase in

Recreational Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Regulatory

Option

Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Optio n 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Ev erywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGD Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest (2009$, thousands)

3 % Discount Rate 7 % Discount Rate



### 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 c onditions are attributable to I&E mortality of “bass,” “panfish,” and “unidentified” species groups. Ta ble 7-11 shows the results of EPA’s analysis of the potential welfare gain to recreational anglers fro m eliminating baseline recreational fishing losses at in-scope facilities in the Inland region. The estimat ed mean annual welfare gain to Inland anglers from eliminating all of these losses is $34.4 million and $3 4.2 million evaluated at 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates, respectively. The majority of the m onetized recreational benefits from eliminating baseline I&E mortality are attributable to eliminating I&E mort ality 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 es timated annual increase in recreational fishery harvest of approximately 11.1 m illion fish and 11.4 million fish under Options 2 and 3, and 4.7 million fish per year under Option 1. Disc ounted 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, th e estimated mean annualized welfare gain is $9.6 million under Option 1, $15.3 million under Option 2, and $15.8 million under Option 3 (Table 7-11). Appendix I presents additional species-specific results.March 28, 2011 7-13 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 7-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in th e Inland Region, by Regulatory Option (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Baseline 12,592,464 $16,566 $34,376 $71,653 $16,504 $34,247 $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 $7,361 $15,277 $31,856 Option 3 11,389,049 $9,966 $20,684 $43,122 $7,592 $15,755 $32,847
Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Optio n 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Ev erywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGD Annual Increase in

Recreational Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Regulatory

Option Annualized Benefits from Increase in Recreational Harvest (2009$, thousands)

3 % Discount Rate 7 % Discount Rate



### 7.4 Limitations a nd 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 uncer tainty associated with the benefit results for the elimination of baseline I&E mortality losses and 316(b) regulatory options.

Specific limitations and uncertainties associated w ith 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 metaanalysis. EPA assigned values to the input vari ables based on established economic theory and characteristics of the affected species and regions. Ho wever, 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 us ing 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 shoul d 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 margin al values. Therefore, EPA excluded the error term in
order to result in more- conservative estimates. EPA al so 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 7-14 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 involve d with the study data a nd model estimation, which are discussed in Section A5-3.3e of EPA (2006b), ther e 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—i ncluding 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., Desvous ges et al. 1998; Smith et al. 2002; Vandenberg et al. 2001). Nonetheless, benefit transfers are increasingl y applied as a core component of benefit-cost analyses conducted by EPA and other government agen cies (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 ab ility of the study site or estimated valuation equation to approximate the resource and context for which be nefit estimates are desired. As is common, the metaanalysis model presented here provides a close but no t perfect match to the context in which values are
desired.

The final area of uncertainty related to the use of th e regression results to calcula te regulatory benefits is uncertainty in the estimates of I&E mortality. Ther e are a number of reasons why recreational losses due to I&E mortality may be higher or lower than expect ed. Projected changes in recreational catch may be underestimated because cumulative impacts of I&E morta lity over time are not considered. In particular, I&E mortality estimates include only individuals dire ctly lost to I&E mortality, not their progeny. Additionally, the interaction of I& E mortality with other stressors ma y have either a positive or negative effect on recreational catch. Finally, in estimating r ecreational fishing losses, EPA used the most current I&E mortality data available provided by faciliti es, which in some cases may not reflect current
conditions.March 28, 2011 8-1 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 in clude both use and nonuse values, such that the resulting total value estimate may be compared to tota l social cost. “Non-use values, like use values, have their basis in the theory of individual preferences a nd the measurement of welfare changes. According to theory, use values and non-use va lues are additive” (Freeman III 1993) . Consequently, excluding nonuse values from consideration is likely to substantially understate total social values. Recent economic literature provides substantial suppor t for the hypothesis that nonuse valu es 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 structur es (CWISs) consist of forage species or unlanded individuals of recreational and commercial species (C hapter 3). Although these fo rage fish and unlanded fish do not have direct use values, they may be va lued by users (commercial fishers and recreational anglers) and nonusers of fisheries resources. Additiona lly, the nonuse values are likely to be substantial, because fish and other species found within aquatic hab itats 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 a nd 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 of fish, shellfish, and other aquatic orga nisms 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 of fish, 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 affect ed by I&E mortality, thermal effects, and flow alteration. Due to the wide-ranging nature of these indi rect 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 e ffects 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 8-2 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 pr otection, 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 effort s (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 mo rtality from impingement and entrai nment (I&E) would contribute to the health and sustainability of the affected fish pop ulations by lowering the overall level of mortality for these populations. Fish populations suffer from nume rous sources of mortality, both natural and anthropogenic. Natural sources include weather, pred ation by other fish, and the availability of food. Human impacts that affect fish populations include fi shing, pollution, habitat changes, and I&E mortality losses at CWISs. Fish populations decline when th ey 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 in crease survival, growth, or reproduction rates in response to decreased population —is likely compro mised 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 overa ll mortality level increases the probability that a population will be able to compensate for mortality at a level sufficient to mainta in its long-term health. In some cases, I&E mortality losses may be a signifi cant source of anthropogenic mortality to alreadydepleted stocks of commercially targeted species (see Ta ble 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 incr eases 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 functi oning 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 ecosyste m 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 hol ds substantial nonuse valu es for aquatic habitats.

To summarize, EPA believes that reducing fish mort ality 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 th e marine environment that has been reserved by federal, state, tribal, territorial, or local laws or regul ations 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 (NMP AC 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 th is reason, EPA focused on MPAs within the NationalMarch 28, 2011 8-3 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 mainta ining] 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 incl uded 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 know ledge about estuaries. From 2005 to 2007, NEP budgeted $965 million to protect and restore aquatic habitat, conduct outr each 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 fundi ng 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 restori ng (or protecting) the biological integrity of these
ecosystems.

A total of 116 Section 316(b) facilities exist on 75 wa terbodies 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, brackis h, and marine waters, and in all regions of the country except California, the vast majority of 316(b) facilities occu rring within MPAs occur in coastal waters, and are most highly concentrated in the Northeastern United St ates (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 mortal ity (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 resu lts in reduced entrainment mortality at 72 and 92 percent of in-scope facilities found in MPAs, respectively (Table 8-1).March 28, 20118-4Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationFigure 8-2: In-scope Facilities with CWISs Located In Marine Protected Areas.March 28, 2011 8-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 8-1: 316(b) Facilities in Marine Protec ted Areas, and Improvements in I&E Mortality Technologies by Regulatory Option

I Mortality E Mortality I Mortality E Mortality I Mortality E Mortality

California 0 0 00 00 00

North Atlantic 18 9 17 0 19 16 20 20

Mid-Atlantic 24 10 40 0 41 31 43 40

South Atlantic 5 23 10 0 10 9 10 9

Gulf of Mexico 9 44 8 0 10 10 10 10

Great Lakes 3 20 8 0 9 8 9 9

Inland 14 10 18 0 18 9 20 18

Total 73 116 101 0 107 83 112 106

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1= I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere. Option 2 Option 3 Number of Facilities with Improved Technologies by Policy Option

Benefits Region Affected

Waterbodies Baseline 316(b)

Facilities a Option 1



### 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 fr eshwater 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 of fish species, and conservation of migr atory 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 wort hwhile 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 pr oposed for FY2011, with more than $730 million requested for major projects in the Missouri, Mi ssissippi, Columbia, and Kissimmee rivers (USOMB 2010a; USOMB 2010b). These projects include the constr uction of fish 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 functi on 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 non use values for ecosystems and species impacted by CWISs. For example, governments at various levels ha ve 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 be nefits of 316(b) regulatio n, although unquantified, are substantial. Additional discussion of nonuse impa cts occurring under baseline conditions is provided in Chapter 2.March 28, 2011 8-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 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 impr ovements, such as increased protection of aquatic species or habitats with particular attributes. As me ntioned 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 in sight into the relative importance of use versus nonuse values in the 316(b) context. EPA did not ha ve 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 leve l. 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 Bioi ndicator-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 develope d 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) regulator y 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 of fish 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 stud ies. The study’s focus on improved ecological valuation is an EPA priority as described in findin gs of EPA’s Science Advisory Board on valuing the protection of Ecological System and Services (USEP A 2009b). In contrast to traditional SP valuation, BSPV employs a more structured and formal u se 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’ pref erence functions and those used to characterize policy outcomes. Specific BSPV guidelines ensure that su rvey scenarios and resulting welfare estimates are characterized by (1) a formal b asis in established and measurable ecological indicators, (2) a clear structure linking these indicators to attributes influe ncing individuals’ well-be ing, (3) consistent and meaningful interpretation of ecological information, and (4) a consequent ability to link welfare measures to measurable and unambiguous policy outcomes. Th e welfare measures provided by the BSPV method can be unambiguously linked to models and indicator s of ecosystem function, are based on measurable

32 The study was funded by the EPA’s Science to Ac hieve Results (STAR) competitive grant program.March 28, 2011 8-7 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 Is land’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 Waters hed to which there is currently no fish passage. The watershed currently provides no spawning habitat for migratory fi sh; access to all 4,347 acres of potential habitat is blocked by 22 dams and othe r obstructions (Erkan 2002).

The survey was developed and tested over 21⁄2 years through a collaborative process involving
interactions of economists and eco logists; meetings with resource managers, natural scientists, and stakeholder groups; and 12 focus grou ps with 105 total participants. In addition to survey development and testing in focus groups, individual interviews were conducted with both ecological experts and nonexperts. These included cognitive inte rviews (Kaplowitz et al. 2004), verbal protocols (Schkade and Payne 1994) and other pretests conducted to gain addi tional insight into respon dents’ understanding and interpretation of the survey. Careful attention to deve lopment 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 res pondents and natural scientists. In all cases, survey development paid particular attention to the use a nd interpretation of ecological indicators and related information in the survey.

The choice scenarios and restoration options presented w ithin the survey were info rmed 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 othe r sources described below. Consistent with the strategic plan, the choice experi ment within the survey addressed restoration methods that neither require dam removal nor would cause appreci able 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 subjec t 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, th e policy context of Johnston et al. (2009) involves changes to technologies used within in-w ater structures (i.e., the use of fish ladders or fish lifts at dams), providing another parallel to the 316(b) context, wh ich also involves the use of new technologies within in-water structures to mitigate harm to aquatic organisms.

The choice experiment asked respondents to consider a lternative options for the restoration of migratory fish passage in the Pawtuxet Watershed. Respondent s 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 sy stems and linkages, (3) describing the methods and details of fish passage restoration, and (4) providing the definitions, derivations and interpretations ofMarch 28, 2011 8-8 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### ecological indicators used in the su rvey scenarios, including the reason for their inclusion. All survey language and graphics were pretested carefu lly to ensure respondent comprehension.

The restoration options are characterized by seven attributes, including five ecological indicators, one attribute characterizing public access, and one attrib ute characterizing unavoidable household cost. The included ecological indicators characterize: (1) the quan tity of river habitat accessible to migratory fishes, (2) the number of fish migrating to upstream habitat, (3) the abundance of fish suitable for recreational harvest, (4) the abundance of fish-dependent w ildlife, (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 a nd lower reference conditions (i.e., best and worst possible in the Pawtuxet) as defined in survey info rmational materials. Relative scores represent percent progress towards the upper reference condition (100 pe rcent), starting from the lower reference condition (0 percent). This also implies bounds on the potentia l attribute levels that might occur in the choice questions, following guidance in the literature to pr ovide visible choice sets (Bateman et al. 2004). The number of fish affected by 316(b) regulations is many times larger than that considered by Johnston et al. (2009) — therefore it would be inappropriate to appl y 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 th e Pawtuxet Watershed, r esource 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 co nduct 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 re mainder of this section describes EPA approach for estimating WTP per percentage improveme nt based on Johnston et al. (2009).March 28, 2011 8-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Figure 8-3: Example Choice Experiment Question from Johnston et al. (2009)March 28, 2011 8-10 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 so lution 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 th e 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 rand om 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 mi gratory fish able to reach watershed habitat) are important for estimating WTP for a percentage incr ease in fish numbers. Coefficients on all variables except that on program cost ( cost ) are specified as random with a norma l 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 pos itive (Hensher and Greene 2003). 33 

### Table 8-2 presents model results.

Because the mixed logit model includes random coe fficients, 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 follo wing the parametric bootstrap of Krinsky and Robb (1986), with R =1000 draws taken from the mean parameter ve ctor and associated covariance matrix. For each draw, the resulting parameters are used to char acterize asymptotically normal empirical densities for
fixed and random coefficients. For each of these R draw s, a coefficient simulation is then conducted for each random coefficient, with S =1000 draws taken from simulated empirical densities. Here, all
coefficient simulations draw from a normal distri bution except for that on cost, which draws from a bounded triangular distribution with m = s =0.05148015. 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 simulati on 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 usi ng 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 es timates and the estimat ed distribution of random para meters. We follow Hu et al. (2005) and simulate welfare estimates as the mean over th e parameter simulation of mean WTP calculated over the coefficient simulation (i.e., mean of mean WTP).March 28, 2011 8-11 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 -5.412 1.489 -3.635 0.000

ACRES 0.047 0.013 3.637 0.000

MIGRANT 0.028 0.009 3.266 0.001

ACCESS 1.538 0.274 5.609 0.000

CATCH -0.004 0.008 -0.474 0.635

WILD 0.024 0.009 2.755 0.006

IBI 0.016 0.017 0.957 0.338

COST 0.051 0.009 5.998 0.000 Derived standard deviations of parameter distributions

NsNEITHER 5.424 1.140 4.760 0.000

NsACRES 0.076 0.028 2.686 0.007

NsMIGRANT 0.004 0.017 0.214 0.831

NsACCESS 1.950 0.372 5.239 0.000

NsCATCH 0.030 0.031 0.981 0.326

NsWILD 0.031 0.024 1.279 0.201

NsIBI 0.043 0.036 1.181 0.238

TsCOST 0.051 0.009 5.998 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 acce ssible 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.

I B I

– Index of biotic integrity (IBI) scor e reflecting the similarity of the restored area to the most undisturbed
watershed in Rhode Island.

cost – The household annual cost required to implement the re storation program.



### Estimated benefit functions from the EPA/STAR choi ce experiment survey allow one to distinguish
benefits associated with resource uses from those as sociated primarily with nonuse motives. Within the benefit transfer application, WTP is quantified fo r increases in non-harvested fish alone based on the implicit price for migratory fish changes. This transf er 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 fora ge 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 of fish 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 8-12 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### area that may be counted. EPA transferred this estim ate 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
in Number of Fish WTP per % Increase in the
Number of Fish Total WTP per Household

1 $0.76 $0.76

12 $0.76 $9.13

20 $0.76 $15.21

33 $0.76 $25.10

100 $0.76 $76.05

8.3.2.2 Estimating Total WTP for Eliminat ing 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 lik ely to be representative of nonuse values held by individuals residing in the Northeast U.S. EPA exp ects 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 benef it functions of comparable quality and applicability to the 316(b) regulatory context. Al though 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 re quired 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 dict ates that WTP estimates for each species are not
additive. Rather the overall WTP should be evaluate d based on the single species that would experience the greatest relative increase in abundance from restora tion. To match the original valuation scenario to the 316(b)policy scenario , EPA evaluated model result s 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 st ock 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 sp ecies 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 ev aluated 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 8-13 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)

Species Baseline I&E Losses (millions of A1E) Estimated Fish Numbers
(millions) a

Winter Flounde r 6.502 21.1 Striped Bass 1.399 14.3
Bluefish 0.001 116.1
Atlantic Butterfish 0.008 28.9

a Estimated population size was calculated by applying a conversion factor (lbs 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 equi valent to the sum of age-1 equi valent 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 c onditions relative to a maximum number of fish 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 lbs 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 wi nter flounder numbers in the Northeast U.S. (the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic regions comb ined) 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 op tion by multiplying WTP per household by the
total number of households within the North Atla ntic 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-A tlantic 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 in crease in winter flounder relative to a maximum of 99 million fish (i.e., 6.5 million divide d 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-Atlan tic using a discount rate of 7 percent.March 28, 2011 8-14 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 a nd 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 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Reduction in Northeast IM&EM (millions of age-1

e q uivalents ) 6.50 0.03 5.32 5.57

Maximum Population (millions of fish) 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 Percentage Increase in Fish within Northeast

Waters 6.56% 0.03% 5.37% 5.63%

Household WTP per Percent Increase in Fish

Numbers ( 2009$ ) $0.76 $0.76 $0.76 $0.76

Annual WTP per Household ( 2009$) $4.99 $0.02 $4.08 $4.28

Number of Households ( millions ) 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Annual WTP (millions of 2009$) $26.9 $0.1 $22.0 $23.1 Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 2009$ ) $26.3 $0.1 $14.8 $15.5

Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 2009$ ) $26.8 $0.1 $11.5 $12.0

Number of Households (millions) 21.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 Annual WTP (millions of 2009$) $104.6 $0.5 $85.6 $89.7 Annualized WTP (3% discount rate; millions of 2009$ ) $102.3 $0.4 $57.3 $60.0

Annualized WTP (7% discount rate; millions of 2009$ ) $104.0 $0.4 $44.5 $46.5 North Atlantic

Mid-Atlantic

Scenarios: Baseline = Elimination of Baseline I&E Mortality losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I 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 transf ers. Benefit transfer involves adapting research conducted for another purpose in the available literatu re 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 w ith 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 8-15 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 experime nt 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 of fish 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 fo r improvements in nearby watersheds, and there may be a decline in WTP as policy areas become more distan t. The most reliable application of these results
would be to calculate WTP for I&E mortality reductions in a single lo cal watershed. However, the 316(b) regulation would reduce I&E mortality losses and would improve fish popul ations in multiple watersheds within some states. As noted, it was assumed for th ese purposes that households have consistent values for improvements in multiple watersheds within thei r state or region. Moreover, for transfers based on absolute fish numbers, it is assumed that the per house hold WTP for changes in the numbers of fish for all watersheds located within their state, including waters heds 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 w ithin the state—an appro ach to scale effects that likely provides conservative welfare estimates.

The Johnston et al. (2009) study context was a singl e watershed in Rhode Isla nd. 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 be nefits transfer beyond the North Atlantic and MidAtlantic regions because of the potential for substa ntial differences in preferences, demographics, and species characteristics in other regi ons 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 of fish gained by eliminating I&E mortality would be equal to baseline I&E mort ality losses and reductions under each option. These increases are not intended to repr esent 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 Ce nter, 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 estim ates of benefits to the North Atlantic and MidAtlantic regions.

Finally, while both the study and policy contexts i nvolve 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 ri ver herring, while such species may make up a smaller proportion of those affected by CWISs. If WTP is sens itive to the specific type of forage fish involved, this could be a potential sour ce of generalization error.March 28, 2011 9-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## 9 Habitat Based Methodology for Estimating Nonuse Values of Fish Production Lost to I&E Mortality

9.1 Introduction

The loss of commercially- or recreationally-impor tant aquatic species due to impingement and entrainment mortality (I&E mortality) at CWISs is t ypically valued as a direct use loss (e.g., commercial and recreational harvest). However, aquatic species w ithout any direct uses account for 97.3 percent of I&E mortality at cooling water intake structures (C WIS) (Chapter 3). Therefore, estimating the total (inclusive of nonuse) value of these losses is importa nt 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 hab itat has been valued by many existing studies, habitat provides an indirect basis for valuing the nonuse values of fish. 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 goa l of restoring depleted fish and shellfish populations (Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; 1998).

Thus, the habitat-based method for estimating nonuse valu es of fish lost to I&E mortality is a two-step process. First, the area of habitat required to replace fi sh 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 shellf ish 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 th e 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 mo rtality 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 multip lying 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 re lated 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 it s estimates of total benefits for eliminating or reducing I&E morta lity under the 316(b) regulatory options. While they illustrate the potential magnitude of nonuse values, EPA does not cons ider HEA appropriate for a primary analysis of nonuse benefits. The remainder of this chapter d escribes 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 descrip tion of limitations and uncertainties of this approach.March 28, 2011 9-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 9.2 Estimating the Amount of Habita t Needed to Offset I&E Mortality

The first step in the habitat-based method for valuin g 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 sca ling (NOAA 2006; Strange et al. 2002). A restoration project is correctly “scaled” when it achieves ecologica l equivalence. Ecological equivalence is met when the magnitude of a restoration reproduces the ecologi cal services provided by a resource prior to injury.

Restoration scaling approaches are based on the princi ples of Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA). HEA was developed by the National Oceanic and Atmosp heric Administration (NOAA) to determine public compensation for natural resource losses following natu ral 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 comp ensate 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 bene fits of regulation using a habitat-based methodology, EPA selected a trophic transfer approach to scale rest oration. The trophic transfer approach is based on food-web connectivity that occurs between primary pr oducers 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 morta lity is calculated through food-web interactions to estimate the area of habitat necessary to compensate for these losses. Such an appr oach 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 We instein 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 ha bitat characteristic of the region. Although the Agency recognizes that many species lost to I&E mortality rely upo n more than one habitat during their life history, a single habitat was chosen as most repr esentative for each region to ensure data availability, ensure calculation simplicity, and provide a representa tive 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 nu mber 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 estimatin g the benefits projected to accrue as a result of regulation.

35 “The discount rate incorporates the st andard economic assumptions that people place a greater value on having resources available in the presen t than on having their availability delayed un til the future” (p.7) (NOAA 2006). For the methods discussed, the standard discount rate is 3%.March 28, 2011 9-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Within the trophic transfer frame work, losses are calculated as the a nnual 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 gr eatest losses occur for eggs an d larvae, as discussed in Chapter 3). For this reason and to simplify comput ation, 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 producti vity on an annual basis (Appendix Equation J-1).

Quantify regional I&E Mortality as a measure of lost productivity

Select a restoration habitat

for all benefits regions

Quantify expected productivity increases
from habitat restoration

Scale habitat restoration to offset I&E Mortality and estimate

benefits under regulatory options Step 1:

Step 2:

Step 3:

Step 4:

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 tran sfer is the calculation of production per unit of habitat. Each acre of restored habitat generates so me quantity of primary pro ductivity 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 ecosys tem due to factors such as water movement; this productivity is not available to the ecosystem. Rema ining primary productivity is then converted to secondary productivity using trophi c 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 tr ophic conversion efficien cies (French McCay and Rowe 2003).

EPA specified all I&E mortality species as se condary consumers when scaling restoration. 36 

### Thus, to compare fish production lost to I&E mortality to prod uction gained through habi tat restoration, primary productivity from habitat must to be converted to an equivalent amount of production of secondary

36 EPA’s assumption that I&E mortality spec ies 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 NRDAs when scaling restoration to compensate for fish losses due to oil spil ls (e.g., French McCay et al. 2002; Penn and Tomasi 2002).March 28, 2011 9-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### consumer. This calculation requires estimated values for primary production, carbon export, and conversion efficiencies from primary production to detr itus, 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.

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 

### Carbon Export
Loss of productivity by

water movement 

### Trophic Conversion
Loss of energy due to metabolic processes



### Trophic Conversion

Trophic Conversion

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 regi onal 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 di stribution, 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 pee r-reviewed sources for each habitat type used to scale I&E mortality. For each of the seven 316(b) re gions, EPA compiled net pr imary 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 m easured 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 methodolog y. Due to geographic variations in growing season and climate, primary productivity of species may di ffer substantially both within and among regions (Appendix Table J-1). For example, regional producti vity estimates used in past salt marsh scalingMarch 28, 2011 9-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### applications include 2,204 kg dry mass acre -1 

### 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 (Penn and Tomasi 2002) (Appendix Table J-1) .37 To obtain regionally-applicable values for primary productivity, EPA used an average of ha bitat-specific productivity values from a minimum of four published values in all calculations (Appendix Table J-1).

The NPP fraction most easily converted to detritus (fr eshly dead or partially decomposed organic matter (Ricklefs 2001)), and therefore available for secondary production, is above-subs trate primary production. Consequently, EPA included above-s ubstrate 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 biomas s 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 equiva lent to 16 percent of average mean aboveground macrophyte productivity within the North Atlantic a nd Mid-Atlantic regions (Appendix Table J-1).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 Conver sion 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 un it 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 detritus 40 

### is important for production at higher trophic levels (Kneib 2003). However, th ere is substantial uncertainty regarding the most appropriate specification of the trophic conversion efficiency fro m 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 conserva tively assigned a transfer efficiency of 0.40 from

37 Estimates of NPP were converted to kg dry mass/acre/year. Measuremen ts reported as g carbon (C)/ area/time were converted using a species-specific organic carbon content and appropria te adjustment for areal a nd time increments. Although EPA recognizes that the proportion of organic carbon in vascular plan ts is seasonally dyna mic, this variability was not considered
critical for estimation.

38 This assumption is likely to underestimate NPP for some species , since it does not consider c onversion 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 pl ants having a vascular system of xylem and phloem (Walker 1995) such as S. alterniflora

.March 28, 2011 9-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### primary productivity to detritus to account for uncerta inty 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 percen tage 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 pr imary 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 consumer s. 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., Balle tto 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 th e local ecosystem. Export from aquatic ecosystems may be substantial, particularly in open or semi-enclosed ecosystems with subs tantial 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 mode ls, the amount of habitat restoration required to compensate for lost ecosystem goods and services is like ly to be underestimated. Although some scaling calculations conducted as part of NRDAs do not explic itly include an export adjustment (e.g., French McCay et al. 2002; Penn and Tomasi 2002), others ac knowledge that productivity many be transported out of the area (French McCay and Rowe 2003). 43



### The rate at which net prim ary 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 wetla nds 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 dy namics 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 vari able from site to site, depending on several factors including tidal or riverine flushing, droughts, storm events, and y ear-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 re fers to its trophic model as the “Aggregat e Food Chain Model” (PSEG 2006; Strange 2008).

42 The trophic steps outlined match those used by PSEG for th e Aggregate Food Chain Model (Balletto et al. 2005; PSEG 2006), and are generally consistent with those used in miscellaneous NRDAs (e.g., Fren ch 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), base d on values from a Georgia salt marsh (Teal 1962).March 28, 2011 9-7 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 habita ts should produce the full complement of impacted species in each region. However, uncertainties rega rding the species-specific benefits of restoration actions make scaling habitat loss on a per-species ba sis impractical. EPA’s application of the trophic transfer approach treats the production of secondary co nsumers as a proxy for the provision of food and nutrient cycling considered to be important ecol ogical services (French McCay and Rowe 2003). Under this assumption, services are considered to be restor ed 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 valu es 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 sp ecies, 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 id entified. 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 re gion (Appendix Section J. 3). Because many aquatic organisms experience I&E mortality early in their life hi story (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 Species Sample Size Macrophyte
NPP Algal NPP Total NPP California Giant kelp

M

acrocystis pyrifera 4 7,300 730 8,030

N orth Atlantic Eelgrass
Zostera marina 6 3,750 375 4,125

Mid-Atlantic Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora 10 3,350 533 3,880

South Atlantic Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora 13 6,350 533 6,883

Gulf of Mexico Smooth cordgrass Spartina alterniflora 13 6,350 533 6,883

Great Lakes Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia 14 6,200 620 6,820

Inland Broadleaf cattail Typha latifolia 14 6,200 620 6,820

For ease of calculation, the m ean values were rounded to the nearest 50 kg dry mass per acre -1 yr -1

.

44 EPA’s treatment of productivity as a prox y for important ecosystem services is cons istent with the implicit assumptions of various past scaling assessmen ts conducted as part of NRDAs (e.g., French McCay et al. 2002; French McCay and Rowe 2003; Penn and Tomasi 2002).March 28, 2011 9-8 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 a nnual I&E mortality combin es estimates in increased biomass production of secondary consumers (Section 9.2. 2) from preferred restoration habitats (Section 9.2.3) with quantified I&E morta lity (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 produc tion 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, ha bitat 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 redu ctions 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, 20119-9Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 9-2: Baseline I&E Mortality (metric tons A1E year-1) and Habitat Restoration Area (acres) Equivalent to Baseline I&E Mortality, and I&EMortality Reductions (metric tons A1E year-1) and Habitat Restoration Area (acres) Equivalent to These Reductions, by Region andRegulatory OptionI&ELosses(metrictons A1E,dryweight)EquivalentRestorationArea (acres)I&ELosses(metrictons A1E,dryweight)EquivalentRestorationArea (acres)I&ELosses(metrictons A1E,dryweight)EquivalentRestorationArea (acres)I&ELosses(metrictons A1E,dryweight)EquivalentRestorationArea (acres)California Giant kelpMacrocystispyrifera96 282 2,930 3 36 241 2,503 252 2,617North Atlantic EelgrassZostera marina50 158 3,183 1 23 129 2,601 135 2,727Mid-Atlantic Smooth cordgrassSpartinaalterniflora47 1,735 37,242 240 5,150 1,608 34,511 1,626 34,890South Atlantic Smooth cordgrassSpartinaalterniflora83 34 410 13 159 29 346 29 347Gulf of Mexico Smooth cordgrassSpartinaalterniflora83 1,252 15,158 340 4,122 988 11,958 989 11,978Great Lakes Broadleaf cattailTypha latifolia82 463 5,654 253 3,091 425 5,195 428 5,229Inland Broadleaf cattailTypha latifolia82 6,255 76,432 3,424 41,8345,723 69,927 5,843 71,390Total(All Regions)- -10,179 141,009 4,275 54,4159,142 127,041 9,301 129,178Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 =I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125DIF MGD; Option 3 = I&EMortality EverywhereSecondaryProductivity(kg acre-1year-1)Option 2 Option 3Region HabitatBaseline Option 1March 28, 2011 9-10 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 fi sh 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 produ ced by the habitat. This method is consistent with NOAA’s preferred methods for NRDA under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), since NOAA’s NRDA regulations focus on restoration of injured resources, rather than monetary compensation for damages. For lost interim values pending restoration, additiona l habitat may be restored in lieu of monetary compensation. NOAA refers to this as “compensat ory restoration” (NOAA 1997). EPA calculated the amount of “service-to-service” compensatory restorati on—in the form of restored habitat—required to offset losses, and then evaluated WTP for restor ing this area of habitat. Whereas NOAA recommends restoring such acreage to compensate for I&E mortal ity, EPA does not suggest that the restoration be carried out. Instead, EPA quantifies the benefits, in the form of fish production, that the restored habitat would provide. This value provides a proxy for th e nonuse values not otherwise estimated in this
document.

EPA performed an in-depth search of the economic li terature 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 servi ces provided relative to biological sca ling assumptions (i.e., Section 9.2). If a study was not applicable in a region, EPA tr ansferred values from studies conducted in other 316(b) regions for the same habitat type. Reported WTP valu es 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; Johns ton et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998), conducted on the East End of Long Island, NY w ithin the Mid-Atlantic region, was the only study identified by EPA that estimates WTP per acre of ee lgrass habitat. Although EPA recognizes that there is uncertainty when applying WTP values to external 31 6(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 th e restoration habitat used for scaling (e.g., Dillman et al. 199 3; Roberts and Leitch 1997).March 28, 2011 9-11 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### EPA was unable to identify studies estimating the value of saltmarsh habitat in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. Therefore, it was nece ssary to apply wetland values from valuation studies conducted in other 316(b) regions: EPA identified tw o 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 rec ognizes that substantial uncertainty may occur when applying wetland values outside the region from which th ey were obtained, due to variation in habitat condition and resident preferences. However, it is not clear that application of these results will
overestimate or underestimat e 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, riveri ne 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 a pplied 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 fi sh 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 attr ibutes 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 ec ology and restoration, and 16 focus groups with more than 100 residents (details on survey de velopment 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 ha bitat improvements for shellfish, fish, and birds, respectively (Johnston et al. 2002b).

From the survey data, EPA calculated the proporti on of wetland restoration value associated with different wetland services. Across all scenarios presen ted in the survey, the proportion of WTP values Table 9-3: Total Annual Household WTP Per Acre of Aquatic Habitat
316(b) Region WTP acre -1 yr -1 (2009$) Valuation Studies Applied
California - -

N orth Atlantic 0.0761 Peconic Estuary St udy (Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998) Mid-Atlantic 0.0672 Peconic Estuary Stud y (Johnston et al. 2002a ; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998) South Atlantic 0.0431 Bauer, Cyr, an d Swallow (2004), Peconic Estuary Study (Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998) Gulf of Mexico 0.0431 Bauer, Cyr, an d Swallow (2004), Peconic Estuary Study (Johnston et al. 2002a; Johnston et al. 2001; Mazzotta 1996; Opaluch et al. 1995; Opaluch et al. 1998) Great Lakes 0.0131 de Zoysa (1995), Mullarky (1997), Mullarky (1999), Bishop et al. (2000) Inland 0.0118 de Zoysa (1995), Mullarky (1997), Mullarky (1999), Blomquist and Whitehead (1998), Whitehead and Blomquist (1991) EPA was unable to identify an applicable va luation study for kelp habitat, the prefe rred scaling habitat for the California reg ion.March 28, 2011 9-12 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### associated with fish habitat, bird habitat, shellfish habitat, mosqu ito control, and other services were 0.256, 0.198, 0.278, 0.121, and 0.147, respectivel y. (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 Nort h 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 wetla nds and seagrasses provide good to excellent fish production function for many important commercia l, recreational and forage species (Graff and Middleton 2003; Street et al. 2005), by providing fa vorable 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 criti cally 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 assu mes 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 estuari es. They experience tidal fluctuations, but are not regularly exposed to water with substantial sa linity. 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 vege tation 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 bodi es of water (including the Great Lakes) may also have enhanced fish production function. For example, it has been estimated that 75 percent of fish 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 generallyrecognized importance of this habitat to fisheries. EPA used a value lower than recognized for marine marshes to reflect the absence of a regular tidal cy cle that can provide habitat diversity within the
ecosystem.March 28, 2011 9-13 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### The importance of fish 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 loca lly 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 aver age 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 fo r salt marsh restoration are attributable to fish production services (Section 9.3.1). Similarly, EPA assu med 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 th e 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 of fish production services, EPA obtained WTP per acre per year for fish production services in preferred ha bitats 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

316(b) Region Total WTP acre -1 yr -1 (2009$) % Attributed to Fish
Production Services WTP acre -1 yr -1 for Fish Production Services (2009$)

California - - -

N orth Atlantic 1 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

N ote: EPA was unable to identify an applicable valuation study for kelp habitat, the preferred scaling habitat for the Californi a region.



### 9.4 Estimating the Value of Habita t 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 resourc es. 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 gain s of fish 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 SaltMarch 28, 2011 9-14 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 smallscale salt marsh restoration actions (i.e., 3-12 acres) we re stated by respondents from various parts of the state. A study by Pate and Loomis (1997) found that r espondents 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 im prove wetland habitat in the San Joaquin Valley, CA across households in the Valley, California hou seholds 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 th e 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 sufficien t to compensate for I&E mortality would require a large geographical footprint. EPA recognized that, if implemented, this footprin t 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 assigne d habitat restoration based on the estimated distribution of I&E mortality throughout each 316(b) re gion based on the proportion of total AIF of instate facilities relative to total regional AIF. The prop ortional 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), estimat es 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 ma gnitude of habitat restoration by state.

2. Multiply regional household value per acre of rest ored 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 st ates within the region to obtain unadjusted WTP for habitat restoration within the 316(b) region.

EPA recognizes that WTP per household per acre is lik ely to be marginally decreasing as the scale of restoration increases (e.g., Bishop et al. 2000), particul arly 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 wh en policies are assessed separately may exceed the total value of polici es when assessed simultaneously. Simply summing the statewide values for multiple 316(b) regions may overestimate the value of fish production services from additional habitat acreage.

Based on this assessment, EPA incorporated a weigh ting adjustment in order to limit the potential for
overestimation of total WTP in cases where households within a given state are assigned values forMarch 28, 2011 9-15 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 totalrestoration area assigned to the state. For example, if a state were to be assigned 100 acres from the MidAtlantic 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 aggr egating values for each region, weighted WTP values
were summed across all states to calculate the to tal 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 th e 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 di scount rates, respectively (Table 9-5). Under both discount rates, WTP for habitat restoration in th e 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 habi tat restoration in the Inland region represented only 7 percent of national WTP. This difference is in larg e 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 na tional 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 $2.1 billion (Table 9-5).March 28, 20119-16Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 9-5: Weighted WTP for Habitat Restoration Area Equivalent to Baseline I&E Mortality, and Weighted WTP for HabitatRestoration Area Equivalent to I&E Mortality Reductions by Region and Regulatory OptionBaseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3California Giant kelpMacrocystis- --------North Atlantic EelgrassZostera marina0.076 388.7 0.5 216.2 226.9 395.2 0.4 168.0 176.2Mid-Atlantic Smooth cordgrassSpartina0.017 2,234.2 210.3 1,280.4 1,295.4 2,271.5 195.5 929.1 940.7South Atlantic Smooth cordgrassSpartina0.011 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.4Gulf of Mexico Smooth cordgrassSpartina0.011 732.2 153.4 390.6 389.6 744.4 142.6 305.9 305.0Great Lakes Broadleaf cattailTypha latifolia0.003 18.9 10.4 12.2 12.2 19.2 9.7 9.6 9.6Inland Broadleaf cattailTypha latifolia0.001 264.3 138.5 167.8 170.6 268.7 128.7 130.0 131.6Total(All Regions)- - 3,639.0 513.3 2,067.6 2,095.1 3,699.8 477.2 1,542.8 1,563.4Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125DIF MGD; Option 3 =I&E Mortality Everywhere7% Discount RateWeighted WTP for Regulatory Options (2009$, millions)Region HabitatHouseholdWTP acre-1year-13% Discount RateMarch 28, 2011 9-17 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 e nvironmental regulations rarely affords sufficient time to develop orig inal 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 effe ct 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 of fish 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 productio n 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 hi gher nonuse values for specifi c species (for example, threatened and endangered species) that are under-compe nsated when habitat restoration is scaled based
on total losses.

9.6.3 Timing of Losses and Restoration

Fish production services provided by a restored hab itat 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 cons istent with valuation studies that provide WTP for marginal habitat acres. EPA is not suggesting that r estoration 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 si te-specific information regarding the trajectory and
duration of restoration benefits would im prove the accuracy of scaling estimates.

9.6.4 Application of the Approach to Large Geographic Areas

Application of the habitat-based approach for compen sating I&E mortality on a regional scale is uncertain because of the diversity of habitats and species within a region. Many species of fish 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 ha bitats across a state. Alt hough such effects exist, EPA assigned ecological parameter values based on average values for a region. Also, most valuation studies included in the analysis u sed statewide survey populations. Con sequently, mean values reflect the diversity of valuation that occurs throughout a state.March 28, 2011 9-18 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 proportiona te 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 simila r. In the absence of comparable studies conducted within individual regions, however, the estimate of J ohnston 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, trop hic conversion efficiencies). These values represent extrapolations from different scales, regions, or eco systems, 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. 199 6). 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 va riability will impact production a nd consumption in all habitats. Consequently, productivity estimates cannot be viewed as representing anything more than a simplified average value.March 28, 2011 10-1 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 optio ns for in-scope 316(b) facilities:

 Option 1: I Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality C ontrols at All Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD DIF; Determine Entr ainment Controls for Facilities Greater than 2 MGD DIF On a Site-specific Basis.

 Option 2: I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All Existing Facilities that Withdr aw over 2 MGD DIF; Require Flow Reduction Commensurate with Closed-cycle Cooling By Facilities Greater Than 125 MGD DIF.

 Option 3: I&E Mortality Everywhere. Establish Impingement Mortality Controls at All Existing Facilities that Withdraw over 2 MGD DI F; Require Flow Reduction Commensurate with Closed-Ccycle Cooling at All Existing Facilities over 2 MGD DIF.

Greater detail on the methods and data used in the re gional 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 valu e 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 no t reflect total benefits associated with reducing I&E mortality at in-scope facilities, and overall nationa l 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 mort ality; 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 Secti on 316(b) facilities rulemaking is challenging. The preceding sections of this report discuss specific limita tions and uncertainties associated with estimating reductions in I&E mortality losses and monetized bene fits. 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 a pproaches used for assessing each of the four benefit categories (threatened and endangered species, commer cial 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 comb ined 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 th at the results for any of the benefit categories are atypical or unreasonable.March 28, 2011 10-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 10.3 Summary of Baseline Losses and Exp ected 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 of fish 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 A1Es).

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 A1Es. EPA notes that the count of total lost organisms is larger than valu es expressed in A1Es. 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 discuss ions 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 A ll In-scope Facilities (millions of A1Es)

Region Impingement Mortality Entrainment Mortality I&E Mortality

California 0.8 36.0 36.8

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 reduc tions in I&E mortality at each facility due to technology installation required un der each option. Table 10-2 through Table 10-4 present expected reductions in I&E mortality, expressed as A1Es, by re gion, under regulatory opti ons 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 Na tional A1E Losses for All In- scope Facilities (millions of A1Es) Under Option 1 (I Everywhere)

Region Impingement Mortality Entrainment Mortality I&E Mortality

California 0.7 0.0 0.7

North Atlantic 0.4 0.0 0.4

Mid-Atlantic 38.7 0.0 38.7

South Atlantic 14.2 0.0 14.2

Gulf of Mexico 34.5 0.0 34.5

Great Lakes 38.2 0.0 38.2

Inland 488.2 0.0 488.2

National Total 615.0 0.0 615.0March 28, 2011 10-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 10-3: Reductions in Na tional A1E Losses for All In- scope Facilities (million A1Es) Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD)

Region Impingement Mortality Entrainment Mortality I&E Mortality

California 0.8 30.7 31.5

North Atlantic 0.6 48.4 49.0

Mid-Atlantic 49.5 860.3 909.7

South Atlantic 19.2 9.1 28.3

Gulf of Mexico 44.7 61.3 106.0

Great Lakes 43.7 7.5 51.1

Inland 564.1 241.8 805.9

National Total 722.5 1,259.0 1,981.6

Table 10-4: Reductions in Nati onal A1E Losses for All In-scope Facilities (millions of A1Es) Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere)

Region Impingement Mortality Entrainment Mortality I&E Mortality

California 0.8 32.1 32.9

North Atlantic 0.6 50.8 51.4

Mid-Atlantic 49.6 871.3 920.9

South Atlantic 19.2 9.1 28.3

Gulf of Mexico 44.8 61.4 106.2

Great Lakes 43.8 7.6 51.3

Inland 569.6 252.9 822.5

National Total 728.3 1,285.2 2,013.5



### Table 10-5 presents EPA’s estimates of the current le vel 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 Inscope Facilities by Regulatory Option

Regulatory Option Millions of A1Es Forgone Fishery Yield (million lbs) Biomass Production Forgone (million lbs) Baseline 2,188.9 71.5 637.8 Option 1 615.0 13.3 137.6 Option 2 1,981.6 58.6 542.2 Option 3 2,013.5 59.2 556.2

Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mo rtality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere



### As shown for all regions in Table 10-6, and by re gion in Chapter 3 of this report, the harvested commercial and recreational fish species that have di rect use values comprise between 1 and 9 percent of baseline I&E mortality losses in each region, resultin g 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 co mmercial fish and forage fish which do not haveMarch 28, 2011 10-4 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 rema ining 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 redu ctions which are not commercially or recreationally
harvested.

Table 10-6: Distribu tion of National I&E Mortality for A ll In-scope Facilities by Regulatory Option

Baseline 2,188.9 1,654.8 534.1 59.4 2.7% Option 1 615.0 525.7 89.3 15.7 2.5% Option 2 1,981.6 1,512.6 468.9 53.3 2.7% Option 3 2,013.5 1,535.4 478.1 54.0 2.7%

Regulatory Option

a Harvestable fish are adult fish of the age at which they can legally be harvested. Scenarios: Baseline = Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Optio n 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere (a) All Species (millions of

A1Es) (b) Forage Species

(millions of

A1Es) (c)

Commercial and

Recreational

Species (millions of A1Es) (d)

Harvested
Commercial and

Recreational Species (millions of fish

harvested) a A1E Fish Assigned

a Direct Use Value

as Percentage of

Total (column d / column a)



### 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 de veloped a time profile of to tal benefits from all inscope facilities that reflects when benefits from co mpliance-related changes at each facility would be realized. The methodology that EPA used to develop th is time profile is detailed in Appendix D. For each study region, EPA first calculated the undiscounted be nefits (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 re gulatory options, based on the assumptions that all facilities in each region would achieve compliance a nd 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 reali zation 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 bene fits 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.

46 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 Ma nagement and Budget (OMB), that reflects an estimated opportunity cost of capital.March 28, 2011 10-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### EPA estimated mean national use values, as well as values that include the 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and

95 th 

### 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 habita t-based values presented in Chapter 9.

Table 10-7 shows that the total annual national valu e of losses due to CWIS at in-scope facilities, discounted at 3 percent, includes $76.9 million in r ecreational fishing losses, $8.0 million in commercial fishing losses, $1.1 million in T&E species losses, a nd $128.6 million in forgone nonuse benefits. The total benefits of elimination of baseline CWIS, disc ounted at 3 percent, are $214.7 million per year, with

estimates based on the 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### 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 commercia l 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 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th


### percentile upper bound for recreational values, totali ng $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 regi on are provided in Chapters 5 through 8 of this
document.

Table 10-8, Table 10-9, and Table 10-10 present EPA’s est imates of the regional and national benefits of reducing I&E mortality under each of the regulator y 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 bene fits of $17.6 million per year, with estimates

based on the 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### 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 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### 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 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### percentile upper bound for recreational values, totaling $105.5 mill ion and $164.9 million (Table 10-10).
Evaluated at a 7 percent discount rate, the national us e benefits of the regulatory analysis options are
somewhat smaller:

 Option 1 (I Everywhere) results in national bene fits of $16.0 million per year, with estimates

based on the 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### 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 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th

47 The lower estimates of value presented in this chapter are measured by the sum of the 5 th percentile lower bound estimates of recreational values plus the mean value estimates for all ot her categories of value. The highe r estimates of value presented in this chapter are measured by the sum of the 95 th percentile upper bound estimates of r ecreational values plus the mean value estimates for all other categories of value.March 28, 2011 10-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### percentile upper bound for recreational values, to taling $77.6 million and $120.6 million (Table 10-9).

 Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhere) results in na tional use benefits of $95.7 million per year,

with estimates based on the 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### percentile upper bound for recreational values, totaling $80.7 m illion and $124.9 million (Table 10-10).
The majority of benefit values are attributable to recreational fishing and nonuse benefits. Table 10-11 provides a convenient summary of benefits for the th ree regulatory options. More detailed discussions of regional benefits under each option are provided in Chapters 5 through 8 of this report.March 28, 201110-7Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 10-7: Summary of National Benefitsfrom Eliminating Baseline I&E MortalityLosses for All In-scope Facilities (2009$)Low Mean High Low Mean HighCalifornia $1.7 $2.9 $4.9 $1.2 - - $3.0 $4.2 $6.2North Atlantic $1.8 $2.8 $4.6 $0.4 - $26.3 $28.5 $29.6 $31.3Mid-Atlantic $15.2 $25.6 $44.5$2.8 - $102.3 $120.4 $130.7 $149.6South Atlantic $0.3 $0.3 $0.5 $0.0 - - $0.3 $0.4 $0.5Gulf of Mexico $6.0 $8.9 $13.5 $3.5 - - $9.5 $12.3 $17.0Great Lakes $1.1 $2.0 $3.5 $0.1 - - $1.2 $2.1 $3.6Inland $16.6 $34.4 $71.7 - $1.1 - $17.7 $35.5 $72.8Total $42.7 $76.9 $143.2 $8.0$1.1 $128.6 $180.5 $214.7 $281.0California $1.7 $2.8 $4.8 $1.2 - - $2.9 $4.0 $5.9North Atlantic $1.7 $2.7 $4.4 $0.4 - $26.8 $28.9 $29.9 $31.6Mid-Atlantic $14.7 $24.7 $43.0$2.7 - $104.0 $121.5 $131.5 $149.7South Atlantic $0.2 $0.3 $0.5 $0.0 - - $0.3 $0.4 $0.5Gulf of Mexico $6.0 $8.8 $13.5 $3.4 - - $9.4 $12.3 $16.9Great Lakes $1.1 $2.0 $3.5 $0.1 - - $1.2 $2.1 $3.6Inland $16.5 $34.2 $71.4 - $1.1 - $17.6 $35.4 $72.5Total $42.0 $75.6 $141.0 $7.9$1.1 $130.8 $181.8 $215.5 $280.8aAll benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame ofthe analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire periodof this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.bA range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the metaanalysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explainedin Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefitsfor some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the valuesfor commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are addedto the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.cNo significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercialfishing analysis.dRecreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this reportfor more detail on EPA’s analysis of T&E benefits.eZeros represent values less than 1,000.Source:U.S. EPA analysis for this report.3% Discount Rate7% Discount RateRegionAnnualized Benefitsa(2009$, millions)Recreational Fishing BenefitsCommercialFishingBenefitscT&E SpeciesBenefitsd,eTotal BenefitsbNonuseBenefitsMarch 28, 201110-8Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 10-8: Summary of National Benefits of Option 1(I Everywhere) for All In-scope Facilities (2009$)Low Mean High Low Mean HighCalifornia $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 - - $0.1 $0.1 $0.1North Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 - $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1Mid-Atlantic $0.8 $1.6 $3.1 $0.3 - $0.4 $1.6 $2.3 $3.9South Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 - - $0.0 $0.0 $0.1Gulf of Mexico $1.4 $2.4 $4.3 $0.6 - - $2.0 $3.0 $4.9Great Lakes $0.6 $1.0 $1.6 $0.0 - - $0.6 $1.0 $1.7Inland $5.1 $10.5 $22.0 - $0.5 - $5.6 $11.0 $22.5Total $8.0 $15.6 $31.4 $1.0$0.5 $0.5 $10.0 $17.6 $33.4California $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 - - $0.0 $0.1 $0.1North Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 - $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1Mid-Atlantic $0.7 $1.4 $2.8 $0.3 - $0.4 $1.4 $2.1 $3.5South Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 - - $0.0 $0.0 $0.1Gulf of Mexico $1.3 $2.2 $4.0 $0.5 - - $1.8 $2.7 $4.5Great Lakes $0.5 $0.9 $1.5 $0.0 - - $0.6 $0.9 $1.5Inland $4.6 $9.6 $20.1 - $0.5 - $5.1 $10.1 $20.6Total $7.2 $14.2 $28.5 $0.9$0.5 $0.5 $9.1 $16.0 $30.3NonuseBenefitsaAll benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame ofthe analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire periodof this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.bA range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the metaanalysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explainedin Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefitsfor some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the valuesfor commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are addedto the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.cNo significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercialfishing analysis.dRecreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this reportfor more detail on EPA’s analysis of T&E benefits.eZeros represent values less than 1,000.Source:U.S. EPA analysis for this report.3% Discount Rate7% Discount RateRegionAnnualized Benefitsa(2009$, millions)Recreational Fishing BenefitsCommercialFishingBenefitscT&E SpeciesBenefitsd,eTotal BenefitsbMarch 28, 201110-9Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 10-9: Summary of National Benefits of Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) for All In-scope Facilities(2009$)Low Mean High Low Mean HighCalifornia $1.0 $1.7 $2.9 $0.8 - - $1.8 $2.5 $3.7North Atlantic $0.9 $1.5 $2.4 $0.2 - $14.8 $15.9 $16.5 $17.4Mid-Atlantic $8.4 $14.1 $24.5 $1.6 - $57.3 $67.3 $73.0 $83.5South Atlantic $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.0 - - $0.2 $0.2 $0.3Gulf of Mexico $3.2 $4.9 $7.6 $1.8 - - $5.0 $6.7 $9.4Great Lakes $0.7 $1.3 $2.2 $0.1 - - $0.8 $1.3 $2.3Inland $9.6 $19.9 $41.4 - $0.7 - $10.3 $20.6 $42.2Total $24.0 $43.5 $81.5 $4.5$0.7 $72.1 $101.3 $120.8 $158.7California $0.8 $1.3 $2.2 $0.6 - - $1.4 $1.9 $2.8North Atlantic $0.7 $1.1 $1.8 $0.2 - $11.5 $12.3 $12.7 $13.4Mid-Atlantic $5.8 $9.8 $17.0 $1.1 - $44.5 $51.4 $55.4 $62.7South Atlantic $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.0 - - $0.1 $0.1 $0.2Gulf of Mexico $2.5 $3.8 $5.9 $1.4 - - $3.9 $5.2 $7.3Great Lakes $0.6 $1.0 $1.7 $0.0 - - $0.6 $1.0 $1.8Inland $7.4 $15.3 $31.9 - $0.6 - $7.9 $15.8 $32.4Total $17.8 $32.4 $60.8 $3.3$0.6 $55.9 $77.6 $92.2 $120.6aAll benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame ofthe analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire periodof this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.bA range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the metaanalysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explainedin Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefitsfor some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the valuesfor commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are addedto the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.cNo significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercialfishing analysis.dRecreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this reportfor more detail on EPA’s analysis of T&E benefits.eZeros represent values less than 1,000.Source:U.S. EPA analysis for this report.3% Discount Rate7% Discount RateRegionAnnualized Benefitsa(2009$, millions)Recreational Fishing BenefitsNonuseBenefitsCommercialFishingBenefitscT&E SpeciesBenefitsd,eTotal BenefitsbMarch 28, 201110-10Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 10-10: Summary of National Benefits of Option 3 (I&EMortality Everywhere) for All In-scope Facilities (2009$)Low Mean High Low Mean HighCalifornia $1.1 $1.8 $3.1 $0.8 - - $1.9 $2.6 $3.9North Atlantic $1.0 $1.6 $2.7 $0.2 - $15.5 $16.7 $17.3 $18.3Mid-Atlantic $8.6 $14.4 $25.1 $1.6 - $60.0 $70.2 $76.1 $86.7South Atlantic $0.1 $0.2 $0.3 $0.0 - - $0.2 $0.2 $0.3Gulf of Mexico $3.3 $4.9 $7.7 $1.8 - - $5.1 $6.7 $9.5Great Lakes $0.7 $1.3 $2.3 $0.1 - - $0.8 $1.3 $2.3Inland $10.0 $20.7 $43.1 - $0.7 - $10.7 $21.4 $43.8Total $24.8 $44.9 $84.2 $4.5$0.7 $75.5 $105.5 $125.6 $164.9California $0.8 $1.4 $2.3 $0.6 - - $1.4 $2.0 $2.9North Atlantic $0.8 $1.2 $2.0 $0.2 - $12.0 $12.9 $13.4 $14.1Mid-Atlantic $6.0 $10.0 $17.5 $1.1 - $46.5 $53.6 $57.7 $65.1South Atlantic $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.0 - - $0.1 $0.1 $0.2Gulf of Mexico $2.5 $3.8 $5.9 $1.4 - - $3.9 $5.2 $7.3Great Lakes $0.6 $1.0 $1.8 $0.0 - - $0.6 $1.0 $1.8Inland $7.6 $15.8 $32.8 - $0.5 - $8.1 $16.3 $33.4Total $18.3 $33.3 $62.5 $3.3$0.5 $58.5 $80.7 $95.7 $124.9aAll benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame ofthe analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire periodof this analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.bA range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by the metaanalysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explainedin Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefitsfor some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the valuesfor commercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are addedto the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.cNo significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercialfishing analysis.dRecreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon). See Chapter 5 of this reportfor more detail on EPA’s analysis of T&E benefits.eZeros represent values less than 1,000.Source:U.S. EPA analysis for this report.3% Discount Rate7% Discount RateNonuseBenefitsRegionAnnualized Benefitsa(2009$, millions)Recreational Fishing BenefitsCommercialFishingBenefitscT&E SpeciesBenefitsd,eTotal BenefitsbMarch 28, 201110-11Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 10-11: Summary of National Benefits by Regulatory Option for All In-scope Facilities (2009$)Low Mean High Low Mean HighBaseline $42.7 $76.89 $143.2 $8.05 $1.14 $128.64 $180.5 $214.72 $281.0Option 1$8.0 $15.62 $31.4 $0.99 $0.50 $0.52 $10.0 $17.63 $33.4Option 2$24.0 $43.52 $81.5 $4.47 $0.72 $72.10 $101.3 $120.80 $158.7Option 3$24.8 $44.94 $84.2 $4.52 $0.72 $75.48 $105.5 $125.65 $164.9Baseline $42.0 $75.64 $141.0 $7.89 $1.14 $130.78 $181.8 $215.45 $280.8Option 1$7.2 $14.21 $28.5 $0.89 $0.45 $0.48 $9.1 $16.04 $30.3Option 2$17.8 $32.40 $60.8 $3.31 $0.56 $55.94 $77.6 $92.21 $120.6Option 3$18.3 $33.30 $62.5 $3.34 $0.55 $58.52 $80.7 $95.71 $124.9Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E MortalityEverywhereaAll benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame ofthe analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over theentire period of this analysis (2012 through 2062). See Appendix D for detail.bA range of recreational fishing benefits is provided, based on the Krinsky and Robb technique, to estimate the 5th and 95th percentile limits on the marginal value per fish predicted by themeta-analysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region- and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explained in Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimatedrecreational use benefits for some T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values for commercial fishing benefitsand T&E species benefits are added to the respective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.cNo significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishinganalysis.dRecreational use benefits from increased abundance of T&E species with potentially high recreational use values (e.g., paddlefish and sturgeon).See Chapter 5 of this report for more detail on EPA’s analysis of T&E benefits.Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.3% Discount Rate7% Discount RateRegulatory OptionAnnualized Benefitsa(2009$, millions)Recreational Fishing BenefitsCommercial FishingBenefitscT&E SpeciesBenefitsd,eTotal BenefitsNonuseBenefitsMarch 28, 2011 10-12 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 10.5 Break-Even Analysis

Comprehensive estimates of total resource value in clude both use and nonuse values, such that the resulting total value estimates may be compared to to tal social cost. Recent economic literature provides substantial support for the hypothesis that mean nonu se 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 per cent—I&E mortality losses at cooling water intake structures under current conditions (the baseline scenar io) consist of either forage species or unlanded recreational and commercial species that are not harvest ed 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 uncertainti es of providing estimates of the magnitude of nonuse values associated with the regulatory options for all re gions, this section provides an alternative approach for evaluating the potential relationship between benefi ts 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 mone tized 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 b ackwards to estimate what the nonuse values would need to be (in terms of w illingness to pay per household per year) in order for total annualized benefits to equal annualized costs. Table 10-12 provid es this assessment for the proposed options. The table shows benefit values using a 3 pe rcent or 7 percent discount rate, respectively.

As shown in Table 10-12, for total annualized benefits to equal tota l 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 percen t discount estimates show that nonuse values per household would have to be $4 to $42, depending on the regulatory option.March 28, 2011 10-13 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table 10-12: Implicit Nonuse Value—Break-Even Analysis, 3 Percent and 7 Percent Discount Rates (2009$)

Regulatory Option a Use Benefits (2009$,
millions) a Annual Social Cost (2009$,

millions) b Annual Nonuse Benefits Necessary to Break Even (2009$) c, d Number of Households

in States with In-sco p e 316(b) Facilities
(millions) e Annual BreakEven Nonuse WTP

per Household (2009$) f

Option 1 $17.11 $383.80 $366.69 114.5 $3.20 Option 2 $48.71 $4,462.90 $4,414.19 114.5 $38.54 Option 3 $50.17 $4,631.62 $4,581.45 114.5 $40.00

Option 1 $15.55 $458.81 $443.26 114.5 $3.87 Option 2 $36.27 $4,699.35 $4,663.08 114.5 $40.71 Option 3 $37.19 $4,862.05 $4,824.86 114.5 $42.12

Scenarios: Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E Mortality Everywhere

a Benefits are discounted using a 3% or 7% discount rate, respectively. Use benefits include estimated commercial fishing benefi ts, recreational fishing benefits, and use benefits for T&E species.

b The total social cost of the final rule includes facility compliance costs and administrative costs.

c Annualized compliance costs minus annualized use benefits.

d Nonuse benefits may also include unmonetized use benefits, i.e., improvements in bird watching.

e From 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) equa l to the

annualized costs. 3% Discount Rate

7% Discount Rate



### While this approach of backing out the “break-e ven” nonuse value per household does not answer the question of what nonuse values might actually be fo r the regulatory options, these results do frame what
the unknown values would have to be in order for be nefits 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 fo r 316(b) regulatory options. However, EPA does not consider HEA appropriate for a primary analysis of n onuse benefits due to limitations of the approach and assumptions required for its applicati on to 316(b) regulatory options.March 28, 2011 11-1 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 op tions presented in the preceding chapte rs of this report, i.e., Options 1, 2, and 3, EPA analyzed an additional regulatory option – Option 4: I for Facilities > 50 MGD – in developing the Proposed 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation. Opti on 4 is the same as Option 1: I 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 r esults for Option 4 are presented sepa rately in this chapter. The methodology used to estimate the benefits of Option 4 ar e identical to those used for Options 1, 2, 3. See Chapters 3 through 9 for additional de tail 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 of fi sh lost at in-scope facilities is presented in terms of age-1 equivalent (A1E) losses within Table 11- 1. All reductions in I&E mortality under Option 4 are associated with reduced impingement. The reduction in national A1E losses is 602 million, or approximately 98 percent of the reductions under Opti on 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 mo rtality 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 ad ditional 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 All Species (million A1E) Forage Species (million A1E) Commercial & Recreational Species (million A1E) Commercial &

Recreational Harvest (million fish) A1E Losses
with Direct Use Value (%)

California 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.1 8.0%

North Atlantic 0.4 0.4 0.1 <0.1 1.5%

Mid-Atlantic 38.6 14.3 24.4 6.1 15.8%

South Atlantic 14.2 13.4 0.8 0.1 0.7%

Gulf of Mexico 34.2 4.3 30.0 4.6 13.3%

Great Lakes 37.9 33.2 4.7 0.5 1.3%

Inland 476.3 448.4 27.9 4.2 0.9%

Total 602.4 514.1 88.3 15.5 2.6%March 28, 2011 11-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 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 est imated annual increase of 5.5 million pounds of commercial harvest (Table 11-2 Error! Reference source not found. ). Monetized nonuse benefits are
based on estimated increase in winter flounder abunda nce of 0.03 percent, calculated using the approach described in Chapter 8. Under Option 4, recreationa l 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 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### 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)

Region Annual Increase in Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Annual Increase in Commercial

Harvest (thousand lbs)

California 35,421 6.5

North Atlantic 1,495 2.9

Mid-Atlantic 548,496 3746.3

South Atlantic 15,882 45.1

Gulf of Mexico 660,672 1448.4

Great Lakes 174,601 225.1

Inland 4,215,546

- Total 5,652,113 5474.3



### Overall, monetized benefits under Option 4 are s lightly less than those estimated for Option 1:

 Using a 3% discount rate, Option 4 results in na tional benefits of $17. 3 million per year, with
estimates based on the 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### 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 na tional benefits of $15. 8 million per year, with
estimates based on the 5 th 

### percentile lower bound and 95 th 

### 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 ma jority of habitat acres. National weighted WTP is estimated to be $510 million and $474 million using discount rates of 3% and 7%, respectively. As described in previous chapters, EPA did not include values estimated using the habitat-based approach
within its estimate of national be nefits as presented in Table 11-3.March 28, 2011 11-3Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable 11-3: Summary of National Benefits ofOption 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) (2009$)Low Mean High Low Mean HighCalifornia $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 - - $0.1 $0.1 $0.1North Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 - $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1Mid-Atlantic $0.8 $1.6 $3.1 $0.3 - $0.4 $1.6 $2.3 $3.9South Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 - - $0.0 $0.0 $0.1Gulf of Mexico $1.4 $2.4 $4.3 $0.6 - - $2.0 $3.0 $4.9Great Lakes $0.6 $0.9 $1.6 $0.0 - - $0.6 $1.0 $1.7Inland $4.9 $10.3 $21.5 - $0.5 - $5.4 $10.8 $22.0Total $7.8 $15.3 $30.8 $1.0$0.5 $0.5 $9.8 $17.3 $32.8California $0.0 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 - - $0.0 $0.1 $0.1North Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 - $0.1 $0.1 $0.1 $0.1Mid-Atlantic $0.7 $1.4 $2.8 $0.3 - $0.4 $1.4 $2.1 $3.5South Atlantic $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 - - $0.0 $0.0 $0.1Gulf of Mexico $1.3 $2.2 $3.9 $0.5 - - $1.8 $2.7 $4.5Great Lakes $0.5 $0.9 $1.5 $0.0 - - $0.6 $0.9 $1.5Inland $4.5 $9.4 $19.6 - $0.4 - $5.0 $9.8 $20.1Total $7.1 $13.9 $28.0 $0.9$0.4 $0.5 $8.9 $15.8 $29.8RegionAnnualized Benefitsa(2009$, millions)Recreational Fishing BenefitsCommercial FishingBenefitscT&E SpeciesBenefitsd,eNonuseBenefitsTotal Benefitsb3% Discount Rate7% Discount RateaAll benefits presented in this table are annualized, i.e., equal to the value of all benefits generated over the time frame ofthe analysis, discounted to 2012, and then annualized over the entire period ofthis analysis (2012 to 2062). See Appendix D for detail.bA 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 metaanalysis. Commercial fishing benefits are computed based on a region-and species-specific range of gross revenue, as explainedin Chapter 6 of this report. EPA estimated recreational use benefits forsome T&E species, as explained in Chapter 5. To calculate the total monetizable value columns (low, mean, high), the values forcommercial fishing benefits and T&E species benefits are added to therespective low, mean, and high values for recreational fishing benefits.cNo significant commercial fishing takes place in the Inland region. Thus, this region is excluded from the commercial fishinganalysis.dRecreational 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 reportfor more detail on EPA’s analysis of T&E benefits.eZeros represent values less than 1,000.March 28, 2011 11-4 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)

3%

Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate
California 96 3 35 - 0.0 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 Re g ions ) - 4,186 53,331 - 509.9 474.0 Region Household

WTP acre -1

year -1
(2009$) Weighted WTP (2009$, millions) Secondary Productivity (kg acre-1 year-1) I&E Losses (metric tons

A1E, dry weight) Equivalent
Restoration Area (acres)March 28, 2011 12-1 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 & Systematics 28 : 317. Abt Associates, Inc. (2009a). Summary of Ecologi cal Effects of Thermal Discharge. Cambridge, MA. Memorandum to EPA dated October 28, 2009. 28. Abt Associates, Inc. (2009b). Wetland Fish Productio n Memo to EPA, WA 02-9 Task 4. December 24,
2009. Abt Associates, Inc. (2010a). Estimates of the am ount 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 Co mparisons (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 Wild life 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 Struct ure 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 (A SMFC) (2010). "Managed Species." Available at http://www.asmfc.org/managedspecies.htm. Auster, P. J. and R. W. Langton (1999). "The eff ects 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 Univer sity. 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--Indu ced 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). "Del aware 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 Wate r Effluents from Power Stations on Marine Life." Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 180 (1061): 497-509. Bartholow, J. M., S. G. Campbell, et al. (2004). "P redicting 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 visi ble choice sets and scope sensitivity." Journal of
Environmental Econom ics 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 12-2 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 a nd 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 Ecosyste ms as Fish and Shellfish Nurseries." Issues in Ecology 11 : 1-12. Beitinger, T. L., W. A. Bennett, et al. (2000). "Tem perature 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." Sedimentology 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). "Usi ng 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." Jour nal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
285-286 : 165-177. Bishop, R. C., W. S. Breffle, et al. (2000). Restor ation Scaling Based on Total Value Equivalency: Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Final Re port. 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-har vest Benefits from Increases in Commercial Fish Catches with Implications for Remediation of Impingement and Entrainment Losses at Power Plants. In Agricultural & Applied Economics St aff Paper Series. University of WisconsinMadison, Department of Agricultural & Applie d 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). "R esource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuati on." 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, compensa tion, 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 Estu ary." American Fisheries Society Monograph 4 : 152-160. Borey, R. B., P. A. Harcombe, et al. (1983). "Wat er 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, Califor nia 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 BenefitBased 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 Deve lopment Act of 2002, before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Un ited States Senate. June 18, 2002.March 28, 2011 12-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Bresette, M., J. Gorham, et al. (1998). "Site Fidelit y 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). "R econstructing 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. Pérez, et al. (1998). "Feeding be haviour 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 Te xas." Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics July : 181-194. Carson, R. T., N. E. Flores, et al. (1999). The Theo ry 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. W illis. New York, Oxford University
Press : 97-130. Cebrian, J. (2002). "Variability and control of car bon 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 Ba y Watershed Assistance Network Access to
Federal Funds: A Collaborative Effort of th e Chesapeake Bay Federal Agencies Committee and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Assistance Ne twork. 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 Eco nomic Research. Working Paper No. 15. Cloete, T. E., L. Jacobs, et al. (1998). "The chemical control of biofouling in industrial water systems." Biodegradation 9 (1): 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 co rals 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). Loggerh ead 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 12-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Costanza, R. and C. Folke (1997). Valuing Ecos ystem Services with Efficiency, Fairness, and Sustainability as Goals. In Nature's servi ces: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems . Daily, G. Washington, D.C., Island Press. Crouse, 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, SouthCarolina." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 33 : 217-229. Dame, R. F., J. D. Spurrier, et al. (1991). "Annual Ma terial 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). "Transporta tion 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 fo r Meat Cuts and Seafood, Selected Paper. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultu ral Economics Association, July 29-August 1, Portland, OR. Day, J., W. Smith, et al. (1973). Community struct ure 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 Commun ities." 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, Doct or 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 Ma rsh 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). Nonm arket valuation of freshwater wetlands: The Francis
Beidler forest. South Carolina Water Resources Re search Institute, Clemson University. 53. Doll, J. P. (1972). "An Economic Analysis of Shri mp 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/foss il/brayton-point-power-station.jsp. EA Engineering, Science, and T echnology (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/samm y.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 12-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Eggers, J. M. (1989). Incidental capture of sea turtl es 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 Ba y, 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 Restora tion 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). S ea 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, Saraso ta, FL, Mote Marine Laboratory. Esteves, B. S., A. Enrich-Prast, et al. (2008). "A llometric relations for Ty pha 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 Pr otection and Restoration. 74 Federal Register 23099 (May 14, 2009). Feijtel, T. C., R. D. Delaune, et al. (1985). "Car bon 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, & Systematics 35 (1): 557-581. Fortier, L. and R. P. Harris (1989). "Optimal foragi ng and density-dependent co mpetition 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 natura l 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-C11.March 28, 2011 12-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### French McCay, D., P. Peterson, et al. (2002). Restora tion 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). "Habita t 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 at www.fishbase.org. Gallagher, J. L. (1975). "Effect of an Ammonium Nitrate Pulse on the Growth and Elemental Composition of Natural Stands of Spartina alte rniflora and Juncus ro emerianus." 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 Me ta-Analysis of Research." Educational Researcher
5 (10): 3-8. Goodyear, C. (1978). Entrainment Impact Estimate s Using the Equivalent Adult Approach, FWS/OBS78/65. 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 r estoration 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 An alysis in Environmental Policy Making. In Working Paper. National Center for Environmental Econom ics, 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. Ellner, 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 Na tural Capital through Ecosystem Service Districts."
Stanford Environmental Law Journal 20 (2): 333-364.March 28, 2011 12-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Hensher, D. and W. Greene (2003). "The Mixed L ogit model: The state of practice." Transportation
30 (2): 133-176. Herman, J. S., D. C. Culver, et al. (2001). "Groundwat er 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). "A bundance, 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 Economi cs 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. Submitte d to Exelon Generation. Iowa Institute of Hydroscience & Engineering (IIHR), Univers ity of Iowa. Iowa City, IA. April, 2004. Holmlund, C. M. and M. Hammer (1999). "Ecosyst em services generated by fish populations." Ecological Economics 29 (2): 253-268. Holt, M. T. and R. C. Bishop (2002). "A semiflex ible normalized quadratic inverse demand system: an application to the price formation of fish." 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 Ge netically 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). "His torical 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 influe nces 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 12-8 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). "C ombining 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). "Estim ating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland." Growth & Change 32 (3): 305-325. Johnston, R. J., M. H. Ranson, et al. (2006). "W hat Determines Willingness to Pay per Fish? A MetaAnalysis of Recreational Fishing Values." Marine Resource Economics 21 (1): 1-32. Johnston, R. J. and R. S. Rosenberger (2010). "Me thods, Trends and Controversies in Contemporary Benefit Transfer." Journal of Economic Surveys 24 (3): 479-510. Johnston, R. J., E. T. Schultz, et al. (2009). Improvi ng the Ecological Validity of Non-Market Valuation: Development and Application of Bioindicator-B ased 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). "E stimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management." Journal of Envir onmental 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." Agri cultural 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 of Thalassia 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 StatedChoice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands. In Me thods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires . Presser, S., J. M. Rothget, M. P. Coup eret al. New York, John Wiley and Sons. Keefe, W. (1972). "Marsh Production: A Summary of th e Literature." Contributions in Marine Science
16 : 163-181. Keller, A. A., C. A. Oviatt, et al. (1999). "Predict ed 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). "Entrainme nt and Impingement of Fish by Power Plants in the Great Lakes which use the Once-Through Cooli ng 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," Th esis, PhD. Louisiana State University. Kirby, C. J. and J. G. Gosselink (1976). "Prima ry 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). "C onsumer Regulation of Nutrient Cycling." Bioscience 29 (1):
28-34. Kneib, R. T. (2003). "Bioenergetic and landscape c onsiderations for scaling expectations of nekton production from intertidal marshes. " Marine Ecology - Progress Series 264

.March 28, 2011 12-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Kotchen, M. J. and S. D. Reiling (2000). "Environmen tal 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 Approximati ng the Statistical Properties of Elasticities." Review
of Economics & Statistics 68 (4): 715. Krishnamoorthy, R., H. E. S. Mohmed, et al. (2008). "Temperature eff ect 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 Productivit y, Litter Production and Decomposition of the Reed Phragmites-Communis in a Nature -Reserve in Hong-Kong - Manage ment 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 of fish swimming mech anics 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 recr uitment." 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 Pl ants 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 Ha bitat 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 con tingent valuation survey." Ecological Economics 33 (1):
103-117. Lorda, E., D. J. Danila, et al. (2000). "Applica tion 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). "Lar val 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). "Phytopla nkton community assessments of seven southeast U.S. cooling reservoirs." Water Research 28 (3): 665-673. Marrasse, C., E. Lim, et al. (1992). "Seasonal and da ily 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 of a Spartina Marsh Which is Receiving Treated Municipal Sewage Wastes. In Studies of Marine and Estuanne Ecosystems Developing with Treated Sewage Wastes, Institu te of Marine Science, University of North Carolina Annual Report 1969-1970. Odum, H. T. and A. F. Chestnut. 317-358.March 28, 2011 12-10 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-produc t allocation under imperfect raw material supply
conditions: the case of fish 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 Halfwa y 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). Fi sh Community Support in Wetlands within Protected Embayments of Lake Ontario. Center for th e Environment, Cornell University. 0380-1330. Available at http://www.sciencedirect .com/science/article/B984D-4VT136FF/2/f80b2fb5a0075204ec24390533ec789c. Mendelssohn, I. and K. Marcellus (1976). "Angiosperm production of thr ee 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 Laborator y (2009). Annual Report 2008: Monito ring 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). Ne t primary productivity of macrophyte communities after nine growing seasons in experimental planted a nd 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 Sc ope: Evidence from a CVM Study of Wetlands . Presented at the American Agricultural Economics Association A nnual Meeting, Nashv ille, TN, August 8-11,
1999. Mullineaux, L. S. and E. D. Garland (1993). "Larva l Recruitment in Response to Manipulated Field Flows." Marine Biology 116 (4): 667-683. Murray, L. and R. L. Wetzel ( 1987). "Oxygen producti on and consumption associated with the major autotrophic components in two temperate seagra ss 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 Re lated Water Management Issues. DOE/NETL2009/1364. April 2009.March 28, 2011 12-11 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

caretta ), Second Revision. National Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, MD. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of th e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2001). Endangered Species Act – Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion, the NMFS Highly Migratory Species Division Office of Su stainable Fisheries’ proposal to authorize fisheries under the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP). National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of th e 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/st1/recreational/queries/catch/snapshot.html. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of th e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2003). "Marine Recreational Fisheries St atistics Intercept Survey." National Marine Fisheries Service. Available at http:// www.st.nmfs.gov/recreational/the_mrfss.html. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of th e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2004). "Shortnose Sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum )." Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/species/fish/Short nose_sturgeon.html. Accessed October 14,
2004. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of th e 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 th e 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 th e 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, Nationa l Marine Fisheries Service. Silver Spring, Maryland. 3. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of th e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2010c). NOAA Fisheries Geographic Info rmation Systems, Fisheries Data: Critical Habitat. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/gis/data/critical.htm. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of th e National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2010d). "NOAA National Marine Fisherie s 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 Resour ce Damage Assessment Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Damage Assessment and Restorati on Program, NOAA, Department of Commerce.
December 1997. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) (2006). Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview. Damage Assessment and Restorati on Program, NOAA, Department of Commerce. March 21, 1995 (Revised October 4, 2000 and May 23, 2006).March 28, 2011 12-12 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_subt opic_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)=1 (in GIS Geodatabase Format). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA) (2010b). 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 Assess ment 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. Kempt horne. 2007. 506 F. Supp. 2d 322. (E.D. Cal. 2007). NatureServe (2009). "NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life." Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. New York State Department of Environmental Cons ervation (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 C onservation (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 Tur tles 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), North east Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 4-8, 2008. U.S. Departme nt 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/wa ter-and-watersheds/upper-mississippi-riverbasin. 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 12-13 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). "E nvironmental Economics in Estuary Management: The Peconic Estuary Program." Maritimes 38 (3): 21-23. Opaluch, J. J., T. Grigalunas, et al. (1998). Res ource 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 (2010b). 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. (200 8). "Climate change and the world's river basins: anticipating management options." Fron tiers 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 Pro duction Required to Sustain Global Fisheries." Nature
374 (6519): 255-257. Penko, J. M. and D. C. Pratt (1986). "Growth a nd Mortality of Shoots in Three Populations of Typha 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 Enda ngered 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). Eval uation of the effects of the Morgantown SES cooling system on spawning and nursery areas of representa tive 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 Ecos ystem 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 Pe rmit 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 alterna tive method for assessing the consequences of fish entrainment and impingement losses at power pl ants and other water intakes." Ecological Modelling 24 (1-2): 79-111. Rapport, D. J. and W. G. Whitford (1999). "H ow Ecosystems Respond to Stress." BioScience 49 (3): 193-
203.March 28, 2011 12-14 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). Prim ary Productivity of Minor Marsh Plants in Delaware, Georgia, and Maine. US Army Corps of Engineer s, 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 reticulata )." Evolution 36 (1): 160-177. Richardson, L. and J. Loomis (2009). "The total economic value of threaten ed, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis." Ecological Economics 68 (5): 1535-1548. Ricker, W. E. (1975). Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish 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 s hoal 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 Wetla nd 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 ma rsh." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
149 (1): 159-168. Roman, C. T. and F. C. Daiber (1989). "Organic-Car bon 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). Corresponden ce and Convergence in Benefit Transfer Accuracy: Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature. In E nvironmental Value Transfer: Issues and Methods

. Navrud, S. and R. Ready, Springer Netherlands. 9: 23-43. Rowe, R. D., W. D. Shaw, et al. (1992). Nest ucca 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 Ec osystem 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-Indige nous 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). "Invasi on 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). "Prot ecting 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 Pe ople Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation." Journal of
Environmental Econom ics and Management 26 (1): 88-109. Schlesinger, W. H. (1997). Biogeochemi stry: an analysis of global change . San Diego, CA, Academic
Press. Schulze, W. D., R. D. Rowe, et al. (1995). Continge nt 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 12-15 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). Bene fit 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). "Benef it Transfer via Preference Calibration: 'Prudential Algebra' for Policy." Land Economics 78 (1): 132. Smythe, A. G. and P. M. Sawyko (2000). "Field and la boratory 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?ParentMenuId=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 at http://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). "Alg al 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 r esource competition, facilitation, and extrinsic factors." Marine Ecology - Progress Series 311 : 251-262. Steever, E. Z. (1972). "Productivity and vegetations st udies of tidal saltmarsh in Stonington Connecticut: Cottrell marsh," Thesis, Masters of Science. Connecticut College. Steeves, P. and D. Nebert (1994). 1:250,000-scale Hydrologic Units of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Vector Digital Data file. Available at http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metada ta/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). "Measu ring 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). "Determi ning Ecological Equivalence in Service-to-Service Scaling of Salt Marsh Restora tion." Environmental Management 29 (2): 290-300. Strange, E. M. (2008). Restoration to Offset Environm ental 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 Natu ral Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, NC. Available at http://www. ncfisheries.net/habitat/chppdocs/F_Wetlands.pdf.
656. Stroud, L. M. and A. W. Cooper (1968). Color-in frared Aerial Photographic Interpretation and Net Primary Production of a Regularly-flooded Nort h Carolina Salt marsh. University of North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute. Report 14. 86.March 28, 2011 12-16 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 selecti ng 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 Aqu aculture Development: Proceedings of the 7th
Biennial Conference of the International Ins titute 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 fo uling 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 Il ha 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 Groundf ish Stock through 2007: Report of the 3rd Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM III). Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Northeast Fisheries Science Center, U.S. Depart ment of Commerce. Woods Hole, MA. Reference
Document 08-15. 2.457-452.528. Thom, R. M. (1988). Benthic Primary Production in the Eelgrass Meadow at the Padilla Bay NationalEstuarine Research Reserve, Washington. NOAA Technical Report Series OCRM/MEMD FRIUW-8808. February 1988. Thomson, C., Economist, National Marine Fisheries Se rvice, 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. Nationa l Fisheries Service, Social Science Branch (2005). Woods Hole, MA. February 18, 2005. Tomasko, D., C. Dawes, et al. (1996). "The effect s 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 imp acts and the degradation or loss of habitat structure." Fisheries Management & Ecology 6 (5): 401-420. Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG) (2000). A ssessment Update for the Kemp’s Ridley and Loggerhead Sea Turtle Populations in the W estern 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 12-17 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### U.S. Census Bureau (2000). "American Factfinde r." Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI) (2008). "F isheries: 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=r esearch_risk&title=Species%20at%20Risk0&menu =research. Accessed June 23, 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wild life Service (USFWS), U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) Economics and Statistics Administration, et al. (2002). 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Asso ciated 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 Nucl ear 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 Labor atory. 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 Inta ke Structures and Industry Short Technical Questionnaire: Phase II Cooling Water Intake St ructures, 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/wa terscience/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 Prot ection 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 Requi rements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities. 40 CFR Part s 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. Offi ce of Science and Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division. EPA-821-R-02-003. February 12. Available at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/316b/phase2/casestud y/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 F acilities. 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 Require ments 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. O ffice 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/t ype/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 12-18 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) (2010b) . "Office of Wetlands website." Available at http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/awm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2009). Fe deral 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) (2010b) . "Environmental Conservation Online System." Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2010c). "N orth Florida Ecological Services Office: Loggerhead Sea Turtle ( Caretta caretta )." Available at http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/seaturtles/tur tle%20factsheets/loggerhead-sea-turtle.htm. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2010d). S port 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). "Na tive 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) (2 003). 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 Manage ment 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 Budge t, United States Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. 184 pp. Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (20 04). "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 Sl udge. Biomass, Production and Speies Composition." Journal of Applied Ecology 12 (3): 973-981. van der Valk, A. G. and C. B. Davis (1978). Pr imary 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). Accessi ng the Accuracy of Benefits Transfer: Evidence from a Multi-Site Contingent Valuation Study of Gr oundwater 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 of fish on nutrient dynamics." Ecology 78 (1): 1-20. Wainger, L. A., D. King, et al. (2001). "Wetla nd 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). "Malad aptive changes in multiple traits caused by fishing: impediments to population recovery." Ecology Letters 9 : 142-148.March 28, 2011 12-19 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Walsh, R. G., J. B. Loomis, et al. (1984). "V aluing Option, Existence, and Bequest Demands for
Wilderness." Land Economics 60 (1): 14-29. Walton, T. E. (1972). "Primary Productivity, Success ion and Management of a New 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 Ri ver): A Marsh CO2 Pump." Limnology and Oceanography 49 (2): 341-354. Water Quality Act (1987). (P.L. 100-4), §317(a)(1 )(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. Biolog y 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 Acti on 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 Environmen tal Goods." Water Resources Research 27 (10): 2523-
2531. Williams, T. M., T. G. Wolaver, et al. (1992). "The Bly 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). "Contribu tion 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 ec onomic value of wetland services: a meta-analysis." Ecological Economics 37 (2): 257-270. Woodwell, G. M., D. E. Whitney, et al. (1977). "T he 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 A-1 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 an d 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 benef its 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 est imate 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 estimat e intake flow at a regional level, a key parameter for the benefits analysis. This section presents new be nefits weights developed by EPA for in-scope manufacturing facilities.

New benefits weights were developed by adjusti ng 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 in cluded 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 availa ble 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 f actors for MN and MU facilities, respectively.

A.2.1 Traditional Manufacturers (MN Facilities)

EPA stratified the universe of MN facilities by stud y 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 al uminum, steel, che mical, pulp and paper, and petroleum refi ning manufacturing industries. Note that
Food and Kindred Products is not included in this list of industr ies 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 industri es were part of the MU universe.

49 The Pacific Northwest region is ultimately excluded from the be nefits analysis because it includes a single DQ facility which is projected to close as baseline.

50 See Chapter 1 for additional informa tion regarding regional definitions.March 28, 2011 A-2 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 bene fits weights based on this distribution.

Determining the Distribution of In-scope Facilities by Study Region

EPA obtained latitude-longitude coordinates (lat-long) fo r all facilities in relevant Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 52 

### that have NPDES permits within PCS (Permit Compliance System) and ICIS-NPDES (Integrated Compliance Information Syst em- NPDES). Facilities within relevant SIC codes were assigned to a study region using lat-long. A map of RF1 reaches 53 

### was also used to indicate whether the facility location is coastal/estuarine or inland. Table A-1 presents the distribution of the facility universe according to region and in dustry based on the PCS/ICIS data.

The sample frame for the survey screener of manufac turing 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 in dustry equals the sum of DQ facilities weights and (2) the geographic distribution of NPDES permitted f acilities in the relevant SIC codes is representative of the geographic distribution of in-scope facilities.

For each industry, EPA assumed that the geographi c 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-1 present the estimated distribution of in-sc ope MN facilities based on PCS/ICIS data. 54



### Calculating Adjusted Weights for Benefits Analysis

EPA first compared the regional distribution of weight ed of in-scope DQ facilities to the distribution of facilities present in the PCS/ICIS universe. Table A-1 presents the distribution of DQ facilities based on technical weights, the weight adjustment factor s 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 adjustme nt 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 fac ilities universe indicated that a region had a small number of facilities within a single industry and did no t have DQ facilities (e.g., the North Atlantic region for the Aluminum sector), EPA assumed that no in-s cope facilities existed within the stratum. Because regions without DQ facilities comprised a small fract ion 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 act ual flow would be fully counted. The cost analysis

51 Weights were not adjusted for petroleum refineries because survey screeners were sent to the entire universe and DQs were sent to all in-scope fac ilities. Weights for faciliti es determined to be in other industr ies after receipt of the DQ were given weights of 1, which were not adjusted.

52 The SIC code describes the prim ary activity of the facility.

53 EPA’s reach file (RF1) is a database of interconnected steam segments of “reaches” that comprise the surface water drainage system for the United States.

54 EPA used the following databases to obtain information on the numb er 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-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### estimates 32 facilities to close under baseline cond itions. Accordingly, EPA excluded the baseline closures and their weights from the benefits analysis and weights readjustment.

The final two columns of Table A-1 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 regi on 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-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table A-1: MN DQ Distribution and Calc ulation of Weight Adjustment Factors

Benefits Region Distribution of
Facilities in
PCS/ICIS
Databases Number of Regional Mean Operational Flow (MGD)

Number % DQweighted
Facilities 1 Adjustment
Factor Adjusted Weight
Estimates DQweighted Adjusted Weight
Estimates
Aluminum North Atlantic 7 6% No DQs 2 0 No DQs 0.0 Mid-Atlantic 11 9% No DQs 2 0 No DQs 0.0 South Atlantic 1 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
Great Lakes 2 2% 3 0.09 1 30.3 9.7 Gulf of Mexico 1 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 Pacific Northwest 0 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 California 0 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
Inland 95 81% 13 1.01 13 87.0 88.3
Total 117 100% 16 14 117.3 98.0
Chemical North Atlantic 16 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
Mid-Atlantic 75 6% 4 2.14 9 28.7 61.3
South Atlantic 9 1% 4 0.26 1 56.4 14.5
Great Lakes 32 3% 17 0.23 4 331.0 77.1
Gulf of Mexico 100 8% 4 2.85 12 283.9 809.8 Pacific Northwest 4 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
California 5 0% 4 0.14 1 1.5 0.4 Inland 951 80% 112 1.04 117 1,782.8 1,860.0

Total 1,192 100% 146 144 2,484.3 2,823.1 Paper North Atlantic 2 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 Mid-Atlantic 7 2% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 South Atlantic 8 2% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
Great Lakes 19 5% 3 1.684 5 6.7 11.2 Gulf of Mexico 2 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 Pacific Northwest 3 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
California 3 0 0% 3 1.00 3 32.2 32.2 Inland 354 90% 91 0.95 86 1,242.9 1,181.4

Total 395 100% 96 94 1,281.8 1,224.8
Steel North Atlantic 3 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 Mid-Atlantic 5 2% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 South Atlantic 1 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 Great Lakes 25 10% 6 0.54 3 2,054.3 1,112.1 Gulf of Mexico 3 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 Pacific Northwest 1 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 California 2 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
Inland 214 84% 28 1.03 29 519.6 535.0

Total 254 100% 34 32 2,573.9 1,647.1
Petroleum North Atlantic 0 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
Mid-Atlantic 2 11% 2 1.00 2 203.4 203.4 South Atlantic 0 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0 Great Lakes 0 0% No DQs 4 0 No DQs 0.0
Gulf of Mexico 1 6% 1 1.00 1 42.6 42.6 Pacific Northwest 0 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
California 1 6% 1 1.00 1 31.8 31.8
Inland 15 78% 15 1.00 15 250.7 250.7

Total 19 100% 19 19 528.4 528.4March 28, 2011 A-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table A-1: MN DQ Distribution and Calc ulation of Weight Adjustment Factors

Benefits Region Distribution of
Facilities in
PCS/ICIS
Databases Number of Regional Mean Operational Flow (MGD)

Number % DQweighted
Facilities 1 Adjustment
Factor Adjusted Weight
Estimates DQweighted Adjusted Weight
Estimates
Other
Inland 1 100% 1 1.00 1 4.1 4.1

Total 1 100% 1 1 4.1 4.1
Total for All Industries North Atlantic 28 1% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
Mid-Atlantic 100 5% 6 11 232.0 264.7
South Atlantic 19 1% 4 1 56.4 14.5 Great Lakes 78 4% 29 13 2,422.3 1,210.0
Gulf of Mexico 107 5% 5 13 326.5 852.4 Pacific Northwest 8 0% No DQs 0 No DQs 0.0
California 8 0% 8 5 65.5 64.4 Inland 1,630 82% 259 260 3,887.0 3,919.5

Total 1,978 100% 312 304 6,989.8 6,325.5

1 EPA did not adjust weights for petroleum refineries because th e DQ was a census of in-scope f acilities, nor for facilities in “ other” industries because they were outside the five SIC codes for whic h weights were developed and ar e not assumed to represent any
other facilities.

2 Though these regions account for more than 5% of Aluminum manufacturers but have no DQs, th e average flow for Aluminum
manufacturers is less than 10 MGD. Potential benefits asso ciated with these facilities would be relatively minor.

3 While 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.

4 There was 1 DQ refinery in the Great Lakes region. However th is 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 st udy 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 distri bution of MU facilities with locati on 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 f actor 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 una ble to develop adjustment factor s using total flow as a contr ol
variable.March 28, 2011 A-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### 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
Facilities from In-scope
Distribution DQweighted
Facilities Adjustment
Factor Total Original Weighted Flow (MGD) Total Adjusted Weighted Flow (MGD)

MU Facilities
North Atlantic 6 5 1.2 220.9 275.3
Mid-Atlantic 3 6 0.5 440.8 369.0 South Atlantic 2 No DQs No DQs 0.0 Great Lakes 14 12 1.2 1,186.4 1,400.0
Gulf of Mexico 8 6 1.3 577.0 744.0
Pacific Northwest 0 1 0.0 0 0.0
California 2 1 2.0 3.6 7.3 Inland 163 174 0.9 9,464.7 8,880.9 Total 198 205 11,893.5 11,676.6
NU Facilities Determined to be Manufacturers 1

Inland N/A 12 16 392.9 392.9 Paper
Grand Total N/A 217 12,286.4 12,069.5

1 Two facilities that were surveyed as non-u tilities (NU) were later determined to be non-utility manufacturers and are analyzed as such in the cost analysis. Their weights were not ad justed because they were not part of th e original MU facility universe and are both in the inland region. Given that the majority of MU facilities are located in the Inland regi on the use of original weights is unlikel y to bias regional benefit results



### A.3 Electric Power Generating Facilities

The benefits analysis for electric power generati ng facilities uses a combination of weights from the 316(b) Phase II and Phase III analyses and sample wei ghts 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 weights

. 56



### When estimating national-level benefits, sample weights based on facility-specific (e.g., size and engineering) characteristics can lead to conditional bi as. In particular, this approach does not consider factors influencing the occurrence and size of benef its 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 th at account for data dimensions not included in the original sample design. These benefits weights re-s cale DQ-based weights using additional information from the STQ so that total regional flows represente d 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-stratif ied weighting schemes and compares these to the original DQ weights.

56 In general, the original survey weights are numerically very lo w, as EPA had either DQ or STQ information for 621 out of the 634 electric generating facilities pr esumed to be in scope of the regulation. For more information on EPA’s Section 316(b) Industry Surveys, please refer to the In formation Collection Request (USEPA 2000b).March 28, 2011 A-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation AA 

### A.3.1 Defining the Strata and Control Variables

EPA included six study regions when developing bene fits 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 adju st weights are presented in Table A-3.

I&E mortality losses are largely a function of mean ope rational 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 estim ation, 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 DIF so that benefit estimates accurately reflect changes in technology under the options analyzed under the regulation.

Table A-3: Matrix of Strata and Cont rol Variables for Adjusting DQ Weights

Strata Mean Operational Flow (GPD)

Facilities with Recirculation Technology 1 Facilities without Recirculation Technology

DIF < 125

MGD DIF > 125
MGD DIF < 125
MGD DIF > 125
MGD

North Atlantic 0 0 238 6,510

Mid-Atlantic 68 0 257 26,518

South Atlantic 46 0 0 7,033

Gulf of Mexico 0 0 0 9,049

Great Lakes 57 181 c 343 15,428

Inland 1,258 2,221 1,900 117,989

California 2 0 0 0 1,135

Total 1,429 2,402 2,738 183,663

1 Includes all electric generating facilities with recirc ulating technology regardless of intake velocity.

2 Generators in the state of California were excluded fr om 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 DIF threshold correspond to the best est imates of operational flow based on information provided by both DQ and STQ questionnaires. Estima ted mean operational flow under various weighting procedures are presented in Table A-4. Regional contro l total is calculated usi ng 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 fl ow of facilities to which weights are applied. By design, the post-stratification estimate of mean operationa l flow equals the control total estimate. Benefits weights are determined as the quotient of the cont rol total divided by the DQ total. The number ofMarch 28, 2011 A-8 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 cont rol total. Thus, although total operational flow is equi valent, the number of facilities estimat ed 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 th e variance of the new weights to examine their reasonableness. Weights with smaller variance genera lly lead to estimates with smaller variance unless the larger variance of the weights reflects the char acteristics 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 wei ghts is the best approach. This is accomplished by assigning an equal weight to all facilities within a give n 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 charact eristics 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 Fac ilities Without Recirculation (MGD)

Region Recirculating Flow Non-recirculating Flow

< 125 DIF (MGD) > 125 DIF (MGD) < 125 DIF (MGD) > 125 DIF (MGD)

DQ
Total Control
Total DQ
Total Control
Total DQ
Total Control
Total DQ
Total Control
Total

North Atlantic 0 0 0 0 209 238 2,978 6,510

Mid-Atlantic 58 68 0 0 231 257 8,743 26,518

South
Atlantic 1a 0 46 0 0 0 0 3,481 7,033

Gulf of
Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,751 9,049

Great Lakes 0 57 0 181 c 120 343 5,199 15,428

Inland 528 1,258 620 2,221 1,003 1,900 51,560 117,989

Total 587 1,429 620 2,402 1,625 2,799 80,631 194,997

1 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 DIF strata. Their flow wa s added to the respective non-recirculating totals when calculati ng benefits weights, and are assigned the sa me benefits weights as non-recirculating facilities within the same region and DIF cat egory.March 28, 2011 B-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation B 

## Appendix B: Consideration of Potential Ecological Effects due to Thermal Discharges

B.1 Introduction

Impacts of thermal discharges, along with other str essors, are a relevant consideration when assessing the potential impacts of electric power plant cooling wate r 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 th e need for NPDES permit writers to consider sitespecific factors when assessing the potential eco logical effects due to thermal discharges.

This appendix provides information on the general ef fects 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 Po int Beach Nuclear Plant) which underwent detailed thermal studies under Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 31 6(a) provisions and which show the importance of site specific factors in determining the pot ential for appreciable harm. The Section 316(a)
demonstrations described in the three case st udies represent unusually complete and thorough investigations of thermal impacts to receiving aquati c 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 wher e 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. Im pacts 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 ot herwise 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 Dischar ges on Aquatic Biota and Ecosystems

Thermal discharges affect aquatic organisms by elev ating water temperatures or altering seasonal patterns of temperature change. Temperature is consider ed 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 wa ter column. There is a well-established scientific literature cataloguing the impacts of elevated or vari able 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-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Much of the relevant primary research on power pl ant thermal discharges dates from the 1970's-1980's; typically based on laboratory studies, field inv estigations, or environmental impact assessments associated with the siting, permitting, and/or operati on 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 ma y affect aquatic species growth, survival and reproduction, altered community divers ity 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 crossreferencing appropriate permitting databases 57



### . Primary Producers

Thermal discharges affect aquatic primary productio n through direct effects on photosynthetic activity and selection of temperature-tolerant species in phytoplankton, periphyton, macroalgae and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) and indirect ly 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 commun ities of algae than those present in the background waters. Several authors suggest that residual chlori ne (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 st udies found that the growth rates of bacteria and water temperatures are positively correlate d. In contrast, Choi et al. (2002) found lower rates of bacteria production near outfalls but attributes this effect to re sidual chlorine in the discharge water rather than temperature alone.

Zooplankton

Zooplankton and other pelagic macroinvertebrates ty pically 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 mort alities of copepods. As no ted for other organisms,

57 Abt Associates used several general search engines for prelimin ary 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 NP DES permits and related Sect ion 316a/316b studies.March 28, 2011 B-3 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, r espectively, exhibit more rapid growth at higher temperatures, but both studies also observe greater sp ecies 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 nucl ear 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 te mperature tolerance and thermal limits in both the laboratory and field. The thermal habitat requirement s of coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater fish species are well-characterized (e.g., Beitinger et al. 20 00; Sullivan et al. 2000) and these may be the basis for regulatory sub-classification of water bodies. Therma l discharges can influence the spatial distribution of fish due to direct responses to altered temperat ure (i.e., attraction, avoidance), effect on dissolved oxygen concentrations, and impacts to prey and ha bitat availability (Cooke et al. 2004; Sullivan et al. 2000). Rapid fluctuations and decreases in water temp erature, usually associated with steep thermal gradients in temperate winter waters, can lead to “co ld 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 sp ecies (gizzard shad) had lower survival rates. Some studies of thermal discharges have not observed signifi cant 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 ac ute lethal temperatures are rarely, if ever, observed in the field. Specifically, this study suggests that th ere is little or no risk of mortality if the annual maximum temperature is less than 26°C, but suggest s a site-specific analysis when annual maximum temperatures exceed 24°C.

Ecosystem Functions and Services

In addition to the species-specific impacts, investigat ors have looked at the effects of thermal discharges on the structuring of species assemblages and commu nities, 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 preferre d water temperatures for avian birds and mammals.

Work in seven Southeastern U.S. cooling reservoirs i ndicated that direct thermal effects on phytoplankton communities were generally minimal, but that the sma ller reservoirs were more prone to algal blooms due to nutrient trapping and elevated temperatures (Malli n et al. 1994). Indirect effects of excessive thermal
loads in these reservoirs caused eco system-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 temper ature exhibited lowered photosynthetic capacity andMarch 28, 2011 B-4 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 ther mal discharge on fish communities and habitat structure in rocky substrates near a nuclear power plant in so utheastern 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 imp acted area and this was attributed to effects to
differences in benthic cover of a hab itat former (i.e., reduced abundance of Sargassum weed).



### B.3 Influence of Site-Specific Factor s and Environmental Setting on Thermal
Effects

As noted above, the environmental setting (i.e., the na ture 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 pa tterns usually dictate the observed level of thermal deviations for any given discharge, several environm ental factors may be important in determining the magnitude of potential impacts, including: geographi c location, marine vs. freshwater environments, volume of receiving water, rate of water exch ange, other heat loads, and local habitats.

Geographic location

Geographic location determines the dur ation and intensity of annual solar heating and usually dictates the resulting maximum ambient temperatures for the recei ving 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 chroni c water temperatures in excess of 35-40 o 

### C (Brock 1985). Northerly receiving waters will have lower maximum ambient temp eratures 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 gr eater in freshwaters simply due to the presumption that marine waters constitute a greater thermal r eservoir due to larger volume and tidal flushing. However, as noted above, site-sp ecific features will dictate the effective volume and the flushing rate, which are likely to be the key to vulnerability of r eceiving water ecosystem to thermal impacts. Clearly, the magnitude of thermal impacts also depends on th e 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 canMarch 28, 2011 B-5 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 significantl y 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 ther mal 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 likel y 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 urba n areas having watersheds with large percentages of impervious cover may produce large storm water fl ows with temperatures that are well above ambient temperatures in the receiving waters. Agricultural la nds 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 artificia l 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 si nce these largely sessile comm unities are affixed to the substrate. On the other hand, mob ile aquatic organisms can track temp erature change and fine-tune their temporal and spatial distribution (Cooke et al. 2004) . Biota can sometimes avoi d adverse thermal impacts by seeking out localized areas of cooler or better aerat ed waters (e.g., deep pool, tributary stream, bottomwaters) for short-term or seasonal residence. These areas provide habitat that may allow the temperaturesensitive 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 constr uction and operation (e.g., bottom water releases) has also been a concern in western rivers and elsewhere (B artholow et al. 2004; Hayes et al. 2006).



### B.4 Uncertainties and Limitati ons of Assessing Thermal Impacts

One of the major difficulties in accu rately characterizing the influence of thermal discharges on aquatic communities is the uncertainty due to the potential in fluence 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: residua l chlorine, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, cleaning agents and surfact ants, metals, and nutrients. The presence of these constituents mayMarch 28, 2011 B-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### complicate the interpretation of the environmental fact or(s) that are responsible for observed changes in
biotic communities.

For example, several of our studies on thermal effect s 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, a nd abundant forage so selection for this habitat may not be a simple thermal preference.

Adverse temperature effects may also be more pr onounced in aquatic ecosystems which are already subject to other environmental stressors such as hi gh biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels, sediment contamination, or pathogens. Thermal discharges may ha ve indirect effects on fish and other vertebrate populations through increasing pathogen growth and in fection 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 te nded to be lower in cooler waters.



### B.5 Case Studies

Three case studies were selected for large power gene rating 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 po tential effects investigated at differing spatial scales (community, habitat, ecosystem).

B.5.1 Brayton Point Station

Brayton Point Station (BPS) 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 regul atory 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 BPS. The permitee’s 316(a) varian ce request application looked to keep the existing permit temperature criteria (maximum temperature of 95 o 

### F; delta (departure from ambient) temperature of

22 o 

### 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 requi red 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 propagati on of a balanced indigeno us population (BIP) of shellfish, fish and wildlife in and on that body of wa ter.” To evaluate whether the thermal limits proposed in the May 2001 316(a) variance request applicati on would meet this protective criterion, EPA, in accordance with the 316(a) Tec hnical Guidance Manual (USEPA 1977), conducted a review of the
historical and current conditions of MHB biota on a community-by-community evaluation and consideredMarch 28, 2011 B-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### potential thermal impacts to phytoplankton, zooplankton, habitat formers, shellfish, finfish, and other vertebrate (i.e., sea turtles and mammalian) wildlife. The findings of the commun ity impact analyses are
contained in the “ Clean Water Act NPDES Permitting Determ inations 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 colu mn distribution within MHB relative to the location and magnitude of the BPS thermal discharge would resu lt 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 imp act 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) o ccurrence of a nuisance blue-green algal bloom (dominated by the cyanophyte Anacystis aeruginosa ) 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 plankt on communities in experimental mesocosms where temperature was shifted to mimic the expected ther mal 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 trophi c 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 finfish 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 a nd 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 th is 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 le vels, 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 w ith increasing turbidity (Bulthuis 1987) so that in turbid waters, eelgrass growth decreases with in creased 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 wate r 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-8 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 “su bstantial” densities, the spawning and nursery areas in MHB, and the important role in ecosystem f unction 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 wh en BPS has been active and the annual heat flux was increased. The sampling also indicates a strong representation in the benthic community of the amphipod Ampelisca which is a preferred prey item for juven ile winter flounder. Overall, EPA found no
substantial evidence of harm to shellfish and macroi nvertebrates from the current thermal discharge, and any alternative which reduces the ther mal 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, th e important spawning and nursery areas, and the potential for blockage of fish 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 ch ronic mortality as well as for several sub-lethal effects for some representative important species (RIS).

The finfish stocks in MHB have declined precipit ously since 1984-1985, a period which marked the shift of Unit 4 at BPS from closed-cycle to once-through c ooling operations. Further, work by Gibson (2002) suggests that winter flounder have been declining si nce 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 le d EPA to conclude that an annual heat flux of 28 trillion British thermal units (tBTU) to MHB, as propo sed 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 revi ewed to establish temperature thresholds for the more sensitive of these species (winter flounder, stri ped 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 th e period (March 1 -31) of active winter flounder spawning and when large numbers of larval plankton ic 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-fi eld effects; WQMAP for far-field effects) of MHB provided a means of evaluating the potential thermal im pacts caused by the current (i.e., existing permit), the proposed (i.e., the requested 316(a) variance), an d 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 opti ons would have reduced impact proportional to their proposed total heat fluxes. Using this method, it is possible to s how 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 finf ish 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 fa ll and winter and disrupts their seasonal migration. The crowding of large numbers of these species into a rest ricted area increases the potential for weakening orMarch 28, 2011 B-9 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 trappi ng 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 eviden ced 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 fo r 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 alternativ e 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 th ermal 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 juven ile 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 fo r 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 stre ssors that could be responsible for mortality of finfish in MHB; including overfishing, predators, water quality, brown tides, and I&E (USEPA 2002b). Each of these stressors was examined for its potentia l role in causing or contributing to the finfish collapse. Analyses of these other potential stressors i ndicated that while possibly contributory, the adverse effects of each were generally exacerbated by th e thermal conditions caused by the BPS plume.

Based on the hydrothermal and ecological analyses conducted and documented in the Determinations document, EPA concluded that a BIP has not been ma intained in MHB and that the current BPS thermal discharge is a significant contributor to this pr oblem (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 balanc ed 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-10 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 nu clear fueled steam electric generating facility (SIC 4911) located on a 765-acre site along the Mississippi Ri ver in Cordova, Illinois. QCNS Units I (866 net megawatts (MW)) and 2 (871 net MW) began commer cial production of electricity in 1973. QCNS withdraws water from the Mississippi River for non-c ontact condenser cooling and various service water uses. After passing through the conden sers, 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 St ation’s NPDES Permit, issued by the ILEPA. Thermal
limits in the NPDES Permit are based on Illinoi s environmental regulations, and studies and Demonstrations related to the thermal plume are pe rformed under CWA Section 316(a). During the latest NDPES permit renewal cycle, QCNS requested issuan ce of a 316(a) variance for a proposed alternative thermal standard, specifically relaxation of a maximum thermal excursion temperature limits by 2 o 

### 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) of fish, wildlife, and shellfis h, 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 mo deling and field surveys, review of current (“prospective analysis”) and historic (“retrospectiv e 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 assessm ents are contained in the “ Quad Cities Nuclear Station Adjusted Thermal Standard CWA 316(a) Demonstration. Final Draft ” (HDR 2009) dated November 2009 (hereafter “ Demonstration ”) and summarized below.

The thermal plume model study was able to successfu lly 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-s pecific 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 macroinvertebra tes (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) of fish. RIS species selected for the QCNS Demonstration included largemouth bass, channel catfish, spotfin shiner, and walleye. River and plant operati ng 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 indi cate that the proposed alte rnative thermal standard would have a negligible impact on largemouth bass, ch annel 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-11 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 overa ll stability and health of upper trophic levels over the length of the monitoring period suggests that lo wer trophic levels (i.e., zooplankton, phytoplankton) have remained stable and abundant, providing an adequa te 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 of fish ha ve come to predominate in Pool 14 due to QCNS operations (HDR 2009).

In addition, the Demonstration examined the potential for harmfu l interactions between the QCNS thermal discharge and other pollutants, including dissolved organic carbon, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, biocides (i.e., anti-fouling chemicals), h eavy metals, and other thermal discharges located upstream. This analysis indicated that there wa s no evidence to suggest that the small amount of additional heat that would be permitted to be disch arged 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) De monstrations 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 distributio n 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, wit hout a detailed and convincing justification of why the destruction should not constitute a basis of denial; and

 No detrimental interaction with other pollu tants, discharges, or water-use activities. Based on the results of the thermal plume modeling st udy, the prospective analysis, the retrospective assessment, and the successful meeting of the criteria lis ted 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 nuc lear powered steam electric generating units with a total net capacity of 1,540 megawatts thermal (MWt) each. Generation Unit 1 began commercialMarch 28, 2011 B-12 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 oncethrough cooling water system (EA 2008). Cooling water is withdrawn from a deep intake (22 ft contour) in Lake Michigan and current pumping capacity is es timated 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 in take water temperature at the maximum flow rate (EA 2008).

PBNP planned to implement an extended power uprat e (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 wit hdrawn 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 El imination 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 maximu m 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., th e “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 temper ature 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 e xpected responses of 16 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource (WDNR) selected Representative Impor tant Species (RIS) to the projected higher discharge temperatures and larger thermal plume th at will result from the planned EPU. The evaluation placed emphasis on the RIS and whether or not the BI C 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 phytopla nkton 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 a nd 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 structur es. 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 differentMarch 28, 2011 B-13 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 mode l results using a 0.2 ft/sec along-shore current, the planned EPU would expand the surface area of the 6. 0oC contour from 27 to 39 acres; the 4.0oC contour would increase from 79 to 105 acres; and the 2.0oC contour would increase from 315 to 390 acres (EA 2008). These projected increases in plume size are relativ ely small compared to the surface area available for mixing. Under critical summer conditions the b uoyant plume provides an area of safety as well as a zone of passage when discharge temperatures appr oach 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 po int 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 planne d 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 Michig an 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 opera ting 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, 2011C-1Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC:Appendix C: Details of Regional I&E Mortality LossesCC.1 CaliforniaTable C-1: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the California Region (million A1Esper year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species0.20 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.17 17.35 <0.01 14.79 15.47 <0.01 17.56 0.18 14.99 15.67 0.17All harvested species0.59 0.52 0.58 0.59 0.50 18.69 <0.01 15.93 16.66 <0.01 19.28 0.52 16.51 17.25 0.50American shad <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Cabezon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01California halibut <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.23 <0.01 0.20 0.21 <0.01 0.23 <0.01 0.20 0.21 <0.01California scorpionfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Crabs (other) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 7.80 <0.01 6.65 6.95 <0.01 7.82 0.02 6.67 6.98 0.02Sea Basses <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.83 <0.01 2.41 2.52 <0.01 2.83 <0.01 2.41 2.53 <0.01Shrimp (other) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.63 <0.01 0.53 0.56 <0.01 0.63 <0.01 0.54 0.57 <0.01Drums and croakers 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.23 <0.01 0.19 0.20 <0.01 0.27 0.04 0.24 0.25 0.04Dungeness crab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Flounders 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.10 <0.01 0.08 0.09 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.09 0.10 <0.01Fish (other) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01Northern anchovy 0.34 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.03 <0.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.38 0.30 0.37 0.37 0.29Rockfishes 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 6.33 <0.01 5.39 5.64 <0.01 6.34 0.01 5.41 5.66 0.01Salmon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sculpins 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.43 <0.01 0.36 0.38 <0.01 0.44 0.01 0.38 0.39 0.01Smelts <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01Sunfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Surfperches 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10Total (all species) 0.79 0.69 0.78 0.79 0.68 36.04 <0.01 30.72 32.13 <0.01 36.83 0.69 31.50 32.92 0.68Scenarios: 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 forFacilities > 50 MGD)I&EEntrainmentImpingementMarch 28, 2011C-2Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-2: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the California Region (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4American shad<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Blennies<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 914.88<0.01 389.87407.84<0.01 914.88<0.01 389.87407.84<0.01Bluegill<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Brown bullhead<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Cabezon<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.65<0.01 2.832.96<0.01 6.65<0.01 2.832.96<0.01California halibut<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 7.71<0.01 3.293.44<0.01 7.72<0.01 3.293.44<0.01California scorpionfish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Chinook salmon<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Crabs (other)0.050.020.030.030.027,238.91<0.01 3,084.813,227.00<0.01 7,238.960.023,084.833,227.030.02Delta smelt<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Drums and croakers0.410.180.200.210.18915.22<0.01 390.01407.99<0.01 915.630.18390.22408.200.18Dungeness crab<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.09<0.01 0.040.04<0.01 0.09<0.01 0.040.04<0.01Fish (other)0.090.040.040.040.041,299.61<0.01 553.82579.35<0.01 1,299.700.04553.86579.390.04Flounders0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 319.23<0.01 136.04142.31<0.01 319.24<0.01 136.04142.31<0.01Gobies<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1,579.24<0.01 672.98704.00<0.01 1,579.24<0.01 672.98704.00<0.01Herrings0.060.020.030.030.0226.23<0.01 11.1811.69<0.01 26.280.0211.2011.720.02Longfin smelt<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Northern anchovy0.860.380.420.430.37826.63<0.01 352.26368.50<0.01 827.490.38352.68368.930.37Pacific herring<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 36.16<0.01 15.4116.12<0.01 36.17<0.01 15.4116.12<0.01Rockfishes0.030.010.010.010.0163.96<0.01 27.2628.51<0.01 63.990.0127.2728.530.01Sacramento splittail<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Salmon<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sculpins0.02<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 47.94<0.01 20.4321.37<0.01 47.96<0.01 20.4421.38<0.01Sea Basses<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13.24<0.01 5.645.90<0.01 13.24<0.01 5.645.90<0.01Shrimp (other)0.030.010.020.020.01429.24<0.01 182.92191.35<0.01 429.270.01182.93191.360.01Silversides0.110.050.050.060.05121.84<0.01 51.9254.31<0.01 121.950.0551.9754.370.05Smallmouth bass<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Smelts<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.63<0.01 1.551.62<0.01 3.63<0.01 1.551.62<0.01Striped bass<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 11.31<0.01 4.825.04<0.01 11.31<0.01 4.825.04<0.01Sunfish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Surfperches0.130.060.060.060.06<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.130.060.060.060.06Total (all species)1.820.800.900.900.7713,861.76<0.01 5,907.096,179.38<0.01 13,863.580.805,907.986,180.280.77Scenarios: 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.Impingement Entrainment I&EAMarch 28, 2011C-3Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC.2 North AtlanticTable C-3: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the North Atlantic(million A1Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species0.55 0.38 0.54 0.55 0.38 46.46 <0.01 37.88 39.74 <0.01 47.02 0.38 38.42 40.29 0.38All harvested species0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 12.90 <0.01 10.52 11.03 <0.01 12.98 0.06 10.60 11.11 0.06American plaice <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01American shad <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Atlantic cod <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01Atlantic herring <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.12 <0.01 0.10 0.11 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 0.10 0.11 <0.01Atlantic mackerel <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Atlantic menhaden <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01Bluefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Butterfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Crabs (other) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02Cunner <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 4.26 <0.01 3.47 3.64 <0.01 4.26 <0.01 3.47 3.64 <0.01Fish (other) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Pollock <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Red hake <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sculpins <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.94 <0.01 1.58 1.66 <0.01 1.94 <0.01 1.59 1.66 <0.01Scup <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Searobin <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01Silver hake <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Skates <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Tautog <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.09 0.10 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.09 0.10 <0.01Weakfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01White perch <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Windowpane <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Winter flounder 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 6.35<0.01 5.18 5.43 <0.01 6.38 0.02 5.20 5.46 0.02Total (all species) 0.63 0.43 0.62 0.63 0.43 59.37 <0.01 48.40 50.77 <0.01 60.00 0.43 49.02 51.40 0.43Impingement Entrainment I&EScenarios: 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, 2011C-4Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-4: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the North Atlantic (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Alewife 0.050.020.030.030.025.76<0.01 2.352.46<0.01 5.810.022.372.490.02American plaice <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 199.21<0.01 81.2085.19<0.01 199.21<0.01 81.2085.19<0.01American sandlance 0.160.060.080.080.061,469.03<0.01 598.82628.20<0.01 1,469.200.06598.90628.280.06American shad <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Atlantic cod <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 117.38<0.01 47.8550.19<0.01 117.38<0.01 47.8550.19<0.01Atlantic herring0.030.010.010.010.0187.31<0.01 35.5937.33<0.01 87.340.0135.6037.350.01Atlanticmackerel <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 7,067.69<0.01 2,880.993,022.33<0.01 7,067.69<0.01 2,880.993,022.33<0.01Atlanticmenhaden 0.02<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 4,206.13<0.01 1,714.541,798.65<0.01 4,206.15<0.01 1,714.551,798.66<0.01Atlanticsilverside 0.140.050.070.070.0596.58<0.01 39.3741.30<0.01 96.710.0539.4341.370.05Atlantic tomcod <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.28<0.01 2.562.68<0.01 6.28<0.01 2.562.69<0.01Bayanchovy0.030.010.020.020.0155,820.08<0.01 22,753.8523,870.13<0.01 55,820.110.0122,753.8623,870.150.01Bluebackherring<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bluefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06<0.01 0.020.02<0.01 0.06<0.01 0.020.02<0.01Butterfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 12.15<0.01 4.955.20<0.01 12.16<0.01 4.965.20<0.01Crabs (other) 0.040.010.020.020.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.040.010.020.020.01Cunner <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 29,170.94<0.01 11,890.9112,474.26<0.01 29,170.95<0.01 11,890.9112,474.27<0.01Fish (other) 0.060.020.030.030.02521.45<0.01 212.56222.99<0.01 521.510.02212.59223.020.02Fourbeardrockling<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 464.23<0.01 189.23198.52<0.01 464.23<0.01 189.23198.52<0.01Grubby0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 431.08<0.01 175.72184.34<0.01 431.10<0.01 175.73184.35<0.01Hogchoker 0.040.010.020.020.01549.17<0.01 223.86234.84<0.01 549.220.01223.88234.860.01Lumpfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 44.89<0.01 18.3019.20<0.01 44.89<0.01 18.3019.20<0.01Northernpipefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.15<0.01 0.470.49<0.01 1.16<0.01 0.470.49<0.01Pollock <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.46<0.01 1.411.48<0.01 3.47<0.01 1.411.48<0.01Radiated shanny<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 110.36<0.01 44.9947.19<0.01 110.36<0.01 44.9947.19<0.01Rainbow smelt 0.050.020.030.030.0217.65<0.01 7.197.55<0.01 17.700.027.227.570.02Red hake <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Rockgunnel <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 395.87<0.01 161.37169.29<0.01 395.88<0.01 161.37169.29<0.01Sculpins <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 218.67<0.01 89.1393.51<0.01 218.67<0.01 89.1493.51<0.01Scup <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 16.64<0.01 6.787.12<0.01 16.65<0.01 6.797.12<0.01Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-5Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-4: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the North Atlantic (million A1Es peryear), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Seaboardgoby<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2,379.58<0.01 969.991,017.57<0.01 2,379.58<0.01 969.991,017.57<0.01Searobin <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 11.48<0.01 4.684.91<0.01 11.48<0.01 4.684.91<0.01Silver hake 0.030.010.020.020.01568.71<0.01 231.82243.20<0.01 568.750.01231.84243.210.01Skates <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped killifish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06<0.01 0.030.03<0.01 0.07<0.01 0.030.03<0.01Tautog<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 29,299.93<0.01 11,943.4812,529.42<0.01 29,299.94<0.01 11,943.4912,529.42<0.01Threespinestickleback 0.03<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 0.09<0.01 0.040.04<0.01 0.11<0.01 0.050.05<0.01Weakfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 342.21<0.01 139.49146.34<0.01 342.21<0.01 139.50146.34<0.01White perch 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.28<0.01 0.120.12<0.01 0.30<0.01 0.120.13<0.01Windowpane 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2,066.54<0.01 842.38883.71<0.01 2,066.55<0.01 842.39883.71<0.01Winter flounder 0.090.030.050.050.036,688.08<0.01 2,726.252,860.00<0.01 6,688.170.032,726.302,860.040.03Total (allspecies) 0.900.310.440.450.31142,390.18<0.01 58,042.2860,889.79<0.01 142,391.080.3158,042.7260,890.230.31Scenarios: 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.Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-6Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC.3 Mid-AtlanticTable C-5: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing andGenerating) in the Mid-Atlantic (millionA1Esper year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species18.71 14.27 18.25 18.31 14.26 732.37 <0.01 670.71 679.28 <0.01 751.07 14.27 688.96 697.59 14.26All harvested species32.00 24.42 31.22 31.33 24.39 206.98 <0.01 189.56 191.98 <0.01 238.98 24.42 220.78 223.31 24.39Alewife 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03American shad <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Atlantic croaker 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.31 0.24 21.59 <0.01 19.77 20.03 <0.01 21.90 0.24 20.08 20.33 0.24Atlantic herring <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Atlantic menhaden 21.72 16.57 21.19 21.26 16.55 3.16 <0.01 2.89 2.93 <0.01 24.88 16.57 24.08 24.19 16.55Black crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Black drum <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Blue crab 1.44 1.10 1.40 1.41 1.10 108.17 <0.01 99.07 100.33 <0.01 109.61 1.10 100.47 101.74 1.10Bluefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bluegill <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Brown bullhead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Bullheads <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Butterfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Channel catfish 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01Crabs (other) 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02Crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Cunner <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Freshwater drum <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Menhadens <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Muskellunge <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fish (other) 1.30 0.99 1.27 1.27 0.99 10.81 <0.01 9.90 10.02 <0.01 12.10 0.99 11.16 11.29 0.99Red drum <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Red hake <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Scup <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Searobin <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Silver hake <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Silver perch <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Smallmouth bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-7Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-5: I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Mid-Atlantic Region (millionA1Es) Estimated Under Baseline and Option Scenarios for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Spot 2.95 2.25 2.88 2.89 2.25 35.15 <0.01 32.19 32.60 <0.01 38.10 2.25 35.07 35.49 2.25Spotted seatrout <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.39 <0.01 1.27 1.29 <0.01 1.40 <0.01 1.28 1.30 <0.01Striped mullet <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Summer flounder 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Sunfish 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01Tautog <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Weakfish 1.43 1.09 1.40 1.40 1.09 2.71 <0.01 2.48 2.51 <0.01 4.14 1.09 3.88 3.91 1.09White perch 2.66 2.03 2.59 2.60 2.03 23.88 <0.01 21.87 22.15 <0.01 26.53 2.03 24.46 24.75 2.03Whitefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Windowpane <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Winter flounder 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.11<0.01 0.10 0.10 <0.01 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.01Total (all species) 50.71 38.69 49.47 49.64 38.65 939.35<0.01 860.27 871.26 <0.01 990.06 38.69 909.74 920.90 38.65Scenarios: 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 forFacilities > 50 MGD)Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-8Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-6: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing andGenerating) in the Mid-Atlantic (millionindividualsper year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Alewife 0.330.130.160.160.136.10<0.01 2.802.83<0.01 6.440.132.962.990.13American shad 0.060.020.030.030.0267.07<0.01 30.7131.11<0.01 67.130.0230.7431.130.02Atlantic croaker 2.280.871.111.120.87689.03<0.01 315.51319.54<0.01 691.310.87316.62320.660.87Atlantic herring <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Atlanticmenhaden 70.4426.8734.3634.4826.85122.59<0.01 56.1356.85<0.01 193.0326.8790.5091.3326.85Atlantic silverside 1.400.530.680.690.53110.15<0.01 50.4451.08<0.01 111.550.5351.1251.770.53Atlantic tomcod 0.130.050.060.070.05<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.130.050.060.070.05Bay anchovy13.785.256.726.745.2598,332.37<0.01 45,026.9245,602.31<0.01 98,346.155.2545,033.6445,609.055.25Black crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Black drum<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Blue crab 2.871.091.401.401.093,396.61<0.01 1,555.331,575.20<0.01 3,399.481.091,556.721,576.601.09Blueback herring 1.270.480.620.620.4824.27<0.01 11.1111.26<0.01 25.540.4811.7311.880.48Bluefish0.030.010.010.010.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.030.010.010.010.01Bluegill <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bluntnoseminnow <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Brown bullhead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11<0.01 0.050.05<0.01 0.12<0.01 0.050.05<0.01Bullheads <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Butterfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Carp <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Chain pipefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Channel catfish 0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01Crabs (other) 0.040.010.020.020.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.040.010.020.020.01Crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Cunner <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Darters <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fish (other) 5.342.042.602.612.033,804.94<0.01 1,742.301,764.57<0.01 3,810.282.041,744.911,767.182.03Freshwater drum <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Gizzard shad 0.340.130.170.170.13<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.340.130.170.170.13Gobies <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 143.88<0.01 65.8866.72<0.01 143.88<0.01 65.8866.72<0.01Grubby<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Herrings <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Hogchoker0.530.200.260.260.2025,970.61<0.01 11,892.0812,044.05<0.01 25,971.140.2011,892.3412,044.310.20Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-9Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-6: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing andGenerating) in the Mid-Atlantic (millionindividualsper year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Menhadens <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11<0.01 0.050.05<0.01 0.11<0.01 0.050.05<0.01Muskellunge <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Northern pipefish 0.030.010.020.020.0110.64<0.01 4.874.93<0.01 10.670.014.894.950.01Rainbow smelt <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Red drum0.02<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 <0.01Red hake 0.070.030.040.040.03<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.070.030.040.040.03Scup <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Seaboard goby 0.02<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13,691.58<0.01 6,269.456,349.56<0.01 13,691.59<0.01 6,269.466,349.57<0.01Searobin<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Shiners <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.00<0.01 0.460.46<0.01 1.00<0.01 0.460.46<0.01Silver hake 0.02<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 <0.01Silver perch <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Silversides <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.84<0.01 1.301.32<0.01 2.85<0.01 1.301.32<0.01Smallmouth bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Spot 9.173.504.474.493.49232.64<0.01 106.53107.89<0.01 241.803.50111.00112.373.49Spotted seatrout <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped bass 0.040.010.020.020.011,060.00<0.01 485.38491.58<0.01 1,060.040.01485.40491.600.01Striped killifish 0.320.120.160.160.12<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.320.120.160.160.12Striped mullet <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Suckers <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Summer flounder 0.080.030.040.040.03<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.080.030.040.040.03Sunfish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Tautog <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Threespinestickleback 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Weakfish 3.311.261.611.621.26486.50<0.01 222.77225.62<0.01 489.811.26224.39227.241.26White perch2.811.071.371.371.072,335.12<0.01 1,069.261,082.93<0.01 2,337.921.071,070.631,084.301.07Whitefish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Windowpane <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Winter flounder 0.060.020.030.030.0292.01<0.01 42.1342.67<0.01 92.070.0242.1642.700.02Total (allspecies)114.8643.8156.0356.2243.77150,580.20<0.01 68,951.4869,832.59<0.01 150,695.0543.8169,007.5169,888.8243.77Scenarios: 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 optionsreflect reductions in losses.Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-10Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC.4 South AtlanticTable C-7: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the South Atlantic(million A1Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species21.27 13.43 18.13 18.14 13.43 9.94 <0.01 8.29 8.31 <0.01 31.22 13.43 26.43 26.45 13.43All harvested species1.22 0.77 1.04 1.04 0.77 0.96 <0.01 0.80 0.81 <0.01 2.19 0.77 1.85 1.85 0.77Atlantic menhaden 0.25 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.28 0.16 0.24 0.24 0.16Blue crab 0.45 0.29 0.39 0.39 0.29 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.45 0.29 0.39 0.39 0.29Crabs (other) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02<0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Drums and croakers 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.80 <0.01 0.67 0.67 <0.01 0.82 0.01 0.69 0.69 0.01Flounders <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fish (other) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01Pinfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Silver perch 0.28 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.18 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.28 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.18Spot 0.20 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.10 <0.01 0.08 0.08 <0.01 0.29 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.12Spotted seatrout <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Stone crab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Weakfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Total (all species) 22.50 14.20 19.18 19.19 14.20 10.91 <0.01 9.10 9.11 <0.01 33.40 14.20 28.28 28.30 14.20Scenarios: 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)Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-11Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-8: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing andGenerating) in the South Atlantic (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpeciesB1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Atlanticmenhaden0.820.260.350.350.26157.54<0.01 65.7065.81<0.01 158.360.2666.0566.150.26Atlanticsilverside0.130.040.050.050.04<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.130.040.050.050.04Bay anchovy25.548.0610.8910.898.062,402.75<0.01 1,002.001,003.65<0.01 2,428.308.061,012.881,014.548.06Blue crab0.900.280.380.380.28<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.900.280.380.380.28Crabs (other)<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 667.97<0.01 278.56279.02<0.01 667.97<0.01 278.56279.02<0.01Drums andcroakers0.220.070.090.090.072,376.84<0.01 991.19992.83<0.01 2,377.050.07991.28992.920.07Fish (other)1.670.530.710.710.53272.99<0.01 113.84114.03<0.01 274.660.53114.55114.740.53Flounders<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Gobies<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3,576.38<0.01 1,491.431,493.89<0.01 3,576.38<0.01 1,491.431,493.89<0.01Herrings0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Pinfish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 71.34<0.01 29.7529.80<0.01 71.34<0.01 29.7529.80<0.01Scaled sardine0.03<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03<0.01 0.010.01<0.01Shrimp (other)8.902.813.793.792.811,040.49<0.01 433.91434.62<0.01 1,049.392.81437.70438.422.81Silver perch0.450.140.190.190.14<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.450.140.190.190.14Spot0.720.230.310.310.232,152.83<0.01 897.77899.25<0.01 2,153.540.23898.08899.560.23Spotted seatrout<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 35.30<0.01 14.7214.75<0.01 35.30<0.01 14.7214.75<0.01Stone crab<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Weakfish0.040.010.020.020.01100.99<0.01 42.1242.19<0.01 101.040.0142.1442.200.01Total (allspecies)39.4212.4416.8016.8112.4412,855.43<0.01 5,360.985,369.82<0.01 12,894.8612.445,377.795,386.6412.44Scenarios: 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 alloptions reflect reductions in losses.Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-12Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC.5 Gulf of MexicoTable C-9: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Gulf of Mexico (millionA1Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species5.63 4.31 5.59 5.60 4.28 42.12 <0.01 28.49 28.56 <0.01 47.75 4.31 34.09 34.16 4.28All harvested species39.42 30.19 39.15 39.18 29.96 48.47 <0.01 32.79 32.87 <0.01 87.89 30.19 71.94 72.05 29.96Atlantic croaker 1.65 1.27 1.64 1.64 1.26 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.65 1.27 1.64 1.64 1.26Black drum 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 5.93 <0.01 4.01 4.02 <0.01 5.94 <0.01 4.02 4.03 <0.01Blue crab 5.66 4.33 5.62 5.62 4.30 19.03 <0.01 12.87 12.90 <0.01 24.68 4.33 18.49 18.53 4.30Leatherjacket 0.69 0.53 0.68 0.69 0.52 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.72 0.53 0.71 0.71 0.52Mackerels <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Menhadens 4.95 3.79 4.92 4.92 3.76 0.05 <0.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01 5.00 3.79 4.95 4.96 3.76Fish (other) 1.48 1.14 1.47 1.47 1.13 0.16 <0.01 0.11 0.11 <0.01 1.64 1.14 1.58 1.58 1.13Pinfish 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 1.07 <0.01 0.72 0.73 <0.01 1.10 0.02 0.75 0.76 0.02Pink shrimp 21.44 16.42 21.29 21.31 16.30 13.40 <0.01 9.07 9.09 <0.01 34.84 16.42 30.36 30.40 16.30Red drum 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.09 0.06Sea basses <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Searobin 0.94 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.71 0.36 <0.01 0.25 0.25 <0.01 1.30 0.72 1.18 1.18 0.71Sheepshead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Silver perch 0.28 0.22 0.28 0.28 0.21 5.11 <0.01 3.46 3.47 <0.01 5.40 0.22 3.74 3.75 0.21Spot 0.38 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.29 0.09 <0.01 0.06 0.06 <0.01 0.47 0.29 0.44 0.44 0.29Spotted seatrout 1.26 0.96 1.25 1.25 0.96 0.15 <0.01 0.10 0.10 <0.01 1.41 0.96 1.35 1.35 0.96Stone crab 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.19 0.14 0.41 <0.01 0.28 0.28 <0.01 0.60 0.14 0.47 0.47 0.14Striped mullet 0.37 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.28 2.62 <0.01 1.77 1.78 <0.01 2.99 0.28 2.14 2.14 0.28Total (all species) 45.05 34.50 44.74 44.78 34.24 90.59 <0.01 61.28 61.43 <0.01 135.64 34.50 106.02 106.21 34.24Scenarios: 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)I&EEntrainmentImpingementMarch 28, 2011C-13Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-10: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at All In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Gulf of Mexico (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpeciesB 1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Atlantic croaker15.455.927.677.685.87162.35<0.01 54.9155.05<0.01 177.815.9262.5962.735.87Bay anchovy4.331.662.152.151.65301,092.72<0.01 101,837.44102,087.75<0.01 301,097.051.66101,839.59102,089.901.65Black drum0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 96,328.24<0.01 32,580.7332,660.81<0.01 96,328.26<0.01 32,580.7432,660.83<0.01Blue crab11.264.315.595.604.28280.96<0.01 95.0395.26<0.01 292.224.31100.62100.864.28Chain pipefish0.070.030.030.030.032.13<0.01 0.720.72<0.01 2.190.030.750.750.03Fish (other)7.432.853.693.692.829,784.29<0.01 3,309.303,317.44<0.01 9,791.722.853,312.993,321.132.82Gobies0.140.050.070.070.053,407.68<0.01 1,152.571,155.40<0.01 3,407.820.051,152.641,155.470.05Gulf killifish0.040.010.020.020.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.040.010.020.020.01Hogchoker0.150.060.070.070.06198.72<0.01 67.2167.38<0.01 198.870.0667.2867.450.06Leatherjacket0.950.360.470.470.36794.02<0.01 268.56269.22<0.01 794.970.36269.03269.690.36Mackerels<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Menhadens16.066.157.987.986.10269.13<0.01 91.0391.25<0.01 285.196.1599.0099.236.10Pinfish0.120.050.060.060.04107.79<0.01 36.4636.55<0.01 107.910.0536.5236.610.04Pink shrimp43.7316.7421.7121.7316.62126.32<0.01 42.7342.83<0.01 170.0516.7464.4464.5616.62Red drum0.160.060.080.080.061.10<0.01 0.370.37<0.01 1.260.060.450.450.06Scaled sardine0.320.120.160.160.122,962.36<0.01 1,001.951,004.41<0.01 2,962.690.121,002.111,004.570.12Sea basses<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Searobin1.180.450.580.580.4568.82<0.01 23.2823.33<0.01 70.000.4523.8623.920.45Sheepshead<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 382.88<0.01 129.50129.82<0.01 382.88<0.01 129.50129.82<0.01Silver perch0.450.170.230.230.1788,985.72<0.01 30,097.3030,171.28<0.01 88,986.170.1730,097.5330,171.500.17Spot1.390.530.690.690.5334.75<0.01 11.7511.78<0.01 36.140.5312.4412.470.53Spottedseatrout1.200.460.600.600.465,338.00<0.01 1,805.451,809.89<0.01 5,339.200.461,806.051,810.490.46Stone crab0.270.100.140.140.1028,711.01<0.01 9,710.829,734.68<0.01 28,711.290.109,710.959,734.820.10Striped mullet0.450.170.220.230.1715.17<0.01 5.135.14<0.01 15.620.175.365.370.17Tidewatersilverside0.300.110.150.150.1134.36<0.01 11.6211.65<0.01 34.660.1111.7711.800.11Total (allspecies)105.4840.3952.3852.4240.09539,088.54<0.01 182,333.86182,782.02<0.01 539,194.0140.39182,386.23182,834.4440.09Scenarios: 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 optionsreflect reductions in losses.Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-14Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC.6 Great LakesTable C-11: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes(million A1Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species38.62 33.46 38.20 38.29 33.17 7.84 <0.01 6.266.36 <0.01 46.46 33.46 44.46 44.64 33.17All harvested species5.51 4.77 5.45 5.46 4.73 1.53 <0.01 1.22 1.24 <0.01 7.04 4.77 6.67 6.70 4.73Black bullhead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Black crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bluegill <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Brown bullhead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bullheads <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Channel catfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Freshwater drum 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05<0.01 0.04 0.04 <0.01 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.02Muskellunge <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fish (other) 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05Rainbow smelt 0.37 0.32 0.36 0.36 0.32 0.07 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01 0.44 0.32 0.42 0.42 0.32Salmon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sculpins <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Smallmouth bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Smelts 4.49 3.89 4.45 4.46 3.86 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 4.52 3.89 4.46 4.47 3.86Sunfish 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 1.18 <0.010.95 0.96 <0.01 1.20 0.02 0.96 0.98 0.02Walleye <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01White bass 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.09 <0.01 0.08 0.08 <0.01 0.14 0.04 0.12 0.13 0.04Whitefish 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.20 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.23 0.20 0.22 0.23 0.20Yellow perch 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.07 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01 0.33 0.23 0.31 0.31 0.22Total (all species) 44.13 38.23 43.65 43.75 37.91 9.37 <0.01 7.48 7.60 <0.01 53.50 38.23 51.13 51.35 37.91Impingement Entrainment I&EScenarios: 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, 2011C-15Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-12: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Alewife 28.9512.5414.3214.3512.4438,098.88<0.01 15,213.5015,443.27<0.01 38,127.8412.5415,227.8215,457.6212.44Black bullhead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Black crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Blueback herring <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bluegill <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bluntnose minnow 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13.01<0.01 5.205.27<0.01 13.02<0.01 5.205.28<0.01Brown bullhead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bullheads <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Burbot <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.53<0.01 0.210.21<0.01 0.53<0.01 0.210.22<0.01Carp 0.040.020.020.020.023,239.89<0.01 1,293.741,313.28<0.01 3,239.940.021,293.761,313.300.02Channel catfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.20<0.01 0.080.08<0.01 0.20<0.01 0.080.08<0.01Chinook salmon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Crappie <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.90<0.01 0.360.36<0.01 0.90<0.01 0.360.37<0.01Darters 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.87<0.01 1.151.16<0.01 2.88<0.01 1.151.17<0.01Emerald shiner0.400.170.200.200.1747.50<0.01 18.9719.25<0.01 47.900.1719.1719.450.17Fish (other) 0.190.080.090.100.0840,037.77<0.01 15,987.7316,229.19<0.01 40,037.960.0815,987.8216,229.280.08Freshwater drum 0.070.030.030.030.03221.20<0.01 88.3389.66<0.01 221.270.0388.3689.700.03Gizzard shad 14.946.477.397.406.423,846.52<0.01 1,535.981,559.17<0.01 3,861.456.471,543.361,566.586.42Golden redhorse <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Herrings <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 11.15<0.01 4.454.52<0.01 11.15<0.01 4.454.52<0.01Logperch 0.220.100.110.110.0910.26<0.01 4.104.16<0.01 10.480.104.204.270.09Muskellunge <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Rainbow smelt 0.510.220.250.250.2274.33<0.01 29.6830.13<0.01 74.840.2229.9330.380.22Salmon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.16<0.01 2.462.50<0.01 6.16<0.01 2.462.50<0.01Sculpins <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.50<0.01 1.401.42<0.01 3.50<0.01 1.401.42<0.01Shiners 0.570.250.280.280.24132.24<0.01 52.8053.60<0.01 132.810.2553.0953.880.24Smallmouth bass <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Smelts 4.071.762.012.021.75150.69<0.01 60.1761.08<0.01 154.751.7662.1863.101.75Spotted sucker<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-16Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-12: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Great Lakes (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for OptionScenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Suckers <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.31<0.01 0.920.94<0.01 2.32<0.01 0.930.94<0.01Sunfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 7.03<0.01 2.812.85<0.01 7.03<0.01 2.812.85<0.01Threespinestickleback0.070.030.040.040.030.69<0.01 0.280.28<0.01 0.760.030.310.320.03Walleye <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01White bass 0.050.020.030.030.0238.35<0.01 15.3115.54<0.01 38.400.0215.3415.570.02White perch <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Whitefish 0.100.040.050.050.040.17<0.01 0.070.07<0.01 0.270.040.120.120.04Yellow perch 0.710.310.350.350.3130.26<0.01 12.0812.27<0.01 30.980.3112.4412.620.31Total (all species) 50.9922.0925.2225.2821.9085,976.38<0.01 34,331.7534,850.27<0.01 86,027.3722.0934,356.9734,875.5421.90Scenarios: 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). Valuesfor all options reflect reductions in losses.Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-17Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC.7 InlandTable C-13: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region (millionA1Es per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species549.42 459.64 531.05 536.22 448.42 164.29 <0.01 134.24 140.41 <0.01 713.71 459.64 665.29 676.63 448.42All harvested species34.17 28.59 33.03 33.35 27.89 131.61 <0.01 107.54 112.48 <0.01 165.78 28.59 140.57 145.83 27.89American shad 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04Black bullhead 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.15Black crappie 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.50 <0.01 0.41 0.43 <0.01 0.57 0.06 0.47 0.49 0.05Bluegill 2.11 1.76 2.04 2.06 1.72 0.18 <0.01 0.15 0.15 <0.01 2.29 1.76 2.19 2.21 1.72Brown bullhead 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.04 <0.01 0.04 0.04 <0.01 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.02Bullheads 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02Channel catfish 1.63 1.36 1.58 1.59 1.33 1.01 <0.01 0.82 0.86 <0.01 2.64 1.36 2.40 2.45 1.33Crappie 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.09 1.40 <0.01 1.14 1.20 <0.01 1.51 0.09 1.25 1.31 0.09Freshwater drum 1.19 1.00 1.15 1.16 0.97 6.31 <0.01 5.16 5.40 <0.01 7.51 1.00 6.31 6.56 0.97Menhadens <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Muskellunge <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fish (other) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01 0.07 <0.01 0.06 0.06 <0.01Rainbow smelt 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.21 <0.01 0.17 0.18 <0.01 0.35 0.12 0.30 0.31 0.11Salmon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sauger 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 1.75 <0.01 1.43 1.49 <0.01 1.84 0.08 1.52 1.59 0.08Smallmouth bass 0.24 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.19 3.70 <0.01 3.03 3.16 <0.01 3.94 0.20 3.25 3.39 0.19Smelts <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped bass 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.13Sturgeons <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Sunfish 19.92 16.66 19.25 19.44 16.25 110.06 <0.01 89.93 94.07 <0.01 129.98 16.66 109.18 113.51 16.25Walleye 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.68 <0.01 0.56 0.58 <0.01 0.74 0.05 0.61 0.64 0.05White bass 2.35 1.97 2.27 2.29 1.92 2.66 <0.01 2.18 2.28 <0.01 5.01 1.97 4.45 4.57 1.92White perch 2.58 2.16 2.49 2.52 2.10 0.55 <0.01 0.45 0.47 <0.01 3.13 2.16 2.94 2.99 2.10Whitefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Yellow perch 3.24 2.71 3.13 3.16 2.64 2.44 <0.01 1.99 2.08 <0.01 5.67 2.71 5.12 5.24 2.64Total (all species) 583.59 488.22 564.08 569.57 476.31 295.89 <0.01 241.78 252.90 <0.01 879.49 488.22 805.86 822.46 476.31Scenarios: 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 forFacilities > 50 MGD)I&EEntrainmentImpingementMarch 28, 2011C-18Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-14: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions forOption Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpeciesB1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Alewife42.7917.9020.6820.8817.461.29<0.01 0.530.55<0.01 44.0717.9021.2021.4317.46American shad19.047.969.209.297.77<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 19.047.969.209.297.77Bay anchovy0.030.010.010.020.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.030.010.010.020.01Bigmouth buffalo0.040.020.020.020.025.38<0.01 2.202.30<0.01 5.420.022.222.320.02Black bullhead0.340.140.160.160.140.04<0.01 0.020.02<0.01 0.380.140.180.180.14Black crappie0.350.140.170.170.1424.81<0.01 10.1410.60<0.01 25.160.1410.3010.770.14Blue crab<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Blueback herring185.6977.6789.7490.6275.781,750.15<0.01 715.03747.92<0.01 1,935.8577.67804.77838.5375.78Bluegill35.5714.8817.1917.3614.5148.04<0.01 19.6320.53<0.01 83.6114.8836.8237.8914.51Bluntnoseminnow0.150.060.070.070.064,918.57<0.01 2,009.492,101.92<0.01 4,918.720.062,009.572,101.990.06Brown bullhead0.050.020.020.020.020.35<0.01 0.140.15<0.01 0.400.020.170.170.02Bullheads0.040.020.020.020.023.68<0.01 1.501.57<0.01 3.720.021.521.590.02Burbot<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 16.04<0.01 6.556.85<0.01 16.04<0.01 6.556.86<0.01Carp0.370.150.180.180.154,209.21<0.01 1,719.681,798.78<0.01 4,209.580.151,719.861,798.960.15Channel catfish2.030.850.980.990.83209.76<0.01 85.7089.64<0.01 211.800.8586.6890.630.83Crappie0.590.250.290.290.2467.69<0.01 27.6628.93<0.01 68.280.2527.9429.220.24Darters0.990.420.480.490.41161.74<0.01 66.0869.12<0.01 162.740.4266.5669.600.41Emerald shiner3.991.671.931.951.63724.99<0.01 296.20309.82<0.01 728.981.67298.12311.771.63Fish (other)83.2234.8140.2240.6133.9668,076.66<0.01 27,812.8429,092.11<0.01 68,159.8934.8127,853.0629,132.7233.96Freshwater drum4.581.912.212.231.873,010.39<0.01 1,229.901,286.47<0.01 3,014.971.911,232.111,288.701.87Gizzard shad311.11130.14150.36151.82126.9619,070.18<0.01 7,791.168,149.52<0.01 19,381.30130.147,941.528,301.34126.96Gobies<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 81.15<0.01 33.1534.68<0.01 81.15<0.01 33.1534.68<0.01Golden redhorse0.070.030.030.030.032.86<0.01 1.171.22<0.01 2.920.031.201.250.03Hogchoker0.030.010.010.010.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.030.010.010.010.01Logperch1.000.420.480.490.4132.30<0.01 13.2013.80<0.01 33.300.4213.6814.290.41Menhadens<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Muskellunge0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03<0.01 0.010.01<0.01Rainbow smelt0.190.080.090.090.0859.23<0.01 24.2025.31<0.01 59.430.0824.2925.410.08River carpsucker0.030.010.020.020.015.15<0.01 2.102.20<0.01 5.180.012.122.220.01Salmon<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sauger0.230.090.110.110.09314.24<0.01 128.39134.29<0.01 314.470.09128.49134.400.09Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-19Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-14: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturing and Generating) in the Inland Region (millionindividuals per year), and I&E Mortality Reductions for OptionScenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpeciesB1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Shiners3.411.431.651.661.39296.49<0.01 121.13126.70<0.01 299.901.43122.78128.371.39Silversides0.040.020.020.020.0246.52<0.01 19.0019.88<0.01 46.560.0219.0219.900.02Skipjack herring1.520.640.740.740.620.54<0.01 0.220.23<0.01 2.060.640.960.970.62Smallmouth bass0.140.060.070.070.0654.51<0.01 22.2723.30<0.01 54.650.0622.3423.360.06Smelts<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Spotted sucker<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Striped bass1.640.690.790.800.67<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.640.690.790.800.67Striped killifish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sturgeons<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.46<0.01 0.590.62<0.01 1.46<0.01 0.600.62<0.01Suckers0.160.070.080.080.074,342.48<0.01 1,774.131,855.73<0.01 4,342.640.071,774.211,855.810.07Sunfish6.382.673.083.112.60648.07<0.01 264.77276.95<0.01 654.452.67267.85280.062.60Threespinestickleback<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Walleye0.150.060.070.070.06169.80<0.01 69.3772.56<0.01 169.950.0669.4572.640.06White bass2.631.101.271.281.071,067.79<0.01 436.25456.31<0.01 1,070.421.10437.52457.601.07White perch3.871.621.871.891.58660.65<0.01 269.91282.33<0.01 664.531.62271.78284.221.58Whitefish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.75<0.01 0.310.32<0.01 0.75<0.01 0.310.32<0.01Yellow Perch8.883.714.294.333.621,100.04<0.01 449.42470.10<0.01 1,108.923.71453.71474.433.62Total (allspecies)721.46301.78348.67352.06294.41111,183.92<0.01 45,424.3947,513.71<0.01 111,905.38301.7845,773.0747,865.77294.41Scenarios: 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 reflectreductions in losses.Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-20Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationC.8 National EstimatesTable C-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturingand Generating) Nationally (million A1Es per year),and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4All forage species634.40 525.66 611.97 617.31 514.11 1020.37 <0.01 900.67 918.13 <0.01 1654.78 525.66 1512.64 1535.44 514.11All harvested species113.00 89.31 110.56 111.04 88.31 421.14 <0.01 358.35 367.07 <0.01 534.15 89.31 468.91 478.11 88.31Alewife 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03American plaice <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01American shad 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04Atlantic cod <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01Atlantic croaker 1.97 1.50 1.95 1.95 1.49 21.59 <0.01 19.77 20.03 <0.01 23.56 1.50 21.72 21.98 1.49Atlantic herring <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.12 <0.01 0.10 0.11 <0.01 0.13 <0.01 0.11 0.11 <0.01Atlantic mackerel <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Atlantic menhaden 21.97 16.73 21.40 21.48 16.71 3.23 <0.01 2.95 2.99 <0.01 25.20 16.73 24.35 24.47 16.71Black bullhead 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.15 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.19 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.15Black crappie 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.50 <0.01 0.41 0.43 <0.01 0.57 0.06 0.47 0.49 0.05Black drum 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 5.93 <0.01 4.01 4.02 <0.01 5.94 0.01 4.02 4.03 0.01Blue crab 7.55 5.72 7.41 7.42 5.68 127.20 <0.01 111.94 113.23 <0.01 134.75 5.72 119.34 120.65 5.68Bluefish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Bluegill 2.11 1.76 2.04 2.06 1.72 0.18 <0.01 0.15 0.15 <0.01 2.29 1.76 2.19 2.21 1.72Brown bullhead 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.06 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01 0.09 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.03Bullheads 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02Butterfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Cabezon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01 0.06 <0.01 0.05 0.05 <0.01California halibut <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.23 <0.01 0.20 0.21 <0.01 0.23 <0.01 0.20 0.21 <0.01California scorpionfish <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Channel catfish 1.65 1.38 1.60 1.61 1.35 1.01 <0.01 0.82 0.86 <0.01 2.66 1.38 2.42 2.48 1.35Crabs (other) 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.07 7.82 <0.01 6.66 6.97 <0.01 7.91 0.07 6.75 7.06 0.07Sea Basses <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 2.83 <0.01 2.41 2.52 <0.01 2.83 <0.01 2.41 2.53 <0.01Shrimp (other) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.63 <0.01 0.53 0.56 <0.01 0.63 <0.01 0.54 0.57 <0.01Crappie 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.09 1.42 <0.01 1.16 1.21 <0.01 1.53 0.09 1.27 1.32 0.09Cunner <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 4.26 <0.01 3.47 3.64 <0.01 4.26 <0.01 3.47 3.64 <0.01I&EEntrainmentImpingementMarch 28, 2011C-21Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturingand Generating) Nationally (million A1Es per year),and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Drums and croakers 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 1.03 <0.01 0.86 0.87 <0.01 1.10 0.05 0.93 0.94 0.05Dungeness crab <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Flounders 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 <0.01 0.08 0.09 <0.01 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.10 0.01Freshwater drum 1.21 1.01 1.17 1.18 0.99 6.36 <0.01 5.20 5.44 <0.01 7.57 1.01 6.37 6.62 0.99Leatherjacket 0.69 0.53 0.68 0.69 0.52 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.72 0.53 0.71 0.71 0.52Mackerels <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Menhadens 4.95 3.79 4.92 4.92 3.76 0.05 <0.01 0.04 0.04 <0.01 5.01 3.79 4.96 4.96 3.76Muskellunge <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Fish (other) 2.87 2.20 2.82 2.83 2.19 11.04 <0.01 10.06 10.19 <0.01 13.90 2.20 12.88 13.02 2.19Northern anchovy 0.34 0.30 0.34 0.34 0.29 0.03 <0.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.38 0.30 0.37 0.37 0.29Pinfish 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 1.08 <0.010.73 0.73 <0.01 1.11 0.02 0.76 0.76 0.02Pink shrimp 21.44 16.42 21.29 21.31 16.30 13.40 <0.01 9.07 9.09 <0.01 34.84 16.42 30.36 30.40 16.30Pollock <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Rainbow smelt 0.51 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.43 0.28 <0.01 0.22 0.23 <0.01 0.78 0.44 0.72 0.73 0.43Red drum 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.07Red hake <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Rockfishes 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 6.33 <0.01 5.39 5.64 <0.01 6.34 0.01 5.41 5.66 0.01Salmon <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sauger 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 1.75 <0.01 1.43 1.49 <0.01 1.84 0.08 1.52 1.59 0.08Sculpins 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 2.39 <0.01 1.96 2.06 <0.01 2.41 0.02 1.98 2.08 0.02Scup <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Sea basses <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Searobin 0.94 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.71 0.38 <0.01 0.26 0.26 <0.01 1.31 0.72 1.19 1.19 0.71Sheepshead <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.04 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Silver hake <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Silver perch 0.56 0.39 0.52 0.52 0.39 5.11 <0.01 3.46 3.47 <0.01 5.68 0.39 3.98 3.99 0.39Skates <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-22Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-15: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturingand Generating) Nationally (million A1Es per year),and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpecies B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Smallmouth bass 0.24 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.19 3.70 <0.01 3.03 3.16 <0.01 3.94 0.20 3.26 3.40 0.19Smelts 4.50 3.90 4.45 4.46 3.87 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 4.52 3.90 4.47 4.48 3.87Spot 3.52 2.66 3.42 3.43 2.66 35.34 <0.01 32.33 32.75 <0.01 38.86 2.66 35.75 36.18 2.66Spotted seatrout 1.26 0.97 1.26 1.26 0.96 0.15 <0.01 0.10 0.10 <0.01 1.42 0.97 1.36 1.36 0.96Stone crab 0.19 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.41 <0.01 0.28 0.28 <0.01 0.60 0.14 0.47 0.47 0.14Striped bass 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.14 1.40 <0.01 1.28 1.30 <0.01 1.57 0.14 1.44 1.46 0.14Striped mullet 0.37 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.28 2.62 <0.01 1.77 1.78 <0.01 2.99 0.28 2.14 2.14 0.28Sturgeons <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Summer flounder 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02Sunfish 19.95 16.69 19.29 19.47 16.29 111.25 <0.01 90.88 95.03 <0.01 131.20 16.69 110.17 114.50 16.29Surfperches 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.10Tautog <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.09 0.10 <0.01 0.11 <0.01 0.09 0.10 <0.01Walleye 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.68 <0.01 0.56 0.58 <0.01 0.74 0.05 0.61 0.64 0.05Weakfish 1.44 1.10 1.40 1.41 1.10 2.71 <0.01 2.48 2.51 <0.01 4.14 1.10 3.88 3.92 1.10White bass 2.40 2.01 2.32 2.34 1.96 2.76 <0.01 2.25 2.35 <0.01 5.16 2.01 4.57 4.70 1.96White perch 5.24 4.18 5.08 5.12 4.13 24.43 <0.01 22.32 22.62 <0.01 29.67 4.18 27.40 27.74 4.13Whitefish 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.20 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.23 0.20Windowpane <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 <0.01 0.02 0.02 <0.01Winter flounder 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 6.46 <0.01 5.28 5.53 <0.01 6.50 0.03 5.32 5.57 0.03Yellow perch 3.50 2.93 3.39 3.42 2.86 2.50 <0.01 2.05 2.14 <0.01 6.00 2.93 5.43 5.55 2.86Total (all species) 747.40 614.97 722.53 728.35 602.42 1441.52 <0.01 1259.02 1285.20 <0.01 2188.92 614.97 1981.55 2013.55 602.42Impingement Entrainment I&EScenarios: 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, 2011C-23Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationMarch 28, 2011C-24Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturingand Generating) Nationally (million individuals peryear), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of MortalitySpeciesB 1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Alewife72.1330.5935.1935.4230.0438,112.03<0.01 15,219.1715,449.11<0.01 38,184.1630.5915,254.3515,484.5330.04American plaice<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 199.21<0.01 81.2085.19<0.01 199.21<0.01 81.2085.19<0.01American sandlance0.160.060.080.080.061,469.03<0.01 598.82628.20<0.01 1,469.200.06598.90628.280.06American shad19.097.989.239.327.7967.08<0.01 30.7231.11<0.01 86.177.9839.9440.437.79Atlantic cod<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 117.38<0.01 47.8550.19<0.01 117.38<0.01 47.8550.19<0.01Atlantic croaker17.736.798.798.806.74851.39<0.01 370.43374.59<0.01 869.126.79379.21383.396.74Atlantic herring0.040.010.020.020.0187.31<0.01 35.5937.34<0.01 87.340.0135.6137.350.01Atlanticmackerel<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 7,067.69<0.01 2,880.993,022.33<0.01 7,067.69<0.01 2,880.993,022.33<0.01Atlanticmenhaden71.2827.1434.7234.8427.114,486.26<0.01 1,836.371,921.31<0.01 4,557.5427.141,871.091,956.1527.11Atlanticsilverside1.660.620.800.810.62206.73<0.01 89.8192.38<0.01 208.390.6290.6193.190.62Atlantic tomcod0.140.050.070.070.056.28<0.01 2.562.68<0.01 6.420.052.632.750.05Bay anchovy43.7115.0019.7919.8214.98457,647.92<0.01 170,620.21172,563.84<0.01 457,691.6315.00170,640.00172,583.6614.98Bigmouthbuffalo0.040.020.020.020.025.38<0.01 2.202.30<0.01 5.420.022.222.320.02Black bullhead0.340.140.160.170.140.04<0.01 0.020.02<0.01 0.380.140.180.180.14Black crappie0.350.150.170.170.1424.81<0.01 10.1410.60<0.01 25.160.1510.3010.770.14Black drum0.030.010.010.010.0196,328.24<0.01 32,580.7332,660.81<0.01 96,328.270.0132,580.7532,660.830.01Blennies<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 914.88<0.01 389.87407.84<0.01 914.88<0.01 389.87407.84<0.01Blue crab15.035.697.377.385.663,677.57<0.01 1,650.351,670.46<0.01 3,692.605.691,657.731,677.855.66Blueback herring186.9778.1690.3791.2476.261,774.42<0.01 726.14759.17<0.01 1,961.3978.16816.51850.4176.26Bluefish0.030.010.010.010.010.06<0.01 0.020.02<0.01 0.090.010.040.040.01Bluegill35.5714.8817.1917.3614.5248.04<0.01 19.6320.53<0.01 83.6114.8836.8237.8914.52Bluntnoseminnow0.160.070.080.080.074,931.58<0.01 2,014.692,107.19<0.01 4,931.750.072,014.772,107.270.07Brown bullhead0.060.020.030.030.020.46<0.01 0.190.20<0.01 0.520.020.220.230.02Bullheads0.040.020.020.020.023.68<0.01 1.501.57<0.01 3.720.021.521.590.02Burbot<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 16.57<0.01 6.767.07<0.01 16.58<0.01 6.777.07<0.01Butterfish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 12.15<0.01 4.955.20<0.01 12.16<0.01 4.965.20<0.01Cabezon<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.65<0.01 2.832.96<0.01 6.65<0.01 2.832.96<0.01Californiahalibut<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 7.71<0.01 3.293.44<0.01 7.72<0.01 3.293.44<0.01Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-25Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturingand Generating) Nationally (million individuals peryear), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpeciesB 1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Californiascorpionfish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Carp0.410.170.200.200.177,449.10<0.01 3,013.423,112.06<0.01 7,449.510.173,013.623,112.260.17Chain pipefish0.070.030.040.040.032.13<0.01 0.720.72<0.01 2.200.030.750.760.03Channel catfish2.060.861.001.010.84209.96<0.01 85.7889.72<0.01 212.020.8686.7790.730.84Chinook salmon<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Crabs (other)0.120.050.060.060.057,906.88<0.01 3,363.373,506.02<0.01 7,907.010.053,363.433,506.080.05Crappie0.600.250.290.290.2468.59<0.01 28.0129.29<0.01 69.190.2528.3029.580.24Cunner<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 29,170.94<0.01 11,890.9112,474.26<0.01 29,170.95<0.01 11,890.9112,474.27<0.01Darters1.010.420.490.490.41164.61<0.01 67.2370.28<0.01 165.620.4267.7170.770.41Delta smelt<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Drums andcroakers0.630.250.300.300.243,292.06<0.01 1,381.201,400.82<0.01 3,292.680.251,381.501,401.110.24Dungeness crab<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.09<0.01 0.040.04<0.01 0.09<0.01 0.040.04<0.01Emerald shiner4.391.842.132.141.80772.49<0.01 315.16329.07<0.01 776.881.84317.29331.221.80Fish (other)98.0040.3647.3947.8039.49123,797.72<0.01 49,732.4051,319.67<0.01 123,895.7240.3649,779.7951,367.4739.49Flounders0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 319.23<0.01 136.04142.31<0.01 319.24<0.01 136.04142.31<0.01Fourbeardrockling<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 464.23<0.01 189.23198.52<0.01 464.23<0.01 189.23198.52<0.01Freshwater drum4.651.942.252.271.903,231.60<0.01 1,318.231,376.14<0.01 3,236.241.941,320.481,378.401.90Gizzard shad326.39136.74157.91159.39133.5122,916.70<0.01 9,327.139,708.69<0.01 23,243.09136.749,485.049,868.08133.51Gobies0.140.050.070.070.058,788.33<0.01 3,416.013,454.69<0.01 8,788.470.053,416.083,454.760.05Golden redhorse0.070.030.030.030.032.86<0.01 1.171.22<0.01 2.920.031.201.250.03Grubby0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 431.10<0.01 175.73184.35<0.01 431.12<0.01 175.74184.36<0.01Gulf killifish0.040.010.020.020.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.040.010.020.020.01Herrings0.070.030.030.030.0337.37<0.01 15.6316.21<0.01 37.440.0315.6616.240.03Hogchoker0.740.280.360.360.2826,718.51<0.01 12,183.1612,346.27<0.01 26,719.250.2812,183.5212,346.630.28Leatherjacket0.950.360.470.470.36794.02<0.01 268.56269.22<0.01 794.970.36269.03269.690.36Logperch1.220.510.590.600.5042.56<0.01 17.2917.96<0.01 43.770.5117.8818.560.50Longfin smelt<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Lumpfish<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 44.89<0.01 18.3019.20<0.01 44.89<0.01 18.3019.20<0.01Mackerels<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Menhadens16.066.157.987.986.10269.24<0.01 91.0891.30<0.01 285.306.1599.0599.286.10Muskellunge0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.03<0.01 0.010.01<0.01Northernanchovy0.860.380.420.430.37826.63<0.01 352.26368.50<0.01 827.490.38352.68368.930.37Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-26Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturingand Generating) Nationally (million individuals peryear), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpeciesB 1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Northernpipefish0.040.010.020.020.0111.79<0.01 5.345.43<0.01 11.830.015.365.450.01Pacific herring<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 36.16<0.01 15.4116.12<0.01 36.17<0.01 15.4116.12<0.01Pinfish0.120.050.060.060.04179.13<0.01 66.2166.35<0.01 179.250.0566.2766.400.04Pink shrimp43.7316.7421.7121.7316.62126.32<0.01 42.7342.83<0.01 170.0516.7464.4464.5616.62Pollock<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3.46<0.01 1.411.48<0.01 3.47<0.01 1.411.48<0.01Radiated shanny<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 110.36<0.01 44.9947.19<0.01 110.36<0.01 44.9947.19<0.01Rainbow smelt0.760.320.370.370.32151.21<0.01 61.0762.99<0.01 151.970.3261.4563.360.32Red drum0.180.070.090.090.071.10<0.01 0.370.37<0.01 1.270.070.460.460.07Red hake0.080.030.040.040.03<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.080.030.040.040.03River carpsucker0.030.010.020.020.015.15<0.01 2.102.20<0.01 5.180.012.122.220.01Rock gunnel<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 395.87<0.01 161.37169.29<0.01 395.88<0.01 161.37169.29<0.01Rockfishes0.030.010.010.010.0163.96<0.01 27.2628.51<0.01 63.990.0127.2728.530.01Sacramentosplittail<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Salmon<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 6.16<0.01 2.462.50<0.01 6.16<0.01 2.462.50<0.01Sauger0.230.090.110.110.09314.24<0.01 128.39134.29<0.01 314.470.09128.49134.400.09Scaled sardine0.350.130.170.170.132,962.36<0.01 1,001.951,004.41<0.01 2,962.720.131,002.121,004.590.13Sculpins0.020.010.010.01<0.01 270.10<0.01 110.96116.30<0.01 270.130.01110.97116.31<0.01Scup<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 16.64<0.01 6.787.12<0.01 16.65<0.01 6.797.12<0.01Sea Basses<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 13.24<0.01 5.645.90<0.01 13.24<0.01 5.645.90<0.01Seaboard goby0.02<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 16,071.16<0.01 7,239.437,367.13<0.01 16,071.18<0.01 7,239.447,367.14<0.01Searobin1.180.450.580.590.4580.30<0.01 27.9628.24<0.01 81.480.4528.5428.830.45Sheepshead<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 382.88<0.01 129.50129.82<0.01 382.88<0.01 129.50129.82<0.01Shiners3.981.671.931.951.64429.73<0.01 174.39180.77<0.01 433.711.67176.32182.711.64Shrimp (other)8.932.823.813.812.821,469.73<0.01 616.82625.97<0.01 1,478.662.82620.63629.782.82Silver hake0.050.020.030.030.02568.71<0.01 231.82243.20<0.01 568.760.02231.85243.220.02Silver perch0.910.320.420.420.3288,985.72<0.01 30,097.3030,171.28<0.01 88,986.630.3230,097.7230,171.700.32Silversides0.160.070.080.080.07171.19<0.01 72.2375.51<0.01 171.350.0772.3075.590.07Skates<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Skipjack herring1.520.640.740.740.620.54<0.01 0.220.23<0.01 2.060.640.960.970.62Smallmouth bass0.140.060.070.070.0654.51<0.01 22.2723.30<0.01 54.660.0622.3423.370.06Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011C-27Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable C-16: Baseline I&E Mortality Losses atAll In-scope Facilities (Manufacturingand Generating) Nationally (million individuals peryear), and I&E Mortality Reductions for Option Scenarios Estimated for All Sources of Mortality, continuedSpeciesB 1234 B 1 2 3 4 B 1 2 3 4Smelts4.071.762.012.021.75154.31<0.01 61.7262.70<0.01 158.391.7663.7364.721.75Spot11.274.255.475.484.252,420.22<0.01 1,016.051,018.92<0.01 2,431.494.251,021.521,024.414.25Spotted seatrout1.210.460.600.600.465,373.31<0.01 1,820.181,824.64<0.01 5,374.510.461,820.771,825.240.46Spotted sucker<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01Stone crab0.270.110.140.140.1028,711.01<0.01 9,710.829,734.68<0.01 28,711.290.119,710.959,734.820.10Striped bass1.680.700.810.820.681,071.31<0.01 490.20496.62<0.01 1,072.980.70491.01497.440.68Striped killifish0.320.120.160.160.120.06<0.01 0.030.03<0.01 0.380.120.180.180.12Striped mullet0.450.170.230.230.1715.17<0.01 5.135.14<0.01 15.620.175.365.370.17Sturgeons<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.46<0.01 0.590.62<0.01 1.46<0.01 0.600.62<0.01Suckers0.170.070.080.080.074,344.79<0.01 1,775.051,856.67<0.01 4,344.960.071,775.131,856.750.07Summerflounder0.080.030.040.040.03<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.080.030.040.040.03Sunfish6.402.673.093.122.61655.10<0.01 267.58279.80<0.01 661.502.67270.67282.922.61Surfperches0.130.060.060.060.06<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.130.060.060.060.06Tautog<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 29,299.93<0.01 11,943.4812,529.42<0.01 29,299.94<0.01 11,943.4912,529.42<0.01Threespinestickleback0.110.050.060.060.050.78<0.01 0.310.32<0.01 0.890.050.370.370.05Tidewatersilverside0.300.110.150.150.1134.36<0.01 11.6211.65<0.01 34.660.1111.7711.800.11Walleye0.150.060.070.080.06169.80<0.01 69.3772.56<0.01 169.960.0669.4572.640.06Weakfish3.351.281.631.641.28929.71<0.01 404.38414.14<0.01 933.061.28406.02415.781.28White bass2.681.121.301.311.101,106.14<0.01 451.56471.86<0.01 1,108.821.12452.86473.171.10White perch6.702.703.253.272.662,996.05<0.01 1,339.291,365.37<0.01 3,002.752.701,342.541,368.652.66Whitefish0.100.040.050.050.040.92<0.01 0.370.39<0.01 1.020.040.420.440.04Windowpane0.02<0.01 0.010.01<0.01 2,066.54<0.01 842.38883.71<0.01 2,066.57<0.01 842.39883.72<0.01Winter flounder0.150.060.080.080.066,780.09<0.01 2,768.382,902.67<0.01 6,780.240.062,768.462,902.750.06Yellow perch9.594.024.644.683.931,130.30<0.01 461.51482.36<0.01 1,139.894.02466.15487.053.93Total (allspecies)1,034.92421.62500.44504.14413.701,055,936.41<0.01 400,351.83407,417.58<0.01 1,056,971.34421.62400,852.27407,921.72413.70Scenarios: 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 inlosses.Impingement Entrainment I&EMarch 28, 2011 D-1 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 fu ture benefits and costs to their present values, accounting for the fact that individuals tend to valu e 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 compar ison of benefits and/or costs that occur in different time periods.

For the benefits analysis of the regulatory opti ons 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, th e Agency calculated the total discounted value of the benefits as of the year 2012. Finally, EPA annualized th e 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 f acility will be realized. EPA first calculated the undiscounted welfare gain from the expected annual re gional 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 real ized immediately following compliance. Then, since there are regulatory and biological time lags be tween the potential promulgation of each respective regulatory option and the realization of benefits, EPA cr eated a time profile of benefits that takes into account the fact that benefits do not begin immediately.

Regulatory-related time lags occur because facilities w ill not always achieve compliance in the same year that costs are incurred. Facilities will face regulator y 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 ove r the 5-year periods 2013-2017, 2018-2022, or
2023-2027 with all activities associated with the achieve ment 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 peri od 2018-2022. Nuclear elec tric 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 20 23-2027. 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 c ontinue until the year 2056 for all facilities. See Chapter11 of the EA report for more detail.

DMarch 28, 2011 D-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### The biological time lags that affect the timing of co mmercial and recreational fish ing 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 installati on 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 inst allation 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 require d for a fish spared from I&E mortality to reach a harvestable age. The estimated time lags vary, depend ing on the life history of each fish species affected. EPA used this information, along with informati on 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-At lantic, and South Atlantic regions) are assumed toincrease over a seven-year period to a long-term, steady-state average, equal to the approximated perfacility benefit value discussed above, according to a nume rical profile of <0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0>. This profile indicates the fraction of the st eady-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 im pingement to total I&E mortality (the Inland, Great Lakes, and Gulf of Mexico regions), EPA used an adju sted profile of <0.1, 0.2, 0.8, 0.9, 0.95, 1.0> for commercial and recreational fishing benefits. This adjust ed profile reflects the fact that impinged fish are usually larger and older than entrained fish and t hus benefits will be realiz ed 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 e nd 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 weight s 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-3 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 th at there is no initial biological lag at the start of the compliance period because benefits are not based on the harvest of fish spared from I&E mortality. Benefits are assumed to begin accruing immediatel y 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 b aseline over time. The duration of the profile is consistent with analyses for commercial and recreatio nal 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:



# 

 

###  

t t t



### r 2012



### ) 1 ( Benefits Value Present 

### Equation D-1

where:

Benefits t 

### = 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 bene fit streams, EPA calculated their constant annual equivalent value (annualized value) using the annu alization 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 cost s allows comparison of constant annual equivalent
values of benefits and costs that have been calcu lated on a mathematically consistent basis. The
annualization formula is as follows:



###        

  

 1 ) 1 ( ) (1 * * Benefit of PV Benefit Annualized

n n



### r r r Equation D-2

where:

r = discount rate (3 percent and 7 percent)

n = annualization period, 50 years for the benefits analysis

59 The three percent rate represents an estimate of the social rate of time preference.March 28, 2011 D-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Table D-1 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 nationa l 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 Option 1: I Everywhere Option 2: I Everywhere
and E for Facilities with
DIF > 125 MGD Option 3: I&E Mortality Everywhere Option 4: I for
Facilities with DIF >
50 MGD
3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 2010 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0
2011 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0
2012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2013 $470 $448 $32 $30 $7 $7 $463 $441 2014 $1,309 $1,205 $85 $78 $20 $19 $1,288 $1,186 2015 $4,165 $3,705 $264 $235 $72 $64 $4,091 $3,638 2016 $7,461 $6,393 $458 $392 $126 $109 $7,329 $6,280 2017 $10,765 $8,882 $652 $538 $181 $150 $10,576 $8,726 2018 $13,640 $10,838 $14,443 $11,1 02 $14,415 $11,064 $13,400 $10,647 2019 $16,019 $12,255 $28,190 $20,8 63 $28,616 $21,160 $15,737 $12,040 2020 $16,464 $12,126 $44,411 $31,7 24 $45,435 $32,437 $16,179 $11,915 2021 $16,347 $11,590 $61,484 $42,3 66 $63,150 $43,496 $16,064 $11,389 2022 $16,047 $10,952 $77,979 $51,7 91 $80,270 $53,294 $15,769 $10,762 2023 $15,598 $10,248 $86,028 $55,0 95 $88,729 $56,808 $15,329 $10,070 2024 $15,144 $9,577 $93,426 $57,6 72 $96,529 $59,571 $14,882 $9,412 2025 $14,703 $8,951 $98,547 $58,5 96 $102,101 $60,695 $14,449 $8,796 2026 $14,274 $8,365 $103,581 $59,3 22 $107,577 $61,599 $14,028 $8,220 2027 $13,859 $7,818 $108,187 $59,6 74 $112,604 $62,100 $13,619 $7,683 2028 $13,455 $7,306 $108,905 $57,8 73 $113,471 $60,292 $13,223 $7,180 2029 $13,063 $6,828 $109,142 $55,8 71 $113,816 $58,257 $12,837 $6,710 2030 $12,683 $6,382 $108,273 $53,3 79 $112,912 $55,661 $12,464 $6,271 2031 $12,313 $5,964 $105,740 $50,1 88 $110,279 $52,337 $12,101 $5,861 2032 $11,955 $5,574 $102,961 $47,0 45 $107,385 $49,062 $11,748 $5,478 2033 $11,606 $5,209 $100,080 $44,0 21 $104,379 $45,906 $11,406 $5,119 2034 $11,268 $4,869 $97,165 $41,1 41 $101,339 $42,903 $11,074 $4,784 2035 $10,940 $4,550 $94,335 $38,4 49 $98,387 $40,096 $10,751 $4,471 2036 $10,622 $4,252 $91,588 $35,9 34 $95,522 $37,473 $10,438 $4,179 2037 $10,312 $3,974 $88,920 $33,5 83 $92,739 $35,022 $10,134 $3,905 2038 $10,012 $3,714 $86,330 $31,3 86 $90,038 $32,731 $9,839 $3,650 2039 $9,720 $3,471 $83,816 $29,3 33 $87,416 $30,589 $9,552 $3,411 2040 $9,437 $3,244 $81,374 $27,4 14 $84,870 $28,588 $9,274 $3,188 2041 $9,162 $3,032 $79,004 $25,6 20 $82,398 $26,718 $9,004 $2,979 2042 $8,895 $2,834 $76,703 $23,9 44 $79,998 $24,970 $8,742 $2,785 2043 $8,636 $2,648 $74,469 $22,3 78 $77,668 $23,337 $8,487 $2,602 2044 $8,385 $2,475 $72,300 $20,9 14 $75,406 $21,810 $8,240 $2,432 2045 $8,141 $2,313 $70,194 $19,5 46 $73,209 $20,383 $8,000 $2,273 2046 $7,903 $2,162 $68,150 $18,2 67 $71,077 $19,050 $7,767 $2,124 2047 $7,673 $2,020 $66,165 $17,0 72 $69,007 $17,803 $7,541 $1,985 2048 $7,450 $1,888 $64,238 $15,9 55 $66,997 $16,639 $7,321 $1,855 2049 $7,233 $1,765 $62,367 $14,9 11 $65,046 $15,550 $7,108 $1,734 2050 $7,022 $1,649 $60,550 $13,9 36 $63,151 $14,533 $6,901 $1,621March 28, 2011 D-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table D-1: Time Profile of National Mean Total Benefits at In -scope Facilities by Regulatory Option (2009$, thousands)

Year Option 1: I Everywhere Option 2: I Everywhere
and E for Facilities with
DIF > 125 MGD Option 3: I&E Mortality Everywhere Option 4: I for
Facilities with DIF >
50 MGD
3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 3%
Discount

Rate 7%
Discount

Rate 2051 $6,818 $1,541 $58,787 $13,0 24 $61,312 $13,582 $6,700 $1,515 2052 $6,619 $1,440 $57,074 $12,1 72 $59,526 $12,694 $6,505 $1,416 2053 $6,426 $1,346 $55,412 $11,3 76 $57,792 $11,863 $6,315 $1,323 2054 $6,239 $1,258 $53,798 $10,6 32 $56,109 $11,087 $6,131 $1,236 2055 $6,057 $1,176 $52,231 $9,936 $54,475 $10,362 $5,953 $1,155 2056 $5,881 $1,099 $50,710 $9,286 $52,888 $9,684 $5,779 $1,080 2057 $5,128 $922 $42,374 $7,475 $44,184 $7,794 $5,039 $906 2058 $4,415 $765 $34,749 $5,906 $36,224 $6,156 $4,339 $751 2059 $1,120 $186 $17,101 $2,772 $17,875 $2,897 $1,101 $183 2060 $555 $89 $10,326 $1,608 $10,799 $1,682 $546 $87 2061 $270 $42 $5,135 $770 $5,371 $805 $266 $41
2062 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2063 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0
2064 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0
2065 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0 $0

Total
Present
Value a $453,679 $221,341 $3,108,232 $1,272,593 $3,232,893 $1,320,887 $445,825 $217,499

Annualized
Value b $17,632 $16,038 $120,794 $92,200 $125,649 $95,711 $17,327 $15,760

a The total present value is equal to the su m of the values of the bene fits realized in all years of the analysis, discounted t o 2012. b The annualized value represents the total present value of th e benefits of the regulation, distributed over a 50-year period. Source: U.S. EPA analysis for this report.March 28, 2011 E-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

## Appendix E: List of T&E Species Overlapping CWIS

E 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 brevirostrum Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser medirostris Green Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus Atlantic Sturgeon Acropora cervicornis Staghorn Coral Acropora palmata Elkhorn Coral

Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedgemussel Amblyopsis rosae Ozark Cavefish

Arkansia wheeleri Ouachita Rock Pocketbook

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Green Sea Turtle

Conradilla caelata Birdwing Pearlymussel Cottus paulus (=pygmaeus) Pygmy Sculpin Cyprinella caerulea Blue Shiner Cyprogenia stegaria Fanshell Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Sea Turtle

Dromus dromas Dromedary Pearlymussel Elliptio steinstansana Tar River Spinymussel Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell Epioblasma florentina florentina Yellow (Pearlymussel) Blossom Epioblasma florentina walkeri (=E. walkeri) Tan Riffleshell Epioblasma obliquata obliquata Catspaw (Purple Cat's Paw Pearlymussel) Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua White (Pearlymussel) Catspaw Epioblasma penita Southern Combshell Epioblasma torulosa gubernaculum Green (Pearlymussel) Blossom Epioblasma torulosa rangiana Northern Riffleshell Epioblasma torulosa torulosa Tubercled (Pearlymussel) Blossom Epioblasma turgidula Turgid (Pearlymussel) Blossom Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill Sea Turtle

Etheostoma etowahae Etowah Darter Etheostoma percnurum Duskytail Darter

Etheostoma scotti Cherokee Darter Etheostoma wapiti Boulder Darter

Fusconaia cor Shiny Pigtoe

Fusconaia cuneolus Finerayed Pigtoe

Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Unarmored Threespine Stickleback

Gila bicolor mohavensis Mohave Tui Chub

Hemistena lata Cracking Pearlymussel Hypomesus transpacificus Delta Smelt Lampsilis abrupta Pink (Pearlymussel) Mucket Lampsilis higginsii Higgins Eye (Pearlymussel) Lampsilis powellii Arkansas Fatmucket Lampsilis virescens Alabama Lampmussel Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's Ridley Sea TurtleMarch 28, 2011 E-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 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 Olive Ridley Sea Turtle Leptodea leptodon Scaleshell Mussel Margaritifera hembeli Louisiana Pearlshell Microphis brachyurus lineatus Opossum Pipefish Notropis albizonatus Palezone Shiner Notropis Topeka Topeka Shiner Noturus placidus Neosho Madtom

Noturus stanauli Pygmy Madtom

Noturus trautmani Scioto Madtom

Obovaria retusa Ring Pink (Mussel) Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias Greenback Cutthroat Oncorhynchus keta Chum Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus mykiss Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook Salmon Oregonichthys crameri Oregon Chub Pegias fabula Littlewing Pearlymussel

Percina rex Roanoke Logperch

Percina tanasi Snail Darter

Phoxinus cumberlandensis Blackside Dace

Plethobasus cicatricosus White (Pearlymussel) Wartyback Plethobasus cooperianus Orangefoot (Pearlymussel) Pimpleback

Pleurobema clava Clubshell

Pleurobema collina James Spinymussel

Pleurobema marshalli Flat Pigtoe Pleurobema plenum Rough Pigtoe

Pleurobema taitianum Heavy Pigtoe Potamilus capax Fat Pocketbook Potamilus inflatus Alabama (=Inflated) Heelsplitter Pristis pectinata Smalltooth Sawfish Ptychocheilus lucius Colorado Pikeminnow (=Squawfish) Quadrula fragosa Winged Mapleleaf Quadrula intermedia Cumberland (Pearlymu ssel) Monkeyface Quadrula sparsa Appalachian (Pearlymussel) Monkeyface Quadrula stapes Stirrupshell

Rivulus marmoratus Mangrove Rivulus

Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Salvelinus confluentus Bull Trout Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Alabama Sturgeon Speoplatyrhinus poulsoni Alabama Cavefish Toxolasma cylindrellus Pale (Pearlymussel) Lilliput Villosa perpurpurea Purple Bean

Villosa trabalis Cumberland (Pearlymussel) Bean Xyrauchen texanus Razorback SuckerMarch 28, 2011 F-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation F 

## Appendix F: Detailed Methodologies of CWIS, and Estimated Benefits of Regulation on, Threatened and Endangere d Species

F.1 I&E Mortality of Sea Turtles

Six species of sea turtles are found in U.S. wate rs: 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 substa ntial overlap between sea turtle habitat and cooling water intake structures (CWIS) for in-phase pow er generating and manufactur ing facilities. Moreover, because individuals of all ages and sizes are susc eptible 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 speci es 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 qu antitative reports are available from a few power stations (Table F-1), high-quality data is availa ble from only one source, the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, at Hutchinson Island, FL, where annual cap ture 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 Ma y and December 2000 were recaptured individuals) (Norem 2005).

In addition to research sponsored by the Nationa l 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 tur tle recovery (Table F-2) provides further evidence of the high non-use values placed upon the su rvival of these animals by the public.March 28, 2011F-2Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable F-1: Reported Values of Sea Turtle EntrainmentFacilitySpeciesTakesDatesTakes/yrSourceNon‐lethalLethalNon‐lethalLethalCrystalRiver,FLKemp'sRidley,Loggerhead4051998405TEWG(2000)Brunswick,NCLoggerhead,Kemp'sRidley,Green501120005011NMFS(2001)OysterCreek,NJ,Salem,NJ,HopeNJLoggerhead4081999408NMFS(2001)Kemp'sRidley73199973Green82199982Salem,NJLoggerhead,Kemp'sRidley,Green2321991232Eggers(2001)Salem,NJLoggerhead1881980‐19882.251Eggers(1989)Salem,NJKemp'sRidley661980‐19880.750.75St.Lucie,FLLoggerhead63131691976‐2005225.56NMFS(2009)SanDiego,EdisonOliveRidleyQualitativeReportsOnly(NMFSandUSFWS1998b)SanDiego,Encina,EdisonGreen(NMFSandUSFWS1998a)St.Lucie,FLLeatherback201976‐19980.95Bresetteetal(1998)St.Lucie,FLHawksbill191976‐19980.90Bresetteetal(1998)St.Lucie,FLGreen22971976‐1998109.38Ernestetal(1988)St.Lucie,FLKemp'sRidley341976‐19981.62Bresetteetal(1998)AllUSWatersLoggerhead5‐50AnnualEstimate5‐50Plotkin(1995)March 28, 2011 F-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### Table F-2: A subset of US-based nongovernme ntal organizations dedicated to sea turtle
research and conservation

Name Group Type Web Address Amelia Island Sea Turtle Watch, Inc. Volunteer www.ameliaislandseaturtlewatch.com/

Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle

Research Academic accstr.ufl.edu/

Bald Head Island Conservancy Volunteer www.bhic.org/STPP.shtml California Turtle & Tortoise Club Volunteer www.tortoise.org/ Caribbean Conservation Corporation Nonprofit www.helpingseaturtles.org/

Chelonian Research Foundation Academic www.chelonian.org/ Clearwater Marine Aquarium Nonprofit/Volunt eer www.seewinter.co m/what-we-do/nesting

Coastal Research and Education

Society of Long Island, Inc., New York State Sea Turtle Program Nonprofit/Volunteer ww w.cresli.org/cresli/tur tles/turtpage.html

Conservation International Sea Turtle

Flagship Program Nonprofit www.conservation.org/discover/centers_pr ograms/sea_turtles/Pages/seaturtles.aspx Earthwatch Nonprofit/Ecoto urism www.earthwatch.org Gulf Coast Turtle and Tortoise Society Volunteer www.gctts.org/ Hawksbill Sea Turtle Recovery

Project Government/Volunteer www.fpir.noaa.gov/PRD/prd_volunteer_op ps.html Malama na Honu Nonprofit/Volunteer malamanahonu.org/ Marine Turtle Specialist Group Academic www.iucn-mtsg.org/ Maryland Marine Mammal and Sea

Turtle Stranding Network Government/Volunteer www.dnr.st ate.md.us/fisheries/oxford/resea rch/fwh/strandingprogram.html National Aquarium in Baltimore,

Marine Animal Rescue Program Nonprofit/Volunteer www.aqua .org/oceanhealth_marp.html

National Save the Sea Turtle

Foundation Nonprofit savetheseaturtle.org/

Network for Endangered Seaturtles Volunteer www.nestonline.org/ Ocean Conservancy Nonprofit www.oceanconservancy.org/

Riverhead Foundation for Marine

Research and Preservation Nonprofit/Volunteer www.riverheadfoundation.org/index.asp

Sanibel-Captiva Conservation

Foundation Nonprofit/Volunteer www.sccf.org/

Sea Turtle Restoration Projec t Nonprofit www.seaturtles.org Share the Beach, Sea Turtle

Volunteering Program Volunteer www.alabamaseaturtles.com/

The Leatherback Trust Nonprofit leatherback.org/ The Turtle Foundation Nonprofit 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 surv ey asked North Carolina households whether they were willing to pay a bid amount for a manageme nt program which reduces the probability that loggerhead sea turtles would be extinct in 25 years. Within the model framework, the baseline extinctionMarch 28, 2011 F-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### risk and change from the management program are expressed in terms of a supply probability. Supply probability reflects the probability that “the wildlife res ource 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 woul d 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 [p 2 

### (r 2 

### -q 2 

### )] / 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 (r 2 

### -q 2 

### ). While analyses of sea turtle
extinction risk have been conducte d (e.g., Conant et al. 2009), EPA was unable to identify an existing model or analysis which could be readily used in conj unction 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 fisherie s (Plotkin 1995). However, Crouse et al. (1987) found that mortality at juvenile and subadult life stages can have a substantial e ffect on population growth, suggesting that small changes in survivorship at th ese 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 as sociated with reductions in sea turtle losses. Using the author’s mean values for demand probability (p 2 

### ) and supply probability without the management program (q 2 

### ) (Table F-3), EPA calculated an annual house hold value of $0.35 (2009$). Estimates were converted to 2009 dollars using the consumer price index (USBLS 2010).March 28, 2011 F-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table F-3: Variable Descriptions and Values u sed for EPA’s Benefits Transfer Application



### Variable Name Description Value Used in EPA's Applications

OP Option Price - The amount a household would be willing to pay under conditions of supply and demand uncertainty Estimated by the model

p 2 

### 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

q 2 a 

### Supply Probability without the Management Program - probability that the resource will continue to exist in 25 years without implementation of the management program. 0.43

r 2 

### 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
(r 2 

### -q 2 

### ) 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 to payvalue of $10.98 (1991$) for a mean increase in su pply 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 me ta-analytical model (Ric hardson and Loomis 2009) to hypothetical scenarios. Because EPA does not curr ently have region-wide I&E mortality losses for all T&E species, nor population models to estimate the e ffect 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:

ln WTP (2006$) = -153.231 + 0.870 ln CHANGESIZE + 1.256 VISITOR + 1.020 FISH + 0.772

MARINE + 0.826 BIRD – 0.603 ln 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 (USBLS 2010).March 28, 2011 F-6 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 ln WTP Natural log of willingness to pay Estimated by model

ln CHANGESIZE Natural log of the percentage change in the population of the species of interest Log of percentage change in fish population: ln(.25) and ln(.5)

VISITOR = 1 if survey respondents are visitors
rather than full-time residents 0.0

FISH = 1 for fish species 1.0
MARINE = 1 for marine mammals 0.0 BIRD = 1 for bird species 0.0 ln RESPONSERATE Natural log of the survey response rate 4.0 CONJOINT = 1 for conjoint method surveys 0.0 CHARISMATIC = 1 for charismatic species 0.0 MAIL Indicates mail surveys 0.9 STUDY YEAR Year of study 2007March 28, 2011 G-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation G 

## 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 th at dockside prices woul d not change enough to produce measurable shifts in consumer surplus. This a ppendix 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 de mand functions incorpor ating 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 si milar types to those affect ed 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 shri mp and crabs were summed across all coastal regions. 61


### Next, EPA calculated the percentage change in ha rvest if baseline I&E mortality losses were to be eliminated, by dividing the total increase in harves t 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 se veral potentially relevant studies, including Asche, Bjorndal, and Gordon (2005); Capps and Lambrgets (1991); Cheng and Capps (1 988); Tsoa, Schrank, and Roy (1982); Davis, Yen, and Hwan-Lin (2007) ; and Lin, Richards, and Terry (1988).

Table G-1 presents the own-price elasticities identif ied 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 w ithin each of these groups, presented in the fourth column of Table G-1, are the elasticities used in this analysis. Table G-1 shows that there is a substantial amount of variation in the elasticity estimates, so by se lecting the median elasticity rather than taking an average, the influence of the more extreme estimates is reduced. 62

g

60 For example, offshore species such as tuna and swor dfish, baitfish species, and sh ellfish were not included.

61 Harvests for Alaska and Hawaii were not included in the totals.

62 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-2 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 Species Study Elasticity Median Species Group Elasticity Study Notes

Saltwater Cod -0.54 -1.89 Cheng and Capps (1988)

Saltwater Cod -3.15 -1.89 Bell (1986) as cited in Asche, Bjorndal and Gordon (2005)

Saltwater Cod(Blocks) -3.16 -1.89 Mazany, Roy and Schrank (1996) as cited in Asche, Bjorndal and Gordon (2005) Saltwater Cod(Fillets) -0.46 -1.89 Tsoa, Sc hrank and Roy (1982) Long run estimate. Saltwater Cod(Fillets) -1.89 -1.89 Asch e, Bjorndal and Gordon (2005)

Saltwater Flounder -1.63 -1.89 Mazany, Roy and Schrank (1996) as 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 -5.56 -1.89 Lin, Richards and Terry (1988) as cited in Asche, Bjorndal and Gordon (2005) Saltwater Perch -0.70 -1.89 Cheng and Capps (1988) Saltwater Perch -3.09 -1.89 Capps and Lambrgets (1991) Saltwater Perch -0.60 -1.89 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 Rockfish -3.55 -1.89 Capps and Lambrgets (1991) Saltwater Whitefish -5.24 -1.89 Capps and Lambrgets (1991) Shrimp Shrimp -0.70 -0.63 Cheng and Capps (1988)

Shrimp Shrimp -1.08 -0.63 Davis, Yen and Hwan-Lin (2007) Low income
estimate.

Shrimp Shrimp -0.30 -0.63 Davis, Yen and Hwan-Lin (2007) High income
estimate. Shrimp Shrimp -2.84 -0.63 Capps and Lambrgets (1991)

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 per centage 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 base line I&E mortality losses may include increases less than 0.1
thousand lbs.March 28, 2011 G-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### finfish prices are predicted to change by 0.14 percen t; for a 5.52 percent change in harvest for the East Coast and Gulf, finfish prices are predicted to cha nge 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 no t include measures of changes in consumer surplus in the commercial fishing benefits estimates.

Table G-2: Estimated Percentage Change in Ex-Vessel Price by Region and Species Group

Region Species Group Baseline
Increase in

Harvest a

(lbs) Total Average
Annual Harvest b (lbs) Percentage Change in

Harvest Elasticity Percentage Change in

Price

California Finfish 1,373,100 546, 791,850 0.25% -1.89 -0.13%

East Coast and Gulf Finfish 15,758,900 397,297,400 3.97% -1.89 -2.10% All Regions Crabs 678,900 315,657,146 0.22% -1.31 -0.16% All Regions Shrimp 327,700 289,878,937 0.11% -0.63 -0.18% a. Estimated increase in harvest due to elimination of baseline I&E mortality. b. Sum of total landings for all releva nt species; source – NMFS landings data.

Table G-3: Estimated Price Changes for the California Region

Species Average Annual Harvest 2005-2009 (thousand lbs) Price Per Pound (2009$) a Increase in Harvest from
Elimination of Baseline I&E Losses (thousand lbs) New Price
Per Pound

(2009$) a

American Shad 75.1 $0.98 0.0 $0.98 Anchovies 22,607.2 $0.05 0.6 $0.05
Cabezon 55.6 $5.83 54.4 $5.82
California Halibut 629.9 $4.06 126.4 $4.05 California Scorpionfish 7.9 $3.40 0.0 $3.40 Commercial Crabs 1,290. 8 $1.33 1.6 $1.33 Commercial Shrimp 2, 552.2 $1.93 0.0 $1.93
Drums and Croakers 77.0 $0.63 4.9 $0.63 Dungeness Crabs 14,370.0 $2.07 4.3 $2.07
Flounders 474.8 $0.45 10.1 $0.45 Other 57,125.4 $0.89 4.7 $0.89 Rockfishes 2,668.4 $1.25 1,168.7 $1.25 Sculpins 3.5 $3.43 2.6 $3.43
Sea Basses 6.5 $2.39 0.0 $2.39
Smelts 319.5 $0.38 0.2 $0.38 Surfperches 30.9 $1.92 0.5 $1.92 Total 102,294.7 . 1,379.0 .March 28, 2011 G-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table G-4: Estimated Price Changes for the North Atlantic Region

Species Average Annual Harvest 2005-2009 (thousand lbs) Price Per Pound (2009$) a Increase in Harvest from
Elimination of Baseline I&E Losses (thousand lbs) New Price
Per Pound

(2009$) a
American Shad 38.1 $0.69 0.0 $0.68 Atlantic Cod 15,427.3 $1.55 2.4 $1.52 Atlantic Herring 106,047.1 $0.12 18.0 $0.12 Atlantic Menhaden 5,548.6 $0.10 5.0 $0.10 Bluefish 1,077.2 $0.47 0.0 $0.46
Butterfish 550.9 $0.66 0.2 $0.65 Commercial Crabs 15,107. 8 $0.58 0.4 $0.58 Flounders 17,675.4 $1.87 386.9 $1.83 Mackerels 38,896.8 $0.14 2.3 $0.14 Other 270,552.6 $0.44 3.9 $0.43 Pollock 14,567.6 $0.55 0.0 $0.54
Red Hake 576.9 $0.45 0.0 $0.44 Sculpins <0.1 $0.25 4.0 $0.24 Scup 4531 $0.86 0.1 $0.84
Searobin 23.9 $0.12 0.1 $0.12 Silver Hake 9,613.2 $0.53 0.6 $0.52 Skate Species 31,638.4 $0.20 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 0.0 $1.42 Total 53,2054.6 . 429.6 .March 28, 2011 G-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table G-5: Estimated Price Changes for the Mid-Atlantic Region

Species Average Annual Harvest 2005-2009 (thousand lbs) Price Per Pound (2009$) a Increase in Harvest from
Elimination of Baseline I&E Losses (thousand lbs) New Price
Per Pound

(2009$) a Alewife 173.3 $0.21 0.4 $0.21
American Shad 111.4 $0.92 1.5 $0.90 Atlantic Herring 1,284.2 $0.11 0.1 $0.11 Atlantic Menhaden 338, 097.3 $0.07 4,915.4 $0.07
Black Drum 93.8 $1.26 0.3 $1.23 Blue Crab 62,874.0 $1.17 1,014.2 $1.15 Bluefish 2,906.3 $0.43 0.1 $0.42
Butterfish 501.3 $0.85 0.0 $0.83 Commercial Crabs 2,240. 2 $0.60 0.4 $0.60 Drums and Croakers 11, 430.1 $0.49 1,519.2 $0.48 Flounders 6,468.0 $2.01 8.7 $1.97 Other 462,429.6 $0.32 1,264.4 $0.31

Red Hake 150.7 $0.52 0.8 $0.51 Scup 3,225.6 $0.98 0.0 $0.96
Searobin 12.0 $0.22 0.0 $0.22 Silver Hake 3,867.0 $0.67 0.1 $0.66 Spot 3,286.9 $0.74 1,111.4 $0.72 Striped Bass 5,413.8 $2.02 88.6 $1.98 Striped Mullet 20.3 $0.53 0.3 $0.52 Tautog 135.9 $2.64 0.0 $2.58
Weakfish 497.0 $1.10 741.9 $1.08 White Perch 1,190.0 $0.76 4.0 $0.74 Total 906,408.6 . 10,671.9 .

Table G-6: Estimated Price Changes for the South Atlantic Region

Species Average Annual
Harvest 2005-2009

(thousand lbs) Price Per Pound (2009$) a Increase in Harvest
from Elimination of
Baseline I&E Losses (thousand lbs) New Price
Per Pound

(2009$) a

Atlantic Menhaden 3,726.8 $0.11 55.7 $0.11 Blue Crab 36,414.4 $0.91 4.2 $0.91
Commercial Crabs 518 $1.51 0.0 $1.51 Drums and Croakers 8, 333.3 $0.40 14.9 $0.39 Other 93,761.3 $1.17 3.0 $1.15 Spot 1,167.6 $0.65 20.4 $0.64
Stone Crab 101.1 $4.56 0.5 $4.55
Weakfish 266.5 $0.93 0.7 $0.91 Total 144,289.1 . 99.4March 28, 2011 G-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table G-7: Estimated Price Changes for the Gulf of Mexico Region

Species Average Annual
Harvest 2005-2009

(thousand lbs) Price Per Pound (2009$) a Increase in Harvest from
Elimination of Baseline I&E Losses (thousand lbs) New Price
Per Pound

(2009$) a

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 81.0 $6.47 40.3 $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 $0.66 Total 2,271,918.70 . 5,558.9 .March 28, 2011H-1Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationHAppendix H: Details of RegionalCommercial Fishing BenefitsTable H-1: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in theCalifornia Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4American Shad 75.1 $0.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . . . .Anchovies 22,607.2 $0.05 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Cabezon 55.6 $5.83 54.4 0.1 46.4 48.5 0.1 166.5 0.2 142.0 148.5 0.2California Halibut 629.9 $4.06 126.4 0.2 107.8 112.8 0.2 298.8 0.6 254.8 266.5 0.5California Scorpionfish 7.9 $3.40 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Commercial Crabs 1,290.8 $1.33 1.6 0.0 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.3 1.4 0.0Commercial Shrimp 2,552.2 $1.93 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Drums and Croakers 77.0 $0.63 4.9 0.7 4.3 4.5 0.7 1.3 0.2 1.1 1.2 0.2Dungeness Crabs 14,370.0 $2.07 4.3 0.4 3.8 3.9 0.4 6.6 0.6 5.7 6.0 0.6Flounders 474.8 $0.45 10.1 0.9 8.8 9.1 0.9 2.9 0.3 2.5 2.6 0.2Other 57,125.4 $0.89 4.7 0.6 4.1 4.2 0.6 2.2 0.3 1.9 2.0 0.3Rockfishes 2,668.4 $1.25 1,168.7 2.6 996.4 1,042.2 2.5 907.7 2.0 774.0 809.6 2.0Sculpins 3.5 $3.43 2.6 0.1 2.2 2.3 0.1 5.7 0.2 4.9 5.1 0.2Sea Basses 6.5 $2.39 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Smelts 319.5 $0.38 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Surfperches 30.9 $1.92 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3Total (undiscounted) 102,294.7 . 1,379.0 6.7 1,176.4 1,230.3 6.5 1,393.9 4.7 1,188.7 1,243.3 4.6Total (3% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 1,236.0 3.7 750.8 776.0 3.6Total (7% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 1,195.0 3.3 573.3 589.0 3.2Annual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest(2009$, thousands)Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E MortalityEverywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGDSpecies NameAverageAnnualHarvest 2006-2009(thousand lbs)Price perPoundAnnual Increase in Commercial Harvest(thousand lbs)March 28, 2011H-2Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable H-2: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in theNorthAtlantic Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4American Shad 38.1 $0.69 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Atlantic Cod 15,427.3 $1.55 2.4 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.1 2.5 0.1 2.0 2.1 0.1Atlantic Herring 106,047.1 $0.12 18.0 0.4 14.8 15.5 0.4 1.7 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0Atlantic Menhaden 5,548.6 $0.10 5.0 0.0 4.1 4.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0Bluefish 1,077.2 $0.47 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Butterfish 550.9 $0.66 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Commercial Crabs 15,107.8 $0.58 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Flounders 17,675.4 $1.87 386.9 1.3 315.8 331.2 1.3 460.2 1.5 375.5 393.9 1.5Mackerels 38,896.8 $0.14 2.3 0.0 1.8 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0Other 270,552.6 $0.44 3.9 0.2 3.2 3.4 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0Pollock 14,567.6 $0.55 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Red Hake 576.9 $0.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sculpins 0.0 $0.25 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 . . . . .Scup 4,531.0 $0.86 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Searobin 23.9 $0.12 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 . . . . .Silver Hake 9,613.2 $0.53 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0Skate Species 31,638.4 $0.20 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0Tautog 147.1 $2.03 4.9 0.0 4.0 4.2 0.0 4.5 0.0 3.7 3.8 0.0Weakfish 28.2 $1.48 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0White Perch 6.6 $1.45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Total (undiscounted) 532,054.6 . 429.6 2.9 351.7 368.6 2.9 471.2 1.9 384.6 403.4 1.9Total (3% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 417.9 1.5 230.6241.5 1.5Total (7% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 404.0 1.3 171.3179.3 1.3Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E MortalityEverywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGDAnnual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest(2009$, thousands)Species NameAverageAnnualHarvest 2006-2009(thousand lbs)Price perPoundAnnual Increase in Commercial Harvest(thousand lbs)March 28, 2011H-3Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable H-3: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in theMidAtlantic Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4Alewife 173.3 $0.21 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1American Shad 111.4 $0.92 1.5 0.0 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0Atlantic Herring 1,284.2 $0.11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Atlantic Menhaden 338,097.3 $0.07 4,915.4 3,273.9 4,758.3 4,780.2 3,270.8 223.3 148.7 216.1 217.1 148.6Black Drum 93.8 $1.26 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2Blue Crab 62,874.0 $1.17 1,014.2 10.2 929.6 941.4 10.2 678.0 6.8 621.5 629.3 6.8Bluefish 2,906.3 $0.43 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Butterfish 501.3 $0.85 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Commercial Crabs 2,240.2 $0.60 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Drums and Croakers 11,430.1 $0.49 1,519.2 16.5 1,392.6 1,410.2 16.5 549.3 6.0 503.5 509.9 6.0Flounders 6,468.0 $2.01 8.7 3.4 8.3 8.3 3.4 11.9 4.5 11.2 11.3 4.5Other 462,429.6 $0.32 1,264.4 126.9 1,167.9 1,181.3 126.8 293.0 29.4 270.6 273.7 29.4Red Hake 150.7 $0.52 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2Scup 3,225.6 $0.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Searobin 12.0 $0.22 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . . . .Silver Hake 3,867.0 $0.67 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Spot 3,286.9 $0.74 1,111.4 120.0 1,111.4 1,111.4 119.9 693.6 74.9 693.6 693.6 74.8Striped Bass 5,413.8 $2.02 88.6 0.4 81.2 82.2 0.4 119.2 0.6 109.2 110.6 0.6Striped Mullet 20.3 $0.53 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Tautog 135.9 $2.64 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Weakfish 497.0 $1.10 741.9 196.1 694.9 701.4 196.0 619.3 163.7 580.0 585.5 163.6White Perch 1,190.0 $0.76 4.0 0.3 3.7 3.7 0.3 2.5 0.2 2.3 2.3 0.2Total (undiscounted) 906,408.6 . 10,671.9 3,749.8 10,151.6 10,224.0 3,746.3 3,192.2 435.5 3,010.1 3,035.4 435.1Total (3% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 2,831.2 342.0 1,614.8 1,629.0 341.6Total (7% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 2,736.8 302.7 1,124.0 1,133.9 302.4Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E MortalityEverywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGDAnnual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest(2009$, thousands)Species NameAverageAnnualHarvest 2006-2009(thousand lbs)Price perPoundAnnual Increase in Commercial Harvest(thousand lbs)March 28, 2011H-4Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable H-4: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in theSouthAtlantic Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4Atlantic Menhaden 3,726.8 $0.11 55.7 31.4 47.4 47.4 31.4 4.7 2.7 4.0 4.0 2.7Blue Crab 36,414.4 $0.91 4.2 2.6 3.6 3.6 2.6 2.2 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.4Commercial Crabs 518.0 $1.51 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Drums and Croakers 8,333.3 $0.40 14.9 0.3 12.4 12.4 0.3 3.2 0.1 2.7 2.7 0.1Other 93,761.3 $1.17 3.0 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.1 1.1 1.8 1.8 1.1Spot 1,167.6 $0.65 20.4 8.6 17.3 17.3 8.6 9.3 3.9 7.9 7.9 3.9Stone Crab 101.1 $4.56 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 1.4 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.9Weakfish 266.5 $0.93 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2Total (undiscounted) 144,289.1 . 99.4 45.1 84.2 84.3 45.1 23.3 10.2 19.8 19.8 10.2Total (3% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 20.7 8.0 11.5 11.5 8.0Total (7% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 20.0 7.1 8.4 8.4 7.1Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E MortalityEverywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGDAnnual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest(2009$, thousands)Species NameAverageAnnualHarvest 2006-2009(thousand lbs)Price perPoundAnnual Increase in Commercial Harvest(thousand lbs)March 28, 2011H-5Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable H-5: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in theGulf ofMexico Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4Atlantic Menhaden 930,460.2 $0.06 988.4 749.3 978.5 979.2 743.6 44.1 33.5 43.7 43.7 33.2Black Drum 4,397.3 $0.83 1,885.2 3.1 1,276.5 1,279.7 3.1 1,087.6 1.8 736.5 738.3 1.8Blue Crab 56,804.0 $0.77 228.5 40.2 171.2 171.5 39.9 126.3 22.2 94.6 94.8 22.0Drums and Croakers 81.0 $6.47 40.3 30.8 40.0 40.0 30.6 140.7 107.7 139.7 139.8 106.8Leatherjacket 65.6 $1.40 90.7 66.2 88.7 88.8 65.7 . . . . .Mackerels 3,967.4 $1.04 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Other 1,250,334.1 $0.41 240.5 164.8 230.8 231.0 163.6 45.7 31.3 43.8 43.9 31.1Pink Shrimp 8,696.5 $2.06 327.7 154.4 285.5 285.9 153.3 293.4 138.3 255.7 256.0 137.2Sea Basses 66.6 $0.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Sheepshead 1,366.3 $0.41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Spot 18.1 $0.43 40.0 24.8 37.3 37.3 24.6 9.3 5.8 8.7 8.7 5.7Stone Crab 5,313.9 $4.23 439.0 104.1 340.1 340.7 103.3 1,323.1 313.8 1,024.7 1,026.6 311.4Striped Mullet 10,347.7 $0.67 1,278.3 121.5 914.9 916.9 120.5 676.0 64.2 483.9 484.9 63.7Total (undiscounted) 2,271,918.7 . 5,558.9 1,459.4 4,363.8 4,371.3 1,448.4 3,746.5 718.7 2,831.5 2,836.9 713.3Total (3% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 3,462.9 588.4 1,805.7 1,804.3 584.0Total (7% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 3,449.9 536.8 1,394.2 1,390.4 532.7Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E MortalityEverywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGDSpecies NameAverageAnnualHarvest 2006-2009(thousand lbs)Price perPoundAnnual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest(2009$, thousands)Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest(thousand lbs)March 28, 2011H-6Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable H-6: Commercial Fishing Benefits from Eliminating or Reducing Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at In-Scope Facilities in theGreatLakes Region, by Species and Regulatory Option (2009$)Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Baseline Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4Bullhead 569.7 $0.41 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Freshwater Drum 497.5 $0.16 16.1 3.8 13.7 13.8 3.8 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2Other 13,819.0 $0.94 97.2 35.0 85.3 86.1 34.7 26.6 9.6 23.3 23.6 9.5Smelts 522.2 $0.91 105.9 91.2 104.6 104.9 90.5 27.8 24.0 27.5 27.6 23.8White Bass 432.2 $0.68 22.0 6.4 19.0 19.2 6.4 4.3 1.3 3.7 3.8 1.3Whitefish 9,406.5 $0.87 101.9 88.3 100.8 101.1 87.6 25.9 22.4 25.6 25.6 22.2Yellow Perch 1,609.7 $2.08 2.3 1.6 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.4 0.9 1.3 1.3 0.9Total (undiscounted) 40,675.8 . 346.2 227.0 326.4 328.0 225.1 86.8 58.4 82.2 82.6 57.9Total (3% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 80.3 47.8 52.9 53.0 47.4Total (7% Discount Rate) . . . . . . . 80.0 43.6 41.1 41.0 43.3Scenarios: Baseline = Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses; Option 1 = I Everywhere; Option 2 = I Everywhere and E for Facilities >125 MGD; Option 3 = I&E MortalityEverywhere; Option 4 = I for Facilities > 50 MGDSpecies NameAverageAnnualHarvest 2006-2009(thousand lbs)Price perPoundAnnual Benefits from Increase in Commercial Harvest(2009$, thousands)Annual Increase in Commercial Harvest(thousand lbs)March 28, 2011 I-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation I 

## Appendix I: Details of Regional Recreational Fishing Benefits

I.1 California

Table I-1: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at Inscope Facilities in the Califor nia Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th California halibut 38,418.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 196.7 374.6 715.4
Flounders 246.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 1.3 2.4 4.6 Total (Flatfish) 38,664.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 198.0 377.0 720.0 Striped bass 1,209.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 5.0 9.0 15.0 Total (Small Game) 1,209.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 5.0 9.0 15.0 Cabezon 7,158.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 12.8 21.2 35.0 California scorpionfish 58.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.1 0.2 0.3 Croakers 32,132.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 57.5 95.0 157.1 Rockfish 285,002.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 509.8 842.9 1,393.2 Sculpin 111,780.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 200.0 330.6 546.4 Sea bass 512,501.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 916.8 1,515.8 2,505.3
Smelts 21.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.1 0.1
Sunfish 13.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.1 Surfperch 30,172.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 54.0 89.2 147.5 Total (Other Saltwater) 978,837.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 1,751.0 2,895.0 4,785.0 Total (Unidentified) 3,629.0 $1.86 $3.10 $5.18 7.0 11.0 19.0 Total (Undiscounted) 1,022,339.0 . . . 1,960.0 3,292.0 5,539.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 1,740.0 2,923.0 4,917.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 1,681.0 2,823.0 4,750.0 Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands) Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per FishMarch 28, 2011 I-2 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-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$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

California halibut 71.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 0.0 0.8 1.5
Flounders 22.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 0.0 0.2 0.5 Total (Flatfish) 92.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 0.0 1.0 2.0 Striped bass 0.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Small Game) 0.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cabezon 10.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 California scorpionfish 50.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.1 0.1 0.2 Croakers 4,696.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 8.4 13.9 23.0
Rockfish 636.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 1.1 1.9 3.1 Sculpin 3,284.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 5.8 9.7 16.1
Sea bass 284.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.5 0.8 1.4
Smelts 17.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.1 0.1
Sunfish 1.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 Surfperch 26,391.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 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 Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands) Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per FishMarch 28, 2011 I-3 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-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$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
California halibut 32,753.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 167.9 319.9 610.0
Flounders 213.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 1.1 2.1 4.0 Total (Flatfish) 32,967.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 169.0 322.0 614.0 Striped bass 1,031.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 4.0 7.0 13.0 Total (Small Game) 1,031.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 4.0 7.0 13.0 Cabezon 6,103.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 10.9 18.0 29.8 California scorpionfish 57.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.1 0.2 0.3 Croakers 28,097.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 50.3 83.1 137.3 Rockfish 242,999.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 434.7 718.6 1,187.8 Sculpin 95,765.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 171.3 283.2 468.1 Sea bass 436,840.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 781.5 1,291.9 2,135.3
Smelts 20.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.1 0.1
Sunfish 12.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.1 Surfperch 29,711.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 53.2 87.9 145.2 Total (Other Saltwater) 839,604.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 1,502.0 2,483.0 4,104.0 Total (Unidentified) 3,240.0 $1.86 $3.10 $5.18 6.0 10.0 17.0 Total (Undiscounted) 876,841.0 . . . 1,681.0 2,822.0 4,748.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 1,037.0 1,741.0 2,929.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 792.0 1,330.0 2,237.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-4: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everyw here) in the California Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
California halibut 34,260.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 174.9 333.8 637.9
Flounders 222.0 $5.11 $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 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 5.0 8.0 13.0 Total (Small Game) 1,078.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 5.0 8.0 13.0 Cabezon 6,383.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 11.4 18.9 31.2 California scorpionfish 57.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.1 0.2 0.3 Croakers 29,198.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 52.2 86.3 142.7 Rockfish 254,174.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 454.5 751.6 1,242.4 Sculpin 100,044.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 178.9 295.9 489.0 Sea bass 456,964.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 817.2 1,351.3 2,233.6
Smelts 21.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.1 0.1
Sunfish 12.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.1 Surfperch 29,987.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 53.6 88.7 146.6 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 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-5: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MG D) in the California Re gion, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

California halibut 69.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 0.0 0.8 1.5
Flounders 21.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 0.0 0.2 0.5 Total (Flatfish) 90.0 $5.11 $9.76 $18.62 0.0 1.0 2.0 Striped bass 0.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Small Game) 0.0 $4.21 $7.26 $12.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cabezon 10.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 California scorpionfish 49.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 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 $4.89 1.1 1.8 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 $4.89 0.5 0.8 1.3
Smelts 16.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.1
Sunfish 1.0 $1.79 $2.96 $4.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-6 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### I.2 North Atlantic

Table I-6: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at Inscope Facilities in the North Atla ntic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Winter flounder 310,442.0 $3.81 $5 .96 $9.42 1,182.0 1,850.0 2,925.0 Total (flatfish) 310,442.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 1,182.0 1,850.0 2,925.0
Atlantic mackerel 903.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 1.9 5.8 15.4
Bluefish 1.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 Striped bass 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 33.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.1 0.2 0.6 Total (small game) 937.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 2.0 6.0 16.0 Atlantic Cod 1,281.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 2.3 3.8 6.4 Cunner 107,374.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 191.9 320.2 533.7
Pollock 4.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sculpin 323,088.0 $1.79 $2 .98 $4.97 577.5 963.4 1,606.0 Scup 128.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.2 0.4 0.6
Searobin 823.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 1.5 2.5 4.1 Tautog 14,323.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 25.6 42.7 71.2
White Perch 0.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (other saltwater) 447,021.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 799.0 1,333.0 2,222.0 Total (unidentified) 2,783.0 $1.80 $3.01 $5.03 5.0 8.0 14.0 Total (Undiscounted) 761,183.0 . . . 1,988.0 3,197.0 5,177.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 1,765.0 2,838.0 4,596.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 1,705.0 2,742.0 4,440.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-7 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-7: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in th e North Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Winter flounder 836.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 3.0 5.0 8.0 Total (flatfish) 836.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 3.0 5.0 8.0
Atlantic mackerel 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bluefish 1.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 Striped bass 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (small game) 1.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Cod 40.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.1 0.1 0.2
Cunner 19.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.1
Pollock 1.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sculpin 345.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.7 0.7 1.4 Scup 8.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin 45.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.1 0.1 0.2 Tautog 17.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.1
White Perch 0.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (other saltwater) 476.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (unidentified) 181.0 $1.80 $3.01 $5.03 0.0 1.0 1.0 Total (Undiscounted) 1,495.0 . . . 4.0 7.0 11.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 3.0 5.0 9.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 3.0 5.0 8.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-8 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-8: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E fo r Facilities > 125 MGD) in the North Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Winter flounder 253,297.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 964.0 1,510.0 2,387.0 Total (flatfish) 253,297.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 964.0 1,510.0 2,387.0
Atlantic mackerel 736.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 1.9 4.8 12.5
Bluefish 1.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 Striped bass 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 27.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.1 0.2 0.5 Total (small game) 764.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 2.0 5.0 13.0 Atlantic Cod 1,054.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 1.9 3.1 5.2 Cunner 87,542.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 156.6 261.0 435.1
Pollock 3.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sculpin 263,485.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 471.2 785.6 1,309.6 Scup 106.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.2 0.3 0.5
Searobin 682.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 1.2 2.0 3.4 Tautog 11,681.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 20.9 34.8 58.1
White Perch 0.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (other saltwater) 364,555.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 652.0 1,087.0 1,812.0 Total (unidentified) 2,313.0 $1.80 $3.01 $5.03 4.0 7.0 12.0 Total (Undiscounted) 620,929.0 . . . 1,622.0 2,608.0 4,223.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 939.0 1,510.0 2,446.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 698.0 1,122.0 1,817.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-9: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhe re) in the North Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Winter flounder 265,676.0 $3.81 $5 .96 $9.42 1,012.0 1,583.0 2,503.0 Total (flatfish) 265,676.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 1,012.0 1,583.0 2,503.0
Atlantic mackerel 772.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 1.9 4.8 12.5
Bluefish 1.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 Striped bass 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 29.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.1 0.2 0.5 Total (small game) 801.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 2.0 5.0 13.0 Atlantic Cod 1,104.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 2.0 3.3 5.5 Cunner 91,836.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 164.3 273.8 456.5
Pollock 3.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sculpin 276,392.0 $1.79 $2 .98 $4.97 494.4 823.9 1,374.0 Scup 111.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.2 0.3 0.6
Searobin 713.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 1.3 2.1 3.5 Tautog 12,253.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 21.9 36.5 60.9
White Perch 0.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (other saltwater) 382,413.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 684.0 1,140.0 1,901.0 Total (unidentified) 2,417.0 $1.80 $3.01 $5.03 4.0 7.0 12.0 Total (Undiscounted) 651,307.0 . . . 1,701.0 2,736.0 4,430.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 1,018.0 1,638.0 2,652.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 756.0 1,216.0 1,969.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-10 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-10: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MG D) in the North Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Winter flounder 836.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 3.0 5.0 8.0 Total (flatfish) 836.0 $3.81 $5.96 $9.42 3.0 5.0 8.0
Atlantic mackerel 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Bluefish 1.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 Striped bass 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 0.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (small game) 1.0 $2.13 $5.94 $16.76 0.0 0.0 0.0
Atlantic Cod 40.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.1 0.1 0.2
Cunner 19.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.1
Pollock 1.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sculpin 345.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.7 0.7 1.4 Scup 8.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin 45.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.1 0.1 0.2 Tautog 17.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.1
White Perch 0.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (other saltwater) 476.0 $1.79 $2.98 $4.97 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (unidentified) 181.0 $1.80 $3.01 $5.03 0.0 1.0 1.0 Total (Undiscounted) 1,495.0 . . . 4.0 7.0 11.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 3.0 5.0 9.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 3.0 5.0 8.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-11 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### I.3 Mid-Atlantic

Table I-11: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at Inscope Facilities in the Mid-Atla ntic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Summer Flounder 5,310.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 19.7 30.0 45.0 Winter Flounder 4,946.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 18.3 28.0 42.0 Total (Flatfish) 10,256.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 38.0 58.0 87.0 Black Crappie 3.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 16.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bullhead 3,847.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.9 3.9 8.2
Bullhead 11.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Channel catfish 2,891.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.5 2.9 6.2 Crappie 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Menhaden 966.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.5 1.0 2.1
Sunfish 221.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.1 0.2 0.5 Total (Panfish) 7,956.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 4.0 8.0 17.0
Bluefish 126.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 0.3 0.7 2.0 Red drum 2,667.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 6.0 15.7 41.4 Spotted seatrout 1,768.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 4.0 10.4 27.4 Striped bass 166,917.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 377.4 985.1 2,589.8 Weakfish 459,710.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 1,039.3 2,713.0 7,132.5 Total (Small Game) 631,187.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 1,427.0 3,725.0 9,793.0 Northern pike 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlantic croaker 1,782,932.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 3,304.3 5,205.0 8,205.4 Atlantic herring 57.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.2 0.3
Black drum 255.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.5 0.7 1.2
Cunner 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Scup 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin 8.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Smallmouth bass 57.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.2 0.3 Spot 5,388,053.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 9,985.6 15,729.6 24,796.9 Striped mullet 12.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.1 Tautog 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 White perch 33,237.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 61.6 97.0 153.0
Whitefish 426.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.8 1.2 2.0 Total (Other Saltwater) 7,205,039.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 13,353.0 21,034.0 33,159.0 Total (Unidentified) 1,226,622.0 $1.91 $3.24 $5.74 2,344.0 3,978.0 7,036.0 Total (Undiscounted) 9,081,061.0 . . . 17,166.0 28,803.0 50,092.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 15,239.0 25,569.0 44,467.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 14,721.0 24,701.0 42,958.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-12 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-12: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Summer Flounder 4,051.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 15.1 23.1 34.7
Winter Flounder 499.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 1.9 2.9 4.3 Total (Flatfish) 4,550.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 17.0 26.0 39.0 Black Crappie 3.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 12.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brown bullhead 787.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.5 0.7 1.7
Bullhead 8.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Channel catfish 2,205.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.4 2.1 4.8 Crappie 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Menhaden 0.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sunfish 169.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.1 0.2 0.4 Total (Panfish) 3,185.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.0 3.0 7.0
Bluefish 96.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 0.2 0.6 1.5 Red drum 2,035.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 4.6 12.0 31.6 Spotted seatrout 1,349.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 3.0 8.0 20.9 Striped bass 796.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 1.8 4.7 12.4 Weakfish 121,529.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 274.3 716.8 1,885.7 Total (Small Game) 125,805.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 284.0 742.0 1,952.0 Northern pike 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlantic croaker 19,396.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 35.9 56.6 89.3 Atlantic herring 43.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.1 0.2
Black drum 195.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.4 0.6 0.9
Cunner 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Scup 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin 5.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Smallmouth bass 44.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.1 0.2 Spot 318,070.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 589.2 928.2 1,464.2 Striped mullet 9.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tautog 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 White perch 2,541.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 4.7 7.4 11.7
Whitefish 325.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.6 0.9 1.5 Total (Other Saltwater) 340,629.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 631.0 994.0 1,568.0 Total (Unidentified) 74,846.0 $1.91 $3.24 $5.74 143.0 243.0 429.0 Total (Undiscounted) 549,015.0 . . . 1,077.0 2,009.0 3,994.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 846.0 1,577.0 3,136.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 749.0 1,396.0 2,776.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-13 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-13: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E fo r Facilities > 125 MGD) in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Summer Flounder 5,180.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 19.1 29.2 44.1 Winter Flounder 4,569.0 $3. 74 $5.62 $8.52 16.9 25.8 38.9 Total (Flatfish) 9,749.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 36.0 55.0 83.0 Black Crappie 3.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 16.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bullhead 3,585.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.9 3.8 7.6
Bullhead 10.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Channel catfish 2,820.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.5 3.0 6.0 Crappie 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Menhaden 885.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.5 0.9 1.9
Sunfish 216.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.1 0.2 0.5 Total (Panfish) 7,536.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 4.0 8.0 16.0
Bluefish 123.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 0.3 0.7 1.9 Red drum 2,602.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 5.9 15.4 40.4 Spotted seatrout 1,724.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 3.9 10.2 26.7 Striped bass 152,927.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 345.7 902.6 2,372.8 Weakfish 430,538.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 973.2 2,541.1 6,680.2 Total (Small Game) 587,915.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 1,329.0 3,470.0 9,122.0 Northern pike 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlantic croaker 1,634,350.0 $1. 85 $2.92 $4.60 3,028.8 4,771.2 7,521.5 Atlantic herring 55.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.2 0.3
Black drum 249.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.5 0.7 1.1
Cunner 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Scup 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin 8.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Smallmouth bass 56.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.2 0.3 Spot 4,959,382.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4. 60 9,190.9 14,478.0 22,823.8 Striped mullet 12.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.1 Tautog 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 White perch 30,638.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 56.8 89.4 141.0
Whitefish 415.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.8 1.2 1.9 Total (Other Saltwater) 6,625,167.0 $1. 85 $2.92 $4.60 12,278.0 19,341.0 30,490.0 Total (Unidentified) 1,129,224.0 $1.91 $3.24 $5.74 2,158.0 3,662.0 6,477.0 Total (Undiscounted) 8,359,591.0 . . . 15,805.0 26,536.0 46,188.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 8,381.0 14,073.0 24,501.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 5,831.0 9,792.0 17,049.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-14 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-14: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everyw here) in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Summer Flounder 5,198.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 19.6 29.1 44.5 Winter Flounder 4,622.0 $3. 74 $5.62 $8.52 17.4 25.9 39.5 Total (Flatfish) 9,820.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 37.0 55.0 84.0 Black Crappie 3.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 16.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Brown bullhead 3,622.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.9 3.8 7.6
Bullhead 10.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Channel catfish 2,830.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.5 3.0 6.0 Crappie 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Menhaden 896.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.5 0.9 1.9
Sunfish 216.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.1 0.2 0.5 Total (Panfish) 7,595.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 4.0 8.0 16.0
Bluefish 123.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 0.3 0.7 1.9 Red drum 2,611.0 $2.26 $5. 90 $15.52 5.9 15.4 40.5 Spotted seatrout 1,730.0 $2. 26 $5.90 $15.52 3.9 10.2 26.8 Striped bass 154,871.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 350.2 914.0 2,402.9 Weakfish 434,593.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 982.7 2,564.7 6,742.8 Total (Small Game) 593,930.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 1,343.0 3 ,505.0 9,215.0 Northern pike 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlantic croaker 1,655,004.0 $1. 85 $2.92 $4.60 3,067. 0 4,831.4 7,616.6 Atlantic herring 55.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.2 0.3
Black drum 250.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.5 0.7 1.2
Cunner 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Scup 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin 8.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Smallmouth bass 56.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.2 0.3 Spot 5,018,970.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4. 60 9,301.1 14,651.8 23,098.1 Striped mullet 12.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.1 Tautog 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 White perch 30,999.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 57.4 90.5 142.7
Whitefish 417.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.8 1.2 1.9 Total (Other Saltwater) 6,705,773.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 12,427. 0 19,576.0 30,861.0 Total (Unidentified) 1,142,763.0 $1. 91 $3.24 $5.74 2,183. 0 3,706.0 6,555.0 Total (Undiscounted) 8,459,880.0 . . . 15,995. 0 26,851.0 46,731.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 8,584.0 14,410.0 25,078.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 5,975.0 10,030.0 17,456.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-15 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-15: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the Mid-Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Summer Flounder 4,047.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 15.1 23.1 34.7
Winter Flounder 499.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 1.9 2.9 4.3 Total (Flatfish) 4,546.0 $3.74 $5.62 $8.52 17.0 26.0 39.0 Black Crappie 3.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 12.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Brown bullhead 786.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.5 0.7 1.7
Bullhead 8.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Channel catfish 2,203.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.4 2.1 4.8 Crappie 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Menhaden 0.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0
Sunfish 169.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.1 0.2 0.4 Total (Panfish) 3,182.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.0 3.0 7.0
Bluefish 96.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 0.2 0.6 1.5 Red drum 2,033.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 4.6 12.0 31.5 Spotted seatrout 1,347.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 3.0 8.0 20.9 Striped bass 796.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 1.8 4.7 12.3 Weakfish 121,415.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 274.3 716.8 1,883.7 Total (Small Game) 125,687.0 $2.26 $5.90 $15.52 284.0 742.0 1,950.0 Northern pike 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 0.0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 Atlantic croaker 19,377.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 35.9 56.5 89.2 Atlantic herring 43.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.1 0.2
Black drum 195.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.4 0.6 0.9
Cunner 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Scup 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Searobin 5.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 1.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0
Smallmouth bass 44.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.1 0.1 0.2 Spot 317,770.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 589.2 927.2 1,462.3 Striped mullet 9.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tautog 0.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.0 0.0 0.0 White perch 2,538.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 4.7 7.4 11.7
Whitefish 324.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 0.6 0.9 1.5 Total (Other Saltwater) 340,307.0 $1.85 $2.92 $4.60 631.0 993.0 1,566.0 Total (Unidentified) 74,775.0 $1.91 $3.24 $5.74 143.0 243.0 429.0 Total (Undiscounted) 548,496.0 . . . 1,076.0 2,007.0 3,991.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 845.0 1,576.0 3,133.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 748.0 1,395.0 2,773.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-16 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### I.4 South Atlantic

Table I-16: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at Inscope Facilities in the South Atla ntic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Flounders 778.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 3.0 4.0 6.0 Total (Flatfish) 778.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 3.0 4.0 6.0 Spotted seatrout 1,898.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 4.8 10.5 22.6
Weakfish 455.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 1.2 2.5 5.4 Total (Small Game) 2,353.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 6.0 13.0 28.0 Croakers 96,913.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 207.6 276.1 365.6 Pinfish 1,518.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 3.3 4.3 5.7 Silver perch 76.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 0.2 0.2 0.3 Spot 30,313.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 64.9 86.4 114.4 Total (Other Saltwater) 128,820.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 276.0 367.0 486.0 Total (Unidentified) 1,945.0 $2.15 $2.86 $3.82 4.0 6.0 7.0 Total (Undiscounted) 133,897.0 . . . 290.0 390.0 529.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 257.0 346.0 469.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 249.0 335.0 453.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)

Table I-17: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in th e South Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Flounders 491.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 2.0 3.0 4.0 Total (Flatfish) 491.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 2.0 3.0 4.0 Spotted seatrout 0.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 224.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 1.0 1.0 3.0 Total (Small Game) 224.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 1.0 1.0 3.0 Croakers 1,762.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 3.8 5.0 6.7
Pinfish 0.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 48.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 0.1 0.1 0.2 Spot 12,733.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 27.1 35.9 48.2 Total (Other Saltwater) 14,543.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 31.0 41.0 55.0 Total (Unidentified) 624.0 $2.15 $2.86 $3.82 1.0 2.0 2.0 Total (Undiscounted) 15,882.0 . . . 35.0 47.0 64.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 28.0 37.0 50.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 24.0 33.0 45.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-17 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-18: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E fo r Facilities > 125 MGD) in the South Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Flounders 663.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 3.0 4.0 5.0 Total (Flatfish) 663.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 3.0 4.0 5.0 Spotted seatrout 1,583.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 4.0 8.8 19.3
Weakfish 386.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 1.0 2.2 4.7 Total (Small Game) 1,969.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 5.0 11.0 24.0 Croakers 80,881.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 173.2 230.2 305.2 Pinfish 1,266.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 2.7 3.6 4.8 Silver perch 65.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 0.1 0.2 0.2 Spot 25,654.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 54.9 73.0 96.8 Total (Other Saltwater) 107,866.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 231.0 307.0 407.0 Total (Unidentified) 1,641.0 $2.15 $2.86 $3.82 4.0 5.0 6.0 Total (Undiscounted) 112,139.0 . . . 243.0 327.0 443.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 141.0 190.0 257.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 103.0 139.0 188.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)

Table I-19: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhe re) in the South Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Flounders 663.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 3.0 4.0 5.0 Total (Flatfish) 663.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 3.0 4.0 5.0 Spotted seatrout 1,586.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 4.0 8.8 19.3
Weakfish 387.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 1.0 2.2 4.7 Total (Small Game) 1,972.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 5.0 11.0 24.0 Croakers 81,012.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 174.0 231.0 306.0 Pinfish 1,268.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 2.7 3.6 4.8 Silver perch 65.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 0.1 0.2 0.2 Spot 25,677.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 55.1 73.2 97.0 Total (Other Saltwater) 108,023.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 232.0 308.0 408.0 Total (Unidentified) 1,642.0 $2.15 $2.86 $3.82 4.0 5.0 6.0 Total (Undiscounted) 112,301.0 . . . 243.0 327.0 443.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 141.0 190.0 257.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 103.0 139.0 188.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-18 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-20: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MG D) in the South Atlantic Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Flounders 491.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 2.0 3.0 4.0 Total (Flatfish) 491.0 $3.87 $5.61 $8.28 2.0 3.0 4.0 Spotted seatrout 0.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 0.0 0.0 0.0
Weakfish 224.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 1.0 1.0 3.0 Total (Small Game) 224.0 $2.72 $5.72 $12.04 1.0 1.0 3.0 Croakers 1,762.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 3.8 5.0 6.7
Pinfish 0.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 48.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 0.1 0.1 0.2 Spot 12,733.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 27.1 35.9 48.2 Total (Other Saltwater) 14,543.0 $2.14 $2.85 $3.78 31.0 41.0 55.0 Total (Unidentified) 624.0 $2.15 $2.86 $3.82 1.0 2.0 2.0 Total (Undiscounted) 15,882.0 . . . 35.0 47.0 64.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 28.0 37.0 50.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 24.0 33.0 45.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)



### Gulf of Mexico

Table I-21: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at Inscope Facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Mackerels 1,156.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 3.3 6.5 12.8 Red drum 26,719.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 76.6 150.4 294.9 Spotted seatrout 512,503.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,470.0 2,885.1 5,656.4 Total (Small Game) 540,378.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,550.0 3,042.0 5,964.0 Atlantic croaker 179,036.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 382.3 497.3 646.6 Black drum 1,542,661.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 3,294.3 4,284.6 5,571.5 Pinfish 257,750.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 550.4 715.9 930.9
Sea bass 119.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.3 0.3 0.4 Searobin 118,160.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 252.3 328.2 426.7 Sheepshead 46.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.1 0.1 0.2 Silver perch 1,474.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 3.1 4.1 5.3 Spot 30,308.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 64.7 84.2 109.5 Striped mullet 49,804.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 106.4 138.3 179.9 Total (Other Saltwater) 2,179,358.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 4,654.0 6,053.0 7,871.0 Total (Unidentified) 131,612.0 $2.36 $3.66 $5.91 311.0 482.0 778.0 Total (Undiscounted) 2,851,347.0 . . . 6,515.0 9,576.0 14,612.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 6,022.0 8,852.0 13,506.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 5,999.0 8,818.0 13,456.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-19 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-22: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in th e Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Mackerels 885.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 2.5 5.0 9.8 Red drum 17,368.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 49.8 97.8 191.7 Spotted seatrout 351,547.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,008.6 1,979.2 3,879.6 Total (Small Game) 369,800.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,061.0 2,082.0 4,081.0 Atlantic croaker 136,979.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 292.8 380.2 494.6 Black drum 2,576.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 5.5 7.1 9.3 Pinfish 5,161.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 11.0 14.3 18.6
Sea bass 91.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.2 0.3 0.3 Searobin 65,096.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 139.1 180.7 235.0 Sheepshead 0.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 Silver perch 59.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.1 0.2 0.2 Spot 18,785.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 40.1 52.1 67.8 Striped mullet 4,732.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 10.1 13.1 17.1 Total (Other Saltwater) 233,480.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 499.0 648.0 843.0 Total (Unidentified) 62,417.0 $2.36 $3.66 $5.91 147.0 228.0 369.0 Total (Undiscounted) 665,697.0 . . . 1,707.0 2,959.0 5,293.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 1,398.0 2,422.0 4,334.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 1,275.0 2,210.0 3,953.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-20 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-23: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Mackerels 1,148.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 3.3 6.5 12.7 Red drum 25,256.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 72.5 142.2 278.7 Spotted seatrout 492,047.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,412.2 2,770.3 5,430.6 Total (Small Game) 518,450.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,488.0 2,919.0 5,722.0 Atlantic croaker 177,750.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 379.5 493.6 642.0 Black drum 1,044,602.0 $2.14 $2 .78 $3.61 2,230.5 2,900.8 3,772.7 Pinfish 176,490.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 376.9 490.1 637.4
Sea bass 119.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.3 0.3 0.4 Searobin 106,846.0 $2.14 $2 .78 $3.61 228.1 296.7 385.9 Sheepshead 31.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.1 0.1 0.1 Silver perch 1,021.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 2.2 2.8 3.7 Spot 28,270.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 60.4 78.5 102.1 Striped mullet 35,647.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 76.1 99.0 128.7 Total (Other Saltwater) 1,570,775.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 3,354.0 4,362.0 5,673.0 Total (Unidentified) 114,838.0 $2.36 $3.66 $5.91 271.0 420.0 679.0 Total (Undiscounted) 2,204,063.0 . . . 5,113. 0 7,701.0 12,073.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 3,225.0 4,866.0 7,642.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 2,491.0 3,760.0 5,908.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-21 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-24: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everywhe re) in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Mackerels 1,149.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 3.3 6.5 12.7 Red drum 25,279.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 72.5 142.3 279.0 Spotted seatrout 492,479.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,413.2 2,772.2 5,435.3 Total (Small Game) 518,907.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,489.0 2,921.0 5,727.0 Atlantic croaker 177,884.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 379.8 494.1 642.4 Black drum 1,047,164.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 2,235.9 2,908.4 3,781.9 Pinfish 176,912.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 377.7 491.4 638.9
Sea bass 119.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.3 0.3 0.4 Searobin 106,965.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 228.4 297.1 386.3 Sheepshead 31.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.1 0.1 0.1 Silver perch 1,024.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 2.2 2.8 3.7 Spot 28,298.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 60.4 78.6 102.2 Striped mullet 35,724.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 76.3 99.2 129.0 Total (Other Saltwater) 1,574,119.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 3,361.0 4,372.0 5,685.0 Total (Unidentified) 114,982.0 $2.36 $3.66 $5.91 272.0 421.0 680.0 Total (Undiscounted) 2,208,009.0 . . . 5,122.0 7,714.0 12,091.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 3,258.0 4,906.0 7,690.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 2,510.0 3,781.0 5,926.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-22 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-25: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MG D) in the Gulf of Mexico Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Mackerels 878.0 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 2.5 4.9 9.7 Red drum 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 $2.87 $5.63 $11.04 1,053.0 2,066.0 4,050.0 Atlantic croaker 135,945.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 290.4 377.8 491.1 Black drum 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 0.0 $2.14 $2.78 $3.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-23 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### I.5 Great Lakes

Table I-26: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at Inscope Facilities in the Great La kes Region, by Sp ecies (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Smallmouth bass 23.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 0.1 203.0 394.0 White bass 23,688.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 104.9 203.0 394.0 Total (Bass) 23,710.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 105.0 203.0 394.0 Whitefish 69,428.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 424.0 655.0 1,018.0 Total (Other Trout) 69,428.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 424.0 655.0 1,018.0 Black crappie 11.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 27.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.1
Channel catfish 571.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.4 0.8 1.4 Crappie 4,785.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 3.3 6.3 12.0 Rainbow smelt 5,802.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 4.1 7.7 14.5 Sculpin 6,516.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 4.6 8.6 16.3 Smelts 14,657.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 10.2 19.3 36.6 Sunfish 13,996.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 9.8 18.5 35.0 Yellow perch 18,055.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 12.6 23.8 45.1 Total (Panfish) 64,420.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 45.0 85.0 161.0 Salmon 1,253.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 10.0 17.0 27.0 Total (Salmon) 1,253.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 10.0 17.0 27.0
Northern Pike 0.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walleye 250.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 250.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Unidentified) 190,587.0 $3. 33 $6.22 $11.71 635.0 1,185.0 2,232.0 Total (Undiscounted) 349,648.0 . . . 1,219.0 2,146.0 3,834.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 1,127.0 1,984.0 3,544.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 1,123.0 1,977.0 3,530.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-24 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-27: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the Great Lakes Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Smallmouth bass 19.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 0.1 60.0 116.0 White bass 6,939.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 30.9 60.0 116.0 Total (Bass) 6,958.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 31.0 60.0 116.0 Whitefish 60,141.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 367.0 567.0 882.0 Total (Other Trout) 60,141.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 367.0 567.0 882.0 Black crappie 9.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 23.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.1
Channel catfish 460.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.3 0.6 1.1 Crappie 112.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.1 0.1 0.3 Rainbow smelt 4,248.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 2.9 5.6 10.6 Sculpin 290.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.2 0.4 0.7 Smelts 12,641.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 8.7 16.6 31.6
Sunfish 192.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.1 0.3 0.5 Yellow perch 12,437.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 8.6 16.4 31.1 Total (Panfish) 30,413.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 21.0 40.0 76.0
Salmon 845.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 7.0 11.0 18.0 Total (Salmon) 845.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 7.0 11.0 18.0
Northern Pike 0.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walleye 217.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 217.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Unidentified) 77,515.0 $3.33 $6.22 $11.71 258.0 482.0 908.0 Total (Undiscounted) 176,089.0 . . . 685.0 1,162.0 2,001.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 561.0 951.0 1,638.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 511.0 867.0 1,495.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-25 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-28: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the Great Lakes Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Smallmouth bass 22.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 0.1 175.0 340.0 White bass 20,444.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 90.9 175.0 340.0 Total (Bass) 20,466.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 91.0 175.0 340.0 Whitefish 68,676.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 419.0 648.0 1,007.0 Total (Other Trout) 68,676.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 419.0 648.0 1,007.0 Black crappie 10.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 27.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.1
Channel catfish 557.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.4 0.7 1.4 Crappie 3,846.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 2.7 5.1 9.6 Rainbow smelt 5,568.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 3.9 7.4 13.9 Sculpin 5,267.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 3.7 7.0 13.1 Smelts 14,487.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 10.2 19.2 36.1 Sunfish 11,220.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 7.9 14.9 28.0 Yellow perch 17,155.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 12.1 22.7 42.8 Total (Panfish) 58,137.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 41.0 77.0 145.0 Salmon 1,187.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 10.0 16.0 26.0 Total (Salmon) 1,187.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 10.0 16.0 26.0
Northern Pike 0.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walleye 247.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 248.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Unidentified) 169,259.0 $3. 33 $6.22 $11.71 564.0 1,053.0 1,982.0 Total (Undiscounted) 317,974.0 . . . 1,124.0 1,970.0 3,502.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 720.0 1,261.0 2,241.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 559.0 979.0 1,739.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-26 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-29: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everyw here) in the Great La kes Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Smallmouth bass 23.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 0.1 177.0 343.0 White bass 20,651.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 90.9 177.0 343.0 Total (Bass) 20,674.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 91.0 177.0 343.0 Whitefish 68,832.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 420.0 649.0 1,009.0 Total (Other Trout) 68,832.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 420.0 649.0 1,009.0 Black crappie 10.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 27.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.1
Channel catfish 559.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.4 0.7 1.4 Crappie 3,902.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 2.7 5.2 9.7 Rainbow smelt 5,590.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 3.9 7.4 13.9 Sculpin 5,343.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 3.7 7.1 13.3 Smelts 14,520.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 10.2 19.3 36.2 Sunfish 11,386.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 8.0 15.2 28.4 Yellow perch 17,232.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 12.1 22.9 43.0 Total (Panfish) 58,570.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 41.0 78.0 146.0 Salmon 1,192.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 10.0 16.0 26.0 Total (Salmon) 1,192.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 10.0 16.0 26.0
Northern Pike 0.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walleye 248.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 248.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 1.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Unidentified) 170,680.0 $3. 33 $6.22 $11.71 569.0 1,062.0 1,999.0 Total (Undiscounted) 320,196.0 . . . 1,131.0 1,982.0 3,526.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 725.0 1,271.0 2,261.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 561.0 984.0 1,750.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-27 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-30: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 <MGD) in the Great Lakes Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th

Smallmouth bass 19.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 0.1 59.0 115.0 White bass 6,880.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 30.9 59.0 115.0 Total (Bass) 6,900.0 $4.42 $8.56 $16.61 31.0 59.0 115.0 Whitefish 59,632.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 364.0 563.0 874.0 Total (Other Trout) 59,632.0 $6.10 $9.43 $14.66 364.0 563.0 874.0 Black crappie 9.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 23.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.0 0.0 0.1
Channel catfish 456.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.3 0.6 1.1 Crappie 111.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.1 0.1 0.3 Rainbow smelt 4,212.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 2.9 5.6 10.5 Sculpin 287.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.2 0.4 0.7 Smelts 12,534.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 8.7 16.6 31.2
Sunfish 190.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 0.1 0.3 0.5 Yellow perch 12,332.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 8.6 16.4 30.7 Total (Panfish) 30,156.0 $0.70 $1.33 $2.50 21.0 40.0 75.0
Salmon 838.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 7.0 11.0 18.0 Total (Salmon) 838.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 7.0 11.0 18.0
Northern Pike 0.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 Walleye 215.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 215.0 $2.18 $4.11 $7.80 0.0 1.0 2.0 Total (Unidentified) 76,860.0 $3.33 $6.22 $11.71 256.0 478.0 900.0 Total (Undiscounted) 174,601.0 . . . 679.0 1,152.0 1,984.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 556.0 943.0 1,624.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 507.0 860.0 1,482.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-28 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### I.6 Inland

Table I-31: Recreational Fishing Benefits from Eliminating Baseline I&E Mortality Losses at Inscope Facilities in the Inla nd Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Smallmouth bass 190,994.0 $4.28 $9.01 $19.08 818.3 1,721.3 3,643.5 White bass 1,656,537.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 7,097.7 14,929.7 31,600.6 Total (Bass) 1,847,530.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 7,916.0 16,651.0 35,244.0 Whitefish 2,061.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 3.0 6.0 11.0 Total (Other Trout) 2,061.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 3.0 6.0 11.0 Black bullhead 31,025.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 16.4 32.8 65.3 Black crappie 145,478.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 76.9 153.7 306.0 Bluegill 433,471.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 229.0 458.0 911.7 Brown bullhead 14,807.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 7.8 15.6 31.1 Bullhead 5,390.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.8 5.7 11.3 Channel catfish 441,689.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 233.4 466.7 929.0 Crappie 386,810.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 204.4 408.7 813.6
Menhaden 308.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.2 0.3 0.6 Rainbow smelt 9,240.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 4.9 9.8 19.4
Smelts 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sunfish 1,511,686.0 $0.53 $1 .06 $2.10 798.7 1,597.3 3,179.6 White Perch 5,479.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.9 5.8 11.5 Yellow perch 625,983.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 330.7 661.5 1,316.7 Total (Panfish) 3,611,368.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1,908.0 3,816.0 7,596.0
Salmon 5.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Salmon) 5.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 American shad 3,070.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 5.0 16.5 55.4 Striped bass 19,797.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 32.2 106.2 357.3 Sturgeon 1,735.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 2.8 9.3 31.3 Total (Small Game) 24,603.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 40.0 132.0 444.0 Northern pike 36.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 0.1 0.1 0.3 Sauger 180,270.0 $1.98 $4.1 0 $8.53 357.2 739.7 1,537.2 Walleye 209,854.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 415.8 861.1 1,789.5 Total (Walleye/Pike) 390,160.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 773.0 1,601.0 3,327.0 Total (Unidentified) 6,716,737.0 $1. 08 $2.23 $4.60 7,283.0 14,985.0 30,898.0 Total (Undiscounted) 12,592,464.0 . . . 17, 923.0 37,191.0 77,520.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 16,566.0 34,376.0 71,653.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 16,504.0 34,247.0 71,384.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-29 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-32: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 1 (I Everywhere) in the Inland Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Smallmouth bass 9,573.0 $4.28 $9.01 $19.08 41.0 86.3 182.6 White bass 649,610.0 $4.28 $9.0 1 $19.08 2,783.0 5,854.7 12,392.4 Total (Bass) 659,182.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 2,824.0 5,941.0 12,575.0 Whitefish 1,642.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 2.0 5.0 9.0 Total (Other Trout) 1,642.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 2.0 5.0 9.0 Black bullhead 25,176.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 13.3 26.6 53.0 Black crappie 14,071.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 7.4 14.9 29.6 Bluegill 334,160.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 176.6 353.1 703.0 Brown bullhead 4,771.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.5 5.0 10.0 Bullhead 3,245.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.7 3.4 6.8 Channel catfish 228,275.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 120.6 241.2 480.2 Crappie 24,144.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 12.8 25.5 50.8
Menhaden 258.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.1 0.3 0.5 Rainbow smelt 3,097.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.6 3.3 6.5
Smelts 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sunfish 193,777.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 102.4 204.8 407.6 White Perch 4,067.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.1 4.3 8.6 Yellow perch 298,679.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 157.8 315.6 628.3 Total (Panfish) 1,133,719.0 $0. 53 $1.06 $2.10 599.0 1,198.0 2,385.0
Salmon 4.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Salmon) 4.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 American shad 2,569.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 4.1 13.7 46.4 Striped bass 16,562.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 26.6 88.3 299.3 Sturgeon 184.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 0.3 1.0 3.3 Total (Small Game) 19,315.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 31.0 103.0 349.0 Northern pike 30.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 0.1 0.1 0.3 Sauger 7,809.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 15.6 32.0 66.6 Walleye 13,152.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 26.3 53.9 112.2 Total (Walleye/Pike) 20,991.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 42.0 86.0 179.0 Total (Unidentified) 2,486,184.0 $1. 08 $2.23 $4.60 2,696.0 5,547.0 11,437.0 Total (Undiscounted) 4,321,037.0 . . . 6,194. 0 12,880.0 26,933.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 5,071.0 10,545.0 22,049.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 4,626.0 9,619.0 20,115.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-30 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-33: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 2 (I Everywhere and E for Facilities > 125 MGD) in the Inland Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Smallmouth bass 157,772.0 $4.28 $9.01 $19.08 676.0 1,421.9 3,009.7 White bass 1,469,625.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 6,297.0 13,245.1 28,035.3 Total (Bass) 1,627,397.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 6,973.0 14,667.0 31,045.0 Whitefish 1,977.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 3.0 6.0 10.0 Total (Other Trout) 1,977.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 3.0 6.0 10.0 Black bullhead 29,849.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 15.8 31.5 62.8 Black crappie 121,385.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 64.1 128.3 255.3 Bluegill 413,894.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 218.7 437.3 870.6 Brown bullhead 12,951.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 6.8 13.7 27.2 Bullhead 4,984.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.6 5.3 10.5 Channel catfish 401,691.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 212.2 424.4 844.9 Crappie 320,377.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 169.3 338.5 673.9
Menhaden 298.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.2 0.3 0.6 Rainbow smelt 8,104.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 4.3 8.6 17.0
Smelts 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sunfish 1,269,826.0 $0.53 $1 .06 $2.10 670.9 1,341.7 2,671.0 White Perch 5,204.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.7 5.5 10.9 Yellow perch 564,857.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 298.4 596.8 1,188.1 Total (Panfish) 3,153,418.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1,666.0 3,332.0 6,633.0
Salmon 5.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Salmon) 5.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 American shad 2,968.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 4.8 15.9 53.7 Striped bass 19,136.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 30.9 102.4 346.1 Sturgeon 1,450.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 2.3 7.8 26.2 Total (Small Game) 23,554.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 38.0 126.0 426.0 Northern pike 35.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 0.1 0.1 0.3 Sauger 148,695.0 $1.98 $4.1 0 $8.53 294.6 609.9 1,267.7 Walleye 173,822.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 344.4 713.0 1,482.0 Total (Walleye/Pike) 322,552.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 639.0 1,323.0 2,750.0 Total (Unidentified) 5,932,467.0 $1. 08 $2.23 $4.60 6,433.0 13,236.0 27,290.0 Total (Undiscounted) 11,061,370.0 . . . 15, 751.0 32,690.0 68,154.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 9,578.0 19,879.0 41,449.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 7,361.0 15,277.0 31,856.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-31 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-34: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 3 (I&E Mortality Everyw here) in the Inland Regi on, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Smallmouth bass 164,627.0 $4.28 $9.01 $19.08 705.4 1,483.6 3,140.5 White bass 1,509,996.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 6,469.6 13,609.0 28,805.5 Total (Bass) 1,674,624.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 7,175.0 15,092.0 31,946.0 Whitefish 1,999.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 3.0 6.0 11.0 Total (Other Trout) 1,999.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 3.0 6.0 11.0 Black bullhead 30,167.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 15.9 31.9 63.5 Black crappie 126,378.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 66.8 133.6 265.8 Bluegill 418,926.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 221.4 442.8 881.2 Brown bullhead 13,347.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 7.1 14.1 28.1 Bullhead 5,077.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.7 5.4 10.7 Channel catfish 410,600.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 217.0 434.0 863.7 Crappie 334,101.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 176.6 353.1 702.7
Menhaden 300.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.2 0.3 0.6 Rainbow smelt 8,347.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 4.4 8.8 17.6
Smelts 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sunfish 1,320,111.0 $0.53 $1 .06 $2.10 697.6 1,395.3 2,776.7 White Perch 5,273.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.8 5.6 11.1 Yellow perch 578,320.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 305.6 611.2 1,216.4 Total (Panfish) 3,250,948.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1,718.0 3,436.0 6,838.0
Salmon 5.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Salmon) 5.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 American shad 2,997.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 4.8 16.1 54.1 Striped bass 19,322.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 30.8 103.8 348.7 Sturgeon 1,509.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 2.4 8.1 27.2 Total (Small Game) 23,828.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 38.0 128.0 430.0 Northern pike 35.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 0.1 0.1 0.3 Sauger 155,207.0 $1.98 $4.1 0 $8.53 307.2 637.0 1,323.3 Walleye 181,266.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 358.8 743.9 1,545.4 Total (Walleye/Pike) 336,508.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 666.0 1,381.0 2,869.0 Total (Unidentified) 6,101,138.0 $1. 08 $2.23 $4.60 6,616.0 13,612.0 28,066.0 Total (Undiscounted) 11,389,049.0 . . . 16, 216.0 33,654.0 70,160.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 9,966.0 20,684.0 43,122.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 7,592.0 15,755.0 32,847.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 I-32 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table I-35: Recreational Fishing Benefits fr om Reducing I&E Mortality Losses at In-scope Facilities Under Option 4 (I for Facilities > 50 MGD) in the Inland Region, by Species (2009$)

5 th Mean 95 th 5 th Mean 95 th
Smallmouth bass 9,339.0 $4.28 $9.01 $19.08 40.0 84.2 178.2 White bass 633,751.0 $4.28 $9.0 1 $19.08 2,715.0 5,711.7 12,089.8 Total (Bass) 643,090.0 $4.28 $9 .01 $19.08 2,755.0 5,796.0 12,268.0 Whitefish 1,602.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 2.0 5.0 8.0 Total (Other Trout) 1,602.0 $1.52 $2.83 $5.29 2.0 5.0 8.0 Black bullhead 24,562.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 13.0 26.0 51.7 Black crappie 13,727.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 7.2 14.5 28.9 Bluegill 326,002.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 172.1 344.6 685.6 Brown bullhead 4,655.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.5 4.9 9.8 Bullhead 3,165.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.7 3.3 6.7 Channel catfish 222,702.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 117.6 235.4 468.3 Crappie 23,555.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 12.4 24.9 49.5
Menhaden 251.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.1 0.3 0.5 Rainbow smelt 3,021.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 1.6 3.2 6.4
Smelts 1.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sunfish 189,046.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 99.8 199.8 397.6 White Perch 3,967.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 2.1 4.2 8.3 Yellow perch 291,387.0 $0.53 $1.06 $2.10 153.9 308.0 612.8 Total (Panfish) 1,106,041.0 $0. 53 $1.06 $2.10 584.0 1,169.0 2,326.0
Salmon 4.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total (Salmon) 4.0 $8.16 $13.27 $21.61 0.0 0.0 0.0 American shad 2,506.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 4.0 13.4 45.2 Striped bass 16,158.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 25.7 86.6 291.6 Sturgeon 179.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 0.3 1.0 3.2 Total (Small Game) 18,843.0 $1.61 $5.36 $18.07 30.0 101.0 340.0 Northern pike 29.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 0.1 0.1 0.2 Sauger 7,619.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 15.3 31.3 65.1 Walleye 12,831.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 25.7 52.6 109.6 Total (Walleye/Pike) 20,479.0 $1.98 $4.10 $8.53 41.0 84.0 175.0 Total (Unidentified) 2,425,487.0 $1. 08 $2.23 $4.60 2,630.0 5,411.0 11,157.0 Total (Undiscounted) 4,215,546.0 . . . 6,043. 0 12,566.0 26,275.0 Total (3% discount rate) . . . . 4,947.0 10,287.0 21,511.0 Total (7% discount rate) . . . . 4,513.0 9,384.0 19,623.0 Species Annual Increase in

Recreational

Harvest (harvestable adult fish) Value per Fish Annual Benefits from Increase in

Recreational Harvest

(2009$, thousands)March 28, 2011 J-1 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation J 

## 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:

i n

i k

j i j i x j i tot x 

### DM M C L SP     

# 

 

1 1 , , , , 

### Equation J-1

where:

 

### SP x,tot 

### is the estimated loss in regional production for all I&E mortality species under regulatory option x , measured in kg dry mass per year.

 

### L i,x 

### is the number of individuals of species i (with n 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.

 

### C i,j 

### is the ratio used to convert losses of species i and life history stage j into age-1 equivalents.

 

### M i 

### is the mass of an individual of sp ecies i at age 1. Measured in kg.

 

### DM i 

### is the ratio of dry mass to wet mass for species i.

Equation J-2: Estimating habitat-based fish production


### The calculation of secondary productivity per acre ( SP rest 

### ) is as follows:

3 2 1 

### ) 1 ( TC TC TC E PP SP

rest 

###   

   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

 

### TC 1 

### the trophic conversion efficiency from primary productivity to detritus

 

### TC 2 

### the trophic conversion efficiency from detritus to first level consumers

 

### TC 3 

### the trophic conversion efficiency from first level consumers to s econd level consumers

B1March 28, 2011 J-2 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 ( A ) estimated to generate annual productivity equivalent to reduction in I&E mortality achieved by regulatory option x is calculated for each region as:

rest n

i x i x 

### SP SP A      

 

# 

 1 , 

### Equation J-3

where:

 

### A

x 

### is the number needed to achieve ecological equivalence with option x

 

### SP i,x 

### is the total increase in secondary productivity per year for species i under option x

 

### SP rest 

### is the total secondary productivity gain ed per year per acre or restorationMarch 28, 2011J-3Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationJ.2 Estimated Primary Productivity and CarbonExport in Marine and Aquatic HabitatsTable J-1: Summary of Aboveground Primary Productivity (measured in kg dry mass acre-1yr-1)SpeciesStudy Region(s)SampleSizeMinMaxMeanSourcesEelgrassZostera marinaNorth Atlantic, MidAtlantic, and SouthAtlantic6 934 7,561 3,745 Beal et al. (2004), Nixonand Oviatt (1972), Murray and Wetzel (1987),Rizzo and Wetzel (1985), Bach et al. (1986)Smooth cordgrassSpartina alternifloraNorth Atlantic and MidAtlantic10 1,416 6,520 3,332 Reimold and Linthurst (1977)*, Valiela, Teal, and Sass (1975)*, Steever(1972)*, Walton (1972)*, Cahoon (1975)*, Mendelssohn and Marcellus(1976)*Smooth cordgrassSpartina alternifloraSouth Atlantic and Gulfof Mexico13 1,331 16,148 6,372 Stroud and Cooper (1968)*, Marshall (1970)*, Odum and Fanning(1972)*, de la Cruz (1974)*, Kirby (1972)*, Kirby and Gooselink (1976)*Turtle grassThalassia testudinumGulf of Mexico 5 1,329 3,570 2,417 Tomasko et al. (1996), Kaldy and Dunton (2000)Giant KelpMacrocystis pyriferaCalifornia 4 1,472 11,344 7,312 Dayton (1985), Rassweiler (2008)Broadleaf cattailTypha latifoliaGreat Lakes and Inland 14 2,024 12,971 6,199 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)*Sample size is the number of estimates included in calculation of the mean value. The sample size differs from the number of sources because several studies providemultiple productivity values fromdifferent sites.Values reported in units of g C m-2day-1were converted using specifes-specific factors.Eelgrass – carbon accounts for 38% ofdry weight biomass (Thom 1988).Smooth cordgrass - carbon accounts for 45%of dry weight biomass (FrenchMcCay 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% ofdry weight biomass (Esteves et al. 2008).* Indicates values weretaken from USEPA (1980).March 28, 2011 J-4 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table J-2: Estimates of Carbon Export from Salt Marshes

Location C Export (g C m -2 yr -1 ) ANPP (g C m -2 yr -1 ) Export as
% of NPP Dominant Species Source Cape Cod, MA 3 67.5 4.4% Spartina alternaflora Howes et al (1985) 1
Flax Pond, NY -53 372 -14.2% Spartina alterniflora Woodwell et al (1977) Canary Creek, DE 159 252 63.1% Spartina alterniflora Roman & Daiber (1989) Ware Creek, VA 115 599 19.2% Spartina alterniflora Axelrad et al. (1976) Carter Creek, VA 142 599 23.7% Spartina alterniflora Axelrad et al. (1976) Beaufort, NC 40 548 7.3% Spartina alterniflora Bach et al. (1986)* Beaufort, NC 124 568 21.9% Spartina alterniflora Bach et al. (1986)* Beaufort, NC 32 837 3.9% Spartina alterniflora Bach et al. (1986)* Bly Creek, SC 252 1080 23.3% Spartina alterniflora Williams et al. (1992)* Bly Creek, SC 493 1080 45.6% Spartina alterniflora Williams et al. (1992)*

N orth Inlet, SC 456 1059 43.1% Spartina alterniflora Dame et al (1986) Bly Creek, SC 242 1028 23.5% Spartina alterniflora Dame et al. (1991) Duplin River, GA 1090 2025 12.8-53.8% Spartina alterniflora Wang and Cai (2004) Sapelo Island, GA 393 878 44.8% Spartina alterniflora Teal (1962) Sapelo Island, GA 365 992 36.8% Spartina alterniflora Teal (1962)* 2

Barataria Basin, LA 224 600 37.3% P anicum hemitomo

E leocharis sp Feijtel et al (1985)

Barataria Basin, LA 296 550 53.8% Spartina patens
D istichlis spicata Feijtel et al (1985) Barataria Basin, LA 183 860 21.3% Spartina alterniflora Feijtel et al (1985) LA 226 1147 19.7% Day et al. (1973)* LA 47 926 5.1% Hopkinson et al. (1978)* LA 55 1267 4.3% Hopkinson et al. (1978)* LA 161 599 26.8% Hopkinson et al. (1978)* LA 821 2416 34.0% Hopkinson et al. (1978)* LA 80 540 14.9% Hopkinson et al. (1978)*
LA 26 518 5.0% White et al. (1978)*

Coon Creek, TX 25 559-900 2.7-4.5% Spartina patens
D istichlis spicata Borey et al. (1983)
EMS-Dollard Marsh Netherlands -125 500 -25.00% P uccinellietum maritime Spartina anglica Dankers et al (1984) Kariega Marsh, South Africa 16 200-300 5.0-8.0% Spartina perennis, Chenolea diffusa Taylor & Allanson (1995) Hong Kong 0 880 0.0% P hragmites communis Lee (1990)* Unknown 58 105 55.8% McLusky (1981)* Unknown 51 181 28.2% McLusky (1981)* Unknown 142 1080 13.2% Schlesinger (1997)* Unknown 431 1080 39.9% Schlesinger (1997)* Unknown 117 1080 10.8% Schlesinger (1997)* Unknown 99 1080 9.1% Schlesinger (1997)* Unknown 164 1080 15.2% Schlesinger (1997)*

* Indicates values take n from Cebrian (2002).

1 Carbon export for Howes et al. (1985) was calcu lated 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 fo r the greatest proportion of I&E mortality [rock gunnel (42% of regional I&E mortality), winter founder (1 1%), 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 associ ated with coastal wetlands (Fis hbase 2009). Therefore, eelgrass was selected for scaling I&E mortality losses in the North Atlantic.March 28, 2011 J-5 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### In the Mid-Atlantic region, species with the greates t 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 mort ality species [bay anchovy (71%), forage shrimp (13%), gobies (4%) and other forage fish (4%)] are a ssociated with salt marshes dominated by cordgrass. Thus, saltmarsh is the preferred ha bitat 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 fo rage 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 habita t type for regional restoration calculations.

In California, the preferred habitat choi ce is the highly productive giant kelp ( M. pyrifera ), known to be a nursery habitat for many fish species.

In the Great Lakes and Inland regions, th e freshwater macrophyte broadleaf cattail ( T. latifolia ) was
selected for restoration calculations.March 28, 2011J-6Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationJ.4 Willingness to Pay for Fish Production and Other Aquatic Habitat Goods and ServicesTable J-3: Studies Used to Estimate WTP Values for Fish Production Services and HabitatStudySurveyYearLocation(State)HabitatWTP acre-1yr-1(2009$)1Population(Sample Size)Change ValuedSurvey MethodsPeconic Estuary Study(Johnston et al. 2002a;Johnston et al. 2001;Mazzotta 1996; Opaluchet al. 1995; Opaluch et al.1998)1995New YorkEelgrass andSalt marshEelgrass -$0.07608Saltmarsh-$0.0672East End LongIsland Households(968 completedsurveys)Eelgrass presented at currentlevel of 9,000 acres, “no action”level of 8,000 acres, and withrestoration level of 11,000 acres.Wetlands presented at theircurrent level of 16,000 acres,“no action” level of 12,000acres, and with restoration levelof 17,500 acres.Used an original contingentchoice study to estimaterelative preferences ofresidents for preserving keynatural and environmentalresources.Bauer, Cyr, and Swallow(2004)2004 Rhode Island Salt marsh $0.0190 Rhode IslandHouseholds (320 inperson surveysadministered)Survey level included four levelsof wetland preservation orrestoration; 33, 64, 101, or 135acres. One-time paymentconverted to annual valueassuming 3% discount rate.Stated-preference surveydesigned to elicit publicpreferences for salt marshmitigation projects and todetermine public willingnessto trade off mitigation-siteattributes such as cost, size,public access, and presence ofendangered species.De Zoysa (1995) 1994 Ohio Freshwaterwetlands$0.0299 Residents ofMaumee, Ohio (476responses)Wetlands program descriptionindicated that the proposedprogram would restore andprotect 3,000 acres of wetlandsfrom a baseline of 10,000existing acres that weredeclining.The study used the contingentvaluation method with sevenversions of the survey, eachof which described a differentresource conservationprogram involvinggroundwater, surface water,wetlands, or somecombination thereof.Bishop et al. (2000) 1999Wisconsin Freshwaterwetlands$0.00125 Households within aten county areaaround Green Bay(470 responses)Restoration level ranging up to a11,600 acre increase in wetlandswithin five miles of Green Bay,WI to support birds, fish, andother wildlife equivalent to a20% increase from the 58,000baseline acres. WTP reportedhere is the mid-point of marginalvalues for 5% and 20% changes.Total Value Equivalency(TVE) study conducted tosupport restoration planningconducted as part of theLower Fox River/Green BayNRDA.March 28, 2011J-7Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities RegulationTable J-3: Studies Used to Estimate WTP Values for Fish Production Services and HabitatStudySurveyYearLocation(State)HabitatWTP acre-1yr-1(2009$)1Population(Sample Size)Change ValuedSurvey MethodsMullarky (1997; 1999) 1994 Wisconsin Freshwaterwetlands$0.00822Wisconsin residents(239 completesurveys)Case study of a highwayexpansion project in NorthwestWisconsin which would requirefilling of 110 acres of wetlands.One-time payment converted toannual value assuming 3%discount rate.Contingent valuation study ofWisconsin wetlands. Losseswould be mitigated by thecreation of 220 acres ofisolated basin along thehighway; WTP reported hereis based on a mean from the“scope group” which was notinformed that mitigation wasbeing conducted.Blomquist and Whitehead(1998)1990 Kentucky Freshwaterwetlands$0.0056 Kentucky residents(379 responses)WTP to purchase and manage500 acres which if not purchasedwould be mined and reclaimedafter ten years.Contingent valuation studyresulting in WTP values forfour separate wetland types.WTP reported here is for theFlat creek persistent emergentwetland, which is mostconsistent with scaled habitat.Whitehead and Blomquist(1991)1989 Kentucky Freshwaterwetlands$0.0037 Kentucky residents(215 responses)WTP for purchase andmanagement of theapproximately 5,000 acres ClearCreek wetland which would bemined if not purchased.Contingent valuation studywith three groups with eachpresented differentinformation about relatedenvironmental resources.Smaller sample thanBlomquist and Whitehead(1998)1WTP values were converted to 2009$ based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).2Mullarky (1997; 1999) present multiple WTP estimates based on thesurvey group used for the estimate (“base group” or “scope group”) and certainty level treatment ofthe polychotomous choice format. The reported value is based for the “scope group”, which was not informed regarding mitigation, and the highest certainty level forresponses.March 28, 2011 J-8 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### J.5 Narragansett Bay Wetl and Restoration Study

J.5.1 Survey Development and Data Collection



### EPA designed a survey instrument, entitled Rhode Island Salt Marsh Restor ation: 2001 Survey of Rhode

Island Residents to assess tradeoffs among attributes of salt ma rsh restoration plans. Development of this survey required more than 16 months and involv ed extensive background research, interviews with experts in salt marsh ecology and restoration, a nd 16 focus groups with more than 100 Rhode Island residents. Numerous pretests, including verbal protoc ol analysis (Schkade and Payne 1994) ensured that the survey language and format would be easily unde rstood by respondents, and that respondents would have a common understanding of survey scenarios (cf. Johnston et al. 1995).

Johnston et al. (2002b) chose attributes distinguish ing restoration plans based on background research, expert interviews, and focus groups. The authors tailo red these attributes to reflect primary salt marsh
services in the northeast United States that woul d be influenced by restoration activities, and characterized each wetland by the size of the marsh, toge ther with effects of restoration, on (1) habitat for birds, (2) habitat for fish, (3) habitat for shellfis h, (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 presen ted from a standardized, statewide perspective. For example, improvements to fish habitat were charac terized as “ecological improvements to RI fish populations...[resulting from a particular restoration pr oject]...as judged by wetlands experts, compared to all other potential salt marsh rest oration projects in Rhode Island.”

Following the general approach of Johnston et al. (19 99), the conjoint (or multi-attribute choice) survey presented respondents with four sets of discrete c hoices, each involving two alternative, multi-attribute restoration plans. The authors used fractional factor ial design to construct a range of survey questions with an orthogonal array of attri bute levels, resulting in 80 continge nt choice questions divided among 20 unique booklets. Attributes distinguishing plans we re selected based on background research, expert interviews, and focus groups. All a ttributes were free to vary over their full range for both restoration plans presented in each question, with no imposed or dering of attribute levels between the two plans. Based on these attributes, responde nts chose one of the two plans, or chose “Neither Plan.”

The survey was conducted from September through D ecember, 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 surv ey concerned salt marsh restoration. Rather, interviewers asked respondents to pa rticipate in an important survey regarding “environmental issues in Rhode Island,” to reduce the potential for topic-rela ted 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. Attr ibutes 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,

64 Additional, non-habitat services that may be provided by salt water wetlands include, among othe rs, nutrient transformation, storm buffering, and coastal erosion contro l. Interviews with experts on salt wate r wetland functions in New England (and Rhode Island in particular) indicated, however, that wetla nd restoration would provide negligible impacts on these nonhabitat 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 incr ease substantially the ability of a wetland to provide such functions as storm buffering or erosion control. Based on this advice, the surv ey focused mainly on wetland habitat
functions.March 28, 2011 J-9 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### (4) the potential for mosquito control, (5) recreati onal 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, inte rviewers 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 anal ysis of salt marsh restora tion 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) i ndicate 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 m odel of survey data. The model is significant at p <0.0001 (-2LnL P2=1157.56, 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 a nd mosquito control (all measured on a ten-point scale), respondents placed the greatest weight on mosqu ito control, followed by habitat improvements for shellfish, fish, and birds, respectively. The likeli hood of rejecting restoration outright (i.e., choosing neither plan) was smaller for members of environm ental organizations, and larger for members of taxpayers organizations, lower income individuals, a nd more highly educated individuals (Johnston et al. 2002b). Changes in education and income do not infl uence the marginal utility of fish and shellfish habitat, or that of other wetland attributes.

Results of the conjoint analysis (i.e., the public surv ey results) presented by Johnston et al. (2002b) allow policy makers to rank restoration projects based on thei r estimated influence on residents’ welfare. These
results also allow assessment of re sidents’ 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 kn own, 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 fi sh habitat, in a representa tive, conservative scenario, EPA began with the average wetland restoration scenar io 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 estima ted, 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 Restor ation 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-10 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table J-4: Definitions and Summary Statistics fo r Model Variables for Narragansett Bay Wetland Restoration Study

Variable
Name Description Whole Sample Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean, Excluding
“Neither Plan”

Scenarios a

N eithe r N either=1 identifies “neither plan” options 0.333 (0.471) 0.000

Environ Dummy variable identifying respondents with membership in environmental organizations 0.190 (0.392) 0.190

Taxgrp Dummy variable identifying respondents with membership in taxpayer
associations 0.023 (0.151) 0.023

Loincome Dummy variable identifying resp ondents with household income less than $35,000/year 0.245) (0.430) 0.245

Hiedu Dummy variable identifying respondents with greater than a four-year college degree 0.182 (0.386) 0.182

Birds Ecological improvement to statew ide bird populations resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale) 2.761 (2.607) 4.141

Fish Ecological improvement to statew ide fish populations resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale) 2.908 (2.653) 4.361

Shellfish Ecological improvement to statew ide shellfish populations resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale) 2.907 (2.652) 4.362

Mosquito Increased ability to control st atewide mosquito nuisance resulting from specified salt marsh restoration plan, compared to all other potential salt marsh restoration plans in Rhode Island (0-10 scale) 2.908 (2.651) 4.362

Size Size of restored salt marsh (m inimum 3 acres; maximum 12 acres) 4.889 (4.397) 7.334

Pro-access Dummy variable indicating that respondent feels that access to salt
marshes should be “somewhat limited” or “unlimited” 0.837 (0.370) 0.837

Con-access Dummy variable i ndicating that respondent fe els that access to salt marshes should be “severely limited” or “prohibited” 0.227 (0.419) 0.163

Platform Dummy variable indicating that restoration provides “viewing platforms”
but no “trails” 0.222 (0.415) 0.340

Both Dummy variable indicating that restoration provides both “viewing platforms” and “trails” 0.222 (0.415) 0.332

Cost Annual cost of restoration plan in increased taxes (minimum $0; maximum $200) 63.169 (70.782) 94.754

a Each wetland restoration choice included the option of choosing neither plan. In the multinomial logit data, this option is pr esented as a “plan” with
zeros for all wetland attributes. The final column of the ta ble 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 scenar ios), changes in certain attributes are set to zero to correspond more closely with the policy scenario and with the Peconi c study (because the purpose of this analysis is to assess the proportion of the Peconic wetland values th at 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 da ta, 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 haveMarch 28, 2011 J-11 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation 

### already been modified to minimize mosquito production. 65 

### For this reason, modern marsh restoration typically does not provide a significant increase in mos quito control. Rather, it of ten replaces older, more detrimental (to marsh function a nd 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 ma rshes, the positive net effect of restoration on mosquito nuisance, if any, is often mi nimal. 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 propor tions 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 st andard random utility model of Hanemann (1984), the underlying model specifies respondents’ choices using the conditional logit specification, in which the probability ( P i 

### ) of choosing any wetland restoration plan i (plan A, plan B, or neither plan) over the two remaining options ( j or k ) is given by:



### )] ( exp[ )] ( exp[ )] ( exp[ )] ( exp[

 

 

 



k j i i
i 

### v v v v P Equation J-4

where v(.) represents the relative benefits or utilit y resulting from each restoration option, including the “neither plan” option. The function v(.) is typically estimated as a simple func tion 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 attri bute definitions given in Table J-4, and the model results of Table J-5, the estimated utility function us ed to calculate value proportions is specified as



### ) ( 0510

. 0 ) ( 1611

. 0 ) ( 1587

. 0 ) ( 1465

. 0 ) ( 1191

. 0 (.)

size mosquito shellfish fish birds v

     Equation J-5

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



### ) ( ) ( ) ( 0



###    



fish fish fish



### v v v Equation J-6

where v(.) fish 

### represents the value of v(.) with the gain in fish habitat se rvices set to its mean value (as described above), and v(.) fish 

### =0 represents the value of the function w ith the gain in fish habitat services

set to zero.

65 The mosquito control variable was included in the survey in re sponse to the strong concern of Rhode Island residents over the impact of restoration on mosquitoes a nd 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-12 Environmental and Economic Benefits Analysis of the Proposed Section 316(b) Existing Facilities Regulation Table J-5: Conditional Logit Resu lts for Narragansett Bay Wetland restoration Study

Parameter Estimate Std. Error z P>|z|

N eithe r 1.157 0.193 5.98 0.0001
N either x Environ -1.182 0.223 -5.30 0.0001

N either x Tax 0.868 0.365 2.38 0.0170
N either x Loincome 0.310 0.144 2.16 0.0310

N either x Hiedu 0.415 0.169 2.46 0.0140
Birds 0.119 0.015 7.78 0.0001
Fish 0.147 0.016 9.36 0.0001
Shellfish 0.159 0.016 9.78 0.0001 Mosquito 0.161 0.016 9.95 0.0001
Size 0.051 0.010 5.22 0.0001
Pro-access x Platform 0.168 0.083 2.03 0.0420
Pro-access x Both 0.431 0.084 5.11 0.0001
Cost -0.007 0.001 -14.23 0.0001

-2LnL P 2 1157.56 Prob> P 2 0.0001



### Table J-6 shows the resulting value proportions, in which EPA calculated the proportion of wetland
restoration value associated with different wetland se rvices based on mean valu es of wetland attributes presented to survey respondents, as discussed a bove. Analogous methods were used to assess value proportions associated with shellfish and other hab itat 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 serv ices, 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 change s constant. EPA chose these size values to be representative of unrestored salt water wetlands cu rrently 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 estimate s based on larger acreage s. (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 estimate s, however, Table J-6 contains cases in which restored wetland size increases from the mean, wit hout any resultant increase in habitat services.)

Across scenarios the proportion of va lue associated with fi sh habitat ranges from 0.2035 to 0.3231, with a mean value over all scenarios of 0.2564 (Table J-6) . Scenario 1a is perhaps the most representative scenario for estimating value proportions for two r easons: (1) restored wetlands are not expected to provide additional mosquito control and (2) other we tland 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 estima tes, EPA used the proportion calculated in scenario 3a (0.2564) as an estimate of the proportion of total we tland restoration value attrib utable to gains in fish habitat services, given representative, m ean values for other wetland services.March 28, 2011 J-13 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

Restoration Scenario Percentage of Value Associated with Service:
Fish Habitat Bird Habitat Shellfish
Habitat Mosquito
Control Other b

1a: No additional mosquito control; mean values for all other
attributes 0.291 0.224 0.315 0.000 0.170

1b: No additional mosquito control; mean va lues for habitat gains; Size=3 acres 0.323 0.249 0.350 0.000 0.077

1c: No additional mosquito control; mean va lues for habitat gains; size=12 acres 0.262 0.202 0.284 0.000 0.251

2a: Mosquito control at mean value; mean values for all other
attributes 0.220 0.170 0.239 0.242 0.129

2b: Mosquito control at mean value; mean values for habitat gains; size=3 acres 0.238 0.184 0.258 0.262 0.057

2c: Mosquito control at mean value; mean values for habitat gains; size=12 acres 0.204 0.157 0.220 0.224 0.195

3a: Mean over all scenarios 0.256 0.198 0.278 0.121 0.147

a Results assume that restoration does not pr ovide viewing platforms or hiking trails.

b Other services may include, among others, nutrient transfor mations, 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 simila r 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 Narragan sett Bay (i.e., bird habitat services, fish habitat services, shellfish habitat services, and mosquito co ntrol). In other words, th e parameter estimates are very similar among these four variables. This corres pondence 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 th e survey (including mosquito control), each service provides roughly 1/4 (or 25 percent) of the total ma rginal utility associated with the combination of habitat improvements and mosquito control. Fo r 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 habita t to fall significantly below the 25.64 percent approximation estimated here.March 28, 2011 J-14 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 Pe rcentage of Regional Habitat Acres Assigned to
Each State.

State No. of
Households California North
Atlantic Mid-Atlantic South
Atlantic Gulf of
Mexico Great Lakes Inland AL 1,836,096 - - - - - - 5.90% AR 1,132,706 - - - - - - 1.53% AZ 2,266,797 - - - - - - 0.21% CA 12,371,970 100.00% - - - - - <0.01% CO 1,891,368 - - - - - - 0.22% CT 1,365,529 - 29.83% - - - - 0.14% DC 268,559 - - - - - - <0.01% DE 329,246 - - 5.08% - - - 0.02% FL 7,252,011 - - - 70.27% 53.26% - 0.54% GA 3,472,892 - - - 2.66% - - 2.36% IA 1,248,977 - - - - - - 1.73% IL 4,821,525 - - - - - 3.76% 7.30% IN 2,501,050 - - - - - 11.63% 4.58% KS 1,120,251 - - - - - - 1.56% KY 1,695,340 - - - - - - 2.53% LA 1,595,221 - - - - 7.44% - 5.02% MA 2,533,224 - 49.80% - - - - 0.11% MD 2,138,174 - - 24.02% - - - 0.34% ME 561,927 - 3.54% - - - - 0.08% MI 3,977,292 - - - - - 35.46% 1.62% MN 2,095,360 - - - - - 1.27% 1.56% MO 2,373,024 - - - - - - 4.51% MS 1,106,531 - - - - 2.28% - 0.66% MT 383,318 - - - - - - 0.13%

N C 3,562,025 - - - 19.12% - - 6.24%

N D 285,857 - - - - - - 0.65%

N E 719,904 - - - - - - 2.17%

N H 518,506 - 12.92% - - - - 0.17%

N J 3,186,057 - - 22.20% - - - 0.08%

N M 735,720 - - - - - - 0.03%

N V 947,691 - - - - - - 0.05%

N Y 7,303,783 - - 31.93% - - 19.52% 1.85% OH 4,622,384 - - - - - 11.95% 4.92% OK 1,431,014 - - - - - - 1.36% OR 1,476,434 - - - - - - 0.04% PA 5,021,383 - - 0.17% - - 0.20% 4.77% RI 419,621 - 3.91% - - - - - SC 1,718,297 - - - 7.94% - - 4.36% SD 327,165 - - - - - - 0.01% TN 2,449,562 - - - - - - 6.81% TX 8,271,247 - - - - 37.02% - 17.89% UT 837,511 - - - - - - 0.03% VA 2,996,176 - - 16.60% - - - 1.32% VT 260,831 - - - - - - 0.23% WA 2,519,727 - - - - - - 0.18% WI 2,302,752 - - - - - 16.21% 1.23% WV 756,778 - - - - - - 2.80% WY 211,883 - - - - - - 0.16%